Achieving restructuring: the keys to success

This is one of a series of Good Practice Guides published by the AUA. Front cover image by Flickr user scorp84, licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic (CC BY-ND 2.0) licence. © AUA 2014 www.aua.ac.uk AUA National Office The University of Manchester, Sackville Street Building, Sackville Street, Manchester M60 1QD Tel: 0161 275 2063 Fax: +44(0)161 275 2036 Email: [email protected]

Achieving restructuring: the keys to success

Good Practice Series number 38

Written by Kathryn Fowler

and Dr. Christopher Sarchet

Includes case studies and lessons learnt

Contents The Authors

The Authors 3 Introduction 7 Universities are complex organisations 10 Decision making structure 11 Culture 12 Academic Culture 14 Drivers for change 15 The role of communication 19 Case Study 1 20 Case Study 2 26 Case Study 3 32 Cast Study 4 36 Conclusions 41 References 43

Kathryn Fowler

A professional University Manager with more than 20

years’ experience of the Higher Education system, Mrs

Kathy Fowler is currently the Deputy Executive

Director of the Aberdeen Institute of Energy. Prior to

this she was the College Registrar (Director of

Administration) for the College of Physical Sciences, 2003-2013. In this

role she led the administrative team for one of the three Colleges,

through which all academic activity is managed at the University of

Aberdeen. This involved co-ordinating a team of professional

administrators including, accountants, human resources, estates, IT

specialists alongside generalist administrators. The College has an

annual turnover of c£40m, and has over 400 staff and 3,500 Full Time

students.

Kathy has been involved in a number of major projects at College,

University and Sector level. These include:

Business Continuity Planning; Pandemic Flu Planning; IT risk assessment

and continuity planning.

Review of Technical and Secretarial Support Services

Business Planning to develop Archaeology as a new programme

The development of the highly successful Northern Research

Partnership in Engineering & Related disciplines since its inception in

2006/07

3 2

Tel: +44 (0)1224 272190

E-mail: [email protected]

Dr Christopher Sarchet

Christopher’s special interest is the

professionalisation of administration in

higher education and particularly the

improvement of the management of

change.

Before working in higher education, Christopher worked for the Civil

Service, Local Government and the Kings Fund as Administrator,

Political Advisor and Facilities Manager.

Christopher has 20 years practical experience of management in

higher education both at faculty and central organisational levels at

two post ‘92 universities. During this career he has managed and

developed customer centred services for faculty administration

(including provision of services for the business and health faculties),

fee collection, registration, assessment, and graduation.

He has been responsible for managing:

Reorganisations

Introducing new software systems and processes

Development and implementation of new policies and processes

A review of undergraduate and postgraduate curriculum

A review of research

The development of student and staff charters

The development of the National Subsea Research Institute (NSRI),

from the development of the initial concept, through to its launch, and

is currently an NSRI Board member

Refurbishment and new build projects in support of the College

Estates strategy.

New software procurement and implementation projects for the

University

In 2007/8 she convened a working group for the University to review

the University’s Student Record System. As a member of the

Association of University Administrators (AUA), she has shared her

expertise and knowledge with colleagues through a number for

journal articles, a Guide to Managing Change and leading conference

sessions. She is currently a member and coordinator of the AUA

Managing Change in Higher Education themed network. An AUA

Fellow, Kathy has recently commenced a second term as a Board

member.

Kathy’s previous experience includes: being the first ACT Officer in

Scotland, Faculty Officer, Director of Wider Access Policy, heading up

the Centre for Lifelong Learning (CLL), working in administration in

industry (construction & leisure trades) and in the public sector

(Community work project). She was educated at Dinnington High

School South Yorkshire, and the University of Aberdeen, graduating

with an MA Hons in English. She has undertaken a number of

professional development programmes including the UUK Continuing

Professional Development Award and the International Leadership

Management Development programme.

Contact details:

University of Aberdeen, Fraser Noble Building, Kings College,

Aberdeen, AB24 3FX

5 4

He has Participative Process Review practical experience having worked

with SUMS to develop the approach to be taken in a University. He is a

Project and Programme Management Professional (Qualified PRINCE 2

Foundation and Managing Successful Programmes Practitioner) with

practical experience of their use in a higher education institution.

He is a qualitative researcher and completed a professional doctorate in

Business Administration in 2009. His practical thesis ‘Managing in the

middle, the practice of managing change in English universities’ led to

him establishing the AUA Managing Change in Higher Education themed

network (he is the Convenor).

He is a Fellow of the AUA and works as the Director of the Strategic

Programme Office at London Metropolitan University.

Contact Details:

Strategic Programme Office, London Metropolitan University 166-220

Holloway Road, London, N7 8DB

Tel: 0207 133 2496

E-mail: [email protected]

Cartoons by Dr Christopher Sarchet

Restructuring and reorganisations are stressful for all stakeholders

including the manager tasked with achieving it. University leadership

introduce such changes as: ‘rationalisation’; ‘downsizing’; ‘mergers’;

‘takeovers’; ‘efficiency gains’; ‘budget cuts’; ‘relocations’; ‘right

sizing; and even ‘restructuring with the emphasis on putting the

customer first’. Whatever the terminology used, the staff involved

present the largest and most coherent challenge as they may be

averse to the change and openly or passively resistant. Their

perception may be that it is all a cost cutting exercise that is aimed

at saving money and asking for more from less staff, even if a new

management ‘buzz word’ is used. If a change programme is required

to address an emerging threat and this is perceived to be for

positive reasons (e.g., the need to impose structure on areas subject

to growth and expansion), this can still be challenging for the

programme manager. Organic, responsive growth can seem

entrepreneurial and represent some opportunities for staff

development and advancement although, in such cases, an

“imposed” order can seem to be restraining and retardant.

