Tag Archives: competition law

Competition Time

market stall

Last month the CMA (Competition and Markets Authority) published guidance on collaboration in higher education. This clarity about collaboration within the sector has to be welcomed. The law has not been changed, but the clarification can provide reassurance to the sector that looking to work together, sharing services and resources, as well as more formal collaboration is potentially possible. 

When the sector conversation started on collaboration there was some loud voices saying that we couldn’t collaborate because of the legal implications of competition law. The government and sector bodies were pushing the opportunities about working together and some parts of the sector were pushing back, talking about competition and the law. I wrote about this in a week note from February last year.

So, much so, that a discussion was had with the CMA and then the resulting guidance from them was published.

Part of me though does wonder, if the apprehension about collaboration was using the CMA and competition law as an excuse for not looking at collaboration rather than an actual reason not to collaborate. Will the new guidance mitigate that excuse now.

Was the rhetoric from the sector about Competition Law more about using it as an excuse to avoid the discussion and need to collaborate.

Now the guidance has been published, or will we now find that there is another reason why HE can’t collaborate?

Is it because they don’t want to collaborate?

Is it because they don’t know how to collaborate?

I think it’s a bit of both.

I was reminded of my experiences back in the 2000s when I was introducing technology into learning and teaching.

Often staff would tell me why they couldn’t or wouldn’t use learning technologies.

Where is the evidence etc???

When then presented with the evidence, it was then another reason, and then another reason…

Sometimes you had to listen, other times you need to dig a little deeper to understand why a person (or an organisation) doesn’t want to do something. The reason they give, may not be the actual reason why they aren’t going to do that thing.

The reality was, more my problem, I was presenting the introduction of learning technologies as a problem to be solved, the reality was technology was actually a solution, what I hadn’t done, was identified the problem. Learning technologies are a solution to problems, not the problem that needs to be solved.

market stall

We need to move away from excuses and obstacles, and move towards opportunities and solutions.

We need to remind ourselves that collaboration and sharing within higher education isn’t the problem we need to solve, it is in fact a solution (and not the only solution) to a (probably not well defined) problem. We need to be clear about the problem, define that problem, and then we can start thinking about possible solutions, one of which may be collaboration and sharing. I recently wrote about bridge building in helping understanding about problems and solutions.

Back in the day when I was designing aspects of the Digital Leadership programme I recognised that helping people to understand the differences between problems and solutions I would use a bridge building analogy.

If we are to work towards solving the solutions to the many challenges the higher education sector is facing then we need to stop just thinking about the problems with potential solutions, but focus on making those solutions work.

Competing collaborators – Weeknote #360 – 23rd January

This week I was working from home. There was lots of rain and wind. The space I had gave me time to write up the workshop I attended last week. The write up also included the work I have been doing and the meetings I have had in this space over the last two months. I also had a number of meetings on the work.

This week I also presented at a GÉANT webinar on education. My part was discussing about possible alignment with existing funded work by NRENs across Europe. There is real diversity across the NERNs in Europe about the services they provide for higher education and research. Some, like Jisc, provide a range of education based services, others go further and even provide VLEs. There are though many NRENS whose primary area is research. Obviously it’s not that education doesn’t happen in that country, but that responsibility is down to other organisations.

Image by rawpixel from Pixabay
Image by rawpixel from Pixabay

On Friday the CMA (Competition and Markets Authority) published guidance on collaboration in higher education. This clarity about collaboration within the sector has to be welcomed. The law has not been changed, but the clarification can provide reassurance to the sector that looking to work together, sharing services and resources, as well as more formal collaboration is potentially possible. Part of me though does wonder, if the apprehension about collaboration was using the CMA and competition law as an excuse for not looking at collaboration rather than an actual reason not to collaborate. This new guidance mitigates that excuse now.

Competition time – Weeknote #312 – 21st February 2025

Read this article: Competition law is a constraint to collaboration in HE but it need not be an impediment

While the notion of “radical collaboration” may present a potentially appealing way of responding to the challenges that the sector is facing, there is, however, a significant tension between the principles of such transformational integration and the principles of competition law. As things currently stand, many forms of greater integration between institutions, particularly in relation to curriculum mapping and sharing the provision of courses, would breach the competition rules.

I am no competition expert, nor am I a lawyer, but having read much of the advice and notes by the CMA on higher education, I have noted that the advice is very much focussed on consumer protection for students, and less about collaboration or collusion.

None of this is advice and is my opinions put here, mainly for me as a thinking exercise, but for informational purposes only.

If higher education is to collaborate more in the non-student realm, then in my view this would be unlikely to attract the attention of the CMA. If a university decides to outsource their IT support for example, this is not a competition or consumer law issue.

Where there is collaboration that would impact on the student, an institution could collaborate with other institutions for prospective students but could potentially come under consumer protection legislation if the changes would impact current students.

The CMA’s advice is very much aimed at the students already at university. There is also advice for institutions about treating prospective students fairly. Most of the published documents in relation to commitments from universities is in relation to universities policies on student non-tuition debt and academic sanctions. This kind of action is seen as an unfair contract between the student and the university.

Reflecting on this, I think the kind of issues that universities need to think about when it comes to student facing collaboration is what would be the impact on current students and what would be the impact on future prospective students.

The timeframe of any changes is critical. So, imagine a scenario where a number of institutions in a local area decide to collaborate on student provision. Instead of all the institutions delivering a course, only one will deliver it. If you implement that straight away, then you might find yourself in breach of the consumer protection law in relation to higher education as stated by the CMA. However if you undertook to do the implementation over three years so no impact on current students, though it would impact on prospective students. Obviously, there are also staff changes, but that is not a consumer protection issue.

There is very little on the CMA and Gov.uk website on educational collusion in relation to courses, but across the web there are many articles written by legal firms on the grounds where universities should be careful in relation to competition, for example this one. This article does provide a useful rule of thumb test.

The following four-step analytical framework should provide useful rule-of-thumb guidance on whether a particular arrangement might comply with the competition rules.

  • First, there is an objectively reasonable and justifiable aim that the participating universities are seeking to achieve.
  • Secondly, under the arrangement no unnecessary restrictions on competition are being imposed or accepted.
  • Thirdly, the proposed arrangement will lead to tangible benefits for students (or consumers of university services).
  • Finally, the proposed arrangement is the least restrictive means of achieving the objective and consumer benefits.

If the answers to these questions are all affirmative, then the arrangement may be compatible with the competition rules.

This is a complex issue, and these are just some thoughts from my reading around the subject.

group
Photo by Annie Spratt on Unsplash

We saw more announcements of job losses in UK higher education. Highlighting the financial challenges the sector is facing.

Bangor University to cut 200 jobs amid £15m savings

Bangor University aims to cut about 200 jobs to make savings of £15m, its vice-chancellor told staff in an email. Vice-Chancellor Edmund Burke said the drop in international students, a rise in costs and the UK government’s changes to national insurance had left them needing to make “unprecedented” changes.

The University of South Wales (USW) also announced on Wednesday it plans to cut 90 jobs.

Attended a meeting with the DfE looking at the Collaboration for a sustainable future report we published.

There was a lot of work kicking off the collaboration project we are doing with UUK.

Continuing with my writing draft for higher education State of Activity report.

Researching and reading up on data standards for teaching and learning, and corporate systems. Realising that I know a lot less than I thought I did in this space.

Had a call with HESCA to discuss collaboration presentation at HESCA 25.