Management Review of Hong Kong Baptist University

.		.
.	This report presents the key findings and recommendations of the UGC Review Panel following its visit to the Hong Kong Baptist University (HKBU) on 5-6 January 1999. This visit was preceded by preliminary information collection and analysis undertaken by PricewaterhouseCoopers consultants, involving the review of key documentation related to HKBU’s management processes and 23 interviews with academic and administrative staff throughout the institution. The latter were undertaken over a three-day period in October 1998. The results of this background research were presented to the Review Panel (hereafter the "Panel") in a briefing paper in advance of the Panel visit. The Panel visit consisted of a number of group and individual interviews and discussions with members of the senior management of HKBU, including the Council. A list of the people met during the visit is provided in Annex A; the names of the Panel members are listed in Annex B. The overall framework for the Management Reviews is described in detail in Annex C. This indicates that, in undertaking this and other management reviews, the Management Review Steering Group (MRSG) recognises the diversity in the existing management structures and processes of individual institutions stemming from their different missions, histories and cultures. For this reason, it considers that it would be wrong for any review to seek to impose a uniform management style across different institutions. The MRSG therefore distinguishes between the principles of good management (as it perceives them) and the form in which these principles are (or perhaps, are not) put in place. A number of generic principles of good management were identified in consultation with the Consultative Group of institutional representatives and distributed to HKBU in advance of the visit. These are listed in Annex D. Following a general introduction to HKBU, this report is structured under the following six headings (consistent with the grouping of the good management principles): · strategic planning · resource allocation · implementation of plans · roles, responsibilities and training · service delivery · management information and systems Brief reference is also made to any issues raised with the Panel regarding the interface between HKBU and the UGC. HKBU – general background The Hong Kong Baptist University was originally established as the Hong Kong Baptist College in 1956. Its founding objective was to provide quality higher education in a Christian environment for the young people of Hong Kong. In 1983, the college moved from private to public status, on the enactment of the Hong Kong Baptist College Ordinance, which established the College as a statutory body and autonomous institution. It began offering degree courses in 1986, subject to external validation by the UK Council for National Academic Awards and, with effect from 1990, by the Hong Kong Council for Academic Accreditation. Following the award of self-accrediting status in 1993, the College was granted university status in 1994, and renamed Hong Kong Baptist University (HKBU). Beyond the traditional teaching and research aspects of its mission, the distinctiveness of the University continues to be associated with its heritage of Christian higher education within a Chinese cultural setting. It is also committed to creating and maintaining an environment, which develops and sustains the whole person in all educational endeavours. In 1997/98, HKBU had 4,874 students in total. The vast majority of students (4,185) were on undergraduate programmes. Of the remainder, some 501 were on taught postgraduate programmes and 188 were research students. HKBU had some 331.7 fte teaching staff members and 648 non-teaching staff. HKBU has three faculties – Arts, Science, and Social Sciences – and two schools – Business and Communication. In addition, there is a School of Continuing Education whose student and staff numbers are not covered by the above-mentioned figures. The President and Vice-Chancellor is the chief executive officer. A small number of externally facing offices report directly to the President, including University Relations, Information and Public Relations, and Alumni Affairs and Development. In addition, three major areas report to the President, through three Vice-Presidents: the Academic Vice-President, the Vice-President (Research and Support Services) and the Vice-President (Administration). Each faculty /school is headed by a Dean, and comprises a number of departments or divisions. The organisational structure is attached at Annex E. The University’s committee structure is set out in Annex F. This comprises three major elements, namely: the external governance committees that report to the Council; the academic committees that report to the Senate; and the administrative committees that report to the President and Vice-Chancellor. The institution has experienced considerable changes in recent years, resulting from its development from College to University. However, whilst HKBU is relatively young as a university, it has strong traditions as a provider of quality education in Hong Kong, and is therefore perceived by many to be an established member of the tertiary sector. This is in part due to the long service of the current President, who is well known and widely respected by both the local and international community. Looking to the future, the Panel noted that perhaps the most important issue facing HKBU is the challenge of preparing for and managing the eventual succession of the President. HKBU prides itself on its strong sense of collegiality. The Panel noticed that this collegiality was clearly evident not only at senior management levels, but also throughout the organisation. The community ethos is clearly reflected in HKBU’s overall vision statement, and is widely accepted by staff members, who consider it to be a significant strength. The Panel was most impressed by the generally high morale of staff, and their strong commitment to the overall aims and objectives of the university. This clarity of mission provides a sound basis for the development of HKBU’s overall strategy.	.

