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 Thames Valley University (hereafter referred to as the University), and
the RM Institute, New Delhi, India (hereafter referred to as the Institute) for
the purpose of offering programmes of study in India leading to the award of
the University's BA in Hospitality 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 each 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 March 1995. The University's collaborative provision in general was also the subject of an audit by the HEQC resulting in the publication of a Quality Audit Report in July 1996.
4 The Agency is grateful to the staff and students of the University and of the Institute for their assistance and co-operation with the audit team.
The audit process
5 Prior to the audit visit the University provided QAA with briefing
documents comprising an overview specially prepared for the audit, supported
by copies of reports, handbooks and other materials describing the establishment
and development of the partnership.
6 The audit team requested a number of supplementary documents relating to the planning and approval process for the franchise arrangements, and to the development and management of the partnership.
7 In preparation for the visit to the Institute, members of the audit team visited the University on 30 June l997. Discussions took place between the team and a number of University staff, including the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Academic), the Programme Leader of the BA in Hospitality Management, the Head of the School of Hospitality Studies, members of the Centre for Quality Enhancement and members of committees with particular responsibility for quality assurance matters. Several of the staff involved in discussions with members of the audit team had visited the Institute during the establishment and development of the partnership.
8 The audit team visited the Institute in New Delhi on 15 October 1997 and held discussions with more than 20 people, including the Chairperson and Vice-Principal, students currently enrolled on different years of the University's BA in Hospitality Management programme, and the Programme Advisor and staff who teach on the programme. The team met the Institute's Board of Advisors, made up of senior professionals from industry and academic staff, at an evening meeting on 15 October 1997. Some members of the team visited the University for a second time on 31 October 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 Core, 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 QAA' s Institutional Review Directorate, who accompanied the team to India.
Background to the partnership
The RM Institute of Hospitality Management
10 The Institute is a private educational establishment, a division of Psyche Hospitality Enterprises Ltd (PHEL), which, nevertheless, operates with its own financial accounts. It is administered by the Rosalind Mediratta Institution Foundation in line with the requirements of Indian law relating to private educational establishments. The Insititute's building was begun in 1995 on a site in the suburbs of New Delhi owned by the current Director. There are plans to expand the number of Institute locations.
11 The Institute is not entitled, under current Indian legislation, to
award its own degrees, which explains its search for an overseas higher
education institution offering awards in the area of hospitality. After
some preliminary investigations involving various US, UK and Swiss institutions,
it approached the University in 1995. A formal agreement was signed in
November 1995 to allow the Institute to offer a four-year sandwich BA in
Hospitality Management on a franchised basis, backdated with effect to
1 September 1995. At the time of the audit visit, 63 students were enrolled
(nine in Year 1, 28 in Year 2 and 20 in Year 3). There are also 20 students
on a 12-month Thames Valley University MBA programme delivered at the Institute
by University staff. Validation approval has now been granted for a franchised
MBA to begin in January 1998, with one semester of pre-MBA studies delivered
by the Institute as a prerequisite for entry to the MBA. At the time of
the audit, no formal agreement covered either the on-location MBA or the
franchised MBA. The audit team was not afforded the requested opportunity
to meet MBA students.
12 From the University's point of view, the partnership was established in the context of its declared aim to support mass participation in higher education as a contribution to equality and social justice. One of the means by which this aim is to be achieved is through '... developing and sustaining partnerships with other organisations and providers in the public, private and voluntary sectors...' in the UK and overseas. The stress is on access, equal opportunities and on the effect on the educational, cultural and economic life of the region in which University courses are offered. The partnership was also seen as having direct benefit for staff development within the University's School of Hospitality Studies.
13 The initial development of the partnership took place after the publication (in March 1995) of the HEQC's report on the University's arrangements for assuring the quality of its academic provision and the standards of its awards, and before the publication (in July 1995) of the HEQC's report on the University's collaborative provision. The latter commended the University's efforts to bring to bear a more systematic approach to the assurance of quality in its collaborative programmes, whilst urging it to accelerate its plans for a formal consideration of its policy on international collaborative links. In response, and in the context of more widespread organisational change, the University set up the Centre for Quality Enhancement (UCQE) with a Head of Collaborative Partnerships and a Collaborative Partnerships Manager. The work of the Centre had only commenced shortly before the audit team's visit to the University in June 1997, but there were already signs of a move towards a greater systematisation and monitoring of procedures (for example, in the work of the International and Commercial Programmes Administrative Support Team). A comprehensive document detailing the University's policy on collaborative ventures in an international market, available in draft in May 1995, had, nevertheless, still not been formally ratified.
