Tag: managing

  • Effective finance governance is about balancing high quality data with managing existential uncertainty

    Effective finance governance is about balancing high quality data with managing existential uncertainty

    Higher education institution finances are not like the finances of other organisations, in the strange blend of commercial imperative and charitable purpose.

    A big portion of their revenue is driven by loss-making activity in research and programmes that lose money; their surplus-driving activity in international recruitment is hyper-competitive; and they have a cost base in salaries, pensions, and infrastructure that are influenced by factors outside their direct control.

    The current moment of financial pressure on higher education has tightened focus on the governance of university finances, with concerns expressed by the Department for Education and the Office for Students in the English context, and particular scrutiny from government and regulators in Scotland in light of the financial crisis at the University of Dundee last year.

    To the extent that governments set the terms of the higher education funding settlement it is perhaps unreasonable to lay blame for any given higher education institution’s financial struggles at the feet of the board of governors or university leadership. But even with this caveat, the realities of the current moment call for well-managed internal financial governance and robust scrutiny and challenge of the executive’s plans from governing bodies.

    None of this is straightforward – the structures and cultures of higher education require a level of negotiation between academic priorities, external policy drivers, and organisational sustainability. Commercial acumen must be balanced with consciousness of the social mission and the rewards offered by short-term opportunities set against the responsibility to steward organisations that play a critical role in the national wellbeing for the long term.

    Together with TechnologyOne, we recently convened a private round table discussion among a group of COOs and financial directors, representing a diverse range of higher education institutions. We wanted to explore how these pressures are manifesting as emerging priorities for governance, and the nature of those priorities for finance leaders.

    Board cultures and capabilities

    One participant wryly observed that not every board member may have a full understanding of the scale of the challenges facing the sector as a whole, and their institution in particular, at the point of taking up their role, and their first exposure to the financial realities can sometimes be shocking. Commercial experience and acumen are much in demand on boards in financially challenging times, but that commercial awareness has to be deployed in the service of financial sustainability – and the definition of “sustainability” can be something of a moving target, especially when the future is uncertain.

    Attendees shared several examples of the kind of tensions around financial decision-making boards have to work through: between the cash demands of the next 18 months and the longer-term investments that will ensure the institution is still able to achieve its mission five years or a decade into the future; or between stockpiling reserves to guard against future risks versus delivering mission-led activity.

    There can be no right answer to these questions, and ultimately it is for the leadership of the institution to be accountable for these kinds of strategic choices. It is not that board members don’t understand the financial fundamentals, but that, attendees reflected, the nature of the trade-offs and the implications of some decisions may not be fully taken account of as the discussion unfolds. Financial directors and CFOs can play a critical role in ensuring these board-level discussions are shaped constructively, through prior briefing with board and committee chairs, and through being brought into the discussion as appropriate.

    Risk, risk appetite and forecasting

    Boards are, in light of ongoing public discussion about the risk of institutional financial crisis or even insolvency, naturally concerned about avoiding being the next institution to hit the headlines as facing serious financial challenge. Paradoxically, there was also a sense that this driving concern can lead to risk averse behaviours that are not always in the best interest of the organisation, such as conserving cash that could be used for surplus generating activity, or looking at revenue raising independently from the costs implied in raising revenue – the gap between the revenue and real cost of undertaking research being a classic example.

    One area to improve is understanding of risks, and risk appetite. Boards can, broadly, be appraised of risk and particularly financial risk. However, they can be less fluent in considering the risk they are willing to endure in order to solve some of their underlying challenges, or the relationship between risk and opportunity. For example, boards may see an inherent risk in their cash flow position. They often lean toward conserving cash (a low risk appetite) but this may actually worsen their cash position if they do not look at revenue generation (a more risky proposition.) At the other end of the spectrum boards may be tempted to pursue opportunities to raise revenue that do not contribute to, or distract from, the wider organisational mission and strategic objectives.

    Dealing with uncertainty is never easy, and there was a lively discussion about the role and purpose of financial forecasting, with one attendee pointing out that the idea of creating a five year financial forecast in a sector that is changing so rapidly is “a bit of a nonsense” with another observing “the only thing we know when we’re putting together our forecast is that it’s wrong.”

    It was noted that some boards spend very little time on the forecast and it was suggested that this was an area for greater focus, not to attempt to accurately predict the unpredictable but to socialise discussion about the nature of the uncertainties and their implications. One attendee argued that the point of the forecast is not in the accuracy of the numbers but that there are agreed actions following from the forecast – “we know what we’re going to do as a result.” Another suggested that the Office for Students could potentially offer some additional insight into what it expects to see in the financial returns at the point of preparing those returns, rather than raising concerns after the fact.

