An Coiste Feabhais Riarachán agus Seirbhísí
The Committee on Administration and Services Quality Improvement
The Administration and Services Quality
Assurance Programme 2008–09
FINAL REPORT ON THE REVIEW OF
THE HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICE
December 2008
INTRODUCTION
This report arises from a visit by a Review Group to the Human Resources Office of the
National University of Ireland, Galway on 11th to 14th November 2008.
The Review Group consisted of:
o Ms Sinéad Donnellan, Head of Human Resources, City of Galway V.E.C. (Chair)
o Ms Anna Ryan, Director of Organisational Development, University of Limerick;
o Ms Elspeth MacArthur; former HR Director, University of Edinburgh;
o Professor Séamus Collins, Department of Accountancy and Finance, NUI Galway;
o Mr Conor McMahon, Computer Services, NUI Galway (Rapporteur).
During the review process, the Review Group met with a wide range of staff from within
the Human Resources Office. In addition, the Review Group met with a large number of
other interested parties, who interact with the HR Office, including members of the
University Management Team, heads and representatives of other administrative units,
members of academic staff, Deans of College and Heads of School.
The absence of a customary range of self-assessment evidence in standard form
significantly hampered the review process and we had to adapt our approach to ensure
that we gathered sufficient evidence from the interview/discussion process; we also
requested and/or were provided with a number of additional papers.
We have also had to write this report in a non-standard format; in particular we have used
the Context and General Remarks section to address in general terms the strengths and
weaknesses of the HR Office and to consider the opportunities for improvements in its
quality which currently exist; we have also chosen to group our recommendations under
four core ‘themes’ which seemed to us to be central to the future development of the HR
Office. However, our overall assessment of the HR Office was positive and we
concluded that the short-cut approach adopted in the self assessment had significantly
underplayed the achievements of the HR function in NUI Galway.
The report is structured as follows:
Context and General Remarks
Commendations
Recommendations
A: Continuous Improvement
B: Communication
C: Customer Focus
D: Organisational Development
E: Other Recommendations
Comments on the Methodology of the Review Process
2
3
7
8
11
12
13
14
15
CONTEXT AND GENERAL REMARKS:
This review of the Human Resources Office comes at time of significant change for the
University - change in which the department could and should have a significant and
positive role to play. The Review Group was very conscious throughout of a set of
uncertainties which would not normally be present: academic re-structuring almost in
place, a new strategic plan in the making (but not yet agreed), and work ‘in hand’ on
changes the within the HR Office itself.
Perhaps as a result of this state of flux, the ‘self- assessment’ report prepared by the HR
Office was presented to us in a non-standard format, without all of the information which
would normally be expected, and directing us strongly to the ‘Arthrú Report’ - two sets of
‘slides’ which set out the work of an external consultancy on implementing change for
HR in NUI Galway. The reasons for this approach were explained to us by the HR team,
and a written summary was provided to supplement the slides, which was helpful
background to our deliberations. However, our function was not to comment on the
merits or otherwise of the specifics contained in the Arthrú Report and we do not do so.
We do support the general direction described in the Arthrú report which, as we see it,
centres on the following:



Increasing customer focus
Emphasising continuous improvement of business processes
Realigning services to face outward to the new academic structure
Providing more support in areas usually described as ‘organisational development’, i.e.
helping the wider organisation to make changes.
The general conclusions which emerged from our review were as follows:
There was a strong and consistent view from all stakeholders and customers that the HR
function has improved greatly since the last review and, in particular, over the last four
years. We found these responses very convincing and consider this upward trend the
more remarkable since the function operates in an environment in which it would have
been all too easy to sit back and aim at no more than solid competence. It is a credit to
the leadership provided by the Director and the overall high quality of the staff in the unit
that they have developed their performance positively whilst coping with internal change
and a very significant increase in the volume of work. Tribute was paid by virtually all of
the customers and stakeholders we met to the quality, courtesy and abilities of staff and it
is clear to the reviewers that the professionalism of the HR Office has increased
significantly and is still being further developed. We also found that the HR staff were, in
turn, very positive about their customers and sincere and committed to the
implementation of a model which puts the costumer at the heart of the services delivered.
We found evidence that the unit had responded to the priorities identified in the current
Strategic Plan (2003-2008) and was anticipating priorities likely to feature in the next
Plan.
3
As well as a generally high level of performance, we found some specific examples of
excellence which we commend and these are listed in the next section of this report. We
also noted a very high level of satisfaction recorded in the customer feedback forms we
were given, with 78% of scores hitting the top and second top box out of the five
available. Some problems and ‘slip-ups’ were highlighted to us. Many of these centred
on the end of the recruitment process. At the point where a contract was issued, some
(not all) recruits seemed to drop out of sight with no action until their start-date when they
would arrive to find that not all the preparations which they might reasonably expect were
complete. We also thought that induction was generally rather weak. These concerns
have led to our recommendation about the continuous employment process which we
have termed ‘on-boarding’. We should also record that we were told of some excellent
examples of candidate management and new staff support, mainly – but not exclusively –
in the research area, so it is clear that there is good practice which could be extended.
We found one area of frustration which was consistently and persistently raised (in every
group and with every individual customer/stakeholder with whom we spoke) and that is
the impact of the high rate of turnover in the operational areas of the HR Office,
particularly over the last two years. This has led to discontinuity and a constant dilution
of ‘institutional memory’, resulting in the customer having to ‘start again’ on almost
every occasion when engaging in recruitment or associated activities. If there was one
single plea made by users it was for some sort of dedicated entry point for services so
that, whatever the teamwork and activity behind the scenes, the front end of the service
would get to know the customer and be able to act or facilitate access to what was needed.
Understandably, in the light of this plea, the idea of the ‘business partner’ model was
almost universally welcomed, although not always in its fullest form. Where something
like this is already in place (for the research community) it is considered to work
extremely well and received highly positive commendations. In other areas where longterm working relationships with an individual have been established – notably in
employee relations – there was also a high degree of satisfaction and respect.
An interesting issue emerged which, we feel, is of considerable importance to the
University. The Performance Management and Development System (PMDS) process is
a nationally agreed approach to performance development. There are a number of views
about its strengths and limitations and the supports provided by the University to
managers. Initial PMDS training was considered by users to be very helpful and of good
quality. However, it was clear to us (and all of those we talked to concurred with this
view, including the HR staff most closely involved) that implementation of PMDS in the
University has been patchy at best. In fact, the extent of implementation is not even
known. There were different views as to who (the HR Office or top management) should
‘ensure’ implementation, and how, and we include a specific recommendation on this.
The review group was expected to look at the management structures and systems within
which the unit operates and to determine whether these helped or hindered its effective
operation and to what degree. There were two aspects which struck the reviewers. Both
are likely to have a similar impact on other central services, and possibly also, to a lesser
extent, academic areas.
4
The first is the lack of ‘joined-up’ thinking and action on vital shared processes. Crossboundary working seems to be difficult, in part due to what we describe as ‘stove-pipes’
of activity where processes are broken down into sections of perhaps sensible size and
type either within a department or between departments – and then start to exist almost
independently of each other. We felt that the HR Office had suffered from this syndrome,
but was aware of it and we were impressed by the efforts they were making to break
down the barriers and encourage their own cross-team working. Their internal decisionmaking also seemed to be effective. Working across departmental boundaries was much
harder and there does not seem to be a culture which is strongly supportive of this. This
‘stove-pipe’ problem has led us to make recommendations for the future about how
continuous improvement in business processes within and across departmental borders
might be addressed to expand on the start made by the HR Office and to ensure that
central services generally can improve their effectiveness and be able to measure that
improvement in efficiency, reduced cost (savings in time and duplication) and increased
value for money. We see the HR Office playing a leading role in that as sponsor and
owner of a set of seamless employment processes.
The second aspect, again cultural, which seems to inhibit ‘joined-up’ working, is the
speed and clarity of University decision-making processes. All those we spoke to seemed
to accept that decisions were slow to come by generally. That acceptance may be
inhibiting the pace for change in some areas (though not necessarily in the HR Office
which seems to have a certain internal impetus). Several people commented on the fact
that ‘if you don’t hear anything it probably means you haven’t got what you asked for’
and at least twice, it was expressed as ‘if you don’t hear in about a year....’ This may
represent an exaggeration and we know that the University is managing a very careful and
well modulated change programme at the moment so we are certain that greater clarity
will emerge. However, we felt we ought to encourage the University in its consideration
of decision-making processes so that answers and feedback are more readily and speedily
available in the future.
Our final conclusions focussed on the proposed changes to the priorities in the HR Office:
to the ‘business partner’ model linked to a matrix of centralised services for all, and to the
enhanced emphasis on organisational development.
We concluded that, in its efforts to effect change quickly and in a cost-neutral fashion, the
HR Office is seriously underestimating the size and complexity of the challenge it has set
itself and it needs to plan this extremely carefully and over a realistic time-scale. Even
with a model which leans more to ‘single entry point’ than to full ‘business partner’, the
challenge to those moving into dual roles (part service partner/part specialist) is large and
the work demands are extremely high. There is a risk that some of the expert excellence
might be put at risk unless there is sufficient back-up. In the one area where a ‘businesspartner-like’ approach already exists (research support) the role is not a dual one and it is
not clear that it would be so successful if it were.
We were much impressed at the start already made by consciously enhancing internal
communications, encouraging more cross-team working and task rotation, and
systematically ensuring that staff acquire more professional knowledge (and
qualifications), but we also believe that there is a major programme of up-skilling
required in the areas of influencing, negotiating and relationship building and
management. It can be done, but it will take time.
5
We also think the department may be underestimating the significance of the goal itself:
introducing a model based, to whatever degree, on a business partner model in an
organisation to which this is almost entirely new is more than an operational
improvement; it is a very significant piece of organisation development in itself and its
benefits should go far beyond the HR Office. For this reason, we have made
recommendations about improving the way in which the HR Office monitors and
evaluates it own progress – not metrics for metrics’ sake but a clear and dynamic account
of achievement, and a model for the University in demonstrating improved effectiveness,
reduced cost and increased value for money.
So far as organisation development is concerned, we found hardly anyone who did not
see this as a laudable aim and we agree. In addition to the critical piece of OD
represented by being the first central service to embrace radical change (as noted above),
we concluded that the other priorities centre on the management development for new
academic leaders as the new structures bed in with the first formal appointments in 2009,
and a re-thinking of how PMDS might be presented, or even re-presented, and
implemented throughout NUI Galway to support the institution’s objectives, to support
cultural change, and to strengthen staff engagement.
6
COMMENDATIONS
General commendations on the existence of good practices, activities and initiatives
which the Review Group experienced on their review of the HR Office are distributed
throughout the report. Significant successes and improvements were generally noted in
several key areas: employee relations, staff training and development, recruitment, and
the support model for research institutes - this last in particular occasioned especially
positive comments from its customers. The review group also experienced general and
widespread endorsement of the quality, courtesy and ability of the department’s staff.
Specific initiatives and developments which warrant positive recognition include:

The implementation and ongoing management of strong systems, particularly
around the area of recruitment and employee relations, which have protected,
and continue to protect, the University in an increasingly complex
environment.

Improving management of contract and casual staff, in particular, a timely,
proactive, and apparently comprehensive dealing with the implications of the
Fixed Term Workers Act.

The innovative approaches taken in some recent recruitment and selection
exercises for senior appointments.

An increasingly valuable advisory role in academic probation reviews.

The reported significant financial saving to the University since late 2007
through the introduction and management of efficiencies with the workpermit system.

The improvement in the range and quality of staff training and development
opportunities, and the regularity and quality of the communication of these
opportunities to University staff;

HR’s presence at, and constructive input to, the selection of administrative
staff.

The Partnership process.

The large, and quantified, improvements made through proactive management
of absenteeism in one particular area.
7
RECOMMENDATIONS
(A) Continuous Improvement

Responsibility for the implementation of a programme of continuous service
improvement should be assigned to a senior member of the HR team. Initially,
this person should lead an overall review to ensure that business processes in the
HR Office are properly aligned and integrated, and that ‘external’ processes
interact with those in the HR Office in a manner which maximises effectiveness
and delivers improvements in service quality and efficiency.

The Review Group noted the organisational separation of the ‘Post Management
and Contracts’ function from the ‘Recruitment and Selection’ function. Given the
required reciprocal interaction between these two business processes, it
recommends that consideration be given to the operational merging of these two
functions in order to exploit potential efficiencies and to improve customer
service.

The Review Group recommends that all processes in the context of the ‘total
employee lifecycle’, from recruitment and selection, through induction,
assimilation, ongoing training and development, and performance management
should be reviewed with a view to ensuring both their effectiveness with respect
to the optimisation of the ‘customer’ experience and their efficiency and
effectiveness from the University’s viewpoint.

In particular, the Review Group recommends that the definition of the HR Office
responsibility for recruitment and selection be extended to encompass the
management of all activities necessary to bring the new appointee ‘on board’ on
day one as a productive member of staff. This will require the HR Office to
proactively manage and influence internal and external processes which impinge
on the achievement of this objective.

Good practices as established by the Research Support function with respect to the
induction management of overseas candidates should be extended to the
appointment of all academic and administrative candidates, particularly those
from overseas.

