Aims:
The aims of the exercise were to:
- reduce duplication of management subject lectures;
- identify a core of management subjects generic
to a range of undergraduate programmes;
- reduce teaching hours;
- take a first step towards
a more integrated provision of management subject lectures across all
years of all undergraduate programmes.
Resources:
Time, effort and commitment !
Details:
The background to the case study is as follows:
- The current Manchester Centre for Civil and Construction
Engineering resulted from a recent (2000) merger of the previous separate
departments of Civil and Structural Engineering and Building Engineering.
- Prior to the merger there was a degree of cross-departmental
lecturing, but individual modules were unique to each department. The
only exceptions were in those cases where a given module from one programme
was offered as an option to one or more other programs. An example would
be People and Organisations 1 (not optional to BSc Construction Management
students), which was offered as an optional module to Civil and Structural
students.
Historical background
Seven of the year 1 modules are common to the three programs provided
by the previous Building Engineering Department. Two modules are common
to two of the programs. This degree of commonality was historically established
and the culture of the department supported it. The extent of commonality
diminishes over subsequent years, but there are common modules in the
final year of two of the programs.
The module selected as the test-bed for approaches to common studying
between the Civil and Building programs (Production Management 1) was
previously common to three programs in the Department of Building Engineering;
BSc Construction Management, BSc Commercial Management and Quantity Surveying,
and BSc Building Services Engineering. Management teaching across all
years of the civil programs was suggested as forming a distinct spine
of study, and the second year module ‘Management 2’ was suggested
as having similar content to ‘Production Management 2’ (this
was later found to be somewhat over-enthusiastic view). It was therefore
seen as being potentially the least problematic module with regard to
common study across all department programs.
The new departmental structure involved the formation of a number of
divisions covering specialist subject areas. Currently, the largest of
these divisions (in terms of lecturers as division members) is the management
division. This division is seeking to reduce the number of hours spent
lecturing so as to create more space for research activities, and has
initiated a rationalisation of management lecture provision in an attempt
to reduce ‘multiple lecturing’.
The first step towards the adoption of ‘Production Management 1’
(PM1) as a common module across all programs were taken prior to the merger
of the two departments. In 1999 a small team of lecturers involved in
the provision of management lectures in the two departments was formed
to examine the possibilities for achieving a common management module.
While the implementation of a single common module across several programs
may not seem a staggering achievement in comparison to programs elsewhere
which have almost complete commonality across their first years, it is
important to stress the major cultural barriers which had, over time,
built up between the two departments. These barriers have still not completely
been taken down, and the PM1 module is now undergoing its third iteration
as a common module.
Module content
Other than the cultural issues (which will be returned to later), the
biggest problem has been the identification of acceptable and relevant
content for the ‘new’ joint module. Previously, it was mentioned
that the ‘Management 2’ and ‘Production Management 1’
modules were suggested as having similar content, but this was eventually
established to be an over-optimistic assessment. The reason which caused
this situation to arise can now only be guessed at, as two of the members
of the original team left the department shortly prior to the implementation
of the joint module’s first iteration being completed. It would
therefore be fair to say that this area is a somewhat sensitive one with
regard to evaluation of the module. However, a key lesson here would seem
to be that obtaining full and accurate information is essential in the
reduction of development problems. Subsequent iterations of the joint
module have largely focused on establishing what aspects of management
are taught elsewhere on the respective management spines of all relevant
degree programs. ‘Management 2’, for example, is located on
a spine of four management modules, and it was later established that
the first iteration of the joint module repeated some aspects of management
taught elsewhere on that spine.
Student issues
A second key lesson relates to lecturing styles and, as such, is closely
related to the issue of culture previously mentioned. Looking at the types
of students recruited onto the respective degree program results in a
clear identification of two main types. Whilst it may be seen by some
as reinforcing cultural barriers and stereotypical images, there can be
no doubt that one stream of students are of the ‘classical reasoning’
type, with an emphasis on hard systems. Delivering management studies
as a ‘soft systems’ subject has not proved popular with this
type of student, some of whom have actively sought to bring about a change
of lecturing style to one they feel more comfortable with.
The second type of student are more focused on the ’romantic reasoning’
approach, and consequently have experienced few problems with the soft
systems emphasis and lecturing style. They, have however, experienced
problems in completing the joint (group) assignment which is part of the
assessment profile of the joint module. These problems have arisen largely
because of the unwillingness of some of the ‘classical’ students
to participate in group discussion and work development. In order to move
towards a less confrontational situation with regard to completing the
group assignment, it was decided to take the radical step of keeping it!