Initial validation and approval process
General arrangements
14 Arrangements for the validation and subsequent review of collaborative
programmes are described in the 'Partnerships' section of the University's Quality
Management Handbook. Following the preparatory stages for any collaborative
partnership, it is the responsibility of a school to secure the agreement
of the Director of Educational Development (for general academic approval)
and the Director of Commercial Development (for resource and financial
approval) to a proposed partnership. Once a partnership has been approved
in principle, a memorandum of co-operation is prepared using a standard
University pro forma for the purpose, covering the legal and other
aspects of the partnership including admissions arrangements, assessment
and examining procedures, and staffing - with a separate schedule detailing
the financial terms of the agreement.
Arrangements for programmes delivered overseas
15 A potential collaborative venture then passes into the domain of the
Academic Policy Committee, which is responsible for the validation and
approval processes of all academic programmes offered by the University.
A significant difference between the procedures governing the approval
of its internally delivered programmes and those delivered overseas is
the University's requirement for a two-stage validation process in the
case of the latter. The first stage comprises a more general consideration
of the partner institution, including its overall readiness to assume responsibility
for a collaborative programme, its appreciation of the University's mission,
its management arrangements, a range of resource issues and the overall
learning experience which it is able to offer a student. The second stage
involves the academic validation of the programme in question. Consonant
with its internal practice, the outcome of all validations is subject to
the approval of the Academic Policy Committee (the Institute report was,
for example, received by that Committee 'for information' in January 1996).
The BA in Hospitality Management
16 From the documentation received by the audit team, it was not clear
whether the process recommended in the Quality Management Handbook had
been followed in every detail in respect of the BA Hospitality Management
programme. It was normal University practice to conflate the two stages
of the validation process into one event which was the visit by a University
panel to the Institute in August 1995. However, the panel itself was not
constituted according to the recommended membership, containing no representation
of the University's recruitment, guidance and communications staff, or
learning resource staff (see below, paragraph 22 for a more detailed consideration
of this matter). Apart from the Chair, there was no academic presence from
outside the School of Hospitality Studies, although a member of staff from
the British Council office in New Delhi acted as a full participant. The
issue of what constitutes a formal validation panel takes on greater significance
in the light of the different perceptions of individuals of a subsequent
visit to discuss the Institute's proposal for a franchised MBA (see below,
paragraphs 23-27).
17 The earlier exploratory discussions on the development of the partnership
were, by contrast, conducted with a thoroughness and clarity of purpose
that, in the audit team's view, went beyond the letter of the procedures
for developing partnerships laid down in the Quality Management Handbook.
Thus, the May 1995 report of a visit to the Institute by a member of the
School of Hospitality Studies is a commendable document (and formed the
basis of presentations by that member to colleagues in the School and to
senior management). The report prepared the ground for institutional validation
and suggested steps that needed to be taken before programme validation
could proceed with confidence. It reported on the national background to
hospitality studies in India (including demand), the development of the
Institute's physical site, the strengths and (particularly) developmental
needs of the staff, resource materials and franchise costs. The report's
author also visited the British Council, met the Principal of what is considered
to be one of India's leading institutes in this field of study, as well
as the owner of a major national hotel chain in his capacity as a member
of Institute's Board of Advisors, engaged in several discussions with Institute
staff and explored wider issues with senior academics at the Indian Institute
of Technology, Delhi University and the Management Development Institute.
This report was, no doubt, instrumental in giving confidence to the University
that the partnership was worth pursuing to the next stage.
18 It is interesting to note from the report that the financial parameters
of the potential franchise were already broadly set even at this preliminary
stage, although the assumed basis contained in the report was not reflected
in the final franchise agreement; the difference being whether the financial
arrangements cover a one-site franchise or a multi-site franchise. Given
the declared ambitions of the Institute to expand initially to ten more
sites, the issue of defining precisely the geographical limits of the franchise
becomes of prime importance. It was not clear to the audit team that there
was a shared understanding on this matter between the key individuals involved
in the partnership. The current University's Head of International Programme
Development, for example, had no knowledge of a second (undated) proposal
signed by the Director of the Institute and the University's Pro Vice-Chancellor
(Development) in which it was proposed (amongst other things) that, working
through '... RM Institute of Hotel Management, New Delhi, Thames Valley
University (will) develop a range of suitable franchise operations across
India to offer the BA in Hospitality Management ...'. The University may
wish to examine its processes of internal communication to prevent a situation
in which a key link person was unaware of a broad strategic agreement already
signed. It may also wish to reflect on the longer-term, strategic quality
assurance matters relating to geographically dispersed franchise operations
all channelled through what, in effect, is a single franchise agency.
