1. ACADEMIC REORGANIZATION: THOUGHTS ON A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK & TIMELINE ST. CLOUD STATE UNIVERSITY March 23, 2010

2. Why Reorganization  Our initial SPA work has brought the need for comprehensive reorganization more clearly into focus  Along the way we have learned about our organization and developed our internal capacity

3. Why Reorganization Our current organizational structure was created for what our University used to be, not what we need to be in the future  Our students are more heterogeneous than ever before requiring more responsive support structures  Increasingly our students need a more integrated educational experience  The external demand for new academic programs requires greater flexibility and responsiveness than currently exists  New programs are coming from interdisciplinary and multi- disciplinary collaborations which we struggle to support  Technology and information systems can be better leveraged to provide more effective and efficient services and support

4. Why Now  The proportion of our revenue coming from state allocation is decreasing while our student FYE is increasing  We have addressed budget reductions for three years with no layoffs:  FY09 unallotment: $1,653,522  FY10 budget cut: $5,162,098  FY11 estimated cut: $6 million  We must address a $15 million budget gap in FY12  While others are cutting, we are keeping our approach solidly grounded in our strategic thinking  SPA is integral to reorganization and must be completed within the reorganization timeline

5. Decline in state allocation as a proportion of revenue vs. Student FYE growth State allocation as proportion of revenue Total student FYE

6. Outcomes  We need a structure that supports a truly collaborative community designed to achieve our strategic vision that:  Provides a high quality, integrated learning experience for our students  Increases our ability to create new knowledge and grow interdisciplinary work  Encourages and rewards innovation to easily respond to changing student, institutional, and societal needs  Supports our strategic priorities  Strengthens programs and preserves instructional capacity  Aligns programs and reduces redundancy and administrative overhead  Decentralizes decision structures to empower people  Establishes easily identifiable pathways for faculty, staff, students and the external community to locate services across the organization  Provides coordinated connections to external stakeholders

7. Structural Characteristics Our initial thinking on reorganization:  A college has set of schools; a school has a set of departments and programs  Schools may contain/collaborate in:  Centers (entities for reaching a market across schools)  Institutes (entities for reaching a market across colleges)  Affinity groups (entities for innovation development, incubation and information/best practice sharing

8. Structural Characteristics  Centralized support services at the school level  Office administrative support with “experts”  Professional staff or reassigned faculty  Information system/networking technology for affinity group management and support  Structures to support external connections  Admission and advising structures that move students into colleges and programs more quickly and successfully  Formal and informal communication channels to increase information sharing and response time  Redesigned budget structures that rewards innovation and strategic, student-centered programs and services

9. Process Components  Steering Group (sub-set of Strategic Planning Committee)  Process plan and budget  Conceptual framework and outcomes  Phase II program reports  College, department, and academic program reorganization  Administrative and support staff reorganization  Process for affinity groups to self-identify and organize  Budget planning and allocation process redesign

10. Process Components  Center and Institute definitions and criteria developed  Physical space redesign and redistribution  New Initiative Development process  Student admissions policies reviewed and updated  Policy and procedures impacted by reorganization reviewed and updated (for example)  Curriculum development  Program review  Hiring  Committee structures

11. Process Components  Non-academic unit impact assessment  Web site, bulletin, admission and marketing materials update  ISRS course/program/department/college relationship update and alignment  Budget update and alignment

12. Timeline for Reorganization Spring 10Summer 10Fall 10Spring 11Summer 11 Reorganization Steering Group Conceptual framework and outcomes Reorganization process & budget Phase II reports (Group 2) Academic program reorganization planning Administrative & support staff reorganization Physical space redesign and distribution Non-tenured faculty retrenchment notification (Aug. 1) Tenured faculty retrenchment notification (Sept. 20) Faculty re-rostering (March 1) Budget planning and allocation process redesign Policy & procedure review and update Non-instructional program review & reorganization Admission, web site, bulletin update ISRS update and alignment Budget update and alignment FY12 begins New organizational structure finalized IFO contractual obligations 12