Deans Discussion Group Meeting 3-2001

Meeting 3/2001 of the Deans Discussion Group was held on Monday, 9 April 2001 in the Monash City Office, Level 11, 30 Collins Street, Melbourne.

Tony Calder

Secretary

NOTES

Professor D A Robinson, Vice-Chancellor and President

Professor P LeP Darvall, Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Vice-President (Research and Development)

Professor A W Lindsay, Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Vice-President (Academic and Planning)

Ms A Crook AO, Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Vice-President (Resources)

Professor B Mackenzie, Pro Vice-Chancellor, Gippsland Campus

Professor J K Redmond, Dean, Faculty of Art and Design

Professor H Le Grand, Dean, Faculty of Arts

Professor G Palmer, Dean, Faculty of Business and Economics

Professor S Willis, Dean, Faculty of Education

Professor M L Brisk, Dean, Faculty of Engineering

Professor J Rosenberg, Dean, Faculty of Information Technology

Professor S Parker, Dean, Faculty of Law

Professor N Saunders, Dean, Faculty of Medicine

Professor C B Chapman, Dean, Faculty of Pharmacy

Professor R Norris, Dean, Faculty of Science

Mr Ian Porter, Principal Adviser, International Relations & Government Relations Item 3.1

Mr Anthony Pollock, Executive Director, International Affairs Item 3.1

There were no apologies received.

Arrangement of Agenda

The Notes of Deans Discussion Group meeting 2/2001 held on 14 March, 2001 were received.

Members were shown recent video footage of the Monash South Africa Campus taken during a recent visit by Professor Rosenberg and Professor Palmer.

Commenting on their visit, Professor Rosenberg and Palmer commented that the campus was the best facility in the country with a first class information technology infrastructure.

In response to a question the Vice-Chancellor responded that the need for student accommodation was critical to the success of the campus and the matter was under discussion.

Professor Brisk indicated that he had recently been advised that there were instances of engineering students having four exams scheduled over two days. The Secretary was requested to bring the matter to the attention of Ms Crook.

Professor Darvall introduced the topic.

Professor Darvall highlighted the recent increase (from 11% to 20%) in the proportion of funds directed towards the research component of faculty budgets and the performance measures used to allocate increased funding.

Professor Parker noted that with the introduction of Strategic Cost Management where gross revenues flow to faculties, business plans set expenditure targets and there are no longer "claw backs," the Faculty of Law would need to improve its already high performance levels, several 100% over other Law schools in order to achieve the benchmarks that would generate 20% research funding.

Further Professor Parker noted that Law Schools do not attract large dollars in research grants and funding via fee-paying students was compensating for forgone research component funding.

Noting that 11% of the 20% research component was distributed to faculties according to how it was earned, discussion occurred about how the additional 9% could be used to stimulate research performance. Matters discussed included benchmarking, linkages to the Performance Management Scheme, performance measurement against Faculty/Campus Plans, the use of personal incentives and faculty based incentive plans.

Discussion on this matter was suspended at this stage pending the arrival of Ms Crook.

On resumption of the discussion, Ms Crook indicated that incentives for research could be accommodated within the Strategic Cost Management process. Outlining the framework, Ms Crook noted that research funds would be distributed to faculties with the costs involved with supporting research being charged out to faculties supported by Service Level Agreement.

Additional research funds could be made available to faculties following submission of suitable planning documentation or any surpluses could be allocated to faculties for support of research activities.

Summarising, SCM requires the capture of costs, payment for services and then top ups or incentives could be organised at the centre or faculty level.

In relation to maximising faculty performance, Ms Crook indicated that after actual costs, any surplus could be used to build an enhanced research base, expand multi-faculty research activities or built into a range of incentive schemes yet to be finalised.

Professor Mackenzie indicated that a draft version of a revised Campus Development Plan would shortly be presented to the Vice Chancellor’s Group and would be submitted for comment to the Committee of Deans.

Professor Saunders advised that delivery of courses at Monash University Malaysia by the Faculty was progressing but that ramifications for the infrastructure in Malaysia were an important consideration.

The next meeting of the Deans Discussion Group will be held at 4pm on Wednesday, 16 May 2001 in the City Office.

The next meeting of the Committee of Deans will be held at 2.15pm on Tuesday, 29 May 2001 in the Sir George Lush Room.

Vice-Chancellor and President

Deputy Vice-Chancellors and Vice-Presidents

Pro Vice-Chancellors

Deans