news & articles

WONKHE 360 Perspectives Report – a sector cry for a new culture of leadership and governance.

May 21, 2019

Well done to WONKHE; their 360 perspectives report is a fascinating read. The message that came out loud and clear for me was the need for the sector to urgently refresh its culture of leadership and governance. A need to be much more open, engaged, transparent and inclusive.

My favourite quotes…

“Strategies that do not acknowledge challenges of simply business as usual are unlikely to be perceived as credible”

“The diversity of students is not reflected in the mainstream policy narrative.”

“Change is required, and that nostalgia for a golden age is not an adequate response to the external policy environment.”

“Where lacklustre leadership may be tolerated when funding and students are plentiful, the demands on leaders is to be bold, inspiring and engaging increase in times of organisational challenge.”

“Governors were perceived as lacking relevant experience, constrained by the information presented to them by the university executive and vulnerable to group-think.”

“Nobody believes that a ‘steady as she goes’ or ‘business as usual’ strategy will lead to success in these uncertain times”

“The current model of policy making is much more public, more aggressive and inevitably less nuanced but it opens up a space for deeper and wider engagement in shaping policy among those working at the front line of higher education.”

“There is little confidence that strategies are sufficiently creative or distinctive to drive investment decisions attract disproportional numbers of students and give the institution enough financial headroom to handle Brexit, pensions, Augar or other external factors”

“Leaders need to show empathy and identify with their staff and students to show that changes are not needlessly or simply commercially driven. Hence the male pale and stale change is such a warning sign. In the coming years, all universities will be developing their leadership strategies to build diverse, inclusive and high-performing leadership teams”

“Many governance arrangements were designed for a different age. They have old fashioned and cumbersome processes and rules.”

It feels like the time has come for those of us in leadership and governance roles to think afresh about how we develop institutional strategy and develop an inclusive culture. We don’t need to be heroic leaders, we need to be collegiate leaders.

Susie Hills is Joint CEO at Halpin Partnership, a management consultancy specialising in governance for higher education.

OfS views on potential threats & opportunities to the HE Sector

May 20, 2019

Skimming the latest OfS Board papers for March, I came across a report from their Horizon Scanning Panel discussion of potential threats and opportunities to the Sector.

My recent blog talked about Councils striking the right balance between time spent on strategy including horizon planning, and time spent on compliance/regulation. The OfS Board report may be useful for Council members but as they are unlikely to see the report, it may worth drawing attention to it here.

The aim of the Panel is “to look to the future over the 5-10-year horizon and anticipate and consider trends that will affect students, the sector and the OfS, with a view to recommending practical action wherever possible”.

The report states that the “introduction and implementation of our regulatory framework is expected to have a profound effect on the sector over time”. Possible implications include:

  • an increase in new smaller entrants;
  • challenges to the more traditional widely practiced methods of teaching;
  • the creation of more diverse routes to higher education where fair access and success thrives; and
  • potentially (in conjunction with the Post-18 Review) increased provision through further education along with greater consistency in regulation.

Other threats and opportunities discussed included:

Social Trends:

  • a risk that censorship undermines freedom of speech and thought;
  • expectations of higher education providers being the main way of breaking the social mould to improve individuals’ prospects without due regard to other factors;
  • (lack of) awareness of the breadth and depth of what providers do and their impact;
  • changing perceptions of the value of a higher education qualification;
  • high living costs impacting on affordability of studying away from immediate locality.

Global mega trends:

  • demographic changes including falling birth rates, increased longevity, and increasing inequality.

The changing world of work:

  • the nature of work and attitudes towards it continue to change, as do the skill demands of the labour market.

Artificial Intelligence (AI):

  • “If implemented correctly there is the possibility of providers utilising AI to contribute to making high quality education available to all through technological innovations and machine learning”.

There is a section entitled “A brilliant sector” which states,“UK providers have a strong track record and continue to foster innovative provision, and this translates to a powerful international brand. It will be important to consolidate this and maintain the standards of education that have been reached”.

It would have been interesting to be a fly on the wall during this discussion, as maintaining that position must be on every Council’s agenda given the multiple threats being experienced - often as a result of government actions e.g., student visas, EU research funding and Brexit generally. .

The other element I found interesting was the use of the language of risk – threats and opportunities - and it may be worth considering how horizon scanning better connects to the University risk processes. A topic for another day. Meanwhile the OfS list should be a useful one for Councils to consider alongside their own.

