Strategic Review Presentation Strategic Review July 2009

Strategic Review 2009 Asked to  Provide a strategic framework appropriate for the challenges we face now and into the future;  Create a set of principles and values that provide the basis of a strategic and operational priorities plan and a new governance and management framework;  Conduct an internal review to allow all members of the Faculty to understand the collective challenges, and have the opportunity to contribute to the future direction;

Strategic Review Review was conducted around five strategic review areas, each led by two co-chairs; -The co-chairs were selected for their experience and their capacity for openness and judgement; Strategic Review AreaCo-chairs ResearchWinthrop Professor Cheryl Praeger Winthrop Professor Mark Randolph EducationWinthrop Professor James Trevelyan Professor Gordon Royle Industry and Community Partnerships, Foundations and Alumni Winthrop Professor Mark Cassidy Mr Tim Shanahan Physical, Information, Communication and Computing Infrastructure Winthrop Professor David Sampson Professor Mark Reynolds Governance and ManagementWinthrop Professor Greg Ivey Associate Professor Nick Spadaccini

Faculty Involvement Over six months, the co-chairs have led an open discussion across the Faculty:  Over 60 workshops, focus groups, working party meetings;  30 Submissions by members of the Faculty;  Over 1,000 hits on the Strategic Review website;  Over 1,000 hours spent by the co-chairs on the review; and  Thousands of hours contributed by staff from across the Faculty;

Strategic Review Area Papers The co-chairs of each of the Strategic Review areas have produced a number of documents across recent months  Each has identified the challenges we face, and provided us with options, principles and recommendations to guide the Faculty into the future;  Over 300 pages of documentation has been generated by the Strategic Review 2009;

Thanks and Acknowledgement  All members of the Faculty for engaging in this important process, and providing their feedback, ideas and concerns;  The review volunteers, of which there are many, who participated and assisted the review;  The numerous staff who assisted in the collection and collation of large amounts of information;  The co-chairs for their hard work and dedication, and their commitment to making the Faculty the best it can possibly be;

Strategic Review Paper The purpose of today’s presentation, and the consultation over the next month, is to consider the proposed strategic principles and governance and management framework This incorporates contributions from each of the co-chairs across all of the Strategic Review areas, and presents a high level strategy to guide the Faculty into the future

Strategic Review Paper This paper outlines proposed strategic principles and a governance and management framework for the Faculty; Developed through:  consultation with the Faculty through the Governance and Management Workshop, interviews and submissions;  investigation of other faculty models at UWA and in other universities in Australia and internationally;  consideration of issues, options and recommendations identified in each of the other strategic review papers; and  discussion amongst the co-chairs,  feedback from the Heads of School and the ECM Summit

Focus of the Paper  Focus is on strategic principles and a governance and management framework;  The paper does not provide an implementation plan or many of the details required to implement;  The proposal is designed to guide the Faculty into the future;

Strategic Principles  A number of strategic principles were extracted from the other review papers which represent the strategic concepts that underpin the Faculty as it moves into the future;  These principles were developed by the co-chairs, and reflect the issues, options and recommendations identified in each of the review area papers;  These principles, as well as the recommendations and options from each of the review areas, will guide the Faculty in its future direction;

Governance and Management Framework Background  Current schools based model is one with a focus on education;  During the course of the Review, only one other model was suggested, based on research centres;  These can be seen as two extremes of the spectrum, and the proposed model is a balance between them, designed to provide equal focus to research and education;  This delivers on the strengths of both models, and enables the Faculty to succeed in both of its core business’

Governance and Management Framework - Diagrams The following three diagrams, as well as the appendix to the paper, describe the proposed governance and management framework for the Faculty. They are split to show different aspects of the same model, and must be considered altogether to provide a complete picture  Fig 2 – Governance and Decision Making Structure Describes the committees and flow of decisions  Fig 1 – Management Structure Describes the reporting relationships of staff  Fig 3 – Overall Funding Model Describes the broad flow of funding in the Faculty

Fig 2 - Governance and Decision Making Structure

Disciplines and Research Themes  Disciplines are core areas of teaching expertise  Includes discipline groups and individuals  Research Themes are broad strategic areas of focus for research (e.g. Energy, environment and sustainable development)  Includes Centres, research groups and individuals  The co-chairs have not indicated the number of Research Themes or Disciplines, or what they should be – this is to be determined by the Faculty  In making that decision, the Faculty will need to consider the numbers and the content in the context of the overall model, including to ensure that the committee structure is effective

