Transcript UKZN structures presentation

Restructuring - the Edinburgh experience
Bruce Nelson
Registrar, College of Science and Engineering
University of Edinburgh
May 2011
Structure of presentation
• University of Edinburgh
• Why we restructured?
• New management structures – University, College and
School levels
• Advantages and disadvantages
• Personal thoughts
• Questions and answers
University of Edinburgh
• Founded 1583
• Typically between 20 and 50 in world rankings
• Times Higher 2010
– 40th in world, 7th in Europe
– 16th in Humanities, 26th in Life Sciences, 27th in
Physical Science, 35th in Clinical
• Among broadest subject range in UK
• Students – 19500 UG, 5000 PGT, 3900 PGR. 3100 other
European Union, 5450 outside EU
• Staff – 3100 academic, 4780 non-academic
• Income - £591M
2002 starting point
• Gradual evolutionary change since 1980s
• Confused structure, with different sizes of Faculties/Depts
• Unhappiness with some aspects of support services
• Feeling that University sluggish, slow to respond
compared to others
… but world class institution with high reputation
Rationale for restructuring
“The overarching aim is to ensure that we remain a leading worldstandard research and teaching institution by developing a set
of University structures:• that positively foster speedy and flexible response to new
academic opportunities and cross-disciplinary working wherever
appropriate
• that simplify both academic and administrative processes
• that reduce academic administrative time
• that remove the need for multiple record keeping
• that retain strong participation by academic staff at all levels in
the formulation of strategy and policy throughout the University
• that allow professionally informed decision making to be
undertaken in a more devolved and responsive manner, within
only minimal but clearly specified parameters required for audit,
policy or legal reasons.”
2002 restructuring – academic units
• 5 Faculty Groups/8 Faculties to 3 Colleges
– Humanities and Social Sciences (CHSS)
– Medicine and Veterinary Medicine (CMVM)
– Science and Engineering (CSE)
• “Broadly comparable” – size, esteem
• 20/21 Schools
• Some schools straightforward – Chemistry, Literatures
Languages and Cultures, Veterinary Medicine
• Others more challenging – Arts Culture and Environment,
GeoSciences, Philosophy Psychology and Language
Sciences, Nursing
2002 – support services
• Previous structure
– Secretary’s Office
– Computing Service (EUCS)
– Library
• EUCS and Library became Information Services Group
• Secretary’s Office activities to Student and Academic
Services Group (SASG), Corporate Services Group (CSG)
and College Offices
• CSG – Accommodation Services, Estates, Finance, Health
and Safety, HR, Procurement
• SASG – Academic Administration, Governance and
Planning, Registry, Student Services
College of Science and Engineering
School
Academic staff
Research staff
Biology
125
367
Chemistry
46
79
Engineering
85
113
GeoSciences
80
148
Informatics
81
128
Mathematics
53
10
Physics
61
83
Total
540
928
College Office
• 45 staff
• Headed by College Registrar
• College Registrar – advice to Head of College; strategic
planning; budgets; estates strategy and projects; IT
• 5 senior managers responsible for: academic
administration; communications; finance; HR; UG/PGT
admissions
• Support for Deans – International; Learning and Teaching;
Quality Assurance; Research; Research Careers
• Liaison with Schools and central support services
• College Registrar role in University committees etc
Structures within Schools
• Head of School
• Each has a Graduate School and Teaching Organisation
• Directors – Graduate School; Research; Teaching
• Director of Professional Services or School Administrator
• Heads of Research Institutes or Sections (most)
• Directors of research centres (time-limited externallyfunded)
• Professional services
Professional services in Schools
• Director of Professional Services or School Administrator
• Manage local services – accounts, appointments, building
issues, teaching support, tutors, technical support etc
• Variable internal management structures for IT,
commercialisation, technical services, research centres
• Structure of senior management teams reflects size and
complexity
• Two particularly different models
– “Informatics Model” – no admin done by academics
– Management School – receives 100% of income and
then buys central services
Devolution of responsibilities
• Head of School has managerial responsibility for all staff
• Budgets devolved to Colleges and in turn to Schools
• CSE budget £55M – £52.5M to Schools/£1.8M College
Office/£0.7M College
• Strong incentivisation to grow income – 80% retention
• Schools also responsible for research funding
• External research awards to CSE in 2009/10 - £115M
• Biggest school in CSE has £50M turnover
Challenges and relationships
Challenges
• Interdisciplinarity
• Corporate feeling
• Doing things “my way”… transactional costs
Integrating the professional services
• Senior Administrative Managers Group – 3 Heads of
Support Group and 3 College Registrars
• Professional groupings – Heads of Finance and HR
• College Office Management Team
• College Professional Services Managers Group
The model elsewhere
Similar models at
• Aberdeen
• Birmingham
• Glasgow
• Leicester
• Manchester
• Southampton
… but variations in the detail
Advantages/disadvantages I
Positive
• Happiness in schools with devolution of responsibilities…
increased flexibility and responsiveness
• Encouraged entrepreneurial behaviour
• Much much improved school-level administration
• Much more responsive professional finance and HR
advice which better understands the business
• Statistics (e.g. research income, international and PGT
numbers) show it has worked
Advantages/disadvantages II
Negative
• Loss of standardisation in processes
• Corporate IT systems still serve centre, leading to
duplication and higher than necessary costs in schools
• Estates remains centralised and seen as less responsive
• Estates costs remain high
• Increase in administrative costs in schools
• Communications problems in large scattered institution
not been solved
• Differences in terminology and structures problematic for
students
Some personal thoughts
• Time in managing relationships
• Particular issues in interactions between Colleges and
Schools and thematic Vice-Principals
• Need to tackle business processes, aiming for more
standardisation and clarity in ownership
• Duplication
• Corporate IT systems
• Ongoing tensions … schools worry that financial
pressures/new senior managers may lead to recentralisation
• Who does what… we don’t always know!
• Too little strategic resource for Head of College
… but freedom in College and Schools to innovate!
Would we go back?
Would we go back?
No!
How might we change?
Personal speculation
• Unified central professional services?
• Merge smaller functions across schools or relocate to
College Offices?
• Greater matrix structure e.g. outplacements, projects
• Student services located on different campuses
• Minor restructuring of schools e.g. biology
Questions and answers
Contact information
Dr Bruce Nelson
+44 131 650 5757
[email protected]