Administrative Heads Group Meeting 2-1999

A meeting of the Administrative Heads Group was held at 8.30 am on Friday, 23 April 1999 in the Council Room, first floor, University Offices Building 3a, Clayton campus

Tony Calder, Secretary

MINUTES

The Vice-Chancellor opened discussion. Introducing the item, the meeting was advised that the planning process had evolved over the past years from the initial Monash Plan that was a planned mix a strategic and operational planning to one where operational planning was now provided for in the Learning and Teaching Operational Plan, Research Management Plan, faculty operational plans, administrative units operational plans and the Globalisation Plan which is currently under development. Given the increasing maturity of the planning process at Monash, the meeting was advised that the following topics, amongst others, had been identified as appropriate points for initiating discussion during this planning round:

Given the existence of faculty based operational plans, should each faculty feature in the Plan?

Should the role of each Campus be more explicitly identified within the Plan?

Should the Plan look further ahead? Previous Plans focused on a short term planning horizon (1 – 5 years) but is it now more appropriate to take a longer-term view and attempt to identify the type of university Monash should be in 10 to 20 years time?

Following an overview of the schedule for the production of the Plan, the Vice-Chancellor invited comments from members.

Commenting on the changing emphasis in government funding, Professor Anderson noted that it was important to establish links with corporations in order to maximise the possibility of obtaining funding for both applied and basic research. Noting that various parts of Monash were already actively pursuing various types of engagement with large corporations, Professor Anderson commented on the need for complete engagement in order to align the needs of Monash and the corporation. In addition, it was noted that if this type of involvement with industry starts at an early stage, particularly in some innovative areas, this type of research could sometimes lead to being involved in leading edge research.

The Vice-Chancellor commented that it would be necessary to construct a view of the tertiary environment for 20 years hence. Elaborating on this point, the Vice-Chancellor advised members that he had recently participated in discussions in Hong Kong with leading UK, Chinese, Canadian Hong Kong and Australian Universities where a conclusion was reached that there was still an important role for face-to-face teaching, particularly in an internally diverse University, and where a view was expressed that a minority of the best students will still want an on-campus relationship.

Commenting on face-to-face teaching, Professor Lindsay noted that whereas students expressed a preference for face-to-face teaching to be an available option, governments will be increasingly unlikely to adequately fund this mode of teaching. Issues related to this include assessing the size of the cohort of students that may want face-to-face teaching (mixed with the option of virtual delivery of some subjects) and the virtual delivery of subjects/programs.

Mr Stephen Dee advised the meeting that issues related to the delivery of programs included the need to prepare for a truly international world, the need to accommodate many cultures both internally and externally to "state borders" and that students have less time to devote to on-campus activities due to the their need to have some form of employment while studying.

Professor Webb commented on the need to re-conceptualise the role of Universities, that Monash should ensure that it has a coherent set of programs that meets the needs of Melbourne’s South Eastern growth corridor and that when discussing interactions between teacher and student it is important to consider the quality of the interaction, not just how the interaction takes place. A quality flexible learning environment needs an appropriate balance between face-to-face and on-line learning.

Additional comments by members included the need for Monash to provide intellectual leadership, that Monash must protect its core competencies and be prepared to withdraw from some areas if appropriate, that "trade barriers" still exist and are unlikely to be easily overcome in some regions and that students will want to be able to select the best components of programs offered by Monash and other institutions.

Commenting on the role of campuses, the Vice-Chancellor noted that it was important at this point to be clear on the role of each campus in order to be clear on where each campus should be in the future. In response to a question, the Vice-Chancellor advised the meeting that each Campus would need to meet its planning objectives, particularly given the increasing focus on the virtual delivery of some programs.

Professor Lindsay advised members that it was crucial to fully discuss and define what is meant by the term high quality. Additional issues that also require further debate include - does broad based also equate to low ENTER entry and does high quality correlate to elite?

Matters raised by members included the need to stage the planning timeline as changes evolve over time, the Malaysian Campus is still in a consolidation phase and that Monash must consider its strengths and weaknesses and those of its competitors.

Introducing this area of discussion, the Vice-Chancellor noted that although faculties drive the academic program, they have not previously been explicitly identified in a separate or specific section of the body of the Monash Plan. Requesting feedback from members, the following matters were raised:

The renewal of equipment was becoming an increasingly important issue. One outcome of this issue was that faculties are increasingly being drawn closer to corporations in order to attract support. This and others issues cause faculties to have to continually monitor the balance between research and teaching.

Mixed mode learning is an increasing area of focus.

That existing programs may, over time, need to be assessed in order to assess whether some areas of activity should be vacated.

That the budgetary process for administrative areas must support the overarching planning objectives of the University.

Summarising the discussion, Mr David Phillips commented that one measurement of success of any planning process is to ensure that the sum of the individual parts adds up to more than the whole.

The Vice-Chancellor thanked everyone for their contribution and requested that any further comments be submitted to Professor Merran Evans.

Vice-Chancellor
Deputy Vice-Chancellors
General Manager

Members of the Administrative Heads Group

Members of the Corporate Planning Support Team