OULU REVISITED : FIVE YEARS OF

CHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT

 

EVALUATION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF OULU :

Follow-Up Visit : September 1998
 

 

Report of the Visiting External Group :

 

Professor John Davies, Anglia Polytechnic University, UK

Professor Caj-Gunnar Lindström, Åbo Akademi, Finland

Dr. Frits Schutte, University of Twente, Netherlands.

 

The university of Oulu carried out the first institutional evaluation in Finland in 1992-93 with the university of Jyväskylä. These evaluations were pilot experiments at evaluating the quality of the universities´ activities and at establishing an evaluation procedure suitable for all institutions of higher education. The timing of these evaluations could not be better, since the operational and economic environment of the Finnish universities already was in a rapid change.

The evaluation process was two-phased: the report by the External Visiting Group was based upon the University´s Self-Assessment Report and upon interviews conducted during its five-day visit to Oulu with some 140 members of the University community.

The External Evaluating Group´s Report – including 89 recommendations - emphasised the University´s mission, strategic planning and management, the quality of teaching and the University´s role in regional development. In the University´s own Self-Assessment Report issues connected with management received less attention. The evaluation process as a whole demonstrated that it was not customary within the University to consider either management or the University to its environment.

The first institutional evaluation gave fire for the first thorough strategy process in 1994 and thus undoubtedly marked a new epoch of strategic thinking in the University of Oulu. As an evidence of this development is the second over-all strategy which was confirmed by the Senate of the University in spring 1997.

Visioning is no doubt the easiest part in a strategy process. The knotty problem is how to implement all the good ideas or recommendations to be concrete in every-day life. In order to realize the plans the Senate and the faculties of the University of Oulu made so called Intention Contracts. These contracts include all the major development challenges for the next three years. For each challenge there is a confirmed vision, indicators for the progress and an action plan for the decision making. The present challenges for the university are: 1) making effective use of multidisciplinarity; 2) staff development; 3) developing evaluation practices; 4) renewing the learning culture; 5) strenghtening areas of emphasis and areas under special development as well as the unique character of the university by networking and 6) developing management and leadership and performance of the university.

The second institutional evaluation process was carried out in 1998. The aim of the project was 1) to find out the effects of the evaluation carried out in 1993, 2) to evaluate the present activities as a whole with regard to the strategic aims of the University of Oulu and 3) to solify the evaluation culture at the University of Oulu. It was recommended in the 1993 evaluation that future evaluations should be problem-centered and geared towards goal-oriented development of the organisation. These principles were chosen as the starting point of the evaluation.

The evaluation was carried out in two phases, as a self-evaluation and an evaluation performed by an outside group of referees. The idea behind the project was to carry out the evaluation with a light structure, as an integral part of the management, and to emphasize the importance of evaluation discussions for gaining a deeper understanding of the current status of the scientific community.

The University of Oulu is an international scientific university dedicated to top-research. Its mission is to further culture and material well-being in Northern Finland. To fulfill its task the university must also be humble: by strengthening its evaluation culture the university can more and more better meet the challenges in its rapidly changing environment.

 
CONTENTS

 

Preamble    1 - 6

 

Observations on the Evaluation Process adopted in 1998    7 - 10

 

Environmental Challenges    11 - 12

 

The Regional Dimension    13 - 21

 

Strategic Planning Process    22 - 25

 

Teaching and Learning    26 - 32

 

Continuing Education    33 - 37

 

Research Transfer and Technology Transfer   38 - 40

 

Internationalisation    41 - 45

 

Organisational Issues    46 - 48

 

Administration and Central Services    49 - 51

 

Personnel Policy    52 - 56

 

Final Remarks    57 - 60

 

PREAMBLE

1. It was with very great pleasure that the evaluation team accepted an invitation to undertake a follow-up evaluation study to that which we undertook in 1993. This original study (Evaluation of the University of Oulu) was published by the Ministry in 1993, and contained a substantial number of recommendations (some 84). These were designed not only to comment on how we found the university at that time (as evidenced by the Self Evaluation Report and our extensive discussions with Oulu colleagues), but also to help the university move forward, especially with regard to the environmental challenges we identified at that time.                     2. Our task was defined on this occasion (1998) thus : • to evaluate the follow-up process launched into the 1993 evaluation.

• to evaluate what kind of institutional and organisational framework the university as a whole creates for its basic operations.

• to contribute to the establishment of an evaluation culture at the University of Oulu.
 

 This broad brief was supplemented by/expressed in a range of practical working questions which the group addressed specifically.

3. We understand that the form of evaluation which we are using is part of a general portfolio of different approaches which the Higher Education Evaluation Council is encouraging in the period up to 2000. These approahces include institutional evaluations, like the one of Oulu in 1993, institutional evaluations with a special focus, e.g. regional role of three eastern Finland universities, the CRE institutional review, the EFMD accreditation model, and the Council’s own process for polytechnic evaluation.

We feel that this is a very sensible way to proceed, and are confident it will be possible for the Council to distil best practice from these various approaches. In this regard, the evaluation team offers a series of observations on the 1998 process in which we were pleased to participate, in the hope that this will be of help as the Council considers the shape of institutional evaluation process it wishes to define after 2000, and will be pleased to discuss these further.

4. In this sense, we see our role as providing a service to different "clients", so to speak, namely
 

• the University of Oulu itself which invited us to address the issues in the Self Evaluation and others which emerged in discussions.

• the Higher Education Evaluation Council of Finland which is entrusted with ensuring that sound quality assurance mechanisms exist and function effectively.

• the Ministry of Education of Finland, which is entrusted with the health of the university system as a whole, and has set in motion a wide range of improvement strategies in Finnish universities since our last visit in 1993.
 

 We have attempted as far as possible within the constraints of time to provide perspectives of use to all three "clients", but with the main focus on the University itself. In this endeavour, our role like that of a CRE review team (which we are not), seems to encompass a number of different but related dimensions, for example
  • providing a mirror for the university to reflect on its performance.

• acting as a revealer of issues we feel the university and other partners should pick up.

