Barbara Hepworth Building

Collaborative Provision Procedures

Part 1 Procedures for New Collaborative Provision Ideas

1.12 Approval Process for Initial Ideas

1.12.1 Schools should complete the steps outlined below to gain University approval of an initial collaborative provision idea. Note that if your proposal is with an existing CP institution, your proposal may fall into low risk CP procedures (see Lower Risk CP Procedures):

Step Action
1 Write a summary of the CP idea and gain written approval from your Dean of School.
2 Notify the Reviews and Partnerships team as soon as possible
3 The Reviews and Partnerships team will provide advice about how to gain indicative approval from the PVC (T&L) and DVC
4 Once indicative approval to proceed has been given, review the information needed in the business case, Appendix 2 – Collaborative Provision Business Case FormAppendix 2 – Collaborative Provision Business Case Form and visit the PI if this has not already been done (see School’s Initial Visit to a Potential New PI)
5 Complete the business case, asking the Reviews and Partnerships team for advice if needed (email reviewsandpartnerships@hud.ac.uk)
6 Submit the completed business case, along with statements from the Finance, Computing and Library Services and the International Office (if needed) to reviewsandpartnerships@hud.ac.uk
7 Rework the business case to consider points raised in the Registry Commentary (if needed)
8 Resubmit the business case for APB approval
9 Once APB approval is received, the planning process for validation events begins

1.13 Guidance on Institutional Visits to inform the Institutional Approval and Validation process.

1.13.1 The institutional visit, conducted prior to the institutional approval and validation event, as part of the process to establish the suitability of a potential partner, serves several key objectives:

1.13.2 A report detailing the findings of the visit will inform the Institutional Approval Event. See the Visiting New Collaborative Partner Locations: Pre-Visit Preparation figure for details about what to consider.

Visiting New Collaborative Partner Locations: Pre-Visit Preparation

Create a Visit Schedule:
Plan the visit to ensure sufficient time for the following:

Conducting the Visit

Premises Inspection:

Engage with Stakeholders:

Debriefing:

Thank staff for their time and share initial findings, keeping the process open and transparent.

Post Visit

Complete and submit the following visit form to reviewsandpartnerships@hud.ac.uk together with any additional evidence such as photographs or video footage of the teaching areas.

(link to Institutional Approval Visit Report)

 

1.14 Lower Risk CP Procedures

1.14.1 If a business case fits the low risk criteria, a low risk CP event will be triggered by the Reviews and Partnerships team. This is usually a desk-based event. Each proposal will be assessed individually and a desk-based event may include a video link to the partner institution if appropriate or be followed by a visit to the PI location.

Step Action
1 School/Reviews and Partnerships Team identify that a proposal is suitable for the low risk validation process
2 PVC (T&L) gives approval for event to follow low risk CP validation route
3

School completes a Low Risk Collaborative Provision Business Case form (see Appendix 3 – Low Risk Collaborative Provision Business Case Form) and indicates that they would prefer:

  • A desktop event at the University with course team and independent chair
  • A small virtual validation event at the University with the course team, an independent chair plus representatives from the institution, with comments from an external panel member
A desktop event at the University with the course team and an independent chair followed by a visit to the partner institution for a Risk Assessment form to be completed
4 APB approves the low risk form
5 Approval received by school and planning process for the validation events begins

1.15 Considering University and Collaborative Provision Strategy in New CP Proposals

1.15.1 You need to consider the University strategy map at the start of any new CP arrangement University strategy map link . Include a bullet list which highlights the relevant part of the strategy your project falls into in the following documents:

Collaborative Provision Strategy

1.15.2 The University’s collaborative provision strategy is as follows:

  1. The University will enter into partnerships with educational organisations of high standing that will contribute to the University’s mission and complement the University’s International and Research Strategies.
  2. All partnerships will meet the expectations of the University’s Teaching and Learning Strategy.
  3. Collaborative partnerships will contribute to the University’s Strategy Map by focusing on its themes of:

1.15.3 QAA’s quality code, Principle 8 – Operating partnerships with other organisations should be considered when entering into new collaborative provision arrangements Link to Quality Code

 

1.16 Post Graduate Research (PGR) Collaborative Provision Procedures

1.16.1 The business case for dual awards, joint awards and off campus delivery must include:

1.16.2 Registry and Academic Development will:

Procedures for approving individual cotutelles

1.16.3 The Proforma must include:

1.16.4 The proposer must submit the completed Proforma to Graduate Board for approval. Graduate Board and the Director of Graduate Education may request further information or set conditions of approval.

