QUALITY FRAMEWORK QUALITY MANUAL SECTION 7 COLLABORATIVE PARTNERSHIPS AND PROVISION: PROCEDURES FOR MANAGING QUALITY AND STANDARDS Contents 1 MANAGING THE QUALITY AND STANDARDS OF COLLABORATIVE

PARTNERSHIPS AND PROVISION

1.1 Introduction 1.2 Background and Context 1.3 Definitions 1.4 Principles 2 TYPES OF COLLABORATIVE PARTNERSHIP 2.1 Overview of Different Types of Collaborative Partnership 2.2 Other Types of Partnership (non-Collaborative) 2.3 Other Terms 3 ROLES, RESPONSIBILITIES AND GOVERNANCE 3.1 Governance 3.2 Institutional Level 3.3 Portfolio and Partnerships Board (PPB) 3.4 Academic Quality, Standards and Enhancement Committee (AQSEC) and

Collaborative Sub-committee

3.5 Faculty Level 3.9 Central Directorate Support and Oversight 3.10 Quality Framework Processes and Collaborative Provision 4 MANAGING THE QUALITY AND STANDARDS OF COLLABORATIVE

PARTNERSHIPS AND PROVISION: QUALITY FRAMEWORK PROCESSES

4.1 Overview 4.2 Initial Development and Planning Approval 4.3 Approval of New Collaborative Partners and Provision including

Overview of the Institutional Approval Process

4.4 Approval of Academic Provision with New Collaborative Partners 4.5 Approval of New Provision with Existing Collaborative Partners 4.6 Annual Review 4.7 Collaborative Periodic Review 4.8 Renewal of Agreements 4.9 Termination of Collaborative Partnerships and Exit Strategies 4.10 Causes for Concern Procedure Annexes / Standard Templates/ Further Guidance

1 MANAGING THE QUALITY AND STANDARDS OF COLLABORATIVE

PARTNERSHIPS AND PROVISION 1.1 Introduction

The University has a number of associated policies, regulations and procedures devised to promote consistency, transparency and fairness in dealing with students' learning and assessment and which meet the expectations of the UK Quality Code for Higher Education and relevant national qualifications frameworks. Quality assurance processes are defined within the University's Quality Framework. As part of this Framework, the processes and procedures that apply to collaborative partnerships and provision are set out in this section of the Quality Manual (Section 7) and are informed by the expectations and indicators set out in Chapter B10 of the UK Quality Code, 'Managing Higher Education Provision with Others'. The purpose of this section of the Quality Manual is to provide guidance on the principles, approval, operation, monitoring and contractual procedures that apply to all collaborative partnerships and provision leading to an academic award or credit from the University. The University's collaborative provision is subject to the same quality assurance and enhancement procedures as for onsite provision, with additional process augmentation where necessary, proportionate to the level of risk associated with various types of collaborative arrangement. Detailed definitions of the types of collaborative arrangement the University will enter into are set out in Section 2 of this document. The University's processes and procedures for managing the quality and standards of collaborative partnerships and provision are designed to both promote and safeguard the University's reputation, nationally and internationally, and to ensure that the quality and standards of its collaborative provision are secure and in line with national expectations. The procedures also seek to ensure that, whilst the collaborative student experience may be different to that experienced by students studying onsite, it is of comparable quality.

1.2 Background and Context

The University collaborates with education providers and other organisations to provide a diversity of pathways and progression to higher education. This helps to achieve a diverse but complementary set of academic, business, economic and social objectives. The University engages in a wide range of collaborative partnerships, intended to align academic strengths and shared interests for mutual benefit. The University's Strategy 2020 makes a commitment to 'expanding horizons' with the intention of equipping graduates to '… realise their full potential and to be ready to make a positive contribution to a global society and economy. This will be underpinned by our strong national and global partnerships. The existing range of the University's collaborative partnerships already reflects a regional, national and international dimension that demonstrates an ongoing commitment to:

• Regional educational partnerships which promote educational opportunity and access to advanced higher level skills

• Establishing and maintaining a national reputation for providing an outstanding student experience and expanding its market profile

• Ongoing development of international partnerships, with the emphasis on building substantial relationships of a high quality

Collaborative partnerships support the University strategic ambitions by making high quality pathways into higher education available to a diversity of students who, predominantly, do not choose or are unable to study as part of the University's directly delivered educational portfolio by reason of their personal circumstances, learning preferences, geographical location or employment responsibilities.

1.3 Definitions

Collaborative partnerships and provision sit within a broader range of University academic and educational partnership activities, including:

• Partnerships with professional, statutory and regulatory bodies (PSRBs) in relation to the design and accreditation of University courses

• Partnerships with other HE institutions for student exchanges and study abroad

• Partnerships with employers, both in the public and private sectors, to provide placement opportunities, continuing professional development activities, knowledge transfer and work-based learning (WBL) provision

• Schools and colleges, in support of widening participation, raising aspirations and student recruitment

• Research, consultancy and Knowledge Transfer Partnerships (KTPs), as supported and overseen by the Research and Innovation Office (RIO)

• Partnerships involving working with other providers of education to deliver educational programmes leading to University awards and/or credit, through a variety of models such as validation, franchise, articulation, progression, collaborative delivery, offsite delivery or 'flying faculty' and joint or dual/double awards, etc.

This section of the Quality Manual is concerned primarily with the latter category of educational partnerships listed above. These are referred to within the University as 'Collaborative Partnerships and Provision'. Although terminology to describe collaborative arrangements involving external partners varies across the Higher Education sector, the University's defines its collaborative partnerships and provision in line with the QAA's definition of 'managing HE provision with others'. Specifically, for Sheffield Hallam University, collaborative arrangements will involve: 'The management of all learning opportunities leading or contributing to the award of academic credit or a qualification that are delivered, assessed or supported through an arrangement with one or more organisations other than the degree-awarding body.' (Chapter B10, UK Quality Code, QAA) The University currently works with a range of collaborative partner organisations including other UK universities, FE Colleges, NHS trusts, public and voluntary bodies, private and public sector organisations and a number of public and private colleges and universities located overseas. A detailed list of the types of collaborative arrangement the University enters into is set out in Section 2 of this document. If there is uncertainty as to whether or not a potential partnership arrangement would be classified as a 'Collaborative Partnership' that would be subject to the principles and procedures set out in this section of the Quality Manual, Academic Quality and

Standards can provide further advice on specific proposals, at the initial stage of development. Once approved, all collaborative arrangements are listed in the University’s central Register of Collaborative Partners and Provision and are subject to regular monitoring and review procedures according to the principles and processes set out in the Quality Framework.

1.4 Principles

The University is responsible for the quality and standards of all academic awards made in its name, the following principles underpin the development of collaborative activities. 1.4.1 The University will enter into collaborative partnerships with

organisations that:

• Have compatible educational objectives, including a commitment to support the success of students and the development of staff

• Have a commitment to widening participation and social mobility, including in an international context

• Are financially stable and legally able and competent to enter into a formal written (and legally binding) collaborative agreement with the University.

