Higher Education Quality Council

HEQC OVERSEAS PARTNERSHIP AUDITS
BRUNEL UNIVERSITY
and
SINGAPORE INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT
DECEMBER 1996

ISBN 185824 325 4

PREFACE

The Higher Education Quality Council (HEQC) is collectively owned by the universities, colleges and other higher education institutions in the United Kingdom. Established in 1992, the Council contributes to the maintenance and improvement of the quality and standards of the teaching, learning and student assessment for which these institutions are responsible, wherever and however academic programmes are offered. With this objective, HEQC undertakes regular academic quality audits of individual institutions to review the operation and effectiveness of arrangements for assuring quality and standards.

Quality audits also cover the arrangements which institutions use to assure the quality and standards of their awards and programmes offered in collaboration with other partners, both within and outside the UK. As part of this process, HEQC has extended the scope of audit to include visits to the overseas partners of UK institutions, thus enabling the same enquiries to be made outside the UK concerning arrangements for quality assurance and the safeguarding of standards of the academic awards made by UK institutions.

A pilot programme of visits was undertaken between April and June 1996 to a sample of overseas partner institutions offering programmes leading to the awards of 15 UK institutions. This initiative has been designed to consolidate confidence in the work of British universities and colleges operating outside the UK.

These audit enquiries were assisted by the publication in November 1995 of HEQC's Code of Practice for Overseas Collaborative Provision in Higher Education. This offers guidance on good practice and a framework within which institutions can review and consider their current and future activities. The Code of Practice has been widely welcomed and has been used as a common point of reference for the pilot programme of overseas visits.

Although the Code assisted audit enquiries, we do not claim that it is a definitive check list. Audit teams did not use the pilot visits to 'measure' participating UK institutions' compliance with the Code, since it was recognised that institutions might be reviewing their practice following the appearance of Code. The Code of Practice has been revised in the light of the findings from the pilot visits, and comments received from UK institutions and their partners.

UK universities and colleges who volunteered to participate in the pilot programme of overseas visits did so with the agreement of their overseas partners. The participating institutions covered a range of collaborative links, involving a variety of subjects, programmes and awards.

This report is one of 20 reports published from the pilot programme. It should be read in conjunction with HEQC's published audit report(s) on the UK partner, reference to which is made in this report. In addition, HEQC has published a separate overview report summarising the general findings from the pilot visits and noting examples of good practice and areas where further development will improve and strengthen current arrangements.

Because the audits were pilots intended in part to test an evolving method, the Council considers that it would be mistaken to use the reports as the basis for unconditional generalisations about overseas partnerships developed by UK institutions.

INTRODUCTION

1 This is a report of an audit, carried out by the Higher Education Quality Council (HEQC), of the quality assurance arrangements for a collaborative partnership between Brunel University, Henley Management College and the Singapore Institute of Management (hereafter referred to as SIM) leading to the degree of Doctor of Business Administration (DBA) of Brunel University. It forms part of a series of pilot audits of overseas collaborative partnerships undertaken in 1996. The audit included a visit to SIM in May 1996. Further information about these audits is contained on the inside front cover of this report.

2 A general description of Brunel University's procedures for the assurance of quality of its collaborative provision is contained in HEQC's Collaborative Provision Audit Report of the University published in July 1995, following an audit visit in October 1994. That report provides a record of, and comments on, the University's quality assurance procedures in relation to the collaborative teaching and learning provision for which it is responsible.

3 The Council is grateful to the University, the College and SIM for the willing co-operation provided to the members of the audit team in carrying out the present audit.

THE AUDIT PROCESS

4 Prior to the audit visit, the University submitted documentation outlining its aims and implementation strategies in relation to its collaborative relationship with SIM through Henley Management College. The briefing material was mainly drawn from existing papers. Following its reading of the briefing documentation, the audit team proposed a programme for the visit to SIM, and sought additional contextual materials to help it to understand and verify the structure and processes of the University's collaborative quality assurance arrangements.

5 The audit visit took place over two days, 16-17 May 1996. During the course of the visit, the audit team had wide-ranging discussions with individuals and groups, including: the Executive Director and Deputy Executive Director of the SIM; mentors and supervisors; administrative and support staff; and students (associates) representative of all stages of the programme. Following the visit, senior officers of HEQC visited Brunel University for further clarificatory discussions with representatives of the University and Henley Management College.

