Quality Handbook
AQH-I1 Collaborative approval and review
processes
Version 7.0 June 2015
QUALITY ASSURANCE OF COLLABORATIVE PROVISION
Management of Collaborative Provision – Introduction
The documentation which follows describes the processes to be used in approving
and reviewing collaborative partnerships. Links are also provided at the end of the
documentation to additional materials which may be of use. Advice should be sought
if needed from the Head of Quality in Academic Services.
Collaborative provision carries a higher level of risk for the validating university than
on-campus provision and this risk has to be managed to secure the quality of the
student experience, the standards of the awards made and the reputation of the
validating Higher Education Institute (HEI) as well as of the partner. The Quality
Assurance Agency (QAA) Code of Practice on Collaborative Provision gives a point
of reference for the steps which should be taken to mitigate such risks.
Principles
When seeking to collaborate with a partner organisation in the UK or overseas it is
important to ensure:
that the partner:
 has a mission and culture compatible with that of Sunderland University which
offers a strategic fit between the two organisations;
 espouses and promotes values compatible with those of Sunderland
University particularly in the areas of equality and diversity;
 is legally robust;
 has sound and appropriate governance structures;
 is financially secure and will be able to sustain any developments required to
support the proposed collaboration;
that the provision on which it is proposed to collaborate:
 is appropriate to the strategy and current plans of the University;
 is supported by evidence of a market which appears sustainable in the
medium term;
 can be supported sustainably in terms of staffing and learning resources;
and that there are clear indications that the partner will work in a positive spirit with
colleagues at Sunderland to assure and enhance the quality and standards of the
programme(s) including provision of:
 appropriate staffing, engaging with staff development as appropriate;
 sufficient and appropriate learning resources;
Document1, v7 June 2015
Page 1 of 4



personal and academic support for students;
accurate and comprehensive information for students;
opportunities for students to give feedback on their experience.
Processes
The processes described below are intended to ensure that collaborative
arrangements meet the criteria above when they are initiated, and that they continue
to deliver a student experience of high quality and standards comparable with that of
on-campus provision. If additional information or activities, other than those
described below, are needed to ensure this, then such steps may be taken.
Initial contact with a prospective partner
Contact with a prospective partner arises in a number of ways, often through informal
links. At this stage the initial contact will have a preliminary view as to whether a
partnership is worth exploring. However, developing a collaborative partnership is a
serious process which involves the University in potential risk, financial, reputational
and academic, as well as offering potential opportunities. The contract with the
partner is a contract with the University, not with an individual Faculty, and it is
therefore very important that decisions around the development of a partnership are
informed by university-level as well as faculty considerations. It is also important that
prospective partners are not given inappropriate expectations about possible
collaboration: it is easy for this to happen if ‘informal’ discussions are undertaken
which the partner assumes have more authority than in fact they do, and it can be
damaging if this leads at a later stage to the proposed collaboration being rejected at
university level.
For these reasons any member of staff who makes contact with a possible partner
and wishes to explore this must at the earliest opportunity, inform his/her Associate
Dean (AD) Recruitment and Development (for academic staff) or Director (for Service
staff) . A Director of Service should pass the information to Marketing and
Recruitment Services (MAR) who will liaise with the relevant Faculty(ies).
If the Faculty(ies) wishes to pursue the option, before any further action is taken
representatives of the Faculty(ies) and Marketing and Recruitment (MAR) should
discuss it with the Executive. This will enable an early view to be taken as to whether
the collaboration would be in the interests of the University and in line with its
strategic plans. The Deputy Vice Chancellor (DVC) Academic will discuss the
proposal with other members of the Executive; this will lead to a decision as to
whether to progress negotiations. If the decision is positive the Due Diligence
process will be followed as the first stage in Partnership Approval.
It may be helpful to anyone making informal contact with a prospective partner to
be aware of these introductory guidelines and of the documentation which will be
required for Due Diligence (described within the Partnership Approval process).
You should also be aware that by discussing the proposal at the earliest
opportunity with the Executive you will save time in setting the Due Diligence
process in motion and hence in being able to commence the collaboration.
List of processes
The processes described below are:
Document1, v7 June 2015
Page 2 of 4
AQH-I1A
AQH-I1B1
AQH-I1B2
AQH-I1C
AQH-I1D
Partnership Approval
Annual Monitoring of Collaborative Provision – Programme
Operational Review
Annual Monitoring of Collaborative Provision – the Partnership
Periodic Review
Processes for Changes to Partnership Arrangements
These are supported by appendices as follows:
AQH-I1-1
AQH-I1-2
AQH-I1-3
AQH-I1-4
AQH-I1-5
AQH-I1-6
AQH-I1-7
AQH-I1-8
AQH-I1-10
AQH-I1-11
AQH-I1-12
AQH-I1-13
AQH-I1-14
AQH-I1-15
Proposal for a new Partnership Agreement
Risk Analysis for Proposed Collaboration
External Advisors for Partnership Approval and Review
The Role of the Centre Leader
Template for Centre Leader’s Annual Report
Standard letter following publicity and information review raising
concerns and requesting changes
Template for Partner’s Annual Report on Programmes within a
Subject Area
Template for Associate Deans (AD’s) Annual Report on the Centre
Non-submission of Centre Annual Reports - letters
Request to Academic Development Committee Deputy Vice
Chancellor) (DVC) for the Addition of a Further Programme to an
Existing Partnership
Request to ADC for the Approval of a New or Additional Site within an
Existing Partnership
Collaborative Partnerships – Minor Reviews and Amendments report
form
Request to ADC for the Termination of a Programme within a
Partnership or Termination of a Partnership
Annex: List of other relevant documents with web-links
Document1, v7 June 2015
Page 3 of 4
Version History
Version
Occasion of Change
Change author
1.0
3.0
Original placed in
Academic Quality
Handbook
Implementation of the
University’s new
collaborative processes
for September 2009
Clarification
4.0
Modifications made
S Sutcliffe
Date of
modification
September 2008
M Young
August 2009
Updated document number.
S Patience
January 2011
Clarification of which DVC in text.
Review Summer 2011
S Patience
August 2011
Update of names, dates, UoS structure
5.0
Review
B Ollerenshaw
November 2011
Further updates re structure changes
6.0
Annual review of Quality
Handbook
A Carlton
August 2013
Clarification of acronyms
2.0
Document1, v7 June 2015
Page 4 of 4