S ECTION C - P ERIODIC R EVIEW
As with Annual Review it is important to distinguish between Periodic Review of a programme and Periodic Review of a partnership. Periodic Review of a partnership considers whether the partner is equipped to deliver programmes, which are themselves in validation, to an appropriate quality and standard, but also looks at the strategic development of the partnership.
1. Annual Due Diligence Review
Each year, prior to the issue of a new financial annexe, the International
Office (MAR) asks the partner to sign an annual declaration confirming whether there are any changes to their legal status, liabilities or changes of circumstance. Any changes in this regard would be passed to Legal,
Governance and Business Assurance for review and comment. Any concerns would be referred to the Due Diligence Panel.
The partner is also asked to submit their most recent published accounts which are then sent to Finance and Planning for review and comment. Any concerns or issues are referred to Due Diligence Panel.
The process only relates to TNE and private UK partners.
2. Periodic Review of the Programme
Validation Model (formerly Model A): These programmes are subject to a Periodic
Review every 6 years following the approved procedure. This will take place at the partner organisation. Where applicable more than one Validation Model programme may be reviewed together. Partner organisations will be responsible for providing the documentation required.
All other models: Periodic Review is undertaken every 6 years at Sunderland, following the approved procedure to ensure that each programme remains current.
Annual monitoring reports are considered as part of this process.
3. Periodic Review of the Partnership
A full review of the partnership must be undertaken every 6 years by a centrallymanaged panel to ensure that the partner is able to deliver the programme appropriately and to explore the further development of the partnership. It should be initiated 12 months before the Collaborative Provision Agreement (CPA) is due to expire and scheduled so that immediate recommendations can be addressed before the new Collaborative Provision Agreement (CPA) is issued. If serious problems are identified the University reserves the right to issue an agreement for fewer than 6 years, either to allow for recommendations to be addressed and checked, if necessary by another review, or to provide solely for teach-out and termination of the partnership.
The review will have four stages:
Документ1, v9 July 2015
Page 1 of 7

Stage 1: Due Diligence
The Due Diligence Panel (DDP) will consider any documentation which it deems necessary to fulfil its remit (cf AQH-I1-17) including:

annual financial reports for the previous year (more if needed);

the legal status of the partner and in particular any changes to the position. For
UK institutions this will be informed by data from Companies House where applicable;

the latest annual report or corporate plan or equivalent which describes the partner’s mission;
 a report on the partner’s track-record of payment to the University.
For overseas partnerships AQH-I1-19 In-Country requirements and market information for TNE partnerships must also be submitted with relevant supporting documentation by the Head of Quality, Academic Services
If this is satisfactory the process will proceed to Stage 2. If it is not, a decision may be made that the partnership be terminated.
Stage 2: UK-based review of documentation
The review panel will consist of:

a senior member of academic staff (if possible, from a Faculty not involved in the partnership) (Chair);

an external advisor (see AQH-I1-3);

a representative of Academic Services (Secretary to the review team).
In attendance as a subject adviser (see AQH-I1-3a);
 a representative of each of the Faculties involved
Other colleagues, including members of Marketing and Recruitment Services (MAR) and Student and Learning Support (SLS), may be co-opted as required for the UKbased element of the review and/or all or part of the overseas visit.
The role of the panel will be to explore:

the appropriateness of continuing with the specific collaboration - the subject area(s), programme(s), level(s) of the provision and model(s) of collaboration;

the quality and standards issues around the proposed collaboration taking into account the model of collaboration proposed and hence the level of risk – the greater the delegation to the partner the higher the risk.
The review panel will consider documentation as follows: a) documentation provided by the partner:
 the partner’s teaching and learning strategy or equivalent;

evidence of student feedback for the past year and evidence of actions taken;

information given to students (e.g. handbooks);

update on learning resources including development plans;

report on the development of staff teaching on the programme(s) over the past
3 years, and forward plans;

