ºÚÁÏÉç

Scope

This condition applies where the University has at least one sub-contractual arrangement with 100 or more students enrolled on those courses. It also applies where the University expects that student numbers will reach 100 or more within the current academic year.

The University currently has one arrangement that meets this threshold; however, the principles outlined in this statement apply to all of our collaborative activities.

 

Section A – Sub-contractual rationale

i. Strategic rationale for engaging in sub-contractual relationships in relation to the provision of higher education courses:

For all collaborative partnerships, including sub-contractual arrangements, the University seeks to work with institutions that demonstrate aligned strategic ambitions and objectives. The University’s established processes and procedures provide assurance that any proposed Collaborative Provision arrangement is:

• viable;
• aligned with the strategic priorities set out in the University’s 2030 Strategy; and
• unlikely to pose any risk to the University’s reputation.

All initial proposals for new collaborative partnerships, irrespective of their nature, are submitted to the Academic Partnerships Board (APB). The APB evaluates each proposal in relation to its ethical, financial, and strategic viability. Where approval is granted, the Board also determines the appropriate quality assurance and validation processes in accordance with the University’s established guidance on the development of collaborative provision. This includes institutional approval and course validation arrangements, as well as arrangements for ongoing monitoring, all of which are covered in the sections below. Overall, these processes strategically safeguard academic standards, ensure a high‑quality student experience, and confirm that the partner can uphold the University’s expectations in the delivery of its programmes.

ii. Strategic rationale for its existing relevant sub-contractual arrangement

The rationale for the University’s relevant sub-contractual arrangement (with ºÚÁÏÉç Group, London) was developed under a previous iteration of the University’s strategy map. The development supported the University to expand its reach to international students seeking high‑quality, industry‑focused postgraduate and undergraduate programmes in a globally recognised city. The partnership development was with an existing partner organisation reduces the associated risks since the partner were already familiar with our regulatory and operational requirements.

 

Section B – New arrangements

This section articulates the University’s strategic framework for initiating new collaborative partnerships, setting out the governance, evaluative processes, and regulatory safeguards that ensure proposed arrangements are feasible, compliant, and positioned to enhance institutional priorities. It outlines the systematic processes (Business Case scrutiny, institutional approval, course validation, and compliance checks) that ensure prospective delivery partners can meet the University’s academic standards, align with its strategic objectives, and sustain the OfS’ regulatory obligations.

Business Case

All potential new partnerships commence with the production of a Business Case by the School proposing the collaboration. Business Cases are assessed and approved by the University’s Academic Partnerships Board (APB) who will assess the proposal against the University’s 2030 Strategy

The Business Case outlines the key criteria the University uses to evaluate the suitability and sustainability of potential collaborative partners. It ensures that any proposed partnership is built on sound financial footing, demonstrated through evidence of good organisational financial standing and clear due‑diligence reporting. The assessment also prioritises the academic standing of the institution, requiring partners to show strong academic credentials, such as positive QAA or equivalent inspection outcomes, alongside proof of adequate learning resources and official recognition as an academic institution. Furthermore, the Business Case emphasises future student benefit and institutional viability, for example, by examining expected student progression to the University and confirming that market demand is sufficient to maintain academic viability. Together, these criteria provide a structured, risk‑based approach that supports strategic decision‑making and protects the University’s reputation, resources, and long‑term educational goals.

Contract of Collaboration

Drafting of the Contract of Collaboration (CoC) can begin once APB has approved the Business Case for the potential partnership. The CoC is a mandatory agreement that outlines how a collaboratively delivered course will operate between the University and a partner institution, using a standard but course‑specific template that Schools develop with the partner. It defines operational roles, responsibilities, and quality expectations; ensures regulatory compliance and risk management; and provides the framework for course delivery and oversight which includes the management of student regulatory matters. Course‑specific operational arrangements are included in a required appendix, and CoCs remain valid for the approval period, being reissued at revalidation to maintain alignment with current practice.

The CoC will not come into force until all conditions of approval and course validation have been met and delivery cannot commence until the document is signed by all parties.

Drafting is led by the University Legal Office and Registry with input from Schools, relevant university services, e.g. Finance, and the partner. After review and negotiation, the partner signs, followed by the PVC (T&L), and the final version is centrally stored and shared internally within the University.

Institutional Approval

Institutional approval is designed to confirm that a proposed partner institution is aligned with the University’s mission, values, and long‑term educational objectives. Its purpose is to:

• Establish strategic compatibility by verifying that the partner’s educational aims, values, and operating methods match the University’s overarching strategy and academic standards.
• Assess institutional capability through examination of governance structures, academic management, approaches to teaching, learning and assessment, and resource allocation processes.
• Evaluate quality assurance maturity by reviewing the partner’s systems for maintaining academic standards and continuous improvement.
• Provide informed oversight via a visit from an Institutional Approval (IA) panel that engages with the partner, reviews documentation, and tests the robustness of institutional arrangements.
• Support long‑term partnership decisions by ensuring that any collaboration is sustainable, well‑governed, and positioned to deliver high‑quality student outcomes over time.

