SFC/17/81 Agenda item 13 22 September 2017

Strategic Dialogue Meetings (SDMs): annual feedback

• The first year of a new cycle of SDMs is complete, save for two postponed meetings, rescheduled for the autumn. This paper updates Council on the main issues arising from meetings, gives feedback from relevant institutions, and outlines the programme during 2017-18 and 2018-19.

• We are not recommending changes to the format of these meetings at this stage in the cycle.

Recommendations

The Council is invited to:

• Note progress on SDMs that have so far taken place.

• Note institutions’ evaluations of the SDM surveys.

• Note the future programme.

Financial implications

• Travel and subsistence costs of the SFC team are the only cost of operating the SDM programme, and are met by SFC’s running costs budget.

Strategic Dialogue Meetings

Purpose and content

1. This paper updates Council on the key issues from the recent round of SDMs, and from institutional SDM surveys; and outlines the programme during the second and third year of the cycle.

Background

2. SDMs have been operating since 2006. The premise is that SFC executive and Council members have a strategic conversation with every institution and Regional Strategic Body. The aims of the SDMs are: • To enhance and strengthen relationships between SFC and the governing bodies and senior management teams of institutions. • To increase SFC’s understanding of the regional context and the institution or region’s progress in meeting Outcome Agreement targets.

3. SDMs currently complement the outcome agreement cycle by running between February and June over three years. Council members can be updated on progress first-hand, institutions have an opportunity for discussion with Council members, and feedback can influence the following year’s OA guidance.

Evaluation of AY 2016-17

4. In the first year of the latest round of meetings we have held 12 SDMs with five colleges and seven HEIs. Two more planned meetings were postponed, with Shetland College (delayed because of this May’s local Council elections) Inverness College UHI, following the departure of its Principal; both have since been rescheduled. The institutions, dates and teams are at Annex A .

5. SFC discussion chosen topic for college meetings was ‘Governance and Financial Health’, with ‘Governance and Financial Sustainability’ the focus for universities, both reflecting recommendations in Audit Scotland’s reports in, respectively, ‘Scotland’s Colleges 2016 ’ and ‘ Audit of Higher Education in Scottish Universities 2016 ’. A common SFC theme ensures a connection between the meetings, allows institutions to demonstrate their governance and financial health, and provides an opportunity for topical and well-informed strategic discussion.

6. The topics otherwise encompassed a wide range though focused on the main challenges of the institution, most commonly on the locality they serve, enhancing the learner journey, widening access, employability, research and knowledge exchange, and capital funding. Some of these discussions have

1

continued, usually with Outcome Managers, in pursuit of any outstanding issues as detailed in the Issues Register at Annex B.

Feedback from institutions

7. We sent a short survey to institutions participating in SDMs during 2016-17, and had a response from all 12 institutions; these are at Annex C.

8. Without exception, and as with last year, institutions welcomed the opportunity to meet and engage with Council members and discuss their strategies and priorities. In general, they found the SDM to be as expected: positive, and enhancing their relationship with SFC. For some it allowed the chance to reflect on their aspirations, achievements and areas of concern, and this too was welcome. SDMs were an opportunity for a direct conversation between the institutions and SFC in an informal setting with the former able to sense-check their strategy and receive valuable Council feedback.

9. Institutions on the whole find the meetings useful, providing an opportunity to talk about their priorities directly with Board members, and very much valuing the chance for Board members to visit their institution. Assigned colleges reflected that the meeting gave them the opportunity to raise their own voice, and recommend SDMs continue with assigned colleges in multi-college regions.

10. Institutions also saw the format of the meetings as appropriate. They liked the dialogue around three themes, (one chosen by SFC) and the open conversations and opportunities to demonstrate their activities. One suggested an additional Council member be present, given the time spent in preparation for the meeting, and another wanted greater representation of SFC senior management. Another institution suggested a more focused meeting with a smaller number of people.

11. There were some other suggestions: the agreement of objectives and outcomes in advance of the meeting; and for information-sharing to be two-way, for example with the SDM used by SFC to brief institutions on sector key issues.

