Michelle Gillespie and Susan Weikert, Student System Project, The University of Melbourne presented a session entitled “Owning Up”: Establishing a Culture of Leadership in a Developed Environment on Thursday 23rd April 09 (15.05-15.50) at the ATEM Student Services Centre Conference, Fremantle, WA

You can view the presentation here: Weikert_Gillespie_ATEM-SSCC-09

After tea, biscuits and vigorous chatting, the afternoon sessions were kicked off and I attended the University of Melbourne session.  Michelle started by demonstrating the spread of management structures in Higher Ed (30:30:30 – devolved, centralised, bit-of-both).  The case study of the talk was the ‘Student System’ project and the Melbourne context was described as highly devolved where the governance structure is sometimes unclear and can be fluid!

An example of the impact of such a devolved system (seemingly minor but typical of the difficulties of the environment) was the inability to agree on the opening times for the numerous student centres – so rolling out a new Student System had its challenges before it even started!  This coupled with the new ‘Melbourne Model’, new buildings and an atmosphere of uncertainty meant that a firmer foundation was needed for the Student System to succeed.

Michelle explained that the problem of devolved decision making relating to the Student System project and ownership of decisions was solved using the concept of ‘business owners’ (abbreviated to BO’s by the liveblogger).  Susan’s part of the talk focused on what business owners do.  It seems important to have the word ‘owner’ in the role title to really emphasise the granting of power to a particular person.  BOs are charged with monitoring policy implementation (but not writing it), collaborating across the University and cooperating for the greater good.

The model of using BOs enquires choosing the right person – they must have credibility and authority and, of course, agree to do it.  They are supported by the role of Business Expert – someone who is very hands-on and knowledgeable about the process and can be used as a network of people to be consulted.  The BOs must then be recognised by the University as the authority – Susan explained that in this case they were able to have the BOs endorsed publicly by the highest authority (DVC type role – described in the presentation by the person on God’s right-hand side!))

BOs need supporting in their role via reference groups, escalation of some issues etc as well as holding them responsible for their roles.  Outcomes were mixed as the early successes of the project were overcome in early 2008 by an attempt to extend the concept throughout the whole institution (people liked what they saw and wanted to make it work everywhere).  This presented many challenges for what had previously been a defined, focused and largely successful project. Lessons learned from the experience confirm the need to get endorsement and support from the highest levels of leadership (no matter who holds the roles).

Before launching into question time, Michelle and Susan anticipated a commonly asked question to tell us that the BOs get no extra pay (higher duties allowance or similar) for performing the role.  Questions then started to flow in the short time available.  The first question built on the theme of role descriptions by asking ‘Did you have a problem with the unions?’  The presenters said they hadn’t as the staff involved (8 BOs in total) had mostly been very driven to adopt the role.

The second question asked ‘what happens when BOs move on?  Given the defined time period for the project, Michelle and Susan told us that for a time period longer than the 2 years they had, the role of BO would need to be included in the position description.

BIOS – Michelle Gillespie, Relationship Manager, Student System Project, the University of Melbourne and Susan Weikert, Manager, Change and Communications, Student System Project, the University of Melbourne

Michelle has worked in a range of roles at Victoria University and Melbourne University since 1995.  She has an interest in timetabling, systems, and change management.  Her most recent role is Relationship Manager for the implementation of a new student management system at the University of Melbourne.  She recently completed a Graduate Certificate in University Management.

Susan has worked in student service and systems roles at Georgetown University in Washington DC and at the University of Melbourne for the last 14 years.  She has developed a Vision for Student Management, implemented process and system improvements in response to the HESA, and managed admissions for a faculty.  She is currently Change and Communication Manager for the implementation of a new student management system

ABSTRACT – In a devolved student administration and student services environment, it’s difficult to identify who’s ultimately responsible for what and obtain definitive advice.  Such lack of definition becomes an impediment when it comes to implementing new systems, policies and processes, and service arrangements University-wide.  Faced with this challenge, the Student System Project established roles known as ‘Business Owners’ and ‘Business Experts’ to coordinate the needs of the business and liaise with the various stakeholders across the University.  The presenters discuss the challenges and benefits of these roles. Accountability, ownership, and broad recognition are key factors in the success of this model.

