CONTENTS
Preface……………………………………………

1

Reports from Each University
Finance
University of Tokyo ………………………

7

Tokyo Institute of Technology ……………

61

Human Resources
Hirosaki University ………………………

83

Kobe University …………………………

139

Quality Assurance
Nagoya University ………………………

159

Kyusyu Institute of Technology ………

185

Preface
Background
The idea of the Japan-UK Collaboration in Higher Education Programme was originallyconceived based on a proposal by the then UK Minister of Education, Baroness Blackstone,
to his Japanese counterpart, Hirofumi Nakasone, at the G-8 ministers of education meeting
held in Japan in April 2000.

Mr. Blackstone further suggested a need for discussion among

stakeholders of higher education in the two countries.
In May 2001, the Japan-UK Forum of Higher Education Policies was held in Tokyo,
focussing on the theme, ‘Goals of Higher Education in the 21st Century: Quality of Higher
Education and University-Industry Links’.

At this gathering, several topics such as ‘quality

assurance’, ‘autonomous management of universities’, ‘assessment in higher education andresearch’ and ‘university-industry links’ were discussed.

A meeting of executives oforganising institutions from the two countries was held on the second day of the forum, andthe need for continuous development of mutual collaboration between UK and Japanesehigher education was agreed upon.

In November 2001, the UK formally proposed theestablishment of the Japan-UK Collaboration in Higher Education Programme to Japan.
Through intensive discussion among members, ‘Japan-UK Collaboration in Higher
Education Programme’ was established in February 2002.

This three year programme,

scheduled to continue through February 2005, has been implemented based on theagreement of the steering committee, composed of the National Institution for Academic
Degrees and University Evaluation (NIAD-UE),

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,

Science and Technology (MEXT), Centre for National University Finance (CNUF), Japan
Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS), Japan Association for National Universities(JANU) from the Japanese side and the Higher Education Funding Council for England(HEFCE), Department of Education and Skills (DfES), Universities UK (UUK), and theBritish Council from the UK side.

‘Managing Change’ Project
Under the collaborative programme, the ‘Managing Change’ project has been
implemented since March 2002, focusing on the process of management change inJapanese national universities as a core part of higher education reform in Japan. This
project aims to contribute to higher education reform in Japan in terms of institutional

leadership, governance and management, and in particular to financial management,
human resource management and internal quality assurance mechanisms.
The project has the following components:
Stage 1: Planning, preparation and introductory workshops: March-July 2002
Selection of participating institutions
Introductory workshop (15-16 July in Tokyo; 17-18 July in Kyoto)
Meeting of Joint Steering Committee from the UK and Japanese sides withparticipating institution case studies (19 July 2003: Tokyo)
Stage 2: Japanese case studies and study visits: July 2002 to September 2003
Discussion of current situation and future of national university management inJapan (July 2002- )Study visits by Japanese universities to UK universities (9-13 December 2003)
Reports on study visits (until September 2003)
Stage 3: Dissemination and evaluation of project outputs in Japan and discussion of
future course (October 2003)
Dissemination seminar (6 October 2003)
Distribution of the report (October 2003)

Participating Institutions
Topic

Japanese side

UK sideFinance

University of Tokyo

UniversityofSheffield,

University of Oxford

Human resources

Quality assuranceTokyo Institute of Technology

Loughborough University

Hirosaki University

University of York

Kobe University

University of Brighton

Nagoya University

University of Warwick

Kyushu Institute of Technology

University of Surrey

This report is a collection of study visit reports by the six participating Japanese national
universities.

From the steering committee, Professor Tsutomu Kimura, President of

NIAD-UE and Mr. Hitoshi Osaki, Director General of CNUF and Mr. Fujio Omori, Inspectorof MEXT visited the UK in addition to representatives from participating institutions.
Several secretarial staff also accompanied the study visits.
As can be readily understood from the reports, the visits to the UK collaborating
institutions were highly organised and historically the best with regards to quality and size.

The reports reflect intensive discussion on practical innovation and tasks for effective
management between the visiting team and hosting institutions on university managementfrom the view points of leaders and managers in higher education institutions.

It isencouraging to see that further collaborations and exchanges have already started between
respective institutions, corresponding to the programme’s goal to foster further exchange
and collaboration between higher education leaders in Japan and the UK.
The future course of this collaborative programme is currently being discussed andplanned, with an eye to monitor the incorporation process and management reform ofJapanese national universities. Through continuous discussion based on the monitoring
study, we are planning to further develop mutual understanding and collaboration between
UK and Japanese higher education.
As a member of the steering committee, Professor Seizo Miyata, President of the Tokyo
University of Agriculture and Technology and Chair of the Fifth Standing Committee on
International Affairs requested early feedback on study visit reports in preparation forincorporation.

The Japan-UK steering committee is very pleased that this report promises

to be utilised for further innovation in management change in Japanese national universities.
Being made available in both English and Japanese, the report is expected to contribute tomutual understanding and exchange between Japanese and UK higher education.
Finally, I would like to thank participating institutions from both the UK and Japan,
members of the steering committee, and the staffs of HEFCE, the British Council and
NIAD-UE working as secretariat.

6 October 2003

Representing the steering committee from the Japanese side

Tsutomu Kimura

President
National Institution for Academic Degrees and University Evaluation

Reports from Each University

University of Tokyo

Japan-UK Joint Research Project

A New Era in University Management
The University of Tokyo Group
Report17th August 20039

Preface
A significant turning point has been reached in the coming incorporation of Japan’s national
universities. The important thing is not simply to alter the organizational structure of the institutions.
Reform is also needed in the various ways in which the national universities actually operate.
Incorporation is causing questions to be asked about how Japan’s national universities will change.
In many ways, the incorporation of national universities was planned with the recent reforms of the
UK’s universities in mind. So how does the present state of Japanese national universities differ from thatof British universities, what does this mean for the social function of the universities, and what clues does
it give to the design of Japan’s post-incorporation universities?
From this point of view, the timing of the Japan-UK comparison project, which was carried out withthe help of Japan’s National Universities Association No.5 Permanent Committee, the National Institutefor Academic Degrees (NIAD), and their British counterpart, HEFCE, was most favorable, and we are
extremely happy to have participated. We would like to thank all those involved.
The research group of the University of Tokyo mostly studied the two universities of Sheffield andOxford, focusing mainly on financial and administrative aspects. It was extremely useful to study two
universities that are so different in character.
The research group consisted of Professor Motohisa Kaneko and Associate Professor Masayuki
Kobayashi, both of the Centre for Research and Development of Higher Education. Mr. Hitoshi Osaki,
director of the Centre for National University Finance, was also involved in field research. Assistance
was provided by another four people, Professor Naoyuki Ogata of the Research Institute for Higher
Education in Hiroshima, Associate Professor Akihiro Asonuma of Nagoya University’s Department of
Educational Sciences, Naoki Otawa, an assistant at the University of Tokyo Centre for Research andDevelopment of Higher Education, and Akiko Morozumi of the University of Tokyo Graduate School
and currently a researcher at the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology.
The aim of this joint research was to perform a detailed study of three universities from Japan andthe UK from this viewpoint. What follows is a comparison between the University of Sheffield, theUniversity of Oxford and the University of Tokyo of the four aspects of (1) university structure, (2)governance, (3) finance and (4) self-evaluation and medium-term planning. Also, in order to examine thecharacteristics of these three universities, we have added a comparison of the standards that we could
obtain, such as graduate characteristics and thesis output.
Further, this report shows the results of the research group’s analysis and not the views of, theNational Universities Association No.5 Permanent Committee, NIAD. or the University of Tokyo10

1. Organization Structure
The subjects of this analysis are the University of Oxford and the University of Sheffield in the UK
and the University of Tokyo in Japan. Before analyzing their governance and finance, we first compare
the basic profiles and organization structures of these three universities.
History and Profile
The University of Sheffield is located in the city of Sheffield, an industrial city in the centre ofEngland. The University of Sheffield developed from three local institutions: the oldest - the Sheffield
School of Medicine, founded in 1828, Firth College and the Sheffield Technical School. From the end of
the 19th century to the 20th century, many civic universities, or so-called “red brick universities”, were
founded in cities all over Britain. Among them, the University of Sheffield was founded in 1905. It has
reflected Sheffield’s position as the centre of the metal and steel industry, and demonstrated in particular
the city’s special place in the field of engineering. Since the 1980’s, however, the downsizing of theseindustries has led the university to seek new areas of development focusing on regional changes. In
response to this need, the university has become known for taking a very positive stance on university
management. As a result, although the University of Oxford still produces a far bigger total number oftheses and other papers, the University of Sheffield’s percentage increase in academic theses in the
1990’s surpassed that of the University of Oxford. In addition, the university has performed favorably inresearch evaluations (RAE) by HEFCE and other assessments, and ranks highly compared with various
other kinds of universities. Two of its graduates have won Nobel Prizes in the last 10 years. The
University of Sheffield can be given as a good example of the results of positive university management.
It goes without saying that the University of Oxford, together with the University of Cambridge, is
one of the top institutions of higher education not only in Britain but worldwide. Today’s University of
Oxford inherits a long tradition and its establishment can be dated back to the 12th century. At the sametime, it is an institution that has educated the British elite; 47% of all British prime ministers and 17% of
the current members of Parliament have been graduates from this university. Of course traditions ofresearch from the Middle Ages still continue to this day, but this was not always the case during the 17thand 18th centuries. But then the tradition of research was revitalized during the restoration of the 19th
century. Four graduates of the University of Oxford won Nobel Prizes between 1901 and 1945, andanother four between 1946 and 1990. Currently in 2002, the number of essays published by theuniversity in major academic journals is among the top 20 in the world. While the University of Oxford
is proud of its tradition, it is also a fact that such tradition may hamper the university as it tries to keep up
with new academic developments. However, many important changes are being made, including a
sweeping revision of the university regulations on October 1, 2000.
Established in 1877 through the merger of a number of higher education institutions, the Universityof Tokyo has the longest history of all the Japanese universities. It has since then been a centre for thepromotion of academic research in Japan, at the same time fulfilling the function of producing specialists
to support the country’s modernization. From this point of view, the University of Tokyo plays a role insociety similar to that of the University of Oxford, its graduates making up 28% of Japan’s prime
ministers since the Meiji Restoration and 20% of the current Diet members. However, only one Nobel

11

Prize winner has graduated from the university. Looking at academic productivity, the number of papers
contributed to major academic journals by the University of Tokyo increased significantly from the
1980’s and by late 1990’s it has ranked number two in the world after Harvard University. Of course
there are various problems in comparing the number of theses produced. For example, the University ofTokyo produced far fewer papers quoted in other publications. Moreover, as described later in this paper,
the University of Tokyo is in itself a much bigger organization than the two British universities
mentioned here. The university’s research productivity as an organization, therefore, is not necessarily
very high.
Scale
It is important at the outset to have a basic understanding about the sizes of the three universities
with respect to enrolment, the number of academic staff, and the number of administrative andsupporting staff.
Indices related to the scale of the three universities are shown in Figure 1-1.

12Figure 1-1 Comparison of the scale of the three universities
University of
Sheffield（2002）
Student numbers
No. of Sudents
Undergraduate
Graduate
OthersTotal

17,841
5,791
23,632

Overseas students (among
total no. of students)
Undergraduate
Graduate
Others
Total
Teaching staff numbers
Teaching & research
Teaching
Research
Total
Non-Academic Employees
Administrative
Technical
OthersMedical
Total
Total (Except Medical)
Expenditure
GBP 1 Million

100 million Yen

6)

University of Oxford(2000-2001)

University of Tokyo(2002)

10,9794,931
501
16,411

15,62012,469195
28,284

1,069
2,528
501
4,098

264
1,789
16
2,069

1,170
169
853
2,192

1,373

2,826

1)

2,209
3,582

1,291
4,117

2)

3,214
3,214

2,033
832
870
3,735
3,735

234

548

8)

388
537
908
1,257

3)
4)
5)

843
7)
713
1,972

9)

1,668

10)

7)

Sources
The University of Sheffield: university data submitted to HEFCEThe University of Oxford: Oxford Outline 2002
The University of Tokyo: Outline of the University of Tokyo
Notes:
1) Total no. of professors, associate professors and lecturers2) Assistants3) Academic-related administration or clerical staff
4) Technical staff5) Computer, library, museum and ancillary staff
6) Calculated at a rate of GBP1 = 234 yen
7) Total expenses of colleges8) Annual revenue9) Total of national school special account and general accounts (science researchexpenses etc.)
10) Except attached hospitals and institutes

13

1,475
939
1,085
3,499
2,414

Enrolment
Looking at total students numbers (Figure 1-2), the University of Tokyo has the biggest number(about 28,000), followed by the University of Sheffield (22,000) and then the University of Oxford(16,000). There is not such a significant difference in undergraduate numbers, the University of Tokyoand the University of Sheffield having a similar number of undergraduate students. But when it comes tograduate students, the University of Tokyo has 10,000, which is far more than the other two universities
with less than 5,000 each. The University of Oxford has less graduate students than other first classuniversities in the world, something it is trying to change by increasing its number of graduate students.
As for overseas students, the University of Oxford has an especially high ratio with approximately one
quarter of its students being non-British. It also has quite a lot of overseas students at the departmental
level, unlike the University of Tokyo. At the University of Sheffield 19% of students are non-British.
Figure 1-2 Student numbers in the three universities
Undergraduate

Graduate

17,841
15,62012,46910,9795,791

University of Sheffield

4,931

University of Oxford

University of Tokyo

Teaching Staff
A rigorous comparison of teaching staff numbers is impossible due to the differences in the systems,
but the following points can be used as indicators for now. First, looking at the number of teaching staff
at the level of lecturer or higher (Figure 1-3), the University of Tokyo has 2,400, significantly more than
the two UK universities because it has many attached research institutes. This is also a reflection of its
higher ratio of permanent teaching staff. As for the total number of teaching/research staff, the Universityof Oxford has about 7.500, the most among the three universities, although not much more than the
University of Tokyo. This is due to a large number of contract staff hired for fixed periods of time only to
conduct research.

14

Figure 1-3 Teaching staff numbers in the three universities
No. of Teaching Staff (Lecturer or above)

Total no. of teaching staff
4,117

3,582
2,826
2,192
1,373

1,339

University of Sheffield

University of Oxford

University of Tokyo

Administrative and Support Staff
The total employee numbers are shown in Figure 1-4. The University of Sheffield employs
approximately 3,200 people compared with the 3,700 or so people who work for the University of
Oxford. The numbers at the two British universities might appear to be almost the same as theapproximately 3,500 employees at the University of Tokyo. However, the figure for the University ofTokyo includes medical-related employees in its affiliated hospital. Not including such medical-related
staff, the University of Tokyo in fact only employs 2,400 people, which is less than two-thirds of the total
number of people working at the University of Oxford. In terms of the total student and teaching staff
numbers, the University of Tokyo is the biggest among the three universities. However, it is also obviousthat the University of Tokyo has the smallest number of employees.
Figure 1-4 Administrative/support staff numbers in the three universities
3735

3499

3214

2414

U. Sheffield

U. Oxford

U. Tokyo

U.Tokyo excluding
medical-related employee

If we take a closer look at the differences among these three universities (as shown in Figure 1-1), it
is very clear that the University of Oxford has a relatively smaller number of administration andclerical-related employees compared with the University of Tokyo. On the other hand, the above figure
for the University of Tokyo includes mostly government civil servants, in other words officially-hired
employees, while in fact there are many other different types of employees in the university. In particular,
there are many administration-related employees hired depending on the administration expense budget
who are not included in the total number of employees.

15Budget Size
Comparing the budget size of the three universities by looking at their total expenses (calculated at a
rate of GBP 1 = 234 yen), the University of Sheffield’s expenses are 50 billion yen and the University of
Oxford’s are 100 billion yen, while the University of Tokyo has significantly larger expenses of 210
billion yen. This figure for the University of Tokyo, however, includes the expense of its hospital, unlike
the numbers from the two British universities. Not including this hospital-related expense, the total
expense of the University of Tokyo still amounts to 170 billion yen. One of the main reasons for the
University of Tokyo’s huge expense amount is that it also includes the cost of running its attachedresearch institutes. Although the two British universities also have research centres and other affiliatedorganizations, their sizes are far smaller than those of the University of Tokyo. To compare theUniversity Sheffield and the University of Oxford, the numbers of students are similar, but the Universityof Oxford has more research functions, which is reflected in the difference in their total expenses. On theother hand, because the University of Tokyo is much bigger while also having more research functions,
we can say that it is over three times the size of the University of Sheffield.
Figure 1-5 Total expenses of the three universities(in 100 million yen; calculated at a rate of GBP 1 = 234 yen)
1,972
1,257

1,436

1,668

548

U. Sheffield

U. Oxford

U. Tokyo excluding
Attached Reserch
Institute andHospitals

16

U. Tokyo excluding
Hospitals

U.TokyoBasic organization structures

The above differences among the three universities reflect the significant difference in theirorganization structures. The main features of the organization of the three universities are shown in
Figure 1-6. A comparison identifies the following points.
Figure 1-6 Structures of the three universities
U. Sheffield

U. Oxford

U. Tokyo

7 Faculties

5 Divisions

13
Graduate Schools/Divisions
10
Undergraduate Department

Education and Research
Basic Bodies

Intermediate
Bodies18 Faculties

Department courses, etc.

41 Funding Units
Unit Bodies
Membership
Bodies75 Departments

46 Departments
39 Colleges
6 Halls

Department courses, etc

Research
Attached
Research Institutes
Research Centres

68

40

11
Attached ResearchInstitutes
24
University ResearchCentres
28
Divisional ResearchCentres

Hospitals
Affiliated Hospitals

Affiliated Hospitals

3 Attached Hospitals

University Extension
Class-room
instruction
On-lineDepartment of Continuing None
Education
TALL
Information Sciences

Organizations for University-Industry Linkage
Centre for Research
In the Organization The Research OfficeServicesof the University(RO), the Office ofCorporate Partnerships(OCP)
Outside of the
Sheffield University
ISIS
University
Enterprises Ltd (SUEL)*

Officefor
Relations,

TLO

University-Owned Firms
Venture-capital
Others27 firms funded by
the University

None
Oxford University Press

17

Industrial

Figure 1-7 Organization patterns of the three universities

University of . Sheffield

Faculty

Faculty

Department

Department

Department

Department

7 Faculties

７５ Departments
ResearchCenterUniversity of Oxford
College hall
Division

College hall

Division

5 Divisions

Department

Department

Department

Department

46 Departments
ResearchCenterUniversity of Tokyo

Graduate
Division

Graduate
Division

Faculty

Faculty

Department/Course

Department/Course

Department/Course

Department/Course

Department/Course

Department/CourseResearch
Institute
Hospital

Hospital

18

Research
Institute

24 Administrative Divisions
3 Attached Hospitals

Functional scopeFirst of all, a look at the organization of the universities shows us that the University of Sheffield isthe simplest, with its basic research and education structure comprising faculties and departments. The
University of Oxford has divisions and departments which are both research and education structures,
while at the same time it is composed of 39 colleges and 6 halls which are independent structures. This isa key feature of the University of Oxford. As is widely known, historically the colleges and halls evolved
as the students’ living quarters, but now they are the residential and assigned structures to which
undergraduate students belong, while also performing various other functions. This feature complicatesthe organization of the University of Oxford and can make it difficult to understand. 'Furthermore, theuniversity is conducting continuing education which it handles via a university department, but closely
associated with one of its colleges (Kellogg College)'.
Comparing these three universities, the University of Tokyo has far more functions within its
structure. In addition to its research and education bodies, which include 13 graduate schools and 10
faculties, it also has 11 attached research institutes. In any case, the university is on the largest scale andits research bodies have a high degree of independence. Although the University of Sheffield and the
University of Oxford have many small-scale “research centres”, most of them belong to different
departments and are not very independent. Moreover, the University of Tokyo has three attachedhospitals. Although they belong to the medical school and medical research institute, as part of theuniversity structure they are bigger than graduate schools and faculties. Although the two British
universities have so-called “university hospitals” which are affiliated to the medical schools,
organizationally the hospitals belong either to the Ministry of Health or to a foundation and only
maintain close relationship with the universities in the areas of research and education.
Basic university structure

The basic organizational unit of the two British universities is the department, as in otheruniversities in the country. In the case of the University of Sheffield, there are 75 departments, several ofwhich together form a unit called a “school”. The University of Sheffield also has seven faculties, which
are intermediate bodies and basically have the role of classification in terms of education. In contrast, theUniversity of Oxford has five intermediate bodies called Divisions, which not only classify the education
fields but also have other functions such as decision-making and budget allocation which makes themhighly independent. In this sense, the divisions are the basic organizational units within the university. In
the case of the University of Tokyo, the 13 graduate schools and 11 attached research institutes constitutebasic Administrative Divisions. They are basic units not only in terms of education and research, but also
in decision-making and budget allocation. In other words, they are highly independent. In this respect,
the University of Tokyo is similar to the University of Oxford. However, the University of Tokyo also
has faculties which are the structures for undergraduate courses and whose relationship with graduate
schools is not clear.
The above comparison of basic organization structures allows us to draw the following conclusions.
First, of the two British universities, the University of Sheffield has an organization structure that is19

very simple to understand, while the existence of colleges in the University of Oxford complicate its
organization structure. The impressive institutional progress of the former institution must have been
helped at least partly by the relatively straight forward organizational structure. The latter has recently
set upon a course giving priority to the reconstruction of the university structure as a whole..
Second, the University of Tokyo is not only bigger in overall size than the two British universities, it
is also significantly characterized by the various functions such as attached research institutes or attachedhospitals that are contained within the university structure. Moreover, the management bodies of its
graduate schools and undergraduate departments overlap with one other. Because of this, the university’s
intermediate bodies themselves are lacking in logical consistency This feature makes the university’s
governance and financial organization enormous, and at the same time extremely complicated.
The third conclusion is about teaching staff. The University of Oxford in particular has a very large
number of different teaching titles resulting from its long history and the existence of colleges. Basically,
however, although its employment system is relatively flexible, the status of the university’s teaching
staff is very clearly defined. In contrast, the University of Tokyo has a strictly defined employment
system as it hires its staff as government civil servants, although there are also many teaching staff whoare employed in different forms. The status and duties of these teaching staff vary extremely and havethemselves become difficult to fully understand.
As described above, the University of Tokyo has the most complicated and diversified functions,organization, and staff make-up among the three universities. This is because the University of Tokyo iscurrently a national university to which it has been possible to add various functions. However, it also
demonstrates many irregularities as a result of trying to avoid the heavy limitations of its structure. In one
respect the university is securing the foundation of its organization structure, but in many other respects
this simultaneously hampers the creation of clarity to the university management. The organization of the
University of Oxford also has some complicated aspects which are the result of its historical legacy. The
University of Sheffield, on the other hand, has the clearest organization principles, which is believed to
be one of the reasons why the university can be managed strategically.

20

2. Governance
The governance format of British universities has come about through a number of different
historical processes. The two forces that have been balanced in one form or another are the independent
management of universities by their academic staff on the one hand, and society, that is to say Parliament,
the Crown or the government, on the other. However, these universities have been criticized for lacking
flexibility in our modern society. Among the criticism, the best known is the Dearing Report (National
Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education 1997). Many British universities took the report as anopportunity to radically change their governance structure in the late 1990’s. However, the actualchanges made have differed among universities. Bearing this point in mind, this chapter will review andcompare the governance structures of the University of Sheffield, the University of Oxford and both thepresent and post-incorporation governance structures of the University of Tokyo. First, we discuss thelegal position and the situation regarding the regulations of these three universities, before going on to
analyze their basic decision-making mechanisms and execution capacity.
Legal status and basis of the three universities

In general, the legal status of British universities is as civil corporations under civil law. According
to the Charities Act of 1993, universities are exempt from paying taxes. The universities with such a legal
basis can basically be divided broadly into (1) The University of Oxford and the University ofCambridge, (2) other universities as defined by the regulations of higher education and continuing
education in 1992, and (3) the so-called “new universities” which are traditional polytechnics that were
given the status of universities in 1992 (Committee of University Chairmen 1998).

The University of Sheffield

The University of Sheffield was founded in 1905 and belongs to the second category of universities
described above, and is considered a model, as it were, of the major British universities. The university
independently carries out its management and administration by its university structure. It has its own
assets and the legal status of a private corporation. This status is recognized under a Royal Charter
granted by the King or Queen, and defines the major organization structures of the university. Because ofthis, the university is recognized by the government as having a public nature. The University of
Sheffield’s Royal Charter and its statutes were granted at the time of its foundation in 1905 during theregime of Edward VII.
However, there are several points in the postscript to the Royal Charter stating that it should beconsidered a continuing contract between the Crown and the university rather than a historical document.
As long as the university does not contravene the Royal Charter itself or any of its basic regulations, theuniversity shall have the right to make additions or revisions to the statutes according to its own
independent judgment. According to the Queen in Council, however, it is believed that the Crown shouldhave a role in decision-making regarding the Royal Charter itself or its basic regulations. Any such
revision to the Royal Charter should be first proposed by the university and then given royal approval
based on the advice of the Privy Council.

21

Following the Dearing Report in 1997, the University of Sheffield proposed to strengthen its
administration and management structure, and decided to revise its Royal Charter and statutes in thesame way as other universities. In 2000, it was granted royal approval for such a revision. In this way,
British universities can be considered under civil law as civil corporations with their basic management
methods subject to government regulations.

The University of Oxford

The University of Oxford belongs to the first category of universities mentioned previously.
Historically, various statutes have been drawn up from a mixture of movements within the university as
well as the Crown and the national church. This collection of statutes can be considered the regulations of
the university’s status, although the university has no specific founder or Royal Charter (Oxford
University 2002, p.91). On the other hand, the statutes were formed over time as university regulations.
In 1571, the government granted the university the position of a civil corporation within the legal system,
based on the Act for the Incorporation of Both Universities (the University of Oxford and the Universityof Cambridge), which currently forms the direct basis of the foundation of the University of Oxford.
Parliament later created a reform committee as a way of reforming both universities’ organization
structures under the law. Examples of these reforms are the Oxford University Act of 1854 andUniversities of Oxford and Cambridge Act of 1923. Although the University of Oxford does not have aRoyal Charter as such, the government committee is able to request changes to the university statutes.
This portion constitutes the Queen in Council. Reforms therefore require royal approval with theinterposition of the Privy Council. It should therefore be noted that although the University of Oxford
can be called a private entity, the University is also subject to government regulation as a condition of
public funding (which, however, amounts to less than 30% of its income, even excluding the income ofits colleges)
University of Oxford set up the North Commission which, after much argument, presented an
independent reform bill (University of Oxford 1997 Commission of Inquiry Report). Based on this bill,
the university’s decision-making and organization structure were changed while the university statutes
were reformed drastically, and the new statutes came to effect in October 2002. Until then, themanagement and operation of the university had been based on the 1854 Oxford University Act
mentioned above. The latest historical reform was the first major change in the University of Oxford in
one and a half centuries.

The University of Tokyo

At present, the mechanism of governance in Japanese national universities is not necessarily
provided legally systematic definition. This is partly political, and partly due to the nature of theJapanese national universities which can be classified as a “national government facility” type together
with the German universities. On the one hand, it is considered to be independent in terms of its
education and research and its management and administration. Faculty meetings of graduate schools
and attached research institutes, comprising all the professors and associate professors, have strong22

power On the other, in terms of its facilities and staff it is basically a part of the government structure. Itsorganization is subject to regulations such as the Schools and Education Act and National Schools andInstitutions Act. Moreover, the Educational Civil Servant Special Act is also applicable to theuniversity’s internal running. The details of its internal running are regulated by the statutes created by
the university.
As such a national facility, the University of Tokyo is undergoing drastic changes. That is to say, theinstitutional basis of the university will be the National Universities Corporation Act, which was passed
in July 2003 and is due to come into effect in 2004. However, the university itself will establish
accompanying university statutes.
Decision-making structure

The basic decision-making structure in each of the three universities is shown in Figure 2-1. In UK
universities there is a Chancellor who serves as the titular head, while the person who acts as the senior
officer of the university is the Vice-Chancellor. The equivalent figure to Vice-Chancellor in the
University of Tokyo is the President.

23

Figure 2-1 Basic types of governanceU. Sheffield

U. Oxford

U. Tokyo- Present

U. Tokyo– After
corporatization

Council

Council

SenatePresident

Decision/
Execution
32
14
Pro-Chancellor

Decision/
Execution
26
2
Vice-Chancellor

Decision

Decision/
Execution
9

Decision-Making/ Execution Bodies
Decision
Making 1

Function
MemberLay member
Chair

Frequency
4 Times
in a year
Decision
Making 2
Function
MemberLay member
Chair
Frequency
in a year
Auxiliary / Consultative Bodies
Court

None
President

6 timesCongregation

Executive
Committee

Decision
about 3600
None
Vice-Chancellor
1 time (11 times incalendar)Convocation

Convocation

9

Council of Deans’Management
Council

Council of
Divisional Heads

Congregation
Decision-Making for Academic Matters

SenateCongregation

SenateFaculty Council

Divisional Board

Faculty Meeting

Academic
Council

The University of Sheffield

The governance centre of the University of Sheffield, like other so-called “old universities”, is theCouncil. The university can be said to be structured as a corporation. It functions as the employer of staff
and enters into contracts with other organizations, and the Council itself also acts as an executive body, as
described later. Before the reforms of 2000, the decision-making body was the Court. After the revisionof the contents of its Royal Charter and statutes, however, the power of decision-making has become
centralized within the Council, as in other universities in the UK.
The Court is the university’s most extensive umbrella body, bringing together representatives ofgraduate students, graduates and even local residents and professional groups. In this way, the Chancellor24

represents the widest range of university members. In the University of Sheffield, the Court wastraditionally the most fundamental decision making body. However, it was extremely difficult to reachconcrete decisions due to its large number of members. Under these conditions the commonness oftypical British universities was diminishing, a problem that the above-mentioned Dearing report pointed
out. Based on its revised statutes in 2000, the University of Sheffield limited the Court’s authority tomainly formal matters, clearly stating that the Council had become the actual decision making body.
The Council consists of about 30 members. According to the rules, the members the Chancellor,
Pro-Chancellors, Vice-Chancellor, Pro-Vice-Chancellors, two of the Deans of the Faculties, 13 people
appointed by the Council, five people appointed by the Senate (an education-related discussion body),
and representatives of the Student Union. Although there is no specific rule about non-academic
members, one of characteristics of the Council is that most of its members are in fact lay members.
Conversely, the participation of teaching staff in university management is limited. According to thestatutes, the members of the Council should include:
1. Chancellor, Pro-Chancellors (currently three), Vice-Chancellor,
Pro-Vice-Chancellors (currently four), and Treasurer
2. Chairman of Convocation
3. Convocation representative
4. Thirteen people elected by the Council
5. Two Deans of the Faculties
6. Five Senate representatives, including no more than four professors
6. One non-academic university employee representative
7. Two representatives of the Student Union

There are roughly 35 members in total, which means that a majority on the Council can be formedby 18 members. However, the Chancellor and three Pro-Chancellors in category 1 are non-academic
members, which means that if all the members appointed by the Council in category 4 were
non-academic there would be 17 non-academic members, which is already nearly a majority. On theother hand, there are only a total of seven actual academic members to choose from, namely the two
Heads of Faculties in category 5 and five Senate representatives in category 6, which is not enough toform a majority. Looking at the actual list of members, those appointed by the Council are almost all
non-academic. Also, while the Convocation includes current teaching staff, only alumni not currently
registered at the university can become members of the Council.

25

Figure 2-3 Governance structure of the University of Sheffield

Council

Court

Committee
Convocation

Vice
Chancellor

LayMemberCommittee
Committee

SenateFaculty Council (7)Senior Management
Group(VC/ Pro VC）

Administration

Department Meeting (75)

One of the Pro-Chancellors usually acts as the Chairman of the Council. The Council members,
including the Pro-Vice-Chancellors, the Treasurer, the Secretary to the Council and so on, holdconsiderable power and have the authority to appoint very important personnel.
Education-related matters, on the other hand, are discussed and determined by the Senate, which isindirectly composed of academic staff. The Academic Development Committee, established within the
council, controls matters such as changing student numbers, reorganizing the education system, andallocating resources to each department.

26

The University of Oxford

In the case of the University of Oxford, there are two bodies which can be considered to havedecision-making powers: Congregation and Council. The former is a participatory legislative bodywhich consists mainly of academic members, while the latter is a decision-making and executive bodywith fewer members. In the late 1990’s, most of the old universities in the UK, of which the University of
Sheffield is typical, underwent structural reforms that centralized decision-making authority in Council.
The University of Oxford, however, decided to keep Congregation after some debate in the previously
mentioned North Commission.
In this sense, Congregation is currently the fundamental decision-making body. The authority ofCongregation is mainly concerned with revising statutes and their related regulations, approving
Vice-Chancellors selected by Council, and so on. As for matters related to the principles of long-term
governance, it is clearly stated that the decisions of Congregation are subject to other decision-making
bodies within the university, such as Council. Congregation also has the power similar to that of the
Senate of the University of Sheffield to grant academic degrees.
The members of Congregation include (1) the Chancellor, (2) the High Steward, (3) theVice-Chancellor, (4) the Proctors, (5) all of the teaching staff, (6) the presidents of the colleges and halls,(7) the college management bodies, (8) the treasurers of the colleges and others, and (9) other members
deemed necessary by Congregation. There are currently already 3,500 members, the overwhelming
majority being teaching staff. Congregation is similar to Court of the University of Sheffield in the sensethat its members are directly involved in the organization, but unlike Court, non-academic members are
not allowed to join. In fact, Congregation could be called the assembly of the entire teaching staff.
According to the university calendar, there are twelve Congregation meetings scheduled per year. Basedon the statues, however, the Vice-Chancellor can cancel meetings if there is no particular agenda forCongregation. In 2002 there was in fact only one meeting, which only about 300 people actuallyattended.
On the contrary, Council is where actual decisions are taken, and is at the same time the executive
centre. Council is responsible for the running of Congregation described above as well as university
management, finance and asset management. If necessary, Council can delegate its responsibilities tolower-level bodies. Its members are listed below.
(1) Vice-Chancellor(2) Chairman of the Conference of Colleges(3) Two Proctors(4) Assessor(5) One representative of Congregation elected by the Conference of Colleges(6) Four lay members(7) Twelve division representatives (elected by Congregation, with some exceptions)(8) Three Congregation representatives(9) No more than three members chosen by Council itself

27

In total, there are between 25 and 28 members. Among them, even including the three members in
category (9) together with the four members in category (6), there are less than seven members who aredefinitely lay-members. This means that the influence of non-academic members is small. On the other
hand, the twelve academic representative members in category (7) constitute nearly half of the council.
Although they still do not make up the majority, they can reach a majority with other members elected inother categories. In this sense, we can say that the academic members form the centre of Council, and,what is more, the academic faculty representatives have a particularly significant influence. Council is in
this way similar to the Senate in Japanese national university such as the University of Tokyo.
Figure 2-3 Governance structure of the University of Oxford

Council

Congregation

Committee
Vice
Chancellor

LayMemberCommittee
Committee

College（39）lAdministration
Divisional Council (5)Divisional
Administration

Department Meeting

The Council is scheduled to meet three times each semester. In the 2002-3 academic year, there are
eleven meetings scheduled. In order to introduce strong leadership to Council decisions, the North
Commission proposed that the Vice-Chancellor act as the chairman, and the policy was realized. This isdifferent to the case of the University of Sheffield.
In the case of the University of Oxford, there is not one body in the whole university that makes
education-related decisions like the Senate of the University of Sheffield. As explained above, this isbecause there is no special need to separate the decision-making of academic matters since academic
members are also involved in Congregation and Council, and each division is highly independent. It also
reflects the fact that most education/research-related matters can be decided within their fields.
As previously mentioned, following the Dearing Report in the late 1990’s, British universities
started to reform to strengthen the involvement of non-academic members in university management. In
response to this, the North Commission report argued that “appointing a majority of non-academic
members to the decision-making body that forms the core of a university, or entrusting majordecision-making to a body which consists of mainly non-academics, will not improve accountability ortransparency, on the contrary, we believe it will hamper them.” (North Committee, 1997, P.71) Based on
this argument, the statutes were revised, Council was given stronger authority than before, and theintroduction of many non-academic members into Council did not take place.

28

The University of Tokyo

In the case of the University of Tokyo, the Senate is the basic decision-making body (Figure 2-4(A)).
This is stipulated in Section 7 of the National School Foundation Act. The members of the Senate areelected from the various faculties, graduate schools and independent institutes. According to theregulations of the Senate of the University of Tokyo, the actual members shall include the President, theDean of each faculty, two professors appointed by faculty meetings, the directors of various attachedresearch institutes, the chairperson of each Graduate School Committee, and the director of the ResearchCentre for Advanced Science and Technology. For clarification of the rules, almost all are ex officio
members, and only teaching staff may participate, which is a characteristic of the University of Tokyo.
Non-academic members are not involved in decision-making at all, in stark contrast to the British
universities as described previously. Also unlike the British universities’ decision-making bodies, theSenate has no particular capacity to appoint personnel.
In the new system stipulated by the National University Incorporation Law, the basic
decision-making of the institution is made by the President. There will be a Board of Directors, in thecase of the University of Tokyo, it is stipulated that there are to be no more than seven directors. It is
designated, however, to only examine and discuss major decisions (Figure 2-4(B)). For example, when along-term plan or a budget decision is being made, discussion among the board of directors will be
required (National Universities Corporation Act, 11-2. Moreover, all of the directors will be appointed
by the President. Even though the Board will assume considerable significance, the legal authority will
rest on the President alone.
One of the significant changes from before is that non-academic members will play an importantrole in university management, although it is not clearly stated within the legislative bill. For example,
although two kinds of discussion body are due to be formed after incorporation, a Management Council
and an Academic Council Senate, it is stated that a majority of the Management Council’s members shallbe non-academics.

29

Figure 2-4 Governance structure of the University of Tokyo(A) Present

MEXT

Administrative
Control

SenatePresident

Committees

Head of
Administration
Administration
BureauDean
Divisional
Administration
Faculty Meeting(B) After incorporation
MEXT
Mid-Term Goals
AuditorPresident
学長
Executive Boad
Academic
SenatelManagement
Council

Dean
Administration
Bureau
部局教授会

30

Lay
MemberHead of Institution and Executive Bodies

An table showing the Vice-Chancellor (or President) and executive bodies of the three universities
is given in Figure 2-5.
Figure 2-5 Head of Institution and executive bodies
U. Sheffield

U. Oxford

U. TokyoPresent

U. Tokyo
After
Incorporation

Head of Institution
Name

Vice Chancellor

Vice Chancellor

President

Definition

Chief Executive

Chief Executive“Head”

Body for
Selection

Joint Committee
between Council and
SenateCouncil

Selection Committee

Popular Vote by
Selection
Professors andCommittee
Associate Professors
Academic Council

Final
Decision
Term

Approval by Council
Decision by
Congregation
7 years
5 years
4 years+ 5 years possible+2 years possible
no reappointment
Previous Position of the VC at different university A Dean at different
present Head
university

President

Professor (a former
Dean at theuniversity)

Assistant to the Heard
Pro−ViceーChancellors(4)

Pro−Vice―Chancellors (3) Vice Presidents (3)9 Vice presidents andExecutive Councilors

Special Assistants to the
Presidents (13)

Executive Body
Principal
Executive Body
Executive
Body with
Specific
Assignment
Heard of
Administration

Council

Council

Council Committees

Council Committees

Registrar

Registrar

Appointed by Council

Appointed by Council

31

President/
SenateSenate Committees

Heard of Administrative
BureauAppointed by MEXT
subject to acceptance byPresidnet

President/
Executive Board

Function and election of Head of Institution

In both the University of Sheffield and the University of Oxford, Vice-Chancellors have generalcontrol of executive function. However, as described previously, these two British universities also havea Council to make certain decisions. (The University of Oxford also has Congregation.) As a result, there
may not be many regulations in the statutes requiring the specific authority of the Vice-Chancellor. In thecase of the University of Sheffield, the Vice-Chancellor is also a member of the Council, which is thedecision-making body, and so voting rights (decision-making) and executive power are not completely
separated. In the case of the University of Oxford too, the Vice-Chancellor holds a position of generalcontrol over the executive body and also acts as the chairman of Council, so, like in the University of
Sheffield, decision-making and executive power are not clearly separated. This feature is different from
American universities, where the supervision and basic decisions are carried out by board of governors
or directors while execution is delegated to President and his management team that he/she appoints.
The authority of the Vice-Chancellors is clearly stated in the universities’ respective statutes,
including certain power in personnel management and the chair of various committees. Regarding thepower in appointment of major managerial officers, the Vice-Chancellors in both the University of
Sheffield and the University of Oxford are given the authority to elect Pro-Vice-Chancellors. Moreover,the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Sheffield has the power to appoint department heads. On theother hand, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Oxford often delegates power to lower-level
positions. In this way, the Vice-Chancellor’s power of personnel management is actually limited. Finally,in both of the British universities, according to the statutes, the Vice-Chancellor acts as chairperson ofvarious major committees, especially the important committees within the Council.
Currently in the University of Tokyo, the President has an executive role, but its extent is severely
limited due to the very strong autonomy given to the academic divisions. Because the President also acts
as chairperson of the Senate, decision-making and executive power in the University of Tokyo are notclearly separated, which is the same as in the British universities. Unlike the British universities, however,
the term of office for a President in the University of Tokyo is very short, just two to four years,
compared with seven years (extendable to a maximum of twelve years) in the University of Sheffield andseven years in the University of Oxford..
The President is appointed by election of the members of the faculty meetings under the control of
the Senate. However, approval is also required from the Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Scienceand Technology. In short, the most important feature of the University of Tokyo is that its Administration
Bureau, which is under the Directory General of the Administration Bureau, is a government facility andtherefore has the direct authority of executive control, a significant power in various aspects of university
management and administration. Criticism on this point was one of the bases for the university being
incorporated.
After corporatization, the President will act as the chairperson of a board of directors, but voting
rights and executive power will still not be completely separated. Not only are they not separated, aplanned feature of incorporation is that the President is to have much greater power in bothdecision-making and in execution compared with Vice-Chancellors in British universities.

