When the announcement came last Wednesday that the universities of Kent and Greenwich are planning to merge, the two institutions did a fine job of anticipating all the obvious questions.
In particular, announcing that the totemic decision has already been taken on who should lead the new institution – University of Greenwich vice chancellor Jane Harrington – was a pragmatic move that will save a great deal of gossip and speculation that could otherwise have derailed the discussions that will now commence on how to turn “intention to formally collaborate” to the “first-of-its-kind multi university group.”
But even with that really tricky bit of business out of the way, there is still a lot to work through. Broadly those questions fall into two baskets: the strategic direction and the practical fine detail. Practicalities are important for giving reassurance that people’s lives aren’t about to radically change overnight; albeit there are inevitably lots of issues that are either formally unknown at this stage or which can only be tackled in light of the evolution of the final agreement and organisational structure.
With that in mind, it is really worth emphasising that the notion of a “multi university group” is a brand new idea, given a conceptual shape in the very recent publication Radical collaboration: a playbook from KPMG and Mills & Reeve, produced under the auspices of the Universities UK transformation and efficiency taskforce. The idea of a “multi university trust” explored in that report, derived from the school sector, posits the creation of a single legal entity that can nevertheless “house” a range of distinct “trading entities” with unique “brands” each with an agreed level of local autonomy.
It answers the question of how you take two (or more) institutions, each with their own histories and characteristics and find ways to create the strength and resilience that scale might offer, while retaining the local distinctive characteristics that staff, students, and local communities value and feel a sense of affinity to. It also, as has been noted in the coverage following the announcement, leaves an option open for other institutions to join the new structure, if there’s a case for them to do so.
“It is very positive to see institutions taking proactive steps to finding new ways to work together,” says Sam Sanders, head of education, skills and productivity for KPMG in the UK. “The group structure proposed is a model we have seen be successful elsewhere, where brand identity is retained but you get economies of scale, meaning institutions can focus on their core activities while sharing the burden of the overheads. If it goes well it could act as a blueprint for other similar ventures.”
Sam’s reflection is that establishing a new entity might be the most straightforward part of the process: “The complicated part is moving to a new model that simultaneously preserves the right culture in the right places while achieving the savings you might want to see in areas like IT, infrastructure, and estates. These are multi-year agendas so everyone involved needs to be prepared for that.”
The long and winding road
With lots to work through, it’s really important to step back, and give space to the institutions to work this out. Because the big picture is about mapping what that critical path looks like from single-institution vulnerabilities to strength in numbers – and that is a path that these institutions and their governing bodies are, to a large extent, carving out as they go, potentially doing the wider sector a service in the process as others may look to follow the same path in the future.
“The sector response has been overwhelmingly positive,” says Jane Harrington, who is already fielding calls from heads of institution who are curious about the planned new model. Both Jane and University of Kent acting vice chancellor Georgina Randsley de Moura have experience with group structures in schools and further education, knowledge they drew on in thinking through the options for formal collaboration – starting with ten different possible models which were narrowed down to two that were explored in more depth.
“We started with what we wanted to achieve, and then we looked for models,” says Georgina. “We kept going back to our principles: widening participation, education without boundaries, high quality teaching and research, and what will make sense for our regions. Inevitably there is some focus in the news around finances and that is an important part of the context, but this would not work if our universities didn’t have values and mission alignment.”
“We also had examples in mind of where we don’t want to end up,” adds Jane. “You see mergers where the brand identity is lost and it takes a decade to get it back. We have, right now, two student-facing brands that are strong in their own right. And in five or ten years time it might be that we have four or five institutions that are part of this structure – we don’t think it would make sense for them to become part of one amorphous brand.”
It’s frequently observed that bringing together two or more institutions that are facing difficult financial headwinds may simply create a larger institution with correspondingly larger challenges. So having a very clear sense strategically of where the strengths and opportunities lie, as well as the where risks and weaknesses might also be subject to force-multiplier effects, is pretty important at the outset.
It’s clear that there is an efficiency agenda in play in the sense that merging allows for the adoption of a single set of systems and processes – an area where Jane is especially interested in curating creative thinking. But the wider opportunities afforded by scale are also compelling, especially in being more strategic about the collective skills and innovation offer to the region.
Kent and Medway local councils and MPs have also responded enthusiastically to the universities’ proposal, the two heads of institution tell me – not least because navigating politics around different HE providers can be a headache for regional actors who want to engage higher education institutions in key regional agendas.
“There are cold spots in our region where nobody is offering what is needed,” says Jane. “But developing new provision is much harder when you are acting alone. This region has pockets of multiple forms of deprivation: rural, urban and coastal. The capacity and scale afforded by combining means we can think strategically about how to do the regional growth work, and what our combined offer should be, including to support reskilling and upskilling.”
Georgina makes a similar case for combining research strengths. “Our shared research areas, like health, food sustainability, and creative industries, play to regional strengths,” she says. “When research resources are constrained, by combining we can do more.”
We can work it out
The multi university group is not, in theory, a million miles from a federation in structure in that in federations generally there is a degree of autonomy ceded by the constituent elements to a single governing body – but in a federation each entity retains its individual legal status. A critical difference is the extent to which a sharing economy among the entities would have to be painstakingly negotiated for a federation, which could erode the value that is created in collaborating. It could also raise tricky questions around things like VAT.
But the sheer novelty of the multi university group also raises a bunch of regulatory questions, covered in all the depth you’d expect by DK elsewhere on the site – to give a flavour, can you use the word “university” for your trading entity without that existing as a legal entity with its own degree awarding powers?
The supportive noises from DfE and OfS at the time of the initial announcement should give Kent and Greenwich some degree of comfort as they work through some of these questions. The sector has been making the argument for some time now that if the government and regulator want to see institutions seizing the initiative on innovative forms of collaboration, there will need to be some legal and regulatory quarter given, up to and including making active provision for forms of collaboration that emerge without a legal playbook.
Aside from the formal conditions for collaboration, how OfS conducts itself in this period will be watched closely by others considering similar moves. While nobody would suggest that changing structure offers an excuse for dropping the ball on quality or student experience – and both heads of institution are very clear there is no expectation of that happening – OfS now has a choice. It can choose to be highly activist in requesting reams of documentation and evidence in response to events as they unfold, from institutions already grappling with a highly complex landscape. Or it can work out an approach that offers a degree of advance clarity to the institutions what their accountabilities are in this time of transition, and how they can/should keep the regulator informed of any material risks arising to students from the process.
Despite the generally positive response, there is no shortage of scepticism about whether a plan like the one proposed can work. The answer, of course, depends on what you think success looks like. Certainly, anyone expecting a sudden and material shrinkage in costs is bound to be disappointed. Decisions will be made along the way with which some disagree, perhaps profoundly.
But I think what is often forgotten in these discussions is that the alternative to the decision to pursue a new structure is not to carry on in broadly the same way as before, but to pursue a different but equally radical and equally contentious course of action. If the status quo was satisfactory then there would be no case for the change. In that sense, being as useful as possible in helping these two institutions make the very best fist that they can of their new venture is the right thing for everyone to do, from government downwards.
