Internal approval and validation is sought for new course, module or unit designs. This typically involves a committee-based process including one or more external members. External agencies such as quality enhancement, regulatory bodies and partner institutions, external assessors, verifiers and examiners, may also be involved in examining the proposal. Amendments can be made to the proposal, and implications for resources and enabling systems can be explored.

Component processes: quality assurance, validation, approval, specification and documentation

Enabling systems: Committee processes can be enhanced through e-admin systems; course related information can be better shared with different stakeholders if formats are standardised.

• XCRI - Exchanging Course Related Information
• COVARM  - Course Validation and Approval Reference Model
• CEF (Curriculum Exchange Format)
• Sharepoint
• BPML (Business Process Modelling Language)
• Archimate ( Archi  JISC funded opensource Archimate modelling tool)

Following a baseline review of institutions involved in the Curriculum Design and Delivery programmes (2009) we can say that processes of programme approval are generally 'rigorous', 'well-established' and reasonably consistent, with robust quality assurance and 'close attention paid to standards, benchmarking and equivalences'. On the other hand, there is evidence of informal workarounds and even 'feral' local systems for getting curriculum ideas into development, where staff find the formal processes unhelpful.

The formal processes are almost invariably complex, time-intensive, committee-based, and at least in part paper-based. Effects of this include:

• a high dependence on manual data entry and manual checking of documentation, leading to duplication of tasks

• several quality processes and criteria (typically internal and external/professional) needing to be met by each new/revised offering

• competing demands on staff, especially at certain times of year: academic cycle sometimes out of synch with quality cycle

• dependence on large committees leading to bottlenecks, poor communication and unclear roles/responsibilities

• lack of timely access to information to support decision-making, e.g. marketing, cohort statistics

• discouragement of innovation and risk-taking, particularly if minor modifications require approval

• sometimes a weak sense of ownership by frontline academic staff, especially those in relatively junior positions: 'quality assurance in the hands of those who are ‘expert’ in the system' 
• difficulty responding to new demands for programmes, 'whether these originate from professional bodies, industry leaders or student demand'

Some institutions are experimenting with lightweight processes for validating short courses, but at present these are often ring-fenced away from 'standard' quality processes and academic frameworks, for example in a separate award structure. Projects in the Curriculum Design programme are demonstrating how a strategic approach to course information and alignment of relevant technical and administrative systems can lead to more efficient approval processes which better meet the needs of end-users.

Resources on the Design Studio:

quality assurance and enhancement

resources tagged with approval and validation

resources relating to documentation