Governance of Portuguese Universities Within European Higher Education: Nova University Lisbon Experience

196

Chapter 12 Governance of Portuguese Universities Within European Higher Education: Nova University Lisbon Experience

António Rendas Nova University Lisbon, Portugal

ABSTRACT National legislation for higher education that was introduced in 2007 by the Portuguese Government changed the higher education governance model into a more centralized system with increased institutional autonomy. This allowed for a better strategic planning process that was more able to respond to society needs and, in public university foundations, gave rectors a stronger leadership role supported by a general council and by a board of trustees. A decade later, the overall autonomy scores of Portuguese universities when compared with those from other European countries according to academic, financial, organizational, and staffing (senior) criteria showed better Portuguese performance when compared with most Southern and Central European countries. This pattern remained stable between 2011 and 2016. Changes that occurred at Nova University, Lisbon, are described as a case stud to exemplify the effects of this new governance model on the sustainability of long-term strategic planning and its management.

INTRODUCTION

The national legislation for Higher Education (HE) introduced in 2007 by the Portuguese government had a significant effect on the governance of Portuguese universities. It led to a new leadership approach which unified and centralized decision-making processes and allowed the strategic application of university autonomy, which supported a better system of internal management and allowed for more commitment to society. The key role is played by the Rector, together with the Rectoral team and the Deans, on the one hand, and by the General Council and the Board of Trustees (in the case of public university foundations), on the other. The last two bodies include external individuals who are not members of

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-7441-5.ch012

Copyright © 2019, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. Governance of Portuguese Universities Within European Higher Education

the university. The implementation process occurred between 2007 and 2009 and was fully operational in 2010, a time when Portugal, as part of Southern Europe, was affected by the global economic and financial crisis which had started in the United States of America a few years before. In order to assess the effects of the crisis on the new university autonomy legislation, a comparison is made between the overall levels of autonomy of Portuguese universities, resulting from the new reform, and the European results obtained from the European University Association Scorecard 2017. The comparison shows that Portuguese universities present high levels of autonomy, possibly because of the governance measures implemented as a result of the new legal framework. It is also possible to argue that this higher level of autonomy had a positive effect on the performance of Portuguese universities during the financial and economic crisis. In the case of NOVA University, Lisbon, this new governance experience was further extended because the institution not only fully applied the new governance model, including a long- term Strategic Plan based on key performance indicators, but has recently become a public university foundation in line with the new law. The advantages and disadvantages of this new governance model need to be evaluated in the coming years taking into account the implications of the increased academic leadership roles played by the new governing set-up, namely those of the Rector, the General Council and the Board of Trustees. The purpose of the present chapter is to address these complex issues, em- phasizing not only the importance of the existence of a national legal framework for the governance of higher education institutions (HEIs), (public and private), but also how it was applied by the institutions. Based on the European University Scorecard, the level of autonomy of Portuguese universities, achieved as a result of the new legal framework is compared with other national university networks, taking into account the diversity of the university governance systems within Europe. The example of NOVA Uni- versity is presented as a case study with particular emphasis on the development and application of the strategic planning process.

BACKGROUND

More than ten years have passed since the publication of a new national legislative HE framework in Portugal. This legislative package included not only a new legal regime of autonomy and governance for HEIs, but also the application of the Bologna Process nationwide, with the consequence of full inclusion and recognition of Portuguese HE degrees in the European Higher Education Area (EHA), while establishing, at the same time, the National Agency for Assessment and Accreditation of Higher Education (A3ES). In addition, academic careers were also reviewed, allowing for international recruitment in an attempt to reduce the existent high levels of endogamy. Two years before, in 2005, as a background to the publication of the legislative package, the Portu- guese Government requested the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), to perform a global analysis and evaluation of the HE system based on the following reference terms: (i) the role of HE in stimulating students to acquire knowledge in the context of diversified environments such as those that occur in the knowledge society, including lifelong learning, in the globalization era. At the national level the need was pointed out for increased contributions to social cohesion and equity, while maintaining the cultural identity of the country; (ii) a focus on strategic management procedures and the related specific structures in the development of teaching and learning, research and development, investment, finance and internationalization.

197 Governance of Portuguese Universities Within European Higher Education

The draft of the OECD report was discussed at the national level by all the stakeholders involved, and a final report was published in 2006 (The Portuguese Ministry of Science, 2006), having a major influence on the legislation published in the following year. This legislation, turned into Law by the approval of the Portuguese Parliament, truly reorganized the Portuguese HE system, both public and private, including the possibility of public HEIs becoming public foundations.

ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGES AND THE EFFECTS ON GOVERNANCE

Before 2007 the governance of HEIs in Portugal was based on short-term decision-making processes coming from large assemblies with members elected by direct voting coming from different institutional/ corporative bodies (academics, students and technical staff), with no common strategic goals and lack- ing long-term institutional planning. As a consequence, most of the time, a lengthy time lag occurred between planning and decision making. In addition, the relations with the Government were not facilitated because of the existence of multiple strategies, mostly short-term, introduced by different corporative leaders, sometimes coming from a single HEI. The first article of the new law defined the legal framework of HEIs including, specifically, their constitution, attributions and organization, the functions and powers of their various bodies, as well as their public supervision by the State within the scope of their autonomy. The two main organizational changes were as follows: (i) the installation of a governing board made up of representative internal members (academics, researchers, students and technical staff) and external members (coming from the civil society but acting on an individual basis and chosen by the internal members), (ii) the creation of the possibility of HEIs, on a voluntary basis, becoming public foundations with an independent legal status operating under private law. The new governing body of each university was named the General Council. It was made up of between 15 and 35 members, with external members making up to 30% of the total. The decision on the number and composition of the General Council was made by each HEI based on the legal requirements, and also taking into account the specificities of each HEI. The main functions of the General Council are to elect the Rector, based on his/her strategic and financial plan, for a four-year mandate that can only be renewed once, and also to approve the yearly budget with funding coming from the Government and from self-financing sources. The Senate, a powerful organ in the previous legal framework, became an optional consultative body to the Rector. In the case of NOVA University, the Senate was abolished, and much of its role was taken by the Council of Deans, as will be explained later. The Rector’s role was strengthened by his/her leadership of the Management Council and by playing a more active role in homologating acts of election of Deans and Presidents of the different internal councils, appointing and dismissing directors of academic, scientific, and administrative units without self-government, opening admissions procedures for new staff, appointing examination panels for staff promotion, deciding on rules for academic evaluation, deciding on the creation, suspension and extinc- tion of study programs, promoting quality assurance and accreditation mechanisms, deciding on the maximal numbers of new admissions and enrolments (for the second and third cycles), allocating social support for students (in compliance with the law) and exercising disciplinary power in the university. Conceptually, the main features of this reorganization were related to strengthening and centralizing institutional autonomy and to establishing a new governance model in an attempt to modernize the management of Portuguese HEIs based on the best international practices.

198 Governance of Portuguese Universities Within European Higher Education

As far as institutional autonomy is concerned, the policy took some inspiration from the Anglo-Saxon model of public management but, according to Neave and Amaral (2012), this so-called “neoliberal wave” was more rhetoric than operational in the sense that not all the recommendations from the OECD report were included in the new Portuguese legislation. For example, the composition of the General Council, a totally new body in the Portuguese HE system, kept a majority of members from the academic community: professors, researchers, students and technical staff, contrary to the OECD recommendations which proposed a majority of external members. Since the external members must be elected by the internal members, the decision-making power was kept within the university community. However, it was the first time in Portugal that external members had become involved in the governance of HEIs. The change was seen by the academic community as a two-edged sword: on the one hand, there was concern related to the loss of academic freedom, based on the “Humboldtian model”, while on the other, there was hope for a more active involvement in the decision-making process at top managerial level, thus allowing for a more direct influence in decisions related to the main activities of the university: teaching, research, and knowledge transfer to society. Only time will tell which side will prevail. However, the role of the academics, at least at NOVA University, has become in recent years much more focused in long-term strategies than on short-term initiatives. The previously mentioned General Council, which is a common body to all HEIs in Portugal despite the differences in the numbers and profiles of its members, is an example of the new governance model in Portuguese HE, with the Rector acting as a CEO under the supervision of the General Council. The new law allows for the Rector to be external to the university and, because recruitment is international, the applicants can be non-academic. This situation has not occurred until now in the whole HE Portu- guese system, although foreign candidates have applied to the position of Rector in different universities. The new law also offered the possibility to the HEIs to adapt, on a voluntary basis, the new legal status of a public foundation under a private law regime. This designation created a certain degree of controversy in Portugal because the word “foundation” is currently used in Portugal to identify a different type of non-public institution/organization which has been under scrutiny by the State because of legal suspicions related to the inappropriate use of funds, both from public and private origin. This is not the case with regard to the university foundation model which has an independent legal status but is still a public institution. This Portuguese university model is not original since it exists with various country-dependent specifications in Austria, Finland, Sweden, Germany, and Denmark. The case of the United Kingdom is special since there is a long tradition of granting independent legal status to a certain number of institutions designed as charities, including universities placed in the specific subgroup of trusts. The independent legal status, even in the United Kingdom, does not imply that the universities are independent from the government in issues such as budget and additional funding. In the case of Portugal, the universities which became foundations kept their public status including financial support from the State, as occurred with any other HEI. The management of such a foundation is performed by a Board of Trustees, composed of five external members (lay citizens without an academic link to the university but prominent figures in society within their specific fields of activity), appointed by the Minister of Science, Technology and Higher Education, based on a proposal made by the university. The Board of Trustees legally confirms important managerial decisions made by the university such as the election of the Rector. In such a context the Board of Trustees replaces the Minister, and this delegation can be considered a symbolic support to the increase in university autonomy. Other decisions also involving the Board of Trustees are those related to the acquisition or selling of real estate properties and any type of loans.

