03: QAES Programme Development, Validation and Evaluation

3                Policy on Programme Development, Validation and Evaluation.. 3:1

3.1        Policy on Programme Development, Delivery & Evaluation. 3-1

3.2        Policy & Procedures for the Development & Validation of Programmes Leading to QQI Higher Education Awards. 3-5

3.3        Policy for the Development of Programmes Leading to QQI FE Awards. 3-14

3.4        External Validation Process where the Arrangement of the Independent Evaluation Report has been Devolved. 3-14

3.5        Guidelines on the Structure of Programmes and Modules. 3-24

3.6        Policy and Procedures for the Design, Approval and Quality Management of Collaborative Provision & Transnational Education Programmes. 3-26

3.7        Policy for tendering to third parties for development and/or delivery of educational services  3-43

3.8        Programme Review & Revalidation. 3-50

3.9        Policy on Annual Programme and Module Change. 3-54

3.10     Differential Validation. 3-56

3.11     Off-Campus Provision. 3-57

3.12     Policy on Accreditation. 3-58

3.13     Policy on the Delivery of Professional Programmes. 3-60

3.14     Policy on Non-Award Programmes. 3-61

3.1      Policy on Programme Development, Delivery & Evaluation

This document outlines the overarching and constituent policies on programme development, delivery and evaluation in National College of Ireland (NCI).  These policies and the associated procedures do not exist in isolation, so cross reference will be made to other related policies and procedures where appropriate.

3.1.1      Purpose

The purpose of this policy is to set out the contexts in which new programmes of study are developed and all programmes of study are delivered and reviewed.

3.1.2      Scope

This policy applies to all programmes developed and delivered by NCI. Where there are variations dependent upon awarding body, programme type or mode of delivery, they will be highlighted in the policy statement and/or related procedures.

3.1.3      Policy Statement

Programmes will be developed to ensure that graduates will be competent in a specific discipline. This competency will be measured in achievement of stated Minimum Intended Programme Learning Outcomes (MIPLOs) which are based on the knowledge, skills and competence framework of the National Framework of Qualifications (NFQ). Except where approved by Academic Council, all programmes developed by NCI will be placed on the NFQ or other equivalent and according to the award standards and criteria for validation of the appropriate awarding body. 

All programmes regardless of their mode of study, modality of delivery or location are developed for validation in an accordance with the quality assurance procedures outlined in this handbook. Programmes will be designed to ensure that the National Policy on Access Transfer & Progression is adhered to and that there is a simple articulation and progression route within NCI or, alternatively, that arrangements can be made for such routes with named educational institutions and programmes.

Programmes will be developed that are consistent with NCI’s mission, current strategic plan and learning, teaching & assessment strategy and where there are appropriate resources to deliver and support those programmes. Programme development is informed by consultation with stakeholders such as sectoral interest groups, prospective employers, national policy makers and learners.

Programmes are developed by Programme Development Teams, led by a Programme Director with oversight from the relevant Dean and/or Vice Dean. The project management of programme development is overseen by the Quality Assurance & Statistical Services (QASS) Office to ensure that the programme meets its development schedule and coincides with QQI deadlines

Apprenticeship programmes are developed and delivered in accordance with the Policy and Procedures for Apprenticeship Provision. Programmes involving online and blended learning are developed and delivered giving due regard to the Guidelines on Technology Mediated Learning. Programmes will be developed and delivered using the principles of universal design to ensure that all learners can access the programme and its curriculum. Programmes will be delivered and supported by appropriately qualified staff as outlined in Policy on the Recruitment of Staff.

3.1.3.1    Collaborative & Off-Campus Delivery

Where relevant, off-campus locations should be chosen so that they can support the semesterised delivery of programmes to coincide with on campus delivery. Off-campus centres shall be chosen using the procedures for the selection of off-campus locations (see Section 3.11 below). Programmes being developed or delivered for and/or with other organisations are required to adhere to the Policy on Collaborative and Transnational Provision (see Section 3.6 below). Opportunities for programme development and/or delivery with other institutions must adhere to the Policy on Tendering for Educational Programmes  (see Section 3.7 below)   

3.1.3.2    Programme Management

Programmes are managed using the Guidelines for Programme Delivery as set out in Chapter 5 (Section 5.5).

3.1.3.3    Annual Evaluation & Programme Review

Programmes and their delivery will be annually evaluated by their Programme Committee to ensure that they are being delivered according to their original validation, that minor amendments informed by learners and faculty can be incorporated and that their MIPLOs are being met.

Feedback will be sought from learners on their programme and/or modules studied using techniques such as anonymous survey, focus groups and national student engagement initiatives such as ISSE.

Programmes validated by Quality and Qualifications Ireland (QQI) will be reviewed at least every 5 years, while others will be reviewed in accordance with their awarding body’s regulations. Any programmes which require variation to their original validation i.e. extension to an off-campus centre, another jurisdiction or introduction of blended learning components will require differential validation from their awarding body.

3.1.4      Roles and Responsibilities

The following individuals have particular responsibilities in the development, delivery and review or programmes at NCI.

3.1.4.1    Programme Director

The Programme Director is responsible for the ongoing development of the programme, monitoring learner feedback and ensuring that delivery of the programme is in accordance with the quality assurance procedures of the College and the approved programme schedule as validated by the awarding body. Please refer to Chapter 2 (2.7.10) for further information on the role and responsibilities of the Programme Director.

3.1.4.2    Dean of School

The Dean of School is responsible for ensuring that programmes submitted by their School are developed, delivered and evaluated in accordance with this policy. They are also responsible for reviewing all programmes to ensure that the learner is at the centre of all teaching, learning and assessment activities. Please refer to Chapter 2 (2.7.5) for further information on the role and responsibilities of the Dean of School.

3.1.4.3    Vice Dean of School

The Vice-Dean of School is responsible for the day-to-day oversight and practical delivery of programmes. They are responsible for timetabling teaching, learning and assessment activities and allocating responsibilities and resources in a line management capacity. Please refer to Chapter 2 (2.7.6 – 2.7.8) for further information on the role and responsibilities of the Vice Dean of School.

3.1.4.4    Dean of School

The Dean of School is ultimately responsible for ensuring that programmes submitted by their School are developed, delivered and evaluated in accordance with this policy.

3.1.4.5    Director of Quality Assurance & Statistical Services

The Director of Quality Assurance and Statistical Services (DQASS) is responsible for ensuring that this policy is compatible with the policies of the College’s awarding bodies. They are also responsible for the project management of programme development and review and for submitting programmes for validation to the awarding body. Please refer to Chapter 2 (2.7.4) for further information on the role and responsibilities of the DQASS.

3.1.4.6    Vice President – Academic  Affairs & Research

The Vice President is responsible for the strategic development of the programme portfolio in consultation with Deans of Schools. Please refer to Chapter 2 (2.7.2) for further information on the role and responsibilities of the Vice President – Academic Affairs & Research.  

3.1.4.7    Registrar

The Registrar is responsible for ensuring that the records of validated programmes are held accurately on College systems. They are responsible for the due diligence processes for programmes developed and delivered under collaborative provision.

3.1.5      Related Documentation

QQI (2016) Validation Policy & Criteria for Validation

QQI (2016) Topic Specific Quality Assurance Guidelines for Statutory Apprenticeships

QQI (2018) Topic Specific Quality Assurance Guidelines for Blended Learning

QQI (2013) Policy on Access Transfer & Progression

QQI (20XX) Policy on Access Transfer & Progression

3.1.6      Contacts

Queries regarding this policy should be addressed to the Director of Quality Assurance & Statistical Services (DQASS).

3.1.7      Policy Review & Indicators of Effectiveness

This policy will be reviewed every 2 years and in accordance with QQI or other awarding body policy updates.

3.1.8      Related Procedures & Guidelines

• Policy and Procedures for the Development & Validation of Programmes leading to QQI Higher Education Awards (see Section 2 below)
• Guidelines on Programme Structures (see Section 3.5 below)
• Guidelines on Technology Mediated Learning (see Section Chapter 13)
• Policy on Collaborative & Transnational Provision (see Section 3.6 below)
• Policy on Tendering for Education Services (see Section 3.7 below)
• Policies and Procedures for Apprenticeship Provision (see Chapter 12)
• Policy on Programmes that do not Lead to Awards (see Section 3.14 below)
• Policy on Accreditation (see Section 3.12 below)
• Policy on Delivery of Professional Programmes (see Section 3.13 below)

3.2      Policy & Procedures for the Development & Validation of Programmes Leading to QQI Higher Education Awards

3.2.1      Purpose

The purpose of this policy is to ensure that programmes being submitted to QQI for validation are developed consistently and in accordance with QQI requirements. It also ensures that programmes are developed with sufficient regard to the resources required to deliver them once validated by QQI.

3.2.2      Scope

This policy applies to all programmes that are developed for submission to QQI for validation.

3.2.3      Policy

Programmes for validation by QQI should be developed having due regard from the outset to QQI’s Core policies and criteria for the validation by QQI of programmes of education and training.  Programmes are developed in accordance with the following principles:

• New programmes are proposed on behalf of a School
• Opportunities for programme development with other institutions adhere to the

Policy on Tendering for Educational Programmes (see Section 3.7 below)

• Programme are developed by Programme Development Teams, led by a Programme Director.
• Programmes developed in collaboration with other institutions adhere to the Policy on Collaborative and Transnational Provision (See Section 6 below)
• The project management of programme development is overseen by the Quality Assurance & Statistical Services Office to ensure that the programme meets its development schedule and coincides with QQI deadlines
• Apprenticeship programmes are developed in accordance with the Policy & Procedures for Apprenticeship Provision (Chapter 12 of the QAH)
• Programmes involving online and blended learning are developed giving due regard to the Guidelines for Technology Mediated Learning (Chapter 13 of the QAH)

As outlined in Table 3-1, a new programme undergoes 3 phases of development prior to being submitted to QQI for validation.

1. Initial programme feasibility study
2. Development to Interim Checkpoint
3. Development to Completion

3.2.3.1    Initial Programme Feasibility

This stage of development examines the feasibility of the programme, paying particular attention to the strategic and academic rationale for the proposed programme. Whilst the programme being proposed may have been agreed during the strategic planning process, this process must be completed to ensure that the programme still has relevance to the strategic direction of the College and is viable, both academically and financially. This phase is supported by the Marketing & Student Recruitment Department.

In this phase, provisional programme learning outcomes are developed and a benchmarking process undertaken.  The purpose of this stage is to review existing provision in the programme/subject area and to provide information according to which the proposed programme can be benchmarked. The outcome of the market analysis will inform the decision of the School to propose a programme for development.

The proposal template should be completed as completely as possible as this then allows programme development to formally commence. An outline project plan with target delivery dates based on the intended programme commencement date should also be provided. The paperwork to be submitted to Executive Group, Academic Operations Committee and Academic Council is the Programme Proposal Form (see Appendix 3.1).

3.2.3.2    Development to Interim Checkpoint

During this phase, the programme team will further develop the proposal to include programme learning outcomes, curriculum structure and learning, teaching & assessment strategy. The programme team should consider the viability of all modes of study and of delivery at this point. The likelihood of the requirement to deliver off-campus or transnationally should also be considered at this point.

This stage of development ends as an interim checkpoint in the programme development process which will allow further review of the viability of the proposal. It is expected that this will be at a time when sufficient development will have taken place for the programme team to provide indicative costs associated with delivering the programme and enable support services to commence planning for delivery of the programme. The alternative outcome of this phase may be the programme team recommending that development is ceased or postponed due to changing priorities, unforeseen costs or other issues affecting the academic and economic viability of the programme.

