48
Developing a Sustainable Plan for the Mayo Campus of Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology Report from the Working Group October 2017
Developing a Sustainable Plan for the
Mayo Campus of Galway-Mayo
Institute of Technology
Report from the Working Group
October 2017
2
Contents
1. Introduction and Overview of the Approach ................................................................................... 4
1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 4
1.2 The Sustainability Challenge at GMIT and the Mayo Campus ................................................. 4
1.3 Establishment of the Working Group ...................................................................................... 4
1.4 Defining Sustainability ............................................................................................................. 5
2. GMIT and the Mayo Campus ........................................................................................................... 7
2.1 GMIT and its Mission .............................................................................................................. 7
2.2 Development of the Mayo Campus ........................................................................................ 7
2.3 Current Provision on the Campus ........................................................................................... 9
2.4 Servicing the Region .............................................................................................................. 11
3. Assessing the Current Situation .................................................................................................... 16
3.1 Contracting Demand in Key Areas ........................................................................................ 16
3.2 Refocusing of Campus Strategy ............................................................................................ 18
3.3 Stronger Working Partnership between the Campus and Wider Institute .......................... 19
3.4 Financial Urgency of Finding a Solution ................................................................................ 20
3.5 Campus Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats ............................................... 21
4. A Vision for a Sustainable Mayo Campus ..................................................................................... 23
4.1 Harnessing the Commitment of Stakeholders ...................................................................... 23
4.2 Delivering on Regional Strategy ............................................................................................ 24
4.2 Proposed Vision for a Connected Mayo Campus.................................................................. 25
5. Sustainable Development Plan for the Mayo Campus .................................................................. 26
5.1 Governance and Management ............................................................................................. 26
5.2 Existing Programme Portfolio ............................................................................................... 28
5.3 New Programme Development ............................................................................................ 29
5.4 Distinct Marketing of the Mayo Campus .............................................................................. 31
5.5 Campus Infrastructure .......................................................................................................... 33
5.6 Enterprise Development ....................................................................................................... 33
5.7 Wider Engagement ............................................................................................................... 35
5.8 Funding and Financial Sustainability ..................................................................................... 37
6. Implementation, Targets and Milestones ..................................................................................... 39
6.1 Implementation of the Plan .................................................................................................. 39
6.2 Student Growth and the Campus Income Base .................................................................... 39
6.3 Realising a Sustainable Cost Base ......................................................................................... 41
6.4 Disruptive Change to Secure Sustainability .......................................................................... 41
3
6.5 Summary of the Financial Plan.............................................................................................. 42
Appendix 1: GMIT Working Group Membership .................................................................................. 44
Appendix 2: Submissions Received ....................................................................................................... 45
Appendix 3: List of Stakeholders met by Working Group ..................................................................... 46
Appendix 4: Proposed Mayo Sub-Committee Terms of Reference ...................................................... 47
4
1. Introduction and Overview of the Approach
1.1 Introduction
This report sets out a plan to ensure a sustainable future for the Mayo campus of Galway-Mayo
Institute of Technology (GMIT). It describes the extensive process of consultation and analysis
undertaken by the Working Group, the context underpinning the current characteristics and
performance of the Mayo campus, a proposed vision around which the future development of the
campus should be framed, and key themes and recommendations to set a future direction for ensuring
sustainability.
1.2 The Sustainability Challenge at GMIT and the Mayo Campus
GMIT operates across 5 different campuses in Galway and Mayo. The Institute is facing significant
financial challenges, with operating deficits in each of the last four years leading to rapidly declining
reserves. This prompted its categorisation as one of six vulnerable IoTs in early 2016, with GMIT
agreeing to prepare an externally validated three year plan to bring the institute back into a balanced
budget position. GMIT has taken significant remedial action to address its deficit, with this new
financial plan identifying key actions including:
New programme development to increase student numbers
Addressing over-staffing and significantly reducing staff costs
Further implementation of a new retention strategy
Differentiating GMIT’s offering from other HEIs to increase demand
While these actions reflect institute-wide issues, there has been particular concern over the financial
performance of the Mayo Campus, with a deficit of €1.6m budgeted for operations on this campus in
2017 alone (before the application of any central overhead costs). The Department of Education and
Skills (DES), the Higher Education Authority (HEA) and GMIT itself have stressed that the Mayo campus
must remain an integral part of the institute, and that a sustainable way forward must be found. Nevertheless, there has been strong and growing concern from the staff, students and wider
community in Mayo that the future of the college was under threat, and that affirmative action was
required in order to safeguard its future.
1.3 Establishment of the Working Group
In response to these issues, in March 2017, the Taoiseach and the Minister for Education and Skills
announced the establishment of a Working Group to formulate a plan for a sustainable future and
growth options for the GMIT Mayo Campus in Castlebar.
Membership of the GMIT Working Group comprised representatives of GMIT Executive Management
Team, student and staff representatives from the Mayo Campus, the Mayo Enterprise Group, Mayo
County Council, the Department of Education and Skills and the HEA. The individual members of the
group are listed as Appendix 1. Other staff members from GMIT, DES and the HEA have assisted the
Group as required.
The Working Group was chaired by Mr Andrew Brownlee, Head of System Funding at the HEA and it
was charged with providing a report to the HEA’s Finance Committee by the end of the third quarter
of 2017. It was stipulated that the process should include:
5
As an objective, developing a plan for a sustainable future and growth options for GMIT Mayo
Campus, Castlebar;
To this end, identify the key current and prospective opportunities and a roadmap to develop
these;
Including an Implementation Plan in order to get there
The Working Group has met for 6 full-day sessions to develop this plan: on 15th May, 2nd June, 6th June,
29th June, 14th August and 19th September. To inform the work of the Group, a base of information
was gathered including an analysis of labour market needs in the region, student supply and demand,
the role of the further education sector and the impact of the campus on the local and regional
economy. The views of external stakeholders were sought in relation to these matters and 23
submissions or letters have been received and considered by the Working Group on the future
development of the Mayo Campus, with further details set out in Appendix 2. Engagement with
stakeholders was principally via 4 open fora with a wider range of regional stakeholders, regular
meetings with campus staff, and an open session for students at the campus. In addition, the Chair of
the Working Group briefed the Governing Body of GMIT on 25th May on the planned process, and a
further consultation session with members was held on 29th June. The Chair also had a discussion with
Mr Michael O’Connell, an external financial expert who produced a report on the sustainability of the
institute for GMIT with recommendations which fed into the three year financial plan agreed with the
HEA. The Executive Management Team of GMIT met with the Working Group on 6th June 2017. A list
of external stakeholders met by the Group in the course of their work is included in Appendix 3.
1.4 Defining Sustainability
The aim of this document is to set out a plan for the sustainable future for the Mayo campus, and it is
important to define clearly at the outset what sustainability means in this context. There is already a
significant financial deficit incurred in operating the campus as it stands, even before any central
overheads are charged to its activities, as would be the case across other business units of the
institute. At the same time, it must be understood that a core principle of the funding of higher
education in Ireland is the allocation of block grants to individual institutions, offering them the
discretion to direct expenditure into areas of greatest strategic need. Multi-campus, regionally
focused provision is central to the mission of GMIT, and a number of other IoTs, and some cross-
subsidisation of activities in its smaller campuses should be expected. However subvention for
additional regional campuses should not be to the extent that it undermines the ongoing viability of a
wider institution.
Ultimately, sustainability will mean a manageable ongoing contribution from GMIT and from the
Exchequer to directly subsidise running costs, coupled with an increased student cohort supporting
greater revenue generation and a closely controlled cost base that will allow the Mayo campus to
breakeven each year. This may require some short to medium term investment to address issues,
develop opportunities, allow new programmes to be properly established and structural changes to
be realised, but any such additional investment should be time-bound and must end with a sustainable
institution trading on this basis.
The Working Group consider that a fair and manageable contribution from GMIT should represent the
coverage of central overhead costs which would otherwise be applied to the campus. Under current
conditions, this effectively represents a subvention of €800,000 from GMIT. The goal then becomes a
breakeven position for the campus on a marginal cost basis, covering only those costs directly relating
to campus operation.
6
As we will discuss later in this report, this itself presents a major challenge given the fall in student
numbers over recent years. It is our view that this cost gap will only be fully closed by increasing the
whole-time equivalent student base to 850-900 students alongside other income generation and cost
reduction measures, and this has framed the development of the plan.
7
2. GMIT and the Mayo Campus
2.1 GMIT and its Mission
The five campuses operated by GMIT - at Letterfrack,
Mountbellew and Castlebar, and at Dublin Road and
CCAM in Galway - reflect the Institute’s strong
commitment to local access to higher education and
serving as a driver of regional development. This is
reflected in a strong and focused mission that recognises
its role in providing learning opportunities at all stages of
life, and in a series of GMIT values:
Higher education for the benefits it brings to society and the individual
Equity in support of social cohesion
The role of education as a catalyst for change
Participating in regional development
GMIT’s statutory role, as defined by the Institute of Technology Act 2006, is to “provide vocational
and technical education and training for the economic, technological, scientific, commercial,
industrial, social and commercial development of the State with particular reference to the region
served by the college”
GMIT, as part of the Connacht-Ulster Alliance with IT Sligo and Letterkenny IT, is working towards
technological university status. With legislation to facilitate the creation of this new type of multi-
campus institution expected within the next 12 months, this will provided potential for a further step
in the evolution of the institute and its five individual campuses, embedding their role in the wider
development of the region.
2.2 Development of the Mayo Campus
The Mayo campus was established in 1994, building the existing Galway Regional Technical College
(RTC) to form the Galway-Mayo RTC, with Dr Richard Thorn as Head of Campus and approximately 90
full-time students registered as its first cohort. Co-located with Mayo University Hospital in Castlebar,
it is less than a 10 minute walk from
the town centre. This provides
access to a wide range of facilities
and natural amenities which
strengthens many of the
programmes offered. On campus,
there is a running track, pitch,
indoor climbing wall and a multi-
purpose sports hall. The buildings
were previously part of St. Mary’s
psychiatric hospital and were not
purpose built for education, making
it expensive to adapt it for teaching
and learning purposes. Much of the
structure is quite dated and
GMIT MISSION
At GMIT we develop lifelong learning opportunities through our teaching
and research, by supporting regional development consistent with national
higher education policy
8
inflexible making it extra expensive to create larger spaces within it, therefore, many of the rooms are
not ideally sized. Shared teaching space equates to approximately two-thirds of the campus, with the
rest providing library, student support and central administration services. In common with most IoTs,
the lack of capital investment in recent years raises a number of ongoing infrastructure challenges,
including the replacement of the roof and windows, laboratory upgrades and room refurbishment and
the upgrade of sports pitches.
While being a core part of GMIT, with overall responsibility resting with the GMIT President and
Governing Body, a devolved governance structure was put in place in the early years of campus
operation. A sub-committee of the Governing Body was established, involving some of its members,
the Head of the Mayo Campus, staff and student representatives and industry and other regional
stakeholders, to ensure that the campus remained responsive to the needs within its immediate
region. An independent budget was also set for the campus, as part of the overall annual budgeting
arrangements at the time between the RTCs and the (then) Department of Education and Science.
The first graduates from the campus were conferred in 1996, with 47 Level 6 (National Diploma)
awards in business, construction and computing. A year later the first Level 7 award was conferred,
with 7 students graduating with a Bachelor Degree in Computing. The first Level 8 Honours Degree
was awarded in 2001 in Heritage Studies, and with the exception of occasional Level 9 Masters by
Research projects, this has remained the highest level of provision on the campus.
In 1997, RTCs across Ireland were granted Institute of Technology status and the campus became part
of the Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology. Dr Kate Sweeney took over as Head of Campus in 2001.
Over the first decade of operations, the student base on campus grew steadily, and by 2005 there
were over 1,000 registered learners, with the number of awards conferred peaking at 525. By this
point the course portfolio had expanded, covering new areas like nursing (graduating students from
2003), outdoor education (from 2002) and heritage studies (from 2001), alongside a range of courses
across the original focus of business, computing and construction. The introduction of applied social
studies, with awards conferred from 2009/10, was the only new course introduced since that time to
continue to generate a sustainable base of students.
The attractiveness of the campus was boosted in 2006, when purpose-built residences were opened
within a short distance of the campus for up to 350 students. Business incubation facilities were also
established on the campus in 2006, with the opening of the Innovation Hub, providing enterprise start-
up space to support entrepreneurship in the region, with 30 companies having transitioned out of the
Innovation Hub to date, generating a total of €5million investment to support their growth and
development. These facilities are now complemented by the delivery of the New Frontiers enterprise
start-up programme, funded by Enterprise Ireland, which supports between 8-10 new entrepreneurs
on the Mayo campus each year.
Dr Barbara Burns was appointed as Head of Campus from 2007 to 2012, the last person to have this
permanent dedicated leadership role. Since 2012, the Institute has elected to use acting or dual remit
appointments to fill the campus role. Over the period 2011-2016, the campus reputation in
environmental sustainability grew, and it became the first IoT to be awarded a green flag for
environmental excellence. This was secured for litter, waste, energy and biodiversity and led to its
branding as Ireland’s first green campus. A sanctuary garden was created, the swift nest nature project
was established, a native tree planting programme introduced and a woodland trail created. In 2016,
the integration of the campus with the wider environment was further enhanced with the
construction of an outdoor classroom, the first facility of its kind in Ireland, by GMIT’s outdoor
education staff and students.
