Managing Change: The evolution of the provision of technical services in Biology Lyn Spencer...
-
Upload
trevor-brown -
Category
Documents
-
view
221 -
download
1
Transcript of Managing Change: The evolution of the provision of technical services in Biology Lyn Spencer...
Managing Change:The evolution of the provision of technical services in Biology
Lyn SpencerManager, Technical Services
Biological SciencesFlinders University
TechTrain 2004 July 1-2 Lyn Spencer: Managing Change 2
My role:
Appointed to position of Supervisor, Biology undergraduate laboratories, in 1994:
12 years in life science research in the School of Medicine Nutrition research, winery, routine testing laboratory – public and private sectors
My qualifications – updated from technical level: Bachelor of Science as a mature age student 1995 Graduate Certificate in PS Management 2002
Leadership role: Laboratory technical staff
Imposed change process 1997-1998 – laboratory technicians Inclusive, consultative change process 2001-2002
All technical staff Transition to Manager, Technical Services, responsible for all technical staff
and activities 2002-ongoing
TechTrain 2004 July 1-2 Lyn Spencer: Managing Change 3
Aims of this presentation:
Map the driving forces, together with structural changes, of how the provision of technical services has evolved in the school of Biological Sciences over the past decade
Discuss the impact of change in the workplace for individuals and the organisation, and the importance (& pressures) of managing the change process well
The importance of forward-thinking change – looking to the future in Biology
TechTrain 2004 July 1-2 Lyn Spencer: Managing Change 4
Background - Prior to 1997
Laboratory Technicians 6.25 FTE teaching only
Laboratory Technicians 9.0 FTE research only
Other Technical staff -
AcademicSupervisor
Director of Technical Services
Academic
TechnicalSupervisor
AcademicSupervisor
AquacultureAquarium
1.0
Animal House2.0+casuals
Horticulture1.0+casuals
MechanicalWorkshop
2.0
Computing&Electrical
Workshops:2.8
Research: 9.0
Teaching: 6.25
TechTrain 2004 July 1-2 Lyn Spencer: Managing Change 5
The first change:
1997 Review of Technical Services in FSE:(Mack Consulting): Revealed disparity and inequity in the work of the 2 laboratory
technical groups Recommended a convergence of roles
1998 New system: All Laboratory Technical Staff to participate in annual roster:
1 semester servicing undergraduate practical classes 1 semester assigned to an academic research group
Individual academics were assigned technical assistance in accordance with a performance ranking within the limit of staff availability
It was a ‘solution’ at the time…..
TechTrain 2004 July 1-2 Lyn Spencer: Managing Change 6
The good and the bad…
Technical staff: Opportunity for some to upskill Appreciation of the differing demands in
research and teaching & the relevance of both
‘Meat market’ annual auction Restricted research assignments Loss of skills
Academic staff: Assistance to productive
researchers limited by staff availability
Workload implications - compiling bids at busy end of year
‘cattle auction’ at the end of the year Perception of ‘winners’ and ‘losers’,
‘rich’ and ‘poor’ New staff left in the wilderness Academic / technical mismatches Assistance not always well used
As the Manager: Fairer workload distribution Growing sense of ‘cohort’ Staff development opportunities Loss of ‘team’ in teaching Academic / technical mismatches Poor behaviour and resistance by a few No allowance for growing OH&S and service
tasks ‘on-off’ divide
TechTrain 2004 July 1-2 Lyn Spencer: Managing Change 7
There must be overt and demonstrated needs driving the change The review clearly identified the need to blur the boundaries
between the 2 laboratory technical groups
The organisation must be seen to support the change process and the managers of change The organisation ‘consulted’ all staff, and in the absence of any
other constructive suggestions imposed the only plan on offer
The employees affected must be involved in development of the change process They were invited to put forward suggestions, but there was no
participative development process
Ie: this was Prescriptive change, and unlikely to be successful
Organisational Change
TechTrain 2004 July 1-2 Lyn Spencer: Managing Change 8
External change driver:
Faculty of Science & Engineering
School ofBiological Sciences
Assoc.Prof. Sue ThomasHead of School Biological Sciences2001
MOLECULAR
Bioinformatics
Genomics
Biotechnology
ECOLOGY
Ecotourism
Biodiversity&
Conservation
MARINE
Marine Biology
Aquaculture
A shift in tertiary education funding emphasis from teaching to research productivity and outcomes
Demanded changes in strategic direction and approaches to research across the School and Faculty
TechTrain 2004 July 1-2 Lyn Spencer: Managing Change 9
Internal change drivers:
0
5
10
15
20
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
TECHNICAL STAFF
0
50
100
150
200
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
YEAR
WE