32

The President can appoint directors, members of the Management Council and some members of
the education and research committee. Firstly, the appointment of the President will be decided by the
President Selection Committee, which consists of members elected from the Management Council andthe Education and Research Committee. The board of directors, which will include the President selected
as above and directors appointed by the President, will be the basic decision-making body. The President
will therefore have considerable power. It has been frequently asked whether anyone can demonstratesuch capacity, who would want to be President with so much responsibility, and how the President
should be monitored and checked, but no doubt plans are underway that deal with the vast majority ofsuch issues.
It should be pointed out that there will still be government control in the form of approval of
mid-term targets and mid-term plans. Just as now, the President needing approval from the Minister of
Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology is an example partly illustrating this tendency.
Executive bodies

Like other British universities, the University of Sheffield continues to strengthen the power of its
Vice-Chancellor and the Senior Management Group which has the Vice-Chancellor at its centre.
Although the statutes and other regulations do not define such a Senior Management Group with theVice-Chancellor at its centre, its plays an important role in university management. The Council and the
Senate, either independently or jointly, form various committees. Under the Council, for example, there
are a finance committee, monitoring committee, facility management committee, human resources
committee, and so on, while under the Senate there are an academic development committee, researchcommittee, student relations committee, and so on. Joint committees of the Council and the Senate
include a Strategic Planning Committee, among others. Pro-Vice-Chancellors, the main constituents of
the Senior Management Group centred around the Vice-Chancellor, also act as chairpersons of thesecommittees and are key figures in terms of actual execution. This is the enhanced structure of top
management.
This trend has become more pronounced in recent years. One typical change is that department
heads can now be appointed by the Vice-Chancellor, whereas until eight years ago they were chosen byelections among teaching staff. Although the term of office of a Vice-Chancellor is seven years, it can
now be extended to twelve years. Depending on the administration style of the Vice-Chancellor, thestructure is arranged so that he or she can utilize their leadership to the full. In such a way, the Universityof Sheffield continues to strengthen its central executive function.
The University of Oxford has also established important committees under Council, such as afinance committee, monitoring committee, resource allocation committee and risk management
committee, in which the Pro-Vice-Chancellors and assistants to the Vice-Chancellor play an importantrole.
Delegation of authority to subordinate bodies

The nature of a university itself makes it normal to have a certain degree of autonomy in theuniversity’s basic structure. The characteristics of this aspect of the three universities are shown in Figure
2-6.

33

Figure 2-6 Major Divisional Decision Making Bodies
U. Sheffield

Name
NumberU. Oxford

Boards of Faculties and Divisional Boardof Collegiate Studies
7 Faculties
5 Division+ 1 Undergraduate+ 1 Continuing
Board
Education
Department
Humanities
Arts
Social Sciences
Pure Sciences
Medicine
Life & Environmental
Law
Sciences
Engineering
Mathematical andSocial Sciences
Architectural Studies
Physical Sciences
Collegiate Studies
Medical Sciences

U. TokyoPresent

U. Tokyo
After
Corporatization

Divisional Faculty
Meeting,
21 Academic
DivisionsContinuing Education
Discretion over
BudgetMemberabout50

Planning and Execution Planning andExecution
about 20
All Teaching Staff

The University of Sheffield

In the University of Sheffield, the Council is the decision making body of the whole university, as
described previously. Looking from the point of view of faculty units, however, it is the 75 departmentsthat are the basic units of decision making. In short, the university has adopted a structure of delegating
authority to quite small units.
Let us explain this further using the example of resource allocation within the university. When thehead office of the university (to be more precise, the Resource Allocation Committee) allocates resources,
the allocation mechanism completely bypasses the seven faculties in the middle of the structure, anddirectly allocates to the 41 funding units, which are basically made up of the 75 departments. These 41
small funding units become the basic units of decision-making. Among the funding units, internal
subsidies of between –20% and +30% are awarded, with the balance being restored within four years.
This structure enables limited resources to be circulated and avoids the tendency for arguments among
the lower level bodies to escalate. Therefore, by reinforcing a top management centred around theVice-Chancellor, as we saw in the previous section, the university attempts to control conflicts of interest
which are prone to get heated. This single set, so to speak, combining the decentralization of power withthe centralization of power can be seen as a feature of the governance at the University of Sheffield.

34

The University of Oxford

In the University of Oxford, meanwhile, the authority of management and operation is delegatedinto the five Divisions, which are relatively large units. It is these divisions that are the basic units for theinternal allocation of resources.
Here we will explain using the example of resource allocation within the university. From the head
office of the university, resources are allocated to the five divisions, namely the Humanities Division,
Life and Environmental Sciences Division, Mathematical and Physical Sciences Division, Medical
Sciences Division and Social Sciences Division. Each division allocates at its discretion to thedepartments, which are the lowest level bodies. Absolutely no internal assistance between divisions takes
place at all. As a result, the university’s top level staff who we interviewed had no idea how resourceswere really allocated to the departments after having been allocated to the divisions. In short, thisexample shows the rather high level of autonomy of the divisions.
To summarize, the feature of the governance structure of the University of Oxford is that authority
is completely delegated to relatively large intermediate bodies which are granted a high degree of
autonomy. The university has chosen a method in contrast to that of the University of Sheffield, where
the power of both the top and the lowest level bodies have been strengthened simultaneously.

The University of Tokyo

No example of internal allocation of resources in the University of Tokyo needs to be given, as it iswell-known that the university has delegated its decision-making authority to the faculty meetings,
which have a high level of autonomy. From this perspective, we can say that the university shows aconsiderable resemblance to the University of Oxford.
Although the faculty meetings will continue to be considered the basic units of decision-making
after incorporation, we still do not know the details because there is absolutely no mention of theregulations or concepts relating to this point within the National Universities Corporation Act. The kindof structure that is built within the university in future will have a critical effect on the meaning ofgovernance.

From the above discussion, we can identify the following points on the methods of governance.
First, from the perspective of (1) clarification and mobilization of decision-making bodies, and (2)the participation of non-academic members in decision-making, the old universities in the UK have in
general been carrying out reforms towards centralizing of authority in the Council and involving
non-academic members. We can say that the University of Sheffield has clearly moved in this direction,
especially regarding (1) above with decision-making being concentrated in its Council. However, theprincipal of involving academic staff in management has not necessarily been completely abandoned. It
should be noted that the Senate still retains its function, albeit only academically related, for members of
the Council too.
In contrast, the University of Oxford has clearly defined the nature of Council as its

35

decision-making agency, although Congregation has been kept as a final decision-making body. Council
itself is also still basically a body of mostly academic members. It should be noted that this decision wasmade after a number of debates. Congregation, a body that in principle involves all academic staff, still
exists as the final decision-maker. On the one hand this recognizes the importance of efficiency, while atthe same time it can be interpreted as a move to emphasize the importance of consensus building within
the university. Another opinion is that the academic staff’s judgment itself will bring about accountabilityof the university instead.
Second, both of the British universities demonstrate a similar pattern regarding executive function.
That is to say, their decision-making bodies and executive bodies are not separated and authority isbasically centralized in Councils, unlike American universities. To perform executive functions, small
committees are held within the Council. The Vice-Chancellor or one of the Pro-Vice-Chancellors takes
part as chairperson of such committees to actually carry out executive functions, particularly creating
long-term plans and determining basic budget allocation. The Vice-Chancellor has the role ofsupervising this process as the person responsible for the execution.
However, there are differences between the University of Oxford and the University of Sheffield
regarding the amount of influence over decision-making and resource allocation within the university. In
the case of the University of Sheffield, the Vice-Chancellor, Registrar and Secretary, Director of financeand Pro-Vice-Chancellors form a management team, with the Council in the background, that
demonstrates extremely strong leadership by bypassing the faculties and allocating a budget for
distribution to departments by the Academic Development Committee. In contrast, executive functions
on an all-university level are limited in the University of Oxford because the divisions have been handed
a great deal of autonomy regarding finance and decision-making.
In comparison, the University of Tokyo is at present characterized by the strong participation by its
academic staff in decision-making, as well as its ambiguous executive power and the very strong
autonomy of its faculties. In this sense, we can say that the University of Sheffield and the University ofTokyo are at opposite ends of the same pole. Although the University of Tokyo is quite similar in thisrespect to the University of Oxford, it also shows more than a few similarities to the University of
Sheffield. After incorporation, the University of Tokyo is, in a number of ways, going to move in the
opposite direction on the above-mentioned pole, according to the regulations within the National
Universities Corporation Act. The university may even take on a more extreme form than the Universityof Sheffield, especially with the authority handed to its President and the influential voice given to its
academic members on university management. In this respect, further systematic debate may berequired.

36

3. Financial Structure
The financial structure of each of the three universities is arranged below to show the flow of funds
into the university, the composition of the university’s financial resources, the internal distribution
mechanism and the relationship between the university and society.
The flow of funds into the university

Before comparing the three universities, Figure 3-1 is a simple diagram showing the way that funds
move into British and Japanese universities. Funding for universities in the UK can be broadly divided
into two portions, that from the government and that from non-government sources.
Approximately 70% of government funding (40% of the universities’ income) is made up of
institution support via the Higher Education Funding Council for England(HEFCE). This funding is
divided into an educational portion and research portion, each one being calculated by a fixed formula. In
particular, the formula for the research portion of the grant includes the results of an evaluation of thelevel of the university’s research, so the amount of a university’s funding varies according to the standardof its research. The calculation of the education portion of the grant basically combines the numbers ofstudents in each field of study with a unit price. Although this portion should be categorized as teachingsupport, the HEFCE is not at all concerned with the actual use of this funding between teaching andresearch.
Another kind of government funding is the research grants awarded by a research council toresearch institutes in general, including universities. Research funding is also provided by various
governmental bodies for their own purposes. Then there is a tuition fee reduction and exemption system
for students from within the UK and EU, the grants for which are paid for by the government.
Non-governmental funding takes the form of grants from private foundations and contract researchfees from companies. In the UK, local education authorities used to bear the cost of university fees so thatmost students only paid a minimal amount themselves, but recently tuition fees combined with loans
have been introduced.
In any case, all of the funding obtained in this way is treated and spent as the university’s income asa corporation.

37

Fig 3-1 Flow of funds to universities
UK universities
Education
GrantsHEFCE

University

Research
GrantsGovernment
Research Councils

Government Research
Boards
Tuition fee exemption
systemCharities
Business Firms
Tuition Fees

Japanese Universities
National Schools Special AccountTransfer to NSSa

University
Government

Grant in Aid for
Scientific Research
COE Program Funds
Research Grants from
Government Agencies
Private Foundations
Business Firms
Tuition Fees

There is no difference in the case of the national universities of Japan in that their financial
resources come from government funding and non-government funding. The big difference, however, isthat the financial affairs of Japanese national universities are handled by a National School Special38

Account. The main portion of government funding is transferred to this National School Special
Account. Private funding and tuition fees are also transferred into the National School Special Accountfirst, before being distributed to each university.
Government funding, however, also includes scientific research grants, funding such as COE
operating expenditure, and research funding from agencies other than the Ministry of Education, Culture,
Sports, Science and Technology, which is not transferred to the national school special account. As aresult, a dual financial system has emerged in which the finances of national universities are divided into
two parts, one controlled by the national school special account and the other not.
In the case of national universities that became corporations, such income is all understood
uniformly to be the corporation’s income. Currently, however, government funding, apart from theconventional national school special account, is recognized as cash flow but is defined as “accountreceivable” and no longer recognized as the income of the corporation itself. In this sense, differences
remain in the way Japanese and British universities obtain their income.
Composition of financial resources

Figure 3-2 gives a breakdown of the financial resources of the three universities. The balance sheets
for the two British universities are for a period of one year ended July 2001, and the balance sheet for the
University of Tokyo is for fiscal year 2001. Resources are broadly divided into institution support fromthe government, income from tuition fees, income from research aid and contract research, income fromdonations and foundations, and others. The balance sheet amounts for each university are given and also
expressed as a percentage of the university’s total income.

39

Figure 3-2 Comparison of financial structure
U. Sheffield(GBP 1 （100 million
Million）
Yen）
74
172
50
116
16
37
18
43
15
35
58
137
20
46
11
26
27
64
40
93
3
8
225
526

Institutional support
Tuition & Fees
Government Contribution
Domestic Student
Overseas Student
Changes in College
Research Grants/Contracts
Research Council
Non-Governmental
OthersDonations
OthersTotal※College
Donation/Endowment
Fees
Government
Others
Total
Composition
Institutional support
32.8%
Tuition & Fees
22.1%
Government Contribution
7.1%
Domestic Student
8.2%
Overseas Student
6.7%
Changes in College
Research Grants/Contracts
26.0%
Research Council
8.8%
Non-Governmental
5.0%
Others12.2%
Donations
17.7%
Others1.5%
Total
100.0%※College
Donation/Endowment
Fees
Government
Others
Total
Total Including Attached Hospitals and Research Institutes

U. Oxford
CombinedwithColleges(GBP 1（100 million （100 million
Million)
Yen）
Yen）
128
301
301
42
99
223
1
2
2
26
61
61
16
36
36
124
142
333
342
46
109
108
48
113
122
48
112
112
58
136
253
36
85
87
408
954
1212
50
93
6
1
150

U. Tokyo(GBP 1（100 million
Million)
Yen）
449
1050
60
140
182
426
97
227
39
90
46
109
30
71
721
1687

117
218
14
2
351
31.5%
10.4%
0.2%
6.4%
3.8%
34.9%
11.4%
11.8%
11.7%
14.2%
8.9%
100.0%
33.3%
62.0%
4.0%
0.7%
100.0%

24.8%
18.4%
0.1%
5.1%
3.0%
10.2%
28.2%
8.9%
10.0%
9.3%
20.8%
7.1%
100.0%

62.3%
8.3%
25.2%
13.4%
5.4%
6.4%
4.2%
100.0%

851
981

1,992
2,296

Notes:
Annual amounts for University of Oxford and University of Sheffield for year ended July 31, 2001.
Balance sheet amounts for University of Tokyo for fiscal year 2001. Amounts for two British universities do
not include hospitals.
University plus college totals for University of Oxford are only estimates. College boarding fees are
estimated by subtracting the college fee replacement (until 1998, the direct grant from the government to thecollege, calculated arbitrarily from financial resources from HEFCE education grants etc.) estimated at GBP 40
million, from boarding and tuition fees for colleges.
There is no tuition exemption for ordinary domestic students.
In addition to research grants and contract research for the Universities of Oxford and Sheffield, including
contact research and joint research from companies. (Most is funding from other organizations.)
For University of Tokyo, in addition to research grants and contract research, industry research grants also
included, but most is public funding. Support from private organizations includes aid from companies as well
as scholarship grants. Income from donations is included in scholarship grant income. Regarding institution aid,annual expense items (attached hospitals and research institutes) are excluded from total university income (=expense) while tuition fees and entrance examination fees, scholarship grants, contract research income, etc, areautomatically excluded.
GBP 1 = 234 yen (OECD purchasing power normal price in 2001)

40

The categories are simplified here, but in fact the financial systems of universities in Japan and the
UK are different, as are the classification methods of financial resources. As a result, there are more thana few problems in directly comparing universities in these two countries. As described in detail in thenotes, the financial resource items of the University of Tokyo have been reconstructed according to the
British classification of financial resources (although even the breakdown of research grants and contract
research are also very different). In addition, the University of Oxford is a very special case even as
British university, because its colleges are financially independent of the university. There is no need toitemize the simply combined financial resources of the university and colleges, but here we havereconstructed the breakdown for the purpose of comparison. In the figure, the amounts in the section of“University and college” for the University of Oxford are based on estimates. For example, college
boarding fees are estimated by subtracting the college fee replacement (until 1998, the direct grant fromthe government to the college, calculated arbitrarily from the financial resources of HEFCE education
grants etc.), which is estimated at GBP 40 million, from boarding fees and tuitions fees for colleges. In
addition, we compared the amounts for the three universities after excluding hospitals (and attachedresearch institutes in the case of the University of Tokyo).
Based on the above estimates, we divided the component ratios of financial resources of the three
universities into (1) institution support from HEFCE, (2) income from tuition fees, (3) income fromcontract research, (4) donations and foundations, and (5) others. This can be illustrated as in Figure 3-3.
Figure 3-3 Component ratios of financial resources

U. Tokyo

62.3%

8.3%

25.2%

4.2%
0.0%

U. Oxford B

24.8%

18.4%

U. Oxford A

31.5%

U. Sheffield

32.8%

0%

10%

Institutional Support

20%

10.4%

Tuition & Fees

40%

26.0

50%

Research Grants

60%

7.1%

14.2%

34.9%

22.1%

30%

20.8%

28.2%

70%

8.9%

17.7%

1.5%

90%

100%

80%

Donation/ Encowment Income

OthersNote: In the case of University of Oxford B, the component ratio is of total income including colleges.

41(1) Institution grants from government

The largest financial source for all three universities is an institution grant from the government. In
the UK, grants are awarded by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), while inJapan, there is an institution grant for national universities. Furthermore, income obtained from Japanese
students such as tuition fees becomes revenue of the national treasury instead of income of the individual
university. As shown in Figure 3-3, to calculate the income of the University of Tokyo, that is theinstitution support from government, we subtracted the university’s tuition fee income from its direct
grant. This institution support from the government makes up 32.8% of the total income of the
University of Sheffield compared with 24.8% in the University of Oxford and 62.3% in the University ofTokyo. Here we see a significant difference among the three universities in terms of the percentage of
their total financial resources that is made up by institution grants from their governments.
(2) Breakdown of research grants and contract research

The second biggest financial source of all three universities in terms of percentage of total income isincome from research grants and contract research. The percentages of total income are 26.0% for the
University of Sheffield, 28.2% for the University of Oxford and 25.2% for the University of Tokyo.
This income can be broken down roughly into research grants from a research council (divided into
several research fields), or in Japan, subsidiary aid for science research expenses; support from private
research funding organizations; funds from companies (contact research, donations); and researchfunding from other government bodies. However, it is difficult to provide an accurate breakdown.
For now, looking at the common category of research grants (or science research expenses) from a
research council, the percentages to total income are 8.8% for the University of Sheffield, 8.9% for the
University of Oxford and 13.4% for the University of Tokyo. In terms of the composition of the total
income from research grants, contract research, and so on, 33.9% of that for the University of Sheffieldcomes from government research grants, contract research, etc, compared with 31.5% for the Universityof Oxford and 53.3% for the University of Tokyo. Among these three universities, therefore, theUniversity of Tokyo has the highest dependency on research grants (science research expenses) from its
government’s research council.
The University of Oxford has the highest ratio of research aid from private foundations to total
income, 10.0% compared with 5.0% for the University of Sheffield and 5.4% for the University of Tokyo.
The University of Tokyo’s 5.4% is made up of “scholarship donations”, little of which comes fromprivate foundations, most being company funding. It is in fact noticeable how little aid the University ofTokyo receives from private foundations.
In the UK, funding from companies is included in “other income” under income from research
grants and contract research, and the ratio of this to total income is 12.2% for the University of Sheffieldand 9.3% in the University of Oxford. However, because this “other income” includes a significant
amount of income from various ministries and government offices (apart from the research council), we
can imagine that the funding both universities receive from companies is in fact considerably less than
10%. In the case of the University of Tokyo, on the other hand, what we can call company funding comesunder scholarship donations (just under 80% of the University of Tokyo’s “industry-university joint42research expenses” under “other income” is government funding based on a capital system) which makeup 5.4% of total income. However, this percentage also includes research grants from private fundingorganizations, and the actual funding from companies probably dips below 5%. As such, it seems that the
University of Tokyo has much less funding from companies compared with the two British universities,
although even the British universities seem to receive less than 10% of their overall income in this way.
On the whole, company funding is unexpectedly low in all three universities.
(3) Income from tuition fees, etc.

Although one part of private funding (that is, non-government funding) is from companies, as
described above, another important part is income from tuition fees and so on. A simple comparison
shows that the two British universities have higher rates of tuition fee income to total income; 22.1% for
the University of Sheffield and 18.4% for the University of Oxford compared with 8.3% for the
University of Tokyo. However, this does not mean that there is a high level of dependency on students at
the British universities. It is a well-known fact that domestic students in the UK only pay tuition fees ofaround GBP 1,000 (something over 200,000 yen), which is quite low. In fact, income from tuition fees
paid by domestic students does not vary much among the three universities, being 8.2% in the Universityof Sheffield, 5.1% in the University of Oxford and 8.3% in the University of Tokyo. Looking at different
kinds of tuition fee income, income from overseas student tuition fees stands out, being 6.7% in the
University of Sheffield and 3.0% in the University of Oxford. Moreover, tuition income from the
National Health Service (a kind of government funding) for scholarship students is 8.2% in the
University of Sheffield, which is very high. Meanwhile, income from what should be described ascollege boarding fees in the University of Oxford is over 10%, which is also significant. (However, thesecollege boarding fees are considered as lodging fees, the income they provide cannot be compared withthe tuition income of other universities.)
In terms of the dependency on tuition fees paid by domestic students, then, the two British
universities do not necessarily differ much from the University of Tokyo. However, looking at tuition
income as a whole, we can say that the two British universities are much more differentiated than the
University of Tokyo.
(4) Dependence on government funds

It is difficult to accurately show the ratio of government funds to total financial resources. Based on
the above discussion, however, we can estimate this ratio to be: 48.7% for the University of Sheffield(including grants from government bodies, income from NHS scholarship student tuition fees, and grants
from the research council) +α (research grants and contract research from institutes other than the
research council, several %); 33.7% for the University of Oxford (including grants from government
bodies and from the research council) + α (research grants and contract research from institutes otherthan the research council, several %); and 82.1% for the University of Tokyo (including grants fromgovernment bodies, science research expenses and industry-university joint research expenses) – α(purely private sector contract research within industry-university joint research expenses, less than 1%).
Clearly the University of Tokyo is extremely reliant on government funding.

43

(5) Income from donations and foundations

We have seen that there is a big difference among the three universities in terms of dependency on
government funding, but, as mentioned earlier, there is not much difference in terms of non-government
funding such as company funding and income from tuition fees (although there are various ways ofitemizing income from tuition fees). Another significant difference is in the ratio of income fromdonations and foundations, 17.7% in the University of Sheffield and 20.8% in the University of Oxford,
with almost no corresponding item for the University of Tokyo. Moreover, as we saw earlier, for research
grants and contract research too, the University of Oxford’s 10% is the highest in terms of support fromprivate funding organizations.
From the above discussion, the first point is that the University of Tokyo is significantly more
dependent on government funding compared with the University of Sheffield and the University of
Oxford. Secondly, within government funding in particular, the University of Tokyo depends morestrongly on grants from government funding bodies compared with the University of Sheffield and the
University of Oxford. Thirdly, the University of Tokyo is more reliant on the research council for
research grants and contract research compared with the University of Sheffield and the University of
Oxford. The fourth point is that, although the University of Sheffield and the University of Oxford
depend less on government funding than the University of Tokyo, they do not really depend largely on
domestic students to pay fees or on company funding; on this point they are not so different from the
University of Tokyo. The largest item making up for the lower level of government funding for the two
British universities is income from donations and foundations, a point which differs greatly from the
University of Tokyo where there is no such income. This income is a self-earned financial resource rather
than external funding, and provides the British universities with a significant degree of financial
independence.
In this way, the two British universities have diverse overall financial resources, since they do notdepend solely on government but also have significant resources in the form of income from donations
and foundations. Their income from tuition fees is diversified too, as is their income from research grants
and contract research. There are also more than a few channels of government funding apart frominstitution support. Moreover, in the case of the University of Oxford, the existence of colleges
diversifies its financial resources (such as donations and income from college boarding). The diversity offinancial resources of the University of Tokyo is therefore exceeded by that of the University of Sheffield,
which is in turn exceeded by that of the University of Oxford.

Resource allocation within the university(1) Distribution formula of institution support

The biggest problem of resource allocation within the university is how to distribute the institution
support from the government, which constitutes a large proportion of total financial resources, but inboth the University of Sheffield and the University of Oxford, a formula for internal distribution has beendeveloped based on the formula used by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) to44determine the size of institution support. Roughly speaking, the formula used by HEFCE calculates
education grants by multiplying the unit price of expenses per student by the number of students. The
amount of research grants also depends on research evaluation, but this total amount is allocated to each
university in blocks. The universities have the freedom to distribute the research grant internally, but infact both the University of Sheffield and the University of Oxford have adopted their own formulae
which are revisions of the one used by HEFCE. We do not know the details, but the formula used by the
University of Oxford is almost the same as the original HEFCE formula, while the University of
Sheffield has revised the original formula by attaching different weight to the various fields. From thispoint of view, the University of Sheffield exerts stronger central control compared with the University of
Oxford.
The University of Tokyo, on the other hand, distributes the budget allocated to the university by first
subtracting central expenses (shared expenses) and then distributing the budget according to the same
formula used by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology for the purpose ofbudget estimation. Like the British universities, therefore, the University of Tokyo allocates resourcesinternally by adopting the formula used for allocating the budget to the university.
(2) Responsible body for internal allocation

The responsible body for internal allocation is the organization that decides the expenses for
activities for the whole university, and determines policies on financial resource allocation to internalbodies such as departments and so on. The University of Sheffield has a Financial Committee in theCouncil whose function is to advise the Council on accounting issues, but the responsible body forresource allocation within the university is in fact the Academic Development Committee in the Senate.
The Academic Development Committee reports to the Strategic Planning Committee, a joint committee
between Senate and Council that integrates the university’s educational plans with its financial andmaterial plans. This Academic Development Committee determines the method of internal resource
allocation.
The University of Oxford has a Planning and Resource Allocation Committee placed directly underCouncil which, as its name implies, is responsible for determining policy on financial resource allocation
within the university. This is the so-called RAM, or Resource Allocation Method. (Figure 3-4)
The University of Tokyo has established a Financial Planning Committee, but it is difficult to say
whether it is the responsible body for internal allocation because such allocation is at present performed
automatically.
Based on such a responsible body for internal allocation, each university has, in addition to a budget
distributed to its various internal bodies, what we can call central expenses to be spent on the whole
university. In the University of Sheffield, 33% of each department’s income is spent by the university’scentral administration on overheads. In the University of Oxford, 14% of the total university income (notincluding colleges) is withheld as a top slice (GBP 501,000 in fiscal year 2002-3). However, the major
portion of this top slice comes from college fee replacement (GBP 348,000). As described earlier,government subsidies for college fees granted directly to colleges in the University of Oxford wereabolished, and the same amount shifted to the education grants and so on that the university receives

45

from HEFCE. As a result, the university still receives an amount equivalent to the old college fees within
education grants, which it handles as the top slice in its financial resources, so there has been no
significant change in allocation to colleges. This means that the University of Oxford has substantiallysmaller university central expenses in comparison with the University of Sheffield, which also meansthat the University of Sheffield has stronger control over its central administration. The University ofTokyo, meanwhile, withholds about 8% for central expenses.

46

Figure 3-4 Internal resource allocation

Oxford University
Endowment
IncomeTuition &Fees

HEFCE 126 ｍ

Research Grants

University Income ３６２ m￡
College fee
Transfer 35
Other top-slice 15
Others 3

Remainin income for allocation 312

Common Fund
12

Formulaic Allocation 106

Direct allocation
to Services
24

Direct allocation to Divisions/OUDCE 297
Capital Charge and redistribution
Infrastructure Chage５０

Services Budget 86

Net Allocation to Divisions/OUDCE 247

Projects

University of Tokyo
Hospital
Revenue

TuitionContrubtion

Allocation from General Budget

Project
Subsidy

National Schools Special AccountUniversity income

General Purpose Fund
Adjustment
FactorTotal Allocation Fund

Incentive Scheme

Personnel Fund

Services
Budget

Allocation to Budget

Project47

(3) Funding units

The responsible body for internal allocation is not necessarily involved in allocating resources to theextremities of the university structure. As a matter of fact, there are intermediate bodies that function as
the basic funding units. That is to say, the responsible body for internal allocation only distributes
resources to departments or funding units, and responsibility for actual distribution and spending within
the university is borne by the funding units. (The head of a basic funding unit is called budget holder.)Previously in the UK, departments, with their focus on professional education, already had considerable
power. In recent years, a number of them have been formed into bigger units that are the basic funding
units responsible for allocation and spending. The University of Sheffield has 41 basic funding units
formed from 75 departments. These funding units interact with the responsible body for internal
allocation. In the University of Oxford, meanwhile, there are five bodies called divisions which are
divided by academic field. The colleges of the University of Oxford used to have a high degree offinancial independence, but now, due to the financial reasons described previously, their finances tend to
be included in those of the university as a whole. As for the University of Tokyo, faculties and graduate
schools are the basic funding units and are strongly independent.

48

4. Evaluation and medium- to long-term planning
What kinds of plans and decisions are made regarding long-term changes within the three
universities? How do large structural changes actually take place?
Basic existing evaluation and structural reform

Long-term changes, especially decisions relating to the actual shape of the structure or governance,
were needed both in the UK and Japan. In the UK, changes to university governance itself were pursued
by the government around the time of the 1997 Dearing Report, as described earlier. In the University of
Sheffield, a special committee was set up which created statute reform in 1999. Below, we describe thecase of the University of Oxford.
The University of Oxford

In the University of Oxford, bodies have been formed to discuss reforms to the main points ofBritish higher education policy. Following two Royal Commissions in 1850-52 and 1877-82 and theAsquith Commission in 1919-22 came the 1963 Robbins Committee, which caused a huge policy shift
towards an expansion of higher education in the UK in the 1960’s. Immediately afterwards, the FranksCommittee (1964-66) was established in the University of Oxford, which formed the framework of theuniversity’s organization and its management and administrative structure until about 2000.
Later, the North Commission (1994-97) was established in the University of Oxford when existing
university reform became a political issue with the 1992 reforms to the Further and Higher Education Act.
At the same time, at a governmental level the previously mentioned Dearing Committee was set up. The
North Commission deliberated along the same lines as the Dearing Committee, while also building thefoundation of the University of Oxford’s response to the Dearing Committee. Both reports were released
almost simultaneously around 1997.
The North Commission was composed of the chairman, Dr. Peter North, Vice-Chancellor in
1993-97, and seven other members, five of whom were academic staff at the University of Oxford, theremaining two being a college head and a vice-chancellor of another university. Its establishment wasdetermined by Hebdomadal Council, the decision-making body of that time. In 1995, a year after its
1994 inauguration, the Commission submitted a Framework Document to Congregation to seek opinionsfrom within the university. It also mailed a questionnaire to university members in 1996. On the financialside, it also signed a consultation contract with KPMG. The total amount of that expense was GBP
280,000 (equivalent to about 60 million yen) （North Committee 1977. p.4）. Below are the main detailsof the 1997 report.
Chapter 1 Introduction
Chapter 2 Background to the Commission
Chapter 3 Aims, Structure, Scale and Form of the University of Oxford
Chapter 4 Present Governance
Chapter 5 Governance Reform
Chapter 6 Implications of Governance Reform
Chapter 7 Academic Personnel Affairs

49

Chapter 8 Teaching and Learning – Qualitative Assurance
Chapter 9 Teaching and Learning – Undergraduate Education
Chapter 10 Teaching and Learning – Graduate School Education
Chapter 11 Research Structure and Support System
Chapter 12 Resources of the University including its CollegesThis report is therefore not only concerned about management and operation, but also includes anextremely wide range of issues such as education and research. It was submitted to Hebdomadal Council
and Congregation, and in 2001, after discussion, a decision was reached to revise the main statutes. At
the same time, the report became the basis of a series of reforms not necessarily related to the statutes.
The University of Tokyo

The University of Tokyo has undergone various changes since its foundation. When those changes
were made, however, the university itself rarely conducted a self-evaluation from a long-term point ofview, or drew up long-term plans. Looking at the background to its position within society and its form as
an institution, on the one hand the university has been handed a large degree of autonomy, but as anorganization, on the other hand, it is a national facility. Proposals of important structural reforms havebeen made linked to government higher education policy as well as being in response to faculty meetings.
Many changes have resulted from this implicit process.
After the revision of university establishment criteria in 1992, self-monitoring and self-evaluation
became important issues. Each faculty and graduate school unit in the University of Tokyo was required
to submit a report on self-monitoring and self–evaluation. In the meantime, the University of Tokyo as awhole began to publish “The University of Tokyo White Paper”. The first issue was released in
November 1992, since when it has become a tradition to publish the paper in the last year of the term ofoffice of the President. The second issue was published in 1997 followed by the third issue in 2001. The
content of this paper is diverse, ranging from education and research to issues such as social contribution.
Formally, the editor-in-charge is a Vice-President, but the content is basically determined by the various
writers and so it cannot be said to express the opinions of the university as a whole. Moreover, its content
is nearly all commentary about current problems, and it has not performed any systematic analyses or
surveys. As a result, it did not connect specific reform issues to an analysis of the current situation.
When university reform became a political issue in the late 1990’s, several committees, chaired by
the Vice Presidents, were set up to examine the way forward for the University of Tokyo. They were the
Research Committee on National Universities as Social Capital (report published in March 1998), theUniversity of Tokyo Institution Format Investigative Committee (report published in October 2000),
Central Body Readjustment Discussion Committee (report published in July 2000) and the University ofTokyo Operation Discussion Committee (report published in October 1999). As a result, the Council of
Academic Operational Strategy for the 21st Century, or UT21 Council, was set up, with the President aschairman, for the purpose of developing discussion across the university on academic operational
strategy, including a study into the form of its institution from a long-term point of view. The committee
has 39 members, including the President, three Vice-Presidents and each faculty dean. Within the UT21
Council was set up a Incorporation Committee, under which three operation committees, chaired by50

Vice-Presidents, discuss matters related to the future of the university after incorporation.
Compared with the North Commission described earlier, the UT21 Council has the following
features: (1) It has no non-academic members at all, and yet it has a remarkably large number ofmembers. Instead of making specific and concrete proposals to the entire university, its purpose tends to
be to encourage opinions from the faculties and graduate schools through a process of study. (2) A strong
feature is that it examines how to deal with university reform, with particular focus on the government,
rather than setting clear targets to reach. (3) It is dependent on the operations of the Administration
Bureau, but has been unable to systematically perform independent surveys or analyses.
Medium-term planning

During the university reforms, universities in both the UK and Japan pursued stronger autonomy,
and to support this they needed their own independent medium-term plans.
In the UK during the late 1990’s, HEFCE requested each university to carry out strategic planning.
Then, in 2000, case studies were conducted into strategic planning in universities. (HEFCE, Strategic
Planning for Higher Education – A Guide for heads of institutions, senior managers and members ofgoverning bodies, 2000). In addition, HEFCE required each university to make three-year medium-termplans and submit them to HEFCE. Currently the medium-term plans submitted by universities do nothave a direct impact on resource allocation, but are used in the evaluation of the universities’ annual
resource planning.
The University of Sheffield

The University of Sheffield has positioned strategic planning as an important operation method, atthe centre of which is its Strategic Planning Committee that reports to both the Council and the Senate.
The Strategic Planning Committee is composed of 17 members, including the Vice-Chancellor (as thechairman), four Pro-Vice-Chancellors, chairman of the Council, chairman of the Facilities Management
Committee, chairman of Human Resource Management Committee, and so on. Some of its members
form the Academic Strategy Group. A Corporate Planning Office was also set up as the administrative
bureau of the Strategic Planning Committee.
Figure 4-1 Organization chart of the Strategic Planning Committee in the University of Sheffield
SenateCouncil

Strategic Planning Committee
Academic Strategy Group

Corporate Planning Office

51

The Strategic Planning Committee is a so-called “joint committee” of both the Senate and the Council,
and includes major members of executive bodies such as the Vice-Chancellor, chairman of the Council,
Pro-Vice-Chancellors and so on. We can see, then, that the committee has been given a considerable
degree of authority. Even its administration office, the Corporate Planning Office, has a lot of power inmatters such as human resources. Below are the three plans created by the Strategic Planning Committee.
A. Corporate Plans. These four-year plans are revised every three years. Recent plans include the“Fiscal Year 1997-98 to Fiscal Year 2000-01 Plan” drawn up in July 1997, and the next “Fiscal Year
2000-01 to Fiscal Year 2003-04 Plan” drawn up in July 2000. HEFCE requires all universities to submit a
strategic plan every three years. The University of Sheffield submits this Corporate Plan.
B. Incidental Concrete Strategies. These are resource allocation plans, and include the “NewStudents Strategy”, “International Cooperation Strategy”, “Regional Cooperation Strategy” and“Industry-University Cooperation Strategy”. Other resource allocation plans are the “Human Resources
Plan”, “Information Foundation Plan”, “Facilities and Equipment Plan” and “Financial Plan”.
Furthermore, each department has a three-year “Academic Plan” under this category.
C. “Financial Estimates”, which are made annually. These include estimates of the numbers ofstudents and teaching staff in the following four years. Based on these estimates, a concrete annual
budget allocation cycle is established.

52

Figure 4-2 Medium-term planning process and budget allocation cycle
FY 2000−01 年

FY 2001−02 年

HEFCE

Corporate Plan 2001-02〜2003-04

Corporate Plan 2001-02
BudgetForecast〜2003-04

BudgetForecast
BudgetForecast

BudgetForecast

AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnualAnnualBudgetary Cycle

Budgetary Cycle

Budgetary Cycle

Budgetary Cycle

Budgetary Cycle

On the one hand, this kind of corporate plan is submitted to HEFCE and becomes one of the bases
for grant inspection. On the other hand, based on these plans, an annual budget allocation cycle isperformed by Academic Development Committee (ADC) of the Senate. Specifically, the cycle follows
the sequence shown in Figure 4-3. (1) Following the corporate plans, the Strategic Planning Committee
indicates guidelines. (2) In response to these guidelines, each department submits a budget request by
drawing up a three-year development plan and other similar plans regarding service functions. (3) Basedon these plans, the Strategic Planning Committee and Senior Management Group (Vice-Chancellor and
Pro-Vice-Chancellors) decide the order of priority. (4) The ADC determines development plans andallocates budgets according to this order of priority. This process is represented in the following figure.
(5) The academic development plan is also revised based on this process.

53

Figure 4-3 Process of corporate plan and budget allocation
SenateCouncilSeniorManagement
G

Academic Development Council③

Strategic Planning Committee

Academic Development Plan①④

Corporate Plan②

Guideline

Budgetary Unit (41)On the other hand, several financial incentives, as described earlier, are included when the
Academic Development Committee allocates budgets. In this process, forecasts of important changes,
such as changes in teaching staff, numbers of students, structure and so on, may play an essential role in
the operation of the Strategic Planning Committee, which is often mentioned above. In particular,
increasing student numbers is a big decision for the university, and has a significant financial impact onuniversity income and expenses. In recent years, especially, the British government has had a policy offurther increasing student numbers, so the stance of the universities has great significance. If a university
decides to increase the number of students, it participates in a bid to request a grant from the government(HEFCE) according to the student number increase. An important function of the Strategic Planning
Committee is deciding the university’s stance on this point. An important input of this process is the plan
made by each budget unit. On the other hand, the Corporate Plan provides essential material for HEFCE
to understand the overall strategy of the university, including its plans on student numbers. As a matter offact, the University of Sheffield’s plan on student numbers forms an important part of its 1997 Corporate
Plan and 2000 Corporate Plan.
In this way, although the University of Sheffield’s Senate has the power to make education-related
decisions and a committee of the Senate conducts budget allocation to each department, the Strategic
Planning Committee has the authority to decide medium-term plans, and the decisive say on important
allocation changes as well as structural changes. Through this process, the intention of the executive
group under the Vice-Chancellor, which belongs to the Council, essentially has a decisive influence on
actual budget allocation. The basic budget units are small, too, which shows a strong tendency towards
the centralization of power.

54

The University of Oxford

In response to HEFCE’s policy described above, the University of Oxford also makes amedium-term strategy. The university’s first publication with the specific title of Corporate Plan was
issued in July 2001 (University of Oxford, 2001). According to the request of HEFCE, the plan should be
renewed every three years. The next update will be made in 2004.
The University of Oxford differs from the University of Sheffield described above, in that it does
not clearly separate decision-making regarding management and education, which is an agenda under thecontrol of Council. There are four major committees in Council, one of which is the Planning andResource Allocation Committee (PRA). According to regulations, the chairman of this committee is theVice-Chancellor. To deal with this committee, a Planning and Resource Allocation Section has beencreated in the Secretariat.
As in the University of Sheffield, each division in the University of Oxford as well as its
Department for Continuing Education and Department of Education and Research Grants draws up a
five-year plan, which is revised every year. These divisions and departments also create an Annual
Operation Statement. The five-year plans of these divisions and departments specify student number
estimates, education and research plans, teaching staff policies, and so on. At the same time, the plansinclude estimates of division income, division expenses and government research grants. In contrast to
the University of Sheffield, however, the University of Oxford’s Corporate Plan itself does notnecessarily show concrete figures, but does include details of the individual plans of the above divisions
and departments.
Looking at the current Corporate Plan, most of it basically consists of the plans of each division,
although it does mention that the university as a whole is not going to increase its number of students.
We have described how the University of Oxford’s Corporate Plan leans heavily towards achieving
integration of the university as a whole, and how actual strategic planning tends to be performed by theabove individual divisions and departments. This is the result of the University of Oxford’s tactic ofdecentralized operation.
The University of Tokyo

The University of Tokyo has never made medium-term plans like those of the two British
universities, which reflects the problems of the University of Tokyo’s governance format itself. Firstly,from an internal perspective, one of the university’s strong features is that it is an assembly of faculties,
graduate schools and institutes. Even when individual faculties, etc. have made various reform proposals,
there has been no need to draw up plans for the university as a whole. Secondly, on the point of structure
and personnel, the university is a government institution whose structural changes are part of the policyof the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology and the government. As a result,even when the university itself made plans, there was little need to implement them. Thirdly, thegovernment budget is drawn up annually, and so the university has basically been unable to makedecisions while restricted to financial expenses for one year at a time.
As a result of the above points, changes to the university have emerged without any clear plans forthe university as a whole, although the university did show its long-term plans on a number of specific55

items during the process of negotiation on the creation of an annual budget with the Ministry of
Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology and the Ministry of Finance. The situation is almost
exactly the same for all of the Japanese national universities.
The situation is changing greatly with incorporation. That is to say, the national universities are nolonger under the direct administrative control of the government. Instead, the relationship between theuniversities and government is regulated by the cyclic control of government financial measures that set
medium-term targets and evaluate the levels of achievement. In short, the basis of the national university
corporation system is a system of medium-term targets and evaluation. This system is illustrated in
Figure 4-4. It shows how the university is required to draw up medium term targets that must be achieved
during a medium-term planning period of 6 years, and a medium-term plan proposal in order toimplement those targets. After the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology gives
its approval, it then provides a government grant to the university. In the fifth year of the medium-term
plan, the University Assessment Committee evaluates the achievement level of the medium-term targets,
using the university assessment and degree-awarding body. Based partly on this evaluation, the targets
and plans for the next medium-term planning period are set.

