Management Review of Hong Kong Baptist University: Annexes

.	Annex A - List of HKBU staff met during the Review Panel visits		. .
.	back to top Dr Daniel TSE, President and Vice-Chancellor Professor Jerry BARRETT, Academic Vice-President Dr. M H Mok, Vice-President (Administration) and Secretary Professor Herbert TSANG, Vice-President (Research and Support Services) Professor Jane LAI, Dean of Arts Mr Alex SHUEN, Director of Finance Mrs. Karen CHAN, Director of Personnel Mr. Joseph LEUNG, Director of Computing and Telecommunications Services Centre Mr. P K CHIU, Director of General Administration Ms. Jennifer LAU, Head of Information Systems Section Professor Y K FAN, Dean of Business Professor Paul WONG, Dean of Social Sciences Professor Leonard CHU, Dean of Communication Professor C F NG, Dean of Science Mr. Simon WONG, Acting Dean of Continuing Education Professor Terry YIP, Head, Department of English Language and Literature Professor Kin LAM, Head, Department of Finance and Decision Sciences Professor LI Si-ming, Head, Department of Geography Dr. Gary WILSON, Head, Department of Communication Studies Dr. Frederick HICKERNELL, Head, Department of Mathematics Mrs. Tammy LAI, Head and Course Leader, Teacher Education Division, School of Continuing Education Dr. Robert LAM, Academic Registrar Mrs. Pauline MAH, Senior Assistant Academic Registrar Mr. M P SIU, Director of Estates Mr. Francis CHUNG, Senior Assistant Director of Estates Mrs. Shirley LEUNG, University Librarian Mr. Frederick NG, Associate Librarian Dr. Eddie HO, Director of Student Affairs Mrs. Vivien CHAN, Counsellor / Co-ordinator (Counselling and Development) Dr. Thomas LEUNG, Deputy Chairman, Personnel Committee of the Council Mr. Roger LUK, Deputy Chairman, Finance Committee of the Council Mr. John WONG, Deputy Chairman, Campus Development Committee of the Council.
	back to top


.	Annex B - List of Review Panel members	back to top	.
	Professor William Massy - (Chairman) Mr Tim Lui Professor Sir Ronald Oxburgh Professor Dr. Frans A van Vught Professor Wee Chow Hou Ms Andrea Hope - (Institutional representative – LC) Mr John Fielden - (PricewaterhouseCoopers) Mr Nigel French - (Secretary-General, UGC - ex-officio) Ms Emma Watson - (PricewaterhouseCoopers – Secretary) back to top

. Annex C - Framework for the Management Reviews

back to top
.

. This annex describes the framework used by the UGC in conducting and reporting on the Management Reviews. The Management Review Steering Group (MRSG) developed this framework during the preparation for the reviews, in consultation with the Consultative Group of institutional representatives. This framework has been developed during the course of the reviews, following feedback from the institutions.
Scope and objectives of the reviews

The reviews cover all the management processes and systems in the areas of academic administration, research administration, maintenance and development of the estate, procurement, student support services, human resources, IT and finance. They are qualitative in nature and seek to promote self-assessment and self-improvement within the institutions through dialogue, discussion and analysis of issues with the consultants and members of the Review Panels. They also seek to promote the sharing of experiences and best practice.

Overall approach

A recognition of the diversity in the existing management structures and processes of individual institutions stemming from their different missions, histories and cultures inform the approach to the review. The MRSG considers that it would be wrong for any review to seek to impose a uniform management style across different institutions. It therefore distinguishes between the principles of good management (as it perceives them) and which it would therefore expect all institutions to display, and the form in which these principles are (or perhaps, are not) put in place. The MRSG is concerned with the manifestation of these principles and recognises that there is a wide range of valid approaches to their implementation.

A list of good management principles was developed with the Consultative Group of institutional representatives. These relate to the identification of strategic direction and its implementation, the overall planning, budgeting and resource allocation processes and the mechanisms for feedback, self-learning, adjustment and control. This list may evolve during the course of the Management Reviews following feedback from institutions and members of the Consultative Group. The current list is provided in Annex D.

Role of the Consultative Group

The Consultative Group comprises a representative of each of the UGC-funded institutions. Its role is to comment on the framework and processes for the Management Reviews, so as to help ensure their appropriateness and effectiveness, and to facilitate the process of sharing good practices among the institutions. As noted below, each Review Panel will include one member of the consultative group.

Processes involved in the Management Reviews

The Management Reviews involve four key steps:

information collection and analysis;

preparatory visits by PricewaterhouseCoopers consultants;

Review Panel visits;

report preparation.

In terms of information collection and analysis, the intention is that the Review Panels are well briefed on the institutional context, management structures and processes in advance of their visits. For this purpose, each institution is asked to provide some background documentation. This does not require institutions to prepare extensive new documentation nor to undertake further internal reviews. In order to help minimise the burden of preparation, the MRSG (again in consultation with the Consultative Group) developed a proforma providing a list of questions to which institutions may respond either by providing existing documents which address the same issues of by drafting brief (one paragraph) answers.