19 The recommendations contained in the May 1995 report led to further informal deliberations with representatives of the Institute during which much advice was sought and given in preparation for the formal validation event. A second colleague from the School of Hospitality Studies visited the Institute a fortnight before the event and responded to further requests for guidance from Institute staff. It is clear that staff of the Institute benefited considerably from the careful attention paid to their preparation by University staff.
20 The validation event in August 1995 contained no surprises for the Institute.
It resulted in a positive report to which seven conditions of approval
were attached, together with ten further recommendations. The deadlines
for meeting some of these conditions post-dated the signing of the formal
Agreement. While the condition relating to the physical completion of the
Institute was assured in the contract by a clause allowing the University
to defer enrolment of a second cohort of students in September 1996 until
it was met, it was unclear to the audit team how failure to meet the other
conditions could, in practice, have led to withholding or withdrawing approval
to run the programme. The confidence between the partners allowed the validation
panel to rely on an oral agreement that all conditions would be met by
the dates given. The panel's report ends not with a summative recommendation
but with an agreement that '... the franchise of the (University's) BA
in Hospitality Management to the RM Institute, New Delhi, India be granted...'.
Given the suggestion that the Academic Policy Committee (now the Education
Policy Committee) receives reports for information rather than for formal
approval, it appeared to the team that there might be benefits in clarifying
where executive authority and power of approval actually lay at various
points during the process. Clarity on this point is desirable for internal
purposes, and essential from the perspective of a partner who might be
led to believe that visiting staff have authority on matters (for example,
the satisfying of conditions) that are, in reality, the responsibility
of University bodies (for example, the Academic Board with respect to the
satisfying of conditions).
21 One of the seven conditions contained in the panel's report related
to the production by the Institute of a first draft of a quality management
handbook for the Institute based on the University's own Handbook.
A first draft was produced with an agreed extension beyond the original
deadline. The University's comments on this first draft were not, however,
incorporated into what the audit team was given to understand was the 'final
document', nor did it prove possible for the team to be shown any version
of the handbook that was any different from the original draft. The team
concluded that the University appeared not to have required the re-drafting
of a document which elsewhere was clearly seen to be essential to ensuring
equivalent quality management processes in the partner institution. It
also became clear to the team that the University was unaware that the
first draft was not familiar to most Institute staff. The University will
wish to consider its mechanisms for examining with due rigour the degree
to which its conditions for approval have been met, and for monitoring
the extent to which they continue to be met once a partnership has been
established.
22 The validation panel had to confront the difficulty of passing judgement
on the learning resources available to students when not all Institute
facilities were in place. In particular, the kitchen areas were not finished
at the time of the panel's visit although the equipment was ready. There
is no indication in the formal validation report, nor in subsequent documentation
(for example, the Head of School's aide memoire on his March 1996 visit
or the February 1997 Visit Report), that any judgement had been passed
on the adequacy or otherwise of the provision. Given the issues relating
to health, safety and hygiene, the absence of comment is unexpected although
it is understood that the provision was the subject of further scrutiny
by School staff. Although the IT resources excited no concern, the panel
clearly had had reservations about the Library resources which, although
comparing favourably - it was told - with other hospitality libraries in
New Delhi, were deemed 'sparse' in relation to students' needs. Yet none
of the 17 recommendations addressed this issue. Over six months later,
the March 1996 aide memoire states that '... the library facilities require
major attention ...'. Nearly a year later, the February 1997 Visit Report
recognises that the '... journal stock is adequate for the present...',
'... the book stock is acceptable for years 1 and 2, (but) does need to
be kept under constant review...'. The tone of reservation evident in the
initial validation report recurs in these later documents, yet it was not
clear to the audit team how adequate the criteria were for arriving at
such a judgement, nor what specific advice was given to the Institute to
dispel any lingering concerns. Given this, the omission of any member of
the University's learning resource staff from the panel takes on particular
significance. The issue of judging the adequacy of learning resources is,
as the University recognises, likely to become even more critical in the
formal validation of the Honours route. The University may wish to reflect
further on the evaluation of learning resources in partner institutions,
since their adequacy may require more than the acquisition of certain recommended
items.
