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 the University of Northumbria at Newcastle (hereafter referred to as
the University) and APTECH, Mumbai, India for the purpose of offering programmes
of study in India leading to an award of the University, initially a Higher Diploma
in Software Engineering, and subsequently BTech Communications and BSc Computing
degrees (see below, paragraph 11).
2 This audit was one of four undertaken in October 1997. They covered 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 University's arrangements for assuring the quality of its academic provision and the standards of its awards were the subject of an audit by the former Higher Education Quality Council (HEQC) resulting in the publication of a quality audit report in June 1994. The University's collaborative provision in general had also been the subject of an audit by HEQC resulting in the publication of a quality audit report in February 1997.
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 the QAA with briefing
documents. These included a description of the partnership, prepared by
the Department of Computing, supported by reports, policy statements and
correspondence, describing the establishment and development of the partnership.
The briefing materials also included a University document produced in
1996 entitled Principles and Procedures for Collaboration between Institutions
on Taught Programmes (hereafter referred to as Principles and Procedures).
6 The audit team requested a number of supplementary documents relating to validation arrangements, programme approval, procedures for external examining and publicity for the University's Higher Diploma and degree programmes offered by APTECH.
7 In preparation for the visit to APTECH, members of the audit team visited the University on 2 July 1997. Discussions took place between the team and a number of University staff, including the Head of the Department of Computing, the Dean of the Faculty of Engineering, Science and Technology, the Chair of the Committee for Quality Improvement and Academic Standards, route leaders for the HND and BSc programmes, and some administrative staff including the Academic Registrar and other members of the Registrar's Department and the Head of the International Office. Several staff involved in the discussions had visited APTECH during the establishment of the partnership.
8 The audit team visited APTECH's administrative headquarters in Mumbai on 7 October 1997 and held discussions with more than 25 people, including the Managing Director, a Senior Vice-President, the Head of the Academic Administration Office and the Examination Co-ordinator. The team also met academic and administrative staff from the teaching centre in Mumbai, including the Centre Head, and the Manager from the Madras Centre, together with eight students enrolled on APTECH's own Advanced Diploma in Software Engineering and academic staff teaching on that programme in Mumbai. Some members of the team visited the University for a second time on 18 November 1997 to confirm its understanding of the arrangements for the collaborative link, following the visit to India.
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
APTECH
10 APTECH is a private company based in India specialising in information
technology solutions. It oversees a rapidly increasing network of education
centres throughout India and beyond, some of which are directly controlled
by APTECH, others of which are franchised operations. APTECH is not entitled,
under current Indian legislation, to award its own degrees. This, and its
wish to move from an emphasis on training towards a more academic mission,
underlies its search for an overseas higher education validating/franchising
partner. It declares itself to have '…an international edge...'
through its collaboration with the Open University of British Columbia,
Pace University (USA) and the University of Northumbria at Newcastle. The
educational activities of the company are growing rapidly, offering a challenge
to any collaborative partner through the scope and speed of its ambition.
11 The particular focus for the partnership with the University was, initially,
APTECH's own Advanced Diploma in Software Engineering, which it asked the
University to validate. The Higher Diploma in Software Engineering, the
title which the University agreed to use for the programme, was deemed
by it to be more appropriate in an overseas location than the title Higher
National Diploma. (The finally agreed award title, whilst formally approved,
has been omitted from the current edition of the University's Regulations).
From the outset, both the University and APTECH regarded the validation
of this programme (approved in the summer of 1996) as a first step towards
a more extensive collaboration. At the time of the audit team's visit to
APTECH, however, no students were following the Higher Diploma course in
India. After the earlier validation event, there was a further University
panel visit to APTECH in April/May 1997, resulting in the approval in June
that year of additional collaborative programmes (BTech Communications
and BSc Computing). The panel did not pursue a proposal from APTECH to
offer a validated BA in Multimedia Graphics.