 

1.17 Approval and Administration of Articulation Agreements

1.17.1 The School must submit a formal case to a Tier 1 Panel explaining the purpose and rationale of the proposed arrangement. The case must:

1.17.2 Once approved, a Memorandum of Understanding will be signed by the Pro Vice‑Chancellor (Teaching and Learning) and the Principal (or equivalent) of the partner institution. The Vice Chancellor’s Office retains the signed originals.

1.17.3 Schools must have procedures in place to regularly review articulation agreements to ensure they remain current and appropriate.

Part 2 Collaborative Provision (Re)Validation and (Re)Approval Process

 

2.17 Validation Process – Normal to High Risk Events

2.17.1 Following approval from APB, new proposals will need to go through a validation process, as outlined in the step and action box below

Step Action

1

The Reviews and Partnerships team will identify a suitable Chair for validation events. Note that the Chair is required to have some CP experience.

2

The Reviews and Partnerships team will arrange a planning meeting for the School to attend along with the Chair to

discuss the event in terms of:

·          Panel members

·          Documentation required

·          Date and availability for events.

3

The Reviews and Partnerships team and the school confirm panel members and date of event, and Registry updates the Agenda and CP Schedule.

4

The Reviews and Partnerships and Course Lifecycle teams will have been alerted to any changes to courses created by the CP proposal and will confirm the type of validation event the School will need.

5

The partner institution, lead academic or school should submit documents three weeks before the event takes place.

6

The Reviews and Partnerships tea email an agenda and documentation to all panel members.

7

The validation event is held.

8

The Reviews and Partnerships team will circulate the report of the event within four weeks of the event being held.

9

APB approves the report of the event.

10

A contract is drafted.

11

The contract is signed by partner and University, usually for a period of 5 years.

Note: (Re)Validation is not confirmed until after APB has approved the report of the event – whether or not conditions have been satisfied.

 

2.18 Validation Process – Low Risk CP Events

2.18.1 The University recognises that there may be some instances where a new Collaborative Provision proposal may be slightly lower risk because it is linked to an existing, established Collaborative Provision Partnership. In these instances, the validation process may vary slightly in terms of panel composition and attendees. However the process will remain largely the same:

Step Action
1

The Reviews and Partnerships team will identify a suitable Chair for validation events. Note that the Chair is required to have some CP experience.
2

The Reviews and Partnerships team will plan the event, completing sections 1, 2, and then sections 4-8 of the Low Risk CP Event form (Part 1, Appendix 2).
3

The Reviews and Partnerships team and the School confirm the date of event and which panel members are necessary.
 4

The Reviews and Partnerships and Course Lifecyle teams will have been alerted to any changes to courses created by the CP proposal and will confirm the level of event to be held.
5

The school must supply the information requested in section 3 of the Low Risk CP event form or as a separate document three weeks before the event.
6

The Reviews and Partnerships team email the completed form to all panel members.
7

The validation event is held.
8

The Reviews and Partnerships team circulate the report of the event within four weeks of the event being held (or sooner if the event is smaller).
9

APB approves the report of the event.
10

A contract is drafted.
11

Contract signed by partner and University, usually for a period of 5 years.

 

2.19 Ten Elements of a CP Proposal

2.19.1 It can be helpful to consider the 10 points highlighted in Table 1 before your CP proposal undergoes validation. Contact the Reviews and Partnerships team to clarify which of the 10 elements need to be followed and incorporated as part of the Business Case. Also check for further details of the regulatory processes which apply for each of the 10 elements. For example:

 

2.20 Suggested Agenda for Events

2.20.1 When setting the Agenda for an event, the Steps below are followed:

 

2.21 (Re)Validation Event

2.21.1 During a (re)validation event:

Step Action
 1

The panel and Registry officer should have read all documentation and prepared relevant questions for the course team and senior management.
2

During the private panel meeting ahead of the event, the Chair will allocate specific questions and issues to panel members for them to pursue with partner representatives.

