1 / 48

TEMPUS SEMINAR

TEMPUS SEMINAR. UNIVERSITY GOVERNANCE KIEV MARCH 2010. WHY THE INTEREST IN GOVERNANCE? GOOD GOVERNANCE IS OF PRIMARY IMPORTANCE TO SOCIETY AND TO THE INDIVIDUAL IT IS A SOCIAL, POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC IMPERATIVE CHARACTERISED BY TRANSPARENT UNDERSTANDING OF RESPONSIBILITIES AND OBLIGATIONS

atara
Download Presentation

TEMPUS SEMINAR

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. TEMPUS SEMINAR UNIVERSITY GOVERNANCE KIEV MARCH 2010 University Governance Kiev, March 2010

  2. WHY THE INTEREST IN GOVERNANCE? GOOD GOVERNANCE IS OF PRIMARY IMPORTANCE TO SOCIETY AND TO THE INDIVIDUAL IT IS A SOCIAL, POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC IMPERATIVE CHARACTERISED BY TRANSPARENT UNDERSTANDING OF RESPONSIBILITIES AND OBLIGATIONS SEPARATION OF ROLES GOVERNING BODIES DO NOT MANAGE ALTHOUGH THEY ARE ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE TO ENSURE GOOD MANAGEMENT University Governance Kiev, March 2010

  3. INTEREST IN GOVERNANCE? RECOGNITION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL ROLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN ECONOMIC, POLITICAL AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT GROWTH IN NUMBER OF HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS AND STUDENTS CONSEQUENT INCREASE IN COSTS THE NEED FOR MODERNISATION AND REFORM THE ENGAGEMENT OF STAKEHOLDERS, STUDENTS, FAMILIES, STAFF, EMPLOYERS, THE PUBLIC THE NEED TO PROTECT SOCIETY AND ALL THOSE INVOLVED IN HIGHER EDUCATION FROM CORRUPTION AND FRAUD University Governance Kiev, March 2010

  4. HIGHER EDUCATION GOVERNANCE • COMPLEX • SENSITIVE • CHANGING • EVOLVING • NO SINGLE MODEL University Governance Kiev, March 2010

  5. GOVERNANCE – NOT – MANAGEMENT • VITAL TO UNDERSTAND DISTINCTION BETWEEN GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT (WHILE RECOGNISING THEIR INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP) University Governance Kiev, March 2010

  6. GOVERNANCE • “THE FRAMEWORK IN WHICH AN INSTITUTION PURSUES ITS GOALS, OBJECTIVES,POLICIES IN A COHERENT AND COORDINATED MANNER” • “ANSWERS THE QUESTIONS: • WHO IS IN CHARGE? • WHAT ARE THE SOURCES OF LEGITIMACY FOR EXECUTIVE DECISION MAKING?” University Governance Kiev, March 2010

  7. GOVERNANCE CONCERNED WITH: • THE DECISION-MAKING STRUCTURES,THE BODIES CHARGED WITH RESPONSIBILITY AND THEIR TERMS OF REFERENCE • MAY BE CONSIDERED UNDER TWO BROAD HEADINGS – EXTERNAL GOVERNANCE – INTERNAL GOVERNANCE University Governance Kiev, March 2010

  8. MANAGEMENT CONCERNED WITH: • THE IMPLEMENTATION OF AGREED POLICY • EFFICIENCY, EFFECTIVENESS, QUALITY OF SERVICES PROVIDED FOR INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS University Governance Kiev, March 2010

  9. EXTERNAL GOVERNANCE • GOVERNMENT [MINISTRY] SETS WIDER AGENDA • ESTABLISHES SECTOR POLICY OBJECTIVES, OUTCOMES AND PERFORMANCE INDICATORS • ALLOCATES FUNDING • SETS STANDARDS • IN A CENTRALISED SYSTEM MAY PRESCRIBE DETAIL OF GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT SO THAT THE NECESSARY DISTINCTION BETWEEN GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT BECOMES BLURRED University Governance Kiev, March 2010

  10. INTERNAL GOVERNANCE UNIVERSITY AUTONOMY • THE GOVERNMENT PERSPECTIVE • FREEDOM WITH CONTROL • IMPLEMENTING CHANGE • ASSURING QUALITY • DELIVERING OUTPUTS • SEEKING VALUE • ENSURING ACCOUNTABILITY • ENCOURAGING COMPETITION University Governance Kiev, March 2010

