TU4Dublin Engagement Consultation Process
Facilitators Report
Prepared by Martin Duffy – ASA Consulting
Table of contents Section 1 - Introduction ..................................................................................... 3 Section 2 - Summary and analysis of External stakeholder workshop .............. 3 2.1 External stakeholder workshop 3 2.2 What is engagement 5 2.3 Why engagement? 7 2.4 How engagement is or should be conducted? 8 Section 3 - Summary and analysis of internal stakeholder workshop ............... 11 3.1 Internal stakeholder workshop 11 3.2 What and Why of engagement 12 3.3 Enablers of engagement 12 3.4 Engagement inhibitors 13 Section 4 - Synthesis of views on engagement ................................................. 14 Appendix 1 - External stakeholder workshop - Attendees ................................. 17 Appendix 2 - External stakeholder consultation workshop agenda ................... 18 Appendix 3 - Notes from External stakeholder workshop .................................. 19 Appendix 3.1 - External Workshop - Part 1 19 Appendix 3.2 - External Workshop - Part 2 25 Appendix 4 - Internal stakeholder workshop – Attendees ................................. 26 Appendix 5 - Internal stakeholder consultation workshop agenda .................... 27 Appendix 5.1 – Overall agenda 27 Appendix 5.2 - Internal stakeholder workshop Part 2 agenda 28 Appendix 6 - Internal stakeholder workshop - Outputs ...................................... 29 Appendix 6.1 - What and Why of engagement? 29 Appendix 6.2 - Enablers of engagement? 31 Appendix 6.3 - Inhibitors of engagement 34
Page 2 of 36
Section 1 - Introduction As part of the TU4Dublin development process, the 'Engagement' team carried out two consultation workshops involving internal and external stakeholders. The workshops were held separately, with the external stakeholder group meeting on Friday 12th June and the internal group meeting on Monday 15th June. The two workshops were facilitated by an independent external consultant, Martin Duffy of ASA Consulting. The brief for the consultant was to provide advice on structuring and running the workshops, facilitate both workshops and to prepare a written report on the conduct and outcome of the consultation process. In preparation for the workshops, briefing meetings were held with Pat O'Donnell, John Jameson and David O'Connor of the TU4Dublin Engagement team, to review the specific requirements of the consultation process and to consider the most appropriate workshop formats to meet the team's requirements. In addition, the paper "The Entrepreneurial University: A unifying theme for TU4Dublin?" (John Jameson and Patrick O'Donnell) and the "TU4Dublin Organisation Design Criteria" (05 November 2014) were reviewed to better understand the wider TU4Dublin context in which the workshops were being conducted. The report is divided into three sections following this introduction. Section 2 describes the workshop format and provides an analysis of key points arising from the discussion with the external stakeholders. Section 3 explains the arrangement of the internal stakeholder workshop and provides an analysis of the comments from the internal stakeholders. Section 4 provides the facilitators short synthesis of the combined views on engagement arising from the two workshops. Appendices are used to provide the administrative materials used for running the workshops along with the raw data recorded during the workshops.
Section 2 - Summary and analysis of External stakeholder workshop 2.1
External stakeholder workshop
A wide range of stakeholders from ITT Dublin, IT Blanchardstown and DIT, covering industry partners, community groups and stakeholders from civic society were invited to take part in the external stakeholder workshop. Appendix 1 shows the names of the attendees and the organisations from which they were drawn. The purpose of this workshop was to hear the detailed views of external stakeholders on what 'engagement' with a HEI should be about, why it is of benefit and how it should be conducted for the optimum benefit of all parties involved. Appendix 2 contains a copy of the workshop agenda. The workshop was attended by 18 participants, representing a wide range of different stakeholders that proved valuable in its diversity and served as a catalyst for ensuring an incisive and informative exchange of views and ideas.
Page 3 of 36
The workshop was structured in two main parts. Following the initial introduction, Part 1 was held in plenary format. The group sat in a semi-circular format and exchanged views on the following key thematic questions:
What is 'engagement', in the context of a Higher Education Institute (HEI) interacting with its external stakeholders?
Why is engagement significant, important or valuable?
How to do engagement?
Three 'recorders' used flip charts to capture the key points made by the participants under each of these three headings. The full details of the notes recorded are shown in Appendix 3. While the recorders were listening for inputs that addressed the three key questions that framed the workshop, the discussion was loosely guided by the facilitator and was encouraged and allowed to flow between the participants to capture their views and experiences to the maximum extent possible. As three recorders were taking notes from the same group discussion there was an inevitable degree of overlap in the notes that were recorded. This section of the report provides a consolidated summary of the stakeholders’ feedback as interpreted postworkshop by the facilitator, using the three main thematic questions from the workshop. The headings within these thematic areas are used to provide structure to the report but it is important to note that the workshop was not structured under these specific headings. The discussion was seeded with the following questions about engagement based on participants’ past experiences of engagement with HEIs. They were for general consideration by the group but without expectation of being answered literally:
What worked well?
What did you find challenging?
What frustrated you?
What excited and interested you?
What happened that you would prefer to forget?
What didn't happen that you would like to see happening?
How could previous good experience be improved and enhanced?
How could previous negative experience be replaced and exchanged with better ways to engage with stakeholders?
Before the end of Part 1 the three recorders provided a summary of the key points they had recorded under each of the three thematic questions. Following a short break at the end of Part 1, the group was invited to move around the three thematic areas to engage each theme in more detail. However, the group selfelected to remain in plenary format and to continue their discussion of certain aspects of the workshop theme in more detail. Page 4 of 36
In Part 2 of the workshop, the discussion continued, reinforcing key points that arose in Part 1 and extending those points in some areas.