6 The audit team consisted of Professor G Alderman, Professor A J Fletcher, Professor R A Pearce, auditors, and Dr D J Buckingham and Dr C J Haslam from HEQC, who coordinated the audit.

BACKGROUND TO THE PARTNERSHIP

The partnership between Brunel University and Henley Management College

7 The University's strategic plan for the period 1991-92 to 1995-96 sets out its policy on collaboration as follows:

'Brunel University will build upon its identified strengths to increase in size and in competitive capability. It will use its financial strength to take advantage of all available opportunities for growth'.

One of those identified strengths is the University's long-standing collaborative partnership with Henley Management College, which has been in place since 1972. The College, which at the time of the visit to SIM had its own Charter, but not degree awarding powers, is designated as an 'associated institution' of the University. At the time of HEQC's audit of the University's arrangements for assuring the quality of its collaborative provision in July 1995, the College had some 20 partnership arrangements with other institutions around the world. This report is concerned with the assurance of quality and standards of one of these partnerships, that established in 1992 for the delivery of a programme leading to the award of Doctor of Business Administration (DBA) through SIM.

The dimensions of the DBA programme as a collaborative activity

8 The DBA programme, developed by the College and approved by the University, consists of two distinct stages of study. The first stage comprises six compulsory activities: participation in the Advanced Management Programme which is a short intensive course at Henley; a panel interview; three workshops concerned with research methodology, training and development, and consultancy; and finally a presentation of research plans. Optional workshops are also available on a range of subjects relevant to the programme. Throughout the first stage students receive help from a mentor in preparing a Competence Development Plan (CDP). During this stage, students begin work with their supervisor at SIM who, together with a second supervisor at Henley Management College, guides and supports their progress in the second stage, where the final output is a doctoral thesis. Thus, the first stage is essentially a taught programme, delivered by College staff who visit SIN4 to support the intensive workshops for the cohort of students, and by SIM staff acting as mentors to individual students and delivering some of the taught elements. The second stage is a research programme, where students pursue individual research projects which are examined by thesis and viva voce examination (see below, paragraph 37).

9 In respect of this DBA programme, the links between the University, the College and SIM in respect of quality assurance are complex because:

- the award is an award of the University, while the programme is a programme of the College within a framework approved by the University;

- stage 1 of the programme contains taught elements for the cohort as a whole; in stage 2 students undertake individual research under supervision;

- the taught elements are delivered in part by College staff, at Henley or at SIM, and in part by SIM staff at SIM.

There is, therefore, no simple description of the programme as a whole in terms conventionally applied to collaborative arrangements. Some aspects of the programme appear to take the form of a franchise, and some take the form of remote or UK-based delivery by College staff. In some respects the students form a cohort engaging in taught elements, and in others they are individual external research students of the University. Both the University and the College have responsibility for assuring quality and standards.

10 Given these complexities, the audit team took the view that a fundamental matter for it to address was that of the boundaries of responsibility and authority for assuring the quality and academic standards of the programme. Central issues to which the team continually returned during its enquiries were how and where control, responsibility and authority in the delivery of this programme were exercised, and the associated mechanisms for assuring and enhancing its quality.

The development of the DBA programme

11 The case for establishing the new award of DBA, the audit team noted, was reflected in the view expressed by the College that the traditional PhD route of advanced study was 'not fully meeting the needs of future management educators and consultants'. In a paper to the Henley Board, the senior academic committee of the College, the proposers argued that the DBA programme would build 'on a period of formal training in the basic disciplines of management, epistemology and research methodology, management development and education'. Further, it was intended that 'candidates demonstrate a level of research competence equivalent to the PhD' and that they should be 'required to achieve a high level of attainment in taught course units and competence in teaching and consultancy'. The expectation that they would normally hold positions of responsibility in the business world was recognised in the use of the title 'associate' for a student of the programme. That title will be used throughout the remainder of this report.

12 The main features of the proposed DBA were to be four compulsory activities and optional workshops of stage 1 (see above, paragraph 8), acquisition of teaching experience by acting as a teaching assistant for at least one term in the candidate's chosen area of specialisation, and the research of stage 2 leading to the production of a thesis. The thesis, expected to be somewhat shorter than the traditional PhD thesis, should be of a standard, it was stated, 'to make a sufficient and distinct contribution to the theory and practice of management'. This would be tested by a requirement that it should lead to two papers 'deemed of sufficiently high standard for publication in refereed journals'.

