ECM Academic Profile Organisational Change Proposal Meeting 3

1. ECM Academic ProfileOrganisational Change ProposalMeeting 3 23 November 2010

2. Welcome Agenda • Decision on Organisational Change Proposal • Reason for change • Desired objective • Nature and extent of change • Changes to ranking methodology • Feedback and responses • Effects of change • Implementation • Timeframe • Support • Questions

3. Decision The Dean has made a decision to implement organisational change • Reduction of $2.5 million in academic salaries from teaching and research staff in the six schools • Strategic decision to undertake a Faculty-wide process • Staff will be identified through the use of a ranking process conducted by the Dean • Final ranking methodology contains amendments in light of the feedback received

4. Reasons for change • Faculty’s financial situation • Serious financial situation • Operating deficits since 2006 • Deficit of more than $2.5 million in 2009 • Unsustainable position for the Faculty

5. Desired objectives • To provide financial viability and sustainability to the Faculty • Maintain a Strategic Academic Staff Profile • Ensure process is done in a way that reflects the strategic priorities of the Faculty • Maintain strategic strengths

6. Nature and extent of the changes • Reduction in academic staff salaries by $2.5 million • Set Faculty on path to target of salaries at 80% of FFM income • Achieved through reduction in staff numbers • Affected staff: Academic staff members on teaching and research appointments within the six Schools in the Faculty

7. Staff not directly affected by the changes at this time • Academic staff on research-only appointments; • Academic staff on teaching-only appointments; • Academic staff who are on fixed term contracts that expire before 30 June 2011; • Academic staff that already have a formal agreement with the University regarding the end of their employment (e.g. pre-retirement contract or voluntary redundancy), at the time of any decision on the proposed organisational change; • Academic staff employed directly by one of the three Faculty centres: Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems, Australian Centre for Geomechanics and the Western Australian Supercomputer Programme; and • Professional staff.

8. Summary of key changes to ranking methodology • Inclusion of a teaching portfolio in the Teaching category • Addressing quality, curriculum development and professional development in teaching • Relative to academic level based on Minimum Standards for Academic Levels (MSAL) in Academic Staff Agreement • Inclusion of leadership in the Collegiality component for all staff • For Level D’s and E’s, leadership to be assessed by the Head of School, and combined with collegiality assessed by panel • Levels A-C: Leadership and Collegiality assessed together by panel • Document clarified to ensure it is not construed as a performance management exercise

9. Summary of key changes to ranking methodology continued • Greater granularity in class sizes in Unit Teaching indicator to better reflect differences in workload • Clarification that staff promoted during the assessment period will be assessed pro-rata based on their respective levels • For staff who commenced during the Assessment Period, if they are identified through the ranking process, the Dean will review their CV submitted at the time of commencement at UWA and make adjustments to their research scores as appropriate • Reduction in points awarded for HDR Student enrolments, to half that of HDR Completions

10. Feedback Significant amount of written feedback received • 50+ individual pieces of feedback from academic staff, both from individuals and from groups of academic staff • 2 submissions from the NTEU • 23 pieces of feedback from students, including a submission from the UEC • 6 responses from other staff in the University and from industry Significant amount of feedback provided directly to the Dean All of the feedback was considered carefully before coming to a decision on the final organisational change

11. Summary of feedback • Some feedback on the overall organisational change • Questioning the need for action, and whether it has been discussed sufficiently • Questioning the justification • Questioning the depth of the staff cuts required • The vast majority of the feedback was on the ranking methodology • Supporting the methodology • Suggesting improvements/modifications • Some questioning of the use of a quantitative ranking system

12. Feedback on the overall organisational change • That there is insufficient justification for making changes • That there has been insufficient informal consultation of the Faculty’s financial challenges • There is not widespread concern evident from the feedback about the rationale for the change, the justification provided or the level of consultation • The majority of the feedback accepted the need to make changes and the justification provided • No changes have been made in response to this feedback

13. Ranking Methodology Feedback:Overall ranking system • Objecting to the use of a ranking methodology at all • Other feedback accepting that ranking methodology is the most appropriate in the difficult situation • Focus has been on providing a ranking methodology that best assesses people fairly • Ranking methodology fits a number of key characteristics: • A level of objectivity • Allows the process to move at a reasonable pace • Alternative suggestions required excessive staff work and/or extended the process over a long period • No changes have been made in response to this feedback

14. Ranking Methodology Feedback:Overall ranking system • There has been significant feedback on whether the ranking methodology aligns with University policies • Weightings of categories • Use of indicators • Whether the “goal posts are moved” by the ranking • Other feedback that ranking criteria are as good a reflection as ranking methodology can be and that the weightings are appropriate

