program prioritization administrative task force report

8/17/2019 Program Prioritization Administrative Task Force Report

1/88

Program Prioritization2015-2016Administrative Task Force Report

Submitted by the Administrative

Task Force

April 30, 2016


2/88

i

[Page intentionally left blank]


3/88

ii

NIU Program Prioritization 2015-2016

Final report of the Administrative Task Force

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Administrative Task force was charged with placing 236 administrative programs into fivecategories with roughly 20 percent of the programs placed in each category. The distribution is as

follows:

Candidate for enhanced resources (12%, 28 programs)

Continue with no change in resources (28%, 66 programs) Continue with reduced resources (20%, 47 programs)

Requires transformation (23%, 55 programs) Subject to additional review; candidate for phase-out (17%, 40 programs)

The task force believes it is extremely important, especially given the university’s limited resources, to

only enhance the highest priority programs that best advance the mission of the university. As a

result, only 28 programs are placed in the candidate for enhanced resources category. The number of

programs in the subject to additional review category is slightly below the 20 percent target, but the

number of programs in the requires transformation category is slightly above. Several of the programs

in the requires transformation category are placed there because inefficiencies exist in the way that the

university provides certain services. Phasing out the program may not be possible or necessary, but

rethinking the current business practice could save money and improve quality. The task force had

the opportunity to conduct a comprehensive review of all administrative programs on campus and

believes that identifying possible inefficiencies is one of the most important aspects of the report that

will help the university going forward.

After its review, it became apparent that certain business operations of the university need to be

modified. In particular, the task force feels that the university should work towards a financial model

that reduces or eliminates the reliance on internal charges (i.e., chargeback system) that now forms an

essential element of the business model of several units. Additionally, the task force identified several

duplicated services that must be eliminated and encourages an examination of distributed services

provided. Finally, the task force argues for the university’s data collection and assessment to become

more transparent allowing for greater accountability of programs. Regular, robust assessment of

services (using both qualitative and quantitative approaches) from all units is necessary for leadership

to make appropriate strategic decisions on performance, resource allocation, or potential future

transformations.

In reviewing and categorizing individual programs, the task force identified a number of functional

areas that have many interrelationships between multiple programs. Those functional areas fall under

one of three broad categories: students, university operations, and community connections. The task

force made several larger-scale suggestions on subjects including advising; financial aid; recruiting;

retention; tutoring and academic support; data and reporting; marketing, communication, and media

production; facilities management; information technology; off-campus and online course delivery

and fee structure; athletics; communiversity relationship; external programming and conferences; and

school partnerships. These suggestions include increasing collaborations, developing synergies,

mergers, and changing funding models. It is these suggestions that the task force feels will most


4/88

iii

improve the quality and consistency of services that the university provides to its students, faculty,

staff, alumni, and community.

Although NIU has some inefficiencies and areas that can be improved, the task force repeatedly saw

evidence of devoted, exemplary, hard-working individuals and well-intentioned programs. It is clear

that NIU has a tradition of doing more with less. The task force is hopeful that the Program

Prioritization process will result in better alignment and efficiencies, which will allow the university to

excel. NIU will survive the economic hardships and societal shifts expected to continue in the near

future and will thrive.


5/88

iv

TA BLE OF CO NT ENT S

Executive Summary.............................................................................................................................................................. ii

I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................ 1

1. Background and Context............................................................................................................................................... 1

2. Goal, Guiding Principles and Key Elements ............................................................................................................ 2

3. Phases, Timeline, and Evaluation................................................................................................................................ 4

4. Task Force Selection, Orientation and Support ..................................................................................................... 5

II. TASK FORCE OPERATIONS................................................................................................................................................. 8

1. Task Force Charge ........................................................................................................................................................... 8

2. Administrative Task Force Ground Rules ................................................................................................................ 9

3. Administrative Task Force Working Rules ........................................................................................................... 10

III. TASK FORCE METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................................... 10

1. Initial Scoring ................................................................................................................................................................. 112. Program Grouping into Functional Areas ........................................................................................................... 11

3. Final Categorization .................................................................................................................................................... 13

IV. DISTRIBUTION OF PROGRAM OUTCOMES ............................................................................................................... 14

V. THEMES ACROSS FUNCTIONAL AREAS ..................................................................................................................... 15

1. Chargeback System ..................................................................................................................................................... 15

2. Distributed Services vs. Duplicated Services ...................................................................................................... 15

3. Accountability and Transparency ........................................................................................................................... 16

VI. PROGRAM RELATIONSHIPS .......................................................................................................................................... 18

1. Students ........................................................................................................................................................................... 18

2. University Operations ................................................................................................................................................. 23

3. Community Connections .......................................................................................................................................... 28

VII. CATEGORIZATION........................................................................................................................................................... 30

1. Candidate for Enhanced Resources (Enhance) .................................................................................................. 30

2. Continue with No Change in Resources (Sustain) ............................................................................................ 36

3. Continue with Reduced Resources (Reduce) ..................................................................................................... 46

4. Requires Transformation (Transform) ................................................................................................................... 53

5. Subject to Additional Review; Candidate for Phase-out (Review) .............................................................. 66VIII. CONCLUDING REMARKS ............................................................................................................................................. 73

Appendix A: Nominations for Membership on the NIU Program Prioritization Task Forces ..................... 74

Appendix B: Northern Illinois University’s Program Prioritization Charge and Charter for Academic andAdministrative Task Forces ................................................................................................................................................. 76

Appendix C: Northern Illinois University Administrative Program Prioritization Criteria Questions ...... 78


6/88

v

Appendix D: Administrative Scoring Rubric ................................................................................................................. 80

Appendix E: Program Relationship Network Analysis ............................................................................................... 82

Appendix F: Programs by Category .......................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Appendix G: Programs in Alphabetical Order .....................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Appendix H: Programs by College or Division ....................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.


7/88

1

I. INTRODUCTION

1. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

This report is a product of the Northern Illinois University (NIU) Program Prioritization Administrative

Task Force. To preserve the autonomy of this group, only this first introductory chapter has beenwritten by administrative staff at NIU. The purpose of this opening chapter is to provide background

information related to the Program Prioritization effort undertaken at NIU and to offer context for this

report. The remainder of the report is solely authored by the Administrative Task Force.

