ECM Academic Profile Organisational Change Proposal Meeting 2

1. ECM Academic ProfileOrganisational Change ProposalMeeting 2 1 November 2010

2. Welcome Agenda • Faculty’s Financial Situation • Feedback • Extension of timeline • Questions and feedback

3. Faculty Financial Situation • 2011 FFM income increased by $5.3M total (including income for centres) • $4.27M excluding centres • $1M is non-recurrent funding that the University has asked we do not commit recurrent expenses to (such as salaries) • Due to: • Small increase in the rate of $ per W/EFTSL • Funded on projectedinternational student numbers

4. Faculty Financial Situation (continued) • Modelling effect of additional income on the Faculty’s carry forward • Using the same model as the first presentation and putting in the additional income (but no reductions in salaries) • Assume that the additional income will continue beyond 2011 • Leaves the results for 2010 and earlier unchanged • The Faculty (excluding Centres) will still have a carry forward deficit • Deficit in 2013 of $9.6M in 2013 • Meeting 1 prediction was $22.4M in 2013

5. Faculty’s financial situation continued

6. Desired Objective Remains the same as Meeting 1: • To provide financial viability and sustainability to the Faculty • Strategic Academic Staff Profile • Minimise impact on strategic direction • Ensure process is done in a way that reflects the strategic priorities of the Faculty

7. Proposed changes and likely significant effects on employees • As a result of the changes in budget, the extent of the change to teaching and research academic staff salaries can now be reduced • Target, over time, is salaries at 80% of FFM income • Academic salaries are now proposed to be reduced by only $2.5 million as an outcome of the organisational change proposal • To achieve 80% salary target, requires an overall reduction of at least $3.6 million • Academic salaries are currently budgeted at $19 million (2010), and the proposal is to reduce academic salaries by $2.5 million

8. Proposed changes and likely significant effects on employees Modelling of impact of proposed $2.5 million reduction in academic salaries • Includes the additional FFM income from 2011; • Assumptions (the same as the first presentation): • A 4% increase in FFM income from 2011 onwards • No reduction in student load (EFTSL) from 2011-2013, either in domestic or international students • No increases in salary expenses beyond the EBA increases (e.g. no promotions or salary progression)

9. Proposed changes and likely significant effects on employees(continued)

10. Proposed changes and likely significant effects on employees (continued)

11. Faculty Financial Situation – Assumptions Revisited • Factors left out and major risks in the assumptions • Costs of redundancies • 4% increase in FFM income is optimistic • Expecting a decline in international numbers (that is not reflected in the additional income) due to: • Changes to immigration rules • Value of the $AUD • Increased competition from the UK and US • Establishment of off-shore campuses by UK, US and Australian universities • Flow on from changes in Australia’s international reputation • Other factors • Non-EBA increases in salaries • For the period 2006 – 2009 the average non-EBA academic salary increase (promotions, salary progression) was 4.5%

12. Proposed changes and likely significant effects on employees (continued)

13. Proposed changes and likely significant effects on employees continued

14. Feedback A significant amount of feedback has been provided: • The majority of feedback has been on the proposed ranking methodology • Feedback both supporting the proposal and suggesting improvements/modifications • Some feedback on the overall proposal and the need for action • Some feedback on the depth of the staff cuts required • Some feedback indicating no support for changes All feedback received is important, and is being considered. Staff are encouraged to continue to provide feedback

15. Specific Feedback • Consider some of the major themes that have come through the feedback • This is not all the feedback, but all feedback is being considered • Summarising these major points of feedback is to give staff an opportunity to consider the feedback to date, and provide further feedback • Particularly where there is a strong suggestion for the need for change

16. Specific Feedback continued • Significant amount of feedback, and generally consistent, that: • Teaching quality outcomes are not recognised in the ranking methodology, although it is important to the future success of the Faculty • Further feedback that there is also • No recognition of added responsibilities of course/unit/programme development • No recognition of individual academics who improve their teaching skills, capabilities and quality (e.g. through professional development)

17. Specific Feedback continued • The following are some of the suggested amendments to the ranking methodology contained in the feedback: • Incorporate SURF and SPOT scores as teaching quality indicators • Incorporate membership of FASE as teaching quality indicators • Allow staff to submit for assessment teaching portfolio based on the promotion criteria • Assign specific points values for courses, unit and programme development roles, either within the teaching category or the internal service category • Provide points for both nominees for teaching awards as well as winners of teaching awards

18. Specific Feedback continued • There has been significant feedback also on whether the ranking methodology complies with various University criteria • E.g. Promotions criteria, Strategic and Operational Priorities Plans • Concerns about “moving the goal posts” by using criteria recently developed • Concerns that the weightings of categories (e.g. teaching, research) don't match University criteria • Other feedback that ranking criteria are as good a reflection as ranking methodology can be and that the weightings are appropriate