12 At the time of the audit visit, no formal agreement had been signed
with respect to any of the approved programmes. The complication caused
by the June 1997 injunction granted in the Madras High Court preventing
foreign universities 'conferring awards' in India had understandably introduced
a note of caution in the development of the partnership. By the time of
the audit visit, the situation provoked by the ruling had, according to
APTECH, been resolved although UNN was still uncertain as to the impact
of the ruling. On its final fact-finding visit to the University, the audit
team received evidence confirming that the University had recently made
it clear to APTECH that the delivery of programmes in India was not to
proceed until the contractual position had been formalised. The University
viewed the situation as so unclear that, in November 1997, it put the whole
development on hold.
The University and international education
13 The partnership was established in the context of the University's developing arrangements for assuring the quality of its academic provision and the standards of its awards. These arrangements were the subject of an HEQC audit leading to a report published in June 1994; a report on arrangements for its collaborative provision in general was published by the HEQC in February 1997. The 1997 report noted that the University's mission statement referred to '...an expanding international demand for its education services...'. That report also noted that until recently the University had chosen not '...to enter into large scale franchising and partnership arrangements with other institutions...' but that '... in the last two years, it (had) been a matter of deliberate policy to make a determined effort to become a truly international University...' (1997 report, paragraph 5).
14 In June 1996, a few months after the first APTECH validation event (see
above paragraph 11), the University's Academic Board approved a document
entitled Policy Statement on the Development and Expansion of Collaborative
Arrangements which declared the University's intention to be an institution
'... which plays its part in serving regional, national and international
needs by offering a wide diversity of educational programmes and, where
appropriate, collaborative relationships with other educational organisations...'.
The Principles and Procedures document, approved in March 1996 on
the eve of the APTECH validation event, set out in greater detail the essential
features of setting up, approving and sustaining collaborative relationships.
The University intends that Principles and Procedures will apply
to future developments across the whole range of the University's institutional
collaborations within the UK and overseas. Principles and Procedures anticipated
the second edition of the HEQC's Code of Practice on Overseas Collaborative
Provision by some months, and shared a number of key features with
it and with its predecessor (published in 1995).
15 The University recognises four types of collaboration as follows: validation, dual awards, joint awards and franchising. The arrangements for the Higher Diploma and the BTech Communications follow the validated model; the BSc Computing is obtained by the partial franchise of six level 3 units in order to top up APTECH's Advanced Diploma (identical in content to the University's Higher Diploma) and to an unclassified degree. A validated arrangement is defined as one where the University approves a programme of study developed, designed and delivered, and assessed and managed by an external institution and its staff but which leads to a (sole) University award. A franchise is defined as '... any part of the University's own approved academic programme (a sole award), which is delivered in, and by staff of, another institution but which continues to be assessed by the University…'. The underlying principles of collaboration are declared to be consonance with the University's mission; consistency with faculty and University academic plans; and compliance with the HEQC Code of Practice. The University intends its collaborations to be characterised by commitment, partnership and the sharing of responsibilities.
Initial validation and approval process
University committees and collaborative
partnerships
16 At the time of the audit the University committees with key roles in
collaborative partnerships, both in the UK and overseas, were the Quality
Improvement and Academic Standards Committee, known as QIAS, a sub-committee
of the Academic Board, and faculty quality committees (FQCs) each of which
reports to its faculty board and, on specific quality issues including
collaborative proposals, to QIAS as well. To promote good practice and
consistency of standards, there is overlap in the membership of QIAS and
FQCS. A member of the Registrar's Department is an ex-officio member of
each FQC which also has QIAS nominees from other faculties serving on it.
Institutional recognition of partners
17 The University does not operate a separate procedure for granting institutional recognition, since it combines in a single event both institutional approval and course approval. The Principles and Procedures document relates strictly to collaborative ventures between higher education institutions. Through Principles and Procedures, the University encourages informal liaison and consultation with the potential partner at an initial stage; and the promoters of collaboration within the University are entreated to seek advice from the Registrar's Department, the University's Legal Adviser and the International Office. Promoters are required to deposit with the Registrar's Department a 'Statement of Intent', using a standard form, and to notify details of the '... proposed partner, its status and financial viability...' to the dean(s) of the relevant faculty or faculties and secure their approval. The procedures require that this information is conveyed to the University Executive and, if the proposal receives its support, a 'Letter of Intent' to collaborate is sent to the partner.
