EXECUTIVE BOARD OPEN AGENDA Monday 16 January 2017 (Room 115)

EB 16/17 20 A

Minutes To approve: minutes of the meeting held on 09 January 2017

[Attached]

EB 16/17 20 B Action Points

[Oral Updates]

EB 16/17 20 C Matters Arising/Matters for Report

[Oral Updates]

EB 16/17 20 D MOOCs at SOAS – Recruitment and Retention Goals To approve: A paper from the Pro-Director Learning & Teaching

EB 16/17 20 E Risk Register To approve: A paper from the Secretary



Please note that there is no Horizon Scan this week.

[Attached]

[Attached]

These minutes are for information only. Any corrections to the minutes will be recorded in the minutes of the subsequent meeting of the committee. SOAS, University of London Executive Board Monday 9th January 2017 OPEN MINUTES Members:

Baroness Valerie Amos (Chair) Mr Graeme Appleby Professor Richard Black Professor Chris Bramall Professor Lutz Marten Mr Paul Doyle Dr Deborah Johnston Ms Paula Sanderson Professor Gurharpal Singh

In attendance:

Dr Chris Ince (Minutes)

EB 16/17 19 A. Minutes The minutes of the meeting on 19th December were approved.

EB 16/17 19 B. Action Points (i) EB 16/17 15 D – International Strategy Group The Registrar reported that discussions had taken place with UUK and the British Council and outcomes of these would be linked to the work of the Strategy Group. A formal report would be made to EB once outputs had been agreed. (ii) EB 16/17 18 B – Chinese preparatory school The Dean of the Faculty & Languages & Cultures reported that an initial meeting had taken place with Head of SCI to consider any further SOAS involvement. The Pro-Director, Research & Enterprise to organise a further meeting to take this forward. (iii) EB 16/17 18 F – Industrial Strategy The Pro-Director, Research & Enterprise reported that the School had not responded to the Government’s consultation on the new Industrial Strategy. However, it was involved in a Science & Innovation Audit bid, which was expected to be one avenue through which this work was taken forward. (iv) EB 16/17 18 F – National Collaborative Outreach Programme The Registrar reported that the School would look at collaborating with an existing bid and continue its existing work within the London network.

1

(v) EB 16/17 18 F – Mental Health The Pro-Director, Learning & Teaching reported on a meeting with one of the presenters from the recent UUK event to launch its work on mental health. There would be a further meeting in March and a full paper would come to EB in a fortnight.

EB 16/17 19 C. Matters Arising (i) Decolonising SOAS EB discussed the recent press coverage around the Decolonising SOAS work and how this had been received. The Registrar would meet with the Head of Communications to look at any impact this was having, especially internationally. EB considered if this could be used as an opportunity to host an event at SOAS with a media partner to debate the issues this had raised. The Pro-Director, Learning & Teaching would take this forward with the Dean of the Faculty of Arts & Humanities.

EB 16/17 19 D. Agendas for Board of Trustee Standing Committees EB noted the upcoming agendas for:    

Academic Board Audit Committee Governance and Nominations Committee Honorary Degrees and Fellowships Committee

01 Feb 2017 09 Feb 2017 31 Jan 2017 31 Jan 2017

The Academic Board agenda would have a key item on the academic restructuring and would also receive a report on application data and a termly report from Academic Development Committee. The Chair of the Board of Trustees would be in attendance and this would enable a discussion on how to improve engagement of the Board with the academic body. The Audit Committee meeting would discuss the latest version of the risk register, which would come to EB next week. There would also be a discussion on cyber security and the Committee was expected to receive the audit on financial controls.

EB 16/17 19 E. HE Horizon Scan EB noted the latest version of the Horizon Scan. It agreed the School did not need to respond to the Government’s consultation on the Institute of Apprenticeships. EB agreed that the existing consent workshops for students should be continued for the next academic year and consideration be given to whether these could cover all areas of harassment including anti-Semitism and the new definition agreed by the Government.

2

EXECUTIVE BOARD: Action Points Minute

Item

Action 2016/17

Deadline for report to EB

By

EB 16/17 6 D

UK recruitment

Plan for pilot of expansion in UK recruitment

16/1/17

PS

EB 16/17 9 D

EDI Action plan

Develop dashboard for reporting to EB and BoT

23/1/17

GA / CI

EB 16/17 10 D

Moocs and summer school

Paper to EB on next steps

16/1/17

DJ

EB 16/17 13 E

Student Protection Plan

Draft Plan for approval

23/1/17

DJ

EB 16/17 15 D

Student recruitment

Plan of key dates for EB to consider and make decisions

16/1/17

PS

EB 16/17 15 D

Student recruitment

16/1/17

DJ

EB 16/17 15 E

SU Priorities

Revise plan of work to include key decisions, academic involvement and other views Report to EB on progress

23/1/17

PS / CI

EB 16/17 15 F

Programme approval

New programme approval process to be discussed at ADC

30/1/17

DJ

EB 16/17 15 G

Horizon Scan

First aid training in Welcome Week

27/3/17

CI

16/1/17

RB

EB 16/17 6 C

REF consultation Report back on implications of linking HESA return to TEF

EB 16/17 18 B

REF consultation: Report back on implications of linking HESA return to TEF

Matt Craven, Simon Wynn, Deborah Johnston and Richard Black to meet in the New Year to discuss to discuss.

