The University of Auckland New Zealand Mega Project – Minimal Trauma Presented by Gay Brennan, Glenda Haines, Dianne Howard How Student Administration managed a major project to make a difference

The University of Auckland New Zealand 23 October What was the Project? Need to align University of Auckland academic structure with tertiary sector Sector norm for Equivalent Full-Time Student (EFTS) was 120 points in a year Curriculum Commission had recommended adopting the 120 point model plus other changes to the academic structure

The University of Auckland New Zealand 23 October What was the University of Auckland situation? University of Auckland normal full time load was 14 points in mostly 2 point courses Normal full time enrolment was 7 courses a year 4 courses in one semester 3 courses in the other semester

The University of Auckland New Zealand 23 October What was the decision? University decided in January 2003 to change to 120 points model Most courses would be 15 points with some valued at 10 and 20 points Normal full time enrolment would change to 8 courses a year with 4 courses in each semester

The University of Auckland New Zealand 23 October What did this entail? Rationalisation and reduction of duplication in courses Transitional regulations to cover existing students using the new course structure Communication strategies for staff and students Conversion of course values on student management system

The University of Auckland New Zealand 23 October How big was the Project? 193 qualifications to be restructured 6266 courses to be evaluated Of these, 1989 courses were deleted 4277 courses were re-weighted Plus 1183 new courses were introduced

The University of Auckland New Zealand 23 October What were the system changes needed? Conversion of all course values on the student management system Conversion of academic records to new points Amending academic records and key reports to display course values in both old and new points

The University of Auckland New Zealand 23 October Any other changes? This was the opportunity to introduce other changes to the University‘s academic structure recommended by the 2002 Curriculum Commission: Review of Postgraduate pathways General Education programme

The University of Auckland New Zealand 23 October Restructure of Masters degrees Two year Masters Degrees were to be split into a single year Masters programme preceded by one year Bachelors Honours degree or one year Postgraduate Diploma

The University of Auckland New Zealand 23 October General Education Introduction of an innovative General Education programme for undergraduate degrees Students would take two courses in their degree from a suite of General Education courses in a subject area not related to their degree

The University of Auckland New Zealand 23 October Anything else? Standardisation of regulations and Calendar wording Review of Satisfactory Progress requirements Change to the regulations and system for administering Unsatisfactory Progress

The University of Auckland New Zealand 23 October How long was the Project? 3 year project Started - January 2003 Go live – 1 November 2005 New structure effective - 1 January 2006

The University of Auckland New Zealand 23 October Year One Scoped and established the project framework Planned timelines and methodology Established academic rules for the new structure Commenced re-weighting the courses and reviewing qualification structures

The University of Auckland New Zealand 23 October Year Two Restructured courses and qualifications Obtained internal and external approval for the new regulations Wrote the transitional regulations Started the analysis of system changes Planned the conversion of course values and academic records on the system

The University of Auckland New Zealand 23 October Year Three Wrote and published Transition Handbook Set up publicity campaign – staff seminars, newsletters, letters to students, web information Changed the course values in the system Converted the academic records Went ‘live’ 1 November 2005 for 2006 enrolment

The University of Auckland New Zealand 23 October What is accepted practice? Put a professional project manager in charge who would produce a detailed project plan and set up a Gantt chart write a quality assurance plan develop risk management strategies manage the information flow and reporting mechanisms

The University of Auckland New Zealand 23 October How are projects usually managed? Set up a steering committee Form specialised working groups Bring in consultants for technical work Establish a budget and devolve budget management to financial division

The University of Auckland New Zealand 23 October Did we follow this standard practice? NO How did we manage the project? We kept it simple!

The University of Auckland New Zealand 23 October So how did we manage it? Management was entrusted to Academic Administration group so we Engaged an experienced University administrator as co-ordinator of the Academic Project Established the structure of the project Commenced scoping exercise Wrote plans and timelines

The University of Auckland New Zealand 23 October How did we staff the Project? Used existing staff: Group Manager, Academic Administration Manager, Calendar & Regulations Manager, Student Records Plus Engaged a manager for Academic Project in first year Added a Project Administrator in second year Added a Publicity Manager in third year Used in house technical managers and staff

The University of Auckland New Zealand 23 October Did we use external resources? NO Only used an external consultant once for four weeks to scope the PeopleSoft options Used in house project co-ordinators for systems development and change management System analysis development was carried out by existing staff in the Information & Technology Systems and Services division

The University of Auckland New Zealand 23 October How was the Project directed? Kept project management in house Direction provided by the Deputy Vice Chancellor (Academic) Overall management by the Group Manager, Academic Administration Used existing University committees for academic review and approvals Formed a small high-level steering committee for final implementation year

The University of Auckland New Zealand 23 October What was our project style? Utilized our knowledge and expertise Trusted our own judgment Used existing administrative committees, structures and templates Used consultation and liaison between existing administrative and academic bodies

The University of Auckland New Zealand 23 October Did this approach work? Yes All deadlines were met Several milestones were achieved in advance of deadlines Project was completed under budget 2006 implementation went smoothly

The University of Auckland New Zealand 23 October Why did it work? Key factors were: Empowerment to take charge and use initiative Trusted to make policy decisions on academic issues Simple, clear reporting lines facilitated decision making Stakeholders had clear channels of communication with the team

The University of Auckland New Zealand 23 October Why did it work? Small, integrated team worked closely together Relied on the institutional knowledge, expertise and experience of the team Use of existing committee structures provided a known framework for managing change Meeting existing timeframes and external deadlines promoted controlled management

The University of Auckland New Zealand 23 October What can you learn from our experience? You don’t have to use a professional project manager or follow the conventional project management route It’s possible to use simple management tools There’s no substitute for knowledge and experience Consultants aren’t always right Small can be good!