FOR INFORMATION & CONSIDERATION TASK FORCE ON REVIEW … · (iv) methodology on measuring...

FOR INFORMATION Paper TF5/2/2017

& CONSIDERATION

TASK FORCE ON REVIEW OF COUNCIL EFFECTIVENESS

Report on Meeting with UGC TFGov on Written Accountability Framework held on

8 February 2017 and the Written Response to TFGov

PURPOSE

This paper aims to: (i) report on a meeting between the UGC’s Task Force on

Implementation of Governance Report Recommendations (TFGov) and the HKUST on UGC’s

draft Written Accountability Framework; and (ii) seek Members’ comments on the summary

response submitted to TFGov on the Written Accountability Framework.

BACKGROUND

2. At the request of the Education Bureau in December 2013, the UGC embarked on a

study on governance of all UGC-funded institutions. This consultancy study, led by Sir

Howard Newby, aims to identify some international good practices with a view to further

enhancing the effectiveness and transparency of institutions’ governance, and to better equip

Council Members of institutions in discharge of their duties. The finalized Report of the study,

commonly known as the Newby Report, was released on 30 March 2016. There are a total of

six major recommendations in the Report and a task force (TFGov) has been set up by the UGC

to follow up on respective recommendations.

3. A meeting amongst UGC’s TFGov, Member of Council and the University

management was held on 11 July 2016 to discuss the follow-up actions on related

recommendations. Progress of the University’s follow-up actions were subsequently reported

to the Task Force on Review of Council Effectiveness, the Standing Committee and the Council

at their meetings from July – September 2016. In addition, an interim progress report on the

University’s follow up actions in relation to Newby Report’s recommendations had been

submitted to UGC in December 2016, at its request.

For Internal Use Only

- 2 -

RECOMMENDATION ON WRITTEN ACCOUNTABILITY FRAMEWORK OF THE

UGC’S REPORT ON GOVERNANCE IN UGC-FUNDED HIGHER EDUCATION

INSITUTIONS IN HONG KONG

4. According to the Recommendation 2 of the Newby Report,

“In order to ensure that the fiduciary responsibilities of council

members strike an appropriate and sustainable balance between

institutional autonomy and public accountability the UGC should

create a mechanism to explore, drawing upon international good

practice, the establishment of a written accountability framework on

which the vice-chancellor / president and the council report annually.”

In respect of this recommendation, the TFGov had prepared a draft framework

document with a working title “Hong Kong Compact” (Appendix 1). The document aims to

“provide assurance within a university that the key elements for robust institutional governance

are in place.”

MEETING WITH TFGOV ON WRITTEN ACCOUNTABILITY FRAMEWORK

5. TFGov met with representatives of senior leadership of the Council and management

of HKUST on 8 February 2017 to collect their feedback on the draft framework.

6. At the meeting, Members exchanged their views on a number of topics which include

(i) the concepts of University governance: e.g. accountability vs. institutional autonomy; (ii)

synchronization of data amongst different UGC review exercises; (iii) reporting cycle of

different review exercises and its implication on University’s planning and budgeting process;

(iv) methodology on measuring institutional performance; and (v) definition on institute-wide

and institute-specific key performance indicators (KPIs). The TFGov explained that such an

accountability framework represents the outcome of a process of strategic dialogue between the

University and the UGC to promote good governance. The framework is intended to capture

data in a reliable way in addressing some general University governance issues with a sector-

wide approach. Institutions are invited to identify specific KPIs according to their own

strategic priorities in each of the activity domain. The TFGov, upon receipt of comments and

inputs from all the institutions, will revise the draft framework document for UGC’s internal

review and discussion, prior to its implementation.

7. At the request of TFGov after the meeting, the University had shared its comments on

the draft framework with TFGov and identified some institution-specific KPIs under each of

the five activity domains of the draft framework (Appendix 2).

----

----

- 3 -

ADVICE SOUGHT

8. The University’s response as mentioned in paragraph 7 will be submitted to Council

for review at its plenary session on 23 March 2017. Members of the TF are invited to note the

progress of work and share their comments, if any, with Council Members.

