Risk management and proportionality in the management of collaborative

arrangements - implementing Chapter B10 of the UK Quality Code

Frank Haddleton Director of Academic Quality, University of Hertfordshire Sarah Butler Assistant Director, Research, Development and Partnerships Group, QAA

7th February 2013

Introduction Sarah: • The UK Quality Code, Chapter B10: Key themes of

the assessment and management of risk, and proportionate procedures and processes

• How the Indicators engage with risk management and proportionality

Frank: • How risk management and proportionality might be

manifested in the context of different types of arrangement

Assessment & management of risk: Introduction to B10

• It is incumbent on degree-awarding bodies to assess the risks involved and manage them appropriately

• Adopting a risk-based approach to commissioning, developing and managing arrangements for delivering learning opportunities with others mitigates these dangers.

Assessment & management of risk: Introduction to B10

A risk-based approach ensures that the effort invested is commensurate with:

• the complexity of the proposed collaboration • the status of the delivery organisation or support provider

• the level of experience of the degree-awarding body and the risks associated with each of these.

Proportionate procedures and processes: Introduction

to B10

• A range of different practices proportionate to the nature of the activity and key players likely to be involved

• Processes which are tailored to the type of activity

• Processes which are proportionate to the complexity and risk

Each arrangement is unique

• It isn’t possible to define risk solely by type • Risk levels vary depending on the key players

involved and other variables • There needs to be an assessment of the risk of

each individual arrangement (within the broader categories)

Indicator 1 A strategic approach to delivering learning opportunities with others is adopted. Appropriate levels of resources (including staff) are committed to the activities to ensure that the necessary oversight is sustained. • Is there a strategic approach to collaboration such that

the types of activity where a DAB may work with others is clear/ part of its mission?

• Is there a sense of the likely volume of this activity? • Are there the necessary resources to support the

commissioning/ development/approval and ongoing oversight?

Indicator 2 Governance arrangements at appropriate levels are in place for all learning opportunities which are not directly provided by the degree-awarding body. Arrangements for learning to be delivered, or support to be provided, are developed, agreed and managed in accordance with the formally stated policies and procedures of the degree-awarding body. • Are there governance arrangements and levels of oversight

and accountability appropriate to the activity (with scope for flexibility within them such as variable intensity of scrutiny)?

• Is there a taxonomy of arrangements or broad categories with clarity about responsibilities and entitlements?

Indicator 3 Policies and procedures ensure that there are adequate safeguards against financial impropriety or conflicts of interest that might compromise academic standards or the quality of learning opportunities. Consideration of the business case is conducted separately from approval of the academic proposal • Are the safeguards adequate? • Are discussions and decisions about the business case

conducted separately from academic decisions?

Indicator 5 The risks of each arrangement to deliver learning

opportunities with others are assessed at the outset and reviewed subsequently on a periodic basis. Appropriate and proportionate safeguards to manage the risks of the various arrangements are determined and put in place.

• Assessing the risks within the DAB: Does it have the

knowledge, experience and intellectual capital to underwrite the relevant awards?

• Assessing the risks presented by the delivery organisation

• Managing the risks and contingency planning

Risk management procedures can include: • Having a shared (i) understanding of, (ii) vision for and (iii)

commitment to the arrangement • Upfront assessment of risks associated with a partner & programme

(not just financial risks) • Proper resource management of the arrangements • Effective approval arrangements • Regular and effective communication with the partner • Effective annual monitoring and periodic review arrangements • Partner re-approval (and re-assessment of the risks) • Risk registers

And if things go wrong? • Plans for alternative strategies if the collaboration fails so that

obligations to students (including the possibility of having to teaching out a programme where necessary) are met

Risk Management

Indicator 6 Appropriate & proportionate due diligence procedures are determined for each proposed arrangement for delivering learning opportunities with an organisation other than the DAB. They are conducted periodically to check the capacity of the organisation to continue to fulfil its designated role in the arrangement • Appropriate and proportionate due diligence procedures

conducted periodically • Focus on what conditions are required to make the

arrangement succeed • The extent and intensity of enquiries will vary depending

on these

Indicator 7 There is a written & legally binding agreement, or other document, setting out the rights & obligations of the parties, which is regularly monitored & reviewed. • Appropriate legally-binding written agreements are put in

place (contracts, memoranda or letters) • These are tailored to the arrangement • Agreement should facilitate effective withdrawal, whilst

providing appropriate support for students in such circumstances

Indicator 13 DABs approve module(s) and programmes delivered through an arrangement with another delivery organisation, support provider or partner through processes that are at least as rigorous, secure and open to scrutiny as those for assuring quality and academic standards for programmes directly provided by the DAB. • Does the programme approval process provide scope

for variable periods of validation or approval? • Are there arrangements for credit transfer/APCL with

other awarding bodies?

Indicators 15 and 17 Assessment, monitoring and review Depending on the experience of the delivery organisation and the complexity of the arrangement: • Is there scope for varying whether parts of assessment

are delegated? • Is there scope for varying whether quality assurance

arrangements (monitoring, etc) can be delegated? • Will the frequency of liaison vary?

