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

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

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

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

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.”

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

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

College of Science and Engineering SchoolAcademic staffResearch staff Biology Chemistry4679 Engineering85113 GeoSciences80148 Informatics81128 Mathematics5310 Physics6183 Total540928

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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!

Would we go back?

No!

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

Questions and answers

Contact information Dr Bruce Nelson