16/1/17

RB

EB 16/17 6 D

Apprenticeships

Detailed paper on School proposals

16/1/17

PS

3

EB 16/17 18 F

HE Horizon Scan REF Consultation: Response to be approved by EB

6/3/17

RB

EB 16/17 18 F

HE Horizon Scan Guardian’s University Awards 2017: Submission for PWW

23/1/17

PS

EB 16/17 18 F

HE Horizon Scan Guardian’s University Awards 2017: Submission for REO

23/1/17

RB

EB 16/17 18 F

HE Horizon Scan Action plan for collecting data on teaching qualifications held by academic staff

6/2/2017

PS

EB 16/17 18 F

HE Horizon Scan Consider the antiSemitism definition proposed by the House of Commons, Home Affairs Committee and its impact from a School perspective.

30/1/17

PS

EB 16/17 18 F

HE Horizon Scan Online and mobile technologies: Dean for the Faculty of Languages & Cultures to explore offering support to companies wishing to expand into non-European languages.

23/1/17

LM

EB 16/17 19 B

Mental health initiative

Report to EB

23/1/17

DJ

EB 16/17 19 C

Decolonising SOAS

Report on any impact of press coverage

16/1/17

PS

EB 16/17 19 C

Decolonising SOAS

Potential event to debate issue with press partner

23/1/17

DJ / GS

EB 16/17 19 D

Committee agendas

Risk register to EB

16/1/17

CI

EB 16/17 19 E

Horizon scan

Look at extending consent training to cover wider issues of harassment

6/3/17

CI

EB 16/17 19 E

Horizon scan

Paper on entry grades for disadvantaged students

30/1/17

DJ

4

EXECUTIVE BOARD 16.01.2017 EB 16/17 20 D MOOCS AT SOAS: RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION GOALS EB is asked to approve the recommendations in the report

Executive Summary This paper attempts to bring together a picture of our MOOC provision with a later paper on summer school written in conjunction with the new Head of the Academic Summer school. The paper sets out the available evidence on MOOC development, recruitment and conversion to our degree-level on-campus and distance programmes. It should be noted that limited information was available for some MOOCs. This paper relates to the SOAS Learning Strategy 2016-2019, and to KPIs 4,5 and 7 (target enrolment; young and mature students from LPNs; and non-continuation). DEBORAH JOHNSTON

Recommendations The report recommends the following measures (with relevant responsibility in brackets):  Devise SOAS MOOC Strategy in relation to SOAS Online & Learning strategies (Academic Head of Distance Learning). This strategy to include not only issues of MOOC development, provision and recruitment, but also the possibility of the development of credit-bearing options.  Report on and review existing School MOOC provision by Academic Development Committee (ADC)  Support the School-wide use of the appropriate approval processes for MOOCs to ensure strategic focus and good governance/QA (Deans, HoDs).  Create a process to identify potential areas of MOOC development to align with overall SOAS Strategy, particularly in relation to increasing throughput to fee-paying programmes online and on campus. This work should be integrated with a new approach to programme development generally (PDLT/EB, with input from MSRC, QA, Planning and Associate Deans).

Financial Impact With greater recruitment and better continuation, student fee income would be improved. Investment has already been made in a summer school head, and is being planned for an academic lead on Distance Learning. Potential direct income generation from certificate payments within MOOCs.

Risks Investment in summer schools and MOOCs must be carefully evaluated to ensure that there are benefits for recruitment and/or retention. However, without strategic thought in this area, it is possible that other institutions could develop MOOCs in areas that are core for SOAS.

Equality implications Well planned MOOCs may increase SOAS’s recruitment and retention of students from low participation backgrounds. Provision must be inclusive.

MOOCS AT SOAS: RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION GOALS

1) Background Following several recent examples in the EB horizon scan, a paper was requested to investigate developments in the use of MOOCs (mass open online courses) to aid recruitment and to improve retention in degree level programmes. This paper establishes a baseline of information on SOAS MOOCs and suggests that a strategic approach is now needed for their development. The EB horizon scans have noted several universities that have developed credit-bearing MOOC add-ons. These are argued to promote widening participation (due to their lower cost) and flexibility (an ‘unbundling’ of education): o

o

Using the FutureLearn platform, credit-bearing ‘taster’ modules are being trialled at OU (programmes in digital economy, business and finance, management and leadership) and Leeds (environment programmes). http://www.independent.co.uk/student/studentlife/Studies/moocs-leeds-and-open-university-offering-course-credits-towards-degreesfor-first-time-a7049766.html A similar example has been sponsored international by edX at 14 intuitions. Billed as a micro-masters, the programmes allow students to take between ¼ or ½ of the credits for a masters through the MOOC platform. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/09/20/mooc-based-masters-degreeinitiative-expandsglobally?utm_source=Inside+Higher+Ed&utm_campaign=6933764856DNU20160920&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1fcbc04421-6933764856198179693&mc_cid=6933764856&mc_eid=2dafc02a04

This paper investigates the relationship between SOAS-run MOOCs and recruitment and retention. It is not a full evaluation of our MOOC strategy (to the extent that an ad hoc one exists), and instead highlights issues worthy of further investigation and strategic framing.

2) The number of MOOCs at SOAS The following is a list of known SOAS MOOCs:

2

EXECUTIVE BOARD 16.01.2017 EB 16/17 20 D Table 1: SOAS MOOCs Name

Dept

Developmental stage

Understanding Research Methods

CISD

Launched June 2014. https://www.coursera.org/learn/research-methods

Global Diplomacy: Diplomacy in a modern world

CISD

launched 12 Feb 2016 https://www.coursera.org/learn/global-diplomacy

Global Energy and Climate Policy

CISD

launch 1 April 2017.

United Nations in the World

CISD

launch 1 April 2017.

Understanding Public Financial Management: How is Your Money Spent?