NIU began work in the fall of 2014 on a comprehensive program prioritization process. The impetus

for the process was multifactorial: (1) strong enthusiasm and support for program prioritization arose

following key changes in senior leadership including the arrival of a new President in 2013 and the

appointment of a new Executive Vice President and Provost (EVPP) in 2014, both of whom were

dedicated to maximizing the alignment of NIU’s resources with its mission to advance the university

and NIU’s cornerstone goal of student career success; (2) the Higher Learning Commission Site Team

that completed NIU’s 10 year comprehensive accreditation visit in 2014, cited a lack of a demonstrablelink between budget and mission and encouraged NIU to consider a process such as program

prioritization to address this deficit; (3) a commitment by NIU to maintain good stewardship of public

funds was gaining increased importance at a time when the campus was confronting the economic

reality that state funding would continue to decrease in an environment where tuition increases

would be incompatible with NIU’s mission of access and affordability; and (4) these factors resulted in

an exploration of program prioritization undertaken in the fall of 2014 by a group of 11 individuals

representing various shared governance bodies across the university. In November 2014, the

individuals in this group were named by the EVPP to the NIU Program Prioritization Coordinating

Team that has guided this process for the past 18 months. Shortly after this group initiated their work,

three additional members were added to the team, two students and one staff member-at-large. The

Coordinating Team members and their affiliations include:

Table 1: NIU’s Program Prioritization Coordinating Team

Team Member Name Home College/Unit Affiliation/Role

Ibrahim Abdel-Motaleb

College of Engineering

Chair of the Resources, Space, and

Budget Sub-Committee of the UniversityCouncil

Brett CoryellDivision of Information Technology

Representative for the Senior Cabinet

Brian CunninghamCollege of Law Representative for graduate students

Dillon Domke College of Liberal Arts Representative for undergraduatestudents

Carolinda Douglass*Academic Affairs Vice Provost for Academic Planning and

Development

Marc FalkoffCollege of Law Vice-chair of the Academic Planning

Council

Lisa FreemanAcademic Affairs Executive Vice President and Provost


8/88

2

Susan MiniAcademic Affairs Vice Provost for Resource Planning

Bill PitneyCollege of Education President of Faculty Senate and Executive

Secretary of University Council

Jeff ReynoldsAcademic Analysis andReporting

Data/Reporting Support and SupportiveProfessional Staff

Diana Robinson Division of Outreach,Engagement, and Regional

Development

Member-at-large

DeniseSchoenbachler

College of Business Representative for the Council of Deans

Andy SmallCollege of Liberal Arts andSciences

Former President of Operating StaffCouncil and Chair of the State UniversityCivil Service System’s Employee Advisory

Council

Kelly Wesener

Michael

Division of Student Affairsand Enrollment Management

Member-at-large

* denotes Coordinating Team Facilitator

2. GOAL, GUIDING PRINCIPLES AND KEY ELEMENTS

From the start, Program Prioritization at NIU was undertaken as a way to better align resource

allocation with NIU’s mission and priorities. It was not designed as a cost-cutting exercise. Specifically:

The goal of Program Prioritization at NIU is to allocate our resources to maximize the impact of our

institutional program portfolio, across both academic and administrative programs. Further, the program

prioritization process is a data-informed process aligned with NIU's vision, mission and strategicframework.

While some universities undertake program prioritization as a cost-cutting exercise, this was not the

primary purpose of program prioritization at NIU. That said, the recent budget impasse in the state of

Illinois has led to an absence of state funding for all public higher education institutions for the past 10

months. Therefore, the need to better align our resource allocation with our priorities has gained

increased significance. The campus now looks to program prioritization not only as an endeavor to

align resource allocation with mission, as it was initially intended, but also as a potential means of

addressing the continued lack of state funding support through strategic allocation of limited

resources and responsible stewardship of available funds.

There are three Guiding Principles of Program Prioritization at NIU:

All academic and administrative programs will be reviewed

All contracts with all employees will be honored

All students will be guaranteed to be able to complete their current academic programs

With this goal and its associated guiding principles in mind, the program prioritization process at NIU

was built upon four key elements that are crucial to NIU’s culture and operations:


9/88

3

The first of these is that program prioritization was to be inclusive of all campus stakeholders. This

element was first enacted through the composition of the Coordinating Team which included

representatives from faculty, staff, and students. It was further demonstrated in the development

of Program Prioritization Criteria by gathering input from the university community and

empowering shared governance groups to determine the final criteria and their weighting.

Finally, the selection process and ultimate composition of the task forces charged with conducting

the review of academic and administrative programs included representation from multiple

campus constituencies.

Second, program prioritization was to be standardized and data-informed with the best available

data delivered through central sources and in a centralized data platform for program authors

(those writing the narratives for their programs) in support of their data analysis efforts and the

creation of their narratives. Though data provided centrally were primarily quantitative in nature,

program authors were encouraged to include additional data, both quantitative and qualitative,

to elucidate their program narratives.

The third key element of program prioritization at NIU was that it was to be an open and

transparent process. Toward this end, communications about the process were issued through a

number of channels including open Coordinating Team meetings; presentations to multiple

audiences including formal shared governance groups as well as informal student groups, faculty

groups, and staff groups; discussions at Presidential Town Hall meetings; articles in NIU Today

(NIU’s online campus communication) and Northern Star (NIU’s student newspaper); and, most

notably, through a comprehensive and highly active program prioritization website at

http://www.niu.edu/program-prioritization/. Further, communication has been designed as a

reciprocal practice. Feedback has not only been welcomed but expected across all divisions and

from faculty, staff, and students at multiple points in time. Individuals wanting to provide

feedback on this report may do so via the program prioritization website. Feedback (anonymous

or otherwise) will be accepted through May 23, 2016 and distributed to the appropriate

individuals charged with developing action plans during the implementation phase.

The fourth key element of NIU’s program prioritization process was that it should be conducted

with rigor and integrity. At every stage in the process, evaluation has been executed for the dual

purpose of generating formative data for creating process improvements in the current round of

program prioritization and providing summative data for the overall assessment of the process.

Understanding what was accomplished, how it was achieved, and what was positive and negative

about each phase of the process is critical to the rigor and integrity of the process and essential to

NIU’s institutional culture.


10/88

4

3. PHASES, TIMELINE, AND EVALUATION

To date, the program prioritization process at NIU has included five phases with distinct purposes

although, at times, temporarily overlapping time periods:

Phase 1. Planning and Launch: including the development of the Coordinating Team and its

subgroups; establishment of planning documents to guide the process; and development of a

communications plan for increasing awareness of program prioritization on campus. As part of this

planning and launching phase, the program prioritization process was designed with NIU’s unique

culture in mind and with attention to all of the key elements. One example of this is the inclusion of all

campus stakeholders as demonstrated by the ways in which NIU has brought in student voices at

multiple points in the process.

