Introduction
As a follow-up to the Management Reviews, each UGC-funded
institution was requested to submit a progress report two years after
receiving its final report (ref. 78 in UGC/GEN/114/81 dated March 1,
2000).
This progress report is structured according to the six good management
principles adopted for CUHK's Management Review Report issued in August
1999. We believe that the Response from the University to the Review Report
("Response" hereafter) submitted to UGC in October 1999 is a useful
starting point for addressing the outstanding issues. A copy is attached
in the annex for ease of reference.
- Strategic Planning
The Review Panel commended the University on its effort to involve
relevant expertise from the industrial sector in the search for
and development of new initiatives, and to take into full consideration
government policies and UGC objectives in strategic planning. The
Panel also commended CUHK on the clarity and participatory nature
of our planning processes and the widespread ownership of our mission
and strategic plan, which informs planning at the faculty and departmental
level
Since the visit of the Review Panel in April 1999, the Institutional
Development Plan was further reviewed with inputs invited from the
Senate members. The updated Plan was submitted to and approved by
the Senate and the Council in October 1999. The Plan is disseminated
on the University¡¦s website for the perusal of all
university staff and students and other interested parties at all
times
For better integration of plans of individual units in support
of the Institutional Development Plan, a two-day Strategic Planning
Workshop chaired by an external consultant and led by the Vice-Chancellor
was held again in January 2000. At the Workshop, all Faculty Deans,
College Heads and Administrative Unit Heads participated and presented
their strategic plans for discussions and feedback. Views on the
strategic development of the University were also exchanged. Subsequent
to the Workshop, participants also initiated similar workshops or
brainstorming sessions within their own faculty, department or administrative
unit as a follow-up. To solicit external inputs, a number of new
advisory boards and committees and new industrial links have also
been established in the past two years.
To meet the challenges brought about by the enormous changes in
the local educational scene, the University Council has also set
up in March 2000 a Task Force on the Development and Financing of
the University in the Next Decade and Beyond to review proactively
the positioning of the Chinese University both in Hong Kong and
abroad, to generate long-term strategic plans, and to liaise with
the Government and external bodies in this regard.
- Resource Allocation
The Review Panel was very satisfied with CUHK¡¦s
resource allocation processes, in particular, the performance-based,
transparent, flexible and effective New Funding Model implemented
since 1995. The One-line Budget operation, which is constantly enhanced
to respond to the ongoing changes in the operation environment of
the University, also provides incentives for budget holders to deploy
their resources in an efficient and accountable manner and, in doing
so, maximizes value for money. With regard to limited resources,
the Panel suggested the University to be more flexible in the allocation
of space and to maximize the potential of external funding sources.
As explained in our Response in October 1999, we shared the Panel's
concern on space. For the allocation of this scarce resource, our
Committee on Space Allocation, chaired by the Vice-Chancellor, vets
all space requests and sets criteria and priorities to ensure fairness.
The Campus Planning and Building Committee under the Council also
plays an active role in the planning of long-term campus development
to support new academic and research initiatives. However, without
any buffer space, it is difficult for us to meet all competing demands
because approval of new space (and construction of new buildings)
by the UGC and the Government is on a short-term incremental basis.
There is often an unexpectedly long and variable time lag between
the identification of space needs and the approval for commencement
of construction, not to mention the completion of buildings.
This inherent limitation notwithstanding, we have coped with the
problem of limited space by reiterating the following policies:
(a) all space for projects are fixed-period allocations with expiry
dates; and (b) all space on campus, including those within purpose-designated
academic buildings, are University space which will be subject to
allocation and reallocation by the University.
The need to maximize the potential of external funding sources is
indisputable in an era of funding cut. While the audited account for
2000-2001 is being worked out, we would like to report that the percentage
of non-government income out of our total income has increased from
29.2% in 1998-99 to 31.5% in 1999-2000.
- Implementation of Plans
The Panel commended the University on its processes to ensure
the effective implementation of its plans across the University
and its efforts to develop clear procedures for monitoring progress
with the support of an effective and participatory infrastructure.
