1.1. Phase overview
This phase sets the foundation for mergers or strategic transformations requiring legal and governance restructuring. It involves deep internal reflection, environmental scanning and the articulation of a compelling shared vision that anticipates governance implications and legal structure options. Institutions will need to assess their own strategic priorities, risks and readiness before and while engaging with potential partners.
The goal is to move from reactive survival strategies to proactive, values-led transformation.
Decision shaping will be initiated through exploring roles and responsibilities of all involved parties and includes four milestones:
- institutional self-assessment
- environmental scanning and scenario planning
- shared vision development
- strategic options evaluation.
Learning from sector experience highlights risks in this phase and their likely mitigations.
| Risk | Mitigation |
|---|---|
| Misaligned visions | Engage key interested/impacted parties early in creating a vision which speaks to their needs, interests and expectations |
| Assuming a solution | Carry out effective internal reflection and environment scanning |
| Lack of clarity re strategy | Employ scenario planning and stress testing |
| Uncertainty re regulatory matters | Ensure early engagement with regulatory authorities |
| Cultural resistance | Ensure values-led visioning and shared options development |
Decision shaping is aligned with the Advance HE Governor Competencies Map and the Framework for Leading in HE.
| Governor Competencies Map | Framework for Leading in HE |
|---|---|
| Strategic thinking Risk oversight Inclusive culture | Values-led leadership Boundary setting Self-awareness Systems thinking Wellbeing and sustainability |
1.2. Decision spectrum
There will be several decision points that will underpin progress through this phase. Some will be binary while others might be more emergent, with decisions being made on a spectrum. Examples of decisions in this phase include:
| Binary | Emergent |
|---|---|
| Merge or not Strategic alignment Legal structure Governance model Degree-awarding powers | What form could collaboration take? Academic, operational, values-based and cultural compatibility Brand identity and naming How much resource will be needed (people and financial) |
1.3. Key questions
Key questions to explore in decision shaping include:
| Board members | Leadership teams | Together |
|---|---|---|
| What oversight is required to ensure legal compliance and accountability? What assumptions underpin our current strategy? How do we ensure our vision is future-proof, inclusive and sustainable from an economic, social and environmental perspective? Are we equipped to scrutinise strategic options meaningfully? | What are the needs, interests and expectations of internal and external interested/impacted parties? What information, data and insights are we using and how robust and credible are they? | What does success look like for students, staff and society? Whose knowledge and information is guiding decision-making? Are inherited legacies and hierarchies inhibiting the conversation? How do we ensure our vision resonates across legacy cultures? How do we balance optimism with realism in visioning? What risks are we willing to take to achieve transformation? What internal capabilities do we need to lead transformation? How does our governance system enable inclusive decision-making? |
1.4. Insights and learning
You can find out more about how other HEIs have approached this phase through the following case studies:
- Anglia Ruskin University / Writtle College Merger: Vision rooted in preserving specialist provision and regional skills. Insights from the Anglia Ruskin University merger (Advance HE)
- Health Sciences University Merger: Clear sighted governance and empathetic leadership. Insights from the Health Sciences University merger (Advance HE)
- City St George’s – focus on mission and strategic intent as a guide. Insights from the City St George’s, University of London merger (Advance HE)
- IoE and UCL: Complementary academic endeavour. UCL and IoE confirm merger date (Times Higher Education)
- Bath–Plymouth Pharmacy Collaboration: Vision aligned with NHS workforce needs. Universities join forces to tackle pharmacist shortage in South West England (The Pharmacist)
Phase 1 – Establishing shared purpose, roles, ways of working and communication
In this early ‘shaping phase’, it is critical to co-create a shared understanding of the purpose of the proposed transformation, to clarify roles and responsibilities across governance and leadership, and agree upon how everyone involved will work together. Creating this shared understanding will include setting expectations for how decisions will be made and by whom, how power and authority will be exercised, how communications will flow, and how diverse perspectives will be welcomed and integrated into thinking. It is necessary to agree intended ways of working, ensuring foundations are set for a psychologically safe, enabling, inclusive and effective working culture throughout the strategic transformation process.