2.2
What is engagement
2.2.1 How to define engagement? It was clear from early in the workshop that engagement held a variety of meanings for the different participants. Contributions ranged from effusive praise for the access programmes in DIT and ITB, along with the incubation facilities and media programmes in ITT Dublin, to organisations indicating no prior engagement with any of the three institutes and who struggled to find out how to even establish initial contact. An important concept that permeated the workshop was the idea that engagement needed to operate at every level of the organisation. It was emphasised that it was not something that could be remitted to a particular ‘enactment’ office, but rather needed to be culturally reflected in the way that all aspects of the organisation interacted with stakeholders both internally and externally. It was also emphasised that it needed to be consistent through interactions with any part of the organisation and not just dependent on the personal commitment if isolated individuals. Viewed from the community groups’ perspectives in particular, enactment could manifest itself by transparent and open access for the community to the organisations facilities. The opening of a pedestrian pathway through ITT Dublin was cited as a tangible example of an initiative that had both symbolic and practical impact, enabling engagement that brought the institute physically closer to the wider community. Ideas were discussed on how to extend engagement to interactions with local councils, who in association with the university, may be able to provide material or financial support for opening the University grounds and facilities in situations where the council would have to provide the same facilities to local communities. This approach could represent a three way win for college, community and council. Other examples included support for second level students in homework clubs, provision of media production and PR support for community groups through engagement of students on course projects, and volunteer activity by staff and students to support community and civic society groups. Such forms of engagement would not be overlooked by employers, many of whom would place high value on volunteerism where it was presented as part of students’ CVs. Another key attribute of engagement is the degree to which students are prepared for employment, both through the preparations offered by the university and also through the students’ interactions with potential employers through college course work. Notwithstanding the value of voluntary work by students, industry stakeholders would also see engagement as a proactive process based on a partnership approach to identifying and seeking to meet the shared needs between the organisation, the students and the industry partners. This could be advanced by the closer integration of industry partners in both defining and delivering courses, while also providing access
Page 5 of 36
to expertise and facilities for SMEs in particular, who otherwise may not have the resources to access such expertise. A common theme noted by all stakeholders was the absence of a specific list of ways in which any stakeholder could establish an engagement relationship with the university, a theme that comes up in more detail later in this section. 2.2.2 What enables / supports engagement? At the head of identifying enablers of engagement was the idea of recognising the benefits to be derived from it. Making such benefits tangible and real for each respective stakeholder was considered essential. From a student’s perspective, engagement needs to attract credits to be used towards their final course awards in order to motivate their full involvement. From a staff perspective, it needs to be positioned as an integral part of what they are required and paid to do, not as a discretionary extra activity loaded on top of existing high workloads. Defined partnerships, with specified mutual benefits, between external stakeholders and the university would help to make transparent the benefits for all parties involved. Along with the need to recognise engagement, was the requirement to value it appropriately as well. While no specific valuation methods were identified, it was identified as an important general feature to ensure that engagement was appropriately recognised and celebrated in the university. An important risk was also identified in making engagement a curriculum requirement, which could undermine all other forms of engagement that cannot be curriculum based but are central to the whole ethos and culture required in an engagement context. Great care would therefore be required to ensure that one set of measures to promote engagement did not inadvertently undermine other important features of engagement. 2.2.3 Potential benefits of engagement? Defining ‘what’ engagement is, also brought the discussion towards identifying the benefits to be derived from it. Mindful of some criticism that the university could be perceived as existing behind the impenetrable walls of a fortress-like castle, it was emphasised that a culture of engagement would make visible the opportunities that a TU could provide and awaken the interest of many to return to education who otherwise might have avoided it. Being embedded in all aspects of community life offered the possibility that the university would come to be seen as something owned and cherished by the community rather than something that happened to be located within the community. Embedded engagement offered the best opportunity for developing curricula and courses that most closely matched the needs identified within the community through ongoing interactions with all society’s stakeholders. Apart from enabling economic development, engagement by the university also provided the possibility to be a leader in social developments through community based research and interactions.
Page 6 of 36
2.2.4 Student perspective From the students’ perspective the concept of engagement was largely described as affording students the maximum opportunity for practical development through interactions with all external partners and stakeholders, from level 6 courses through to PhD level research on which industries might depend. It was emphasised that graduates were required with sound commercial grounding, who were critically informed of the need to think globally and were also skilled and practiced in the interpersonal and team interactions that should come from well-rounded education programmes. Engagement with all stakeholders offered the best opportunity to develop such graduates but it needed to be handled as an integral part of all programme delivery, at all levels.
2.3
Why engagement?
The question of ‘why engagement?’ largely focused on discussing the benefits that engagement brings to all the parties involved. While there were no students represented in the external stakeholder workshop, it was noteworthy that the participants readily identified the benefits that students should gain from an engagement culture in the new TU4Dublin. Opportunities for students to experience different work environments would significantly help to inform their ultimate academic and career choices. In parallel, an engaged university should aim to support ‘T-shaped graduates’, imbuing a breadth of experience in the general skills required in workplaces and broader society, while providing deep learning in a specific area of expertise. In combination, engagement at whole university level would provide the best opportunity for students to graduate with the highest level of employability. The benefits to industry and employers would be to ensure the provision of high quality graduates who are ready to immediately engage in the workplace, without the need for further ‘training’ or graduate development programmes. From a community perspective, the benefits would include access to expertise of students and staff in areas that might not be otherwise accessible to community groups, while still making a real and meaningful contribution to the development and experience of students. A fully fledged engagement model would offer the new university the possibility to ensure all course programmes appropriately reflected the ethos of engagement. Courses could be informed by the external stakeholders and the knowledge and skills of graduates could be honed to reflect the ‘fit for purpose’ requirements of employers, community organisations and wider society groups at large. But that engagement ethos would also have to extend beyond course programmes and come to be reflected in all aspects of the work of all staff members. Students acquire as much learning for their general experience of the university environment as they do from the classroom or the curriculum. All staff members have an equal role to play in conveying the culture and values that are espoused by a rich engagement model.
