AGENDA - Education at UWA · Part 1 of the agenda consists of items for communication. Part 2 of the agenda relates to items for decision to be dealt with en bloc by motion by the

File Ref: F68748

The University of Western Australia

4 August 2019 MEMBERS OF THE EDUCATION COMMITTEE Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education) as Chair (Professor David Sadler) Pro Vice-Chancellor (Education) as Deputy Chair (Professor Peter J. Dean) Dean, Postgraduate Coursework Studies (Professor Graham Brown) Chair of Academic Board (Professor Robyn Carroll for Professor Raymond da Silva Rosa) Acting Pro Vice-Chancellor (International) (Professor Erika Techera) Dean of Graduate Research School (Professor Imelda Whelehan) Executive Dean of Faculty, or nominee:

Faculty of Arts, Business, Law and Education (nominee) (Professor Phil Hancock) Faculty of Engineering and Mathematical Sciences (Professor John Dell) Faculty of Health and Medical Science (Dr Daniela Ulgiati for Professor Wendy Erber) Faculty of Science (nominee) (Associate Professor Peter Hammond)

Pro Vice-Chancellor, Indigenous Education (Professor Jill Milroy) University Librarian (Ms Jill Benn) President of the Guild of Undergraduates (Mr Conrad Hogg) President of the Postgraduate Students’ Association (Mr Alexander Tan) Co-opted member: Professor Sarah Dunlop, Head of School, Biological Sciences Co-opted member: Dr Kate Hislop, Head of School, Design Standing Invitee: Mr Chris Massey (Director, UWA Student Life) Academic Secretary as Executive Officer (Dr Kabilan Krishnasamy)

EDUCATION COMMITTEE MEETING – TUESDAY 13 AUGUST 2019

This is to confirm that the next Education Committee meeting will be held from 10:00am – 11:30am on Tuesday 13 August 2019 in the Senate Room.

Members are advised that this agenda has been formatted to be ‘electronic device friendly’ by including bookmarks to provide easier navigation throughout the document. Click here for details. Part 1 of the agenda consists of items for communication. Part 2 of the agenda relates to items for decision to be dealt with en bloc by motion by the Chair. Part 3 is for discussion. A member may request the transfer of an item from Part 1 and/or 2 to Part 3. Relevant background information has been provided for each item on the agenda, but if members require further details they are welcome to contact the Executive Officer.

Dr Kabilan Krishnasamy Academic Secretary, University Secretariat

AGENDA WELCOME The Chair will welcome all members to the meeting.

APOLOGIES The Chair will record any apologies. Members are reminded that apologies should be forwarded to the Academic Secretary prior to the meeting. Members representing the faculties are reminded that if unable to attend a meeting, an alternative nominee of the Executive Dean should be organised and the Academic Secretary notified prior to the meeting.

DECLARATIONS OF POTENTIAL FOR CONFLICT OR PERCEIVED CONFLICTS OF INTEREST The Chair will invite members to declare potential for conflict or perceived conflicts of interest, if applicable, with regard to items on the agenda. 1. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES – Ref F68748 Confirmation of the minutes of a meeting of the Education Committee held on Monday 8 July 2019. Minutes are available from the Committee’s website.

http://www.governance.uwa.edu.au/committees/principles/executive-officers

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.worldclasseducation.uwa.edu.au/committees/education-committee

- 2 -

PART 1 – ITEM(S) FOR COMMUNICATION TO BE DEALT WITH EN BLOC

There are no items in part 1.

PART 2 – ITEM(S) FOR DECISION TO BE DEALT WITH EN BLOC

There are no items in part 2.

PART 3 – ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION

2. UNIVERSITY POLICY ON MICRO-CREDENTIALS – Ref F19/2030 Micro-credentials are a means of recognising the attainment of smaller and more specific elements of learning relating to non-award professional development activities. This recognition may result in converting the micro-credentials into credits that may be oriented towards Cycle 2 recruitment.

At its meeting held on 20 March 2019, the Academic Board was advised that a detailed policy proposal on micro-credentials will be presented for consideration at a future meeting (Attachment A).

Attached (Attachment B) for members’ consideration is a proposed new University Policy on: Micr-Credentials for consideration by the Committee.

For discussion and recommendation to Academic Board.

3. QUALITY ASSURANCE MONITORING FOR COURSEWORK COURSES – REF F19/1260 The University is committed to ensuring that its courses are relevant, current and provide students with a high quality learning experience. A robust, sustainable quality assurance system is integral to maintenance of the quality of the University's courses. Course quality assurance is a continuous process designed to: • facilitate the provision of high quality curriculum and pedagogy that delivers recognised academic

standards • enhance strategic outcomes by providing timely identification of high performing and 'underperforming'

courses • facilitate strong links to the University's strategic planning, quality and review systems to support the

University's strategic objectives • support the cyclical improvement and re-accreditation of courses through data-driven decision making • ensure compliance with relevant requirements including the Higher Education Standards Framework

(Threshold Standards) 2015.

At its meeting held in May 2019, the Education Committee provided feedback on a paper developed by the Dean Postgraduate coursework Studies and endorsed in-principle the proposed approach to course quality assurance (Attachment C).

The Dean, Postgraduate Coursework Studies will be invited to provide an update on the progress made thus far. For discussion.

4. WORK INTEGRATED LEARNING (WIL): UWA’S WIL POLICY ROADMAP – REF F18/3420 Attached (Attachment D) for members’ consideration is a report that sets out UWA’s Work Integrated Learning Policy roadmap. The Chair will invite the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Education) to speak to this report.

For discussion, endorsement and referral to Academic Council for approval.

5. OPTIMISING STUDENT ENROLMENT Members will be aware that the attached paper (Attachment E) formed the basis for an Academic Board consultation meeting held on Friday 2 august 2019. The Chair will report on key findings and way forward.

For discussion.

* * * * * *

EXTRACT FROM THE MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE ACADEMIC BOARD HELD ON WEDNESDAY 20 MARCH 2019 IN THE ECONOMICS AND COMMERCE CONFERENCE

ROOM

9. ITEMS FROM THE EDUCATION COMMITTEE9.1. Micro-credentialing and Professional Development at UWA - Ref F19/397 Members noted that by R5/19 the Education Committee had resolved to endorse the paper titled Micro-credentialing and Professional Development at UWA, a copy of which was attached to the agenda, and forward it to the Academic Board for wider consultation and discussion.

Members noted that the paper explored the use of micro-credentials as a means of recognising the attainment of smaller and more specific elements of learning relating to non-award professional development activities. This recognition could result in converting the micro-credentials into credits that might be oriented towards Cycle 2 recruitment.

The following points were noted in the ensuing discussion:

a) The proposed micro-credentialing program should be viewed not only as a revenue driveninitiative but also as a step towards improving the student experience.

b) The issue of micro-credentialing was noted to be on the agenda for the review of theAustralian Qualifications Framework, with a view to establishing levels of flexibility withinthe framework.

c) There would be opportunities for the establishment of external partnerships but it wasagreed that this should occur in a structured way.

d) There was a brief discussion on the mode of delivery of micro-credential programs and theextent to which the branding of UWA degrees could be affected by micro-credentialing.

e) The ways in which micro-credentialing would be operationalized, particularly with regard torecognition of prior learning was also discussed. It was clarified that students, who havebeen assessed to have met the comparable learning outcomes at an appropriate level,might be given advanced standing, rather than credit for completion of micro-credentialingtowards their postgraduate coursework award courses.

f) The appropriateness of focusing on Level 5 units for assigning professional developmentpoints was queried.

The Chair encouraged members to raise any further question directly with the Dean, Postgraduate Coursework Studies and advised members that a detailed proposal with recommendations would be presented at a future meeting of the Academic Board.

Date Sender (Name) Action Required Extract emailed to:

22/3/2019 Dr Kabilan Krishnasamy

For appropriate action: EO Education Ctee (Dr Kabilan Krishnasamy); Dean of Postgraduate Coursework Studies (Professor Graham Brown) For Information/Noting:

EO Education Ctee (Dr Kabilan Krishnasamy); Dean of Postgraduate Coursework Studies (Professor Graham Brown)

A1



University Policy on: Micro-credentials FILE REF : F19/2030

DOCUMENT STATUS

Draft Ready for Review X Final

DOCUMENT MODIFICATION HISTORY

Version Number

Primary Author(s) (name and position) Description of

Version Date

Completed Provided

To

0.1 Dr Kabilan Krishnasamy, Academic Secretary

Draft for feedback

10 July 2019 Dean, Postgraduate Coursework Studies 0.2 10 July Dean, Postgraduate Coursework Studies,

DVCE 0.3 24 July Dean, Postgraduate Coursework Studies,

For consideration

13 August Education Committee

For approval 18 September

Academic Board

Micro-credentials are short non-award courses that incorporate elements of student-centred, collaborative and interactive learning. It enables students to gain relevant skills that are needed in today’s workforce. Micro-credentials are generally offered in shorter or more flexible timespans and certify achievement in a specific area of study or professional development in a form that is shareable with peers, employers and educational providers.

This policy outlines the principles underpinning the University’s approach to the development, offering, quality assurance and granting of micro-credentials.

Definitions: In this policy and associated procedures, the University means The University of Western Australia a modules set refers to a sequence of modules within a unit the level of learning is determined by the amount of prior knowledge required to undertake the module/unit and the maturity of learning required to study the module/unit successfully the duration of learning in a standard six credit point unit is 150 hours of student workload, including contact hours, personal study, assessment and examination

Policy principles:

1. Micro-credentials are non-award programs that evidence achievement of:a) learning outcomes;b) standards;c) knowledge; andd) coherent set of skills and/or capabilities.

2. The University administers and offers two types of micro-credentials:a) Credit Bearing Micro-credentials (CBM): Micro-credentials offered as an optional component complementing

the curriculum within a unit may contribute towards the completion of the requirements of the unit and the course in its entirety. The unit offering the micro-credential is required to track student progress towards earning thecredential, assess student learning, and collect evidence of skill obtainment.

b) Advanced Standing Micro-credentials (ASM): Short courses offered by the University, other educationproviders, strategic partners and professional bodies are assessed to establish comparative academicstandards for recognition of prior learning and granting of advanced standing for the purpose of admissionand/or for credit towards a non-award or award qualification in accordance with the University Policy on: Credittransfer, advanced standing and recognition of prior learning (UP11/34). For the purpose of advanced standingmicro-credentials are recognised as prior formal learning.

3. Micro-credentials are stackable, leading to multiple micro-credentials. CBM and ASM must be comparable to astandard unit or a course, where relevant, with regard to:a) level of learning;b) duration of learning; andc) learning outcomes.

B1

http://www.governance.uwa.edu.au/procedures/policies/policies-and-procedures?method=document&id=UP11%2F34


4. Where micro-credentials are offered for credit (CBM) in a unit, they are configured as modules. The standard credit point value of a module may be two credit points or three credit points.

4.1. Micro-credentials offered for credit in a six credit points unit may be configured as either two three credit points modules set or three two credit points modules set or where approved units with multiples of six credit points may comprise the appropriate number of modules depending on the chosen credit point value of a module as referred to in 4.

4.2. A modules set referred to in 4.1: a) must include modules with learning outcomes and assessment mechanisms that are comparable to those of

the unit. These must be appropriately mapped and demonstrated; b) must be designed in a way that requires students to undertake the relevant modules sequentially to demonstrate

developmental progression, and to achieve the cumulative maximum credit point value of the unit within a teaching period;

c) may provide for flexibility to allow students to not undertake all modules within the set; d) is explicitly indicated in the approved unit outline; and e) is available to students other than to those already enrolled in the unit.

5. CBM must be approved by the University’s Academic Council or delegated authority (the University’s Curriculum Committee) and must meet relevant course development requirements established by the University’s Curriculum Committee. CBM are approved normally for a period of 2 years after which time re-approval is needed.

6. The Academic Quality and Standards Committee (AQSC) is responsible for managing and overseeing the quality assurance for establishing comparative academic standards for recognition of prior learning and granting of advanced standing for short courses offered by the University or third party providers. ASM are approved normally for a period of 2 years after which time re-approval is needed. The AQSC is required to provide an annual report to Academic Council on its oversight of the short courses and the granting of advanced standing.

7. A micro-credential may be granted following successful achievement of learning gained from a programme delivered by the University or assessment against pre-determined learning outcomes for people in a workplace seeking to have their knowledge and skills validated by the University.

8. The achievement of a micro-credential at the University is formally recognised.

9. An evaluation plan must be in place to ensure that a CBM undergoes an evaluation that uses student feedback at

least annually.

10. A proposal to establish a micro-credential with a third party should include any documentation that forms part of the third party’s quality assurance arrangements. Such proposals are to include whether the University or the third party are responsible for the following: a) student enrolment, academic integrity, student records and award of the credential. b) quality of the learning content, activities, resources and assessment tasks. c) the learning outcome, standards, criteria, evidence and assessment process. d) review and improvement in terms of student engagement and evaluation.

11. The certification of micro-credentials occurs in accordance with the University Policy on: Certification for non-award courses (UP11/41).

Related forms: (Link) Policy No:

Approving body or position: Academic Council

Date original policy approved:

Date this version of policy approved:

Date policy to be reviewed:

Date this version of procedures approved:

TRIM File No:

Contact position: Academic Secretary

Related Policies or legislation: University Policy on Assessment (UP15/5) University Policy on Credit Transfer, Advanced Standing and Recognition of Prior Learning (UP 11/34)

B2



http://www.governance.uwa.edu.au/procedures/policies/policies-and-procedures?method=document&id=UP15/5

http://www.governance.uwa.edu.au/procedures/policies/policies-and-procedures?policy=UP11%2F34

- 6 -

File Ref: F68748 The University of Western Australia

EXTRACT FROM MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE EDUCATION COMMITTEE HELD ON MONDAY 13 MAY 2019 IN THE SENATE ROOM

4. QUALITY ASSURANCE MONITORING FOR COURSEWORK COURSES – REF F19/1260Course quality assurance was noted to be a continuous process designed to: facilitate the provision of high quality curriculum and pedagogy that delivers recognised academic standards enhance strategic outcomes by providing timely identification of high performing and 'underperforming' courses facilitate strong links to the University's strategic planning, quality and review systems to support the University's

strategic objectives support the cyclical improvement and re-accreditation of courses through data-driven decision making ensure compliance with relevant requirements including the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold

Standards) 2015.

The Dean, Postgraduate Coursework Studies outlined the proposed approach to course quality assurance, through the Academic Standards and Quality Committee, which would comprise the following dimensions:

1. Development of a set of indicative metrics to evaluate major/course performance. These metrics would be‘exogenous’ in the sense that they do not seek to evaluate the ways in which courses are organised and taught, onlythe outcomes from those courses. The proposed measures and corresponding indicators were noted as follows:

a) Financial performance measure and net teaching margin indicator;b) Student load measure and average commencing EFTSL growth over past three yearsc) Student satisfaction measure and weighted average SURF; course level satisfaction indicators;d) Student performance measure and average completion rate over past three yearse) Student outcomes measure and percentage of recent graduates in full-time study or employment (average

over two years)

2. The metrics would be ‘traffic lighted’, with thresholds calibrated against the University strategic plan; ‘green’ wouldcorrespond to the average level required to achieve strategic goals.

3. Calculation of a composite performance measure based

4. Annual review of these performance measures. For courses that fell below established parameters, the relevantfaculty would be asked to produce an Action Plan for the course with measurable targeted improvements.

5. It is not expected that all courses could achieve green on all indicators; faculties might be asked to outline an ActionPlan that tolerates strategic support for courses that do not meet all indicators.

During discussion members asserted the following points:

a) The need to socialise the data and engage with relevant schools before requesting an action plan. Schools shouldbe given an opportunity to defend or be critical of the data. It was suggested that a remediation plan should be inplace in which schools should take ownership of the issues and be given an opportunity to comment on the databefore being asked to consider developing an action plan.

b) Small sized courses might be stereotyped to be low performing courses but the fact that the rationale for offeringthese courses in some instances might be supported by the University’s strategic directions should not be overlooked.

c) The overall messaging and optics relating to the presentation of the data should be handled with care. While memberswere generally supportive of the proposed mechanism to monitor course quality assurance it was asserted that therewas a need to ensure that this work was managed in a positive and constructive way.

d) Concerns were raised with regard to the use of a ‘traffic lighted’ approach and in particular the use of red and ambermight simply send a wrong message to schools and academics.

e) The role of the Office of the Strategy, Planning and Performance (SPP) in consolidating data, its efficiency,effectiveness and reliability of the data produced were discussed. Some concerns were expressed with regard to theoverall efficiency and reliability of the SPP in providing the required service.

f) There was a brief discussion relating to accreditation overload and ways in which associated workload could beminimised.

g) The need to understand the variables shaping performance of certain courses and subsequently, to be aware thatcertain indicators might not apply.

h) The presentation of student load data and growth targets identified on the web should be re-examined to ensurecorrelation and provide clarity.

RESOLVED – 11 to endorse in-principle the proposed approach to course quality assurance, including the proposed measures and indicators, subject to consideration of the above minuted feedback where relevant.

In so doing, members agreed with the proposition that a fully developed paper articulating the proposed approach to course quality assurance be circulated widely for consultation before it is presented for approval via the University committee system in due course.

C1

TO: THE EDUCATION COMMITTEE

For endorsement of the Policy Roadmap and endorsement that the WIL Strategy Working Group

move towards implementation and continuous improvement.

D1

Work Integrated Learning (WIL)

UWA’s WIL Policy Roadmap

Author(s) Professor Peter J. Dean, PVC (Education) Dr Mary Lynn De Silva (Educational Enhancement Unit)

Status Draft Review Final

DOCUMENT MODIFICATION HISTORY Version no.

Primary author(s) Description of version Date complete

Provided to

1.0 Dr Mary Lynn De Silva (EEU) Primary draft 24/07/2019 Professor Peter J. Dean, PVC (Education); and Associate Professor Sally Male

1.1 Dr Mary Lynn De Silva (EEU) Second draft 25/07/2019 WIL Strategy Working Group

DOCUMENT APPROVAL Approved by Signature Date

Peter J. Dean, PVC (Education)

COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE Please note that the information presented in Section I on of this paper on ‘Transforming Attitudes and

Business Processes to Shape Positive Industry Perceptions’ has been derived from the Go8 Reputation Report and is subject to confidentiality restrictions outlined in the Confidentiality Deed (Appendix A).

FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY

D2

Contents Rationale ................................................................................................................................................. 2

I. Background ..................................................................................................................................... 4

1. Transforming Attitudes and Business Processes to Shape Positive Industry Perceptions ......... 4

II. Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 6

1. WIL Definition .............................................................................................................................. 6

2. Guiding Principles for Work-Integrated Learning at UWA ......................................................... 6

3. Embedding WIL in the Curriculum ............................................................................................. 7

III. Towards an Integrated WIL Policy Model ................................................................................ 10

1. A Shared Responsibility Model ................................................................................................. 10

2. Staffing ...................................................................................................................................... 10

3. Resources and capacity-building ............................................................................................. 10

IV. Future Directions – A Policy Roadmap ..................................................................................... 10

D3

This report was prepared using data developed and collated by the WIL Strategy Working Group and the resolutions of its members for the period November 2018 to May 2019.

Members of the WIL Strategy Working Group

Pro Vice-Chancellor (Education) as Chair (Professor Peter J. Dean)

Associate Professor, Electrical, Electronic and Computer Engineering as Co-Chair (Associate Professor Sally Male)

Academic Coordinator, McCusker Centre for Citizenship (Dr Chantal Bourgault Du Coudray)

Associate Dean, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences (Dr Daniela Ulgiati)

Associate Dean, Teaching and Learning, Faculty of Arts, Business, Law and Education (Professor Phil Hancock)

Associate Director, Development, Development & Alumni Relations (Ms Fiona Allen)

Associate Director, Educational Enhancement Strategy (Ms Alyce-Maree Walpole)

Associate Director, Innovation, Innovation Quarter (Mr Rob Shannon)

Associate Director, Service and Engagement, Student Services (Mr Tim Martin)

Deputy Head, Education, School of Design (Ms Sophie Giles)

Director, Co-operative Education for Enterprise Development (CEED) (Dr Jeremy Leggoe)

Education Council President (Conrad Hogg)

Educational Researcher, Educational Enhancement Unit (Dr Melissa Cianfrini)

Executive Officer, Office of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education) (Ms Jo Faulkner)

Lecturer, School of Chemistry and Biochemistry (Dr Dino Spagnoli)

Manager, Careers (Ms Diane McLaren)

Executive Officer, Educational Enhancement Unit (Dr Mary Lynn De Silva)

D4

Rationale

The University of Western Australia (UWA) does not currently have a policy framework to support an integrated approach to work integrated learning at the University.

The WIL Policy Roadmap is poised to assist University staff in building and strengthening capacity for implementing a WIL Policy at UWA

Since November 2018, the WIL Strategy Working Group has engaged in a ‘whole-of-university’ approach towards developing a WIL Policy Roadmap.

Having regard to the strategic pillars of the National WIL Strategy, UWA’s WIL Policy Roadmap is geared to:

1. Assure the provision of cascading leadership to expand Work Integrated Learning (WIL) at UWA.

2. Clarify government policy and regulatory settings to enable and support growth in WIL.

3. Build support among students, University staff, and employers across all sectors to increase participation in WIL.

4. Ensure the investment in WIL is well-targeted and enables sustainable, high quality experiences, equitable stakeholder participation and growth.

5. Develop University resources, processes and systems to grow WIL and engage business and community partners.

6. Build capacity for increasing numbers of employers to participate in WIL. 7. Address equity and access issues to enable all students to participate in WIL. 8. Increase WIL opportunities for international and domestic students to study

off-shore.

The WIL Policy Roadmap endorses the development and implementation of quality assurance processes and procedures for WIL programs, including evaluations by students and employers. The goal is to help UWA academic and professional staff implement consistent policy guidelines around WIL and to improve the enforcement of policy measures to the highest standards.

D5

I. Background

For UWA, with its decades-long partnerships with employers developing the professional and critical skills of students, the expansion of WIL in all majors offered by the University ensures that the currency and relevance of the education provided is timely and in-demand. Both nationally and at the state level, the higher education sector has never faced greater pressure to provide students with competitive advantage than it does at present. Equally, the options available to students and the potential to seek out an education that meets their particular interests and ambitions have never been greater. Higher education is now characterized by people seeking knowledge and skillsets that are complex and adaptable, and will enable them to excel in a rapidly changing and dynamic environment. Meeting those demands requires that the University nurture strong, quality partnerships with industry of which WIL is a central part.

1. Transforming Attitudes and Business Processes to Shape Positive Industry Perceptions

In 2018, RepTrak was commissioned to produce the Go8 Reputation Report, which ranks UWA’s reputation amongst industry partners, measured against twenty-one of the largest Universities in Australia including the Group of Eight. Members of the Australian business community were surveyed using a mix of online and telephone methods. The research findings revealed that all Group of Eight universities have excellent reputations, with a RepTrak Pulse score above 80.0. Using this index, UWA’s reputation is ‘excellent’ (82.2) and on par with most other Group of Eight universities but trails both Monash (85.0) and University of Melbourne (87.1). UWA has a significantly stronger reputation than the other WA universities, Curtin University (78.4) and Edith Cowan University (72.9). Businesses, however, are less familiar UWA compared to other Group of Eight universities (34%). Businesses who rated UWA positively were generally those that regard the University’s primary role as supporting global economic development or undertaking research to solve major challenges. By contrast, the University was rated less positively in relation to its partnerships with industry. Figure 1 shows that although 62% agree that the University works closely with industry, only 48% agree that UWA is easy to work with.

Figure 1. Industry Perceptions of UWA

Table 1 below presents the qualitative feedback received from businesses, which identifies key areas for improvement in the University’s current WIL strategy. In developing and implementing UWA’s WIL Policy, the incorporation of strategies to improve attitudes, eliminate bias, enhance reciprocity in relationship-building, streamline business processes to improve efficiencies and create a sense of ownership amongst staff in terms of managing relationships with internal and external stakeholders, will prove essential to the development and implementation of a successful WIL policy at UWA.

