Traditionally, HEI managerial structures were seen as either ‘collegiate ‘ or ‘managerial’, with the latter occurring predominantly in the new universities. Price and Matzdorf (1999) suggest that the model illustrated by Figure better reflects today’s diversity of relationships between ‘senior’ / ‘central’ management, the estates directorate and academic departments.
Figure : A model of evolving 'managerialism' in HE institutions
The two axes of the diagram relate to the degree of ‘top-down’ financial and performance management (managerialism), and the degree to which individual departments are seen as identifying with a larger institutional whole (connectivity). They suggest institutions should identify their position within this grid, before determining which space management approaches to adopt. Two of the collaborating institutions are managed as a ‘tight ship’ with the emphasis on planning for efficiency, two appear to take the ‘portfolio’ approach, one the federal approach and one functions in the traditional ‘collegiate’ manner.
The complex reporting line for the Estates Directorate, illustrated in Table , is typical of those operating in collegiate UK HEIs during the 1990s. Space management is just one of many areas covered by the Estates Directorate.
Table : University bodies and reporting structure for Estates Directorate
|
General role
|
Reports to
|
Council – statutory body
|
Management and control of university’s finances and property
|
Senate
(academic implications), HEFCE
|
UPRC- University Policy and Resources Committee
|
Review annual plan, plan development for academic needs, including buildings
|
Senate, Council
|
ESA - Estate Spending Authority – one of several spending authorities
|
Responsible for all services operated by Estates Directorate
|
Council, via UPRC
|
EPS - Estates Policy Subcommittee
|
Consultative role
|
|
Estates Directorate
|
Managing the estate
|
EPS, ESA, UPRC
|
In the universities interviewed, responsibility for the elements of space management sometimes lies with the Estates Department, but may also be distributed elsewhere, as shown in Table .
Table Responsibility for Space Management
|
Estates Dept.
|
Faculties
|
Academic Departments
|
Planning
Dept.
|
Registrar
|
Finance Dept.
|
Space data system & audit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Space allocation to:
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| -
central academic & student services
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timetable for:
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| -
departmental teaching space
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Utilisation surveys
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re-configuration
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Space charging
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In 2 of the collaborating universities central timetable responsibility functions well in the registrar’s department and in 3 it is included within Estates. However, in one university it has been moved from the Registrar’s department to Estates to ease communications. In one HEI a specialist unit, comprising seven people, deals with space planning and management.
Although the Estates Departments are gradually improving the effectiveness and efficiency of academic space use, locating control of space allocation for central administrative departments with the Registrar’s Department in three cases means that it is suspected of being haphazard and inefficient.
Share with your friends: |