PRESENTATION

9. This paper is presented to the Task Force on Review of Council Effectiveness for

information and consideration at its meeting scheduled for 15 March 2017.

Task Force on Review of Council Effectiveness

The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology

13 March 2017

- 4 -

Appendix 1

Meeting with UGC’s TFGov on Written Accountability Framework

Date: 8 February 2017 (Wednesday)

Time: 9:30 – 10:30 a.m.

Venue: UGC Secretariat, 7/F, Shui On Center, 6-7 Harbour Road, Wanchai

Participants from UGC:

- Sir Howard Newby, Convenor, TFGov

- Dr Richard Armour, Secretary-General, UGC

- Mr Dugald Mackie, Technical Consultant, TFGov

- Miss Winnie Wong, Deputy Secretary-General (1)

- Miss Kathy Ma, Assistant Secretary-General (Policy)

Participants from HKUST:

- The Hon Andrew Liao, Council Chairman

- Professor John Chai, Council Vice-Chairman

- Professor Patrick Yeung, Treasurer of the University, Chairman of the Finance Committee

- Mr Quinn Law, Chairman of Audit Committee

- Professor Tony F Chan, President

- Professor Wei Shyy, Executive Vice-President and Provost

- Mr Mark Hodgson, Vice-President for Administration and Business

- Miss Terrenz Wong, Acting Secretary of Council

- 5 -

Implementation of Governance Report Recommendations

C, TFGov’s Meetings with UGC-funded Universities (6-8 February 2017)

on Written Accountability Framework

Background note to discussion of the proposed Hong Kong Compact

1. A major recommendation of the Newby Report on Governance (Recommendation 2)

was a strengthening of the relationship between the UGC and each of the eight universities it

funds through an “Accountability Framework”. A key element of that framework is a formal

agreement between the UGC and each university, setting out the basis of their relationship in

what has been given the working title of the “Hong Kong Compact”

2. The Compact has been developed by the Task Force on Implementation of Governance

Report Recommendations (TFGov) under UGC. It has been subject to scrutiny by the UGC’s

relevant Councils/Sub-committees, which have each paid attention to the high-level sector-wide

performance measures (PMs) suggested in each of five activity domains.

3. The Compact is intended to satisfy the UGC that the wider interest of the Hong Kong

public (for which it acts by proxy) is being met by each university. It is also intended to provide

assurance within a university that the key elements for robust institutional governance are in

place. In view of this dual purpose, it is intended that the document be widely available.

4. The content of the Compact is largely straightforward. It includes a small number of

system-wide PMs in each domain of activity which will enable external stakeholders to assess

the progress of the sector as a whole. Alongside these the universities will be invited to agree a

small number of institutionally specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) drawn from their

strategic plans.

5. The sector-wide PMs represent challenging but achievable performance commitments

on the part of each institution. They have been designed to sit alongside those institution-

specific KPIs which form a core element in an institution’s strategic plan. The PMs have also

been designed to reflect the make-up of higher education provision in Hong Kong, considering

the diverse nature of the institutions, along with different levels and modes of study.

6. Where discussion with individual institutions will be welcome relates to the derivation

of data for certain measures, particularly student satisfaction. Such data is collected by at least

some institutions at present but it seems likely that there will be methodological differences

among them. What the TFGov needs to explore with institutions is their appetite for some

harmonisation such that a standard approach to data collection and interpretation for a small

number of key PMs might be adopted across the sector. “Harmonisation”, though, need not

mean, “homogenisation”. It will be important to ensure that institutions can retain their

individual identities within this overarching approach.

7. With the above in mind, the TFGov may choose to amend the currently suggested

measures. The issue of PMs which contain a qualitative element also needs to open up for

further discussion.

8. The institution-specific KPIs to be inserted into each individual Compact will be

chosen by the institution to reflect its strategic priorities in each of the activity domains. For the

sake of keeping the Compact within reasonable limits in terms of length, it is suggested that no

more than four KPIs per domain be chosen.

