See also David Easdown's pages:
http://www.maths.usyd.edu.au/s/scnitm/de-Urgent-FeedbackBy2Septemb
http://www.maths.usyd.edu.au/s/scnitm/de-Urgent-PetitionToTheDean
http://www.maths.usyd.edu.au/u/de/SIPS/ResponseToFeedback.html
Items below are not in order of importance, but in random or maybe chronological order.
Response
[A somewhat better PD is on page 483 of
RCPv2-AppendixB
dated 1 Feb 2017]
SIPS: PDs for Paul Szabo and ...
Looking at the Position Descriptions in the
SIPS RCPv2 appendix B,
the PD for my position seems to be the one on page 483 ...
I see that my PD is a poor re-write of my current one ... .
Would it be possible to correct [this]?
[Paul Szabo to
SIPS,
Thu 2 Feb 2017]
The Transformation Project - what we confirmed
...
+ We have distinct cultures within our academic communities that
professional staff become a part of
...
But then, the revelation:
The Transformation Project - what it revealed
+ We don't have a common language for our work
should be seen as a requirement for supporting those diverse and
distinct academic communities. This is something that should be
celebrated, not changed.
Response
The Service Innovation Program for Science (SIPS) is intended to better
understand how the Faculty of Science and its constituent entities of
schools, centres, institutes and initiatives are organised - with a
specific aim - to provide all professional and academic staff with
clarity of roles and responsibilities, ensuring that we continue
excellent support services for research and education. It is intended
that the SIPS will deliver more streamlined services where possible, as
well as specialised services where it is identified that that is
required - indeed taking note of the diversity of the requirements where
they are truly unique. The Transformation Project identified the need to
create a common language to describe our work where practical and
advantageous and to create communities of practice where our staff can
learn from one another, but SIPS also seeks to ensure unique needs are
met.
[Quoted from page 4 of
RCPv2-AppendixC
dated 1 Feb 2017]
The proposed structure contains a broader range of HEO levels than the current structure ...is factually wrong.
... the proposed structure is too flat ... contains more lower-level positions than the current structure.is substantiated: in effect many HEO6 and HEO8 been demoted to HEO5.
Response
The proposed structure in the RCP doesn't include a broader range of
roles that the current structure; the breadth of range is actually the
same. The current structure contains roles from HE02 to SGS2 and the
proposed model in the RCP included roles from HEO3 to SGS3. The range in
the proposed model in the RCP (Revised) has expanded and now includes
roles from HEO2 to SGS3.
Overall, there were 11 more roles in the proposed structure than in the
current structure in the range of HE02-HEO6 so the number of lower level
roles (depending on your definition of "lower level roles") has
increased. However, as per the data provided on the SIPS website, there
are indeed less HEO6 and HEO8 roles than in he current model which more
accurately reflects the changing needs of the Faculty.
[Quoted from page 34 of
RCPv2-AppendixC
dated 1 Feb 2017]
Current HEO1-10: total 220 - average 6.11 - std dev 1.58 Proposed HEO1-10: total 220 - average 5.88 - std dev 1.50 Current SG01-3: total 4 - average 1.25 - std dev 0.43 Proposed SG01-3: total 6 - average 2.17 - std dev 0.37which means demoting HEOs and concentrating them towards HEO5 while promoting SGs to SG02 and beyond; the separation between these classes is increased, not promoting collegiality.
Response
The proposal seeks to strike the right balance between senior leadership
roles, noting that we are consolidating the functions of three
faculties, and to scaffold roles throughout the structure. The proposal
takes into consideration the needs as understood from the Transformation
Project, as well as a result of detailed consultation throughout the
SIPS. The range of levels changes with each new series of documents and
as a result of consultation and this is reflected in the RCP (Revised).
[Quoted from page 36
RCPv2-AppendixC
dated 1 Feb 2017]
Non-responses and missing data are common in [surveys]. Ignoring or inadequately handling missing data may lead to biased parameter estimates, ... incorrect statistical inference and conclusions.The Transformation Project was a major input into SIPS; and that sourced its data from surveys and workshops. Though surveys may have allowed staff to accurately report activities, it is to be expected that many were mis-reported due to seasonality and non-currency (or forgetfulness and laziness). At the workshops many participants were not clear on the expectations, and anyway only the major processes were ever discussed.
How was the accuracy of the data measured, how was missing data handled?