23 Discussions on the possibility of offering a franchised MBA in the Institute have taken place at various levels of formality since the early stages of the partnership. Indeed, a proposal from the Institute was submitted to the University in April 1996 and was the subject of a meeting at the University between the Institute's Director and the Head of the University's School of Management in June 1996. Publicity and presentations to promote both the MBA and the BA in Hospitality Management were undertaken in New Delhi in August 1996 - two months before any MBA validation event.
24 Further discussion took place between the Director of the Institute, the Head of the School of Management and the Head of the School of European and International Studies during a formal validation visit to the Institute in October 1996. Even though the validation visit post-dated the publicity, and even though the validation report itself did not recommend an immediate franchise, students were recruited in the autumn of 1996 to a pre-MBA course in the (unfulfilled) expectation that a franchised University MBA would be available to them at the Institute in 1997. However, the students who had been recruited, and who became eligible for entry to the University's MBA, have received tuition during 1997 in New Delhi from University tutors on frequent and intensive visits.
25 Whilst it is possible to recognise the spirit in which what has, in effect, been a 'recovery' operation was undertaken, there remains, nevertheless, the question of what approval process, even in terms of the University's non-franchised MBA, governed its on-location delivery in New Delhi. In the view of the audit team, the process of discussion appeared to fall victim to a combination of misunderstanding (for example, which MBA was being publicised in New Delhi in August 1996 and on whose authority); uncertain approval procedures (the validation panel corresponded only minimally to that required); unrealistic expectations (the Institute was keen to expand into the MBA market); over enthusiastic advocacy of the University's international ambitions (the University's desire to expand in India was implicit in much of the correspondence surrounding this matter); and perceived competitive pressure (the availability of MBAs from other universities offered in partnership with other private institutions in India). Both partners engaged in robust exchanges about who was primarily responsible for the premature recruitment of students; and, paradoxically, the partnership was probably strengthened by a common determination to protect the students' interest.
26 The October 1996 visit by two University heads of school to the Institute met even fewer of the criteria for validation events than the earlier validation event for the BA in Hospitality Management (see above, paragraph 16). The visit report noted that the earliest that the University MBA could be launched by the Institute would be January 1998, and then only if five key conditions were met (one of which, once again, involved action on library resources which, from the panel's point of view, were inadequate to MBA students' needs, even allowing for their access to the British Council Library). Further correspondence, and a visit by another member of the School of Management, sufficiently reassured School colleagues for permission to be given to the Institute (in April 1997) to advertise the MBA programme without the words 'subject to validation'. The audit team saw no evidence that information about this decision had been shared with members of the University's senior management, one of whom declared two months after the above permission had apparently been granted that the MBA would not go ahead.
27 Those involved in reviewing and implementing the University's new procedures will, no doubt, wish to reflect on what conclusions and consequences can be drawn from this episode. The University may also wish to ensure total clarity in the wording of advertisements for the University MBA in New Delhi since only two out of the advertised four semesters of the course can be defined as franchised components.
Programme monitoring and review
28 For the BA in Hospitality Management, the Institute is required
to produce a formal report each year which, in the first two years of the
operation of the partnership, was submitted to the link person in the University.
This report, together with reports from visits to the Institute by University
staff, the reports of subject quality groups, external examiners' reports
and other module-level evidence, contributes to the general Programme Report
for BA Hospitality Management which itself feeds into the annual school
monitoring report procedures. The audit team noted the clarity of focus
which characterised the summary review of the University/Institute link
and the fact that the issues identified in the review had been addressed.
29 The Institute itself has developed its own internal monitoring procedures
which encourage constant student feedback (preferred to end-of-module feedback,
although this also exists) both on programme content and delivery. This
process appears to benefit from the small size of the Institute and the
openness of its atmosphere. Communication with the University, it was stated,
is so good that any issues raised through this continuous monitoring can
be brought to the attention of the partner as soon as possible. It seemed
to the audit team that the regularity with which University staff visited
the Institute (a regularity enhanced fortuitously by the on-location teaching
of the MBA) contributed significantly to the effectiveness of the general
monitoring of the new franchise. University colleagues observed classes
in the Institute, talked directly to students and engaged in discussions
with the teaching staff. The team saw considerable evidence to demonstrate
that the comments and advice resulting from such visits were of commendable
value to Institute colleagues and to the programme generally.
Assessment of students
Background
30 Students based at the Institute are assessed according to the same criteria,
and using the same methods, as their counterpart based in the University.
