Back to Victoria University

What’s wrong with the “VU Agenda”?

Posted 24 May 2012 by Russel Baader (Victoria University)

What’s wrong with the “VU Agenda”?

Following the meeting of members on Tuesday 15 May to discuss the “VU Agenda” the NTEU put to the Vice-Chancellor, on Monday 21 May, a summary of NTEU members’ concerns with that agenda.

High on the list of concerns was the unseemly and unjustified haste proposed in implementing the whole “VU Agenda” before 2013.

Members were also, and should be, concerned that the “VU Agenda” as published provides almost no detail that might inform critical and constructive feedback and debate about what appears to be the largest organisational change proposal in VU’s history.

The summary of concerns that arose from the members’ meeting, and which was put to the Vice-Chancellor, covered the following points (full detail below):

• What is the critical exigency and what is required to solve that?
• Can the VU Agenda be implemented in the proposed timeline?
• Is VU sustainable as a dual-sector institution?
• Why dismantle faculties and schools in favour of a “colleges” structure?
• Why is there no clarity about “Shared Services” in the VU Agenda?

We have no answers to those questions yet.

It was therefore disappointing to say the least that the Vice-Chancellor announced on Wednesday 23 May an intention to proceed directly to “… appoint two Pro Vice-Chancellors (Colleges and Distinctive Specialisations) who will work collaboratively with the University community, senior leadership team and other stakeholders to play a key leadership role in the design and development of this new organisational structure” and “in transitioning to the new organisational structure which will include the incorporation of activities contained in current faculties together with supporting the establishment of Shared Services.” (emphasis added)

That, surely, is a clear indication that the University, while engaging in consultation about the details, has already determined the new shape of the University and will not be prepared to engage with us about the fundamental questions set out below. We understand that the University view however is that there will be elements of the “VU Agenda” that will take longer and may not be implemented until 2013 and even 2014.

Ultimately we may not be able to stop the University senior management from undertaking this risky and precipitate action but we will be investigating what measures are open to the NTEU, and the concerned staff, to force some common-sense and at least a rational, staged approach to change that does not risk all on one throw of the dice.

SUMMARY OF NTEU CONCERNS WITH THE “VU AGENDA”

• What is the critical exigency and what is required to solve that?
• Can the VU Agenda be implemented in the proposed timeline?
• Is VU sustainable as a dual-sector institution?
• Why dismantle faculties and schools in favour of a “colleges” structure?
• Why is there no clarity about “Shared Services” in the VU Agenda?

What is the critical exigency and what is required to solve that?

The University needs to identify the critical exigency for keeping VU financially solvent. Addressing that issue may not require the proposed wholesale changes to the University’s structures. Or it may lead to a conclusion that while change is necessary it is not necessary to be implemented within 6 months.

There needs to be clarification about the analyses which have underpinned the decision to propose such a major restructure. The absence of such detail suggests that the VU Agenda has been hastily put together in reaction to current financial crises with little reflection about the long-term consequences of many aspects of the VU Agenda.

Can the VU Agenda be implemented in the proposed timeline?

A major problem with the VU Agenda is the proposed timeline. To make so many significant structural changes to the University in basically one semester, and in fact in the two months before Council next expects a plan of action, seems unrealistic.

The VU Agenda, when the elements have initially been tentatively agreed, should be planned to be implemented over at least a three-year period, with ongoing evaluations of the changes as things proceed.

The three year plan would break down the different elements such that, for example:

• the integration of TAFE courses within existing HE structures (however that happens) might happen in year 1;
• the gradual change of some administration services planned to be centralised/shared, such that a mixed model operates across most of years 2 and 3 (to help the ongoing evaluation and refinement of how this all happens); and
• any implementation of an agreed new structural model (e.g. colleges) takes place during year 3.

NTEU is very concerned that simultaneous change across multiple elements will result in a real period of chaos and not allow fine-tuning as changes are implemented. This has the potential to disrupt essential administrative elements especially during the selection and enrolment period over the summer. This could have a lasting impact and be detrimental to our ability to attract students to VU.

Is VU sustainable as a dual-sector institution?

A fundamental question that must be asked is can VU afford to base its future on being a dual-sector institution? If the TAFE sector is going to be a continuing drain on financial resources into the foreseeable future, why would VU burden Higher Education with supporting the sector? Careful financial modelling to ensure the future viability of VU is a fundamental requirement of a more detailed proposal in the next phase of the consultation.

Financial considerations aside, the proposed integration of TAFE and first year Higher Education, a “key feature” of the VU Agenda as it stands (page 5 of the VU Agenda), poses real problems for the quality and standards of Higher Education at VU. The experience of other dual-sector universities suggests that vertical integration of vaguely related components from the TAFE and Higher Education sectors does not work well and fails to achieve the desired objectives (e.g. RMIT’s experience). Subsequent iterations of the VU Agenda must produce evidence which would demonstrate that VU will succeed in achieving its aims with such a plan.

Fundamentally, the proposed integration disregards the implicit aims of first year university courses, including inculcating values regarding scholarship in discipline areas. It also ignores the very different educational philosophies and approaches to pedagogy adopted by the two risking losing valued ideals, at great cost.

The VU Agenda provides little to no detail on how this integration will be implemented.

In summary, why attempt to fix a problem by dismantling parts of the organisation, higher education, that are not the root cause of the problem in the first place, particularly when there is little evidence that the proposed changes will improve the real underlying causes?

Why dismantle faculties and schools in favour of a “colleges” structure?

Restructuring higher education into a colleges structure might give VU market differentiation but the VU Agenda gives no detail on the market research that should inform such a decision.

That market differentiation might have negative consequences for VU’s higher education sector. To some, “colleges” connotes a return to the old CAEs, to others it suggests a pre-university community college. Neither assists in building a reputation as a “university” in a sector in which all other universities use the nomenclature of “faculties”.

It is strongly suggested that VU keep a faculty structure. For example, if VU is serious about the value of the proposed three broad undergraduate degrees, then it might be better to adopt a structure that reflects this initiative more effectively, i.e. a three faculty structure, each one responsible for a broad undergraduate degree.

Why is there no clarity about “Shared Services” in the VU Agenda?

It is impossible for staff to provide detailed comment on a proposal that has no detail. Until there is a clear explanation of, and structure for, the proposed shared services the proposal will only generate anxiety among General Staff and hostility from Academic Staff.

General Staff are facing increased stress as a result of the uncertainty and lack of details for the shared services model regarding future appointments, processes for filling positions, locations of work, workload intensification, and job security.

Academic Staff regard the apparent increased centralisation of services that would result from the restructure as potentially undermining the personal relationships and detailed knowledge acquired in the local context, both of which informally support their effectiveness.

Moreover, there is no sense provided that the shared services model will in fact improve the organisation in ways that will lead to real gains and improvement. Without those details it is impossible to offer considered opinions.