Organisational development: frequently asked questions (FAQs)

What is the case for organisational development?

• The University’s greatest asset is its people, and recognition of the skills and contributions of individuals is fundamental to successful organisational development.
• The disciplinary identities of planning units are a key strength of the University.
• The University has a strong reputation for academic achievements (e.g. RAE outcomes, enhancement of PGT, delivery of a high quality student experience, better than forecast financial performance 2007/08).

Despite this, there is evidence that:

• The University has not fully realised the benefits that its profile, reputation and research calibre could bring.
• There is a need for Heads to receive better support to help with the demands of running a planning unit.

Principles underpinning organisational development

The Senate Steering Group (SG) identified that the key principles for development included:

• The preservation of disciplinary identities for planning units (and the benefits that are derived from the presence of a strong faculty of scholars).
• Faculties should be cognate and provide strong bonds between planning units.
• Research centres/institutes should belong to one (or more) faculty(ies).
• A proximity and partnership needs to exist between academic planning units and the professional services.
• The University needs to operate as a 'family' to make considered and informed choices.
• The University need to ensure that the task of running a planning unit is made easier for leaders.
• There will be different cultures in each of the faculties – and all parts of the University will need to reflect on this.
• Interdisciplinary working is critical to the future success of the University.
• Early consideration will need to be given to the academic/service interface – there is a lot that can be learned from the experience of other HEIs.
• Organisational development should not be conceived as a 'programme' and the University would be best served by an ongoing dialogue.

The proposal

• has five faculties which are the primary location for all of the existing 41 planning units and the research centres/institutes.
• is served by five Pro-Vice-Chancellors (PVCs) who are appointed to lead the faculties and three PVCs who are appointed to lead cross-cutting areas of research and innovation, learning and teaching, and external affairs.
• the existing SMG be replaced by a University Executive Board (UEB) which comprises the Vice-Chancellor and eight PVCs and, initially, the Registrar and Secretary and Director of Finance.
• interdisciplinary work is promoted and supported by the clear definition of responsibilities within the PVC roles and by effective resourcing.
• the arrangements for the faculty infrastructure, resourcing and operational environment are to emerge under the leadership of the new PVCs.
• there will be scope for faculties to work with each other, improve interdepartmental working and alignment with professional services.

What matters need further consideration?

• The case for a future Deputy VC-ship
• Academic support arrangements for the PVCs
• Greater transparency of information and decision making (already underway)
• Consultation on a number of HR policies
• Budget setting and resource allocation processes (including for interdisciplinary processes)
• Establishment of the UDC (already under discussion by Sub Group 1)
• Recruitment of the PVC posts (job descriptions and faculty outlines are being prepared / finalised)

What about federation?

The University will not pursue federation as the primary means of organisational development. However, if planning units believe there are benefits in aggregating or disaggregating with other planning units they will be able to pursue these sorts of discussions and reach conclusions within the faculty. This will not be a matter for UEB/UDC.

What options for organisational development have been considered?

The SG has primarily taken forward the model outlined by the VC in his Senate presentation (17 October 2007). However, throughout its discussions and in reference materials used to inform its debate, the SG has given consideration to the recent experience of other HEIs including Manchester ('big faculty' model) and Birmingham ('collegiate model').

The SG has been conscious of the potential tension between devolved responsibilities vs. the creation of mini-universities. The SG believes that this model will overcome this by:

• Ensuring that faculties are cognate.
• Retaining clear (and strong) departmental identities that recognise the benefits of the presence of a strong faculty.
• Ensuring that resource allocation models are transparent and promote intra and inter-faculty development.
• Building the responsibility for delivering inter and intra-faculty working into the PVC roles.
• Redeveloping the governance structure to ensure that the UDC fulfils a corporate role.

Is this such a big change?

The SG has recognised that the existing structure could better serve the University and its departments if the governance and related management structures were improved. The SG has concluded that the current arrangements constrain: the effective devolution of planning responsibilities, internal communication and external communication.

Additionally, the SG recognises that such an approach would bring the University the benefit of minimal disruption.

Why bother?

We need to bother because there is powerful (external) evidence, such as league tables, that we are losing our foothold on our strong league table performance (and others are overtaking us). Also, we need to increase income generation and can only do this if we are able to be externally focussed and demonstrate greater agility in responding to opportunities – both of which the SG believe to be matters of concern under the present arrangements.