18 The validation of the Higher Diploma began before these detailed procedures were agreed. One consequence of this is an element of uncertainty about which procedures should have been followed at any given time; the franchising of the 'top-up' modules for the BSc Computing and the validation of the BTech Communication were, in contrast, undertaken after the principles and procedures were fully in place. The audit team recognises the likelihood of some difficulties arising from the introduction of new and complex procedures.
19 For the purposes of the current link, APTECH was treated by the University
as a higher education institution. It was not clear to the audit team,
however, at what point in the process such an important matter of principle
had been decided or by whom (see below, paragraph 35). The importance of
ensuring clarification on such matters when selecting partners is emphasised
in the HEQC Code of Practice.
20 The relative autonomy of faculties at the University in matters of quality assurance, identified in the HEQC Quality Audit Report of February 1997 covering the University's collaborative provision in general, encourages local initiative. The audit team was given to understand that the original link with APTECH came from a chance meeting at an overseas education fair between representatives from APTECH and the University's International Advisor. Subsequently, the Faculty of Engineering, Science and Technology - and specifically the Department of Computing - took an active lead in a series of detailed discussions between Faculty staff and representatives of APTECH between April 1995 and November 1995. This process had the effect of establishing confidence between individuals and ensured a useful level of understanding on what preparation for the validation event involved.
21 During this initial period there was, nevertheless, a degree of uncertainty
about what might or might not be possible. The audit team suggests at least
three reasons for such uncertainty: the relative autonomy of faculties
at the University did not appear to encourage early participation in collaborative
activity by the Registrar's Department; prior to the publication of Principles
and Procedures, University participants did not have easy access to
a well-tested process; finally, there were tensions between the entrepreneurial
aspirations of APTECH and awareness on the part of academic staff in the
University of due process; between long-term ambitions and short-term realities.
To the extent that some uncertainty was resolved in the process (for example,
the decision not to pursue British Computer Society accreditation for the
validated Higher Diploma), the exploratory discussions were helpful and
necessary. Internal University correspondence reveals, however, that, even
after the validation event, those University staff who had been most involved
in negotiations did not fully understand some central issues: the status
of the programme's external examiner; the internal resource allocations
that would allow the Department to develop the partnership in its early
days; and the difference (in the University's vocabulary) between a Memorandum
of Understanding and a Memorandum of Co-operation.
The validation event and follow-up
22 The validation event for the Higher Diploma in Software Engineering followed familiar models in most respects (but see below, paragraphs 23 and 24). Both the briefing for the validation panel and the subsequent report brought important issues into sharper focus, as the QIAS Committee finally became involved in a formal sense. The coincidental appearance of the Principles and Procedures document, however, seems to have contributed to the post-event confusion, as the sequence of minutes of the QIAS Committee between May and October 1996 reveal. The May meeting of the Committee gave authority for Chair's action to approve the Higher Diploma validation'... on receipt of a satisfactory response to the conditions set by the validating panel and a formal Memorandum of Co-operation...' (the latter was required not only following the adoption of Principles and Procedures but also in the light of an earlier statement of general principles governing overseas partnerships approved by the Academic Board in 1994). By the June meeting, the validation had been approved through Chair's action, although the formal Memorandum of Co-operation had not been completed. The October meeting was informed that a revised Memorandum of Co-operation had been signed and received. The University's position at the time of the audit was, however, that no Memorandum of Co-operation had been either signed or received during that period.
23 In the view of the audit team, the confusion seems to have arisen in part at least because of the newness of the Principles and Procedures and its publication in mid-validation, and in part because of the pressure caused by APTECH's desire to launch the validated Higher Diploma in July 1996. As a consequence, the University did not allow itself time to reflect before pressing ahead with Chair's action, even though, in hindsight perhaps, it was always unlikely that the legal contract between the partners would have been agreed and signed before the desired admission date of the first cohort. In the event, APTECH did not recruit because, the team was variously informed by the University, the deadline for a major recruitment drive in India had passed, or the market for the Higher Diploma was not sufficiently strong. Either circumstance sits oddly with the seeming haste to complete the internal approval process.
