LTB/05/31(b)
The Learning and Teaching Board
Structure of the Academic Year: Business Processes Working Group
Final Report for the Learning and Teaching Board on 19 May 2005
This final report from the Business Processes Working Group is presented for consideration by the Learning and Teaching Board at its meeting on 19 May 2005.
1. Summary
This report is based upon a detailed consultation with representatives of all sections of the University. The consultation focused on the way in which semesterisation would impact upon our business processes, and included the process of semesterisation as well the operation of a semester structure. The analytical framework looked at costs and benefits (both terms being interpreted as quantitatively as possible without losing essential qualitative considerations) with a view to making recommendations on appropriate structures and timing for semesterisation as well as identifying the essential activities which need to occur in order to achieve the change efficiently and effectively.
1.1 Overview of Report
The report comprises the following sections:
· Main Findings of Consultations
· Main Recommendations from Analysis
· Working Group: Membership, Remit and Mode of Operation
· School Consultation
· Non-School Consultation
· Research Co-ordination Board Consultation
· Synthesis
· Recommendations
1.2 Main Findings of Consultations
The main findings of the consultations are:
Ø that the tangible costs of semesterisation outweigh the tangible benefits
Ø that there is a very strong feeling that implementation before September 2008 will have a substantial negative impact on other aspects of the University’s business
Ø that, in order to make a semester structure run efficiently, and not impinge upon other business, some key developments in processes and information systems are required
Ø that the strategy on development of the student record system might usefully be resolved in association with the decision to semesterise
1.3 Main Recommendations from Analysis
The main recommendations resulting from the analysis are:
Ø that an early decision on whether or not to semesterise, along with some quantitative details on the nature of the structure is essential
Given a decision to semesterise:
Ø that the University should not seek to have a semester structure in operation before September 2008
Ø that, in the interim, the University should move ahead with streamlining approval processes and making improvements to its student records system
Ø that some attention is paid to ensuring that the length of the Academic Year does not increase
2. Working Group: Membership, Remit and Mode of Operation
2.1 Membership
The Group met on four occasions: 16 February, 14 March, 20 April & 12 May[1]. Membership comprised the following:
Professor R L Reuben, EPS (Chair)/LTB / Dr M King, AR (Clerk)/LTBDr S R Euston, SLS / Mr D H Marwick, MACS/LTB
Ms M G Higgins, SBE / Ms K A Patterson, AR/LTB
Professor A P Kaka, SBE/LTB
Professor G Pender (SBE/RCB) and Professor I Mason (SML) were invited to assist the Group in an advisory capacity.
Mr K Mallett, Group Financial Controller, and Mr L Lamond, Financial Controller in EPS, joined the Group for the last two meetings.
2.2 Remit
The focus of the Group’s activity was on undertaking a cost-benefit analysis, namely considering the relative costs of semesterisation, in staff time, opportunity cost and lost business against the perceived benefits in saved staff time and new business. In so doing, the Group were also mindful of less tangible costs and benefits[2]. The Group agreed that its remit should be to gather all available advice on the management aspects of moving to, and implementing, a semester structure. It was noted that it would not be possible to produce a business plan as such, given that there would be no obvious income stream or real expenditure (unless on fixed-term staff) and because much of the projected cost would be in staff time.
The Group considered it important to make an objective evaluation and therefore the consultation was distributed amongst the members of the Group and the findings synthesised at Group meetings. The Group did not consider as part of its remit to conduct a poll of support for or against semesterisation, and therefore no conclusions can be drawn as to whether respondents wished (or not) to see the University move to a two-block structure.
2.3 Mode of Operation
The Group agreed that the most effective way of fulfilling its remit would be to send briefing materials to respondents and then carry out a structured face-to-face discussion around a set of questions to be generated by the Group. The Group identified two tranches of consultation, one with Schools and one with representatives of the Central Support and Academic Approval Processes. In addition to face-to-face interviews, a number of individuals were invited to provide comments by correspondence.