Figure 4-4 Cycle of medium-term planning and its evaluation in the University of Tokyo
MEXT
University Assessment Council

Approval

Assessement

Mid-Term
Objectives
Plan

Assessmentof Achievement

Mid-Term
Objectives
Plan

Budget
Allocation

Budget
Allocation
Mid-Term Plan Period 6 years

Mid-Term Plan Period 6 years

56

A number of questions have been raised lately about this system itself. (1) Regarding medium-termtargets, how much autonomy is the university given in setting them? What standards are used for the
Ministry of Education, Sports, Culture, Science and Technology to decide whether to give its approval?
And is it not necessary for the Ministry of Education, Sports, Culture, Science and Technology toindicate the framework? (2) How is the evaluation of achievement level conducted? Is the evaluation
itself arbitrary, depending on the format of the medium-term plan? (3) As for medium-term targets andplans, are grants during the medium-term target period guaranteed? In this sense, are the limitations of
the principle of single-year financing removed? How is the achievement level reflected in the amount ofgovernment aid? The Ministry of Education, Sports, Culture, Science and Technology is currently
working on the details of these questions, although it is still possible that they will not be completely
answered by the time of the inauguration of the national university corporations in April 2004.
Meanwhile, it is clear from a comparison with the two British universities that the system in the
University of Tokyo is still not complete.
First of all, although the University of Tokyo is already in the middle of drawing up its
medium-term plans and targets, the system is not particularly clear. At this stage, the sequence is this: thefaculties and graduate schools are given a format for drawing up their medium-term targets and plans,
which are then collected by an Advisor to the President, who acts as liaison. Next, the President is
responsible for organizing all the plans, and the Senate makes the final decision. There is a policy ofmaking the medium-term plans and targets from the very bottom upwards, which is a reflection of thefact that there is no great need to clarify the policy for the university as a whole. However, as we can see
from the relatively decentralized University of Oxford, questions remain about the form the University ofTokyo as a whole will take in the future with respect to its integration and direction.
Secondly, these medium-term targets are highly abstract. With regard to the achievement of thetargets themselves, there will not necessarily be individual plans from the perspective of, for example,
human resources or finance. This reflects that fact that there are currently many unclear points in thesystem regarding the actual format of the medium-term plans, and many unknown points about thehuman resources and finance systems themselves. For the future, problems remain as to the form theseplans will take. But there is still a need to study the integration of these points. Another important issue isthe relationship between the plans and annual budget allocation.
Thirdly, the medium-term targets and plans set by the faculties and graduate schools are notnecessarily concrete. As the example of the University of Oxford shows, if a university takes the form ofdecentralized governance, the planning capacity of individual basic units becomes a serious problem. For
medium-term targets and plans in particular, planning is required from the perspectives of personnel andfinance. The issue here is what the possible forms are for individual faculties and graduate schools to use.
It may be relatively difficult for individual faculties and graduate schools to make such plans.
As described above, it is clear that the University of Tokyo’s scheme of medium-term targets andplans, which is the basis of incorporation, is still structurally unstable, while the university’s internal
system currently still cannot be said to have been completed in comparison with the two British
universities.

57

Long-term structural change

In summary, we have analyzed the problems of university structural reform as a systemized processusing three universities as our subjects. Needless to say, however, actual changes in university structure
are not necessarily only the results of that systemized process.
In the University of Oxford, the substantially large structural changes in recent years include: (1)new experimental facilities for the Medical Sciences Division, (2) construction of a chemical experiment
block, and (3) establishment of the Saïd Business School. None of these changes depended solely onuniversity funding or government funding. Instead, they relied on several forms of private funds. 'The
chemical experiment block in (2) was built in part with public funds, mixed with funds provided byprivate companies, and by an agreement with a merchant bank concerning the exploitation of intellectual
property over a limited period of time. The Saïd Business School was established with a donation fromthe businessman, Wafic Saïd, although there was a great deal of debate in the university regardingwhether his donation should have been accepted. At any rate, we can say that it would be difficult tomake any changes in the University of Oxford, including large-scale facility or personnel investmentchanges, without introducing several forms of external funding.
In the University of Tokyo, this kind of large-scale external funding has not been accepted yet. It is
more than a little possible, however, that a situation will arise in the near future in which such funding isnecessary. When that happens, the scheme of the planned corporation may not be entirely suitable.

58

Conclusion
Based on the analysis above, the following provisional conclusions can be made.
First of all, there are several obvious differences between the two British universities and the
University of Tokyo in terms of their structures. With regard to structural complexity and scale, theUniversity of Tokyo is more complicated and larger. On this point, however, there is a huge gap between
universities throughout Japan, while in the UK the differences between universities are small. As forgovernance, although the systems of the two countries are very different, there is also a big difference
between the two British universities, and the system of the University of Tokyo is closer to that of the
University of Oxford. There is also a significant difference between Japan and the UK regarding
financing. An important feature of the financing of the two British universities is the variety of theirfinancial sources.
Secondly, looking at social function, although the University of Oxford and the University of Tokyo
are similar in that they hold an elite position in respect to education and research, the University of
Oxford has produced far more social elites. Both the University of Oxford and the University of Tokyo
have similar levels of research output. The rising universities in the UK such as the University of
Sheffield, however, are rapidly catching up at least in terms of research output, and the hierarchy is being
shaken. Our analysis does not directly clarify the connection between the structural differences among
these three universities and their functions. However, we can almost definitely say that the diversity offinancial sources and autonomy of decision-making in the two British universities gives them a certain
degree of flexibility in the way they connect with society. It is exactly on this point, that the University ofTokyo appears to need significant transformation.
Finally, regarding the incorporation of national universities in Japan, it is definitely having a big
impact on the system of management and operation. But the example of the UK shows that there can be
an enormous variety of bodies and governance structures within the system. An important issue for the
future is how to choose the type of bodies and structures. At the same time, the type of organization auniversity adopts significantly affects its financial structure, and this is a major cause of the differences
between universities in Japan and the UK. In this sense, the question for the future is how to design thefinancial mechanisms of the national university corporations.

59

Bibliography
Shidoh Koh, 1955, “Research on University Systems”, Fujiwara Bookstore
Naoki Murata, Keisuke Isokai, Kosho Shinohara, 2002, “UK Volume 2”“University Establishment Format and Management, and Financial Systems in Major European andAmerican Countries”, edited by Ikuo Amano
Research Report No.7 of National University Financial Centre, pp.65-116
Soue Yoko, Haruo Kondo, 1973, “ A Precedent of University Reform – the Case of the UK,” “Collectionof University Essays”, 1 (March 1973), pp.37-51
Edited by Konrad H. Jarausch, translated by Kounan Mochida, Yoshinori Yasuhara, and Nobuya
Hashimoto, 2000, “Transfiguration of Higher Education”, Showado
Committee of University Chairmen, 1998, Guide for Members of Governing Bodies of Universities andColleges in England, Wales and Northern Ireland

National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education 1997, Higher Education in the Learning Society(Dearing Report)

University of Oxford 1997, Commission of Inquiry Report (Report of North Committee)
University of Oxford 1999, “Second Report of the Joint Working Party on Governance”, Oxford
University Gazette Supplement (1) to No. 4506 (24 March)

University of Oxford, 2001, University of Oxford: Corporate Plan (July 2001), Oxford University
Gazette Supplement (3) to No.4595 (9 September 2001)

University of Oxford, 2002, “New University Statutes and Congregation Regulations”, Oxford
University Gazette Supplement (1) to No.4633 (9 October 2002)

University of Oxford, 2002, Oxford Outline
University of Oxford, 2002, University of Oxford Annual Review 2000/2001
The University of Sheffield, 1997, Corporate Plan 1997-98 to 2000-01
The University of Sheffield, 1998, Calendar 1998-1999
The University of Sheffield, 2001, Calendar 2001-2002
The University of Sheffield, 2002, Financial Statements 2001/2002
Williams, Gareth, 1997, “The Market Route to Mass Higher Education: British Experience 1979-96”,
Higher Education Policy, 10, pp.275-289

60

Tokyo Institute of Technology

Japan-UK Higher Education Change Management Project
Project relating to University Management for a New Age
Report of Study Visit
Name of University: Tokyo Institute of Technology
Participants:

Kohei Ogawa (Vice-Principal, Tokyo Institute of Technology)
Takayuki Hayashi (Research Fellow, National Institution for Academic Degrees)

Theme:

Finances

Universities visited: Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine

Persons interviewed:
Dr. Rodney Eastwood (Director of Policy Planning)
Mr. Hameed Khan (Head of Financial Management)
Mr. Tony Cannon (Director of Finace)
Mrs. Lynne Cox (Research Contracts Manager)
Loughborough University
Persons interviewed:
Prof. Ron McCaffer (Director, Business and Knowledge Transfer)
Mr. Michael Pearson (Bursar)
Ms. Fidelma Hannah (Assistant Registar, Planning)
Dr. Terry Higgins (Treasurer)
Prof. Tony Thorpe (Acting Head of Department)
Mr. Roy Warburton (Estates Services)Prof. Chris Backhouse (Dean, Faculty of Engineering)

1. Introduction
As part of the Japan-UK Higher Education Change Management Project, the study team visited two
universities in the UK between 9th and 13th December, 2002, to carry out a survey of their financial
management. The universities visited were the Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, andLoughborough University. These two institutions are comparable to the Tokyo Institute of Technology(henceforth referred to as the Institute), since despite the existence or otherwise of a Medical School, they areboth science-based institutions, with around 10,000 students each (see chart 1). Other comparisons in terms ofstaff numbers and financial basis revealed significant differences and particulars.
The subject of our study was the financial management of the universities, but the independent incorporated
state of British universities (which are incorporated according to royal charter) means that financial
management is organically linked to the strategic management of the university, since the universities are run
and maintained as business projects. For this reason, we heard explanations from both universities regarding
financial management at all levels (from the overall university to the departmental level), along with
explanations of the process involved in establishing strategic plans. In addition, we heard explanations of the
distribution of finances within the University.
The following is an explanation of the survey into the status of financial management at the universities.

63

Chart 1: No. of students, staff, and financial information at each university
Imperial College

Undergraduates
No. ofstudents

Postgraduate
students(Taught)
Postgraduate
students(research)
Total

No. ofstaff

TokyoInstitute ofTechnology

Loughborough Univ.

Full-timePart-time

Full-timePart-time

7,244

0

9,494

148

1,269

451

739

1,487

1,612

522

510

225

10,125973

Academic staff
Research staff
Support staff

Full time equivalent
1,127
1,662
2,929

Total

5,717

10,743

1,860

Full-time
524
311
1,103

Part-time
32
52
811

1,938

895

Undergraduates
Postgraduate
students(Masters)
Postgraduate
students(Doctorate)

5,071
3,329

1,374

Total

9,774

Teaching staff
Researchers*
Staff

1,191
465
575

Total

2,231

￡389.8M￡114.8M¥8,958M
歳入(¥74,062M)(¥21,812M)
Finance￡373.4M￡111.7M
Expenditure¥36,184M
歳出(¥70,946M)(¥21,223M)
The student / staff numbers for UK universities are from 2001 - 2002, while financial data is from 2000 – 2001. Conversion is done at 190 yen
to 1 GBP. Data for Tokyo Institute of Technology is from 2001. ‘Researchers’ incorporates post-doctoral researchers and researchers fromindustry as well as visiting researchers from overseas, not including the fellow of doctoral course student from Japan Society for the Promotionof Science (DC1, DC2).
Income64

2. Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine
Date visited: 10th December 2002, 9.30 to 12.15
Persons interviewed:

2.1 University profile
Imperial College is an independent college within the University of London, which was founded in 1907.
In 1988, it merged with St. Mary’s Hospital Medical School and several other medical schools, to form thecurrent Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine.
Imperial College is comprised of four faculties, which have student and staff numbers as shown in chart 2(calculated as full time equivalent). The overall number of students is similar in scale to that of the Tokyo
Institute of Technology(TIT), but there are more undergraduates and fewer postgraduates than TIT. The
number of academic staff at the Imperial College is similar to the number of teaching staff at TIT, although theImperial College has around five times the number of support staff.
Chart 2: Imperial College: No. of students and staff per department

FTE staff numbers

FTE student numbers

Fac Eng

Fac Life Sci

Fac MedManageCentralFac Phy Sci Sch, Human, service
staff
Educ Dev

Total(For reference) Tokyo
Institute ofTechnology overall

Department

10

4

1

4

3

UG

2,811

970

1,791

1,666

6

7,244

PG taught

478

247

271.5

82

408

1,488.5

PG research

633.5

283.5

476.5

398.5

81

1,873

Total

3,922.5

1,500.5

2,539

2,146.5

497

10,605.5

Total

9,774

Academic Staff

288

158

449

175

51

6

1,127

Teaching
staff

1,191

Research Staff

351

232

838

234

9

0

1,662

Support Staff

349

243

804

185

53

1,295

2,929

Staff
(including
engineering
officials)

575

Total

989

633

2,091

594

113

1,301

5,717

Total

1,766

Undergraduates
Postgradu
atestudents(Masters)
Postgradu
atestudents(Doctoral)

5,071
3,329

1,374

（Imperial College Statistics pocket guide 2001-02）

FTE = Full time equivalent

The College’s income for 2000 – 2001was 389.8 million GBP (equivalent to 74.062 billion yen), and its
expenditure was 373.4 million (equivalent to 70.946 billion yen) (diagram 1). A simple comparison with the
TIT’s expenditure for fiscal 2001 of 36.184 billion yen shows that approximately twice the amount of money is
being managed by the College. In addition, approximately 30% of the College’s annual income comes fromHEFCE public funding, with the rest coming from research grants and contracts.

65

Staff and student facilities
4.4 (1%)

Exceptional income fromsale of fixed assets

Endowmwentsand interest

18.1 (5%)

2.1 (1%)

General educational
expenditure
4.4 (1%)

Centraladministration
16.6 (4%)

Funding council grant

Other
operatingincome111.8 (29%)

71.1 (18%)
Annual income(million GBP)

Total

389.8
Academic fees andsupport grants

Premises
44.6 (12%)
Residential / catering /conferences
16.3 (4%)

40.3 (10%)

Research grants andcontracts

Other expenditure
16.6 (4%)

Academic
Departments

Expenditure(million GBP)

126.8
(34%)

Total

373.4

Research grants andcontracts

Academic services
19.2 (5%)

124.5 (33%)

146.4 (37%)

Figure 1: Financial status of Imperial College
2.2 Governance Structure
The current governance of Imperial College (in force since 1998) is regulated by the Charter and Statutes,
with a three-tier organization typical of British universities consisting of a Council, a Court and a Senate.
- The Council: The executive organization with responsibility for strategy formation and general financial
and business operations. The Council consists of 32 members, of which half are ‘lay’ members(appointed from outside the College). The Council meets almost every other month, and members
serve a tenure of 5 years. Many specific authorities and functions are designated to the various
committees appointed by the Council. Some examples of these are the Finance Committee, chairedby the Treasurer, the Investment Committee, which considers investments, the Remuneration
Committee, which deals with staff remuneration, and the Audit Committee, which reviews financial
statements.
- The Court: The Court is comprised of 160 members, who are appointed from related organizations suchas the Royal Society, local governing authorities, teaching associations and London University, as well
as from within the College, and include the Principal and Heads of Departments. The Council meetsonce per year, to receive the College’s Annual Report and Accounting Report.
- The Senate: The Senate consists of 50 senior academic staff and student representatives. The Senate
exists to debate academic issues (study courses, student regulations etc.) but is not involved in thediscussion of financial matters.
Along with these bodies, the Executive Committee exists to make decisions and strategies regarding day to
day management and planning. The Executive Committee is made up of the Principal, the Vice-Principal, andthe heads of management divisions such as the Financial and Human Resources Departments.

The

Committee meets once every one to two weeks. Decisions made by the Executive Committee are reviewed
by the Council.

66

The College’s strategy is set on the one hand by the Executive Committee creating a College Plan, which isused in a top-down way, and on the other by faculties and departments creating Planning Documents in abottom-up method in line with the distribution of funds.
2.3 Mechanisms for fund distribution within the College, and the Strategy Planning Process
The disbursement of funds at Imperial College is done using the method shown in Figure 1. Initially, funds
other than research contract funding and other types of funding that comes directly into departments is totaled
into a single category of income. This includes grants provided by HEFCE in regard to education andresearch, as well as tuition fees paid by students. Next, the cost of fixed assets and support services is
subtracted as necessary from the total figure achieved. The remainder is distributed between departments,
according to a method of calculation that is based upon the level of education being provided to students and thequality of research being carried out in the department. This method is discussed later.

Other general income￡4.3m
HEFCE Grants￡103.6m

Student fees
￡37.6m￡145.5m
Interest payable￡1.0m

Estates cost
￡21.1mIncrease in deficit balances￡2.4m

Support services￡39.3m￡2.75mPR Reserve￡6.3m

General reserve(including capital)￡72.7m

VOTE

医学部(Medicine)

VOTE

Departments / centers

Overheads and other income￡35.5mFigure 2: Imperial College: Internal fund disbursement mechanisms (2001 – 2002)

In line with the distribution of funds according to the above calculations, each faculty and department
produces an annual plan. This is known as the Planning Round. Planning Documents are produced every

67year, with a view to planned activities as far as five years ahead. The strategies for objectives, management
methods, teaching, research and other activities of faculties and departments, as well as investment for planned
activities, staffing and facilities and financial planning are all contained in these plans. The plans also include a
spreadsheet that shows the expected income and expenditure for the year. The actual disbursement of funds
within departments is based on these documents, and in addition, progress is monitored each year based onthese plans. Financial monitoring is done annually on a function (service) basis and a faculty basis.
Department and faculty plans are collated into the College Plan.

68

2.4 Calculation methods for internal fund distribution
The decision regarding the value of the grant to each department is made up of two parts in respect of teaching andresearch. The net value distributed is calculated as the gross formula vote minus infrastructure charge (for example,
heating, lighting and water for the whole college is worth 5 million GBP), plus supplementary vote.

69

(1) Teaching elements
The disbursement of funds for teaching is done according to the formula shown below, based on the cost ofteaching students. Some weighting is done according to the type of students.
Teaching costs T = at + bt + ct + dt
t = Teaching capitationa = 1.00 x DWT x undergraduate teaching loadb = 1.33 x DWT x taught postgraduate teaching load
c = 0.70 x DWT x research postgraduate teaching load
(excluding part time staff and full time students in year 4 or above)d = 0.30. x DWT x exported load (service teaching done by other departments)
DWT = Department teaching weighting:
Clinical medicine: 1.399
Laboratory-based departments: 1.0
Mathematics: 0.75
Management and HOST: 0.5(2) Research elements
The formula for the distribution of research funds is based on RAE scores, the number of active staff, and thesum obtained from research contracts. The distribution of research costs based on elements such as these is
the same as the method used by HEFCE to distribute funds, although the weighting values used are determined
independently by the College.
Research costs R = er

e = RAE weighting [(DWRm) + n + (f (g + h + i + j + k))]r = Research capitation
Weighting according to RAE results:
5*

3.713

5

3.375

4

2.25

3a

1.5

DWR: Departmental research weighting
Mathematics, management, HOST: 1.85
Others: 1.0
m = 1.0 x number of RAE active staff in general funds70

N = 1.0 x PhD student load
(Includes FTE part time staff registered for higher degrees, but excluding any full-time students inyear 4 or above).
f = 1/25,000
g = 1.2 x research council grants staff expenditure as a rolling 2 year average
h = 1.5 x staff or non-staff expenditure on UK-based charities grants as a rolling 2 year average
i = 1.2 x staff expenditure on EU government contracts as a rolling 2 year average)j = 1.2 x staff expenditure on other GR contracts (GR = generic research, i.e. the College retains theintellectual property rights)
k = 1.0 x staff expenditure on other contracts as a rolling 2 year average
Types of interaction with industry at Imperial College- Strategic alliances- Research alliances- LINK projects- Industry center on campus- Consultancy- IP licensing and development- Investment in spin-out companies- Education and training- Funding of Chairs, fellows, scholarships- Recruitment of graduates & postgraduates

2.5 Activities in regard to procuring external funding
Imperial College has the highest level of research grant and contract income of any university in the UK, andthese go to make up 37% of Imperial College’s overall income. Imperial College’s interaction with industry isdiverse, as is shown in the chart above.
These various types of interaction are supported by organizations both inside and outside the College.
Negotiations and estimates for research contracts are done by the College’s Research Grants & Contracts Office.
Imperial College Innovations Ltd. was founded in 1997 to handle technology transfer, and has already been partof the startup of more than 60 companies. IC London Consultants Ltd. (ICON) was founded as a consultancy
in 1990, and paid 4.2 million GBP to the College as consultancy income in the year 2001 / 2002. In addition
to this are the College’s liaison organization IC Business Gateway (a department of the college), and theEnvironment Office, which deals with business in the environmental field, are also involved in the promotion ofcontract research.

3. Loughborough University
Date of Visit: 11th – 12th December 2002
Persons interviewed:

71

Prof. Ron McCaffer (Director, Business and Knowledge Transfer)
Mr. Michael Peasrson (Bursar)
Ms. Fidelma Hannah (Assistant Registrar (Planning))
Dr. Terry Higgins (Treasurer)
Prof. Tony Thorpe (Acting Head of Department)
Mr. Roy Warburton (Estates Services)Prof. Chris Backhouse (Dean, Faculty of Engineering)

3.1 University Profile
Loughborough University is situated in the center of England, and was founded as Loughborough TechnicalInstitution in 1909. It was granted a Royal Charter in 1966 approving it as Loughborough University ofTechnology, and in 1996 changed its name to the current Loughborough University. The University has threefaculties: Engineering, Science and Social Studies and Humanities. Student numbers are as shown in Chart 1,
and the University is the 56th largest in the UK. The highest number of students are attached to the Social
Studies and Humanities department, but as noted above, the University started out as a technical institution, andas such the Engineering Faculty is famous and has high RAE scores and research income. In addition tothese departments, there are also more than 30 research centers, and the University places a high level of focus
on research. Research grants and contract income per staff cost unit is the 10th highest in the country, and the
University the 14th highest number of PhDs per staff cost unit (figures from 2001).
Loughborough University is also famous for sports, and has wide ranging sports facilities on campus, as well
as a Sports department.
Chart 3: Loughborough University Student Numbers

No. of departments
No. offull time
students
No. ofpart time
students

Undergraduate
Postgraduate taught
Postgraduate research

Total
Undergraduate
Postgraduate taught
Postgraduate research

Total

Faculty ofEngineering

Faculty of Science

6
2,444
152
219
2,815
49
491
99
639

7
2,079
184
178
2,441
30
129
48
207

72

Faculty of Social
Sciences &Humanities

12
4,835
403
113
5,351
69
867
78
1,014

Total
25
9,494
739
510
10,743
148
1,487
225
1860
(Figures from 2001-2)

Staff and student
facilities
3.5 (3%)Other
9.8 (9%)Other
4.9(4%)

Transferred to capitaland reserves
3.1(3%)

Administration and central
services
4.4 (4%)

Residential andcatering 17.9 (16%)
Total income(million GBP)

Maintenance ofFunding council grants premises 7.8 (7%)
42.8 (37%)

Total expenditure(million GBP)
Residences and catering

114.8
Research grants
and contracts
24.6 (21%)

17.5 (15%)

114.8

Academic
departments andservices
54.2 (47%)

Research grants andcontracts 19.4 (17%)

Academic fees
19.7 (17%)

Figure 4: Income and expenditure of Loughborough University
As seen in this figure, the University’s income and expenditure are not as large-scale as those of Imperial
College.
3.2 Governance Structure
The governance of Loughborough University is also typical of universities in the UK (those existing before1992) in that it is composed of a Council, a Senate and a Court. Day to day management is done by the Vice
Chancellor, Pro-Vice Chancellors and the Deans, who along with the heads of the administration and financedivisions, make up the Executive Management Group.
Financial management is handled by the Bursar and the Finance Office, as part of the administration division,
with assistance given by the Resources and Planning Committee, the Audit Committee and the Treasurer’s
Committee, all of which are formed under the authority of the Council.
3.3 The Strategic Plan
(1) Contents of the Strategic Plan

Chart 4: The Strategic Planning Document(for 2002 – 2007)

At Loughborough University, a Strategic Plan iscreated every three years, covering activities forthe coming five years. The content categories ofthe strategic plan are as shown in chart 4. The
introduction contains an analysis of the current
status of categories to follow (research, teaching,etc.), including information regarding to what
extent previous targets have been met, and what
have not been met.
The following chapters of the document contain

University Mission and Ethos
Overview
１．Introduction
２．Research
３．Learning and Teaching
４．Business, Innovation and Knowledge Transfer
５．The Student Experience
６．Sport７．Local Community
８．Human Resources
９．Information Services
10．Estates
11． Advancing the University
12． Financestrategies for each function of the University, as
well as management strategies.

Alongside73

research and learning and teaching, chapters such as innovation, knowledge transfer, service to the local
community and sports also feature in the document (as mentioned earlier, Loughborough University is famous
for its sporting achievements, and the sports facilities on campus are an important resource).
Strategies for each category are defined in stages as follows: 1) understanding the background to the current
situation, 2) establishing strategy objectives, 3) giving clear indication of targets, 4) establishing necessary
actions.

Strategic objectives include both qualitative and quantitative factors.

Targets are expressed

quantitatively. Figure 5 is a summary of the strategic contents shown in chapter 2 of the Strategic Plan,
regarding research activities. The Strategic Plan states that the most important improvement required at the
moment at the University is an improvement in research performance. It is anticipated that strengthening
research activities will also bring about improvements in the level of education.
Background

Strategic objectives

・Comparison of
proportion of staff(46%) who achieve
RAE scores of 5 or 5*
with national average

・Enhance the quality and quantity of research to bringproportion of staff with scores of 5 or 5* to 87%.
・Increase number of full time PhD students・Comparison of
proportion of staff(78%) who submitted to
RAE with otheruniversities
・Value of research
income and researchcouncil income
・Comparison of no. offull time research
students per number ofstaff with national
averageIn order to achieve the above,
・Enhance the university’s international reputation byraising the profile of research activities overseas
・Invest in niche growth areas
・Anticipate external funding initiative and respond,
where appropriate, with a multi-disiciplinary teamapproach・Attract and retain high-quality research staff at alllevels・Increase investment in research studentships
・Integrate and enhance further the research support
function to assign growth in external funding andresearch recruitment
・Ensure a balance of external research funding
growth from different UK and overseas sourves

Targets

Action required
・Investment of development

See chart 5
below

funding in Grade 5 departments
in order to achieve 5* status

・Thorough review of RAE return
strategy for Grade 4 and 3a
departments. Selective
investment to assist departments
who are changing strategy

・Increase PhD students throughintroduce a new LoughboroughResearch Scholarship Scheme・Introduce a new “international
ambassador” scheme which will
attract internationally leading
researchers to the University forshort periods

・Attract and retain excellent staff
through selective use of the new
HEFCE human resources
funding.

Edited from strategy documents

Figure 5: Example of strategy establishment (for research activities)

The targets shown in the above figure are represented in quantitative terms in chart 5 below. The chartshows aspects, current performance, targets for 2006/7, required action, and other information. In specificterms, the raising of 87% of staff to RAE scores of 5 or 5*, the sums awarded in terms of research contracts,
and the number of research students are represented quantitatively as target values. In the same way as thischapter on research, the chapter dealing with learning and teaching also sets out numerical targets for student
numbers (by faculty, or for graduate taught courses and graduate research, as well as breakdown by age), alongwith QAA review results, new programs, recruitment of graduates, etc. (Some targets are represented not with
figures but with the statement ‘maintenance of current level’).
These targets are mostly directly related to finances. RAE scores and student numbers are factors in thedecision regarding HEFCE grants, while research contracts and numbers of students also affect income. In theUK, due to the fact that the system dictates that increasing the quality and quantity of research and education74

leads to an expansion in funding in the next fiscal period, the achievement of established targets is a way ofChart 5: Research targets within the Strategic Plan
AspectCurrent performance
Quality
5*
5
4
3a 3b
2
RAE 2002 review 12% 23% 34% 9% 0% 0%(% of all staff)
Engineering Faculty 9% 50% 21% 3% 0% 0%
ScienceFaculty
0% 10% 66% 12% 0% 0%
Humanities andSocial Sciences 25% 18% 25% 7% 0% 0%Faculty
Research income
2000/1 Fiscal statement
University Engineering
Faculty
Total research
income (in thousand
GBP, for 2000 / 01)
Average research
income per staff
member over RAE
periodNational average
research income per
staff member
Research students

ScienceFaculty1

N/S 5*

1

N/S

0% 25% 41% 36% 12% 0% 0% 0% 0% 11%2007 Target

ActionAction by Timescale Impact
Humanities andSocial 1: Provide
Sciences targeted support
Faculty to increase
research income
Departme
appropriate Faculties,
10,5007,250 indepartments, 1 yr rolling nts, RO,
areas
RO, research basis
2: Expand /researchdevelopment financial
financial
portfolio offunding sourceswhereappropriate

Humanities
and Social University Engineerin Science
Sciencesg Faculty Faculty
Faculty

6,708

6,211

177,105

288,441

162,063

80,810144,762

207,566

183,419

43,303

December 2001 research activity survey

42,75025,000

Annual recruitment targets

ActionAction by Timescale Impact
Humanitie Increase annuals and intake to 328
Social each year to
Sciences exceed national
Faculty average
Departme
Introduce a newnts, RSO,
Scholarship
3 yr rolling estates,
SchemetoFaculty,basis.
student
enhancedepartments, Yearlyaccommorecruitment
RO, RSOevaluation dation,
110
101
of progress internation
al office,
CIS

Humanities
and Social University Engineerin Scienceg Faculty Faculty
Sciences
Faculty

FT research students

517

221

182

114

PT research students

233

106

50

77

634

274

207

153

1.72

2.53

1.62

0.93

1.82

2.33

1.90

1.23

FTE research
students (target data
= yr 1 only)
Average FTE
research students
per staff member
National average
research income per
staff member

20% 17% 87% 13% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0% 12% 21% 70% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 9%

10,969ScienceFaculty

Targets
3a 3b

4

0% 22% 47% 40% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8%

23,888

University Engineering
Faculty

5

328

117

ensuring the financial wellbeing of an institution. Priorities for

Strategic Plan (5 yearly)

the distribution of finances within the university are also definedwithin the Strategic Plan.

Operational Plan (annually)

Based on this five-yearly Strategic Plan, the university also hasan annual Operational Plan, which is approved each year by theBusiness Plan (quarterly)

Council in July. Categories contained in the Operational Plan
are almost the same as those shown in Chart 4 in regard to the

Performance Monitoring Group monitoring

Strategic Plan. Target values are established for the year, basedon a target chart (similar to Chart 5) for each category in the

Figure 6: Planning structure

Strategic Plan. In Research, for example, the plan contains ananalysis of RAE 2001, along with details of income and research student numbers in comparison with otheruniversities, and specifies the establishment of a scholarship system to increase research students, theimplementation of an individual research planning system, developments in research groupings in preparation
for the next round of RAE and improvements to research management through the Research Performance
Monitoring Group as targets for 2002 / 3. In addition to these, quantitative targets include a figure for research
income and research student numbers for the current year, displayed as in Chart 5.
In addition to this, the annual Operational Plan defines the disbursement of funds to each course and service
department, and the income / expenditure plans of each department are reflected in a specific business plan.
Achievements in regard to targets sent in the business plans are monitored quarterly by the Performance75

Monitoring Group, which operates from within the Resources and Planning Committee. These results aredelivered to the committee along with updates to the business plans.
The annual Operational Plans are monitored by the same group at the end of each year to test the extent towhich targets have been achieved. Results of this monitoring are passed to the Committee and the Council(quarterly monitoring is also done by the same Group). The Strategic Plan is reviewed for the purpose of thismonitoring and also for the creation of new Operational Plans, and can be adjusted where it is considerednecessary. A full review of the Strategic Plan is carried out every three to four years.
(2) The process of establishing a Strategic Plan
The process of establishing a
Strategic Plan starts from the top
down, but includes a subsequent

Sage1(November
2001)

Strategic Planning Meeting of Council
Council presented with University profile, level of attainment of pasttargets, information regarding education / research issues. Scenano
discussed for Strategic Planbottom-up process. This is asshown in the Figure. Initially,

Stage2

Departments, faculties, support services hold discussion
Results of Council discussion are discussed within departments, faculties,
support services etc. Faculty strategies created

the Council meets to set main
objectives.

In line with this,departments and faculties holdStage3(February20
02)

Strategic Planning Meeting of Senate

Stage4(FebruaryMarch2002)

Strategic Plan- preliminary draft

Stage5(April-May
2002)

Consultation process

Stage6

Amendments to Plan

Stage7

Approval of Plan

Senate gives opinion regarding faculty strategies and objectives proposedby Council

meetings to discuss details.
The results of such discussions
are compiled, and at this point
the Senate gives its opinion.
Based on this, the Executive
Management

The Executive Management Committee draws up a draft based on Senate
and Council feedback.

Draft is distnbuted and comments sought

Committee

produces a Draft, which isapproved by both the Council
and the Senate.

Approved by Senate and Council. Submitted to Funding Council.

3.4

Financial management

systems

Figure7: The process of creating a strategic plan

The University has internal
Financial Regulations regarding the management of finances, which direct staff involved in financial
administration as well as defining necessary procedures. The Council has the highest authority in regard to
finances, but this authority is delegated in certain areas to the Resources and Planning Committee, theTreasurer’s Committee and the Audit Committee. Financial audits are performed on behalf of the Audit
Committee, and all departments and section heads are visited as part of the audit program. In addition, theHEFCE has produced guidelines for the creation of financial strategies, based on which universities establish
their own financial strategies.
Loughborough University has indexes for its financial strategy as follows: that it supports the overall
Strategic Plan; that it provides a healthy financial system, that it meets auditing requirements, that it meets
current and future needs, and that it provides value for money. In addition to these, the strategy produced in76

December 2001 includes the following four specific items:- Debt Servicing costs to be kept to 4% or below of income- 3% surplus from budgets- Liquid assets to be maintained at 5%of income- Long and short term loans not to exceed 60% of assets

As mentioned above, Business Plans are also created at faculty and department level, including income andexpenditure plans. Heads of departments, along with the Performance Monitoring Group, are required tomonitor operations on a quarterly basis, enabling a clear understanding of whether a department is operating
to plan. Departments with significant deficits are required to produce a three year Business Plan. Since
departments across the University that operate in surplus are required to subsidize departments in deficit, thestudy team heard various complaints and negative comments from departments in surplus in regard to
departments in deficit. Not surprisingly, there is a tension between the two.
3.5 Mechanisms for internal disbursement of funds
Loughborough University has its own formulaic mechanisms for the internal disbursement of funding.
Funds other than those coming directly into departments are administered under a system known as RASCAL(Resource Allocation System and Cost Apportionment at Loughborough).

Central and overhead costs areallocated to departments using a system known as COMA (Central Overhead – Model for Appointment).
Loughborough University’s overall income is around 113 million GBP annually, of which around 21 million
GBP is allocated for central support service costs (heating, lighting, water, library maintenance, computer
services, management, etc.)
Funds disbursed to departments include those distributed by RASCAL as shown in the figure, those entering

RASCALResearch grants
and contracts

Teaching and
QR incomeGrants / contract
overheads

Self-funded
courses

Income with direct
expenses removed

Short-termcourses

Income with direct
expenses removed

Consultancy

Costs with direct
expenses removed

Department costs
Pay
Non-pay
Discretionary costs

Central costs(COMA)

ProfitLoss

Figure 8: Breakdown of internal distnbution of funds and central costs

departments directly as research grants or contracts, short course fees and fees for educational courses run atthe department’s expense, and consultancy income. COMA and departmental costs (staff costs and facilities

77

costs etc.) are taken from this, and the surplus or deficit of a department is shown in this way.
(1) Distribution of funds for education
The total amount of grants made by HEFCE and other educational grant making bodies, along with theincome from tuition fees, is distributed within this framework. (Before distribution, a fund of 722,000 GBP(for 2002 / 2003) is withheld for Special and Strategic Factors). Teaching costs are disbursed based on the six
categories shown below.

781) Teaching of students from the UK / EU (Home Teaching)Distributed according to teaching load. Undergraduates from the UK and EU, as well as taught
graduate students, full time first year research students, and part time first and second year research
students are the focus of this category. Weighting is also done depending on academic subject (bandprice). HEFCE defines bands from A to D, and at Loughborough University, an independent band pricehas been defined for the bands in existence (all except band A, which is Medicine). Band B (high cost) is
1.85, C (medium cost) is 1.33, while D (low cost) is 1.0. The HEFCE home teaching fund is distributed
to faculties based on a combination of the number of students and the applicable band price.
Funds distributed to faculties are disbursed to departments based on a decision by the faculty directorate.
The Engineering and Social studies / Humanities faculties used the band prices indicated above, while the
Science faculty applies its own unique weighting. 367,000 GBP are withheld for support services within
the Faculty.
2) Further education

The University receives a grant from the Learning and Skills Council for students pursuing further
education courses.
3) TTA

Funds received from the Teacher Education Unit (TEU) for teacher training are distributed to the Design& Technology and PE & Sports Science departments.
4) Teaching of students from outside the UK and EU

Tuition fees for full time and part time students from outside the EU5) Special and Strategic Factors

Funds for Pro-Vice Chancellors and heads of departments, as well as funds for language classes forstudents from overseas
6) Disability funding and funding intended for use in widening participation(2) Distribution of funds for research
1) Qualitative Research Allocation (QR)
Distributed according to the formula below:
Research Units x Research Multiplier x Subject unit of Resourcesa) Research Units
Research active staff x 1.00
Research students x 0.2625 (for full time 2nd or 3rd year students or 3rd to 6th year part time students,
per FTE)
Research assistants x 0.10
Charitable earnings / GBP 25,000 x 0.228 (measured as two year average)b) Research multiplier
Weighted on RAE 2001 score, with 5* = 2.707, 5 = 1.89, 4 = 1.0, 3a = 0.305c) Subject Units of Resource
Established by HEFCE
2) Funds for supervision of PGR student

79

Distributed according to the formula below
No. of research students (FTE) x cost band x GBP 2,480
UoA Research students with an RAE score of 3a or more only
3 cost bands of 1, 1.3 and 1.6
3) Income from research grants and contracts
Research grants and contracts do not have central service costs withheld. The entire amount is counted as
department income / overheads.
4) Short term courses / self-financing courses
Similarly, all funds generated go to department income / overheads(3) COMA (Central Overhead – Model for Apportionment)
Costs applied to various departments for heating, lighting, water, libraries, computer services and various
administrative departments, all of which are services used jointly by all departments, are calculated using fiveelements. The cost is applied regardless of the department’s income, based on the extent to which thedepartments use the support services. This is calculated based on student numbers, staff numbers and thespace taken up by the department.
1) Space (Total cost 2.817 million GBP. 1m2 calculated at 29 GBP.)
2) Teaching (Total cost 9.15 million GBP. The cost of teaching is calculated as 866 GBP per unit).
3) Research (Total cost 1.95 million GBP. Based on a weighted calculation for academic staff, research
assistants and research students, with 1 academic staff member being calculated as 2,249 GBP)
4) Staff (Total cost 2.61 million GBP. Calculated as 3,937 GBP per person).
5) Other (Total 6.7 million GBP. Mainly heat, light, water, libraries, computer services, health and hygiene
costs, etc. Calculations are based on actual quantities used, with proportions allocated to faculties asappropriate).
4. Conclusions

As shown above, financial management is implemented at all levels from the overall University level to thedepartmental level, based on Strategic Plans and implementation plans. In other words, not only the
University as a whole but each department within it not only receives the distribution of funds, but is also
required to implement a plan to go along with these funds, which clearly states income and expenditure figures.
Each department aims not to make a particular surplus or deficit , but to achieve a balanced state of financial
management. These methods are similar to those employed by project system management in privatecompanies. Subject to regular monitoring, each department is entrusted with its own finances, and is
responsible for maintaining a healthy financial status, against a background in which the departments maketheir own strategic plans and have a level of freedom in terms of their functions. At the University-wide level,
as well as indicating the policies of the University, integrated management is implemented, including central
support activities. The Council monitors operations at the University level too, and it is thought that thismulti-tiered system allows the finances of the whole University to be maintained with a level of stability.
At Japan’s national universities, when there is a disparity between income which comes from tuition fees,and expenditure on running costs, it is extremely difficult to implement management techniques similar to those80

of a corporation, mainly because the essential basis of the universities is the training of students in certain
disciplines. For this and other reasons, the situation facing British and Japanese universities is rather different,
and it is not possible to simply apply the British system to Japan. This sort of financial management system,
however, is going to be required in many places when Japan’s universities are incorporated, and there is a needfor such systems to be considered carefully in the near future. Based on the examples of universities studied inthis report, it appears that public funding applied by HEFCE to universities is defined directly according tostudent numbers and the quality of research being carried out (RAE scores). For this reason, improving thequality of research being done and providing educational courses that students want to attend is the key tofinancial stability, and so the financial objectives of the universities are coming into line with the essential
objectives of a university: that is, teaching and research. It will be necessary to implement such a nationwide
financial system in Japan too, rather than just internal systems within universities, in order to achieve thisbalance here.
HEFCE has also produced guidelines for universities in regard to the production of Strategic Plans, Financial
Strategies and audits, and offers management support through these. It is hoped that this type of activity will
be developed in Japan in the future (the Japan-UK Higher Education Change Management Project being an
example of this).