Note: these questions should not be shared in advance with partners.
3

At the start of the meeting with the course team, the Chair should:

·          Carry out introductions;

·          Ask for mobile phones to be switched off;

·          Remind the participants that discussion should be collegiate;

·          Quickly outline the format of the event.
4

During the meeting with the course team the Chair will ensure genuine, relevant debate about the provision takes place.
5

The Registry officer takes notes of the discussion.
6

At the end of discussions with the course team and partner institution, a private panel meeting will decide whether to approve the event. The chair of the event gives feedback to the team as follows:

·          Commendations – areas of strength;

·          Conditions – areas where the panel have concerns about the provision which the panel must address for the provision to be approved;

·          Recommendations – areas where the panel think provision could be strengthened.

2.21.2 After a (re)validation event:

Step Action
 1

Registry will circulate commendations, conditions and recommendations immediately following the meeting to the panel members and course team.
2

The report of the event will be written and circulated within one calendar month of the event asking for comments on:

·          The content from panel members;

·          Factual accuracy from the course team.
 3

There will usually be a week for any comments to be returned.
 4

The final report is circulated to all attendees, and specifies the date conditions should be responded to.
 5

The team sends a comprehensive response to the conditions to reviewsandpartnerships@hud.ac.uk
 6

The Reviews and Partnerships team forward the response to the conditions to the Chair of the event.
 7

The Chair signs off the conditions as met or asks for further clarification from the team before sign off.
 8

The Reviews and Partnerships team copy the Chair’s response to the PIs file for audit purposes.
 9

The report of the event goes to APB for approval, or if urgent approval is needed, Chair’s action may be taken.
10

The contract is issued and signed by the PVC (T&L) and PI ahead of the start of the provision.
11

Provision can continue or be implemented.

 

2.22 Student Meetings – (Re)Validation Events

2.22.1 The student meeting normally should be:

 

2.23 Scrutinising Student Work

2.23.1 Occasionally panel member may request to see students’ work:

Step Action
1 If the request is received well in advance of the event, the planning meeting will highlight the request.
2 When the panel makes a request to see work, they should specify the type and amount of work they want to see.
3

The Agenda for the event will schedule time for the panel to examine student work. The Agenda should also note:

  • The panel expect to see a broad sample of work demonstrating the range of assessment methods, including marking guides and student feedback;
The work should include a sample of the two most recently assessed cohorts for the course including samples from all units/modules and a range of marks.
4

During the meeting, the panel should look at the work to see that:

  • It demonstrates the achievement of the learning outcomes of the programme;
  • Assessment is designed to measure achievement of learning outcomes;
The marking and assessment process is rigorous, consistent and equitable.

 

2.24 Financial Appendix

2.24.1 The procedures surrounding the financial appendix (see Appendix 4) must be produced and signed by the school responsible for the CP course in advance of each academic session.

Step Action
1 Schools should agree all Financial details in advance with Finance in accordance with the document on fees and charges produced by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor.
2 The First Financial Appendix is completed together with the CoC which the PI signs.
3 Schools must make sure that a copy of the financial appendix (see Appendix 4) is lodged with Financial Services.

Part 3 Collaborative Provision Implementation and Quality Assurance Monitoring Procedures

3.21 School Responsibilities

3.21.1 The step and action boxes below show how the PI quality assurance processes feed into the School quality assurance processes.

3.21.2 There may be oversight at both module and course levels, and in operating the normal quality assurance expectations in dealing with appropriate student information. Contacts will vary according to the nature of the collaboration. However, all agreements must have a DALO (see information on DALO, ILO and CM Roles).

3.21.3 Also see section on DALO, ILO and CM Roles for information on these responsibilities.

3.21.4 Records relating to the progress of students in collaborative arrangements need to be maintained effectively so that a student’s record is an accurate reflection of his/her current status. Information held in the Student Finance and Records Office regarding student enrolment is the official student record and will appear on award certificates and transcripts/diploma supplements.