In order to ensure that interviews covered the key areas related to the business and management aspects of semesterisation and adhered to a common format, a series of set questions was developed by the Group, which were designed to encourage respondents to provide as quantifiable answers as possible. These questions, together with appropriate briefing papers, were circulated to interviewees in advance; the same information was also sent to those invited to respond by correspondence[3].
The interviews with the six Schools[4] involved the Head of School, Director of Learning & Teaching and Director of Research, were conducted on a School by School basis. Issues covered in interviews were as follows: costs; benefits; sensitivity; feasibility.
The ‘benefits’ topic also incorporated questions related to the academic benefits of a 2 block structure, as identified by the Learning, Teaching and Assessment Working Group, while the structural model proposed by the Academic Structure Working Group shaped many of the questions in the other topics.
The School interviews were scheduled first of all, so that the conclusions from this phase could inform the development of the questions related to Support and Approval Processes. The focus of the support/approval interviews, which involved Section Directors and other key staff, was on determining the implications, also in terms of costs and benefits, of moving to a semester structure, insofar as it affected their own area of work and their own processes. The structural model and session dates proposed by the Academic Structure Working Group were also offered for consideration, as was a summary of the findings of the consultation with Schools.
Further details of the two interview phases are provided in Sections 3 and 4; summaries and full transcripts of responses (which have been agreed by the respondents) are available in Appendices 1-4.
3. School Consultation
The Key Points emerging from the six School interviews (Appendix 1) were as follows:
(i) Five Schools were of the opinion that the earliest reasonable date for implementation of a semesterised structure would be September 2008; only one School suggested that September 2007 might be feasible.
(ii) Five Schools estimated that the costs of semesterisation would be well in excess of any financial benefit; only one School suggested that the costs would be insignificant.
(iii) The interviews did not provide a great deal of detailed information related to the various structural models or to the administrative processes involved in implementation; responses were dominated by the point that the scale of activity required to implement semesterisation should not be underestimated.
(iv) Almost all of the Schools were moved to comment that our approval processes were unnecessarily cumbersome and would need considerable streamlining before we attempted to semesterise.
The Edinburgh Business School reported that it operated on a quarterly structure, 4 diets per annum; students could join the MBA programme any day of the year and mix pedagogies to suit their own preferences, e.g., a distance learning student could come on campus for live tuition at the beginning of any of the 4 terms. In consequence, neither a 2 semester nor 3 term structure suited EBS.
4. Non-School Consultation
The Key Points emerging from the non-School interviews (Support Services and Approval Processes; Appendix 3) were as follows:
(i) An early decision on semesterisation, together with some quantitative details on the nature of the structure, is essential so that Support Services to begin necessary systems and process modifications.
(ii) Linked with (i), an early decision on strategy with respect to ISS/NSS was essential as there is the possibility that decisions made now could have the consequence that a new student system would be deferred to around 2011/2012.
(iii) If a decision is taken to semesterise, the University should prepare for, and ease the transition to, implementation by reviewing, with the objective of making more efficient and effective, its business processes, eg streamlining approval processes and improving its student record system.
(iv) The costs of semesterisation varied from one Support Service to another, ranging from ‘minor’ (Finance) to potentially ‘serious’ (Edinburgh Conference Centre).
5. Research Co-ordination Board Consultation
The Working Group has kept close touch with the Research Co-ordination Board throughout its deliberations, first of all through having a representative at Group Meetings who advised on the consultation questions, and secondly by including Directors of Research in the School consultations. A summary briefing note was provided (see Appendix 5) for the May 2005 meeting of RCB and an extract (draft) of the relevant minute is reproduced below:
· the [Research Co-ordination] Board strongly concurred with the recommendation that the University should not attempt to have a semester system in place before September 2008.