This section considers the approach to strategic planning within HKBU. It covers several key issues arising out of the review, including the current status of an overall strategic plan for the university, as well as the nature of the present planning process.

The Panel was pleased to see that HKBU has begun to develop a clear strategic five-year plan, to guide it through the 1998 – 2001 triennium and beyond. The current plan comprises of seven strategic goals, each of which is supported by a number of strategic actions. The goals are consistent with the overall mission of the organisation. The Panel noted that since the consultants’ visit in October, the strategic plan has been further developed. Timelines, performance indicators and overall responsibility have now been defined for each of the strategic actions.

To facilitate its initial identification of these strategic goals, HKBU held a retreat in January 1997. This involved all the members of the Senior Executive Committee, and therefore represented both academic and administrative interests. The Panel recorded several references to this retreat, from members of staff at all levels that had found the process useful. Concurrent with the development of the overall strategic plan, Heads of Departments and Deans were responsible for compiling their own contributions to the current academic triennial plan, 1998-2001. The Panel was pleased to find evidence of a healthy supply of ‘bottom up’ initiatives from individual faculties and departments. It also noted a number of examples of clear ‘top down’ direction, the most notable being the development of the undergraduate course in Chinese Medicine.

The Panel found evidence of good planning practice in a number of HKBU’s administrative units; in particular the Strategic Human Resources Management Plan prepared by the Staff Affairs Committee. However, it believes that strategic planning could be further strengthened across the non-academic activities, by introducing clearer links to the overall strategic plan at the institutional level.

HKBU is guided by a number of external contributions in its planning, such as the outcomes of the UGC Teaching and Learning Quality Process Review (TLQPR), and the UGC’s Research Assessment Exercise (RAE). However, the Panel could not be certain that other potentially useful sources of input, such as the links established through the School of Continuing Education with other universities and companies, are being fully exploited. The Panel noted that the Council currently plays a limited role in strategic planning, and suggests that it could provide another valuable source of external guidance and inputs to the planning process.

The Panel observed that the level of planning capacity varies across the university, with some Departments and Faculties notably stronger in this area than others. The Panel therefore encourages HKBU to strengthen planning capabilities across the institution, with a particular focus on building stronger links between the overall strategic plan and the operational strategies developed at institutional level. The Panel noted that SECO currently provides an important forum for co-ordinating plans at the faculty level, but suggests that further efforts could be made to integrate these plans with the overall institutional strategy. For example, HKBU might like to consider ways in which it can increase awareness amongst staff of the importance of ensuring that objectives set at the Departmental or Faculty level are compatible with the overall institutional strategy.

The overall vision of the President, and his role in identifying future direction and opportunities for the university, impressed Panel members. However, the Panel urges HKBU to ensure that the capacity for visioning is embedded widely across the organisation, thus broadening and deepening the overall base for inputs to the strategic planning process. The Panel encourages HKBU to push forward with its efforts to systematise planning processes, so that the university is strong enough to withstand major institutional changes, such as the retirements of the President and Academic Vice-President. For example, HKBU may want to consider ways in which it can develop more systematic environmental scanning, in order to formalise the tracking of key external developments, relevant to its strategic plans. It may also want to explore the possibility of setting up some form of planning secretariat, in order to co-ordinate and support internal planning activities. Alternatively, it may simply wish to ensure that the planning function is formally brought under the responsibility of the Academic Vice-President, or one of the Vice-Presidents. These efforts would also serve to facilitate broader ownership of the strategic plans.

