Academic Program and Administrative Services Prioritization

University of Montana (revised August 17, 2017)

Rationale:

The University of Montana (UM) will engage in a campus-wide prioritization of academic programs and administrative services. The impetus for engaging in this process is driven by several factors, some of which affect all higher education institutions while others are unique to UM. These significant challenges across the higher education landscape include:

• reduced state support for higher education;
• increased demands by external stakeholders for accountability;
• demands for more effective utilization of resources;
• heightened pressure to demonstrate outcomes commensurate with educational costs; and
• the declining numbers of students seeking and completing post-secondary degrees.

In addition to addressing these challenges, prioritization can:

• strengthen the alignment of academic programs and administrative services with the institutional mission;
• emphasize and promote student success;
• improve the connection between resource allocation and strategic/operational priorities,
• enhance our focus on areas of potential growth and expansion;
• ensure the continued provision of exceptional academic programs, impactful research, creative scholarship, and community service;
• operationalize our strategic vision documents in order to galvanize specific programs and services at UM—current or future—that will achieve the documents’ direction of UM as both the state’s flagship liberal arts institution and a dynamic research hub.
• ensure the sustainable development of academic programs and administrative services at UM, from now into the future;

UM will use a prioritization model similar to that outlined by Robert Dickeson as the framework from which we will design our process to meet the unique needs and circumstances of the University of Montana.

Approach:

UM recognizes that to be successful, the Academic Program and Administrative Services Prioritization (APASP) process, must engage all campus stakeholders, be transparent, and result in implementation actions consistent with our current and future strategic vision and overarching mission. A successful prioritization process will require an organizational structure, a clearly framed charge, and an outline of expected action steps and target dates.
The administration will ensure that any resulting curtailment or discontinuation of programs will be conducted according to all bargaining and legal agreements. All current students enrolled in affected programs at the time of curtailment or discontinuation will be allowed to graduate from those programs based on degree requirements at the time of their initial enrollment.
 
The APASP Task Force will be guided by the following core tenets and values:

• Loyalty to our identity as an internationally recognized flagship liberal arts University;
• Empowering UM students for success in higher education;
• Agility in our professional training to meet current and future labor market demands in Montana and beyond;
• Transparency at all levels of decision making;
• Respect for a diverse student body and campus community; and
• Ensuring UM remains a leader in academics, art, research, and innovation.

APASP Task Force Organizational Structure:

Consistent with the feedback received from the UM shared governance groups representing faculty, students and staff along with the review and input of the President’s Cabinet, Academic Officers and other administrative officials, oversight of the APASP will be the responsibility of a 19-member task force made up of the following individuals:

Chair

Beverly Edmond, Interim Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs 

Faculty Representatives (8)

John DeBoer, Associate Professor, School of Theatre and Dance
Christine Fiore, Chair, Department of Psychology
Paul Haber, Professor, Department of Political Science
Colin Henderson, Professor, Missoula College
Elizabeth Putnam, Chair, Department of Biomedical and Pharmaceutical Sciences
Ona Renner-Fahey, Associate Professor, Department of Modern & Classical Languages & Literatures
Steve Schwarze, Professor, Department of Communication Studies
Andrew Ware, Chair, Department of Physics & Astronomy

Staff Representatives (4)

Stephanie Domitrovich, Academic Advisor and Adjunct Faculty, Department of Health and Human Performance
Laurie Fisher, Director, Career Services
Rozlyn Haley, Compliance Specialist, Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action and UM Police Department
Jennifer Zellmer-Cuaresma, Athletic Academic Advisor, Intercollegiate Athletics

Student Representatives (4)

Braden Fitzgerald, ASUM President (2017-2018); Senior, Health and Human Performance
Chase Greenfield, ASUM Business Manager (2016-17); Senior, Philosophy & English Literature
Erik Johnston, Graduate Student, Material Sciences Ph.D. Program
Anisa Ricci, ASUM Senator (2016-17); Senior, Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies & Political Science

Administration Representatives (3)

Tom DeLuca, Dean, W.A. Franke College of Forestry and Conservation
Beverly Edmond, Interim Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs 
Scott Whittenburg, Vice President for Research & Creative Scholarship; Dean, Graduate School

