Solutions · By vertical · International branch campuses

One degree. Two regulators. One record.

A branch campus answers to the home institution's academic authority and to the host country's regulator at the same time. Both ask about the same degree, in different vocabularies, on different calendars. Creatrix Campus runs the branch on the home institution's academic model, configures what is genuinely local, and produces each regulator's evidence from the same record, held where the host says it must sit.

Request a demo Shared or local?

Why it goes wrong

A branch campus does not want a second institution. It ends up with one anyway.

The parent's system was built for the home campus: its calendar, its fee model, its regulator, its jurisdiction. The branch has a different intake pattern, a local regulator with its own submissions, and a law that says student data stays in country. So the branch buys or builds something local, and from that week the group has two versions of the same degree.

Everything after that is reconciliation. Enrolment counts differ by census date. Grades are converted twice. The home office asks for equivalence evidence and the branch assembles it by hand, in a shape neither system produces. Nobody has done anything wrong. There is simply no single record for the two questions to be asked of.

The problem: one degree, two records, permanent reconciliation.
Six places a branch loses the thread Each one is a reasonable local decision, and each one puts distance between the campuses.
  • Two student records, one degree The parent SIS at home, something local at the branch
    Every group number needs reconciling before it is quoted
  • The calendars do not line up Different intakes, term dates and census points
    One cohort is two different sizes depending who asks
  • Grades are converted, then converted back A local scale mapped to the home scale by hand
    The transcript and the award rule quietly disagree
  • Equivalence is argued, not shown Assembled per review from whatever each side can export
    A quality claim rests on a document, not a record
  • The host regulator wants a format nobody produces Local returns rebuilt manually every cycle
    Weeks of the registry's year, spent twice over
  • Residency is solved by duplication A copy kept in country, another sent home
    Two copies, and no clarity on which one is true

Six habits, one consequence: the branch spends its year proving it is the same institution.

The line that matters

What has to be the same, and what is allowed to differ.

Most branch campus problems come from drawing this line in the wrong place: either forcing the host country onto the home calendar, or letting the academic model fork because the operation had to. They are separate questions.

Shared

The academic model

What makes the degree the same degree.

CoversProgramme specifications, outcomes, progression and award rules.
Owned byThe home institution's academic authority.
Varies by campusNo. It is inherited, versioned and approved centrally.
Fork it andYou are awarding two qualifications with one name on them.
Local

The operation

How the campus actually runs its year.

CoversIntake cycles, term dates, census points, fees, grading display.
Owned byThe branch registry, inside the group's model.
Varies by campusYes. Configuration, not a second system.
Centralise it andThe campus runs on a calendar its market does not use.
Per regulator

The reporting

The same facts, in two shapes.

CoversHost returns, home quality reporting, accreditation at either end.
Owned byWhoever the regulator writes to, at each end.
Varies by campusYes, in format and timing. Not in the facts underneath.
Duplicate it andTwo submissions drift, and one of them is wrong.
By law

The data

Where the records physically sit.

CoversStudent records, assessment and personal data, and their region.
Owned byThe host country's regulation, not the group's convenience.
Varies by campusYes. Residency is set per campus, with access scoped by role.
Get it wrong andThe licence to operate is the thing at risk, not the reporting.
Shared model, local operation, reporting per regulator, data where the law says. One record supports all four.

How it is done

Six moves, and none of them replaces the parent's system.

The model and the campus configuration come first. Everything after is a matter of who is reading the record and in what shape.

Held separately Reconciliation work One record Read per regulator
  1. 01

    Set the academic model at the group

    Programme specifications, outcomes, progression and award rules are defined once by the home institution and inherited by every campus, so the thing that makes the degree the same is never re-entered anywhere.

    Programme · Inherited
  2. 02

    Configure the campus, do not fork it

    Intake cycles, term dates, census points, fee schedules and local grading display are campus-level settings on that same model, so the branch runs on its own calendar without becoming a separate institution on paper.

    Campus · Calendar
  3. 03

    Coexist with the parent system of record

    Creatrix runs the academic layer above the record the home institution already keeps. The branch is not asked to replace the group's system, and the group is not asked to extend it into a jurisdiction it was never built for.

    Coexist · Integrate
  4. 04

    Keep the data where the host requires

    Each campus's records are held in the region its regulator requires, with access scoped by campus and role, so residency is a property of the deployment rather than a sentence in a policy document.

    Residency · Access
  5. 05

    Report to each regulator in their own shape

    Host returns and home quality reporting are generated from the same record, on each regulator's format and calendar, so neither submission is a rebuild of the other and the two cannot quietly diverge.

    Returns · Formats
  6. 06

    Show equivalence, do not argue it

    Outcomes, attainment and award decisions at the branch are readable against the home programme's on the same rule, so a quality review compares two records rather than two self-descriptions.