13 The proposal from the Henley Board was considered by Brunel University's Degrees Committee in June 1990. The Committee did not then approve it but sought further elucidation of the proposal from the Principal of Henley Management College.

14 Following the meeting of the University's Senate in July 1990, the Principal of Henley Management College wrote to the Chairman of the University's Degrees Committee providing further explanation of the DBA proposal. The Chairman of the University's Degrees Committee recommended the introduction of the new award, on the basis that the Principal had provided new material and had 'advanced urgent reasons'. This decision was reported to the University's Senate in October 1990.

The DBA partnership arrangement between the University, Henley Management College and the Singapore Institute of Management

15 The College's initial agreement with SIM to offer the DBA programme in Singapore through the Institute ran from September 1992 to August 1995, when it was renewed. It was an agreement made between SIM and the College; the University was not a signatory to the agreement, although the agreement made clear the status of the award as that of the University. The audit team heard from the University that a re-submission of the scheme to its Degrees Committee was not deemed necessary 'when the College notified the University of its intention to deliver the DBA in partnership with SIM'. Correspondence between the Academic Secretary of the University and the Principal of the College, and internal memoranda issued by the Academic Secretary and a pro vice-chancellor, in January and February 1992, seen by the team, referred to registration of the first Singaporean students and their fees. It was evident from this material that there was some lack of clarity at this time about the roles and responsibilities of participants in particular areas of the programme. The Academic Secretary asked for more information, particularly about the facilities at SIM. Subsequent clarification referred to an understanding that the DBA programme would be offered through SIM to successful MBA students in Singapore, Hong Kong and Malaysia; that tutorials and workshops would be conducted by two College staff over periods of five days duration in Singapore, following seven days of induction at Henley; that, thereafter, conferencing arrangements would enable contact to be maintained; and that appropriately qualified local supervisors would be found for the Singapore DBA students. The College had responsibility for investigating the resource implications of delivering this programme in the Far East.

16 The audit team saw the draft of the new agreement for the delivery of the DBA programme at SIM. It heard that the agreement was the outcome of recent discussions between all the parties concerned, and would shortly be submitted to the University's Degrees Committee for approval. Unlike the original agreement, the draft agreement included the University as a co-signatory with the College and SIM. The team was informed that the application of the HEQC's Code of Practice for Overseas Collaborative Provision in Higher Education to the DBA programme would depend on whether it was seen as a franchise, as defined by the Ordinances of the University's Senate, in which case the University would expect to appoint two external assessors for the process of approving the renewal of the agreement.

The intermediate award (ADipC)

17 The College's award of an advanced diploma in management consultancy (ADipC) was offered as an intermediate award for the DBA programme on the recommendation of a major review of the College's programmes in 1994 (see below, paragraph 25). The audit team discussed with University and College staff the origins of this intermediate award, and heard that it was envisaged as an exit point for those who achieved a satisfactory standard in the first stage of the programme but who were too busy to continue to the second stage. The award was intended to recognise the achievement of such associates at the point of withdrawal. The team learnt that this matter had been discussed with the University, and it had been concluded that it was more appropriate that the intermediate award should be an award of the College.

THE UNIVERSITY AND COLLEGE'S ARRANGEMENTS FOR QUALITY ASSURANCE

18 Although the DBA programme leads to an award of Brunel University, it is a programme developed by Henley Management College and delivered in the UK by the College, and in Singapore by SIM and the College (and in France by Groupe ESC, Grenoble). The quality assurance of the programme delivered in Singapore depends upon a complex tripartite relationship between the University, the College and the Institute. The audit team paid particular attention to the individual obligations of the partners in order to understand where responsibilities lay. In principle, as the HEQC's Collaborative Provision Audit Report July 1995 noted, 'the University Degrees Committee occupies a key position.is responsible for quality assurance procedures covering such matters as course approval, course delivery, annual review, major review, external examiners' arrangements, student feedback, validation and franchising arrangements and postgraduate research programmes'. However, as the University's longest established collaborative partner, the College has developed its own quality assurance practices and procedures over many years. The report of July 1995 notes that 'the University has recognised that, as mature institutions, its main collaborating institutions can show considerable experience of operating quality assurance mechanisms ... It has, therefore, largely accepted the internal quality assurance procedures of its collaborating institutions, and has sought to develop an agreed overall quality assurance process in consultation with each of them'.