Conclusions

The development of an overall strategic plan is a relatively new initiative for HKBU. The Panel commends HKBU for its activity to date, and hopes that it will continue to build on this early success in order to complete the planning cycle, following through to implementation and monitoring. The Panel recommends that HKBU maintain its efforts to facilitate participation in the planning process; internally, through clear communication and provision of training, and externally, through exploitation of established links with the local business community and other educational establishments.

Looking to the future, the Panel hopes that HKBU will increase its endeavours to systematise the key elements of the planning process, so as to ensure that they are robust in the event of institutional change. Furthermore, the Panel recommends that HKBU explore ways in which to achieve greater integration of operational plans, both academic and non-academic, with the overall strategic plan. For example, the Panel suggests that HKBU give further consideration as to how best to allocate formal responsibility for the co-ordination of planning. Possible options include the establishment of a planning secretariat, or allocation of responsibility to either the Academic Vice-President or one of the Vice Presidents. The latter option may be more appropriate in the short term, given the relatively small size of the institution.

.		.
.	This section considers the resource allocation processes within HKBU, covering issues such as the links between resource allocation and the strategic plan, and the extent to which current resource allocation mechanisms provide incentives for increased efficiencies. The discussion is structured under the following main headings: overview of resource allocation processes; transparency in the allocation of resources; incentives for value for money (VFM). Overview of resource allocation processes Resource allocation within HKBU has, to date, been guided by the use of formulae following UGC allocation mechanisms, with resources allocated according to teaching commitments and research performance. The Panel observed that the current pattern of resource allocation is predominantly controlled from the centre following the principle commonly referred to by staff as "distributive centralisation". The Deans work together with Heads of Departments to prepare annual budget submissions, which are then passed up to the Vice-President (Research) and the Finance Director, and on to the relevant Committees (ADC, ITC, SSC). The Heads of non-academic departments submit similar proposals. The Panel noted that many staff members are comfortable with this model, and consider it to be working well. The majority of them appear to be satisfied with the overall outcomes, although one or two Heads of Department expressed their frustration with what they perceive to be an inflexible process. The Panel found evidence to suggest that links between the resource allocation process and the overall strategic plan need further strengthening. There was also a lack of clarity in the links between the use of funds from top slicing and the achievement of the strategic goals. The Panel recognises that HKBU intends to define the resource requirements for each of the goals and strategic actions in the overall strategic plan. The Panel hopes that in doing so, senior management will emphasise the importance of aligning future budget submissions to overall strategic planning objectives. It should also ensure that the use of top-slicing funds is consistent with the strategic plan. The Panel supports HKBU’s decision to work towards implementing a one-line budget over the next couple of years. It found that a majority of the Deans would favour greater devolution in the distribution of resources, as would the Heads of Department, so as to gain added discretion and flexibility in their use of budgets. The Panel also noted that the move to a one-line budget would be treated with caution by some, who recognise the added responsibility a one-line budget would place on both faculties/schools and departments, and are not convinced that they are ready for this. The Panel found evidence of some misunderstandings as to how a one-line budget might be set up, with particular concern expressed by one or two Deans over the determination of the overall size of the budgets. The Panel recommends that SECO, assisted by the Finance Office, undertake to communicate to all departments the implications of introducing a one-line budget, including an assessment of the associated training needs. Transparency in the allocation of resources The Panel found the overall transparency of the resource allocation process to be satisfactory, and was pleased to note that extensive consultation is carried out with each of the Deans and Heads of non-academic departments during preparation of the budget. On the whole, staff members are clear about the formulae used to allocate resources, and are comfortable with the processes used to distribute top-slicing and ad hoc contingency funds. However, the Panel detected a certain lack of clarity with respect to some of the formulae that are currently being applied to resource allocation, but found that staff appreciate that the process requires the use of judgement as much as formulae. The Panel noted that a number of staff expressed concern as to the appropriateness of certain formulae, such as the SSR, for ongoing monitoring of resource allocation. The switch to a one-line budget will provide HKBU with the opportunity to move to a more performance-based approach to resource allocation. Incentives for value for money For the most part, the Panel observed that academic staff members are aware of the importance of using resources as effectively as possible. They also demonstrated a commendable team spirit and willingness to work together across the University to achieve the necessary savings. In addition, the Panel observed that staff members were willing to be flexible in their demands in order to support developments in other parts of the organisation. A number of staff members cited examples of the introduction of new course elements, such as digital and graphic communications, which they believed had rightly received additional support. However, under the current model, the Panel found evidence to suggest that there are still insufficient incentives to maximise opportunities for cost savings within departments. It encourages HKBU to press on with initiatives already in place, such as the steps being taken to increase the overall staff to student ratio, and to re-evaluate the need for any post that becomes vacant. It also encourages the Finance Office to follow through its proposals to allow Faculties and Departments to carry over 90% of their savings, with the introduction of the one-line budget. Across the support services, the Panel found a clear understanding of the need to work towards a current target of 5% annual cost savings. Staff members were able to cite clear examples of areas where they were working to increase efficiency and achieve savings. For example, the Estates Office has initiated an energy efficiency audit by China Light and Power, and the Personnel Office has worked with a number of Faculties to streamline recruitment processes. The Panel commends this widespread commitment, and encourages HKBU to make further efforts in this area. It suggests that in the future, SECO consider a more flexible approach to cost savings across the institution, to take into account the different capacities of each administrative unit to make cost savings, rather than seeking to maintain a blanket percentage target. In some areas it will be possible to achieve savings greater than 5%. The Panel was impressed by the School of Continuing Education’s ability to run a successful self-financing operation. In particular, it was interested to note that the School had chosen to set up some of its own administration processes in house. As a result, the Panel wonders whether more could be made of the links between the School and the main institution, in order to maximise the potential benefits of this association, through the sharing of experience and good practice. Conclusions Current resource allocation processes appear to be working well, and are widely accepted and understood by staff. The Panel commends HKBU for the level of participation and consultation in the preparation of budgets. In future, it hopes that senior management will seek to develop stronger links between the resource allocation and the overall strategic plan. The Panel was pleased by the evident commitment to achieving cost savings across HKBU, and encourages the University to build on the good start it has made in this important area. The Panel fully supports proposals to move to a one-line budget system. It encourages HKBU to finalise its plans for this development as soon as possible, taking into account the implications for communication and staff development. It believes that this approach to resource allocation will increase departments’ and faculties’ flexibility in the use of resources, and will provide incentives for greater responsibility and efficiency in budget management. Given the small size of the University, the Panel recognises the importance of maintaining a balance between devolution and centralisation. For this reason, it suggests that a one-line budget would be best administered at the faculty/school level.	.