Overview of activities
Shared purpose clarification
Define a shared purpose statement to control the ‘shaping phase’. This ensures alignment and focus and helps those involved understand their contribution.
Role clarity and terms of reference
Co-create distinct responsibilities for the governing body, executive leadership and any working groups and subcommittees, including those providing information, data and insights to inform decision shaping. This prevents duplication, confusion, or overreach, and supports accountability and trust.
Ways of working agreements
Co-create principles governing how all parties will work together, including how disagreement will be handled, how decisions will be made, and how power will be shared. This clarifies boundaries to build confidence for those with responsibilities, builds psychological safety, prevents groupthink and supports inclusive, values-led dialogue.
Communication and engagement protocols
Agree information sources and scope, how information will be provided and shared, how feedback will be gathered, and how updates will be communicated internally and externally including alignment across respective institutions. This ensures transparency, consistency and responsiveness across interested/affected groups and builds trust in data and information.
In learning from sector experience, some risks related to this phase have been identified, alongside mitigations.
| Risk | Mitigation |
|---|---|
| Groupthink or performative consensus | Use structured dialogue agreements and invite challenge through different channels |
| Power imbalances or exclusion | Apply power mapping and rotate facilitation roles |
| Communication breakdown | Develop a shared communications plan and feedback loop |
| Role confusion or overreach | Use clear terms of reference and revisit them regularly Create a bespoke scheme of delegated authorities linked to the ways of working agreements |
| Insufficient resource allocated to this phase and/or capabilities deficits | Model potential resource needs early Allow for back-fill arrangements to enable key staff to engage fully with the transformation Invest in key staff to ensure they are capable of meeting their obligations at this and future phases of the process |
Colleagues will have different roles to enact at this milestone.
| Board members | Leaders | Together |
|---|---|---|
| Clarify governance responsibilities and boundaries Ensure scrutiny of group processes and decision-making | Define leadership roles and operational responsibilities Facilitate inclusive participation and communication | Agree shared purpose, working principles and communication protocols Commit to ongoing reflection and adjustment |
A range of skills, knowledge and experience will be required. Explore the following questions to ascertain strengths and gaps within the group.
- What facilitation, governance, or group development expertise is needed to support this phase?
- Are there gaps in our understanding of inclusive practice, psychological safety, or power dynamics?
- Is there a need or an opportunity to co-opt facilitators, EDI leads, or community representatives to help shape how we work together?
- How do we support individual leaders as they work through the ambiguity, uncertainty and professional and emotional dynamics that inevitably arise during the various phases of transformation?
Decision spectrum
There will be several decision points that will underpin progress. Some will be binary while others might be more emergent, with decisions being made on a spectrum. Examples of decisions in the decision-shaping milestone include:
| Binary | Emergent |
|---|---|
| Agreement on terms of reference Communication channels Decision-making protocols | What legacy to preserve or evolve Cultural compatibility and cultural readiness for change Role in civic and regional systems |
Key questions
Key questions that will be explored in this milestone include:
| Board members | Leadership teams | Together |
|---|---|---|
| What is our oversight role? How do we ensure governance supports inclusive dialogue? How do we model constructive challenge? How do we provide clear and unambiguous authority and support to leaders to execute transformation? | How do we deliver on our leadership role in shaping institutional culture? How do we plan for and, in time, curate an environment where students and colleagues are able to share ideas and educational philosophies and help envision a more vibrant and sustainable academic organisation? How do we create space for diverse voices? How do we ensure communication is clear and responsive? How do we ensure that data, information and analysis and insights are robust and credible? | Do we remain clear on our shared purpose? What principles will guide how we work together? How do our governance processes enable inclusive decision- making? How will we handle disagreement and discomfort? How will we know if our ways of working can support transformation? How will we learn from interested/impacted parties about their needs, expectations and perceptions as we shape organisational transformation? |
The following tools and techniques can support strategic doing; structuring and focusing the discussions on what is most important.