199 Governance of Portuguese Universities Within European Higher Education

The Board of Trustees can be considered as having the role of representing the Government, while the other bodies maintain their specific roles: (i) supervision, the General Council and (ii) managerial, the Rector.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW GOVERNANCE MODEL

From 2007 to the present, all Portuguese HEIs have fully applied the new legal framework, but with con- siderable diversity. The first period, which lasted until 2009, corresponded to the publication of appropriate legislation with regard to each HEI, which allowed for the election of all the governing bodies. During this whole period five public universities, from a national total of thirteen, became public foundations: Porto, Aveiro and the Lisbon University Institute (2007-2009), Minho and NOVA Lisbon (2016-2017). It is important to emphasize that during this period the world was strongly affected by a global economic and financial crisis between 2006 and 2008, which started in the United States of America and which had serious repercussions in Europe, particularly in Southern Europe, between 2009 and 2015. This was exactly the period of the implementation of the new HE reform in Portugal. It had national effects leading to a tighter control by the Government over university budgets through an increase in bureaucratic burden which threatened institutional autonomy. The new legal framework proved to be useful in preserving institutional autonomy, as demonstrated in the section below, and allowing universities to remain relevant at the national level and competitive in the international environment. In this respect, it is important to mention that all the universities that became public foundations are the top performing Portuguese universities in the most widely recognized international rankings. It is also important to mention that governments changed during this ten year period made up of different political parties, and some played a significant role in HE policies by taking the following measures: in 2010, a national contract was collectively signed between the government and all HEIs aiming at increasing the number of graduates and providing an overall funding of €100M; in 2016, another national contract was signed with all public universities related to developing science in the knowledge society with the specific compromise to maintain the same amount of public university funding throughout the present government mandate, and also with a commitment to reduce the administrative procedures required for recruiting and promoting academic and research staff, including those with precarious contracts. The contract also included recommendations to promote open science and to enhance the societal and cultural responsibilities of HEIs. To summarize, different political parties did not significantly alter the legislation approved in 2007 when they assumed governmental power, pointing to a reasonable consensus at the national level with regard to HE policies, a state of affairs which has lasted for more than a decade.

PORTUGUESE UNIVERSITIES AND THE AUTONOMY SCORECARD (2017)

Taking into account the significant changes which occurred in the governance of Portuguese universities, it is considered relevant to attempt to analyze the possible effects of the new legal framework on university autonomy at the national level and to compare Portuguese HEIs within the European Higher Education Area. Since 2007 the European University Association (EUA) has developed a methodology to identify and evaluate different components of higher education autonomy in Europe. The study is based on the information provided by the Rector’s Conferences or similar national organizations within

200 Governance of Portuguese Universities Within European Higher Education

the EUA. As a member of the initial Steering Committee of the team responsible for the development of the “Autonomy Scorecard” (Estermann, Nokkala, & Steinel, 2011), the author was actively involved in this project which started long before with the Salamanca Declaration (EUA) in 2001, which considered “autonomy and accountability” as its first principle:

European higher education institutions accept the challenges of operating in a competitive environment at home, in Europe and in the world, but to do so need the necessary managerial freedom, light and supportive regulatory frameworks and fair financing, or they will be placed at a disadvantage in cooperation and competition. The dynamics needed for the completion of the European Higher Educa- tion Area will remain unfulfilled or will result in unequal competition, if the current over-regulation and minute administrative and financial control of higher education in many countries is upheld. (p. 8)

This position was further addressed in the Graz Declaration (EUA), in 2003, which emphasized:

Governments must therefore empower institutions and strengthen their essential autonomy by providing stable legal and funding environments. Universities accept accountability and will assure the responsibility of implementing reform in close cooperation with students and stakeholders, improving institutional quality and strategic management capacity. (p. 8)

