South Africa (1999 study tour)

AUA International Exchange Workshops (AUA SA99) held in South Africa 1 - 12 November 1999

FINAL REPORT

1

1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................................3 1.1 PREAMBLE ................................................................................................................................................................3 1.2 BACKGROUND TO VISIT ............................................................................................................................................3 1.3 STRUCTURE OF VISIT ................................................................................................................................................4 1.4 WORKSHOPS .............................................................................................................................................................5 1.5 LOCATION OF WORKSHOPS AND TIMETABLE OF VISIT ..............................................................................................5 2. VISITS TO DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND OTHER EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES IN PRETORIA ..................................................................................................................................................................6 2.1 CONTEXT ..................................................................................................................................................................6 2.2 BRITISH COUNCIL .....................................................................................................................................................7 2.3 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ...................................................................................................................................7 2.4 SOUTH AFRICAN UNIVERSITIES VICE-CHANCELLORS’ ASSOCIATION (SAUVCA) .................................................10 2.5 THE COMMITTEE OF TECHNIKON PRINCIPALS (CTP) .............................................................................................11 2.6 CENTRE FOR HIGHER EDUCATION TRANSFORMATION (CHET) .............................................................................11 3. WORKSHOPS .......................................................................................................................................................12 3.1 STRATEGIC PLANNING - A VISION FOR 2020 ...........................................................................................................12 3.2 MEDIUM TERM PLANNING ......................................................................................................................................14 3.3 GOVERNANCE AND DEMOCRACY ...........................................................................................................................18 3.4 STAFFING STRATEGIES ............................................................................................................................................20 3.5 INSTITUTIONAL FUNDING - MANAGING THE BALANCE BETWEEN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE FUNDING ..........................22 3.6 SUPPORTING CHANGES IN PROGRAMME DELIVERY AND IN THE STUDENT BODY ....................................................23 3.7 PLENARY SESSIONS ...............................................................................................................................................25 3.7.1 Suggested Next Steps .....................................................................................................................................25 3.7.2 Highlights of the Workshops..........................................................................................................................26 4. BROAD FINDINGS ..............................................................................................................................................26 5. GENERAL EVALUATION AND NEXT STEPS ...............................................................................................27 5.1 WORKSHOP MODEL ................................................................................................................................................27 5.2 UNDERLYING THEMES ............................................................................................................................................28 5.3 NEXT STEPS ............................................................................................................................................................29 5.3.1 Enhancing the decision-making process / capacity in HEIs..........................................................................29 5.3.2 Identification of a sustainable role for each HEI in the development of a ‘single co-ordinated system’ ......29 5.3.3 Strengthen opportunities for professional interaction between administrators.............................................29 5.3.4 Governance - capacity of Councils to support management in achieving change in a turbulent environment30 5.3.5 Women’s Leadership Issues ...........................................................................................................................30 5.4 ROLE OF THE AUA .................................................................................................................................................30 5.5 OTHER INITIATIVES .................................................................................................................................................30 6 CONCLUSIONS .....................................................................................................................................................31 Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Appendix3 Appendix 4

Information on UK participants List of South African participants Report on visit to Federation of African Women Educationalists South Africa Personal Impressions of AUA SA99

2

AUA SA99 AUA International Exchange Workshops 1-12 November 1999 1. Introduction The background, rationale and aims of the Association of University Administrators (AUA) study visit to South Africa in November 1999 known as the AUA SA99 International Exchange Workshops are outlined in this section.

1.1 Preamble At the start of this formal report, members of the AUA group wish to comment on the impact that the visit to South Africa and participation in the workshops has made on them. Group members feel that it was the personal contact with South African colleagues just as much as the professional collaboration which gave the visit its meaning and value. Discussing issues arising from the workshops and sharing professional concerns was exciting, energetic and optimistic. If there is further collaboration arising from the visit, it will be because of the shared inspiration and energy in colleagues from both South Africa and the UK. This joyful aspect pervaded the whole visit and the group wishes to emphasise this at the outset as it may not otherwise become apparent within the conventions of this formal report.

1.2 Background to Visit The visit was organised under the auspices of the AUA. The AUA was formed in 1992 with the advent of the unified Higher Education sector from a merger of two former organisations (the Association of Polytechnic Administrators and the Conference of University Administrators). It is a membership organisation for those with administrative and management responsibilities in Higher Education (HE) which seeks to promote the highest standards of professionalism. AUA is committed to meeting the aspirations of nearly 4000 members through professional development opportunities, establishing links and information networks, and through exchanges of information with similar organisations in HE throughout the world.

The visit to South Africa forms part of the Association’s promotion of international links and exchanges and is the latest in a number of overseas visits which have been undertaken over the past 20 years. The idea of a visit to South Africa developed from the interest of a number of AUA members who had travelled to South Africa in a professional capacity over the last decade.

A significant impetus for the visit was Sally Neocosmos’ particular interest in South African Higher Education following the work she undertook in connection with the South African National Commission on Higher Education in 1995 and 1996. There was a desire to learn more about the developments and changes which were occurring in HE in South Africa and to find an effective means of exploring and sharing current issues in HE with professional counterparts in South Africa. The group believed that there was much to be learned from 3

South African colleagues in the context of the extensive changes taking place in HE during the current process of transformation. The overall aim of the visit was articulated as follows: To develop mutual understanding and to share relevant professional experience by exploring general and specific aspects of managing change - a challenge shared by all working in Higher Education Although the visit was originally an AUA initiative, it is now viewed as part of a wider framework of collaboration in HE development and management between South Africa and the UK. This framework is being fostered by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and various other organisations notably the British Council.

All AUA members were invited to express an interest in the visit by submitting a written statement outlining their reasons for wishing to participate and the contribution which they considered that they could make to the project. A small panel of Heads of University Administration selected the group. Members of the group were funded by their institutions and it is appropriate formally to record thanks for this financial support and for releasing staff at a busy time of the academic year. The group members were drawn from a wide range of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) across the UK, with substantial experience covering a broad range of roles and responsibilities. Brief details of participants’ professional experience are given in Appendix 1.

The practical, local support provided by the British Council both prior to arrival in South Africa and throughout the visit was invaluable. The group is extremely grateful for this support and for the very positive interest displayed by the British Council in the aims of the visit and in the follow up action proposed. The local organisers all devoted considerable time to promoting the visit in South Africa and to ensuring that all the arrangements were in place in the three main centres and in Pretoria. Their roles were crucial to the success of the whole venture and again the group warmly acknowledges the assistance which they provided.

Financial support was also provided by a number of commercial sponsors-Barclays Bank, Ede & Ravenscroft, Scottish Media Newspapers and TMP Advertising - who contributed to the cost of international travel. Their subventions were very welcome and thanks are extended to all of these organisations.

1.3 Structure of Visit Previous study-visits have generally adopted a format whereby an AUA group has visited various HEIs and HE-related organisations and has received presentations from colleagues in these institutions with some opportunity for somewhat ad hoc discussions. This model has allowed individual AUA members to benefit from the exposure to new and different higher education 4

cultures but it has not been generally possible to build longer term links or embed the networking into professional practice.

The South African visit marked a departure from this format in that the UK group developed a series of topic-based workshops designed to encourage and facilitate dialogue and participation from all attending. Presentations from South African colleagues were encouraged and the intention was to enhance professional understanding and practice through this model of exchange.

