Dundee University ‘fell well short', says interim boss in response to report
Former Glasgow Caledonian University principal Professor Pamela Gillies was asked to look into the culture, leadership and financial management at Dundee earlier this year after a £35 million black hole was discovered, leading the institution to consider cutting hundreds of jobs.
The report found former principal Professor Iain Gillespie, who has since resigned, ex-interim principal Professor Shane O'Neill, and previous chief operating officer Jim McGeorge had acted as a 'triumvirate', making decisions amongst themselves, and it also questioned the quality of information about the university's finances given to other senior officials.
In publishing the university's response to the report on Wednesday, interim principal Professor Nigel Seaton said: 'It was evident from the Gillies report that there had been clear failings in financial monitoring, leadership, and governance at the university.
'The entire UK higher education sector has been forced to deal with significant external factors in recent years but our university's response to these, and its management of finances, fell well short of the standards that everyone should have expected.'
Dr Ian Mair, the acting chairman of the university court, said: 'The actions we propose to take in the short, medium and long term are designed to ensure the university has a sustainable future built upon strong governance, financial competence, transparency, and accountability.
'Our response provides detailed assurances to our stakeholders that the immediate, robust, and impactful action required to implement significant operational and cultural change is under way.'
The response looked at the financial dealings of the university, its culture and governance, laying out short, medium and long-term actions to ensure its improvement.
The appointment of a permanent principal, chief financial officer and chief operating officer could take up to 18 months, according to the response, which puts the hiring of the three roles in the 'longer term (12-18 months)' category.
The replacement principal, the response said, must have 'experience of transformation and change and with a people-focused leadership style'.
Prof Gillespie was criticised in the Gillies report for not consulting with staff, as well accusing him of 'hubris' in his leadership and being unable to take criticism.
In the next six months, it is hoped a new chairman of the university court can be found, along with regular members of the body, including those with 'financial skills and experience'.
The university said it will cancel or defer all 'non-essential capital projects' and use financial modelling to devise rolling five-year budget forecasts for key areas to get back on its feet financially.
The response also pledged to listen more to staff and students, with a number of events already being planned to do so.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Harvard Business Review
a minute ago
- Harvard Business Review
Your Company Needs to Focus on Fewer Projects. Here's How.
In almost every organization I've advised, I've encountered the same problem: far too many projects, and far too few that truly matter. A CEO of a global nonprofit association once told me—half joking, half frustrated—that his company had 900 employees but more than 1,200 active projects. 'It's madness,' he said. 'But people love launching projects. It feels exciting. It shows progress. Stopping them? That's uncomfortable. It feels like failure.' This story is far from unique. Across the industries I've worked in—global consumer brands, leading pharmaceutical companies, financial institutions, large infrastructure firms, and even business schools—the same pattern emerges. Banks run hundreds of competing digital initiatives; consumer goods companies stretch their scarce innovation talent across dozens of 'priority' launches; health care and life sciences firms keep long-running research or compliance programs alive long after their usefulness has passed. But hidden within this challenge lies a powerful opportunity: when organizations are brave enough to focus on fewer, higher-value initiatives, the payoff can be remarkable. Energy, budgets, and talent stop being diluted and start flowing into the projects that truly matter—accelerating delivery, boosting morale, and creating a stronger sense of shared purpose. Based on my experience, most organizations could cut 50% of their active projects tomorrow without any negative consequences. In fact, in some cases, trimming 70% would make them faster, more focused, and more effective. And yet they don't. In a June 2024 survey conducted for my upcoming book, Powered by Projects: Leading Your Organization in the Transformation Age (HBR Press, January 2026), only 8% of organizations conduct monthly project reviews, 44% stop projects only occasionally, 26% rarely, and 7% never stop them at all. This obsession with starting everything is more than inefficient; it is strategically dangerous. In today's project economy, value is delivered primarily through initiatives and transformations, but that doesn't mean that more projects are better. Bloated portfolios dilute resources, slow decision-making, and prevent organizations from focusing on the projects that could truly move the needle. The first rule for thriving in this new reality is simple: Kill more projects. But here's the catch—everyone knows this, yet few know how to do it. They fear the politics, the tradeoffs, and the uncomfortable conversations, so the overload continues, quietly draining focus and momentum. Building the Habit of Stopping Launching projects is fun. Kickoffs generate energy and visibility. Meanwhile, killing projects feels quiet, awkward, and politically charged. It's no wonder that organizational overload is common, and why, despite recognizing the problem, leaders struggle to stop projects even when the case to do so is obvious. There's the sunk-cost trap: 'We've already spent too much to quit, and we're almost there.' Also reputational risk, emotional attachment, pet projects, vanity projects—we all know them when we see them. The problem isn't awareness, it's human nature and ingrained organizational habits. Annual reviews and a stated commitment to keeping project portfolios small may help around the edges, but these approaches fail to deliver true organizational focus. A senior finance executive at a European industrial group once admitted to me: 'We do big portfolio discussions once a year, but by then it's too late. Zombie projects keep running because nobody wants to be the one to stop them.' Those zombie initiatives that drain resources without delivering value are deadly. They slow down strategic transformations and exhaust teams. Breaking this cycle requires more than better governance—it demands new habits and cultural shifts. Over the past two decades, as I've advised executives across various industries, I've developed and observed seven practices that consistently yield results. These are practical habits that organizations have adopted to transform how they prioritize, govern, and ultimately stop projects. Each of these principles lessens the psychological challenge of stopping projects—and ensures these decisions are as deliberate and celebrated as starting projects. 