Page 7 of 36
The workshop participants readily acknowledged that there is generally a very positive disposition towards mutual support and help through an engagement model but one of the existing limitations is its apparent dependency on personal relationships and individual commitment. Perhaps the biggest challenge identified was how to lever the existing good will that resides at individual level and grow it to be an engrained part of the DNA in a new university. The strong feeling that there was a unique opportunity to do something exciting and new, was match by acknowledging the equal challenge in how to bring the ideals of such an opportunity fully to life.
2.4
How engagement is or should be conducted?
From the external stakeholders discussions, the means to accomplish engagement can be categorised under four main headings, although as in the previous sections, these headings were not specified by workshop participants and are used for ease of reporting back on a diverse and complex, large-group discussion. It should also be noted that there is an amount of overlap with the previous two categories as evidenced by some of the headings under which this sub-section is divided. 2.4.1 Accessing TU4D One of the most telling points arising was the sense that for some stakeholders, gaining access to the Institutes seemed to be considerably more difficult than it should be. In extremis, some participants had never been inside one of the three Institutes! The analogy of HEI’s residing behind castle walls was used, conveying the sense that the Institutes were only accessible through personal connections, and that these ‘walls’ needed to be torn down if engagement in a future TU4Dublin was to operate for the maximum benefit of all stakeholders. This was in stark contrast to the highly positive experiences of engagement by some stakeholders. Based on the overall comments, the difference seemed to be accounted for in the level of personal commitment by individuals within the Institutes to living the concept of engagement. The key messages deriving from this perspective could be summarised as:
Engagement needs to be an integral part of the commitment of everyone involved in TU4Dublin.
It must be infused in all of the University’s systems and processes for interacting both internally and externally.
While requiring high levels of personal commitment from all parties, it should not be solely dependent on the high personal commitment of a few, as currently appears to be the case.
Engagement requires pro-active, on-going and persistent commitment, with flexibility to respond with agility to the changing needs and expectations of its diverse stakeholder base.
In summary, the concept of access through engagement could be taken as a broad organizational principle against which all aspects of the University should be Page 8 of 36
continuously monitored and updated to ensure it is happening on a pro-active and allembracing basis. 2.4.2 Expectations and benefits of engagement? It was clear throughout the workshop discussions that engagement was perceived as a two way street. It is not something that TU4Dublin can do alone, and necessarily an equal commitment from all parties is required if it is to meet everyone’s expectations. Clearly identifying and communicating these expectations is an essential precursor to developing an engagement model for TU4Dublin that will set it apart from other HEIs in Ireland or indeed Europe. In addition, establishing what is possible within a new TU4Dublin and establishing contacts with the widest possible stakeholder base will be necessary early steps to differentiate TU4Dublin from the former Institutes of Technology. Through this earliest process of engagement, detailed expectations associated with areas such as:
Flexibility of course content and delivery approaches;
Engagement of stakeholders in the delivery of courses and the holistic development of students;
Involvement of community and industry partners in defining courses and shaping the qualities desirable in graduates;
Fostering, acknowledging and recognising volunteerism for students and staff, while striving for the highest professional standards in all aspects of interactions;
Attracting young people to study technology but graduating them with both breadth of perspective and depth of knowledge in their chosen disciplines;
should be jointly built with all stakeholders acting together as a shared community rather than as isolated parties who happen to encounter each other periodically. Perhaps the most overarching idea to emerge was the possibility of the TU4Dublin serving as a central connectivity hub with the potential to link and join industry, community, and societal groups to each other, through its own engagement activities with each of them. Positioning TU4Dublin at the centre of such an engagement network could provide a unique feature for a new university but would equally require a new and perhaps not yet implemented model of engagement for a university. 2.4.3 Focus on what TU4D will do? As part of the culture shift that will be required for a new TU4Dublin to excel under engagement, a strong focus will be required on the activities TU4Dublin engages in and how they will best serve the principle of engagement.
Page 9 of 36
Areas such as course design, international and multi-cultural education, programme flexibility to meet student, community and industry needs, and recognition of engagement through a kaleidoscope of measures will all require attention. In addition, a new level of clarity will be required to define engagement and to ensure there is a consistent understanding of what it is and how it is to be accomplished throughout all aspects of TU4Dublin's activities. This will demand careful planning, consistent and challenging implementation and on-going communication with and between all stakeholders in the new TU4Dublin. 2.4.4 Acknowledgement/ recognition of engagement In much the same way that the maxim ‘what gets measured gets done’ is a perceived driver for action, recognising and crediting engagement was considered a fundamental requirement for positioning it as central to what TU4Dublin will be and to how it will operate. While embedding the concept of engagement in course curricula was considered a sin qua non of having it broadly adopted by students, it certainly was not proposed as the only form of recognising engagement that should be pursued. Over-emphasis on inclusion in curricula could have the negative effect of diminishing the application of engagement in so many other facets of the University that it could pose a risk of engagement being seen as merely another box to be ticked in accumulating credits towards students’ academic awards. This highlighted the need to view recognition of engagement in a significantly broader light, embracing all parties involved in engagement activities. As part of embedding engagement, it would need to be directly reflected in the terms and conditions of interactions with external bodies, the contracts of workers, and the internal protocols of the university’s systems and processes. In short, it should be explicitly promoted in all aspects of university life and it should be openly acknowledged and celebrated in meaningful and tangible ways, on an on-going basis. An important point made in the context of recognising engagement was the need to focus assessment on the impact derived from it, as much as following by rote any prescriptive methods of engagement that should be followed. Small, low-key activities can have significant impact that can remain hidden unless their impact is specifically looked for. This principle highlights the need for parity of esteem to apply to all parties’ engagement efforts, large or small, whoever they may be. The metrics by which such impact might be measured and who would be involved in the measuring process, provide scope for interesting and creative ways to pursue engagement as a central feature of the new TU4Dublin. Through being measured in some meaningful way, engagement can be overtly recognised. Once recognised, it can be openly celebrated. When celebrated, it can be promoted, leading to a virtuous circle of further engagement.
