1 / 34

New Governance Models: an international perspective

New Governance Models: an international perspective. Jamil Salmi London, 10 March 2008. a few stories. Mexico India Azerbaijan Uganda NZ Australia Peru. outline of the presentation. does governance matter? changing governance models the role of governing boards.

zea
Download Presentation

New Governance Models: an international perspective

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. New Governance Models: an international perspective Jamil Salmi London, 10 March 2008

  2. a few stories • Mexico • India • Azerbaijan • Uganda • NZ • Australia • Peru

  3. outline of the presentation • does governance matter? • changing governance models • the role of governing boards

  4. natural lab experiment: U. of Malaya vs. NUS • early1960s: 2 branches of University of Malaya • today: • NUS ranked # 19 • UM only # 192

  5. Concentration of Talent Students Teaching Staff Researchers Research Output Graduates Supportive Regulatory Framework WCU Abundant Favorable Governance Technology Transfer Public Budget Resources Endowment Revenues Tuition Fees Research Grants Resources Autonomy Academic Freedom Leadership Team Strategic Vision Culture of Excellence Characteristics of a World-Class University Alignment of Key Factors Source: Elaborated by Jamil Salmi

  6. U. Of Malaya vs. NUS • talent • UM: selection bias in favor of Bumiputras, less than 5% foreign students, no foreign professors • NUS: highly selective, 43% of graduates students are foreign, many foreign professors

  7. U. Of Malaya vs. NUS (II) • finance • UM: $118 million, $4,053 per student • NUS: $750 million endowment, $205 million, $6,300 per student • governance • UM: restricted by government regulations and control, unable to hire top foreign professors • NUS: status of a private corporation, able to attract world-class researchers (incl. Malaysians)

  8. France and Germany • low in the rankings • civil service status and mentality • no tradition of competition • equal distribution of limited resources

  9. Germany • “Excellence initiative” • competition • additional resources • governance reform

  10. France • world rankings have forced to ask questions • dual structure • “Grandes Ecoles” with best students, more resources and favorable governance, but no research • universities: “second best” students, but research vocation • autonomy reform

  11. outline of the presentation • does governance matter? • changing governance models

  12. governance models from central government control to steering at a distance

  13. how to define autonomy? • academic freedom is not negotiable • freedom to deliver whatever programs one wants and research whatever one wants? • freedom to spend as one wants within a lump sum?

  14. how to define autonomy? • total freedom is not realistic • autonomy has to operate alongside accountability

  15. critical dimensions of autonomy • selection of students (qualifications and number) • program and curriculum development • recruitment / evaluation of faculty • remuneration • income generation • ownership of infrastructure and ability to borrow

  16. accountability in return for increased autonomy, governments expect accountability in: * adherence to national goals and policies * maintaining academic quality * financial honesty and value for money * good governance and management

  17. autonomy / accountability tension within institutions • independent colleges / faculties • institutional strategic plan

  18. international trends • general move to granting greater autonomy (Japan, Thailand, Indonesia, Germany, France) • MOEs are surrendering some functions to buffer bodies or intermediate agencies

  19. international trends (II) • growth in scale and intrusiveness of monitoring and reporting by governments • increase in number of monitoring agencies (statistics, QA, financing)

  20. outline of the presentation • does governance matter? • changing governance models • the role of governing boards

  21. appointment of leader • mode of appointment • democratic election (faculty, administration, students, alumni) • government appointment • competitive appointment (Board, gvt, electorate)

  22. appointment of leader (II) • eligibility • only from faculty • only from the university • from outside • duration of appointment • one or more mandate • from 4 years to 4 ever

  23. vision

  24. Complacency Stagnation Diamond Performance Gap Absence of Vision Business as Usual

  25. Aspiration Transformation Diamond Improved Performance Goals Setting Renewal Strategy

  26. evolution of Nokia sales

  27. Clemson University • land grant university focused on agricultural and mechanical crafts • changing region • strategic partnership with BMW to become premier automotive and sports car research U • aims to become # 20

  28. flexibility • strategic planning to provide direction for change • close linkages with the economic environment for adequate feedback • ability to react and adapt rapidly

  29. principles of good governance • powers of the key internal stakeholders are understood and accepted by all • the Board, the President and the Academic Council work together and respect each other • the academic community accepts that the decisions of the senior executives are in the University’s best interests

  30. principles of good governance (II) • communication of ideas and information flowing both ways (up and down) • not too many committees, but enough to provide for participation in key policy decisions

  31. conclusion the end

  32. conclusion • Board = interface between society and universities • learning to work together: U leadership and Board • need for capacity building • clear boundaries

More Related