University The of Western Australia UNIVERSITY MANAGERS GROUP The next meeting of the University Managers Group will be held on Tuesday August 16th, 2005 at 3.30 pm in the Economics and Commerce Conference Room (Room 373), Third floor Economics and Commerce Building. AGENDA ATTENDANCE Members are asked to sign the attendance sheet
APOLOGIES Members are asked to indicate apologies
NEW MEMBERS
A welcome is extended to new members of the UMG.
1. MINUTES The Minutes of the meeting of the University Managers Group held on July 19th, 2005 are available at the UMG Website [http://www.umg.uwa.edu.au/home/agendas_&_minutes ] Members are asked to confirm those Minutes as a true and correct record of that meeting.
2.
BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES
3. FINANCIAL SERVICES REPORTING PROJECT Gary Wright, the Project Consultant for the Financial Services Reporting Project has met with PeopleSoft users from across campus to identify and document the key problems that PeopleSoft users are having with the reporting suite. A review and recommendation paper has been prepared and circulated. Scott Logan, Director of Financial Services and Gary Wright will provide a briefing for members of the key issues. This feedback will assist members of FMOC in their deliberations about priorities and preferred solutions.
4. RESEARCH MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PROJECT Research Services has commenced a project to select and implement a best-of-breed Research Management System (RMS) and has developed a project governance structure with a Steering Committee and a Reference Group of key stakeholders to provide advice and feedback to the project. The project sponsor is Professor Doug McEachern, the Project Owner is Dr Campbell Thomson and the Project Manager is Damien Davini. The members of the Steering Committee are: o Professor Doug McEachern o Dr Campbell Thomson o Mr Peter Curtis o Dr David Glance
o Ms Susan Lewis o Mr Chris Rasmussen o Professor David Sampson o Mr Damian Davini The members of the Reference Group are: o Dr Campbell Thomson (Chair) o Mrs Christine Casey o A/Prof Billie Giles-Corti o Mr Bruce Kirkby o Dr Malcolm Lawson o Mrs Christine Richardson o Mr Damian Davini Both the Steering Committee and the Reference Group have had initial meetings and further meetings have been scheduled. A regular update will be provided to UMG meetings with presentations at key stages in the process. Campbell Thomson or Christine Richardson will be happy to respond to any questions.
5. RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY An amalgamated response from Faculties has been submitted by the UMG and that summary is attached. Campbell Thomson, Director of Research Services will update members on the status of the Research Infrastructure Levy.
6. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT & OPERATIONS COMMITTEE The next meeting of the Financial Management & Operation Committee (FMOC) is scheduled for Wednesday 7th September 2005. At that meeting members will have the opportunity to provide input into Financial Services planning process for 2006. UMG members are encouraged to send points for discussion to any FMOC member.
7. REPORTING ON PROJECTS BY MEMBERS Members are asked to briefly report on projects within their areas. Margaret Pryor will report on the response to the IT Skills Survey going live. Calendaring project: Vicky Wilmot reports that Finance & Resources is establishing a formal project to develop a calendar for 2006. To enable the distribution of information for the rest of 2005, the key dates for the final quarter will be posted in a simple format as an interim measure. Delegations: Anne Gilkes will attend a future meeting to provide an update.
8.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
9. NEXT MEETING The next meeting will be held on Tuesday September 20th, 2005 at 3.30 pm in the Economics & Commerce Conference Room.
Campbell Thomson, Director, Research Services
Preferred Mechanism: Research Infrastructure levy Please find an aggregated advice from Faculties with respect to the two alternative proposals for the administration of the research infrastructure levy charged on research grants and university consultancies. Feedback has been received from 3 of the 4 research intensive Faculties and there is overwhelming support for Option 1. Some additional comments have been attached and I'm aware that there has been considerable other comment sent directly to you. Architecture, Landscape & Visual Arts No feedback received Arts, Humanities & Social Sciences All feedback received favours Option 1 - more straightforward and easy to apply (applying to all grants, other than the exemptions referred to, regardless of size) whereas there is room for variation/inconsistencies and increased workload at the local level with Option 2. However, clarification is needed on matters raised by Gill Dale-Jones, the treatment of full infrastructure grants within the FFM, and infrastructure levy charges for non-research areas/activities. Business No feedback received Education Feedback indicates support for Option 1- however it was felt there was a need for specific examples to assist in the decision making process. Engineering, Computing & Mathematics All Schools within FECM strongly prefer Option 1. There are some variations in relation to the individual points within Option 1 per as below including a strong objection to point 1 from CWR which is supported by some areas. Clarification of point 6 has been requested. The general comment in relation to Option 2 is that it appears to remove responsibilities to administer payments from Research Services and Financial Services and to push the load over to Schools. It is too open to negotiation and non compliance and too difficult to manage locally. The workload associated would not appear to compensate for the additional flexibility. It is not acceptable in its current format. Law Separate email correspondence requested clarification around a range of issues. Life & Physical Sciences No feedback received to date Medicine & Dentistry The Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry supports Option 1 and strongly opposes Option 2. Natural & Agricultural Sciences Supports option 1; had been previously discussed in 2004 and that feedback was provided to Research Services. That view still holds. Furthermore, the Faculty requests that external funds provided to meet student (Hons and PhD) operating grants not be subject to the levy.
Yours Sincerely,
Christine Richardson Faculty Manager August 5th, 2005
OTHER COMMENTS The School of Population Health has written separately to Campbell Thomson on this matter. Their comments were: "Option two was not acceptable because it was felt that it would be administratively complicated. In setting a whole-of-school target for revenue generation which results in penalties if the target is missed, a completely new performance area unrelated to research or teaching excellence would be created, and it was felt that this was unacceptable. Option One was preferred but the following concerns were raised: "The University policy of charging of infrastructure on research grants and university consultancies will be simplified so that in future all charges will be based on income received and not direct costs." It should made clear that this is an effective increase in infrastructure charge, from 35% of cost to 53.8% of cost or, in the case of projects for which IP is retained by the University, from 15% of cost to 17.65% of cost. Clarification was sought on Point 7: "The charging of infrastructure on research income will have no bearing on the weighting of this income in the Faculty Funding Model." As you know, projects from which infrastructure at the 35% rate have been levied have automatically been put forward as Group 1 projects, receiving the higher rate of return in the Faculty Funding Model, even though they are not Australian Competitive Grants. Will this continue to be the case? If it will not be the case, how will this affect the School's share of the Faculty Funding monies? The School was pleased that there will be consistency in the application of an infrastructure charge to grants in which the funding agency will not pay infrastructure (ie to overcome the difficulties created by the current system of setting an annual $200,000 earnings limit after which the levy is charged), but wonder how this will be managed in contracts which specifically require that the University does not charge infrast...