Newsletter No. 100

CUHK Newsletter No. 100 4th January 1997 3 The Day of Reckoning Has Come? How to Interpret the Current Review on Management Efficiency Prof. Liu Pak-wai T he University Grants Committee (UGC) will conduct a management review of all the local institutions of higher learning from mid to late 1997. In the meantime, on the eve of the review, the University has set up its own Task Force on Management Efficiency to review the performance of its administrative units and some teaching departments. Appointed by the vice-chancellor, the task force consists of Prof. Liu Pak-wai as chairman, Dr. Chen Fong-ching, Prof. Leslie Lo, Prof. Eden Yu, and Mrs. Kim Cheng as members, and Ms. Vivian Ho as secretary. Has the task force been created proactively in anticipation of the UGC review? If so, why is its focus not on management per se but management efficiency? Why is performance at issue and not processes? Prof. Liu explains that the preparation of the strategy and agenda for the forthcoming UGC review is only one purpose of setting up the task force. The other and more important purpose is to prepare the University for the announced slashes in the government's budget for tertiary institutions in the 1998—2001 triennium. Covering both teaching and administrative units but with the latter as the focus, the review is expected to last two to three years. How does the task force define efficiency? 'From an economics point of view,' Prof. Liu explains, 'efficiency has not been archieved if given the same resources, it is possible to increase output through changes in organization or procedures, or if the same output can be maintained with less resources. The affirmation of either of these two scenarios means that there's room for efficiency improvement. In other words, operations were not efficient initially.' Prof. Liu further emphasizes that efficiency should not be equated with the amount of output produced unless resources allocated are taken into consideration. For example, a unit can be very productive in output yet inefficient if it enjoys overabundant resources. In the context of the University, Prof. Liu says the primary concern of the task force is to see whether a unit should be restructured, and in cases where the structure leaves little to be improved, whether procedures can be simplified, in order to increase productivity without feeding in extra resources. If there is a need to tighten belts further, the task force will examine whether resources allocated to a unit can be cut without affecting the quality of its services. Prof. Liu also emphasizes that despite the anticipated budget cut, the University has no plans to lay off staff members. Savings will be achieved through attrition on the one hand, and organizational restructuring and re-engineering of processes based on review results on the other. The current review should therefore be held as an exercise to help increase the University's overall cost-effectiveness and accountability in the use of public funds. The task force would wish unit heads to work with them, as partners, to tide the University over in a period of financial stringency. To collect management information on the units under review, the members of the task force will speak to the unit heads as well as middle-ranking management personnel. The fact-finding work will be undertaken by Mrs. Kim Cheng and her internal audit team, who will go over statistics submitted by the units to see if resource deployment is efficient, and use them to set up performance indicators for individual tasks. The views of the unit heads will be solicited because they are supposed to have full knowledge of the unit's daily workings and because they are the ones who will have to cope with the cuts in resources in the 1998-2001 triennium. Prof. Liu says, 'Benchmarking is useful in assessing task- based performance. We can for example gauge performance by the length of wait for a doctor at the clinic. Similarly, although the work of the whole Registry cannot be judged by a single performance indicator, the time lapse between a student's request for transcripts and their receipt can serve as a performance indicator for that particular task.' The indicators will also be reviewed regularly and compared with those of other tertiary institutions to ensure their feasibility. Since the teaching departments take up a much larger share of resources than the administrative units, cuts in costs are expected to affect them more. But insofar as establishing performance indicators are concerned, they are in less urgency of review. Prof. Liu explains: 'Unlike administrative units whose performance is difficult to measure unless we do this kind of review, there are systematic indicators for the faculties. Resource allocation to teaching departments has been based on performance under the one-line budget whereas that to administrative units has so far been based on convention.' For this reason review of the academic departments will focus on departmental procedures in budget planning and the cost-effectiveness in the use of allocated resources under the one-line budget. Where necessary, the expertise of external