This Good Practice Guide provides advice from experienced

practitioners on the ‘keys’ to successful restructuring, with the

caveat that there is really no ‘magic wand’ or secret for success

other than hard work, perseverance, good communication and a

plan that is as transparent as it can be. We have included some case

study material with lessons learnt to help the manager seeking

guidance. These are based upon real life experiences gained in the

sector and some have not been as successful as was planned or

hoped. These case studies should be considered carefully however

7 6

Introduction

A good understanding of the governance and management

structures of the institution in which they work (i.e. the decision

making process)

An appreciation of the culture of the higher education sector and the

institution in which they work

An awareness of the drivers for change, the change process together

with knowledge of good practice from change methodologies

(particularly those that have been used successfully to achieve

structural change in the higher education sector)

In the final analysis we both believe that you need to be a ‘life-long

learner’, as you can never stop learning and improving on your

methods and acquiring new skills. You should be open to employing

these new skills and using new tools, guidance and advice as they

come along, e.g. using social media to effect change. We also

suggest that access to a good network of support is a very powerful

weapon in your armoury and suggest you consider joining the

Association of University Administrators (AUA) and the Managing

Change in Higher Education themed network.

as they are written from one perspective: the manager who managed

the change. Staff members who were involved in the change may have

a completely different view of the events and the outcomes.

Associated with the essential ‘keys’ of hard work, perseverance, good

communication and a plan, it is also important that the successful

manager should have:

An appreciation of the history of the development of the sector and

more importantly the institution that you are trying to achieve a

restructuring in. (The authors have written a brief overview of the

development of the sector to aid colleagues and this is available on

request at: http://www.aua.ac.uk/ - see members’ resources).

9 8

References to other institutions’ experiences and structures and the

relative pros and cons of a particular structure show a breadth of

understanding and openness that may disarm some of those seeking

to obstruct a proposed change.

Institutions have ‘executive’ and ‘collegial’ structures and decision

making processes. The ‘executive’ may comprise of formally

established groups of senior staff who meet regularly and take

‘executive’ decisions. This may include structural and financial

decisions and some organisational and structural changes may not

need to be referred to the more formal ‘collegial’ structure or process

which is comprised of the formal committee structure at the

institution i.e. the boards.

An awareness of the roots and requirements (e.g. formal papers that

propose change for an ‘executive’ and/or ‘collegial’ decision making

process) is essential. In addition it is useful if you know the

important precursors to getting the option you need i.e. who do you

need to see and persuade prior to submitting a proposal.

Advice on the correct decision making structure to use should be

sought from the senior manager of the change manager. The

process to be used will determine the type and form the

restructuring proposal will take. This may include determining the

use of a report that may include the business case and the use of a

template from the institution. If there is not an institution based

process in existence then the change manager may wish to create

one. Either way the change manager may wish to conduct some desk

Institutions of higher education in the UK are complex organisations,

each characterised by a distinctive ethos. Each institution is

autonomous and responsible for the management and direction of its

own affairs. Yet almost all depend substantially on central government

funding and face many similar challenges.

Guide for Members of Higher Education Governing Bodies in the UK, Introduction;

HEFCE: November 2008

Universities in the UK are not all the same, and nor is it easy to put

them into simple categories. It is too easy to fall into broad

characterisations, but the breadth and diversity of history, culture,

mission and drivers creates a complex system. An overview of the

development of the university sector in the UK will provide the

manager with an understanding of the sector that will be useful when

communicating a structural change. Stakeholders and staff are always

reassured when a change manager is aware of history and tradition

and this should include research into the institutions’ individual history

and traditions as well. The best starting point for this research is the

institution’s website, which usually will contain a ‘history content page’.

The AUA Managing Change in Higher Education themed network was established in

2008 with the objective of providing, “A network of collective wisdoms managing

change, or organisational change, in higher education that members can draw on.”

The network has a three year strategy that includes an annual conference in London

in July and the development of good practice guides. The network now has over 400

members and colleagues can join via the AUA website: http://www.aua.ac.uk/

pigroups-2Managing-Change.html

11 10

Universities are complex organisations

Decision making structures

research on how similar change programmes have been managed in

the past and access committee papers via the Registry and/or

Secretariat (those who are responsible for servicing the governance of

the institution).

A successful change manager should be aware of the culture and

values of institution in which the change is required. Sometimes this is

directly related to these factors and is obvious, but this is a key part of

delivering successful change at all levels:

Is the institution risk averse or is it entrepreneurial?

Is the institution driven by a business-oriented central management?

Is the institution driven by collegial values?

Does the institution see itself as mainly operating on a global,

national or regional stage?

How does the institution determine its successes – is this being

known for producing valued employees for industry, for ground

breaking research, for valuing its employees?

An institution can value a range of these, but it is important to

understand the drivers which define the kind of institution, to

understand what kind of change will succeed. It should also be

acknowledged that the institution may be more accurately thought of

as a group of communities which dwell within a wider region. Thus

some beliefs and values will hold sway for all, whilst others will only

be held in the smaller community clusters. This can create potential

conflict – for instance if a change is being driven by a perceived

13 12

Culture

management need to be more efficient but is thought to threaten

discipline breadth.

