Mr. Michael Kelly:

I thank the committee for the opportunity to discuss this project. I regard the technological university for the south east, TUSE, project as being of enormous significance for the future economic and social development of the south east region. As such, I appreciate this opportunity.

As referred to by the Secretary General earlier, I was asked by the Minister for Education and Skills to lead this process, engaging with a broad range of stakeholders within the two institutes of technology in Carlow and Waterford and more generally across the south east region. Consistent with the terms of reference, the process focused on the development of a shared vision for the new technological university and identification of the practical steps required to bring it about within an acceptable timeframe. I had the full co-operation, including administrative and logistical support, of both institutes and allocated a large proportion of my own working time to the project over the first half of 2015. I also, of course, had the full support of the Department and the Higher Education Authority, for which I wish to express my thanks.

Through the engagement I had with the many groups and individuals I met during the course of the project I learnt a great deal more about the challenges faced by the south east region and the potential of a new technological university to help address these challenges. I was in a position to bring my experience from the Dublin consortium to bear on the project and my intention was to assess the overall rationale and viability of the TUSE in the first instance and to then map the practical steps I believed necessary to deliver it. History will judge the accuracy of my assessment, but it is a source of some satisfaction that both institutes agreed to enter into the preliminary facilitation process I had recommended as a first step. Based on my knowledge of both institutes, I have every confidence that with strong positive leadership they can surmount the challenges to be faced in agreeing a shared vision for the new institution, in developing a unified implementation plan and in taking the steps necessary to achieve TU designation within a timeframe that is broadly acceptable to the community across the south east.

I am conscious that the report I prepared has been circulated to the committee and I will not dwell on its detailed content. Rather, I believe there would be greater benefit in speaking about some of the issues that hindered progress in earlier phases and some of the critical success factors, as I see them, in ensuring a successful outcome for complex organisational development projects of this nature. Any views I express are entirely my own. The pathway to designation as a technological university is deliberately demanding of applicant institutes. This is justified on the grounds of clearly differentiating the new technological universities from existing institutes of technology and in protecting the Irish university brand internationally. However, it imposes an additional set of pressures on the applicant institutes at every level and I believe there needs to be a greater willingness to support the additional activities involved and to recognise the complexities and additional workloads required. In saying this, I am conscious that the Department and HEA are faced with many competing priorities and that the overall level of investment is of necessity limited.

Beyond this general point, the process of preparing the stage 2 business plan in the south east was complicated by a series of interruptions due to external factors, which made it difficult to develop and maintain momentum. Some of the issues involved, relating to financial governance in Waterford Institute of Technology, WIT, also hardened attitudes around the need for robust due diligence exercises. None of this was helpful in generating a mood of mutual trust, respect and confidence, which is the only foundation on which to build a truly committed collaborative venture. More specifically, in paragraph 3.3 of my report I identify a number of learning points from the earlier phases of the south east project. These should be brought to bear in thinking out the next stages and may also have wider application elsewhere. They can be summarised as follows: the focus must be on an entirely new institution, offering to the region a new level of capability and regional reach rather than any extrapolation of existing institutes and offerings; the partners must find ways to rebuild mutual trust and respect as the basis for equality of esteem; they need to agree a shared vision and a framework which ensures all relevant issues are bottomed out and processed to an agreed conclusion; they need to acknowledge the value of diversity, building on their respective strengths while remaining open to new opportunities across the region; the project will need to be proactively supported financially, starting with the change management processes involved; and the framework adopted should make the needs and expectations of regional stakeholders central to the design and implementation processes.

Later in the report, in chapter 7, I have identified a number of enabling and supportive measures which I believe can improve the prospects of success. The backdrop to this section of the report is the evidence presented in a European University Association report on merger and concentration processes in European countries over the past 15 years. That report is clear on a number of key findings: the wider benefits include increased quality, realisation of economic gains, system consolidation, strengthening of institutional positioning and geographic drivers; the transition period for newly merged institutions requires considerable set-up investment if the expected dividend in quality of outcomes is to be realised; and the pay-back period can be extensive.

Applying these principles in the Irish context, the primary goal must be to achieve a step-change in quality and outcomes, from what could be achieved by institutes of technology at a given level of investment to what should be achieved by technological universities benchmarked against the best internationally. The policy framework rightly places emphasis on the achievement of demanding academic and institutional criteria. The full value of doing so is unlikely to be realised if we do not match our quality aspirations with the level of set-up investment required and adjust the funding model for technological universities, TUs, based on a rigorous evaluation of their funding needs. I would expect that there will be an opportunity for an informed dialogue between the various TU consortia and the HEA on these and related issues in due course.

Of course, the merging of institutions and the synergies from combining resources and capabilities will also present opportunities for efficiency gain and stronger capacity for generating new income streams. These will need to be fully exploited in concentrating resources on the quality of the student experience, research excellence and other aspects of institutional mission in these new institutions. This will also form a natural part of the dialogue on a new funding model for TUs. While this entire discussion goes a little beyond my brief, which concerns the technological university for the south east, TUSE, I have taken the liberty of addressing the issue and have been clear in the report that this is the backdrop against which my recommendations were made.

The enabling and supportive measures I have proposed include: supportive structures, which are concerned with an appropriately constituted, independently chaired steering group; a joint project team combining skill sets from both institutes; and a new feature in the form of a regional stakeholder forum, which reflects the significance of the TUSE in addressing the real needs and expectations of the entire community in the south east. The proposed measures also include support for facilitation and change management. This would build on work already done and should involve a cross-campus, bottom-up engagement process across both institutes on the design of every facet of the new institution. Also included are institution support and acceleration measures. While these are not identified specifically, the case is made that, in a context where both institutes are constructively engaged on the design and execution of TUSE, sympathetic consideration should be given to further measures which would address potential obstacles or accelerate progress towards meeting designation criteria within an acceptable timeframe. Finally, the point has already been made that if we want to realise the full value of developing the TU model in Ireland, we will need to rigorously assess its real funding needs.

If I could summarise, there is a strong policy rationale and business case for proceeding with the TUSE project, based primarily on the needs of the south east region. The project is feasible. With a fair wind, the necessary planning and preparation should be achievable within three years, subject to validation of aggregate data on TU designation metrics and a total commitment by both institutes to get on with it I have outlined the practical steps required. Both institutes are already engaged in the first step recommended, through their ongoing participation in the current facilitation process.

I will be happy to address any questions within the limits of my competence.