Also presented during this timeslot:
o    Tenets of an Undergraduate Scholarship Program: Drivers of Process by Kerry Adams and Dr Sato Juniper, Graduate Research and Scholarships Office, UWA
o    Managing Change in an Established Culture by Rebecca Caddy Manager, Student Services, Faculty of Law, UNSW

Fred Chaney, a Director of Cox Howlett and Bailey Woodland presented a keynote paper entitled ‘Innovative Spaces and Places in Higher Education’ on Thursday 23rd April (1340–1440) at the ATEM Student Services Centre Conference, Fremantle, WA.

Fred had the tough ‘after-lunch’ speaking slot on day 1 of the conference but delegates were again packed into the Sirius Room.  After a rousing introduction from Jon Stubbs, Fred took the stage with a presentation filled with images of thought-provoking spaces and buildings.

The focus of Fred’s talk was the Eastern Precinct project at Melbourne University although he began by outlining a series of buildings that provided a an ‘inspirational genesis’ for the project team by including the reuse of old buildings and the opening up of large buildings to users.  A number of projects run by Cox Howlett and Bailey Woodland also provided inspiration including a structure designed for a Hong Kong location (that was never quite built) and a new city lending library in the City of Melbourne.

When talking about the student centre at the University of Melbourne, Fred highlighted a number of key issues of keen interest to the audience.  Fred expanded on the role of architects in designing social, collaborative and community spaces that integrate with the surroundings and perform a distinct role for the institution – for example, how University space acts as the ‘lounge-room’ for students who live in small purpose build accommodation.  A point that possibly surprised but certainly connected with the audience was Fred’s assertion that the higher quality of the spaces, the less likely they are to be damaged.  Fred’s personal and professional experience has shown that users can be trusted to respect high quality spaces – whether it’s red leather chairs or custom designed tables.

Fred’s concluding statements covered a number of issues and challenges facing Universities when considering their use of space.  After a conversation with Bernard Salt (which apparently can’t be repeated) the issue of ‘personal connections’ became a consideration for projects of social space.  Fred ended on the note that ‘in the end it’s all about generosity’ – a phrase used (independently) by high profile Dutch and French architects.

Luckily there was ample time for questions which kicked of with: ‘where were you when my uni was built’ (I’m not naming it here – if you were in the room you know which one it is), Fred answered by reporting that good architects should always be asking themselves – would I want to live here? Would I want to work here?

From the far side of the room (sorry I couldn’t se who you were!) a question came of ‘was there a process of student consultation?’  Fred replied that the process was consultative and representational in nature and therefore relied heavily on the Student Guild which of course is made up of politically minded students so they gave us a run for our money.

Barbara Goldflam from UWA asked how the Melbourne project navigated the heritage issues which would surely be a major consideration at an established campus like Melbourne?  Fred highlighted the standard processes of consultancy and partnership with stakeholders and the City of Melbourne but also revealed it’s no easy process when he said that he had personally spend many hours choosing the paint colour for the windows.

After much applause and a mystery thank-you gift from the conference committee, Fred left the stage while delegates headed off to afternoon tea followed by the final concurrent session of the day.

BIO – As part of a young team of Melbourne-based directors, Fred helped develop a reputation in Victoria as a creative, commercially responsive and innovative design studio. Fred has led project teams on a range of commercial and institutional projects including new buildings and redevelopment projects for universities and TAFE colleges. Fred’s expertise includes master planning, education, justice, commercial and residential development and his projects have been the recipients of numerous architectural, development, planning and industry awards.