19 In discussions about the programme with senior, teaching and administrative staff at SIM, the audit team found that they understood that the DBA award was a postgraduate degree of Brunel University, and a perception that the College was, in effect, the 'postgraduate management school' of the University. It was clear to the team that staff at SIM assumed that they were dealing, except in certain formal aspects relating to the award, directly with the College, and that there was a settled and co-operative relationship between the College and the University that was not their immediate concern. Staff of the University and of the College who later met the team endorsed these views.

20 In discussions with the audit team, members of College staff expressed the view that the College acted for the University and conformed to its requirements: there was no delegation of authority to modify or change the requirements laid down by the University. For their part, University staff expressed the view that the SIM DBA associates were external research students, 'happening to form a coherent group', and that responsibility for the quality assurance of their programme of study therefore lay with the College as the operating unit. The University's decision not to validate the programme as such was explained by the view that associates were regarded by the University as individual 'external research students'. However, the team found it difficult to reconcile this view of the status of the DBA programme at SIM, in the light of the promotional material issued by both the College and SIM, and its discussions with students on the programme in Singapore, which focused upon the taught and group-based elements of the programme (stage 1).

Responsibilities for quality assurance

21 The complexities of the relationship between the University, the College and SIM derive in part from the division of formal and informal responsibilities for quality assurance between the first two of these partners. This is compounded by the structure of the programme, with both taught and research elements; the formal status of the associates as external research students of the University; and the existence of an intermediate award, the diploma, which is awarded by the College under its own powers, and for which the University has no responsibility.

22 In attempting to understand these various elements, the audit team took the view that stage 1 of the DBA programme might be regarded as 'preparation' by the College for an associate to undertake study for a research award of the University. This achievement was recognised in the College's award. An associate in stage 2 might then reasonably be regarded as an individual external research student of the University, moving to the research stage after receiving approved training in research methodology developed from the foundation of an MBA. While such explicit separation of the stages of the DBA was not apparent in the documentation available to the team, subsequent discussions with staff of the University and the College suggested that this interpretation would be acceptable to both. The team considers that this interpretation that to distinguish between the responsibilities of the College and the University respectively for assurance of the quality of the student experience and of the standard of the doctoral award.

23 College staff who met the audit team confirmed that the College was proceeding cautiously in developing its own quality assurance systems, and explained the process by which its own procedures were related to those of the University. Reports on visits to SIM by College staff go to the College's Approvals and Qualifications Committee, then to its Academic Board, which reports onwards to the University's Degrees Committee. The team heard that the annual review of the programme followed the same route except that it would be considered by the University's Monitoring and Review Sub-committee before reaching the Degrees Committee. The team saw committee papers illustrating the flow of information to the University, and formed the impression that, while the receipt of information was clearly recorded in those papers, there did not appear to be systematic feedback from the University to the College or, through the College, to SIM. University staff advised that, through these committees, the University was fully aware of, and endorsed, the quality assurance procedures being followed by the College.

APPROVAL AND REVIEW PROCESSES

Delivery of the DBA programme through the Singapore Institute of Management

24 The agreement between the College and SIM reached in 1992 (see above, paragraph 15) included provision for regular quality assurance visits by staff of the College. The audit team scrutinised reports on visits made to SIM by College staff between 1993 and 1996 under this agreement. The College's Approvals and Qualifications Committee took note of one of these reports at its meeting in January 1994. The Committee's minute records that 'generally satisfactory progress' was being made, and that steps were being taken to address a number of areas felt to be in need of attention, which included the appointment and training of suitable staff as mentors and supervisors, the appointment of an academic co-ordinator, and some difficulties experienced by associates in understanding the expectations and the concepts which were central to the programme.

