the faculty of science f45718€¦ · faculty of science –agenda–17 april 2013 page 2 3....

The Faculty of Science F45718

Members

Dean (Chair) Winthrop Professor Tony O’Donnell

General Manager (Executive Officer) Mrs Christine Richardson

Staff in all schools, centres and Institutes funded by the Faculty and its Schools who hold appointments on a full‐time or 50 per cent or greater fractional basis

Circulated to staff via the [Staff‐science] email list

Heads of the Schools outside the Faculty that are involved in teaching courses offered by the Faculty, or their nominees;

TBC

At least four undergraduate students elected annually by and from the students enrolled in undergraduate courses offered by the Faculty;

TBC

Co‐opted members

By Invitation

The next meeting of the Faculty of Science will be held in the SIMMONDS LECTURE THEATRE GP3 on Wednesday, 17th April 2013 at 3.00pm.

Part I of the agenda contains items of communication to be dealt with en bloc. Part II contains items for decision to be dealt with en bloc. Part III contains items for discussion and decision. Members may request that an item be moved from one part to another.

Members are reminded that only those apologies received before or at the meeting will be recorded as such. Christine Richardson General Manager and Executive Officer

AGENDA

WELCOME

1. APOLOGIES

Only those apologies received before or at the meeting will be recorded as such.

Apologies recorded to date are:

Alison Hall; Andrew Rate; Christian Nansen; Crispin Stewart; Dale Roberts; David Lumley; Debra Judge; Etienne Laliberte; Gavin Pinniger; Heather Morton; James O’Shea; Jenny Gamble; John Hammond; Kara Yopak; Ken Flower; Laura Chaffey; Lisa Mayer; Lizzy O’Shea; Marit Kragt; Mark Boulton; Mark Spackman; Megan Ryan; Michael Renton; Nancy Longnecker; Neil Turner; Peta Clode; Peter Hartmann; Romina Palermo; Ron Swann; Stephen Hopper; Susan Barker; Susana Agusti; Thomas Martin; Veronica Huddleston; Zarin Salter; Zed Rengel

2. DECLARATIONS OF POTENTIAL OR PERCEIVED CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ‐ REF: F45718

Members are asked to indicate any potential or perceived conflicts of interest.

Faculty of Science –Agenda–17 April 2013

3. MINUTES (DECEMBER 2012) – REF: FACULTY OF SCIENCE F45718

Members are asked to confirm the Minutes of the Meeting of the Faculty of Science of 5 December 2012 as a true and correct record of that meeting. The minutes are attached (Attachment A) and are also available on the Faculty intranet at http://www.science.uwa.edu.au/staff/single‐science‐faculty.

4. ACTIONS IN PROGRESS

ITEM DUE DATE / RESPONSIBILITY

STATUS

Updating governance on website

Senate Legislative Committee

In progress with University Secretariat

Student membership of committees W/Prof Lyn Abbott Discussions held with Student groups

ITEMS FOR THE ATTENTION OF THE ACADEMIC SECRETARIAT: [NIL]

PART I: ITEMS FOR COMMUNICATION TO BE DEALT WITH EN BLOC

Nil

PART II: ITEMS FOR DECISION TO BE DEALT WITH EN BLOC

Nil

PART III: ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION

5. DEAN’S REPORT APRIL 2013

The Dean will report on the Faculty’s plans and activities under the following areas:

• University and Faculty Update. Staying in the Top 100

• Academic Standards in the Faculty of Science (see Attachment B)

• Faculty of Science Operational Priorities Plan 2013 –2017 (see Attachment C)

The Academic Standards document (Attachment A) outlines the minimum performance standards for academic staff in the Faculty and is designed to provide clear and unambiguous guidance on the expectations and minimum performance standards of staff across three key areas of research, teaching and leadership. It provides a framework that is clear and generally applicable to all academic staff in the Faculty of Science, with an expectation that it is then moderated by the line manager (Head of School, Director of Centre or Institute) recognising disciplinary differences.

The OPP 2013 – 2017 (Attachment B) has been developed in consulted with the Science Executive and fully recursive with the plans of the University for growth, innovation and change.

For noting

6. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

7. NEXT MEETING

The next meeting of this Committee is scheduled for Thursday 19 September 2013 at 3 pm.

The Faculty of Science F45718

MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD 5 DECEMBER 2012

PRESENT

W/Prof Tony O’Donnell (Chair), plus 71 staff (as per Attachment A to the Minutes)

1. APOLOGIES

Lynette Abbott, Lawrence Abraham, Tim Ackland, Charlie Bond, Stuart Bunt, Martin Barbetti, Cora Castens, Shaun Collin, Tim Colmer, Rose Elias, Martin Fey, Mary Gee, Ricarda Jost Gary Kendrick Sergei Kuzenko Hans Lambers Matthias Leopold Jean‐Michel Le Floch David Lumley, Murray Maybery Cam McCuaig, Matthew Nelson, Irek Malecki, Shane Maloney, John Milton, James O'Shea, Jane Prince, Andrew Rate, Kadambot Siddique, Bernadett Szegner, Danielle Warfe, Peter Whipp.

2. DECLARATIONS OF POTENTIAL OR PERCEIVED CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ‐ REF: F45718

No conflicts of interests were declared.

3. MINUTES (25 MAY 2012) – REF: FACULTY OF SCIENCE F45718

It was RESOLVED 1/2012

To confirm the Minutes of the joint Meeting of the Faculty of Life and Physical Sciences and the Faculty of Natural & Agricultural Science of 25 May 2012 and its attachments as a true and accurate record of that meeting.

4. ACTIONS IN PROGRESS

ITEM DUE DATE / RESPONSIBILITY

STATUS

Formation of the Faculty of Science Dean31 December 2012

Senate approved formation of the Faculty of Science in August 2012. Dean’s Report (Item 7) refers.

ITEMS FOR THE ATTENTION OF THE ACADEMIC SECRETARIAT: [6]

5. FORMATION OF THE FACULTY OF SCIENCE

Members were advised that following the joint meeting of the Faculty of Life and Physical Sciences and the Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences on 25 May 2012, the proposal to create the Faculty of Science with the committee structure agreed was referred to Academic Board in June and then Senate in August. Senate approved the formation of the Faculty of Science and its committee structure with an implementation date of no later than 31 December 2012. The extracts of Minutes from both those meetings were provided here for the information of members.

6. REVISIONS AND ADDITIONS TO FACULTY OF SCIENCE COMMITTEE STRUCTURE

Members were advised that the Science Executive Committee had been constituted from 1 September 2012 and had been meeting weekly in formal and informal sessions to implement the formation of the Faculty of Science, and provide advice to the Dean on matters around teaching and research priorities and resourcing implications. In those meetings, it had been agreed that the Dean and Deputy Dean would be supported by part time appointments of an Associate Dean Teaching & Learning and an Associate Dean Research. These appointments would commence in January 2013.

The Dean now proposed that these positions be added to the membership of appropriate Faculty of Science Committees.

