ID131 Repositioning Curriculum Design as a Strategic Institutional Capability

The Idea

To reposition curriculum design as a strategic institutional capability, embedded at the earliest stages of programme development process and sustained across the full programme lifecycle. Keele already has a well-established curriculum design function and robust programme approval processes, but currently, curriculum design expertise is initiated after the Full Business Case has been completed, where many of the programme features have been determined. 

By shifting activity upstream and providing structured, end-to-end support through development, implementation, and early delivery, curriculum design becomes a strategic function that integrates academic quality, market awareness, delivery feasibility, stakeholder insight, and innovation. Rather than supporting programme approval alone, curriculum design becomes a source of institutional intelligence that informs strategic decisions about what Keele offers, how programmes are delivered, and whether they are educationally and operationally sustainable. 

This strengthens and formalises the existing curriculum design function so it is more consistently enacted across a range of delivery contexts, including partnership and transnational education provision. 

Why This Idea Should Be Considered

Universities are operating in an increasingly complex environment shaped by partnership and internationalisation, evolving delivery models and heightened competition, and growing expectations from professional, statutory and regulatory bodies, external accreditation frameworks, and quality assurance processes. In this context, programme success is not determined at approval alone, but by the quality of early scoping, design, implementation, and ongoing viability. 

Currently, while significant strategic consideration already takes place through existing business case processes, programme development timelines and approval dates are often agreed before design complexity, resourcing requirements, and academic workload considerations are visible. This can lead to compressed design activity, limited opportunity for collaborative curriculum development, late-stage rework, and increased delivery risk during implementation and early delivery. A more strategically positioned curriculum design function enables earlier clarity, shared ownership of complexity, and more proportionate planning. 

Embedding specialist curriculum design expertise earlier and more consistently enables Keele to make better use of institutional expertise while improving educational quality, programme viability, operational sustainability, and confidence in new provision. Earlier consideration of curriculum architecture can also include discussions of staffing models, delivery approaches and resource requirements, which helps ensure programmes remain sustainable beyond initial approval.

How We Would Implement This Idea

Repositioned as a strategic institutional capability, curriculum design would support institutional decision-making throughout the programme lifecycle through the following functions: 

• Earlier curriculum design engagement within programme development processes, working with faculties and professional services to scope programme complexity, delivery models, implementation requirements, risk, timelines, and resourcing before design activity begins and approval scheduling are fixed (while acknowledging exceptions for strategic opportunities). This supports a more transparent and collaborative approach to programme initiation. 
• Specialist expertise in programme architecture, focusing on student experience and the Keele context. This would be supported by digital and AI-enabled tools to reduce administrative burden. 
• Structured, end-to-end design frameworks, providing clear stages, checkpoints, and expectations across the programme lifecycle, reducing variability and reliance on implicit processes. This includes protected time for academics and programme teams to focus on design. 
• Strategic stakeholder engagement (students, employers, professional services etc.) to ensure programme relevance, quality, and sustainability. This creates opportunities to meaningfully embed Students as Partners in programme design. 
• Lifecycle support beyond approval, identifying and mitigating risks to quality, student experience, and operational feasibility during implementation and early delivery, including situations where programme teams or delivery arrangements change following approval. 

The precise point of engagement would vary depending on programme context. For standard Keele provision this may align with the period between Initial and Full Business Case approval, whereas partnership and TNE developments would require a different approach. 

Although there would be an increase in the amount of curriculum design activity, earlier curriculum design engagement also enables programme development timelines to be planned more realistically alongside existing academic commitments, helping to reduce workload pressures during peak periods such as assessment and marking while creating the conditions for more thoughtful and collaborative curriculum design.  

At the same time, emerging AI tools provide opportunities to reduce administrative effort associated with curriculum development for colleagues, enabling specialist expertise to focus increasingly on higher-value strategic curriculum design. 

What Success Would Look Like

Success would be evidenced through: 

• Programmes that are better aligned with institutional strategy and demonstrate coherent, innovative curriculum design. 
• Increased confidence that programmes are appropriately scoped, resourced, sustainable, and ready for delivery at the point of approval. 
• Reduced late-stage redesign, rework, and approval delays through earlier specialist input. 
• Reduced implementation issues during first delivery. 
• Improved staff experience during programme development, with reduced workload concerns arising from compressed development and approval timelines. 
• Improved student experience and continuation outcomes for newly designed programmes. 
• Greater transparency, shared ownership, and consistency in curriculum development across Keele.