December 18, 1995
Dear Chancellor Hemenway:
On behalf of the Campus-Wide Task Force on Administration and Reengineering, I am pleased to provide you with our first report. This report responds to the charge regarding restructuring administration; the other charges regarding cost savings and reengineering will be dealt with during the 1996 spring semester.
The report is founded on data collected by the Task Force in the preparation of this report. Because this data also will be consulted to address the remaining charges, we have not included it as an appendix to this report.
This report proposes two structural models for the senior administrative levels of the University.Most existing organizational units are included in the two models. However, approximately a dozen entities have not been placed on the organization charts at this time, as the Task Force believes before we can make fully informed recommendations additional study is needed.
In the development of the organizational models, the Task Force briefly discussed certain administrative functions, such as the concept of outsourcing or privatizing, but we are not prepared to address these matters in this report. They will be on our agenda during the next phase of the work of the Task Force.
The Task Force has responded diligently to its charges and it is estimated that collectively members spent over 2,000 hours leading to the preparation of this report.
We look forward to meeting with you to discuss this report.
Sincerely,
Stephen R. Schroeder
Chair
PART I: Restructuring Task Force Members:
The University of Kansas
December 18, 1995
INTRODUCTION In August, 1995, Chancellor Robert Hemenway appointed a Task Force consisting of a broad cross-section of members of the Lawrence campus of the University of Kansas. The Task Force was given three charges:
The mandate was confined to the Lawrence campus. This report focuses on the first charge; the latter two will be dealt with during the Spring 1996 semester.
As the Task Force considered the three charges, it became apparent that streamlining and restructuring administration cannot be accomplished without identifying and considering administrative processes that might need to be reengineered. Therefore, our strategy involved collecting information on all three charges, so that responses to one charge informed the other two. Our work plan consisted of four phases, each approximately one month long: discovery, deliberation, drafting, and delivery. The first phase took about six weeks to allow for group formation and for data collection.
Data collection on the three charges was multidimensional: 1) approximately 5,000 written invitations to address the issues identified by the Chancellor were sent to all faculty and staff. Open invitations also were extended via the mass media to students and to the public on radio (KLWN, KJHK), on TV (Channel 14), and in the newspapers (University Daily Kansan, Oread, Lawrence Journal World, Wichita Eagle Beacon); 2) interviews were conducted by the entire Task Force with the Executive Vice Chancellor, each of the Vice Chancellors, the University Director of Administration, and the Associate Executive Vice Chancellor; 3) discussions with thirteen focus groups covering virtually every sector of the University were conducted by two-member teams from the Task Force; and 4) one-on-one interviews of selected key individuals important to the history of administration at the University of Kansas also occurred.
Confidentiality of respondents' comments to the Task Force was maintained. Our general conclusion is that the respondents' remarks were constructive and thoughtful. They reflected love and dedication to the University of Kansas. Even when frustrations were expressed, they were in the context that the University of Kansas is a great place to work and go to school.
The Task Force was guided by the following values, upon which a restructured, reorganized, and reengineered University should be built:
The core mandate of the University of Kansas is education for the people of Kansas through:
Reflecting the centrality of its academic mission, KU's administrative structure should be student-focused.
KU's administrative structure must be responsive to the needs of its consumers, i.e., students, faculty, staff, and the public, and to the ever-changing environment in which we work and live.
The administrative structure should embody the qualities of openness, collegiality, and shared responsibility among administrators, faculty and students.
In accordance with the above principles, the Task Force makes several recommendations in this report that we believe will enable KU to realize its academic mission more efficiently and effectively. We emphasize that this is only a step in the process of restructuring and reengineering. Our purpose is to provide a working document with options for the Chancellor's consideration.
INTRODUCTION
An examination of the administrative structures of some twenty research universities revealed a variety of models. Many shared similar characteristics but no two were identical. Culture, traditions, and distinctive needs shaped how institutions organized to accomplish their missions. The administrative structure of the University of Kansas has changed throughout its history to respond to differing issues and concerns. The current structure (Figure 1) evolved from a structure defined about twenty years ago based on the need to more closely align the Medical Center campus with the Lawrence campus. The extensive information collected by the Task Force suggests that our needs are different today.
PROCESS
The Task Force focused upon several major issues that emerged from the discovery phase of its investigations. These involved both structural--i.e., organizational--issues and issues involving processes--the procedures whereby policies and goals of the University are implemented. Following several sessions dedicated to collective deliberation, the Task Force divided into three groups. Each group was charged with independently developing an overall administrative structure, as well as examining specific issues. Those issues were: 1) administrative services, 2) research, research infrastructure, and technology, and 3) student services and institutional advancement. After examining the three proposed structures, the Task Force revisited the key issues, identifying areas of agreement regarding structural issues and areas where options need to be developed. From these discussions emerged two structural models, which form the basis of this report.