Faculty of Science –Minutes–5 December 2012 Page 2

It was

RESOLVED 2/2012

To include Associate Dean Teaching and Learning and the Associate Dean Research as members of the Science Executive Committee

It was further

RESOLVED 3/2012

To include Associate Dean Teaching and Learning as a member of the Science Teaching and Learning Committee and as the Chair of the Student Staff Consultative Committee

It was further

RESOLVED 4/2012

To include the Associate Dean Research as a members of the Science Research Committee and as the Chair of the Science Postgraduate Advisory Committee.

The Dean also proposed that the Science Research Committee membership be modified by the deletion of the Faculty Development Officer from its membership.

It was further

RESOLVED 5/2012

To remove the Faculty Development Officer from membership of the Science Research Committee

The Dean also advised that following on from matters raised by the Student Guild about student representation at Academic Board, W/Professor Lyn Abbott had been consulting with student groups with regards their representation on Faculty of Science committees. The recommended changes to student representation would help ensure input from all schools and at year level.

It was

RESOLVED 6/2012

To amend the membership of the Student Staff Consultative Committee as follows:

Student Members:

up to 16 students elected by student organisations affiliated with the Science Faculty to include representation from all Schools

Up to 5 postgraduate students enrolled in postgraduate coursework units

The Dean recommended to members that the student membership of the Postgraduate Advisory Committee be more clearly defined as Postgraduate Research Student representatives.

It was

RESOLVED 7/2012

The student membership of the Postgraduate Advisory Committee will comprise the Postgraduate Research Student representatives in Schools and Centres in the Faculty of Science

The Dean also advised members that the Faculty of Science had not yet formally established its Board of Examiners, and recommended a constitution and membership to members.

It was

RESOLVED 8/2012

To create a Board of Examiners for the Faculty of Science as outlined in page 1`of Attachment C of the Agenda (and Attachment B to the Minutes)

Faculty of Science –Minutes–5 December 2012 Page 3

The Dean then proposed that the membership of the Faculty of Science be more inclusive than the standard requirements (as stated in Clause 4 of Statute 8) and recommended to the Faculty that it remove the membership requirement based on holding a 50% or greater fractional appointment. He reminded members that at previous meetings he had undertaken to make (full) Faculty as inclusive and as comprehensive as possible, and that it be involved in decision making. He also noted that the staff ineligible for membership under the current definition were more likely to be female and / or hold teaching intensive appointments.

Members raised issues ranging from the importance of enfranchising all staff; operating in ways that valued the principle of inclusivity through to some concern that such a change could skew voting.

It was

RESOLVED 9/2012

To amend the membership of the Faculty of Science to include:

(b) staff in all schools, centres and Institutes funded by the Faculty and its Schools who hold appointments on a full‐time or fractional basis other than those holding emeritus, visiting, adjunct, clinical or honorary appointments;

The Dean thanked members for their support.

7. DEAN’S REPORT FOR 2012

The Dean reported on the activities undertaken since the last meeting under the headings of:

University budgets and Faculty finances

Science Executive – and the work done in the past 6 months

Highlights for 2012 – in Education, Research and staff recognition

He invited questions and comments from members on either his report or other matters of concern. Points raised and responded to included:

The international students, impact of fees and visa conditions (Advice was provided about conditions set through the Knight Review)

Concerns that Schools were not being allowed to adjust elements of teaching for 2013 (Members were advised that the Deputy Dean and staff in the Science Student Office were dealing with this matter and expected a favourable outcome)

COMBIO 2013 would be held in Perth and provided an excellent opportunity for staff to network across a range of biological science disciplines.

His report is Attachment C to the Minutes.

8. NEXT MEETING

The next meeting of this Committee is scheduled for Thursday 18 April 2013 at 3 pm.

Signed Chair

Academic Standards -Faculty of Science April 2013

1. Introduction The mission for the Faculty of Science is to deliver excellent teaching and research that has a major impact on the challenges facing humanity. This mission is commensurate with our vision of being amongst the leading Science faculties nationally and internationally and can only be achieved if we attract and retain high performing staff across all areas of activity. This document outlines the minimum performance standards for academic staff in the Faculty and is designed to provide clear and unambiguous guidance on the expectations and minimum performance standards of staff across three key areas:

Research

Teaching

Leadership

2. Principles

It is expected that these academic standards will be used to:

a) Guide and support the career development of individual academic staff in the Faculty; b) Support the Faculty’s vision and mission; c) Inform Faculty policies for supporting research and teaching; and d) Contribute towards the financial sustainability of the Faculty.

Additionally, the Academic Standards seek to:

Provide fair assessment and evaluation, relative to opportunity, taking into account academic level, workload balance and appointment period

Encourage teamwork and a supportive culture in the Faculty and discourage internal competition

Support the career development of individuals by recognizing their respective strengths

Support the UWA PDR and PAR processes

Support UWA’s academic performance management processes

Provide clearly defined expectations for staff applying for promotions, tenure or sabbatical

Provide clearly defined and publicly available expectations to prospective staff

Be clearly aligned with University and Faculty goals of delivering excellence in research and in teaching and learning.

It is expected that all performance criteria will be regularly reviewed and adapted to the changing needs of the Faculty and the external environment. In addition, all performance expectations and targets are predicated on the assumption that all units in the Faculty operate a transparent and managed workload allocation process. This document provides a framework that is clear and generally applicable to all academic staff in the Faculty of Science, with an expectation that it is then moderated by the line manager (Head of School, Director of Centre or Institute) recognising disciplinary differences. It should also be read in the context of the University’s policies in these areas.

Academic Standards - Faculty of Science – April 2013

2

3. Research Performance The University has identified staff performance as an important management priority and has recently extended the existing Professional Development Review (PDR) and the Commencing PDR (CPDR) process to include a Performance Appraisal Review (PAR). The University requires Faculties to revise their definitions of research active, to introduce a set of KPIs against which research performance can be monitored and to make these KPIs available to all staff. The purpose is to provide a framework whereby Faculties, and individual staff, can assess performance relative to agreed, Faculty-wide criteria. KPIs can be fairly blunt management tools that sometimes fail to recognise that staff contribute quite differently to teaching, research and service in the University. In developing these KPIs it is recognised that those with direct line management responsibility for staff are best placed to assess individual staff performance; this includes Heads of School, Institute and Centre Directors and Research Group leaders. However, it is important that all staff in the Faculty achieve a minimum level of performance in our three key areas of Research, Teaching and Leadership. It is reasonable therefore to expect that there should be some differentiation in performance expectations for academic staff at each of the levels A to E. Research performance of individual staff will be monitored at the end of each calendar year as part of a Faculty wide analysis (the Faculty’s review of performance relative to its KPIs) and the reports passed to HoS/Institute/Centre Directors for subsequent action. In those cases where minimum standards have not been met, Heads and Director’s will be required to provide a report individual staff. These reports will be discussed with the Dean. Where failure to meet these minimum standards cannot be justified, Heads and Directors must arrange an immediate PAR to identify appropriate remedial action. Thus, failure to meet minimum standards or to show good cause as to why these minimum standards could not be met will constitute a ‘career trigger point’. Based on analysis of current performance it is expected that the majority of staff will perform above the Faculty’s minimum criteria and that Schools, Institutes and Centres should apply additional criteria depending on whether staff are teaching or research intensive. Research intensive staff are expected to have higher research income and produce more high quality outputs than teaching intensive staff whilst teaching intensive staff are expected to be at the forefront of pedagogical developments and to produce higher and more consistent SURF scores. Principles: In setting these benchmarks the University recognizes that what constitutes ‘research active’ at a particular grade (A to E) in one Faculty may be quite different from that in another Faculty and as such these KPIs should not be compared across Faculties. There is also a case for arguing that they are not readily comparable between disciplines and that some moderation internal to the Faculty might be necessary. It is also recognized that some schools operate their own, discipline specific work-load and performance models. Whilst it is not the intention at this time to replace these models, there is a need to establish a minimum set of standards and procedures at Faculty level that facilitate equitable comparisons across the Faculty. In this context it is expected that all staff:

have been made aware of their duties and the expectations of them by their Head of School or line manager

should demonstrate career proficiency and maturity commensurate with their position requirements and their experience

should be recognized for the contributions they do make and be encouraged and supported to improve their performance


