1. Review of internal decision- making processes Iain Hunter Birte C. Hornemann Kirsten Molgaard Nielsen Jan Evers Christiane Bimberg Andreas Stich

2. Table of Contents Introduction Models of decision-making processes Case studies Conclusion Reflections

3. Introduction Assignment: Through a study of the management structure and power base in your university, monitor and evaluate the decision-making processes, and assess their effectiveness. … Suggest ways of improving the quality and speed of decision-making.

4. Case studies Strategic planning (Strathclyde, Twente) Appointment of professors (Aalborg, Dortmund) New study programmes (Dortmund)

5. Models of decision-making processes Collegial model Bureaucratic model Political model Organized anarchy model Economic model

6. Strategic planning (Twente) Strategic plan 2005 - 2010 Successor of 2001 – 2005 Developed in Spring 2004 – Spring 2005 Involvement of stakeholders, except support staff Risk: Change of Executive Board

7. Strategic planning (Strathclyde) Five year rolling plan, currently 2003 - 2007 Policy document that ALSO contains hard targets Lack of iteration results in many staff not adopting stakeholder view Plan in need of revision, as some targets are not achieved Potential problem with staff who are not stakeholders

8. Appointment of professors (Aalborg) The Faculty‘s strategic plan is to let active groups grow Calculation of staff capacity and needs of staff Faculty doubling of external funding Consequences

9. Appointment of professors (Dortmund) Main players: Faculty, Senate, Rector’s Office and Ministry Process often took too much time: process has to be shortened Strategic importance of appointment of professors: high leverage of Rector’s Office is justified Since January 2005: the Rector’s Office decides without the Ministry’s participation

10. New Study programmes (Dortmund) Implementation of the new modularised study programmes in teacher training in English and American Studies Intermediate phase in preparation of the new graded BA/MA-Programmes Top-down process with overlapping responsibilities and conflicting allegiances and insufficient coordination and communication Maintenance of well-proven quality of teacher training Creation of competitive programmes in regional, national and international contexts.

11. Conclusion -1/2 No university fitted completely in one of the decision-making models. Current practice of decision-making is highly diverse at each university/in each country. National and legal guidelines set limits: transfer from one country to another only with adjustment. Potential for improvement: decentralisation adapted to the local situation

12. Conclusion – 2/2 Reorganisation of governance and management structures. Especially: shift of decision making power to the appropriate levels of competency balanced combination of bottom-up and top-down processes more clearly defined responsibilities administrators to support the academic staff on various levels of the university

13. Reflections The process of discussions and communication was as important as the subject of the assignment. All of us have benefited from discussing cultural and structural differences in higher educational systems

14. Suggestions Mixing administrators and scientists in the assignment groups should be continued Continue visits to different universities Quality and relevance of the lectures improved New assignment topics defined by the groups Short focused assignments on different themes at each meeting The goal for the programme should be clearer and more visible during the programme