why don’t we like change

20
Implementing Change: Implementing Change: or how to be the next Ex-Dean or how to be the next Ex-Dean Bill Trumble Bill Trumble Dean, College of Life Sciences and Dean, College of Life Sciences and Agriculture Agriculture Director, NH Agricultural Experiment Director, NH Agricultural Experiment Station Station University of New Hampshire University of New Hampshire

Upload: yakov

Post on 16-Mar-2016

32 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

Implementing Change: or how to be the next Ex-Dean Bill Trumble Dean, College of Life Sciences and Agriculture Director, NH Agricultural Experiment Station University of New Hampshire. Why don’t we like change. We are in our comfort zone It is too much work It implies consequences for actions - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Why don’t we like change

Implementing Change:Implementing Change:or how to be the next Ex-Deanor how to be the next Ex-Dean

Bill TrumbleBill TrumbleDean, College of Life Sciences and AgricultureDean, College of Life Sciences and AgricultureDirector, NH Agricultural Experiment StationDirector, NH Agricultural Experiment Station

University of New HampshireUniversity of New Hampshire

Page 2: Why don’t we like change

Why don’t we like changeWhy don’t we like change We are in our comfort zoneWe are in our comfort zone It is too much workIt is too much work It implies consequences for actionsIt implies consequences for actions Things have always been this wayThings have always been this way Misery loves companyMisery loves company

Page 3: Why don’t we like change

Why would you want to change?Why would you want to change? Complicated navigation of college by Complicated navigation of college by

studentsstudents Stale classesStale classes Shallow teaching poolsShallow teaching pools Financial problemsFinancial problems Problem departmentsProblem departments Departmental barriersDepartmental barriers

Page 4: Why don’t we like change

Our Situation: an exampleOur Situation: an example Responsibility Centered ManagementResponsibility Centered Management

A decentralized financial modelA decentralized financial model Most tuition and F&A returned to collegeMost tuition and F&A returned to college College pays assessmentsCollege pays assessments

Faculty Collective Bargaining AgreementFaculty Collective Bargaining Agreement

Page 5: Why don’t we like change

6 Year Forecast6 Year Forecast

$1.36 million deficit in FY04$1.36 million deficit in FY04 $1.9 million deficit projected for FY05$1.9 million deficit projected for FY05 Projected accumulated deficit of $8.7 million by FY10Projected accumulated deficit of $8.7 million by FY10 Forecast assumes flat enrollments and 3% increases in Forecast assumes flat enrollments and 3% increases in

state funds – reality may be much worsestate funds – reality may be much worse Forecast does not include potential costs of vehicles, Forecast does not include potential costs of vehicles,

equipment or farm maintenance. equipment or farm maintenance.

Page 6: Why don’t we like change

How did we get to this point?How did we get to this point?(what you don’t want to do)(what you don’t want to do)

Flat/declining enrollments and growth in personnel – Flat/declining enrollments and growth in personnel – over the past 4 years undergraduate credit hours have over the past 4 years undergraduate credit hours have increased a total of 5% while personnel costs have increased a total of 5% while personnel costs have increased by 20%.increased by 20%.

Nonexistent budget process/controls to prevent Nonexistent budget process/controls to prevent overspendingoverspending.. No financial accountability at the No financial accountability at the department/program level.department/program level.

Faculty workload not optimal. Have significant costs in Faculty workload not optimal. Have significant costs in adjunct faculty and graduate students for instruction.adjunct faculty and graduate students for instruction.

Page 7: Why don’t we like change

How did we get to this point?How did we get to this point?(what you don’t want to do)(what you don’t want to do)

Current structure requires significant cost to administer Current structure requires significant cost to administer and does not promote working across department lines.and does not promote working across department lines.

Poor summer session performance. COLSA ranks last Poor summer session performance. COLSA ranks last among UNH schools/colleges in summer session among UNH schools/colleges in summer session activity. In addition, many courses offered did not come activity. In addition, many courses offered did not come close to breaking even financially.close to breaking even financially.

Graduate tuition revenues discounted at 77%. COLSA Graduate tuition revenues discounted at 77%. COLSA ranks last among UNH schools/colleges.ranks last among UNH schools/colleges.