What does this model mean for existing planning units?

The majority of planning units will be located with in one of the five Faculties without difficulties. However, where it is not straightforward to identify a 'home' faculty (because a planning unit belongs to more than one faculty) then debate and discussion will be needed within the planning unit to determine its final location. This debate will be a matter for the planning unit not the SMG/UEB.

How will the 'empowerment' of the Faculty layer enhance communication (an additional layer may not be helpful)?

Communications within any large organisation are difficult and complex. The proposed changes will provide Faculty PVCs with a seat at the UEB. They will therefore be able to convey key information about subjects of importance directly to Heads of Departments within their faculty. The role of the Faculty Policy Committee will be important in sharing key information. Quicker and more personal lines of communication will be made between the UEB, PVCs and, therefore, Heads of Department.

What happens if the size of a Faculty changed significantly?

If many planning units decide to change their 'home' location and a faculty becomes unviable then the University would have to consider reducing the overall number of faculties.

How will this model improve the University?

The SG believes that the model will make all management roles in the University easier and:

• more informed, quicker decision making for Heads of Departments
• there will be greater scope for open discussions and transparency
• the will be greater capacity and responsibility for local decision making
• faculties and departments will be able to be more agile
• PVCs and Heads of Departments will be able to progress new initiatives with greater confidence in the risks being taken locally and the locally-determined financial arrangements to support new activities
• there will be greater support for all those undertaking a management role (especially Heads of Departments)
• the external profile of the University can be developed by both the PVCs (R, L/T and External Affairs) and the PVCs (faculties)
• more manageable budgetary monitoring through a new faculty structure.

We already have Deans so how will the PVC roles differ?

These roles will require that individuals take responsibility for the financial and academic health of a Faculty and constituent departments. To this end, PVCs will have a much more explicit role and set of responsibilities in line managing Heads, undertaking effective planning and resourcing decisions, setting the academic agenda for the faculty and balancing the corporate agenda with their own faculty development goals. It is envisaged that these individuals will need to balance the development of the faculty/departments and a high profile (external) liaison role with external agencies affecting their faculty. The PVCs will also be members of the University Executive Board and as such will be responsible for taking a University level view.

What role will the PVC External Affairs undertake (and how will these be distinguished from the VCs external role and those of the PVCs (faculty))?

The SG has had wide ranging discussions on the case for establishing this role and, in taking into account the views of the existing SMG members, believes that there is an immediate need to develop our external presence and profile – and the Vice-Chancellor will need support to achieve this while the University governance and related management is developed. While each of the Faculty PVCs will also have responsibility for external liaison, the PVC External Affairs will complement the Faculty PVCs. Additionally, the University needs to give additional support and momentum to our Alumni activities and this is an opportunity to provide additional resources to this key development area in the University portfolio.

Why not have a PVC Planning?

The establishment of new governance arrangements (for corporate and faculty) planning and budget setting (UEB and UDC) and the enhanced planning responsibilities of the PVCs mean that a specific PVC role would be unnecessary.

Can we afford these changes given our recent financial constraints?

It is recognised that the University will need to invest in these posts to underpin our short, medium and long-term success.

What if we can't recruit to all these roles?

All evidence suggests that we will be able to attract high calibre candidates from both within and outside the University.

In proceeding with external advertisements are we sending negative signals to the HE sector about Sheffield's health?

The SG has debated the pros and cons of external recruitment at length, but it has concluded that this would ultimately offer the University the highest calibre of appointments. It also believes that, should internal candidates be appointed, they and their staff can be satisfied that these individuals are of the highest calibre within the sector – and this should be a comfort factor to all.

What consideration has been given to the role and remit of UEB/UDC?

One of the sub-groups has met to discuss the proposed model and has started to gain a view on: (a) how the UEB could serve both as an information exchange and undertake longer-term strategic (scenario) planning about the University; (b) how the UDC could fulfil as a scrutiny board and test the strategy and plans emerging from the UEB.

