COLLABORATIVE PROGRAMME REVIEW
RISK ASSESSMENT
This risk assessment should be completed by the Faculty and presented as an overview and
evaluation of the documentary evidence required for partnership review. The Faculty’s Academic
Quality and Standards Committee (FAQSC) must formally confirm its support before the
assessment is submitted to AQSC. Guidance on answering the questions posed below can be
found in the Risk Catalogue in the Appendix to this form.
It is crucial that the document is completed in full in order for the Academic Quality and Standards
Committee (AQSC) to make an informed decision about any potential risks entailed in the way the
partnership has been operating and the programme has been managed and delivered to date, in
order to determine the most appropriate approach to take to programme review.
N.B. In the Risk Catalogue, ‘Centre’ is used interchangeably, EITHER o refer to the Partner
Organisation as a whole OR, if liaison is with one particular centre belonging to a Partner, to that
Centre.
SECTION 1: GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Name of Partner
Organisation
2. Faculty and managing
Department
3. Full title(s) of the
programme(s) leading to
University of Greenwich
awards being proposed
for review
4. Model of partnership,
e.g. franchise, validation,
credit-rating etc.
5. Location(s) of teaching
6. Language(s) of teaching
and assessment, if not
English
7. Modes of delivery, e.g.
face-to-face, online DL,
FT/PT etc.
Quality Assurance Handbook, Appendix P11 (January 2015)
page 1
8. Student numbers and
pattern of growth or
decline
9. Name(s) of External
Examiner(s)
10.Name(s) of Link Tutor(s)
11. Date of approval or
previous review for the
programme(s)*
*If several were approved/
reviewed together
12. Outcomes of Programme
Approval or previous
Review
13. How was this event
conducted? (e.g. by
video-conferencing; in
situ at partner)
14. Date of the last Partner
Review*
*If applicable
15. Outcomes of the last
Partner Review*
*If applicable
16. How was the last Partner
Review conducted? (e.g.
by PSP, by Partner
Review Panel in situ; by
video-conferencing etc.)
Quality Assurance Handbook, Appendix P11 (January 2015)
page 2
SECTION 2: THE PROGRAMME AND PARTNER ORGANISATION
17.Provide a brief but up-todate assessment of the
Partner Organisation
based upon criteria listed
in B1. You should also
comment on the
effectiveness of the
Partner’s administration
and quality management
systems (B7-8), and on
the arrangements for
securing student
engagement (B6.5).
18.Are there staffing
matters that need to be
brought to the attention
of the University? (B2)
19.Outline current issues
relating to curriculum
content, design (where
relevant) and delivery,
including the provision of
student support (B3-4)
20.Are there any significant
issues relating to the
assessment of students,
student appeals and
cases of academic
misconduct
(B4.2, B6.4 and B8).
21.Comment on the current
pattern of student
recruitment, retention,
progression and
achievement (B6)
22.Does the Partner’s
learning infrastructure
Quality Assurance Handbook, Appendix P11 (January 2015)
page 3
remain fit for purpose?
(B5)
SECTION 3: THE PARTNERSHIP
23.Comment on the
Centre’s/Partner’s1
responses to University
reports, and the quality
of its own annual
monitoring reports
(including AIRs, where
relevant). (C1-2)
24.Provide details (including
dates) of Link Tutor and
other staff visits over the
past 24 months.
25.Provide a short
evaluation of the quality
of communications and
liaison between the
Partner and the
University, including the
quality of External
Examiner and Link Tutor
reports (C3, C6).
26.Does the University have
adequate knowledge of
the accuracy and
completeness of public
(including) student
information provided?
Are there any issues
relating to this
information? (C5)
1
In the Risk Catalogue, ‘Centre’ is used to refer either to the Partner Organisation as a whole OR, if liaison is
with one particular centre belonging to the partner, to that centre.
Quality Assurance Handbook, Appendix P11 (January 2015)
page 4
SECTION 4: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
27.What are the Faculty’s
conclusions based on
the foregoing analysis?
