Slide 1

Report
Strategic Review Presentation
Strategic Review 2009
30 July 2009
Strategic Review 2009
Asked to
 Provide a strategic framework appropriate for the
challenges we face now and into the future;
 Create a set of principles and values that provide the basis
of a strategic and operational priorities plan and a new
governance and management framework;
 Conduct an internal review to allow all members of the
Faculty to understand the collective challenges, and have
the opportunity to contribute to the future direction;
Strategic Review 2009
- Review was conducted around five strategic review areas,
each led by two co-chairs;
- The co-chairs were selected for their experience and their
capacity for openness and judgement;
Strategic Review Area
Co-chairs
Research
Winthrop Professor Cheryl Praeger
Winthrop Professor Mark Randolph
Education
Winthrop Professor James Trevelyan
Professor Gordon Royle
Industry and Community Partnerships,
Foundations and Alumni
Winthrop Professor Mark Cassidy
Mr Tim Shanahan
Physical, Information, Communication
and Computing Infrastructure
Winthrop Professor David Sampson
Professor Mark Reynolds
Governance and Management
Winthrop Professor Greg Ivey
Associate Professor Nick Spadaccini
Faculty Involvement
Over six months, the co-chairs have led an open discussion
across the Faculty:
 Over 60 workshops, focus groups, working party meetings;
 30 Submissions by members of the Faculty;
 Over 1,000 hits on the Strategic Review website;
 Over 1,000 hours spent by the co-chairs on the review; and
 Thousands of hours contributed by staff from across the
Faculty;
Strategic Review Area Papers
The co-chairs of each of the Strategic Review areas have
produced a number of documents across recent months
 Each has identified the challenges we face, and provided
us with options, principles and recommendations to guide
the Faculty into the future;
 Over 300 pages of documentation has been generated by
the Strategic Review 2009;
Thanks and Acknowledgement
 All members of the Faculty for engaging in this important
process, and providing their feedback, ideas and concerns;
 The review volunteers, of which there are many, who
participated and assisted the review;
 The numerous staff who assisted in the collection and
collation of large amounts of information;
 The co-chairs for their hard work and dedication, and their
commitment to making the Faculty the best it can possibly
be;
Strategic Review Paper
The purpose of today’s presentation, and the consultation
over the next month, is to consider the proposed strategic
principles and governance and management framework
This incorporates contributions from each of the co-chairs
across all of the Strategic Review areas, and presents a
high level strategy to guide the Faculty into the future
Strategic Review Paper
This paper outlines proposed strategic principles and a
governance and management framework for the Faculty;
Developed through:
 consultation with the Faculty through the Governance and
Management Workshop, interviews and submissions;
 investigation of other faculty models at UWA and in other
universities in Australia and internationally;
 consideration of issues, options and recommendations
identified in each of the other strategic review papers; and
 discussion amongst the co-chairs,
 feedback from the Heads of School and the ECM Summit
Focus of the Paper
 Focus is on strategic principles and a governance and
management framework;
 The paper does not provide an implementation plan or
many of the details required to implement;
 The proposal is designed to guide the Faculty into the
future;
Strategic Principles
 A number of strategic principles were extracted from the
other review papers which represent the strategic concepts
that underpin the Faculty as it moves into the future;
 These principles were developed by the co-chairs, and
reflect the issues, options and recommendations identified
in each of the review area papers;
 These principles, as well as the recommendations and
options from each of the review areas, will guide the
Faculty in its future direction;
Governance and Management
Framework
Background
 Current schools based model is one with a focus on
education;
 During the course of the Review, only one other model was
suggested, based on research centres;
 These can be seen as two extremes of the spectrum, and
the proposed model is a balance between them, designed
to provide equal focus to research and education;
 This delivers on the strengths of both models, and enables
the Faculty to succeed in both of its core business’
Governance and Management
Framework - Diagrams
The following three diagrams, as well as the appendix to the
paper, describe the proposed governance and
management framework for the Faculty.