9
There are currently 60 academic and 30 non-academic whole-time equivalent (WTE) staff on the
campus. The scale of the campus, and its commitment to maintaining a sense of community and strong
link to the wider town, county and region in which it sits, has developed strong collaborative working
and learning practices among and between its staff and students. This has been reflected in outreach
provision across the region (e.g. from Belmullet) and the campus has also developed a sustained
reputation in the provision of lifelong learning and providing access to higher education for mature
learners that would not otherwise be able to avail of such opportunities. About a quarter of academic
staff are research-active and this also contributes to ensuring high quality and evolving learning
experiences. The campus also benefits from a very organised and active student body, which is also
reflected in the large number of clubs and societies which are active.
2.3 Current Provision on the Campus
As at March 2017, there were 832 registered students in total on the Mayo campus. Of this number,
645 were full-time and 187 part-time learners. While this reflects the importance of the campus as a
resource for lifelong learning in the region, it is also important to recognise that from a funding
perspective, part-time students only contribute a portion of the HEA funding per student than for a
full-time undergraduate. For this reason, the main unit of measurement for student numbers is around
whole time equivalents (WTEs), which dilutes the part-time student base proportionately in line with
the number of credits that are being pursued by the learner during the year. The WTE student base
on the Mayo campus at March 2017 was 688.25. This represents approximately 10% of overall GMIT
student numbers. Part-time fee income to be provided.
In Figure 2.1, we set out the recent trends in full-time, part-time and WTE student numbers on the
Mayo campus. Full-time students have declined by over 25% since 2010/11, with 226 full-time
enrolments lost over this period, while part-time students remain at around the 200 mark. This of
course has had an effect on whole-time equivalent student numbers, which drive the funding model
for higher education, with 824.4 WTEs in 2014/15 compared to 680.9 in 2016/17. It is important to
note that student numbers across GMIT as a whole also declined, by around 10%, between 2008 and
2015, at a time when the IoT sector student base grew by 24%. This meant that the share of the fixed
pot of funding for GMIT was declining, raising issues as to its ongoing financial sustainability.
FIGURE 2.1: TRENDS IN MAYO CAMPUS FULL-TIME, PART-TIME AND TOTAL STUDENT NUMBERS
871829
764 770806
745
645
256 239 208125 143
225187
11271068
972895
949 970
832
2010/2011 2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014 2014/2015 2015/2016 2016/2017
Full Time Part Time Total
10
Source: GMIT
Although enrolments have been in decline, retention rates remained relatively strong, with average
rates across all years of study higher than the overall institution rates, as shown in Figure 2.2.
FIGURE 2.2: OVERALL RETENTION RATES ACROSS GMIT
However this benefits considerably from the high national retention rates across nursing degrees, and
there remain specific programme issues to be addressed, particularly around certain business courses
and outdoor education. There is also concern about the first year retention rate for the Mayo campus,
a key focus of GMIT retention initiatives, which fell to 71% in 2016/17 which is below the overall
institute average and has declined quite sharply over the last two years, as set out in Figure 2.3.
FIGURE 2.3: FIRST YEAR RETENTION RATES ON MAYO CAMPUS AND ACROSS GMIT
11
The Mayo campus offers a wide multi-disciplinary portfolio, in keeping with its original design as a
centre of regional higher education (rather than a specialist school), covering areas including:
Business (business, administration and ICT skills, accounting and financial management)
Health and Social Care (nursing, psychiatric nursing, applied social care, early childhood
education)
Arts and Humanities (outdoor education, contemporary art practice, history and geography)
Technology (digital media and society, information technology support)
Sustainable Building Technology
There is also languages teaching capability on campus which allows language options to be
incorporated within campus programmes. Indeed the cross-fertilisation of degree programmes from
other disciplines and functions on campus has become an increasing feature across the campus. For
example, business modules support courses in health and environment and social care modules are
embedded within the outdoor education offering. 51% of all campus modules are shared across more
than one programme. The interdisciplinary nature of the campus and the way in which this influences
how programmes are developed and delivered is considered to be a major attribute by staff which
allows it to meet the needs of learners within the region. However it also means that the removal of
programmes can have an impact on other provision that benefits from such shared modules.
While overall student numbers have been declining in recent years, the health and social care offering
has in contrast being growing strongly, albeit restricted by reductions in nursing student quotas which
undermined the financial performance of nursing programmes in recent years. Building on the
longstanding provision of nursing education, the development of social care and childhood education
and development programmes has seen this area grow substantially, while the nursing quotas have
been increased again in each of the last two years.
As we have noted, the campus has a strong lifelong learning focus, with a range of academic and other
learning opportunities, including short duration skills-oriented courses to meet particular industry and
regional needs. Part-time courses are offered on the Mayo campus in the areas of business, HR, social
studies and contemporary art practices.
We understand that the campus has developed good European and international links and is very
active in Erasmus+ programmes. Formal partnerships have been developed with higher education
institutions in the Netherlands, France, the US, Spain and Saudi Arabia. This could be reflected in a
larger base of international students, which stood at only 17 in March 2017. The challenge of growing
international student numbers is one that is shared with the wider institute, which also has a relatively
low base, and must be prioritised in delivering this plan.
2.4 Servicing the Region
With a population of over 12,000, Castlebar is the main town in County Mayo, although a smaller
conurbation than many host locations of higher education across Ireland. From a GMIT perspective,
there are advantages and disadvantages to this, with a low cost of living and a high quality natural
environment all of potential benefit in attracting students to the institute. On the other hand, the
town does not boast the type of facilities that a student might expect from a college experience. The
town is served by good rail links, with four services a day linking it to regional destinations on the
Dublin line including Westport, Ballyhaunis, Claremorris, Castlerea, Roscommon and Athlone. Despite
12
its small size, Castlebar does offer good sport and leisure facilities including gyms, swimming pools,
sports pitches and courts, cinema and bowling. An outdoor pursuits centre was planned by Mayo
County Council adjacent to the campus which would complement the outdoor education provision
and provide a further valuable student amenity. We do however understand that these plans are at
risk and GMIT should work closely with the Council to establish if a collaborative approach can ensure
that they are brought to fruition.
Like all higher education campuses across the west coast, a major challenge exists from a relatively
stagnant population base within its catchment, certainly in comparison with the substantial
demographic growth being experienced across the rest of the county. As set out in Table 2.2, the
western region grew by 0.9% in the period from 2011 to 2016, with growth almost wholly driven by
Galway expansion, while the equivalent rate was 5% in Leinster and 3.9% overall. Mayo, Donegal and
Sligo were the only counties in Ireland to experience a decline in population over this period. Higher
education participation rates are high in Mayo at 60% compared to a national average of 51.5%, in
common with other neighbouring counties Galway (60%), Roscommon (59%) and Sligo (58%)1.
FIGURE 2.2: REGIONAL POPULATION TRENDS 2011-2016
Area Population 2011 Population 2016 Actual Change (2011-2016)
% Change (2011-2016)
Clare 117,196 118,627 1,431 1.2% Donegal 161,137 158,755 -2,382 -1.5% Galway City 75,529 79,504 3,975 5.3% Galway County 175,124 179,048 3,924 2.2% Leitrim 31,798 31,972 174 0.6% Mayo 130,638 130,425 -213 -0.2% Roscommon 64,065 64,436 371 0.6% Sligo 65,393 65,357 -36 -0.1% Western Region 820,880 828,124 7,244 0.9% State 4,588,252 4,757,976 169,724 3.7% Rest of State 3,767,372 3,929,852 162,480 4.3%
Source: Western Development Commission Analysis of CSO Census of Population 2016
The majority of students (59%) enrolled at the campus in 2016/17 are from Mayo, with Galway
accounting for a further 15%. Some of the programmes such as nursing and outdoor education have
a wider catchment area and there is quite a diverse spread of remaining students across Ireland, as
set out in Figure 2.3.
1 Source: National Plan for Equity of Access to Higher Education 2015-2019
13
FIGURE 2.3: ORIGIN OF STUDENTS ATTENDING MAYO CAMPUS
Source: GMIT
Although the Mayo campus draws significantly on its home county for its students, lifelong learners
make an important contribution to this, and its ability to attract school leavers from Mayo appears to
be a major weakness. There are 27 schools in Mayo providing second level education, with 10,781
pupils in 2016, an increase of 3.4% from 20112. This equates to a Leaving Certificate cohort of 1,627
potentially seeking third level education opportunities. Despite this, only 40 school leavers from the
county took up a course on the campus in 2016/17, while 212 actually selected a course on the Galway
campus of GMIT. There was also a flow to IT Sligo and NUI Galway, with students attracted by larger
scale institutions with greater surrounding amenities. There also appears to be an issue around the
criteria for SUSI student grants that encourages some students to leave the county, with a lower
'adjacent rate' of maintenance grant paid to those within 45km of the campus, incentivising going to
college elsewhere to avail of a higher level of funding.
Providing access to higher education is a critical mission of the college, and 8 of the 27 are DEIS
schools. It is acknowledged that marketing and school liaison activities are linked to the GMIT access
office, with joint assessment of applications and annual promotion of access scholarships. However
the outreach and access support work undertaken by the local IoT could play a more significant role
in enticing pupils from these schools than the current pipeline suggests. Schools do not seem fully
aware of the access routes to GMIT and of the access scholarship in particular and there is potential
for schools to play a more active role in identifying children and referring them to the Institute. This
should be a further focus of school liaison activity, with potential for improved synergies between the
marketing and school liaison function in GMIT and its access activities.
Programmes similar to HEAR and DARE must also be fully utilised to ensure that opportunities on the
Mayo campus are fully articulated to disadvantaged target groups, and that students from these
groups that decide to come to Mayo are then sufficiently supported throughout the course of their
study. The Business for Schools initiative is an excellent example of how schools in the region can be
2 Source: Department of Education and Skills
14
engaged around interesting projects to entice interest in the offerings on campus, and more of these
initiatives should be rolled out.
A further source of potential students for the campus, where the Working Group heard feedback of
unfulfilled potential, was around progression from further education. There are currently nine PLC
colleges in the Mayo Sligo Leitrim ETB area with 1,300 students. Of the students enrolling in 2016/17,
just 22 progressed from further education, and there must be scope to improve links with further
education to communicate and facilitate progression routes from these colleges.
Servicing the regional industry base is also a critical mission of every IoT. Tourism and retail activity
dominates the Mayo economy and hence it is characterised by many small and micro enterprises,
although successful retail brands such as Horkans, Carraig Donn and Elverys have their origins in the
county and maintain bases there. There are major manufacturing employers in the vicinity of the
college, with Allergan, Ballina Beverages, Baxter and Holister, and also the specialist workwear and
clothing manufacturer Port West. These companies also work together as part of the Mayo Industries
Group, providing a further mechanism for engagement. The campus has worked well with these
companies in tailoring part-time courses to meet there needs, while also developing a wider course
of relevance in supervisory management, and this activity must be further developed to reinforce the
value of the campus to the regional economy. There is also an emergence of technology companies
within the region, taking advantage of improved ICT infrastructure, the potential of dispersed and
remote working and the attractiveness of a non-urban location for technology professionals. It was
great to see such companies as Lionbridge, Congregation Technology and Further Learning engage
with the Working Group and it will be important that the campus works with them to provide the skills
and support that they need to flourish in the region.
The Western Development Commission has identified the key regional growth sectors which will fuel
further economic development in the west, and these are set out in Figure 2.4. It is important that the
campus is responsive to the evolving needs of these sectors to support their growth and maximise the
employment potential for the future pipeline of graduates from GMIT.
15
FIGURE 2.4: KEY GROWTH SECTORS IN THE WESTERN REGION
During the consultation process, other opportunities were identified which are linked to such sectors.
These include supply chain management, with the campus equipping SMEs with the HR, finance,
administration and logistical skills to service the large multi-national manufacturers in the region. The
agricultural strength of the region would suggest potential development opportunities and links with
the Mountbellew campus around agriculture and rural enterprise, while the development of the
largest outdoor tourist facility in Ireland in nearby Longford suggests that the outdoor education
expertise held by the campus could be used to service future skills needs.
If the Mayo campus is to serve as a driver of regional upskilling, innovation and growth, it is important
that its work reinforces the agenda of all stakeholders with an interest in the development of the
region. In addition to collaboration with the Western Development Commission in the pursuit of the
growth opportunities identified above, a close working partnership with Mayo County Council is
essential in supporting the realisation of the county economic development plan. There are tangible
synergies around enterprise development and the marketing of the county which provide a
foundation for this relationship. The ETBs are another critical partner to ensure that there is a holistic
approach to servicing the post-secondary education and training needs of the region, and that the
further education colleges and GMIT work together to ensure progression pathways to underpin this
approach.
Finally, the Government’s new rural action plan, ‘Realising our Rural Potential’, sets out a direction,
and offers potential investment, to support the sustainable development of rural communities. The
campus is actively considering the development of a Centre for Community Sustainability, and this
could be an important driver of initiatives which will support the delivery of the national rural action
plan. The campus’s current capabilities, its links with wider regional stakeholders, and its focus on
three core rural sustainability areas - enterprise, health and the environment – means it is, and must
further develop, its pivotal role in this space.