• Have effective management systems in place suited to assuring the quality of HE provision, including appropriate quality management arrangements and academic and administrative policies and practices

• Offer an ethos and environment for teaching and learning appropriate to higher education

• Are committed to the delivery of collaborative provision to the appropriate academic standards

• Can provide appropriate resources to support higher education programmes • Can enable the University to effectively meet its responsibilities for the quality

and standards of its awards • Can enable the University to meet its responsibilities in relation to any

external professional, statutory, regulatory bodies (PSRB) requirements as may apply to accredited awards offered via collaborative arrangements

• Are committed to the ongoing monitoring and review of the partnership and its associated provision, on an annual and periodic basis. This is to ensure that each collaborative partnership continues to meet the needs of both partners and students and that the quality and standards of the associated provision is assured.

1.4.2 The University's Collaborative Partnerships will be based on the following principles:

• Irrespective of a partner organisation's prior experience in managing HE provision, the University has ultimate responsibility for the quality of learning opportunities provided through its collaborative arrangements, even though some aspects of delivery and quality assurance may be delegated to a partner organisation

• The academic standards of all Sheffield Hallam University qualifications delivered under collaborative arrangements will be compatible with SHU regulations, policies, procedure and relevant external reference points

• All new Collaborative Partnerships will be subject to initial planning permission, risk assessment, due diligence procedures and institutional and academic approval processes, as required by the University

• Student learning opportunities and experiences must be of a high standard and comparable to those offered to students whose programmes of study are delivered, supported and assessed solely by the University

• Partner organisations are not permitted to engage in any form of 'serial' arrangement, whereby a partner offers the University's provision or assigns delegated powers related to the provision elsewhere through a separate arrangement of its own

• Collaborative Partnerships will be subject to annual and periodic review and will be managed according to the level of risk as assessed by the University

• All Collaborative Partnerships, once approved, will be subject to a formal and legally-binding agreement which will include details of arrangements for monitoring and review and will include procedures for the termination of partnerships (as appropriate)

• All Collaborative Partnerships will be recorded centrally on the University's Register of Collaborative Partners and Provision (maintained by Academic Quality and Standards)

2 TYPES OF COLLABORATIVE PARTNERSHIP 2.1 Overview of Different Types of Collaborative Partnership Arrangements The table below presents an overview of the main types of collaborative

arrangements that will be considered by the University. A more detailed version of the table, including the relevant approval processes for each type, is available as Annex 1 to this Section of the Quality Manual.

SHU Category / Typology of Collaborative Arrangements

Key Features

VALIDATION (aka EXTERNAL VALIDATION)

An arrangement whereby SHU considers a programme or module(s) that are designed and delivered by an approved partner organisation. The University approves the provision as being of an appropriate standard and quality to lead to (or contribute to) a University award. Students normally have a direct contractual relationship with the delivery organisation.

FRANCHISE

An arrangement whereby SHU agrees to authorise an approved partner organisation to deliver (and sometimes assess) all or part of one or more of its own validated programmes. Students normally have a direct contractual relationship with SHU, as the degree-awarding body.

COLLABORATIVE DELIVERY (aka Shared Delivery Arrangements)

Both SHU and a partner organisation jointly contribute to the design, development and/or delivery and assessment of provision leading to a SHU award. Each partner has an agreed and specific allocation of responsibilities for teaching, assessing and supporting students. Students will usually have a direct

contractual relationship with the University (though this may vary, subject to agreement and depending on which organisation has the major share of responsibilities for teaching, assessing and supporting students - usually more than 50%). Although this is a broad category and takes account of wide variation in this type of activity, the resulting academic award will be made by SHU.

ARTICULATION An arrangement whereby cohorts of students who satisfy academic criteria on one programme (delivered by a partner organisation) are automatically entitled, on academic grounds, to be admitted with advanced standing to a subsequent stage of a SHU programme leading to a SHU award. The two separate components are the responsibility of the respective partner organisations delivering each of them but, together, contribute to a single award of the degree-awarding body. Articulation arrangements should be considered in line with the University's Accreditation of Prior Learning Regulations (APL).

PROGRESSION ARRANGEMENT

Arrangements whereby students who have successfully completed a qualification at one organisation may apply for entry either to the beginning, or to a more advanced stage, of a specified SHU programme. Arrangements may apply on a cohort basis or to individual students from the external organisation. Although there are similarities with Articulation (see above), progression arrangements are distinct as entry to the specified programme is neither automatic nor guaranteed. Progression arrangements usually secure entry to the first stage (first year) of the specified SHU programme, though entry to later stages of a programme may be considered in line with the University's Accreditation of Prior Learning Regulations (APL). Students must meet the relevant entry criteria for the SHU programme, entry is not guaranteed and the University retains the right not to admit students under a progression arrangement. Note that progression arrangements are usually used to support recruitment activity and do not require the external party to undergo institutional approval for the purposes of Collaborative Partnership unless/until the partnership develops further, to include specific collaborative arrangements as defined in any of the other categories above and below.

DOUBLE/MULTIPLE AWARD1

An arrangement whereby students study a single, academic programme leading to two (or more) academic qualifications. The single programme will consist of elements delivered by SHU and by the partner organisation(s). Separate qualifications are

1 Defined by QAA as 'co-dependent, mutually contingent qualifications' (see Qualifications involving more than one degree-awarding body, QAA, October 2015)

awarded by each partner/awarding body. In some cases it may be agreed that the award of each qualification is mutually contingent on gaining the other. The qualifications may also be set at different levels.

JOINT AWARD2 An arrangement under which two or more awarding bodies together design and deliver a joint programme of study, leading to a single award made jointly by both (all) partners. A single award certificate or document (signed by all competent authorities/awarding bodies, effectively combining their degree-awarding powers) is awarded, to certify successful completion of the jointly delivered programme. The joint award and certificate replaces individual awards from each partner institution.

DUAL3 An arrangement whereby SHU and one or more partners with degree-awarding powers together contribute mutually-recognised elements towards a single programme of study, leading to two (or more) separate awards and separate certification being granted by each partner institution.

CREDIT RATING (eg. of learning/training/CPD provided by employers/other organisations)

The University will recognise and assign a general and specific academic credit rating to provision designed and delivered by external delivery organisation. The recognised credit may subsequently provide progression to specified SHU awards, via credit transfer or advanced standing.

OFF-SITE OR FLYING FACULTY

'Off-site delivery' or 'flying faculty' denotes arrangements whereby SHU programmes (or modules); leading to awards and/or credit is delivered solely by the University staff at an external, off-campus location. SHU staff provide all teaching, assessment and student support for the programme of study. In some cases, 'flying faculty' arrangements may require a level of support or services/facilities to be provided for students by a local host / agent or other support organisation, especially when the University's staff are not present at the delivery location. Such arrangements will usually fall within the definition of 'Support Provider/Agent' (see category below). Off-site or 'flying faculty' arrangements are subject to approval by the University, whether they include 'Support Provider' arrangements or not. This will usually involve an independent site/resources check to assure the University that the proposed venue for the delivery of the programme is appropriate and has the

2 Defined by QAA as 'co-dependent, mutually contingent qualifications' (see Qualifications involving more than one degree-awarding body, QAA, October 2015) 3 Defined by QAA as 'integrated but independent qualifications' (see notes 1 and 2)

necessary facilities and resources, as required.

SUPPORT PROVIDER/AGENT

An external organisation which supplies student support, resources and/or specialist facilities for student learning opportunities for students studying on SHU programmes, leading to a University award. In some cases these services may be in addition to recruitment agent services.

