COMPUTING LABORATORY
UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE, CLAREMONT TOWER, CLAREMONT ROAD, NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE, NE1 7RU
Director and
Professor of Computing and Data Processing
H. Whitfield, B.Sc., A.R.C.S, D.I.C.
Executive Director of the Computing Service
Miss E. D. Barraclough
Professors of Computing Science
B. Randell, B.Sc., A.R.C.S.
T. Anderson, B.Sc., Ph.D.
P.A. Lee, M.Sc., Ph.D.
S. K. Shrivastava, M.E., Ph.D.
Ref:10/2:
23rd May 1989.
Dear Vice-Chancellor,
Report of the “Crombie” Committee
Although I have not been invited to comment on the report relating to the Committee which is shortly to be presented to the Senate, there are one or two points which I feel obliged to bring to your attention.
Let me say immediately that I find much to agree with in the report and the recommendations. I am sure that the computing service staff will be able to adapt to new arrangements, and the recommendations relating to committee structures are, in general, in accordance with my own views.
The one section of the report which concerns me greatly relates to the formal separation of the two parts of the Laboratory. Without going into detail, I believe the report greatly overstates the advantages to be gained from formal separation and fails to understand the damage which could be done by it. Moreover, it fails to make clear that such a formal separation would be completely contrary to the expressed advice of both the academic staff, and the computing service staff, of the Laboratory.
The committee believes the relationship between the computing service and the computing science department could operate equally as well under the new arrangements it proposes as under the current ones. The committee states quite correctly that the objectives of the two parts are different. The role of the Director, as I see it, is to try to reconcile the actions which follow from these objectives whenever possible and sensible. That requires a lot of effort and authority, and could not be done under the proposed structure. I believe that under the proposed structure good personal relationships would slow down the process of divergence, but the present relationship would wither away within 3-5 years. It could not then be re-established.
It is perhaps worth observing that of the half-dozen computing science departments rated “outstanding” by the UGC, the two working in the area of software and system design (Cambridge and Newcastle) both come from joint academic/service departments. I believe that this is not a coincidence anymore than the fact that both have “advanced” computing services.
Whilst I would welcome arrangements to reduce the Director’s administrative burden, and would not in any sense suggest that the present arrangements should necessarily continue unchanged, a more cautious and considered approach to this particular problem would be wise. I would hope that Senate, once made aware of the extent and strength of concern about the proposal to separate the two parts of the Laboratory, would seek further advice before acting on this proposal.
In particular, I would urge that other possible means of satisfying the committee’s legitimate concerns be investigated that would have the wholehearted support of the staff, and would retain the advantageous aspects to the computing service and its users, and to the Laboratory’s teaching and research activity of the present arrangements. Such an investigation need not delay implementation of any of the other recommendations which find favour with Senate.
As soon as Senate has made a decision of principle, I would welcome an opportunity to discuss with you my personal position, and I am sure Miss Barraclough will wish to do the same.
Yours sincerely,
H. Whitfield