BOARD OF GOVERNORS

Minutes

Of the Board of Governorsaway dayheld on Monday, 6 andTuesday, 7 March2017from 17:00at the Richmond Hill Hotel

Present: / Mr Chris Humphries (Independent Governor) –Chair of the Board of Governors
Mr Mike Bellamy (Independent Governor)
Ms Jennifer Bernard (Independent Governor)
Mr Dermot Blastland (Independent Governor)
Ms Shirley Cameron (Independent Governor)
Mr Mark Cammies (Co-opted Governor)
Mr Allan Dodd (Independent Governor)(Tuesday, 7 March)
Mr Derek Hicks (Co-opted Governor)
Professor Peter John (Vice-Chancellor)
Mr Jonathan Lawrence (Co-opted Governor)
Mr Christopher McLaverty (Co-opted Governor)
Mr Kris Murali (Independent Governor)
Ms Sara Raybould (Academic Board Representative)
Ms Justine Stephenson (Independent Governor)(Tuesday, 7
March)
Dr Kirpal Tahim (Independent Governor)
Mr Dave Titley (SU President)
Ms Zabin Visram (Staff Governor)
Mr Patrick Younge (Independent Governor)
In attendance: / Professor Nick Braisby (Pro Vice-Chancellor, Education)
Professor Joelle Fanghanel (Pro Vice-Chancellor, Academic)
Mr Chris Fenner (Director of Property Services)
Mr Patrick Fuller (Acting Director of Finance)
Mr Steve Fowler (Co-opted member of the Audit and Risk Committee) (Monday, 6 March 2017)
Ms Marion Lowe (University Secretary)
Ms Coral Mason (Assistant Clerk to the Board)
Ms Kat Stark (SU Chief Executive)(Tuesday, 7 March)
Dr Kostas Tzortzis (Head of Strategic Planning)(Tuesday, 7 March)
Mr Ben Whittaker (SU Deputy Chief executive)(Tuesday, 7 March)
Professor Anthony Woodman (Deputy Vice-Chancellor)

Monday, 6 March 2017

  1. Introduction

1.1The Chair of the Board invited the Vice-Chancellor to open the away day.

1.2The Vice-Chancellor set out the timetable for the away day noting that the overall aim was to gathersuggestions and ideas for future discussions on theformulation of the strategic plan 2018-2023.

  1. The London Factor – Mr Derek Hicks (Presentation)

2.1Mr Hicks set out the sector challenges in 2010 and the challenges expected leading up to 2020 although the outcomes of the education bill remaineduncertain.

2.2All institutions were facing the same uncertainties, but London faced additional challenges with a saturated market, and it was predicted that a numberof institutions would close or merge. Post-92 universities were seen as particularly vulnerable. The hot topics facing UWL - student accommodation and the University estate - were concerns shared by all London institutions and, additionally, the London sector relied heavily on international students. Satellite campuses were not attractive to home students and the majority of students were international students wanting a London experience and who wished to remain in London to work after graduation.

2.3The introduction of mixed fees, as a result of the TEF, would further confuse the market and it was increasing difficult to plan one year to the next because of so much uncertainty.

2.4Students studying in London did not have a campus experience and generally faced long commutes.

2.5UWL’s rise in the league tables reflected the success of Ambition 2018. It was noted that, whilst league tables were welcome by students, there was a lot of churn with big fluctuations. UWL should not bedistracted by performing in the tables and should concentrate on what it was doing well.

2.6The Board should ensure the student experience was at the heart of the new strategic plan. If the plan was to be used as a marketing tool, then it would need to stand out amongst all the other sector strategic plans. The University should set out its strengths, why students make UWL their university of choice and the long term benefits of being a UWL graduate. It was considered that students do look at strategic plans and so it shouldbe written with them in mind.

2.7UWL was now an institution that was well placed in the London market and the strategic plan should addressthe its long term direction of the University. This may include collaborating with other institutions and considering adopting fields of study which other institutions may wish to divest, noting that these should be thoroughly scrutinised to ensure recruitment targets could be achieved.

2.8Data on why students choose institutions and courses was not comprehensive but University branding was considered to be one attraction, often more important than the quality of the courses. Members agreed the University should review how courses was marketed. Course silos may be a thing of the past as students increasinglywanted to pick and mix modules, across disciplines and schools.

2.9The UWL student profile was unique and the Board would have to consider how changes would affect the current work and studying practices of the UWL student population.

2.10The Board of Governors NOTED the presentation.

  1. Consideration of Risk Appetite – Mr Steve Fowler (Presentation)

3.1Mr Fowler stated that risk should be considered in a positive light and it should be focused on institutional needs. Four areas of risk were highlighted strategic, financial, operational and hazard but all resulted in reputational risk.

