Part 1 New Collaborative Provision Ideas

Part 1 - Regulations for New Collaborative Provision Ideas

 

1.1 Risk Analysis for New Collaborative Provision Ideas

1.1.1 The University must undertake a risk analysis for any new Collaborative Provision arrangement to make sure the partnership:

• Is viable.
• Fits with the strategic direction of the University (the University strategy map must be considered when initial proposals are created).
• Will not cause harm to the University’s reputation.

1.1.2 Before each new Collaborative Provision idea can proceed to validation it must:

• Have Dean’s written approval of the outline idea.
• Have indicative Pro Vice-Chancellor (Teaching and Learning) and Deputy Vice-Chancellor approval of the outline idea.
• Be supported by a business case which has been approved via Academic Partnerships Board (APB).

1.1.3 The Reviews and Partnerships team (reviewsandpartnerships@hud.ac.uk) must be included in any correspondence about a new collaborative provision arrangement from the initial stages onwards.

 

1.2 Initial Proposals

1.2.1 Initial proposals must indicate the type of collaborative provision arrangement the school plans to deliver.

1.2.2 The types of collaborative provision recognised by the University are described below:

• Franchised collaborative provision – where the partner is approved to teach a course already validated for on-campus delivery. The validation event considers the ability of the partner to deliver University course content and the strategic alignment of the partner to the University strategy.
• Designed and delivered collaborative provision – where the University validates a course which is the intellectual property of a partner for delivery at the partner. To note that usually designed and delivered courses will not need tier 1 or tier 2 validations as all aspects can be addressed by a collaborative provision validation.
• Off-campus Delivery of University Provision Led by University Staff (ODUPLUS) – where University staff travel to a partner to deliver a University course usually via block delivery and continue to support the students remotely. The partner provides some support to students in the form of library and computing facilities, administrative, promotional or marketing. The proportion of teaching by University staff must constitute at least one third of the total taught delivery for each module.
• Flying faculty – where a course validated by the University is taught and supported wholly by University staff but is delivered at an off-campus location. The partner will not be involved in the support of student learning or its administration. Normally these courses are associated with the partner’s CPD processes. Flying Faculty may be deemed to be lower risk provision if the course is a closed course (i.e. it is not available for open recruitment beyond students from a particular known partner) and is a once-only delivery.
• Cotutelle (Single Award) – An agreement on joint supervision at doctoral degree level, leading to a single award from the University.
• Cotutelle (Dual Award) – An agreement on joint supervision at doctoral degree level, leading to an award being issued from each University involved in the supervision.
• Joint Awards – A joint award is a single course devised and delivered jointly between two or more institutions and leading to the conferment of a single award in the name of all partners. Arrangements for the validation of joint awards are detailed separately in this Handbook.
• Articulation – whereby the University and an external institution enter into a formal joint agreement to confirm that the learning outcomes and standards required for the award of University credit can be satisfactorily demonstrated through successful completion of the external institution’s own award or credit. Such an agreement would allow entry to an identified University award with advanced standing.
• Dual awards – Where the University may collaborate with another higher education institution in devising a course of studies leading to an award from each institution. The arrangements for the validation and evaluation of such courses will be subject to the approval of the Senate and must be designed to safeguard the standards of the University’s awards.

1.2.3 All initial proposal approvals must be forwarded to the Reviews and Partnerships team so that a complete record of any new partnership can be created and retained centrally.

1.2.4 Business cases should only be created once the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Teaching and Learning) and Deputy Vice-Chancellor have given indicative approval.

 

1.3 Initial Visit to a Potential New PI

1.3.1 Once indicative approval for a new partnership is gained, the school should then visit any potential new partner institution ahead of completing the business case, if this has not already been done.

1.3.2 The initial visit must address:

• Premises Suitability: Ensure the premises are suitable for delivering the proposed courses.
• Student Experience: Confirm that the institution can provide students with an experience and support equivalent to what they would receive on campus.
• Compliance with Laws and Regulations: Verify that facilities comply with applicable laws, including health and safety, accessibility, and other relevant regulations.
• Reputational Risk Management: Mitigate any potential reputational risks to the University. eg: links to the military and in a hostile state, political, ethical and behavioural alignments which conflict with the values and principles of the University.

1.3.3 The outcomes of the visit should be added to the business case.

 

1.4 Business Cases

1.4.1 All business cases are considered by Academic Partnership Board to assess ethical and financial viability and to prescribe the appropriate Quality Assurance and validation processes that must be followed. The business case must include statements from:

• The International Office (if needed).
• Finance.
• Computing and Library Services (see Appendix 1 for the Computing and Library Services statement on support offered through collaborative provision arrangements).