3

Methodology: Research performance targets for 2013 are established against 4 criteria, research quality, research publications, research income and HDR supervision. The methodology recognizes that all academic staff are expected to contribute to research and research training and to teaching and recommends a set of indicators for each level A to E. Research performance has been set using the publications database compiled for the Excellence in Research Australia (ERA) 2012 exercise. This database has been fully audited by the University and, since the objective is to establish a set of benchmark data, is ideally suited to developing KPIs across levels A to E. The methodology recognizes that different staff contribute to the University in different ways and identifies 5 categories according to whether staff make their major contribution through research (Research:Teaching, 80:20) or through teaching (Research:Teaching, 20:80). The approach does not take into account service and administrative roles provided by staff and it is anticipated that these minimum performance measures can be moderated at PDR when individual staff will, in discussion with their line managers, identify where they sit on the scale between teaching and research intensive. The approach recognizes that for many staff the extent to which they are research or teaching intensive varies throughout their career and provides the Head of School or other line manager with the flexibility to manage staff expectations according to whether they are performing at the level agreed in their PDR. Thus, where staff identify themselves as research intensive (R:T, 80:20) but do not meet the Faculty minimum standards at their particular level , and where there are no issues of equality of opportunity, the Head of School can expect that these staff should assume other duties including a higher teaching load. Similarly, academic staff who are employed on teaching intensive positions (R:T, 20:80) should expect that their teaching loads would be decreased if they increase their research performance.

Minimum Quality Standards (Table 1)

Quality is a very difficult indicator to measure yet we all know what constitutes quality research. Although ARC has dispensed with the definition of outputs as category A*, A, B or C for ERA purposes the data indicates that staff at UWA are nonetheless aware of the key, high impact journals in their respective fields. As such UWA has continued to collect and report publications against the ERA 2010 categories. The advantage of using these categories is that they are transparent and as a performance indicator are relatively easy to implement. However, it is recognized that for some fields these categories do not always reflect the best journals. It is expected that in assessing performance relative to KPIs, line managers will be receptive to arguments about the need to consider other journals. Driving up the quality of outputs is a priority for the Faculty and it is likely that these measures will be revisited later in the year.

Research Outputs in the Science and Engineering Faculties (Table 1)

Table 1 shows that over the ERA period (2005-2010) the science and engineering faculties published around 60% (mean 58.7) of their C1 outputs in journals regarded as either A* or A. As a minimum quality expectation staff in the Faculty of Science are therefore expected to publish at least 60% of their outputs in C1 journals ranked either A or A*. This target is considered commensurate with our objective (OPP 2013-2017) of having no FoR 4 figure codes ranked below 4 by the next ERA exercise (date as yet undecided).

Faculty Total

Outputs

C1 Outputs

A*(%) A(%) B(%) C(%) A*+A (%)

FECM 2954 2012 29.5 34.8 25.2 10.5 64.3

FLPS 3530 3227 24 37.2 24.2 14.6 61.2

FNAS 3808 3322 17.5 41.5 26.5 14.5 59

MDHS 5062 4751 19 31.3 28.7 21 50.3


4

Research performance targets for 2013 have been established against 4 criteria, research quality, research publications, research income and HDR supervision. Research performance has been set using the publications database compiled for the Excellence in Research Australia (ERA) 2012 exercise. This database has been fully audited by the University and, since the objective is to establish a set of benchmark data, is ideally suited to developing KPIs across levels A to E.

Table 2 shows the variability in staff research performance as judged using C1 journal outputs (ERA 2012 data). The publication profile presents as a long-tail distribution. It is of concern that across all levels there are staff with limited publication outputs (range data). Staff can now check their individual position in the distribution using Socrates.

Median Outputs for Staff in the Faculty of Science (Table 2)

1. Refers to the number of C1 publications published between 2005 and 2010 (6 years)

2. Publication targets are not measured pro-rata (where points are divided by the number of UWA co-authors)

This analysis of recent performance has been used, recognizing the need to increase the both the quality and quantity of our research outputs, to determine the minimum research outputs required of staff in the Faculty of Science. The targets recognize that all staff should, unless wholly funded on external funding, contribute to research. The targets also recognize the fact that many externally funded Fellowships allow for some contribution to teaching.

Minimum Expected Research Outputs for Staff in the Faculty of Science (Table 3)

1. Publication targets are annualized and are not measured pro-rata (where outputs are divided by the number of UWA co-authors)

2. Quality maintained by expecting that at least 60% of these outputs should be published in the equivalent of A*/A journals

Research Income (Table 3)

It is no longer feasible that individual research programmes can be funded from recurrent income through the FFM. This means that research needs to be supported using external funding. It is appropriate therefore, that our minimum standards for research active include an expectation that all research active staff should be able to secure external funding. In addition, it is important that these

Appointment Staff Nos. Distribution1

Range Median

LVLA 158 50 – 1 5

LVLB 154 25 – 1 7

LVLC 128 92 – 1 13

LVLD 66 288 – 1 19

LVLE 73 116 - 0 38

Appointment Ratio of Research to Teaching

20:80 40:60 50:50 60:40 80:20

LVLA - 1 1 2 3

LVLB - 1 1 2 3

LVLC 1 2 2 3 4

LVLD 1 2 3 4 5

LVLE 2 3 4 6 8


5

staff demonstrate the capacity to secure external funding from national competitive grant sources. Table 3 provides guidance on minimum research income for staff in the Faculty of Science. It is recognized that disciplinary differences may exist, so Heads of Schools / Directors of Centres and Institutes are encouraged to use judgment to moderate the use of Table 3.

Minimum Expected Research Income for Staff in the Faculty of Science (Table 4)

1. Income targets (AUD$k) are annualized over a 3 year period and are not measured pro-rata (where outputs are divided by the number of UWA co-authors

Research students (Research Masters and PhD, Table 4)

Higher degree by research students (HDR) are considered integral to our vision of national and international excellence and are critical for financial sustainability and for maintaining our market position internationally. Given the importance of HDR students to our overall research performance it is expected that all staff should engage in postgraduate research supervision. Thus, targets for the different levels are being introduced as part of the minimum standards of research performance. The Faculty OPP has set an overall target over the planning period of 2 PhD students per research active staff member. Recently introduced changes to supervisory practices (April 2012) have made co-supervision mandatory. They have also made it easier for early career researchers to be named PhD supervisors. Both of these measures are likely to impact on the distribution of supervision between levels and the minimum standards for research supervision may need to be adjusted (up) at a later date.