- Shared purpose canvas
- Role and responsibility matrix and/or schemes of delegated authorities.
- Dialogue agreements template
- Power and participation mapping tool
- Communication planning canvas
- Feedback loop tracker
Phase 1 Milestone 1 – Institutional self-assessment
The outcome of this milestone is to develop a grounded picture of strategic position, cultural readiness, values alignment, financial sustainability and governance capacity before shaping decisions that will alter an institution’s legal form, or structure, or instruments of governance.
Overview of activities
Undertake a candid and deliberate process of institutional self-assessment. Be open about the circumstances of the institution. Approach projections, scenario planning and stress testing about the future with healthy scepticism. Ensure assumptions are shared and scrutinised widely to secure the widest possible understanding of the likely achievement of targeted outcomes.
Strategic Identity Mapping
Explore institutional history, mission and future trajectory. This includes recognising legacy strengths, civic responsibilities and areas where transformation is needed. This will help clarify what must be preserved and why and what can evolve.
Cultural Readiness Review
Consider the institution’s cultural readiness for change. In so doing, recognise that institutional culture is reflected in campus climates, educational philosophies, daily operations and the values, objectives and achievements that matter to people Recognise that change will impact on current students, students in transition and staff and anticipate necessary mitigations. Understand that alumni will also be invested in change.
Cultural readiness and risk appetite within the governing body will also need to be evaluated. Explore the capacity for participatory governance and inclusive leadership to support and design inclusive, values-led processes.
Question the extent to which all parties can engage openly and with confidence about the institution and its contexts. Assess psychological safety among Board members, the Executive, the wider workforce and wider interested/impacted parties; psychological safety means colleagues can speak up, ask questions and raise concerns without fear of blame or negative consequences.
Financial Sustainability Scan
Review the institution’s financial health, its cost structures, credit arrangements and covenants, endowment controls and investment capacity as these may affect its capacity for change.
Values Audit
Examine how the institution’s values shape its practice, especially around inclusion, social care and justice. Planned-for transformation must be anchored in lived values, not only strategic goals.
Capability Review
It is important to understand the depth and breadth of experience and capability that exists within governance and leadership. This could also include aptitude, behaviours and mindset for change.
Map the skills of Board members and leaders. Identify gaps in understanding about structural transformation and the legal aspects of change. Identify where Board members’ careers have prepared them for significant transformation or merger.
In learning from sector experience, several risks related to this milestone have been identified, alongside possible mitigations.
| Risk | Mitigation |
|---|---|
| Lack of clarity on shared purpose | Employ structured identity mapping addressing the institution’s mission, vision and strategy Co‑create workshops |
| Misalignment between Board members and leaders | Hold joint sessions to address institutional targets and the extent and pace of change |
| Overlooking cultural readiness for change | Adopt a ‘readiness rubric’ to evaluate the institution’s preparedness for, and experience of, change. Ensure early engagement with staff and students on the cultural challenges associated with change |
| Financial blind spots | Employ external/independent validation of financial assumptions. Use dashboards to assist with transparency |
| A deficit in the quality of information and/or data | Establish criteria for the rigorous review of data and information addressing bias in the selection of data, and information standards and consistency Ensure an environment where challenge is welcomed |
| Entrenched optimism bias | Employ a rigorous evidence and data-led approach to critical self-reflection and seek external/independent validation of opinions and rationales |
| Lack of appropriate understanding, skills, capability and mindset for the journey ahead | Skills and attributes audit for governing body and executive teams Identification of key partners for change. This may include legal, regulatory, strategic or any specialist expertise needed to get to day one legal transformation or merger. |
Colleagues will have different roles to enact at this milestone.
| Board members | Leaders | Together |
|---|---|---|
| Ensure the primacy of the institution’s charitable objectives or corporate purpose/fiduciary duties in all considerations Provide strategic scrutiny Challenge assumptions, data, information and conclusions | Offer insight into operational realities, culture and ambition. Provide clear data, information and recommendations, grounded in operational realities and linked to mission, vision and strategy | Co‑create a shared understanding of institutional identity and readiness Ensure debate and decisions are grounded in reality |
A range of skills, knowledge and experience will be required during this milestone. Explore the following questions to ascertain strengths and gaps within the group.
