Pro Uni and the consequences A case study of a university restructuring project

Hamburg University The University of Hamburg, one of the younger German universities (1919), is the fifth largest University in Germany. It has more than students, 18 departments and more than 5000 staff, including 700 professors.

Before and After  Comparison of two projects of organizational development  What is the difference in approach between the two projects ?  What achievements can be expected, given the challenges of re-engineering this big institution especially its “entrepreneurial” culture?  What are the pros and cons of an external project management with respect to a project that is supposed to be taken care of by the central management itself?  What role does staff development play in this context?

The „Preparation“: Future Plans Pro Uni Basic organization Reorganization at faculty level Future package Structural recommendations

PRESIDENT Quality management university development communications Strategic policy management CHANCELLOR Finances, human resources, Organization, property, Investments, legal VICE-PRESIDENT Research, transfer, International affairs... VICE-PRESIDENT Teaching, studies, student affairs Research, endowments International affairs Property and investment planning Legal affairs ICGS Planning, strategic manage- ment, univ. development Communications, PR, info + academic management Curricula, teaching + student affairs Finances, human resources + organization, budgeting Print shop Technolog Transfer + continuing education

The aims of the preparatory phase To reinforce the scientific performance To foster and develop quality and excellence To intertwine the variety of the subject areas To promote cooperation and competition on a national and international basis

Long route to decision making and a tendency toward bureaucracy in the university Factor Approachability  entire institution  academic area  administration Cooperation / information flow  university / authorities  administrative areas  central administration / academic institutions  decentralized administration / acad. Institutions  faculties  faculty academic institutions Decision-making route Transparency of decisions Balance of decisions Bureaucracy Efficiency of academic work  entire university  own faculty Efficiency of administrative work  centralized  decentralized bad assessment good

The New Project comprises seven major areas

Organization of the New Project Abt. -1- / Referat -11- (Planung und Controlling) Steering Committee, Deans of 6 new Schools, Members of various boards, Admin. Dpt. For Planning and Development VP/F Pr, K, -1-/Wd Präsidium VP/H Präsidium VP/H, K, ZNI Pr, K Project Coordination Steering Commitee

Systematic comparison of the two projects: Pro University and the ongoing project  Circumstantial condition: the present project is happens in the wake of an external evaluation (the Dohnany paper) that led to various political decisions.  Objective  Organizational structures  External Advisors  Methods, approach and tools

Differences in approach between Pro- Uni and the Project we are facing today  it was the leadership of the president that lead to its implementation (see the Leuven case presentation of the President, Jürgen Lüthje, in the EUA web site)  it was the leadership of the president that lead to its implementation (see the Leuven case presentation of the President, Jürgen Lüthje, in the EUA web site)  it had a very systematic approach, identifying levels and fields of the university structure that needed improvement  it had a very systematic approach, identifying levels and fields of the university structure that needed improvement  it had a project coordination office that coexisted with the central management of the university

Systematic comparison of the “Pro University” and the present "after Dohnany process" Methodical beginning and instruments  Consensus driven, reaching out for the broadest base of support within the institution  Each step led to a limited change depending of a pre-conceived leeway of restructuring potential  The project was meant to be auto- didactic on an institutional level  The ambition was to teach the university how to carry on re- inventing itself  The project strives for the best possible use of the given autonomy in the very dense framework of recommendations of the Dohnany paper  The goals are more concrete, group work and broad consensus is more focused on the implementation  It is quite clear that in the meantime the general political conditions have changed. There is less space for proprietary solutions

Systematic comparison of the “Pro University” and the present "after Dohnany process" Organizational structures  Solicited by the President as an externally funded project of University development  Advisory process with a number of professional consultants  Administrative Structures of Pro university were allocated separately of “traditional” decisive structures  Based on a decision of the Academic Senate  Reaction to external pressure, aiming for a more indepent voice of the university  Internal project structure, parallel to the existing administrative and self- governing organization

Two case studies that are representative for the two different framework projects  Refurbishing the administrative department for Facility Management  Objectives: Efficiency improvement Efficiency improvement Reshaping the department for a better customer orientation Reshaping the department for a better customer orientation  Preparing the University Computing Center for the future internal Budget Allocation  Objectives: Identification of a portfolio of services  Differentiation between strategical overhead and services, that will be paid for by the scholars

Differentiation in approach  Need was felt internally  Months of process supervision  Implementation of new SAP modules and training  Change of organziational structures and staff  Budget allocation is an outcome of political decisions  Moderated process between central administration and the management of the computing center, involving the department of informatics

Conclusion: Role of Staff Development No isolated staff development process orientation is helpful Politically imposed structures are harmful to the process of refurbishing Yet they are necessary for the major achievements