Growing Esteem Responsible Division Management Implementation

Frequently Asked Questions

Please note these FAQs are currently being review (November 2009) and will be replaced shortly.

In the interim, please direct any questions to: RDM-info@ unimelb.edu.au or complete the feedback/contribution form

 

PROJECT GOALS

What is the purpose of the Project?

We are trying to maximise the level of support provided to the core business of teaching and learning, research and knowledge transfer by:

  1. maximizing the effectiveness and efficiency of the work of University;
  2. dealing with a difficult period of financial constraint by containing the increasing costs of running the organization.

A key reason for the project is to ensure that the management philosophy of subsidiarity is put into place, so that those responsible for an area of the University under the Accountability Framework are truly accountable, and have the resources and support they need to do their job.

When will Responsible Division Management be implemented?

Responsible Division Management (RDM) will take effect on 1 January 2010.

The transition is being carefully managed according to a process adopted after consultation with staff and their representatives in September 2009. For more information, go to the ‘Transition to Responsible Division Management’ website.

Why is the Project happening now?

The timing of the project is to an extent driven by the more challenging environment in which we operate, where the University’s projected revenue increase does not match our regular rate of increasing costs. For many years, our revenues from all sources comfortably exceeded the very constant rate by which our costs increased. In 2009, unless costs are contained, the University could move from a surplus to a deficit. In order to prevent this from happening, the Planning and Budget Conference in 2008 accepted a set of recommendations for cost-containment measures. The measures were proposed by an Expenditure Review Committee established for this purpose.

The implementation of a new accountability framework and budget model, making ‘subsidiarity’ real, is another key reason for acting at this time, as doing so will result in more effective and efficient processes overall as well as more responsive services.

What is subsidiarity?

Subsidiarity is a principle whereby, within the University of Melbourne, decision-making and financial management is devolved within the University to faculties/graduate schools.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines subsidiarity as the idea that “a central authority should have a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks which cannot be performed effectively at a more immediate or local level”.

This means that, before a function is assigned to a central level, it should be assessed to determine whether it could be done at the local level.  Criteria are established to decide what is not able to be performed locally and tasks effectively delegated ‘upwards’ by agreement. 

Subsidiarity was established as a fundamental principle of European Union law by the 1992 Treaty of Maastricht, although the concept has been around for some time and was adapted from Catholic church social thought, which noted that a “higher entity in the social order [should] not do for a lower order what it is capable of doing for itself”.

Decentralised decision-making does not mean that units are independent and autonomous.  Units must contribute to the achievement of the strategic and operational goals of the University.  Governance and planning mechanisms will be in place to ensure that the University’s management arrangements operate within a policy framework where:

What is the Accountability Framework?

The framework is the annual cycle of planning, performance monitoring, quality assurance and reporting to demonstrate good management of the University.  The aim of the framework is to provide University Council, the Vice-Chancellor, Deans, Heads of Department and senior managers with systematic feedback on the performance of the programs for which they are responsible, and to promote a culture of rigorous self-analysis and review from which continuous improvement initiatives are identified and implemented.

Accountability is achieved using the management philosophy of subsidiarity, where decision-making though aligned with University goals, takes place as close as possible to where services are delivered and people affected, except where impractical or inefficient to do so.

In a time of financial constraint, it particularly appropriate to investigate how we can ensure key administrative functions are conducted as efficiently and effective as possible. 

More information on the Accountability Framework

What is Responsible Division Management?

Responsible Division Management is a financial management approach of operational decentralisation, which gives effect to the principle of subsidiarity, where decision-making takes place as close as possible to where services are delivered and people affected, except where it is impractical or inefficient to do so.

What this means in practice is that the University’s model is a devolved one –

How is ‘Responsible Division Management’ being implemented?

The project conducted an analysis of services and activities that exist to support the core business of teaching and learning, research and knowledge transfer.  As well as considering how these activities might be done in a more efficient and cost-effective way, a consideration about where functions and services ‘belong’ is being undertaken, based upon Responsible Division Management principles and to enable subsidiarity.

The following provides advice about how functions were located according to this model:

For information about the categorisation of services according to the RDM model and to see Service Catalogues providing details of service expectations, go to the Drafts and Proposals page.

What does the project cover?

The project potentially will impact on all services and activities.  The initial focus of effort under the preceding Administrative Improvement Program was on HR and financial management. The project is continuing this work and implementing areas of potential savings identified at the Planning & Budget Conference by the Expenditure Review Committee, areas currently identified in the workstreams of the project.

Student services have already undergone extensive analysis and adjustment as part of the Melbourne Student Services Model work conducted in 2007. In 2009 there has been an evaluation of progress to date and an examination of where efficiencies might be achieved. Once agreement is reached about the appropriate location of services, further adjustments may be required, depending on the final business models adopted in faculties (for information, go to the Student Services Project Page).

All administrative and academic-support functions may be assessed, and nothing is ‘out of scope’ until agreed to be so.

Does this project mean functions, services and people will be moved?

Some functions and services will be moved from the centre to faculties, and within budget units, and this means movement of some people and change to some existing roles. After the model for services under RDM and subsidiarity principles was agreed in December 2008 and confirmed by Senior Executive in April 2009, an analysis of resource requirements and the need for any transfers of staff or other resources was conducted, informed by the budget process culminating in Planning and Budget Conference (PBC) in late July. After PBC, discussion and consultation with staff and their representatives about timelines and the appropriate transition processes resulted in the establishment of a transition process and time (see the ‘Transition to Responsible Division Management’ website for more detail).