1. Make continuation a conscious choice. In most companies, projects continue simply because no one challenges them. Effective organizations flip this default. At a global food company I advised, project reviews stopped being passive reporting exercises. Sponsors were no longer allowed to 'update' leadership with progress charts; instead, they were asked a single, pointed question: 'If you had to defend this project to the board today, would you still recommend it?' This forced sponsors to think like investors, evaluating future value instead of rationalizing past effort. Leaders told me that this small change triggered 'the most honest conversations we've ever had about our portfolio.' Within six months, 20% of projects were stopped or significantly re-scoped, releasing millions for digital upgrades that had been stalled for years. 2. Create real tradeoffs. One reason portfolios swell is that leaders rarely have to make hard choices. Budgets stretch, priorities multiply, and every initiative finds a way to survive. A telecommunications company I worked with broke this pattern by introducing 'project trading sessions.' Every business-unit leader was given a fixed 'budget' of talent and funding, with one rule: To launch a new initiative, they had to stop or 'sell' an existing project of equal value. The process wasn't just financial—it was psychological. Leaders had to publicly justify why a new project was more valuable than one already underway, creating an actual marketplace for priorities. After one session, a senior executive admitted: 'I realized I was defending projects I didn't even believe in anymore, just because nobody ever asked me to choose.' Within a year, the portfolio shrank by 35%, and execution speed for key strategic projects improved significantly. 3. Stop treating every idea as a project. Many organizations reflexively elevate too many opportunities into formal projects, complete with steering committees, governance meetings, and complex documentation. This clogs portfolios with initiatives that should have been quietly tested—or quietly abandoned. One health care and life sciences company I advised created small cross-functional 'squad teams' to explore new opportunities for 30 to 60 days. These squads had a simple mandate to test the strategic relevance and potential impact of an idea before requesting project status. The result? About 40% of ideas were dropped after this initial assessment, saving thousands of hours and keeping the organization focused on high-value initiatives. Leaders described it as 'one of the most liberating changes we've ever made.' 4. Time-box projects to three or six months. Long, open-ended projects are where focus goes to die. They create sunk-cost inertia, locking organizations into outdated priorities. An energy corporation I worked with shifted to a time-boxed approach: All new initiatives were structured as three- or six-month projects, with continuation decided at the end of each cycle. This made it easier for executives to pivot—or stop—without political fallout. Leaders could simply say, 'This cycle ends here; we're redirecting resources elsewhere.' The approach gave the company remarkable agility; for example, when customer behavior shifted sharply during a regulatory change, the firm was able to redirect investment within weeks, something that would have been unthinkable under its old multi-year programs. 5. Reward leaders who stop, not just those who start. In most organizations, careers are built on launching new initiatives, not ending them. High-performing companies change that narrative. At a global luxury company I advised, the CEO added a new KPI to senior leaders' scorecards: resources freed from low-value initiatives. Leaders had to publicly share, every quarter, which projects they had stopped and how those resources were reinvested. At first, executives were skeptical. But within two cycles, the mood shifted—leaders began competing to demonstrate their strategic judgment. One senior executive proudly told me, 'Stopping that big IT project freed 15 engineers; they're now accelerating our core digital offering. That's the impact I want to be known for.' Stopping became not a failure, but a career-enhancing signal of good leadership. 6. Spot weak projects early. The longer a weak project drags on, the harder it becomes to stop. The best organizations identify underperformers before they consume significant resources. A mid-sized European biotech firm I worked with used three simple early-warning signals: declining sponsor attendance at key meetings, repeated re-baselining of schedules, and falling stakeholder participation. If a project triggered two of these, it faced an automatic 'continuation challenge'—a structured review where leaders had to justify its survival. About 15% of projects were stopped early through this process, freeing capacity for new strategic priorities. The key wasn't sophisticated analytics, it was clear rules and the courage to act on them. 7. Restaff your people to your most strategic projects. One of the biggest reasons leaders hesitate to stop projects is the fear that doing so will lead to layoffs. When that risk is removed, the psychological barrier to cutting low-value initiatives drops dramatically. At a global bank I advised, hundreds of IT and operations staff were tied up in outdated compliance projects that no longer matched the regulatory priorities of the year. Rather than cut those roles, the COO launched a 'safe landing' program: Every person from a stopped project was guaranteed placement on one of the bank's top 10 strategic initiatives within 30 days. This policy not only retained valuable skills within the bank but also fostered trust. Teams became more willing to recommend ending projects once they knew it wouldn't put colleagues at risk. Swift, deliberate restaffing turns endings into accelerators for what matters most. Winning by Stopping What these practices have in common is not better tools, but a mindset shift. Stopping projects isn't about cutting headcount or shrinking the organization—it's about sharpening focus and amplifying impact. When organizations streamline their projects, transformation accelerates, strategies are achieved faster, and people are more motivated and productive. Energy flows to the work that truly matters, and success becomes more visible and contagious. It leads people to feel prouder to be working for your organization. At your next portfolio meeting, resist the instinct to ask, 'What should we start next?' Ask instead: 'If we could only do half of what we're doing now, which half would we keep?' And then act on that answer. Because in the project economy, winning doesn't come from starting more—it comes from stopping what no longer matters and relentlessly focusing on what does matter.
