Practical guide · Online higher education

Online Accreditation Guide

A structured approach for academics and faculty teams, whether you are extending an on-campus accreditation or making a new submission.

Section 7 of 10

Go to section

Partners and resourcing

If an online programme manager (OPM) or other partner is involved, the professional, statutory or regulatory body (PSRB) will want to see that your institution keeps control of academic standards. And if staff are not yet appointed, it will want a credible plan rather than names.

What to agree with a partner

Make sure to agree and document the following areas to ensure support for accreditation. Tick items off as you receive them; your progress is saved in this browser.

Your answers are saved in this browser only.

What the evidence says: partnerships

Research on university and OPM partnerships shows models vary widely, from full-service bundles to single unbundled services (Huijser et al., 2020). Studies of senior managers in universities and OPM companies found the two often justify the same partnership on different grounds: commercial scale on one side, public purpose on the other (Ivancheva et al., 2020).

Use it: make the division of responsibilities explicit, in writing, so the panel can see the institution owns academic standards whatever the commercial model.

Make it subject specific. Use the partner's evidence, but write the submission narrative yourself. Panels are accustomed to certain nomenclature and discipline-related information, and can tell when someone outside the subject has provided standard copy.

Resourcing when academics and tutors are not yet known

This is normal for new online programmes, especially where tutors are recruited per intake. PSRBs generally assess whether your staffing model is credible and assured, so evidence the model, not the names.

What to provide

Who is known: curricula vitae (CVs) for the programme lead, module leaders and anyone already confirmed.
Role profiles for every unappointed role, with essential criteria mapped to the PSRB's staffing requirements.
Numbers per intake: roles, full-time equivalent (FTE) or hours, and the ratio you will hold as numbers grow.
A recruitment timeline tied to your launch date, with an appoint-by date for each role.
Written approval to recruit from faculty management, such as a committee minute or letter.
Induction and quality assurance: training, moderation and observation before and during first teaching.
Contingency: who covers teaching if a role is not filled in time, or there are unexpected gaps.

How to answer at the panel

Say plainly which roles are not yet appointed.
Show the role profile and how its criteria meet the PSRB's requirements.
Show the approval to recruit and the appoint-by date.
Explain how you will onboard new staff before they teach.
Offer to report appointments to the PSRB once made.

Expect a condition asking you to confirm appointments. Plan for it, rather than treating it as a setback.

What the evidence says: staff capability

The Office for Students' (2022) review linked poor online teaching to teams without suitably qualified and experienced staff, found uneven digital teaching skills, and recommended sustained development for all staff aligned to the UK Professional Standards Framework.

Use it: make induction and development for new tutors a named part of your staffing plan, not an afterthought.

Avoid: naming people who have not agreed to teach, promising numbers or ratios faculty management has not approved, and ambiguous academic quality responsibilities.

Staffing plan builder

List every role, whether staff have been appointed or not. Copy the result into your submission as a starting table. Saved in this browser only.

Your answers are saved in this browser only.