Advanced organizer
Administrative Program Prioritization Criteria Development Advanced Organizer The purpose of this advanced organizer is to introduce you to the administrative program prioritization criteria survey data prior to our combined RSB and APC meeting scheduled for Monday, March 30th. Using this as a guide, you will examine the data and prepare your thoughts about the criteria we should, or should not, use for our administrative criteria here at NIU. Below are three steps we are asking you to complete prior to the meeting so we can have some focused and efficient discussions. Step #1 An administrative program is an “activity or collection of activities that consumes resources (dollars, people, space, equipment, time) (Dickeson, 2010 pg. 56) and is not directly associated with an academic program (University of Colorado). With this in mind, please review our list of criteria that we agreed on for academic programs (page 2) and consider the following: a) Are any of these criteria, as they currently stand, important for use in evaluating administrative programs at NIU? b) If so, which ones? Step #2 Examine the overview of our survey findings for the alternative administrative criteria. The descriptive statistics are presented on page 3 and the qualitative data is presented on pages 4-14. Please note that for the qualitative data we are not including frequencies because all of the comments are presented. Based on your review of this information, please consider the following: a) Are any of these criteria important for us to use here at NIU? b) If so, which ones? Step #3 Page 15 presents suggested administrative criteria. Based on this information, please consider the following: a) Is this criterion important enough to use in our prioritization process? b) Should this criterion be modified in any way? If so, how should it be reworded and what data might best address the modified criteria? References Dickeson RC. (2010). Prioritizing Academic Programs and Services. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. University of Colorado Boulder. Program Prioritization Administrative (Non-Academic) Programs: Methodology for Review. Available: http://www.colorado.edu/sites/default/files/attached-files/methodology_admin.pdf. Accessed March 24, 2015. 1 NIU’s Criteria for Program Prioritization (Our Starting Point) Academic Program Prioritization Criteria for Use at NIU Quality of Faculty and Faculty Outcomes Quality of Students and Student Outcomes Financial Efficiency --the amount of revenue generated by program in relation to the cost and expenses associated with the program Importance of the Program to the University Mission Program Potential External Demand for the Program Internal Demand for the Program Program’s Contribution to Diversity --how diverse is the program? --how is the program addressing issues of diversity? 2 Alternative Administrative Criteria--Combined results from Academic and Administrative Personnel Highly Important (1) 2. Services provided: Each program will describe the services it provides to constituents inside and/or outside of the university. 1. Key program objectives and how they are measured 4. Unmet needs and demands 5. Opportunities for consolidation and/or restructuring 8. Technological improvements that are costeffective 9. Process improvements to streamline operations Important (2) Somewhat Important (3) Unimportant (4) Mean 571 364 66 15 1.55 471 440 447 448 82 108 16 20 1.68 1.75 384 410 179 43 1.92 382 440 159 35 1.91 377 392 191 56 1.98 3. Position-by-position analysis 6. Current practices with sharing skills sets and resources 332 410 211 63 2.02 240 421 303 49 2.2 7. Opportunities for cross-training 10. Outsourcing exploration to improve service and cut costs 182 343 349 142 2.51 140 274 331 271 2.78 3 CRITERION 1: Key objectives and how they are measured: Each program will explain its chief goals and how it assesses whether those goals are met. Should consider the results of assessment/ the degree of goal completion o "whether and HOW WELL those goals are met." o and to what extent those goals have been met and why. o how to assess whether . . . and the results o I would recommend collecting data on not only HOW goals and underlying objectives are assessed, but the RESULTS of the most recent assessment. Having goals and objectives assessed is one thing, the degree to which they are met is another. Therefore, I would rephrase the item as follows: 1. Key goals and objectives and the degree to which they are currently met: Each program will explain its mission, chief goals and objectives, how they are assessed, and the degree to which they are currently met." Fit with the goals of the University o Goals are measured according to their impact on the university's strategic plan o Each program will explain its chief goals, how it assesses whether its goals are met, and how its goals contribute to the overall goals of the university. o Insert at end "to enhance the academic objectives of the University" Semantic Changes o Each program will explain its main goals and how it measure whether those goals are met. o Change "goals" to "objectives" in all cases o Each administrative area will... o Program/department Need for operationalization o Assess how? Suggestions for different or additional ways to assess the criterion o Separate out what the goals/main job/duty/desired outcome of the program o Each unit will assess the effect to the university if the unit were eliminated. o Perhaps we could also ask for targets for performance in relation to the assessment. o This criterion relates to whether the program has been assessed with regards to whether it meets its goals in providing service to the university o And whether that evaluation is external o Key accomplishments and how they are measured: Each program will explain its chief accomplishments and how it assessed that certain results or outputs were accomplishments. o ...and determine