HUMANE
Heads of University Management
& Administration Network in Europe
Abstracts and
Discussion
“Structures of Success: Ensuring Quality at the University of
Aveiro”
Jorge Baptista Lopes and Prof. JA Rafael, University
of Aveiro
Abstract
In pursuing an international
dimension, the Portuguese Higher Education (HE) system has been facing our
challenging times with determination and confidence. The University of Aveiro is trying to adapt to modern needs by
thinking forward in a rational way, being both reactive and pro-active in order
to be able to anticipate and overcome the obstacles in its path. Since the
early nineties, a process of continuous change has been set up, the results of
which now appear to be coming to fruition. The process has been taken on board
as a general commitment by all institutional staff at all levels, including the
support of the Rector’s office and the other governing bodies.
The presentation begins with
a brief description of the institution’s main features, its evolution and its
place within the national HE system, and then analyses the special features of
this particular community to illustrate the overall action plan. The speakers
assume that - like human beings - a University is capable of defining its own
destiny and acting in conformity with is own will. The point is to find out the
proper means to do that within its special context of untouchable individual
freedom.
To do this, the University
must re-define its own distinctive future. Internal structures and systems have
to match the fundamental strategic decisions. The University of Aveiro sees
itself as an autonomous human (and humane!) organisation that constructs its
own future as a centre of awareness, investigation and culture where all
members can develop their personality in an atmosphere of liberty, accountability
and quality. Provided that new attitudes and new forms of behaviour are
everywhere adopted, it seems to us perfectly possible to re-think the
University through a global process of change, which, with respect to the
organisational aspects, has to begin by redefining and rebuilding the existing
structures.
The presentation also
focuses on a simple, rational and coherent model which Prof Rafael (Pro-Rector)
proposed for the organisation of the University Services. This model is
designed to ensure the delivery of all the assumed ‘pre-requisites’, by giving
the various institutional areas the necessary autonomy, responsibility and the
appropriate means of quality assurance, while simultaneously preserving both
the central decision-making policy and the capacity to monitor and assess the
devolved units. This process is meant to build a flexible system of cells
merging into a set of interactive and complementary aims, a holistic system
where everybody may take charge of his/her own destiny either individually or
as a group.
Discussion
The speakers stressed that the approach outlined
here was merely a set of suggestions as to how one might re-examine and
re-frame administrative functions. They also stressed that the model provided a
starting-point for evaluation and action, and that the danger of uniformity of
approach (suggested by some participants) was only theoretical. They noted that
the office responsible for introducing the programme comprised three members of
staff.
In response to a question on how to involve the
whole University, Jorge stressed that each unit (department) had a person or a
committee. [It is interesting that this
corresponds to the method mentioned by Peter Plenge (Aalborg) in the Oslo IT
seminar, and to that suggested by Anne-Grete Holmsgaard (Copenhagen) in the
Environmental seminar in Dublin.] Some
participants wondered why one could not merely transplant standard procedures
which had been used elsewhere, but the presenters argued that such changes
should form a framework that was specific to a particular institution. The aim was an evolutionary style of change,
which was sometimes perceived as difficult in that institutions tended to
change only in the face of a major crisis.
By means of this gradualist and logical approach the aim was to ensure
continuous improvement. What was special was the stated and explicit
links all the way from the work of the Rector to that of students.
Abstract
Fundamental and practical reasons have prompted the
Universiteit van Amsterdam (UvA) to build a new Library. The more fundamental
driving forces are threefold, namely:
·
changes
in society;
·
developments
in Information Technology
·
new
thoughts about Teaching/Learning and Research.
The more practical reason is that the current
housing of the University Library is completely inadequate!
In planning this new library, which should also
integrate the Library of the Faculty of Humanities, the UvA has been trying to
think through the impact of the changes on the functions of the library. These
functions are, and will remain: 1) the collecting, 2) the pre-serving and 3)
the making available of information. Next to this the Library becomes
ever more important as the place on campus where students come to study.
