External Engagement and Institutional Adjustment

The PRT has found much to commend in the work of the University.  It is a University which its members and the city of Turku should feel justly proud.  It is a well balanced institution in terms of its academic profile and its commitment to both basic and applied research.  Its academic research performance in terms of research output of international standing per academic member of staff matches that of the University of Helsinki.  Although it lacks an Engineering Faculty and Management School it has been successful in winning significant research contract income from industry and commerce.  Its teaching in a number of areas is recognised as being of excellent quality.  Through initiatives like Bio-City Turku and the work of the Centre for Extension Studies it is making an important contribution to the economic development of South West Finland and the Rector is identified as one of the region’s most influential figures.  Indeed, the University is now regarded as an important asset to the city and region.  Last but not least it has embarked on a process of adjustment to enable it to engage more actively with the needs of the wider society.  This is linked to a commitment to stronger academic leadership and to active institutional management as distinct from older styles of collegiate governance and administration - hence the title of our report.

The PRT therefore believe that the University is a strong institution and is moving in the right direction.  It has recognised the challenge facing many similar institutions across Europe - of globalisation and of localisation and of the need for the University to be engaged with the economy and society regionally, nationally and internationally.  However, if it is to sustain its position in the highly competitive environment of the new millennium it must be able to respond as an institution to many new challenges posed by society.  To date that response has been partial and the strength of the whole institution has not been mobilised.  Such mobilisation requires a wide range of transversal processes connecting different disciplines and functions (teaching and research) to the outside world.  But a passive response will not be enough - the University must assume a leadership role, actively taking out to the wider society the  core values of "critical, scientific, research and scholarship" that are set out in its mission statement.  In short, we believe that external engagement can and should be at the heart rather than an addendum to the University’s mission.

We set out below our conclusions and recommendations which have been abstracted from the text.  They are designed to assist the University accelerate the changes that have already begun and therefore emphasise structure and procedures.  They are not summative judgements and hence should not be read in isolation from the argument in the body of the report.  We should also emphasise that they are a response to snap-shot taken at the time of the self-evaluation report and of our visitation and in the evolving situation and recognise that many of the issues raised are being actively addressed by the University.

The context of the evaluation and approach

• We commend the University on the quality of the self evaluation documents which represent a most comprehensive and self-critical analysis of the University’s present position, and which provide a firm basis for an on-going process of institutional learning.
• We recommend the University creates some internal mechanisms to ensure that the information gathered in the self-evaluation reports are widely disseminated inside of the institution.
• We recommend that the faculties, departments and administrative services report annually on lessons that have been learnt from their own self-evaluation and from elsewhere in the institution and how this has informed their own practice
• While the final self-evaluation is strong on analysis it stops short of clear recommendations for actions to build on strengths, address weaknesses, counter threats and exploit opportunities.  This is clearly a task for the new Rectorate and we understand that this work has already begun.

Strategic Direction

• We commend the University for maintaining a strong research base at the core of its activities and also responding to external needs by developing a significant volume of sponsored research.
• We recommend that the University should endeavour to remain a broadly based institution with external engagement as the focus for institutional development.
• We do not see external engagement solely in terms of industry and business mindedness.
• The priority should be to encourage the humanities and social sciences to learn from successful experience in parts of science, medicine, law and education and to actively engage with the challenges of technological, economic, social and cultural development in the knowledge economy.

The role of the Rectorate and Faculties

• We commend the University for the bold steps that it has already taken in revising its governance and structure of administration, specifically in relation to the appointment of its Rector and Vice Rectors and the establishment of the Rector’s Office.
• Changes made at the senior management level now need to be followed through rapidly by changes at the faculty and departmental level if the vision of a more externally engaged university is to be realised.   We therefore recommend that the university initiate a review of the structure of faculties and departments.
• The review should cover:  the number of faculties;  the number of departments and responsibilities of Heads of Departments;  the role and responsibilities of Deans within faculties in relation to senior management, including responsibility for teaching quality, research co-ordination and external affairs;  the procedures for faculty decision making and resource allocation;  and the role and responsibility of faculty administrators vis-à-vis Deans and the Rector’s Office.
• Because most of the old structures are still in place in faculties and departments we recommend that the Rector’s new role needs to be defined and explained.
• As the University is forced to rely increasingly on external income, the way in which its infrastructure is financed and maintained will become a major issue.   We think these demands may be too much for the present small Rectorate.  We therefore recommend that consideration is given to the appointment of a third Vice Rector with special responsibility for resources.
• Within this portfolio of responsibilities in the Rectorate we must emphasise the importance of the Rector himself  in relation to the university’s external engagement.  This must embrace both teaching and research where day to day responsibility resides with the Vice Rectors, oversight of external interface activities like the Centre for Extension Studies, partnership arrangements with public authorities and other universities.
• In carrying out these tasks the Rector will need support which is distinct from the largely internal role of the Rectors office, led by the Head of Administration.  We therefore endorse the recommendation of the independent review of research services that the University should establish a Regional Development Office, with its head reporting directly to the Rector.