81

Hirosaki University

Japan-UK Higher Education Change Management Project

Report of visits to the University of York and the University of
Sheffield

May 2003
Hirosaki University

85

Contents
Introduction

87

Reforms to teaching staff assessment methods within the School of Medicine, Hirosaki University

89

Human Resource Management at the University of York107

Human Resource Management at the University of Sheffield

121

Comparison with Hirosaki University and Japan’s National Universities:
issues relating to the incorporation of universities
Appendix

127
132

86

Introduction
This report is a compilation of information relating to the visit to and study of the Universities of York and Sheffield,
carried out by Hirosaki University in December 2002 as part of the Japan-UK Higher Education ChangeManagement Project. Hirosaki University undertook the Human Resource Management part of the project as its
main field of study. As explained in this report, Hirosaki University’s School of Medicine implemented reforms of
its selection of teaching staff as of academic year 1999, based on the results of two external assessments. This has
led to the School being closely observed at a nationwide level. As a medium-sized, multi-discipline university,
located in north-eastern Japan and currently concerned with establishing a national university corporation, Hirosaki isfacing significant challenges as it seeks to further utilize its existing teaching staff and effectively recruit new humanresources.
The Universities of Sheffield and York, which the study team visited, are both held as examples of progressive reform
within the British tertiary education system. Both have implemented rigorous internal reforms in order to secure
excellent human resources and become dynamic seats of learning.
We had expected to see systems such as that in place in York University (the HERA program), whereby teaching staff
are subjected to scrupulous assessments, illustrating the strategies being used to revitalize human resources within
British universities. The issue that we wish to focus on in this report is the way in which the results of suchassessments are used – not to penalize staff with low assessment results, but rather to support them through theimplementation of retraining or skills improvement assistance.
In order to firmly establish the concept of evaluating teaching staff in Japan in the future, it is necessary to gain a joint
understanding with those involved that the purpose of such assessment is the development of skills, and that this is apositive thing. The use of mock lectures as one technique in the employment process for teaching staff has beenreported in some cases in Japan recently, but in many cases, particularly those involving the employment of youngteaching staff, the recruitment process involves only an assessment of the candidate’s research work as a graduate
student. The staff recruited in many cases have no experience whatsoever of teaching. There is a significant needfor further consideration and improvements to the training system for newly recruited staff, in order to equip themwith the necessary educational skills.
During the meeting with Sheffield University, the relationship between teaching staff and administrative staff came up
in discussion. Only when the research staff and administrative staff achieve an equal relationship, with an awarenessof partnership in their work, and a sense of trust, can each group begin to really concentrate on the work they are there
to do. The administrative staff who helped us in this study had a great sense of responsibility, and took pride in the
University as their place of work. Their cheerful confidence in the tasks they were required to carry out made a great
impression on our team during the process of collecting resources and data.
It has been pointed out in other circumstances that the Japanese system of making the professors of a university‘all-powerful’ means that a wide range of problems and issues arising within a university are discussed only bycommittees (made up of teaching staff) or the board of professors. Staff in administrative positions are required only
to support or assist this process, and have almost no power to make suggestions or decisions. Japan’s ‘verticalsociety’ is reflected in the management of universities. In order to make improvements to Japanese universities afterincorporation, it seems that both teaching staff and administrative staff must gain an awareness of the responsibility tobuild up their own working environment, and that a system must be put in place that allows all members of the87organization to express their opinions and make suggestions.
Particularly worthy of note is the fact that in the UK, administrative, supervisory and management staff are employedat the discretion of each individual university. Japan’s universities feature ‘moveable civil servants’ in all upper level
administrative roles, who are dispatched to a certain post from the ‘Department’ and usually moved on a few years
later. While this is an excellent system for ensuring that universities respond swiftly and appropriately to changes ingovernment policy, it has significant disadvantages in that administrative staff are rarely able to think creatively interms of the particular locality of the University, or operate according to the knowledge and abilities that are a featureof an employee who has worked for a long time in a particular university environment.
As can be seen from the example of York University, which was able to establish a School of Medicine throughpartnership with Hull University with only a relatively short period of preparation, the universities in the United
Kingdom are engaged in a process of establishing plans based on their own independent objectives, and then creating
educational programs, research systems and human resources policies based on achieving these plans. It remains tobe seen whether this process of individual universities striving to reach their objectives is able to produce thehoped-for ‘health’ competition, and whether this competition will subsequently bring forth a synergy that benefits thesystem, but it is thought that the conditions for success have, to a large extent, been met. The condition that underlies
all these reforms is the abolition of the centralization of policies, and a determination to respect the cultural values ofregions in which the universities are located.
In the process of carrying out our study, we were greatly assisted by Ms. Rosie Valerio (Director of Human Resource
Management), Mr. Nigel Bax (Director of Teaching, School of Medical and Biomedical Sciences), Professor Tony
Weetman (Dean of the School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences) at the University of Sheffield, and by Mr. Ged
Murray (Director of Personnel and Staff Development), Professor Bill Gillespie (Dean of the Hull York Medical
School (HYMS)), Professor Felicity Riddy (Deputy Vice-Chancellor) and Mr. David Foster (Registrar) at the
University of York. We take this opportunity to express our heartfelt thanks. Professor Akiyoshi Yonezawa(Associate Professor, The National Institution for Academic Degrees and University Evaluation) and Mr. Nobuyuki
Yamaguchi (Planning Department, National Institution for Academic Degrees and University Evaluation) also
accompanied us during this visit. We were significantly helped by Professor Yonezawa in the compilation of thisreport, and wish to offer our thanks for his assistance.

May 2003

Kensaku Kanda (Vice-President)
Tetsuya Ishido (Special Advisor to the President)
Kiyoshi Kurata (Professor, School of Medicine)
Hirosaki University

88Reforms to teaching staff assessment methods within the
School of Medicine, Hirosaki University

89Introduction
In order to clarify the problems that are being raised, before discussing our visit to the UK universities, wewould first like to give an outline of the reforms being implemented within the School of Medicine at Hirosaki
University, in regard to the evaluation process for faculty staff1 .
Japan’s national universities are to become National University Corporations as of April 2004. Once
incorporation is complete, National University Corporations are to be assessed periodically, and the results ofthese assessments are to be reflected in the amount of public subsidy made available to each establishment.
Specific details regarding the assessment methods and criteria to be used, as well as the method by which theseassessment results are to be reflected on subsidy levels, have not yet been made clear. For regional national
universities with weak financial bases, however, the assessment process itself is a source of significant concern,
representing a potential difference between survival and closure.
For this reason, the School of Medicine at Hirosaki University has introduced a specific example ofassessment, which is an important element within the effective implementation of human resourcesmanagement. This example has been tried out as part of the reforms currently happening within thedepartment, and we believe it is valuable in the consideration of assessment overall. Firstly, we will present an
example of the three-stage external evaluation of the School of Medicine, and of the interview-based
assessment used in the entrance examination of students. We will touch on the objectivity, fairness andcredibility of such assessment, in addition to certain other problem issues. Secondly, we will introduce an
example of the assessment of the teaching abilities, research and personality of candidates for faculty posts,
along with the sliding distribution of research funds based on assessed results of teaching and research. We
will touch on the scoring of assessments. Thirdly, we will introduce the example of the “fixed-term”
employment system of Hirosaki University’s School of Medicine, and the issues surrounding self-evaluation of
past performance and self-judgement of eligibility for reappointment.
Hirosaki University is located in the north of Tohoku (north-east) region of Japan, and has a history of 53
years. At present, it comprises five faculties - Humanities, Education, Science and Technology, Agricultureand Life Science and the School of Medicine wich includes a Health Science Department – making it amedium-sized university.

Its current President, Professor Endo, took over the leadership of Hirosaki

University in February 2002, having served six years as Dean of the School of Medicine. The School of
Medicine is the second oldest School in the Tohoku region, after Tohoku University’s School of Medicine. At
the time Professor Endo became Dean, the School was training doctors who later go on to work across asignificant area within Japan, ranging from Aomori Prefecture to Southern Hokkaido, as well as Iwate
Prefecture, Akita Prefecture and Yamagata Prefecture in the Tohoku region. The University’s ranking,however, when compared to other universities in various categories, for example the number of publication in
English, the number of scientific research grants approved by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,
Science and Technology (henceforth referred to as MEXT), and the selectivity of admission to the University.
In these and other categories, Hirosaki University had tended to rank towards – if not at - the bottom of the table1

Based on the lecture given by the President of Hirosaki University, Professor Masahiko Endo, at theJapan-UK Higher Education Change Management Project Workshop in July 2002

90

comprising 42 medical schools of National Universities in Japan. When Professor Endo took the post of Deanof the School of Medicine, various reforms in medical education were beginning to gather speed at anationwide level. Although the University lay at the bottom of the league tables, it was decided to work
towards reform, implement self-evaluation, and undergo external evaluation based on the results of these
activities. Firstly, this report will deal with the external evaluation.
Hirosaki University - Location and Current Facilities

Issues related to Objectivity, Fairness and Credibility of External Evaluation
External evaluation
Obviously, the purpose of the external evaluation is to evaluate the target objectively and fairly from athird-party standpoint. There are still, however, various problems with the concept of external evaluation. The
first issue is how to select external evaluators. Secondly, there is the issue of whether an external evaluator iscapable of evaluating specialized fields outside their own. Thirdly, there is always the issue of whether
objectivity and fairness is genuinely being maintained.
First external evaluation

Hirosaki University has undergone external evaluations three times in the past six years.
The first external evaluaton was undertaken as part of the reorganization of the Institute of Neurological
Diseases of the university hospital. The staff of the institute produced a self-evaluation report, which was
further assessed and reported on by an internal evaluation committee, organized within the School of Medicine.
Based on both these reports, an external assessment committee was formed of 10 neurologists from outside theUniversity, who assessed the Institute and presented a report. A budget application was made to the MEXT
based on this, and the reorganization was approved.
An important point raised in this external evaluation was that both the internal and external evaluation

91

committees were known to the members of the Institute, as a result of the fact that members of both wereselected from the area of specialisation related to the research institute. As a result, the assessment was not as
critical as it could have been. For this reason, both the internal and external assessments were criticized fromoutside the University for lacking credibility.

４

First External Evaluation
Reorganization of
Institute of Neurological Diseases
Self-evaluation by the self-evaluation committee↓
Self-evaluation report↓
Internal evaluation by the internal evaluation committee↓
Internal evaluation report↓
External evaluation by the external evaluation committee↓
External evaluation report↓
Budget request to Education Ministry

Second external evaluation (Anonymous external evaluators: an external evaluation committee wasformed without members’ names being published)

The second external evaluation covered the quality of education, research, medical care, community service,
and administrative operation of the school. After the completion of a report based on self-evaluation, aChairperson was selected by the School of Medicine from outside the University, to head up the external
evaluation committee. The other four members of the external evaluation committee were selected based on
the discretion of the Chairperson. These committee members were then allowed to select two specialists each,
whose names were not revealed. The purpose of not publishing the names of the people carrying out theevaluation was to allow the specialists to implement a fair and critical assessment of the School without theirnames being known to the faculty staff. The result of this external assessment was a report which was harshly
critical in places. Based on this, the School of Medicine accepted the fairness and objectivity of the external
evaluation committee, and accepted the severity of the report. A committee was formed to activate therecommendations of the external evaluation. A year was spent in ironing out problems, before a report was
produced on the activation of the recommendations of external evaluation.

92

５Second External Evaluation
Education, Research, Medical Service, and Social
Contribution of the School and the University Hospital

Self-evaluation by the self-evaluation committee↓

Self-evaluation report↓

External evaluation by the external evaluationcommittee and external anonymous evaluators↓

External evaluation report↓

Reform activities conducted by the task force onreforming the School of Medicine↓

Reform activity report

Third external evaluation (direct hearing by mail)

Subsequent to the completion of the second external evaluation, differences of opinion between professors
and other teaching staff of the clinical departments came to light alongside a series of medical malpracticeincidents. This was taken as an indication that there was an awareness of the need for reform, and that staff
were beginning to understand their responsibilities in regard to implementing reforms in their own departments
by themselves. At this point it was decided to undertake a third external evaluation, in order to determine thereal situation within the departments.
Initially, the self-evaluation committee of the school implemented a questionnaire survey regarding present
situation and human relations within the departments, before moving on to external evaluation. A member ofthe second external evaluation committee, who already knew the situation within the school, was appointed as
Chair of the external evaluation committee, and handed the responsibility of recruiting the other members of thecommittee. It was anticipated, however, that it would be difficult to get people to talk frankly and directly
about the problems with the departments, since many of the problems concerned relationships between seniorstaff and junior staff, as well as other relationships, within departments.
For this reason, it was decided that the teaching staff of the School of Medicine and its associated hospitalshould write letters directly to the Chair of the external evaluation committee concerning problems they felt
existed regarding relationships within their departments. The contents of these letters were to be shared onlywith the members of the external evaluation committee. This led to around 40% of the teaching staff writing
letters directly to the Chair. The contents of these letters were of course not made public, but it was statedduring the later hearing involving the external evaluation committee that clear opinions were expressed
regarding the hierarchy that existed within departments of the School of Medicine, in which the professors wereat the pinnacle. Many people agreed sincerely with the opinions stated within the report of the external
evaluation committee, and the committee for activation of the recommendations of the external

93evaluation was reactivated. This led to the first steps in reforming the ‘medical office’ system, a system
unique to medical schools in Japan, and in time to a decision to abolish this system altogether. Further
discussions were pursued, and the School became the first in Japan to abolish this system.
The results of the second and third external evaluation were shown in this way to have preserved objectivity
and fairness, and as a result were trusted by those being assessed, with the result that they gave a dynamism tothe positive reforms implemented within the School of Medicine.

６

Third External Evaluation
Focusing on the administrative operationof the departments
Self-evaluation by the self-evaluation committee
Questionnaire for the faculty staff↓

Self-evaluation report↓

Evaluation by the external ←← Direct
Directhearing
hearingfromthefacultyfromthefacultyevaluation committee
staff by mailstaff by mail↓External evaluation report↓

Reform activities conducted by the task force on reforming
the School of Medicine↓

Reform activity report

Interview-based evaluation as part of the entrance examination of students
The entrance examination process can be used as a further opportunity to consider the fairness and objectivityof those involved in evaluation. Misconduct in medical practice and the personality of doctors being called
into doubt have caused most medical schools to use interviews as part of their entrance examination procedures.
It is not possible, however, to assess a person adequately in a single interview.
At Hirosaki University’s School of Medicine, this issue has been widely discussed, and as a result of these
discussions, it was decided that interviews should be used mainly as a tool for identifying candidates withpersonality disorders. The method used is still rare within Japan, and involves a two stage process where
candidates are asked to take part in individual and then group interviews. This system is implemented forcandidates seeking admission on the basis of recommendation and also for candidates applying to join in thesecond semester. The initial individual interview involves a single candidate being interviewed by four
members of the teaching staff. Six candidates who have completed their individual interviews are then placed
together for the secondary group interview, taken by six teaching staff members who were not part of the firstinterview.
Since, however, it is inevitable that the subjective judgement by individual teaching staff will affect theoutcome of evaluation.

94

For this reason, the School has implemented training sessions on a yearly basis, as part of its Faculty
Development process, involving lectures given by people in positions responsible for situations such as theemployment of pilot trainees for an airline, or managers of human resources for banks or corporations, in orderto teach staff about recruitment and personnel assessment. A checklist has been created to assist the interview
assessment process, and directly before the start of each set of interviews, staff take a lecture by a psychologist.
The fairness and objectivity of the interviews is by no means guaranteed through implementing thesemeasures, but according to teaching staff in the School of Medicine, the number of ‘problematic’ students
entering the department has been significantly reduced. There are still, however, some cases of students whodevelop problems after being accepted at interview. This is, of course, the difficulty with human beings
evaluating other human beings.
Next session is the description of the evaluation scoring process, which was developed at the School of
Medicine in order to better evaluate ‘personality’.
７

Interview Evaluation as part of the Entrance Exam
Hirosaki University, School of Medicine
z First step (Individual interview)
Applicant Teacher Applicant Teacher

Applicant Teacher Applicant Teacher Applicant Teacher Applicant

Teacherz Second step (Group interview)

Applicants

Teachers

Professor selection process (Personality evaluation)
Professors in the School of Medicine play a central role not only in teaching, research and management, butalso in medical care. As such, the reliability of a professor affects the practice of the School, and for thisreason a professor’s abilities, insights and personality are extremely important. When selecting a new
professor, a committee of professors from different disciplines is appointed to make the selection, in order toensure objective assessment, and this committee bears the significant responsibility for accurately and fairly
communicating the assessment results to the board of professors. To facilitate this process, we broke down theassessment criteria to the maximum possible level of detail, and have tried to assess these categories innumerical terms wherever possible.
In the professorial selection process, candidates are invited to apply from across Japan. Applicants submit
their resume, along with details of their research or teaching results, their situation in regard to the award of95

scientific and other research grants, their clinical experience (in the case of clinical medicine position), and theirpersonal views on teaching and research, compiled in their own words into a report of 700 words or less (ifestimated as English words). The selection committee then translates these documents into numerical scoresfor research, teaching, personality and clinical experience.
８

Flow Sheet of Professor Selection
Hirosaki University, School of Medicine
Advertising in Japan for filling av a c a n t p o s i t i o n o f p r o f e s so r

① Documentary
examination （scoring theevaluations of teaching,research, andpersonality）② Questionnaire
concerning thepersonality③ Obtaining the student
evaluation of theapplicant’s teachingfrom the university theapplicant belongs to

Applicants （A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J）
Repor ting to the fac ulty
Ex a mi nat io n b y these lectio n co mmittee
Selecting5

applicants

Repor ting to the fac ulty
Ex a mi nat io n b y these lec tio n co mmitte e
Selecting3

applicantsInterview withthe applicants

Reporting to the faculty council
Open presentations by
the applicants
Votingbythefaculty

With regard to teaching evaluation, we score the applicants in seven categories based on their applicationmaterials. In addition, we make an inquiry about ‘student evaluations of the applicant’s teaching’ from theuniversities he/she is currently teaching at. Say, for example, that there are five candidates for a post, named,
respectively, A, B, C, D and E. The selection committee will compile the results for each of these into anassessment score, with a maximum possible score of 100.
In a similar way, the committee will create a chart showing each candidate’s Impact Factor (IF) papers in
English, their IF general score, and the ratio to which they have been listed as the author or main contributor
to theses, in order to compare research results.

This chart gives a good idea of how much progress eachcandidate is making with their research, and to what extent their research is contributing at an international
level.
We make a graph of the cumlative IF points of the articles first-authored by each applicant. Doing thisdisplays whether or not a candidate is progressing with research on a continuous and active basis, and gives anindication of their recent activity. The selection committee then fills in the research evaluation table using
those tables, graphs, and the applicants’ success in securing reseach grants.
The candidate’s personality is assessed next. This is done by sending confidential questionnaires to people
working close to the candidate, and asking for their answers. The people asked to answer questionnaires include
same-year graduates of the candidate’s university, superiors, contemporaries, juniors working on the same
course within his or her current institution, and co-medical staff, for example outpatient nurses and96

operating-room nursing managers, in the candidate’s workplace, and medical students the applicants taught.
The respondents are offered a guarantee that their names will not be made known, and confidentiality ispreserved. The questionnaires contain around 50 questions, and have been developed in collaboration withspecialist staff at a large Tokyo-based human resources supply company. The questions deal with thecandidate’s attitude to teaching and medical care, their human relationships in the workplace, their attitude tomoney, and the existence or otherwise of any problems such as sexual harassment. We create a spreadsheet
based on the questionnaire. Sometimes a personal profile that one would not expect from the applicationmaterials emerges.
In addition to the questionnaire, the committee members interview the applicants in order to know thembetter. Based on the results of the questionnaire and the interview, we make a table for judging the personal
characteristics the applicants. As for clinical performance, the committee members visit the medical carefacility the applicants currently work at in order to observe the quality of the medical services he/she provides,
including operations and patient examinations and consultations. The committee then scores the applicants
based on their application materials and the observations. Based on the four evaluation tables (teaching,research, personality, clinical performance) described above, the committee makes a total evaluation table,announces the results to the faculty of the College of Medicine, and retains the top three candidates for final
consideration.
These three top candidates are invited to visit the University, and are requested to present a mock lecture to agroup of medical school students, all on the same subject. These lectures are open to any member of theteaching staff of any course within the School of Medicine and its associated hospital. After this, the board ofprofessors hold a vote in order to select the candidate they feel most appropriate for appointment to theprofessorial post.
９

Teaching Evaluation
Selection committee member nameApplicant’s name

Points
Evaluation Items

Description（Importance）

１．Teaching career

Overall evaluation of
resume１０

２．Teaching expertise

Expertise in education

２０

３．Teaching experience

Term of working as ateacher

１０

４．Attitude toward
education

Educational philosophy,
creativity of teaching
methods (mock lecture)

２０

５．Student evaluation ofteaching（Materials from current
university）

２０

６．Relation with students

Supervising or advising
extracurricular activity

１０

７．Participation in ＦＤ

Participation in educational
training programs at home
and abroad

１０
１００

Total points

97

Ａ

Ｂ

Ｃ

Ｄ

Ｅ

１０

Research Evaluation Table
Applicant Ａ

Applicant Ｂ

Applicant Ｃ

Applicant Ｄ

Applicant Ｅ

Ａ Article in English

６４

６０

２２

２０

１４

Ｂ Article with IF points in English

５８

５６

２０

１８

１４

Ｃ Total ＩＦ points

１７８．５

２１２．４

９８．６

１８０．４

１１５．７

Ｄ Adjusted total ＩＦ points

１０２．８

８０．４

５８．１

９２．５

７０．９

２０

１０

８

６

６

０．３１

０．１８

０．３６

０．３

０．４２

Ｇ Number of first-authored articles
with ＩＦ points

１８

８

６

６

６

Ｈ Total IF points of first-authoredarticles

６５．４

４０．３

４１．２

７１．５

６０．６

３

０

３

９

５

０．０５

０

０．１４

０．４５

０．３６

First-authored articles
Ｅ Number of first-authored articles
Ｆ Percentage of first-authoredarticles（Ｅ／Ａ）

Publication abroad
Ｉ Number of articles publishedabroadＪ Percentage of articles publishedabroad （I/A）

１１

Research Progress of Each Applicant
225

225

200

200
175

150

150

125

125

100

100

100

75

75

75

50

50

50

25

25

25

Applicant C

98

2000

1995

1990

2000

1995

1990

Applicant A

1985

0

0

0

Applicant E

2000

125

1995

150

1985

Cumulative IF (Impact Factor) Points

175

175

･････ Cumulative IF points for
all articles

1990

200

── Cumulative IF points
for first-authored articles

1985

225

１２

Research Evaluation
Evaluation Items

Description

１．Quantity of research

Number of articles with IF points

２．Quality of research

Number of first-authored articles withIF points
Presenter for domestic academic
conferences, journal editor
Presenter, chair for international
academic conference, journal editor

３．Domestic evaluation
４．International evaluation
５．Activities in last 5 years

Selection committee member name

PointsApplicant’s name

(Importance)

Ａ Ｂ Ｃ Ｄ Ｅ

１０
１０
１０
１０
１０

Judge from the graph of IF points

６．Acquisition of scientific
As a representative researcher
research grant from MEXT
７．Acquisition of research grants
As a representative researcher
from bodies other than MEXT
Second-authoring or correspondence
８．Aptitude as a research leader
for journals with IF points
Logicality of articles, regardless of the
９．Consistency and logicality number of articles
Scale, background, and foreign effects
10．Uniqueness and originalityof research

１０
１０
１０
１０
１０
１００

Total points

１３

Confidential

Questionnaire about personality of applicant for
Hirosaki University School of Medicine
Please answer following questions about Professor ̲̲̲̲̲̲̲̲̲̲̲̲̲̲, ̲̲̲̲̲̲̲̲̲̲̲̲̲̲ University.
Note:
1 . Please answer following questions based on the relationship of you and him/her. Please checkan answer for each item.
2 . If you think it is not appropriate to answer this questionnaire, please return this form
unanswered.

Questionnaire
for Personality
Evaluation

3 . Your name will remain confidential.

? Education
1 . Is he/she enthusiastic about education?
1) Greatly2) Considerably3) Moderately

4) Little5) No idea

2 . Is he/she well organized for class sessions?
1) Greatly2) Considerably3) Moderately

4) Little5) No idea

3 . Is he/she punctual to classes?
1) Always2) Almost always4) Rarely5) No idea

4) Frequently

5) No idea

3) Usually

4 . Does he/she cancel his/her classes?
1) Never2) Rarely3) Occasionally

5 . Does he/she speak clearly and loudly enough in his/her classes?
1) Greatly2) Considerably3) Moderately
4) Little
6 . How does he/she mark exams?
1) Very severely
2) Severely

3) Moderately

5) No idea

4) Too generously5) No idea

7 . Does he/she enthusiastically instruct students in (clinical) training classes?
1) Greatly2) Considerably3) Moderately
4) Little5) No idea
8 . Does he/she communicate with students after school hours?
1) Students visit his/her office quite often.
2) Students often visit his/her office.
3) Students sometimes visit his/her office.

4) Students never visit his/her office.

5)

No idea
9 . Is he/she popular among students?
1) Greatly2) Considerably3) Moderately

4) Little

10 Is he/she respected by students?
1) Greatly2) Considerably3) Moderately

4) Little

11. Is he/she responsible for supervising after-school activities?
1) More than two activities
2) One activity3) No activity5) No idea

（Sector display）

99

5) No idea

5) No idea

4) Refuses the duty

１４Collection Required

Co n fi d en ti a l

Spreads heet of Questio nnaire about P ersonal ity of Applican t

SpreadsheetofQuestionnaire
for Personality
Evaluation

Ke y a tt i tu d e f or q u es t io n s
Ⅰ t o Ⅳ ， １ t o ４ of Ⅴ ， ８ to １ ０ o f Ⅴ1 ) V e r y e n t h u s i a s t i c 2 ) E n t h u s i a s t i c 3 ) O r d i n a r y 4 ) N ot e n t h u s i a s t i c 5 ) N o i d e a
５ t o ７ of Ⅴ
1 ) N o r um o rs 2 ) S om e r u mo rs 3 ) N o i d ea
1 of Ⅵ
A ) C o ll e a g ue B ) F o rm e r co l l ea gu e C ) A cq u ai nt a nc e a t a c ad em i c c on f er e nc es
D ) Near st r an g er
E ) To t al st r an ge r
2 of ⅥA ) H ig h er B ) E qu a l ( C ol l ea gu e , c la s sm a te ， e tc ) C ) L ow er
Ⅵの３A) Very wellB ) F a i r l y w e l l , t h r o u g h t a l k a t a c a de m i c c o n f e r e n c e s a n d m e e t i n g sC ) B y n am e a nd si g ht

D ) No t s o w e ll

Re s po n de n t No
Qu e st i on s
１
Ⅰ ． E du c at i on
１ ． En t hu s ia s m fo r e d uc a ti o n
１２ ． Qu a li t y o f cl a ss
１
３ ． St a rt ti m e of cl a ss
２２
４ ． Ca n ce l la t io n o f c la s s
２
５ ． To n e o f v oi ce in cl a ss
２
６ ． Te s t s co r in g
１
７ ． In str uc tio n in tr ai ni ng cl as s
８ ． C o m m u n i c a t i o n w it h s t u d e n t s a f t ２

E ) N ot at al l
Pr o fe s so r s el e ct i on co m mi tt e e
Ap pl i ca n t Ａ
A pp l ic an t Ｂ
２ ３ ４ ５ ６ ７ ８ ９ 10 11 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6

２
５
５
５
３
５
５
５

３
３
５
５
３
５
３
５

１
２
２
１
１
５
１
２

５
５
５
５
５
５
５
５

２
３
２
２
３
２
２
３

１ １ ２ １ ２ ２ １２
２ １ ２ ３ ５１
５ ２ １ ５ ５１
５ ２ １ ５ ５２
１ １ １ １ ５２
５ ２ ５ ５ ５１ ２ ２ ２ ２ ５ ５
２
５ ２ ５ ５ ５

５
５
５
５
５
５
５
５

２
２
１
２
１
２
２
５

１
１
２
２
１
３
２
２

er c la ss

９ ． Po p ul a ri t y am o ng st u de n ts
1 0． Re p ut a ti o n am o ng st u de n ts

１ ５ ５ １ ５ ２ １
１ ５ ５ ２ ５ ２ １

５ １ ２ ５ ２ ５ ５ ２
２ １ ２ ５ ２ ５ ５ １
５ ２ ５ ５ ５ ５ ５ ５

1 1 ． S u p e r v i s i o n o f a f te r - s c h o o l a c t ５ ５ ５ ５ ５ ５ ５
iv it y1 2 ． C o n t i n u a n c e o f a f te r - s c h o o l a c t １ ５ ５ ２ ５ ３ ５
iv it y１
1 3． El i gi b il i ty f o r p ro f es s or
Ⅱ ． R es e ar c h
３
１ ． At t it u de to wa r d e xp e ri m en t
１
２ ． Lo o ki n g a ft er re s ea r ch e rs
３ ． Re m ar k s a t wo r ks h op , e t c
１
４ ． P r e s e n t a t i o n a t i nt e r n a t i o na l c １５ ２ ５ ５ ５ ５ ５ ５

２ ５ １ ５ ２ １

２ １ ２ ２ １ ５ ２ １

５ ５ ２ ５ ３ １
５ ３ ３ ５ ５ ５ ５ ５
２ ５ １ ５ １ １ ２ ５ １ ２ ５ ２ ５ ２ ２
２ ３ １ ２ ３ １ ２ ５ １ １ ２ １ ５ ２ １
５ ５ １ ３ ２ １ １ ５ ２ ５ ５ ５ ５ ５ １

on fe re nc es
５ ． R e s e a r c h e v a l u a ti on i n a c a de m i c １ ２ ３ １ ３ ２ １ １ ５ ２ ３ ５ ２ ５ ５ ２
c on fe re nce s
６ ． A d m i n i s t r a t o r o f ac a d e m i c
１ ２ ５ １ ２ ２ １５ ２ ５ ５ ５ ５ ５ ２
co nf er en ces

７ ． En g li s h a bi li t y
１
１
８ ． Re s ea r ch ab il i ty
９ ． El igi bi lit y fo r r es ea rch l ea der １
Ⅲ ． C li n ic a l Se r vi c e
１ ． C a re f u l n e ss a b o u t p a t ie n t 's ２talk
２ ． T r u s t o f p a t i e n ts a n d t h e i r f a m １

３ ５ １ ５ ３ １ ２ １ １ １ ５ １ ５ ５ １
５ ５ １ ３ ２ １ １ ５ ２ ２ ５ １ ５ ５ １
５ ５ １ ３ ２ １ １ ５ １ ２ ５ １ ５ ５ １
５ ２ ５ ５ ２ １ １ ２ １ ２ ２ ２ ５ ２ ２
５ ２ ２ ５ ２ １ １ １ １ ２ ５ ５ ５ ２ ２il y me mb ers

１
３ ． Behavior to nursing staff
４ ． Trust from nursing staff
１
５ ． Clinical skills
１
６ ． Behavior during operations
２
７ ． Participation in operations １
８ ． C o m m u n i c a t i o n w it h s t a f f o f o t h １
er

５
５
１
２
２
２

３
３
５
３
２
３

２
２
１
１
１
５

５
５
３
５
５
５

２
２
１
２
１
２

１
１
１
１
１
１

１
１
１
２
２
１

２
２
２
２
１
１

２
１
２
２
１
１

２
２
２
２
１
２

２
５
２
５
５
２

２
２
１
２
１
１

３
３
５
３
２
２

１
１
１
２
１
２

３
２
２
２
２
１

de pa rt men ts

９ ． El igi bi lit y fo r c li ni cal l ea der
Ⅳ ． Committees and meetings
１ ． Attendance at meetings
２ ． Punctuality for meetings
３ ． Remarks at meetings
４ ． Chairing meetings
５ ． Leadership
６ ． Influence of remarks
７ ． Deadlines of documents
Ⅴ ． General Matters
１ ． Personality type
２ ． Appearance
３ ． Cheerfulness
４ ． Weird behavior
５ ． Mental problems
６ ． Sexual harassment
７ ． Money trouble
８ ． Personality defects
９ ． Tolerance
1 0． Eligibility for professor
Ⅵ ． Relation to the applicant
１ ． Relationship１ ２ ５ １ ３ １ １ １ １ １ ２ ２ １ ３ １ １
２
２
１
１
２
１
２

２
２
３
５
５
２
５

３
３
４
４
３
３
５

２
２
２
５
２
２
１

５
５
５
５
５
５
５

２
２
２
５
３
２
３

２
１
２
２
１
１
１

２ ５
２ ５
２ ５
５
２ ５
５
２ ５

２
２
２
５
５
５
２

２
２
２
５
２
２
５

５
５
５
５
５
５
５

２
５
１
５
５
２
５

５
５
５
５
５
５
５

５
５
５
５
５
５
５

５
５
５
５
５
５
５

１
２
３
１
１
１
１
１
１
１

３
３
３
１
１
１
１
１
２
２

２
３
３
２
１
１
１
２
５
２

２
２
３
１
１
１
１
１
２
１

４
３
４
５
３
３
３
３
４
４

２
３
２
２
１
１
１
１
３
２

１
１
２
１
１
１
１
１
１
１

１
１
２
１
１
１
１
１
１
１

２
２
１
１
１
１
１
１
２
１

３
２
１
１
１
１
１
２
２
２

３
３
２
３
１
３
３
２
２
２

２
３
２
２
１
１
１
１
２
１

３
４
２
５
３
１
３
３
３
５

２
４
１
２
１
１
１
１
１
１

２
３
１
２
１
１
１
１
２
１

２
２
１
５
１
１
１
１
１
１

(Sector display)

１５

Personality Evaluation
Selection committee member nameEvaluation Items

Comprehensive evaluationof each aspect of character,such as well-integrated,strong-willed, etc

１．Personality

２．Popularity, reliability
３．Age
４．Career

Description

Information fromacquaintances
Young enough forserving out the term
Experience andresearch environment

５．Accuracy andPreparing accurate andpreciseness of application
precise materials
materials
Ambition expressed in
６．Ambition
application materials
７．Application record for Number of past application
for the position , etc
professor position
Total points

Points(Importance
)

２０
３０
１０
１０
１０
１０
１０
１００

100

Ａ

Applicant’s name
Ｂ
Ｃ
Ｄ

Ｅ

１６

Clinical Performance Evaluation

Selection committee member nameEvaluation Items(Importance)

１．Clinical career

Substantial clinical service career

１０

２．Expertise

Level of professional knowledge

１０

３．Specialized technique Specialized medical service techniqueＡ Ｂ Ｃ Ｄ Ｅ

１０

４．Clinical teaching

Term of teaching experience with students concerning
clinical education and training as a position above
assistant professor

１０

５．Attitude towardclinical medicine

Recognition of clinical medicine (applicationmaterials)

１０

６．Attitude toward therelation of clinical service
and clinical study

Recognition of the importance between clinicalservice and clinical study

１０

Clinical service technique１０

Evaluation of clinical service and personality byco-medicals

１０

９．Academic evaluation

Evaluation by academic conference members

１０

10．Medical accident

Medical accidents and handling of problems

７．Clinical service
evaluation by doctors
８．Evaluation by comedicals and patients

Applicant’s name

PointsDescription

１０
１００

Total points

１７

Total Evaluation Table（Applicants for Basic medicine professor）

ApplicantEvaluation
Ａ

Ｂ

Ｃ

Ｄ

Ｅ

Teaching
Evaluation

５８０

５１６

４８８

３８０

４２６

Research
Evaluation

６２０

５５８

４０１

４４０

５０１

Clinical performance
Evaluation

−

−

−

−

−

Personality
Evaluation

６５９

５７９

４９２

４３２

５９６

Total Point

１８５９

１６５３

１３８１

１２５２

１５２３

Average Point

６２０．０

５５１．０

４６０．３

４１７．３

５０７．７

（Non-doctor)（Doctor）（Doctor）（Doctor）（Doctor）

In the past, when selecting a professor of rudimentary medicine, one of the many candidates was not a
medical doctor, and a graduate of a non-medical school. This non-medical doctor candidate was the highest
scoring of all the candidates, and was reported as such to the board of professors. Within the medical world inJapan, the idea that a professor of rudimentary medicine must be a medical doctor still holds very strong weight.
This selection process, however, resulted in the unexpected but unanimous vote to recruit a non-medical doctor
to the post of professor, due to the candidate’s high assessment scores.

101

It is in fact extremely difficult for people to assess other people and turn the results of this into a score. It isthought, however, that the results of this selection process have convinced the board of professors of thereliability of the scoring system. At present, various improvements are being implemented to the scoringprocess.
Allocation of research funds based on evaluation
Hirosaki University’s School of Medicine also scores the research and educational results of its teaching staff,
and uses these scores in deciding the level of research funds to be awarded.
The School of Medicine receives basic education and research subsidies from the Ministry of Education, andafter subtracting the costs required for central management from the sum received, appropriates the rest toteaching and research. Of this, 70% is allocated equally between departments, and the other 30% is
distributed on a sliding scale, based on an evaluation system of education, research and management among thevarious departments. With regard to teaching evaluation, we divide the departments into A, B, and C
categories based on teaching loads and student evaluations of teaching performance, and then calculate a raw
score for each department.
As for scoring research performance, we calculate a raw score for each department based on the number ofarticles, IF points, and the securing of the scientific research grants as reported in the annual self-evaluation
reports.
Concerning administrative operations, we first count the number of department members in positions ofadministrative responsibility for the university as a whole or within the School of Medicine. To this we add thenumber of teachers, graduate students, and the research students of each department. Then, we calculate a raw
score by multiplying these numbers by each factor.
Allocation is determined according to the total score of each department contributions calculated bysumming up the scores of teaching, research, and administrative contributions described above. For example,
the department with the highest score receives the maximum allocation. This is our graded allocation system forresearch funds.
There was a significant amount of internal resistance to the introduction of this system from within the boardof professors, but once the system based on the self-monitoring and self-evaluation, which are published eachyear, was instigated, much of the opposition disappeared. During academic year 2002, the difference between
the financial allocation of those departments assessed highly and those assessed less well was 1.4 million yen.
At present, the proportion of research and educational funds allocated on a sliding scale is rising in relation to
the fixed proportion.

102

１８

Score Table for Lecture and Exercise
Score point of lecture

Score point of exercise

Medical BasicStudent Subtotal Medical
education education evaluation
exercise

１９

Research Student
Subtotal
exercise evaluation

Total Grade_______
Department

４５．００

０．００ ３５．００ ８０．００ ２０．００

５．００ ５２．５０ ７７．５０ １５７．５０

Ａ_______
Department

２５．００

５．００ ３９．００ ６９．００ ２０．００ １０．００ ５４．６０ ８４．６０ １５３．６０

Ａ_______
Department

２５．００

５．００ ３４．２４ ６４．２４

５．００

５．００ ５６．００ ６６．００ １３０．２４

Ｂ_______
Department

３５．００

５．００ ３９．６５ ７９．６５

５．００

５．００ ５８．８０ ６８．８０ １４８．４５

Ａ_______
Department

２５．００

０．００ ３４．３０ ５９．３０

５．００ １０．００ ５８．８０ ７３．８０ １３３．１０

Ｂ

Score Table for
Article and Scientific Research grant
Numberofteachers

ＩＦ（Ａ＋
1/2B）

________
Department

３

０．０００

１

０

０

０

________
Department

４

３．４０５

２

０

１

________
Department

４

１４．８５９５１________
Department

４

６．０５２

７

________
Department

３

３．８５５

１

Total

Evaluation
Grade
Points

０

０．２００

６．６６７

Ｃ

０

０

３．８６５

９６．６２５Ｃ

５２

０

１６．９３９ ４２３．４７５

Ａ

１

４

０

３

９．２５２ ２３１．３００

Ｂ

１

４

０

２

５．６５５ １８８．５００

Ｂ

English Japanese SR Academic Academic
Article Article grant Award Conference

103

２０

Graded allocation for Departments（30％
30％ of Education and Research Fund）
Fund）
Administrative Operation
Teaching

Research
Graduate
Student

Teaching Staff

Total
Allocation
Total

OthersInstructor
Assistant
Professor
Associate
Professor

Professor

Grade Allocation Grade Allocation

Research
Student

Allocation # Allocation # Allocation_______
Department

Ａ

630,240 Ｃ

210,080１

１０ １ ０ 119,898 ０_______
Department

Ａ

630,240 Ｃ

210,080

１１

１ １ ０ 159,864 ２ 18,308 １

5,729 183,901 1,024,221_______
Department

Ｂ

420,160Ａ

630,240１０

２ １ １ 219,813 １

9,154 １

5,729 234,696 1,285,096_______
Department

Ａ

630,240 Ｂ

420,160

１

１

０ ２ １

830 ４ 36,616 ２

11,458 247,904 1,296,304_______
Department

Ｂ

420,160 Ｂ

420,160

１

１

１ ０ ０

99,915 ００ ０

０ ０

０ 119,896

０ 99,915

960,218

940,235

Fixed-Term Employment System for Teaching Staff: Self-Evaluation Based on
Self-Responsibility
Finally, the self-assessment and self-reporting process that has been implemented at School of Medicine ofHirosaki University in the process of re-appointing teaching staff for extended periods will be explained. The
Hirosaki University School of Medicine now employs the fixed-term employment system for its teaching staff.
In this system, each teaching staff member is required to judge his/her own eligibility for reappointment. We
have introduced this system because we think that the evaluation should originate from the person involved andthat each person should take responsibility for this process.
The fixed-term system for teaching staff in the School of Medicine has been in place since 2000. This is aunique employment system which places great importance on personal-responsibility, meaning that teachingmembers are required to judge their eligibility for reappointment at the end of the term limit based on therelative evaluation.
The system is applied to all teaching members of the School of Medicine, including full professors. The term
limit for professor, associate professor, assistant professor, and instructor is 10 years, 7 years, 7 years, and 5
years respectively. The percentage of those who have agreed to this system and have converted theiremployment status to one with term limits has reached 96 %.
This fixed-term employment system based on self-declaration involves self-declaration in thefollowing way. First, a teacher declares his/her teaching, research, medical care, community service, andadministrative goals for his/her term of employment, as well as the projected time allocation for each activity. At
the end of the term, he/she evaluates his/her performance. He/She judges his/her eligibility for reappointment
based on a self-assessment and asks the faculty of the School of Medicine for its judgment.

104

２１

Setting Goals
Term: FY2001 – FY2010 (10 years)
Ⅰ．Point allocation for each goal for self-evaluation （%）
MedicalTeaching
Research
Service
Basic Medicine
Professor
10〜30
50〜70
−
Associate Professor
10〜30
60〜80
−
Assistant Professor
10〜30
60〜80
−
Instructor
0〜20
70〜90
−
Clinical Medicine
Professor
10〜20
30〜50
20〜30
Associate Professor
10〜20
40〜50
30
Assistant Professor
10〜20
40〜50
30
Instructor
10〜20
40〜50
30
（Reason）

SocialActivity
5〜20
5
0〜5
0〜5

Administrative

5〜20
5
0〜5
0〜5

5〜20
5
0〜5
0〜5

Total

Operation
5〜20
5
0〜5
0〜5

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

・ According to the table above, allocate points to each category on percentage. Each point expresses your goal in
the category. As the end of your term approaches, evaluate your performances in each category and score them.
You are required to submit the self-evaluation report which includes the evaluation score and the specificdescription of the evaluation. Give special attention to the point allocation for each category, since you are required
to evaluate each achievement level in the range of 0 to 100%.