Page 8: Why don’t we like change

How did we get to this point?How did we get to this point?(what you don’t want to do)(what you don’t want to do)

General fund subsidization of non core programs – Total General fund subsidization of non core programs – Total direct and indirect net costs equal to over $600k per yeardirect and indirect net costs equal to over $600k per year

Major problem is: Major problem is: NO STRATEGIC DIRECTION!NO STRATEGIC DIRECTION!

NO CONSEQUENCES!NO CONSEQUENCES!

Page 9: Why don’t we like change

What do we want to accomplishWhat do we want to accomplish

Fewer, larger departmentsFewer, larger departments Clear organization/meaningful majorsClear organization/meaningful majors Faculty work load analysisFaculty work load analysis New, modern, exciting, relevant New, modern, exciting, relevant

curriculumcurriculum Excellence in student educationExcellence in student education

Page 10: Why don’t we like change

What do we want to accomplishWhat do we want to accomplish

Greater collaborationGreater collaboration Change of decision makersChange of decision makers Efficient use of staffEfficient use of staff Change of culture for researchChange of culture for research Increased enrollmentsIncreased enrollments

Page 11: Why don’t we like change

Implementing Change:Implementing Change:Before ReorganizationBefore Reorganization

Strategic planning Strategic planning –– staffing, staffing, governance, curriculum governance, curriculum

Request proposals Request proposals –– discuss, modify, vote discuss, modify, vote

One year planning before One year planning before implementationimplementation

Page 12: Why don’t we like change

Implementing Change:Implementing Change:Before ReorganizationBefore Reorganization

New work expectations New work expectations

Review course prereqs/course namesReview course prereqs/course names

Review of fit with college missionReview of fit with college mission

Page 13: Why don’t we like change

Implementing Change:Implementing Change:Before ReorganizationBefore Reorganization

Establish new proceduresEstablish new procedures Summer classesSummer classes GrantGrant submission submission RA & TA assignmentsRA & TA assignments MOU for CentersMOU for Centers

Promise of new realistic budgetsPromise of new realistic budgets

Make financial operation transparentMake financial operation transparent

Page 14: Why don’t we like change

Implementing Change:Implementing Change:After ReorganizationAfter Reorganization

Sunset old departments Sunset old departments –– keep programs keep programs consistent with catalogconsistent with catalog

Self-select departments, joint appointmentsSelf-select departments, joint appointments

Select Select new chairsnew chairs

Page 15: Why don’t we like change

Implementing Change:Implementing Change:After ReorganizationAfter Reorganization

RRestructure use of personnelestructure use of personnel

Departmental reviews after one yearDepartmental reviews after one year

IIncentives to departmentsncentives to departments Increased credit hours taughtIncreased credit hours taught Recruitment/retentionRecruitment/retention

Page 16: Why don’t we like change

Problems to anticipateProblems to anticipate

IIf no consequences, people get f no consequences, people get comfortablecomfortable

CChange is equated with something badhange is equated with something bad QQuestions of why change is better than uestions of why change is better than

nownow EEfforts to block or delayfforts to block or delay

Page 17: Why don’t we like change

Problems to anticipateProblems to anticipate

Worry that changes are too fast for faulty Worry that changes are too fast for faulty or administrationor administration

Need for support from higher Need for support from higher administrationadministration

Page 18: Why don’t we like change

College of Life Sciences and AgricultureUniversity of New Hampshire

Teaching Load Formula

Factors for Conversion of TeachingFunctions to Workload Score

TeachingFunction

Reported Unit WorkloadScore per

credit hour -NormalCourse

WorkloadScore per

credit hour -Writing

IntensiveCourse

WorkloadScore per

credit hour -RepeatSectionNormalCourse

WorkloadScore per

credit hour -Writing

IntensiveCourse

Lecture 1 credit-hourClass Size 1 to 5 1.0 1.5 .5 .75

6 to 15 2.0 2.5 1.0 1.2516 to 30 2.5 3.0 1.25 1.531 to 60 3.0 3.5 1.5 1.7561 to 100 3.5 4.0 1.75 2.0101 to 150 4.0 4.5 2.0 2.25151 to 200 4.5 5.0 2.25 2.5201 & up 5.0 5.5 2.5 2.75