The date of this checkpoint will depend on the nature of the programme being developed and therefore will be indicated by the Programme Development Team in its outline project plan which will be developed in Stage 1. The paperwork to be submitted to Executive Group is the Interim Checkpoint Form (see Appendix 3.2).  

Figure 3‑1 Programme Development Process

The likelihood of the requirement to delivery off-campus or transnationally should also be considered at this point.

Stakeholder groups such as sectoral organisations, prospective employers, national policy makers and learners should be consulted with at this stage of development.

It is expected that this will be at a time where sufficient development will have taken place for the programme team to provide indicative costs associated with running the programme and enable support services to commence planning for delivery of the programme.

An outcome of this phase may result in the programme team recommending that development is ceased or postponed due to changing priorities, unforeseen costs or other issues affecting the academic and economic viability of the programme.

The date of this checkpoint will depend on the nature of the programme being developed and therefore will be indicated by the programme development team in its outline project plan which will be developed in Stage 1. The paperwork to be submitted to Executive Group and Academic Operations Committee is Form : QASS-3.PD.PD1

3.2.3.3    Development to Completion

Once approved to proceed, the programme will proceed to final completion. The programme development and documentation should be completed with reference to the above criteria and templates for submission. Programme developers should ensure to use the correct templates for submission for the type of programme under development. These are available at QASS resources page.

When the programme is deemed fit by the Programme Development Team, an internal review will be scheduled in association with the QASS Office to critically and reflexively assess if the programme is ready for formal application for validation to QQI.

3.2.3.4    Self-Assessment Report

Prior to submitting a programme for validation, the programme team should prepare a self-assessment report detailing how it believes that the programme meets the validation criteria outlined by QQI. This self-assessment should be evaluative, noting areas that will require monitoring to ensure that the quality and standards of the proposed programme can be maintained.

3.2.3.5    Internal Review Panel

This is a critical phase of the development process. The purpose of the Internal Review Panel is to make an impartial judgement on the standard, content and conduct of the proposed programme. The term ‘internal’ refers to the ownership of the process. The panel will have members external to NCI. The Internal Review Panel must satisfy itself that the validation criteria laid out above are met.

Composition of Internal Review Panel

The School proposing the programme is responsible for nominating members to the Internal Review Panel (IRP). The IRP should include members that familiar with current practice and developments in the relevant discipline. Industry, Academia and the College shall be represented on the Internal Review Panel. The IRP shall use the Outline Timetable and Content of a Typical Internal Review Event (see Appendix 3.3) as its agenda. The QASS Office will provide secretarial support to the panel.

The IRP compromises no less than four persons nominated by the School as follows:

• A chairperson, generally the Vice President, Academic Affairs & Research, the Registrar or a senior academic from a School not involved in developing the programme;
• A member or a nominee of the Academic Standards and Policy Committee;
• Director of Quality Assurance and Statistical Services or nominee
• At least one external academic in the proposed programme discipline
• An external Industry representative in the area of the proposed programme
• Learner representative for the NCI student body

• Additional members may be added to the Panel where this is deemed necessary by to address to address the specific aspects of the Programme Submission Document.

Report of Internal Review Panel

Where an IRP is satisfied that the validation criteria have been met, the QASS Office shall prepare an Internal Review Report to be sent to the Programme Director for consideration by the Programme Development Committee. This report will follow the template outlined in Appendix 3.3 and will indicate the outcome as either:

• Satisfactory
• Satisfactory with conditions, or
• Not satisfactory

The report of the IRP and response from the School shall be circulated to the Academic Operations Committee for approval to proceed to validation. Where an IRP is not satisfied that the validation criteria have been met, the Programme Committee will be requested to resubmit the programme for further evaluation. This may require re-convening the panel.

The report and response of the Programme Development Team forms part of the final self-evaluation assessment provided to QQI on application for validation.

3.2.3.6    Approval by Academic Operations Committee

On recommendation from the relevant Dean of School, the Academic Operations Committee (AOC) will approve submission to QQI on receipt of the recommendation of the IRP.  The AOC should receive the following documentation:

• A brief overview of the programme outlining the rationale, intended audience, programme level learning outcomes and the proposed course schedule
• A copy of the internal review report and the School response to that report
• A copy of the programme team’s self-assessment report

3.2.3.7    Arrangement of Protection for Enrolled Learners

As a provider subject to section 65(1) of the Qualifications and Quality Assurance (Education and Training) Act 2012, NCI is required to submit details in writing to QQI of the arrangements it has in place in accordance with section 65(4) of the 2012 Act when making an application for validation. NCI has an arrangement under the HECA PEL Scheme which is agreed with QQI. Under this arrangement, agreements to provide learner protection by two members of HECA should be made prior to the application being made to QQI. 

3.2.3.8    Application to QQI

The Programme Director provides all documentation to be submitted to QQI. This documentation should be provided to the QASS Office together with a signed declaration from the relevant Dean of School that it has undergone the internal validation process above and that the programme is ready for application to QQI.

The DQASS is responsible for submitting the documentation to QQI in accordance with Unit 5 of Core policies and criteria for the validation by QQI of programmes of education and training. The documentation typically required is:

1. The programme submission document(s) and any appendices
2. Self -Assessment Report
3. Fee Cover note which includes PO for QQI validation fee
4. Documentation confirming PEL arrangements

3.2.3.9    Validation by QQI

Programmes are validated by QQI using its processes for programme validation as outlined in Unit 5-7 of Core policies and criteria for the validation by QQI of programmes of education and training. Where advised by QQI, the QASS Office will take responsibility for elements of the process which have been devolved under Memorandum of Agreement to NCI, unit 6.2. of its policy. This process is undertaken according to the procedure outlined in Section 3.4 below. 

3.2.3.10  Communication with QQI

All communication with QQI takes place from the QASS Office only.

3.2.3.11  Preparation for External Validation Event

The External Validation Event, which includes the visit by the External Validation Panel to the College is organised by the QASS Office, in co-operation with the Dean of School. The QASS Office agrees a date and location for the external Validation Event with QQI and notifies the Dean of School of the agreed arrangements.

3.2.3.12  Preparation within School for External Validation Event

The Programme Director undertakes the following duties in preparation for the External Validating Event:

• Ensures that final copies of the Programme Submission Document are available to the members of the Programme Development Team in adequate time prior to the Validation event.
• Organises meetings of the Programme Development Team to prepare to present the Programme Submission Document in the best way possible to the External Validation Panel.

3.2.3.13  Validation by QQI

Validation of a programme is undertaken by the programme and Awards Executive Committee (PAEC). A programme should not be considered approved to commence until such time as the Certificate of Validation is received by the College or permission has been given by QQI. The programme status is then updated on the College MIS system (QuercusPlus) by the Registrar’s Office.

The title, duration, mode, award, curriculum and assessment structure are cross checked against the approved course schedule by the Registrar’s Office to ensure that the correct record is available for Certification when learners complete the programme. The Registrar will, within 6 months of course approval, independently verify that the programme delivered corresponds to that approved by QQI.

3.2.3.14  Programme Commencement

Executive Group approves the commencement of a programme. A programme may not commence until receipt of the Certificate of Validation from QQI.

3.2.4      Programme Records

The Approved Programme Document consists of the final version of the Programme Submission Document as submitted to QQI, and includes the Approved Course Schedules. A copy of this documentation and of the formal approval from the Awarding Body will be held on the college document management system as the definitive approved document. Any changes undertaken under Programme Delivery and Evaluation as outlined below will be added to this record.

3.2.4.1    Protection for Enrolled Learners

Under NCI’s obligations for Protection of Enrolled Learners (PEL) and membership of the Higher Education Colleges Association (HECA) PEL Scheme, the HECA Executive should be informed that the programme has been approved and the database containing the list of NCI programmes is to be updated. The programme records should be uploaded to the agreed location under NCI’s action plan for PEL.

3.2.5      Roles & Responsibilities

3.2.6      Related Documentation

3.2.7      Contact

Any questions arising from the interpretation of this policy or application of the outlined procedures should be made directly to the DQASS.                     

3.2.8      Policy Review & Indicators of Effectiveness

This policy will be reviewed in 2 years or as QQI policy is amended. Effectiveness will be measured based on:

1. the successful referral of programmes for validation at internal validation stage
2. the successful validation of programmes when submitted to QQI
3. the number of programmes rejected at feasibility stage
4. the quality of the information available to programme delivery teams post validation
5. the convergence of assumptions on the resources required to deliver a programme before and after validation
6. the convergence of the findings of the self-evaluation of the Programme Development Team and the independent evaluation panel.

3.3      Policy for the Development of Programmes Leading to QQI FE Awards

Proposals for programmes leading to QQI FE awards shall be proposed as outlined in Section 3.2 above. Programmes shall be developed and internally approved in accordance with QQI’s Policies and Criteria for the validation of programmes leading to Common Award System (CAS). Application for validation will be made using QQI procedures.

3.4      External Validation Process where the Arrangement of the Independent Evaluation Report has been Devolved

3.4.1      Purpose

The purpose of this policy is to ensure that programmes being submitted to QQI for validation are developed consistently and in accordance with QQI requirements. It also ensures that programmes are developed with sufficient regard to the resources required to deliver them once validated by QQI.

3.4.2      Scope

This policy applies to taught programmes at level 6-9 on the Irish National Framework of Qualifications for submission to QQI for validation. The scope of devolved responsibility is limited to taught programmes up to NFQ Level 9 in Business, Computing, Psychology (excluding clinical psychology) and Education excluding:

1. First time collaborative provision of programmes where there is no collaborative agreement or relationship already in place
2. Transnational programmes delivered in new transnational destinations
3. Programmes leading to joint awards
4. Statutory Apprenticeship programmes

Programmes may be offered on a full or part-time basis, and delivered in traditional, or blended modes. Programmes developed for blended modes are developed using NCI’s quality assurance guidelines for blended learning (see Chapter 13).

Programmes leading to major awards may be delivered at the IFSC campus only. Those leading to minor or special purpose awards may be delivered at the approved locations indicated in Appendix 2 of the memorandum of agreement or those selected using agreed quality assurance procedures as outlined below.  

3.4.3      Policy

QQI’s Core Policies and Criteria for the Validation by QQI of Programmes of Education and Training prescribes the process and criteria to be used for validation as well as the documentation required when submitting an application for the validation of a new programme. The steps below are based on this policy.

3.4.4      Responsibilities within NCI:

• Dean of School
• Programme developer
• Programme Development Team (provisional programme committee)
• Registrar
• Director of Quality Assurance and Statistical Services
• Academic Council
• Executive Group

3.4.5      Pre-Requisites

This process cannot commence until the programme to be validated has completed the internal validation process as defined in Section 3.2.3.5 above and the programme team has satisfactorily responded to its conditions and/or recommendations of the internal review report.  

3.4.6      Related NCI Policies and Processes

• Policies and procedure for the development of new programmes
• Policies and procedures for the validation and revalidation of new programmes
• Policies and procedures for the delivery of programmes
• Policies and procedure for collaborative and transnational provision

3.4.7      Validation Process

Devolved responsibility commences at Step 3: Independent Evaluation (see Section 3.4.10 below) and ends at Step 7: Final Panel Assessment (see Section 3.4.14 below) of the process as outlined. These steps are situated in the context of the overall validation process which applies to all proposed QQI validated programmes.