disciplinary processes for student infringement of assessment rules;

processes for the security of examination papers and scripts;

accreditation reports received during the last 6 years, including (for UK partners) Quality Assurance Agency (QAA), British Accreditation Council (BAC),
OfSted; b) documentation provided by the University:
Документ1, v9 July 2015
Page 2 of 7


the most recent visit report from each Centre Leader 1 ;

the collated faculty annual monitoring reports for the centre, as presented to
Quality Management Sub Committee (QMSC), for the previous 2 years 3

a report on any issues arising for the partnership in respect of central
; management of recruitment, marketing and admissions. If there are no issues a nil return should be made 2 ;

a report on any issues arising for the partnership in respect of quality management and academic development. If there are no issues a nil return should be made 3 ;

a report on any issues arising for the partnership in respect of provision of central learning resources, especially library and WebCT provision, and student support. If there are no issues a nil return should be made 4 ;
1 provided by the Faculty(ies)
2 provided by Marketing and Recruitment (MAR)
3 provided by Academic Services
4 provided by SLS
Other documentation will be requested if required and the panel may meet with colleagues to discuss their reports.
The outcome of Stage 2 will be: a) a risk analysis using the format in AQH-I1-2; b) agreement as to the composition of the site visit team, to cover the key areas to be explored. This includes a decision as to which members of the desk-based review panel will be involved, whether other colleagues (eg from Marketing and
Recruitment (MAR) or Student and learning Support (SLS) will be required and
(where applicable) which sites are to be visited. As a minimum the visit must include:

one senior academic from a Faculty, if possible not involved in the collaborative arrangement (Chair);

the external advisor (cf AQH-I1-3);

one member of Academic Services (Secretary to the panel); c) a list of further documentation to be made available if required; d) a schedule for the site visit including the names or roles of those with whom the panel is to meet.
In an extreme case Stage 2 may result in a recommendation to the Deputy Vice
Chancellor (DVC) (Academic) that a site visit should not go ahead and that the partnership must be terminated. In this case a smaller team should to make arrangements for teach-out, visiting the partner if required.
Under no circumstances may a recommendation be made to renew the Agreement without a site visit, however strong the partnership appears to be.
Stage 3: approval visit
The review team will explore the issues raised by the desk-based analysis. Where there is more than one delivery site, if any site(s) are not to be visited all sites must be represented at the meetings with staff and students. The visit will include:

a meeting with senior staff in the partner organisation which will include discussion of the prospects for developing the partnership, student numbers and future financial arrangements;
Документ1, v9 July 2015
Page 3 of 7

discussion of management structures and of the way in which communication operates with Sunderland at each level.

one or more meetings with academic staff including all programme leaders and a representative group of teaching staff;

one or more meetings with students on the programme(s);

review of student support including learning resources.
The outcomes of the site-visit will be:

a summative decision on the continuation of the partnership in general;
 summative decision(s) on the partner’s suitability to continue to offer each programme currently within the partnership and at what model of collaboration;
 where applicable, summative decisions on the partner’s suitability to offer any new programme(s) proposed for the partnership and at what model of collaboration;

an updated risk analysis;

a formal report summarising discussions held and documentation reviewed and including recommendations and identification of good practice. The recommendations may be to the partner and/or to the University and must identify any to be addressed before the Agreement is issued;

where applicable, recommendations for the extension of the partnership subject to the usual processes;

where applicable, any recommendations relating to teach-out of provision to be terminated.
The report may include recommendations for issues to be addressed by one or more of:

the partner

the Faculty(ies) at Sunderland

central service(s) at Sunderland.
These should be divided into:

requirements, which must be met before the Agreement can be renewed:

recommendations, which must be addressed within a specified timescale, normally within the first year of operation of the new Agreement.
The commendations, requirements and recommendations will be drafted first for approval by the Deputy Vice Chancellor (DVC) (Academic). If serious issues have arisen which give the Faculty cause to reconsider its involvement in the partnership this must be discussed as a matter of urgency. The Deputy Vice Chancellor (DVC) will consult colleagues as appropriate about any decision not to continue with a partnership and will take a final decision on behalf of Academic Board. The process must be completed within three weeks. At this point the commendations, requirements and recommendations will normally be sent to the partner by Academic Services. The
Deputy Vice Chancellor (DVC) will decide who is best placed to communicate to a partner a decision not to proceed with the partnership.
The full report will be progressed during the three-week period and forwarded to the
Faculty and the partner as soon as possible. If a partner believes that there are factual inaccuracies in the report they will be asked to make that clear at that stage.
An up-dated business plan for the partnership must be drawn up in consultation between the Dean(s) or Associate Dean(s) (AD) of the faculty(ies) concerned and
Planning and Finance. It requires approval from the Deputy Vice Chancellor (DVC)
(Resources). The Faculty Associate Dean (AD) is responsible for ensuring that this happens and for reporting to the Review Panel that a plan has been agreed by all parties.
Документ1, v9 July 2015
Page 4 of 7

Stage 4: Recommendation and Follow-up
The report and evidence that the requirements have been met will be considered by the Deputy Vice Chancellor (DVC) (Academic) on behalf of Academic Board who will decide whether to continue with the partnership. The Head of Quality in Academic
Services will be responsible for following up any requirements which must be met before the partnership continues. The evidence that requirements have been met must be presented to the Deputy Vice Chancellor (DVC) with the report. The Deputy Vice
Chancellor (DVC) (Academic) will be responsible for ensuring that the Deptuy Vice
Chancellor (DVC) (Resources) has approved the business plan and will not give approval to renew the collaboration until the business plan has been approved. The outcome will be reported to Academic Development Committee (ADC).
Conditional approval or ‘approval subject to…’ may not be given. Either approval is given, even if recommendations will be addressed over the next year or so, or it is not, because the issues are too serious for the partnership to go ahead until the recommendations have been addressed. Any alternative terminology simply causes confusion.
If the approval decision is positive Marketing and Recruitment (MAR) and Academic
Services will work together to finalise the annexes and issue the Agreement. If the decision is negative, teach-out arrangements will be specified by the relevant
Faculty(ies) and an agreement issued to cover the period involved.
Marketing and Recruitment (MAR) will inform the faculty(ies) concerned when the
Agreement has been signed so that recruitment can continue.
Quality Management Sub Committee (QMSC) will be responsible for ensuring that all recommendations are followed through and signed off and for reporting to Academic
Development Committee (ADC) and Academic Board on this.
Документ1, v9 July 2015
Page 5 of 7

Документ1, v9 July 2015
Page 6 of 7

Version 9.0 July 2015
Version Occasion of
Change
1.0 Original placed in
Academic Quality
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
Handbook
Implementation of the University’s new collaborative processes for
September 2009
Operational review
July 2010
DVC(Academic) chairs Academic
Development
Committee
Updating
Change author
S Sutcliffe
M Young
B
Ollerenshaw
B
Ollerenshaw
Date of modification
September 2008
August 2009
September 2010
January 2011
S Robertson August 2011
Modifications made
Updated document number and clarified the process
Options in final sections updated
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
Review
Correction
Annual review of
Academic Quality
Handbook
Enhancement to process
B
Ollerenshaw
B
Ollerenshaw
A Carlton
J Greenlees
November 2011
December 2011
August 2013
July 2015
Amend SRBP to
MAR
Further updates re structure changes
Periodic Review:
Stage 2 – Faculty
Rep is an adviser not a full member of the panel
Clarification of acronyms
Addition of process for MAR to provide info on in-country requirements and marketing info
Academic
Experience
Committee replaced by Academic
Development
Committee
Collaborative
Provision Manager replaced by Head of
Quality
Документ1, v9 July 2015
Page 7 of 7