24 A further contributory factor to the confusion already described was the existence of a document entitled a Memorandum of Understanding, signed by the University and APTECH in July/ August 1996. It was represented to the audit team by the University that this Memorandum was a form of a Statement of Intent (see above, paragraph 17) rather than a formal legal document (the Memorandum of Co-operation), the latter to be agreed before programmes become operational. But according to Principles and Procedures, a Statement of Intent is an internal document, form QCV1, which has to carry the signatures of the relevant Programme Co-ordinator, Head of the Proposing Department and Head(s) of Contributing Department(s), as well as comments by the University's Legal Adviser, International Office, Information Services, the Chair of the relevant faculty quality committee and the Chair of QIAS. The Memorandum of Understanding, however, understandably, contains none of these authorisations, but is signed by a representative from APTECH and a Pro Vice-Chancellor on behalf of the University. It has all the characteristics of a partnership document and none of a Statement of Intent, it might more justifiably be looked upon as a Letter of Intent.
25 The point is not simply one of uncertainty over nomenclature within
the University. It is one of substance since it was clear that APTECH had
taken the signed Memorandum as authorisation to publicise and engage in
the preliminary stages of recruitment, although it now recognises that
a fuller, formal Memorandum of Co-operation should be in place before a
programme becomes operational. The audit team also noted that no Statements
of Intent (of any kind) were produced for any of the programmes subject
to approval in 1997, even though the Principles and Procedures document
was by then well established. The University may wish to consider the process
by which it disseminates knowledge of revised procedures, definitions and
terminology amongst its senior administrative and academic staff. It may
also wish to consider the extent to which its declared adherence to the
HEQC Code of Practice is understood by those to whom devolved authority
is given.
26 The audit team noted APTECH's ambition, made explicit in the early stages
of discussions with the University, to offer full Honours degrees and the
University's caution in deciding to follow '... a stepped approach to enable
APTECH staff the necessary development ... before they would be in a position
to offer a degree programme...'. APTECH itself appeared to want the collaboration
to mature, to seek advice on staff development and to reflect on experience,
before expanding the relationship. One year later, however, and with little
evidence of substantial University-led academic development, a further
panel visit recommended a 'top-up' franchise that took students close to
Honours level, as well as a full three-year validated BTech Communications
degree. The 'stepped approach' appears less convincing in reality, although
it is acknowledged that degree-level provision at level 3 was not scheduled
to begin until 1999. In the light of APTECH's 1996 decision not to recruit
to the University's Higher Diploma for market-related reasons, it seemed
to the team that the University was anxious to expand the potential of
the partnership in a way that was more likely to help APTECH's commercial
aspirations.
27 At the time of the audit team's visit to India, the Managing Director of APTECH estimated that it had over 700 centres. The team noted with particular concern, therefore, that both validation panels (March 1996 and April/May 1997) had formed a view concerning the suitability of facilities and other issues more generally on the basis of visits to only two or three APTECH centres. The report of the March 1996 panel approving the validation of the Higher Diploma programme, for example, refers to delivery '... throughout India...', although it is silent on whether this means that delivery will take place at a few, some, or all of APTECH's centres (the team heard from APTECH that it would deliver the Diploma at 180-200 centres; the University appeared to have in mind a less substantial figure).
28 The April/May 1997 report approving the BTech Communications degree refers to the course being delivered at seven major centres to an unspecified number of students (grouped possibly in multiple batches of 16 studying simultaneously); yet the audit team was told by APTECH that it would be offered at 30-40 of its centres. In all cases, the University was clearly reassured that APTECH's strong internal quality control procedures (whose systematisation had led to ISO 9000 accreditation) would enable the University to satisfy itself that the quality of its awards was not being compromised.
29 In the view of the audit team, the confidence in APTECH shown by the
University is close to that required for institutional accreditation, although
that model is not included as an option in the Principles and Procedures document.
The team is not in a position to judge the effectiveness of APTECH's quality
procedures, nor is it proper that it should. It can, however, question
whether the validation model used by the University, sound in itself as
a process for judging the academic content of a course and for assessing
the suitability of the particular environment visited, was fully appropriate
to what came to resemble an institutional accreditation. To feel confident
that its Higher Diploma award can be delivered throughout India in as many
as 180-200 centres implies a full acceptance of APTECH's monitoring processes.
