CHAPTER 4: RESULTS, DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
4.4 DATA ANALYSIS
4.4.5 Performance Of The Re-Organised Structure Of Centralised Support Services, Colleges
Respondents were asked whether the new university structure was working or not. They were expected to respond with a focus on the re-organised structure of centralised support services in colleges and schools.
Some of the respondents were of the view that the new model was working “judging from the increased throughput in research and student graduations.” Another believed that, while it seemed to be working, there was a need to look at how it could be used to improve service delivery and that ways had to be found to improve communication between different divisions/sectors. Practical issues were raised. For example, logistics were affected such that
62
a respondent was of the view that while in a way it was working, it could still be improved because it was not very effective. The excerpt captures these sentiments:
“Yes, I think it does - but not as effectively as before. Everything takes longer to get processed - and having signatories on other campuses does slow the processes. The challenge for us is that our accountants in the college office are based in PMB while we do not have accountants to sign off here at the Westville Campus. This make no sense as the forms must come back to Westville Finance for payment anyway thus prolonging process and delaying payments. (Male, support staff, more than 35 years old with 15 years of experience).
Others who were of the view that it was working, based their position on clarity of roles with clear lines of reporting as well as “a good top-down approach is also working, and it makes one to be aware who is doing what and whether they are able to do their work or not.”
Furthermore, the new structure has made it possible for “one to interact quite closely with other members of staff from disciplines they would have never thought of.”
Negative sentiments also proliferated. One participant responded that it was “very cumbersome and bureaucratic”; top-heavy, inefficient and a highly centralised system. One of the respondents lamented that ordinary academics have very little influence on policy or programme decisions, as decision-making is very slow as the flow chart is complex and heavily tiered, to the extent that support divisional structures are not working efficiently. This is shown in the excerpt below:
“It’s not working. It’s created a lot of confusion as to who does what. There was more organisation in the previous setup by having faculties, departments and disciplines. Having heads of schools and discipline chairs as leaders was a better setup. This route provided no duplication of programmes. (Male, support staff leadership, more than 35 years old, with more than 10 years of experience).
Another respondent was of the view that processes had slowed down “dramatically,” and there were far too many structures involved in the simplest of processes. The respondent gave the example of “many areas within Central Services which are particularly weak, with poor/non-existent levels of communication, a lack of willingness to assist, and generally poor service with some pockets (only) of excellent service levels from staff members.” (Female, more than 50 years old, with more than 15 years of experience). Another was of the view that because it is top-heavy, there were positions that are not necessary, which represents a waste of money, such as directors and DVCs of colleges with some functions of college staff not being clear.
63
A respondent was of the view that the College Model cannot work as well as the Faculty Model which had very specific support services for schools. The respondent characterised the centralized library services as “a disaster, no staff, in disarray,” because “the physical realities of library services were not considered when the new College Model was adopted.” This has been compounded by staff shortages, particularly in Finance and Library in some specific sites, necessitating the need for additional staff. A respondent believed the model represented centralisation when the “world was decentralizing”. This is explained in the excerpt below:
“In my opinion the College Model has duplicated a lot of functions and positions. I feel that this model is eating into our budget; a waste of resources. (Male, support staff, more than 50 years old, with more than 15 years of experience).
Crystallising the responses, it is evident that some previous structures worked well such as central finance and HR. According to the respondents, it brought new levels of management and some elements of centralisation, such that it was working in some areas and not working in others. Some praised these previous structures with one expressing scepticism that “I would say it is surviving but clearly not at the level of the previous structure.” One of those who supports the new structure remarked, “It is a great model if there was more money for it.” A respondent was ambivalent and said:
“The jury is still out on that. I would like to see formal qualitative outcomes on the pros and cons and the financial impact or savings due to the model. It appears like multiple mini universities with their own internal bureaucracies and hierarchies. It has affected consistency across colleges as each one does things differently. Yet we are one UKZN. So, a student anywhere at UKZN should enjoy the same quality of service. (Female, support Staff leadership, more than 50 years old, with more than 15 years of experience).
The other view expressed by a respondent was that people were restricting themselves only to their colleges and have an attitude about extending themselves to work across campuses such that some people refuse to work beyond their colleges. One of the respondents aptly put it:
“It's still too early to tell. Let's give it time.”
64