• providing a source of ideas on good practice elsewhere – an educator role – on relevant issues.

• delivering positive recommendations where appropriate – an advisory role.
 

 5. Inevitably, our Report is not a total comprehensive commentary on the University and, of course, does not seek to evaluate the quality of teaching and research per se. We have eschewed the practice of looking at all our recommendations of 1993 one by one, on the grounds that this would be a mechanical exercise, and would not serve the institution to our best ability. Thus, we tend to focus in our discussion on particular issues which seem to be important at the present time. We would like to say at the outset that we are impressed with the development of the University since our 1993 visit, and it is evident from the Self Evaluation Report that all our 1993 recommendations have been thoroughly evaluated and the vast majority implemented. Any critical observations must therefore be considered against this background. The University has shown in general, that it is comfortable dealing with external comment, and we feel the university has effective processes of evaluating such comments and ongoing challenges and responding appropriately.

The recommendations made in this Report by the evaluation team are indicated in bold print.

6. Finally, in introduction, we would like to place on record our appreciation to Rector Lauri Lajunen and his colleagues for the high standard of professional and social hospitality which we were extended; the frankness and openness of discussions; the excellent editorial work culminating in the Self-Evaluation Report; the smooth organisation of the visit undertaken by Ms. Mailis Aaltonen and her predecessor, Ms. Annukka Oiva; and the most helpful briefings by Professor Jarmo Visikorpi and Ms. Anna-Maija Liuhanen. It was a pleasure for us to participate in this second visit.
 

 OBSERVATIONS ON THE PROCESSES ADOPTED IN THE EVALUATION OF 1998 7. In our Report of 1993 we recommended that "further evaluations should be problem centred and geared towards the goal-oriented development of the university, as well as being closely connected to institutional procedures". These principles were adopted by the University in this 1998 process. Broadly, there have been two phases in this exercise : the Self Evaluation and the External Evaluation based on this study and a series of interviews carried out which has culminated in this Report. As in the 1993 exercise, the external panel wishes to commend the University on the successful completion of a process which was complex, thorough, detailed, specific, open and transparent. Whilst we have comments on the details, there is no doubt that the exercise has solidified the evaluative culture of Oulu and its development as a so-called "learning organisation".

8. The design of the evaluation assumed the need to operate at two levels – reviewing progress since 1993, and also considering the present situation in the light of the long term strategic aims of the University. It is quite evident that this was not an exercise carried out in parallel, and separate from the normal ongoing processes of university management, but an integral part thereof. Thus, the proposed measures which arise from the evaluation exercise are already the basis of the "intention contract" of the Senate, and of the agreements with government. The sequence of the main Self Evaluation Report we find compelling and very acceptable, namely

• a statement of mission, vision and development challenges for the forthcoming planning period.

• a consistent treatment of some 10 domains of quality management involving a statement of our 1993 recommendations; a description of measures taken by the University in response to these; a thorough evaluation of their effectiveness; and a re-setting of goals for the planning period 1998-2001.

This structure has demonstrated considerable movement in relation to planned objectives since 1993; creative further development of policy; and discernible culture shift.

9. However, having said this, there are some methodological points to be made which the University might consider for the evolution of its problems, and the Evaluation Council in its review of the various evaluative models used for higher education institutions in Finland.

 • given the apparent logic in the above sequence, it is not at all clear from where the six Development Challenges (1998-2001) have come. We do not dispute their relevance, but are curious as to the processes of their identification. The same comment could relate to the 10 domains of quality management.

• the questionnaire issued to members of the university was interesting, and reflects well the issues involved in establishing a quality culture. As such, the questions are predominantly process oriented, and our interviewees often commented on their generality; problems with the rating scale and norms; a preference for open rather than closed questions; and the fact that there were many unanswered questions. We note also the variable level of responses across the University, but the overriding impression is of honesty, openness and certainly representativeness, however, the involvement of external stakeholders in the process seemed ambiguous.

• consequently, there did not seem to be a structured triangulation of the various observations of staff, students and stakeholders, which would have been particularly useful in diagnostic terms at faculty and departmental level.

• the University was also open about the inadequacies of its data processing in relation to all the above, and we understand steps are in hand to address this.

• the University produced a framework of standard issues to be considered by faculties and units when evolving their evaluation reports. These were certainly consistent with the staff questionnaires (but were perhaps too much of the same thing?) and rightly drew attention to further challenges, needs of interest groups etc. However, the involvement of stakeholders in this analysis was not clear. We felt that faculty analyses were insufficiently specific in a quantitative sense, and could have benefited from a common set of comparative quantitative indicators, which would have demonstrated academic and financial performance more accurately, and prompted units to address these issues directly. The result was that some did and most did not, and the graphs did not take us all that far. Attention to the issue just defined would also have facilitated inter-unit comparison within the University. Some faculty "development challenges" were thus rather vague, and will be potentially difficult to monitor subsequently.
 

 10. In general however, the process worked well in its complex way, and we certainly observed strong manifestations of commitment, acceptance and ownership of the process. Inevitably, there were some feelings amongst staff of unreality or boredom with the questionnaire completion and the length of the process. However, it was not really regarded as threatening, but normal, and this, in itself is a mark of maturity. At this stage, we would simply recommend the University and Evaluation Council to take note of the observations as processes are evolved at both institutional and national level over the next few years.
  ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES 11. In our last visit, we identified, in collaboration with the Ministry, four major environmental issues which were clearly going to be very high on the agenda for the next five years, namely
  • regionalism (see paras. 13-21 of this Report).

• internationalisation (see paras 41-45 of this Report).

• managing financial reduction (see paras 22 and 52 of this Report).

• managing the changed relationship with the Ministry (see paras 22 and 49 of this Report).
 

 As the paragraphs quoted indicate, the University has picked up virtually all the recommendations and items of advice offered, which is very much to its credit. We are confident that the University has effective mechanisms for identifying environmental stimuli as they emerge, and for placing these on the agendas of appropriate bodies within the universities. Of late, there have been a number of fairly definitive international pronouncements on long-term trends, including
  • the CRE-UNESCO "Palermo" publication (1997) "A European Agenda for Change in Higher Education in the 21st Century".