The University will no doubt wish to consider whether a short visit to
two or three centres was sufficient to test the full range of its partner's
facilities and processes, and to re-examine its procedures and terminology
regarding institutional accreditation.
30 While recruitment to the University's Higher Diploma in Software Engineering in India has been deferred, APTECH has admitted, and the University has registered, 53 Higher Diploma students in four centres in the Gulf region. This development has taken place even though no formal documentation of the kind required in the Principles and Procedures document has been signed with respect to the programme in the Gulf. Such a situation is not only in conflict with the HEQC Code of Practice, but it is also in conflict with the University's own procedures. The University has devolved both registration and collection of fees to faculties, with the result that the Registrar's Department has no way of knowing which students have been recruited to follow which course in which location until a point of centralised 'data capture' has been reached. It seemed to the audit team that the University was in no position to be confident that its own procedures were being followed. Internal correspondence considered by the team indicated that the Academic Registrar has had to act on the basis of belief rather than knowledge as to what students are registered with the University. In the view of the team, this is cause for concern.
31 Recruitment in the Gulf stemmed initially from a request from the Faculty of Engineering, Science and Technology to interpret the report of the March 1996 Higher Diploma validation event as if it covered countries beyond India. In response, the Chair of the panel which had conducted the event, confirmed that the validation had '…resulted in an agreement in principle of [sic] APTECH to offer the Higher Diploma in a number of countries with the agreement of the University. This is implicit in the body of the official report…'. In the view of the audit team, it is difficult to sustain this argument, based as it is on the premise that brief visits to two or three centres in India were sufficient to allow the panel to conclude that the facilities and staff in centres in the Gulf would in principle (or, as it turned out, in practice) be adequate for the delivery of the programme. Despite this, and before the Chair of the panel had confirmed that this was indeed what was implied by the validation report, the University's Pro Vice-Chancellor had contacted APTECH in February 1997 confirming the University's agreement that APTECH '... are approved to offer the University's Higher National [sic] Diploma in Computing [sic] in India and the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman...'. In a subsequent communication in August 1997, however, the Pro Vice-Chancellor queried '... whether the validation events for the courses currently validated with APTECH were absolutely clear about the ability of APTECH to offer these courses outside India...'. The confusion in its internal processes implied by the events described above makes it difficult for the audit team to have full confidence in the ability of the University to assure the quality of its provision delivered on a collaborative basis. In view of this, and given the University's declared position that it wishes to proceed with caution in the matter of overseas collaborative provision, it may wish to consider whether the procedures laid down in the Principles and Procedures document are capable of dealing adequately with the full ramifications of a multi-national collaboration. It will certainly wish to check whether its declared intent not to engage in what might be described as 'serial franchising' is, in practice, being compromised.
Programme monitoring and the assessment of
students
Proposed monitoring arrangements
32 The potential scale of the validation and franchising arrangements with
which the University is involved in its partnership with APTECH, raises
particular issues which, in the audit team's view, do not seem to have
attracted sufficient comment in the reports presented to QIAS, although
the University is now beginning to address such issues. Monitoring the
substance of the programmes involved in the partnership is challenging,
given the well-substantiated claim by APTECH that it is acutely sensitive
to the demands of a rapidly changing IT market and that it has internal
systems to deal with programme modifications. One might expect such modifications
to be handled through the relevant programme management committee, as it
would be for internal programmes within the University. There was, however,
no evidence in the documentation that such committees had been or were
being established for any of the programmes involved in this partnership.
Proposed assessment arrangements
33 It is also germane to ask, given the potential scale of the validation andfranchising arrangements, how the present External Examiner/Moderator system could monitor with due rigour the examination arrangements, the questions set, the results process, and the general functioning of the programme delivery, when the courses might be delivered over APTECH's nine regions within India and a tenth in the Gulf (APTECH also has a presence in at least six other countries). The geographic dispersion and size of the student population, and the frequency with which the necessary examining and/or moderating processes might reasonably be expected to be carried out, will all make particular and significant demands on the University if it is to be confident of the security of its quality assurance arrangements. The March 1996 validation panel showed no sign, however, of having recognised the fact that APTECH recruits intakes every month and processes terminal examinations likewise. This clearly has implications for the assessment arrangements for programmes covered by this partnership. It is not clear, even given the manifest confidence of the University in APTECH's ISO 9000 systems, how it proposes to operate its minimum monitoring procedures faced with the complexity and volume of its partner's operations. Currently, for example, APTECH engages nine National Computer Centre (UK) moderators, together with one Chief NCC moderator, to provide some external verification of its training awards. Controlling the extent of the expansion was, the audit team understood, the University's solution to this problem and it also recognises the need to increase the number of moderators as expansion takes place. The University may, nevertheless, wish to consider whether, given the potential scale of the validation and franchising arrangements in which it is engaged, its current quality assurance systems are adequate for such an unusual task.