What are its
recommendations for
the method of review?
28.Name(s) and role(s) of
member(s) of Faculty
responsible for
completing this form.
29. Date(s) and minute
number(s) of FAQSC
approval(s).
Quality Assurance Handbook, Appendix P11 (January 2015)
page 5
CRITERIA
EXPLANATION
SIGNIFICANCE (IN ASSESSING RISK)
A. CONTEXT
A.1 Socio-political Environment
The stability of the current
government and the nature of
its relationship with the UK.
Although the University’s decisions on the approval or continuation of partnerships might be
governed by ethical considerations, an unstable political system poses a risk to staff travel and
safety and thus to the management of a partnership.
A.2 Economic
Environment
A.2.1. System
Characteristics of the host
country’s economic system,
including GDP (overall & per
capita), major industries,
economic trends and
currency.
The stability of currency exchange rates will be a source of financial risk. General intelligence on
the economic system would inform assessments of other risks, and especially those relating to
the market for programmes leading to Greenwich awards.
A.2.2. Markets
Intelligence on local labour
markets would be relevant, as
would the market for higher
education provision.
An assessment of the short and longer-term viability of the collaboration will require an
analysis of the local HE market. This might include HE participation rates, demand relative to
capacity of the sector, characteristics of HE sector with particular reference to balance between
local and foreign providers (and, in particular, those from UK, North America and Australia/NZ),
and between the public and private sectors. The challenge of operating in a weak market might
compromise the rigour of the admissions process.
Linked with B.1.6
Linked with B.2 and
B.6.1.
You should also consider the nature of the local labour market and its implications for the
recruitment and retention of staff.
A.3 Regulatory/Legal Environment
Linked with B.1.8 and C.8
The legal/regulatory framework for HE in the host
country, with particular
reference to regulations
governing foreign and private
sector providers.
We need to ensure both the legality of the University’s operations in the host country, and
determine the extent and manner in which local requirements govern the features and delivery
of the collaborative Centre’s programmes. This should include an assessment of the local
recognition of Greenwich’s awards for employment purposes.
A.4 Cultural
Setting
A.4.1. General
Linked with B.1.7
A.4.2. Educational
Linked with B.1.2
and B.1.7
Religious and other cultural
factors that may have an
impact on the Centre and on
staff and student conduct.
Local cultures may impact on daily teaching schedules, the assessment calendar and more
profoundly on the extent to which staff and students may interact freely with one another, and
the acceptability of certain ideas and arguments.
Local secondary and HE
systems, with particular
reference to pedagogy,
learning and assessment.
Students’ preferred learning styles and expectations will have implications for the pedagogic
and assessment challenges, (including the staff development needs) that will need to be
addressed by the Centre and the University.
Private (for-profit and not-forprofit) and public; education
and other.
Partnerships with private (for-profit) companies may entail the risk of academic decisions being
compromised by commercial considerations. For this reason the link with B.1.4-5 is important.
The Centre’s experience of
delivering HE programmes,
including UK HE programmes
In the context of a validation relationship (especially) the delivery and assessment of
programmes by staff lacking experience of UK HE presents a significant risk. The experience of
the organisation as a whole is equally important.
The size of the Centre’s
staffing establishment and its
student numbers
This should be considered alongside B.2. Do the numbers of staff and students in each area
have sufficient ‘critical mass’ to ensure the quality of students’ learning opportunities, and to
enable the Centre with withstand staff and/or student losses?
The parent company,
shareholders/proprietors; the
body holding ultimate
decision-making power
As with B.1.1 and B.1.5, the crucial issue concerns the location of responsibility for making
decisions that will impact on the partnership and the Centre’s academic provision and the
extent to which these decisions may be affected by non-academic considerations.
B. CENTRE
B.1 Organisation
B.1.1. Sector
Linked with B.1.2,
B.1.4 and B.1.5.