The four basic dimensions of higher education institutional autonomy were part of the Lisbon Declara- tion (EUA), presented in 2007: Academic autonomy – deciding on degree supply, curriculum, areas and methods of teaching, deciding on scope, aims and methods of research; Financial autonomy – acquir- ing and allocating funds, deciding on tuition fees and capacity to accumulate surplus; Organizational autonomy – setting university structures and statutes, making contracts, electing decision-making bodies and persons; Staffing autonomy – responsibility for recruitment, salaries and promotions (Estermann et al., 2011). This approach represents a different method for analyzing institutional autonomy based on its purpose rather than on a bold definition, which is quite difficult to formulate and is less operational. The purpose of the method was further clarified in the Prague Declaration (EUA), presented in 2009:

Universities need to strengthen autonomy to better serve society and specifically to ensure favorable regulatory frameworks which allow university leaders to design internal structures efficiently, select and train staff, shape academic programs and use financial resources, all of these in line with their specific institutional missions and profiles. (p. 10)

Besides these continuous initiatives on the part of the EUA, it is also relevant to mention that the European Commission, in 2010, drew attention to the importance of promoting autonomy as the hallmark of the most efficient higher education systems (European Commission, 2010). This report identified three broad challenges of major concern in this area across the European Union: Mass opening versus quality: how to support mass access to tertiary education with an increased and diversified body of students, while achieving excellence in teaching performance? Education versus research: how to overcome the trade- offs, and exploit synergies, between teaching and research? Ultimately, economic policy makers’ concerns are to ensure that students acquire relevant skills and that the scientific production is vibrant, so that both can contribute to the economy and to society as a whole. Policies to stimulate research ex-

201 Governance of Portuguese Universities Within European Higher Education

cellence might lead to the neglect of students if the appropriate safeguards are not in place. Autonomy versus accountability: with new and more decentralized public funding policies come a number of challenges: when change is underway from Government direct control to the supervision of tertiary education institutions, how to strike the right balance between the autonomy of such institutions and accountability for their use of public resources? In 2017, the EUA published a third report on university autonomy (Pruvot & Estermann, 2017), based on data collected and validated between 2015 and 2016. Twenty-eight Higher Education Systems (HES) were included in the initial study, performed in 2010, whereas in the second study the number increased to 29, with 4 dropouts between the first and the second study and 5 new HES included in the second one. However, 24 HES were analyzed in both studies. These were from the following countries: Austria, Belgium (Flanders), Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany (three states: Brandenburg, Hessen and North Rhine-Westphalia), Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Slovakia, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom (England). This follow-up study allowed for a comparison of the evolution of university autonomy in a consider- able number of European countries, from different regions, over a period of ten years, and clearly shows that there is no natural trend towards increased university autonomy. However, it also demonstrates a certain level of stability despite the turbulent socio-economical times. This stability can be interpreted as showing that some HEIs were able to maintain their higher level of autonomy, or that no significant progress had occurred in those HEIs with a lesser degree of autonomy. The study concludes that a holistic approach should be applied to further analyze the concept of university autonomy and to put it into practice. The objective should remain to meaningfully enhance the institutions’ ability to build strategic profiles (based on a strategic plan) – through the development of their academic offer, supported by proper financial management capacity, adequate human resources and with a significant change in the governance model. In the case of Portuguese universities the legal changes are good examples of this holistic approach. The Portuguese HE system did not change its position significantly between 2010 and 2016, although a minor drop occurred in the academic autonomy position due to the administrative restrictions and funding limitations which occurred during the financial and economic national crisis. For all these reasons, Portuguese universities were placed in the second cluster (medium high level) in terms of three components: organizational, financial and staffing autonomy, based on criteria already mentioned. However, there was a drop to the third cluster (medium low) concerning academic autonomy. This de- scent occurred because of the absence of institutional capacity to decide on overall student enrolment numbers due to the existence of numerus clausus in the first cycle (bachelor’s) and because of a lack of intervention in the national selection process for admission to HEIs. As for academic and financial decisions concerning the other two grades, Masters and PhDs, the universities are fully autonomous. The same level of autonomy occurs in research. The existence of a single national accreditation agency was also considered as a limitation in terms of academic autonomy.

