 |
| Gilbert Chandler College, 1997. |
From its foundation as the School of Dairy Technology and Dairy Research Laboratories in 1939, today's Gilbert Chandler College has experienced a common theme - the competition for resources between education, research and quality control. The history of the College is a fascinating study into industry relationships, review and restructuring, and the battle for resources.
When the School of Dairy Technology and Dairy Research Laboratory was established in 1939, its aim was 'primarily the advancement of dairy produce manufacture and preservation (improvement) of quality'. It was hoped to achieve this by two methods - 'skilled instruction to dairy factory operatives in factory practice and in dairy technology', and 'research work into some of the many problems facing this section of the Dairying Industry' (Department of Agriculture, 1968). These aims were felt to be just as relevant in 1968 when major building improvements were made as they had been in 1939. It is doubtful whether sufficient resources to fully achieve both these aims were ever made available to the Werribee campus.
The role of the college in dairy education was planned in light of its defined aims,. In 1939 a two-year course modelled on a Massey University program was established. Students achieved a Certificate of Competency in Dairy Manufacture with an elected option of either Buttermaking or Cheesemaking. This course was suspended from 1942 to 1947 due to World War II. In 1948, instruction in dairy products other than butter and cheese was included when courses recommenced. The existing course was revised in 1959, and all students undertook both butter- and cheesemaking theory and practice.
The former School of Dairy Technology comprised a lecture room, two student laboratories, two small research laboratories, offices and a 'model' butter and cheese factory - in 1939 butter and cheese were by far the most significant dairy products made in Victoria. Facilities quickly became stretched, and there was a need for residential accommodation for students, many of whom came from country areas. Then, as now, the provision of adequate laboratory space proved to be a problem.
From 1952 industry underwrote the attendance of staff at the Institute's courses, with a voluntary levy in place supported by most dairy companies.
Plans were made in 1960 for an expansion to the institution, including modern teaching and research laboratories and a 'highly versatile dairy factory with intricate mechanical and electrical services.' It took several years for these plans to become reality. During 1964 and 1965 funds were provided for student hostels and catering, thereby greatly improving the availability of courses to those currently employed in the manufacturing sector of the dairy industry, but introducing challenges for the management of the campus in establishing their financial viability.
In 1965-66, when funds were at last made available for the main extensions, it was decided to rename the School of Dairy Technology the Gilbert Chandler Institute of Dairy Technology. This was in recognition of the contribution of the then Minister of Agriculture, the Hon Gilbert Chandler, to the dairying and agricultural industries. The cost of extensions was over $1.5 million. By 1968, facilities comprised:
Courses were halted during 1967 to allow building to take place.
Starting in 1968 a two-year course leading to the Certificate in Dairy Manufacturing was established, with a third year leading to the Diploma in Dairy Technology - entry to the latter course was restricted to students with required Leaving subject certificates, and with average or better results in the Certificate. Then as now, in response to analysis of industry needs, teaching years were kept short, and courses were held at times when factory production was at a low level.
By 1968, 190 dairy factory operatives had been awarded the Certificate of Competency in Dairy Manufacture, with another 36 attending part or all of the course but not graduating. At the end of 1967, an employment survey showed that 29% of graduates were in factory management, 16% in production control, 12% in quality control, 9% were State or Federal Government Officers, 22% had other positions in factories, 9% were no longer in the industry, and 3% were deceased. The report (Department of Agriculture 1968) points out that in 1968 more than 80% of the Certificate holders had graduated since 1949, and so were relatively young - the importance of the School of Dairy Technology to the industry was therefore very great. The potential value was even greater.
Whilst it may be tempting to think of them as a recent innovation, short courses were already important by 1968. By the standards of the time there was a wide range - milk and cream grading, milk and cream testing, buttermaking and cheesemaking courses for factory operatives; milk quality and testing for Dairy Supervisors in the Department of Agriculture; and special short courses on milk pasteurising and bottling and milk quality testing. Technical field days for University students in Agriculture and Veterinary Science courses were held, as well as for technical organisations in the dairy industry.
For the next decade or so, the Gilbert Chandler Institute of Dairy Technology continued to provide Certificate and Diploma programs and short courses. During this period, both the on farm and the dairy manufacturing sectors were undergoing major change, and it became clear that the Institute had to take stock of the situation.
The first of the more recent reviews of the activities of the Gilbert Chandler campus was that conducted by the late Dr Peter Mullaney. This review is frank, concise and incisive and provided constructive recommendations - features too infrequently found in institutional reviews.