Fig 2 Key Features  Retention of strong, vibrant Discipline Areas;  Creation of high level multi-disciplinary Research Themes based on existing and emerging strengths;  Education and Research committees with: o academic decision making power (delegated from Faculty Board); and o budgetary responsibility (delegated from the Dean);  A Development Board comprised of high level industry, community and alumni members providing strategic advice on external relations to the Faculty;

Fig 2 - Governance and Decision Making Structure

Fig 2 Key Features  Retention of strong, vibrant Discipline Areas;  Creation of high level multi-disciplinary Research Themes based on existing and emerging strengths;  Education and Research committees with: o academic decision making power (delegated from Faculty Board); and o budgetary responsibility (delegated from the Dean);  A Development Board comprised of high level industry, community and alumni members providing strategic advice on external relations to the Faculty;

Fig 2 - Governance and Decision Making Structure

Fig 2 Key Features  Retention of strong, vibrant Discipline Areas;  Creation of high level multi-disciplinary Research Themes based on existing and emerging strengths;  Education and Research committees with: o academic decision making power (delegated from Faculty Board); and o budgetary responsibility (delegated from the Dean);  A Development Board comprised of high level industry, community and alumni members providing strategic advice on external relations to the Faculty;

Fig 2 - Governance and Decision Making Structure

Fig 2 Key Features – continued Planning and Resources Committee providing advice to the Dean on strategy and resource allocation; Faculty Board membership that is representative of the Faculty including elected members from academic and professional staff which operates as a check, balance and safeguard for the Faculty on academic matters Full Faculty will exist in the same way as it does in our current model and will meet at least once annually

Fig 2 - Governance and Decision Making Structure

Fig 2 Key Features – continued Planning and Resources Committee providing advice to the Dean on strategy and resource allocation; Faculty Board membership that is representative of the Faculty including elected members from academic and professional staff which operates as a check, balance and safeguard for the Faculty on academic matters Full Faculty will exist in the same way as it does in our current model and will meet at least once annually

Fig 2 Key Features – continued It is anticipated that the Education and Research committees and the Development Board will create subcommittees as required. The paper recommends that a graduate research subcommittee be created.

Fig 1 – Proposed Strategic Management Structure

Fig 1 - Key Features  All Heads of Discipline and Research Theme Leaders report to the Dean;  Academic staff will report either to a Head of Discipline or a Research Theme Leader;  Associate Dean roles created in Education, Research and External Relations, with strategic and executive responsibilities  All Associate Deans report to the Dean and be members of the Planning and Resources Committee;  Associate Deans Education and Research chair the Education and Research Committees;

Fig 1 - Key Features Academic staff will be appointed to the Faculty and most will be affiliated to both a Discipline and a Research Theme, ensuring a research-teaching nexus; There will be opportunities for academic staff to be affiliated with more than one Discipline or Research Theme; Activity across Disciplines and Research Themes will be determined in light of our teaching commitments and research priorities; Individual academic staff will continue to have academic freedom to explore new teaching and research areas;

Fig 1 - Key Features  Professional staff are essential to the Faculty’s functioning;  Professional staff will be employed by the Faculty and will be managed and deployed centrally or locally as appropriate;  Professional Staff will be organised based on the functional tasks they undertake in their roles  The details of a professional staff structure will be determined following further consultation, to provide effective and efficient support to the Faculty and provide a career structure;

Fig 3 – Overall Funding Model

Fig 3 – Key Features  All salaries are budgeted for and paid off the top;  All infrastructure is budgeted for and paid off the top;  Budget compiled from the bottom up - input from  Disciplines and Research Themes via respective committees and Associate Deans for operational and initiative funding requirements; and  Recommendations on future staffing and infrastructure needs;  Research and Education needs given equally important consideration in the planning and budget process

Fig 3 – Key Features  Active and balanced participation in the planning and resource allocation process from both Heads of Disciplines and Research Theme Leaders, via respective Committees and Associate Deans  Industry and community engagement needs and resource requirements incorporated into the Faculty’s planning and resourcing processes

Models considered Examples of models considered: -Stanford University -Imperial College London -California Institute of Technology -Monash University -UWA Business School -UWA Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences

Comparative Models – Top 50 School of Engineering, Stanford University -Limited number of strategic research priorities that cut across academic departments; -Departments responsible for teaching programmes; -Low boundaries between departments; -Academic staff with affiliations to more than one department whilst also researching within a cross- disciplinary research priority area; -Strategic planning at a School (UWA Faculty) level;

