Managing change
On February 1, the University's new senior management structure was implemented. A number of changes are proceeding in its wake. Now that the structure is being bedded down, it is worth revisiting some of the major themes which underlie it. The new structure is designed to encourage and facilitate the growth of the ANU as an institution which continues its tradition of academic excellence, while also engaging in activities consonant with contemporary expectations of the university as a lifelong education provider. In addition, there is now a greater expectation that universities should extend and link their research expertise in ways which are of direct benefit to government and industry. Particularly given the present funding arrangements for the ANU, it is likely that these expectations will be fulfilled, in part, by new structures, partnerships and modes of delivery. The new post of Pro Vice-Chancellor (Academic) has been given responsibility for University academic centres, giving them an unambiguous and effective independent status in the ANU. At the same time, as part of wider responsibility for education and academic development, the PVC (Academic) has been charged with facilitating University-wide innovation in courses, curricula and delivery, and for international education. He will be ideally placed to give senior academic leadership and direction to the vital interface of academic activity with the wider community. At the same time as we look to development and growth of the ANU in a period of increasing pressure on funding from Government operating grants, including the Institute block grant, we are moving to ensure that the academic activity of the University is underpinned by the highest possible standards of resource planning, management and control. To fully understand the changes which are being made, it is necessary to be aware of the way universities used to be administered: there were, in effect, two largely independent university operations - the academic enterprise and an administrative system in which all administrative staff, regardless of where they were placed, reported to powerful central administrators. The system worked in a period in which universities were, in a management sense, simple organisations, generously supported in almost full measure by a single government funding source. Those days are long gone. However, in common with other universities, our ad hoc adjustments to the demands of a new and more complex operating environment have resulted in a halfway house, in which lines of responsibility and control have not been as clear as they might. The new structure puts a single person in charge of policy development and operations. When fully implemented in a few months, it should put behind us the situation where academic policy decisions are not well connected with their implementation. At the level below the University Executive, changes are being made to ensure all heads of academic units have full responsibility for management of the resources, both financial and staff, of their units, as well as for academic leadership. This marriage of academic and executive responsibility is not mere managerialism, although change in this direction is mandated by the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997. Most importantly, it will put senior academic staff firmly in control of all aspects of their areas of authority. In my opinion, it would be a mistake to operate on any other basis. Deane Terrell