REVIEW OF ACADEMIC STRUCTURE

1
REVIEW OF ACADEMIC STRUCTURE
STAFF FORUM ON PROPOSED STRUCTURE 29 October 2007
2
PROCESS OVERVIEW

• Consultative and evidence based
• Held to goals and guiding principles
• Now approved by Senior Executive and Council
• Forum to outline and discuss key features and
  explain next steps

3
PROCESS

• Steering Advisory Committee
• Interviews all senior management, deans, senior
  administrative staff, chancellor and dep.
  chancellor
• 19 Focus groups
• Website and email for individual and departmental
  submissions
• 5 senior management meetings
• 2 meetings Dept heads, 1 CORE heads
• 3 Administrative staff meetings
• 6 staff forums (3 x 2)

4
FEATURES OF PROPOSED STRUCTURE

• From 10 divisions to 4 faculties (plus MGSM and
  ASAM - within faculties)
• From 44 departments to 35 departments
• Groupings of like areas as base to build strength
• Larger faculties and departments more
  sustainable, stronger administrative support

5
PROPOSED FACILITATIVE STRUCTURES

• New Associate and Sub Dean Roles to drive focus
  on areas
• Administrative and academic support for Assoc
  Deans
• New Committee structure linked to Academic senate
  
• Other recommendations to support collaboration to
  be addressed in implementation.

6
OTHER STRUCTURAL FEATURES

• Clarification of roles of Deans, Department
  Heads, Discipline Heads further development
  during implementation
• Concept of Graduate Coursework Centre
• Administrative support structures shared
  services at faculty level further development
  during implementation

7
ASSESSMENT AGAINST GUIDING PRINCIPLES

• Capacity to build strength
• Larger faculties, bigger clusters related areas
  stronger academically and financially
• Fewer barriers between Sciences
• New Humanities very strong base to build research
  connections and compete externally
• New Human Sciences faculty seen to present great
  opportunities
• New Assoc. Dean roles and faculty committees
  provide focus within and across faculties

8
ASSESSMENT AGAINST GUIDING PRINCIPLES

• Develop synergies remove barriers to
  collaborative effort
• Division barriers identified as greatest
  obstacle from 9 to 4 more resources for
  collaborative effort
• Departments been grouped to maximise synergies
• Better facilitative structures to support
  collaboration
• Internal competition for students staff reduced
• KPIs for new leaders will specify collab.
  requirements

9
ASSESSMENT AGAINST GUIDING PRINCIPLES

• Achieve critical mass stronger admin. support
• 4 strong faculties roughly equal in staff size
• Smallest least viable disciplines grouped
• Criteria being developed to review viability
• Shared service model for faculties will provide
  strong and cost-effective support
• Increased admin support for larger departments

10
ASSESSMENT AGAINST GUIDING PRINCIPLES

• Strengthen research-teaching nexus
• Clarified relationship of research centres to
  departments will assist
• Assoc.Dean roles facilitative committees will
  help drive focus - Curriculum Review will drive
  further
• Better admin support in larger departments will
  assist
• KPIs for academic leaders can specify

11
ASSESSMENT AGAINST GUIDING PRINCIPLES

• Increased options for Graduate Education
• Fewer divisions mean fewer barriers to
  choice/combinations
• Curriculum Review will build on new base
• Concept of graduate coursework centre provides
  strong focus on improved experience and more
  flexibility

12
ASSESSMENT AGAINST GUIDING PRINCIPLES

• Easily understood in community more cohesive
  profile
• Faculties and departments readily understood
• Profile in all 4 more cohesive than under
  previous 9
• Names for departments will be developed
  internally and agreed by exec.
• Branding and marketing to occur at sub-faculty
  level

13
ASSESSMENT AGAINST GUIDING PRINCIPLES

• Allow for collective imagination
• Process has done so
• New groupings stimulate attention to
  possibilities
• Recommended retreats will encourage
• Assoc. Dean, Coordinator roles greater focus on
  areas needing attention

14
ASSESSMENT AGAINST GUIDING PRINCIPLES

• Increase flexibility in delivery, use of
  resources
• Fewer faculty and deptl barriers good basis for
  curriculum review to create greater flexibility
  in programmes
• Greater resource flexibility in larger groupings
• Shared service model provide greater flexibility
• Opportunity provided for reviewing interface
  with central admin for greater flexibility

15
ASSESSMENT AGAINST GUIDING PRINCIPLES

• Still some small departments
• Still a few areas not comfortable with placement
  or grouping
• Review of structure at 12 months and 3 years
  against criteria to be specified

16
PROPOSED FACULTY STRUCTURE

• Decrease in number of Divisions and creation of
  fewer (4) larger Faculties.
• Business Commerce
• Humanities
• Human Sciences
• Science

17
PROPOSED FACULTY INTERNAL STRUCTURE

• Decrease in number of Departments.
• Some departments being merged, or becoming
  disciplines.
• Move to Faculty level shared services model for
  IT, HR, Finance, Central Services, Projects,
  Marketing, Technical and Facilities

18
IMPACT ON STAFF

• Decrease in number of Deans from 10 to 6
• Decrease in number of Heads of Department.
• Decrease in number of Divisional Managers.
• Expected increase in number of Faculty based
  academic leadership roles and associated
  supporting staff.
• Expected increase in number of administrative
  roles within faculties.
• Transferring staff from Divisions into new
  Faculty structures

19
PROPOSED REDUNDANCIES

• Currently unclear but only a small number
  envisaged in senior Divisional management roles.
• Number of Deans are acting in fixed-term or
  acting positions due to conclude prior to end
  2008.
• Positions of Deans of new Faculties to be filled
  via competitive selection.
• Divisional managers possible redundancies but a
  number of possible redeployment opportunities in
  other faculty management roles - IT, Finance, HR
• Departmental staff - may be some adjustment in
  job components, but ongoing salary maintenance
  will be applied.

20
NEXT STEPS

• Complete consultation on Proposal with staff on
  the proposed changes under the enterprise
  agreement
• High level implementation plan in development
  with administrative staff and steering/advisory
  committee
• Implementation Planning Task Force and sub-groups
  to be established
• Detailed implementation plans by mid December
• Project manager to be appointed
• Consultation on implementation and implementation
  throughout 2008, in parallel with Curriculum
  Review

21
TIMELINES

• Consultation over this change proposal closing
  on16 November
• Decision on proposed change - one week post
  consultation.
• Establishment of Implementation Task Force - Nov
  07
• Implementation and consultation - ongoing,
  through 2008.
• Selection of Deans of new Faculties - end March
  2008.
• Selection of senior Faculty roles - end June
  2008.
• Translation of other staff into new structures -
  end October 2008.
• Formal Commencement of Faculties - January 2009.

22
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

• Review and restructure not designed to save
  costs.
• Nett staffing costs expected to be essentially
  unchanged from current costs

23
AREAS TO BE ADDRESSED 2008

• Research
• Teaching Learning
• Coursework Graduate Centre
• Senate Committee structures
• Faculties Departments
• Finance
• Funding
• Student Admin

• Information Technology
• Human Resources
• Facilities
• Statistics
• International Office
• Library
• Records Archives
• Marketing Media Publications

24
QUESTIONS AND FEEDBACK

• Documents on the Provosts website
  http//www.mq.edu.au/provost/reports/academicstruc
  ture.html
• Will include this presentation and report to
  Council
• Feedback to academicreview_at_vc.mq.edu.au
• Follow up meeting to discuss the feedback