University Shared-Services Separation Architecture Director — Higher Education

The mandate

Two institutions will regain independent governance, yet students and researchers still traverse shared admissions, registry, disability support, ethics administration, libraries, purchasing and estates services. Existing service lists describe organisational ownership but not time-critical decisions around enrolment, progression, safeguarding or grant claims. A calendar-driven split could leave technically transferred services unable to support term start or sponsor deadlines.

The deliverable is an Institutional Services Separation Architecture covering user journeys, decision ownership, data and record custody, transitional services, Day-One safeguards, standalone capacity, academic-calendar dependencies, service exits and dispute resolution. It must distinguish services worth retaining jointly from those requiring accountable independence, without turning academic autonomy into avoidable operational duplication.

Milestone one at week four accepts student-and-research journeys; week eight closes regulatory and calendar constraints. Day-One decisions land at week twelve, nine service models at week sixteen and five campus plans at week twenty. Three term-start rehearsals finish by week twenty-six; the joint council accepts the architecture, service-exit pack and implementation backlog at week twenty-eight.

Acceptance requires client teams to resolve unseen admissions appeal, vulnerable-student referral, exam-board correction, research-ethics amendment, grant deadline and campus outage scenarios without ambiguous institution, record or funding ownership. Both accountable officers sign only when each critical service has measurable capacity, tested fallback, lawful data access, funded exit and no dependence on consultant memory.

The client provides governance decisions, student and research calendars, policies, service data, records maps, grant commitments, facility inventories, technology constraints and empowered institutional owners. Exclusions include academic judgement, safeguarding case decisions, legal or data-protection advice, student discipline, research-ethics approval, system implementation, workforce consultation, property transfer, procurement award and live term-start command.

Why this is external work

Shared-service leaders are protecting current students while future institutions negotiate cost, control and identity. A neutral higher-education operator can trace whole journeys, test calendar reality and facilitate contested service choices without becoming an academic decision-maker, safeguarding officer or advocate for either institution.

What you will own

• Trace student and researcher journeys across admissions, registry, support, ethics, grants, libraries, estates and purchasing.
• Convert shared functions into discrete decisions, evidence, capacity, records, owners, service levels and exit conditions.
• Define Day-One controls where governance separates before people, systems, contracts or facilities can follow.
• Design retained joint services with clear accountability, cost, dispute, performance and termination rules.
• Sequence five campus plans around admissions, examinations, term start, grant claims and critical estates work.
• Rehearse appeals, safeguarding referral, exam correction, ethics amendment, grant deadline and campus outage.
• Deliver the architecture, service catalogue, decision matrix, campus playbooks, rehearsal evidence and accepted backlog.

Candidate qualifications

• Architected university, public-service or complex knowledge-institution separations with multiple calendar-critical shared services.
• Understood admissions, registry, student support, research administration, estates and institutional-record interfaces.
• Designed transitional services and standalone capacity without interfering in academic or safeguarding decisions.
• Managed legal-entity and data boundaries while preserving complete student and research journeys operationally across institutions.
• Facilitated contested choices between institutions with different governance, identity, resources and risk positions.
• Transferred separation architecture through demanding client-led scenarios tied to critical term and external sponsor deadlines.

Non-negotiables

• Can lead nine Edinburgh laboratories and three term-start rehearsals within seven months.
• Direct institutional separation experience is required; generic shared-services design is insufficient.
• Will disclose universities, education vendors, research sponsors, unions and public-sector advisers.
• Will not make academic, safeguarding, ethics, disciplinary, legal or procurement decisions.

1. 49 words maximum. Describe a university service whose organisational transfer failed to preserve the student journey.
2. 49 words maximum. How would you test record custody during an admissions appeal crossing institutions?
3. 49 words maximum. Which calendar events must constrain the separation-wave design?