.		.
.	This brief section focuses on several key aspects relating to the implementation of plans, including the allocation of responsibility for implementation and monitoring arrangements, as well as the use of performance measures. The Panel noted that in further developing its strategic plan, HKBU has recently defined time-lines, performance indicators and responsibilities for each of the strategic actions. This will facilitate implementation of the overall strategic plan. The Panel hopes that Deans will work closely with their Heads of Department to meet the targets which have now been set. By clearly communicating the need to integrate planning at the operational level with the overall strategic plan, SECO will further facilitate the implementation process. The Panel expects that the Deans will play a central role in overseeing this process. Faculties/schools and operating units currently provide monitoring reports to SECO every year. The Panel recommends further development of this good practice, to enable the effective monitoring of progress with respect to the strategic actions and goals. SECO might like to consider ways in which it can encourage faculties/schools to discuss their experiences with respect to implementation and monitoring, thus enabling sharing of best practice. It will also want to ensure that the recently developed performance indicators are integrated into the monitoring mechanisms. With respect to the implementation of plans by non-academic units, the Panel observed several examples where steps were already being taken to implement initiatives outlined in the strategic plan. This included evidence of a number of units undertaking Business Process Re-engineering (BPR), as a result of the recent training courses. The BPR initiative was led by the Personnel Office and a number of other offices, with the support of the Vice-President (Administration). Similarly, the Panel noted the Personnel Office’s steps to implement annual performance appraisal for all staff, as stated in its Strategic Human Resources Management Plan. It was also clear that HKBU has taken clear action with respect to implementing recommendations contained in the TLQPR report, a notable example being the successful development of the quality assurance process within the Registry. Conclusions HKBU has demonstrated its ability to implement plans at the operational level, and has also taken clear steps towards implementing its overall strategic plan. The Panel encourages HKBU to continue its efforts, paying particular attention to the ongoing integration of initiatives, so as to avoid a fragmented approach to implementation. It also recommends that HKBU focus on further strengthening its monitoring processes, ensuring that the newly developed performance indicators for each of the strategic actions in the overall strategic plan are integrated into the monitoring mechanisms.	.

