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.