Summary notes of the Executive Committee held on 2 February 2004
- Modernisation of Pay Scales Steering Group: Revised
memberships and terms of reference
The Director of Human Resources
presented a revised membership, and terms of reference, which took
account of comments made at the last Committee meeting.
Agreed: That the revised
membership and terms of reference could be approved and the Steering
Group convened.
- Report on the Working Group on the Future Academic
Shape of the University
The Vice-Chancellor welcomed this report as a significant
advance in strategic planning within the University. It crystallized
many of the strategic issues that now had to be faced, and pointed
in right direction of change. The Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Learning and
Teaching) said that production of the report had been a complex process,
which had to take account of an enormous range of factors at play
within HE, and an unprecedented degree of uncertainty. The report
started with a survey and analysis of the HE sector in general, followed
by an analysis of the position of the University, and then mapped
out a series of options for change after identifying three key factors
against which the value of institutional activity could be measured
(excellence, impact and sustainability). The Working Group believed
that certain options could be ruled out, principally the maintenance
of the status quo and a merger with another HEI in the SW region.
It was noted that other HEIs were conducting similar strategic planning
exercises.
The Registrar reminded the Committee that a formal
commitment had been made to submit the report to Senate in January
or February. Accordingly, the report would be presented to Senate
at its next meeting on 18 February; further consideration could take
place at the March meeting, if that proved to be necessary. Reference
could then be made to Council at its meeting in May, if it appeared
that there were constitutional issues in need of attention.
Comments made by Committee members included the following:
- The report was a welcome example of a more corporate
approach to the formation of strategy.
- The broad coverage of the report provided a basis
for renewed impetus to existing University strategies, with increased
co-ordination between the different functional areas.
- Implementation of the Bologna process represented
a significant threat which should be given due recognition. [Although
it was reported that the Registrar was monitoring the situation.]
- Insufficient consideration was given to the external
environment in which the University had to operate. This extended from
positioning at regional and national levels - the latter being particularly
important in view of the increasing dominance of the Russell Group -
to the cultivation of international alliances. A more coherent strategy
was required to assess and manage the University's external relations.
The appointment of a Pro-Vice-Chancellor (External Affairs) might be
one way to address this issue.
- The definition of 'Schools' used within the report
was ambiguous, sliding from the accepted form of an organisational body
without constitutive departments, to a body with such departments.
- The recognition of the rapidly changing nature
of HE markets underscored the need for a University marketing strategy
that was sufficiently sophisticated to cover all areas of core business.
- Further reform of University governance and management
structures, and of business processes, would be necessary as a condition
of the successful implementation of any change in the academic shape
of the University. The recommendations of the Lambert Report could form
an agenda for reform.
- The emphasis on the need to raise aspirations
and performance within the University, together with the overall profile
of University, was to be applauded. Recruitment and retention was particularly
important in view of the increasingly fierce competition for talented
staff. Management of league tables to ensure maximum advantage was also
of crucial importance.
- It was important for any reforms to be introduced
in a co-ordinated manner and for them to be mutually reinforcing as
far as possible. Priorities for change would obviously need to be agreed,
to ensure that the process of change was manageable.
- Enhancement of fund-raising capacity was vital.
- The clear articulation of the broad range of knowledge
transfer activity was very welcome.
- Mapping of future academic structures and activity
would provide a much more informed basis for the projection of estates
needs over the medium- to long-term.
The Vice-Chancellor thanked Committee members for the
helpful tenor of their comments.
Agreed:
(a) That, subject to final minor corrections and clarification of
usage of the expression "Schools", the report should be
submitted to Senate at its meeting on 18 February 2004. The Registrar
and Executive Assistant would draft a covering note outlining the
process for consulting on and making decisions about the report.
(b) That a statement similar to the Senate covering note should be
posted on the homepage.
(c) That the report itself should be posted on the homepage after
the meeting of Senate.
Top of page
- Proposed changes to HEFCE Teaching and Research Funding
The Director of Finance expanded on key points of the
summary given at the last Heads of Department meeting. The changes
to the T-grant methodology proposed by HEFCE were interim measures
for the next three years. Further studies would be carried out in
that period to examine how the TRAC methodology could be extended
to teaching, in addition to research. It was clear that HEFCE wanted
the sector to move towards a system for funding teaching informed
by costs, replacing the current method whereby institutions report
expenditure in different subject areas.
The interim changes most relevant for the University
were as follows:
Teaching
- Psychology would be funded entirely within price
group C.
- Computer software engineering would be funded
entirely within price group C.
- All sandwich year-out students will be funded
as price group C.
- The range of weightings for the four price groups
had been compressed.