Frank Toop is a Consulting Fellow for Halpin – a management consultancy specialising in governance for the higher education sector.

Governance Effectiveness 2020

Apr 09, 2019

During a recent governance effectiveness review, I was asked, “How one measured governance effectiveness”? This got me thinking. Every year, the press brings to our attention where the governance in Universities has encountered problems. This year, we have Swansea University, University of Reading, De Montfort University and there will be others which escape press attention. Last year, the University of Bath and Bath Spa University. So, it is useful to consider what can go wrong but also what constitutes good governance practice and what changes might be needed in the future.

Good governance

In a governance effectiveness review, we consider questions such as:

  • Are the right people around the table and was the meeting well chaired?
  • Were the members actively involved in decisions?
  • Could they say what they really thought?
  • Was there good challenge and was the debate constructive and supportive?

These issues will continue to be extremely important and will need continual review – governance is primarily about people and the way they interact, and the key people, officers, members and the executive, change frequently. Many governance failures arise because basic good practice principles fail. However, if these governance practices are good, in what areas will governing bodies have to improve their effectiveness in the future?

From Compliance to Culture

The Financial Reporting Council report on “Corporate Culture and the Role of Boards” stated that establishing and monitoring the culture, values and ethics of the company was a key role of the Board and the importance of this increased further when the value of the company was vested primarily in the quality of its people. In Higher Education, the governance focus has tended to be on compliance rather than culture. In the private sector and the NHS, Board and organisational culture is increasingly the focus, since compliance has not proved enough to prevent damaging crises. The report noted that “cultural failures damage reputation and have a substantial impact on shareholder value”. A recent headline in the Times reads, “We betrayed our values says Oxfam Chief”. For Board members – “spending time in the business is critical for getting a sense of the prevailing culture in different parts of the business.” In Universities, engagement by Council with staff and students is essential, so that they feel able to voice their ideas and concerns and Council members can understand the prevailing culture and challenge it constructively.

Focus on Strategy & Risk

The pressure on Universities is increasing with risks multiplying in areas such as Brexit, reputational management, (e.g., VC pay, grade inflation, unconditional offers), wafer-thin financial margins, value for money, staff and student well-being, and Regulation with the arrival of the OfS. Councils and the Executive will need to consider how much time they spend in the future on reviewing and discussing strategy and risk, as against compliance and regulation. Universities now have systems in place to manage risk and are able to tick the compliance box that they are “risk managed” but how useful is this really? How can risk management move to a more proactive position where it informs strategy and supports decisions? Universities will also want to consider how they do horizon scanning and how that feeds into strategy and how best to manage their discussions about strategy.

The Governance role in Universities has never been more difficult and ensuring Councils are well-equipped for the ride ahead has never been more important.

Frank Toop is a Consulting Fellow for Halpin Partnership, the home of experts in governance, marketing, strategy and fundraising in higher education.

Why can we ‘plan and do’ but not review?

Mar 20, 2019

It intrigues me that most organisations have formal systematic processes in place for planning and building budgets, but fewer have similarly systematic processes which enable them to review their plans, assess the impact of their work and re-shape budgets accordingly.

It appears that we all find it easier to plan and put new things in place than we do to review how our plans have turned out and, if required, consider how we can dismantle and re-build things. Perhaps most leaders are by nature innovators – delivering new plans and ideas – and less likely to be focused on assessment and review. I certainly fall into this trap and can be magpie-like – distracted by shiny new toys. Yet I have learnt over time that sometimes you have to radically review your approach and re-shape your teams. Even if you are the one that built them up and your plans were sound, unless you are open to changing them you will have less impact.

Often departments build up over time incrementally. A post here, a post there, each one individually justified. The postholders work hard and justify their keep. They deliver results and they plan how they can grow their work. Reviews of these departments and their work tend to only happen when something has gone wrong, results are disappointing, a Director leaves or budget constraints are so severe there is no other way.

And yet the power of effective review shouldn’t just be used when things have gone wrong or when external forces align against us. We should constantly review our plans and consider how we can redeploy our resources in response to the needs of our institution and changes in the market. Locking resources into areas which were a priority and are no longer a priority is wasteful and distracting. It’s a luxury we can’t afford anymore, and ultimately it’s frustrating to those working in that area too – most people are fully aware of the impact they are having and whether their work is seen as a priority by their institution.

