National University of Ireland, Galway
An Coiste Feabhais Acadúil
The Committee on Academic Quality Improvement
The Academic Quality Assurance Programme 2009 2010
REVIEW OF
THE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND,
GALWAY
Final REPORT
(19 March 2010)
School of Business and Economics: Review Report 2009–10
This report arises from a visit by a review team to the School of Business and
Economics on 26-28 January, 2010. The School had already prepared and submitted a
'Self Assessment Report' that, with other documentation, was made available to the
review team well in advance of the visit.
The review team consisted of: Professor Tom Redman, Professor of Human Resource
Management, Durham Business School (Chair); Dr Elaine Hutson, School of
Business, Michael Smurfit Graduate Business School; Mr Ronan O’Loughlin,
Director of Education and Training, Chartered Accountants Ireland; Professor Padraic
O’Donoghue, College of Engineering and Informatics, NUI Galway; and Dr Sharon
Flynn, CELT, NUI Galway acting as Rapporteur.
The report is structured to cover the following main topics
1. Aims and Objectives
2. Organization and management
3. Programmes and Instruction
4. Scholarship and Research
5. Community Service
6. The Wider Context
7. Summary and Concluding Remarks
Introduction
The review team would like to thank the staff of the School for their helpfulness and
willingness to engage openly in the review.
The School is at a significant point in its development, key decisions taken now will
determine its position in the future. This report identifies many recommendations for
the school. However, the report highlights a small number of these in particular as
being the most critical to the development of the School. Implementation of these
three key recommendations is vital and it is essential that all staff work with the
leadership team and the University to ensure their effective implementation.
The three key recommendations are:
I.
The School must develop a clear, focused strategic plan that identifies key
priorities and specifies implementation milestones.
II.
The School needs to think carefully about the appropriate leadership and
governance model; in particular, the composition of the School executive.
This is vital in the context of the upcoming appointment of a number of
new Professors and when considering that many academic staff are at the
early career stage.
III.
It is critical that the School achieves greater autonomy. Once the School
has articulated a clear, well-defined strategy (including the expected
2
School of Business and Economics: Review Report 2009–10
resource implications of all of the strategy’s elements), the University
should in turn engage with the School in facilitating a more autonomous
operating relationship.
1.
Aims and Objectives
The School has started to identify aims and objectives and its current strategic plan is
being finalised. We recognise the work that has already been carried out in this regard,
however we recommend that the strategic plan be revised to address to address the
following points.
The School needs to develop a clear, focused and shared mission statement for the
School and (measureable) targets of where it wants to be. The School should have a
clear, consistent brand message of who they are and where they want to be in 5 and 10
years time.
The School needs a clear strategic plan with key priorities and implementation
milestones.
It is important to position the J.E. Cairnes School of Business & Economics nationally
and internationally. The future aspirations of the School are not clear. There are a
wide range of Business School and MBA/Masters etc league tables and rankings. The
School needs to assess its current position and set out a strategy for entry and then
improvement in these rankings.
Accreditation is important for the School at a range of levels, from professional
accreditation of individual programmes to whole school accreditation systems. We
suggest the process of accreditation is valuable in itself for quality improvement.
There needs to be a clear timetable laid out for securing accreditations, especially as
some of these have long lead times, for example AACSB is typically 5 years from first
application to approval. The sequencing of accreditation efforts needs careful
planning. A first phase of programme level accreditation (e.g. EPAS/AMBA)
followed by whole school accreditation (e.g. AACSB, then EQUIS) has some logic.
The School strategy should explicitly clarify the level of commitment to research. A
key indication of this will be provided by the percentage of time allocated to research
in a future workload model and the level of internal resources allocated to research.
The Reviewers recommend the following:
1. The school must develop a clear, focused strategic plan that identifies key
priorities and specifies implementation milestones.
a. In formulating the strategic plan, the School must clarify whether they want to
be a genuinely research-led school, or whether they want to follow an
alternative model such as a professionally-oriented school.
2. The School needs to articulate a clear, focused and shared mission statement for
the School and targets for where they want to be in the short-to-medium term and
in the longer term.
3. The School should develop and disseminate a clear, consistent brand image.
3
School of Business and Economics: Review Report 2009–10
4. It is important for the School to seek accreditation. This should be done in a
carefully considered, sequential manner.
2.
Organization and management
We were impressed with the enthusiasm, hard working nature and dedication of the
School staff and their commitment to moving forward in a difficult time of
reorganisation.