[Paul Szabo to
SIPS,
Thu 10 Nov 2016]
Response
The Transformation Project survey formed part of the data gathering
exercise for SIPS: the workshops held with staff generated a significant
amount of data concerning school and faculty operations.
The survey itself was informed and designed by staff, and represented a
3-fold increase in specificity of tasks compared to the UniForum survey,
allowing staff to report up to an accuracy of .5% of their time. Staff
were also able to provide qualitative data around peak periods of
workload or demand, casual support their role currently requires or any
other information they thought pertinent. Since the start of SIPS,
further data and detail has been received, and the model has iterated as
a result.
[Quoted from page 10 of
RCPv2-AppendixC
dated 1 Feb 2017]
SIPS: Accuracy of data (v2)
The response admits that the survey and workshops were not
professionally designed nor evaluated by qualified or experienced
surveyors, thus the conclusions should be handled with scepticism.
[Paul Szabo to
SIPS,
Mon 13 Feb 2017]
The reporting line for School Managers will be determined by ODI ... ... will align with the reporting lines ... as proposed in ODI. ... reporting lines in line with those proposed in the ODI proposals ... ... the School Manager [role] will be determined by ODI ... ... will align with the reporting lines [as per] ODI ... ... will need to be reviewed given the changes in ODI ...Currently ODI is at the RCP stage, some of its outcomes may change. It is premature to proceed with SIPS beyond a DCP stage.
Response
As a result of the updated SIPS timeline since release of the initial
RCP, the ODI FCP has now been released and we believe this suggestion is
no longer relevant.
[Quoted from page 10
RCPv2-AppendixC
dated 1 Feb 2017]
The survey said "will take 30 minutes", to do during a coffee break. Different results might have been obtained if it came with a warning "be meticulous, take a week off if need be, the future of the Faculty depends on you"; or if it just came with a different set of "leading" questions and clickable choices.
The workshops were fun and games, with plenary and breakout sessions, process mappings of the "most important" work item on butcher's paper, and coloured stickers to "vote" on issues of importance; a couple of hours of camaraderie, attend if you wish.
The data collected for the Transformation Project may have identified the major issues and processes in the Faculty; but it certainly missed issues and processes that were deemed less important.
What processes were used to ensure the Transformation Project data was
applicable to SIPS, and that the data captured was complete?
[Paul Szabo to
SIPS,
Fri 11 Nov 2016]
Response
The SIPS DCP was informed by the extensive review and consultation that
formed the Transformation Project Final Report (July 2016) but also
incorporated additional data sets, discussions with academic and
professional leadership at the university, faculty and school layers and
benchmarking with G08 faculties of science.
[Quoted from page 29 (with repeated question) of
RCPv2-AppendixC
dated 1 Feb 2017]
Response
The Transformation Project survey formed part of the data gathering
exercise for the project itself - dozens or workshops were undertaken
that generated a significant amount of data concerning school and
faculty operations. The survey was informed and designed by staff, and
requested that staff spend time allocating their duties. Importantly,
the Transformation Project is not the only input to SIPS, with other
information utilised and extensive consultation occurring as part of the
SIPS process.
[Quoted from page 11 of
RCPv2-AppendixC
dated 1 Feb 2017]
Response
If, post-implementation of SIPS, and indeed over time and needs change,
the local management believe that role requirements have changed and a
higher level position is required, then we would advise they submit a
re-classification request in line with current practice. The SIPS
proposal does not take away the manger's ability to request a role
re-classification.
[Quoted from page 65 of
RCPv2-AppendixC
dated 1 Feb 2017]
Response
Individual feedback was provided in response to the design included in
the ODI's RCP and this can be found in the ODI FCP. We note there have
been subsequent changes to the design of the School Manager reporting
lines in the same FCP. The SIPS Program has stated their rationale and
preference for reporting lines in the DCP but have always maintained
that whatever design is confirmed by the ODI program will be adopted.
This hasn't changed and is reflected in the narrative of this document.
[Quoted from page 305
RCPv2-AppendixC
dated 1 Feb 2017]
... the complexity of our administrative structures [] encourages ... to keep ... professional staff who can effectively navigate this complexity by reclassifying them to higher levels ...ODI will re-organize our University with "simpler structures, systems and processes". Until that re-organization is complete, we need our overqualified and overpaid workforce to deal with the complexities. SIPS is premature: demoting staff now, will cause our Faculty to fail.