Ex-officio Members (non-voting)

Claudine Cellier, Director of Academic Personnel & Communication, Office of the Provost & VP for Academic Affairs
Lucy France, Legal Counsel
Nathan Lindsay, Associate Provost for Dynamic Learning
Rebecca Power, Assistant to the President
Dawn Ressel, Associate Vice President and Chief Data Officer
Michael Reid, Vice President for Administration & Finance
Kathryn Shanley, Special Assistant to the Provost for Native American & Indigenous Education
Paula Short, Director of Communications, Office of the President
Hillary Stowell, Director of Academic Fiscal Affairs, Office of the Provost & VP for Academic Affairs

The Forward125 Project Management Team will provide oversight and coordinate the work of all the groups within the Forward125 Project of which APASP is one part.
 
All constituents represented on the Task Force (Administration, ASUM, Faculty Senate, Staff Senate, UFA) may consider naming alternate members to attend meetings in the place of Task Force members.
 
If alternates attend meetings, they will follow the guidelines below:

• Alternates may attend any task force meeting as non-speaking, non-voting members of the university community. Should alternates want to share their own ideas about the Task Force’s work with the group, they should do so through the Task Force members who represent their constituent group (the way other constituents, not named as alternates, would.)
• Alternates will only speak for Task Force members after all options for remote participation in meetings (via phone or teleconference) by the Task Force member have been exhausted.
• If represented by an alternate, it is the Task Force member’s responsibility to brief their alternate on their role at the meeting as follows:
  • Alternates will represent the Task Force member’s position on the items at hand, based on prior briefing by the Task Force member they represent.
  • Alternates will take notes on behalf of the Task Force member they represent, and relay these to the Task Force member they represent in a timely manner.
• Alternates will not vote for Task Force members by proxy. If a Task Force member cannot attend a meeting, even remotely, they will rely on their sub-committee chairs to relay a vote by proxy.
• Should alternates desire to post items in the Task Force’s box folders or share their ideas as an appointed alternate with the Task Force via email, they should do so through the Task Force members who represent their constituent group (the way other constituents, not named as alternates, would.)

APASP Task Force Charge:

The charge of the APASP Task Force is threefold: 

1. Provide advice, guidance and oversight to all components of APASP planning and implementation;
2. Establish the necessary components (metrics, operational definitions, criteria, formulas/weights, categories of prioritization, associated actions, etc.), the review processes, and the timeline/benchmarks required to meet the established completion date; and
3. Develop a set of recommendations for academic program and administrative services prioritization that addresses the University’s current resource constraints for review, consideration and implementation by the President and Cabinet.

A secondary, but equally important charge of the APASP Task Force will be to recommend components of the prioritization process that can be incorporated into our ongoing systematic review of UM’s academic departments, programs and administrative services.  In particular, the APASP Task Force should look for opportunities to link prioritization processes, decisions and outcomes with the strategic initiatives and general platform for growth outlined in the University’s newly created strategic vision.
Note on the Charge: As “trustees” of UM, the members of the APASP Task force work to design and lead the academic and administrative prioritization processes; the charge of the task force is limited to: making process decisions, categorizing programs and services, and drafting recommendations. The task force’s charge does not include final decision or implementation responsibilities, which fall under the President and the Cabinet’s jurisdiction.

APASP Review Process:

The APASP process will acknowledge the fundamental distinctions between the missions and values of the various programs and services within the colleges/departments/units/etc. of UM (e.g. Missoula College, the College of Humanities and Sciences, the Mansfield Library, Facilities Services, Adams Center). Furthermore, this process will also recognize the fundamental differences between academic programs and administrative services within each area. While considering these distinctions, however, the process must also acknowledge the program or service’s contributions to the greater mission of the University as a whole.