6862

5957

5352

4948

912

1014

1114

1615

77

89

13713

6

1619

232023

2623

31

Is a respected authority on state issues

Works closely with industry

Contributes to the commercialisation of technology

Is a respected authority on National issues

Fosters entrepreneurism

Is a respected authority on Asia Pacific issues

Is a respected authority on Global issues

Is easy to work with

UWA…

Positive (5-7)

Neutral (4)

Negative (1-3)

Not sure

D6

Table 1. Roadblocks to Positive and Effective Industry Partnerships

Impediment Qualitative Feedback Arrogant attitudes

“They are arrogant and not very responsive to employment issues, especially around areas such as part time study for professionals in the workforce”

“I find some of the staff arrogant and self-serving” “Some professors are rude”

Biased “Too many sections are biased and follow the latest trends, not the old debate listen-and-learn types of old”

“This is a closed shop. Their tenders appear to be a waste of time with the preferred supplier identified well in advance of going through the mandatory process of advertising for candidates”

Lacking in reciprocity

“It takes a long time to get commitment and anything that is done with them is viewed as only being of benefit to themselves and not to others. It's a one-way street”

Inefficient “No experience working with them but have heard through others their experience has been less than desirable - too slow”

“It is difficult to find the right person to deal with” “Not always free and act on issues due to bureaucracy” “I have worked with them. They are incredibly slow and uncommercial”

Overly bureaucratic

“Engaging the market with smaller, more agile players aren’t a priority to the university”

“My experience is that UWA is quite bureaucratic and slow-moving” “Their accounting area are very slow payers and pedantic about paperwork” “Overly bureaucratic, slow and not empathetic e.g. size of senate; poor

leadership at the most senior levels in connection with industry; insular and disconnected, complacent and not hungry or ambitious”

“HR is very difficult to work with. The bureaucratic red tape is difficult” “I haven't worked with them which isn't a good sign. If they were easier to

work with I think at least one of the organizations I have worked for would've worked with them”

Lack of staff commitment

“Staff are disinterested and lack enthusiasm” “I have had issues with even getting call backs from technical staff”

Poor administration

“Administration is very poor, workforce administration is particularly slow and cumbersome, no clear organizational chain of command for administrative problems”

“Organizational barriers; Attitudes to IP; (In-)ability to execute”

In summary, while UWA has a strong reputation among the Australian business community, the stronger results for some of the other Group of Eight universities suggests the partnerships built and nurtured through WIL could significantly contribute towards generating positive perceptions of the University as being easy to work with. This, in turn, is likely to increase current levels of trust, admiration and respect amongst industry and members of the business community. In order to achieve this, improvements in communication, a sense of ownership, and enhancements in the business processes associated with WIL at the University are required. The Employability Discussion Paper, to be released in September 2019, will build upon these elements alongside a discussion of other pedagogical and environmental factors that influence the development of WIL policy.

D7

II. Recommendations

1. WIL Definition The WIL Strategy Working Group has endorsed the following definition of ‘work-integrated learning’ at the University:

WIL is an educational experience that enables students to learn through industry-engaged authentic and reflective activities that are intentional and recognised by the University in order to achieve learning outcomes that are both transferrable and applied.

2. Guiding Principles for Work-Integrated Learning at UWA The WIL Policy Roadmap identifies that a WIL Policy at UWA would necessarily require that all degrees (undergraduate, master and graduate diploma) offer a WIL Placement Opportunity (although students may not be guaranteed a placement) and where possible this be extended to graduate certificates. Additionally, all programs will embed WIL in the curriculum. In relation to the latter, the WIL Strategy Working Group recommends that this increases from 67% of all degrees in 2019 (as per the Universities Australia audit) to 100% of degrees offered at UWA by 2021-2022. 2.1 Align Curriculum with UWA’s WIL Definition Review curriculum and map learning outcomes based on the definition of WIL endorsed by the WIL Strategy Group (and informed by data collection from Universities Australia).

2.2 Align with UWA’s Graduate Attributes Policy should include specific learning outcomes and links to assessment, derived from the UWA Graduate Attributes and mapped to individual degrees, majors/specializations and units.

2.3 Align UWA’s WIL Policy with the TEQSA Guidance Note on WIL The relevant aspects of the Higher Education Standards framework outlined in the TEQSA Guidance Note on WIL that pertain to WIL policy development at UWA include:

Quality assurance of work-integrated learning delivered through third parties in Section 5.4 (at Standard 5.4.1).

Learning Outcomes and Assessment (Section 1.4), including, for example, learning outcomes for employment (e.g. Standards 1.4.2c & d). The Standards on Course Design (Section 3.1) is relevant insofar as workplace learning is adopted and integrated as part of a course of study.

Standards on Staffing (Section 3.2) in relation to supervision of students in the workplace. The Standards on Learning Resources and Educational Support (Section 3.3) may equally be applicable, as may those concerned with Credit and Recognition of Prior Learning (Section 1.2) where previous WIL may lead to credit for prior learning.

The wellbeing and safety of students (see Section 2.3) and the provider’s course approval and monitoring processes (Sections 5.1 and 5.3) would be expected to consider WIL.

2.4 Integrate WIL into Students’ Broader Career Development

Integrate WIL into broader learning experiences directed towards career development learning and work readiness. Policy developers should ensure that the learning arising from contributions acquired through WIL internships/experience is granted appropriate credit and

D8

captured in non-credit bearing awards and recognition related to employability and that policy is developed with input from both students and industry WIL partners. 2.5 Foster WIL within International Exchange Programs To develop and promote student mobility opportunities and associated WIL experiences, (both onshore and offshore) that are recognized by the University and relevant government agencies, accreditation bodies and professional associations to ensure that these experiences are embedded in course curricula and accredited where possible. 2.6 Provide Opportunities for Growth as Global Leaders The University should explore more opportunities for UWA students to develop and grow as global leaders. Initiatives such as the Global Leadership Certificate (GLC) offered at Macquarie University provide a useful benchmark. The aim of the GLC initiative is to provide an opportunity for students to develop work-integrated leadership skills while embarking on study abroad or student exchange programs. Through a Global Leadership program developed in relation to WIL at UWA, students would be able to:

Develop and apply skills in cross-cultural negotiation through a diverse range of activities;

Expand professional networks with leaders from across the University and beyond; Broaden their knowledge global issues and wicked problems; and Gain practical experience in developing innovative solutions to current global

challenges.

3. Embedding WIL in the Curriculum The WIL Strategy Working Group recognizes the criticality of embedding WIL in every major sequence at UWA. At the program, major and unit levels, the incorporation of WIL experiences must be designed and delivered with appropriate attention paid to:

The specific context of the discipline/professional area; The appropriate positioning of WIL experience(s) within the overall program/course

curriculum design and sequencing of units/subjects; and Defining the necessary duration of WIL experiences to enable the learning objectives

to be met.

3.1 Learning Outcomes and Assessment At the program/course level, there is an academically sound approach to assessing student learning outcomes with:

Identification of defined learning objectives that are codifiable, schematizable, observable and outcomes which require more subjective assessment regimes;

(for WIL placements) Assessment protocols developed in collaboration with the employer that reflect defined learning objectives;

An appropriate compromise being negotiated between employer needs (e.g. for brevity), university needs (e.g. for assuring quality learning) and student needs (e.g. for career development).

3.2 Preparation for WIL

Ensure that all stakeholders are appropriately prepared to ensure the effectiveness of the WIL experience. This includes:

Identifying the competencies and knowledge students require before undertaking the WIL experience and embedding appropriate preparation in the curriculum;

D9

Aligning expectations of all stakeholders through discussion and negotiation of contracts/agreements, including the kinds of guidance available in the WIL experience;

Using assessment outcomes and stakeholder feedback to evaluate students’ experiences, inform curriculum change and improve WIL practices; and

Establishing procedures to identify when students may not be appropriately prepared for undertaking a WIL experience.

3.3 Seven Intra-Curricular Typologies: Towards a Taxonomy of WIL Activities The WIL Strategy Working Group developed a framework for a taxonomy of WIL activities. Based on the intersections between UWA academics and their work practices, the team identified seven intra-curricular typologies for delivering WIL in Cycle 1 and Cycle 2 units and courses of study. These are listed in Table 2 below. Table 2. Seven Intra-Curricular Typologies for WIL Activities

Typology Description 1. Entrepreneurial

WIL Activities where students develop their own enterprise to address a particular community or business need (or gap).

2. Field Experience

Students experience an environment where they observe and/or participate in the application of theoretical knowledge and skills in a professional setting, under the supervision of an expert or professional in the field. Examples include study tours, observation, shadowing, fieldwork, industry tours.

3. Internship, Clinical or Professional Placement

Work done in an actual workplace in which the student applies discipline-specific knowledge and skills, supervised by an industry professional.

4. Online Project or Virtual WIL

Work done in a remote or online location – students undertake an activity in collaboration or consultation with an industry partner but do not spend any time or only a very small amount of time (e.g. 1-2 short visits) in an actual workplace.

5. Project Students undertake an activity in collaboration or consultation with an industry partner but do not spend any time or only a very small amount of time (e.g. 1-2 short visits) in an actual workplace.

6. Service Learning Activities

Students undertake work in an off-campus or virtual environment which is focused on the student applying non-technical skills to meet a community need, supervised by an industry or community-based professional.

7. Simulated Work Environment

Students are provided with opportunities to use equipment or practice that is standard in industry.

(Developed by Dr Denise Jackson, Edith Cowan University)

The seven intra-curricular typologies are to inform the development of a taxonomy of WIL activities that may be embedded at the unit-level across the curriculum in all schools within ABLE, HMS, Science and Engineering faculties. 3.4 Developing Resources for Intercultural Agility and Cultural Awareness Training

The WIL Strategy Working Group identified strategies for the implementation of intercultural agility and awareness training for UWA students undertaking WIL placements. The key requirements of an interculturally agile WIL Policy at UWA are identified in Table 3 below.

D10

Table 3. A Policy Framework for Building an Inclusive WIL Policy

Mandate Policy Specification Indigenous Studies Essentials

To require completion of Indigenous Studies Essentials (ISE) by all postgraduate students who have not previously completed the unit. (Or, at the very least, require postgraduate students undertaking WIL to complete ISE).

To assemble a team to refresh ISE, ideally along the lines of CARS, which has been recently updated to make use of the more interactive possibilities offered by Articulate Storyline software. The team should consist of subject experts identified by SIS (noting that existing SIS staff may have limited capacity to contribute, so a SIS-identified project officer may be required); two learning designers; 2 educational technologists; and a member of the WIL strategy group.

To develop a unique online module for international students; this could be a separate module created by the ISE refresh team or a specific pathway in ISE.

To develop online Aboriginal cultural awareness training for the workplace; this could be a separate module created by the ISE refresh team or a specific pathway in ISE.

To promote gender inclusivity within course materials, the curriculum and the pedagogical approaches to teaching.

Unconscious Bias Awareness Training

Obtain an institutional license for the new SBS Cultural Competence Program: https://cultural-competence.com.au/home The Careers Centre has already purchased 200 individual licenses. An institutional license for all staff and students would cost roughly $1 per head (discounted by about 1/3 for a license of three years) but SBS can also work with us to deliver more targeted modules to smaller numbers.

Develop Indigenous Cultural Awareness Training for UWA staff facilitating WIL partnerships. Curtin University has developed an Introduction to Indigenous Culture for staff, which includes training in working with Aboriginal people culminating in attendance at a bush university on country in Albany (Mr Mortigou Labunda of the Educational Enhancement Unit has helped to develop the Curtin University modules).

Development of Intercultural Agility with Internal and External Stakeholders

Create a reference group of key partners who can advise on strategies that UWA can adopt to support an interculturally agile WIL placement process. (The McCusker Centre for Citizenship already has a handbook for partner organizations that could be used as a template, but other approaches could also be explored.)

Develop HR processes for recruiting WIL officers at UWA that foreground the importance of intercultural competence and a commitment to diversity and inclusion

Provide intercultural agility and unconscious bias training for UWA staff facilitating WIL partnerships.

D11

III. Towards an Integrated WIL Policy Model

1. A Shared Responsibility Model In 2018, The Office of the Pro Vice-Chancellor commissioned the NOUS Group, a leading management consulting firm, to undertake a strategic analysis of the current resource model at UWA that supports WIL, and to recommend an implementation model that is capable of supporting the progressive growth of WIL at UWA. NOUS recommended that UWA adopt a shared responsibility model with academics retaining primary oversight of the WIL placement units, supported by a centralized WIL team.

Findings from peer universities indicate that adopting a centralized-responsibility model can cause friction with the faculties and lead some WIL academics to feel a loss of ownership. To mitigate friction with faculties and prevent the deterioration of relationships with WIL academics, a centralized WIL team must strategically invest in maintaining and building positive relationships with the faculties.

The final placements process at UWA should see WIL academics retain control of the WIL placement units, supported by the centralized WIL team, where throughout pre-placement and placement activities, the WIL placements team and WIL academics share responsibility for preparing students for, and supporting students during their placements.

NOUS argues that a centralized placements’ team focused on both internal and external engagement is critical to the success of an integrated WIL policy at UWA.

For further information on the findings of the NOUS Group, please refer to Appendix B.

2. Staffing In terms of staffing, the following may be noted in policy development:

Academic workload policies recognize workload demands associated with the enactment and management of WIL programs.

Academic promotions policies recognize leadership and/or contributions to the development and implementation of WIL programs.

General staff policies recognize the professional capabilities required to manage WIL programs.

3. Resources and Capacity-Building In relation to resources and capacity-building within the University, the following may be noted in policy development:

Resourcing policies recognize and allocate appropriate resources to support the WIL function at university and faculty levels.

The University has begun to implement strategies to support institutional capacity-building in relation to WIL. These include, for example:

i. Promoting and supporting research and scholarship in WIL and related areas to inform WIL policy and practice

ii. Establishing university-wide steering mechanisms to provide leadership in the development of WIL

iii. Establishing mechanisms for sharing and promoting good practice across the diversity of WIL delivery models.

D12

IV. Future Directions – A Policy Roadmap

The development of UWA’s approach to WIL would necessitate the incorporation of key performance indicators (KPIs). These have been derived from the National WIL Strategy on ‘Work Integrated Learning in University Education’, which was designed to increase opportunities to participate in WIL, recognising the benefits to students, employers, universities and the economy. The KPIs outline milestones that have been achieved by the WIL Strategy Working Group and other key stakeholders at the University, as well as indicate future milestones to be achieved by the Employability Steering Committee, which will oversee the full development and implementation of WIL Policy at UWA. The WIL Strategy Working Group recommends that the University reviews policy on courses, particularly in relation to Experiential Learning to align with the roadmap, typology and WIL definition. Table 4. Strategic Pillars of UWA’s WIL Policy and Key Performance Indicators

Strategic Pillar Key Performance Indicators Status Policy Developers:

1. Assure the provision of cascading leadership to expand Work Integrated Learning (WIL) at UWA.

1.1 All sectors of the University engage collaboratively in driving an expansion in WIL opportunities.

1.1.1 UWA’s WIL advocates/teams build support for WIL around shared, complementary objectives and interests, engage their membership, identify issues requiring attention and seek resolution.

Ongoing WIL Strategy Working Group

1.1.2 The University agrees on a common language and interpretation of WIL (what it is and is not) which is readily understood by all participants. Proposed

WIL Strategy Working Group

1.2 Mechanisms are in place to enable collaboration, implement the Strategy and strengthen the partnership.

1.2.1 WIL advocates/teams develop and report on progress in implementing the WIL Policy, and to jointly promote the Strategy.

1.2.2 WIL advocates/teams ensure the work agenda is informed and supported by their executive and relevant advisory bodies and that other key stakeholders are engaged actively in the agenda.

1.3 Support of University leadership, faculty and professional staff is secured.

D13

http://cdn1.acen.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/National-WIL-Strategy-in-university-education-032015.pdf

1.3.1 WIL advocates from across university sectors are identified.

1.3.2 A high level roundtable of business, employer, university and relevant Commonwealth government portfolios is convened to identify and develop a coordinated cross-portfolio approach to progress UWA’s WIL Policy.

1.3.3 Developments in UWA’s WIL Policy complement other government policy and investment priorities - including in Higher Education policy; the Industry Innovation and Competitiveness Agenda; the Reform of the Federation White Paper process; VET reform; implications of Free Trade Agreements (FTAs); proposed re-vitalisation of a national Careers Development Strategy; the review of immigration and visa programmes; state and territory policies and programmes where appropriate.

1.3.4 The extent and satisfaction of student and employer participants in WIL is monitored and measured, noting the need to: o agree a common language and interpretation of WIL o complement the Quality Indicators in Learning and Teaching (QILT) initiative and related surveys

on satisfaction and outcomes and o contain the associated reporting cost and burden.

1.4 A UWA profile of current WIL activity has been established to inform next steps and future growth opportunities.

1.4.1 A work program is established to systematically collect data and establish a baseline of the spread and extent of WIL activity undertaken, student participation and demand as part of a university course in Australia:

Achieved EEU (Strategy)

1.4.2 Existing research and information is utilized. Achieved EEU (Strategy)

1.4.3 Existing mechanisms and opportunities to collect additional information required to establish the baseline profile are identified. Ongoing

EEU (Strategy)

2. Clarify government policy and

2.1 UWA’s WIL Policy is aligned with government policy and regulation to support growth in WIL.

D14

regulatory settings to enable and support growth in WIL.

2.1.1 Information about the workplace relations status of WIL participants is accurate, clear and readily available to facilitate appropriate placements (continuing work with the Fair Work Ombudsman to clarify distinctions between vocational work-based placements and unpaid work).

2.1.2 Policy addresses areas of potential confusion and emerging issues regarding workplace relations and workplace-based WIL – including employment status and obligations; workplace health and safety; workplace insurance and liability; and issues related to sensitive personal/commercial/other material.

2.2 Reliable information is available to students and employers to support the integrity of interactions involving third party providers arranging internships.

2.2.1 The University develops and appropriately disseminates resources, including guidelines on the efficacy, risks and benefits, role and operation associated with third party providers to students and relevant stakeholders.

3. Build support among students, University staff, employers across all sectors to increase participation in WIL.

3.1 Clear, concise and accessible information about WIL is readily available.

3.1.1 The University develops tailored information resources about the following for University staff and students: o What WIL is – including examples illustrating the breadth of discipline, settings and approaches

employed. o Roles, responsibilities and expected outcomes for i) employers ii) students and iii) universities

participating in WIL and what each can expect in terms of the parties engaged. o For academic staff: how to embed WIL in the curriculum in Cycle 1 and Cycle 2 courses; and for

students: how to proactively create and seize WIL opportunities.

3.2 The benefits of WIL are promoted amongst all stakeholders.

3.2.1 The value proposition of WIL is articulated for each key WIL target audience (e.g. The practical benefits for employers – such as completion of short term projects, workforce planning and recruitment, industry promotion: For students – the practical application of learning, development of employability skills and cultural awareness, industry connections etc.).

3.2.2 A University-wide communication and engagement strategy is developed – including examples of WIL; who benefits and how; case studies; how to get involved.

D15

3.2.3 Tailored strategies are developed in priority areas – for example: o Promoting STEM, working through the Industry Working Group established by the Office of the

Chief Scientist; o SME participation in WIL; o Particular student cohorts e.g. Indigenous students, students with caring responsibilities, students

with disability and also mature age students who may have already completed adequate relevant work experience;

o Rural / regional; and o Specific industry/sector participation – such as agribusiness, high end manufacturing, information

and communications technology (ICT), financial services, etc.

3.3 The capacity of students and employers to prepare for and engage in WIL is improved upon.

3.3.1 Good practice guidelines are established, including pre-participation expectation and outcome guides, support materials, processes and sample templates to support effective WIL practice (noting relevant work is currently being supported by the Commonwealth Office of Learning and Teaching).

3.3.2 Specific learning objectives of the WIL experience are specified and established, including the assessment of transferrable skills, as part of the experience and are understood and agreed by all parties involved prior to commencement (e.g. interpersonal skills, team work, organisational skills, understanding the workplace environment).

3.3.3 A framework to assist in facilitating partnerships between universities and employers that optimises students’ employability skills is established.

3.4 Cutting-edge research is actively incorporated to improve the quality of WIL experiences and the levels of participation in WIL.

3.4.1 The extensive research and knowledge available on WIL is promulgated on an ongoing basis.

3.4.2 A coordinated, prioritised WIL research agenda is developed across UWA, with an immediate emphasis on expanding and broadening WIL.

3.4.3 Available research and practice is harnessed to develop pilots and effective implementation.

D16

3.4.4 The effects of WIL participation on student and graduate motivational and attitudinal change and resilience effects are researched and documented.

4. Ensure the investment in WIL is well-targeted and enables sustainable, high quality experiences, equitable stakeholder participation and growth.

4.1 The costs and benefits (including return on investment) of WIL are identified for all stakeholders are in accordance with a sustainable resourcing / investment system.

4.1.1 A comprehensive assessment of the value of WIL is undertaken, particularly in terms of student outcomes; employer benefits; employer/university engagement; professional and workforce development; and the economy; and considering: o An assessment of existing financial and other support mechanisms, and their effectiveness; o Employer/ business incentive structures; o WIL resourcing arrangements in universities; o Student support programs; o Best practice, innovative approaches that ameliorate the costs of WIL; and o Opportunities to develop and promote sustainable resourcing systems.

4.1.2 Coherent policy and investment structures that effectively support WIL activities and partnership are advocated and developed.

5. Develop University resources, processes and systems to grow WIL and engage business and community partners.

5.1 WIL capacity and practice at the University is strengthened.

5.1.1 A WIL leadership and guidance framework is developed to assist University sectors/faculties to develop and tailor WIL activity – including aspects such as policy and resourcing, culture, external engagement, pedagogy, curriculum development, WIL logistics, implementation, assessment, evaluation and quality assurance, staff capability and practitioner professional development.

5.1.2 Examples of best and innovative university support for WIL practice and engagement are identified and profiled: o To resource and embed WIL as a core function/priority in university operations; and o To facilitate engagement of academic staff in WIL activities, through performance agreements,

incentive structures or other mechanisms.

5.1.3 Examples of effective reward and recognition frameworks that include and promote work integrated learning are identified and profiled.

5.2 Employer engagement is promoted along with the provision of improved access and support.

D17

5.2.1 The resource implications associated with effective industry engagement and implementation of quality, sustainable WIL, are identified.

5.2.2 University access and response processes and strategies are reviewed to enable external parties to better identify, navigate and contact appropriate staff – considering coordination, referral and brokerage approaches and options; arrangements within universities, across relevant discipline areas nationally; and the university sector as a whole.

5.2.3 Existing on-line resources are reviewed to improve usability, currency and comprehensiveness of information, including resourcing requirements.

5.2.4 The use and potential of third party intermediaries and brokerage organisations are reviewed and reported, including charging, quality assurance and regulatory arrangements.

5.3 Accredited WIL content in course curricula is increased.

5.3.1 A range of WIL activities undertaken as unit(s) of a university course are reviewed to: o Assess the relevance to curricula requirements (including authenticity, integration of theory and

practice, alignment with learning outcomes and assessment); o Identify whether the activity is mandatory or optional; and o Identify whether the activity is a) formally assessed and b) for credit.

5.3.2 The University works with stakeholders to promote incorporation of appropriate WIL experience into accredited course curricula.

5.3.3 Good practice approaches and examples of industry and community input to curricula development are identified. This involves: o A review of course curricula development processes and practices; o Identification of issues that promote or impede assessment of WIL as ‘for credit’ in curricula; and o Key stakeholders, including senior university academic leaders, academic boards, TEQSA,

professional accreditation and employer/industry bodies, graduates and students, in the process.

5.4 University collaboration around WIL is strengthened.

5.4.1 Mechanisms to enhance university collaboration around resource development for WIL are identified and promoted.

D18

5.5 Capacity is strengthened through increased professional development available to the sector.

5.5.1 Mechanisms to increase professional development and access to development opportunities for WIL practitioners, and academic staff are identified and promoted.

6. Build capacity for more employers to participate in WIL at UWA

6.1 Employer participation in WIL is increased.

6.1.1 WIL communications and resources developed are tailored for employer audiences, including clear expectations and support resources/arrangements for work-based supervisors - such as a ‘handbook’ including examples of successful models, guidelines, check-lists, templates, pre-placement/project agreements and sign off arrangements, reliable university contact/support mechanisms, feedback mechanisms.