 

3.22 Registry Responsibilities

3.22.1 Registry is responsible for maintaining the collaborative validation schedule, advising on regulations and servicing the validation events. Send any queries relating to collaborative provision to Registry in the first instance (email: reviewsandpartnerships@hud.ac.uk).

Student Panel

3.22.2 A Collaborative Provision Student Panel works as follows:

Step Action
1 PI establishes a Student Panel taking advice from the DALO, recording student feedback on a rolling record.
2 The PI submits the rolling record to the course committee and DALO.
3

The course team consider any comments as part of the Annual Evaluation report.

Note: In an ODUPLUS agreement where no local course committee exists, the Student Panel rolling record is forwarded to the course committee at the University.

Course Committee

3.22.3 The Course Committee in a Collaborative Provision arrangement operates as follows:

Step Action
1

The PI establishes a Course Committee, with the DALO as a member.
2 The DALO must, where possible, attend the PI Course Committee meetings.
3 The PI sends minutes from the Course Committee meetings to the University’s Course Committee and DALO.
4 After holding the University Course Committee meetings, the University then sends copies of the minutes to the PI.
Note: In an ODUPLUS agreement there may be no locally convened Course Committee.

Changes to Approved Provision

3.22.4 If partners wish to make a change to an approved Collaborative Provision course:

Step Action
1 They should consider and outline their proposal, then submit it to their DALO by the end of the April before the year where the changes are intended to take effect (unless you have other agreement by the University)
2 The DALO should notify the Reviews and Partnerships team for them to consider the level of treatment the change will need (either a Tier 1 or Tier 2 Accreditation and Validation Panel or a Collaborative Provision Validation Panel with oversight from APB. DALOs must email reviewsandpartnerships@hud.ac.uk with information about any changes.
3 The Reviews and Partnerships team will contact the PVC (T&L) and the Chair of APB to confirm the level of event required
4 The Reviews and Partnerships team will notify the DALO and partner of the approved level of event required to approve the change
5 Partners and DALOs should submit other changes such as application for a different mode of delivery or delivery at a different campus to reviewsandpartnerships@hud.ac.uk for approval at APB

CP Academic Misconduct

3.22.5 To make sure that any instances of academic misconduct are addressed by partner institutions:

Step Action
1

For Franchised, Validated and Designed and Delivered provision, the PI appoints an Academic Misconduct Officer (AMO) who informs the DALO of investigation outcomes

For ODUPLUS provision the partner and school agree the appointment of an AMO as part of the (re)validation process. This could either be a member of the PI, a member of University of Huddersfield staff who visits the PI regularly or the DALO
2 The partner must confirm the name of the AMO to the School’s AMO. Note that penalties cannot be applied by a partner institution’s AMO; they must be confirmed by the School’s AMO
3 For Franchised, Validated and Designed and Delivered provision, the partner should conduct the informal stage 1 investigation and the University will conduct Stages 2 and 3 (see workflow below)
4 DALOs support partner institutions with AM issues, are the first point of contact and should be regularly updated by partner institutions in all AM cases (refer to section 10 of the Regulations for Taught Students for further information)
5 The University sends all formal emails relating to AM allegations rather than the partner institution. This includes interview invitations and outcomes.
6 A stage 3 case of AM at a partner institution will mean an Academic Misconduct Panel will be held at the University and the student should attend to present their case. If it is unrealistic for the student to attend, a virtual AMP will be held.

3.22.6 See the Academic Misconduct flowchart for further information about the CP process.

CP Student Complaints

3.22.7 To make sure that any complaints are addressed by partner institutions.

Step Action
1 When a student raises a complaint at a partner institution, the partner institution follows the Stage 1 (informal) complaints process, alerting the DALO to the complaint. The student should be advised to contact the University of Huddersfield’s Student Union Advice centre at all stages.
2 If the partner institution does not resolve the issue, they should inform the DALO, sending all relevant paperwork .
3 The DALO will refer the stage 2 complaint to Registry who will complete the formal stages (stages 2 and 3). 
4 If the issue is not resolved at stage 2, then the University follows the stage 3 internal review process.
5 The COP letter is then issued advising the student to contact the OIA for an independent review if they are still unhappy with the outcome.