• All decisions and recommendations will be subject to a formal affirmation by the task force before they are forwarded to the campus community, the cabinet, and ultimately the President. The procedures for these affirmations are as follows:
  • Meetings will follow a modified version of Robert’s Rules of Order.
  • A quorum of at least 13 voting members of the task force must be present in order for formal actions to be valid. The same applies to electronic voting on prioritization categories.
• APASP will determine the definition of an Academic Program and an Administrative Service in order to develop a list of those programs and services that will be reviewed by the Task Force and then the campus community before finalization.
• APASP will develop criteria, metrics, formulas, weights, categories of prioritization, and other operational parameters and will share these with stakeholders for input before they are finalized.
• Unit assessment reports will be completed using pre-established templates developed by the APASP Task Force.
• There will be a pilot process that adheres to the following guidelines:
  • The purpose of the pilot is to test and modify the APASP process before the fall review begins. The pilot will not evaluate specific programs or services. No participating program or service will gain special advantage or privileges over any non-pilot program or service.
  • The APASP task force will solicit volunteers from Academic Programs and Administrative Services with unit leaders who are on contract during the summer to participate in a pilot study of the APASP procedure.
  • All interested authors and unit leaders will be trained in public meetings to complete their reports during the month of July to pilot the process. A brief overview of the data prepared by Institutional Research to be incorporated into the report will be included in this training. This information will be made available to all units including those not participating in the pilot.
  • Participating units will complete their work with the data available during the pilot period with the knowledge that some of the final metrics will not be ready until after the July 31 deadline. Updated data will most likely require that pilot reports be revised before final submission.
  • All participants will be asked to submit feedback to the taskforce regarding the process in order for any necessary final changes to be made. The pilot will allow the task force to examine the feasibility of certain aspects of the process and identify modifications to them prior to the prioritization process in the fall semester. The prioritization forms, metrics of analysis, and evaluation rubrics will be tested in the pilot process.
  • From these volunteers, three academic programs and three administrative service units will be chosen at random to test the review process in executive session. No unit will receive feedback on their pilot reports or any indication of how the program or service might score. All units will be required to submit final reports by the fall deadline.
  • Pilot Timeline:
    • Week of July 10 - Authorship and Data Training
    • Week of July 17 – Authorship
    • Week of July 24 – APASP Analysis
    • Week of July 31 – Pilot Review
    • Week of August 7 – Final Process and Rubrics
  • Deans and the equivalent supervisory position on the administrative services side (for simplicity’s sake referred to here as a “director”) will collaborate with the individual unit report authors as they write their reports. Deans and sector-heads will provide executive level input that will be included in the recommendations forwarded to the cabinet.
  • Finalized unit reports will be submitted for review to the APASP Task Force.
  • APASP work-groups will score the reports using the agreed upon rubric and the task-force will vote on prioritization categories for each unit.
  • The APASP Task Force will prepare recommendations that reflect the prioritization categories.
  • The recommendations will be sent to all units who shall have the opportunity to submit formal responses.
  • APASP recommendations, executive input, and unit responses will be presented to the President and the President’s Cabinet.
  • The President in coordination with the APASP Task Force will present the recommendations to the University community, including formal presentations to the Staff Senate, Faculty Senate, and ASUM Senate.
  • The President and cabinet will create a formal implementation plan.

Units of Analysis for APASP Task Force Consideration:

The goal of defining the units of analysis is to conduct an examination of all activities on campus, both academic and administrative. On the academic side, APASP and the Metrics subcommittee are working with the Provost’s office to develop a list of all programs to be evaluated.
 
On the administrative side, APASP and this subcommittee will work with the university vice-presidents to develop a list of all sectors and the services they provide based on the functions of each sector’s area of responsibility.
 
The goal of these lists is to be comprehensive. APASP will ensure that all suggestions and comments are considered as it develops the general framework of the unit of analysis.

Operational Parameters:

While the scope of the ASASP Task Force’s work and subsequent recommendations are delineated above, the following operational parameters and outcomes must be incorporated to ensure a successful outcome:

• A communication process which allows full access and transparency throughout the prioritization process;
• Indicators for success from the UM 2020 plan and the strategic opportunities outlined by the most current University Strategic Vision;
• UM’s expected flat enrollment projections for Fiscal Year 2018 (FY18) and Fiscal Year 2019 (FY19) of 11,000 student FTE;
• Anticipated budget reductions for FY18 and FY19;
• Achieving/maintaining an appropriate number of faculty based on the number of enrolled students;
• Achieving/maintaining an appropriate number of staff in relation to our faculty;
• Identifying distinct prioritization categories that range from areas with strong potential for development and areas in need of immediate action;
• Completion of all work within the designated time-frame.

