Quality Management and Audit Unit

In 2002 the University introduced a Protocol for the Approval of New Partner Institutions. A document-based review of the effectiveness of the Protocol was undertaken by the Quality Management and Audit Unit (QMAU) in January 2006, with a report provided to the Senior Management Group (SMG) in February 2006. The review concluded that the Protocol was useful in providing a more strategic approach to the development of links with new collaborative partners, but as no partner had gone through the entire approval process it was difficult to make a judgement on the effectiveness of the arrangements.

At its meeting on 25 October 2006, Academic Development and Student Services (ADSS) Committee endorsed a proposal to separate the process of institutional approval and re-approval from programme approval (minute 06.77). The revised procedures were approved by Senate on 29 November 2006 and were to be operational in time for the 2007/08 academic year (min 06.151). To date no institutional re-approvals have taken place.

At its meeting on 16 April 2008 Senate agreed to adopt the models of collaboration proposed by the Working Group on the Register of Collaborative Provision (minute 08.33). The models agreed are:

ii) Articulation – where students complete certificated learning at a partner institution and this is mapped against a programme of study at Ulster, thus permitting students to enter the Ulster programme with advanced standing.

iii) Outcentres – where there is a formal agreement with an organisation to deliver all or part of a University programme off campus using resources that belong to the partner.

The proposed operational procedures for the re-approval of partner institutions presupposes that all collaborative activities at Ulster falls within one of the above models. Where a validated programme is offered within a ‘Subject Network’ each partner will undergo separate re-approval. The re-approval process will be managed by the QMAU.

The re-approval process detailed below will apply primarily to partner institutions who offer provision under the validated model of collaboration (see 2(i) above). Students studying a validated programme in partner institutions will be Associate Students of Ulster. All partner institutions who offer programmes of study under the validated arrangement will be subject to institution re-approval within a quinquennial cycle.

Where the model of collaboration is one of articulation where the student from the partner institution enters the Ulster programme with advanced standing there will be no requirement for the partner to undergo an institutional approval or re-approval process. Faculty staff will review the study to be accredited and any issues of concern arising after students join the Ulster will be identified and addressed through the University’s internal quality assurance process.

Outcentre provision where the University uses premises belonging to another organisation for the delivery of all or part of an award bearing course will not be subject to institutional approval/re-approval. Staff employed by the partner institution may teach on the course but in such cases these staff must become recognised teachers of the University. Ongoing monitoring is undertaken through the University’s internal quality assurance processes.

Joint courses which are planned and delivered jointly with another partner institution, permit ‘students to gain a qualification of the University, or the institution or a joint award. Such arrangements will not fall within the scope of institutional approval/re-approval. The course will be subject to the quality and standards assurance arrangement of each institution and where possible these will be harmonised.

As with the initial approval of a new partner institution, the University will adopt a risk-based approach to the re-approval of existing partners. The degree of risk to the University will fall into three categories, ‘Low’, ‘Medium’, and ‘High’. Factors to be considered when determining the risk include:

the partner’s alignment to the University’s strategic aims, objectives and core values;

how issues raised through Annual Course Review and other monitoring mechanism have been addressed;

The QMAU will be responsible for collating evidence and conducting an initial scrutiny of the documentation provided by the partner institution. They will also review information sourced internally from within the University and will make a recommendation to the PVC (Teaching and Learning) on the level of risk identified.

Where the risk is considered ‘low’ (as judged by QMAU and agreed by the PVC Teaching and Learning), the re-approval process will be a desk-based review, undertaken by QMAU with a report on the conclusions and recommendations (if any) to the ADEC. There will be no requirement for a visit to the partner institution. However, central University Departments which have the relevant expertise will be required to scrutinise information and provide a report to QMAU on their findings.

Where the initial assessment judges the partnership to be ‘medium’ risk, and the PVC (Teaching and Learning) concurs with this, then a visit will be undertaken to discuss in detail institutional level matters with Senior Management in the partner institution. The panel undertaking the visit will comprise the PVC (Teaching and Learning), and a senior member of staff with extensive knowledge of collaborative activity. The QMAU will service and support the visit. A report, detailing the conclusions and recommendations will be forwarded to ADEC.

Examples of issues which might warrant a finding of medium risk include issues identified through annual course review over a number of years which have not been addressed; low or no recruitment onto courses; poor student performance; significant number of student complaints and/or appeals; and poor engagement between staff at the University and the partner institution.

There may be occasions where the initial scrutiny of the documentation provided will identify the partnership as being ‘High’ risk. This will normally be where the reputation and good standing of the University is at risk or where there is the potential for financial risk to the University. Other factors which may result in a finding of high risk include changes in the operational environment (market conditions, changes in key personnel etc); changes in constitution and governance arrangements of the partner institution; a change in the higher education strategy and academic plan, or where there are serious issues which impact on the student learning experience.

The panel conducting a visit to an institution will comprise at least the PVC (Teaching & Learning), Dean/Associate Dean and an external representative. The panel will be serviced by QMAU. A report, with conclusions and recommendations will be considered by ADEC.

The list of information required in the Institution Re-Approval Document is produced at See Partnership Handbook. The level of risk identified will however influence the level of documentation required. The Institution Re-Approval Document will also include a self critical evaluation highlighting the benefits of the partnership to the partner and to Ulster and an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the collaborative arrangement with action points to address issues identified.

