Rethinking University Expansion Through an Online First OPM Model

I believe UK universities need a more practical route into emerging international markets. There is considerable ambition to expand, but committing to physical infrastructure before establishing demand can be a difficult proposition for a university leadership team. The opportunity deserves an approach that allows institutions to learn, earn income and build their presence progressively.

That thinking underpins Plethro Hub, our new approach to online programme management, which we call OPM+. It starts with university online programmes and creates a pathway towards local study centres, franchise delivery and, where justified, a branch campus. Plethro funds and manages the agreed operational infrastructure, while the university retains academic ownership and control.

My experience in university leadership, global engagement and international partnership development has shaped this approach. I see the decision about how to enter a market as closely connected to the university's ability to sustain and develop its presence there. Plethro Hub is designed to connect those decisions from the beginning.

Why begin with an online campus

Online delivery offers an opportunity to reach students before committing to a physical campus. It can make university programmes accessible to people who want to study alongside employment or family responsibilities, or who cannot afford the total cost of studying overseas.

For the university, an initial online offer can generate evidence about programme demand, pricing and the effectiveness of recruitment channels. It can also begin building a community of students and alumni in the market. Those relationships provide a stronger basis for later investment than a forecast alone.

However, online enrolment is only part of the evidence. We also need to understand whether students engage, progress and receive the support they need. Strong recruitment followed by poor continuation would be a reason to improve the operation before expanding it.

I regard the online phase as a substantial educational offer in its own right. It should be designed to work for its students even if the university never chooses to establish a campus in that market.

How the four phases work

Phase one establishes the online campus. Plethro supports course digitisation, the learning platform, marketing, recruitment and student support through a dedicated operating structure. The university contributes its programmes and academic framework, with the allocation of teaching, assessment and other responsibilities agreed in detail.

Phase two introduces local study centres where the student population and business case support them. These centres can provide a place for induction, support, student community and employer engagement. A local presence can also help the partnership understand the difficulties students face and respond more effectively.

Phase three provides a route to approved franchise delivery. Where suitable and permitted, this creates local teaching capacity under an agreed university quality framework. It requires a fresh assessment of delivery capability, staffing, facilities and the permissions needed for that model.

Phase four creates the possibility of a branch campus. At this stage, the university should have a much stronger understanding of its students, local relationships and the economics of operating in the market. A campus becomes a decision informed by experience, subject to a viable business case and the necessary approvals.

Each phase should have its own decision criteria. The model does not depend on every institution progressing through all four stages. A university may find that online provision and study centres offer the right long-term combination for its objectives.

Reducing the university capital commitment

Under our proposed commercial model, Plethro bears the capital investment and agreed operational costs, with no upfront capital investment required from the university. These costs include the platform, course digitisation, marketing, recruitment and student support. The university receives an agreed share of fee income, with a fixed-fee structure also available for discussion.

This changes the financial entry point. The university can develop an international offer without first funding a campus or building the entire operational platform itself. Plethro's return depends on creating a viable operation that recruits and supports students successfully.

The scope of that commitment needs to be clear. A university still commits academic time and resources, retains responsibility for its standards and awards, and exposes its reputation through the student experience. Fee income will depend on actual recruitment and delivery. The model reduces the university's exposure to upfront investment while preserving its academic accountability.

The agreement should make those responsibilities explicit, including how performance is monitored, when growth can proceed and how students are protected if the arrangement changes. That clarity is part of the value of the model.

Academic control remains with the university

Plethro Hub is designed around the university's academic identity. The university retains ownership of its programmes, academic governance, assessment standards and award decisions. Its quality assurance processes provide the framework within which the operation must work.

Our role is to build and manage the operational capability that supports that academic offer. Admissions processing, for example, must operate within the university's approved criteria and oversight. Providing a platform or support service does not confer authority to change academic requirements.

As the operation develops, the university needs reliable information and the ability to intervene. We would expect governance arrangements to connect performance reporting, student feedback and quality review to clear decisions about support and expansion.

Regulatory requirements must be assessed for each country and delivery model. Permission for online provision should never be assumed to authorise a study centre, local teaching or a branch campus. Plethro's regulatory expertise supports that assessment, while institutional accountability remains with the university.

Connecting online growth with local infrastructure

Our initial priorities include India and Nigeria. In Nigeria, our plans for the British International Academic City in Lagos form part of the intended infrastructure pathway, connecting recruitment and support activity with the possibility of more substantial physical provision over time.

This is the significance of the plus in OPM+. Online programme management is the starting point for a broader international development relationship. We bring recruitment and digital delivery planning together with the expertise needed to consider local infrastructure and subsequent delivery models.

I believe this phased approach can make international growth accessible to universities that have strong academic programmes but limited appetite for a large initial capital commitment. It gives them a way to build evidence and institutional confidence as their presence develops.

For Plethro, the aim is to help universities reach more students through operations that can sustain quality as they grow. Plethro Hub is our response to that opportunity.

If your university is exploring online delivery or entry into emerging markets, speak to Plethro about an OPM+ partnership and a phased expansion plan suited to your academic strengths and ambitions.

About the author

Dr Tola Adesina is CEO of Plethro and a former Associate Provost for Global Engagement at the University of Derby. He advises higher education institutions on strategic growth, partnerships, governance and international expansion.

Sources

This article draws on the Plethro Hub OPM+ investor presentation supplied by the author, including the phased model, infrastructure pathway, academic responsibilities and proposed commercial structure.