Online questionnaire: data and discussion: Assessing requests to partner

Assessing requests to partner

The questionnaire asked respondents how applications led by other institutions—where their institution is invited to be a partner—are appraised for suitability. For example, are they treated differently than applications where the respondent's institution would be the lead? Further, who appraises these applications? The data are presented below and categorised by the size of the institution. Overall, the data indicate that there are two main ways of handling this. The most prevalent one is to run a modified process. The other, much less common way is for institutions to use the same processes as when assessing one of their own applications. An occasional theme is the challenge associated with receiving late requests to be a partner. Note the fifth comment under the heading C-size institutions as a possible solution.

A-size institutions (FTE academic staff <500)

Only two A-size institutions used the same processes as when assessing one of their own applications.

Same processes as when assessing own applications

'Appraised in the same way as internal applications (by a panel/committee).'
'The proposal is reviewed by the office of learning and teaching grants team, and support offered for the institutional support letter to ensure alignment with university values and strategies.'

Modified processes

'Looked at by our Academic Board.'
'We have only had one such application and this was appraised by the Principal/CEO.'
'It goes to the Head of Higher Education and Research and the Director to approve.'
'Typically (for the rare instances where this happens) it is through one or two identified people within our institution.'
'Usually the first step is gain some in principle support from the PVCA.'
'Partner applications are not appraised by a panel. Partner applications are appraised by the Head of School and Deputy Vice-Chancellor who sign a cover sheet and letter of support.'
'Partner projects are nearly always difficult, as we are often notified of these at short notice. All partner applications are subject to institutional compliance checking which is less stringent than proposals where (our University) is the lead. (They are) are appraised for quality and suitability in addition to the general check on compliance with the OLT requirements, financial exposure of the university (i.e. activities where costs are unspecified), sign-off on time release and other in-kind contributions by the relevant head of cost centre. The leverage we have for this is that the (DVC-A's office will) only supply a letter on request from the ICO ... Occasionally ... projects request letters from the Senior DVC bypassing this process.'

B-size institutions (FTE academic staff 500 to 1,000)

All respondents from B-size institutions indicated that there was a modified process, even when the panel or committee that appraised their own institution's applications were involved.

Modified processes

'These are treated differently. If a request to partner is received, I just check that the application is complying, and that the budget amounts committed to by (our University) are supported by the School involved.'
'Only done informally upon request by (our University's) participant. These are not tracked into our internal review processes.'
'They are reviewed by the same office that reviews all OLT applications, but not as extensively.'
'Very differently. I, as Grants and Awards Officer, review briefly for alignment with our University's policy and to see if it can support those aims. We compile the Letter of Support and are not really involved at all in any further drafting/editing process.'
'Treated differently. Expectation is that the bulk of application development/project mentoring would occur through lead organisation. Applications are still reviewed for relevance and suitability both in terms of OLT scheme and institutional involvement and also to ensure commitments proposed are appropriate.'
'Partner applications are reviewed by the same panel which reviews lead applications (but) the Advisory Panel is only required to make a full assessment of (our University)-led applications. However, the panel is to review the partner applications to ensure they are credible proposals, and reasonable in terms of (our University’s budget and resource contributions.'

C-size institutions (FTE academic staff >1,000 but <1,500)

Same processes as when assessing own applications

'The (DVC) assesses an 'Intention to Submit' for full lead applicants through to partner applications. This ensures that the partner invitations don't override other full lead applications for projects in the same areas that are priorities for our institution and also so that we can ensure that our participation on other lead grants is also within areas of priority for learning and teaching.'

Modified processes

'Collaborative proposals are assessed by the DVC(A) and (our University's) involvement is endorsed or not as the case may be.'
'These collaborative projects are not appraised in the same way lead grants are. On many occasions I have found that other institutions are not always forthcoming with sharing drafts prior to submission. Often the request for a letter of support on a collaborative grant comes in late, not allowing suitable time to review a draft. To some degree, we trust that those lead institutions have their own institutional appraisal processes and are meeting OLT submission requirements in the same way we appraise our lead projects for suitability and compliance.'
'Staff who partner with other lead university projects must submit a project proposal to the DVC-A for consideration and endorsement. Associate Deans / Office Directors also need to be made aware of these projects and will often provide input into the role (our University's) staff play in any application.'
'These applications are usually submitted in draft when requesting endorsement by DVC(A). This is acceptable on the proviso that no amendments are made to (our University's) participation (e.g. time or budget commitments) in future iterations. Internal review of these applications is less thorough than (our University) led applications, as it is assumed (rightly or wrongly) that the lead institution will have their own review process.'
'These applications are read by me as the (panel) chair. I then make recommendations to the (DVC-A). We were becoming overwhelmed with multiple, very late requests for (our University) to be a partner and reached the conclusion that such requests were from people 'fishing around' after requests for other institutions to be partners fell through. We did not think this was very strategic. To address late requests we stipulated that none would be entertained that arrived later than one calendar week before the OLT deadline. On the whole, this seems to have worked.'
'These are appraised by the ICO; me. Where there ... appears to be an issue, they are referred to another colleague in the Educational Development team. The institutional panel is convened only for (our University's) lead applications. It is unusual for an application where (our University) is a partner to be rejected.'

D-size institutions (FTE academic staff ≥1,500)

Same processes as when assessing own applications

'Applications are appraised by the Dean, Learning and Teaching, who endorses them and then recommends they be endorsed by the (DVC-A). Partnership projects and projects where (our University) is the lead university are treated in the same way.'
'The same person appraises the lead and partner proposals so no difference.'
'They go through the same process of being assessed by the panel.'
'They are treated the same as other applications.'

Modified processes

'The same person who appraises our lead applications also checks the partner applications. However we are more lenient on what will be endorsed and will sometimes provide feedback to the project leader.'
'There is no appraisal undertaken for applications lead by other institutions though sign off is provided through the Office of the DVCE.'
'The applications often come very late in the process to our office and so we may be unaware of their nature. They are given to the academic in our team who will appraise them and discuss with us his thoughts on supporting the partner application.'
'These are not treated the same way as applications for which we are lead. A copy of the draft application is requested before endorsement is provided, but they do not go through a panel selection process.'
'Institutional endorsement letters are drafted by the (local) project team member to be adjusted where necessary by the (DVC-A).'
'They are treated differently from appraising grant applications.'