managing change: the evolution of the provision of technical services in biology lyn spencer...

Managing Change:The evolution of the provision of technical services in Biology

Lyn SpencerManager, Technical Services

Biological SciencesFlinders University

TechTrain 2004 July 1-2 Lyn Spencer: Managing Change 2

My role:

Appointed to position of Supervisor, Biology undergraduate laboratories, in 1994:

12 years in life science research in the School of Medicine Nutrition research, winery, routine testing laboratory – public and private sectors

My qualifications – updated from technical level: Bachelor of Science as a mature age student 1995 Graduate Certificate in PS Management 2002

Leadership role: Laboratory technical staff

Imposed change process 1997-1998 – laboratory technicians Inclusive, consultative change process 2001-2002

All technical staff Transition to Manager, Technical Services, responsible for all technical staff

and activities 2002-ongoing


Aims of this presentation:

Map the driving forces, together with structural changes, of how the provision of technical services has evolved in the school of Biological Sciences over the past decade

Discuss the impact of change in the workplace for individuals and the organisation, and the importance (& pressures) of managing the change process well

The importance of forward-thinking change – looking to the future in Biology


Background - Prior to 1997

Laboratory Technicians 6.25 FTE teaching only

Laboratory Technicians 9.0 FTE research only

Other Technical staff -

AcademicSupervisor

Director of Technical Services

Academic

TechnicalSupervisor

AcademicSupervisor

AquacultureAquarium

1.0

Animal House2.0+casuals

Horticulture1.0+casuals

MechanicalWorkshop

2.0

Computing&Electrical

Workshops:2.8

Research: 9.0

Teaching: 6.25


The first change:

1997 Review of Technical Services in FSE:(Mack Consulting): Revealed disparity and inequity in the work of the 2 laboratory

technical groups Recommended a convergence of roles

1998 New system: All Laboratory Technical Staff to participate in annual roster:

1 semester servicing undergraduate practical classes 1 semester assigned to an academic research group

Individual academics were assigned technical assistance in accordance with a performance ranking within the limit of staff availability

It was a ‘solution’ at the time…..


The good and the bad…

Technical staff: Opportunity for some to upskill Appreciation of the differing demands in

research and teaching & the relevance of both

‘Meat market’ annual auction Restricted research assignments Loss of skills

Academic staff: Assistance to productive

researchers limited by staff availability

Workload implications - compiling bids at busy end of year

‘cattle auction’ at the end of the year Perception of ‘winners’ and ‘losers’,

‘rich’ and ‘poor’ New staff left in the wilderness Academic / technical mismatches Assistance not always well used

As the Manager: Fairer workload distribution Growing sense of ‘cohort’ Staff development opportunities Loss of ‘team’ in teaching Academic / technical mismatches Poor behaviour and resistance by a few No allowance for growing OH&S and service

tasks ‘on-off’ divide


There must be overt and demonstrated needs driving the change The review clearly identified the need to blur the boundaries

between the 2 laboratory technical groups

The organisation must be seen to support the change process and the managers of change The organisation ‘consulted’ all staff, and in the absence of any

other constructive suggestions imposed the only plan on offer

The employees affected must be involved in development of the change process They were invited to put forward suggestions, but there was no

participative development process

Ie: this was Prescriptive change, and unlikely to be successful

Organisational Change


External change driver:

Faculty of Science & Engineering

School ofBiological Sciences

Assoc.Prof. Sue ThomasHead of School Biological Sciences2001

MOLECULAR

Bioinformatics

Genomics

Biotechnology

ECOLOGY

Ecotourism

Biodiversity&

Conservation

MARINE

Marine Biology

Aquaculture

A shift in tertiary education funding emphasis from teaching to research productivity and outcomes

Demanded changes in strategic direction and approaches to research across the School and Faculty


Internal change drivers:

0

5

10

15

20

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

TECHNICAL STAFF

0

50

100

150

200

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

YEAR

WE

EK

S O

F P

RA

CT

ICA

LS

SEMESTER 1

SEMESTER 2

Note: The lower graph displays actual weeks of practicals and as such is a conservative representation that does not reflect the true workload associated with numbers of repeat sessions, enrolments or complexity


A window of opportunity:

“if it ain’t broke – don’t fix it” Both general and academic staff were dissatisfied The points ranking system for the annual ‘cattle auction’ was out of kilter with the shift in

research funding and training (Kemp 1999-2000 policy statements) Decreased technical staff, increased practical load The current system promoted temporal, physical and behavioural divides that:

Prevented a clear reporting and supervisory structure Prevented rational management of School service tasks Ignored the current EBA directive that ‘wherever practicable’ general staff were required to be

supervised by general staff

January 2001 – Biology School Retreat: Confirmed commitment to strategic plan for 3 foci (‘clusters’) of research and teaching Acknowledged the need to introduce efficiencies to promote research effectiveness Identified the priorities required to achieve this:

Review and rationalise topics Evolve strategies to nurture and train research students to attain outcomes in accord with the new

policy Use its resources, including technical staff, efficiently and effectively


There must be overt and demonstrated needs driving the change Both internal and external drivers had been identified

The organisation must be seen to support the change process and the managers of change

members present at the School Retreat included all academic staff and elected general staff members of the School Board

A representative Working Party in consultation with the School Community: Review and revise the current method of allocation of technical staff Consider the possibility of allocation to research ‘clusters’, not individuals Report to the June 2001 School Board

The employees affected must be involved in development of the change process

All involved from BEFORE the 1st WP mtg through to the final proposal

Organisational Change


Ownership of change:

Laboratory technical staff met prior to the 1st mtg of the working party: Discussed what was good and bad about the system prior to 1997, and the current

system and what would be desirable in a new system

Summary of this discussion provided to the Working Party and incorporated in the report to the School Board June 2001:

Statement of commitment:technical staff are a valuable resource to be used in the best possible manner in the School

Key recommendations: 3 core activities of technical laboratory staff - teaching preparation, service tasks for the

School community and research assistance Meeting the needs of teaching is a priority and retention of the current teaching and

research rotation system best meets those needs at this time Teaching and research assignments should incorporate and allow for the provision of the

service tasks in a manner to be determined Allocation to Research Clusters may be the most appropriate strategy Consider NOT retaining the points system


The Objectives:

Lead the laboratory technical group, in consultation with reference groups and stakeholders, through the process of evolving a more equitable and effective system of deployment in the School of Biological Sciences in a manner that is transparent and promotes ownership of the outcome

How? Develop a system that enables technical staff to meet the priority needs of teaching and

research in a manner that can be flexible and responsive Must be centrally managed to ensure flexibility in meeting the changing immediate and long-term

needs of the School A shift in management structure, in keeping with University policy, to ensure that all

technical staff are permanently under the supervision of the Laboratory Manager This will establish clear supervisory roles and reporting lines for management of the consolidated

group and development of team-based activities Recognise and manage use of technical staff expertise within the context of the changing

organisational, and research and teaching activities of the School An audit of technician skills and competencies to provide a reference database to:

identify and use individual strengths match what we have with the needs of teaching and research, and the overall needs of the School and

University, and subsequently identify the 'mismatches' and gaps identify staff training and development needs and opportunities


The Plan:

Build a framework: Based on the key drivers Identify stakeholders:

undergraduate and research students, general and academic staff What are the priority needs of the School (tasks):

What must be done? What should be done? What is desirable?

What are the needs of technical staff: What are the considerations, strategies, skills required to meet the

needs of staff and the organisation?


The process:

SCHOOL COMMUNITY

LABORATORY TECHNICIANS

LABORATORY MANAGER

WORKINGPARTY

SCHOOLBOARD

From August 2001, the technical group met weekly to develop the new strategy and…. the working party dissolved into obsolescence


The Change Grid:

PAST FUTURE

Denialor

Optimism

Shockor

Relief

Exploration

PlanningContributing

Resistance

NegativitySelf doubt

Commitmentand

Enthusiasm

PositivityBalance

SHIFT


Punctuated Equilibrium:

DENIAL Sudden realisation by some technical AND academic staff that change was

definitely going to happen RESISTANCE

Persistent arguments by a few about why things would NEVER work Erratic attendance and/or participation by a few

EXPLORATION A revisit to the key drivers and ‘the good and bad’ refoccussed and reinvigorated

the group enthusiasm

COMMITMENT Consensus was being reached The group was positive, productive and infectious – attendance was almost

routinely 100% The focus was tasks – essential, required, desirable

Participative Change outcome


Proposal:5 primary overlapping elements….

Service TasksTeaching Non-teaching

LABORATORY MANAGER

TECHNICAL STAFF

Teachingonly

Teachingservicetasks

Universitypolicytasks

Schoolservicetasks

Researchonly

Highest Priority Lowest Priority


Meeting the objectives:

Develop a system that enables technical staff to meet the priority needs of teaching and research in a manner that can be flexible and responsive

Hierarchical “whole School’ approach Establishment of TLC to review changing needs

A shift in management structure, in keeping with University policy, to ensure that all technical staff are permanently under the supervision of the Laboratory Manager

All technical staff officially under the supervision of the Technical Manager from 2002 Recognise and manage use of technical staff expertise within the context of the changing

organisational, and research and teaching activities of the School The audit survey was extremely detailed, perhaps threatening and most technical staff

never completed it

Accepted for implementation January 2002


Just when you thought it was sorted….

Jan 2002 – 1 staff on maternity leave (no replacement) June 2002 – a staff member commenced a year’s LWOP to spend time with

family in Europe (contract replacements) Aug 2002 – Another who clearly did not accept the new system resigned Jan 2003 – the staff member on MLWOP decides not to return Feb 2003 – a 0.5 staff retires

2002-2003 – Technical Manager 0.5 secondment to faculty level role 0.5 replacement staff appointed from within laboratory technical pool


Hence:

Service TasksTeaching Non-teaching

TECHNICAL MANAGERTECHNICAL STAFF, ANCILLIARY SUPPORT SERVICES

TECHNICAL STAFF, LABORATORY SERVICES

Teachingonly

Teachingservicetasks

Universitypolicytasks

Schoolservicetasks

Researchonly

Highest Priority Lowest Priority


The future?

We were able to appoint a contract staff member to fill 1 resignation, but the laboratory group is now effectively further reduced by 1.5 positions

There is a ‘bottom-line’, but we have flexibility, and also some new directions that would not have been possible under the old system:

Roles are blurring, divides are going: The technician responsible for ‘plant’ practicals also assists in the glasshouses The technicians responsible for aquaria and animal care also assist students doing

related projects Laboratory and computing staff have worked in tandem to introduce efficiencies eg

the electrical testing regime – we are all here to service teaching and research

In summary – the new and future PD “key purpose’: The Laboratory Services Technical Officer operates within a technical team to

provide laboratory support for undergraduate practical teaching and technical infrastructural services across the wider School environment.

Very broad, very flexible, very robust for the future

managing change: the evolution of the provision of technical services in biology lyn spencer...

Documents

laboratory technical

technical assistance

bad technical staff

technical staff transition

teaching academic technical

technical level

laboratory technical

review of technical