B.1.2. HE
experience
Linked with A.4.2,
B.1.1, B.2.2, B.3.2
and C.7
B.1.3. Size
Linked with B.2
B.1.4. Ownership
Linked with B.1.1
and B.1.5
Quality Assurance Handbook, Appendix PSP7 and P11 (January 2015)
page 7
B.1.5. Governance
Linked with B.1.1,
B.1.4 and B.7
B.1.6. Financial
Linked with A.2 and
C.4
B.1.7.
Culture/character
Linked with A.4.12.
B.1.8. Legal
capacity
Linked with A.3 and
C.8
B.2. Academic
Staff
B.2.1. Capacity
Linked with B.1.3
Linked with B.8
B.2.2. Capability
Linked with B.1.2
The Centre’s management
and (if relevant) committee
structure
The powers and effectiveness of the body or bodies responsible for academic decisions; the
extent to which the management of ‘corporate’ matters is separated from the management of
the Centre’s academic affairs, and the opportunities for staff and student participation in
decision-making.
The economic viability of the
Centre
An economically non-viable centre may be unable to generate the funds to support its
academic provision and to maintain its partnership with the University.
The Centre’s (and its parent
company’s) mission, values
etc.
Are the Centre’s values, and its overall educational culture, compatible with the University’s
academic values and those of the UK HE sector in general? Is there a commitment to openended academic enquiry and debate?
Whether the Centre is legally
competent to enter into and
maintain the partnership
The fundamental issue is whether, within the local legal jurisdiction and/or under UK law, the
Centre is able to fulfil the terms of its contract with the University. Where dual awards are
offered, it is important to check whether the Centre’s charter and statutes allow it to enter into
such arrangements.
The size, turnover and critical
mass of the staff groups in
each area of provision; the
balance of FT and PT staff
Significant risks arise when provision is delivered and supported by small groups of staff (with a
low critical mass), and where a large proportion of staff are employed on part-time or casual
contracts. High staff turnover may indicate that provision is already at risk.
Staff qualifications and
experience, external
engagement and
research/publications.
Poorly qualified and/or inexperienced staff with little external engagement or commitment to
research and publications may present a risk to the quality and standards of HE programmes.
Staff contracts and conditions of service should be considered.
Staff development
Quality Assurance Handbook, Appendix PSP7 and P11 (January 2015)
page 8
B.2.3. Commitment
Staff commitment to the
partnership
Risk will arise where there is a low level of commitment to and engagement with the
partnership on the part of staff at various levels within the Centre.
B.3.1. Level and
volume
The academic level and
volume of credit of the
collaborative programmes
The delivery of complete programmes leading to higher level awards presents a greater risk
than programmes (particularly those at a lower level) which only generate University credit.
B.3.2. Area(s) and
curricula
The design of programmes
and the subject areas in which
delivered by the partner
It is difficult to obtain suitably qualified and experienced External Examiners and Link Tutors for
provision that is outside the conventional UK HE curriculum, and for which there is no Subject
Benchmark Statement. This and related risks are presented by Foundation Degrees, and by
specific subjects.
B.3.3. Delivery
Mode of delivery – PT/FT,
distance learning etc.
PT provision entails some risks to student learning opportunities; the risks associated with
distance learning provision are addressed by Section 3.10 of the UK Quality Code.
B.3.4. Language
The language of instruction
and assessment
Significant risks arise from a reliance on translation for the assurance of quality and standards.
By and large the University avoids such provision, but it is a possibility by agreement from
Academic Council.
Linked with C.7
B.3. Programmes
Linked with B.1.2
B.4. Academic
practice
B.4.1. Learning and
teaching
B.4.2. Assessment
B.4.3. Student
support
Linked to B.6.1-4
The effectiveness of (and
arrangements to enhance)
academic practice.
Arrangements for student
pastoral and academic
support
Quality Assurance Handbook, Appendix PSP7 and P11 (January 2015)
The risks to student learning opportunities and standards arise from poor teaching and
inappropriate teaching styles (relative to intended learning outcomes [ILOs]).