- Do we have expertise in financial sustainability and risk modelling?
- How can we assure the quality of our data and information?
- Are we missing voices with lived experience of our institutional culture?
- Do we need external facilitation for governance capability review?
Decision spectrum
There will be several decision points that will underpin progress through this phase. Some will be binary while others might be more emergent, with decisions being made on a spectrum. Examples of decisions in this milestone include:
| Binary | Emergent |
|---|---|
| Baseline financial viability thresholds Initial fit to public purpose and mission Go/no‑go to have discussions with other institutions and explore merger/legal‑structural change | Legacy to preserve/evolve civic/regional/specialist subject role Readiness to centre lived values in transformation Degree of capability building required |
Key questions
Key questions that will be explored in this milestone include:
| Board members | Leadership teams | Together |
|---|---|---|
| What assumptions underpin our current strategy, and where are they fragile? Are we equipped to scrutinise our readiness for legal/governance change? How do we ensure decisions reflect the public good and regulatory compliance? What assurance do we have about alignment with organisational objectives? | What legacy are we protecting, and why? How do we demonstrate our values in our leadership and culture? What internal capabilities do we need to lead transformation? What external capabilities and support will be needed, and when? | What does ‘doing good’ look like in our context -and who defines it? Whose knowledge is being centred in this assessment? How do we create conditions for people to thrive during transformation? |
The following tools and techniques can support strategic doing; structuring and focusing the discussions on what is most important.
- Strategic identity canvas
- SWOT + values overlay
- SOARS mapping (Strengths, Opportunities, Aspirations, Results, Sustainability)
- Governance capability matrix
- Cultural readiness rubric
- Financial sustainability dashboard
Phase 1 Milestone 2 – Environmental scanning and scenario planning
The outcome of this milestone is to understand external forces (regulatory, competition, funding, political, societal) and test institutional options against plausible futures to shape the feasibility, urgency and design of merger or governance/legal transformation.
Overview of activities
System mapping
Identify established and potential institutional strengths and the correlation of these with government priority agendas across health, climate, civic life and industrial landscapes. This reveals leverage points for transformation and helps ensure change is informed by and aligned with national/regional priorities and/or societal needs. Include real or perceived constraints, for example navigating complex regulatory contexts.
Scenario planning
Consider the impact of potential funding shifts and policy changes to strategic direction and/or on performance. This will help anticipate unintended consequences and will stress-test assumptions.
Equity lens review
Examine how current systems include or exclude individuals and the interventions the institution can take to address this. This will support an inclusive approach to future design, ensuring transformation is socially just.
In learning from sector experience, several risks related to this milestone have been identified, alongside possible mitigations.
| Risk | Mitigation |
|---|---|
| Misread policy shifts, or a lack of regular environment and policy scanning | Horizon scan on a regular basis Proactively manage relations with regulatory authorities Develop contingency planning |
| Underestimate regulatory complexity | Develop regulatory readiness checklists Ensure early engagement with regulatory authorities Offer regulators insights into proposed scenarios Hold legal briefings |
| Perception that external hurdles (regulatory, funding, competition) are insurmountable, leading to early loss of confidence or premature disengagement | Frame external challenges as solvable through early dialogue, partnership building and scenario planning Engage regulators and external bodies early as partners in shaping feasible options, not as sources of constraint. Emphasise purpose, values and desired outcomes to maintain strategic focus and avoid ‘barrier‑driven’ decision‑making |
| Lack of attention to equity implications | Employ equity diagnostics to target and manage disparities in understanding the impact of change on all parties Ensure broad-based consultation across all invested/impacted parties |
| Fragmented interested/impacted parties’ engagement | Employ influence grids to target engagement Coordinate communication, using a broad range of channels |
| A lack of robust challenge and scrutiny of scenarios | Consider external facilitation of governance and leadership discussions to achieve balanced scrutiny and robust evaluation of options |
Colleagues will have different roles to enact at this milestone.