The Halpin team have become known for our work on Reviews. Our team approach reviews in a systematic way. We establish the scope and agree objectives. We listen, learn and understand the context. We explore institutional strategy and priorities. We assess the data and evidence – quantitative, qualitative and comparative. We offer observations, recommendations and options. And we peer-review our work to ensure we are drawing in the right insight from a variety of experience bases. Our work aims to take our clients towards best practice in their sector and form an actionable plan to bring about the desired change. This kind of review should be empowering to the client, enabling them to achieve their goals more quickly.

Bringing in an external review team can enable you to consider how you tackle change objectively, dispassionately. It can open up honest, productive discussion on areas which felt impossible to change. It can empower your team to bring about the changes they have been pushing for but unable to secure. It can help you to bring about a culture of regular review by modelling how it can be done in any part of your institution.

The Halpin team are not career consultants; we are people who have delivered change at senior levels in a variety of institutions. We have walked in your shoes and know what it took to bring about change. We work with care and discretion. We value the work you do and want to enable you to do it better.

Whether you work with Halpin to undertake a review or drive the review process yourself internally, building a systematic review process will be essential if you are to be able to respond to the changing marketplace. The key steps are simple:

  • Establish the scope
  • Agree objectives
  • Understand the context
  • Focus on institutional strategy and priorities
  • Assess the data and evidence – quantitative, qualitative and comparative
  • Make clear observations and recommendations
  • Test findings through peer review
  • Define options
  • Establish action plan

Halpin delivers reviews across the higher education sector. Two recently completed projects include a Review of Council Effectiveness at University of Bath, and a Race Equality Review at Central School of Speech and Drama. To discuss the particular needs of your institution, get in touch.

Case Study - University of Bath, Governance Review

Aug 13, 2018

Our flagship Governance Review at the University of Bath was commissioned following the high-profile coverage that the University was receiving regarding its remuneration policies and Vice-Chancellor pay.

This coverage developed into a brief to review of the effectiveness of Council and its sub-committees, which Halpin was selected to lead based on our breadth of experience both inside and outside of the higher education sector. Best practice across HE and beyond was a key aspect of the brief, as well as identifying areas for improvement in the current governance model and communicating these to the University community.

Our work found an institution already making improvements to its governance effectiveness, strengthening the way in which it consults and communicates with University stakeholders. Our final report was essential in guiding the University from governance compliance to governance best practice.

Download the full Halpin Governance Review for the University of Bath here.

Outcomes

  • Consultation with a large base of stakeholders: 1,392 survey responses, 49 individual interviews and 52 individuals in groups sessions,
  • A comparison of higher education sector best practice,
  • 15 Primary Recommendation and 55 Supporting Recommendations towards effectiveness and becoming an exemplar of good practice in the higher education sector, and also learning from other sectors.

U of Bath image_edited.jpg

There’s too much to do, to review.

Aug 01, 2018

This autumn, university governing bodies will be meeting with a long list of concerns. From the Office for Students (OfS) to student numbers to the National Student Survey (NSS) and the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF).

Perhaps tough finances, which require cost-cutting.

There will be many reports from staff leading on these areas to digest. There will be strategies to approve.

There will be long agendas and lots of papers to plough through.

In amongst all this there is likely to be a note on governance and remuneration following the Committee of University Chairs (CUC)and OfS guidance. There might be a suggestion of a governance review (currently recommended every 4-5 years). There might be a sigh of relief that such a review isn’t ‘due’.

But given all the changes and the challenges facing higher education, this might be the very time to review – whether it’s due or not.

There are good reasons to consider a governance review:

  • Compliance – guidance is evolving and changing – and what was compliant 3-4 years ago may not be compliant today.
  • Risk – the expectations of stakeholders have changed, and the media has a high level of interest in governance – and particularly remuneration.
  • Performance – the pressure on Universities is greater than ever, with performance being measured in a raft of ways – NSS, TEF, the Research Excellence Framework (REF), league tables…. Your governing body needs to be strongly focused on performance and market insight.
  • Culture – It’s been a tough year in many institutions, with cuts in expenditure (and jobs), strikes over pensions and media focus on universities. Good governance is as much about the culture of an institution as it is about compliance and governing bodies need to take the pulse of staff and students and understand the culture in their organisations.

