Senior Management Committee Meeting 5-2006

Professor Stephen Parker (Chair), Ms Janette Burke (for Ms Cathrine Harboe-Ree), Professor Ben Canny (for Professor Ed Byrne), Professor Colin Chapman, Mr Greg Connell, Professor David Copolov, Professor Edwina Cornish, Ms Peggy Daroesman, Mr Reynold Dias, Professor Merran Evans, Mr Ron Fairchild, Professor Arie Freiberg, Ms Karen Haywood, Associate Professor John Hurst, Professor Max King, Professor Homer Le Grand, Professor Merilyn Liddell (via teleconference), Professor Brian Mackenzie, Mr Peter Marshall, Mr Alan McMeekin, Mr David McWaters, Ms Lee-ann Norris, Professor Rob Norris, Professor Gill Palmer, Professor John Redmond, Professor Tam Sridhar, Professor Phillip Steele, Professor Ron Weber, Professor Rob Willis, Professor Sue Willis, Mr Renn Wortley, Mr Peter Yates.

Professor Richard Larkins, Professor Stephanie Fahey, Mr Stephen Davey, Mr David Pitt, Professor Ed Byrne and Ms Cathrine Harboe-Ree

Dr Melinda Hildebrandt, Executive Officer, Office of the Academic Director, Caulfield & Clayton (for item 5.1)

Mr Nick Thorburn, Director, Community Development and Engagement (for item 5.2)

Professor David Murphy, Director, CALT (for item 8.1)

Associate Professor Heinz Kreutz, Director, Education Plan Implementation Corps (for item 8.2)

Observers:

Dr Bebe Loff, accompanying Professor Merran Evans (Women's Leadership Shadowing Program)

Ms Michelle King, Director, Office of the Senior Deputy Vice-Chancellor
 

The Committee endorsed the proposal to commit to implementation of IBM Collaboration Software.

Specific recommendations would be prepared for the Resources and Finance Committee September meeting, which would then be considered by Council at its 25 September meeting.

The Committee noted Mr Marshall’s advice.

During subsequent discussion, concern was expressed over the media’s reporting of the PhillipsKPA document.

Responding to media reports of the proposed establishment of a Chinese on-campus presence at Monash, the Chair advised that no decision or commitment had been made to this initiative, which would require considerable analysis.

During discussion, concern was expressed over the media’s reporting of such a proposal prior to information being provided internally.
 

Professor Rob Willis presented an overview of the SEF, explaining the drivers behind the project, shifts in characteristics of the student cohort and information on student needs (gained from MEQ 2005 data). The interrelationship between the project and other University initiatives, and the project’s foundation dimensions – Live, Learn, Work, Contribute in a Global Context - were described.

Key elements of the SEF infrastructure included the Student Experience Audit, Student Experience Networks, Student Experience website, Student Experience Index and e-portfolio (which students would use as evidence of their Monash experience).

In addition to commencement of several pilot projects, progress to date included completion of the Student Experience Audit, establishment of the Student Experience Network (of which two meetings had been held), commencement of the Retention Project and improvements to transition and orientation.

Several issues were raised in discussion, including:

• The need to emphasise the ‘learning to learn’ dimension of transition and importance of communicating expectations to students prior to commencement.
   
• The need to review the University’s stated Graduate Attributes. Members were advised that a review was underway.

Referring to the notes on the Student Retention Project scope, Professor Willis emphasised the University’s moral obligation to take all reasonable steps to ensure that students, once admitted, graduated. Work was underway to investigate drivers for students exiting early; however, further data interrogation was needed. The process of determining pre-arrival expectations had been identified as an important factor.

Responding to member questions, Professor Willis noted that:

• Coursework postgraduate students would be included in the project.
   
• Efforts had been made to quantify the financial impact on the University of early leavers, but with little success to date.

The Committee received the presentation and noted Professor Willis’ advice.

• The opportunity to better explain what Monash was doing and thereby build better collaborations.
   
• The need for an improved corporate approach to pulling together the various strands of engagement activities.
   
• Sectoral paradigm shift from a service to an engagement model.

It was expected that a range of benefits would accrue through adopting a more pro-active, rather than responsive approach to engagement, including increased efficiency, improved brand management, positioning for 3^rd stream funding, and community benefits.

A key innovation would be value-adding by the Advancement Division to current faculty activities, including development of training and materials, database, policies and protocols, website development and enhancement of the interface between the University and community.

The next steps in the project would be to:

• Develop a Community Engagement Strategic Plan.

• Establish the appropriate infrastructure.

• Conduct an institutional and communities mapping process

• Develop the database, policies, protocols etc.

In conclusion, Mr Fairchild emphasised the need to develop a more strategic or co-ordinated approach to community engagement.

A range of issues were canvassed by members in subsequent discussion, including:

• The need for definitional fine-tuning.
   
• Positioning the CEF within a five-year strategic framework, including development of priorities and objectives, would assist in focussing attention and effort. It was noted that the CE Benchmarking Project would provide a series of measures important at a community level.
   
• Whether development of the database was linked to current information connections.
   
• Opportunities to improve the student experience would arise through improved community engagement.
   
• The debate within B-HERT around 3^rd stream funding, particularly the meaning of ‘engagement’.
   
• The enormity of the task of developing and implementing the CEF, in particular ensuring the robustness and integrity of the database, and creation of a set of obligations to ensure its performance. It was suggested that a staged approach be taken to revamping the Advance database, commencing with the Alumni component.

Members also suggested that it might be useful to restrict the initial focus of the project, reducing the size of the task whilst preserving the benefits.

The Committee agreed that:

• Input on the CEF would be provided to Mr Thorburn and Mr Fairchild.
   
• Consultation with a range of stakeholders would be undertaken.
   