Response
As a result of the updated SIPS timeline since release of the initial
RCP, the ODI FCP has now been released and we believe this suggestion is
no longer relevant.
[Quoted from page 268 of
RCPv2-AppendixC
dated 1 Feb 2017]
SIPS: Demotion premature, Faculty will fail (v2)
The release of ODI FCP does not result in an immediate completion of
re-organization. SIPS should proceed only after the expected
simplification of processes is in place, and is verified to simplify or
lower workloads.
[Paul Szabo to
SIPS,
Mon 13 Feb 2017]
In addition, recent data on levels of appointment amongst professional staff at the University demonstrates that we have a higher proportion of professional staff classified at HEO8 and above than our competitors. In our view, one critical factor in this phenomenon is the complexity of our administrative structures, which encourages senior leaders to keep professional staff who can effectively navigate this complexity by reclassifying them to higher levels to ensure they do not move to positions elsewhere in the University. This is not in the best interests of the staff or the University. It encourages narrow specialisation, and locks good staff into the same position for many years rather than affording them professional development opportunities through a variety of positions. Ensuring managers have the capacity to manage the careers of a wide variety of staff and are empowered to encourage staff professional development is one way we can contribute to better career outcomes for professional staff.Is there data to substantiate the assertion that many staff were undeservedly over-promoted and over-paid just to be "locked in"? If so, should that be pursued under "wrongdoing"?
Where you say "locked in", others see loyalty. Is loyalty no longer appreciated? Where you say over-classified, other see hard work. Should that work, the learning to navigate complex systems, be rewarded?
You suggest that professional development is to be moved to various
positions all over the University. After processes are standardised,
this is of no benefit. This development and career outcome seems to
happen without promotion to higher HEO levels, since those positions
were downgraded or abolished.
[Paul Szabo to
provost,
Sat 12 Nov 2016]
Response
Thank you for your comments.
The loyalty of our staff members is recognised and important to us and the comments in the RCP were not intended to and do not devalue individual contributions of staff. Data is available that a high proportion of staff is classified at a level above HEO8.
At the same time, it is important that staff are encouraged and supported to further expand on their skills and abilities in order to develop their careers and to progress to other roles, whether those roles are inside or outside a school or faculty.
We believe that new opportunities, including promotions to higher HEO
levels, will continue to be an option for our professional staff.
[Quoted from
ODI FCP
dated 14 Dec 2016]
Of course such common conflicts would not arise if the Faculty Manager would generally abstain from giving directions to the School Manager, but use that authority on infrequent special occasions only. Can the "trump rules" be stated on paper, when it applies and when it does not? Otherwise, such irregular supervision would be a dereliction of duty.
You seem concerned to ensure that faculty-wide changes filter down to Schools. As you say, the Dean can be deployed to direct the Head of School. This seems the correct approach: occurs infrequently, for issues that both the Dean and Head of School would already be well aware of, so giving the order to comply does not involve extra workload nor immersion in the minutiae of operational matters.
Most commonly the School will enthusiastically adopt changes suggested by Faculty, without a formal order to comply. Should that not be the case, in a small number of contentious issues, the Dean must be involved either as transmissor of the order or as adjudicator of the appeal. With dual reporting lines including the Faculty Manager, the Dean will have further appeals added to his workload, exactly contrary to the aim of being shielded from operational matters.
Please reconsider.
[Paul Szabo to
provost,
Sun 13 Nov 2016]
Response
Thank you for this feedback. Please be assured that we have considered
all the feedback we have received on the proposed change in reporting
lines and we have decided to proceed with the proposed dual reporting
lines.
We also refer to the response provided to item 1 discussed at the RCP
feedback session.
[Quoted from
ODI FCP
dated 14 Dec 2016]
... It is important to note that since the conceptual model of our faculty structure will not change ... many faculty staff will see little impact on their day-to-day roles.Please explain how that corresponds with the very large number of positions affected, with half of them being made redundant.
Response
The comment " ... It is important to note that since the conceptual
model of our faculty structure will not change ... many faculty staff
will see little impact on their day-to-day roles." relates to the
Organisation Design Initiative which, with the exception of the newly
introduced role of School Manager, concerns only academic positions. As
such, this statement doesn't relate to SIPS which impacts only
professional staff only.
[Quoted from page 164 of
RCPv2-AppendixC
dated 1 Feb 2017]
... important lesson from past attempts. ... If we are to reorganise and refine our faculty structure then avoiding adding a layer should be an important basis for making a final decision.Please comment.