During the time of review, clear milestones and performance indicators
have already been established in a number of major administrative
units, such as the Registry, Bursary, Personnel Office, Campus Planning
Office, and Estates Management Office. They are now being developed
across the University, wherever appropriate.
- Roles, Responsibilities and Training
The Panel was impressed with the overall calibre, the strong sense
of identity, and commitment of our staff as well as the leadership
and spirit of collegiality at CUHK. Our enhanced developmental staff
appraisal scheme, supported by a proactive staff training and development
policy, has been regarded as a successful important step. The contribution
of the Colleges as a unique feature of CUHK has been recognized
and reaffirmed by the Panel as our special strength in offering
a balanced and holistic education, in delivering general education,
in providing counseling and pastoral care, in fostering a strong
sense of belonging and fellowship, and in enhancing the fund raising
and networking functions.
The Panel suggested CUHK to reconsider the issue of elected versus
appointed Deans and concurrent versus full-time appointments. As
explained in our Response in October 1999, these issues have been
debated at length in the University prior to the Management Review
and the current system is the majority¡¦s preference
and has been found to be working well by the Panel. Taking note
of the Panel¡¦s concern about potential tension, we
have since invited the Faculty Deans to consider whether a discussion
should be initiated within their Faculties as the University considers
it more appropriate to refrain from taking a top-down approach in
this case. No request to re-open these issues has been received
so far but we will keep these under constant review.
The importance the University attaches to continuing education,
and our mechanism to ensure synergy between the School of Continuing
Studies (SCS) and the academic departments have been explained at
length in our 1999 Response. We are glad to report that the statutory
amendment to include the SCS Director as a full member of the Senate
(as recommended in our SCS Review completed in February 1999) was
completed. Developments of continuing education and related policy
issues are also adequately represented at the Administrative and
Planning Committee (AAPC) as the Vice-Chancellor, being Chairman
of the Senate Committee on Continuing Studies, and the Registrar,
being its ex-officio member, will be present at the AAPC. The University
Secretary and the Bursar, both members of AAPC, are also ex- officio
members of the Advisory Board of Continuing Studies.
- Service Delivery
Our internal management efficiency reviews (MER) have
been highly regarded by the Review Panel and our service culture has
also been registered. The Panel's suggestion to roll out the MER to
academic departments as well as to step up efforts in benchmarking
against local and overseas institutions were debated at our Task Force
on Management Efficiency (METF).
Academic departments are quite different from administrative units
as the outputs of the former are measurable by their teaching and research
activities, and incentives based on teaching and research performance
indicators have been built into the new funding formula and the one-line
budget operation. This funding mechanism provides incentives for academic
departments to operate efficiently. It is therefore the University's
decision that no comprehensive efficiency reviews covering all academic
units will be launched. However, academic units are welcome to approach
METF for management inputs and MER for academic units will be conducted
upon request.
Benchmarking with counterparts in sister institutions, and where
appropriate, companies in the trade or overseas universities, has
been performed in all the MER conducted for the administrative units.
Having considered the cost and benefits, the University is of the
opinion that it is not necessary to push for an elaborate benchmarking
exercise at the university level. It will be more useful to request
individual units to continue to establish their own performance
indicators, bearing in mind institutional differences in making
comparisons. The administrative units are also encouraged to join
the relevant benchmarking associations, where appropriate, to share
information and practices.
- Management Information and Systems
The Panel commended CUHK on its widespread and effective application
of Information Technology (IT) across the University and also thought
highly of the overarching IT Strategy of the University, which mapped
out key development goals for the following five years.
Building on this excellent start, an IT Policy Committee under
the Administrative and Planning Committee was set up in April 2000,
with two steering committees underneath, taking care of the IT developments
respectively for administrative and academic needs. The steering
committees will prioritize the IT projects and central coordination
will ensure that resources are directed to the most needed areas.
In the new IT Policy Committee, the University Librarian also serves
as one of the ex-officio members. This ensures a closer interaction
between the Library and the Information Technology Service Centre
as recommended by the Panel. .
August 30, 2001
|