Noting the dissatisfaction of industry with the programs of the Gilbert Chandler Institute of Dairy Technology, an Advisory Committee with strong industry representation was appointed in 1978. In 1980 it reported to the Chief of the Division of Dairying in a document entitled The Role and Function of the Gilbert Chandler Institute of Dairy Technology to assist the Dairy Industry. This report said 'the prime role of the Institute is to provide education, training and extension opportunities for the Industry'. It asked the State Department of Agriculture to take action to improve provision of programs by the institute. The Committee felt that 'emphasis on the educational role of the Institute has been lost in the rapid changes which have been recently felt at the Institute' and that 'it is urgent that action be taken... for the appointment of one or more additional staff with special responsibility for working closely with Industry to develop and implement new educational courses.'
The Director General decided on a review of the whole educational role of the Gilbert Chandler Institute, and arranged for Dr Peter Mullaney to undertake it. Peter Mullaney was seconded to the position of Principal of the Gilbert Chandler Institute of Dairy Technology for the two years of the review.
The Director-General asked Dr Peter Mullaney to report on wide terms of reference:
The dairy manufacturing sector was very different in 1981 from that in 1997. At that time, the average factory employed only 84 persons, and more than fifty percent of factories employed less than fifty people.
Before the Mullaney report was handed down, a separate College of Dairy Technology was formed in January 1981 within the Gilbert Chandler Institute. In a crucial change of administration, the responsibility for the College was passed from the Chief, Division of Dairying to the Chief, Division of Agricultural Education, and several staff were transferred as a result. The Governor-in-Council in 1981 proclaimed that the College of Dairy Technology was designated as an Agricultural College under the provisions of the Agricultural Colleges Act 1958. Thus the College of Dairy Technology became a sister college to Dookie, Longerenong, Burnley, Glenormiston and McMillan, with Mullaney being appointed as Principal.
In October 1981 Peter Mullaney presented his report to the Director-General. Mullaney concluded, inter alia, that whilst the dairy industry would continue to be a major income earner for the state, both locally and overseas, total production was likely to continue to decline and product utilisation to move toward liquid milk. Subsequent developments have defied these particular predictions, but Mullaney also correctly assessed that there would be rationalisation within the industry to larger manufacturing units, and that the advent of new technology would profoundly change the focus of dairy technology education.
Mullaney's analysis was that the principal need of the dairy manufacturing sector was for short courses to update or supplement knowledge and skills of those in the industry. Courses should not only be conducted at Gilbert Chandler, but should also include provision by correspondence. In contrast to the practice of only taking students from industry, he advocated taking students straight from school into at least the Certificate Course.
Mullaney drew attention to the high annual cost per student of about $12,600 at that time, including a 'hidden' subsidy of $1,100 per student for accommodation (the difference between cost of provision and fees collected from students). Student intake in 1978 was only five and there were only 26 EFTS at the Institute in 1980-81.
In a section of the report which must surely have aroused strong feelings amongst the teaching staff of the time, Mullaney described the standard of teaching as unacceptably low - staff were not trained as educators, they were poorly motivated, and they were distracted by research. Expanding on the lack of educational qualifications and training of staff, Mullaney saw little evidence of planning to overcome problems -'in many cases subjects have been taught by either the first volunteer or more likely the first conscript.' Part time lecturers were poorly briefed so that integration with other subject matter was lacking. Reducing student numbers made staff feel that the industry did not support the College's courses. Dairy training was very inbred, in Mullaney's estimation, and students needed to be involved in other education programs and with other students. Only the factory seemed to provide a justification for courses at Werribee to continue, Mullaney advised, since other educational institutions could better provide the academic programs. He said that the teaching program would certainly benefit if it could be integrated with another College program, and that two to three staff members could be saved by integration of the academic program at the TAFE level. Mullaney recommended the transfer of academic training to another Departmental college, with technical, or factory training, to remain at Werribee. Under these arrangements, there would be no need for a Principal. The Director of the Gilbert Chandler Institute of Dairy Technology would have overall responsibility, with a college Course Coordinator taking responsibility for educational matters.
Mullaney's recommendation was that it would be best if the other college was within the agricultural college system rather than in the wider TAFE system, because Werribee would lose all identity if it were transferred out of the State Department of Agriculture, and because of problems of integration between separately administered bodies. He considered that the then current Certificate and Diploma courses didn't differ sufficiently to warrant them both continuing - they should be combined into a single Certificate course. He said that the pilot factory was grossly under utilised and poorly regarded by industry, and this needed to be addressed by a new factory manager.
