Restructure and ReorganisationHere we go again – another new manager,

another restructure!

Paul Travill

Things we will look at this afternoon

• Background– Context of the University of Wolverhampton in

2011/12

– The School Administration Structures

• Restructuring– Defining the principles

– Behind the scenes

– Involving staff

• It’s all over – or it’s just all begun

Background

• Eight Schools

– Administration managed by the Dean of School

– Different administration structures in each School

– Structures grown / changed randomly

• Mergers

• Redundancy 2008

• Changes in academic provision

• Growth of TNE provision

So Why Change

• Amongst the reasons highlighted by the Vice Chancellor for the change were:

– Duplication and overlap in processes and tasks.

– Lack of consistency in how tasks are undertaken.

– Differences in how data/information is interpreted.

– Lack of clarity on ownership of processes etc.

– Tensions between the centre and school.

• “It has become clear that there is neither a devolved nor a centralised model and this has led to a “half-way house” situation allowing the potential for systems to fall down. Whilst it is fully recognised that Schools must have the information and support appropriate to their needs and that students need local support; there is clearly a need for streamlining, greater consistency and better co-ordination between functions and processes. “

So why Change

• School Administration structures – Complex for the University. Little commonality

– Hard to modernise administration processes

– Need for the University to• Improve services to students and staff

• Deliver more cost effective services

– About 160 staff in School Administration

– Different JD’s, Structures, Grades

– Little Career opportunity for staff

Initial Changes

• Simple line-management change of the School Manager.– From Dean of School to Academic Registrar

– Staffing budget and responsibility from School to Central Professional Services

• Review of the staffing levels, grades and structures in the 8 Schools – prompted review

• Half way through review, a decision to move from 8 Schools to 4 Faculties – start again!

Restructuring - Principles

– No immediate requirement to make savings. This in itself is challenging, given the current disparity of provision across Schools, the lack of resources in some Schools to deliver functions this review will propose as essential, and the need to enhance staffing to support new functions and demands.

– Creating a greater synergy between central and Faculty administrations teams to ensure that we have an effective, efficient , flexible administration service to meet the University’s changing needs.

Principles

• The need to achieve consistency of grades, skills and structures within which the administrative staff work.

• The framework for delivery of administrative services to support the three cluster in ways, which are cost effective, flexible and future proof.

– academic delivery,

– school management

– subject specific requirements

Principles

• The need to introduce significant process re-engineering to support the key business processes supporting the school administration service.

• Work on a culture shift that seeks to reduce bureaucracy, increases flexibility and staff development, and creates a ‘whole university’ ethos of excellence around the provision of administration.

Key recommendations

• Introduce a more consistent level of resource and common structures to meet the priorities in administrative support.

• A review of the roles, grades and job descriptions to support the new structures and ways of working should be undertaken.

• Arrangements for transferring staff from the current to new structures should, where possible use the slot and match arrangements to new job descriptions.

Key recommendations

• A consistent University-wide measure of allocation of staff resource to support core academic delivery and department administration should be agreed

• The size of the team, rather than the structure of the team, will vary depending on the size of the Faculty.

Key recommendations

• Appropriate online administrative systems to enhance the effectiveness of locally delivered Faculty administration to be prioritised

• A staff development programme is introduced to support the changes from School to Faculty Administration and supports the ethos of flexibility and cross-University working

• Corporate Services Departments to realign their services to work appropriately with new structure

Methodology

• Engaged an External Consultant to work with Academic Registrar

• Meetings with

– Deans and School Management Teams

– Heads of Central Service Departments

– Clusters of Admin Staff

– Visits to several other HEI’s

• Early Appointment of Faculty Managers

Next stages – behind the scenes

• Various iterations of the proposed Structures

• Preparation of Job Descriptions

– Every JD begun from scratch

– All in a standard format

– About 30 JD’s needed to be graded (HERA)

Discussions about the staffing levels in each Faculty

The scale of variation

SAD SEF UWBS STECH SHAW LSSC SAS SSPAL TOTAL

Administrative:Academic Staff Ratio

Admin Staff 16.2 22.3 19.6 26.5 37.2 15.8 11.5 11.5 160.6

Academic Staff 56 89 47 72 141 92 75 44 616

1 Adminstrator : 3.5 4.0 2.4 2.7 3.8 5.8 6.5 3.8 3.8

Administrative:Student Ratio

Admin Staff 16.2 22.3 19.6 26.5 37.2 15.8 11.5 11.5 160.6

Student (headcount) 1350 2835 2161 3176 3777 3274 2144 1684 20401

1 Adminstrator : 83.3 127.1 110.3 119.8 101.5 207.2 186.4 146.4 127.0

Administrative:Course Ratio

Admin Staff 16.2 22.3 19.6 26.5 37.2 15.8 11.5 11.5 160.6

Live courses 71 150 83 205 143 200 107 75 1034

1 Adminstrator : 4.4 6.7 4.2 7.7 3.8 12.7 9.3 6.5 6.4

Administrative: Module Ratio

Admin Staff 16.2 21.3 19.6 26 36.2 14.8 10.5 10.5 155.1

Live Modules 198 178 120 312 263 437 259 197 1964

1 Adminstrator : 12.2 8.4 6.1 12.0 7.3 29.5 24.7 18.8 12.7

Next stages – behind the scenes

• Principle of common structures, JD’s (and therefore grades) maintained. Some key common posts / teams– Marketing and Recruitment Team,

– Finance and Resources Team

– Academic Support Team

– Faculty Specialist Team

• Number of staff vary depending on size, based on agreed staffing ratio’s

Next stages – behind the scenes

• Balanced out the “needs” with the costedgrades.

• Then the match and slot process began.

– Over 850 individual match/slot reviews undertaken

• Confirming with HR who was “in” the review

– Not all temp contract staff involved

Involving Staff

• At most stages Staff involved

– Initial report made available to all staff

• Series of meetings for all involved staff

• Faculty Administration Staff Away-days

– Team building,

– Getting to know others

– Preparing for the review, interview techniques

Involving Staff

• Match and Slots to confirmed, each member of staff seen and posts agreed. About 50% of staff matched.

• Then remaining vacant posts advertised to group.

– Guaranteed interview if already at that grade

– Shortlisting of others

– Appointment

It’s all over …….

• Or it’s just begun ……..

• Appointed staff then beginning helping shape the future services,

– HR Staffing administrators, meeting monthly with the HR department

– Quality administrators, meeting monthly with Registry

• Structures give career opportunities in new ways

• Its designed to be flexible to avoid the need to ever do it all again!!