HMBS Consultation FAQs

Answers to frequently asked questions (FAQs) around the establishment of the Faculty of Health, Medicine and Behavioural Sciences are provided below and are also available to download: HMBS FAQ (PDF)

Design of the professional services for the new Faculty

Who are the members of the Steering Committee, Taskforces and New Faculty Leadership Advisory Group? Have staff (academic and professional) been appropriately represented in these groups?

The New Faculty project has been guided and governed by a comprehensive mix of academic and professional expert teams as well as other stakeholder groups.

The New Faculty Steering Committee has 5 Taskforces with each Taskforce is chaired by a member of the Steering Committee, including around 8 to 10 members from a range of academic and professional groups from central, faculty and school teams. This includes members from a range of roles including Heads of School, Associate Deans, School and Centre Managers, USET members and functional experts from research, academic and engagement units.

The membership of the steering committee and taskforces is listed on the HMBS Project website.

The New Faculty Leadership Advisory Group comprises both HaBS and Medicine executive staff, heads of schools, school managers, directors of faculty-level centres and institutes and EMCA representatives.

What consultation with professional and academic staff has occurred to support the decisions that are being made in shaping professional services in the new Faculty?

The proposed professional services and organisational structures for the new Faculty are the result of a considered process, undertaken throughout 2024, with inputs from the groups mentioned above. This included a detailed mapping of the current state for professional services across both faculties using a range of inputs:

current positions,
job family classifications,
position descriptions and organisational structures,
Uniforum activity coding,
input from the New Faculty Steering Committee’s taskforces (including reports from Taskforce 2 and 3), and
insights gained through previous reviews of faculty-level functions in both HaBS and Medicine.

The proposed future state for professional services was developed using this mapping exercise and benchmarking with other faculties to determine the required functions for the new Faculty. The design of each function in the new Faculty was guided by:

consistent evaluation criteria to determine optimal structural models (consolidated, hub and spoke or devolved),
input from central functional owners (eg DVCA, Academic Registrar, DCVRI, Executive Director Research Office) and key stakeholders, and
professional service design principles and change design principles which were developed in consultation with the senior professional leaders and broader staff groups across HaBS and Medicine faculties, as well as from central portfolio and function leads.

We have now reached the stage where consultation can be undertaken more broadly. The formal consultation period for professional and academic staff to provide input into the proposed professional services for the new Faculty occurs in the period after the proposed change is communicated to staff consistent with the terms of the Enterprise Agreement. Key dates are:

HMBS Explanatory paper: From 30 July 2024 to 5.00pm Tuesday 13 August 2024
HMBS Major Organisational Change proposal: From 30 July 2024 to 5.00pm Wednesday 28 August 2024

Why are some positions in the proposed new structures continuing and some fixed term?

The provision of the greatest degree of job security for employees is important to the University and all positions proposed for the new Faculty are continuing where possible. In some instances, fixed-term positions have been proposed based on operational requirements. Positions that are currently fixed-term have also been transferred and retained where appropriate.

Please could you outline how you intend to integrate the feedback from the professional and academic workforce from the consultation process, and how would you integrate their feedback into the process?

All feedback on the proposed changes will be collated and considered by the New Faculty Steering Committee, the Vice-Chancellor (as the project sponsor) and the University Senior Executive Team. Where appropriate, the University may elect to modify the proposal/s based on the feedback provided, subject to operational requirements and consistency with the design principles of the proposal.

Is there a reason why the University isn’t investing additional funding into this change? Given this will be the biggest faculty at UQ, why are we trying to make it work within the current budget envelope?

The new Faculty will be required to operate under the same budget conditions as all other faculties. This requires the active management of expenditure to ensure no uplift in baseline costs except where it aligns with increased student revenue and operational requirements. This is necessary and appropriate given the current financial context of the University.

Does reducing the number of Senior Managers in some areas from two to one make it more or less likely to address the size and complexity of the new Faculty?

The proposal outlines a rationale that we need a single point of functional accountability. In addition, where appropriate the proposal includes additional capacity to support the relevant leadership position in the professional functions. For example, in HSW the proposal includes a HEW 9 role to provide functional accountability and an additional new HEW level 8 role to provide additional support.

Who were the key stakeholders consulted in the preparation of the research support structure?

The proposed professional support for research is the product of a considered design process that included input from the New Faculty Steering Committee, New Faculty Leadership Advisory Group, Taskforce 2 (Research Structures and Profile), Taskforce 4 (Faculty Services and Infrastructure), the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research and Innovation) and the Executive Director of the Research Office. These stakeholders provided guidance on the strengths of existing support models, and consideration was also given to the insights gained from the review of pre-award research support in the Faculty of Medicine which concluded in mid-2023.

How have early and mid-career academics (EMCAs) been considered in the design of research support for the new Faculty?

The proposed research support model would enable the new faculty to continue to provide support to EMCAs in multiple ways. Specifically, the proposed precinct model would provide support for developing and delivering initiatives that enhance the research environment, including activities that would support the EMCA community. In addition, the strategic research initiatives team would provide support for focused initiatives that support researchers to be competitive in the context of current trends and focal areas, for example specialist support for women in STEM.