Phase 2. Process Development : including the creation of support teams; the establishment of Program

Prioritization Criteria through a campus-wide process that had at its core the key element of inclusion

of all campus stakeholders; the selection of task force members; and the execution of an ongoingevaluation process, all of which were developed through methods conducted with rigor and integrity.

Phase 3. Data Platform Development and Population: including the construction of program definitions

and inventories; the selection and specialized customization of a data platform, Prioritization Plus TM;

the identification and population of data within that platform; and the training of campus

constituents in the use of the platform.

Phase 4. Program Narrative Writing: including providing training, assistance, and communications in

support of completing 223 Academic Program narratives and 236 Administrative Program narratives.

Phase 5. Task Forces’ Scoring and Report Development : including supporting the Task Forces with

resources, meeting space, technical support, and communications assistance during the scoring of

program narratives and report development.

Although the Coordinating Team has overseen each of these phases, multiple individuals and groups

have been drawn into the process at various points based upon their occupational expertise and

campus perspectives. Thus far, nearly 500 distinct individuals have played an important role in

program prioritization at NIU. This number is expected to increase in the upcoming Phase 6,

Implementation.


11/88

5

A full description of each phase of program prioritization is beyond the scope of this report. In

alignment with the key elements of an open and transparent process, creating standardized and data-

informed practices, and having program prioritization conducted with rigor and integrity, a ProgramPrioritization Evaluation Report will be issued by the Evaluation Team, a subgroup of the Coordinating

Team, to the university community in fall 2016. That report will include descriptions of all

components within each phase of the process, associated evaluations of each of those components,

and recommendations for the future. At this juncture, a description is needed of the manner in which

the Administrative Task Force was selected, how the members were oriented to their task, the charge

they were given, and the support that was provided to them during their work on program

prioritization (aspects of Phases 2, 3, and 4).

4. TASK FORCE SELECTION, ORIENTATION AND SUPPORT

The task force selection process began in March 2015. The Coordinating Team developed a

nomination form (see Appendix A) that was distributed widely and communicated in an open and

transparent process via the program prioritization website, NIU Today (the online communication for

the NIU campus), and through shared governance groups. As can be seen on the nomination form,

the Coordinating Team believed that individuals chosen to serve on the Administrative Task Force

should:

Understand and embrace NIU’s mission as a student-centered research and teaching institution

with a strong commitment to engagement within our region.

Enjoy the respect of their peers and have achieved a high level of credibility.

Have participated in university-wide initiatives such as service on committees, task forces, sharedgovernance bodies, etc.

Have a reputation for getting things done and meeting commitments within a specific timeframe

Have the ability to consider the university’s long-term vision and participate as a representative of

the entire university, not just his/her own department or unit (i.e., have a “trustee mentality”).

Be committed to the principle of confidentiality in all task force work.

Be willing to take the time needed to fully participate in all task force activities.

Planning andLaunch

ProcessDevelopment

Data PlatformDevelopment

and Population

ProgramNarrative

Writing

Task ForceScoring and

ReportDevelopment

Implementation


12/88

6

Further, potential nominees were informed that the work of the task force would be time-intensive,

and estimated to take at least 6-10 hours a week over a five month period. (In actuality, the task was

even more time-intensive than originally believed, taking many task force members twice as much,

and in some cases, three times as much time as initially anticipated.) Because of the heavy time

commitment predicted by the Coordinating Team and the possibility of power differentials among

task force members, the Administrative Task Force membership was limited to faculty and staff.Faculty included on the task force were required to be tenured faculty or non-tenure track instructors.

Faculty who were on the tenure track but not yet tenured and students were not invited to participate

in the task force. However, in keeping with our key element of being inclusive of all campus

stakeholders, nominations could be made by all campus constituents including faculty of all types,

staff, and students. Nominations were open for four weeks from March 16 to April 10, 2015. A total of

97 individuals were nominated for the Administrative Task Force.

The Coordinating Team supported the creation of an ad-hoc Task Force Selection Group, with

representation from shared governance groups, to select the members of the Administrative Task

Force. This was seen as a way to further underscore NIU’s commitment to being inclusive of all campus

stakeholders. (See Table 2).

Table 2: NIU’s Task Force Selection Group

Member Title Group Represented

Lisa Freeman Executive Vice President and Provost Senior Cabinet

Melissa Lenczewski Associate Professor, College of Liberal Arts and

Sciences

Faculty Senate

David Long Operations Manager, Holmes Student Center Operating Staff

Council

Greg Long Distinguished Teaching Professor, College ofHealth and Human Sciences

Faculty Senate

Nathan Lupstein President, Student Association Student Association

Jeanne Meyer Director, Office of Student Conduct SupportiveProfessional Staff

Bill Pitney Executive Secretary, University Council andPresident, Faculty Senate

University Counciland Faculty Senate

Richard Siegesmund Associate Professor, College of Visual and

Performing Arts

Faculty Senate

The Task Force Selection Group was asked to select 20 members for the Administrative Task Forcebased on the nomination criteria and to ensure that there was at least one member on the task force

from each of NIU’s nine divisions; the group ended up selecting 21. Keeping in mind that all Task Force

members were expected to participate as representatives of the entire university, not just their own

units or divisions, the Coordinating Team felt it was also important that the perspective of each

division be included in the composition of the task force. The Task Force Selection Group identified

members, alternates, and a chair for the Administrative Task Force. After the group was formally


13/88

7

convened, they decided to elect a second individual to share the leadership role, resulting in two co-

chairs.

Table 3. Administrative Task Force Members

Member Group Represented

Patrica Arndt Academic Affairs

Brian Becker Outreach, Engagement, and RegionalDevelopment

Karinne Bredberg Research and Innovation Partnerships

Josephine (Jo) Burke Academic Affairs

Joy Coates Academic Affairs

Amy Franklin Student Affairs and Enrollment Management

Chad Glover Human Resource Services

David Haas University Advancement

John Hulseberg Administration and Finance

Sarah Lindell International Affairs

Chris McCord Academic Affairs

Jennice O’Brien Marketing and Communications

Michelle Pickett (co-chair) Academic Affairs

Nick Pohlman Academic Affairs

Joe Przybyla Administration and Finance

Stephanie Richter Academic Affairs

Alan Rosenbaum Academic Affairs

Mike Stang Student Affairs and Enrollment Management

Matt Streb (co-chair) Academic Affairs/Intercollegiate Athletics

Lynne Thomas Academic Affairs

Mary Wyzard Information Technology


14/88

8

The Administrative Task Force was first convened as a group on September 3 and 4, 2015 and

completed an initial training those days with Larry Goldstein from Campus Strategies, LLC. The task

force members were informed that they were to sign a charge and charter agreement form to help

ensure that this stage of program prioritization would be conducted with rigor and integrity (see

Appendix B), and they were to utilize the Program Prioritization Administrative Criteria developed

through a campus-wide survey and shared governance group process in early 2015 (see Appendix C). The Administrative Criteria were linked to specific program questions and centralized data sources,

where available, for individuals who authored program narratives. In subsequent meetings, the task

force was trained to use the data platform, Prioritization Plus TM, and was given assistance in

customizing the platform for scoring purposes by members of the Data Support Team.

