REVIEW OF ACADEMIC STRUCTURE STAFF FORUM ON PROPOSED

REVIEW OF ACADEMIC STRUCTURE STAFF FORUM ON PROPOSED STRUCTURE 29 October 2007 No 1

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 No 2

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) No 3

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 No 4

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. No 5

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 No 6

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 No 7

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 No 8

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 No 9

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 No 10

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 No 11

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 subfaculty level No 12

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 No 13

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 No 14

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 No 15

PROPOSED FACULTY STRUCTURE • Decrease in number of Divisions and creation of fewer (4) larger Faculties. – Business & Commerce – Humanities – Human Sciences – Science No 16

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 No 17

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 No 18

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. No 19

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 subgroups 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 No 20

TIMELINES • Consultation over this change proposal – closing on 16 November • Decision on proposed change - one week post consultation. • Establishment of Implementation Task Force - Nov 07 • Implementation and consultation - ongoing, through 2008. Ø Selection of Deans of new Faculties - end March 2008. Ø Selection of senior Faculty roles - end June 2008. Ø Translation of other staff into new structures - end October 2008. Ø Formal Commencement of Faculties - January 2009. No 21

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS • Review and restructure not designed to save costs. • Nett staffing costs expected to be essentially unchanged from current costs No 22

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 No 23

QUESTIONS AND FEEDBACK • Documents on the Provost’s website: http: //www. mq. edu. au/provost/reports/aca demicstructure. html • Will include this presentation and report to Council • Feedback to academicreview@vc. mq. edu. au • Follow up meeting to discuss the feedback No 24