Response
None
[None found in
RCPv2-AppendixC
dated 1 Feb 2017]
... the vision of an institution in which ... our cohort of staff is genuinely diverse at every level of the organisation ...and from "Improving our organisational design":
... the need to retain disciplinary and professional identities and distinctiveness.Please comment.
Response
It is proposed that professional services throughout the Faculty and its
constituent entities are grouped into five portfolios of work that will
be responsible for the provision of expert advice and input in the
development of strategy, policy and planning.
These portfolios reflect the University's structure with respect to the
DVC Portfolios of Research, Education and Registrar, as well as the
support services that enable them. Further details on these portfolios
can be found in the RCP (Revised) document. These portfolios of work cut
across both Faculty layer teams and the Schools and the SIPS is seeking
to implement some standardisation in terms of roles and profiles. For
example, each School has within their structure the roles of School
Manager, Executive Officer, Education Support Officer and Research
Administration Officer. There remains scope to add specificities to each
role dependent on School needs.
[Quoted from page 275 of
RCPv2-AppendixC
dated 1 Feb 2017]
Inconsistencies between the service provided by PSUs and the service expected from PSUs ... has led to ... each School/Faculty bridges the gaps in service.To a large extent, this is due to the separation between the provider and client of those services. When reporting lines meet only at a much higher hierarchy, immediacy of feedback is lost, service KPIs become remote and self-serving, not aligned to client needs.
The design of ODI and SIPS divorces professional staff from academic clients: reporting lines no longer meet within the School, but much higher at Faculty level. Quality of service and client satisfaction will inevitably suffer.
Please comment.
[Paul Szabo to
provost and
SIPS,
Mon 28 Nov 2016]
Response
Thank you for your comments and we agree there is always room for
improvement in the provision of services to faculties.
From the perspective of the Organisational Design implementation, our
decision to retain the reporting line between the Head of School and
School Manager, and indeed the PMD process of discussing and agreeing
goals, confirms that we are not seeking to divorce academic from
professional staff.
[Quoted from
ODI FCP
dated 14 Dec 2016]
Response
Within Schools professional staff will be led by a senior School Manager
who will be a strategic partner for the Head of School, delivering the
operations to meet the school's objectives. As determined by the
University's ODI, there will be a dual reporting line for School
Managers ensuring connectivity between the school and faculty layers.
Rather than "divorcing professional staff from academic clients" the
SIPS and ODI proposals focus on a partnership model to deliver
outcomes.
We disagree that a change in reporting line will inevitably lead to a
drop in quality of service and client satisfaction. To suggest that
staff will somehow deliver a lower level of service as a result of
reporting to a different role is a disservice to them.
The roles most impacted by a change in reporting lines from an academic
to a professional staff member are typically HEO6 or above. We would
expect all of our staff at these levels to be able to develop
partnerships, assess and prioritise requirements and manage multiple key
stakeholders.
[Quoted from page 276 of
RCPv2-AppendixC
dated 1 Feb 2017]
Inconsistencies between the service provided by PSUs and the service expected from PSUs ... has led to ... each School/Faculty bridges the gaps in service.Please comment on how these portfolios will differ from PSUs, and how quality of service will be retained.
Response
Please refer to section 3 of the RCP (revised) for a detailed narratve
on these portfolios of work.
[Quoted from page 276
RCPv2-AppendixC
dated 1 Feb 2017]
Response
None
[None found in
RCPv2-AppendixC
dated 1 Feb 2017]
In your message of 25 Nov you wrote:
... we have decided to continue consultation ... you are given another
opportunity to engage, ask questions and so forth. ...
... we are listening and considering all feedback that is coming
through to the Program team. ...
This suggests feedback is accepted from all staff. However the SIPS team
are adamant that they will only participate in some "consultations" with
select Union representatives.
This reluctance is quite surprising: most feedback aims to improve the design. The earlier it is handled, incorporated or explained, the smoother the process and better the outcome of the final structure.
Thanks, Paul
[Paul Szabo to
Trevor,
Jas
and CC to
SIPS,
Tue 29 Nov 2016]
Response
You are welcome to continue to send through feedback to the program and
with the extended timeframe we are able to do that.
[from
Jas,
Tue 29 Nov 2016]]
Paul Szabo [email protected] 13 Feb 17