Subsequent to the release of the last WASC visitation team report, the University created a new strategic planning process linked to the campus budgeting process. This process established a set of strategic priorities for the University: Student Success, Academic Quality, Service Excellence, Campus Life, and Sustainable Environment. Each fall the University reviews strategic progress and establishes goals for the upcoming three year planning horizon. Updated goals provide the framework for CSULB's annual budgeting process, which occurs in the spring, known as the Resource Planning Process. Current and recent strategic plans are on the web at http://www.csulb.edu/divisions/aa/planning_enrollment/strategicplanning.html.
Also subsequent to the last WASC visitation team report, the Division of Academic Affairs and the Academic Senate instituted organizational changes designed to address the issue of decentralized decision- making, remove barriers to communication, supply accurate information in a timely fashion, enhance human interactions, and streamline processes. This essay focuses on the impacts of organizational changes in these two entities on decision-making and communication with respect to planning for organizational growth and managing technology.
The organizational structure of the Division of Academic Affairs at the time of the last WASC visit is depicted in the following organizational chart:
The appointment of then Provost Gary Reichard to the position of CSU Executive Vice Chancellor and Chief Academic Officer in 2006 and the subsequent appointment of Provost Karen L. Gould presented an opportunity to reorganize the Division of Academic Affairs to better respond to new challenges and better meet the emerging needs of the University. The current organizational structure is presented below:
The university’s organization and culture are best characterized as decentralized, with such positive attributes as creativity, innovation, empowerment, and shared governance. At the same time, this decentralization has the potential of allowing policies to fall between offices, programs to drift, and responsibilities to blur. Provost Gould has reorganized and realigned the Office of the Provost to reapportion tasks, simplify reporting lines, and streamline decision-making.
Reflecting the need for specific attention to graduate studies, the Associate Vice President for Graduate and Undergraduate Studies was appointed Vice Provost and Dean of Graduate Studies and tasked with graduate affairs, program development, program review and assessment, and other policy concerns. The responsibility for Undergraduate Studies was then moved to an Associate Vice President for Undergraduate Studies. Pursuant to the recommendations of the Assessment of IT Practices for the Division of Academic Affairs, the vacant position of Associate Vice President for Academic Technology was filled and charged with organizing the University’s academic technology resources. A permanent appointment was made for the Associate Vice President for Academic Personnel who is expected to play a key role in standardizing and implementing new polices as well as resolving open questions in hiring, leaves, RTP, and other personnel issues. Recognizing the increasing importance of international programs, the previous position of Director of International Programs became the Assistant Vice President for International Education and Global Engagement.
These academic administrators join the Vice Provost for Planning and Budgets and Director of Strategic Planning. This role has some aspects that are university-wide and others that pertain only to the Division of Academic Affairs. University-wide, the Vice Provost coordinates enrollment planning with units in two other university divisions: Enrollment Services in the Division of Administration and Finance, which receives and processes applications and carries out many other enrollment related activities and Outreach in the Division of Student Services, which manages communications with potential students and with high schools and community colleges. Within the academic division, this role includes assigning enrollment targets to the academic colleges and overseeing college level management of enrollment, such as ensuring the timely delivery of needed classes.
Funding in the CSU system is based on meeting assigned enrollment targets. CSULB’s target of 29,357 is the second highest in the CSU System. Effective enrollment management is essential to meeting our assigned FTES targets. Since the mid-1990s, the campus has had a growing focus on enrollment management. With the advent of restrictive admissions for freshmen in 2002 (“impaction”), the campus has developed additional tools for enrollment projection and management. In a recent change strengthening the analytical capabilities of the academic division, the Office of Institutional Research & Assessment was moved from the Division of Administration and Finance to Academic Affairs, reporting to the Vice Provost for Planning and Budgets. The Vice Provost generates and disseminates relevant information to college planners and academic schedulers, and then monitors the results, suggests strategies for adjustments, and assesses the overall success in meeting students’ critical academic needs. This analytic, data-driven approach allows for a reasoned enrollment strategy and informed consultation with and among the Provost, Vice Provosts, Associate Vice Presidents, Deans, Associate Deans, department chairs, and advisors, which increases the prospects for a coordinated university response to changing economic, social, and political dynamics. (Criteria 4.1, 4.2, 4.3)
By realigning responsibilities, restoring vacant positions and upgrading others, the Provost has more effectively apportioned tasks and functions to meet the needs of this large urban university.
The appointment of the Associate Vice President for Academic Technology will have a great impact upon how the Division organizes itself to make the most effective use of technology. A list of technology-related services may be found by clicking here. This new structure follows the Division’s Information Technology Strategic Plan; it is designed to meet the objectives and address the issues presented in the Assessment of IT Practices for the Division of Academic Affairs.