The library changes from a product
organisation with a task orientation
to a service organisation with a market orientation. The digital Library
does not so much replace the traditional one, but adds new possibilities and
products.
The building itself
will comply with a number of demands. It will
be a light and spacious, functional but at the same time monumental
building, with an open structure.
Flexibility and durability are the main features. A lot of attention has
been paid to creating a cosy, inviting and inspiring environment. The Library
will have long opening hours and high standards of service. Organisationally, there will
be a division of tasks in which the University Library functions as a back
office and the Faculty Libraries as front offices.
Discussion
In response to questions Ruud emphasised that UvA
had a very democratic process - and correspondingly lively discussion! He outlined the financial policies which had
allowed funding for redevelopment to come from reserves, and noted the extreme
importance of training, with the first priority given to students, and then
extended to staff. He admitted that
some “old-style” librarians were not entirely happy with the new scheme, but
stressed that as a general rule librarians now saw themselves (as had been
intended) as managers. One participant
observed that at his own university the attempt to increase space by 50% over a
six-year planning period had been rather spoiled by the fact that (thanks to
things like electronic access to journals) over 50% of the seating spaces were
now regularly empty. Ruud underlined what he had said in his presentation about
the importance of flexibility.
“Contract Management
between the University and Faculties: a Pilot Scheme”
Dietmar Ertmann: Kanzler, University of Mannheim
Abstract
In comparison with other German universities the
University of Mannheim is of medium size. It is relatively young as a full
university (created in 1967), but prior to that it had been a significant
business school. It therefore concentrates on the economic and social
sciences. In both teaching and research
the subjects of law, mathematics/computing and technical computer sciences,
linguistic and cultural studies are intertwined with the disciplines of
business management, economics, politics, psychology, social psychology and
sociology.
Since 1991 the University has worked continuously on
process re-engineering in order to simplify and decentralise administrative
processes. We believe that traditional
structures cannot be changed by a “big bang” but only step-by-step. With the support of the Stifterverband für
die Deutsche Wissenschaft and the Baden-Württemberg Ministry of Science we
started a project in 1996 to further strengthen the Faculties by building up
their own administrative support, helping them to make better use of their
financial autonomy.
Three model Faculties were chosen, and they have
agreed to a contract management scheme with the University. The aim of our
project is to grant a high degree of autonomy to Faculties yet on the other
hand to allow the University to influence certain key policies by contract
management. The first contracts were
concluded in 1998 and were tailor-made[1]
to suit the different needs of the various Faculties. They are renewable each year.
The three model Faculties clearly had different
needs. The Faculty of Economics,
with a very high research profile but a shortage of first degree students,
contracted to increase the amount of first-year students through a number of
defined steps. The Faculty of Humanities, with a large number of registered
students but an insufficient number of graduates, contracted to take measures
to reduce the drop-out rate and the make its financial allocations to the
various departments more transparent.
The Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science agreed to start a
new degree course in computational mathematics, and to make this offer known in
secondary schools, both by providing contact hours in such institutions and by
allowing top pupils from the secondary level to attend classes in the
University.
The presentation outlines the procedures that led to
these contracts, the difficulties which were encountered, and the methods
implemented to ensure that agreed targets are being met.
Discussion
Irrespective of its actual age, Mannheim was like
all other German universities in facing the implications of a shift from line
budgets to global budgets, with discretion as to the internal allocation of
funds among Faculties. The idea of
contract management was an agreement between parties on common aims, both in
order to improve performance but also to satisfy government requirements for
proof that funds had been properly used.
Dietmar explained why the three model Faculties had
been chosen. For example, despite its
strong research record Economics had been losing student numbers for some time;
Humanities had too many students; while Mathematics & Computing Sciences rather
needed to provide new courses to attract students. The contracts were for a
three-year period started with defined objectives, moving on to more
qualitative judgments. But in essence,
the contract allowed Faculties to expect more financial rewards for having met
their side of the bargain by delivering what in each case was part of the
university’s mission.