34 The audit team appreciated APTECH's presentation of its assessment procedures and understands why the University panel was also impressed. It nevertheless wonders how the University intends to reconcile its requirement for a Board of Examiners which '... includes University staff and upon which external examiners appointed by the University have an authoritative role...' when it was acknowledged by the 1997 panel (with respect to the BTech Communications validation - but the point applies elsewhere) that '... there were no Examination Boards...'. The panel identified a need for APTECH to find a mechanism to overcome this lack which would satisfy the University. It is not clear that the responsibility for discovering a mechanism should lie entirely (or, indeed, at all) with the partner, nor that such a mechanism has yet been found although this can be attributed to the fact that delivery of the programmes has not progressed.
The student experience
35 APTECH representatives explained to the audit team that it graded
its centres according to size, location and the level of skills possessed
by the staff. The grading criteria are intended to ensure that the student
experience should be broadly the same in all like-graded centres. It planned
to offer the University's courses at what it described as A-graded centres
only.
36 The University is aware that, for its franchised courses, access to adequate library provision needs to be assured. APTECH provides career advice and takes pride in its appointments service; it also gives opportunities for its students to become involved in extra-curricular activities. It is not, however, a higher education institution in the ordinary sense of the words (see above, paragraph 19), since its main focus still remains on training and short courses, and it has no proven record in research and scholarship.
37 The Madras High Court ruling of June 1997 requires, inter alia, that there be a direct relationship between the India-based student and the awarding foreign institution. In line with this ruling, registration and examination fees are paid directly by each student to the University with APTECH acting as no more than a 'postbox'. It remains to be seen whether, in due course, this necessary arrangement will require a modification of the relevant paragraphs and Annex of Principles and Procedures.
Staffing and staff development
38 During the initial phase of discussions, academic staff from the
Faculty of Engineering Science and Technology shared openly with the prospective
partner their interest in the qualifications of APTECH staff, particularly
those who might eventually teach on a full degree programme. The documentation
received by the University gives in cursory form the curriculum vitae of
the top APTECH management but says little about the identity and academic
qualifications of the teaching staff. As the scale of the programme provision
increases and broadens to the nine regions in India (not to mention other
parts of the world), the University will need to assure itself of the quality
of the staff teaching towards its diploma and degrees.
39 Matters concerning staff development were addressed in both sets of reports from the panels, the April/May 1997 event insisting on the production of a staff development policy and plan as a condition of approval. The initial response from APTECH was brief and, in the view of the audit team, did not correspond to either a staff development policy or plan. The University may wish to consider how it can further help APTECH to move from a stress on staff certification to a greater emphasis on academic development.
Publicity and promotional materials
40 At the time of the audit team's visit to India, the University
had not had sight of any APTECH publicity material relating to University
awards, other than the rather general entry in APTECH's prospectus and
application document where the circumspect wording suggests that '... students
in this course [unspecified] can look forward to do [sic] a MSC or BSC
honours in Computing...'. Advertisements for APTECH's University courses
had, the team learnt during its visit to India, appeared in the Indian
press; and it was shown APTECH leaflets that had been produced '... with
University approval...', although the team met no-one at the University
who had seen either the text or the leaflets. (The leaflet relating to
the BSc in Computing is, in the team's view, misleading in that it omits
to explain the 'top-up' arrangement, preferring instead to present the
course as if APTECH were teaching all three years of a University degree.)