1.4 Workshops The following areas were selected as being relevant to HE in both UK and South Africa and illustrative of aspects of change in the sector: • Strategic planning : a vision for 2020 • Staffing strategies - development and implementation • Medium term planning - both strategic and operational ; implementation of plans and the role of management information • Supporting changes in programme delivery and in the student body and exploring the balance between access quality and cost.

• Institutional funding : managing the balance between public and private funding • Governance and democracy A member of the group led each topic with contributions from other members as required. A facilitator managed each of the workshops with the aim of ensuring an appropriate balance between input from both UK and South African colleagues and allowing sufficient time for discussion and debate. The aim was to draw conclusions and ideas from each topic relating to the underlying themes of the workshops which were: • Understanding the role of the university/HE administrator as an agent of change • How to secure high quality outcomes and improvement from all activities • The personal development of administrators as managers of HE institutions These themes reflect both the aims of the British Council/HEFCE programme of collaboration and the practitioner orientation of the AUA. The six areas were explored over two days in two parallel streams of three half-day workshops with each participant involved in three topics. A plenary session was held on the final half-day with the aim of drawing together issues arising from the workshops and identifying sustainable ways of building on the visit in a mutually beneficial way.

1.5 Location of Workshops and Timetable of Visit 5

The visit took place from 1 - 12 November 1999. The first day was spent in Pretoria visiting the Department of Education and other national educational agencies. In planning the visit, the aim of the AUA group was to attempt to cover as much of the South African HE sector as possible.

Initial advice encouraged the group to seek out locations where staff from clusters of HEIs could come together to attend the workshops. Similarly, the advice was that it would be desirable to attempt to centre activities at some of the less well-known institutions rather than the more obvious institutions which receive frequent overseas visitors. With the assistance of the (volunteer) local organisers Durban, Cape Town and East London thus emerged as the three preferred locations.

In Durban, workshops were held at the University of Durban-Westville. Professor John ButlerAdam, Executive Director of Eastern Seaboard Association Tertiary Institutions (eSATi) undertook the local co-ordination.

Workshops in Cape Town were held at the University of Western Cape (UWC) with Dr Julian Smith, Registrar (Academic) at UWC providing local co-ordination.

The final group of workshops was held at the Rhodes University Campus in East London and Professor Brian Wells, Vice-Rector of Port Elizabeth Technikon acted as local co-ordinator for the Eastern Cape.

The decision not to hold workshops in Gauteng was viewed by some South African colleagues as unfortunate and it was therefore decided to run a version of the Governance and Democracy workshop in Pretoria at the beginning of the visit. This workshop held at Pretoria Technikon was well attended by colleagues from nearly all the HEIs in Gauteng.

Overall, over 100 South African administrators and managers in HE attended the workshops. No prescription was offered as to role or level of responsibility. Full details of the timetable of the visit and of the attendees at all workshops are given in Appendix 2.

2. Visits to Department of Education and other Educational Agencies in Pretoria 2.1 Context The group had undertaken general background research on the South African HE sector and in particular on a number of the individual institutions, which were visited. The briefings with government and national agencies in Pretoria at the outset of the visit proved to be invaluable. A summary of the major issues raised at these meetings follows. It is important to note that these are a reflection of the group’s understanding of the views of the various agencies and should be read in that context.

6

In the briefings with the various agencies and in the interaction with colleagues from institutions, there were frequent references to a number of new concepts which South African HEIs were seeking to introduce - in particular Transformation and Capacity Building. The notion of Transformation in HE can be described as the process of establishing a framework for change, fundamental to which is the creation of a HE system that is planned, governed and funded as single, co-ordinated entity. The transformation process seeks to: • redress past inequalities • meet pressing national needs • respond to new realities and opportunities In seeking to establish a co-ordinated HE system, considerable emphasis is being given to the development of an improved planning process - both of the HE system as a whole and at institutional level - and of a responsive and regulatory funding framework. There is also a commitment to broadening access to, and increasing participation in HE .

Capacity Building refers to the development of capability and competency of institutions and of individuals. It appears to be used most frequently with reference to the development of management capability and responsibility.

2.2 British Council An initial overview on South African Higher Education was provided by Barry Masoga (Assistant Director, Education) in the Johannesburg Office of the British Council. Barry accompanied Sally Neocosmos, one of the Co-Leaders, and three other members of the group at meetings with senior staff from the Department of Education and other Educational Agencies in Pretoria at the start of the visit. (These visits coincided with the workshop at Pretoria Technikon attended by the other members.) Tumelo Nkoane (Education Manager) in the Johannesburg office accompanied the group throughout the visit and provided not only essential practical support and local knowledge but also useful insights into the context in which HE operates in South Africa. The group is extremely grateful to Tumelo for her unfailing assistance, advice and support throughout the visit. Les Phillips, Regional Director Southern Africa, met the group at the outset of the visit and there was a very useful initial debriefing with Barry Masoga at the conclusion of the visit, at which a preliminary report was submitted.

2.3 Department of Education Dr Nasima Badsha Ahmed Essop

Deputy Director General, Department of Education (DoE) Chief Director, Higher Education Planning

The Department of Education is responsible for funding and planning of HE which is the only sector of education for which the national Department has executive responsibility; other sectors are administered on a Provincial basis. On the planning front, the Department appears to have 7

moved away from seeking to create a ‘blueprint national plan for HE. In 1999, HEIs were asked to submit Institutional Strategic Plans by the end of October 1999. Some of the key policy issues which HEIs had been requested to address in their Institutional Plans were: vision and mission, equity (in terms of the composition of both students and staff), regional collaboration, and efficiency (financial and operational). In asking HEIs to define their vision and mission, the Department appeared to be seeking to create a differentiated but single, co-ordinated system. The sector appears currently to remain somewhat trapped in the historical divisions of universities and technikons, Historically Disadvantaged Institutions (HDIs) and Historically Advantaged Institutions (HAIs), research-led institutions and teaching institutions whereas current institutional demography and growth patterns reflect a sharp move away from these distinctions.

Many institutions had negotiated an extension on this deadline as they were experiencing some difficulties in finalising plans. It was understood that there were some concerns at the planning capacity within some HEIs. A new funding formula is being developed but final agreement has not yet been reached. Two working parties have been tackling the issue - one co-ordinated by the Department and the other composed of representatives from South African Universities Vice-chancellors Association (SAUVCA) and Committee of Technikon Principals (CTP). It is understood that the groups are to join forces to create a single working group. Institutions are, understandably, very keen for the formula to be announced particularly as the current formula works retrospectively. This is now regarded as unhelpful in the rapidly changing HE sector. To date there has been little earmarked funding for special initiatives. There are competing pressures for the new formula to address different areas of perceived need within HEIs. It was reported that the HDIs are pressing for additional funding to assist their aspirations to establish themselves as respected, well-resourced institutions. In particular, both the HDIs and Technikons are keen for greater dispersal of research funding. There is a counter-view that there is a need for research funding to be more concentrated in areas of excellence. These pressures were reflected by South African colleagues in several of the workshops and although unable to provide a solution to such debates, the AUA participants were able to illustrate some of the pros and cons of particular approaches based on recent UK experience.

A major concern to the Department and the HE sector is the decline in student numbers which is contrary to the expectation of continued growth on which national planning is based.

There was a dramatic fall of 30,000 to 40,000 between 1998 and 1999. This had not been anticipated and several institutions are extremely concerned about the future if this decline continues at a similar rate, particularly some of the historically black institutions. Universities have been hit to a greater extent than the Technikons. There is currently no national admissions system although a regional system has been introduced in the Eastern Seaboard under the auspices of eSATi for the 2000 intake. Generally, students apply directly to institutions and it is therefore difficult to know if students are making multiple applications to several institutions.