25 In June 1994, the University undertook a scheduled major review of the College's programmes. The review panel had received a self-appraisal by the College of the DBA programme. Statistics were provided which showed that of the original intake of 20 associates at SIM, eight had made first stage submissions which were being evaluated, two had made incomplete submissions, five had received extensions, one had withdrawn and four were in abeyance. 'Many part-time associates', the report commented, 'find it difficult to meet the challenging standards within the time frame set'. It was nonetheless believed that 'a significant number will achieve satisfactory standards after an extension'. The report's conclusions declared that 'of the partner institutions SIM is particularly well-organised'. The point was also made, however, that 'the wide distribution of DBA associates internationally creates variability in the way in which they participate in the programme'. No specific reference to the operation of the programme through SIM appeared in the long list of the panel's recommendations, which covered all the College's programmes, although two of these recommendations may have made an implicit reference to the SIM students. These were the recommendations regarding the introduction of an intermediate award 'for DBA students leaving after successfully completing the first stage of the programme' and encouraging the College to ensure 'adequate supervision of an appropriate quality to the target recruitment figure for the DBA'.

Review of the DBA programme offered through SIM

26 The audit team saw the report of a formal review, held in Singapore in March 1995, of the DBA programme operating through SIM. This review by the College was the first of its type, following approval by its Academic Board in September 1994 for the establishment of a process of formal review of overseas associates. While recognising that those conducting the review were fully aware of the history of the DBA programme, the team noted that documentation relating to quality assurance visits to SIM over the period from 1993 to 1995 was rather narrowly based. Nevertheless, the process properly followed the review procedures accepted by the Henley Board.

27 The audit team considered a number of committee papers which related to action taken at the College following the report of the formal review of the DBA programme offered through SIM. When, at its next meeting, the College's Approvals and Accreditation Committee had considered the report, it had decided, in view of 'a number of important shortcomings on the part of SIM and Henley', to require another formal review of the programme in March 1996. Meanwhile, it requested a report for its meeting of August 1995 from the Director of Doctoral Programmes on action taken so far. The team learnt that, during his visit to SIM in June 1995, the Director of Doctoral Programmes had 'addressed a number of significant issues with course members and with the SIM DBA Course Manager' but stated that these issues were 'still being brought to a conclusion'. The Director's report was presented to the College's Approvals and Accreditation Committee in October 1995. The team found this report full, comprehensive and well-organised. It provided a summary of concerted action intended to put the DBA at SIM on a strengthened academic footing.

28 The College's agreement with SIM for the delivery of the DBA in Singapore was renewed in August 1995. The audit team saw no documentation regarding negotiations for a renewal of this agreement during 1995.

29 At its meeting in December 1995, the University's Monitoring and Review Sub-committee of its Degrees Committee took note of the HEQC's Code of Practice for Overseas Collaborative Provision in Higher Education, resolving to recommend that the University should adopt it. The sub-committee sought to use the College's procedures for the formal review of overseas partners as its model, recommending that reviews should be held on a regular basis.

30 At its meeting in January 1996, the University's Monitoring and Review Sub-committee considered papers relating to the annual review of programmes at the College. These included a critical self-appraisal on the operation of the DBA worldwide. This report stated that a firm deadline for completion had now been given to those whose work was overdue, and it was predicted that 'this should result in some successes' and would 'crystallise some failures and withdrawals from the programme'. At the same time, the report noted that tightening of the selection criteria for DBA applicants was one of the reasons for a substantially reduced intake in September 1995. The University's Monitoring and Review Sub-committee noted the self-appraisal report.

31 The audit team had access to a further report, dated March 1996, by the College's Director of Doctoral Programmes on the issues outstanding. This report concluded that 'whilst problems remain, they are in a properly controlled framework ... much of the structure is in place. It now needs careful monitoring and control to achieve success'. At the time of the team's visit to SIM, the University's Monitoring and Review Sub-committee had not had the opportunity to consider this report.

32 Paragraphs 24 to 31 indicate that the operation of the College's DBA programme through SIM has been subject to monitoring and review in a variety of ways: regular visits by College staff; a scheduled review by the University of the College's programmes (June 1994); formal review by the College (March 1995); reports by the Director of Doctoral Programmes (October 1995 and March 1996). These processes informed the University of the health of the DBA programme delivered through SIM, supplementing the information received by its Degrees Committee from the College's annual programme review (see above, paragraph 23). It appeared to the audit team, from the documentation available to it, that the University had not taken the opportunities offered by these processes of monitoring and review to offer timely assistance to the College, and through the College, to SIM in correcting operational problems and developing the programme.

THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

33 Candidates for the DBA programme must have completed an MBA, have a good career record and present a personal development plan that demonstrates the relevance of the DBA in relation to their aspirations for improving consultancy and training skills. The associates whom the audit team met were mature and experienced business managers, in some cases in senior positions. The team saw papers relating to the process of admission and registration for a Brunel University research degree and discussed this process with associates. It was told that, in every case among those it met, the associates had received a formal letter of admission, the Brunel University Research Students' Handbook, and the very detailed Course Organiser prepared by the College.

Annual performance review

34 The University's Senate Ordinances require that each research student's performance and registration shall be reviewed annually according to procedures laid down by the Senate. The audit team saw examples of research students' progress forms which are used by the College as the basis of an annual review. They are completed by mentors and first supervisors as appropriate and signed by the College's Director of Doctoral Programmes before they are forwarded to the University. The team noted that in the case of stage 2 associates, these forms also included a report from the second supervisor and that the associate had to sign the report after discussing the comments of both supervisors with the first supervisor at SIM. Administrative staff of the University who met the team confirmed this process, and noted that any incomplete forms would be returned to the College. While progress forms on individual students might provide the University with a useful insight into the health of the programme leading towards its doctoral award, it appeared to the team that the University did not yet have a mechanism to secure a systematic overview. However, the Director of Studies produces an annual overview on research students which is presented to the University's Monitoring and Review Sub-committee.

35 The audit team met associates who were at various stages of the programme, some approaching completion of a thesis, some at or about to start stage 2 and other, more recent recruits, who were progressing with their stage 1 studies. These students were generally positive about the programme, strongly engaged with it and firmly committed to the achievement of their DBA. The team was informed that, as a result of recent pressure to make more rapid progress, 16 associates had been de-registered since the summer of 1995. Thirteen associates had achieved the interim award for the successful completion of elements of Stage 1, some of whom had withdrawn while others had remained on the programme. At the time of the team's visit, there were 37 active associates on the DBA programme operating through SIM. There were currently six Stage 2 participants, two nearing completion.

36 The audit team heard from associates that at meetings with College staff during their visits to Singapore they had been given opportunities to raise matters of concern regarding the programme. The associates expressed their satisfaction with these visits as giving them an effective opportunity for feedback. They were able to provide examples of action taken in the light of their comments. They also made it clear that they would not hesitate to contact the College or the University directly if appropriate, but emphasised that they believed that their contact through the Programme Manager at SIM would be a normal and effective means of communication with either institution.

STUDENT ASSESSMENT AND THE CLASSIFICATION OF AWARDS

37 The DBA is examined through a thesis which the candidate is required to defend at a viva voce examination before two examiners, one of whom is the external examiner, the other appointed from the University's academic staff. The associates who met the audit team were fully aware of the process of examination and understood that the viva voce examination would normally take place in England. At the time of the visit there had not yet been a final examination but the team learnt from the Director of Doctoral Programmes at the College that a 'very scholarly local external examiner from the National University of Singapore has been identified' for the first thesis submission, and, whilst this person and the associate were willing to travel to the UK for the viva voce, permission might be sought from the University for the examination to take place in Singapore. In the case of a doctoral viva voce examination taking place somewhere other than the campus of the University or the College, the University would normally require a third person, a senior member of academic staff approved by its Degrees Committee, to be present to ensure, as chairperson, that the student was fairly treated and that University regulations were satisfied.

38 From its discussions with staff and associates, the audit team formed the opinion that the academic standards applied to the doctoral examination of associates pursuing the DBA programme through SIM would not differ in any way from those applied in the case of the programme operated through the College at Henley.

STAFFING AND STAFF DEVELOPMENT

Recognition of staff at SIM

39 The audit team noted that in February 1992 the University's Pro Vice-Chancellor (Academic Liaison), in an internal memorandum, had expressed his view about the need to ensure a high standard of supervision which students on the SIM DBA might receive. 'We cannot afford', he wrote ~to set up one standard for staff of institutions a few miles away and a less stringent one for people thousands of miles away'. He subsequently gave careful attention to the qualifications of those individuals proposed by the College for recognition as 'associate faculty' to support DBA associates in Singapore. He presented a paper to the University's Academic Staff Appointments and Promotions Committee in November 1992 approving the recognition of four staff at SIM as 'associate faculty' of the University who would undertake the role of mentors to associates on the DBA programme.