CEFIMS

Risk Management in the Global Economy Not yet assigned – aimed at A’level students

CEFIMS History (Mandy Sadan)

Registered learners 124,028 + learners to date 23,345 +

Direct income generated £11.3K+ income generated) £1.5K

launch 2016 Q1. https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/public-financialmanagement

n.a.

n.a.

online from 14th November 2016, https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/risk-management Under development

n.a.

n.a.

EXECUTIVE BOARD 16.01.2017 EB 16/17 20 D

The table above shows the lack of information about known MOOCs that have been launched, which partly reflects differences in hosting and administrative support (see next section). Specifically there were problems gathering data on CEFIMS MOOCs as we do not receive key information centrally, although it is possible that this information is held at the department level. The reasons for this are discussed further below. In addition there is uncertainty over the exact number of MOOCs that have a SOAS component. Some SOAS academics may contribute to the MOOCs of other institutions and others have their own mini-moocs: see Stephen Chan https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dugHzKBc2aQ Finally we should note that any future review of MOOCs should investigate whether we have a formal contribution to the University of London International Academy (UoLIA) UG Laws MOOC, and any income generated by it. This section suggests the following questions for any MOOC strategy and review: i) ii) iii)

How to complete the table above? Where should central information on MOOCs be kept? How is direct income from MOOCs accounted for and how may it be used?

3) MOOC development and hosting While MOOCs in SOAS have tended to be the preserve of existing SOAS Distance Learning Units this is not causal, as the final example in table 1 shows. There have been two paths to the funding of MOOC development at SOAS: -

-

CISD MOOCs have been funded through the University of London/Coursera call for MOOCs open to all departments in all University of London colleges. This provides funding and support for MOOC development. It comes out annually in January with a deadline of mid-March (approximately). However, MOOCs have also been developed through the use of SOAS direct funding (the CEFIMS MOOCs were funded by the School).

There is a process for formal school approval of MOOCs using the non-credit bearing course approval route (see Appendix 1). The CISD MOOCs have used this process, but it is not clear if the CEFIMS MOOCs have. The various funding mechanisms are then reflected in the different providers subsequently used to host the MOOC. MOOCs that are developed under the University of London call will be hosted by Coursera. Other routes leave academics free to choose their provider. As such, CEFIMS MOOCs are hosted by Futurelearn: Futurelearn - a major UK-based not-for-profit MOOC provider (2 million users), with other headline participants being the Open University, Birmingham, Edinburgh, King’s, Reading, Warwick, Bath and Southampton.

-

Coursera - a US commercial enterprise and the largest MOOC provider globally (20 million + learners), with major participants being Stanford and Princeton.

Other providers do exist such as EdX and Audacity. While it is common for universities to use only one provider, there are others that are also in the SOAS position of having more than one: -

The University of Edinburgh is seen as leading UK MOOCs developer, and uses three platforms: Coursera, Futurelearn and Edx http://www.ed.ac.uk/files/atoms/files/moocs_brochure_a5_40pp.pdf

However, the difference in providers leads to a difference in central information on MOOC enrolment and conversion. Coursera’s agreement with UoL means that we receive detailed reports from UoL on the progress of our MOOCs. This is far less true of CEFIMS, where information on the operation of the MOOCs has been harder to obtain from CEFIMS staff. This will become more problematic over time as the MOOCs have time to embed, and has implications for potential synergies with School strategy. Dr J Simon Rofe co-chairs the University of London’s MOOC Committee, and has ready access to UoL’s MOOC approval processes. Questions for a MOOC review include: i) ii) iii) iv) v)

Should SOAS focus on the UoL MOOC development route? Should we centralise on one MOOC provider? How can we ensure that Futurelearn information on CEFIMS MOOCs is made available centrally? How can we ensure that any responses to the upcoming UoL MOOC development call are strategically-focused and use SOAS approval routes? Does our approval route need to be adapted for use by MOOCs?

4) Recruitment and conversion to SOAS enrolment There is only one established MOOC for which central data on conversions is available: the Understanding Research Methods MOOC. Its usage and conversions are well tracked by UoL. Launched in June 2014, this MOOC has now had over 120K learners register with a high percentage of learners from developing countries (46%). It was shortlisted for The Guardian’s Higher Education Awards in 2015 (runner up). As of September of this year, 50 people who have taken Understanding Research Methods MOOC had gone on to other ULIA courses, including 20 to SOAS distance programmes: Table 2: SOAS Conversions by year: 2013 2014 2015 Grand Total

2 6 12 20

5

SOAS DESTINATIONS: Postgraduate Programme Finance and Financial Law Quantitative Finance Finance (Economic Policy) Finance (Quantitative Finance) Sustainable Development Environmental Economics Global Diplomacy Public Financial Management Public Policy and Management Financial Sector Management IPA (PPM) 1

Number 3 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1

Interestingly, the majority of conversions from the CISD MOOC were to CeFIMS/CeDEP distance programmes. We have not tracked to this point, conversions to SOAS non-UoLIA programmes. (There is anecdotal evidence of a number of conversions). The Global Diplomacy: Diplomacy in a Modern World has had 23,345 registered learners in 11 months. As yet we have no direct data on the Global Diplomacy MOOC conversions; that will come through the 2016/17 review. We do, however, have some anecdotal evidence of its impact on student’s conversions to campus and online programmes The launch of the two new CISD MOOCS ( are designed to compliment existing campus and online course provision while showcasing the research of colleagues in the Centre. The GECP MOOC, will be the first to be offered across four different modes of delivery: as a summer school course, a MOOC, an online and a campus degree. CEFIMs were not able to provide quantitative evidence on conversion from their MOOCs. However, they also provided anecdotal examples: -

-

A participant to the MOOC later attended the SOAS Summer School on Public Financial Management that was launched this year. At the end of the Summer School, he expressed an interest in applying for PG Diploma. The admissions tutor reviewed an application to three CEFIMS IPAs from someone who indicated that they had heard about SOAS’ programmes through the FutureLearn web site.