3.4.8      Step 0: Pre-Application Processes

In order to facilitate as efficient a validation process as possible, there are 3 activities that take place shortly before the programme is due to be submitted to QQI for validation

1. Notification of the application to QQI
2. Final check of programme documentation
3. Preparing nominations for the independent evaluation panel

3.4.8.1    Notification to QQI

The DQASS or nominee will formally advise QQI that an application is expected to be made one month before the application is scheduled to be completed. As part of this notification, a purchase order is generated and the fees cover note will be completed.  This process triggers the issue of an invoice from QQI.

3.4.8.2    Documentation Check

The DQASS, or other person appointed by Academic Council, shall conduct a Pre-Validation Check of the submission documentation to determine whether or not the programme:

• addresses the validation criteria and programme description and accords with the guidelines in QQI’sProgramme Validation Manual for Programme of HET and Apprenticeships (see Appendix 7)
• has been developed and internally validated using NCI’s agreed quality assurance procedures
• has appropriate measures for the Protection for Enrolled Learners in accordance with QQI Protocols for Implementation

The DQASS must also ensure that the self-assessment document is completed and demonstrates a critical evaluation of the programme based on the validation criteria and that the invoice relating to the validation has been paid.

Outcomes of the Pre-Validation Check can include:

1. A recommendation that the programme is submitted to QQI for validation. Such a recommendation will only be made where all of the validation documentation required by the CPCV is fully complete and finalised including a Self-Assessment Report against the QQI validation criteria;
2. The documentation is returned to the Programme Development Team for reworking based on specific weaknesses outlined in the Pre-Validation Check; or
3. A recommendation that the programme not be submitted to QQI for validation at this time. The documentation is returned to the Programme Development Team for reworking based on specific weaknesses outlined in the self-assessment report.

3.4.8.3     Preparing Panel Nominations

An external evaluation of the programme(s) submitted for evaluation is carried out by a panel of independent evaluators (the Panel). The Panel is required to make an impartial judgement on the standard, content and conduct of the proposed programme.  Independent evaluators must be competent to make a recommendation on whether or not the programme should be validated. Competence means the capacity to make judgements against the applicable QQI validation criteria. Specifically, an evaluator or an evaluation group will be selected to have the competence to justify their recommendation whatever it may be.

All nominees for panel membership will be external to and independent of NCI. The Panel is constituted on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the validation criteria and QQI’s Guidelines Participating on Evaluation Panels as a Peer Reviewer (2015). The Panel will require expertise in the programme’s discipline area and in generic areas including pedagogy, assessment, and quality assurance.

Nominees to the Panel should be competent to make national and international comparisons. Nominees to the Panel must include a learner and must have at least 40% of equal gender representation. The Chairperson must have attended a QQI training event or at least been briefed by QQI on the requirements.

Sourcing Nominees

The DQASS is responsible for constituting the nominated panel and approving nominations made to QQI. These nominations are made as part of the documentation set outlined in Step 1: Application to QQI.  

Panel nominees may be sourced via the following mechanisms:

• staff and faculty networks
• the College’s CRM system,
• Media such as HEI websites, LinkedIn etc.
• Nominees suggested by QQI

The panel must be agreed by QQI prior to its confirmation of engagement. QQI will revert on whether or not it agrees the panel composition within 2 weeks of receipt of nominations and a complete application for validation.

When contacted, nominees should be provided with sufficient information to allow them to decide whether or not their workload permits them to fully participate in the programme evaluation. Information such as listed below should be provided at minimum

• Number and levels of programmes being evaluated
• The expected commitment in terms of documentation to be evaluated in advance of the meeting
• The expected duration of the site visit, including any pre-meetings
• Commitments in respect of correspondence with the Chair, Secretary and expected turnaround times for reports

Panel Composition

The panel is comprised of not less than four members as follows:

• A Chairperson, generally a Registrar or a senior academic
• A Secretary to the panel who will ensure that the report is finalised.
• At least two academics in the proposed programme discipline (normally including at least one from the university sector for programmes leading to awards at Honours Bachelor’s Degree or higher NFQ levels).
• An Industry/sectoral representative in the area of the proposed programme.
• At least one person who is familiar with QQI and NFQ standards, policy and criteria.

• A learner on a programme similar to the programme being evaluated.
• Additional members may be added to the Panel where this is deemed necessary to address the specific aspects of the Programme Submission Document.
• The panel should be gender balanced (40% of each)

The QASS Office will provide administrative support to the panel.

Please Note: QQI is responsible for appointing the panel as outlined in Section 6.1 of QQI’s Core policies and criteria for the validation by QQI of programmes of education and training, “QQI will exercise its judgment as to the number of evaluators that may be required in respect of the programme in question and the competences required having regard to the particular programme and the relevant QQI awards standards.”

Criteria for the Nomination of Panel Members

• Nominees as Members of the panel must be external to and independent of NCI
• Expert panel members must be included in the QQI Register of Experts.  Where the NCI nominates a person who is not already in the QQI Register of Experts it should complete a nomination form to include this person in the Register. This form is provided by and should be submitted to QQI as part of Step 1.
• Participation in an expert panel is normally on a pro bono publico basis, and expenses are covered for all relevant activities.  Standard public sector norms apply and a suitable expenses guideline is issued to all panel members on appointment to a specific panel. Where a panel member is not a serving public servant, they may be paid in accordance with current QQI policy on panel expenses.
• A period of five   years should have elapsed before former staff members of NCI can be nominated to a panel
• A period of five years should have elapsed before former external examiners can be nominated to a panel
• A period of five years should have elapsed before graduates of NCI may be nominated of the panel but this must be declared. In all cases, persons with family or other relationship with any members employed by or attending NCI cannot be nominated to a panel.
• Any conflict of interest or appearance of conflict of interest should be considered when approaching a prospective nominee.
• Panel members must formally accept nomination and the terms of participation on the panel in accordance with QQI policy on participation on panels.

• When contacting prospective nominees to ascertain availability and willingness to participate, the QASS Office will make it clear to nominees that their participation on the panel is subject to agreement of QQI and that non selection in the final agreed panel is subject to ensuring balance and is not a reflection on their suitability.
• Due regard should be taken to ensure that nominees come from a variety of institutions or organisations.
• Due regard should be taken to ensure that there is sufficient rotation of the nominated Chairperson so that there is variety in role of the chairperson

Conflict of Interest

Panel Nominees will be required to read QQI’s Guidelines Participating on Evaluation Panels as a Peer Reviewer (2015) and sign the relevant declarations provided by QQI. 

Communication with Panel Members

Communication with Panel members in relation to the validation process is made exclusively by members of the QASS Office. No other member of staff may communicate with any panel member on matters relating to the validation/revalidation event.

3.4.9      Step 1: Application to QQI

As part of the application to QQI, the following documents should be finalised and submitted via QQI’s QHELP facility:

1. The programme submission document
2. Self-Assessment Report
3. Fee cover note and confirmation that the fee required has been paid.
4. Confirmation of Protection for Enrolled Learner arrangement where appropriate and completed documentation
5. Panel Nominations pack which includes for each nominee;
   1. completed nomination forms
   2. Signed QQI confidentiality and conflict of interest declaration
   3. Signed data protection form
6. Confirmation that the invoice for validation has been paid

Step 1 must be completed at least 6 weeks in advance of any planned panel date. Application to QQI is made by the DQASS or nominee within the QASS office.

3.4.9.1    Step 2: Application Screening by QQI

Upon receipt of the application, QQI will conduct a screening process as outlined in Section 5.5 of the CPCV.  It is at this point that QQI will formally advise NCI if the site visit and arrangement of the independent evaluation report are to be managed under devolved responsibility.

The site visit and independent evaluation cannot take place until QQI advises in writing that screening has taken place and that the site visit can proceed.

3.4.10   Step 3: Independent Evaluation

In arranging site visits, due regard should be given to the time available to panel members and the workload associated with participating in panels. Sufficient time must be allowed for consideration of materials in advance of the panel meeting and for the programmes to be evaluated during the course of the site visit itself.

3.4.10.1  Provision of Documentation to the Panel

Documentation must be provided to members of the panel at least 3 weeks prior to the site visit. The documents provided must include:

• Programme documentation as outlined in Section 3.4.8.2 above
• Agenda for the day
• Membership of the panel
• Terms of reference if the panel is involved in programmatic review leading to revalidation

They should also be provided with links to:

• Relevant awards standards
• Core Policies and Criteria for the Validation by QQI of Programmes of Education and Training (QQI)
• Assessment & Standards (QQI).
• NCI’s Quality Assurance and Enhancement System

3.4.10.2  Pre-Panel Meeting

Panel members are invited to complete an ‘Initial Comments’ form provided by QQI in advance of the meeting and forward this directly to the panel chairperson. In the case of major award programmes, the panel will normally meet the evening before the panel event in order to discuss the application and arrange the structure of the panel meeting.  In all cases, the agenda will allow sufficient time for the panel to deliberate before, during and after the meeting with programme staff.

The Chair of the panel may request additional supplementary documentation to elaborate context or background relating to the programme being considered for validation. This may be quality assurance procedures, operational procedures, annual reports etc. The DQASS will provide such additional information as the Chair deems necessary for the site visit to take place.

3.4.10.3 Panel Event (Site Visit)

The External Validation Event, which normally includes a site visit by the External Validation Panel to the College, is organised by the QASS Office. At the event, the panel evaluates the submitted programme(s) according to QQI’s Core Policies and Criteria for the Validation by QQI of Programmes of Education and Training.

QQI shall be invited to send a representative to observe the event. Should a conflict of interest arise during the site visit, the relevant procedures outlined in current QQI guidelines should be used.

3.4.11   Step 4: Preparation of the Independent Evaluation Report of the Panel

The Chairperson/Secretary shall prepare an agreed Independent Evaluation Report (IER) to be sent to the Director of Quality Assurance & Statistical Services within an agreed time frame, normally within two weeks of the site visit. The report shall be written using QQI’s template (see Appendix 5).

3.4.12   Step 5: Factual Accuracy Check

The Chairperson of the panel shall invite the College to point out in writing within one week of receipt of the draft report, to the Chairperson of the panel, if there are any factual inaccuracies in the report. If there are factual errors in the draft IER, these will be corrected and a revised report will be agreed by the panel and issued to the College.  If the College is satisfied that the draft IER is factually accurate, or where inaccuracies are uncovered and corrected, the Chairperson of the panel shall submit the final IER to the DQASS.

3.4.13   Step 6: Submission of the Independent Evaluation Report to QQI

The DQASS, or nominee, will send the final draft IER to QQI along with an account of the conduct of the independent evaluation process. NCI will also provide a memorandum on the context for and conduct of the process, noting any concerns or complaints expressed by participants in the process.

QQI shall review the IER and, normally within 2 weeks of receipt, will formally request that the College responds in writing, within an agreed specified time, on the panel’s findings, conclusions, prerequisites for validation, conditions and recommendations.

3.4.14   Step 7: Final Panel Assessment

Following consideration of the programme team’s response, the panel agrees a brief statement setting out its reaction and its final recommendations to QQI regarding validation. This statement shall be included as an addendum to the IER and included in the submission to QQI

3.4.15   Step 8: QQI Decision

The DQASS will submit a final set of documentation to QQI for consideration by the Programme & Awards Executive Committee (PAEC). Documentation is provided at least 3 weeks prior to the PAEC meeting scheduled to consider the documentation. The pack will contain revised programme documents, the ‘consolidated report’, which includes;

• The IER;
• the panel’s addendum to the report if applicable;
• the response to the report;
• a report from the DQASS on the context for and conduct of the process, including any concerns raised by the College during the process;
• proposed programme schedule; and
• revised outline of the programme as per the IER.

The report may be adopted without amendment or additional conditions may be imposed.

