Spreadsheet: 01b72d59-2944-4ea1-933c-a3bc78eb9928
Sheet: Sheet1

Unnamed: 0 | Unnamed: 1 | Unnamed: 2 | Unnamed: 3 | Unnamed: 4 | Unnamed: 5 | Unnamed: 6 | Unnamed: 7 | Unnamed: 8 | Unnamed: 9 | Unnamed: 10 | Unnamed: 11 | Unnamed: 12
ASTON UNIVERSITY - RISK ASSESSMENT OF COLLABORATIVE ARRANGEMENTS |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | REG/09/105(3)
How to [NAME] the assessment form.
1) | This Form has been designed to attempt to analyse and record key issues which must be determined in every application involving Collaborative Provision.
2) | Each question must be answered in order to provide a correct assessment
3) | For each question, match the most suitable answer and in the Likelihood Risk box enter the value.
4) | For each question determine the impactor relevance the Risk question is likely to have on [NAME] and in the Impact Risk box enter the value.
5) | The two scores are then multiplied together to provide a Risk score for each question.
6) | The Individual question risk scores are then totalled to provide a Total Risk Score for the proposal.
Risk Questions |  |  |  | Likelihood Risk Score Guide (with 1 being lowest risk and 4 the highest) |  | Likelihood Risk |  |  |  | Impact of Risk (with 1 being neglible to 4 being critical)* |  | TOTAL RISK SCORE
1 | Has [NAME] had a succesful collaboration with the partner previously?
 | Not relevant - 100% to be dealt with by Aston staff |  |  | (1)
 | At this level |  |  | (2)
 | At a lower level |  |  | (3)
 | No experience previously |  |  | (4)
 | Risk Score |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 0
2 | Status of partner
 | UK University/FE College |  |  | (1)
 | UK Private organisation |  |  | (2)
 | International state funded college/organisation |  |  | (3)
 | International private college/organisiation |  |  | (4)
 | Risk score |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 0
3 | Cultural and Educational Context
 | UK |  |  | (1)
 | European |  |  | (2)
 | Commonwealth |  |  | (3)
 | Other |  |  | (4)
 | Risk score |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 0
4 | Partners Resource
 | Large and well resourced |  |  | (1)
 | Small but well resourced |  |  | (2)
 | Small but probable resource restrictions |  |  | (3)
 | Limited resource |  |  | (4)
 | Risk score |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 0
5 | Role of Partner
 | Administrative only |  |  | (1)
 | [NAME] (distance or electronic)
 |  |  |  | (2)
 | Joint delivery of programme |  |  | (3)
 | Validation of Partner's programme |  |  | (4)
 | Risk Score |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 0
6 | Partners Experience in this field
 | Similar programmes exist with [NAME] or other HEI
 |  |  |  | (1)
 | Existing but at a lower level in similar subjects
 |  |  |  | (2)
 | Existing but at a lower level in different subjects
 |  |  |  | (3)
 |  |  |  | (4)
 | Risk Score |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 0
7 | Partners Staffing base in this subject Discipline
 | Stable |  |  | (1)
 | Small turnover |  |  | (2)
 | High Turnover but sound reasons |  |  | (3)
 | Unstable |  |  | (4)
 | Risk Score |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 0
Risk Questions |  |  |  | Likelihood Risk Score Guide |  | Likelihood Risk |  |  |  | Impact Risk |  | TOTAL RISK SCORE
8 | Partners predictions re course numbers
 | Achievable and sensible |  |  | (1)
 | Moderate |  |  | (2)
 | Potential for failure |  |  | (3)
 | Unrealistic |  |  | (4)
 | Risk Score |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 0
9 | Political Climate of Partners Location
 | (Based on FCO advice & Aston Knowledge)
 | Very Stable |  |  | (1)
 | Less Stable |  |  | (2)
 | Recent history of localised political/violent protests
 |  |  |  | (3)
 | Recent history of National political/violent protests
 |  |  |  | (4)
 | Risk score |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 0
10
 | Investment by [NAME] (in terms of both physical resource and staff time)
 | Minimal level of investment needed to both set up agreement and in ongoing costs |  |  | (1)
 | Medium level of investment needed |  |  | (2)
 | High level of either physical resource or staff time |  |  | (3)
 | Need for high level of investment in both staff time, in ongoing travel overseas for example, and in physical resource |  |  | (4)
 | Risk score |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 0
 |  |  | TOTAL RISK SCORE |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 0
 | Risk Assessment
 | TOTAL ASSESSED RISK SCORE |  |  |  |  | 0
 | Please add any comments on how you would manage the risks identified in this collaboration
 | *Example Impact Definitions
 | Level
 | IV | Critical |  |  |  |  | III | Moderate
 |  | • Major financial loss (greater than 25% of turnover) / major impact on funding |  |  |  |  | • High financial loss (greater than 10% but less than 25% of turnover) / | • High loss (greater than 10%, less than 25% of turnover)significant impact on funding
 |  | • Unable to deliver most or all strategic objectives |  |  |  |  |  | • Unable to deliver a number of strategic objectives
 |  | • Unable to undertake most or all operations |  |  |  |  |  | • Significant disruption to normal operations
 |  | • Major disruption to research activities |  |  |  |  |  | • Unable to undertake significant amount of research
 |  | • Extensive / multiple injuries |  |  |  |  |  | activities
 |  | • Serious breach of legislation leading to legal or |  |  |  |  |  | • Violence or threat or serious injury
 |  | disciplinary action |  |  |  |  |  | • Breach of legislation or regulatory frameworks requiring
 |  | • Coverage in national press and national TV reporting |  |  |  |  |  | corrective action
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | • Coverage in national / local press
 | II | Marginal
 | • Medium financial loss (greater than 1% but less than 10% of turnover) / | Medium loss (greater than 1% but less than 10% of turnover)some impact on funding |  |  |  |  | I | Negligible
 |  | • Unable to deliver a strategic objective |  |  |  |  |  | • Low loss (less than 1% of turnover) limited or no impact on funding
 |  | • Some disruption to normal operations |  |  |  |  |  | • No impact on delivering strategic objectives
 |  | • Inability to undertake certain research activities |  |  |  |  |  | • Insignificant disruption to operations
 |  | • Minor injury |  |  |  |  |  | • Limited or no impact on research activities
 |  | • Minor breach of legislation resolved internally |  |  |  |  |  | • No injuries
 |  | • Coverage in local press |  |  |  |  |  | • No breach of legislation
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | • No press coverage
 | REG/FIN/AH/SJD Feb09
 | Example Impact definitions (REG/09/107(1))
 | Level
 | IV | Critical
 |  | • Major financial loss (greater than 25% of turnover) / major impact on funding
 |  | • Unable to deliver most or all strategic objectives
 |  | • Unable to undertake most or all operations
 |  | • Major disruption to research activities