3.2The traditional view of risk was not linked to the organisational vision, strategy or values which led to a disconnect. Risk should be considered as part of the Strategic Plan with all departments and academic schools involved. He explained that risk was ‘uncertainty that mattered’. Risk appetite was the amount and type of risk that an organisation was willing to take to achieve its objectives. Risk tolerance was the amount of risk an organisation was willing to live with, and risk capacity was the maximum risks an organisation could take before going out of business. The University should consider how far it was willing to go and why.

3.3Risk was also linked to the culture of the institution and how people acted within different environments. Would the Board be able to influence the culture of the institution in a positive way?

3.4The Board should consider how decisions are made, what the risk factors are and what the risk appetite is. If the risk culture was not in the best interest of the University, then would the Board be able to influence cultural change? The strategic aims set out in the proposed strategic plan should also consider how far the Board be prepared to go in these areas. It should perhaps be willing to tolerate losses in the short term if it paved the way for success in the longer term.

3.5To mitigate against the unknown, a business continuity plan should be formulated alongside the strategic plan.

3.6The Board of Governors NOTED the presentation.

Tuesday, 7 March 2017

  1. Opening thoughtsfrom the Board – Mr Chris Humphries

1.1The Chair of the Board and the Vice-Chancellor opened the session by questioning how the Board saw itself as its focuswas increasingly moving from a defensive to a creative one, and how it couldsupport the Executive team in the changed environment. With the changes in the sector and competition growing, the Board would need to consider how the University was positioned in the sector. The Board would also need to re-evaluate its competitors. With the appointment of new academic staff, particularly at professorial level, the University would need to capture their thought processes and where they saw UWL going in the future.

1.2Members were given an opportunity to articulate their thoughts which were as follows:

  • There should be two main drivers: what makes a student select UWL andwhat can the University do to make sure a student completes a programme of study.
  • The education sector was similar to the commercial world in that it was critical to understand the needs of the customer. The best marketing tool is the grapevine, if we get it right graduates will recommend us.
  • If the functions of the ‘back office’ are efficient then the educational process would operate within a confident environment.
  • The Board should focus on the areas that could be controlled, strengthen employer links and provide more activities where employers were part of the learning process, offer flexible course delivery and ensure University management had the necessary skills to provide a positive learning environment.
  • New courses should be highlighted and marketed more effectively.
  • The University had positioned itself as the ‘career university’ but what would a career look like in five years? Courses should, where possible, seek to be professionally accredited to help with employability. The University should know who its students were and their aspirations.
  • Make more of the London brand and make sure the University was attractive to the market.
  • Are the current courses in the Schools valid for the future job market? Are Schools still a good structural model? How can we measure whether the model will still be effective in five years?
  • Does the University have enough information on what students want to inform the decisions we make in the future?
  • What makes UWL different? London is an international city with two in every five people not born in the UK. How can the University ensure it is attractive to such a diverse group of people?
  • Could the University offer students a loyalty bonus so they will return for further study?
  • The focus should be on the students but there had been a big rise in students presenting with mental health issues. The University would need to ensure support was provided particularly as needs change.
  • Could the University offer two year degrees which would alleviate some financial issues?
  • The University should involve the alumni more which would show current students the benefits of studying at UWL and also highlight their own potential.
  • Academic staff should be given the opportunity to take risks and not fear failure.
  • It is prime time for the University to grow whilst protecting the unique culture of the University.

1.2Employment fields were changing and it may be appropriate to shift the focus away from some traditional markets and refocus on other areas.

  1. Where we are: A review of Ambition 2018 – Professor Peter John (Presentation)

2.1The Vice-Chancellor confirmed that many of the ideas expressed in the previous sessions were part of continuous discussions of the VCE, placing studentsat the heart of the system whilst creating a unique UWL experience. The introduction of the TEF made it increasingly difficult to be unique as the model for the sector appeared to be a system that offered the same experience in all institutions. The HE Bill would determine the shape of the practices within the sector for years to come.

2.2Reflecting on the presentation on risk appetite, the Vice-Chancellor confirmed the senior team were open to taking risks but it was sometimes difficult to stimulate innovative ideaswith a low risk appetite within the UWL academic community.

2.3Accelerated degrees had been considered for a number of years and could be achieved by offering teaching over the summer. Many students would welcome the opportunity to enrol on an accelerated degree because it would ease their financial problems. It was agreed that this may increase the stress experienced by students but it was an option VCE may wish to explore further.

Action: VCE

2.4The Vice-Chancellor confirmed that subject level TEF had been deferred to year five with further consultations in progress.There have been nearly 300 submissions to the TEF which far exceeded the numberof universities. This may be due to the TEF being linked to variable fees and the potential increase in private providers.

