|
Executive Committee |
Rule
Risk Management Through the Automated Governance System (AGS)
All risks must be recorded and managed through the School's automated governance system (AGS) using the dedicated risk register functionality.
The AGS risk register provides a structured and efficient method for tracking and addressing risks, ensuring consistent management and mitigation across the School.
|
|
|
Executive Committee |
Rule
Risk Probability Assessment
The likelihood of each risk materialising within the following 12 months (24 months for strategic risks) should be regularly assessed on a scale of 1 to 5:
- Rare - Highly unlikely, but still some remote possibility of materialising.
- Unlikely - Possible but quite improbable and not expected.
- Plausible - Reasonably conceivable to materialise.
- Likely - Quite probable and expected to occur.
- Impending - Highly likely or almost certain to materialise.
|
|
|
Executive Committee |
Rule
Granular Impact Assessment
The potential maximum impact of every risk, should it materialise, should be assessed in the following categories:
- Academic: Impact on teaching effectiveness and learning outcomes.
- Staff: Impact on working practices, employment or employee experience.
- Student experience: Impact on student satisfaction and overall experience.
- Financial: Impact on budgets, financial viability and sustainability of the organisation.
- Reputation: Impact on the external approval of the School and the credibility of its awards.
Rating the potential impact in each aspect individually helps to ensure that impact assessments are carried out thoroughly and with good granularity. It also enables more insightful and detailed reporting and governance intelligence.
|
|
|
Executive Committee |
Rule
Risk Impact Rating
The impact of each risk should be rated in each category on a scale of 1 to 5, taking into account any existing mitigating controls and assurances already present to mitigate the impact of the risk should it materialise:
- Very low
- Low
- Moderate
- High
- Severe
The rating should be selected based on the most credible and probable worst-case, given the available information, rather than simply a best-case or worst-case scenario.
|
|
|
Executive Committee |
Rule
Academic Impact Rating
For every risk, the maximum academic impact, should it materialise, should be rated as either of the following:
- Very low - No reduction in learning or teaching quality, student satisfaction, or award quality.
- Low - No discernible impact on learning or teaching quality, student satisfaction, or award quality.
- Moderate - Impact on learning or teaching quality, student satisfaction, or award quality that can be resolved without impacting student retention, progression, or success.
- High - Material but manageable impact on learning or teaching quality, student satisfaction, or award quality that can be resolved without impacting student retention, progression, or success.
- Severe - Significant and unmanageable impact on learning or teaching quality, student satisfaction, or award quality that can be resolved without impacting student retention, progression, or success.
|
|
|
Executive Committee |
Rule
Staff Impact Rating
For every risk, the maximum impact on staff or working practices, should it materialise, should be rated as either of the following:
- Very low - Small modifications necessary to how tasks are completed.
- Low - Adjustments to working practices or modifications to staff roles.
- Moderate - Potential changes to employment positions which may require formal processes.
- High - Formal change processes to manage potential employment issues, including the risk of redeployment, or redundancies.
- Severe - Possibility of critical skills/personnel not being available or needing to downsize staff through redundancies.
|
|
|
Executive Committee |
Rule
Student Experience Impact Rating
For every risk, the maximum impact on the overall student experience, should it materialise, should be rated as either of the following:
- Very Low - No noticeable change to the student's overall campus life, access to resources, engagement opportunities, or sense of belonging.
- Low - Minimal disruptions to certain aspects of student life, but the overall experience remains largely unchanged. Temporary inconveniences might be experienced, but they don't significantly detract from the holistic student journey.
- Moderate - Changes that can be felt in specific areas of the student experience, such as in extracurricular activities, campus facilities, or support services. However, with proper interventions, the impact can be mitigated, ensuring a continuity of the student experience.
- High - Substantial disruptions that might lead to students reconsidering their choice of institution or course of study. This could include extensive limitations in campus resources, lack of access to essential services, or severe disruptions in communal and social activities. Immediate action would be required to ensure student retention and satisfaction.
- Severe - Drastic changes to the student experience where the essence of campus life, culture, or sense of community is lost. There might be long-term repercussions, affecting the reputation of the institution, with potential drops in enrolment rates or student recommendations. Major strategic interventions would be necessary to restore trust and rectify the situation.
|
|
|
Executive Committee |
Rule
Financial Impact Rating
For every risk, the maximum financial impact, should it materialise, should be rated as either of the following:
- Very low - Little to no effect on budgets
- Low - An effect on one or more budgets that is manageable within those budget(s).
- Moderate - Financial consequences to the budget or budgets involved, which can be managed by underspending in unaffected budgets.
- High - Financial repercussions that require the use of cash reserves, in-year transfers from unaffected budgets, or, transitional funding from external sources.