Previously, CSULB’s technology was spread throughout the campus in several different centers that were often unrelated and duplicative. The Provost commissioned Assessment of IT Practices for the Division of Academic Affairs from hbo systems, inc. in 2007. The hbo systems inc. report also recommended the development of a University Information Technology Strategic Plan in 2008.
The Assessment of IT Practices for the Division of Academic Affairs identified seven issues associated with technology on the CSULB campus. The report reached two major conclusions, that the University has become too decentralized in respect to technology, and that the Division needs a technology plan. These issues are detailed in Appendix I.2, page 4. (Criteria 2.13, 3.7)
The Provost charged the Associate Vice President for Academic Technology with addressing these issues.
The Organizing for Effectiveness Committee has surveyed key campus constituencies to assess the perceived effectiveness of the reorganization of the Division of Academic Affairs with respect to decision-making and communication. There are two preliminary findings:
Approximately 71% of those responding to the committee’s inquiry regarding the effects of administrative organizational changes that have taken place since the last WASC review viewed them positively, considering decision-making to be more effective, especially with regard to management of growth and technology.
Respondents considered communication to have remained as effective as before, but some improvement in quality was noted. Communication lines between all constituencies were seen as improving in various ways such as having better knowledge of chains of responsibilities, development of division web sites and development of newsletters. The net result appears to be more cooperation and better reporting lines, but there are instances of possible unintended consequences such as more time required to build consensus. Perhaps the most important finding was that lines of communication that were effective before reorganization did not suffer.
Provost Gould’s reorganization of the Division of Academic Affairs, especially the realignment of duties and lines of authority, has clearly resulted in more effective decision-making and communication, as can be seen in the advances made in the recent reorganization of our technology infrastructure. As mentioned in our Institutional Proposal, we will further assess the effectiveness of these changes in the Educational Effectiveness Review. Preliminary survey results may be found in Appendix I.1
In addition to the major organizational changes in the Division of Academic Affairs, there have also been modest changes to the other three University divisions. The current organizational structure of the other University divisions may be found in Appendix I.2.
Changes in the organizational structure of the Academic Senate’s councils and committees have reflected the same overarching goals as the Division of Academic Affairs: simplifying reporting lines and streamlining decision-making. These changes entailed eliminating one council and realigning the responsibilities of the other councils to consolidate decision-making and to simplify reporting lines.
Specifically, these changes include the abolition of the Graduate Council, assigning that body’s responsibility for considering proposed new graduate programs as well as graduate program and policy review to the Educational Policies Council, which was renamed the Curriculum and Educational Polices Council (CEPC). The Senate also added three committees to the list of four that reported to the renamed Curriculum and Educational Polices Council. The newly-created Program Assessment and Review Council (PARC) replaced the Program Review and Planning Council (PRAP). The Senate created the Library Advisory Committee and the Faculty Advisory Committee on Technology (FACT), and modified faculty representation on the Resource Planning Process (RPP) Task Force to reflect these organizational changes. (Criteria 3.11, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3)
The Organizing for Effectiveness Committee has surveyed key campus constituencies to assess the currently-perceived effectiveness of the reorganization of the Academic Senate on decision-making and communication. There are two preliminary findings:
In general decision-making is considered to be more effective as new programs, changes to existing policies, and new policies have a more direct route to the Senate. The creation
of CEPC consolidated decision-making into one body instead of three. Decisions are being made in a more informed, expedited fashion. Some concern was expressed that combining undergraduate and graduate policy functions may result in decreased consideration of graduate curricula in deference to the larger undergraduate mission.
The previous organization for program review and assessment was considered to be unnecessarily complex, with the reorganization streamlining the process. Following reorganization, all program reviews are handled by one Academic Senate Council (PARC) working in parallel with the Vice Provost whose portfolio includes program review and assessment. These changes, along with the Senate’s approval of a document detailing timelines and responsibilities for student learning outcomes assessment, have provided an effective framework for action and decision-making. (2.7, 4.4, 4.6, 4.7)
The organizational changes resulting in the creation of CEPC and PARC streamlined the work of both councils significantly, expedit-ing curricular and program approvals that impact enrollment and student success.
These changes have facilitated the timely exchange of information among the Senate’s councils and committees and have made these councils much more effective. Individuals responsible for student learning outcomes assessment and program review have noted increased activity and communication. There has been steadily increasing participation in and communication of departments’ and programs’ discoveries concerning student learning. A considerable backlog of program reviews was cleared away in the first two years of PARC activity.