- 6 -

Hong Kong Compact

(1st draft for discussion with universities)

1. BACKGROUND, CONTEXT AND PURPOSE OF THE COMPACT

2. HONG KONG FUNDING FRAMEWORK: KEY PRINCIPLES

3. INSTITUTIONAL MISSION AND VISION

Mission, vision and role statement

Strategic priorities and actions

4. ACTIVITY DOMAINS AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES

The quality of the student experience of learning and teaching

The quality of research performance and of research postgraduate experience

Knowledge transfer and wider engagement

Enhanced internationalisation

Financial health and institutional sustainability

5. GOVERNANCE AND INSTITUTIONAL MANAGEMENT

Recruitment, induction and continuing professional development of University

Council members

Institutional strategy

Management of risk

Delegation of authority

Periodic review of governance arrangements

6. UGC FUNDING ALLOCATION TO [Name of University]

UGC funding methodology

Student number targets

Manpower requirements

Other UGC funding (if any)

7. FORMAL AGREEMENT

Signature of the Secretary General, University Grants Committee of Hong Kong

Signature of the [President/Vice-Chancellor]

- 7 -

1. BACKGROUND, CONTEXT AND PURPOSE OF THE COMPACT

The Hong Kong Compact is a formal agreement between [Name of University] and the

University Grants Committee (UGC) of Hong Kong. The agreement represents the outcome

of a process of strategic dialogue between the University and the UGC. Its purpose is to

articulate the nature and substance of the relationship between the University and the UGC.

Such dialogue is an important element in the actions being taken both by universities and the

UGC to strengthen the governance and accountability of publicly-funded higher education

institutions in Hong Kong. The dialogue and the Compact allow a university to articulate its

mission, its vision and strategic goals for achieving that vision. They allow the UGC to be

satisfied that the wider public interest is both recognised and met by the university, as well as

providing assurance through high-level performance measures of a commitment to continuous

quality improvement. For the University, the Compact assures members of its Governing

Body, as well as its staff and students, that the key elements of robust institutional governance

are in place.

This Compact forms a key part of the strategic framework underpinning the relationship

between a university and the UGC. While enhancing a university’s accountability through

greater transparency, it reinforces its autonomous status through its recognition of the

university’s distinct mission and vision, as well as setting out the actions adopted by the

university as the core of its strategic plan.

The Compact reaffirms the funding to be provided to a university by the UGC, setting out the

broad elements which together represent the single-line block grant from the UGC over the

triennial funding period from 20XX to 20YY. It also sets out any conditions attached to such

funding. All universities are required to follow the UGC Notes on Procedure, as well as abide

by the Statement of Recommended Practice (SORP) in preparing their Annual Report.

By signing this Compact, the University affirms that all funds received from the UGC will be

used solely for the purposes for which they are intended. Such funds are provided in the

expectation that the University will seek to achieve value for money and be economical,

efficient and effective in its use of public funds. The University is also required to submit its

teaching, learning and related processes to regular quality audit through the aegis of the

Quality Assurance Council (QAC) and to submit to its research activity being assessed on a

regular basis by the UGC.

While it is expected that the process of dialogue leading to the joint agreement of the

Compact will mean that universities and the UGC will comply willingly with it both in spirit

and in the letter, non-compliance on the part of the University will lead to action on the part of

the UGC to ensure that the University understands fully the potential consequences of it

continuing to act in such a way.

The Compact will be reviewed on an annual basis as part of the strategic dialogue between the

university and the UGC. This annual review will consist of a check on progress towards

targets and outcomes agreed over the six-year timeframe of the university’s strategic plan,

which is aligned with the three-year span of the funding settlement from the UGC.

The Compact is signed by both the university and the UGC as a public affirmation of the

commitment of both parties to confirming and enhancing the global reputation of Hong

Kong’s higher education sector as a provider and enabler of teaching, research and related

activity of the highest quality and of the greatest benefit to the people of Hong Kong.

- 8 -

2. HONG KONG FUNDING FRAMEWORK: KEY PRINCIPLES

For the funding triennium of 20XX to 20YY, the Government has agreed to provide HK$XX

billion to the UGC based on a submission drawing on plans submitted by each institution.

