CCOET Draft Report: 1/12/16 “For Discussion Only”

CCOET DRAFT Report Outline
This document is a draft report and is for discussion purposes only.
A. Introduction
B. Section One: Primary Recommendations
1. Position Control
Paula Rhyner, Hobart Davies, Mark Harris, Rachel Buff, Michael Laliberte, Jerry Tarrer
2. Administrative Organization and Balance
Kyle Reynolds, Robert Beck, Paul Roebber, Mike Sportiello, Robin Weigert, Rodney Swain
3. Academic Reorganization
John Reisel, Nadya Fouad, Sally Lundeen, Joan Prince, Alan Shoho, Tanya Choice-Henry
4. Incentives
C. Section Two: Secondary Recommendations
1. Areas of Further Study:
a. Teaching Load
b. Centers
c. Segregated Fees
d. Credit Plateau
e. Furloughs
2. Additional Ideas for Consideration (Parking Lot):
a. Possible Efficiencies
b. Possible Initiatives
E. Committee Charge
F. Committee Structure and Membership
G. Guiding Principles
H. Plan of Work (Website, FAQs, Listening Sessions, Questionnaires)
I. Group and Individual Statements
Chancellor’s Campus Organization and Effectiveness team
November 2015
DRAFT Interim Report
Co-chairs: Robert Greenstreet, John Reisel, Paula Rhyner, Kyle Swanson

The CCOET Support and Primary teams have met several times each in the past month. In addition, they have held four listening sessions and have created a website that has received over 400 suggestions and comments. The website also contains all information collected and generated by the Teams including all meeting minutes, Guiding Principles and Frequently Asked Questions. The four Chairs (Rhyner, Swanson, Reisel and Greenstreet) have also fielded dozens of individual e mails and have presented at various other forums, including two Chairs’ meetings and a Faculty Senate.

The Team has now received and has reviewed a considerable amount of data and input, much of it valuable and all of it posted on the website to ensure absolute transparency of the process. However, the discussions have been hard. Emotions are running high on campus and confusion, self-interest and suspicion are inevitably making any progress slow and painful.

Given the short timeline to produce recommendations, the four Chairs have attempted to summarize the primary points of discussion thus far that we believe can achieve the necessary campus budget reductions as well as best position UWM to move forward. They are not necessarily the most strategic or fair, but can yield the maximum amount of necessary savings with the least amount of complication, resistance and disruption in the time available while preserving the basic tenets of UWM’s mission.

In addition, we have added a number of secondary strategies that are worthy of consideration, either because of their ability to yield additional savings or because they will lead to continued discussion on campus reorganization that we believe is equitable and will strengthen the overall mission and effectiveness of UWM.


The Chancellor’s Campus Organization and Effectiveness Team (CCOET) at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (UWM) has identified position control as one strategy that could be used to address its substantial structural deficit. The information included focuses on the: (A) Estimated Savings; (B) Consequences; (C) Best Practices; (D) Procedures to Minimize Damage to UWM’s Mission; (E) Incentives; and (F) Process for Implementation
Personnel costs are the highest budget item at any university. In order to control budget, the process to identify and create a complete organizational chart along with job descriptions, metrics for the positions, back- up training and plans for business continuity and development plans is usually the first step in position control. Position control refers to two ideas. The most common is the concept that the organizational structure is based on organizational positions. This control mechanism requires periodic review within departments, schools, and business service units to ensure efficient use of personnel. The second use of position control is budgetary. In this iteration, all open positions undergo a rigorous review and approval process. According to the Education Advisory Board (EAB), an institution can use the position control process to “…assess positions as they become vacant, reclaim staffing dollars when appropriate, and potentially redeploy staffing lines to other units with greater needs” (2014, p. 72).Thus, position control can be used to determine whether a vacant position should be filled in the same way, whether the position should be filled but re-defined, whether the responsibilities can be reassigned to currently filled positions, or whether the position should be reallocated.
Although position control should not be considered a permanent solution to the UWM structural deficit, it is a strategy that can be used to realize salary savings. In addition, it can be implemented as both a short-term strategy and a long-term strategy, albeit in different plans. Positions that are included in the implementation of position control are those for which the appointment is greater than one year.
A. Estimated Savings:
The salary savings to be realized via the implementation of position control will be somewhat of a “moving target,” depending on the vacant positions that are used to fill positions that are deemed “critical hires” and the salary that is allocated to those positions. In the short-term, it might be necessary to define a “critical hire” as one that fulfills a vital campus function. A long-term strategy to be consider is to establish a salary savings target annually during the budget building process. The salary savings target can be set for the campus as a whole as well as for individual schools, colleges, and other administrative units.

It has been estimated that cumulative salary savings could be as much as $20-30 million in FY16-18; however, replacement costs for the same period need to be calculated. Any salary savings will be off-set by the need for strategic hires that must occur within the next 2-3 years and temporary hires to meet critical instructional needs. UWM payroll data for the period October 2014-October 2015 show a payroll decrease of $10 million as a result of holding vacant positions open; however, such savings are not likely to be sustainable over time since the specific positions that will need to be filled are unknown. UWM data for the one-time savings for FY16 (budget lapse) reveal a net savings for salary and fringes for unfilled vacancies of $7.5 million.