Risks arise where there is a low level of staff understanding of the UK Quality Code, ILOs, the
formative and summative functions of assessment, and of the University’s requirements for
ensuring the validity and reliability of assessment decisions (see the University’s Assessment
and Feedback Policy).
The arrangements for student support should be considered alongside the Centre’s admissions
criteria and the level/nature of student need as indicated by B.6.1 and B.6.2 especially.
page 9
B.5.
Infrastructure
B.6. Students
B.5.1. ICT
IT equipment and support;
the VLE
The significance of this will vary depending on the extent to which the delivery of the
programme(s) is reliant on a VLE, e-learning or specialist IT equipment/software.
B.5.2. Library
Conventional and e-library
provision; access to other HE
libraries.
The crucial issue is whether students (and staff) have ready and assured access to the quality
and range of learning resources required by the nature and level of their programmes. Access
may be provided by organisations other than the Centre itself.
B.5.3.
Accommodation
Teaching and student social
accommodation
Poor teaching accommodation and insufficient or inappropriate space for informal student
interaction will present a risk to the quality of learning opportunities.
B.5.4. Specialist
facilities
Laboratory and other
specialist accommodation/
facilities.
These facilities must be adequate for and appropriate to the requirements of the Centre’s
programme(s).
B.6.1. Recruitment
and admissions
The arrangements for the
marketing of programmes,
student recruitment and
admissions
The integrity of admissions decisions may be placed at risk if this process is not formally
separated from student recruitment and the marketing of programmes.
B.6.2. Progression
Student progression and
retention
Poor retention rates and a high proportion of students progressing after an initial referral may
indicate that the quality of students’ learning opportunities is at risk. High retention and pass
rates could indicate that academic standards are at risk.
B.6.3. Achievement
Levels of student
achievement especially at
final stage
Low achievement levels may indicate that the quality of students’ learning opportunities is at
risk. High achievement levels could indicate that academic standards are at risk.
B.6.4. Appeals,
complaints and
academic
misconduct
The procedures for, and the
incidence and consideration
of appeals, complaints and
allegations of misconduct
Does the Centre have appropriate procedures in these areas? The incidence of appeals,
complaints and cases of misconduct could indicate that either/both quality and standards are
at risk. Considerations should be given to the Centre’s vigilance in detecting and prosecuting
cases of academic misconduct.
Linked with A.2.2,
B.4.3 and C.5
Linked with A.4.2
Quality Assurance Handbook, Appendix PSP7 and P11 (January 2015)
page 10
B.6.5. Student
feedback and
engagement
The means for securing
student feedback and
participation, and any
substantive issues that have
arisen
Negative student feedback may indicate that quality (although not necessarily the standard of
awards) is at risk. Weak or ineffective arrangement for obtaining student feedback and
securing their participation in decision-making may result in the late identification of (and
action upon) problems.
Whether the Centre’s QM
systems are fit for purpose
Are the Centre’s QM arrangements effective and appropriate for the purpose of managing the
responsibilities assigned to it by the University?
The capacity and competence
of the Centre’s admin staff,
and the effectiveness of the
centre’s administrative
systems and procedures
This (and any associated risks) should be judged in the context of the nature and level of
responsibilities assigned to the Centre by the University. Capacity, capability and commitment
should be considered.
The Centre’s rationale for
seeking and maintaining a
partnership with the
University
Risks will arise if the commercial rationale for the partnership is not accompanied by a
sufficiently strong academic rationale. The Centre’s commitment to the partnership might be
called into question if it maintains partnerships with other HEIs (see C.7).
C.1. Response to approvals and reviews,
Link Tutors’ and External Examiners’
reports
Action taken by the Centre in
response to conditions,
comments and
recommendations
The timeliness and effectiveness of the Centre’s response to conditions and recommendations
is a possible indicator of its maturity, competence and commitment to the partnership.
C.2. Programme monitoring (PMR)
reports
The quality of PMR reports,
and evidence of effective
action on identified issues
Whilst PMR reports generally provide indirect evidence of quality and standards, their quality
(analytical, evaluative) is a source of direct evidence of the Centre’s capacity for selfmanagement and its commitment to the maintenance of quality and standards.