    Data and systems

    The institutional systems that bring together disparate financial systems into a single picture are of varying quality. Sometimes, universities are dependent on an amalgamation of systems, spreadsheets, and other data sources, that involve a degree of manual reconciliation. Inevitably, the more systems that exist and the more people who input the more room there is for disagreement and error. Even the most sophisticated systems that include automation and checks are only as accurate as the information provided to them.

    The accuracy and clarity of financial information matters enormously. Without it it becomes impossible to know where the gaps are in terms of income and costs. Managers and budget-holders cannot understand their own situation and it becomes much harder to present a clear picture to executive teams and from there, to boards. A key “ask” of financial management systems was to integrate with other data sources in ways that allow the presentation of financial information to be legible and allow for a clear story to emerge.

    Attendees at the round table reported a number of areas of focus in tightening up internal financial management and visibility of financial information. One critical area of focus was in improving general financial literacy across the organisation, so that institutional staff could understand their institution’s financial circumstances in more detail. Institutional sustainability is everybody’s problem, not just the finance team’s.

    In reporting to board, attendees were working on shortening and clarifying papers, providing more contextual information, and making greater use of visual aids and diagrams, with one attendee noting “the quality of management reports is an enabler of good governance.”

    In times of financial pressure and challenge, the quality of financial decision-making is ever more intimately tied to the quality of financial information. Budget holders, finance teams, executive teams, and boards all need to be able to assess the current state of things and plan for the future, despite its uncertainties.

    Effective governance in this context doesn’t mean fundamentally changing the management processes or governors departing from their traditional role of scrutiny and accountability, but it does mean engaging in an ongoing process of improving basic financial processes and management information – while at the same time embedding a culture of constructive discussion about the overall financial position across the whole institution.

    This article is published as part of a partnership with TechnologyOne, focused on effective financial governance. Join Wonkhe and TechnologyOne on Thursday 29 January 12.00-1.00pm for a free webinar, Show them the money: exploring effective governance of university finances.

    Source link

  • Managing Technology Infrastructure to Anticipate the Future

    Managing Technology Infrastructure to Anticipate the Future

    Hundreds of things that can go wrong with technology. Here’s our recipe for keeping your educational solution stable, secure, and scalable. 

    Your edtech product roadmap depends on infrastructure that just works. But when was the last time you thought about what ‘just works’ actually requires? It means orchestrating a complex symphony of services, security measures, and continuous monitoring and analysis. Here’s what really goes into keeping these mission-critical systems running smoothly.

    The Infrastructure Pie

    Modern cloud infrastructure provides managed database services, scalable storage, server-less computing capabilities, secure API gateways, and content delivery networks that ensure fast load times everywhere.

    What does it take to maintain the myriad of moving parts that constitute edtech infrastructure? We recently analyzed where our infrastructure and engineering teams invest time across a typical year. The results reveal just how multifaceted this work really is: 

     

    Feature Management (36% of effort): Building new capabilities, enhancing existing features, addressing accessibility, and planning feature definitions represents nearly a third of our work. This isn’t just about adding functionality—it’s about architecting solutions that scale, perform, and integrate securely with the broader system. When edtech infrastructure is architected thoughtfully from the start, features ship faster because they’re built on solid foundations rather than working around technical debt. 

    Maintenance and Operations (20% of effort): This category happens behind the scenes—bug fixes, scaling and performance optimization, refactoring code for maintainability, testing and quality assurance, and managing the dependency upgrades, DevOps processes, and required migrations that keep systems current and secure. This effort is what prevents the 2:00 am emergency calls that derail your release schedule. It’s what keeps your product stable during peak back-to-school season. Consistent maintenance means predictable performance. 

    Security, Monitoring, and Support (21% of effort): Security and compliance work combines with systems monitoring, penetration testing and vulnerability scans, incident research and analysis, and client support to ensure systems remain secure and responsive. This is what protects your company’s revenue and reputation. A single data breach can sink an edtech company—just ask any VP who’s had to notify districts that student data was compromised. This investment keeps you compliant with evolving regulations, maintains customer trust, and ensures your sales team never has to answer uncomfortable security questions they can’t address confidently. 

    Strategic Investments (23% of effort): Stability and scalability investments as well as sunsetting obsolete features represent the forward-thinking work that prevents problems before they occur. This is your insurance policy against the “success disasters” that plague growing edtech companies. When that large district or statewide deal gets signed, and suddenly you have 50,000 users hitting your system simultaneously, this investment is why your platform doesn’t buckle. It’s also what allows you to confidently enter RFPs that require specific performance guarantees. 

    Security and Privacy: Non-Negotiable Priorities

    In K-12 education, we’re not just managing technology—we’re safeguarding sensitive student data. This responsibility shapes every aspect of our approach. 

    Processes First: Cybersecurity isn’t just about firewalls and encryption. It’s about building robust processes that become second nature—regular security audits, patch management protocols, access control reviews, and incident response plans. Every system update, every configuration change, and every new integration goes through our internal security review process. 