6.1.2 Examples of WIL best practice are developed and made available, including innovative and diverse approaches including university based business-identified projects and on-line and virtual WIL options.

6.1.3 The University collaborates with employers to develop options to: o ease administrative loads associated with establishing WIL placements (such as facilitating

streamlined student and employer matching); o investigate options to better align placement (or project) scheduling and duration to optimise

participation opportunities and learning value for the student; minimise workplace disruption/optimise employer benefit; and

o facilitate the input of employers into placement design.

6.2 The University’s engagement with Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) participating in WIL is increased.

6.2.1 The University develops tailored information and resources for enhancing engagement (e.g. university-based projects, tied to enterprise need, multi-enterprise and/or multi-discipline projects and virtual/on-line options).

6.3 WIL is developed in specific and priority sectors.

6.3.1 The University develops and trials pilots in priority industries/sectors to accelerate WIL growth in: o Enterprises in the five key sectors identified for Industry Growth Centres under the Government’s

Industry, Innovation and Competitiveness Agenda (specifically targeting food and agribusiness; mining equipment, technology and services; oil, gas and energy resources; medical technologies

D19

and pharmaceuticals; and advanced manufacturing) – noting the Industry Growth Centres are charged with setting strategies and delivering outcomes, including enhancing workforce skills, and have a goal of forging links between industry and Australian research; and

o Areas of prolonged and/or anticipated major skills shortage or mismatch – such as Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths (STEM) subjects (e.g. physical sciences); Information and communications technology; Financial and Insurance services.

6.3.2 The University works with relevant industry bodies to develop specific discipline, context and host support material.

6.3.3 The University investigates and promotes entrepreneurship and innovation skills development through based WIL, such as: o pilots that bring entrepreneurs, start-ups and innovative SMEs together with universities, enabling

them to access cross-discipline capacity and to direct WIL activity to meet a specific business need.

6.4 The University builds and tracks employer engagement.

6.4.1 The University incorporates employer participation trends in data collection, research and evaluation strategies – noting it is part of a broader data collection strategy and contains reporting burden (Refer action 1.4).

7 Address equity and access issues to enable all students to participate in WIL.

7.1 The University improves access and equity for students to take-up WIL opportunities.

7.1.1 The University develops and disseminates principles, guidelines and implementation strategies to increase access and participation in WIL – with particular reference to addressing: o the extra costs for students (e.g. housing and transport expenses and foregone earnings) often

associated with participation (particularly placements); and o assistance in managing caring responsibilities, health or other personal needs; and considering

factors such as location, re-location, age, visa requirements for students, caring responsibilities etc.

8. Increase WIL opportunities for international students and for

8.1 The University increases opportunities for international students to participate in WIL.

8.1.1 The University develops and disseminates principles, guidelines and implementation strategies to increase access and participation in WIL for international students.

D20

domestic students to study off-shore.

8.1.2 The University encourages employer preparedness to accept international students, by: o Raising awareness among employers of the benefits of, support for and positive models of

engaging international students in WIL (projects and placements); and o Work with government agencies to ensure coherent and clear information is readily available for

employers and others about the status of international students regarding placements, post-study work rights, visas, and the reciprocal objectives and benefits of government programmes to promote student mobility and employability.

8.1.3 The University works with ACEN and other key stakeholders to review the role and operation of third party providers to developing guidelines for universities with students paying to intern overseas.

8.2 The University improves the capacity for international students to participate in WIL opportunities.

8.2.1 The University develops resources to increase the preparedness of international students to participate in WIL, including: o Preparing students for the specific workplace and cultural aspects of the host or partner industry

and employer; o Tailoring support and contact details for employer supervisors and contacts, including

language/translation supports if required; o Assessing language proficiency and mechanisms to address these – e.g. Intensive language units;

engaging in group or team based WIL where members can facilitate effective communication; o Develop additional tailored student supports; and o Examine possible incentives for employers to take on international students.

8.3 The University supports access to credit bearing off-shore placements for Australian students.

8.3.1 The University works with government agencies, relevant accreditation bodies and professional associations to ensure off-shore experiences are embedded in course curricula and accredited where possible.

D21

APPENDIX A

D22

D23

D24

D25

D26

D27

D28

D29

D30

6 of 9 20-Dec-18

181045 - For Review - Go8 RI Data Access Licence 5.6.18ms

DATA ACCESS AND USE DEED EXECUTION PAGE

EXECUTED AS A DEED

Signed for and on behalf of Australian National University by an authorised officer in the presence of: Signature of witness Signature of authorised officer PROFESSOR MICHAEL CARDEW-HALL Name of witness Printed name of authorised officer Date

Signed for and on behalf of The University of Sydney in the presence of: Signature of witness Signature of authorised officer Name of witness Printed name of authorised officer Date

Signed for and on behalf of The University of Melbourne in the presence of: Signature of witness Signature of authorised officer Name of witness Printed name of authorised officer Date

D31

7 of 9 20-Dec-18


Signed for and on behalf of The University of New South Wales in the presence of: Signature of witness Signature of authorised officer Name of witness Printed name of authorised officer Date

Signed for and on behalf of Monash University in the presence of: Signature of witness Signature of authorised officer Name of witness Printed name of authorised officer Date

Signed for and on behalf of The University of Adelaide in the presence of: Signature of witness Signature of authorised officer Name of witness Printed name of authorised officer Date

Signed for and on behalf of The University of Western Australia in the presence of: Signature of witness Signature of authorised officer Name of witness Printed name of authorised officer Date

D32

8 of 9 20-Dec-18


Signed for and on behalf of The University of Queensland in the presence of: Signature of witness Signature of authorised officer MR RONGYU LI Name of witness Printed name of authorised officer Date

D33

9 of 9 20-Dec-18


PART B: TERMS AND CONDITIONS

1 DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATION

Definitions

1.1 In this document:

(a) Deed means this document including the Details at Part A and all schedules and attachments to it;

(b) Details means the details of this Deed set out in Part A;

(c) Authorised Purpose means the purpose stated in Item 8 of the Deed Details for the Use of the Data;

(d) Authorised User means;

(i) each individual specified in Item 7 of the Details or as altered by notice given in accordance with clause 12; and

(ii) such employees, contractors, officers or advisors of a Party who are subject to an express or implied duty of confidentiality.

(e) Business Day means any day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday in the Australian Capital Territory, Australia.

(f) Commencement Date means the date on which the last Party signs this Deed;

(g) Commercial Exploitation means in respect of the Data, Metadata or Data Outputs:

(i) (excluding for research purposes) in relation to a product derived from the Data, Metadata or Data Output – make, hire, sell or otherwise dispose of the product, offer to make, sell, hire or otherwise dispose of it, use or import it, or keep it for the purpose of doing any of those things;

(ii) (excluding for research purposes) in relation to a method or process derived from the Data, Metadata or

Data Output – use the method or process or do anything mentioned in clause 1.1(g)(i) in respect of a product resulting from such use;

(iii) (excluding for research and education purposes) in relation to a copyright work derived from the Data, Metadata or Data Output – reproduce, adapt, modify and communicate or broadcast the copyright work to the public for a commercial purpose; and

(iv) to perform research service activities for a fee using the Data, Metadata or Data Outputs;

(v) to transfer or assign the rights or to licence or sublicence a third party to do any of the above,

and Commercially Exploit has a corresponding meaning;

(h) Confidential Information means all information disclosed by a Party (Discloser) to the other Party (Recipient) before or after the date of this Deed for the purposes of this Deed that:

(i) is by its nature confidential;

(ii) is designated by the Discloser as confidential;

(iii) the Recipient knows or ought to know is confidential;

(iv) the Data; and

(v) is included in the terms of this Deed,

but does not include information that:

(vi) is or becomes public knowledge other than by breach of this Deed or any other confidentiality obligations;

D34

10 of 8 20-Dec-18


(vii) has been independently developed or acquired by the Recipient, as established by written records;

(viii) is disclosed as required by law including where it is required to be disclosed (in confidence) for assessment and permit purposes under the Trade Control Laws;

(ix) is disclosed by Deed of the parties;

(i) Data means any raw data, unit record data, micro data, Data Output, data sets or information and includes the Data referred to in Item 1 of the Details;

(j) Data Facility means a Party’s facility, website, web portal and associated web services and internet publishing tools;

(k) Data Output means any output, service or products derived, created or manipulated from Data (which may or may not comprise Shared Data), in whatever form it may exist, including anonymous, aggregated, perturbed or obfuscated Data; but excludes the methodology, software, computer models or algorithms used to generate the Data Output;

(l) End Date means the date the Deed ends being the date set out in Item 16 of the Details;

(m) Intellectual Property means all rights resulting from intellectual activity in the industrial, scientific, literary and artistic fields (whether or not registered or registrable or having to undergo any other process for grant, registration, or the like) including rights in respect of:

(i) copyright (including future copyright);

(ii) inventions (including granted patents and patent applications);

(iii) trademarks (including registered trademarks and trademark applications);

(iv) designs (including registered designs and design applications);

(v) circuit layouts and the like;

(vi) trade secrets;

(vii) plant breeder’s rights,

but does not include Know How, Moral Rights or copyright in a student’s thesis or other examinable work;

(n) Know How means the practical, proprietary knowledge, assistance, techniques, scientific, technical or other information that is not in the public domain and excluding any knowledge, skill or experience which a person cannot be legally restrained from using or disclosing;

(o) Loss includes any loss, liability, tax, prohibition, penalty, fine, expense, injury or damage to persons or property;

(p) Law means any applicable statute, regulation, by-law, ordinance or subordinate legislation in force from time to time in Australia, whether made by a State, Territory, the Commonwealth or a local government;

(q) Metadata means a description or summary of the Data or Data Output (including any Shared Data) as the case may be;

(r) Moral Rights means all present and future rights of integrity of authorship, rights of attribution of authorship, rights not to have authorship falsely attributed, and rights of a similar nature conferred by statute anywhere in the world as defined in the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth);

(s) Personal Information has the meaning given to it in the Privacy Act 1998 (Cth) and means information or an opinion about an identified individual, or an individual who is reasonably identifiable:

(i) whether the information or opinion is true or not; and

(ii) whether the information or opinion is recorded in material form or not;

(t) Project means the market tracker to track performance of the higher education sector conducted by the Reputation Institute and the related sharing of Core Questions by the Parties under the terms of this Deed;

D35

11 of 8 20-Dec-18


(u) Publish means to disseminate, communicate or transmit to the public or to any section of it any information in any form (including without limitation, presentations at any scientific or academic forum or in any journal or other publication, conference abstracts and other publications) and in any medium, research, results or information generated using, containing, incorporating or otherwise based on or referring to the Data or related Metadata and Published and Publication have corresponding meanings;

(v) Sensitive Information has the meaning given it by the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth);

(w) The Reputation Institute means the Reputation Institute Pty Ltd ABN 46 110 565 323 which will provide the Data to each of the Parties individually under separate Service Deeds.

(x) Trade Controls Laws means the export controls and economic sanctions laws of any jurisdiction, including those of Australia including without limitation the Defence Trade Controls Act 2012 (Cth), United Nations Act 1945, Weapons of Mass Destruction (Prevention of Proliferation) Act 1995 or the Autonomous Sanctions Act 2011 (Cth) and any other sanctions from time to time in force in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Australia;

(y) Use means the intended use of the Data or Data Outputs including:

(i) to access, reproduce, store, cache, manage, display and use;

(ii) incorporate all or part of the Data into larger Data collations;

(iii) reproduce, copy, modify, adapt or process, including:

(A) into other formats; or

(B) to make Data Outputs.

Interpretation

1.2 In this Deed:

(a) words importing a gender include any other gender;

(b) words in the singular include the plural and vice versa;

(c) all dollar amounts refer to Australian currency;

(d) a reference to any legislation includes any subordinate legislation made under it and any legislation amending, consolidating or replacing it;

(e) a reference to an individual or person includes a corporation, authority, association, joint venture (whether incorporated or unincorporated), partnership, trust or other legal entity;

(f) an obligation or a liability assumed by, or a right conferred on, two or more persons binds or benefits them jointly and severally;

(g) a reference to a document (including this Deed) is to that document as varied, novated, ratified or replaced from time to time;

(h) a reference to “includes” in any form is not a word of limitation;

(i) clause headings have been included for convenience only and are not intended to affect the meaning or interpretation of this Deed; and

(j) if any expression is defined, other grammatical forms of that expression will have corresponding meanings.

2 TERM

2.1 This Deed operates from the Commencement Date until the End Date (set out in Item 16 of the Details) or until it is terminated in accordance with clause 11 (Termination).

Obligations of the Parties

2.2 Each Party agrees to Use and protect the Data and Metadata on the terms and conditions and details set out in this Deed.

2.3 Each Party agrees that it will not disclose or Publish the Data or Metadata or any material based on or incorporating the Data and Metadata including any Data Output to any person except in accordance with this Deed.

3 AUTHORISED USERS

3.1 The Parties must not:

(a) provide or disclose the Data to any person, or allow any person to access Data, unless the person is an

D36

12 of 8 20-Dec-18


Authorised User, except as required by law or has entered into a deed of confidentiality with that Party; or

(b)

3.2 A Party may at any time nominate in Item 7 of the Details other individuals who will have access to the Data Facility and Use the Data (each an Authorised User).

3.3 All Parties will:

(a) ensure Authorised Users access and Use the Data in accordance with this Deed;

(b) be responsible for the acts and omissions of:

(i) Authorised Users; and

(ii) any other person (whether authorised or not) who accesses and uses the Data using the access credentials of an Authorised User,

as though they were the acts or omissions of the Authorised User.

4 AUTHORISED PURPOSE

4.1 Each Party:

(a) must only Use the Data for the Authorised Purpose as set out in Item 8 of the Details;

(b) accepts sole responsibility and liability for its Use of the Data and Data Outputs and will Use the Data and Data Outputs at its own risk; and

(c) must Use the Data in accordance with applicable laws.

4.2 If a Party discloses the Data to a third party that Party must ensure that prior to any disclosure, the third party has agreed with the such Party to Use and protect the Data on the same terms as this Deed.

5 PROTECTION OF THE DATA

5.1 Each Party must store and protect the Data in its possession or control with appropriate security measures, having regard to:

(a) to any Use restrictions set out in Item 3 of the Details;

(b) the medium in which it is stored.

5.2 Each Party will:

(a) develop, implement, maintain and use prudent and effective administrative, technical and physical measures and safeguards to preserve and protect the security, integrity and confidentiality of the Data and to prevent any unauthorised access to or unauthorised use, modification, disclosure or loss of any Data; and

(b) if the Data provided is a de-identified format, not identify or attempt to identify the institutions or individuals whose information appears in the Data.

6 NOTIFICATION OF DATA BREACH

6.1 In the event of any actual or reasonably suspected unauthorised access to, Use or disclosure of the Data (Data Breach) such Party will:

(a) promptly take all reasonable steps to remedy the Data Breach at its expense;

(b) promptly notify all Parties of the Data Breach within one (1) day of becoming aware of it;

(c) promptly provide all reasonable assistance to all Parties to identify the Data impacted by the Data Breach and any information reasonably requested by another Party for the purposes of investigating and responding to the Data Breach; and

(d) within five (5) Business Days or other period agreed by the Parties in writing, provide all the other Parties with an incident report of the Data Breach and its impact on the Data.

6.2 The Party who suffered the Data Breach will not disclose to any person any information relating to a Data Breach unless the disclosure of the Data Breach is required by law.

Disclosure under Law

6.3 If a Party:

(a) is required under any Law (whether that be through a court order, subpoena, warranty, notice of non-party disclosure or discovery) to disclose Data; or

(b) becomes aware of any breach of this Deed by that Party,

they must:

(c) notify to the extent permitted by law and as soon as reasonably practicable

D37

13 of 8 20-Dec-18


all other Parties so that the other Parties can determine and take whatever action it considers necessary to protect their interests;

(d) to the extent permitted by law, fully co-operate with the other Parties; and

(e) use its best efforts to prevent the reoccurrence of any Data Breach.

7 CONFIDENTIALTY OBLIGATIONS

7.1 Each Party must in relation to any Confidential Information:

(a) keep the Confidential Information confidential;

(b) use the Confidential Information only for the purposes of the Authorised Use or as permitted under this Deed;

(c) not disclose the Confidential Information to any person other than to its personnel:

(i) who have a need to know (and only to the extent that each such person has a need to know); and

(ii) who have first agreed in writing to keep the Confidential Information confidential and to use the Confidential Information only as permitted under this Deed or have signed a confidentiality Deed with the Party that employs or controls them;

(d) immediately notify the relevant Party of any suspected or actual unauthorised copying, use or disclosure of that Party’s Confidential Information; and

(e) comply with any reasonable direction given by the Party that provided the Confidential Information about a suspected or actual breach.

7.2 A Party’s obligations of confidentiality under this Deed do not apply to information that:

(a) the Party is required by Law to disclose; or

(b) the Party that disclosed the information has identified in writing as being released from the obligation of confidentiality.

7.3 The receiving Party bears the onus of showing that any of the exceptions in clause 7.2 apply.

7.4 This clause 7 will survive the expiry or termination of this Deed.

8 PRIVACY AND DISCLOSURE OF PERSONAL INFORMATION

8.1 If the Data or its related Metadata or Data Outputs or its related Metadata contain Personal Information or Sensitive Information, each Party agrees to:

(a) comply with the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) as if they were a Commonwealth agency;

(b) comply with the Australian Privacy Principles (APP) set out in Schedule 1 of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) (as amended from time to time) which concern the storage, security, use and disclosure of Personal Information to the extent that those APP’s apply to the Data, Data Outputs or Metadata;

(c) cooperate with any reasonable demands or inquiries made by the Australian Information Commissioner;

(d) ensure that any personnel (including Authorised Users) who have access to any Personal Information are made aware of, and where appropriate undertake in writing to observe, the APP’s; and

(e) comply in so far as is practicable with any policy guidelines laid down by the Commonwealth or issued by the Australian Information Commissioner, Privacy Commissioner or Freedom of Information Commissioner from time to time relating to the handling of Personal Information.

9 TITLE AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

9.1 Other than as expressly set out in this Deed, nothing in this Deed is intended to assign, transfer or otherwise grant any right, title to, or interest in or to the Data or Data Outputs.

Ownership of Data

9.2 The title to Core Questions and its related Metadata and ownership of all of the Intellectual Property rights subsisting in or in relation to the Core Questions and related Metadata are the property of the Parties jointly equally and as tenants in common.

Commercial Exploitation and Publication of the Data

D38

14 of 8 20-Dec-18


9.3 For clarity, no Party is entitled to sell or otherwise trade to any third party or Commercially Exploit the Data or related Metadata

Ownership of Data Output

9.4 The title to the Data Output and related Metadata and ownership of all of the Intellectual Property rights subsisting in or in relation to the Data Outputs and related Metadata are the property of the Parties equally and as tenants in common.

Licence to Shared Data Output

9.5 Subject to the terms of this Deed, each Party grants all other Parties a perpetual right to access, Use and disclose the Data Outputs and Metadata in relation to Shared Data including a non-exclusive, perpetual, revocable, non-transferable, royalty-free, fee-free, world-wide licence (and right of sublicence) to use the Intellectual Property subsisting in the Data Outputs and Metadata for the Authorised Purpose but not for any Commercial Exploitation purpose.

Commercial Exploitation of the Shared Data Outputs

9.6 For clarity, no Party is entitled to sell or otherwise trade to any third party or Commercially Exploit the Shared Data Outputs or related Metadata.

Survival

9.7 This clause 9 and the licences set out in this clause survive the termination and expiry of the Deed.

10 DISPUTE RESOLUTION

10.1 The parties agree not to commence any legal proceedings in respect of any dispute arising under this Deed, until the procedure provided by this clause 10 has been followed.

10.2 The Parties agree that any dispute arising during the course of this Deed will be dealt with as follows:

(a) the Party claiming that there is a dispute will send all other Parties a written notice setting out the nature of the dispute;

(b) the Parties will try to resolve the dispute through direct negotiation, including by referring the matter to

persons who have authority to intervene and direct some form of resolution;

(c) the Parties have ten (10) Business Days from the date of the notice to reach a resolution or to agree that the dispute is to be submitted to mediation; and

(d) if the dispute is submitted to mediation and the parties cannot agree on a mediator within ten (10) Business Days from the date of the notice, the chairperson of the Resolution Institute or the chairperson’s nominee will appoint a mediator; and

(e) if:

(i) there is no resolution of the dispute; or

(ii) there is a submission to mediation, but there is no resolution within fifteen (15) Business Days of the submission, or such extended time as the Parties may agree in writing before the expiration of the fifteen (15) Business Days, then, any Party may commence legal proceedings.

10.3 This clause does not apply to the following circumstances, where:

(a) any of the Parties commence legal proceedings for urgent interlocutory relief; or

(b) an authority of the Commonwealth, a State or Territory is investigating a breach or suspected breach of the Law by a Party.

10.4 Despite the existence of a dispute, both Parties must (unless requested in writing by the other Party not to do so) continue to perform their respective obligations under this Deed.

10.5 Any information or documents disclosed by a Party under this clause 10 must be kept confidential and may only be used to attempt to resolve the dispute.

10.6 Each Party must pay its own costs of complying with this clause 10. The Parties must equally pay the costs of any mediator.

11 TERMINATION

Termination for Cause

D39

15 of 8 20-Dec-18


11.1 A Party (First Party) may terminate this Deed as it applies to any other Party immediately (or such other period as specified in the notice) by giving written notice to such other Party (Second Party) if:

(a) the Second Party breaches this Deed and a majority of the Parties to this Deed confirm in writing that the breach cannot be remedied;

(b) the Second Party breaches this Deed and the breach is not remedied within fourteen (14) days of the First Party notifying the Second Party of the breach.

Termination for Convenience

11.2 The Parties may by unanimous agreement terminate this Deed as it applies to all Parties immediately (or such other period as agreed) in writing and signed by all Parties.

Consequences of Termination

11.3 If this Deed is terminated by a Party under clause 11.1 (Termination for Cause) or clause 11.2 (Termination for Convenience), upon the date of termination the Party being terminated under clause 11.1 or the Parties must:

(a) immediately stop accessing the Data Facility;

(b) immediately stop Using any Data in its possession or control and the licence to the Data and Metadata ceases;

(c) if the Data comprises Confidential Information of a Party and if requested by that Party in a written notice, permanently destroy any hard copies of the Data and permanently delete all electronic copies of Data in its possession or control to the extent permitted by law; and

(d) If the Data Comprises Confidential Information of a Party and if requested by a Party, confirm in writing that this clause 11.3 has been fully complied with.

11.4 Termination of this Deed will not:

(a) affect any claim or action a Party may have against the other by reason of any prior breach of this Deed; or

(b) relieve a Party of its obligations under clause 7 or any obligations under this Deed that survive its termination or expiry.

11.5 For the avoidance of doubt, the Parties acknowledge and agree that termination of a service deed between a Party and the Reputation Institute does not affect that Party’s rights or obligations under this Deed, nor does termination of this Deed affect a Party’s rights or obligations under a service deed between a Party and the Reputation Institute.

12 NOTICES AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS

12.1 Any notices given under this Deed must be:

(a) in writing;

(b) addressed to the address of the recipient specified in item 17 of the Details or as altered by notice given in accordance with this clause; and

(c) left at or sent by prepaid post or email to that address.

12.2 A notice given in accordance with this clause will be deemed received:

(a) if left at the recipients address, on the date of delivery;

(b) if sent by prepaid post, seven (7) days after the date of posting;

(c) if sent by email:

(i) when the sender receives an automated message confirming receipt; or

(ii) four (4) hours after the time sent unless the sender receives an automated message that the email has not been delivered,

whichever happens first.

13 GENERAL

Trade Control Laws

13.1 Each Party agrees that the Data may be subject to Trade Control Laws and a Party must not export and re-export or tranship, directly or indirectly such controlled information to countries listed in export control or sanction lists in effect in Australia, by the United Nations or its jurisdiction, without first obtaining governmental approval. Each Party agrees that it is responsible for and must make its own enquiries regarding its compliance with its respective Trade Control Laws.

D40

16 of 8 20-Dec-18


Severability

13.2 If all or any part of any clause of this Deed is illegal or unenforceable, it will be severed from this Deed and will not affect the continued operation of the remaining provisions.