・ If you think these criteria are not appropriate for your duty, you can change them by describing thereason in the (Reason) field.

２２

SelfSelf-Evaluation Report

Department :Title :

Professor
Ａ

Name :
Term for self-evaluation：2001 April – 2010 March (10 years)
Self-evaluation Score
Teaching

Research

MedicalService

SocialActivity

Administrative

Goal

Note
(1)

１０

４０

３０

５

１５

１００

Achievement Level
(%)

Note
(2)

８０

３５

７０

０

１００

−

Note
８
１４
２１
(3）
Note（１）： Fill in the points you allocated to each category before your term began
Note（２）： Fill in the achievement level of each goal on percentage (0 – 100 %)Note（３）：（１）×（２）÷１００

０

１５

５８

Evaluation Score

Operation

Total〔Comprehensive self-evaluation〕
As for Medical Service, the service load decreased due to the reform of medical service systemof the department of Internal Medicine 4. With regard to Social Activity, since the duties related toacademic conference and municipal committee were finished due to the completion of my term, theachievement level resulted in 0%. The achievement level of research was 35%, because I could not go ahead
with it as I had expected. The IF points of my articles, however, was extremely high.
Major reason for the delay of research was that I could not have enough time to write articles,
since I have a father requiring nursing care. My wife also has a job, so we had to take turns looking
after him. However, I believe I have enough ability and intention to continue the research, I hope to bereappointed, and make further efforts to promote research.

Using a fictitious Professor A in clinical medicine as an example, how the system works could be explained
as follows;
Professor A agreed to convert his employment status to one with a term limit, and signed the contract.
Professor A declared the teaching, research, medical care, community service, and administrative goals, which
he would meet in 10 years, such as getting publications to the New England Journal of Medicine each year. He
also declared the working time allocation for each category of activity: 10%, 40%, 30%, 5%, and 15%
respectively.

105

The content of his declaration was examined by other departments, submitted to the faculty of the School of
Medicine, and then make public to the entire university community. The point is that the disclosure to all
departments and to the faculty plays an important role in setting appropriate goals. When we set goals byourselves, we tend to choose the easiest course. We can avoid such problems by disclosing the content to one's
peers.
One year before his term was to end, Professor A evaluated his achievement level based on his
self-assessment reports over the past 9 years, and submitted a report on his achievements. Professor A
concluded that he did not meet the research and administrative goals he had set 9 years before. He concluded
that he was not eligible for reappointment, since he only received 58 out of 100 points. On the other hand, he
had a legitimate reason for the low self-evaluation. He could not take enough time to write the necessary articles
because of his father who needed nursing care. Since Professor A strongly hoped to continue teaching anddoing research as a professor, he decided to explain his reasons in the report, and asked for a judgment from thereview committee.
After discussion, the committee accepted his explanation, and decided that he should be reappointed on thecondition that he would make as much effort as possible to publish research articles. The faculty agreed, and he
was reappointed as professor.
The fundamental framework of this system is that the teachers should set and disclose their goals and makeefforts to meet them, and finally, they should evaluate their eligibility for reappointment based on the
self-assessment. In other words, members of the teaching staff evaluate themselves as individuals within thissystem. Possible shortcomings, such as setting low goals and over-evaluation of one's accomplishments can be
avoided by the checks implicit in the public disclosure process.

Conclusion
The initial contract terms for teaching staff in the School of Medicine have not yet matured. Therefore, wehave not executed the self-evaluation process. However, the self-evaluation reports and the success in securing
scientific research funds indicate that the teaching and research capacity of the faculty is gradually improving.
In the various rankings among the 42 national universities, we are pulling ourselves out of the lowest rung. Of
course, there are many factors that can contribute to individual initiative, but it is clear that self-evaluation,
external evaluation, and other relevant factors are fundamental to the goal of improvement.
We have highlighted certain specific examples of programs that have been implemented as part ofHirosaki University’s School of Medicine evaluation system. It is well understood that there are various
problems with the scoring of an assessment, which is always going to be based on subjective factors.
For this reason, both those implementing evaluation and those being evaluated are committed to making
every effort where possible to continue improving the system into one that everyone agrees is fair.

Hirosaki University believes that the improvement of the evaluation methods will lead to the development of
the ideal personnel system for national university corporations. National universities are going to be converted
into national university corporations. We will be required to establish a new personnel system in order toincrease diversity and mobility of university teaching staff by actively introducing fixed-term employment, newprocesses for recruiting and selecting teaching staff, and the public disclosure of selection standards.

106

Human Resource Management at the University of York107

Outline, organization and corporate plan of the University of YorkThe University of York (henceforth, York University) was founded in 1963, making it one of the newer
universities within the UK. It is an integrated university, which presently comprises under 10,000 students2,
and just over 30 departments and research centers. York University is ranked with Cambridge as one of the top
in terms of its teaching, and sixth out of the 172 tertiary education bodies within the UK in terms of theassessment of its research. Of its 23 departments, 18 have been assessed as 5 or 5*. The University operates
a college system, in which most staff and all students are members of one of the colleges. All new students
and overseas students are guaranteed accommodation in the colleges, and many of the departments are also
attached to one of the 8 colleges3.
York University is organized in two levels – management and committees. The management organizationis arranged with the Vice-Chancellor at its head, and four Senior Academic Officers (the Deputy
Vice-Chancellor and the Pro-Vice-Chancellors) working below him. The Vice-Chancellors each have an areaof responsibility, including Human Resources, Undergraduate Student Matters and Colleges. The committeeorganization includes the Staff Committee, which decides policy in regard to human resources. Below the
Senate comes the Promotion Committee, which is responsible for the promotion of teaching staff.
York University has instigated a Corporate Plan (2000 – 2004), to lay down the policy for the University as awhole. The Corporate Plan states that the vision of the University is ‘to develop as a major centre for theadvancement of learning, whose influence is global; whose research is fundamental, valuable and useful; andwhose students are exceptionally well equipped to lead successful lives and to contribute effectively to society’
Based on this, the aims of the University are as follows:

To (a) provide an outstanding and distinctive intellectual, social and physical environment in which research,scholarship and learning may flourish, and all students and staff achieve their potential;(b) sustain and develop the University's position as a leading international institution in the higher education
sector committed to the highest standards in the selection, learning experience and pastoral care of students,
within a collegiate context;(c) develop further the University's established position as one of the country's leading research universities,balanced in academic composition, in order to become pre-eminent in its chosen areas of research andscholarship;(d) grow sustainably in response to the needs of education, training, research and employment(e) to use and apply knowledge in such a way that society as a whole receives the benefit;and (f) to respond to expectations and needs expressed from outside the University.

The Corporate Plan covers the categories of community development and staff / department support, andstresses the importance of community awareness in order to improve education, training and research
performance, as well as stating that teaching and administrative staff will be supported to facilitate contribution
to the necessary standards required in order to achieve the University’s education and training objectives.

2

Figures for December 2002 show 6,601 undergraduates, 1,822 graduate students, 1,105 academic staff (ofwhom 104 are teaching staff, 490 research staff, and 511 teaching and research), and 1,518 non-academic staff.
3
http://www.york.ac.uk/admin/presspr/misc/overview.htm

108

Human Resource Policy
At York University, the Pro-Vice-Chancellor with responsibility for Human Resources serves as the head of
the Staff Committee, which sets the Human Resources Policy for the University. This policy defines theregulations by which York University agrees to act as a good employer, as well as its responsibilities andobligations in regard to staff, along with those responsibilities and obligations required of staff. The Human
Resource Policy is based upon the University’s aims and values, which are set out in the Corporate Plan.
Within the policy, these main regulations are categorized into four core principles as follows: 1) the
University aims to recruit staff of the highest quality in order to provide outstanding teaching, research andsupporting services; 2) the University undertakes to treat its staff with fairness, respect and dignity at all times;
3) the University recognizes that the academic pre-eminence for which it aims cannot be achieved by teachers
and researchers alone, but derives from the combined efforts of all its staff; 4) the University values all its staff
for their knowledge, skills, talents, flexibility, commitment, creativity, productiveness and service orientation.
The University also defines its responsibilities to its staff as follows: 1) the University undertakes toencourage all its staff to be creative, flexible, efficient and collaborative, generating fresh ideas and innovative
practices that will enable the University to achieve pre-eminence in teaching

and research 2) The

University undertakes to adopt and maintain policies and procedures that develop and support creative, flexible
and high performing staff in all groups; 3) The University undertakes to develop and maintain an environmentthat promotes a cohesive, inclusive anddiverse University community, affirming the inherent worth andequality of all individuals and emphasizing the importance of collaboration, trust, tolerance and open
communication. The University undertakes to develop and maintain an environment that promotes a cohesive,
inclusive and diverse University community, affirming the inherent worth and equality of all individuals andemphasizing the importance of collaboration, trust, tolerance and open communication.
Staff will be expected to 1) honor their contractual commitments to perform their duties responsibly and tothe best of their abilities; 2) treat other members of the University community in accordance with the values
described in 3) above; 3) create a positive environment for students in respect of their learning, welfare andsupport; 4) take advantage of available systems of communication to inform themselves about issues that willaffect them; 5) respond flexibly to change; 6) take part in developmental and training opportunities in order tokeep skills and competencies current and in line with University needs, including the need for statutorycompliance; 7) work collaboratively and effectively in teams and groups within and across units or departments
to support the aims of the University; 8) ensure that, where their work relates to people who are not University
of York staff or students, they preserve the University’s good name.
These principles are displayed on the Internet and are accessible to all staff and students, so that staff have aclear understanding of the policies held by the University in regard to their work. These policies guarantee
and raise the attraction of the University both as a community and as a place to work, and by raising thisstandard, the University is clearly stating its intention to recruit superior staff.

Human Resources Strategy
York University also has a Human Resources Strategy, based on the principles outlined in the Corporate Planand Human Resource Policy. This Strategy has been welcomed as an indicator that measures are being taken

109to implement the policy of giving financial incentives to staff, both in salary and access to development funds,
drawn up in the HEFCE Funding Initiative Rewarding and Developing Staff in Higher Education (00/56,
December 2000).
At York University, however, the following measures had already been put in place before the plan for
financial incentives was announced. These included the following:(a) Human Resources was already the specific responsibility of a Pro-Vice-Chancellor, who chairs the Staff
Committee and works closely with Personnel Services.
(b) A University Equal Opportunities Committee had already been set up.
(c) A Code of Practice on Harassment had been adopted.
(d) The post of the Disability Officer had been established.
(e) There was a full-time Director of Health and Safety.
(f) The York Certificate of Academic Practice (ILT -accredited in 2001) had been instituted. This is acompulsory 2-year training program for all academic staff new to the profession.
(g) A full-time training officer had been appointed in the Department of Facilities Management.
In addition to this, with the objective of establishing the Human Resources Strategy at York in academic year
2000, the following measures had also been taken:
A review of Personnel Services(b) A survey of staff well-being was commissioned from external consultants(c) A disabled access audit of all University properties was commissioned, also from external consultants.
(d) A new Personnel & Payroll system was being planned
The main problems facing the University were identified as follows:(a) The University's standing as a leading international institution is at risk unless it can continue to recruitand retain staff of the highest quality in an increasingly competitive employment climate(b) Many staff on fixed-term contracts feel their employment is insecure and their career development needs
are not being met(c) High turnover and sickness absence rates among manual staff, compared with other staff groups, are acause for concern(d) Staff training has not been centrally planned and coordinated, with the result that there has been
inconsistency in provision and take-up(e) Provision of EO and diversity training, in particular, has been patchy(f) Disproportionate numbers of women are in lower-grade jobs(g) There is, in general, a lack of ethnic diversity among University staff(h) The existing appraisal scheme does not extend to all staff and has not been used consistently
There have been no University guidelines and procedures on dealing with poor performance
These problems were addressed by the Human Resources Strategy, and formed the basis for the attainment
targets listed in terms of ‘output’ and ‘outcome’. ‘Input’ and ‘processes’ were defined in line with the priority

110

areas indicated by HEFCE44HEFCE 02/14 Good Practice in Setting HR Strategies, March 2002, para. 72.

111

Management structure

112Committee Structure

113

The specific attainment targets within the Human Resource Strategy were identified as
1) Recruitment and Retention2) Staff Training and Development
3) Equal Opportunities
4) Review of Staffing Needs
5) Annual Performance Reviews of all staff
6) Action to deal with poor performance
Guidelines and regulations for implementation, monitoring and assessment of these areas were established. The
specific attainment targets were as follows:
1) To recruit and retain staff of the highest quality in order to provide outstanding teaching, research and supporting
services (specifically, to spend GBP834,000 over three years on the recruitment, reward and retention of staff in allgroups, including improved promotion and regrading opportunities, and to achieve a total of 60% of manual staff
responding positively to well-being survey2) To spend GBP150,000 over three years on bridging funds for staff on fixed-term contracts3) To adopt and maintain appropriate policies for managing sickness absence, and reduce sickness absence among
manual staff by 4%4) To create the Staff Training and Development Group, to provide staff with induction, training and educational
opportunities to acquire the skills and competencies that are needed both by the University and for their own
development, with delegated responsibility for staff induction, training and development. (Specifically, to increase
no. of programs and achieve 70% awareness rate among researchers and technicians of opportunities for careerdevelopment)5) To ensure that staff are trained to levels appropriate to their roles in order to perform legally and effectively in thebest interest of themselves, of others and of the University (specifically, 70% of staff to undergo training in regard
to disabilities and racial awareness)
6) To develop and maintain an environment that promotes a cohesive, inclusive and diverse University community,
affirming the inherent worth and equality of all individuals (specifically, equal proportions of women and men inequal postings, GBP 66,500 to be spent on staff to promote support for people with disabilities)7) To seek to ensure that the University’s workforce reflects the composition of the local, national and international
communities from which it recruits (Specifically, at least 85% of staff in post to have responded to ethnicity audit;
At least 2% of staff who are recruited locally and 7% of those recruited nationwide to be members of ethnic
minorities)8) To hold supervisors accountable for giving staff constructive, honest and timely appraisals of work performance,
and for developing plans for improvement, taking into account both organizational goals and personal aspirations(Specifically, to design and implement a new system of annual Performance Review appropriate for all staff; astatement of duties and responsibilities, for use in new Performance Review system, to be produced; distributionof guidelines regarding Performance Review; training of staff charged with Performance Review; all staff to beinterviewed as part of Performance review; allocation of GBP50,000 to address needs identified as a result of
Performance Review system.
9) To adopt and maintain sensitive policies for dealing with staff who under-perform. (Specifically, to design andadopt new Guidelines and Procedures for dealing with poor performance, and to inform all staff of these.)114

Staff Training and Development Policy
Based on the Corporate Plan, York University aims to offer appropriate training, development andeducational opportunities to its staff within the limits imposed by budgetary requirements, enabling them toacquire skills and abilities that meet both their personal development needs and the needs of the university. In
addition to this, the University places an emphasis on equality of opportunity in regard to lifelong learning andtraining, and training to a level that is suited to the role of the individual. Specifically, this involves
1) identifying the needs of staff in regard to training and development2) establishing annual priorities based on need and budgetary restrictions
3) establishing an annual income / expenditure plan4) proposal of a high quality induction / training / development program5) notification of this program to all staff
6) inspection and assessment
7) creation of records relating to training.

Training is required show results in terms of appropriate performance, and is also required to show
consideration and flexibility in regard to legal requirements and changes. Staff training is the responsibility of
the Staff Committee, and the Staff Training / Development Group, who work under the committee, areresponsible for planning, delivering, budgeting and monitoring training.

Performance Reviews
Performance reviews were introduced in 2002 as a countermeasure to the fact that the existing assessment
schemes did not cover all staff and were not being used in a consistent manner. Performance reviews weredeveloped as an element of the University’s Human Resource Strategy. The scheme operates on the following
principles:1) It enshrines the right of all University employees to an annual discussion about their progress within their role, with
two-way communication as the central purpose.
2) It is based on the recognition that no one method of reviewing performance will be suitable for all staff, and so
provides for three different models, to be used as appropriate.
(c) It requires a minimal amount of paperwork and bureaucracy, and is compatible with existing University people
management and planning processes.
The three models of performance assessment are as follows:
1) Portfolio Model (used particularly for academic staff, to evaluate their performance in each area of their activity2) Objective-led Model (particularly used for staff related to administrative work, in which individual objectives are
set in agreement between the evaluator and the staff member for performance assessment)
3) Standard-led Model (used particularly for routine-based staff, in a format that allows the evaluation of whether or
not they are meeting the standards required in their work).

The process begins with a strategy and plan established by the University, based on which the departments
establish their own plans. Based on these, performance reviews are implemented using one of the threemodels, and an annual report is presented to each member of staff. Heads of Departments receive training in
performance reviews.

115

Higher Education Role Analysis (HERA)5HERA is a process of Role Analysis (Job Analysis) which will eventually replace the existing work
assessments, and preparations for which are currently underway at York University.

HERA is acomputer-based role analysis system, which has been developed by the Educational Competences Consortium
Ltd. (ECC Ltd.) in partnership with Towers Perrin. It is competency-based that can be applied to all roles
involved in the Higher Education system, and is being held as an example of a system that can represent therelative values of different roles in a consistently fair way.

There are 14 competencies making up the scheme

as follows:
1) Communication
2) Teamwork and motivation
3) Liaison and networking4) Service provision5) Decision making process and outcome
6) Planning and organization of resources7) Initiative and problem solving8) Study, analysis, research9) Emotional and physical demands10) Work environment11) Consideration for others, welfare
12) Team development
13) Education / study support
14) Knowledge and experience.

HERA gives scores to each role, and these scores are analyzed into their component parts, so that it ispossible to check in what way an allocated score has been arrived at for each employee. HERA has been
applied to over 2000 staff members at 60 higher education institutes, and is gaining a strong reputation for
excellent results. Each employer is able to reflect their own priorities and business needs, and it is this ability
to analyze based upon a cross-section of work categories that has particularly appealed to York University.
Partly, though, it has to be recognized that such a system is well suited to the British workplace, in which every
position right down to those of administrative workers is filled with an individual job description for the post.
For Japanese universities, however, where posts are filled by rotation, and organizations are based on the
sharing of skills and information, it will be necessary to consider carefully how relevant evaluation by such arole analysis system would be.

Staff Training and Development
Staff training and development is implemented by the Staff Training and Development Group (STDG),
which works under the Staff Committee, with the support of the Directorate of Facilities Management and theTraining and Development Office. STDG has the Pro-Vice-Chancellor as its chair, but the rest of its
5

http://hera.ucea.ac.uk/frames.html

116membership is comprised mainly non-academic staff who run training programs. During academic year 2002,
STDG produced a pamphlet totaling 113 pages detailing all training programs implemented for staff, and thisinformation is also in the process of being published on the Internet. The pamphlet contains dates for all thetraining courses being run throughout the year, and is evidence of the high level of planning that goes into thearrangement of staff training programs.
The program includes courses that involve staff at all levels throughout the university, in areas including thefollowing:
1) Legal compliance (health care, safety, environment, equal opportunities, etc.)
2) Computer technology (computers, audio / visual, time cards, attendance system update training)3) Career development / study support (annual work evaluation workshops, individual development planning)4) Performance review training (for both reviewers and reviewed staff)
5) Other training (customer care, identifying stress and relaxation, etc.)
6) Management development (for managers).

In addition to this, there are also training programs for staff involved in facilities management and contract
staff, as well as the following categories of program for academic staff:
1) Academic development (gaining research grants, becoming an academic supervisor, mentor training, etc.)
2) York Certificate of Academic Practice (YCAP)6

The York Certificate of Academic Practice (YCAP)The York Certificate of Academic Practice (YCAP) is a postgraduate level, 60-credit qualification for
academic staff, which is monitored by the University’s Teaching Committee and accredited by ILT (the Institutefor Learning and Teaching). The purposes of YCAP are as follows:
1) To impart to participants teaching skills
2) To improve participants’ research skills within their own disciplines3) To assist participants in finding the optimum balance between the teaching, administration and researchrequirements of their job

Any new member of staff who is taking up a permanent contract or a fixed-term contract of two years ormore is required by Staff Committee to follow the YCAP program, although staff with more than 3 years'
full-time (equivalent) experience of teaching in Higher Education may be exempted from part or all of the
training. The purpose of York University’s implementation of this course is to maintain its high ranking interms of teaching staff evaluations, but the program has been designed in such a way as to also offer support forindividual staff members’ career formation.

Leadership and Academic Management ProgramThis program is aimed mainly at Heads of Departments and other senior staff with related interests, and has
as its purposes the following:1) The acquisition of a style of academic leadership suited to the participant2) Understanding strategies, taking the role of a manager and introducing change

6

YCAP is explained below.

1173) Demonstrating effective leadership through understanding key processes4) Improved skills and understanding of academic leadership and management
5) Management of people and other resources

During our interview with the Head of the Department of Biology, we were told that in some cases people
become Heads of Departments very suddenly and are not always prepared fully, but that the provision of thesetraining opportunities has improved the situation significantly by comparison.

Recruitment of Academic Staff
York University is in the process of creating the Hull York Medical School (HYMS) in partnership with Hull
University. This project is being implemented by the two universities in cooperation with the National HealthService, and funds have been secured from both HEFCE and the NHS. The campus is to be spread acrossboth the universities, and plans are going ahead with the recruitment of 40 full time equivalent staff, fundedfrom these HEFCE and NHS grants. In the course of our study we were shown sample documents to be usedin recruitment of Senior Lecturers for HYMS. These were detailed documents that ran to 5 pages, including
information on the following:1) Specialization and affiliation of post being recruited
2) Outline of HYMS
3) Explanation of the HYMS Curriculum4) York University5) Explanation of the Department of Health and Science6) Post details
7) Job description8) Salary9) Application method
10) Deadline.

The job description listed the following requirements:
1) Engagement in high-quality theoretical / applied research related to Health Intelligence
2) Provision of support and encouragement as an appropriate specialist to the joint research being carried out within
the wider community of HYMS
3) Cooperation with colleagues in the development and implementation of the HYMS core curriculum (examples
given of specializations particularly required)
4) Cooperation with the Department of Health Sciences in the development and implementation of other appropriate
programs

In addition, the School of Medicine currently awards salaries to doctors in accordance with the Clinical
Academic Scale. Non-clinical academic staff, however, are awarded salaries on an individual basis, without
the application of a salary scale.

Promotion of Academic Staff
At York University, the promotion of all academic staff is done by a process of reports made by the
Promotion Committee to the Senate and Council. Equal opportunities are emphasized in the process of118

promotion. Detailed regulations regarding promotion exist at each level, and are published on the internet7.
Heads of Department have an obligation to support lower level lecturers in their progress towards promotion,
but staff are required to complete and submit documentation themselves to back up their application for
promotion, for consideration by the Promotion Committee. The documentation process is handled by theRegistrar. Budgetary restrictions can mean that some people who are recommended for promotion by the
Promotion Committee are not able to be promoted at that time.

Establishment of HYMS (Hull York Medical School)
York University is pressing ahead with preparations for the opening, scheduled for Autumn 2003, of its new
medical school, being established in partnership with Hull University. Professor Bill Gillespie, formerly Deanof the Dunedin School of Medicine at the University of Otago, New Zealand, has been appointed as the first
Dean of the new School of Medicine, and preparations for the Medical School are proceeding under Professor
Gillespie, with staff and students being selected. The outline and particular features of Hull York Medical
School are given below. The medical profession in the UK is suffering from staff shortages, and there are
currently three new medical schools under construction, of which one is HYMS. HYMS is revolutionary in
two points in comparison to conventional medical schools. Firstly, it is to be spread over two campuses.
This is due in part to the fact that the clinical departments of medical schools, and teaching hospitals, are built
and led by the National Health Service, and through opening hospitals in more than one location, it is thoughtthat the level of regional medicine overall will be improved. Otago University in New Zealand functions
similarly, with three separate campuses, and Professor Gillespie has a good reputation for working under thesecircumstances. It is thought that this was a significant factor in his appointment. HYMS will function
according to a single curriculum, with students being taught rudimentary medicine simultaneously on the two
campuses for the first two years. Clinical teaching, which begins in the third year, will be done on each
campus according to their specializations, and students will be allocated to one or other campus for fixed
periods of time. Teaching staff will in principle be attached to one campus only. The second particularfeature of HYMS is that York University has not in fact established a new department of rudimentary medicine
in order to create the Medical School. Staff teaching basic medical courses are all members of existing
departments. In particular, staff with specializations in life sciences are attached to the biology department,
and research and graduate teaching is to be done within this department.

7

http://www.york.ac.uk/admin/registrars/acadprom/pac.htm

119

120

Human Resource Management at the University of Sheffield

121

Outline of Sheffield University and its Human Resources Organization
Sheffield University was formed from three institutions – Sheffield School of Medicine, Firth College andSheffield Technical School. Of these, the oldest is Sheffield School of Medicine, which was founded in 1828.
The three institutions merged in 1897, forming the University College of Sheffield, which became theUniversity of Sheffield in 1905. At present the University caters to 17,841 undergraduates, 5,791 graduate
students, 169 teaching staff, 853 researchers and 1,170 teaching and research staff, as well as 3,214
non-academic staff.
Sheffield University’s human resources are handled by the University Council, who have decision-making
powers for the whole university, as well as the Human Resources Management Committee, and the Departmentof Human Resources, which is organized as an office.
The Human Resources Management Committee at Sheffield is chaired by the Pro-Chancellor, with the
Chairman of the Council, the Vice-Chancellor, the Pro-Vice-Chancellor, four Council representatives, 8 Senate
representatives, and the Director of Human Resources, who acts as Secretary. This committee strongly
reflects the authority of the executive members of the University.
The role of the committee is as follows:
1) Reporting Human Resource Policies to the Council, in discussion with the Strategic Planning Committee
2) Approval of the recruitment, selection, tenure, promotion and retirement / resignation processes
3) Receiving and inspecting reports from the Director of Human Resource Management and the Director of the Staff
Development Unit, including a report of the annual meeting with the University Union.

The office dealing with Human Resources is comprised of the Human Resources Department, working
under the Registrar and Secretary, who acts as Head of Department. The Department’s role is to support therecruitment, support and retention of excellent staff, and is defined by the University’s objective to ensure staff
of a high quality. Using a fair, visible and consistent approach, the Department works to support staff in
implementing equal opportunities, utilizing their latent abilities and making a valuable contribution to the life of
the University. Central to this is the Staffing Strategy, which defines the services offered by the Department,
namely:1) Personnel Service (recruitment, contract support, departmental operations, policy and strategic advice)2) Staff Developing Unit (advice and support for career development, and provision of the SOLAR center to support
staff study)3) Occupational Health Unit (support for health and safety management).

The relationship between staff and the office structure is one of equal partnership, and the Director is a
Human Resources Management specialist who was recruited from outside the university to the post.

Human Resource Strategy (2002-2004)
Sheffield University has created a Human Resource Strategy that has been submitted to HEFCE.
Essentially, this is similar to that of York University, in that it has been implemented in response to the financial
leading of HEFCE, but at the same time, it has also served the purpose of establishing the University’s Human
Resources strategy.
The purposes of the HR Strategy are to ensure a balance between the development of the University and asafe, healthy working environment as follows:1221) Establishing priorities for staff development and equal opportunities, developing the skills and experience of all
staff members, and linking these to the University’s objectives
2) Offering staff incentives to improve their performance levels and contribute to the success of the University
3) Maintaining competitiveness within the employment market, through flexibility, diversity, visibility and fairness
4) Maintaining a visibility within the policies and processes of staffing in regard to equal opportunities and other legal
issuesIn addition to this, the department is currently in the process of analyzing data and working on specific issues
in the following areas:
1) Staff recruitment and selection2) Staff deployment
3) Improving University performance4) Remuneration and rewards
5) Promotion of diversity
6) Staff health and welfare
Based on the above, specific proposals currently include
1) Execution and introduction of Job Assessment
2) Establishing focus points for, and promoting staff deployment
3) Establishment of Sheffield Equality Challenging Unit (SECU) and promotion of diversity4) Improvement of University performance5) Maintenance of competitivenessThe end of the HR Strategy contains a diagram showing the organization of communication and division of
responsibility, emphasizing the importance of all organizations within the University working together topromote these issues.

123Management Structure

Annual Staffing Report
Unique to Sheffield University’s practices is the large quantity of data stored regarding staff, and the detailed
analysis that happens of this data. This analysis is utilized within the HR Strategy mentioned earlier, and isalso complied in to an Annual Staffing Report, into which is organized a substantial quantity of data regarding
the current status of staff. The main contents of this report are as follows:
1) Staff recruitment analysis
2) Analysis of current staff
3) Analysis of incoming / outgoing staff
4) Staff development
5) Analysis of promotion6) Analysis of equal opportunities
7) Analysis of development activities

This detailed data is presented in the form of charts and graphs in order to be easily understood, and ispublished on the internet for internal viewing only.

The Medical School
Sheffield University’s Medical School was founded in 1828, and currently boasts a department of 1,100
students, making it one of the major medical training centers within the UK, as well as one of the few medical
research centers, alongside being the main center for medical practice in the region it is located, which is home124

to the fifth largest population in the UK. The school is also famous because it was here that Professor Klebs,
who received the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 1953, discovered the cellular metabolism known as the Krebs
Cycle.
The School of Medicine has a distinguished history, but it is by no means restricted by these traditions. Its
teaching curriculum involves some extremely progressive methods. This concept is based on a focus on
patient-centered study of both illnesses and organs. If a patient complains that they are ‘having trouble
breathing’, a doctor must be able to perform a diagnosis and establish a policy for treatment, regardless ofwhether he or she is an internal specialist or a surgeon. This philosophy is taught to students from a very earlystage, resulting in them being taught according to a curriculum that has them studying both academic medicine
and clinical medicine from their first year (see attached diagram). In this way, students are taught theimportance of understanding the clinical significance of rudimentary medicine. At the same time, students are
not taught in a conventional ‘receptive’ way, but are required to take part in Integrated Learning Activities,
which teach them techniques for learning. In addition to this, students are able to select 25% of their own
courses, thus enabling them to follow their own interests. The study of relating to patients in order to becomea ‘good doctor’ is also compulsory. This fusion of rudimentary and clinical medicine, along with an elementof selective courses, seems almost ideal, but it is assumed that there are many difficulties in programming thisintegrated learning process, as well as issues involved in ensuring communication between teaching staff(particularly between rudimentary and clinical teaching staff). In order to achieve this, it is thought that there
must have been significantly strong initiatives put in place in order to establish the training program, as well as
plentiful resources, in both quantitative and qualitative terms, of teaching staff.

Latterly, a solution appears tohave been achieved by having teaching staff, particularly clinical teaching staff, divide their time spent inteaching and medical practice into separate categories, for which their employers are, respectively, theUniversity and the National Health Service (equivalent to the Japanese Health and Welfare Ministry), andhaving separate contracts for the two. (Incidentally, no such case has ever been seen in Japan). In conclusion,
there are still outstanding issues regarding how effectively the Medical School and the hospitals can develop as
effective ‘corporations’ – and it is thought that much of the Dean of the Medical School’s time is spent on theseissues.

125Sheffield University Medical School Curriculum, by academic year

126

Comparison with Hirosaki University and Japan’s National
Universities, and issues relating to the incorporation of universities

127

Comparison with Hirosaki University and Japan’s National Universities
In preparation for the incorporation of Japan’s national universities in April 2004, Hirosaki University is now
engaged in the processes of establishing mid-term objectives and plans, as well as the formation of an
Organizational Work Consideration Committee, a Human Resources Systems Consideration Committee, andother committees, and will shortly be establishing specific system designs for these. At the present time,
although our studies have not been sufficiently detailed to date, Hirosaki University has made study visits to US
universities in March and September 2002 (parties of 3 teaching staff and 3 non-academic staff), visiting firstly
the University of California, Berkley, the University of California, San Diego, and San Diego State University,and in the second visit, Maine State University and Pittsburgh University, among others). We have learned
much regarding the teaching, research and management of the universities through these visits.
These visits enabled us to gain much in the way of suggestions and advice in regard to clarification of the
University’s mission, the need for speed and visibility in decision-making, assessment and promotion systems
for staff, procuring external funding, and positive promotion and advertising activities, all of which are relevant
to our considerations of the incorporation of Japan’s universities. (For further details, please see Hirosaki
University’s ‘Report of Visits to US Universities’, issued in June 2003.)
During our visits to the UK, we learned much of the differences between British and Japanese universities,
but at the same time, found much to inspire us. In particular, we found much of value in relation to Hirosaki
University’s theme of Human Resource Management. Regional universities similar in scale and feel to
Hirosaki make up a large proportion of Japan’s national universities. For this reason, it is thought that the
problems and issues faced at the moment by Hirosaki University are probably common to many of these
universities.
The following is a comparison between specific features noted in our visit to UK universities (mainly the two
discussed in this report) and Japanese universities (mainly Hirosaki University).
1) Vitalization of the University and Effective Utilization of Human Resources
The effective use of existing human resources, and the recruitment of new staff, is an important issue inincreasing the vitality of a university. This is applicable not only to teaching staff, but also to non-academic
staff. In regard to this area, UK universities are establishing Human Resources Management as one of thebasic policies for their establishments, giving all staff opportunities for appropriate training, development andeducation, and supporting them in the acquisition of necessary skills. This was a particularly noteworthy
feature.
A particular example of this is the time spent in the systematic organization of training programs for newteaching staff and other programs facilitating staff to utilize their skills. Japanese universities do not havedepartments responsible for this work, and it is clear that this will be a problem in the future in terms of theeffective utilization of current staff.
The issue of whether national universities are capable of completely reorganizing the education and research
aspects of their work into new operations, organizations and human resources systems, regardless of theoutstanding problems this will leave to be solved in the research / teaching aspects of staff work in the future, isan extremely significant one.

128

Examples of the many issues that need to be overcome within university administrative organizations are: theissue of who has authority for personnel decisions; staff recruitment and management appointment methods;
the role of female staff; specializations of university employees; training of staff through interaction with otherindustries; and the maneuverability of university administration systems.
2) Clarification of University Mission and Staff Work Descriptions
In any UK university, the University Mission, in other words, the objectives set by the university, is given
priority, and other strategies and plans are instigated based on this. University Vice-Chancellors and the
managing directors working under them have clear guidelines for executing authority and awareness of theirown responsibilities. Each department or faculty also establishes its own policy based on the University’s
policies. In comparison with this, the policies of Japan’s national universities have a tendency to be uniform
and expressed in abstract terms. This reflects the reality that Japan’s national universities have to date been
considered as a single arm of the government (the Ministry of Education).
In addition to this, staff at British universities have contracts with the university they work for based on thejob description relevant to their post. Teaching staff are given details of the proportion of time they are
expected to spend in teaching, research and management. In Japan, however, teaching staff are technicallyrequired to have teaching, research and management abilities, but no rules or systems are in place to evaluateachievements in these areas. It is extremely important for the future that we begin to put in place appropriate
strategies for the evaluation of people by people, based on an understanding of the difficulties involved. Basedon this, it is hoped that other universities will give consideration to the specific example of self-declaration
tenure based on relative assessment, given in the section entitled ‘Reforms to teaching staff assessment methods
within the School of Medicine, Hirosaki University’ in this report.
3) Details of various university reforms – restructuring and mergers
Hirosaki University is currently engaged in discussion regarding the issue of the restructuring and merger of
the three Universities in the Tohoku Region – Iwate, Akita and Hirosaki – and organized a ‘Discussion Forum’for deputy principals, which has been meeting since last February. This Forum delivered its response on 27th
February of this year, which proposed the progression of ‘strong partnerships’ for the time being. The specificoutworking of this is now to be decided, but the implication is that it has been decided not to push for a single
incorporation for the three Universities, but continue to search for a mutually beneficial solution to the issues
facing the universities while focusing on strong partnership. The study visit to the UK enabled us to see theexample of the joint establishment of a school of medicine by two universities, which provided an excellent
reference point for the future direction of regional universities in Japan.
In recent years, various significant changes have taken place within the Medical Schools of Japan’s national
universities. The first of these is the transfer entry of graduate students. As of this academic year, theHirosaki University Medical School intake of 100 students has been filled partly by 20 third year students
transferring from other universities – the largest number of transferred students in Japan. The School isconsidering selecting all its students for the medical school from among transferred graduate students in the
future. In addition to this, the School has also begun a tutorial teaching system as of this year, and is training
students with experience in universities or within society as doctors, through encouraging students to think for129themselves during their studies.

Furthermore, we will shortly be introducing a core curriculum andorgan-based courses, reforms which have not been seen to date. These reforms and their details have not been
entirely pioneered by Hirosaki University, but have been selected and are being implemented by the University
from a plan proposed by the Ministry of Education.
By comparison, the medical schools at Sheffield and Hull / York show far greater independence asuniversities, and also an awareness of their own significance to the universities and the regions in which theyfunction. Sheffield University’s Medical School has as its catch phrase the training of ‘good doctors’, while
the Hull / York Medical School has come into existence as a result of a government proposition that moreshould be done to increase medical facilities in areas where they are under-represented. HYMS, however, is
not content with merely establishing a medical school and hospital in such an area, but is constantly considering
how to be an excellent medical school, in many proactive ways.
On reflection, it is apparent that universities in Japan have not to date been particularly required by society tomeet particular needs by their own efforts or excellence, and how as a result they have not really tried to do so.
With incorporation only a short while away, they are now being required to pay the price of this policy. As
Japan’s universities struggle to find direction within these requirements, it is clear that many aspects of British
universities’ activities are to be considered an excellent model for the future.

Issues and hopes for the incorporation of national universities
There is a significant quantity of problems that require solutions in the face of the incorporation of Japan’snational universities. In particular, regional national universities require the creation of strategic policies toenable the recruitment of excellent personnel. In order to achieve these things, it is thought that the focus in
the future must be on the following areas.
1) The need for a focus on individual areas of general education, rather than integration
Regional national universities have to date brought a large variety of subjects together for teaching purposes.
This is partly because of the need for a full set of specialists in order to teach these things within regional society,and while this method had its advantages, it also had the disadvantage that it created only a thin layer of
researchers.
At an international research level, it is necessary to have focal points in terms of areas of research. From
this point of view, we were very interested to learn of York University’s establishment of a bio-research
department within its rudimentary medicine courses, and the joint and cooperative establishment of a school of
medicine by York and Hull Universities. It remains to be seen whether the three universities of the Tohoku
Region can utilize their ‘strong partnerships’ and the subsequent restructuring and merger to develop such new
departments and research areas.
2) The importance of a thorough assessment method for teaching staff
Hirosaki University is currently looking at the establishment of an ‘Evaluation Office’ (proposed name).
Universities are gradually proceeding with the introduction of fixed-term employment systems, but it is difficult
to say what sort of assessment or evaluation system should lie behind these systems. Obviously, staff oppose130the introduction of a system in which they are ‘assessed’ in a one-way approach, and it is appropriate thatsystematic and fair rules must be set in place for the process.

In this way, the self-evaluation andself-declaration system implemented by Hirosaki University in relation to the reappointment of teaching staff
demonstrates one potential method for staff taking responsibility for their own assessments.
The assessment systems being introduced within British universities in regard to this point are worth
investigating further for this reason.

3) Establishment of a sense of equal partnership and trust between academic and non-academic staff
It will be necessary for academic and non-academic staff to work together like the wheels of a car in order tomanage and operate our universities after incorporation. Significant differences can be seen, however,between the staffing systems of our national universities and those of the UK. Subsequent to our visit to the
UK universities, we sent four staff members, including our administrative head, to the same universities. The
purpose of this was to encourage both academic and non-academic staff to visit the same universities, and sharean awareness of the issues and problems regarding the management and organization of the university.
It is thought that is was not only the party visiting from Hirosaki University who felt the significant difference
between the level of pride and enjoyment of one’s work felt by people working in Universities in the UK andJapan. There is an obvious need for serious consideration of the staffing systems employed by Japanesenational universities. Without this, it is difficult to see how the national universities will make the change into
freer and more autonomous organizations after incorporation.
The question must also be asked as to whether incorporation will bring about the necessary internal reforms.
It is also necessary to ask whether the role of the board of directors and the operational structure is capable offunctioning efficiently. The challenges of establishing boards of directors and staff organizational systems arestill to be met, as is the organization of management systems for beyond incorporation. The universities wevisited on this tour mentioned that they had faced extremely difficult problems of various types afterincorporation. It will be vital for the future of our universities that we use the lessons learned by the UK in theprocess of incorporation, in order to trace a route for a similar process in Japan.