• the CRE-EU "Berlin" study (1998) "The Public Role of the University : the dialogue of universities with their stakeholders".

• the UNESCO "World Declaration on Higher Education for the 21st Century" and "Framework for Priority Action for Change and Development of Higher Education" (1998).

• the World Bank publication "Higher Education Relevance in the 21st Century" (1998).
 

 12. It is not the role of this Report to discuss the content of these, but they do contain a series of important future agenda items which we feel the University might systematically discuss and analyse at various levels as part of the its ongoing adaptation to the environment. These include, for instance
  • the shift from "teaching" to "learning".

• the use of electronic technologies in learning, research and administration.

• lifelong learning in its various forms and manifestations.

• preparation for the world of work.

• universities in regional development : cultural, economic, human resources, communications etc.

• new forms of interaction with regional stakeholders.

• globalisation of higher education, including trans-national education; inter-institutional strategic alliances (regionally, nationally and internationally); assistance to the Third World.
 

 We refer to some of these issues in subsequent paragraphs, but at this stage we would recommend the University to reflect on the processes by which it brings such mega-issues to the institutional agenda; how it ensures they are not lost in what has rightly become a creative devolved institution; and how effective unit level responses to these issues are successfully brought to the attention of others within the institution. In essence, this involves consideration of
  • a strategic think-tank capability, and which organ (existing or to be created) would best fulfil this role.

• means of disseminating good practice on innovations in these domains.
 

 THE REGIONAL DIMENSION 13. As we discussed in 1993, regional service has a high and eminent profile in the work of the University, and indeed, its very origins are rooted thus. In our 1993 deliberations, it was clear that the University was gearing itself for a series of major initiatives as a "locomotive" of the region, and the term "Oulu Phenomenon" has since emerged as a sort of catchphrase for subsequent development. In 1993 we posited some issues for reflection, which included
  • the university’s international role as a conduit for regional development.

• the beneficiary – benefactor equation, and the cost-benefit balance of the regional role.

• the social provision – entrepreneurial balance in regional activity.

• the role of Humanities in the regional role.

• the adequacy of off-campus provision.
 

 We are pleased to record that all these have received considerable attention.

14. The period 1993-98 has witnessed progressive institutionalisation and stabilisation of the regional role as evidenced by
 

• specific organisational forms with consequent specialist or dedicated roles and responsibilities : the Advisory Board of external partners; various regional delivery locations (Kajaani, Meri-Lappi, Kokkola etc.); the Thule Research Centre.

• a regional strategy which appears to be visible internally and externally, and includes elements such as the university as a development centre; commitment to joint university-partnerships seeking EU funds; research foci based on regional needs; commitment to regional employment and graduate employability; and various cultural dimensions.

• the Intention Contract of Senate which incorporates many of the above.

• the four main university thrusts defined in the Strategic Plan which are all central to, and compatible with the regional role.

• a specific budget commitment to regional support.
 

 15. All this is very positive, though we still see some ambiguity in the social provision – entrepreneurial dichotomy, (which is discussed, for instance, in the section on Continuing Education). We urge further consideration on this. Further, we also recommend that the university seeks an extension of stakeholder investment (e.g. in sponsored chairs, projects, seed money, matching funding etc.).

16. The character of Oulu’s region is clearly "peripheral", in terms of the CRE-EU classification, and the University is warmly commended to consider the ramifications of this study for the development of Northern Finland. However, in terms of regional service, the following elements seem to us to be important
 

• within Northern Finland, there are several different subregions with their own characteristics. The University might well assess whether its provision is appropriately differentiated for the needs of these subregions, especially in the context of mainstream education, continuing education and applied research.

• within the region, one witnesses the growing strength of the city (especially Oulu and Raahe) resulting in shortages of skills here, compared with depopulation of rural areas, resulting in structural unemployment in agriculture and forestry. These twin trends pose huge challenges for the university and its partners which are being addressed, but which will be major issues for many years, especially the problem of the long term unemployed.

• the region encompasses different forms of enterprise. There are large enterprises such as steel, telecommunications and the paper industry which seem to have evolved university co-operation in research and development, continuing professional development and the notion of the university as an international conduit for research and know-how is certainly evident. The involvement of feeder companies in the production chain in university endeavours is an area which the University might usefully evaluate. There is clearly much activity which the university pursues with hi-tech SME’s, and other sections of the Report indicate strenuous attempts to work at the development gap, via 10 spin-offs etc. However, non hi-tech SME’s are a different proposition, and a university push in this direction is probably needed. However, this relies on such enterprises being aware of what help is available – with its implications for university communication strategies; on the university making its expertise available, and on such know-how being adaptable to specific needs. The use of Regional Council "Salesmen" is a good start, but this does not guarantee university responsiveness. The team recommends a detailed consideration of this issue over the next planning period.

• this is not unconnected with the demographic age profile. Some of the subregions are developing a high concentration of the sub-18 group; others reveal a high concentration of the 45+ group. This obviously produces challenges for the university in terms of teacher education and also lifelong learning broadly defined, which are only partly being addressed to date.

• there does seem to be consensus that the main area of potential growth in university studies derived from the above are tourism and leisure related studies; teacher education; health studies; winter technologies; hi-tech related studies and architecturally related studies. The university is urged to review the adequacy of its current curriculum and research in these domains.

• we commend the university and its regional partners in their excellent track record in generating EU funds with a regional bias, and also Fourth Framework funding. Whereas the latter looks set fair under the Fifth Framework, the former is clearly vulnerable, given the likelihood of EC funding being diverted to new members of EU, and to Central and Eastern Europe. The team recommends the university and its partners to consider how this likely shortfall could be countered.