SDMs in 2017-18

12. We fully evaluated the purpose and format of SDMs last summer at the end of the 3 rd cycle of meetings. In view of the latest institutional feedback, we do not propose to make further changes during the second year of the three-year cycle. We think we are meeting the core aims of SDMs, and there is no clear basis for change. This means: • The SFC team is restricted to five members at most: 2 Council members, and at least two executive members, including the Outcome Manager.

2

• Continuing to ensure the Outcome Manager coordinates the agenda, with one topic chosen by SFC, and the other two by the institution. • The SFC team leader acts as the named Council member post-SDM, to continue any dialogue in partnership with the Outcome Manager. • Retaining separate meetings between the SFC team and both staff and students. • Retaining the option of a focused tour, so the SFC team can observe at first hand the student experience. • Retaining meetings with assigned colleges in the multi-college regions.

13. The institutions due SDMs during 2017-18 and 2018-19 are at Annex D .

Risk assessment

14. This is an area of low risk. The monitoring of performance of each institution and any action points and issues raised at the meetings are addressed by the relevant outcome agreement team.

Equality and diversity assessment

15. There are no equality and diversity issues associated with this paper.

Recommendations

16. The Council is invited to: • Note progress on SDMs that have so far taken place. • Note institutions’ evaluations of the SDM surveys. • Note the future programme.

Financial implications

17. The travel and subsistence of the SFC team is the only cost of operating the SDM programme, and are met by SFC’s running costs budget.

Publication

18. This paper will be published on the Council website.

Further information

19. Contact: Michael Cross, Director of Access, Skills and Outcome Agreements, email: [email protected] , or Ken Rutherford, Assistant Director/Outcome Agreement Manager, email: [email protected] .

3

Annex A Strategic dialogue meetings 2016-17

Institution Date Council members SMT member Outcome Manager + Policy lead

Dumfries and Galloway College 1 March Veena O’Halloran, Douglas Mundie Martin Fairbairn Kathryn O’Loan, Dee Bird

Open University in Scotland 2 March Caroline Stuart, Robin Crawford Martin Fairbairn Sharon Drysdale, Louise Lauchlan

Heriot Watt University 6 March Alice Brown, Lorraine McMillan Stuart Fancey Dee Bird, Derek Horsburgh

Robert Gordon University 27 March Robin Crawford, Veena O’Halloran Michael Cross Ken Rutherford, Greg Anderson

West Lothian College 27 April Audrey Cumberford Martin Fairbairn Seamus Spencer, Ken Rutherford

Abertay University 2 May Marlene Wood, Albert Rodger Michael Cross Fiona Burns, Keith Coyne

West College Scotland 3 May Maggie Kinloch, Douglas Mundie Stuart Fancey Linda McLeod, Paul Travers

Strathclyde University 5 May Alice Brown, Marlene Wood Michael Cross Dee Bird, Kathryn O’Loan

Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC) 23 May Alice Brown, Anton Muscatelli John Kemp Dee Bird, Derek Horsburgh

St Andrew’s University 26 May Robin Crawford, Marlene Wood Stuart Fancey Dee Bird, Derek Horsburgh

Perth College UHI 5 June Caroline Stuart, Douglas Mundie John Kemp Sharon Drysdale, Hazel McCartney

Forth Valley College 15 June Maggie Kinloch, Albert Rodger Michael Cross Alison Meldrum, Linda McLeod

Shetland College UHI 26 September Veena O’Halloran, Marlene Wood Michael Cross Sharon Drysdale

Inverness College UHI 8 November Douglas Mundie, Marlene Wood John Kemp Sharon Drysdale, Hazel McCartney

