Still waiting and wondering

Photo: Gerard O'Brien

Vaughan Elder reported in the ODT (15.4.17) that University of Otago staff are bracing for cuts. Also detailed were the high stress levels felt by general staff during an incredibly uncertain period.

University human resources director Kevin Seales disagreed staff were being kept in the dark but also admitted to not sharing information so as to not give staff ‘‘incomplete or partially thought-through information.’’

In our opinion this does not track well with the advertised ‘‘unprecedented level’’ of transparency or even the stated purpose of the most recently held forums. The invitation said ‘‘these forums will provide the opportunity to learn more about shared services.’’

If only we’d known this ‘‘unprecedented’’ transparency was only in the most general of terms.

When asked repeatedly for specific examples about how a shared service would look in practice, staff were not provided with satisfactory answers.

This might be explained by the recurring attitude that all the departments at Otago are ‘‘basically the same’’.

We’re stunned that an entire phase of this project was research and scoping and yet the staff services review came away with no appreciation for the diversity of Otago’s departments and the diversity of their needs.

In addition to this so-called transparency, staff have apparently also been provided with ‘‘an unprecedented level of consultation’’.

The review can trot out figures on the number of workshops and forums held, along with the number of attendees. Yet how specific concerns are being addressed or incorporated into the solution design is not shared.

We are two years into what has been a painful and excruciating process for staff but specific examples of shared services in practice can’t be provided. Even if the SSR group members are inordinately worried about sharing information ahead of the business case, can they not at least provide specific examples of how feedback/consultations have been used to inform the solution design?

As far as can be determined, feedback is not being used at all. For those sitting at the other end of the firing squad it’s not really transparent if you can’t communicate your plans. Consulting people is useless if you won’t show how those consultations are informing the design.

One piece of information staff were able to get at the forums was that the shared services model is the only model being considered, and it will be rolled out across the university at the same time. There is no plan for a test run or phasing-in of shared services. This is surprising, since the committee has stated they expect snags.

That’s not unusual when rolling out a new system but, since we know this, why not consider phasing-in the adoption of a new model. Several departments have been described as having a ‘‘gold standard’’ of service, while other departments do not have access to this same level of service. Would it not be prudent to phase-in shared services where they are needed most? This allows any growing pains to be addressed on a smaller scale and allows for comparison of the new services to the gold standards already in place within the university.

This would ensure each department is brought up to the gold standards already in place while bringing on shared services in a more manageable way.

Given the ‘‘unprecedented’’ transparency of the past two years, it remains surprising and incredibly stressful that staff at Otago still have no clear picture of what to expect or how their ‘‘unprecedented level of consultation’’ has been utilised.

-Rachel Wallace and Ingrid Fomison-Nurse are assistant research fellows in the department of physiology at the University of Otago.