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

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
Graduate/professional
Minor
Certificate
General studies
Institute
Service
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.
Actions
 Target Date Accomplished
Members of APASP Task Force appointed by the President and provided charge
April
APASP Task Force holds first meeting (a schedule of regular meetings is being developed and will be posted)
April 6, 2017
APASP Task Force receives potential metrics for review and feedback
April 14, 2017
APASP Task Force distributes potential metrics and units of analysis to University community for review and feedback
April 2017??
Feedback from community and UM shared governance bodies review due to APASP Task Force
April 17, 2017??
APASP Task Force reviews and adopts metrics
April 21, 2017??
APASP Task Force develops key operational definitions and shares them with University Community
Institutional Research populates data sets associated with metrics and distributes to unit heads for review/feedback
April 24, 2017??
Feedback from unit heads due to IR
May 1, 2017??

11. Expected Actions Steps (2 of 3)
Actions
Target Date Accomplished
APASP Task Force develops:
Comprehensive list of all program and services to be reviewed
Criteria by which assessment reports will be measured
Weights and formulas to be used
Categories of rankings and associated actions
Clearly defined operational parameters (some of which will be subject to Regent level decisions made at the May Board meeting). (ASUM suggestion)
Rubric to be used in review process for ranking by APASP Task Force
Template for use by units to prepare narrative assessment reports
Guidance for units to use in completing reports and or in reviewing of reports
May 15– 29, 2017??
Clear budgetary guidance based on Legislative appropriations and potential adjustments from May 25 & 26 Board is developed/provided from the University Budget Committee (ASUM suggestion)
May 2017???

12. Expected Action Steps (3 of 3)
Actions
Target Date Accomplished
Academic/administrative unit heads briefed on process/time line for completion etc.
Early June 2017
APASP Task Force representative briefs Forward 125 and/or Cabinet on process to be used
Academic and administrative units prepare assessment reports for each program/unit identified using metrics, criteria templates and guidelines developed by APASP Task Force
June 2017
Preliminary recommendations developed by APASP Task Force
August 2017
APASP Task Force representatives presents final recommendations to President & President’s Cabinet
August (mid to late) 2017
Recommendations presented by APASP Task Force/Cabinet to University community
August (late) 2017
APASP Task Force works with units to develop specific plans to implement recommendations
Beginning in September 2017
UM to present APASP Recommendations to OCHE/BOR via ARSA Meeting on campus
October 26, 2017
Implementation of action plans/steps based on the individual prioritization recommendations begin
November 2017

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