4

Issues register Annex B

SDM meetings in 2016-17

Issue SFC/institution action The funding challenges of a small, rural OA team to set up a Dumfries college. Rural funding has been put in place meeting with SFC funding and but the College would welcome dialogue with colleagues and the College. Galloway SFC for greater equity. College Economies of scale, compared to urban OA team to set up a colleges, are a challenge with two campus meeting with SFC funding sites, 75 miles apart. The cost of STEM and colleagues and the College. other capital intensive courses means not economically viable despite their importance to development of key skills. As a single college region the College needs SFC to note and keep an to balance breadth of provision and eye out for opportunities. progression. They have invested in digital and ICT infrastructure. The College would welcome opportunities to collaborate a wider level for curriculum development Graduate Level Apprenticeships were viewed SFC to note. Open by both SFC and OUiS as an opportunity. University OUiS will seek to engage with SDS to discuss in Scotland delivery methodology and opportunities. Scottish Government focus on 16-24 years OUis will include this point learner journey does not fit with the in feedback during the demographics of OU students (or mature consultation period. learners at other institutions). OUis feels that TEF is based on traditional SFC to note. teaching methodology and does not accommodate PT or distance learning easily. Credit achieved through studying Young OUiS in talks with UCAS. Applicants in Schools Scheme (YASS) modules at SCQF level 7 (HE level) at present not recognised as UCAS tariff points HW is adjusting financial forecasts due to its SFC to note. HW has taken Heriot Watt exposure to volatile sources of funding the necessary action to University (international fees and income from Oil and secure its sustainability and Gas) and will require careful management sees no need to alter its over next 2 years. successful ‘global’ model strategy. HW is investing £20M in a Discovery and SFC to ensure that Scotland’s Innovation Building as its Edinburgh campus enterprise agencies are to catalyse enterprise and innovation and more alert and responsive to foster the co-creation of ideas. opportunities offered by HW , and other HEIs, in driving innovation, enterprise and global engagement 5

Concern at changes to the UK research SFC to use its influence to funding landscape could disadvantage ensure that the integrity of Scottish HEIs and undermine the dual both aspects of the dual support mechanism. support system are maintained and that Scottish HEIs are not disadvantaged by the creation of UK Research and Innovation, and other changes to research support infrastructure as proposed in UK HE & Research Bill. RGU has experienced reduced funding from SFC to note. RGU will share Robert SFC in recent years. The University thinks its revised Strategic Plan Gordon forward planning would be improved by once this is agreed by University multi-year funding settlements. Court. Both staff and students lobbied SFC for SFC to note. additional funds in support of mental health training for staff and mental health services for students. WLC acknowledged the growth in activity WLC and OA team will West received to date (over 15%) since OAs were discuss plans for funding Lothian introduced. At the same time noting that the and the needs based College full impact of the ‘needs based’ funding funding model as the model was yet to be felt. WLC welcomed the College pursue their additional funding for cost pressures in AY ambition for further 16-17, but commented that their relatively growth. low average credit price made it challenging to meet the actual cost of the pay award. It was noted that a regional funding model was at odds with national pay awards. WLC feels National Bargaining costs are OA team will liaise with the creating financial pressures. The College College. Board welcomes further support to promote stability and longer term planning. WLC has ongoing estate issues particularly WLC have fed into the SFC the need to spend additional funding awards Estates Condition Survey with short notice. designed to assist the sector to meet the Government’s Strategic Priorities. WLC would like SFC to support applied SFC’s College Innovation research, in particular the college’s Group is considering these contribution to the Innovation agenda. matters. Given that the SFC’s funding represents SFC to note. Abertay above sector average of Abertay’s overall University income, reductions in this funding impact the University significantly. Therefore, planned changes to the SFC funding model are giving Abertay cause for concern. 6

A drop in student retention, especially of SFC to note. articulating students, has prompted the University to put in place an action plan to review/address this. Estates emerged as one of the biggest WCS have fed into the SFC West challenges for the College in the immediate Estates Condition Survey (ECS) College future at both the Greenock and Paisley and are currently top of the Scotland campuses. priority list. Capital team and OA team continue to discuss with the College. OBC for Paisley Campus due in October . OBC for Greenock Campus to be revised in light of recent developments. Given the likely time required to fully address OA team to discuss further their estates needs WCS confirmed that they with the College as part of have an immediate need/priority in relation current round of to their IT infrastructure and emphasised discussions. The College will how their lack of modern IT facilities is include in their impacting on their ability to do their job and Development Plan. deliver for learners. The College confirmed that they continue to OA team to discuss further reshape the portfolio on offer across all three with the College as part of campuses in line with the skills needs of the current round of region and address the workforce planning discussions. The College will for the College alongside this. include in their Development Plan. Recent discussions with SFC, on issues OA team to discuss further relating to the College’s financial health and with the College as part of future sustainability, have been useful in current round of reaching a shared understanding of the discussions. The College will issues impacting on the College in the short include in their and medium term as they consider their 3yr Development Plan. and 5yr planning scenarios. Strathclyde has seen a year-on-year SFC to note. Strathclyde reduction in income in recent years; University however, thus far it has been successful in mitigating this with effective management of costs. They want to increase income from non-government sources. Strathclyde are proud of being a ‘socially SFC to note. progressive university’. They have the largest cohort of entrants from SIMD20-40 amongst the research intensive group of institutions. This summer has seen the first cohort of SFC with Scottish Government students from the Engineering Academy. to lead discussion with the Strathclyde want to expand this model. They sector on the role of and are also looking to develop Social Sciences continued need for Academy and a Digital Academy. strategic funding. 7