Each plan was subject to scrutiny and challenge by the UGC through a process of strategic

dialogue with individual institutions, based on an examination and discussion of the

effectiveness of an institution’s strategy (as articulated in its strategic plan) in enabling it to

advance its mission, vision and role, with reference to:

i. its competitiveness in Hong Kong and internationally;

ii. collaboration within and outside the UGC sector;

iii. capacity-building in key areas such as internationalisation and knowledge transfer;

iv. the development of the self-financing sector; and

v. its use of the outcomes of key exercises such as QAC audits and the Research

Assessment Exercise 2014 to influence its longer-term strategy.

The UGC and the Government are committed to the principle of funding being allocated to

the eight publicly-funded universities on a three-year basis, with that funding consisting of a

single-line block grant to each institution. This approach is an explicit recognition of their

autonomous status. On their part, universities accept that they have a duty to be openly

accountable for their proper stewardship of funds, irrespective of their source, and of other

resources at their disposal.

The UGC considers that competition drives excellence. Competition among institutions for a

proportion of funded places is therefore embedded in the UGC’s overall approach as the

process of competing for places requires an institution to take a critical look at its activities,

particularly in relation to its role within the higher education sector in Hong Kong as well as

in addressing community needs.

While the principle of the “single-line budgetary allocation” is, as stated above, fundamental

to the UGC’s approach, the use of its funding is subject to certain conditions. For its part,

[Name of University] accepts that:

i. co-teaching of UGC-funded and self-funded programmes is permitted, subject to there

being in place a transparent and fair system for costing and for the subsequent transfer

of funds and subject to adherence to the requirements for such a system being as set

out in the ‘Cost Allocation Guidelines for UGC-funded and non-UGC funded

Activities’;

ii. there must be no cross-subsidy of UGC resources into supporting non-UGC funded

activities;

iii. “mixed-mode” funding where UGC-funded students might be charged a higher fee in

order to subsidise lower fees for self-funded students is not allowed;

iv. subject to certain exceptions for particular teacher education programmes, additional

years for the second degree within dual/double undergraduate degree programmes

must be self-financed;

v. in general, sub-degree and taught postgraduate degree programmes should be self-

financed;

vi. part-time undergraduate and part-time research postgraduate programmes are not

eligible for public funding;

vii. admission of non-local students by over-enrolment is permitted, subject to

conditions set out in the UGC Notes on Procedures;

- 9 -

viii. under-enrolment of UGC-funded students and the consequences as prescribed in the

UGC Notes on Procedures;

ix. any proposed moves of programmes to a higher-weighting academic programme

category require the agreement of the UGC, based on a strong case for the justification

of such a move;

x. adherence to the 20% rule on the balance of the General and Development Reserve

Fund (GDRF) for a funding period.

Specific detail of the funding being provided by the UGC to [Name of University] is set out in

Section Six of this Compact.

3. INSTITUTIONAL MISSION AND VISION

For the UGC, it is important that the strategies adopted by universities are effective in

enabling an institution to advance its mission through enhancing its competitiveness,

strengthening its ability to build its capacity, enabling collaboration and using the outcomes of

exercises such as the [2014 Research Assessment Exercise] as a key element in its future

development.

Institutional Mission

[University to insert its institutional mission as agreed by its Council]

Institutional Vision

[University to insert its institutional vision as agreed by its Council]

Role Statement

[University to insert its institutional role statement as agreed with the UGC]

Strategic Priorities and Actions

High-level strategic priorities by the University for the six years from 2019/20 to 2024/25 and

more specific actions for the three year triennial funding period from 2019/20 to 2021/22.

Priorities: 2019/20 to 2024/25

[University to insert key strategic priorities as agreed by its Council as part of its Strategic

Plan]

Actions: 2019/20 to 2021/22

[University to insert key actions to achieve the above strategic priorities as agreed by its

Council as part of its Strategic Plan]

- 10 -

4. ACTIVITY DOMAINS AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES

A regular review of institutional performance is an important element of sound governance. It

allows an institution to derive leverage from its strengths, while highlighting other areas

where action on issues requiring attention might be taken to its longer-term advantage. It also

allows an institution to demonstrate in its key areas of activity that it has taken note of those

elements which are important in the future development of higher education in Hong Kong.

