RDM: A union perspective 18 June 2009 Theatre C, Old Arts

1. RDM: A union perspective18 June 2009 Theatre C, Old Arts

2. RDM The Responsible Divisional Management (RDM) approach is one adopted by several North American universities, and is based on the principle of subsidiarity, which holds that decisions should be aligned with overall goals but should be taken as close as possible to where services are delivered and people affected. RDM assumes that core academic and support functions and their supporting budgets should be located in faculties/graduate schools, given their need for innovation, speed, flexibility and personalised support.  Some functions will, however, need to be grouped centrally for reasons of critical mass, access to scarce professional services, policy consistency, high transaction costs, cross-subsidies and external representation. SOURCE: Responsible division management web-site, University of Melbourne

3. Terms of Reference Develop a plan and program to implement a Responsible Division Management model of operations and to achieve the efficiency improvements and savings identified through the work of the Expenditure Review Committee. • Develop detailed project plans with milestones, dependencies, risks and issues for each of the workstreams and monitor progress against the plans. (more metrics and hoops to jump through?) • Identify key issues and make decisions about how to resolve them, determining timelines and reporting through relevant committees for approval as required. • Manage risks and resolve issues as they arise. • Ensure excellent communication to stakeholders within the University and external to the University. • Ensure mechanisms are in place to canvass opinions and liaise with relevant University committees and advisory groups, project working groups and staff as required. • Ensure that programs are in place to equip staff with the necessary skills and training required to support changes emerging from implementation of the project. (What are these ?) • Ensure University principles of access, equity and diversity are upheld in the implementation plans. • Advise the Vice-Chancellor and Senior Executive on resourcing and policy matters. SOURCE: Responsible division management web-site, University of Melbourne

4. Workstreams The project is divided into 6 workstreams: For example, one workstream will be specifically looking at the management of academic workloads and academic workforce-planning, and other related matters that impact directly on academic staff including use of casuals in teaching, low enrolment subjects, the administration of the QoT survey, improvement in research project management and reporting, provision of student services, etc. SOURCE: Responsible division management web-site, University of Melbourne

5. Cost savings- jobs… Drawing on materials developed at the University of Indiana, RDM is a financial management philosophy which: o focuses on operational decentralisation; o is designed to support achievement of primary academic priorities; where: 􀂃 budget follows priorities; (Do academics and prof staff have a real say in priorities) 􀂃 aligns authority with responsibility 􀂃 creates a 'full cost' view of academic operations Is education the priority?

6. TRMMM –(speaks for itself) • Taking Responsibility for Making Melbourne Manageable (Jargon) • A project implementing governance and management changes designed to implement subsidiarity and to • streamline decision-making. The RDMI project and the TRMMM project will operate in parallel. • A key part of the TRMMM project is implementation of a Policy library and creating streamlined and standardised policies wherever appropriate

7. Generalised PDs, less staff doing boring work anywhere? • The RDMI project aims to define and implement a service model for business services3, which incorporates the principles of responsible division management, incorporates efficient and streamlined services where possible - and to oversee cost saving initiatives. The overall aim is to allow maximum investment in teaching and learning, research and knowledge transfer activities. • A critical path plan has been constructed, in which six workstreams have been derived from both customer-centric and University compliance objectives. A phasing methodology has been used to manage sequencing, interdependencies and risks. The workstreams and high-level objectives are detailed below

8. Another review of a review… • Student services will be reviewed to see where efficiencies might be achieved, and whether any further adjustments are (jobs?) required, depending on the final business model adopted in faculties for business-related services

9. Academic-related productivity improvements • – Academic productivity (e.g. workload framework, reduce low enrolment subjects) (interesting specialised subjects get dropped for high enrolling broad money making ones)

10. Academic nasties • Specific and individual productivity initiatives e.g. on-line QoTs • On-line strategy and associated business process re-engineering!!!!! (Consider yourself to be re-engineered) • Evaluate student services provided centrally and through student centres from the perspectives of students and staff, seek advice from custodial Deans, explore opportunities for efficiencies!!