whether or not these goals can be assessed. o It would be helpful if historical data was included to show growth or decline of the program. o The department that supports the program should make a written description of the goals and how they are measured. o Input will be obtained from all position levels within the program. o and explain how those goals are related to student success, if applicable 4 CRITERION 2: Services provided: Each program will describe the services it provides to constituents inside and/or outside of the university. Need for operationalization o "Services" needs to be defined. o "Services" should be more clearly defined. Consider costs o Each program will describe the services it provides, and a per unit cost of those services, to constituents inside and/or outside of the university. o ....In addition, each program will compare the cost of its services to the benefits it provides its constituents. Semantic Changes o I'm not sure that "services" best describes the academic work we do with our students. o services = teaching or other activities?? This is a business model term. o Each program will describe the services it provides to clients inside/outside of the university. o replace constituents with users o program/department Suggestions for different or additional ways to assess the criterion o This criterion relates to the amount and quality of the services it provides to the university and community o Quality of services provided. o Beyond just describing the services, it would be helpful to also describe the benefits of such services to constituents inside and/or outside of the university. The benefits might be a monetary or promotional value or general goodwill and positive public opinion of the program/university. o Program services will be measured for impact on the achievement of university goals. o Each administrative area will ... For example: Who are considered the recipients of services provided? Do services provided vary based on different types of recipients? o Each program will describe the services it provides in a hierarchical order to constituents inside and/or outside of the university. o Not curricular services, unless the program has been developed specifically to serve external constituents o The department that supports a program will document the services that the program provides to those inside and outside of the university. o Input will be obtained from all position levels within the program. o and will describe specifically what services are provided to students, assessment that is being done to determine the usefulness / value of the services to students o To be added: Programs will prioritize constituencies. 5 CRITERION 3 Position-by-position analysis: Each program will list all positions in the program (including titles and levels), indicate whether the job description for each position is regularly reviewed, and assess the degree to which each position as currently constituted is ideal. Salaries should also be evaluated o Each program will list all positions in the program (including titles and levels), indicate whether the job description for each position is regularly reviewed, assess the degree to which the salary for the position approximates market rates, and assess the degree to which the position as currently constituted is ideal. o "(including titles, levels, and salaries)" o (including titles, levels and salaries) o add: (including titles, levels, and salary/hourly wages); add: assess the degree to which each position as currently constituted and remunerated is ideal. o Should examine the salaries of highly paid heads of programs against their effectiveness. Semantic Changes o "each position is appropriate to meet current and future demands" o (Lose the "and assess....is ideal." It's clear as mud as to what it means.) o program/department Need for operationalization o How is "ideal" decided? Suggestions for different or additional ways to assess the criterion o Each program will list all brand new positions created within the last year and indicate why the new positions were needed and how they are funded. All positions that were eliminated should be reported. Additionally inner division / college / department transfers and change of responsibilities without a position change should be reported and justified. Any increase in pay outside a normal increment cycle should be reported and justified. o Regularly reviewed sounds vague. Can a time parameter be included such as annually, quarterly, etc. o How productive is the position? o advise on the essential nature of each position and if the person in that position is meeting the needs of the position. o 3. Position-by-position analysis: each employee should be given the opportunity to provide a summary of duties they perform and how they benefit the students, their department and the university. o Each administrative area will list all positions in that area (including titles and levels), indicate....reviewed, and assess the current satisfaction with and accuracy of the position description. o ... and assess the degree to which each position as currently constituted is ideal and consistent with HR job description classifications. o ....In addition, each program will identify positions in other programs that are similar to its own positions and assess the degree to which these positions could be consolidated. o This criterion relates to whether the level of staffing is necessary to the performance of its objectives and whether positions within the program could be consolidated or eliminated. For example, does a vice president need so many assistants, vices, and consultants to perform the job they were hired to do. o Each program will also indicate the need for additional personnel resources needed to accomplish it's goals o Add at the end: ....as currently constituted is ideal and whether or not modifying positions (title/level) would enhance productivity. o Input will be obtained from all position levels within the program. Salaries/wages will be compared to other four-year institutions of higher learning and adjustments recommended. 