Questions for a MOOC review include: i) ii)

How can conversion to SOAS degree-level programmes be enhanced? Is there scope for credit-bearing modules/tasters as part of our MOOC provision?

5) Recommendations The report recommends the following measures: 6







Devise SOAS MOOC Strategy in relation to SOAS Online & Learning strategies (Academic Head of Distance Learning). This strategy should link MOOCs to the overall SOAS Strategy and include, but not be limited to, the questions asked above. Report on and review existing School MOOC provision by Academic Development Committee (ADC) – while responsibilities for Distance Learning Strategies are being developed in response to the DL Review, ADC will ask for data in the key areas identified above. Support the School-wide use of the appropriate approval processes for MOOCs to ensure strategic focus and good governance/QA (Deans, HoDs). In the light of an upcoming call from UoL for MOOC development, we should ensure that all proposals are developed using the form and process for non-credit bearing courses (see Appendix 1).

More generally, the need to strategically identify the areas for future MOOC development echoes the more general need for a strategic route for programme development. In previous EBs we have identified that a central SOAS-call for new programmes should be established to stand alongside the current department-led process. A central SOAS-led process would maximise the information available from marketing and student recruitment. This is an area for discussion in future EBs.

DEBORAH JOHNSTON, J SIMON ROFE,

7

Appendix 1: Approval

form for non-credit-

bearing courses This form is for courses at any level and in any part of SOAS which carry no credit; are open-enrolment; and do not provide a direct entry route into taught programmes (e.g. pre-sessionals). In case of doubt, please consult the QA team on [email protected].

Date:

Use the TAB key or the  and  on your keyboard to move between the grey text boxes. Some text boxes are fillable, others are drop down menus (these are marked with a dash “-” or contain a prompt word.) The last submission date for module approval/amendment/withdrawal for the next academic year is the FIRST Faculty Learning and Teaching Committee in Term 2 of the current academic year.

1.

COURSE DETAILS

1a. Course Title Titles should be clear, concise and easily searchable by prospective students. They should be distinct from existing module/programme titles even where the content is very similar. 1b. Department 1c. Course Convenor (One name only) 1d. Based on an existing module?

Select

Title: Code: FHEQ level: Select

2.

DESCRIPTION

2a.

Outline (approximately 200 - 300 words, to be used on webpages)

2b.

Syllabus (Please list the main topics of the syllabus for each week/section) Week 1: (title)  Topic 1  Topic 2  Topic 3 Week 2: Title  Topic 1  Topic 2  Topic 3 Week 3: Title  Topic 1  Topic 2

8

 Topic 3 2c. Learning Outcomes (These will automatically number as you press the return key e.g. LO1, LO2 etc. All learning outcomes must start with a verb. An intensive three-week course might have three or four learning outcomes.) On successful completion of this course a student will be able to: LO1.

2d.

Additional activities Please describe any additional activities that will take place as part of the course, i.e. trips, visits, etc. and how they will enhance learning.

2e.

Potential market Please indicate markets that may be interested in taking the course.

2f.

Potential marketing activity Please indicate specific publications, websites, networks etc which you consider appropriate places to for marketing.

3.

TEACHING AND LEARNING

3a.

Student Numbers

3b.

Workload

Minimum: Minimum for summer school is 7 Hours per week

Maximum: Maximum for summer school is 20 Totals for the course

Lectures Tutorials/seminars Other Total Taught Hours Independent Study TOTAL HOURS FOR COURSE 3c.

Shared Teaching

Other lecturers involved in delivering the teaching

4.

Name

Status (e.g. SOAS staff, PhD student, external staff/student)

ASSESSMENT

EX - Written Exam Paper Number of Papers Length in hours % of total mark

9

% of teaching

AS1 - Assignment 1 (usually one essay of 2000-2500 words for a summer school) Description Length in words Date of submission (Term/Week/Day) % of total mark AS2 - Assignment 2 Description Length in words Date of submission (Term/Week/Day) % of total mark Any other forms of assessment, such as presentations, seminar participation, skills assessment such as oral language tests. Description Length (hours/minutes) % of total mark

5.

EQUALITY AND ACCESSIBILITY Does this course include any aspects which might have an impact on its accessibility to a diverse cohort of students? If so, what actions are needed (from teaching staff, Estates, or any other part of the School) to mitigate this impact and ensure equality of access? If relevant, please include advice provided by Student Disability Advisors or the Diversity Advisor ([email protected]).

6.

READING LIST The reading list should include page numbers and designated chapters as opposed to very general references, and be appropriate for the intensity, length and level of the course.

6a.

Core Reading (Maximum of ten items)

6b.

Additional Reading (Do not attach a separate reading list)

7.

DEPARTMENTAL APPROVAL By completing this section, the Head of Department certifies that the course has been approved at departmental level and is being recommended to LTQC for approval.

Head of Department (name): Date of approval by Department: Any comments: Please forward the completed form to the Quality Assurance team on [email protected]. It will be considered under arrangements approved by LTQC and you will be notified of the outcome. You may be asked to attend a meeting at which the proposal will be considered.

10

Executive Board 16.01.2017 EB 16/17 20 E RISK REGISTER Executive Board is asked to consider the attached Risk Register for the School

Executive Summary The attached institutional risk register provides an initial opportunity for EB to review before each risk owner updates their risks. A revised version will come back to EB, along with the sub-registers, for the meeting on 30 January prior to the next meeting of the Audit Committee. KPMG are currently undertaking an internal audit of the School’s risk process and any initial comments from this will be fed in to the revised version. The change log and heat map that provide the termly formal update to the Executive Board and Audit Committee will append the next version.