  11. UNIVERSITY AUTONOMY INSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE • FREEDOM FROM CONTROL IN ORDER TO ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR: • FINANCE • THE CURRICULUM • ADMISSIONS • QUALITY ASSURANCE AND ENHANCEMENT – PARTICULARLY THE OVERALL QUALITY OF THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE • STAFF – HUMAN RESOURCES • RESEARCH • PROPERTY AND ESTATE MANAGEMENT • EXTERNAL RELATIONS – INCLUDING INTERNATIONAL PARTNERSHIPS • COMPETITION University Governance Kiev, March 2010

  12. FEATURES OF UNIVERSITY GOVERNANCE KEY WORDS • AUTONOMY • RESPONSIBILITY • ACCOUNTABILITY • EFFECTIVENESS • EFFICIENCY • TRANSPARENCY University Governance Kiev, March 2010

  13. FEATURES OF UNIVERSITY GOVERNANCE • THE GOVERNING BODY SHOULD BE UNAMBIGUOUSLY AND COLLECTIVELY RESPONSIBLE FOR OVERSIGHT OF ALL ASPECTS OF UNIVERSITY LIFE AND WORK University Governance Kiev, March 2010

  14. FEATURES OF GOVERNANCE RESPONSIBILITY FOR: • DEVELOPMENT AND APPROVAL OF UNIVERSITY MISSION, POLICY AND STRATEGY KEY AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY INCLUDE: • APPOINTMENT OF SENIOR OFFICERS • FINANCE • THE CURRICULUM • ADMISSIONS • QUALITY ASSURANCE AND ENHANCEMENT – OVERALL QUALITY OF THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE • HUMAN RESOURCES • RESEARCH • PROPERTY AND ESTATE MANAGEMENT • EXTERNAL RELATIONS – INCLUDING INTERNATIONAL PARTNERSHIPS • AUDIT • LEGAL COMPLIANCE • COMPETITION University Governance Kiev, March 2010

  15. ACCOUNTABILITY EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL – ACHIEVED THROUGH: TRANSPARENCY, EFFECTIVE DOCUMENTATION OF PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES QUALITY MANAGEMENT COMPREHENSIVE DATA AUDIT EFFECTIVENESS GOVERNING BODY NEEDS TO CHECK THAT IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICY IS ACHIEVING OBJECTIVES University Governance Kiev, March 2010

  16. GOVERNING STRUCTURES • WHO DETERMINES THE CONSTITUTION, STRUCTURE AND COMPOSITION OF GOVERNING BODIES? • THE GOVERNMENT? • THE UNIVERSITY? • COLLEGIAL / DEMOCRATIC? • TENDS TO BE ORIENTED TO THE INTERESTS OF KEY STAKEHOLDERS – THE ACADEMICS • CORPORATE / EXECUTIVE? • TENDS TO BE MORE ‘PERFORMANCE’ ORIENTED • ONE OR TWO DECISION-MAKING BODIES? • ‘COUNCIL’ – OVERARCHING DECISION-MAKING BODY? • ‘SENATE’ – ACADEMIC DECISION-MAKING BODY? • ADVISORY BODIES? University Governance Kiev, March 2010

  17. COMMITTEE STRUCTURES • WHAT IS APPROPRIATE AND NECESSARY? • HOW IS THE MEMBERSHIP OF COMMITTEES DETERMINED? • WHAT AUTHORITY DO THEY HAVE? • HOW, WHEN, WHERE DO THEY REPORT? University Governance Kiev, March 2010

  18. WHAT WORKS? • SIZE • MEMBERSHIP – ELECTED – NOMINATED – EX-OFFICIO • STUDENTS – ACADEMICS – EX-OFFICIO – EXTERNAL • BALANCE? • DIFFERENT COMPOSITION FOR COUNCIL (DECISION-MAKING/GOVERNING BODY) FROM SENATE (ACADEMIC GOVERNING BODY)? • CODE OF PRACTICE • REAL OWNERSHIP OF RESPONSIBILITY • TRAINING FOR MEMBERS University Governance Kiev, March 2010

  19. IMPLEMENTING GOVERNING BODY DECISIONS? • RECTOR / PRESIDENT • SHOULD THE RECTOR / PRESIDENT BE BOTH CHAIR OF AND RESPONSIBLE TO THE DECISION-MAKING BODY? • DEANS / HEADS OF DEPARTMENT • ADMINISTRATIVE HEADS • STAFF / STUDENTS • APPOINTED BY? • WRITTEN JOB DESCRIPTIONS? • RESPONSIBLE / REPORTING TO? • TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT? University Governance Kiev, March 2010