In addition to the proposed research support roles, the incoming ADR and other academic leadership roles to be introduced to support the ADR would partner with leaders across the organisation to develop other ways in which EMCAs can be supported, which may include a continuation or variation to successful initiatives that have been trialled previously across the existing faculties.

Have our external partners been consulted in relation to this change?

During 2023, more than 500 staff participated in the in-person and online consultation forums, and more than 170 submissions, including feedback from our external partners, were received.

The 5 key themes from the feedback were:

A single faculty could facilitate tighter integration and optimise mission objectives.
Organisational change may generate new operational challenges or may not deliver positive outcomes.
A perceived dominance of one health discipline over others was raised as a concern.
Other approaches and models could be considered.
Shared learnings need to be enabled to support better outcomes for Indigenous Australians.

The summary outcomes report has further information on the consultation, the key themes and next steps.

Implementation of the new Faculty

How will the changes affect workload distribution and team dynamics? Are there provisions in place to allocate additional resourcing during the change process to aid in the transition? What steps are being taken to ensure a smooth transition during this time?

One of the change design principles that has guided the design of professional services for the new Faculty is that the scope and pace of change to be achieved in the transition is balanced with the resources available. The proposed structural changes are a first step towards bringing existing teams together, with a key focus being business continuity for the new Faculty. It is understood and expected that teams take the required time to adjust their ways of working and scope of services in the new operating environment. The University would continue to provide support to leaders of professional areas to assist with this phase of implementation, including from skilled project managers in the proposed Business Intelligence and Quality Assurance function.

Throughout implementation we would also continue to monitor workloads and psychosocial risks. While workloads have been considered in the current design of the professional teams, individual employees who have concerns with their workload should discuss these matters with their supervisor in the first instance.

We have been advised that further changes in the education portfolio next year will need to align with functional reviews occurring through P25. When will we know more about these reviews and the timeline? Do staff who have already been mapped to the new Faculty have their continuing positions secured past July 2025?

As outlined in the Explanatory Paper, the approach proposed to be taken for the Education function is to continue with the two existing student and academic administration teams and align with the timing of the university wide review of Student and Academic Administration and Student Support. The timing of this review is being determined by the DVCA.

During the first half of 2025, the HMBS Associate Dean (Academic) and Faculty Executive Manager will work with the Senior Managers within the HMBS Education function to bring the teams together by mid-2025. This will occur in partnership with the DVCA and Academic Registrar to ensure that any proposed changes are aligned with the University wide review of this function.

How is the recruitment to the Deputy Executive Dean and Associate Deans in the new Faculty being approached? And any academic positions that might report to the Associate Deans? How will diversity of discipline in the executive leadership of the new Faculty be achieved?

We are currently in the market for an Executive Dean. As soon as that appointment is confirmed, we would look to progress with recruitment for the Deputy Executive Dean, the Associate Dean (Academic) and Associate Dean (Research). It is important that the Executive Dean has input into the recruitment processes for these appointments.

At this stage, the University intends on making appointments to the Associate Dean positions this year, in time for the commencement of the new Faculty next year. Once these Associate Deans have been confirmed, they will then be involved in the design and recruitment of any other specialist academic roles within their portfolio. It is a priority to have these sequential recruitment activities progress as quickly as possible to ensure the HMBS executive are appointed for the commencement of the new Faculty.

One of the guiding principles of the establishment of the HMBS executive leadership team is to ‘promote diversity and support the full breadth of disciplines and capabilities included in the new Faculty’. The plan outlined above to recruit to these roles sequentially enables diversity of discipline, strengths and other characteristics including gender to be considered in making these critical appointments.

Will I be required to change my current work location?

We understand that the location of work is a factor in how satisfied we are in our roles. Staff will not be required to change location as part of this transition. Where staff would like to change locations or work flexibly across locations to meet operational requirements, we will endeavour to support these requests.

When and how will we be involved in designing the function going forward? What is the timeline?

The Explanatory Paper and the Major Organisational Change Proposal describe how we intend to bring the existing professional teams together to enable the establishment of the new Faculty. Once the formal consultation process has concluded, we would start the next phase of implementing the approved changes, including recruiting to new and open roles.

Implementation timelines are expected to be tailored to each function, although it is anticipated that all new positions would be appointed to for commencement on 1 January 2025 or earlier.

Functional leaders and their teams will play an active role in shaping the ways of working for their area within the new Faculty, including the development of a service catalogue for each functional area.

In the new Faculty, will I still support the same school/centre/institute that I currently support?

The University has proposed the realignment of professional services with geographical locations, known as precincts. The consolidation of the two faculties would enable the new Faculty to create a substantial scale of activity at each of the three campuses of St Lucia, Dutton Park and Herston.

For some functions, this presents the opportunity to transition to a precinct model of service delivery whereby specialist staff within a function are primarily embedded within a physical precinct with onsite leadership. This opportunity has informed the proposed structure and operating model for professional service functions where a precinct model was considered as the best way to enhance the accessibility and efficiency of service provision. This may mean that the organisational unit you currently support may change in the new Faculty.

