Who You Calling A Jesse?

One thing that really been highlighted to me by the University of Waterloo logo fun (#uwlogogate) is that committees are overused in higher education and the quality of the work could be suffering. Even if the quality might not improve I can’t see how committee work isn’t contributing to an increase in work load and stress. This happens because (using this current issue as an example) a committee (or a series of committees) appears to be responsible for:

1. requirements, strategy, and execution of the branding work
2. logo research, design, and approval
3. communications planning

How the day to day works is that you have a number of staff from different departments with different reports and interests doing their normal job and working on the branding stuff essentially on the side. Focus is not 100% on the task, it can’t be. The result, a decent logo but one that meets the needs of very specific, unfocused, and likely insular interests.

A project needs to be a real project

What I think is wrong is that a committee of staff with other jobs should be responsible for:

1. high level requirements, strategy, and oversight of project

Then a project team is to do the work, report back on how what they are doing is inline with the vision/values, and get the job done. A project team that is doing it full time reporting to one Project Manager and sharing a common interest.

The project team will have the added advantage of spending enough time on something to develop expertise that it might be missing. It is really hard to be really good at something that you don’t have the time for. It is likely the quality of the work suffers because the expertise just isn’t allowed to develop with the project.

This actually gets really bizarre when you look at things like hiring committees and search committees. The membership is made up of ‘representation’ but not by people that are qualified (or likely) to understand the requirements of a job for which they are hiring someone. Their positions don’t offer them the context or the expertise yet they are drawn together to represent what are arguably irrelevant interests.

That is why I am not arguing for broader consultation on projects (like logo making). That doesn’t work. I think broader consultation on higher level principles is ideal but when it comes to doing the work let the people you are paying to do the work produce the best work they are capable of. If it is truly sub-par work then something is wrong and something needs to be done.

A committee that is tasked with doing real work removes all responsibility and accountability for the quality and delivery of the work.

You can’t apply good project management to a committee

Can you actually apply project management techniques to committee work? I don’t think so. Sure in MS Project you can claim an asset (person) has 20% of their work week for a project but it doesn’t take into account that with one day a week of time you are probably getting 1/3 productivity on that. The inevitable 1/3 of your day getting your mind focused and working, 1/3 doing work, 1/3 for interruptions.

Too much time is spent on updating progress, lingering issues that aren’t solved, politics in the office back in the home department, etc.

Highered needs to create more temporary project teams and less committees

I believe we need to stop using a faculty influenced process and go to a more business focused way of running projects with a twist. The twist being the project has committee oversight that agrees on the goals and the measure of the project is its adherence to the goals (committees can not say things like “moar lazerz”).

This is a rough thought of course… more discussion is welcome and required but in general we need to change how we do projects in higher ed or continue to put out sub-par work and over stress staff in the process.

As of today I will no longer be President of the University of Waterloo Staff Association. My last act as President was to chair the first half of the Annual General Meeting and then hand over new business to the new President. I take on the role of Past-President that involves co-chairing the Staff Relations Committee and moving to a more advisory role within the Staff Association organization. As President I have two staff that report to me and was in a leadership position. Now I have to step out of the leadership role but stay involved.

In some sense I am happy that my time is up—another kid is on the way and my sanity is getting harder to find!!! A lot was accomplished thanks to the efforts of the UWSA Executive. I can’t thank them enough for the support, the input, the feedback, and the initiatives they brought to the table. Ideas moved quickly and results are starting to show already. One last accomplishment was signing a Memorandum of Agreement between the Staff Association and the University of Waterloo. It was a necessary step that the organization had to do and the Executive made the decision to get it done without a drawn out feedback process from the membership on the basis that that it does not change the working relationship between the University and the employee only the relationship between the two organizations (UWSA and UW). That lack of process didn’t go over well with some in the membership but it was the right thing to do and I am glad we did it.

I have learned a lot about how a higher education institution functions over the past year. Far more than I learned in six years in the Communications and Public Affairs Office and certainly more than I would have an opportunity to in my current role in the IT department. It is a wonder that the organization functions at times but there is a certain value to the organizational structure that is hard not to admire. Now I am part of that structure co-chairing a committee that has oversight over many University Policies that are related to staff.

At the end of my tenure as President the UWSA seems to be getting back to business as usual. A failed union drive offered opportunity and purpose to strengthen the organization and time will tell if that was actually achieved. One remarkable thing that I have learned about the large group of staff in higher ed is that Peter Drucker needs to be required reading for all higher education workers. His management philosophies are applicable to higher education but sadly the execution of any institution wide management strategy is just isn’t there (yet). Another important thing is that some of the best people anywhere dedicate a lot of time and talent to higher education and academics, I would argue, play a lot lesser role in the ensuring higher education works then some would have you believe.