Purpose: Higher education institutions are required to evaluate program quality through cyclical program review processes. Despite often being considered the "gold standard" of academic review, there persists dissatisfaction with the lack of integration of program review findings into other planning processes, such as budgeting, assessment and strategic planning. As a result, the notion of program review action plans "collecting dust on the shelf" is so ubiquitous that the concept is normalized as an expected outcome. The purpose of this paper is to describe a conceptual model whereby teams of faculty members receive education and training from quality assurance practitioners and educational developers, access to institutional resources, opportunities for cross-departmental collaborations and collective advocacy to increase the capacity of faculty members to implement improvement goals resulting from program reviews. Design/methodology/approach: The authors theorize that a professional learning community is a meaningful approach to program review and present a conceptual model -- the Academic Program Review Learning Community (PRLC): as an antidote to hierarchical, fragmented, compliance-oriented processes. The authors suggest that the PRLC offers a reliable institutional framework for learning through formalized structures and nested support services, including peer learning and external coaching, which can enhance the catalytic capacity of reviews. Findings: The authors argue that postsecondary institutions should create formal structures for incorporating learning communities because, without a reliable infrastructure for collective learning, decision-making may be fragmented oridiosyncratic because of shifting demands, priorities or disconnected faculty. Originality/value: A learning community model for program review fits well with a new way to think about program review because faculty are most engaged when they feel ownership over the process. Furthermore, few models exist for conducting program review; as a result, chairs and academics often struggle to conduct reviews without a coherent framework to draw upon.