Introduction
1 This is the report of an audit, carried out by the Quality Assurance Agency
for Higher Education (QAA), of the quality assurance arrangements for a partnership
between Lancaster University (hereafter referred to as the University) and the
Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore, India (hereafter referred to as the
Institute) for the purpose of offering programmes of study in India contributing
to the awards of the University, in particular the International Masters Programme
in Management (hereafter referred to as the Programme), and the linked MA in
Management.
2 This audit was one of four undertaken in October 1997, covering a range of overseas collaborative partnerships which UK higher education institutions have established in India. In every case, visits were made to both the UK and partner institutions.
3 The quality assurance arrangements of the University were the subject of an audit by HEQC resulting in the publication of a Quality Audit Report of the University of Lancaster's Validation Arrangements published in July 1994.
4 The Agency is grateful to the staff and students of the University and of the Institute for their assistance to, and co-operation with, the audit team.
The audit process
5 Prior to the audit visit, the University provided QAA with briefing documents,
comprising a description of the University's process for the delivery and validation
of award-bearing courses overseas, supported by a selection of agendas and minutes
for meetings of the Organising Committee responsible for establishing the Programme.
6 The audit team requested a number of supplementary documents relating to the inter-institutional agreements outlining the formal arrangements for delivering the Programme modules and the MA offered by Lancaster and McGill Universities, and correspondence relating to external examining arrangements.
7 In preparation for the visit to the Institute, members of the audit team visited Lancaster University on 25 July 1997. Discussions took place between members of the team and a number of University staff, including academic and administrative staff from the Management School, such as the Chairs of the Teaching Committee and Board of Studies, the IMPM Programme Director, the School Administrator, the Course/Scheme Director of the MA in Management and the Executive Programme Administrator, together with staff who teach on modules offered in Lancaster and Bangalore. Team members also met representatives from the University's Planning and Associated Institutions Offices and the Director of the Institute for English Language Education. Some members of the team visited the University for a second time on 5 November 1997 to confirm its understanding of the arrangements for the collaborative link, following the visit to India.
8 The audit team visited the Institute itself on 9 October 1997 and held discussions with approximately 10 people, including the Director, the module directors of Cycles 1 and 2 and the tutors for both Cycles.
9 The audit team comprised Professor G Chesters, Mr V Gore, Mr J Morgan, auditors and Ms G Clarke, audit secretary. The audit was co-ordinated for QAA by Mr D W Parry, Acting Deputy Director of the Quality Assurance Group, who accompanied the team to India.
The background to the partnership
Programme providers
10 The Programme was developed by an international consortium of five management schools, of which Lancaster University and the Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore are both members. It is a two-year, part-time, professional studies programme aimed at senior managers who are usually sponsored by their companies. It was conceived as a collaborative venture in which innovative content, pedagogy and mode of delivery would, according to those responsible for its development, allow it to compete with and surpass the best American management courses.
11 The MA in Management, International Masters Programme in Management
(IMPM), was formally approved by the Board of Studies of the Management
School in October 1995 and subsequently (November 1995) by the Senate.
An Interim Memorandum of Agreement was signed in March 1996 by the University
and its four partners, Hitotsubashi University, Japan; INSEAD, France;
McGill University, Canada and the Institute. Each is seen as a full and
equal partner. The stated intention from the outset was to replace the
Interim Agreement by a final agreement no later than 15 December 1996.
At the time of the audit visit, however, this latter agreement had still
not been finalised (see below, paragraphs 24 and 25).
Programme structure and delivery
12 The taught element of the Programme is delivered sequentially in residential modules of two or three weeks' duration, spread over a 16 month period, by each of five institutions. Modules are taken in turn by a single cohort of students who are recruited by the partners either on a national basis or transnationally through the involvement of an international company or organisation. The cohort travels at intervals to study in a different country, with one of the participating management schools acting as host. Written assignments are completed between modules, with tutorial groups created and supported on a national or company basis, each group having its own single 'geographic' tutor based in one of the five partner institutions. The Programme, as operated at the time of the audit, carried the possibility of two certificated outcomes for this initial taught element: a certificate of attendance from the IMPM Programme, and a Diploma.
13 A further dissertation stage (about six months part-time) is undertaken by students wishing to progress to a master's award, leading to an MA in Management from either Lancaster or McGill University. These two universities apply additional admissions criteria to decide whether to permit Diploma holders to proceed to the dissertation stage. In time, other participating institutions may choose to confer their own award, although none were doing so at the time of the audit.
