| subtext | |
|
|
subtext | Truth: lies open to all Issue 164 - 'Running through the wheat field, with a big stick, chasing a beggar' 8 June 2017 ***************************************************** Fortnightly during term time. Letters, contributions, & comments: subtext-editors@lancaster.ac.uk Back issues & subscription details: www.lancs.ac.uk/subtext In this issue: editorial, other things, gaming the system, exciting new venture, recipe for disaster, shart, no letters ***************************************************** EDITORIAL A quiet news day for today's subtext, then. Not much going on. Oh yes - that. Luckily for lovers of democracy, the rather odd recent threats to freedom of expression on our campus seem to have abated, and campaigning should be in full swing by the time you receive this shorter-than-usual edition of subtext. Well done to those who challenged last week's unscheduled ripping down of campaign posters by facilities staff - it was all a misunderstanding, apparently! And let's breathe a sigh of relief that the threat to ban all campaigning within 250 metres of either campus polling station (yes, really) was very quickly withdrawn. In fact, the University has even sent out a reminder about voting to all iLancaster users - proving that the app has some value, at least. All that remains, then, is for all of you to get to a polling station today. Try and encourage some others to do the same. Hope the rain stops for long enough to ensure the campus turnout is as good it was on referendum day, and doesn't drop to the record-breaking low of last December's council by-election. And await the results! ***************************************************** DO KEEP UP As we reported in subtext 163, the Faculty Professional Services Project (FPSP) is now well underway in FASS and FST. The outcomes of this project may prove to be the biggest and most profound changes in administrative practice since the founding of the university. Some readers will recall that this has been attempted in the past, most notably with the ill-fated Business Process Review in 2011. This has since become a celebrated case study in how not to set about organisational change and was ditched when Professor Smith took over as Vice-Chancellor. It broke the basic rule of change management in failing to consult or communicate with those who would be most affected by the proposed changes. The University management has clearly learned from this debacle. This time round there has been no stinting on the communication front. Faculty and departmental admin staff in FASS and FST have been invited to presentations where the project has been fully explained and they have been assured that, far from being a money-saving effort, the whole thing is actually for their benefit. Working groups to provide oversight of the project have been set up in both faculties, with representatives from departmental officers, HoDs, students and, to demonstrate that the whole enterprise is entirely above board, from the campus trade unions. Project websites have been set up so that everyone can be kept up to date on how the project is progressing. This time, no one can accuse the university of a lack of transparency. And yet... and yet... The origins of this project lie in a report commissioned last year by UMAG entitled ‘Departmental Administrative Review’. The title gives a clue as to where the real targets lie. But we don’t know for sure because the report, as now seems to be the norm for university documents, has been labelled ‘Restricted’. The author(s) of the report, the scope, the methodology, the evidence, the conclusions, are all being kept secret. Not even the faculty working groups have been allowed see it. Then there is another report, this time provided by an external consultancy agency named ‘Tribal’, part of the international multi-million-dollar Tribal Group founded by Henry Pitman of shorthand fame. This is a ‘benchmarking’ study which compares the ratio of administrators to academics across a number of similar universities. Naturally, this too is ‘Restricted’ but subtext understands it shows that Lancaster has more departmental officers compared to other institutions such as Bath, York and Warwick. Far from being something to be proud of, in the eyes of Lancaster’s managers this is a Bad Thing. It is also a reminder that this apparent disparity was the main motivation behind the Business Process Review five years ago, so it is no surprise to find that one of the aims of the FPSP is to ‘seek external benchmarking and best practice examples of faculty and departmental administration’. Nowhere in all the reassurances given to staff is there any commitment to maintain the current number of posts. Concern about this project has prompted a number of HoDs in both Faculties to write a letter of protest to the Vice-Chancellor. subtext has heard that they were given the brush off. There is an argument – advanced at the time of the Business Process Review – that money saved through ‘streamlining’ administrative services could then be used to