Sparing no one, Mullaney also was critical of industry. A survey showed a lack of commitment to the training of staff, with many respondents in an industry survey having no idea of what to expect of students after their return from Werribee. They were also unaware of the key quality assurance role of the Gilbert Chandler Institute.
With respect to education and training activities, Mullaney advised that the College of Dairy Technology should continue to be involved in education for the dairy processing industry. It should provide education at three levels for a fully integrated program:
This structure was seen as providing Level 1 training for operators, Level 2 training for supervisors, and Level 3 training for management.
It seems apparent that the mixture of education, research and quality improvement under the one Institute management was not working when Mullaney undertook his review. Whilst quality control was providing an increasingly important service to industry, and the research component was expanding, the educational role was at the best moribund. Educational leadership was lacking, or the problems identified by Mullaney would not have existed. Serious doubts as to the continuation of the educational function were entertained within the State Department of Agriculture, and industry leaders must have been questioning whether the College could adequately fulfil the role defined for it at its establishment in 1939, and the new objectives outlined by Mullaney.
Mullaney's report had thus set the scene for major changes at the College, but debate was to continue about the nature of its courses. The separation of the College from the Institute, whilst aiming to overcome the lack of educational leadership, was to lead to management problems concerning the sharing of scarce resources - and these problems were exacerbated when the College was removed from the State Department of Agriculture in 1983.
In March 1983 Gilbert Chandler became part of the newly established Victorian College of Agriculture and Horticulture and responsibility for administration passed to the Victorian College of Agriculture and Horticulture Council. An agreement between the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Education established a basis for the sharing of the facilities at Werribee, but did not put in place a mechanism to resolve disputes. Factory staff members were transferred to the College, and in return the College was expected to support the use of the factory by the Institute for its research purposes.
Enrolments in courses at Werribee were not encouraging for the future of the college when the VCAH took over its administration. The number of Certificate students had varied between eighteen and twenty-five in the years 1978 to 1982, and the number of Diploma students from zero to ten in the same period. Even attendance at short courses was on the decline. The number of Equivalent Full Time Students (EFTS) was in the mid- to high twenties. By 1985, under the new management, this had risen to 72.
Peter Ryan, later to become Principal of Dookie College replaced the initial Principal of the College, Ian Stevens, in May 1984. Reviews of academic programs were already well under way.
During 1984, the Certificate of Applied Science (Dairy Technology) was accredited by TAFE. This replaced the Certificate of Dairy Manufacture. The first group of students graduated in 1984. There were plans to make available by correspondence the theory sections of Cheese Maker and Evaporative and Spray Drying courses. Thirteen short courses were conducted, with over 330 participants. On the resource front, a relocatable teaching laboratory and short course centre was added and a factory upgrade was planned for 1985. A submission was made to TAFE to upgrade the cheesemaking equipment, to develop an ice cream and frozen products manufacturing capacity, and to install some electronic control equipment.
It is significant that in the first Annual Report of the College, presented in 1984, Peter Ryan thanked the Director and staff of the Gilbert Chandler Institute of Dairy Technology for help with teaching and for the sharing of facilities. Fourteen Gilbert Chandler Institute staff contributed to programs of the College, including several who were later to become members of staff - Ms Joy Manners, Dr Malcolm Hickey (both later Principals) and Dr Hubert Roginski (later a Senior Lecturer). The contribution by staff of the Institute and its successors was to decline in later years, both because of the demands made on staff in their research activities, and because of philosophical differences with Gilbert Chandler College staff about the role of research scientists in lecturing to factory staff.
From 1985, the Vegetable Growing Farming Trades Apprenticeship course was conducted at Gilbert Chandler. In the same year, the Diploma of Dairy Technology was reintroduced. It was already clear that industry support was on the rise, with full enrolment expected in 1986 for the first time since 1976. A further demonstration of support was the fact that 20 short courses were conducted, with over 730 enrolments.
The Agreement between the Victorian College of Agriculture and Horticulture Gilbert Chandler Campus and Gilbert Chandler Institute of Dairy Technology was renegotiated in 1985. The earlier Minister to Minister agreement had been that where programs of the Victorian College of Agriculture and Horticulture and the State Department of Agriculture had common aims, staff would mutually support each other's activities without money changing hands. Cracks in the agreement were appearing because of the pressure for increased research activity by Institute staff and for increased program delivery by Gilbert Chandler Campus staff.