• A Community Engagement Plan would be presented to a future meeting of the Committee.

• Update on University Rankings.
• Ranking of Australian Universities.
• Good Universities Guide Rankings: Education Experience and Graduate Outcomes.

The Chair observed that Monash’s three UK partners had performed very well in the rankings.
 

Activities undertaken by CALT included:

• Improving LTPF performance.
• Improving performance in the Carrick Awards and Carrick Grants.
• Implementing the Communication and Language Enhancement for Academics and Researchers (CLEAR) program (from the Education Plan).
• The ongoing review of the Graduate Certificate in Higher Education.

Teaching support activities included advice on unit guides/outline templates, assessment and feedback strategies and new/sessional staff orientation.

Learning support activities included targeted support provided to students from APC’s and HDR student groups.

Professor Murphy acknowledging that confusion had arisen over the meaning of ‘core’ and ‘complementary’ activities and asked for suggestions regarding more appropriate nomenclature. In relation to availability of individual learning support consultation, he noted that, whilst these were still available, changing patterns of support and resourcing issues would require investigation of new opportunities.

Noting that CALT was in a transition year, Professor Murphy concluded his presentation by indicating that:

• CALT was working on development of SLAs.
• Its focus was on responding to evidence-based needs.
• It was working to a quality agenda.

The Committee received and noted the update on CALT’s activities.

In discussion, members expressed concern that significant changes to the nature and level of service provision had been implemented without consultation with the faculties. The utility and flexibility of SLAs was also identified as an issue requiring attention.

Members were advised that a meeting between Professor Parker, Palmer, Webb and Murphy had reached consensus on a range of issues, including:

• Communication and consultation with the faculties in the event of any major change to service provision.
   
• The need for clarification of the relationship between the faculties and central service providers, requiring a new SLA and analysis of budget implications for faculties.
   
• The impact on teaching of the introduction of a ‘core activities’ model required careful consideration.

Key features of the course structure model would be:

• Its underpinning student-centredness.
   
• The alignment of its underlying principles with the key themes underpinning Monash planning, and improved integration with Monash’s suite of plans.
   
• Emphasis on transition and pathways to further study and integration of academic and vocational.
   
• Provision of a distinctive Monash ‘value proposition’.
   
• Improved depth and scope of curriculum.

Issues for consideration included the Honours degree as the Monash default and exit path (Associate Degree) at the end of the 2^nd year of a Bachelor degree.

The Chair observed that effort was being made to develop a view of Monash as an Honours university, where a student would expect to study for four years, but which might offer an exit pathway after two. The potential to overlap the curriculum would provide students with incentives to study at Monash and rewards for so doing.

The Committee received and noted the presentation on the proposed Course Structure Model.

Discussion ranged over a number of issues:

• Whether the proposed seven year path to a Doctorate would satisfy the Federal Government’s desire for consistency with Bologna. It was noted that by a conversion confirmation year could be added to the PhD program, resulting in an eight year Doctorate.
   
• The need to take account of the disparity in nature of Masters programs – some built on undergraduate study and led to a Doctoral program, whereas some Masters programs were vocational in nature.
   
• The likely variation between faculties regarding preferred course structure.
   
• Whether the introduction of Associate Degrees would impact negatively on the Monash brand. However, the advantage for Monash in offering recognition for two years’ work was also considered important. Members were advised that a briefing paper on this issue would be presented to a future SMC meeting.
   
• Market analysis was essential to assess whether a four-year degree would be positively received by both student and employer markets, given the diversity within each.
   
• Useful information could be sourced by looking at the Malaysian and English models.
   
• A review of the policy on the level of offering and value of units would be a useful inclusion in the Coursework Review.
   
• The need to investigate whether the proposed model would, in fact, ease rates of attrition.

It was suggested that another Education Day might be arranged to promote and continue discussion.
 

Key features of the report included:

• 31% increase in Category 1 income, ranking 4^th. Overall performance in Category 2 was steady. In Category 3, Monash ranked second only to Melbourne, however Melbourne was some distance ahead. Monash was tracking close to target in Category 4.
   
• Increase in value of Discovery Grants awarded to Monash. 2^nd only to Sydney in the value of Linkage Grants awarded in the last round.

FiRM had forecast continued significant growth in research income for the 2006 year. Work was also underway in investigating whether other income not identified as research income should, in fact, be so classified.

The key challenges were to close the $40 million research income gap between Monash and the institution ranked 3^rd (Sydney) and to increase the HDR load. Strategies to meet these challenges would include:

• Achieving a 25% share of the research income of the top four institutions.
• Continuing the recent, strong income growth.
• Ensuring continuity of NHMRC performance.
• Recruitment of grant-active staff.
• Progressing industry engagement.
• Recruitment of international HDR students.
• Offering more scholarships.
• Development of a strategy for recruiting research leaders.
• Improvement in invoicing procedures to industry.
• Appropriate classification of research income.
• Continuing to improve the quality of research publications.

The Committee received and noted the Report of Monash’s Research Performance.

In discussion, members commented that:

• It would be useful to compare Monash’s discipline mix with those of key competitors.
• Some disciplines were achieving results out of proportion to their size.
• Monash’s 4^th place ranking in total research income indicated significant improvement.
• Figures on research performance by campus would be helpful.
• An HDR Recruitment Plan was in development.
   

Advice had also been received that the provision for an observer on the Appointment Review Committee nominated by the staff association would be in breach of the HEWRRs, and that as a consequence it was intended to amend this provision to provide for an observer from MUSIC.

Likewise, the provision enabling a staff member appearing before the Probationary Review Appeals Committee to be accompanied by a ‘colleague’ would be amended to ‘staff member other than a practising barrister or solicitor’.

13 Mar
1 May
5 Jun
17 Jul
4 Sep
16 Oct
11 Dec