There is a significant amount of work to undertake and further consideration needs to be given to the interactions between these groups, Senate, Finance Committee and Heads of Departments to ensure that democratic discussions and the need for scrutiny/rigour of decision making is balanced and robust. The sub-plans to develop its model and test using examples and also seek the advice of the existing SMG members (tbc January 2008) before it returns to Senate with a model.

How will the University ensure that externally recruited PVCs have academic links within their respective departments?

The appointment process for all PVCs (faculty) will ensure that the faculty view on subject and research alignment is taken into account.

What will happen to the duties currently undertaken by the existing Deans of Faculties?

Further work is required to define the academic and professional support required by each of the PVC post holders. The SG recognises that the roles and duties will need to be mapped into the new arrangements to ensure that these key support functions are not lost.

However, the SG recommends that the final support arrangements are determined when the PVCs are in post so that the most appropriate team and support arrangements are implemented. It is recognised that the PVCs will need the support of a range of professional services, aligned to its academic needs. This means that some Professional Service staff will form a strong team to support each PVC and the academic departments – thus bringing the specialist expertise and advice closer to the faculty/departments.

Who is likely to be on the interview panels?

We will be asking for expressions of interest from staff. We will aim to have balanced and experienced panels.

Will the job description for a Head of Department change? If so how?

We are not planning any immediate changes although these may be taken forward at Faculty level in due course. Clearly there will be additional support for Heads of Department from the Faculty PVCs.

How will the University budget be determined?

The sub-group considering and developing this model has not yet fully explored this matter, but is conscious that this discussion will need to take into account how the UEB and UDC take a holistic view of the budgetary arrangements for the academic and professional areas of the University.

How will budgets be allocated within Faculties?

The general principles by which Faculties allocate budgets have not yet been determined and need further consideration. However, initial discussions within the SG have concluded that each PVC (faculty) will need to be responsible for the allocation of the budget to the departments within his/her constituency – hence, each Faculty will need to develop the general principles to provide a local dimension. It is envisaged that discussions on budget allocations to departments will need to take place annually and involve all Heads of Departments within each faculty. The PVC (faculty) will also be responsible for resolution of any dispute arising over resource allocation within their faculty.

Where an internal candidate is appointed, will a form of financial compensation be made to those departments?

This will be a matter of discussion between the department and the Faculty PVC and would be treated as any other resignation.

How will new initiatives within and between Faculties be supported?

More detailed consideration on this is required, but it is recognised that: (a) the principles for the allocation of budgets within a faculty is a matter for the PVC (faculty) to determine, and (b) there will be a need to 'top slice' the faculty budget to provide the PVC (faculty) with investment funds, and (c) the principles and annual investments will need to be determined in an open and transparent manner.

How will interdisciplinary activity be supported?

Further consideration is needed, but mechanisms will need to be developed and implemented to provide PVCs with funding to invest in and stimulate interdisciplinary activities.

How will our drive towards greater transparency be preserved when Faculties come into existence?

Yes – this will be a core value for both the University and the faculties and the revisions to SMG/UEB and ADC/UDC will support the timely and open publication of information.

How will a Head of Department's life improve under the new arrangements?

A Head of Department will benefit from greater access to and personal support from their PVC (faculty). This should mean that there is greater local advice on a wide range of management responsibilities and greater attention can be given to the personal and academic development of Heads.

What will future planning arrangements look like?

It is envisaged that the PVC (faculty) will be responsible for overseeing, managing and evaluating planning by each Head of Department within a faculty. Planning will therefore be completed within a context in which the PVC has detailed knowledge of a department's basic resource needs and aspirations for the short, medium and long terms. Crucially, when decisions about planning (or any other matter) are needed a PVC (faculty) will be able to respond quickly and with more information to hand than is currently the case. The faculty committee infrastructure will ensure that transparency of decision making happens.

What consideration is being given to the 'proximity and alignment' of Professional Services?

One of the sub-groups is considering the support requirements of the PVCs (faculty and cross cutting). This work will inform the discussions within the Professional Services.

Does this mean that the Faculty Office concept will re-emerge (and the Professional Services will be disbanded)?

No – the University, faculties and departments have to make best use of existing resources and expertise (otherwise we will lose time and waste effort). However, all 'non-academic' staff in both the Professional Services and academic departments will need to work in new ways to achieve the best service provision for a faculty and its departments.