Faculty of Science Minimum Targets for HDR supervision (Table 5)

1 HDR targets are not measured pro-rata where supervision divided by the number of UWA co-supervisors.

4. Teaching Performance

The Faculty has identified the UWA Teaching Criteria Framework (TCF) as providing a best fit to meet the Faculty’s vision and needs in regard to Academic Standards for teaching performance. The Framework, with the accompanying Core Knowledge and Professional Values, provides strong guidance for staff, particularly in the context of the overarching Minimum Standards for Academic Levels (MSALs).


20:80 40:60 50:50 60:40 80:20

LVLA 10 10 20 30 50

LVLB 20 20 50 80 100

LVLC 40 50 80 100 150

LVLD 60 80 100 150 200

LVLE 100 120 150 200 300


20:80 40:60 50:50 60:40 80:20

LVLA - - 1 1 1

LVLB - 1 1 2 2

LVLC 1 2 2 3 3

LVLD 2 3 4 4 6

LVLE 3 4 4 6 8


6

The Framework consists of six areas of activity, six areas of knowledge and six professional values. The intention is that staff collect evidence of practice in the six areas of activity. However, the evidence presented should demonstrate an understanding of the core knowledge and commitment to the professional values. The areas of activity are as follows:

Design and planning of learning activities and/or programmes of study

Teaching and supporting student learning

Assessment and giving feedback to learners

Developing effective environments and student support and guidance

Integration of scholarship, research and professional activities with teaching and supporting learning

Evaluation of practice and continuing professional development

For each area of activity, examples of sources of evidence and types of evidence are provided.

It is proposed that of the various sets of criteria in the areas of activity be further clarified (or augmented) in the context of the Faculty needs for ensuring the quality of its educational programmes. This should also indicate expected levels of achievement (which will need to be reviewed and refined) and the types of evidence expected.

The TCF Standard Descriptors

Lecturer (Level A)

A Lecturer develops an understanding of the student learning experience through contributions to teaching which include implementation of effective teaching practices, a commitment to improvement and innovation in response to feedback, and the provision of support for students in the learning context.

Assistant Professor (Level B)

An Assistant Professor demonstrates an understanding of the student learning experience through a commitment to high quality effective teaching practice, including the ability to incorporate research, scholarship and/or professional practice into teaching activities, and a commitment to improvement and innovation in response to feedback.

Associate Professor (Level C)

An Associate Professor demonstrates an understanding of the student learning experience through high quality effective teaching practice, including the incorporation of research, scholarship and/or professional practice into teaching activities. An Associate Professor promotes and supports student learning through mentoring and leadership roles (formal or informal), including a commitment to the development of learning and teaching communities, and ongoing improvement and innovation in response to feedback both personally and across the discipline.

Professor (Level D)

A Professor supports and promotes student learning through a significant contribution in a leadership role, including a demonstrated contribution to the development of learning and teaching communities, within both the university and more widely, and a significant role in peer review and mentoring. A Professor demonstrates an original contribution to the advancement of teaching and learning in the discipline and/or university community, including the incorporation of research, scholarship and/or professional practice into teaching activities.


7

Winthrop Professor (Level E) / Professorial Fellow (Teaching and Learning)

A Winthrop Professor or Professorial Fellow (Teaching and Learning) supports and promotes student learning through an outstanding contribution in a leadership role, including a demonstrated contribution to the development of learning and teaching communities, within both the university and more widely, and in peer review and mentoring. A Winthrop Professor or Professorial Fellow (Teaching and Learning) demonstrates distinguished, original and innovative contributions to the advancement of teaching and learning in the discipline and/or university community, including the incorporation of research, scholarship and/or professional practice into teaching activities

5. Impacts of Minimum Standards on New Appointments and Probation

Introduction of minimum research performance standards for all staff will impact on the recruitment and probationary progress of new appointments. The Science OPP makes clear that the Faculty will enforce the policy of only appointing staff to T&R contracts who have the capacity ‘to compete nationally and internationally for research funding’. As such any appointment to a T&R contract must satisfy as a minimum, and at the time of appointment, the definition of research active at the advertised grade. Furthermore, since new appointments are a particularly effective means of increasing our overall performance it is expected that all new appointments must sit above the median score 1(5, 7, 13, 19 and 38 career C1 outputs for levels A to E respectively) for their grade at the time of their appointment. As an example, we should not be appointing staff to level D positions with fewer than 19 C1 outputs in the 5 years prior to their appointment (Table 2). Where staff have fewer publications because of the time since their PhD or other extenuating circumstances, data on citations and journal impact should be taken into account when considering whether an individual appointment will shorten or lengthen the tail of our C1 output distribution.

Adopting these minimum standards will mean that staff on probation or on Fellowships and expecting to move to an on-going appointment should have automatically met the publication requirements of their appointed grade. However, new staff may find it difficult to demonstrate during the probationary period that they can secure external research income or to supervise PhD students. Thus, new appointments unable to match the minimum requirements in research (and teaching) within their probationary period will be judged not to have a ‘prima facie case’ for transfer to an on-going contract and will therefore be required to demonstrate, through PAR, that they have the potential to strengthen both the Faculty’s research and teaching.

Where this is the case staff on probation should be able to demonstrate the following:

1. Research outputs during their probationary period equivalent to the Faculty’s minimum standards per annum (of their probationary period)

2. Submission of one competitive grant (as Chief Investigator) valued at over $150k over the 3 year probationary period. To show competitiveness against this indicator it is expected that even where not awarded the application is judged to sit amongst the top 30 % of submissions. Other indicators that may be employed include the number and nature of applications and feedback from the panels.

3. All new appointments should expect to supervise a minimum of 1 PhD student and at the time of their performance review should be supervising a minimum of 2 PhD students. Although advisable, we will not insist that probationary staff agree to supervise an HDR student during the first year of their appointment.

4. As with all other staff, probationary candidates must be able to demonstrate competency in

1 Refer to Table 2


8

teaching by the time of their review. Competency will be judged from student feedback with probationary appointments achieving at least the Faculty CEQ average score for Q6 (Overall satisfaction)

This 'policy' should be read alongside the UWA policy on academic tenure. For completeness the latter is reproduced below.