Dr Lisa Cluett. Senior Project Officer for the Online Student Journey Project at UWA presented a session entitled ‘Training professional staff in Web 2.0 – a program developed by UWA Student Services via the ‘Online Student Journey’ project’ on Thursday 23rd April 09 (11.45-12.25) at the ATEM Student Services Centre Conference, Fremantle, WA

I think the session went really well – it’s resulted in an invite to Brisbane to talk to staff at the Southbank Institute of Technology anyway (thanks Graeme)!  An audience poll at the start of the talk showed a variety of knowledge levels about web 2.0 but I was really only interested in that to know what terms I could use without explaining them – because this talk was about a training program which is of course, about PEOPLE.  Slides available here via Slideshare and now in *.pdf format Cluett_osj_atem-sscc-09_20090423

BIO – Lisa has a number of roles at UWA including developing interactive online tools for Student Services and coordinating the staff Web 2.0 community.  She writes about the role of professional staff in online student engagement and is also the liveblogger for this conference

ABSTRACT – UWA Student Services offers programs, resources, advice and support to students during their entire journey – from prospective student to graduation.  In 2008 a project commenced to initiate and integrate a layer of interactive web tools to the Student Services programs.  This recognition of the importance of our web services and the ways that students engage with materials online has led to the development of a range of tools from blogs to online video, from wikis to online photo albums.  A pivotal part of this project, however, has been the significant staff training component.  This paper will outline the strategy used by UWA Student Services to gauge staff skill levels, raise awareness, stimulate interest and conduct training in Web 2.0 tools.

Also presented during this timeslot:
o    Expanding tertiary access for TAFE students by the collaborative development of dual learning pathways which guarantee entry and credit by Mary Hassard, Manager, Credit Transfer and Articulations, Griffith University
o    Not Just a Number by Carmel Langdon, Stephen Baker and Sonia Ryall Managers of Student Central, ECU

Kathryn Blyth. Group Manager, Student Centres, Student Administration at University of Technology, Sydney presented a session entitled ‘Changing Expectations at UTS: A warts and all case study!’ on Thursday 23rd April 09 (11.00-11.40) at the ATEM Student Services Centre Conference, Fremantle, WA

Well the room was packed to hear Kathryn and her colleague Robert Jones talk about the challenges they faced throughout the implementation of a new student system at UTS and the resulting restructure of Student Administration (including Kathryn’s own job changing dramatically).  Kathryn spoke about the challenges that students face going to many enquiry counters and how this was dealt with during the project – in lieu of a one-stop-shop, UTS implemented 5 service points across campus, a solution that worked for UTS and a challenge that still faces many institutions (my own included)!

Implementation invovled reviews of building use, looking at staff preferences for placement, training and induction and change planning and management.  The new structure had 5 student centres which is quite a shift from 2 student centres and 9 Faculty enquiry desks.  The 5 new centres advise students on pretty much everything on a student’s wish-list!

Robert took the next section of the talk and admitted to being a bit nervous soon settled into his material on the success (and otherwise) of the project.  The audience empathised and connected with Robert’s analogies of a plate of spaghetti (chaotic, sticky and never-ending!) and a tree in the middle of a motorway.  There seemed to be lots of good news at UTS in terms of staff morale before the restructure (well done to anyone who survived their group ‘trust’ activity!) although a challenge arose when staff who had always worked in Faculties didn’t find it easy to take those hats off!  Disparate IT services and support didn’t help either and timing issues, staff shortages and lack of resources soon started to eat into eariler good spirits! 

Roberts tips for a successful process included:

do some proper planning!

have a project team

communication is key

document processes into a manual

choose your timing wisely

staff need time to grieve and adjust

Kathryn’s final section focused on the future of the project most of which was shaped by dealing with 33,000 phone calls in the early weeks after the centres opened. Credibility was lost and the porject certainly got a lot of attention.  However, the enquiries (emails, calls etc) did eventually get answered and the project got back on track.  2008 was a different year! More casual staff and a reviewed process meant that the system started to work, the University was lot more aware of the importance of Student Administration and proper statistics about enquiries is now kept and distributed.  An unexpected bonus was that dealing with enquiries stopped being a ‘hidden’ activity and a hidden cost!

As people started filling in their evaluation forms, I scooted next door to present my paper on the Online Student Journey Project….

BIO – Kathryn Blyth is the Group Manager, Student Centres at the University of Technology, Sydney. Prior to this role, she was Project Manager for the restructure and implementation of the UTS Student Centres in 2007. Her role is currently focussed on enhancing the student experience at UTS through the development of strong customer centred initiatives. This includes the development of an Enquiry Management System to further improve the delivery of student administrative services at UTS, and a strategic approach to advancing staff training, recruitment, career progression and retention.  She has a B. Arts (Japanese) from the University of Canterbury, (NZ) and recently completed an MBA from Henley Management College (UK).