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Andy Burnham speaks out on taxi driver's £170 Manchester Airport fine
Andy Burnham has branded a taxi driver's £170 Manchester Airport fine 'harsh' and 'a little heavy-handed'. Cameras were installed at the Airport to automatically charge motorists earlier this year, removing the need for payment barriers so traffic can flow more smoothly. Drivers have until midnight the following day to pay the £5 drop-off or £6.40 pick-up fee. When it was rolled out in March, Sue West, Manchester Airport's landside operations director, said: 'We're always looking for ways to make our passengers' lives easier. READ MORE: Manchester mum on Cyprus holiday turns on fellow hotel guests READ MORE: Drug dealers targeting Brits in Tenerife arrested on strip where Jay Slater partied To see planning applications; traffic and road diversions and layout changes; and more, visit the Public Notices Portal HERE 'By removing barriers in our drop-off and pick-up zones it will speed up the process and make it feel seamless – and it will stop people from going into more expensive pay brackets while they wait at the barriers.' But calling into the mayor's regular BBC Radio Manchester Neil, a private hire driver, said he registered his taxi and debit card to Manchester Airport's payment system, so drop-off fees he is charged while working are paid automatically. However, Neil told listeners he upgraded his taxi to a new car and forgot to update the registration plate on Manchester Airport's system. He didn't notice his mistake before the payment cut-off, so was issued a £100 fine. But Neil said the first letter 'went astray' and debt collectors have now contacted him demanding £170. Mayor Andy Burnham said the approach was 'a little heavy-handed' and revealed his office has had complaints about the new system. 'It's a system I do not control,' he said. 'It feels harsh in some ways, given they know you as an operator. 'I know there are other complaints about the system. I feel we need to work with the Airport so everyone understands the system. I think some people have been in a position where the change has come in and they know about it.' Manchester Airport was contacted for comment.
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Liverpool close in on impressive £25m transfer
Liverpool are closing in on a £25m transfer agreement. The Reds could seal the deal shortly. Liverpool hope to pack a lot into the final two weeks of the transfer window. In fact, they want to sign three more players in that time. Giovanni Leoni is essentially a lock at this point. Liverpool have an agreement with both the player and Parma - a medical is done and he'll sign a six-year contract. LFC x adidas Shop the home range today! LFC x adidas Shop the goalkeeper range today LFC x adidas Shop the new adidas range today! Then there's Marc Guehi. His contract at Crystal Palace expires at the end of the season and Liverpool hope to take advantage of that. 🔴 Shop the LFC 2025/26 adidas home range Maybe that means snapping him up for free in 2026 but maybe it means signing him on the cheap this month. The Reds are certainly giving it a go. But neither is the 'big' one. That's Alexander Isak, who could still move to Liverpool for a record-breaking fee. Ridiculously, that's not even it as several first-team players are linked with exits. One of them should go through shortly, too. 🔴 Shop the LFC 2025/26 adidas away range Bournemouth near Ben Doak deal The Guardian reports that Bournemouth are closing in on a deal for Ben Doak. Doak is essentially surplus to requirements at Anfield having failed to convince the club that he'd be an able backup to Mo Salah. That has him on the transfer list and the Cherries have moved to get a deal done. The Guardian claim a £25m deal is in the works and should go through. Bournemouth are selling Dango Ouattara to Brentford for over £40m, handing them the money to sign Doak quite comfortably. Liverpool, of course, will bank a sizeable profit having signed the Scot from Celtic for around £600k.