Recommendations To comment on the latest draft version of the institutional risk register.

Financial Impact Many of the risks listed have financial implications for the School.

Risks There is the risk that important items will be overlooked and not included in the School Risk Register. The Risk Register is the key document within the School for the identification and monitoring of risk. This has been amended in light of the latest comments on key risks to the sector from HEFCE.

Equality implications No direct implications from the Risk Register.

Risk Register

Background 1. The Executive Board and Audit Committee receive formal updates to the Risk Register on a termly basis. However, the Risk Register is included as a regular item on the EB agenda so it can review and decide on any necessary changes between formal updates. At the first formal update of each session EB also reviews each of the sub-registers:      

3 Faculty registers IFCELS 10 Professional services risk registers (now included separately for IT and library) Portfolio Board (to be reviewed) Health & Safety Prevent

2. The number of list has been expanded for 2016/17 to include the new risk register in response to the School’s duties under the Prevent legislation. All risk registers are available on the School’s intranet MySOAS.

Risk Register 3. The attached institutional risk register provides an initial opportunity for EB to review before each risk owner updates their risks. A revised version will come back to EB, along with the sub-registers, for the meeting on 30 January prior to the next meeting of the Audit Committee. KPMG is currently undertaking an internal audit of the School’s risk process and any initial comments from this will be fed in to the revised version. The usual change log and heat map will append the next version. 4. During 2015/16 the Executive Board reviewed the approach to assessing risk and if this could be improved by considering key risk drivers as the basis for each strategic risk. These would then allow a more nuanced discussion of actions in each area and focus efforts on those actions most likely to address the underlying drivers. 5. The owner for each of the eight institutional risks has commenced work on this revised approach but these are at varying stages of development due to other priorities such as the sustainability programme and academic restructuring. This work should now be completed for reporting to the Audit Committee. However, this change in methodology has not yet been incorporated in to the template or rolled out to the sub-registers. 6. No changes have been made to the individual risk ratings at this point but EB may wish to amend this in light of the external context, increased uncertainty and other factors. 7. The risk register has also been amended to take account of the latest guidance from HEFCE on key risks to the sector, which was included in its guidance on the preparation of financial forecasts.

The guidance stated that in preparing their financial forecasts, institutions in the sector had identified a number of risks that could adversely affect their financial performance and sustainability. The most significant risk areas related to:          

fall in home and EU student recruitment and retention failure to achieve overseas student recruitment targets failure to meet academic quality standards or meet student expectations failure to recruit and retain key staff further unanticipated public spending cuts in research or teaching income rise in the cost of borrowing and availability of lending rise in staff and pension costs non-compliance with visa regulations failure to invest sufficiently in IT and estates failures or breaches of IT security

Recommendations 7. EB is asked to consider and comment on the draft Risk Register before a revised version is considered on 30 January.

Chris Ince Secretary January 2017

Institutional Risk Register – Updated January 2017

Do not meet financial targets and do not generate a sustainable surplus. Leads to no scope for investment, impact on courses failing to recruit

Likelihood

Fall in student recruitment, change in government policies/funding, exchange rates, income from OS and premium courses, changes in HEFCE funding, PGR students, REF, 3rd stream and external research grant income, loss of HEIF income. Decrease in public funding for teaching or research

Impact

What might cause the risk to occur?

What are the possible consequences should the risk occur?

Gross risk

I x L

5

5

25

Existing Controls

Sources of Assurance

Early Warning Flags

What existing strategies, processes or controls are in place to manage the risk?

How do we know that these controls are efficient and effective? What are our sources of assurance over the controls for this risk?

What would indicate that the likelihood or the impact of the risk is increasing?

Financial Strategy, Recruitment and Admissions Steering Group, and Recruitment and Admissions Implementation Group - recommendations for new activities and regular updates on application and enrolment targets to EB. Centenary Planning Group. Monitoring by Executive Board and RPC. MSR strategies and action plans. R&E action plan and strategy. New research grants application procedure. REF Steering Group

Regular reporting to EB on recruitment against target and research & enterprise income. Externally commissioned review on fundraising. Sub-risk registers.

Financial Strategy Performance Indicators. Research & Enterprise Strategy Performance Indicators.

Continual monitoring of market information including Higher Expectations Reports and Student Barometer track our performance vs. competitors, plus the introduction of monthly MSR reporting to track performance against KPIs.

Current risk

4

5

I x L

20

Net risk

3

Likelihood

Risk Consequences

Impact

Risk Cause

EB risk owner: Pro-Director, Learning & Teaching

Likelihood

Failure to meet income targets

Impact

Risk 1:

3

KPI 1 – Research Income KPI 4 – student enrolment data

Continued brand awareness raising activity in key markets, development of messaging, targeted promotions and the new Saturday Open Days to maximise interest in the School. Roll-out of enhanced conversion programme, including the introduction of incentives and telephone activity. Actions for further control to deliver net risk based on existing environment Action for Further Control

Action Owner

Due Date

Status update

Undertake curriculum review to ensure our curriculum is robust, attractive and aligned to national benchmark statement and implement changes for 2017/18 academic years onwards. Roll out of pilot to further departments and development of wider departmental review process

Pro-Director, L&T

Jul-17

Pilot completed. Action and date revised.