For the UGC, these elements are in particular important:

quality of the student experience of learning and teaching;

quality of research performance and of research postgraduate experience;

knowledge transfer and wider engagement;

enhanced internationalisation; and

financial health and institutional sustainability.

The higher education sector is a major asset for Hong Kong, benefitting from a major

investment of public funds each year. Measuring the overall performance of the sector

provides a measure of sector-wide performance for public information, as well as

strengthening both the public profile and reputation of the sector and its overall value to the

community. Measurement of performance helps ensure public confidence in universities

through enhancing their accountability. Measurement also allows the higher education sector

to demonstrate that individual institutions are committed to continuous quality improvement

in their individual circumstances, as well as high standards of governance and educational

practice.

4.1 The quality of the student experience of learning and teaching

The core components of the performance measures in this activity domain are intended to

demonstrate that an institution has effective strategies in place to deliver improvements in

teaching quality, to enhance the effectiveness of the learning environment and to maximise

student learning outcomes, particularly in relation to learning gain leading to appropriate

employment or further study. Factors such as undergraduate learning being informed by

involvement with research activity and being deepened through the adoption of approaches

such as ‘Whole Person Education’ are also acknowledged in the measures.

Sector-wide Performance Measures

1) undergraduate satisfaction with the quality of their teaching and learning experience

2) undergraduate satisfaction with their overall learning environment

3) employer satisfaction with graduates

Institution-specific Key Performance Indicators

[Institution to insert up to four of its KPIs in this domain]

4.2 The quality of research performance and of research postgraduate experience

Performance measures in this domain are intended to illustrate that an institution has

strategies in place appropriate to its mission to encourage research and scholarship and which

- 11 -

seek to improve the quality and volume of research outputs. The measures take account of

factors such as research impact and measures in place to ensure positive learning outcomes

for research postgraduate students, including equipping them for careers appropriate to their

specialism.


1) percentage of research activities judged to be world leading or internationally

excellent as assessed in the latest Research Assessment Exercise

2) value of total research income

3) average time-to-completion, graduation rate and employability of research

postgraduates, allowing for disciplinary differences



4.3 Knowledge transfer and wider engagement

Performance measures in this domain are intended to demonstrate how an institution seeks to

strengthen its links with industry, business and commerce to create further engagement

opportunities for its community of staff and students to disseminate their research and

knowledge to benefit enterprise and the community.


1) total income from knowledge transfer activities

2) percentage of turnover devoted to non-income bearing outreach activities



4.4 Enhanced internationalisation

System-wide performance measures in this domain are designed to illustrate the impact of an

institution’s development of a holistic approach to the growing importance of

internationalisation to the higher education sector in Hong Kong. Such an approach might

include the recruitment of students from overseas, exchange programmes involving Hong

Kong students spending part of their course in an overseas institution and vice versa,

recruitment of staff from overseas, participation of staff in overseas conferences/exchanges,

engagement with Mainland China, as well as the extent to which the student curriculum itself

has embraced and embodied international perspectives.


1) non-local students (in each of: undergraduate; taught postgraduate; research

postgraduate) as % of total student numbers

2) non-local students broken down by regions (Asia, Europe, North America, South

America, Oceania, Africa and others)

3) % of Hong Kong undergraduate students with non-local learning experience (e.g.

credit-bearing studying / exchange programmes, internship, etc)

- 12 -

4) % of full-time Faculty staff involved in international research collaboration which has

resulted in a joint publication cited in the RAE process as of at least international

quality



4.5 Financial health and institutional sustainability

Measures in this domain are designed to illustrate the strength of an institution’s governance

structures and their capacity to ensure the financial sustainability of the institution in the

longer term. The elements forming the measures are drawn from the findings of the UGC’s

2015 Report on Governance, as well as from worldwide good practice in the wider sphere of

commerce and government. Specific measures and indicators of enhanced governance in

[Name of University] are detailed in the following Section Five on Governance and

Institutional Management.


