A case study of creating partnerships for learning: New models of collegiality at the University of South Australia

In February 1999 the University of South Australia opened the doors to new standards of customer service. Campus Central is a 'one stop shop' for student and campus administration available on the six campuses of the University and external students through the External Students Centre.

The University has made gradual improvements to existing services but this tinkering was not going to achieve the transformative changes necessary. We wanted administrative and support services that complement and contribute to the positive learning experience of our students - less running around to get simple administrative things done, streamlined administrative processes and a more positive and supportive approach to meeting the needs and expectations all our customers.

The notion of a single point of contact on each campus was supported by the Vice Chancellor in October 1998 and Campus Central opened its doors four months later. The project involved consulting the University community, especially students; designing, finding and building five spaces; developing an organisational structure; staffing and training; marketing; and putting new processes in place.

Campus Central sits across a number of organisational boundaries. It has been able to do this because it was designed to be a key service provider rather than an organisational unit. It creates a space for us to seriously consider the meaning of customer service in today's competitive environment and has given the University a vehicle to examine all its work and organisational practices.

Since then the methodology used to develop and implement Campus Central has been applied in other organisational contexts within the University to achieve changes to structures, roles, work processes and practices. We are challenging organisational boundaries and established hierarchies preferring more flexible ways of operating which more fully involve all University workers. The changing role and demands on academic staff have meant a need to rethink the role of administrative and support staff. As the University has needed to adapt to technological changes, the global market and less public funding staff have needed to think of new ways of doing things. At the University of SA we are responding to these pressures by creating partnerships which are inclusive, responsive and entrepreneurial.

This paper will explore the change and organisational development methodology currently being used by senior administrative staff from different parts of the University of SA. It is an approach based on our collective experience designed to both transform the organisation to meet corporate goals and external challenges as well as the needs of academic and administrative staff.

Introduction

The methodology described in this paper continues to provide a framework for organisational change, learning and initiative within the University of South Australia. It explores how a group of senior and middle level administration staff, mostly working within academic units have attempted to address the challenges of developing a service culture in areas traditionally resistant to this view of the world. Our approach has contributed to the development of a new understanding internally about organisational development and learning linked to change management and action. In the words of our Vice Chancellor it highlights that;

"... the organisation is more a work in progress led by people who themselves are seeking to learn rather than a fixed entity with clear boundaries and certain ends". (Bradley, 2000)

Context - Customer focus as a strategic priority

"Educators may be the last people to adopt a service orientation toward the people they are supposed to serve. ... To suggest that learners, and those paying for the education the learners are supposed to receive, are customers, draws a blank look from traditional educators. Those who take this unusual attitude are vastly outnumbered by those who think of the institution as a permanent fixture and the students as merely passers-by who flow through the system and leave money behind".

In 1998, a one-stop-shop ethos challenged what we had established in terms of our organisational structures and processes[1]. In a multi-campus university, the idea of this type of service can be problematic although more sensible when thinking from a customer perspective. According to research conducted by the University's Marketing and Development Unit, most students and potential students relate to their course, campus and the University rather than a School or Academic Division. Implementing a one stop shop meant considering how to meet the needs of customers in the context of our organisational arrangements. We needed to consider how students thought and related to the University.

It is evident from Course Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) results and internal surveys that students do not separate the academic from their more general experiences of University. Therefore issues such as the quality of our administration and support services requires attention. Students regularly comment on the need for straightforward, responsive and integrated administrative processes in addition to well resourced support services. They also expect a high level of responsiveness at "front counters" and service areas. These counters exist in all areas of any University - school, department, administrative area, library, help desk.

Evidence of improvements to service quality often seem quite intangible. Unlike product quality, service quality is about performance in three areas -outcomes, processes and people (Blanchard and Galloway, 1994; Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Parasuraman et al, 1985). Most customer service training focuses on people skills as a means of improving the quality of services, and disregards the importance of the process and service outcomes. A systematic approach to good service includes managing the processes organisations put in place.

