MANAGING TRANSFORMATION TOWARD AN INTERNATIONAL

R E S E A R C H U N I V E R S I T Y : Lesson-Learned From Gadjah Mada University

Purwo Santoso Gadjah Mada University, Indonesia

psantoso@ugm.ac.id

Abstract

Benefited from liberalization policy, the tradition of autonomous research communities within Gadjah Mada University gathered momentum in improving its institutional capacity to perform as a world-class research university.

Reviewing how the university dealing with internal problems as well as external challenges allows us to important lessons. This is particularly important to situate a leading university in the developing country within international research system.

The ability of GMU in boosting its research capacity relies on its ability to bring together a sense of well-managed institution and autonomous atmosphere. Having restructure the management scheme, the governing body gears at employing a market-based instruments by the way of standardizing research quality and research institutions, and ensuring the supply side (research activities within the university) meet external demand. In doing so, GMU has no luxury competing with Research University in the developed countries, which perform as vanguard of science and technological development. Research capacity building at GMU means enhancing the capacity to solve the problem its counterparts in particular and resolving the pertaining problems of developing countries.

The best way for enhancing GMU's research capacity is by the way of facilitating internal reform which eventually improve its ability to deal with developing country’s issue.

To be presented in UNESCO Forum on Higher Education, Research and Knowledge

Colloquium on Research and Higher Education Policy, 29 November – 1 December 2006, UNESCO Fontenoy, Paris.

1

1. Introduction

The policy of Indonesian government to liberalize education sector, precisely to leading universities such as Gadjah Mada University (GMU) with ample autonomy in running education process has been responded with high enthusiasm. A pledge to improve its research capacity was made, namely to be a world-class research university. Numerous activities are currently undertaken and further challenges lies ahead. There are valuable lessons lie behind it.

GMU has all the potentials to. The heart of the potential is a dense network of research groups, which are loosely organised and interact almost autonomously. A delicately-designed scheme is needed for allowing the existing networks of research communities to consolidate the existing potentials, prior to depart on cultural transformation.

2. Coming to Terms With An “Organised Anarchy”

GMU is the oldest university in Indonesia.1 As it grows fast, it also known as the largest and influential university within the country.2 What makes GMU influential, however, is not its stringent in management. Its ability to perform was not due to the function of central command and strict planning. Given the size of the university, it is surprising to know that, for so long GMU has been working without effective control of the rector.3 It nonetheless, well performs due to the functioning of network-based governance.4

Each unit within it are highly autonomous. Former rector on the GMU, Prof. Ichlasul Amal, used to call his own university as an

1 It was established in 1949, namely 5 years after Sukarno-Hatta proclaim Indonesian

Independence.

2 As of April 2005, the university facilitates intellectual engagement of its 41,509 students, 2,213 lecturers, supported by 2,269 administrative staff. Composition of the students is the following: doctorate level 840 students, master level 10,029, undergraduate 25,000 students, and diploma 5,108 students. Among the teaching staff 613 are Ph.D holder, 1,165 are holding master degree and the other 127 holding professional degree, and the remaining 435 are graduate. Universitas Gadjah Mada, Buku Wisuda: Lulusan Program Sarjana Universitas Gadjah Mada, 19 Mei 2005, Yogyakarta 2005.

3 Interview with Prof. Ichlasul Amal, Rector for the period of 1998-2002, 9 October 2006. The fact that rector in the past was having to effective control to the entire organization been confirmed by Prof. Sofian Effendi, Rector for the period of 2002-2007.

4 Walter J.M. Kickert, Erik-Hans Klijn and Joop F.M. Koppenjan (eds.), Managing Complex Nertworks: Strategies for the Public Sector, Sage Publication, London 1999. See also, Erik-Hans Klijn and Joop F.M. Koppenjan, “Public Management and Policy Network”, in Public Management, Vol. 2. Issue 2, 2000. Also, Eva Etzioni-Halevy, “Network Governance As a Challenge to Democratic Elite Theory”, Paper to be presented on Democratic Network Governance, Copenhagen, May 22-23, 2003.

2

‘organised anarchy’5. Judging from a formal perspective, the the way the organisation within the university works, somehow, is anarchical.6 Each unit, so to speak, find their own way in achieving their objective or solving their problems. Each of them indeed receives quite amount of resource provided by the government, but their ability to develop has been dependent on their ability to set out and extent their own network.