MAJOR ISSUES
Drawing upon the data provided by members of the University community, the Task Force addressed six major areas in the administrative structure. Task Force members concur on these issues although there are differing views about the structural arrangements that best address these issues.
Alphabetically, these issues include:
Each of these major issues is discussed below.
Administrative Support Services
In the current structure, support units [Business and Fiscal Affairs; Facilities Management (Design and Construction Management, Facilities Operations, Parking); Capital Programs, Information Technology (Computing Services, Networking and Telecommunication Services, Printing), Human Resources, Police, Institutional Research and Planning/Data Management] report to the University Director of Administration, who reports to the Chancellor. These units do not report to a chief operating officer for the Lawrence campus. While these units directly impact the academic mission of the University, they function outside the purview of the academic sphere.
Chief Operating Officer for the Lawrence Campus
The Lawrence campus needs a chief operating officer to whom all other senior officers report. The Executive Vice Chancellor in the current structure does not function as the chief operating officer of the Lawrence campus. The current structure places that office at a level equal with the University Director of Administration.
Graduate School
In the current structure, the Graduate School is one of three distinct responsibilities of the Vice Chancellor for Research, Graduate Studies, and Public Service. Consequently, the primary advocate for graduate education is neither integrated within the academic organization of the University nor strategically placed to serve a unified educational mission. Furthermore, the role of a graduate dean differs sharply from that of a vice chancellor for research. The dean must be a leader in the scholarly enterprise while the vice chancellor for research must provide leadership in the entrepreneurial/executive realm of research support and development. These are two distinctly different responsibilities.
Information Technology
In the current structure, Information Technology (comprised of Computing Services, Networking and Telecommunications Services, and Printing) reports to the University Director of Administration. Technology is essential to the creation, validation, preservation, and dissemination of knowledge, which is at the heart of the University's academic and research missions. The current structure, however, does not promote the integration of technology into the academic and research missions of the institution. As a result, many entities within the University have created their owncomputing and networking staffs and infrastructures. This is a natural outgrowth of the rapid improvement in the capabilities of computers and networking hardware, their increased ease of use, and their reduction in cost. The clear trend in this technology is away from centralized computing facilities and toward distributed facilities.
Distributed facilities are closer to the end-user and thus can be more responsive to their needs. The structure of the University must recognize this fact and develop effective means to respond to the dynamic environment characteristic of information technology while maintaining user-friendly services throughout the University.
Institutional Advancement
External relations and institutional advancement activities play a critical role in the well-being of the University. KU is very successful in raising funds to support the institution beyond the provisions made by the Kansas legislature. Likewise, KU has an effective alumni organization. However, closer coordination of these efforts along with Governmental Relations and University Relations could advance the institution and its constituencies more effectively. A more consistent message about the work of the University needs to be articulated and promoted.
Research Infrastructure
The research infrastructure varies enormously across the institution. Some research centers (e.g., Center for Research, Inc. (CRINC); Schiefelbusch Institute for Life Span Studies; Higuchi Biosciences Center) provide excellent, seamless services from proposal inception to final accounting of grants awarded. Researchers not associated with these few centers, however, are mostly dependent on central facilities on campus. Central support for research is very limited and not coordinated by a single organization. Accordingly, the infrastructure in support of research varies widely depending upon the organizational unit with which an individual researcher is affiliated.
As viewed here, the infrastructure for research includes all human, material, monetary, and organizational resources that directly serve the research mission of the University. The human resources include those individuals charged with institutional leadership and advocacy of research, and the staff whose presence and function derive from the research mission; faculty and students who perform the research also might be included. Material resources include the laboratories; shops; library; computer facilities; instrumentation apparatus and equipment; other communication, service, and information facilities; and certain offices. Monetary resources coming from research consist of the federal, state, private, and industrial grants and contracts garnered by faculty and the overhead those funds generate.
The organizational component of research infrastructure should:
In a comprehensive University, it is essential that the research infrastructure serve all disciplines equitably, whether the organizational model be centralized or decentralized.
Two models that focus on the senior administrative structure of the University are at the heart of this report. These models emerged after extensive discussions within the Task Force. In response to the major issues stated earlier, a number of elements are common to the two models:
In both models, the General Counsel, the Office of Institutional Advancement, the KU Athletic Corporation, a University-wide/Financial Officer, and Internal Audit are all contained in the Chancellor's general staff organization. The basic difference between the two models centers on the role of the chief operating officer/chief academic officer for the Lawrence campus and the relationship between the chief research officer and the head of academic affairs. Options implicit in the two basic models are related to the placement of certain support activities.
