1. Russell Ashworth Winter School Seminar Amsterdam 2005
Review of PG Recruitment and Admissions at the University of Manchester
Russell Ashworth
Winter School Seminar
Amsterdam 2005

2. Objective
The objective was to review the core postgraduate admission and recruitment process through the process life cycle and make recommendations for improvement.

3. Why did we decide to review PG recruitment and admissions
Manchester 2015 (increase in Postgraduate research students and income from overseas students)
Merger – some major system integration issues particularly with PG recruitment and admissions
Implementing new student system

4. What approach did we take (1)
Management review rather than BPR
Why?
Needed some quick wins
No champion for BPR
Business process mapping already undertaken when developing new student system – build on this rather than repeat
Know what the issues are just need to decide how to address them

5. What approach did we take (2)
Review group – Sponsor plus process owners (Director of Corporate Services, Director of International Development, Director of Recruitment and Admissions, Head of Faculty Administration)

6. What approach did we take (3)
Identified issues following desk exercise and interviews with key stakeholders
Reviewed the following:
Structures, international recruitment, marketing information, academic contact, relationship management, enquiry management, application management
36 recommendations narrowed down to 7 critical issues

7. 2. Executive summary Issue Recommendation Lead Date 1 DC Sept 05 2
The marketing material produced by the University is not integrated. This applies to both electronic and hard copy information. There is also an over reliance on the main hard copy prospectus, which is inappropriate as it does not effectively meet the needs of postgraduate applicants (who use the web as their primary information source and want detailed information on programmes and funding).
The web should be the main focus of the University postgraduate marketing information. All marketing information should be more focused on applicant needs and more effectively integrated. There should be an agreed suite of information that should have local ownership and be produced using agreed formats and templates (Ref ). DC
Sept 05
The Directorate of International Development (DID) should lead on developing best practice guidance and mandatory procedures that more effectively facilitate and control international recruitment. This will include the development of support activities, such as the international equivalences database, and the development of improved internal controls over quality, English language ability and fraudulent applications (Ref ). 2
The recruitment of international students carries a different risk profile to that of UK students. Controls need to be put in place to ensure that the targeted growth in international students does not lead to a decrease in quality. The controls that are currently in place are varied and do not appear to be effective in all cases.
Sept 05 TW
Key: DC – Delyth Chambers; TW – Tim Westlake.

8. 2. Executive summary Issue Recommendation Lead Date June 05 DM 3
There are inherent difficulties with enquiry management as enquiries could be received by and directed to a wide number of people within the University. Research has indicated that applicants believe the quality of personal contact from the University needs to be improved.
This position is made more difficult by the lack of an effective enquiry management system and a lack of consistency in systems and procedures across the University.
A network of responsibility for postgraduate enquiry management should be formally established. There should be one contact in each school (or appropriate level) who is the main contact point for all enquiries in that area and works staff in the centre to provide an integrated enquiry management service. It is questionable whether there is a need to have this resource at Faculty level (Ref 9.1).
All marketing information should direct enquiries on the same topics to the same point. This should generally be either the local or central points of contact described above (Ref 9.2).
All enquiries should be captured using a web portal and guidance on best practice and mandatory procedures produced (Ref 9.4/9.8).
June 05 DM 3
Sept 05 DC 4
There is only minimal filtering of applications prior to passing to academic decision makers. Increasing the level of filtering would reduce the administrative burden on academic decision makers, but it would require that detailed admissions criteria are produced on a timely basis.
The filtering of applications prior to consideration by academic decision makers should be routine. There is likely to be greater scope for filtering and actual decision making for PGT applications, but the filtering out of clear rejections is appropriate for PGR applications. Detailed admissions criteria should be developed and published for all PGT programmes. Criteria for research applicants should be developed by Schools. The turnaround for academic decision making should be 10 days (Ref 10.4/10.5).
Sept 05 DM
Key: DC – Delyth Chambers; DM- Dugald Mackie.

9. 2. Executive summary (continued)
Issue
Recommendation
Lead
Date 5
The current application process does not effectively integrate online and hard copy applications and there is a significant, if not total, reliance on hard copy information.
Online applications are generally only processed when hard copy information is received and the online information is completely ignored in some areas throughout the application process.
This is inefficient, does not provide effective control against fraud/quality risks and can impact significantly on the time taken to process applications, therefore decreasing the likelihood of successful conversion.
Fully electronic submissions should be facilitated and actively encouraged. This should be the default application route that is promoted by all University information and staff (Ref 10.9).
The online form should capture all information required to process the application and references should be accepted (Ref 10.10/10.22).
Hard copy information, including transcripts, should only be requested if a conditional offer is made (Ref 10.16).
References should only be chased at the decision making stage if they are fundamental to the decision making process (Ref 10.20).
Dec 05 DC
May 05 DM 6
The operational and management structures for postgraduate recruitment and admissions do not appear to be clearly defined or integrated. For example, it is not clear what services in this area are provided by the Postgraduate Recruitment and Admissions Office (PGRAO), the Directorate of International Development (DID) and the Research Office or how these services are effectively integrated.
The services provided by relevant operational areas/teams should be clearly defined and effectively integrated. (Ref 3.1). DC
July 05
Key: DM- Dugald Mackie; DC – Delyth Chambers.

10. 2. Executive summary (continued)
Issue
Recommendation
Lead
Date 7
The student systems project has no overarching high level administrator group that can provide verification of the overall integrity of processes underpinning the new system. Currently the control in place is that high level administrators in each Faculty have assigned responsibility for approving all the work of the specific process implementation groups (PIGs). Discussions with the relevant administrators indicate that this is not an effective control.
There should be action taken to provide overall operational verification of the new processes proposed by the systems project. This could take the form of an intensive workshop attended by the relevant key senior administrators and the subsequent meeting of this group to review progress/new issues on a regular basis. This group of senior administrators should also take on the overall ownership and responsibility for realising the operational benefits of the new system (Ref 3.2/3.3). RS
June 05
Key: RS – Rosemary Smith.

11. Implementation
Recommendations signed off by senior management team then discussed in Faculties
Implementation Group formed
Membership included those best placed to drive implementation
Action plan agreed and signed off by Group
Group meets periodically to received progress reports

12. Strengths of this approach
Relatively low resource requirements
Enables issues to be identified and addressed quickly
Avoids delays caused by political issues
Most appropriate if you want quick wins and particularly if you are building on work in progress

13. Weaknesses of this approach
Real issues are likely to be avoided
Lack of focus on detailed process mapping/review may make it difficult to:
Identify the real issues
achieve significant efficiencies
Implement the recommendations (e.g. conversion)
Manage change effectively as the impact of changes proposed may not be fully understood prior to implementation (e.g. logging application centrally)