As I have probably said in response to one of Katy's previous posts, my own experience of working in the university sector is that the formal administrative processes no longer work because sufficient people and resources are not there to enable them to work (and also often because they are badly designed by the decision-makers). What this means is that things only get done because of workarounds, which in turn are only possible because of informal networks of School secretaries and the like who understand the workarounds, know who the "go to" people are in other units to make the workarounds work, and are prepared to go the extra bit of distance to get things done. This is obviously unsustainable.
That all sounds quite ... familiar. Among the key problems are that most top-level admin folks do not understand the opportunity costs of all the admin and compliance bs they impose on lower ranks, that in fact no university I know of keeps systematic track of these costs, and that there is little left of academic governance, as traditionally understood.
Yes. I remember when Bjelke-Petersen Memorial University of Suburban South-East Queensland undertook an ill-conceived restructuring in the late 1990s. I commented at the time that many of the "process efficiencies" that management said would ensue were in fact externalisations of costs onto staff and students so that they no longer appeared on management's spreadsheets,
THIS. So much of “cost cutting” is putting costs onto staff and students. “Self-service” is a massive part of that - the uni no longer has to worry about that - but it makes students and staff really unhappy and frustrated.
My only comment beyond agreement is that often the total size of the bureaucracy increases, just not in any useful way: on the contrary, in anti-useful ways.
Well, this is the thing. The bureaucracy is HUGE these days, at all universities. And it doesn’t work for academic staff or students, as far as I can see. I think it just feeds itself, and tramples us all in its path. It’s like a giant blob.
Katy, I too am in furious agreement. After 20 years as a professional staff member in the university sector I left after finally burning out by the workload, by bullying self serving senior staff (both academic and professional), and by more rounds of 'business improvement' than I can count. Despite that, I miss the sector. The jobs I had were deeply meaningful to me and most academic and professional staff were passionate, hard working and committed to the ideals of education for all. I wish I had a simple answer but the solution is in the hands of the few who need courage to go against the status quo. The cost of that is very high both professionally and personally, however. Keep fighting the fight!
Yes, it’s awful. I wish I could say that I was surprised by your story, but I’m not. Solidarity, from me. I am trying not to burn out at the moment. I wish my physical health were not so poor. I love teaching and I love research. I just want to be able to do those things, and be a happy little remedies boffin.
As I said, the price is too high for any one individual, but the fact that you've written about it is important. You've inspired me to do some research on professional staff in education. It's always been an area of interest and I have a dissertation coming up! See - a positive outcome already!
Hope you get better soon Katy. I can only add that often low level admin staff is forced to push attempts to "digitize"/ "Process Manage"/ "upskill" on academic staff. A classic case of misalignment of incentives leading to unnecessary friction. For example, forcing academic staff to learn a random software rather than hiring a person to manage all the reimbursement and expense claims. When things don't go as planned and the academic staff reaches out for help, it is the admin staff that receives the ire whilst someone at the top keeps giving diktats thinking all is well.
As always , thoughtful and constructive. From my experience in business the only solution is to break organisations down so the parts can behave like small flexible entities. Many of the problems come from the organisation managing itself. Does the law school need to relate to the architecture faculty?
(I once developed a theory that dinosaurs became extinct because their bodies were too big for their brains to manage. Unfortunately it’s not true)
THIS!! So - I believe the exam software operated well for other faculties, but not for law. Each faculty has its own needs. A “one size fits all” centralised solution is always going to fail in some regards for all faculties, because it’s not appropriate for all situations: actually one size fits no one properly. One needs some coordination, but also some independence. The law school had run online examinations perfectly well under its own auspices for some years, using software appropriate for our needs. It was only when we were forced to do it the central “one size fits all” way that we ran into issues.
This reminds me of the time in 2014 when the management of BPMUoSSEQ decided that Blackboard Collaborate was the absolute cutting edge of blended learning technology and absolutely had to be rolled out in all courses offered by all academic units if the university was to avoid losing its share of the student market. This was inflicted upon us without consultation, without consideration of the particular requirements of teaching and learning in different disciplines, without consideration of the sort of hardware that students would need in order to utilise Collaborate effectively, and with minimal training for staff. It was also expected that teaching staff would make themselves available to run Collaborate classes 24/7, which inevitably would mean running sessions from home in places including parts of the Gold Coast Hinterland with indifferent internet coverage.
The upshot was that Collaborate fell considerably short of expectations. Far from being a virtual tutorial classroom, Collaborate sessions only attracted participation by a small minority of students, most of whom would only participate by texting into the Chat box.
The next year I had a teaching contract with another university that had rolled out Collaborate, and the staff there had the same complaints as we had.
This is SO familiar. I wish it weren’t but it is. You know I think there are people who get ahead in life by putting “Rolled out innovative teaching and learning program” (which they did) without any consideration of DID IT WORK?
Sigh. So - my mum retired as a teacher when she said, “The same things are coming around, a third time, all under different names.” Centralise, decentralise, centralise, decentralise… so forth…
I am in furious agreement with all of this.