The same external examiner acts for the franchised BA programme as for
the University-based BA (it is instructive to note that the term external
examiner has, however, a different meaning in the India context, referring
to an external academic who sets examination papers but is not necessarily
involved in marking and assessment; this difference caused some early misunderstanding
between the partners). The details of assessment are given to all students
in their Modular Programme Handbook produced by the Institute and
based on University models. Information on assessment methods, assessment
profiles (the weighting of elements and pass/fail criteria) is also provided,
as well as explanations of the consequences of failing modules.
31 It is the Institute's current intention to seek validation of a BA Honours
route with the expectation of implementing this in 1998, thus allowing
the first intake of students the possibility of an Honours upgrade. The
audit team had sight of the 1997/98 Handbook which, confusingly,
included reference to success or otherwise in qualifying '... at the final
assessment for an Honours award...'. It also introduced for the first time
the notion of Honours classifications. In discussion, it became evident
to the team that students were insecure in their understanding of what
might be required for a BA Honours in Hospitality Management, if such a
route became available through a further validation event. Indeed, several
thought that such a route was already available. The University may wish
to monitor more effectively the documentation produced by its partner to
check that it continues to correspond to the current terms of the agreement
and that it provides clear, consistent and full information to its University-registered
students on assessment regulations. The team understood that the Honours
validation event was scheduled to take place during the academic year 1997-98,
and that it was the University's clear intention to clarify at that time
how students currently registered on the BA programme would be in a position
to judge the currency value of their Level 2 achievement. The outcome of
the scheduled validation event notwithstanding, the University will, no
doubt, wish to encourage a clearer understanding among present students
of what degree they are reading and how the assessment procedures, as outlined
in the Modular Programme Handbook, relate (or not) to it.
32 Before the teaching of a module begins, Institute staff supply a bank of questions to their University colleagues (together with individual sets of marking criteria) out of which is constructed a definitive paper, approved, where necessary, by the external examiner. This process applies both to examinations and to course work assignments. There is, nevertheless, evidence in the Module Review for 1996-97 that the system did not work, and there appears to have been a reversion back to a former system in which the Institute sent not a bank of questions but a set of questions for approval. The University will, no doubt, wish to decide on its preferred system and ensure that it is understood by its partners and its own staff. Arrangements for the receipt, storage, copying and release of the examination papers are treated with commendable diligence by both partners.
33 Following an initial period during which University staff were involved in double marking, the scripts are now all double-marked by Institute staff (with divergences resolved internally, wherever possible) and a sample is sent to the University for moderation. The size of the sample varies, the audit team was told, depending on the number of failed scripts, all of which are sent for comment. The minimum sample size consists of two scripts from the top range, two from the middle and two from the lower end of the pass scale. While such a sample is likely to be adequate when numbers remain between 20 and 30, the University might feel even more confident in assuring its standards if it were to ask for the full range of scripts in those cases where a course or level was being examined for the first time, or where a new member of staff was involved.
34 The system for processing examination results is clearly laid out in the new procedures introduced by the International and Commercial Programmes Administrative Support office at the University, a recently-established unit that promises to bring consistency and greater centralised control to the administrative arrangements supporting the partnership. The marks are considered by relevant subject assessment boards at the Institute and by programme assessment boards in the University (of which the Institute Director is a member).
35 Many of the staff development activities initiated and provided by University staff have concentrated on assessment in all its aspects. The audit team saw evidence that this approach had brought considerable benefits to the whole process, from decisions on assessment methods, their relation to teaching methodologies, and the setting of assessments through to their marking. Given the declared importance that the University gives to assessment in the maintenance of its standards, there is a commendable logic in the way in which it has invested in this particular use of its staff's expertise.
Student experience
Contact between the Institute and the University
36 The students whom the audit team met were able to articulate clearly
the reasons for choosing to study for the University's BA in Hospitality
Management. All the students had met members of staff from the University.
Some were on third-year placements in London and spoke warmly of the help
that they had been given by staff on the University campus. This sense
of connection with the awarding institution was another benefit gained
from the human resources devoted by the University to the development of
the partnership. In order to strengthen still further this sense of connection,
the University may wish to consider issuing its registered students at
the Institute with a University student card.
37 The students were familiar with the Modular Programme Handbook (see
above, paragraph 30) and were confident in their knowledge of the University's
appeals procedures and their application to them. Curiously, however, while
the Handbook refers specifically to appeals against disciplinary
action and complaint procedures relating to operational matters, it does
not cover academic appeals on grounds of maladministration or new information.