| Board members | Leaders | Together |
|---|---|---|
| Ensure the alignment of mission, vision and strategy with regulatory expectations and public interest Challenge strategic assumptions and scrutinise options through regulatory and public interest lenses | Assess strategic opportunities and risks through regulatory and public interest perspectives Prepare detailed engagement plans for working alongside regulatory bodies | Locate potential and established correlations between external policy and the institution’s charitable/educational purpose, academic and wider strategic objectives Align institutional strategy to regional and societal need and civic responsibility Prepare regulatory authorities for the likelihood of change, ensuring they are aware of the strategic and financial context |
A range of skills, knowledge and experience will be required during this milestone. Explore the following questions to ascertain strengths and gaps within the group.
- What relationships do we have with relevant regulators to inform our thinking?
- Do we have access to policy advisors or legal counsel for regulatory complexity?
- Are we engaging those with insight into equity and civic responsibility?
- Do we need external scenario planning facilitation?
- How confident can we be about our assessment of opportunities and risks?
Decision spectrum
There will be several decision points that will underpin progress through this milestone. Some will be binary while others might be more emergent, with decisions being made on a spectrum. Examples of decisions in this milestone include:
| Binary | Emergent |
|---|---|
| How to navigate regulatory compliance planning and the establishment of associated risk thresholds Responses to established funding constraints What does baseline legal and financial feasibility look like for the process to progress? | Are we ready to take opportunities as they present to secure the support of regulators for change? How can we work with regulators to accelerate the institution’s mission-specific/disciplinary/regional/civic engagement leadership and stewardship roles through change? How should we locate the institution’s future positioning within sector networks? |
Key questions
Key questions that will be explored in this milestone include:
| Board members | Leadership teams | Together |
|---|---|---|
| Are we fulfilling our purpose in the context of students, staff and society? Are we cognisant of the external landscape? What risks are we overlooking in regulatory and policy shifts? How do we ensure governance remains responsive to systemic change? | How do we position ourselves within international (if relevant), national and regional strategies? What systems are we part of, and how do we influence them? Where are the opportunities to lead through collaboration? | Where can we shift power and redistribute resources to advance equity and shared accountability? Whose knowledge is being centred in scenario planning? How do we ensure transformation is regenerative, not extractive? |
The following tools and techniques can support strategic doing; structuring and focusing the discussions on what is most important:
- System mapping template
- Policy and power landscape map
- Regulatory readiness checklist
- Equity lens diagnostic
- Interested/impacted parties influence grid
- Scenario planning toolkit
Phase 1 Milestone 3 – Shared vision development
The outcome of this milestone is to co‑create a compelling, inclusive and strategic vision that guides transformation and invites interested/impacted parties into a shared future and provides the foundation for communications and cultural integration. At this stage, the work may be carried out within a small, confidential group, with the analysis necessary incomplete until wider voices and expertise are brought in.
Overview of activities
Narrative design
Use storytelling, metaphor and visualisation to build a shared lexicon and emotional resonance to communications. This creates coherence, builds trust and helps people see themselves in the future.
Visioning workshops
Facilitate inclusive sessions to co-create a compelling, values-led vision. This helps to ensure that the vision is grounded and shaped by those it affects. A clear vision, shared by both parties, will have both upsides and downsides and result in risks which will need to be mitigated and communicated.
Confidentiality
Agree confidentiality arrangements for this early-stage work, recognising that the tight working group will generate only a partial analysis until wider expertise can be involved post MoU.
Lexicon builder
Agree shared language, tone and imagery. This supports consistent messaging and cultural integration.
Wellbeing and purpose mapping
Consider how staff will be able to contribute productively at the next phase and thrive as part of the opportunity.
Vision to strategy mapping
Link aspirational vision to concrete strategic goals, metrics and transformation outcomes. This will help ensure the vision is actionable and measurable.