Peter Ryan visited the United Kingdom, the USA and Denmark on a study tour, and made several recommendations for the future course the College should take:
These recommendations have underpinned much of the later development at the campus - the dairy focus has continued, with strong industry support. Upgrading of qualifications is a major focus. A Graduate Diploma and a Graduate Certificate are now in place. Short courses continue. And there has been a succession of overseas scholars in residence at the campus.
By 1986 there was a full capacity intake into the Certificate of Applied Science (Dairy Technology). The Associate Diploma of Dairy Technology was also reintroduced with a full intake, including students from all States of the Commonwealth. EFTS rose to 119, with significant rises in the apprenticeship, the Certificate and short course enrolments. A course on the Principles of Milk Powder Production was developed and offered by external study. The Dairy Operatives external study course was launched in July. An external studies course for operators in the confectionery industry was conducted jointly with the Confectionery Manufacturers Association. The campus continued work on its Dairy Industry Quality Assurance Regulatory courses including in-house courses at factory locations and courses developed to meet the needs of individual companies. Professor John Parsons from South Dakota State University, USA was a visiting staff member for six months. Over a five year period the Daniel Scott Fellowship provided for visits by Professor Walter Dunkley, UC Davis, Mr Frank O'Connor, Moorepark Research Institute, Ireland, and Professor John Parsons. Special programs were designed and delivered for overseas students who came from Indonesia, Korea and Denmark.
On the resource front, a new library was added and demonstration facilities for the Vegetable Growing Apprenticeship were completed. In the factory, a shop and product preparation area was completed, as well as renovations to the factory laboratory. To broaden the range of courses which could be provided and to update equipment, an ice cream freezer was purchased, and the market milk pasteuriser and other equipment were upgraded.
The decision was now made to develop a Graduate Diploma in Dairy Technology, the first Higher Education program for the Campus. The course was to be provided on a part time, block basis with four two-week blocks on campus and other assignment work to be done away from Gilbert Chandler. The program began in 1991 with an intake of sixteen students. The first group of thirteen graduated in 1990. The Associate Diploma in Dairy Technology and the Advanced Certificate in Dairy Technology received accreditation, replacing the Certificate of Applied Science (Dairy Technology) course. The campus was involved in the first development of a Traineeship course for dairy manufacturing, which began in 1989. These were the first traineeships in the food industry in Australia.
At this time the Council of the VCAH was considering its response to the Dawkins proposals for rationalisation of higher education institutions. The Dairy Industry Course Advisory Committee supported the Victorian College of Agriculture and Horticulture Council's decision that the College should remain a multi-campus specialist provider of agriculture, horticulture and dairy technology programs, but sought a broadening of the education base at the Gilbert Chandler Campus. It also stated that the Advisory Committee should maintain its involvement in advice to the College, and that there should be no changes to the structures in dairy education without consultation with industry.
During 1987, the Gilbert Chandler Institute of Dairy Technology became the Food Research Institute, recognising the shift toward a broader focus for the activities of the Institute. This development further emphasised the divergence of interests between the Institute and the College.
The College celebrated its fiftieth anniversary in 1989, and the year brought many changes. Peter Ryan was appointed Principal at Dookie, and Joy Manners, who had come to Gilbert Chandler from the Institute in 1986, became the first woman appointed as Principal of a Victorian agricultural college. Joy Manners brought considerable expertise in dairy manufacturing and management to the College, and played a major role in award restructuring in the industry generally. She conducted a study of current skill levels in the industry, an occupational profile, and an assessment of future skills requirements to cater for the needs of all Australian States. Her involvement in these broader industry issues added a heavy load to the already onerous position of Principal, but she quickly established a national reputation in all areas of her work.
In her first annual report, Joy Manners mentioned several challenges for the Campus. There was a need to develop new courses and rearrange existing ones to meet outcomes of award restructuring and to provide the industry with an integrated program. It was becoming essential to incorporate the competency-based approach into courses to satisfy the demands of industry and of the State Training System. The College sought the development of formal credit transfer between courses, both those of the Victorian College of Agriculture and Horticulture and of other institutions. There was a continuing need to gain access to funds to improve facilities and to develop contacts in the Asia and Pacific regions. These represented considerable challenges for a small campus and a new Principal.