Other factors must be considered in the implementation of position control, such as:
· Potential increases in administrative costs associated with position control
· The need for flexibility in terms of the time period designated to hold vacant positions open and the allocation of vacant positions across units
· The effects of position control on the growth of academic and research programs and the access mission of UWM
· The role of accountability in the allocation of positions

Additional information is needed with regard to the central management of position control. Examples of questions to be addressed include:
· Which individual or group will be assigned responsibility for central administration of position control? It is recommended that the proposed campus Resource Allocation Group or a similar shared governance group be involved in developing the position control criteria and shaping the position control process.
· In what ways will position control be incorporated into the new budget model for UWM?
· How will the criteria for short-term and long-term position control be determined? What constitutes an exception to the criteria?
· How will transparency regarding position control be ensured?
· What is the role of shared governance in position control?
· How will position control affect the ability of a unit to construct its annual budget and to reallocate funds as needed?
· What process will be followed for making counter offers as part of position control?

B. Consequences:
Negative consequences of position control:
· Holding positions open for a period of time as they are vacated is not strategic and can be punitive. For example, units with multiple individuals who are approaching retirement will be more limited in capacity because of the requirement to hold the vacated positions open for a period of time.
· Position control reduces the incentive for programmatic growth.
· Position control reduces the budgetary authority of deans and other unit administrators and their ability to creatively use salary savings for other needs of the overall operating budget.
· The time and expense required to recruit faculty and staff for approved positions will increase substantially.

Potential impact of position control on UWM’s mission:
· Some academic programs will not have sufficient faculty and staff to be sustained, resulting in the elimination or suspension of programs.
· The research mission will be negatively impacted when: (1) positions that support research are not filled; (2) unfilled faculty and instructional staff positions necessitate increased teaching loads for faculty and staff with research programs; or (3) researchers leave UWM for other universities and cannot be replaced.
· Accreditations for some academic programs are placed in jeopardy due to lack of sufficient faculty and staff.
· The reduction of resources will significantly diminish the capacity for student recruitment and retention efforts due to the loss of essential staff and increased time required to rebuild the staff.

Positive consequences of position control:
· Establishing a process to be followed in holding vacant positions open for a period of time and a set of criteria to be applied in the allocation of vacant positions leads to a common set of standards that is applied across units.
· Posting decisions on and justifications for position control, reallocations, recruitments, and counter-offers that are made centrally leads to increased transparency.
· Involving shared governance in developing the position control criteria and shaping the position control process facilitates transparency.
· Position control can lead to increased accountability for decisions related to recruitment and retention.

C. Best Practices:
The EAB (2014) provided information on practices related to the use of position control for non-faculty positions as a strategy to prioritize resources for various universities, including Webster University (St. Louis, MO), The College of St. Rose (Albany, NY), University of Alaska Fairbanks (Fairbanks, AK), University of Virginia (Charlottesville, VA), and Renesselaer Polytechnic Institute (Troy, NY), University of Windsor (Windsor, Ontario), Texas State University (San Marcos, TX), Alfred State College (SUNY College of Technology), Illinois Institute of Technology (Chicago, IL), Creighton University (Omaha, NE), Glendale Community College (Glendale, AZ) and the University of North Florida (Jacksonville, FL). Each university reported using position control practices to better manage staffing costs and to effectively address the mission of the university. In each case, when a position becomes vacant, the position could be subject to a mandatory “hold open period” and might not be “blindly backfilled” (i.e., filled as it had been). Although the described practices have been applied to non-faculty positions, it is important to note that the practices can be applied to faculty positions as well. In fact, faculty vacancies typically have an inherent one-year hold open period that is due to the recruitment process. Additionally, the described practices do not directly address reallocation of positions across units.

In the practice of a mandatory hold open period, the university holds all vacated, non-faculty positions open for a specified amount of time (typically 2 to 4 months) to capture one-time salary savings and to allow for a review of the position to determine the need for the position as it had been designed or the need to redesign the position. The practice includes the following components: (1) Establish the duration of the hold open period, which allows time to realize salary savings and review of the position and responsibilities, and (2) Determine exceptions to the hold open period because of safety or efficiency concerns.

A second practice identified by the EAB (2014) is the vacancy-triggered role redesign, in which any “as-was” non-faculty position request (a request to fill a position exactly as it was) is placed on hold and the unit leader is required to consider ways to efficiently redesign the role, including automating, eliminating, or reassigning associated tasks. Such a practice leads to a systematic review of staffing options and of roles and responsibilities and can be viewed as an opportunity to enhance efficiency and productivity.

A third practice is the use of a standardized requisition form. Such a form goes beyond the standard forms that are required for recruitment requests and would focus on the criteria that are established for the position control process. Examples of forms that have been used at other universities can be found in the EAB (2014) document, Business Affairs Forum.

A final practice described by the EAB (2014) is that of creating a salary savings target that is to be accomplished via the vacancy review process and achieved through a combination of holding positions open for an established period of time, redesigning roles, and eliminating some unnecessary positions. Such a practice can involve determining a salary savings target annually for campus as well as for individual schools and colleges and other administrative units.

