Search results

The purpose of this paper is to present a maturity model for academic leadership teams to benchmark their ability to deliver a culture of continuous improvement through the use of Lean Six Sigma. Teams will also be able to use this model to develop strategic action plans to improve the culture of continuous improvement within their institution. In addition, this paper explains the journey the authors have taken in creating this model by using a mixture of literature review, questionnaires and case studies to build the model and the use of test cases to refine and improve the model.

This paper uses a structured approach, focussing first on assessing the state of UK Lean Six Sigma (LSS) implementation and the, through the use of the case study method, the authors have designed a maturity model based on the classic capability maturity matrix approach. The final model has then been tested to refine the model into an improved version.

Key findings from interviewing the academic institutions that make up this paper highlight the current best practice in the UK and how far they still have to travel to become truly continuous improving organisations.

This paper is limited to only focussing on UK institutions in the design and development of the maturity model. Future research should benchmark UK institutions more formally with international universities from North America and the Far East.

This paper present a final maturity model which can be used by academic leadership teams to both map their maturity at delivering continuous improvement projects and to act as an action plan to move the culture towards a quality-based, continuously improving institution.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first such model to be produced focussing on the leadership and sustainability of deploying LSS in academic institutions.

Is academic leadership unique? Is it special? Do academic leaders require certain knowledge, skills and behaviours that only a career in academic can develop – or is it fundamentally the same as traditional leadership? This paper explores whether or not academic leadership is special or simple. It starts by defining the context and environment academic leaders find themselves in, moving onto explore characteristics and the overlap with traditional leadership thinking and finally concludes with current trends and a working definition of what academic leadership really is. The purpose of this paper is to explore the uniqueness of academic institutions and whether or not they require certain leadership characteristics which can only be found in academic career progression or could an exceptional individual from outside academia lead academics, researchers, administrators and support staff?

Based around a literature review of current thinking on academic leadership and then the production of a Venn diagram to compares these current trends with more traditional definitions of leadership.

The key findings of this paper include a definition of academic leadership, and how it is similar in many ways to traditional leadership thinking. However, there is a uniqueness centred on the culture and politics of an academic institution which many traditional leaders would not need to work within.

This paper is part of a wider research project relating to academic leadership and Lean Six Sigma and thus the author has searched out papers which support both areas of the author’s interest.

Anyone in a position of academic leadership may be interested in how it relates to traditional leadership concepts and where their field differs from others.

No research current exists which overlaps academic leadership with traditional definitions and characteristics and thus this paper is a new view of academic leadership.

Index by subjects, compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.

Index by subjects, compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.