IV. Implementation
of plans
- This brief section focuses on several key elements of the implementation
of plans including the allocation of responsibility and the use of milestones
and performance measures for regular monitoring. It is divided into the following
three sections:
- responsibility for implementation of plans;
- achievements to date;
- monitoring and evaluation.
Responsibility for implementation of plans
- The Panel observed that the strategic plan is supported by a variety of
operational plans. From the current academic year, all academic departments
are required to prepare their own three-year business plans, based on the
Academic Development Proposals (ADP) and the overall strategic plan. Non-academic
departments are also responsible for developing their own three-year rolling
business plans.
- Responsibility for the implementation of plans is clearly allocated and
understood. Each of the Vice-Presidents has clear responsibilities for institution-wide
initiatives. For example, the Vice-President (Quality Assurance) has led the
implementation of the Departmental Assessments, and the Vice-President (Institutional
Advancement) has led the Management Upgrading exercise. The Vice-Presidents
have devolved some of their responsibilities to several key committees. For
example, the Quality Assurance Committee oversees the implementation of the
various quality improvement initiatives across the University. Similarly,
the Management Upgrade Taskforce has taken responsibility for the management
restructuring and the process reviews. Within academic departments, Heads
have established strategic groups which oversee key areas e.g. Teaching and
Learning and Quality Assurance. The Panel noted that in many cases, the responsibilities
allocated were clearly linked with the overall strategic plan. For example,
each of the "critical issues" specified in the strategic plan has been allocated
an owner within the SMC.
- The Panel was impressed by PolyU's demonstrated ability to allocate clear
responsibilities for implementation. It was particularly struck by the balance
which has been achieved between executive-style leadership and collegial collaboration,
and encourages senior management to work at maintaining this balance in the
future. Looking to the future, the Panel suggests that the University might
gain even more advantage from its initiatives by ensuring that stronger links
are made between related initiatives e.g. quality assurance and BPR. At the
institutional level, this is likely to be the responsibility of the Senior
Management Committee (SMC).
Achievements to date
- The Panel was pleased to find evidence of the implementation of a number
of plans, in both academic and administrative areas. In terms of the former,
a new and simplified management structure has been introduced, resulting in
the removal of a layer in the decision making process. The Heads of Departments
now report directly to the Deans, who in turn report directly to the President.
Formerly, the Deans reported in the first instance to the Vice-Presidents.
- With respect to research, PolyU has a clear policy, linked to the allocation
of special research budgets. There are processes in place to facilitate access
to research funds at the departmental and institutional levels, as well as
externally. Responsibility for resource allocation decisions lies with the
University's Research Committee and the various Faculty Research Committees.
In line with the recent Areas of Excellence exercise, the Panel was pleased
to learn that PolyU has identified 8 "Areas for Strategic Development" (ASDs)
and has allocated funding to support each of these.
- The Panel was impressed with the evidence of the successful implementation
of institution wide initiatives e.g. Departmental assessments and BPR. Further
details of these initiatives are provided in Sections V and VI of this report.
- Looking to the future, the Panel was pleased to note that the new strategic
plan (2001-2007) places greater emphasis on continuing education, and encourages
PolyU to make appropriate links between this and other academic development
activities. The Panel was also encouraged to learn that PolyU plans to conduct
its own internal management review within the next 3-5 years. It suggests
that this intention should be incorporated into the new strategic plan.
Monitoring and evaluation
- Monitoring of implementation is in part the responsibility of the various
committees. For example, the Academic Planning Committee (APC) is responsible
for monitoring the implementation of the Academic Development Proposals (ADP).
There is also an overall monitoring group, responsible for reviewing progress
on the current strategic plan.
- The Panel was impressed by the strong accountability system which is being
developed through various quality assurance initiatives. Departments are now
required to prepare annual reports on their progress. In addition, they go
through a formal assessment every 3-5 years (and more frequently if necessary).
The Panel wishes to commend PolyU on its efforts in this area, and was particularly
interested to note that there is external input to the departmental assessment
panels. Looking to the future, it hopes that clearer links will be made between
these assessments, personal development and corrective action. PolyU will
also want to clarify the roles of the Deans and the VPs within the overall
appraisal and assessment process.
Conclusions
- PolyU has clearly demonstrated its ability to implement plans. Good examples
include the academic and administrative restructuring, as well as the identification
of Areas for Strategic Development within research. The Panel commends PolyU
on its achievements to date. Moving forward it encourages PolyU to pay careful
attention to building on the monitoring and evaluation processes which have
been put in place, to ensure that the outputs of these processes feedback
into the planning cycle effectively