In learning from sector experience, several risks related to this milestone have been identified, alongside possible mitigations.
| Risk | Mitigation |
|---|---|
| Confidentiality requirements limiting who can participate in early visioning, leading to incomplete analysis and unrealistic expectations of what can be achieved before the MoU stage. | Agree explicit confidentiality arrangements within the group Acknowledge that early scenarios and visioning will be partial and subject to deeper analysis once wider expertise can be engaged. Plan for staged widening of participation as soon as confidentiality constraints allow. Communicate clearly that incompleteness is expected at this stage, and is not a failure of process |
| Lack of clarity on preferred model | Use structured appraisal criteria and iterative shortlists Ensure that the shared lexicon fits with the legal reality of the preferred model |
| Power imbalances between partners | Co-create governance principles Procure independent facilitation |
| Interested/impacted parties’ disengagement | Emphasise participation by holding targeted workshops Ensure transparency and consistency across communications Maintain a steady pattern of engagement Build on established cultural identities, values and beliefs Balance pace of change with sufficient time for relationship building but maintain momentum and meet milestones or deadlines |
| Overlooking long-term risks | Repeatedly review scenario planning and use resilience frameworks Avoid optimism bias, with clear articulation of the downsides in visioning to capture all mitigations |
| Lack of alignment between public discourse and internal decision-making | Ensure all communications are mapped back to the rationale for change Undertake independent testing of messages for interested/impacted parties to ensure their alignment with each other and the strategic plan Provide rationales for deadlines and be transparent about challenges around timelines |
| Lack of aligned risk appetite across all interested/impacted parties | Risk appetite mapping across the governing body and executive team involved Create protocols around how this will be handled |
Colleagues will have different roles to enact at this milestone.
| Board members | Leaders | Together |
|---|---|---|
| Validate rationale and vision Ensure alignment with public interest and strategic goals | Engage impacted/ interested parties and facilitate co‑creation Communicate rationale and vision | Balance confidentiality with transparency by planning how and when the circle of participation widens as the process progresses Own the vision, champion it and model its values Test the plausibility of projected outcomes repeatedly |
A range of skills, knowledge and experience will be required during this milestone. Explore the following questions to ascertain strengths and gaps within the group.
- Do we have creative and narrative expertise to build emotional resonance and establish trust?
- Are we including diverse voices in visioning workshops?
- Do we need external support for lexicon building and cultural integration?
Decision spectrum
There will be several gates and decisions that will underpin progress through this milestone. Some will be binary while others might be more emergent, with decisions being made on a spectrum. Examples of decisions in this milestone include:
| Binary | Emergent |
|---|---|
| Approval of the vision The establishment of strategic alignment gates The recasting of governance instruments and constitutional arrangements Confirmation of a communications spine to give order to future communications | The narrative, lexicon and tone The development of pathways supporting cultural integration The formation of new identities The development of methodologies for co‑creation with students, staff, and partners |
Key questions
Key questions that will be explored in this milestone include:
| Board members | Leadership teams | Together |
|---|---|---|
| Does this vision reflect our values, responsibilities and public purpose? Are we prepared to lead through uncertainty and cultural integration? How will we measure success and hold ourselves accountable? | What future are we inviting people into? How do we communicate hope, realism and agency in the vision? What does success feel like not just look like? Have we given sufficient prominence to people-related needs? | How do we ensure the vision is lived, not just stated? Whose knowledge and stories are shaping the vision? Do we have the right balance between discretion and openness? How do we embed the vision across governance, systems and culture? Have we given sufficient prominence in our thinking to people-related needs at this visioning stage? |
The following tools and techniques can support strategic doing; structuring and focusing the discussions on what is most important.
- Narrative co‑design framework
- Visioning workshop template
- Lexicon builder
- Wellbeing integration checklist
- Vision‑to‑strategy mapping tool
Phase 1 Milestone 4 – Strategic options evaluation
The outcome of this milestone is to explore and evaluate structural models for strategic transformation or merger. This includes assessing potential partner(s) fit, selecting preferred pathways for legally robust, values‑led transformation, and being clear on the implications of change for governance and legal structures.