14 The original concept for this international joint venture came from
an individual academic based at McGill University, supported by a colleague
from Lancaster. The development and realisation of the concept, however,
represents the collective efforts of academics at each of the five institutions,
four of whom hold visiting appointments at other partner institutions.
From the outset, the emphasis has been on radical innovation, shared ownership
and collective decision-making, amongst equal partners.
The Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore
15 The Institute, along with the other partners, was invited to join for
reasons of distinctive contribution, perceived status, personal recommendation
and to assist in achieving global coverage for the programme. It is recognised
by the Indian government as one of a small number of university-level centres
which are officially designated as 'Institutions of National Importance'.
It offers doctoral programmes and awards its own diplomas which it states
are recognised within India and elsewhere as at least equivalent to an
MBA. The Institute is autonomous but receives some government funding through
the Indian Universities Grants Commission (UGC). It is a member of the
Association of Indian Universities (AIU) and through the AIU also enjoys
recognition from the All-India Council for Technical Education, an accreditation
body which, the audit team understood, covers management as well as technical
education.
16 In 1996, 32 students in total were recruited by the five partners to the first cycle of the programme, including two recruited via the Institute. At the end of the first cycle of the taught programme (summer 1997), 14 students had registered for the Lancaster MA, none from the Institute.
17 The University regards its involvement in the collaboration as a logical next step for its Management School. It allows a move further into the executive programmes area, building upon its experience since the 1980s in providing post-experience courses at MBA level, developed in association with companies such as British Airways, and involving a module and study visit abroad.
Initial validation and approval process
Current approval processes
18 The audit team was advised that since the approval of the IMPM, the
University had introduced what it described as new and more rigorous arrangements
for the approval of collaborative links, influenced in part by the work
of the then Higher Education Quality Council (HEQC) and its published Code
of Practice for Overseas Collaborative Provision. For example, the
University has established an International Steering Group which considers
programme proposals against the Code of Practice, and produced an
internal policy document which sets out the University's own principles
and procedures in this area. The Group looks at the consistency with University
mission of proposed collaborations, examines their financial implications
and receives and considers information relating to the suitability of overseas
partners. Initial consultation must now take place between programme proposers,
the University's International Office and the Office for Associated Institutions.
The International Steering Group then considers in principle a brief outline
proposal. If the outcome is favourable, a full version is routed in turn
through the Teaching Committee of the relevant faculty, the faculty board,
the Committee for Associated Institutions (a sub-committee of Senate),
and finally Senate itself. Senate exercises the formal function of institutional
responsibility and overview for academic standards.
Approval of the IMPM Programme
19 At the time of the approval of the IMPM, a different system was in place, characterised by considerable devolution to faculty level and operated without the benefit of guidance from the HEQC Code of Practice, the first edition of which was only published in October 1995, by which time the approval process for the IMPM had almost been concluded.
20 The IMPM proposal was considered by three committees within the Management School (which is equivalent to a faculty at the University): its Board of Studies, Teaching Committee and Courses Committee. The Board of Studies looked at the proposal on two occasions, drawing upon the advice of its Teaching and Courses Committees. The Teaching Committee called for '... further details on supervision and tutorial support of students, bearing in mind their different countries of origin...' (2 October 1995). The Board recorded its appreciation of the work of the Courses Committee, thanking it in particular '... for resolving many important matters of academic procedure and detail...' (25 October 1995).
21 The proposal then proceeded beyond the Management School to the University's Committee for Postgraduate Studies, whose minutes contain the observation that '... the quality control aspects of the programme would be difficult...' The Committee's concern appears to have centred on the need to control the entry into the University's MA, whether at the start of the IMPM programme, in terms of qualifications and experience on entry, or at the end of the taught component, on the basis of the grade achieved on the Programme. The role of the Programme's external examiner was highlighted and it appears that the proposers had already sought advice from the person who was subsequently appointed by the University as the external examiner for the IMPM programme.
22 The proposal, the audit team was interested to note, was not referred to the Committee for Associated Institutions because it was not deemed to be an external validation activity as then defined by the University. It was treated, in procedural terms, as an internal University MA and has been throughout for all operational purposes. There was, therefore, no opportunity for more detailed, specialist scrutiny of the proposal by a committee experienced in the complexities and possible pitfalls of external collaborative provision. Nor was it clear to the team whether the implications of what is undoubtedly a complex, consortial scheme were ever fully considered at this stage by anyone in the University apart from those directly involved in its delivery. The apparent preference of the Management School was to allow what was regarded as an exciting and worthwhile scheme to commence, leaving certain sensitive and practical details to be dealt with as and when they arose.
