Organisational Performance - The Performance of Deakin University in Australia - Case Study Example

Executive summary Recently, there has been the wide and extensive argumentation about the accountability of universities, the assessment of how they perform academically, and publicly publishing the results so deciding the university in which to join will be easier. The decisions in this paper means the decision that the students will take to join a university or higher education, the decision taken by the government to allocate more resources or the decision or the decision taken by higher learning institutions to bring changes. Additionally, universities affect the wider economic and social welfare of the environment in which they operate. For this reason, universities are seen to be accountable to, one, the academic staff employed so that they have a safe environment of working and have opportunities in which they can grow. Secondly, they are also accountable to the government so that they are seen to be using the resources allocated to them optimal. The last area of accountability is the students and the community they serve so that they offer the best education; this application is useful in the society. For this reason, the process of evaluating the universities is seen to be very important and significant. This is so because many people rely on these to make various decisions. There are important rubric that need to be taken into account when this is done. These aspects include the fact that the university should be accountable to the government, the emergence of globalization, which has introduced mobility of the academic staff and students this bringing in the need to evaluate universities with their international counterparts. There are also other factors like global competition and the objectives by eth European Union to have a competitive education in the region. This paper will assess the performance of Deakin University, in Australia. Table of Contents Executive summary 1 Table of Contents 2 1.1 Background 5 1.1.1 Mission 5 1.1.2 Core commitments 5 2. Analyzing the performance 6 2.1 Structural view 6 2.1.1 Structures that ensure effective performance 7 2.1.2 University governance 9 2.2 Systems thinking 10 2.2.1 Deakin’s contribution 11 2.2.2 Feedback 12 2.3 Political view 12 3.0 Statistics 14 References 16 List of tables Table 1: Students enrolled 14 Table 2: Staff enrolled (As at March 2010) 14 Table 3: Course completion 15 Table 4: Gender 15 Table 5: Course type group 15 Table 1: Students enrolled 12 Table 2: Staff enrolled (As at March 2010) 13 Table 3: Course completion 13 Table 4: Gender 13 Table 5: Course type group 14 List of figure Figure 1: Organizational structure 7 Figure 1: Organizational structure 6 1. Introduction 1.1 Background Deakin University was formed in the year 1974 through the university act, Deakin University Act 1974. Its establishment became the first university in the region of Victoria. The main objective why it was established was so that the tertiary education graduates in the Geelong area could get access to university education. They also had the objective of providing university education to those who were in need of it whether they were from that area or from far places. The people from the far places would get the education through distance learning program. The first campus of Deakin University was established in 1979 in Waurn Ponds. From this time, there has been amalgamation of many tertiary institutions starting with Warnambool Institute of Advanced Education in 1990; this was done under Deakin University (Warnambool) Act 1990. 1.1.1 Mission Deakin University strives to be a catalyst for positive change to the people in the community in which they operate in. this they will achieve by making sure that their academic programs, academic programs, teaching and international programs are responsive, relevant and innovative. In pursuant of these objectives, it hopes that it will emerge as Australia has most advanced university. 1.1.2 Core commitments The university has come up with six commitments that have shaped its position in Australia’s higher education. These commitments include engagement in the rural and regional activities, education for long-term sustenance, access for all, even to those who may not have the chance and opportunity for quality education, quality research that makes a difference, academic programs that are flexible for all. 2. Analyzing the performance 2.1 Structural view The university has systems put in place so that they are able to achieve the goals that have been set. As stated in the sections above, there are core commitments that the university strives to attain so that the goals and the mandate it has for the community is fulfilled. The structure of the organization has been put properly in place to bring out the best out of staff and students for the betterment of the community. The figure below shows this structure. Figure 1: Organizational structure (Source: http://www.deakin.edu.au/vice-chancellor/organisational-chart.php) As can be seen in the diagram, all the structures have been put in place so that the university has the best management doe optimal performance. 2.1.1 Structures that ensure effective performance The chief administrator of Deakin University University is the president who controls who is the focal point for plans, policies and operational decisions crucial to institutional progress. Chief academic and program officer (Provost and senior vice president) for the university provides leadership to teaching, research and extension programs. He works closely with the president in developing university priorities and administering program budget and faculty and unclassified professional policies. The chief academic and program officer serves as university representative to Institutions council of Chief Academic Officers. The administrators reporting to the provost are the vice provost for information technology services, the vice president for research, Dean of Graduate school, the Deans of colleges, Dean of libraries and the heads of academic programs support units. These academic support programs include Academic Personnel, planning and analysis personnel, assessment personnel, centre for advancement of teaching and learning, diversity and dual career development and the university honors program. The vice