But most importantly…

  • Longer term strategy – any institution facing the level of change and the number of strategic decisions that a typical university is going to have to make over the coming year/s will need to know it has top-notch governance in place. The decisions taken now will shape the institution you will be in 3, 5, 10+ years. The sector is changing quickly, and you need to know where your institution should place itself. It’s hard for even the best-informed governors to keep abreast of the challenges and changes in HE and to critically review all the information presented to them. It’s also hard to involve governors in detailed discussion and debate when there is so much ‘business’ to get through.

At its best, governance is about looking forward strategically, and considering future options. It goes far beyond checking for compliance and managing risk. In amongst all the ‘business’ it’s hard to find time for this, but a review of governance can help you to consider how you can be more efficient and more strategic.

A review can help you to develop your governance practices to ensure that you are compliant, managing risk, monitoring performance, understanding culture and developing longer term strategy. It will help you to answer questions such as:

  • Do you have the right minds around the table?
  • Do you have diversity of views?
  • Is the right information being considered at the right time?
  • Are the right benchmarks in place?
  • Are the meetings working?
  • Is there the right committee structure in place?
  • Are there the right levels of consultation?
  • How good is communication?
  • Is there a culture of transparency?

Seeking an external review should not come from a fear of failure and noncompliance (most institutions will be compliant); it should be about aiming for best practice and governance that supports your institution to thrive in uncertain times.

Whether it’s time for a review (or not) maybe it’s time for a fresh view.

The Halpin Review team combines years of senior leadership knowhow with ‘boots on the ground’ experience, and we’re here to help you. Get in touch to find out more.

A new recipe for higher education governance

Jun 18, 2018

A dash of ‘business’ and a dollop of ‘charity’ – the recipe for Vice-Chancellor pay?

The governance of our universities has focused inwards and concentrated on compliance rather than focusing outwards and on culture. This lack of focus on culture is very risky.

It has become clear that compliant organisations can fail through catastrophic cultural shortcomings. If you focus on targets rather than compassion in a hospital or deliberately advocate a “hostile” immigration environment then don’t be surprised if you get Mid Staffs and Windrush.

In higher education there have been two (sometimes seemingly irreconcilable) positions as to what the culture of governance (and remuneration) should be. One might label them as the “business” view and the “charity” view.

The “business” view holds that universities are complex, global corporations, in a highly competitive market, which need to be run as businesses, albeit for a public purpose.

The “charity” view emphasises universities as part of their communities, as charitable endeavours which should be run in participatory, transparent manner.

What has this meant for VC pay?

The “business’ view has been dominant in past remuneration practice. Remuneration Committees have been populated by independent, external non-executive governors who have drawn pay comparisons with the private sector, North America and Australia, in addition the transparent publication of VC pay has had the unintended consequence of causing an inflationary spiral – which self -respecting chair of council wants her or his VC to be bottom of the pile?

However increasingly staff, students, stakeholders (and politicians) tend towards the ‘charity’ view – looking to other locally provided services for comparators such as health and local government (or even the Prime Minister!) as comparators for VC pay. There is a hunger for transparency and participation in decision making and a belief that the remuneration of senior staff should not be excessively out of kilter with the ‘rank and file’.

There must be a way for governing bodies to bring together the best of ‘business’ and ‘charity’ and establish a new culture of governance and remuneration practice.

A small number of universities have made the important step of including staff and student members on their Remuneration Committees. It’s not a straightforward thing to do since neither staff nor students are independent in the sense that external governors are and may be conflicted by the expectations of their peers. However, with training and support there is no reason to believe that they will not behave responsibly and sensibly. They have the advantage of bringing the ‘charity’ view to the table and ensuring it is considered alongside the ‘business’ view. Unhelpful caricatures of plutocratic governors drawn from business or politically motivated staff and students need to be avoided since, when they sit down together, they are very likely to find there is much more that unites than divides them. They are all passionate about HE.

This feels like a smart direction of travel.

The creation of the Office for Students (whose clue is in its title) and the increasing exploration of employees’ interests being represented on boards eg from the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) mean that the governance model of universities with a lay majority but strong staff and student representation may increasingly be regarded as an exemplar.

The CUC has now made welcome steps to reform the remuneration section of its code for governors. Chairs of governing bodies will no longer Chair remuneration committees and vice-chancellors will not be members, although the CUC code does not go as far as the equivalent Scottish Code in envisaging staff and students being part of the solution.