The Certificate of Validation and Approved Course Schedule is forwarded by QQI to the Registrar’s Office, where it is checked against the final documentation submitted. Any anomalies should be reported immediately to QQI.

The DQASS will advise relevant departments of the decision of QQI. This may include

• Relevant School
• Admissions Office
• International Office
• Marketing
• Collaborative Partners

3.4.16   Role of the QASS Office during the Process

3.4.16.1  Support to the Panel

The QASS Office will provide administrative and logistical support to the panel immediately prior to and during the panel event. At the outset and in agreement with the Chair, the office representative will review the terms of reference with the panel members and answer any queries in relation to the process.

3.4.16.2 Communication with QQI

All communication takes place from the Director Quality Assurance & Statistical Services Office only.

3.4.17   Disputes and Failure of the Process

3.4.18   Freedom of Information & Data Protection

Both QQI and NCI are subject to Freedom of Information legislation. The final report is the record of this process and the final programme submission document is the record of the approved programme. These records are subject to the document retention and disposal policies of NCI.

Personal data relating to nominated and actual panel members will be retained by the QASS Office in accordance with current data protection legislation and the document retention and disposal policies of NCI (see Chapter 9 (9.11)). Personal data relating to nominated and actual panel members will be transferred to QQI only with the consent of the person involved and for the purposes identified.

3.4.19    Evaluation of the Process

At the close of each event, a questionnaire is sent to each panel member by QQI. QQI will share the overall outcomes of surveys relating to NCI as part of this process. At the discretion of the DQSS, a periodic evaluation of the process and outcomes of both internal and external validation events will be undertaken to review themes such as:

• Patterns in conditions & recommendations
• Sourcing of panel members
• Faculty and other relevant staff members’ perceptions of the validation process

The timing of this review will be determined by the level and volume of validation activity. The outcomes will inform review of policy and procedure with respect to programme development and validation, professional development events and/or sectoral consultations. Both NCI and QQI will monitor the implementation of the process and provide feedback on its operation.

3.4.20   Responsibilities

3.4.20.1 Director Quality Assurance & Statistical Services or nominee within QASS Office

• Programme management of the development of the programme
• Organise the internal validation event
• Carry out Step 0 of this process
• Prepare nominations list for panel of experts and seek agreement from QQI
• Forward relevant documentation to QQI as per Step 1 of this process
• Organise the panel site visit and briefing documents
• Communicate with panel Chair, Secretary and members
• Maintain records of the process
• Communicate QQI decisions to relevant stakeholders
• Commission evaluation of the process

3.4.20.2  Registrar

• Maintain the record of approved programme schedules
• Maintain the record of programme approval certificates

3.4.20.3 Dean of School

• Approve programme submission documents for submission to Step 0: Pre-Application Process of this process.
• Provide confirmation that the conditions and/or recommendations of the panel report are met

3.4.20.4 Programme Developer

• Provide final documentation to DQASS for consideration at Step 0: Pre-Application Process including the Self-Assessment report
• Provide appropriate response to the conditions and /or recommendations of the expert panel
• Upon successful validation and prior to programme commencement, appoint Programme Director and Programme Committee

3.4.20.5 Provisional Programme Committee

• Rework on documentation resulting from Step 0: Pre-Application Process or Step 1: Application to QQI.
• Provide appropriate response to the conditions and/or recommendations of the panel

3.4.20.6 Academic Council

• Approve initiation of programme development process
• Appoint persons other than the DQASS or Registrar to undertake Step 0 of this process as appropriate.
• Consider the Consolidated reports submitted to QQI and any issues arising
• Record outcomes of the process in the minute of Council

3.4.20.7 Executive Group

• Approve initiation of programme development process
• Approve commencement of programme delivery

3.5      Guidelines on the Structure of Programmes and Modules

3.5.1      Introduction

These guidelines have been created to give programme teams guidance on how to structure programmes and modules when designing programmes. These guidelines are technical by their nature and do not provide guidance on issues of pedagogy.

3.5.2      General Principles for Higher Education Programmes

• Programmes are developed as Major, Minor, Special Purpose or Supplemental Awards according to Determinations for the Outline National Framework of Qualifications. The size of the programme will determine the award type. Programme size is expressed in terms of credit.
• There are national and European guides to the use of credit, which should be applied to the development of programmes at National College of Ireland.
• Modules on higher education programmes should be expressed in credit sizes of a minimum of 5 and thereafter in multiples of 5 where 1 credit = 25 effort hours (ECTS). Please see ECTS Users’ Guide for further information.  
• Programmes are developed and delivered in Stages. For undergraduate major awards, a stage is normally complete when 60 credits of learning has been completed. This stage may be delivered over more than 1 academic year in the case of part-time programmes.
• Part-time programmes should normally be delivered with no more than 20 ECTS per semester or term. An exception is the award year. The delivery pattern will be approved as part of the validation process.
• Where programmes are developed to be delivered in semesters, semesters consist of 15 weeks during which teaching, independent learning and assessment is completed.
• Semesters may not be appropriate for smaller volume minor and special purpose awards.

Table 1 outlines the typical structures of awards as appropriate to their level and size.

Table 3‑1: Structure of Education Awards

3.6      Policy and Procedures for the Design, Approval and Quality Management of Collaborative Provision & Transnational Education Programmes

This policy details the policy and procedures which should be followed for the design, approval and ongoing quality management of taught or research programmes operated in collaboration with other organisations in Ireland or internationally. QQI’s  

This policy is based on QQIs Policy for Collaborative Programmes, Transnational Programmes and Joint Awards (2012) is a key external reference point, However, the policy is interdependent with other College policies and procedures relating to programme development, teaching, learning and assessment. These should be read in conjunction with this document when relevant. Finally, it draws on the (OECD) Guidelines for Quality Provision in Cross-Border Higher Education (2005), the experiences of other Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), such as Kent University, University of Reading and Manchester Metropolitan University, and best practices developed by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) in the UK.

Schools that are considering the development of a proposal for collaborative provision should contact the following individuals at the earliest possible opportunity prior to developing a formalised relationship with a potential partner in order to receive guidance and advice on the feasibility of developing such a proposal and the process for doing so:

• Vice-President – Academic Affairs & Research
• The relevant Dean of School (where not directly involved in development of the initiative)
• The Registrar
• Director of Quality Assurance & Statistical Services
• Academic Partnership Manager (Where a proposal involves an overseas institution)

This policy should also be consulted when reviewing applications for admission under advanced entry from prospective partner Colleges from other jurisdictions and where agreements are being made to guarantee places on NCI programmes under advanced entry.

3.6.1      Policy on Collaborative Provision

Collaboration with other HEIs, industry and community organisations was identified as being one of the critical aspects of achieving the goals of NCI’s strategic plan. The College recognises the benefits of further developments in this area, but also the costs and potential risks, and therefore it considers proposals for collaborative provision on a case-by-case basis according to their merits. 

Underpinning collaborative activity is a set of key principles which form the College’s policy on collaborative provision. All activities:

• must be consistent with the College’s strategic plans, (ideally) arise from School plans and be congruent with the School’s academic provision, bringing clear benefits to all those involved;
• should only be with other organisations that have:

• the academic OR professional standing to successfully deliver programmes of study to appropriate academic standards;
• the financial standing to sustain them;
• adequate infrastructure facilities and resources (including appropriate staffing) to support them; and
• the legal standing to contract to their delivery

• should be equivalent in quality and standards to comparable programmes delivered solely by the College;
• should be comparable in student learning, support and experiences to those programmes based at the College;
• should give adequate opportunity for student representation and feedback;
• should be financially viable and feasible, and be fully costed and priced accordingly;
• should not be over-reliant on an individual member of staff, either within the National College of Ireland or the other organisation; and
• should be compliant with internal and national (Irish or EU) legislative requirements and adhere to the principles of the Charter on inclusive teaching (AHEAD 2010) and guidelines for the teaching of international students (IHEQN, 2009)

The due diligence activities of the process should test each of these principles. Except where the subject matter of the course is a language, English is the primary language of instruction and assessment.

3.6.2      Defining collaborative provision

Building on the definition of collaborative provision given in QQI’s Policy for Collaborative Programmes, Transnational Programmes and Joint Awards, NCI defines collaborative provision as:

Any programme directly leading to an award (QQI or professional body) which is delivered in part or in whole through an arrangement with a partner organisation. A partner organisation may be another education provider, professional body, business or community organisation.

In this context, ‘delivered’ includes any combination of one or more of the following activities: admissions decisions, teaching, programme design, preparation of learning materials, and assessment.

Activities which fulfil this definition fall into the following categories:

• The application for validation of programmes designed and delivered jointly with the partner institution where that institution:

• is not an education provider, or
• is one which does not have degree awarding powers e.g. another QQI provider who does not have delegated authority)

• Collaboration on research projects (see Chapter 11 (11.3))

Other types of arrangements with Partner Institutions which are deemed to fall short of true collaborative provision to a greater or lesser extent include:

• Off-campus/in company delivery
• Recruitment arrangements (entry to the start of a programme)
• Student exchange and study abroad arrangements
• Placement/Service learning
• Articulation arrangements (direct entry to an advanced point in a College programme)

These arrangements will not normally be subject to the full in-depth approval process which applies to collaborative provision arrangements, but are still subject to appropriate approval processes.

In the case of all articulation arrangements, a partner profile is required to be completed (see Appendix 8) These arrangements can be requested to undergo the full approval process at the discretion of the Vice President, Academic Affairs & Research or the DQASS. This is particularly true of due diligence of the partner organisation, which must be completed where articulation, i.e. progression, is being guaranteed from a partner’s programme of study to the NCI programme of study. Specific College policies exist for the establishment of articulation and progression agreements. For any other arrangements, the QASS Office should be consulted for advice on how to proceed. Please refer to Chapter 6 (6.6) for further information on admissions under advanced standing.  

For the purpose of this document, ‘transnational education’ refers to the provision or partial provision of a programme of education in one country by a provider which is based in another country. The term ‘transnational’ may be understood as either cross-border or cross-jurisdictional.

At present, joint awards are not included in this policy. Should the occasion arise, this policy will be expanded to include the requirements of joint awards, which will take place in consultation with QQI.

3.6.3      Quality Assurance for Collaborative Provision

Any programmes developed or delivered with a collaborative partner are subject to the College’s Quality Assurance and Enhancement System (QAES) as laid out in the Quality Assurance Handbook. Where the existing quality assurance arrangements require amendment to facilitate the collaborative arrangement, these changes will be submitted to the awarding body with the proposal for validation or differential validation of the programme.

Differential validation occurs where significant change to a programme results in a new programme that must be revalidated. However, the change may be such that the findings of the original validation can be re-used and the elements of difference become the subject of a ‘differential validation’. Please refer to Section 3.10 below for further information on differential validation.  

3.6.4      Approval of Collaborative Provision

The Governing Body constitutes the Board of Directors of the National College of Ireland Ltd (‘the College’) and, as such, its members have all of the responsibilities of Directors under the Companies Acts and at common law. In accordance with the Memorandum and Articles of Association, the Governing Body is responsible for managing the affairs of the College and delegates day to day management to the College President. The President of the College is responsible for planning in conjunction with the Governing Body, and for the implementation of the strategy, policy and administrative decisions of the Governing Body. S/he plays a proactive role as a member of the Governing Body, as well as chairing the Executive Board of the College and Academic Council and other committees as appropriate. The Academic Council assists the Governors in planning, co-ordinating, developing and overseeing the educational work of the College. As Chair of Academic Council and Chief Executive, the College President signs all memoranda of understanding and/or legal agreements on behalf of the College. The risks associated with these collaborative agreements are identified and reflected in the risk register.

