Wendy Muir Head of Academic Collaborations Office

Reviewing University oversight/ governance arrangements for collaborative arrangements: a work in progress

Delegates will have the opportunity to:

• learn about the issues that need to be addressed by the review and the different governance approaches being considered

• share experience of governance arrangements operating within their own institutions

• reflect on the ‘fitness for purpose’ of those arrangements in the context of their own institution

Workshop Objectives

Workshop Structure

• Context

• Changes since 2006

o Structure

o Strategy, policies and guidance

o Collaborations + Partnerships

o External factors

• QAA Quality Code and Governance

• Governance + Responsibilities

• SWOT Analysis

• So what are we likely to do?

• Group Discussion

• Current governance structures for academic collaborations were agreed by Senate in 2006

• Significant changes since and the University’s portfolio of collaborative provision has increased and experience has grown

• Appropriate time to review the current structures for ongoing fitness for purpose and a streamlined approach

• University’s Reflective Analysis for ELIR 2014 highlighted the intention to conduct this review

Context

• Founded in 1451 – Fourth oldest in UK

• In the top 1% of universities in the world

• Russell Group institution

• 88% of research is world leading or internationally excellent

• High levels of student satisfaction

• Collaborative arrangements –

o c 800 students on collaborative programmes (with c30 partners, mainly international)

o c 3000 students on validated programmes at 4 UK institutions

• Structures

• Strategy

• Collaborations &

Partnership

• External factors

Significant changes since 2006

2006 • 9 Faculties • 60-70 departments

2010 • 4 Colleges • 26 Schools/Research Institutes • 4 graduate schools

2014 • 4 Colleges; • 27 Schools/RIs • 4 graduate schools

Structure

Glasgow 2020: a global vision

• Delivering excellent research

• Providing an excellent student experience

• Extending global reach & reputation

University Strategy (2010-2015)

Internationalisation Strategy

• Internationalisation Strategy (2010-2015)

• TNE Strategy (approved 2013)

• Academic Quality Framework

• Framework for Academic Collaborations

• Code of Practice for Validated Provision

Associated Strategies, Policies and Guidance

Learning + Teaching Collaborations

Recruitment Related • Scholarships (Fee-Discount) (3+1+1) • Student Exchange and Study Abroad • Articulation: [2+2,1+3] Joint delivery • Joint programme delivery (UoG degree) • Jointly awarded degrees (Taught + Research) • Double (Dual)/Multiple degrees (Taught + Research) • Research Furth of Glasgow/Visiting Researcher

Distance/Offshore Delivery - TNE (eg Singapore, China)

• Validation arrangements (UK only) • Franchise arrangements (none – don’t do)

Academic Collaborations

External Factors

• Home Office Immigration and Visa Regulations

• QAA Quality Code, particularly Chapter B10 Managing Higher Education with Others

• HE capacity and demographics in key countries/regions

• ‘UK HE’ as a brand and key export

• New fee regime

• Erasmus Mundus/ Erasmus+

• Funding for doctoral training centres and innovation centres

• Current governance structures for academic collaborations were agreed by Senate in 2006

• Significant changes since and the University’s portfolio of collaborative provision has increased and experience has grown

• Appropriate time to review the current structures for ongoing fitness for purpose and a streamlined approach

• University’s Reflective Analysis for ELIR 2014 highlighted the intention to conduct this review

Context

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.

Higher education providers: • set out their framework for managing academic standards

and quality assurance and enhancement and describe the data and information used to support its implementation

• maintain records (by type and category) of all collaborative activity that is subject to a formal agreement.

QAA Quality Code + Governance

Senate/Court

• Senate - responsible for regulating and superintending teaching and promoting research

• Court - responsible for the deployment of resources and the strategic plan

• Both - responsible for the well-being of students and for the reputation of the University

College

•Ensuring the academic standards and enhancement of the quality of the student experience for all programmes managed within the College, including academic collaborations .

•Promoting, developing and managing the development of strategic partnerships, including international developments

School/RI

• Ensuring the academic standards and enhancement of the quality of the student experience for all programmes offered by the School.

• Ensuring academic collaborations are managed effectively

Responsibilities

Levels of Responsibility

• Academic Performance + Student Experience

• Performance against business plan

• Operational Issues

• Risk Management

Components of Collaborative Provision

Component Responsibility Information Requirements School/ RI College University

Academic Performance + Student Experience

From School and College L&T Committees all the way through to Senate

Performance against business plan

From School to College Management Groups to University MG for planning and budgeting

Operational Issues

Mainly within School but escalates to College + Uni level if necessary

Risk Management

Mainly within School but escalates to College + Uni level if necessary

Where does responsibility lie?