Typically academics have divided loyalties and defend their freedom,

and are loyal to their subject over their institution. This may result in

resistance to any institutional change. Academic freedom has been

identified as a concept that is jealously defended as a primary

requirement for an independent sector (see, for example, Koch, 2003).

A useful definition of the concept is provided by James Koch when he

writes of the frustration of applying Total Quality Management;

“Faculty members traditionally have had the right to profess their

disciplines as they see fit and to seek truth, wherever that search

leads them. The content of their courses, the nature of their research,

and their professional values over the years have been subsumed

under the umbrella of academic freedom”.

(Koch, 2003, p329)

Kogan and Hanney (1999) refer to this academic culture as one of

dual accountability to their academic colleagues or subject

professionals as well as to their institution. The accountability to their

professional subject colleagues can be more binding than that to their

institution and causes potential friction during change and the

management of change. Kogan and Hanney (1999) call this

accountability the ‘invisible colleges’. The ‘invisible college’ is not a

recognised organisation but is formalised in the quality assurance

processes that exist in the United Kingdom higher education sector,

such as the external examiner system and peer review of research.

These processes may serve to formally reinforce the subject academic

community of the ‘invisible college’. Kogan and Hanney (1999) 15 14

interviewed Jarrett, the Chair of the Steering Committee that

reviewed efficiency in universities in 1985, when researching change

and were informed that it was necessary to pay attention to the

‘invisible college’ because if it was ignored then success would not be

achieved. Kogan and Hanney conclude that the sector believes itself

to be ‘unique’ and, because of the need for academic freedom and

the existence of the ‘invisible college’, business methods will be

resisted because they are viewed as inappropriate.

It is also important to understand what the drivers for change are as

well as understanding how the culture and history of an institution

may respond and might shape structural change as a result of these

drivers.

So what are the drivers for this change which is seeing a large

number of universities amend their structure?

Universities exist in a competitive environment. They compete for

resources, staff and students, and for influence. In a system which

has more than 130 institutions in the UK, these represent not just

economic success, but also contribute to the reputation of the

institution and hence its ongoing success. However, as well as

competing, universities will also combine and collaborate where this

is in their interests, for example, bidding for government initiatives

such as Strategic Development Research Grants, or for EU grants.

Paradoxically, the same universities will be simultaneously in fierce

competition and be working collaboratively.

Academic Culture

Drivers for change

The goal for many modern universities is to achieve the balance of

being able to deliver a high quality product (student experience,

research outputs, new industry-ready applications etc.) whilst being

effective and efficient. This goal has seen universities adopt models

from business and industry (business process re-engineering, Kaizen

change techniques, PRINCE methodologies, etc.) as a means to

reducing bureaucracy and creating “leaner-meaner” organisations. Given

the culture, governance and history described previously, this often

creates conflict within the organisation and makes successful change

more complex and harder to achieve. Conflict can occur not only

between management and academics, but also within the

administration, where staff may reflect a business-oriented attitude and

also a more traditional “civil service” or custodian approach.

The following can be considered to be amongst the key drivers for

structural change:

Economies of scale – creating larger units to compete nationally

and internationally to increase resource for the institution (some

universities have student bodies of 40,000+)

Business improvement – to deliver more effectively, through the

development of simpler management lines, or to enable resources

to be more focused towards strategic priorities

To enhance local delivery by creating units oriented to local needs

(business, arts/media, industry–focused).

Change in management style – to increase local accountability, to

centralise, to increase control (dependent on availability and scale

of resource)

Change in leadership: Universities replace their chief executive at

defined intervals: this brings into play the “legacy” factor (outgoing

CEO) and the new broom/“first 100 days” factor (incoming CEO)

To respond to external factors – Government imperatives or

Funding Council influences

17 16

Effective communication is a ‘business critical’ ‘key’ to achieving change.

This business speak underpins the requirement for a good

communication plan that identifies the stakeholders that will be affected

by the structural change and their engagement in the design of the

solution. A good change manager will assess the stakeholders interests

using their analysis of the history, culture and strategy of the institution

or organisation (and, if necessary, the sub unit within the institution or

organisation). They then can determine how they should be approached

and communicated with, adding how they will be involved in the

development of the new structure and how they may help or feedback

on issues as they arise. There are tips for success that are useful and an

open approach that reassures stakeholders that you, as the change

manager, know what you are doing is the starting point.

Top tips to communicate change

A good change manager is a negotiator not a bully

Accept that you may not be able to take everyone with you, but that

does not mean that you should not keep trying to do so!

Be prepared and rehearse

Be truthful – especially about limitations on the ability to amend the

plan

Careless words cost

Do not do “cold call” emails – in person is best, by phone next best

Draft a communication strategy and use this as a template

Establish a clear vision of what is to be achieved

Have a communication strategy and use it as the framework for

change

Identify both key champions (pro the change) and major blockers

(those who oppose) and nurture them both.

To enable the creation of new sub units (e.g. new disciplines or

research institutions )

To respond to specific needs such as creating an RAE/REF unit of

assessment

To respond to economic problems – by pulling together support units

to enable downsizing, or by closing units

Merger of two institutions (e.g. Manchester & UMIST) or, more rarely,

de-merger into 2 or more institutions (e.g. St Andrews and Dundee)

In responding to these drivers, Universities will reflect their cultural

approach and management style. Some universities will drive the

change from a small, strong central group, others will discuss, consult

and debate to achieve a slower but more collegiate change, with the

dangers attendant that such slowness of pace may delay necessary

change and achieve only a diluted change not addressing the

fundamental needs.