The Governing Body is responsible for the implementation of appropriate risk management policies. The implementation of these policies is monitored through the operation of a risk register which is reviewed   periodically by a sub-committee of the Governing Body.  This risk register identifies how key risks are monitored and what actions are taken to mitigate these risks.  Proposals for collaborative agreements are subject to review by Academic Council which must approve all collaborative provision proposals. Please refer to Chapter 2 (2.4.9.4) for further information about NCI’s risk register.

3.6.5      Responsibility for Quality and Standards

The arrangements for assuring the quality and standards of programmes delivered in collaboration with other institutions must be as rigorous, secure and open to scrutiny as those for programmes provided wholly within the responsibility of the College. The College always retains responsibility for the ensuring that the standard of the award as defined by the awarding body and the quality of the programme are maintained, although it will be necessary for it to delegate certain quality management functions to its partner(s). Award standards and programme quality will be maintained through programme committees, annual review and review of programmes on a five-year cycle, as well as through normal academic good practices in the provision of collaborative programmes on an ongoing basis.

Reviews conducted will remain the responsibility of NCI. This introduces an additional element of risk, which must be countered by rigorous quality management and reporting processes. Where areas of quality management are delegated to the partner organisation, these arrangements will form part of the agreement reached between NCI, the partner organisation and the awarding body as appropriate. Where the partner institution is not an academic institution, NCI will always retain responsibility for ensuring the quality and standards summative assessment, appointment of external examiners and learner feedback. Notwithstanding this, it is expected that all involved in teaching will be involved in the setting of assessment.

3.6.6      Responsibility for Managing the Relationship

The overall responsibility for managing the collaborative relationship lies with the Dean of the School involved in the relationship.

3.6.7      On-Going Programme Management and Monitoring

The School has responsibility for the day-to-day management of all elements of the collaborative programme. The Programme Director is the Chair of the Programme Committee who is responsible for ensuring that the programme is delivered as approved and for ensuring that the curriculum is maintained. In the case of a differentially validated programme, the programme should either be brought under the aegis of an existing Programme Committee or, if felt necessary, a new Programme Committee created to provide oversight. It is recognised that a programme delivered under differential validation or in another jurisdiction may require a dedicated programme director to manage the variations and/or issues that may arise in such contexts. However, if a separate programme committee is created, it must be seen as a sub-committee of the overall programme committee, in order to ensure that the academic integrity of the programme is maintained. Figure 3.2 outlines the monitoring cycle.

3.6.8      Responsibility for Due Diligence

The Registrar & Company Secretary is responsible for the due diligence process (see Chapter 2 (Section 2.7.3)).

3.6.9      Monitoring Collaborative Provision

Programmes are subject to the College’s existing processes for programme monitoring. The annual School and programme report reviews the outcomes of these processes i.e. Programme Committee Meetings, Class representative meetings, external examiner reports, learner feedback surveys etc. The School annual report will contain an evaluation of all collaborative provision provided by the School.

Programmes validated for collaborative provision are subject to revalidation every 5 years using the procedures outlined in Section 3.8 below. Should a programme be differentially validated out of sequence with its parent programme, the former should be included in the next review of the latter.

Collaborative arrangements with an overseas institution or organisation will normally require a greater level of initial scrutiny, on-going monitoring and review than would be the case with Irish institutions, due to the different educational culture and context that the programme will be operating within and the difficulties caused by geographical location. Academic Council may request more frequent use of the mechanisms above in order to mitigate this issue.

The contents of all material relating to collaborative provision is brought together and analysed annually in an overview report, compiled by the QASS Office. It is an opportunity to highlight good practice and identify any problems or issues that might have wider relevance beyond the individual programme. These reports will be shared with the partner organisation and the awarding body and will form part of any decision making process to continue or terminate a relationship.

3.6.10   Responsibility for Preparation of Agreement

The Registrar & Company Secretary is responsible for the preparation of the memorandum of understanding and/or agreement on behalf of the College. This is informed by the Programme Development Team and the DQASS. Agreements should be reviewed by the College’s legal advisors prior to submitting to the awarding body.

3.6.11   Decision to Terminate Agreements

Each collaborative agreement shall have specific conditions regarding the termination of a programme or collaborative provision. Agreements should outline circumstances in which a programme may not run e.g. insufficient numbers, availability of resources.  NCI’s policy on the cessation of programmes states that once a programme has commenced, NCI will not terminate the programme until all learners currently enrolled have completed the programme. In order to assure the protection of learners, this agreement should outline how learners would be accommodated by NCI should the agreement be terminated. Agreements must contain a provision for ‘Force Majeure’.

3.6.12   Timing

Schools should note that developing a collaborative programme will necessarily require often complex and lengthy discussions with staff at both partner institutions and within the College. Such discussions should take place prior to the programme being submitted for the interim checkpoint stage of development (see Section 3.2.3.2 above). 

The dates of committee meetings, such as Academic Council, are set prior to the commencement of the Academic Year, however, and Schools should consider these dates when establishing their timetable.

3.6.13   Due Diligence Process

In addition to consideration of the academic suitability and business viability of the collaborative arrangement, the College will need to be assured that any proposed new partner institution is of an appropriate standing. This involves several integrated processes:

• a ‘Due Diligence’ investigation of a range of relevant information relating to the partner institution;
• a visit to the prospective partner institution by relevant staff;
• a review of the socio-political environment in the case of transnational provision; and
• ‘internal due diligence’ i.e. the strategic fit and benefit to the College of the collaborative partnership and any associated programmes.

This strategic fit of the partnership and programme is carried out by the School and Programme Team prior to submitting the initial programme proposal (see Section1 above).

Figure 3‑2 Monitoring of Programme Delivery and Agreement

3.6.13.1 Investigations of Prospective Partner Institutions

As part of the process of considering whether to work with a partner institution, the College will carry out a ‘Due Diligence’ investigation in order to assure itself that the proposed partner is one with which it would be happy to collaborate. The purpose of this visit and process is to satisfy the College that the partner has the requisite legal standing, financial and academic resources with which to engage in partnership with NCI. This investigation should include the legal status of the prospective partner or agent, and its capacity in law to contract with the College and the awarding body.

The Registrar’s/Company Secretary’s Office will ask prospective partners to supply the following documentation:

• An Annual Report (akin to the College’s Annual Review);
• A set of Annual Accounts;
• Details of Professional Indemnity insurance cover, such as a letter from the partner Institution’s brokers confirming this cover and its extent;
• CVs of staff who will be teaching on relevant programmes (where relevant);
• To support and substantiate this information, other sources of information will be investigated as follows:

• The QASS Office will undertake a review of the proposed partner institutional website, including investigation of institutional mission;
• The QASS Office will undertake a review of QQI, QQI, QAA (in the UK) and appropriate other websites to investigate whether there have been any reports relating to the proposed partner;
• Where applicable, the International Office will seek information from appropriate organisations in Ireland and abroad about the standing of the proposed partner and whether they have any existing collaborations with other Irish HEIs;
• A review of the information systems provided by the partner (where appropriate) to ensure that required data on learners can be held securely and exchanged with NCI;
• A review of data protection legislation and arrangements to ensure that learner data can be released to NCI for submission to required regulatory and awarding bodies; and

• Where applicable, the Registrar’s Office will seek information from appropriate organisations about the legal standing of the proposed partner and its ability to operate within its national legislative and cultural requirements.

3.6.13.2 Partner Approval

Visits to Prospective Partner Institutions

The visit to the prospective partner institution will normally be undertaken by an appropriate member of staff of the relevant School or Department and also by a member of the QASS office.  Other staff, may from time to time, accompany them. Many of the items outlined below can be reviewed using documentary evidence. The visit should be used to explore in more depth and/or provide clarity if required.

The visit to the prospective partner institution will involve the following:

• Consideration of the quality of the teaching and learning facilities in relation to the proposed programme(s), including library and IT resources. The member of staff of the relevant School or Department will have a particular responsibility in this area;
• meeting key teaching and other staff of the proposed partner, where relevant;
• consideration and discussion of a range of academic issues relating to the partnership including:
  • the Partner Institution’s existing quality assurance arrangements;
  • arrangements for managing the partnership (including the committee structure);
  • proposed quality assurance arrangements for the programme(s), including Annual Programme Reports and future Periodic Review and Revalidation;
  • arrangements for seeking the views of student (representation and evaluation);
  • assessment arrangements, including External Examiners;
  • student complaints and appeals procedures;
  • student welfare support and facilities;
  • admissions arrangements, including admissions criteria, English language provision (where appropriate) and the minimum and maximum size of a cohort;
  • arrangements for marketing of and recruitment to the programme (including website and publicity material);
  • staff training and development, and staff appraisal;
  • discussion of a draft Memorandum of Agreement (based, particularly, on discussions related to issues set out in (c) above);
  • where appropriate, an observation of teaching;
  • Where appropriate, meeting a group of existing students.
•  
• Following the visit, the representative of the QASS Office will produce an agreed report for consideration in the first instance by the Dean of School and Vice President Academic Affairs & Research and then by Academic Council.

3.6.13.3 Due Diligence of the Socio-Political & Educational Environment

Where collaborative provision involves provision outside of the Republic of Ireland, a full analysis of the socio-political and educational environment of the country involved should be undertaken. This will inform the risk analysis of any proposed project.  This analysis will include contact with appropriate Quality Assurance agencies, ministries of education and other sources in order to ascertain the operating environment. Evidence of this analysis may be

• Legislation governing right to operate commercially and/or academically in a jurisdiction
• Reports from international organisations e.g. OECD, Economic Intelligence Unit
• Reports available from the Department of Education, Department of Foreign Affairs, QQI, etc.

3.6.13.4  Consideration and Approval of Due Diligence information

On receipt of the relevant documentation and other pieces of evidence, these will be considered as follows:

• The Finance Office will consider the set of Annual Accounts and provide a brief report to the Registrar’s Office indicating whether these are satisfactory;
• Where applicable, the International Office will provide a report to the Registrar’s Office relating to its findings;
• The Registrar’s Office will confirm whether the partner Institution’s Professional Indemnity insurance cover is appropriate;

The Registrar’s Office will produce a summary report on the complete Due Diligence process, including the Academic due diligence process for consideration in the first instance by the Dean of School and Vice President Academic Affairs & Research by the Academic Council and also, in relation to the financial aspects of due diligence, Executive Team. This report will form part of the documentation required for the interim checkpoint of the Development phase as described above.

3.6.13.5  Timing of Due Diligence Investigations

Whilst there is the potential for the Due Diligence process to take a little time, the College will seek to ensure that this does not stop innovation and proposals for partnership coming forward. The Due Diligence process is intended to run in parallel with the development of a Business Plan and with the programme approval process for a partnership and can begin as soon as approval has been granted at the feasibility phase.

3.6.13.6 Reciprocal Due Diligence

The College is aware that the Due Diligence process is sensitive, both politically and culturally.  The investigation will therefore be conducted with appropriate tact and diplomacy, particularly as it is the expectation that any future partner will be a well-established institution with an excellent reputation.  Nevertheless, a Due Diligence investigation is something which the College is obliged to carry out and this should be made clear to prospective partner institutions at the outset. However, in order to act in a transparent way and to encourage the development of a partnership, the College will provide the following documents to a proposed partner on a reciprocal basis:

• The Annual Report
• The Annual Accounts (Financial Statements);
• The College Prospectus;
• A copy of the College’s most recent Institutional Review report (or equivalent);
• Confirmation of the College’s Professional Indemnity insurance; and
• A standard note setting out the legal standing of the College and its relationship with awarding bodies

3.6.14   Programme Approval Process

The approval process required for collaborative provision depends on the nature of the activity. Prior to developing specific initiatives, the College must be satisfied that the partner organisation is an appropriate partner and that the legal and financial requirements of a particular jurisdiction do not prohibit activity in that geographical area.  In order to proceed with the process of due diligence the School must apply for initial approval to commence the process. The information required by this approval process will differ depending on the activity.

