An Coiste Feabhais Riarachán agus Seirbhísí
The Committee on Administration and Services Quality Improvement
The Administration and Services Quality
Assurance Programme 2007–08
REVIEW OF UNIVERSITY MANAGEMENT TEAM
FINAL REPORT (06.03.2008)
University Management Team: Review Report 2008
This report arises from a visit by a review group to the National University of Ireland,
Galway on 27th to 30th November, 2007. The University Management Team (UMT)
had already prepared and submitted a 'Self Assessment Report' that, with other
documentation, was made available to the review team in advance of the visit.
The Review Group consisted of: Professor Seamus Smyth , President Emeritus, NUI,
Maynooth (Chair); Mr Steven Manos, Former Executive Vice-President, Tufts
University; and Professor Lena Marcusson Former Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Uppsala
University, Professor Chris Curtin, School of Political Science and Sociology, NUI,
Galway; and Professor Kathy Murphy, School of Nursing and Midwifery, NUI,
Galway, acting as rapporteur.
The review team were charged with the following:
Scope
The focus and scope of the review is the operation and effectiveness of the University
Management Team in the context of the University, including:

The distinct and complementary roles of an tÚdarás, Academic Council and
the Committees of an tÚdarás.

The portfolios of members of the University Management Team.

The roles of Vice Presidents in relation to the executive directors reporting to
them.

Interactions with the academic Deans, and Senior Managers of the major
administrative, service and support units.
As with other internal University reviews, the objective is to identify opportunities for
improvements in structures, polices, procedures and practices in relation to UMT.
Our report is based on the self-assessment report prepared by UMT, information
gathered from meetings with staff and a review of all the documentation provided.
Meetings were held with a range of staff including the President, UMT as a group,
individual members of UMT and an tÚdarás, Deans, Heads of Schools and Research
Institutes/Centres, Heads of Academic disciplines, Students and Heads of
Administrative Departments
The report is structured to cover the following main topics:
1. Introduction
2. Aims and Objectives
3. Organization and management
4. Summary and Concluding Remarks
5. Recommendations.
612887144
1
University Management Team: Review Report 2008
1. Introduction:
The Review Group was impressed by the growth and development of the National
University of Ireland, Galway in recent years. The success in fundraising, the
expansion of programmes, the growth in research as measured by student and
staff numbers, research output, and income competitively won, are most
impressive. Rapid growth and development has transformed the University and
brought with them many increased demands. The impetus for change has
emanated from within an increasingly competitive international and national
environment and from within the internal dynamics of the University itself. It is
recognised by all that the University Management Team (UMT) has had a central
role in constructing and directing the required changes and that the transformation
of the University in recent years has been managed with considerable success.
There is also clear evidence that members of UMT have worked tirelessly to
initiate and respond to the required changes.
UMT has had many successes which include, but are not limited to; the
implementation of the strategic plan for research, fundraising which has exceeded
expectation, the creation of a positive relationship with Údarás na hOllscoile, and
the recruitment of many excellent staff. UMT has created within the University
an environment in which change has been welcomed. UMT has also been
successful in energising the University community and facilitating the emergence
of a vibrant academic mission. All these successes reflect well on the staff and
the leadership of the University.
Recently the University has restructured its academic units, and a new system of
Colleges, Schools, and Deans is in the process of bedding down. An
organisational structure, that had been in existence since the foundation of the
National University of Ireland in 1908, has been altered in a most fundamental
way within a relatively short period of time. The pace and success of the
transformation have impacted on all aspects of the institution and in so doing they
have generated a need for further organisational change. If this responsive change
does not happen, it will be difficult for the University to reap the full rewards of
current changes or respond constructively and creatively to future demands.
UMT has recognised the need for new management structures and in authorising
this current review has indicated a willingness to engage in objective assessment
of its actions to date.
2. Aims and Objectives:
UMT traces its origins back to a College Statute which was enacted in 1992
during the Presidency of Colm O hEocha, and which provided that “There shall
be a College Management Team, consisting of the President, the Bursar and the
Vice-Presidents of the College. Its functions may be determined by Regulation.”
The original Statute was amended in 2001 to include the Secretary and Dean of
Research among the membership. A further amendment in 2004 deleted
reference to the Dean of Research, that office having been subsumed into a VicePresidency. It has not been considered necessary to date to introduce regulation to
determine the functions of the Team.
612887144
2
University Management Team: Review Report 2008
In the Self-Assessment Report prepared for the present Review, UMT did include
a section that describes its aims, objectives and strategic role and this clarification
was of considerable value to the Review Team in its evaluation of UMT.
However, while the mission, aims and objectives presented in the SelfAssessment Report are clear, uncertainty about the statutory basis of UMT, its
aims and objectives and strategic role emerged as issues within many of the
meetings conducted by the Review Team with both individual staff and
University bodies.
At the review meetings it became clear that many staff believed that the formation
of UMT had no or limited statutory basis. While all felt that UMT was important,
many were unaware that statutes were drawn up in relation to the establishment of
UMT and its membership.
Some members of UMT felt that the lack of
regulation enabled operational flexibility which was important in an environment
of constant change. In practice, all members of UMT act under the direction of
the President and their powers are those delegated to them as provided for by
Schedule 4, Section 3(1) of the Universities Act 1997. Members of UMT are
obliged to consult with each other and other officers of the University in all
matters of common concern. Procedurally, the team operates on a system of
fortnightly meetings which are focused by an agenda and circulated material. A
record of proceedings and all decisions is maintained.
During the course of the review meetings, it was very evident that there was
confusion and divergent views on the role, aims and objectives of UMT. Few
staff were aware of the aims and objectives of UMT, and the current structure and
composition of UMT was raised as an issue of concern. Some staff questioned
the extent to which UMT was an entity as their experience was that they related to
individual members of UMT rather than UMT itself. UMT members were clear
about their mission, aims and objectives and had detailed these within the Self
Assessment Report. These were:
Mission
To ensure the effective and coherent implementation of the University’s strategic
plans for its operation and development.
Aims:

To assist the President in the preparation from time to time, as required by the
Universities Act, of a strategic plan, for approval by Údarás na hOllscoile, for
the operation and development of the University.

To ensure the effective and coherent implementation of that strategic
development plan.

To generate, following due consultation, policy options in all areas of the
University’s operations for consideration by Údarás na hOllscoile.

To provide support to individual University Management Team members in
the execution of their executive and operational areas of responsibility.
612887144
3
University Management Team: Review Report 2008
Objectives:

To promote a teamwork approach within UMT towards the development of an
informed consensus on policy.

To encourage a participative ethos in the University at large in the formulation
of policy options for Údarás na hOllscoile, and in particular with due regard to
the expertise residing in the various quarters, academic and other, of the
University.

To establish and maintain good communication channels with the staff and
students of the University, with a view to enhancing mutual understanding of
issues of policy and management.
The mission, aims and objectives above clearly identify the strategic and
leadership role of UMT. Many staff also stressed the importance of UMT as the
strategic and leadership group within the University. This strategic role was
identified as critically important to the future development of the University.
However, the perception of many staff was that while the individuals within UMT
were excellent, the constant need for “fire-fighting” meant that the current focus
of UMT was more operational than strategic.
UMT and Údarás na hOllscoile:
The relationship of UMT and Údarás na hOllscoile can only be interpreted in light
of the 1997 Act. In accordance with that statutory provision, the President is
responsible to Údarás na hOllscoile for the performance of his functions in
accordance with policies determined by an tÚdarás. Likewise any functions
delegated to UMT must be exercised within that policy environment. It is
important that an tÚdarás, through its policy function, give full support to the
strategic management activities of the University Management Team.
Individual officers on UMT, whether members of an tÚdarás or not, relate to an
tÚdarás via their chairmanship of a number of Committees of that body and,
because that relationship is mediated by the individual members of UMT and
their related Committee, it could be argued that the present structure militates
against both the perception and operation of collective responsibility at UMT
level. The strategic planning initiative must take place in the context of a clear
policy environment that must be provided and updated by an tÚdarás and, in that
respect, the Review Team concurs with the 2004 findings of the EUA Quality
Review of the National University of Irealand, Galway which states that ”it
seems unusual and unnecessary that members of a policy-making body also
participate in operational matters such as preparing items in committees or other
such activities that would seem to be the province of the University Management
Team”(p11).
Academic Council and UMT:
The relationship of UMT with the Academic Council, a statutory body established
under the 1997 Act, can only be interpreted in light of the provisions of that Act.
The functions of Academic Council are determined as follows:
612887144
4
University Management Team: Review Report 2008

to design and develop programmes of study, to establish structures to
implement those programmes,

to make recommendations on programmes of research, to make
recommendations in relation to selection, admission, retention and exclusion
of students generally,