40 The audit team read a number of papers covering the period 1993 to 1996 relating to recognition of staff at SN. These confirmed that potential staff were scrutinised and that, in at least one case, the University had rejected an applicant put forward by the College. The team noted from a sample letter of appointment that the precise terms of recognition permit appointees to teach on the DBA course, assess students' work, subject to moderation from the College, and contribute to curriculum development. In discussion with staff at SLIVI, it became apparent to the team that they had only recently taken up an assessment role themselves, having developed confidence through close involvement with the College's assessment procedures in their own ability to apply appropriate standards.

Appointment of supervisors

41 An arrangement was approved by the University's Degrees Committee in 1994 for the appointment of a pool of local supervisors to support associates engaged in stage 2 of the DBA programme. It was agreed between the University and the College that the internal supervisor should in all cases be a College member of staff recognised by the University, and that the local supervisor should be chosen from the pool of 'associate faculty' recognised for the purpose by the Degrees Committee.

42 The audit team met a number of recognised SIM supervisors, one of whom was currently supervising one of the six stage 2 DBA associates. The team was unfortunately unable to meet the supervisor of the remaining five stage 2 DBA associates because he was ill at the time of the visit. While recognising that the differing supervisory loads were a consequence of the research interests of the associates, the team would encourage the University and Henley Management College to review the desirability of allowing a local supervisor to carry such a large part of the overall responsibility. The team understood from the College's Director of Doctoral Programmes that training workshops for DBA supervisors and mentors had been conducted at SIM and that plans were being made to invite less experienced SIM-based supervisors to a training workshop at the College.

PUBLICITY AND PROMOTIONAL MATERIAL

43 The audit team saw examples of the publicity material relevant to the DBA programme, and discussed these with staff and associates at SIM. The team and the associates whom it met found the prospectus to be clear and accurate. Senior staff accepted that, in hindsight, the suggestion in SIM's prospectus that the programme might be completed in 'about three to four years' was somewhat optimistic considering that the associates were senior managers with demanding full-time posts.

CONCLUSIONS AND POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION

44 The principal purpose of the audit of the partnership was to review the way in which Brunel University satisfies itself that the doctoral award which it grants in respect of Henley Management College's DBA programme, offered through SIM, is equivalent in quality and standard to the same award granted to students who have completed programmes at Henley. In the light of its enquiry, the audit team formed the view that sufficient mechanisms were in place to ensure that the academic standards applied to the doctoral examination of associates pursuing the DBA programme through SIM would not differ in any material way from those applied in the case of the programme operated through the College at Henley.

45 From its visit to SIM, the audit team gained the impression that steady progress had been made over the past year towards developing secure arrangements to safeguard the quality of the DBA programme in Singapore. Nevertheless, it appeared to the team that the University may not in the past have taken all the opportunities provided by reports from the College and by its own review procedures to give timely assistance in remedying operational difficulties. In particular, monitoring of the programme may have been more effective had the flow of information from the College to the University been supported by greater feedback and guidance from the University.

46 The unusual hybrid structure of the DBA programme and the particular nature of the University's relationship with the College made it difficult for the audit team to understand clearly where responsibility for the quality and standards of the award both lay, and how it was exercised in practice. The University, through its Degrees Committee, has formal responsibility for a range of procedures for assuring quality of delivery and standards in all its collaborating institutions (see above, paragraph 18). The visit to SIM made it clear to the team, however, that its staff perceived that responsibility for assuring the quality of delivery had been fully devolved to the College, with the University retaining responsibility for assuring the standard of the award. The University states that the associates on the DBA programme are external research students, and that, in consequence, day-to-day responsibility for quality assurance lies with the College as the operating unit. As a result the team was unclear about how far the formal responsibilities of the University had, in practice, been assumed by the College. Although University and College staff believed themselves to be in no doubt about their different roles, the team would nonetheless suggest that a more explicit formulation of their respective responsibilities would assist both institutions to demonstrate more readily the continuing assurance of quality and standards.

QAG 495 12/96