employ more academic staff, which can only be a Good Thing. The reality, as many of our readers will know from experience, is that where office support is reduced it is the academics themselves who are required to take on the additional admin with no discernible increase in academic staffing. And, of course, there is the suspicion that any money ‘saved’ is more likely to go towards providing the eye-watering sums required for the university to participate in a partnership with some former Manchester United football players and a Virgin Islands-registered billionaire. ***************************************************** IT'S NEW, IT'S IMPROVED AND IT CAN BE GAMED Back in subtext 159, we reported on the new attendance check-in system for students using iLancaster. We were mildly sceptical, as we often are. Well, it seems some enterprising students have spotted some exciting opportunities with the new technology. Say you have a seminar coming up, but you really can't be bothered. What can you do? Well, it's simple: - Head for the seminar room. Hang around outside, close enough for your presence to be noted by iLancaster, but without actually going in. - Wait a few minutes . . . - . . . and leave. Attendance recorded! - Hopefully this will do the trick, but some departments will annoyingly ask their tutors to check the official records using their own list of who turned up. - In such circumstances, the department may query your presence. Simply insist that they are wrong and you are right. After all, the evidence is there on the system! - Repeat . . . - . . . until your exam results come through, anyway. This may inject an unhelpful dose of reality to the situation. The solution, of course, is for attendance lists to be checked regularly by those who were actually in the room. This innovation might be called a 'register of attendance'. As long as these are kept, and monitored, the issue of disputed attendance won't arise. Oh, but hang on . . . ***************************************************** PROPOSED NEW VENTURE News has reached the subtext warehouse of a rather enterprising new venture being discussed by senior management groups across the sector. Details are obvious commercially sensitive and universities are denying any involvement at this stage, but subtext understands that a local (North West) entrepreneur is gambling on a Liberal Democrat victory in the General Election. Literally gambling – a wager of £10,000 would raise £7,510,000 seed-corn money to launch this venture. We must stress that at this stage that this is highly confidential and our source has only agreed to speak to subtext on our pledge of complete anonymity. The venture is to establish a commercially franchised series of shops across campuses in England and Wales. As well as selling what is described as a premier product, the shops would also be stocking a wealth of paraphernalia surrounding the product. These items (bags, t-shirts, blenders, grinders, papers, tips, scales, screens, vaporizers, stash jars, cutlery, presses, magnifying scopes, air fresheners, etc) are estimated to have up to a 300% percent mark-up. Financial details, given the commercially sensitive nature of this venture, are being kept tightly under-wraps but subtext understands that the arrangement being proposed would be that the University would take 40% of any profit from each outlet on Campus. There are other factors at play here that the University is keen to explore/exploit. The University has historically struggled with community engagement. The proposed venture would increase footfall within the University from neighbourhood traffic – some estimates are as high as 67%. This joint venture between the commercial entrepreneurial world and the University is exactly what the VC and his senior management team has been urging us to embrace for some time. ***************************************************** IT AIN’T LIKE THIS IN TRUMP COUNTRY Picture the scene. A rain-swept Lancaster Market Square in early June. A growing crowd - awaiting something with noisy anticipation. A couple of visiting American tourists – probably from the Mid-West, going by their accents – ask your correspondent what is going on. On being told that this is an election rally and it would be addressed by the Labour candidate, they decide to stick around. The noise goes up several decibels when the candidate arrives at the Museum steps and the rally commences. Your correspondent spots our American visitors on the fringe of the crowd. They are gazing with astonishment at a man with a microphone wearing make-and high heels who is urging everyone present to get out and vote for Cat Smith on election day. But it is nothing compared to the looks on their faces as they observe a happy line of people of different generations, genders and ethnicities queuing up to have their selfies taken with Eddie Izzard. Clearly, this wouldn’t play in Peoria. *************************************************** STIRRING THE MIXTURE Encouraged by the warm words about our culinary piece in the last edition, we include