The MoU- means or end?

In an increasingly competitive higher education industry, 'Global' and 'International' have become cornerstone marketing themes around which education institutions position themselves to gain market access and attention.

International academic collaborations, often dubbed 'MoU' have emerged facilitators to this positioning strategy. It is no doubt that the mutual appetite to collaborate and work together has opened up multiple access points and opportunities for academic institutions and education aspirants. There is a widely accepted and positive view that international collaborations will enhance academic capability, achieve benchmark results for research and truly support international student aspirations.

Such is the eagerness, appetite and intent that forces many institutions to sign MoUs at strategic institution level, over a single meeting, if not two. The industry has become crowded with various 'me-too' collaborations on paper, with no substantial framework that govern their efficacy.The term itself seems to have lost its sheen and is now being mockingly viewed as a commodity in the international education market place.  

Of course the concept of MoUs itself is not at fault, and it is indeed an important aspect of the globalising education agenda. However, the framework against which they are inked needs closer attention. Most MoUs today, are largely a generic intent to 'work together', with terms like faculty-exchange, student-exchange  and research collaboration as forced inclusions to indicate some benefit to a host institution. It is also well-understood by the industry, that they enhance the local market profile of institutions as a differentiator, although it no longer remains so.

As a result, MoU signing ceremonies stomp media headlines while successful results of collaboration take a backseat.

So how does a collaboration stand out of the crowd, and stay true to the positioning strategy?

MoUs must become a well-structured compelling reason for institutions to work together and not a result of an intent. They would work better if the model of collaboration is not just based on two institutions, but between two value propositions who collaborate to create a new shared value, higher or enhanced from the original, and that which delivers measurable benefit (commercial and social).

To be successful a collaboration structure should adopt a simple framework wherein, "an international academic provider defines a Value Proposition (defined in terms of expertise it brings to table) to fill a Market Gap (how does it complement the local academic partner) and Address Opportunity (what need will the collaboration address) to Create Benefit (mutual commercial benefit AND societal benefit) that results in a New Shared Value and Growth (which both institution own)...restarting the Value Proposition cycle."

If collaborations lie within similar frameworks we might find them more efficient, in addition to justifying the financial resources that institutions and governments invest in facilitating them. Failure to structure an efficient framework to draft and measure an MoU, will continue to place it as a fast moving supplier good in the education market place... one-sided, wide, vague and insignificant.