International Partnership Projects

Dr Brendan Barker, Manager International Development

Susanne Wilson, International Partnerships Coordinator

25/04/2014

What kind of Business School?• A Business School rooted in our community, with

global reach • Graduates equipped with the attributes and

attitudes to contribute significantly to future global economies – ‘Changemakers’

• Internationally recognised teaching, research and knowledge exchange

• Financially sustainable

Importance of International Partnerships

• Financial benefit in income generation, global marketability and recruitment

• Enhancement of academic reputation – cooperative education and research programmes

• Development of global reach and academic influence

• Benchmarking and sharing of knowledge and experience

Benefits to Northampton

• the new business we bring them

• the reputation of a University of Northampton qualification (backed by UK QA framework), and

• our help in developing teaching and assessment methods and quality assurance processes.

Benefits to our Partners

Students taking our courses overseas benefit by:

• saving money

• avoiding the vagaries of UK immigration policy, and

• gaining a University of Northampton qualification while studying part-time and remaining in employment.

Benefits to Students

Single Honours/

Joint Degree

3 years full time or 4 years

Sandwich

HND 2 years

top up to Honours Degree (JD)

Post Graduate Studies

LocalDiploma

top up to Honours

DegreeAdvanced

Entryto UG

Course

Top-Up

Local Degree

Post Graduate Studies (DL/SDL)

EntryTo PG Course

UoN/Local Degree(Joint

Delivery)

Post Graduate Studies (Joint

Delivery)

Progression RoutesPartner

UoN

• online delivery • use of ‘flying faculty’ and local support to provide

‘Supported Distance Learning’ programmes• delivery of UoN programme in partnership (‘Joint

Delivery’), or • delivery of UoN programme completely by partner

(‘Franchise’)

Also:

• articulation arrangements with partner institutions giving their students advanced entry to the second and third year of our courses, and

• Joint and dual degrees

Modes of Overseas Delivery

NBS International Recruitment

Rest of the World

Nigeria

China

Vietnam

India

International Partnerships

MOUTNE

New Opportunities

Expanding into new international markets built upon:

1. Agreeing why and how we seek to enter new markets – and what will constitute success (NBS focus)

2. Deciding what countries to enter – and in what order (geographical focus)

3. Identifying and prioritising potential partners (partner focus)

Building International Partnerships

• Developing an international partnership requires significant investment of time and resources

• Delivering our programmes overseas in partnership also carries risks in terms of finance, academic quality, reputation management and cultural and political sensitivities

• These must all be managed appropriately and in accordance with QAA guidelines

• Emphasises the importance of choosing the right partners through a proactive and strategic approach

International Partnerships

Risk

Scale

Joint DeliverySupported

Distance Learning

Franchise

Validation

Modes of Delivery

OnlineLearning

NBS Partnership Model

Online Learnin

g

Supported

Distance

Learning

Joint Deliver

y

Franchise

Validation

Support for local capacity development

Increasing Risk

Robust QA systems

QAA Guidance

• Management of International Partnerships needs to be compliant with QAA guidance

• Specifically ‘Managing Higher Education with others’ (Chapter B10) of the Quality Code, published in December 2012

• Used in QAA reviews from January 2014• Involved changes to the way we define and manage

partnerships

QAA ‘Expectation’

“Degree-awarding bodies take ultimate responsibility for academic standards and the quality of learning opportunities irrespective of where these are delivered or who provides them. Arrangements for delivering learning opportunities with organisations other than the degree-awarding body are implemented securely and managed effectively.”