19 18

The role of communication

accompanied by considerable difficulty in recruiting replacement

staff. Student satisfaction was falling, and Key Performance

Indicators (KPIs) and economic indicators were all adverse and

deteriorating. These problems had arisen over a number of years,

with various solutions developed and implemented, but not

successfully. The department had previously suffered internal division

and was perceived to not be aligned with institutional imperatives.

Problem identification, options appraisals and planning

The Senior Management Group (SMG) was briefed by the Head of

School at a facilitated Away Day that the ongoing issues had come to

a head, and that the situation could not be sustained. The impact on

the rest of the School was also a concerning factor. The Away Day

gave the opportunity for a confidential small group discussion and

review of the options available, which led to the SMG arriving at a

preliminary point of agreement on the broad strategy to be followed.

Further detailed investigation was undertaken by officers to draw

together full analysis of statistical and financial data. Consultation

with staff within the department was initiated and with staff in

cognate departments.

This resulted in a series of options being put forward which were

then appraised, taking account of the strategic objectives of the

College. The Senior Management Group considered the evidence

provided, and after reviewing the options fully, arrived at a proposed

way forward. This was then discussed with the departmental staff.

Options which were rejected included maintenance of the status quo

and expansion, both of which were not shown to be viable by the

evidence provided, and complete closure, which was not felt to be

acceptable given the history, structure and culture of the

organisation.

21 20

It takes time, persistence and commitment

Learn lessons, share experience, make time for feedback and

celebrate!

Listening is more important than talking Never, ever respond in

anger, especially by email

Project Boards can be very useful and effective, but beware size, if

necessary divide them up – an effective overarching decision making

body and larger “stake-holder groups” to make recommendations on

details

Try to achieve quick and/or early “wins” and tell everyone about

them

Underpin the case with evidence - stakeholder analysis, key drivers

for change

Use a variety of media - meetings, briefings, focus groups,

community email messages, message-of-the-day, bulletins/

newsletters

Use the best people

You may have the vision and see the whole journey, but each

member of your audience starts from a different place and sees the

difficulties of getting to this unknown place

You will not always be right – be prepared to adjust and change the

plan in the face of good arguments, but not if that change will cause

a train wreck

Communication is time consuming and demanding and you must be

prepared to persevere even when the going gets tough.

Case Study 1: Communicating a Structural Change

Scenario:

A department was giving the manager (Head of School) serious cause

for concern: there was a significant and sustained staff turnover,

Case Studies - Structural Change

A proposal was drafted with the intention of realigning the department

and merging it with a larger department; this would ensure a portion of

the activity was retained which most clearly matched the strategic

objectives of the larger department and the College as a whole. Given

the divisions within the department, the difficulty in recruiting staff, and

the fall in student recruitment, this was seen to be playing to the

strengths available. The proposal involved the transfer of a small

number of staff to another college, to which their teaching and research

interests were more closely matched. Staff members were given the

option to elect for this transfer. This was viewed by the SMG as the

option which was most likely to enable the unit to remain as part of the

portfolio and be the most cost-effective option.

A paper was prepared covering the steps taken, the options considered

and the recommended actions. This was discussed by the University’s

Central Management Group (CMG), and was then put to the Senate and

Court for discussion. Whilst the CMG and Court supported the proposals,

there was a lively debate at Senate, where those academics who were

concerned about the proposed realignment and the loss of an

independent academic unit pressed the management team closely. The

value of the evidence gathering and previous debates and discussions

were demonstrated by the ability to respond with rational arguments to

the points raised.

Having secured approval to proceed, there was further consultation

about the best way to implement the change. This was a lengthy and

wide ranging activity. The following groups were involved:

Senior staff from both disciplines where charged with developing plans

and proposals to align teaching and research.

Management continued to be closely engaged

Central administrative staff provided support (arranging meetings,

providing analysis and papers etc.)

HR professionals were engaged in supporting staff in the change

Trade unions were also involved (playing a valuable role in both

challenging/testing assumptions and also assisting in the process).

Students were briefed and their concerns were addressed.

Consultation and negotiation had to be undertaken with an external

accrediting body (the professional learned society), and this proved

to be both difficult and protracted.

Student recruitment services were involved to ensure that applicants

were advised and supported in making fully informed choices

Local stakeholders were briefed, consulted and engaged with in

supporting the change.

Other local institutions with similar departments were consulted, both

to provide alternative choices for applicants or current students who

might wish to transfer, but also to provide some teaching to meet

commitments to existing students

Press coverage was inevitable and the PR department was briefed

and engaged in the process

Other staff, not directly involved in the change, were briefed to

reduce the level of rumour and gossip

Individual staff were offered 1:1 meetings with the Head of School

and/or the Head of College

Staff meetings were frequent

Outcome:

The change was implemented and all the problems were worked

through, although some were protracted and not easily resolved.

Compromise and negotiation characterised the process.

There was considerable opposition to the proposed change, from

staff directly involved, from union representatives, from external

accrediting bodies and from the professional sector. This caused

disruption, and rifts between staff for a period. It was a difficult and

23 22

the evidence as well as researching and analysing data.

Even though it was evident that there was a serious problem, there

was still considerable shock and disbelief exhibited

Nimby-ism (not in my back yard-ism) and protectionism were

demonstrated: this is normal and should be expected and

understood

Some managers found it hard to “upset” people

Continuous communication and consistency of message. Detailed

work must be undertaken to enable scenario planning, to inform a

planned way forward and to enable clear communication. This has

to be underpinned by evidence, and should be as neutrally

presented as possible.