HEIs are thus faced with considerable difficulties in accurately predicting enrolments in advance of the commencement of the academic year. Various reasons have been suggested for the sharp fall in numbers. These include the failure of the secondary schools to achieve the anticipated increase in the number of matriculants eligible to enter HE, elements of ‘white-flight’ with many 8

white students choosing to study in private institutions in South Africa or abroad . HEIs are also introducing more rigorous entry requirements and adopting a tougher stance on excluding students on academic or financial grounds.. The HIV/AIDS crisis may also be starting to have an impact on student numbers in HE. The growing number of private HE institutions, including many which have associations with overseas universities, is understood to be an area of concern. (Press reports speak of some 1000 tertiary private institutions although this number is difficult to believe.) There is a legal requirement for registration by 1 January 2000 but at the time of meeting with the DoE in early November 1999, only about 20 applications for such registration had been received. A Departmental research project is currently underway to determine the scope of private HEIs in South Africa.

It was noted that the DoE believed that it might be necessary to ‘encourage’ collaboration between institutions particularly in the areas of postgraduate teaching and research.

The DoE had some general concerns about the management of institutions - and drew particular attention to management capacity (capability and competency) in the functional areas of planning and human resources and to middle management skills in general. It was also suggested that the Councils of some institutions were not operating effectively on all fronts.

The adoption of various Distance Learning initiatives by a range of institutions also appeared to be giving cause for concern. Historically, institutions such as UNISA, Technikon SA and Vista have been regarded as the key providers of Distance Learning. Concerns are focused on monitoring the quality of Distance Learning and the reality of its added value to HE provision in South Africa.

Since 1994, considerable donor funding has been provided to the HE sector but generally, there is little evidence of any significant outcomes.

As far as future visions are concerned, it is understood that the DoE believes that the increasing globalisation of HE and widespread availability of information and computer technology (ICT) will impact significantly on the future landscape of South African HE. The role of the Council For Higher Education (CHE) was explored in discussions with Dr Badsha and Mr Essop. The CHE is a statutory body that advises the Minister for Education on key issues. It is responsible inter alia for the HE Quality Commission which has 17 Commissioners appointed by the Minister, the DoE and the business sector. The Quality Commission is responsible for quality assurance and accreditation and quality assurance of private institutions. Typically, a CHE report is presented to stakeholders before final submission to the Minister. If advice presented by CHE is not adopted, a formal written explanation has to be provided. At the time of the visit the CHE was about to finalise its first annual report to the Minister on the state of higher education in South Africa, supported by CHET researchers.

9

2.4 South African Universities Vice-Chancellors’ Association (SAUVCA) Piyushi Kotecha

Chief Executive Officer

SAUVCA represents the interests of the 21 Universities in South Africa in a similar way to CVCP in UK. A new Chief Executive Officer, Piyushi Kotecha, was appointed in 1998 and is seeking to implement changes both nationally within member institutions and in the internal organisation and management of SAUVCA. The internal, organisational changes within SAUVCA include a reduction in staffing to around 17. Registrars are no longer invited to attend main meetings of SAUVCA. The University of Namibia and other southern African Universities have observer status at SAUVCA meetings and there is currently consultation on provision of services for such institutions. There are also now joint meetings with the Committee of Technikon Principals (CTP). Piyushi Kotecha placed considerable weight on the importance of sincerity, transparency and the integration and cooperation of national HE organisations - for instance, the links with CTP. She was also keen to have a round-table meeting with other CEOs from similar organisations (such as CVCP).

SAUVCA is developing a strategic plan in order to align its activities more firmly with the national framework for HE. The plan has six broad goals: • building capacity within SAUVCA • promoting co-operation between member organisations • promoting and developing relations with member institutions, and with other institutions in Africa and internationally • representing and promoting the interests of member institutions in national education policy process • developing close relationships with government • disseminating information on HE capacity Issues of current concern to SAUVCA members and to HE in general were reported to include falling student numbers (as noted in 2.3 above), the preparation of 3 year strategic plans for the DoE in which institutions were being asked to examine their missions, the future size and shape of HE` and possible rationalisation of institutions (mergers).

There was also a need to clarify governance arrangements in universities and, in some instances, to develop capacity in institutional management and governance. The Council for Higher Education (CHE) summit on the role of stakeholders in HE was referred to as an important initiative in this respect.

Piyushi Kotecha was particularly keen for the AUA group to share experiences of UK HEIs in the areas of strategic planning, financial management and capacity building (developing management capability and competency).

10

2.5 The Committee Of Technikon Principals (CTP) Professor Roy du Pre Executive Director The CTP acts in a similar way to SAUVCA and seeks to represent, promote and develop the interests of the 15 Technikons in South Africa. A possible merger with the former Committee of University Principals (the predecessor to SAUVCA) was explored in 1997 but was not pursued.

CTP have a keen interest in how the national policy of ‘a single, co-ordinated system’ is implemented and are focusing on many of the issues which preoccupied significant parts of the UK HE sector prior to the ending of the binary line in 1992.

Key policy issues with which the CTP was engaged at the time of the visit included: • the future shape of the South African HE system • access to research funding for the technikons • disparities in teaching funding between technikons and universities • the development of the new funding formula The Executive Director considered that, in terms of the representational role of CTP, the major current issues were improving quality in the technikons, developing research capacity, and maintaining the cohesiveness of the technikon movement.

2.6 Centre For Higher Education Transformation (CHET) Tembile Kulati Charmaine Johnson

Projects Manager Projects Manager

CHET was formed in 1996 as a non-governmental organisation, following the publication of the report of the National Higher Education Commission. In its mission statement, CHET states that it is committed to the systematic transformation of HE in Southern Africa through the provision of transformation skills and capacity development, the stimulation of transformation debates and the promotion of research and evaluation of change in HE. It seeks to apply new modes of knowledge production and to work collaboratively with organisations that have experience of and skills in higher education transformation. This includes organisations and agencies both inside South Africa, throughout Africa and internationally. CHET makes use of steering committees, consultants and expertise available in the HE sector (within South Africa and more widely) on a project basis. There is a small core of full-time staff based in its offices in Pretoria.

Projects under the broad heading of Transformation Management include: • Council capacity development - assisting institutional councils to better understand their role and in particular the relationship with institutional leadership, financial control, and initiation of change • Facilitating workshops on strategic planning 11

• • • •

Diversity in HE - implications of Employment Equity Act for HEIs Management & leadership in HE - a collaborative project with European partners Tertiary education links programme for Historically Disadvantaged Institutions Indicators of HE transformation (in preparation)

CHET also helps to organise seminars and fora to stimulate debate and to inform the HE community about developments and issues associated with transformation. Its third strand of activity is focused on transformation research and evaluation.

3. Workshops As explained above, the workshops were run in each of three locations (and a version of the Governance and Democracy in four). The form and content of the workshops were largely unchanged, but the opportunity for refinement and responsiveness to local requirements was taken as the visit progressed.

The key issues and major factors arising from the workshops have been grouped together by topic of workshop rather than by location. In the plenary sessions the aim was to report back to the whole group on the key issues arising in the workshops and to encourage debate and questions on matters of interest from the wider group. In order to avoid unnecessary repetition, issues arising in the plenary sessions relating to the workshop topics have been included in the reports of outcomes of the workshops. Others issues covered in the plenary sessions are reported on separately.

