Beyond compliance:
Driving Agent Quality & Impact Through Digital Transformation

16 September | University of Sheffield

At a Glance: Product Spotlight
SAMS CRM – Whose Responsibility Is It Anyway?
  • Time: 15:30 – 16:10
  • Hosts: David Cliffe (SAMS Global), Hamid Gharda & Sham Ghani
  • Panellists: Donna Ball (Study Portals), Semra Yalcin Dogan (FutureMe), Vijay Naidu* (ExNet)
Key Question

“Whose responsibility is it anyway?”

Framing the Debate
  • Universities as Gatekeepers: They hold contracts, commissions, and student offers. Do they therefore have a duty of care to ensure agent conduct?
  • Agents as Independent Businesses: Should universities only measure outcomes (applications, enrolments, compliance breaches)?
  • Regulatory / Compliance Context: AQF requires evidence of oversight and due diligence. UKVI audits hold universities accountable for sub-agent risks.
  • International Benchmarks: In markets like Australia, universities are pushed to train and monitor agents more actively.
The Practical Realities
  • Agent Variation: Large corporates vs. small shops; wide differences in compliance capability.
  • Unequal Power: Universities depend on volume; agents depend on contracts.
  • Support vs. Interference: Where is the line between responsible guidance and micromanagement?
The Role of Technology – SAMS CRM
  • Standardisation: Aligns agents with university expectations (reporting, compliance, documentation).
  • Transparency: Shared dashboards reduce ambiguity about performance and compliance.
  • Capacity Building: Training modules, onboarding, compliance checklists embedded at scale.
  • Autonomy with Oversight: Agents remain independent but within agreed standards.
Questions to Drive the Session
  • Do universities have a responsibility to help agents professionalise, or is that beyond their remit?
  • If universities claim 'no interference,' how do they reconcile that with AQF-style compliance demands?
  • Can technology strike the balance — providing oversight without micromanagement?
  • What would a collaborative model look like, where both parties co-own responsibility for student outcomes?
Takeaways for Delegates
  • Recognition of compliance and governance obligations for universities.
  • Awareness of the tension between oversight and agent autonomy.
  • Insight into how technology enables scalable, collaborative oversight.
  • A clearer vision of a shared responsibility model for agent management.