Timeline:

Actions	Dates
Members of APASP Task Force appointed by the President and provided charge	April 3. 2017 COMPLETE
APASP Task Force holds first meeting (a schedule of regular meetings is being developed and will be posted)	April 6, 2017 COMPLETE
APASP Task Force receives potential metrics for review and feedback	April 27, 2017 COMPLETE
APASP Task Force develops and distributes for review and feedback by the University community: potential metrics, criteria, and units of analysis key operational definitions a list of all programs and services to be reviewed	May 2, 2017 COMPLETE
Feedback from community and UM shared governance bodies review due to APASP Task Force	May 12, 2017 COMPLETE
Dickeson visit and trainings	May 10 – 12, 2017 COMPLETE
APASP Task Force develops: Weights and formulas to be used Categories of rankings and associated actions Revised operational parameters (some of which will be subject to Regent level decisions made at the May BoR meeting). Rubric to be used in review process for ranking by APASP Task Force Template for use by programs/services to prepare assessment reports Guidance for units to use in completing reports and or in reviewing of reports Potential metrics, criteria, and units of analysis Key operational definitions List of all programs and services to be reviewed	June 1 – 30, 2017 COMPLETE
Institutional Research produces pre-FY17 data sets associated with metrics to be sent out to program/service heads for feedback on data and list.	June 1 – July 31, 2017 COMPLETE
Campus community briefed on process/timeline for completion (and other decisions finalized by APASP) in an all-campus meeting, and will be streamed on the web as well.	June 22 and June 23, 2017 COMPLETE
Campus community briefed on all remaining components of the APASP process in an all-campus meeting, and will be streamed on the web as well.	July 6, 2017 COMPLETE
APASP Pilot. Randomly selected units with chairs or directors on contract prepare assessment reports for review by APASP Task Force to identify any aberrations. Week of July 10 - Authorship and Data Training Week of July 17 - Authorship Week of July 24 - APASP Analysis Week of July 31 - Pilot Review Week of August 7 - Final Process and Rubrics	July 7 – August 9, 2017 COMPLETE
Institutional Research updates associated data sets with Fiscal Year 2017 (FY17) data.	July 24 – August 4, 2017 COMPLETE
Feedback on pre-FY17 data due to Institutional Research from the campus community.	July 31, 2017 COMPLETE
APASP Task Force meets to review the pilot results and data feedback and make final changes to the process as indicated by the results.	August 10 – August 18, 2017 COMPLETE
Author Orientation Begins. Administrative Services Thursday, 8/24, 10-11:30, UC Theater Thursday, 8/24, 2-3:30, UC Ballroom Friday, 9/1, 8-9:30, UC Ballroom Academic Programs  Friday, 8/25, 9-10:30, UC Ballroom Monday, 8/28, 8-9:30, UC Theater Thursday, 8/31, 3-4:30, UC Ballroom	August 21 – September 1, 2017 COMPLETE
Academic-year contracts begin. APASP recommends that all programs conduct prioritization retreats prior to the start of classes on August 31. APASP will provide guidance in the process as needed.	August 28, 2017 COMPLETE
APASP convenes scoring work groups and trains external members. Administration develops electronic infrastructure for APASP scoring process.	September 1-30, 2017 COMPLETE
Task Force distributes finalized datasheets, populated with ALL centralized data. Report templates made available online.	September 1, 2017 COMPLETE
Author Workshops begin. These workshops offer a guided opportunity to share ideas, receive peer feedback, and work on your report writing. Bring your draft report, and note specific sections on which you would like peer readers’ feedback. Administrative Services Monday, 9/11, 9-11, UC 330-333 Wednesday, 9/20, 1-3, UC 332-333 Academic Programs Friday, 9/15, 9-11, UC 330-333 Monday, 9/18, 2-4, UC 330-333	September 11-20, 2017 COMPLETE
Report Polishing Sessions. Held one week prior to the deadline, these sessions offer an opportunity to have colleagues from other departments provide feedback on your report content and approach.  Administrative Services Monday, 9/25, 2-3:30, GBB 123  Academic Programs  Monday, 9/25, 3:30-5:00, GBB 123	September 25, 2017 COMPLETE