• finally, since our last visit, other HE players have arrived in the region, namely private providers for training and the polytechnic sector. As far as the latter is concerned, the team recommends the University clarifies its relationship with this sector at an early date. There are several possibilities, of course, including a competitive relationship in domains of overlapping activity (which is becoming apparent in lifelong learning, applied research and consultancy); a regulated relationship which would be defined by government (only evident thus far up to a point); a co-operative relationship in terms of horizontal integration of effort or vertical integration of organisation. We suspect it is likely that, given sensible Finnish practice, a co-operative relationship is likely. In this event, the University might usefully take a lead by emphasising the joint commitment to regional development, and in this, the University’s role in polytechnic staff development; Internet access to courses; creative transfer of credit and student progression; course franchising; and co-operation in lifelong learning and applied research, are all genuine candidates for co-operation.
 

 17. The University’s role in economic development is discussed in detail elsewhere, but the team commends the University’s policy setting up and nourishing distributed subregional centres in, for instance, the so-called Observatory at Sodankula; the Research Services Unit activity at Kokkola; the Meri-Lappi Institute (jointly with the University of Lapland); the Kuusamo centre; and the R and D Centre at Kajaani. These have all largely evolved since our last visit, in response to a general recommendation to reconsider the question of off-campus operations. These vary in the foci of their concentrations, and rightly so, since local needs and opportunities vary, but they cover between them, educational programmes; lifelong learning opportunities; assistance in R and D to hi-tech companies; IT; and research centres. By definition, they assist the development of indigenous industry, and have significant economic impact on their localities through the multiplier effect.

18. However, the team recommends the University to consider soon the question of the sustainability of these centres over the long term. In this respect, the team identifies
 

• the necessity of core guaranteed funding for such centres.

• the role of the University in seeking and sustaining diversified funding sources for the centres.

• the provision of seed money for promising development.

• the University’s provision of a stable network of co-operation with other providers in which these centres can flourish.

• the support of mainstream University faculties and faculty members for such off-campus initiatives.
 

 19. As far as mainstream education is concerned, the University has achieved a good balance between a course profile which reflects both the characteristics of a thriving late 20th Century academic community and also a portfolio of education relevant to regional (and national) needs. However, the team recommends the University evaluates the extent to which programme delivery is sufficiently flexible to the needs of the evolving region. In particular
  • we feel that lifelong learning policy is still in its infancy, and needs detailed articulation.

• the possibilities of converting credit acquired on continuing education programmes to degree programmes is very limited, and credit for prior learning and experience (APL, APEL) almost non-existent.

• support for the lone learner (support groups, e-mail etc.) seems ill-defined and undeveloped, which has particular resonance for the SME culture.

• as has been mentioned, a sensible modus operandi for co-operation with polytechnics and other providers is at the level of the ad hoc rather than the systematic.
 

 and so, these elements need to be considered.

20. The team recognises a dilemma for the University in its distributed provision. Local demands for subjects are likely to be broad, but provision in conventional settings of necessity has to be selective, because of the cost of operations. This, too, has implications for distance learning.

21. Finally, the team is well aware of the progress made in genuine networking with regional partners since 1993. At that time, we pointed to three "speeds" in satisfying regional needs : that of the client/market, which demanded instant responses; that of the policy, which is often slow because of due process and bureaucratic considerations; and that of the university, which is often cumbersome because of slow academic processes of course development etc. It is pleasing now to record the speeding up of university responses to regional stimuli collectively and individually. We would however, suggest that this could be enhanced even further by the design of a comprehensive inter-active data base of opportunities and know-how which
 

• links the university with its regional partners.

• links the university and its various stakeholders.

• enables clients and potential clients to access knowledge and know-how.
 

 Precedents occur elsewhere in Europe, and with Oulu’s IT track record, this would seem to be a natural evolution.
  STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS 22. In our 1993 Report, we commented that "there seems to be a general dislike and rejection of planning in the University", and drew attention to the dangers this posed in the context of the impending financial crisis and the challenges of the new result budgeting system. We are pleased to record a substantial shift in philosophy, practice and attitude since these assertions. The following are worthy of mention
  • as recommended, a SWOT analysis was conducted in 1994, and a resultant definition of vision, mission, areas of emphasis and accompanying strategy. This was monitored in 1997, and, of course, followed by this current exercise of internal self-evaluation and external evaluation.

• the University Management Group (and Management Support Group) has assumed significant strategic functions.

• the Advisory Committee of external stakeholders has very adequately met our recommendation for a "strategic niche of industrial and regional leaders".

• the University has creatively managed a difficult period of financial reduction through a strategically well conceived and comprehensive four year policy framework.

• the University has adapted well to the Ministry’s new financial model, especially in terms of devolution to budget centres, and the system of result negotiations.
 

 23. Having said this, and having gone through a major change, it is not surprising that what staff really want to do is to get on with their teaching and research! In our view, a good modus operandi has been achieved between the needs of strategic institutional development and staff autonomy, and we commend Oulu for its trend-setting role in Finland in this regard. Whereas the 1994 SWOT indicated an inability and reluctance to change, the 1998 SWOT perceives a clear capacity and willingness in this regard.

24. We will comment on the details of the 1998 Self Evaluation itself elsewhere (paras. 7-10), which we feel has been a successful exercise. However, we would draw to the attention of the University some issues which are beginning to emerge as the strategic planning process evolves over the next period.
 

• the operational aspects of the process seem to be somewhat fragmented in different ways at university and faculty levels … plans, budget allocations, and evaluations and monitoring. We note a Senate requirement for the integration of academic and finance plans, but more attention needs to be devoted to how this may be achieved.

• in a devolved system which works reasonably coherently, time is probably ripe to supplement the qualitative judgement of faculties and departments (indicated in the Self Evaluation) by more robust performance indicators.

• the means of dealing with organisational units showing signs of academic or financial ill-health (or weaknesses identified by the 1998 Self Evaluation) are not altogether clear both between and within faculty groupings. Where lies the responsibility for activating remedial measures?

• conversely, the university should consider ways of rewarding units which meet targets well.

• multi-disciplinary activity has been identified as a prime focus for the next planning period. The University needs to consider what this actually means in strategic support and resourcing, and how it will be delivered, in allocations and resource incentives (e.g. focusing efforts to EU money acquisition; Ph.D. allocations; possibilities of Graduate School centres; targeted international partnerships).