Replying to questions, Dietmar noted that it had
been necessary to move to a situation where Deans served longer than the short
periods which had previously been accepted.
A four-year term was thought most appropriate. This gave a much better chance of having a coherent policy. Faculties derived two main benefits:
firstly, they obtained more money to deliver aims which were included in the
contract; but also there were incentives specific to each Faculty - for
example, it was possible to argue for more space as opposed to funds. He agreed
that there were some dangers in encouraging Faculties to increase student
numbers without strict controls on quality, but - since access to HE was rather
open anyway - thought that the advantages of the contract in terms of
performance outweighed any such risks.
Contracts were negotiated with each Faculty Board -
Dietmar stressed the need for agreement here, since coercion simply could not
work. The contract was prepared and
drawn up by the Kanzler, but signed by the Rector and Dean.
The Effects of Greater Autonomy on the Internal
Structures of German Universities
Klaus Peters, Kanzler, University of Wuppertal
Abstract
German Higher Education consists of two main
sectors, the University sector, which is mainly rooted in the tradition of the
German Research University, and the Fachhochschul sector, which is orientated
towards vocational eduction. As for the Universities, the German System is a
publicly funded one. Most Universities are governed and financed within the 16
‘Länder’, or respective states, of the Federal Republic of Germany. Their legal
status is a public body and at the same time an organisational unit of the
respective state.
Until the end of the 1980s the institution’s budget
was part of the state budget and the state budget laws applied to universities
in the same way as they did to other areas. The bulk of the funds received by
the universities were not for arbitary expenditure, but were earmarked[2]
in the form of line-item budgeting by the political administrative sector.
Since the beginning of the 1990s the German system
of university financing has been characterised by a clear trend towards
enhanced financial autonomy. In almost all German states the permission to
decide on the expenditure of public grants was shifted from the
political-administrative sector to the universities. Line-item budgeting is
being more and more replaced by budget flexibility and lump sum grants.
The presentation will illustrate some different
concepts of financial autonomy within German Universities and tries to make
clear the fact that financial autonomy is not itself desirable. An evolution of
the effects of greater financial autonomy requires a close look at the
interests behind the concept of autonomy and the internal framework of the
university.
Discussion
Klaus noted that the movement towards greater
budgetary autonomy in Germany was at different speeds - in one Land, it was
possible to transfer forward 1% of any surplus, while in others the whole of
any annual surplus could be carried forward.
He noted that, in common with other countries, there was a political
wish to create autonomy since it allowed governments to pass the blame for
unwelcome financial cuts on to the universities which decided them. He underlined his view that - like complete
moreal freedom, perhaps - total autonomy could be quite a burden, and preferred
to stress that autonomy was acceptable only within recognisable limits.
There was considerable discussion of whether it was
right for institutions to make a financial “profit”. The question was even sharper in those countries where the
derviation of private funds merely led to a reduction in State funding. This
was linked to the question of tuition fees, and here the experience of the UK
was discussed, whereby - particularly in Scotland - tuition fees had become a
major issue for government policy, forcing HE to the centre of the political
stage.
“The implications of ‘massification’ for internal structures and
systems”
Janusz
Karczewski-Slowikowski: Registrar, Manchester Metropolitan University
Abstract
This presentation will use the Manchester
Metropolitan University (‘MMU’) as a case study for considering how
institutional structures and student
support systems in particular may need to change in order to cope with the
“massification” of higher education (HE).
The term “massification” refers to the widening and
extending of socio-economic participation in HE rather than just an expansion
of student numbers. It involves the recruitment, retention and (hopefully)
successful graduation of students from what are termed “non-traditional
backgrounds” and in particular those from the poorer socio-economic groups.