The options should be set out clearly

There will be a need to repeat the information /plan

There is a need to listen and be flexible (where this is possible)

Consultation and discussion/debate is vital but there is a need to be

aware that some staff will have a fear of speaking in public, and the

loudest voice is not necessarily representative

Managers must provide leadership (including proposed solutions)

but must also be prepared to seriously listen and empathise

People have a tendency, especially when hurt and shocked, to

mishear or to only take from a meeting what they want to hear

People feel hurt and undervalued when they think that their

involvement is not valued enough to be continued

Gossip and rumour are persistent and pernicious

It is extremely important to recognise input to the process and to

celebrate success

testing time for all staff involved, and for others not directly involved.

The collegial system, which characterises many universities, was

brought into play and strong sympathy from across the academic

community was displayed. Management made considerable efforts to

communicate and especially to talk to people and explain the position

as neutrally as possible. Surprisingly, most other disciplines took the

view that the underperformance was Department X’s responsibility. In

some ways, facing up to this problem and dealing with it head-on gave

the picture of a strong and engaged management. The staff survey

carried out after the move had been affected and showed that concerns

about management were restricted to the area directly affected.

Inevitably there was a degree of adverse press coverage. This was dealt

with effectively because the PR office had been involved at an early

stage and therefore were able to contact senior management to provide

quotes.

Staff that remained were integrated into their new department and

engaged positively. Some staff left, and although student satisfaction

recovered after a short dip during the year of change, the integration of

the unit was a long, hard process requiring ongoing support.

Lessons learned:

The SMG team worked together, and supported each other and the

proposed way forward.

Previous attempts to “deal” with the problems in this department had

been undermined by concerns about negative publicity, adverse

reaction within staff and student bodies, and a preference for not

tackling the issues head on.

The whole process was very stressful for everyone involved;

management, staff and students.

There was an enhanced workload for professional staff in providing

25 24

During the year 2002/03, a major Costed Academic Planning (CAP)

exercise was undertaken, the outcome of which was to demonstrate

that “departmentalism” was still a strong factor, and that Schools,

whilst ambitious, did not have the power or flexibility to make

structural or significant changes.

This led to a proposal, hotly debated during the second half of the

academic year, and enacted with the start of the academic year of

2003/4, that new Colleges be created, with significant movements of

disciplines into these new structures. The period of the CAP had

engaged staff across the Faculties in a more transparent way than

previous planning exercises and staff were aware of the issues, and

the drivers for change. At the latter end of the consultation period,

the focus of the debate changed to more detailed and practical

discussions about how to effect the more major change being

planned. Each Faculty had a number of meetings with constituent

staffing groups, through Away Days, Open Fora, committee

discussions and small group meetings. Despite some opposition, the

proposal was approved by both Senate and Court in June 2003.

The new Heads of College were given equal status (Vice Principal

level) with other central VPs, and became a full part of the top tier of

management, with responsibility for budgetary and staffing

management of their Colleges.

To signal that Colleges were a “new” start, the College administrative

team was selected through rounds of interviews, and new academic

leadership roles were created (Directors of Teaching & Learning,

Research, Graduate School). Central administrative sections identified

staff to act as College liaison officers, with significant sections (IT,

HR, Finance, Research support) physically locating these officers

within the College teams, effectively making them near full-time

secondments. The intention was to create teams of professionals

Case Study 2: Structural Change from Faculties to Colleges, in

a pre-1992 university

1996-2003: Formative period

1996: New Principal appointed

2000: Strategic planning/financial review

2002: University restructures from 4 Faculties and 40+

Departments to 5 Faculties and 15 Schools (the Fifth Faculty

emerged from the incorporation into the University of the

previously independent Education College)

2003: Further restructuring to 3 Colleges and 13 Schools

The decision to move from the structure which had operated for many

years, that of operational management being devolved to

departmental level, was reached relatively slowly, after a considerable

period of review and planning. The University administration was

restructured following the appointment of a new Secretary in 1998. By

2002, Funding Council income had become constrained, including real-

term cuts in funding, and the outcomes of the RAE 2001, although

bringing significant enhancements in ratings, had not led to the

growth in income desired. The University identified one of its key

issues as being the number of submissions from small or medium

sized units. In addition there were pressures on student recruitment

as student retention was declining. This mixture of external pressures

and strategic objectives meant that the University decided to create

larger scale budgetary units to enable it to address these concerns.

For 2002/03, the Faculty structure was retained, and departments

ceased to have budgetary or staffing authority, with this invested in

larger conglomerations through a School structure. Deans of Faculty

reported through a Vice Principal, and were not fully part of the top

tier of management. This created tensions, and encouraged

factionalism.

27 26

articles focused on current concerns, strategic plans, and new

initiatives and developments. One of the attractive features for staff

was that decision making was relatively local, and if a case could be

made, and resources identified, Colleges did not have to seek central

approval for most developments. Staff satisfaction, measured through

surveys, initially dipped but then perceptibly improved.