• the same consideration applies to the Developmental Challenges : the relationship in planning terms between these and the other focal areas is not clear.

• we do see sound potential in the creation of an University Development Fund for new ventures – seed money, spin-off and spin-out; speculative new research areas etc.

• finally, it might be helpful to review exactly which bodies do what in the field of strategic planning, and whether the resultant rational is clear e.g. Senate, Economic Working Group, University Management Group etc. (see also para. 12 in this regard).
 

 25. It is, of course, appreciated that the very act of this exercise will have released all manner of dynamics for change and development, and the challenge for the University is to canalise this into coherent directions.
  TEACHING AND LEARNING 26. Our task, of course, was not to undertake a quality review of teaching and learning, but assess the relationship between strategic policy and its manifestations in practice.

27. The University of Oulu seems to have taken good notice of the recommendations by the external evaluators in 1993 which particularly focused on the variable importance attached to teaching across the faculties; the concept of ‘learning’ as distinct from ‘teaching’; the rather heavy curriculum volume; drop-out; and Europeanisation of the teaching/learning domain. In the fields of teaching and learning the panel is especially pleased to see the Unit of Instruction Development. It also welcomes the ambitious teaching development plan that has been carried out during the five years period, which is clearly bearing fruit in the attitudes of both staff and students.

28. The panel welcomes the considerable evidence of commitment to the development of a learning culture, as distinct from the traditional teaching culture. However, it would strongly
 

• recommend an analysis of the motives and hoped for outcomes, as this would certainly assist in subsequent monitoring.

• recommend the University looks at the variations in credit weighting for courses across the university, and considers the standardisation of credits as soon as possible to facilitate
 

elimination of duplication of courses

multi-disciplinary combinations of study

international exchange

the possibilities of students accumulating credits for studies undertaken in different parts of the university and system and over an interrupted timescale

credit transfer between the Open University, continuous education courses and main degrees.
 

 There is considerable evidence which indicates that all these are being hampered by uneven calibrations of curriculum and course formulations.

• recommends attention to staff-training and dialogue on the implications of the above for pedagogic practice.

• recommend monitoring of experiments and the dissemination of good practice e.g. in Continuing Education.

• recommend a cost analysis of the policy of changing from teaching to learning, in respect of staff development, class sizes, options, demands on learning resources etc.
 

 All these elements are characteristic issues which arise in universities engaging in such transitions, but they are neglected at considerable long term risk.

29. The panel commends the university on its progress in teaching excellence and its recognition by external awards in respect of three subjects. We urge detailed analysis of the critical factors which led to these awards in the three cases, and how these might be replicated across the university. In this way, it is highly likely that such good practice could be profitably disseminated to great effect.

30. The panel commends the plans to carry out evaluations of the curricula, and
 

• recommend efforts to implement the changed philosophy from teaching to learning into the teaching material, content and volume and, of course, process.

• recommends variations in the forms of examination and assessment, carefully monitored.

• recommends more tutor-based training in the studies.

• recommends part-time tutor-ship for students during the closing period of their studies.
 

 31. The panel welcomes the special attention given to student recruitment, but is conscious that the movement to a learning culture may well prove temporarily dysfunctional to some students, whose school studies are based on substantially different learning methods. We do not know how far this is likely to be a problem, but if it is, we
  • recommend the university starts discussions with those gymnasiums where a change is needed to re-enforce the change from teaching to learning at the university level.
  32. The panel commends the identification of multi-disciplinary study as one of the University’s principal Development Challenges and also the work which has been done so far. We recommend further consideration of the detailed instruments by which this policy is to be and is being delivered. This is a rather complex issue, and might reasonably warrant particular attention to the following possibilities :
  • a clear conceptualisation of inter-disciplinarity and multi-disciplinarity.

• the budget formula, by which resources are allocated to departments and faculties, should contain financial incentives which at least do not penalise internally co-operative programmes, and should positively reward such endeavours.

• the conceptualisation of different curriculum models designed to realise multi-disciplinarity e.g.
 

- formally designed multi-disciplinary degrees based on market analysis and demand.

- free student choice of models and courses within a robust framework of agreed ground rules designed to ensure coherence, degree standards, and economic sense.
 

 • a common credit tariff across the university.

• an explication of the different characteristics and therefore conventions or rules of multi-disciplinarity at under- and post-graduate levels respectively.

• the creative exploitation of any loopholes in the regulations of professional bodies (e.g. engineering, law, medicine) to achieve a pushing back of traditional restrictions.

• the twin approach which includes both the scope of some programmes defined at the centre of the university as a result of strategic thinking, and others springing from inter-faculty or interpersonal initiatives.

• a positive crusade to loosen conservative attitudes, through planned dialogue and staff development activities. The new Learning Development Unit may be an obvious vehicle for this.
 

 Hopefully, these possibilities will constitute a useful agenda for the pursuit of instruments multi-disciplinarity over the next five years.
  CONTINUING EDUCATION 33. In our visit in 1993, we were impressed by the commitment of the University to the development of continuing education (CE), and the imaginative manner in which it was particularly accessing regionally distributed needs. A number of recommendations were made, including the relationship between CE and mainstream education; the role of credits; incentives for CE; and various organisational issues. We are pleased to record that the University has largely addressed these issues (with the caveats mentioned below), and we commented on some of these in the section on the Regional Dimension. In general terms, the University has certainly expanded its CE provision; has clearly articulated its relationships with regional partners (e.g. Nokia, TE-Keskus, the City Council, and the Economic Development Agency) and appears well regarded by them; has substantially unconceptualised the character, scope and directions of CE; and has an efficiently working networking culture, which is both adaptable and responsive.