19. Specific Feedback continued • Important to note that this is not a performance management tool, indicating whether academics have met performance targets or not met performance targets • Ranking methodology is to provide relative ranking of academic staff in the Faculty • Performance indicators have been selected from the Academic Performance Expectations and Targets to provide a set of recognised performance indicators • The University’s strategic goal is research performance • Teaching quality is valued, but teaching staff need to make contributions to research • Model provides a differentiation between performance of staff of different academic levels • Invite feedback on whether the relative expectations for different academic levels are right

20. Specific Feedback continued • Feedback expressed concern that the internal service was not relative to academic level • The methodology did not recognise the additional responsibilities of leadership expected of Level D’s and E’s • The specific roles were more likely to be filled by senior staff in the Faculty • Concern this poses disadvantages to Early Career Academics • Amendments suggested in feedback: • Provide a minimum expectation of service relative to academic level • Require some measurement of leadership in teaching and research for Level D and E academics

21. Specific Feedback continued • A large amount of feedback suggesting changes to the research performance indicators. Examples include • Differentiating between different publications (weighting A* vs A vs B publications) • Differentiating between length of different publications • Taking account of different success rates of research grants, and weighting the income received accordingly • Concern at giving full credit to each author of a paper/recipient of a grant, particularly where the number of contributors is high • Also some feedback suggesting additional research performance criteria, for example • Relative citation impact

22. Specific Feedback continued • Feedback that there needs to be a link between teaching and research • Not sufficient to simply score highly on one area, particularly in research whilst being a poor quality teacher • Need an academic profile with skills in both areas, whilst still recognising the need to strongly recognise research • The feedback has suggested some of the following: • A combined score of teaching and research (and combined expectations) to get an overall score in teaching and research • Additional points for meeting the minimum expected performance in both teaching and research

23. Specific Feedback continued • There has also been feedback suggesting: • Staff should be assessed on a pro-rata basis where they have changed academic levels during the assessment period • Research metrics (grants, publications) achieved at a previous university for staff who entered the Faculty during the assessment period should be included

24. Feedback suggesting amendments to proposal • All feedback is encouraged • Feedback agreeing with the process is just as important as feedback disagreeing with the process • Feedback on the suggested amendments made by staff in the feedback to date • Feedback suggesting amendments to proposal, including the ranking methodology • Some considerations when suggesting amendments to the ranking methodology: • Time that the amended ranking process would take • Ease of collecting the data • The ranking is relative

25. Other feedback • Other feedback has been received from: • Students • Industry • Other key stakeholders

26. Extension of Timeline • Monday 16 November - Feedback closes (extended 1 week) • Tuesday 23 November - Meeting 3 (delayed 1 week to allow for additional feedback) If a decision is made to go ahead with organisational change: • Nov 2010 – January 2011 – Ranking of affected staff across the Faculty • Jan – Feb 2011 - Meetings with identified staff • Jan – Dec 2011 – Identified staff leave the Faculty

27. What happens next? • Extended opportunity for staff to provide feedback: • Feedback on the proposal • Feedback on the proposed ranking methodology • Feedback on the summary of feedback to date that was presented today, including some proposals to amend the ranking methodology

28. Providing feedback • Via email: orgchange-ecm@uwa.edu.au • Directly: • W/Prof John Dell, Dean, x3704 • Stuart Broadfoot, Manager, Strategic and Operational Planning, x2463 • Internal mail: Marked “Direct” and sent to the Manager, Strategic and Operational Planning, M017 • Through the relevant union or employee representative

29. Providing feedback continued • All feedback will be considered before a final decision is made on whether to implement the proposal • Feedback must be submitted by close of business on the 15 November 2010 • Additional week after the second meeting

30. Available support • If members of academic staff need personal support or counselling during this organisational change process, this is offered free of charge through the University’s Employee Assistance Programme • Service is confidential, and staff can choose either an internal UWA provider or an external provider • Full details, including contact numbers, are available at: http://www.safety.uwa.edu.au/policies/eap

31. Available support continued EAP service providers: • UWA Counselling and Psychological Services(08) 6488 2423 (During office hours)www.counselling.uwa.edu.au1st Floor, South Wing, Social Sciences Building • PPC Worldwide1300 361 008 (24 hours)www.au.ppcworldwide.comLevel 16, 251 Adelaide Terrace, Perth

32. Post-implementation support • If a decision is made to implement organisational change, the following additional support will be provided by the Faculty and University free of charge to affected staff: • Career Transition ServicesExternal provider offering counselling, career assessment and job search support • Seminars/Support Pre-retirement contracts Redundancy packages Financial planning Retirement planning • Commitment from UniSuper to run seminar for ECM staff

33. Questions The documentation from today’s meeting and any other documentation released during the organisational change process is available at: www.ecm.uwa.edu.au/staff/organisationalchange