2.2 Other Types of Partnership (non-Collaborative)

The following types of partnership are not covered by the procedures and processes outlined in this section of the Quality Manual which apply only to the University's Collaborative Partnerships as defined in Section 1.3 above.

Type of partnership Responsibility for Management / Oversight

Employer Partnerships Directorate of Education and Employer

Partnerships (DEEP)

Erasmus and Erasmus+ and non-EU Exchanges (click on link for list of Participating Institutions)

Directorate of International Development

Overseas Recruitment Agents (provision of recruitment services only, not including support for learning, teaching or assessing)

Directorate of International Development

Study Abroad (individual institutions with whom SHU has exchange arrangements in place)

Locally managed by individual faculties and departments

Schools and NHS Trust Placement Providers for ITT and Pre-registration courses (professional and clinical placements)

Locally managed by individual faculties and departments; also cross-University Placement Management Project and AT4 portal

Sandwich Placement Providers as above

WBL Placement Providers as above

Split-site PhDs Research Degrees Sub-committee / Graduate Studies Team

Knowledge Transfer Partnerships (KTPs) and other Research and Consultancy Partnerships

Research and Innovation Office is responsible for contractual and partnership arrangements with research councils and regional and EU funding and grant activities.

Professional, Statutory and/or Regulatory Bodies (PSRBs)

Locally managed by individual faculties and departments, with support from Academic Quality and Standards for oversight, reporting and accreditation status of courses, on behalf of AQSEC and Academic Board.

2.3 Other Terms A number of other terms, used in relation to collaborative provision planning

and development, are defined below:

Term Definition Collaborative Partner An external organisation approved by the University for the

purposes of providing 'learning opportunities leading or contributing to the award of academic credit or a qualification [of the University] that are delivered, assessed or supported through an arrangement with one or more organisations other than the degree-awarding body.

Risk Assessment An assessment of the level of risk presented to the University's reputation and standing by a potential collaborative partnership and the proposed provision, and the type of mitigation that may be required to offset the risk.

Due Diligence Initial evaluation of a potential collaborative partner organisation's financial, legal and organisational status. Confirm a potential partner's ability to legally contract with the University.

Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) or Memorandum of Co-operation (MoC)

A statement of intent to work with another external organisation. These documents do not constitute any specific commitment to a formal partnership but may detail potential development activities that if progressed, would be subject to subsequent planning permissions and specific approval by the University.

3 ROLES, RESPONSIBILITIES AND GOVERNANCE 3.1 Governance

Collaborative partnerships can do much to enhance the University's reputation nationally and internationally, but the risks that may be associated with operating collaborative partnerships must also be carefully managed to protect the University's standing and the interests of its staff and students. As part of the overall management of collaborative provision, the University is required to enter into a formal relationship with each of its approved Collaborative Partners, articulated in a legally-binding formal agreement signed by both parties. In view of this formal relationship, overall governance and decision-making with regard to collaborative partnerships must sit at institutional level.

3.2 Institutional Level

Authority for the final approval of collaborative partnership proposals and for signing

formal agreements with approved Collaborative Partners rests with the Vice-Chancellor and Deputy Vice-Chancellor, supported by recommendations for approval from the relevant faculty PVC Deans and Heads of Departments.

Executive responsibility for the oversight of Collaborative Partnerships and Provision rests with the Deputy Vice-Chancellor as both Chair of the University's Portfolio and Partnerships Board (PPB) and Chair of the Academic Standards, Quality and Enhancement Committee (AQSEC). The PPB reports to the University Executive Group and AQSEC reports to the Academic Board.

3.3 Portfolio and Partnerships Board (PPB)

The PPB's role, on behalf of the University Executive Group, is to maintain an overview of the University's Collaborative Partnerships and Provision (UK and International) from a strategic perspective. The PPB's terms of reference4 articulate its specific role in relation to collaborative developments, to:

• Agree the strategic approach to partnerships • Approve the initiation of new collaborative partnerships • Give the institutional approval for a new business relationships with a partner

to commence • Agree/initiate collaborative partnership reviews • Receive an annual report on the status of current collaborative partnerships

and their value • Recommend the closure of partnerships to Academic Quality, Standards and

Enhancement Committee (AQSEC) and Academic Board.

PPB's strategic approach and decision-making in relation to the development and direction of the University's collaborative portfolio is informed and supported by the Directorate of Education and Employer Partnerships (both UK and International partnerships) and by the Directorate of International Development (mainly for international partnerships). Initial proposals for new international and UK collaborative partnerships are considered for final approval by PPB following initial approval recommendations from faculties' Portfolio and Partnerships Groups (PPGs) - see 3.6 below. Both the Directorate of International Development and the Directorate of Education and Employer Partnerships should be involved at the earliest stage of initiation and development of new partnerships, to provide support and advice to faculties and to PPB. This is particularly important where proposals involve, or have implications for, more than one Faculty. The authority to approve planning for new developments with existing, approved Collaborative Partners sits at faculty level with PPGs who are responsible for reporting to PPB. In some circumstances PPB itself may take University level decisions to approve international and UK collaborative partnerships. For example, this could include significant proposals that are designed to operate across more than one faculty and/or partnerships of particular strategic importance. In such cases faculty PPGs would be consulted as part of the development phase.

3.4 Academic Quality, Standards and Enhancement Committee (AQSEC) and Collaborative Sub-committee

The Academic Board delegates responsibility to the Academic Quality, Standards and Enhancement Committee to oversee the strategies, policies and procedures that relate to the setting and maintenance of academic standards and the quality assurance of all the University's award-bearing provision. This includes any University awards and/or credit delivered in collaboration with others. In relation to

4 see PPB Terms of Reference (revised Sept 2015)

research degrees, the oversight of research degrees is delegated to the Research Degrees Sub-committee. However, AQSEC retains responsibility for the policies and procedures relating to the quality and standards of research degrees and, where research programmes are delivered under a Collaborative Partnership arrangement, AQSEC maintains oversight of the specific partnership5. AQSEC's specific role in relation to collaborative provision6 is to:

• [consider and recommend approval to the Academic Board on] academic

standards, academic awards and credit, academic approval, monitoring, modification and review of collaborative provision

• [monitor, advise and make recommendations to the Academic Board on] policies and processes for the management of quality and standards of award-bearing provision delivered with others

In discharging its responsibilities for the oversight of the management of quality and

standards of the University's collaborative portfolio, AQSEC delegates some responsibilities to its Collaborative Sub-committee (CSC)7 for the ongoing monitoring and review of collaborative partnerships and provision.

3.5 Faculty Level

Responsibility for the initiation of new collaborative proposals and the day to day management of quality and standards relating to approved Collaborative Partners and the associated provision is located with faculties and their academic departments.

3.6 Faculty Portfolio and Planning Groups (PPGs) The initiation and outline business planning approval for new collaborative proposals is the responsibility of faculty Portfolio and Planning Groups (PPGs)8. These groups are chaired by Deputy Deans of Faculty (or similar senior Faculty Executive Group member) who are members of, and have responsibility for reporting to, the University Portfolio and Partnerships Board (PPB). Faculty PPGs have the authority to grant initial/outline planning approval for new collaborative partnerships and proposals, subject to the production of a business case including full costings and risk assessment (quality and financial) and due diligence procedures. Final approval to progress to institutional approval of a new collaborative partnership sits at institutional level, with PPB, as outlined above.