CP Results Appeals

3.22.8 To make sure that any results appeals are addressed by partner institutions:

Step Action
1 Where a student at a partner institution wishes to appeal a result (this must be within 10 working days of receiving results).
2 The partner institution and DALO direct the student to the University of Huddersfield’s Students’ Union Advice centre for further details and advice.
3 The student submits a stage 1 appeal to Registry by emailing an appeal form to CABAppeals@hud.ac.uk 
4 Registry respond to the student within 20 working days of receiving the appeal with an outcome.
5 The student may ask for a review in the stage 2 process within 10 working days of receiving the outcome letter.
6 Registry issues a completion of procedures letter and the student has 12 months to contact the Office of Independent Adjudicator if not satisfied.

CP Extenuating Circumstances

3.22.9 The extenuation circumstances process is as follows:

Step Action
1 A student at a PI wishes to submit an EC application.
2 The PI should notify the DALO and direct the student to the relevant Regulations, Procedures and Forms on the Huddersfield of University website and also advise them to contact the Students’ Union Advice Centre in the first instance.
3 The student should submit their claim form and evidence t as outlined in the guidance.
4 The DALO and partner institution must be alerted to any outcomes.

 

3.23 Information for newly appointed DALOs

3.23.1 Newly appointed DALOs must:

Step Action
1 Contact the Reviews and Partnerships team to arrange DALO training session as soon as possible.
2 Review the business case, validation report and rationale document for the provision (contact reviewsandpartnerships@hud.ac.uk for copies).
3 Contact the partner institution to carry out introductions to the course team and other staff and to arrange a visit.
4 Maintain regular contact with the partner via email/virtual meetings and should visit at least twice in the first year. In subsequent years, an annual visit is needed.
5 Be aware that they will need to arrange an Annual Executive Meeting (see AEM section). Note: this is a key Collaborative Provision quality indication and must be held once a year.
6 Update PIs on current University regulations and any changes in University Policy which are made via UTLC which may impact the course

Information for Newly Appointed ILOs

3.23.2 Newly appointed ILOs should:

Step Action
1 Contact the Reviews and Partnerships team to arrange a training session as soon as possible.
2 Find out who the DALO is and review the business case, validation report and rationale document for the provision (contact reviewsandpartnerships@hud.ac.uk for copies).
3 Contact the Senior Leadership Team (SLT) in the partner institution to carry out introductions with the course team and other staff and to arrange a visit.
4 Maintain regular contact with the partner institution’s SLT via email/virtual meetings. ILOs should visit at least once a year to conduct the AEM (see AEM section). Note: this is a key Collaborative Provision quality indication and must be held once a year.
5

When Chairing the AEM ILOs should make sure the following are discussed:

  • Recruitment plans;
  • Financial Schedule;
  • Issues requiring action.
6 ILOs should agree and issue the Financial Schedules.
7 Make that the PI is operating collaborative provision within the regulations and procedures of the University as agreed at validation and is aware of changes in the regulatory framework.
8 Support the PI as necessary in the preparation for validation or revalidation events.
9 Support the DALOs in maintaining the quality of the student learning experience and the standards of awards at the PI.
10 Meet students at least once per year to hear their views and ensure that the liaison function is working effectively.

Note: The ILO is accountable to the PVC (T&L) and reports to Deans/Heads of Department as appropriate to the provision.

 

3.24 Conducting the Annual Executive Meeting (AEM)

3.24.1 The Annual Executive Meeting (AEM) is a key quality indicator for CP and provides an important part of the management and review of partnerships. When you conduct an AEM:

Step Action
1 Arrange to hold the AEM annually, normally in spring, at the PI when possible.
2 Make sure the ILO/DALO attend and chair the meeting.
3 Work with the Reviews and Partnerships team to adapt the standard agenda in Appendix 1 - Computing and Library Services statement on support for courses off and send it to all attendees at least a week ahead of the meeting.
4 Following the meeting, the Reviews and Partnerships team will circulate minutes Appendix 2 – Collaborative Provision Business Case Form
5 APB will note and discuss all Annual Executive Meeting minutes

 

