Australia is one the strongest developers of international branch campuses. Behind the United States (82), United Kingdom (38), Russia (20) and France (16), Australia has a total of 15 offshore locations operated by 11 institutions. Yet international branch campuses are one of the riskiest ventures an institution can undertake. According to the Cross-Border Education Research Team (C-BERT), some 31 have failed – some with spectacular results. They are often established in unfamiliar environments, reap little financial reward and rarely result in the desired pipeline of students to the home institution. What are the secrets to the long-term success of a branch campus? To what extent do both institutions need to achieve alignment and harmonisation of strategy, academic governance and management, and quality goals? How do they balance the compliance requirements for equivalence with home programs with the increasing need for local adaptation to market demand, student ability and host country regulators? This workshop will explore the critical factors for the longevity and sustainability of branch campuses from the perspectives of senior leadership from both home and branch campuses.

1. The ties that bind: an overview of the
relationship between home and branch
campus
1
Professor Nigel Healey
nigel.healey@fnu.ac.fj
18 October 2016

2. Overview
 The stereotypical characterization of a branch campus
 …and the reality of many branch campuses
 The potential benefits to the home university of having a
branch campus
 The potential benefits to a branch campus of having a
home campus
 ...and the potential costs to each
 The factors that complicate a win-win relationship
2

3. The stereotypical characterization of a
branch campus
3

4. Branch campuses as Mini Me’s
4

5. …and the reality of many branch
campuses (1)
 Branch campuses are private, for-profit educational
companies
 They are owned by the home university and local majority
shareholders
 The staff are mainly locally hired by the branch campus
 The branch campus is regulated by the host Ministry of
Education and its home regulator
 The branch campus must meet the needs of local
students and employers and compete with local
universities
5

6. …and the reality of many branch
campuses (2)
The host country often has a different:
 Language
 Political, legal and tax system
 Religion and culture
6
Home country No. of IBCs Host country No. of IBCs
United States 52 United Arab Emirates 32
United Kingdom 29 China 27
Russia 13 Singapore 13
Australia 11 Qatar 11
France 7 Malaysia 9
Top Five Home and Host Countries (Source: C-BERT)

7. The potential benefits to each
The potential benefits to the
home university of having a
branch campus
 Global branding /
positioning
 Structured student mobility
 Access to host government
funding
 Access to new student
markets
 Revenue generation
The potential benefits to the
branch of having a home
university
 Trading under global brand
 Quality assured degrees
 Curriculum, pedagogy and
assessment
 Back office economies of
scale
 Professional development
for staff
7

8. The potential costs to each
The potential cost to the
home university of having a
branch campus
 Mission drift
 Opportunity cost of senior
management time
 Financial risk
 Reputational risk: chronic
vs acute
The potential costs to the
branch of having a home
university
 Constraints on developing
curriculum, pedagogy and
assessment
 Lack of support for
management and back
office functions
 Lack of understanding of
local operating conditions
8

9. The factors that complicate a win-win
relationship (1)
The branch campus has multiple stakeholders
with conflicting objectives:
Home university
Local joint venture partner(s)
Host government
Host and home regulators
Students
Local employers
Local competitors
The home university is not the only – or
most important – stakeholder
9

10. The factors that complicate a win-win
relationship (2)
Many home universities can be characterized as:
Public universities, with a traditional of government
funding and regulation and non-commercial
objectives
Senior managers who are academic ‘volunteers’
Arcane governance structures
Back office functions with a domestic orientation
Faculty focused on research and promotion
The home university is not a multinational
corporation
10

11. Conclusions
 The stereotypical characterization of a branch campus is a
Mini Me clone
 The reality of many branch campuses is that they are
private, for-profit companies operating in an alien,
compteitve but regulated environment
 There are benefits to both home universities and branch
camsues of a close relationship...
 ...but also sigificant costs
 A win-win relationship is complicated by the range of
stakeholders for the branch campus and the nature of the
home university
11

12. A final thought: when the costs
outweigh the benefits…