1) annual operating surplus as a percentage of overall turnover

2) percentage of income derived from UGC

3) percentage of current assets to current liabilities

4) unrestricted general reserves and their coverage of annual outgoings

5) annual return achieved on institutional investments



5. GOVERNANCE AND INSTITUTIONAL MANAGEMENT

The UGC and the eight universities have worked together since the UGC published its Report

on ‘Governance in UGC-funded Higher Education Institutions in Hong Kong’ in March 2016.

Action has been taken to implement recommendations in each of the following key areas in

order to strengthen institutional governance and management.

Recruitment, induction and continuing professional development of University

council members

Institutional strategy

Management of risk

Delegation of authority

Periodic review of governance arrangements

[Name of University] has responded to the recommendations by taking the following actions:

5.1 Recruitment, induction and continuing professional development of University

council members

- 13 -

It is suggested that the individual university inserts a summary of action taken, along

something like the following lines:

“A ‘skills template’ is used in determining likely Council members. New members undergo a

formal induction programme, with all members being kept up to date through briefing

documents prepared by the Executive Team, supplemented by informal briefings on key

topics.”

5.2 Institutional Strategy



“The – name of the university - Council is fully involved in the development of institutional

strategies flowing from its overall mission and vision, as articulated in the 2019 – 2025

Institutional Strategic Plan.”

5.3 Management of risk



“Name of university - has in place a Strategic Corporate Risk Management Framework,

agreed by its Council. The Council’s Audit and Risk Committee maintains oversight of the

operation of the Framework, with each of the high-level risks being ‘owned’ by a member of

the senior executive team. Each of these risks is then cascaded throughout the institution, with

clear ownership and reporting lines established at all levels. A culture of risk awareness

based on stakeholder engagement underpins the Framework.”

5.4 Delegation of authority

It is suggested that the individual university inserts a summary of action taken, especially with

regard to commercial or quasi-commercial activities, along something like the following

lines:

“Name of university - has in place a comprehensive structure of delegation, starting with the

Council and its X standing committees, each of which has a scheme of delegation. Each

scheme sets out limits to authority, particularly in relation to expenditure and especially with

regard to commercial or quasi-commercial activities, along with the framework for reporting

and oversight of any use of delegated authority.”

5.5 Periodic review of governance arrangements



The Council of – name of university - has agreed to review governance arrangements at least

every six years (to coincide with the – name of university - planning cycle), with reviews of

specific areas of its activity being undertaken more frequently if needed.

- 14 -

6. UGC FUNDING ALLOCATION TO [Name of University]

The UGC provides funding annually to [Name of University], based on its triennial funding

cycle.

UGC Funding Methodology

Funding formula for teaching funding

[Brief description of 2019 – 22 approach]

Funding formula for research funding

[Brief description of 2019 – 22 approach]

Student number targets*

[Brief description/table of places funded by the Government, e.g. FYFD, Senior Year,

Research Postgraduate – with table setting out University’s allocation in each category]

Manpower requirements

The allocation of student places is subject to the UGC receiving advice from the Government

on anticipated manpower requirements in certain disciplines. For [Name of University], the

places falling into this category are as follows;

[Table of places by category/discipline]

Other UGC funding (if any)

7. FORMAL AGREEMENT

This compact represents an agreement between [Name of University] and the University

Grants Committee.

Signed for and on behalf of [Name of University]

by

……………………………………………………………. …………………………

Signature Date

Signed for and on behalf of the University Grants Committee of Hong Kong

by

……………………………………………………………. …………………………

Signature Date

- 15 -

Appendix 2

Annex

1

Hong Kong Compact

Suggestions & Comments from

The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology

A. General

Reference Suggestions & Comments Newby Report Part 3 (p. 15) HK Compact Section 1 (p. 2) Section 4 (p. 5)

Accountability, Governance, Autonomy Currently, the balance between institutional autonomy & public accountability is not directly addressed in HK Compact (HKC) template. Concept of governance is also being used interchangeably with accountability. We suggest reinstating the original emphasis and clarity from the Newby Report on accountability, governance and autonomy with regard to the co-shared responsibility of UGC, university council and senior management.

Newby Report Part 4 (p. 24 - 25) HK Compact Section 1 (p. 2)

Synchronization of Multiple Review Processes HKC does not address Newby Report’s own finding on overlapping administrative burden presented by the multiple existing UGC processes, namely the Academic Development Proposals (ADP), Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), Quality Assurance Council (QAC) and Common Data Collection Format (CDCF) exercises. We expect UGC to explain how HKC as an accountability framework will fit in with these multiple processes in a more precise way. We suggest UGC to consolidate all the different bits and pieces, and come up with a single accountability framework instead. We also suggest UGC to provide more transparency for universities to understand the usage and evaluation of data being collected from multiple processes including HKC, as well as funding implications to universities. Explanation is not given to universities as to how data collected across the different exercises particularly the CDCF would be used, evaluated and published.

HK Compact Section 1, 3 & 5 (p. 2, 4 & 8)

Different Planning Cycles The 6-year Strategic Plan framework from 2019/20 to 2024/25 as requested in the HKC falls beyond HKUST’s current 5-yr Strategic Plan cycle which was just approved by the university council in 2016. For the immediate next step, HKUST can provide our current 5-year Strategic Plan from 2016 to 2020 for use of HKC for now.

Annex

2

Reference Suggestions & Comments HK Compact Section 1 (p. 2) Section 4 (p. 5 - 7)

Data Collection and Reporting Many key performance measures or indicators would need a longer timeframe than annual cycle to develop and achieve. It should be understandable that there may not be lots of changes from year to year. We suggest that HKC should allow reporting on historical trend and progress as opposed to reporting numbers just on annual basis. Submission under HKC should take place in October each year to cater for sufficient time for data and information collection in light of universities’ usual academic and financial cycles. Universities should also report both numbers and commentary to avoid misinterpretation. We also expect UGC to explain how they will define the sector-wide performance measures for consistent data benchmarking and explain how to reconcile the possible methodological differences across universities.

HK Compact Section 5.3 (p. 8)

Risk Management This section should refer to the strategic corporate risk management framework and not deal with operational risks or procedure. The University now make a separate disclosure on risk management in the Annual Report. What is important is for the risk management process to ensure a proper overview of strategic risks by council including risk assessment, mitigation and assurance. Council’s audit Committee will also conduct periodic review of the risk management process.

B. Sector-wide Performance Measures (PMs)

1. Quality of student experience of learning and teaching

Sector-wide PMs Suggestions & Comments

1. UG satisfaction

with the quality

of their teaching

and learning

experience

• Fine with this measure, provided that UGC and universities could

agree on the methodology.

Annex

3

2. UG satisfaction

with their overall

learning

environment

• Suggest defining “overall learning environment” by adding

composite factors, e.g. measure on student life, but excluding

those beyond universities’ control including transportation &

location, insufficient on-campus housing, career outlook of

individual disciplines; or at least ensuring that the single measure is

itself derived from composite measures.

3. Employer

satisfaction with

graduates

• Fine in general with this measure, but need to be more specific

about what exactly universities are asked to report.

2. Quality of research performance and of research postgraduate experience


1. % of research

activities judged

to be world

leading or

internationally

excellent as

assessed in the

latest Research

Assessment

Exercise (RAE)

• Need UGC to clarify what would be reported on an annual basis

since new RAE results will only be available periodically.

2. Value of total

research income

• Research income is not the best measure of research activity, not

reflective of research quality, and also inconsistent with UGC’s own

R-block evaluation framework which is based on number of RGC/

UGC funded research projects and accounts for approximately 25%

of UGC’s sector-wide block grant allocation.

• We suggest using better measures of research activity such as

number of bids and awards of competitive research grant with

normalization by faculty size and disciplines.

3. Average time-to-

completion,

graduation rate

and employability

of research

postgraduates

• Fine with this measure.

Annex

4


(RPgs), allowing

for disciplinary

differences

3. Knowledge transfer and wider engagement


1. Total income from

knowledge

transfer (KT)

activities

• Income is not a good measure for value or impact of KT activities,

depending a lot on individual universities’ different policies and

roles.

• Suggest replacing “income” with “benefits” as an indicator for KT

activities by other reference points such as entrepreneurship

competitions, mentorship, KT minors, as well as universities’ KT

reports to UGC.