3.6.15   Research

All research proposals involving collaboration must have the approval of the Research Committee and Academic Operations Committee prior to them being submitted to an external body for funding. If the proposal is approved by Academic Operations Committee, any suggested revisions should be made and a final copy of the application documentation submitted in good time to the Registrar’s Office. It will then be submitted for signature by the President/Vice President as appropriate.

Application documents should under no circumstances be submitted to the President’s office directly. It is up to the proposing Dean of School to ensure that enough time is allowed for the initial approval process to take place before any external funding deadline. 

NCI will collaborate with other academic institutions in order to offer research programmes, i.e. Masters and/or PhDs. In doing so, it will use the due diligence arrangements described above and will agree the quality assurance arrangements.  

3.6.16   Taught Programmes

Table 3.2 outlines the four phases of programme development at NCI and the associated outputs associated with those phases for collaborative provision activities. A full description of this process is outlined in Section 3.2.3 above and graphically represented in Figure 3.2.   Where new programmes are being proposed or existing programmes are being put forward for differential validation, the Programme Development Team will comprise representatives from NCI and from the partner organisation.

Table 3‑2: Programme Development Process & Outputs

3.6.16.1 New Programmes

Schools must ensure that:

• The Programme is placed at the appropriate level of the NFQ and that academic standards are equivalent to programmes delivered at the College, i.e. QQI or QQI award standards, CIPD professional standards, etc.
• Arrangements for admission comply with the College’s admissions regulations (see Chapter 6 (Section 6.2))
• Arrangements for assessment comply with the College’s assessment regulations (see Chapter 4 (Section 4.6))
• Procedures for external examining align with the College’s regulations on external examining (see Chapter 4 (Section 4.4))
• Schools will be required to prepare a Programme and Module Handbook, developed in line with the College’s template.

3.6.16.2 Existing Programmes

Where existing programmes are to be delivered in conjunction with a partner, Schools must ensure that

• Where the programme is accredited by QQI, QQI or a professional body (CIPD, ICM, etc.) the programme delivery in conjunction with a partner is approved by and fulfils requirements of those bodies. This is done via the differential validation process in the case of QQI awards or through a revised business case in the case of CIPD.
• Arrangements for admission comply with the College’s admissions regulations (see Chapter 6 (Section 6.2))
• Arrangements for assessment comply with the College’s assessment regulations (see Chapter 4 (Section 4.6))
• Procedures for external examining align with the College’s regulations on external examining (see Chapter 4 (Section 4.4))
• Schools will be required to prepare a tailored Programme and Module Handbook, developed in line with the College’s template.

3.6.17   Feasibility

The feasibility phase examines the overall merits of the proposed collaboration and/or programme so that a decision can be taken whether to further the development of the proposal. Programmes that are considered at this stage in the process will have been approved as part of the overall strategic plan of the College but it is at this point that these plans can be implemented or reviewed should the environment warrant it. The information provided at this stage is outlined in the Programme Proposal Form (see Appendix 3). An output of this process is the completion of the initial risk analysis form (see Appendix 8) and will contribute to the decision of Academic Council to proceed with programme development or applications for differential validation. Please refer to 3.2.3.1 1 above for further information about the feasibility study.

In the case of collaborative provision, once approved, the due diligence process described in Section 3.6.13 above will be commenced by the Registrar. 

3.6.18   Development

The development phase is divided into 2 parts. Phase 1 involves the Programme Team completing an interim checkpoint document. In the case of collaborative provision, a detailed risk analysis will be undertaken. This risk analysis will include the results of the complete due diligence process. The purpose of the interim checkpoint is to ensure that the assumptions made regarding the financial and academic viability of the partnership and/or programme in the feasibility phase hold true and that any issues raised in the development of the programme with regard to its viability can be addressed by the College. The programme development or collaborative arrangement may be abandoned at this point.

Phase 2 of development allows development of the programme to be completed and the detail of the agreement to be completed. It will also allow the Programme Team, in collaboration with the QASS Office, to consider how quality assurance arrangements for the proposed programme are to be managed, paying particular attention to the monitoring of those quality management functions which have been delegated to the partner institution.

These arrangements must be outlined in the agreement and provided in more detail in the Programme Handbook.  This will include arrangements for:

• the operation of the Programme Committee and Examinations Board, and the provision of annual reports to the School on an equivalent basis to that for programmes delivered at NCI;
• regular monitoring of the programme and related learning facilities, including frequency and purpose of visits to the partner institution by the School;
• mechanisms for students to provide feedback and to make complaints/appeals;
• on-going and regular contact between the College and its partner, and the management of operational issues;
• periodic review and revalidation (in line with the policy for programme review and revalidation of programmes).

The length of the development phase is dictated by the type of programme and whether validation is for a new programme or is an existing programme which requires a differential validation due to the collaborative activity. 

3.6.18.1 Internal Validation

The validation of a programme developed with a partner is subject to the arrangements outlined in Section3.2.3 above. The Programme Team must submit for internal validation:

• the programme submission document using the template provided
• the agreement
• its self-assessment of the programme against the awarding body’s validation criteria and the collaborative arrangements.

3.6.18.2 External Validation

The validation of a programme developed with a partner is subject to the arrangements outlined in Section 3.2.3.5 above.

3.6.19   The Consortium Agreement

NCI and the partner organisation will establish a formal agreement to be known as the ‘Consortium Agreement’. Academic Council will approve such agreements on advice from the Company Secretary/Executive Board.

The Consortium Agreement will assure that education and training provision and associated services are provided in a streamlined manner and in compliance with the relevant awarding body policy and in accordance with its guidelines and with any other legitimate requirements; and will normally

• Establish and specify the consortium (indicating the partner providers and the designated address for communication);
• Establish the rights and obligations of all partner providers;
• Establish the nature of the services to be performed by each partner provider; specify the scope of the agreement and the relevant programme(s) and the award(s) that each will lead to;
• Establish the period of the agreement;
• Establish the conditions under which the agreement will be reviewed and under which it will be renewed;
• Provide for the amendment of the agreement;
• Establish the entity (normally the consortium) that learners can hold legally liable for any deficiencies in the provision of education and training;
• Specify any limitations on liability and provide for mutual indemnification;
• Provide for the resolution of disputes arising in respect of the agreement;
• Provide for the termination or suspension of the agreement (setting out the conditions under which this can be done) having regard for learners concerned;
• Make appropriate arrangements for the protection of learners as stipulated in Section 65 of the Quality & Qualifications Act, 2012, and in all cases for residual obligations to learners on termination of the agreement; and
• Name the jurisdiction within which the agreement is enacted and should be interpreted; establish a process for addressing disputes in respect of the agreement including any perceived breaches of the agreement and grievances by learners and involved employees.

3.6.19.1  Financial arrangements

The Consortium Agreement must state the financial arrangements:

• That address the distribution of any income arising from services provided by each of the partner providers;
• That assure each partner provider’s capacity to account for income and expenditure involving the consortium;
• That meet all legal requirements in all of the involved jurisdictions;
• That make adequate provision for protection for learners as described above

3.6.19.2  Specific Programme Requirements

Specific arrangements in respect of each of the programmes covered by the agreement must be clearly stated in the Consortium Agreement, including but not limited to, prior learning and other admission requirements, programme assessment strategy and intended learning outcomes. They will also

• specify the awarding body or bodies and including the necessary awarding agreements;
• oblige partner providers to participate in the collaborative programme review/accreditation/validation process required by the relevant awarding bodies and to comply with any conditions that are attached to review/accreditation/validation;
• establish quality assurance procedures for the collaborative programme and require partner providers to cooperate and participate in each other’s quality assurance procedures and in related quality evaluations whether internal or externally organised, while ensuring that quality assurance procedures applying to the collaborative programme should be recognised as meeting the national requirements in each partner provider’s country;
• provide for the relevant awarding bodies to monitor the quality and standards of the programme and associated services;
• require, and provide for, the partner providers as appropriate to jointly contribute to the provision of the programme;
• specify the regulations (recruitment, access and admission, academic standard, transfer, progression, assessment, appeals, complaints etc.) that apply to learners or prospective learners concerned while ensuring that the procedures for access, transfer and progression determined by the National Qualifications Authority of Ireland are implemented;
• specify in detail the rights and entitlements of learners (including necessary learner support services) at each of the partner provider sites and how the relevant services will be delivered and how access to same by learners should be assured;
• deal explicitly with the provision of, and access by learners to, human and material resources;
• specify in detail (with explicit rationale based on the learning outcome standards required by the awarding body or bodies and any other requirements needed for approval) the programme assessment strategy and learner assessment procedures for the programme and the conditions under which an award will be recommended and provide for the appointment of external examiners;
• collect and maintain the information required by external quality assurance agencies and produce a Europass Certificate/ Diploma Supplement with complete information about the ECTS credits earned on the collaborative programme;
• require that partner providers will encourage and make provision for cooperation between their staff in respect of the programme; and
• deal with intellectual property rights relevant to the collaboration.

3.6.20   Programme Information

3.6.20.1  Advertising and recruitment

Programme recruitment, publicity and marketing materials for collaborative programme may be produced by the College or by the Partner Institution, or both, subject to the conditions in the agreement. Advertising and recruitment for the programme should not, however, formally begin until the agreement has been finalised and signed by the President and Partner Institution. 

The Student Recruitment & Marketing Department has a responsibility to maintain oversight of the advertisement of collaborative programmes. At regular intervals relevant websites and printed material will be checked

3.6.20.2 Provider’s Handbook

The QASS Office will work in consultation with the School and the partner institution to devise an operational handbook which will detail all operational and quality assurance procedures, and forms part of the formal Agreement.

This should ideally be completed before recruitment begins but should be in place before the first students are enrolled. The Provider’s Handbook should be reviewed annually. 

3.6.21   References

AHEAD(2010) ‘Charter for Inclusive Teaching & Learning’, Dublin, AHEAD

QQI(2012) Policy for Collaborative programmes, transnational programmes and joint awards – Accreditation, Quality Assurance, and Delegation of Authority, Dublin, QQI

IHEQN (2009) Provision of Education to International Students: Code of Practice and Guidelines for Irish Higher Education Institutions. Dublin IHEQN

QAA (2004) Code of Practice for the Assurance of Academic Quality in Higher Education: Collaborative Provision and Flexible and Distributed Learning (including eLearning. Gloucester, QAA

UNESCO (2005) Guidelines for Quality Provision in Cross-border Higher Education. Paris, UNESCO

Other Sources

VanGaalen, A ed.(2010) Internationalisation and Quality Assurance. EAIE Professional Development Series for International Educators Vol 4.  Amsterdam, European Association for International Education.

3.7      Policy for tendering to third parties for development and/or delivery of educational services

3.7.1      Purpose

This policy is intended to ensure that contracts for delivery of educational services entered into on behalf of National College of Ireland are properly authorised and communicated to all relevant people and departments and that they are adequately resourced.

3.7.2      Scope

This policy applies where NCI is intending to offer educational services to other organisations.  It does not apply for situations where we are purchasing goods or services or entering into other contractual arrangements catered for in existing policies.

It applies to those members of staff involved in developing opportunities for educational services e.g. new programme development and/or existing programme delivery, consulting services to third party organisations.

