UNIV.-PROF. MAG. DR. ERICH THÖNI University Coordinator for INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

UNIV.-PROF. MAG. DR. ERICH THÖNI University Coordinator for INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Innsbruck Coordinator ASEA-UNINET and EURASIA-PACIFIC-UNINET LEOPOLD FRANZENS UNIVERSITY OF INNSBRUCK (Austria)

Images of Tyrol

‘Innsbruck University (UI):Perception of change and its impact on change process’ Workshop: Change management and institutional development of quality assurance system (in HE)

Overview • Some Pre-remarks • Austrian HE reform alongside European developments • Innsbruck’s organizational reform and intentions of organizational innovations • Innsbruck’s performance oriented reforms • General conclusions on World-class University

Some Pre-remarks • What is the purpose of today’s universities? • For J. Frey a blend of at least 3 missions: • pass on knowledge • train professional workers • advance the frontiers of human knowledge • (community or public service) • A worldwide overview shows no clear answer for the 21st century, more so it frustrates • At least 10 purposes out of 15 countries/institutions could be compiled

Some Pre-remarks • University purposes in the 21st century: • Train people in the skills needed by the national economy • Conduct scientific research and promote scientific progress • Promote cultural progress and social development • Ameliorate society’s problems • Train civic leaders • Foster individual personal achievement • Act as an enterprise and get its share of the international market • Improve student mobility into and out of the country • Transmit and advance knowledge • Critically evaluate society

Some Pre-remarks • Are these appropriate purposes for the 21st Century and can universities fulfill them? Will universities be themselves more responsive or will they have to be forced or seduced to necessary change? • Although the important role of HE in human capital formation is well documented, • the Universities are questioned on their academic value system and response to these demands • Many universities, therein different actors, perceive these developments as threats and take a defensive stance!!

Some Pre-remarks • At present the struggle on public vs. private provision of HE is (again) on • There are several models on PP given – all develop into a mix of PP within an international public policy framework • This international public policy framework has to come up with some essential elements, like… • global core values • protection of labels (like university, professor, doctor….) • common concepts of academic qualifications (BA, MA….) • But crucially important is the development and acceptance of a common definition of ‘quality’ and ‘QA’:

Some Pre-remarks Quality in Higher Education What does quality in HE actually mean? • There is no clear definition for tertiary education!! • Several concepts are around • some too consumer oriented • some too institution and its aims oriented • some too input oriented • none yet approved to be enough ‘outcome oriented’ • Therefore do not confuse ‘measured quality’ or ‘quality assured’ with ‘excellence’ • Quality assurance (QA) should be always reflected alongside: • “How good is good?”

Intensions and fundamentals alongside the University Act 2002 • New organisational types for executives and institutions • More self-reliance (new financial/human resource related/organizational autonomy) • More entrepreneurial and responsible universities • New governance (law) construction • ‘Speed kill’ implementation • Confrontation resp. competition of universities with ‘rival knowledge organisations’ (Applied/private universities…)

Different opinions onUniversity act 2002 • Not many actors at UI and in all Austria were for the 2002-Reform • Law comes too ‘speedy’ • Law comes only on reasons of ‘privatizing’ for federal budget • Changes were also to oppose on… • reasons of ‘reducing co-determination’ • reasons of the new contractual ‘career prospects’ and lower pay • reasons of seeing the university in its tradition as perishing • distrust vis-à-vis the government or Ministry

General change management at Ministry level • New, uncommon university structure • General Budget Consolidation – reduction of means • Pecuniary and non-pecuniary consequences for Austrian universities: • New human resources based on contractual law • Lower provided pay funds than foreseen by law Led to: • Demotivation of the ‘Mittelbau’-level Besides: • Split between professors into leaders, followers and resisters and demotivation of administrative staff • Nearly no critics from side of students, except in Vienna

General change management at Ministry level • Reductions and own unsafeness led to reorientation at the Ministry level • The Motto to profile universities changed between 2001 – 2004 and got more realistic • From “Towards World-class” • to Minister Gehrer’s new vision: • “We want universities with elite-organizations”, i.e. no elite-university, but each university should observe that their core areas play ‘in the highest European league’, ranking in the foremost in Europe!!(Die Presse 2004, Sonderausgabe)