Page 10 of 36
Section 3 - Summary and analysis of internal stakeholder workshop 3.1
Internal stakeholder workshop
The purpose of the internal stakeholder workshop was to hear the detailed views of internal stakeholders on engagement and to identify the rationale for why engagement is necessary and to establish clarity on what is required to make it happen most effectively. The internal stakeholder workshop was attended by staff from the three institutes, representing a cross section of staff and interest groups. Students were also represented from two of the three institutes. The list of attendees is provided in Appendix 4. The form and structure of the workshop was broadly similar to that held for the external stakeholders, as can be seen from the agenda in Appendix 5. The same seed questions were used in the initial part of the discussion but again, were not pursued as questions to be explicitly answered. They provided a consistent framework for discussion as in the first workshop but also enabled different and diverse perspectives on engagement to emerge based on the experiences of staff from across the three institutes. The main differences between the two workshops centred on the content, with particular emphasis placed on what participants experienced as enablers or inhibitors of engagement, based on their past experiences. The second part of the workshop focused on identifying engagement inhibitors and also defining ways in which enablers could be enhanced. The sub-text to be kept in mind was consideration of ways to promote and recognise engagement in the future. This is reflected in the sub-agenda shown in Appendix 5, which was used for Part 2 of the internal stakeholder workshop. The group’s discussion was again recorded under three main headings that differed from the external workshop, aligning with;
the what/ why of engagement
engagement enablers
engagement inhibitors.
It was noted that enablers/ inhibitors could be simplistically viewed as opposites if the only purpose was to merely name them. While naming and identifying enablers/ inhibitors was the focus of the first part of the workshop, the second part focused on identifying ways to support/ promote the enablers and to overcome the inhibitors. This lead to the broader question to participants who were asked to identify how engagement should be handled differently in the new TU4Dublin. The full details of the workshop record are set out in Appendix 6, while this section provides a summary analysis of the group’s overall discussion.
Page 11 of 36
3.2
What and Why of engagement
It was clear from the internal stakeholders that engagement permeated most aspects of the work of the Institutes, including broader civic society, local communities, industry partners as well as a range of internal organisation areas. From such a broad participant base, engagement is then necessarily broad in the scope of activities it should encompass. In general terms, the group identified high levels of accessibility and flexibility as cornerstones of engagement, grounded in people interacting with people, inside and outside the organisation. Engagement should operate at both a strategic, large scale level as well as at a more local and smaller scale level, depending on the external agents being interacted with. It was felt that the TU4Dublin campuses need to be culturally, socially and economically relevant, which then needs to be proactively and continuously communicated to both internal and external audiences. A key focus in the new TU will be avoiding increasing bureaucracy with increasing size, while doing engagement differently such that it is fully acknowledged and valued throughout the whole organisation. It was noted that in the past a lot of engagement work may have been taking place but was invisible for a variety of reasons. Making engagement a priority and visible will be essential to moving it to play a central role in a new TU4Dublin. While the group discussed some specific ideas for developing engagement, such as making campus facilities more accessible to external stakeholders, incorporating more engagement activities into curricula and using curriculum based activity to provide direct services to community groups (e.g. making promotional videos on media type programmes), two key points recurred throughout the discussions:
any proposed initiatives need to be properly resourced
engagement activities must be valued and celebrated as a core part of what the organisation does and how it does it.
3.3
Enablers of engagement
Extracting specific ‘enablers’ of engagement from the internal stakeholders discussion naturally leaned initially towards trying to identify what engagement was in order to make it somewhat tangible or quantifiable. In these terms, there was an interesting focus on physical aspects of campus life and the potential role it can play in engagement. In many ways, the symbolic nature of ‘opening up’ the physical campus to the wider community could have as much and perhaps more impact than any material benefit that it might bring. The removal of physical barriers such as gates, walls or boundary fences can be augmented by the proactive provision of walkways, paths or making specific facilities such as libraries, sports pitches or other physical services available to the wider community. These steps in turn offer the potential to create a psychological sense of engagement that offers the potential to free up minds, both internally and externally, to view engagement as a symbiotic relationship between participants rather than something that the TU is doing alone. Page 12 of 36
This in turn leads to the second key point to be discerned from the internal stakeholder group’s discussion - that engagement needs to become part of the engrained cultural mind-set and day to day practices of the whole organisation, in order to achieve the desired outcomes from it. Such a cultural disposition towards engagement should then be reflected in how the TU resources engagement activity, how it recognises and celebrates such activity, which will ultimately inform the extent to which engagement could be said to be part of the TU's underlying culture. This apparently circular argument reinforces the point that engagement is not something that can be spoken of in isolation but rather should be an intrinsic part of everything the TU does and should be reflected in how things are done. Appendix 6.2 sets out a range of ideas to be considered for enabling engagement, including integration in the curriculum, interaction with industry and broader recognition and celebration of engagement. Some of the more creative or perhaps previously unconsidered initiatives that could promote and progress engagement might include:
Engagement with County Councils to explore the mutual provision of facilities and services to the community.
Positioning of the TU as a hub through which engagement between other stakeholders (industry partners, community groups, civic bodies etc.) could be facilitated, as much as engagement with the TU itself.
Hosting or organising cultural, civic or industry related events as ‘public’ expressions of the wider and more generic engagement of the TU with all of society.
Become an ‘incubation unit’ for developing a robust concept and implementation of a volunteering culture, for both students and staff, that could come to symbolise the tangible form that engagement could take.
3.4
Engagement inhibitors
Appendix 6.3 sets out the detailed record from the internal stakeholder workshop relating to engagement inhibitors. At one simplistic level they might be seen as the opposites of the enablers, but that would be to oversimplify a particularly complex concept that is intended to be an integral part of the TU4Dublin. Grouping the notes of the group’s discussion of inhibitors under the same five headings as used for enablers, shows a number of similarities and differences between both. This should perhaps be no surprise as the group had a free flowing conversation that was not so deliberately categorised but the recorders were listening to that conversation through different and more focused lenses. While similar points are captured regarding physical features in the TU, a question worth noting is - will the TU have the physical capacity to meet the needs/ demands that might be placed on it by external stakeholders and how should that eventuality be handled if it arises? This may go to the heart of carefully managing the expectations that will arise from placing engagement as such a central feature of TU and avoiding the potential trap that the commitment to engagement to differentiate the TU could also potentially serve as a source of undermining it. This is a risk to be guarded against.
Page 13 of 36
In an organisational culture context, how students ‘value’ any of their activities in the TU that are considered to reflect 'engagement', will be a key determinant of how embedded engagement will turn out to be in the TU. By extension, the same will apply to staff with high contact time with students – how they value and recognise engagement will be central to embedding it in the new TU4Dublin. Insufficient flexibility of response to different or changing needs and expectations of stakeholders may also serve as a potential inhibitor of engagement. This is difficult to predict but relates back to the cultural disposition of the whole organisation towards being dynamic and creative, unbound by overly rigid processes, or growing into a larger version of existing structures and processes that are shackled by unchanging and unchangeable ways of conducting its business. This reflects the need for subsidiarity and autonomy at the lowest levels of the organisation as referenced in the organisation design criteria for TU4Dublin, but the challenge remains of ensuring that these features are reflected in new practices in the TU4Dublin. In considering ideas to overcome engagement inhibitors a key concern is the lack of visibility of existing engagement type activity. If engagement is made more visible it is more likely to be copied or emulated in some way, which relates back to the questions of recognition and celebration previously discussed. Efforts to recognise, promote or celebrate engagement would have to be targeted at all levels of stakeholders both internally and externally, in order to ensure the maximum level of adoption and embedding.
Section 4 - Synthesis of views on engagement This section provides an overview of the two engagement workshops, viewed from the facilitator’s perspective. It is intended as a synthesis of the key points and messages seen as common to both the internal and external stakeholders. While I may seem to infer certain features of engagement that were not explicitly articulated by either group, the breadth and depth of each groups discussions enable me to more consolidate and perhaps develop the thinking around key ideas rather than contribute any additional or new ideas, which is not my intention. Perhaps the most unexpected and for that reason striking common feature from both groups was the potential impact of physical campus features on both the perception and realisation of engagement. For TU to be seen to be engaged, the physical access to its services, facilities and campuses could be a useful and tangible place to start to do things differently. Making engagement overtly visible in such a tangible way could provide a useful and enduring reference point to become symbolic of the more subtle aspects of engagement that the two groups also focused on but may be more difficult to make visible. An extension of this physical metaphor for engagement, is the degree to which the TU would come to be perceived as an integral part of the social, cultural, intellectual and economic life of communities and society at large. While the intellectual and economic aspects of engagement may be already visible to some degree, it is the combination of social and cultural interactions with these existing activities that provide both a challenge and opportunity for engagement. Both groups identified events such as Page 14 of 36
Bloomsday, St Patricks Day, the year of Yeats or the 1916 centenary as examples of national events in which a new TU should be seen publicly to have an engagement. While there are no prescriptive ideas being suggested, the concept of adopting a significant public profile in such national events of socio-cultural significance could provide a vehicle to promote and celebrate the unique engagement culture of a new TU4Dublin. In direct contrast, and perhaps at the opposite end of the tangible spectrum, is the no less important idea of engagement becoming an integral part of the new TU4Dublin. Culture is one of the hardest things to change about an organisation and also one of the most difficult to identify, quantify or measure. Notwithstanding, both groups were very clear that for the new TU to be different, a unique culture would need to emerge and become visible, not only to differentiate the TU from other HEIs, but perhaps more importantly to differentiate itself from the three institutes coming together to form it. This provides opportunity and challenge in equal measure but may come to be defined most clearly in how the new TU proposes to adopt an engagement culture. The organisation’s culture will reflect its core values, and the culture in turn will be reflected in how it engages with all of its stakeholders. But the new TU will primarily ‘act’ and ‘engage’ through the people who make it up, and they will only act and engage to the extent that they feel empowered to do so. In this context, a new culture will come to be defined through a new way of acting by people who will need to be empowered to do so. Such empowerment will likely take two main forms, which were particularly referenced in both workshops:
the degree of autonomy enjoyed by individuals and groups to pursue engagement initiatives;
the level of resourcing committed to it.
It is reasonably certain that a wide range of activities could be pursued in the future in the name of engagement, that haven’t even been considered in the past. At the same time, it is possible that the TU could become no more than the amalgamation of three institutes into a single bigger institute while showing no differences from its predecessors. The ultimate path to be taken will be partly determined by the extent to which new, novel or innovative engagement ideas will be accepted, supported or tolerated by the powers that be in the new TU. This will perhaps represent the coal face in establishing engagement as a signature of a new TU and will determine the extent to which engagement will become a central feature of the new TU’s culture. Closely allied to this will be the recognition and support provided to engagement and the resources in terms of time, facilities or money to be allocated to it. Both groups were clear that recognition and celebration of engagement activities were essential, but equally that both ideas were quite distinct. Recognition of engagement extends to how it is perceived to be an essential part of students’ education, as much as to how it is seen as an integral part of every employees’ job as they interact with students, to ensure the students attain their educational ambitions. Recognition would have to go beyond being embedded throughout curricula, to be reflected in how curricula were implemented. Where engagement through interactions with community groups or industry could become more centrally reflected in students’ curricula, it would Page 15 of 36
be equally important to define ways in which engagement could become a central facet of how all employees performed their roles. The celebration of engagement could be interpreted as a more specific recognition through the promotion, highlighting or direct reward of engagement activities that could be seem as exemplars of the underlying culture that is aspired to within TU4Dublin. Whether in the form of credits on course modules, time allocations on time tables, time assignment for non-academic staff, bonus payments for extraordinary effort or the establishment of a suitable version of the TU4Dublin 'Engagement Oscars', recognition and celebration are two sides of the same coin aimed at positioning engagement front and centre in the whole perception and execution of what the TU4Dublin stands for. While the provision of adequate and appropriate resources to accomplish engagement was identified as indispensable, the full benefits of engagement could only be realised if external stakeholders also commit to it and resource it with time, energy and funding where applicable. It is only through such shared commitment that the intended mutual benefits can be achieved for all participants. It therefore seems logical that the engagement model developed and adopted by TU4D will have to make explicit provision for this, which may in some ways feel counter-intuitive. As a final thought and derived from the two groups’ discussions, the new TU could be visualised as the hub of a wheel, connecting parts of the rim to each other through the spokes of the wheel. The TU as a hub, could provide connectivity between members of its diverse stakeholder groups, and create stable relationships across groups that otherwise may not come into contact with each other. Engagement provides the vehicle through which the TU could seek to position itself at the centre of action and interactions, involving community groups, civic organisations and industries. The TU could provide a roadmap of connectivity, generating multiple ‘plug in points’ that would enable engagement with and between its stakeholders. The contribution of one student to the workshops put it most succinctly when she said – ‘We are in the community today and we want to be in industry tomorrow’. Through its students, and by extension through the courses and experiences of those students while attending the TU, it can become the recognised hub through which people can share in the cocreation of the working, living and educational spaces they will occupy throughout their lives.