Revised approach to the setting recruitment targets for 17/18 with involvement of student recruitment, planning and academic units

Director of Finance & Planning

Nov-16

Completed. Close

Director of Finance & Planning

Mar 17

Plans in development. Will go to RPC in March 17

Interim planning process initiated to cover the transition to a new academic structure: Minimum new student number targets (for budgeting/financial forecasting purposes) to be proposed on a top down basis derived from a set of principles agreed by Planning, Admissions, Marketing & Student Recruitment, Faculty Deans – for sign off by RPC. The principles will take into account trend analysis and internal & external factors Optimal/(aspirational) targets to be set on a bottom up basis by academic departments taking into account the maximum numbers that can be reasonably accommodated

Director of Finance & Planning

Increase in student recruitment activity within the EU for 2017 entry to counter negative impact of BREXIT and capitalise on falling value of sterling/possible last year of low fees and availability of loan financing

Director, Marketing, Student Recruitment & Communications

Jul-17

Consideration of opportunities arising in a post BREXIT world – including international partnering

Pro-Director, L&T

Mar-17

Any new actions?

I x L

9

Institutional Risk Register – Updated January 2017

Risk Consequences

Existing Controls

Sources of Assurance

Early Warning Flags

What might cause the risk to occur?

What are the possible consequences should the risk occur?

What existing strategies, processes or controls are in place to manage the risk?

How do we know that these controls are efficient and effective? What are our sources of assurance over the controls for this risk?

What would indicate that the likelihood or the impact of the risk is increasing?

Student Admin & Support Strategy, Estates Strategy. Monitoring by GB, AB, EB and SEC. NSS Action Plans. Portfolio Board, Capital planning process

NSS scores, league tables, internal surveys, Capital expenditure and long term maintenance plans approved by GB annually, SHNB risk log (and other risk registers), Planning permission for SHNB obtained. Three yearly condition survey cycle

Projects running behind schedule; significant underspends on cap ex or long term maintenance. Student Experience and Learning & Teaching strategy Performance Indicators. Deterioration in the estate within the three yearly condition survey cycle

Likelihood

Drop in NSS, downward spiral

Impact

Quality of Estate, student support problems, teaching & assessment, poor academic offering

Gross risk

I x L

5

4

20

Current risk

Net risk

I x L

5

4

20

KPI 5 – Participation data KPI 6 – NSS performance KPI 7 – Non-continuation rates KPI 8 – DLHE data KPI 14 – student bed spaces

Actions for further control to deliver net risk based on existing environment Action for Further Control

Action Owner

Due Date

Students to be consulted on the new campus development plans and their views fed into proposals currently being developed by our architects

Registrar, Director of Estates

Jan-17

Consult on proposals around “One Professional Service” to improve links between central and department/faculty services

Registrar

Mar-17

Any other new actions? E.g. from NSS action plans?

Status update

New action

Likelihood

Risk Cause

Impact

EB risk owner: Pro-Director, Learning & Teaching

Likelihood

Failure to meet rising student expectations, leading to poor retention rates and loss of reputation

Impact

Risk 2:

I x L

3

3

9

Institutional Risk Register – Updated January 2017

Risk Consequences

Existing Controls

Sources of Assurance

Early Warning Flags

What might cause the risk to occur?

What are the possible consequences should the risk occur?

What existing strategies, processes or controls are in place to manage the risk?

How do we know that these controls are efficient and effective? What are our sources of assurance over the controls for this risk?

What would indicate that the likelihood or the impact of the risk is increasing?

HR Strategy Action plan, Revised Academic Performance Framework (covering Probation; Promotions; Recognition & Rewards; Reasonable Expectations; Capability); current recruitment procedures, monitoring through iGrasp ;Phased increase in London Weighting for all staff, golden hellos, relocation packages, training, SDR scheme etc. Development of individual REF plans; The SOAS Centenary Programmes and associated publicity drawing attention to SOAS

Likelihood

Poor teaching and research. System and process failures. Lack of innovation

Impact

Poor recruitment, poor management of staff, London effect, UK salaries, staff morale, management capacity & capability, staff performance

Gross risk

I x L

5

3

15

Rewards and promotions procedures are reviewed regularly and updated as required; Staff T/O rates are currently very low across the board; We have been able to fend-off approaches for staff from other institutions (sometimes, but not all the time).

Current risk

a) Staff t/o rates increasing (especially for senior academic and senior professional services staff) - currently extremely low for all groups; b) Pulse Survey 2015 indicating low morale and a desire to leave SOAS;

Net risk

5

I x L

3

Likelihood

Risk Cause

Impact

Director of HR

Likelihood

Failure to recruit and retain world-class staff

Impact

Risk 3:

15

4

2

I x L

8

KPI 12 – staff turnover KPI 13 – women/BME staff in senior roles

Actions for further control to deliver net risk based on existing environment Action for Further Control

Action Owner

Due Date

Status update

Employee Approval and Recruitment Process Improvement Project (EARPIP) is part-completed. This has resulted in a reduction in the number of steps required to recruit a member of staff from the start to the end of the process. When fully completed the aim is to reduce the time taken to complete each recruitment process to a maximum of 3 months.

HR Director, EARPIP Project Board, EB, HoDs, Recruiting Managers

Jul-16

System now rolled out

The Academic Performance Framework Working Group has been re-established to develop and agree a final framework by the end of the current session; Academic Workload model has been taken out of scope for this group but work on School promotions criteria has been included;

HR Director, Pro-Director (Research & Enterprise), HRM’s, APF Working Group and its five sub-groups

Ongoing

Update required

Develop and introduce "broad-banding" salary scales for G10 Professional Services staff;

HR Director, Registrar, HRM (Change)

Jul-17

Broad-banding for G10 Professional Services staff is likely to exacerbate an equal pay issue identified within the gender pay gap report to be considered by EB on 10 October. It is suggested that a banded approach, based on UCEA market data for G10 PS roles, is considered by EB for recommendation to the Senior Staff Remuneration Committee (July 17).