2007 – 2010: Growth period

As a result, although not always easy and straightforward:

Staff numbers grew, especially academic staffing load

Student numbers grew sharply, especially UG & PGT

REF 2008: good results in most subject areas

Internationalisation strategy developed and was implemented

Budgets were generally balanced, there was higher staff morale,

alongside increased confidence in the College structure overall and

with senior management. There were, inevitably, still pockets of

concern, with some staff less supportive of the College structure on

principle, especially where academics felt that discipline-profile had

been diluted. Complaints were commonly about too much power

being vested in a small number of people and a perception of

additional layers of bureaucracy. The “Centre” also began to feel

disenfranchised and marginalised from decision making, creating

some tensions.

2010 – 2012: change and turbulence

2010: appointment of a new Principal

2010-2015: New strategic plan developed

Global financial meltdown

New VS schemes – support staff positions lost

The mixture of external forces, including the impact of divergent fee

systems and fee differentials, along with the natural change in

who would be involved in the visioning, objective setting, strategic and

operational planning of all activity at every stage. In recognition that

this was a more complex management portfolio, three new roles were

created, with these College Managers being given equal status to the

Directors of central service sections The core College teams, Head of

College and admin staff, were embedded in the buildings occupied by

their College.

New governance structures (committees and reporting lines) within the

Colleges were also developed.

2003 – 2006: Internal restructuring

2 voluntary severance schemes were run

Reviews of support staff were undertaken (technical by consultants;

other support, internal)

A major recruitment campaign was launched, drawing on significant

sums, drawn from the VS scheme and from University Reserves

As a consequence, in the early years of the College structure, staff

numbers initially reduced, particularly within the technical staffing

group, where the review highlighted over-provision and grade

imbalance, with large numbers of promoted staff, and very few at

entry or junior grades.

The first few years of the Colleges were characterised by significant

change, and staff were subject to a number of pressures, including

higher workloads following staff departures. Student numbers initially

shrank, but then stabilised. Considerable emphasis was placed on

communicating within the Colleges, and each College developed its

own approach, based on perceived needs and internal cultures. Each

College had a Council, composed of elected staff, and held an annual

Forum for all staff. Each College developed an in-house “Bulletin” with

29 28

Even experienced change managers go through the classic

reactions!

management style and strategic priorities attendant on bringing in a

new Principal, led to a period of change and uncertainty. This is still

being worked through, but the College structure has been reaffirmed,

although the internal composition may change.

2012 onwards: stabilisation and, hopefully, growth

Different approaches to business – greater use of business case

formats, leading to more transparency

Staff changes (natural turnover, along with the “REF transfer

market” being in operation)

2012: funds released for a new staff recruitment campaign

And so the cycle of change, adjustment and stabilisation goes on,

albeit at a more focused and therefore faster pace.

Lessons learned:

Embedding the core College Team within the College buildings has

created a sense of partnership and mutual support. This has been

traded off by the loss of some integration with the issues facing

central services.

Where central professional staff members were embedded in

College teams, this has proved to be highly successful. Care needs

to be taken to ensure that broader knowledge is maintained, but

the benefits include better staff morale, integration of service,

mutual understanding and respect. The part-time nominated person

approach has been less successful and these are areas where

tensions, criticisms, and mutual suspicion tend to be highest.

The pattern of change is cyclical, rather like a series of waves, so be

prepared for the downs as well as the ups!

Just when things are going well, that’s when it starts to go astray

(brought on by complacency, taking the eye off the ball, etc.)

Survive and then thrive! 31 30

Problem identification, options appraisals and planning:

Prior to the decision to merge faculties there had been senior level

discussions concerning the perceived problems leading to option

papers being produced. A paper proposing the merger was then

provided for the University’s Executive and Academic Board for

approval. This paper provided the rationale and delivery date of the

merger i.e. new academic year. The faculty registrar was not

involved in this part of the process and was only involved in the

merger after the decision was made to develop the business school.

The start of the process of the merger for the faculty registrar was a

meeting with the dean and deputy vice chancellor where further

information was provided on the aims and objectives with an

indication of the savings required. Following a brief discussion about

the process the faculty registrar was left to develop a proposal to

identify any problems/issues, options and planning. He was charged

with providing a paper for the dean and the deputy vice chancellor

on the process for the merger of the two administrative units. This

included the development of a new customer focused ethos for the

services of the two former faculties. This was in line with the culture

of a post-1992 institution i.e. the student is all important.

Within five days of this meeting, the faculty registrar had drafted a

paper concerning the key objectives of the new administrative

support services for the new business school. This was after he had

met with the senior staff of the new faculty. The paper included an

overview of the process to be followed. The process was agreed with

the faculty’s human resources partner and the Chair of the

University’s support staff trades union (Unison). This paper was sent

to the deputy vice chancellor, dean and the faculty’s human

resources partner and approved prior to it being submitted to the

new project group (this had been formed to develop the new

business school and led by the dean and senior staff within the

Communication is a vital tool - between senior managers, across

the whole community (academic and professional support staff),

large group and small group meetings, one-to-one meetings,

formal/informal, oral, written etc., all are necessary. Clarity and

consistency of message is also important.

Case Study 3: Structural change, a merger of two faculties in

a post-1992 university to create a business school

Scenario:

Two rival faculties were to merge for strategic, economic and

academic reasons to create a new business school for the university.

The merger would provide a focus for business education, research

and enterprise for the county, and address falling student recruitment

on flagship programmes. One faculty was predominantly

undergraduate-focused while the other was postgraduate-focused.

One was based in the town centre while the other was three miles

outside town in the countryside. One had increasing revenue streams

while the other had falling revenue streams. The relatively new dean

of the increasing revenue stream faculty and his faculty registrar were

charged with facilitating the merger while the other dean and faculty

registrar were reassigned. The University’s Executive Group and

Academic Board approved the merger after receiving a strategy

document that had been drafted by the two deans of the faculties

concerned. An announcement was then provided from the Vice

Chancellor’s office with a proposed date for completion of the merger.