1.4.2 The Reviews and Partnerships team should be notified and consulted before you start work on a business case.

1.4.3 Where a business case:

• is approved by APB, it will then progress to the validation stage. Schools should contact the Reviews and Partnerships team to discuss the next steps.
• is not approved by APB, the proposer may be able to amend it in line with APB feedback. Schools should discuss the amendments with the Reviews and Partnerships team and present the revised business case to the next APB for approval.
• is rejected by APB, schools should contact the Reviews and Partnerships team to agree a plan to inform the partner of the outcome.

1.4.4 See Appendix 2 for a copy of the Collaborative Provision Business Case Form.

 

1.5 Lower Risk Collaborative Provision Events and Lower Risk Business Cases

1.5.1 Normally a full business case will need to be completed, but in some cases where there is less risk involved in a project, APB may agree that a low risk business case is sufficient.

1.5.2 Low risk CP events may be suitable if a Collaborative Provision idea is:

• A once-only delivery.
• A closed course; ie it is only open to students from a particular known partner.
• Delivered, assessed and supported 100% by University staff, but away from the main campus.

1.5.3 If members of staff think that a CP idea might fall into a low risk category, they should contact the Reviews and Partnerships team (Reviewsandpartnerships@hud.ac.uk) to discuss this. Note that APB will still need to approve a low risk idea. See Appendix 3 for a copy of the Low Risk Collaborative Provision Business Case Form.

 

1.6 New Collaborative Provision Ideas Which Span More than One School

1.6.1 Where a Collaborative Provision idea includes courses in more than one school, the proposer must:

• Gain indicative approval from the Deans of any schools involved.
• Agree how much involvement the Deans and relevant course teams will have in the development stage.
• Consider if relevant school staff need to be included in the initial visit to a partner particularly if the courses involved include specialist resources.
• Decide a lead school for the partnership.

1.6.2 Any school involved in a potential new partnership must also be included in the completion of the business case to ensure full transparency of the new collaborative provision arrangement.

1.7 Collaborative Provision Timescales and Schedule  

1.7.1 Initial CP ideas must factor in realistic timescales as a new partnership can take at least a year from the initial idea to delivery. New ideas should normally follow the academic schedule below:

Date	Required action
August	Schools notify the Reviews and Partnerships team (R&P) (reviewsandpartnerships@hud.ac.uk) about any new collaborative provision ideas for the forthcoming year for R&P to add to the CP Schedule.
End of August	R&P add revalidation events to the schedule.
October	Academic Partnerships Board approves the collaborative provision schedule for the new academic year.

Note: R&P will try to accommodate any late notification of a CP event where possible.

 

1.8 Enterprise Taught Programmes

1.8.1 An Enterprise Taught Programme (ETP) is where:

• The University contracts directly with a third party to provide a taught programme for them. The third party may be another HEI, an employer or a sponsor.
• The programme will involve on or off Queensgate campus delivery, to a cohort of students proposed by the third party (a closed programme), that can be credit bearing or non-credit bearing.
• The contract will generate in excess of £500k in income.

1.8.2 Staff wishing to pursue an ETP, will need to inform Reviews and Partnerships team who will then refer the project to APB so that they can assess ethical and financial viability. Staff will need to:

• complete the briefing form in Appendix 4 to present to APB along with the CP Financial Appraisal Model.
• supply sufficient information so that APB can make an informed decision.

 

1.9 Apprenticeship Subcontracting Arrangements

1.9.1 Where specialist skill or knowledge does not exist within the University, but this knowledge is required for Apprentices to succeed on the course (such as functional skills provision), the University uses subcontractors. The existing CP approvals process is used for selecting and approving subcontractors.

 

1.10 Post Graduate Research (PGR) Collaborative Provision Arrangements

1.10.1 Post Graduate Research collaborative provision arrangements usually mean that a research student will be studying a part of their degree with another organisation or institution (third party). Arrangements include:

1.10.1 Post Graduate Research collaborative provision arrangements usually mean that a research student will be studying a part of their degree with another organisation or institution (third party). Arrangements include:

Type of Arrangement	Level of Risk
Individual Cotutelle (Single Award) (i.e. joint supervision between the University and a member of staff from another organisation who is not acting as external supervisor)	Low
Multiple Candidate Cotutelles either in single or multiple cohorts	Medium
Individual Cotutelle (Dual Award) (i.e. joint supervision between the University and a member of staff from another organisation leading to two separate awards)	Medium to High
Off Campus Delivery of PGR provision by members of University staff at a location other than Queensgate.	Medium to High
Dual Awards* where the University may collaborate with another higher education institution in devising a course of studies leading to an award from each institution.	High to Very High
Joint Awards* where a single course devised and delivered jointly between two or more institutions and leading to the conferment of a single award in the name of all partners.	Very High