On top of all this, the Course Advisory Committee again expressed its concern about the lack of facilities, commenting on the growing operations of Gilbert Chandler and the FRI as 'severely stretching the physical resources of the main building [and] placing great strain on the working relationship between both organisations.' By 1990, only two guest lecturers out of a total of fifty-six who provided their expertise for College courses came from the FRI. And the affiliation of the VCAH with the University of Melbourne raised further concerns about the future of the College. This seemed an appropriate time for a review of relationships between the FRI and the College.
During 1989, at the request of the Director-General of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Jeff Wright, and the Director of VCAH, Bob Luff, Dr R. A. S. Lawson of the Department and Dr Barrie Bardsley of the VCAH reviewed the relationship between the College and the Institute. It had become clear to all concerned, including industry, that all was not well at Werribee.
The reviewers interviewed staff at both institutions, and recommended that joint occupation of the site should continue with a new draft agreement on tenancy and joint financial and physical arrangements, under a new Joint Management Committee. Industry supported this joint occupation. It was further recommended that the Joint Management Committee have representatives of the two organisations and of industry. Any matters unable to be resolved would be referred to the two Ministers with the relevant portfolios. An attempt was being made to overcome problems experienced under the previous agreements, which did not ensure industry's role in helping to make decisions on resource use, and which had provided no mechanism for dispute resolution.
Industry representatives expressed clear reasons for retaining joint occupancy. These included economy in resource use; the need for a national identity for dairy research and education; the need to maintain a viable group of scientists and educators; and the need to maintain the capacity to generate funds from several sources, which neither organisation could achieve alone.
The reviewers recommended that whilst in the short term certain resources would still need to be shared, in the longer term, the FRI and VCAH-Gilbert Chandler should have separate and independent office and laboratory accommodation. In the meantime, FRI and VCAH-Gilbert Chandler should have more clearly separated office accommodation. New laboratory arrangements would need to be made. Because resources were limiting, local management should provide statements of intent on future programs to encourage cooperation and avoid duplication. VCAH should be the lead agency in education and industry training, FRI in research and development - but importantly, neither party should be precluded from sharing in these activities subject to consultation. DARA and the VCAH should work to establish a Centre of Excellence for research and education first in dairy technology, later in food technology.
The Report pointed out that:
'by the early 1980s there was an approximately equal allocation of priority and resources to the three functions of research, quality assurance and education.'
However, student intake in 1978 was only five. The 1982 decision to separate the College, hence research from education, was considered a wise one- this...
'has been demonstrated by the remarkable growth in both research and education at the site, and it is this success which has largely contributed to the competition for resources and the current tensions.'
It had not proved possible to define areas for sole use by each of the parties. The Crown retained ownership of the site and the buildings. The factory was then a key resource for both; VCAH had the management responsibility because education was the primary role, and because the college could raise revenue for its improvement.
It is not surprising that accommodation was proving such an issue. The 1968 building was designed for a staff of 40. In 1988-89 the FRI had a staff of 72, and VCAH-Gilbert Chandler a staff of 26. Student numbers in the same period grew from 29 EFTS to over 200 EFTS. Both groups made significant capital investments - the VCAH $1.55m and the Department $2.3m. FRI was then planning a $4.9m expansion.
Five basic causes of friction were identified - inadequate definition and understanding of roles; inadequate communication at all levels; failure of local management to develop and maintain formal and informal processes for liaison, planning and dispute settlement; competition for space; and ongoing uncertainty of tenure by the VCAH.
Philosophically, the FRI staff saw few benefits from involvement in educational programs at the skills level, and expressed concern about maintaining confidentiality in research projects if students had access to areas where the research was being conducted. VCAH staff held different views on both these issues, pointing out the benefits to industry of close contact with research workers and that it was feasible to arrange for confidentiality. There were also developments within each of the groups which led to dispute - the FRI's involvement in information transfer and the VCAH's in research were seen as mutually threatening by both parties. The Working Party considered other options to reduce the problems in relationships - the removal of either VCAH-Gilbert Chandler or the FRI to another location, and expansion into other State Research Farm buildings. These were considered unviable, in the case of the College because of the need for students to be able to alternate quickly between classroom and factory.
The Australian Dairy Products Federation (ADPF) said in a letter that whilst they could get research support from other institutions, only the VCAH was providing the necessary educational and training programs. They therefore sought arrangements for optimum use of resources, and said that in their view...
'many of the current problems experienced by both organisations could be obviated if there was established an independent mechanism for allocating resources and arbitrating on the matter of factory access.'
The United Dairyfarmers of Victoria (UDV) agreed on the need for an industry 'mediator group' to help to overcome problems.