D. Procedures to Minimize Damage to UWM’s Mission:
It is important to realize that the practice of position control is not a complete or absolute hiring freeze but rather, can be implemented in ways that allow for flexibility, transparency, and accountability in the budgetary process, particularly as the process pertains to reviewing and filling vacant positions. A complete hiring freeze, if warranted, should be used for a limited period of time to minimize the negative effects on UWM’s teaching and research mission. Additionally, the position control process should incorporate practices that will lead to programmatic innovations, alignment of positions with program goals, enhanced revenue generation, and increased efficiency of operations. Clear guidelines for position control and exceptions must be developed and applied consistently to ensure transparency. The same applies to the process of making counter offers for retention purposes. All decisions regarding the recruitment for or reallocation of vacant positions must be based in the guidelines and posted along with the justification for the decisions and made available to the campus community.

E. Incentives:
Some incentives to consider include: (1) allowing a small percentage of the salary savings from holding a vacant position open to be retained by the unit; (2) tracking what a unit has given up over time and taking that into consideration in making decisions centrally pertaining to position control; and (3) developing strategies to assess and reward programmatic growth.

F. Process for Implementation:
The process for implementation of practices pertaining to position control must ensure that the practices are in alignment with the launch of the new budget model. In addition, the process must include both short-term strategies and long-term strategies. As a short-term strategy, all faculty and staff positions that become vacant due to resignation, retirement or death will be subject to the campus position control process. The short-term strategy should be in place for no more than 3 years.

As a long-term strategy, position control will be managed via budgetary salary savings targets that are determined annually during the budget planning process for each unit and managed by the unit administration in collaboration with campus administration. The idea of a long-term strategy with position control would be to capture short-term savings through payroll savings targets. This would make position control one tool used by the University on an as-needed basis to balance budget. This strategy intertwines with the new proposed budget development process (attached). The bottom “lane” labeled Resource Allocation Group would develop guidelines, having one of them be the tool of position control. As projections are developed, estimates would preliminarily guide the resource allocation group to determine if payroll savings targets will be required to balance our overall budget. While estimates change as we go into the budget year, an adjustment window/time period would be most ideal as a one-time target shift to realign to actual vs. estimates related to payroll saving targets. This process hinges on the approval of the proposed new budget model, which is preliminarily projected to start in Spring 2016 for the budget development of FY 2018 (Fall 2017/Spring 2018). The process must ensure transparency and consistency with regard to the development and application of criteria and justifications for opening positions for recruitment and making counter offers. All recruitments and justifications will be published on the CCOET or similar website.

PRIMARY RECOMMENDATIONS (B2: Administrative Organization)
It is unclear whether UWM’s current administrative structure effectively supports the campus mission and size. The current administrative structure should be re-examined, particularly with an eye towards placing the entire student experience (recruitment, admission, financial aid, enrollment, retention, career services and graduation) under a single entity and reducing administration levels along with the overall intensity of administration as a proportion of campus activities, perhaps using the 2010 Goldwater Study as a benchmark. Re-organization consistent with supporting other aspects of the mission (research and community service) should be likewise explored.
This should be coupled with accelerated implementation of a new shared services model with target data FY18 which should drive administrative efficiency to levels consistent with UWM’s aspirational peers. The balance of administrative and secondary support to academic activities should be published annually.
Estimated savings: $5-9 million annually by FY19

UWM Chancellor’s Campus Organizational and Efficiency Team
Administrative Organization and Balance Subgroup
DRAFT: 01/09/16

The pressure to do more with less has never been as strong as it is today, with decreased funding from the state legislature, demands to keep tuition increases low, and the societal need to admit and graduate a broader spectrum of students. To meet these challenges, UWM must strategically reposition itself if it is to be effective at meeting its mission.

To respond to this call to action, UWM must increase its administrative efficiency and effectiveness at all levels, saving costs while improving outcomes, as well as become more transparent to internal and external stakeholders. It is important for UWM to identify where it stands today and how it can measure its improvement in performing key administrative management functions.

Subgroup Goal
To consider whether administrative restructuring might help UWM become more effective in advancing its teaching, research, and outreach missions. To suggest opportunities to improve effectiveness and efficiency, while maintaining a sustainable and transparent administration organization through an objective review of the organization and operation of UWM’s administrative services as well as learning best practices from other institutions.

Summary of Principles
Effectiveness – Create shared accountability across units by clearly establishing service levels and clarifying expectations. Establish metrics for benchmarking and long-term performance reporting, helping to identify where resources can be claimed for more strategic purposes.

Efficiency – Work to identify and implement cost saving opportunities by streamlining and improving organizational frameworks and business processes. Consider multiple strategies to achieve desired service levels, including a rebalancing of centralized and decentralized functions.

Sustainability – Engender a culture that promotes creative solutions and collaborations, helping to find holistic solutions that consider both near and long term consequences with an explicit consideration for return on investment.

Transparency – Establish a means of gathering and sharing input from all campus constituents, with an emphasis on both consumer and service provider perspectives and a process for periodically assessing administrative service quality.