23 In this context the audit team notes that the quality audit report of
the University of Lancaster's validation arrangements published by HEQC
in July 1994 which reviewed the relationship between the Committee for
Associated Institutions and the Postgraduate Studies Committee, concluded
that '... the University might wish to consider how it might clarify the
precise role of the Undergraduate Studies and Postgraduate Studies Committees
in validation activity in relation to the major role of the Committee for
Associated Institutions...'. Whatever action was taken by the University
in the light of the report, it did not appear to have accommodated a programme
such as the IMPM, perhaps understandably given its unique and innovative
nature. Despite their respective remits, and the collaborative and international
dimension of the IMPM, neither the Committee for Associated Institutions
nor the International Steering Group appear to have had any role, either
at the outset or since, in reviewing or monitoring the Programme.
Interim Memorandum of Agreement
24 Following approval of the IMPM by the University, the Interim Memorandum of Agreement was duly signed by the five institutions involved in the partnership. As its name implies, this was intended to be a temporary arrangement, and it was explicitly acknowledged that a more formal framework was required. The 'replacement agreement' was to set out a range of issues, starting with the obligations and responsibilities of the partners, and to include a procedure for resolving disagreements among them as well as various '... other legal and procedural matters...' This agreement has never, in fact, been produced. Its absence means that University practice is currently not consistent with that outlined in the section of the HEQC Code of Practice dealing with formal agreements to which it states that it wishes to adhere.
25 Nor, in the view of the audit team, is this simply a matter of tidying
up technical, legal and financial matters, important though these may be.
According to the Code of Practice, formal agreements should include
details of the quality assurance procedures for collaborative arrangements
such as the IMPM programme, together with rules concerning information,
publicity, public relations and promotion of the arrangements. The University's
position on all these matters remains vague and ill-defined in respect
of the IMPM in the continued absence of a legally binding contract between
the five partner institutions, nearly two years after the IMPM was first
approved. In its discussion of this matter with staff at the University,
the team heard that the focus of the academic founders and organisers of
the programme had been on radical innovation in management education; they
had been absorbed in '... the euphoria of the product...' as one participant
described it, and not in sorting out the detail of administrative and legal
aspects for which, it was suggested, responsibility lay elsewhere, at the
institutional level. The team was encouraged, therefore, to learn that
a meeting of Deans representing the five partner organisations had been
held in July 1997 to make progress on production of the formal agreement.
Consolidating the collaboration
26 The Programme appears to have been launched successfully, but potential problems now loom as difficult assessment and student progression issues arise and the originators of the scheme are superseded by new academic staff. The latter may not have the benefit of having engaged in either the initial, pioneering discussions, or the intensive development work which followed. As the Dean of the Lancaster Management School clearly appreciates, the Programme operates essentially on the basis of personal trust, both within the University and between the international partners. His view that, if the personnel involved were to change (and this is now beginning to happen), a different way of managing the Programme would be required, is one which the audit team would strongly endorse.
27 The audit team was encouraged to observe what appeared to be a positive
convergence of opinion amongst those responsible for delivering the Programme
about the need for a binding formal framework intended to involve the University
more formally in what were acknowledged to be ad hoc quality assurance
mechanisms, and to address the question of appropriate governance of the
Programme. The successful operation of the Programme, the need to share
best practice and to take into account existing and emergent national guidelines
for such arrangements are all likely to encourage institutional heads to
conclude such an agreement. Those academics most closely involved already
accept the value of a detailed institutional agreement which can enshrine
and preserve what they regard as the key features of their imaginative
and pioneering work. The team heard from staff at the Institute that what
they described as an 'institutionalisation' of existing arrangements was
now felt necessary, as the Programme could no longer rely on key, faculty
'anchor men'.
The University's responsibilities
28 Given the circumstances outlined above, determining the precise nature and limits of the University's responsibilities in respect of the IMPM is not a straightforward matter. Responsibility for the whole Programme is said to be shared. The University has a specific responsibility for those students who register for its MA, but certain aspects of this responsibility are 'entrusted', according to the School, to the Organising Committee referred to above. Its status, functions and formal relationship to the University's own quality assurance systems remain, in the view of the audit team, somewhat unclear, particularly in the absence of any terms of reference for the Committee.
