Crucial decisions about a university¡¯s future are taken too quickly and are often dominated by the views of the vice-chancellor, according to an academic who has devised a new way to make choices about an institution¡¯s direction.

Ashraf Labib, a professor of operations and decision analysis at the University of Portsmouth¡¯s business school, is one of five authors of a paper that sets out how universities can make better-thought-out and more consistent decisions.

The technique, known as ¡°analytic hierarchy process¡±, also gives staff a route to overrule the vice-chancellor.

It involves asking university decision-makers such as senior managers and heads of departments to rank pairs of priorities - research ranking and student satisfaction, for example - against each other. They are also asked to choose how to allocate hypothetical sums of money between different spending options: perhaps by deciding between installing a new IT system or developing human resources.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

The answers of staff members are weighted differently according to the circumstances: in a recession the finance director¡¯s priorities would be taken into greater account, for example. The result is a ¡°tree¡± of university priorities extending from ¡°ultimate goals¡± at the top to specific plans at the bottom, Professor Labib explained.

A crucial feature of this method is that it checks to see if respondents¡¯ priorities are consistent, he said, adding that current planning methods gave no feedback on this.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

Professor Labib also argued that universities fail to conduct ¡°what if¡± analysis, which incorporates ways to alter a decision if external circumstances change.

The method allows for its outcomes to change if, for example, the economy tips into recession or the market becomes more competitive.

Under the technique, a university¡¯s mission and future direction is decided by several people, unlike in group decision-making, where choices tend to be ¡°influenced by the most important person¡±, Professor Labib said.

In universities, ¡°not enough time and money is spent making decisions¡±, he continued.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

The new method could prove time-intensive as each respondent had to rank 204 pairs of priorities, the research says.

But Professor Labib countered this concern by drawing a comparison between Japanese and Western manufacturing companies, explaining that because the former spend ¡°lots of time in planning, then the execution comes much faster¡±. In the West, however, less time was spent on planning, thus risking a ¡°cycle of errors¡±.

Universities in the UK devoted relatively little time to planning because of its ¡°monotonous¡± nature or because of the ¡°ego¡± of those involved, he speculated.

Professor Labib said he hopes the decision-making method will be rolled out in faculties at Portsmouth and at other universities.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

The paper, ¡°Formulation of Higher Education Institutional Strategy Using Operational Research Approaches¡±, was published in the journal Studies in Higher Education.

Professor Labib¡¯s co-authors are Martin Read, Charlotte Gladstone-Millar, Richard Tonge and David Smith, all academics at Portsmouth¡¯s business school.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

david.matthews@tsleducation.com