1 / 17

Academic Programs & Administrative Services Prioritization (APASP) Task Force

This overview discusses the reasons institutions prioritize academic programs and administrative services, as well as the importance of prioritization for the University of Mississippi. It also outlines the charge of the APASP Task Force, critical decisions to be made, potential criteria for evaluation, expected action steps, and the process summary for both academic programs and administrative services.

jeffry
Download Presentation

Academic Programs & Administrative Services Prioritization (APASP) Task Force

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Orientation Overview April 14, 2017 Academic Programs & Administrative Services Prioritization (APASP) Task Force

  2. Why Institutions Prioritize • Decreasing state revenues • Support strategic priorities • Better use of resources • Inform budget decisions • Improve quality and outcomes • Create contingency and reserve fund

  3. Why UM Should Prioritize • Build on our strengths/reputation • Identify opportunities to increase revenues/decrease expenses • Address current budgets and reductions strategically • Adequate operational funding

  4. APASP Task Force Charge • Provide advice, guidance, and oversight • Establish the necessary components • Develop a set of recommendations • Secondary charge: to recommend components of the prioritization process that can be incorporated into our ongoing systematic review

  5. Critical Decisions for APASP TF (1 of 3) • Units of Analysis How will TF define “academic program” and “administrative service”? Typical academic programs include • Major • Minor • General studies • Service • Graduate/professional • Certificate • Institute • Other

  6. Critical Decisions for APASP TF (2 of 3) • List of units to be analyzed for acad. programs & admin. services • Metrics • Criteria for acad. programs & admin. services • Weights & formula • Review process • Rubric for analysis

  7. Critical Decisions for APASP TF (3 of 3) • Categories for ranking • Actions associated with categories of ranking • Timelines for completion of key actions • Development of report templates • Process for reaching consensus • Appeal process

  8. Potential Criteria (1 of 2) • History, development, & expectations of the program • External demand for the program • Internal demand for the program • Quality of program inputs & processes • Quality of program outcomes

  9. Potential Criteria (2 of 2) • Size, scope, & productivity • Revenue & other resources generated by the program • Cost & other expenses associated with the program • Impact, justification, & overall essentiality • Opportunity analysis of the program

  10. Expected Action Steps (1 of 3) Expected Action Steps: Dates in _____ represent those which are negotiable based on Task Force recommendations. Dates in _____ represent those which need to be met as indicated.

  11. Expected Actions Steps (2 of 3)

  12. Expected Action Steps (3 of 3)

  13. Process Summary Academic Programs • APASP Task Force provides guidance • Deans work with chairs/faculty to conduct analysis of units • Deans, chairs, & faculty prepare forms with summary • Using rubric and criterion, assign numeric value • Deans review summaries • Deans rank programs • Deans submit proposed program rankings • APASP Task Force reviews recommendations and determines final rankings

  14. Process Summary Administrative Services • APASP Task Force provides guidance • Admin. unit leaders work with directors/staff to conduct analysis of units • Admin. unit leaders, directors, staff prepare forms with summary • Using rubric and criterion, assign numeric value • Admin. unit leaders, directors, staff review summaries • Admin. unit leaders rank programs/services • Admin. unit leaders submit proposed program rankings • APASP Task Force reviews recommendations and determines final rankings

  15. Operational Parameters • University strategic plan • Flat enrollment projections for FY18 and FY19 of 11,000 student FTE • Budget reductions for FY18 and FY19 • Faculty/student FTE ratio of 16.5:1 or higher • Staff/faculty FTE ratio of 1.4:1 or higher • Range of category rankings anchored by areas for growth/ strengthening and areas for discontinuation/reductions • Strategic planning foundation • Creating a communication process • Designated time frame

  16. Importance of Ranking Categories and Associated Actions Anchors Strengthen/ Expand Discontinue/ Moratorium Other Actions Associated with Rankings

  17. Other Decisions • Configuration of APASP Task Force into working groups • Ex Officio support • Task Assignments • Communications strategies • Other

More Related