REPORTS DUE TO APASP TASK FORCE	October 2, 2017 COMPLETE
APASP Review 1.    Work groups score a set number of reports weekly. 2.    Work group members upload individual scores and comments to the electronic scoring mechanism. 3.    An average score is used to generate a distribution of like units (e.g., all Masters programs) with a range of scores for each. 4.    APASP members review reports, the range of scores, and the averages, and comments from the working groups. 5.    Each APASP member votes electronically, prior to TF meeting, to place a unit in an action category for the consent agenda. 6.    If a unit reaches a threshold of 12 votes in agreement on categorization, it is placed into such category on the meeting consent agenda without further discussion. 7.    The consent agenda will be set 48-hours prior to the meeting. Any taskforce member may submit a written request and rationale to move a unit from the consent agenda for further discussion 24-hours prior to the meeting. 8.    APASP convenes and will work within the following agenda structure and all votes will be tallied using clickers:    a.  Consider all written requests to move a unit from the consent agenda (requires a second from the taskforce and majority vote)    b.    Affirm the consent agenda (majority vote)    c.    Discuss those units not on the consent agenda and vote on categorization of each. (majority vote) 9.    Prioritization category lists are held by APASP until all units have been categorized.	October 2– 31, 2017 COMPLETE
OCHE and Board of Regents ARSA Committee are invited to hear updates from APASP Task Force and campus community on UM Campus.	October 26, 2017 COMPLETE
APASP Recommendations 1.    Prioritization Categories are distributed to Deans/Executives to provide feedback via APASP forms. 2.    APASP convenes to discuss initial recommendations for all units based on their categorization, especially those in the category “Priority for Substantial Modification” 3.    APASP convenes to review Deans/Executive feedback and produce recommendations.	November 1-20, 2017 (Approximate) COMPLETE
APASP Recommendations are sent to unit heads for written responses.	November 20-29, 2017 COMPLETE
APASP Phase I complete. Prioritization categories, recommendations, dean/executive feedback, and unit responses are sent to the President and Cabinet.	November 30, 2017 COMPLETE
President’s Cabinet and President deliberate and propose an implementation plan.	December 1– December 11, 2017 COMPLETE
Shared governance Senates (ASUM, Faculty, and Staff) review and respond to APASP Report and recommendations.	December 4 – December 8, 2017 COMPLETE
President and President’s cabinet deliberate and propose final prioritization decisions based on APASP report and response forms.	November 30 – December 8, 2017 COMPLETE
President’s Phase I prioritization decisions delivered to Academic Officers, Service Unit heads, Shared Governance Leadership, and campus community.	December 11, 2017 COMPLETE
Faculty, Staff, and ASUM Senates host meetings (and/or special sessions) to review and comment on President’s Phase I prioritization decisions.	December 12 – December 14, 2017 COMPLETE
President’s Phase I prioritization decisions are presented to campus community, OCHE, and ARSA (if required).	December 15, 2017 COMPLETE
Required ARSA and/or BoR meetings held to review and approve President’s Phase I prioritization decisions as appropriate.	December 18, 2017– January 10, 2018 COMPLETE
Specific implementation plans are developed and initiated based on adoption of Phase I prioritization decisions.	January 11 – January 30, 2018 ONGOING
APASP completes Phase II, reviewing non-general fund units and producing a set of recommendations for the President and Cabinet.	February 1, 2018 COMPLETE
Campus community provides feedback to the task force on the APASP Process for improvements to be made to ongoing process.	Late January through February 2018
APASP develops ongoing program and service review strategy and presents proposal to Shared Governance Bodies and Forward125.	January/February 2018
APASP then develops ongoing review strategies and presents a proposal to Shared Governance Bodies and Forward125. Ongoing program and service review strategy implemented and APASP Task Force dissolved.	Early Spring Semester, 2018