SFC/16/79 Agenda item 13 23 September 2016 Strategic dialogue meetings update This paper updates the Council on the main issues arising from the recent strategic dialogue meetings (SDMs), gives feedback on the Council and institution evaluations, recommends that the SDM programme continues, and asks Council for advice with how meetings progress for the assigned colleges in the multi-college regions. Recommendations The Council is invited to: Note progress on the strategic dialogue meetings that have taken place to date Note the evaluation of the SDM surveys Agree that SDMs continue in a new three-year cycle with some revisions Advise whether in future SDMs should: Financial implications o Continue with the assigned colleges in the multi-college regions o Be held solely with representatives from the Regional Strategic Body. The travel and subsistence of the SFC team is the only cost of operating the strategic dialogue meeting programme, coming from SFC s running costs budget.
Strategic dialogue meetings Purpose and content 1. This paper updates Council on the key discussion points from the recent tranche of SDMs, the recent SDM surveys from both Council members and institutions, and the proposals to take forward the SDM programme. 2. The Council executive sought feedback from Council members and institutions on the 2015-16 meetings. That feedback was largely positive. Strategic Plan implications 3. This paper relates to all aspects of the Strategic Plan. Background 4. SDMs have been operating since 2006 with the third cycle just concluded. The premise is that SFC executive and Council members have a strategic conversation with every institution and Regional Strategic Body. The aims of the SDMs have remained the same which is: To enhance and strengthen the relationships between SFC and the governing bodies and senior management teams of institutions To increase SFC s understanding of the regional context and the institution/region s progress in meeting the targets as stated in the Outcome Agreement. 5. The meetings currently complement the outcome agreement cycle by running between February and May over three years. Council members can be updated on progress first-hand, institutions have an opportunity to discuss issues with Council members, and feedback can influence the following year s outcome agreement guidance. 6. During the past three years an SDM has been held with each further and higher education institution, with the exception of those colleges that merged in 2012-13. It was felt that discussions with the colleges were adequately covered in the 6-month and 2-year post-merger evaluation meetings. Evaluation of AY 2015-16 7. In the final year of the cycle there were 11 SDMs which included visits to five colleges and six universities. The teams and dates can be seen in Annex A. 8. In the recent tranche of meetings there was a common theme in the college meetings (Developing Scotland s Young Workforce) and in the university meetings (Widening Access and Participation). Having a theme chosen by SFC 1
ensured a connection between the meetings, allowed the institutions to demonstrate their progress, and provided an opportunity for topical, wellinformed strategic discussions. 9. The topics otherwise encompassed a wide range though focussed on the main challenges of the institution. The most common themes were around the locality which they serve, research and knowledge exchange, capital funding, and innovation. Some of these discussions have continued, mostly with outcome managers as a follow-up to any outstanding issues as detailed in the Issues Register in Annex B. Council member survey 10. A short survey was distributed to Council members in July 2016; the responses are shown in Annex C. Council members reported that the meetings were of high value, worthwhile and provided a good opportunity for engagement to build on the Outcome Agreements. They also gained a better understanding of the institution s local concerns. 11. Council members felt the format to the meetings was about right, which is two hour session with the Board/SMT, meetings with staff and students, and the make-up of the core SFC team. Improvements included no presentations, a visit to include a focussed tour of facilities, a reduction to the SFC executive to two members, a more structured action plan afterwards, and the briefing to incorporate the culture and history of the SFC relationship with the institution. 12. Some Council members feel that SDMs should be given a higher priority on the Board agenda with the report presented to Council at the first meeting following the SDM. There were also a suggestion to use the meetings to encourage further collaboration and brokerage of expert advice in the sector. Institution feedback 13. We heard back from six institutions, over half of the institutions that had a SDM during 2015-16; the responses are shown in Annex D. The institutions that responded, without exception, welcomed the opportunity to meet and engage with Council members and discuss their strategies and priorities. On the whole they found the meeting to be as expected, positive and served to enhance the relationship between SFC and the institution. For some it allowed the institution to reflect on their aspirations, achievements and areas of concern which they found worthwhile. SDMs were an opportunity for a direct conversation between the institutions and the SFC with the former able to sense-check their strategy and receive valuable Council feedback. 14. Institutions surveyed felt the format of the meetings was also appropriate. They liked the open conversations and opportunities to demonstrate their activities. One welcomed an additional Council member (up to 3) or a named Council 2