11. In this document not professional or general just NON • Non-academic! productivity improvements • – Business process re-engineering of major transactional processes e.g. engagement and payment of casual • staff), on-line forms (includes Themis improvements) • – Market test large scale transactional functions e.g. payroll • – Specific productivity initiatives e.g. cash handling, electronic committee papers • – Review of IS operations (Another one!) • – Review of PCS operations

12. Standards? • – Specification of standards and performance expectations of central and locally-managed services (Jump though hoops) • Consider the feasibility of sharing student centres in the context of new arrangements developed for sharing business services between faculties (Amalgamate and shed staff – the shared/shed staff model)

13. Don’t replace staff!! By instruction • Transition and change management • – Develop and implement communications and advocacy plans • – Internal communications and change management support • – Interim processes required prior to implementation of new management operating model • – Strategy for limiting staff appointments in the next several months

14. RDM Steering Group • Liz Sonenberg and Ian Marshman - • joint Chairs • Peter McPhee, Maggie Abernethy, Mark Considine, Ken Hinchliff, Tony Goodwin, Liz Bare, Allan Tait, Neil Robinson, Teresa Tjia

15. Project Aims • Internal clients (US) (represented by Senior Executive) must accept and adopt changes resulting from this project. • Not all recommendations will result in improvements for all units, as levels of resources and service delivery vary, and standardisation may not always be to a higher level than that currently provided. HOWEVER The objective of cost-savings must be met.

16. Accountability • Deans & Heads of administrative Divisions • The project will identify, develop implementation plans and support change for initiatives identified as required to implement Responsible Division Management and to achieve cost-savings. Those holding relevant accountabilities within a budget unit under the subsidiarity principle are responsible for implementation decisions and realising the savings in their areas for which they are • accountable.

17. Expected savings • Initiatives result in costsavings of $50 mil over 2009-2011 NTEU Intervention necessary

18. What it means - a managerial definition of what learning, research and teaching is. • The project will require the re-design of many business processes and the location of various administrative services will change. • Teaching and Learning Impact • The project has an institutional impact on Teaching & Learning. ‘Administrative’ changes extend to defining expectations with regard to teaching and learning and processes that directly support teaching & learning.

19. What is success? • They say :Success is dependant on decisions being made in a timely way, resources being re-allocated when required, the goodwill and cooperation of staff affected by change in their role or location of work, accountability being accepted by those responsible for implementation decisions, and executive level support and leadership.

20. ?

22. Savings?? How much money will be spent on this project? Quote “It’s a cliché, but sometimes you have to spend money to save money. The critical point is that the project will be funded from the savings that result from its work. This is a big project made up of a lot of individual sub-projects, some of which require a lot of investment. Although making savings on consultants was identified by the Expenditure Review Committee as a potential area of saving, the project and some faculties are using consultants to assist them plan and implement change, but careful consideration will be given to their use and where internal people could do the job as well or more cost effectively, they will be used. A lot of project support will be required and funds for backfilling positions will also be made available. Other costs will include potential changes to systems and these carry large costs for business analysis, making, testing and documenting system changes, and for training to assist staff with the new processes. Costs required here will depend on final solutions for improving processes.”

23. Myths? From their site…THEY DO NOT GUARANTEE JOBS “I have heard … This is all about reducing the number of faculties This is all about reducing the number of student centres This is all about decentralising HR & Finance This is all about centralising HR & Finance This is all about increasing the workload of academics This is all about increasing the workload of professional staff This is all about outsourcing services None of the above is a goal of the project, nor a desired outcome per se, nor have proposals to implement any of these things been considered at this stage. The project has two drivers – • continuing the implementation of the management philosophy of subsidiarity. • achieving cost-savings through the implementation of more efficient and effective processes.” WE pay for their bad management