Regional Growth Sectors
ICT (software developer,
programmer)
Engineering (precision
tool)
Food (higher value)
Green economy (energy,
retro fitting)
Tourism (outdoor, culture, water)
Life Sciences
(med devices & pharma)
Care (elder care,
residential & home care)
Creative (gaming,
digital media, art, crafts)
16
3. Assessing the Current Situation
3.1 Contracting Demand in Key Areas
The intake ‘capacity’ of the Mayo campus, as set out in the Academic Plan 2015-2019, is 414 students.
This means that if all full-time courses being offered on the Mayo campus for 2016/17 were taken up,
414 first years would have commenced in September last year. There were however just 191 Year 1
full-time undergraduate enrolments in Mayo for 2016/17, underlining the lack of demand for places
from Leaving Certificate pupils within its core catchment. Indications from first year registration to
date for 2017/18 on the Mayo campus suggests a similar intake for this academic year. The substantial
gap that remains between capacity and take-up suggests that demand must grow in order to underpin
core sustainability.
It is also important that such demand grows outside of health and social care provision within the
Mayo campus. This has been a major strength of the institute, with student numbers growing thanks
to strong demand and successful programme development. For example, the Institute developed a
new Level 7 Bachelor of Arts programme in Early Childhood Education and Care and took advanced
entry into second year of this programme requiring the recruitment of new staff. This programme has
attracted a very significant number of total and first preference applications for 2017/18 resulting in
an intake of 16 students in September 2017. The reversal of reductions in nursing quotas will also have
a positive impact in further developing provision in the health and social care area.
However outside this area of growth, there is evidence of severely contracting demand across other
disciplines. If we take the health and social care programmes out of the equation, Figure 3.1
demonstrates the sharp decline in places over the last few years, with full-time enrolments falling by
27.5% from 2014/15 to 2016/17.
FIGURE 3.1: TREND IN PROVISION OF NON HEALTH & SOCIAL CARE DISCIPLINES ON MAYO CAMPUS
Source: GMIT
The contraction in demand across other disciplines sparked significant institute concern about the
ongoing viability of particular courses. Indeed following annual internal programme review, the GMIT
Executive Board decided to suspend the following programmes due to insufficient levels of demand
and subsequent high delivery costs:
History and Geography,
Culture and Environment;
Sustainable Building Technology;
Digital Media and Society;
17
Higher Cert in Business with Administration and ICT.
The contraction in demand, and the resultant suspension of programmes, is reflected in a high
academic staff/student ratio on the campus of 11:1. This compares with a GMIT wide ratio of 16:1 and
an average ratio across the IoTs of 18:1. Such levels are clearly not sustainable into the medium and
long-term and a range of solutions need to be considered. First and foremost this should focus on
finding ways to develop new and market and revise existing programmes to increase demand.
However the institute also needs to consider how staff resources available could be used to progress
the marketing and operational changes needed to help the campus move towards sustainability and
allowing staff who wish to move to Galway the opportunity to do so.
While the decline in full-time enrolments is a key concern, there should be acknowledgement of the
efforts to develop part-time offerings to attract lifelong learners to the campus. The analysis in Figure
3.2 sets out the trends in student numbers across full-time and part-time provision for three ‘core’
areas, grouping the disciplines on offer across the campus as follows:
Enterprise (business and technology courses)
Environment (outdoor education; heritage/history & geography; sustainable business
technology)
Health (applied social care, nursing, early childhood education and care)
FIGURE 3.2: FULL-TIME, PART-TIME & WHOLE-TIME EQUIVALENT STUDENT TRENDS IN THREE CORE AREAS 3
Area 1st March 2014 1st March 2015 1st March 2016 1st March 2017
FT PT WTE FT PT WTE FT PT WTE FT PT WTE Applied Social Care 151 35 164.3 171 4 171.4 167 10 163.8 173 8 173.2
Nursing 162 162 169 168.3 156 156 158 156.6
HEALTH TOTAL 313 35 326.3 340 4 339.7 323 10 319.8 331 8 329.7
Business 152 84 178.3 140 84 175.6 139 133 186.7 96 135 155.4
Technology 131 127.8 132 11 134 104 25 116.5 74 4 72.1
BUSINESS TOTAL 283 84 306.1 272 95 309.6 243 158 303.2 170 139 227.5
Outdoor Education 122 1 119.1 128 9 126.1 121 16 120.3 101 16 99.8
Heritage 52 5 51.8 44 32 49 30 39 35 20 23 23.8
ENVIRONMENT TOTAL 174 6 170.9 172 41 175.1 151 55 155.3 121 39 123.6
CAMPUS TOTAL 770 125 803.2 784 140 824.4 717 223 778.3 622 186 680.9
Source: GMIT SRS Returns. A WTE (whole-time equivalent) is generally obtained by comparing a student's average number of credits to the
credits of a full-time student.
When trends are examined in this way, it suggests a more stable level of provision with each of the
three core areas thanks to some growth in part-time provision to 2016, although both part-time and
full-time students then dropped by 2017. Overall WTE numbers of under 700 are not sufficient to
sustain operations and there must be a strong focus on developing provision across these areas, if a
multi-disciplinary approach is to be maintained. The introduction of an early childhood education
programme, with early indications of strong demand, will play a role in further strengthening the
health pillar and growing this base of students, but expanding provision in other areas is also critical.
3 A student’s WTE is credit weighted as a proportion of 60 credits and therefore the WTE figure is not a cumulative total of FT and PT.
18
3.2 Refocusing of Campus Strategy
There has long been recognition of the distinct characteristics of the Mayo Campus and the need for
a tailored solution to maximise its performance and impact for the region. The campus has been
successful in the past, and there is a general consensus, from all internal (GMIT) and external
stakeholders we have met, that it can be so again with the correct focus and support.
The need for strong strategic direction in this regard is clear, and this has long been recognised, with
a Strategic Review of the Campus in 2005 reporting that “the key strategic issue facing the
organisation was its capacity to survive and compete in a changing and highly competitive educational
environment”.
The strategy for the Mayo Campus was developed during 2012/13 which was approved by the
Governing Body in May 2013. It focuses on the development of the campus in the areas of enterprise,
environment and health, aligning provision with key regional sector needs as set out earlier in this
document in Figure 2.4. The strategy also recognised the need to focus on particular areas of expertise
which could be marketed to school leavers, potential adult and lifelong learners and potential local
industry partners. It also maintained a commitment to a multi-disciplinary approach, building on the
synergies noted in section 2.2 and ensuring that the growth in health provision was balanced by clear
strategies to further enhance other areas of expertise.
The new strategy led to the implementation of a programme development plan. This led to the launch
of:
A Certificate in Supervisory Management as a flexible, part-time programme to meet the
needs of the region’s major employers (2015)
Two Springboard funded programmes in Construction (2015) and Sales/Customer Service
(2017) and the delivery of a medical device programme delivered on campus by GMIT staff
from the School of Science.
4 new ab-initios introduced (2015)
Level 7 degree in early childhood education and care (2016)
Level 8 international nursing programme (2016)
Level 8 Special Purpose Award in Health Informatics (2016)
There are also two new programmes currently going through the institute validation process: a
Masters in Quality and Safety in Health and Social Care and a Masters in Innovation in older people
care, which are intended to be launched during the 2017/18 academic year. The absence of
Springboard programmes in 2016 limited the options for social welfare offices seeking viable options
for claimants seeking to upskill or return to work, but the new sales focused Springboard programme
and a renewed construction programme are both up and running in 2017/18.
A review of the campus strategy undertaken in October 2016 noted this progress made in programme
development and in growing lifelong learning provision. It identified the strength and potential of the
health sciences proposition, but also highlighted the need to focus on developing the business and
environment propositions alongside this. Key recommendations made by this review included:
Support to exploit international student market opportunities
Mapping exercise with further education to build progression routes
Pilot a summer school to test revenue generation potential
Continue to develop new programmes, with the restructuring of business and technology
programmes a key priority
19
Active development of school links targeting the wider western and midlands region
Postgraduate development linked to the environment proposition
More distinct and visible marketing of the Mayo campus and its attributes
As we noted in Section 2.1, since 2012 there has been no permanent Head of the Mayo Campus in
place. Clearly a re-focusing of strategy needs to be led and driven by someone with dedicated and
overall responsibility for the development and operations of the campus, and this must be addressed
as an immediate priority in the implementation of an agreed campus sustainability plan.
3.3 Stronger Working Partnership between the Campus and Wider Institute
The focus of this document must be on the future, and setting out a long-term plan to ensure ongoing
sustainability. Nonetheless it is important to acknowledge the issues that have been raised by staff
and students on the Mayo campus regarding wider Institute decision-making and communication in
relation to the campus in recent years. The inputs from campus staff to the Working Group put
forward the proposition that there is a lack of understanding of the particular issues and challenges
facing the Mayo campus and of the operation of a multi-campus model and the opportunities that
could be exploited with a focused longer-term strategy. The Working Group has been encouraged by
the detailed and articulate analysis of the situation and potential proposals to achieve sustainability
from campus staff and students.
We also understand the difficult situation faced by the GMIT Executive Board in the urgent need to
address its financial deficit, and the need to consider the ongoing viability of courses and structural
issues around staffing. There is also a strong desire from the Executive Board to maintain a five campus
marketing strategy which should underpin a more integrated proposition across the entire institute,
which would seem a natural objective for any strategic higher education institution operating multiple
campuses.
However the starting point for a more integrated strategy, with the Mayo campus playing a full and
critical role in delivering on GMIT’s regional development remit, must include the rebuilding of trust
and a stronger working partnership between the campus and the wider institute. Significant damage
has been done from the publicity around the future status and direction of the campus, and this plan
must draw a line under these issues and offer clarity on how and why future campus decisions will be
made, providing a foundation for a new relationship between GMIT and the Mayo campus.
Leadership is key and a permanent dedicated Head of Campus would provide an important step in
driving forward the actions set out in this document. The need for more devolved decision-making
may also be addressed by looking at the model in place in the early years of the campus, where the
Governing Body had a sub-committee overseeing operations which allowed for local external input.
There should also be close monitoring of the actions ultimately agreed to ensure that the plan is
implemented by all parties. We believe that this process would benefit from the appointment of an
interim independent external facilitator for a fixed period of six months to oversee the rebuilding of
relationships and keep the delivery of the sustainability plan for the campus on track, pending the
appointment of a permanent Head of Campus and the bedding in of new operational and structural
arrangements.
There must also be a strong focus on building links across the campuses at programme delivery level.
Examples of successful internal collaboration have been identified, including:
20
Since 2006, the Fine Art degree was delivered by staff from Cluain Mhuire Campus (then
School of Art & Design) to provide access on the Mayo Campus. The new part-time
Contemporary Art Practises programme was developed in collaboration with academic staff
and management in Centre for Creative Arts & Media (CCAM).
Since 1998 the part-time BA in HRM degree has been delivered on both the Mayo Campus
and in School of Business Studies, Galway. A new part-time BA in HRM was collaboratively
developed with academic staff and management from the Mayo Campus and the School of
Business Studies in 2012.
The delivery of part-time Springboard funded programmes in Medical Devices and Food
Innovation in 2014 with the collaboration of the School of Science, staffed by both Schools.
The hosting of the Allergan Science technician programme in the early years of the Mayo
Campus in collaboration with staff from School of Science to provide access locally.
A regional tourism consultation initiated by the Mayo Campus in 2014, with participation from
Heritage, Outdoor Education, Business staff from Mayo and Heritage and Tourism staff from
the Dublin Road Campus.
The Heritage Programme boards in Mayo and Galway have collaborated on post-graduate
research supervision since 2003 and have worked together to achieve delegated authority at
Levels 9 and 10 for post-graduate research in Heritage Studies in the Institute.
While such collaboration provides a good foundation from which further cross-institute working can
be built, it should be acknowledged that many of these collaborations were in relation to part-time
programmes, typically driven by regional access provision and Mayo campus capacity to deliver part-
time programmes. The extent and potential for programme collaboration on full-time programmes
between the Mayo campus and other campuses of GMIT will require the development of proactive
mechanisms to facilitate planning, development and delivery. This should include the establishment
of facilitated cross-campus working groups looking at potential opportunities within particular
disciplines, allowing the person-to-person interaction which has thus far been constrained by the
physical distance between campuses.
3.4 Financial Urgency of Finding a Solution
GMIT has incurred operating deficits for the past four years, supported from its dwindling financial
reserves. The HEA has agreed a 3 year financial plan with the Institute which sets out a programme
of actions to bring it back into a balanced budget position. The plan envisages a deficit in 2017/18
returning to a surplus of in 2018/19. GMIT engaged Mr Michael O’Connell, a former Vice-President
for Strategy and Secretary-Financial Controller at Limerick Institute of Technology who has served as
an external financial advisor to a number of IoTs in vulnerable positions, to assist them in reviewing
and addressing the financial challenges. The report prepared by Mr O’Connell recommended a
number of measures to reduce costs and generate income for GMIT and minimise its operating deficit
in a timely manner. These included reductions in surplus staffing; new programme development; a
focus on increasing part-time provision and lifelong learning opportunities; and the cessation of non-
viable courses.