.		.
.	This section focuses on HKBU’s management and committee structures, assessing the extent to which roles and responsibilities are clearly defined and understood. It also looks at the human resource functions, including the availability of relevant training and the effectiveness of staff appraisal systems. It is structured under the following headings: accountability and distribution of tasks and responsibilities training provision and appraisal systems appropriateness of committee structures. Accountability and distribution of tasks and responsibilities The President plays a very clear role in the University, providing strong leadership and vision. He is well respected; indeed some Council members even expressed a wish that he could "be President forever". Three Vice-Presidents (VPs), whose role and responsibilities are clear, support the President. There are clear reporting lines between the VPs and other members of the management. It is evident that the President has already begun efforts to prepare HKBU for a change of President. The Panel encourages the Council and senior managers to support the President in these endeavours, and to think strategically about the implications of an eventual succession. Appointed Deans are responsible for the management of each of the Faculties/Schools. The Panel observed that the Deans provide a vital link between the Senior Executive Committee (SECO), and the Executive Committees (EXCOs) of their respective units. The Panel noted that this feedback mechanism was usually effective, although it was given two examples when this mechanism had not functioned as intended, with the result that a Head of Department lacked information on decisions taken. For the most part, the Panel was impressed by the leadership qualities of the Deans, and their ability to reinforce the collegiate atmosphere at the faculty level through a good balance of formal and informal management practices. Departments within faculties appear to be working together well, and flexibly. The Deans have a clear and appropriate responsibility for allocation of resources, and co-ordination of operational plans, but consult regularly with their Department Heads. The responsibilities of the Heads of Departments are clear. The Panel found Heads to be widely supportive of the proposed devolution of budget accountability to faculty level. It also noted that some Heads would also welcome further decentralisation of responsibility for staffing matters, such as recruitment. Responsibility for the management of non-academic services appears to be clearly distributed and understood. The Panel noted that several faculties and departments would like to see greater devolution of responsibility for certain HR processes, such as recruitment. The Panel was impressed by the level of trust, evident in the relationships between colleagues across the University. This is perceived to be one of HKBU’s strengths, and a major contributory factor to the successful maintenance of its community ethos. The Panel accepts this viewpoint, but welcomed assurances given by senior management that this had not hindered the ongoing strengthening and systematisation of core management processes. Training provision and appraisal systems Regular performance reviews are conducted with the majority of both academic and non-academic staff. The Panel noted that the Personnel Office, with the support of the Staff Affairs Committee, is making arrangements to incorporate those staff not yet covered into the appraisal process as soon as possible. The Panel was pleased to find clear policies and guidelines to support the development of academic staff. It also found evidence of good practice in the review process of administrative units, such as the Service Evaluation Surveys conducted every three years for the Heads of Office/Section. In-house training offers a range of internal programmes, and there are regular orientation sessions for academic and non-academic staff (annual and biennial, respectively). The Deans hold their own staff development budgets. The Panel noted that the Personnel Office has identified the need for management and leadership training to assist with the increased management responsibilities placed on staff. It wishes to emphasise in particular the need to provide additional training to Deans in the event of the introduction of a one-line budget. Committee structures The Council is the supreme governing body of the University. The Panel was impressed by the commitment of the Council members to the purpose and future interests of HKBU, and by the level of their understanding of the key issues facing the institution. The Panel considers the Council’s current supportive approach to be effective and appropriate. It encourages the Council to continue its active involvement in debating key questions such as succession, and to work closely with senior management of HKBU in determining its future strategies. SECO, as the most influential management committee, appears to be functioning well, with active participation from the Vice-Presidents, Deans, and Directors of key support services. It provides a clear and regular forum for debate about strategic and management issues, and is widely recognised as the principal approval body within the University. The membership of each university committee is reviewed annually, and involvement in committees by staff is generally restricted to two committees with two-year terms on each committee. This ensures that staff members are not over-burdened with committee work, and provides good opportunities for involvement and development. The Panel concluded that the overall committee structure is streamlined and effective, and that the roles of each committee and its relationship with University staff, is clear. (A chart of the overall committee structure is attached in Annex F). Conclusions The Panel found that the roles and responsibilities of management are clearly defined, and that the overall management structure of the University is working effectively. It is also satisfied that the current committee structure is efficient and effective. Looking to the future, the Panel encourages HKBU to make every effort to communicate any changes to the overall responsibilities of staff clearly and promptly, such as those resulting from the introduction of a one-line budget. The Panel urges HKBU to maintain and strengthen its commitment to staff development, to equip them to meet the growing challenges and changes of the higher education environment, as well as the potential challenges associated with the succession of the current President. It commends recent efforts to strengthen staff appraisal, and hopes that the review process will be developed to take account of the role of individuals in helping to achieve the implementation of both operational and strategic plans.	.

