Administratives Heads Group Meeting 3-2006

Professor Richard Larkins (Chair), Mr Paul Barton, Professor Barbara Caine, Mr Tony Calder, Ms Lynda Caldwell, Dr Ian Cartwright, Mr Robin Coventry, Ms Helen Dunne, Mr Robin Drury, Mr Chris Flynn, Ms Sue Gleeson, Ms Pam Herman, Professor Owen Hughes, Ms Janet Kemp, Ms Katherine Lock, Mr Terry Masocco, Professor David Murphy, Mr David Pitt, Mr Vladimir Prpich, Associate Professor Alan Pryde, Mr John Rivett, Mr Steven Scroggie, Mr David Secomb, Ms Bronwyn Shields, Mr Tim Stephens, Professor Julian Teicher, Mr Gerard Toohey, Ms Janet White, Ms Sue Wales, Mr Ian Wilson, Mr Tim Winkler, Mr Peter Yates.

Apologies were received from:

Professor G Bouma, Professor V Clulow, Professor G Coleman, Dr B Clarke, Mr Reynold Dias, Ms H Dunne, Associate Professor G Farr, Ms H Fletcher-Kennedy, Ms K Gardner, Ms M Harris, Ms R Harris, Professor B Hoffert, Professor S Holdsworth, Ms G Key, Ms A Lazar, Mr P Lawford, Mr G Murray, Mr A Picouleau, Ms A Robertson, Professor N Thompson, Ms J Vero.

In attendance:

Professor Merran Evans, Pro Vice-Chancellor (Planning) for item 4.2

Mr Stephen Pollard, Director Resources & Planning, Student and Community Services, for item 4.4

Mr Alan McMeekin, Executive Director, Information Technology Services Division, for item 5.1

Mr Marcus Spencer, Manager Finance & Administration, Faculty of Law
 

Strategic issues

Monash was making good progress towards attaining its key objectives in education and research. Particular highlights in education included the marked improvement in MEQ and CEQ results and increase in the percentage of the top 5% (ENTER scores) of VCE students selecting Monash as their first preference.

Considerable strides had recently been made in attracting research income. In 2005 Monash overtook UNSW to rank as the 4^th highest recipient of research income amongst Australian universities.

Equity indicators confirmed Monash’s leading the Go8 in enrolling students from low socio-economic backgrounds; however, more effort needed to be made to increase the intake of indigenous students. Monash now had the 3^rd highest proportion of women in senior positions amongst the Go8.

Referring to his Ancora Imparo article (published in Monash Memo) Professor Larkins indicated that, whilst diversity was beneficial in maximising options for those students unsure of their future educational path, the model proposed by Melbourne was not appropriate for all.

To counter community confusion, a global email explaining Monash’s position (and linking to the Ancora Imparo article) would be sent to Monash staff. In addition, a letter would be sent to secondary school principals.

In discussion, members commented that:

• To counter the perception that the Melbourne model may be attractive to high-performing students, Monash must ensure the quality of its programs. A major review of coursework programs (coincidental to announcement of the Melbourne model) would be undertaken in 2007. In the Humanities, there was opportunity for upgrading programs e.g. Honours training, with a view to HDR enrolment.
   
• One effect of the introduction of graduate entry into the University of Queensland program in Medicine had been to increase enrolments in Medicine at other institutions.
   
• A problem for the Melbourne model was the need to ensure equivalence of the graduate entry program with that provided for enrolled undergraduates – consequently, the model would be phased in over 10 years.

Referring to a report appearing in The Age, Professor Larkins commented that it arose out of discussion on campus planning at Council, and his paper introducing the Campus Directions Statements in which the evolution of each campus was considered.

That paper indicated that in future, the Clayton campus could develop into the University’s science/technology centre, whilst further humanities and visual arts activities could be progressively located at Caulfield. The report that Arts was relocating to Caulfield in the short-term was incorrect. It was important to emphasise that any transfer of programs/activities would not be undertaken in an abrupt or disruptive way.

However, it was also important that Monash continue to explore ways to better utilise technology to deliver programs between campuses and in a more flexible manner. In this regard, members were advised that students were embracing lectures online, notwithstanding their current primitive form, and that a key issue for the Educational Technology Committee was examination of improvements in this area.

Professor Larkins explained that the underpinning logic to the review of the structure of MonCom was that interaction with industry was fundamental to securing Monash’s future. Given the critical nature of the need for responsiveness to industry and development of close industry partnerships, the artificial distinction between commercialisation and industry engagement was no longer viable. Hence, the recommendation to return MonCom activities to the mainstream, ultimately reporting to the DVC (R), but headed by a new PVC appointment.

Referring to the complexity of MPM’s structure, Mr Pitt reported that the decision had been made to fold its activities back within the University’s operations. The majority of staff had been transferred to the Facilities and Services Division, with a smaller number being redeployed to Finance. As a result of these changes, it was expected that service would improve and costs would be reduced.

Referring to inaccurate reports appearing in the media, Professor Larkins advised that Mr Greg Connell had conducted an audit of Monyx’s accounts, reporting that there was no evidence of inappropriate expenditure on travel or professional development, nor any suggestion that student fees had been used to subsidise these activities.