The report acknowledged that it is part of the mission of an Institute of Technology to provide a broad
range of academic, research and training opportunities and disciplines which will support the holistic
economic and social development of the population, particularly of the region it serves. Inevitably,
this will involve some cross subsidisation within institutions as demand for individual disciplines or
programmes vary from year to year. However, the review points out that such cross subsidisation
21
must be kept under review as imbalances may arise which are not sustainable over the longer run and
threaten institutional sustainability.
Such an imbalance surrounds the current position of the Mayo campus. The latest income and
expenditure figures for the campus indicate, as we noted earlier in the document, a deficit of €1.6m
for 2017 on a marginal cost basis. This does not include any contribution from the campus to central
overheads. It is worth considering whether central services exist that could be devolved to the campus
to reinforce its value to the wider institute and also facilitate the re-allocation of overheads to support
these activities to the campus.
It should also be acknowledged that the Mayo campus was identified separately for funding purposes
prior to transfer of funding responsibilities from the Department of Education and Skills to the HEA in
2007. There was then a clear and distinct budget line which took specific account of the costs attached
to maintaining that campus. From 2007, the Mayo campus was integrated into the recurrent grant
allocation for GMIT. The implementation of the HEA recurrent grant allocation model eroded the
value of the separate allocation to Mayo over time. The decrease in funding has never been the sole
reason for the challenges facing the Mayo campus however, with other reasons including the decline
in student demand and the re-focusing of provision.
The seriousness of the wider GMIT financial position, with the deficit from the Mayo campus a major
contributory factor, means that urgent solutions must be found to ensure the future sustainability of
the campus and the institute. New programme development will be critical, along with sufficient time
to allow new offerings to be established and effectively marketed. In the current higher education
environment, all institutions must be flexible and evolve provision to meet the rapidly changing needs
of economy and society, and there must also be scope to re-structure and re-deploy staffing that
context. Even with new programme design and implementation, the staff complement in some
discipline areas will still exceed projected student demand and the Institute must look at options to
reduce staff costs by voluntary re-deployment or engaging with the Department of Education and
Skills on seeking approval to participate in a voluntary redundancy scheme. While the debate around
potential re-deployment on the Mayo campus has been affected by the publicity and concern around
the future status of the campus, such mechanisms should remain an option to give the campus the
agility to respond to the new opportunities set out in this report.
3.5 Campus Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats
The Mayo campus has many attributes and many opportunities to further develop demand and
ultimately sustainability. However there are also weaknesses that have to be addressed and threats
that must be mitigated. Understanding these features is key to charting the future direction of the
campus. If this direction can be clearly agreed, receives 100% commitment from all stakeholders, both
internal and external, and allows sufficient time to fully embed responses, we believe that a
sustainable future can be secured.
Following considerable discussion and analysis, we built up a SWOT analysis summarising relevant
considerations and this is set out in Figure 3.3. It should be noted that this analysis has been
significantly driven by the feedback from stakeholders met by the working group, and hence many of
the points are based on their perceptions of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. It also
draws on a 2014 SWOT analysis undertaken to feed into an institutional evaluation programme (IEP)
by the European Universities Association (EUA). We acknowledge that some points are contradictory
in nature, with for example the strength of an intimate student experience resulting from the low
staff/student ratio countered by financial implications of supporting this level of teaching resource.
22
FIGURE 3.3: SWOT ANALYSIS FOR THE GMIT MAYO CAMPUS
STRENGTHS • Location – co-location with hospital, low cost
of living, high quality natural and cultural resources available locally
• Staff – Highly experienced and committed staff working collaboratively across a range of disciplines
• Students – organised and proactive student body, community feel to campus and more intimate & supportive environment via smaller class sizes
• Lifelong learning reputation and innovative delivery approaches building on track record in programme design and development
• Regional higher education provision offered in an accessible means to facilitate third level participation
• High quality provision with strong graduate employability and good average retention rates
• European and international links, with strong track record in Erasmus programmes
• Green campus and ethos of sustainability • Community engagement and collaboration,
with extensive external linkages across all programmes
• Important support resource to regional FDI, with close links to MNCs
• Growth in health related provision on the campus, underpinned by successful new course development
OPPORTUNITIES • Regional Development - Potential to develop
provision aligned with regional needs working in partnership with key regional stakeholders
• Technological University development from the Connaught-Ulster Alliance of IoTs
• Further development of on-line and blended learning to expand student demand.
• Connectivity - Good bus and train links – connect to wider region
• Location Attractiveness - Promotion of Castlebar as an affordable location to study
• Industry commitment - employers willing to build more sustainable relationships, internships, placements and apprenticeships
• Further education pathways - Development of progression routes from FE colleges
• Student ambassadors – Use students and alumni more proactively to market the attributes of the campus
• School marketing – better links with schools to improve access and attract Leaving Certificate students
• New course development in response to regional skills audit
• Develop work placement proposition as major selling point of the campus
• New outdoor pursuits amenity can improve potential attractiveness of campus
• Postgraduate provision developed in key niche areas
WEAKNESSES • Declining student numbers mean insufficient
base to support ongoing sustainability • Low demand from Leaving Certificate
students in Mayo and beyond to fill full-time courses
• Reputational damage from uncertainty surrounding the campus, discontinuation of courses and staffing
• Lack of clear strategic vision and identity for the campus.
• Limited marketing resources constrained the visibility and attractiveness of the campus
• Limited attractiveness of Castlebar as a student destination of choice
• Attrition and retention issues for particular programmes
• Perceived lack of agility due to centralised decision-making and lack of influence in governance structures
• Major campus operating deficit estimated at €1.6m – high unit costs for particular courses
• Higher costs of multi-campus provision not recognised in HEA Funding model
THREATS • Failure to reverse the trend of declining
student numbers • Demographic stagnation in the western
region while the rest of the state grows significantly
• Unsustainable staffing levels without increased student base or re-assignment of institute functions to campus
• Continued uncertainty about future status of the campus will undermine efforts to increase demand
• Increased competition for students from other higher education and also further education providers
• Need for short-term investment to put in place potential long-term solution
• SUSI criteria encouraging potential local students to access higher education further afield
23
4. A Vision for a Sustainable Mayo Campus
4.1 Harnessing the Commitment of Stakeholders
The Working Group has been struck by the extensive goodwill and commitment from community,
political and industry representatives in the region. The proactive engagement of Mayo County
Council in seeking tangible initiatives in which it can support the sustainable future for the campus has
been extremely encouraging. The National Museum of Ireland, with a nearby base in Mayo and strong
existing links with the Institute, has also come forward to underline its determination to find solutions
which can support future development. An effective working partnership with the Health Service
Executive has already been developed, building on the shared campus with its hospital, and there was
clear commitment from the HSE, and private healthcare providers, to exploration of how the institute
can further support health service provision within the region.
In Section 2.3, we noted the importance of developing links with schools and further education
colleges and further development of this whole of education approach will be key to defining and
evolving the role of the Mayo campus in servicing the region. Facilitating industry input will be equally
essential, and while the commitment of the major employers to supporting the campus was apparent
during the consultation process, it is also important that formal engagement mechanisms are put in
place with representative bodies that can reflect the needs of small and micro enterprises which are
so critical to the ongoing success of the regional economy. In particular there is an opportunity for the
campus to serve as a catalyst for rural enterprise and rural development and the proposed Centre for
Sustainable Communities could play an important role in coordinating activity and establishing
effective rural networks. The Chamber of Commerce, the Mayo Industry Group and the Local
Enterprise Office will be important reference points in this regard and appropriate structures should
be put in place to facilitate their input, and to ensure that there is strong industry input in programme
review and development.
Alongside this, we have been encouraged by the ability of the staff and students of the Mayo campus
to work collectively to identify issues, generate suggestions and ideas to improve future sustainability
and make clear their willingness to change, adapt and deliver the necessary actions to improve
demand and hence the overall financial position of the campus. The involvement of staff and students
in the future marketing of the campus will be particularly critical as they are perfectly placed to raise
the awareness of the campus and its unique sense of community and other characteristics. The
challenge lies in sufficiently empowering and supporting the staff and students to develop innovative
responses initiatives to build demand and meet the needs of regional economy and society.
We must also note the commitment of the Governing Body, and the Executive Board, of GMIT to
finding a sustainable way forward. There have been positive and constructive discussions with both
groups during the process and their full support for implementation of the plan which will emerge
from the Working Group has been clear.
There is no doubt that the process, and the perceived threat to the future of the campus, has
energised a wide group of stakeholders. Harnessing their commitment into the future will be critical
to the future success of the Mayo campus. While this plan will set out an overall vision and propose
actions, it also challenges to these stakeholders to continue to demonstrate how important the Mayo
campus is to the wider region, whether that be by employers working in partnership with the Institute
to develop programmes to meet skills needs, encourage family and friends to avail of learning
opportunities on the campus or develop joint initiatives that will serve local culture, society or
24
economy. These stakeholders must be part of the solution and a collaborative effort will be essential
to realise the vision set out in Section 4.3.
4.2 Delivering on Regional Strategy
Harnessing the commitment of all of these stakeholders will be a critical component in fulfilling the
role of the Mayo campus in the broad economic development of the county and region. It is also
essential that the campus is fully aware of, and integrated with, a range of local and regional strategies.
Taken together, these strategies form a local policy context and set out a clear direction around which
collaborative approaches can be developed. They include:
Regional Action Plan for Jobs: West 2015-17, which sets out a range of actions and
opportunities of relevance to the campus, including driving entrepreneurship, fostering
innovation, growing and scaling businesses, and building sectoral opportunities. The Wild
Atlantic Way is also pinpointed as a key opportunity for future job creation.
Realising our Rural Potential, the national strategy for rural development, sets out many
commitments where the campus could potentially have a key role in delivery within its region,
including sustaining communities, supporting enterprise and employment, developing rural
tourism and fostering culture and creativity.
Mayo Local Economic and Community Plan (LECP), developed by Mayo Local Community
Development Committee, which identifies relevant actions around inclusion; education,
training and skills; health and wellbeing; and the environment, culture and heritage.
Emerging Sectors Report by Mayo County Council, which urged prioritisation on a limited
number of key niche areas of development potential, including creative industry and ICT;
tourism; and food and agri-support services.
Destination Mayo: A Strategy for the Future Development of Tourism in Mayo 2016-2021,
sets out objectives to innovate and improve existing visitor experiences and use collaboration
with county stakeholders to develop Mayo as a premier tourism destination.
Mayo: Sustaining jobs, Supporting growth and Winning investment, is an economic
development strategy for the county which emphasises the importance of up-skilling the
labour force and developing the micro-enterprise sector.
Digital Mayo Strategy Report, which targets nurturing digital talent and supporting
technology based start‐ups, and increasing graduate output in IT, Computer Science and
Digital related higher education programmes
Alongside this strategic context, there are a range of structures and mechanisms in place to facilitate
implementation and collaboration, including the regional skills forum, implementation group of the
regional action plan for jobs, the Mayo Local Community Development Committee and the Western
Development Commission. It is critical that the campus is connected to, is informed by, and can
influence these structures and mechanisms to ensure its potential as a driver of regional development
is fully realised.
25
4.2 Proposed Vision for a Connected Mayo Campus
The Working Group has had significant discussion
around the appropriate focus and future direction of
the campus and considered different options put
forward by different stakeholders. In setting an overall
vision and strategy for its development, we do however
believe that there is a natural starting point in revisiting
the Mayo campus strategy developed in 2013 and
reviewed in 2016 which set out a purpose, vision and
values for the campus and three pillars of health,
enterprise and the environment to frame future
development. The plans for new programme
development, increased internationalisation, external
partnership working and focused marketing across
these pillars remain just as valid as when set out in both
the strategy and the 2016 review. They are also strongly
aligned with externally identified regional industry
needs and must continue to build tailored and responsive offerings for these employers. What is now
required, however, is clear leadership to deliver on this strategy and the upfront commitment and
investment which will yield the long-term and sustainable gain.
The Working Group are clear that the Campus must be underpinned by viable learning opportunities
that can attract a critical mass of students, and that those that cannot demonstrate sufficient demand
over time should cease or reform in order to ensure sustainable operations. Nonetheless, for very
understandable wider financial pressures across the Institute, we do not believe that this strategy has
been given sufficient time to fully bed in to drive the development and change sought. By building on
this strategy, the Working Group believes in a clear vision as follows:
A connected campus clearly contributing to the economic, social, environmental and cultural
development of the region through teaching and research.
A locally responsive campus which has the appropriate delegated authority and the agility to
respond to the evolving needs of its region
A multi-disciplinary campus where staff expertise is shared across different programmes to
embed unique and innovative offerings which can attract and sustain a larger student base
A campus serving as a pivotal driver for lifelong learning opportunities and which serves the
upskilling needs of local employers and their employees
A campus which generates a sustainable base of school leavers and adult learners to
undertake a modern, relevant portfolio of higher education courses
An integrated campus leveraging internal synergies, including a much more constructive and
connected relationship with the other GMIT locations, and external networks to reaffirm its
pivotal role in regional development.
If this vision can be delivered by harnessing the commitment of all stakeholders as set out above, then
the Working Group believe that this provides the foundation for a sustainable development plan for
the campus, involving a range of actions which are further explored in the next section.
