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
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
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.
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 notfor-profit) 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.
B. CENTRE
B.1
Organisation
B.1.1. Sector
Linked with B.1.2,
B.1.4 and B.1.5.
Quality Assurance Handbook, Appendix PSP7 and P11 (January 2015)
page 2
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
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
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.
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.
Quality Assurance Handbook, Appendix PSP7 and P11 (January 2015)
page 3
B.1.7.
The Centre’s (and its
Culture/character parent company’s) mission,
values etc.
Linked with
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 open-ended academic enquiry and debate?
A.4.1-2.
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
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
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.
Linked with C.7
Quality Assurance Handbook, Appendix PSP7 and P11 (January 2015)
page 4
B.3.
Programmes
B.4. Academic
practice
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 The design of programmes
and the subject areas in
curricula
Linked with B.1.2 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.
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 5
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.
Linked with A.2.2,
B.4.3 and C.5
Quality Assurance Handbook, Appendix PSP7 and P11 (January 2015)
page 6
B.6.4. Appeals,
complaints and
academic
misconduct
Linked with A.4.2
B.6.5. Student
feedback and
engagement
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
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.
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).
Quality Assurance Handbook, Appendix PSP7 and P11 (January 2015)
Particular attention should be given to the local management and administration of
assessment processes.
page 7
C. PARTNERSHIP MANAGEMENT
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
self-management and its commitment to the maintenance of quality and standards.
C.3. University
Liaison and
reports
The quality of LT reports,
and evidence of effective
liaison and action on
identified issues
C.3.1. Link Tutor
(LT)
C.3.2. External
Examiner
C.4. Financial
Linked with B.1.6
The quality of an External
Examiner’s reports, and
evidence of effective
liaison and action on
identified issues
The Centre’s compliance
with the University’s
financial requirements
Quality Assurance Handbook, Appendix PSP7 and P11 (January 2015)
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.
A centre’s failure to meet its financial obligations to the University indicates that the
partnership is at risk.
page 8
C.5. Students and public information The control (by the
Centre/University) of
Linked with B.6.1 and B.8
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 (e.g. 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.
The relationship (if any)
between the Centre’s and
the Department’s provision
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.
Linked with B.1.2, B.2.3 and B.9
C.8. Contract
Linked with B.1.8
D. MANAGING DEPARTMENT
D.1. Subject fit
Quality Assurance Handbook, Appendix PSP7 and P11 (January 2015)
page 9
D.2.
Competence
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.
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 10