2. % of turnover

devoted to non-

income bearing

outreach activities

• This PM apparently attempts to measure KT activities and would

be rendered redundant if our suggestions for 3.1 are adopted. We

suggest removing this PM.

4. Enhanced internationalization


1. Non-local students

(in each of: UG;

TPg; RPg) as % of

total student

numbers


2. Non-local students

broken down by

regions (Asia,

Europe, North

America, South

America, Oceania,

Africa and others)


Annex

5


3. % of HK UG with

non-local learning

experience (e.g.

credit-bearing

studying/exchange

programs,

internship, etc.)

• Suggest standardising methodology and putting a qualifier to

include only the substantial ones that have bigger impact on

students’ experience with long enough duration, e.g. semester-

long programs. Duration/ format of credit-bearing studies/

exchanges vary amongst universities. Some are very short-term in

weeks only or even conducted online.

4. % of full-time

faculty staff

involved in

international

research

collaboration

which has resulted

in a joint

publication cited

in the RAE process

as of at least

international

quality

• Not sensible with regard to the intrinsic nature of international

research collaboration which cannot be considered without the

overall context. For example, in the smaller and emerging

“academic markets” like Luxemburg and the Middle East, research

institutions could achieve close to 100% international

collaboration rate as they do not have a sizeable in-house

domestic body of faculty and students.

• We suggest removing this PM.

5. Financial health and institutional sustainability


1. Annual operating

surplus as a % of

overall turnover

• This should be broken into UGC/ non-UGC components as well as

reported University-wide. This would make it more meaningful.

2. % of income

derived from UGC


3. % of current

assets to current

liabilities

• Fine with this measure

4. Unrestricted

general reserves

and their

• Should be broken into UGC/ non-UGC components as well as

reported University-wide. This would make it more meaningful.

Annex

6


coverage of

annual outgoings

5. Annual return

achieved on

institutional

investments

• Should be reported as an absolute figure as a long-term measure

(e.g. annualised return since inception) as well as annual

performance. In addition, performance versus investment strategy

weighted benchmark would assist interpretation.

• UGC might consider a further PM relating to external borrowings

(e.g. gearing, interest cover) if required, given that HK universities

can raise external debt.

C. Institution-specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)1

Activity Domains Suggested HKUST-specific KPIs

1. Quality of student

experience of

learning and

teaching

a. Language improvement based on IELTS scores or other English

test results benchmarked against IELTS

b. Pedagogical innovations and teaching development – by total

number of student-credits over total student population using

new pedagogy including blended learning, experiential learning

and Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program (UROP)

c. Career development measured by employability globally

2. Quality of research

performance and

of research

postgraduate

experience

a. Success rate of competitive grants

b. Esteem measures including number of professional society

recognitions/ awards, other prizes & honors

c. RPg student experience based on end-of-program survey results

3. Knowledge transfer

and wider

engagement

a. Technology transfer and commercialization by number of

patents filed, granted and used

b. Entrepreneurship - number of start-ups funded by HKUST

including Technology Start-up Support Scheme for Universities

1 Note: Where applicable, the HKUST-specific KPIs will be normalized by faculty size and by

disciplines.

Annex

7

Activity Domains Suggested HKUST-specific KPIs

(TSSSU) and number of entries in HKUST-supported

competitions

c. Other societal contribution: number, participant size and

diversity of community engagement projects, social service

events, art related functions

4. Enhanced

internationalization

a. Faculty profile by nationality

b. Dual/ joint degree programs & formal joint offerings of

coursework

c. Number of institutions & students on exchange-in

arrangements at HKUST for at least 1 semester

d. Global presence, such as World Economic Forum

5. Financial health

and institutional

sustainability

a. Approved capital expenditure to be funded by non-UGC

resources

b. Value of working capital pool to ÷ Operating cash flow ratio

c. Dollar value of uncommitted UGC and non-UGC reserves

FOR INFORMATION & CONSIDERATION TASK FORCE ON REVIEW … · (iv) methodology on measuring...

Documents

Transcript of FOR INFORMATION & CONSIDERATION TASK FORCE ON REVIEW … · (iv) methodology on measuring...