How will resources (funding, staff, facilities) be allocated to ensure that all disciplines, including Behavioural Sciences, receive adequate support?

One of the design principles of the HMBS executive leadership team is to ‘promote diversity and support the full breadth of disciplines and capabilities included in the new Faculty’. The plan to recruit to Faculty Executive roles sequentially enables diversity of discipline, strengths and other characteristics including gender to be considered in making these critical appointments.

Will schools within HMBS be impacted in the near future as a result of the new Faculty?

There are no proposals to change school structures at this stage. Any future considerations for change would be determined by the new Executive Dean and the HMBS leadership team.

What will be the process to recruit to any new or open positions in the new Faculty?

Positions would be filled on a by merit basis with first priority being given to those staff members whose continuing position is to be disestablished. Any roles not filled through that process would be opened to others in UQ to apply including those on fixed-term contracts and/or advertised externally as determined by the University.

Proposed Research function changes

We have received valuable support from our RDO/RDM team, which has helped us to achieve recent grant success. I am really concerned that by removing specialist support and replacing with central/generalist support we will struggle to compete with other Universities and Institutes.

We appreciate that the proposed research support function is differently shaped to what exists currently in either faculty. The proposed model has been structured to ensure all organisational areas receive essential research administration and advisory support through the precinct teams, which includes embedded support from a Senior Research Administration Officer and leadership support from the more senior precinct lead role (HEW 8 or 9).

Additional new roles in the proposal include a strategic research initiatives team (HEW 7-8, 4FTE), a new research business development role (HEW 9), and a senior position to lead the function (HEW 10). This is a significant level of investment that would be strategically engaged to support the research performance aspirations of the new Faculty.

For these reasons, we are confident that this revised model will provide the necessary level of service and support that will be expected in the new Faculty. The position descriptions for most of the new roles are now available on the consultation website. These documents are helpful in clarifying the level of research and researcher development support that would be provided to all schools, centres and institutes in the new Faculty.

We value the existing research support roles that we have in our existing structures. We are prepared to continue these roles by funding them ourselves. Will we be permitted to do this?

The proposed new structure outlines a model of research support that is consolidated at the Faculty level, which means that individual organisational units would not be required or supported to establish additional positions or duplicate the services. The approach to designing the professional services for the new faculty has been considered and systematic, and this is outlined in the Explanatory Paper.

An important consideration is the constrained resourcing environment. We have had to work within the existing level of resourcing in the two faculties, and there were differences across the faculties in terms of resourcing at the level of the school, centre or institute.

Why is the HEW 7 research support role going to a HEW 6 role in the new faculty?

The proposed operating model has been developed in line with the principles outlined in the Organisational Change Paper. The overall model includes other faculty level positions and is different to what currently exists in either faculty.

The proposed new positions have been assessed at the HEW 6 classification, noting the responsibility for researcher development support would be elevated to the precinct lead (HEW 8 or 9), and support for strategic research and researcher development would be provided by new specialist roles in the strategic research initiatives team.

How will business continuity be assured in the research activities of the new Faculty given the extent of the proposed changes?

The need to support business continuity has been an important consideration in designing the professional services for the new Faculty. Under the proposed changes, a number of existing professional staff roles would map across to the new service model, including critical leadership roles for both existing faculties. In addition, the new structures are also designed to provide the appropriate level of transitional support as the new Faculty is established. Specifically, the University would seek to fill new research support roles as soon as possible following implementation. These initiatives in turn would ensure that the University is able to manage business continuity in a considered and structured manner.

Our current research support staff provide support for developing grant applications. Can you please comment on whether the new Faculty Research Office will expand its current remit of administrative support to help in the same way our current local team have been helping?

Yes, the proposed new Faculty Research Office includes provision of support for crafting grant applications. The importance and value of this support for our research performance is recognised. The position descriptions for the proposed new and revised roles are being progressively uploaded to the HMBS consultation website.

How can professional staff manage academic expectations for research support when the proposed model differs from their current model of support?

It is expected that the implementation of the proposed changes for the research function would include finalisation of the operating model and a detailed service catalogue to ensure there is clarity on service provision. The Associate Dean (Research) would also be expected to take the lead in ensuring that academic staff have input into this process and have clarity on how to access the required support from the function.

Can you provide more information on what the strategic research initiatives team will do? Why are they not also precinct based? Would they overlap with the responsibilities of the central portfolio?

The strategic research initiatives team in the proposed Faculty Research Office would be expected to be sufficiently agile to respond to the evolving requirements of HMBS research support and emerging needs and opportunities as they arise. These specific initiatives would be developed by the academic leadership in HMBS and in partnership with the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research and Innovation) portfolio in collaboration with relevant faculty stakeholders. Every effort would be made to build integrated strategic activities to achieve the ambitions of the new Faculty and to complement the support and resources provided by the central research portfolio rather than duplicate them.

How will consumer and community engagement in research be supported in the new Faculty?

It is understood that this is an area of importance for research funding and impact. This specialist area of support is an example focus area for which the proposed strategic research initiatives team would provide support. The HMBS Associate Dean (Research) would also be expected to take a lead role in establishing the allocation of resourcing for this critical element of HMBS research support.