The document outlines a workshop led by Wendy Muir focused on reviewing university governance arrangements for collaborative academic programs. It highlights the need to assess current governance structures, which have not been reviewed since 2006, in light of significant changes in the university's collaborative portfolio and external factors. Participants are encouraged to reflect on their institutions' governance practices and share insights to enhance oversight and quality assurance in collaborative provisions.

1. Wendy Muir Head of Academic Collaborations Office
Reviewing University oversight/ governance arrangements for collaborative arrangements: a work in progress

2. Delegates will have the opportunity to:
•learn about the issues that need to be addressed by the review and the different governance approaches being considered
•share experience of governance arrangements operating within their own institutions
•reflect on the ‘fitness for purpose’ of those arrangements in the context of their own institution
Workshop Objectives

3. Workshop Structure
• Context
•Changes since 2006
oStructure
oStrategy, policies and guidance
oCollaborations + Partnerships
oExternal factors
•QAA Quality Code and Governance
•Governance + Responsibilities
•SWOT Analysis
•So what are we likely to do?
•Group Discussion

4. •Current governance structures for academic collaborations were agreed by Senate in 2006
•Significant changes since and the University’s portfolio of collaborative provision has increased and experience has grown
•Appropriate time to review the current structures for ongoing fitness for purpose and a streamlined approach
•University’s Reflective Analysis for ELIR 2014 highlighted the intention to conduct this review
Context

5. •Founded in 1451 – Fourth oldest in UK
•In the top 1% of universities in the world
•Russell Group institution
•88% of research is world leading or internationally excellent
•High levels of student satisfaction
•Collaborative arrangements –
oc 800 students on collaborative programmes (with c30 partners, mainly international)
oc 3000 students on validated programmes at 4 UK institutions

6. •Structures
•Strategy
•Collaborations & Partnership
•External factors
Significant changes since 2006

7. 2006
•9 Faculties
•60-70 departments 2010
•4 Colleges
•26 Schools/Research Institutes
•4 graduate schools 2014
•4 Colleges;
•27 Schools/RIs
•4 graduate schools
Structure

8. Glasgow 2020: a global vision
•Delivering excellent research
•Providing an excellent student experience
•Extending global reach & reputation
University Strategy (2010-2015)

9. Internationalisation Strategy
•Internationalisation Strategy (2010-2015)
•TNE Strategy (approved 2013)
•Academic Quality Framework
•Framework for Academic Collaborations
•Code of Practice for Validated Provision
Associated Strategies, Policies and Guidance

10. Learning + Teaching Collaborations
Recruitment Related
•Scholarships (Fee-Discount) (3+1+1)
•Student Exchange and Study Abroad
•Articulation: [2+2,1+3] Joint delivery
•Joint programme delivery (UoG degree)
•Jointly awarded degrees (Taught + Research)
•Double (Dual)/Multiple degrees (Taught + Research)
•Research Furth of Glasgow/Visiting Researcher Distance/Offshore Delivery - TNE (eg Singapore, China)
•Validation arrangements (UK only)
•Franchise arrangements (none – don’t do)
Academic Collaborations

11. External Factors
•Home Office Immigration and Visa Regulations
•QAA Quality Code, particularly Chapter B10 Managing Higher Education with Others
•HE capacity and demographics in key countries/regions
•‘UK HE’ as a brand and key export
•New fee regime
•Erasmus Mundus/ Erasmus+
•Funding for doctoral training centres and innovation centres

12. •Current governance structures for academic collaborations were agreed by Senate in 2006
•Significant changes since and the University’s portfolio of collaborative provision has increased and experience has grown
•Appropriate time to review the current structures for ongoing fitness for purpose and a streamlined approach
•University’s Reflective Analysis for ELIR 2014 highlighted the intention to conduct this review
Context

13. 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. Higher education providers:
•set out their framework for managing academic standards and quality assurance and enhancement and describe the data and information used to support its implementation
•maintain records (by type and category) of all collaborative activity that is subject to a formal agreement.
QAA Quality Code + Governance

14. Senate/Court
•Senate - responsible for regulating and superintending teaching and promoting research
•Court - responsible for the deployment of resources and the strategic plan
•Both - responsible for the well-being of students and for the reputation of the University
College
•Ensuring the academic standards and enhancement of the quality of the student experience for all programmes managed within the College, including academic collaborations .
•Promoting, developing and managing the development of strategic partnerships, including international developments
School/RI
•Ensuring the academic standards and enhancement of the quality of the student experience for all programmes offered by the School.
•Ensuring academic collaborations are managed effectively
Responsibilities
Levels of Responsibility

15. •Academic Performance + Student Experience
•Performance against business plan
•Operational Issues
•Risk Management
Components of Collaborative Provision

16. Component
Responsibility
Information Requirements
School/ RI
College
University
Academic Performance + Student Experience
From School and College L&T Committees all the way through to Senate
Performance against business plan
From School to College Management Groups to University MG for planning and budgeting
Operational Issues
Mainly within School but escalates to College + Uni level if necessary
Risk Management
Mainly within School but escalates to College + Uni level if necessary
Where does responsibility lie?