131Appendix 1

Collection Required

Confidential

Spreadsheet of Questionnaire about Personal Characteristics of Applicant
Key attitude for questions
Ⅰ toⅣ ， １ to４ of Ⅴ ， ８ to１ ０ of Ⅴ
1) Very enthusiastic 2) Enthusiastic 3) Average 4) Not enthusiastic 5) No idea
５ to７ of Ⅴ
1) No rumors 2) Some rumors 3) No idea
1 of ⅥA) Colleague B) Former colleague C) Acquaintance at academic conferences
D) Near strangerE) Total stranger
2 of Ⅵ
A) Higher B) Equal(Colleague, classmate， etc) C) Lower
Ⅵの３A) Very wellB) Fairly well, through talk at academic conferences and meetingsC) By name and sightD) Not so well E) Not at all
Professor selection committee
Respondent No
Applicant Ａ
Applicant Ｂ
Questions
１ ２ ３ ４ ５ ６ ７ ８ ９ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Ⅰ Education
１ Enthusiasm for education
１ ２ ３ １ ５ ２ １ １ ２ １ ２ ２ １ ５ ２ １
２ ． Quality of class
１ ５ ３ ２ ５ ３ ２
２ １ ２ ３ ５ ５ ２ １
３ ． Start time of class
２ ５ ５ ２ ５ ２ １
５ ２ １ ５ ５ ５ １ ２
４ ． Cancellation of class
２ ５ ５ １ ５ ２ １
５ ２ １ ５ ５ ５ ２ ２
５ ． Tone of voice in class
２ ３ ３ １ ５ ３ ２
１ １ １ １ ５ ５ １ １
６ ． Test scoring
２ ５ ５ ５ ５ ２ ２
５ ２ ５ ５ ５ ５ ２ ３
７ ． Instruction in training class
１ ５ ３ １ ５ ２ １ ２ ２ ２ ２ ５ ５ ５ ２ ２
８． Communication with students after class ２ ５ ５ ２ ５ ３ ２
５ ２ ５ ５ ５ ５ ５ ２
９ ． Popularity among students
１ ５ ５ １ ５ ２ １
５ １ ２ ５ ２ ５ ５ ２
10． Reputation among students
１ ５ ５ ２ ５ ２ １
２ １ ２ ５ ２ ５ ５ １
11． Supervision of after-school activities ５ ５ ５ ５ ５ ５ ５
５ ２ ５ ５ ５ ５ ５ ５
12． Continuance of after-school activities １ ５ ５ ２ ５ ３ ５
５ ２ ５ ５ ５ ５ ５ ５
13． Eligibility for professor
１ ２ ５ １ ５ ２ １
２ １ ２ ２ １ ５ ２ １
Ⅱ Research
１ Attitude toward experiment
３ ５ ５ ２ ５ ３ １
５ ３ ３ ５ ５ ５ ５ ５
２ ． Looking after researchers
１ ２ ５ １ ５ １ １ ２ ５ １ ２ ５ ２ ５ ２ ２
３ ． Remarks at workshop, etc
１ ２ ３ １ ２ ３ １ ２ ５ １ １ ２ １ ５ ２ １
４． Presentation at international conferences １ ５ ５ １ ３ ２ １ １ ５ ２ ５ ５ ５ ５ ５ １
５ ． Research evaluation in academic １ ２ ３ １ ３ ２ １ １ ５ ２ ３ ５ ２ ５ ５ ２
conferences
６ ． Administrator of academic
conferences

１ ２ ５ １ ２ ２ １５ ２ ５ ５ ５ ５ ５ ２

７ ． English ability
８ ． Research ability
９ ． Eligibility for research leader
Ⅲ Clinical Service
１ Carefulness about patient's talk２．Trust of patients and their family members
３ ． Behavior toward nursing staff
４ ． Trust of nursing staff
５ ． Clinical skills
６ ． Behavior during surgery
７ ． Participation in surgery
８ ． Communication with staff of other１ ３ ５ １ ５ ３ １ ２ １ １ １ ５ １ ５ ５ １
１ ５ ５ １ ３ ２ １ １ ５ ２ ２ ５ １ ５ ５ １
１ ５ ５ １ ３ ２ １ １ ５ １ ２ ５ １ ５ ５ １

９ ． Eligibility for clinical leader
Ⅳ Committees and meetings
１ Attendance at meetings
２ ． Punctuality for meetings
３ ． Remarks at meetings
４ ． Chairing meetings
５ ． Leadership
６ ． Influence of remarks
７ ． Deadlines of documents
Ⅴ General Matters
１ Personality type
２ ． Appearance
３ ． Cheerfulness
４ ． Strange behavior
５ ． Mental problems
６ ． Sexual harassment
７ ． Money trouble
８ ． Personality defects
９ ． Tolerance
10． Eligibility for professor

１ ２ ５ １ ３ １ １ １ １ １ ２ ２ １ ３ １ １

departments

２
１
１
１
１
２
１
１

５
５
５
５
１
２
２
２

２
２
３
３
５
３
２
３

５
２
２
２
１
１
１
５

５
５
５
５
３
５
５
５

２
２
２
２
１
２
１
２

１
１
１
１
１
１
１
１

１
１
１
１
１
２
２
１

２
１
２
２
２
２
１
１

１
１
２
１
２
２
１
１

２
２
２
２
２
２
１
２

２
５
２
５
２
５
５
２

２
５
２
２
１
２
１
１

５
５
３
３
５
３
２
２

２
２
１
１
１
２
１
２

２
２
３
２
２
２
２
１

２
２
１
１
２
１
２

２
２
３
５
５
２
５

３
３
４
４
３
３
５

２
２
２
５
２
２
１

５
５
５
５
５
５
５

２
２
２
５
３
２
３

２
１
２
２
１
１
１

２ ５ ２ ２２ ５ ２ ２２ ５ ２ ２５ ５ ５
２ ５ ５ ２５ ５ ２
２ ５ ２ ５

５
５
５
５
５
５
５

２
５
１
５
５
２
５

５
５
５
５
５
５
５

５
５
５
５
５
５
５

５
５
５
５
５
５
５

１
２
３
１
１
１
１
１
１
１

３
３
３
１
１
１
１
１
２
２

２
３
３
２
１
１
１
２
５
２

２
２
３
１
１
１
１
１
２
１

４
３
４
５
３
３
３
３
４
４

２
３
２
２
１
１
１
１
３
２

１
１
２
１
１
１
１
１
１
１

１
１
２
１
１
１
１
１
１
１

３
３
２
３
１
３
３
２
２
２

２
３
２
２
１
１
１
１
２
１

３
４
２
５
３
１
３
３
３
５

２
４
１
２
１
１
１
１
１
１

２
３
１
２
１
１
１
１
２
１

132

２
２
１
５
１
１
１
１
１
１

２
２
１
１
１
１
１
１
２
１

３
２
１
１
１
１
１
２
２
２

Ⅵ ． Relation to the applicant
１ Relationship２ ． Hierarchical relationship
３ ． Closeness of relationshipⅦ

Professional affiliation and occupation of
respondent

ⅦA) University・ Internal Medicine・ Doctor
B) University・ Surgery・ Doctor
C) University・ Internal Medicine・ Non-doctor
D) University・ Surgery・ Non-doctor
E) Institute other than university・ Internal Medicine・ Doctor
F) Institute other than university・ Surgery・ DoctorG) Institute other than university・ Internal Medicine・ Non-doctorH) Institute other than university・ Surgery・ Non-doctor

Collection Required

Confidential

Spreadsheet of Questionnaire about Personal Characteristics of Applicant
Key attitude for questions
Ⅰ toⅣ ， １ to４ of Ⅴ ， ８ to１ ０ of Ⅴ
1) Very enthusiastic 2) Enthusiastic 3) Average 4) Not enthusiastic 5) No idea
５ to７ of Ⅴ
1) No rumors 2) Some rumors 3) No idea
1 of ⅥA) Colleague B) Former colleague C) Acquaintance at academic conferences
D) Near strangerE) Total stranger
2 of Ⅵ
A) Higher B) Equal(Colleague, classmate， etc) C) Lower
Ⅵの３A) Very wellB) Fairly well, through talk at academic conferences and meetingsC) By name and sightD) Not so well E) Not at all
Professor selection committee
Respondent No
Applicant Ａ
Applicant Ｂ
１ ２ ３ ４ ５ ６ ７ ８ ９ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Questions
Ⅰ Education
１ Enthusiasm for education
１ ２ ３ １ ５ ２ １ １ ２ １ ２ ２ １ ５ ２ １
２ ． Quality of class
１ ５ ３ ２ ５ ３ ２
２ １ ２ ３ ５ ５ ２ １
３ ． Start time of class
２ ５ ５ ２ ５ ２ １
５ ２ １ ５ ５ ５ １ ２
４ ． Cancellation of class
２ ５ ５ １ ５ ２ １
５ ２ １ ５ ５ ５ ２ ２
５ ． Tone of voice in class
２ ３ ３ １ ５ ３ ２
１ １ １ １ ５ ５ １ １
６ ． Test scoring
２ ５ ５ ５ ５ ２ ２
５ ２ ５ ５ ５ ５ ２ ３
７ ． Instruction in training class
１ ５ ３ １ ５ ２ １ ２ ２ ２ ２ ５ ５ ５ ２ ２
８． Communication with students after class ２ ５ ５ ２ ５ ３ ２
５ ２ ５ ５ ５ ５ ５ ２
９ ． Popularity among students
１ ５ ５ １ ５ ２ １
５ １ ２ ５ ２ ５ ５ ２
10． Reputation among students
１ ５ ５ ２ ５ ２ １
２ １ ２ ５ ２ ５ ５ １
11． Supervision of after-school activities ５ ５ ５ ５ ５ ５ ５
５ ２ ５ ５ ５ ５ ５ ５
12． Continuance of after-school activities １ ５ ５ ２ ５ ３ ５
５ ２ ５ ５ ５ ５ ５ ５
13． Eligibility for professor
１ ２ ５ １ ５ ２ １
２ １ ２ ２ １ ５ ２ １
Ⅱ Research
１ Attitude toward experiment
３ ５ ５ ２ ５ ３ １
５ ３ ３ ５ ５ ５ ５ ５
２ ． Looking after researchers
１ ２ ５ １ ５ １ １ ２ ５ １ ２ ５ ２ ５ ２ ２
３ ． Remarks at workshop, etc
１ ２ ３ １ ２ ３ １ ２ ５ １ １ ２ １ ５ ２ １
４． Presentation at international conferences １ ５ ５ １ ３ ２ １ １ ５ ２ ５ ５ ５ ５ ５ １
５ ． Research evaluation in academic
１ ２ ３ １ ３ ２ １ １ ５ ２ ３ ５ ２ ５ ５ ２
conferences
６ ． Administrator of academic
conferences

１ ２ ５ １ ２ ２ １５ ２ ５ ５ ５ ５ ５ ２

７ ． English ability
８ ． Research ability
９ ． Eligibility for research leader
Ⅲ Clinical Service
１ Carefulness about patient's talk２．Trust of patients and their family members
３ ． Behavior toward nursing staff
４ ． Trust of nursing staff
５ ． Clinical skills
６ ． Behavior during surgery
７ ． Participation in surgery
８ ． Communication with staff of other１ ３ ５ １ ５ ３ １ ２ １ １ １ ５ １ ５ ５ １
１ ５ ５ １ ３ ２ １ １ ５ ２ ２ ５ １ ５ ５ １
１ ５ ５ １ ３ ２ １ １ ５ １ ２ ５ １ ５ ５ １

９ ． Eligibility for clinical leader

１ ２ ５ １ ３ １ １ １ １ １ ２ ２ １ ３ １ １

departments

２
１
１
１
１
２
１
１

５
５
５
５
１
２
２
２

２
２
３
３
５
３
２
３

５
２
２
２
１
１
１
５

５
５
５
５
３
５
５
５

133

２
２
２
２
１
２
１
２

１
１
１
１
１
１
１
１

１
１
１
１
１
２
２
１

２
１
２
２
２
２
１
１

１
１
２
１
２
２
１
１

２
２
２
２
２
２
１
２

２
５
２
５
２
５
５
２

２
５
２
２
１
２
１
１

５
５
３
３
５
３
２
２

２
２
１
１
１
２
１
２

２
２
３
２
２
２
２
１

Ⅳ Committees and meetings
１ Attendance at meetings
２ ． Punctuality for meetings
３ ． Remarks at meetings
４ ． Chairing meetings
５ ． Leadership
６ ． Influence of remarks
７ ． Deadlines of documents
Ⅴ General Matters
１ Personality type
２ ． Appearance
３ ． Cheerfulness
４ ． Strange behavior
５ ． Mental problems
６ ． Sexual harassment
７ ． Money trouble
８ ． Personality defects
９ ． Tolerance
10． Eligibility for professor
Ⅵ Relation to the applicant
１ Relationship２ ． Hierarchical relationship
３ ． Closeness of relationship
Ⅶ

２
２
１
１
２
１
２

２
２
３
５
５
２
５

３
３
４
４
３
３
５

２
２
２
５
２
２
１

５
５
５
５
５
５
５

２
２
２
５
３
２
３

２
１
２
２
１
１
１

２ ５ ２ ２２ ５ ２ ２２ ５ ２ ２５ ５ ５
２ ５ ５ ２５ ５ ２
２ ５ ２ ５

５
５
５
５
５
５
５

２
５
１
５
５
２
５

５
５
５
５
５
５
５

５
５
５
５
５
５
５

５
５
５
５
５
５
５

１
２
３
１
１
１
１
１
１
１

３
３
３
１
１
１
１
１
２
２

２
３
３
２
１
１
１
２
５
２

２
２
３
１
１
１
１
１
２
１

４
３
４
５
３
３
３
３
４
４

２
３
２
２
１
１
１
１
３
２

１
１
２
１
１
１
１
１
１
１

１
１
２
１
１
１
１
１
１
１

３
３
２
３
１
３
３
２
２
２

２
３
２
２
１
１
１
１
２
１

３
４
２
５
３
１
３
３
３
５

２
４
１
２
１
１
１
１
１
１

２
３
１
２
１
１
１
１
２
１

Professional affiliation and occupation of
respondent

２
２
１
５
１
１
１
１
１
１

２
２
１
１
１
１
１
１
２
１

３
２
１
１
１
１
１
２
２
２

Ⅶ
A) University・ Internal Medicine・ Doctor
B) University・ Surgery・ Doctor
C) University・ Internal Medicine・ Non-doctor
D) University・ Surgery・ Non-doctor
E) Institute other than university・ Internal Medicine・ Doctor
F) Institute other than university・ Surgery・ DoctorG) Institute other than university・ Internal Medicine・ Non-doctorH) Institute other than university・ Surgery・ Non-doctor

134

Appendix 2
Confidential

Questionnaire about personality of applicant for
Hirosaki University School of Medicine
Please answer following questions about Professor ______________, ______________ University.
Note:
１．Please answer following questions based on the relationship of you and him/her. Please check ananswer for each item.
２．If you think it is not appropriate to answer this questionnaire, please return this form unanswered.
３．Your name will remain confidential.

Ⅰ Education
１．Is he/she enthusiastic about education?
1) Greatly2) Considerably3) Moderately

4) Little5) No idea

２．Is he/she well organized for class sessions?
1) Greatly2) Considerably3) Moderately

4) Little5) No idea

３．Is he/she punctual to classes?
1) Always2) Almost always

3) Usually4) Rarely5) No idea

４．Does he/she cancel his/her classes?
1) Never2) Rarely3) Occasionally

4) Frequently

5) No idea

５．Does he/she speak clearly and loudly enough in his/her classes?
1) Greatly2) Considerably3) Moderately
4) Little
６．How does he/she mark exams?
1) Very severely
2) Severely

3) Moderately

5) No idea

4) Too generously

７．Does he/she enthusiastically instruct students in (clinical) training classes?
1) Greatly2) Considerably3) Moderately
4) Little5) No idea

5) No idea

８．Does he/she communicate with students after school hours?
1) Students visit his/her office quite often.
2) Students often visit his/her office.
3) Students sometimes visit his/her office.
4) Students never visit his/her office.

5) No idea

９．Is he/she popular among students?
1) Greatly2) Considerably3) Moderately

4) Little5) No idea

10 Is he/she respected by students?
1) Greatly2) Considerably3) Moderately

4) Little5) No idea

11．Is he/she responsible for supervising after-school activities?
1) More than two activities
2) One activity3) No activity5) No idea

4) Refuses the duty

12. Does he/she actively continue the after-school activities in his/her college years after graduation?
1) Greatly2) Considerably3) Moderately
4) Not at all5) No idea
13．Is he/she eligible for the role of educational leader?

1351) Greatly2) Considerably3) Moderately

4) Little5) No idea

Ⅱ Research
１．How often does he/she perform laboratory experiments?
1) More than 3 days a week2) 2 days a week5) No idea

3) Occasionally4) Not at all

２．Does he/she look after his/her fellow researchers?
1) Greatly2) Considerably3) Moderately

4) Not at all5) No idea

３．Does he/she make remarks at seminars and discussions?
1) Quite often
2) Often3) Occasionally4) Not at all5) No idea

４．How often Does he/she make presentations at international academic conferences?
1) More than two times a year2) Once a year3) Once in two or three years4) Rarely5) No idea
５．How Is his/her research evaluated in the school or the academic sector?
1) Very highly
2) Highly3) Moderately
4) Little5) No idea

６．Does he/she play a roll of a chair, presenter, organizer, or director in academic conferences?
3) Occasionally4) Little5) No idea

3) Moderately

4) Little5) No idea

4) Low

5) No idea

4) Little5) No idea

3) Moderately

4) Little5) No idea

２．Is he/she trusted by patients and their family members?
1) Greatly2) Considerably3) Moderately

4) Little5) No idea

1) Quite often

2) Often

７．How well does he/she speak English?
1) Very fluently
2) Fluently
８． How good is his/her research ability?
1) Very high2) High3) Average

９．Is he/she eligible for the role of research leader?
1) Greatly2) Considerably3) Moderately

Ⅲ．Clinical Service
１．Does he/she listen to patients carefully?
1) Greatly2) Considerably

３．How does he/she behave to nursing staff and co-medical staff?
1) Very calmly
2) Calmly3) Ordinarily4) Sometimes roughly5) No idea

４．Is he/she trusted by nursing staff and co-medical staff?
1) Greatly2) Considerably3) Moderately

5) No idea

５．How good are his/her clinical skills?
1) Very high2) High4) Little

3) Average

６．How does he/she behave during surgery?
1) Very composedly2) Composedly5) No idea

4) Low

3) Ordinarily

７．How does he/she participate in surgery?
1) Very actively2) Actively
3) Ordinarily

1365) No idea

4) Sometimes gets upset

4) Reluctantly

5) No idea

８．How does he/she behave to the doctors of other departments during surgery?
1) Very cooperatively 2) Cooperatively 3) Ordinarily4) Non-cooperatively
９．Is he/she eligible for the role of clinical leader?
1) Greatly2) Considerably3) Moderately

5) No idea

4) Little5) No idea

１．Does he/she attend committees and meetings?
1) Always2) Almost always
3) Usually4) Rarely5) No idea

２．Is he/she late for committees and meetings?
1) Not at all2) Rarely3) Occasionally4) Usually5) No idea

Ⅳ．Committees and Meetings

３．Does he/she make remarks at committees and meetings?
1) Actively and good remarks2) Actively3) Occasionally
４．Does he/she serve as a chair of committees and meetings?
1) More than two organizations2) One organization
5) No idea

4) Rarely3) No, but once

５．Does he/she play a leading role in committees and meetings?
1) Very actively2) Actively3) Occasionally4) Little5) No idea

4) Not at all5) No idea

６．Is his/her opinion considered important by members of committees or meetings?
2) Considerably3) Moderately
4) Little5) No idea
1) Greatly
７．Does he/she keep deadlines of documents and reports?
1) Always2) Almost always
3) Usually4) Rarely5) No idea

Ⅴ．General matters
１．Which expression will you choose for describing his/her personality (Choose one from options below)?
1) Greatly balanced2) well balanced
3) Ordinary 4) Easily gets irritated5) No idea
２．How is his/her appearance?
1) Very neat2) Neat3) Ordinary

３．Is he/she cheerful or not?
1) Very cheerful
2) Cheerful
４．Does he/she behave strangely?
1) Never2) Almost never4) Not care about appearance3) Ordinary

3) Rarely4) Not cheerful5) No idea

5) No idea

4) Occasionally5) No idea

５．Have you heard that he/she suffered from mental illness including neurosis?
1) No, I haven't.
2) Yes, I have.
3) No idea
６．Have you heard that he/she sexually harassed anyone?
1) No, I haven't.
2) Yes, I have.

3) No idea

７．Have you heard that he/she had money trouble with anyone, such as business acquaintances?
2) Yes, I have.
3) No idea
1) No, I haven't.
８．Does he/she have any defects in his/her personality?
1) Never2) Almost never3) Acceptable ones

137

4) Serious ones

5) No idea

９．Does he/she treat others with tolerance?
1) Greatly2) Considerably3) Moderately

4) Little5) No idea

10．Is he/she eligible for the role of professor?
1) Greatly2) Considerably3) Moderately

4) Little5) No idea

Thank you very much for your cooperation.
After completing the questionnaire, please sign your name below.


Cut hereYour answers for the questions below and your name will be kept confidential. Only the chair of this sel
ection committee will have access to your information.
Last questions;

１．What is your relationship to the applicant?
A) Colleague
B) Former colleagueD) Near strangerE) Total strangerC) Acquaintance at academic conferences

２．What is your hierarchical relationship to the applicant?
A) Higher (Superior, advisor, senior associate, etc）
Equal（Colleague, classmate, etc）
C) Lower (Subordinate, junior associate, etc)
３．How well do you know the applicant?
A) Very wellB) Fairly well, through talks at academic conferences and meetingsC) By name and sight D) Not so wellE) Not at all

Date:Your organization
Your signature

138

B)

Kobe University

Lessons Learned from the University of Brighton
On
Human Resource Management
A Report of Study Visit by Kobe University Team

July 2003

141

Introduction
This report is one of the products from Japan-UK HE Change Management Project. As a part of thisproject, we had the opportunity to visit the University of Brighton, a British counterpart of ours, in the
mid-December, 2002. It was the great opportunity for us to talk with people there who are involved inmanaging the University at the various levels. We are grateful to those people who took their time for us, andmade our visit very fruitful. To name a few, Sir David Watson, the Vice-Chancellor, not only educated all ofJapanese participants about what is happening now in UK higher education at the headquarter of British
Council in London, but told us the true story about being the CEO at higher education institution over the
decade at a lovely small Italian restaurant in Brighton.

Mr. David House was also very helpful and played arole of the liaison person between Brighton people and us so that we could use our time very effectively andefficiently while we were staying in Brighton for only three days, along with many duties as the Deputy
Vice-Chancellor there. We also acknowledge their cooperation and enjoyed very cheerful conversation withProfessor Stuart Laing, the Pro-vice-Chancellor for Academic Affairs, Professor Fred Maillardet, Dean of theFaculty of Science and Engineering, Ms. Christine Moon, Registrar and Secretary, and Ms. Jo Dowson,
Director of Personnel Department. Through the conversation with these people, we could not only become
familiar with the management system of the University but also were very impressed by their ways to deal withthe tasks professionally and their confidence in themselves as the professional managers at their own
organizational positions. In addition we found a strong linkage between Brighton and Kobe when Professor
Bruce Brown, Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Architecture, mentioned the name of our colleague whom would
be invited to the University of Brighton as a visiting scholar next year. Finally but not in the least, weappreciate people of HEFCE and British Council for their coordination and cooperation. Without theirsponsorship, this report would not be possible.
This report is divided into five parts. The part one will describe and compare the basic features and histories
of both Brighton and Kobe in order to highlight the similarities as well as differences between both institutions.
The second part will deal with the governance and management structure of Brighton with the intension tobenefit for planning of the management system at the National University Corporation. The third part is thereport for our main assignment to study the human resource management system at Brighton. Fourth we will
mention to the system of quality assurance of Brighton briefly since in Japan to assure the quality of teaching
and research institutionally and nationally is expected to become increasingly critical. Finally we conclude ourreport with summarizing what we learned from the University of Brighton.

142

Brighton and Kobe-History and OrganizationBrief Comparison
The University of Brighton and Kobe University have some in common in a sense that both universities haveamalgamated with other higher education institutions many times in their histories, thus consist of many
faculties and schools, each of which has distinctive history and culture. (Table 1) Differences rather thansimilarity, however, must be taken into account if Kobe would like to learn seriously from Brighton.
First, Brighton is a“post 1992 university”. Before 1992 Brighton had been a polytechnic under the controlof the local government.

On the other hand Kobe has already had university status as the national university

since 1929 under the old education system through the present. This different historical development as auniversity makes a difference in the academic priority of each institution. In its mission statement Brightonemphasizes “special strengths in professional and vocational education, applied research and consultancy”
while Kobe identifies itself as one of the best “Research Universities” in Japan. In fact, Kobe produced 230
PhDs with 1,128 MAs and 2,657 BAs in 2002. In contrast Brighton produced only 15 PhDs with 333 master
degrees including 55 MBAs and 2,413 first degrees (BA) in 1999/2000.
Secondly, Brighton has been given the university status in 1992 as just mentioned above, thus has the legal
personality and is incorporated. Kobe, however, is not given the legal personality yet at the moment when thisreport is being written. Legally any national university in Japan including Kobe is considered as the part of thenational government. The difference in legal status of each institution brings the quite different ways in thegovernance and management of the both universities described later.
Finally, although the budget of Kobe (57,802 million JPY in 2002) is three times more than that of Brighton(16,944 million JPY or 84.7 million GBP in 2002), the proportion of expenditure for human resources is higher
at Brighton (58%) than at Kobe (45%).

143

Table 1 Brief History of Brighton and Kobe
Year

Brighton

Kobe

1859 School of Arts opened
1874

Hyogo Prefectural Normal School1897 Municipal

technical

OpenedCollege

Opened1902

Kobe Higher Commercial School opened

1909 Teacher Training College opened
1910

Special Division of Hyogo Prefectural School of
Agriculture opened

1921

Kobe Technical College opens

1923

meji High School opened

1929

Kobe University of Commerce opened

1944

Renamed to Kobe University of Economics

1949

Kobe University opens under new education systemwith faculties of Arts and Sciences, Education, Law,
Economics, Business Administration and Engineering

1964

Merged with Hyogo Prefectural College of Medicine

1966

Merged with Hyogo Prefectural College of Agriculture

1970 Brighton’s College of Technology
and School of Arts merge to form
Brighton Polytechnic
1976 Merged with Teacher training
College1979 Merged with East Essex College
of Higher Education
1992 Given the university status as the
University of Brighton
1993 Merged with Sussex and Kent
Nursing and Midwifery
2003 Establish Brighton and Sussex Merged with Kobe University of Maritime
Medical School
2004

Incorporated as the National
University Corporation of Kobe

144

145

Applied Social Sciences
Health Professions
Nursing and Midwifery
Postgraduate Medical School

Chelsea School
Education
Languages

Brighton Business School
CENTRIM
Computing, Mathematical and Information
Sciences
Service Management

Engineering
Environment
Pharmacy and Biomolecular Sciences
IT Research Institute
Brighton and Sussex Medical School

Science and Engineering

SchoolArchitecture and Design
Arts and Communication
Historical and Critical Studies

Management and Information Sciences

Health

Education and Sport

Arts and Architecture

Faculty

Brighton

International Cooperation
StudiesInternational Cooperation Studies

Cultural Studies andHuman Development

Humanities andSocial Sciences

Medicine

Law
Economics
Business
Administration

Graduate
School“Kenkyuuka”
Letters (MA only)

Sciences and Technology

Kobe
Undergraduate
School“Gakubu”
Letters
Cross Cultural
Studies
Human Development
Law
Economics
Business
Administration
Sciences
Medicine
Engineering
Agriculture

Sciences and Technology

Cultural Studies andHuman Development

Sciences
Medicine
Engineering
Agriculture
Humanities and Social
Sciences

Human Development
Law
Economics
Business Administration

Letters
Cross Cultural Studies

Faculty

Table 2 Organization of Brighton and Kobe

Organization and Size
The numbers of students are almost the same for both universities, but the proportion of the graduate studentsof Kobe is almost doubled compared to Brighton reflecting the difference in their mission as mentioned above.
Brighton enrolls 18,600 students and 85% of that number is the undergraduate student. Interestingly 35% of
total students are part-time students and 55% are over 21 years old on entry and 62% are female students. On
the other hand Kobe enrolls 11,959 students for undergraduate programs (74%) and 4,222 students forpostgraduate programs (26%). And all of them are full-time students and female students account for 35%.
Brighton employs about 820 academic staff and 1,090 non-academic staff- while Kobe does 1,310 and 1,178
respectively.
The organization of Brighton and Kobe is slightly different. Brighton’s principal organizing units are thefaculty, the school and the department. The University has five faculties and each faculty is comprised ofseveral schools with many departments. Faculties, each led by a Dean, have responsibility for strategicplanning and quality assurance, while schools, led by Heads of School, take responsibility for the delivery ofteaching and research, and for the management of resources.
In contrast at Kobe the basic organizing units are “Gakubu” or school and “Kenkyuuka” or graduate school.
There are 10 schools and 9 graduate schools. “Gakubu” offers undergraduate programs and “Kenkyuuka”
offers postgraduate programs. Any academic staffs belong to one of “Gakubu” or/and “Kenkyuuka” and eachof these has their own faculty as a governing body.
Budget
The total revenue of Brighton for FY 2002 is 80,642,000 GBP. Brighton’s main sources for the revenue aregovernment (or HEFCE), students, research councils and own earnings. Among these sources funds fromHEFCE for teaching is the biggest and accounts for 46% followed by fees from the students (33%) and income
generated by trading and catering (14%). Grants from research councils accounts for 5%. In return Brighton
spends 84,721,000 GBP. This figure means there is the deficit and this red is made up by selling the assets andby transferring from the reserve and this financial management resulted in asurplus in the end. The mostexpensive cost is staff salary (58%) followed by operating costs (34%).
In the case of Kobe the financial system is a little bit complicated. The total revenue of Kobe for FY 2001
was 25,584 million JPY. More than half of them (57%) come from the University Hospital followed bytuition fees and entrance examination fees (34%). These incomes, however, are sent back to the government
and in return the government provides the budget necessary to run the University including staff salary andfunds to construct the buildings and to maintain the facilities from the government’s National School Special
Account. The budget provided by the government for FY 2001 amounted to 57,802 million JPY or about 304
million GBP. In addition Kobe earned 351 million JPY from external sources such as Grant-in aid for
Scientific Research, Contract Research and Joint Research with Industry. After incorporation the University
can keep income from the University Hospital and tuition fees from the students. But even after including
external funding, the amount of money Kobe University can generate by itself accounts for just more than halfnecessary for running the University. The government would provide the rest of the budget as the block fundbased on the numbers of students and staffs taking account of historical development of each university. The
government promises to provide the fund as much as that of the University is currently receiving for a while,
but it does not guarantee forever. Thus the University needs to expand and diversify its financial sources.

146

Table 3 Structure of Finance at Brighton (2002) at Kobe (2001)(1,000GBP)(1GBP=190JPY)
Brighton

Kobe

Revenue
Total By Sources

80,642
Funding Council (Teaching)

37,401

Fee from Students

26,878

Research Fund

4,029

Others (Trading & catering etc.)

11,627

Interests earned

134,000

711

Expenditure
Total By Sources

84,721
Staff

49,000Depreciation

5,544

Operating

28,591

Interests payable

1,586

Current Balance-4,079Transfer from
Selling assets

5

Reserve

4,326

Final Balance

252

147

304,000

Corporate GovernanceAs outlined in history section the University of Brighton is former Brighton Polytechnic and was given
university status in 1992, that is, post 1992 university. Thus the supreme governing body of the corporation is
the Board of Governors, which is responsible for “the determination of the educational character and mission of
the University and for the oversight of its activities” and “the effective and efficient use of resources, thesolvency of the institution and for safeguarding its assets”. More specifically the Board of Governors has the
responsibility for approving annual estimates of income and expenditure, the appointment, grading, suspension,
dismissal and determination of the pay and conditions of service of the Director (Vice-Chancellor), the Clerk(Secretary) to the Board of Governors and the holders of such senior posts as the Board of Governors may
determine. It shall be also responsible for setting a framework for the pay and conditions of other staff. In
the exercise of its power, the Board of Governors shall have due regard to the advice of the Director(Vice-Chancellor) and of the Academic Board with regard to matters within their respective terms of reference.
The Board of Governors is comprised of 20 members selected from diverse constituencies as follows,(1) Twelve independent members, from whom the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson are elected,(2) Two teachers at the University nominated by the Academic Board,(3) One Student of the University nominated by the students,(4) Four co-opted members, of whom are two university staff, one student and the Vice-Chancellor of the
University of Sussex,
And(5) The Vice-Chancellor.
The term of appointment of each member is for three years and could be reelected three times. The
Board of Governors meets five times annually, but the actual business is delegated to eight committees.
The most important committee is the Finance and Employment Committee, which discusses and advises
the Board on long-term policies.

148

Finance and Employment Committee

Figure 1 Governing Structure

Board of Governors

Student Appeals Committee

Audit Committee

Student Affairs Committee

Property Committee

Nominations Committee

Professional Board

Academic Development Committee

Remuneration Committee

Academic Board

Academic Appeals Committee

Faculty Academic Boards

Learning

Information

ResearchResearch

Resources

Strategy

Strategy

Committee

Committee

Committee

Committee

Staff Appeals Committee

Academic Standards Committee

DegreesforNominations

Committee

Information

Committee

External

Examiner
Academic partnership

Estates

Sub-committee

Systems

Northbrook

Implementation

Learning

andTeaching
Committee
Student
Services

CollegeCommittee

Committee

Steering Group

Research Ethics
Committee

Academic Governance
The supreme governing body for the academic matters is the Academic Board. The Academic Board is
responsible, subject to the requirements of the validating and the accrediting bodies, for,・ general issues relating to the research, scholarship, teaching and courses at the institution, including criteria
for the admission of students
・ the appointment and removal of internal and external examiners
・ policies and procedures for assessment and examination of the academic performance of students
・ the content of the curriculum
・ academic standards and the validation and review of courses
・ the procedures for the award of qualifications and honorary academic titles
・ the procedures for the expulsion of students for academic reasons
The Academic Board shall also have the responsibility for considering the development of the academic
activities of the University and the resources needed to support them and for advising the Vice-Chancellor andthe Board of Governors thereon and for advising on such other matters as the Board of Governors or theVice-Chancellor may refer to the Academic Board.
The Academic Board is comprised of 36 members, of who is the Vice-Chancellor as the chairperson, theDeputy Vice-Chancellor, two Pro-Vice-Chancellors, the Registrar, the Director of Finance, five Deans fromeach faculty and other members including non-academic staff and the students.

149

The members of the Academic Board meet four times a year. Under the Academic Board there is the
Academic Development Committee as a kind of a steering body of the Academic Board. This committee iscomprised of six Senior Management Team members, all deans, one head of a School from each Faculty,
Director of Information Services, Head of Strategic Planning Unit, Head of the Estate and Facilities
Management and two students appointed by the Students’ Union. The Deputy Vice-Chancellor sits at thiscommittee as the chairperson. This committee is the most vital body of the University as the academic
enterprise since this committee would(1) advise the Academic Board on the development of the academic activities and the future academic
direction of the University taking account of all relevant factors;(2) advise the Academic Board on the level of resources necessary to support the academic activities andplanned development of the University;(3) contribute to the regular appraisal and revision of the Institutional Strategic Plan and the annual review,
amendment and incorporation of area plans in the light of the University’s mission, corporate goals and anyother internal and external factors;(4) be the senior committee for, and receive regular reports from the Estates, Information Strategy, Learning
Resources and Research Strategy committees;(5) advise on any matter at the request of the Academic Board or the Vice-Chancellor.
In other words, this committee has the power to decide the opening or the closing of the programs taking
account of the change of the environments and students’ needs.
Management of the University
The everyday management of the University is executed by the Senior Management Team, which is made up
by the Vice-Chancellor, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor, two Pro-Vice-Chancellors, the Registrar and the Directorof Finance. The members of the Senior Management Team meet every Monday morning and make decisions
on the operation of the University. Beside this the University Management Team, which includes the Senior
Management Team ,five deans, and the Heads of Strategic Planning and Information Services, meets on every
third Monday in term-time to discuss on the broad range of the issues related to the university operation.
At Brighton all members of the University Management Team are appointed permanently. In fact theVice-Chancellor, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Pro-Vice-Chancellors and three of the five deans have been theirpositions for more than 10 years. This long association of senior members with the University creates thetogetherness and we-feeling among the members and makes the Management Team cohesive and contributes
to the stable and consistent management and operation of the University. Unlike Brighton at most of the olduniversities the Vice-Chancellor and other senior university managers are elected by the faculty members andwould serve for fixed term.

150

Management of the Faculty
At each Faculty the Dean is the academic leader and the manager and there is the Faculty Academic Board as
the decision making body for the Faculty. Unlike that of Kobe, all faculty members are not the members of
the Faculty Academic Board. Depending on the size of the faculty, the Faculty Academic Board consists of 15
to 20 members and they meet five or six times a year.
The Dean and the Heads of the Schools are the Faculty Management Team and this Team meets regularly to
discuss the issues related to the management of the Faculty. After incorporation as the University in 1992,
financial authority was devolved down to the Faculties and the Schools, but the administration was centralized
in order to deal with the many governmental initiatives. Today more than 50 % of all non-academic staffs areworking in central depatments. The faculty has only a few staff and the School has a couple of administrative
staffs and a dozen of technicians.
Planning Process
The University of Brighton produces its six-year Corporate Plan in rolling base. To prepare the next
Corporate Plan the Senior Management Team discusses the outline of the Corporate Plan and makes a draft.
Then this draft would be put on the agenda of the Faculty Academic Board. The opinions and comments fromthe Faculties are sent to the Strategic Planning Unit at the Central Administration and this unit produces thediscussion paper for further consideration.
After the production of the discussion paper the Senior Management Team consults the Academic
Development Committee and makes the final draft. This final draft would be sent to the Board of Governors
and the Academic Board and both Boards discuss and approve with or without any amendment. If theconclusions of both Boards were not the same, the joint committee would be held to resolve the difference. It
took 18 months for new Corporate Plan for 2002-2007 to be approved.
Most interviewees stressed “ownership” of the Corporate Plan by giving every member of the university
community the opportunity to participate in the process of producing the Corporate Plan. At the same time,
however, they also mentioned that the Corporate Plan, which every member could support, is not distinctive for
Brighton in all respects.
The Strategic Planning Unit plays a vital role in the process to produce the Corporate Plan, although this unit
has only five staffs including the director who was previously the chief planning officer at the Further Education
Funding Council.

151

Policy, Organization, System for Human Resource Management
Organization
The term “human resource management” is rather new one to the university community even in UK. A
concept of staff as human resource for the university implicates the introduction of the notion of the efficientmanagement of staff into the university as in the industry. At Brighton the term “human resource” is notofficially accepted yet. Therefore under the jurisdiction of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor there is “Personnel”
Department. There are 25 staff working for this department under the head of the department, Ms Jo Dowson.
Except assistants all other staffs are professionally qualified, which means they are the members of theChartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD).
The basic policy for employment including payment except for the salaries of the Vice-Chancellor, theDeputy Vice-Chancellor, Pro-Vice-Chancellors and the Director of Finance which are determined by the
Remuneration Committee, is set by the Board of Governors based on the advice from the Finance and
Employment Committee of the Board. And the Deputy Vice-Chancellor and the Personnel Department carryout the making of detailed policies and implementing them.
Staffing Policy
The University of Brighton has published Staffing Strategy and Specific Plans for 2001-4, which, as in theother policy documents, is firmly based on the University’s mission stated in the University’s Corporate Planfor the period 2000-2004. The mission of the University of Brighton is as follows:
The University of Brighton is dedicated to the discovery of knowledge, the testing of received knowledge
and the creative, responsible and effective application of knowledge. It seeks to be an accessible,
dynamic and responsive community of higher education with special strengths in professional andvocational education, applied research and consultancy.
Accordingly, the University does not see its staff as human resources but rather as members of a learning
community. This recognition reflects in the title of the document and the name of the department unlike manyother universities, which publish The Human Resources Strategy and have the Department of Human
Resources Management.
In addition to the mission statement, the University also affirmed a set of core values, which have guided any
activity of the University since its incorporation in 1989:
・not to discriminate unfairly either directly or indirectly against members or prospective members of thecommunity;
・to acknowledge and value corporate independence and to accept the responsibilities and rights it embodies;・to values freedom of thought and its appropriate expression;・to encourage the participation of members of the university community in its corporate activities and its
decision-making processes;
・to balance the need for strong leadership and effective management with the need to promote team working
and extensive participation in planning and policy making;152

・to adopt approaches to grading, promotion, payment and reward which are fair, and which value long-term
development and commitment over short-term targets and performance.
The mission together with core values leads to the setting of the strategic objectives in human resourcesmanagement at Brighton. Some of them that are identified in Staffing Strategy and Specific Plans for 2001-4
are as follows:(1) To recruit and retain staff of high quality who will contribute strongly to the university’s plans andstrategies.
To achieve this object, the University will hire a fixed term Recruitment Strategy Manager to review its
whole process of staffing activities and will use the Internet for advertisement to fill vacant posts as the effective
way to recruit the quality staff together with thematic advertising, attendance at recruitment fairs, an open days
and production of publicity information.
(2) To support the personal and professional development of all members of the community.
A higher priority is identified as supporting academic staff to engage in research. To achieve this aim, asignificant proportion of the HEFCE funds will be allocated to enable staff to be released from teaching andother duties in order to undertake focused research; staff and professional development activities; study leave;
job exchanges, secondments and transfers with other HEIs and industry, business or commercial organizations.
The University is also committed to developing increased professionalism in teaching and learning support
by providing high quality professional development courses accredited by ILT (Institute for Learning andTeaching in Higher Education) such as “Postgraduate Certificate in Learning and Teaching in Higher
education” and “MA in Academic Practice”.
The University’s commitment to supporting professional development of staff is not limited to academic staff.
The University has also plans in place to have the pilot program to develop leadership for senior staff andmiddle managers across the university.
(3) To encourage flexible approaches to roles and duties, within a framework, which offers clear guidance on
individual responsibilities.
Although every job is specified with duties and responsibility, the University is now trying to reexamine thestaffing structures and roles, which were inherited from the local public sector to see whether or not thesestructures and roles are adequate to deal with the changing demands after incorporation as the university byintroducing the Higher Education Role Analysis System (HERA).
The University even tries to take a further step to improve effectiveness of the management by introducing
job rotating system for administrative staff in order to enhance career development and to establish greater
mutual understanding and information about different roles across the university, which Kobe has beenpracticing for long time as described in Current System of Human Resource Management at Kobe University.
Staff Handbook
The Personnel Department publishes and distributes a voluminous Staff Handbook. This handbook
describes in detail such issues as Appointment of staff, Pay and hours of work, Travel, Employment relations
procedures, Trade unions, Health and safety, Retirement, Training and development, Other policies andregulations and General information, facilities and university maps. With regard to recruitment of staff,
another document titled Staff Recruitment and Selection Guide is prepared by the Personnel Department.