Campus Central - building commitment from the top down and the bottom up

The idea for Campus Central coincided with a major organisational change from nine Faculties to four Divisions and arose out of training that the Senior Quality Officer, Lucy Schulz, was conducting with the former Faculty Offices. The Vice Chancellor supported the idea and wanted it to happen in time for the start of Semester 1, 1999. As a leader of change in our organisation, the Vice Chancellor recognises the importance of supporting initiatives, providing the resources where necessary but essentially leaving it to those on the ground to make it happen.

According to Binney and Williams (1995) this is the most effective approach to organisational change;

"... successful leaders in change are not opting for the 'top down' or the 'bottom up' approaches. They are combining the best of both approaches and embracing the contradictions and tensions between them. They have found a way of leading and learning, of providing direction and allowing autonomy; of being forthright and listening (p159)."

In October 1998 a large group of staff and students (about thirty people in total) from a number of areas within the University was brought together to begin planning a large and complex project which would help solve this problem for customers of the university. At this stage all we knew was what we wanted -

Draft vision statement

Our administrative and support services complement and contribute to the positive learning experience of students at the University.

Specifically we will:

• Define customer expectations and clarify reasonable service outcomes
• Review current student administration arrangements
• Improve administrative services by clearly defining and simplifying processes, roles and responsibilities
• Identify appropriate resources to ensure these service areas successfully improve services to students
• Establish services areas for students that meet the diversity of expectations and requirements

We established a number of smaller groups at the first meeting to make the task more manageable:

• Consultation - assessed staff and student perceptions about administrative services. Later this group became the publicity and communications group

• Staffing and management structures - devised an organisational structure that would bring two distinct work areas together as well as ensure existing staff from disestablished areas had continuing employment. This group also devised a training program

• Processes - identified the services that would be provided, documented and critiqued existing processes and identified new ones

• Building and facilities - found space on each campus, designed the space with customers and staff in mind, and kept a check on all the small, but important things that take care of the "hygiene" issues for staff and customers.

Services provided

• computer terminals: to enable students to access common University information themselves such as timetables, policies, course information, etc; to send e-mail to staff
• internal use only phones: to enable students to contact academic staff
• TV monitors: to enable the cycling of power point presentations, for specific student information
• A second TV showing commercial programs to assist students deal with longer waiting times during peak service demand periods, and for students waiting for interviews or for other students
• Information boards/forms displayed and benches for filling in forms
• Interview rooms for appointments and responding to complex student problems
• digital staff phones: to enable "group hunt" call distribution and enquiry pick up
• standardised University wide IT configurations for staff computers
• standardised campus central email addresses eg campuscentral.cityeast@unisa.edu.au
• standardised phone and fax enquiry numbers: common suffixes for all campuses

• information and advice about courses, subjects and progress through their course
• amend their enrolment, apply for leave from their studies, withdraw from a course or subject
• apply for course transfer/ cross institutional study/ non award study
• change personal details
• apply for credit/ exemption
• lodge appeals against grades or academic review decisions
• apply for special exam arrangements, special consideration or deferral of exams
• apply for academic transcripts and conferral of their award
• get information about support and other services available both on and off campus, including accommodation, financial assistance etc.
• get HECs payment option forms
• get class and exam timetable information
• pay for and pick up readers
• make room bookings

Evaluating our performance

Campus Central represents the building of a learning network, a virtual community as well as a physical one. Membership cuts horizontally across structural barriers of different organisational units whether academic or services. It also cuts vertically across the hierarchy of line management in both the division and service units and overlays a common campus space for coordinated customer delivery. This cross functional network was created, nurtured and supported by the Senior Quality Officer who with the mandate from the Vice Chancellor persuaded staff to relinquish territory, authority and space in order to create a new service delivery function that no single unit alone could achieve. Campus Central is a unique organisational as well as physical space.