Variation

13.3 No Deed or understanding varying the terms of this Deed is legally binding upon any Party unless the Deed or understanding is in writing and signed by all Parties.

Waiver

13.4 The failure of a Party at any time to insist on performance of any obligation of another Party under this Deed is not a waiver of its right:

(a) to insist on performance of, or claim damages for breach of, that obligation unless that Party acknowledges in writing that the failure is a waiver; and

(b) at any other time to insist on performance of that or any other obligation of another Party under this Agreement.

Use of Name and Logo

13.5 A Party may only use the name, trademark or logo of another Party if it first obtains written consent from that other Party, which consent may include conditions imposed by that other Party.

Further Assurances

13.6 Each Party agrees, at its own expense, to do all things that are reasonably necessary to give effect to this Deed and the transactions contemplated by it.

Entire Agreement

13.7 This Deed, including the schedules:

(a) is the entire agreement between the Parties about their subject matter;

(b) supersedes all prior representations and agreements about that subject matter; and

(c) may only be altered or varied in writing signed by all Parties.

Novation and Assignment

13.8 No Party may assign or attempt to novate or assign or otherwise transfer or encumber any right or obligation or liability arising out of this Deed except with the written consent of the other parties.

Counterparts

13.9 This Deed may be signed in any number of counterparts.

Governing Law

13.10 The laws of the Australian Capital Territory govern this Deed, and the Parties submit to the jurisdiction of the courts of the Australian Capital Territory for resolution of all matters or disputes arising out of this Deed.

D41

17 of 2 20-Dec-18


SCHEDULE 1

D42

APPENDIX B

D43

Business model options for student placements at UWA

The University of Western Australia

7 March 2019

D44

Nous Group | Business model options for student placements at UWA | 7 March 2019 | i |

This page is intentionally blank.

© Nous Group

D45

Nous Group | Business model options for student placements at UWA | 7 March 2019 | ii |

Contents

1 Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1

2 About this report ........................................................................................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Strategic context..................................................................................................................................................................... 3

2.2 Scope and methodology ..................................................................................................................................................... 3

2.3 This report ................................................................................................................................................................................. 4

2.4 Definitions ................................................................................................................................................................................. 4

3 The current approach to student placements has reached capacity ....................................................................... 5

3.1 Implementing some ‘quick wins’ in the short term will help to streamline processes .............................. 5

4 Peer research suggests that UWA is in the early stages of a recognisable journey .......................................... 7

4.1 Insights from peer universities can guide UWA’s next steps ............................................................................... 7

5 Recommendations ..................................................................................................................................................................... 11

6 The future state of placements at UWA ........................................................................................................................... 15

6.1 Business model options .................................................................................................................................................... 15

6.2 Implementation ................................................................................................................................................................... 19

Summary of current placement processes ............................................................................................... 21

Detailed description of quick wins ............................................................................................................... 22

Proposed future state process map ............................................................................................................ 24

D46

Nous Group | Business model options for student placements at UWA | 7 March 2019 | 1 |

1 Executive Summary

The current approach to student placements at the University of Western Australia (UWA) has reached

capacity. If UWA wishes to increase the number of students placed with host organisations there will need

to be additional FTE placed within each faculty. Harmonising the disparate placement processes, and

centralising the Work Integrated Learning (WIL) placements officers, will increase efficiency and improve

student and host-organisation satisfaction with the process.

The placements processes have evolved organically over time as UWA and its faculties, namely, Arts,

Business, Law and Education (FABLE), Engineering and Mathematical Sciences (EMS), and Science have

adjusted to student and market demands. This has led to current processes being non-optimally designed

for placing large numbers of students.

The absence of appropriate systems, structured processes, and enough automation, means that each

process is heavily reliant on the role of the placement officer, creating ‘key person bottleneck’ in each

placement process. The dispersed and fragmented approach to placements significantly limits the ability

to increase the number of students placed.

Nous’ has identified seven ‘quick wins’ to help UWA improve its processes in the short term

These quicks wins will not address all identified process bottlenecks, but will improve UWA’s placement

processes in the short-term:

• All faculties should use one system to manage student placements, CareerHub appears to the

appropriate choice in the short term.

• A standardised host agreement and placement agreement should be used across all faculties, stored

in a central location.

• UWA should provide individual insurance certificates by exception. A suitable clause should be

embedded into host agreements.

• Risk based approaches should be taken to student check-ins and employer site visits.

• Face-to-face interviews with students should be based on a risk assessment (e.g. weighted average

mark (WAM), completion of pre-requisites, assessment of CV, Cover Letter and prior work experience).

• Platforms like the ‘Big Interview’ should be used to streamline the interview process and reduce the

administrative burden on placement officers.

• A ‘toolbox’ should be provided to those responsible for industry engagement to appropriately support

placement officers.

Consultations with other universities identified process centralisation as a key enabler to

increasing placements

Consultations with peer universities that have invested in WIL identified that process centralisation is a key

enabler to increasing placements. Peer universities started their journey of WIL placements process

improvement from a similar position as UWA, culminating in centralised teams placing more than 2000

students each year across several different placement ‘offers’. Insights from these consultations have

emphasised process automation, a single process, system and team, and proactive relationship

management with industry and faculty, as critical success factors of a scalable and sustainable placements

process.

Nous recommends UWA adopts a centralised WIL placements team to support WIL academics

A centralised placements team is critical to the success of the future state of placements at UWA. This

team should have two primary focus areas: internal engagement, and external engagement.

• The internal engagement team deals with students and WIL academics, and manages the process up

to hand-over to the WIL academic.

D47


• The external engagement team deals with host organisations, and liaises with other parts of the

University that identify placement opportunities.

To support this team, Nous Group (Nous) has identified five further recommendations critical to increasing

the number of student placements at UWA:

• A single, trusted, process should be adopted for all placements across all Faculties, including the

McCusker Centre.

• A single placements system, InPlace, should be adopted that integrates with other internal systems,

such as Callista.

• The placements process should be automated as much as possible, and low-risk / low complexity

students should not be manually matched to opportunities.

• A standard suite of ‘offers’ should be developed and proactively introduced to current and potential

industry host organisations.

• Steadily embed pre-placement activities into curriculum to ensure all students are prepared for a

placement if they wish to pursue one.

WIL Academics retain oversight of the WIL placement units, supported by the centralised WIL

team

WIL placements are academic units of study and the WIL academics must retain oversight over them.

Insight from peer universities identified that adopting a centralised model can cause friction with the

faculties and lead some WIL academics to feel a loss of ownership. To mitigate any initial friction with

faculties, and prevent the deterioration of relationships with WIL academics, the centralised WIL team must

invest in maintaining and building relationships with the faculties.

The final placements process at UWA should see WIL academics retain control of the WIL placement units,

supported by the centralised WIL team, where throughout pre-placement and placement activities, the

WIL placements team and WIL academics share responsibility for preparing students for, and supporting

students during their placements.

D48


2 About this report

2.1 Strategic context

The UWA recognises the importance of WIL, and its role in improving the employability and workforce

readiness of students. UWA also understands that student engagement with WIL can be low if it is

presented in a dispersed and fragmented way by the university.1

For students, placements within industry and community organisations are a critical way to contextualise

their university education – ultimately impacting upon graduate employability and preparedness for the

workplace. Student demand for WIL placements is high, with students recognising placements as an

opportunity to develop their skills, build experience, and improve their competitiveness in the graduate

labour market.2

The benefits of WIL, and particularly WIL placements to UWA cannot be overstated. In addition to building

the currency and relevance of curriculum, graduate employability continues to become a key metric by

which universities are measured and compared. As such, a strategic investment in student placements, and

a holistic approach to WIL, is critical to improving overall outcomes for UWA students.

2.2 Scope and methodology

UWA engaged Nous to undertake a review of the student placements process (not for accreditation; so

excluding medicine, dentistry, psychology and education), as part of its broader strategic review of WIL.

The focus of this project is to:

• conduct a detailed mapping exercise of current processes to identify opportunities for ‘quick wins’ that

will increase the number of students placed without adding resources or changing structures

• benchmark UWA’s current processes against those of peer universities, including those that lead in the

field of WIL

• identify recommendations and three business model options for the future state of placements at

UWA that will enable significantly more students to be placed.

Nous consulted with 12 UWA staff and senior stakeholders from the following areas of the University:

• Placements officers

• WIL academics

• Innovation and Industry Engagement

• Educational Enhancement Unit

• UWA Careers Centre

• Office of Service Delivery

• Development and Alumni Relations

Process mapping was undertaken for three UWA faculties: FABLE, EMS, and Science. Consultations, and a

detailed process mapping exercise was also conducted with the McCusker Centre for Citizenship.

Following this initial process, Nous prepared an interim report containing an overview of the current state

and suggested quick wins.

1 Ehiyazaryan, E., & Barraclough, N. “Enhancing employability: integrating real world experience in the curriculum”, Education +

Training, Vol. 51 No. 4, 2009, pp. 292-308 2 National Strategy on Work Integrated Learning in University Education.

D49


Subsequent to the interim report, Nous has conducted interviews with stakeholders from two peer

universities:

• Swinburne University

• Monash University3

Based on these interviews, and Nous’ internal expertise on placements processes adopted by a variety of

universities, final recommendations for UWA on the future of placements at the University have been

developed.

2.3 This report

This report sets out a roadmap and recommendations to guide UWA’s implementation of a streamlined

and scalable student placement process to align with its broader WIL program of work.

This report covers the following:

• a review of the current state analysis

• a summary of ‘quick wins’ that UWA can implement to streamline its placement process in the short

term

• insights uncovered from consultations with two ‘peer’ universities that have invested in WIL

• recommendations for UWA on the future state of WIL placements

• three business model options, to guide UWA’s transition towards the recommended approach.

2.4 Definitions

For the purposes of this report, the following terms and phrases have the meaning prescribed to them in

this section.

WIL Work Integrated Learning is an umbrella term for any practice at a

University that links curriculum learning with experiences gained through

interactions with workplace settings.4

Student placements for the purposes of this report, student placements refers to short-term

internships with host organisations, usually up to 100 hours duration

(noting that EMS requires up to 450 hours)

WIL Academics the academic staff (unit coordinator) of placement Units within a given

Faculty

Placement Officer the professional staff at UWA responsible for the day-to-day management

of WIL placements processes at UWA

3 The office that manages placements for Monash University sits within Monash College. 4 See, for example, Patrick, C-j., Peach, D., Pocknee, C., Webb, F., Fletcher, M., Pretto, G. (2008, December). The

WIL [Work Integrated Learning] report: A national scoping study [Australian Learning and Teaching

Council (ALTC) Final report]. Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology. Available online at:

www.altc.edu.au and www.acen.edu.au

D50


3 The current approach to student placements has

reached capacity

The placements processes at UWA have evolved organically over time as the University and its faculties,

namely, FABLE, EMS, and Science have adjusted to student and market demands. Current processes are

not designed for placing large numbers of students.

Placement processes in FABLE, Science, EMS and the McCusker Centre were each analysed and compared

at a granular level, based on the six definable stages of student placements, set out in Figure 1.

Figure 1 | High level placements process

Each stage of the placements process is implemented differently across the University, with faculties

placing varying degrees of emphasis on each step. What is clear, however, is that the absence of

appropriate systems, structured processes, and sufficient automation, means that each process is heavily

reliant on the role of the placement officer, creating a ‘key person bottleneck’ in each placement process.

The organic nature of the development of each placements process has also resulted in a large variety of

different ‘offers’; that is, the WIL units are structured differently, offered at different times, and place

different expectations on both students and host organisations. This confusing mix of offers makes

promoting WIL placements to industry more difficult.

Appendix A sets out a detailed comparison of each faculties process against the above steps,

demonstrating a dispersed and fragmented approach to placements that significantly limits the ability to

increase the number of students placed.

3.1 Implementing some ‘quick wins’ in the short term will help

to streamline processes

UWA can implement several quick wins to improve the placements processes in the short-term. The

implementation of each ‘quick win’ will require few resources, and little upfront investment. The purpose

of these recommendations is to streamline the existing processes and create synergies between faculties

where possible.

Host organisation

recruitment

Student

recruitment

Faculty Placement

Officer

Faculty Placement

Officer

WIL Academics

Matching of

student to host

Faculty Placement Officer

WIL Academics

Pre-placement

activities

Placement

activities

Post-placement

activities

CURRENT HIGH LEVEL PLACEMENT PROCESS

D51


The quick wins are based on a detailed process mapping exercise of student placements across the

faculties, and consultations with UWA staff directly and indirectly involved in placements. These position

UWA for the broader realignment of placements within the university. The quick wins set out in Table 1

(mapped to appropriate faculties based on applicability), are based on the following principles:

1. harmonise the process as much as possible (quick wins 1, 2 and 3)

2. automate the process as much as possible, focussing initially on low risk, low complexity students

(quick wins 4, 5 and 6)

3. improve information flows across the university and ‘hand-overs’ in the process (quick win 7)

Table 1 | Quick wins mapped to Faculty

Quick win EMS McCusker FABLE Science

1

All faculties should use one system to manage

student placements, CareerHub appears to the

appropriate choice in the short term ✓ ✓

Pioneered

the use of

CareerHub

✓

2

Use of a standardised host agreement and

placement agreement across all faculties, stored in

a central location ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

3

UWA should provide individual insurance

certificates by exception. A suitable clause should

be embedded into host agreements

✓

4 Risk based approaches should be taken to student

check-ins and employer site visits ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

5

Face-to-face interviews with students should be

based on a risk assessment (e.g. WAM, completion

of pre-requisites, assessment of CV, Cover Letter

and prior work experience)

✓ ✓

6

Platforms like the ‘Big Interview’ should be used to

streamline the interview process and reduce the

administrative burden on placement officers

✓ ✓ ✓

7

A ‘toolbox’ should be provided to those

responsible for industry engagement to

appropriately support placement officers ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

A detailed description of the proposed quick wins is contained in Appendix B.

D52


4 Peer research suggests that UWA is in the early

stages of a recognisable journey

WIL is a strategic priority of many universities across Australia. In line with this importance, significant

investment has been made to build infrastructure, systems and capability to manage student placements

at several universities in Australia. Nous interviewed two of these universities.5

It was clear from our interviews that other universities have started their journey of WIL placements

process improvement from a similar position as UWA. Each university that we spoke to noted that their

improvement effort required working across several fragmented and dispersed faculty-based processes.

The historical concerns and limitations of those processes are familiar, and mirror the current issues faced

by UWA. While each university interviewed underwent a different journey, the end goal is the same – a

placements process that is scalable and maximises the number of students that can be placed. This section

summarises the insights and findings from our interviews, which have informed our identification of critical

success factors and business model options for UWA.

4.1 Insights from peer universities can guide UWA’s next steps

Having the right people and culture is as critical as the process and system

The basis of a successful and scalable placements process is based on three critical components: a single

system, a trusted process, and the right people. While both Monash and Swinburne noted the importance

of a trusted process, and a system that acted as the ‘single source of truth’, the importance the ‘right

people’ remains critical to scaling placements across the university.

The role of staff involved in student placements is characterised by extensive engagement; with students,

academic staff and industry. It follows that having the right people, and building the right capability is

critical to the success of the placement officer role, and placements more broadly. As noted by one peer

university, the nature of the placement officer role in a centralised team means that culture and capability

is vital.

A placements team needs the right culture. As the volume of placements differs throughout different

faculties, a placements team should seamlessly shift resources to areas of need. This will be facilitated by a

single process and system – but requires building and maintaining a culture of cooperation and

collaboration within the placements team. The importance of people, process, and systems to placements,

is set out in Figure 2.

5 Interestingly, many Universities refused to meet with us and share their insights into WIL. This reflects the importance universities are

placing on WIL that they see their processes as a competitive advantage. To mitigate this risk, we had decided to only ask to speak to

Universities on the East Coast. However, many were still reluctant to share their stories. To supplement this research, Nous also used

the outputs of our experiences working in other universities on related topics.

D53


Figure 2 | Importance of People, Process and Systems

Placements need to be genuinely driven by student outcomes

A successful placements process needs to be driven by student outcomes. Peer universities interviewed

stressed that while the engagement and relationship management of industry organisations is important,

it is and should remain a subsidiary consideration to student outcomes.

It follows that the placement processes, infrastructure, and staff recruited into placement officer roles

should be student-centred and possess a genuine willingness to work with students. The primary risk to

manage when engaging with industry, is that undue importance is placed on the relationship with industry

partners at the potential expense of students. This was seen in one university, where the ‘ego’ involved in

building and maintaining relationships with industry was not conducive to building student placements

across the university.

A centralised WIL placements team is essential to ‘scale up’ student placements

The consensus among peer universities is that a centralised WIL placements team, that supports all

faculties and WIL academics to deliver WIL placement units, is essential to scaling up student placements

across the university.

By centralising and standardising the processes, a central team can manage, and have oversight of the

entire end-to-end placements process. In each university interviewed, centralisation has resulted in a

unified and structured approach to placements, and a single point of contact for students, academic staff

and industry. Each university reported a volume of more than 2000 placements each year – in addition to

several other industry engagement programs managed by the central team.

Ultimately, centralisation is the most efficient way to scale the volume of placements. It also facilitates

continuous improvement and innovation through the development of new ways of engaging students and

industries in work integrated learning.

A centralised team provides one point of contact for students and industry

A significant benefit of a centralised placements team is that all stakeholders, including students, industry,

community organisations, and internal university stakeholders – have one point of contact for all

placement-related queries. This is particularly important for host organisation recruitment, where

historically, the fragmented approach to engagement with industry meant that potential hosts were

deterred, and placement opportunities lost. As noted by one university, the ‘faculty-based’ approach to

student placements made it more likely that individual placement officers would protect or place undue

value on their individual relationships with industry – at the expense of the wider university, and ultimately

students. A centralised office allows for the management of a single database of host organisations via a

Staff and placement officers must

be suitably qualified, highly

organised, and genuinely driven

by student outcomes

A documented and trusted

university-wide process (e.g. in a

placements manual) virtually

eliminates key person risk

PEOPLE

PROCESS SYSTEMS

A single trusted system is the

only way to scale placements

to benefit more students

D54


single CRM. This has proven highly popular with industry, where particularly large employers are able to

access students from several faculties via an account manager.

Managing and investing in the relationship with academics is done through a shared

ownership approach to the process

A key concern, and primary risk with centralising a placements process is the potential deterioration of the

relationship between Placement Officers and WIL Academics. WIL placements are academic units of study

and the WIL academics must retain control over them. In some circumstances, centralising the WIL

placements team can lead some WIL academics to feel a loss of control.

Two peer universities each raised similar experiences, noting that their relationship with academics and

faculties initially deteriorated when placement officers were moved from faculty into a central team. Each

peer university stressed that the key to the success of the process is the investment in maintaining and

building relationships with academics in faculties. Another noted that they gained credibility once they

demonstrated how the centralised process adds value.

Centralisation helps to standardise the placements offer to industry

An important driver of a successful placements process is the ability to define and develop standard

‘offers’ to industry. Each university we spoke to noted that the placements they managed were

standardised, e.g. 18-day, 3-month, 6-month, or 12-month placements with industry or community

organisations. These placements are not dictated by industry, but by the university. Centralisation allowed

each university to develop and define placement programs, and then recruit students and hosts for those

particular programs. Additionally, by developing standard offers, it provided staff responsible for business

development with a clear offer to ‘sell’ to industry, improving the universities ability to both attract and

retain host organisations.

Centralisation also facilitates continuous improvement and innovation through the consolidation and

development of new placement offers, and different ways of engaging with industry to contextualise a

student’s university education. One university, for example, has a single placements office that manages

the following programs or ‘offers’:

• Professional placements: 12-month full-time internship with a host organisation

• Work placements: paid 6- or 12-month full-time professional placement

• Professional internships: students matched with host organisation for a minimum of 18 full days

• Industry-linked projects: discrete projects with industry partners

• Accreditation placements: placement to fulfil degree requirements

Universities differ on whether matching students and hosts can be scaled

A key difference between the two universities interviewed was the lack of consensus on whether

‘matching’ students and hosts was sustainable and scalable. Despite similarities in the centralisation and

structure of placements broadly – one university stressed the impracticality of being directly involved in

matching students, while the other is successfully ‘matching’ more than 2000 students each year. Despite

this difference, the key driver of scalability and efficiency is not the nature of matching, but the

centralisation and streamlining of the process.

The most important driver of success is a single source of truth

Both peer universities interviewed noted that the presence of a single process, and single system –

operating as a ‘single source of truth’ was the most important driver of a successful and scalable

placements process. Each university noted the criticality of their chosen platform and the extent to which it

has led to the growth of each placements program. The implementation of a single platform or system has

several clear benefits. Firstly, standardisation means that resources can be moved freely to support high

volume programs, without the need to ‘upskill’ staff. Secondly, a single system removes duplication in host

D55


and student recruitment and acts as a single hub for all placement opportunities and student data. Lastly,

a single process and system means that workflows and the broader processes can be documented. This

mitigates against ‘key person risk’ and ensures the continuity of the process when staff are on leave or

depart the university.

Video interview platforms support appropriate vetting and scalability

The use of video interview platforms like ‘Big Interview’ are effective ways to maintain appropriate vetting

and selection of students in the ‘student recruitment’ process, while also allowing for scalability. One

university interviewed stressed that the use of a video interview platform, coupled with a detailed rubric

for assessing applicants, meant that students could be appropriately assessed for suitability for placements

without the need for one-on-one interviews.

D56


5 Recommendations

This section outlines Nous’ recommendations for the future state of WIL placements at UWA.

Based on an analysis of the existing placement processes, and consultations with UWA staff and peer

universities, Nous has six recommendations critical to the future state of placements at UWA. Each of

these recommendations are reflected in the proposed business model options (to varying degrees) set out

in the following section.

Nous recommends UWA adopts a centralised WIL placements team to support WIL academics

Critical to the success of the future state of placements at UWA that substantially increases the scale of

student placements, is the centralisation of WIL placements officers within one team – a central WIL

placements office. While ownership and accountability for the process can, and should still be, shared with

WIL academics across faculties, and UWA’s industry engagement functions – the oversight and day-to-day

management of WIL placements at UWA should be via a central team. This team should have two primary

focus areas: internal engagement, and external engagement.


to hand-over to the WIL academic.


University that identify placement opportunities.

A proposed operating model for a centralised team is set out in Figure 3

Figure 3 | Placements operating model

A single, trusted, process should be adopted for all placements across all faculties, including

the McCusker Centre

The success of a university-wide placements process requires the development of a single, streamlined

and scalable process. This requires developing and implementing a process with as little variance as

possible, that can be easily understood and used by all stakeholders. Ultimately, the first step in increasing

the number of students placed, and the development of new placement offers, is streamlining the existing

processes into one.

PLACEMENTS OPERATING MODEL

WIL Placements Internal

Engagement

• Student recruitment

• Pre-placement activities

• Matching students (where required)

• WIL academics engagement and

support

• Host organisation recruitment

• Creation of position descriptions

• Host organisation agreements

• Host organisation check-ins

WIL Placements External

Engagement

WIL Placements Manager

D57


The process should be automated (to the extent possible) for low risk, low complexity

students

The current process bottlenecks in UWA’s disparate placement processes exist largely in student

recruitment, where placement officers assess and rank applicants, or conduct individual face-to-face

interviews with more than 200 students per placement officer. Bottlenecks also exist in the matching

process, where most of the effort goes into placing high risk, high complexity students (e.g. students with

language barriers, below average WAM, and no work-experience). To increase the number of students

placed at UWA, this process should be automated as much as possible for low risk, low complexity

students. This means that students with a WAM (e.g. 80+), prior work experience and extra-curriculars

studying generalist courses like Commerce and Arts should not be manually matched to opportunities, or

individually interviewed by placement officers.

A single placements system should be adopted that integrates with other internal systems

A successful placements process requires the use of one system as the ‘single source of truth’ for all

placement-related information. A single system will facilitate the streamlining of processes. However,

adopting a single system does not replace the need to develop a single unified process. A single system is

necessary for a single, process, but not sufficient. A single platform also ensures robust data collection can

occur, so that placement outcomes can be measured, tracked, and reported on.