3.7.3      When to use this process

As a guide this process should be adhered to if any one or more of the following points apply:

• Total spend (incl. VAT) is expected to equal or exceed €5,000 (five thousand euro).
• Involves any new programme development or accreditation.
• Requires a contractual arrangement with a third-party to provide the educational services, for example with a professional body or another institution.

In all cases due regard should be given to the following

1. Appropriate and timely consultation and approval by School management with respect to staffing and resourcing a programme. The School is bound by policy and procedure for programme delivery.
2. Appropriate and timely consultation with Central Timetabling to ensure that there is sufficient physical space to deliver the programme at the time requested by the third party
3. The basis on which the programme has been validated by QQI e.g. mode of study, location of delivery, mode of delivery. This should be confirmed with the QASS office in all cases.

3.7.4      General:

As an overarching principle staff who are entering into arrangements for the delivery of educational services should always use their best endeavours to communicate as fully and as early as possible with relevant stakeholders in the college.  Widespread consultation at an early stage can help to give a more comprehensive and considered proposal in addition to stopping many problems that may otherwise arise.

This policy adheres as closely to existing programme development arrangements to keep implementation as straightforward as possible.

Underpinning this activity is a set of key principles which form the College’s policy on collaborative provision. All activities

• must be consistent with the College’s strategic plans, (ideally) arise from School plans and be congruent with the School’s academic provision, bringing clear benefits to all those involved;
• should only be with other organisations, which have
  • the academic OR professional standing to enable the successful delivery of programmes of study to appropriate academic standards,
  • the financial standing to sustain them,
  • adequate infrastructure facilities and resources (including appropriate staffing) to support them and
  • the legal standing to contract to their delivery;
• should not be over-reliant on an individual member of staff, either within the National College of Ireland or the other organisation;
• should not be discriminatory, for example, should be compliant with internal and national (Irish or EU) legislative requirements

3.7.5      Replying to a Request for Tender (RFT):

If a Request for Tender (RFT)[1] is received the staff member considering responding should first informally consult with colleagues.  This must include the Dean and relevant members of the school where the opportunity is most likely to sit. A cross school or functional opportunity may arise. In those cases, both Deans should be consulted.

If, on the basis of that consultation,  it is decided that the opportunity is pursued, then the Contract/Tender Term Sheet should be prepared. See Appendix 1. 

The Contract/Tender Term Sheet gives summary information to allow Executive Team or other relevant NCI committees to evaluate the tender opportunity. If the response to the tender will also involve the development of a new programme or the amendment of an existing programme requiring differential validation, then the existing Programme Proposal Form (PPF) should also be completed.

The Contract/Tender Term Sheet and if applicable the PPF must be approved before any tender is submitted.  The PPF would then follow the existing process whereby the two documents would go through School, Academic Operations (AO) and to Executive Group (EG).

Note that some tenders can have shorter turnaround times and in some instances as AO meets fortnightly and EG normally sits on a monthly basis it may be necessary to gain approval for a proposal outside of the normal cycle.  This should be the exception rather than the rule. 

In these cases documents should be sent to all AO and EG members and approval should be given in writing to proceed by both the Finance Director, Vice President Academic and Administration and the Dean of the relevant school.  This should be recorded in the minutes of the next EG meeting.

When the Contract/Tender Term Sheet and PPF are presented at EG these documents will form part of EG minutes. If at any stage there are material changes to what has been communicated to EG then this should be reported back to EG at the earliest opportunity for approval of any new arrangements.

3.7.6      On winning a tender

On winning a tender, the initial contract for services should be drawn up and circulated to the Registrar & Company Secretary and Director of Quality Assurance & Statistical Services.

In creating the initial contract, all relevant stakeholders should be consulted to ensure that the final agreed contract for services can be delivered to the expectation of all parties.

Where appropriate a project team may be required to be formed in order to deliver on the obligations of the contract.

This contract must be signed by NCI representatives as outlined below and the third party prior to engaging in any activity.

Depending on the nature of the opportunity, additional contracts may be required where the opportunity involves the development of new programmes. These can only be completed when the programme development and delivery proposal is finalised and ready for submission to QQI. In these cases, the template agreements for collaborative provision of programmes should be used.

3.7.7      Communicating, Signing and Storage of Final Contract:

A contract is a legal document that creates legal obligations for NCI.

It is important that there is clear visibility and accountability for all contracts signed on behalf of NCI. 

All contracts for educational services should be co-signed by the Director of Finance, Registrar, Vice President Academic and Administration and the Dean of the relevant school. 

The contract signed should be the final agreed copy and representatives of NCI.

Any subsequent changes should be noted and initialled by Director of Finance, Registrar, Vice President Academic and Administration and the Dean of the relevant School. 

This contract and record of the key representatives of the 3^rd party organisation should be maintained in CRM system and available for reference to authorised NCI staff. The final contract should also be brought to and minuted at the next available Executive Team or Group meeting. In the case of collaborative provision, the contract will also be placed on the Risk Register for monitoring by the Risk Committee of Governing Body.

3.7.8      Roles & Responsibilities

3.7.9      Related Documentation

3.7.10   Policy Review & Indicators of Effectiveness

This policy will be reviewed in July 2020.

Effectiveness will be measured based on

1. The convergence of actual resources required to deliver opportunities before and after tender/contract.
2. The satisfaction of tendering companies based on expectations raised through the tendering process, contract signing and delivery.
3. The satisfaction of internal stakeholders with the quality of the information provided to them through the tendering process, contract signing and delivery.

Figure 3‑3: Process for Tendering to Third Parties for Education Services

3.8      Programme Review & Revalidation[2]

Programme Review is a quality assurance process which affords an opportunity for Programme Committees to fundamentallyand critically re-appraise programmes and to make major modifications where considered appropriate. It also allows the College and/or School to streamline provision and to inform the ongoing strategic development of the School and College. Programmatic Reviews should normally be undertaken in discipline areas, by programme level, by School or a combination thereof. 

Each programme conducted within the College is subject to a periodic review, normally on a five-year cycle or as defined by the duration of validation, referred to as the enrolment interval, of the initial validation or last re-validation. A reviewed programme is then submitted to QQI for revalidation. A programme submitted for revalidation should be designed to meet the validation criteria set out in QQI’s Core Policies and Criteria for the Validation by QQI of Programmes of Education and Training.

A review process may result in a new programme being proposed rather than the modification of an existing one. Such a programme should be submitted to QQI as a new programme validation.

Preparation for programme review should be commenced in sufficient time to ensure that all of the processes required to take place can do so to ensure that the programme is validated in advance of the required intake date. Programme review processes should follow the guidance provided by QQI in its QQI’s Programme Review Manual.

3.8.1      Terms of Reference for the Programmatic Review

The terms of reference for the programmatic review are agreed between the College and QQI in advance of the commencement of the review process. These terms allow for any special considerations for programmes, i.e. differentially validated programmes, programmes offered under collaborative provision, etc.

3.8.2      Nomination of Panel Members

Agreement of the Terms of Reference will include nomination of independent evaluation panel members to QQI. Normally, this panel will undertake both the programme review and revalidation evaluation and will be known as the Programme Review and Revalidation Panel (PRRP). Members will be sourced and nominated using procedures outlined in Section 3.4.8.3 above.  

3.8.3      Implementation of Programmes Following Programmatic Review

In recommending changes to programmes, programme committees should consider the full implications of proposed changes ensuring that the progression of students who may be repeating is not compromised. Decisions should be made early in the process as to whether new programmes will be implemented in a ‘big bang’ approach or ‘phased in’. An implementation plan for revised programmes outlining transition issues, should be included in the programme review documentation.

3.8.4      Critical Self-Evaluation of Programmes

The main process involved in the Programmatic Review is a critical self-evaluation of programmes and re-appraisal of all aspects of a programme by the Programme Committee responsible. This self-evaluation is designed to help the Programme Committee to improve the programme and presents an opportunity for those delivering the programme to improve its quality and delivery.

It should not be regarded merely as a new description of the programme but rather as a systemic root-and-branch evaluation. The review should also reflect on and evaluate the effectiveness of the quality assurance mechanisms affecting programmes. In preparing the self-evaluation, the Programme Committee will consult with current learners, graduates of the programme, industrialists and business people, and other external organisations, as appropriate.

3.8.5      Documentation Required for Programme Review

The documentation required for the Programme Review event comprises two elements:  

1. The self-evaluation of programmes by Programme Committees. This will include the implementation plan and consideration of any transition issues and will be written using the Templates provided by QQI.
2. The Revised Programme Documents reflecting proposed changes arising from the review process and using the template provided by QQI.

3.8.6      Programme Review Meeting

The Programmatic Review Event is organised by the DQASS in consultation with the Dean of School. In order to make its judgement, the PRRP visits to review the Programme Review Documentation; to discuss the programmes with the Programme Committees, learners and graduates of the programmes; and to view the facilities available for conducting the programmes.

3.8.7      Preparation within the School for the Programmatic Review Event

The Vice Dean with responsibility for the programme(s) under review undertakes the following duties in preparation for the Programmatic Review Event:

• Ensures that copies of the Programmatic Review Documentation are distributed to all members of the Programme Committees in adequate time prior to the Programmatic Review Event;
• Organises meetings of the Programme Committees to discuss the documentation and to prepare to present the Programmatic Review documentation in the best way possible to the Programmatic Review Panel; and
• Invites graduates and learners to participate in and contribute to the Programmatic Review Event.

3.8.8      Issues Addressed by the Programmatic Review Panel

Using the terms of reference, the PRRP focuses on the Self-Evaluation Report (SER) prepared by the Programme Committees and views the Revised Programme Documents, mainly to ensure that there is correlation between the conclusions and that any significant changes proposed are appropriate.

3.8.9      Programme Review Panel Report.

At the end of the Programme Review visit, the chairperson of the PRRP normally provides an oral presentation of the findings and conclusions of the panel to the Vice President, Dean and relevant Vice Dean of School, and the Programme Team. This presentation may indicate a recommendation for continuing approval or rejection of the programme(s), and make suggestions for modifying the programmes or outline special conditions for approval. The PRRP prepares a written report that is forwarded by the DQASS to the Dean of School.

3.8.10   Response of the Programme Team(s)

On consideration of the Programme Review & Revalidation Panel’s report, the programme team shall prepare a response to the report and amend the documentation accordingly. That response, together with the revised documentation, is sent to the Programme Review & Revalidation Panel for final agreement.

3.8.11   Application to QQI

When the final agreement of the PRRP is obtained, the programme(s) may now be submitted to QQI for revalidation. This submission is undertaken by the DQASS or nominee using the procedures outlined in QQI’s Programme Review Manual.

3.8.12   Revalidation

Processes outlined for new programme validation in relation to programme records, PEL, etc. apply as described in Section 3.2.4 above.

3.8.13   Roles and Responsibilities

3.8.14   Related Documentation

3.8.15   Contact

Any questions arising from the interpretation of this policy or application of the outlined procedures should be made directly to the DQASS.

3.8.16   Policy Review & Indicators of Effectiveness

This policy will be reviewed in 2 years or as QQI policy is amended. Effectiveness will be measured based on:

• the successful referral of programmes for validation
• the feedback of programme review & revalidation panels on the effectiveness of the review process
• the successful validation of programmes when submitted to QQI
• the convergence of findings of the internal review process with those of the programme review & revalidation panels

3.9      Policy on Annual Programme and Module Change

The purpose of this policy is to outline the basis on which programmes may be modified in the period between initial validation/revalidation and the next scheduled periodic programme review.

3.9.1      Scope

This policy relates to programmes leading to QQI awards.

