john dobson oam - university of the sunshine coast - keynote address: meeting the agenda
DESCRIPTION
John Dobson OAM delivered the presentation at the 2014 University Governance and Regulations Forum. The 2014 University Governance and Regulations Forum examined key developments in the Higher Education legislative and regulatory framework and how these changes impact the governance of Australian universities. For more information about the event, please visit: http://bit.ly/unigove14TRANSCRIPT
Meeting the Agenda John Dobson OAM, Chancellor
Overview
- The governance challenge in the contemporary higher education context
- The evolution of higher education policy and funding
- The evolution of university governance requirements
- Implications for university management
- Implications for university governance
The governance challenge
Elite Mass Universal
Public Private
Regulation Marketisation
Policy definition
loose
A: Collegium
B: Bureaucracy
Control of implementation
loose tight
D: Enterprise
C: Corporation
tight
The Governance Challenge Four University Models (after McNay)
Ramsden (1998)
Evolution of policy and funding: 1980s
Higher Education Contribution Scheme
Evolution of policy and funding: 1990s
International student fees (1990)
Domestic postgraduate fees (1994)
Domestic undergraduate fees (1998)
Evolution of policy and funding: 2000s
Nelson Reforms
Fee flexibility
Student loans (public and private)
Discipline targets
Evolution of policy and funding: 2000s
Bradley Review
Demand-driven system
Participation and equity targets
Evolution of policy and funding: 2010s
Minister Pyne
Expansion of demand-driven system
Introduction of fee deregulation
Evolution of governance requirements:
1980/90s
“Confirmation of management decisions”
Evolution of governance requirements:
Hoare (1995)
Clarification of role of governing bodies:
- Strategic directions
- Internal and external accountabilities
Changes to:
- Size (15)
- Composition
- Appointment method
Evolution of governance requirements:
National Protocols (2004)
Role
Duties
Knowledge and skills
Size and duration of membership
Induction and professional development
Commercial oversight
Evolution of governance requirements: Voluntary Code (2011)
Primary responsibilities
Duties
Protections
Removals
Induction and professional development
Performance review
Size (22) and expertise
Risk management
Implications for university management
Entrepreneurial universities: Pathways to transition
The strengthened steering core Leaders, including academic leaders,
steering an aligned organisation flexibly, creatively and prosperously.
The expanded developmental periphery New academic and professional units
working across institutional boundaries and linking with the community to address new demands and opportunities.
The diversified funding base Development of non-government income
streams to create significant discretionary income so institutional objectives can be realised more effectively and efficiently.
The stimulated academic heartland Embedding transformation by ensuring
academic organisational units engage with the steering core, the entrepreneurial units, and income generating activities.
The integrated entrepreneurial culture Institutionalising entrepreneurial practices, values and beliefs.
Implications for university governance
University of the Sunshine Coast Council Agenda – 4 May 1998
8. GENERAL BUSINESS
Membership
Accreditation
Graduation
Executive
Budgets
Current issues, e.g. Y2K; FoI
University of the Sunshine Coast Council Agenda – 21 October 2004
7. GENERAL BUSINESS
Student fees
Educational profile
Research
Infrastructure
Planning
Policy
University of the Sunshine Coast Council Agenda – 2 June 2011
10. GENERAL BUSINESS
Quality
Equity
Strategy
Risk
Structure
Student load
Performance
University of the Sunshine Coast Council Future Agenda – 7 July 2017
9. GENERAL BUSINESS
Frameworks for:
Leadership and management
Academic and social impact
Income generation
Staff engagement
“Just as universities have moved closer to a corporate model of management, private corporations have become more collegial; large rigid hierarchies of line managers have tended to be replaced by more loosely coupled networks of team managers.” Meredith Edwards referring to Boer (1999) and Gibbons (1994)