Overall Savings Recommended
$9 – 11 million by FY18-19
Subgroup Recommendations:

I. Implement explicit, intentional and outcome focused administrative metrics to ensure effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and transparency
Crucial Document: Toward Implementation of Administrative Metrics: University of Minnesota (esp. Recommendations pgs. 16-36;
Scorecard itself found at

The transition to UWM’s new budget model will significantly increase the transparency of unit financial performance based upon enrollment, retention and graduation metrics. However, there is currently little transparency regarding the effectiveness or efficiency of administrative activities at either the campus or unit levels. At the unit level, there are wide disparities in administrative support costs per degree granted that need to be explained. At the campus level, while the 2010 Goldwater Institute report suggested that UWM was administratively lean relative to our peers, a snapshot in time does not provide insight into whether this is currently true, nor whether this leanness was contributing towards fulfilling UWM’s mission, particularly achieving positive student outcomes.

The use of metrics to drive institutional performance appears to be a common feature among our aspirational peers. Arizona State University Senior Vice President and Senior Planner Richard Stanley said the following in an email conversation:
The critical element in our transformation has been one that is simple to describe, but hard to implement. That is having a relatively simple set of practical aspirations for the institution, repeating them ad nauseam at all levels of the institution, replacing leaders and staff unable to adapt to a new and fast-paced world, and holding oneself accountable by reporting regularly on progress towards the important goals (enrollment, degrees, retention, graduation, and research activity) to the staff and faculty and the world.
Explicit metrics tied to tangible outcomes appear to be vital component in the move towards institutional improvement.

To this end, CCOET recommends the development and implementation of a set of administrative metrics, focused on the following:
· Financial sustainability of the institution. At minimum, this would include timely annual updates on the institutional operating margin, reserve levels, and ratio of state appropriation revenue to tuition/fee revenue.
· Efficiency and effectiveness of UWM’s operations. At minimum, this would include annual updates on efforts to de-bottleneck business and administrative processes; administrative costs per degree at the campus and unit level; and administrative expenditures relative to the size of the net tuition revenue pool.
· External support. At minimum, this would include annual updates regarding endowed assets and growth in endowment; growth in donors (including commitments); and private funds raised annually (commitments excluding revocable bequests), as well as other external sources of support.
· Investment in campus facilities. At minimum, this would include deferred maintenance burden; facility renewal and replacement reserves; operations and maintenance expenditures; and UW System capital appropriations amount.
These administrative metrics should be complemented by the development of metrics explicitly measuring UWM’s progress towards its mission, namely a spectrum of metrics capturing: student success; development of an educated workforce and engaged citizenry; growth in research and development enterprise; UWM’s contribution to enhanced social well-being; and telling/selling the UWM story. These metrics should be designed and implemented with the purpose of positioning units to function more effectively in terms of overall student outcomes.

At the unit level, one example of the application of such metrics is to examine academic support salaries (salaries of dedicated unit-level administration and support; excludes department chairs) as a function of instructional staff, instructional credits delivered or per degree granted. While it is fully appreciated that the mode of instructional delivery must vary between schools and colleges, the rationale for widely varying administrative costs is not transparent. The table below shows the academic support salaries for each of the academic units (source BFS) as a ratio of support to instructional FTE, support salaries per instructional credit hour delivered and per degree delivered, and the salary savings that would be had by capping academic unit support salaries at either the campus average cost of $36.21/SCH or $4,983/degree (sum of BA/BS, Masters and PhD).

Total savings by imposing per SCH or per degree caps on unit-level academic support range from $2.5 million to $3.9 million ($3.5 million to $5.5 million including fringes).

At the campus level, non-academic support levels are most readily addressed through the new budget model. FY14 budget model testing suggests that 66% ($67 million) of the subvention pool is directed towards non-academic support. CCOET recommends (i) that the rate of 66% of the subvention pool directed towards non-academic support is established as a firm upper limit until UWM is again financially sustainable, and (ii) the “tax” of 40% needed to fund the subvention pool likewise be established as a firm upper limit until UWM attains financial sustainability. These two actions will keep the ratio of administrative expenditures from rising as a proportion of overall campus expenditures, aligning administrative growth with overall growth in campus revenue.

II. Accelerate implementation of integrated support services project
Crucial Documents:
· Transforming University Services: Reinventing university services with a focus on efficiency. EAB
· Consolidation and shared services in higher education. Hanover Research
· UWM Integrated Support Services Project

Shared Services is a way of organizing administrative functions to optimize the delivery of cost-effective, flexible and reliable services to stakeholders (faculty, staff and students). The basic principles underlying implementation of shared services are as follows:
· Shared services must increase efficiency without a sacrifice in service quality
· Stakeholders must have the opportunity to provide input
· A change in service arrangements must not negatively impact the UWM’s core mission or the experiences of faculty, staff, and students.
UWM has begun exploring the possibility of implementing some type of shared services approach to enhance administrative efficiency and effectiveness. The Integrated Support Services project is an effort to design and implement a structure to provide administrative service excellence across UWM, focusing on the functions of Finance and Accounting, Procurement, Human Resources, and Information Technology. Among other goals, it is intended to accomplish long-term service efficiencies, make better use of technology, and enhance professional development opportunities in administrative areas.

CCOET recommends that implementation of the Integrated Support Services project be accelerated, with a target date of FY2018 to coincide with the rollout of the new budget model. Long term (FY2020) expenditure savings should be targeted at 10% of accessible expenditures (excluding expenditures required for compliance, for example). This is consistent with EAB recommendations, with an overall salary savings target of $2 million by FY18 ($2.8 million with fringes).

