The

Uni

vers

ity

of A

uckl

and

New

Zea

land

Mega Project – Minimal Trauma

Presented by

Gay Brennan, Glenda Haines, Dianne Howard

How Student Administration managed a major project to make a difference

The

Uni

vers

ity

of A

uckl

and

New

Zea

land

Apr

il 2

1, 2

023

2

What was the Project?

Need to align University of Auckland academic structure with tertiary sector

Sector norm for Equivalent Full-Time Student (EFTS) was 120 points in a year

Curriculum Commission had recommended adopting the 120 point model plus other changes to the academic structure

The

Uni

vers

ity

of A

uckl

and

New

Zea

land

Apr

il 2

1, 2

023

3

What was the University of Auckland situation?

University of Auckland normal full time load was 14 points in mostly 2 point courses

Normal full time enrolment was 7 courses a year

4 courses in one semester

3 courses in the other semester

The

Uni

vers

ity

of A

uckl

and

New

Zea

land

Apr

il 2

1, 2

023

4

What was the decision?

University decided in January 2003 to change to 120 points model

Most courses would be 15 points with some valued at 10 and 20 points

Normal full time enrolment would change to 8 courses a year with 4 courses in each semester

The

Uni

vers

ity

of A

uckl

and

New

Zea

land

Apr

il 2

1, 2

023

5

What did this entail?

Rationalisation and reduction of duplication in courses

Transitional regulations to cover existing students using the new course structure

Communication strategies for staff and students

Conversion of course values on student management system

The

Uni

vers

ity

of A

uckl

and

New

Zea

land

Apr

il 2

1, 2

023

6

How big was the Project?

193 qualifications to be restructured

6266 courses to be evaluated

Of these,

1989 courses were deleted

4277 courses were re-weighted

Plus

1183 new courses were introduced

The

Uni

vers

ity

of A

uckl

and

New

Zea

land

Apr

il 2

1, 2

023

7

What were the system changes needed?

Conversion of all course values on the student management system

Conversion of academic records to new points

Amending academic records and key reports to display course values in both old and new points

The

Uni

vers

ity

of A

uckl

and

New

Zea

land

Apr

il 2

1, 2

023

8

Any other changes?

This was the opportunity to introduce other changes to the University‘s academic structure recommended by the 2002 Curriculum Commission:

Review of Postgraduate pathways

General Education programme

The

Uni

vers

ity

of A

uckl

and

New

Zea

land

Apr

il 2

1, 2

023

9

Restructure of Masters degrees

Two year Masters Degrees were to be split into a single year Masters programme preceded by

one year Bachelors Honours degree

or

one year Postgraduate Diploma

The

Uni

vers

ity

of A

uckl

and

New

Zea

land

Apr

il 2

1, 2

023

10

General Education

Introduction of an innovative General Education programme for undergraduate degrees

Students would take two courses in their degree from a suite of General Education courses in a subject area not related to their degree

The

Uni

vers

ity

of A

uckl

and

New

Zea

land

Apr

il 2

1, 2

023

11

Anything else?

Standardisation of regulations and Calendar wording

Review of Satisfactory Progress requirements

Change to the regulations and system for administering Unsatisfactory Progress

The

Uni

vers

ity

of A

uckl

and

New

Zea

land

Apr

il 2

1, 2

023

12

How long was the Project?

3 year project

Started - January 2003

Go live – 1 November 2005

New structure effective -

1 January 2006

The

Uni

vers

ity

of A

uckl

and

New

Zea

land

Apr

il 2

1, 2

023

13

Year One - 2003

Scoped and established the project framework

Planned timelines and methodology

Established academic rules for the new structure

Commenced re-weighting the courses and reviewing qualification structures

The

Uni

vers

ity

of A

uckl

and

New

Zea

land

Apr

il 2

1, 2

023

14

Year Two - 2004

Restructured courses and qualifications

Obtained internal and external approval for the new regulations

Wrote the transitional regulations

Started the analysis of system changes

Planned the conversion of course values and academic records on the system

The

Uni

vers

ity

of A

uckl

and

New

Zea

land

Apr

il 2

1, 2

023

15

Year Three - 2005

Wrote and published Transition Handbook

Set up publicity campaign – staff seminars, newsletters, letters to students, web information

Changed the course values in the system

Converted the academic records

Went ‘live’ 1 November 2005 for 2006 enrolment

The

Uni

vers

ity

of A

uckl

and

New

Zea

land

Apr

il 2

1, 2

023

16

What is accepted practice?