 

General principles of cotutelle arrangements

1.10.2 The University operates the following principles of cotutelle arrangements:

• Under cotutelle arrangements, students must normally attend campus for at least the minimum number of days set out in the PGR Regulations. This includes attendance at progression and monitoring meetings.
• For Off-Campus, Dual and Joint Awards, campus attendance requirements will be defined in the partnership agreement and may vary depending on the agreed delivery model.
• Schools must ensure that students studying through partnership arrangements receive a research student experience equivalent to on-campus students.
• Schools must monitor the effectiveness of delivery through normal University quality assurance processes.
• Graduate Board and APB may set conditions of approval and request a site visit, funded by the school.
• Approval will normally be granted for up to five years, after which reapproval is required.

 

Three main types of PGR collaborative provision

1.10.3 The PGR collaborative provision arrangements fall into three broad categories relating to risk involved:

• Individual cotutelles.
• Cotutelles involving multiple candidates.
• Dual and Joint Awards and Off Campus Delivery.

Initial Requests for Dual Awards, Joint Awards and Off Campus Delivery

1.10.4 Schools must gain Senate approval to progress with dual and joint awards and PGR off campus delivery as there is a high risk involved in their development.

1.10.5 Dual and Joint Awards are normally limited to arrangements of strategic importance to the University and may mean separate validation processes are needed. Schools must discuss any ideas they have for dual and joint awards with Registry and Academic Development before progressing them.

1.10.6 For Dual and Joint Awards, the Business Case must confirm that the partner is legally permitted to award research degrees. The Business Case must confirm that the partner is legally permitted to award dual research degrees. See Appendix 5 for a copy of the Dual Award Cotutelle Request Proforma and Workflow.

Business Cases for Dual Awards, Joint Awards and Off Campus Delivery

1.10.7 Due to the higher level of risk involved in off-campus provision, dual awards and joint awards, schools must submit a business case for approval by Graduate Board and APB.

Initial Individual and Multiple Candidate Cotutelle Requests

1.10.8 Before each new individual and multiple candidate cotutelle idea can proceed to validation it must:

• Have Dean’s written approval of the outline idea.
• Have indicative Pro Vice-Chancellor (Teaching and Learning) and Deputy Vice-Chancellor approval of the outline idea.
• Be supported by a business case which has been approved by both Graduate Board and Academic Partnerships Board (APB)

1.10.9 The Reviews and Partnerships team (reviewsandpartnerships@hud.ac.uk) must be included in any correspondence about a new PGR collaborative provision arrangement from the initial stages onwards. See Appendix 6 for a copy of the Single Award Cotutelle Request Proforma.

Approval of Individual Cotutelle Arrangements

1.10.10 Requests for approval of individual cotutelles must be:

• Submitted by the Director of Graduate Education using the PGR Cotutelle Proforma.
• Approved by a Dean.
• Consider the cotutelle costing model. Contact Reviewsandpartnerships@hud.ac.uk for a copy.

1.10.11 Approved arrangements will be noted by APB.

Approval of Cotutelle Arrangements Involving Multiple Candidates

1.10.12 For cotutelles involving multiple students, schools must also submit:

• Proposed student numbers.
• Financial arrangements, including fee income.
• Commentary from the International Office where the partner is overseas.

PGR Collaborative Provision Contracts or Agreements

1.10.13 PGR partnership arrangements must have a written agreement or contract. The type of document and its content will vary depending on the proposal. Registry and Academic Development and the proposer must consult the Legal Office for advice on the type of written agreement needed.

 

1.11 Articulation Arrangements

1.11.1 An articulation arrangement:

• is a formal agreement between the University and another institution.
• confirms that a student who successfully completes the other institution’s qualification has met the required learning outcomes and standards of a University award.
• allows the student to progress directly into a specified University programme with advanced standing.

1.11.2 Students progressing to a University course through an articulation arrangement must still submit an application. Admission is not guaranteed, and the University reserves the right to refuse entry.

1.11.3 Applications submitted independently by applicants claiming Accredited Prior Learning (APL) or using school-approved tariffs for advanced entry based on commonly held qualifications, do not count as articulation arrangements and must be processed through standard admissions procedures. Applications to top‑up degrees are also excluded and must be handled through the normal admissions process.

1.11.4 The school that owns the course is responsible for initiating an articulation arrangement with another institution.

1.11.5 All academic and curriculum matters relating to articulation arrangements must be approved by a Tier 1 or Tier 2 Accreditation and Validation Panel.