3.7 Faculty Academic Boards and Department Boards At faculty level, the oversight and management of the quality and standards of each faculty's academic portfolio, including provision delivered under collaborative arrangements, rests with four Faculty Academic Boards (FABs), each chaired by the relevant Pro Vice-Chancellor Dean of Faculty. In liaison with the PVCs and Deputy and Assistant Deans for their faculty, Heads of Academic Departments are responsible for quality and standards management within their own areas and each HoD chairs their respective Department Board. The Department Board exercises

5 For example, the DBA delivered by Sheffield Business School in partnership with Munich Business School 6 see AQSEC Terms of Reference (revised June 2015) 7 see Collaborative Sub-committee Terms of Reference, June 2013 8 In some circumstances PPB itself may take University level decisions to approve international and UK collaborative partnerships. For example, this could include significant proposals that are designed to operate across more than one faculty and/or partnerships of particular strategic importance. In such cases faculty PPGs would be consulted as part of the development phase.

local oversight of onsite and collaborative provision and reports to the Faculty Academic Board and to AQSEC on quality and standards matters in relation to all its award-bearing provision, including any delivered under collaborative arrangements.

3.8 Collaborative Course Leader Each collaborative course operating under individual collaborative partnerships must

have an identified academic lead, known as the Collaborative Course Leader9 (CCL). The CCL role is responsible for the effective, ongoing liaison with a partner's staff and students to ensure that partners are engaging with University quality processes and that the collaborative provision and its delivery maintains the quality and academic standards set and confirmed at approval stage. The CCL has responsibility for the delivery of academic standards and quality of learning of a specific collaborative course (or cognate group of courses) and to coordinate the academic coherence and development of the provision. Collaborative Course Leaders act as an advocate for a specific collaborative course(s), working with their academic and professional services colleagues to ensure the successful organisation and operation of the provision. It is the responsibility of the CCL, as the University's academic lead for the specified provision, to ensure they are familiar with the contents of the formal agreement between the University and the Partner. The CCL will work closely with the Partner's own local course team, ensuring that staff of the partner organisation understand and adhere to their contractual obligations for programme management and teaching. Where a Collaborative Partnership involves a single faculty and department, these are managed locally under the arrangements outlined above. Where a Collaborative Partnership covers a wider, cross-faculty range of provision, there will be a number of CCLs in place, each aligned to their relevant course or courses. Specific cross-faculty steering groups, operations groups or joint management boards may be established by the University in liaison with individual Partners to further strengthen governance arrangements and ensure ongoing cross-faculty co-ordination, development and shared knowledge of the partnership. Examples of this approach include the Trans-National Education Steering Group (formed from the previous TAR UC Executive Group) and the FE College Partners' Steering Group. The University is also considering the introduction of 'key account holders' - these roles would have responsibility for the oversight, co-ordination and quality management of large, cross-faculty partnerships, working in liaison with individual Collaborative Course Leaders.

3.9 Central Directorate Support and Oversight

In addition to the support provided at local level by individual faculties' professional services teams, a number of central directorates also have a key role in supporting and co-ordinating the University's collaborative partnerships and provision: • Academic Quality and Standards (AQS) is responsible managing the

University's Quality Framework and supports the core quality processes for approval, monitoring and review of all award-bearing provision, including collaborative provision. Following initial instigation of new collaborative proposals, following by business planning approval from faculties/PPB, the AQS team acts as an advisory and co-ordinating body for the formal institutional approval of potential new collaborative partners. AQS also supports the processes for the ongoing monitoring, review and management of quality and

9 Collaborative Course Leader Role Description approved by AQSEC (paper ref 5/15/5), 22 Sept 2015; see also Annex 8 of this section of the Quality Manual.

standards of collaborative provision. AQS provides expertise and guidance on all quality assurance matters relevant to collaborative partnerships and provision and works closely with colleagues in other key central directorates (see below) to continuously improve processes and services to collaborative partners and students and to resolve common issues relating to the implementation of collaborative provision. AQS provides secretariat support for the University's Academic Quality, Standards and Enhancement Committee and for AQSEC's Collaborative Sub-committee (CSC). The CSC is chaired by the Head of Academic Quality and Standards. AQS also co-ordinates the University's approaches to oversight of its collaborative arrangements at institutional level.

• Directorate of Education and Employer Partnerships (DEEP) is a central point of contact for faculties wishing to develop new UK and international collaborative partnerships. DEEP provides a strategic perspective and offers advice, guidance and co-ordination between all stakeholders (including consultation with other faculties and central directorates/support services, as required) during key phases of a partnership, from initiation, initial planning approval and development through to implementation, operation, review and termination. The Directorate liaises closely with Academic Quality and Standards (AQS), Directorate of International Development (DID) and Governance and Planning Services (GPS) to co-ordinate the institutional level approval to proceed with new collaborative partnerships, following initial planning approval at faculty level / PPB (including risk assessments). DEEP also supports the operation and further development of existing collaborative partnerships. To ensure there is effective collaboration, co-ordination and information-sharing between faculties and central directorates, DEEP is responsible for the operation of a cross-University forum, the Partnership Exchange, attended by representatives from faculties and central directorates. The Partnership Exchange meets on a weekly basis to share information and provide updates on the progress of new collaborative developments. DEEP is also involved in supporting strategic developments in relation to both educational and employer partnerships.

• Directorate of International Development (DID) provides advice and guidance to faculty developers on potential new international partnerships, informed by its management of the University's international recruitment services. DID also co-ordinates and manages the University's Erasmus scheme, international exchanges and other study abroad arrangements in liaison with faculties. DID is responsible for operation of the International Entry Qualifications Group and for the oversight and management of overseas recruitment agents.

• Governance and Planning Services (GPS) provides legal services and advice on MoUs, formal agreements and other contractual matters, including the legal aspects of contract termination for existing Collaborative Partnerships. GPS also provides expertise in the evaluation and due diligence assessments of proposals for new collaborative partnerships.

3.10 Quality Framework Processes and Collaborative Provision

Processes for the management of the quality and standards of academic, award and/or credit-bearing provision delivered under collaborative arrangements are described within the University's Quality Framework and are detailed in the relevant sections of the Quality Manual. The Quality Framework is managed on behalf of the University by Academic Quality and Standards (AQS). The AQS team also provides

support for faculties through the institutional approval of new collaborative partnerships, the academic approval of collaborative provision and its ongoing monitoring and review. The main processes for managing the quality and standards of collaborative provision are outlined in the next section of this document.

4 MANAGING THE QUALITY AND STANDARDS OF COLLABORATIVE

PARTNERSHIPS AND PROVISION: QUALITY FRAMEWORK PROCESSES 4.1 Overview The six main phases in the 'lifecycle' of a collaborative partnership are:

• Initial Development and Planning Approval (faculty and institutional level) • Institutional Approval of New Collaborative Partners and Approval of Provision • Implementation, Operation (including External Examiner Arrangements,

Assessment Boards and Student Administration) • Annual Monitoring and Review • Collaborative Periodic Review • Contract Renewal or Course Closure and Contract Termination

With the exception of the initial development and business planning approval stage, which is owned and managed locally at faculty level and by PPB at institutional level, the relevant quality processes that apply to collaborative partners and provision are as defined in the University's Quality Framework, including the process for course closure. Processes for partnership contract renewal or termination are managed by Governance and Planning Services. An overview of the main approval and review processes are described in outline, below. In principle, collaborative provision leading to a University award or credit is subject to same Quality Framework processes as applies to onsite provision delivered solely by the University. However, there may be additional requirements that apply where provision is delivered under collaborative arrangements. In most cases, the full description of a specific process (and how it applies to collaborative provision) will be found in the relevant section of the Quality Manual10. An overview of the main processes that apply to collaborative partnerships and provision is given below.