Alignment behind the leadership team
For a School with ambitions for high quality research and teaching outcomes there
will be a need to reconsider the future leadership model, such as in the composition of
the school executive and the roles played by the senior faculty. The current School
Executive, which is under review, includes discipline heads but not associate heads.
The hiring of professors is critical to the future of the School and should be aligned
with strategic aims for the School/College. There should be an expectation on these
posts to fulfil a senior leadership role.
Autonomy
The Review Team identified a need for greater financial autonomy for the School,
based on clear priorities. Once the School has articulated a clear strategy with resource
implications, the University Management Team (UMT) in turn should engage with the
School in developing a more autonomous operating relationship. The School should
benchmark against financial models in other business schools to inform this
development.
With autonomy, the School can make its own decisions regarding resources,
including: a possible requirement for more senior administrators; consideration of the
skill sets required and definitions of the role of administrative staff at School level.
Where the School can generate income, autonomy will allow mechanisms to be
developed for the School to use this income, including recognising growth in revenue.
Operating as a School
The School is Business and Economics, but it is still functioning in terms of
disciplines. Consideration should be given to having a leaner structure in the Business
area. Consider possible regroupings from the current 5 disciplines to Business and
Economics; or Economics, Marketing & Management, Accounting & MIS, for
example.
The Review Team suggests that there is a need to move very quickly to clarify a
School way of doing things, for example:
 Programme Management: A consistent school based approach to programme
management and re-thinking of administrative support to line up behind
programmes rather than disciplines. This includes financial control at School
(rather than programme) level. There are potential efficiencies to be gained
using a streamlined approach to programme management.
4
School of Business and Economics: Review Report 2009–10

Marketing of Programmes: A school based approach to marketing of
programmes, including school visits.
The development and implementation of a transparent workload model across the
School is urgently required. Some small scale piloting has already taken place. Staff
administrative, teaching and research activities need to be clearly and equitably
distributed, which will be supported by an appropriate workload model.
There is a concern about the balance of staff, many at junior level, bringing a
particular set of challenges and issues, particularly in driving the research agenda. The
University needs to be aware of the fact that a large number of staff will be going for
promotion to senior lectureship within the next number of years and strong
consideration should be given to merit based promotion across all grades.
The Reviewers recommend the following:
5. It is critical that the School seeks greater autonomy. Once the School has
articulated a clear, well-defined strategy (including the expected resource
implications of all of the strategy’s elements), the UMT should in turn engage
with the School in facilitating a more autonomous operating relationship.
6. The School needs to think carefully about the appropriate leadership and
governance model; in particular, the composition of the School executive. The
appointment of new professors is critical to the future leadership of the School,
and the expertise of the new hires should be aligned with the Strategic aims of the
School and College. Further, there should be an expectation that the new
professors fulfil a senior leadership role during their tenure.
7. The School needs to operate as a cohesive unit, rather than along ‘legacy’
discipline lines as seems to be the case at present. To this end, we suggest that
the School quickly move to reorganise its operations as follows:
a. Programmes should be managed at the School level rather than within the
discipline.
b. The School should consider reviewing and reorganising the system of
administrative support, to line up programs and functions rather than along
discipline lines.
c. Marketing activities should be centralised at School level. This will result in a
reduction of duplication, and considerable efficiencies.
8. The School must develop and implement a workload model. The workload
model must be totally transparent, e.g. published on an intranet, and ensure as far
as possible an equitable distribution of workload – involving teaching, research
and administrative duties – across all of the School’s academic staff. Particular
effort should be made in protecting research time for those staff deemed to be
research active. The threshold for classifying staff as research active needs to be
clearly identified. The school should benchmark its workload model plans against
other research intensive Business Schools.
9. Strong consideration should be given by the University to introducing a purely
merit- based system of promotion to senior lecturer.
5
School of Business and Economics: Review Report 2009–10
3.
Programmes and Instruction
The School has a range of well-respected and professionally linked programmes. It
has a tradition of strong commitment to teaching. In meetings with students, it was
evident that students appreciate the positive interactions with their lecturers. This is
indicative of a high level of goodwill among staff, which may not be sustainable.
It is essential that the BComm undergraduate programme is prioritised across the
School. We welcome the role of the director of the programme. However, there is a
significant reputation risk (for the whole School) if the negative perception associated
with low entry points continues. It is necessary to raise (perceived) quality levels by
acting on the entry requirements and the intake should be reduced to numbers
consistent with high quality intake. Greater devolution of responsibility to the level of
the School would support this.