MAYO CAMPUS
PURPOSE: To provide lifelong higher education and support regional development
VISION: To be a dynamic, sustainable and
responsive campus
VALUES: High academic standards
Student-centred ethos Community engagement
Integrity and ethical conduct Collegiality
26
5. Sustainable Development Plan for the Mayo Campus
From the consultation process, submissions received and analysis undertaken by the Working Group
a number of clear themes have emerged which should underpin the future development plan. In this
section we discuss each of themes, highlighting potential actions for further discussion by the Group.
The effective implementation of this plan, when all recommendations are finalised, will be very
important. The recommendations have implications for GMIT, its management, staff and students, for
a wide range of stakeholders with an interest in the development of the Mayo campus, for the HEA
and the Department of Education and Skills. It will be very important that the plan is endorsed by the
Governing Body of GMIT, building on the very constructive way which they worked with us as the
Working Group, and with their views reflected in the analysis and proposed actions set out within the
report.
5.1 Governance and Management
The GMIT Governing Body and Executive Board have made clear their commitment to ensuring a
sustainable future for the Mayo campus and their support for this Working Group process.
Nonetheless, the Group have noted a strong perception across campus staff of limited support for the
Mayo campus and a lack of understanding of the particular characteristics and issues which surround
it. The Group heard from some staff of inconsistent and delayed decision making in relation to
appointments and programme development and approval processes, although these claims were
rejected by the GMIT executive. While there are clearly differing interpretations of such matters, the
need for improved communication and trust between Mayo campus staff and GMIT is certainly clear.
We would hope that the outcome of this process can be a renewed relationship between both parties
focused on delivery of a shared vision and development plan.
The Working Group believe that key to forging this
renewed relationship should be the appointment of a
permanent Head of Campus to lead work from the
Executive Board on delivery of a new sustainable
development plan. The Head of Campus should be
appointed as soon as possible after publication of this
report. The post will have responsibility for leading the
implementation of many of the reports’
recommendations. This is critical in reaffirming long-term commitment to work with internal and
external stakeholders and drive forward the initiatives required to ensure sustainability. Other key
responsibilities would be the development and implementation of a marketing strategy for the
campus, overseeing the campus capital development plan and developing a renewed portfolio of
courses to stimulated learner demand. While serving as an integral member of the GMIT Executive
Board, the Head of Campus must have sufficient autonomy to facilitate timely decisions on campus
operations, external partnerships and programme development. It is important that a clear
accountability framework is in place to frame his/her responsibilities and reporting obligations within
the institute.
In the past, a sub-committee of the Governing Body of GMIT operated to oversee the management
and development of the Mayo Campus. This not only gave campus issues more focus from a
governance perspective, but also facilitated the involvement of regional stakeholders within this
structure. The Governing Body has approved the re-establishment this Mayo subcommittee and we
RECOMMENDATION 1
A DEDICATED PERMANENT HEAD OF
CAMPUS AT VICE-PRESIDENT LEVEL
SHOULD BE APPOINTED AS SOON AS
POSSIBLE TO LEAD THE PRACTICAL
DELIVERY OF THIS PLAN
27
believe that this should be operationalised
immediately. It will provide an ideal opportunity to
harness the commitment of some of the key local
stakeholders that have been so supportive of the
campus, and GMIT should ensure that appropriate
industry, County Council and other appropriate
external stakeholders are included on the committee
alongside staff and student representatives and
members of the existing Governing Body. The sub-
committee should advise the Governing Body on policy formulation and foresight; strategic planning;
financial planning, budgeting and monitoring financial performance; reviewing key performance
results and accountability to regulators and key stakeholders. The proposed terms of reference for
this sub-committee are attached as Appendix 4.
A case was also made by some stakeholders to examine
the composition of the Governing Body in an effort to
include greater Mayo representation. It was suggested
that a minimum of 4 of the 17 members should be
specific Mayo nominees to reflect the relative
proportion of students accounted for by the Campus.
This is complex due to the current rules and processes
in place around the nomination of specific Governing Body members. It is also somewhat inconsistent
with a general direction of travel to move away from Board members representing particular interests
on state boards, and it should be noted that the pending Technological University legislation is
expected to make provision for a competency framework to underpin external appointments.
However the Group welcomes this willingness of the Governing Body to consider how more Mayo
representation can be facilitated in partnership with nominating bodies.
We noted within this report the need to draw a line
under the issues that have characterised the very public
debate around the future status of the campus, and the
damage it has done to efforts to turn around the
worrying trend of declining student demand. The
importance of building trust and a stronger working
partnership between the campus and the wider
institute was emphasised and there is a case in the
short-term for the appointment of an independent
expert facilitator to work with the GMIT Executive Board, Mayo campus management and staff and
other relevant stakeholders to oversee the transition to the future structure and operational model
set out in this plan. This appointment by the Governing Body, in consultation with the HEA, would be
for a fixed period.
The role and importance of the Mayo campus within
GMIT could be reinforced by the relocation of some
central corporate services from Galway to Mayo. This
could help to support the continued deployment of staff
on the campus, while allowing the institute to take the
lead in particular areas of expertise. It could also make
RECOMMENDATION 2
THE SUB-COMMITTEE OF THE GMIT
GOVERNING BODY ESTABLISHED TO
OVERSEE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
MAYO CAMPUS, INVOLVING EXTERNAL
REGIONAL STAKEHOLDERS SHOULD BE
OPERATIONALISED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE
RECOMMENDATION 3
GREATER MAYO REPRESENTATION ON
THE GOVERNING BODY SHOULD BE
FACILITATED AS NOMINATIONS ARE
RENEWED
RECOMMENDATION 4
AN INTERIM INDEPENDENT EXTERNAL
FACILITATOR SHOULD BE APPOINTED TO
WORK WITH THE EXECUTIVE BOARD,
CAMPUS AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS TO
OVERSEE THE TRANSITION TO THE NEW
STRUCTURAL AND OPERATIONAL
ARRANGEMENTS
RECOMMENDATION 5
THE FEASIBILITY OF RELOCATING SOME
CENTRAL CORPORATE SERVICES TO THE
MAYO CAMPUS SHOULD BE
INVESTIGATED
28
a financial contribution from overall institute overheads towards the running costs of these central
services.
5.2 Existing Programme Portfolio
There is clearly a serious issue with existing levels of demand for a number of courses being offered
on the Mayo campus. As we noted in Section 3.3, significant financial pressure on GMIT has resulted
in decisions to cut courses with insufficient demand and indeed a plan agreed with the HEA and
validated by an external financial expert demanded such action in order to address a significant deficit
position. The Working Group acknowledges that clear and robust criteria were used in assessing the
continuing viability of courses and that this was applied fairly across all courses regardless of delivery
location. This has impacted upon 14 courses across GMIT in recent years, with 5 on the Mayo campus:
Sustainable Building Technology; History and Geography; Digital Media and Society; Culture and
Environment; and Business and Administration with ICT.
However we do believe there are circumstances, many
of which are flagged and dealt with elsewhere within
the report, that have prevented the feasibility of these
courses on the Mayo campus from being truly tested.
We received very strong feedback from industry
stakeholders that digital media skills were essential to
the regional economy and that a means had to be found
to develop a sustainable proposition in this space. Although we recognize that market research was
undertaken before the launch of the digital media and society programme, the low levels of demand
apparent to date and industry feedback that the offering was confusing suggest that the Mayo campus
may be better served by re-pitching this proposition, with the content and delivery built up in
collaboration with relevant industry stakeholders.
The proposed History and Geography programme
where delivery was postponed before it ever ran due to
insufficient CAO demand was developed from a long
history of heritage degree provision. The level of
demand was poor given the reputation in this space, but
nonetheless it was a newly branded and constructed
programme and we do not believe that it was given
sufficient time to be effectively marketed and fully
established. The strong support of the National
Museum of Ireland to collaborate on such a course, and
its disappointment that it was not given an opportunity to intervene before an initial decision to
postpone the course was made, also suggests that it deserves another chance to become fully
established on the Mayo campus programme portfolio. We also recognize that similar struggles to
attract sufficient interest to the heritage programme on the Galway campus mean that its viability is
under threat, and there is a desire from the GMIT Executive Board to investigate whether a compelling
collaborative proposition could be put in place. This merits further consideration, and we would
suggest some facilitated sessions between staff in the relevant campuses in the near future to
establish whether there is scope for synergy in safeguarding this type of provision across GMIT.
RECOMMENDATION 7
A NEW BRANDED PROGRAMME
BUILDING ON HISTORY AND GEOGRAPHY
CAPABILITY SHOULD BE REINTRODUCED
TO THE CAO WITH A CLEAR MARKETING
STRATEGY AND INITIALLY RELAXED
VIABILITY CRITERIA TO TEST THE MARKET
AND PROVE LONG-TERM VIABILITY
RECOMMENDATION 6
THE DIGITAL MEDIA PROGRAMME
SHOULD BE RE-PITCHED WITH A NEW
PROPOSITION LAUNCHED IN
COLLABORATION WITH INDUSTRY FOR
2018/19
29
While there is a need to ensure that courses offered are
given sufficient time and support to attract demand, we
also acknowledge that all programmes on the Mayo
campus must meet strict GMIT demand viability criteria
into the long-term – this is the only way the campus will
secure a sustainable future – by finding the right type of
courses to offer that can generate a critical mass of full-
time and part-time students. The demand for all Mayo campus courses should therefore continue to
be closely monitored and linked to the dedicated marketing strategy set out in Section 5.4.
While we believe that the heart of a sustainable future
for the Mayo campus must be standalone courses which
begin and end on the campus, we do recognize a need
for more integrated working with the wider institute
around programme development, validation and
delivery. There is merit in looking at how the Executive
Board dual campus provision proposal to allow students
to finish programmes in Galway or Mayo after
commencing them in other campuses, to access greater
levels of specialist provision, might be included in the prospectus as an additional option. The Working
Group believes that more focus needs to be given to the unique characteristics of the Mayo campus
and its potential student base when developing programmes, but we also think it is inefficient to have
different programme boards and different approaches in each campus for cognate discipline areas,
and this is not typical of other multiple campus institutions. Single programme boards across the
Galway and Mayo campuses (Boards include all academic staff teaching on the programme) should be
established to remove barriers to aligning academic provision, developing common modules,
delivering and assessing quality and undertaking programmatic reviews. We also believe that there
merit in considering how synergies between provision across GMIT can be further enhanced, and
recommend the establishment of independently facilitated discipline-based working groups involving
relevant staff on the Galway and Mayo campuses to consider and develop collaborative approaches
to provision. The individual proposed in Recommendation 4 could also play a role in facilitating these
working groups.
5.3 New Programme Development
The real key to future campus sustainability lies in new programme development to stimulate demand
and meet regional needs. The basis for such development must be a full understanding of these needs,
and a community survey or market research would be an important step in this regard. This should
also be done with all other concerned agencies, with a
view to linkage with educational institutions,
government agencies and private industry. Course
development should be tailored to meet the needs of
growth industries in the region such as tourism, retail,
manufacturing and technology. We understand that a
regional skills audit is currently being undertaken by the
Regional Skills Forum and this must be a critical input in
the future planning and development of courses on the
campus.
RECOMMENDATION 8
STRICT DEMAND VIABILITY CRITERIA
SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE APPLIED BY
GMIT TO ESTABLISH LONG-TERM
VIABILITY OF CAMPUS PROGRAMMES
RECOMMENDATION 9
INDEPENDENTLY FACILITATED DISCIPLINE
BASED WORKING GROUPS SHOULD BE
ESTABLISHED INVOLVING RELEVANT
STAFF ON THE GALWAY AND MAYO
CAMPUS TO CONSIDER AND DEVELOP
COLLABORATIVE APPROACHES TO
PROVISION
RECOMMENDATION 10
NEW PROGRAMME DEVELOPMENT
SHOULD BE PRIORITISED AND ALIGNED
WITH THE INSTITUTE AND CAMPUS
STRATEGIES, THE REGIONAL SKILLS AUDIT
AND MARKET RESEARCH INCLUDING
ENGAGEMENT WITH REGIONAL
EMPLOYERS AND REPRESENTATIVE
GROUPS
30
If the issues around demand for digital media courses on the campus can be addressed, there is real
potential to develop a strong proposition in this area. The suggestion of a digital media Skillsnet
network of companies to fuel such provision was put forward. It was also proposed that this may be
an area around which a new apprenticeship programme could be constructed. Other opportunities
identified were around sales skills development, geo
technicians and horticulture (with Mountbellew), and
again these areas could be developed by the campus as
niche areas of expertise in response to clear industry
demand. It is another potential option for a new
apprenticeship which could be offered in Mayo, and this
should be further explored with relevant companies seeking these skills in the region.
The development of sustainable, income generating non-traditional provision will be important in a
regional context. The uniqueness of some of the programme offerings and how location is key for
some programmes such as outdoor education. Potential income sources to be explored include:
Attracting international students to the unique
environment and tourist friendly hinterland,
with the potential for summer schools
investigated (where modules on heritage, tour
guiding, outdoor pursuits, languages, coding,
etc might be offered)
Other areas where unique expertise could
merge with cross-disciplinary collaboration e.g. Adventure therapy, Greening Enterprise, E-
Health, Outdoor learning etc.
Possibility of outreach programmes delivered throughout the region
Developing postgraduate offerings and niche areas of research (e.g. outdoor education,
heritage and nursing) that can reinforce the attractiveness of the campus as a place to study
and learn.