4.2 Initial Development and Planning Approval - Faculty and University Level All new course proposals (onsite, distance learning and collaborative provision

involving an external partner) are subject to initial Business Planning Approval via the relevant faculty Portfolio and Partnerships Group (PPG) or similar. Where a member of faculty staff initiates an initial idea for a new collaborative arrangement involving a potential new partner organisation, they will seek initial endorsement to proceed with the development from their Head of Department and relevant Faculty Executive Group member with authority for initial planning approval (usually the Faculty Deputy Dean, as chair of the faculty Planning and Portfolio Group).

It is expected that proposers will work within the principles for collaborative

arrangements set out in Section 1.4 above. Early consultation with a range of stakeholders within faculties and relevant central directorates, including the Directorate of Education and Employer Partnerships (DEEP) and Academic Quality and Standards (AQS) is essential. Business planning approval at faculty level will be

10 In some cases, the full process description and further guidance on specific collaborative processes (e.g. Institutional Approval) is available as a separate Annex to this Section of the Quality Manual.

granted in accordance with locally-determined planning approval procedures and deadlines. Each faculty PPG will provide the relevant proposal forms and costings and business case templates, as required, for the initial planning stage.

Faculty outline planning approval will take into consideration the strategic 'fit' of new

proposals, including resources, financial and policy implications together with the potential market demand. In addition to faculty business planning approval, all proposals for new collaborative partnerships are subject to additional risk assessments (quality and financial) and due diligence checks. As part of this stage, the prospective partner organisation will be invited to complete a Due Diligence Questionnaire to provide the necessary financial and other information required to assist the University to complete due diligence and other checks for this stage of approval. These additional checks involve input from AQS, GPS and the Directorate of Finance and are co-ordinated by DEEP as part of the information to be considered by the University's Portfolio and Partnerships Board (PPB) before granting final approval to proceed with the process for institutional approval of a new partner. Exceptionally, this final stage of approval to proceed to institutional approval of a partner may need to involve the University Executive Group, the Academic Board and the Board of Governors, depending on the scale, nature and potential investment required for a proposed partnership.

The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (as Chair of PPB) will agree final planning approval for

all new UK and international partnership proposals before these can proceed to institutional approval (see below). The University level stage of the planning approval process is co-ordinated by the Directorate of Education and Employer Partnerships (DEEP), in liaison with the proposers, Academic Quality and Standards and Governance and Planning Services. As part of its co-ordination role, DEEP manages the 'Partnership Exchange'. This consists of regular meetings with representatives from faculties and central directorates to provide a forum for early consultation with all relevant stakeholders across the University and to provide the opportunity for informal feedback on any new collaborative proposals.

Initial / Outline Planning Approval for New Collaborative Partners

The process required prior to approval of a new collaborative partner will include the following stages (to be completed in liaison with DEEP, AQS, GPS and Finance):

• Faculty Planning Approval (including business case and costings) • Quality Risk Assessment • Financial Risk Assessment • Due Diligence Check (completed by prospective partner) • Due Diligence Summary (based on response to Due Diligence Check)

All new developments with existing collaborative partners may also require additional information to be provided at both faculty and University level, depending on the scope and scale of a proposal, before a new collaborative proposal can progress to academic approval stage. For international partner proposals, overseas government applications and permissions may also be required. All new faculty planning approvals (onsite and collaborative) are routinely reported to the University's Portfolio and Partnerships Board (PPB).

4.3 Institutional Approval of New Collaborative Partners and Provision

Once planning approval, risk assessments and due diligence checks have been completed, and a new partner proposal has been approved by the PPB, the proposal

may proceed to Institutional Approval (IA). Institutional Approval is the process through which the proposed partner is judged by the University to be a suitable organisation with which to form a collaborative relationship, in line with the principles set out in section 1.4 above. An IA Panel, including an independent chair and appropriate external representation will be convened for the purposes and a timeline agreed for completion of the approval process, including a Panel visit to the partner's main delivery location. The IA process is used to confirm that the proposed arrangements for the establishment and maintenance of academic quality and standards delivered by a new partner organisation meet the requirements of, and are comparable to, provision delivered directly by the University. Institutional Approval of the partner organisation is a pre-requisite for the approval of any academic provision that will be delivered through collaborative arrangements with the partner. The processes for Institutional Approval and validation/approval of the specific provision and/or delivery arrangements may proceed in phased stages or, where appropriate, Institutional Approval of the partner and approval of the programmes may proceed concurrently, as part of the same process and during the same approval event. Once a new collaborative partnership is approved, it will be subject to a legally binding agreement, signed by both parties, setting out the roles and responsibilities of each partner in relation to the specific collaborative provision and delivery arrangements, as approved by the University. Following initial Institutional Approval, all collaborative partnerships and provision are subject to Annual Review and Monitoring and the partnerships will undergo a Collaborative Periodic Review (CPR) once every three years. The Annual and Periodic Review processes are described in detail in the relevant sections of the Quality Manual. Overview of the Institutional Approval Process

1 An initial business case and outline planning approval is considered by the

proposing faculty’s Portfolio and Partnerships Group (PPG), to grant approval to explore the potential for a new collaborative partnership with an external organisation.

2 Financial and quality-related risk assessments and due diligence report (including

financial) checks must be completed as described in 4.2, above.

3 Summary risk assessments and due diligence reports are prepared and submitted, together with the faculty's planning approval information and recommendation, to the Portfolio and Partnerships Board (PPB) for consideration. The Deputy Vice Chancellor will grant final approval to proceed with Institutional Approval of the prospective partner.

4 Once PPB/DVC grants permission to proceed11 with the approval of the new

partnership, Academic Quality and Standards will begin to make arrangements for the Institutional Approval (IA) of the new partner organisation and for approval of the associated provision (note that the academic provision may be approved as part of the same IA visit or may be completed at a later stage, through an

11 Exceptionally, this final stage of approval to proceed to institutional approval of a partner may need to involve the University Executive Group, the Academic Board and the Board of Governors, depending on the scale, nature and potential investment required for a proposed partnership.

associated course validation process). The arrangements will include a preliminary meeting to agree a timeline for approval with the prospective partner and to identify the formal University IA Panel that will visit to the prospective partner organisation and conduct the Institutional Approval. For details of the constitution of IA and Validation Panels, see Section 2 of the Quality Manual (Validation). AQS officers will also produce a detailed Briefing Document for the IA Panel, giving an overview of the collaborative proposals and specific details and background on the prospective partner organisation.

5 An Institutional Approval visit will be conducted by a University Panel (including

an external representative and University learning resources specialist) to hold discussions with senior staff, students and other representatives of the prospective partner organisation. The visit will usually take place over a full day, based at the partner's location, and the event will follow a standard agenda/outline programme, as previously agreed with the Chair of the IA Panel at the preliminary meeting.

