The Fight is on

So now it starts.

A few months ago, Roger and I wrote a 3-page expression of interest to the Leverhulme trust to embed the new discipline of service science. We asked for £2.6m. We competed with every new discipline out there - there were 204 applications asking Leverhulme for £670m.

Against all odds, we were amongst the 16 applications shortlisted. So here I'm thinking, wow, someone actually believed me! I get to do what I've always wanted - embed the new discipline of service science and be the first in the world to do so, and perhaps start the first ever service science institute in the world!

Excited at the possibilities, I started to write the main proposal - there are 3 more stages. The main proposal, the interview and finally the visit by Leverhulme. I thought of asking the university for more funding, space in the new innovation centre perhaps, even a building?? I emailed the VC and asked Steve if he had time for a chat over coffee.

I had no idea how much the political climate has changed since I was away. Steve emailed back and said he had no time and asked me to consult Richard Lamming (our new Head of School) in the first instance and in the same email, copied RL on it. ouch!

I knew RL would be unhappy and I knew he would think I have undermined him so I immediately sent an email apologizing stating that I only had good intentions i.e. to get the university to commit funds to the bid. I got this email back.

This is disappointing behaviour and your assessment of how it looks is accurate. A project of this size and nature must be handled through Heads of Schools and you are not at liberty to consult with the V-C or a DVC in this way. The implications are very significant, as you say, and beyond your remit.

Apart from anything else, research money from charities such as Leverhulme does not bring net income into the School, as full economic costs are not paid; funding a post in this way is a liability, not an asset, for a School and such a decision can only be made by the strategic leadership (e.g. SMC). The notion of a School “incubating” something is of profound impact and you may not assume that it will be allowed.

I suggest that you and Dragan convene a meeting with Ken Evans an myself as quickly as possible to disucss this in detail. At that point we can decide whether or not the Schools will support this full proposal; note that it can only proceed with this permission, regardless of what you have conducted so far. Please do not make any further assumptions that commit the School, or me as its Head, to significant costs.

I do not wish to dampen your enthusiasm and I expect to support your initiative. You must, however, behave as a member of your Department and School.

I was rather annoyed that he was not big enough to let my email to VC slide. After all, I am an academic in my own right and have the liberty of speaking whoever I choose. This is not a corporation and the fact that he thinks there is a hierarchy to abide by so strictly suggests that he is the 'command and control' type. I told myself I wasn't going to take being spoken to in this manner and emailed back:

I saw no reason why I should not consult Steve and Roger as I was looking to see if what level of support at university level could be provided for the Service Science initiative and Steve has always been very supportive of service science, since we were both delivering keynotes at a service science and leadership congress in Singapore. I recognised that being new in the school, you could perceive this as undermining your authority which was why I was quick to email to clarify but I personally do not think it does undermine you as whatever support I could get after conversations with Steve and Roger at university level would be brought back to Ken and yourself for discussion anyway. In fact, I thought it would help matters if I took the initiative to do it because of resource issues under Leverhulme as it's not under FEC.

As you have intimated, the Leverhulme project has resource implications for schools but the funding will provide a further QR funding of 500-750k through the QR charitable support scheme which does go some way to alleviate the full economic costs, albeit the amount will come in on year 3 and extend for 5 years after that. I also have quite a lot to think about in terms of my capacity to deliver on leverhulme since I have an AIM fellowship buyout of 70% for 2 years working with BT and Lloyds and 1 year sabbatical after that to write up. In addition, I have just received a polite request from BAE if I could be part of the integrated project team on the CVF to design the aircraft carrier for future service and support (http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvf/), as well as Rolls which wants me to scope out a big programme on service value and capacity rolled out across Rolls PLC from 2010 onwards both of which means further funding for lots of other things including research teams so I really have to think whether I even have the capacity to do this.

Nonetheless, I understand that a meeting has been set for the 11 Dec so I hope to discuss this with yourself and Ken then to see if this would go ahead. I'm copying the rest of the team members on this for their info. See you then.

Matter of fact. Stick to the issues. I refuse to be bullied by his controlling tone.

My biggest leverage is that I don't need this. I can easily walk away as I have 3 years of leave ahead of me. RL, on the other hand, is tasked to bring more grants to the school so my guess is that HE needs it more than I do and all this 'maybe will not support' nonsense is all a means to bring me down a peg or two. Well, he can try and make my life difficult but I'm not so easily cowed. I would really like to advance the service science cause but only on terms that can make it possible.

The meeting is this Thursday in Exeter and it's battle stations!