The seemingly anarchical community within the GMU share a number of fundamental values and identity, if not sub-cultre. Their dynamics has been driven by small-group initiatives and management, as oppose centrally controlled strategic plan. Given the diversity of the interests within such a large organisation, university central office typically left one-step behind in setting up framework.7

A brief description on the way research centres work, would be good for illustration. There are 27 research centres within the university. Many of them have overlapping area of interest. Why don’t they merge themselve into one research centre ? The initiative to establish the research centre has been based on small-group initiatives. Each of them has their own counterpart as well as external funding, and hence only minimally relies on the headquarter office. As they have their own source of funding, and the university was unable to monitor, let alone control, there was no need for coordinating reseach. In many cases, the rector come notice such contract only because the counterpart of the research centres sent a complain.8

Not every initiative to establish a research centre ends up with success story. Many of them have a poor performance (See Figure 1). Within the period of 2002-2004, 7 out of 27 did not do any research activities or their researches were not recorded at university administration. On the other hand, there were five research centres, which manage to conduct more than 15 researches at the same period. Majority research contract conducted at GMU at that period was conducted by Centre for Transport and Logistic [PUSTRAL], Centre for

5 Interview, 9 October 2006.

6 There are 18 Faculties or 73 Departments operate within GMU. Moreover, there are 28 research centers. Some are bigger than the other; some are more developed than the other.

7 For example, the Faculty of Medicine took early initiative to computerize it library system. It manages to set up everything on its own, and it works well. A serious problem was encountered as the University aimed to set up a university-wide library system. Why ? The software was not compatible. It turned out that redeveloping the software is much cheaper than converting the existing one into the one which compatible with the university-wide software. Similar problem has been encountered as the university attempted to set up academic information system.

8 Sofian Effendi, interview, 11 October 2006.

3

Regional Planning and Development [PSPPR], Centre for Disaster Study [PSBA] as well as Centre for Population and Public Policy [PSKKP]. These are most developed research institute in terms of research management and external network. In term of amount of contract, two of them, namely Centre for Transport and Logistic [PUSTRAL], and Centre for Population and Public Policy [PSKKP] are the most dominating (See Figure 2).

Each faculty also entitle to conduct research. In fact, researchers who work in each research centres are also lecturers from various

Figure 2 Volume of Contract Conducted by Research Centres at GMU, 2002-2004 (Million Rp)

(RESEACH CENTRE) Source: Institute for Research and Community Service, GMU

Figure 1 Number of Research Conducted by Research Centres at GMU, 2002-2004

(RESEACH CENTRE) Source: Institute for Research and Community Service, GMU

4

faculties.9 This creates a tension. Some deans fell that their human resources drained into other agencies. Each faculty also gain an ample autonomy from Rector. They engage in various research activities, not only for enhancing education process within it but also for other purpose. Moreover, they are entitled to sign contract with external agencies. Their performance in research and well as their ability to secure external funding are also diverse. The gap among faculty is also quite extensive.10

As education sector was reformed along the line of liberalization following a severe financial and economic crisis in mid 1990s, Ministry of

Education grant GMU—along with other prominent universities11—with

extensive degree of autonomy in managing the university. They are exempted from the typically ineffective university governance. GMU remains a state-owned university, and retain high amount of state’s finance. GMU is listed as universities, which operate autonomously within the scheme of University as a State’s Legal Entity.12

3. Toward A World-Class Research University

The idea of ‘world-class research university’ is chosen to guide policy direction for the newly established and autonomous university governance. Prof. Sofian Effendi, who leads the university within the period of 2002-2007, is the first who was recruited in accordance with the new arrangement. In this regard, it is important not to understate the challenge for the GMU to face. Given the size and complexity of the university, internal reform within the GMU has been lengthy and painstaking. The current rector, Prof. Sofian Effendi, suggests that it takes at least three five-year terms to set GMU as a world-class research university. His personal mission is “simply” to set the foundation for the university to develop well in the future.13

9 This doesn’t mean that every lecture in each faculty affiliated to a particular research centre.

Research centre are design to melt researcher from various discipline in to a particular research area. Research centre are expected to apply a multidisciplinary, if not an interdisciplinary approach.

10 Kantor Wakil Rektor Bidang Penelitian dan Pengabdian kepada Masyarakat Universitas Gadjah Mada, Riset di Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, 2005.

11 They are: University of Indonesia (UI), Bandung Technological University (ITB), Bogor Agricultural University (IPB) and Indonesian University of Education (UPI).