Strathclyde aim to attract and generate SFC, with the Scottish innovation activity through the Glasgow Government, to lead and Innovation District. Scotland would benefit discuss strategic support from access to Innovate UK funding. which would benefit the Scottish HE sector.

There is an imbalance between Apprenticeship SFC to note. Levy in Scotland and England. In England there is a clear access route for levy money for businesses and as a result that is where their skills investment tends to go. SFC has undertaken a comprehensive internal SFC executive in regular Scotland’s and external consultation on the dialogue with senior team Rural development of a new strategy. It is at SRUC on progress with its College anticipated that its transformation plan will transformation plan. (SRUC) be in place by December 2017. SRUC has a leadership role in the SFC has given commitment implementation the National Land-Based to facilitating SRUC’s Strategy. SRUC is focussed on intensifying its partnerships with HEIs and dynamic and solution focused partnerships colleges, industry partners, with industry and college partners. These public sector agencies, and collaborations will help translate the new Government. SFC will also strategic plan into a credible plan for the work with SRUC to ensure transformation of the College. that their contribution to Government priority outcomes, land-based industries, and the rural economy is better understood by Ministers and officials. The College’s extensive and dispersed estate SRUC has developed a draft represents a significant drain on its infrastructure strategy resources. identifying priorities for investment, for consultation with staff and stakeholders, and will develop estate solutions with the support of the SFC Property Support Service – starting with its estate with the South West of Scotland. SRUC would like a more flexible qualifications SFC to explore the framework in the land-based subjects that possibility of a round table better responds to the developing needs of discussion with the relevant industry. public agencies (including SQA and SDS). SRUC would like SFC to review the allocation SFC to review Rural and methodology of its Rural and Remoteness Remoteness Premium. Premium to ensure that this funding is better focused on securing positive outcomes for learners from rural communities. 8

St Andrew’s senses a growing funding gap SFC to seek assurances from St Andrew’s with institutions in England which could risk Scottish Government. University competitiveness. They would like the Scottish Government to renew its commitment that Scottish HEIs will not be disadvantaged with tuition fees in England, nor with the creation of UK Research and Innovation. University has concerns that OA processes had SFC to note. become too proscriptive and compliant, with a narrowing focus on targets and metrics that risked diminishing the diversity of the sector The University would like clarity from the SFC to clarify with Scottish Scottish Government on whether it would Government. maintain the current level of funded places in the event that EU student are no longer eligible for free tuition. The University is concerned about the impact SFC and Scottish of Brexit on staff and student recruitment, Government to work with mobility (including Erasmus and Marie Currie the sector to mitigate the exchange programmes ), and the university’s negative impact of the UK’s international partnerships. departure from the EU. Perth is under pressure following National SFC to continue to work Perth Bargaining (NB), and if agreement over pay with the sector to quantify College and terms and conditions is not reached this NB costs and to continue to will affect staff pay and risk further strikes. liaise with Colleges Scotland . Some of the college’s estates needs Perth to work with UHI to refurbishment and are not fit for purpose ensure its estates strategy is like the Brahan building. fed into SFC ECS. FVC raised a concern about the impact of OA team to discuss further Forth changes to ELS funding. with the College. Valley Students want more information on articulation FVC is aware. SFC to note. College direct entry into university. Many students already progress into HE, but in areas without specific articulation routes this can leave some students a little confused as to the right path. Students recognise the value of the placements FVC is constantly working to with employers in helping them to gain practical increase the number of experience. However, demand is greater placement opportunities than supply in some areas so some students available to its students. felt they had missed a great opportunity . Staff were positive about the development FVC admits it is moving fast of new estate at FVC, but concerns were and recognise the impact of raised about the pace of change and the changes on staff and is feeling of a lack of discussion and seeking to mitigate the communication with staff. concerns that arise. FVC has recognised that its evening provision FVC is looking to extend has become more limited in recent years due evening provision and has to changing priorities. sought feedback from staff .