member with whom to continue the dialogue on any issues after the meeting. They were also pleased that the discussions in the main had moved from governance to other strategic priorities, and the sessions with staff and students were appreciated as it was mechanism for the Board/SMT to receive both positive and negative feedback. SDMs from 2016-17 15. Following the evaluation of the Council member and institution surveys, the SFC executive, after full consideration, propose that strategic dialogue meetings continue beyond 2016-17 in a new three-year cycle to complement the three year outcome agreement cycle. 16. We also propose that the format of the meetings is similar to the current meetings but with a few improvements and clarifications: The SFC team would be restricted to five members at most. That is 2/3 Council members and two members from the SFC executive, including the Outcome Manager The allocation of Council members to meetings based on their availability and a combination of the fit between expertise and knowledge so they are comfortable about talking about the challenges facing the institution Continuing to ensure the agenda is coordinated by the relevant Outcome Manager as they are the most knowledgeable on the institution, with at least one common topic for each sector in a specific tranche The use of presentations should be limited The SFC team leader could act as the named Council member post-sdm to continue any dialogue in partnership with the Outcome Manager The briefing to contain further context on the institution (culture/history of SFC relationship) and a summary of the performance indicators Retain the opportunity for the SFC team to meet with staff and students Explore the option of a focussed tour with each meeting so SFC team can observe at first hand the student experience. 17. The meetings will take place between February and May of each year after the main outcome agreements negotiations. If the assigned colleges are included, see section on multiple college regions, SFC will need to hold 45 SDMs during the three year period until 2018-19 which works out as 15 meetings per year with each Council member attending about 3/4 meetings. Multi-college Regions 18. During the summer we received a request from UHI that we stop the SDMs with their assigned colleges, and instead hold one with them as the Regional 3
Strategic Body as they were responsible for their colleges and the region s outcome agreement. 19. We have been holding a meeting with every assigned college in the multicollege regions (Glasgow, Lanarkshire and Highlands and Islands) with invitations to the Regional Chair and a representative from the regional office. We have found that this adds a layer of accountability and provides an insight into the relationship between the College Board and the Regional Strategic Body. 20. We received some feedback in July 2016 from Dr Michael Foxley, Chair of the UHI s Further Education Regional Board. He said that I have found the meetings very useful and informative in a more relaxed atmosphere. I have been updated on the College's performance and challenges. In particular, I have found it very interesting to have the questioning and insight of a SFC Board member into local and regional issues. 21. The executive recognise there are arguments for both approaches. Meeting only the RSB reinforces their responsibility under the regional structure. Meeting the colleges builds a relationships and understanding with the bodies that are delivering education in the region. 22. The executive would like to hear the views of Council on whether SDMs should be held at the assigned colleges in the multiple college regions. Should they: continue with assigned colleges in the multi-college regions be held solely with representatives from the Regional Strategic Body. Risk assessment 23. This is an area of relatively low risk. The monitoring of performance of each institution and any action points and issues raised at the meetings are addressed by the relevant outcome agreement team. Equality and diversity assessment 24. There are no equality and diversity issues associated with this paper. Recommendations 25. The Council is invited to: Note progress on the strategic dialogue meetings that have taken place to date Note the evaluation of the SDM surveys Agree that SDMs continue in a new three-year cycle with some revisions 4