The APTECH website also contains publicity material and press releases
relating to its partnership with the University of which the University
appeared to have no knowledge. There are grounds for suggesting that the
University's capacity to exert control over what is advertised in its name
is limited and, in the light of discussion with University representatives,
that it has little faith in its capacity to do so. The University may wish
to consider addressing this matter with vigour.
Conclusions and points for further consideration
41 The University's collaboration with APTECH is still in its early
stages. Indeed, at the time of the audit team's visit to APTECH in Mumbai
in October 1997 no students were enrolled on any of the programmes which
had been the original focus of the audit, despite the fact that the first
steps in establishing a link between the University and APTECH had been
taken in 1995. Somewhat surprisingly, in the context of a validation visit
that took place in India, the only intake of students had been in the Gulf.
In an evolving collaborative process that has progressed fitfully (sometimes
with unexpected speed and decisiveness, sometimes slowed by external circumstance
- the Madras High Court ruling, for example - and sometimes held in check
by due circumspection on the part of the University), the enrolment of
students in one location has exposed the implications of the University's
failure up to that point to conclude a formal agreement with APTECH.
42 From its discussions with University representatives, it was clear to the audit team that the University was aware of the need to regularise this situation. But it will also wish to reflect on how such a situation has arisen. It may, as a consequence, wish to examine the tension between the due process as outlined in its own documents and the apparent tendency to act outside that process when circumstances create pressures to do so, and to review once more the relationship between central authority and devolved power which may contribute to this. The newly-arrived Vice-Chancellor made it clear to the team that he was acutely aware of the need to give added influence to the Quality Enhancement Unit and had already taken steps to increase its authority. The team would wish to support this policy. The University may wish to consider further the extent to which the Quality Enhancement Unit may come under pressure, not just from departments, but also from senior staff anxious and impatient to seize opportunities to foster ambitions and ventures overseas, '... following the World Bank ...' as it was represented to the team.
43 The University will wish to assure itself, firstly, that faculties are sufficiently aware of the requirements of a rigorous quality assurance system and, secondly, that they have the resources and will to apply them. The apparent lack of any urgency at faculty level to discover what publicity and promotional material had been produced by its partner in India is a good example of how easily a standard clause in any Memorandum of Co-operation can sometimes go unobserved.
44 Opportunities in India for private education are extensive. APTECH, whose operation exceeds in scale and turnover that of the University itself, is at the forefront of exploiting them and is keen to expand rapidly both geographically and in terms of programmes offered. At its centre, the University is increasingly aware of the need to be cautious in its approach to accepting such rapid expansion and to moderate potentially over ambitious plans both in its partners and in its own staff. The time is ripe for the Academic Registrar, with the support of the Chair of QIAS, to give a clear policy steer on the pace and extent of partnership development. It is also time to review the Principles and Procedures document in the light of experience, and consider the extent to which, as presently constructed, it is sufficiently robust to accommodate the development of institutional, as opposed to programme-level collaboration, and to collaboration involving multi-site and multi-national links. Such a review might include a re-examination of existing procedures for identifying partners, institutional accreditation, the involvement in the appointment of staff in partner institutions and control of the University's awards.
Commentary on the audit report supplied by
the University of Northumbria at Newcastle
Although official approval of the Higher Diploma in Software Engineering
was given in 1996, delivery of the programme did not take place as planned
as shortly after this it became clear that APTECH wished to expand the
collaboration and offer, inter alia, an Ordinary Degree programme
in Computing. The academic approval of this programme was considered in
May 1997, but before the delivery of this and the BTEC Communications programme
could begin, the complications of the June 1997 injunction in the Madras
High Court intervened. There were also other legal and financial difficulties
which, it transpired, were not possible to resolve. This led the University
to reconsider its partnership with APTECH, and this partnership as it related
to activities in India, was dissolved in March 1998 without any programme
actually having been delivered in India.
The delivery of the Higher Diploma at four selected APTECH centres in the Middle East started in September 1997. The administrative and legal arrangements for this operation have now been progressed and appropriate quality assurance mechanisms put in place. Additional recruitment of students onto the Higher Diploma from September 1998 is being carefully controlled and is dependent upon the University being assured that the right quality of delivery is occurring. There are no plans at present to operate degree level programmes in the Middle East.
Top