It is recognized that there may be upfront costs to such an accelerated implementation due to the need to modernize and rationalize campus software structure. However, pursuing this path should significantly increase the effectiveness of overall campus services, improve employee morale by providing more accessible promotion paths, and reduce the risk of data breaches that expose student records. This should reduce long term liability expenses. Finally, CCOET recommends that monetization of UWM services/expertise (particularly IT and HR) should be pursued with smaller institutions in the UW System and elsewhere to turn services into a revenue center to the greatest extent possible.

III. Gather all aspects involving a student’s academic trajectory under one administrative line
Crucial document: Building a pathway to student success at Georgia State University. Ithaka S+R

UWM’s current structure supporting a student’s trajectory through their early college career is fragmented. From the student perspective, this means their point of contact is with a variety of different support programs that are only loosely connected and may serve at odds with each other. To take an extreme but still relevant example, who should an undecided Hispanic female veteran seek out for either academic counseling or support at UWM? From the larger perspective, there are significant operational disadvantages to this fragmentation. Decisions made in student affairs sub-units (e.g., a change in the admissions portfolio, or an exclusivity deal with a particular bookstore vendor) impact academic units at the enrollment and programmatic levels. Under the current structure, these decisions are remote from their consequences, leading to inter-unit squabbles and inhibiting strategic allocation of resources.

Examination of UWM’s aspirational peer Georgia State University’s remarkable increase in student success suggests two core underlying factors: a relentless focus on the use of data to drive improvement in student outcomes, and the intentional decision to have all student success aspects under a single administrative head, as shown below (source: GSU’s post-consolidation organizational structure

Coupled with a stronger link to Institutional Research, such a cross-cutting functional structure provides the ability to accelerate the process of leveraging data analysis to develop strategic responses to improve student outcomes across a variety of student success domains.

CCOET recommends implementation of a similar model at UWM. At UWM, this would presumably include gathering the following current campus offices under one administrative report within the Provost’s office:
· Undergraduate admissions
· Center for International Education
· Financial Aid
· Bursar’s office
· Registrar
· Career Planning.
Such reorganization will provide consistency in messaging, and should be accompanied by transparent student information flow through SSC, shared advising records, etc., and should be data driven and outcome measured. These core functions could be augmented by incorporating programs such as learning communities, targeted/undecided intensive advising, bridge programs, PASS, Student Success Center, Multicultural Centers, Veterans Services, ARC and OUR under an umbrella support structure (for example, an Academic Excellence Center). To the greatest extent possible, academic programming (e.g., Global Studies) should be moved to the academic units.

Expenditure savings from this restructuring would be relatively modest (targeting $1 million salary savings/year by FY18; $1.4 million including fringes), primarily due to increased span of administrative reports and consolidation of student success/advising functions. However, effectiveness is supported by potentially significant revenue generation from adopting a seamless strategic enrollment management perspective – each 1% increase in 2nd year retention enhances the tuition revenue stream by $700,000, and the ability to allocate resources seamlessly within this unit to enhance admissions will be vital to stabilizing and increasing UWM’s overall tuition revenue pool.

IV. Implement merit, effectiveness and efficiency incentives
Crucial document: UT Dallas Compensation Policies and Practices

The need to incentivize exceptional employee efforts that support UWM’s mission is vital. After 8 years with no merit increases, faculty and staff no longer have a career path at UWM beyond modest promotion salary bumps. Academic programs and units are completely detached from any rewards for pursuing efficiency or effectiveness in their academic or front office operations. This must change.

To alleviate this situation, CCOET recommends implementation of explicit merit and effectiveness/efficiency incentives. Best practices from the University of Texas at Dallas require Academic Deans to self-fund a portion of merit by explicitly creating a merit pool consisting of 1% of the student credit hour revenue generated by the unit within their budgets. A similar practice would generate a pool of approximately $2 million for merit adjustments each year at UWM.

On the campus level, CCOET recommends that 15% of funds captured via position control be returned to current employees to reward exemplary behavior. At a rate of approximately $10 million captured per year by position control, this would create a merit pool of approximately $1.5 million per year.

Finally, efficiency and effectiveness measures that are identified that go beyond any imposed cuts at the unit level should be rewarded. CCOET recommends that 25% of expenditure reductions beyond levels imposed in response to the budget crisis should be returned to the relevant program/department/unit.

Given the severity of the budget situation, it is recommended that all merit adjustments be done in the form of one-time merit payments (bonuses) until UWM regains financial sustainability. The linked document above suggests that other institutions have mechanisms for such adjustments; similar policy should be developed for implementation at UWM.

V. Reduce/simplify senior level campus administration
Crucial documents: Georgia State University Organizational Chart
University of Wisconsin-Madison Organizational Chart

UWM’s administration has grown organically over the years in support of our mission of furthering teaching, research and services. However, current resource constraints pose severe challenges. The conflicting realities in Wisconsin public higher education warrant a harder and deeper examination of whether the current university administrative structure provides optimal support for our mission.