Quality Assurance + Enhancement – key processes

• QAA Enhancement Led Institutional Review

• Every 4-5 years. University Level

• Encompasses all provision, including collaborative

ELIR

•Subject Review - Every 6 years, peer review with external member

•Partnership Review – specific to collaboration

Periodic Review

• Annual monitoring; external examiner reports

• Joint Boards of Management for joint provision

• Year 1 review Monitoring

• Feedback questionnaires

• Student representatives

• Staff Student Liaison Committees Student Feedback

• Programme/course approval

• Partnership approval Approval

Quality Assurance + Enhancement Processes

Senate

Education Policy & Strategy Committee

Academic Standards Committee

Collaborations group

(approval)

College

School

Research Planning & Strategy Committee

College Management Group Collaborations Committee Head of College/International Lead Learning & Teaching Committee Graduate School Board

School/RI Management Group Learning & Teaching Committee Postgraduate Committee

Validation - Joint Board/ Liaison Committees

Academic Governance

Learning + Teaching Collaborations

Governance Models at Other Unis

No Specific Committee

• Dealt with by a Quality & Standards committee or Learning & Teaching Committee

• normal/ embedded with regular processes

• Emphasis on responsibility sitting at Faculty/School level

Hybrid

• Combination of approval at Senior Officer level (PVC) and monitoring through a Quality Assurance & Standards committee

• Approval of collaboration by a specific group; monitoring through standard committee processes

• Programmes and Partnership Approval Committee – deals with approval of all programmes and partnerships

Specific Committee

•Variations of Collaborative Partnerships (Quality) Committee

•Normally reports to Learning & Teaching or Quality & Standards Committee

•Range from strong QA focus (approval, monitoring and review of collabs) to operational matters

•Prevalent in post-92 institutions

Learning + Teaching Collaborations

SWOT Analysis

Strengths

• ELIR 2014: 'The University has an effective approach to securing the academic standards of collaborative provision' • Quality Assurance & Standards normalised/ embedded. Allows comparison with regular provision • Academic Standards Committee is the common end point at University level for quality and standards processes

• Comprehensive set of guidance – AQF, Framework for Academic Collaborations and Code of Practice for Validated Provision

Weaknesses

• No specific University oversight of collaborative programmes per se – embedded so may be difficult to readily identify collaborative provision in composite quality reports from Colleges

• Variability between Colleges in governance arrangements. Some lack of transparency of College governance arrangements. Can be reliant on individuals – lack of shared knowledge and experience

• Blockages in flow of information upwards and downwards - communication lines not always clear

• Collaborations may not be realising full potential and transaction costs incurred in setting arrangement up not recouped (eg articulations)

• ‘Risk’ procedures are not proportionate to nature of collaboration – currently ‘one size fits all’

Opportunties

• Strengthen arrangements at College level to provide greater consistency and transparency and ensure appropriate monitoring

• Ensure robust arrangements at School level

• Where possible, feed in to current in governance and oversight arrangement. More streamlined process. No increase in bureaucracy

• Greater attention to performance against plans (eg articulations) so recruitment potential is realised and transaction costs recouped

• Improve flow of information and sharing of information. Improve efficiency.

Threats

• Risks are not managed adequately

• Potential risk to reputation - if arrangements are not providing sufficient oversight • Loss of partnerships – not working as well as they could or could deliver more • Alienation of the Colleges. More bureaucracy! Resistance to another layer of committees. • Danger of ‘gold plating’

• No big changes envisaged

• Likely introduction of Collaborations

Committee at College level as focal

point. Provide transparency and

consistency.

• Clarify what the reporting requirements

are from School /RI to College to ‘centre’

and improve the information flow

• Improved communication on what the

responsibilities School /RI and College

are to ensure these are fulfilled

• Proportionate procedures

relevant to nature of

collaboration

So what are we likely to do?

Discuss in your groups

How effective do you think your institution’s approach to governance for collaborative provision is? Is there clarity of responsibilities at University, Faculty, School levels?

What is your institution’s approach – embedded, specific group, hybrid or other?

How well does information flow from School to Faculty to University? How easy is it to keep your Register of Collaborative Provision up to date?

Have your governance arrangements been reviewed in the last 5-10 years? What changes that have taken place in your institutions in that period?

Are there any changes that you would recommend to your governance arrangements ?

Workshop

Delegates have had the opportunity to:

• learn about the issues that need to be addressed by the review and the different governance approaches being considered

• share experience of governance arrangements operating within their own institutions

• reflect on the ‘fitness for purpose’ of those arrangements in the context of their own institution

Workshop Objectives