3.1 Strategic Planning - a Vision for 2020 Aims The workshop explored various approaches to Strategic Planning in HEIs in the UK and in South Africa. The aims of the workshop were: • to establish the rationale for institutional planning • to explore different approaches to strategic planning by reference to case studies • to discuss the role of the administrator in planning The workshop also offered the opportunity to think about the future and to explore a range of different scenarios in the HE sector in 2020.

The case studies chosen to illustrate different approaches were discussed in some depth and participants sought to offer realistic assessments of both successes and those areas where there was scope for improvement.

12

Outcomes A number of common concerns between UK and South African colleagues emerged about the importance of integrating Strategic Planning into the normal operational activities of institutions rather than it being regarded as a remote, externally-imposed exercise which had little meaning to the real business of a HEI. Various approaches to Strategic Planning were explored ranging from top-down, bottom-up to input from horizontal, cross-disciplinary and functional groups within an institution to gather ideas and gain stakeholder commitment The importance of securing commitment from staff across an institution was acknowledged to be a vital factor in successful implementation of the aims set out in Strategic Plans. The case study of the planning process at the Open University provided several interesting models of consultation - involving vertical, horizontal and diagonal ‘slicing’ of a groups in a large HEI. Other means of ensuring engagement of staff, particularly academic staff whose activities are often more individually-based, were also discussed. It was considered important to empower staff to manage the implementation of the Strategic Plan. There was a general preference for using internal staff rather than consultants to develop plans and thus help secure ownership of plans.

External consultants were regarded as useful, for instance, as facilitators of a participative process in an institution or for sharing good practice developed in other HEIs. It was acknowledged that it was important for the academic community and administrative and support services to work together in the planning process. Sometimes, the latter groups are not necessarily involved in the first iteration; and conversely they could find themselves leading the process in isolation.

Communication was acknowledged to be a key factor to securing commitment to and ownership of Strategic Plans. The planning processes, the content and outcomes of these processes needed to be communicated widely both within an institution and externally. Seeking of feedback was also considered to be vital for the iterative process of planning. The extent to which HEIs communicated their agreed plans to not only their own staff and students but also to the external world was considered with examples of a variety of good practices and of instances where there was considerable scope for improvement.

An interesting model of Strategic Planning in the South African context was the Learning Model being developed at the University of Zululand. This was an organic process of change fostered, shared and developed by those outside the senior management team. The key elements were: Credibility, Leadership, Implementation, Participation and Sustainability. A very different approach was adopted at Pretoria Technikon where a top-down, structured model had been used to ensure consistency and commitment to common aims. For instance, nearly every activity in the institution had to demonstrate its contribution to encouraging or increasing entrepreneurship.

Means of ensuring the integration of short, medium and long term planning processes were considered with examples from Sheffield Hallam University. These pointed to the importance of focusing on key drivers and developing supporting strategies to ensure implementation of plans.

A concern particularly amongst South African colleagues was how to make HEIs more relevant, 13

and as a corollary, how to reflect this in Strategic Planning. This gave rise to certain tensions between the need to be both responsive and reactive. In reacting to external conditions such as governmental requirements and initiatives, HEIs were not always able to be responsive to the needs of society in a broader sense, which many staff in institutions considered to be a more important role for HE. However, it was generally agreed that it was important for HEIs to be adaptable and flexible in the face of rapidly changing circumstances and thus to be responsive to opportunities.

The pace of change in South Africa was considered to be more rapid than currently in the UK and thus it appeared that South African institutions were having to plan in a climate of almost constant change.

In both South Africa and UK, regional collaboration and frameworks for co-operation were growing in importance. It was thus important to involve potential, strategic regional partners in the planning process. In both South Africa and UK, the importance of regional collaboration and frameworks for co-operation were growing in importance. At a dinner hosted by the ViceChancellor of the University of Western Cape, a presentation and discussion focused on the key factors in successful collaboration. These were identified as mutual interest, the commitment of the head of the institution, local champions, real and practical collaboration at ground level, a willingness to compromise, and incentives (often external stimuli). Collaboration between HEIs and other tertiary institutions and, indeed, mergers of universities were seen as likely to increase in both South Africa and UK over the next 20 years. Institutions were not the only players in this process and it was also important to involve potential, strategic regional partners in the planning process.

Although the majority of the workshops concentrated on the more immediate issues of different approaches to Strategic Planning, some time was devoted to considering the future. By 2020, it was considered possible that the HE sector would have the following characteristics: • increased globalisation leading to strategic alliances and partnerships in an international context • partnerships between knowledge providers and practitioner-based disciplines • partnerships between course providers and ICT and network providers • the massification of HE built on widening participation and extended, lifelong learning • education viewed more as a commodity used to gain a qualification in as short period of time as possible or over several, short periods of study • opening-up of academic programmes from a less linear model • credit-based and experiential learning giving rise to more flexible entry-levels • technological developments making the impossible possible • a growing tension between growth, resources and quality 3.2 Medium Term Planning Aims 14

• To provide a linkage from the strategic planning process, translating high level objectives into operational plans • To explore ways in which the vision of the future is confirmed in order to direct current action • To examine resource allocation as a key element in medium term planning • To understand the role of management information in underpinning the planning process The Open University planning cycle was examined in order to explore ways in which an institution sought to translate its Strategic Plan into operational plans and action. Models of resource allocation in different HEIs were outlined, together with their merits and disadvantages.

The examination of the role of management information in the planning process focused on the need for information to be timely, reliable and consistent in order to assist in the decision-making process, and in monitoring and evaluation of outcomes. The viability of conventional (comprehensive) models of Management Information Systems (MIS) was questioned as increased demands are placed on systems, now accessed by a wider group of staff, and increasingly by students. The need for a new focus, on Institutional Information Systems rather than Management Information Systems, was suggested. UK colleagues highlighted lessons drawn from the outcome of the UK Management and Administrative and Computing (MAC) Initiative on: • Design and integration of information systems • Collaborative development of computer systems • User requirements and reporting from systems • Implementation of complex computer systems in HEIs The role of central agencies in collection, analysis and dissemination of data was explored with particular reference to planning. Examples of the roles in this context in the UK of the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS), the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) and the Higher Education Funding Councils were provided. An example from Plymouth, which attracted much interest, was the use of local and national data in the development of a marketing strategy, which fed into the institutional strategic planning process.

Outcomes Planning Capacity The development of planning capacity within HEIs was considered to be important. There was a suggestion that the planning process was too often seen to be the domain solely of the planning ‘experts’. The many complementary roles and a range of skills required to support the complexity of the planning process in HEIs were identified and discussed: • Leadership and vision • Effective co-ordination of the planning process • Handling of management information and the modelling of options • Monitoring the implementation of plans • Communication and consultation to achieve ownership of the process and the outcomes.

It was felt that in many institutions there may be a gap between the strategic vision and 15

implementation of the vision/plan, and this is where administrators and middle managers can play crucial roles. South African colleagues expressed the view that necessary skills and expertise at middle management level may be limited within HE in South Africa, and excess demand leads to ‘experts’ frequently moving around from institution to institution within the sector.

A further complexity in the planning process can be differences in priorities, perceived or real: • Between the academic community and the administrative and managerial core of a HEI (attempts to make institutions more ‘business-like’ can be seen as ‘betrayal’ of academic values) • Competing demands and aspirations of faculties in relation to the overall aims of an institution • Institutional needs vs. national or regional needs.

Resource Allocation Various methods of resource allocation were explored and a number of areas of common concern for HEIs both in the UK and South Africa emerged.