153

Recruitment
All new and vacant or replacement posts are advertised locally and nationally through the newspapers andother specialist publications. Details of vacancies are circulated internally and posted on the University’s web
site including such information as a general introduction of the University, the Faculty and the School, thepossibility of job sharing, job description, selection criteria, hours of work, the salary, professional development
scheme, and terms and conditions. For all faculty posts, these details of the vacancies are also advertised on
the jobs.ac.uk higher education web site. The University’s own vacancy web site in the Personnel Department
web site at www.brighton.ac.uk/vacancies/ shows further particulars and application forms which can be
downloaded.
All new or replacement faculty posts should be approved by the Senior Management Team well in advance.
All other posts are required for approval of the head of budget unit. Advertisement and all other procedures
for recruitment and selection are handled by the Personnel Department. When a teaching post is to be
advertised, the Personnel Department will notify the chairperson of the appointing committee the action to betaken. For all non-teaching posts the composition of the appointing committee is up to the head of the unit.
Posts funded by the external sources are not necessarily followed the process described above.
Working conditions and duties for teaching staff
As specified in Staff Handbook, the standard working hours per week for administrative, professional,
technical and clerical staff (APTC) is 37 hours and for craft and manual worker is 39. For teaching staff,
however, because of the nature of their work, the Code of Practice for lectures is prescribed.
According to the Code of Practice, “the Working Year” will run from 1 September through 31 August andout of this working year the University require all lecturers to engage in teaching for 34 weeks as “the Teaching
Year”, which is divided into three terms for its standard courses. The teaching year should not exceed 38
weeks and staff will not be required to teach more than 14 consecutive weeks. If he or she teaches 14
consecutive weeks, he or she may be entitled to a minimum of one-week break before he or she starts to teachagain. The rest of the teaching year is supposed for the teaching staff to engage in the areas of their duties andresponsibilities, predominantly research and scholarly activity.
And the working hours is not specified for lecturers because the nature of teaching posts makes inappropriate
to define the total hours to be worked in a week and we expect them to work such hours as that reasonably
necessary in order to fulfill their duties and responsibilities. However, the University reasonably expects thenormal weekly working hours of lecturers to be 37 hours as of the administrative staff while actually lecturers
are working 48 hours per week on average. To teach more than two sessions in any one-day and more than 18hours in any week is prohibited and the total teaching responsibility should not exceed 550 hours in any
teaching year. Within the university-wide regulation, duties and responsibilities of each lecturer will be
determined through the consultation with the department head depending on the subject areas every year. For
the new lecturer the teaching duty may be reduced in the region of 25 % of the full-time lecturer’s duties.

154

Annual staff development review (SDR)
The main purpose of the annual review is to promote staff development. Other purposes are to help
individual members to develop their own careers inside or outside of the University, to identify changes in theorganization and operation of the department, the school or the University which may lead to the improvementof individual performance, to identify and develop potential for promotion, and to improve the efficiency andthe effectiveness with which the department, the school or the University is managed.
Both at the beginning and at the end of the working year the staff and the supervisor sit together and discusseach other about the goals for the forthcoming year and the achievements for the past year.
In the case of the teaching faculty, the areas of the activities reviewed include teaching, research and scholarly
activity, other academic duties such as curriculum and course development, staff development including
attendance at courses and conferences, industrial liaison and consultancy, and external examining, managerial
and administrative duties, admission tutors, course leadership, and research degree supervision. Prior to theinterview with the supervisor each faculty member must submit a factual report in the last year with regard toteaching undertaken, publications accepted or other research in progress, offices undertaken and other activities.
At the interview each lecturer and his or her supervisor, usually the head of the department, discuss and confirm
the degree of the accomplishment in the last year and the goals to be achieved in the forthcoming year in eachactivity area. Based on the agreed goals for the next year the proportion of time to be devoted to each of these
activities is determined.
For administrative, professional, technical and clerical staff the achievement is reviewed whether or not thejob specified for the post was performed satisfactorily. So far the result of the annual review is not linked to themerit pay. In the case of the teaching faculty, the result is taken into consideration to allocate time for research,travel expense and research funds.
Staff development
Staff development at Brighton is seen as the integral part of the working life of each staff of the University.
Without it, the individual and the groups of staff could not develop their potential fully, thus the University’s
overall strategy and goals could not achieve either.

To ensure all staff can understand the objectives of the

University and possess the knowledge and skills necessary to realize these objectives, the University
continuously support for staff development. Accordingly the purpose of staff development is to enable staff,
individually and collectively, to improve their capability and competence in order to produce the benefit of thecustomers of the university, the members of the University and themselves.
Because the benefit for the staff and the University of staff development is interwoven and inseparable, boththe individual and the University are very concerned with staff development. Each staff member has the rightto expect the University to provide the opportunity and support for staff development such as the induction into
the University to understand the working of the University and what they are expected by the University when
they are employed, and the opportunities to develop new competencies and capabilities necessary to improve
job performance and career advancement of individual members inside or outside of the University.
In return the University has also the right to expect all staff to commit themselves as the part of thecontractual obligations to staff development activities such as developing of his or her competencies andcapabilities aligned to the University’s strategy and objectives, taking personal responsibility to keep update the155specific expertise relevant to the nature of his or her posts on a regular basis, participating actively in the
University’s annual development review as the opportunity to reflect individual past achievement and toprospect the action to be taken for the future, contributing to team staff developing at the department, the school,
the faculty or the university, and keeping the record of individual’s own staff development activity.
Staff development at Brighton is largely devolved down to individual faculties, schools and departments.
Centrally, staff development is provided for a number of things, for example: corporate induction, the staff
development review (SDR) process, together with a number of in-house programs and the fee waiver scheme.
Staffs who apply to take in-house programs or the courses offered at the neighboring institutions such as the
University of Sussex may be waived fees. Recently the University decided to cease recruitment to its Russian
programme at degree level, and lecturers who taught Russian were trained to be able to teach English and thenecessary cost was provided by the University.
In addition there are a number of the units, which provide special development programs. One of them is
the Center for Learning and Teaching, which was established to support the professional development for
academic staff to improve the quality of learning and teaching and to promote the importance of teaching as aprofessional activity. The Center provides the wide range of staff development programs from courses such as
Postgraduate Certificate in Learning and Teaching in HE for newly appointed academic staff, MA in academic
Practice (MAAP) for more experienced staff and Teaching in Higher Education Short Course, to consultancy.
The Center also promotes peer observation of teaching in order to encourage individual teaching faculty tocontinuously review, improve and update the quality and effectiveness of their teaching competencies, which inturn will contribute to improve the quality of education at Brighton.
One of the activities to promote the importance of teaching and to improve the quality of education is the
Teaching Excellence Award, which rewards lecturers who show enthusiasm for their subject, their willingness
and ability to explain difficult concepts clearly, and their concern for students' welfare and intellectual
development. For the year of 2002/3 six lecturers won this Award and are given a personal award of £3,000,
with a further £2,000 for their School to spend on teaching resources.
Today it is critical for the University to secure fund from the second and third legs to keep financial health.
The University recognizing these challenges recently established “virtual research support unit” which gives
advice to academic staff on how to apply for research funds. It is also tough challenge for the senior staff tomanage the university effectively and efficiently in the fast changing and very competitive environment. The
University runs the programs for leadership and middle management training and development such as theManagement Forum and the Senior Staff seminars.

156

Quality Assurance
To assure the quality of learning and teaching at higher education institutions is urgent issue both in UK andJapan. At Brighton many organizations are responsible for maintaining and improving the quality ofeducation there. Academic Standards Committee is the principle body responsible for assuring the quality ofeducation. This committee is comprised of the Vice-Chancellor, Pro-Vice-Chancellor in charge of academic
affairs, deans, academic staff and representatives of the student body. This committee regularly reviews thequality of the subjects and courses currently offered at Brighton based on the self-study reports submitted by theunits concerned. When the School or the Department has the plan to develop the new course, the proposal
should be submitted to and approved by the Academic Development Committee. And once approved by the
ADC, the “course outline” prepared by the Course Development Team should be submitted to the Academic
Standards Committee to be validated whether or not the proposed course is fulfilled the academic standard as
the course offered in the name of the University of Brighton.
In the course of developing a new course the Academic Standards and Research section of the Registry will
give useful advises and supports. This section, which is responsible for the academic quality of taught courses
and research, is engaged in such activities as internal quality assurance, liaison with QAA and other external
quality assurance agencies and administration of committees of the Academic Board other than the course
development and approval, and monitoring the development of planned and current courses.

157

Conclusion
Even though the history and the mission of Kobe University are not alike to those of the University of
Brighton, it was very fortunate for us to have the opportunity to visit the University of Brighton rather than visit
the “old “ university because Brighton was a former Polytechnic under the control of the local government andthe University has managed to become a true university under the strong leadership and effective management
together with the extensive participation by the all members of the university community. The situation inwhich Kobe University and other national universities are now is very similar to that of Brighton a decade ago.
As Brighton has struggled to depart from the bureaucracy to become the self-reliant academic community,
many challenges will be waiting for us. To overcome these challenges, we need the strong institutional
leadership while, at the same time, we must guarantee all members of the university community to participate in
the planning and the decision making process. At this moment all national universities in Japan are struggling
to develop new governing system under the new National University Corporation scheme to fulfill these two
requirements necessary for the self-reliant university. The governing and management system of Brighton
would be one of the models, which we might follow.
We learned secondly that the clear statement of the relatively unchangeable institutional mission and thegoals to be achieved in the fixed period is necessary and indispensable to run the University effectively andefficiently. Without them we may waste time and resources in the time of economic difficulty. In this sense
the introduction of the medium-term goals and plans required to submit by the MEXT for all National
University Corporations is the good chance to think the future of us strategically. We must remind ourselves,
however, we should have the sense of the “ownership” of the medium-term goals and plans rather than think of
it to be forced to make them by the MEXT.
Finally we learnt the university is not a factory nor a company but a community. This remind us students
and staff are the members of the community, not the resources to be exploited. The university is obliged tohelp to develop individual member’s potential fully. In return individual members have to recognize thatunless he or she have to contribute to achieve institutional aims and objectives actively, his or her goals could
not be achieve either. In this sense the relationship between the university and members is mutually beneficial,thus the university must invest as much as resources to enable its staff to act competently.
References
The University of Brighton, Staffing Strategy and specific plans for 2001-4------------------------------------, Corporate Plan 1999-2004------------------------------------, Corporate Plan 2002-2007------------------------------------, Staff Handbook
Committee of University Chairman, Guide for Members of Governing Bodies of Universities
and Colleges in England, Wales and Northern Ireland

158

Nagoya University

Outline of study visit
Project Members
Yoshiharu Matsuura (Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Nagoya University; Professor of Law Faculty)
Terumasa Ikeda (Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Nagoya University; Professor of Tertiary Education ResearchCenter)Toshiki Nakai (Lecturer, Tertiary Education Research Center)
Hideaki Watabe (University Assessor; National Institute for Academic Degrees)
Dates
10th to 12th December 2002
Theme
Quality Assurance
University visited
University of Warwick (henceforth referred to as Warwick University)
Persons interviewed
Susan BASSNETT (Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Center for Translation and Comparative Cultural Studies)John JONES (Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Professor of Mathematics)
Jim RUSHTON (Deputy Registrar)
Malcolm McCRAE (Chair of the Board of Graduate Studies)Peter JEWEL (Assistant Director, the Centre for English Language Teacher Education)
John McELDOWNEY (Professor in Law)
Michael REDDISH(Lecturer in Law)
Richard SMITH(Lecturer in ELT/Applied Linguistics, the Centre for English Language Teacher
Education)
Antony Gribbon (Director/ International Office)Jon Inegbedion (Senior International Liaison Officer/ International Office)Mandie DREW (Region Secretary for East Asia and Far East Asia/ International Office)Marcus WILLIAMS (Acting China Liaison Officer/ International Office)Kevin LAMBERT (Educational Consultant/ National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth)
Masato KAMIKUBO(Graduate Student)161

1. Status of Quality Inspections by Third Parties
The following is a simple summary of the recent history and trends relating to quality assurance systems in UK
universities.
Quality assurance within UK university education has conventionally been implemented through the utilizationof an external examiner system, allowing the self-assessment of universities on an individual basis. The
national strategies that were introduced to tertiary education in the late 1980s and early 1990s as part of theimplementation of public accountability systems in regard to taxpayers, along with the inclusion of
non-university sector tertiary education polytechnic colleges into the university system, brought aboutsignificant changes to the self-assessment system. This was the start of the Quality Assessment system for
tertiary education, involving a third party assessment agency.
The QAA (The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education) was founded in 1997, allowing educational
assessments by third parties to be provided by a single, unified, specialist organisation. The QAA provides
subject reviews for each faculty, as well as an institutional review of the university as a whole. The evaluation
method used is a combination of peer reviews and self-evaluation documents (SEDs) applied to departments.
Subject reviews cover the six areas as follows:
Curriculum design, content, and structure
Tuition / learning processes, marking and evaluation
Student results
Student guidance and advice
Study resources
Management (organisational activities in regard to quality maintenance / improvements)
Evaluations are scored on four criteria (establishment of objectives / methods for objective attainment /educational resources for objective attainment / examination of levels and standards for objective attainment).
The Agency’s assessment examines organisational response from the first lecture given to students on entering
the university, right through to the final examinations, based on the same four criteria indicated earlier in regard
to subject reviews.
Subject reviews were carried out over a period of 8 years to 2001, covering all 42 subjects taught at UK
universities, but since almost all universities met the required targets and almost no disparity was recorded, it
was widely felt that the cost inefficiencies involved in the creation of self-assessment reports by many
universities were unacceptable, and as of 2003, a new assessment system was introduced with the aim of
reducing the burden of assessment work on the universities. As a result, subject reviews have been abolishedand have been replaced by the self-assessments implemented to date by individual universities. Instead of this,the QAA now implements institutional audits under a newly devised system.
Under the new assessment system, an assessment team of between 3 and 7 members visits the university to
implement a peer review, and evaluates whether the quality of education provided and the maintenance ofstandards are reliable, through interviews with staff and students. The results of this evaluation are publishedin printed form and on the internet. The new system emphasizes self-assessment by universities, with abuilt-in system for external assessors, and in fact shows no significant changes from the original system on
which it was based. This essentially means that rather than focusing on the micro-organisational level of162

individual departments, the university as a whole is the subject of the review, and as a result, the review aims tobring an effect on the level of education being offered by individual departments, as well as on the maintenanceof standards.
This aim can also be understood from the three documents listed below, which were created to clarify thestandards for agency assessments. These documents were not created with the intention of being enforced inregard to universities, but rather to provide a loose framework operating in a way that will facilitate quality andstandards.
The Code of Practice for Assurance of Academic Quality
The Framework for Higher Education Qualification
Subject Benchmark Statements
The details of these documents are not to be discussed in this report, but since it is thought that they present
much that is significant in regard to Japan’s tertiary education institutions, we would advise readers to consider
them on a personal basis.

163

2. Warwick University’s Quality Assurance activities
１．Outline of Warwick University
Warwick University was founded in Coventry in 1964. It is known for its location in one of the UK’s centersof business and industry, and also for the fact that Tony Blair referred to the university as ‘a university of the
future’.
The university consists of 10,904 undergraduate and 6,889 graduate students, giving a total student body of
17,793 (see chart 1). There are 3,567 overseas students. The university has a total staff of 4,000, of which
800 are academic staff engaged in both teaching and research, and 700 in research only. The university is of asimilar scale to Nagoya University.
In financial terms, the university’s gross income is 192 million GBP per year. Of this, 43.6 million GBP
comes as a subsidy from the HEFCE (Higher Education Funding Council for England), and 48.6 million isprovided by tuition fees. Competitive research funding makes up 28.1 million GBP (see chart 2). The factthat the university gains 70% of its income from profit-making activities marks it out as unique. These
activities include short-term courses operated independently by the university, as well as research contracts, amanagement training center, conferences, product sales, and restaurants, among others.
Warwick University has an integrated teaching base, as shown in the departmental list in chart 3, according towhich students can study humanities, social studies and natural sciences. It also runs the Warwick Business
School and Science Park, and has notable links between its departments and the business and industrial world.
Warwick University maintains high standards of research. Its research has been evaluated by HEFCE, andalmost all departments were scored with a 5 or 5* . Warwick was placed 5th nationally for research quality(Research Assessment Exercise 2001). Warwick was ranked by the Financial Times in 2003 as 6th from top in alist of UK universities.

1. Figure 1 Warwick University

Source:http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/about/tour

164

Chart 1 Basic Data
Total student body

17,904

No. of graduate students

10,077

No. of undergraduates

6,272

No. of exchange and overseas students

2,948

No. of overseas students engaged in other programs
1,063
No. of people registered in continuing education programs
15,934
Total no. of staff

3,850

No. of teaching and research staff

775

No. of research staff

675

Source:University of Warwick(2002) Warwick Profile 2002
Chart 2: Financial data (unit: million GBP)
Total income

174.5

Income from HEFCE subsidy

46.5

Income as tuition fees

42.3

Income from competitive research funding sources
26.3
Source:University of Warwick(2002) Warwick Profile 2002
Chart 3: Composition of departments
Faculty of Social Studies – 9,005 students (51% of which graduate students)
Continuing education, economics, law, philosophy, politics andinternational studies, social policy and social projects, sociology,
education, business
Faculty of Science – 6,004 students (33% of which graduate students)
Biologicalsciences,chemistry,computerscience,engineering,mathematics, physics, psychology, statistics, postgraduate medical
education
Faculty of Arts – 2,453 students (of which 15% graduate students)
Comparative American studies, classics and ancient history, English andcomparative literary studies, film and television studies, French studies,
German studies, history, history of art, Italian, theater studies, Translation
Studies, British Cultural Studies
Faculty of Medicine – 203 students.
Source:University of Warwick(2002) Warwick Profile 2002165

２．Evaluation of education provided by Warwick University.
Warwick University has been highly evaluated according to an educational review carried out by the QAA(Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education). Subject reviews at the university awarded 22 of the 24
departments a grade of ‘excellent’, which requires a minimum score of 21 out of a possible 24. In addition tothis, the departments of politics and international studies, philosophy, economics, education, physics, sociology
and theater studies received the maximum possible score of 24.
Chart 4 shows the results of the educational reviews performed since 1995. The university has received highscores (the maximum score is 4) in all categories examined by QAA (Curriculum design, content andorganisation; Teaching, learning and assessment; Student progression and achievement; Student support andguidance; Learning resources; and Quality assurance and enhancement). The area of student support isparticularly noteworthy. Under this category, the 17 areas assessed all achieved a top score, demonstrating theexcellent standard of support given at the organisational level to students at the university.
The universities in the UK are ranked privately, although based on the results of QAA assessments, in an annual
guide known as The Sunday Times Good University Guide. According to this guide, Warwick University isranked 4th for the quality of its teaching and 8th overall.
Warwick University publishes information about high standards in its educational activities, as assessed byexternal parties, in pamphlets and on its Internet site. The University is proud of the results of theseassessments (see figure 2).
Chart 4: Results of Reviews by QAA since 1995

Politics andInternational
Studies(2001)
Philosophy(2001)Classics(2001)
Economics(2001)
Education(2000)
Mathematics
and Statistics(2000)
Physics(1999)
Psychology(1999)

Curriculum
design,content andorganisation
4

Teaching,
learning andassessment

Student
supportandguidance
4

Learning
resources

Qualityassurance andenhancement

Total

4

Student
progression
andachievement
4

4

4

24

4

4

4

4

4

4

24

4

4

4

4

4

3

23

4

4

4

4

4

4

24

4

4

4

4

4

4

24

4

3

4

4

4

3

22

4

4

4

4

4

4

24

4

3

3

4

4

3

21

166

Biological
Science(1999)Engineering(1998)
Film andTelevision
Studies(1996)
FrenchStudies(1996)
GermanStudies(1996)
History of Art(1998)
Italian(1995)
Sociology(1996)
TheatreStudies(1996)

4

4

4

4

4

3

23

4

3

3

4

4

3

21

4

3

4

4

4

4

23

3

3

4

4

3

4

21

4

3

4

4

4

4

23

3

3

4

4

4

3

21

3

3

4

4

3

4

21

4

4

4

4

4

4

24

4

4

4

4

4

4

24

Source:http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/study/tqa/results/

Figure 2: Example of introduction of review results as published on internet website.

Source：http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/about/167

３．Warwick University’s activities in regard to quality assurance
As has already been seen, Warwick University has achieved an extremely good reputation for the quality of its
teaching as reviewed by external agencies. What is it that has facilitated this good reputation? Our study
visit this time gave the opportunity for interviews and collection of resources that clarified the fact that Warwick
University has been thorough in its introduction of various systems and structures that allow internal
improvements to the quality of its education. These have undoubtedly led to excellent review results inexternal assessments. In other words, behind the excellent results lies a full and detailed set of quality
assurance mechanisms.
The body responsible for quality assurance at Warwick University is the Academic Quality and Standards
Committee. This committee cooperates with various other committees (faculty education committees, thegraduate school education committee, etc.) and related centers in maintaining internal quality assurance
mechanisms.

In particular, the following 5 areas stood out as strong examples of quality assurance

mechanisms.
Approval of new courses
Periodic course reviews
System of feedback from students
External examiners system
Staff development
Teaching strategies
The following is an explanation of Warwick University’s activities in regard to quality assurance in the above
six areas.
(1) Approval of new courses
The process of approval for new courses is as shown in figure 3, and decisions are made by the Senate, via
the committees responsible for teaching quality and standards, the relevant Faculty committee andUndergraduate or Graduate Studies committee. The process of approval is particularly noteworthy for thefollowing reasons. Firstly, the clarification of study objectives and results. Proposals for new courses are
required to detail what students completing the course will be able to do, and clarify the skills and knowledge
that will be imparted by the course. Secondly, the clarification of teaching methods is also worthy of note. A
proposal includes details of how students taking the course will be taught in order to achieve the targets set.
Thirdly, there is clear evaluation of results. Proposals are required to detail how they propose to evaluate
students taking the course in the light of the objectives established.

Manuals and check-lists have been

established (see chart 5) to assist the smooth running of the approval process.

168

Figure 3: Approval process for new courses

Department or School(all sections)

Faculty Undergraduate/Sub-Faculty
or Graduate Studies Committee(all sections)
COURSES ONLY BEYOND THIS POINT

Estimates and Grants
Committee (if required)

Faculty Board (all sections)

Full-timestandard
undergraduate
degreesPart-time & 2+2
degrees, Open
Studies Awards

Validated,
Franchised,
Partnership
Courses

Postgraduate
coursesPartnerships and Distance
Learning Sub-Committee(all sections)Board of Undergraduate

Board of Lifelong Learning

Studies (all sections)(all sections)

Postgraduate Courses

Board of Graduate Studies(all sections)

Academic Quality and Standards Committee (all sections)

SENATE
Source:Academic Quality and Standards Committee(2002), The Approval of New Degree Courses, New Modules andAmendments to Existing Courses and Modules

169

Chart 5: Checklist for new course approval
1.

Is the course documentation complete in every section?

2.

Have Course Leaders been identified for each course?

3.

How is a new course justified? Does the course form a coherent pattern of provision with otherexisting or planned courses?

4.

Is the course viable given:(i) likely student demand;(ii) student characteristics?

5.

Are the course aims and intended learning outcomes appropriate? Are they clear and set out in thecorrect format? Are they compatible with University aims?

6.

Is the course structure itself coherent, with clear student progression?

7.

Are assessment regulations consistent with current University regulations? If not, what variations
require approval?

8.

Is there a coherent academic rationale for the content, structure, methods of delivery and assessment of
the course? How will the methods of assessment demonstrate the achievement of the aims and learning
outcomes of the course?

9.

Has adequate account been taken, in the design of the course, of the likely eventual employment,
education or training destinations of students?

10.

Are there adequate arrangements for student support and guidance and for the development of thestudy and other skills required in order to learn effectively on the course?

11.

Is there adequate consideration given to the overall range and quality of student experience on thecourse?

12.

If an external adviser has been asked to comment on the proposal, what is his/her view? What are theviews of an accrediting body (if sought)?

13.

Have other departments who might be affected by the proposal been properly consulted?

14.

What administrative and resource issues are raised which are likely to require new arrangements oradditional resources? Have these been agreed by the appropriate University Committee or Officer?

15.

Do all modules add to the coherence of the course and do module learning outcomes contribute to theachievement of overall course learning outcomes?

Source: Academic Quality and Standards Committee(2002), The Approval of New Degree Courses, New Modules andAmendments to Existing Courses and Modules

170

(2) Periodic course evaluations
Warwick University has been implementing periodic reviews of its courses since 1986. All courses inundergraduate and graduate departments are evaluated every six years.

These reviews are based on

self-evaluations, done to QAA teaching review standards. Annual reports produced by each department areprovided as additional materials for evaluation. In order to avoid duplication, the QAA arranges its external
reviews at different times to these internal reviews. The areas focused on in reviewing self-evaluationmaterials are as shown in chart 6 below.
Chart 6: Review of self-evaluation materials – focus points and structure
Focus points of review- Appropriateness of academic standards it has set for its courses- Effectiveness of the curriculum in delivering the intended outcomes of the courses- Effectiveness of assessment in measuring attainment of the intended outcomes- Extent to which the intended standards and outcomes are achieved by students- Quality of learning opportunities provided for students
Structure
A. Overall aims of the subject provision
B. Evaluation of the subject provisioni) Learning outcomesii) Curriculum and assessmentiii) Quality of learning opportunitiesiv) Maintenance and enhancement of standards and quality
C. A course specification for each degree course under review
Source: http://www.warwick.ac.uk/info/reviewforms/(3) Student Feedback System
Warwick University has established Staff-Student Liaison Committees (see figure 4). The activities of thesecommittees have been defined in the Staff-Student Liaison Handbook, and include student evaluations ofcourses, discussions with teaching staff, and other aspects that allow student opinion to be reflected in the
curriculum of the University’s education. In addition, the committees’ activities are published in an annual
report. In this way, the University seeks to maintain an organisational structure in which staff and students work
together to solve problems. The Staff-Student Liaison committees are at the center of this policy. The SSLC’s
student representative(s) is consulted as part of the periodic review process.

171

Figure 4: Staff-Student Liaison Committee structure

Source: http://www.warwick.ac.uk/info/sslc/(4) External examiner system
UK universities employ an external examiner system, under which examination problems and results arechecked by external agencies. External examiners are appointed by the senate on the recommendation of thedepartment being examined. Their period of tenure lasts for a maximum of four years. External examiners
are required to produce reports based on materials supplied by the universities. These reports contain details
regarding student attainment objectives, criteria for evaluation of results, course structure and content, andeducational standards as seen from the perspective of examinations. Recently, moves have been taken toincrease the efficiency of the external examiner system, through introducing pass / fail borderlines and otherimportant aspects on which assessment can be based. The external examiners’ reports are an importantresource for periodic course reviews.

172

(5) Staff Development
The Center for Academic Practice works on developing links with various academic departments andpromoting and supporting staff development. Warwick University has clear definitions, objectives and aims
for staff training, and the Center for Academic Practice implements various activities based on these clear
objectives.
Chart 7: Warwick University’s Staff Development Definition, Aims and Objectives
Definition
Staff development is defined as the processes and activities which enable academic staff to develop theircapabilities and their working practices and, in so doing, improve the quality of the work of the institution, in
the areas of teaching, research and administration.

Aims
The central aim of academic staff development is to enable academic staff to develop their capabilities andworking practices, thereby assisting the University in achieving excellence in research, teaching and otheracademic duties, in an appropriate and cost-effective way.

Objectives
Staff development processes and activities enable the University to:develop and review academic staff development policy and practicedevise and co-ordinate an internal staff development programme for academic staff, in conjunction, whereappropriate, with other staff groups
support the planned and systematic development of academic staff at departmental levelsupport departments and individual staff in the development and evaluation of approaches to teaching andlearning and assessment
encourage the dissemination and exchange of best educational practicefurther its Equal Opportunities policy
monitor the relevance, quality and cost-effectiveness of staff development.

Source : http://www.warwick.ac.uk/services/CAP/Overview/Policy/policy.html
The Center for Academic Practice operates programs to train staff in teaching methods, such as lecturing andcomputer assisted teaching, as well as awards programs for staff recognized as excellent teachers, and theWarwick University academic licensing system.
Chart 8 shows some of the training programs for academic staff offered by the Center for Academic Practice.
New teaching staff are required to attend 9 of these courses within the first four years of their appointment. All
graduate teaching assistants are also required to undergo training.

173

Chart 8: Training program for academic staff, provided by the Center for Academic PracticeDetails of training programTime required for study

教育への準備3 days

Preparing to Teach
教育の開発

1 day

Developing Teaching
教育の評価

1 day

Reviewing Teaching
大学への導入

1 day

Institutional Induction
研究費の申請Half day

Applying for and Administering
Research Grants and Contracts
チューターの役割

Half dayRole of the Personal Tutor
情報サービス：コンピュータ

Half day

University Information Services:
Computing
図書館

Half day

Library
研究指導

1 day

Research Supervision
Source:http://www.warwick.ac.uk/services/CAP/Overview/Policy/policy.html(6) Teaching strategies
Warwick University has established a learning and teaching strategy, which are created based on the strategic planof the University as a whole. The University’s strategic plan is as shown in Chart 9. The strategy was createdbased on the HEFCE’s manual ‘Strategic Planning in Higher Education: A guide for heads of institutions, senior
managers and members of governing bodies’ (pub. 2000) (http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2000/00_24.htm).

174

Chart 9: Warwick University’s Strategic Plan
Mission:To build an institution widely recongnised, at a regional, national and international level, as aworld leader in research and teaching.
Main Objectives
研究水準の高さの維持
Maintaining research strengths
学士課程、大学院課程の教育および継続教育の卓越性の維持
Maintaining excellence in teaching at undergraduate, postgraduate and post-experience levels
大学の科学と技術の基盤の開発
Development of the science and technology base of the University
大学院の維持と開発
Maintaining and developing the Graduate School
大学の目標を支援するインフラストラクチャーの維持
Maintaining the infrastructure to support the University’s academic aims
学術的な提携、アクセス、広い参加の機会の維持と開発
Maintaining and developing opportunities for academic collaboration, access and widening
participation
ヨーロッパにおける大学の役割の向上
Enhancing the University’s role in Europe
財源の開発に関する大学の方針の継続
Continuing the University’s policy of income generation.

Source : http://www.warwick.ac.uk/services/CAP/Teaching/LT_strategy.html

The learning and teaching strategy has been established based on this strategic plan. By clarifying theobjectives and stages relating to teaching, it is possible to assess how far these objectives have been met. The
Learning and teaching strategy is comprised of a four year plan, with annual targets also established. Thesecomprise 8 targets, as shown in chart 10. The development of a framework for quality assurance is built into
strategy 6 in particular.

175

Chart 10: Structure of the Learning and Teaching Strategy
Strategy１ 教育の卓越性の維持
Maintaining excellence in teaching
Strategy２ 研究志向の教育
Research-led teaching
Strategy３ 学習教育の革新
Extending Innovation in Learning and Teaching
Strategy４ スキルのフレームワークの実施
Implementing the Framework for Skills
Strategy５ 大学院レベルの学習教育の向上
Enhancing Graduate Level Learning and Teaching
Strategy６ 質の保証のフレームワークの開発
Developing the Quality Assurance Framework
Strategy７ 学習教育環境への投資
Investment in the learning and teaching environment
Strategy８ 学術的な提携、アクセス、広い参加の機会の維持と開発
Maintaining and developing opportunities for academic collaboration,access and widening participation
Source : http://www.warwick.ac.uk/services/CAP/Teaching/LT_strategy.html

４．Warwick University – the Challenge of Quality Assurance and Outstanding Issues
At Warwick University, various quality assurance systems are in place, covering issues such as course approval,
periodic course reviews, feedback from students, external examiners, staff development and teaching andlearning. The internal mechanisms have ensured that the University has received excellent reviews both fromthe QAA and the private sector publication The Sunday Times Good University Guide 2003. Warwick
University has been ranked as the no. 6 University in the UK by this guide.
All these mechanisms have in common the fact that they are organisationally structured. The structures andobjectives as well as methods are documented and published on the University website. This ensures thateven if the people operating the system are replaced, the standards and results are still attainable, since thesystem does not depend on particular people.
As can be seen above, Warwick University has excellent mechanisms for assuring the quality of its education.
There are however several outstanding issues. The first of these is the difficulty experienced in defining‘quality’ in education. As long as there is no clear definition of quality of education, there can be no clear
guarantee of such quality. Establishing a definition of quality of education which can be agreed upon by all
members of the relevant committees, however, is not an easy task. In fact, Warwick University has apparently
not yet established a clear definition of quality in education, and is involved in the complex process of debating
methods and mechanisms for quality assurance without achieving this definition.

176

The second issue is that of the difficulty involved in clarifying educational objectives. Reviews andevaluations are extremely important in order to guarantee quality. In order to perform objective evaluations, itis necessary to establish clear objectives for curriculums and courses. In a university setting, however, whilesome subjects may have easily definable educational objectives, some subjects are much less simple to define.
This was made clear in interviews.
The third issue is one of cost in regard to implementing quality assurance. It appears that there have been
many people who have expressed the opinion that the amount of time and effort being spent on quality
assurance is too significant. In addition, the documentation that was required at the introductory stage wasconsidered too complex, and many people thought it should be simplified. It can be seen from this that in fact
what is required is a balance between the costs incurred and the effectiveness of quality assurance.

1773. Internal assessment system at Warwick University
１．Philosophy behind the design of Warwick University’s Education and Research Evaluation System.
The internal assessment system at Warwick University has been designed with great attention to its relationshipwith the external assessment system. As has been mentioned, the external assessment system in the UK
centers on the QAA (The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education). External reviews comprise
Subject Reviews and Continuation Audits.
Based on lessons learned from its Continuation Audit in 1998, Warwick University has defined the following
areas as requiring focused improvements. It is thought that the organisation of Warwick University’s internal
assessment system has been done so as to deal with the following issues and attain specified targets in regard tothese.
Publication of information related to examinations (including complete publication of information relating toexternal examiners)
Establishment of a complaints procedure for students
Standardization of qualification approval criteria for graduate students
Publication of Good Practice Guidelines in the student handbook
Refinement of the Curriculum Design & Content Organisation
Reorganisation of Teaching, Learning and Assessment
Student Progression and Achievement
Quality Management and Enhancement
In fact, the external assessment system has continued to change significantly since its instigation in 2002.
Many of those representing Warwick University admit frankly that conventional external assessments changed
the awareness of the University community drastically, and raised awareness of the importance of appropriatequality management and efficiency in regard to teaching and research. At the same time, however, most of theacademic staff interviewed for this study raised the point that the burden of evaluation by sector was just toolarge under the external evaluation system. In order to undergo an external assessment, not only weredepartments required to submit huge quantities of paperwork and materials, but the energies and resources of agreat number of research staff also needed to be invested in the preparations for assessment, and this burden was
said to be ‘just too great’ in many cases.
For this reason, Warwick University abolished the sector-based assessments, and changed over to an audit-led
model in which internal self-assessments are audited by external agents (‘audit-based model’).
Our interviews showed that Warwick University has decreased the functions of the external assessment, andthat a high level of internal assessment is being maintained. It appears that they have restricted the function to
making sure if each university is being making efforts to improve and maintain the quality of teaching andresearch, and that they adopted a strategy by which positive implementation of quality management itself in anautonomous way under self-assessment systems would lead to more fruitful outcomes, which has beenfaithfully implemented.

178

In fact, changes to UK law since 2002 may be seen as developments in line with the opinions being expressedby Warwick University.

The central concept to these changes is the system known as the National

Qualifications Framework. This system comprises five levels, and functions not only to guarantee domestic
and international (EU and other) standard in regard to degrees and other qualifications, but also aims to provide
viewpoints and criteria for external and internal assessments.
It is important to note when examining the features detailed below that the internal assessment system
employed by Warwick University is designed on the one hand to reduce the burden created by external
assessments, while at the same time encouraging creative thinking in regard to initiatives for self-managementof quality issues.

２．The Quality Management Handbook
Warwick University’s Quality Handbook is an excellent example of the University’s commitment to internal
assessments. At Warwick University, various quality assurance structures have been put in place and refinedin order to improve the quality of teaching and research management. The details of these have been
compiled into a handbook which is published on the Internet.

This handbook explains the quality

management systems, as well as basic policies and implementation processes, and also discusses related quality
management systems both within and outside the University (see figure 5).
Figure 5: Quality Handbook website

Source: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/insite/info/quality/

179３．Outline of Quality Assurance System
Warwick University considered the framework for its quality assurance system from the following 4 angles,
and reflected the results of this consideration in the University’s teaching and research quality assurance
strategies and systems.
Quality assurance systems within the University (includes the process for establishing new courses /departments and evaluation by students)
External quality assurance systems (including those by the QAA)
Quality assurance in research
Staff training and skills improving

180

４．Internal organisational structure related to quality assurance
An appropriate operating organisation is required in order to effectively implement quality assurance systems.
(Please see organisational figure below). Warwick University has established an implementing organisation
based around the Academic Quality and Standards Committee for the whole University (this is led by the
Pro-Vice-Chancellor). Among the agencies represented on the organisational figure, the Senate, which is at
the top of all committees, is equivalent to the Council of a Japanese university, while the Faculty Board isequivalent to the board of professors.
Figure 6: University structure and operating organisational figure relating to Quality Assurance.

(1) Academic Quality and Standards Committee
This committee is responsible for implementing the decisions of the Senate in regard to quality. The
committee is chaired by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor responsible for quality. It comprises main members andstudent representatives from each university faculty, the graduate school, the lifelong learning committee, andother departments related to teaching and research such as the staff training and evaluation committee, andoperates primarily to implement quality assurance. This committee has decision making powers in regard to
the new establishment of degree courses, internal assessments of degrees awarded by departments, and thefunctions of assessment systems overall.
The educational committees of the graduate school, as well as the departments, hold primary responsibility for
quality assurance in relation to the education provided by their departments, and are in constant communication
with this committee. Documentation published by the committee includes the following:
1. Information Pack on Procedures for the Approval of New Degree Courses

181

2. Information Pack on Procedures for the Review of Courses of Study
3. Course regulations
4. Details of the operation of the External examiner system at Warwick
5. Student feedback mechanisms and the Staff-Student Liaison Handbook
6. The University's Learning and Teaching strategy
7. Procedures for Academic Appeals and Complaints
8. Good practice guide on preparing departmental handbooks
9. Examinations issues
10. Staff development and the work of the Centre for Academic Practice(2) Partnerships and Distance Learning Sub-Committee
Bears responsibility for the quality of courses operated in partnership with other agencies and distance learning
programs, and works in cooperation with related departments.
(3) Board of Graduate Studies
The organisation that broadly represents graduate studies, and considers new areas of graduate study, as well as
evaluating existing areas of study. Considers and has the power to implement changes to suggestions
regarding external examiners.
(4) Board of Undergraduate Studies
Broadly represents undergraduate departments, considers new areas of study and evaluates existing courses.
Considers and has the power to implement changes to suggestions regarding external examiners.
(5) Academic Staff Development and Appraisal Committee
Warwick University considers the monitoring and review of all staff (including permanent, non-permanent, TA
and other staff) in their teaching and research activities as an extremely important aspect of quality assurance.
The system that has been put in place to handle this is the Academic Staff Development and Appraisal
Committee, which implements various activities in these areas. This committee works on basic strategies forthe training and development of staff (including the definition of training objectives and attainment objectives),
implementation systems, specific measures and related documentation processes, among other aspects. The
person with implementation responsibility in these areas is the University’s Academic Staff Development
Officer. This officer is in particular required to oversee the training of new academic staff. The committee
develops and provides a variety of programs, through the Center for Academic Practice, which are used to
improve the skills of staff in areas of teaching and research, and a system is employed that allows staff toparticipate in these programs in an autonomous way. Program development is done through staff making
anonymous applications to the committee detailing their own development needs. Permanent staff areallowed to apply for a term’s sabbatical after seven terms of teaching. The results of these study programs are
considered when staff undergo review.
Each department and office is also expected to implement training, and the person responsible for this training istitled the Staff Development Coordinator. This post is filled by selecting from among the academic staff of182

each department. The training programs provided by departments are subject to internal assessments by the
Academic Staff Development and Appraisal Committee.
Warwick University employs a system of accrediting specialization, issuing academic staff who complete
certain training programs with certification known as Warwick Teaching Certificates.

Specific themes

include Preparing to Teach, Assessing and Evaluating, Curriculum Design, and Lecturing in Practice, among
others, but various other programs are prepared alongside these. In addition to these programs, support
programs are offered, such as inter-university cooperative programs, information technology services, alanguage center, graduate school teaching training, consultancy contracts, etc.
(6) Staff-Student Liaison Committees
Student opinions regarding their education is treated as an important source of information in regard to the
University’s quality assurance practices. Various committees collect evaluations regarding courses and otheraspects. This information is not simply collected, but is also required to be subjected to the University’s
published Good Practice Guidelines for Obtaining Student Feedback.
(7) Research and Teaching Development Committee
This committee is responsible for the distribution of research and teaching grants to staff.
As can be seen from this study, Warwick University has organized its internal assessment system so as to assist
the external review process, taking various autonomous initiatives to maintain and improve quality and respondto the demands of external review. Through doing this, the University has reduced the burden formerly placed
upon it by the process of external reviews, and notably, has created policies based on this new approach. If
this approach turns out to be successful, and mechanisms for the improvement and maintenance of quality
within the university function smoothly, it is thought that the need for periodic external reviews will gradually
reduce. Various people in the UK pointed out the fact that the main objective of external reviews was in any
case to bring about a change in awareness. Warwick University’s approach gives an insight into the process ofexternal examinations subsequent to such a change in awareness.

183

Kyusyu Institute of Technology

1. Outline of the University of Surrey (henceforth referred to as Surrey University)
Surrey University is located in the outskirts of Guildford, in the county of Surrey, England.
was founded in 1891 as a College of Technology, and was established as a university in 1966.

It
The

University has a long tradition of international cooperation.
The University comprises disciplines such as various types of engineering, education, biologicaland life sciences, nursing and postgraduate medicine, human sciences, linguistics, law, andinternational studies, as well as service-industry management, music and dance, and physics.
Surrey University has high standards of research, with 60% of its teaching staff attached todepartments that have received review scores of 5 or 5* (see note1).

As part of its research strategy,

the University maintains a fund that allows it to invite talented researchers from around the world towork at the University for a period of 3 years.

Surrey awards the fifth highest number of doctorates

per year among universities in the UK.
The University is also exemplary in its application of technology transfer, maintaining a Research
Park, and is well-known as a proactive player in partnerships with industry and regional activities.
Including the income generated by such projects, the University achieves a total of 70% of its
income from non-governmental sources.
One example of this technology transfer is the manufacture of the micro-satellite known as
UoSAT-14, with a height of 1m and weighing between 35 and 70kg.

The University founded a

subsidiary known as Surrey Satellite Technology, which has already launched 22 of these satellites,
and is a center for micro-satellite research.