3.26 Approval of Additional Sites for Delivery of Approved Collaborative Provision

3.26.1 If your partner requests an additional delivery site:

Step Action
1 Alert the Reviews and Partnerships team to the additional location (email reviewsandpartnerships@hud.ac.uk)
2 The Reviews and Partnerships team will advise you about what you need to do after consulting APB where relevant, normally advising you to visit the site using the Risk assessment form as a guide
3 After the visit submit the Risk Assessment form including photographic evidence to reviewsandpartnerships@hud.ac.uk 
4

APB will approve the new location if it meets the following criteria:

  1. There has been no change in access to learning resources.
  2. There have been no organisational changes.
  3. There have been no changes in staff.
  4.  There have been no changes affecting the funding of student numbers.
5 Registry will notify you of any decision following APB

 

3.27 PI Mergers with Another Institution

3.27.1 If a PI merges with another institution, this may cause issues affecting the management of CP such as:

3.27.2 If you hear that a PI will be undergoing a merger:

Step Action
1 Contact the Reviews and Partnerships team (email: reviewsandpartnerships@hud.ac.uk) as soon as possible and include any relevant details, such as when the merger is expected to be completed and who the merger will be with.
2 The Reviews and Partnerships team will note relevant dates on the Collaborative Provision Schedule and alert APB to the event.
3 Once the merger is complete, forward confirmation of this from the PI to the Reviews and Partnerships team (email: reviewsandpartnerships@hud.ac.uk) 
4 Registry will arrange an Institutional Approval and Validation event at the newly created institution in the academic year following the merger.
5

In the period of time between the merger and before the Approval and Validation event:

  • The new institution must submit a proposal outlining the management of the provision and whether there are any additional members of teaching staff or facilities to be approved;
  • Additional teaching staff CV(s) should be submitted to the relevant School Board for approval and noted at APB;
Representatives from the School, Registry and Computing and Library Services will visit any new sites to assess suitability either before or during an event and submit a report;

 

3.28 Monitoring Publicity Produced by Collaborative Partners

3.28.1 The contract of collaboration states that information relating to the course issued by the PI must have prior approval from the relevant school on behalf of the University. The Reviews and Partnerships team and DALO will normally be the first point of contact for marketing and publicity material:

Step Action
1 The PI must be aware that the University is responsible for correct publicity material and must review all material at the draft stage ahead of issue. Agree a timetable for this.
2 The Reviews and Partnerships team review the PI’s website and prospectus periodically to make sure it accurately reflects the nature and content of the course as well as outcomes and benefits.
3 Any social media content should be discussed with central marketing, although partners may tag the University social accounts in post where relevant, however the University is not obliged to share these posts.
4 The material must say that the qualification of successful students ‘is an award of the University of Huddersfield’. This statement should clearly be associated with the award in question rather than appear as (for example) a header or footer on a page in which awards other than those of this University are described. The PI should not use the wording: ’In partnership with the University of Huddersfield’ or ‘Validated by the University of Huddersfield’
5 In publicity material, the statement that an award is that of the University of Huddersfield should be accompanied by a reproduction of the University logo in an approved form – schools can send the following link to PIs: Brand Guidelines
6 If publicity material is not in English, DALOs should ask for a translation before publication
Note: if you have any serious concerns about publicity material which cannot be resolved via discussion, notify the PVC (T&L).

 

3.29 Exit Strategies

3.29.1 When a termination process is in place, the University’s responsibility and commitment to CP students will end when the final module is completed by the final student. An exit strategy makes sure that students on courses remain supported until they have completed their studies.

Step Action
1 The DALO and ILO should work together to draft the exit strategy, following the template below 
2 Once completed, the DALO or ILO should submit the exit strategy to Reviews and Partnership team for approval at APB. They should email it to reviewsandpartnerships@hud.ac.uk.
3 APB will consider and approve the exit strategy, or may ask for further details.
4 Once approved by APB, the Reviews and Partnership team notifies the DALO/ILO.
5 The DALO will send the exit strategy to the partner institutions.
6

The DALO should write to the students (see template below).
7 The DALO sends annual updates to APB on the termination progress until it is complete.
8 If the termination ends early or the strategy needs amending, the DALO should inform the Reviews and Partnership team immediately (email reviewsandpartnerships@hud.ac.uk).