There also seems to be potential for tailoring provision
to facilitate further integrated pathways between
further and higher education. Mayo, Sligo and Leitrim
ETB emphasised its willingness to work with GMIT Mayo
to develop such partnerships. There are currently
16,000 students in MSL ETB with 1,300 on FE
programmes and this must offer scope for an additional
pipeline of students on the Mayo Campus if courses are aligned and clearly marketed to these
students. A mapping exercise should be undertaken to build up further progression pathways between
the FE colleges and the Mayo campus and increase the number of students progressing in this manner.
As we noted in Section 5.1, the Mayo campus has a
considerable track record in delivering lifelong learning
and providing access to higher education for those in
the region for whom full-time study is not an option.
There is an opportunity to further enhance this
capability to support a cohesive lifelong learning
proposition within GMIT. This must also involve
development of technology-enhanced learning, using
RECOMMENDATION 11
THE POTENTIAL FOR DEVELOPMENT OF
NEW APPRENTICESHIP PROPOSALS
SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED
RECOMMENDATION 12
INTERNATIONAL AND POSTGRADUATE
OFFERINGS SHOULD BE FURTHER
DEVELOPED TO DIVERSIFY THE CAMPUS
INCOME BASE
RECOMMENDATION 13
A MAPPING EXERCISE SHOULD BE
UNDERTAKEN WITH FURTHER
EDUCATION TO BUILD AND
COMMUNICATE NEW PROGRESSION
PATHWAYS
RECOMMENDATION 14
THE MAYO CAMPUS SHOULD CONTINUE
ITS DEVELOPMENT AS A CENTRE OF
EXCELLENCE FOR LIFELONG LEARNING
WITHIN GMIT
31
its digital capacity, and looking at specific potential to deliver fully online offerings which can expand
GMIT’s potential student market. This should include investigation of collaborative online provision
by building on existing links with external providers of digital education. Other opportunities to
develop online propositions around quality management, human resource management and
supervisory management were also identified during the course of our work. A more modular
approach to lifelong learning offerings should also be considered in line with the summer school idea
set out above, including some modules on established degree courses to provide ‘tasters’ and
encourage uptake of existing third level courses and development of new courses. Consideration
should be given to the appointment of an appropriate dedicated manager on the campus responsible
for progressing this agenda.
The core of new programme development must be
collaboration with local employers to meet their current
and future skills needs. There was strong commitment
to the future of the campus from industry stakeholders
including Allergan, Horkans, Baxter, Holister, Portwest,
IRD and Arcon and GMIT must continue to work closely
with them to develop tailored offerings that meet their
needs. New opportunities in this regard might exist in
supervisor management, digital marketing and these
should be further explored.
5.4 Distinct Marketing of the Mayo Campus
The Working Group acknowledges the focus of GMIT’s marketing effort on a 5 campuses approach as
an efficient and integrated response at a time of significantly constrained financial resources. We also
recognise the good marketing work which has been done this year which has led to a significant bump
in CAO interest and subsequent student registrations in GMIT. We do however believe that the unique
characteristics of the Mayo campus and the opportunities for Mayo students to progress to higher
education opportunities within their county need to be better communicated. The latest figures show
that only 40 Leaving Certificate students from Mayo progress to the campus and clearly this is not a
sustainable situation.
While integrated marketing efforts should continue, we
see clear value in a distinct plan for marketing and
promotion of the campus and its courses and this should
be developed by the Head of Campus. From
consultation with the GMIT marketing team, such a
marketing plan was put together in 2012 but was not
fully implemented, and this should serve as a starting
point to develop a new plan, with a full marketing
campaign to be delivered in advance of the 2018/19 academic year. Identification of core target
markets will be a crucial first step and ensuring synergy with the access activities of the institute should
be a further priority.
The Working Group heard about the need for concerted international marketing of particular Mayo
campus offerings and the limited resources available from the International Office. There are
opportunities that should be explored in this area as the campus has long established links with ten
institutions in Austria, France, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands and the United States. An international
RECOMMENDATION 16
A DISTINCT MARKETING PLAN SHOULD BE
DEVELOPED & IMPLEMENTED WITH A
FULL CAMPAIGN ESTABLISHED TO
TARGET DEMAND FOR 2018/19
RECOMMENDATION 15
NEW TAILORED PROGRAMMES, BASED
ON UNIQUE WELL ARTICULATED VALUE
PROPOSITIONS SHOULD BE DEVELOPED
TO MEET CURRENT AND EMERGING
SKILLS NEEDS OF MAJOR LOCAL
EMPLOYERS.
32
nursing programme has been validated and this should be heavily marketed to the potential
international audience.
Further marketing is also required outside of the region, focusing on niche opportunities around
nursing and healthcare, outdoor pursuits, etc where provision is not always available elsewhere. Other
ideas raised included an orientation week where potential students can sample all aspects of student
life, block placements for transition year students to experience college, and proactive Mayo campus
focused visits to secondary schools, youthreach initiatives, travellers and minority groups.
Within the marketing strategy, there is an opportunity for promotion of Castlebar as an affordable
location to study. The sense of community and the supportive and proactive student body is another
notable attribute. Indeed there is a real opportunity to use existing students and past students as
ambassadors for the campus, and as a core component of the overall campus marketing plan,
particularly in this digital age where the size of the digital footprint from promotional activities can
substantially influence ultimate demand. Delivering the marketing plan must be a team effort and
campus staff must also play a full role. It was suggested that staff who do not have a full teaching
complement could be used to support school liaison and other marketing efforts and this should be
further explored.
The other key underutilised asset which the campus
enjoys as a potential marketing resource is its students.
Their ability to articulate the value of study in Mayo and
convey the unique and positive student experience on
campus has been striking throughout our work. Many
are already active on social media and there is a need to
harness student resources for use in more structured
and targeted marketing, allowing them to serve as ambassadors for the campus. This could involve
school and FE college visits, testimonials and media promotion.
Of course, all of this marketing work requires
coordination and we recognise the need, at least in the
short to medium term, for a dedicated marketing
resource to drive forward the marketing plan. The cost
implications of this should be outweighed by the
benefits of increased income if the plan is even
moderately successful.
While all of these marketing mechanisms will be
important in pushing to grow demand for the campus,
the opportunity for a major re-launch campaign should
not be overlooked. There has been significant publicity
over the future of the campus, and with the increased
certainty which this plan will hopefully bring, the
message must be clear that the campus is open for
business. Planning should begin immediately around
the branding and messaging behind such a campaign, as
it is critical that it is launched early enough to heavily
market the opportunities for the 2018/19 academic
year. GMIT should also work closely with Mayo County
Council in the launch, given its expertise, resources and
RECOMMENDATION 18
A DEDICATED MARKETING RESOURCE
SHOULD BE INTRODUCED TO
COORDINATE THE DELIVERY OF THE NEW
MAYO CAMPUS MARKETING PLAN
RECOMMENDATION 17
STUDENT AMBASSADORS SHOULD BE
APPOINTED AND USED WITHIN THE
MARKETING STRATEGY TO PROMOTE THE
UNIQUE VALUE OF STUDYING ON THE
CAMPUS
RECOMMENDATION 19
A MAJOR RE-LAUNCH CAMPAIGN
SHOULD BE PROGRESSED IMMEDIATELY
TO SHOW THE CAMPUS IS OPEN FOR
BUSINESS AND DRIVE DEMAND FOR
2018/19
RECOMMENDATION 20
GMIT SHOULD DEVELOP A JOINT
MARKETING INITIATIVE WITH MAYO
COUNTY COUNCIL TO ENSURE THAT THE
CAMPUS IS PROMOTED VIA WIDER
COUNTY MARKETING RESOURCES
33
existing marketing campaigns to promote the wider county. The institute should also work with the
Council to ensure that it can input into the latter’s marketing strategy on an ongoing basis.
5.5 Campus Infrastructure
The Working Group heard feedback on poor campus facilities. There has been inadequate investment
in the campus, however, this is no different to the situation across many other institute of
technologies, with the lack of available Exchequer capital investment meaning campuses across the
state require urgent investment and the renewal. There should also be recognition that the campus
environment, and its co-location with the hospital, offers good, enclosed facilities for students.
Nonetheless we do recognize that the poor
infrastructure is seen as an impediment to attracting
students, particularly for younger students who may
have more options to travel. The need for replacement
of part of the roof of the building, which has closed the
campus on occasions of adverse weather, blights the perceptions of the institute. A means should be
found to address this infrastructure deficit as soon as possible. There is also a deficit of sport facilities
locally, although this will be addressed by the work of Mayo County Council in constructing a new
swimming pool and outdoor pursuits centre virtually adjacent to the college. GMIT should work closely
with the Council to ensure that the full benefits of the facility can be realized.
The introduction of crèche facilities was suggested as a means of increasing uptake of places. With the
introduction of childcare courses, there should be an opportunity to encourage parents into education
and it could also serve as a training facility. There might also be a possibility in attracting funds through
TUSLA for this purpose. This is worth exploring, although caution should be exercised, as it is rare for
such facilities to prove viable in higher education, and perhaps a tie-up with a local childhood
education provider might offer a more feasible course of action.
There could also be opportunities for co-location with other organisations (e.g. FE colleges, HSE, Mayo
County Council) that are worth exploring to further develop the campus infrastructure. As sports
infrastructure is improved, there is also potential to develop closer links with teams from the region,
such as Mayo GAA and Connaught Rugby.
5.6 Enterprise Development
A strong role in enterprise development is critical to the future sustainability and success of the Mayo
campus and is one of the three core pillars on which its strategy is based. Support for enterprise
development, however, must be understood as a ‘whole-of-campus’ requirement, involving not only
the iHub but also the teaching resource, the academic programmes and courses and the campus
buildings & facilities.
Central to the campus’ enterprise support strategy should be a requirement to significantly build on
existing levels of collaboration with a range of relevant local and regional stakeholders. Mayo County
Council, and its local enterprise office (LEO), should play a lead role in developing enterprise initiatives
with the campus. Other key enterprise partners should include, inter alia;
Enterprise Ireland
Local industry / employers / business associations (Mayo Industries Group, Chambers Mayo, etc)
The Atlantic Economic Corridor partnership
RECOMMENDATION 21
A MEANS SHOULD BE FOUND TO REPLACE
PART OF THE ROOF AS SOON AS POSSIBLE
34
The Regional Skills Forum
There are a wide range of potentially valuable benefits for both the campus and the region from
enhanced collaboration. Practical examples include the opportunity to work collaboratively with the
LEO in relation to enterprise development training and upskilling, with the potential to deliver
supports directly to LEO clients. It is suggested that a Campus Enterprise Development Strategy would
also seek to develop a lead role for the iHub as a gateway for knowledge transfer between the
education and enterprise sectors in the region. It would also identify practical ways in which the
campus could provide technology and business graduates with the essential technical and soft skills
required of industry and prospective employers in the
region. The strategy would also focus on student
entrepreneurship, a potential role for the campus in the
development of social entrepreneurship and continued
collaboration with local stakeholders on Mayo Ideas
Week, Mayo Science & Technology Festival and similar
initiatives.
There is an opportunity to lead the development of a multi-agency response to the need to bring
additional cohesion and direction to the training and development needs of client companies in the
various enterprise spheres in Mayo. It is suggested that a new entrepreneur development programme
that reflects the intrinsic rural nature of the region should be developed. This programme could help
develop rural-facing businesses, including those from the marine and agri-tech sectors. It is envisaged
that Realising Our Rural Potential: Action Plan for Rural Development can also provide suggestions in
this context. Funding may be available from the
Enterprise Ireland Regional Enterprise Development
Fund if a cohesive multi-partner proposal can be put
together. The campus should work with the LEO and
other local enterprise stakeholders with a view to
submission when the next call opens in January 2018.
Such a proposal would build on the success of the New
Frontiers programme that has been delivered in the
iHub in recent years.
It is essential to build synergy between enterprise and academic programmes through mechanisms
such as placements, bespoke training offerings, graduate employment schemes, innovation
partnerships, digital marketing support and project working. The engagement that the Working Group
saw from local employers must not be wasted, and the campus must harness their commitment within
such collaborative initiatives as soon as possible. A value
proposition should be developed for presentation to
local companies outlining all the potential partnership
opportunities and the benefits they will receive in
return. This is turn will offer potential to market the
campus as truly regionally connected with the prospect
of work experience and ultimate employment for all
students who come here.
The enterprise development space that exists in the Mayo campus, marketed as iHub, is fully occupied
by start-up businesses, and this is linked to the delivery by GMIT of New Frontiers, a largest
entrepreneurship programme of Ireland, which brings through a pipeline of potential new Mayo
RECOMMENDATION 23
THE CAMPUS SHOULD CONTRIBUTE TO A
PROPOSAL FOR A RURAL ENTREPRENEUR
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME THAT
SHOULD BE MADE TO THE REGIONAL
ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT FUND.
