Structural development in Austrian Higher Education Institutions

1
Structural development in Austrian Higher
Education Institutions

• Seminar on university reformLappeeranta,
  Finland21-22 August 2006
• Fritz OhlerTechnopolis, Viennafritz.ohler_at_techno
  polis-group.com

2
Overview

• History and background of the university reform
  2002 ff.
• The University Act 2002
• Principles of governance represented by the
  University Act 2002
• A brief assessment of the instruments of
  governance
• The rectorate
• The university council
• The performance contract
• The role of funding
• Why university reform?
• Perspectives and critical issues

3
History and background of university reform

• 1975 University Organisation Act
• three party participation (full professors,
  assistant professors, students)
• numerous committees (? escapism into committees)
• high level of self organisation without control
  of resources (budgets, personnel, curricula,
  professional careers)
• 1993, 1998 Reform of the University Organisation
  Act
• incremental 'improvements' (esp. with respect to
  academic staff)
• led to a steep increase of associate professors
  within two years (by factor 3)
• 1993 Implementation of Applied Universities
  (Polytechniques) with a number of privileges
  (autonomy of students enrolement fees)

4
University Act 2002

• long discussion period
• the academic community accepted the general
  direction, but felt a strong need to have another
  round of discussion
• pressure / jealousy from the well-equipped
  Fachhochschulsector
• decision by the parliament "to implement now and
  to learn later" (in the course of implementation)
• the big surprise in 2002 ff.
• no strong / organised reaction from the academic
  sector
• some 68er (in the role of professors in their
  50ies) raised some criticism

5
The ingredients of the University Act 2002

• 'Autonomy' has been seriously taken for the first
  time in the 850 years of universities in Austria
  (cf. foundation of the University of Vienna
  1365)
• budgets
• personnel
• teachers are no more employees of the ministry,
  but of the university
• professional careers
• internal organisation (institutes, departments,
  faculties, divisions, working groups, chairs) is
  up to the universities)
• selection of courses and related curricula
  (teaching profile) (only 'restricted' by the
  BOLOGNA architecture)
• but profiling (both in teaching and research
  programmes)

6
The new principles of governance 1

• control of context conditions (Kontextsteuerung)
• laws
• University Act 2002
• Employment Act for University Teachers (to fight
  against windmills up to 17 employment contracts
  for the same type of job, e.g. ab associate
  professor)
• performance contracts and global budgeting
• complex rules attract attention for non-governed
  areas
• thus PC / GB to fight against the bureaucratic
  circulus virtiousus
• intellectual capital report
• universtity board
• 7 or 9 members
• (n-1)/2 are nominated by the university (senate)
• (n-1)/2 by the Minister
• 1 joint nomination
• profiling
• no more room for 'full universities'

7
The new principles of governance 2

• Autonomy
• the individual university is a legal person sui
  generis
• combining elements of a joint-stock company, an
  association and an authority
• before it was some sort of a department of the
  Ministry
• with respect to personnel
• university is the employer of the academic staff,
  no more the Ministry
• with respect to the organisational structure
• no a priori determination of faculties,
  departments, institutes, areas, etc. by law
• with respect to courses and related curricula
• self recruitment of the rectorate

8
A brief assessment of the instruments of
governance The rectorate

• 1 rector (with stamina) (2)3 vice rectors
• the rector can act as a powerful CEO and no more
  as a mere representative of the university
• rectorate should be elected / nominated for at
  least two periods (2004 - 2007 - 2011) to
  maintain continuity in the transformation process
• management by objectives and leadership are the
  keys
• set boundaries and rules for negotiation and
  delegate power to the second level
• avoid micro-management

9
A brief assessment of the instruments of
governance The university council

• represents the societal environment of the
  university
• 7 or 9 members
• (n-1)/2 are nominated by the university (senate)
• (n-1)/2 by the Minister
• 1 joint nomination
• much depends upon the chair person and the
  management style
• weak point 'politicially' determined members in
  the board can obstruct decision making and
  credibility

10
A brief assessment of the instruments of
governance The performance contract

• agreed over a 3 years period
• between the ministry and the individual
  universities
• but also, de facto between rector and second
  level
• many strenghts
• it provides a rational basis for planning,
  acting, priority setting, etc.
• particularly, it allows the rector to govern the
  second level including a certain containment of
  uncontrolled extra-activities of university staff
• human resource development
• and some weaknesses (in practice)
• torn between a comprehensive approach (leading to
  several hundred items) and a shopping list
• and an opportunity contribute to a better
  understanding the 'business' of running a
  university
• e.g. charging the departments with rooms
  equipment converts demand into supply
• PhD thesis shift from monographies to
  peer-reviewed articles leads to increase of
  funding

11
A brief assessment of the instruments of
governance The role of funding

• the increasing role of funding beyond performace
  contract based funding
• steep increase of RD expenditures from 1.78 in
  1998 to 2.35 of GDP in 2005
• (too) steep increase of number, scope, and
  quality of RTD programmes
• drying out of GUF after passing of the University
  Act 2002
• "things happened" mixture of de facto and
  deliberate policy during the first 2-3 years
  after implementatioon of the University Act
• above average increase of competitive funding
• of the Austrian Science Fund (analogon to Academy
  of Finland), allocating gt90 of its budget to
  universities
• both of smaller, short-term projects (100-200.000
  EUR, 2-3 years) as well as bigger ones (gt 1 Mio.
  EUR, 5-7 years)
• many other programmes, including ad hoc
  programmes for renewal of infrastructures

12
Why university reform? 1

• University reform mainly addressed efficiency and
  governance
• increase the repertoire to react on changing
  environments
• increase the performance of the research and
  education function
• increase the competitiveness
• increase efficiency
• certain instruments of new public management have
  obtained the status of goals in itself, e.g.
• performance contracts and global budgeting
• intellectual capital report
• profiling

13
Why university reform? 2

• Astonishingly the fundamental goals have
  remained unchanged
• adancement of science (1975)
• advancement of scientific knowlegde
• support of the new generation of academics
• co-ordination of scientific research and
  education
• education (1975)
• training for professional activities which
  require application of scientific methods
• continuing education of graduates
• "education through science"
• knowledge transfer (1993)
• support of use and application of research
  results
• public relation (1993)
• informing the general public about the
  achievement of the missions of the universities

14
Perspectives and critical issues

• rectorate
• should be elected / nominated for at least two
  periods to maintain continuity in the
  transformation process
• set rules and boundaries
• provide room for learning and improvement
• write the performance contract with his / her own
  blood
• university board
• coherence amongst the members
• (de-politisation)
• legal framework
• adjustment of University Act and Employment Act
  for University Teachers
• performance contract
• learning how to prepare and use performance
  contracts
• avoid pervase behaviour and shopping list
  attitudes
• human resource development
• establish foreseeable career tracks
• focus at people rather at content ("talent, not
  technology")