New Program Procedures

---

Explanatory Note: The University’s Institutional Quality Assurance Process is guided by several policy instruments. The Institutional Quality Assurance Process Policy establishes the overall authorities involved in the development, modification, review and closure of programs.

It is supported by detailed procedures setting out the process for:

• Planning and establishing a new program 
• Modifying an existing program 
• Reviewing and auditing programs on a regular basis 
• Closing a program 

The University’s Centre for Institutional Quality Enhancement provides support, templates and additional resources regarding the institutional quality assurance process.

---

 

Purpose

The purpose of these Procedures is to establish a consistent process for the planning and establishment for any new degree or diploma program at the University.

Definitions

For the purposes of these Procedures the definitions in the Policy apply. 

Scope and authority

These procedures apply to new cost-recovery or government-funded undergraduate and graduate Degree or Diploma Programs and may apply to new Micro-credentials, whether offered in full, in part, or conjointly by any institutions federated or affiliated with the University. It also applies to new Programs offered in partnership, collaboration or other such arrangement with other post-secondary institutions including colleges, universities, or other institutes. 

The Provost and Vice-President, Academic, or successor thereof, is the Policy Owner and is responsible for overseeing the implementation, administration and interpretation of these Procedures.

Procedures

Procedures for new Degree Programs involve seven components which will be undertaken in order: a project initiation discussion and submission of a Notice of Intent to be approved by the Provost that demonstrates the program’s fit with the Strategic Mandate Agreement, Integrated Academic and Research Plan (or equivalent) of the university, and the  academic and strategic plans of the Faculty(ies) offering the program; development of a proposal brief by the initiating program; external evaluation to provide an assessment of program quality; internal response to assessment; internal approval of proposal; submission of proposal to the Quality Council and Ministry as appropriate; and subsequent review of the program as part of the university’s program review process in accordance with the Institutional Quality Assurance Policy and the Cyclical Review and Auditing Procedures.

New Diploma Programs are normally not subject to external review. Procedures for new Diploma Programs involve five components which will be undertaken in order: a project initiation discussion and submission of a Notice of Intent to be approved by the Provost that demonstrates the program’s fit with the Strategic Mandate Agreement, Integrated Academic and Research Plan (or equivalent) of the university, and the academic and strategic plans of the Faculty(ies) offering the program; development of a proposal brief by the initiating program; internal approval of proposal; submission of proposal to the Quality Council and Ministry as appropriate; and subsequent review of the program as part of the university’s program review process in accordance with the Institutional Quality Assurance Policy and the Cyclical Review and Auditing Procedures.

Procedures for new Micro-credential programs are outlined in Section 8.

Individuals may use the templates provided at www.ontariotechu.ca/ciqe to assist in the planning and implementation of the components of New Program development.

New Degree Programs

1. Notice of Intent and Consultation
   Faculties that wish to propose new Degree Programs will first contact the Centre for Institutional Quality Enhancement (CIQE) to conduct a project initiation meeting and for assistance with completing a Notice of Intent (NOI) form available through the CIQE website at www.ontariotechu.ca/ciqe. The Notice of Intent will facilitate the necessary consultation at the beginning of the planning stages, but will not replace ongoing communication and consultation throughout the process.

1. 1. All NOIs must be approved by the Provost to ensure that any resource requirements are appropriately addressed before work on the proposal proceeds. Once an NOI has been approved, the new Program must be developed and approved at Academic Council within two years, or the approval will lapse and a new NOI must be submitted.
   2. In the planning for any New Program, the Dean, in consultation with the Provost, must also determine the human, instructional and physical resources needed to implement the program and ensure its ongoing operation. The financial impact of the New Program on existing Programs must also be examined, and consideration must be given to possible collaborations with other units.
   3. In addition, there must be broad consultation with members of the academic community, including faculty, staff and students who may be affected by the initiative, and with those who are key to its implementation, including the Provost, the Registrar,  the Dean of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies, and the University Librarian. Staff and faculty wishing to develop New Programs related to Indigenization and reconciliation, or that contain Indigenous content, must also consult in a Good Way, in accordance with the current procedures for Indigenous consultation. 
2. Proposal Briefs
   
   Detailed proposals for all new Degree Programs must be prepared by the proponents and feedback provided by the Faculty Council(s). The proposal brief must clearly set out the rationale for the Program, including the ways in which the program advances the university’s mission and mandate, and addresses the need and demand for graduates of the Program. The proposal must also detail how the Program fits within Strategic Mandate Agreement and Integrated Academic and Research Plan (or equivalent) of the University and the academic and strategic plans of the Faculty(ies), the requirements of the Program, along with details of the human, physical and financial resources required. A template for the proposal will be provided through CIQE via the website at www.ontariotechu.ca/ciqe. Proposal briefs for new Degree Programs must fully and clearly address the Evaluation Criteria as outlined in Section 2.1.2 of the Quality Assurance Framework (QAF), and answer all questions provided on the template. 
   