While the focus of the assignment has been changed slightly, the module
team decided that the most valuable approach would be to address the cultural
issues causing some students not to participate in group-based activities.
The current iteration of the joint module has therefore had a series of
activities added which focus on the skills needed to work effectively
within a group. These activities are dispersed throughout the duration
of the module and have been deemed compulsory. However, in order to reduce
any possible suggestion of confrontation on this issue, the module team
are not primarily responsible for the delivery of these activities; UMIST’s
teaching and Learning Group have taken the responsibility for this (with
some support from the module team). The value of this development will
be evaluated at the end of the 2001/02 academic year.
Module credit
A third key lesson has been the allocation of credits to the joint module.
The first two iterations focused largely on the issue of establishing
the content required. This process was found to be constrained to some
extent by the fact that ‘Management 2’ had a lower credit
value than ‘Production Management 1’, resulting in some initial
common content and assessment, after which Management 2 finished and Production
Management 2 carried on. One problem (which was initially thought to be
significant) resulting from this was that the module exam had to be moved
to the end of the first semester (rather than the second semester), thereby
constraining the extent of subject matter which could be examined. After
this change was implanted, it was actually found to have a number of benefits,
with a particular one being a more even distribution of exams between
the semesters. Consequently this change will be retained.What will not
be retained is the difference in credit value for the two modules. UMIST
is moving towards a policy of consistent module credit values, and a single
credit value has now been implemented for ‘Management 2’ and
‘Production Management 1’, with ‘Management 2’
increasing to the credit value of ‘Production Management 1’.
This policy of consistent module credit value should be of benefit when
future attempts to rationalise management lecturing through more common
modules are considered. In the mean time, it is now possible for two modules
to have a common assessment profile – if nothing else, this should
ease the administration load through having one spreadsheet to calculate
the final mark!
Evaluation:
Evaluation of the changes made to the module has, to date, been considered
under 3 headings:
- Student feedback.
This has comprised three issues; the difficulties for students regarding
the finding of common time within four program timetables so as to work
on the joint assignment; the degree of willingness of students to work
with others from a different professional and cultural (in terms position
within the construction industry), and the degree of willingness to
accept a different style of lecture delivery. The most negative evaluation
has come from the Civil and Structural program students, and has focused
on the style of delivery. Team-building exercises have been introduced
to the 2001/02 iteration of PM1 in an attempt to overcome these negative
perspectives of the module. The initial feedback on the first of these
exercises indicates that a more positive approach to team working is
being engendered. Detailed feedback will only be available once the
full program of exercises has been completed.
- External examiner feedback.
To date, this has been generally positive.
- Peer (lecturer) feedback.
Within this group, two camps seem to be emerging, those:
- who accept the benefits of a common study module, whilst also
being willing to work in a positive manner towards the overcoming
of any problems arising from the implementation of such a module;
- whose cultural mindset cannot yet accept that the problems arising
are worth overcoming. Fortunately, the latter camp are in the minority.
Benefits:
To the Students
- opportunity to become aware of students on other
programs focused on different specialisms within the construction industry;
- further opportunity to develop team-working skills.
To the Staff
- decrease in time spent lecturing;
- opportunity to rationalise lecture notes;
- decreased time spent preparing/marking examinations.
To the University
- decreased time spent by lecturers on duplicating
management lectures across several programs;
- potentially greater research outputs (papers,
funding applications etc.);
- reduced requirements for visiting lecturers.
Issues and lessons to be learnt:
The key issue identified with the case study is that of determination
of the true extent of support for change flowing from the culture within
the organisation (in this case, the newly integrated department). Much
effort has been expended on simply trying to recover from the mistakes
made as a result of accepting statements made by key members of the organisation
without verification; a more rigorous interrogation of these statements,
along with the wider department culture with regard to the value and delivery
of management, would have been effort more profitably spent.
Ongoing developments:
These include:
- further rationalisation in the teaching of management
subjects across the integrated department. This may well require adjustment
of the content within the module, however any changes under this heading
are anticipated as being minor in order to allow the second focus area
opportunity to develop;
- the second focus area is that of enhancing the
team culture within the module (and, by association, elsewhere in the
respective programs).
Both of these areas are anticipated as having at least one further cycle
of the module before instigation of any major changes which may be identified
as being required. |