6 The academic lead/developer for the new partnerships should be available at the IA visit, and during the lead-up to the visit, to support partner staff throughout the University's approval process. As part of the Institutional Approval process, video conferencing between the prospective partner organisation and University representatives in the UK may be used, during any stage of the approval process, as deemed appropriate by the Head of Academic Quality and Standards.

7 Institutional Approval - Outcomes and Recommendations

A report detailing the outcomes of the Institutional Approval process will be produced by AQS following the IA visit. The report will include the background to the proposals, the findings of the IA Panel and any specific approval conditions or recommendations required to complete the IA process. Recommendations on approval or otherwise are made to the Academic Board. The IA Panel may recommend that the partnership is approved (with or without conditions) or may recommend that a prospective partner is not approved by the University. Where a recommendation not to approve a new partner is made, the IA Panel will give full reasons for this recommendation.

8 The full IA report will be submitted to the Collaborative Sub-committee for information. The outcomes and recommendations resulting from the IA process will be reported to PPB and AQSEC. Final approval of the new partnership, based on the IA Panel's recommendations (and subject to completion of any approval conditions) will be granted by the Academic Board. Following approval, all new partnerships are subject to the signing of a formal agreement between the University and the new Collaborative Partner.

9 Once all stages of the Institutional Approval process and approval of the associated provision and/or delivery arrangements (in the case of pre-approved courses being franchised to a collaborative partner) are completed, preparations for implementation and delivery of the new collaborative provision can begin.

Further guidance on the Institutional Approval process, including a standard

programme/schedule for an Institutional Approval visit, is available as Annex 2 of this document.

4.4 Approval of Academic Provision with New Collaborative Partners

All proposals for award(s), modules or other credit-bearing provision, whether onsite and delivered solely by the University or whether delivered under collaborative arrangements with an approved Collaborative Partner are subject to validation/approval by a University Validation Panel in line with the requirements of the University's Validation process. This process is described in detail in Section 2 of the Quality Manual (see Validation). Certain types of collaborative provision may be designed specifically to operate within the University's Work-based Learning Framework (WBLF) and to be delivered in collaboration with approved corporate clients or employer-based partnerships. In such cases, the approval process will be conducted by the Work-based Learning Framework (WBLF) Standing Panel12, a standing validation panel specifically constituted to approve work-based learning provision. All provision to be approved for delivery in collaboration with an approved partner organisation must meet the University's Criteria for Assessing Quality and Standards (see Section 2, Validation, Annex 1, Collaborative Provision, paragraphs 7.1 to 7.6). The Criteria sets out the University's requirements in relation to the quality and standards of its collaborative provision, in relation to the following areas, and is used by Validation Panels when considering collaborative proposals: • recruitment and admissions • assessment • outcomes of planning, risk assessment, due diligence and resources for new

collaborative partners and provision • new provision to be delivered in collaboration with existing partners • staffing resources for collaborative provision (new and existing partners) • sustainability of collaborative provision

Where provision is to be delivered in collaboration with a partner, the approval of the academic programmes/courses and/or delivery arrangements may take place either at the same time as the Institutional Approval process (see above) or may take place at a later stage, either during a further Panel visit to the partner location or the validation meeting may take place at the University, with representatives from the partner organisation in attendance (applies to new collaborative partners only). The timing of approval of the academic provision to be delivered under the new collaborative arrangements will depend on the timescales for the development, marketing and delivery of the provision as agreed between the University and the partner.

4.5 Approval of New Provision with Existing Collaborative Partners Where a collaborative partner is an existing, approved partner of the University, the approval of any new or additional courses, modules or other academic provision to be added to the existing collaborative arrangements will be approved separately. Approval of additional provision with an existing partner will follow the University's standard process for the validation/approval of all new provision and/or delivery arrangements. See Quality Manual, Section 2 Validation for full details including

12 See Work-based Learning Framework (WBLF) Operations Handbook and WBLF Standing Panel's Terms of Reference and Constitution.

documentation requirements and constitution of Validation Panels for collaborative proposals. The timescale for validation and/or approval of new delivery arrangements will be agreed between the University and the collaborative partner. Any additions or changes to the provision to be delivered by an existing Collaborative Partner will be reflected in an updated version of the formal, legally-binding Agreement between the two partners.

4.6 Annual Review

All of the University's taught provision (both onsite and collaborative) must be reviewed annually, as part of the University's Annual Review Cycle. All collaborative partnerships are also subject to Collaborative Periodic Review (CPR) once every three years; the CPR process is described in section 4.6, below. The annual review and monitoring of collaborative provision operates according to the same principles as those which underpin the annual review of onsite courses and modules. Collaborative Annual Review seeks to ensure that the quality and standards of collaborative provision satisfy both University expectations and those embedded within the UK Quality Code for Higher Education. The annual review process operates at module, course and departmental levels drawing on a wide evidence base of information generated by routine quality processes, including external examiner reporting and student feedback. The annual review process involves action planning to ensure that the strengths of academic provision are consolidated and areas for improvement are addressed. Annual review for collaborative provision requires close liaison between the Collaborative Course Leader at the University and the collaborative course team located at the partner organisation/delivery location. Where annual monitoring and review raises any serious concerns, these will be escalated in accordance with the 'Causes for Concern' procedure (see 4.10 below). Academic Quality and Standards co-ordinates the annual exercise for the review and monitoring of all collaborative partners and associated provision. The process begins in June / July of each year when a standard Collaborative Annual Review report template is issued to academic contact(s) at each partner organisation. University staff (including collaborative course leader(s), departmental quality leads and heads of department, etc) in the relevant faculty or faculties (for cross-faculty partnerships) are notified that the request for the Annual Review report has been issued to their academic contacts at the partner organisation. Staff of the partner organisation (course leader, academic course team etc) will complete the relevant sections of the Annual Review report and action plan, reflecting on the previous year's experience of operating the course and on the evidence of student outcomes and feedback. The Review report will also include an action plan and a consideration of possible future developments for the provision. The partially completed Reviews are returned to Academic Quality and Standards by the agreed deadline for circulation to the relevant Collaborative Course Leader (CCL). To complete the Annual Review process, the CCL will add their own commentary and evaluation of the previous year's operation of the collaborative provision, focussing on the following aspects:

• maintenance of academic standards • management of the quality of the student learning opportunities

• application of the University's Quality Framework policies and procedures As part of the departmental level stage of the Annual Review Cycle, departments are expected to analyse and comment on the outcomes of collaborative reviews in their Departmental Overview Report and to identify necessary actions to address any common issues or themes arising from the reviews of their collaborative portfolio. To supplement the faculty-level exercise, a central overview report and analysis of the outcomes of annual review of collaborative provision is prepared by Academic Quality and Standards. This report is presented to the Collaborative Sub-committee and to the Academic Quality, Standards and Enhancement Committee (AQSEC) to inform oversight of the University's collaborative provision. Further details of the Annual Review Cycle, guiding principles and associated processes are set out in Section 4 of the Quality Manual. A more detailed overview, indicative timetable and standard templates for the Annual Review of Collaborative Provision are provided in Annex 3 of this document. In addition to annual review and monitoring of collaborative provision, all the University's approved Collaborative Partners are subject to an in-depth Periodic Review every three years. This process, Collaborative Periodic Review, is as outlined in the next section of this document.