.		.
.	This section looks at service delivery issues, including the processes for reviewing and re-engineering services, gaining user feedback and responding to internal or external audits. Many members of staff (both academic and non-academic) commented on the recent improvements in the provision of support services, although the Panel observed that there is still some frustration at what is seen as an increasing centralisation of administration of academic support services e.g. recruitment. The Panel was pleased to note that feedback from users was being sought in a variety of ways by those responsible for service delivery. For example, representatives of one or two service areas had visited individual Faculties and Departments in order to explore their needs. Formal reviews are carried out for each service area on a triennial basis, as well as at the end of contracts. Service users are widely represented on a number of support services committees, and in a number of service areas, including student support, and IT liaison points have been set up in each faculty. In addition, given the small size of the University, informal feedback mechanisms are also important. The Panel commends HKBU for these efforts, and hopes that they will be continued. In exploring the impact of management initiatives and feedback from users and external auditors, the Panel found a number of examples demonstrating responsiveness. In responding to the TLQPR, for instance, the Registry is working to strengthen its quality assurance process and systems. Following the provision of training in BPR techniques, a number of departments are now working at simplifying their processes. One user quoted improvements in the financial approval processes as a specific example of the way in which this initiative has already had an effect on service delivery. The Panel found that support services managers were aware of the need to make savings and efficiency gains. Opportunities to outsource services have been taken, and are continuing to be sought, particularly with respect to discharging the duties of the Estates office, such as cleaning and security. The Finance Office indicated to the Panel that it is considering the possibility of introducing ‘cross-charging’ for central support services, as a means of ensuring that users appreciated the real costs of provision. The Panel noted an interesting example in which the School of Continuing Education has set up its own internal support services, on the basis that this was not only more convenient, but was also more cost effective. This suggests that there may be opportunities for sharing experiences and best practices, with respect to service delivery, across the organisation. At present, there is no overall plan integrating the different aspects of service delivery across the institution. One of the seven goals in HKBU’s overall strategic plan refers to the need to review the University’s administrative services. The Panel supports this goal, and recommends that in carrying out the review, HKBU seek to develop a coherent plan for ongoing review and evaluation of its support services. This will ensure that improvements are achieved across all service areas Conclusions The Panel was encouraged by the level of evidence it found, demonstrating recent improvements in the quality of support services. It was satisfied that the management of the various support services was already active in seeking feedback from users. It encourages HKBU to continue its efforts to improve the quality and efficiency of service delivery. In moving forward, the Panel recommends that HKBU develop a coherent strategic plan to guide the ongoing development of its support services. This could include more formal mechanisms to monitor progress of the initiatives taken, linking this to monitoring of the overall strategic plan. In addition, the Panel suggests that HKBU identifies opportunities to share best practice across the University, for example by drawing on the experiences of the School of Continuing Education.	.