POLICY AND PROCEDURES – ACADEMIC TENURE 1. TENURE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Tenure is earned as an outcome of satisfactory job performance. To be eligible for Tenure, as a general rule, the staff member needs to obtain a Tenurable appointment. Tenurable appointments are subject to review annually (i.e. on probationary period). Periods for tenurable appointments are as follows: • Level A Academics – 5 years. This period may be extended in exceptional circumstances • Level B Academics – 3 years. This period may be extended by two periods of one year each (or

further in exceptional circumstances) or shortened. • Level C, D, E Academics – up to 3 years. This period may be extended by two periods of one year each

(or further in exceptional circumstances) or shortened If a tenurable staff member is successful in attaining a promotion before the expiry of the review (probationary) period, tenure will automatically be granted from the date of promotion. Exceptions: If a fixed term staff member is successful in attaining a promotion before the expiry of the review period or before the end of the appointment, the new appointment may be converted to tenured, subject to the recommendation of the Head of School, through the Dean, to the Vice-Chancellor. Regard will need to be had for the reason for a staff member being on a fixed term contract (e.g. external funding) and could result in a position not being eligible for tenure/tenurable track status. This does not affect the academic staff member's application for promotion. A staff member who has held fixed-term appointments who obtains a tenurable appointment will normally be required to go through the review period for tenurable appointments, even where a period of probation has been completed on a fixed-term contract. On the recommendation of the Head of School and Dean the review period may be shortened. http://www.hr.uwa.edu.au/policy/toc/tenure_of_academic_staff/policy_and_procedures_for_academic_te

nure

6. Leadership Performance

Leadership is a core value of the Faculty of Science and central to our ability to be successful and deliver on our mission. The UWA Leadership Framework and Code of Conduct define the leadership capabilities required of leaders and provide clarity with regard to behavioural expectations. There are five Leadership capabilities and behaviours. In some cases there are different expectations dependent on level of appointment.

1. Shaping/supporting strategic thinking

Level A academic staff are expected to:

work closely with their supervisors to develop research and teaching plans;

help in setting directions for HDR student projects, including helping to identify measures that will show success.

Level B academic staff are expected to:

work with advice from senior academics, to develop research and teaching plans;

with advice from senior academics to set directions for HDR student projects, including identifying measures that will show success;

http://www.hr.uwa.edu.au/policy/toc/tenure_of_academic_staff/policy_and_procedures_for_academic_tenure

http://www.hr.uwa.edu.au/policy/toc/tenure_of_academic_staff/policy_and_procedures_for_academic_tenure


9

be actively involved in Faculty and School activities that set strategies, including FASE and appropriate Faculty Research Themes;

with advice from senior academics, mentor Level A academics and HDR students to manage projects.

Level C academic staff are expected to:

independently develop research projects and teaching directions that are compatible within the areas of focus for the School and Faculty;

actively participate in core School management committees, including Teaching and Learning and Research Committees, to set and review the strategic directions for the School;

take leadership in specific areas and projects related to operations in a School/Centre/ Research Group, such as in safety, outreach, and publicity;

mentor Level A and B academics and HDR students to manage projects, develop their career goals and develop their teaching and research.

Level D academic staff are expected to:

operate at a level that identifies and fosters synergies in activities between groups within the School/Centre, Faculty and University;

collaborate with Level A, B and C staff, identify opportunities for these people and expand their interactions in teaching and research outside of their current associations;

undertake and lead development of staff, including PDR and PAR;

be involved at senior levels of committees as chairs and deputy chairs of the Research and Teaching and Learning Committees of Schools, including taking on roles as Research Theme Leaders, leadership in FASE and active membership of key University committees;

be actively involved in leadership to set and review strategic goals within the School/Centre and Faculty;

lead in the implementation of the strategic goals of the School and Faculty;

take on the Head of School role when needed.

Level E academic staff are expected to:

take on significant leadership roles in both teaching and research, thereby helping to develop strategic directions at a School and Faculty level;

take on significant mentoring roles for all staff, including staff outside of their immediate research focus;

undertake and lead development of staff, including PDR and PAR;

be actively engaged at a University, national and international level in understanding and setting strategies around teaching and research;

be engaged with and leading core committees within the School, Faculty and University that set and review major policies.

work with other academics to identify, develop and realise major opportunities for research, teaching and community engagement;

lead in the implementation of the strategic goals of Schools and Faculty;

take on the Head of School role when needed.

2. Communicating with influence and respect

All academic staff are expected to:

participate and actively contribute in committees and meetings;

be respectful of other people’s views;

actively consider issues from others’ perspectives before responding;

appropriately challenge policies and strategies that are not working;


10

actively seek feedback on how their colleagues and students perceive them;

3. Exemplifying personal drive and integrity


contribute productively to the University, Faculty and School in a range of areas;

operate from an ethical base that demonstrates integrity;

be transparent, accountable and honest in their actions;

understand that that they work for the University, Faculty and School, and are part of a broad community that is striving to achieve the vision of the University, Faculty and School.

4. Achieving results


perform to the best of their ability;

set personal performance goals that stretch and continue to enhance quality in research and teaching;

meet or exceed all aspects of these guidelines for performance expectations.

5. Cultivates/supports productive working relationships


understand and work within the University’s code of ethics and conduct;

be respectful of others in all activities.

Mentoring and Professional Development

In addition to the above leadership capabilities, all academic staff in the Faculty of Science are expected to participate in mentoring and professional development activities relative to their level:

Level A academic staff are expected to:

actively seek mentoring and participate in mentoring activities related to teaching, research and career development.

Level B academic staff are expected to:

actively seek mentoring and participate in mentoring activities related to teaching, research and career development;

participate in activities and professional development that build skills in effective communication and leadership.

Level C academic staff are expected to:

actively seek mentoring and participate in mentoring activities related to teaching, research and career development;

participate in activities and professional development that build skills in effective communication, leadership and team building;

actively seek opportunities to be part of mentoring teams with Level A and B staff;

Level D and E academic staff are expected to:

participate in activities and professional development that build skills in leadership, team building and management;

actively seek opportunities to be part of mentoring teams with Level A, B and C staff;

actively seek opportunities to help staff build their networks, both inside and outside the University;

actively seek opportunities to build relationships with government, industry and leading academic institutions for the benefit of the University.

Faculty of Science

Operational Priorities Plan for 2013-2017

Version 0.5

Document History

Version Comment

0.1 Tony O’Donnell first draft April 15th 2012

0.2 Tony O’Donnell, revised following feedback 20th May 2012

0.3 Tony O’Donnell, revised following feedback and establishment of single Faculty January 2013

0.4 Christine Richardson, general comments; reviewed against Science Executive Planning Day Nov 2012 outcomes; UWA Futures document: Dean’s response to UWA Futures document; Dean’s draft internationalisation document; VC’s video address to staff 30-01-2013;

0.5 Tony O’Donnell revised after feedback April 10th 2013

10 April 2013

The University of Western Australia Faculty of Science Operational Priorities Plan for 2013-2017

Faculty of Science Operational Priorities Plan 2013-2017 Contents

Contents

1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1

2. Context ................................................................................................................................................ 1

2.1. The Selective Nature of the OPP .............................................................................................. 1

3. Structure .............................................................................................................................................. 1

3.1. Priority Objectives: Strategic and Operational Objectives ........................................................ 2

3.2. Overall and Operational Responsibility ..................................................................................... 2

3.3. Performance Indicators and Relationship to Strategic Plan ..................................................... 2

3.4. Implementation Strategies ........................................................................................................ 2

3.5. Implementation Schedules ........................................................................................................ 2

4. Education............................................................................................................................................. 3

5. Research and Research Training ....................................................................................................... 6

6. External Relations and Community Engagement ............................................................................... 8

7. People and Resources ......................................................................................................................10

The University of Western Australia Faculty of Science Operational Priorities Plan for 2013-2017

Faculty of Science Operational Priorities Plan 2013-2017 Page 1

1. Introduction

The Faculty of Science (FoS) evolved over a period of 2 years by bringing together staff from the Faculty of Life and Physical Sciences and the Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences. Over this period the Faculties operated separately under the day to day management of two Vice Deans who reported directly to the Dean. In February 2012, the Vice Chancellor asked that the two Faculties be combined and that the operational management of the Faculty should be brought under one governance structure reporting to the Senior Deputy Vice Chancellor through the Dean. UWA Senate approved establishment of the Faculty of Science in September 2012 with an expectation that the new Faculty would be operational by the 1st of January 2013. This plan is the first Operational Priorities Plan (OPP) of the new Faculty and is designed to progress the Faculty’s vision to be recognised nationally and internationally for innovation and excellence in research, teaching and outreach. As such the plan is wholly recursive with the University’s ambitions as a top 100 research University and its longer term vision of being recognised as one of the world’s top 50 universities by 2050.