Linked with B.1.5
B.7. Quality management systems
Linked with B.1.5
B.8. Academic administration
Linked with B.2
B.9. Rationale for partnership with the
University
Linked with C.7
Particular attention should be given to the local management and administration of assessment
processes.
C. PARTNERSHIP MANAGEMENT
Quality Assurance Handbook, Appendix PSP7 and P11 (January 2015)
page 11
C.3. University
Liaison and
reports
C.3.1. Link Tutor
(LT)
The quality of LT reports, and
evidence of effective liaison
and action on identified issues
C.3.2. External
Examiner
The quality of an External
Examiner’s reports, and
evidence of effective liaison
and action on identified issues
C.4. Financial
Regular and open communications between a Centre, the University, its staff and the relevant
External Examiners are essential to the effective management of risk. High quality (informative,
thorough) reports are essential if the University is to be furnished with the evidence necessary
to manage its responsibilities. Persistently poor quality reports may be indicate that the
management of the partnership is at risk.
The Centre’s compliance with
the University’s financial
requirements
A centre’s failure to meet its financial obligations to the University indicates that the
partnership is at risk.
The control (by the
Centre/University) of student
numbers and admissions; the
quality of student and public
information
The Centre’s admission of students in excess of agreed numbers will present a significant risk to
learning opportunities, and may be an indicator that the management of the partnership is at
risk. Poor quality student information potentially places the management of the partnership at
risk.
C.6. General communications & liaison
The quality and frequency of
communications between the
University and the Centre
Infrequent and inaccurate communications indicate that the management of the partnership is
at risk, with consequent risks to the quality and standards of programmes. Responsibility for
these risks may lie with either the University or the Centre, or with both.
C.7. Other partnerships
The Centre’s partnerships
with other agencies and
institutions
By maintaining multiple partnerships, a Centre may be risking its ability to meet the specific
requirements of the University. This may also be an indicator of the Centre’s commitment to
the partnership.
The agreement (MoA)
between the University and
the Centre
The partnership, provision and students are placed at serious risk if it is not supported by a
current contract. A judgement should be made on the security of the contract and the
appropriateness of its terms.
Linked with B.1.6
C.5. Students and public information
Linked with B.6.1 and B.8
Linked with B.1.2, B.2.3 and B.9
C.8. Contract
Linked with B.1.8
Quality Assurance Handbook, Appendix PSP7 and P11 (January 2015)
page 12
D. MANAGING DEPARTMENT
D.1. Subject fit
D.2. Competence
The relationship (if any)
between the Centre’s and the
Department’s provision
D.2.1. Capacity
The capacity of the
Department to manage the
partnership
Careful consideration must be given to these items. A high level of risk would be associated
with a partnership that was in a subject area that does not match the managing department’s
provision/subject expertise, and/or where the department responsible for the management of
the partnership lacks the capacity or experience to do so.
Careful consideration must be given to these items. A high level of risk would be associated
with a partnership that was in a subject area that does not match the managing department’s
provision/subject expertise, and/or where the department responsible for the management of
the partnership lacks the capacity or experience to do so.
D.2.2. Capability
The Department’s experience
of managing collaborative
provision
D.2.3.
Commitment
The Department’s
commitment to the
partnership
The risks to the partnership would be unacceptably high if the Department(s) were not
committed to the management and support of the partnership.
The Department’s rationale
for seeking and maintaining a
partnership with the Centre
Risks will arise if the commercial rationale for the partnership is not accompanied by a
sufficiently strong academic rationale.
D.3. Rationale for partnership with the
University of Greenwich
Quality Assurance Handbook, Appendix PSP7 and P11 (January 2015)
Where there is a potential for synergy with other partnerships (e.g. links between the partner
and other Faculties or Departments), the potential for positive outcomes will be higher;
equally, there will be a high level of negative risk if a partnership presents a potential conflict of
interest for the managing department(s).
page 13