15. Ranking Methodology Feedback:Overall ranking system • The ranking methodology is a relative ranking exercise • It is not about determining whether particular staff are under-performing • It is about assessing staff relative to each other in order to identify the staff who are achieving relatively less successfully than other staff in the Faculty • Teaching quality is valued, but teaching and research staff need to make contributions to research • Model provides a differentiation between performance of staff of different academic levels • No changes made in response to this feedback

16. Ranking Methodology Feedback:Overall ranking system • Some concerns expressed that the change focuses on performance rather than positions or structures • Suggesting the ranking is about performance management • Suggesting the ranking document reads too heavily towards being a performance management system • Suggesting that the process should not be conducted Faculty wide but on a School-by-School basis • This is not a performance management exercise • The change is a response to our long term financial situation

17. Ranking Methodology Feedback:Overall ranking system • Significant amount of feedback suggesting a particular indicator be included in the ranking methodology • e.g. why isn't [x] included in the ranking • Almost no consensus on any particular indicator to be included, with most individual suggestions not reflected by others • Other feedback indicating that the indicators are acceptable • In response to feedback, changes have been made to the teaching and collegiality categories • Consensus here on the broad indicator to be included • No other changes have been made in response to this feedback

18. Ranking Methodology Feedback:Overall ranking system • Feedback that ranking system did not account for broad enough range of factors affecting opportunity to perform • In response to feedback, the option of providing an Opportunity Statement to the Dean has been provided • Dean can take this into account in conducting the ranking exercise • Statement to be submitted before the ranking is conducted

19. Ranking Methodology Feedback:Research category • Some concern expressed that collaboration, particularly in publications and grants but also HDR supervision, is over-rewarded and: • Fails to appreciate differences between disciplines in research collaboration • Fails to recognise differences in individual workload where there are a large number of collaborators vs single authored publications/CI grants • Fails to recognise the range of reasons staff are included as collaborators on publications and grants, many which do not reflect actual contribution to the publication/grant

20. Ranking Methodology Feedback:Research category Continued…. • Encouraging and rewarding collaboration is a key Faculty strategy, and a key University policy • As a result, will continue to award full points to each author/each investigator • In response to the feedback, ARC LIEF grants have been removed from consideration • recognised that these grants, by their nature, contain a large number of “investigators” without reflecting contribution to the award of the grant

21. Ranking Methodology Feedback:Research category • Feedback that Level A academic staff did not have nominal expectations set for HDR Student Supervision and Grant Income • This caused problems with the calculation of the score • Feedback that there should be some expectation on a Level A staff member in Grants and at least HDR co-supervision, especially over Assessment Period • In response to the feedback, nominal expectations for Level A’s in HDR Student Supervision and Grant Income have been set

22. Ranking Methodology Feedback:Research category • Feedback that in some particular cases in particular fields one or two publications constitute the whole journal, and the one publication exceeds 50 pages in length, and this significant difference is not recognised in the ranking • In response to the feedback, publications in excess of 50 pages now score two publication points • Still required to be an ERA A*/A (or B for staff assessed against the Laboratory and experimental research table) journal

23. Ranking Methodology Feedback:Teaching category • Significant feedback that teaching quality, course development and professional development in teaching is not appropriately recognised • There was only a small amount of feedback on the best model for addressing this within the ranking system, and no consistency in this feedback • Introduced teaching portfolio, addressing the range of activities in teaching used in promotion and tenure, and PDR processes • Makes up half of the score for the teaching category • Assessed by the Dean against Minimum Standards for Academic Level (MSAL) in Academic Staff Agreement

24. Ranking Methodology Feedback:Teaching category • Specific feedback that there was insufficient granularity in breakdown of class sizes given differences in workload • For example, same score awarded for teaching a class of 11 as teaching a class of 199, despite large workload differences • Within this, real concern that small class sizes are weighted too highly given actual workload differences • Mixed feedback on where borders should be cut off • Increased the number of steps in the scale from 3 to 5 to better reflect differences in workload • Changed the points allocated to each of the class sizes, particularly reducing the points for smallest classes

25. Ranking Methodology Feedback:Internal Service category • There was feedback suggesting the indicator of “outreach” in Internal Service, and the scores attached to that indicator, were not consistent and did not reflect the variety of outreach roles • Further feedback that it was difficult to assign the role of “outreach” as there were no specific service roles of that name • As a result of this feedback, the outreach indicator in Internal Service has been removed • Outreach activities are valued, and form part of the Collegiality assessment

