Why Obvious Solutions Fail
Chapter 10
Sources supporting this chapter, with the manuscript section they relate to and a note explaining how each item contributes.
Showing all 31 references
Evidence used
Material used to support factual claims and explanations in this chapter.
Source
Competition and Markets Authority; 22 January 2026
Used for the explanation that HE providers can collaborate lawfully, but that exchanges of competitively sensitive information may raise competition-law concerns.
Source
Competition and Markets Authority; 16 August 2023
Used for the account of the Chapter I prohibition, horizontal agreements between competitors or potential competitors, information exchange, and measures for reducing competition-law risk when competitors collaborate.
Source
Competition and Markets Authority; 15 August 2025
Used for the general point that many collaborations are lawful or beneficial, but may become illegal where they limit competition.
Source
Department for Education; updated 26 November 2025
Used for the point that maximum tuition fees apply to undergraduate courses at approved fee-cap providers in England, supporting the section's distinction between capped home undergraduate fees and other areas where pricing remains competitive.
Source
Government Commercial Function; 22 April 2024
Used for the definition of a contracting authority and for the territorial distinction between the Procurement Act 2023 regime in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and the separate legislation retained for devolved Scottish authorities.
Source
Cabinet Office; updated 15 April 2026
Used for the explanation of exempted contracts under Schedule 2 of the Procurement Act 2023, including vertical controlled arrangements, horizontal public-authority cooperation and activity calculations relevant to shared-service structures.
Source
Jisc and KPMG; 6 November 2024, updated 27 November 2025
Used for the discussion of shared services, common data definitions, process standardisation, technical debt, trust, governance, senior leadership support, and the long lead times required for whole-service sharing.
Source
Universities UK; 30 September 2024, updated 17 January 2025
Used for the sector argument that shared services and regional consortia are proposed efficiency routes, that shared services are underused, and that VAT and upfront transformation funding affect whether efficiencies can be realised.
Source
Universities UK Transformation and Efficiency Taskforce; June 2025
Used for the section's account of UCAS, Janet and Falmouth Exeter Plus as examples of established shared infrastructure, and for the long-term requirements of standardisation, culture, capacity and continuous management. The examples may contain survivorship bias and do not independently prove net savings.
Source
UCAS
Used for the description of UCAS as the UK's shared admissions service for higher education, its charitable status and its revenue model.
Source
Jisc
Used for the description of Janet as the UK's National Research and Education Network, and for Jisc's role in higher education membership, sector licensing, licensing negotiation groups, and software and digital-content agreements.
Source
Falmouth Exeter Plus
Used for the description of Falmouth Exeter Plus as the service delivery partner of Falmouth University and the University of Exeter in Cornwall, its 50:50 ownership, exempt charitable company status and charitable purpose.
Source
HM Revenue & Customs; 26 April 2017, updated 27 January 2025
Used for the VAT treatment of education and vocational training by eligible bodies, the treatment of universities as eligible bodies, and the distinction between business supplies and activity outside the scope of VAT.
Source
HM Revenue & Customs; 1 July 2014, updated 18 May 2022
Used for the explanation that exempt supplies restrict VAT recovery, that partly exempt businesses may not be able to reclaim exempt input tax, and that education and training are among exempt goods and services.
Source
HM Revenue & Customs; 10 April 2016, updated 6 March 2025
Used for the point that higher education institutions can have a mixture of non-business activities, taxable supplies and exempt supplies, and that VAT-registered educational establishments are subject to partial exemption rules.
Source
HM Revenue & Customs; 11 March 2016, updated 5 March 2026
Used for the five conditions of the VAT cost-sharing exemption, including independent group status, exempt or non-business activity, directly necessary services, recovery of members' shares of costs, and no likely distortion of competition.
Source
HM Revenue & Customs
Used for the current UK standard VAT rate of 20 per cent and the note that the standard rate increased to 20 per cent on 4 January 2011.
Source
GOV.UK
Used for the section's explanation that TUPE can apply where the identity of the employer changes in a business transfer, supporting the account of staff-transfer complexity in shared-service redesigns.
Source
GOV.UK
Used for the point that employers must inform and consult employee representatives about transfer-related measures affecting staff, including reorganisation, and that recognised trade union representatives may be involved.
Source
GOV.UK
Used for the section's claim that redundancy programmes at scale bring collective consultation requirements and minimum timing before dismissals can take effect.
Source
GOV.UK
Used for the point that employment contracts transfer under TUPE while pension protection is more limited, supporting the section's treatment of pension questions as a transfer complication.
Source
Government Actuary's Department; 26 November 2024
Used for public-service staff-transfer context and for the point that TUPE provides limited protections for occupational pension rights, making pension arrangements a material issue in transfers.
Source
Universities and Colleges Employers Association
Used for context on the range of pension schemes represented in higher education employment, including USS, TPS, LGPS, NHSPS, SAUL, self-administered trusts and defined-contribution schemes.
Source
BUFDG/HEPA; 14 May 2025
Used for the reported 76 institutional responses, £8.3 billion impactable spend and £354 million gross efficiencies. These are self-reported procurement measures, not audited cash savings or a representative estimate for every university.
Source
UK Universities Purchasing Consortia; 2020
Used for the description of UKUPC membership, its regional and specialist consortia, annual framework spend of around £2 billion, and its stated role in collaborative procurement and savings.
Source
The Energy Consortium; 26 March 2021
Used for UKUPC's 2019-20 reported framework spend, cashable savings, non-cashable/process savings and the description of UKUPC as a partnership supporting collaborative procurement in higher and further education.
Source
World Bank; 2021
Used for contextual support on framework agreements and for the cited summary of UKUPC 2018-19 higher-education framework-agreement spending and reported cashable and non-cashable benefits.
Source
North Western Universities Purchasing Consortium
Used for current context on NWUPC frameworks, framework categories and UKUPC partnership membership.
Go deeper
Selected contextual material that extends or complements the chapter.
Further reading
Universities UK; August 2025
Useful follow-on from the UUK transformation and efficiency work, setting out categories of possible shared services, existing UK higher education examples, common success factors and the risk of survivorship bias when only successful services are studied.
Further reading
Southern Universities Purchasing Consortium; September 2021
Useful context on SUPC's role as a regional higher-education purchasing consortium and on responsible procurement within UKUPC arrangements.
Further reading
North Eastern Universities Purchasing Consortium
Useful context on how a regional purchasing consortium describes collaborative framework agreements, procurement expertise and member support.
Try a broader search or choose “All chapter sources”.