During the months that ensued, and particularly during the months in which the task force was

reviewing program narratives and categorizing programs, the Task Force Support Team supported the

efforts of the Administrative Task Force. This included meeting with task force co-chairs biweekly to

assess current progress and needs of the task force; providing training and customization to the

scoring system as needed; providing meeting rooms and materials for weekly task force meetings; and

working with task force co-chairs to provide relevant communications to the university community.However, throughout this time period, members of the Task Force Support Team were not privy to the

content of the task force deliberations nor to the evaluative work they performed in order to generate

this final report. Now that we have reached the conclusion of the task force work, we thank the task

force members for their commitment, diligence, and trustee-mentality and we look forward to

reviewing the results in this report.

II. TASK FORCE OPERATIONS

This section of the report discusses the task force charge; ground rules and working rules; and the

scoring, grouping, and categorizing processes.

1. TASK FORCE CHARGE

The Administrative Task force was charged with placing 236 administrative programs into five

categories with roughly 20 percent of the programs placed in each category. The categories and their

descriptions are listed in Table 4.

Table 4. Description of Categories

Category Description

Candidate for enhanced

resources (Enhance)

These programs are essential or important to the functioning of the

university, high quality or high performing, and are either under-

resourced or have the potential to expand because of unmet demand.

Continue with no change

in resources (Sustain)

These programs are essential or important to the functioning of the

university, are performing well, and have adequate resources.


15/88

9

Continue with reduced

resources (Reduce)

Programs are placed in this category generally for one of two reasons.

First, these programs may be performing well, but are not essential to

the functioning of the university or are viewed as being less of a

priority than other programs. Second, some programs in this category

may be performing well and are important to the mission of the

university, but are over-resourced. These programs can maintain

appropriate quality even with a reduction in resources.

Requires transformation

(Transform)


First, these programs may be essential or important to the university,

but are not performing at high levels. As a result, the program may

need to rethink how it conducts business or needs more resources to

improve. Second, programs may fall in this category as part of a larger

reassessment of how the university addresses a functional area. This

might involve restructuring or combining multiple programs that

contribute to that area.

Subject to additional

review; candidate for

phase-out (Review)


First, the program is not considered to be important to the primary

mission of the university. Second, the program could be consolidated

into another program that is serving a similar function. In that case, it is

the program that might be phased-out, with the service provided by

that unit transitioning to another program.

In determining which category to assign to a program, the Administrative Task Force was charged to

evaluate the programs using the following criteria (with weights in parentheses).

Importance to mission (22%)

Quality/Effectiveness (22%)

Productivity/Efficiency (22%)

Internal and external demand (22%)

Opportunity analysis (12%)

A more detailed discussion of the criteria can be found in Appendix C. To evaluate programs against

the criteria, the task force developed a rubric (see Appendix D).

2. ADMINISTRATIVE TASK FORCE GROUND RULES

The task force committed individually and collectively to the following principles:

Maintain an institutional perspective

Preparation: complete homework and upload data prior to meeting


16/88

10

Evaluate objectively based upon shared data

Designate time during meetings for off-line and on-line (Be present)

Respectful and purposeful discussion

3. ADMINISTRATIVE TASK FORCE WORKING RULES

In addition, the task force adopted the following working rules:

1. Attendance policy: Any task force member who has more than three unexcused meeting absences

(either physically or electronically) or who fails to score their assigned narratives will be considered

for removal from the task force. Decision for removal will be made by the task force co-chairs.

2. Program narratives were reviewed individually. They were not reviewed by institutional divisions.

3. Consensus: Decisions about a program required a consensus of more than 80 percent of the

voters. When all 21 members voted, 18 votes were required to categorize a program; when eleven

members voted, nine votes were required.

4. Initial review of program narratives: The task force randomly assigned eleven members to review

each program initially. This decision was made to allow sufficient time to effectively review and

evaluate program narratives.

5. Program categorization: The task force used a two-step process. The first step scored the program

using the established criteria and weights to assign values of “Importance” and “Performance.”

This scoring was used to assign a preliminary categorization when scoring consensus could be

met. Each program was reviewed a second time to determine if the preliminary categorization

should be retained or adjusted. If the task force did not reach a consensus based on the initial

scoring, then all 21 members reviewed the program during the categorization stage.

6. Conflict of interest: The task force decided that members did not need to recuse themselves from

the narrative review or voting process. The prevailing thought was that members were charged

with maintaining a trustee mentality and will do so in evaluating and categorizing programs.

However, task force members were not initially assigned to review programs that they directly

report to or oversee.

III. TASK FORCE METHODOLOGY

The task force arrived at the categorization of programs through a two-step process:

First, each program was scored individually against the published criteria.

Second, programs were grouped into functional areas, and all programs in a functional area

were discussed and considered simultaneously yet categorized individually with awareness of

how other programs in that area were treated.

The details of each of these steps are as follows:


17/88

11

1. INITIAL SCORING

Programs were initially reviewed by eleven members of the task force using the specified rubric (see

Appendix D). The scores for the five criteria were combined to produce composite scores for

Importance and Performance:

Importance Score = .22 x (Importance to Mission Score) + .22 x (Internal and External DemandScore) + .06 x (Opportunity Analysis Score)

Performance Score = .22 x (Quality/Effectiveness Score) + .22 x (Productivity/Efficiency Score)

+ .06 x (Opportunity Analysis Score)

If the initial reviewers reached consensus on their scores, the average of those scores was used to

locate each program on a two-dimensional scatterplot. If the initial reviewers did not reach

consensus, then all 21 task force members reviewed the program during the categorization stage.

The distribution of the programs that had achieved rubric scoring consensus was displayed on the

scatterplot, which was then used to divide the programs into five roughly equal groupings by shifting

the axes to normalize the distributions:

Those with both the highest importance and the highest performance were provisionally

designated for Enhance.

Those with higher scores for performance and lower scores for importance were provisionally

designated for Reduce.

Those with higher scores for importance and lower scores for performance were provisionally

designated for Transform.

Those with the lowest importance and lowest performance scores were provisionally

designated for Review.

Those whose scores fell in the mid-range on both performance and importance were

provisionally designated for Sustain.

