Transformation isn’t a cost-cutting exercise. It’s a different way of working.

Nigel Carrington, former Vice-Chancellor of University of the Arts London, current Chair of LAMDA and of UUK’s Efficiency and Transformation Taskforce, reflects on why collaboration is hard in higher education and why it matters for students, not just balance sheets.

In this conversation with Eugenia Gonzalez and Lee Sanders of Saxton Bampfylde, Nigel Carrington argues that transformation and collaboration matter because they protect the key purposes of higher education: sustaining educational breadth, protecting student opportunity, and avoiding ‘cold spots’ where provision disappears in particular regions or disciplines. He is realistic about merger: it can create a platform for shared services and better ways of working, but it is often slow, carries upfront cost, and does not always deliver savings unless institutions are willing (or able) to change. He also suggests transformation will not happen at pace without effective leadership, seed funding, and leadership development and that progress depends on alignment between executive teams and governing bodies.

---

 

Why was the UUK task force on efficiency and transformation set up, and why now?

There were two drivers. First, there was very considerable pressure from government for universities to demonstrate that they were serious about their futures – particularly about their cost base and the cost of teaching. In blunt terms, if government was going to consider an annual uplift in the fee, it wanted to see visible evidence that the sector was doing everything it could to be efficient.

Second, there is a wider legitimacy challenge. Universities are under pressure from students and the public to show they are delivering high-quality education within real constraints. The task force was a way of galvanising the sector, and of bringing in external expertise at pace.

 

You’ve drawn a clear distinction between efficiency and transformation. What’s the difference in practice?

Efficiency is the easier part. It’s about learning from institutions that have already made progress and sharing what works, from procurement to professional services and other workstreams. It is still demanding, but it is relatively straightforward to describe and to measure.

Transformation is different. It involves deeper structural choices and new models of working together, everything from very close contractual partnerships to merger. It’s complicated because universities are complicated: devolved cultures, strong professional identities, and the simple fact that you cannot ‘announce’ change and expect it to land. In a university, transformation depends on persuading the academic community that change is necessary and shaping it in a way they can own, otherwise it stalls, or it risks disruption to students if it is pushed through badly.

 

People are sometimes sceptical about the ability of mergers to deliver efficiencies. Do you believe they genuinely can?

They can – but it’s not automatic, and it’s rarely quick. Mergers are often slow to deliver, with upfront costs, and they don’t always produce savings unless people are willing (or able) to change how the institution actually works.

At University of the Arts London, the university was one legal entity formed from six world-class colleges, but each still carried duplicated infrastructure (IT, comms, student services and more). Over time we moved towards shared services – not fully centralised, because trust and devolution mattered – which improved service and reduced duplication. The wider point is that merger is a route to a different operating model, not a guarantee of savings.

 

Beyond cost, what is transformation for? What should students feel is different?

Start from student opportunity, not institutional survival. The fee regime and regulatory system have pushed institutions towards a competitive fixation: focus narrowly on what is easiest to deliver within their own constraints. But collaboration and, in some cases, merger can sustain educational breadth, allowing institutions to combine strengths so students can access richer provision than any one provider can offer alone. It can also help prevent ‘cold spots’ (for example in languages) where provision disappears in particular regions or disciplines. It would be far better if the sector could talk more freely about where strengths lie and how to connect them.

 

If collaboration is so valuable, why is it still so hard to do and what would make it easier?

Part of it is cultural: universities value autonomy. But part of it is structural: regulation and incentives discourage institutions from investing time and risk in collaboration, especially when finances are tight. If you’re judged almost entirely on your own financial sustainability, you do what you’re measured on.

What I’ve said consistently, including to government, is that we need a different mindset around how universities work together, and that has to be reflected in the regulatory environment. Government needs to be a partner in enabling change, not simply a judge of compliance.

 

What does the sector need in practical terms to make transformation happen – beyond goodwill?

Two things. First, an expert capability outside day-to-day institutional pressures: a system-wide advisory function to help universities test whether collaboration opportunities are real and how to make them work. Second, we need a transformation fund: seed funding that de-risks change. I’ve had many conversations with leaders who say: if only we had the surplus, we could invest; if only we weren’t constrained by bank covenants, we could bring in the expertise to test an idea properly. When institutions are under pressure, the rational response is not to take on more risk. Further education has had a transformation fund and an FE Commissioner-type function to catalyse mergers. Higher education is structurally different, but the lesson is clear: the biggest opportunities won’t be realised without external help.

 

If government support comes, is it realistically going to be loans rather than grants?

Loans can help if they are genuinely soft finance (very low or no interest, no onerous covenants). But once lending starts to look like arm’s-length bank-style finance, it can collide with existing covenants and worsen balance-sheet pressures. Borrowing sounds fine until you remember you have to repay it, so grants still need to be part of the toolbox alongside soft loans. If the funding is ‘hard’, then bluntly institutions might as well borrow from a bank.

 

What does this period demand from university leadership – and what support would actually help?

Becoming a Vice-Chancellor is a bigger step up than many people expect. You are suddenly confronted with strategic and economic decisions, and you need to understand the financial drivers of your institution, what happens when you pull one lever, and what it does elsewhere. But you also can’t deliver change through hierarchy in the way a corporate leader might: you have to persuade and carry the academic community with you. That places a premium on communicating a clear case for change, the ‘why’ and the ‘so what,’ in ways that academics recognise as protecting the student experience, not undermining it. Resilience is central. The environment is less predictable than it was a decade ago, and leaders need the emotional and organisational capacity to support people through uncertainty. But leadership is not only a job title at the top. Change depends on distributed leadership – the ability to cascade intent through faculties and departments so that local decisions align with strategic direction and good bottom-up ideas can be supported. It also takes time. I believe a really effective Vice-Chancellor tenure is often 8–12 years: long enough to listen, understand, shape the team, and build momentum.

 

Thinking about University governance, why does board–executive alignment matter so much for transformation?

It’s critical. The task force has been working with the Committee of University Chairs (CUC) on its new Code of Governance. Change programmes fall down when the executive and governing body are misaligned on risk appetite, urgency, or how radical change needs to be.

At LAMDA we’ve focused on making sure board and executive really talk and understand each other. At UAL, a supportive governing body – and chairs who wanted to work closely with me – was a big part of delivering change. The other challenge now is recruitment: there is a growing sense that university governance carries significant personal risk, which can deter the very experienced governors the sector needs. We need to emphasise the excitement and satisfaction involved in helping shape change in something as important as higher education.

The thread running through all of this is that if we want universities to collaborate, to protect student opportunity, sustain provision, and modernise the system, we have to make it easier, safer and more normal to do so. That means aligning incentives, rebuilding system-wide capability, supporting leadership development, and providing meaningful government support for funding the act of change itself.

 

---

 

Supporting leadership in higher education

Saxton Bampfylde’s higher education practice works with universities across the UK to appoint the leaders who can navigate exactly this kind of moment: complex, consequential, and rarely straightforward. If you are thinking about your leadership needs, we would be glad to talk.

Get in touch with Eugenia Gonzalez, Head of Higher Education practice.