As I have probably said in response to one of Katy's previous posts, my own experience of working in the university sector is that the formal administrative processes no longer work because sufficient people and resources are not there to enable them to work (and also often because they are badly designed by the decision-makers). What this means is that things only get done because of workarounds, which in turn are only possible because of informal networks of School secretaries and the like who understand the workarounds, know who the "go to" people are in other units to make the workarounds work, and are prepared to go the extra bit of distance to get things done. This is obviously unsustainable.
And then if you have a “spill and fill”, when all the people who know the workarounds decide to work somewhere else - you’re really stuck…
That all sounds quite ... familiar. Among the key problems are that most top-level admin folks do not understand the opportunity costs of all the admin and compliance bs they impose on lower ranks, that in fact no university I know of keeps systematic track of these costs, and that there is little left of academic governance, as traditionally understood.
YES, to all of that. YES.
Yes. I remember when Bjelke-Petersen Memorial University of Suburban South-East Queensland undertook an ill-conceived restructuring in the late 1990s. I commented at the time that many of the "process efficiencies" that management said would ensue were in fact externalisations of costs onto staff and students so that they no longer appeared on management's spreadsheets,
THIS. So much of “cost cutting” is putting costs onto staff and students. “Self-service” is a massive part of that - the uni no longer has to worry about that - but it makes students and staff really unhappy and frustrated.
My only comment beyond agreement is that often the total size of the bureaucracy increases, just not in any useful way: on the contrary, in anti-useful ways.
Well, this is the thing. The bureaucracy is HUGE these days, at all universities. And it doesn’t work for academic staff or students, as far as I can see. I think it just feeds itself, and tramples us all in its path. It’s like a giant blob.
The new Borg. And DEI is its new super weapon.
Katy, I too am in furious agreement. After 20 years as a professional staff member in the university sector I left after finally burning out by the workload, by bullying self serving senior staff (both academic and professional), and by more rounds of 'business improvement' than I can count. Despite that, I miss the sector. The jobs I had were deeply meaningful to me and most academic and professional staff were passionate, hard working and committed to the ideals of education for all. I wish I had a simple answer but the solution is in the hands of the few who need courage to go against the status quo. The cost of that is very high both professionally and personally, however. Keep fighting the fight!
Yes, it’s awful. I wish I could say that I was surprised by your story, but I’m not. Solidarity, from me. I am trying not to burn out at the moment. I wish my physical health were not so poor. I love teaching and I love research. I just want to be able to do those things, and be a happy little remedies boffin.
As I said, the price is too high for any one individual, but the fact that you've written about it is important. You've inspired me to do some research on professional staff in education. It's always been an area of interest and I have a dissertation coming up! See - a positive outcome already!
This is amazing, and just made my day. Possibly my year.
Hope you get better soon Katy. I can only add that often low level admin staff is forced to push attempts to "digitize"/ "Process Manage"/ "upskill" on academic staff. A classic case of misalignment of incentives leading to unnecessary friction. For example, forcing academic staff to learn a random software rather than hiring a person to manage all the reimbursement and expense claims. When things don't go as planned and the academic staff reaches out for help, it is the admin staff that receives the ire whilst someone at the top keeps giving diktats thinking all is well.
I know this. It is all about diktats from on high. Also if the consequences don’t come to rest on the higher ups, they won’t change the process.
As always , thoughtful and constructive. From my experience in business the only solution is to break organisations down so the parts can behave like small flexible entities. Many of the problems come from the organisation managing itself. Does the law school need to relate to the architecture faculty?
(I once developed a theory that dinosaurs became extinct because their bodies were too big for their brains to manage. Unfortunately it’s not true)
THIS!! So - I believe the exam software operated well for other faculties, but not for law. Each faculty has its own needs. A “one size fits all” centralised solution is always going to fail in some regards for all faculties, because it’s not appropriate for all situations: actually one size fits no one properly. One needs some coordination, but also some independence. The law school had run online examinations perfectly well under its own auspices for some years, using software appropriate for our needs. It was only when we were forced to do it the central “one size fits all” way that we ran into issues.
This reminds me of the time in 2014 when the management of BPMUoSSEQ decided that Blackboard Collaborate was the absolute cutting edge of blended learning technology and absolutely had to be rolled out in all courses offered by all academic units if the university was to avoid losing its share of the student market. This was inflicted upon us without consultation, without consideration of the particular requirements of teaching and learning in different disciplines, without consideration of the sort of hardware that students would need in order to utilise Collaborate effectively, and with minimal training for staff. It was also expected that teaching staff would make themselves available to run Collaborate classes 24/7, which inevitably would mean running sessions from home in places including parts of the Gold Coast Hinterland with indifferent internet coverage.
The upshot was that Collaborate fell considerably short of expectations. Far from being a virtual tutorial classroom, Collaborate sessions only attracted participation by a small minority of students, most of whom would only participate by texting into the Chat box.
The next year I had a teaching contract with another university that had rolled out Collaborate, and the staff there had the same complaints as we had.
This is SO familiar. I wish it weren’t but it is. You know I think there are people who get ahead in life by putting “Rolled out innovative teaching and learning program” (which they did) without any consideration of DID IT WORK?
The university restructuring in the 1990s that I referred to in an earlier comment was intended to achieve the opposite of this.
Sigh. So - my mum retired as a teacher when she said, “The same things are coming around, a third time, all under different names.” Centralise, decentralise, centralise, decentralise… so forth…