Paper - Academic Registry and Council Secretariat - Queen Mary ...

Taught Programmes Board
TPB2012-015
6) External Adviser Comments
Detailed comments from at least one external adviser - submissions must be supported by external specialist
opinion, e.g. from a representative of a professional organisation, or a senior academic in another institution.
The external adviser should be able to comment in sufficient detail on the appropriateness and viability of the
proposed programme (s). For further guidance regarding the selection criteria, role and expectations of
External Advisers please refer to the External Adviser Guidelines.
I am satisfied that the programme set out in the documentation fulfills all the main criteria for a degree course of this standard
and has the necessary combination of rigour and relevance to meet the needs of the target group of students envisaged. My
comments below are, therefore, concerned with detail and emphasis in the content of the main modules of the programme.
First, the policy and governance module sets a clear direction. It starts from the premise that public policy and institutions of
governance are always intertwined. Public administration is not just the instrumental processes of carrying out policies. There is
a realistic emphasis on the way that institutions shape the formulation of policies and and determine set limits to what is
feasible. The scope of the programme, as reflected in the recommended literature, encompasses the range of contingencies
and constraints that public managers face and the means at their disposal to achieve results. While reference is made to the fact
that the context of public management is international and not just national, I think that more should be made of this. The
target group of students is international and their future career opportunities and working environments are also international.
This module should be framed and taught within a robust comparative framework so far as empirical materials and basic
concepts are concerned.
The organisational behaviour module is well designed to give students a realistic picture of the variety of organisations
involved in the management of public policies. Beginning from common sense categories such as not-for-profit and voluntary
organisations it points the way to more systematic analysis of relevant typologies that are of real practical value. An additional
comment is worth making. That is the importance in public management of the interorganisational dimension. Public policies
are managed through organisational networks. The theme of joined up government is an important one, whether as welldesigned
coordination systems at the national and subnational levels or as integration at the European and international levels.
I have a question whether this part of the course sufficiently covers the management of the budgetary process. I know there is a
separate, optional, financial management module but in times of austerity the budgetary and financial system is putting public
organisations and public managers under severe stress - up to and including fiscal crisis levels. This needs to be recognised in
case study work (and perhaps that is already envisaged).
The leadership and strategy module is basically sound. Starting from an analysis of different leadership responsibilities, roles
and styles it covers the main facets of operational and strategic leadership together with attention to the vital interface
between political and managerial processes. This approach avoids the common pitfall of simplistic read-across from business
management. There is now sufficient literature to support this and avoid getting bogged down in byways of the debates about
the "new public management". One possible change of emphasis in this module might be greater consideration of the
institutional design component of leadership and strategy. With so many areas of public management facing the prospect of
reform if they are not already in process, skills in designing new organisations and bringing designs to fruition are at a premium.
Developing expertise in this would enhance the career prospects of students. The institutional design theme would dovetail
with the work on accountability frameworks covered elsewhere in the curriculum. Following the logic of the course I feel that
concepts and cases focussing on management of change should be given more prominence than appears to be the case. (This
may be just my reading of the programme.) My reason for making the point is that implementation is the Achilles Heel of
reforms. Politicians seemed to have a trained incapacity to give it the priority it warrants. A programme like this should try to
correct this mistake.
The public finance and accounting module is an option in this programme. As mentioned above I think that in the current "Age
of Austerity" there could be an important link with the organisational behaviour module. In the first place resource constraints
are changing the politics of the budgetary process and generating pressures for better performance. The budgetary context is
forcing the pace of change in ways that require innovation not just cuts. In addition students need to understand the ways that
accounting conventions and practices can legitimate, and even encourage, ineffective or counterproductive organisational
performance.
Finally, a comment made particularly with the expected profile of the student intake in mind. I think that both in substance and
from a marketing point of view the programme would benefit from giving prominence to public management issues at the
international level; European and global; where the deficiencies of existing organisations have become obvious and the future
trajectory of European integration and economic globalisation have become more problematical. At these levels reform is on