president for Administration and Finance has the responsibility of managing all the university’s business matters, which include affairs relating to travel, purchasing, grants and contracts, payroll, classified personnel, accounting, budgeting, information system, parking operation, and the financial operation of the auxiliary enterprises for all physical facilities and related services. The services associated with physical facilities include planning, space allocation, construction and modeling, buildings and utilities, grounds, custodial maintenance, central mail service, storeroom, car pool, security department and public safety. The senate is a representative body whose member’s faculty and unclassified professionals election choose. The constituent units are colleges, the library and the general university. Committees and subcommittees of the senate are important units in the organization and functions of the university. The permanent senate committees are: The Executive Committee The committee Academic Affairs The committee on Faculty Affairs The committee on University planning The committee on Technology The Executive Committee consists of the president of Faculty Senate as senator-at-large, and one Senator from each representative unit who has been elected by secret ballot by the senators of that unit. The president-elect represents his/her unit on the committee. In addition, the chairperson of the Faculty Affairs Committee, the chairperson of the Academic Affairs Committee, the chairperson of the Student Senate or his/her designated representative, and the immediate past-president of Senate are ex-officio members of the Executive Committee without voting power. The president of the Faculty Senate presides at meetings of the Executive Committee. 2.1.2 University governance The general faculty consists of all faculty members who have the rank of instructor or higher. Because of its size, the General Faculty has delegated many of its powers to the Faculty Senate. The General Faculty approves all changes in the constitution of the Faculty Senate. The General Faculty meets once each semester at the call of the president of the university, or on petition of 25 members of the General Faculty. The elected president of the Faculty Senate presides at all meetings. The Faculty Senate is the representative body for the faculty and unclassified professionals of the whole university (Senge, 1992). Each college and each department has its own scheduled faculty meetings and structure for faculty participation. Within smaller units, variation in arrangements appears in accordance with needs. The concept of a community of scholars relating to each other as equals applies to K-State in its major functions more accurately than does the concept of hierarchy. 2.2 Systems thinking The university has targets that they hope to meet every year. Dealing with education, they hope to achieve as per the mission they have and be the center of academic excellence in this region. To be considered successful, the university strives to attain a set number of enrolments each year. This is not the requirement alone; there is also the need to have an assessment of the number of graduates who are employed immediately after graduation. The theory of systems thinking looks at the organization as a collection of systems, which are seen to be interacting for the better performance. In the university, there is a smooth cohesion in the various autonomous systems, which have been discussed in detail above, which may involve a number of pathways including general systems theory, open-systems theory and cybernetics. Looking at the university s a form of homeostasis, we may view its performance such that its ‘systems have a strong, self-regulating tendency to move towards a state of order and stability, or adapted equilibrium Scott (1992), such as a reaching an average quota of enrolments each year with little changes made to increase or decrease its numbers. There is also the open systems theory where it establishes a framework that may orient the university to see itself as a ‘system of inter-related components that transact with a larger environment (Poister, 2003). Some of its key characteristics include avoiding entropy via the exchange of information with the larger environment it cohabits. The said environments include the education sector, which will be defined by the boundaries in which they operate. They may regulate their performance through feedback mechanisms where the university or parts thereof ‘rely on information about their outputs to regulate their inputs and transformation processes (Mintzberg, 1979). Cybernetics theory involves feedback that incorporates the flow of data and information in a highly intricate system, which may allow the university to make decisions that adjust to a certain action or pattern of events (Daft, 1998). The university will likely use regulators that ‘utilize negative feedback in order to reach their goals and the desired states of adaptation to their environments, such as synthesizing its theological studies with other generalist courses in order to broaden its scope across its campuses to encourage more students to enroll (Maclean, 2001). This may even involve double loop learning, where its strategies and assumptions will alter ‘concurrently, or as a consequence of, change in values. Through a systems theory framework, the university can identify how its subsystems function towards a common set of goals and their interaction in relation to how they use resources and identify key aspects of its mission and objectives (Kast, & Rosenzweig, 1974). 2.2.1 Deakin’s contribution In striving to achieve the best in the academia, it has been imperative for the university to understand what the environment of higher education (Hall, 1972). The unique features that the university has to maintain are for them to have and maintain opportunities for that are sustainable for the next five years. These have been very important in the enhancement of developing the vision of the university. 2.2.2 Feedback The institution has been seen to get the feedback from the effort they put to get the best results. This can be seen in the statistics that are shown in the sections that follow. 