29 The audit team considered the way in which students on the IMPM for which the University might be regarded as having a particular responsibility are identified, and how that responsibility is discharged. It was originally represented to the team that all students recruited to the Programme are obliged to register at the outset for either the Lancaster or McGill MA. This does not appear to have been the case, however, in the first year of operation, a fact that has resulted in modifications to the Cycle 2 procedures. During 1996-97, students recruited by the Institute, for example, did not make a decision on MA registration until after the Programme had commenced; indeed, the question was not resolved until they had attended the second module, for which McGill was the host institution. In addition, at the end of the taught element of the programme, one student recruited by another partner decided to transfer registration from the McGill to the Lancaster MA.
30 Bearing in mind the concern of the Postgraduate Studies Committee, that
entry points into the Lancaster MA should be tightly controlled (see above,
paragraph 21), it was not entirely clear to the audit team at what point
during the Programme, and on what basis, a student actually registered
for a Lancaster MA. If students recruited by any of the four other partners
and at any point during the 16 months of the taught Programme can register
for the MA, it is difficult to see how the University can directly assure
itself that initial entry requirements are being met, notwithstanding its
claim that all applications are scrutinised. Nor is it clear to which students
the University owes a direct duty of care: the smaller number registered
for its own MA or the whole student body enrolled on the IMPM; and whether
this is determined on the basis that a student has taken the module delivered
at Lancaster, or all five modules constituting the first stage of the Lancaster
MA. (These matters are considered in more detail in paragraph 42).
31 Certification for the now imminent award of the first Lancaster University MA linked with this Programme raises other issues for the University which may not be addressed if the Management School continues to vest de facto responsibility in the Organising Committee whilst the University ostensibly treats the Programme as an internal MA programme. The audit team were told that the Organising Committee had discussed the question of programme title on several occasions, with some disagreement about the use of the term 'practising'. The Management School has approved the incorporation of the term into its own programme title, but this is not the same as the award title, which is 'MA in Management'. Whether the latter, on its own, would be appropriate for certification purposes is not clear. The University will, no doubt, wish to consult its collaborating partners, company sponsors and students, drawing upon the relevant section of the HEQC Code of Practice on Overseas Collaborative Provision, before deciding upon the precise award title and any other details to be recorded on the certificate. The Institute expressed a strong preference in its meeting with the team, for the place of study to be indicated clearly on the University's MA certificate, listing by name the partner institutions involved in the Programme.
32 In the absence of a formal, legally binding framework for the Programme, the complexity of the joint collaborative venture and the challenging questions raised for the University become equally apparent when one looks more closely at the areas of monitoring and the assessment of students considered below.
Arrangements for programme monitoring and review
University monitoring arrangements
33 So far as the University's formal monitoring requirements are concerned, the audit team was told that the University's standard arrangements applied to the Programme, and that it was regarded no differently to other internal MA programmes. This assurance notwithstanding, the Organising Committee is said to have a monitoring and evaluative role in its own right and the Management School regards itself as having '... entrusted responsibility...' in some important sense to the Committee. In this connection, the School also states that, were there to be a problem with the module delivered by its Indian or any other partner, it would be a matter for the Organising Committee, not the University, to pursue. This points to a possible blurring of the lines of responsibility for programme quality and security of standards in practice, which the University may wish to monitor.
34 An Interim Report covering the first six months of the Programme was
produced for the School's Teaching Committee by the Lancaster Programme
Director in November 1996. Apart from the brief statement '... so far,
so good ...' and a claim that the course was a '... world leader...', the
majority of the sections in the annual review pro forma had not
been filled in, on the grounds, the audit team was told, that it was too
early to offer meaningful comment. The first formal occasion, therefore,
that the School would be able to exercise fully its annual monitoring function
would be January 1998, nearly two years after the commencement of a programme
originally perceived to pose difficulties for quality control and student
supervision purposes (see above, paragraphs 20 and 21).
35 Each module is also evaluated by the relevant module director, and the
Cycle Director for the entire programme, immediately following the delivery
of a module. The resultant evaluation is sent to the Programme Administrative
Centre in Montreal, for purposes of central record keeping. In addition,
the Cycle Director (located during 1996-97 at McGill/INSEAD, but subject
to rotation each Cycle between the partners) attends all modules in person
and is thus able to monitor quality directly. For every Cycle (three to
date) Lancaster has nominated a programme director who represents Lancaster's
interests. Meetings with the company sponsors are held and offer not only
marketing opportunities but another potentially valuable input to programme
monitoring and review. Formal student feedback mechanisms are also in place
for each module.