Approval Process

Expression of Interest

Agree Scope of Partnership

Initial due diligenceRisk assessment & business case

School Approval

Development Approval Form (DAF)

University Approval

Detailed due diligenceRisk assessment & business case

(Risk Assessment and Approval Panel)

(Quality, Standards andEnhancementCommittee)

Revised DAF

Partnership Agreement

AnnualReview

Programme Leader

Partnership Manager

End of Agreement Review

Renewal of Agreement

Revision of Agreement

Possible MOU

PartnerApprovalProcess

UET

• The proposed collaborative partnership should comply with the University’s strategy and priorities

• Specifically, the partner must be working to benefit the society of which it is a part, and the University must be able to add to that benefit, through its involvement in the collaboration

• The partnership should enhance the University’s reputation at home and overseas

• The partner must demonstrate financial and managerial stability which will be independently assessed

Criteria for Choosing Partners

• Commercial partnerships where the primary driver is income generation should aspire to achieve a minimum gross income of £100,000 per year after 3 years, and a net contribution of at least 25% (if delivery, for example, is predominantly off-site)

• Partnerships activity should not compete directly with UoN’s own or existing partners provision

• The partnership should meet the University’s quality assurance arrangements and enhance the quality of students’ learning opportunities

• The partner programmes should contribute to direct progression to University programmes wherever possible

Criteria for Choosing Partnerscontinued ….

In addition, international collaborative partnerships should:

• Be with state-recognised higher education institutions (private or government owned), professional bodies or incorporated companies

• Demonstrate an international outlook/mission• Have a high quality profile of their own account• Demonstrate a culture of staff and/or student mobility• Provide evidence of previous work with international

organisations• Provide evidence of good relations with relevant local

industry and or government.

Criteria for Choosing Partnerscontinued ….

• Build trust – essential to creating relationships.• Establish ‘relationships’ before ‘partnerships’.• Ensure the relationship will be mutually beneficial, that

there is reciprocity, and make obvious that the University is in it for the long term.

• Sustained contact, communication and follow-up are critical.

Key Factors in Building Partnerships

• Demonstrate the quality of what we can offer. • Maximise our presence in country – build lecture or

seminar opportunities into our visits.• Benefit from the knowledge, experience and contacts

of in-country alumni – can be key to opening doors, particularly with government ministries.

Key Factors in Building Partnerships continued …

• Partnership Manager for each partner• Meetings with partner staff• Partner Reporting Form (new for 2014)• Partnership Manager Report• External Examiner• Award board attendance• Annual QA visit• Student representation

Maintaining Partnerships: QA Mechanisms

Maintaining Partnerships: Management

• Programme Leader – takes lead in communication, publicity and promotional activity, approvals and operationalisation, admissions and & enrolment, learning and teaching, assessment, staffing and staff development, and monitoring & review – for individual programmes

• Partnership Manager – Co-ordinates delivery across the organisation/partner & produces annual report confirming the collaborative relationship is considered appropriately through annual review

15/07/13 International Partnership Projects

Written and presented by Dr Brendan Barker and

Susanne Wilson

Developing a relationshipDevelopment, Approval and Implementation Processes for New Delivery Organisations/Partners and Programme Collaboratrions

Stage 4 Stage 5 Stage 6 Stage 7

Pha

se 2

: In

stitu

tiona

l App

rova

l / P

rog

ram

me

Co

llabo

ratio

n A

ppro

val

Institutional Approval Mechanism, including Level 3

Due Diligence

Programme Collaboration Approval Event, including Level 4 Due

Diligence

Type of Delivery Organisation /

Partner

Existing

New

Operationalising Delivery

Monitoring and Review

Implementation of the Operational Handbook· Staff training· Publicity· Admissions· Enrolment· Teaching Schedule· Assessments· Others as relevant

Revised Collaborative Arrangements Handbook (Education With Others Handbook) to provide more guidance (see paper on roles for Programme Leader and Partnership Manager)

Withdraw

Annual Consideration

Is the collaboration

viable?

Yes

No

• Indicator 1: A strategic approach to delivering learning opportunities with others is adopted. Appropriate levels of resources (including staff) are committed to the activities to ensure that the necessary oversight is sustained.

• Indicator 2: Governance arrangements at appropriate levels are in place for all learning opportunities which are not directly provided by the degree-awarding body. Arrangements for learning to be delivered, or support to be provided, are developed, agreed and managed in accordance with the formally stated policies and procedures of the degree-awarding body.

• Indicator 3: Policies and procedures ensure that there are adequate safeguards against financial impropriety or conflicts of interest that might compromise academic standards or the quality of learning opportunities. Consideration of the business case is conducted separately from approval of the academic proposal.

