ID153 Beyond Committees: Simplifying Decision-Making at Keele

The Idea

Keele should significantly simplify how decisions are made by reducing reliance on standing committees and moving towards clearer decision ownership, time‑limited groups, and transparent decision routes. The shift should be from committee ownership to decision ownership: clarifying who has authority to decide, what assurance is needed, and how staff can contribute proportionately. Universities have often responded to complexity by creating more committees. While well‑intentioned, this can make decision-making slower, less transparent, and harder to navigate. This proposal therefore focuses on simplifying routes to decision, clarifying ownership, and ensuring that governance effort is proportionate to risk, assurance need, and strategic value. This idea proposes a strategic shift away from committee‑heavy governance towards a model based on clarity, accountability, and purpose. The focus moves from “which committee should discuss this?” to “who owns this decision, on what basis, and with what input?” 

Standing committees would be limited to statutory or high‑risk areas where formal assurance is essential. Most work would be handled through time‑limited working groups with clear remit, membership, and decision scope, supported by named decision owners. This approach preserves inclusion and scrutiny while enabling faster, more transparent, and more effective decision‑making fit for an agile university that must respond quickly to external change. 

Why This Idea Should Be Considered

Committee‑heavy governance is expensive in terms of staff time, attention, and opportunity cost, yet often delivers limited value. Membership can be exclusive rather than inclusive, attendance inconsistent, and discussions dominated by a small number of voices, reinforcing uncomfortable power dynamics and reducing genuine challenge. Frequently, meetings conclude without clear decisions or ownership, slowing progress and frustrating delivery. These models evolved for a more stable environment and are increasingly misaligned with the pace and uncertainty universities now face. An agile institution must be able to respond quickly to external pressures, drawing on diverse expertise without being constrained by slow, resource‑intensive, and performative decision‑making structures. 

How We Would Implement This Idea

Keele could begin by mapping existing committees against the decisions they support, identifying duplication and low‑value activity. This mapping should consider not only alignment to the university risk register, but also where policy ownership and oversight sit, to clarify where formal assurance and accountability are required.  Clear principles for decision ownership would then be agreed, retaining standing committees only where statutory, regulatory, or high‑risk assurance is required. For lower‑level governance, Keele could trial alternative models where papers are shared online and approval is assumed unless discussion is requested within a defined timeframe. This “decision by exception” approach would reduce unnecessary meetings while preserving scrutiny and challenge. To support documentation and quality assurance, this process could be underpinned by a simple decision record or approval form capturing the decision owner, contributors consulted, approvals received, issues raised, any conditions attached, and the final outcome. Throughout this process, care would be needed to ensure that simplification does not weaken appropriate scrutiny, inclusivity, or regulatory assurance. Clear implementation principles should therefore govern where formal oversight remains necessary, how diverse perspectives are included, and how transparency and accountability are maintained across streamlined decision-making routes. Time‑limited working groups would be used for complex issues, supported by transparent decision pathways so staff understand how and where to engage. 

What Success Would Look Like

Success looks like a university where decision‑making is clear, timely, and transparent. Staff understand where decisions sit, who owns them, and how to contribute without attending multiple committees. The number of standing committees is significantly reduced, with time‑limited working groups used for specific tasks and challenges. Meetings have clear purpose and outcomes, and accountability is visible rather than diffused. Staff time is freed for delivery, innovation, and collaboration. Governance is seen as enabling progress rather than slowing it down, supporting a culture of ownership, agility, trust, and strategic focus.