36 The University's external examiner for the IMPM also plays a key role in monitoring and evaluation. His comments at the Board of Examiners' Interim Meeting in July 1997 showed that he had identified issues relating to the need for clearer guidelines on the length and content of papers; a marking structure to allow individuality of thought to be rewarded; the need for full written feedback from tutors to students; and the possibility of allowing such feedback to be given in the first language of the student. These issues are stated by the University's Programme Director to have been dealt with in the modified Cycle 2 Programme which was about to commence at the time of the audit.
Arrangements for the assessment of students
Reflective Papers
37 During the taught part of the Programme (at the end of which all students who have successfully completed the Programme receive a certificate of attendance and a Diploma from INSEAD), the pattern of assessment is as follows. Within each residential module, students undertake various exercises and activities which are assessed. Between modules, they complete a written assignment relating to the module most recently completed. The latter usually takes the form of a 'Reflective Paper'. An important criterion in evaluating such papers is the extent to which they demonstrate reflection on the part of, and personal change in, a student as a result of the module. In addition there is a continuous 'venture project' which is work-related. The audit team heard some evidence which raised questions as to whether in practice the length of the Reflective Paper as submitted by some students was sufficient to meet the University's normal requirements for a Lancaster MA, a view which it was understood was shared by the Programme's external examiner. This is a matter which the University may wish to consider when the programme is reviewed.
38 The marking arrangements for the Reflective Papers involve submission
of the assignment by the student to his or her geographic tutor, that is,
the tutor allocated to each national or company based group (see above,
paragraph 12). The geographic tutor, who may also offer advice on successive
drafts of assignments, marks all assignments for all modules taken by their
group, the audit team was told. The results are passed on to the central
Programme Administrative Centre in Montreal for record-keeping purposes.
The University has additional responsibilities for students registered
on its own MA. The assignments, together with any tutor comments, are passed
on to the relevant module director, but for the purposes of evaluation
of the module, not for second-marking or moderation. Second-marking is
undertaken by the cycle director.
The role of geographic tutors in assessment
39 To safeguard standards and ensure consistency throughout the Programme, each geographic tutor is required to have a thorough knowledge of the highly distinctive character of the IMPM, and also to possess an appropriate level of expertise in each of the five modules offered at each of the host institutions. The five-partner collaboration involving dispersed delivery sites has significant implications for achieving this. It requires every geographic tutor to attend every module in person (a requirement met in the first Cycle, according to the University). Staff changes, however, could undermine this system in later Cycles, since new geographic tutors will not have been involved in the initial planning and development of the first Cycle of the Programme, including active membership of the Organising Committee.
40 In theory, University staff have a direct involvement in the marking
process in two ways. The first way involves the Lancaster geographic tutor
marking all the assignments of each UK national, or company-based, tutorial
group. These students may also be registered for the Lancaster MA but this
is not necessarily the case, unless the University were to require all
the students it recruits to the Programme in the United Kingdom, or who
comprise a tutorial group for which it is responsible, to register for
its own MA as opposed to that of McGill. That is not, however, a requirement.
Whatever their registered status, they would still continue to have their
module assignments marked by the geographic tutor first allocated to them
in the institution that had recruited them, whether in Canada, Japan, France,
or India. First marking by the Lancaster geographic tutor, therefore, is
inevitably partial in coverage and cannot in itself provide a comprehensive
mechanism for directly ensuring a rigorous assessment process conforming
to the University's own criteria. For this reason the work of all students
registered for the Lancaster MA is double-marked by the Lancaster programme
director.
Admission to the MA dissertation stage
41 From this perspective, it is the second way in which University staff
are directly involved in assessment that becomes the crucial mechanism
by which the entry standards of its MA award are safeguarded. At the end
of the taught stage of the Programme, a 'filter' is introduced; the University
controls progression to the MA dissertation stage, through the direct application
of its own performance criteria. These are additional to those required
for successful completion of the common, taught collaborative Programme
and for which, at present, no University diploma is available. The written
assignments of all students registered, or who wish to be registered, for
the Lancaster MA, whatever their geographic location or institutional affiliation,
are reconsidered as a portfolio of work which is re-marked by University
staff. Students must achieve a grade B or above and demonstrate the qualities
required for the University's master's level study. Noting that conceivably
a University member of staff might act simultaneously as a module director,
a geographic tutor, the Programme Director and overall Cycle Director,
the audit team heard that it was the University's practice that all assignments
are double-marked by a second, independent member of the Management School.
