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