6 CRITERION 4: Unmet needs and demands: Each program will indicate whether it is able to meet the demand for its services, describe the nature of any unmet needs, and specify what manner of investment would be needed to satisfy any unmet demand. Semantic Changes o The word "services" to me does not accurately portray what a university offers in terms of an education. Does this refer to those "services" that are offered outside of the classroom such as internships, employment assistance, etc.? o Each program will demonstrate the degree to which it is able to meet demands for its services, identify all met and unmet needs, and specify what manner of investment would be needed to satisfy any unmet demand. o Feel this criteria is very confusing and do not like the wording at all "unmet?" is that even a word? o "how well it is able to meet the demands for its services" Suggestions for different or additional ways to assess the criterion o This criterion relates to whether a program has sufficient resources to meet the demands for its services and whether that is the result of insufficient staffing or inefficient use of its personnel. o Should present perspectives (data) gathered from users of their services o Are unmet needs resulting from a temporary situation or is there potential for future growth? o Clarify if these means personnel or other resources, or both. o The department that supports the program will document whether the demand for the service has been met, and what resources are needed to satisfy any unmet demand. 7 CRITERION 5: Opportunities for consolidation and/or restructuring: Each program will identify areas in which collaboration with other programs would lead to more efficient delivery of services to constituents on and off campus. The program will discuss whether efficiency gains would result from its restructuring or from the centralization of any of its functions. This criterion may not be appropriate for all programs o comment: this is more feasible in some programs than in others, and programs in which this is not feasible should not be penalized. o There should be some recognition of the fact that this may not be applicable in certain situations. Otherwise, programs could be penalized for not consolidating and/or restructuring when it isn't feasible within the program. Semantic Changes o "Delivery of services" is a ridiculous term. Be clear. Do you mean teaching students? o Change constituents to clients o "...with other programs has already or could in the future lead to..." o program/department Separate into multiple criterion o I'd separate this into on campus and off campus topics so that more details could be addressed. Suggestions for different or additional ways to assess the criterion o Some programs may identify areas in which collaboration with other programs could enhance the goals and mission of the university. o ... of services to constituents on and off campus as determined principally by faculty members of all associated parties. o Duplication of services already in operation should be noted. o This criterion relates to whether a program is redundant with other programs on campus and whether multiple programs performing similar functions might be consolidated o If the program were to restructure or consolidate with other programs, what programs would be a best fit and why o Someone also needs to ask the unit culture question. I.e., are units considered for consolidation culturally and socially compatible. o Each administrative area will consider how collaboration with other areas might be more efficient. An open discussion with personnel should be provided where ideas about what could be changed to make deliver of services more efficient, including centralizing functions or restructuring the environment. o Each program will identify . . . and create a plan for actionable, measurable steps that would lead to more efficient delivery of services. o The department that supports the program will analyze the program and determine if collaborating with other programs would help to meet its goals and whether restructuring of the organization would help facilitate that. o The program will discuss the costs/benefits/required investments involved with restructuring or centralization of its functions. o This should include expert opinion of external evaluators 8 CRITERION 6: Current practices with sharing skills sets and resources: Each program will describe whether and how it shares its personnel and capital resources with other programs. This is similar to criterion #5 o Seems extremely close to criteria No. 5. o This could be combined with #5. o Is this effectively a component of the "Opportunities for consolidation..." metric? In any case, at least from the trenches it's not clear what this really means. This criterion may not be appropriate for all programs o There should be some recognition of the fact that this may not be applicable in certain situations. Otherwise, programs could be penalized for not sharing skill sets and resources when it isn't feasible within the program. o Some programs may describe whether and how it shares its personnel and resources with other programs. Suggestions for different or additional ways to assess the criterion o Each program will describe whether and how it currently shares personnel and capital resources with other programs; and if not, could this sharing lead to program optimization and in what ways. o . . . and identify opportunities to share with skill sets and resources with other programs. o ...and any incentives that encourage the sharing of personnel or capital resources with other programs. o Each program will describe whether and how it shares its personnel and capital resources with other programs. Each program will describe the