VI. Service Delivery

  1. This section looks at service delivery issues including the processes for reviewing services, gaining user feedback and responding to external or internal audits. The discussion is structured under the following headings:


    Overview of service delivery processes

  2. The Quality Assurance Committee (QAC) takes overall responsibility for monitoring service delivery across the University, with clear leadership from the VP (QA). Each unit is required to set up its own QA system to conform with a common framework which emphasises 'customer satisfaction' and requires action on feedback from service users. All units are required to submit an annual QA report detailing feedback received and actions taken. The Panel wishes to commend PolyU on these clear and comprehensive processes.

  3. Clear systems have been put in place to obtain feedback from service users. For example, each member of staff is required to collect Student Feedback Questionnaires (SFQs) from at least two classes each year. The Education Development Unit co-ordinates parallel reviews through the Course Evaluation Questionnaire (CEQ) and the Subject Evaluation Questionnaire (SEQ). Non-academic units administer similar surveys, many of which can be accessed on-line. An additional innovative forum, co-ordinated by the Student Affairs Office (SAO), is the 'Democracy Wall', where students can put up big character posters with their views on PolyU management and practices (as well as other current affairs issues).

    Achievements to date

  4. The Panel was most impressed by the progress which has been achieved with respect to the delivery of services, although it noted that the starting point had been a situation where many users were dissatisfied with the standard of service. Users provided glowing feedback on a number of key administrative units - in particular the Finance Office and the Personnel Office - although improvements were noted across the board. Users described the changes as being as stark as "like moving from night to day", and "like living in a dream". The improvements were largely attributed to the BPR initiative (also known as the Management and Administrative Process Re-engineering, or MAPR exercise), although the Panel noted that there have also been some important changes in personnel.

  5. Some of the interviewees were able to cite specific improvements as a result of the BPR initiative. For example, it is estimated that staff across the five administrative units involved in the initiative to date now spend 8,000 fewer man-hours in meetings, and produce at least 150,000 fewer photocopies. Some departments have also changed their overall approach as a result of the initiative. For example, the Estates Office has outsourced more of its services and the Personnel Office has greatly simplified annual leave applications and has developed on-line operating manuals for staff. The Panel congratulates PolyU on generating some of the most positive feedback it has ever heard, following a re-engineering exercise. It wants to encourage PolyU to maintain the momentum it has achieved to date, as it progresses through to Phase II of the BPR initiative, to include all remaining administrative units.

  6. On the academic side, the regular programme of quality assurance reviews is central to improvements to the quality processes. The new departmental assessments and individual appraisals have heightened awareness of the need for quality in service delivery. The Panel was pleased to learn that external representatives are included in the departmental assessment panels. Looking to the future, the Panel suggests that the VP (IA) may want to consider ways in which the MAPR initiative could be rolled out effectively to include academic departments.

    Conclusions

  7. The Panel was most impressed by the scale of improvements achieved in service delivery, clearly evidenced by positive feedback from a wide range of users. It understands that this demonstrates the success of the MAPR initiative as well as some recent changes in Personnel. It commends PolyU on its achievements to date, and urges it to press on with its plans to extend the MAPR initiative within the University. It hopes that senior management will seek to ensure that a culture of 'continuous improvement' is embedded across the University. Looking forward, PolyU might wish to conduct comparisons with other institutions, by way of obtaining external benchmarks with which to assess its service delivery levels.