The information sourced internally will include annual course review submissions, reports from Faculty Heads of Collaborative Courses (FHCC) and information available on the partner institution’s website.

i) Partner institutions are required to complete Form IA2 (see Appendix 2) in the year preceding the expiry of the Memorandum of Recognition. Each partner is re-approved within a quinquennial cycle. The partner institution is asked to confirm if it wishes to continue the partnership beyond the period covered by the current Memorandum of Recognition.

ii) If the partner institution confirms that it wishes to continue the partnership it must submit the Institution Re-approval Document at least six months prior to the expiry of the current Memorandum of Recognition.

iii) Initial scrutiny of the Institution Re-approval Document, and information sourced internally, is undertaken by QMAU, with a recommendation sent to the PVC (Teaching and Learning) regarding the level of risk identified.

Appropriate sections of the Institution Re-approval Documentation are reviewed by the central University departments which have the specialist expertise. An aide-memoire to assist this process is provided at See Partnership Handbook. Relevant departments include Examinations Office, Collaborative Courses Unit, Academic Office, International Office, Information Services, Student Support, Corporate Planning and Governance, Finance, Physical Resources, Human Resources, Staff Development, Health and Safety and Equality.

QMAU writes a report with conclusions and recommendations for consideration by ADEC. Once approved by ADEC a Memorandum of Recognition (see Partnership Handbook) is signed by the Vice-Chancellor and the Head of the partner institution.

Initial scrutiny of the Institution Re-approval Document and internally sourced documentation may bring to light issues of concern, which although unlikely to harm the University’s reputation, will be of sufficient proportion to warrant a visit to the institution. These concerns might include issues arising from Annual Course Review which have not been addressed; low or no enrolments on courses; poor student performance or retention problems; a significant number of student complaints and/or appeals; or poor engagement and communication between staff from the University and their counterparts in the partner institutions.

The decision to visit the partner institution will be taken by the PVC (Teaching and Learning) upon advice from the QMAU. A panel comprised the PVC (Teaching and Learning), or her nominee, and a senior member of staff with experience of collaborative activity, will visit the partner institution to meet with Senior Management to discuss the concerns identified.

The QMAU will make arrangements for the panel meeting, in consultation with the institution, circulate the relevant paperwork to the panel members and institution in advance of the meeting and provide administrative support for the visit, and service the panel meeting.

Formal institution re-approval visits and course evaluation may be combined in a single event, but the event will have two parts with separate agendas. In such cases, conditions of institutional approval must be met before any proposed courses are permitted to admit students.

The panel will receive an agenda, a summary of the findings from the review of the documentation, the aide-memoire, and feedback from appropriate central University departments.

While the main focus of the visit is on the issues identified from the internal review of the Institutional Re-approval Document, it is also an opportunity to include discussions of strategic interest such as the future plans for the development of the partnership, and the current operating environment.

After the visit, the QMAU drafts a report, which is circulated to the panel members for comment and subsequently signed off by the chair of the panel. The report identifies any conditions or recommendations associated with the approval and is submitted to the ADEC for consideration.

Once approved by the ADEC, and when conditions in the report have been addressed to the satisfaction of the chair of the panel, a Memorandum of Recognition is signed by the Vice-Chancellor and the head of the partner institution. The period of approval will normally be 5 years.

Where the initial scrutiny unearths issues which are of serious concern to the University, such as financial irregularities or serious failings in the governance of the partner institution, then a recognition panel will be appointed to visit the institution in order to discuss in detail the concerns of the University. Until the recognition panel has visited the partner institute no new courses will be evaluated or existing provision revalidated. The recognition panel will comprise of University experts from appropriate faculties and/or central departments, a Dean or Associate Dean and, where appropriate, external representatives. The panel will be chaired by the PVC (Teaching and Learning) and serviced by the QMAU.

Formal visits to a proposed partner for institutional re-approval and course evaluation may be combined in a single event, but the event will have two parts with separate agendas. In such cases, conditions of institutional approval must be met before any proposed courses are permitted to admit students.

The QMAU will make arrangements for the panel meeting, in consultation with the institution, circulate the relevant paperwork to the panel members and institution in advance of the meeting, provide administrative support for the visit and service the panel meeting.

The panel will receive a summary of the findings from the review of documentation, the aide-memoire and a summary report on feedback from appropriate central University department.

While the main focus of the visit is on the issues identified from the internal review of the Institutional documentation, it is also an opportunity to include discussions of strategic interest such as the future plans of the development of the partnership.

After the visit, the QMAU drafts a report, which is circulated to the Panel members for comment and subsequently signed off by the chair of the panel. The report identifies any conditions or recommendations associated with the approval, or clearly identifies the reason(s) approval is not being recommended, and is submitted to the ADEC for consideration.

Once approved by the ADEC, and any conditions in the report have been addressed to the satisfaction of the chair of the recognition panel, a Memorandum of Recognition is signed by the Vice-Chancellor and the head of the partner institution.

Where the decision of ADEC is not to approve the partner institution then the partner will be written to by the PVC (Teaching and Learning) advising of this decision and informing them that they will not be permitted to enrol any new students onto any programme approved by Ulster. They will still be responsible for seeing that adequate human and physical resources are in place to ensure the successful delivery of approved programmes to students already enrolled on programmes. They will still be required to meet the University’s standards assurance and quality management requirements.