They are split to show different aspects of the same model,
and must be considered altogether to provide a complete
picture
 Fig 2 – Governance and Decision Making Structure
Describes the committees and flow of decisions
 Fig 1 – Management Structure
Describes the reporting relationships of staff
 Fig 3 – Overall Funding Model
Describes the broad flow of funding in the Faculty
Fig 2 - Governance and Decision
Making Structure
Fig 2 - Governance and Decision
Making Structure
Disciplines and Research Themes
 Disciplines are core areas of teaching expertise
 Includes discipline groups and individuals
 Research Themes are broad strategic areas of focus for
research (e.g. Energy, environment and sustainable
development)
 Includes Centres, research groups and individuals
 The co-chairs have not indicated the number of Research
Themes or Disciplines, or what they should be – this is to
be determined by the Faculty
 In making that decision, the Faculty will need to consider
the numbers and the content in the context of the overall
model, including to ensure that the committee structure is
effective
Fig 2 Key Features
 Retention of strong, vibrant Discipline Areas;
 Creation of high level multi-disciplinary Research Themes
based on existing and emerging strengths;
 Education and Research committees with:
o academic decision making power (delegated from Faculty
Board); and
o budgetary responsibility (delegated from the Dean);
 A Development Board comprised of high level industry,
community and alumni members providing strategic advice
on external relations to the Faculty;
Fig 2 - Governance and Decision
Making Structure
Fig 2 Key Features
 Retention of strong, vibrant Discipline Areas;
 Creation of high level multi-disciplinary Research Themes
based on existing and emerging strengths;
 Education and Research committees with:
o academic decision making power (delegated from Faculty
Board); and
o budgetary responsibility (delegated from the Dean);
 A Development Board comprised of high level industry,
community and alumni members providing strategic advice
on external relations to the Faculty;
Fig 2 - Governance and Decision
Making Structure
Fig 2 Key Features
 Retention of strong, vibrant Discipline Areas;
 Creation of high level multi-disciplinary Research Themes
based on existing and emerging strengths;
 Education and Research committees with:
o academic decision making power (delegated from Faculty
Board); and
o budgetary responsibility (delegated from the Dean);
 A Development Board comprised of high level industry,
community and alumni members providing strategic advice
on external relations to the Faculty;
Fig 2 - Governance and Decision
Making Structure
Fig 2 Key Features – continued
• Planning and Resources Committee providing advice to the
Dean on strategy and resource allocation;
• Faculty Board membership that is representative of the
Faculty including elected members from academic and
professional staff which operates as a check, balance and
safeguard for the Faculty on academic matters
• Full Faculty will exist in the same way as it does in our
current model and will meet at least once annually
Fig 2 - Governance and Decision
Making Structure
Fig 2 Key Features – continued
• Planning and Resources Committee providing advice to the
Dean on strategy and resource allocation;
• Faculty Board membership that is representative of the
Faculty including elected members from academic and
professional staff which operates as a check, balance and
safeguard for the Faculty on academic matters
• Full Faculty will exist in the same way as it does in our
current model and will meet at least once annually
Fig 2 Key Features – continued
• It is anticipated that the Education and Research
committees and the Development Board will create
subcommittees as required.
• The paper recommends that a graduate research
subcommittee be created.
Fig 1 – Proposed Strategic
Management Structure
Fig 1 - Key Features
 All Heads of Discipline and Research Theme Leaders
report to the Dean;
 Academic staff will report either to a Head of Discipline or
a Research Theme Leader;
 Associate Dean roles created in Education, Research and
External Relations, with strategic and executive
responsibilities
 All Associate Deans report to the Dean and be members of
the Planning and Resources Committee;
 Associate Deans Education and Research chair the
Education and Research Committees;
Fig 1 - Key Features
• Academic staff will be appointed to the Faculty and most
will be affiliated to both a Discipline and a Research
Theme, ensuring a research-teaching nexus;
• There will be opportunities for academic staff to be affiliated
with more than one Discipline or Research Theme;
• Activity across Disciplines and Research Themes will be
determined in light of our teaching commitments and
research priorities;
• Individual academic staff will continue to have academic
freedom to explore new teaching and research areas;
Fig 1 - Key Features
 Professional staff are essential to the Faculty’s functioning;
 Professional staff will be employed by the Faculty and will
be managed and deployed centrally or locally as
appropriate;
 Professional Staff will be organised based on the functional
tasks they undertake in their roles
 The details of a professional staff structure will be
determined following further consultation, to provide
effective and efficient support to the Faculty and provide a
career structure;
Fig 3 – Overall Funding Model
Fig 3 – Key Features
 All salaries are budgeted for and paid off the top;
 All infrastructure is budgeted for and paid off the top;
 Budget compiled from the bottom up - input from
 Disciplines and Research Themes via respective committees
and Associate Deans for operational and initiative funding
requirements; and
 Recommendations on future staffing and infrastructure
needs;
 Research and Education needs given equally important
consideration in the planning and budget process
Fig 3 – Key Features
 Active and balanced participation in the planning and
resource allocation process from both Heads of Disciplines
and Research Theme Leaders, via respective Committees
and Associate Deans
 Industry and community engagement needs and resource
requirements incorporated into the Faculty’s planning and
resourcing processes
Models considered
Examples of models considered:
- Stanford University
- Imperial College London
- California Institute of Technology
- Monash University
- UWA Business School
- UWA Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences
Comparative Models – Top 50
School of Engineering, Stanford University
- Limited number of strategic research priorities that cut
across academic departments;
- Departments responsible for teaching programmes;
- Low boundaries between departments;
- Academic staff with affiliations to more than one
department whilst also researching within a crossdisciplinary research priority area;
- Strategic planning at a School (UWA Faculty) level;
Comparative Models – Top 50
Faculty of Engineering, Imperial College London
- Strategic decision making and resource allocation
undertaken at a faculty level;
- Two strategic committees with responsibility for education
and research respectively, and with an advisory role on
resources;
- Academic departments responsible for teaching and
disciplinary research, with cross-disciplinary research
facilitated by centres and institutes across departments;
Comparative Models – Top 50
Division of Engineering and Applied Science, California
Institute of Technology
- Educational responsibility assigned to a number of
academic “options” (disciplines);
- Overlapping research theme areas around which research
is organised in the Division;
- Academic staff a part of the Division as a whole, with
affiliations, research and teaching in multiple “options” and
research theme areas;
Comparative Models – G08
Monash University
- Departments responsible for teaching and research within
the discipline area;
- Formation of cross-disciplinary research areas (research
themes);
- New building used to co-locate researchers in common
areas outside of disciplines;
Comparative Models – UWA
UWA Business School
- Strong undergraduate teaching faculty reflected in
organisation based on academic disciplines;
- Research priorities led by sponsored chairs, incorporating
staff from across the Faculty;
- Resources and strategic planning decisions conducted at a
Faculty-wide level;
- Centralised professional staff structure, where staff support
is based on functional teams that deliver services across
the Faculty;
Comparative Models – UWA
Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences
- Strong research orientated Faculty, reflected in structure
based on Schools, Centres and Institutes;
- Institutes and Centres facilitate research focus;
- Faculty-wide committees for teaching, research and
planning and resources;
- Centralised management of IT and Student Services;
Strategic Review Paper
 Based on a significant level of consultation across the
Faculty and a consideration of a significant amount of
information;
 Strategic Review paper provides a carefully informed
proposal for taking the Faculty forward;
Creating a Vibrant Faculty
This model provides the basis for:
 making the Faculty a great place to work
 facilitating responsiveness and staff involvement
 creating a career structure for academic and professional
staff to excel
 collegiality and cooperation
 a vibrant Faculty that is innovative, interesting, exciting and
cutting edge and that will attract the best people from
across the world.
Key Areas for Implementation
There are a number of key details going forward that will
need to be worked out
 Roles of Associate Deans, Heads of Discipline and
Research Theme Leaders are critical to the success of the
model and the Faculty. Characteristics of these people will
be:




leadership,
Experience;
Broad and strategic view;
Dedicated members of our Faculty;
Key Areas for Implementation
 Priority to decide our Research Themes and Disciplines,
with consultation across the Faculty, and to ensure these
realise our strategic objectives;
 Workload model that ensures fairness across the Faculty
and allows time for research, education and service;
 Determining our professional staffing structure, in
consultation with staff;
 Consultation across the Faculty throughout implementation
process;
Feedback and Consultation
Process
Feedback on this paper will take place over the next month,
and will involve a number of ways for the Faculty to
contribute. This will be coupled with more opportunities to
ask questions about the proposal as well as further
explanation on the proposal.
Following this, all of the feedback provided will be
considered, and any necessary modifications made to the
paper.
The revised paper will then be released to the Faculty for inprinciple endorsement at a Full Faculty meeting.
Implementation
When endorsement in principle is obtained, the Faculty will
move forward in working out the details, using all the
strategic review papers;
Consultative process with members of the Faculty;
Working groups established to work on specific areas of
detail;
Ways to Provide Feedback
Attend a Feedback Session
 There will be a number of feedback sessions over the
month in which staff will be able to ask questions and
provide feedback;
 The timing and location of these will be provided on the
Strategic Review website;
Make a Submission
 All members of the Faculty have the opportunity to make a
written submission(s);
 Submission guidelines and processes are available on the
strategic review website;
Ways to Provide Feedback
continued
Request a Feedback Session
 Individuals or groups of staff can request a feedback
session/meeting, in which the Dean, General Manager or
the Governance and Management Co-Chairs will answer
questions on the proposal and listen to your feedback;
 Requests sent to [email protected];
 Available times will be listed on the Strategic Review
website
Ways to Provide Feedback
continued
Online Feedback Form
 An online feedback form is available on the Strategic
Review website;
 This allows anonymous feedback;
Send an Email
 Email [email protected] with your
comments and concerns;
Further Information
Strategic Review 2009 website:
www.ecm.uwa.edu.au/staffnet/review
Email: [email protected]
Be involved in the feedback sessions
Contact the Dean, the General Manager or the Manager,
Special Projects for more information
Future of the Faculty
 We face challenges as a Faculty going forward;
 Committed to make this a fantastic, vibrant place to work;
 We have the capacity and talent within our ranks to make
us an outstanding Faculty
 World leading research and education;
 Innovative and long term relationships with the external
community;
 Vibrant, exciting culture to which people are attracted;
 Cutting edge facilities to enable us to achieve excellence;
 Building on the current dedication of staff, and rewarding that
dedication with a career structure so that we retain the best,
and attract outstanding new appointments;

similar documents