   1. In addition to the Evaluation Criteria, proposal briefs must minimally include:
      1. The rationale for the Program, fit with the University’s and Faculty’s strategic direction, background on the Program’s development, a Program abstract, unique curriculum or program innovations, creative components, or significant high impact practices, and evidence of student demand and societal need. It will also note any duplication with existing post-secondary programs at other institutions.  
         
      2. A fully developed section outlining the Program learning outcomes and alignment with the provincial degree level expectations and skills and competencies; any consideration of the principles of equity, diversity, inclusion, and decolonization; admission requirements; program structure; and program content including course outlines, descriptions, modes of delivery and teaching methods, and assessment with a linkage between the course learning outcomes and the program learning outcomes. The program and course learning outcomes must be developed and aligned to the provincial degree level expectations using resources provided by CIQE and the Teaching and Learning Centre (TLC). It is strongly recommended that the proponents participate in learning outcome development sessions hosted by CIQE and TLC; alternatively, the program and course learning outcomes must be reviewed and approved by CIQE and TLC prior to the scheduling of the External Review.  Should the curriculum contain any Indigenous content, evidence of consultation and approval in accordance with the current procedures for Indigenous consultation will be provided. 
         
      3. A list of required faculty members, including current core faculty and required new faculty; additional academic and non-academic human resources that may be required to launch and maintain the Program; physical resource requirements, noting how current facilities will be used and what, if any, new resources may be required; and for graduate programs, any student support (funding) requirements. Curricula Vitae (CV) for all required faculty members will be provided for inclusion in the proposal package presented to external reviewers.
         
      4. Summary statements of resources required to support the Program and a statement of current resource availability.
         
      5. For Programs offered jointly by more than one Faculty, the protocol for review and approval of program and course changes after the launch of the Program. This established protocol may be revised by agreement of all parties.
   2. Prior to external review, the Office of the Provost, through the Resource Committee, will review the draft proposal to ensure that all operational and financial issues and Evaluation Criteria (QAF Section 2.1.2) have been adequately considered and addressed.
   3. External Reviewers
      For new Degree Programs, the Dean, in consultation with the Faculty committee responsible for developing the Program, will recommend to the Provost, through CIQE, the names of at least 5 individuals who may serve as reviewers of the Program. Two reviewers will be engaged to review new Degree Programs. These reviewers must be external to the University, will normally be tenured (or equivalent) and will have suitable disciplinary expertise, qualifications and program management experience, including an appreciation of pedagogy and learning outcomes, and be at arm’s length to the program under review. CIQE will provide guidance on meeting the arm’s length requirement, which is defined in the Guidelines section of the Proposed External Reviewers Nomination Form and on the Quality Council’s website. Recommendations for external reviewers must be accompanied by a rationale for the selection and a brief,  comprehensive biographical statement for each candidate.
      
      
   4. Site Visit
      The Faculty, in consultation with CIQE, will organize a site visit to provide an opportunity for the reviewers to assess the standards and quality of the proposed Program. External review of new Programs will normally be conducted on-site, but, at the request of the Dean, the Provost (or delegate) may approve that the review be conducted by desk audit, virtual site visit, or an equivalent method if the external reviewers are satisfied that the off-site option is acceptable. The Dean will provide a clear justification for the decision to conduct the review without an on-site visit. At the beginning of the site visit, or prior to the desk audit, the Provost or their designate will meet with the reviewer(s) to outline the process for review and the roles and responsibilities of the reviewers.
   5. External Reviewers’ Report
      