NOVA UNIVERSITY GOVERNANCE MODEL AND THE STRATEGIC PLAN

Nova University has fully applied the rules of the new legislation since 2007. The governance model was changed initially with the creation of the Council of Deans, representing the nine Academic Units, and by reinforcing the roles of the Scientific and Pedagogic Councils in each Academic Unit. The General

202 Governance of Portuguese Universities Within European Higher Education

Council was created shortly after, in 2007, also under the new legislation. This new legal framework allowed for the acting Rector to apply for the post, together with other candidates, and all had to present the basis of a four-year Strategic Plan for NOVA to the General Council, the time of the mandate. The plan of the acting Rector, who was elected, was not a “black box”, but a document that was subject to significant reviews in the initial years of the mandate until an institutional consensus was reached and it was finally submitted to the General Council a few years after, with the operational components fully functioning. The model was developed using internal resources, no external consultant companies were hired, and particular attention was paid to involving all the representatives of the NOVA academic community (academic and non-academic staff and students). Within this context, the second Strategic Plan developed by NOVA University (2012-2106), and corresponding to the second mandate of the Rector, was preceded by an extensive internal debate (2008- 2009). Stakeholders reached a consensual agreement in the period lasting between 2010 and 2011. The Strategic Plan played a key role in maintaining the sustainability of NOVA University and also in improving institutional accountability, both internally and externally. The Strategic Plan was supported and validated by the use of key performance indicators (KPIs), in the following areas:

• Teaching: First options in the applications for the 1st year cycles and integrated Master’s degree; enrolments of the first options for the1st year cycles and integrated Master’s; the 1st cycle degrees obtained in the estimated duration of the cycle; Master’s degrees obtained in the estimated duration of the cycle; the 2nd cycle and 3rd cycle students according to the Bologna terminology (Master’s and PhDs) in terms of the total number of students; joint Masters and PhD programs within NOVA and with other Portuguese HEIs. • Research: Number of peer-reviewed publications; normalized impact factor of publications (according to the Leiden ranking); percentage of expenditure allocated to support research versus total expenditure; percentage of research units classified as exceptional, excellent and very good (according to the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology). • Innovation and Creation of Economic and Social Value: Number of nationally submitted patents; number of internationally submitted patents; number of spin-offs/start-ups; number of institutional protocols and partnerships with companies; number of institutional protocols and partnerships with the public administration; percentage of graduates (from all cycles) with a paying job 18 months after graduation; percentage of students who participate in institutional initiatives related to entrepreneurship. • Internationalization: Number of partnerships in European and global networks; number of projects in European framework programs; percentage of foreign teachers and researchers; percentage of Master’s and PhD courses taught in English; percentage of students enrolled in international mobility programs (incoming); percentage of students enrolled in international mobility programs (outgoing); percentage of joint Master’s and PhD programs with international institutions. • Human Resources: Percentage of teachers with a PhD; percentage of post-docs; percentage of PhD students with a scholarship; percentage of non-teaching and non-research personnel attend- ing specialized training courses. • Financial Resources: Percentage of self-funding (own-source revenue); percentage of revenue from student tuition fees (all cycles); percentage revenue from research funding.

203 Governance of Portuguese Universities Within European Higher Education

• Social Services for Student Support: Annual average occupancy of student’s halls of residence during the school year; annual average occupancy of student’s halls of residence during summer vacations; own-source revenues (meals and accommodation); number of students participating in official sport events supported by the NOVA Sports Office; value of the financial support given to activities involving two or more academic units of NOVA.

This approach, using KPIs in multiple areas, and not just in research or teaching, allowed for a global and systemic perspective of the institution, and also for a better identification of the contribution of each Academic Unit to the overall performance of NOVA. The performance of NOVA, assessed by the KPIs, was published every year between 2012 and 2016, and was the object of a very extensive yearly debate at the Council of Deans and the General Council. In most cases the Deans used it as a framework for developing more specific targets to be reached at the level of the Academic Units. The three main priority areas of intervention - teaching, research and internationalization - were reviewed in detail concerning the targets to be achieved and, in some cases, the targets for the following year were changed, either as an upgrade or as a downgrade. In the final two years the possibility was opened to give incentives to increase the performance of NOVA in areas such as student enrolment, and for better access to scientific databases used for monitoring scientific performance and also for benchmarking to support internationalization policies. These decisions, which were taken based on proposals presented by the Rector, had the agreement of the Council of Deans and were implemented by the Central Unit responsible for the management of the Strategic Plan coordinated by a Vice-Rector. As previously mentioned, the managing of the Strategic Plan included the publication and discussion of yearly progress reports as illustrated in the Executive Summary of 2013, published in 2014, (see below), showing the following: (i) the overall results in different years; (ii) the evolution of priority KPIs in teaching, research, and internationalization, with the specific contributions of the different Academic Units of NOVA University. In this case, it was always used for supporting improvement measures and not as a rating scale to identify the best, or the worst, performances. One of the advantages of the database, which started in 2009, was that comparisons could be made on a much longer time scale than a year, thus allowing for the identification of trends in the performance both of NOVA and of its Academic Units. Access to the database was open to the Deans and to the members of the General Council, who could check, discuss, and eventually correct the raw data.