This included confirmation that the dean and faculty registrar were to

lead and manage the process. The dean and faculty registrar attended

staff meetings at both campuses to announce how they were planning

to conduct the merger.

33 32

a post were understandably negative about the rationale behind the

decision and were more challenging to manage. Some were verging

on ‘inappropriate behaviour’ and acted ‘unprofessional’ (comments

made by other staff). At other times these staff would have been

subject to disciplinary action however this was deemed inappropriate

under the circumstances.

Many questions could not be answered at the time of enquiry, due to

how far along the process was e.g. ‘will I have a job when the

merger is complete?’ or ‘will I have to be interviewed for my job?’

The complexity here was that at that time it was not clear how many

posts would be created, revised or ring-fenced following a review of

service needs.

For example, if the job description of four current staff members

matched a new role, but where only two positions were available, it

would be necessary to conduct interviews if more than two staff

membered expressed an interest in the new position.

The chair of the Trades Union complimented the faculty registrar on

his leadership and management of the merger; in turn the faculty

registrar was appreciative for the support of the chair of the Trades

Union, senior faculty staff, professional support departmental staff

and staff within the faculty. Some staff members subsequently were

appreciative of the manner in which the process had been developed

and managed, despite many others having found it stressful and

some feeling angry and frustrated, leaving the employee of the

University believing to have been treated unfairly.

Lessons learned

A clear process of how to develop a new structure is required.

Ideally this should be open and consultative. There should be a

rationale that includes the need to make savings (if required - this

should be developed in consultation with professionals e.g. Human

faculties). The emphasis for the new administrative organisation and

structure was on customer care with service delivery being based upon

service need and location i.e. services provided close to the ‘customer’.

This paper had a draft structure attached which emphasised that the

number of posts was still a matter of development and the process for

consultation was outlined. This process included one-to-one meetings

with all staff affected by the restructuring, as well as a series of open

meetings with staff and service users.

During the process the faculty registrar responded to questions in an

open and forthright manner and job descriptions were developed for

the new structure. The new structure, with numbers of posts and

agreed job descriptions, was then provided with more information on

the process to be followed. Following this, another open meeting for

staff and further one-to-one meetings confirmed the process for staff

submitting an ‘expression of interest’ for a particular post. Following

this was a selection process, including interviews as required and

meetings advising staff of available options should no suitable post be

available for them.

The process was demanding emotionally and was labour intensive but

proved effective.

Outcome:

The new faculty came into being as planned at the start of the new

academic year with the merger process being conducted and managed

by the dean and faculty registrar.

There were a number of redundancies of academic and administrative

staff that were part of the merger which proved to be a difficult

process. This was because complex issues were raised by staff

members that were difficult to answer openly despite a consultative

approach having been adopted. Staff members who were not placed in

35 34

rather than service need. There was also an increasing problem with

students being asked to go to other

offices to resolve their problems and a lack of ownership being taken

over issues; this was highlighted in the rising number of student

complaints. Associated with this poor customer service was a lack of

understanding among administrative staff as to ‘who was responsible

for what service’ and ‘their authority to get things done’ and this

compounded issues associated with what we now call the ‘student

experience’ and complaint resolution.

A problem that was not highlighted by senior staff, until after the

restructuring, was the requirement for a new student record

database that could also be used as a customer care system to aid

delivering administrative and student support. This meant that there

was still a real problem in the structural solution identified, as the

implementation of the new structure could not materially address the

level of student complaints.

Alongside these compelling reasons for change, (and the

fundamental problem of a lack of a customer care supported

solution), was the issue that resources were under pressure within

the institution due to poor student recruitment for core programmes.

Associated with this was the need to cut costs through reorganisation

of faculties. This cost cutting was added to the administrative review

as an additional rationale.

The senior management appointed a senior administrator to review

the administrative services and to identify and implement a new

structure which would provide a ‘one-stop shop’ for student services,

thereby improving the ‘student experience’. This reorganisation was

also designed to save money (although this was not communicated

clearly to the project leaders when the project commenced!).

Resources and Trades Union representatives).

A manager can be frustrated by the process and the lack of honesty

i.e. where an area has been making a loss but this information

cannot be divulged for political reasons

Openness and honesty are important, although it is not always

possible to answer some questions at certain times due to the

current point in the process, much to the frustration of the

enquirer.

A communication strategy or process is essential, however this is

demanding and can be impossible to get right to the satisfaction of

all parties

Leaders of change need to be resilient and have strength of heart

and mind, even in the face of difficult and challenging

circumstances.

Gossip and rumour are persistent and pernicious and every attempt

needs to be made to nip them in the bud

You can please most people at one time or another, but not

necessarily at the time they want to be pleased; it is however next

to impossible to please everyone all of the time!

Case Study 4: Structural Change - Reorganisation of central

and faculty based registry teams into centralised distinct units

in a post-1992 University

Scenario:

The University administrative structure had evolved over time to

include a central administrative core and faculty based administrative

units. Services were being provided on the basis of whether the centre

unit or faculty had sufficient resources and a supportive leader/dean

37 36

In the meantime, and during implementation, there were ‘added

problems’:

There was clarification that proposed structures identified from

the review (conducted in a consultative manner by the four

leaders) would not be funded and appropriately resourced

following clarification of the previously unclear rationale to cut

costs being added to the brief (a change of scope!). This meant

there was a sizeable reduction in posts identified in the proposals

and a subsequent reduction in service levels

One of the four prospective heads found new employment and it

was agreed that there would be now three units created rather

than recruit to the vacant post (this would save costs). This

required a radical rethink.