Advise whether SDMs should: Financial implications o Continue with assigned colleges in the multi-college regions o Be held solely with representatives from the Regional Strategic Body. 26. The travel and subsistence of the SFC team is the only cost of operating the strategic dialogue meeting programme, coming from SFC s running costs budget. Publication 27. This paper will be published, in edited form, on the Council website. Further information 28. Contact: Ken Rutherford, Assistant Director/Outcome Agreement Manager, email: krutherford@sfc.ac.uk. 5
Strategic dialogue meetings 2015-16 Annex A Institution Date Council members SMT member Outcome Manager + Policy lead Queen Margaret University 9 March Marlene Wood, Veena O Halloran Dee Bird Ken Rutherford, Keith Coyne Scotland s Rural College (SRUC) 14 March Maggie Kinloch, Robin Crawford Stuart Fancey Aileen Ross, Greg Anderson Argyll College 17 March Audrey Cumberford, Caroline Stuart John Kemp Sharon Drysdale, Hazel MacDonald City of Glasgow College 22 March Robin Crawford, Marlene Wood Lorna MacDonald Linda McLeod, Paul Travers Aberdeen University 13 April 1 Alice Brown, Lorraine McMillan, Paul Little Dee Bird Dee Bird, Kathryn O Loan Orkney College 18 April Keith Nicolson, Paul Little Laurence Howells Sharon Drysdale, Hazel MacDonald Glasgow Caledonian University 25 April Lorraine McMillan, Robin Crawford Stuart Fancey Linda McLeod, Nick Stansfeld North Highland College 26 April Douglas Mundie, Keith Nicolson John Kemp Sharon Drysdale, Hazel MacDonald Stirling University 11 May Alice Brown, Veena O Halloran John Kemp Dee Bird, Kathryn O Loan Royal Conservatoire 12 May Alice Brown, Audrey Cumberford, Caroline Stuart Laurence Howells Dee Bird, Derek Horsburgh Moray College 13 May Albert Rodger, Douglas Mundie Martin Fairbairn Sharon Drysdale, Hazel MacDonald 1 SDM included an evening dinner at Malmaison Hotel, Aberdeen 6
Council Member evaluation of strategic dialogue meetings The main points were as follows: 1. What are your views on the strategic dialogue meetings? SDMs are of high importance and extremely valuable as a way of meeting and building relationships with our principal stakeholders and meet staff and students. It gives a real feel for the organisation, its ethos and health in every sense of the word and we hear directly from them about their experiences and the challenges they face. I consistently find them very informative and conducive to open and professional discussions. They are a really good opportunity to understand the key issues effecting institutions and then to feed that information into policy making decisions at the Funding Council. Face to face conversations bring to life the impact of Colleges and Universities. SDMs are also a way of increasing the knowledge and experience of SFC Board members. SDMs give visibility of the Council to the institutions and vice versa. 2. Do you recommend any changes to the format of the meetings? The present format of a long session of two hours rather than three shorter sessions as formerly is better and allows a freer flowing discussion. Structurally they work well i.e. an SFC Board Member Lead/Chair, supported by 1-2 Board Members and SFC Executive. Do we really need institutional presentations? Could these not be submitted in advance? The meetings would benefit from moving to a dialogue rather than a presentation format. Perhaps SDMs could include a private and focussed meeting with Principal and Chair. Time should be allocated for a short focussed tour. An agenda item to consider the macro issues affecting the sector and the institutions view on how these might be addressed. I would like perhaps to be able to probe more about efficiencies and how these will be achieved going forward. We must not shy away from the fact that pressures won't go away and to survive many must transform quite radically. 7
3. Do you have any suggestions how SDMs could be further improved? Reduce the number of SFC support staff to two (Outcome Manager and member of the Executive Team too labour intensive on staff time). I rarely use the draft questions for the staff and student sessions and I m not convinced they are required or always relevant. Perhaps an action plan for both institution and SFC post SDM that we both monitor and evaluate. The reports are great but perhaps accountable actions on both sides might make progress easier to track for both. A Performance Dashboard briefing (of harder metrics) would be of help in the pre-briefing notes. Also, it would be useful to have a high level and short briefing note on the culture of each institution and the history of the relationship between it and the SFC since the introduction of OAs. It might be useful to have the chance for a bit of mystery shopping, i.e. to have half an hour just to spend in the cafeteria area speaking to students and staff at random. 4. Would you like to make any other comments? SDMs and their outcomes need to be given a higher priority on the SFC Board agenda. A report on the visit should be presented to the Board at the 1st meeting following the SDM. Anything that will encourage collaboration across sector - whether that be courses, articulation routes, development of FAs MAs and degree and masters apprentices, and sharing back office functions. There should be more longitudinal evaluation (especially of harder metrics). I think there should be a minimum of 3 members of the Board if at all possible in attendance at SDMs though I appreciate the difficulties of timetabling these around everyone s diaries. 8