The HR Office should recognise its joint responsibility for ensuring that the
appropriate pension categorisation of new appointees is determined on
commencement of employment. A process should be put in place in consultation
with the Pensions Office to ensure that this is the case.

The Review Group noted the lack of full exploitation of the HR system, but it
recognises that the relatively recent appointment of a systems specialist to the
department is a positive step which promises to deliver improvements in the
quality of systems support to the HR function.
8

The HR department should continue and enhance arrangements to understand and
improve all relevant business processes by working in partnership with other
service providers and key stakeholders to improve the value achieved from HR
systems. The HR Office must take a proactive leadership role in managing these
‘boundary-spanning’ activities.

Particular effort should be devoted to ensure the full integration of CORE HR and
the Payroll systems. The intersection of these business processes and systems
needs to be actively managed to ensure efficient working and the minimisation of
‘blackout’ periods during which the HR systems are not accessible by HR staff,
which adversely impact on customer service. The Review Group commends
recent initiatives in this regard.

A number of data-related issues in the configuration of the CORE system have
been identified, which may have a detrimental effect on the quality of information
and support provided by the system. The Review Group recommend that an
action plan be prepared in conjunction with other relevant units to correct these
issues systematically, with sufficient resources and co-operation appropriately
directed towards their timely redress.

The Review Group noted that effort is expended by HR staff on the generation
and post-processing of management information reports from HR systems, and it
recommends that an appropriate security model be implemented in conjunction
with the MIS department to facilitate self-service generation and manipulation of
these management reports by the requestor.

The Review Group recommends that consideration be given to the provision of
appropriately secured direct self-service access to the ADOS document
management system by those units outside of the HR Office, such as the Pensions
Office, which have regular requirements for information from that system.

The Review Group understands that the version of CORE HR currently in place is
several revisions behind that currently available, and that this is primarily due to
the limitations of the current hardware platform for this system. These systems
issues effectively limit the current potential for systems upgrades to provide
employee self service and online recruitment modules and functions.

The Review Group also understands that the present configuration of hardware
and software poses a potential short to medium term operational risk to the HR
and Payroll systems. It recommends that these risks should be immediately
assessed and that a remedial programme be implemented in order to minimise
risks to ongoing operations and services.

The Review Group notes the aspiration of the HR department to implement an
Online Recruitment System, and it endorses this way forward. The Review
Group is convinced that an online recruitment facility is a critical business process
9
in a global and competitive market for academic talent. The implementation of an
online recruitment system would also provide opportunities to generate
efficiencies and quality improvements in the recruitment, selection, and induction
processes.

The HR Office in conjunction with University Management should work to ensure
that initiatives required for operational stability of HR systems and for systems
improvements are appropriately prioritised. The Review Group is convinced that
these necessary systems developments and further systems enhancements should
be high on the University’s priority list based on considerations of risk
minimisation, cost-benefit, and strategic value. Led by the HR Office and in
conjunction with MIS, a more forceful case must be made to University
Management for the project funding required for systems developments designed
to mitigate operational risk and to maximise the potential operational and strategic
value of these systems to the HR Office and to the University as a whole.

Consideration should be given as to whether the HR Office and the Health and
Safety Office should be more closely aligned. The Review Group recommends
integrated recording of all employee training and development activities and
accordingly that Health and Safety training records are held with standard
employee training records. The HR Office may also appropriately have a larger
role in the facilitation and administration of Health and Safety training.

The HR department should measure its service performance. Key Performance
Indicators (KPIs) and appropriate metrics should be identified, monitored and
published. This measurement process will highlight successes and should expose
‘bottleneck’ activities where further focus may be required.

Service Level Agreements (SLAs) should be reviewed, reconfigured, agreed with
customers, and implemented. Customer-service standards implicit in SLAs
should be subject to periodic review in order to reflect process performance
improvements realised through reorganisation of service functions, the
implementation of programmes of continuous improvement, and improved
information and document management support available from HR systems.
10
(B) Communication

The Review Group acknowledges improvements made to the departmental
website but wish to stress the ongoing central role of the website as a key
customer communication and information tool. The Review Group therefore
recommends the development and implementation of appropriate procedures
which will ensure that the HR Office’s website remains at all times accurate,
current and relevant.

The HR Office should ensure that the roles and responsibilities of each member of
the department are clearly reflected in the University various directories and
information points and the Department’s own web-site. It is important that
measures are put in place to ensure that this information is kept current.

