Workshop PRESENTATION on UNIVERSITY MERGERS Presented By gops chetty and malcom walls FROM DUT

1. Workshop PRESENTATION on UNIVERSITY MERGERS Presented By gops chetty and malcom walls FROM DUT

2. INTRODUCTION • Durban University of Technology – 01 April 2002 merger between ML Sultan and Natal Technikon • Voluntary Merger - Rest in the Sector were forced mergers • Question? - The nature of the investigation. • Whether the DUT merger can be considered a successful merger. • The paper also examines factors which can contribute to successful mergers.

3. LITERATURE • Literature on higher education mergers remains anecdotal. • Nevertheless still useful in piecing together how mergers come about in Higher Education Institutions, the forms that they take, the processes that unfold and difficulties associated with merging two or more institutions. • Very little evidence to show that voluntary merger processes have fewer merger steps. It is generally argued that voluntary merger contributes to successful mergers.

4. HARMAN – 1999 -2000What factors constitutes successful mergers • Commitment by staff to mergers • Inclusive process of consultation including in planning and integration activities. • Giving guarantees for employment. • Implementing the merger speedily after agreement. • Strong Leadership • Building a common purpose and strong sense of loyalty • The choice of a partner • Enabling legislation • Timing • People Issues

5. OTHER FACTORS • Success of a merger is assured if one of the partners is the dominant partner. • Institutions physically close to each other – achieves the economies of scale. • Mergers improve the future position of the new institutions. • Merger success or failure characterized by wishing to meet external political interest and needs and at the same time maintain autonomy. • Top-Down approach does not deliver optimum results. • Accomplish few objectives is far better for a successful merger.

6. Culturally different institutions – this was greatly underestimated. Significant amount of pre-merger planning and preparation. Not all plans were implemented. Task teams in all areas. HIGHLIGHTS OF MERGER CASE

7. DIFFICULTIES • Number of union related challenges to the merger including a court application against the Minister of Education, the Councils of both Technikon and the Committee driving the merger • Frosty relations between the both Unions closer to the merger time. • Financial problems at Technikon Natal impacted negatively on the merger. • Post merger integration was generally difficult. • 270 staff left at the end of the first year severance packages • Exercise to right size in 2003-included a section 189- but this was fiercely approached by unions and finally stopped by Council. • Infrastructure and relocation problems. • Salary discrepancies between institutions. • Students had difficulties before settling down.

8. EVALUATING THE DUT MERGER-IS IT A SUCCESS OR NOT • Evaluation of Merger Success or otherwise depended on: • Timing of the evaluation- any assessment within a year or two is not a sufficient an indicator to point to success or not. • What factors ought to be taken in account. Private sector/ business mergers are few factors e.g. profitability, efficiencies and market share. Many factors for higher education mergers – academic, administrative, student services, political etc • Impact of Government or national policies. The mediating role by government in mergers has significantly featured in measuring its success or failure. • Assessment of DUT merger • Generally not a positive one but many years down the line, the university is on the threshold of doing well.

9. MACRO ASSESSMENT • Look at government’s transformational goals and objectives, white paper and various subsequent documents. • These include: social justice to overcome legacy of apartheid, resource allocation and access, challenges of globalization and ensure resources are effectively and efficiently utilized. • Other imperatives: Reduce duplication of programmes, promote joint development, responsiveness to regional and national needs for academic programs, research and community service, build academic and administrative capacity. • Outcome: Generally achieved many of these objectives over a period time. • E.g. reduction of duplicated programs - 31 common programs at the time of merger. • Rationalization of expensive programmes e.g. Music – UKZN • Slow progress on differentiated higher education institution - a UOT • Rebuilding of a financially sustainable institution.

10. MESO ASSESSMENT • Very poor regional collaborations e.g. ATI – this body was dissolved. Only in existence is the Central Applications Office. • Collaboration only exists between individual staff members/departments

11. MICRO ASSESSMENT • This is where most evaluation takes place. • Faculties and new Executive Deans. • New Academic Rules. • Excellent management for pipeline students. • Seamless legal process. • Common examination rules.

12. NEGATIVES • Lack of signed agreement in pre-merger talks. • Cultures very different- posed enormous challenges. • The Senior Management teams and Committee of Twelve, tended to paper over cracks and any difficulties arising during the merger planning discussions. • Instability arose from Interim Management and to limited extent from the Interim Councils. • Difficulties with cash flow could have destroyed the new institution.

13. OTHER MERGER CONSIDERATIONS • Speculation by some that we should not have merged until all the others were being merged ( Here the comparison is to other UOTs) Lost some ground having these particular merging problems. • Recruited a lot of staff from outside including new Deans, Vice Chancellors and this had some neutralizing effect on the institution. • Not all problems can be attributed as merger problems. The issues of poorly prepared students/pass rates/graduation rates/ would exist irrespective of mergers.

14. THE END!!