Newsletter No. 153

CUHK Newsletter Supplement to Issue No. 153 4th November 1999 UGC Management Review Report How the Vice-Chancellor Sees It (A translation of an interview conducted in Chinese on 28th October 1999) A n Honour Shared by the Who le Un i ver s i ty Prof. Arthur K. C. L i is pleased that the University fared the best among the eight UGC-funded tertiary institutions in the recent management review exercise, a conclusion he draws after reading review reports of other institutions as well as an over-arching report (yet to be published) summarizing the management practices of the institutions. ' A l the reports were rather discreet in tone. One hardly finds any harsh criticisms. But reading between the lines one can easily discern that The Chinese University has impressed the reviewers the most. We received the most praises and there were more good practices cited f r om C U HK than f r om any other institution,' Prof. L i observed. The review report for CUHK also made special mention of the Vice-Chancellor's 'clear leadership style' and his ability to strike a good balance between strong executive leadership and maintaining a spirit of collegiality. For this, Prof. L i is reluctant to claim credit: 'The honour is meant for the University as a whole, not for any particular individual, for leadership is always dependent on the cooperation and support of those to be led. Without the hard work and collaboration of all staff members o f the University, the UGC could not have come to such a conclusion. This is an honour to be shared by all.' A n d what does he consider to be the factors contributing to the collegiality on campus and the strong commitment of staff members to CUHK? T he sense of "family"which so impressed the UGC review panel is a product o f our historical development,' Prof. L i explained. 'As a "Chinese" University emphasizing bilingualism and biculturalism, we had to weather more obstacles than others in adhering to our educational ideals and securing our fair share of government grants for development during the colonial days. In wo r k i ng together to overcome external obstacles, all internal units achieved a better understanding of one another's views and difficulties; they also acquired a habit of resolving differences through open discussion and giving each other support. This has become a most valuable tradition of the University.' A l l - Round Praises Many other good things were said about CUHK in the management review report. Among them are the participatory nature of its planning processes, the cost- effectiveness of its administration, the transparency and flexibility o f its resource allocation mechanism, the calibre of its staff, the unique role played by the four constituent colleges, and the widespread and effective application of IT across the University. Are there one or two items in particular that Prof. L i is most proud of? 'I'm most proud of the fact that our overall performance is the best among the reviewed institutions,' he said. Where Op i n i ons D i f f er Regarding some of the report's suggestions for improvement, Prof. L i has the following to say. Elected vs Appointed Deanship In response to the suggestion that the University makes the dean's post a full-time appointed position, Prof. L i pointed out that in putting forward such a recommendation, the review panel is in fact likening the University to a commercial organization, in which the Chief Executive Officer (the equivalent o f a vice- chancellor) implements the goals he sets through hand- picked members o f senior management. The panel certainly believes that this is the path universities should take in the twenty-first century. Prof. L i has different views about this, saying, 'The University is not a commercial organization and should not be managed like one. First, a university's success should not be measured in terms of its profits. Secondly, a major component part of the University — the teachers, need space and freedom to create knowledge. The imposition of uniformity and an over-emphasis on centralism wou ld only stifle creativity.' He further explained, 'It's of course more convenient to centrally manage everything but then the university w i ll run the risk of becoming a dictatorship. On the other hand, i f all members of senior management are elected, there w i ll be problems brought along by the conflicting interests of different parties. The middle way taken by the University right now is a reasonable way. Our department heads are appointed but their performance is reviewed annually by the faculty deans, who are elected. I f the teachers are dissatisfied w i th their department heads, they can take their grievances to the dean. We must show to all teachers that the faculty manages its own affairs. It doesn't need parties outside the faculty to tell it what to do. The issue has in fact been debated at the AAPC. The University's position is to let the faculties decide for themselves whether to continue having elected deans or to replace it with an appointed system. We also allow diversity among the faculties but no matter what the decisions are, they have to come from the faculties and not top-down from the University management.' Research Strategies: Centrally-planned or Individually Initiated? The review panel commented in the report that though staff of the University appeared to have a clear understanding of the overall research objectives of the University and the focus areas, there was no overall plan for research nor formal documentation o f a general strategic direction. Prof. L i is of the view that setting down a formal strategic plan for research w i ll deprive teachers of the space for intellectual exploration and infringe on their freedom of choice. ‘I don't believe in having top-down research strategies at the University. The choice of research topics must be left to the teachers themselves. IT may be a hot research topic today, but it may not be tomorrow. Likewise, some topics may not seem "topical" now but they may very well be in five or ten years' time ,' he said. The report also remarked that the University's overall rationale for maintaining all 24 Areas o f Excellence (AoE) 'was not completely clear'. According to Prof. Li, the University had identified 24 Areas of Excellence, eight of which were accepted by the UGC assessment panel and two were among the first three 'AoE' schemes selected for government funding support. A l l 24 AoEs, however, are areas of strength identified by the University to cater for the future needs of society and as such the University w i ll never give them up. Prof. L i continued, 'History has proven that the University's privately funded research areas have all turned out to be beneficial for Hong Kong's development. For example, the University had the foresight 27 years ago to invest in Chinese medicinal material research; three or four years ago, we saw the need to train home g r own managers for the hotel and tourism industry and began planning for the establishment of a School of Hotel Management; we started to take the direction the government is now taking regarding IT back in 1991 when our Faculty of Engineering was established; in terms of technology transfer, we are also a step ahead of everyone else. We've never needed the government to define where our areas of strength lie, neither do we need external approval of the priorities we set. Our foresight and the fruits of our labour are plain for all to see.' Space Allocation The report also recommended greater flexibility in the allocation of space. But Prof. L i pointed out that in another UGC report soon to be published, the University's total usable space, as calculated using the UGC's formula, is found to fall below standard requirement by 27 per cent. To make matters worse, planning for phase I I development of the Engineering Building, renovation of the Postgraduate Ha ll Complex, and the Clinical Sciences Building extension project have now been put on hold by the government. ' How can we exercise flexibility when we are so underprovided for? We simply don't have enough space to go around,' Prof. L i said. Maximizing External Funding Sources While commending the University's success in bringing in external funds, the report also urged it to 'maximize the potential of external funding sources'. Drawing attention to the fact that CUHK has always done well in raising funds, Prof. L i said, 'Last year, the University received more than HK$200 million in donations and other funding support. The four colleges also did very well. However the economy hasn't fully recovered yet, so fund raising isn't easy. Besides, competition is ge t t i ng keener by the day w i t h Ch i na 's r a p id development. You can have a whole building named after you on the mainland for a million dollars; but in Hong Kong, you can't even have a classroom named after you for the same amount. ‘ He emphasized however that the University w i ll continue to try its best in getting external funding as government support is expected to only fall and not increase in the foreseeable future. Can teaching staff be of any help? Prof. Li's answer was in the affirmative. He pointed out that though many of the University's research activities are of benefit to society, some may be little heard of outside academia, because most scholars prefer a low profile and w i ll feel embarrassed blowing their own trumpet. He believes that i f they could explain the implications of the fruits of their labour to society, let more people know that CUHK has always been doing service to our community, then the University could find itself enjoying the support of more benefactors. Thanks to A l l What does Prof. L i consider to be the University's greatest gain from its interaction with the UGC over the management review? 'We have firmly established our credibility,' he answered. 'The UGC, the government, and tax-payers can now be confident that the money they give us w i ll be put to good use.' ‘ I am very thankful to all my colleagues who have participated in this exercise. They spent a lot of time and effort and performed outstandingly well. I'm equally grateful to those who have not been directly involved in the review. It is their everyday work that has ensured good management at the University,' Prof. L i concluded.