|
|
This section focuses on the extent to which CityU's management, staffing and committee structures allow for strong lines of accountability and clarity in the distribution of tasks and responsibilities. It also looks at the human resource functions such the availability of relevant training and the effectiveness of staff appraisal systems. It is structured under the following headings:
CityU has recently re-defined its management structure (as presented in Figure 1). The new organisational structure represents an evolution from the previous model which had sections for Academic Affairs, Institutional Advancement and Planning along with a number of non-academic departments which reported directly to the President. The organisational structure has been developed to split teaching and research and move away from the position where non-academic offices report directly to the President.
The senior management team of the Office of the President is made up of the President and the five Vice Presidents (two academic and three administrative) including a Vice-President for Education whose role is to act as a "champion" for students. The Panel recognises the importance of the latter post in a "learning-centred" institution and commends CityU for giving due emphasis to student needs within its new management structure.
The Panel was pleased to note that the lines of accountability and distribution of tasks within the new structure are clear and generally accepted by staff. However, the Panel noted a degree of uncertainty about the distribution of responsibilities for quality assurance in teaching and thinks this area could benefit from greater clarity particularly regarding the relative roles of the Vice-Presidents, Deans and Department Heads.
The Panel was pleased to note that CityU appears to have established a rigorous and systematic system for staff appointments, contract renewal, substantiation and promotion. Academic staff appointments are considered at the departmental, faculty and university levels. Once appointed, academic staff are subject to reviews for contract renewal and substantiation (generally after 5 years) in accordance with the procedures approved by the Senate and against well-defined criteria at the department, faculty and University levels. The Committee of Substantiation is responsible for overseeing this process at University level and makes recommendations to Council.
The academic review process for contract renewal, substantiation and promotion involves a review of an individual's performance against key criteria as developed at the University level. Faculties and departments can develop their own more detailed criteria from these more general guidelines. The Panel noted that this review process appears to function effectively. However, it heard concerns from academic staff that the system does not adequately recognise and reward excellence in teaching and work in scholarly areas that are not of a non-traditional type. The Panel urges CityU to address this concern as a matter of priority. It may wish to consider introducing a metaphorical "third" leg to its "walking on two legs" strategy to emphasise these non-traditional but legitimate types of scholarly activity. The Panel thinks that CityU is in a uniquely strong position to "break new ground" in defining what these are and in rewarding them.
In addition to the above, the Panel has some serious concerns about the absence of an on-going appraisal system for academic staff which is both judgmental and developmental. The issue of staff appraisal for academic staff has been the subject of some considerable debate within CityU since the introduction of the Performance Planning, Appraisal and Development Scheme (PPAD) in 1995-6. The Panel understands that CityU has decided to exclude the "judgmental" component from its performance appraisal scheme. The implication is that, while performance is appraised at the end of the probationary period and on application for a promotion, there is no mechanism for identifying and managing poor performing staff at other times. The Panel sees this approach as inconsistent with the establishment of a responsive and performance orientated culture within CityU and urges CityU to work towards introducing an on-going and "judgmental" appraisal scheme for all academic staff as a matter of priority. If used properly, this may also be an effective lever for steering the overall direction of the University.
On the non-academic side, the Panel was pleased to note that all staff are subject to an annual appraisal which does incorporate both judgmental and developmental aspects. It was reported that this system is working well and will be linked to Best Performance Awards for non-academic staff.
Lastly, the Panel understands that CityU is considering the possibility of introducing new reward schemes for both academic and non-academic staff such as improved terms and conditions and central floating posts funded by the President's Reserve. The Panel recognises the value of such schemes in terms of motivating staff, but emphasises the importance of linking the rewards to clear and "judgmental" staff appraisals.
CityU's committee structure is presented in Figure 2. The Council is the supreme governing and executive body of the University with responsibility for co-ordinating all aspects of the planning and implementation process. The Senate is responsible for setting academic policies, developing and reviewing academic programmes and regulating teaching and research.
The Management Board is the key interface between the governance and management structures of the University. The Management Board membership of 14 includes the President, Vice Presidents, Deans/Principal/Director and the Director of Human Resources and meets monthly. It has responsibility to review and approve long range plans and strategies for the development of the University and monitor progress in achieving these plans and deals with most major items covering strategic planning, resource allocation, implementation and service delivery. It was reported that the Management Board also performs a key function in ensuring the integration of monitoring across the different committees.
In terms of committee activities, the Panel was pleased to note that the committees have clear terms of reference and reporting arrangements and it is generally clear whether they are decision-making or advisory.
Regarding the number of committees, the Panel understands that a 1996 review resulted in the closure of some 100 committees. However, in spite of this, the Panel shares the President's concern about the relatively large number of remaining committees and the heavy committee workload of academic staff (particularly Deans). It recommends further reductions and the establishment of a formal and regular mechanism for the review of committee functions in the future.
In terms of committee membership, it was reported that committee members are chosen with reference to their experience and qualifications. The Vice President for Education is keen to see more student involvement and training for student representatives to enable them to participate more fully in the governance of the University. The Panel noted that the Senate has some 100 members and suggests that CityU consider whether a smaller committee could work more effectively.
Staff training is at the discretion of line managers and funded through the non-staffing budget. Each Head of Department can use his/her staff development budget according to internally determined priorities. The Professional Development and Quality Services (PDQS) unit provides training for both academic and non academic staff on areas such as effective teaching and learning technology. Academic staff are encouraged to attend theses training sessions to satisfy their development needs as identified in PPADs. In-house training is also provided by the Library, the Media Production Unit and the Computing Services Centre while non academic units have offered training and briefing sessions on the Executive Information System (EIS), the Oracle system etc.
There is no structured training or induction for new committee members nor is there any formal training for academic staff taking on committee chairmanship or management responsibilities. CityU may wish to consider whether such training could enhance the effectiveness of committee working.
The Panel observed that the lines of accountability and distribution of tasks within the new management structure are clear and generally accepted by staff. It was also pleased to note that CityU has established a rigorous and systematic system for staff appointments, contract renewal, substantiation and promotion. However, it has some serious concerns about the absence of an on-going appraisal system for academic staff which needs to incorporate both judgmental as well as development aspects.
In terms of the committee structure, the Panel was pleased to note that committees have clear terms of reference and reporting arrangements. However, it shares the President's concern about the large number of committees and recommends further reductions. It also emphasises the importance of establishing a formal mechanism to review the functions of committees on a periodic basis to ensure their usefulness.