      1. The reviewer(s) will submit to the Dean, through CIQE, using a template provided, a report that appraises the standards and quality of the proposed program and addresses the Evaluation Criteria and other requirements (QAF Section 2.1.2 and QAF Section 2.2.2). Reviewers will be invited to acknowledge any clearly innovative aspects of the proposed program together with recommendations on any essential or otherwise desirable modifications to the program. Normally, the report will be prepared within 30 days of the site visit.
      2. Upon submission of the reviewers’ report, CIQE will review the report to ensure it meets the requirements stated in Article 5.3.4.1. If additional details or clarification are needed from the reviewers, CIQE will reach out to the reviewers to request this in a revised report.
   6. Response to Report
      1. Upon receipt of the reviewers’ assessment, the Dean and the program proponents will consider the recommendations of the report. 
      2. The program proponents will respond and comment on the recommendations from the external reviewer(s)’ report. This program response will also include a list of changes that can be made to the proposal based on the reviewer(s)’ recommendations.
      3. The Dean will respond and comment on the recommendations and the program’s responses, considering overall Faculty and University plans.
      4. The program proponents, working with the Dean, will amend the proposal and append to it a final list of changes made based on the recommendations and the program committee’s and Dean’s responses to the external report.
3. Internal Approval Process
   1. The amended proposal brief, together with the reviewers’ report and the Dean’s and program committee’s responses will be reviewed and approved by the Faculty Council(s). If there are additional resource implications resulting from the external review, the amended proposal brief will also be reviewed by the Resource Committee.
   2. The proposal brief, together with the reviewers’ report and the Dean’s and program committee’s response will then be presented to the appropriate standing committee of Academic Council (GSC or USC) who will prepare a recommendation to Academic Council. The proposal brief will then be sent to Academic Council for review and approval. Proposals are then submitted to the University Board of Governors for final approval.
4. Submission of New Degree Programs to the Quality Council and the Ministry
   1. Once Academic Council approval for a new Degree Program has been obtained, the program proposal must be submitted to the Quality Council for review. The submission will include the final proposal document with the date of Academic Council approval, the external reviewers’ report, and the internal responses, as well as a brief commentary on the two external reviewers with regard to their qualifications (expertise in content and program delivery, connections to industry where appropriate, expertise in teaching and learning). CVs for the reviewers will be required for submission to the Quality Council.
   2. Following a new Degree Program’s submission to the Quality Council, and with approval of the Provost, the University may announce its intent to offer the Program, provided that clear indication is given that approval by the Quality Council is pending and that no offers of admission will be made until approval is received and, where applicable, that approval by the Ministry is pending and students in the Program will not be eligible for OSAP until approval is received.
   3. Once submitted to the Quality Council, the proposal will be subject to the Initial Appraisal Process and may require further development or revision prior to approval.
   4. After a Degree Program is approved to commence by the Quality Council, the Program will begin within thirty-six months of that date of approval, otherwise the approval will lapse. The Quality Council may require further reporting or review, which will be noted in the new program tracking summary provided to the Resource Committee and monitored by CIQE.
   5. If a review is required for funding purposes, the proposed Degree Program will also be submitted to the Ministry.

New Type 2 and 3 Graduate Diploma and Undergraduate Diploma Programs

1. Notice of Intent and Consultation
   
   Faculties that wish to propose new Graduate Type 2 and 3 or Undergraduate Diploma Programs will first contact the Centre for Institutional Quality Enhancement (CIQE) to conduct a project initiation meeting and for assistance with completing a Notice of Intent (NOI) form available through the CIQE website at www.ontariotechu.ca/ciqe. The Notice of Intent will facilitate the necessary consultation at the beginning of the planning stages, but will not replace ongoing communication and consultation throughout the process.

   1. All NOIs must be approved by the Provost to ensure that any resource requirements are appropriately addressed before work on the proposal proceeds.

   2. In the planning for any New Program, the Dean, in consultation with the Provost, must also determine the human, instructional and physical resources needed to implement the program and ensure its ongoing operation. The financial impact of the New Program on existing Programs must also be examined, and consideration must be given to possible collaborations with other units.

   3. In addition, there must be broad consultation with members of the academic community, including faculty, staff and students who may be affected by the initiative, and with those who are key to its implementation, including the Provost, the Registrar, the Dean of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies, and the University Librarian. Staff and faculty wishing to develop New Programs related to Indigenization and reconciliation, or that contain Indigenous content, must also consult in a Good Way, in accordance with the current procedures for Indigenous consultation. 