Based on consultations with peer universities, and Nous’ internal analysis, there appears to be three clear

placement solutions UWA can consider: CareersHub, InPlace, and Sonia. Figure 4, below, compares each

system by appropriateness for placements at UWA, and its ability to integrate with UWA’s systems.

Figure 4 | Comparison of placement systems

Each university interviewed used (and heralded) the InPlace placements system, which was used to

effectively manage placements at each university. InPlace is a platform purposely developed for managing

student placements – acting as a dual marketplace, providing access to both students and industry.

Importantly, InPlace facilitates several types of student-host engagement, including self-sourced

placements, direct matching, and an open market-place. InPlace also facilitates the development and

innovation of different student-industry engagement options, including 12-month professional

placements, for-accreditation placements, and industry-linked projects. Notably, both Swinburne and

Monash (a university with almost 25% international students), have used InPlace to streamline their

Limited integration

capability

Can be

integrated

with existing

systems (e.g.

LMS, Callista)

Fit-for-purpose (for placements)

InPlace

Not fit for purpose (for careers, for-accreditation units)

CareersHub

Sonia

D58


placements process, and scale up different placement offers, with each placing more than 2000 students

each year.

Anecdotally, we understand that Murdoch University uses Sonia to manage its placements process. This

system has been customised to integrate with Callista, to streamline the student enrolments process.

However, we have learned that Sonia is more appropriate for ‘for-accreditation’ units, is otherwise too

difficult to use, and does not facilitate the sharing of information across workflows.

Each university, however, noted that the presence of a single system was more important than the system

itself.

UWA should recruit and retain the right people, and develop the right culture for its

placements team

A successful placements team requires recruiting and retaining the right people for the right roles. This

means that staff recruited for internal engagement roles should be committed to and capable of engaging

and building relationships with students, faculties, and WIL academics. Additionally, staff recruited to

external engagement roles should have strong industry liaison and business development skills. The team

also needs the right culture – one of cooperation and collaboration. As the volume of placements

increases, particularly across faculties, the team should seamlessly shift resources to areas of need.

A standard suite of ‘offers’ should be developed and proactively introduced to current and

potential industry host organisations

To facilitate the growth of WIL placements, and the success of business development activities, the

placements process must provide a clear ‘offer’ to industry. The development of these ‘offers’ should

demonstrate a clear value proposition of engaging with UWA in a WIL placements context. This will build

the reputation and credibility of UWA’s WIL placements offer and improve UWA’s recruitment and

retention of host organisations.

UWA should consider moving pre-placement activities into curriculum to ensure all students

are prepared for a placement if they wish to pursue one

Ultimately, the role of student placements as part of WIL is to contextualise a student’s education and

prepare them for the modern workforce. To ensure this, the placement process should be steadily

integrated into curriculum, where each step in the process is embedded within a student’s course.

Students and academics will be more engaged with WIL and improving WIL outcomes if the process is

curriculum-based, not extra-curricular. This may include undertaking ‘pre-placement’ activities in early-

degree units in preparation for a placement in later-degree units. Ultimately, this may result in the growth

of industry-based projects, and a more holistic approach to WIL at UWA.

Adopting these recommendations should reduce the FTE impact of increasing the number of

student placements

Based on our internal analysis Nous estimates that if UWA were to centralise and automate as much of the

placements process as possible, it would only require 8 FTE as part of the centralised WIL placements team

to support double the number of current placements (see Figure 5).

D59


Figure 5 | Nous estimate of additional resources required to double placements

This estimate assumes centralisation and automation will significantly reduce effort required for low

complexity students. We have assumed that the effort required to place high-complexity students will be

unchanged. We have further assumed that the proportion of low to high complexity students will remain

the same despite doubling the number of placements. We believe this is achievable if UWA adopts risk-

based approaches to managing placements and begins the process of integrating pre-placement activities

in to curriculum.

D60


6 The future state of placements at UWA

6.1 Business model options

Based on the recommendations set out above, there are three business model options that UWA may wish

to consider employing in the medium to long term. Each model comes with unique considerations in

relation to implementation, with accompanying advantages and disadvantages, and reflects the

recommendations listed above, to varying degrees. The proposed business model options are:

• Option 1: functionally aligned model.

• Option 2: fully centralised model.

• Option 3: shared responsibility model.

While each option will assist UWA to realise its ambitions and facilitate the development of a scalable

placements process – Nous recommends the adoption of Option 3: shared responsibility model. An

assessment of each option is set out below.

Option 1: functionally aligned model

The first business model option is the functionally aligned model, shown in Figure 6 below. Despite the

perceived ease of implementation, this model is not recommended.

Figure 6 | Functionally aligned model

A functionally aligned model would leverage UWA’s current (post-Renewal) professional services design

and the existing capability of UWA professional staff and academics. Functional alignment would see

UWA’s existing functions adopt a broader remit with respect to WIL. In practice, this would see the

Innovation and Industry Engagement function become responsible for all industry and host engagement

with respect to WIL placements. Student recruitment will remain unchanged from the current processes,

with each faculty, supported by the Careers Centre and student administration, recruiting and selecting

students.

This model will require the establishment of a relatively small, central WIL placements office, which will be

responsible for setting process, managing the placements system, and (if required), matching students

Host organisation

recruitment

Student

recruitment

Faculty

Careers Centre

Student administration

Industry

Engagement

Matching of

student to host

Centralised WIL office

Pre-placement

activities

Placement

activities

WIL Academics

Post-placement

activities

Handover

point

FUNCTIONALLY ALIGNED MODEL

Handover point

D61


with hosts. Once pre-placement activities have been completed, there is a handover point, wherein WIL

academics in faculty take responsibility for placement check-ins and evaluate student outcomes.

The advantages and disadvantages of this option is set out in Table 2 below.

Table 2 | Advantages and disadvantages of Option 1

Advantages Disadvantages

1. Implementation of this model leverages and reinforces,

the current (post-Renewal) functionally aligned

philosophy of the University.

1. Despite the perceived ease of implementation, existing

functions would need to accept additional

responsibility and accountability – this may prove

difficult.

2. The model only requires a relatively small WIL office (by

FTE), and as such, the costs of implementation will be

comparatively low.

2. The process will be heavily reliant on effective

handover, and seamless communication across

different areas of the university to ensure a cohesive

and trusted process.

3. The model will avoid duplication of roles throughout

the University. Industry engagement and innovation will

perform the industry engagement/business

development functions, while faculties will continue to

engage with students.

3. By outsourcing host organisations recruitment to the

industry engagement function, it risks WIL placements

being de-emphasized as a matter of strategic

importance.

4. Several parts of the University – particularly WIL

Academics, and Industry Engagement, will need to be

engaged and upskilled in the use of a single system

and process – this may require additional resources,

and therefore, costs.

Option 2: Fully centralised model

The second business model option is the fully centralised model, shown in Figure 7 below. This model is

also not recommended.

Figure 7 | Fully centralised model

Host organisation

recruitment

Student

recruitment

Matching of

student to host

Pre-placement

activities

Placement

activities

Post-placement

activities

FULLY CENTRALISED MODEL

WIL Placements Office

D62


A fully centralised model would see the implementation of a central ‘WIL Placements Office’, responsible

for the end-to-end placements process across the University. As noted in Section 6, this office should be

organised in two functions: internal engagement, and external engagement, and be centrally located, as

opposed to dispersed in faculties.


to hand-over to the WIL academic


University that identify placement opportunities

The purpose of centralisation is to facilitate the seamless movement of resources to areas of need – which

can only occur through centralisation. The advantages and disadvantages of this option is set out in Table

3 below.



1. A central WIL office would provide a single point of

contact for all relevant stakeholders – including

students, industry and staff. This would remove any

confusion among industry when engaging with the

university and provide a more seamless offer and

experience for students and industry.

1. The upfront investment may be high, as UWA invests

in the appropriate systems, including a placements

system and CRM. The cost will then scale with relative

effort – meaning that additional staff will be required

as the number of placements increase.

2. A fully centralised model would be the quickest, and

most efficient way to scale-up placements throughout

the University.

2. A fully centralised model disempowers WIL academics

from what are, in practice, academic units of study.

There is a further risk that faculty and WIL academics

feel alienated and become disengaged as they feel no

‘ownership’ of the process.

3. A centralised office, with a single office, would allow

the University to begin innovating and designing new

offers or products, and different ways of engaging with

industry in a WIL context.

3. Due to the risk of alienating faculty, it will become

difficult to embed the process into curriculum.

D63


Option 3: shared responsibility model

The third business model option is the shared responsibility model, shown in Figure 8 below. This model is

the recommended option for the future of placements at UWA.

Figure 8 | Shared responsibility model

This model most closely mirrors the model adopted by peer universities. In practice, this model would be

similar to a fully centralised model. It would still see the implementation of a central ‘WIL placements

office’, responsible for the end-to-end placements process across the University.

The primary distinction between this model, and a full centralised model is the engagement and

cooperation with faculty and academics. Under this model the WIL placements office would be responsible

for host and student recruitment, business development, matching, and all pre-placement activities. Where

this model differs, is that WIL academics become responsible, and must actively engage with students

once the student is enrolled in the WIL unit. After the student becomes enrolled in the unit, the WIL

academic should become the face of the unit, leading introductory lectures and seminars, and checking in

on the student throughout the placement. The WIL office will remain responsible for check-ins with

industry. In this way, we believe that this model does not contradict the principles of UWA’s current (post-

Renewal) professional services design.

The basis for this model is threefold. Firstly, it ensures that strong relationships are maintained between

faculty and WIL, where continuous and improvement and innovation are facilitated by the fact that

faculties remain engaged in the process. Secondly, it ensures that the fundamental purpose of WIL is

retained – the contextualisation of education in industry, as academics check-in on students and support

student learning throughout the placement itself. Thirdly, this model ensures that faculty and the WIL

office cooperatively assess and evaluate the success of individual placements, and can iterate and learn

from successful, and unsuccessful placements. It also lessens the difficultly of embedding placements into

curriculum. The advantages and disadvantages of this option are set out in Table 4 below.

Host organisation

recruitment

Student

recruitment

Matching of

student to host

Pre-placement

activities

Placement

activities

Post-placement

activities

SHARED RESPONSIBILITY MODEL

WIL Placements OfficeWIL Placements Office

WIL Academics

D64




1. A ‘cooperative’ model means that faculty, and

particularly WIL academics, remain actively engaged in

the placements process, lessening the likelihood of a

deterioration of the relationship between the WIL

office and faculty. It would also provide an avenue for

integrating placements into the faculty curriculum.

1. The upfront investment, including both cost and FTE

will be higher. The university will need to invest in the

appropriate (and additional) staff, and fit-for-purpose

systems, including a placements system, and a CRM.

2. A central WIL office would provide a single point of

contact for all relevant stakeholders – including

students, industry and staff. This would remove any

confusion relating to remit and provide a more

seamless offer and experience for students and

industry.

2. While the risk of disengaged faculties is lower, the

relationships between the WIL office and faculty will

become critical, and must be consistently monitored,

invested in and maintained.

3. A centralised office, with a single office, would allow

the University to begin innovating and designing new

offers or products, and different ways of engaging with

industry in a WIL context.

Based on the proposed cooperative model, we have proposed an example process map for placements at

UWA in Appendix C. This process map sets out each step of the process in host recruitment, student

recruitment, student-host matching, and placement activities.

6.2 Implementation

The implementation of a centralised WIL placements team requires time and investment to ensure

relationships are maintained, and student outcomes remain the central focus of the process. Implementing

a new business model comes with clear risks, each with unique considerations. The primary risk associated

with the implementation of a new business model is one of control and oversight. As the process is moved

away from being wholly faculty-based, WIL academics and faculties may become disengaged and

uncooperative.

WIL placements are academic units of study and the WIL academics must retain oversight of them. At

present, WIL academics, as unit coordinators for each placement unit, have oversight of the entire process.

Placement officers manage most of the process but are in effect providing services to the WIL academic.

The primary risk to manage in implementation is therefore the process of engaging WIL academics and

faculty.

The functionally aligned model would likely see WIL academics retaining ownership and control of the

process, with several functional teams providing services. The primary concern with this model is the

difficulty of streamlining and automating a process with several stakeholders and handover points.

The fully centralised model removes the placements process too far from faculty and is contrary to the

notion that WIL placements are academic units of study and the WIL academics must retain oversight of

them. Adopting a centralised model can cause friction with the faculties and lead some WIL academics to

feel a loss of control and is therefore not recommended.

The shared responsibility model recognises the critical contribution of the WIL placements team in the

success of the process, but requires a very clear understanding of responsibility, accountability and

boundaries. The implementation of this model should begin with a ‘service approach’, which will see the

central placements team providing a ‘service’ to the WIL academics. In the short term, this will facilitate a

D65


stronger relationship with WIL academics, but may restrict the University’s efforts to drive volume and

process improvement.

In the medium-term, once the centralised team has been established, the process should more towards a

shared responsibility model, where management and oversight of the placements process is shared

between a centralised placements team, and WIL academics, in order to help drive innovation and

improvement across the whole of the placements process.

D66


Summary of current placement processes

Faculty Students

placed

Student recruitment Host organisation recruitment Student / Host organisation matching Pre-placement activities Placement activities Post-placement activities

FABLE 230

+70

summer

unit

• Student EOI

• Faculty approve (can fit in course)

• Meet with Placement Officer

• Completes pre-placement modules in

LMS

• When all activities are complete an

automated workflow opens

CareerHub Work Group with

placement opportunities relevant to

the unit the student wants to enrol in

• Can be student sourced

• Employers contact Careers or

Placement Officer

• Placement opportunities may come

through alumni/industry engagement

• Many host organisations take

students each year

• Many host organisations take more

than one student

• Placement Officer visits new

employers to vet them and the

opportunity

• Some out-reach by Placement Officer

if student difficult to place

• If no agreement already in place, host

agreement is sent to host

organisation for signing

• Students apply to host organisations

on Careers Hub – host organisation

makes the decision on who to take

• Student and host organisation meet

• If the decision is to proceed, the host

organisation signs a host arrangement

for that placement

• Student signs Deed Poll

• Automated workflow enrols student in

unit

• WIL / WILG units – none

• POLS units – students attend pre-

placement classes

• Student completes 30-hour check-in:

timesheets, milestones and workplace

challenge through CareerHub

• Placement officer visits work places to

check in on students

• Student submits timesheets,

milestones and workplace challenge

through CareerHub

• Student completes assessment

through LMS

• Student and host complete survey

• Faculty approve completion of unit

McCusker

Centre

250 • Student EOI (resume, cover letter)


• Can’t be student sourced

• Outreach by McCusker Centre staff to

identify potential host organisations

• Sometimes use Peak Bodies



• Some host organisations take

students each year

• Most host organisations take only one

student per year

• If no agreement already in place, host

agreement is sent to host

organisation for signing

• Placement Officer and Academic rank

applications and assign them to

opportunities

• Student accepts or refuses

opportunity

• Host organisation meets student (can

veto)

• If the decision is to proceed, the host

organisation signs a host arrangement

for that placement

• Student signs Deed Poll

• Student enrols in unit

• Students complete pre-placement

modules on LMS

• Students attend pre-placement

classes

• Between 0 and 10 hours student

completes first reflective journal –

marked by Academic

• Between 30 and 50 hours student

completes second reflective journal –

marked by Academic

• Placement officer checks in with

students via phone or e-mail

• After 80 hours student completes

third reflective journal – marked by

Academic

• Student presents for 5 minutes to

McCusker Centre on their experience

• Academic determines course

completion


Science 150 • Student EOI (resume, cover letter)


• Meet with Placement Officer +

Academic

• Can be student sourced (although

unusual)

• Outreach by Placement Officer



• Some host organisations take

students regularly

• Most host organisations take only one

student per year

• Placement officer identifies

opportunity for student

• Placement officer arranges student /

host organisation meeting (and

attends that meeting)

• If student and host organisation agree

to proceed, placement officer

prepares individual agreements and

arrangements for each placement

• Placement officer prepares insurance

letter for each placement

• Student enrols in unit

• Student completes pre-placement

modules on LMS

• Students attend pre-placement

classes (or watches on-line)

• Student presents pre-placement

seminar

• Student completes 30-hour survey

• Student attends 3 lectures and

completes tasks associated with

lectures (if required)

• Student logs hours

• Placement officer follows up on any

issues raised through survey and e-

mail contact

• Student delivers final presentation and

final report

• Academic assesses student outputs

and determines course completion


D67


Detailed description of quick wins

UWA should use one system to manage student placements across the University – CareersHub

appears to be the appropriate choice in the short term

At present, several systems are used to manage placements across UWA. These systems include

CareersHub (FABLE), AirTable (McCusker Centre) and Sonia (accreditation placements). Science and EMS

do not use a central system to manage placements, opting for the use of email, Microsoft Excel, and

occasional use of document management systems like TRIM.6

UWA should use one system to manage student placements. Implementing a single system is an

important step in harmonising the different processes across UWA and encouraging placement officers to

work as a team (e.g. manage placements across different faculties). This will increase trust and reduce

confusion in the processes at UWA.

In the short-term, CareerHub appears to be a simple and low-cost option, which can be implemented

relatively quickly across all faculties. However, in the medium-term, a more rigorous options analysis

should be undertaken to identify a more suitable platform for a ‘centralised’ WIL placements model.

UWA should provide individual insurance certificates by exception

Providing an insurance certificate for each student placed, which is currently done by the Science faculty

(approximately 150 insurance certificates each year), is an administratively burdensome step for little

benefit. While we were assured during consultation that host organisations in this sector insist on

individualised insurance certificates, we believe that proactive engagement and education of host

organisations regarding the umbrella insurance provided by UWA would reduce the number of host

organisations insisting on this.

UWA should only provide individual insurance certificates to host organisations by exception. Agreements

with host organisations for unpaid placements should have an insurance clause embedded within them,

which sets out the respective insurance coverages. Embedding an appropriate clause in host agreements

should provide hosts with the necessary assurance that UWA students are covered by the University’s

insurance provider.

Risk based approaches should be taken to student check-ins

UWA seeks to ensure that students are placed in a safe, nurturing, and educative environment during their

placement. To satisfy this duty of care, some placement officers currently undertake several individual

check-ins with each student throughout their placement, either over the phone, or in-person. This process

is time consuming, and individual check-ins for 250+ students is unnecessarily arduous. All placement

officers should take a risk-based approach to student check-ins – only undertaking site visits in essential

circumstances. In all other circumstances, placement officers should utilise surveys, online questionnaires,

or other means (e.g. email) to check-in on students.

Use of a standardised host agreement and placement agreement across all faculties, stored in

a central location

The relationship between UWA and host organisations in industry are essential and should be carefully

managed. At present, FABLE, Science, EMS and McCusker Centre each use different master ‘host

agreements’ to govern placements at each host organisation. This has resulted in some host organisations

having more than one agreement with UWA in relation to student placements. The disparate approach to

contracting risks deterring host organisations from engaging with the University and creates contract risk

if several agreements exist with one party. The negotiation of multiple agreements between UWA and host

organisations appears to occur frequently and can be easily avoided.

6 Noting that during consultation both Science and EMS indicated that they plan to adopt CareerHub.

D68


UWA is a single contracting entity, and as such should have one standardised host agreement between it,

and all third-party organisations who take a student for an unpaid placement. This agreement should be

stored in a central repository (document management system) which is accessible by all placement

officers. The host agreement developed by EMS and approved by UWA Legal appears to be a suitable way

to engage host organisations for student placements. Storing these agreements in a central place in a

repository like TRIM will help avoid unnecessary duplication of this task.

Implementing this recommendation should also result in host organisations only being vetted for

appropriateness once, rather than multiple times for multiple agreements.

Face-to-face interviews with students should only be conducted if there is a risk assessed as

high, and replaced with platforms like the ‘Big Interview’

At present, FABLE and Science conduct face-to-face interviews with each student. These interviews take

place during the ‘student recruitment’ stage, before students can formally apply for a placement. The

interviews provide an opportunity for placement officers to assess whether students are suitable for a

placement. These interviews, more than 400 annually for placement officers in FABLE and Science, are

unnecessarily time-consuming, and can be replaced with more appropriate means of vetting students.

Face-to-face interviews between students and placement officers should be conducted following a risk-

assessment which should identify higher risk situations. This should be the case even if placement officers

are directly involved in matching students to a host organisation. For example, a face-to-face interview

should only be conducted with a student if there is a concern or risk in relation to the student’s WAM,

completion of pre-requisites, an assessment of their resume and cover letter, or lack of prior work

experience.

To alleviate the administrative burden on placement officers and the University, whilst ensuring that the

appropriate vetting processes are in place for all other students – UWA may wish to consider the use of a

video interview platforms like ‘Big Interview’. These platforms can be used to reduce administrative

burden, while retaining appropriate levels of vetting to ensure the students are receiving the right

placement experiences.

A ‘toolbox’ should be provided to those responsible for industry engagement to appropriately

support the placements process

Industry engagement functions within UWA, particularly Innovation and Industry Engagement, and

Development and Alumni Relations, indicated during consultations that they are not well equipped to

provide industry partners with information about potential student placements.

Stronger engagement should be encouraged between placement officers in faculty, and industry

engagement functions. This will improve the ability of these functions to convert business development

opportunities into placement opportunities, and more broadly, educate industry on the placement ‘offer’

of UWA. The first step in defining this ‘offer’ may be the development of a ‘toolbox’ of information that

can be used by industry engagement functions. This ‘toolbox’ may include the appropriate way to engage

UWA in relation to placements, the number of students and disciplines available, and the nature of

placements generally (e.g. duration, timing, compliance, and the role of the host organisation).

D69


Proposed future state process map

Proposed Process Map for WIL Placements at UWA

Stu

de

nt

recr

uit

men

tH

ost

org

an

isati

on

re

cru

itm

en

tM

atc

hin

gP

lace

men

t act

ivit

es

Phase

Existing host

Outsourced recruiter (e.g. CCIWA)

Active business development

Student self-sourced

Vetting- Checklist

- Meeting with WIL Officer

Execute host agreement

Host agreement

Host complete position description, which is uploaded to

placement systemTRIM or other

repository

Matching

Student applies for role

Student is matched to a role

Placement s office introduces host organisation to

student

Host arranges for interview with

student

Host conducts interview with

student

Host decides whether to proceed

Individual host/student agreement for the placementis

signed

Student is enrolled in the WIL unit

Student commences pre-placement actvities

Yes

No

Placement is advertised internally

Student completes expression of interest on placement system

Student eligibility is confirmed via

eligibility questions (GPA, units completed)

Student eligible?

Student attends information sessions,

and completes online induction

module

Student submits application form,

including CV, Cover Letter and Video

InterviewYes

End process

No

Student is enrolled in WIL Unit

Placement commences

WIL Academic checks in with student periodically

Placement s office checks in with host periodically

Student completes mid-placement

practicum

Student completes end-placement

practicumPlacement ends

Student attends introductory

lectures/seminars for unit

Student completes logbook, journal

entries, final report, or delivers

presentation

Student completes end of placement

survey

Host completes end of placement survey

End process

Placement agreement

TRIM or other repository

Matching process begins

Student self-sources placement

CVCover Letter

Video interview

D70


D71

ƒprom

DATA ACCESS AND USE DEED

PART A: DETAILS

PARTICULARS OF THE PARTIES

THE AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY (ABN 52 234 063 906) an educational and research institute and body corporate pursuant to the Australian National University Act 1991 (Cth), of Acton in the Australian Capital Territory, 2601

AND

THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY ABN ([insert ABN]) of [insert address]

AND

THE UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE ABN ([insert ABN]) of [insert address]

AND

THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES ABN ([insert ABN]) of [insert address]

AND

MONASH UNIVERSITY ABN ([insert ABN]) of [insert address]

AND

THE UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE (ABN 61 249 878 937) of North Terrace, Adelaide, SA 5005

AND

THE UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA ABN ([insert ABN]) of [insert address]

AND

THE UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND (ABN 63 942 912 684) of Level 7, JD Story Building, Brisbane QLD 4072

(each a “PARTY” and together ‘PARTIES”)

The PARTIES, each a Party to this Data Access and Use Deed. (Deed), agree that the Details set out in Part A are made in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of this Deed set out in Part B.

BACKGROUND

A. The Parties are each a member of the Group of Eight (Go8), a coalition of Australia’s leading research-intensive universities, all of which are public institutions committed to free enquiry serving the public interest.