In reviewing the impact of the report, it is doubtful whether it made much difference to events at Werribee. The steering group may have met a few times, but friction continued until the time of the move by the FRI from the shared building to the new FRI/AFISC facilities. In times of expansion of organisations with such divergent interests, arrangements of the kind recommended by the review team could only be cosmetic. When the new facilities were established, the competition for space was largely overcome, but interests remained divergent and even today, relationships between Gilbert Chandler and the management of AFISC remain less than cordial.
Although reviews came and went, campus staff maintained a clear focus on trying to meet industry needs, and tackled the challenge of further course development. A Certificate in Dairy Technology was accredited, aiming to provide access for senior management people who did not have the qualifications to enter the Advanced Certificate or Associate Diploma courses to upgrade their knowledge and skills. The Certificate was to be delivered in a number of modes, with recognition of prior learning and credit to enter Advanced Certificate and Associate Diploma courses. By 1991 it had attracted 110 enrolments, well above the anticipated fifty.
Joy Manners set out to prepare plans for an integrated program for education and training for the dairy manufacturing sector, but it was clear that there would need to be a considerable input of money to achieve this aim within a realistic time frame. The Victorian Education Foundation in 1990 provided a major grant of $895,000 to undertake this project. The dairy technology program received the money to provide salary for three additional positions, upgrading of computer facilities, development of a process engineering and control laboratory and purchase of new equipment for the pilot factory. Five organisations (DRDC, Bonlac, Murray Goulburn, Nestlé and Kraft) provided a further $200,000 to assist the program. $200,000 also went from the VEF to McMillan for the Milk Harvesting project. In May 1991, Gilbert Chandler and McMillan received a joint Award for Innovative Education Programs from the VEF.
The dairy technology program at Gilbert Chandler was to include a number of elements:
Key factors in providing the funds were the provision of flexible delivery, recognition of prior learning (RPL) for both on the job and off the job experience, elimination of barriers to study and making course content directly relevant to a defined skill level. The 'integrated program' was planned to include the full range of Gilbert Chandler programs. Joy Manners commented in her 1991 Annual Report that the Campus then had programs across the entire range of post secondary education, from Traineeship, through short courses, Certificate, Advanced Certificate, Associate Diploma, Bachelor, Graduate Diploma, and Masters to Doctorate - all with a staff of only eleven full-time and two part-time academics, plus visitors. Four new lecturers appointed during the year were included in this number. In retrospect, this was an extraordinarily ambitious project for a campus of this size and nature!
The campus continued to show a pioneering approach in its application of new communication technology. The State Training Board provided funds to put computers in factories, enabling students to undertake assignments at the workplace. This approach gradually expanded and later broadened to the use of video-lecturing for remote delivery of courses to other States. The campus is now developing multimedia packages and investigating the use of the Internet to provide more flexible courses to a wider range of participants.
Course planning was a priority during 1991. In fact, three new courses were designed during the year - the Advanced Certificate in Dairy Technology, the Associate Diploma of Applied Science (Dairy Technology), revised as a two-year full-time course, and a Bachelor of Applied Science (Dairy Foods) for introduction in 1992. Graduates in the Associate Diploma could articulate into the final year of the degree program. EFTS hit a record 250 during the year. The first small group of three students enrolled in the degree course in 1992. A Graduate Trainee Industry Orientation Program sponsored by the DRDC was introduced in 1993. This aimed to introduce new graduates to dairy science and technology and to the manufacturing and processing aspects of the industry. Seven chemical engineering graduates participated, from five companies.
All this change was not without its problems. Apart from the considerable burden on staff who were required to both teach and develop the new courses, and in some cases to undertake research and industry consultation, the Course Advisory Committee expressed concern about the poor academic performance by some commencing students. One factor raised by students in discussion with the Committee was in fact the problem of introduction of new courses and the demands this made on staff.
In spite of efforts to promote the course, the new degree program was having problems in attracting students through the VTAC system, although there was a demand for conversion from the Associate Diploma.
A further complication in the life of the campus came about when toward the end of 1993 Joy Manners resigned to take up a position with Bonlac. Dr Greg Moore, Principal of VCAH-Burnley, was asked by the Director to take on the Principal's job at Gilbert Chandler as well.
Greg Moore came to the campus with excellent credentials in academic leadership and management at a time of further change. The University of Melbourne had established a Centre of Food Science and Engineering, with which it was hoped that Gilbert Chandler would develop a complementary role, still to be clarified. A development causing more concern at the campus was the introduction by Dookie of a food technology stream in the degree program. The full implications for Gilbert Chandler had yet to become apparent. For the first time for several years, enrolments showed a slight decline, thought to be due to industry restructuring, or in the new jargon of the times, downsizing.
By 1994, Greg Moore was able to report that a budget deficit at Gilbert Chandler had been turned into a sizeable surplus. But on the academic front, the campus was yet again involved in a review of its programs, this time instigated by the University and industry.
A further review around this time suggested the need to thoroughly investigate Gilbert Chandler's courses and the relationship of the College with industry. In 1993 Dr Don McMahon from Utah State University reviewed Gilbert Chandler courses in relation to the needs of the Australian dairy industry, with special emphasis on middle management in technical and production areas. This review was requested by the DRDC. Management of the College and of the VCAH, senior staff at the University and the DRDC agreed that a thorough rethink was called for.
As the VCAH moved into its relationship with the University, there was a series of discussions on educational directions, and a series of reviews. In November 1993 the Dairy Research and Development Corporation (DRDC) convened a meeting attended by representatives of the VCAH, the University, the DRDC and industry, to discuss the current courses of Gilbert Chandler and to help the DRDC to formulate a policy on education and training for the industry. The Corporation suggested to the University that a review of the campus's academic programs would be appropriate, and with the concurrence of those involved (the VCAH, the University and the DRDC) a joint review was put in place.
The review was chaired by Professor Dick Wettenhall, with Helen Dornom from the Australian Dairy Products Federation, John Landy as a consultant representing the DRDC, Bill McGinness from Bonlac Foods, Alan Morgan, Deputy Principal of VCAH-Gilbert Chandler, and Associate Professor David Wood, Head of the Department of Chemical Engineering at the University forming the panel.
Terms of reference for the review included the provision of advice on the appropriateness of current courses at Gilbert Chandler in relation to the needs of industry, advice on future courses, consideration of the way courses might be developed and funded, and advice on the development of advanced level reaching and research at the college, together with the relationship between these advanced level programs and related activities at the University, at the then Australian Food Research Institute, CSIRO and other relevant institutions.
The review endorsed the dairy technology focus of Gilbert Chandler, but saw problems in the current image of the campus and the resources available to it. At the outset, the panel identified one crucial issue. This concerned the appointment of a new Principal, who should have...
'specialist expertise in dairy technology with a commitment to both TAFE and higher education, as well as the capacity for research leadership directed toward achieving a realistic role for the Gilbert Chandler in dairy industry-targeted research and development.'
Whilst agreeing on the importance of this matter, the panel was divided on how the position of Head of Campus should be considered. Some felt there was a need for an appointment at professorial level to enhance the academic profile of the campus, and to attract money for research and students of high quality. Others felt that the current educational structure did not warrant such a level of appointment unless resources could be made available to bring about a major redevelopment of the campus. This group also felt that a professorial appointment might lead to a lack of attention to TAFE level courses.
The panel was critical of the degree program conducted at the campus, and did not see that it had a future in its current form. The degree course was not well liked by industry, the ADPF or the DRDC - they saw little chance of it succeeding in its current format. They favoured a more flexible program. They did not support a broadening into food technology, since there were plenty of courses already available. The current degree course was failing to attract students, and in spite of the campus' view that this could be overcome by stronger promotion, the panel regarded the proposed Generic Applied Science Degree as a better option. The VCAH was at that time setting in place a generic degree structure through the academic processes of the University, and dairy technology was one of the proposed streams.
On the other hand, the panel endorsed the TAFE level programs and the Graduate Diploma as courses which were meeting industry needs and were in high demand. The review noted that 85% of the student load was in TAFE, and the move to competency based training and to presentation of the new National Certificate in Food Processing program placed heavy demands on staff. The view expressed to the panel by industry was that the Associate Diploma would replace the Certificate/Advanced Certificate as the minimum basic qualification for entry into employment. The Graduate Diploma should be strengthened, particularly in the project work component, and broadened into other areas of food technology.
Short courses at the campus were highly regarded, and should be structured to provide stepping stones toward the completion of the Associate Diploma. However, these too placed heavy demands on staff, and it would be necessary to rationalise their delivery if Gilbert Chandler was to diversify into other areas of TAFE and higher education.