The Review Group recognises that many employees have identified the HR Office
as the preferred and/or expected source of information when decisions or
developments on matters affecting the employee experience are made by the
University. The Review Group recommends that significant consideration be
given to the role of the HR Office in the development and implementation of
University policies and procedures in the area of corporate communication with
employees.

The Group considers that the issues being considered by the Partnership forum,
and any decisions arising, are of relevance to the entire University population and
therefore recommends that particular attention is paid to ensure the effectiveness
of communication efforts in this area.

The communication of decisions made outside of the HR Office which impact on
how HR perform their work should be regularised and driven by a procedure;
specific examples in this respect include approval for administration posts and
decisions affecting salary.

The Review Group commends the current practice of team meetings; however we
feel this should be expanded to include meeting on a more regular basis (e.g.
every two weeks), and involve more cross-functional communication (both within
and outside of the HR Office).

The Group recognises that the provision of an Employee Assistance Programme
(EAP) is a very valuable employee benefit provided by the University. As such its
availability and take-up should be further promoted.
11
(C) Customer Focus

HR has a major role to play in the push towards a customer-centric model of
operation, and progress towards a general cultural shift from the bureaucratic /
compliance model to a flexible, customer-centric approach. As such, the Review
Group considers there is value to be gained from the introduction of a formal
customer feedback mechanism.

Some dissatisfaction was expressed by those who made submissions to the
Review Group in relation to candidate rejection letters. In some cases this
emanated from the use of the phrases “unsuitable” or “not suitable” in these
letters, consistent with the 1929 Act. While the Review Group understands that
such terms are no longer employed, the Group wish to stress the importance of
considered and careful wording of candidate rejection letters, particularly in the
academic field, as they influence each candidate’s view of the University. The
Group recommends that HR work with the local recruiting department following
each recruitment exercise to ensure that the candidate rejection letters arising are
consistent with the message the local unit, and the University generally, wishes to
convey to unsuccessful candidates.

The Review Group believe that while much good practice is evident with respect
to recruitment and selection, there remains opportunity to improve in the area of
the induction of new employees and their integration into the University culture
and activities. Some dissatisfaction was expressed by representative users of the
HR service that employee induction sessions are held too infrequently to be of
general benefit, and some concern was expressed with respect to the management
of new employees from the point of their initial selection to their commencement.
Specific suggestions made to the Review Group in this area were the introduction
and facilitation of second-level, localised inductions to Colleges or Schools, and
that the annual social reception for new appointments should be re-introduced.

The HR Office should ensure that appropriate provision is made to provide a full
service during standard business hours of 9-5, Monday to Friday. In addition, the
HR Office should provide a service in certain activities (for example, participation
in short-listing activities or recruitment panels), by arrangement within flexi-time
hours of 08:00 to 19:00 Monday to Friday.

A series of generic email addresses reflecting core activities within the HR Office,
e.g. “recruitment@nuigalway.ie” “postmanagement@nuigalway.ie” should be
introduced to allow queries be automatically directed where appropriate, without
the customer having to initially establish the correct or available point of contact.

The Review Group found that the predominant demand for HR services centres on
recruitment, post management, and “on-boarding” of new employees. Therefore
it is suggested that, on a pilot basis, the more customer-focused model being
proposed is rolled out in these areas first.
12
(D) Organisational Development

The Review Group recommends that the HR Office needs to further build its
capacity to contribute to organisational development and to facilitate and support
the change agenda in NUI Galway. Key University strategic objectives such as
staff engagement, performance, development and reward must be reflected in a
joined-up way in HR strategy, policies and initiatives.

The Group recognises the centrality of the new academic structure to achievement
of the University’s objectives and the need for effective, responsive support
services configured to support those structures. The Review Group recommends
that the HR Office and other central services within the University together focus
effort towards identifying and eliminating current barriers to the effective and
efficient delivery of support services. The Review Group considers that this is an
organisational development issue which needs urgent attention.

The Group strongly recommends that the new academic structures be supported
by a tailored leadership development programme.

The Review Group supports the proposed realignment of HR services to face
outwards to the new structure. The Group recommends that a strong consultation,
planning and communication process on the proposed realignment be put in place
in order to maximise the potential service benefits. The Group also recommends
that the emphasis on HR capacity building through up-skilling, cross team
working and rotation of duties be enhanced and broadened.

The Review Group recommends that recruitment procedures and practice are kept
under continuous review to ensure that they appropriately support the University’s
objectives. Good practice needs to be reflected and incorporated as standard
where appropriate and possible.