    Data Privacy by Design: Educational applications must comply with dozens of federal and increasingly complex state-level privacy laws. We help clients navigate and comply with Data Privacy Agreements required by their customers, translating legal requirements into technical controls and operational procedures. This isn’t a one-time checkbox—it’s an ongoing partnership that evolves as regulations change. For example, in our work with Family Engagement Lab, we spent a sprint implementing robust logging of security events such as user logins and admin masquerade to comply with one large customer’s requirements.

    Automation, Monitoring, and the Pursuit of Performance

     

    Manual infrastructure management doesn’t scale, and it introduces risk. That’s why automation is woven throughout our operations—from configuration management that ensures deployments are identical and repeatable to automated backup processes that provide reliable recovery points. Our DevOps practices enable us to deploy updates safely and efficiently. 

    But automation is only part of the equation. Continuous monitoring provides the situational awareness needed to maintain healthy systems. We track performance metrics, server health, application errors, and security events in real time. We measure infrastructure and application performance telemetry, and network traffic to alert us when something deviates from expected norms. This allows us to respond quickly, before issues affect the user experience. 

    Meeting performance standards isn’t aspirational; it’s operational. We methodically evaluate and choose the right tool for the job. For one database-intensive application, we deployed an auto-scaling database to handle traffic ebbs and flows. But we didn’t stop there—we implemented an automated database bump to warm it up for the US school day. Then, at the end of the day when traffic is lower, we saved the client money by scaling it down. The effort we invest in scaling and performance optimization ensures applications remain responsive as usage grows and evolves. 

    The Work You Don’t See

    The best edtech infrastructure is invisible—systems that work so reliably that users don’t think about them at all. That invisibility, however, requires visible expertise, constant vigilance, and a commitment to getting hundreds of small things right every single day. 

    Behind every smooth user experience, every fast page load, and every secure transaction are many distinct areas of effort our team manages continuously. Some, like feature development, are obvious. Others, like system monitoring or scaling, work precisely because they’re invisible to end users. 

    But here’s what makes this work truly strategic: every one of these efforts isn’t just about maintaining today’s systems—it’s about building infrastructure that’s ready for tomorrow’s challenges. When we invest in refactoring code, we’re creating a foundation that can adapt to new requirements. When we perform vulnerability assessments and install security patches, we’re taking proactive steps to protect client data. When we document our systems and automate our processes, we’re ensuring knowledge doesn’t become a bottleneck as teams and technologies evolve. 

    The educational technology landscape never stands still. New compliance requirements emerge, usage patterns shift, pedagogical approaches evolve, and technology capabilities expand. Infrastructure that merely maintains the status quo becomes a liability. Infrastructure that anticipates change becomes a competitive advantage. 

    Ready to talk about edtech infrastructure that adapts and anticipates your needs? Let’s discuss how your product roadmap could benefit from partnership with our team. We handle today’s complexity while building tomorrow’s capability, allowing your customers to focus on what matters most: helping students learn and grow.

    Source link

  • Managing Change Is a Skill; Here’s How to Teach It (opinion)

    Managing Change Is a Skill; Here’s How to Teach It (opinion)

    In every sector, including higher education, change has become the defining condition of professional life. Budgets shift, opportunities change, teams reorganize and expectations evolve faster than most of us can keep up. Students, postdocs and seasoned professionals alike are being asked to adapt constantly, often without ever being taught how to do it.

    As directors of career centers, our job is to spot the skills tomorrow’s leaders will need and to design ways to help them build those skills now. At the top of that list is the ability to navigate change and to help others do the same. It’s not a “nice-to-have” skill anymore; it’s part of how one leads, collaborates and makes their own work sustainable.

    We’ve been discussing how to help trainees and professional colleagues negotiate change for a long time. Naledi developed the Straight A’s for Change Management framework through National Science Foundation–funded work focused on training biomedical professionals in people management and managing-up skills. Dinuka has used this approach in his own leadership practice and integrated its lessons into his work supporting trainees and professionals. Together, we wanted to share what this looks like in real life.

    What’s often missing in professional skill development isn’t the outcome; it’s the process. The Straight A’s for Change Management framework offers exactly that. Built on four steps—acknowledge and accept, assess, address, and appreciate achievement—it helps people build agency: the capacity to act skillfully even when they can’t control external events.

    Acknowledge and Accept

    Step one is to acknowledge reality and then accept what it means to and for you.

    Many people we work with, from first-year students to senior leaders, stop short of even this first step. They can acknowledge the problem—funding has been cut, hiring has slowed or their people are struggling with change—but they don’t take the harder step of acceptance.