34. In 1993, we welcomed the development of the CE Centre (CEC), and would now observe that
 

• it has evolved an apparently sensible interface with some faculties, with whom we had discussion so that CEC focuses on marketing CE; identifying leads for business; the negotiation of contracts and prices; and commissions faculties to produce and deliver courses. Faculties on their part, provide the courses and teachers and are responsible for quality assurance. However, we are not sure how far this typology of differentiation is common across the University, and would urge the University to review this. If there are variations from this pattern, this may or may not constitute a problem.
  35. There are very many interfaces with clients which is good, and relations seem very harmonious and productive. However, the overall policy directions at a strategic level do not seem to be very clearly formulated. Whilst not wishing in anyway to constrain a responsive and organic process, we would recommend the University and its main stakeholders attempt to produce a five year framework for development of CE. Among the items for discussion, we would suggest
  • more detailed debate on the precise meaning of lifelong learning, and how its manifestations would differ from existing CE provision.

• an assessment of what competencies are required in the regional setting in terms of lifelong learning provision.

• directions for the expansion of IT based learning, and the ramifications arising for the University in terms of educational, financial, facilities and personnel issues, both for CE and mainstream courses offered to different publics.

• co-operative education – work based rather than campus based learning, and the potential of so-called Accreditation of Prior Experience and Learning (APEL) against formal qualifications. This seems relatively undeveloped so far with the exception of TE-Keskus.

• the provision of postgraduate Open University and CE programmes – at present, CE provision appears to be mainly at undergraduate level, but a proper attention to lifelong learning agendas would imply something different. Here, APEL credit transfer, postgraduate conversion courses and so-called ‘professional doctorates’ would be likely possibilities.

• the sustainability of the various regional centres (see the section on the Regional Dimension (para. 18.))

• as a internal agenda item, the financing of OU and CE provision – costing and pricing policies and formula; development funding; incentives to faculties and staff to free up more internal capacity for CE.

• the cost benefit analysis we recommended last time for CE across the board does not seem to have occurred, and as the scale of CE develops, the economic ramifications become more evident. We request the University to consider this: to assess, from a financial point of view, the relative buoyancy and durability of the various income sources; and to consider introducing CE financial targets, especially given an increasing dependence on this non-government funding.

• CE Centre should be commended on its role as an agent of change in new learning methodologies, especially related to new environments presented by the use of Internet, IT etc. This has opened the door to an international brokerage role within EU and US universities, which is most promising. We would ask the University to consider any intellectual property issues arising therefore and whether their existing arrangements are sufficiently robust. We would also recommend the University reflects on how good practice in learning methodologies thus developed though the CE vehicle can be more efficiently translated as appropriate, across the University and into mainstream teaching.

• we note that ‘output’ based indicators of performance for CEC and indeed CE as a whole, are on the agenda, and encourage their development, especially in discussion with the various networks of stakeholders.
 

 36. Discussions with stakeholders and partners were most encouraging, but we did feel that future developments perhaps needed some more structure, in respect of the identification of strategic priorities. It was evident, for instance, that the Business Review of the Oulu Region apparently contained no reference to any specific needs for CE or lifelong learning. External expectations are high.

37. Our final point relates to a differentiation of effort with other providers, notably private training agencies; government development and training agencies; and the new polytechnic sector. In general, from our evidence,
 

• there appears little formal differentiation or collaboration.

• other providers are apparently very fast, responsive and flexible, but operate at a lower level.
 

 In the event that the CE/OU market would be competitive, the strengths of the University would certainly appear to tie in
  • high quality delivery.

• CE and consultancy which was directly underpinned by research.

• the potential of linking CE with mainstream undergraduate qualifications through credit transfer.

• cornering the postgraduate market.

• exploiting its IT/Internet connections.
 

 However, this competitive advantage should not in any way preclude co-operation, but more usefully, co-operation based on differentiation. The University is thus recommended to develop an explicit position on this theme.
  RESEARCH TRANSFER AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER 38. We should commence with a preliminary remark regards the definition of this paragraph. The panel considers this item as research transfer and technology transfer, not as research and technology transfer as separate items. Consideration has also been given to aspects of this topic under the section on the Regional Dimension. However, progress since our last visit is impressive, and we particularly commend
  • the substantial increase of non-governmental income of the university (Academy of Finland, Tekes, private sector) up to 28% in the Annual Report 1997.

• the development of the multi-disciplinary umbrella organisations like
 

- the BioCentre, Oulu, one of the national centres of excellence for research on biotechnology and even the first one of its kind.

- Infotech Oulu on information technology.

- the Thule Institute on Nordic Studies, though somewhat decentralised.
 

 • the co-ordinating responsibility for eight national Graduate Schools.

• the growth and development of business incubator activities through institutions like Technopolis, Medipolis and OuluTech.

• the availability of venture capital through Tekes, Sitra and banks, which have a better liquidity position as compared to the early 90’s, willing to take some risk.

• the various regional foci which facilitate localised community interaction in this field.
 

 39. To continue this record of steady progress, the panel recommends the University
  • to continue the profiling of research and the creation of research groups of adequate size, quality and multi-disciplinarity, in order to diminish the fragmentary nature of research funding and to overcome the lack of critical mass, as recognised in the 1994 SWOT (p.2).

• to increase further non-governmental income. However, the University should not become too dependent of industry, since experience shows that this may influence the scientific profile of a university in a negative way.

• to make a continuous effort of creating spin-off and spin-out companies, though emphasis should be given to market/demand pull, instead of technology push

• to be more active as a university in setting the appropriate boundary conditions for
 

- enhancing the entrepreneurial attitude of students by offering them courses on entrepreneurship as part of the curriculum.

- spin-off and spin-out companies.

- business incubators.

- venture capital.
 