Note 1: Any course in which the instructor and chair of the dept determine that the instructor has providedextraordinary time and effort to any course listed above or below, an additional 0.5 can be added for each credit-hour.Note 2: Activities for which faculty receive additional compensations are not considered part of theteaching load.Note 3: Courses do not include independent study or honors thesis courses Ğ those are counted in theother teaching functions.Note 4: Workload scores per credit hour will be adjusted based on student course evaluations. Forevaluation scores between 4.2 and 4.6, .25 will be added to the Workload Score per credit hour and forevaluation scores greater than 4.6, .5 will be added.

Teaching Function Reported Unit WorkloadScore

Laboratory (instructor Teaching lab) 1 credit-hour 2.0Laboratory (Repeat Section Instructor Teaching Lab) 1 credit-hour 1.0T.A. Teaching Lab 1 credit-hour 0.5

Other Teaching Functions Reported Unit WorkloadScore

Independent study - Undergraduate 1 student/semester 0.8Undergrad Honors Thesis/senior Research 1 student/year 2.0Undergrad-Advising 1 student/year 0.2Undergraduate Program Coordinator 100% effort 5.0Grad student committee (Chair) 1 student/year 2.0Grad student committee (Committee member) 1 student/year 0.2

Non-Thesis Comm. Chair 1 student/year 1.0Graduate Program Coordinator 100% effort 5.0New course development 100% effort 5.0Teaching grants Per $1,000 funding 0.1

Page 19: Why don’t we like change

College of Life Sciences and AgricultureUniversity of New Hampshire

Research Load Formula

Research Function Reported Unit Workload Score

Grant & Contract Dollars Awarded(total/year/PI)

External:

Up to $2.5k 0.5$2.5K to 11K/year 3.0$11K to 51K/year 6.0$51K to 200K/year 10.0$200k to $1 million/year 15.0$1 million to $3 million/year 20.0Every $5 million additional Add 5.0 to 20.0

Internal:

Up to $2.5k 0.5$2.5K to 11K/year 1.5

$11K to 51K/year 3.0

$51K to 200K/year 5.0Every additional $50K Add 1.0 to 5.0

Grant & Contract DollarsSubmitted(total/submission/PI)

Under $2.5K (total for all grantssubmitted and for total costs)

0.3

$2.5K to 51K 0.75$51K to 100 K 1.5$100K to $2 million 3.0$2.1 million to $5 Million 6.0$5.1 million to $10 Million 9.0Every additional $2 million Add 3.0 to 9.0

Peer reviewed papers (notabstracts) or Book chapters/year(published or in press only)

Number =0 0.0

Number =1 3.0Number =2 6.0Every additional paper Add 3.0 per paper

Major papers presented atprofessional meeting

Number =0 0.0

Number =1 1.0Number =2 2.0Every additional paper Add 1.0 per paper

Page 20: Why don’t we like change

College of Life Sciences and AgricultureUniversity of New Hampshire

Service Formula

The service component is determined by the faculty member and chair of the department with Dean approval. Sincein most cases, the expectations for the major pillars of focus for faculty are teaching and research, the servicecomponent will in most cases be a fraction of these two pillars.

Level of Service Description Workload ScoreExtraordinary level ofservice

Could include an unusual high numberof committees; Serve on an editorialboard with major duties; an unusuallyhigher number of reviews of grantproposals and/or manuscripts; Officerof major disciplinary society; COLSAadvising center participation

20.0

Above average level ofservice

Unless a special agreement exists, allfaculty members are expected toparticipate to a comparable degree intasks required to run the Department,College, and University. Theseinclude such tasks as service onUniversity, College and DepartmentCommittees. Other kinds ofcontributions may become necessaryand, by agreement of the faculty, willbe expected.

15.0

Average level of service The minimum amount of service that afaculty member is expected to performequal to 1/8 of the total workload for afaculty member.

10.0

No Service 0