Restructuring - the Edinburgh experience

1. Restructuring - the Edinburgh experience Bruce Nelson Registrar, College of Science and Engineering University of Edinburgh May 2011

2. Structure of presentation • University of Edinburgh • Why we restructured? • New management structures – University, College and School levels • Advantages and disadvantages • Personal thoughts • Questions and answers

3. University of Edinburgh Founded 1583 Typically between 20 and 50 in world rankings Times Higher 2010 40th in world, 7th in Europe 16th in Humanities, 26th in Life Sciences, 27th in Physical Science, 35th in Clinical Among broadest subject range in UK Students – 19500 UG, 5000 PGT, 3900 PGR. 3100 other European Union, 5450 outside EU Staff – 3100 academic, 4780 non-academic Income - £591M

4. 2002 starting point Gradual evolutionary change since 1980s Confused structure, with different sizes of Faculties/Depts Unhappiness with some aspects of support services Feeling that University sluggish, slow to respond compared to others … but world class institution with high reputation

5. Rationale for restructuring “The overarching aim is to ensure that we remain a leading world-standard research and teaching institution by developing a set of University structures:- that positively foster speedy and flexible response to new academic opportunities and cross-disciplinary working wherever appropriate that simplify both academic and administrative processes that reduce academic administrative time that remove the need for multiple record keeping that retain strong participation by academic staff at all levels in the formulation of strategy and policy throughout the University that allow professionally informed decision making to be undertaken in a more devolved and responsive manner, within only minimal but clearly specified parameters required for audit, policy or legal reasons.”

6. 2002 restructuring – academic units 5 Faculty Groups/8 Faculties to 3 Colleges Humanities and Social Sciences (CHSS) Medicine and Veterinary Medicine (CMVM) Science and Engineering (CSE) “Broadly comparable” – size, esteem 20/21 Schools Some schools straightforward – Chemistry, Literatures Languages and Cultures, Veterinary Medicine Others more challenging – Arts Culture and Environment, GeoSciences, Philosophy Psychology and Language Sciences, Nursing

7. 2002 – support services Previous structure Secretary’s Office Computing Service (EUCS) Library EUCS and Library became Information Services Group Secretary’s Office activities to Student and Academic Services Group (SASG), Corporate Services Group (CSG) and College Offices CSG – Accommodation Services, Estates, Finance, Health and Safety, HR, Procurement SASG – Academic Administration, Governance and Planning, Registry, Student Services

8. College of Science and Engineering

9. College Office 45 staff Headed by College Registrar College Registrar – advice to Head of College; strategic planning; budgets; estates strategy and projects; IT 5 senior managers responsible for: academic administration; communications; finance; HR; UG/PGT admissions Support for Deans – International; Learning and Teaching; Quality Assurance; Research; Research Careers Liaison with Schools and central support services College Registrar role in University committees etc

10. Structures within Schools Head of School Each has a Graduate School and Teaching Organisation Directors – Graduate School; Research; Teaching Director of Professional Services or School Administrator Heads of Research Institutes or Sections (most) Directors of research centres (time-limited externally-funded) Professional services

11. Professional services in Schools Director of Professional Services or School Administrator Manage local services – accounts, appointments, building issues, teaching support, tutors, technical support etc Variable internal management structures for IT, commercialisation, technical services, research centres Structure of senior management teams reflects size and complexity Two particularly different models “Informatics Model” – no admin done by academics Management School – receives 100% of income and then buys central services

12. Devolution of responsibilities Head of School has managerial responsibility for all staff Budgets devolved to Colleges and in turn to Schools CSE budget £55M – £52.5M to Schools/£1.8M College Office/£0.7M College Strong incentivisation to grow income – 80% retention Schools also responsible for research funding External research awards to CSE in 2009/10 - £115M Biggest school in CSE has £50M turnover

13. Challenges and relationships Challenges Interdisciplinarity Corporate feeling Doing things “my way”… transactional costs Integrating the professional services Senior Administrative Managers Group – 3 Heads of Support Group and 3 College Registrars Professional groupings – Heads of Finance and HR College Office Management Team College Professional Services Managers Group

14. The model elsewhere Similar models at Aberdeen Birmingham Glasgow Leicester Manchester Southampton … but variations in the detail

15. Advantages/disadvantages I Positive Happiness in schools with devolution of responsibilities… increased flexibility and responsiveness Encouraged entrepreneurial behaviour Much much improved school-level administration Much more responsive professional finance and HR advice which better understands the business Statistics (e.g. research income, international and PGT numbers) show it has worked

16. Advantages/disadvantages II Negative Loss of standardisation in processes Corporate IT systems still serve centre, leading to duplication and higher than necessary costs in schools Estates remains centralised and seen as less responsive Estates costs remain high Increase in administrative costs in schools Communications problems in large scattered institution not been solved Differences in terminology and structures problematic for students

17. Some personal thoughts Time in managing relationships Particular issues in interactions between Colleges and Schools and thematic Vice-Principals Need to tackle business processes, aiming for more standardisation and clarity in ownership Duplication Corporate IT systems Ongoing tensions … schools worry that financial pressures/new senior managers may lead to recentralisation Who does what… we don’t always know! Too little strategic resource for Head of College … but freedom in College and Schools to innovate!

18. Would we go back?

19. Would we go back? No!

20. How might we change? Personal speculation Unified central professional services? Merge smaller functions across schools or relocate to College Offices? Greater matrix structure e.g. outplacements, projects Student services located on different campuses Minor restructuring of schools e.g. biology

21. Questions and answers

22. Contact information Dr Bruce Nelson +44 131 650 5757 d.b.nelson@ed.ac.uk