· the [Research Co-ordination] Board would hope that it could be implemented within 1 academic year and ideally not started before the submission date for the RAE2008 (30th November 2007).
· the [Research Co-ordination] Board recommended that all advance activity (e.g."streamlining approval processes and making improvements to its student records system") should take place with the least disturbance to RAE focussed activities.
6. Synthesis
The consultations showed a remarkable degree of agreement amongst Schools as to the main issue surrounding semesterisation, namely that there would inevitably be considerable staff effort required for benefits which were limited or intangible. The vast majority of Schools felt that a displacement of staff activity from other income-generating activities (particularly research) would compromise RAE performance if an implementation date earlier than September 2008 were to be considered. This finding was reinforced by the fact that a number of long-term bookings, such as Graduation Venues and events at the Conference Centre would be compromised by changes in the scheduling of the Academic Year. The cost consequences of the Conference Centre failing to meet commitments could be considerable, in the order of £k100s.
Schools also commented on the need to streamline approval processes prior to any attempt at wholesale academic restructuring, a view reinforced by the Deans, who went further in saying that the process was not feasible at all without such streamlining. Academic Registry felt that electronic aids were necessary to aid the approval process and avoid the current double-entry of course documentation. The Deans and their officers pointed out that streamlining of the production of approval documentation would merely lead to a log-jam at UGSC and PGSC. They could not see a feasible way in which the work required of UGSC and PGSC could be done in a single Academic Year, and suggested a number of ways in which the approval could be delegated. Of these, the Group considered that the most operable would be for PGSC and UGSC to send a delegate to relevant School Teaching Committees and for the greater part of the scrutiny to take place there. It was observed that considerable work was required in updating Ordnance and regulations and that the work of updating following restructuring was not yet complete.
Schools were equivocal at best about the precise nature of the two-block structure, some preferring minimal repackaging and others welcoming the opportunity for root-and-branch review. The start and finish dates of the Academic Year (for the purposes of this discussion, defined as the period between first arrival of students on Campus until Graduation) did not figure particularly high in the thinking of School Executives, although there appeared to be an inherent assumption that the length would not be more than it is at present, and several Schools pointed to September as a traditional conference month in their disciplines. As mentioned above, ECC was concerned about forward bookings in September (up to 14th September 2008 and up to 10th September 2009), but also expressed some general preferences in the interests of its future business, which included minimising penetration into September and retaining a long Easter break (minimum of 3 weeks), these whilst recognising that there would be a certain amount of new opportunity afforded by having more time available in June.
It was observed during the consultation with Recruitment and Admissions that mooted changes in the admissions process (PQA) may result in considerable pressure on universities to move the start of their Academic Years towards October. This observation was passed to the Academic Structures Working Group for consideration, although it also has obvious implications for processes, which are mostly positive (in that it would help to preserve September conference business and attendance).
The twin pressures of avoiding lengthening of the Academic Year and protecting other business both point to the necessity of streamlining the non-academic processes. In particular, Registry identified three key developments; a student portal, an electronic approval system, and improved marks reporting, which, taken together, would prevent the Academic Year from expanding to the extent that it would prejudice the rest of the University’s business. The detail of this discussion is recorded in Appendix 3 and the Group felt (on best available evidence) that Scenario 1 (development of ISS) should be pursued, although this will put the prospect of a new system very far into the future (probably not before 2011/12). Given the consequences of this potential recommendation, the Group further felt that the two scenarios described in Appendix 3 (p.48) should be considered in detail as part of the decision-making process.
There was a clear feeling that costs (in all parts of the University) would be considerable, with no clear, tangible benefits. However, there was also some indication that the main intangible benefits of improving the efficiency of our business processes (and the consequent long-term savings) in staff time) could render the change worthwhile. It is reiterated here that the Group did not consider it to be part of its remit to conduct a poll or to influence opinion; any views expressed on the desirability (or not) of semesterisation were made spontaneously by respondents and were recorded where they arose.