  20. SOME REFLECTIONS ON UNIVERSITY GOVERNANCE IN TEMPUS COUNTRIES 27 COUNTRIES EACH DIFFERENT – SO HEALTH WARNING ON GENERALISATIONS KEY ISSUES: • LEGAL [AND HISTORICAL] FRAMEWORK – REGULATORY – EVOLVING – PRESCRIPTIVE • AUTONOMY – LIMITED – DEVELOPING • FINANCE CONTROL AND FREEDOM? • STATE – TUITION FEES – PRIVATE – RESEARCH • HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT • GOVERNANCE ROLE OF STUDENTS • EXTERNAL MEMBERS • INSTITUTIONAL AND NATIONAL DATA University Governance Kiev, March 2010

  21. FOOD FOR THOUGHT? University Governance Kiev, March 2010

  22. University Governance Kiev, March 2010

  23. University Governance Kiev, March 2010

  24. University Governance Kiev, March 2010

  25. University Governance Kiev, March 2010

  26. University Governance Kiev, March 2010

  27. University Governance Kiev, March 2010

  28. University Governance Kiev, March 2010

  29. University Governance Kiev, March 2010

  30. University Governance Kiev, March 2010

  31. University Governance Kiev, March 2010

  32. University Governance Kiev, March 2010

  33. University Governance Kiev, March 2010

  34. University Governance Kiev, March 2010

  35. University Governance Kiev, March 2010

  36. University Governance Kiev, March 2010

  37. University Governance Kiev, March 2010

  38. University Governance Kiev, March 2010

  39. University Governance Kiev, March 2010

  40. University Governance Kiev, March 2010

  41. University Governance Kiev, March 2010

  42. University Governance Kiev, March 2010

  43. SITE VISITS – CASE STUDIES • REAL ACHIEVEMENTS • VALUABLE INSIGHTS INTO CULTURAL – HISTORICAL BACKGROUND • EXCITING / INTERESTING / THOUGHT-PROVOKING • FOCUS ON MANAGEMENT ISSUES • LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT – REFORM AND CHANGE • EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL CONTROL VERSUS DELEGATION • ABSENCE OF EXTERNAL MEMBERS ON GOVERNING BODIES University Governance Kiev, March 2010

  44. PROCESSES UNDERSTANDING / RATIONALISING / REFORMING / QUALITY CONTROLLING PROCESSES USE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DATA THE VITAL IMPORTANCE OF COLLATED, DETAILED, TIMELY DATA LEADERSHIP THE KEY ROLE OF RECTORS – DEANS – ADMINISTRATIVE HEADS APPOINTMENT OF EXECUTIVE DEAN AND VICE-DEAN IN ONE INSTITUTION University Governance Kiev, March 2010

  45. TEAMWORK THE NEED TO BREAK DOWN INTERNAL WALLS BETWEEN ACADEMICS AND BETWEEN ACADEMICS AND ADMINISTRATORS FUNDING FINANCIAL AUTONOMY IN GENERAL RESTRICTED LEGISLATION THE INTERACTION OF NEW LEGISLATION WITH THE PROJECTS INTEGRATING CHALLENGES OF INTEGRATING AN INSTITUTION University Governance Kiev, March 2010

  46. STAFF ATTITUDES THE ATTITUDES OF STAFF TO CHANGE (ALL STAFF – INCLUDING DEANS, PROFESSORS AND OTHER SENIOR MANAGERS) THE NEED TO ENGAGE STAFF AND TO PERSUADE THEM TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR COLLECTIVE AND INDIVIDUAL DECISIONS INTERNAL STRUCTURES THE NEED FOR EFFECTIVE INTERNAL STRUCTURES TO IMPLEMENT AUTONOMY E.G. FINANCE AND HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICES AUTONOMY CLARIFYING DECISION MAKING PROCESSES AND ENSURING IMPLEMENTATION “RE-DYNAMISING AND REINFORCING AUTONOMY” [MOROCCO] THE DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES OF THE UNIVERSITY AND THE MINISTRY University Governance Kiev, March 2010

  47. CONCLUSION EVIDENCE OF DYNAMIC CHANGE, DEVELOPMENT AND EVOLUTION WILLINGNESS TO ENGAGE IN INITIATING AND MANAGING CHANGE IN DIFFICULT CIRCUMSTANCES NEED TO REFLECT ON THE INTERPRETATION OF AUTONOMY AND THE APPROPRIATENESS AND EFFECTIVENESS OF GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES NEED FOR TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT FOR MEMBERS OF GOVERNING STRUCTURES, FOR SENIOR MANAGERS, FOR STAFF, STUDENTS AND EXTERNAL MEMBERS NEED FOR INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT INFORMATION AND DATA RECOMMENDATIONS IN REPORT University Governance Kiev, March 2010

  48. THANK YOU University Governance Kiev, March 2010

More Related