Actual levels of funding for 2004/05 would be
know only after the grant letter had been received in late February/early
March. An initial assessment indicated no overall change in the funding
received by the University, and that we would not be driven outside
the +/- 5 percent contract range applied to the teaching grant. The
question of how the changes in HEFCE funding were fed into the University
Resource Allocation Model (RAM) would be addressed as part of a more
thorough going review of the RAM requested by the Monday Morning Management
Group. Maintaining a degree of institutional stability would be an
important consideration in advance of implementation of a new TRAC-based
T-grant.
Research
-
Applied Mathematics would receive premium 5*
funding as well as Mechanical Engineering.
-
Sports and Exercise Science would continue to
receive capability funding until the next RAE.
-
The average unit of resource for 5* and 5-rated
departments would be maintained in real terms.
- The average unit of resource for 4-rated departments
would be capped in real terms, rather than in cash terms as originally
envisaged.
The funding implications of these changes would
also not be known until the grant letter had been received.
The Vice-Chancellor pointed out that the various
changes to funding streams had lead many HEIs to take action to renovate
their Resource Allocation Models, sometimes in a quite drastic manner.
Top of page
- Risk Management
The Director of Finance reminded the Committee that
it had previously agreed a monitoring and reporting mechanism for
risk assessment and management involving three elements: embedded
review by departments as part of the planning cycle; ongoing review
by the Executive Committee of areas of specific institutional concern
by means of a standing item on the Committee agenda; and reports to
Council in March (or earlier if possible) and July. The Committee
was invited to identify five institutional areas for consideration
at future meetings, in light of the risk map produced at the beginning
of the academic year, and any other significant risks that might have
arisen since then.
Agreed:
(a) That the five areas of risk assessment and management for examination
by the Committee would be: space and capacity constraints, reputation
and external awareness, information for strategic and operational
management, strategic planning and the over commitment of resources.
(b) That the Director of Finance would provide guidance to departments
on risk assessment and management as part of the briefing for the
next planning cycle.
(c) That the Director of Human Resources would discuss with departments
the need for training in risk assessment and management.
- Student Satisfaction Survey
The Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Learning and Teaching) summarized
the key findings of the Student Satisfaction Survey 2003. In overall
terms the results of the survey were gratifying, with high levels
of satisfaction being recorded in respect of the quality of teaching
and for the University more generally. Action was already in hand
to improve those areas of provision which had been highlighted as
possible causes of concern, notably the quality and frequency of student
feedback and the availability of IT/printing facilities.
Agreed:
(a) That a summary of the findings of Student Satisfaction Survey
should be posted on the homepage after the Survey had been considered
by the Teaching and Learning Committee. The Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Learning
and Teaching) would liaise about this with the Director of Marketing
and Communications.
(b) That findings related to a specific Department should be sent
to that Department.
(c) That a major survey of this kind should be conducted on a 5-year
cycle, subject to whatever developments might arise from the TQI initiative.
(d) That a smaller scale exercise should be conducted on an annual
cycle, focused on specific areas to be decided after discussion with
the Students' Union.
Top of page
- Admissions Statistics: January 2004
The Committee noted the latest batch of admission statistics.
Attention was drawn to the fact that the Graduate Office had not been
informed of the postgraduate admission targets for 2004, nor consulted
about the setting of these targets. It was also noted that undergraduate
admission targets had not been confirmed in the usual way last December,
in view of the changes to the T-grant methodology proposed at that
time by HEFCE and because there were no additional funded places available
at Honours degree level. Moreover, the role of Deans in setting of
these targets remained unclear.
Agreed: That, as part of
the planning cycle, consideration should be given to the clearer specification
of the timetable for setting admissions targets and the process for
approving these targets.
- Sustainability and Low Carbon Advisory Group: Proposed membership
and terms of reference
The Dean of Engineering and Design
presented a draft membership and terms of reference for this new Advisory
Group, formation of which had been agreed earlier in the year following
disestablishment of the Energy Committee. An informal gathering of Advisory
Group members subsequent to the drafting of the terms of reference had
suggested three amendments:
(i) Clause (h) to read:
'To agree and adopt strategies for the procurement
of new buildings and refurbishment projects which are consistent with
low carbon and other environmental objectives.'
(ii) Add a new clause between (i)
and (j):
'To encourage the reduction, reuse and recycling of
products and materials, thereby minimising the University's production
of waste.'
(iii) Amend (j) to read:
'To provide support and guidance to both the University's
Energy Manager and the Health, Safety and Environmental Adviser and
to receive regular reports on progress from them.'
Agreed: That the membership
and terms of reference, with amendments, could be approved.
- Revised University Management Chart
The Registrar reported that some additional modifications
had been made to the proposed new management chart and detail had
been filled in where necessary. These changes followed widespread
consultations with colleagues.
Agreed: That the management
chart could be approved for use as the single, authoritative document
throughout the University, replacing all previous versions. The Director
of Marketing and Communications and Director of Human Resources would
ensure that the new chart was used in all relevant literature and
documentation.
MSD
20.02.04
Top
of page
|
VC's
Office | University | Search
| News | A-Z
Index | Contact VC's Office 