to propose the form and content of statutes in relation to academic affairs,

to make recommendations for the awarding of prizes and to implement any
statutes referred to it by an tÚdarás.
The Review Team notes that the principal avenue of communication between
UMT and Academic Council is through the office of the Registrar. The
Registrar’s post is filled at the behest of the Academic Council in accordance with
a statute of the University. The Academic Council meets normally under the
chairmanship of the President.
3. Organization and Management:
The environment within which the University currently operates has greatly
changed in recent times, and it is probable that the scale and pace of these
changes will not lessen in the future. In the context of that environment of
change, a full restructuring exercise has been undertaken within the academic
structures of the University. Therefore it is highly appropriate that UMT
reconsiders its role to ensure that it is fully able to meet the challenges of the
future, and that UMT will be best placed to provide the required strategic
leadership.
The present Vice President (VP) portfolios have evolved within a context of rapid
and far-reaching change and, understandably, reflect responsiveness to emerging
issues rather than long term strategic direction. It was clear that there is some
overlap between some VP portfolios, and many officers indicated a concern that
the present VP roles may not necessarily be those that will serve the University
best into the future. There should therefore be a review of the structure of the
team, but this should only take place in the context of alignment with strategy and
a careful examination of VP portfolios.
A rearranged portfolio allocation must form part of an overall management
strategy in which Deans and Senior Managers are embedded. At present it is
unclear how the Council of Deans will relate to UMT and the decision-making
process. It is vital that this be clarified and agreed at the earliest opportunity
There is also a need to consider carefully what the core of a restructured UMT
would be. Some participants in the review process believed however that the
current size of UMT was too large for an effective executive group. There is a
clear case for seeing UMT as the strategic planning and management body of the
Institution and, if this is so, then there is a clear case for reconsidering what the
composition of such a body should be in order to be as effective as possible in this
strategic role.
612887144
5
University Management Team: Review Report 2008
The current climate demands a UMT that is decisive and enabled to make rapid
decisions. While there is a need to seek consensus on many issues, there can be a
tension between consensus and rapid decision making. If consensus is required in
all decision making, it may not always be possible to make the hard decisions.
The role of the Management Team is to be efficient and effective in its decision
making and, while it is desirable that consensus is achieved, this may not always
be achievable. Consensus therefore cannot be a goal in itself and should not delay
required decisions. UMT need to differentiate between areas where consensus
should be sought, for example, in the design and development of the strategic
plan, and areas for which consensus is desirable but not essential. For UMT, it is
of utmost importance that there is collective responsibility for decisions made.
However it may be that the current environment inculcates the empowerment of
individual vice-presidents and this may work against a sense of collective
responsibility. The President is the leader of team and ultimately decisions must
be directed towards serving the best interests of the University overall.
The University has an exceptionally capable group of Senior Managers whose
collective energies and commitment to the University are fully evident. The
University may benefit from forming a team or teams of managers with an
operational focus. If this is done, it may give UMT more time to focus on
strategic matters and allow for a more integrated delivery of services. The need
for Senior Managers to be connected into the decision making was also evident.
This is also evident for the Council of Deans. In this context, it is worth noting
that the Review Group Report on ‘A Focused Review of Quality 2000’ states that
in the process of university reorganisation “a group of middle managers of similar
standing whose responsibilities cover all the major activities of the University
should be created to provide vertical and horizontal integration across all sectors.
This group would then constitute an additional forum that would be
complementary to UMT and the group of Academic Deans”.(p8)
Communication:
The Self-Assessment Report identified communication as a significant issue of
concern. This was also a theme that was raised by a wide range of people who
met the review group. Communication issues extended into two main areas: (1)
communication to staff of UMT decisions, and (2) the need for clear and
interpretable information within UMT in order to make informed decisions.
Staff suggested that they were sometimes unclear about the outcome of decisions
when issues were referred to UMT either by them or from an tÚdarás. There was
a general feeling that there was a lack of feedback from UMT regarding decisions
and at times what appears to be an extended decision-making period.
Communication would be greatly enhanced if decisions made by UMT were
clearly communicated by it to those concerned within a specified time frame. In
this context, the UMT website could be developed to enhance communication
further.
A second communication issue became apparent within UMT itself, where there
612887144
6
University Management Team: Review Report 2008
was a perception that sometimes some financial information required to make
informed decisions was not always available in a form that was clear and precise.
It is essential that UMT is provided with full, understandable and up to date
financial information to assist it in all its tasks.
The University Strategic Plan:
In 2008 a new Strategic Plan will have to be prepared for the University. The
construction of this new strategic plan will require consultation across the
University, and offers the opportunity to deliberate on the future role and