2.5Some references in this section have been redacted

2.6The University continued the consolidation of the estate. The sale of the Mandela site had been completed and the sale of the Slough estate would take place by the end of March 2017, subject to confirmationof overage payments. This would release funds for the establishment of the Enterprise Hub and a sports and leisure facility on the SMR campus.

2.7Overseas applications have increased but it was crucial these were convertedinto acceptances. There had been a reduction inEU applications due to the uncertainty surrounding Brexit, but UWL had been highly cautious regarding overseas recruitment and had focused on TNE recruitment.

2.8Early indications confirmed that the 2017 NSS completion rates were higher in comparison to 2016, but it was still only half way through the campaign.

2.9The SSR remained excellent and there has been an increase in the number of good degrees awarded. Similarly, although the REF submission was small, it would incrementally increase as the shift in academic staff appointments focused on high quality research outputs.

2.10The University had moved 37 places in the Times league table and it was anticipated there would be similar increases in the Guardian and the Good University Guide. League tables did count, students do use them as a barometer of excellence and would continue to do so until an alternative way to measure quality wereintroduced.

2.11The University had allocated additional funds focused on providing an excellent student experience. The outcome of investing in the student experience had led to the TEF submission and outcomes being at silver level. In addition, most of the Ambition 2018 KPIs had been achieved early with the remainder close to being achieved.

2.12The challenge for the next strategic plan would be to prepare for an unknown educational and job market. Many jobs undertaken now would simply not exist in 20 years’ time and the University would need to be flexible in adapting to these changes.

2.13The Vice-Chancellor reflected on the changes undertaken in each school, particularly those that had been recently restructured, noting that not all of the restructures had been successful. However, the student experience had not been compromised while changes had been in progress. Changes included reviewing and amending school portfolios, a change inacademic staff specialisms and expanding research activity which would inform teaching.

2.14Cultural change within the academic schools would be needed to ensure greater productivity and stronger management structures. Some staff continued to work in silos and did not engage in the strategic aims of the University. Staff were encouraged to reflect on their working practices and they would be required to change these as required outcomes changed.

2.15The Board of Governors NOTED the presentation.

  1. Becoming a National University: Competitors and Benchmarking – Dr Kostas Tzortzis (Presentation)

3.1The Head of Strategic Planning informed members that UWL had a small national profile in the sector. Recruitment statistics indicated students were starting to opt to attend UWL from outside of its traditional recruitment fields. It still remained the case that the majority of students attending UWL were from London and lived at home but there were indications that the recruitment field was widening. This opened up the question about who UWL competitors were now and whether it should use some post-92outside London against which to benchmark.

3.2As the TEF embedded it would change the landscape of Higher Education leadingto a more an unsettled picture. There was a high participation rate in London with many students from low participation neighbourhood. Many of the pre-92 universities had taken mitigating action against the drop in student numbers by encroaching onto traditional post-92 recruitment fields. It remained unclear how online operators were impacting on the market and whether they would impact on the traditional post-92 recruitment market.

3.3Some references in this section have been redacted

3.4It was difficult to have an overview at taught postgraduate level, but social and financial aspects played a big part in how and why students opt to study at a particular institution. The introduction of the loan facility might change this and it was noted that applications to postgraduate study have doubled for 2017. As the numbers grow, the University would get a better idea on why students opt to study at UWL.

3.5It was clear that the UWL student demographic reflected the transport infrastructure and this would probably change with the arrival of Crossrail.

3.6If the University profile increased nationally, student accommodation would need to expand. The Director of Property Services was currently in discussions with a number of developers but this would remain business critical.

3.7It was noted that the core business remained the London market and the University should continue to look at how it can expand in the London market as well. Members agreed that many London residents wished to remain in London and were prepared to forego a campus experience.

3.8How students were recruited varied across schools and subjects. Some schools relied on clearing, but it was noted that many students delayed making final decisions and opted to find a place through clearing rather than through the traditional route.

3.9The Board of Governors NOTED the presentation.

  1. What sort of University do we want to be? Achievement 2023: Growth and Development (Group discussions)

4.1Some references in this section have been redacted

4.4Members undertook group discussions on a number of key issues.

The key questions discussed by the groups were:

  • How many academic schools/colleges do we need?
  • Do we need fewer, larger schools? Should we continue with schools?
  • What new areas of curriculum activity should we invest in?
  • How should we approach accelerated degrees?
  • In what ways can we elevate applied research?
  • What human and financial resources will we need?
  • What sort of global platform should we develop?
  • How do we become more entrepreneurial?
  • What forms of marketing should we undertake and how much should we invest?
  • How might we grow our business?
  • What types of accommodation should we pursue?

4.5The University Secretary provided a summary of the group discussions. As a result of the discussions members noted:

UWL Brand:

  • Employers, parents and students should know what ‘careers university’/ employability means
  • Needs to accommodate different identities
  • Need to market strengths
  • Use recent alumni as ambassadors

Employability