This process was valuable as a first pass at categorization, because it allowed the task force to get a

sense of the strengths and weaknesses of each program. However, the task force recognized that this

process did not ensure that programs were placed in the category to which they truly belonged. In

particular, the task force recognized that an overly-mechanistic process risked mis-categorizing

programs, if that mechanism did not allow for a holistic judgment of the program. For example, a

program might have both high importance and high performance (which would tend to place it in

Enhance based on scoring) but did not demonstrate the need for additional resources, and therefore

better belonged in Sustain.

2. PROGRAM GROUPING INTO FUNCTIONAL AREAS

While the initial scoring was done for each program in isolation, the task force recognized that the

appropriate categorization of programs required considering each in the context of all of the other

related programs. Therefore, the task force used the program narratives to identify “functional areas”

and the programs that contributed to that functional area. For example, Academic Research Data was


18/88

12

identified as a functional area, with Academic Analysis and Reporting, Assessment, Institutional

Research, and Testing Services as programs that had an important role in the area. A program could

fall into more than one functional area (e.g. the Child Development Lab was included in both

Childcare and Clinical Training Programs). A functional area could have as few as two programs in it

(e.g., Policy Research) or could have a dozen or more programs (e.g., Communications). Appendix E

provides a network analysis of the relationship between programs. The functional areas identified bythe task force are listed in Table 5.

Table 5. Functional Areas Identified by the Task Force

Academic Research Data Health Services

Admissions International Relations

Advising IT Customer

Alumni IT Hardware

Athletics IT Software

Campus Recreation Marketing

Career Services/Readiness Media

Childcare Museums, Collections, Exhibits

Clinical Training ProgramsOff-Campus and Online Course

Delivery

Communications Orientation

Community Service Personnel Issues

Communiversity Policy Research

Conferencing Public Safety

Diversity and Inclusion Purchasing and Procurement

External Programming Recruiting, Domestic

Facilities Management Recruiting, International

Financial Aid Research Support

Food Services Retention


19/88

13

Fundraising School Partnerships

Governance Student Records

Government Relations Tutoring and Academic Support

For each functional area, the task force deliberated whether it was appropriate to consider the

programs within that area independently, or in conjunction with each other. For example, the IT

Customer Support programs were seen as very much meriting an examination that took all of the

programs into account, while the Museums, Collections and Exhibits programs were categorized

independently of one another. A later section, Program Relationships, summarizes the task force’s

thoughts on program connections that were relevant to the categorizations. If a program did not fit in

any functional area (e.g., Bursar), it was evaluated and categorized on its own.

3. FINAL CATEGORIZATION

To categorize programs, the task force used a series of decision rules to reach consensus:

1. If scoring consensus was reached, then the eleven task force members who scored the

program voted on whether they agreed with the categorization of the program based on its

placement on the scatterplot referenced above. If consensus was reached, then the program

was placed in that category. If no consensus was reached, then all 21 task force members

reviewed the program and the task force moved to preference voting.

2. Preference Voting: If consensus could not be reached on the categorization placement after

scoring, then each task force member selected the category in which they preferred to placethe program. If consensus was reached on a category, then the program was placed in that

category.

3. Acceptability Voting: If no consensus could be reached based on the preference voting, then

members voted for all categories in which they would accept placing the program. If

consensus was reached on a category, then the program was placed in that category.

4. Sequential Voting: If no consensus could be reached on acceptability, then the task force

voted sequentially, yes or no, to place the program in Enhance, then Sustain, then Transform,

then Reduce. If the task force did not reach consensus on any of these, then, by default, the

program went to Review.

The task force almost always reached consensus after acceptability voting. Only about half a dozen

programs had to be categorized using sequential voting.

The task force took great care to make sure that a program was placed in the appropriate category.

After all programs were categorized, task force members were allowed to propose that a program’s

categorization be reconsidered. If the proposed re-categorization achieved the necessary voting

consensus of 18 task force members, then the program was moved to its final category; those


20/88

14

receiving insufficient votes for change remained in the category assigned via the categorization

methods described above.

IV. DISTRIBUTION OF PROGRAM OUTCOMES

Although the task force was charged with placing approximately 20 percent of programs in each

category, it did not want to artificially place programs in categories simply to hit an arbitrary goal. The

task force believes it is most important to make sure that a program is placed in its appropriate

category. On the other hand, the task force takes its charge to prioritize programs based on

importance and performance seriously, which requires it to make difficult choices. Placing 70, 80, or

90 percent of all programs in the Enhance or Sustain categories would have been easy, but it also

would have made this process a waste of time because the status quo would be maintained; no clear

signal would be sent regarding how the university should prioritize resources in the future. Following

the initial request for distribution, a maximum of 40 percent of the programs were allowed to remain

in the Enhance and Sustain categories.

Table 6 summarizes the categorization results, including the percentage and number of programs in

each of the five categories.

Table 6. Summarization of Categorization Results

Category

Percent

of Total

Number of

Programs

Candidate for enhanced resources (Enhance) 12% 28

Continue with no change in resources (Sustain) 28% 66

Continue with reduced resources (Reduce) 20% 47

Requires transformation (Transform) 23% 55

Subject to additional review; candidate for phase-out

(Review)

17% 40

The task force believes it is extremely important, especially given the university’s limited resources, to

only enhance the highest priority programs that best advance the mission of the university. As aresult, only 28 programs are placed in the Enhance category. The percentage of programs placed in

the Sustain category exceeds 20 percent, but when combined with the programs in the Enhance

category comprises 40 percent of the programs, which is consistent with the task force’s charge of

placing approximately 20 percent of programs in each category.

The number of programs in the Review category is slightly below the 20 percent target, but the

number of programs in the Transform category is slightly above. Several of the programs in the


21/88

15

Transform category are placed there because inefficiencies exist in the way that the university

provides certain services. Phasing out the program may not be possible or necessary, but rethinking

the current business practice could save money and improve quality. The task force had the

opportunity to conduct a comprehensive review of all administrative programs on campus and

believes that identifying possible inefficiencies is one of the most important aspects of the report that

will help the university going forward.

V. THEMES ACROSS FUNCTIONAL AREAS

While examining the administrative program narratives and the program network analysis (see

Appendix E), it became apparent that certain business operations of the university need to be

modified. The task force identified three issues that appear across, and directly impact, multiple

functional areas.