RECOMMENDATION 22
THE CAMPUS SHOULD WORK WITH LEO
MAYO AND OTHER LOCAL STAKEHOLDERS
ON A CAMPUS ENTERPRISE
DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
RECOMMENDATION 24
THE CAMPUS SHOULD DEVELOP A VALUE
PROPOSITION TO TAKE TO INDUSTRY
OFFERING A RANGE OF POTENTIAL
COLLABORATION OPPORTUNITIES AND
ASSOCIATED BENEFITS
35
businesses every year. However the iHub infrastructure is of sub optimum scale which results in
annual deficits of around €100,000 to the institute. It is understood that there remains untapped
demand for incubation and enterprise space and there is also clear value in expanding the enterprise
space on the Mayo campus. Linked to the development of the campus enterprise development
strategy recommended above, GMIT should work in partnership with Mayo County Council, the
Western Development Commission, Enterprise Ireland and the Local Enterprise Office, the Chamber
of Commerce and other relevant business organisations
to develop a proposition around this. It has been
suggested that additional funding may be available from
the Enterprise Ireland Regional Enterprise Development
Fund if a cohesive multi-partner proposal can be put
together, and the GMIT should coordinate this process
with a view to submission when the next call opens.
5.7 Wider Engagement
Wider engagement with regional stakeholders will be equally critical to ensuring a sustainable campus,
and again the Working Group has been impressed by the commitment of political representatives,
education providers, the healthcare system, government agencies, Mayo County Council, community
groups and local individuals to working with the institute to find solutions to the current problems.
Opening up the college to such stakeholders would be important to raise further awareness of its
facilities, and use for seminars, workshops and social activities should be actively pursued.
Mayo County Council will be a key partner in the future development of the campus and the realisation
of this plan. The Council will be closely involved in the enterprise development initiatives set out in
the previous section, but the Working Group also heard about a highly promising project at Lough
Lannagh where an outdoor pursuits amenity has been
proposed by Mayo County Council. We understand that
these plans are at risk and GMIT should investigate
whether a collaborative approach, building on the
already strong relationship with the Council, could allow
these plans to come to fruition. The amenity could
provide immediate benefits for the campus student
experience, the tourist product in the locality and the
quality of outdoor education provided, allowing this
niche area if expertise to be further exploited.
There should be potential to more fully exploit college expertise and the campus location around
tourism and heritage. The proximity of the National Museum of Ireland, the unique outdoor pursuits
offering (and potential new Council facilities) and local tourism assets including the very successful
Greenway suggest that there is more potential to grow a sustainable proposition in this space. This
could perhaps include an examination of potential for CPD offerings, even in byte size chunks to
facilitate the needs and availability of the micro enterprises which characterise much of the industry.
RECOMMENDATION 25
A MULTI-AGENCY PROPOSAL TO EXPAND
IHUB ENTERPRISE SPACE SHOULD BE PUT
TOGETHER AND FUNDING SOUGHT TO
ENSURE ONGOING SUSTAINABILITY
RECOMMENDATION 26
GMIT SHOULD INVESTIGATE WHETHER A
COLLABORATIVE APPROACH WITH MAYO
COUNTY COUNCIL ON THE LOUGH
LANNAGH PROJECT CAN REALISE THE
ENVISAGESD OUTDOOR PURSUITS
CENTRE FOR THE CAMPUS, TOWN AND
REGION
36
There should also be potential for wider engagement
around community development, with linked projects,
placements in community organisations, coordinating
or hosting community events, etc).The campus has a
strong track record in provided work placements and
delivering work-based learning. The Working Group also
heard from many local employers keen to help support
the ongoing sustainability of the campus in practical ways including the provision of placements. There
is an opportunity for the campus to further develop and clearly market the provision of work
placements and subsequent employment prospects for every course across the campus. ‘Champions’
within various enterprise sectors could be identified to assist with collaboration and placements. This
would also challenge industry to keep their pledges and ensure that high quality placement
opportunities are provided.
There is also a distinct opportunity around provision
linked to sustaining rural communities. A feasibility
study has recently been completed on the potential
establishment of a Centre for Sustainable Rural
Communities. This suggested potential synergy with the
discipline mix on the campus, drawing on capability in
business, ICT, heritage, environment, education and
healthcare services, to equip rural enterprises and communities with the tools for a more sustainable
future. The feasibility study also confirmed string support from local community groups and regional
stakeholders. The new national rural development action plan, ‘Realising our Rural Potential’ identifies
priorities which are aligned with this type of initiative and also offers potential funding for proposals
that can demonstrate clear impact.
The role that the staff of the Mayo campus have played in raising concern around its future
sustainability, and in articulating the challenges and opportunities that must be addressed, has been
critical in allowing the Working Group to formulate a cohesive multi-pillar plan. The staff commitment
to realising this plan is clear, but nowhere is their role more essential than in ensuring an effective
approach to engagement that drives activity, partnership, student demand and funding. For
engagement with the many stakeholders flagged within this report to realise the desired outcomes,
the responsibility rests with all staff on the campus to play an active role in identifying, and working
with, relevant stakeholders to develop collaborative initiatives. It cannot be left to the Head of
Campus, or to the remit of particular posts (e.g. school
liaison, lifelong learning, industry engagement) to
progress this activity – an all-staff, whole of campus
approach is essential. The priority of the Head of
Campus should therefore be to work with the staff body
to agree how each and every member can play a
proactive role in communicating an engaged and
integrated campus to the wider region.
There is also a significant opportunity in potential creation of technological universities, with GMIT
working with IT Sligo and Letterkenny IT under the umbrella of the Connacht-Ulster Alliance to work
towards this end. The Mayo campus should play a critical role in this development process and work
through the institute to engage with the other IoTs around potential synergies and opportunities
linked to wider regional development.
RECOMMENDATION 27
A PROPOSITION AROUND WORK
EXPERIENCE AND EMPLOYABILITY
ACROSS ALL CAMPUS PROVISION SHOULD
BE DEVELOPED AND CLEARLY MARKETED
RECOMMENDATION 28
FUNDING WILL BE SOUGHT UNDER THE
NATIONAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT
ACTIONS PLAN FOR A CENTRE FOR
COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY
RECOMMENDATION 29
STAFF ARE SUPPORTED TO CONTINUE TO
PROGRESS CAMPUS ACTIVITIES WITH ITS
REGIONAL STAKE HOLDERS WITHIN A
POSITIVE CULTURE OF COMMUNITY
ENGAGEMENT
37
5.8 Funding and Financial Sustainability
The current financial situation, where losses on the campus on a marginal cost basis stretch to €1.6m,
is not sustainable and must be addressed as a matter of urgency. All stakeholders must make a
contribution to ensure the future success of the campus and this document sets out a range of GMIT
and wider collaborative actions that need to be progressed to put the campus on a more sustainable
footing. We cannot predict the outcomes of the initiatives but we do believe that they will ensure that
the future potential of the campus will be fully tested and a clear direction will emerge over time.
Time is a key component here, because we must allow the time for re-pitched and new programmes
to become established and attract sufficient demand, while at the same time ensuring that those
offerings that are clearly not feasible in the long-run cease to create the space for further new
programme development and ensure a viable future. There must be careful monitoring of the plan,
with appropriate action taken if the desired outcomes are not forthcoming and quarterly reports
should be submitted to the HEA to set out progress.
There are already signs of improvement, with enhanced
demand for courses in the CAO, additional nursing
places secured and the prospect of STEM provision
being greater rewarded in new proposed HEA funding
model. The expected changes to this funding model also
recognise that there are costs attached to running
multi-campus institutions that are unavoidable and that
this should be recognised within the funding allocation. When this model is fully approved, GMIT
should make a proposal to the HEA Finance Committee for designation of the Mayo Campus as such
a multiple location to facilitate the drawdown of up to €250,000 of targeted ongoing assistance for
the campus.
This plan, when realised, will also hope to significantly reduce the deficit incurred by the Mayo
campus. However while the plan will naturally take time to come to fruition as a new marketing plan
is developed and implemented, new and re-pitched
courses are launched, lifelong learning opportunities
are enhanced and collaboration initiatives are
progressed, time is not something which GMIT currently
has given its financial position. GMIT should therefore
make a case for interim ring-fenced funding to support
the costs of the Mayo campus for a fixed time period as
the plan is implemented and as the campus hopefully moves to a financially sustainable position.
Finally, it is also important to emphasise that the wider GMIT financial plan agreed with the HEA, and
the independent expert report undertaken by Mr Michael O’Connell, remains valid and its
commitments to new programme development, stopping non-viable provision and reducing and re-
deploying staff remain critical actions if the overall Institute is to return to a sustainable footing. The
plan set out in this report hopefully offers a direction,
approach, resources and time which will allow issues of
demand for campus offerings to be addressed. However
if, over time, this proves not to be the case, then GMIT
must have scope to take appropriate action. This will
include stopping non-viable courses using the existing
robust criteria and investigating the potential to re-
RECOMMENDATION 32
THERE SHOULD BE SCOPE FOR STAFF TO
MOVE BETWEEN CAMPUSES ON A
VOLUNTARY BASIS TO REFLECT
CHANGING PATTERNS OF PROVISION
AND DEMAND ACROSS GMIT
RECOMMENDATION 30
GMIT SHOULD SEEK DESIGNATION OF
THE CAMPUS AS ELIGIBLE FOR
ADDITIONAL MULTI-CAMPUS FUNDING
WHEN THE NEW HEA FUNDING MODEL IS
FULLY ESTABLISHED
RECOMMENDATION 31
GMIT SHOULD SEEK TIME BOUND RING-
FENCED FUNDING TO ALLOW THE PLAN
TO BE FULLY IMPLEMENTED AND ENSURE
FUTURE CAMPUS SUSTAINABILITY
38
deploy staff in order to reflect growing areas of provision. In the interim, and as changes in the focus
of campus and wider GMIT provision emerge, there should also be provision for those staff that want
to re-deploy to the Galway campus, or indeed those that wish to move from Galway to Mayo, to be
facilitated, if changing patterns of demand mean that greater opportunities lie in the other location.
A wider need has also been identified across the institute of technology sector for a voluntary
redundancy scheme to assist restructuring efforts and ensure that staffing is focused on areas of
greatest growth potential. This would require
consultation and approval by the Department of
Education and Skills. This option should also be
considered by GMIT across all of its campuses, including
Mayo, as the success or otherwise of programmes
become clear following the initiatives set out in this
report.
RECOMMENDATION 33
GMIT SHOULD ENGAGE WITH THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SKILLS
ON SEEKING APPROVAL TO PARTICIPATE
IN A VOLUNTARY REDUNDANCY SCHEME
39
6. Implementation, Targets and Milestones
6.1 Implementation of the Plan
The severity of the financial situation faced by the campus and the wider Institute means time is of
the essence in implementing the recommendations set out in this report. The appointment of a
permanent Head of Campus and the establishment of an effective governance structure via the new
Governing Body sub-committee will be the most critical early tasks, as this will provide a leadership
framework from which the rest of the recommendations can be rolled out. In the interim, and having
reflected on the recent difficulties, we also recommend the appointment of an independent external
facilitator to oversee the initial implementation process and work with the GMIT Governing Body,
Executive Board and Mayo campus stakeholders to ensure that the structures, processes and
conditions are in place to facilitate the full realisation of this plan. This should also facilitate the fast-
tracking of marketing and programme development initiatives with a view to having the maximum
impact on demand for the 2018/19 academic year.
Assuming that this early progress can be made, we envisage that the sustainability plan should be fully
embedded over a 5 year period. This will allow new programmes to be put in place to stimulate
additional part-time and full-time demand, other income sources to be secured and the cost base to
be re-structured. While there is a significant deficit to be turned around, it is reasonable to expect
some inroads to be made by the end of 2019, by which point the second year of intake following the
re-launch of the campus will be clear. We therefore recommend a full review of plan implementation
at this stage. Regular reporting is also important to ensure that delivery remains on track and the
ongoing financial position is clear in the intervening period, and we recommend that formal progress
reports be submitted to the GMIT Governing Body and the HEA every four months.
The range of recommendations set out in this report are wide ranging and complex, and it is difficult
to exactly project the financial and operational implications of each. It is also important to recognise
that recommendations also generate additional costs for the institute that were not previously
envisaged prior to this process, and which in some instances are somewhat contradictory to the wider
financial plan agreed by GMIT with the HEA. Nonetheless we do consider these short-term
investments to be essential to realise the long-term development and growth that will generate
sufficient income to underpin future viability. It is also important that this plan is underpinned by
targets and milestones to be met by the campus if it is to ensure long-term sustainability and to
provide focus for its staff in delivering the plan. In this section therefore we set out broad projections
for the student numbers, income and cost base that would be required in order to reach this position.
6.2 Student Growth and the Campus Income Base
Reversing the decline in student demand for the Mayo campus in recent years is the most critical
priority in securing a sustainable future. We have noted that the whole-time equivalent student base
is the driver of higher education funding. There were 680.9 WTE students in 2016/17 and this student
base is expected to remain relatively static in 2017/18. It is considered that at least a 25% increase in
this base will be required over the lifetime of the plan, bringing the level up to around 860 by 2021/22.
This will require substantial progress across the three pillars in restructuring and marketing existing
full-time programmes, developing attractive new full-time programmes, and expanding significantly
niche lifelong learning offerings. Figure 6.1 sets out the target WTE student numbers for health,
business and environment, excluding lifelong learning, on the Mayo campus. The targets for WTE
40
lifelong learning student numbers across all three pillars are listed separately. While similar levels of
growth are projected for lifelong learning over the period, we believe that there is potential to grow
this offering much more significantly and recommend a renewed approach to developing the campus
as a centre of excellence of lifelong learning over the course of this plan.