Board of Examiners' Interim Meeting
42 The results of this double-marking are considered by a 'Board of Examiners Interim Meeting' held at the University, and attended by a UK-based external examiner appointed by the University who has had the opportunity to see and comment upon student work. This appeared to the audit team at first sight to constitute a strong system for securing standards and there is some evidence that it has proved so in practice. Thus, in 1997, two students who had passed the INSEAD Diploma were not permitted by the Board to proceed to the Lancaster MA dissertation stage.
43 The audit team would, however, wish to comment on certain aspects of
the role and operation of the Board of Examiners Interim Meeting. It was
not evident to the team, for example, that the Board is constituted and
operates in accordance with the University's requirements for such boards.
Thus the membership list for the MA Board of Examiners provided by the
University did not correspond with those who attended the July 1997 Interim
Board meeting. The reason given for this was that there are five members
of Management School staff whose presence was not required at the Interim
Board but who would attend the final MA Board to report on candidates'
performance concerning the dissertation which they would have supervised.
The wording of the decision - that '... the candidate should be advised
to withdraw...' recorded in the minutes of that meeting concerning two
students judged not to have performed at the level appropriate for admission
into the MA dissertation stage - struck the team as ambiguous. It was not
clear, for example, what would happen if a student chose to ignore this
advice. A requirement to withdraw would make more sense, in the team's
view.
44 The Board seems to the audit team to be a somewhat ad hoc body, unrecognised
by the University regulations. It operates, in effect, as an admissions board
whose decisions are couched in a language shaped by sensitivity to the collaborative
aspects of the award programme. Consequently, it was not clear to the team whether,
for example, a student effectively denied permission to proceed would be able
to invoke the normal University examination and appeal regulations. The current
edition of the University's booklet entitled Regulations and other information
for postgraduate Students (section 4.9, page 21), state that, in the case
of an MA degree, should examiners recommend that a student fail a course on the
basis of course work and examination and not be permitted to attempt the dissertation
or project, the case shall be reviewed by the Postgraduate Review Committee.
This did not seem to have occurred in the case of the two students advised to
withdraw several months after the decision of the Interim Meeting, although the
University stated that it was its intention that a review should take place.
The possibility that such a review might not have been triggered had the University's
agreed procedures been applied seemed to the team another consequence of the
seemingly ad hoc arrangements adopted by those responsible for the programme.
It also serves to underline the possible consequences of the absence of a detailed
formal agreement. On this and a number of other matters, ad hoc measures
appear to have been taken to resolve largely unanticipated difficulties. In the
view of the team, these difficulties are, in part at least, a consequence of
introducing an innovative and complex collaborative scheme, where action has
been constrained by an ill-defined notion of shared ownership, requiring the
adoption of a flexible approach, which the formal procedures of the University
do not strictly sanction.
45 The solution adopted in this particular instance, namely the convening of an 'interim meeting', would also appear to curtail the established rights of individual students, if an 'advisory' decision does not, as in the case of all other MA students, trigger automatic review by the Postgraduate Review Committee. There may be a question of equity should individual representations from geographic tutors or a partner institution be successful for one student but not another. The appeals procedure on this, and indeed other, more general, aspects of the IMPM Programme seemed to the audit team to be unacceptably imprecise. It was not immediately obvious, for example, whether student appeals should be directed to, and come under the regulatory aegis of, the University, or of the partner institution which recruited the student, which taught a particular module, or awarded a particular qualification. The team heard that, in appealing against a module assessment decision, the relevant module director and the institution responsible for hosting the module involved, would be the appropriate authority to which a student should appeal. The team was also told, however, that appeals should be addressed at the end of each stage to the relevant awarding body. An appeal against a decision not to award the Diploma award at the end of the taught part of the Programme would, therefore, be a matter for INSEAD; refusal of progression to the MA stage a matter for either Lancaster or McGill. The team was not convinced that academic and administrative staff at the University fully grasped the implications of the current situation, which urgently requires detailed clarification and communication. The urgency suggested here is reinforced by the fact that the Organising Committee does not appear to regard such matters as a part of its remit.