The senior manager was asked to stand down as the head of the

project and the three heads of units were asked to report to two

different senior managers (1:1 and 2:1).

The development of one unit had not progressed to the satisfaction

of a key stakeholder which led to an additional rethink; one of the

proposed unit heads was asked to propose a new structure with a

further review (inclusive of a powerful stakeholder who would

influence the restructure and needed to approve the solution)

The implementation went as well as could be expected when the

‘added problems’ were included and solutions found and approved.

There was a lot of new work conducted and some difficult meetings.

The main issue here was a lack of ownership with no one senior

manager responsible for administrative services, and the promise of

better resources based upon a resource increase that was not then

possible. The cost cutting rationale proved difficult and the lack of a

customer care supported solution proved that the ultimate solution

Problem identification, options appraisals and planning:

The senior administrator started the review with a consultation paper

that identified the issues (see above i.e. the lack of a clear structure

and a ‘one-stop shop ethos’) and this was presented for comments.

A revised paper was drafted following meetings with multiple staff and

service users that identified a new structure with four distinct units of

staff. The intention was to provide centralised registry functions and

administrative services, with an emphasis on customer care, that

would be student focused and in line with the culture of the post-1992

institution (although there was no recommendation for software

development to support the new service structure).

Four leaders of these units were appointed via a selection process and

they were asked to provide their proposals for organisational

structures (including job descriptions) and service delivery standards

with the identification of issues and proposals for their resolution. In

effect, the four leaders were asked to provide business cases for their

new departments with statements of their services and an

organisation structure with key posts and job descriptions for the roles

identified. A new consultative document was then published following

extensive discussion between the four administrative heads that

included open and one-to-one meetings with all staff affected by the

reorganisation (as well as students and other University staff). Issues

were addressed in these meetings with the assistance of Human

Resources and advice was taken as to, for example, proposed changes

to terms and conditions of employment and the process to be used to

move to the new structure. The document was presented and

discussed by executive and collegial decision making bodies and the

process continued to gather pace with an identified implementation

date.

39 38

of such changes.

Evaluating structural change projects is problematic as there may

be issues concerning change of scope or lack of clarity that may

impact upon service provision and effectiveness regardless of the

structure proposed

A leader of a change project may not be totally in control of the

project and may have manage issues in a highly political manner

that can be quite challenging i.e. when issues arise, no matter

how honest the change manager may be, they may not be able to

influence senior managers and this can impact on the success of a

restructuring

It is easy to review in hindsight but difficult to plan for every

eventuality in advance or during the project (e.g. the lack of an

awareness that a customer care system would be required as part

of the new structure).

After careful reflection and some analysis of our experiences gained

at three different institutions (one pre-1992 and two post-1992

HEIs), we conclude that a successful higher education structural

engineer requires:

A portfolio of competencies including hard work, perseverance,

good communication and a plan (ideally with the assistance of

professional advice e.g. human resources).

An appreciation of the history of the development of the sector

(and more importantly the institution that they are trying to

achieve a restructuring in).

A good understanding of the governance and management

and restructuring was doomed to be no better than the previous

structure.

Outcome:

The new structure never lived up to the billing it was given and the

promised improvement of the ‘student experience’ was therefore not

achieved. Staff had new roles and responsibilities and there were some

service improvements but not sufficient enough to stem the flow of

complaints. In addition, staff in the faculties had been promised more

support and this was not forthcoming which led to frustration. Within

the next year a new administrative review commenced after the new

vice chancellor had identified there were still many problems which

was overseen by a consultant. A new structure was then subsequently

implemented under a new head of administration who was also a

senior manager. The customer care supported solution was then partly

solved by the provision of a new student record system as part of a

separate project and student complaints were reduced.

Lessons learned

Prior to the start of any restructuring there needs to be clarification

of all issues it is envisaged will be addressed, ideally with the

business need being approved and the process to be followed.

The University in this case did not manage the transformation

programme effectively and this had a major impact on the

effectiveness of the structural change.

There needs to be absolute honesty regarding the main reasons for

any structural change and if this includes costs savings that may

include job cuts it is better to make this clear from the start

Any restructuring needs to have a review of risks and this should

include any perceived issues such as changes in scope or

circumstances and the review and implementation processes to be

followed should be made clear to key staff following the recognition

41 40

Conclusions

In the final analysis we both believe that you need to be a committed

life-long learner, as you can never stop learning and improving on

your methods. You should be open to employing new tools, guidance

and advice as they come along, e.g. using social media to effect

change.

Guide for Members of Higher Education Governing Bodies in the UK;

HEFCE: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2009/09_14/

Koch J (2003), TQM, why is its impact in higher education so small,

The TQM Magazine, Vol 15 No 5 p 325-333

Kogan M and Hanney S (1999), Reforming Higher Education (Higher

Education Policy), Jessica Kingsley Publishers

structures of the institution in which they work (i.e. the decision

making process).

An understanding of the culture of the higher education sector and

the institution in which they work.

An awareness of the drivers for change, the change process and

awareness of good practice from change methodologies

(particularly those that have been used successfully to achieve

structural change in the higher education sector).

43 42

References