ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING Outcomes of 1999 Restructuring: greater campus autonomy compared to pre-1999 (Chancellors) some improvements in administrative efficiency ( campus approval authority) improved service for students (Associate Chancellors) ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING FLAWS IN CURRENT STRUCTURE Two Chairs manage one division (managerial flaw) Chancellors serve as campus Deans, overseeing institutional level divisions (managerial flaw) Administrative work of faculty as discipline coordinators Outcomes: >lack of coordination for program development & quality;. >tensions in faculty hiring, in program scheduling, in program direction, in evaluation of campus faculty for institutional level programs; >polarity in campus vs institutional level interests for programs. >Faculty administrative work decreased their time for students and scholarly work; coordination is costly, excessive in some cases ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING New structure must: Unify program management Provide level of autonomy for campuses Allow for planned growth and change Promote better educational product Enhance image Cost less ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING KEY FEATURES OF OPTION 1 SCHOOLS Establish Schools (2) in which the academic programs will be identified through program rationalization and grouped according to commonalities and synergies . Schools will be institutional level, not campus bound and each headed by a Dean. ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING OPTION 2: KEY FEATURES 2 Campuses; 1 University On each campus, programs are grouped into new divisions according to commonalities and synergies and identified through program rationalization. Divisions administered by Divisional Deans or Heads who report to campus Chancellor ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING OPTION COMPARISONS OPTION 1 MORE CENTRALIZED MANAGEMENT OPTION 2 MORE CAMPUS MANAGEMENT OPTION 2 IS FLATTER THAT OPTION 1 BOTH REDUCE NUMBER OF DIVISION HEADS=6 BOTH REDUCE NUMBER OF DISCIPLINE COORDINATORS BOTH DEPEND ON PROGRAM RATIONALIZATION TO STRENGTHEN PROGRAMS & REDUCE COST BOTH LESS COSTLY THAN CURRENT ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING EXPECTED OUTCOMES: EITHER OPTION 1. Campus identity & program offerings achieved 2. Programs are enhanced by being grouped for synergy 3. Improved and less costly program coordination 4. More focused planning for growth and change 5. Increased and sustained enrollments 6. Net revenues increased ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING COST COMPARISONS PROG MANAGEMENT INCREMENTAL CURRENT 1.56M 250K OPTION 1 1.45M 243K OPTION 2 1.37M END RESULT: Less costly structures which provide higher quality programs and service than current model OTHER SAVINGS WILL BE REALIZED BY PROGRAM RATIONALIZATION ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING TIMETABLE Implementation target: Jan 2005 Program rationalization studies: Summer to F 2004 Faculty contracts F 2004 Identify Interim Heads/Deans in F2004 Search for Deans/Heads completed S2005 Restructure complete by F2005 ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING INCREMENTAL COSTS Incremental costs are the new costs incurred by having faculty assume management duties, necessitating part-time faculty to cover the reduced teaching load of chairs and faculty coordinators. In new structure, it includes changes associated with administrative staff support, chancellors and deans. NOTE: These costs are included in the Total Management Costs cited. ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING COST COMPARISONS PROG MANAGEMENT Incremental CURRENT 1.56M 250K RECOMMENDED 1.45M 243K OTHER SAVINGS AND REVENUES ARE EXPECTED FROM PROGRAM RATIONALIZATION Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master text styles Second level Third level Fourth level Fifth level lHbŒP ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING On-screen Show University of the Virgin Islands Times Blank ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING Gwen Marie Moolenaar Bob Godfrey Microsoft PowerPoint jLXÄ Times "System Times CADEMIC Times Times DMINISTRATIVE Times Times ESTRUCTURING Times OPTIONS Times Times Presented to the t Times UVI Board of Trustees Times June 18 Times Times 19, 2004 Fonts Used Design Template Slide Titles CyclE ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING jLXÄ ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING Outcomes of 1999 Restructuring: greater campus autonomy compared to pre-1999 (Chancellors) some improvements in administrative efficiency ( campus approval authority) improved service for students (Associate Chancellors) ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING FLAWS IN CURRENT STRUCTURE Two Chairs manage one division (managerial flaw) Chancellors serve as campus Deans, overseeing institutional level divisions (managerial flaw) Administrative work of faculty as discipline coordinators Outcomes: >lack of coordination for program development & quality;. >tensions in faculty hiring, in program scheduling, in program direction, in evaluation of campus faculty for institutional level programs; >polarity in campus vs institutional level interests for programs. >Faculty administrative work decreased their time for students and scholarly work; coordination is costly, excessive in some cases ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING New structure must: Unify program management Provide level of autonomy for campuses Allow for planned growth and change Promote better educational product Enhance image Cost less ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING KEY FEATURES OF OPTION 1 SCHOOLS Establish Schools (2) in which the academic programs will be identified through program rationalization and grouped according to commonalities and synergies . Schools will be institutional level, not campus bound and each headed by a Dean. ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING OPTION 2: KEY FEATURES 2 Campuses; 1 University On each campus, programs are grouped into new divisions according to commonalities and synergies and identified through program rationalization. Divisions administered by Divisional Deans or Heads who report to campus Chancellor ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING OPTION COMPARISONS OPTION 1 MORE CENTRALIZED MANAGEMENT OPTION 2 MORE CAMPUS MANAGEMENT OPTION 2 IS FLATTER THAT OPTION 1 BOTH REDUCE NUMBER OF DIVISION HEADS=6 BOTH REDUCE NUMBER OF DISCIPLINE COORDINATORS BOTH DEPEND ON PROGRAM RATIONALIZATION TO STRENGTHEN PROGRAMS & REDUCE COST BOTH LESS COSTLY THAN CURRENT ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING EXPECTED OUTCOMES: EITHER OPTION 1. Campus identity & program offerings achieved 2. Programs are enhanced by being grouped for synergy 3. Improved and less costly program coordination 4. More focused planning for growth and change 5. Increased and sustained enrollments 6. Net revenues increased ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING COST COMPARISONS PROG MANAGEMENT INCREMENTAL CURRENT 1.56M 250K OPTION 1 1.45M 243K OPTION 2 1.37M END RESULT: Less costly structures which provide higher quality programs and service than current model OTHER SAVINGS WILL BE REALIZED BY PROGRAM RATIONALIZATION ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING TIMETABLE Implementation target: Jan 2005 Program rationalization studies: Summer to F 2004 Faculty contracts F 2004 Identify Interim Heads/Deans in F2004 Search for Deans/Heads completed S2005 Restructure complete by F2005 ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING Bob Godfrey ilDisplayName [Fwd: PP documentPresentation] epattis@uvi.edu Erik Pattison Presentation] epattis@uvi.edu Erik Pattison Bob Godfrey ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING INCREMENTAL COSTS Incremental costs are the new costs incurred by having faculty assume management duties, necessitating part-time faculty to cover the reduced teaching load of chairs and faculty coordinators. In new structure, it includes changes associated with administrative staff support, chancellors and deans. NOTE: These costs are included in the Total Management Costs cited. ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATIVE RESTRUCTURING OPTIONS Presented to the UVI Board of Trustees June 18-19, 2004 ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING Outcomes of 1999 Restructuring: greater campus autonomy compared to pre-1999 (Chancellors) some improvements in administrative efficiency ( campus approval authority) improved service for students (Associate Chancellors) ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING FLAWS IN CURRENT STRUCTURE Two Chairs manage one division (managerial flaw) Chancellors serve as campus Deans, overseeing institutional level divisions (managerial flaw) Administrative work of faculty as discipline coordinators Outcomes: >lack of coordination for program development & quality;. >tensions in faculty hiring, in program scheduling, in program direction, in evaluation of campus faculty for institutional level programs; >polarity in campus vs institutional level interests for programs. >Faculty administrative work decreased their time for students and scholarly work; coordination is costly, excessive in some cases ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING New structure must: Unify program management Provide level of autonomy for campuses Allow for planned growth and change Promote better educational product Enhance image Cost less ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING KEY FEATURES OF OPTION 1 SCHOOLS Establish Schools (2) in which the academic programs will be identified through program rationalization and grouped according to commonalities and synergies . Schools will be institutional level, not campus bound and each headed by a Dean. ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING OPTION 2: KEY FEATURES 2 Campuses; 1 University On each campus, programs are grouped into new divisions according to commonalities and synergies and identified through program rationalization. Divisions administered by Divisional Deans or Heads who report to campus Chancellor ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING OPTION COMPARISONS OPTION 1 MORE CENTRALIZED MANAGEMENT OPTION 2 MORE CAMPUS MANAGEMENT OPTION 2 IS FLATTER THAT OPTION 1 BOTH REDUCE NUMBER OF DIVISION HEADS=6 BOTH REDUCE NUMBER OF DISCIPLINE COORDINATORS BOTH DEPEND ON PROGRAM RATIONALIZATION TO STRENGTHEN PROGRAMS & REDUCE COST BOTH LESS COSTLY THAN CURRENT ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING EXPECTED OUTCOMES: EITHER OPTION 1. Campus identity & program offerings achieved 2. Programs are enhanced by being grouped for synergy 3. Improved and less costly program coordination 4. More focused planning for growth and change 5. Increased and sustained enrollments 6. Net revenues increased ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING COST COMPARISONS PROG MANAGEMENT INCREMENTAL CURRENT 1.56M 250K OPTION 1 1.45M 243K OPTION 2 1.37M END RESULT: Less costly structures which provide higher quality programs and service than current model OTHER SAVINGS WILL BE REALIZED BY PROGRAM RATIONALIZATION ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING TIMETABLE Implementation target: Jan 2005 Program rationalization studies: Summer to F 2004 Faculty contracts F 2004 Identify Interim Heads/Deans in F2004 Search for Deans/Heads completed S2005 Restructure complete by F2005 ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING INCREMENTAL COSTS Incremental costs are the new costs incurred by having faculty assume management duties, necessitating part-time faculty to cover the reduced teaching load of chairs and faculty coordinators. In new structure, it includes changes associated with administrative staff support, chancellors and deans. NOTE: These costs are included in the Total Management Costs cited. ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING Gwen Marie Moolenaar Bob Godfrey Microsoft PowerPoint jLXÄ Times "System Times CADEMIC Times Times DMINISTRATIVE Times Times ESTRUCTURING Times OPTIONS Times Times Presented to the t Times UVI Board of Trustees Times June 18 Times Times 19, 2004