demands it makes on other programs and whether there are opportunities to lessen those demands through university-wide technological improvements. o The department that supports the program will analyze the skills of its personnel and other capital resource and determine if it would be advantageous to share its personnel and capital resources with other programs. Need for operationalization o Clarify whether these are program within the program or programs across campus. Semantic Changes o What is meant by "sharing personnel"? Is this teaching cross-listed courses or lending one's secretary? Be clear. o This criterion relates to whether and how well each program cooperates and coordinates its efforts with other programs. o program/department 9 CRITERION 7: Opportunities for cross-training: Each program will describe efforts made to train employees to perform job functions in other programs, or the feasibility of undertaking such efforts. This criterion overlaps with others o 5,6,7 all cover similar material that may be better restructured to ask, what have you done to share resources, staff, or cross train, what can you be doing, why you haven't been doing it, and who can you see restructuring with and why o I think this is already implicit in criterion #6 o This item is very similar to item 6, in particular the sharing of skills set with other programs. I would differentiate the two items further by placing the emphasis in this item (item 7) on cross-training specifically. To do so, I would also include in the stem of the item efforts made to cross-train employees within the SAME unit or program. Therefore, I would revise the item as follows: "Each program will describe efforts made to train employees to perform job functions in the same or other programs, or the feasibility of undertaking such efforts." This criterion may not be appropriate for all programs o Some programs may describe efforts made to train employees to perform job functions in other areas or may address the feasibility of undertaking such efforts. o comment: this is more feasible in some programs than in others, and programs in which this is not feasible should not be penalized. o There should be some recognition of the fact that this may not be applicable in certain situations. Otherwise, programs could be penalized for not cross-training when it isn't feasible within the program. Semantic Changes o program/department Suggestions for different or additional ways to assess the criterion o . . .describe and evaluate efforts made to train o The department that supports the program will analyze the benefits and costs of cross training employees in other programs. o change: "...to perform job functions within the program and in other programs." o ...describe whether efforts have been made... o Each administrative area will express the level of interest in working with other areas and the possible obstacles keeping such efforts from happening. o Each program will describe efforts made to train employees to perform job functions in other programs, or the feasibility of undertaking such efforts, and whether such efforts will lead to a higher level of service provided. o Is the tacit/institutional knowledge of established employees conveyed to their colleagues? In what manner? 10 CRITERION 8: Technological improvements that are cost-effective: Each program will identify any potential technological improvements that would result in enhanced efficiency and cost savings. Semantic Changes o This criterion relates to whether a program is cost-effective and how it might reduce costs of operation. o program/department This criterion may not be appropriate for all programs o There should be some recognition of the fact that this may not be applicable in certain situations. Otherwise, programs or segments of programs could be penalized for not analyzing technological improvements when it isn't feasible within the program. Suggestions for different or additional ways to assess the criterion o Include the initial cost, purpose, and estimated savings over (x) time. o Each program will identify any potential technological improvements that would result in greater quality of service. o Each program will identify any potential technological improvements that would result in enhanced efficiency and costs savings while maintaining a high level of quality deliverables. o would result in enhanced efficiency and cost saving while maintaining quality. o This may be difficult for programs, especially if they aren't very familiar with various types of technology. o ....enhanced efficiency and cost savings in its own program and in other programs within the university. o The department that supports the program will analyze the benefits and costs of technological improvements o Tech. improvements can enhance efficiency however cost savings is not realized for years. If this question stated "identify our current available tech. and use ...." would fit better into a higher rating 11 CRITERION 9: Process improvements to streamline operations: Each program will describe its business plan, including strategies for streamlining operations. Problem with the "business plan" language o Not all programs are familiar with "business plans" or what these entail. o I know this is probably not what you are looking for but a college can't just be about a business plan. We are doing much more important work here that we can quantify with the words business plan. o I think "business plan" could be taken out as it refers to something that does not universally apply to all academic programs on campus. Perhaps "strategic plan" would be more universal and applicable. o "business plan" what about academic mission? o A university is not a business. Not all strategic planning is equivalent to a business plan. o Replace business plan with "operations plan" or "5 year plan". (Universities are not businesses, and that category confusion leads to trouble. They are bureaucratic institutions, and the language here should reflect that.) o "operational" rather than "business" o "business plan" doesn't seem like the best term. And all of the above strategies are aimed at streamlining operations. This seems awkward, but I have no suggestions. o Instead of "business," "operational" or "strategic" or both. Other semantic changes o program/department Suggestions for different or additional ways to assess the criterion o Each program will describe how it has implemented strategies for streamlining operations in the past and how it plans to streamline operations in the future. o Each program will describe its operations and its strategies for fulfilling those operations in the most efficient manner. o Each program will describe its operational strategies, considering optimizing programs and functions o Each program will describe its business plan, including strategies for streamlining not only its own operations but especially streamlining the operations of the university as a whole. o The department that supports the program will document its business plan and how it serves the university as a whole, as well as plans for improving and streamlining operations. o This criterion relates to the degree to which a program has a reasonable, efficient business plan and the degree to which that plan could be improved. o streamlining operations and avoiding duplication of services within the program or with other programs o Or the practices its already adopted to promote budget and resource efficiency. o ...balancing strategies for streamlined operations against the service levels expected by the program recipient. o add after "including strategies for streamlining operations": and creating cost-cutting tactics--from basic daily business functions to high-level tasks. 12 CRITERION 10: Outsourcing exploration to improve service and cut costs: Each program will indicate whether outsourcing of particular services would lead to enhanced efficiency and cost savings. Consider the impact outsourcing would have on the quality of programs o This criterion relates to whether a program is cost-effective relative to having the same functions outsourced, without loss of quality and dependability. For example, could the same functions (and quality) be achieved at a lower cost by outsourcing. o "enhanced efficiency, cost savings without impairing the programs primary goals and functions. o Each program will indicate whether outsourcing of particular services would lead to enhanced efficiency and cost savings while maintaining the quality and integrity of the service. o Each program will demonstrate whether outsourcing particular services will enhance efficiency and save costs without sacrificing quality o As well as whether outsourcing would not enhance, or possibly be a detriment to the program. o Add - while not reducing the quality of the services This criterion may not be appropriate for all programs o comment: this is more feasible in some programs than in others, and programs in which this is not feasible should not be penalized. o There should be some recognition of the fact that this may not be applicable in certain situations. Otherwise, programs could be penalized for not exploring outsourcing when it isn't feasible within the program. Problem with outsourcing in general o Let's be clear here. You are talking about firing people and hiring a company with no loyalty to the university or community. I would not even consider this option. It is short-cited. Look at DeKalb's school district, the busses were outsourced and not the kids can't even go on field trips because the bus company charges so much. So, did we really save money or did we just basically screw ourselves in an effort to seem like we were cooperating in the effort to save money? o Outsourcing?? o Knock this off!!! o Outsourcing has come to mean hiring highly paid consultants rather than using native talent. While occasionally useful it is often insulting to existing talented employees o No program should consider outsourcing of any kind. o Get rid of this one completely. o Just list this as firing people. It is what it is. o I do not believe this ever cuts costs. External consultants seem to reinvent the wheel with increased costs. o I don't see how this would even work o Outsourcing is something that should never be considered. It is just the opposite of what the President has suggested as far as connectivity is concerned. As a university we need to be thinking in terms of relationships and a sense of unity. Outsourcing is opening up a number of safety issues which are already a problem for this campus. We trust the personal who are behind the scenes doing the little jobs such as opening the doors, turning on the lights, and that everything is functional and working. o not benifitial to the safety and security of the university as a whole o Outsourcing removes service individuals from our work force. Thes individuals support the University with taxes future students and knowledge of operations. Bad move to outsourse. o The University won't get the hard work and dedication from outsourced services. o Outsourcing typically leads to higher costs and doesn't offer the cost savings and efficiency it claims. Semantics o program/department o Each program will identify potential opportunities for outsourcing and indicate whether that would lead to enhanced efficiency and cost savings. o change: "whether or not outsourcing...." Suggestions for different or additional ways to assess the criterion o Reducing costs and improving services: Each program will indicate whether reducing the pay of highly compensated administrators or outsourcing particular services would lead to enhanced efficiency and cost savings. 