Appropriate & proportionate due diligence procedures are determined for each proposed arrangement for delivering learning opportunities with an organisation other than the DAB. They are conducted periodically to check the capacity of the organisation to continue to fulfil its designated role in the arrangement • Due diligence procedures are determined by the type partner, the

type of arrangement and associated risks: - UK v Europe v non-Europe - Partner is DAB v Private Educational Establishment v Employer - Public v private funded - Partner’s previous collaborations with UK DABs - Language of delivery - Who’s delivering and assessing: DAB v partner - Programme v standalone credit

Indicator 6

• UK FEC validation - Most recent IQER or RCHE report

• O/S validation (non-DAB) - level of familiarity with the standards and ethos of UK HE - legal & regulatory frameworks of the country concerned - political, ethical and cultural context - HE structures in the country where the partner is operating - cultural assumptions about HE learning methods - any accreditation/recognition for national approval - the range of business and ethical interests and links that partners have

• Dual/Joint Award - level of familiarity with the standards and ethos of UK HE - legal and regulatory capacity to grant the relevant joint awards - national legislation and national or regional qualifications frameworks of all

the awarding bodies involved

Due diligence

• Employer-based credit: - level of familiarity with the standards and ethos of UK HE - ownership and financing of the prospective partner - governance structures (separate academic & business decision-making?) - Registration as a company or charity and nature of any accreditation - range of business and ethical interests and links (could they present risks

to the proposed arrangement or your reputation?) • Support provider

- level of familiarity with the standards and ethos of UK HE - ability of the prospective partner to manage processes for quality

assurance in HE and meet the relevant Expectations of the Quality Code - adequacy of operational structures (including recordkeeping) in place to

support learning delivery and/or assessment

• Fly-in-Faculty - adequacy of facilities and services

Due diligence

There is a written & legally binding agreement, or other document, setting out the rights & obligations of the parties, which is regularly monitored & reviewed. It is signed by the authorised representatives of the DAB (or HE provider without degree-awarding powers arranging provision by a 3rd party) & by the delivery organisation, support provider or partner(s) before the relevant activity commences. • Written agreement? Memoranda? Contract? Letter? • Agreements are proportionate to the scale and nature of the activities

involved and allow the DAB powers to protect standards & quality • Validation: Written Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) • Dual/Joint: MoA including agreement on regulatory arrangements • Employer credit, Support, Articulation: Tailored written agreements • Fly-in-Faculty: Services & facilities agreement? • Placement: Letter confirming arrangements

Indicator 7

DABs approve module(s) and programmes delivered through an arrangement with another delivery organisation, support provider or partner through processes that are at least as rigorous, secure and open to scrutiny as those for assuring quality and academic standards for programmes directly provided by the DAB. • The process must be able to confirm the standard of any award

and/or ensure adequate quality of learning opportunities • Approval processes can be flexible:

- proportionate to the volume, complexity and level of learning involved

- dependent upon who is delivering and assessing - appropriate to the timescales

Indicator 13

• Validation: central, event-based process, with externality? (based upon the programme validation process back at base)

• Dual/Joint awards:

- Programme level: central, event-based process, with externality? Conjoint event?

- Module level: acceptance of the partner approval process? (depends upon due diligence)

• Employer credit: event or paper-based process, limited externality?

(depends upon complexity and volume of credit) • Support provider, Articulation, Fly-in-Faculty: Faculty-based process,

limited externality?

Programme/module approval

DABs ensure that delivery organisations involved in assessment of students understand & follow assessment requirements approved by the DAB for the components /programmes being assessed in order to maintain academic standards. In the case of joint, dual/double & multiple awards, study abroad & student exchanges, DABs agree with their partners on the division of assessment responsibilities & the assessment regulations & requirements which apply. • Basic risk control measure 1: ensure that all involved in assessment

of students are aware of UK expectations and DAB processes for conducting assessment (through initial and on-going training, briefing and mentoring)

• Basic risk control measure 2: Try to avoid assessment in languages other than English!

Indicator 15

Assessment • Validation: Partner assesses, with direct DAB and UK external

oversight

• Dual/Joint awards: - Programme level: UK external oversight of the award - Module level: Each partner responsible for assessment, but with

DAB oversight (typically no UK external oversight)

• Employer credit: Partner or DAB assesses, with direct DAB and UK external oversight

• Articulation: Partner assesses, with indirect DAB oversight

• Support provider, Fly-in-Faculty: No partner assessment?

DABs ensure that modules & programmes offered through other delivery organisations, support providers or partners are monitored & reviewed through procedures consistent with, or comparable to, those used for modules or programmes provided directly by them.

• Validation: annual monitoring by partner, reviewed by Faculty • Dual/Joint awards:

- Programme level: joint annual monitoring by all partners? - Module level: acceptance of the partner monitoring process, shared

with the DAB? (depends upon due diligence) • Employer credit: annual monitoring by partner, reviewed by Faculty • Support provider, Articulation, Fly-in-Faculty: focussed annual

monitoring by Faculty (some partner monitoring eg student feedback)

• Periodic re-approval often follows the same process as initial programme/module approval (see Indicator 13), although ‘light touch’ processes could apply to support, articulation and Fly-in- Faculty arrangements

Indicator 17