Put a professional project manager in charge who would

produce a detailed project plan and set up a Gantt chart

write a quality assurance plan

develop risk management strategies

manage the information flow and reporting mechanisms

The

Uni

vers

ity

of A

uckl

and

New

Zea

land

Apr

il 2

1, 2

023

17

How are projects usually managed?

Set up a steering committee

Form specialised working groups

Bring in consultants for technical work

Establish a budget and devolve budget management to financial division

The

Uni

vers

ity

of A

uckl

and

New

Zea

land

Apr

il 2

1, 2

023

18

Did we follow this standard practice?

NO

How did we manage the project?

We kept it simple!

The

Uni

vers

ity

of A

uckl

and

New

Zea

land

Apr

il 2

1, 2

023

19

So how did we manage it?

Management was entrusted to Academic Administration group so we

Engaged an experienced University administrator as co-ordinator of the Academic Project

Established the structure of the project

Commenced scoping exercise

Wrote plans and timelines

The

Uni

vers

ity

of A

uckl

and

New

Zea

land

Apr

il 2

1, 2

023

20

How did we staff the Project?

Used existing staff:

Group Manager, Academic Administration

Manager, Calendar & Regulations

Manager, Student Records

Plus

Engaged a manager for Academic Project in first year

Added a Project Administrator in second year

Added a Publicity Manager in third year

Used in house technical managers and staff

The

Uni

vers

ity

of A

uckl

and

New

Zea

land

Apr

il 2

1, 2

023

21

Did we use external resources?

NO

Only used an external consultant once for four weeks to scope the PeopleSoft options

Used in house project co-ordinators for systems development and change management

System analysis development was carried out by existing staff in the Information & Technology Systems and Services division

The

Uni

vers

ity

of A

uckl

and

New

Zea

land

Apr

il 2

1, 2

023

22

How was the Project directed?

Kept project management in house

Direction provided by the Deputy Vice Chancellor (Academic)

Overall management by the Group Manager, Academic Administration

Used existing University committees for academic review and approvals

Formed a small high-level steering committee for final implementation year

The

Uni

vers

ity

of A

uckl

and

New

Zea

land

Apr

il 2

1, 2

023

23

What was our project style?

Utilized our knowledge and expertise

Trusted our own judgment

Used existing administrative committees, structures and templates

Used consultation and liaison between existing administrative and academic bodies

The

Uni

vers

ity

of A

uckl

and

New

Zea

land

Apr

il 2

1, 2

023

24

Did this approach work?

Yes

All deadlines were met

Several milestones were achieved in advance of deadlines

Project was completed under budget

2006 implementation went smoothly

The

Uni

vers

ity

of A

uckl

and

New

Zea

land

Apr

il 2

1, 2

023

25

Why did it work?

Key factors were:

Empowerment to take charge and use initiative

Trusted to make policy decisions on academic issues

Simple, clear reporting lines facilitated decision making

Stakeholders had clear channels of communication with the team

The

Uni

vers

ity

of A

uckl

and

New

Zea

land

Apr

il 2

1, 2

023

26

Why did it work?

Small, integrated team worked closely together

Relied on the institutional knowledge, expertise and experience of the team

Use of existing committee structures provided a known framework for managing change

Meeting existing timeframes and external deadlines promoted controlled management

The

Uni

vers

ity

of A

uckl

and

New

Zea

land

Apr

il 2

1, 2

023

27

What can you learn from our experience?

You don’t have to use a professional project manager or follow the conventional project management route

It’s possible to use simple management tools

There’s no substitute for knowledge and experience

Consultants aren’t always right

Small can be good!