General change management at University of Innsbruck level • Though Cons immediate: • E.g. consequence for Innsbruck- budget: in 2003: € 7.1 mio less than 2002(in 2004: only 2% more than 2002) which led to: • Personal recruitment stop at all levels • Means to invest redirected to pay • Reduction of means to invest • Reduction of operational means • And though Cons medium/longer term: • Reduction in the ‘supply’/offer in research and teaching • HEI closer to business better off

General change management at University of Innsbruck level • Still Pros: • Change in the ‘supply’/offer in research • Change in education/teaching implies reconfiguration, stratification, reorientation • To profile the UI, around e.g. new focal points of research(new ‘brands’ of the university): like • ‘Alpine Space’ • ‘Quantum informatics’ • ‘Microbiology’ • ‘World order and force’ • But at the moment still in heavy discussion!!!

Innsbruck’s Organizational reform • The new Organizational Plan requests: • Transparency • Participation • Economic, efficient, effective behaviour • Guiding via achievement/performance agreement • At the moment in heavy discussion – • Supporters, followers, resisters (opponents!) • Aside already mentioned opponent arguments new critics on development track(organizational plan ahead of development plan!)

Innsbruck’s performance oriented reforms • Besides Research, study, administration, and public service reforms • Rector’s big tasks are: • Re-motivation –Internationalization • Consolidation – Professionalization

General conclusions on World-class University • World-class university? • Should that be the motto for the entire university or only for some departments? • What about the others? • What is a world-class university? • What is and who does the appropriate international evaluation?

General conclusions on World-class University • Altenbach tries do develop some relevant characteristics: • Excellence in research • top-quality professors • favourable working conditions • Academic freedom and atmosphere of intellectual excitement • Large part for self-governance • Adequate facilities • adequate funding, consistent and long termed

General conclusions on World-class University • Altenbach points to the facts: • most (even most research) universities need public funding • only few high ranked private research universities in the US and in Japan can cope without • A realistic perspective is needed • For many countries: only one or two world-class universities are possible or even desirable • For many countries, a world-class university is beyond the ability of the nation to support • It might be more appropriate to focus on building world-class departments, institutes, or schools

General conclusions on World-class University • Research universities are at the pinnacle of a differentiated academic system in a country • Overemphasizing attaining world-class status may harm faculty morale and performance on basis of unrealistic expectations!!! • Nevertheless growing focused attention on academic standards and improvement, and on the role of universities in society. • The fuzziness of the concept combined with the impossibility (so far??) of measuring academic quality and accomplishment make the struggle difficult

Special conclusions on Innsbruck University • Rektor’s request for the UI: • Reform of small steps into the correct direction • The UI has to become again ‘OURS’(smaller but more focused and competitive) • Education/Teaching/Studies are the ‘Pflicht/Obligation’ • based on ‘labour market demand’ • therein ‘knowledge of orientation’ (social competence, leadership, ethics) • based on research • Research is the ‘Kür/Free exercise’- it enables for funding

Special conclusions on Innsbruck University • Building on the competitiveness of UI in international dimensions • Human resources in general: • Everybody should work under conditions which are favorable • Re-motivation of academic and administrative staff • Young researcher: • Building on new interest for research and for a university career based on effort-orientation • This within an attractive (international) frame

Special conclusions on Innsbruck University • Own (authors) conclusions: • Focus on a realistic and for all transparent perspective of the university • Avoid overemphasizing and setting up of unrealistic expectations in an environment not allowing for • A comprehensive university is squeezed at several edges: research, education/teaching, administration, societal service • There should be a certain ‘tenure ship’ and therefore ‘job security’ in Austria’s academic, esp. research careers • Staff switches between universities and business should be possible, but not permanent

There is no time for passive endurance, Take the chance and show leadership! Univ.-Prof. Dr. Erich Thöni University Coordinator for Int. Relations University of Innsbruck Universitätsstraße 15 A-6020 Innsbruck, Austria E-Mail: erich.thoeni@uibk.ac.at

UNIV.-PROF. MAG. DR. ERICH THÖNI University Coordinator for INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS