This document discusses ways to improve relationships between central administrative departments and academic schools at universities. It outlines some common tensions between the two groups, including lack of understanding of each other's roles and lack of communication. The University of Kent implemented several initiatives to address this, including creating a new role to facilitate connections, holding professional development events, and implementing job shadowing and coffee meetup programs. While progress has been made, fully bridging gaps between central and local services remains an ongoing challenge that requires long-term commitment.

1. The UK’s European university
Breaking down silos
title?
How to bridge the gap between academic
departments and central services
Chloé Gallien

2. Why the need to look into this?
• Currently Master of Keynes College
at the University of Kent
• Seconded from position as Head of
Administration for the Faculty of
Social Sciences
• Previously held academic and
academic management and
leadership positions
• Have worked in Britain in a number
of universities: Stirling, Liverpool,
Abertay, Dundee, St Andrews, and
now Kent + visited and been
external examiner for a number of
others
• “Them and us” issues to be
found everywhere
• Reflect on the reasons for
the issue
• Give examples of what the
professional staff at
school level is doing at
Kent to enhance the
relationship with their
colleagues at central level
• Share what else could be
done

3. • Regardless of their position on the
centralised/decentralised spectrum, all institutions
have central and decentralised functions
• Challenge of successful coordination of
professional functions between central and local
efforts
• Danger of ‘silo mentality’

4. • Do you work in a central department or in an
academic school?
• How would you assess the relationship between
central departments and academic schools?
What about your institution?

5. What in your experience are the
main sources of tension/ ‘gripes’
between central departments and
academic schools?

6. Common gripes
Central vs Local
• Loss of control/ difficult to get
information
• Lack of understanding of what
central services offer
• No economies of scale
• Possibility of overlap
• Variations in resourcing in
schools and in processes
• Possibility of errors/
contradictory information given
• Different training or qualification
standards
• Inconsistency of student
experience
• “Who serves whom?”
Local vs Central
• Lack of understanding of
what is done at school level
• Lack of understanding of
school specificity and needs
• Inflexible processes / ‘one
size fits all’ approach
• Possibility of overlap
• Poor communication
• Unreasonable demands /
deadlines
• Schools always blamed
• Central services not
responsive enough
• “Who serves whom?”

7. Main issues
• Lack of clarity around what responsibilities lie at
which level
• Who serves whom?
• Who owns each process?
• Lack of understanding of each other’s roles
• Lack of contact between the various levels
Footer textPage 7

8. How did we tackle this at Kent? School
administration reaching out to Central Services
1. Creation of new role
• Change of structure
• Creation of new role and new reporting line
• One remit of the new role is to bring central
departments and academic schools closer together
Footer textPage 8

9. Central Services
Recruitment
and
Marketing
Finance Human
Resources
Academic
Division
Estates
School
Admin
School
Admin
School
Admin
School
Admin
School
Admin
University of Kent admin structure - before
Head
of
School
Head
of
School
Head
of
School
Head
of
School
Head
of
School
Student
Services

10. Central Services
Recruitment
and
Marketing
Finance Human
Resources
Academic
Division
Estates
School
Admin
School
Admin
School
Admin
School
Admin
School
Admin
University of Kent admin structure - after
Student
Services
Faculty
Head of Administration

11. How did we tackle this at Kent? School
administration reaching out to Central Services
1. Creation of new role
• Change of structure
• Creation of new role and
new reporting lines
• One remit of the new role
was to bring central
departments and
academic schools closer
together
Structure now successfully
embedded
“One voice” gives more
weight to discussions and
negotiations with Central
Services
Creates one point of contact
for Central Services to
cascade information and
requests down
• Relationship with Central
Services still to be worked on

12. 2. Discussions to identify problems and “bottle
necks”
• Creation of School
Administration Managers
groups:
• By faculty
• Across faculties
• Creation of Special
Interest Groups
• Focus groups
• Process-mapping project
Extremely successful
But may exacerbate the “them
and us” mentality
• Need to do more
Include both parties
• Abandoned as too cumbersome
• Only successful for very specific
process reengineering assignments

13. 3. Professional development
• “Excellence through Partnership”
Chosen as enhancement theme for
professional staff in schools
• Partnership with academic
colleagues
• Partnership with other Schools
• Partnership with students
• Partnership with Central
Services
• Day conference on theme of
partnership (January 2014)
• Central Services invited for
presentations and poster display
• Local partnership projects
encouraged
Partnership with Central
Services still present
within new enhancement
theme (Excellence and
Change)
Getting easier to obtain
participation from
colleagues

14. 3. Invitations for guest speakers
• Guest presentations from
Central Services
• Invitations to showcase
their departments at
conferences
• Posters
• Stands
• Presentations

15. 4. Mixed membership groups
• Review of groups’ membership:
• Review of groups membership
to include members of central
departments (ex: SIGs)
• Lobbying to have school
representation at central
meetings when possible
• New mixed groups:
• Special projects working groups
• Partnership groups: with HR,
Estates, Student Services,
Timetabling
• Partially successful:
still pockets of
resistance
Successful
Needs commitment to
continuity when staff
change

16. Good to clarify responsibilities and
expectations
• Only very partial success
• Very time-consuming
• Seen as too rigid by some
• Common stumbling block: need to be clear
on who owns the process or the service and
“who serves whom? “
5. Service Level Agreements

17. 6. Creation of Joint Calendar
Helped clarify moments of
pressure at school level
Helped clarify deadlines
given by the centre
Successful in having
Centre and schools work
together
Also helpful for induction of
new staff
Helped communicate
reasons for deadlines to
academics
Difficult to maintain

18. 7. Schemes to enhance better understanding of
roles and foster relationships
• Pair of Fresh Eyes Scheme
• To facilitate secondment/job
swaps/shadowing/visits
• Shadow Matching scheme
(pilot) :
• 3 half days
• Coffee with Colleagues
(pilot)
• Coffee dates
• Coffee morning (2 locations)
• Selfie competition
• Not successful
82 participants / 41 pairs
Coffee dates: 88 pairs; Coffee
morning: 118
229 participants overall for both
schemes
Extremely positive feed-back
from participants
• Requires backing, funding and
“back office” organisation

19. In the future
• All projects continuing; commitment secured for yearly
Shadow Matching and Coffee with Colleagues schemes
• Possible follow-up for senior managers (“Back to the
Floor?” being looked into
• Enhancement of partnership between central and local
professional services still on the Heads of
Administration’s agenda but one of many priorities
• Simplifying Kent:
• Review carried out by PWC
• 9 strands: Roles and responsibilities one of them
• Change of VC and Academic Registrar

20. QUESTIONS?
Footer textPage 20

21. How do YOU bridge the gap between local and
central services?
Footer text

22. THE UK’S
EUROPEAN
UNIVERSITY
www.kent.ac.uk