This project has highlighted the importance of building an effective team to achieve the changes that are inevitable and necessary for a responsive organisation. However, senior management support, particularly support from the Vice Chancellor was also critical. They gave us the resources and the authority to make it happen.

Extending the methodology

The establishment of Campus Central had highlighted a number of disjunctions between school and Campus Central processes and indeed the service ethos. It was therefore apparent that we needed to continue the same examination of roles and procedures at this level. The role of a Head of School had also changed significantly as a result of the same restructuring that led to us rethinking student and academic administration. The new Head of School role requires a much higher level of support than previously provided. For example, assistance with budget development and monitoring, School data collection and analysis, strategic planning and administrative management.

We wanted to put in place an effective administration to support schools as the core academic and work unit. Our task has been much more complex because of the range of interdependencies between the school and other areas of the University. In our view administration and management are a core organisational activity required to support effective academic leadership although generally this is only implicit in discussions about the work of universities. Specifically we wanted a fresh look at some key issues:

• leadership tasks within a school
• administrative functions needed by the school and how they can contribute to School goals and core activities
• re-engineering or rethinking of administrative work to relieve academic staff of these tasks
• rethinking administrative work to ensure we provide professionally rewarding careers for administrative staff
• the relationship between administrative processes across the University (School, Division and University wide)

We commenced with an extensive consultation process in each of the Divisions involving students and key groups of administration, technical and academic staff. The report summarising all individual and group consultations also included a number of recommendations. These recommendations reflected a collective understanding of the issues and proposed a way forward based on key principles and agreements. Implementation has involved breaking down the tasks into some key areas and a number of smaller groups have again been established;

• Human resources - developed a suite of position descriptions based on key result areas and developed the framework for managing change to ensure fair HR management practices are implemented

• Training - conducted a skills analysis for existing administrative staff to identify training needs for the new roles and implemented a pilot program based on key skill areas for the group in two Divisions

• Process documentation and analysis -in each Division a template has been used to identify the roles of all staff, analyse workloads, identify back up arrangements, areas of improvement and gaps with existing School administration processes. There have also been discussions within divisional offices about their administrative responsibilities and the relationship between schools, divisions and university wide units. Ultimately we intend to produce a service agreement which describes the contributions of each level to core administrative functions.

• Structures/ staffing plans - this has been essentially a School specific exercise involving discussions with key staff in the Division and each school. It is based on data about the current and future profile of the school, the process/ task information collected about current staff and school arrangements, and discussions about an ideal staffing structure for the future. The final stage is to identify in a fairly pragmatic way what can be achieved immediately based on existing staff and resources.

From local initiative to strategic imperative

• review core school administration functions
• clarify accountabilities and responsibilities for key functions in relation to school, division and university-wide levels
• clarify key responsibilities for school administration staff
• prepare a suite of position descriptions for school administration which can then be used by divisions/ schools to put together their own staffing structures based on needs, school size, budgets etc.
• develop service standards for school and divisional administrative services
• undertake a skills audit for school administrative and clerical staff
• develop and pilot a training program for school administration staff
• review of the role and key responsibilities of Course Coordinators[2]
• review of Head of School delegations and academic leadership within the School

At this point the outstanding issues relate to academic leadership roles within schools, most notably the role of the Course Coordinator. A core function identified within school administration is support to course and subject coordinators. However, to identify general staff responsibilities it is first necessary to clarify the roles of academic staff. In addition, the introduction of performance management and the large number of sessional staff have also raised the issue of span of control for the Head of School, specifically their capacity to manage the large number of permanent, contract and sessional staff. This is linked to the broader issues around academic leadership within schools to successfully achieve school goals across a broad range of activities.

Our work here also challenges existing notions about the distinctive nature of academic and general staff work, providing instead an example of how the roles are sometimes not easily separated. We have preferred to think about the university worker where all staff make an important contribution, where roles are linked and better integrated, a team rather than individualistic approach to work which removes the dualism of academic and non-academic (general) staff.