Whilst the number of persons entering HE in the UK has grown dramatically over
the past decade or so, the participation rate of those from disadvantaged
backgrounds remains low: only 14% of those aged 18-21 from unskilled family
backgrounds entered HE in 1997 compared with 49% from the upper income groups.
The UK government is encouraging institutions to identify strategies for
widening participation through a special funding initiative which allocates money
on the basis of the socio-economic background of entrants.
Wider participation involves more than the
recruitment of greater numbers from poorer backgrounds. Retaining, developing
and motivating them to achieve their full potential will be crucial if wastage
rates[3]
are not to be unacceptably high.
Institutions will need to have in place adequate support structures and
systems to facilitate this, and will need to plan for delivering HE
successfully to students for whom the traditional model of HE would not be a
natural choice.
Whilst many traditional UK universities may be
described as elitist[4]
in terms of their student intakes, this is not true of the former Polytechnics
(now the ‘new’ universities) in which the largest numbers of “non-traditional” entrants
to HE are to be found. The MMU, itself one of the ‘new’ universities has a
successful history of both increasing and widening socio-economic
participation. There is an old saying that “What Manchester does today, London
does tomorrow”, and Manchester’s success as one of the largest student centres
in Europe reflects a long history of commitment to extend the benefits of
education “to the masses”. However, the
pace at which “massification” is now to be pursued has increased and the MMU
will be as challenged as any other institution to respond to the demands this
will bring.
With over 33,000 students, the MMU is the largest
conventional UK University. It was
established as a Polytechnic in 1970 by the merging together of several
colleges which had their roots in the early 19th Century. When first
established, the Polytechnic had fewer than 5,000 students. Following mergers with several colleges in
the late 1970s and early 1980s, and its planned response to government
expansion plans, it grew rapidly in the ensuing years, before becoming a
University in 1992. The University’s
buildings are dispersed across a wide area of Manchester and one Faculty is
65Km to the south of the city.
Whether as a collection of Colleges, a Polytechnic
or in its present form, MMU’s mission has always been to provide (higher)
education for those with the ability to undertake the demands of its courses
and achieve the standard required for its awards. In this context, the
University has often looked for indicators of potential ability other than the
traditional "A” level grades[5]
gained at school with the result that it has recruited many students who do not
possess formal entry qualifications.
The University’s admission policies and practices together with its
large and diverse portfolio of courses which are delivered through a variety of
modes of study have resulted in a varied student mix and a female population
which exceeds the male (57:43).
It is against this background of historical,
structural and organisational change and development that an examination of
MMU’s past and present internal structures and systems may help us identify
what will be required for a system of
mass HE in the 21st Century.
Discussion
Janusz noted that all speakers had mentioned autonomy,
management and increased access (ie, allowing more students to take part in
HE). He wished to stress that he
himself was totally committed to massification and a differentiated system. He illustrated the various avatars of his
own institution, and the constant mission of improving the minds and conditions
of those who traditionally did not benefit from university education.
It was clear to him that massification meant that
less money would be spent on research.
He was sad that so many universities pursued the goal of becoming
excellent research institutions when they had no such background, and felt that
there should be a more honest recognition of the true status and mission of
institutions. He also disagreed with a colleague who argued against the
significant expansion of the Humanities as opposed to Engineering.
In the latter part of the afternoon the participants
enjoyed a boat trip on the ria
(lagoon) of Aveiro, before a traditional regional dinner. This included a fado recital at which Jorge Baptista Lopes (having opened the
seminar with his presentation) revealed his own considerable talents as a
singer, thus giving an extra dimension to HUMANE’s interest in professional
development.
Summary
prepared by Trevor Field
[1]Individually designed/produced.
[2]Reserved for a particular use (for this and other phrases see HUMANE’s “Guide to the English of Higher Education”)
[3]The percentage or proportion of students who leave (or “drop out”; cp Dr Ertmann’s text) before graduating.
[4]Favouring or preserving an élite.
[5]The “A” (i.e., Advanced) level school-leaving exam, as opposed to “O” (ordinary).