Reports from IA panels are submitted to APB for approval on behalf of UTLC, forming the basis for institutional recognition for up to five years.

Course Validation

The purpose of validation is to ensure that a partner institution demonstrates the organisational capability, academic quality, and resource capacity required to deliver higher‑education programmes on behalf of the University. This involves confirming that the partner has:

• Robust organisational systems for quality assurance, staff recruitment and development, and financial management, ensuring programmes can be sustainably and effectively delivered.
• Effective academic and student‑support structures, including personal tutoring and appropriate mechanisms for supporting learners throughout their studies.
• Adequate learning resources, such as suitable physical spaces, learning materials, technology, and the capability to support and develop a Virtual Learning Environment aligned with the University’s VLE.
• Evidence‑based student recruitment potential, ensuring the partner can attract applicants who meet academic standards required to succeed on the course.
• Qualified and experienced academic staff, with expectations for continued scholarly activity, publication relating to teaching and learning, and aspirations toward professional recognition (e.g., HEA membership).

Validation panel reports are submitted to APB for approval on behalf of UTLC and course validation is approved for up to five years. Once approved, partnerships, including sub contractual arrangements, are subject to ongoing monitoring by the University (contained within Section C below).

Compliance with OfS Regulatory Requirements:

Continued compliance with OfS regulations including conditions B1–B5 is assured through a comprehensive and layered approach to quality oversight. Initial scrutiny takes place through the Business Case, the institutional approval and validation processes, which assess whether a partner can meet and sustain the provider’s regulatory responsibilities. Ongoing assurance is then maintained through regular monitoring mechanisms, including annual evaluation, mid‑term reviews, revalidations, and the oversight provided by external examiners. In addition, the University’s Designated Academic Liaison Officers (DALOs) undertake an annual cycle of activity and scheduled visits, providing continuous engagement, support, and scrutiny to ensure that academic standards and student experience remain fully aligned with regulatory expectations.

Monitoring and Approval of Publicity Produced by Collaborative Partners

The CoC states that information relating to the course issued by the PI must have prior approval from the University in advance of publication. DALOs are responsible for engaging with partners to ensure that publicity is appropriate and approved in a timely manner. This includes reviewing all promotional material at the draft stage, regularly checking the partner’s website and prospectus, ensuring the correct statement and logo are used to show awards are from the University, prohibiting misleading wording about partnerships or validation, and, where appropriate, requesting translations for non‑English materials before publication.

 

Section C – Oversight by governing body and others

The University’s governing body is the University Council which provides ultimate oversight of collaborative provision activity, including subcontracted provision, setting the strategic direction, ensuring compliance with regulatory requirements, and safeguarding the integrity and sustainability of the organisation’s educational activities. It retains responsibility for determining the organisation’s academic character, monitoring performance, and ensuring that subcontracted delivery supports organisational aims and maintains financial and academic robustness. University committees relating to the quality of the institution’s teaching and learning provision, such as the University Teaching and Learning Committee (UTLC) and the Academic Partnerships Board (APB), report to the University Council via the University Senate.

UTLC is responsible to the Senate for monitoring progress towards the strategic objectives and targets set by the University in teaching and learning. Its remit includes oversight of the development and delivery of taught courses of study and ensuring the maintenance of appropriate academic standards. This encompasses procedures for the validation, approval, and annual evaluation of all courses leading to the University’s taught awards, including those delivered through collaborative provision arrangements.

APB provides strategic oversight of all aspects of Collaborative Provision, ensuring that partnerships operate effectively and in alignment with institutional priorities. Its responsibilities include shaping and reviewing the overall CP strategy, monitoring the quality and performance of provision, and establishing the procedures governing collaborative activity. APB also approves business cases, validations, and associated reports, and receives annual evaluation reports for each partnership to support continuous improvement. In addition, it ensures that all collaborative arrangements remain compliant with external regulatory requirements, including those set by the OfS.

Ongoing Monitoring

APB is responsible for ongoing monitoring of all collaborative provision activity and includes receipt of key quality reports including:

• Annual Executive Meeting Minutes
• Mid-Term Review Reports
• Annual Evaluation Report Summaries
• External Examiner Reports
• Institutional Approval and Validation Reports (See Section B)
• Institutional Reapproval and Revalidation Reports
• DALO/ILO Reports

Annual Executive Meeting

The Annual Executive Meeting (AEM) serves as a critical quality assurance mechanism for CP partnerships, providing structured oversight and strategic direction. Held each spring and chaired by the University, the AEM follows a standardised agenda to ensure consistent monitoring of partnership performance and future planning. The AEM confirms key operational elements of the partnership (including annual financial schedules, student numbers and course developments) as well as ensuring provision is operating in line with University expectations. It plays a pivotal role in feeding issues into both institutions’ governance structures, ensuring alignment, accountability, and continuous improvement. In addition, the AEM reviews progress on actions from annual evaluations, periodic reviews, external audits, and professional body requirements. It facilitates forward‑looking discussions on joint developments, student progression pathways, and, where relevant, the managed termination of provision.