Annex D Institution evaluation of strategic dialogue meetings We received 6 responses out of 11 to our request for feedback of this year s meetings. The main points were as follows. 1. How well did your institution s SDM go earlier this year? We felt that it provided an excellent opportunity to have a two-way discussion with the SFC about the University s strategy and priorities and how these align with the Scottish Government s ambitions for the nation, as well the SFC s ambitions for the sector. Our Chair of Court and the Governors who attended the SDM felt that the meeting was a positive one with the right balance of support and challenge, and served to enhance the relationship between the SFC Council members and the University. We believe the SDM provided an excellent opportunity for SFC Board members/officers to meet Directors and the Executive Management Team to gain a greater understanding of the strategic issues / challenges that are facing the organisation. The visit was a welcome opportunity to meet and engage with SFC Board members. However, we feel that - perhaps with more time there could have been an opportunity for panel members to engage more fully and deeply with the University. 2. Was the SDM as you expected? Yes, communication before the meeting was well organised and the day proceeded along the lines we were expecting. The open and positive tone set by the SFC Team Leader did, however, add greatly to the discussion and ensured it was a valuable event which exceeded our expectations. The meeting prompted us to clarify and articulate the major issues we are facing through the requirement for a pre-sdm briefing paper. It was conducted by the Chair in the spirit of a truly professional dialogue. The SDM was as expected. It was however beneficial that one of the SFC Board members has extensive experience of working in and also understanding the challenges faced by a small specialist institution. 3. How useful was the SDM to your institution? It was useful to be able to provide the Council members with a glimpse of what our university is about, and for them to meet with members of staff and students and Court members, and to experience their enthusiasm for the University. 9
It was very useful to have a direct conversation with the Funding Council, to be able to sense-check our strategy with that audience, and to hear first-hand what concerns SFC might have about this institution that we could then reassure on, or respond to mitigate. The SDM was helpful in allowing the University to reflect on its aspirations and achievements when undertaking our preparatory work. We were able to demonstrate to the SFC that we are an evidence-based institution with a clear vision and strategy which is focussed on strengths. It was useful to note from the SFC that the sessions with students and staff members reinforced our view that the University community as a whole is committed to our Strategy and have a strong sense of pride in our university. A highlight for us was the opportunity to introduce the SFC delegation to our inter-professional simulated learning environment (tour visit), and the contribution it makes to teaching excellence and student employability. This allowed Council members to see the student experience in action, in a way that may not otherwise have been possible. 4. Could you suggest how these meetings could be improved? We welcomed the new format where there was greater scope for us to demonstrate some of the activities we are undertaking rather than simply sitting in a boardroom and talking about them. We felt that the balance of attendees from the SFC was appropriate to cover the breath of activity in learning and teaching, research and business engagement. We believe that there may be benefit in an additional Council member attending the SDM meetings or more opportunities for Council members to engage with universities in between meetings. I think it would be useful to have a named Council Member with whom to carry on the dialogue on any key issues post-sdm. Whilst the opportunity for the panel to engage with a number of staff and students is appreciated, perhaps the visit could have been enhanced by additional time to avoid the potential for superficial discussion and allow for a greater exploration of the issues facing HE generally and the University in particular. 5. Would you like to make any other comments? We were pleased that the current round of SDMs had moved from a focus on governance arrangements to a more fruitful joint discussion. The opportunity for both staff and students to meet members of the panel was greatly appreciated and furthermore this opportunity creates an excellent forum for these individuals to comment and for management to receive feedback on any issues both positive and negative that were raised during the discussions. 10