New Governance Models: an international perspective

Jamil Salmi

London, 10 March 2008

2

a few stories

• Mexico

• India

• Azerbaijan

• Uganda

• NZ

• Australia

• Peru

3

outline of the presentation

• does governance matter?

• changing governance models

• the role of governing boards

4

natural lab experiment: U. of Malaya vs. NUS

• early 1960s: 2 branches of University of Malaya

• today:

• NUS ranked # 19

• UM only # 192

AutonomyAcademic Freedom

StudentsTeaching StaffResearchers

Research Output

Technology Transfer

Concentration of Talent

Abundant

ResourcesFavorable Governance

Leadership TeamStrategic VisionCulture of Excellence

Public Budget ResourcesEndowment RevenuesTuition FeesResearch Grants

WCU Supportive Regulatory Framework

Graduates

Characteristics of a World-Class UniversityAlignment of Key Factors

Source: Elaborated by Jamil Salmi

6

U. Of Malaya vs. NUS

– talent

• UM: selection bias in favor of Bumiputras, less than 5% foreign students, no foreign professors

• NUS: highly selective, 43% of graduates students are foreign, many foreign professors

7

U. Of Malaya vs. NUS (II)

finance• UM: $118 million, $4,053 per student

• NUS: $750 million endowment, $205 million, $6,300 per student

governance• UM: restricted by government regulations and control,

unable to hire top foreign professors

• NUS: status of a private corporation, able to attract world-class researchers (incl. Malaysians)

8

France and Germany

• low in the rankings

• civil service status and mentality

• no tradition of competition– equal distribution of limited resources

9

Germany

• “Excellence initiative”– competition

– additional resources

• governance reform

10

France• world rankings have forced to ask

questions• dual structure

– “Grandes Ecoles” with best students, more resources and favorable governance, but no research

– universities: “second best” students, but research vocation

• autonomy reform

11

outline of the presentation

• does governance matter?

• changing governance models

12

governance models

from

central government control

to

steering at a distance

13

how to define autonomy?

• academic freedom is not negotiable• freedom to deliver whatever programs

one wants and research whatever one wants?

• freedom to spend as one wants within a lump sum?

14

how to define autonomy?

• total freedom is not realistic• autonomy has to operate alongside

accountability

15

critical dimensions of autonomy

• selection of students (qualifications and number)

• program and curriculum development• recruitment / evaluation of faculty• remuneration• income generation• ownership of infrastructure and ability to

borrow

16

accountability

in return for increased autonomy, governments expect accountability in:

* adherence to national goals and policies* maintaining academic quality* financial honesty and value for money* good governance and management

17

autonomy / accountability tension within institutions

• independent colleges / faculties

• institutional strategic plan

18

international trends

• general move to granting greater autonomy (Japan, Thailand, Indonesia, Germany, France)

• MOEs are surrendering some functions to buffer bodies or intermediate agencies

19

international trends (II)

• growth in scale and intrusiveness of monitoring and reporting by governments

• increase in number of monitoring agencies (statistics, QA, financing)

20

outline of the presentation

• does governance matter?

• changing governance models

• the role of governing boards

21

appointment of leader

• mode of appointment– democratic election (faculty, administration,

students, alumni)– government appointment– competitive appointment (Board, gvt,

electorate)

22

appointment of leader (II)

• eligibility– only from faculty– only from the university– from outside

• duration of appointment– one or more mandate– from 4 years to 4 ever

23

vision

24

StagnationDiamond Absence of VisionPerformance Gap

Complacency

Business as Usual

25

TransformationDiamond

Goals SettingImproved Performance

Aspiration

Renewal Strategy

26

27

evolution of Nokia sales

28

Clemson University

• land grant university focused on agricultural and mechanical crafts

• changing region

• strategic partnership with BMW to become premier automotive and sports car research U

• aims to become # 20

29

flexibility

• strategic planning to provide direction for change

• close linkages with the economic environment for adequate feedback

• ability to react and adapt rapidly

30

principles of good governance

• powers of the key internal stakeholders are understood and accepted by all

• the Board, the President and the Academic Council work together and respect each other

• the academic community accepts that the decisions of the senior executives are in the University’s best interests

31

principles of good governance (II)

• communication of ideas and information flowing both ways (up and down)

• not too many committees, but enough to provide for participation in key policy decisions

•

33

conclusion

34

conclusion

• Board = interface between society and universities

• learning to work together: U leadership and Board

• need for capacity building• clear boundaries