12 See Government Regulation No. 153 of 2000 on the Entitlement of Gadjah Mada University as State’s Legal Entity.

13 Interview, 11 October 2006.

5

To indicate the deep-seated challenge, let us take a brief observation on two important issues: planning and quality assurance. The university use to be target of national planning scheme under the control of the Ministry of Education. Hence, it has not been experiencing to work according to a stringent planning system under it own control.14 The first-term of Prof. Sofian Effendi leadership has been the period when GMU install strategic planning system. It starts with installing planning system at central office and then moves downward along the formal hierarchy. Since preoccupation with planning allowed a neglect on quality assurance. For this reason, GMU at the same period geared at developing a system for quality assurance. These moves receive national and international appreciation.15 Some serious problems such as the research competent of the teaching staff, the vigour of research culture, availability laboratory remain unresolved yet.

a. Setting a Modes and Agreeable Ambition

Setting itself to be world-class university seems very ambitious. By a deeper look, however, it appears be realistic. Each university in Indonesia is officially bound to work within three-fold missions: education, research and community service. Given education is at the core of the mission, GMU decided not shift it. Being a research university means two things. First, to give more prominence to research by devoting more of the limitedly available resources (fund, manpower and facility). Second, to ensure that research serves as the primary basis for education process and community service.16

It is worth to mention that, GMU obsession for reaching a world-class university does not necessarily mean forcing itself to be a replica of research institute in the developed world. We know that research serves as the vanguard of scientific and technological development, but GMU does not intent in anyway to compete with university in the developed countries, particularly is seeking theoretical breakthrough or technological

14 In this regard, it is important to not that GMU known as university with commitment: such

as in term of nationalism, pro-poor or pro-rural.

15 According to ASEAN University Network Program, the Quality Assurance Scheme at GMU, along with that of Chulalongkorn University in Thailand, are the best two universities in ASEAN, to implement European Qaulity Assurance System.

16 Retno S. Sudibyo, “Sambutan” [Preface] in Kantor Wakil Rektor Bidang Penelitian dan Pengabdian kepada Masyarakat Universitas Gadjah Mada, Riset di Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, 2005.

6

advance. It, instead aims to make sure that GMU getting more relevant to its people, providing solution to local and national problems.17

b. Internal Reform: Trust Building and Consensus Crafting in.

Given the extent of the autonomy of units within the university, internal reform deserves dedicated treatment. Autonomous atmosphere within academic community co-exists with high suspicion to the governing body. The governing body were perceived as the agent of the Ministry of Education. Ironically, the rector even did not has adequate information each on going program within the university, let alone knowing exact resources being used by each units. Only recently, and only after such laborious effort, do rector Prof. Sofian Effendi, be able to figure out the number of accounting units in the university.18 No one dare to take risk in setting up a system within this situation.

That was ambivalence in governing GMU. There is tension between the requirement to work according to centralized set out by the Ministry and the need for autonomy for allowing academic (including research engagement to be productive) has been allowing a sub-optimum performance. The challenge therefore is to reconcile the competing mode of university governance: the centralized vs. the decentralized one. On the one hand there was a strong need for decentralized mode which allow small unit to exercise of autonomy, on the other hand there was a need make sure that research and any academic engagement conducted by any units goes to the desired direction.

Reaching consensus on university vision, namely to be a word-class research university, is far easier than agreeing on how to achieve it.19 Systematizing the network for is foreseeable, but centralistic resource control is not acceptable. In dealing with this puzzle, the governing body of GMU came up with a framework called (SADA) sentralisasi administrasi dan desentralisasi akademik (centralizing administration and decentralizing the academic (including research activities).

The first five-year term of Prof. Sofian Effendi’s leadership has been devoted to transform the university along this principle.

17 Prof. Sofian Effendi, interview, 11 October 2006. This interpretation of research university

is shared by the former Rector: Prof. Ichlasul Amal. (Interview, 9 October 2006).

18 Interview, 11 October 2006. Each unit in the university established their own accounting scheme; none of them regularly report it to Rector. He figures out that there are 314 accounting unit within the university. So far, he estimate, some 80% of management unit within the university willing to disclose their financial status and the remaining 20% are playing “wait and see” tactic.

19 The vision was formulated a long the line technocratic approach, which most university technocrat easy to agree on.

7

Technocratic instruments—such as database and information system, detailed annual planning for each unit, audit, organization restructuring

etc—has been rapidly developed, yet so much problems emerges at the surface. Consensus on the detailed and technical arrangement has been gradual consensus achieved as the GMU governing body intensively engage in a university wide debate and discussion.

c. Internal Reform: Consolidating Compliance Through Facility-Provision

The university leaders aim to have research activities getting more coordinated. For this reason, the coordinating body for research activities, namely the Research Institute, was redesigned and backed up with more authority and resources. Moreover, Community Service Institute, which traditionally in charge of running community service scheme, was merged in one unit and it has direct access to vice rector responsible for this affairs. The new unit is called Institute for Research and Community Service. The Institute also consolidate the existing diverse faculty into four clusters: science-technology, health-medicine, agro and socio-humanity.20 Each cluster, then decide a particular research priority as a basis for directing the distribution of research budget of the university. The important question to ask here is what makes the typically suspicious community comply with the initiative of the governing body.

First, the governing body has to demonstrate it commitment in serving and facilitating the research community. It, for example, begun to invest for establishing a bridging institution, called Techno-Centre. This institution is assigned to facilitating the marketing and enhancing external linkages to industry and research user. Secondly, the governing body apparently engage in some sort trading with its research communities, having convinced that those initiatives are strategic in bridging them with the wider counterparts. It doing so, the governing body within the Institute has to keep a strict rule: it does not conduct any research activities. Keeping this rule is important extremely important, otherwise the Institute loosing trust from research communities within research centres and faculties.

d. Reaching the first milestone

In the 2005 Annual Report, the rector of GMU writes with a pride. The following is my translation to the interesting part of the report. “Within its 56th year in service, along with 2.375 higher learning institution all over the world the GMU attending the invitation of Britain’s daily, The Times, to participate in selection of 100 best university in the world. … For the

20 The site-plan of the university, I fact has been set up in this way.

8

first time in the country’s history, a national university reach the world record, as GMU is within the World’s Top 100 on Art and Humanities.”21

4. Lesson Learned

Anyone attempt to enhance research capacity would have to encounter with external environment, structural factor which serves as hardware and cultural factor which serve as software for allowing research community engage in a political dynamics.22 GMU has been equipping itself with both software and hardware to make the prevailing dense networks of research community to perform better in reaching international standard.

GMU is in the position to be part of and offering solution to problem pertaining in developing world. It has been highly praised as a pro-poor and pro-rural university. New reputation as an international research university is attainable only by keep improving understanding on problem of the local community and offering solution to it through research. Indeed, research is the core activity and what important is not access to international funding, but its ability to solve.

Managing transformation is not merely pursuing a predetermined objective guided by particular vision. It also a matter of managing tension among different group and objectives. Managing controversy is an important process in agenda setting, and practical scheme in transforming the university is doable only in so far exist a certain degree shared-understanding. This is a condition for arriving at various breakthroughs, and transforming weakness into advantage.

Academic communities within GMU are highly political. Hence, managerially determined transformation schemes are unacceptable unless it is politically sensible. Technocratic rearrangements, such as establishing a thorough and systematic planning scheme, are highly needed and resisted at the same time. Such technocratic scheme would be abandoned unless it is acceptable within whole bunch of networks of academic communities. The network has been entrapping them in a particular sub-culture. What really important is not merely new mechanism, improvement of budget on research, incentive scheme for research an so

21 Universitas Gadjah Mada, Laporan Tahunan 2005, Universitas Gadjah Mada, 2006.

22 On Management Ltd., “Assessing Organizational Research Capacity: Notes from a Workshop”, Sponsored by: Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research, held at Banff Centre for Management, Banff, Alberta in October 4th and 5th, 2002.

9

on, but also a scenario and instrument for cultural transformation. Transformation takes place through reinvention of new tradition within a particular group and horizontal learning among them. The transformation would no make any progress unless the research community engage in the process of co-creation. Given the pervasiveness of informality within academic community, formalistic approach is met with resistance. The challenge is to establish and maintain a sense of community among the researcher. The most difficult challenge is to consolidate concerted actions and establishing new habit, and establishing namely new habit based research oriented.

The strategic role of the governing body channel external resources and opportunity with internal potential. GMU is hardly able set research agenda for it its own research community. Long-term process of co-creating in establishing institutional infrastructure will be the most obvious internal agenda for bolstering it ability in producing relevant research.

Reference:

Erik-Hans Klijn and Joop F.M. Koppenjan. 2000. “Public Management and Policy Network”, in Public Management, Vol. 2. Issue 2,.

Eva Etzioni-Halevy. 2003. “Network Governance as a Challenge to Democratic Elite Theory”, Paper to be presented on Democratic Network Governance, Copenhagen, May 22-23,.

Kantor Wakil Rektor Bidang Penelitian dan Pengabdian kepada Masyarakat, Universitas Gadjah Mada. 2005. Riset di Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta.

On Management Ltd. 2002. “Assessing Organizational Research Capacity: Notes from a Workshop”, Sponsored by: Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research, held at Banff Centre for Management, Banff, Alberta in October 4th and 5th,.

Republic of Indonesia. 2000. Government Regulation No. 153 of 2000 on the Entitlement of Gadjah Mada University as State’s Legal Entity.

Universitas Gadjah Mada. 2005. Buku Wisuda: Lulusan Program Sarjana Universitas Gadjah Mada, 19 Mei 2005, Yogyakarta.

Universitas Gadjah Mada. 2006. Laporan Tahunan 2005, Universitas Gadjah Mada.

10

Walter J.M. Kickert, Erik-Hans Klijn and Joop F.M. Koppenjan (eds.). 1999. Managing Complex Nertworks: Strategies for the Public Sector, Sage Publication, London.

Interview:

Prof. Ichlasul Amal, 9 October 2006.

Prof. Sofian Effendi, 11 October 2006