4.7 Collaborative Periodic Review

The University monitors and reviews the 'academic health' of provision delivered through collaborative arrangements on an annual basis, via the Annual Review cycle (according to the principles of the University's Quality Framework - see also Section 4 of the Quality Manual). In addition, external examiners are nominated, appointed and inducted by the University to examine all provision delivered under collaborative arrangements, in line with the same requirements that apply to all award and credit-bearing provision, whether delivered onsite or in collaboration with others. In addition to annual monitoring and review, and in line with the expectations and indicators of the UK Quality Code, the University also undertakes a more in-depth review of its partnerships on a periodic basis. The Collaborative Periodic Review (CPR) process seeks to be flexible enough to address the needs for partnership review across a wide spectrum of different types of partners and provision, ranging from single course links involving one faculty/department and one partner to more complex cross-faculty links involving multiple courses and delivery arrangements.

The Collaborative Periodic Review process provides an effective partnership review mechanism which is intended to be proportionate to the scale and scope of a specific collaborative partner. CPR is a conducted on a risk-led basis and therefore the level of scrutiny applied by the University varies according to the nature and scope of different types of partnership and the level of risk they represent to the University. A forward schedule of Collaborative Periodic Reviews is published and maintained by Academic Quality and Standards. The Periodic Review process provides the opportunity for an in-depth evaluation of an existing collaborative partnership and its ability to manage the academic standards and the quality of learning opportunities of any provision leading to a Sheffield Hallam University award. A Review may also lead to procedures for termination of a collaborative partnership and/or specific provision (see Summary of Periodic Review process and outcomes, below). See also 4.9, Termination of Collaborative Partnerships procedures, below. Where a Periodic Review provides evidence of serious issues arising from a collaborative partnership, a Review Panel may recommend that the 'Causes for Concern' procedure is followed, as described in 4.10 below, see 'Causes for Concern'.

A Periodic Review of those partnerships deemed to be higher risk will always take place via a Panel visit to the partner location. In most cases this will mean CPR for international partnerships normally involves a visit by a Review Panel to the overseas delivery location, as part of the process. The specifics of the Review methodology for individual partnerships will be based on an assessment of risk. The final decision as to how an individual Periodic Review is to be conducted sits with the Head of Academic Quality and Standards. Exceptionally, for long standing, established partnerships with a strong track record of adherence to the University's quality procedures and evidence of strong student performance and outcomes, a Periodic Review may be conducted as a desk-based exercise. Desk-based exercises are conducted via officer analysis of extant information (qualitative and statistical) gathered by the University, about the partner, generated through standard, ongoing quality processes. For international partnerships, it is likely that a visit to the overseas location will normally be required for the purposes of Periodic Review, by 'default' though the judgement as to whether a desk-based Review is appropriate or not will depend on a number of factors, including the level of risk represented by an individual partnership arrangement. Overview of Collaborative Periodic Review (CPR) Process Collaborative Periodic Review (CPR) applies to all collaborative arrangements for partners meet the University's definition for collaboration (see 1.3, above). All collaborative courses are also subject to the University’s own internal quality management procedures that apply to award and credit bearing provision. Some variations to the standard Collaborative Periodic Review process apply to certain types of partners (NHS, School Direct, Employer-led partnerships - see Annex 4 for separate guidance). Principles of Collaborative Periodic Review The process, which is intended to meet the requirements of the UK Quality Code (Chapter B10) will involve:

• the use of independent external reviewers to ensure objectivity • fully involve students

and be: • collegial in nature, seeking to involve University and partner staff and students

in a peer review and discussion process • evidence-based and transparent in process and outcomes • action-focused • integrated with other University quality management processes especially

validation/approval, annual review and monitoring, agreement and partnership termination procedures and the University's cause for concern procedure

• proportionate to the scope and complexity of collaborative provision and sensitive to the needs/circumstances/maturity of each partnership

• efficient and effective, drawing on existing documentation as far as possible and by using a mix of face-to-face and 'virtual' meetings (e.g. via video conferencing/skype where appropriate) as part of the Review process for UK and international partnerships

Aims of Collaborative Periodic Review The aims of CPR are to:

• review the health of the partnership, per se and

• confirm the approval status of provision

Objectives of Collaborative Periodic Review The specific objectives of CPR are as follows:

1) to ensure continued alignment with external review requirements and relevant reference points

2) to confirm that the partnership continues to support the

strategic objectives of the University and of its partner

3) to confirm that the management of the quality and standards of the HE provision offered by the partner in collaboration with the University remains sound

4) to confirm that the University can continue to have

confidence in the partner's capability and capacity to fulfil the requirements of the inter-institutional agreements(s) covering the collaborative arrangements in place, and confirm the continued appropriateness of the agreement(s) themselves

5) confirmation of continued approval of provision

6) to identify and share examples of good practice

7) to assist the University in identifying any development

needs that may enhance the collaboration and the collaborative student experience

8) serve a public accountability and developmental purpose

in enabling the University and partner to demonstrate sound quality and standards as well as identifying areas for improvement and future opportunities to maximize the benefits of the relationship for both parties

9) considering the potential for future collaborative

developments

Scope of Review

CPR includes all provision subject to a formal partnership agreement(s) i.e.

• All approved programmes leading to University awards • Any provision leading to University credit

Timing and Notification of Review Following initial Institutional Approval of the partnership, Collaborative Periodic Review will take place on a three yearly cycle, subject to satisfactory outcomes of the process. If the outcome of a Review raises any concerns in relation to the continuing operation of the partnership and/or the associated provision, and a further early Review was recommended by the Review Panel, the CPR schedule will be revised accordingly.

A list of scheduled Collaborative Partner Reviews is maintained and published by

Academic Quality and Standards. Reviews due to take place in the forthcoming academic session will be notified to the relevant Partner, faculty, department and relevant central directorates during the preceding academic session, together with full details of the process and deadlines for documentation. Summary of Collaborative Periodic Review Process Stages

The Review process includes the following key elements/stages:

• CPR will be undertaken by meetings and visits at partner locations, conducted by a specifically constituted Collaborative Review Panel (unless a desk-based review process is agreed by the Head of Academic Quality and Standards)

• All arrangements and the necessary documentation for each Review will be co-ordinated by Academic Quality and Standards

• An initial, separate meeting of the Review Chair and Secretary with faculty and departmental staff, including Collaborative Course Leaders will be held at an early stage to agree the Review methodology, agree an indicative timeline and identify the relevant departmental staff who will support the partner throughout the Review process (normally this will be the responsibility of the relevant Collaborative Course Leader/s)

• A formal preliminary meeting will be held between appropriate senior staff of the University and representatives from the partner organisation, to finalise the approach to the Review (proportionate to the scale/complexity of the collaborative provision and delivery arrangements), agree timelines and responsibilities

• Appropriate documentation to inform the Review will be prepared, including a Briefing Document produced by AQS

• An outline programme for the Review day will be finalised and agreed by the Review Chair, in liaison with faculty and partner staff

• The Review event will be held, usually lasting a full day and will include meetings with senior staff and students of the partner organisation. Initial findings and feedback will be given to partner staff by the Review Panel at the end of the Review event

• A report of the Review, with the findings, outcomes and recommendations to the University and the partner, will be produced by the Review Secretary, within two weeks of the Review event

• The Review report and outcomes will be considered in detail by the Collaborative Sub-committee on behalf of the Academic Quality, Standards and Enhancement Committee (AQSEC). The outcomes of the Review, and

recommendations for continued operation of the partnership are reported to The Academic Board, AQSEC and PPB

Outcomes of the Collaborative Periodic Review Process may include: • Recommendations for continuation of the partnership and/or provision • Recommendations to cease enrolment onto some/all of the associated

collaborative provision but continue with the partnership • Recommendations for termination of a partnership, with an action plan and

appropriate safeguards for existing students to complete their studies (see also procedures for Course Closure, Collaborative Partnership Termination and Exit Strategy, and Causes for Concerns Procedures, below)

See Annex 4 of this document for a detailed process description for Collaborative Periodic Review, Review Panel constitution, further guidance and standard templates.

