1. The Structure of Communications Functions at the University of Oregon Project Team: Tom Akers, Psychology IT Bryan Dearinger, General Counsel’s Office David Diez Goicoechea, International Affairs Julia Heydon, Oregon Humanities Center Alison Mildrexler, Environmental Studies Program Jamie Sandoval-Scott, Business Affairs Office Project Advisor: Tim Clevenger, Assoc. VP for Communications, Marketing & Brand Management

2. Our charge To examine the current decentralized communications structure at the UO, and determine whether the university could save money and operate more effectively by structuring communications functions differently Our strategy and work plan: Clarify project goals and objectives (ongoing process) Develop and conduct an electronic survey of UO communicators Research communications models at several other universities Conduct personal interviews/conversations with key communications staff at the UO and at other universities

3. Campus communications survey Original plan was to survey approximately 120 UO “campus communicators” and designers to gain a comprehensive picture of communications efforts on campus In the middle of the FSI project period, a campus-wide assessment of the communications operation was announced by Interim President Coltrane Instead of conducting a comprehensive survey, we were asked to survey a small group of key communications managers as a pilot project for the larger initiative Surveyed 14 key communicators representing all of the major Schools and Colleges, plus OBF, JSMA, MNCH, Enrollment Management, Student Life, International Affairs, and UO Libraries 41 questions about the types and frequency of communications, audiences, communications staff FTE, specific skills and duties, and relationship to Marketing Communications (MarCom), etc.

4. Cost-effectiveness of current structure To arrive at an accurate cost estimate would require that we: Document all current communications efforts on campus and their purpose Determine what portion of the FTE of each of the approximately 120 “campus communicators” is devoted to communications work Determine how much communications work is being done by faculty, students, and grad students that is not factored into current cost estimates Review all communications materials currently being produced to determine if they should be continued, discontinued, or altered in some way Because we were asked to significantly reduce the scope of our survey due to the campus-wide Communications assessment announced in March, we were unable to collect sufficient data during the project period to meaningfully estimate the current cost of communications at the UO.

5. Some concerns expressed by MarCom Inconsistent adherence to new brand style guidelines; lack of cohesive graphic identity Embedded staff may lack expertise in multiple skill areas, leading to unbalanced approaches to communications solutions Embedded staff may lack knowledge concerning emerging trends, new technologies, and innovative approaches to marketing and communications Potential cost inefficiencies in having decentralized staff provide tactical communications services, e.g. print and web design, writing, editing, etc. (currently under study by MarCom) Concern about potential “over communication” i.e., multiple communications from various sources going to a particular audience Media relations concerns: units might communicate with media about issues that could cause a reputational concern for the institution. Central staff do not always know what is going on at the unit level `

6. Survey of other institutions 5 comparators selected for review: OSU, WSU, UCLA, Michigan State, and Stanford Methodology: extensive review of websites and personal conversations with communications professionals Findings: Most universities we surveyed have a structure similar to the UO’s current structure; WSU was the exception (WSU is largely but not entirely centralized) All have strong, vibrant brands supported by excellent online tools, and frequent interaction with campus communicators OSU is exemplary in the way it manages its decentralized communications environment; WSU is a good example of a successful hybrid environment Either structure can work – the key is ongoing communication and collaboration

7. Advantages of current structure at UO MarCom determines the institution’s overall communication strategies, priorities, goals, and standards, and provides tools and guidance for tactical realization A full range of services (design, writing, editing, web design, videography etc.) is available through MarCom for units that want or need them Embedded staff have specific content knowledge and a nuanced understanding of their unit’s culture and communication objectives (promotes accuracy, efficiency) Embedded staff can effectively coordinate the content of multiple communications platforms within their units (print and electronic media, websites, social media, etc.) Units can produce communications materials in a timely and efficient manner, responding quickly to changing information or shifting departmental/unit priorities Many embedded communications staff provide additional work functions in their units, allowing for an efficient use of personnel budgets and FTE, especially in smaller units

8. Potential advantages of a more centralized structure Better control over institution’s brand and messaging; opportunity to present a more cohesive, consistent graphic identity Potential for more control over quality of communications materials being produced Potential financial savings and cost efficiencies; avoiding duplication of effort (currently being investigated by MarCom) Potential for greater job satisfaction for creative staff – working in teams, sharing ideas, repurposing of materials for multiple uses/platforms (also possible in decentralized environment) Better coordination of materials being disseminated to various audiences (e.g. alumni, donors, prospective students, etc.) Note: Branding concerns pertain primarily to external communications

9. Summary of findings The UO is a complex and multifaceted organization, with many different audiences and communications needs Communications staff (and colleagues) at the UO are accomplishing a lot with relatively limited resources; embedded staff are generally highly skilled & effective The new brand is not yet being used consistently by all units on campus, though communicators seem willing and eager to incorporate it into their work The assessment currently underway may reveal areas of under-utilization of current communications staff, or areas where additional staff are needed The current communications structure at the UO is:  Functional overall, though there is room for improvement  Similar to that at many of our comparator institutions Both decentralized and centralized university communications models can work – they each have advantages and disadvantages

10. Summary of findings – continued The main issues/concerns at the UO are not necessarily structural The key to success in both models is regular internal communication, adequate training, and creating a collaborative work environment  Building and managing relationships with stakeholders; turning them into partners  Establishing trust through regular communication (in multiple forms)  Facilitating collaboration and information sharing through frequent meetings  Keeping staff informed about central priorities, initiatives, strategies, concerns  Providing ongoing training, guidance, and support  Sharing best practices (both directions)

11. Recommendations Complete campus-wide assessment; create a task force of Core Communicators to review survey findings and make recommendations Consult with peers at other institutions regarding successful practices Hold regular monthly meetings with Core Communicators; share communications priorities and concerns, and engage in collaborative problem-solving Continue regular quarterly meetings for all Campus Communicators (information sharing, networking, professional development, problem-solving, workshops) Meet regularly with core campus units (academic and admin.) to stay abreast of emerging trends, issues Continue to facilitate regular meetings of smaller focus groups (e.g. Story Tellers) Hire roving “Brand Manager” to assist with brand compliance/support Continue to develop, enhance, and advertise online tools and training resources Offer training/mentoring to all new and existing communications staff Establish interactive website or blog for campus communicators

12. Questions?