1. No 1 REVIEW OF ACADEMIC STRUCTURE STAFF FORUM ON PROPOSED STRUCTURE 29 October 2007

2. No 2 PROCESS OVERVIEW Consultative and evidence based Held to goals and guiding principles Now approved by Senior Executive and Council Forum to outline and discuss key features and explain next steps

3. No 3 PROCESS Steering & Advisory Committee Interviews: all senior management, deans, senior administrative staff, chancellor and dep. chancellor 19 Focus groups Website and email for individual and departmental submissions 5 senior management meetings 2 meetings Dept heads, 1 CORE heads 3 Administrative staff meetings 6 staff forums (3 x 2)

4. No 4 FEATURES OF PROPOSED STRUCTURE From 10 divisions to 4 faculties (plus MGSM and ASAM - within faculties) From 44 departments to 35 departments Groupings of like areas as base to build strength Larger faculties and departments more sustainable, stronger administrative support

5. No 5 PROPOSED FACILITATIVE STRUCTURES New Associate and Sub Dean Roles to drive focus on areas Administrative and academic support for Assoc Deans New Committee structure linked to Academic senate Other recommendations to support collaboration to be addressed in implementation.

6. No 6 OTHER STRUCTURAL FEATURES Clarification of roles of Deans, Department Heads, Discipline Heads: further development during implementation Concept of Graduate Coursework Centre Administrative support structures: shared services at faculty level; further development during implementation

7. No 7 ASSESSMENT AGAINST GUIDING PRINCIPLES Capacity to build strength Larger faculties, bigger clusters related areas – stronger academically and financially Fewer barriers between Sciences New Humanities very strong base to build research connections and compete externally New Human Sciences faculty seen to present great opportunities New Assoc. Dean roles and faculty committees provide focus within and across faculties

8. No 8 ASSESSMENT AGAINST GUIDING PRINCIPLES Develop synergies & remove barriers to collaborative effort: Division barriers identified as greatest obstacle – from 9 to 4 + more resources for collaborative effort Departments been grouped to maximise synergies Better facilitative structures to support collaboration Internal competition for students & staff reduced KPIs for new leaders will specify collab. requirements

9. No 9 ASSESSMENT AGAINST GUIDING PRINCIPLES Achieve critical mass & stronger admin. support: 4 strong faculties roughly equal in staff size Smallest least viable disciplines grouped Criteria being developed to review viability Shared service model for faculties will provide strong and cost-effective support Increased admin support for larger departments

10. No 10 ASSESSMENT AGAINST GUIDING PRINCIPLES Strengthen research-teaching nexus: Clarified relationship of research centres to departments will assist Assoc.Dean roles & facilitative committees will help drive focus - Curriculum Review will drive further Better admin support in larger departments will assist KPIs for academic leaders can specify

11. No 11 ASSESSMENT AGAINST GUIDING PRINCIPLES Increased options for Graduate Education: Fewer divisions mean fewer barriers to choice/combinations Curriculum Review will build on new base Concept of graduate coursework centre provides strong focus on improved experience and more flexibility

12. No 12 ASSESSMENT AGAINST GUIDING PRINCIPLES Easily understood in community; more cohesive profile “ Faculties ” and “ departments ” readily understood Profile in all 4 more cohesive than under previous 9 Names for departments will be developed internally and agreed by exec. Branding and marketing to occur at sub- faculty level

13. No 13 ASSESSMENT AGAINST GUIDING PRINCIPLES Allow for collective imagination Process has done so New groupings stimulate attention to possibilities Recommended retreats will encourage Assoc. Dean, & Coordinator roles greater focus on areas needing attention

14. No 14 ASSESSMENT AGAINST GUIDING PRINCIPLES Increase flexibility in delivery, use of resources Fewer faculty and deptl barriers good basis for curriculum review to create greater flexibility in programmes Greater resource flexibility in larger groupings Shared service model provide greater flexibility Opportunity provided for reviewing interface with central admin for greater flexibility

15. No 15 ASSESSMENT AGAINST GUIDING PRINCIPLES Still some small departments Still a few areas not comfortable with placement or grouping Review of structure at 12 months and 3 years against criteria to be specified

16. No 16 PROPOSED FACULTY STRUCTURE Decrease in number of Divisions and creation of fewer (4) larger Faculties. –Business & Commerce –Humanities –Human Sciences –Science

17. No 17 PROPOSED FACULTY INTERNAL STRUCTURE Decrease in number of Departments. Some departments being merged, or becoming disciplines. Move to Faculty level shared services model for IT, HR, Finance, Central Services, Projects, Marketing, Technical and Facilities

18. No 18 IMPACT ON STAFF Decrease in number of Deans from 10 to 6 Decrease in number of Heads of Department. Decrease in number of Divisional Managers. Expected increase in number of Faculty based academic leadership roles and associated supporting staff. Expected increase in number of administrative roles within faculties. Transferring staff from Divisions into new Faculty structures

19. No 19 PROPOSED REDUNDANCIES Currently unclear but only a small number envisaged in senior Divisional management roles. Number of Deans are acting in fixed-term or acting positions due to conclude prior to end 2008. Positions of Deans of new Faculties to be filled via competitive selection. Divisional managers possible redundancies but a number of possible redeployment opportunities in other faculty management roles - IT, Finance, HR Departmental staff - may be some adjustment in job components, but ongoing salary maintenance will be applied.

20. No 20 NEXT STEPS Complete consultation on Proposal with staff on the proposed changes under the enterprise agreement High level implementation plan in development with administrative staff and steering/advisory committee Implementation Planning Task Force and sub- groups to be established Detailed implementation plans by mid December Project manager to be appointed Consultation on implementation and implementation throughout 2008, in parallel with Curriculum Review

21. No 21 TIMELINES Consultation over this change proposal – closing on16 November Decision on proposed change - one week post consultation. Establishment of Implementation Task Force - Nov 07 Implementation and consultation - ongoing, through 2008.  Selection of Deans of new Faculties - end March 2008.  Selection of senior Faculty roles - end June 2008.  Translation of other staff into new structures - end October 2008.  Formal Commencement of Faculties - January 2009.

22. No 22 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Review and restructure not designed to save costs. Nett staffing costs expected to be essentially unchanged from current costs

23. No 23 AREAS TO BE ADDRESSED 2008 Research Teaching & Learning Coursework Graduate Centre Senate & Committee structures Faculties & Departments Finance Funding Student Admin Information Technology Human Resources Facilities Statistics International Office Library Records & Archives Marketing Media & Publications

24. No 24 QUESTIONS AND FEEDBACK Documents on the Provost’s website: http://www.mq.edu.au/provost/reports/aca demicstructure.html http://www.mq.edu.au/provost/reports/aca demicstructure.html Will include this presentation and report to Council Feedback to academicreview@vc.mq.edu.au academicreview@vc.mq.edu.au Follow up meeting to discuss the feedback