Senate
Subject: Progress Report on Implementation of New
Organisational Structure
Origin: Project Management Board Meetings held on
24 January, 7 February and 28 February 2011
Executive Summary:
This paper summarises
key issues discussed by the Structure Implementation Project Management Board
(PMB) at meetings held on 24 January, 7 February and 28 February 2011.
Senate Action Required:
Senate is
asked to NOTE the discussions that have taken place.
1. Meeting held on 24 January 2011
The main recommendations from the PMB meeting held
on 24 January 2011 related to the appointment process for Heads of Departments
and Associate Deans. These were reported to Senate at its meeting on 26 January
2011.
Other issues discussed included initial proposals on
changes to committees and the retention of three School IT Co-ordinator
roles. A consolidated summary of changes
to committees is included in a separate paper to Senate. The job description for the School IT
Co-ordinator role is still under discussion.
2. Meeting
held on 7 February 2011
At its meeting on 7 February, the Project Management
Board undertook a half-yearly project review to reflect on what had already
been achieved and identify outstanding issues. It was recognised that substantial
effort had been made to reach the current point and considerable progress had
been made. Problems of under-lap and overlap had largely been addressed and the
project had now reached a transitional point. Discussions focused on the issues
that still needed to be resolved in order to achieve a successful transition to
the new organisational structure from 1 August 2011. The outstanding issues identified included:
·
The
key role of Deans in communication
·
The
leadership role of School Senior Management Teams
·
The
interface between Schools and Support Services
·
Wider
opportunities arising from restructuring
The PMB recognised that transition to the new
organisational structure was an evolutionary process which would extend beyond
1 August 2011. The timeline must
maintain momentum and ensure that essential components were in place to allow
the new Schools to function from 1 August 2011. However the wider opportunities
to streamline processes and work more efficiently must not be overlooked. Producing
a register of issues and prioritising these would be a useful way forward and
the Project Manager and Secretary were asked to take this forward.
The PMB also recognised the importance of
maintaining services to students and minimising disruption. Deans would play a
key role in helping people in their Schools engage with the transition process
and it was agreed that these issues should be discussed at the next meeting of the
Academic Leadership Team.
3. Meeting
held on 28 February 2011
At its
meeting on 28 February, the PMB considered reports from all the Working
Groups. Key points arising in the
discussions were as follows:
3.1 Learning
and Teaching Working Group
Proposals
for the School governance of learning and teaching were considered. This
identified the key roles relating to learning and teaching, admissions and
placements that were needed in Schools for the discharge of learning and
teaching responsibilities. The PMB supported the proposals in principle but
agreed that this should be considered in detail as part of the wider
discussions on the interface between Schools and Support Services.
3.2 Research & Enterprise Working Group
The main issues discussed by the Group related to
the formation of the Enterprise Committee and the Working Group’s
recommendations, which were accepted by the PMB, are included in the separate
paper to Senate on changes to Committees.
The PMB noted discussions that had taken place
regarding the formation of an Ethics Committee. Detailed proposals will be
presented to Senate in July.
3.3 Infrastructure Working Group
The PMB noted discussions that had taken place at
the Working Group’s meeting on 22 February 2011. Business continuity was an
important priority and arrangements were in hand to ensure that relevant changes
were made to IT systems to support the move to schools. Discussions on the
interface between Support Services and Schools had also taken place and it was
anticipated that the Operations Managers would work closely with Support
Services on a range of issues. Revisions to the job description for the Schools
IT Co-ordinator had been agreed and would be reviewed by the HR Issues Working
Group.
The Working Group had also identified a number of
areas where processes could be improved. Some of these were not directly linked
to the restructuring but the PMB agreed that the opportunities to streamline
processes, wherever possible, should be considered. However, the key priority was to ensure that
changes needed by 1 August 2011 were in place.
3.4. Academic Governance Working Group
The PMB agreed proposals on the following for
recommendation to Senate:
·
Changes to the membership and terms of reference of a
range of University Committees subject to minor amendments.
·
Changes to the ordinances and regulations as
required under the new University Structure
These proposals are presented as separate papers on
the Senate agenda.
3.5 HR Issues Working Group
The PMB approved:
·
The
appointment process for the School IT Co-ordinators.
·
Amendments
to the job description for the Associate Dean (Research) – included as a
separate paper on the Senate agenda.
·
Proposals
on the appointment procedure for Deans of Schools from 1 August 2011 – included
as a separate paper on the Senate agenda.
Amendments
to the person specification for the Head of Department role were discussed and
will be progressed by the Director of HR in conjunction with the Chair of the
Working Group.
3.6. Teacher Education Unit
A proposal from the Deans (elect) of the Design
School and the School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences to locate the
Teacher Education Unit within the Academic Registry from 1 August 2011 was discussed
together with comments from the Academic Registry. The proposal related to support staff only and
the academic staff delivering teacher education would remain in their relevant Schools. Although there were some synergies with the
work of the Academic Registry, concerns were raised about the potential
separation of support staff from academic colleagues. Another alternative would be to base the TEU
in one of the Schools involved in teacher education. It was agreed to defer a
decision and the Provost was asked to bring forward proposals for discussion at
the next meeting.
3.7. Naming
of Schools and Continuation of Departments
Proposals
from the Deans (elect) for the naming of Schools and continuation of
departments from 1 August 2011 were approved for recommendation to Senate and
Council. These are presented in a separate paper to Senate.
3.8. Current
Issues
A paper from
the Project Manager outlining current issues was considered and the following
points agreed:
·
Although
the aim was to have structures in place to operate effectively from 1 August
2011, full implementation of the restructuring would continue for some time.
Wherever possible, this should be progressed by
committees and working groups that were already in place. Elements could also
be progressed as specific VFM projects. The PMB agreed that reviews of progress
should be conducted at the end of January 2012 and July 2012 to ensure that
momentum was maintained. In addition, the Working Groups would be asked to
identify any tasks that would still be outstanding in August 2011.
·
Interface
issues were being highlighted in all the working groups and there was a
possible tension between the desire for standard interfaces between schools and
the centre and the inevitable variations in school structure. Ways of working with Schools needed to be
agreed and a series of forums for sharing experience might be the way forward.
It was suggested that the PVCs and the COO could usefully take this forward.
·
The
workload of the new Senior Management Teams would be significant in the period
up to 1 August 2011 and this would need to be managed alongside existing roles.
Providing adequate support for members, including relevant training, should be
a priority
The PMB agreed to consider the issues raised in more detail at its next meeting.
Author – Fidelma Hannah
Date – 1 March 2011
Copyright (c) Loughborough University.
All rights reserved.