It’s clear that Universities are being expected to reform their governance (and remuneration) and the recipe for success should marry the best of practice from all sectors.

After all Universities are private corporations with a public purpose and have charitable status. The public and the private should be mutually reinforcing, never mutually exclusive. Compliance should be seen as an entry ticket to the much more interesting world of corporate culture – a world in which success lies in greater transparency and greater participation.

Susie Hills

The frustrating truth about interdisciplinary institutes.

Sep 05, 2017

We all know that we cannot solve the biggest problems facing our society, economy or environment without working across disciplines.

Funders and philanthropists know they can’t achieve the impact they seek without encouraging interdisciplinary working and academics know that some of the most exciting and impactful research is being done in this inter disciplinary space. Young academics are interested in developing their careers in an interdisciplinary environment and the students of the future seem less concerned with disciplinary boundaries.

All this should mean that the various interdisciplinary institutes in our universities are thriving.

The frustrating truth is that the way our universities are structured, governed and managed places obstacles in the path of an interdisciplinary approach.

Many institutions have been creating physical space in which researchers (and less often students) from a variety of disciplines can work together – building some form of interdisciplinary institute. Interdisciplinary institutes which endeavour to capitalise on these spaces or seek to foster collaboration in a “virtual” space have existed for many years and continue to be created.

This trend has been encouraged through the availability of capital funding through HEFCE and foundations such as Wellcome and Wolfson.

Around the UK architects have been briefed to create space that fosters interdisciplinary working and their solutions are beautiful and often a joy to work in.

From the Environment and Sustainability Institute at the University of Exeter’s Cornwall campus. Funded through EU Convergence monies.

To the Discovery Centre at University of Dundee. Funded through a Wellcome-Wolfson Capital Award in Biomedical Science of £5 million and a £12 million award through the UK Research Partnership Investment Fund.

Most of these new buildings share some common features – informal social and work spaces, cafes, flexible meeting spaces, open plan offices and shared lab spaces.

However, it takes more than a new building to bring about an increase in interdisciplinary research.

Without changes in the we run our universities it will is hard for an interdisciplinary institute to deliver an increased volume of interdisciplinary research (and associated research income).

Success lies in rethinking three fundamental management processes:

  • The way we measure success
  • The way we build budgets
  • The way we govern

1. Measuring success

How is the measurement of success in academia discouraging interdisciplinary research? Sounds like a good PhD topic but I am not an academic so here is the management consultant’s view.

It appears that the way the sector manages and rewards academic performance may be preventing the very behaviours that it must encourage for interdisciplinary work to flourish.

As an academic a key factor in your career prospects is the assessment of your research output and quality: the number of citations you get and the research income you win. Your career is advanced by these methods and the institution’s performance is measured and rewarded by the sum of these parts.

Indeed some academics believe that institutions didn’t submit interdisciplinary work into the REF as it was seen to be too risky – because of these issues.

Certainly, HEFCE itself is not underestimating the obstacles to interdisciplinary working and has a panel set up to advise the REF team, REF panel chairs and the UK funding bodies on approaches to support the submission and assessment of interdisciplinary research in REF 2021.

And it’s not just a UK problem. HEFCE’s 2015 research showed a lower citation impact associated with interdisciplinary research among all countries examined.

So how can an individual institution tackle this when it’s a sector issue?

Universities need to be aware of the weaknesses of current performance indicators in terms of measuring success and rewarding the staff within our interdisciplinary institutions.

It’s vital to consider additional measures to recognise and reward interdisciplinary work. For example, recognising how this work contributes to international reputation.

Consideration should be given to:

  • Setting longer term targets.
  • Understanding whether interdisciplinary working is performing less well against your current measures and establishing why.
  • Mapping collaborative work to see how staff are working together at each stage of the research process.
  • Providing better guidance and support on publications and research grant applications to academics
  • Influencing the funding bodies and their panels.
  • Putting in place targeting PR activities which assist with profile and reputation.

2. Building the budget

Whilst interdisciplinary institutes and the beautiful buildings which house them are usually justified by the promise of increased research income and enabled through the availability of capital funding it is vital that longer term business plans are created. A five-year budget should be built before the building is!

It sounds obvious but many institute’s plans are signed off without detailed planning of the income which will result (and especially how it will change and be sustained over time) and the operational costs which will have to be funded. And, crucially, how this will work internally with the existing budgets.

