Collaborative Risk Assessment
To be completed where a new course is validated, franchised or involves a second
organisation in the delivery of a course, regulated by formal agreement. The ‘Procedures for
the Approval of Validated, Franchised and Other Collaborative Courses’ (see
http://go.warwick.ac.uk/quality/categories/collaborative) should be consulted when
completing this form.
This risk assessment should normally be completed after strategic “in principle”
approval of any proposed has been sought and granted, but prior to completion of the
full collaborative course approval paperwork. See the above web-page for further
information, or consult the Teaching Quality section of the Academic Office.
Lead Warwick Department:
(This will normally be the department responsible for administration as stated in section 3 of
Part 1)
Name of proposed partner organisation:
Section 1
1. Is the proposed partner a UK based HEI which has received a judgement of confidence
(or equivalent) in its most recent Quality Assurance Agency audit, or of “Meets expectations”
/ “Commended” in all categories of its most recent Quality Assurance Agency Institutional
review?
Yes [ ]
Or
Is the proposed partner a UK based FE college which has received a judgement of
confidence (or equivalent) in its most recent Quality Assurance Agency Integrated Quality
and Enhancement Review (IQER).
Yes [ ]
If yes, the proposer need not proceed any further with the risk assessment, and does not
need to complete section B of the course proposal form.
Version 1 – October 2012
Status of partner
For Existing Partners
2. Score one point for every item on the list below that the partner demonstrates in relation to
this proposed collaboration:





Recently established collaborative partner of less than 3 years standing
No existing provision in the same subject area
No existing provision at same level of study or higher
Adverse External Examiner comments or problems identified through monitoring
Subject area that the University has little or no experience in
Go straight to question 10.
For New Partners
3. How would you categorise the proposed partner?





Publicly funded HEI
Private HEI
FE College
Other educational organisation
Any other type of organisation
[ ] 1 point
[ ] 2 points
[ ] 3 points
[ ] 5 points
[ ] 6 points
4. What is the new partner’s financial status?




Well funded by state or regional authorities
Profitable private organisation
Poorly funded by state or regional authorities
Poorly funded private organisation, or incomplete financial record
[ ] 1 point
[ ] 2 points
[ ] 4 points
[ ] 5 points
Proposals scoring 2 points or above on this question should ensure that they include
document A (see section 3).
5. How robust are the new partner’s quality assurance processes?



Well defined and robust and auditable
Processes are in place, but cause for concern regarding rigour
No formalised/clear quality assurance processes in place.
[ ] 1 point
[ ] 4 points
[ ] 6 points
Proposals scoring 4 points or above on this question should ensure that they include
documents B and C (see section 3).
Country of Collaboration
6. What is the socio-political context of the country that the partner is based in?


Stable
Politically unstable (FCO – essential travel only/travel prohibited)
Version 1 – October 2012
[ ] 1 point
[ ] 10 points
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
7. What is the economic context of the country that the partner is based in?




Major economic power
Developed world
Emergent Economy
Developing world
[ ] 1 point
[ ] 2 points
[ ] 4 points
[ ] 5 points
8. What is the educational context of the country that the partner is based in?




UK-based system
European or North-American based system
Other developed system
Developing system
[ ] 1 point
[ ] 2 points
[ ] 4 points
[ ] 5 points
Prior Collaborative Experience
9. What experience has the partner had in running academic collaborations with UK HE
institutions?



Currently runs collaborative programmes at this level
Currently runs collaborative programmes at a lower level
No experience of UK HE collaborative programmes
[ ] 1 point
[ ] 3 points
[ ] 6 points
Collaborative Model
10. What is the type of collaboration proposed?





Franchised course(s)
Validated course(s)
Distance delivery
Double/Joint award
Other collaborative arrangement
[ ] 1 point
[ ] 2 points
[ ] 3 points
[ ] 4 points
[ ] 5 points
11. What will be the role of the partner?




Not involved in the academic delivery of the course
Delivery of a franchised course
Delivery of a validated course
Joint delivery of some or all aspects of course
[ ] 1 point
[ ] 1 point
[ ] 2 points
[ ] 4 points
12. What is the highest level of the proposed course?




Level 5 (e.g. Foundation Degree)
Level 6 (e.g. Bachelors Degree)
Level 7 (e.g. Masters Degree)
Level 8 (e.g. Doctoral level study)
Version 1 – October 2012
[ ] 1 point
[ ] 2 points
[ ] 3 points
[ ] 4 points
Risk band
Add together the points scored in all questions, and indicate the total. Please enter the total
score below.



Low risk
Medium risk
High risk
0 – 13 points
14 – 26 points
27 - 56 points
Version 1 – October 2012
[]
[]
[]
Section 2
The risk category identified in section 1 will inform the level of background documentation you will need to supply. Proposals should be
accompanied by the documents covering the areas indicated in this table, as indicated by the risk category. Please answer yes or no on each line
of the table in the relevant column. If you wish, you may number the accompanying documents, and cross-refer from this table to those document
numbers. One supporting document may address a number of areas in the table. Please use the final column to add any comments, including
any special features of provision or variations to the institution’s normal procedures as they will apply to this collaborative course.
Documents to be included for each risk category (marked with
an X)
A covering letter from the partner organisation setting out:
 Its reasons for seeking the partnership, a statement of
commitment to the collaboration and special
organisational features which support its suitability
 Its legal status and its ability to contract with the
University.
 A register of its existing collaborative relationships
with other Higher Education Institutions, on the
understanding that the University may contact any of
these with a view to obtaining the opinion of an
existing partner on its collaborative relationships with
the prospective partner.
 A commitment to deliver the relevant aspects of the
collaborative course itself, not via a third party or
involving the use of agents of any kind
An outline of the structure for student support and pastoral
guidance
An outline of the structure for student feedback, e.g. SSLCs,
questionnaires etc
The mission statement and objectives of the partner
organisation
A plan or chart of the institution’s organisational structure
The institutional policy and procedures for the appointment,
induction, appraisal and development of staff.
The institution’s most recent prospectus
Version 1 – October 2012
Low
Medium
High
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Included
(Yes/No)
Document
Number
Comments
Additionally for overseas organisations:
Information about the institution obtained from the British
Council and the National Academic Recognition Information
Centre (NARIC) where applicable/available
Information about the organisation from UK and indigenous
government offices and agencies
Information on the potential effects upon the partner’s ability
to exercise its responsibilities for academic standards and
quality of local cultural, legal, financial and political factors,
including
any
legal
requirements
by
national
government/quality assurance and/or professional bodies;
whether any such approvals have been obtained and, if not,
the locus of responsibility for doing so
Evidence of the experience of the institution in delivering
comparable courses at the same level
Evidence of the institution’s understanding of the elements
underpinning the University’s quality framework which would
be applicable to the prospective partner such as the External
Examiner system; Staff Student Liaison Committees; Annual
and Periodic Review and access for students to academic
and pastoral support and guidance
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Section 3
Additional documents required, as indicated by your response to specific questions in section 1.
Document
A
B
C
Included
(Yes/No)
The institution’s last three sets of annual published financial accounts.
(These will be reviewed by the University’s Finance Office and should be
sent to the Head of Reporting, Finance Office in the first instance. The
Finance Office may subsequently decide to run a check through a credit
agency, and the department should ensure that the prerequisite time is built
into the application process to accommodate this requirement.)
Reports on the prospective partner from funding, or external quality
assurance, bodies at institutional and departmental levels.
The institutional quality assurance strategy or equivalent
Version 1 – October 2012
Document
Number
Comments