Developing our organisational structures

We have this week published the Senate paper that sets out proposals for developing our organisational structures.

I want all staff and students to read and reflect on that document, and understand why this evolutionary development is being proposed now.

As I said at the open meetings with staff on Tuesday (13 May), it is important that we get our organisational structures right to ensure we can deliver the ambitious growth agenda that is envisaged for Sussex.

I do not believe that our current structures are optimal for this. For example, two-way lines of communication between departments – which are the academic heart of the University – and the senior executive are too long. In a range of ways, responsibilities and accountability at departmental, school and institutional levels are unclear. As a result, Sussex finds it difficult to respond in a timely and flexible fashion to new opportunities and challenges.

The plans now before Senate would devolve financial and management responsibility much closer to the academic heart of the University, and at the same time create a direct connection between our academic leaders and the executive. Such structures would support faster decision-making and involve a greater number of leaders in key strategic issues.

The proposals would create a new set of around 12-14 academic units that become the primary focus for planning, resource-allocation and management purposes. These units would need to have a certain critical mass and would be formed from one or more of the existing academic departments.

Some people have asked if we can go further and push responsibility to existing departments. I do not believe we can do this with the current size of all of our departments. But I see this as a flexible structure, which can develop as academic areas grow and change over time.

The new units formed of more than one current department are likely to be most effective when related disciplines are brought together. While this should have benefits in terms of strengthening inter-disciplinarity, it is also vital that disciplinary identity remains in place – and our new structures would provide for this.

The proposals set out in the Senate paper are not invented by me or my executive. They are based on discussions with deans, heads of departments and other staff, and reflect academic responses to the opportunities provided by this framework for devolution.

Appointing strong and effective heads of school and providing the right support would be important for making these new structures work. All heads would be members of a new university senior management group, which would include the current executive group and would meet regularly to look at key strategic issues.

Once decisions have been made, we should move with due speed, but taking time to get the implementation right. I see 2008-09 as a transitional year, working towards new structures operational in 2009 – with current systems and processes maintained as the new ones are developed. This includes the important matter of aligning the professional and support services with the new structure.

We will ensure that any of the changes proposed are properly managed and that staff are fully informed and supported during the change process, and will do our utmost to ensure staff and students see how they will benefit from these developments.

You can access the document and comment.