It is the responsibility of Deans and other Budget Heads to assess what organisational changes have or will take place as a result of the project’s work.  No decisions will be taken without proper consideration of equitable processes and the establishment of appropriate timelines so that staff are treated fairly (see Guiding Principles).

How will things be managed under Responsible Division Management?

The project has made recommendations to Senior Executive in April 2009 and to the 2009 Planning and Budget conference which detail the changes required to management of services.

Go to the Drafts & Proposals page to access these reports. You will also be able to access from this page what changes to delegations, authorities and policy are being made to support these changes to responsibilities and authorities.

Is the focus of the Responsible Division Management Implementation project on ‘administration’ only?

No, the project is also looking at academic issues.

One workstream will be specifically looking at the management of academic workloads and academic workforce-planning, and other related matters that impact directly on academic staff including use of casuals in teaching, low enrolment subjects, the administration of the QoT survey, improvement in research project management and reporting, provision of student services, etc.  

It is understood that many of the proposed changes to ‘administration’ will have an impact on academic staff’s working lives as well.

Who is managing the Responsible Division Management Implementation project?

The project was led by the Dean of Science, Prof Liz Sonenberg and the Senior Vice Principal, Ian Marshman, who co-chaired an RDMIT Steering Group of key stakeholders. From October 2009 the RDMIT will be chaired by Ian Marshman alone.

The project will make use of Steering Groups of stakeholders and reference groups of those involved in processes to ‘road-test’ proposals and to seek the advice of key operations staff and their managers on how well proposals may operate in the real world.

Coordination of the Project is by Janet Beard, Director (Integrated Administration).

The project has subsumed the existing Administrative Improvement Program project, and will take direct advantage of the business process review undertaken by that project. That project had a particular focus on identifying functionality and usability improvements around the Themis system, implementing more standardised arrangements around purchasing and a ‘Service Improvement Review Program which focused on HR and financial management.

I have a suggestion for improvement! Who do I take this to?

The project is very interested in hearing ANY suggestion about -

You should an email to RDM-info@ unimelb.edu.au  with your issues and ideas, or fill in the feedback form.

How is the work of the project being organised?

The work of the project will be completed within a series of coordinated Workstreams, each of which focuses on a specific aspect of the overall project. A detailed presentation of the workstreams and associated sub-streams can be found here.

Much of the above work is interdependent, although work on each of the workstreams will be carefully coordinated to avoid unnecessary disruption .

DEBUNKING THE MYTHS

I have heard …

This is all about reducing the number of faculties
This is all about reducing the number of student centres
This is all about decentralising HR & Finance
This is all about centralising HR & Finance
This is all about increasing the workload of academics
This is all about increasing the workload of professional staff
This is all about outsourcing services

None of the above is a goal of the project, nor a desired outcome per se, nor have proposals to implement any of these things been considered at this stage.

The project has two drivers –

When looking at achieving Responsible Division Management and cost savings, all practical options will be evaluated, and this includes costing alternative options or models and comparing them to existing operations and other proposals for improvements.

It is wrong to assume that the University is inefficient, however it is also wrong to think that we cannot become more cost-effective by making strategic changes to existing processes to ensure maximum investment in core academic activities. Changes have to make sense, but especially given the difficult times with which we are all dealing, cost savings must be made.

But the University is wealthy and has many sources of funds. Is this really necessary?

It is true that the University is a comparatively (within the Australian context) well-resourced organisation. However, even disregarding current difficult circumstances:

  1. We can’t afford to be profligate and wasteful – if a more efficient and effective way is found, we should utilise it.
  2. We can’t have unlimited growth – we have been growing our revenue more than our costs for many years. This luxurious situation is not sustainable.  Our revenue increases are projected to plateau and we can’t guarantee new fund sources from Government or elsewhere other than through our own efforts in recruiting students, attracting research funding and implementing our advancement strategies.
  3. ‘Realisable’ assets can’t simply be sold to fund recurrent activities; and even if practical, certainly not prudently in today’s markets.
  4. We are a research intensive institution. Research is expensive, and the gap between research funding and our expenditure on research is wide. Reducing research expenditure, however, would have a material impact on our ability to generate revenue, and is not sensible.
  5. The current way is not always ‘the best way’. Any advantages/benefits of our current processes must be understood, but what we currently do should not upheld as sacrosanct in a way that prevents reform.

The purpose of the changes being considered is to ensure that we focus our resources on our core business – that is; teaching and learning, research and knowledge transfer.

How much money will be spent on this project?

It’s a cliché, but sometimes you have to spend money to save money. The critical point is that the project will be funded from the savings that result from its work.

This is a big project made up of a lot of individual sub-projects, some of which require a lot of investment. Although making savings on consultants was identified by the Expenditure Review Committee as a potential area of saving, the project and some faculties are using consultants to assist them plan and implement change, but careful consideration will be given to their use and where internal people could do the job as well or more cost effectively, they will be used.

A lot of project support will be required and funds for backfilling positions will also be made available. Other costs will include potential changes to systems and these carry large costs for business analysis, making, testing and documenting system changes, and for training to assist staff with the new processes. Costs required here will depend on final solutions for improving processes. 

How can I stay informed / get involved?

You could:

top of page