Page 16 of 36
Appendix 1 - External stakeholder workshop - Attendees Mary Cleary Damien Owens Leslee O’Loughlin Siobhan Long Liz Harper Bernadette Sproule
Irish Computer Society Engineers Ireland Enterprise Rent-A-Car Enable Ireland Age and Opportunity CDETB
Liam Nolan
Gas Networks Ireland
Odran Reid James Flynn
Northside Partnership IBM Ireland Lab - Innovation Project Office
Claire McGee Michael O'Connor Niamh Duffy
IBEC Siemens Bia Nua, Linc
Aidan Flynn Josephine Glennon Andrea Wilkes Peter Byrne Elaine Ralph
Symantec CIB Yahoo SD Chamber Memory Bank
Sandra Fitzgibbon
Simon Community
Deputy Chief Executive Membership Director & Registrar Group Human Resources Manager Manager National AT and SeatTech Service Head of Community and Lifelong Learning Head of Technical Competency & Standards, Local Development & Education Programme Manager IBM University Programmes
Senior Innovation & Education Policy Executive Marketing Manager Partner Sr Director, EMEA Customer Business Operations
CEO MD Enterprise and Housing Development Manager
Page 17 of 36
Appendix 2 - External stakeholder consultation workshop agenda
Page 18 of 36
Appendix 3 - Notes from External stakeholder workshop Appendix 3.1 - External Workshop - Part 1 The notes in this section come from part 1 of the workshop. The bullet points are the comments recorded by the recorders from the group's discussion. The sub-headings under which the bullet points in each section are grouped were not assigned by the group or the recorders. They have been used by the facilitator post workshop, for the purpose of analysing the group's feedback and preparing a general analysis of their feedback. Part 1 - What is engagement Under "What is engagement", the details from the group discussion was captured as a series of detailed numbered points which have been grouped under four headings for analytical use. The subsequent summary section represents the 'give back that was provided to the workshop before the break. Part 2 represents the short notes captured following the break.
What is it? o 11. Linking with community ... needs planning .. whole university .. use of facilities .. one unit could be good but all of university needs to be involved .. consistency of experience. o 19. Volunteering - programme development and tailoring - proactive to meet needs of organizations or (community) groups. o 27. Working pro-active collaboratively - e.g. with small firms association o 28. Access schemes programmes - volunteerism e.g. homework tuition for free - sincerity of motivation - students of purpose o 29. 'Enactus' programme - link between parts of the organization o 34. What outcomes are valued? o 6. Student volunteerism - valued by employers - structure volunteerism so everyone benefits - risk versus uncredited. o 5. Point 5??? o 3. There is no menu of options available re engagement o 2. Partnership - meeting each others needs o 1. Preparation for employability o Embedding employability in the curriculum o Employers engaged in students' projects - curriculum and assessments
What enables / supports it? o 14. Personalities and relationships currently (enable engagement) but a lot of org level needs formal structures to support it. Balance between relationships and HEIs
Page 19 of 36
o 20. Partnership on both sides o 24. Corporate partnership programme - courses in own training centre accredited to meet needs - relevant courses e.g. data processing for businesses today o 17. Reaching out .. disability .. pre-students re product design o 18. Curriculum based .. credits based o 22. Constancy and stick at it - + proactive o 30. Academic credit for academic staff engegament e.g. supporting students to do projects - academic input is key. o 31. Impact, not just publications (should also be a measure of academic contribution) o 4. Taking from community / industry to do lecturing - sharing of experiences
What do 'we' get from engagement? o 10. Adults return to education - (ATP?) o 12. Address both economic growth and social challenges through research o 13. Work with start ups re research also o 16. Innovation and skills for employment - focus on what can university offer o 7. Retain interaction with industry and not for profits when university setting is ? o 15. Curricula content and research projects matched to future skills needs
Student perspective o 8. Communication with young and professional students. o 9. Communication and encouraging right students into engineering, branding, leave behind negative connotations with ... o 21. Inform and co-op students o 23. Graduates with global understanding o 26. Students and graduates need commercial understanding o 32. PhD programmes facilitating opportunities extracurricular opportunities - working with global industry based teams (whereas rig to stich with students only - balance between. o 33. CPD programmes tailored to needs e.g. advocacy - Level 6
Feedback Summary o Prep for employability
Entrepreneur
Page 20 of 36
Commercial
o Use of facilities o Curriculum based with credit
Students
Content
Academic credit for staff
o Volunteering o Access + inclusivity - lifelong learning + FEW + HE o Tailored courses to meet needs
Innovative
Short courses
o Research
Economic growth
Social challenges
Start ups
o Whole to TU approach required
Relationships
Structures
Proactive
Parity of esteem
o Communicating o Suite of opportunities o Breadth of learning o More flexible PhD programmes o What activities and process?? Part 1 - How engagement is or should be conducted?
Accessing TU4D o Employers / partners need to contribute more to curriculum etc o Some participants have never been inside DIT's door - no engagement. o HEIs can appear to be inside castle walls and not part of community o 'Evil walls' - DIT can appear to be in behind them. o Personal connection is key - enabled o How to get access (connection) ??? (into DIT) o Consistency / on-going management o Flexible / enabling systems required Page 21 of 36
o SME's - don't know where to start - need to create an awareness with them - work with ISMA, IBEC? etc
Focus on what TU4D will do? o Whole college approach needed - engagement can be marginalised o International/ multicultural skills. o Accredited courses - own training centre - anchor - leads to other possibilities o Data centre management - gap o Course/ module credits very important for any engagement by students or staff o Flexible credit programmes for adults o Better coordination with L6, FE. o Big communications piece o Clarity in planning - certainty required
Expectations and benefits of engagement? o Interested collaboration in innovation o Flexibility - ability to respond. o Lack of commercial awareness in Tech grads o Enterprise-led programmes o Give students real visibility of what's involved in courses
Connect to 2nd level
o Access is very important but also calibre of graduate - excellence o 'T' shaped graduates - breadth of perspectives, with depth in a particular area/ expertise/ discipline o COS like IBM funding applied research model - need to be responsive to needs o Attract young people into technology o Volunteerism community
- employers value student interactions with industry /
o Guest/ part time lecturing great experience (for and from external stakeholders) o Foster professionalism o Need clear expectations both sides - timing must be right o Need to know what's possible o Communicate range of activity
Acknowledgement/ recognition of engagement o Esteem for ALL careers Page 22 of 36
o Parity of esteem - 50:50 - for ALL partners o DIT walk the walk - great access programme o Give students and academics recognition for engagement o US institutions value/ recognise impact of engagement. o New STI strategy - Judge engagement by its impact o Impact of engagement rather than only publications should be a measure of engagement o Refine metrics for success o Need to enable engagement o Integrate employability into academic programmes o WIT - Students projects working with employers - credit points for models Part 1 - Why engage?
Students o Ensuring "employability" o CV experience for students o Reinforcing academic learning with applied experience o Help students to develop abilities o Engagement designed to allow students to explore and understand their choices of programme/ career o The graduate needs to be supported as a T shaped graduate o Help graduates / students identify themselves as part of a profession
Employers/ industry o Source of good graduates o Opportunities for students (PhD) to work with industry partners
Community / civic society o Availability of facilities and expertise? o TU needs to be "part of the community" - get out and get involved - two way street
Shared/ common benefits o Mutual benefit for different stakeholders o A participant in addressing social as well as economic and academic challenges o Sharing of expertise / experience among stakeholders
General comments / observations o Willingness to take risks
Page 23 of 36
o Need continuity of the relationship - know that there is an on-going relationship o "Personal relationships" are important in ensuring good engagement o Genuine desire to help o To develop something really new o Improve the status of engagement in the university (Impact) o Curriculum / course impact o Stakeholders to contribute take part in curriculum development o Tailoring + flexibility in designing programmes/ training o ECTs/ credits for work is important o Graduates need an international / global perspective. o Ensure that the courses are 'fit for purpose'
Data centres
Advisers on curriculum
o Flexible in how education is designed, delivered and evaluated
Page 24 of 36
Appendix 3.2 - External Workshop - Part 2 Part 2 - What is engagement
Interlinking of partners and engagement activity - Industry + Community is interlinked
Rationale for engagement
Common/ consistent policies e.g. IP rights
Student input
Learning from other HIEIs
Part 2 - How - new ideas?? This section was recorded in Part 2 after the break, and focused on summarising the characteristics that should be evident in engagement in a new TU4Dublin. The bullet points in this section are as recorded at the workshop.
How to connect?? o Two way connections needed o Multiple plug in points o Two way communications o Easy to navigate/ access information about engagement mechanisms
Flexibility - Global
Responsiveness
Risk taking
Proactive
Catalyst
Engaged
Opportunity
Must be resourced, prioritised
Impact must be assessed
Page 25 of 36
Appendix 4 - Internal stakeholder workshop – Attendees Internal Focus Group
Monday 15th June @ 10.30am
Colin Hughes John Lawlor Anne Green Ciaran O'Leary Paul Horan Suzanne Crowther Cllr. Andrew Montague Gerry Gilvarry Iseult Kelly Adrian Smyth Cormac Doran Brian Nolan Aidin O’Sullivan Mark keyes Adrienne Fleming Jack McDonnell Student (Steph?) Student
College of Business, DIT College of Engineering and the Built Environment, DIT School of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Sciences, DIT Head of Learning Development, College of Sciences and Health, DIT GDA Campus Planning Office ITT Student, Volunteering Award winner Dublin City Councillor & MSc Spatial Planning student Lecturer, Dept. Of Humanities, ITT School of Computing, DIT School of Media, Postgrad PhD Lecturer in Humanities, ITB Head of School of Informatics, ITB Librarian, ITB Enterprise Programmes, Linc School of Science and Computing, ITT ILM, ITT Rep from Access Student Forum Rep from Access Student Forum
Page 26 of 36
Appendix 5 - Internal stakeholder consultation workshop agenda Appendix 5.1 – Overall agenda
Page 27 of 36
Appendix 5.2 - Internal stakeholder workshop Part 2 agenda
Page 28 of 36
Appendix 6 - Internal stakeholder workshop - Outputs Appendix 6.1 - What and Why of engagement? Different stakeholder groups
Programmes for women
Civic, industry o Incorporated into curriculum o Video for community organisations
Work clearly with local enterprise agencies - what can we do better.
Engagement with second level students
Scope of engagement?
Accessible and responsive to industry and enterprises
Connection for staff to be good/ better educators
Allow for flexibility at the key interface - subsidiarity
Engagement - people do business with people
To be of value to our communities o Large scale - strategic o Small scale - local
The challenges / questions of engagement?
What do we mean by 'engagement?'
How to make our campuses culturally, socially and economically relevant?
What are we going to do to improve our engagement post TU4D? o Or are we going to be doing the same things in the same way and more administrative bureaucracy
Need to communicate our engagement message internally and externally
A lot of engagement activities is not captured o Done by interested people o Should be part of what we do
Organisation has to demonstrate the interest / value of engagement
Ideas for engagement?
Availability of facilities to/ for the community
Engagement - outside of contact hours
Civic, industry o Incorporated into curriculum o Video for community organisations Page 29 of 36
Build engagement activities into the curriculum
Need internal support and resources for engagement o A lot of phone work involved not recognised
Page 30 of 36
Appendix 6.2 - Enablers of engagement? Part 1 - Enablers
Physical infrastructure and resourcing o 'Tear down those walls' o Pathway through campus o Open Libraries to Leaving Cert students o Familiarisation - increase participation - going to restaurant .... o RAPID has created sub-infrastructure of facilities - can plug in to this. o Dedicated Industry engagement office in school of computing alone o Need extra resources - share with ccls etc - 5th year students use of libraries o Demonstrate value by putting resources in place o Document/ manage activity - central coordination - need a map to connect. o Central coordinantion in DIT community works well - must be owned by college/ school
Organisation cultural dimension o ITT: Strategic plan - pillar engagement o Need new structures o Recognise as core activity - working with industry etc o Ensure we capture full range of (engagement) activity o Guidelines from centre - with flexibility to respond locally o Needs to enable - structures etc - Is engagement recognised in TU o Need whole organisation approach o Clarify vision for engagement o Philosophical outlook/ ethos at institute level
Engagement(s) with civic society o City Council - fund greater access to facilities - library, sports facilities etc o Tie into LEOs, Council etc - accessible to small companies
Curriculum and course development o Build into curriculum o Need to stay connected with Industry/ Technology - Need CPD o Volunteering module
Ideas o "To be part of what we do"
Page 31 of 36
o Corporate videos for community organisations - 50 over 5 years o ITB: Work with local schools - publication of childrens stories (not all captured) o Keep good practice - manage change o DIT School of computing
Computing academy for school
Adult workshops
o Cultural events to attract community - e.g. UL (Limerick) Micheal O'Suilleabhain) o Promote it better (e.g. association of UCC and food. o Recognise needs of low-paid in industry o Document wonderful examples o Engagement = Connected involvement. o Coordinate/ prioritise/ evaluate/ communicate. o Work must be enabled o ACE: Central - can't do - support
External and Internal engagement
Balance capacity for both
o Value community equally o Coordinate - multiple needs - multiple levels Part 2 - Enabling engagement
Time and resources
Re-imagine campus: Fortress - Park o ITB closed on Sundays
Grangegorman designed as public park - doable for other campuses
Allocation of Time Table
Many non-academic staff involved
Recognition o Institute wide activity o Work on ground
1% of corporate time - community leverage/ partner corporate social responsibility model.
Strategically - what grand challenges?
School level to report on engagement (not just in reviews)
EVERY UNIT to report on engagement
Page 32 of 36
Resources to account for engagement
Mainstream engagement for ALL staff
Local Council engagement o Local Community Development Committees o LEOs o Both potential plug in points for TU4D to interact and engage o Regional assembly
Individual initiative - ?? as well as engagement
Resources to account for engagement.
MAINSTREAM - ALL STAFF
Page 33 of 36
Appendix 6.3 - Inhibitors of engagement Part 1 - Inhibitors
Engagement(s) with civic society o We do a lot of good stuff, but what could we do better as a T.U.?
Keeping good practice
Not losing our regional focus
o Understanding differing needs of industry and community
Finding a meaningful definition for all
TU as a forum connecting all of these sectors?
o Lack of flexibility vis-a-vis needs of industry? o Recognising the bespoke needs of civil projects
No two projects the same
Partner as active participant
Curriculum and course development o Transferability + embedding engagement
Curriculum design ?!
o Needs to be in the curriculum (Assessed) o Lack of interface between researching students and potential partners/ projects
Physical infrastructure and resourcing o [CE] How to get people onto campus o Are facilities availability to community?
Library
Sports facilities
Students first but n.b. for access
Cultural facilities
Habit-forming
Approachability (urban design)
o Physical barriers: ITT removing the boundary wall o Lack of internal capacity to meet demand from community partners!!!
Resource issues?
Engagement activity takes time.
Organisation cultural dimension o The language of engagement - off putting o Mindset - "I love engagement activity but is it a core recognised activity?" Page 34 of 36
o So much engagement focused on proactive individuals
How to embed this in TU culture?
Also to keep individuals motivated!
I.e. providing central supports (from colleges and schools)
o Question - has it been decided that engagement is valued by TU4D?
Huge resource issues
Ability to share resources
Bureaucratic issues e.g. Garda vetting
o Communicating a clear coherent message - we are about to be the biggest HEI in the country o Lack of interest (especially among standard entry) among students
Ideas o A lot of engagement activity but not captured o Structural problem of job description + recognition of staff activity. o Engaging with the cultural life of the city and region
Yeats/ Bloomsday 1916 etc etc
o Managing and navigating the "organisation" (now even bigger), to foster engagement
"There is no map" (for what can be accessed or how to access it)
Scaling up from the active individuals to the engaged TU
o Defining engagement (Leadership!)
Capturing the regional/ social issues
Meeting needs of smaller partners
What does success look like?
o Lack of communication to students explaining engagement to students o Need to make second level students aware Part 2 - activity required
Time (more time)
Campus not available to the community (open up)
Timetable flexibility
Administrative support
Absence of recognition o At TU level o At personal level
Make it important to people in Finance, HR, Registration etc
Page 35 of 36
Hi level engagement strategy o Cascade down to school level and administration support
Lack of measures/ metrics/ recognition
People - sustainable effort
Limited 'People' capacity
Lack of a CRM system to co-ordinate/ awareness of engagement
Work load - Fatigue
Page 36 of 36