2. Proposal Briefs 
   Detailed proposals for all new Diploma Programs must be prepared by the proponents and feedback provided by Faculty Council(s). The proposal brief must clearly set out the rationale for the Program, including the ways in which the program advances the university’s mission and mandate, and addresses the need and demand for graduates of the Program. The proposal must also detail how the Program fits within the strategic vision of the University and the Faculty(ies), the requirements of the Program, along with details of the human, physical and financial resources required. A template for the proposal will be provided through CIQE via the website at www.ontariotechu.ca/ciqe. Proposal briefs for new Diploma Programs must fully and clearly address the Evaluation Criteria as outlined in Section 2.1.2 of the Quality Assurance Framework (QAF), and  answer all questions provided on the template. In addition to the Evaluation Criteria, proposal briefs must minimally include:

   1. The rationale for the Program, fit with the University’s and Faculty’s strategic direction, background on the Program’s development, a Program abstract, unique curriculum or program innovations, creative components, or significant high impact practices and evidence of student demand and societal need. It will also note any duplication with existing post-secondary programs at other institutions.

   2. A fully developed section outlining the Program learning outcomes and alignment with the provincial degree level expectations and skills and competencies; consideration of the principles of equity, diversity, inclusion, and decolonization; admission requirements; program structure; and program content including course outlines, descriptions, modes of delivery and teaching methods, and assessment with a linkage between the course learning outcomes and the program learning outcomes. The program and course learning outcomes must be developed and aligned to the provincial degree level expectations using resources provided by CIQE and the Teaching and Learning Centre (TLC). It is strongly recommended that the proponents participate in learning outcome development sessions hosted by CIQE and TLC; alternatively, the program and course learning outcomes must be reviewed and approved by CIQE and TLC prior to the program proceeding through the Internal Approval Process. Should the curriculum contain any Indigenous content, evidence of consultation and approval in accordance with the current procedures for Indigenous consultation will be provided.

   3. A list of required faculty members, including current core faculty and required new faculty; additional academic and non-academic human resources that may be required to launch and maintain the Program; physical resource requirements, noting how current facilities will be used and what, if any, new resources may be required; and for graduate programs, any student support (funding) requirements. Faculty CVs will be provided for inclusion in the package presented to the Quality Council.

   4. Summary statements of resources required to support the Program and a statement of current resource availability.

3. Internal Approval Process

   1. The proposal brief will be reviewed and approved by the Faculty Council(s).

   2. The proposal will then be presented to the appropriate standing committee of Academic Council (GSC or USC) who will prepare a recommendation to Academic Council. The proposal will then be sent to Academic Council for review and approval. Proposals are then submitted to the University Board of Governors for final approval.

4. Submission of New Diploma Programs to the Quality Council and the Ministry

   1. Once Academic Council approval for a new Type 2 or 3 Graduate Diploma Program has been obtained, the program proposal must be submitted to the Quality Council for review. The submission will include the final proposal document with the date of Academic Council approval, and the faculty CVs.

      1. Type 2 and 3 Graduate Diploma Programs are subject to Expedited Review at the Quality Council. Only the applicable Evaluation Criteria will be applied to the proposal. Furthermore, the Council’s appraisal and approval processes are reduced, as outlined in the Quality Assurance Framework Section 3.2 Protocol for Expedited Approvals.

      2. Following a new Type 2 or 3 Graduate Diploma Program’s submission to the Quality Council, and with approval of the Provost, the University may announce its intent to offer the Program, provided that clear indication is given that approval by the Quality Council is pending and that no offers of admission will be made until approval is received and, where applicable, that approval by the Ministry is pending and students in the Program will not be eligible for OSAP until approval is received.

      3. Once submitted to the Quality Council, the proposal may require further development or revision prior to approval.

      4.  After a Type 2 or 3 Graduate Diploma Program is approved to commence by the Quality Council, the Program will begin within thirty-six months of that date of approval, otherwise the approval will lapse.

   2. Undergraduate Diploma Programs are not subject to approval or audit by the Quality Council. The University may elect to submit a new Undergraduate Diploma proposal to the Quality Council for review, in which case the Program will be subject to Expedited Review. Only the applicable Evaluation Criteria will be applied to the proposal. Furthermore, the Council’s appraisal and approval processes are reduced, as outlined in the Quality Assurance Framework Section 3.2. The submission will include the final proposal document with the date of Academic Council approval, the faculty CVs, and a brief cover letter providing the context and rationale for submitting the Program for Expedited Review.

