Teaching Learning and Quality Committee
25.11.13
Enclosure D
PLYMOUTH UNIVERSITY
TEACHING, LEARNING AND QUALITY COMMITTEE
PARTNER PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
QAA Quality Code Chapter B10 (“Managing HE provision with others”) includes the following Indicators:
Indicator 5
The risks of each arrangement to deliver learning opportunities with others are assessed at the outset and
reviewed subsequently on a periodic basis. Appropriate and proportionate safeguards to manage the risks
of the various arrangements are determined and put in place.
Indicator 6
Appropriate and proportionate due diligence1 procedures are determined for each proposed arrangement for
delivering learning opportunities with an organisation other than the degree-awarding body. They are
conducted periodically to check the capacity of the other organisation to continue to fulfil its designated role
in the arrangement.
The University uses the following means to assess the suitability of collaborative arrangements and to
establish and monitor appropriate quality assurance arrangements for each:








Defined planning and approval processes
ADC consideration of proposals for new institutional partners and programmes
Institutional level approval event for approval of new partners (and normally for new programmes
within the context of an existing partnership).
Academic Cooperation Agreement (for the partnership as a whole; these may incorporate specific
arrangements for specific programmes)
External Examiners’ reports (at subject and award level). AP receives those which relate to provision
which it manages, but not that managed by individual Faculties.
Annual Programme monitoring (for programmes managed via AP)/Annual Review (by Faculty for
those which are managed via the Faculty – AP does not have a formal role in this). This process will
include consideration of the outcomes of student satisfaction surveys.
Periodic Review of subject provision within each institutional partnership for partnerships managed
by AP. AP is represented on the Review Panel.
Periodic review of subject provision in the University, encompassing partnership arrangements not
managed by AP. AP does not have a formal role in this process, though College staff will attend
events as part of the subject team).
The QAA Code makes clear that the university must take steps to assure itself of the ongoing
governance, ethos, status, capacity, reputation and general suitability of a potential delivery
organisation. The QAA Code requires regular, periodic risk assessment and due diligence checks to be
1
(QAA defines “due diligence” as “Enquiries relating to the governance, ethos, status, capacity, reputation
and general suitability of a potential delivery organisation or support provider to satisfy the requirements of
a degree-awarding body for an arrangement to deliver learning opportunities.”)
1
Academic Partnerships
October 2013
Teaching Learning and Quality Committee
25.11.13
Enclosure D
carried out so as to enable the University to have an up to date picture of each partner’s ongoing
suitability to offer an appropriate student experience.
In order to address this responsibility, a regular partner performance evaluation (PPE) will be carried out,
normally in the same year as institutional periodic review. The timing of the PPE may be varied if it is
deemed necessary by the University.
Currently, University academic partnership activity is managed either through Academic Partnerships (AP)
or through individual Faculties. In some cases, the same partner may operate both types of arrangement
– some programmes may be managed via AP with others managed by the cognate university Faculty.
However, the QAA will make no distinction between these two arrangements in its assessment of whether
or not the University is complying with the Quality Code. It is therefore recommended to the University
Teaching, Learning and Quality Committee that a process parallel to that outlined below is adopted for
those partnerships which are managed by Faculties, with a report from that Faculty being made to AP
Board.
The quantitative and qualitative information used to enable the University to assess the ongoing suitability
of a partner via PPE will include the following:












Institutional Action Plan/HE strategy
Financial status of partner
An appraisal of the financial health of the partnership from the University’s perspective
Information drawn from the Academic Partnerships risk register
Recent changes in partner management structure, physical resources (e.g. new campus)
Compliance/engagement with the terms of the Academic Collaboration Agreement
Outcome of reviews by external bodies (e.g. OFSTED), as appropriate, which may give an
indication of general health of the institution
Number of appeals and complaints notified to University from partner institution students
Student survey outcomes
Issues raised by external examiners relating to management/resourcing at an institutional level
Issues identified via Joint Boards of Study
Issues raised via APM/AR/PR or via Programme Committees in Faculties
Quantitative data will be drawn together in a “dashboard” and augmented by appropriate qualitative
data. The full information set will be scrutinised in the first instance by the Academic Partnerships
Senior Management Team (SMT) or relevant Faculty executive group. Where necessary, SMT/Faculty
will undertake further investigation of any issues which are of concern. Following this scrutiny,
SMT/Faculty will provide a report for discussion and agreement by Academic Partnerships Board which
indicates:





An overall assessment of the health of the partner from the University’s perspective
(satisfactory/not satisfactory)
Areas of exemplary practice which can be shared with colleagues in the University and across the
partnership network.
Areas of concern requiring rectification by the partner (see below)
Opportunities for further development (e.g. potential new programmes).
Any issues requiring action by the University.
2
Academic Partnerships
October 2013
Teaching Learning and Quality Committee
25.11.13
Enclosure D
Should any issues of concern be identified, the partner will be required to update its current institutional
action plan, showing how the issues will be remedied. This must then be considered and approved by the
Academic Partnerships Board (liaising, if required, with the Faculty) and reported to the University’s
Teaching, Learning and Quality Committee. Monitoring of the Action Plan will be carried out by the
Academic Partnerships Board, with Teaching, Learning and Quality Committee being informed of progress.
Should the partner not address the concerns to the University's satisfaction, the University reserves the right
to invoke the stipulations of the Academic Cooperation Agreement related to actions in the event of serious
quality concerns.
TEACHING, LEARNING AND QUALITY COMMITTEE IS ASKED TO APPROVE THE ABOVE PROCEDURE WHICH
WAS AGREED BY THE ACADEMIC PARTNERSHIPS BOARD ON 11 OCTOBER 2013.
Pat Wilde
Head of Quality Operations
October 2013
3
Academic Partnerships
October 2013