HR Director / Deans

Sep-16

Close

HR Director/ Director MSRC.

July-16

Delayed?

HR Director

July-17

HR Director, EB DoPs & HoDs

Dec 16 Dec 16

Look at allowances and incentives for academic appointments Raise brand awareness and high profile of SOAS as an attractive place to work. Proposals for mitigating the impact of Brexit on staff Action plans to be drawn up to address key issues arising from staff survey At School level At Department level Any other actions e.g. from HR Directorate plan that can be escalated?

Update

Institutional Risk Register – Updated January 2017

    

Governance failure Failure to meet key QA requirements, Industrial action or other breakdown of staff and student relations, External or internal adverse publicity event or incident Failure to follow health & safety guidance or carry out appropriate risk assessment Cybercrime or IT security breach Non-compliance with UKVI requirements

Loss of reputation with internal and external stakeholders

Likelihood

 

Impact

What might cause the risk to occur?

What are the possible consequences should the risk occur?

Gross risk

I x L

5

3

15

Existing Controls

Sources of Assurance

Early Warning Flags

What existing strategies, processes or controls are in place to manage the risk?

How do we know that these controls are efficient and effective? What are our sources of assurance over the controls for this risk?

What would indicate that the likelihood or the impact of the risk is increasing?



 



       

Learning & Teaching Quality Assurance Governance Review Mitigating Industrial Action group Communications Strategy; Gift acceptance Policy JNCC Monthly briefings for GB on key issues School e-bulletins Ethics framework

 

Students able to graduate Meetings of key committees are quorate and produce minutes with action points Incident log UKBA audits



Ballot or notification of industrial action Rise in adverse press coverage

Current risk

Net risk

I x L

4

3

12

Likelihood

Risk Consequences

Impact

Risk Cause

EB risk owner: Pro-Director, Research & Enterprise

Likelihood

Failure to manage institutional reputation

Impact

Risk 4:

I x L

4

2

8

KPI 15 - environmental

Actions for further control to deliver net risk based on existing environment Action for Further Control

Action Owner

Due Date

Develop and implement crisis communications procedure

Director of MSRC, Registrar

Dec-16

Detailed review of UKVI procedures

Registrar

Feb-17

Review of approach to cybercrime (link to new CIO post)

Head of IS / Registrar

Mar-17

Review of relevant safety policies (lone working, overseas travel arrangements)

Secretary

Jul-17

Any other new actions?

Status update Update required

Institutional Risk Register – Updated January 2017



Downward spiral in league tables resulting in drop in recruitment numbers, reduced access to key sources of funding compared to competitors, reduced funds for research and/or difficulties in attracting/retaining outstanding academic staff

 

  



Drop in relative quality of teaching offered Drop in relative quality of research developed and produced Failure to engage with cutting edge developments in SOAS disciplines and HE pedagogy Recruitment of SOAS staff with high academic reputation by competitors Appointment by SOAS of new staff with weak academic reputation Failure to align School’s research and teaching activity with key external metrics Failure to pass QAA review or similar

I x L

5

4

20

Sources of Assurance

Early Warning Flags

What existing strategies, processes or controls are in place to manage the risk?

How do we know that these controls are efficient and effective? What are our sources of assurance over the controls for this risk?

What would indicate that the likelihood or the impact of the risk is increasing?







       

Academic Performance Framework Annual cycle of SDRs Monitoring of academic staff approval by EB Exit interviews for departing staff REF steering group & Research Excellence Plan TEF steering group & Teaching & Learning Plan Probation procedures Strategic Data Working Group League table working group

  

Overall and subject-level performance in key annual league tables - Guardian, Times, CUG, QS, THE REF performance (2021) TEF approval (2017) Annual monitoring of research income

 

 

Drop in league table position. Failure to meet student number targets Failure to meet research and/or philanthropic income targets Failure to recruit to advertised academic positions Increase in % staff failing probation

Current risk

5

3

Net risk

I x L

15

Likelihood

What are the possible consequences should the risk occur?

Existing Controls

Impact

What might cause the risk to occur?

Gross risk

Likelihood

Risk Consequences

Impact

Risk Cause

EB risk owner: Pro-Director, Research & Enterprise

Likelihood

Failure to manage academic reputation

Impact

Risk 5:

4

2

KPI 2 – Research publications KPI 3 – Impact case studies

Actions for further control to deliver net risk based on existing environment Action for Further Control

Action Owner

Due Date

Status update

Roll-out of curriculum review, followed by annual review of academic programmes

Pro-Director (L&T)

May-17

New process under discussion, to be aligned with new academic structure

New process developed for new academic programme approval

Pro-Director (L&T)

Dec-16

Delayed?

Process to ensure all new staff with teaching responsibilities completed PDHEP

Pro-Director (L&T)

Feb-17

Revised procedure for academic appointments

Pro-Director (R&E)

Dec-16

Close

Further development of Research Excellence Plan to identify necessary investments to attract, support and retain academic staff

Pro-Director (R&E)

Dec-16

Update required

Introduce more robust feedback from exit interviews for academic staff to new staff appointment process

Director HR

Dec-16

Update required

Conversations around research progress towards REF inclusion

Deans

Dec-16

Update required

Any new actions?

I x L

8

Institutional Risk Register – Updated January 2017

Risk 6:

Failure to take advantage of strategic opportunities and be agile in a competitive marketplace

EB risk owner: Registrar

Risk Cause

Risk Consequences

Existing Controls

Sources of Assurance

Early Warning Flags

What existing strategies, processes or controls are in place to manage the risk?

How do we know that these controls are efficient and effective? What are our sources of assurance over the controls for this risk?