4.8 Renewal of Formal Agreements

All existing academic partnerships must successfully undergo a Collaborative Periodic Review once every three years in order to continue to operate. Formal, legally-binding agreements are renewed on a regular basis, in line with the terms and recommended approval periods for each collaborative partnership and University contract and business review procedures. Renewal of collaborative formal, legally-binding Agreements may involve revised risk assessments and further due diligence checks. Any changes to the legal status of a partner organisation or modifications or additions to the collaborative provision delivered under the approved arrangements must be reflected in revisions to the formal Agreement. The University's Governance and Planning Services (GPS) oversees, maintains and updates all formal agreements issued to collaborative partners. GPS will provide further advice and guidance on any legal and/or contractual matters involving collaborative arrangements.

4.9 Termination of Collaborative Partnerships and Exit Strategies

The University has an approved process for the closure and withdrawal of courses, as described in the Quality Framework (see also Section 3 of the Quality Manual, Modifications, Annex 2). Decisions leading to the termination of partnerships and closure or withdrawal of specific courses, modules and other credit-bearing provision are the responsibility of individual faculty Portfolio and Partnership Groups and, particularly in the case of collaborative partnerships, the University Portfolio and Partnerships Board (PPB). Where courses delivered in collaboration with partners are to be closed, the Course Closure process will apply. This will involve amendment to, or possibly even termination of the formal agreement/contract with a partner organisation. The Course Closure process ensures that the implications of closure, for existing students and potential applicants, have been fully considered before the decision to close a course is made and ensure that appropriate measures to safeguard the continued standards of the provision and the quality of the student experience during any phasing out period, are in place. Should either a Collaborative Partner and/or the University wish to withdraw from an existing collaborative relationship or to close an individual collaborative programme or programmes, the process will be governed by the terms set out in the formal Agreement between both parties.

The University and the partner organisation should agree, where possible, an appropriate 'exit strategy' that will ensure current students can complete their studies and continue to progress towards their target award. The timescale for phasing out of the collaborative arrangements should enable current students to complete their programme of study, allowing an appropriate period of time to complete teaching, allow for the possibility of resits, deadline extensions etc, in line with the University's policies on extenuating circumstances and academic appeals. The agreed 'exit strategy' will be detailed in letter of termination to be drafted and issued by the University's Governance and Planning Service (GPS) in liaison with both parties and with AQS, DEEP and DID (as appropriate). The exit strategy will detail the responsibilities and obligations of both partners for any remaining students during the duration of any phasing out period, as necessary. If a partner organisation is unable to continue to provide delivery of the academic provision during the phasing out period, due to insolvency resulting in ceasing to trade, for example, it will become the responsibility of the University to ensure that existing, currently enrolled students are able to continue their studies towards their target award. This may require the University to agree alternative arrangements for teaching, assessing and providing equivalent learning opportunities for the students affected by the termination of the collaborative partnership.

4.10 Causes for Concern Procedure

The Causes for Concern procedure provides the University with a formal route through which serious concerns raised about the quality and/or standards, operation, management and/or outcomes of collaborative partnerships and provision can be escalated and resolved appropriately. This procedure is intended to augment the University's existing procedures for Internal Audit and to provide an initial or intermediate route to resolving issues without the need to move immediately to a full internal audit process. In most cases, the Causes for Concern procedure will resolve the majority of issues. However, in serious cases, Causes for Concern may form an initial stage of investigation, leading to a full internal audit, where required. Causes for Concern may be instigated at any time, but may also result from the outcomes of the annual review and monitoring process or may arise from a Collaborative Periodic Review exercise, where further investigation of serious issues is recommended.

Key Stages of the Causes for Concern Procedure are: • A serious issue affecting quality, standards or delivery of collaborative provision

arrangements is raised either at faculty or University level. This may happen at any time during operation of the partnership or as a result of annual or periodic monitoring and review activities

• Head or Deputy Head of Academic Quality and Standards is notified and the issue is logged by AQS. The relevant faculties are notified (this will involve senior staff including the PVC Dean/Deputy Dean and Head of Department) and an initial investigation into the cause of concern is initiated by AQS

• AQS will discuss the issue with relevant faculty staff and will draw up a proposed course of action or improvement plan in agreement with senior faculty staff and the Collaborative Course Leader/s for the specific partnership

• All cases of Cause for Concern will be submitted to the Collaborative Sub-committee. Issues that constitute a serious threat to the quality or standards of a validated University award will be referred to AQSEC for further consideration and advice

• Collaborative Sub-committee will monitor whether the action / improvement plan addresses the concern. If issues still remain following implementation of the plan, then the Collaborative Sub-committee will request further advice from AQSEC as to whether the partnership and/or provision should be suspended or withdrawn

• Where the concern is of a very serious nature, AQS will, with faculty support, initiate an Internal Audit which will then inform the development of the improvement plan

• An annual review of all cases of Cause for Concern will be collated and presented to AQSEC. Details for any prior Cause for Concern case, and its outcomes, will inform the preparation for any subsequent Collaborative Periodic Review of the partner organisation

Date approved by Academic Board

Version Number

Published by Valid From Valid Till

December 2015 1 AQS December 2015 August 2016 Annexes

Annex 1 Collaborative Typology - Detailed Table of Types including relevant Approval Processes

Annex 2 Institutional Approval of New Collaborative Partner - process description, guidance on programme for approval and templates

Annex 3 Collaborative Annual Review - overview, standard timetable and templates

Annex 4 Collaborative Periodic Review - process description, guidance and templates (includes variations for NHS, School Direct and Employer-led partnerships)

Annex 5 Operational Issues for Collaborative Provision

Annex 6 Access to SHU Learning Resources for Collaborative Students: Student Category Definitions (including external reporting requirements)

Annex 7 Sheffield Hallam University: Guidance for New Collaborative Partners (to be developed in liaison with DEEP, GPS and Registry Services)

Annex 8 Collaborative Course Leader - Role and Responsibilities

Standard Document Templates CP1 New Collaborative Partner Proposals - Briefing Document CP2 Institutional Approval - Standard Programme for Approval Panel Visit CP3 Submission Document / Definitive Document Template CP4 Collaborative Provision: Operations Handbook Template CP5 Collaborative Students' Handbook - Standard University Text CP6 Annual Review (Collaborative Provision) - Report Template CP7 Articulation/Progression - Curriculum and Credit Mapping Template CP8 Offsite Delivery - Site Location Checklist