26. Ranking Methodology Feedback:Collegiality and External Service • A number of pieces of feedback that indicate leadership is not taken into consideration, particularly for Level D and Level E Academic Staff • As a result of this feedback, changes have been made • Include leadership as a factor alongside collegiality for all staff • For Level A-C academic staff, collegiality and leadership to be assessed together by a panel of staff • For Level D and E academic staff, leadership is assessed by the Head of School, weighted, and then combined with collegiality score assessed by the panel • Leadership assessed relative to level based on MSAL in Academic Staff Agreement

27. Ranking Methodology Feedback:Collegiality and External Service • Small amount of feedback concerned that the collegiality ranking process is not transparent and is therefore open to bias • Use a panel of three staff who assess each staff member independently of the others • Score averaged across three panel members • Panel of staff selected by the Dean on basis of collegiate behaviour and ability to approach task with an open mind

28. Ranking Methodology: Categories and Indicators • Research • Publications - A*/A (and B for Laboratory and experimental researchers) • Research Grant Income • HDR Student Supervision • Teaching • Unit Teaching • Student Project Supervision • Teaching Portfolio (Teaching quality, course development, professional development in teaching) • Teaching Awards • Internal Service (Administration) • Specific roles • Collegiality, Leadership and External Service • Collegiality • Leadership • External Service

29. Ranking methodology: Weighting

30. Effects of organisational change • Academic staff redundancy for staff identified through ranking process • Schedule E – Academic Staff Agreement • Alternative measures (e.g. pre-retirement contracts) • Faculty will discuss measures to mitigate the adverse effects • Changes to workload • Re-allocation of teaching, research and administration duties • Once the changes are finalised, there may be a need to change the School structure • Evaluated once staffing reductions are finalised • Separate organisational change process

31. Implementing the organisational change • Conduct ranking exercise • Collect data from staff • Collect official University data • Collect data from Heads of School • Provide an opportunity for academic staff to review their individual data • Any changes must be approved by the Head of School • Identify staff for redundancy • Initial informal consultation • Begin formal process in line with Academic Staff Agreement • Attempts to mitigate the adverse affects • Identified staff leave the University or in some circumstances (pre-retirement) commit to a departure date

32. Implementing the organisational change continued • Academic staff will be provided with detailed instructions and templates to provide data that is required to be collected from individual staff • Examples of data include 2010 publications (to 30 September 2010), Teaching Portfolio, External Service Statement • Staff data due by Monday, 20 December 2010 • Ensure appropriate guidelines exist for verification of data provided

33. Implementing the changes continued • Staff wishing to transition to retirement or leave the University before the completion of the ranking process (such as through a pre-retirement contract or voluntary redundancy) may wish to consider this option • Contact HR Employee Relations and Management Services staff: • Donna Kirkham – donna.kirkham@uwa.edu.au ; x7831 • David Rogers – david.rogers@uwa.edu.au; x3003 • Initial interest will be confidential to HR • Important to remember that any alternative options (such as voluntary redundancy) are at the discretion of the University

34. Timeframe for the changes

35. Available support • If members of academic staff need personal support or counselling during this organisational change process, this is offered free of charge through the University’s Employee Assistance Programme • Service is confidential, and staff can choose either the internal UWA provider or the external provider • Full details, including contact numbers, are available at: http://www.safety.uwa.edu.au/policies/eap

36. Available support continued EAP service providers: • UWA Counselling and Psychological Services(08) 6488 2423 (During office hours)www.counselling.uwa.edu.au1st Floor, South Wing, Social Sciences Building • PPC Worldwide1300 361 008 (24 hours)www.au.ppcworldwide.comLevel 16, 251 Adelaide Terrace, Perth

37. Support during implementation • As this change is implemented, the Faculty and University are committed to providing additional support to academic staff free of charge • Details of opportunities and services will be communicated to staff and listed on the Organisational Change website

38. Support during implementation • Examples of support: • Career Transition ServicesExternal provider offering counselling, career assessment and job search support • Seminars/Support Pre-retirement contracts Redundancy packages Financial planning Retirement planning • Commitment from UniSuper to run seminar for ECM staff, probably in early December – details will be advised as soon as possible

39. Continuing communication and consultation • As this change is implemented, there will be continuing communication and consultation with academic staff • Questions or concerns can be raised: • By email to orgchange-ecm@uwa.edu.au; • With the Dean or Mr Stuart Broadfoot, Manager, Strategic and Operational Planning • With the staff in HR Employee Relations and Management Services – Donna Kirkham and David Rogers • Through your union or employee representative

40. Questions The documentation from today’s meeting and any other documentation released during the organisational change process is available at: www.ecm.uwa.edu.au/staff/organisationalchange