 • to transform the Research Services Unit into a Research and Technology Transfer Office, being the university-wide industrial liaison office, with power to propose a strategy, set objectives and priorities, all to be approved by the University, to act as a focal point for faculties and departments, and with expertise on legal matters like contract law, internal and external regulations and intellectual property issues.
  40. Finally, we would reiterate a point made in 1993 that this function is not one just for the dedicated units, but also needs to be dovetailed and related to the work of faculties and departments in ways appropriate to the particular disciplines and settings.
  INTERNATIONALISATION 41. At the time of our last visit, the internationalisation of higher education had recently emerged as a major developmental priority of the Finnish government, and accordingly, we were invited to consider the situation in Oulu from this perspective. We observed a robust determination to attack this opportunity, despite the fact that at this time achievements were, of necessity, of a limited nature. Our 1993 Report contained 15 recommendations, but unlike the other major sections of the Report, progress was not evaluated by the University in the same thorough way as was evident in the other sections. Nonetheless, to a certain extent, it is possible to infer progress in the international domain in other sections. Moreover, the University of Oulu Internationalisation Strategy was not made available to us until our departure, which really precluded a detailed analysis. However, the following observations may be pertinent.

42. The overall University Strategy, of course, contains reference to international dimensions – it is an "integral part of the European system of innovation"; it is an "international scientific university"; it is "regarded (for instruction) internationally"; it equips "multi-disciplinary professionals for international assignments". It is fair to say that evidence to support these claims is certainly visible in the evidence provided, even though 2010 is the Vision benchmark. Thus, to sustain such aspirations, the University might reasonably develop a set of strategic quality indicators which should be used for monitoring purposes, year by year.

43. As far as the achievement of our 15 recommendations of 1993 are concerned, the University should perhaps do the same robust evaluation as it has done with other elements.

44. The University Internationalisation Strategy 1998-2003 is set in terms of "a vision" and there may well be more detailed papers indicating the instruments by which this is to be achieved. However, we do feel that
 

• the overall framework for strategic development is sound, but is at the level of generality as it stands. If this has not yet happened, the University is urged to translate these ends into means, by identifying the detailed sub-policies and instruments to bring the vision into reality.

• close monitoring needs to be given to the effectiveness of the many international agreements. Do they work for the purposes for which they were designed?

• the emphasis on student and staff exchange is fine, but could also be extended to relevant administrative staff. Also, there is no analysis of the constraints to exchanges and how they may be resolved.

• the priority given to courses in English is right, and recommends these might be increasingly offered to Finnish students also.

• the integration of Finnish and non-Finnish students is likely to be an area of ongoing attention (this is the nature of the issues), recognising the University’s commitment to this, and the valuable work done so far.

• whilst there is welcome attention to assistance to the former Soviet bloc, there is no reference to any particular priority for North-South activity and the "Third World". We ask the University to consider this.

• a carefully argued philosophy which also picks up the question of altruism and foreign earnings might be discussed.
 

 45. This said, we certainly observe much progress in most respects, and our 1993 recommendations in para. 73 of that Report have largely been addressed.
  ORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT ISSUES 46. The 1993 Report was formulated at a time of organisational transition at Oulu, and the main tenor of our recommendations was the strengthening and systematisation of leadership at various levels. Our observation that a principal constraint – namely a nationally conceived bureaucratic university model – should be removed, has been realised, and already we see attempts by the University to define its own structure in the light of its own needs. With this in mind, we commend
  • the formal introduction of the University Management Group and the Management Support Group.

• attempts to move Senate to be a more visible and strategically oriented body.

• progressive efforts to orient the culture of central administration more to a service culture, and the university to a so-called "common" organisation (though we have doubts as to whether everyone understands the full significance of this).

• the assumption of some elements of the "entrepreneurial university".

• substantial devolution of responsibility and authority to faculty level.
 

 47. On the assumption that the world moves on, however, we would recommend the University considers how its organisation should evolve over the next decade, bearing in mind the major priorities it has set itself, and the likelihood that externally oriented functions will multiply in significance. With this in mind, we recommend the following for reflection
  • it is clear to us that the faculty structure will need to evolve, given the likely expansion/contraction of various subject areas and the growth of new ones; the need to facilitate the achievement of the university’s multi-disciplinary objective and the operation of a credit system; future university policy towards the devolution of central functions; and the status of near-market centres and institutions within faculties and their likely assumption of "result unit" status.

• this is closely connected to the possibilities of further consolidation of departments and basic units, as has already been accomplished in the Faculties of Science and Humanities.

• we would not wish to prescribe how faculty or department structure should change, but various alternatives are possible, including more and smaller faculties; fewer and larger faculties; matrix structures within faculties with axes for teaching and research (which might be particularly relevant for the multi-disciplinary objective); and a redefinition of the role of both faculties and departments.

• given the likelihood of a substantial expansion of externally focused activities, the institution of a third vice-rector drawing together policy responsibility for all external services should be actively reviewed.

• in this regard also, it would be helpful to reconceptualise the relationship between mainstream faculties and departments and market-oriented devolvement units such as those for technology transfer, continuing education and faculty based units. This involves issues such as effective resource use; the synergy between market related activity and mainstream academia; staff progression; respective organisational status etc.

• finally, the University may wish to compare its Graduate Schools with the Graduate Schools or Graduate Colleges, on the British, German or Dutch lines, as a means of enhancing the quality and international visibility of its leading research areas, which could, given future undergraduate expansion, suffer with conflicting priorities.
 

 48. We feel sure the University has the analytical capacity and political will to evaluate these possibilities fully.
  ADMINISTRATION AND CENTRAL SERVICES 49. The 1993 Report contained a whole series of recommendations on this very important area, which have clearly been the subject of considerable debate and review. Of particular significance are the following
  • the University has suffered severe budget cuts since 1993, of which 80% has been accommodated in the central administration service departments.

• a system of internal charging has been adopted partially.

• the university has undertaken major changes with regard to the administrative structures for computing services, and its operating and technical arrangements, in partial fulfilment of the 1993 recommendations.

• decision making, staff and post systems and salary administration have been devolved partially to faculty level, now being a shared responsibility of the administrative office and faculty (and even department and institution) offices.

• the licensing of software has been regulated centrally, and benefits from national arrangements.

• instead of developing new information systems and software, existing systems and software have been purchased (buy instead of build).

• the administrative services still are physically remote from the Linnanmaa campus, though we understand this will shortly be rectified. We very much commend the creation of the Management Support Group.
 