ABSTRACT – Changing the delivery of services to students drove a major restructure that culminated in the opening of five student centres across UTS in November 2007. UTS has made enormous progress aligning student administration activities and developing a service focussed approach 15 months after opening. This story takes us from a process focussed environment largely unchanged for many years to one of customer service outcomes, visibility and performance. The bumpy journey has included staff resistance techniques, issues with training and processes, and about 100,000 more transactions than we planned for.  As we redefine service quality a new culture of engagement and transparency is emerging. This workshop will present the transition challenges overcome as we aspire to achieve a seamless and customer-centric service.

Also presented during this timeslot (but not liveblogged):
o    Making entry to medical school a reality for rural and outer metropolitan students by Dr Annette Mercer and Sue Pougnault, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry & Health Sciences, UWA
o    Customer Relationship Management @ Deakin by Jodie Aanensen from Deakin University

Professor Celia Hammond, Vice Chancellor of the University of Notre Dame presented a keynote entitled ’Changing Expectations’ on Thursday 23rd April 09 (9.15-10.15) at the ATEM Student Services Centre Conference, Fremantle, WA

In preparation for the first speaker of the conference Prof. Celia Hammond, the room was packed with delegates from all over Australia as well as our overseas visitors.  Prof. Hammond commended the collaboration of all five WA universities and opened by saying she felt that 2 aspects of the conference theme of ‘Changing Expectations’ held the most meaning for her – whose expectations do we mean and are they really changing?

When considering whose expectations we mean, Prof. Hammond defined 2 groups: community (public) and staff/students (private) and that all groups of stakeholders have expectations that may overlap, diverge or conflict which makes it naïve to focus solely on students.  We therefore must consider that

1. we must pay attention to all post-school education, the 39 universities, as well as the VET sector both of which have public and private providers.  There is increasing interrelation between the sectors and well as established differences within and between the sectors – this makes it hard to find a point of focus
2. the student cohort in the tertiary sector is not homogenous (Prof. Hammond used the term ‘ad hoc’ students as well) and expectations are therefore not homogenous either
3. nearly all issues facing students are also facing staff, especially Student Services Centre staff who are also impacted by the expectations of all other stakeholders

Prof. Hammond then turned her attention to the expectations of the government and considered whether they are changing?  In true lawyer fashion the answer is both yes AND no.  No in the sense that the big picture expectations of Higher Ed are not changing to a large degree, but yes in that the government’s  expectations about the way we act and perform in pursuit of goals is changing (as per the education revolution!)

Prof. Hammond demonstrated a trend of broadening access to Higher Ed since 1939 into a particular period of growth since 2000 and highlighted generational changes in both the VET  and University sector.

Question time

Jon Stubbs was the first on his feet with a question and asked ‘Do you think you would have given the same speech 18 months ago?’
Essentially yes – the rhetoric and high level principles were pretty much the same no matter what colour the government is wearing!

Frank O’Neill spoke up from the back of the room and commented ’I strongly suspect that client groups have driven change – therefore privileging the student experience – can you comment on that?
It’s a shame we don’t have more longitudinal surveys about student expectations and experiences that compare changes over generations.  However, I don’t think that current expectations are necessarily driven by students paying for education via HECS or otherwise.

After Prof. Hammond mentioned the preamble to the charter of the Uni of Sydney that stated that education should be made available to all of the Queen’s subjects without distinction, Jon Stubbs asked ‘How will we realise the potential for indigenous Australians in higher education?’
Yes of course they have a role – but there has yet to be a proper focus on progressing this issue – either in the Bradley review or in the Higher Ed revolution.  This group has not been addressed specifically, rather they have been lumped in with other target groups.

The session closed, the conference was off and running and delegates headed off to the concurrent sessions.

BIO – Professor Hammond is a legal practitioner with experience in private practice in WA. She is also a Vice Chancellor who may be at the vanguard of changing expectations both of tertiary study and of university CEOs: she is not only young and female, but has also held senior professional appointments within the University sector as well as those senior academic positions which, traditionally, have been seen as pre-requisites for university leadership.