EFMD Programme Accreditation School Feedback Survey - Peer Review Visit

1. Basic Information

1.1 School name *

1.2 Programme name *

1.3 Region *

1.4 Cycle type *

Initial accreditation
Re-accreditation

1.5a PRV start date *

1.5b PRV end date *

1.6 EFMD Programme Accreditation Key Account Manager *

2. Clarity of Guidance & Documentation

2.1 The EFMD Programme Accreditation process and the school's tasks and responsibilities were clearly defined. *

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

2.2 EFMD Programme Accreditation Standards & Criteria were clear. *

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

2.3 Guidelines for the SAR and accompanying documents were clear. *

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

2.4 The instructions on how to complete the EFMD Programme Accreditation Datasheet in OX were clear. *

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

end the was

2.5 What was unclear and how could it be improved?

3. Communication from EFMD Programme Accreditation Office

3.1 We received the information needed to organise the PRV in sufficient time. *

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

3.2 The information provided was understandable. *

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

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

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

3.4 What would you change in communication and support?

4. PRV Planning & Conducting

4.1 The PRV schedule proposed by the EFMD Programme Accreditation Office was appropriate for our school. *

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

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

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

4.3 PRV management by the reviewers was of high quality. *

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

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

5. Peer Review Team (PRT) & Familiarisation with the Programme

5.1 The PRT was well familiarised with our context, data, and specifics. *

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

5.2 The PRT composition adequately represented different viewpoints (e.g., academic, corporate, local etc.) *

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

5.3 The PRT provided feedback that struck the right balance of constructive, critical, and supportive elements appropriate to the peer review process. *

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

5.4 What would help the PRT be better familiarised? What felt inadequate or unbalanced?

6. Usefulness for Programme Improvement

6.1 The self-assessment exercise was useful for programme improvement. *

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

6.2 The dialogue with reviewers during the PRV was beneficial. *

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

6.3 Observations and conclusions in the Peer Review Report are useful to us. *

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

6.4 Any comments on the topic of usefulness? What was or was not beneficial and how could the usefulness be increased?

7. Open feedback

7.1 What went particularly well in the EFMD Programme Accreditation process?

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

7.3 Anything else we should know?

SURVEYS

EFMD Programme Accreditation School Feedback Survey – Peer Review Visit