3.9.2      Annual Monitoring

Programme Committees shall review their programmes on an annual basis in order to monitor parts of the programme that have been successful so that practice can be shared and to identify areas of the programme that are not working as expected. This process is particularly critical for programmes that are newly validated. Programme Committees shall evaluate the registration, progression and completion rates of cohorts. They should also consider feedback from learners and external examiners and make recommendations for programme modification or to the provision of resources as appropriate. The template for the Annual Monitoring Report (Appendix 3.7) should be used.

3.9.3      Programme Modification

As a result of annual review and reporting, modifications to a programme may be proposed by the Programme Committee before periodic programme review is due to take place. Annual review is required for all programmes and Programme Committees are encouraged to update and modify programmes to the benefit of the programme and of learners.  There are two types of modification: Material Modification and Minor Modification

3.9.4      Material Modifications to Existing Programmes

Material modifications are those which include but may not be limited to

• new delivery modes e.g. full-time to Online/Web delivery
• a reduction in the duration of a programme from say 1 calendar year to an academic year
• An increase or reduction in contact hours greater than 20%
• Change in the breakdown of assessment
• Addition of elective
• Replacement of a module
• Addition of a new location

Material modifications require to be formally referred to the Academic Standards & Policy Committee and thereafter to Academic Council and QQI for approval before they may be implemented.  In instances where additional resources are required to implement the material change, the approval of the Executive Group is necessary.

All proposed modifications of any subject curriculum and/or Approved Programme Schedule, must be fully documented as set out below and submitted by the Dean of School to the DQASS in sufficient time for implementation for the next teaching cycle of that module within a programme. The DQASS will send the request to QQI.

Any material changes to a programme may not be implemented by NCI until approval of such changes has been received from QQI. On receipt of authorisation from QQI, the DQASS will formally confirm the decision to the Chair of the Academic Council, to the appropriate Dean of School and to the Programme Coordinator.  

Documentation relating to the approved change and the record of approval will be stored on the College MIS system. The programme details, curriculum and assessment structures should be amended accordingly.

The Registrar will annually independently verify that the programmes delivered and the modules assessed correspond to those approved by QQI as recorded in the Approved Course Schedules. This will be completed no later than 31^st October.

3.9.4.1    Documentation Required for a Material Modification

Change Request Documentation from the Programme Committee shall consist of:

• List of changes requested
• Rationale for the changes
• Amended Programme Document (including Programme Schedules)
• Additional set of Amended Programme Schedules.

If the programme modifications are substantial, QQI may request that a differential validation is necessary and the Dean of School will be required to initiate such a process.

Such major modifications outside of the periodic programme review process will occur in exceptional cases e.g. due to a professional body change or a significant and/or unexpected market/sectoral change.

3.9.5      Minor Changes to Existing Programmes

Changes of less than 20% to a module are deemed to be of a minor nature and, as such, do not require the approval of QQI to be brought into effect. Such changes would normally comprise:

• The introduction of new topics into a syllabus and the removal of outdated material or less important topics
• Change in assessment techniques e.g. the introduction of an essay or assignment instead of a time controlled class test
• The balance as between lectures, tutorials and practicals
• Increase or decrease in class contact hours for a subject or module not exceeding 20% of annual class contact hours

Changes such as those outlined above will be formally recorded in the Annual Programme Monitoring Report and would not normally require referral to the Academic Standards& Policy Committee of the Academic Council. These reports will be acted on by the Registrar’s Office to ensure that the appropriate College systems are updated.

3.9.6      Decision to Terminate Programmes

An outcome of annual programme monitoring may be a decision by the Dean of School to recommend termination of a validated programme. This decision may arise for a number of reasons e.g. financial viability, academic viability, rationalisation of provision as a result of quinquennial programme review.

The recommendation to terminate a programme should be submitted to Academic Operations Committee using the final Annual Programme Monitoring Report with an accompanying rationale for closure.

If the recommendation is adopted, the decision to terminate a programme shall be notified to QQI.

The decision shall also be included in the programme review report for the period following this decision.

The impact of the decision to terminate a programme should be fully considered in terms of:

• Impact on current learners and their ability to progress and complete their programme
• Impact on staffing and recruitment plans
• Impact on collaborative arrangements with partners
• Impact on physical resources
• Impact on public information, physical and digital

The procedure for suspending delivery of a programme for an academic year is described in Chapter 5 (5.3.4 Decision to Cease Delivery of a Programme).

3.10  Differential Validation

Programmes are validated in their entirety. Significant change to a programme results in a new programme that must be revalidated. However, the change may be such that the findings of the original validation can be re-used and the elements of difference become the subject of a ‘differential validation’.

An application to QQI for differential validation must outline the difference and rationale for difference from the validated programme. Differential validation frequently arises in the context of delivery of off-campus programmes, the addition of a new elective stream, the addition or replacement of modules, collaborative provision or blended learning.

If in any doubt as to the nature of the validation process to be used, QQI should be consulted, outlining the nature of the amendment to the programme. Applications for differential validation must be approved by Executive Group, Academic Operations Committee and Academic Council.

3.10.1   Quality Assurance

Modification of a programme may have implications for the quality assurance procedures of the College. Should any amendment be required to existing quality assurance procedures, details of this amendment and the College’s approval of those procedures should be included in the validation application to the awarding body.

3.10.2   Differences from the Original Programme

The application for differential validation should describe all of the difference between the proposed programme and the original programme. The programme submission template should be used in order to ensure that all criteria are met and differences are described. The original programme validation document should be included in the application documentation.

3.10.3   Self‐Evaluation

The implications of providing a modified programme should be addressed in the self-evaluation report against the validation criteria accompanying the validation application.

3.10.4   Differential Validation events

Due to the varying types of differential validation, there is no standard differential validation event. The event may be a desk review, a site visit to a new location or a full validation event.

3.11  Off-Campus Provision

Approval by the Awarding Body to run a programme in an off-campus location should be sought at the point of original validation. An off-campus location must be an appropriate learning environment with access to appropriately qualified faculty, appropriate technology and learning materials. Audits of locations will take place annually and may be subject to a spot-check during the academic year.

The awarding body must be consulted prior to delivering a programme in an off-campus location if that location has not been approved at validation.  This will be approved via the differential validation process which is outlined in Section 3.10 above.

3.11.1   QA Procedures for Off-Campus Location Selection

Locations for delivery will be proposed and selected using NCI’s process for the approval

of off-campus locations. Locations may be proposed by the Registrar’s Office, Student Recruitment & Marketing, International Office, or a School.

Locations are chosen based on their appropriateness for the programme being delivered. All locations must have access to:

• electronic presentation facilities,
• internet, and
• refreshments for students

Locations delivering programmes in the area of computing must have teaching spaces that can accommodate the minimum specified machine required for delivery of the programme. This is determined on a case by case basis.

The location must be visited by a member of NCI staff prior to the programme commencing to ensure that facilities are as expected and agreed. Locations should be visited at least annually. Outcomes of student feedback mechanisms should be made known to off-campus centre providers.

The Health & Safety statement of the centre should be examined and included in the centre profile. The Centre Profile should be maintained and hold all documentation relating to that centre including contact details, contracts, health & safety statements, outcomes of visits and student feedback mechanisms, audit forms.

3.12  Policy on Accreditation

This policy outlines the basis on which NCI will seek out accreditations for its programmes or the College as a whole.

3.12.1   Scope

This policy applies to professional body recognition of existing or new programmes and to any other accreditation which may be seen to add value to the College.

3.12.2   Policy

NCI will continue to seek to optimise the national and international recognition of its programmes of study. This will be achieved by seeking to have both the institution and its programmes accredited and recognised by international awarding and accrediting bodies. In doing so it will seek to achieve autonomy and flexibility in the development and delivery of its programmes whilst adhering to national, European and international academic standards and quality guidelines.

NCI recognises the positive impact that accreditation can have on its programmes, Schools or the Institution as a whole. Accreditation can come in many forms, such as:

• Professional Body recognition of a programme where graduates of that programme may apply for membership and/or exemption from professional body examinations
• Accreditation of a School or subject area by national or international agencies that demonstrate specific areas of expertise or quality.
• Accreditation of the Institution as a whole which can result in advancing its reputation nationally and internationally or signals that the College is sympathetic to a particular ideal.

The decision to seek such accreditation is not taken lightly. Programme-level accreditation shall be explored during programme development. Doing so will ensure that the programme outcomes and content are more likely to meet any requirements of the required academic and/or professional accreditation. This is particularly critical where the employability of the graduate is dependent on such accreditation.

Applications for accreditation at School or Institutional level must be approved at Executive Group and at Academic Council. When considering accreditation, the full extent of the resources required to apply for and maintain accreditations should be considered. Such applications normally require a significant body of work and should be managed using the College’s Project Authorisation and Project Management Process.

Applications for accreditation at programme level must be approved at Executive Group and Academic Operations Committee. Appropriate due diligence should be undertaken on the accrediting body as outlined in Policy on Collaborative & Transnational Provision (see Section 3.6 above)

3.12.3   Roles and Responsibilities

3.12.4   Related Documentation

3.12.5   Policy Review and Indicators of Effectiveness

This policy will be reviewed in July 2020 and its effectiveness evaluated by:

• the success in achieving accreditations sought
• feedback from professional bodies during the various mechanisms used to grant these accreditations
• feedback from internal stakeholders on the use of the policy

3.13  Policy on the Delivery of Professional Programmes

The decision to offer professional programmes is made by the Dean of School in association with Executive Group. The selection of a professional body should use the principles outlined in Section 3.6.13 above, where the appropriate due diligence procedure is outlined.

3.13.1   Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development

Applications for the delivery of Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) awards should be made using the required templates of the CIPD. All documentation should be prepared by the Programme team involved and approved by the Dean of School.

The DQASS will review documentation prior to submission to the CIPD, which will be sent from the QASS Office.

3.13.2   Institute of Commercial Management

Applications for Institute of Commercial Management (ICM) approval should be made using the required templates of ICM. All documentation should be prepared by the Programme or Subject team involved and approved by the Dean of School.

The DQASS will review documentation prior to submission to the ICM, which will be sent from the QASS Office.

3.13.3   Professional Body Exemption or Recognition Applications

Application for Professional Body Exemption or Recognition of programmes leading to QQI awards should be made using the required documentation of the professional body. All documentation should be prepared by the Programme or Subject group involved and approved by the Dean of School.

The DQASS will review documentation prior to submission, which will be sent from the QASS Office.

3.14   Policy on Non-Award Programmes

In exceptional circumstances, a programme may be proposed for which no credit or award is sought. These may be short programmes of training, seminars, etc. Before presenting the programme to the Executive Group for approval, the proposer must normally seek the approval of the Dean of School from which the proposal originates and should also seek the approval of the School Committee for the proposal. 

The proposal is then brought to Academic Operations Committee (AOC) for approval to proceed. The originating School prepares the programme document. Issues for consideration by the AOC include:

• Market demand
• Entry Requirements
• Ability of the School to resource the programme
• Learning Outcomes
• Course Content
• Learning Modes
• Assessment Strategies, if any
• Duration

3.14.1   Programme Review

Short Courses are subject to the same annual review process outlined in Section 3.1.3.3 above as all other programmes. Tailored learner satisfaction surveys will be adopted.

3.14.2   Programme Evaluation

Short courses are subject to the same evaluation process outlined in Section 3.1.3.3 above as all other programmes.

[1]The term RFT should also be taken to include Registration of Interest, Entry in to Technical Dialogue or Response to Prior Information Notice

[2] This process reflects QQI’s pilot process in use at the time of writing