Mid-Term Review

Mid‑term Review is the University’s process for checking whether an individual collaborative partnership continues to meet the standards of the University’s quality assurance framework. It normally takes place in the third year of a five‑year approval cycle. The process involves a document review, a meeting with students from the partner institution to evaluate student experience and a meeting with the partner institution to identify and discuss good practice and any issues that have arisen. It provides a barometer of the health of the partnership arrangement and an opportunity to address key issues ahead of revalidation

Annual Evaluation

AE is the internal process by which the University critically appraises the operation of courses, ensuring that appropriate standards are maintained. AE for Partner Institutions follows the University process, with additional steps relevant to collaborative partnerships. Partners produce an AE report in the required University format submitted to the relevant School Dean and the DALO provides a summary report to be added to the AE report. The University reviews the AE report as part of its own evaluation process and minutes and repots are forwarded to APB for consideration. The Dean confirms that issues have been addressed or identifies any outstanding concerns.

AE includes the review of progression, completion and continuation figures for students at partner institutions. These are compared against the provision based at the University. Where discrepancies are found, necessary actions will be set to address these. These actions are reviewed and monitored via the Annual Executive Meeting as well as via subsequent AE reports. The partner is responsible for implementing required changes, while the School monitors progress and ensures that actions are followed up in subsequent annual evaluation reports.

External Examiner Reports

Normally, the University appoints the same external examiner for its own campus‑based provision as for its collaborative arrangements. This ensures appropriate commentary on the parity of standards between courses delivered at both institutions. External examiners produce an annual report identifying areas of good practice and any required actions. These reports also include explicit reference to standards at partner institutions. APB receives a summary of external examiner reports for CP, and any identified actions are monitored via the AEM and in conjunction with the DALO.

Institutional Reapproval and Revalidation

Decisions to reapprove partnerships are made by the University, in consultation with APB, and are informed by an overarching assessment of the partnership’s effectiveness over its duration. This will include consideration of course performance, student outcomes, and evidence demonstrating the quality of delivery throughout the validation period, including External Examiner reports, Annual Evaluation reports, and Annual Executive Meeting minutes.

Where continuation beyond the contractual end date is endorsed, an institutional re‑approval event is normally scheduled in the academic year prior to the contract’s end, typically taking place at the partner institution. Alongside institutional reapproval, courses delivered at partner institutions undergo revalidation in the year preceding the contract’s conclusion. Both review processes replicate the rigour and documentation requirements of initial approval events but include an enhanced critical appraisal of partnership performance, course quality, and the student experience over the full validation cycle.

DALO/ILO Roles

The roles of the Designated Academic Liaison Officer (DALO) and Institutional Liaison Officer (ILO)  are central to the effective oversight and performance management of Collaborative Provision. Schools must appoint and support a DALO for each approved partnership, selecting an experienced course team member with the capacity to uphold academic standards and maintain strong engagement with the Partner Institution.

Where provision spans multiple Schools, an ILO may be appointed by the PVC (T&L) to coordinate activity across DALOs. DALOs contribute to validation and review processes and follow an annual cycle of activities with partners (Part 3 Handbook for Collaborative Provision). All appointments must be confirmed via APB, and Schools must promptly notify Registry and partners of any mid‑year changes to ensure continuity and robust governance.

 

Section D Policies & Procedures

All Collaborative Provision follows standard University processes, regulations, and procedures. Key Regulations and Guidance for collaborative provision is contained in the QA Procedures for Taught Courses & Research Awards – Section N: Collaborative Provision as well as the Handbook for Collaborative Provision and Enterprise. These outline how the university manages:

• Development of CP
• Approving partnerships
• Monitoring partnerships
• Designing, approving and monitoring CP courses
• Managing terminations

Below are the University’s policies and procedures that are in place to meet the overarching obligation contained in E10.5

Key Regulations for Partners

• Handbook of Collaborative Provision and Enterprise
• Quality assurance procedures - ºÚÁÏÉç
• Taught students - ºÚÁÏÉç
• Regulations for awards (taught courses) - ºÚÁÏÉç

Other resources for partners and Collaborative provision students

• Whistleblowing-Policy

Relevant student and University Policies where the partner does not have its own policy relating to the elements above, then where appropriate the University’s policy will apply: /policies

Section E Adaptability

Policies and procedures are subject to regular review to ensure they remain effective and responsive to feedback, regulatory updates, and wider sector developments. Core documents, such as academic regulations, quality assurance frameworks, and procedural guidance, are updated annually and approved by the appropriate University committees. This review cycle enables the University to adapt its provisions promptly in response to changes or developments ensuring that governance, oversight, and quality mechanisms remain fit for purpose.