FIGURE 6.1: FULL-TIME, PART-TIME & WHOLE-TIME EQUIVALENT TARGET STUDENT NUMBERS
Area 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22
WTE WTE WTE WTE WTE BUSINESS 135 151 163 179 213 HEALTH 344 385 385 397 405 ENVIRONMENT 104 92 99 107 115 LIFELONG LEARNING 103 104 112 136 127 CAMPUS TOTAL 686 732 759 819 860
If this increase in numbers can be secured, there will be a direct impact on the income of the campus.
For every full-time undergraduate student attracted, a student contribution will be generated, plus a
small free fee allocation ‘top-up’ from the HEA depending on the level of award and focus of study.
The composite fee including student contribution per student equates to €3,250 for all Level 6/7
provision, €4,450 for Level 8 engineering and €3,819 for all other Level 8 provision excluding nursing.
Similarly the fees paid for lifelong learning courses can be assumed to be largely in line with this
income per student on a pro rata basis (i.e. if a student is taking 30 credits in a year, the part-time fee
would tend to sit around the €1,500, and this is the assumption on which our income figures are
based). Funding for nursing provision is provided separately and currently amounts to €7,160 per
student (including student contribution) for fees plus a grant amount of €2,397 with a quota system
limiting the number of funded places in each institute.
However while these levels of additional income per student are guaranteed, the situation with regard
to HEA recurrent grant funding is much more complex. This is because the allocation to each institute
is based on a share of a fixed pot of funding for the IoTs. While there is no certainty around how the
overall level of funding in this pot will change over the lifetime of the plan, the GMIT (and hence
campus) allocation will also vary depending on the rate at which student numbers grow across the
other IoTs, as the funding model is driven by WTE student numbers weighted to reflect the cost of
delivering different disciplines.
A moderating mechanism is applied to prevent large swings in allocations from one year to the next
to maintain financial stability within the higher education system. This limits changes in the grant for
each institution to +/- 2% of the overall average sectoral change. As we have noted, GMIT’s student
numbers have decreased in recent years (including in the Mayo campus) relative to growth in other
IoTs and GMIT have tended to receive an annual allocation reflecting a change of 2% below the
average increase/decrease. However, the progress made by GMIT in the last two years in reversing its
decline in overall student numbers, added to the campus projections of a 25% growth in student
numbers, should see GMIT return within the moderator in 3 years, allowing it to benefit from the full
effects of this growth, and this is reflected in the grant income figures below. The HEA also expects
that the wider higher education funding environment should ensure that overall sectoral funding per
student does not fall any further after a period of significant decline over the last 8 years. Taking all of
this into account, the state grant allocated to the GMIT Mayo campus is projected to increase by 3%
per annum over the lifetime of the plan.
41
Figure 6.2 sets out the projected income base for GMIT if targets for student growth across
mainstream activities can be maintained. This should deliver growth in income of 20.7% over the
period 2018 to 2022.
FIGURE 6.2: PROJECTED GMIT MAYO CAMPUS INCOME BASE (€000)
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Student Contribution/Fees 2,817 2,961 3,124 3,231 3,321 HEA Grant 2,860 3,081 3,223 3,422 3,523 Other Income 447 458 481 516 546 TOTAL INCOME 6,124 6,500 6,828 7,168 7,390
6.3 Realising a Sustainable Cost Base
While income is expected to grow over the 5 year planning period, analysis of the cost base suggests
that significant deficits will be incurred. On a full cost basis, with the campus charged for overhead
costs for central support services in the same way as all other GMIT academic operations, overall
expenditure for 2017 is estimated at €7.3m, some €2.4m above current income. In this report, we
have acknowledged the significant commitment by GMIT to supporting operations by allowing this
overhead charge to be waived. This effectively means the institute is making an ongoing investment
of approximately €800,000 per annum to sustain the campus.
However there is also a need for the campus to address the cost base over time and the remaining
€1.6m deficit which exists even after the GMIT overhead contribution. Delivery of this plan must also
involve investment in a new permanent Head of Campus and 2 academic staff to support further
growth in the health pillar. The costs of pay restoration, in line with national labour agreements, are
expected to be significant over the next few years, and while additional Exchequer funding is expected
to be provided for this purpose, the nature of the HEA recurrent grant funding model means that these
costs will not be fully recovered. Pay costs currently account for 87.4% of total campus expenditure
and this pay restoration process will put further pressure on the cost base. Given all these
considerations, we believe that a series of mechanisms should be used to deliver savings of €800,000
over time including the redeployment of central service functions to the Mayo campus and the use of
voluntary re-deployment and voluntary redundancy mechanisms (with the agreement of the
Department of Education and Skills) to serve re-structuring needs. By assuming the implementation
of this cost reduction programme on a phased basis over 4 years from 2018/19 to 2021/22, Figure 6.3
sets out the pay and non-pay costs, and the total target expenditure, for the Mayo campus over the
lifetime of the plan.
FIGURE 6.3: PROJECTED GMIT MAYO CAMPUS EXPENDITURE BASE (€000)
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
PAY 6,859 7,098 7,180 7,083 6.936 NON-PAY 986 986 986 986 986 TOTAL EXPENDITURE 7,845 8,084 8,166 8,069 7,922
6.4 Disruptive Change to Secure Sustainability
The income growth and cost savings identified above will provide a strong foundation to support
ongoing sustainability. The Working Group believe that with ongoing programme development and
reform, a dedicated marketing effort and collaborative working with a wide range of stakeholders,
there is an opportunity to grow full-time and part-time student numbers significantly, while also
42
addressing a cost base which cannot be sustained in the medium and longer term. However we have
also tried to set out a series of more disruptive changes which lie outside the mainstream activities of
the campus. Some of the recommendations made seek external funding for particular initiatives, and
it would be reasonable to expect a largely money in, money out approach to their progression (e.g.
for a Centre for Sustainable Communities or a Rural Entrepreneurship Development Programme).
These types of initiatives are critical in embedding the role of the campus at the heart of regional
development regardless of any additional financial value. However there are other disruptive changes
that should, we believe, be able to make a more substantial contribution to the bottom-line deficits
over-time, either by bringing in additional income or allowing more efficient deployment of existing
campus resources. It is important that strong focus remains on bringing these to fruition, and we set
them out individually in Figure 6.4 with clear targets for implementation.
FIGURE 6.4: ADDITIONAL TARGET SUCCESSES FOR THE MAYO CAMPUS
Action Relevant Recommendation
Timeline
Expanding the iHub facilities or delivering a more coordinated approach to servicing regional enterprise needs and addressing the deficit from these activities
25 2019
Developing a Mayo Campus proposition for a new apprenticeship programme
11 2020
Realising untapped opportunities to attract international students, with the full support of the GMIT international engagement office
12 2021
Exploiting niche postgraduate opportunities for development 12 2021
Developing the campus as a centre of excellence for lifelong learning and doubling the number of WTE students accessing part-time and online provision
14 2021
Of course, there is a degree of uncertainty in how and when these recommendations can be realised,
and the timeframe provided above can only be taken as highly indicative. Nevertheless if a few
successes can be secured which can make further contributions to the bottom-line deficit, these will
continue to build momentum towards a long-term sustainable situation for the campus.
6.5 Summary of the Financial Plan
In Figure 6.5, we take the income and expenditure forecasts set out above and identify the annual
projected deficit for the campus over the next 5 years. There remains a major deficit to be met in the
short to medium term, even allowing for GMIT waiving central overhead costs, an HEA additional
campus contribution and student growth.
FIGURE 6.4: PROJECTED GMIT MAYO CAMPUS INCOME BASE (€000)
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
INCOME 6,124 6,500 6,828 7,168 7,390 EXPENDITURE 7,845 8,084 8,166 8,069 7,922 SURPLUS/DEFICIT (1,721) (1,584) (1,338) (901) (532)
A time-bound funding solution to meet this gap will be important to provide financial security and
stability over this critical interim period, allowing the many recommendations to be progressed and
changes given sufficient time to bed down and realise their targeted impacts. With clear and strong
43
leadership alongside this; the commitment of staff, students and external stakeholders in the region;
and robust ongoing monitoring of progress (with associated corrective action if required), we believe
that the plan offers a sustainable long-term future for the Mayo campus.
44
Appendix 1: GMIT Working Group Membership
Andrew Brownlee (HEA and Chair),
Tom Canavan (Mayo Enterprise Group)
Liam Deasy (Students' representative)
Sheena Duffy (HEA),
Jim Fennell (VP Finance, GMIT),
Deirdre Garvey (GMIT Mayo Campus Staff Representative),
Tony Gaynor, (Department of Education and Skills) joined July 2017
Michael Gill (Head of GMIT Mayo Campus),
Michael Hannon (VP Academic Affairs & Registrar, GMIT),
Caoimhe Hope (Department of Education and Skills) until July 2017
Justin Kerr (GMIT Mayo Campus Staff Representative)
Damien Kilgannon (HEA)
Christy Mannion (Department of Education and Skills) until July 2017
John Magee (Mayo County Council)
45
Appendix 2: Submissions Received
GMIT Mayo Staff representatives
GMIT Mayo Student representatives
Noel Campbell, Curator, National Museum of Ireland
Anne-Marie Carroll, Development Officer, South West Mayo Development Company
Rory Casey, MD, Fibrepulse
Lorna Elms, Education and Outreach Department, National Museum of Ireland
Councillor Henry Kenny
John Moran, MayoPlus
Dr. Kieran O’Conor, Department of Geography & Archaeology, NUI Galway
Anthony Quigley, Founder and Director, Digital Marketing Institute
Dr. Deb Rotman, Center for Undergraduate Scholarly Engagement, University of Notre Dame
Patrick Rowland, CEO, Elverys Sports
Steering Committee, Creation of a Centre for Community Sustainability on the Mayo Campus
of GMIT
Mathy Vanbuel, Managing Co-Director, ATIT, Belgium
Deputy Lisa Chambers, TD for Mayo
Programme Boards
Applied Social Care
Art and Design, Fine Art, Contemporary Art Practices
Business
Construction
Digital Media and Technologies
History & Geography, Culture & Environment
Languages
Outdoor Education
Sustainable Building Technology
46
Appendix 3: List of Stakeholders met by Working Group
• Representatives of Castlebar Staff
• Representatives of Castlebar Students
• GMIT Governing Body
• GMIT Executive Body
• Local public representatives
• Mayo County Council
• National Museum of Ireland
• HSE
• Enterprise Ireland
• IDA Ireland
• Mayo Mental Health Services
• Galway Clinic
• West Regional Skills Forum
• South West Mayo Development
• Mayo Local Enterprise Office
• Mayo Sligo Leitrim ETB
• Allergan
• Western Care
• Portwest
• IRD Kiltimagh
• Arcon Recruitment
• Kilmovee Community Centre
• Mayo Plus
• Linenhall Theatre
• James Jennings & Co
• Dark Skies/Terra Firma
• VTOS Belmullet
• St. Muredach’s College, Ballina
• Castlebar Social Services
• IFAC
• Business Action on Education
• Tellmystorybook.ie
• NUI Maynooth
• Congregation Technology
• Westbic
• ihub
• Hollister ULC
• Baxter
47
Appendix 4: Proposed Mayo Sub-Committee Terms of Reference
Purpose
To advise the Governing Body on its reserved governance functions as they apply to the Mayo
Campus.
Functions
It shall be the function of the Mayo Campus Sub-Committee to advise on:-
Policy formulation and foresight
Strategic Planning
Programmes & Budgets
Monitoring and review of key performance results
Accountability to regulators and key stakeholders
Membership
The Mayo Campus Sub-Committee shall be eighteen members comprised of:-
Chairman of the Governing Body (or nominee)
President
Head of Mayo Campus
Five members to be nominated by nominating bodies. Nominating bodies to be recommended by
Academic Council.
Two academic staff members
One non-academic staff member
Two student members
Five ordinary members of the Governing Body
In appointing members to the Mayo Campus Sub-Committee, the Governing Body shall have regard
to the requirement of gender balance.
The Chairman of the Governing Body (or nominee) shall be Chairman of the Mayo Campus Sub-
Committee. The Governing Body shall also appoint a Deputy Chairman. In the absence of both the
Chairman and the Deputy Chairman, the meeting may appoint a Chairman for the meeting.
A Quorum shall be five persons attending in person or by video-conference link.
48
Meetings
The Mayo Campus Sub-Committee shall meet at least three times a year in each academic year.
The Mayo Campus Sub-Committee shall meet at the request of the Governing Body or the President.
The President will make the necessary arrangements for the administrative requirements of the
Mayo Campus Sub-Committee, inclusive of the preparation of meeting agenda, briefing documents
and minutes.
Meeting agendas will be prepared and provided one week in advance to members together with
appropriate briefing materials.
The minutes of the Mayo Campus Sub-Committee meetings will be furnished to Governing Body
members for consideration.
The President or a delegated officer shall make arrangements for the convening of meetings, the
recording of proceedings and the preparation of reports as required by the Mayo Campus Sub-
Committee.
If it becomes necessary for the Mayo Campus Sub-Committee, as a body, in the discharge of its
functions to take independent professional advice, the President will make such arrangements.