The company is in the process of transferring

micro-satellite technology to Korea, Singapore and China, and has an extremely good reputation
among countries looking to secure a footing in space technology due to the fact that it can implement
small-scale projects that do not require vast investment.
The University also runs an organization promoting partnerships with industry, known as
UniSdirect. The main objectives of UniSdirect are the promotion of partnerships with industry, themanagement of intellectual property, and support and training for venture startups, and in the period
2001 – 2002, the organization achieved 12 patent licenses and established 5 startups, based ontechnologies patented within the University.

Furthermore, the University owns a Research Park

located near to the University campus, which has become a focal point for regional corporations, andnow houses more than 110 companies with 2,700 employees who are engaged in joint research with
University departments.
Teaching activities have a similar good reputation, and have been highly evaluated not just within
the UK but also at an international level. Teaching programs are designed to give students practicalskills for employment, and accordingly graduates have a high ratio of employment success. Last
year, Surrey graduates achieved the highest ratio of employment nationwide, the second time theUniversity has achieved this position on a national scale in the previous 3 years.
According to Benchmarking materials, the number of students and staff at the University is as187

follows:
Undergraduates: 7,294 (as of February 2001)
Postgraduates: 3,895 (as of February 2001)
Teaching and research staff: 518 (as of January 2000)
Other staff: 1,699 (as of January 2000)
1 Review grades are awarded in the following 7 categories:
5*: Half or more of the research results submitted are of world-class standard, and the rest is excellent on adomestic scale
5: Less than half the research results submitted are of world-class standard, and the rest is almost all excellent on adomestic scale
4: Almost all the research results submitted are excellent, with some examples displaying content that is proven to
be world-class
3a: Two-thirds of the research results submitted are excellent on a domestic scale, and some examples are thought
to be world-class
3b: More than half of the research results submitted are excellent on a domestic scale
2: Less than half of the research results submitted are excellent on a domestic scale
1: Of the research results submitted, almost none or none reached a level of excellence on a domestic scale.

188

2. Quality Assurance at Surrey University
This report will deal with the quality assurance system at Surrey University, as far as it can beunderstood from our three-day visit, along with various reference materials obtained.

The reportwill detail first the committee organization system and the processes for proposal and approval ofprogrammes, and subsequently the Periodic and Annual Reviews carried out based on internal
systems, as well as introducing the student feedback system, which is an important element ofassessment.

2.1 Introduction
What constitutes quality assurance within a university?

Surrey University has no particulardefinition of this, but follows the definitions given by organizations such as the British Standards
Institute and the QAA.

While this is not an official quotation, the definition of quality assurance

usually given by the QAA is as follows.
‘Assurance that the obligation to attain university criteria and a level of quality in teaching
programs and degrees is being met by people in responsible positions, based on methods andprocedures established by degree-awarding organizations and other responsible agencies’.
Surrey University has adopted and published a Policy Statement on Quality and Academic
Standards, which covers 8 principles (see University Handbook for details).

This is also referred toby the Academic Standards Guidelines (ASG).

2.2 University criteria and committee organization relating to quality assurance
The highest academic authority in the University is the Senate.

This is chaired by theVice-Chancellor of the University. Areas subject to quality assurance within University practice(teaching and learning, research and startups, staff development and training) are led by speciallyappointed Part-time Pro-Vice-Chancellors.

The Pro-Vice-Chancellors bear the responsibility ofaccountability to the Vice-Chancellor in regard to the developing and strengthening of the various
areas.
The Vice-Chancellor is the chair both of the Senate and of the newly created Executive Board.
The latter committee is based around the senior management team, which includes the heads of all
Schools. As of January 2003, heads of school are required to report to the Deputy Vice Chancellor(a newly created post).

The Director of Planning and Director of Information Services also reportto the Deputy Vice Chancellor.
The Pro-Vice Chancellor responsible for teaching and learning chairs the Academic Standards
Committee and the Teaching Policy & Development Committee.

These committees support the

Senate by debating and documenting policies in order to have them approved by the Senate.

189

The Pro-Vice-Chancellor responsible for research and startups is chair of the Research Committee.
This committee has the responsibility for considering and implementing the University’s research
objectives, as stated in the Vision Statement.
The Pro-Vice-Chancellor with responsibility for Staff Development chairs the Staff Development
Committee, the Health & Safety Committee and the Academic Staff Review Committee.
The Director or External Academic Relationships (a new post created in August 2002) is chair of
the Committee for Strategic Collaborative Provision, and is responsible for student recruitment
strategy, as well as development and management of the vision with regard to regional, domestic andinternational relationship policies.

He or she also bears responsibility for the establishment ofstrategic alliances with other organizations.
The Registrar offers management support to the Vice-Chancellor, and has responsibility for theprocessing and recording of students entering the University, examination preparation, as well as the
preparation and arrangement of QA activities that are organized centrally at the University.
Heads of Schools are responsible for the strategy, processing and implementation of regulations
regarding QA issues in their own schools.
The organizational structure of committees that are responsible for the management of quality
assurance and the University’s standards is as shown in Figure 1. The gray blocks in the figure
represent committees that are related to the University federation, while the white blocks represent
University-wide committees, and the black blocks show school committees.

Solid lines represent

relationships in which one organization reports directly to another, while dotted lines represent a
relationship in which information is exchanged between two parties.

190

FEDERALSENATEUniS SENATE

Executive
Board

Executive
Board Subcommittee

Validation
Board

Professional
Training
Committee

Academic
Standards
Committee

Validation/
Review
PanelsCommittee forStrategic
Collaborative
Provision

Staff
Development
Committee

Academic Staff
ReviewCommittee
SchoolAcademic
Board

School Policy& Strategy
Committee

SchoolResearch
Committee

SchoolTeaching
Committee

Key:

Teaching
PolicyDevelopment
Committee

Student
Progress &Assessment
BoardsSub-committee on
Collaborative
Agreements

Board(s)ofStudiesFederalSenateAwardsCommittee

FederalBoard for
AssociatedInstitutions

Board(s)ofExaminers

AssociatedInstitutions

Federal bodies
Reporting relationships
Central statutory or regulatory bodies
Coordinating/communication relationships
Typical School-level bodies
Associated Institutions

Figure 1: Relationships between the main committees responsible for standards and quality
assurance.

1912.3 Proposal and approval of programs
The following is an explanation of the procedure implemented for the consideration and approvalof new programs proposed by the University Schools. The structure of this process is as shown in
Figure 2.

(The procedure is similar for significant amendments, corrections or discontinuation ofexisting programs).
The first stage starts with the program being initially considered within the school and continues
until the new program proposal is approved by the school.
The second stage involves the new program, having been proposed by the school, being given
final approval by the Senate, chaired by the Vice-Chancellor.

Before this can happen, the programchanges also require approval at various stages by committees made up of differing members.

The

first two stages of this involve an outline of the new program being submitted for approval to the
Executive Board and the Senate.

Consideration of the full program details and theirappropriateness is done by a meeting of the Validation Panel which makes recommendations to thesebodies.
During the various stages of this operation, the leader of the team working on the new program
within the relevant school must discuss any issues with the Quality Assurance & Enhancement
Office, as well as seeking comments on the proposal from the Planning Department, the Library,
Computing Services and the Finance Department. During the second stage, further discussions
with appropriate responsible central staff are generally required.
Furthermore, before a new program can be proposed, it is necessary to implement a market survey
to establish demand for the program, and to hear the opinions of groups of specialists outside theUniversity and discuss the program with industry representatives. During these processes, it is not
permitted for the same person (i.e. a specialist or representative of industry) to be involved in morethan one capacity.
In figure 2, the word School is used on the left hand side.

These schools may be combined froma number of departments and form the main academic organisational base of the Institutional.
After initial validation which is normally for five years, further regular reviews are carried out(there are two types of review – an Annual Review and a Periodic Review – the latter isimplemented once every five years). The latter is not dissimilar to the initial validation process andincludes external membership in the review panel. External reviews are also carried out according tosubject, by the QAA (Quality Assurance Agency), professional bodies where relevant, and in an
operational sense by external examiners.

Reviews of this type are now being phased out by the

QAA who will in the future be taking an audit approach to university provision.
The fact that Surrey University educational system is subject to the influence of external agencies
in the approval process means that courses being proposed as a means to qualification are required tobe consistent with the level of qualification offered, as well as have established objectives andstandards within the discipline they represent, along with consideration in regard to access for people

192

with disabilities, and the approval of specialist industry bodies and legal bodies. The courses ofcourse also have to comply with Surrey University’s educational policies and strategies, as well aswith Quality Assurance standards.
It can be seen from this how the proposal of a new or amended program or course at the
University is examined at all levels starting with the school and proceeding to the University-wide.
Once a course is implemented, it is still subject to reviews and alterations as well as external auditing
and overall monitoring, all of which is built into the organizational structure.

193

STAGE A: INITIATION ANDSCHOOL APPROVALSTAGE B: APPROVAL &VALIDATION BY UNIVERSITY

Proposal
Development within
Department/School(Dev. Team)
Outline approval by
SenateProposals including
professional experienceor Associateship ofUniversity of Surrey
referred toProfessional Training
Committee for commentand approval

Submission ofoutline proposal
to appropriate
Board of Studies

Approval by
School’s Policy
and Strategy
Committee

FULL PROPOSAL(including syllabus
assessment
schemes)

Validation Board
appoints Validation
Panel
School obtains
outline approval
from the Executive
Board

Validation Panelconsiders proposal
and reports to
Validation

OUTLINEPROPOSAL
Incorporate in
School Plan

Any resource
implications notpreviously
considered reported
to the Executive
Board (as necessary)

Final approval by
Senate- recommendations
from Validation
Board reported

Figure 2: Procedure for consideration and approval of new programs.

1942.4 Periodic Reviews
The following is an explanation of the details and methods employed in Surrey University’s
periodic reviews.
(Purpose of periodic reviews)
1. Periodic reviews are the process by which University activities are re-approved. The University
periodically implements assessments to check that existing study programs are appropriate, meeting theneeds of the time, have appropriate aims and objectives as well as expected levels of achievement, andhave sufficient facilities.
(Frequency of program reviews)
2. Following on from approval, new study programs are subject to regular reviews.

The timing of thenext major review is usually recommended by the initial Validation Panel or the previous Review Panel
who approved the program.

The maximum period between reviews is five years.

Ordinarily,

therefore, a program will be fully reviewed after the first five years, and then every five subsequent
years. With the prior agreement of the Validation Board, a review can be delayed by up to one
academic year.
(The role of QAEO)
3. The Quality Assurance & Enhancement Office (QAEO) prepares a rolling program of program reviews,
including validation by appropriate groups of specialists, in order to be able to implement a review at
the appropriate time.

A yearly schedule of reviews is planned and implemented by the QAEO. The

implementation plan and yearly schedule for program reviews is reported annually to the Validation
Board and the Academic Standards Committee.
(The process of assessing programs)
4. Schools are advised to maintain close communication with an appropriate officer from the Registry
QAEO from an early stage in the process of program evaluation. These officers offer advice todirectors of studies who are to be responsible for the assessment process, or to assessment team leaders,regarding procedures, document creation, and other appropriate areas.
5. Periodic reviews by the university involve university staff outside the discipline as well as external
subject specialists, as for initial approval procedures.

In such cases, the inclusion of external

specialists as part of the Review Panel fulfills the requirement that external members should be part ofthe validation / accreditation process.
Specialist agencies are able to implement individual reviews for example for professional
accreditation purposes and sometimes have had an involvement in QAA subject reviews.. In the latter
case, the specialist agency will have its own criteria for judging the appropriateness of the program, forexample to meet an industrial professional need.. In order to be efficient in both time and effort,
attempts are made to unify the nature of documents required by different bodies including the
University although this has, in general, had limited success.
6. Ordinarily, periodic reviews are based on the same procedures as those employed in initial validation

195

and approval of a course. For this reason, as far as possible, documentation regarding reforms oramendments to the program is based around that used for the initial validation or previous periodic
review.
(Focal points of Program Review)
7. Focal points of the Program Review include critical evaluation areas and aspects that have beenreformed during the period under review. For this reason, documentation used in the periodic review
is required to use or refer to the Annual Program Reviews, and includes a critical evaluation of thestudy program since its initial approval, or the previous periodic review must also be included in thereport.

Comments must be made in particular regarding the following topics.

(1) Adjustments or changes that have been made to the program since its initial validation or previous
periodic review, with reasons for such changes(2) The level to which the program has attained the established aims and objectives, as well as student
targets.
(3) The level to which the program has achieved compatibility with applicable Benchmark Statements(4) The status of compliance with conditions or recommendations made at the initial validation orprevious periodic review(5) The status of compliance with conditions or recommendations made by specialist agencies or legal
bodies(6) The status of countermeasures implemented during the period under review in regard to issues raised
in external examiners’ reports(7) The status of countermeasures implemented as a result of QAA’s Subject Reviews(8) Feedback from students and improvements noted from this feedback(9) Changes in human and physical resources that have happened during the period under review(10) Proposals for improvements included in evaluation documentation(11) Status of student numbers, progress of academic activities, graduations, and recruitment. Thisshould be presented in terms of an analysis of numerical data, which should be included in the report.
(12) Predictions for the future(13) New measures being taken in terms of teaching or study methods(14) Issues / program evaluation results and countermeasures being implemented(15) Results of any accreditation process by specialist agencies and countermeasures being implemented.
(Adjustments to program)
8. If significant adjustments are to be implemented to a study program as a result of evaluation, the Boardof Studies is required to define a longer than usual planning stage for the course in question.

Similarly,

it is important to note that some specialist agencies have a policy of stating that the approval process
must be completed one year before the startup of the program, in other words, before the admission of
students to a program begins.
(Responsibility)
9. The periodic review of programs is the responsibility of schools. Schools have the responsibility for196managing and operating programs, and this is done by a Panel who are approved by the Validation
Board for this purpose. Responsibility for interdisciplinary programs of various types is held by theschool playing the major role in the program, while a program that is operated on a 50 / 50 basis by two
schools is the equal responsibility of both schools, unless both agree to make it the responsibility of one
or the other.
(Appointment of a Review Panel)
10. The Validation Board considers and approves the formation of a review panel who performs a detailed
review of the study program.

The Review Panel carry out the following tasks:(1) Evaluation of the philosophy, aims and objectives(2) Evaluation of the appropriateness, timeliness, structure and content of the program (including the staff
development period). In addition, evaluation of the compatibility, completeness and development
potential of the course in regard to established aims and objectives.

Also, evaluation of the

program’s compliance with conditions set by specialist agencies and legal bodies.
(3) Consideration of the rationale of proposed changes to the program, and details of such changes(4) Consideration of the nature of the teaching and learning process, as well as the appropriateness ofstudy results.
(5) Confirmation that the physical facilities and resources (including technical support) available to thestudy program are suitable to support the program’s needs.
(6) Confirmation of the appropriateness of teaching and specialist staff in regard to changes being
implemented as a result of initial validation or the previous periodic review, or changes anticipated in
the future.
(Recommendations regarding membership of the Review Panel)
11. The Review Panel must be comprised of a minimum of 4 members.
(1) The chair of the Panel must be a member of the Validation Board, but must not be a member of staff
related to the study program under review, or the school implementing the program.
(2) The Review Panel must contain a further two members of the University staff(3) The Review Panel must contain at least one member who is a specialist with appropriate experience inthe area of the study program, from outside the University
12. Members of the school with responsibility for the program, and members of joint researchorganizations, may not as a rule be part of the Review Panel. Where study programs are operated bymore than one school, however, or are operated by the University as a whole and involve several
schools, members of such schools may be part of the Review Panel.

School members, however, withdirect responsibility for teaching or directing programs, may not be selected.
13. The school may make suggestions for panel members to the QAEO.

Before potential members arenominated, unofficial confirmation will be sought from the individuals concerned to ascertain their
willingness to cooperate on review matters. The proposal is submitted directly to QAEO. At thistime, the following documents are required.
(1) Explanation of the process by which the candidate is being recommended197

(2) Explanation of the candidate’s relevant experience and specializations
14. Recommendations for members of the Review Panel must be approved by the Validation Board
before appointment by the QAEO.

Recommendations should be processed where possible within five

weekdays.
(Review Panel Report)
15. The Review Panel is to consider the documentation regarding the program, as well as to discuss the
program with school staff responsible for its implementation. Furthermore, the panel should usually
meet with students majoring in the study program under review. The Review Panel’s report is to bepresented to the Validation Board.
16. The Review Panel’s report should contain the Panel’s conclusions as well as any conditions or
recommendations it wishes to make.

The outcome should comprise one of the following categories:(1) Approval (with or without conditions, with a specified length of time for approval, not longer than 5
years)(2) Non-Approval (in this case, the Review Panel must indicate the area considered to have failed, andpropose suggestions for correcting this failure, as well as indicating a time period within whichalterations should be made).
17. The report should include an outline of main areas and conclusions as well as the structure, content
and methods used in assessment approval. The report should specify the following two aspects clearly,
along with appropriate periods for implementation.
(1) Conditions: Items in regard to which the Review Panel wishes to hear an explanation or see
satisfactory results by a specified time or date. If these are not fulfilled, the program is not to beapproved.
(2) Recommendations: Items in regard to which the Review Panel has reason to make suggestions which
it believes would benefit the program, despite considering the proposed program as being workable
as a whole.
(Confirmation and appeals in regard to the Report)
18. The Panel’s report is distributed to all members of the Review Panel for correction. Before issuing
the final edition of the report document, a copy of it is sent to the leader of the program under review toensure that the contents are accurate. The committee chair is involved in any adjustments at this stage,
before the final version is submitted to the Validation Board.

The Review Panel’s report isconsidered final once it has been approved by the Validation Board.

There are few examples ofappeals, but if a school believes there to be irregularities in the evaluation process, or in the case ofcomplaints against the expressions used to represent facts within the report or methods used in the
periodic review, comments regarding such are made in writing at the point at which the report is
submitted to the Validation Board for approval. Schools are entitled to express their opinions to thisboard, although appeals may not be made in regard to the academic judgment of the Review Panel.
One copy of the final report is kept on record by the QAEO.
(Role of the Review Panel chair)19819. The chair of the review panel bears the responsibility for ensuring that measures are taken bydepartments to implement actions in response to conditions (where given) or recommendations within
the defined period of time.

This responsibility is given by the Validation Board.

20. Suggestions from schools in response to conditions or recommendations presented in the Review
Panel’s report must be considered by the Review Panel.

Countermeasures, and the decision of the

Review Panel to accept or reject such measures, must be reported on to the Validation Board. The
responsibility for ensuring that such a report is made lies with the chair of the Review Panel.
(The role of the Academic Standards Committee)
21. The role of the Academic Standards Committee (ASC) within the periodic review process is to ensurethat the validation process is appropriate, being properly implemented and observed, and corrected atpoints where such correction is considered necessary.

It is, however, not part of the individual

approval process. In order to achieve this aim, the ASC receives schedules of periodic reviews andvalidations from the QAEO, as well as information regarding evaluation results and particular problems
that are considered to have significance for the improvement of the process itself.

2.5 Annual Reviews
The following section describes the content and method involved in Surrey University’s Annual
Reviews.

(Significance and Implementation Structure of the Annual Review)
1. The regular monitoring of study programs and research training / teaching activities is an importantpart of the University’s Quality Assurance activities
2. In addition to ongoing observation and evaluation activities, the Board of Studies carries out organizedreviews of study programs. The Board has the responsibility to implement this on an annual basis.
The Annual Program Review (APR) is required to be an accurate evaluation of the implementation of
the study program and its activities since the previous APR. The resulting APR can suggest whatchanges may occur in the program for consideration by the Board of Studies. The period during which
any changes are to be implemented must be set by the Board of Studies.
(Items considered by the APR)
3. The APR (see Figure 3) is compulsory, and is required to consider the following items.
(1) The status of student recruitment activities in regard to objectives(2) The status of academic results by students and the acquisition of degrees(3) Employment success among graduates(4) Changes to aims or content of the program where considered appropriate in consideration of its
implementation, or improvements in the level of academic or specialist skills, with consideration ofrequirements in regard to these, within the scope of regulations (in Figure 3, this is referred to as ‘Issues
raised previously by Board of Studies’)199

(5) Opinions or recommendations made by external examiners (in Figure 3, this is referred to as ‘External
Examines’ Reports and any actions previously taken in response’)(6) Evaluation and feedback by students(7) Issues arising from program validation and periodic reviews, specialist professional accreditation orprevious QAA program reviews(8) Changes to human or physical resources occurring as a result of needs within the program.
(Annual Review procedure)
4. The records of the Board of Studies are to include the annual review and any measures employed as aresult.

Copies of all Board of Studies records are kept by the QAEO.

5. The annual review and measures taken as a result usually provide the basis of periodic program
reviews, and a summary of the annual reviews must be included in the introduction to the periodic
review report. In addition, the School Academic Board must also include this information in its
annual report to the Senate.
(Procedure for changes to programs)
6. Annual and periodic reviews may result in small or significant changes to programs.

The procedurefor handling such changes is explained in the ‘University Standards Guideline 1: Procedures for
Validating the Proposal of New Programs or Changes to Existing Programs’200Recruitment

Progress andAwardsSchool [eg. Teaching
Committee/Policy &Strategy Commitee]• notes any issues of
School-wide concern;• refers issues forfurther consideration• uses Annual Review
to inform objectives
for following year
• use APR to inform
Periodic Reviews

Graduate
Destinations

Issues arising from
Validation,
Periodic Review,
QAA Subject
Review,
Professional
Accreditation

AnnualProgramme
Review report
produced by
Director of Studies

Board of Studies
discusses APR andagrees actions(recorded inminutes)

Analyticalsummary ofstudent feedback

APR appended (withagreed actions) to
Academic Board’s
Annual Report to
SenateResourcing isssues
Issues raised
previously by
Board of Studies(eg. last Annual
Review)

Senate receives
SchoolAcademic
Board’s Annual
ReportExternal
Examiners’ Reports
and any actions
previously taken in
response(summarized for
APR report)

Figure 3: The flow of Annual Program Reviews.

201

QAEO retains
APRs and notes
contents for
Periodic
Reviews

2.6 The role of students in Quality Assurance (student feedback)It goes without saying that one of the major aspects of a university’s work is the education of its
students. Asking students to evaluate the overall level of education they are being given at the
University is an extremely direct method of assessment, and as such it is useful for proposing
improvements.

Student feedback to the education program is done partly using questionnaires, butalso by student representatives who are elected to university and school committees.

The following

are examples of methods used at Surrey University.
(The need for feedback from students)
1. Student viewpoints make an important contribution to the development of the University program andvarious services.

For this reason, accurate student feedback in regard to various courses and subjects

is considered vital in the management and operation of study programs.

Schools decide forthemselves the detailed methods they will use to collect student feedback (including the questions to be
asked), but each year the Board of Studies will invite students to speak about their experiences, as wellas present written or electronic versions of feedback.
(Procedure for collecting feedback)2. As one part of the framework for quality assurance activities across the school as a whole, student
feedback in regard to taught subjects is considered based on the model shown in Figure 4.
is adjusted as appropriate to fit the needs of different disciplines.

This model

The figure shows Quality Loops,

which ensure that the system maintains visibility. Within Quality Loops, student feedback is included
in issues for staff development reviews, and where necessary is used to indicate particular problems
with staff development.
3. In order to maintain accuracy in terms of feedback contents, members of staff involved in the teachingof a particular subject are not permitted to be involved in the collection and / or analysis of student
feedback in that subject.

It is recommended therefore that student feedback regarding taught subjects

is analyzed by the Director of Studies or a third party nominated by the head of the school in question.
Comments made in regard to a particular named member of staff are usually removed from thesummary presented to the Board of Studies, and considered separately by the head of school or Directorof Studies.
(Responding to feedback results)
4. The responsibility for discussing the summary of feedback used as one aspect of the Annual Program
Review framework lies with the Board of Studies.
feedback.

Some schools have other methods of examining

Efforts are made to see that actual problems arising are dealt with quickly by the Directorof Studies or another member of the board, before it becomes necessary for them to be summarized anddiscussed by the Board of Studies.

Serious problems are dealt with immediately.

In such cases, theBoard of Studies is required to notify the action it is to take. Action completed by the Board, andactions taken in the past and reported upon, are all required to be recorded. A synopsis of the main
issues arising and any changes made to the program as a result should be included in the Annual202

Program Review.
(Notifying students of measures taken)
5. Measures approved by the Board of Studies must be reported to the student body. In most cases, thisis done by the Board of Studies reporting to the Student Representative (or through the Staff / Student
Consultative Committee, where such a body exists). Schools may also display summaries of measures
being taken on student notice boards or using other appropriate methods.
(Relationship to Staff Development)
6. It is recommended that the summary of course subjects is passed to the staff development reviewer for
use in Staff Development Review discussions.

Evaluation categories are used in establishingnecessary areas for staff development.
(Two-stage questionnaires)
7. There are various types of questionnaire.

The process shown in Figure 4 shows a two-stage model(the whole figure including shaded boxes), which is employed in order to avoid ‘questionnaire fatigue’.
This model involves a single questionnaire being used jointly for all subjects at first.

This allows

levels of satisfaction / dissatisfaction / agreement / disagreement to be checked in five stages, in
response to a small number of generalized questions, and gives a wide-ranging evaluation of courses
according to subject. A space for student comments is placed next to the check boxes.

This firststage questionnaire is used to detect courses that are showing problems, and these courses can beanalyzed further using a subsequent and more detailed questionnaire.

Schools are able to use

questionnaires for various other reasons as appropriate (such as the monitoring of a new course
subject).
(Student feedback regarding programs)
8. Questionnaires are also used as an opportunity to enquire as to the students’ opinions in regard to a
program as a whole, for example, the level of satisfaction with the consistency of a course, the numberof optional subjects, their relationship with teaching staff, the balance and loading of results evaluation
across subjects, study materials and environment within the department (the space available forcomputing or experiments, etc.), and their ease of use and quality. Departments are able to implement
detailed questionnaires in regard to single courses if they so choose. They are recommended, however,to use an overall evaluation at set stages (or the end) of a program.
(The others)
9. It is important to achieve a high rate of questionnaire retrieval in order to guarantee accuracy.
Departments are required to consider ways to improve their rate of questionnaire retrieval.
10. Examples of questionnaire format are available from QAEO.
11. The above is a record of student feedback as it is used as an aspect of accurate program monitoring.
As well as official feedback, individual tutor relationships between students and staff as part of the
University’s program of activities, as well as individual interaction, are also required, and it isimportant to remember that official feedback activities are only a part of the continuing conversation
between students and the University.

203

Students

Students complete questionnaires
and forward to School

Independent analytical summary(grades for each module andtranscription of student comments)
produced by Director of Studies/Deputy
Head of School (Teaching) - or othernominee of HoS

Director of Studies/DHoS sends eachmember of teaching staff theanalytical summary relating to theirmodules

Detailed module
questionnairecompleted

YES

Any
problems
identified withan individual
module?

Actions
communicated to
students (eg. throughstudent
representatives on
Board of Studies/
liaison committee- see para 8.5(2-stage process)NO

Incorporated insummary. If
necessary immediate
follow-up action istaken and monitored

Board of Studies receives analyticalsummary and agrees any further
actions. If necessary School-wideissues referred to appropriate body(e.g. Staff-Student Liaison Committee
where this is used)

Analytical summary(or relevant extract)
sent to Staff
Development
Reviewers - informs
Staff Development
Review s (SDR)

Brief synopsis of key issues
incorporated in Annual Programme
Review document

Any recommendationsof SDR incorporated in
Staff Development Plan

Figure 4: A model of student feedback in regard to course questionnaires.

2042. 7 Conclusions
Surrey University’s website states that the University’s unique features include 1) that it isinvolved in world-class research, 2) that its educational courses give a thorough grounding in study,
research and specialist professions, 3) that its educational facilities are top-level, 4) that it has anextremely high rate of employment among graduates, and 5) that it is an international university.

Inthis study, however, we are more interested not in establishing the truth of these statements, but infocusing on the reasons why the University chose to make these statements the defining features of
its activities.

This is largely to do with the Quality Assurance system operating within the

University. At Surrey, an assessment and improvement system is in place for education and study,
research and venture startups, and staff development.

These systems are functioning efficiently.

In particular, a high level of quality is achieved and maintained in various academic areas ofteaching and research programs that span several schools.

Our visit to Surrey University involved

meeting with various related staff and hearing their explanations of quality assurance in various
contexts, and we felt that the system and its applicability are very convincing. The files used to
explain the presentation were also extremely well prepared, and explanations were easy tounderstand. The fact that the speakers seemed used to presenting their material is a mark of thelevel to which they are involved in quality assurance activities as part of their daily routines.
Recently there have been some significant changes in the composition of students entering
universities.

Students come from a range of educational backgrounds and cultures (ways ofthinking).

Against this background, universities face the important challenge of establishing andoperating a quality assurance system that will allow these students from diverse backgrounds topolish their own unique skills in a way that can be useful in society.

Our visit to Surrey University,

as a university which has established and is operating such a system and maintaining a high level ofuniversity activity, was a valuable experience from this point of view.

The study team very muchhopes that it will be possible to establish a high-quality quality assurance system at Kyushu Instituteof Technology based on the experience of this visit.

205

3. Surrey University and partnerships with Industry
Surrey University has one of the highest levels of partnership with industry of all universities in
the UK.

The organization that plays the main role in industry / academia partnerships is known as

UniSdirect. Based on the philosophy that a university has access to technology and intellectual
property that is useful to the world at large, and that this has potential to promote economic
development, Surrey University founded UniSdirect in 2001.

Prior to UniSdirect, the University

already had a Business Liaison Office, which had been open since the 1970s, and had established the
Office for Research and Commercial Services in 1980s, and the Office for Research Support andUniversity Enterprise in 1996.

The Surrey Research Park also opened in 1980.

3.1 UniSdirect
The main objectives of UniSdirect are as follows:- To vitalize and promote research activities within the University- To pioneer, develop and promote partnerships with industry and commerce- To protect and utilize intellectual property belonging to the University- To develop and promote University corporate activities and venture startups.
In addition, through technical training and the use of University specialist knowledge and facilities, theUniversity is able to offer greater support to regional corporations and businesses, and play a role insupporting their development.

This is also the role of UniSdirect.

In order to fulfill the objectives outlined above, UniSdirect has the following functions.
- Supporting corporate and business activities, and venture startups- Extracting intellectual property that emerges as a result of research and development, andprotecting it.
- Utilizing intellectual property- Supporting small and medium sized regional enterprises- Supporting research and development- Marketing research and development- Supporting policy-making
Of these functions, the office on the Research Park maintains relationships between the University andexternal organizations, while support for University research and activities related to intellectual property
are handled at the University campus office.

3.1.1 Support for corporate activities and venture startups
Surrey University considers its own activities as a base for corporate activities.
has started up six venture companies, as will be explained below.

206

The University

(1) Seed funding
Seed funding is allocated to projects that emerge from within University research and are considered
to be investment opportunities that guarantee a good return. The investment sums range from 5,000
GBP to 100,000 GBP (around 1 million to 20 million yen), and investments are made to new companies
in return for equity, or to other projects in return for a share of profits. This funding is managed
jointly by the Universities of Surrey, Sussex, Reading, Brunel and Royal Holloway.
(2) Business Hatchery
UniSdirect has established a pre-incubation facility known as the Business Hatchery on its Research
Park, with the aim of developing ideas within a supportive and guiding environment, so that they canreach the stage where a business startup becomes possible.

The Hatchery does not involve only

University staff and students, but is also offered for use to external clients. At present, the Hatcheryoffers 15 spaces, of which 14 are in use. 9 of these are being used by external venture corporations,and 5 by University ventures.
(3) SETsquared
The UniSdirect SETsquared center offers facilities and specialist knowledge to intellectually based
businesses with particular ideas that have high latent potential for growth and are still in theirpioneering stages.
partnership.

Surrey University is one of four universities participating in the SETsquared

The others are Southampton, Bristol and Bath.

3.1.2 Intellectual Property
The University owns all intellectual property created by students or staff. UniSdirect manages theprotection and commercial use of University intellectual property. Intellectual property is utilized
either by licensing or directly in University venture startups, as appropriate. 14 licenses were grantedby the University between 2001 and 2002.
The University’s basic policy in regard to licensing is as follows:- The implementation of trade negotiations based on a realistic awareness of risks and return- Ensuring development with a wide potential for application- Ensuring that the licensed party is granted the appropriate rights to enable commercial
development- Ensuring that as many corporations as possible can be granted rights to intellectual property- Ensuring that various applications can be developed in parallel.
Table 1 (below) shows the distribution ratio of profits gained through licensing.

207

Table 1: Distribution ratio of profits gained through licensing
Developer

CenterUniversity

70%

15%

15%

50%

25%

25%

40%

30%

30%

35%

35%

30%

£50,000 or less
(10 million yen or less)£50,000 – 150,000(10 to 30 million yen)
£150,000 – 250,000(30 to 50 million yen)
£250,000 or more
(50 million yen or more)

3.1.3 Support for regional small and medium sized enterprises(1) UniSconnect
UniSconnect is a new business club for small and medium sized corporations, which is provided sothat members can take advantages of the many resources owned by Surrey University.

The club isfunded by membership fees.
(2) Surrey Enterprise Hub
Surrey Enterprise Hub consists of 30 corporations local to the Surrey area, which have been foundedin the region by SEEDA (the South East England Development Agency).

The main purpose of thisprogressive experiment is to promote economic development in the area shown below.
- Providing a forum in which regional corporations are networked together.
- Promoting the involvement of entrepreneurs in skills, research, technical reforms and businesssupport.
- To provide and promote the use of flexible operating space- To promote the use of capital in early stage businesses
The Surrey Enterprise Hub is supported by cooperative relationships between the University ofSurrey, Royal Holloway University of London, Leatherhead Food Research Association and Business
Link Surrey.
The Hub focuses on startups with high potential for growth in high-level technological areas such as
digital technology, new media, information security, bioscience and food science. In addition, theUniversity owns the Research Park for small and medium enterprises, which is described below.

3.1.4 Support for research and development
The University supports its staff in undertaking research commissions and technical consultancies,

208

through providing information relating to research, checking research contracts, and other aspects.

3.1.5 Marketing research and development
UniSdirect has an innovations network manager, who works on marketing of research anddevelopment, as well as an innovation forum, which operates as a showcase for research.
UniSdirect also has special advisers.

The Surrey TCS Center cooperates with the implementationof the University’s TCS (Teaching Companies Scheme), through promoting the transfer of skills andknowledge between the University and corporations.

3.1.6 Support for policy making
UniSdirect supports the policy making procedures of the following organizations, through the work of
special advisers.
- Government Office of the South East (GOSE)- South East England Development Agency (SEEDA)- South East Regional Assembly (SERA)- Surrey County Council- Surrey Community Strategy- Surrey Economic Partnership- Local District Councils- Higher Education South East (HESE)

3.1.7 Financial Information
UniSdirect has an annual budget of 1.8 million GBP (approximately 360 million yen).

Of this,620,000 GBP (approximately 124 million yen) come from the University, for research support andenterprise support. 200,000 GBP per year (approximately 40 million yen) is obtained from theHEIF in order to support the Research Park’s Hatchery. 300,000 GBP per year (approximately 60
million yen) is being paid over a period of thee years by HEIF to support the Innovation Network
Manager and the TCS center.

A further 300,000 GBP (approximately 60 million yen) is suppliedby the European Social Fund, while 400,000 GBP (approximately 80 million yen) comes from theHigher Education Reach Out to Business and the Community funding.

3. 2 The Surrey Research Park
Surrey University maintains a Research Park 1.5km from its campus, with an area of 28ha.

The

Park is currently in the process of being developed. The venue has a market value of 70 million
GBP (approximately 14 billion yen), and generates income for the University.

209

It provides aprofitable venture development service

and is playing a valuable role in encouraging economic

development within the region. More than 150 companies are engaged in research over a wide
range of subjects, and the Park employs over 2,500 staff.
University campus are focused on the Research Park.

The activities of UniSdirect outside theThis includes the Business Hatchery and the

TCS center, as well as the SETsquared center.

3. 3 Venture startups emerging from the University
Surrey University encourages the utilization of research results, and works hard to raise the spiritof enterprise among teaching staff, researchers, students and other staff.
success stories in regard to venture startups.

The University has several

Patrick Dowling, the Vice-Chancellor, believes thatcommercializing research is an important strategy for universities, as well as a way of closing the
gap in financial resources held by various universities.
The most successful venture corporation that has come from Surrey University has been the
Surrey Satellite Technology Limited.

The company has a building on the University campus. To

date, it has launched 22 small-scale satellites on behalf of developing countries, and achieved salesof 90 million dollars (approx. 11 billion yen).

The company has a reputation for being a world

leader in terms of small-scale satellite applications and technology.
Other examples of University venture corporations are as follows:-Cybersense (In-situ bio remediation)-IECOS (Environmental system analysis and software)-Toric (Anti-jitter electronic circuits for semiconductor chips)-OmniPerception (Facial perception technology and software)-Creative X-Ray (Technology that reduces X-ray exposure in airport security systems)

3.4 Conclusions
The following section deals with the industry / academia partnerships maintained by Kyushu
Institute of Technology, and a comparison with those of Surrey University.

Suggestions are madefor ways in which the Kyushu Institute of Technology should be looking to change in the future.
Kyushu Institute of Technology (henceforth referred to as KIT) was established as an engineering
vocational school, and has a history dating back almost 100 years.

Its history and age are similar to

those of Surrey University, and Surrey University’s philosophy in regard to industry / academia
partnerships contains much that is useful to KIT.
In preparation for the independent incorporation of national universities in 2004, KIT’s President
Miyasato has noted that academia / industry partnerships will be one of the pillars that support the
University in the future.

Industry / academia partnerships were not possible under the conventional

national universities system, due to various restrictions, but such policies and strategies become210possible once the universities are incorporated, and it is thought that the incorporation system willbring a breath of fresh air to regional engineering and science-based universities.

The visit to

Surrey University enabled us to examine various possibilities related to this. In addition, thepromotion of industry / academia partnerships was clearly seen to be making a direct contribution to
the development of the university as well as the growth of the regional economy.
KIT has established a Center for Cooperative Research, which is involved in industry / academia
partnerships.

The center was opened in 1989, and a second site established (the Iizuka site) in 2000.

In preparation for incorporation, further attention is being paid to industry / academia partnerships
and their promotion, and the Institute is involved in building up the joint research center, with theintention of changing its organization into an industry / academia partnership center.
In preparation for the establishment of the Industry / Academia Partnership Center, specificproposals that arose as a result of this visit are as follows.
- Conventionally, the has operated with a liaison function involving one member of the Institute’s
academic staff for each member of the corporation involved (particularly in cases proposed bycorporations). In the future, it is thought that there will be a particular need to market researchand development emerging from the Institute in an organized way, and the Industry / Academia
Partnership Center should play a central role in this.
- The Center for Cooperative Research is planning an industry / academia partnership club(provisionally named the Kyutech Club) similar to UniSdirect at Surrey University. The club
will charge a membership fee, and it is hoped that around 500 members will be recruited fromamong small and medium enterprises in the local area.
- Conventionally, a large number of patent rights have been granted to the individuals engaged inresearch in cases of inventions or discoveries by teaching staff at national universities. Since,
however, it is extremely difficult for individuals to actively utilize patent rights, and since, also, it
has become possible for universities to hold the rights to patents once they are incorporated, it islikely that patent rights on discoveries or inventions by university staff will in the future lie withthe universities. At present, patents held by the state pay a 30% dividend of their income to theinventor. Once the Institute is incorporated, however, it is thought that raising the percentage
paid to the inventor, along the lines of that paid by Surrey University, will reward staff efforts inresearch, and promote the positive involvement of industry in the development of new technology.
At present, the Institute is applying to the Ministry of Education to be allowed to develop anIntellectual Property Office.
- KIT is currently in the process of developing an incubation facility at its Iizuka Campus, as one
aspect of its strategy to support venture startups within the Institute. This visit was of great help
to us in terms of the amount of ideas generated by visiting the Hatchery and understanding thephilosophy of pre-incubation. In fact, KIT intends to include a pre-incubation space within the
new facility, to support technical ventures at the idea level. In particular, we intend to allow
students to use this space free of charge.

211

The overall impression gained was that the financial scale of the two organizations is not reallycomparable, and the distribution of human resources is also significantly better at Surrey. These areboth reflections of the importance of industry / academia partnerships.
Kita Kyushu and Iizuka cities are both potentially important centers of regional economic growth thatcan play an important role in the future of KIT. At the same time, Surrey University is also contributing
significantly to the development of the regional economy in its area. KIT must also take seriously its
responsibility in this area, and we are convinced that this itself will contribute to the development of theInstitute.

4. Future developments
On May 28, 2003, an international exchange agreement was signed by the President of Kyushu
Institute of Technology, Tatsuro Miyasato, and the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Surrey,
Patrick Dowling.

The two men met for the first time in February 2002, and various types ofinterchange have taken place since then at different levels throughout the universities.
Last September, we hosted Professor Peter Bunyan, Surrey University’s specialist on regional
partnerships, in a stimulating series of lectures and advice sessions at our Center for Cooperative
Research.

In addition to this, KIT was selected as a participant in the Japan-UK Higher Education

Change Management Project, organized by the National Institute for Academic Degrees andUniversity Reviews, as part of which our President and six other members of staff were able to visit
Surrey University.

The results of this visit are outlined in this report.

Stimulated by the Japan-UK Higher Education Change Management Project, we are extremely
glad to have been given the opportunity to form this exchange and cooperation link with Surrey
University, since the University has such high standards.
In particular, this link is not an agreement only for educational and research exchange purposes,
but also includes the sphere of industry / academic partnerships and regional partnerships, and it issignificant for this reason that the agreement has been made with Surrey University, which isextremely progressive in all these areas.

In particular, Surrey University provides an excellent

example of a University that has striven to improve its research and educational standards, andachieve budgets appropriate to the level at which it is evaluated, and additionally, take proactive
measures to significantly increase its external funding, through technology transfer, industry /academic partnerships, local partnerships, etc. – all areas in which Kyushu Institute of Technology iscurrently engaged.
We are convinced that the agreement made with Surrey University will be a significant catalyst in
moving Kyushu Institute of Technology in the direction it needs to take for the future.

212

2003 年 9 月
編集・発行 大学評価・学位授与機構〒185-8587 東京都小平市学園西町 1-29-1
TEL 042-353-1622〜3
印刷・製本 昭和情報プロセス㈱〒108-0073 東京都港区三田 5-14-3
TEL 03-3452-8451