Overview of activities
Options appraisal matrix
Evaluate potential models (eg federation, group structure, multi-university trust) against agreed criteria and red lines. This supports informed, transparent decision-making and helps surface trade-offs.
Partner identification and fit assessment
Identify complementary academic and financial strengths, heritage, social capital, student cultures and other hierarchies on which to build common objectives. Assess mission alignment, culture, equity commitments and civic synergies. Evaluate complementary portfolios and operational compatibility (including technology and systems) to ensure strategic fit.
Power and transparency imbalances
Consider established and potential power imbalances between (and within) institutions. Establish who holds decision-making power across organisations and evaluate levels of transparency across governance and leadership.
Risk and resilience planning
Use appreciative inquiry methodologies and reflections on past successes to evaluate potential structural models and employ systems thinking to assess the opportunity and risk horizon fully. These steps will support the development of organisational models that are sustainable long term.
Scenario stress-testing
Test preferred options against plausible futures. Anticipate unintended consequences and develop mitigation strategies.
In learning from sector experience, several risks related to this milestone have been identified, alongside possible mitigations.
| Risk | Mitigation |
|---|---|
| Lack of clarity on preferred model | Use structured appraisal criteria Employ iterative shortlists Include legal and regulatory considerations in the appraisal |
| Power and transparency imbalances between potential partners | Transparent governance principles Procure independent facilitation |
| Interested/impacted parties’ disengagement | Establish participatory workshops Ensure transparency in communications |
| Overlooking long-term risks | Repeated scenario plan Build resilience frameworks |
| Internal opposition to proposed partner(s) | Ensure people-centred and strategically aligned reasoning informs choices |
Colleagues will have different roles to enact at this milestone.
| Board members | Leaders | Together |
|---|---|---|
| Scrutinise options for merger or strategic transformation Assess the alignment of potential opportunities with institutional mission, vision and strategy Ensure transparency of decisions and recommendations Agree assurance levels for data and information | Facilitate the exploration of options Assess feasibility Recognise the importance of educational philosophies, student cultures and campus climates in assessing fit | Align institutional strategy with system-level transformation and civic responsibility Establish scope and boundaries for phase 2 decision-making and parameters for exit criteria |
A range of skills, knowledge and experience will be required during this milestone. Explore the following questions to ascertain strengths and gaps within the group.
- What expertise do we have in merger models and governance instruments from a technical and negotiation perspective?
- Are we including voices with experience in participatory design and equity?
- Do we need external validation for risk and resilience planning?
Decision spectrum
There will be several decision points that will underpin progress through this milestone. Some will be binary while others might be more emergent, with decisions being made on a spectrum. Examples of decisions in this milestone include:
| Binary | Emergent |
|---|---|
| Merger/collaborative model selection Partner compatibility thresholds Risk appetite Initial legal route feasibility Proceeding to formal exploration Exit parameters for withdrawal from negotiations | The balance of control between Board members and executive leaders The extent of cultural integration The extent of structural change required What phasing and transitional instruments will be required Mechanisms for transparency and for building trust |
Key questions
Key questions that will be explored in this milestone include:
| Board members | Leadership teams | Together |
|---|---|---|
| Which models best serve our mission and public interest? What risks are we willing to take, and what is non‑negotiable, and why? How do we ensure transparency and accountability in governance design? | What operational realities (people, finance, estates) must shape our choices? How do we build trust and cultural compatibility with potential partners? How do we design for dignity, belonging and shared purpose? Where are our information/data gaps and how do we fill them? | What does success look like and how will we know when it is achieved? How do we ensure trust and clarity in decision‑making? How do we embed equity and inclusion in structural choices? |
The following tools and techniques can support strategic doing; structuring and focusing the discussions on what is most important.
- Options appraisal matrix
- Partner fit assessment checklist
- Power mapping framework
- Risk and resilience planning canvas
- Scenario planning toolkit
