Senior Management Committee Meeting 4-2006

Professor Brian Mackenzie, Professor Ed Byrne, Professor Colin Chapman, Professor David Copolov, Professor Edwina Cornish, Ms Peggy Daroesman, Mr Reynold Dias, Professor Merran Evans, Professor Stephanie Fahey, Professor Arie Freiberg, Ms Cathrine Harboe-Ree, Ms Robyn Harris (for Professor Graham Webb), Ms Karen Haywood, Associate Professor Sally Joy (for Associate Professor John Hurst), Professor Max King, Professor Merilyn Liddell (via teleconference), Mr Alan McMeekin, Professor Rob Norris, Professor Gill Palmer, Professor Stephen Parker (Chair), Professor John Redmond, Professor John Sheridan (for Professor Tam Sridhar), Professor Phillip Steele, Professor Sue Willis, Mr Peter Yates.

Professor Greg Connell, Mr Ron Fairchild, Associate Professor John Hurst, Professor Homer Le Grand, Professor Richard Larkins, Mr Peter Marshall, Mr David Pitt, Professor Graham Webb, Professor Rob Willis, Mr Renn Wortley, Mr Stephen Davey, Professor Sridhar Tam, Professor Ron Weber.

Mr Stephen Pollard, Director Resources and Planning, Student and Community Services (for item 10.3)

Item 10.6 was withdrawn from the agenda as Mr Peter Marshall was an apology.

In response to a query about arrangements for staff paid jointly by Monash Commercial and faculties (item 1 of the Report), Professor Cornish advised that discussions would be held with the relevant Deans.

The Committee received and noted the Vice-Chancellor’s Report.

In subsequent discussion, it was suggested that reporting on a wide range of priorities tended to diffuse focus, and that reporting on a smaller number of key issues might therefore be useful. Responding to queries about the impact of the strategies, Professor Parker agreed to present an updated report on the progress against strategies as related to the University-Wide KPIs and targets, to a future meeting.

The Committee received the Annual Plan 2006 – Progress Report.

The Committee received and noted the ‘Monash University Policy and Procedures Project’ briefing paper.

• The printed version of the audit portfolio was being distributed and would be the reference copy as the audit progressed.
   

• At the preparatory AUQA visit, more than 60 questions had been posed and an additional 74 items of documentation requested. Areas requiring further information included cross-campus communication and its effectiveness; planning at faculty and campus level and links between faculty and campus plans; performance management of staff including promotion and probation; course approval and review (5 courses had been selected as samples); equivalence of academic standards across campuses; internationalisation of the curriculum; action being taken on student unit evaluation (30 units had been identified from all faculties except the Faculty of Art & Design); research review and identification of research strengths and priorities; new international plan; and Monash College and its relationship with the university and quality assurance.
   

• The joint AUQA/HEQC panel had made nine requests.
   

• There would be six AUQA visits.
   

• From the transnational programs, the Bachelor of Information Technology at TMC and the Master of Practising Accounting program offered through SPACE in Hong Kong had been selected for audit.
   

• AUQA would be spending two days at the Malaysia campus, three days at South Africa and was scheduled to visit the Clayton campus from 11-15 September.
   

• There would be a total of 13 days of audit visits and approximately 400-500 interviews.

The Committee was reminded that when the original documentation for the audit portfolio was compiled, the campus student experience networks were not in operation and that this information could therefore be included with the additional documentation requested.

The Committee noted the advice of Ms R Harris.

Members commented on the vision for the evolution of non-Australian campuses to semi-autonomy, based on a federation model. Particular issues raised included:

• Definition of a ‘hub and spokes model’ and how the model would operate.

• Definition of semi-autonomous.

• Core values would need to be the same for all campuses while operational elements could differ.

• Course control, course approvals and responsibility for quality.

• Application of Monash policies eg Promotions.

• Accreditation of courses at overseas campuses.

• Strategy to migrate to a future model.

In response to a query about the effectiveness of the large membership of the International Advisory Group, Professor Fahey stated that only two-thirds or three-quarters of members would be in the country at any scheduled meeting.

The Committee then endorsed the draft International Plan 2007 -2010.

• Dr Susan Edwards – Faculty of Education

• Ms Nell Kimberley – Faculty of Business and Economics

• Professor Steven Langford – Faculty of Science

• Dr Ramesh Rajan – Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences

• Dr Bronwyn Stocks – Faculty of Art and Design

• Dr Kok-Soo Teoh – Monash Malaysia.

The Committee noted the advice of Professor Parker.

• Science, Computing, Engineering, Architecture and Agriculture

• Business, Law and Economics

• Humanities, Arts and Education

• Health.

Changes had also been made to the performance indicators which would be weighted equally, and progress rates would include all undergraduate domestic students, including those studying part-time.

The Committee noted the advice of Professor Parker.

Ms Daroesman also reported that the ARC Linkage Projects Round 2 results had been released. Monash had performed well with a 43% success rate and ranking second in the sector against most performance criteria.

The Committee received the report and noted the advice of Ms Daroesman.

Discussion ranged around the source of the funding and the impact on faculties and Mr McMeekin was requested to arrange a demonstration and produce a document outlining the impact on central support charges.

The Committee expressed its preference for IBM option no. 3 (page 91 of the agenda papers) as it would enhance the students’ electronic experience, if the cost to extend it to all students was not prohibitive.

The Committee endorsed ongoing planning for the implementation of IBM Collaboration Software. A document outlining the financial implications, impact of the change and clear indication of the source of funding would be presented to a future meeting. A demonstration of the software at a future SMC meeting was also endorsed.

It was proposed to increase the number of activities from the current two (managing the application process and research administration) to three:

1. applications charged on the number of applications

2. manage active grants

3. provide research information.

Professor Cornish observed that the existing drivers were causing anxiety in some faculties, due to a view that faculties were being charged by application. Therefore, in some parts of the University applications were being made and disguised as consultancies which did not go through the Research Office and did not result in the levying of charges. Professor Cornish emphasised that any potential disincentive for researchers to make applications would not be fulfilling the University’s strategies.

The Committee approved adoption of the proposed process for 2007 and indicated that the implications of the new activities/drivers would be monitored.

Mr Stephen Pollard presented the findings of the Survey to the Committee, explaining that:

• The survey covered 18 student services in five broad categories and the methodology used was the 5-point Likert scale.
   

• The services surveyed were identified after consultation with student associations, Monyx and Campus Life.
   

• Of the 46,000 students surveyed, 13,580 responded. The response rate in most faculties was in the 20-30% range. There was a lower response rate from off-campus students because most of the services related to on-campus students.
   

• The Careers and Employment Service was rated as highly important across the majority of demographics and students generally rated the services that directly support their study as more important than social and recreational services.
   

• The services provided for target groups were rated as highly important by the actual users of those services.

The Committee received the presentation of the results of the Student Services Survey.

The observation was made that some positions advertised could not possibly be filled by applicants from the Faculty of Information Technology. Consequently, there was a need to exempt some advertisements from the process outlined above, as a delay of even one week could not be sustained. In response, Ms Haywood advised that a review panel had been established to consider each advertisement and that the concern raised would be noted.

The committee noted the advice of Ms Haywood.