B. Each Party has separately entered into a services deed or agreement (Service Deed) with The Reputation Institute for the provision of a market tracker to track performance of the higher education sector.

C. The Reputation Institute will provide Core Questions (as defined in Item 1, Paragraph 2 of the Details) to all of the Parties.

D. The Reputation Institute will additionally provide each Party with data that is unique to that Party (‘University Customised Questions’) that shall not be shared with other Parties.

E. The Parties intend for any intellectual property in Core Questions created in relation to this Project to be held jointly by the Parties in equal proportions as tenants in common.

F. The Parties each agree to provide the other Parties and their Authorised Users with access to, and use of, the Core Questions strictly for the Authorised Purpose, in accordance with the Details and the Terms and Conditions of this Deed.

D72

2 of 9 20-Dec-18


G. The Parties agree to the Details and Terms and Conditions of this Deed in relation to ownership of Intellectual Property in and Access and Use of the Core Questions.

DETAILS

Item 1 Description of the Data

1. The Data pertains to the results of market research conducted by The Reputation Institute as part of the Project. The results will deliver two key sets of data that will be managed under this Deed.

2. ‘Core Questions’ refers to Pulse Scores, Dimension Scores, Drivers, Supportive Behaviours and Higher Education Sector-Specific Questions as per the proposal (see pg. 19 of The Tracking the Higher Education Industry Revised Proposal (29 January 2018) as contained in Schedule 1 of this Deed).

3. ‘University Customised Questions’ refers to data and individual university reports compiled and presented to each Party individually by the Reputation Institute that is unique to that Party which will outline the results and performance of customised, university-specific questions and which will not be shared with other Parties of this Deed (see pg. 20 of The Tracking the Higher Education Industry Revised Proposal (29 January 2018) as contained in Schedule 1 of this Deed).

Item 2 Data Characteristics

Not applicable

Item 3 Data Use Restrictions

1. That no Data outlined in Item 1 of the Details is to be shared with persons other than the Authorised Users.

2. The Data cannot be used for publicity or promotional purposes by a Party. Also, a Party is not allowed to promote its own University Customised Questions, even where it does not mention or include the Data of other Parties. However, if matters referred to in the Data or ‘University Customised Questions’ is publicly available by virtue of being obtained through means unrelated to the Project (such as independently commissioned research), then a Party may use such data in whatever way it requires, subject to paragraph 3 and the intention of the Parties to this Deed to restrict the use of the Data.

3. The Data cannot be disclosed or discussed with industry or government partners of a Party under any circumstances.

D73

3 of 9 20-Dec-18


Item 4 Access to Data Facility

Not applicable

Item 5 Data Transfer Date

Not applicable

Item 6 Method of Transfer

Not applicable

Item 7 Authorised Users – Individuals nominated by a Party

Name Position Title

Clodagh Joanna O’Doherty Marketing & Communications Manager, ANU Enterprise

Michael Cardew-Hall Pro-Vice Chancellor (Innovation), Australian National University

Lindy White (Acting) Deputy Director (Marketing), University of Queensland

Anita Head Deputy Director, Marketing & Communications, The University of Adelaide

Kerry Capsanis Head, Brand and Marketing Services, University of Sydney

Evelyn Lloveda Brand and Insights Manager, University of Sydney

James Leonhardt Senior Marketing Manager, The University of Western Australia

Owen Davies Chief Marketing Officer, The University of Western Australia

Justine Carroll Project Lead, Customer Strategy & Engagement, University of Melbourne

Kim Howells Director, Marketing & Communications Strategy, University of Melbourne

Mariella Smids Precinct Project Manager, Monash University

Freya Campbell Head of Corporate Communications, University of New South Wales

Item 8 Authorised Purpose

The intention of the Project is to assist and inform executive decision making within the Parties. It is not intended to be a public benchmarking exercise and cannot be used for publicity purposes.

The Data may be used for:

a) Internal analysis of and creation of internal reports by a Party relating to the Data;

b) Internal reporting by a Party which incorporates or refers to the Data;

c) Internal publishing by a Party which incorporates or refers to the Data; and

d) Republishing any items referred to in paragraphs a) to c) above by a Party within the Group of Eight Universities.

D74

4 of 9 20-Dec-18


Item 9 Attribution and Acknowledgement

Not applicable

Item 11 Shared Data Outputs Details

Not applicable

Item 12 Transfer of Shared Data Outputs

Not applicable

Item 13 Fees for Provision of Data (Optional)

Not Applicable.

Item 14 Invoice Instructions

Not applicable

Item 15 Provider Payment Details

Not applicable

Item 16 Deed End Date

Until terminated in accordance with the terms of this Deed, notwithstanding that the provisions of clauses 5, 6, 7, 9 and 12 of Part B will survive the termination or expiration of this Deed.

Item 17 Address for Notices

If to The Australian National University:

Attn: Clodagh O’Doherty, Marketing & Communications Manager, ANU Enterprise

Address: Suite 2, Level 2, 121 Marcus Clarke st Canberra ACT 2601

Telephone no: +61 2 6125 0942

Email: [email protected]

If to The University of Sydney:

Attn: Kerry Capsanis, Head, Brand and Marketing Services

Address: Level 2, 22 Codrington St Darlington NSW 2008

Telephone no: +61 2 9351 4093


If to The University of Melbourne:

Attn: Kim Howells, Director, Marketing & Communications Strategy

Address:

Telephone no: +61 3 8344 4321


D75

5 of 9 20-Dec-18


If to The University of New South Wales:

Attn: Freya Campbell, Head of Corporate Communications

Address:

Telephone no: +61 412192979


If to Monash University:

Attn: Mariella Smids, Precinct Project Manager

Address: 20 Research Way, Rm 146, Clayton Campus, Monash University VIC 3800

Telephone no: +61 3 9905 8033


If to The University of Adelaide:

Attn: Anita Head, Deputy Director, Marketing & Communications

Address: Level 2 Freemasons Hall, 254 North Terrace, Adelaide SA 5005

Telephone no: +61 8 8313 0883


If to The University of Western Australia:

Attn: Owen Davies, Chief Marketing Officer

Address: M360, LB5005 Perth WA 6009

Telephone no: +61 8 6488 2806


If to The University of Queensland:

Attn: Lindy White, Deputy Director, Office of Marketing and Communications

Address: Level 6, JD Story Building

Telephone no:


D76

1

Tracking the Higher Education IndustryRevised Proposal

29th January 2018

D77

2

Section 1: Project & Research Objectives

D78

3

Project & Research Objectives

The broad objective of this study is to understand how Key Industry Stakeholders perceive the individual Group ofEight universities and the higher education sector in general.

The research will explore the reputation of individual universities, the higher education sector generally, and theireffectiveness in engaging and collaborating with Industry (Commercial, Government and Not For Profit) to deliver qualitygraduate outcomes for both students and industry, as well as being a valued research provider and partner.

Developing a syndicated national industry higher education tracker for the Group of Eight universities will more specifically:• Explore general perceptions of the higher education sector amongst Key Industry Stakeholders• Ascertain Key Industry Stakeholders’ perceptions of and general impressions, thoughts and feelings towards each

participating university• Identify the sources of information/communication/engagement that most influence industry stakeholder perceptions of

the university• Identify and measure the reputation and drivers of reputation for participating Go8 universities• Understand the link between university reputation and the key supportive behaviours universities seek from industry

stakeholders e.g. Net Promoter Score (NPS), likelihood to employ graduates, likelihood to use university as a researchpartner.

• Provide participating universities with valuable benchmark data for setting KPIs around reputation. This includescomparing the reputation of the university under examination to other universities in their relevant state, relevantuniversity grouping, as well as at a national level.

• Compare university performance against Top 40 charities and the Top 60 companies in Australia.• Provide results for the development and support of each participating university’s performance measures and KPIs on

Reputation and Engagement with industry, by delivering a validated, world best-practice methodology for measuring thereputation of higher education institutes.

D79

4

Introduction

Reputation is the level of trust, admiration and respect that an organisationhas among its key stakeholders. Academic research shows that organisationswith stronger reputations achieve higher levels of support from keyconstituents such as industry stakeholders .

Universities operate in an industry that faces multiple challenges such asincreased competition for graduates both domestically and internationally, aswell as an ever-changing political climate impacting on university funding.These elements mean there are higher demands on universities to meet theneeds of their constituents.

Outlined within this proposal is Reputation Institute’s (RI’s) recommendedapproach to undertaking a national industry tracker for participatinguniversities within the Group of Eight. This tracker will enable universities totrack a set of industry attributes across Australia, and more specificallyexamine how key industry stakeholders (Commercial, Government and NFP)perceive individual universities and the higher education sector as a whole.

Reputation plays a valuable role when looking to improve levels of support foruniversities amongst industry stakeholders. These supportive behaviours mayinclude likelihood to recruit graduates from a university, recommend theuniversity, intention to donate money to the university, and likelihood topartner with the university for research. Therefore, RI recommends as part ofthis higher education industry tracker we measure attitudes and perceptionstowards these supportive behaviours amongst key industry stakeholders.

To gain an understanding of each university’s reputation, RI recommendsusing and customising the international standard in reputation measurement,the RepTrak® model. The approach provides a measure of an organisation’sreputation.

RI also identifies the reputation drivers for the market which provideorganisations’ input into the strategic direction needed to enhance trustamong stakeholders. Other measures include familiarity, level of support, andthe underlying rational Dimensions which indicate the tactical areas to targetin order to improve the emotional connection to each participating universitywhich is measured in the Industry Tracker project.

Results will provide insight into how each participating university can leverageand protect reputation capital, and identify weaknesses. Outcomes of theresearch can inform communication and engagement strategies, and assist inalignment across functions.

An effective reputation management program should include anunderstanding of the perceptions and expectations of the specific stakeholdergroups measured, in this case Key Industry Stakeholders.

Conducting a reputation measurement among industry stakeholders willenable each participating university to:

1. Benchmark its overall reputation among its industry stakeholders.2. Benchmark reputation and other core KPI’s against other

universities/the higher education sector.3. Understand what is driving perceptions of key industry

stakeholders.4. Identify areas of strengths and weakness.5. Over time reliably and validly track reputation.6. Employee strategies to build stronger graduate outcomes,

relations, engagement, and collaboration with key industrystakeholders.

7. Identify ways to improve perceptions of being a valuable researchpartner

D80

5

Section 2:Measuring Industry Stakeholder Perceptions using RepTrak®

D81

6

The Importance of Reputation

Academic research acknowledges there is clear evidence of a strong relationship between multiple reputation and financial metrics. Organisationswith higher reputations also have better business performance across a range of financial metrics. Investment portfolios that contain companieswith the best reputations perform better in terms of their cumulative stock returns than the 500 companies listed on the S&P.

At RI, we believe a good reputation positively impacts the key behaviours of particular stakeholder groups. For example, this might mean increasingadvocacy or trust in the event of a crisis. In all reputation research conducted by RI we look for, and show that an organisation’s reputation isstrongly related to the supportive behaviours.

REPUTATION DRIVES BEHAVIOUR AND SUPPORTThe data below is from RI’s annual study which measures the reputation ofthe largest 60 companies in Australia. The data clearly show there is astrong relationship between reputation index score and the level of supportoffered. As reputation increases, so does the likelihood a company will betrusted in a crisis, people will advocate for it (NPS), and higher reputationcan attract high calibre employees.

The figure below demonstrates how strategic goals are used todevelop initiatives. These initiatives influence and shapereputation and lead to increased support on key behaviours,which translate into improved business outcomes.

D82

7

Measuring Reputation using RepTrak®

At the heart of RI’s thinking on reputation is understanding how keyindustry stakeholders process information about the university underexamination, and how these perceptions affect the level of support andbehaviour toward that university.

One of the most significant challenges of any reputation research is todefine ‘reputation’. At RI we believe reputation is an emotional attachment,which is built on the perceptions an individual has of a organisation oruniversity. A predominant school of thought among academics, based onmulti-national qualitative and quantitative research, defines reputation asthe level of trust, admiration and respect, esteem and likeability felt for acompany. It is an emotional bond that is driven by underlying rationalaspects of an organisation.

The RepTrak® model was created from this academic underpinning and isan index that measures reputation as well as the underlying drivers whichcan be used to shape behaviour.

RepTrak® is comprised of three independent layers. Each layer providesa different level of insight into an organisation’s reputation, and incombination provides a powerful tool to measure and managereputation across all stakeholder groups.

Structural Equation Modelling indicates that the RepTrak® variables are areliable indicator of the reputation construct.

Market research also shows that people are inclined to rate companiesmore or less favourably in different countries. To negate these culturalpreferences, adjustments are made to reputation scores by standardisingthem. In this way we can ensure all scores are directly comparable acrossmarkets and stakeholder groups.

Using millions of ratings collected from reputation measures globally,Reputation Institute has established global norms. This provides reliableranges that can be used to compare performance against competitors inand across markets and stakeholder groups.

Measuring reputation on a normative scale allows participating Go8universities to understand where its reputation is positioned relative toother Australian universities measured within the RepTrak® studies inAustralia.

The RepTrak® model outlined below is the standard model used forCorporates. RI would work in collaboration with the Go8 and customisethe model to ensure it it’s adequately customised for the HigherEducation sector while retaining the core elements of the reputationmeasurement construct.

RepTrak®

D83

8

Reputation is an emotional connection and can be measured usingRepTrak® Pulse. A Pulse score is calculated from responses obtainedfrom four variables that measure a respondent’s emotionalconnection. The 4 statements can be seen below and relate trust,admiration and respect, esteem and likeability.

The calculation provides a score from 0-100 which is then categorisedinto norms based on the work Reputation Institute does withthousands of companies across the world.

No customisation: The four pulse questions are used to calculate theoverall reputation pulse score. These questions are the corereputation metric and therefore are not able to be adjusted.

While a Pulse score provides a measure of overall reputation the truevalue of RepTrak® is understating what drives the Pulse score andoverall reputation. The following pages explain RI’s approach tomeasuring and identifying reputation drivers.

PULSE

The [UNIVERSITY] has a good overall reputationThe [UNIVERSITY] is a university I have a good feeling aboutThe [UNIVERSITY] is a university that I trustThe [UNIVERSITY] is a university that I admire and respect

Reputation Measurement – RepTrak® Pulse

RepTrak® Pulse Score for each University & the Higher Education Sector

As part of the Tracking the Higher Education Industry study,RI will measure the RepTrak® Pulse score for each of theparticipating Go8 universities and competitors (both Go8 andnon-Go8 universities as identified and prioritised by theGroup) .

Further, a RepTrak® Pulse score for the Higher EducationIndustry as a whole will be calculated to provide abenchmark of comparison for individual universitiesagainst the sector. D84

9

In addition to measuring the overall emotional connection (Pulse),the RepTrak® model seeks to understand the underlying rationaldrivers, which are called reputation Dimensions. These Dimensionsinclude Products/Services, Innovation, Workplace, Governance,Citizenship, Leadership and Financial Performance.

Dimension performance is measured via a single question relating toeach dimension area (see below). Responses to each dimension areaveraged (including the country adjustment) to create a dimensionscore (from 0-100) for each dimension area.

Limited customisation: Similarly to the overall reputation Pulsemeasure, the seven Dimensions have been created and validatedfrom academic research and have been found to cover the key areasof company performance across thousands of companies operatingacross numerous global markets. We do not recommend changingthe underlying meaning of the Dimension however we wouldrecommend the wording be revised to be representative of the

Higher Education sector.The specific drivers of reputation are determined using a mixedmodelling approach. This involves the decomposition of thereputation construct (RepTrak® Pulse) into Dimension weights thatuniquely explain the contribution they make to the RepTrak® Pulse.These can be used to identify the key strategic areas that have thegreatest influence in shifting perceptions and influencing behaviour

Customisation of the Dimensions of the Higher Ed RepTrak®model would ensure aspects such as industry focus, preparinggraduates for the workplace, valuable research partnership andquality of research programs are reflected and measured in theDimensions statements

RI will work in collaboration with the Go8 to customise theRepTrak® model to adequately reflect the Higher Education sectorwhile ensuring the core and common needs of the individualuniversities are addressed.

Reputation Measurement – RepTrak® Dimensions

DIMENSIONS

– Offers high quality products and services – it offers excellent products and reliable services– Is an innovative company – it makes or sells innovative products or innovates in the way it does business– Is an appealing place to work – it treats its employees well– Is a good corporate citizen – it supports good causes and does not harm the environment– Is a responsibly-run company – it behaves ethically and is open and transparent in its business dealings– Is a company with strong leadership – it has visible leaders and is managed effectively– Is a high-performance company – it delivers good financial results

D85

10

DIMENSION VALUE PROPOSITION

ServicesProvides high quality services - it meets the needs of its customers and stakeholders, delivers on its promises and is easy to deal with

InnovationIs innovative – it puts customers at the centre of all innovation, is forward thinking, adapts to change, creates and uses innovative solutions

Workplace Treats its employees well – offering equal opportunity (diversity), flexibility and fair rewards

CommunityPreserves the livability of the State - quality of life is considered, now and into the future, when policy is developed and decisions made i.e. for the people and environment in both local and regional communities. Puts the community at the center.

Integrity Is responsibly run – it behaves ethically and is open and transparent with all stakeholders

Leadership Has strong leadership - it has excellent leaders, a clear vision for the future and is managed effectively

Performance Is high performing – it manages its resources efficiently and is financially responsible

DIMENSION VALUE PROPOSITION

Products/Services Offers high quality products and services – it offers excellent products and reliable services

Innovation Is an innovative company – it makes or sells innovative products or innovates in the way it does business

Workplace Is an appealing place to work – it treats its employees well

CitizenshipIs a good corporate citizen – it supports good causes and does not harm the environment

Governance Is a responsibly-run company – it behaves ethically and is open and transparent in its business dealings

LeadershipIs a company with strong leadership – it has visible leaders and is managed effectively

PerformanceIs a high-performance company – it delivers good financial results

Ability to customise the RepTrak® modelRESPONSEThe RepTrak® model displayed below is standardised and works well for consumer facing companies but may not be appropriate for all organisationssuch as NFP, government or industries such as higher education. Therefore the model is flexible and can be customised in collaboration with the Go8working group during the workshops to ensure it includes relevant elements that align with the higher education sector and business goals ofparticipating Go8 universities. The second model outlined below is a case study that demonstrates where RI has customised the RepTrak® dimensions fora client belonging to the government sector.

STANDARD REPTRAK® DIMENSIONS

CUSTOMISED REPTRAK® DIMENSIONS –A GOVERNMENT CLIENT CASE STUDY

D86

11

A key reason for a company to understand its reputation is so it can drive key supportive behaviours. To understand the link betweenreputation and support, the RepTrak® questionnaire measures the level to which individuals are prepared to support the university across keybehaviours.

Full customisation: It is important that the supportive behaviours measured reflect the types of behaviours participating Go8 universities wishto elicit from their key industry stakeholders. As such, RI will work with each participating Go8 university to fully customise the supportivebehaviour section of the survey.

Some examples of the support behaviours universities may be seeking from Industry stakeholders are listed below.

Reputation Measurement – Supportive Behaviours

EXAMPLE SUPPORTIVE BEHAVIOURS

Recommend services of university;

Likelihood to donate to university;

Likelihood to use university as a research partner;

Likelihood to employ graduates from the university;

Trust in a crisis

D87

12

Section 3: Proposed Methodology

D88

13

Broad Overview of Recommended Methodology

13

STAGE 1

Analysis and Reporting

Consultation & Workshop

Finalise the Higher

Education RepTrak® Model

Qualitative In-depth Interviews

STAGE 2 STAGE 3 STAGE 4 STAGE 5

RI proposes the following 6 Stage research model including a combination of workshops, qualitative and

quantitative research.

1. Qualitative Research: n= 20 depth interviews amongst Corporates, Government & NFP

2. Quantitative Research: n= 1,900 comprised of n= 1,500 Online (including min. n=300 client supplied online

sample) & n= 400 CATI surveys

Workshop with Go8representatives

STAGE 6

Reports/Presentations

Final Deliverables

Quantitative Research

(ONLINE & CATI)

N= 20 Commercial, Government and NPF

to inform the development of the

quantitative questionnaire and

customisation of the RepTrak Model

Workshop with Go8representatives

Individual University Analysis & Sector

Analysis

Up to X 8 individual reports

Up to x 8 individual presentations

/workshop(x 1 per participating

university)

N= 1500 OnlineN=400 CATI

D89

14

Success relies on consistent communication, collaboration & engagement Questions posed by the Go8 working group will be explored and addressed in the collaborative workshops outlined below. RI believes that thesuccess of every project relies on consistent engagement and high quality consultation with our clients and this would be the approach used forthe Group of Eight working group throughout the study.

RI subsequently recommends conducting a minimum of four (4) workshops throughout the duration of the Higher Education Industry Trackerproject. This is to ensure smooth project delivery, alignment of priorities and successful achievement of project outcomes. Outlined below is RI’sproposed workshop schedule for this study.

Kick Off

• Re-confirm project objectives and project success factors

• Discuss and confirm sample frame (i.e. in-scope vs. out of scope industry stakeholders)

• Questionnaire design considerations

• Sample lists for up-front qualitative in-depth interviews

• Confirm timings

• Agreement on results sharing

Questionnaire Design

• Develop and review draft quantitative questionnaire

• Seek alignment from the Go8 working group on the proposed Customisation of the Higher Ed RepTrak®model

• Determine higher education sector-wide and individual university customised questions

• Provide sample lists for quantitative fieldwork

Project Check-In

• Provide a progress update for quantitative fieldwork

• Gather feedback on proposed outputs to further inform the development of reporting outputs.

Presentations

• Findings presented to the Group of Eight working group

• Discuss scheduling of Individual university presentations

Workshop 1 Workshop 2 Workshop 3 Workshop 4

Qual Fieldwork

N=20 In-depth interviews

Higher Ed Industry Tracker Fieldwork

N=1900 CATI and online

interviews

Reporting and Analysis

D90

15

Recommended Methodology

The table below is the methodology that RI recommends to measure participating universities’ reputation among its industry stakeholders. RI recognises that doing reputation research among stakeholders is a form of engagement, and should be considered part of participating universities’ reputation management efforts. RI has selected the most appropriate methodologies that take this into consideration, and are based on our extensive experience in measuring reputation across multiple stakeholders groups since 2008, however can be adjusted depending on business requirements.

GROUP AUDIENCE TARGET RESPONDENTS METHODOLOGY

Key Industry Stakeholders

Commercial, Government and Not for

Profit organisations

Key decision makers and influencers of

graduate employment and or research

partnerships across small, medium, and

large size organisations of government,

commercial and non-profit industries.

CATI Interviews (N=400)

Online Survey (N=1500)

SPECIFICATIONS

Target audience Key Decision-makers and influencers of partnership or interactions with universities e.g. graduate recruitment

research partnerships

Sample

Quotas will be monitored to be representative of the Australian business, government and not for profit landscape:

- Small (1-19 employees)

- Medium (20-199 employees)

- Large (200+ employees)

Within the total sample, government, commercial and not for profit organisations will be representative and RI will

allow for natural fallout.

Study sample size Min n= 1,900 total responses per annum

Survey methodology Online (The ORU)/ CATI (Telephone Interviews)

Timings One wave per annum

Length of survey 15 - 20 minutes

Respondent qualifications

Key decision makers/influencers of graduate employment and/or key decision makers/influencers of research

partnerships

‘Very familiar’ or ‘somewhat familiar’ with the institution

D91

16

Additional Sample Considerations

• RI is able to expand the scope of respondents to include a broader set of industry groupings such asresearch, cultural and knowledge partners’. RI envisages that contact information for these respondentswould be provided in the client-provided sample.

• Similarly, if the Go8 working group would like to include ‘media, entrepreneur/start-ups, social and culturalgroup bodies’ within the industry stakeholder group, these respondents would be considered “in-scope”.Respondent contact information would be sourced from the client provided sample, and supplemented withpurchased sample where necessary.

• Our current definition of Government is based on purchased sample, and would include ALL three tiers ofgovernment (Federal, State and Local).

• RI recommends the final sample frame be agreed upon during the kick-off workshop. That is; which targetsare in-scope versus out of scope for the research. Consensus amongst the working group will be establishedduring this workshop.

D92

17

Recommended Sample DesignParticipants for the study would be drawn from key decision-makers and influencers of university engagement (e.g. Research partnerships, graduate employment, staff training, or university engagement in small, medium and large size organisations) who are either ‘very’ or ‘somewhat’ familiar with the participating Go8 university or its competitors.

RI recommends the sample be sourced using a combination of random sample and client provided sample, with the below profile:• Capture small to medium-sized businesses (employees 1-199) sourced from the ORU panel. • Sample for large-size businesses (employees 200+) will be source via Impact Lists. • Each university will have the opportunity to provide their own sample which may span across small, medium and large-sized businesses from the Commercial,

Government and NFP sectors.

N=1,900

Total Completes

N=1,500

Online Completes

N=1,200

ORU

N=300

Client Supplied

N=400

CATI completes

N=400

Impact Lists

The above sample design and sourcing assumes an average of 4-5% response rate. Individual universities will need to provide extra sample to achieve the desirednumber of completes. RI will dedupe university provided sample lists as part of its quality assurance protocols. For client sample, each participating university isrequired to provide RI with an Excel spreadsheet that shows contact name, email address, organisation, contact details, and the area of the university with whichthey had contact.

D93

18

Recommended Sample Size by State

State Total Universities Rated

NSW 450 2 x Go8 + 3 Others

VIC 450 2 x Go8 + 3 Others

ACT 250 1 x Go8 + 1 Others

SA 250 1 x Go8 + 2 Others

QLD 250 1 x Go8 + 2 Others

WA 250 1 x Go8 + 2 Others

Number of Required Completes

The table below provides RI’s recommended sample sizes for each state. Sample size recommendations are based on our knowledge and experience in conducting research in the higher education industry, however can be adjusted depending on business requirements.

The sample profile has been designed to be reflective of the number of major higher education university providers by state and within Australia (including Go8 and non-G08 institutions). We have assumed the measurement of the 8 Go8 Universities plus 13 other universities across Australia.

RI recommends the sample be sourced using a combination of random sample and client sample, with the below profile.

The table below includes interviews to be conducted in WA thereby ensuring results are representative of the whole of Australia. We have also considered the option of conducting the study across NSW, Vic, ACT, SA & QLD (i.e. without WA) if no universities from WA subscribe the study. This would result in the total sample being 1,700 rather than 1,900. Sample sizes for other states would remain the same.

D94

19

Questionnaire Content

Modules Output Metrics Survey LengthType of

Question

Overall Reputation

- Familiarity questions (either somewhat or very

familiar with the university)

- RepTrak® pulse

- RepTrak® Dimension constructs questions

1. Pulse scores (overall RepTrak® score)

2. Dimension scores Approx. 12 mins CORE

Supportive Behaviours

- Attitude/behaviour towards university

(eg. recommend the services of, would partner

with, likelihood to recruit graduates, select as a

research partner)

Supportive behaviour distributions

Net Promoter Scores2 mins CORE

Higher Education Sector Customised Questions

- Syndicated questions relevant to the overall

higher education sector (max 3); e.g. Important

factors when choosing a university as a research

partner or selecting graduates

Areas to address (examples only):

- Measure the perceptions and expectations of the perceived

role of universities and the tertiary sector

- How are tertiary institutions contributing to Australia and

Australia’s future

- What don’t universities do well

- What’s the one big thing this university can do to improve5 mins CORE

Communications/ consultation and engagement

- Explore current perceptions of higher ed.

institutions level of communication, collaboration

and engagement with key industry stakeholders

Communication, collaboration and engagement attributes

Individual University Customised Questions

- Customised questions specifically designed for

individual universities (max 2)

TBC in consultation with Go8 universities 2 mins CUSTOMISED

Optional Component

- Measure RepTrak® Pulse Statements for x1 non-

university organisation (e.g. CSIRO)

Pulse scores (overall RepTrak® score) <1 min OPTIONAL

The table below provides a broad overview of the suggested questionnaire content for this Industry Tracker. RI will work in partnership with the participating Group of Eight universities to develop the questionnaire based on business priorities. RI advises that the Higher Education Industry Tracker questionnaire remain at 15 -20 minutes in duration.

Approximately one third of the survey can

be customised in collaboration with participating Go8

universities.

D95

20

Customised Questions and Comparison Organisations

• Discussions between RI and the Universities included examining how many customised questions could be addedfor each university.

• RI will facilitate a questionnaire development workshop to assist with the prioritisation of questions. At this stageof the process, we envisage the core components of the research will take up approximately two-thirds (2/3) of thequestionnaire. The remaining questions of the survey will be determined through a joint prioritisation process withthe working group.

• Questions relating to the role of the sector will generally be explored within the Higher Education SectorCustomised Questions section of the quantitative questionnaire (as well as the qualitative interviews). Thequestions will be asked of all respondents with data shared across all participating universities as the topic is ofrelevance and mutual interest to all universities.

• RI has also considered the ability to measure non-university organisations such as the CSIRO to provide a point ofcomparison. Should the length of questionnaire permit, RI recommends measuring the RepTrak® pulse statementsat the end of the survey for non-university organisations. This will allow a measurement of the reputation of non-university organisations. Inclusion of this module will be determined in collaboration with the participating

universities during the questionnaire development workshop.

Please refer to previous slide for an overview of the proposed structure of the questionnaire that outline the core and customised components of the study.

D96

21

Overall Research Design and Deliverables

INCLUSIONSNSW

Universities

VIC

Universities

SA

Universities

WA

Universities

QLD

Universities

ACT

Universities

Minimum Number of ratings per

Go8 university 200 200 200 200 200 200

Number of Non-Go8 universities

rated in that State 3 3 2 2 2 1

Number of competitor ratings Min. 150 Min. 150 Min. 150 Min. 150 Min. 150 Min. 150

Familiarity ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Reputation rankings ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Reputation scores incl. 60 largest

companies & Top 40 Charities✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Dimension scores ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Dimension drivers ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Supportive behaviour

distributions✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Impact of reputation on support

analysis ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

NPS impact on reputation

analysis ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Communication, collaboration

and engagement attributes✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Higher Ed Industry reputation

and drivers ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Customised questions for sector Max 3 Max 3 Max 3 Max 3 Max 3 Max 3

Customised questions for

universityMax 2 Max 2 Max 2 Max 2 Max 2 Max 2

Customised individual report per

Go8 university✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Customised Presentation incl.

workshop (1hr) per Go8

university

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

*This assumes all eight institutions within the Group of Eight will participate in this study. D97

22

Section 4: The value RI will deliver to Group of Eight

D98

23

The value RI will deliver to Group of Eight

❖ Cross sector experience (Higher Education, Corporates, B2B & NFP)

❖ Experts in Reputation Management including Reputation Socialisation within organisations, Best practice and risk analysis advisory

❖ Strategic Workshop facilitation

❖ RI are experts in managing syndicated research studies, including management of client sensitivities within the structure.

❖ Individual reporting and presentations for each participating university

❖ Sharing insights across sectors/within sector (compare Higher Ed performance against Top 60 Corporates & Top 40 charities)

❖ Clear and actionable recommendations including highlighting reputation opportunities and risks that links key measures with outcomes

❖ Timely and flexible creation of Reports

EXPERTISE SCALABLE CLEAR REPORTING &

RECOMMENDATIONS31 2

❖ This study focuses on delivering insights to the Go8 from the Industry Stakeholder group cost effectively.

❖ RI provides the opportunity to up-scale the study in future to measure sector and university performance amongst other stakeholder groups (e.g. General Population, Academics, Current & Prospective Students, University Staff)

D99

24

Reasons for using RI as a supplier

RI has a long and successful history in conducting reputation research both inAustralia and internationally. Founded in 1997, Reputation Institute is apioneer and global leader in both measurement and management ofreputation. Our previous partnership with AMR ensured that ReputationInstitute has had a presence in the Australian market since 2007. In 2017, RIopened offices in Australia.

RI’s reputation research has been featured in the Australian Financial Review.RI’s Managing Director, Oliver Freedman, has regularly appeared in both printand TV commentary on reputation research in both markets.

RI (previously in partnership with AMR) also conducts the largest and longestrunning study of corporate reputation in Australia and New Zealand. The studylooks at the largest corporates in each market and measures the level of trust,admiration, respect and support the general public have towards thesecompanies. Results are released to the media in each market annually.

RI also measures the reputation of the Top 40 Charities within Australiaproviding a useful benchmark to measure the reputational performance of theHigher Education sector relative to the Top Corporates and Charities withinAustralia.

As part of the study RI’s Managing Director has hosted multiple breakfasts inSydney and Melbourne where market insights relating to Reputation areshared with reputation leaders and practitioners

.Australia New Zealand

D100

25

Socialising Reputation – RI can assist!

Prior to implementing a broad-based reputation program, there is a need to educate and consult key internal stakeholders on the importance of reputation, how it relates to their function, provide them an opportunity to contribute to the programme design and discuss how the results can be effectively used to assist them in their role.

A number of options are available to achieve to Go8 to this:

1. A series of meetings with the key approval delegates from each participating university and their direct reports to talk through the importance of reputation and answer their queries. These meetings could be conducted by the individual promoting the research internally or by RI.

2. Development of a University Reputation Council with key executives. The council would meet once a quarter to identify key reputation issues and discuss appropriate responses. The profile of such a group (assuming it includes senior executives) would send a clear message across the university around the importance being placed on reputation.

The benefits of upfront engagement includes:

• Aligning expectations • Broad contribution for a robust design• An opportunity for internal stakeholders to put forward concerns • The ability to highlight any issues or considerations that may impact

reputation measurement outcomes

It is crucial that individuals across the breadth of functions are involved in these discussions and challenges to the importance of reputation answered in a clear and informed way.

D101

26

Examples of Reporting/Recommendation Outputs

D102

27

Example of Outputs – Comparison of Higher Ed, Corporate and Charity Sector Performance

76.973.7

83.2

72.8 73.1

67.1

59.9

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

University 1 Average of Go8Universities

Average of CharitiesRanked 1-20

Average of CharitiesRanked 21-40

Average of CompaniesRanked 1-20



D103

28

Examples of Outputs – Overall Reputation Results (within industry)

In this example, University 4 is ‘best in class’ within the competitive set recording an overall pulse score of 80.3 which isconsidered excellent. In contrast University 1’s reputation is weak and University 2’s reputation is considered moderate. University 3’s reputation score of 73.2 is considered strong but there is room to improve (as evidenced by University 4’s excellent reputation score).

University 1 University 2 University 3 University 4

D104

29

Examples of Outputs – Dimension head to head analysis

vs.

+ 2.2ahead

+ 3.3ahead

+3.0ahead

+ 2.5ahead + 2.3

ahead

+4.2 ahead

+ 5.1 ahead

It is useful to look at the dimension performance to identify which areas an individual university outperforms the average for the Higher Education sector. In this example, University 1 is ahead across all dimensions however performance in the areas of Innovation and Performance are the clear differentiators.

University 1

Go8 Average

As noted previously, the Dimensions would be customized in collaboration with the Go8 to adequately reflect the Higher Education Sector.

D105

30

Examples of Outputs – Dimension Results (within industry)

In this example, University 4 highest scores are in the areas of Services, Citizenship and Performance, and outperforms its competitors across all seven dimensions. In contrast little differentiates University 1, University 2 and University 3 . University 1’s Citizenship score is the weakest within the industry , with a score of 72.2 however is considered a strong score.

74.5

72.6

72.8

72.2

73.2

72.4

73.777

.0

72.6

71.5 74

.5

74.5

74.3

75.0

76.7

72.0

71.5 73.3

74.6

73.0 75

.682

.1

76.8

77.1 79

.4

79.6

77.8 79

.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Services Innovation Workplace Citizenship Governance Leadership Performance

University 1 University 2 University 3 University 4

D106

31

Examples of Outputs – Supportive Behaviours

Supportive Behaviours University 1 University 2 University 3 University 4

Recommend services of university;

Likelihood to donate to university

Likelihood to partner with university

Likelihood to employ graduates from the university;

Trust in a crisis

Would recommend invest

Would work for

Would recommend work for

62

60

59

58

54

54

52

50

18

20

21

19

18

18

17

18

13

14

15

17

18

18

19

15

7

7

5

6

10

10

12

18

% Positive (5-7) % Neutral (4) % Negative (1-3) Not sure

62

60

61

58

45

43

49

44

20

19

19

20

18

19

18

19

10

13

13

13

22

18

17

14

8

7

6

8

16

19

16

24

63

63

60

61

56

56

53

50

17

17

19

17

18

15

16

15

14

13

16

17

17

18

19

15

7

7

5

6

9

11

13

20

66

64

64

62

47

45

51

45

17

18

17

19

17

19

16

18

11

13

14

13

21

17

18

12

6

6

5

6

15

18

15

24

In this example, while University 4 elicits the highest support when it comes to recommends services of the university, likelihood to donate, likelihood to partner with university, likelihood to employ graduates, however less than half would trust in a crisis, would recommend to invest in or work for.

D107

32

Examples of Outputs –Reputation Drivers

• Percentages indicate the weight and relativeimportance of each of the reputation Dimensions indriving overall reputation.

• The key drivers of reputation in this example areGovernance (openness, transparency, ethical behaviour)Citizenship (community and environment) and Productand Services.

• Perceptions of these 3 areas have the greatest influenceon the emotional connection stakeholder feel towardthe company and its overall reputation.

• These areas offer the greatest opportunity and pose thehighest risk

• As noted previously, the Dimensions would becustomized in collaboration with the Go8 toadequately reflect the Higher Education Sector.

Reputation Driver Weights

D108

33

Examples of Outputs – Quadrant Analysis

In this example, the Quadrant Analysis highlights the university’s opportunity to drive reputation through focusing on the qualityof the products/services it delivers, being seen to be open and transparent in its business dealings and messaging around itscitizenship initiatives. These areas are a strong driver of the company’s overall reputation but currently perceptions of thecompany’s performance in these areas is below average. Because performance is weak in these areas, if a negative event was tomaterialise relating to these areas it would be a risk to the company’s reputation overall.

As noted previously, the Dimensions would be customized in collaboration with the Go8 to adequately reflect the Higher Education Sector.

D109

34

Examples of Outputs for Corporate Case Study –Target areas that Drive Reputation

Reputation Driver Weights

D110

35

66.7

66.2

66.1

66.1

66.0

65.7

65.6

65.5

65.0

65.0

64.5

64.4

64.3

64.2

63.4

61.8

61.4

61.0

60.9

60.8

60.6

60.4

60.4

60.0

60.0

59.2

57.4

55.4

49.6

49.2

Shell Australia

Commonwealth Bank of Australia…

Bupa

BHP Billiton

Zurich Financial Services

Coca-Cola Amatil

Ford Australia

National Australia Bank (NAB)

Leighton Holdings

Energy Australia

AGL Energy

Medibank Private

Origin Energy

QBE Insurance Group

Macquarie Group

Allianz Australia

BP Australasia

AMP

Telstra

Caltex Australia

Westpac

Citigroup

ANZ

RioTinto

Vodafone Hutchison Australia…

Foxtel

Australian Taxation Office (ATO)

7-Eleven

News Corp Australia (formerly…

Fairfax Media

Nov 2015 Pulse 31-60

77.2

76.8

76.8

76.6

76.6

76.1

75.3

74.8

73.6

72.7

72.6

72.1

71.2

70.8

70.2

70.1

69.9

69.6

69.6

69.4

69.3

69.1

68.9

68.8

68.6

68.4

68.1

68.1

67.6

67.2

Qantas Airways

Air New Zealand

Samsung

JB HI-FI

Australia Post

Nestle Australia

ALDI Australia

Mazda Australia

The Good Guys

Toyota Motor Corporation

Apple Australia

Harvey Norman

Virgin Australia (formerly Virgin…

Wesfarmers (owner of Coles,…

Bendigo and Adelaide Bank

Hyundai Australia

Woolworths

IBM Australia

Scentre Group (owner and…

Insurance Australia Group (IAG)…

ING Direct

Hewlett-Packard

Optus

Flight Centre

BlueScope Steel

GM Holden

Myer

Suncorp Group

Visy Industries

Lion

Nov 2015 Pulse 1-30

Average Go873.7

Uni 1 76.9

Examples of Outputs – Top 60 Ranking

We are able to provide each participating university an understanding of where its reputation sits relative to the top 60 Australian companies (by revenue).

We also have access to numerous global benchmarks through our association with the Reputation Institute. D111

36

90.2

87.5

87.2

86.9

85.2

85.2

84.3

84.1

83.5

83.5

83.5

83.1

82.2

81.5

80.9

80.2

78.8

78.6

78.6

78.2

Royal Flying Doctor Service of Australia

Guide Dogs

The Fred Hollows Foundation

Beyond Blue Ltd

Medecins Sans Frontières Australia (Doctors…

St John Ambulance

Camp Quality

Starlight Childrens Foundation

McGrath Foundation

National Breast Cancer Foundation

Cancer Council Australia

Australian Red Cross Society

Surf Life Saving Foundation

Diabetes Australia

National Heart Foundation of Australia

RSPCA

The Salvation Army

World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF)

St Vincent de Paul Society

The Smith Family

Reputation Score Ranked 1-20

77.2

76.9

76.9

76.5

76.0

75.9

75.3

75.1

74.2

72.9

72.3

71.2

71.1

70.7

70.4

70.4

70.2

69.7

67.6

66.2

Wesley Mission

Autism Spectrum Australia (Aspect)

Barnardos Australia

Save the Children Australia

Australian Conservation Foundation

Cerebral Palsy Alliance

Multiple Sclerosis Ltd

ChildFund Australia

Vision Australia Ltd

Oxfam Australia

UNICEF Australia

The Wilderness Society

Plan Australia

World Vision Australia

CARE Australia

Compassion Australia

Amnesty International Australia

Mission Australia

BoysTown

Greenpeace Australia Pacific

Reputation Score Ranked 21-40

Uni 1 77.1

Avg Go873.7

Examples of Outputs – Top 40 Charity Ranking

We are able to provide each participating university an understanding of where its reputation sits relative to the top 40 Charities . D112

37

Section 6: Sharing results across participating Universities

D113

38

Sharing results across participating Universities

Decisions on what will be included in the final reports and the level of data sharing will be will be discussedand agreed upon in collaboration with the Go8 working group. RI will facilitate the workshop with the viewof achieving consensus on the appropriate level of data to share amongst the group.

Under no circumstances will the customised questions and associated results of any individual university beshared with the other universities (unless prior consent has been agreed and obtained). The Higher Educationsector specific questions will be designed to be relevant to all participating universities and will thus beuniversally shared.

At this stage of the process, RI has proposed three levels of reporting for the working groups’ considerationthat provide varying degrees of data sharing amongst the participating universities.

• Level 1: Limited sharing of results: institutions would have full access to their own results, but not thatof other institutions. They would have access to average Go8 results, as well as national/sector results.

• Level 2: Moderate sharing of results: institutions would have full access to their own results but onlypulse scores of other institutions. They would get access to average Go8 results, as well as national/sectorresults.

• Level 3: Full sharing of results: institutions would have full access to their own results and the results ofother institutions (excluding the reputation driver analysis for other universities) . They would get accessto average Go8 results, non-Go8 results, and national/sector results.

The following slides provide further detail on the proposed data sharing options and some high level output examples of thecore outputs for illustrative purposes.

D114

39

Level 1 – Limited sharing of results

Pulse ScoresDimension

ScoresDrivers


Higher Ed Sector

Specific Questions

University Customised Questions

Other participating universities customised questions

Own university ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

✓

(sector specific questions)

✓ X

Other universities de-identified(e.g. Uni 1, Uni 2 etc.)

✓ ✓ X ✓ n/a n/a n/a

Average G08 Universities ✓ ✓ X ✓ n/a n/a n/a

Average Non-Go8 universities

✓ ✓ X ✓ n/a n/a n/a

Total Higher Ed Sector Drivers

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓n/a

n/a n/a

Participating institutions would have full access to their own results, but not that of other institutions (Pulse& Dimension scores would be de-identified for Other institutions). Access to average Go8 and non Go8 pulseand dimensions (not drivers), and access to all national/sector results.

D115

40

Level 1– Limited sharing of results: Core Output Examples

1. University has access to Pulse Score, but other university Pulse Scores are de-identified.

2. University has access to Dimension Scores, Go8 & non Go8 Dimension scores, and Dimension Scores for the Higher Education Industry

3. University has access to its own Driver Scores, and driver scores for the industry.

UWS University 2 University 3 University 4

Non- Group of Eight

79

90 82

83

7575

74

UWS

67

69

59

6575

74

54.2 67

62

78

6576

74

58

Total Higher Ed Sector Group of Eight

67

71

78

5976

74

88

18.8%

14.2%

14.0%13.4%

13.2%

11.6%

14.9%

UWS

20.8%

14.2%

16.0%12.4%

13.2%

9.6%

13.9%

Total University Drivers

D116

41

Level 2 – Moderate sharing of results

Pulse Scores Dimension

ScoresDrivers


Higher Ed Sector

Specific Questions




✓


✓ X

Other universities identified

✓ X X X n/a n/a n/a

Average G08 Universities

✓ ✓ X ✓ n/a n/a n/a


✓ ✓ X ✓ n/a n/a n/a


✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/a n/a n/a

Participating institutions would have full access to their own results, pulse scores of other institutions,access to average Go8 & non Go8 pulse and dimensions (not drivers), and access to all national/sectorresults.

D117

42

1. . University has access to Pulse Score as well as other university Pulse Scores.

2. University has access to all university Dimension Scores, Go8 & Non Go8 Dimension scores, and Dimension Scores for the Higher Education Industry

3. University has access to its own Driver Scores, and driver scores for the industry.

Non- Group of Eight

79

90 82

83

7575

74

UWS

67

69

59

6575

74

54.2 67

62

78

6576

74

58


67

71

78

5976

74

88

18.8%

14.2%

14.0%13.4%

13.2%

11.6%

14.9%

UWS

20.8%

14.2%

16.0%12.4%

13.2%

9.6%

13.9%


Level 2 – Moderate sharing of results: Core Output Examples

UWS UTS UNSW University of Sydney

D118

43

Level 3 – Full sharing of results

Pulse Scores Dimension Scores

DriversSupportive Behaviours

Higher Ed Sector Specific Questions




✓


✓ X

Other universities identified

✓ ✓ X ✓ n/a n/a n/a

Average G08 Universities

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/a n/a n/a


✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/a n/a n/a


✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/a n/a n/a

Participating institutions would have full access to their own results and the results of other institutions(excluding the reputation driver analysis for other universities). They would get access to average Go8 & non-Go8 results, as well as national/sector results.

D119

44

1. . University has access to Pulse Score as well as other university Pulse Scores.

2. University has access to all university Dimension Scores, Go8 & Non Go8 Dimension scores, and Dimension Scores for the Higher Education Industry

3. University has access to its own Driver Scores, and driver scores for the Go8 , non-go8 as well as the industry.

Non- Group of Eight

79

90 82

83

7575

74

UWS

67

69

59

6575

74

54.2 67

62

78

6576

74

58


67

71

78

5976

74

88

Level 3 – Full sharing of results: Core Output Examples

UWS UTS UNSW University of Sydney

18.8%

14.2%

14.0%13.4%

13.2%

11.6%

14.9%

UWS

19.8%

13.2%

14.0%13.6%

13.0%

14.9%

11.6%

Group of Eight Drivers

20.8%

18.2%

16.0%12.4%

13.2%

9.6%

9.9%

Non Group of 8 Drivers

20.8%

14.2%

16.0%12.4%

13.2%

9.6%

13.9%


D120

45

Section 7: Timings

D121

46

Timing

The table below provides indicative timings for completion of research:

ACTIVITY WEEK COMMENCING ASSIGNED TO

Project Sign off Week 1 Go8

Project Planning meeting Week 2 Go8/RI

Design and customisation of RepTrak model (including any necessary consultation with

internal Go8 stakeholders)Week 3&4 Go8/RI

In-depth interviews recruitment and fieldwork (n=20)

Week 3&4&5&6 RI

Survey approval Week 7 Go8

Survey programming and testing Week 7-8 RI

Contact lists provided to RI Week 5-8 Go8

Fieldwork Week 9-12 RI

Analysis and Reporting Week 13-17 RI

PresentationWeeks 16-18

Go8/RI

D122

47

Section 8: Project Costs

D123

48

Budget

Our standard invoice terms are 50% of the professional fees on commissioning, 35% on delivery of reporting and 15% on completion of the project. Our invoicepayment terms are 14 days from date of invoice. All prices are quoted in Australian dollars and are exclusive of GST. The above price will be valid for 3 months.