The Review Team fully supports the proposed plans to develop the EMBA, and
commend a plan of action which considers local business community needs. A
strengthened EMBA programme should be the starting point for accreditation, which
is achievable within 2-3 years. The Team supports the proposal for more flexible
delivery modes which should broaden the catchment. The School might consider a full
time MBA with an international reach as a medium term development, which could
offer significant revenue potential. Revenue streams are important for the School, as is
a degree of financial autonomy. The new building has wonderful facilities for
postgraduates, and these should be more efficiently used.
A School level review of the range of existing offerings is strongly recommended,
with a view to rationalisation. Development of new programme offerings should be
put on hold until the current range has been reviewed. Efficiency issues in teaching
and administration should be considered. It was not clear to the Review Team, in
looking at the range of programmes, which are advanced masters and which are
conversion courses.
At the level of programme management, some important issues arose:
 Students spoke about unbalanced timetables and a lack of overview of
assignment deadlines. There should be a School view of timetables and
Programme Directors should have an overview of deliverables and deadlines
for assessment.
 The Review Team would expect to see more evidence of systematic gathering
of student feedback, embedded into programme management, with
mechanisms for feeding back into course delivery.
The Reviewers recommend the following:
10. The School should prioritise its effort to improve the quality of the BComm
programme.
a. The School must engage with the UMT on the important issue of increasing
the entry points for the BComm by reducing intake numbers.
11. We fully support the School’s plans for the development and improvement of the
EMBA programme. In the future the School might consider a full-time MBA
programme, with students recruited internationally.
6
School of Business and Economics: Review Report 2009–10
12. The School should conduct a careful and considered review of its existing
offerings, particularly at Masters level, with a view to rationalising its offerings
consistent with the School’s strategic plan. We recommend applying the
principle ‘less is more.’
13. The School should develop a School-wide system of teaching quality control,
including a systematic approach to gathering student feedback, and mechanisms
for such information being fed back into course design and delivery.
4.
Scholarship and Research
With the School moving from a strong tradition of teaching toward a more researchoriented outlook, we recognise and applaud the increasing level of research effort and
output in the School. At the University level there is good support for research, such
as the sabbatical scheme and the triennial travel grant of €1,900.
While there are pockets of research excellence in the School, it lacks a clear schoolwide vision for research. It is critical that the School as a whole clarifies its priorities
and vision for research, in alignment with University plans. A thorough evaluation of
the research function in the School, including an assessment of research quality as
well as quantity, and examination of the relation between inputs and outputs (research
funding and publications), should be periodically undertaken.
The School’s research function is clearly suffering at present as a result of the dearth
of senior academic research leaders. It is critical that the complement of senior staff is
increased and that they provide research leadership and mentoring across the School.
Current plans to fill a few vacant several professorial positions should go some way to
remedying this deficit. But this cannot provide a complete solution. It is clear that
there are several academic staff members at lecturer level who are sufficiently
experienced in research as well as teaching and administration to warrant promotion
to Senior Lecturer at the least. Promotion would enable these academic staff members
to better perform the role of research leader and mentor to those with little research
experience. A better-designed merit-based promotion system should assist in
remedying the ‘bottom-heavy’ structure of academic rank in the School.
While there are several productive research groups and many individuals who
participate actively in research, some members of the school appear not to be
participating in research activities. For the junior members of staff, who were perhaps
hired for particular teaching requirements – without careful consideration of their
potential role in the school’s research effort – have perhaps been left behind in the
University’s and the School’s increasing focus on the importance of research. For
those junior staff members who wish to participate in the School’s research agenda, it
is essential that they are offered developmental assistance and mentoring in launching
the research element of their career.
One of the most important purposes of a workload model (as previously discussed) is
to free up time for research activities – for those members of the academic staff who
wish to engage in research. An appropriately designed workload model is critical to
increasing the School’s quantum of research outputs and of improving its overall
quality.
7
School of Business and Economics: Review Report 2009–10
Research support should be targeted more effectively by University, College and
School. At present the triennial grant is available to all academic staff irrespective of
research performance. The use of sabbatical and the triennial travel grant
opportunities should be more carefully targeted to support the School’s research
agenda.