Compared to aspirational peer Georgia State University as well as to our sister campus UW-Madison, UWM has more senior level campus administrators. Georgia State has two Senior Vice Presidents (academic affairs and finance/administrative affairs) at the functional level equivalent to UWM’s Vice Chancellor position, and six Vice Presidents at the functional level equivalent to UWM’s Associate Vice Chancellor position for a total of 8 senior level campus administrators. Payroll information indicates Madison has 5 Vice Chancellors and 6 Associate Vice Chancellors (source BFS), for a total of 11 senior level campus administrators. UWM has 6 Vice Chancellors and 8.75 FTE Associate Vice Chancellors, for a total of 14.75 senior level campus administrators.

Given this, CCOET recommends reducing the number of senior level campus administrators as part of an administrative reorganization that emphasizes effectiveness and is aligned with UWM’s mission, with a target implementation date of FY2018. This reorganization should be supported by a well-defined rationale for increasing effectiveness supported by metrics, and consistent with the overall goal to reduce the administrative burden at the campus level to one consistent with the severe mid-term revenue projections.

CCOET recognizes that such reorganization would result in increased administrative spans for senior administrators. However, as campus expenditures shrink due to budget constraints, administration does need to respond. Estimated savings by reducing administrative levels to the GSU/UW-Madison range are approximately $1 million salary by FY18 ($1.4 million with fringes). Exact savings are dependent on the precise route of such a reduction due to administrators with back-up positions.

Questions to be addressed by the subgroup:

How accurate are the estimates?
What is the method of calculation?
What other factors should be considered?
What other information do we need?

What are the negative consequences of pursuing the strategy?
What will we lose and what impact will it have on UWM’s mission?
What positive consequences might be realized? (less bureaucracy, greater academic synergy etc.)

Where has the strategy been implemented on other campuses?
What were the successful outcomes?
What were the unintended outcomes?
What were the pitfalls?
Which ideas are transferrable to UWM?

What can we do to limit or avoid negative consequences? (phased change, pilot change etc.)

What incentives can be developed that reward positive change that result in economy and stronger performance?

If the strategy is adopted, what procedural steps should be followed for successful implementation?
PRIMARY RECOMMENDATIONS (B3: Academic Reorganization)
Providing a workable framework supporting reorganization of academic and administrative units, emphasizing flexibility, cross-unit fertilization and efficiencies of scale. Some of these have originated within the units themselves and some may extend beyond the boundaries of the campus. Some have been prompted by current vacancies, others by the opportunities presented by interdisciplinary enrichment.
These discussions, which should be primarily driven by academic and not economic reasoning should be accelerated to create a better aligned, differentiated and more focused array of academic and administrative units. Incentives to drive reorganization should be built into the new budget model (e.g., credit sharing between units of enrollment and instruction; incentives for the combination of support and/or advising between units; incentives for early-career student success; etc.).
Estimated savings/revenues: $7 million by FY20

DRAFT Campus Academic Reorganization
UWM currently has 12 academic schools and colleges as well as a separate Graduate School, each with a dean, associate dean(s), and administrative support personnel. The academic schools and colleges are of vastly different sizes, serve student populations with diverse needs, and offer dissimilar levels of support to the students and varying levels of administrative service. These features result in potentially significant variations in the quality of student and employee experiences at UWM. In addition, over the years, silos have developed which have reduced collaboration between faculty and programs in different schools and colleges, resulting in duplication of courses, unexplored research synergies, and the potential stifling of the development of innovative programs of study for students.
A survey of peer urban institutions of similar or larger size to UWM has shown that for these schools, the number of schools and colleges (not including specialty schools such as medical schools) range between 7 and 10. This further suggests that UWM has more schools and colleges than ideal, and accordingly is carrying additional administrative costs.
In considering any academic reorganization, careful attention should be paid to UWM’s mission. As guiding principles reflecting that mission, any academic reorganization should improve, but at a minimum not harm, the student experience, and any academic reorganization should increase the likelihood of interdisciplinary research, instruction, and engagement activities. Furthermore, any academic reorganization should either decrease expenses or increase revenue, preferably both.
With these points in mind, CCOET recommends that UWM leadership undertake a review of the campus academic reorganization, with a goal of reducing redundant services through creating approximately 4 school/college clusters and potentially reducing the number of academic departments and / or academic schools and colleges. Furthermore, CCOET recommends that elimination of the Graduate School as a separate entity be considered in favor of a model where the majority of the current Graduate School functions are distributed to the remaining schools and colleges. In this scenario, the Graduate School could be replaced with a smaller Graduate Programs Office to handle campus-wide graduate program concerns. Additional proposed actions are listed below in the “Process for Implementation”.
Potential Financial Impact:
The amount of savings to be achieved through a reorganization of academic units is dependent on the number of units affected. Campus academic reorganization has been proposed or completed at other universities, and the savings that have been reported range from $400,000 to $1,000,000 per reorganized unit. These reorganizations were generally done in response to fiscal problems. In addition to savings, it is anticipated that a well-designed academic reorganization can potentially increase interdisciplinary research, resulting in increased external grant funding, and can spur the development of interprofessional education through new and/or revised degree programs that could increase enrollment. Some examples are as follows.
1) University of Southern Maine: Reduced the number of schools/colleges by 3 through consolidation. Through 3 fewer deans and fewer, larger departments, savings were estimated at $1.14 million – $1.38 million. (Comment: The process met with significant controversy and a no confidence vote on campus leadership.)
2) Idaho State University: Reduced the number of colleges by 2. The savings were estimated at $900,000. (Comment: The process was met with significant controversy and a no confidence vote.)
3) San Francisco State University: Proposed to reduce the number of colleges by 2 through consolidation. The estimated savings were $1 million. (Comment: The faculty developed a counter-proposal.)
4) University of Central Missouri: Reduced the number of colleges from 5 to 4, and the number of departments from 33 to 25. The estimated savings was $612,000.
5) University of Arizona: Created a College of Letters, Arts, and Sciences with an executive dean, combining 4 separate colleges (each with their own dean). The merging of services produced an estimated savings of $3.5 million.

