Framework, policy and practice: the difference
A framework is the overall structure that organizes an institution’s open education work. It describes what the institution is trying to achieve, who is responsible, which rules and standards apply, and how progress is checked. A formal policy is one component of that structure, usually a short document that sets binding rules. The framework is broader: it places the policy alongside goals, support services, quality processes and review.
An institution can have a policy without a framework, and then find that nobody owns it or knows how to apply it. A framework answers that gap. It does not need to be long. For a small institution, a few pages may be enough.
The components below are common ones. They are not a fixed standard, and you should adapt them to your size, subject mix and funding.
Component 1: Goals and scope
State a small number of goals, ideally written so that you can tell later whether they were reached. Examples are reducing reliance on purchased course materials, making teaching resources easier to adapt for different learners, or encouraging staff to publish materials they already produce.
Alongside the goals, record the scope: which courses, units or resource types the framework covers first, and what is deliberately left out for now. A narrow starting scope is often wiser than an ambitious one that cannot be supported.
Component 2: Roles and responsibilities
Unclear responsibility, a question of institutional governance, is one of the most common reasons open initiatives fade. A framework should name roles, not individuals, and say what each role does. Typical roles include:
- A senior sponsor who can resolve disagreements and secure resources.
- A coordinator or working group responsible for day-to-day running.
- Subject leads or champions who advise colleagues in their own area.
- Library and learning technology staff who help with finding, licensing, hosting and formatting.
- Legal or intellectual property advisers who answer rights questions.
- Student representatives, who can say how materials work in practice.
Write down who approves exceptions and who handles complaints, such as a rights holder who objects to a resource.
Component 3: Licensing and rights
This part explains how the institution treats ownership and reuse. It usually names acceptable public licenses, sets a default, explains how to deal with third-party content, and says how license information is recorded on each resource. If a separate policy already covers this, the framework can simply refer to it and avoid repeating the text.
Rules on copyright and licensing differ between countries and employment contracts, so this component is best checked by someone with the right expertise.
Component 4: Quality checks
Open does not automatically mean good. A framework should describe a proportionate way of checking resources before and after publication. Reasonable checks might include:
- accuracy review by a subject specialist
- clarity and suitability for the intended learners
- accessibility checks, so that learners can use accessible learning materials, such as readable structure, text alternatives for images and captions for video
- correct attribution and license statements
- a visible date and a contact for corrections
Keep the checks proportionate. A full review for every handout will discourage sharing, whereas a lighter route for informal materials and a stronger one for formal course resources is more realistic. Consider how the checks relate to inclusive and universal design principles so that accessibility is built in rather than added afterwards.
Component 5: Support and resources
Describe what help exists: training sessions, a repository or storage space, advice contacts, and any time or funding for staff. A framework that promises support it cannot provide will lose trust quickly, so be realistic and state what is available now and what is planned.
Component 6: Technology and standards
Decide where resources will be stored and how people will find them. Consider file formats that can be edited and reused, not only viewed. Mention relevant open standards where they matter, and avoid tying the framework to a single named product, since tools change faster than principles do.
Component 7: Measurement and review
Choose a few indicators connected to the goals, for example the number of published resources, how many courses use them, staff participation, and feedback from students. State how often these will be reported and to whom.
A review cycle, often annual with a fuller review every few years, lets the institution drop what does not work. At each review, ask whether the goals are still right, whether roles are working in practice and whether quality checks are proportionate. Be honest about limits: figures on use show activity, not learning improvement, and evidence on learning effects of open materials is mixed.
Putting the parts together
A simple way to draft is to take one page per component and then merge. Start with goals and roles, because these shape everything else. Share the draft with staff and students before it goes for approval, and revise it with their feedback.
Finally, check for consistency. Does each goal have an owner, a way of being supported and a way of being measured? If a goal has no owner or no measure, either add one or remove the goal. This simple test catches most weak spots before the framework is published.