What would indicate that the likelihood or the impact of the risk is increasing?

Reports to EB from all members on key developments in sector. GB/EB Away Days & informal meetings. Closer relationship with other institutions on collaborations.

Ability to take recognise and submit responses to new sector initiatives e.g. HEFCE, research councils. Routine benchmarking

Competitors announcing new developments. Known missed funding opportunities.

5

Action for Further Control

Action Owner

Due Date

Status update

Work more closely with SOAS academic community to build and capitalise on existing collaborations and embed those more closely into SOAS research strategy, establishing new strategic research collaborations

Director REO, Pro-Director (R&E)

Dec-16

Part of research excellence work. Close?

Release additional funds for student recruitment to take advantage of potential opportunities to capitalise on the devaluation of sterling and possible last year of reduced fees and loans available to EU students

Director of Finance & Planning

Nov 16

Director, Marketing, Student Recruitment & Communications

Jan 17

Fail to keep up with competitors or develop in new areas

20

3

15

4

Likelihood

4

I x L

Net risk

Impact

5

Likelihood

I x L

Current risk

Impact

Likelihood

Poor horizon scanning. Lack of institutional agility, capacity or capability. Reduced capacity to borrow eternally if required. Failure to invest in estate or IT

Impact

What might cause the risk to occur?

What are the possible consequences should the risk occur?

Gross risk

2

Actions for further control to deliver net risk based on existing environment

Utilise those funds Any other new actions?

I x L

8

Institutional Risk Register – Updated January 2017

Risk Consequences

Existing Controls

Sources of Assurance

Early Warning Flags

What might cause the risk to occur?

What are the possible consequences should the risk occur?

What existing strategies, processes or controls are in place to manage the risk?

How do we know that these controls are efficient and effective? What are our sources of assurance over the controls for this risk?

What would indicate that the likelihood or the impact of the risk is increasing?

Financial Strategy, Monitoring by Executive Board and RPC. VFM policy, monitoring by Executive Board, Portfolio Board and Audit Committee. Grant application process & costing

Financial Strategy KPIs, Detailed management information reports. Detailed sub-risk registers. ASSUR submission to HEFCE. Annual VFM Report, KPIs from revised Financial Strategy, Internal audit of risk management. Detailed subrisk registers

Increase in staff costs as % of income. Financial Strategy Performance Indicators. Increase in % staff costs against target, failure to achieve objectives agreed in VFM plan. Financial Strategy Performance Indicators

Likelihood

Do not meet financial targets, run at a deficit, no scope for investment. Lack of agility to respond to changes in sector, financial impact

Impact

Increasing staff costs, pension liabilities, failure to meet targets for north block project costs. Lack of institutional appetite for change. Rise in cost of borrowing

Gross risk

I x L

4

4

16

Current risk

Net risk

I x L

4

3

12

Likelihood

Risk Cause

Impact

EB risk owner: Director of Finance & Planning

Likelihood

Failure to manage the School's cost base and ensure a sustainable institution

Impact

Risk 7:

I x L

3

2

6

KPI 9 – surplus KPI 10 – cash flow KPI 11 – staff costs

Actions for further control to deliver net risk based on existing environment Action for Further Control

Action Owner

Due Date

Devolution of planning and budgetary authority to Academic Departments and roll out, post pilot phase

Director of Finance & Planning

Jun-17

Review of workload model to provide transparent and fairer allocation of effort - Develop policy and guidelines

HR Director / Registrar

Oct-17

Reduction of use of temporary fractional teachers Phased reduction over three years As part of interim planning process Faculties to update sustainability plans in light of Sept 16 enrolments and revised planning assumptions Initial Department sustainability plans to be drawn up (based on new academic structure)

Pro Director, R&E

Sept-17

Mar 17 Jun 17

Implement formal Faculty/PS plans

Director of Finance & Planning/Deans Director of Finance & Planning/ Heads of Academic Departments Deans / Registrar

Consideration given to extension of (revised) VS scheme

HR Director

Feb 17

Any other new actions?

Status update

To be progressed in 2017

Aug 17 Delayed

Failure to manage plans for a major business continuity incident

EB risk owner: Registrar

Risk Consequences

Existing Controls

Sources of Assurance

Early Warning Flags

What existing strategies, processes or controls are in place to manage the risk?

How do we know that these controls are efficient and effective? What are our sources of assurance over the controls for this risk?

What would indicate that the likelihood or the impact of the risk is increasing?

Impact

Likelihood

Institutional Risk Register – Updated January 2017

I x L

Business continuity plans. Monitoring by EB. Detailed IT contingency plans. Managing Industrial Action Group. Annual formal updates of plans. Prevent Working Group

Post-event review of any incidents. Periodic test exercises. Sub Risk registers. Deep dive review by Audit Committee in May 2014

Minor incidents that are not handled appropriately. Increase in fire alarm activations or security incidents

4

2

8

Action for Further Control

Action Owner

Due Date

Status update

Repeat of externally facilitated test exercise

Secretary

May-17

Implement recommendations from IT audit. Rephased to take account of proposed changes in LIS

Registrar

Mar-17

Review of arrangements for booking of rooms and risk assessment of events – to ensure compliance with new Policy

Secretary

Jan-17

Major impact on School’s activities with possible serious financial impact if uninsured risk

4

3

12

Net risk

Actions for further control to deliver net risk based on existing environment

Likelihood

Poor preparation of plans, lack of testing, incident outside of plans scope, significant industrial/student action

I x L

Current risk

Impact

What might cause the risk to occur?

What are the possible consequences should the risk occur?

Gross risk

Likelihood

Risk Cause

Impact

Risk 8:

I x L

3

2

6