Collaborative Provision
(1)
Last Updated: May 2015
COLLABORATIVE PROVISION – INITIAL REVIEW
This form is intended to provide an early-stage risk assessment and due diligence process
for new collaborative provision. It is to be completed by the Proposer, supported by the
Franchise & Collaborations Officer, after initial contact and if intending to proceed with the
collaboration. It should be signed by the Proposer and sent to the Academic Office, for
consideration by the Chairs of the Enterprise and Development Committee and Curriculum
Strategy Committee.
Title of proposed programme or intended collaboration:
……………………………………………….…………….…………….…………….…………….
Department: ………………………………………………………….…………….……
Proposer: …………………………………………………………………….…………….………
Proposed partner(s): …………………………………………………………………….………
BACKGROUND
1. Where did this proposal emerge from? (e.g. did potential partner approach UoR?)
2. What is the intended nature, length and structure of the programme/arrangement?
3. Has the potential partner previously worked on collaborative provision in HE? If so, what
are their stated reasons for leaving their current/former arrangements?
LEGAL
4. What is the proposed start date? Is there time to fulfil all of the legal requirements (e.g.
such as a signed Memorandum of Agreement, accreditation with their Government by
collaborating institutions)?
5. Can the partner institution confirm in writing that they are legally able to enter into the
proposed collaboration? (e.g. for a joint degree, has proposed partner given assurances
that they have the legal and regulatory capacity to grant academic awards jointly with
other organisations within their legal jurisdiction?)
GENERAL
6. Why should the Department / University take part in this proposed collaboration? What is
the added value of the collaboration: academic, professional, organisational, regional,
linguistic, financial or others?
Page 1 of 3
Recruitment and International Development
7. Does this proposal fit with the University Strategy and Department plan?
8. Does the proposal include the delivery of credit bearing programmes, non-credit bearing
courses or other (please describe)?
9. What is the rationale for the programme(s)? What connection is there between the
programme and other programmes offered by the Department / University / Partner(s)?
10. Which of UoR and the proposed partner is nominated as the lead institution?
11. What reasons were primarily responsible for the selection of partners in the programme:
academic, professional, organisational, regional, linguistic, financial or others?
12. Is this a joint, double / multiple or a single Roehampton award? Is it credit bearing?
13. Does the proposed level of this collaboration fit with the QAA Framework for Higher
Education Qualifications?
14. What will be the language policy? Is there delivery in a language other than English?
FINANCE AND RECRUITMENT
15. What evidence can the partner provide that there is a market for this collaboration?
16. Are there visa issues to consider?
17. What will be the proposed fee and approximate student numbers? Has price been
discussed with the proposed partner? Is there a possible fee problem with partners (e.g.
are they able to charge fees or is there a cap on what can be charged)?
RISK ASSESSMENT SCORE
18. Using the scoring system below, provide the overall score and rating for the proposal.
Proposer ………………………………………….…………………….…………………………….
Date ………………………………………..…………………….…………………….………………
Deputy Provost (Claire Ozanne)...…………………….…………………….……………….………
Date ………………………………………..…………………….…………………….………………
Once completed and signed, this form should be submitted by the Proposer to the
secretary of the Curriculum Strategy Committee, to be presented at the next
available meeting.
Page 2 of 3
Recruitment and International Development
COLLABORATIVE PROVISION – RISK ASSESSMENT TOOL
Student Language *
UK or overseas; English first language
UK based; English second language
Overseas; English second language
Cultural and educational context
UK
Commonwealth
European
Other
Partner’s Status
University/Polytechnic, PG + UG
Polytechnic, UG only
Publicly funded FE college (UK only)
Private College / organisation
Partner’s strength
Large, well-resourced
Small, well-resourced
Any size with limited resources
Role of Partner
Awarding body
Delivery of franchised programme
Delivery of validated programme
Partner’s expertise in this field
Programmes at this level
Programmes at lower level
No experience in this field
Partner’s previous collaboration with UK HEIs
At this level
At lower level
None
Host school’s experience of collaboration
Overseas and local
Local
None
Programme
Existing delivery at another institution
Delivered at University only
New programme
Franchise
Credit level
Level HE0
Level HE1, HE2
Level HE3, M, D
Type of Programme
Sub degree
Single
Dual
Multiple
Joint
1
2
3
0
1
2
3
1
2
3
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
3
1
2
3
1
1
2
3
3
Notes
 1 = low risk; 2 = medium risk; 3 = high risk
 Scores; 11 to 18 low risk, 19 to 26 medium risk, 27 to 33 high risk
 * = Medium of instruction must be English unless approved by CSC to be otherwise. In
this case the proposal is automatically a high-risk venture.
Page 3 of 3
Recruitment and International Development