An IESG engagement connects an institutional requirement with a defined set of activities, outputs and responsibilities. The process below explains how the work is established and reviewed.
Tell us what your institution is trying to achieve, the activity or relationship concerned and the decision you need to make. Include relevant locations, timing and existing arrangements. A short account is sufficient for the initial discussion.
We consider whether the requirement falls within our services, what information is needed to understand it and whether specialist or third-party involvement is material to the work.
Before proposing an engagement, clarify the organisation responsible, the authority of the contacts involved and the availability of necessary information. An appropriate scope should be achievable with the resources and permissions available.
Assumptions are recorded so that neither party mistakes them for established facts. If a required decision belongs to a regulator, academic authority, partner or certification body, that dependency should be identified at this stage.
The engagement identifies:
This record gives both parties a common basis for managing delivery. A meeting or initial enquiry does not replace the written engagement.
Each party appoints a contact able to coordinate the work. The client identifies internal decision-makers and arranges appropriate access to relevant information. IESG identifies its service contact and any agreed external contribution.
Document exchanges should use an appropriate channel. Personal, commercially sensitive or protected information is requested only where necessary to the activity and subject to agreed handling arrangements.
The working plan establishes activities and review points. Requests should say what is needed, why it matters, who is responsible and when a response is expected. Important decisions and changes are retained in the engagement record.
If information is incomplete or a dependency changes, its effect on delivery should be discussed promptly. The project record should distinguish completed activities from those awaiting a client input or an external decision.
The institution reviews the deliverables against the agreed scope and raises questions or identified errors through the service contact. The applicable engagement determines the review arrangements and how matters within scope are addressed.
An output may identify further work without including it. The next stage should be considered on its own scope, resources and authority rather than assumed to be part of the original engagement.
A material change to the activity, participating entities, information required or delivery arrangement may affect the scope. The parties should record the revised work and any consequence for fees or timing before proceeding.
Continuing support requires its own account of recurring activities, responsibilities and review triggers. It should remain useful to the institution as circumstances change.
Operational questions should first reach the named service contact. If you believe a matter needs formal review, use the complaints route and identify the engagement or communication concerned.
Questions about another organisation's decision may need a separate procedure. This is particularly relevant where IESG is supporting a process governed by an independent authority.
Provide your institutional outline through the enquiry route. For ICEQC preparation, choose the dedicated support form so that your stage and proposed scope are included.
Discuss your requirements · Discuss ICEQC support · Fees and engagement