Optimizing Program Development

Heather Bouillon, Sally Heath, Lisa Kuron Wilfrid Laurier University

Session Agenda

• Introductions • Context Setting • Laurier’s New Program Development Model • Discussion

2

Laurier Context

3

18,596 2+3 117

4

Process Change Influencers

5

Institutional Quality

Assurance Procedures

(2011)

Integrated Planning and

Resource Management

Exercise (2012-2014)

Negotiations of Strategic

Mandate Agreements

(2014)

Changes to MAESD Program Approval Process (2014)

Strategic Academic

Plan (2015-2020)

RCM Budget Model

(2017-2018)

External Drivers

6

Reconciling Competing Priorities

Proposal Authors: Academic Quality, Departmental

Reputation

University: Financial Viability, Revenue Generation, Strategic Fit

7

8

Stage 1: Statement of Intent

New Program idea

Consult with Quality Assurance Office

Define parameters for and conduct market

analysis

Use known parameters to create

draft budget

Use market analysis and budget to develop

Statement of Intent

9

Step 1: New Program Ideas

• Ideas for new programs driven by academic units to:

– Increase range of degree level offerings (i.e. addition of graduate programs)

– Respond to new trends in the discipline or market (i.e. Data Science)

– Capture new segment of student market (i.e. BSW) – Align with faculty research interests – Improve departmental reputation

10

New Program idea

Consult with Quality

Assurance Office

Define parameters for and conduct

market analysis

Use known parameters to create draft

budget

Use market analysis and budget to

develop SOI

Step 2: Consult with QAO

• Plan time lines and develop work plan, working backwards from desired start date

• Connect proposal author(s) with relevant support units

11

New Program idea

Consult with Quality

Assurance Office

Define parameters for and conduct

market analysis

Use known parameters to create draft

budget

Use market analysis and budget to

develop SOI

Step 3: Define Parameters for & Conduct Market Analysis

New Program idea

Consult with Quality

Assurance Office

Define parameters for and conduct

market analysis

Use known parameters to create draft

budget

Use market analysis and budget to

develop SOI

12

• Parameters vary depending on project needs • E.g., Tuition, curriculum, labour market needs

• Offers data to support decisions; acts as a gatekeeper

• Paid for by faculty

Step 4: Create Draft Budget New Program

idea

Consult with Quality

Assurance Office

Define parameters for and conduct

market analysis

Use known parameters to create draft

budget

Use market analysis and budget to

develop SOI

13

Step 5: Use Market Analysis and Budget to Inform SOI

• Institutional fit • Strategic Mandate Agreement Alignment • Relationship to IPRM • Tuition and Program Costs • Justifiable Duplication • Evidence of Societal and Labour Market Need • Evidence of Student Demand • Enrolment Planning • Experiential Learning

14

New Program idea

Consult with Quality

Assurance Office

Define parameters for and conduct

market analysis

Use known parameters to create draft

budget

Use market analysis and budget to

develop SOI

The Details…

15

Step 3: Potential Data Sources

16

• Government data (e.g., workingincanada.gc.ca) • Job advertisements • White papers, industry reports, newspapers • Meetings/focus groups with employers, alumni,

current students • Institutional data (e.g., enrolment, graduation rates)

– Common University Data Ontario

Societal/Labour Market Demand

17

Student Demand

18

Market Differentiation

19

Market Differentiation

20

Market Differentiation

21

Step 4: More Information Available

22

Financial Modelling Process

23

Resource Summary Form

Draft Budget

Check to SOI

Full Budget Development

SOI 5 Year Budget Inputs

24

Students

Intake each year

Retention Rate

Tuition Rate

Grant Information

Program Information

# of Courses

Required vs. elective breakdown

Existing elective capacity

Teaching Mix

Average courses taught

Specific Direct Costs

Staff

Basic Operating Expenses

Other Information

Equipment Needs

Space Needs

Delivery Needs

Qualitative – further Investigation required

Inputs Standard Mix

Full 5 Year Program Budget Inputs

25

Students

Intake each year

Intake mix

Retention Rate

Tuition Rate

Grant Information

Program Information

# of NEW Courses

# of labs/tutorials

Required vs. elective breakdown

Existing elective capacity

Teaching Mix

Average courses taught

Specific Direct Costs

Staff

Full-time Faculty Resources

Part-time Faculty Resources

Basic Operating Expenses

Other Information

Equipment Needs

Space Needs

Delivery Needs

Quantitative – further Investigation complete

Inputs Standard Mix

Calculation of Faculty Resources

26

Course No. of Students Max. Class Size Total Sections Course No. of Students Max. Class Size Total Sections

