The 海角视频’s higher education sector is facing extreme challenges that cannot simply be dismissed as many political leaders have recently done.
This view is perfectly echoed in new research from KPMG and Mills & Reeve that makes it clear that the current model - one that is rooted in squeezing more from those who have no more left to give - will not be enough to deal with the scale of economic, demographic, technological and political pressures now bearing down on universities.
According to the report Radical Collaboration whilst financial sustainability is the immediate concern of many universities, any reshaping of the higher education is not just simply about cost-cutting as we have seen in the past. In fact, any future collaboration between institutions now needs to be about reshaping the sector to deliver research excellence, high-quality teaching, broader access, and greater local and national economic impact.
Over the last eighteen months, we have all seen reports of universities wrestling with rising costs such as pay and pension obligations while tuition fee income remains frozen in cash terms and continues to be eroded by inflation. Immigration rules and the political climate around international students has also added to further uncertainty by forcing increased competition not only between institutions but from private providers, online learning platforms, and workplace-based alternatives.
Politicians are also insisting on greater value for money, stronger graduate outcomes, and deeper regional engagement, while the skills needs of the economy are shifting rapidly thanks to AI, sustainability imperatives, and changing labour markets. As a result, tinkering at the edges will simply not be enough for those in charge of universities and there will need to be radical changes in structure, costs, participation, and institutional form.
So what does effective collaboration look like for the university sector? First of all, there needs to be clarity of purpose that defines exactly why collaboration is being pursued, who will benefit, and how it aligns with broader priorities. It also needs leaders who are willing to put the sector’s long-term interests above institutional pride which may be difficult for some vice-chancellors to grasp properly. Then finally, the institution must move away from the reactive strategic style adopted by many senior managers towards increased investment in capacity, clear leadership appointments, and credible long-term planning.
But perhaps the strongest message in the report is that university councils need to diagnose their institutional needs and desired outcomes, assess options against agreed criteria, and consider the full range of collaborative approaches (including doing nothing). Only then should they design and execute their chosen model with a robust business case and integration plan.
Of course, there is a range of ways in this can be achieved starting with a “light touch” alliance model, where independent institutions share specific services, projects, or staff through agreements or joint ventures. Whilst this is flexible and quick to set up, the benefits depend heavily on goodwill between universities which may not always be the case.
Most Read
Establishing federations goes further with institutions retaining independence but ceding some governance to a parent body, enabling shared services, aligned programmes, and pooled resources. For example, education corporate groups can bring a parent company structure over a range of entities including universities, colleges, schools, and commercial arms whilst mergers between higher and further education can also align provision and widen participation
The traditional university merger where one institution absorbs another can offer financial efficiencies, expanded academic offerings, stronger research capacity, and greater regional reach. However, they also carry significant risks, including cultural clashes, loss of identity, integration challenges, reputational damage, and staff redundancies with success depending on clear strategic intent, strong leadership, and sensitive implementation that prioritises students, staff, and long-term sustainability.
As with any situation where organisations are facing closer collaboration, these approaches will only work under certain conditions and there needs to be early, honest conversations about purpose and red lines, quick wins to build momentum, aligned values, and clear communication with staff, students and stakeholders. The barriers to success are equally familiar to those who have worked in the university sector and include cultural resistance, misaligned missions, regulatory and legal complexity, and a lack of dedicated resources for integration.
Whilst much of the success of these approaches will depend on those leading universities, government must also have a role in creating the conditions for success by establishing merger support funds to help cover integration costs and developing clear legal frameworks for what are often complex and time-consuming processes.
Whether universities will be forced into such collaborations will become clearer at the end of September when the majority of recruitment for the next academic year will have been completed.
However, this is not about dealing with the short term and the clear conclusion of this report is that any collaboration cannot be a bailout strategy for failing institutions but must ensure a proactive approach that builds long-term sustainability and relevance. That means moving beyond the current mindset of “doing what we’ve always done, just more efficiently” and being willing to rethink the system itself.
Given this, the real question is whether the sector has leaders who are competent and capable or whether there needs to be more radical appointments to senior roles who will undertake tough conversations, develop new structures and, most important of all, who are prepared to put the future of students, communities, and the economy above institutional (and their own) self-interest.