The table below provides the costs to conduct reputation research for the Group of 8 universities based on RI’s recommended, methodology, sample sizes and proposed source of the sample. Costings are based on the assumption that all Go8 universities participate in the study.

Price (ex GST)

- Stage 1 and 3: Project Management and Research Design (includes workshops) $30,500

- Stage 2 and 4: Quantitative and Qualitative Fieldwork:- n=1,500 Online & n= 400 CATI interviews- n=20 ½ hr in-depth interviews

$98,750*

- Stage 5 – Analysis & Reporting- Stage 6 – Delivery of individual reports per university and individual

presentations/ workshop per university$112,000

TOTAL PROJECT COST (For Year 1) $241,250

**TOTAL COST PER UNIVERSITY (Assumes all x8 Go8 universities participate)

$30,156

Prices quoted within are subject to change with any changes to methodologyRI will source sample listings for the online quantitative study utilising approved Panel and List providers* Total cost for the sample option excluding WA would be $90,550 for the Data Collection (a saving of $8,200) and $233,050 for the total cost.** Cost per university will increase should there be a reduction of participating Go8 universities D124

49

Section 9: Success Stories and Case Studies

D125

50

RI’s Reputation Measurement Credentials

Melbourne AirportMULTI STAKEHOLDER REPUTATION RESEARCH

CHALLENGEThis Melbourne Airport was embarking on aan expansion program. The expansionfundamentally changed the way the airportwould be regarded by the wide range ofstakeholders that it impacts; fromgovernment, through to relevant industrygroups, airlines, retailers, suppliers andemployees for whom it is a key operatingfacility and place of work as well as thebroader community that it serves andoperates amongst, such as local residentialsuburbs, passenger users and visitors. Giventhis significant change, the airportrecognised the importance in understandingits reputation among these groups so itcould monitor and track changes over time.

SOLUTIONUsing the RepTrak® model, we were able toprovide a measurement framework forcomparison in the future against thebenchmark that:

• Provided sufficient flexibility toaccommodate a range of differentstakeholder groups with different levelsof influence

• Was validly applied across different datacollection methods but still produced arobust and simple output formanagement and communications use

• Enabled issues and concerns to be raisedby stakeholders and were easilyidentified for proactive management

• Can be repeated annually (or as required)to assess changing sentiments and needsas well as the performance of the airportin managing those needs

• Is capable of withstanding scrutiny frompublic entities and the media

INSIGHTS DELIVEREDThe audit provided the airport with a clearunderstanding of stakeholders’ currentperceptions, their motivations, needs andexpectations and guidance on developingthe airport’s reputation. It deliveredstrategic insights into the airport’s role inthe community, and help guide its thoughtleadership agenda. The results alsoinformed corporate communicationsprograms to address issues.

RI’s team of Oliver Freedman and Justin Cain have extensive experience conducting multi-stakeholder reputation audits using the RepTrak tool across a variety of industries. To preserve client confidentiality, we are unable to provide higher education specific case studies. Listed in the following pages are case studies showcasing our experience in working with clients in the government and commercial sectors. Additional examples of our experience can be provided, if required.

TALMULTI STAKEHOLDER REPUTATIONRESEARCH

CHALLENGEAs Australia’s largest specialised lifeinsurer, TAL has an ambition to be aleading financial services organisation.In working to achieve this goal, TAL hasrecognised the need to grow the TALbrand in the minds of consumers andcustomers.

SOLUTIONWe conducted a multi-stakeholder auditof TAL’s brand and reputation whichgave TAL an understanding of how thelevel of knowledge and perceptions ofthe organisation across its stakeholdergroups.

Our approach included significantinternal consultation in the set up phaseto ensure internal buy-in, followed bydevelopment of a customisedreputation measurement solution basedon Reputation Institute’s RepTrak®model. We also designed various datacollection approaches, such as onlinesurveys, CATI, and in-depth interviewsto target TAL’s various and complexstakeholder groups.

INSIGHTS DELIVEREDWe were able to identify the key driversof TAL’s reputation among its variousstakeholder groups as well as TAL’scurrent performance in these areas. Theinsight assisted TAL to develop a cleardirection on how best to build its brandby prioritising areas which will have thegreatest impact on building the TALbrand.

D126

51

ARTCREPUTATION/ CUSTOMER SATISFACTION RESEARCH

CHALLENGEARTC understands the importance of building a strong relationshipand strong service delivery for its key Customers. ARTC has identifiedthe importance of and has therefore committed to measuring servicesatisfaction on an annual basis for customers (i.e. coal producers,above rail operators or above rail passengers) within both HunterValley and Interstate divisions.

SOLUTIONWe conducted both face to face depth interviews and telephoneinterviews with ARTC’s key customer segments with the view oftracking its customer satisfaction annually.

INSIGHTS DELIVEREDThe study identified the service areas that are ARTC’s strengthsamong its Customers as well as areas for improvement and keyrecommendations on how to improve on metrics such as reputation,overall performance, advocacy, innovation, customer service and‘worth what paid for’. The program identified action plans to beimplemented across the wider organisation. By tracking this overtime, the study has revealed where actions taken by ARTC havedriven real changes to customer satisfaction and perceptions, and thenext stage of challenges and improvements for the organisation.

FMG InsuranceREPUTATION RESEARCH IN THE NEW ZEALAND MARKET

CHALLENGEAs the leading provider of farmers and agricultural insurance therewas an assumption that FMG’s reputation among those involved inthe Agricultural sector was high, however there was no consistentmeasurement of its reputation among this group or the New Zealandgeneral population as a whole.

SOLUTIONWe conducted a online survey with n=2,000 members of the NewZealand general public targeting regional and non-metro locations.Utilising our standard consumer RepTrak model, the survey coveredfamiliarity and awareness of FMG Insurance, overall reputation andperceptions of FMGs performance across dimension and attributeareas as well as the level of support FMG could expect to receive.

INSIGHTS DELIVEREDWe were able to provide FMG an understanding of its reputationamong the New Zealand general public including key drivers. This inturn, provided FMG direction on message development in trying toraise it overall awareness among the general New Zealandcommunity.

Reputation Measurement Credentials (contd.)

D127

52

Referees

Can be provided upon request

D128

53

Section 10: Project Team and Quality Assurance

D129

54

Project Team

We offer a suitable amount of senior counsel and provide ‘one team’ for the project covering all areas, ensuring participating Go8 universities and RI have accessand control over all components. We have the ability to draw upon additional resources as required and provide flexibility to deliver ad-hoc requests. Outlinedbelow is information on the two key researchers who will be involved across the programme.

Oliver Freedman, Managing Director

Oliver has 20 years researchexperience and establishedReputation Institute’s presence inAustralia in 2017. Prior to that, Oliverwas Managing Director of AMR, oneof Australia’s leading MarketResearch companies. Oliver joinedAMR in 2004 and held positions ofAccount Director, Group AccountDirector, General Manager and finallyManaging Director over thesubsequent 13 years. Before workingat AMR, Oliver was employed for 5years at Harris Interactive in the US.During Oliver’s time at AMR, hemanaged and oversaw the Hardcopyand Electronic Use School’sCopyright Collection as well asUniversities Copyright Collection.Oliver presented to schools anduniversities over 100 times and wasintrinsically involved in ways to adaptand update the monitoring systems.Oliver is regarded as one ofAustralia’s experts in ReputationMeasurement and Management. He

has been regularly interviewed andquoted in the media (incl. TV, Radioand Print) on both corporate and not-for-profit reputation and hasappeared on Sky Business to talkabout the role of reputation inbuilding relationships withstakeholders. Oliver is a member ofthe Australian Market and SocialResearch Society (AMSRS) and hereceived a Bachelor of Science(Psychology) Hons and a Master ofPsychology (Applied) from UNSWand had his Honours thesis,Differences between implicit andexplicit acquisition of a complexmotor skill under pressure: Anexamination of some evidence,published in the British Journal ofPsychology (1998).Oliver will be involved in all aspects ofthe project, providing advice duringthe project set up phase, meetingwith senior executives during theinitial engagements, conducting keyin-depth interviews, authoring thereports and presenting the results.

Justin Cain,Director Consulting

Justin joined Reputation Institute inJanuary 2018 after five years at AMRas Group Account Director of thereputation team. Justin was alsopreviously employed at the SouthAfrican office of the ReputationInstitute from 2009 to 2013, where heheld the General Manager position.

Over the past nine years, Justin hasoverseen both qualitative andquantitative stakeholder, brand andreputation research projects. He hasled project management teams, andmanaged operations and logistics. Hehas experience with numerousorganisations in the private,government and not for profit sectorsacross the financial services,transports/logistics, utilities,telecommunications, mining andresource industries.

Justin has presented at conferencesin South Africa and the Netherlandsand holds an MBA from theUniversity of the Witwatersrandwhere his research developed amethod to articulate organisationalculture. Justin had a decade ofexperience in advising and trainingbusiness leaders and executives. Healso has several qualifications in areasof Anatomy and Physiology.

D130

55

Quality Assurance

Credentials GuaranteedReputation Institute (RI) Australiaand New Zealand is a member ofthe Association of Market andSocial Research Organisations,“AMSRO” and the EuropeanSociety for Opinion and MarketingResearch, “ESOMAR”. By being amember of these organisations RIhas agreed to abide by their codesof practice.

Code of ConductRI follows the AMSRS’s Code ofProfessional Behaviour inmanaging confidential data. Allstaff sign a confidentialityagreement about their work,and all staff adhere to theCode. The Code of ProfessionalBehaviour has been deemed tosatisfy all requirements of theFederal privacy legislation.

Professional Market ResearchOrganisation MembershipAs a member of the Australian Market& Social Research Society (AMSRS),RI is committed to the preparation ofquality instrumentation and effectivemanagement of survey researchprojects, regarding respondents as a‘renewable resource’, minimisingburden and maximising quality ofresponse.

Individual researchers and analystsare Members of the Market ResearchSociety of Australia and the EuropeanSociety for Opinion & MarketResearch (ESOMAR).

D131

56

About Reputation Institute

Reputation Institute is the world’s leading reputation management consultancy, enabling leaders to make more confident business decisions. Independently owned and founded in 1997, Reputation Institute is the pioneer in reputation management operating in 30 countries. Through reputation insights and advice Reputation Institute enables leaders to make business decisions that build and protect reputational capital and drive competitive advantage.

For more information, visit: www.reputationinstitute.com

Reputation Institute Australia & New Zealand

Level 57, MLC Centre19-29 Martin PlaceSydney, NSW, 2000

ContactOliver FreedmanManaging DirectorE. [email protected]. 0434 562 623

Justin Cain Director ConsultingE. [email protected]. 0439 270 209

D132

COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE

Optimising Student Enrolment Academic Board discussion paper

1 Rationale

This paper is provided to facilitate discussion at Academic Board by raising awareness of some of the

detailed issues, opportunities and constraints UWA faces in relation to optimising student enrolment,

especially with regard to the domestic school leaver cohort. The discussion paper, supported by a

presentation to Academic Board, sets out the broad terrain and evidence-base to frame conversation and

seek advice from Academic Board members. There are a number of broad questions at the end of the paper

to assist discussion.

There is a requirement for high quality, sustainable student recruitment across all stages of the student

lifecycle: undergraduate, postgraduate coursework and higher degree by research. In the progression of

students from undergraduate to postgraduate study, UWA performs second in the country (behind only

Melbourne) and performs well above national trends. Improving access whilst retaining our students into

postgraduate study must continue to be a priority for UWA.

While student enrolment targets show realisable growth to 2025, our performance over the last five years

has been less than optimal, especially in domestic undergraduate recruitment. This is true overall, as well as

in specific equity areas such as low SES and rural and remote students. The focus of this paper is on how best

to develop and extend our natural student markets. Clearly, there is also a need for an approach to diversify

our recruitment into new areas, such as professional development, and these opportunities will be

addressed through other initiatives.

This paper does not seek to make any specific recommendations. As and when appropriate, proposals

informed by these initial discussions will be brought to subsequent Academic Board meetings. Nor does the

paper seek to be comprehensive with respect to all possible issues, nor to focus on particular programs or

courses. Rather, the intention is to focus discussion on some overarching principles and approaches to help

inform and contextualise any subsequent development of specific programs and initiatives.

2 Context

The consultation underpinning the development of the Education Plan reaffirmed the value of the UWA

course model in preparing our graduates for leadership and for the complex opportunities of the future. The

advantages of the UWA course model were positively restated by the Cycle 1 Review and most recently by

initial feedback from the Cycle 2 Review, which noted the model’s even greater contemporary relevance. In

that context, within the state, as well as for UWA graduates working overseas, the growing importance of

postgraduate qualifications is firmly evidenced.

David Epstein, author of How Generalists Triumph in a Specialised World, writing in The Guardian (12 July

2019) makes the broader point about the need for breadth and multidisciplinarity. In this regard, it is

perhaps informative to look at one of the technical differences between the UWA course model and that of

the University of Melbourne. At UWA, we have prioritised student choice and flexibility to change by not

requiring the selection of majors until the second year. At Melbourne, the students enrol at the outset in

E1

specified majors, but have sufficient flexibility to change major in the second year. Our approach has

perhaps led to some unanticipated difficulties including:

Presenting the full suite of majors and combinations in the annual TISC Guide, especially compared

to other WA Universities; and

The additional complexities of providing academic advice to students.

Admissions opportunities at UWA are clearly affected by state and national contexts. These include the

capping of undergraduate places (in $s) at 2017 levels by the Commonwealth, requiring the University to

show agility and careful planning in relation to programs, actively balancing the varying contributions of

student fees and Commonwealth support, which impact on academic disciplines in differing ways. In

addition, there is the emergence of performance funding potentially covering attrition, graduate outcomes,

student satisfaction and enrolment of disadvantaged groups. UWA has more work to do on meeting its

performance targets for equity and access and, alongside national attention on improved access and

participation for regional, indigenous and low-SES students, the State focus is also now firmly in this space as

evidenced by the critical view of social equality in some government schools, as illustrated in this ABC news

article.

Equally, we have seen growth in competition for students. From the eastern Go8s and global elite

universities, the competition for high achieving WA students is fierce. At state level, we have similarly seen

growth of competition, reflected through loss of traditional UWA market share especially in the 80-97 ATAR

range. This competition at state level is manifested through the development of programs and initiatives

perceived as being better aligned with employability, as well as online provision for rural and remote

students.

Of equal concern for UWA is the steady, and now accelerating, decline in ATAR enrolments in schools. This

has the twin effect of reducing our overall pool of potential students as well as significantly impacting on

specific subject enrolment, for example, in STEM areas. School Curriculum and Standards Authority (SCASA)

data shows a drop of >11% in ATAR course enrolments 2016-2019. This leaves WA in an overall position

significantly at variance with other States and Territories, except Tasmania.

3 Issues

3.1 Understanding market share and student motivations

Over the last year, we have developed a better understanding of areas of best potential to realise market

share, as well as a better understanding of the factors that underpin student choice. This knowledge has

come about through improved analysis of data as well as qualitative feedback from WA schools and

segmentation analysis of future students’ motivations. From this data, we know that future students are

overwhelmingly (70%) focussed on course choices to further their careers and employability, with only 30%

choosing their study options based primarily on interest. Our overall pitch has perhaps been targeted to a

smaller proportion of the potential market.

We know from segmentation analysis that negative sentiment towards UWA is driven by perceptions of lack

of adequate preparation for the workforce and of an unwelcoming culture. We also know that the

assessment of the capacity of a course to positively affect employability determines student choice ahead of

the assessment of the institution. In this regard, other WA Universities have opened up a much wider range

of course options by a consistent ATAR boost for equity students, rather than the more complicated and

sliding scale that UWA currently uses for Broadway students.

E2

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-09/perth-modern-school-ranks-second-in-australia-socio-advantage/11288146.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-09/perth-modern-school-ranks-second-in-australia-socio-advantage/11288146.

The Education Plan seeks to leverage the power of the UWA model with a renewed push for successful

careers and leadership. This includes enhancement of the value proposition in respect of experiential

opportunities – work integrated learning, volunteering and leadership, global experiences – reflecting the

consistent sense that we are losing out to local competitors through market perception that UWA is too

theoretical and not sufficiently “real world”.

In addition, as the economy and society adapt to new economic and labour market conditions, our

application of market intelligence has provided greater insight into which courses are likely to be attractive

as student demand changes. In response, we have accelerated some course approvals to maximise

opportunities in these areas, as well as optimising the existing structures to open up new opportunities such

as the recently approved majors in Criminology and Gender Studies.

There have also been significant improvements in admissions processes, yielding better results across

international and domestic student recruitment. Work is now underway on improving the overall brand of

our educational offer through a series of consultative workshops with academics.

Nevertheless, there are some important areas where a detailed focus on the market share is necessary as

analyses shows a divergent pattern for UWA market shares in different ATAR groups:

We have maintained a consistent high market share in WA for the highest ATAR group (98+) where

attractive scholarships and the B.Phil. premium product provide some hedge against local

competition, eastern Go8 and global competition for these students.

We have lost market share in the 85-97 ATAR group which accounts, over a five-year period, to

around >400 students per annum. We currently provide virtually no scholarship or premium product

range for this potential group. Other Go8 Universities have addressed this group through, for

example, the provision of “Advanced” degrees (e.g. UQ and Adelaide).

We are no longer the university of first choice in WA for the ATAR 80-85.

If we look below the 80 ATAR, taking into account the impact of the existing Broadway initiatives,

and projected student choices of university, we could generate around 150 additional enrolments in

specific programs from students between 75-80 ATAR.

This picture raises the question of how we address the needs of each specific market segment.

3.2 The ATAR puzzle

ATAR is a relational rank, not an absolute indicator of individual academic performance (i.e. an ATAR of 80%

aligns to being in the top 20% in the State of all year 12 students). It follows that what constitutes an 80 in

one year will not align with the same individual academic performance in a different year, although the

consistency of the top 20% is achieved.

There is the separate question of what, in terms of actual academic performance, is the difference between

an ATAR of, say 76 and one of 80. The 2018 page from the TISC website is helpful in this regard. It shows this

difference in school achievement to be very small (around 2% of the actual TEA average aggregated across

all four subjects).

It is also important to understand how students progress and succeed at University when entering from

varying ATAR bases. UWA and national evidence shows academic performance of students in ATAR bands

+/=75 does not vary significantly to those with ATARs at +/= 80. In fact, as a cohort, UWA students from low

SES backgrounds with ATARs around 90 or lower, tend to achieve a higher average WAM than students from

high SES backgrounds with a comparable ATAR. Support structures, such as Fairway, have shown additional

E3

https://www.tisc.edu.au/static/guide/atar-about.tisc

evidence of student success. National data identifies that the relative differences in WAM performance

occur at the much lower and higher ends of the initial ATAR spectrum.

3.3 Management of ATAR at UWA

UWA operates an ATAR ‘floor’ at 80, with agreed exceptions on specific equity grounds. SCASA have recently

asked that all WA universities review such policies, noting that Admissions Transparency rules do not require

such a floor, only a published minimum by course. SCASA is concerned that such ‘floors’ appear to be

particularly prevalent amongst WA universities compared to national practices, and, in their view, are

contributing to the decline in selection of ATAR courses in schools, as “they suggest to teachers and students

that students whose ATAR is likely to be, say, in the 60s, would be better placed to achieve university entry

by taking mostly General Courses and a Cert IV” (note to TISC Board, 28 June 2019).

It is SCASA’s view that ATAR courses are a better preparation for students than alternative entry programs. It

also has to be acknowledged that one driver of declining ATAR enrolments is the practice of WA schools to

focus on median ATAR and counsel students to alternative routes to achieve better median averages.

We may not agree to the diagnosis by SCASA of the effect of ATAR floors. From a policy and advocacy

perspective, our position may be to suggest schools are monitored (and reported in the media) by

proportions of students taking ATAR as well as median ATAR. It is clear, however, that there is acceleration

in the decline of the proportion of students taking ATAR courses, which will adversely affect all WA

universities.

As can be seen in Table 1, other Go8s do not operate such a defined floor and adjust ATAR according to

requirements. With regard to Table 1:

The lowest ATAR is not a useful indicator as this usually applies only to individual students who may

be “outliers”. Universities have to report on this metric as a consequence of Admissions

Transparency

The published ATAR is the stated general entry level (e.g. for UWA, the 80 ATAR floor).

Table 1: Go8 ATAR comparison

Bachelor of Arts Biomedical Science Commerce Sciences

Lowest Median Published Lowest Median Published Lowest Median Published Lowest Median Published

UWA 70.90 87.60 80.00 68.70 89.30 80.00 71.80 88.45 80.00 70.05 88.40 80.00

Melbourne 73.00 92.25 85.00 90.80 98.03 95.00 81.10 96.50 93.00 62.45 92.00 85.00

Monash 66.70 81.40 75.00 82.30 95.50 88.00 80.85 91.35 86.00 75.00 84.95 75.00

Sydney 71.90 87.00 80.00 N/A N/A N/A 85.20 96.50 95.00 75.10 86.45 80.00

UNSW 71.35 81.47 81.00 83.70 94.53 92.00 87.80 94.75 97.00 75.25 85.35 85.00

ANU 70.55 86.25 80.00 80.15 93.05 90.00 72.70 88.25 82.00 70.35 86.00 80.00

Queensland 71.00 81.00 76.00 84.00 93.00 86.00 86.00 91.00 89.00 76.00 89.00 81.00

Adelaide 54.00 84.30 65.00 50.90 86.10 65.00 68.50 86.15 80.00 51.75 79.90 65.00

The overall comparison between UWA and the other Go8s shows broad alignment, but:

For Arts, UWA is relatively high in median ATAR (second behind Melbourne) and third equal highest

in minimum entry requirements;

For Commerce, the Go8 overall position is skewed by two institutions (UQ and Monash) offering a B.

Bus or B.Bus Management at lower entry requirements compared to their Commerce offerings;

For Sciences, we are third highest on median ATAR; and

There is perhaps insufficient commonality to meaningfully compare Biomedical Science.

E4

It should also be noted that two Executive Deans at UWA have asked for a reconsideration of the 80 ATAR

floor to allow for greater flexibility.

It is opportune therefore to review the agreements around ATAR in the context of the introduction of New

Courses in 2012. The 2012 Admission and Quota Plan, approved by Senate, establishes the factors of quality,

demand, capacity of the University and equity considerations as the main drivers for admission to the

University; noting that “priority will be given to filling the planned intakes and, if appropriate, exceeding the

planned intakes.” To realise this, a body called the Admissions and Quota Working Party (comprised of PVC

Education (Chair), Chair of Academic Board, Registrar, Director of Planning Services and Associate Director,

Student Services (Admissions Centre)) oversaw the work of the Associate Director, Student Services

(Admissions Centre) who “sets the ATAR cut-off ranks and maximum number of places to be offered under

each TISC code”. In 2012 the only defined ATAR cut-offs were for the B.Phil., Juris Doctor and

Medicine/Dentistry. This Working Party seems to have lapsed.

4 Discussion opportunities

In consideration of the points above and in order to maximise our opportunities to recruit students from the

school leaver market:

a) What strategies can we devise to meet the needs of particular ATAR market segments, and

especially the 85-97 ATAR group given the high potential volume?

b) Given the need to be agile regarding the alignment of places to optimise Commonwealth revenue

and student contributions, should we re-constitute the Admissions and Quota Working Party with

revised membership?

c) In view of SCASA’s request and existing Go8 practices, what is the value for UWA of a single

institutional ATAR floor?

d) In order to highlight the employability options at UWA (which account for the preferences of two-

thirds of the market) should we reform initial enrolment to be closer to the Melbourne approach? If

so, should we ensure that transfer to high ATAR cut-off areas is conditional on prerequisites, such as

initial ATAR or high first year WAM?

E5

Documents

AGENDA - Education at UWA · Part 1 of the agenda consists of items for communication. Part 2 of the agenda relates to items for decision to be dealt with en bloc by motion by the