17. Quality Assurance + Enhancement – key processes
•QAA Enhancement Led Institutional Review
•Every 4-5 years. University Level
•Encompasses all provision, including collaborative
ELIR
•Subject Review - Every 6 years, peer review with external member
•Partnership Review – specific to collaboration
Periodic Review
•Annual monitoring; external examiner reports
•Joint Boards of Management for joint provision
•Year 1 review
Monitoring
•Feedback questionnaires
•Student representatives
•Staff Student Liaison Committees
Student Feedback
•Programme/course approval
•Partnership approval
Approval
Quality Assurance + Enhancement Processes

18. Senate
Education Policy & Strategy Committee
Academic Standards Committee
Collaborations group (approval)
College
School
Research Planning & Strategy Committee
College Management Group Collaborations Committee Head of College/International Lead Learning & Teaching Committee Graduate School Board
School/RI Management Group Learning & Teaching Committee Postgraduate Committee
Validation - Joint Board/ Liaison Committees
Academic Governance

19. Learning + Teaching Collaborations
Governance Models at Other Unis
No Specific Committee
•Dealt with by a Quality & Standards committee or Learning & Teaching Committee
•normal/ embedded with regular processes
•Emphasis on responsibility sitting at Faculty/School level
Hybrid
•Combination of approval at Senior Officer level (PVC) and monitoring through a Quality Assurance & Standards committee
• Approval of collaboration by a specific group; monitoring through standard committee processes
•Programmes and Partnership Approval Committee – deals with approval of all programmes and partnerships
Specific Committee
•Variations of Collaborative Partnerships (Quality) Committee
•Normally reports to Learning & Teaching or Quality & Standards Committee
•Range from strong QA focus (approval, monitoring and review of collabs) to operational matters
•Prevalent in post-92 institutions

20. Learning + Teaching Collaborations
SWOT Analysis
Strengths
•ELIR 2014: 'The University has an effective approach to securing the academic standards of collaborative provision'
•Quality Assurance & Standards normalised/ embedded. Allows comparison with regular provision
•Academic Standards Committee is the common end point at University level for quality and standards processes
•Comprehensive set of guidance – AQF, Framework for Academic Collaborations and Code of Practice for Validated Provision
Weaknesses
•No specific University oversight of collaborative programmes per se – embedded so may be difficult to readily identify collaborative provision in composite quality reports from Colleges
•Variability between Colleges in governance arrangements. Some lack of transparency of College governance arrangements. Can be reliant on individuals – lack of shared knowledge and experience
•Blockages in flow of information upwards and downwards - communication lines not always clear
•Collaborations may not be realising full potential and transaction costs incurred in setting arrangement up not recouped (eg articulations)
•‘Risk’ procedures are not proportionate to nature of collaboration – currently ‘one size fits all’
Opportunties
•Strengthen arrangements at College level to provide greater consistency and transparency and ensure appropriate monitoring
•Ensure robust arrangements at School level
•Where possible, feed in to current in governance and oversight arrangement. More streamlined process. No increase in bureaucracy
•Greater attention to performance against plans (eg articulations) so recruitment potential is realised and transaction costs recouped
•Improve flow of information and sharing of information. Improve efficiency.
Threats
•Risks are not managed adequately
•Potential risk to reputation - if arrangements are not providing sufficient oversight
•Loss of partnerships – not working as well as they could or could deliver more
•Alienation of the Colleges. More bureaucracy! Resistance to another layer of committees.
•Danger of ‘gold plating’

21. •No big changes envisaged
•Likely introduction of Collaborations Committee at College level as focal point. Provide transparency and consistency.
•Clarify what the reporting requirements are from School /RI to College to ‘centre’ and improve the information flow
•Improved communication on what the responsibilities School /RI and College are to ensure these are fulfilled
•Proportionate procedures relevant to nature of collaboration
So what are we likely to do?

23. Discuss in your groups
How effective do you think your institution’s approach to governance for collaborative provision is? Is there clarity of responsibilities at University, Faculty, School levels? What is your institution’s approach – embedded, specific group, hybrid or other?
How well does information flow from School to Faculty to University? How easy is it to keep your Register of Collaborative Provision up to date?
Have your governance arrangements been reviewed in the last 5-10 years? What changes that have taken place in your institutions in that period?
Are there any changes that you would recommend to your governance arrangements ?
Workshop

24. Delegates have had the opportunity to:
•learn about the issues that need to be addressed by the review and the different governance approaches being considered
•share experience of governance arrangements operating within their own institutions
•reflect on the ‘fitness for purpose’ of those arrangements in the context of their own institution
Workshop Objectives