"... the actual and potential blurring of roles is important, and will continue to grow in significance as universities move into more flexible modes of delivery of teaching and learning and as they seek to support and reward staff for their skills, performance and potential rather than on the basis of job classifications". (Coaldrake and Stedman, 1999; 16)

Having an impact on the whole organisation

The realisation of Campus Central and the changes we are now making within schools and divisions in this organisational environment are an even greater achievement. In Dunphy and Stace's model (1995:72) representing a scale of organisational change from type 1, fine tuning to type 4, corporate transformation, both projects meet the criteria for corporate transformation. They involve major changes in structures, systems and processes across the organisation; and revised interaction patterns and work flows, communication networks and decision making processes across the organisation.

There are some clear success factors learnt through the experiences of these projects which have implications for organisational development and change processes;

• there is a need to balance top down and bottom up approaches (senior management support as well as employee involvement in decision making);
• effective change management involves developing frameworks of coordination and cooperation - linking different parts of the organisation (systems thinking);
• there needs to be constant 'selling' of the problem or issue in order to build a broad base of commitment to find new solutions;
• we need to listen to objections and value difference and where possible involve opponents in the change process;
• building shared meanings and identifying key principles, rather than striving for consensus, can assist with managing difference;
• organisational change needs to be seen as part of a continuous improvement strategy and not an end in itself;
• we need to develop and foster a partnership approach internally - a model of organisational learning where administration, management and service are seen as core activities along with teaching, scholarship, research and community service; and
• an internal communication strategy is a vital component of any organisational change process.

"No matter the tools used, iterative strategic thinking and thinking must be an ongoing process for any organization engaged in the transformation of its boundaries. Given the pace of environmental change, static strategic planning is much less effective." (p337)

References

Binney, G. and Williams, C. 1995, Learning into the future. Changing the way people change organisations, Brearley, London.

Blanchard, R.F. and Galloway, R.L. 1994, "Quality in retail banking", International Journal of Service Industry Management, vol. 5, no. 4, pp5-23.

Bradley, D. 2000, UniSA - Organisational Learning (internal discussion paper)

Coaldrake, P. and Stedman, L. 1999, Academic Work in the Twenty-first Century: Changing roles and policies, DETYA Higher Education Division.

Cronin, J.J. and Taylor, S.A. 1992, "Measuring Service Quality: A Re-examination and Extension", in Journal of Marketing, vol. 56, no. 3, pp55-68.

Dunphy, D. & Stace, D. 1995, Under new management - Australian organisations in transition, McGraw Hill, Sydney.

Illes, L.M. 1999, "Ecosystems and villages: Using transformational metaphors to build community in higher education institutions", Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, vol. 21, no. 1, pp57-71.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. 1985, "A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and Its Implications for Future Research", Journal of Marketing, vol. 49, no. 4, pp 41-50.

Sawatzki, M. 1994, "A culture of service at the system level", The Workplace in Education - Australian Perspectives, ACEA, Rydalmere, chpt 8, pp79-92.

Schulz, L. 1999, New frontiers in customer relationship management, Paper presented at Contact Australia '99 Conference.

Endnotes

1. The University of South Australia operates across six campuses, providing some 600 courses onshore, offshore and by distance education. There are approximately 25,000 students and 1800 staff. There are now four key academic divisions (bringing together some 27 Schools) and about 15 administrative/ support units. The organisational structure is relatively flat with two key layers of management. The senior management team includes the Vice Chancellor, Executive Director: Resources and seven Pro Vice Chancellors who lead the academic divisions as well as three coordinating portfolios. The second layer of management includes Heads of School and Directors/ Managers of administrative units.

2. Course Coordinators provide a critical support role to students from enrolment through to graduation, assisting with subject choices, signing off on changes, etc. They also provide a "leadership" role in relation to the course team, relevant profession and industry bodies and in the planning and review of the course. Over time this has become an increasingly administrative role.