The Review Group recognised the developments in the management of the
probation process for academic staff. As the new process has now been in place
for a number of years the Review Group recommends a review of learning and
outcomes to date with revision and improvement of the process as required. The
Review Group notes that there has not been a parallel development of the
probation process for support and administrative staff and recommends that strong
consideration is given to the development of such for all appointments.

The Review Group recognises and shares the identification of PMDS as a key
driver and facilitator of organisational change and development. The HR Office
and the University’s Senior Management share a responsibility to model and to
provide leadership in the continuing roll-out and management of PMDS. This
needs to include appropriate provision for accountability and for analysis of its
implementation and outcomes throughout the University. .
13
(E) Other Recommendations
In addition to the recommendations grouped under the four ‘core themes’, we recommend
that consideration also be given to the following:
The Group recommends that a representative of the HR Office should attend
academic selection boards to provide advice and support. In order to improve the
effectiveness of academic interview boards, all documentation, including all
references then to hand, should be provided in advance of the interview date.

While noting the very considerable improvements to the HR Office
accommodation since the last quality review, the Review Group judged that the
current reception area is not fit for purpose, with accessibility a particular issue.
We suggest that the feasibility of rationalising the various reception facilities in
this part of the Quad might usefully be examined. This recommendation also ties
in with our ‘customer focus’ theme and with ideas of joint working and efficiency.

The Review Group identified that clarification is needed on the timing of internal
advertising. The Group were given conflicting messages about this and some
seem to believe that these can only be displayed once a month. The Group
recommends that the exact arrangements, and the reasons for them, need to be
communicated to customers.

The Group recommends that the HR Office works with the Buildings Office to
ensure that any accommodation requirement for new appointments is made known
to the Buildings Office early in the cycle. The inclusion of an ‘accommodation
required / not required’ field on the Post Proposal Form may suffice.

The Group recommends that the facilitation of and participation in joint training
events with other universities might usefully be increased and broadened,
particularly for specialist training where networking benefits add to cost benefits.

The Review Group was pleased to note progress made by the HR Office in the
provision of services through the medium of Irish; the HR Office should continue
to be mindful of obligations in this area and seek to continue to develop these
further wherever possible.

The Group believe that the Office’s budget planning and forecasting could be
tightened by being explicit about under-pinning assumptions on cost, frequency
etc. The nature of some of the non-pay budgets precludes exact predictions but it
is particularly important in the current climate to be clear about the rationale
underpinning the budget and meticulous in being able to explain deviations.

The Review Group recommends that staff who have requested specific training
but who are unable to participate in a course offering because of limitations on
the number of participants, should automatically be placed on a ‘backlog’ list and
should be given priority for places on the next offering of that training course.
14
COMMENTS ON THE METHODOLOGY OF THE REVIEW PROCESS
The Review Group offers thanks as follows: to the Quality Office for the care and
attention which was put into preparations for this exercise; to the HR Office for the
courtesy afforded by it to the Review Group, and for its quick and positive response for
requests for additional information; and to all interviewees and participants for their input
and for their ready co-operation with any required time-tabling changes.
The number of interviews arranged for the team was too high, and too aggressively timetabled. It is suggested that consideration be given to a smaller number of more focused
meetings.
The Group believe that invitations from the Quality Office to user group meetings should
provide specific guidelines on the purpose of the meeting. The invitation should perhaps
be accompanied by a pro-forma to facilitate structured feedback, with an emphasis on
suggested solutions to any perceived problems.
The Review Group believe that user groups should be encouraged to meet prior to their
meeting with the Review Group, in order to develop a consensus on the main issues and
how they as users would suggest resolution of any problems.
Submission of written documents to the Review Group by the main interested parties
should be encouraged by the Quality Office. The Group can decide what requires followup exploration.
Attendance lists for open meetings should include the role or position within the
University of each attendee.
Given the role of the department being reviewed on this occasion, it may have been useful
to the Review Group to have the opportunity to receive input from relevant trade unions.
Notwithstanding the excellent support provided to the Review Group by the Quality
Office, the Group recommend that consideration be given to the assignment of someone
to service future Review Groups with respect, for example, to the management of any
required timetable adjustments, the photocopying / printing of related documentation, the
control of access to the Review Group sessions and other domestic arrangements.
Ms Sinéad Donnellan (Chair)
Ms Anna Ryan
Ms Elspeth MacArthur
Professor Séamus Collins
Mr Conor McMahon (Rapporteur)
November 2008
15