HB101 38 80 1 HB101 51 80 1

HB102 38 80 1 HB102 51 80 1

0 38 0 0 51 0 0

0 38 0 0 51 0 0

0 38 0 0 51 0 0

0 38 0 0 51 0 0

HB200 34 60 1

HB201 34 60 1

HB202 34 60 1

HB203 34 60 1

0 34 60 1

0 34 60 1

New Courses (Major):

Year 1 2016/2017 Year 2 2017/2018

• From total sections required each year, can confirm full-time faculty resources with planning group with reference to institutional metrics

• Balance of sections are taught by sessional faculty

Internal Resources

27

• Templates are developed within the VPA’s office and reviewed each year

• VPA’s office also develops and reviews a list of standard costs and inputs each year, in consultation with relevant internal experts

• Faculty Financial Analysts develop the program budgets and log process on a shared drive

• VPA’s office reviews before any presentation (e.g. to Dean’s council, Senate Finance etc.)

Stage 2: Proposal Approval

Proposal drafted

Proposal approved by internal committees

Proposal reviewed by external experts

Proposal finishes internal approval

stages

Proposal sent out for external approval

(quality and funding)

28

29

Internal Approvals Required

30

Unit-level curriculum procedures

Faculty / Divisional Council

Program Review Sub-Committee

External Review

Senate Academic Planning

Senate Finance Committee

Senate

External Approvals Required

31

Senate

Ontario Universities Council on Quality

Assurance

Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills

Development

Curricular Quality

Funding Eligibility

MAESD Program Approval Requests

2012 • Brief Description • Certification of societal need

by executive head • Evidence of justifiable

duplication

2016 • Alignment with university’s

Strategic Mandate Agreement • Internal / external tuition

comparators • Justifiable duplication • Evidence of Societal / labour

market need • Evidence of student demand • Enrolment planning • Experiential learning • Program prioritization

initiatives

32

The times, they are a changin’…

Excerpt from 2012 funding approval request: “The MA in CM is a “niche” program that duplicates no other program in Canada.”

Excerpt from a 2016 funding approval request: There are a few examples of comparable programs at other Ontario universities, but none that are direct competitors due to Laurier’s design focus (digital and physical), hands-on learning, and the inclusion of liberal arts into the program curriculum. Ryerson University’s Faculty of Communications and Design offers related courses in their Graphic Communications Management, Journalism, Image Arts, Professional Communications, and the RTA School of Media programs; however, they do not offer an entire comparable program. Ryerson’s current programs tend to focus on design without the additional emphasis on the theoretical and critical thinking gained through the liberal arts component of our proposed program. The University of Waterloo offers a Master of Digital Experience Innovation, which is focused more on the digital than user experience or experience design. This graduate degree focuses on the management of digital technologies, rather than design aspects. Additionally, this degree does not provide students with the critical skills honed through the liberal arts, and is offered at the graduate, rather than undergraduate level. Brock University offers two programs that bear some resemblance to what is proposed here, but there are important differences. Their BSc in Computer Science and Visual Arts is tailored to those interested in programming, software development, and digital media. There is neither the emphasis nor breadth of focus on the liberal arts as in the UXD program. Their Interactive Arts and Science program is closer to the UXD program insofar as it has a stronger grounding in the liberal arts, but it does not bring together user design aspects with the strong practical skills development that students in the UXD program will develop through the partnership with Conestoga College. The combination of design and liberal arts education, coupled with the technical skills developed through the Graduate Certificate in Interactive Media Management – User Experience Design, makes the Bachelor of Design in User Experience Design a unique offering within the province.

33

Benefits of Laurier Model

• Widespread consultation on both academic and administrative sides of the university – Transparency and collaborative partnerships

• Strong support structure for viable new program ideas

• Extremely high rate of external approval

34

Challenges to Model • Strategic Mandate Agreements require long-

term new program planning with limited flexibility

• New program developments are resource-intensive to the university

• Processes (both internal and external) are time-consuming (e.g. 2+ years from idea to enrolment)

35

Ideal Compromise

36

Program Quality

Financial Sustainability

Strategic Institutional Priorities

Optimal Environment

Impact

37

“The new forecasting process developed has been crucial to our planning processes, providing increased transparency and

more data-informed decisions.”

-Bruce Arai, Assistant Provost: Strategy

Thank you!

Heather Bouillon: hbouillon@wlu.ca Sally Heath: sheath@wlu.ca

Lisa Kuron: kuro7790@mylaurier.ca