The student experience
Student support and supervision arrangements
46 The prime tutorial support for students on the Programme has taken the form of the geographic tutor who attends all modules and who, between modules, travels if necessary to a location convenient for those students for whom he or she is responsible. As the Programme organisers recognise, the planned move to company-based cohorts of four or five students in Cycle 2 poses a potentially bigger challenge in that nationally based, face-to-face meetings are likely to be more difficult to achieve. The audit team observed that some tutors appeared to offer quite detailed advice to students on early drafts of assignments before agreeing to accept formal submission and then forwarding them on to any moderation process based elsewhere.
47 At the time of the audit, the audit team was told that the exact form of supervision of the student at the MA dissertation stage had still to be determined. The team understands that such supervision may be the responsibility of a member of staff at the University, with a second supervisor located in the partner institution responsible for recruiting the student. This is a matter needing swift resolution, given that students have already entered the dissertation stage.
Staffing and staff development
48 About 50 per cent of the staff involved in the delivery of the module at the Institute during Cycle 1 were staff members of the Institute; the rest were invited experts from management schools throughout the world. The Organising Committee approves the staffing proposals for each module and, were there to be any problems, then the University would expect the Organising Committee to take this up. The University would not pursue a matter of teaching quality directly with a partner, the audit team learnt.
49 The collaborative, international character of the programme is in itself a valuable source of staff development for those involved. Formal staff development has included British Council funded exchange visits for both the Lancaster and McGill Programme administrators, joint or visiting appointments between partner institutions in respect of four senior academic staff contributing to the programme and the secondment to the IMPM of a Lancaster PhD student. The University has also sought to involve staff whom it has identified as likely to take up a specific responsibility in the second Cycle in relevant activities during the first.
50 The Institute had hoped that participation in the IMPM would provide a platform for wider forms of inter-institutional collaboration. So far it is only with Lancaster that some joint research projects and staff exchange proposals have emerged, a development for which the University is to be commended.
Publicity and promotional materials
51 There are no specific University mechanisms for monitoring publicity
produced about the Programme, either by the Organising Committee, or by
individual partner institutions. The audit team noted that the University's
new policies and procedures for overseas collaborations were silent on
this matter. The University may, therefore, wish to consider amending the
document summarising those policies, drawing upon the HEQC Code of Practice on
Overseas Collaborative Provision, and then consider its implications for
the IMPM.
Conclusions
52 The International Masters Programme in Management which contributes
to the award of an MA in Management of Lancaster University was conceived
by its originators, both within and beyond the Management School of the
University, as a collaborative venture in which innovative content, pedagogy
and mode of delivery would allow it to compete with and surpass the best
American management courses. The realisation of this concept has involved
the collective efforts of academics at five institutions around the world,
including the University itself and the Indian Institute of Management
in Bangalore. From the outset, the emphasis has been on radical innovation,
shared ownership and collective decision-making, amongst equal partners.
The University has regarded its involvement in the collaboration as a logical
next step for its Management School, building upon its experience since
the 1980s in providing post-experience courses at MBA level involving a
module and study visit abroad.
53 As the University acknowledges, there are inevitably tensions between the need to facilitate dynamic innovation, in this case a unique and complex consortial arrangement, and the requirements of due process and regulatory frameworks designed to secure academic standards. It is now manifestly evident, however, that the finalisation of a formal and detailed agreement for the Programme has become an urgent necessity. Such an agreement is required to ensure that appropriate legal, financial and administrative safeguards are securely in place. This will, in turn, enable the University itself to be confident of the quality of provision delivered, in part at least, in its name, and to be able to assure current and potential sponsors and students of the quality of such provision and of the standards attained.
54 A number of practical consequences have followed from the failure thus far to conclude such an agreement with the various partners. These concern monitoring, assessment and supervision arrangements for the Programme in general. More specifically, the establishment of arrangements relating to student appeals is urgently required.
55 The audit team notes and welcomes the intention of the University's International Steering Group to begin a selective review of collaborative schemes which were approved under previous procedures. Such a review, and the formal incorporation within the University's overall quality assurance arrangements of the quality assurance and other mechanisms relating to the operation of this innovative scheme, is now strongly advised. Such action will help the Programme to realise the full potential of its promising launch and to secure the high standards to which the University and its partners are clearly committed.
Annex
Commentary on the audit report supplied by the
University of Lancaster
The University of Lancaster, with its Management School welcome the
recognition in the report to the radical innovation that the programme
represents, including the shared ownership and collective decision-making
between equal partners that was built into the design. Nevertheless, the
experimental nature of the programme brought attendant risks and it is
important to establish procedures to guard against the possibility of difficulties
being encountered. The numbers below correspond to the sections numbered
in the main report.