The School should conduct a thorough evaluation of the PhD programme. This
should include a review of completion rates, publications and the destination of
graduates. The School should also review and carefully evaluate the costs and
benefits of current plans for increasing the number of PhD students in the School, in
light of such issues as the availability of research-active, experienced supervisors and
the quality of incoming students.
The scope of CISC needs to be evaluated to be more inclusive of the research interests
of the School and aligned with the priorities of the University.
The Reviewers recommend the following:
14. The School needs to clarify its priorities and vision for research, in alignment
with University priorities.
15. The School needs to conduct a regular, detailed evaluation of its research
activities, including a periodic assessment of the relation between funding inputs
and outputs such as conference and refereed journal article publications.
16. It is critical that the complement of senior staff is increased, and that they provide
research leadership and mentoring across the school.
17. Research support should be targeted more effectively – by University and the
School. For example, the use of sabbaticals and the triennial travel grant
opportunities should be more carefully targeted to support the research agenda.
18. The School must consider carefully what supports are needed to develop the
research interests and capabilities of junior academic staff.
19. The scope of CISC needs to be evaluated to be more inclusive of the research
interests of the School and aligned with the priorities of the University.
20. The School needs to review the increasing targets for PhD numbers in light of a
thorough evaluation of the PhD programme, including completion rates,
publications and the destination of graduates.
5.
Community Service
Community service for the School of Business and Economics can take many forms.
Critical for the School is the link with business.
The Reviewers recommend the following:
21. The School should engage more with business, particularly (and initially) within
the region.
22. The School should establish external Advisory Boards where appropriate, to
assist with implementing important elements of the strategic plan. Greater links
8
School of Business and Economics: Review Report 2009–10
with industry are particularly critical if the School chooses to expand its
Executive Education programmes.
23. The School needs to reach out more to its alumni. This may assist in achieving
better links with local business and creating useful Advisory Boards.
6.
The Wider Context
There are a number of areas where consideration of the wider context will help
enhance the strategic mission of the School. Internationalisation and the development
of strategic partnerships were identified as two areas where the School can gain some
additional added value.
The Reviewers recommend the following:
24. We welcome the appointment of a Vice Dean for Internationalisation in the
College. Greater internationalisation is critical for achieving accreditation, and
also for growing the student base and introducing successful new programmes
such as a full-time MBA.
25. The School should establish more strategic linkages, particularly with institutions
in the region, such as the mooted link with the University of Limerick.
7.
Summary and Concluding Remarks
The School is at a significant point in its development, key decisions taken now will
determine its position in the future. This report identifies many key actions which are
critical to the development of the School and it is essential that all staff work with the
leadership team to ensure effective implementation of these. In particular, the
University and the School must work to ensure that the three key recommendations
are implemented in a very timely manner. This is a time of opportunity for the School
to chart its future direction.
The three key recommendations are:
I.
The School must develop a clear, focused strategic plan that identifies key
priorities and specifies implementation milestones.
II.
The School needs to think carefully about the appropriate leadership and
governance model; in particular, the composition of the School executive.
This is vital in the context of the upcoming appointment of a number of
new Professors and when considering that many academic staff are at the
early career stage.
III.
It is critical that the School achieves greater autonomy. Once the School
has articulated a clear, well-defined strategy (including the expected
resource implications of all of the strategy’s elements), the University
should in turn engage with the School in facilitating a more autonomous
operating relationship.
9
School of Business and Economics: Review Report 2009–10
We hope that these recommendations will stimulate and assist the School with the
necessary next steps.
Comments on the Methodology of the Review Process (addressed to the Quality
Office)
The Review Team would acknowledge the support of the Director of Quality and the
Quality Office in supporting and guiding this review. In terms of observation on the
process we would like to make the following observations:
1. The Team would have liked to know (up front) the time commitment involved.
Three days was probably sufficient for such reviews in the future.
2. We welcome the autonomy given to us in organising additional meetings and
would acknowledge the timely response of all to requests for additional
information.
3. The timetable might have benefitted from additional time being given to the
Team to reflect on its findings. Some thought might be given to the level of
documentation (sent out prior to the review and available at the time of the
review).
4. The Self-assessment document (and supporting appendices) was critical to the
process.
5. There was a good mix of expertise in the review team, subject based and local,
on the team. The absence of an Economist in the team was perhaps the only
matter noted by the team.
Professor Tom Redman (Chair)
Dr Elaine Hutson
Mr Ronan O’Loughlin
Professor Padraic O’Donoghue
Dr Sharon Flynn (Rapporteur)
(19 March 2010).
10