9

Annex C Institution evaluation of strategic dialogue meetings

We received feedback from all 12 institutions that had a meeting during AY 2016-17:

1. How well did your institution’s SDM go earlier this year? • We were very pleased with the SDM held in May 2017. Positive feedback addressing strengths and areas for consideration were clear and delivered with an enthusiasm which was welcomed by Board members and SMT. Very good feedback also from staff and students as to the process and the way the discussion was chaired. All in all a very positive meeting. • It was a very positive experience and staff and students enjoyed the opportunity to meet with Board members. • We thought the SDM went well. We thought it was constructive and helpful. • Very positive and professional meeting. • The SDM proceeded to plan with SFC members also visiting the Designer Quantum Materials Laboratory in the School of Physics and Astronomy. All identified topics relating to Scottish Government and Funding Council priorities were explored and colleagues asked all prepared questions. • We considered the meeting to be well planned, constructive and positive; clearly cementing the relationship between SFC and our institution. • The Board members and Executive team involved in the SDM welcomed the opportunity to meet with Council members and SFC Executive. The opportunity to shape the agenda and related discussions was also appreciated. The timing coincided with a strike day resulting in less of an input from students and EIS staff. • Our College SDM went very well and was a positive experience for our Board, staff and learners and was also I believe positive for the visiting Board member and officers. • Very well. • From our point of view the meeting seemed to go well. • The SDM was very helpful indeed. • I thought this meeting was a good and fair opportunity for our institution to explain its plans to the SFC. Council members seemed well prepared and asked good questions. I found it useful to hear my University colleagues set out aspects of their work with which I was not wholly familiar, and so it was also an excellent learning opportunity for me.

10

2. Was the SDM as you expected? • Yes, the approach taken by the Chair was engaging and promoted a constructive two-way dialogue. • Yes, it followed a very similar format to previous SDMs. • I have been involved in a number of SDMs and find them an excellent opportunity to show and tell the College. We always pick topics which are strategic, positive and forward thinking and I think this is welcomed by SFC Board members. Given our experience we also recognise it does take a bit of work in preparing, identifying staff and students and the housekeeping but we believe it is an opportunity for the College to put on a bit of a show whilst being open with the difficulties and pressures going forward. • Yes, and perhaps less formal and more engaging than expected. • This was my first SDM. My view was that it provided the appropriate balance of challenges and empathy, to our institution’s mission.

3. How useful was the SDM to your institution? • It was useful for our Board members as they were talking about the changes to Board self- evaluation as part of the increased importance of governance and the college also had the opportunity to discuss the issues which are still highly important to us i.e. needs-based growth and the impact of the credit price system on us. I think it is excellent for SFC Board members to visit colleges. • It was useful both in terms of contacts and ideas from the SFC team to be followed up and also feedback on governance from SFC which is helpful to our institution going forward. • While maintaining good links and effective relationship with the SFC and its Council members is important to the University, the meeting could have been more effective. A fair amount of preparation had gone into meeting to ensure that key issues and questions were brought to the table. While there was active engagement from the SFC representatives at the meeting, apart from research, there was not much of an institutional view provided from the SFC and information flow was generally one way. • It was interesting to be able to discuss specific challenges and opportunities facing our college, as well as sector-wide policy and get the Board’s views on these. • Allowed us a voice as an assigned college and this opportunity was very important to us. • Very useful, in terms of preparing the feedback and also demonstrating transparency in the way in which we function • The College welcomes the opportunity to meet with Council members and SFC Executive. The meeting was conducted in a transparent way and was consistent

11

with our relationship with our Outcome Manager, the wider SFC and reflected the robust working relationship between the College Executive and College Board. • From our perspective SFC’s stated aim to enhance ‘the relationship between the Council and the governing bodies and senior management teams’ – was certainly fulfilled at our SDM. We were delighted that the SFC fielded a knowledgeable team of individuals who were able to fully appreciate our institution’s strategy and delivery, enabling some really useful discussion on a variety of topics from funding to performance. • The meeting itself is unlikely to have an impact within the University. Although it was a useful opportunity to discuss issues with the representatives from SFC and to show them around the campus, it is not clear to us how this will impact on SFC policy and decision-making. We feel that we already have a good relationship with our SFC Outcome Agreement Manager and consider this to be an effective route for raising and discussing issues of interest or concern.