• Indicator 4: Degree-awarding bodies that engage with other authorised awarding bodies to provide a programme of study leading to a joint academic award satisfy themselves that they have the legal capacity to do so.

QAA Indicators of Sound Practice

• 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 diligence 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.

• Indicator 7: There is a written and legally binding agreement, or other document, setting out the rights and obligations of the parties, which is regularly monitored and reviewed. It is signed by the authorised representatives of the degree-awarding body (or higher education provider without degree-awarding powers arranging provision by a third party) and by the delivery organisation, support provider or partner(s) before the relevant activity commences.

• Indicator 8: Degree-awarding bodies take responsibility for ensuring that they retain proper control of the academic standards of awards where learning opportunities are delivered with others. No serial arrangements are undertaken without the express written permission of the degree-awarding body which retains oversight of what is being done in its name.

Indicator 9: Degree-awarding bodies retain responsibility for ensuring that students admitted to a programme who wish to complete it under their awarding authority can do so in the event that a delivery organisation or support provider or partner withdraws from an arrangement or that the degree-awarding body decides to terminate an arrangement.Indicator 10: All higher education providers maintain records (by type and category) of all arrangements for delivering learning opportunities with others that are subject to aformal agreement.Indicator 11: Degree-awarding bodies are responsible for the academic standards of all credit and qualifications granted in their name. This responsibility is never delegated.Therefore, degree-awarding bodies ensure that the standards of any of their awardsinvolving learning opportunities delivered by others are equivalent to the standards setfor other awards that they confer at the same level. They are also consistent with UKnational requirements.Indicator 12: When making arrangements to deliver a programme with others, degree-awarding bodies fulfil the requirements of any professional, statutory and regulatory body (PSRB) that has approved or recognised the programme or award, in relation to aspects of its delivery and any associated formal agreements. The status of the programme or award in respect of PSRB recognition is made clear to prospective students.

• Indicator 13: Degree-awarding bodies approve module(s) and programmes delivered through an arrangement with another delivery organisation, support provider or partner through processes that are at least as rigorous, secure and open to scrutiny as those for assuring quality and academic standards for programmes directly provided by the degree-awarding body.

• Indicator 14: Degree-awarding bodies clarify which organisation is responsible for admitting and registering a student to modules or programmes delivered with others, and ensure that admissions are consistent with their own admissions policies.

• Indicator 15: Degree-awarding bodies ensure that delivery organisations involved in the assessment of students understand and follow the assessment requirements approved by the degree-awarding body for the components or programmes being assessed in order to maintain its academic standards. In the case of joint, dual/double and multiple awards or for study abroad and student exchanges, degree-awarding bodies agree with their partners on the division of assessment responsibilities and the assessment regulations and requirements which apply.

• Indicator 16: Degree-awarding bodies retain ultimate responsibility for the appointment, briefing and functions of external examiners. The external examining procedures for awards where learning opportunities are delivered with others are consistent with the degree awarding body's approved practices.

• Indicator 17: Degree-awarding bodies ensure that modules and programmes offered through other delivery organisations, support providers or partners are monitored and reviewed through procedures that are consistent with, or comparable to, those used for modules or programmes provided directly by them.

• Indicator 18: Degree-awarding bodies ensure that they have effective control over the accuracy of all public information, publicity and promotional activity relating to learning opportunities delivered with others which lead to their awards. Information is produced for prospective and current students which is fit for purpose, accessible and trustworthy. Delivery organisations or support providers are provided with all information necessary for the effective delivery of the learning or support.

• Indicator 19: When degree-awarding bodies make arrangements for the delivery of learning opportunities with others, they ensure that they retain authority for awarding certificates and issuing detailed records of study in relation to student achievement. The certificate and/or record of academic achievement states the principal language of instruction and/or assessment where this is not English. Subject to any overriding statutory or other legal provision in any relevant jurisdiction, the certificate and/or the record of achievement records the name and location of any other higher education provider involved in the delivery of the programme of study. Where information relating to the language of study or to the name and location of the delivery organisation or partner is recorded on the record of achievement only, the certificate refers to the existence of this formal record.