   3. If a review is required for funding purposes, the proposed Diploma Program will also be submitted to the Ministry.

New Type 1 Graduate Diploma Programs

1. Type 1 Graduate Diplomas require approval as Major Program Modifications following the procedures outlined in the Curriculum Changes Procedures

New Micro-credential Programs

1. The introduction of the option to complete a portion of a proposed new Degree or Diploma Program to receive an embedded for-academic-credit Micro-credential will be included with a New Program Proposal and follow the process outlined in Section 5 or 6 as appropriate.

2. The creation of a new for-academic-credit Micro-credential or the introduction of the option to complete a portion of an existing Degree or Diploma Program to receive an embedded for-academic-credit Micro-credential is a Minor Program Adjustment and will follow the procedures outlined in the Curriculum Changes Procedures

3. Those wishing to develop new, not-for-academic-credit, stand-alone Micro-credential Programs must proceed in accordance with the Policy on Micro-Credentials and Continuous Learning Offerings, or equivalent.

4. Submission of New Micro-credentials to the Quality Council and the Ministry

   1. Micro-credentials are not subject to approval or audit by the Quality Council. Embedded Micro-credentials will be submitted with the New Program to which they are associated, when applicable.

   2. Approved Micro-credentials will be submitted to the Ministry for designation as eligible for Ontario Student Assistance Program funding, if applicable.

Development of Joint or Collaborative Programs

1. Joint Programs, and other Programs offered in collaboration with other post-secondary institutions, will ensure that the required quality assurance requirements of both institutions are met.

2. When the program will be held jointly with an institution that does not have an IQAP that has been ratified by the Quality Council, the Ontario Tech IQAP Policy and associated Procedures will apply with Ontario Tech as the leading institution.

3. In cases where the program is held jointly with an institution that does have an IQAP ratified by the Quality Council, the Office of the Provost, through CIQE, will collaborate with the partner institution to develop a process and associated templates that will address all requirements of each institution’s IQAP. Specifically, the collaboration will address:

   1. The selection of external reviewers

   2. Templates to be used for a single proposal brief and required reports from the external reviewers, program team, and Dean(s)

   3. The location(s) of the site-visit(s), timing for Program development, and approval pathway

   4. The development of a joint committee to develop the Program

   5. The process for monitoring and reviewing the Program after approval

   6. The lead institution for the purposes of submission to the Quality Council and the Ministry

Subsequent Monitoring and Review of Academic Programs

Degree and Diploma Programs will be reviewed and refined on an ongoing basis in accordance with the Institutional Quality Assurance Policy and the Cyclical Review and Auditing Procedures. At the time of first intake into the Program, the program will begin the monitoring process outlined in Section 7 of the Cyclical Review and Auditing Procedures. Approved Programs will also be entered into the schedule of cyclical program reviews and the first review will take place no more than eight years after the start of the Program, and every eight years hence, in accordance with Section 8 of the Cyclical Review and Auditing Procedures.

Degree and Diploma Programs which have been approved but never launched, have been closed, or for which admission has been suspended, and stand-alone Micro-credentials are not subject to review as described in the Cyclical Review and Auditing Procedures.

Quality Council Cyclical Audit

In accordance with the Quality Assurance Framework Audit Protocol, new Undergraduate and Graduate Degree programs that have been approved in accordance with Section 5 of this document, within the period since the conduct of the previous Audit, are eligible for selection for the University’s next Cyclical Audit. As such, all documents related to each step of these procedures must be retained in a designated electronic filing system for retrieval and presentation as required. An audit cannot reverse the approval of a program to commence.

In accordance with the Quality Assurance Framework Audit Protocol, new Undergraduate and Graduate Diploma programs, and Micro-credentials, that have been approved in accordance with Sections 6 and 8 of this document, are not normally subject to the University’s Cyclical Audit.

Monitoring and review

These Procedures will be reviewed as necessary and at least every three years. The Office of the Provost, through CIQE, coordinates the day to day management of the quality assurance process, and works in collaboration with Deans and units to implement the procedures for developing and accessing academic programs. The Provost or successor thereof, is responsible to monitor and review this Policy.

Relevant legislation

This section intentionally left blank.

Related policies, procedures & documents

Ontario Universities Council on Quality Assurance - Quality Assurance Framework

Institutional Quality Assurance Policy

Academic Resource Committee Terms of Reference

Cyclical Review and Auditing Procedures

Program Nomenclature Directives

Protocols associated with consultation/development of Indigenous curriculum

Protocols associated with the development of Micro-credentials