2. Context

This OPP (2013-2017) comes at a time of significant change for both the University and the Faculty. It also comes at a time when the University and the tertiary education sector generally are facing significant budgetary challenges. It is essential, therefore, that the transition to the new Faculty is done with minimum disruption to the Schools and that existing functions in teaching (the quality of the student experience) and research (grants, publications and ERA performance) are not adversely affected. By clarifying targets and explicitly recognising that individual staff performance and performance management through KPIs are integral to how the Faculty will administer and allocate resources, this OPP provides the strategic blueprint for the evolution and development of the Faculty over the next 4 years. The incorporation of performance review into the Faculty OPP recognises recent moves by the University to extend the existing Professional Development Review (PDR) and the Commencing PDR (CPDR) to include a Performance Appraisal Review (PAR). The latter provides a summative assessment of individual performance against external standards and will be used by the Faculty to inform decisions on staffing levels, probation, sabbatical leave, accelerated salary progression, contract renewals and ‘other career trigger points’. Details of the framework for assessing performance across academic levels are provided in Appendix 1.

2.1. The Selective Nature of the OPP

This OPP identifies the strategic objectives that are considered to be of the highest priority for the Faculty for the duration of the Plan. The OPP is, by necessity, selective. While this first OPP of the Science Faculty identifies selected strategic and operational objectives of high priority, it is recognised that there are other key objectives that will also be actively pursued by the Faculty. Omission from this document does not invalidate these other objectives.

3. Structure

The OPP is organised into the following four sections:

• Education

• Research and Research Training

• External Relations and Community Engagement

• People and Resources

This structure is based on the University’s OPP structure so it is clear how the Faculty objectives align with those of the University.

Each of the sections comprises a strategic objective with associated operational objectives and performance indicators, implementation strategies and, overall responsibility. The Faculty’s key targets and how these will be measured over the next 4 years in terms of Financial Sustainability,

The University of Western Australia 14 April 2013

3.1. Priority Objectives: Strategic and Operational Objectives

An over-arching strategic objective, couched in broad terms, is specified for each section. Several operational objectives are specified for each strategic objective, giving a more specific operational focus to the over-arching strategic priority, while the associated performance indicators and strategies provide more detail on what is to be achieved and how it might be done.

3.2. Overall and Operational Responsibility

Individuals who have the overall responsibility for achieving a strategic objective are listed under the strategic objective. However, while the overall responsibility is identified, it is clear that the overall achievement of objectives depends on the collective efforts of the Faculty’s staff and others. Key staff members with responsibility for each operational objective are listed in the Implementation Schedule where relevant.

3.3. Performance Indicators and Relationship to Strategic Plan

The performance indicators specified in the OPP have been designed to facilitate objective measurement of aspects of progress towards each strategic objective. These indicators are necessarily selective, in the sense that they have been chosen from a large set of possible indicators mainly because they give a better indication of the overall progress towards the OPP objectives than other indicators.

It should nonetheless be noted that it is not possible to attempt to objectively measure all aspects of the Faculty’s performance relevant to achieving objectives. Assessment of the Faculty’s performance using the performance indicators specified in the OPP will be supplemented by qualitative/subjective judgement of performance in other areas that are either not amenable to quantitative assessment or for which data are currently not available. Where practical, steps will be taken to collect additional relevant data (see section 3.4).

3.4. Implementation Strategies

The implementation strategies outline the means of achieving each of the desired outcomes. While every effort has been made to make the listed implementation strategies fairly comprehensive, the list is not necessarily exhaustive. To allow for more effective monitoring of how the OPP is supporting both the Faculty and the University’s strategic objectives in terms of financial sustainability, student profile and market position, teaching quality and the student learning experience, research, facilities and infrastructure and staffing, a specific and quantifiable set of KPIs will be identified (due 3rd quarter 2013). These KPIs will enable our current performance to be benchmarked relative to the rest of the University and to other Go8 Science Faculties. These benchmarks will allow us to evaluate progress in realising the Faculty’s vision to be recognised nationally and internationally for innovation and excellence in research, teaching and outreach and the University’s longer-term vision of being recognised as one of the world’s top 50 Universities by 2050.

3.5. Implementation Schedules

A separate OPP Implementation Schedule will be prepared (due 3rd quarter 2013) to show specific responsibilities, actions, resources and timelines for achieving different operational aspects of each strategy. This schedule will provide details of current and proposed projects for the duration of the OPP. Importantly, the Science Executive will review this schedule at 6 monthly intervals throughout the year and priorities changed as required.


4. Education

The overarching educational imperative for the Faculty is to attract high quality students and to provide the appropriate environment for them to develop the knowledge and skills necessary for a career in science. The Faculty will adopt innovative approaches to teaching and learning that safeguard teaching standards and maintain high student satisfaction at both undergraduate (cycle 1) and postgraduate (cycle 2) levels. Ensuring successful implementation and student progression through the new course structures (NC2012) will remain a significant challenge for the Faculty. Some refinement of the majors is needed in order to provide an integrated set of undergraduate and postgraduate programmes capable of attracting students in sufficient numbers to make their delivery both viable and efficient. Majors and units are being designed to make the best use of new delivery methods and will address issues around assessment. The latter will include standardised assessment loads for each major and the timeliness and effectiveness of feedback to the students. This should help ensure quality and maintain student assessment scores. A key sustainability driver for the Faculty is to increase the number and diversity of postgraduate students (MSc) where a strong coursework teaching base is vital in providing the Faculty and Schools with the financial stability needed to manage budgets and to support research. It is expected that adopting different teaching practices, making use of new technologies and more efficient sharing of teaching between schools will mean that for most Schools, EFTSLs can be increased without a corresponding increase in teaching costs. This means that the costs per unit will be maintained or reduced. However, the Faculty also recognises that increases in teaching loads cannot be open ended and need to be managed within the context of available resources (including staffing and accommodation). It is also critically important to the University, that the Faculty of Science continues to perform at the highest standards of international research excellence. For this reason the Faculty is working to an grow its undergraduate student load to a maximum of 5000 over the period of this OPP. Growth targets have been adjusted to accommodate these projections.