As can be seen, these types of reorganizations, particularly when dictated from above, tend to meet great resistance from faculty, and do not necessarily result in tremendous cost savings. Thus, a decision to initiate a campus reorganization should include an analysis of the costs of time and human toll in a shared governance model, the impacts on students, as well as potential financial savings.
Increased revenue from significant campus reorganization will likely take several years to be realized, and the amount of increased revenue will depend on the interest and willingness of the faculty to collaborate with each other and campus leadership.

Potential Positive Benefits of Acadmic Reorganization
CCOET identified a number of positive benefits that can come about from academic department/unit reorganization, including the following. Reorganization could
· improve student services, faculty cooperation, and coordination of support services;
· reduce duplication of courses;
· facilitate economies of scale for support units (e.g., student recruitment, HR, research support, marketing, business functions, IT);
· lead to the development of new programs that are attractive to students.
· potentially inform the hiring of people in new positions that are better suited to this new model as current employees depart;
· streamline the experience for students in similar programs;
· increase interdisciplinary science and the amount and quality of research;
· reduce administrative costs, particularly in smaller schools and colleges;
· increase interprofessional education opportunities.

Potential Negative Consequences and Roadblocks
CCOET identified a number of potential negative consequences, including the following.
· Accreditation of selected programs may be compromised.
· Staff anxiety regarding job security may increase.
· The extended time necessary to achieve savings and reap increased revenue will not result in immediate budget relief.
· Faculty may resist changes, and departures of faculty may ensue.
· The transition may result in a reduction of positive functioning in some units.
· There may be significant costs related to redesign systems for combined services.
· Current and potential donors may not support the loss of independence of named schools.
· Cost savings may be lower than projected given the current lean staffing already in place at UWM.
· There is a potential loss of identity and community perception of excellence for some legacy schools and programs if grouped with other units.
· Determination the units to be merged may result in the perception of “winners” and “losers” on campus.
· Communication challenges – both internal and external – may result during the period of upheaval.
· The largest potential roadblock to an academic reorganization will likely be faculty buy-in and cooperation in the process.
Procedures to Minimize Damage to UWM’s Mission
Ideally, if done properly, any campus reorganization should aid UWM’s mission by providing a better educational experience for students and increasing research. To enhance UWM’s mission, any reorganization of campus academic units must be thoughtfully considered and implemented in an orderly fashion.

Process for Implementation
CCOET recommends that campus academic reorganization, particularly with respect to support units, take place. Through consideration of the available information and combined experience of its members, CCOET identified several aspects of any potential reorganization as those likely to drive the decision making on the process: (1) it is likely that the cost savings to be realized will not be worth the campus upheaval of a large-scale, top-down reorganization of schools and colleges; (2) most cost savings will occur from the combination of services that can be shared across campus units; (3) campus reorganization is most likely to be successful if it grows from a grass-roots faculty level; and (4) some small units may not be affordable from an administrative view as stand-alone units. With these aspects in mind, CCOET recommends that campus leadership undertake the following actions.
1) To begin the process, campus leadership should analyze the current organization of the campus, and identify schools/colleges/departments that may be better organized for future success and growth of the campus. Campus governance units should be engaged in this analysis.

2) Campus leadership should identify and implement incentives that promote reorganization of units.

3) Campus leadership should consider downsizing the Graduate School should be downsized to a Graduate Programs Office to oversee campus-wide graduate program issues, with the majority of current functions distributed to individual schools and colleges.

4) Campus leadership should consider merging of the School of Freshwater Sciences with CEAS, SARUP, or L&S.

5) Campus leadership should consider merging of the Zilber School of Public Health with the College of Health Sciences.

6) Campus leadership should identify and develop clusters around schools and colleges that share considerable synergy in their education and research directions (e.g., SOE and HBSSW, CON and CHS/ZSPH, CEAS and SARUP). Incentivize these clusters to share services (e.g., student recruitment, HR, research support, marketing, business functions, IT), and begin to increase cross-school cooperation of faculty on academic and research matters. Such clustering may realize most of the cost savings that are likely to occur through school and college reorganization without causing the significant upheaval of full merger at the school and college level.

7) Campus leadership should encourage all departmentalized schools and colleges to analyze their particular departmental structures to determine if department mergers might be beneficial.

