This week hundreds of staff came together in virtual School and Divisional meetings to answer the Size and Shape questions set by the sixteen strong Sussex Engagement Group, comprised of staff from across the University as well as student representatives. I chair this group. This is a really great start to the staff engagement activities and it demonstrates the desire by many of you to take part in shaping our future success and direction.

I recognise just how ambitious the Engagement process is and there has been a wide range of feedback on the process itself, as well as on the questions that have been set.

Whilst we are at the very early stage of the engagement phase, and only just analysing the initial data received, I do want to share some of that feedback with you. I’m keen to use these weekly updates on the engagement process to be really up front with you about what I’m hearing – on both sides of the coin.

The Sussex Engagement Group will consider many of these points when designing the second engagement round that will take place from w/c 10 May.

The engagement questions set:

Many people have commented that the pan-University questions that you’ve been answering this week range from the very broad (i.e. what does a successful Sussex look like to you?), through to those that are much more specific (i.e. what do you think are the factors we should consider in setting limits to cross subsidy?). Overall, colleagues prefer to focus time on the more specific areas, such as the latter example. We’ll take this on board for the next round.

The engagement period:

We’ve been asked why are we engaging now before business cases have been finalised or full proposals developed – with some expressing a preference for this process to happen at a later stage when firm ideas are on the table. It’s an interesting and understandable point. Our preference in UEG is that we seek feedback from staff to inform the proposals before we get to that stage – so that our community has the opportunity to influence at an earlier juncture.

I’ve also heard that people would like more time. Again, it’s a difficult one to juggle. We need to run this process at a time when the largest number of people are available – which means when teaching is mostly finished – and before many take well deserved summer breaks. Plus, of course there’s the set committee cycle which we need to work within – as any decisions on Size and Shape will need to be approved by Council.

We also can’t delay in taking on this programme of activity now. We know our ‘shape’ needs addressing (our league table position and NSS scores are two very significant cases in point) and a failure to do so will put us in an increasingly weaker position.

Focus on Schools and Divisions:

I’ve heard a strong preference for more focus and time to be spent on engaging on local plans. For example, for Schools to be discussing the ideas put forward in the Portfolio Review and for professional services divisions to be discussing in more detail how some of the principles of 1PS, could provide real benefits. These discussions will absolutely be key in the further engagement sessions planned in all Schools and Divisions. It’s good to hear that colleagues want to really get into the detail.

The academic vision: investing in excellence and addressing cross subsidy:

Finally, several people have shared that they aren’t sure what the academic vision is – and also that it appears to be light on detail. In reflecting on this point it’s struck me that perhaps we need to refer to the academic vision as a principle at this stage.

Our academic vision is, in its purest form about two things. Firstly, it’s about committing to investing in excellence - in education, scholarship and research. Secondly, in order to do so, it’s about addressing our appetite for cross subsidy.

Traditionally, we have invested when areas have grown but have not reduced in turn the investment into areas that have contracted. This results in cross-subsidy from one area to another and limits the resource available to invest in areas where we excel or have the potential to do so. Cross subsidy can be useful but its future must be framed around investing in successful academic areas that require some level of support to continue their excellence.

Cross-subsidy is important across academic disciplines, but its future must be framed around investing in successful academic areas that require some level of support to continue their excellence.

One of the key objectives of the engagement process is to address these principles across our Schools.

The Vice-Chancellor and our Chair of Council laid this out in recent communication to all staff on the Size and Shape programme and I really encourage you to read them both.

What’s happening next week:

I know that many colleagues would like more time to explore the questions discussed in the sessions this week, and you can do this online via the Size and Shape webpages.

Next week the Sussex Engagement Group are going to be reviewing the entire set of responses from all School and Divisional meetings that conclude today. They will then explore the results and work on content for a second set of School/Divisional sessions that will start from 10 May. Your Head of School/Director will send you an invite to these engagement sessions soon.

Recognising that these big questions need time and space to explore in more detail, the Group will also look at providing additional opportunities to enable staff to have more time to explore our Size and Shape questions. Once these opportunities have been identified I will share how you can do this in future weekly updates.

With best wishes and thanks

Keith

Professor Keith Jones
Pro Vice-Chancellor for Research and Enterprise, and Acting Provost