.		.
.	The co-ordination of Information Technology (IT) needs within HKBU is addressed through the IT Committee. This Committee has a number of key sub-committees, including the IT users’ committee. It also receives reports from the various parts of the University responsible for IT issues, such as the Information Systems Section (ISS) within the General Administration Office, and the Computing & Telecommunications Services Centre (CTSC). The Panel learned that a wide range of IT related initiatives are taking place both within faculties and support services, and that others are already planned for the future e.g. linking the two campuses into the same network. The Panel noted that HKBU has in the past been active in developing forward-looking plans for IT, for example its original IT strategy was developed in 1994. The Panel recognises that HKBU is now seeking to update this original strategy, through the development of an IT policy statement. However, the Panel was not able to confirm whether this policy statement will lead to the preparation of an overarching strategy for the future development of IT. The Panel encourages HKBU to develop an integrated strategic plan for IT, ensuring that this is aligned with the strategic goals of the institution. The focus of this plan should not only be on addressing existing issues, but also on identifying needs for the future, with respect to both academic and non-academic areas. It will address both technical infrastructure and the human resource implications. The Panel observed that HKBU is actively implementing a number of key systems, including an updated financial system addressing the Y2K issue, and software development plans for operational systems in the Registry. On occasion, these systems are being tailored to meet institutional needs. In other areas (e.g. the Registry) some developments are being undertaken in-house. In order to maximise the benefits of future system developments, the Panel wishes to suggest to HKBU that the most effective option is to streamline processes to fit the software systems, rather than vice versa, particularly in the longer term. The Management Information System (MIS) is in the process of being upgraded. A number of members of staff have already noticed some improvement in the provision and accessibility of information. The Panel noted that on the whole staff members seemed to be reasonably satisfied with the management information they receive, although some Heads of Department pointed out that information was commonly distributed late, particularly comparative information. Looking to the future, the Panel envisages that HKBU will want to make full use of the MIS to track progress against the University’s strategic goals and actions. It will also want to consider carefully the implications of the proposed introduction of a one-line budget system, for future requirements for data capture and analysis. The library appears to be well up to date with recent developments e.g. multi- media learning, and is developing its resources to meet these changes. The Panel wishes to highlight the importance of ensuring that the University’s overall IT strategy is well integrated with that of the library. It suggests that HKBU may also want to explore opportunities to encourage further collaboration between the library, the School of Continuing Education and the IT services, to optimise the proposed development of a ‘learning community’. The Vice-President (Research and Support Services) has overall responsibility for the Y2K issue. Responsibility for assessing and addressing compliance issues and problem areas is shared between a number of sections, including the CTSC, ISS and the Estates Office. The target is to have the implementation of the Y2K plan completed by June 1999. The Panel found evidence to suggest that HKBU is on track to achieve this target. Conclusions The Panel was encouraged by the range of IT initiatives currently underway, including the recent development of an IT policy statement. It hopes that HKBU will continue to build on this process, to prepare an overarching IT strategy, which integrates all aspects of future IT development. The focus of this plan should be on meeting user requirements, rather than on addressing purely technical matters. The Panel was pleased to learn of the success of efforts to improve the MIS. Looking to the future, it recommends that the MIS is used as a tool to facilitate monitoring of university-wide progress towards achieving the strategic plans, at the faculty and unit level, as well as at the institutional level. To support this development, HKBU will want to ensure that staff members have access to adequate training opportunities.	.

.		.
.	HKBU believes that it has a good working relationship with the UGC. It is generally content with the support and information provided to the organisation. However, there are several areas in which HKBU would welcome additional assistance. In particular, the Panel recorded comments on the: nature of feedback provided by the UGC. HKBU indicated that it would value more substantial responses to requests and information provision transparency of resource allocation. HKBU welcomes the information it already receives from the UGC with respect to the criteria for resource allocation. However, it wondered whether further detail could be provided access to comparative performance indicators. HKBU currently receives useful comparative information from the UGC. It was suggested that the level of detail and timeliness of this information could be improved by the UGC providing comparative ratios and statistics, which might be helpful to institutions in their planning.	.