4. Could you suggest how these meetings could be improved? • Believe the format is appropriate. Members of the Council and SFC team may be more/or less exposed to the college sector therefore would encourage the SFC to continue to vary attendance at SDMs. • The meeting format seems to work quite well as it is and covers a fair amount in a visit. • More preparation from the SFC to ensure that the meetings add value to both the SFC and the University. Agree meeting objectives and outcomes in advance. • I think there is good liaison between SFC and our Executive office in the run up to the visit. We like the dialogue around three themes one of which is picked by the SFC, and we appreciate the involvement of the Board. I was very pleased with the feedback from the SFC board members and the more informal discussions after the event which was not really captured in the documentation, however appreciate the need to sanitise, somewhat Education Scotland like, the final report. The three year cycle is probably about right. We like the SDM, we think it has purpose and it gives the College confidence the SFC and the SFC Board are interested however given the effort we put in to the event, we would like to see more involvement than just two members of the SFC Board. • We recognise the strain on people’s diaries but it would have been helpful to have greater representation of SFC senior management team at the SDM. Our University is a very different institution to other campus based universities (Distance learning/part-time) and it is helpful to have an understanding of our model (and its complexities) at a senior level within the SFC. • The only element of the programme which was rather unclear was the ‘teaching area visit’ part, for which we found ourselves challenged by time. We would suggest this element is either separated from the main programme, or the purpose addressed in a different way.

12

• Given that the meeting included Court members who have little routine contact with the work of SFC, perhaps in future the Council could consider how the information-sharing could be two-way and perhaps the meetings could also be used to brief institutions on key issues from an SFC perspective.

5. Would you like to make any other comments? • No, as noted above, we like the SDM, we like the format for discussion and we do make quite a big thing of it here at the College. • These meetings are expensive in relation to the invested resource for preparation as well as attendance across the board. Given that HEIs produce detailed information on meeting Scottish Government and SFC priorities in their Outcome Agreements, there may be more efficient ways of achieving better mutual understanding of how priorities are met. A more focused meeting with a smaller number of people might serve the purpose better followed by some effort to follow up on discussions from previous SDMs. • I know these meetings are to help the Boards’ understanding and awareness of colleges across Scotland but it would be helpful to know if any of the matters raised are taken forward/discussed by the broader Board or to find out how their experience was of the college (and discussions) compared to others. • Perhaps this was unique to our institution but there was some lack of clarity about the chairing of the SDM as a whole. Perhaps this could be made even clearer on the agenda? • Continue to offer separate SDM for assigned colleges. • We appreciate the input of SFC and the Board, to the future development of our institution. • Thank you for providing a summary note of the SDM – which contributed to discussions at the College Board Meeting in June. • Simply to strongly recommend the continuation of the Strategic Dialogue meetings. • SFC’s support of our institution via the Outcome Agreement process is very much appreciated by both our governing body and senior team and we hope that SFC found our SDM as useful as we did in unpacking our strategy and broadening understanding of our performance and future vision. There were several elements on which we will follow up through the months ahead.

13

Annex D

Strategic dialogue meetings in 2017-18 • Ayrshire College • Dundee and Angus College • Edinburgh College • Fife College • Glasgow Clyde College • Glasgow Kelvin College • Lews Castle College UHI • New College Lanarkshire • North East Scotland College • Sabhal Mor Ostaig • West Highland College UHI • Edinburgh Napier University • Glasgow School of Art • University of Dundee • • University of Glasgow • University of the Highlands and Islands

Strategic dialogue meetings in 2018-19 • Argyll College UHI • Borders College • City of Glasgow College • Moray College UHI • Newbattle Abbey College • North Highland College UHI • Orkney College UHI • South Lanarkshire College • Glasgow Caledonian University • Queen Margaret University • Royal Conservatoire of Scotland • • • University of the West of Scotland

Note: This is a guideline, could be subject to change.

14