performance based financing in higher...

PERFORMANCE BASED FINANCING IN HIGHER

EDUCATION

Developing Higher Education Funding Agreements – a Policy Option for Croatia

Documents and Presentations

TableofContentsProposed Plan for Testing of Financing Agreements in Croatia ...................................................................................... 3

Some Basic Principles of Performance‐based Funding .................................................................................................. 7

EVENT 1: Performance‐Based Financing – Experiences from Europe, Developments in Croatia ...................................... 9

Agenda ................................................................................................................................................................................ 9

Participants ...................................................................................................................................................................... 11

Presentation1: University Governance in Denmark: Development Contracts and the General Framework .................. 15

Presentation2: European Examples for Funding/Target Agreements ............................................................................. 49

Presentation3: Funding Agreements (FA): Philosophy, Chances, Risks, Success Factors ................................................ 71

Presentation4: Implementation of Funding Agreements: Methods, Processes, Tools ................................................. 104

EVENT 2: Workshop with Rectors of the Croatian Universities and the Ministry of Science, Education and Sports

(MoSES) on Piloting of Performance‐Based Financing ............................................................................................... 123

Agenda ............................................................................................................................................................................ 123

Participants .................................................................................................................................................................... 124

Presentation Funding agreements in Croatia: From the idea to implementation ........................................................ 125

EVENT 3: Workshop on Performance‐Based Financing ‐ Next Steps .......................................................................... 146

Agenda ............................................................................................................................................................................ 146

Participants .................................................................................................................................................................... 147

Document 1: Guidelines for the roadmaps to funding agreements in Croatia ............................................................. 148

Document 2: “Rules of the Game” for funding agreements in Croatia ........................................................................ 152

EVENT 4: Performance‐Based Financing of Universities ‐ Visits to the Universities that Prepared the

Roadmaps ................................................................................................................................................................ 159

Presentation: Croatia: Funding Agreements ‐ Annex to Recommendations to Universities ......................................... 159

Participants 1 .................................................................................................................................................................. 167

Participants 2 .................................................................................................................................................................. 168

Participants 3 .................................................................................................................................................................. 169

WB, 19 October 2011

Proposed Plan for Testing of Financing Agreements in Croatia

1. Background

In February 2011, the World Bank and MoSES organized a workshop on Performance-based financing

(PBF) and European experience with PBF for the Croatian universities sector. In early July, a second

workshop, this time on testing and implementation of funding agreements (FAs or Performance

Agreements, PA) was convened by MoSES and the Bank. The workshop involved the leadership of all

public universities in Croatia, with the exception of the University of Dubrovnik.1 There was consent

amongst all participants, universities and MoSES, that it is worthwhile to go ahead with the proposed

model of FAs as a basis of future budget allocations and that this model should be tested. While the

Bank and MoSES originally envisaged a small group of institutions to enter this testing (or piloting)

phase2, all university representatives showed a strong interest in testing the new model at their own

institution. Also, the Rectors listed a range of needs in connection with the new model, in particular with

regard to training but also regarding data collection and management, etc. The Bank team prepared an

adjusted, while feasible plan by 13 July which was endorsed by MoSES on 21 September. The Rectors

confirmed that the plan could be discussed at an upcoming meeting of the Rectors Conference (with the

next one being scheduled for 27 September), and that successively the Bank team and MoSES would be

informed if the proposal finds the consensus of the Rectors.

2. Rational and intended results of the proposed approach

The testing phase is scheduled to start in academic year 2011/12 and will be completed in 2013/14

when FAs are supposed to have budgetary consequences. It is important to note that clarity on the legal

framework and a sector strategy are important elements of well-functioning PBF systems. The World

Bank has worked with MoSES on the development of the PBF section in the proposed new Universities

Law; however, at the time of writing, it seems unlikely that the government will go ahead with the new

legislation package, as originally planned. Nevertheless, MoSES and the Bank team agree, that the

testing of the new instruments should progress. Both MoSES and universities will engage in the

conceptualization of the basics and instruments for funding agreements, in parallel to seeking clarity

regarding the legal grounds. Further, the Bank team will provide input for the future strategy discussion

through a sector paper which it will prepare in 2011/12.

According to this proposal, the preparation and testing of FAs in 2011/12 will be done in two tracks:

a) Work on the macro level on the ‘Rules of the Game’: The working group consisting of

universities’ leadership, MoSES and the World Bank will conduct at least two workshops in

1 The six universities were represented by their Rectors, with the exception of the University of Split which was

represented by two authorized Vice-Rectors. 2 The idea was to pilot i) one small/integrated institution, ii) one medium size/partially integrated institutions and

iii) provide support for the University of Zagreb in its preparation of FAs.

2

2011/12 where it elaborates the basic elements of the FAs, i.e. i) process with fixed steps and

schedule; ii) form and structure of the text(s) and iii) the actual funding mechanisms.

b) Universities (and MoSES) preparing institutional Roadmaps to FAs: All universities willing to

participate in preparation and testing (six universities, according to the outcomes of the

workshop on 04 July) will prepare a ‘Roadmap to FAs’. The rational for this step is that, as all

Rectors stressed at the workshop, universities lack a range of critical elements with regard to

well-functioning FAs. This can be structural issues, lack of functioning instruments of strategic

management or appropriate human resources and training, data issues, etc. Through the

‘Roadmap’ task, universities will take stock of these pre-conditions and determine feasible steps

in order to address these issues. To the extent possible, first steps should be taken to address

the shortcomings at hand. The outcome is going to be one document per participating

institution which contains this stocktaking and the universities plan for addressing the issues.

For these documents guidelines will be drafted. In addition, MoSES would also need to prepare

such a ‘Roadmap’ to gain clarity on capacity and other issues at the Ministry which are

necessary for the introduction of PBF.

For both tracks, the World Bank team, in cooperation with MoSES, will serve as a kind of secretariat and

also as a clearing house for the Roadmaps. The Roadmap exercise is designed in a way to allow for

capacity building at the institutional level as universities – as well as the Ministry - will gain knowledge

and skills needed for successful contract negotiation (and execution) in future. It will contain a further

training element as the Bank’s team will provide input and feedback at different stages of the process.

3. Timeline for 2011/12 and deliverables

The timelines for the preparation and testing in the academic year 2011/123 is mapped out in the

following table.

Time General ‘Rules of the Game’ Roadmaps Exersise (Universities, MoSES)

February – August 2011

- Workshop on PBF, Dubrovnik, Feb. 11

- Workshop on Testing of FAs, 04 July 2011

- Workshop with Leadership UoZ , 05 July 2011

- Sept. 23: Working Group receives proposal for preparation/testing phase

3 This broadly overlaps with the Bank’s Fiscal Year as a planning frame for the Bank’s activities (01 July – 30 June).

3

- By Sept. 27: Meeting of Rectors Conference: Reply on Proposal

Sept./Oct. 2011

- - WB prepares i) first draft/manual for macro level FAs. (ii) Manual for internal FAs – to be prepared later).

- Universities prepare information on current internal funding allocation

- MoSES prepares information on current macro level funding allocation

- 10 Oct..: 1. Workshop on Rules of the Game (Zagreb)

- WB prepares guidelines for Roadmaps (done – Sept. 22)

- Universities and MoSES start preparing their individual Roadmap to FAs

- Q&A Session on

Roadmaps at the Rules of the Game- Workshop

Nov. 2011 - - 20 Nov.: 1. Draft Roadmap sent to WB

Dec. 2011 - Elections - 15 Dec.: Comments by WB have been sent to all universities and MoSES

Jan. 2012 - 20 Jan.: 2. Draft Roadmap sent to WB

Feb. 2012 - Visit to Universities by WB Team4/MoSES for presentation of/feedback on Roadmap. On-site FA training session

March 2012

- Post-election MoSES - Universities/MoSES finalize Roadmaps

April/May 2012

- 2nd Workshop on Rules of the Game: Finalizing the draft document for testing

- Presentation of Roadmaps at workshop. Decision who participates in the next phase5

4 The idea is that, in addition to Professor Ziegele, one or two European university leaders who went through the

process of preparing Funding Agreements participate in these visits, comment on the Roadmap and provide some on-site training on FAs. 5 While there would be a quality filter – only serious Roadmaps which tackle the issues at hand should provide the

basis for testing of FAs – there would not be an up-front numerical limit to the number of institutions which could participate in the next step, i.e. the testing of Funding Agreements on the macro level.

4

April 2012

- Begin testing of Funding Agreements MoSES-participating universities –

2012/13

- Sept./Oct. 2012: Establishing Budget for universities for 2012

- 2012/13 Focus on work on the institutional level

As mentioned before, the proposed process will have a build-in training element. However, there will be

a necessity for further and more comprehensive training measures. MoSES is aware of this and, in a first

step, will inquire about the possibility of US-financed strategic management training for the universities.

Major outcomes of the PBF work in 2011/12 under the proposed scheme will be:

Roadmaps for individual universities as a basis for the introduction of Funding Agreements.

There is a build-in quality assurance element in the proposal through peer reviews,

presentations and discussion with practitioners.

Established ‘Rules of the Game’, prepared in a participatory manner and a model for future

Funding Agreements on the macro level.

Guidelines for PBF/FA on the institutional level as the basis for next steps (testing of new

financing mechanisms at the institutional level).

Some Basic Principles of Performance-based Funding 1. Funding and regulation are the two strongest policy tools, and indeed, the power of the purse and

the power to rule are arguably, also in higher education, important steering mechanisms. The power of funding instruments has been recognised by national governments in Europe: Funding models are changing – trends like lump-sum budgeting, formula funding, performance or target agreements occur in many countries, gradually replacing “traditional” models based on line-item and incremental budgeting. Funding instruments replace regulation as the traditional steering approach in the higher education context.

2. It is important to understand the rationale behind the current changes in higher education funding:

Funding is regarded as a major instrument to realise the ideas of “New Public Management” (NPM). On the one hand, the philosophy of NPM assumes that allocation decisions have to be made as much on a decentralised level as possible, close to the needs of stakeholders and to the direct decision-makers in education and research. These decentralised responsibilities require professional management instruments that are also on the decentralised level (cost accounting, individual performance rewards, etc.).

3. On the other hand, NPM sees goal-orientation and coordination of activities through state and

institutional strategies as crucial success factors. The realisation of strategies should lead to institutional profiles, positioning the universities within the competitive higher education landscape. Focusing on objectives prevents governments from intervening in day-to-day activities and leads to the design of financial incentive systems rewarding according to the goal attainment. This is usually described as “performance-based funding”, the relevant performance indicators are an operationalisation of the goals.

4. Steering models have to find the balance between decentralised autonomy and central coordination

according to strategies and profiles. The balance should be ensured by leaving expenditure decisions as much as possible to the decentralised unit, while at the same time giving the central unit of the institution incentive mechanisms through resource allocation, guiding decentralised decisions by fiscal incentives (and not by regulation). This principle holds in the relationship between ministry and university but also inside the university (rectorate-faculty). If incentives represent strategic goals and performance adequately, there is no need to monitor in detail how central objectives are adopted by decentralised units; incentives are working automatically and influence autonomous decisions to move towards the intended directions without interventions into the processes and specific activities of teaching and research. High performance is highly rewarded; low performance leads to financial loss for the recipient of funds.

5. This normative background explains the changes in the allocation of public funds in higher

education: Universities receive state budgets as flexible lump-sums and through incentive-oriented instruments like performance agreements or formulas, linking budgets with performance. These instruments are also used inside universities to allocate money. The decisions on use of the funds is more and more at the discretion of decentralised units, with faculties in particular playing a major role in expenditure decisions. In exchange for the increased freedom to distribute monies and the responsibilities transferred to the faculties, the demand for increased accountability and efficiency rises. An additional implication of NPM is the rising importance of demand-oriented funding: The “money follows student” principle, i.e. public funding according to the number of students or graduates, gives incentives to adapt to students’ preferences, enforces service orientation of universities and implies a kind of market simulation.

6. Next to the incentive orientation, NPM is connected to two other basic functions of funding

models: Funding has to guarantee stability and transparency/legitimisation of budgets. Lump-sum budgeting implies the danger of losing legitimisation for a certain volume of the budget; therefore, allocation models have to explain why a university (or faculty inside the university) deserves a certain amount of money. Accountability and autonomy are two sides of a coin. For instance, a

2

formula could ensure this rather easily (by paying a cost-oriented “price” per student or graduate). If higher education institutions should follow a long-term strategy, this is facilitated by a certain financial stability. Incentive orientation and stability lead to trade-offs; again, a balance between different functions has to be found in specific funding models.

7. Furthermore, NPM is – at least partly – responsible for the diversification of funding sources of

universities: “Money follows student” is also realised through tuition fees, and the diversity of public revenue sources increases because of programme budgeting. Governments aim to induce competition by creating financial pools reserved for specific (innovative) targets. A good example is the German “excellence initiative”, where substantial funds are allocated by a competitive application process (incl. peer reviews) to stimulate clusters, graduate schools and universities with outstanding research performance (and under a separate window also teaching performance). The multitude of financial sources is also linked with universities’ risk management: diversification of financial sources leads to risk spreading and to less dependence from one or two single sources.

8. The allocation model based on these ideas could be characterised as a “three column model” of

state funding. There is a general trend towards systems of public funding based on three elements, despite the great variety in weighting and form of each of these elements. The elements are: (1) stable basic funding; (2) performance-oriented funding, based on performance indicators and an automatic calculation of budgets by formula; (3) innovation-and performance-oriented funding, based on financial pools distributed by procedures of programme funding or contract management. According to the preference of specific models for different allocation instruments, the state models could be characterised as indicator-based vs. negotiation-oriented models. The first makes use of formulas for the major part of the budget, also for basic funding. The latter focuses on negotiated budgets, using mainly target agreements for basic funding. A special implication of the negotiation model is the potential to strengthen trust between state/ministry and university actors.

9. The implementation of such systems is complex and a number of success factors could be

identified: • Strategic goals (on both sides: national goals, university profiles)need to be in place; strategic

planning activities have to be done – without strategic goals it is difficult to find out what the performance to be measured is;

• Both sides need human resources being able to deal with performance-oriented steering; • Especially in case of implementation of target agreements the issue of trust should be handled

with care; if disappointments in the process occur, a loss of trust could endanger functioning systems for a long time;

• Pilots are useful to test new funding models, however, it is important i) not to lose the long-term perspective, ii) not to rush into the exercise and be well prepared and iii) to benefit from the experiences of pilots by an analysis of the outcomes and lessons learned. Connecting the pilot to a controversial policy measure would not be advisable as it might jeopardize the entire pilot and funding reform.

• Schedules for the implementation have to be realistic; for instance target agreements need sufficient time for negotiation. A good project planning is required.

Funding agreements – Experiences from Europe, Developments in Croatia

Dubrovnik, February 17th/18th

February 17th

10.00 – 10.15 Opening; MSES / WB / University of Zagreb

10.15 – 10.30 Opening discussion - background to the meeting; MSES

10.30 – 11.15 Funding Agreements: Philosophy, Chances, Risks and Success Factors

(Input Frank Ziegele, CHE, Germany)

11.15 – 11.30 Questions and Answers

11.30 – 11.45 Short coffee break

11.45 – 12.15 New legislation in Croatia, First Ideas for Implementation of Funding Agreements

(Input: Ministry, incl. short questions and answers)

12.15 – 13.30 Gallery Walk: Funding Agreements – Chances/expectations, Risks, conditions on ministry side, conditions inside universities to make it a success, important “to dos”

13.30 – 14.30 Lunch

14.30 – 17.20 European Examples for Funding/Target Agreements

The Austrian Case (Alexander Hammer, University of Vienna, Austria)

Questions and Answers

Lessons Learned

(around 15.45: short coffee break)

The Danish Case (Jacob Fuchs, Ministry Denmark)

Questions and Answers

Lessons Learned

17.20 – 17.30 Card Collection: Success Factors for Funding Agreements

February 18th

9.00 – 9.20 Results of the Card Collection

(Roberta Bassett and Ivan Drabek, WB, facilitate)

9.20 – 10.00 Implementation of Funding Agreements: Methods, Processes, Tools

(Input Frank Ziegele)

10.00 – 11.15 Working Groups

Topics to be decided during the workshop, possible issues: suggestion for the negotiation process, or on the format of the agreements, or on “rules of the game”, or on necessary internal changes in university governance etc.

11.15 – 11.30 Short Coffee Break

11.30 – 12.15 Plenary Reports from the Working Groups

12.15 – 12.30 Way forward, Next Steps in development of Funding Agreements in Croatia

“Financing Agreements – European Experience and Croatian Plans” Workshop Dubrovnik, February 17 – 18, 2011

Name and Last Name Institution Function Contact 1 Prof. GORDANA KRALIK University of Osijek Rector [email protected] 2 Prof. DRAŽEN BARKOVIĆ University of Osijek Deputy Rector [email protected] 3 Prof. ŽELJKO TURKALJ University of Osijek, Faculty of

Economics Dean [email protected]

4 Prof. MATEO MILKOVIĆ University of Dubrovnik Rector [email protected]

5 DALIBOR IVUŠIĆ University of Dubrovnik Secretary General [email protected]

6 BRANKO PUTICA University of Dubrovnik Academic Secretary [email protected]

7 JELENA ČOIĆ University of Dubrovnik Head of Bookkeeping and Finances [email protected]

8 Prof. ANTE UGLEŠIĆ University of Zadar Rector [email protected]

9 HELGA FATOVIĆ University of Zadar Head of Financial-bookkeeping and Accounting Service

[email protected]

10 MARIJA PEČNIK University of Zadar Financial Secretary

[email protected]

11 SREĆKO JELUŠIĆ

University of Zadar Deputy Rector for Inter-institutional and International Cooperation, Library and Publications

[email protected]

12 BRANKA RAMLJAK University of Split Deputy Rector for Finances and Accounting

[email protected]

13 PERO LUČIN University of Rijeka Rector [email protected]

14 DAMIR ZEC University of Rijeka Deputy Rector for International Cooperation

[email protected]

15 TONČI MIKAC University of Rijeka Deputy Rector for Business and Integration Processes

[email protected]

16 PAVAO KOMADINA University of Rijeka Deputy Rector for Cooperation with Businesses and Student Employability

[email protected]

17 PREDRAG ŠUSTAR University of Rijeka Dean of Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences (FF)

[email protected]

18 ALAN ŠUSTIĆ University of Rijeka Dean of the School of Medicine and President of University Strategy Committee

[email protected]

19 BRANKA CESAREC University of Rijeka Head of Financial Service of Technical Faculty

[email protected]

20 DRAGAN BOLANČA University of Split Deputy Rector for Legal, Staffing, and General Affairs

[email protected]

21 ROBERT MATIJAŠIĆ University of Pula Rector 22 LOVRE BOŽINA University of Pula Deputy Rector [email protected]

23 MARLI GONAN-BOŽAC University of Pula Deputy Rector [email protected]

24 ALEN KONTOŠIĆ University of Pula Head of Accounting 25 VESNA VAŠIČEK University of Zagreb Deputy Rector for Business Operations [email protected]

Cc:[email protected]

26 ALEKSA BJELIŠ University of Zagreb Rector [email protected]

27 ŽELJKO POTOČNJAK University of Zagreb, School of Law

Dean [email protected]

28 MELITA KOVAČEVIĆ University of Zagreb Deputy Rector for Research and Development

[email protected]

29 DAVOR ROMIĆ University of Zagreb, School of Agronomy


30 DAMIR BORAS University of Zagreb, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences

Dean [email protected]; [email protected]

31 TIHOMIR HUNJAK University of Zagreb, Faculty of Organization and Informatics, Varaždin (FOI VŽ)


32 DAMIR JEŽEK University of Zagreb, School of Food Technology and Biotechnology (PBF)


33 KRUNOSLAV PISK Independent Union of Science and Higher Education

President of the Union [email protected]

34 IGOR RADEKA Independent Union of Science and Higher Education

Vice President and Deputy President of Great Council

[email protected]

35 VLASTA ŠIMEG GRGIĆ Independent Union of Science and Higher Education

First Secretary [email protected]

36 HRVOJE DOMITROVIĆ University of Zagreb, School of Electrical Engineering and Computing (FER)

Deputy Dean for Organization and Business Operations

[email protected]

37 IVANA FURČIĆ Young Scientists Network Representative of a group of Junior Researchers of the University of Zagreb

[email protected]

38 MARKO PAVIĆ Young Scientists Network President [email protected]

39 KRISTINA BEGOVIĆ Independent Union of Science and Higher Education

Lawyer-Officer [email protected]

40 AMIR HAMZIĆ University of Zagreb, Faculty of Science (PMF)

Dean [email protected] [email protected]

41 NADA MATJANOVSKI Agency for Science and Higher Education

Assistant Director [email protected]

42 JOSIP HALAMIĆ Croatian Geological Survey Director General [email protected]

43 DANICA RAMLJAK Ruđer Bošković Institute Director General [email protected]

44 VESNA BEDEKOVIĆ College of Management in Tourism and Informatics

Dean

[email protected]

45 ANTUN STOIĆ Polytechnic of Slavonski Brod Dean [email protected]

46 DARIO ŠKEGRO University of Zagreb Assistant Deputy Rector – Student [email protected]

47 IVANA KRZNAR Agency for Science and Higher Education

Head of Department for Accreditation in Higher Education

[email protected]

48 VITO TURŠIĆ MoSES Director of Higher Education Directorate

[email protected]

49 LUKA JUROŠ MoSES Head of Higher Education Development Department

[email protected]

50 ANICA HUNJET MoSES Head of Department for Higher Education Institutions Operations

[email protected]

51 ŽELJKA NENADIĆ TABAK MoSES Head of Department for Students Affairs

[email protected]

52 JASMINA SKOČILIĆ MoSES Associate [email protected]

53 ANA ŠUTALO BARIĆ MoSES Associate [email protected]

54 SVJETLANA TOMIĆ MoSES Senior Expert Adviser [email protected]

55 VLADIMIRA IVANKOVIĆ BRADIĆ MoSES Expert Associate [email protected]

56 ALBERTO RODRIGUEZ WB

57 FRANK ZIEGELE WB

58 ROBERTA BASSETT WB

59 ALEXANDER HAMMER WB

60 JACOB FUCHS WB

61 IVAN DRABEK WB

62 BOGDANKA KRTINIĆ WB

63 ZVJEZDANA KASTRAPELI Interpreter

64 TANJA ZAKULA Interpreter

65 IVANA PAVLAKOVIĆ

MoSES, Science Directorate Expert Adviser [email protected]

66 SANJA ŠAJKOVIĆ MoSES, Science Directorate Expert Adviser [email protected]

67 PETAR PERVAN Institute of Physics Director General [email protected]

68 IVANA MRKONJIĆ MoSES State Secretary [email protected] 69 HRVOJE MEŠTRIĆ MoSES Director of Science Directorate [email protected] 69 HRVOJE LOVRIĆ MoSES [email protected]

Jacob FuchsHead of Division, Chief Adviser

Danish University and Property Agency Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation

[email protected]

University Governance in Denmark:Development Contracts

and the General Framework

Dubrovnik, February 17 – 18, 2011

An Overview of The Danish UniversitiesThe Reforms of the Recent Decade

Increasing fundingModernising governanceDeveloping the use of economic incentivesReforming institutional structure Instrumentalising dialogue: The development contracts

A Wrap-up

Content of the Presentation

Overview of The Danish Universities

The Danish University Sector, 2009

8 universities

14,495 scientific personnel, year equivalents

122,000 enrolled students Humanities: 38,500Science and technology: 29,000Social sciences: 43,000Health sciences: 11,500

7,020 PhD-students

The Eight Universities

University of AarhusUniversity of Copenhagen

Technical University of DenmarkAalborg University

Number of scientific personnel: 1,230

Number of students: 14,412

Revenue (in DKK): 1,891 million

University of Southern DenmarkCopenhagen Business School

IT University of Copenhagen

Roskilde University







Number of scientific personnel: 1.522

Number of students: 6.560

Revenue (in DKK): 3.746 million




Number of scientific personnel: 84








Revenue (in DKK): 705 million

Source: Annual Reports 2009

University Funding, 2010

1002,947Total

16 477Other (various income and special initiatives like museums)

4 118Government commissioned research

22 635Competitive research grants

26 754Education performance funding

32 963Basic grant

Percent(M €)

Increasing FundingModernising GovernanceDeveloping the Use of Economic IncentivesReforming Institutional StructureInstrumentalising Dialogue: The Development Contracts

Reforms of the Recent Decade: Placing Universities at the Center of Knowledge Society

Increasing Funding

Increasing Funding

Public research spending up from 0.75 to 1.05 per cent of GDP between 2005 and 2011

Total university turnover up 28 per cent between 2005 and 2011

Modernizing Governance

New Institutions and Management Structure -The University Act of 2003

Public but self-governing institutionsBoards with external majority

Board selected in co-opting process

Rector appointed by the boardUniversity management appointed not elected

Developing the Use of Economic Incentives

3 basic grant rates (overhead included):Humanities and Social Sciences: 6,200 € per 60 ECTS Natural Sciences (non-exp.): 9,000 € per 60 ECTS Natural Sciences and Health: 13,100 € per 60 ECTS

Additional bonus for early graduation:Bachelors graduating within 4 year: an extra 65 per centMasters graduating within 2 year: an extra 35 per cent

Incentive for students to study abroad:Above basic grants to be taken overseas to pay for tuition fee

Activity Based Grant structure for Education

Research: Increased Weight on Competitive Financing

Basic funding for research and competitive appropriations available to the MSTI 2004-2009

46%10,2449,2698,4607,5177,3626,998Total

102%3,3593,1252,5361,9171,7791,662

Total - competitive appropriations available to the MSTI

459%1.0991.091732426431196

Other competitive appropriations available to the MSTI 2)

54%2,2602,0351,8031,4921,3481,466Danish research councils 1)

Competitive appropriations available to the MSTI

29%6,8856,1445,9245,6005,5835,336Basic grant for research

Dev. 2004-2009200920082007200620052004M DKK, 2009-prices

1)Appropriations to The Danish Council for Independent Research and The Danish Council for Strategic Research2)Appropriations to the Danish National Research Foundation, UNIK, Danish National Advanced Technology Foundation ect.Source: Danish Appropriations Act 2009 pp. 76-77, p. 151 and p. 155. Note: Appropriations to Danish research councils are price-salary-adjusted and the table starts in 2004 as The Danish Council for Strategic Research was established this year.

Reforming Institutional Structure

- The Mergers of Universities and Government Research Institutions

The Principal Aims of the 2006/2007 Mergers

to strengthen the institutional infrastructure of universities to handle increased appropriations to strengthen Danish research and university education – also in an international context to increase the universities' ability to attract international research funding, including EU funding

The Result

Before the mergers Denmark had:12 universities and 13 government research institutions

As a result of the mergers Denmark now has:8 universities and 4 government research institutions

The Merging Institutions, 2007

University of Aarhus

+ Aarhus School of Business

+ Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences

+ National Environmental Research Institute

+ Danish University of Education

University of Copenhagen

Technical University of DenmarkAalborg University

+ Danish Building Research Institute

University of Southern Denmark

+ National Institute of Public Health

Copenhagen Business School

IT University of Copenhagen

Roskilde University

+ Risø - National Laboratory for SustainableEnergy

+ Danish Institute for Food and VeterinaryResearch

+ Danish National Space Centre

+ Danish Institute for Fisheries Research

+ Danish Transport Research Institute

+ Danish University of Pharmaceutical Sciences

+ Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University

Turnover 2009 pct. of total: 8,5 pct.








Rønbjerg

Kalø

Århus

Foulum

Mønsted

Herning

Horsens

ÅrslevFlakkebjerg

SandbjergJyndevad

Jels

Askov

Klim

Zackenberg Research Station

Greenland

KøbenhavnRoskilde

University of Aarhus – an example

Consolidation of activities and new growth

Strengthen main campus in Aarhus

Develop Copenhagen satellite campus

Reform of organisation

Create four new faculties out of nine

Engender interdisciplinary research

Develop ”common market” for education

Focus on industry relations across the university

Mergers as Change Drivers

Locations with research activities

Locations with teaching, research and administration

Locations with field stations, research stations and other facilities

Århus

The Danish Mergers– How Did They Come About?

Because research and university policy wasallowed to rise to the top of the political agenda due to an acknowledgement of the globalizationchallenge

Because the merger process was comprehensiveand fast

Instrumentalising Dialogue:The Development Contracts (DC)

The First Generation: Development Contracts 2000-2004

Aiming at:• giving universities greater scope and flexibility • strengthening management by setting targets and indicators • raising the level of ambition and stimulate inventiveness • allowing universities to grow freely within an ambitious

framework.

Based on:• autonomy, with each university setting its own level of

ambitions • a steady development process• dialogue with the ministry on targets, priorities and ambitions• no money involved.

Background:• The revised Act on universities of 2003, aiming at a stronger

management set up in the universities.

Emphasis:• Increasing focus on quantitative targets and indicators• Focus on progression and outlying performance• Balancing the two-sided aim:

• A means of dialogue between management (including board) and staff• A means of dialogue between management and Ministry

• Still no money involved.

The Second and Third Generation:Development Contracts 2005-2007 and 2008-2010

• Student mobility, study time and drop-out rate, number of graduated students

• The amount, quality, dissemination and publishing of research

• Commercialisation and patenting of research results

• Attraction of external funding and foreign researchers

Targets: A Few Examples

• Ministry invites draft contracts from universities, suggesting main target areas

• A draft DC is drawn up by university management in a broad internal procedure and agreed by board

• Draft DC is presented to and negotiated with Ministry in 2-3 meetings at top management level

• DC is signed by Chair of Board of university and Minister

The Drawing Up of a DC

University’s annual reporting on performance on DC targets is the basis of dialogue internally at institutions and with Ministry

Universities’ performance on DC targets are reported to Parliament

Evaluation of DC Performance: The Annual Report

Completion of master's programmes -prescribed period of study + 1 year

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

AAU AU DTU CBS ITU KU RUC SDU

University

%

Starting point

2008 Targets

Annual report 2008

2009 Targets

2010 Targets

Performance Reporting: Example #1

Number of Danish students going abroad

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

AAU AU DTU CBS ITU KU RUC SDU

University

Number ofstudents

Starting point

2008 Targets

Annual report 2008

2009 Targets

2010 Targets

Performance Reporting: Example #2

2009 International Evaluation Panel Comments:

• DCs should play a larger role in government regulation of universities

• DCs should more clearly assist in forming the individual profile of universities.

• Too many targets imply a loss of focus and prioritization

The 2009-10 Discussion:DCs are well functioning, but room for improvement

The 2011 Revision of DC Framework

• A maximum of ten targets in DC • Universities are invited to be more precise on specific target

areas and targets to profile institution • To boost role of DC in regulation Minister (following

negotiations) may specify five targets to be pursued by university

• Still no money involved.

• Revision presently in proces in Parliament • One-year DC put in place for 2011 while system is amended

A Wrap-up

0102030405060708090

100110120130140

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Year

Ran

king

Aarhus University

Copenhagen University

12684

54 45

They Are On Their Way: Copenhagen and Aarhus University in

QS Ranking 2006-2010

Development Contracts: Where Are We?

Modernized governance structure, a reformed”map of universities” and extensive use of economic incentives main reasons for Danish universities’ performance Development contracts still only a supplementBut DC important instrument of dialogue in times of transformation, particularly for profiling and adressing outlying performance

Thank you for your [email protected]

Read more: http://www.ubst.dk/en/universities-in-denmark/university-evaluation-2009

European Examples for Funding/Target Agreements - Performance Agreements in Austria - Target Agreements at the University of Vienna

Alexander Hammer / University of Vienna Dubrovnik / February 2011

THE AUSTRIAN EXAMPLE

Performance Agreements • Target Agreements

17.02.2011 2 THE AUSTRIAN EXAMPLE

Individual Target Agreements

Heads of Organisational Units Staff Members

Target Agreements

Rectorate Organisational Units (e.g. Faculties)

Performance Agreements

Ministry of Science University (Rectorate)

Performance Agreements in Austria







1. Cornerstones

2. Funding

3. Content

4. Negotiation Process

5. Reporting Process

6. Experiences / Lessons learnt

Cornerstones – Legal basis: Universities Act 2002 (entering into force in January 2004)

– Performance agreements are one of the most important pillars of the reform of Austrian Universities in 2002 → total redesign of the budget allocation process

– (until now) Conclusion of performance agreements for 2007-2009 and 2010-12

– Contracts under public law

– Conclusion by individual universities and the Federal Government

– Periods of three years (instead of input-oriented funding for one-year-periods)

– Basis for establishment of performance agreement: development plan of University

– Publication of signed performance agreement on website of Ministry and University




Funding – Establishment of a global amount for university funding in the next performance

agreement period, not later than at the end of the second year of each performance agreement period, by the Ministry in consultation with the Ministry of Finance

– Retainment of up to 2% of the annual budget by the Ministry for special funding requirements and for supplementary performance agreements

– Subdivision of the overall global budget into

a component devoted to the basic budget (80% of the global budget)

a component for the formula-based budget (20% of the global budget)

– Determination in advance of a global budget / university for the three-year-period in each performance agreement

– The global budget is divided into a basic budget and a formula-based budget, but each university is free to use the global budget according to its needs.

– Other revenues (e.g. third-party funding, sponsoring) do not reduce the global budget.




Content 1/3 – Strategic objectives, academic profiles and university development

– Quality assurance

– Human resource development

– Research

– Study programmes and continuing education

– Social goals

– Increase in internationality and mobility

– Inter-university co-operation

– Specific areas (e.g. infrastructure)




Content 2/3 – Agreement on specific goals and specific performance indicators for each university

according to its academic profile

– Agreement on projects and measures to undertake in each area, e.g.

Increase of number of professors (→ human resource development)

Establishment of research platforms (→ research)

Improvement of student-teacher-ratios (→ study programmes / teaching)

Establishment of a gender controlling system (→ social goals)

Common investments with other universities (→ inter-university co-operations)

– Agreement on performance indicators in each area, e.g.

Number of (female) professors (→ human resource development / social goals)

Number of research platforms (→ research)

Number of FP7 research projects (→ research)

Number of restructured study programmes according to Bologna criteria (→ teaching)

Number of master programmes in foreign language ( → internationality / mobility)




Content 3/3 – Funding

Basic budget over three-year-period

Formula-based budget over three-year-period

Supplementary specific budgets over three-year-period

Yearly breakdown of global budget

– Possibility of additional annual development agreements for specific funding requirements (funding source: retainment of up to 2% of global budget by the Ministry)

– Reporting duties

– Measures in case of non-fulfilment of the performance agreement




Negotiation Process – Submission of a draft performance agreement by the University by 30 April of the third

year of the term of the current performance agreement

– Response to this draft by the Ministry by 31 August

– Negotiations on the performance agreement concluded by 31 December

– In case that a performance agreement is not concluded by the appointed date, an arbitration committee shall determine the contents of the performance agreement by official notification on the basis of the position reached by the negotiations up to that point.




Reporting Process – Submission of an intellectual capital report by 30 April of each year

Sphere of action, social goals and self-imposed objectives and strategies

Intellectual capital, broken down into human, structural and relationship capital

Outputs and impacts of the performance processes set out in the performance agreement including a report section based on the performance agreement

Forecast of the performance outcomes after the second budget year

– Submission of annual financial statements, together with an auditor’s report, by 30 April of each year

– Discussion between Ministry and University about performance agreement every 6 months (“Umsetzungsgespräch”)




Experiences / Lessons learnt – Performance agreements are “soft” agreements, e.g.

Performance in research and teaching not easily measurable

No definition of sanctions in case of non-fulfilment of specific goals

– Stable funding, but no direct relation between performance of university and funding

– Formula-based funding not related with performance agreement because this part of the university’s funding is based on the variation of indicators of past periods

– Low amount of funding for innovative projects

– No redistribution of funding between universities




Target Agreements at the University of Vienna







1. Cornerstones

2. Content

3. Negotiation Process

4. Experiences / Lessons learnt

Cornerstones – Internal agreements

– Conclusion by organisational units (e.g. faculties) and the Rectorate

– Based on these overall target agreements, the heads of the organisational units conclude target agreements with their staff members

– Periods of one year

– Basis for target agreements:

Development plan of the University

Performance agreement between Ministry and University

– Internal publication of signed target agreement on the website of the rectorate and the organisational unit




Content 1/3 – Teaching

– Research / Research Areas

– Co-operation and third-party project funding

– Personnel

– Internal Organisation

– Annual Budget




Content 2/3 – Agreement on projects and measures to undertake similar to performance agreements

– Discussion on performance indicators in teaching e.g.

Study programmes

Number of (female) students, graduates, outgoing/incoming students

Average length of study, Drop-out rate

– Discussion on performance indicators in research e.g.

Publication output (peer-reviewed vs. not peer-reviewed)

Third-party funding




Content 3/3 – Agreement on funding of

Teaching (including lecturers, visiting professors, tutorial staff)

Running costs (formula-based taking into consideration specific needs of different research areas)

Investment projects (funding based on investment proposals)

Specific measures (e.g. funding of international co-operations on faculty level, funding of summer schools)

– Incentive system based on fulfilment of quantitative goals e.g.

Additional funding according to the degree of increase of third-party funding




Negotiation Process – Submission of a draft target agreement (including questions to organisational units and a

budget proposal) by the Rectorate in September/October for the target agreement of the next year

– Response to this draft (including specific issues, requested funding of specific projects and investment proposals) by the organisational units in October/November

– Negotiations on the target agreement in November/December:

Agreement on projects and measures to undertake (including a timeline)

Agreement on incentive systems (performance indicators, target values)

Agreement on annual budget

– Signature of target agreement immediately after the negotiation

– Internal publication of target agreement in January




Experiences / Lessons learnt 1/2 – Structured top-down/bottum-up process

– Regular interaction between rectorate and organisational unit on clearly defined areas

– Transparent negotiation-based process between rectorate (including all vice-rectors) and the heads of each organisational unit (dean, vice-deans, study programme directors)

– Important instrument in order to break-down the university’s overall strategic goals to specific goals on the level of each organisational unit




Experiences / Lessons learnt 2/2 – Negotiation process very time-consuming

→ bi-annual target agreements with annual discussion of ongoing projects?

– Organisational units often reluctant in committing themselves to goals and in defining quantitative performance indicators

– Target agreements too operational → discussion on important (strategic) issues not yet included in target agreements

– Funding only includes running costs, investment projects and variable personnel costs → funding only focussed on operational aspects → strategic aspects as well as fixed costs (personnel/infrastructure) still have to be included in target agreements




Thank you for your attention! Alexander Hammer Head of Accounting and Finance / University of Vienna T +43 1 4277 12500 F +43 1 4277 9125 E [email protected]




www.che.de

Prof. Dr. Frank Ziegele

Dubrovnik | February 2011

Funding Agreements (FA): Philosophy, Chances, Risks, Success Factors

Agenda

Funding agreements | Frank Ziegele | Dubrovnik, 2011 2

What are the ideas and concepts of FA?

What are the potentials / functions of FA?

What could go wrong?

What could be done to make it a success?


What is a funding agreement?


(more or less) synonyms to FA

target agree-ment

management by objectives

contract management

performance agreement

What is a funding agreement?


typical features

two partners negotiate

in a structured

process and

document the result

contri-butions

from both sides to defined

objectives

contribu-tions are usually perfor-

mance + money

(-> funding agreement)

something for the

future is promised

written, signed and published (transpa-

rent) document

steering approach


applied by the ministry, this leads to a special state steering philosophy in higher

education

negotiation-based steering

focus interactions+accountability state/univ. on objectives (instead of

inputs)

link funding to performance, but integrate future planning components

establish a partnership with clear rights in top down-bottom up process

actors


potential agreement partners in the HE context

govern-ment/

ministry +

university

president +

faculty

faculty +

institute

president +

adminis-tration / central units

dean +

professors

president/ dean + newly

appointed professors

professor +

PhD. student

designing a system on the state level leads to internal

consequences inside universities!

if you want to design a FA process…


…you have to define standards for „good“ FA

…and base the whole model on trust, climate of

partnership

…set „rules of the game“

…create

guidelines/

formats for the

documents

…plan and

manage the

process

…specifiy the

financial

mechanisms

standards


FA should take basic ideas about the related steering approach

seriously…

• transparency of documents (FA published)

• explicit link to strategies

• output-oriented content (not an agreement on measures)

• clear measurement (quantitative/qualitative, important role of indicators)

• defined reporting duties, controlling

• multi-year time horizon (time to build trust)

standards


• definition of financial stimuli and sanctions

• top down- and bottom-up elements (adequate process design)

• clear milestones, responsibilities, success criteria

• FA allow specific indicators for specific units (acceptance of performance measurement)

…and actors should make consensus about standards

transparent (rules of the game)

example for the format


how does a FA look like ?

example TU Munich, physics department

(internal, quite simple, but shows features)

typical topic orientations of FA with ministry

• contributions to political objectives (e.g.

quality of teaching)

• student or graduate numbers, study places

per programme

• university profiles and approaches to

promote them

• research clusters

• implementation of internal management

• projects of strategic priority

• coprehensive picture of performances Methods, Processes, Tools | Frank Ziegele 11

example for the process


legislation change

ministry: process framework

kick-off workshop ministry: strategic goals,

format universities: internal

strategic process universities: FA draft

ministry: comparison, overall position

negotiation university: revision

signing of contract PR, Controlling

staff develop-

ment

communi-cation

integration of FA in HE funding systems


three pillars of funding models

stable

basic

funding

performance

oriented

funding

project-,

innovation

oriented

funding

general

FA to

legitimize

basic

funding

FA on

student

numbers

(price per

student)

usually

formula,

not FA

FA to

distribute

innovation

pools

FA and formula funding


formula

FA and formula funding are complementary instruments

FA

infinite

incentive

no dialogue,

other goals

neglected

automatic

ex-post,

no innovation

pre-funded

„soft“ goals

negotiation

costly, time-

consuming

ex-ante

Agenda







functions of FA


create incentives to realize state objectives

create incentives to define and realize institutional strategies and corresponding indicators

redirect state – university interactions to discussions on the goal level, change discussion culture

create a framework and legitimization for university autonomy

base accountability on institutional strategies

functions of FA


create transparency about specific performances

strengthen strategic steering capacities of universities

legitimize lump-sum budgets and/or promote innovative projects

not without conflicts, not everything at the same time

create responsibilities

importance of functions


if FA are implemented: make intended role explicit, discuss it, find common understanding

reason: “form follows function” – design of FA has to follow the preferences for

certain functions

examples of consequences of functions for FA design


function consequence for FA design

legitimize basic funding

comprehensive, incl. descriptive

parts

distribution of innovation pool

specific, only selective goals, incl.

project cost

examples of consequences of roles for TA design


function consequence for FA design

change culture: dialogue important

many dialogue elements

state goals or institutional

strategies in the centre?

strength of top-down vs. bottom-up

elements

……. …….

Agenda







starting point

• bad message: FA do not guarantee

improvements, it depends on how they are

made

• good message: for everything that could

go wrong there is an instrumental remedy


examples

23

examples for failures and technical solutions

no real priorities, list all kinds

of activities, write what you do

anyway

focus on 2-4 priorities,

mention central goals by ministry but

say „pick out what is important

for you and say why“

failure

solution

Funding agreements | Frank Ziegele | Dubrovnik, 2011

24


intention to steer with goals,

but in FA goals are not

described precisely or

the realization of certain measures

is used as success criteria

rules of the game: quantification/

specification of goals,

measures/activities can be men-

tioned but are no success criteria

failure

solution


25


FA creates new

inflexibility, no in-period

reflection on goals

yearly discussions, flexibility,

incl. reflection on objectives

(dynamic environment)

failure

solution


26


if output orientation is connected

with uniform standard indicators

they are often not accepted in

universities with specific profiles

use heterogeneous performance

indicators for different universities

(„our indicators“), great potential

of FA

failure

solution


27


ministry uses FA to dictate

certain measures to the university,

tries to get power to steer processes

within universities

include a general rule into the

FA „code of conduct“: ministry is

not allowed to suggest specific

measures, only output goals

failure

solution


Agenda





What could be done to make it a success? What could be done to make it a success?

success factors


great variety of factors, here:

stress just some aspects that lie within

ministry/university

requirements for functionable FA


ministry staff accepting output oriented steering and new role

(requires HR development)

adequate partner on the university side: could only be the rectorate

this requires strategy development on university level + continuation of

agreement mechanisms inside university

TA as strategic instrument


state re-quires FA internal FA report on

FA

basic

values,

mission

strategic

analysis strategic

planning

reali-

zation of

strategy controlling

STRATEGIC PROCESS

major benefit of FA: help to make integrated university strategy real!

www.che.de


Dubrovnik | February 2011

Funding Agreements (FA): Philosophy, Chances, Risks, Success Factors

Questions for the „gallery walk“


1. What are the chances you see with FA in

Croatia?

2. What are the fears, risks, problems you expect in

the Croatian context?

3. What should be done inside the ministry to make

FA a success?

4. What should be done inside universities to make

FA a sucess?

5. What are the most important „to dos“ for the

further process?

Implementation of Funding Agreements: Methods, Processes, Tools


Dubrovnik, February 2011

www.che-concept.de

starting point

Methods, Processes, Tools | Frank Ziegele 2

success of FA depends on the

adequate operationalization of

the tool

-> overview on methodological

success factors

success factors refer to both agreement

levels (ministry/university and

rectorate/faculty)

3

success factor 1

the central level (ministry) has to

set the „rules of the game“ at the

starting point of the process

Methods, Processes, Tools | Frank Ziegele

aspects of rules

intended function of the FA, general ideas about

FA

steps in the process, timeframe

format/template

promote trust, guarantee autonomy, make FA

focused etc.


5

success factor 2

important is the adequate

format/template for a FA.

It could give

a structure, require

specific topics, enforce

measurement

of goals, etc.


structure of templates

Status Quo-Analysis

objectives (incl. priorities)

measurement, indicators, intended indicator

values

measures, activities (no success criteria!)

milestones, timing, responsibilities

reporting duties

funding, sanctions/incentives

…..


7

some „good practice“ for templates

define a structure for the indicators

leave openness in FA documents for disciplinary cultures, give formal structure and leave wording to the universities

general

Description

indicator

(qual./quant.)

goal

value

time

horizon

contribution

to central

strategy


8

success factor 3

Not only the template but also

the process should be designed

from the beginning. The right

mixture of top down and

bottom up elements

is a critical factor.


9

some aspects of „good practice“ for FA

processes

clear description of negotiation process with distribution of rights to bring inputs into negotiation (e.g. „ministry could never suggest measures“)

enough time for dialogue between partners, not only „paper shooting“

clear schedule (limited time, but enough time for internal discussions in university)

reliability of process (surprises reduce trust)

allow some flexibility during agreement period

reporting duties also in between (keep it lean and dialogue oriented)


10

success factor 3

It is not an easy task

to measure with indicators.

The measurement has to be on

the right level leading to

output orientation.


11

example for right level of goal description

internationalization

number of foreign students

enhanced by 5%

in new innovative study

programme 20% of students come

from abroad

advertising, partnerships,

internet, ...

mission statement

controlling

FA

project planning


should measures/activities be part of FA?

pure approach: no!

but there might be reasons:

– accountability, transparency

– make expectations plausible

– short-term check if something is happening

– enhance feasibility if tasks are clearly defined

but always allow flexibility, never measure

success by the realization of actions


13

success factor 4

There are several possibilities/

mechanisms how to link FA

with funds, how to calculate

funding. The mechanisms

has to correspond with

the function of FA.


14

alternatives to connect FA with funding

… ac-

cording

to the

cost of a

project

… ac-

cording

to the

aspira-

tion of an

agreed

target

… ac-

cording

to the

attain-

ment of

an

agreed

target

(immedia

tely or in

the next

period)

… with a

lump

sum

… with a

formula

based on

target

values of

indicators

the funding mechanism of FA could implement funding….

in the end it should guarantee: pre-funding, incentive for realistic +

ambitious goals, trust, low control cost -> COMBINATION NEEDED


funding for setting or reaching targets?

negative/positive sanctions linked to

setting targets reaching targets

combination necessary

pre-funding

incentive for ambitious targets

problem: exaggeration

reward success, punish failure

in attaining targets

Incentive for realistic goals

problem of „soft goals“

ambitious+realistic targets

ne one-sided incentives

direct or indirect sanctions in FA?

indirect, soft financial direct financial mechanism mechanism

effects

on funding in

the following

period

(reputation)

corridor

(x% of

budget after

reaching

target

signal by

indicator,

but talks/

time to

react

automatic

indicator

reaction

after showing general methodological success

factors….

…. I want to make some remarks on

methodological reactions to concerns

mentioned yesterday.


problems and solutions of FA


problems/concerns solution by methods?

Implementation of Funding Agreements: Methods, Processes, Tools


Dubrovnik, February 2011

www.che-concept.de

Ministry of Science, The World Bank Education and Sport

“Workshop with Rectors of Croatian Universities on the Piloting of Perfomance-Based Financing”

The World Bank office, Radnicka cesta 80/IX, Zagreb

Agenda

Monday, July 4, 2011 12.30 - 13.10 Getting together & light lunch

13.10 - 13.20 Opening Remarks H.E. Radovan Fuchs, Minister

MoSES Mr. Hongjoo Hahm, Country Manager, WB

13.20 - 14.00

Follow-up on Dubrovnik Workshop – Update on Recent Developments

Mr. Vito Tursic, Director of Directorate for Higher Education MoSES

14.00 – 14.30 Presentation: European Experience with Piloting of Performance-Based Financing Models

Mr. Frank Ziegele, CHE, Germany

14.30 – 15.15 Q&A; Possible piloting options for Croatia

Chair: Ms. Nina Arnhold, Sr. Education Specialist, WB

15.15 -15.45 Coffee break : Discussion among rectors on piloting options & way forward

All rectors

15.45- 16.00 Closing Ms. Nina Arnhold, WB MoSES

The place of the event: The World Bank office, Radnicka cesta 80/IX, Zagreb

Ministry of Science, The World Bank Education and Sport

“Workshop with Rectors of Croatian Universities on the Piloting of Perfomance-Based Financing”

July 4, 2010

List of Invitees

University of Zagreb Prof. dr.sc. Aleksa Bjeliš Rector

University of Split

Prof. dr. sc. Branka Ramljak

Vice rector for Finance and Accounting

Prof. dr.sc. Dragan Bolanca Vice rector for Legal and Human Resources

University of Rijeka Prof. dr. sc. Pero Lučin Rector

University of Osijek Prof. dr. sc. dr.h.c. Gordana Kralik

Rector

University of Pula

Prof. dr. sc. Robert Matijašić Rector

University of Zadar Prof. dr. sc. Ante Uglešić Rector

www.che.de


Croatia | July 2011

Funding agreements in Croatia: From the idea to implementation

Funding agreements in Croatia | Frank Ziegele | July 2011 2

Starting point: Overall clarity on

the legal framework for

funding

What do we need to get the agreement system running?


Rules of the game

Process with

fixed steps +

schedule

Form,

structure for

the texts

Funding

mechanism Instruments

How to come to rules and instruments?


Rules of the game

First draft of the instruments (process, form, …):

by-law

Test + specification of instruments: pilots

Final description of instruments: by-law

participation / dialogue

How to set the rules of the game?


it is important to create a climate of trust with these rules, so they have to be negotiated,

consensus has to be sought

Northrhine-Westphalia: ministry draft (with openness), workshop with rectors, redraft,

consensus on final version

create a process with top-down and bottom-up elements (as a first step to agreement

culture)

Potential aspects of the „rules of the game“ (taken from German examples)


General government objectives as framework for the

agreements (and role of university objectives)

Priorities regarding functions of agreements

Degree of intended prioritization of objectives

Role of actions/measures in funding agreements

Contract partners

Who ist allowed to suggest what?

Operationalization modes of objectives (indicators?)

Potential aspects of the „rules of the game“


Learning loops, evaluations

Publication

Role of status quo analysis

How to deal with contexts?

Duration

Dialogue elements

Sanction and reward rules, controlling


Experiences from similar pilot phases,

recommendations for implementation

Experience 1


Rules of the game have to

be set in a cooperative,

participative process. This is

the first test if all partners

take the negotiation

approach seriously.

Possible design process for rules of the game


Ministry suggestion (after collection

of university inputs/ideas)

Discussion/consensus with all

universities

Pilot test

Revision by ministry

Discussion/consensus

with all universities

Final decision in by-law

clear process without

surprises (example

NRW: surprise damaged

trust)

Experience 2


Universities start from

different positions into the

funding agreement process.

This has to be taken into

account.

Example 1


University has no clear institutional

strategy, but needs it as precondition

for funding agreements (example:

Luxemburg)

Process

Internal

agreement

faculty -

rectorate

on strategy

University

strategy

Negotiations

with ministry

Funding

agreement

Example 2


University has a clear strategy,

internal mechanisms of coordination

faculties-university exist (example:

most German states)

Process

Negotiations

with ministry

Funding

agreement

Internal

agreements

to realize

plans

Conclusion


Allow different steps and speed according to

starting points (during the implementation phase)

But move in the same direction, later on the same

routines for all universities

Problem: if some take the funding agreement idea

seriously, some not (example Northrhine-

Westphalia: let some universities get away with

minimal effort while others invest in the system) –

to be avoided!

Experience 3


Start with pilots,

but involve all universities

from the beginning in the

process.

Alternatives and their pros


Pilot university

+ Intensive joint development

Learning effects first

Easy to admit problems

and react

Reduced complexity

Comprehensive roll-out

+ Quick realization (if there are

enough resources to invest

heavily and there is high

motivation from all sides…)

All types of universities involved

Broad acceptance in case of

getting everyone on board

overall learning secured

German states: usually pilots, Brandenburg roll-out (but minor role)


Pilots, but pilots for each relevant type of

university to cover the existing range

Conclusion

Mixed approach

But incl. learning process for all universities

from beginning (workshops, feedbacks)

Involve all universities in the discussion of

the rules of the game

Project for the whole HE sector, but incl. pilots

Experience 4


Funding agreements

between ministry and

university need

corresponding instruments

inside the university

(with autonomy to

design them).

Multi-level systems


As mentioned before: internal agreements or simular

instruments are necessary to make the system

manageable for the rector

Could be general requirement in the rules of the game, but

ministry should not regulate in detail

(autonomy of internal management)

Ministry

University 1 University 2

faculty 2 faculty 1

Design of internal instruments


on the level rectorate - faculty the systems have to provide some basic functions: link to strategies,

discussion on objectives, binding obligations from both sides, goal-oriented

performance measurement

the exact form of the instrument could differ (examples from Germany: similar internal contracts to the external agreement, internal discussions with clear protocols, project planning tools to realize agreements with state internally, put certain objectives into internal formula

funding…..

Overview: to be discussed


Processes Organization of participation

Implementation steps

Different starting points

Pilot institutions

Mixture piloting + broad involvement

Internal agreement instruments

inside universities

Content Important aspects for the rules of the game

“Workshop on Funding Agreements - Next Steps”

10 October 2011

University of Zagreb , Trg Marsala Tita 14, Zagreb

Agenda

9.30 - 9.45 Welcome

Mr. Aleksa Bjelis Rector, University of Zagreb

9.45 - 10.00

Introduction

Tour-de-table

10.00 - 10.30 Presentation of ‘Guidelines for the Roadmaps’ and discussion


10.30 - 11.30

Roadmaps - getting started and first steps (10 min. per university)

Tour-de-table

11.00 – 11.45 Coffee break 11.45 – 13.00

Current funding allocation a) macro level, b) micro level

Ms. Vesna Vasicek, Vice-Rector, University of Zagreb; Tour-de-table

13.00 - 13.30 Light working lunch 13.30 - 14.45

Presentation 'Rules of the Game’ and discussion


14.45 - 15.00 Summary and next steps Ms. Nina Arnhold, Sr. Education Specialist, World Bank

Moderation of the Event: Ms. Nina Arnhold, Sr. Education Specialist, World Bank

“Workshop on Funding Agreements - Next Steps”

10 October 2011

University of Zagreb , Trg Marsala Tita 14, Zagreb

Attendance list

University of Osijek Prof. dr. sc. Drago Žagar, vice rector for Program University of Split Prof. dr.sc. Branka Ramljak, vice rector for Financing and Accounting Ms. Darija Bralic, Advisor

University of Rijeka Prof. dr. sc. Nevenka Ozanic, vice rector Prof. dr. sc. Heri Bezic, President of the Budget Committee Ms. Branka Cesarec, Head of Finance Department Unveristy of Pula Prof. dr. sc. Robert Matijašić,rector

Ms. Branka Juričić, dipl. iur. Mr. Alen Kontošić, dipl. oec.

University of Zadar Prof.dr.sc. Josip Faricic, vice rector for Study Programs

Unversity of Zagreb Prof. dr.sc. Aleksa Bjeliš, rector Prof. dr.sc. Vesna Vasicek, vice rector for Finanacing Prof.dr.sc. Ksenija Turkovic, vice rector for Law Faculty of Organization and Informatics Prof. dr. sc. Tihomir Hunjak, Dean Faculty of Science Prof. dr. sc. Amir Hamzić, Dean Ministry of Science, Education and Sport Mr. Luka Juros, Directorate of Higher Education

WB Guest Mr. Frank Ziegele, CHE, Germany The World Bank: Mrs. Nina Arnhold, Sr. Education Specialist Ms. Ivan Drabek, Operations Officer Ms. Bogdanka Krtinic, Team Assistant

Guidelines for the roadmaps to funding agreements in Croatia

Rationale of the roadmaps

If ministry and universities want to implement the instrument of funding agreements, this won’t work well without the realization of a number of preconditions. Both sides have to be prepared adequately for the negotiations. The roadmap should support this process of getting prepared by addressing two issues:

• What is the status quo in the respective university (and in the ministry) regarding the preconditions for funding agreements? Which preconditions are fulfilled, where are the deficiencies?

• Which steps are planned to overcome the deficiencies and to become sufficiently prepared?

The roadmaps should say what you as a university could do yourself to make funding agreements possible, not what you expect from others.

The major preconditions for funding agreements

From European experiences with funding agreements the following major preconditions could be derived for the universities:

• Strategy: Explicit notions of the university as a whole regarding objectives, strategies, priorities for the future. “Explicit” means a joint strategic document that this is based on formal decisions and is documented. To agree on targets between university and ministry requires a strategic positioning from both sides. The ministry should give broad guidance about national priorities and set a kind of general framework for the institutional strategy. It should not determine details. In a situation, where there is no elaborate national strategy, it is enough to say something about general priorities for the coming agreement period. This should be done by the ministry in parallel to the development of roadmaps.

• Internal processes: Universities need internal processes to discuss and decide on objectives of the university as a whole. They should derive objectives from the analysis of strengths and weaknesses and the internal mechanisms of negotiations.

• Internal structures: The internal structures have to promote the realization of university targets. For instance governance structures should allow efficient decision-making on university strategies, funding structures should allow to connect internal funding streams with the planning and realization of targets, the incentive structures should be in line with the objectives of the university.

• Empowerment: The planning and realization of a strategy is a major responsibility of the rectorate. Internal processes, structures and practices have to guarantee sufficient empowerment of the rectorate. Empowerment includes decision-making powers, financial discretion, possibilities to set agendas and deadlines etc.

• Participation/communication: All these developments of strategic university goals do not work without internal participation and communication. If strategic plans are based on ‘lonely decisions’ of university leaders it is difficult to generate effects of these strategies inside the university. Participative processes have to deliver inputs for the agreements and have to create commitment (without leading to blockades; participation should not be realized in a way that prevents decision-making). The need to follow an overall institutional strategy has to be accepted within the university.

• Data: Funding agreements require the clear measurement of objectives. Universities have to create the data collection and data processing instruments to allow the measurement and controlling of goals.

• Human resources: Universities need staff with higher education management capacities, being able to deal with instruments and processes of strategic management and with the instrument of funding/target agreements. They need the technical instrumental knowledge and the relevant skills to guide and promote processes of organizational development. But we do not only need such experts for the new tools, we also need a broad understanding inside the university of the new steering approach.

It becomes quite clear from the criteria mentioned that the realization of the preconditions is not without contradictions: For instance there is a trade-off between empowerment and participation. This means that it is important to keep the balance in the creation of the adequate preconditions: We need a reasonable top down-bottom up process where on the one hand the rectorate could set the agenda, make final decisions and allocate funds internally according to objectives and on the other hand the faculties and other relevant internal actors were adequately involved in the development of the agreements.

The catalogue of criteria should be open for additions of other relevant aspects by the universities.

Structure of the roadmaps

The roadmap should first of all analyze the situation regarding the 7 blocks of preconditions (plus additional ones if necessary):

• First of all the university should rate the importance of the preconditions regarding their own situation.

• As a second task they should make an overall assessment of their “preparedness” for funding agreements.

• Then universities should mention strengths and weaknesses for all 7 aspects (if necessary adding further aspects).

• Finally, for each of the blocks the steps planned should be described and brought into chronological order, mentioning the expected outcome and the timeline. Also criteria should be mentioned with which it could be assessed if the step has been successfully completed.

Formats for the roadmaps

1. Assessment of the importance of the 7 blocks of preconditions (plus additional criteria could be suggested): Put the criteria in order of their importance, “1” as the most important one)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

2. Overall assessment of the “preparedness” for funding agreements of university X

Precondition Degree of preparedness for funding agreements (mark category)

Major reason for assessment

High Middle Low Strategy

Internal processes

Internal structures

Empowerment

Participation/ Communication

Data

Human resources

Others: ___________

3. Situation regarding the realization of preconditions for funding agreements in university X

Precondition Strengths Weaknesses Major “to dos”

Strategy

Internal processes

Internal structures

Empowerment

Participation/ Communication

Data

Human resources

Others: ___________

4. Planning of the steps to realize the preconditions

Precondition 1: Strategy Step Timeline Expected Outcome Success Criteria

Precondition 2: Internal Processes Step Timeline Expected Outcome Success Criteria

Etc.

Further Steps

On the workshop on October 10th universities should present a first draft of roadmaps, using the suggested structure.

Prof. Dr. Frank Ziegele, September 2011

" WB Draft for Discussion, 10 October 2011"

“Rules of the Game”

for funding agreements in Croatia

1. Role of the “rules of the game”: Funding agreements are based on trust between the contract partners. Trust is endangered if the partners have different ideas about the function and the right way to deal with the agreements and if these differences emerge during the process. For this reason intentions and processes have to be discussed and clarified before the agreement process starts. The consensual definition of “rules of the game” should guarantee that everyone could rely on a common notion about funding agreements. The contract partners should regard the rules as binding guidelines for the steps taken and the behavior in the funding agreement process. In each phase each partner could remind the other of the rules set. Both partners of an agreement should be aware that it takes many steps to build trust in such a process, but one mistake is enough to destroy it again. It is extremely important that both sides see the objectives in the funding agreement as an obligation; agreements must not be broken.

2. Objectives of the Croatian Funding Agreements: The funding agreements intend to bring the national objectives for the Croatian higher education sector “to life” through stimulating the universities to engage for these objectives. But at the same time they want to stimulate institutional strategic planning and the development of university profiles. This means the agreements play a coordinative role regarding national and institutional strategies. All this is supported by connecting funding to the objectives. The funding agreements will turn objectives into clear and controllable/measurable targets. The funding agreements should promote the dialogue between ministry and universities on the level of objectives and output/outcome, replacing the traditional input-oriented steering mechanisms. And they should legitimize the allocation of public resources through transparency of funding criteria.

3. Strategy base: The idea of funding agreements is based on the negotiation between the ministry and the university about objectives. The objectives have to be derived from strategic considerations of both sides. The government, in the medium term, will need to develop a national strategy for the higher education system and, in any case, will need to define general overall objectives for the agreement period. The university should do the same. The national strategy should set the corridor in which the individual university has the discretion to move according to the institutional strategy. Even in a situation without perfect national strategies and mission statements the agreement process could be started by defining a strategic orientation at least for the contractual period. A general national higher education strategy and a university mission could be further developed in parallel to give a long-term direction to the process.

4. Steps in the agreement process: Derived from experiences, the following agreements process seems to be plausible (but should still be adapted to the specific situation in Croatia):

• Ministry and universities agree on rules of the game • Ministry communicates broad national objectives and sets up all relevant processes,

defines timelines for the following steps • Universities realize preconditions (see roadmaps) • Ministry sends an invitation to the universities to start negotiations on funding

agreements, defining formal structure/format of the agreement


• Each university develops a funding agreement draft in an internal participative process and sends it to ministry

• Ministry analyzes all drafts from universities, compares, develops a negotiation position

• Negotiation, separate with each university (meeting, discussion of positions) • Revision of agreement drafts by universities • Agreement (if necessary additional meetings, exchange of papers) • Signing and publishing of the agreement • Allocation of budget • Workshop with ministry and all universities on experiences with the instrument,

conclusions for the next round • Controlling, report by each university • Annual meeting with each university, if necessary revisions of agreement • Financial rewards/sanctions

5. Partnership and division of rights: Funding agreements intend to stimulate negotiations

between autonomous partners. But even in a situation of university autonomy an asymmetry remains in the partnership: The ministry provides the public budget and the university wants to have it. In order to guarantee a respectful partnership there should be clearly attributed rights to do specific things in the agreement process (establishing the top down-bottom up process). Only the ministry has the right to

• Take all measures to guarantee that the process stays in line with the legal requirements,

• Define general national objectives as a framework for the development of individual strategies and profiles of autonomous universities,

• Set schedules for the process steps, • Collect the necessary data from the universities.

Only the university has the right to • Develop autonomously an institutional strategy within the general framework of

national objectives, • Make the first draft of the funding agreement, • Suggest measures that have to be taken to realize the intended objectives, • Make the first suggestion for indicators and aspired indicator values.

6. Connection to the funding model: Funding agreements are an instrument within a “3-

column” public funding model of universities. This means: There is a kind of stable basic funding stream (column 1), a component of automatic formula funding using performance indicators (column 2) and a strategy pool to support special projects/changes for the future (and the related targets; column 3). The funding agreement specifies allocations in column 1 and 3; for column 2 we need no individual agreement with single universities because the formula system is running automatically on the base of mathematical algorithms. In the following plueprint for a funding agreement we assume a special form of column 1: a lump-sum for each university which is given on historical base. Other forms are possible (for instance funding according to the number of students); this would change the blueprint. The final design of the funding agreement depends on the allocation mechanisms.

7. Procedural and funding rules and mechanisms: • As far as funding agreements are linked to basic funding they are obligatory; each

university has to sign an agreement with the ministry. We need rules for what happens in case an agreement can’t be achieved.

• The funding agreements should run for three years, with talks and possibilities for revision every year. The basic funding connected to the agreement should also be


fixed for three years; if targets are not met or excelled the basic funding could adapt in the next 3-year-period. The strategy pool should be allocated yearly to support strategies; this requires a yearly update in the funding agreement.

• The funding in the strategy pool should be linked to the degree of aspiration and also to the level of attainment of objectives. This means that it has to provide pre-funding according to the level of future objectives and it has to define rewards and sanctions if targets are met or missed. This leads to balance in the incentive system: There are incentives to be ambitious, but not to exaggerate.

• The agreements are signed by the rector and the minister. They are published on the internet.

• All targets have to be measurable/controllable (by indicators, by yes/no). Yearly reports and discussions should be used to analyze the reasons behind the development of indicators. All targets should be performance/output/outcome oriented.

• Targets could only be interpreted on the basis of a status quo analysis. This should be provided in the funding agreement.

• Activities and measures done by the universities could appear in the agreements (and in reports) if the universities want to present them. Their description is helpful in order to generate trust that performance targets could really be achieved. But they are not linked to the assessment of success of the university; the only success parameters are the performance indicators. The universities should have flexibility to change measures flexibly within the agreement period if they find better ways to achieve the goals.

8. Format: For the funding agreements there should be a standardized format. The format should guarantee that some standards are fulfilled:

• The agreements should be focused on a few priorities, not all aspects of university activities should become part of the agreements.

• The agreements should provide measurements and controlling approach which focus on performance/output/outcome; they should not see the fact that money is spent for the predefined purposes as a success factor.

These standards lead to the blueprint for funding agreements in the annex. This should give a general structure for funding agreements to be used by all universities. There should be some discretion in handling this structure for the university; the way of using the structure could adapt to the culture practiced in each of the universities, without losing the “storyline” and the level of specification defined in the format.


ANNEX

Funding Agreement between the University X and MoSES (201X – 201Y)

1. Preamble

The funding agreements intend to bring the national objectives for the Croatian higher education sector “to life” through stimulating the universities to engage for these objectives. But at the same time they want to stimulate institutional strategic planning and the development of university profiles. This means the agreements play a coordinative role regarding national and institutional strategies.

All this is supported by connecting a 3-column-model with basic funding, formula funding and a financial “strategy pool” to the objectives. Basic funding and strategy pool are regulated by this agreement. On the one hand following and realizing targets legitimizes basic funding, on the other hand the strategy pool supports innovative developments. The funding agreements will turn objectives into clear and controllable/measurable targets. The funding agreements should promote the dialogue between ministry and universities on the level of objectives and output/outcome, replacing the traditional input-oriented steering mechanisms. And they should legitimize the allocation of public resources through transparency of funding criteria.

University X and MoSES share this understanding of funding agreements and will contribute to the realization of these objectives.

2. National objectives in Croatian higher education

In the period 201X – 201Y, the major national objectives and priorities of the Croatian government regarding the higher education sector are: XXX

These objectives define the boundaries and the general framework for institutional strategies of Croatian universities. MoSES and University X agree to promote the autonomous development of strategies and a profile of University X. The boundaries defined by the national priorities will leave sufficient discretion for autonomous target setting of the university.

Not each university could contribute to the same degree to different goals. Depending on the strengths and strategies of University X, it should prioritize the national goals, mention the objectives it wants to focus on and if necessary add specific goals relevant on the institutional level.

3. Prioritization of objectives by University X

In the period 201X – 201Y, major elements of the Institutional strategy of university X are: XXX.

Based on the institutional strategy, the national objectives (and if necessary additional, compatible goals) are prioritized in the following way:

Objectives Degree of priority (A-B-C)

Explanation (regarding the situation of the university)


The A-priorities form the major part of this agreement.

4. Operationalization of objectives and status quo analysis

Each of the top priorities (A) of University X is operationalized by breaking it down to sub-goals and their measurement:

A-Priority 1: XXX Sub-goal Indicator/measurement (incl. exact operationalization how

to measure, which data to use etc.)

A-Priority 2: XXX Sub-goal Indicator/measurement (incl. exact operationalization how

to measure, which data to use etc.)

Etc.

For all indicators/measurements used, the status quo looks like this:

Indicator/measurement Available data within last 3 years

Interpretation/explanation of current situation

5. Performance obligations of University X

The intention of University X is to achieve substantial developments, improvements and changes in the priority areas. The indicators provide the relevant information to assess these developments. University X and MoSES agree to set the following targets for the agreement period:

Indicator/measurement target Timeline for achieving target


6. Basic funding obligations of MoSES

MoSES provides basic funding for University X. (here it still has to be decided how this component of the funding system will look like)

Funding volumes for the three years are : XXX

For these three years, there is no effect from target achievement on funding. But the attainment of objectives will be taken into account when it comes to the definition of basic funding for the next period of agreements. (or other rule?)

7. Activities and measures to realize the objectives

University X will undertake the following activities and measures to realize the objectives:

• XXX

An important precondition for the realization of the funding agreement is the strategic steering capacity of University X’s decision-makers. The following steps are taken to ensure and strengthen the internal steering and management instruments to promote and realize the objectives:

• XXX

The description of the activities intends to make the efforts of University X to achieve the goals plausible and understandable. The realization of certain activities does not indicate performance and will not be controlled as success criteria within this agreement. University X will adapt activities (and report the adaptation) within the funding period if better ways to achieve the goals are discovered.

8. Development projects

MoSES supports special development projects of University X with money from a ministry strategy pool. The projects/change processes contribute to the university profile and to quality in teaching and research. They are in line with the national objectives. The projects induce substantial changes and performance improvements. University X has presented their funding plans to realize the projects to MoSES and MoSES contributes with the following sums to the following projects at University X:

Project Rationale, contribution to profile

Performance indicators, targets

Time horizon Financial support by MoSES

If the targets are not met, there will be the following financial sanctions: XXX.

9. Time horizon, controlling, dialogue

The funding agreement will run for the period 201X – 201Y and terminates on XXX. Every year in (MONTH) University X will write a short report on goal achievements, using the indicators and


measurements in this agreement. Based on the report, every year in (MONTH) MoSES and University X will meet for a discussion of the developments and further perspectives. If both parties agree there could be an adaptation of funding agreements to unforeseen developments.

_____________________ ___________________________

Minister Rector

Croatia: Funding Agreements

- Annex to Recommendations to Universities -

World Bank Team

March 2012

From Strategy to Funding Agreements

Draft University Strategy

University Strategy

Develop-ment Plan University

Monitoring and

Evaluation

Uni

vers

ity

Stat

e

Consolidation (vs. expansion) of

objectives

Internal FAs: Faculties contributing to goal achievement

3 – 4 main fields 2 – 3 main

objectives per field

Draft Sector

Strategy University proposes input (at whatever

stage available)

University takes sector strategy into account (at whatever stage available)

See Slide 5 for details

From Strategy to Funding Agreements Explanation Slide 1

Status quo Croatia March 2012: • Universities either have a strategy or started with the strategy development • Sector strategy (at the state level) is under preparation

This means: • Universities will take sector strategy into account whenever available, but

not wait with internal processes • They can provide input for the development of the sector strategy based on

their own strategies (but the sector strategy still has to be more than the sum of the university strategies)

• The sector strategy (and to some extent also the university strategies) provides the frame for FAs on the central level

• The university strategy provides the frame and starting point for FAs on the university level

• The results of the internal FAs are the basis for the concrete development plan of the University

4

Strategy Development Winter 2010/11 Planning, Conception: What? How? Who (Roles and Responsibilities)?

Till when?

Summer 2011 1. Large Scale Conference (April): Info + Communication (Plenary, 9

parallel Working groups, 3 Questions:

• What are the main challenges of the University?

• What are the main potentials of the University?

• What could the university do?

2. Large Scale Conference J(uly): Action Areas, SWOT-Analysis,

Goals, Action plans (Plenary and 12 WGs)

Fall 2011 Project Group + Rectorate: 1. Draft of strategic goals

Winter 2011/12 Senate discussion; Counter stream procedure with Faculties, Students +

Stakeholders

Spring 2012 Project Group: 2. Draft of strategic goals and Action plans

Summer 2012 3. Large Scale Conference; Proposals of strategic plan for Senate;

Decision taking by Senate

Fall 2012 Three negotiation rounds with Faculties and Service Units

December

2012

Signing of internal contracts

Example Graz - adapted

Rectorsteam Conception

Operationalisation

Implementation,

Monitoring

Senate

Discussion,

Decision

Decision

Cooperation

Com

mun

icat

ion

5

Rectorate and Senate: Cooperation and Roles

Example Graz

6

Goal and Achievement Matrix - Example for Structure -

Achievements of de-central units Achievement goals

Overarching strategic goals

Projects

Example Graz

7

Objective “Product”

Success Criterion Need for

support

(service)

Need for

support

(resources)

Quality-

management

system

Central

Dataware-

house

Functioning by

end 20xx

182.000 €

Research

excellence

Schumpeter

Center

Opening by end

20xx

1 post

Research

Assistent

Internationa-

lization

Increased

student

exchange

No. of a) incoming

and b) outcoming

students

increases by x %

Welcome

package by

international

office, etc.

Negotiation Form: Examples from Central Administration and Faculty of Economics

Example Graz - adapted

8

Card 1: Teaching and Learning

Card 2: Research

Card 3: Young Researchers Card 4: Internal Services, possibly other development areas

Strategice

goal UDE

Achieve-

ments of

Faculty

Sucess

criteria

Financing

needs

Service

needs

Goal

achievment

No. 1 A 1

A 2

No. 2 A 3

No. 3 A 4

A 5

Goal and Achievement Cards

Example Graz

Participants list Workshops on Roadmap towards Financing Agreements

March 5, 2012 Split, Croatia

Name and Last Name

Institution Function Contact

1. Branko Matulić University of Split, Academy of Arts in Split Dean [email protected] 2. Boris Maleš University of Split, Faculty of Kinesiology Dean [email protected] 3. Marko Rosić University of Split, Faculty of Natural Sciences,

Mathematics and Education Dean [email protected]

4. Dragan Ljutić University of Split, Faculty of Medicine Dean [email protected] 5. Srđan Podrug University of Split, Faculty of Electrical Engineering,

Mechanical Engineering and Naval Construction Dean [email protected]

6. Alen Harapin University of Split, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Architecture in Split


7. Roko Andričević University of Split

Vice rector for Science, International Cooperation and Inter-Institutional Relations

[email protected]

8. Tomislav Kilić University of Split

Vice rector Informatics Logistics and Technology Development

[email protected]

9. Branka Ramljak University of Split Vice-Rector for Finance and Accounting [email protected]

10. Aleksandra Banić

University of Split

Assistant, International Cooperation [email protected]

11. Ana Ćosić University of Split

Expert Assistant, International Cooperation

[email protected]

12. Jadranka Perkov University of Split

Head of Accounting Department [email protected]

13. Tamara Ljubičić University of Split

Head of Section for International Cooperation

[email protected]

14. Nina Arnhold The World Bank Sr. Education Specialist [email protected] 15. Frank Ziegele CHE, Germany Professor [email protected] 16. Lothar Zechlin University, Germany Professor [email protected]

Name & Surname Institution E-MAIL

1 Prof. dr. sc. Aleksa Bjeliš, Rector University of Zagreb [email protected]

2 Prof. dr. sc. Amir Hamzić, Dean of the Faculty of Science University of Zagreb [email protected]

3 Prof. dr. sc. Tihomir Hunjak, Faculty of Organization and Informatics

University of Zagreb [email protected]

4 Prof. dr. sc. Vesna Vašiček, Vice-Rector for Financing University of Zagreb [email protected]

5 Prof. dr. sc. Melita Kovačević, Vice-Rector for Research and Technology


6 Prof. dr. sc. Blaženka Divjak, Professor


7 Nina Arnhold, Sr. Education Specialist The World Bank [email protected]

8 Frank Ziegele, Professor CHE, Germany [email protected]

9 Lothar Zechlin, Professor University, Germany [email protected]

No.nn Name & Surname Institution E-MAIL

1 Prof. dr. sc. Drago Žagar, Vice-Rector for Program University of Osijek [email protected]

2 Prof.dr.sc. Vladimir Sigmund, Vice rector for Fiannce and Business Relations University of Osijek [email protected],

[email protected]

3 Prof.dr.sc. Ivan Samardzic, Vice-Rector for science, technology, projects and international cooperation University of Osijek [email protected]

4 Prof.dr.sc. Radovan Galic, Dean, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, University of Osijek [email protected]

5 Ms. Andjelka Klaic, Head of the Service for Finance, Business Relations, Capital Investments and Building University of Osijek [email protected]

6 Ms. Vesna Bilic, Head of Accounting and Finance Business Administration Office, Faculty of Civil Engineering University of Osijek [email protected]

7 Nina Arnhold, Sr. Education Specialist The World Bank [email protected]

8 Frank Ziegele, Professor CHE, Germany [email protected]

9 Lothar Zechlin, Professor University, Germany [email protected]