However, the opportunity had been taken to return a range of student services to the University, which would enable Monyx to focus on its commercial activities.

MSA and MUM were both developing strongly – MSA’s enrolments totaled 1150, its operating deficit was diminishing and the campus atmosphere was positive; the new, purpose-built MUM campus would be complete by mid-2007, the medical school was progressing well, and student numbers were increasing.

Referring to the establishment of the joint Monash IITB Research Institute, Professor Larkins observed that this was part of the strategy to forge closer links with India and China and, thus, tap into the huge intellectual potential in those countries.

Professor Larkins advised that the final form was yet to be confirmed. The RQF Development Advisory Group had established working groups to examine metrics and impact. Preparations for the Monash mock RQF had highlighted the need to improve systems and data accuracy.

The Guidelines for 2006 had been released. The most significant change was that funding would now be allocated within four (4) discipline clusters. UPS was working through the implications of the revised Guidelines.

A paper on the L&TPF would be submitted to Education Committee by UPS.

The Productivity Commission had been given a reference to analyse the return on public investment in science and innovation. There were methodological difficulties surrounding this matter, largely due to the economics background of the Commissioners and their consequent interest in examining whether funds were being spent effectively, and whether there were better options for allocation of funding, rather than looking at international comparisons, case studies etc.

The AVCC had made a well-referenced submission to the Commission’s Issues Paper.

(Secretarial note: available from the following url:
http://www.avcc.edu.au/content.asp?page=/publications/policy/submissions/index.htm )

Referring to the Minster’s speech in July, in which institutions were encouraged to merge or specialise, Professor Larkins indicated that, whilst diversity was good for the sector (and was already occurring), merger was only one way to effect sectoral change – differentiation was another driver. Whilst forced mergers were unlikely (the Minister had confirmed this), institutional evolution would inevitably occur. It was likely that there would be space for a small number of research-led universities, which would have to be of very high quality.

• The report was presented to the Group as part of the commitment to keeping senior bodies informed of the University’s progress towards achieving its strategic goals.
   
• Development of the 2007 Plan was progressing and would include a complete report of progress made against the 2006 priorities. The 2007 Plan would be presented to the University’s senior groups and Council at the end of the year.

The Chair complimented Professor Evans and her team on the substantial progress made in charting the University’s progress against its strategies.

Mr Pollard provided a summary of the background to implementation of VSU, noting in particular, that the income from student amenities fees supported a wide range of services and activities. Members were reminded that the University had budgeted to provide $4 million p.a. to ensure service continuity in a post-VSU environment and had agreed to underwrite voluntary fees by up to $2 million in 2007. PhillipsKPA had been contracted to analyse the services provided by Monyx and the student associations.

Student Survey

Mr Pollard reported on the results of the Student Survey undertaken by consultants PhillipsKPA and which would inform recommendations to the University on services to be funded. A good response rate of 28.9% had been achieved. Those services most highly ranked by respondents overall included Careers and Employment, Orientation, Student Information Points, Student Rights and graduate services. The services provided for target groups were rated as highly important by the actual users of those services.

Benefits Card

A benefits card was seen as a key generator of alternative revenue. However, this would only work if taken up in significant numbers. Investigation of a number of options for introduction of a benefits card had been undertaken, including linkage with an external card system to combine local and external benefits.

Directions

Mr Pollard explained that:

• Significant price increases across a range of areas were likely.
   
• A single benefits card was likely to be introduced, linked to one external benefits provider and offering a range of internal benefits. The cost of the card would vary from campus to campus.
   
• Revenue from card sales would be pooled and then appropriately allocated.
   
• The University would administer sales and distribution of the card.

Concluding his presentation, Mr Pollard indicated that the next step would be to take the matter to VCG for direction. Further discussions with student associations and the Division of Campus Life, and further modelling, would be undertaken. The PhillipsKPA report would be considered by Resources and Finance Committee at its meeting of 24 August. Monash had also made a submission for VSU transitional funding.

The Chair indicated that the aim of the exercise was to ensure the continuity of very good Monash services and facilities. Consequently, a cost of $200 for the card would not be unreasonable (and was cheaper than the amenities fee), but incentives would need to be in place to ensure a wide take up. VCG should consider this matter as soon as possible.

Significant discussions with members of the Monash community had indicated a preference for the IBM solution, which offered far more flexibility, more support for diverse environments, was cheaper than the Microsoft product and provided for a smoother implementation.

Introduction of collaboration software would enhance communication and support workgroup collaboration e.g. sharing and working on documentation, web casting. However, to ensure its success, effort would need to be invested in changing work practices, training and change management.

Monash was in the final stages of negotiation with IBM. Noting that email could be migrated from current servers, but not so Calendar, the following roll-out schedule was proposed:

• New calendar service to be implemented in January.

• Email and other services to be implemented during 2007.

• Roll-out of services to students in 2008.

Members were invited to the demonstration of the Collaboration Software scheduled for 1 pm 29 August, immediately prior to the SMC meeting.

The Chair congratulated Mr Barton and his team, and the Facilities and Services Division, on an excellent outcome.
 

9 November

01 Feb

19 Apr

31 May

02 Aug

04 Oct

22 Nov