another recipe which we hope will be the beginning of an irregular cookery corner spot. This particular recipe, which we call the 'Slow Roasted Stew with Dégagisme Potatoes', involves the cook (think Walter White rather than Delia Smith) seeking to install a new HoD. This sumptuous, melt in the mouth recipe is guaranteed to sow disgruntlement and annoyance in any forum it is tasted. Firstly, the cook sends round a round robin email (with attached job description, reward package and appointment process details) to all relevant staff, cunningly disguised as a personalised request, informing the recipient that the cook wanted to make direct contact with the addressee, to encourage the receiver to consider putting themselves forward for the role. The older, wiser ingredients, who have been up on the shelf for some while, sense something is afoot. They become belligerent and ring the current incumbent in high dudgeon. Some less seasoned but valued ingredients approach the executive sous chef and ask if they are really to be part of this recipe. The executive sous chef quietly states she has no part in his particular version of the mix. Those tins at the back of the larder that have not been opened for quite a while start 'popping their lids' and begin filling the kitchen with some rather malodorous aromas. Those ingredients that share a similar flavour gather in the corner of the larder and start combining and mixing, generating a quite unusual broth. The email causes the premature production of a flowering stem on some vigorous extensions of existing leaf-bearing stems in the departmental garden plot. The cook remains unaware that such 'bolting' results in a poor quality harvest from the grower's point of view. Other fledgling shoots are so shocked by the sudden sunshine emblazoned upon them that they start to shrivel in the heat. The overall result is a rather unsavoury stew that no one likes the taste of. ***************************************************** SHART ATTACK FROM: Mike M. Shart, VC, Lune Valley Enterprise University (LuVE-U) TO: All Heads of Department CC: Hewlett Venklinne, Director of Public Perception Accuracy Assurance. SUBJECT: Streamlining communications. Dear all, I wanted to write to you all today regarding the outcomes of the recent staff survey, as well as the NSS scores that came out not so long ago. Since a response to the numerous responses was devised some weeks ago, Hewlett has been giving me considerable briefs on how best to explain it to you, in order to ensure that the benefits of our response are manifest. One of the most concerning things about the staff survey results was the feeling among staff that there is poor communication between them and the senior management. The NSS, meanwhile, has indicated that students feel alienated from their academic departments, and that there is no clear 'chain of command' when it comes to approaching their departments with issues they might have. To that end, I am excited to announce a new set of opportunities for you all to pave the way in a bold new means of departmental engagement. You know how difficult it is - a student wants to get an extension on their essay or repeat an academic year, and what do they do? They tell their Departmental Officer, who then has to go to the Head of Department and get it confirmed, and then the Departmental Officer has to tell the student what the HoD said, and then administer whatever the piddling query was, and it’s all just so complicated. Meanwhile, more academically oriented administrative tasks are thrown on our Departmental Officers, meaning that there are whole slews of activity within any department that the HoD simply doesn’t know about. The solution? It’s simple - we cut out the middleman! If you were catching fish, and then you paid a wholesaler to take it to the supermarkets for you, well, that’s a drain on profits, and who knows what state the fish will end up in while the wholesaler has it? Well, it’s the same situation here, isn’t it? So, from now on, consider yourselves free of the hurdles to communication - instead, moving forwards, we will move forwards with a new model that allows you, the HoD, to take back control of your department, and be the first port of call for every query from every stakeholder. As a double whammy, I hear a lot of PhD students have been complaining about a lack of office space. With fewer departmental officers, we ought to make a net gain on space resource of about one office per department! I trust you are all in agreement. Mike. *** FROM: Hewlett Venklinne. TO: Mike M. Shart. That bit about the fish was a bloody masterstroke. Nice little ad-lib there, mate! HV ***************************************************** LETTERS No letters this time. Let’s try and make the final issue of the year on 22nd June a bumper edition, shall we? ***************************************************** The editorial collective of subtext currently consists of (in alphabetical order): James Groves, Lizzie Houghton, Ian Paylor, Ronnie Rowlands, Joe Thornberry, and Johnny Unger. |