EFMD Programme Accreditation PRT Feedback Survey - Peer Review Visit

- Step 1 of 8

1. Basic Information

1.1 Reviewer name *

1.2 Role in the Peer Review Team *

1.3 Name of reviewed school *

1.4 Region of reviewed school *

1.5 Programme name *

1.6 Cycle type *

Initial accreditation
Re-accreditation

1.7a PRV start date *

1.7b PRV end date *

1.8 EFMD Programme Accreditation Key Account Manager (the EFMD Programme Accreditation staff member who shared the materials) *

2. EFMD Programme Accreditation Standards & Criteria

2.1 EFMD Programme Accreditation Standards & Criteria applicable to the review were clear to the Peer Review Team. *

1 - Strongly disagree
2 - Disagree
3 - Neutral
4 - Agree
5 - Strongly agree

2.2 EFMD Programme Accreditation Standards & Criteria applicable to the review were appropriate for the programme. *

1 - Strongly disagree
2 - Disagree
3 - Neutral
4 - Agree
5 - Strongly agree

2.3 What would increase the clarity or appropriateness of the EFMD Programme Accreditation Standards & Criteria?

3. Adequacy & Timeliness of Documentation

3.1 The EFMD Programme Accreditation requirements regarding the content, format and volume of the documents to be provided by the school (SAR, SAR Datasheet, Student Report) were appropriate in relation to the purpose of the review and the workload involved. *

1 - Strongly disagree
2 - Disagree
3 - Neutral
4 - Agree
5 - Strongly agree

3.2 The EFMD Programme Accreditation requirements regarding the content, format and volume of the documents provided by the school (SAR, SAR Datasheet, Student Report) were sufficient to provide the Peer Review Team with the information needed for an effective review. *

1 - Strongly disagree
2 - Disagree
3 - Neutral
4 - Agree
5 - Strongly agree

3.3 The EFMD Programme Accreditation requirements regarding which documents were to be shared in the Online Base Room were appropriate in relation to the purpose of the review and the workload for the school. *

1 - Strongly disagree
2 - Disagree
3 - Neutral
4 - Agree
5 - Strongly agree

3.4 The EFMD Programme Accreditation requirements regarding which documents were to be shared in the Online Base Room were sufficient to provide the Peer Review Team with the information needed for an effective review. *

1 - Strongly disagree
2 - Disagree
3 - Neutral
4 - Agree
5 - Strongly agree

3.5 Documents shared by the EFMD Programme Accreditation Office relating to the previous accreditation cycle were adequate (if applicable). *

1 - Strongly disagree
2 - Disagree
3 - Neutral
4 - Agree
5 - Strongly agree
N/A

3.6 All documents were shared on time. *

1 - Strongly disagree
2 - Disagree
3 - Neutral
4 - Agree
5 - Strongly agree

3.7 What would you change in document scope/requirements/timing?

4. Communication from the EFMD Programme Accreditation Office

4.1 Information and guidance were provided in a timely manner. *

1 - Strongly disagree
2 - Disagree
3 - Neutral
4 - Agree
5 - Strongly agree

4.2 Information and guidance were clear. *

1 - Strongly disagree
2 - Disagree
3 - Neutral
4 - Agree
5 - Strongly agree

4.3 KAM (EFMD Programme Accreditation staff) was effective in coordination and support. *

1 - Strongly disagree
2 - Disagree
3 - Neutral
4 - Agree
5 - Strongly agree

4.4 What would you change in communication and support?

5. PRV Planning & Conducting

5.1 The PRV schedule proposed by the EFMD Programme Accreditation Office was appropriate for the programme. *

1 - Strongly disagree
2 - Disagree
3 - Neutral
4 - Agree
5 - Strongly agree

5.2 The actual PRV flow was efficient (time allocation, sequencing...). *

1 - Strongly disagree
2 - Disagree
3 - Neutral
4 - Agree
5 - Strongly agree

5.3 We had sufficient time for Q&A across meetings. *

1 - Strongly disagree
2 - Disagree
3 - Neutral
4 - Agree
5 - Strongly agree

5.4 What would you adjust in the PRV and its schedule in order to improve its adequacy or efficiency?

6. Travel, Logistics & Reimbursement

6.1 Pre-visit travel arrangements coordinated by the school (booking support, visa letters etc.) were handled effectively. *

1 - Strongly disagree
2 - Disagree
3 - Neutral
4 - Agree
5 - Strongly agree

6.2 On-site logistics coordinated by the school (accommodation support, meeting rooms, campus access, IT/connectivity, local transport) worked well. *

1 - Strongly disagree
2 - Disagree
3 - Neutral
4 - Agree
5 - Strongly agree

6.3 The reimbursement process so far (instructions, forms, timelines, contacts) has been clear and timely. *

1 - Strongly disagree
2 - Disagree
3 - Neutral
4 - Agree
5 - Strongly agree

6.4 If you experienced any shortcomings, what specifically did not work and what change would improve it?

7. Team Collaboration & Peer Review Report

7.1 Team collaboration before the PRV was well set up. *

1 - Strongly disagree
2 - Disagree
3 - Neutral
4 - Agree
5 - Strongly agree

7.2 Team collaboration during the PRV was effective. *

1 - Strongly disagree
2 - Disagree
3 - Neutral
4 - Agree
5 - Strongly agree

7.3 The decision-making process for the final recommendation was effective. *

1 - Strongly disagree
2 - Disagree
3 - Neutral
4 - Agree
5 - Strongly agree

7.4 Team interaction during Peer Review Report finalisation was helpful. *

1 - Strongly disagree
2 - Disagree
3 - Neutral
4 - Agree
5 - Strongly agree

sufficient Programme 7.3

7.5 I had sufficient opportunity to contribute to the final Peer Review Report. *

1 - Strongly disagree
2 - Disagree
3 - Neutral
4 - Agree
5 - Strongly agree

7.6 Overall, the team was appropriately prepared for the visit - familiar with the provided documentation provided, the EFMD Programme Accreditation framework, and the EFMD Programme Accreditation Standards & Criteria. *

1 - Strongly disagree
2 - Disagree
3 - Neutral
4 - Agree
5 - Strongly agree

7.7 What would contribute to better team preparedness, collaboration, or efficiency in finalising the Peer Review Report?

8. Open feedback

8.1 What went particularly well from the PRT perspective?

8.2 Do you have any specific improvement suggestions (what, why, proposed change)?

8.3 Anything else we should know?

SURVEYS

EFMD Programme Accreditation PRT Feedback Survey – Peer Review Visit