5. Activity: Look at the different channels of
communication used by Kingston University in
2010 and 2012.
•How would this have worked in your organisation?
•What are the enablers you have?
•What do you need to overcome?
6. “I have a place I can go for a rest at work?”
Agree Tend to Agree Tend to Disagree Disagree
11% 14% 17% 58%
8. Activity: What additional information would help you interpret this
data?
2012 2010
Result Result
79% 74% More could be done to help staff prepare for and cope with
change
58% New Not had the opportunity to be involved in changes to faculty /
department
53% 55% Think things will improve over the next 12 months
55% 48% Change at KU is not managed well
11. Activity: What benefits and concerns do you see with
the Kingston University 2010 project structure?
See next slide
12. Activity: What benefits and concerns do you see with the
attached project structure?
Local Actions University-wide Actions
Champion
HR Client Corporate
Fac/Dept
Partner HR Implementation theme
Team
•Coordinating activities
Champion •Reporting and
HR Client Corporate
Fac/Dept Planning theme
Partner •Organisational Comms
Champion Corporate
Fac/Dept HR Client theme
Partner
Focus
Groups
Champion •Consult Corporate
Fac/Dept HR Client theme
Partner
Champions University
SMT Project Board
Forum
Chaired by HR Director Chaired by VC Chaired by Pro VC
13.
14. •Establish the need
•Align to institutional and HE priorities
•Inform change
•Create the ‘staff experience’
Using Kingston university as a case study to discuss different pathways to engagement. Practical examples of what has worked well and some not so well.
Gather and use the feedback Interpret the data Achieve buy-in Embed improvements into all you do
Examples of 2010 posters – designed to grab attention. Changed every two weeks during the ‘go-live’ period.
Summary of case study
Handouts provided were: Poster examples from 2010 Poster example from 2012 Postcard copy from 2012 VC invitation letter from 2012
Summary of case study
Anticipated responses: Information on various faculties/departments Additional information on different staff Groups More detailed individual feedback e.g. via focus groups Understanding of the context e.g. has there been significant change? HE benchmark figure
Summary of case study
A few of the anticipated responses: Concerns: How easy is it to share information and learning? The university-wide projects appear to be apart from the faculty/department activities HR are central to the activity Senior Management Team – how accountable/engaged are they? Is this all extra to the “day job”? Benefits Faculty and department actions are owned locally Accountability for action plans held by local Champions SMT receive regular feedback from the champions and project board Focus groups established to gain additional information HR team able to build improvements into People Strategy activities e.g. Performance Management. Additional handout to demonstrate an on-going communication activity – ‘Keith knows staff opinions count’.
high level project plan Exec 14-12-10 Version 2
Summary of case study
This screen shot was taken from the University of Bristol's intranet page. Kingston University are currently scoping their ‘staff experience’ and are grateful to Bristol for sharing how they have described a ‘Positive Working Environment’.