1. CHARGEBACK SYSTEM

The university should work towards a financial model that reduces or eliminates the reliance on

internal charges that now forms an essential element of the business model of several units (e.g.,

broadband, creative support services, facilities management or project services, use of “bond revenue”

buildings). Such a system creates inequalities between programs and leads to substantial differences

in quality between units. For example, students in academic departments who do not support

wireless access in the classroom are disadvantaged compared to students in those departments who

do. In many cases, the products or services being charged are essential to all programs on campus

and, as a result, the university should make a commitment to funding them through a central source

rather than having each division dedicate a portion of its budget towards covering chargeback costs.

Similarly, the university should eliminate the practice of moving internal money between budgets to

use an existing university resource. For example, any space, if available when scheduled, should be

free to use by a unit internal to the university. There is a basic level of campus services that should be

centrally funded, with additional services on a chargeback system.

2. DISTRIBUTED SERVICES VS. DUPLICATED SERVICES

A recurring theme across several functional areas is the presence of multiple programs or units

providing similar services. In some cases, the units are providing essentially identical services to

essentially the same audience, and so may be considered “duplicated services.” An example is

conference organizing services. In other cases, similar services are provided to differentiated, non-

overlapping audiences, and so may be considered “distributed services.” Academic advising,

personnel issues, and IT customer service are examples.

In general, where the task force identified services that appear to be duplicated, it recommends the

elimination of the duplication. For distributed services, the task force is seeking a more nuanced

approach. It recognizes that in different situations, fully centralized services, fully distributed services,

and a hybrid of centralized and distributed services can all be valid service models. In cases where the


22/88

16

task force has called for an evaluation of distributed services, it is not forejudging the best model, but

hopes that any model adopted will have certain features:

Intentionality: the global structure across the university should be purposeful, not the

accumulation of disconnected local decisions;

Collaboration and effective communication across units;

Cross-training and advancement opportunities for staff across all units;

A shared sense of what the institutional goals and protocols are;

Non-duplication of services: It might be appropriate for two or more units to do the same

work, provided they interact with different audiences, and if there is enough demand to keep

all units fully engaged. For example, it is not a duplication of instructional effort to offer

multiple sections of the same course, if they are all full. So, it is more about avoiding some of

the downsides that can come with duplication:

o Excess capacity;

o

Confusion among the clients/audience about who to call on;

o Inconsistent delivery of the service;

Economy of scale vs. diseconomy of scale: different models can have different unit costs. It is

not always the case that bigger means more efficient.

Ultimately, the measures for whether a model is working or not might come down to two factors:

does it meet the needs of the institution in terms of quality or outcomes (which might be measured by

the extent to which it meets the needs of the clients); and does it do so in an efficient fashion?

3. ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY

Regular, robust assessment of services (using both qualitative and quantitative approaches) from all

units is necessary for leadership to make appropriate strategic decisions on performance, resource

allocation, or potential future transformations. In many cases, the task force had a difficult time

evaluating a program when only qualitative assessments or unconnected quantitative assessments

were provided within the program reports. In several cases, no pertinent data were included. The task

force does not want new programs to be created to make up for the fact that an existing program is

not held accountable for their work.

Likewise, there are several narratives in which a program title includes multiple, apparently distinct,

functions, and then only report on some of those functions. This means that the task force has little orno information about the other functions that are ostensibly included in the narrative. The task force

feels unable to evaluate those functions, and expresses concern over the gaps. It strongly

recommends that further review should occur for the programs listed in Table 7.

Table 7. A List of Program Narratives with Gaps

Program Code Program Name Gaps in the Narrative


23/88

17

D-FA00000-05 Center for Governmental Studies,

IIRC, broadband support and

administration

IIRC, broadband support, and

administration

D-BP00000-01 Gender and Sexuality Resource

Center

Gender/women's services

D-OK00000-02 Holmes Student Center All of the functions of the HSC

were covered in a single

narrative. It was difficult to

isolate out information about,

say, the hotel, conferencing

services, food services, and

recreational facilities.

D-CN00000-01 Housing and Dining Housing

D-FA00000-02 Outreach Managed Online and

Regional Academic (ORA) and

Continuing Professional

Education

Continuing Professional

Education

D-FM00000-01 P-20 initiatives: Center for Child

Welfare and Education, Center for

P-20 Engagement, Econ Illinois,

Education Systems Center, Illinois

Report Card, Northern IllinoisRegional P-20 Network

Center for Child Welfare and

Education, Econ Illinois,

Education Systems Center, Illinois

Report Card

D-SR00000-01 Presidential Commissions and

Presidential

Research/Engagement/Teaching

Professorships

Presidential

Research/Engagement/Teaching

Professorships

D-FA00000-06 Regional Centers, UCLC, Taft,

EIGERLab, Registration and

Conference Services

UCLC, Taft, EIGERLab, Registration

and Conference Services

D-CS00000-03 Student Life Services Emphasized Greek life, but not as

many non-Greek centric activities

such as Campus Activities Board,

Community Services, and Event

Production Services.


24/88

18

The task force is also concerned that some programs are neither named in any narrative title nor

discussed in any narrative report. For example, the IT Help Desk does not appear in any report, while

the Office of Community Affairs is mentioned in one sentence in the narrative of the Office of the Vice

President for Outreach, Engagement and Regional Development.

To aid future prioritization efforts, the task force strongly recommends that clearer definitions of

programs be created. During this inaugural prioritization exercise, the task force noted that some

“operational units of campus” may have had tasks assigned but did not warrant specific “program”

designation; while other units may have been combined together under a management structure but

are clearly separate programmatic activities that should have been described separately. Having a

clearer definition of what constitutes a program will help future task forces better evaluate the

programs’ importance and performance.

VI. PROGRAM RELATIONSHIP S

In reviewing and categorizing individual programs, the task force has taken note of the many inter-

relationships between programs. The task force identified a number of functional areas, such as

Retention or IT Customer Support, that involve multiple programs. To be classified in a functional

area, that area must be the primary focus of that program or a significant element of the program’s

activities. As the task force discussed its recommendations for individual programs, it looked across all

of the programs that touched on a given functional area, identified overall recommendations for

addressing those functional areas, and considered the ways in which a recommendation for one

program impacted the recommendations for others. This section will summarize these larger-scale

recommendations.

For each functional area, the task force identifies both the programs that are significantly involved in

that function, and its recommendations for addressing that function. For some functional areas, clear

over-arching messages emerge; in other areas, the recommendations are more program specific. If

the task force found that all of the recommendations for a functional area were program specific (e.g.

Public Safety or Food Services), then there is no discussion of that functional area in this section.

The functional areas can be grouped into one of three broad categories: Students, University

Operations, and Community Connections. Under each broad category, functional areas are listed

alphabetically.