    Outcomes · Comparable

From both ends

Six questions the two sides ask, and where the answer comes from.

Three come from the home institution and three from the host regulator. All six are answered out of the same record.

Is the branch delivering the approved programme?
FromThe versioned specification inherited from the home institution, compared against what actually ran at the campus.
Are branch students held to the same standard?
FromOutcomes and attainment computed on the same rule at both campuses, readable side by side rather than converted.
How many students are enrolled, as of when?
FromOne enrolment record read at each regulator's census date, so the two answers differ by cutoff rather than by system.
Where is our students' data held?
FromThe campus's own residency setting, matched to the host regulator's requirement and evidenced rather than asserted.
Who approved this local exception?
FromThe approval recorded against the campus and the programme, with the body, the scope and the date still attached.
Can you produce the return on our format?
FromThe same record, generated on the host regulator's template and calendar, without a second data-gathering exercise.

Go deeper

One regulator up close, and the lifecycles underneath.

The branch campus case is easiest to see in a country that regulates it heavily. These pages cover a live example and the machinery behind it.

Region Malaysia, in detail MQA and EMGS side by side, PDPA residency, and coexistence with a global parent SIS: the branch campus case with a real regulator attached. See the region → Lifecycle Academic Governance Versioned programmes and approval chains: what the campus inherits, and what it is allowed to change. See the lifecycle → Lifecycle Success & Records The student record itself: enrolment, progression, transcripts and awards across campuses. See the lifecycle → Lifecycle Quality & Accreditation Two frameworks read against one evidence base, on each regulator's own calendar. See the lifecycle → By need SIS modernisation The coexistence argument in full: adopt the academic layer without a freeze or a rip-out. See the need → In practice Institutions already doing this Universities and colleges across Europe, the Middle East, Southeast Asia and Oceania, and the frameworks they report against. Meet our customers →

What it runs on

The products that hold two campuses to one model.

Adopt the academic layer above the group's system of record, campus by campus. The record model underneath is the same at every site.

Record
Student Information System →

One student record across campuses, with campus-level calendars, census points and residency on the same structure.

EnrolmentCampusResidency
 Model
Curriculum & Catalog →

The group's programme specifications, versioned and approved centrally, inherited by every campus that delivers them.

VersionsApprovalsInheritance
 Standard
Outcomes & Attainment →

Attainment computed on one rule at both campuses, which is what makes equivalence something you can show.

OutcomesComparableOBE
 Regulators
Accreditation & Evidence →

Host and home frameworks mapped against one evidence base, so an artefact can satisfy a requirement at either end.

StandardsCoverageReturns
 Intake
Admissions CRM →

Local intake cycles, agents and international applicant journeys, feeding the same enrolment record.

IntakesAgentsInternational
 Finance
Student Finance & Billing →

Campus fee schedules, local currency and local invoicing rules against one student ledger.

FeesCurrencyInvoicing
Start at one campus. The model it inherits is the one the next campus inherits too.

Frequently asked

Plain answers for branch campuses.

Do we have to replace the parent institution's SIS?

Only if you want to. Both routes are supported, and the choice is yours rather than ours.

If the branch does need its own student record, Creatrix has a full SIS alongside admissions, finance and the rest of the suite, so you can run the campus end to end on one system.

If you would rather keep what you have, we sit on top as the academic layer above the group's system of record. Students, programmes and finance stay where they are, the branch works on the same academic model, and the parent system is neither ripped out nor extended into a jurisdiction it was never built for.

Can each campus have its own calendar, fees and grading display?

Yes. Intake cycles, term dates, census points, fee schedules and local grading display are campus-level configuration on a shared academic model.

The branch runs on the host country's calendar and market without becoming a separate institution on paper.

Where is branch campus data stored?

In the region the host regulator requires. Residency is set per campus rather than for the group as a whole, and access is scoped by campus and role.

A local data protection requirement is met by where the records actually sit, which is a fact you can evidence rather than a policy statement.

How do we report to two regulators without doing the work twice?

Both submissions read the same record. The format and the calendar differ per regulator; the facts underneath do not.

The host return and the home quality report are generated rather than separately assembled, which is also what stops them drifting apart.

Can the branch run programmes the home campus does not?

Yes. A campus can carry programmes of its own alongside the ones it inherits, governed by the same approval chain.

Local provision stays visible to the group rather than being run outside it.

How is equivalence demonstrated to the home institution?

Outcomes and attainment are computed on the same rule at both campuses and can be read side by side.

A quality review then compares two records of the same programme, rather than two descriptions of it written by two different offices.

GET STARTED

Tell us which regulator you answer to at each end.

Send us the home programme specification and the host regulator's return format. We will show you which parts are genuinely one record, and which parts you are reconciling for no reason.

Request a demo Talk to us