8) To maintain the process over time, campus leadership should encourage and incentivize changes driven primarily by faculty initiative. For example, the Natural Sciences faculty in L&S has expressed interest in joining together with CEAS. (Note, these changes might be undertaken at a departmental or school/college-wide level.)

Implementation of this campus reorganization should be primarily the responsibility of the Provost and be done in consultation with the APBC.
It is recognized that the biggest potential roadblock to successful implementation of a campus reorganization is likely to be a lack of faculty buy-in and cooperation. Therefore, it is likely that incentives will need to be offered to encourage unit reorganization. Some possible incentives include the following.
· Hold units that participate in campus reorganization harmless from negative fiscal impact through use of the subvention fund for a longer period of time than units that do not participate.
· Provide researchers who receive funding on inter-disciplinary research projects with larger percentages of the indirect cost return.
· Guarantee that staff whose jobs are lost due to well-done reorganization will be given an opportunity to interview for comparable jobs elsewhere on campus as they open.
· Determine a new model for allocating student credit hours and tuition revenue.

Alternative Forms of Possible Campus Academic Reorganization
As discussed above, CCOET proposes exploring the merging of SFS and ZSPH into other units, while having other mergers driven by faculty, and clustering similar units together to share services. One possible configuration that may result from this approach is as follows.
Arrangement 1: Keep 10 colleges and schools as separate entities, each with a dean, but with the units clustered to combine services:
Cluster 1: College of Letters and Sciences (minus Natural Sciences), School of the Arts
Cluster 2: College of Nursing, Combined College of Health Sciences/School of Public Health
Cluster 3: School of Education, School of Social Work, Lubar School of Business
Cluster 4: SARUP, SOIS, College of Engineering and Applied Science (plus Natural Sciences)/ School of Freshwater Sciences

Alternatively, in the process used by CCOET, discussion ensued regarding a top-down reorganization approach. The potential pitfalls of such an approach have been stated above, but many possible forms for campus academic reorganization were suggested. Many of these are creative and potentially beneficial to the campus. If this approach is chosen, it is strongly recommended that campus governance committees be consulted to help develop a final form for campus academic reorganization. Below, three possible arrangements of units are presented as examples of what a final arrangement of units may look like. Clearly these are not the only possible arrangements, but are provided to suggest four types of scenarios.

Arrangement 2: Extreme Consolidation. Consists of two colleges, each headed by a dean.
College of Letters and Sciences College of the Professions

Arrangement 3: Combining of Current Schools and Colleges, mostly in their current form. The sample arrangement can easily be modified if it is deemed more appropriate to keep a particular unit separate.
College of the Arts and Humanities
Consists of current Arts and Humanities programs from L&S and the Peck School of the Arts
College of Engineering, Architecture, and Sciences
Consists of CEAS, SARUP, Freshwater Sciences and the L&S Natural Sciences
College of Health
Consists of College of Nursing, College of Health Sciences, School of Public Health
College of Education and Social Welfare
Consists of School of Education, School of Social Welfare, appropriate Social Sciences departments from L&S, and SOIS
School of Business and Entrepreneurship
Consists of School of Business and appropriate L&S Social Sciences departments

Arrangement 4: Similar to arrangement 3, but with more individual department relocation or reformation in the process.
School of Health
Combines SPH, CON, and elements of the College of Health Sciences
College of Education and Human Development
Combines School of Education (reducing from 5 to 3 departments), adds Kinesiology, Communication Science and Disorders, Health Informatics and Administration, and Bioinformatics program from CEAS
College of STEM
Combines, CEAS, SFS, and L&S Natural Sciences
College of Urban Public Policy
Combines HBSSW, and Departments of Public and Non-Profit Administration and Educational Policy and Community Studies
College of Liberal and Fine Arts
Combine PSOA, L&S Humanities and Social Sciences Department
College of Business
Combines School of Business and SOIS
School of the Environment
Combines SARUP with environmental studies programs from across campus


A rigorous review of all campus centers and institutes based upon output and alignment to UWM’s mission. Some of this reduction has already begun.
Estimated savings: $2 million

Faculty workload policies should be re-examined with an eye towards developing a flexible minimum workload model (for example, along the lines of the University of Texas System). This would provide more effective usage of faculty resources while directing individuals towards institutionally productive use of their collective time.
Estimated savings: $1 million

All expenditures made under Segregated Fees should be scrutinized and reduced with the intention of cutting the fee charged to students. While this does not directly affect the budget shortfall, it demonstrates an equity of economic effort across the whole campus and makes recruitment easier. All future hires should be published on the CCOET website.
Estimated revenues: Data from the State of Colorado System suggests an increase of %9.1 in admissions/enrollment for each $1000.00 reduction in tuition/fees. Hence, a $200.00 reduction in Segregated Fees may generate as much as a 1.8% increase in tuition ($3.6 million).

As the budget deficit is eased, a campus fund should be established to provide funding for growth areas, important initiatives directly focused on enrollment and the campus mission and faculty, staff and graduate student compensation.

The current plateau for both the undergraduate and graduate levels should be reviewed for conformance with national norms. Even a modest increase in each plateau would make a substantial addition to tuition income.

As a last resort, temporary savings can be achieved at a rate of $1 million each year for every day of furlough. Furloughs do not have to be administered equally across rank or pay rate.