13 o o o o o o efficiency and cost savings, if appropriate outsourcing vendors could be identified. All outsourcing bids would be REQUIRED to submit, in advance, an explicitly detailed plan, with budget, that is open to review of any/all members of the university community, prior to consideration. Each department that supports a program will analyze the benefits and costs relating to outsourcing of services. Can we achieve the service provided more cost efficiently with an outside vendor? Exploring utilizing external partners to improve service and maintain or enhance quality in a more costefficient manner. Alternative resource exploration. Each program will explore opportunities for alternative resources in an effort to enhance efficiency and cost savings. Outsource only if a service is not already present and/or not running well within the University 14 Most criteria for prioritization fit into the ten options presented above, either directly or with a modification you might have suggested in the last question. However, if you would like to suggest a brand new criterion, you may do so below. How essential is the program? o Impacts on potential loss of a program - looking at a program from a perspective of what may be lost if we did not have the program will present different information than simply evaluating what the program does. o essentiality of the service provided; could the university get along without it? o Each program will show actual assessments and indicate if the same results would have been reached with or without its interventions. o What would the program and it's stakeholders lose in terms of quality and effectiveness as a result of outsourcing, restructuring, and reallocation of resources? o Impact, justification, and overall essentiality. o Institutional Value: Each program will detail the ways in which it provides value to the institution, not only in terms of tangible costs, but in services, mechanisms, and programs that benefit students, staff, and faculty by making their own work easier, more efficient, and relevant. o Student survey: how do students rank these offices. Are the considered helpful? Are they a factor in deterring students from returning or attending? Are the a reason why students attend the university? Do students know they exist? Internal Need: Do other offices on campus need this office/ department to survive? Do students or the university overall? Cost Effectiveness: How much are we spending on the budgets for these departments and are they impacting the lives of students and the campus in a equal way? o History related to each individual position established within the past 5 years. When was it established, is it still needed, how has this position been beneficial to the university as a whole. Consider the program's role in compliance o Extent to which the program assists the institution in complying with federal regulations and with best practices in the professional field, including mitigating liability and managing risk. o Compliance: Extent to which program insures institutional compliance with federal regulations and with best practices in the profession, including risk management and mitigation of liability o Compliance and statuatory requirements- Are there state, federal or other administrative rules that require this program or are addressed by this program? o Fit with educational mission of the university o Don't ask what services are provided; ask instead how the services provided support the essential missions of the university: teaching and research. Relevance to the educational mission of the university o Each program will describe how it supports the research, artistry and teaching missions of the university, including how such support contributes directly and indirectly to revenue streams generated. o To what extent are the resources consumed by this program, relative to it's importance to the educational mission of the university in-line with programs performing similar functions at similarly sized and budgeted universities. For example, do similar universities have either larger or smaller budgets (personnel) for similar functions? o Contributes to a diverse and inclusive learning environment which contributes to the institution's vision and mission o I would like to see criterion aligned with strategic planning framework Focus on costs and/or revenue o There should be a cost and other expenses criteria for administrators as well. o Costs and other associated expenses: This criterion looks to the direct and indirect costs associated with delivering the program. For example, what are the total salaries of administrative personnel in the program? What are the costs associated with travel and other reimbursed expenses? What is the cost to maintain space and equipment? 15 o Need a criterion addressing the costs associated with certain administration programs/positions. It would be very useful to plot administrative vs academic costs (salaries, etc.) as a function of time and make sure the university does not become too administration-heavy o ability to reduce costs in near future, e.g., degree of flexibility to deal with state funding and enrollment declines o Student survey: how do students rank these offices. Are the considered helpful? Are they a factor in deterring students from returning or attending? Are the a reason why students attend the university? Do students know they exist? Internal Need: Do other offices on campus need this office/ department to survive? Do students or the university overall? Cost Effectiveness: How much are we spending on the budgets for these departments and are they impacting the lives of students and the campus in a equal way? o Cost allocation (Costs and other associated expenses): I didn't see any items addressing revenues or expenses. Most items covered the purpose and services of the program/unit, personnel in the program, need/demand for the unit, and opportunities for improving efficiencies and reducing costs. I didn't see any items related to current direct or indirects costs associated with units/programs (as item 6 in academic programs asks). This would seem to be a very important metric to include in the current fiscal state (pun intended) we are in. o Cost Effectiveness-Revenue generated vs cost per credit hour o Direct or indirect revenue generation of adminstrative program (include revenue and costs) o Each program will describe how it supports the research, artistry and teaching missions of the university, including how such support contributes directly and indirectly to revenue streams generated. o Where relevant, programs should describe their ability to generate revenue and the degree to which generated revenue covers program costs. o Revenue and other resources generated by the program? o Revenue and other resources generated Comparison to other universities/programs o Process comparisons to peer and/or aspiration institutions o 1) How does this program contribute to retention of students. 