- Severe - Significant financial losses we can only address through external funding.
|
|
|
Executive Committee |
Rule
Reputation Impact Rating
For every risk, the maximum reputational impact, should it materialise, should be rated as either of the following:
- Very low - No outside opposition or disapproval projected.
- Low - Some external criticism that is unlikely to be significant enough to cause reputational damage.
- Moderate - External criticism of the School that it is within our power to address or mitigate, thereby minimising the impact or degree of reputational damage.
- High - Potential external criticism of the School that could lead to substantial reputational damage.
- Severe - Negative press coverage and regulatory or governmental intervention due to significant national and international criticism.
|
|
|
Executive Committee |
Rule
Risk Overall Impact Rating
Based on the granular impact assessment, the overall impact rating of each risk will be calculated (automatically by the AGS) based on the following weighted formula:
(3 x Academic + 2 x Student experience + Staff + Financial + Reputation) / 8
This formula is to emphasise the School's strategic prioritisation of the student's interests and wellbeing in our risk management and prioritisation.
|
|
|
Executive Committee |
Rule
Risk Overall Score
An overall score shall be calculated (automatically by the AGS) for each risk based on the following formula:
(Probability of materialising) X (Overall impact rating)
Since each factor is on a scale of 1 to 5, the overall score will be on a scale of 1 to 25, labelled as:
Operational:
- Very low (1 to 3)
- Low (4 to 6)
Strategic:
- Medium (8 to 10)
- High (12 to 16)
- Very high (Over 16)
|
|
|
Department Directors |
Rule
Systematic Risk Mitigation and Monitoring
The School must systematically mitigate risks by documenting the following in the risk register:
- Prevention: Measures to reduce the likelihood of risk materialisation.
- Alleviation: Measures to minimise adverse effects if the risk occurs, such as backup plans.
- Plans: Current and future steps to improve risk scores.
- Target Score: Expected risk rating (red, amber, green) after mitigation.
Departmental directors, in support of the Quality and Audit Committee, must routinely monitor and use the risk register in their operations and regularly report on risks and mitigation strategies to the Executive Committee.
This structured approach ensures risks are effectively controlled, minimised, and reported, enabling proactive management and safeguarding the School’s objectives.
|
|
|
Audit Committee |
Rule
Responsibilities and Meetings of the Quality and Audit Committee
The Quality and Audit Committee will meet at least three times a year, aligned with key dates in the operating cycle. Its responsibilities, as outlined in the Governance Structure Statement, include:
- Reviewing and reporting on the School’s internal control, mitigation systems, and risk management processes.
- Reviewing and reporting on insurance and other risk management mechanisms.
- Advising the Board of Governors and other bodies on quality and compliance matters.
- Overseeing, reviewing, and reporting on the Strategic and Operational Risk Registers.
- Reviewing and reporting on the integrity of financial statements, formal financial announcements, and communications with the Office for Students.
- Reviewing and advising on the effectiveness of internal and external audit functions.
- Reviewing and advising on legal and regulatory compliance.
- Reviewing and advising on ethical standards compliance.
- Reviewing and reporting on the operational efficacy of Health and Safety arrangements.
- Investigating, resolving, and reporting on alleged ethical or other breaches involving the Executive Committee or Academic Board, while breaches by other principal bodies are addressed by the Board of Governors.
- Advising on the appointment and removal of accountants and auditors.
- Advising on annual financial statements, performance, and reports.
- Investigating and reporting on suspected financial irregularities.
These structured responsibilities ensure the School maintains robust governance, risk management, and compliance, safeguarding institutional integrity and accountability. Regular meetings allow the Committee to effectively oversee and advise on critical aspects of the School’s operations.
|
|
|
Department Directors |
Rule
Project Risk Management and Reporting
Projects may require their own risk register and management.
When proposing any substantial new initiative or change to ongoing activities, departmental directors must:
- Identify and assess potential risks.
- Maintain a project-specific risk register. If the project impacts the entire School, include these risks in the School's risk register.
- Regularly submit a summary report to:
- Executive Committee
- Quality and Audit Committee
- Board of Governors (only if strategic, sensitive, or high-impact risks are identified)
This ensures that all significant risks associated with new projects are effectively managed and communicated, safeguarding the School’s overall stability and strategic objectives.
|
|
|
Executive Committee |
Rule
Strategic and Operational Risk Management
The Executive Committee will identify, assess, and mitigate strategic and operational risks affecting the School, including student protection, using the risk register. This may involve collaboration with the Board of Governors and the Quality and Audit Committee, particularly for risks related to key partners and regulatory bodies.
The Board of Governors will review risk management at each meeting, with the Executive Committee and Quality and Audit Committee reporting on risks.
This ensures a proactive approach to risk management, safeguarding the School’s strategic objectives and compliance with regulatory requirements. Regular reporting to the Board of Governors enhances oversight and informed decision-making.
|
|