Decision-making The varying approaches to decision-making in respect of resource allocation ranged from recommendations from a centrally-based, small group of key individuals to a more participative process involving consultation with stakeholders. In South Africa the stakeholders may include Staff Representative Committees (SRC) but South African colleagues found the level of detail on which consultation could be required to be sometimes unproductive. There was a desire to ‘allow managers to manage and for advisory bodies to accept the limitations of their role’.

Formula vs. judgement There was a common interest in striking a balance between formula-driven resource allocation systems and the application of judgement to outcomes. The need to provide incentives to income generation as part of resource allocation was also discussed. An allied issue was how institutions derived maximum benefit from staff involvement in consultancy and how such activity was regulated. This issue appeared to be a major concern in certain HEIs in South Africa.

Resources for non-academic areas and ‘cross subsidy’ The problem of determining and justifying the level of resources allocated to non-academic support services was one which exercised both South African and UK institutions. Some institutions had adopted the notion of Service Level Agreements and internal ‘contracts’ between service providers and Academic or Business Units, with allocation of costs for core services to these Academic or Business Units. There were variations on this approach. This led in turn to debate whether an institution was best treated as a coherent whole, with various cross-subsidies applied from more financially successful activities to those which were less financially stable, or as a set of free-standing academic ‘businesses’.

Flexibility 16

The importance was acknowledged of retaining flexibility in any system of resource allocation, in order to allow an institution to respond quickly to changes in the internal or external environment.

Ideally, this should be achieved with minimum bureaucracy and maximum flexibility. UK participants were interested and impressed by the practice of one SA institution of retaining 5% flexibility in its annual budget.

Management Information Systems Appropriate management information for all stages of the planning process was seen as essential, and the complexity of introducing new computer systems was mutually understood. Project management skills were necessary in addition to the technical skills. The high costs of administrative computer systems, both in terms of hardware, software and information need had prompted most of the older (pre-1992) universities in the UK to collaborate (in the late 1980s and early 1990s) in the MAC Initiative to develop core applications: • Admissions and Student Records • Personnel • Finance • An overarching Management Information System based on the operational systems However the MAC Initiative had not proved to be a success for a variety of reasons and most participating institutions had now turned to purchasing or developing individual new packages.

National Datasets National datasets were identified as useful tools for institutional planners. The development of national datasets in the UK was discussed. Typically, such datasets are collected and managed by intermediary agencies - such as Higher Education Statistical Agency (HESA) and Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS).

Considerable interest in establishing national datasets was expressed by South African colleagues. It would be important for any such datasets to be viewed with confidence, and this would require careful specification and the involvement of key stakeholders. Limited data is available in South Africa through the student funding agency (TEFSA) which allow direct interinstitutional comparisons to be made. It is understood that a project is being implemented nationally - Higher Education Management Information System (HEMIS) - which would result in each HEI holding student and staff data in a common format. The data would be accessed by the Ministry of Education and would be available in aggregate format to institutions. This initiative would appear to offer institutions the possibility of using such data for comparative purposes.

Physical Capacity Planning The importance of estate and space planning was touched upon. Buildings and plant are very significant resources which need to be used efficiently and economically, and various techniques for encouraging efficient usage were discussed. These include: 17

• Space charging • Space utilisation monitoring • Computerised timetabling and room-allocation.

3.3 Governance and Democracy Aims This session introduced a number of key themes surrounding governance, democracy and accountability in the UK context and sought to enquire whether they resonated within South African HE. The opening presentation addressed such issues as: • What is meant by governance?

• What is the role of the governing body vis a vis the executive / senior management?

• The extent of involvement of lay, staff and student members in the governing body • Institutional autonomy • Academic freedom • The growth of a management culture and the role of the administrator as manager • Centralisation vs. devolution of resources and decision - making • The changing role of the student as a ‘customer’ in HE The workshop drew on descriptions of the framework of governance in the pre- and post 1992 institutions. Examples were given of differing models of governance at Plymouth (post -1992) and Essex and Reading (pre-1992) universities.

These were complemented with a more detailed case study of the change - management process at Edinburgh in the 1990s which had been initiated following serious financial problems arising from an underlying problem of governance and management control, but which more recently reflected pressures from external bodies in the UK such as the Nolan Committee on Standards in Public Life and also the Funding Councils.

Outcomes There are a number of models of governance and management within both UK and South African institutions even within groupings of universities or technikons, which share many similarities. Even where formal governance structures are identical, the real locus of power (as opposed to the formal locus) varies considerably - reflecting differences in institutional mission, culture and ethos. The debate about appropriate governance structures became more sharply focused in relation to the pre- and post-1992 universities in the UK system and the convergence/divergence of universities and technikons in the newly, co-ordinated South African HE system.

In South Africa, the 1997 Higher Education Act requires the Councils of HEIs to have 60% lay 18

membership with a maximum of five state appointments. There is currently considerable activity in developing and building capacity of Council members. The aim is to ensure that Councils ensure accountability, transparency, appropriate participation and efficiency in the running of HEIs. Some of this work in developing capacity is being undertaken by organisations such as CHET. Participation in governance is particularly sensitive and important symbolically in the South African context. Institutional Forums appear to play a key role in this area. An Institutional Forum advises the Council of a HEI on a range of issues affecting the institution and is composed of representatives of senior management, Council, Senate, all employees, and students. The Forums offer considerable potential benefits for involving a wide range of members of the university or technikon community in shaping policy but also confuse other lines of accountability. They also can create considerable additional work. Typically, the members of the forum elect the Chair of an Institutional Forum. The agenda varies but is likely to involve issues such as size and shape of institution, equity, student admissions policy, and the Forum will have a transparent role in all senior appointments.

The long-term role of such ‘advisory’ bodies was questioned as decision-making capacity within institutional committee structures developed. Such bodies are expensive and it is often necessary to review the effectiveness of such overt democracy in terms of costs vs. benefits.

There was a sense that effective governance and democracy in institutions could be hampered by blurred roles and responsibilities both of individual officers/post holders and of decision-making bodies such as committees. The importance of striving for clarity of roles and responsibilities was endorsed by all. Discussion of the role of committees in HEIs provoked a variety of views ranging from their role in ensuring accountability within an institution to frustration with their apparent inertia and slowness in reaching decisions and tendencies to avoid dealing with issues.

The merits and disadvantages of centralised and devolved decision-making structures were contrasted. The need for clearly defined responsibilities and authority to make decisions was considered to be vital in the case of devolved systems.

Concerns were raised about the dangers of the ‘them and us’ attitude within institutions between administrative and academic or between the centre and faculties/schools. Such perceived differences can lead to excessive introspection when it is vital for the institution to be looking outwards to develop and grow. It appears that in some South African institutions, administrative staff had little legitimate influence in governance matters.

The role of the Head of an institution in ensuring that governance of institution is conducted in accordance with ordinances, statutes, and other governing procedures was acknowledged to be of prime importance. This post-holder must vouch for the accountability, propriety and transparency of decision-making on all matters within the HEI to the governing body and to the HEI as a whole. The difficulty of effectively fulfilling this role and combining it with academic leadership and management of the university or technikon presented considerable challenges for Vice19

Chancellors and Rectors. The importance of the role of the professional administrator in ensuring the effectiveness and probity of systems of governance in institutions was also recognised.

In the UK, there had also been a distinctive move from administration to management in HEIs which had been accompanied in many instances by a move from Senate or Academic Board as the key decision-making body to management by an Executive Team headed by the ViceChancellor or Principal, who now has the explicit role of Chief Executive. The Executive or Senior Management Team had delegated authority to make executive decisions and a duty to report these to Senate/Council or Academic Board/Governing Board. In most institutions the Executive was able to reach consensus on complex decisions which often required swift responses. The Executive was assisted in operating through trust, team-working, business-like behaviour, presentation of good management information and option appraisals, having access to specialists such as financial experts, human resource specialists, quality assurance experts, planners, and PR professionals.

The imbalance in gender terms in the most senior positions within HEIs and in second tier posts was a matter of continuing concern in both UK and South Africa institutions.

3.4 Staffing Strategies Aims The workshop gave an overview of the staffing profile of HE in UK and dealt with some general staffing matters likely to be current in both the UK and South Africa: • Current national staffing issues in HE • Staffing strategy • Building capacity in institutions • Staff Development – institutional structures for staff development Other topics were offered for further exploration according to the particular interests of participants: • • • • • • • • • •

Equity issues Management and leadership development Women’s leadership development Appraisal issues Management competencies Performance management Investors in People Accreditation of lecturers (through the Institute for Learning and Teaching) Contribution of AUA Role of organisations such as UCoSDA (Universities and Colleges Staff Development Agency) 20

Outcomes Case studies of two very different staffing strategies provoked interesting debate. The staffing strategy at the University of Glasgow was based on the notion of the well-supported academic and could be viewed as appropriate for an institution in which research is a high priority. In contrast the strategy of the University of Western Cape was to create an outstanding institution in which to work, learn and invest. Some technikons keen to develop a research culture showed interest in the Glasgow model.

A major concern of South Africa colleagues was capacity building at all levels within institutions. Although much of this capacity building needed to be strategic, responsibility for staff development rested not only with institutional leaders but also with individuals. Staff development is needed to help senior and middle managers cope with the enormous changes in HEIs since 1995. Equity programmes and affirmative action also entail investment in staff development. Institutions were keen to focus staff development efforts on institutional aims and individual development. It was acknowledged that staff needed to be multi-skilled and flexible in the rapidly changing environment.

The emphasis on capacity building did create some tensions in HEIs where there was high staff turnover or where there was a need for reduction in staff numbers. Some institutions which had lost staff after training had also lost enthusiasm for staff development. Whilst the problem of retaining good staff certainly exists, the view was noted that such negative attitudes might reflect unhappiness in respect of the advancement of previously disadvantaged groups.

It was noted that there are proposals that will allow South African institutional funding to be progressively top-sliced to pay for staff development. After the first year, institutions will be able to claim annually on this fund for staff development activity they have already undertaken.

Other initiatives include the introduction of an Education and Training Quality Assurance body aimed to help assure quality in vocational education (and staff development) throughout the country. The development of basic education and life skills for unskilled staff in HEIs is a high priority in South Africa; perhaps this should be given greater attention in UK HEIs. Concerns about the status of women in HE in South Africa were raised in other workshops – notably those on Governance and Democracy. Affirmative action and equity programmes have created a favourable climate for women’s advancement in HE. Although national frameworks have been in established it was considered that there should be more institutional initiatives. (See Appendix 3 on Report on Meeting with FAWESA representative.)

There was much common ground in relation to the training and staff development needs of administrative staff. The potential role of a South African AUA in assisting in such development was raised by South African colleagues.

The differing industrial relations environment in UK and South African HE prompted interesting discussion on the merits of national collective bargaining and local negotiations with staff groups and Trades Unions. In South Africa there was some support for establishing a 21

national framework or at least a national employers’ group to ensure some degree of consistency and to help implement equity programmes. It was interesting to note that UK institutions were now moving towards favouring more local negotiating arrangements. The role of Trades Unions in both UK and South Africa was seen as having moved from the adversarial to a more cooperative partnership in which issues of common concern were tackled with employers. In South Africa, such issues were salaries, staff development, and implementation of the Equity Act. The AIDS pandemic is beginning to have a huge impact on staffing strategies and in particular on succession planning. UK colleagues had not appreciated the scale of the problem for HE system or the whole of South Africa. The certainty of the loss of so many people, especially from the younger age groups, left us feeling suitably humbled at the optimism of our South African colleagues in the face of such an impending catastrophe.

3.5 Institutional Funding - Managing the balance between Public and Private Funding Aims It was recognised that the pressure towards reduced reliance on public funding was a common challenge for UK and South African HEIs. The aim of the workshop was to examine various sources of funding from public (government) sources and that derived from other areas and activities.An outline of the UK HE funding regime was given together with a brief description of the current funding methodology used. Methods of funding teaching and research were explored with reference to various criteria deployed to direct funds towards certain activities and to reward success achieved in institutions in the area of research.

The background to the need for HEIs to seek alternative sources of income was discussed and a range of income-generating activities explored. In considering these various examples, attempts were made to be realistic about difficulties and barriers encountered in engaging in such activities in relation to successes achieved.

Outcomes Public Funding The impact of national policy in respect of public funding of HE on the way in which universities in the UK operate was of considerable interest to South African colleagues because of the new funding model is currently being developed in South Africa. There was a range of views about the institutional funding needs in South Africa and considerable speculation about how the model would seek to address a number of sensitive political issues such as the funding of HAIs and of the HDIs. The previous HDI/HAI assumptions ignore the changing demographic profile and growth pattern of HEIs in the country. Similarly, the cost of new modes of learning and teaching and a shift in the balance between modes of study together with the cost of new initiatives such as widening participation and encouraging life-long learning need to be acknowledged in funding to HEIs. 22

Institutions in South Africa had been requested to develop projections of anticipated student enrolments over the forthcoming three years and funding would in part be based on the achievement of these projections. Given the unexpected shortfall in student numbers experienced in 1999, there was considerable discussion on the need to develop contingency plans for a further decline in student numbers. This emphasised the need for alternative sources of income, not only for institutions but also for student support.

Research Funding The UK experience of national, if not governmental, influence on the operation of HEIs, for instance, in the distribution of research funding following the Research Assessment Exercise and the disparity of such funding between those very successful research-led institutions and institutions with less research activity was of considerable interest. The development of the ‘transfer market’ in academics with a successful track record in research activity was viewed with a mixture of disbelief and scepticism.

Alternative Sources of Funding The need for alternative sources or third stream income was acknowledged as important for both UK and South African HE sectors. There were examples of commonality and divergences of approach to ways of securing such income. The need to provide incentives for academics to undertake consultancy while also ensuring generation of net income for the HEI prompted considerable debate about various models in operation in both countries. There were common concerns about Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and copyright.

The definition of core and non-core activities can vary given the funding regime operating at any one time. It may be necessary for a HEI to engage in non-core activities to raise funds for core activities. Such an example could be use of institutional facilities for conferences when not required for core, academic activities. It is important that non-core activity does not inhibit core activities.

Role of Administrator The role of the administrator was also explored in assisting institutions to maximise income from both public and private funding sources and in particular in facilitating appropriate responses to changes in funding regimes.

3.6 Supporting Changes in Programme Delivery and in the Student Body Aims This workshop sought to explore how HE in UK and South Africa is responding to the increasing globalisation of HE, the rapid pace of technological change, shifts in public policy and changes in the student body, all of which make HE a more competitive environment. There was an exploration of changes in the way in which HE programmes are now being delivered, and how 23

pressures for increasing access and widening participation challenge current concepts of accountability and quality. The importance of taking account of the views of the multiplicity of stakeholders, and the concept of viewing students as customers were also addressed. The workshop used the model of the ‘enduring triangle’ of access, cost and quality to illustrate the challenges of managing of change.

Outcomes Access UK participants were taken aback at the scale of the challenges facing HE in South Africa. There is a large skills shortage, high levels of unemployment and illiteracy and varying degrees of preparedness for HE. A degree is seen as a necessary qualification or even passport for securing a job, resulting in a movement of applications between universities and technikons and a growth in private HE providers. As previously noted, these challenges are compounded by the AIDS pandemic., The move from pedagogic models based primarily on teaching to those with learning at the forefront represents a challenge, which is currently facing HEIs in UK and will become more important in South Africa. The forces driving this phenomenon include the increasing diversity in the student body, the changing shape of knowledge, demands for more flexible curricula, and the impact of IT. These factors encourage students to view themselves, and to be viewed, as customers or stakeholders with expectations of quality in the delivery of services. In such a climate it is important that HEIs communicate clearly their expectations of the student and vice versa. The historical politicisation of the student body in South Africa and its powerful voice within the Institutional Forum is in marked contrast to the rather poor representation of student views within the structure of UK HEIs. Delivery In South Africa there is considerable interest in Distance Learning (DL) from institutions which have long experience, such as UNISA and Technikon SA, and from those with relatively little experience. The UK Open University model, used as a case study, is somewhat different, having a strong emphasis on supported open learning.

There are wide disparities in the availability of appropriate supporting technologies. In many instances, radio and audiotapes are more appropriate than ICT. The need to support assisted distance learning is not fully recognised by universities with no history of DL and there is a general lack of capacity to provide such support. Broader access is not merely about growth but requires the development of a range of innovative student support systems, particularly in the context of academic preparation for HE and the continuing need to improve basic primary and secondary schooling in South Africa for the majority of the population.

Cost 24

All HEIs face the challenge of containing costs and embracing new developments. In South Africa, as in the UK, there are concerns about the impact of declining unit funding on quality and standards, and the shifts in government policy on funding formulae for both teaching and research. DL, in particular, needs investment if it is to be of suitable quality and work successfully. Issues of the increasing burden of costs upon the students themselves are common in both countries and are reflected in the debate around the student as a customer for whom a service is being provided.

The dynamic relationship between access, quality and cost provoked considerable interesting debate and discussion although the disparity in the stages of development of moving from teaching to learning and exploring new modes of learning meant that there was less common ground amongst UK and South African colleagues. It was considered that there were undoubtedly a number of curriculum support models related to access in the UK which could be usefully explored with South African colleagues but that UK participants lacked practical experience of township and /or rural conditions to be able to make a credible contribution. Nonetheless, the workshops provided the opportunity to learn about the challenges facing both HE sectors in respect of a changing student body.

3.7 Plenary Sessions In the plenary sessions, all participants were asked to think about next steps in terms of suggestions which could be implemented either in their own institutions or in the HE sector regionally or nationally. Participants were also asked to indicate what had been the highlights of the workshops and also to give advice on areas which could be improved or approached differently in any future activities of this nature. The structured feedback provided in these plenary sessions was extremely useful and in many instances reinforced our views on the most appropriate way forward. The views expressed by the participants were invaluable to the UK group in formulating more specific recommendations relating to next steps contained in Section 5.

A summary of the main points arising from the plenary sessions is set out below.

3.7.1 Suggested Next Steps • Increased collaboration and co-operation between South African colleagues & institutions, South African and UK colleagues and institutions • Establish links with AUA • Set up a South African AUA • Follow up visits and exchange of information on specific and specialist areas of interest • Facilitate exchanges and visits of South African colleagues to UK

25

3.7.2 Highlights of the Workshops • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Commonality of issues and challenges to be faced in many areas Openness in sharing ideas, successes and failures UK group able to offer different perspectives and disagree on issues Facilitated discussion between participants - approach was sensitive to group dynamics Application of general strategic principles to specific institutions Practitioner approach rather than purely theoretical Opportunity to stand back and focus on ‘bigger picture’ Reassuring to learn that South African situation is not unique Good to bring South African administrative colleagues together Good timing of workshops to facilitate commitment towards a more unified South African HE sector Receptiveness of UK group to South African ideas, approaches & issues Admiration of South African colleagues’ ability to adapt in face of enormous challenges and rapid change Discussions on differing perspectives of stakeholders in HEIs - academics, students and administrators Good to have broad representation of professional interests UK HE system was demystified Presentation on Fort Hare - important for South African and UK colleagues to learn of approach to attempting to rescue an institution facing severe problems Very helpful model of triangle of Access, Cost and Quality Information on models of resource allocation

4. Broad Findings The topics appeared to be appropriate in that they resonated strongly with South African colleagues who, at the more senior levels, shared a common understanding of the challenge to HE of globalisation. The one exception to this was perhaps the workshop which addressed institutional responses to changes in the profile of the student body and the dynamic relationship between access, cost and quality. There was limited awareness amongst the South African participants whom we met of the change of emphasis in HE in many parts of the world from teaching to learning and the growing debate surrounding this issue.

Moreover, the scale of the challenge of coping with a diverse student body in South Africa (especially in respect of preparedness for HE) was so far removed from UK concerns about widening participation that it was difficult to find common ground other than in purely practical areas such as student debt collection. There are undoubtedly curriculum and student support models related to access in the UK which could usefully be explored with South African colleagues but we lacked the practical experience of township and/or rural conditions to make our contribution credible.

26

It seemed to the UK Group that there was a pressing need for further work in the development of women’s leadership capacity. This will be explored through links with the CVCP Commission on University Opportunity (CUCO) and its Top Management Programme, and with FAWESA with whom we made contact in Cape Town.

South African participants revealed a perceived gap between the national policy framework in South Africa and the reality of conditions in South African HEIs. Some appeared to feel that this was contradicting the spirit of the White Paper. The DoE and Deputy Director General were clear that strengthened and improved institutional leadership was key to closing this perception gap, while acknowledging that certain aspects of the national policy intentions had been tardy in their implementation. Particular concerns were expressed by participants about the slow pace of reform of the SAPSE formula, delays in the regulation of private and overseas providers and the slow progress towards robust QA procedures for the new South African HE system. There was nevertheless evidence of enthusiasm for the HEMIS project, intended to deliver consistent information on students and staff across South African HE institutions.

The group encountered some extremely skilled planners from whom we drew a number of good practice points. But the South African participants highlighted a general lack of capacity in planning at all levels in some HEIs, coupled with relative inexperience of a stable national policy development process. This clearly leaves some HEIs responding to multiple external forces and appearing to its middle management to be ‘changing mission every year’.

5. General Evaluation and Next Steps 5.1 Workshop Model As can be seen from the summary above of Highlights and Next Steps, the format of exchange workshops appears to have been successful and has a number of particular strengths.

Considerable emphasis was given to participation in the widest sense - in terms of encouraging attendance from a wide range of administrators - from all HEIs, across a spectrum of functions and from a variety of levels of responsibility. The way in the workshops operated also facilitated contributions from participants and encouraged colleagues to openly share problems and experiences.

The workshops focused on the practitioner but also afforded opportunities for reflection on practice for both UK and South African colleagues. It was possible to concentrate on key issues of mutual interest.

There was wide knowledge of different HE sectors and HEIs - from both South African and UK participants - and it was thus possible to reflect on similarities and differences of various organisational structures. The UK group did not seek to offer a standard or agreed solution to issues. Indeed, there was often a range of views and perspectives among the UK participants.

27

The workshop model is regularly exploited by academics but less frequently by administrators, especially in South Africa. Discussions were not confined to formal sessions and, at each location, there were lively informal exchanges during breaks.

5.2 Underlying Themes Underlying the workshops were the related themes of: • Understanding the role of the administrator as an agent of change • How to secure high quality outcomes and improvements from all activities • The personal development of administrators as managers of HEIs The first of these themes was addressed explicitly through the six topics. It was clear that the term “administrator” in the sense that it is generally used in UK HE was not universally understood in South African HE. Some interpreted it in the North American sense of manager/leader which gave rise to some ambiguity as to the level of personnel we were seeking to work with. Others interpreted it broadly as “non-academic” staff and more specifically as “middle management” within the wide range of roles, undertaken by those who are not academic staff. It was clear that whatever definition resonated most clearly with South African colleagues, there was a well understood and strongly articulated need for effective middle management training and development in South African HE. The extent of the need varied between institutions and did not necessarily reflect historical divisions in the South African system.

Rather, capacity building was a constant refrain, with different institutions tackling it in various ways. In a number of instances, efforts were being frustrated by unstable institutional leadership, an outflow of good staff and severe resource deficiencies compounded by falling enrolments.

The second theme, quality outcomes, was not addressed through a specific topic on quality assurance. Rather it emerged, as expected, both implicitly and explicitly in the workshops, and was no more clearly demonstrated than in the commitment which all participants displayed towards their job, their colleagues, to students and to their institutions. There was a common understanding that quality should pervade everything undertaken by professional administrators.

It is more difficult to generalise on the third theme. Certainly, the UK participants have all been prepared to articulate their personal learning points flowing from this experience, many of which will feed directly back into their professional practice or personal staff development plans.

It would be interesting to learn, possibly by the British Council circulating a brief questionnaire to the South African participants, whether they have gained similarly from taking part in the process and how they intend to follow up this event.

The UK participants’ learning points range from a determination to seek more information on particular current issues and topics in HE, for instance, on staffing and staff development, women’s leadership, planning techniques and models, to a commitment to undertake specific training activities or to review the way they fulfil their professional responsibilities in their home institutions, drawing on their own exposure to the workshop topics.

28

In summary, the AUA group has gained the following from the visit : • Better understanding of the challenges facing South African HE, and actions being taken to address them (but no exposure to rural areas) • Practical experience in presentations, networking, facilitating discussions, reporting on workshop sessions and team working with new colleagues - both UK and South African • Wider pool of contacts and networking opportunities • Raising profile of AUA internationally and with British Council/HEFCE • Opportunity to place their institutions own experience in a wider context 5.3 Next Steps Clearly, next steps must be: • Sustainable • Mutually beneficial • Focused • Capable of early delivery • Cognisant of the stark differences between South African HEIs The issues and topics which appear to be of particular interest for development through further activities of this type are set out below: 5.3.1 Enhancing the decision-making process / capacity in HEIs This should cover areas such as: • Committee systems - collegial and executive decision making • Quality of information – national data collection • Individual management capacity – staff development • Planning - strategic and operational 5.3.2 Identification of a sustainable role for each HEI in the development of a ‘single co- ordinated system’ This would tackle topics such as: • Planning – strategic and operational – in the context of rapid change • Regional collaboration (this seemed to be particularly significant and a possible way to securing rationalisation) • Communication 5.3.3 Strengthen opportunities for professional interaction between administrators A range of activities is possible including: • The development of a South African equivalent of AUA • Regional groupings • Specialist workshops e.g. IT managers, HR specialists, managing the strategic planning process, marketing and communications, project management techniques and skills 29

5.3.4 Governance - capacity of Councils to support management in achieving change in a turbulent environment This could cover: • Planning • Resource allocation • Executive and collegial decision-making structures and accountability • Consultation mechanisms • Inter-institutional collaboration – mergers 5.3.5 Women’s Leadership Issues There should be exploration of links with: • CVCP Commission on University Career Opportunities (CUCO) and its Top Management Programme • FAWESA with whom contact was made in Cape Town • Other initiatives in the UK & South Africa 5.4 Role of the AUA The AUA may be able to assist the British Council in the development of some of these initiatives and can offer the following which may be of particular use in developing capacity within HEIs in South Africa: • Access to a wide range of professional expertise at all levels and drawn from different types of HEI and other agencies in the field • Website links • Advice on key texts and publications in the field of university management • A clearing house for short-term secondments/exchanges • Publications - Perspectives, Good Practice Guides, regular Newsletter • Advice to South African colleagues on establishing a sustainable network of administrators 5.5 Other initiatives In addition to a range of personal contacts, which we will be pursuing, we shall also: • Establish e-mail contacts between all participants by developing the web site created for our own purposes in preparation for visiting South Africa • Offer advice to South African colleagues wishing to pursue the establishment of an AUA-type organisation • Through AUA, make available to the British Council the database of members’ expertise and interests • Publish a report of our visit in a range of forms for different audiences • Collaborate with Alan Shaw from Fort Hare on preparation of an article in the AUA’s journal Perspectives 30

• Attempt to establish links between UK & South African schools to foster interest and knowledge of South Africa amongst UK children. This could be through existing school governor links or with British Council support.

6 Conclusions The Exchange Workshops have proved to be a successful means of sharing professional experience of managing specific aspects of change in HE. The workshops provided opportunities to explore areas of mutual concern and to learn, at first hand, from other practitioners the success of strategies for managing change in HEIs. The summary of the major issues discussed and the highlights identified by participants reflect these outcomes. All UK participants consider the workshops and the wider aspects of the visit to South Africa to have enriched their own professional perspectives not only of the challenges facing HE in the widest context but also of the value placed on HE in a country such as South Africa which is seeking to transform itself into ‘A nation at work for a better life ...that will guarantee the dignity of every citizen’ ( President Thabo Mbeki - first speech in Parliament 25 June 1999 ). It was interesting to note that the last day of the visit 12 November was African University Day and was marked by special supplements in the press. It is salutory to reflect that there is little such celebration of the HE system in the UK.....

In conclusion it is recommended to the British Council and agencies with leadership roles in South Africa, including HEIs, that: • This model of interactive working be developed further • There be a continuing focus on developing capacity of middle management / administrators • A more focused approach is adopted in future workshops in order to address specifically identified needs • Consideration be given to focusing on cognate functional areas and/or particular teams in a HEI in addition to the undoubted benefits to be gained from cross-functional and crossinstitutional working • There be a specific focus on women’s leadership issues which emerged as a theme still to be addressed in South African HEIs and one in which there is a clear mutual interest between our two systems • The British Council to sponsor a group of South African delegates to attend the next Annual Conference of the AUA in the UK in March 2000.

Endnote The AUA Group is greatly indebted to Frances Marsden of the University of Southampton for editing this report. Whilst collective responsibility is accepted for the content, the hard work has to a very large extent been Frances’ alone.

Melvyn Cornish, University of Edinburgh (Joint Leader) 31

Sally Neocosmos, Sheffield Hallam University (Joint Leader) David Denton, University of Glasgow Graham Fice, University of Plymouth Ian Hewes, University of Essex Frances Marsden, University of Southampton Joanna Nyirenda, University of Reading Maggie Park, University of Aberdeen Tony Rich, University of Essex Lee Taylor, Open University Martin Watkinson, Open University February 2000

ŠAUA 2000

32