2) A criteria regarding how this program compares to other local universities. Does the program seem comparable, better, worse, or not a program other universities have.? o History of cuts/consolidation, Impact on campus, Alignment with NIU mission/vision, Comparison with similar programs at other institutions o To what extent are the resources consumed by this program, relative to it's importance to the educational mission of the university in-line with programs performing similar functions at similarly sized and budgeted universities. For example, do similar universities have either larger or smaller budgets (personnel) for similar functions? Other elements to consider o How does the program tie directly to one or more of the university's strategic objectives? o To what extent does new program development or current program continuation reflect the personal interests of individuals versus the greater good of the university? o Missing is a criterion about QUALITY of OUTPUTs of these administrative programs o Job Satisfaction: This criterion will investigate the potential strengths and weaknesses of persons holding positions within the administrative area. In what ways can each person's strengths and interests be cultivated for the benefit of that person and thus the administrative area. o Human Resources: Each program should assess how it manages and counsels all the persons involved, from students to faculty to staff, in delivering its goals. o Friendliness and professionalism of service, ability of services to help students and faculty navigate university bureaucracy o Quality of employees, facilities, and equipment. External evaluation of quality of service provided. o Should be asked to report in what way and to what extent their work is done to meet internal NIU reporting and/or external governing or accrediting body requirements 16 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Future Growth of Need Filled by the Program Number of graduates from the program versus number of faculty employed. Ratio of administrators to operating staff Overlap in academic fields - experiential learning opportunities generated for current/future students. Does the program offere experiential learning opportunities for students? Many administrative functions, reports etc. are mandated by state, federal laws and regualtions. And as such, are not optional. Perhaps, this point could be included into one of the questions. review and evaluate overall management and productivity of program Underdeveloped, or underfunded programs: This criterion considers the impact of underfunded programs on participants as it relates to health and wellness. Is the current expectation and objective sustainable. Opportunities for consolidation and/or restructuring within programs. Each program will identify areas in which restructuring and/or consolidation within the program would lead to more efficient delivery of services to constituents on and off campus. University Citizenship: how does the unit/program contribute broadly to enabling others to succeed in their missions? The excellent criteria relate to internal review...how about some review from internal clients (and external if relevant) of administrative programs? Value of program to the university and its constituents. The future of the services. Describe how the services will assist the University as it evolves throughout the 21st century. How do you engage students and contribute to their academic experience? Infrastructure improvements to lessen repairs and corrective actions needed. What energy cost saving measures can be achieved on campus? What services or departments may be combined to streamline, eliminate duplication, and save money? For example,U of I combined their Outreach Services to one department to save money and eliminate duplication of services and personnel. Impacts the services have on the reputation, physical appearance, or overall perception of the University for prospective students, current, students, and alumni Following best practices: Keeping in mind the limitations of local context, each program will demonstrate the degree to which it has made use of proven models and best practices followed by similar programs at other institutions. How does the Program positively impact the citizens and businesses of the State and help recruit and enhance graduates seeking employment Each department that supports a program should analyze the effect any of the previous criteria for prioritization have on the community, both internal and external to the university. Value added--This might be an ROI or assignment of a number to signify the value of an administrative program to academic programs and/or other administrative programs How important is it for your group to work with other groups to minimize loss and gain better control of resources. Collaborative efforts across campus: Each program will describe the ways in which it has formed collaborative ventures with other programs on campus to provide new or innovative products or services to constituents inside and/or outside the university. 17
© Copyright 2024