For the years 2013-2017 priority attention will be given to: Strategic Objective: To improve the quality of the student learning experience Responsibility: Deputy Dean and Associate Dean (Education) Performance Indicators:

Improved access and participation in science by designated equity groups

Progression rates from level 1 to level 2 units in majors offered by the Faculty

Increase in the number of undergraduate and postgraduate EFTSL

Student satisfaction scores (CEQ and SURF)

Reduction in attrition rates between levels 1 and 2 and between 2 and 3 in key units

Improved student performance in selected units across all levels (GPA, WAM)

Enrolments into second and third cycle study

Time between receipt and feedback to students on assessment

Graduate attributes (generic skills (CEQ), employment outcomes and full time study (GDS)

Increase in the numbers of full fee-paying undergraduate and postgraduate EFTSL


Operational Objective

ED1: To recruit and graduate a diverse student cohort of the highest quality

Implementation Strategies

ED1.1 Work with University programmes operating in the areas of diversity, equity and access to attract students with different backgrounds into our courses (to include better recruitment of indigenous students and more students entering through the MAP programme).

ED1.2 Deliver an active Faculty outreach programme that complements our teaching and promotes the Faculty in the community. Outreach should promote widening participation of country and metropolitan high schools through Aspire UWA.

ED1.3 To deliver a comprehensive Master of Science degree that makes full use of the expertise in the faculty and that meets the needs of prospective students nationally and internationally


ED2: Ensure the successful implementation of the NC2012 course changes


ED2.1 Develop clear progression and transition systems for students moving from cycle 1 to cycle 2

ED2.2 Continue to manage curriculum developments at a Faculty level through the Science Faculty Office with leadership and implementation through the Faculty Executive under the leadership of the Deputy Dean who has overall responsibility for the Education portfolio including ensuring that it is of international standard and that any online materials are of high quality

ED2.3 Press the University to provide the physical infrastructure needed to enable efficient operation of NC2012

ED2.4 Strategic allocation of resources to develop and embed NC2012 structures across all 3 years in cycle 1


ED3: To enhance the quality of the student learning experience


ED3.1 Establish both a qualitative and quantitative monitoring of student experiences with NC2012 for both undergraduate and postgraduate students

ED3.2 Ensure that all teaching staff are properly trained and have sufficient resources to deliver high quality teaching

ED3.3 Benchmark student satisfaction with individual units at both the undergraduate and postgraduate levels.

ED3.4 Use SURF and intervene where student satisfaction scores fall below 3.0 (levels 1 and 2) or 3.5 (level 3).

ED3.5 ‘Teach Smart’ especially at levels 1 and 2 and not just with small classes at level 3. Identify whether there is a need for school specific initiatives where changes in how students are taught are needed urgently or where technology uptake is resisted

ED3.6 Establish working groups to explore the opportunities for sharing and developing alternative teaching strategies and identify existing teaching innovations internationally (conferences, web) and locally and adapt to satisfy our needs. Review our assessment procedures including the need for and extent of assessment and the provision of more timely, better quality feedback



ED4: To achieve sustainable and effective teaching


ED4.1 Build teams with appropriate expertise to develop and market our level 4 and 5 courses

ED4.2 Reduce teaching costs, including where appropriate, staff time spent on teaching

ED4.3 Develop our first year academic and non-academic programmes to ensure that we retain students moving between levels (Level 1 and 2 in particular but also from Level 3)

ED4.4 Attract more undergraduates into our low demand Science majors

ED4.5 Identify new opportunities for recruitment particularly of overseas students or those in full-time employment needing to study part-time

ED4.6 Expose the BSc students and those taking broadening units to the breadth of science and the advantages of a scientific training


5. Research and Research Training

At the end of 2012 the combined research income of the Faculty of Life and Physical Sciences and the Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Science was $82M. This accounted for over 40% of the University’s total research income. The Faculty also supports the highest percentage of HDR students and at over 45% is twice that of any other Faculty at UWA. Despite the large numbers of HDR students the faculty enjoys high student satisfaction scores (85-90%) as assessed using OSCAR (On Supervision, Candidature and Research).

For the years 2013-2017 priority attention will be given to:

Strategic Objective: To improve the quality, impact, and productivity of research and research training

Executive Responsibility: Dean and Associate Dean (Research) Performance Indicators:

Excellence in Research Australia (ERA) where no units in the Faculty are ranked below 4

Faculty’s annualised research income to be maintained above $75 Million

Average number of PhD students (weighted to take into account shared supervision) of 2-3 per academic staff member

OSCAR satisfaction scores for research supervision maintained at 85-90%


RRT1: To increase the quantity and quality of research outputs


RRT1.1 Staff to publish in the highest regarded journals (according to Scopus). For most research areas this will be in the equivalent of A and A* journals (60% of an individuals publications)

RRT1.2 Set clear delivery targets (KPIs) for outputs for individuals (Appendix 1). Output targets moderated by level and according to agreed splits between time spent on research and teaching

RRT1.3 Introduce a Faculty definition of research active and clarify with the University the implications for T&R staff who are not deemed research active

RRT1.4 Liaise with the University to provide the infrastructure needed to support internationally excellent research

RRT1.5 Focus researcher training efforts on ECRs to ensure that they start well and continue in line with our expectations of them

RRT1.6 Resource links and initiatives that build reputation and collaboration nationally (eastern States) and internationally

RRT1.7 All new (T&R) appointments to meet with the Dean and the Head of School to establish individual expectations at induction

RRT1.8 Maintain the quality of postgraduate research supervision by fully implementing the GRS requirements for mandatory supervisory teams and by monitoring performance using OSCAR

RRT1.9 Work with the DVCR and the UWA Research Institute Directors to ensure that engagement is mutually beneficial and adds value to the Faculty and the University



RRT2: To sustain faculty research income at $75 million


RRT2.1 Enforce the policy of only appointing staff to T&R contracts who have the potential to secure external funding and to compete nationally and internationally for research funding

RRT2.2 Develop and implement a managed strategy for increasing collaboration nationally and internationally

RRT2.3 Incorporate a measure of research income into the Faculty definition of research active (Appendix 1)

RRT2.4 Develop or enhance cross – School collaborations – in areas including brain & behaviour; health & wellness; environment (including biodiversity); computational science; and agriculture


RRT3: To increase the number of PhD students (weighted to take into account shared supervision) to 2 per research active member of staff


RRT3.1 Explore the possibilities and need for a Graduate School and Graduate Programmes in Science

RRT3.2 Press the University to review how it funds PhD students and how it supports international PhD students through scholarships

RRT3.3 Attract the very best students from across the world to study Science at UWA

RRT3.4 Change how we teach and what we teach (UG) to ensure staff have time for research

RRT3.5 Develop the role of the Faculty’s external relations team to help increase the numbers of international HDR students paying full fees

RRT3.6 Develop as a matter of priority the Masters route to PhD

RRT3.7 Explore ways to co-fund PhD students and to provide research costs

RRT3.8 Explore ways to encourage Schools to engage internationally

RRT3.9 Minimize administrative burdens on staff to supervise PhD students

RRT3.10 Use our students to help publicize our research and to engage them better in the Faculty

RRT3.11 Further develop graduate studies and encourage collaboration between the Graduate Research Coordinators in Science to enhance growth and to achieve focus and greater visibility for both our programmes and our students


6. External Relations and Community Engagement

The Faculty carries out research and teaching of global significance. A key part of the Faculty’s strategic plan over the period 2013 to 2017 will be to internationalise and socialise the Faculty’s strengths in Research and Teaching. The importance of engagement with our local community remains a key priority and will be resourced and supported at a level necessary to optimise the benefits to the Faculty and the community. This is expected to mean that some of the Faculty’s existing commitments will be reviewed, possibly wound down or replaced with new, targeted activities.