[Note: KU's term Vice Chancellor for senior administrators is interchangeable with other titles such as Vice Provost or Vice President in the organizational models that follow.]
In Model 1, the chief operating officer/chief academic officer is the Provost who is responsible for coordinating all support services with the teaching and research missions of the University. The leaders of all major functions on campus operate in parallel and report to the Provost. The Vice Chancellor for Research is in a position parallel to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, the Vice Chancellor for Students Affairs, and certain other senior administrative officers.
Model 1 maintains the Academic Affairs and research structures largely as we know them, with the exception of moving the Graduate School to Academic Affairs and creating a Research Foundation.
In Model 2, the Provost is both the chief operating officer/chief academic officer and also serves as the head of academic affairs. This model further emphasizes the centrality of the teaching and research mission and service to the student body by gathering the corresponding administrative units within a core organizational structure. The support units' service to the mission of the University is clear from their reporting responsibility to the Provost.
In Model 2, the Provost would have more direct day-to-day involvement in and control over the academic mission activities. This is reflected in the concept of the Office of the Provost which contains the academic functions, including teaching, research, student affairs, and academic support services. It is further reflected in the structure wherein the Deans of the College and the Schools report directly to the Provost.
In place of the current Academic Affairs structure, Model 2 creates an undergraduate affairs, graduate affairs, and academic support unit, and a separate reporting line for the Deans of the College and Schools.
Administrative Support Services
The Task Force recommends that the following administrative support functions report to the Provost through the chief administrative/financial officer: Facilities Management (Design and Construction Management, Facilities Operations, Parking); Capital Programs, Printing, Human Resources, Police.
Advantages:
Graduate School
The Task Force recommends that the Graduate School and the oversight of graduate studies be placed within the purview of the academic sphere. The Graduate Dean would be an advocate and spokesperson for graduate studies, thereby emphasizing the inseparability of teaching and research.
Advantages:
Information Technology
The Task Force recommends the creation of a Chief Technical Officer (CTO) who would report to the Provost of the Lawrence campus. The CTO would be advised by a board composed of information technology users. The CTO would be charged with the following responsibilities:
advantages:
institutional advancement<>
The Task Force recommends the creation of the position of Director of Institutional Advancement to coordinate and/or direct the agencies charged with advancing the interests of the University to a wide variety of constituencies. It is further recommended that this position report directly to the Chancellor because these functions are not restricted to the Lawrence campus but are of concern to the University as a whole. While the KU Endowment Association and the KU Alumni Association are separately incorporated entities, a closer working relationship on key activities would help advance the University. This position would assist the Chancellor in that effort. The position would be directly responsible for Governmental Relations, University Relations, KANU, and Audio Reader. The Task Force recommends that KANU and Audio Reader be assigned to this function since this position is responsible for articulating and communicating information about the University.
Advantages:
Research Foundation
The Task Force recommends the creation of a research foundation to administer all research activities in the University and to provide all essential services for the management of sponsored research, technology transfer, and research funds development. This foundation should have the characteristics of the Center for Research, Incorporated (CRINC). The chief research officer of the campus would serve as the president of the foundation, thereby ensuring that the foundation would be integrated fully within the University administrative structure. The primary responsibilities of the foundation would be:
Advantages:
The Task Force concurs in recommending the creation of the position of Provost who would serve as both chief operating and academic officer for the Lawrence campus. The two models differ primarily in the organization of responsibilities for Academic Affairs and reporting lines of the academic deans.
Model 1
Advantages:
Model 2
Advantages:
Based on extensive feedback from the University community and information collected from two focus groups composed separately of the users and providers of certain services to research, the Task Force recognizes the critical role research plays in the University and the need for visibility of the enterprise.
Both models recommend a Vice Chancellor for Research who would have wide ranging responsibilities for the support, promotion, and development of research. Model 1 includes this position on a parallel with the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. In contrast, Model 2 incorporates the responsibilities of Academic Affairs in the position of the Provost, to whom the chief research officer then reports as a part of the Office of the Provost. Otherwise, the level and visibility of the chief research officer remain the same in the two models.
In both models the Vice Chancellor for Research plays a role in the hiring of new faculty by making the case for consideration of research activities, where appropriate, when a position is filled and by playing a role in the search process. The visibility of the office would also make the University more attractive to recruited faculty who want to develop strong, externally-funded research programs.
Model 1
Advantages:
Model 2
Advantages:
In addition to the major issues already discussed, other possible organizational issues were identified. Placement of the following areas in the structure of the University require additional study before any informed recommendations can be made.
Copyright © 2008 by the University of Kansas
Email Page
Print Page