Sample From the Executive Summary of a Yearly Report of NOVA Strategic Plan

In order to further document the way that the NOVA Strategic Plan was implemented, it was considered relevant to present an adapted sample version of the type of information which was given to the representatives of the different stakeholders within the university to promote debate and institutional decisions by the empowered bodies (Rector, Council of Deans and General Council). The present Report, published in 2014, relates to the academic year of 2013-2014 and gathers all the information relevant for the monitoring of the Strategic Plan for NOVA University, Lisbon, until the end of 2013, thus ensuring the continuity of the follow-up to its implementation process.

204 Governance of Portuguese Universities Within European Higher Education

After the publication of the Strategic Plan in 2012, a methodology was established for the creation and communication of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for outcome achievement, setting the conditions for NOVA to remain aligned with the broad pursuit of its goals, shared with the nine Academic Units (AUs) and Support Services. The AUs of NOVA are as follows: Faculty of Sciences and Technology, Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Nova School of Business and Economics, Nova Medical School, Nova School of Law, Nova School of Statistics and Information Management, Institute of Tech- nological Chemistry and Biology, Institute of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and National School of Public Health. Only the first five cover the three-degree cycles: Bachelor, Master’s, and Doctoral, while the remaining four offer only Master’s and Doctoral degrees. The First Strategic Plan Report was published in 2013 and related to the academic year of 2012-2013, based on the above-mentioned methodology, and encompassed the monitoring carried out until the end of 2012 leading to a first analysis of the results in the Plan’s seven areas of intervention. Continuing the task of successfully carrying out the aims of the Strategic Plan for 2016, the present second Report, published in 2014, presents, one year later, until the end of 2013, the analysis of the evolution of NOVA’s strategic KPIs: In the Teaching area, the percentage of students who completed their Bachelor’s degree (priority KPI 1.3.1) and also those who obtained their Master’s (KPI 1.3.2) within the expected time, presented a positive trend in the face of the proposed targets for 2016, and the percentage of joint national Master’s and PhD’s involving NOVA (KPI 1.5) had already exceeded its target. The remaining KPI (1.4), remained stable around 43% and 44% during a four year period, between 2009 and 2013, failing to show a growing trend in order to reach the 50% target set for 2016 and signaling that NOVA would probably maintain a higher percentage of 1st cycle students compared with Masters and PhDs. It is important emphasize the all AUs of NOVA contribute to this KPI. In the Scientific Research area, three of the four KPIs were bound to achieve the targets for 2016 in terms of the number of peer-reviewed publications (KPI 2.1, priority). The value for 2013 was 1891, while the target for 2016 was 2220 publications; in terms of the normalized impact of WoS publications (KPI 2.2.1 also priority), (assessed according to the Mean Normalized Citation Score, established by the Centre for Science and Technology, of Leiden University), the value for 2013 was 1.19 while the target for 2016 was 1.2; finally, the percentage of research units classified as Exceptional, Excellent, or Very Good (KPI 2.4), had already reached its target in 2013 based on an international evaluation of the research centers, performed nationwide by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT). In the Innovation and Creation of Economic and Social Value area, four of the six KPIs showed the potential to achieve the 2016 targets, of which three have already done so, thus justifying their redefini- tion at higher values: in terms of the number of spin-offs and start-ups (KPI 3.2), the value for 2013 was 38, already higher than the target set for 2016, which was 30, for that reason the target was reset to 50; in terms of the number of protocols and institutional partnerships with companies (KPI 3.3.1), the value for 2013 was 394, a value higher than target for 2016 which was 200, for that reason the target was reset at 400; finally, in terms of the number of protocols with public institutions (KPI 3.3.3), the value for 2013 was 751, much higher than the initial set target of 425, for that reason the target for 2016 was reset to 1000. Of the eight KPIs in the Internationalization area, two failed to show the potential to achieve the target set for 2016 (KPI 4.3) - the percentage of foreign teachers and researchers, and the priority (KPI 4.6), percentage of Master’s and PhD degrees offered jointly with foreign institutions. The remaining