The next stage is the preparatory visits by PricewaterhouseCoopers consultants. These preparatory visits provide an opportunity for institutions to discuss the issues raised in the background documentation in more detail. The outcomes of these visits are then written up by the consultants in a briefing paper for the Review Panel in advance of the Panel visit.

The reviews themselves are undertaken by Review Panels, which consist of about 10 or 11 members in total: seven or eight from the MRSG, two members from PricewaterhouseCoopers (one of whom will act as the Review Panel Secretary); and one member from the Consultative Group. The Review Panel works according the principle of peer review - each member will have management experience in institutions of higher education. The main role of the Review Panels is to examine and test the institution’s management processes and systems through discussion and dialogue with institutional staff.

The Review Panel visits last for about one and a half days. They involve a series of meetings and discussions with the senior management including the heads of academic and non-academic departments. At the end of the visits, the Review Panel provides some initial feedback. This is followed at a later date by a comprehensive report on the effectiveness of the management of the institution including good practice observed and suggestions for improvements (see below).

Report preparations

The reporting preparations involve three key stages:

preparation of a draft report by the Review Panel;

submission of the draft report to the institution to check factual accuracy;

finalisation and publication of the report.

The institutions are invited to also publish a statement describing their comments on the report and any actions they plan to make by way of improvement.

back to top

.
.
Annex D - Principles of good management practice

back to top
.

Introduction
This annex presents the Principles of Good Management Practice which guide the work of the Management Review Steering Group (MRSG) and the Review Panels in their work.

The MRSG recognises that each institution has its own mission, history and culture, as well as varying in size and disciplinary spread. For that reason, it considers that it would be inappropriate for this review to impose or even suggest that the management style or processes should be the same in each institution. Therefore, in consultation with the Consultative Committee, the MRSG has developed the following Principles of Good Management. The form in which these principles are put in place will differ according to the circumstances of each institution.

The principles relate to all the management processes across an institution in the different areas of academic administration, research administration, maintenance and development of the estate, procurement, student support services, human resources, IT and finance.

The Principles of Management Practice

1. Development of the strategic plan

The strategic plan is consistent with the mission of the institution

The strategic plan is developed using both internal and external contributions and information. The development process provides the opportunity for the institution to learn from its own performance and from external developments

The development of the strategic plan is an iterative process whereby different elements of the plan - academic direction, academic facilities and services, staffing, estates, finance, IS - are brought together to form a consistent and coherent plan

Mechanisms are in place to ensure that any decision, which has significant resource implications (for revenue, expenditures and capital), is only incorporated in the strategy after those implications have been identified, estimated and built into future plans

There is a mechanism to facilitate the 'ownership' of the strategic plan and supporting operational plans through use of the management structure

2. Resource allocation

There is a clear mechanism and criteria to determine priorities for resource allocation - the criteria follow from the strategy and inform the planning process

Mechanisms and formulae, if any, for allocating resources (for example, performance-based formulae and the use of ‘top-slicing’) are understood and transparent

There are agreed ways of allocating resources on an ad hoc basis as necessary

The resource allocation process provides incentives for increased value for money in all functions (academic and non-academic)

3. Implementation of plans

Operational plans are developed from the strategic plan and include milestones and performance measures for regular monitoring

It is clear who is responsible for the implementation of each plan component and how that responsibility is to be discharged

Appropriate action is taken as a result of the outcomes of monitoring the implementation of the operational plans

4. Roles, responsibilities and training

There is a clear management structure, with the managerial responsibilities, reporting lines and means of accountability well defined and accepted by all concerned; the scope of any delegated authorities is clear to both parties

The responsibilities of each member of staff is defined and included in a job description; there is a staff appraisal process for the performance of individuals against their tasks

For each committee, its terms of reference are clear, unambiguous and accepted by its members; in particular it is clear whether a committee is consultative, advisory or decision making; each is subject to periodic review explicitly to consider its continuing usefulness

The competencies of committee members and staff are appropriate to their roles, with training available relevant to their needs, especially for those with new managerial responsibilities (e.g. financial responsibilities)

There is clarity in roles and responsibilities with respect to committees and individual staff members, especially in relation to the roles of professional staff

5. Service delivery

There is a process to ensure that the University is meeting the administrative and operational needs of its students, staff and external constituencies - this includes mechanisms whereby service users can comment on the level of service, priorities and related performance improvement plans and mechanisms to ensure that the plans are acted upon

There are regular review processes (or audits) in place to assess and improve the performance and structure of all administrative, academic and committee functions and services (e.g. to ensure that there are no unnecessary steps, duplication of activities or levels of management)

There is appropriate means to respond to external and internal audits or reviews of functions with structures and processes such that change is possible within reasonable time scales

6. Management information and systems

In producing management information, both financial and non-financial - the differing needs of different users are established, assessed and reflected in the information provided to users

There is a procedure in place to ensure that all management information used in decision making and monitoring is adequately reliable, valid and consistent and that the level of detail given to users is appropriate to their needs

Systems are in place to support administrative and management processes across the institution. Systems are developed and operated on the basis of user need

Systems are reviewed on a regular basis taking full account of user feedback and other benchmark information

Disaster recovery plans exist for all systems, for example with respect to the Year 2000 issue.

back to top