Access: The Journal of the National Association of Branch Campus Administrators Volume 1, Issue 2 Article 1 March 2016 Selecting the Optimum Management Model for a Branch University Campus Doug Fraser Satellite Campus Solutions, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://www.nabca.net/accesshome.html Recommended Citation Fraser, D. (2016). Selecting the optimum management model for a branch university campus. Access: The Journal of the National Association of Branch Campus Administrators, 1(2), Article 1. Retrieved from http://www.nabca.net/accesshome.html This Article is provided to you as a Member of the National Association of Branch Campus Administrators. It has been accepted for inclusion in Access by the Editorial Board. For more information, please contact [email protected] Selecting the Optimum Management Model for a Branch University Campus This article is available in Access: The Journal of the National Association of Branch Campus Administrators http://www.nabca.net/accesshome.html Fraser: Selecting the Optimum Management Model for a Branch University Campus Selecting the Optimum Management Model for a Branch University Campus Doug Fraser overriding considerations are, however, the Consultant management culture and practices of the Satellite Campus Solutions university, which determine what authorities will be delegated. Unfortunately, this last consideration can often lead to sub-optimal outcomes stemming from a common obsession to centralise decision making and the maintenance of existing power structures, rather ABSTRACT than what is required for a campus to thrive. Under a university parent/branch campus structure, branch campus management models 1. INTRODUCTION can be divided into five categories. These categories are primarily based around the level In 2004 I was fortunate enough to have been of autonomy that the head of campus has over employed by the University of Southern business decision making and the business Queensland (USQ) in Australia to raise a cycle, the line management arrangements of branch2 campus in the new city of Springfield, academic staff, and the localised control of located in the socio-economically depressed research. Two low or no autonomy models (the area of Ipswich, approximately 33km southwest study centre and the administrative model) and of Brisbane. The campus was in a greenfield three high autonomy models (the matrix, site approximately an hour and a half drive from faculty1 and federal campus models) are the parent campus in Toowoomba. This distance examined. proved to be an important factor in how I was to shape the campus management model, but of The selection of an appropriate model to most significance was the experiences of the optimise the outcomes of the branch campus is then Vice-Chancellor (President), who had influenced by whether the campus is specialised previously headed a branch campus and knew or comprehensive in nature, geographical only too well the frustrations that stem from factors, university brand aspirations, the level of over-centralisation of decision making by a community engagement required, and the parent campus. campus’s commercial environment. The The philosophy I employed to create the USQ Springfield Campus management model was 1 In Australia, the term faculty relates to an academic division, and while their structure and grouping of 2 In Australia, the common terminology for a branch campus is a satellite campus. Published by National Association of Branch Campus Administrators 1 Access: The Journal of the National Association of Branch Campus Administrators, 1(2), Article 1 based on ensuring that there were high levels of a basic taxonomy. This further reinforced to me localised accountability, autonomy and an underlying theme within Australian empowerment; and that all those elements of the universities that branch campuses are best seen university that contributed to the success of the but not heard. campus were able to be held accountable to the head of campus for their actions and I concluded that the first step would be to performance. This model treated the campus as develop this missing taxonomy and the a discrete business unit but used extensive underlying basis for the classification of the matrix management arrangements for the models. This latter requirement turned out to be academic and non-administrative support staff.3 very simple, as when talking to any head of campus about how their campus operated, While I had been permitted to create a campus discussions quickly revolved around the degree management model from first principles, as I of decision-making autonomy and associated gained the opportunity to engage with fellow authorities that they did or didn’t hold. heads of branch campuses, it became very clear that this high autonomy model was a rarity, and Not surprisingly, the key autonomies revolved that in the majority of cases there was very little around the control of the operation of the localised empowerment, primarily stemming campus, its business cycle and the student from a tendency to exercise high levels of experience. Specifically these autonomies decision centralisation by parent campuses. included but were not limited to the following: • the campus academic program portfolio; As a consequence of this observation, I decided • marketing of the campus and its to undertake a doctoral thesis on the selection of programs; optimum management models for Branch • program delivery, including control campuses, based both on my own experience over quality and modes of teaching and that of as many other heads of campus as I delivery; could include in the study. This paper is a • the authority and ability to review and synopsis of that study which was completed in remediate teaching standards; 2014, combined with the benefit of further • the line management of administrative discussions, observations, refinements, and staff and ability to locally resolve reflections. student administrative issues; and • the control over localised community engagement and campus-based 2. KEY BRANCH CAMPUS academic partnerships. AUTONOMIES While this may sound very commercially Surprisingly, despite the greater number of focussed, it actually was the mechanism by branch campuses than parent campuses in which the student and staff experience could be Australia, I was unable to find any previous optimised, and how collegial decision making research into their management models or even could be instituted at a campus level. Two other key autonomies were the degree of influence over research, and the line management over 3 A copy of the management model can be found at academic staff, and these two along with control http://www.guc.edu.au/wp- of the business cycle, whilst not necessarily content/uploads/2015/02/business-unit- being more important than the others identified, management-model-usq-2006-2012.pdf became the defining attributes for the various http://www.nabca.net/accesshome.html 2 Fraser: Selecting the Optimum Management Model for a Branch University Campus management models identified. facility which provides a means of engaging and providing support to remote students. It may consist of occasional use classrooms or 3. BRANCH CAMPUS MANAGEMENT permanent facilities. As a campus it has no MODELS autonomy, and there are no permanent academic staff. Usually there is no formal local head of Australian universities tend to employ highly campus, although there has been at least one centralised management, operating through a attempt in Australia to incorporate one4 to parent/branch (satellite) structure where the provide a focus for facilities management business operations, activities and authorities of purposes, community and student engagement, their branch campuses are determined by the and localised marketing. In actuality, most study parent campus. This is opposed to a federated centres usually come under the purview of the university structure where all campuses are of head of the closest formal campus or the an equal status and the authorities vested in the distance learning section of a university. This campuses cannot be unilaterally altered. The model is often employed in regional areas where federated structure is more common in the US a full-time campus cannot be justified. It should where campuses were established via land be noted that just because a particular campus is grants specifically to service their regions, a called a centre, this does not necessarily mean function which can easily be compromised that its management model fits the definition of under the centralised parent/branch structure. a study centre, and if there are permanent From a community’s perspective, a campus of a academic staff it is likely to fit the federated university is the ideal model, as the administrative model described at section 3.2. campus has the authority and resources to engage with and contribute to its local Closely aligned to the concept of a study centre, community, as would be the case for any parent is the growing movement in regional Australia campus and its community. to establish Community Owned Tertiary Education Centres (COTECs) with permanent My research identified five parent/branch community employed campus heads. These campus management models based around the COTECSs facilitate the operations of multiple degrees of autonomy held at a campus level universities under a study centre model, but with a focus on business operations, line restricted to only running programs agreed to by management of academic