1. STUDENTS

Advising

Academic advising is important in fulfilling the mission of the university and an essential element of

student retention. The academic advising narratives illustrate the various advising models used across

the university. With these varying models, there is evidence that there are significant imbalances in

the resources available to provide quality academic advising to all NIU students.

Table 8. Advisor to Student Ratios in Seven Main Advising Areas


25/88

19

CLAS CHHS CBUS CEET CVPA CEDU AAC

Advisor:

Student

Ratio

1:900 1:533 1:500 1:470 1:370 1:250 1:158

Mandatory

Advising

Registration

Holds

No Some Some Most Some Some Yes

The task force is concerned with the current model of advising. Table 8 outlines the advisor to student

ratio in each of the seven main advising areas. Based on a survey by the National Academic Advising

Association (NACADA) in 2011, the median case load of advisees to full-time professional advisors at a

four-year, public, doctoral granting institution is 285 to 1. Academic advising is critical to studentsuccess and needs to be enhanced. The task force recommends the following:

Prioritize funding to the advising programs that are most understaffed;

Enhance advising services campus-wide to balance advising loads across the seven main

advising areas;

Improve coordination on the varying types of software being used (e.g., GradesFirst, MAP-

Works, FileMaker Pro, Cranium Café);

Use technology more efficiently to focus on the students who need the most attention;

Consider consolidation of units not within the college structures (e.g. ESP/CHANCE, ESP/SSS,Office of Student Academic Success);

Strengthen institutional training and professional development of academic advisors

(professional staff and faculty).

Diversity and Inclusion1

Creating and maintaining an inclusive, diverse community is central to NIU's mission and identity.

However, many of the long-standing administrative programs designed to do so date from an earlier

era, when diversity initiatives were understood and implemented differently. As a result, many of the

programs devoted to improving diversity and creating a more inclusive environment are placed in the Transform category (e.g., Affirmative Action and Diversity Resources, Asian American Center, Center

for Black Studies, Gender and Sexuality Resource Center, International Affairs, Latino Resource Center)

1 The task force fully recognizes that diversity and inclusion are issues that affect more than just students.Indeed, faculty, staff, and the community as a whole benefit from a more diverse and inclusive campus.

However, most of the diversity- and inclusion-related programs that the task force reviewed dealt directly with

students, so the task force chooses to address the issues here.


26/88

20

or Review category (e.g. Presidential Commissions, Black Male Initiative). While individual nuances are

noted for each program, these placements broadly reflect the task force’s sense of occasionally

duplicative services and historic funding models that limit program effectiveness. Two diversity-

related programs recommended for enhancement are the Disability Resource Center and the

International Student and Faculty Office. The recent hiring of a chief diversity officer to offer a more

coherent campus-wide vision for the campus’s diversity and inclusivity programs may improve theenvironment in this area.

Financial Aid

The efficient use of scholarship and financial aid resources is absolutely critical to the viability of the

university. The task force recommends the consolidation of Financial Aid Services and Scholarship

Services into a single office. That consolidated office should receive both the staffing and software

enhancements necessary for it to allocate resources effectively. As processes change, the task force

supports the integration of all scholarship and financial aid resources that are controlled by NIU and

the NIU Foundation, so that students receive a consolidated financial aid package that serves them fortheir entire NIU career, and so that the university can strategically deploy these resources to achieve

desired recruiting and retention goals.

Recruiting

The university has multiple overlapping student populations, each with at least one program

responsible for recruiting. Table 9 provides a list of student populations and the program(s) with

direct responsibility for recruitment.

Table 9. Student Populations and Programs with Direct Responsibility for Recruitment

Student Population Program with Direct Responsibility

Traditional Undergraduates Prospective Admission Services

Adult Learners Outreach Managed Online and Regional

Academic (ORA) and Continuing

Professional Education

Prospective Admission Services

Online Learners Outreach Managed Online and Regional

Academic (ORA) and Continuing

Professional Education

College external programs

CHANCE Students ESP/CHANCE

Graduate Students Graduate School Admissions


27/88

21

Law Students College of Law, Admissions and

Financial Aid

International Students International Student and Faculty Office

In addition, there are a variety of other offices that have an active, direct role in recruiting, such as the

Division of Outreach, Engagement, and Regional Development (DOERD), College Relations (CEDU),

and Graduate Academic Affairs (CBUS), as well as Precollegiate Programs and the college offices in

CEET, CHHS, CLAS, and CVPA.

Recruiting is incredibly important, but it is not clear that the university’s activities have been

appropriately optimized. Transformative work is ongoing in this area, and the task force recommends

assessing current efforts and determining additional changes that may serve the university well. In

some cases, realignment or consolidation of resources may be appropriate. The task force thinks that,

for instance, College of Law recruiting can be consolidated with Graduate School recruiting. At the

same time, the task force feels that undergraduate recruiting and graduate recruiting are dissimilar

enough activities that they should not be combined. However, any areas of possible overlap (e.g.,

software) should be identified as well as opportunities to increase efficiencies. The task force also

notes and supports the distinction between international and domestic recruiting and support

systems. While broadly supportive of the directions of the university’s international efforts, the task

force prioritizes the programs and services that directly impact students and faculty (e.g. Study

Abroad) and considers programs and services that are mostly cost recovery or serve smaller groups to

be less important.

RetentionImproving retention rates is important for student success and the financial health of the university.

The task force recognizes that all activities across the university ultimately contribute to retention.

Some programs do so indirectly, as a byproduct of other missions, while other programs have

retention as a fundamental rationale. For the former, everyone who offers a service needs to be

mindful that how that service is provided impacts retention. However, it is the programs that fall into

the latter category that are of concern here. Offices directly aimed at impacting retention as their

central mission approach retention in numerous ways: some offices focus on retention-related

functions for all students; some provide particular student populations with a wide array of services;

some are college- or discipline-based activities. Units directly involved in retention activities include:

Academic Advising Center

Black Male Initiative

College-based advising offices

ESP/ACCESS

ESP/CHANCE


28/88

22

ESP/SSS

Office of Student Academic Success

Office of Student Engagement and Experiential Learning

Student-Athlete Academic Support Services

In the past two years, the university has seen small increases in retention rates. These increases are

encouraging, but the task force is concerned that the university is not organized to impact retention

rates as efficiently as possible. Some programs appear to be duplicating services; some programs are

effective, but not coordinated; some are centrally coordinated, but not documented as effective; some

serve small, sometimes overlapping, populations. For example:

ESP/SSS duplicates services of many offices;

The Office of Student Academic Success did not provide evidence that its work is effective;

The Center for Black Studies does not appear to be coordinated with other complementary

campus programs;

Different programs use different methods of identifying students to serve and documenting

progress, from paper to computer systems, that are not integrated;

There appears to be very uneven funding for different initiatives.