Comparative Models – Top 50 Faculty of Engineering, Imperial College London -Strategic decision making and resource allocation undertaken at a faculty level; -Two strategic committees with responsibility for education and research respectively, and with an advisory role on resources; -Academic departments responsible for teaching and disciplinary research, with cross-disciplinary research facilitated by centres and institutes across departments;

Comparative Models – Top 50 Division of Engineering and Applied Science, California Institute of Technology -Educational responsibility assigned to a number of academic “options” (disciplines); -Overlapping research theme areas around which research is organised in the Division; -Academic staff a part of the Division as a whole, with affiliations, research and teaching in multiple “options” and research theme areas;

Comparative Models – G08 Monash University -Departments responsible for teaching and research within the discipline area; -Formation of cross-disciplinary research areas (research themes); -New building used to co-locate researchers in common areas outside of disciplines;

Comparative Models – UWA UWA Business School -Strong undergraduate teaching faculty reflected in organisation based on academic disciplines; -Research priorities led by sponsored chairs, incorporating staff from across the Faculty; -Resources and strategic planning decisions conducted at a Faculty-wide level; -Centralised professional staff structure, where staff support is based on functional teams that deliver services across the Faculty;

Comparative Models – UWA Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences -Strong research orientated Faculty, reflected in structure based on Schools, Centres and Institutes; -Institutes and Centres facilitate research focus; -Faculty-wide committees for teaching, research and planning and resources; -Centralised management of IT and Student Services;

Strategic Review Paper  Based on a significant level of consultation across the Faculty and a consideration of a significant amount of information;  Strategic Review paper provides a carefully informed proposal for taking the Faculty forward;

Creating a Vibrant Faculty This model provides the basis for:  making the Faculty a great place to work  facilitating responsiveness and staff involvement  creating a career structure for academic and professional staff to excel  collegiality and cooperation  a vibrant Faculty that is innovative, interesting, exciting and cutting edge and that will attract the best people from across the world.

Key Areas for Implementation There are a number of key details going forward that will need to be worked out  Roles of Associate Deans, Heads of Discipline and Research Theme Leaders are critical to the success of the model and the Faculty. Characteristics of these people will be:  leadership,  Experience;  Broad and strategic view;  Dedicated members of our Faculty;

Key Areas for Implementation  Priority to decide our Research Themes and Disciplines, with consultation across the Faculty, and to ensure these realise our strategic objectives;  Workload model that ensures fairness across the Faculty and allows time for research, education and service;  Determining our professional staffing structure, in consultation with staff;  Consultation across the Faculty throughout implementation process;

Feedback and Consultation Process Feedback on this paper will take place over the next month, and will involve a number of ways for the Faculty to contribute. This will be coupled with more opportunities to ask questions about the proposal as well as further explanation on the proposal. Following this, all of the feedback provided will be considered, and any necessary modifications made to the paper. The revised paper will then be released to the Faculty for in- principle endorsement at a Full Faculty meeting.

Implementation When endorsement in principle is obtained, the Faculty will move forward in working out the details, using all the strategic review papers; Consultative process with members of the Faculty; Working groups established to work on specific areas of detail;

Ways to Provide Feedback Attend a Feedback Session  There will be a number of feedback sessions over the month in which staff will be able to ask questions and provide feedback;  The timing and location of these will be provided on the Strategic Review website; Make a Submission  All members of the Faculty have the opportunity to make a written submission(s);  Submission guidelines and processes are available on the strategic review website;

Ways to Provide Feedback continued Request a Feedback Session  Individuals or groups of staff can request a feedback session/meeting, in which the Dean, General Manager or the Governance and Management Co-Chairs will answer questions on the proposal and listen to your feedback;  Requests sent to  Available times will be listed on the Strategic Review website

Ways to Provide Feedback continued Online Feedback Form  An online feedback form is available on the Strategic Review website;  This allows anonymous feedback; Send an  with your comments and

Further Information Strategic Review 2009 website: Be involved in the feedback sessions Contact the Dean, the General Manager or the Manager, Special Projects for more information

Future of the Faculty  We face challenges as a Faculty going forward;  Committed to make this a fantastic, vibrant place to work;  We have the capacity and talent within our ranks to make us an outstanding Faculty  World leading research and education;  Innovative and long term relationships with the external community;  Vibrant, exciting culture to which people are attracted;  Cutting edge facilities to enable us to achieve excellence;  Building on the current dedication of staff, and rewarding that dedication with a career structure so that we retain the best, and attract outstanding new appointments;