The Changing Role of Learning and Teaching

• It is essential if the university is to enhance its outreach activities that it has learning and teaching quality assurance processes in place.  This suggests the need for a more systematic and ongoing review of the curriculum and support for learning and teaching.  We therefore recommend that the university establish a new  Learning and Teaching Council chaired by a Vice Rector and including representatives from the faculties and student support services and the Centre for Extension Studies and the Centre for Maritime Studies.
• We further recommend that each faculty should establish a similar body with representatives from all departments and that the Council should cover doctoral as well as masters programmes.
• In keeping with the priority attached to external engagement, we recommend that the Council should initially focus on topics such as work based learning (including project placements, advice of alumni in curriculum design etc) and the internal dissemination of good practice in these areas.

The Role of Research and Research Services

• The inter-relationship of the external funded activities with the academic heartland of the University, including issues of strategic financial and human resource management, remains a challenge in relation to the maintenance of the research infrastructure, selective funding of areas of strength and addressing administrative barriers to inter-disciplinary research.
• We recommend that the University should establish a Research Council to have oversight of its research strategy and policies relevant to the management of financial, human and physical resources to support research.
• The Council should not be a top down planning body but ensure that the conditions are right to foster entrepreneurial research based activities in all of the faculties and supported by  all parts of the central administration.
• If the University is to achieve its objective of remaining a broadly based institution, the first priority of the Research Council should be to work with the faculties of humanities and social sciences, law and education to develop appropriate structures whereby their engagement in multi-disciplinary research can be enhanced.
• In order to develop its capacity to mobilise research resources from across the university to address the needs of the wider society and economy we recommend that the University invest in its internal Knowledge Management systems.

Relations with the external environment

• As the premier institution of higher education in South West Finland,  we recommend that Turku University take the lead by establishing, in partnership with the relevant public and private organisations, a forum in which a long term strategy for the development of a knowledge based learning region can be worked out.
• In parallel with shaping its external environment, we recommend that the University develop a clear internal strategy for regional engagement overseen by a new Regional Development Council with internal and external representation and chaired by the Rector supported by the Regional Development Office.  In addition to having oversight of the work of specialist units, such as the Centre for Extension Studies, the Turku Technology Centre and BioCity Turku, the Council should be able to comment on research, teaching, financial, human resource and infrastructure policies which have a bearing on the University’s regional role.
• We recommend that the University establishes, in partnership with external stakeholders, an industrial  cluster development strategy and  recruits staff to the proposed Regional Development Office to act as business development managers for links with these clusters, mobilising university-wide resources to meet needs at the level of the employee, the company and the cluster as a whole.
• Regional relations are not and should not be exclusive - indeed the University must continue to interact nationally and globally if it is to prosper and contribute to the region.  Indeed regional partners should play a role in assisting that global positioning.

The Role of the Centre for Extension Studies

• Key questions for the University as a whole, not just the Centre, include:  "What are the priorities"?  "Who delivers them"?  "Who does what"?  "Who pays who"?  "How are charges determined"?  "How are standards assured"?
• Economic development is not just about people - it is also about technological innovation, the performance of firms and building the institutions that support these processes.
• To facilitate the integration with the academic heartland that we think is necessary, we recommend that the work of the Centre for Extension Studies is overseen by the proposed Regional Development Council and its work focused through the proposed regional development strategy, particularly the cluster strategy.  The Council should also ensure that financially transparent contracting principles are in place between the Centre and all academic departments.
• We recommend that the proposed Learning and Teaching Council, as a matter of priority, agrees with the Centre the establishment of appropriate quality assurance mechanisms for the programmes it is managing on behalf of the University.
• We recommend that under the auspices of the Learning and Teaching  Council, the Centre is charged with contributing to the spread of good practice in open distance learning across the University.
• We recommend that the University’s regional development strategy provide guidance as to the responsibilities of different units, including the Centre for Extension Studies, in maintaining relationships with other educational institutions in Turku.
• We  recommend that the Learning and Teaching Council assume responsibility for ensuring a closer integration of the Centre for Extension Studies with the work of the Faculties and Departments.  More specifically it should develop a strategy for defining how the University’s student recruitment is allocated between the different channels (young students from the schools, Open University students, Masters programme students, students graduated from AMKs etc.) and how the different programmes are organised within the University (co-operation and division of labour between different faculties and departments and the Centre for Extension Studies).

Administration and Management

• We commend the University of Turku’s determination to move from ‘administration’, characterised by controlling activity and ensuring procedures are followed, to ‘management’, characterised by seeking out opportunities and making things happen, a commitment which should put Turku in the lead group of European universities which are modernising their structures.
• We recommend that the University clarify the roles and responsibilities of the Faculty offices vis á vis the Finance, HR and Research and Industrial Liaison Office and all of those engaged in student affairs.
• We  recommend that consideration be given to staff in the Faculty offices having dual responsibility to the Dean and Head of Administration and also to the appointment of a Director of Student Affairs in the Rector’s office to co-ordinate this area.
• We recommend as a matter of some urgency, the strengthening of the Human Resource Management section, and providing it with a substantial staff development budget.
• We recommend that the University review its policy on overhead recovery with the aim of increasing the available resources to underpin its core research activities and  new developments designed to enhance its external role.
• We recommend that the University satisfy itself that its current information systems are able to support the form of management that it desires to achieve.
• We recommend the University give serious consideration to seeking external assistance in the implementation of our recommendations about administration.  This would be a worthwhile investment to accelerate a transformation that is underway and which will deliver great benefit to the University and its external impact.
• We recommend that the University gives consideration to establishing a University Resources Council, chaired by the Rector and composed of the Vice Rectors and the Deans and serviced by the Head of Administration.