Existing planning models tend to drive University professional services staff towards developing budgets for ‘business units’ – colleges, schools, faculties, departments (whatever each institution calls them). But the very nature of interdisciplinary work is that it crosses these departmental boundaries and so requires some form of sharing of budgets. Disciplinary heads have their own targets and priorities, prising resource from existing disciplines to create what may often perceive as a competitor is not straight forward. Asking for more resource later to let them grow and thrive can be even more fraught.

Unless the university finds ways to ensure that money flows towards activity instead of structural units, then it can be extremely hard for interdisciplinary teams to secure budget.

Research makes a loss in terms of full economic costings. With the right research funder it can break even or perhaps even make a small surplus (especially if another donor has paid for the building). What is cannot do is create the resources to allow it to grow and change, for this it needs to be underpinned by student fee income and other income, just like a traditional academic discipline.

If the planned institute is going to be research only and the teaching will remain in the participating departments then there has to be a plan as to how the institute’s operational costs will be covered – either through contributions from participating departments or through a central budget. The institute will also need access to additional funding to allow it to change, grow and thrive once the original funding for the institute has gone.

If students are taught the plans must consider the additional costs of delivering interdisciplinary courses. It takes more staff to create content and deliver courses. It also creates a logistical strain for the departments involved as they try to map out the teaching work that will be carried out by their staff. It creates a budgetary issue as to whether you ‘buy out’ staff time and the institute keeps the fee income or whether the fee income is apportioned out back to the “owner” departments minus the overheads of the institutes. In budget-constrained times departments will need to know how this will affect their finances and in effect be able to see ‘what’s in it for them’ other than just another competitor.

3. Governance

Existing academic disciplines have often been with a University since their inception. The governance and management structures were designed in an endeavour to facilitate their success. Interdisciplinary institutes (by definition) exist without the benefit of these structures.

For an institute to thrive it will need a champion to drive not only its creation but to sustain its growth and impact. Of course, this is great, whilst the champions remain in post, but creating a successful institute requires talent, tact and energy (the very attributes that often mean such champions progress rapidly to another post).

If interdisciplinary institutes are to be sustainable and grow they need to be given a voice in the governance structure commensurate with the strategic hopes and aspirations placed upon them.

Consideration needs to be given to how they are represented in the management structures and how beholden are they to existing disciplines. Get this wrong and they may be doomed to a slow decline from the moment the institute is created. How visible are they to governors, how are their successes (and failings) noted and actioned.

Having a champion is a great start for a new institute, but to be successful in the longer term it needs to be appropriately embedded in the management and governance structures.

To sum up:

  • Building of a shiny new building won’t in itself lead to an increase in interdisciplinary research
  • Our management systems put obstacles in place of interdisciplinary working
  • Our current measurements of success do not reward Interdisciplinary research
  • Champions can set them up and help them grow but appropriate management and governance is required to allow them to become sustainable.

This means that we need to:

  • Build budgets in a different way
  • Define additional performance measures
  • Think more broadly about ROI
  • Consider how they fit in management and governance structures**

At the outset of the planning process for a new institute it is crucial that as much (or more) thought must be given governance, management, planning and budgets as is given to the design of the building. That means having absolute clarity as to:

  • How governance, management and departmental structures will be adapted to facilitate the institute.
  • What the performance indicators for the institute will be and how these will contribute to the overall university performance.
  • What the annual planning and budgetary process for the institute will look like (especially how operational costs will be met and how money will flow between the institute and departments involved).
  • What income will be generated (from all sources) – thus establishing the ROI
  • The human resource requirements – How the institute will be staffed and how their time will be allocated.
  • Whether there will be an UG or PG teaching offer and how it will be delivered.
  • What support functions will be required (and how will these be paid for).
  • What reputational impact is expected and how will this be delivered through a communications and PR strategy.

Scrimping on management planning whilst the excitement of the architectural planning process takes place may prove a costly mistake.

Halpin Partnership can provide detailed management planning services to support your plans for a new interdisciplinary institute.

Our team can also assist with the review and restructure of an existing institute. These projects require the focussed time and expertise of a variety of experts from governance, finance, planning and campus services to research, marketing and commercialisation. We will bring together the right team to help you plan or review your institute with confidence.

Further reading: