A value of this approach is that it relies on a traditional, well understood university practice. Limitations include an absence of prospective aspect in the review, the annual time frame is too short to be effective in providing feedback on long term career development and, in some instances, a lack of peer review. All tenured faculty members are reviewed comprehensively in a prescribed time cycle, e.g. every five years. The review is conducted by peers, administrators or both with the result being a professional assessment along with, as necessary, a recommended professional growth and improvement plan. The plan establishes goals and time lines taking into account individual goals as well as the mission and priorities of the academic unit.
Institutional support is provided to implement the plan.
Progress is assessed and, if unsatisfactory, another review is mandated after several years with the possibility of disciplinary action. Individual faculty members have access to an appeal process regarding the review. Some plans identify faculty members who merit special recognition, as well as those needing improvement. Most of the procedural characteristics of type two above, except recognition of outstanding performance, are included in this approach, although in principle both dimensions of poor and outstanding performance could be addressed. In most cases a sequence of unsatisfactory annual reviews triggers an in-depth review as described in type two above.