Strategic Objective: To improve the University’s positioning and reputation, and to develop strategic relationships and community engagement.

Executive Responsibility: Dean, Deputy Dean and Associate Dean International Performance Indicators:

Improved external profile and high quality MoUs with leading universities worldwide

More external collaborations, more applications from visitors to work at UWA

Conversion of visitors/exchanges into people who come back with funded collaborations

Better and more effective engagement with local Science teachers and their Schools

Increased coverage of the Faculty in regional, national and international media


ERCE1: To ensure that UWA is positioned correctly as a high quality, research intensive university both nationally and internationally


ERCE1.1 Work with Public Affairs and with the DVCR to promote the Faculty’s unique strengths to industry and government (regional, national and international)

ERCE1.2 Develop the role of the Faculty’s external relations team and how it complements and enhances the University’s International Office (and the new PVCI) to promote the Faculty’s research and teaching activities overseas and strengthen international research linkages

ERCE1.3 A revised and revitalised website that reflects the Faculty’s ambitions of top in Australia and amongst the top internationally.

ERCE1.4 Establish an internationalisation working group to drive Science activities

ERCE1.5 Identify and market the research and expertise that differentiates the Faculty from other Faculties of Science in Australia and where possible internationally and create an international marketing plan to attract and retain high quality international undergraduate and postgraduate students

ERCE1.6 Develop and manage the relationship between UWA foundation partners and UWA Science

ERCE1.7 Encourage international collaborators to UWA and ensure that their visits are rewarding and productive

ERCE1.8 Develop a comprehensive marketing plan that clearly identifies target countries and opportunities



ERCE2: To increase our engagement with the WA Regional Development agenda


ERCE2.1 Develop a list of ‘specialists’ able and willing to provide commentary and advice to politicians and legislators

ERCE2.2 Ensure that the Faculty has clear entry points for information about its regional activities

ERCE2.3 Develop a web presence that specifically addresses and promotes our regional activities

ERCE2.4 Publicise our work to politicians, local people and students in the press and through outreach activities

ERCE2.5 Support staff involvement with local industry and government bodies by encouraging them to sit on advisory boards and stakeholder groups


ERCE3: To increase the Faculty’s engagement with its alumni and friends


ERCE3.1 Clarify and where necessary redefine the role and expectations of Faculty Development Officers

ERCE3.2 Work closely with the Office of Development to raise awareness and funding in areas of priority for the Faculty

ERCE3.3 Support Centenary activities in 2013


7. People and Resources

The University is committed to a policy of ‘one UWA’. The Faculty should reflect this vision and, as discussed during the formation of the new Faculty, needs to work to establish the ‘successful evolution of a new structure’. This new structure needs to ‘enhance our effectiveness’ and in doing so enhance the reputation of the University nationally and internationally. If the new Faculty is to work effectively and if staff are to see us as one Faculty then co-location of the Faculty Office is considered essential. A single Faculty office will allow the Faculty’s management team to operate more efficiently and in doing so will streamline decision-making processes. Our strategies around people and resources are designed to develop synergies, collaboration, consistency, learning exchange and to increase the influence of the Sciences nationally and internationally. The Faculty is operating in an increasingly complex funding environment in which we will need to reassess how and what we fund in both teaching and research. It is also reasonable to expect that our operating funds and how we allocate and spend resources will come under greater scrutiny by the University and by external agencies. Furthermore, we have had a clear indication from the University of the need to examine costs and to ensure that the return on investment in people and infrastructure is optimal and delivers research and teaching of the highest quality. This will be increasingly challenging within the current funding structure and is likely to require a change in emphasis, possibly with greater selectivity in what and how we teach. We also need to be cognoscente of the increasing politicization of our research funding environment. Thus, a key focus over the period 2013-2017 will be to ensure that the Faculty has the right structures and teams of people to allow us to have a flexible and timely response to change.


Strategic Objective: To develop our people and resources so that the Faculty can respond flexibly to change

Executive Responsibility: Dean and General Manager Performance Indicators: Improved communication and a sense of being ‘one Faculty’ by the end of 2013

Better predictions of performance against budget expectations made to UWA

Better understanding across all levels of the budget and its drivers in teaching and research

More team submissions in research and an increase in overall value of funding applications

Build collaboration in teaching and in research within and across schools to increase T&R

submissions by staff who have not worked together before and to increase publications by staff who

have not worked together before


PR1: Better communication and a sense of being ‘one Faculty’


PR1.1 Co-located, operational and effective Faculty Office providing a single point of contact

PR1.2 Implementation of new governance structures, delegations and delivery of effective management and growth in teaching and research

PR1.3 Establish a Faculty seminar programme with an initial focus on new appointments

PR1.4 Ensure that information communicated to Faculty and to Heads of Schools is effectively communicated to all members of staff



PR2: Improved budgeting and managed growth


PR2.1 Ensure high level leadership (leadership teams) in all schools and link expectations to KPIs for the School, HoS and School Manager

PR2.2 Build key skills of School Managers in areas such as succession planning, planning and financial forecasting, space management and business development

PR2.3 Clarify roles and responsibilities of HoS and School Managers and ensure a close and effective working partnership with specific coaching if needed

PR2.4 Identify opportunities for delivering services across the Faculty that may be more focussed, fit for purpose and cost effective than exists currently (using advice received from UniForum and similar costing exercises). Implementation plans to be developed for IT; workshop; integrated finance performance management and flow-throughs from UniForum


PR3: Reduction in current budget deficits / and financial sustainability?


PR3.1 Investigate underlying causes of deficit budgets and develop business plans for the managed reduction in budget deficits

PR3.2 Intervention by Faculty where schools show signs of moving into deficit or are unable to redress their negative balances in unrestricted income

PR3.3 Regular reporting of financial performance against budget forecast by all schools and business units


PR4: Improved personnel management across all areas of Faculty activity


PR4.1 Develop leadership skills for HoS and others undertaking management roles (cf Leading Transitions Programme)

PR4.2 Develop leadership skills of key researchers and ensure that research staff are properly advised and mentored

PR4.3 Introduce an agreed work load model for all staff that can be applied across the Faculty model with some capacity for local differentiation

PR4.4 Roll-out and implement the Faculty’s standards on academic performance

PR4.5 Create opportunities within Schools for succession planning and academic renewal to support financial sustainability and provide capacity to respond to new opportunities

PR4.6 Develop the leadership skills in the Science Executive

PR4.7 Encourage and support excellence in teaching / support teaching specialists

PR4.8 Appointment at Level B and above to be referenced at international standing in research

11 April 2013

the faculty of science f45718€¦ · faculty of science –agenda–17 april 2013 page 2 3....

Documents