Post on 08-May-2015
transcript
Delayering the organisation in a radically open wayThe University of Hertfordshire Agile ProgrammeAlan Combes – Head of Improvement and Planning
2
The case for change
`The current structure has worked well and as a
university we are achieving great things. This change is
about ensuring the University stays ahead of the game
and is able to adapt and move with agility as demands
from students and changes to the sector become
apparent.’
`The aim of the change is to reduce complexity and
improve the effectiveness and agility of the
organisation’Quintin McKellar,
Vice Chancellor, July 2011
Initial Feasibility –
analysing faculty
roles, processes
and activities
Devolve to
Schools or
Centralise?
Overall aims of the Programme
• Consolidate emerging Strategic Business Unit model
establish consistent roles in each management team
• Devolve responsibility/governance where possible
• Reduce organisational/process/decision complexity
enabling more decision making at a local level• Enhance strategic focus and leadership
Delivering a more focussed, clearly led and agile organisation
How?
The Approach to change…
1. The VC addressed the community immediately with key principles:
We believe this is right, we want staff involved in developing the solutions
The key driver is agility and effectiveness not cost reduction
Roles and reporting lines may change but no-one will be at risk of redundancy
The Programme will be cost and headcount neutral
There will be no new SBUs
Both operational management and governance needs will be met
2. Team/project oriented within an overarching programme of works
Dedicated programme management group established
3. Opportunities for process and operational improvement will be maximised
4. Very regular and consistent communications
Programme Management – APMG / IPO
Champion - VC
Infrastructure: IT-Systems / Estates
People
Communications and Involvement
Finance
Work
streams
Impact
Assessment
Work stream 1 Work stream 2 Work stream 3 Work stream 4 Work stream 5 Work stream 6 Work stream 7 Work stream 8
Finalisation of Top Level
Organisation
Technicians Review
Procurement Centralisation
Health Schools Reorg
Faculty Academic
Roles
Governance (Committees and Policy)
Faculty Admin Reorganisation
PVC / HOS/AHOS
Leader Leader Leader Leader Leader Leader Leader Leader
Work stream Project Team
Work stream Project Team
Work stream Project Team
Work stream Project Team
Work stream Project Team Work stream
Project Team Work stream Project Team
Work stream Project Team
HR Business Partner
HR Business Partner
HR Business Partner
HR Business Partner
HR Business Partner
HR Business Partner
HR Business Partner
HR Business Partner
Facilitator Facilitator Facilitator Facilitator Facilitator Facilitator Facilitator Facilitator
RTU rep RTU rep RTU rep RTU rep RTU rep
Other specialists
Other specialists
Other specialists
Other specialists
Other specialist
Other specialists
Other specialists
Other specialists
Wider engagement activities and inclusion of volunteers
Managem
entAgile Programme
Timescales and phasing
Engagement and Design
Review and formal Consultation
Implementation
July 2011 September 2012VC’sannouncement
Proposals published
Structures agreed
Organisation in place
January 2012
May2012
1st Sept2012
Autumn 2011
Feb - April
May - Sept Embedding
2013-14
Engagement statistics
• Programme Management Group = IPO head plus 5 senior staff
Met weekly or fortnightly for the whole year
• More than 500 staff were directly affected
by either organisational or role change
• 75 members of staff supported the core work streams
• More than 300 staff attended over 40 ‘involvement meetings’
facilitated by the work streams
• More than 600 staff attended 40 `briefing meetings’
chaired by line managers, supported by HR and attended by Trade Unions.
• Over 200 written consultation responses were received,
summarised WITH RESPONSES and published openly
Impact of the change
• Substantially flatter structure
entire layer of faculty meetings, reviews and double checks removed
• Improved line of sight - Deans of Schools to the Deputy Vice Chancellor
leading to substantially communications and decision making
• Improved autonomy and accountability for Deans of School
managing technical staff, school based administration teams
a greater sense of ‘my school’ and improved pastoral care for every student
• Introduction of Strategic PVCs linked to specific named roles present in all
management teams
• Establishment of maximum spans of control requiring PLs to take on line
management
• Improved and more consistent job descriptions
Managed in an Open Engaged Planning Process
Strategic Plan
Expressed in our Organisational Structure
PVC
Stud
ent E
xper
ienc
e, P
VC B
usin
ess
Ente
rpris
ePV
C Re
sear
ch, P
VC In
tern
ation
alPV
C Re
gion
al a
nd C
ultu
ral A
ffairs
UH Embedded Strategy
Professional SBUs – services and advice
Academic SBUs*1. Business School2. Education3. Law4. Humanities5. Engineering & Technology6. Computer Science 7. Physics, Astronomy and
Maths8. Creative Arts9. Life and Medical Sciences10. Health and Social Work
DVC / OVC 5 Year Targets
Traffic Light Report 2 x per year
Measured in KPIs and Targets
October/November• Look back at previous
year• Performance review
May / June• Late mid year• Commentary based
Lead
ing
on S
trat
egic
G
oals
Management / Leadership Oversight / Balance
Annual Planning Round
Parallel, Integrated Capital Investment
Process
Transparent Overhead Allocation
Feb: Planning Conference• Context, constraintsApril: SubmissionsMay: 1-1 Planning Meetings • For all business units• Focus on goals and aspirations• Resulting in Budget and
Capital investment
PVCs
* Management roles aligned to PVCs
Clear budget position
Dean of School
Associate Dean Learning &
Teaching / Student Experience
School Administration Manager
Associate Dean Research
Associate Dean
Academic Quality
Associate Dean Business
Innovation
Associate Dean International and
Recruitment
TBC Head of ScreenHead of Visual Arts Head of Design Head of Music Academic Group
Leader Postgraduate
Technical and Resources Manager
School Typical Structure
Profs/Subject Group Leaders
Feedback – good and bad…
• Of 468 staff affected - one official grievance registered by a group of 5 staff
• Clearly some staff found the change very challenging
• Genuine effort to encourage staff to participate and influence the change
• Workstreams effective - but some inconsistency in approach
• Temprorary Transition resources required - not sufficiently considered
• Aggressive timescale and ‘big bang’ change created strain alongside business
as usual
• Equally – not knowing the outcome for six months created tension
• More time needed for implementation – has led to a number of post Agile
challenges
• Accept that the change isn’t finished when the Programme ends
Key Success Factors…
• A project oriented approach
• Sub-dividing the task into manageable pieces
• Active – very present Programme management providing an effective focus for leadership, governance , decision making and
communication
• Provision of clear leadership briefs for each stage
• IPO Facilitators and HR Business Partners for each project encouraging dialogue and consistency
• A heavy emphasis on communications and dialogueWe didn’t achieve all of these!!
Next steps
• Embedding the change through:
o Understanding the new roles
o Defining and refining the processes
o Developing staff
• Internal (IPO) Process Review of the Agile process
• SUMS-led B independent review of benefits/outcome
• Admitting something could have gone better
Any questions or observations?