The University might usefully suggest that this omission be rectified;
and consider again (see above, paragraph 31) whether its procedures for
monitoring internal, Institute course-related, documentation are adequate.
38 Students at the Institute have what appeared to be an active and influential elected Students' Council whose members sit on the Institute's programme committees. The Council is closely involved in course evaluation since it often acts as a channel for comments and plays an important part in resolving the occasional contentious issue. The audit team recognised in the Council's operations a valuable student experience and a spirit of participation comparable to what one might expect in a UK university.
Staffing and staff development matters
39 At the time of the initial validation, the University was presented
with the curriculum vitae of all Institute staff. Since that time,
the Institute has forwarded to the University for comment the curriculum
vitaes of all short-listed candidates for any vacancy that has arisen.
Confirmation of appointments has been delayed so as to give the University
opportunity to comment. Each new member of staff receives a copy of the Staff
Handbook and an intensive induction programme.
40 During the preparation for the initial validation, the Institute produced a copy of its Faculty Development Plan at the suggestion of the University staff member who had produced the preliminary report in preparation for the validation event. It shows an awareness on the part of both parties of the centrality of staff development in franchised collaborative arrangements. This awareness has informed the partnership throughout its existence and has led to conspicuous examples of good practice for which the University is to be commended. Members of the Institute's staff are themselves following the fourth-year BA Honours in Hospitality at a distance and hope to qualify for the award in 1998, having had their prior learning accredited. Likewise, a member of the Institute's staff is currently following the full-time University MBA in London.
41 Regular visits are made to the Institute by University staff. The whole programme of visits seemed to the audit team to have been handled with considerable skill, especially by the School's link person.
Publicity and promotional materials
42 The agreement between the University and the Institute for the
BA Hospitality Management is unambiguous in stressing the need for University
approval of any publicity and promotion material released by the Institute.
Events surrounding the (premature) promotion of the MBA programme indicated,
however, the possibility for confusion in this area. What they demonstrated
was lack of clarity concerning where responsibility for such approval rests
in practice, and the degree of rigour required to implement effectively
the formal agreement.
43 The audit team found that the Institute's publicity brochures were based on a desire to be fair and accurate, as well as a determination to highlight the partnership (a photograph of the University's Vice-Chancellor accompanies his welcoming text in much the same way as in a UK prospectus, for example). They also conformed to the Madras High Court ruling of June 1997 requiring any advertising material promoting a British degree taught in India to state explicitly that the degree was not recognised by certain Indian national bodies.
Conclusions and points for further consideration
44 The audit team recognises that, at the time of its visit, the University
was in the early stages of introducing a new learning environment which
entailed a fundamental reappraisal of how its collaborative provision,
both in the UK and overseas, was to be managed. As it continues to develop
practice and procedure, the new Centre for Quality Enhancement will find
benefit in scrutinising the history of the partnership between the University
and the Institute, not only to recognise and enshrine good practice (especially
in the areas of pre-validation event preparation and staff development)
but also to draw lessons from discrepancies between required and actual
procedure.
45 The University may, for example, wish to consider further the extent to which the composition of its validation panels satisfies its own requirements; arrangements for monitoring the accuracy of key internal documentation produced by its partners; and the processes by which publicity and promotional materials are approved.
46 One uncertain area that would profit from attention is the vigour with which validation conditions are pursued and the process by which their satisfaction is formally recognised. It seemed to the audit team that the responsibility for ensuring compliance was dispersed in such a way as to make it difficult for the University to be certain that its conditions had, in fact, been fulfilled. The impression was gained also of dispersed documentation, so that there was occasionally no central certainty as to what had been agreed, and when, with its partners.
47 The limited provision for higher education in India relative to demand, in certain fields in particular, and the ability and willingness of some economic groups to pay for higher education likely to secure well-paid employment, has meant that opportunities for the private provision of educational opportunities in the country are extensive. Potential partners in India may wish to expand rapidly, either geographically or in terms of programmes offered, or both, in order to exploit such opportunities. At its centre, the University appears to be cautious in its approach to accepting such rapid expansion, and aware of the need not to encourage the development of overambitious plans, either by its partners or its own staff. The audit team had the impression, nevertheless, that this caution was not always shared by those involved in the day-today implementation of policy. The time appears to be ripe for a clear policy steer to be given on the pace and extent of partnership developments, and for effective means for monitoring and implementing such developments to be established and consolidated.
Top