EK
S O
F P
RA
CT
ICA
LS
SEMESTER 1
SEMESTER 2
Note: The lower graph displays actual weeks of practicals and as such is a conservative representation that does not reflect the true workload associated with numbers of repeat sessions, enrolments or complexity
TechTrain 2004 July 1-2 Lyn Spencer: Managing Change 10
A window of opportunity:
“if it ain’t broke – don’t fix it” Both general and academic staff were dissatisfied The points ranking system for the annual ‘cattle auction’ was out of kilter with the shift in
research funding and training (Kemp 1999-2000 policy statements) Decreased technical staff, increased practical load The current system promoted temporal, physical and behavioural divides that:
Prevented a clear reporting and supervisory structure Prevented rational management of School service tasks Ignored the current EBA directive that ‘wherever practicable’ general staff were required to be
supervised by general staff
January 2001 – Biology School Retreat: Confirmed commitment to strategic plan for 3 foci (‘clusters’) of research and teaching Acknowledged the need to introduce efficiencies to promote research effectiveness Identified the priorities required to achieve this:
Review and rationalise topics Evolve strategies to nurture and train research students to attain outcomes in accord with the new
policy Use its resources, including technical staff, efficiently and effectively
TechTrain 2004 July 1-2 Lyn Spencer: Managing Change 11
There must be overt and demonstrated needs driving the change Both internal and external drivers had been identified
The organisation must be seen to support the change process and the managers of change
members present at the School Retreat included all academic staff and elected general staff members of the School Board
A representative Working Party in consultation with the School Community: Review and revise the current method of allocation of technical staff Consider the possibility of allocation to research ‘clusters’, not individuals Report to the June 2001 School Board
The employees affected must be involved in development of the change process
All involved from BEFORE the 1st WP mtg through to the final proposal
Organisational Change
TechTrain 2004 July 1-2 Lyn Spencer: Managing Change 12
Ownership of change:
Laboratory technical staff met prior to the 1st mtg of the working party: Discussed what was good and bad about the system prior to 1997, and the current
system and what would be desirable in a new system
Summary of this discussion provided to the Working Party and incorporated in the report to the School Board June 2001:
Statement of commitment:technical staff are a valuable resource to be used in the best possible manner in the School
Key recommendations: 3 core activities of technical laboratory staff - teaching preparation, service tasks for the
School community and research assistance Meeting the needs of teaching is a priority and retention of the current teaching and
research rotation system best meets those needs at this time Teaching and research assignments should incorporate and allow for the provision of the
service tasks in a manner to be determined Allocation to Research Clusters may be the most appropriate strategy Consider NOT retaining the points system
TechTrain 2004 July 1-2 Lyn Spencer: Managing Change 13
The Objectives:
Lead the laboratory technical group, in consultation with reference groups and stakeholders, through the process of evolving a more equitable and effective system of deployment in the School of Biological Sciences in a manner that is transparent and promotes ownership of the outcome
How? Develop a system that enables technical staff to meet the priority needs of teaching and
research in a manner that can be flexible and responsive Must be centrally managed to ensure flexibility in meeting the changing immediate and long-term
needs of the School A shift in management structure, in keeping with University policy, to ensure that all
technical staff are permanently under the supervision of the Laboratory Manager This will establish clear supervisory roles and reporting lines for management of the consolidated
group and development of team-based activities Recognise and manage use of technical staff expertise within the context of the changing
organisational, and research and teaching activities of the School An audit of technician skills and competencies to provide a reference database to:
identify and use individual strengths match what we have with the needs of teaching and research, and the overall needs of the School and
University, and subsequently identify the 'mismatches' and gaps identify staff training and development needs and opportunities
TechTrain 2004 July 1-2 Lyn Spencer: Managing Change 14
The Plan:
Build a framework: Based on the key drivers Identify stakeholders:
undergraduate and research students, general and academic staff What are the priority needs of the School (tasks):
What must be done? What should be done? What is desirable?