composition of the new UMT. It is of the greatest importance that the University
has a common identity, vision and purpose to which everyone subscribes, and this
is not perceived to be its condition at present. It is important also that there is
clear prioritisation of elements of the plan. It is an important function of UMT to
accomplish this task. The strategic planning process provides both an opportunity
and mechanism for achieving this unity of purpose. UMT has a vital leadership
role in formulating the plan, and in ensuring maximum participation and
commitment. The process should not be handed over to external consultants.
Strategic Planning must also be seen as a dynamic process that requires review
and re-evaluation in light of the current policy environment.
4. Summary and Concluding Remarks
The pace, extent and success of recent developments reflects well upon the staff
of the University and its Leadership and Management, the responsible individual
officers and UMT as an entity. Our concern and the focus of this Report is on the
future success of the University and the role of UMT therein.
The Review Team met over three days, with a wide range of members of the
University community, both in groups and as individuals. We have been very
impressed by the level of engagement and thoughtful contributions of those who
met with us, and we have been most impressed by their evident wish to serve the
University community well in its future development.
Our discussions revealed that there exists within the University community a lack
of clarity concerning the nature, structure, purpose and function of UMT. In part,
the level of confusion that currently exists is a function of the inadequate
communications that currently pertains, but the review team is conscious also that
confusion is an outcome of the current structure of UMT and its relationship with
individuals, committees and bodies within the University Community.
Our interviews have revealed not only a level of confusion, but also a range of
divergent views extending to and including an tÚdarás members who met with us.
Central to that confusion is a questioning of the statutory base of UMT. There is
also confusion as to the respective roles of individual members of the UMT and
the functioning UMT as a collective entity. Furthermore there is a perception that
the current relationship of UMT with an tÚdarás, as mediated through a
committee structure led by individual officers, does militate against the sense of
collectivity desired by, and of UMT.
612887144
7
University Management Team: Review Report 2008
The restructuring and developments which have been apparent within the
academic side of the University have created new demands on the management
and leadership of the Institution, and those demands will in the future grow
organically both in magnitude and diversity. This will require a considerable
adaptation by management of how it organises itself to conduct future operations,
while at the same time permitting it to develop and sustain a strategic vision for
the Institution. In that restructuring it will be vital that the commitment and
energy of the University Community, especially that of Deans and Senior
Management, be connected into the decision-making processes in a real and
effective way.
Therefore one of the recommendations of this review team is that in any future reevaluation of the structure and functioning of UMT, there must be a clear focus
on strategic planning. That focus should inform also the overall strategic
planning process, which the University should commence as soon as possible
after the appointment of a new President.
5. Recommendations:
1) The Statutory basis of UMT needs to be publicised.
2) UMT should consider determining through regulation the core functions of
UMT as is provided for in the foundation statute.
3) The relationship between UMT and an tÚdarás needs to be redefined urgently
within the context of the policy making function of an tÚdarás.
4) UMT must operate as the strategic group which provides leadership for the
University.
5) In furtherance of its strategic role, UMT need to create structures that enable
Deans and Senior Managers to be effectively connected to decision making.
6) In the conduct of its duties, UMT needs to ensure that its principal focus is on
strategic management rather than operational detail. In light of this, the
responsibility for some operational matters could be devolved to Senior
Managers.
7) UMT has to create a vision for itself concerning its leadership and
management roles and, as an aid to this, to benchmark itself against best
practice in comparable organisations. There is a need to give careful
consideration to other organisational models and to adopt a consistent and
recognised model for UMT.
8) There is a need for transparency in how decisions are made in UMT.
9) Decisions need to be communicated clearly to others in the University.
10) The reorganised University has resulted in a change of the Academic
landscape by the creation of colleges, schools and the insertion of research
institutes into the University. UMT must find a way of incorporating these
changes into the strategic management of the overall Institution.
11) There are certain decisions that are critical to the future of the University. It is
incumbent on UMT to be provided with all the relevant information pertaining
612887144
8
University Management Team: Review Report 2008
to making these decisions.
12) UMT will be making critical decisions on behalf of the University. Certain
decisions must have reasonable timescales placed on them.
13) UMT must take an active and lead role in the formation of the New Strategic
Plan.
Comments on the Methodology of the Review Process:
The Review Team met with an extensive range of individuals and groups. There was
good attendance at meetings and a real engagement by participants. Timing of
meetings was an issue, as it was often difficult to stick to the allotted time. Some
meetings necessarily ran over, but the Review Team were able to compensate for this
within the overall timetable. The organisation and support provided by the Quality
Office during the actual review was particularly impressive.
Professor Séamus Smyth (Chair)
Mr. Steven Manos
Professor Lena Marcusson
Professor Chris Curtin
Professor Kathy Murphy (Rapporteur)
612887144
9