2.3 Political view The University of Deakin has put in place a bi-annual survey that is used to measure the rate of satisfaction of the students for a period of five years. The main aim of the survey is to ensure that the students are satisfied not only with the courses they take but also with the suitability of the curriculum; they are undertaking (Bryson, 2004). There are five criteria that are used to measure suitability: i. The course suitability and the syllabus taught ii. The balance that is shown between teaching and practice iii. The quality of the support in pedagogy iv. The teaching skills of the professor v. How the professors are receptive All the results are standardized using a set process. The results are then sent to the director and the person who is in charge of the curriculum. The professors are then given the results, which concern the courses they teach at the university (Argyris, & Schon, 1996). After this, four meetings are then undertaken with the main objective of charting the way forward. One of the meetings is meant for the council, which is tasked with improvements. The improvement council also has the management as part of the team. Students also have their own representatives because it is believed that the students have what it takes to improve the performance of the university (Langley, 2009). The system of the professor salary in Australia was changed in the year 2002 so that there would be the inclusion of the performance-based salaries. Performance management in the political perspective has various undertones according to De Bruijins (2002). Performance management (PM) in universities has been known to bring transparency and incentives in the universities. There is an emphasis to work with laid down objectives. This is in tandem with what Kaplan and Atkinson (1998) advocates concerning the private sector and de Bruijin (2002) and Ash (1996) for the universities. Interestingly, the arguments, which are used by professors to justify the importance of PM, are used in both the private and the public sector. According to Bolman, and Deal (1997), three aspects that are considered in the political perspective of performance management are interaction, variety and dynamics. The two main stakeholders that are involved in the university are the government and the administration of the given university, for our case, Deakin University. Interaction focuses on what trust exists in the relationship between manager and professional. The interaction measures the measures that the professors have in place in order to effect better performance (Kaplan, & Atkinson, 1998). On the other hand, variety is the measure of whether the assessment criterion is qualitative or quantitative, and how flexible the manager is to either approach. For this to be effective, the university administrator must consider multiple perspectives and assess if each perspective is effective. One of the Deakin’s strategic goals is creating a specialized, growing and well-regarded research environment (Hey-Cunningham, 1998). The indicators that measure how well the ‘research and knowledge transfer’ are including research income, scholarly research output and impact, and research graduates (Fulop, Linstead, & Firth, 1999). Lastly, the dynamics involves the evaluation of the creation of innovative products and services two processes are involved here which are the development and the innovation process. Deakin University is among eight new universities that have recorded the fastest growth in research publications; more than 14 percent growth in research publications in a year, also the Deakin received $ 198000 from better universities renewal funding (Gottleibsen, 2000). 3.0 Statistics Table 1: Students enrolled 2009 2010 Course enrolment 38787 39606 Student load 26589 27571 Course completion 8489 - (Source: http://www.deakin.edu.au/about/assets/resources/deakin-at-a-glance.pdf) Table 2: Staff enrolled (As at March 2010) Full time 2539 causal 548 (Source: http://www.deakin.edu.au/about/assets/resources/deakin-at-a-glance.pdf) Table 3: Course completion 2007 2008 2009 Total 7617 8056 8489 Percentage -2.2% 5.8% 5.4% (Source: http://www.deakin.edu.au/about/assets/resources/deakin-at-a-glance.pdf) Table 4: Gender Male 3125 3263 3439 Female 4492 4793 5050 (Source: http://www.deakin.edu.au/about/assets/resources/deakin-at-a-glance.pdf) Table 5: Course type group Higher degree by research 101 154 236 Post graduate work 1836 2096 2240 Undergraduate 3700 3611 3892 Non-award 11 90 92 (Source: http://www.deakin.edu.au/about/assets/resources/deakin-at-a-glance.pdf) References Argyris, C, & Schon, D 1996, Organizational learning II: theory, method and practice, Addison-Wesley, Sydney. Kaplan, R. & Atkinson, A 1998, Advanced management accounting (3rd ed.), Prentice Hall, New Jersey: Bolman, L, & Deal, T 1997, Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice and Leadership, 2nd Ed., John Wiley and Sons, San Francisco. Bryson, J 2004, “What to do when stakeholders matter’, Public Management Review, Vol 6, Issue 1. pp 21-53. Daft, R 1998, Essentials of Organization Theory and Design, South-Western College Publishing, Cincinnati Ohio De Bruijn, H 2007, Managing Performance in the Public Sector, Routledge, London Fulop, L, Linstead, S, & Firth, F 1999, “Chapter 4 - Power and politics in organizations”, in Fulop, L, Linstead, S (eds) Management: A Critical Text, MacMillan, Melbourne. Gottleibsen, R 2000, “New technology is delivering savings and increased share value”, The Australian, 4 November 2000, p46. Hall, R 1972, Organizations: structure and process, Prentice –Hall, New Jersey Hey-Cunningham, D 1998, Financial Statements Demystified, Allen and Unwin, Sydney Kast, F, & Rosenzweig, J 1974, Organization and Management: A Systems Approach, McGraw-Hill, London. Langley, J 2009, The Improvement Guide: A Practical Approach to Enhancing Organizational Performance, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Maclean, I 2001, Measuring Performance in the Private Sector, Lecture 3, Organisational Performance, University of Canberra. Mintzberg, H 1979, The Structure of Organizations, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J Poister, T 2003, Measuring Performance in Public and Nonprofit Organizations, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., San Francisco, CA. Scott, W 1992, Organizations: Rational, Natural and Open Systems, Prentice Hall, New Jersey. Prentice Hall. Senge, P 1992, The Fifth Discipline, Random House Australia Pty Ltd. Read More