205 Governance of Portuguese Universities Within European Higher Education

six, on the other hand, had already surpassed their respective targets, which were reset to higher values for three of them: KOI 4.1, number of partnerships with European and global networks; KPI 4.2, number of projects in EU framework programs; and KPI 4.7, the number of public projects funded by European/ international agencies. In the Human Resources area, only the percentage of teachers that hold a PhD showed a pattern that suggested that the target for 2016 would not be achieved. The value for NOVA in 2013 was 77%, based on the fulltime staff, and the target was 85%. It is also noteworthy, albeit in an opposite direction, that KPI 5.2, the percentage of Post-Docs, has already surpassed the proposed target. In the Financial Resources area, KPI 6.1 (percentage of self-funding) had already surpassed the target for 2016. The behavior of the two remaining KPIs, on the other hand, KPI 6.2 (revenue from the fees of degree courses) and KPI 6.4 (revenue from research funding), reinforced the trend, detected in the previous report, of failing to achieve the set targets. The Social Support Services area appeared likely to reach the 2016 targets in three KPIs: KPI 7.1.1 (the rate of occupation of student residences during the school year) which had registered a visible growth in the last year, KPI 7.3 (number of enrolled athletes), and KPI 7.5 (funding of initiatives with students from more than one Academic Unit) which had already also largely surpassed the 2016 target. According to the outcomes of the second monitoring report of the Strategic Plan, it was proposed that, within the ongoing Incentive System, the above-mentioned initiatives belonging to the Teaching and Scientific Research areas, were maintained, and that a new mechanism should be added, with an impact on priority KPI 4.6 in terms of Internationalization, embodied by the attribution of a pecuniary incentive and administrative support by the Rectory to each Coordinator responsible for the submis- sion of a Master’s or PhD’s project in the scope of programs such as Erasmus Plus, Marie Curie, FCT international PhDs or equivalent. In the face of the above-mentioned results, and considering NOVA’s priorities, five KPIs were stra- tegically selected to sustain priority action plans and corresponding incentives: In the Teaching area, KPI 1.1 (Percentage of first options in the applications for the 1st cycles and Integrated Master’s) and KPI 1.3.1 (Percentage of students that obtain a Bachelors’ degree in the estimated number of years that make up the duration of the study cycle). In the Scientific Research area, KPI 2.1 (Number of peer-reviewed publications) and KPI 2.2.1 (Normalized Impact of WoS publications). In the Internationalization area, KPI 4.6 (Percentage of joint Master’s and PhDs with international institutions). In light of this orientation, towards the end of 2014, the first two initiatives of an Incentive System ensuing from the NOVA’s Strategic Plan were approved: In the Teaching area, the attribution of a scholarship equivalent to the tuition fee to the best student at the end of the first year of each Graduate Course/Integrated Master’s, with the purpose of reinforcing NOVA’s attractiveness and academic excellence, assessed by the two priority KPIs: 1.1 and 1.3.1. In this case, only five of the AUs of NOVA University contributed – the Faculty of Sciences and Technology, the Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, the Nova School of Business and Economics, the Nova Medical School, the Nova School of Law, and the Nova School of Statistics and Information Manage- ment. This specificity was due to the fact that only these AUs offer a Bachelor’s or an Integrated Master’s degree (in this case the student, once enrolled as a Bachelor-level student, can immediately move onto a Master’s program after completing the Bachelor’s degree).

206 Governance of Portuguese Universities Within European Higher Education

In the Scientific Research area, the development and implementation of the Formula for Research Performance Evaluation (FADI) was used in order to distribute among the AUs, in a transparent and fair way, an Incentive Award, promoting greater productivity and quality in scientific activities, assessed in terms of the two priority KPIs: 2.1 and 2.2.1. As a final comment to this information about the yearly monitoring of NOVA’s Strategic Plan, it is important to emphasize that the operational decisions described above, such as incentives, were taken in view of the available information about past performance with regard to each KPI, and on the expected evolution until 2016. Some of the results are clearly independent of NOVA’s strategic decisions such as the small capacity to recruit foreign staff due to the differences in salary between Portugal and most European countries. Nevertheless, the new status of NOVA as a public foundation under private law may allow for some foreign appointments, particularly at a junior level. External obstacles also occur in issues such as cuts in funding on the part of the Government, for both teaching and research, or the intricate administrative procedures needed to acquire equipment or recruit any staff. For these reasons, the targets were set for more internal priorities by which NOVA could control and monitor the process. In this context, the KPIs proved to be very useful as a common denominator for discussion and decisions.

SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A decade ago, Portugal approved at the national level, a set of legal instruments that reformed the governance of HEIs. This legislation empowered institutions to develop, within the new framework, different approaches to a new governance model based on the different contexts in which they plan to operate, at local, regional, national and international level. However, and despite changes in the central government of the country, disagreements expressed by groups of academics and students concerning certain aspects of the legislation mainly in terms of a reduction of academic freedom and more institutional “central managerialism”, the new legislation remained and was useful in terms of sustaining innovative changes such as the model of a public university foundation. In this context, it is relevant to mention that the three university foundations created in 2007-2009, recently voted to maintain this model in the future. One of the assumptions made in this paper is that the new national legislation, by empowering institutional governance with more involvement of society in the supervision of university performance, allowed more autonomous decisions to be taken internally, mainly at the management level, than has been the case in the past. This change in itself was considered relevant for Portuguese universities to allow them to cope, in a more autonomous manner, with the economic and financial global crisis. The better overall performance of Portuguese universities in the EUA Autonomy Scorecard 2017, in comparison to other Southern European countries, also affected by the crisis, such as, Spain and Greece, namely in the areas of organizational autonomy, financial and staffing autonomy, can be taken as a favorable argument to support this assumption. The other European country hit by the global economic and financial crisis, Ireland, performed at a higher level in all the four areas of institutional autonomy, probably because its governance structure had already been developed under the influence of the United Kingdom model, with a broader involvement of society in the governing bodies. Within the network of Portuguese universities, it is also difficult to draw specific conclusions about the effects of the new legislation on institutional performance. However, the continuous improvement and maintenance of a significant number of Portuguese universities in the international rankings can be taken as a sign of the capacity of the institutions to define and maintain strategies, despite the crisis.

207 Governance of Portuguese Universities Within European Higher Education

The other important issue that was not addressed in this paper but played a vital role in the reform of Portuguese universities was the previous reform of Portuguese Scientific Institutions which occurred in the last decades of the XX Century led by José Mariano Gago, then Minister of Science, who was also the Minister who implemented the reform of HE in 2007. The road that leads to a close connection between the two main roles of universities - education and research - is a long one, and occurred late in Portugal, but is key factor for the success of Portuguese universities in the 21st Century. The implementation and management of the Strategic Plan of NOVA illustrates one of the main conclusions of the EUA University Scorecard 2017: a holistic approach should be applied to further analyze the concept of university autonomy and put it into practice; the objective should remain to meaningfully enhance the institutions’ ability to build strategic profiles (based on a strategic plan) – through the development of their academic offer, supported by proper financial management capacity, adequate human resources and a reflection on the governance model. In the case of NOVA, the changes of the governance model, which started to occur in 2007, were implemented until 2009, and applied in the following years based on the Strategic Plan, played an essential instrumental role in sustaining university autonomy. This model will be further improved in the years to come with the implementation of the foundation components, namely the involvement of the Board of Trustees in the supervising university governance based on a global strategy aiming, simultaneously at developing more local, regional, national and global partnerships, not just in education and science and also with society.

CONCLUSION

The introduction of a new university governance model is a very complex process related to local and national contexts, but with an increased awareness of international and global challenges. In Portugal, a national legislative reform was implemented in 2007 which changed the governance model of HEI allowing for the participation of non-academics in the governance boards and introducing the model of university foundations. The new law is still currently valid, and has empowered HEIs to develop, within the scope of their autonomy, different organizational models involving academics, researchers, technical staff and students. In the case of universities, the functions of the Rector were reinforced by means of a more centralized management system. The new law also emphasized the importance of an explicit strategy for HEIs as part of the new governance model. NOVA University’s strategy can be seen as an example of the application of the law, from the changes that occurred in the governance model to the implementation of the strategic plan and the transformation, in 2017, into a public foundation. The purpose of these changes is to improve the performance of NOVA University as a whole, not only in teaching and research, but also in playing an increasingly significant role in society. These contributions can only be achieved on a permanent basis within the framework of a national policy, including appropriate funding, and a clear-cut and monitored institutional strategy. The use of international tools for benchmarking institutional performance also plays an important role as a reference system, both at the national level and also for each HEI.

208 Governance of Portuguese Universities Within European Higher Education

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The author wishes to acknowledge the role played by the former Vice-Rector of NOVA University, Nuno Severiano Teixeira, in the development and management of the Strategic Plan and also the contribution of Miguel Gago, Senior Technician, in the monitoring of the plan.

REFERENCES

Estermann, T., Nokkala, T., & Steinel, M. (2011). University autonomy in Europe II: The scorecard. Retrieved from https://eua.eu/downloads/publications/university%20autonomy%20in%20europe%20 ii%20-%20the%20scorecard.pdf European Commission. (2010). Efficiency and effectiveness of public expenditure on tertiary education in the EU. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/occasional_paper/2010/ pdf/ocp70_en.pdf Neave, G., & Amaral, A. (2012). Introduction. On exceptionalism: The nation, a generation and higher education, Portugal 1974-2009. In G. Neave & A. Amaral (Eds.), Higher education in Portugal 1974- 2009 (pp. 1–46). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-2135-7 Pruvot, E. B., & Estermann, T. (2017). University autonomy in Europe III: The scorecard 2017. Retrieved from https://eua.eu/component/attachments/attachments.html?id=394 The Portuguese Ministry of Science. T. a. H. E. (2006). OECD thematic review of tertiary education: Country background report: Portugal. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/education/skills-beyond- school/37745972.pdf

209