    Acceptance means internalizing that your long-standing plan or approach may no longer be viable and that you will need to adjust your goals or strategies. It can also mean accepting that you might need support or community beyond your institution to help hold this heavy truth. But this is the inflection point where agency begins: not wishing conditions were different, but accepting the need for you to think and act differently, too.

    For a postdoc, acceptance might mean recognizing that a principal investigator’s funding constraints could shorten the timeline of their project. That realization could prompt them to seek alternative support, accelerate a job search or pivot their research scope. For a student, acceptance might mean realizing that since their adviser’s experience is limited to academic careers, they will need to proactively seek additional mentorship to position themselves for biotech careers.

    For Dinuka, acceptance came during a period of leadership transition. The role he had taken on had quietly shifted beneath him—new expectations, new reporting lines and values that no longer aligned with what drew him to the work in the first place. He agonized over whether to stay and adapt or to acknowledge that something essential had changed. The moment he admitted that reality, uncomfortable as it was, he could finally see a path forward. Acceptance meant reclaiming his agency.

    Reflection Prompts:

    • What change in your environment are you resisting acknowledging?
    • What might acceptance make possible that resistance is currently blocking?
    • Who can help you process this shift with honesty and perspective?

    Assess the Change

    Once you’ve acknowledged and accepted a situation, the next step is to assess it strategically. This is where you shift from emotional reaction to analytical clarity.

    A useful tool here is a SWOT analysis (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats). Ask yourself:

    • Strengths: What are your skills? Where can you leverage them in this situation?
    • Weaknesses: Where are you vulnerable?
    • Opportunities: What new directions might this open?
    • Threats: What could block your goals?

    Answering these questions encourages balance. Some start with weaknesses and threats; others begin with strengths and opportunities. What matters is that you consider all four dimensions.

    It’s also helpful to share your SWOT with a mentor or trusted colleague. Instead of laying out your situation and asking, “What should I do?” you can say, “Here’s how I’m assessing my situation. Can you help me identify what I might be missing?” Tools like a SWOT provide structure for both your reflection and your conversations with those who support you.

    When Dinuka reached this stage, he turned to trusted mentors, colleagues and family members to triangulate perspectives. His SWOT involved asking, what strengths could he draw on if he stayed? Where were the risks if he left? What opportunities might emerge if he stepped away? What threats might come from doing so? Speaking these questions aloud prevented him from getting stuck in his own echo chamber and restored clarity. Assessment gave his uncertainty a shape.

    Reflection Prompts:

    • How fully have you mapped the situation you’re in—emotionally and strategically?
    • Which perspective (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) do you tend to overemphasize or neglect?
    • Who could provide an outside view to help you see what you might be missing (trusted mentors, colleagues, friends or family members)?

    Address the Change

    To address change is to use what you’ve learned to respond skillfully.

    Sometimes it starts by envisioning your best possible outcome six to 12 months out and working backward from there. Other times it means short-term triage, only figuring out the next logical step rather than solving everything at once. That might mean updating your CV, signing up for job boards or reaching out to a mentor.

    One postdoc Naledi worked with wanted to keep his career options open. In response, he began carving out one hour a week to set up informational interviews with alumni in biotech and communication careers, learning which skills were in demand. With that insight, he added a side project that strengthened his technical skills, focused on service and leadership opportunities to communicate science, and kept his network apprised of his progress.

    In Dinuka’s case, addressing the change meant testing what was still possible before making a decision. He clarified expectations with new leadership, re-aligned priorities and gave the situation space to evolve. When it became clear that the trajectory no longer matched his values or goals, he made the intentional choice to step away. That decision, though difficult, came from a place of calm rather than crisis.

    Addressing change when the future is unclear means shifting from awareness to iterative forward motion, using your definition of integrity as your compass.

    Reflection Prompts:

    • What is one small, concrete step you can take this week to move forward?
    • If you imagine the best version of this situation a year from now, what would need to happen between now and then?
    • How can you act with integrity even when you can’t control outcomes?

    Appreciate Achievements

    The final step, often overlooked, is to appreciate achievements. Many wait for a situation to resolve before celebrating. But change often unfolds over a long arc, and there may never be a moment when everything “returns to normal.”

    That means recognizing that even small wins are a big deal. Did you talk to a friend to process your situation? Celebrate. Did you update your CV? Celebrate. Did you gain greater clarity about your direction? Celebrate!

    Shifting from celebrating only outcomes (a publication, a job offer, a raise) to also celebrating progress, milestones and effort helps sustain momentum and motivation.

    When Dinuka finally left that role, he felt grounded. He appreciated the mentors who guided him, the colleagues who supported him and the lessons learned in difficulty. He celebrated not the exit itself, but the growth that came with it. That sense of gratitude transformed what could have been resentment into renewal.

    Appreciating achievements is not self-indulgent; it is strategic. It focuses attention on what you have accomplished despite uncertainty, which builds confidence to keep going.

    Reflection Prompts:

    • What progress have you made in the past month that you haven’t acknowledged?
    • Whom can you thank or recognize for supporting your journey through change?
    • How do you remind yourself that growth often looks like struggle before success?

    Why Straight A’s Matter

    Taken together, the A’s—acknowledge and accept, assess, address and appreciate achievement—form a road map for agency. We may not control personal setbacks, professional disappointments, shifting organizational priorities, unfair practices or political turbulence. But with every new challenge, we can start responding intentionally, identifying where we can still move.

    Our experiences reinforced that agency is learned through practice. The Straight A’s provide both structure and language for something many of us attempt intuitively: turning uncertainty into direction. The framework accepts complexity and teaches us to meet it with clarity and integrity.

    By practicing the Straight A’s, we build the muscles of agency and leadership. If we teach the next generation of leaders these approaches as part of their training and development, they will be prepared to lead skillfully in a world where the only constant is change.

    Naledi Saul is director of the Office of Career and Professional Development at the University of California, San Francisco, She coaches and frequently presents on people management and managing-up skills for higher education and biomedical audiences.

    Dinuka Gunaratne (he/him) has worked across several postsecondary institutions in Canada and the U.S. and is a member of several organizational boards, including Co-operative Education and Work-Integrated Learning Canada, CERIC—Advancing Career Development in Canada, and the leadership team of the Administrators in Graduate and Professional Student Services knowledge community with NASPA: Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education.

    They are both members of the Graduate Career Consortium, an organization that provides an international voice for graduate-level career and professional development leaders.

    Source link

  • University Finance and Managing the Margins of Error

    University Finance and Managing the Margins of Error

    • By Huw Morris, Honorary Professor of Tertiary Education at the Institute of Education, UCL’s Faculty of Education and Society, and Richard Watermeyer, Professor of Education at the School of Education, University of Bristol.
    • Over the weekend, HEPI blogged on the possible consequences for universities and students of a new UK / EU agreement – see here.

    The financial challenges currently facing UK universities, as revealed by last week’s report from the Office for Students, have focused attention among university leaders, government policy makers and media commentators, as well as higher education staff and students, on four things:

    What has received less attention are variations between universities in the number of students recruited in general and international students in particular, as influenced by perceptions of institutional quality, and the wider incomes and costs of this provision. It is these things which impact on institutional margins, their surpluses and losses, and determine their longer-term financial sustainability. Most importantly, there are very big differences between universities when assessed by these measures. With a HM Treasury Spending Review and a Department for Education Higher Education White Paper expected imminently, it is these wider institutional economics and financial management issues which are the focus of this article.

    Higher Education Statistics (HESA) data reveals a very mixed pattern of financial activity and performance among the 302 higher education institutions that filed accounts for 2022/23, the last year for which full records are available. Income from all sources, including tuition fees, research funds, government grants, endowments and other miscellaneous sources for these organisations, has ranged from £84,000 at the Caspian School of Academics to £2.5 billion at the University of Cambridge. Despite such wide variance, 88 institutions are responsible for over 80% of the income; within this group, the 24 members of the UK’s Russell Group of research-intensive universities account for the lion’s share (47.3% despite attracting only 25.8% of total student numbers). This mismatch between volume and income is explained by the financial margins of course provision.

    The costs universities incur are similar. Salaries for academic, professional services and support staff vary, but national pay bargaining and pension arrangements mean that the differences are not great. Meanwhile, the costs of campus buildings per square metre and the unit costs of equipment are similar. So, while there are significant differences in the number of staff, size of university estate and scale of expenditure on equipment, most institutional leaders are alert to the key metrics that help to marshal these aggregate costs. The big difference in costs is in supporting research activity, with the Transparent Approach to Costing (TRAC) data revealing £4.6 billion a year of unfunded activity. This is a measure of the research activity undertaken by university academic staff, which is not supported by research funds and appears to be undertaken within hours nominally allocated to other things, such as teaching and administration. It is this and related figures that the Minister of State for Skills is referring to when she challenges universities to be more transparent with the information they provide on their use of public money.

    At a UK level, information on this activity is not hard to find. Table C.1.2. of the OECD’s Education at a Glance reveals that the UK has a higher level of expenditure on research and development per HE student than the US, despite very much lower levels of Gross Domestic Product per capita. The proportion of unfunded research activity varies considerably between institutions and is lowest among Russell Group universities and highest among institutions that are seeking to increase activity from a lower base.

    What is understood by most university leaders, but less commonly by policymakers and the media, is the vital role of operating margins in determining whether a university is financially sustainable. The role of margins is best illustrated by comparing two fictional universities.

    University A is a large research-led institution that offers a wide range of courses to home and overseas students. In 2021/22, in keeping with the average Russell Group university, one third of its students were recruited from overseas and its position in the Chinese Academic World Ranking of Universities (AWRU) – and to a lesser extent the QS and THE World rankings – enabled the university to charge fees of £80,000 for its MBA programme, £60,000 per year for its Medicine degree to overseas students, and £20,000 per year for its doctoral programme. These high fees and the large volume of students applying for a limited number of places generated sufficient margins (gross surplus) to subsidise the costs of the less remunerative courses for home students in subject disciplines such as English Literature where the full-time undergraduate degree fee is £9,535 per year. This was important because the cost of these courses with the higher charging courses for international students was typically twice the £9,535 per full-time student income earned from UK students, not least because of the costs of the providing time and resources for staff research in these disciplines where there was no grant income to support this activity. These funds also provided the financial resources to underpin some of the research work of academic staff and their professional services colleagues.

    The picture is less rosy at University B, a large former polytechnic, with a much lower ranking in international league tables and which is consequently less competitive in attracting Chinese international students. Instead, University B is dependent on recruiting first-generation international students; students typically from less wealthy families, unable to afford the premium fees charged at University A. At University B, the fee for an MBA is £20,000, although this is often discounted and then diluted by recruitment agency fees. The high sticker price and subsequent use of discounting is used because the advertised fee is a marker of quality and the discount fee is used to draw the student in by adjusting the amount to what they can afford and flattering them into believing the university wants them for their talents. University B does not have a Medical school and so a comparator fee is not available, but the fee for an international student on a science and technology degree is £18,000. When diluted by agents’ fees and discounted prices, this fee may drop below the costs of provision. Finally, the PhD course fees of £5,000 per year only cover half the running costs in order to attract students who will help to boost external assessments of the research undertaken by this university.

    Figure 1. Course prices and costs compared

    The net effect of the combination of different course prices and costs at University A and University B is that the former is making significant gross surpluses and the latter is making significant gross losses. It is important to note that this pattern of surpluses and losses is also evident in the financial performance of other university services, including, for instance, franchise courses in the UK and overseas, student accommodation, conference facilities, catering and other services. This is because the prices charged by institutions with less auspicious reputations and league table positions are lower than those of their competitors, but the costs are similar.

    There are also issues associated with capital requirements (the need for funding to pay for the renewal and replacement of buildings and other assets) and risk exposure (the extent to which future activity is certain and predictable). The number of young British people wanting to study at UK universities has historically been predictable, and while there has been competition between universities, this competition has rarely led to institutional failure. Institutions may have got smaller, closed courses, and on occasion merged, but they have not been forced into insolvency. Such relative assurance may wane in future as risks rise and the need to renew and replace buildings and other capital assets grows.

    We might, for instance, reasonably anticipate increased risk associated with international student recruitment where geopolitical and concomitant financial volatility impact the inward migration of students into UK universities. While we have already witnessed the inhibitory effects of visa rule changes, we can reasonably expect exchange rate fluctuations and changes to the proclivity of overseas governments to fund students studying in the UK to further increase these risks. In the medium term, a requirement to maintain a high ranking in international university league tables, as corresponding justification for high fee charges, compels sizable financial investment in buildings, equipment, and staff to maintain the research performance.

    Assessment of university performance in the AWRU, QS and THE World University rankings is dependent on research performance measured by citations and, in the case of the QS and THE specifically, the reputation of the institution in the eyes of senior leaders in other universities and the opinions of employers. These ratings are influenced by past rankings and impressions of campus quality. In the long term, maintaining these league table positions is likely to become more demanding for three reasons.

    • First, the drive by governments in many other countries to create their own ‘world-class’ universities leads to an increase in the costs of competing and a consequent decline in margins.
    • Second, the growing prominence of philanthropy and alumni giving looks set to make up an increasing proportion of the funding of highly ranked institutions, though this is less of a feature in UK higher education. In the USA, for example, higher education endowment is around $800 billion and is growing by 150% per year. Endowments now account for 50% of the income of Harvard University and a very sizeable proportion of the income of other Ivy League and American research-led institutions. Of course, whether this remains the case in the face of challenges from President Trump’s new administration remains to be seen.
    • Finally, in the longer term (10 to 30 years), it seems reasonable to predict that developing countries in the Global South will develop their own higher education provision, and the number of young people travelling overseas to study will reduce, as is being encouraged by the China-Africa 100 University plan and similar initiatives.  

    The lessons of this analysis for institutional leaders and their governing bodies and councils are that they should broaden their focus to consider the operating margins on all their activities, (that is, teaching, research, accommodation, conferences, room and equipment hire) as well as the investment requirements to maintain this performance in the medium to long term. Without engaging in these types of analysis, the risks of cashflow problems will grow and the longer-term sustainability of these institutions will be jeopardised.

    The lesson for governments is that they should look at the real costs of different courses and focus the funding that is made available through student loans and grants on those activities which will provide the greatest sustainable private and public benefit in the long run. This means aligning the funding with future needs, as defined by assessments in the NHS Workforce plan and the analyses by Skills England, Local Skills Improvement Plans and the UK shortage occupation list and, where this is not the case, subject areas where it seems probable that the student loans will be repaid. If institutions wish to fund programmes that fall outside these lists, then they can subsidise these courses with surpluses made from other activities. The issues outlined above also mean that the pressures facing institutions are different, and it is probably beyond the capability of the Department for Education and the Office for Students to oversee the transitions that will be needed in many of the 452 higher education institutions in the UK. To handle these changes will require additional leadership, management and governance resource and ideally greater local and regional stewardship for most institutions.

    Source link

  • Positive change for disabled researchers might need managing and leading

    Positive change for disabled researchers might need managing and leading

    Among the university initiatives which aim to amplify traditionally marginalised voices, disabled researchers are now throwing their metaphorical hats into the ring.

    I am a member of a disabled researchers’ network and in a recent meeting, the question we asked ourselves were central to the raison d’être of the group.

    How do we position ourselves? How do we manage the strength that comes with having a diverse group, while ensuring that all voices are heard equally? And – perhaps most crucially – what are the positive outcomes towards which we can orientate our group and our activities, within the existing structures?

    Perhaps thinking about this via the lens of the overused yet helpful notion of “leadership and management” could help to clarify the tensions and dichotomies facing disabled students and inform next steps.

    Vital functions

    Leadership and management have separate and “vital functions” within any organisation – management is focused on efficient and reliable operations day-to-day, while leadership drives an organisation into the future.

    These two concepts, so often put together and both crucial for an organisation to flourish, in some ways work against each other – as Professor Tony Bush explains,

    Managerial leadership is focused on managing existing activities successfully rather than visioning a better future.

    “Management” inevitably involves some element of instinctive resistance to change which threatens to destabilise routines and known outcomes. In my experience and from the personal anecdotes of disabled colleagues, it is apparent that we have experienced inflexibility in processes and resistance to adjustments which would have facilitated our research activities.

    Maybe at least some of this resistance comes from a fear that equilibrium would be disrupted; giving the benefit of the doubt seems helpful in avoiding the “us” and “them” stance which is an obstacle to positive collaboration and moving beyond the past to the desired future.

    The reality is that this is difficult to navigate. When our voice is an unexpected interruption, when the thorny issue of inclusive practices is raised, relationships can be affected. How can we lead the research environment within HE towards being more truly inclusive without ruffling too many feathers?

    Leadership demands the flexibility to move towards future aims, or in the words of Roselinde Torres, being:

    …courageous enough to abandon a practice that has made you successful in the past.

    While we might not want the HE sector to “abandon” all current practices, it is apparent that change is needed to ensure true equality of access and opportunity. A model of “success” which marginalises disabled researchers is not true success; our argument is difficult to refute, and I’m sure nobody would openly do so.

    However, agreement in principle is not the same as action in practice.

    Fine by me

    Everyone readily agrees with the idea of an inclusive research environment; but not everyone is proactively engaged in making this a reality, particularly when it disrupts the status quo.

    Perhaps the crucial difference in perspective between the manager and the leader is that of immediate deliverables versus long-term strategic outcomes; and perhaps this can be used to consider the collective in the wider context of the university.

    As disabled researchers, we are our own “leaders”; a label we may not seek out or desire, but which nonetheless can be seen in our daily activities, thought processes and planning.

    We have to think ahead, mitigating barriers which non-disabled researchers simply do not have to navigate; and this difference is nobody’s fault, but it is useful to be aware of it in this discussion. This art of looking ahead is identified by Torres as one of the necessary traits for effective leadership; she explains:

    “Great leaders are not head-down. They see around corners, shaping their future, not just reacting to it.

    My point isn’t to suggest that disabled researchers are somehow better leaders than their non- disabled colleagues; but we have developed certain characteristics out of sheer necessity. As disabled researchers, indeed disabled individuals, we have to “lead” from the outset to overcome the barriers which are our daily reality.

    Encountering barriers

    We may face the uncertainty which comes with managing a chronic, long-term condition which dictates whether we are well enough to work on a specific date, at a specific time, and over which we have no control. For me, my modus operandi is to work ahead of every deadline – often perceived as being over-competitive – because I know that I may suddenly be forced into a work hiatus which, without this buffer, would put me behind.

    We may encounter access issues – workspaces, and transport to those workspaces, which do not meet our most basic needs. Physical barriers – often assumed to be the most readily addressed – still exist. We may need to call ahead to ensure that we can simply get into the room – let alone have a seat at the table. In 2024, it feels like we should be further along than this.

    As disabled researchers, in work and in life, we are in strategy mode constantly; looking ahead around every corner; planning for the next barrier we need to demolish if we are to continue moving forward.

    We are forced to strategize – even when we don’t want to. Therein, perhaps, lies the rub.

    Because we are proactive in reducing our barriers, we have an expectation or at the very least a hope that our colleagues, managers and in the broadest sense our employers will adopt the same stance.

    When this is reduced to box-ticking exercises rather than a meaningful, consultative approach, this damages morale. When we must ask for adjustments – sometimes more than once – resentment builds; and if adjustments are promised then not delivered, relationships can suffer irrevocable damage.

    We lead because we have to

    Yet we continue to “lead” on this out of necessity; our voices are loudest on these issues for the simple reason that it impacts us the most, especially when organisations don’t get it right. From the discussions we’ve had within our network, I know that this can be a lonely experience, with researchers feeling marginalised, unable to voice their concerns to a listening ear, and finding that speaking out can result in feeling left out.

    So how can we move collectively towards change? Perhaps we can take inspiration from the eight-step change model proposed by leading business consultant John Kotter. Here, a structured approach is described which will move a workforce collectively towards change.

    Perhaps one of the most useful elements of Kotter’s framework is Step 2: “Build a guiding coalition”. What does this mean? It means that individuals of influence and power within an organisation need to be involved in change, or it may be rejected. This is a viable model: disabled researchers partnering with stakeholders across the sector to promote our vision of a fairer, more equitable research environment where lived experience is valued and the need for a continuous programme of improvement is recognised.

    When all is said and done, this isn’t really a radical proposition. There are outcomes we want to achieve, and we need partners to achieve them. We need our voice to be heard at a strategic level. We need champions for inclusion to be nominated across the HE sectors, with a clear remit to work with disabled researchers to enact meaningful change. Activism isn’t incompatible with collaborative working any more than research is.

    Both activism and research address a need, a gap in knowledge, a difficult dilemma, or an important issue, and ask the question: how can we do better, and why aren’t we doing better? This then leads to the next research question…and the next… and the next… and so ad infinitum.

    There is no limit to how much we can learn or improve, and there should be no end to our willingness to keep learning and improving. This is surely integral to the whole ethos of higher education. We need to have open communication; create opportunities for conversations which might be challenging; and cultivate curiosity about how we can better understand one another and facilitate inclusive working environments.

    Even in the most highly competitive business arenas, research has shown that a work culture which prioritises “psychological safety” – an environment where individuals feel secure enough to share their perspectives, both positive and negative – is the gold standard for employee productivity and happiness at work.

    A recent study involving the work-life balance and happiness of women working in the financial sector concluded that:

    …having diverse teams that can be honest allows for better outcomes.

    At the heart of the change we are seeking is simply the opportunity to be honest in an environment which encourages this. So let’s blur the boundary between leadership and management; let’s have honest, if sometimes challenging, conversations; and let’s embark on this journey together.

    Source link

  • Managing a Multi-State Workforce: Key Findings From the CUPA-HR Survey and a Public University’s Hybrid Approach – CUPA-HR

    Managing a Multi-State Workforce: Key Findings From the CUPA-HR Survey and a Public University’s Hybrid Approach – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | April 19, 2023

    As higher ed institutions face pressure to fill open positions and offer more flexible work opportunities, many are responding by recruiting and hiring employees who live and work in a state different from where their institution’s primary campus is located. CUPA-HR’s Multi-State Workforce Survey was developed to better understand institutions’ policies, practices and challenges related to out-of-state workers.

    Notable findings:

    • 89% of responding institutions employ out-of-state workers.
    • The most common types of out-of-state workers are adjunct/part-time faculty and salaried/exempt staff.
    • On median, institutions employ out-of-state workers from 8 states.
    • Most institutions have restricted policies for both recruiting and hiring out-of-state workers.
    • Of the one third of institutions who avoid hiring from certain states, the most common states institutions avoid hiring from were California, New York, Washington and Colorado.
    • Many institutions provide salary ranges on job postings, but most do not adjust salaries based on location.

    Despite the challenges of a multi-state workforce, excluding out-of-state workers can decrease the quality of the candidate pool and may cause institutions to miss out on top talent. Institutions pursuing, or considering pursuing, out-of-state workers may want to look at Clemson University’s hybrid approach to managing a multi-state workforce.

    Charged by senior leadership to explore options for out-of-state employment, Clemson University’s HR team, led by Chief Human Resources Officer Ale Kennedy, convened a cross-campus workgroup that reached out to several schools about their out-of-state work approaches. After reviewing the data, the workgroup recommended that in-house HR manage the green or “easy” states and outsource the more challenging states in order to minimize risk. To learn more about Clemson’s approach — and the full findings from the Multi-State Workforce Survey — be sure to watch CUPA-HR’s recent webinar “The State of the Multi-State Workforce: Employment Practices and Challenges.”



    Source link