Periodic and Institutional Review

It is also required that collaborative programmes are periodically reviewed every five years (or in some instances less) and this should be a periodic review of the programme(s) culminating in an Institutional Review of the Partner.  The institutional review will focus on the partnership and its strategic importance rather than programme specific issues which are covered in the periodic review. 

Where delivery is fully devolved to a partner institution (i.e a validation arrangement), Teaching and Learning Delivery (TLD) will organise the review event.  Where delivery is joint/shared between a School or centre, Faculties will remain responsible for the periodic review of the programme but TLD will remain responsible for the Institutional Review element – for example a flying faculty arrangement, joint delivery and joint award. 

The periodic and institutional review will seek to establish:

• Whether the rationale for the collaboration remains valid; 
• Whether the collaboration remains aligned with the ‘Vision 2020’ strategic document; 
• Whether the collaboration remains appropriate in the context of the University's commitments; 
• Whether it continues to command the support of the School, Faculty and senior managers in the University and the partner institution; 
• Whether the partner institution retains appropriate academic, financial, and legal status;
• Whether the programme will continue to meet the appropriate academic standards and offer students the learning opportunities and experiences necessary to achieve them; 
• Whether the arrangements for collaboration will continue to enable it to effectively discharge its responsibilities for the academic standards of awards and the quality of the student learning experience; 
• Whether the business case remains valid.

The review is undertaken on behalf of the Vice-President (Teaching, Learning and Students).  A panel will be convened with representatives from the relevant Faculty and School, a representative from another Faculty, a representative external to the University of Manchester and a member of TLD. 

The panel reviews the evidence against the criteria above and, if it is satisfied that they are met, recommends that the collaboration be re-approved.  If the panel is not satisfied but considers that the criteria could be met after improvements are made, it may recommend that the collaboration continue for a defined period, following which it is subject to further review.  If, either initially or after further review, the panel is not satisfied that the criteria have been met, it will recommend that the agreement be terminated subject to safeguards for students and the programme removed from the Register.

The panel reports to the Head of School and Dean of the Faculty whom will recommend continuation of the link to the Vice President (Teaching, Learning and Students) who will then make the final decision to re-approve a link for a further five years.  The University’s guidance for periodic review can be found in section 4.