 50. The 1998 Self Evaluation provides a users’ assessment of the service departments. This yields the following ranking
  1. Library

2. Computer Centre

3. [Language Centre]
central/faculty student office
 

 It is obvious that Library and Computer Centre are ranked highly, since they carry out key services to support the primary processes teaching and research. However, the assessment may refer more to services provided than to services desired in a changing environment of the university, and we suggest the University reflects on this.

51. The panel recommends for future action
 

• an analysis of what a further accomplishment of devolution of decision making and support systems to faculty level is practicable, in which domains, and over what timescales, and what are the implications for both centre and faculty.

• a better insight of the university’s economic processes, e.g. the price/ performance ratio of services, related to a consideration of charging these services to faculties or even end-users [not however, students, as law prohibits charging of these services].

• a reconsideration of the information systems in the various areas, such as student enrolment, student study progress, financial, personnel, housing etc., by means of a new information strategy and policy, which meets boundary conditions such as buy instead of build, decentralised ownership of information; holding only that information present at central level which is necessary to measure university performance, etc.

• an improved management information and monitoring system, including an appropriate definition of performance indicators, in order to follow progress made at faculty and department level.
 

 PERSONNEL POLICY 52. At the end of our last visit, the University was worried about the impending financial reduction, and we did spend some time considering what approaches might be appropriate. The Panel commends the University on its three year staff plan, and the successful accomplishment of the transitional staffing reductions following budget cuts. This not only took out 175 posts, but created 100 new ones in growth areas – no mean achievement. In addition, the University has been creative in
  • successful implementation of possibilities created by the new Act, like sponsored professorships, shorter procedures, and a new role for Deans.

• progress in mentoring.

• profiling the achievements of faculty members as a basis for counselling, advice and staff development.
 

 At the level of strategy, therefore, very positive things have happened.

53. The Panel reiterates its observations in the 1993 Report re. the importance of the H.R. Development Unit being an instrument of creative organisational change, rather than just a bureaucratic personnel operation and can certainly detect evidence in this direction. It further requests the University to monitor the consequences of devolution of certain HR functions to faculties, and urges the University to keep a very close eye on the age-profile, and issues arising therefrom. It would be easy in these circumstances for the University to shift posts from the academic to the administrative domain, possibly at the expense of the teaching or research capacity. We request the University "to keep in mind the nature of this balance".

54. For further development of personnel policy, we would recommend the university to
 

• continue the discipline in staffing policy developed – staffing models for each faculty and department.

• create and use a pool of vacancies for redistribution to growth areas.

• create a diversified contract structure, with elements like temporary posts, variable appointment periods; short term and flexible contracts; sabbaticals etc.

• consider the pros and cons of the principle and means of providing incentives for early staff retirements to ease any impending age profile problem.

• focus the attention of faculties on the improvement of the productivity of the learning process.

• utilise fully and systematically the potential of the "total working time" system, to facilitate staff productivity, assist them find time to work on community type activities etc.
 

 55. We observe that staff development is much higher on the agenda than in 1993, and to this end, we urge the University to
  • use profiling actively to formulate department, faculty and university staff development/training priorities.

• formulate university wide training priorities arising from a careful analysis of development challenges e.g. training in

IT

Management and academic leadership

Quality assurance and enhancement

Personnel issues e.g. equal opportunities

Media based learning and pedagogy

International activities
 

 • actively use training events as a means of cross fertilising good practice across the universities.

• enlist the co-operation of CEC for internal development.

• consider ways of resolving the issue of the less than adequate performer.
 

 56. The faculty analyses’ presented in the Self Evaluation draw attention to the need for incentives and rewards, with which we certainly concur. However, we recommend the University to
  • avoid a fragmented policy approach to this across the faculties – with consequent issues of equal opportunities and equity.

• develop a coherent strategy as a matter of urgency bearing in mind
 

individual and group rewards

salary and non salary incentives

rewards for career development c.f. competence enhancement

elitism v. accessibility

one off v. continuity/pernquence

the lack of competitiveness in basic salaries and incentives between universities and business

                         This remains a problem for university in most European systems.

 
FINAL REMARKS

57. It is our considered view that Oulu has, since 1993, demonstrated a significant capacity for change, as evidenced by its commitment to evaluation and review; the openness of its processes; the attention to strategic planning; and its readiness to reform internal structures and processes, especially in relation to budget devolution. In our 1993 Report, we made a series of recommendations on various changes at the interface between university and government which we felt were necessary to facilitate development within the University itself. These included
  • clear planning agreements between Ministry and university.

• freedom for the university to design its own internal systems.

• removal of certain legal impediments relating to financial self determination, and aspects of personnel policy.
 

 We are pleased to record that most of these changes have taken place, to the credit of the Ministry, and have had the consequences we envisaged back in 1993 as far as the development of the University is concerned. At this stage, we have no particular recommendations to make in this domain, other than to commend the maintenance of the constructive government-institution relationship which appears to pertain.

58. The whole 1998 exercise, of course, is about quality of institutional performance in a strategic setting, and it appears to us that the main ingredients of this are present in terms of
 

• Q processes for teaching and research.

• strategic policy review.

• stakeholder involvement.

• dedicated units for Q. related functions.

• the gradual emergence of a Q culture.

• external peer review.

• the ability to follow up monitoring and review in terms of action and remediation.
 

 59. Our feeling at this moment, though we did not check in a detailed manner on the workings of the various Q. systems, is that the above are in reasonably good working order, and would not wish to recommend any drastic changes. Some policies are worthy of consideration, however, namely
  • the effectiveness of mechanisms for disseminating good practice on teaching, learning and research technique across what is now a complex institution, and the role of particular units in this process.

• the possibilities of international benchmarking with similar universities elsewhere.

• the robustness of Q. processes in the more near-market university operations, like technology transfer, CE etc.
 

 and we would recommend the university to look at these.

60. Finally, we thank all parties at the University, Evaluation Council and Ministry for a most stimulating experience, and we affirm our appreciation of the positive way in which Oulu has responded to our detailed comments in 1993, and are happy to record its progress since.