11. A draft final agreement will be discussed by the next meeting of the deans of the partner schools in January, following the receipt of recommendations from the Organising Committee which will meet in late August 1998, and which will then be passed to the appropriate university bodies for approval.
26. As a matter of policy, colleagues at the partner institutions are treated as equals in the joint enterprise and we behave towards them as we would to other colleagues at Lancaster. Communications have taken place continuously, in accordance with the need to be explicit about procedures. We will implement further briefings on such matters.
27. The use of the term 'ad hoc' suggests that quality assurance mechanisms were implemented informally as events unfolded. This was not, and is not, the case. Additional measures in regard to quality assurance were clearly required because of the collaborative and international features of the programme. We considered what those measures should be and put them into effect. They will be specified in the final agreement.
28. Terms of reference for the Organising Committee have not been drafted, and relationship between that body and the University's quality assurance system will be made explicit.
29. The Management School did change, during cycle 1 and thereafter, its requirement that students be required to register at the commencement of the programme for either the Lancaster or the McGill MA. The reason for this was to give students the opportunity to experience module one, taught at Lancaster, and module two, taught at McGill. The end of module two is now the deadline for exercising preferences as to registration.
30. Lancaster University is exercising for the IMPM the same degree of control over admissions as it would for other Masters programmes. By agreement between the University's Postgraduate Admissions Office and the Management School, all those who commence the programme complete Lancaster's admissions forms and the Lancaster programme director recommends approval or otherwise. In cases where students subsequently transfer to the MA at McGill or opt to follow the programme without taking either MA, their registration at Lancaster is terminated.
31. Subject to further consideration of the matter, the Management School and the University see no reason to change the title of the award: the names of partner institutions cannot be a matter for the degree certificate but could be included in the transcript.
32. The function of the Organising Committee is the same as other steering or management committees that the Management School sets up to oversee each of its cross-disciplinary teaching programmes. These committees each have responsibility for curriculum design and quality assurance, and report to the School's Teaching Committee, to which they also bring recommendations on matters of substance in that forum, he or she would refer it to the Teaching Committee: from there it would go if necessary to the full faculty board and thence, ultimately, to the Senate. The University has the responsibility, working with the School, to decide whether Lancaster should withdraw from the partnership.
37. In order to improve students' preparedness for the Reflective Papers, sessions on research and study skills are now included in modules one and two.
39. It remains a requirement that every tutor working for the first time on the IMPM should attend all modules in that cycle.
43-45 In the case of programmes, including the IMPM, which have a two-stage structure, it seems desirable to consider students' progress before they proceed to the second stage. For example, if their performance is weak on the first, taught part of the programme, it may be inadvisable for them to proceed to the second stage which includes submission of a dissertation or major project.
The purpose of the interim Board of Examiners is to determine candidates' suitability to proceed to the second stage of study. The final Board of Examiners, which agrees the awards to be made, includes amongst its members those staff who have supervised students' major paper.
It is clear that a requirement to withdraw is applicable only if a student has failed on two occasions to achieve a pass mark in one or more units of assessment. If a candidate has had only one fail mark, or a generally weak profile, he or she will be counselled, to ascertain whether further support or study might make the difference, or whether the student should, in his or her own interests withdraw. Giving advice to students on such borderlines is a feature of all postgraduate teaching programmes at Lancaster, and a standing university body, with the authority to exclude, considers cases of students who do not perform as required.
46. It is not the experience to date of the IMPM that face-to-face contact is becoming more difficult to achieve, especially as students become increasingly mobile across national boundaries. The position is, however, being monitored.
47. Arrangements for the supervision of the MA dissertation stage have been simplified to avoid any possible complications which may arise from dual supervision. All students registered for the Lancaster MA have a Lancaster-based supervisor and their dissertation is double-marked by a Lancaster-based member of staff.
48. The University would pursue a matter of teaching quality through its representative(s) on the Organising Committee. If matters could not then be resolved satisfactorily, the Teaching Committee and whether appropriate other University bodies would be consulted (see section 33 above).
51. The question of an agreed policy on matters of publicity is being considered for inclusion in the formal agreement between the partner schools (see section 11 above).
Finally, Lancaster wishes to endorse the recognition by the QAA that the emphasis of the programme from the outset has been on radical innovation, shared ownership and collective decision-making, amongst equal partners. We intend that forthcoming action, including a written final agreement, will enable the programme to realise the full potential of its promising launch and to secure the high standards to which Lancaster and its partners are fully committed.
Top