During 1994, Professor Peter Jooste from Orange Free State University provided advice on research at the campus, identifying membrane technology and improvement of plant efficiency as two areas on which the campus could build its current strengths. Research at the campus was another problem in the minds of the review panel members. Current research activities at the campus were described as 'minimal', and the involvement of campus staff in research depended, amongst other things, on the feasibility of appointing and resourcing a research leader with a proven track record in acquiring funds in a competitive environment.
Overall, the review made 38 recommendations to the management of the VCAH and the University. A key recommendation was that a detailed and effective business plan should be developed. The close links with industry were recognised by the panel.
Accepting the main thrust of the findings of the Wettenhall review, the College Director of the time, Dr Barrie Bardsley, was faced with a decision which would have a profound impact on the future of the campus. He decided that it was essential to support the development of Gilbert Chandler, and to appoint a strong academic leader for its programs. He sought funding from the DRDC to support a professorial level appointment, considering that the only way to bring Gilbert Chandler to the necessary level of performance, and to demonstrate commitment to its development, was through such an appointment. The DRDC declined to provide the funds, but said they would support the development of a business plan.
The question then arose as to whether the appointment of a principal should await the findings of the business plan, or should precede its development. The Director's view was that the principal should be appointed first, so that he or she could be part of the business planning process. He maintained that to expect a new appointee to pick up and run with a plan in which he or she had had no involvement was inadvisable. The University and the DRDC regarded this decision with some concern, but it received Council support and Dr Malcolm Hickey was appointed as Head of Campus. He immediately took up the running with the business plan, and the campus has benefited from his leadership. The Wettenhall Review recommendations have been taken into account in the preparation of the business plan, and TAFE and Graduate Diploma courses have been strengthened, in-house delivery of programs is under way, and there is an increasing emphasis on research.
With DRDC funding, a steering committee was established to work to produce a business plan for the campus. Members of the committee were Dr Paul Donnelly, Managing Director of the DRDC; Dr Keith Steele, Chief Scientist of the Department of Agriculture Energy and Minerals; Ms Helen Dornom of the Australian Dairy Products Federation; Professor Barrie Bardsley, Deputy Dean of the Faculty of Agriculture; Forestry and Horticulture, Dr Wayne Sanderson, Executive Director Research and Development/Technical Services from Murray Goulburn Cooperative and Professor Lindsay Falvey, Dean of the newly created Faculty of Agriculture, Forestry and Horticulture (refer to Chapter 12). The Project Manager was Ms Miriam O'Brien, of Miriam O'Brien Consulting, and two further consultants, Mr Robert Hood Managing Director of Australian Continuous Improvement Group, and Dr Michael Heppel, an Associate of the same company, were retained to assist the planning process.
The planning process was an extensive and intensive one. Staff and students of the campus, as well as industry representatives, were involved. The mission of the Gilbert Chandler campus was defined as:
'To provide the dairy food science and technology educational needs of the Australian food industry and its suppliers, in a customer focused and cost effective manner.'
The plan envisaged:
The business plan goes on to a detailed analysis of strengths, weakness, opportunities and threats, defining alternative strategies aimed at helping to achieve its objectives. It defines key performance indicators in measures including TAFE student contact hours and higher education student numbers, value of research grants, and financial indicators. It sets out detailed action plans for marketing, for the range of products to be provided, for strategic alliances, for governance, personnel, resources and management systems.
|
| Gilbert Chandler College, 1997. |
Whilst it is relatively early in the process of application of the plan, the outcomes so far are encouraging. The College is cementing its place nationally as a provider of excellence in its field, and its enrolments and its financial performance are encouraging. Whilst for many years there have been industry-dominated course advisory committees, the formal process of producing a business plan has led to a more common understanding of the scope and purpose of Gilbert Chandler's programs and activities. Staff have enthusiastically accepted the challenge of making the plan work - after a long period of uncertainty about the future, there is a sense of optimism that Gilbert Chandler can play an increasingly important part in helping the industry it serves to achieve growth and greater efficiency. This sense of optimism has been strengthened by the graduation of not only the College's, but the VCAH's, first Masters and PhD students, confirming the important role that Gilbert Chandler can play in education and training.
Gilbert Chandler College moves into its next period of development with many strengths, and as a key component of the new Institute of Melbourne School of Land and Environment. Its association with the wider University and its capacity to provide programs at a distance nationally and internationally using new communication technology are important attributes.
There remain several challenges - to generate sufficient resources to provide modern equipment for the programs of the College; to strengthen the research base, and to rationalise courses. The sense of purpose and of closeness to industry which a visitor experiences at the campus provide a high degree of optimism that these challenges will be met and overcome.
