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.