What are the needs of technical staff: What are the considerations, strategies, skills required to meet the
needs of staff and the organisation?
TechTrain 2004 July 1-2 Lyn Spencer: Managing Change 15
The process:
SCHOOL COMMUNITY
LABORATORY TECHNICIANS
LABORATORY MANAGER
WORKINGPARTY
SCHOOLBOARD
From August 2001, the technical group met weekly to develop the new strategy and…. the working party dissolved into obsolescence
TechTrain 2004 July 1-2 Lyn Spencer: Managing Change 16
The Change Grid:
PAST FUTURE
Denialor
Optimism
Shockor
Relief
Exploration
PlanningContributing
Resistance
NegativitySelf doubt
Commitmentand
Enthusiasm
PositivityBalance
SHIFT
TechTrain 2004 July 1-2 Lyn Spencer: Managing Change 17
Punctuated Equilibrium:
DENIAL Sudden realisation by some technical AND academic staff that change was
definitely going to happen RESISTANCE
Persistent arguments by a few about why things would NEVER work Erratic attendance and/or participation by a few
EXPLORATION A revisit to the key drivers and ‘the good and bad’ refoccussed and reinvigorated
the group enthusiasm
COMMITMENT Consensus was being reached The group was positive, productive and infectious – attendance was almost
routinely 100% The focus was tasks – essential, required, desirable
Participative Change outcome
TechTrain 2004 July 1-2 Lyn Spencer: Managing Change 18
Proposal:5 primary overlapping elements….
Service TasksTeaching Non-teaching
LABORATORY MANAGER
TECHNICAL STAFF
Teachingonly
Teachingservicetasks
Universitypolicytasks
Schoolservicetasks
Researchonly
Highest Priority Lowest Priority
TechTrain 2004 July 1-2 Lyn Spencer: Managing Change 19
Meeting the objectives:
Develop a system that enables technical staff to meet the priority needs of teaching and research in a manner that can be flexible and responsive
Hierarchical “whole School’ approach Establishment of TLC to review changing needs
A shift in management structure, in keeping with University policy, to ensure that all technical staff are permanently under the supervision of the Laboratory Manager
All technical staff officially under the supervision of the Technical Manager from 2002 Recognise and manage use of technical staff expertise within the context of the changing
organisational, and research and teaching activities of the School The audit survey was extremely detailed, perhaps threatening and most technical staff
never completed it
Accepted for implementation January 2002
TechTrain 2004 July 1-2 Lyn Spencer: Managing Change 20
Just when you thought it was sorted….
Jan 2002 – 1 staff on maternity leave (no replacement) June 2002 – a staff member commenced a year’s LWOP to spend time with
family in Europe (contract replacements) Aug 2002 – Another who clearly did not accept the new system resigned Jan 2003 – the staff member on MLWOP decides not to return Feb 2003 – a 0.5 staff retires
2002-2003 – Technical Manager 0.5 secondment to faculty level role 0.5 replacement staff appointed from within laboratory technical pool
TechTrain 2004 July 1-2 Lyn Spencer: Managing Change 21
Hence:
Service TasksTeaching Non-teaching
TECHNICAL MANAGERTECHNICAL STAFF, ANCILLIARY SUPPORT SERVICES
TECHNICAL STAFF, LABORATORY SERVICES
Teachingonly
Teachingservicetasks
Universitypolicytasks
Schoolservicetasks
Researchonly
Highest Priority Lowest Priority
TechTrain 2004 July 1-2 Lyn Spencer: Managing Change 22
The future?
We were able to appoint a contract staff member to fill 1 resignation, but the laboratory group is now effectively further reduced by 1.5 positions
There is a ‘bottom-line’, but we have flexibility, and also some new directions that would not have been possible under the old system:
Roles are blurring, divides are going: The technician responsible for ‘plant’ practicals also assists in the glasshouses The technicians responsible for aquaria and animal care also assist students doing
related projects Laboratory and computing staff have worked in tandem to introduce efficiencies eg
the electrical testing regime – we are all here to service teaching and research
In summary – the new and future PD “key purpose’: The Laboratory Services Technical Officer operates within a technical team to
provide laboratory support for undergraduate practical teaching and technical infrastructural services across the wider School environment.
Very broad, very flexible, very robust for the future