management auditors will also be sought, but the bulk of the review will fall on the task force. Would engaging experts independent of the University for the entire process lend it more credibility? Prof. Liu's answer is a qualified yes: There are other considerations. External consultants may not understand the administrative processes in the University as thoroughly as someone ill the University. Moreover, in the less complex cases, contribution they make may not be significant enough to justify their high costs. Hence, they will be engaged on a selective basis.' To date the review of the Buildings Office has been going on and that of the University Health Service has just begun. The Bursary will be the next to follow. The order of review however in no way reflects the existing efficiency of units, says Prof. Liu. The task force will discuss review findings with the heads of units who will be consulted in drawing up a list of recommendations for change. The report will then be submitted to the Vice- Chancellor. Decisions on what action to take lie with the Vice-Chancellor who heads the Resource Allocation Committee, and who will certainly consult bodies such as the AAC and AAPC before important changes are implemented. Piera Chen Professor of Social Work as New Dean of Social Science Born in Hong Kong, Prof. Kenneth Chau started his career in social work in the late fifties. He had worked for both the Boys' and Girls' Clubs Association and the Hong Kong Council of Social Service before Joining the University of Hong Kong in 1972. He moved to the United States in 1984 and taught social work courses at California State University at Long Beach for 10 years. Prof. Chau Joined The Chinese University in August 1 994 as professor of social work, and was elected dean of social science lost October. His term began on 2nd October 1996 and will last until 31st July 1999. N ew dean of Social Science, Prof. Kenneth K. L. Chau believes his role as faculty dean is still evolving. 'With the implementation of the one-line budget which entails decentralization of responsibilities and authority,' he explains, 'many roles and functions that have previously been under the dean's office are now transferred to the departments where most of the decisions are made. Hence the role of the dean is still formulating and in that sense, it is relatively new.' According to what Prof. Chau rather modestly calls his post-election 'impressions', however, the role is primarily that of a coordinator who tries to ensure that departments within the faculty are operating in ways that complement one another. He also observes that the dean has an important role in supporting departmental curriculum renewal, innovations and research initiatives. Now in its 33rd year, the faculty is well- established and well-known. It has enjoyed, as Prof. Chau says, the leadership of many 'talented and capable' deans, and has under its belt many accomplishments spanning China, Hong Kong and the Asia-Pacific region, especially in the area of research. Through the professional interests of faculty members and their participation in consultancy projects and Hong Kong's social affairs, the Faculty of Social Science has maintained a very close link with what's happening in the community at large. The faculty has been engaged in a process of continual self-review and self- renewal to keep abreast of societal developments, especially those anticipated under 'one country, two systems'. In the next few years, it plans to develop mechanisms whereby the quality and social relevance of the curricula and programmes of studies offered by its departments can not only be maintained but also improved. The faculty will also be reviewing its research ties with society. Prof. Chau feels there is a great need for the faculty to identify areas of strategic importance for interdisciplinary cooperation among its departments, in order that 'their interests, professional expertise, and research efforts may bring forth maximum social impact and contribute significantly to the formulation of social policies.' A challenge the faculty will face is 'continual renewal in the light of shrinking resources', to quote Prof. Chau, or rather, continual renewal in spite of shrinking resources. He points out, 'We're not talking about having additional resources for expansion. We're talking about zero growth. Given this context, we need to see what areas in our existing programmes have been meeting societal demands, whether we want to continue in that direction, and what new developments we should embark upon to respond to emerging needs... .， Earlier Prof. Chau mentioned that the Faculty of Social Science has benefitted from the leadership of many different deans. How does he think his background in social work can contribute to his new administrative duties? 'I don't know,' Prof. Chau says, 'An administrator can be a person with any background. But for someone from the field of social work, there may be more concern for social issues, social demands, and greater emphasis on participatory planning.' He doesn't know if that would be helpful to the faculty, but he certainly hopes it would. Piera Chen