What is lacking is a central strategy for how the university spends its retention money and energy. The

university needs to ensure coordination and strategic distribution of resources to the different

retention initiatives across campus. A centralized retention strategy could better develop programs

for respective student populations (e.g., ethnically diverse students, first-generation college students,

at-risk student populations).

Tutoring & Academic Support

Another important element within the university’s retention efforts is tutoring and academic support.

Programs providing such services include:

Black Male Initiative

ESP/ACCESS

ESP/CHANCE

Public Service (Libraries)

Student Academic Success

Student-Athlete Academic Support Services

University Writing Center

In addition, there are a number of locally-operated tutoring services housed in department and

college offices. Some of these services are organized around serving a distinct population; others

around a specific discipline or topic. There appear to be opportunities to better coordinate these


29/88

23

services to eliminate duplication of services and possibly reduce administrative overhead. It is

important for the service model to be sensitive to both the audience served and the discipline/subject

matter being addressed.

2. UNIVERSITY OPERATIONS

Data and Reporting

For both external reporting and internal decision-making, it is essential for the university to have

timely and accurate data, and to produce actionable reports and analysis from that data. The program

prioritization process itself highlights the university’s lack of data infrastructure to support a data-

driven, decision-making culture. The current structure appears to be disconnected and inefficient, and

to inhibit rather than support effective use and sharing of data and reporting. Responsibility for data

reporting and analysis lies in at least five programs:

Academic Analysis and Reporting

Accreditation

Assessment Services

Institutional Research

Testing Services

The task force recommends that there should be consideration of consolidating these five programs

into a single Office of Institutional Effectiveness. As there may be data and reporting functions in

other programs that escaped the task force’s attention, it is possible that other units might be

included as well. The task force hopes that a stronger, more centralized unit will strengthen the NIU’s

assessment of its efforts, and position the university for a more powerful understanding of itself when

program prioritization next takes place.

Marketing, Communication, and Media Production

Marketing and Communication

While the lines between marketing and communication are not sharp, the task force finds it useful to

distinguish between the two functions, seeing marketing as primarily concerned with communicating

the value of the institution to external audiences such as prospective students, their families, and

alumni. The two functions can be somewhat distinguished by the resources involved, with the

communications function largely involving personnel, while marketing also includes resources foradvertising and branding.

The following units have some marketing functions:

Advancement office (CBUS)

Advertising (Division of Marketing and Communications (MarComm))

Alumni Relations


30/88

24

Branding (MarComm)

CLAS College Office

College Relations (CEDU)

Marketing (Athletics)

Outreach managed online (DOERD)

It appears that advertising budgets are widely diffused and vary significantly across programs. All

distributed marketing efforts ought to be better coordinated with MarComm. Advertising budgets

need to be more centrally controlled and distributed to provide equity across programs, and ensure

that the university is obtaining the greatest possible value. As there may be advertising functions in

other programs that escaped the task force’s attention, it is possible that other units might be

included as well.

Communication functions, apart from marketing, include internal communications, media relations,

and public relations. As noted above, the resources involved are largely personnel. Within MarComm,

the programs include:

Branding

Campus Communications

Community Outreach and Strategic Partnerships

Compliance

Crisis Communications

Emergency Communications

Executive and Advancement Communications

Media Relations

Social Media

In addition, there are programs outside of MarComm specifically dedicated to communications, such

as Athletics Communications and the Business Advancement Office, as well as communications

functions embedded in many other areas, such as offices of vice presidents and college offices.

Most of these functions need to be sustained. In particular, the college communication functions are

an important part of the university’s new advancement strategy; therefore, they must not be

eliminated. However, a number of programs need to be reexamined to eliminate redundancy or

overstaffing (e.g., Community Outreach and Strategic Partnerships, Athletics Communications), or

reduced or transformed because they are situational rather than consistently necessary (e.g.,

Emergency Communications, Executive and Advancement Communication).

Media Production

The production of media content is now distributed between the Department of Information

Technology (DoIT) and MarComm:

Creative Support Services (MarComm)


31/88

25

Document and Print Management (DoIT)

Multimedia Production and Support (DoIT)

Website Management and Support (MarComm)

There appears to be significant unevenness in the access that different units on campus have to the

services of these units. For example, Multimedia Production and Support is devoted almostexclusively to the Division of Intercollegiate Athletics. Some of the services of the other three

programs are provided to the campus community on a chargeback basis, while others are built into

the base budgets of the programs. Moreover, the funding model that determines which services

involve chargebacks and which do not appears to be very unsystematic. In particular, chargebacks for

design and branding work strongly discourage uniform branding and design standards from the very

units that could most benefit from them. Basic website design and branding templates, current NIU

letterhead, and standard brochure templates should be available to, and required of, anyone who

needs them at no cost to the units. Materials that, for functionality, need to depart from templates

should still be developed in coordination with the media production units listed above.

There must be strong coordination and appropriate campus-wide resources between these programs’services so that any materials (print or online, still or moving) produced for public consumption meet

NIU's design and branding standards. Moving design services from Document and Print Management

to Creative Support Services will help move NIU towards this goal. As there may be media production

functions in other programs that escaped the task force’s attention, it is possible that other units

might be included as well.

Facilities Management

The university needs to be proactive about taking care of its buildings—a pattern of deferred

maintenance has led to infrastructure that is out of date and difficult to repair at best. This criticalinfrastructure not only directly affects the learning and working environments for current students,

faculty, and staff, but it is also an important feature for recruiting new students. As a result, Building

Maintenance and Heating Plant are in the Enhance category.

There are opportunities for transformation, consolidation, review, and/or outsourcing as well.

Functions within Architectural and Engineering Services are not required nearly as much given the

trend towards outsourcing many functions on recent large scale projects, including donor-funded

projects and new housing and dining facilities. Certain functions from Building Services and Grounds

should be considered for outsourcing, while many functions under Environmental Health and Safety

are already being performed by outside contractors.

The Regional Centers are separately addressed in the current system, but need to be considered in theoverall framework of how the university appropriately resources and maintains its physical

infrastructure, and whether continuing to maintain them is in NIU’s best financial interest. Likewise,

the university should determine whether occupying and maintaining aging buildings located outside

of NIU’s core campus (e.g., Monat, original Monsanto) is in the university’s best financial interest going

forward.


32/88

26

Information Technology

IT Customer Support

IT customer support at NIU has grown organically over the years and displays wide variability. There

are two program narratives in DoIT, and seven program narratives in other divisions, that are either

wholly devoted to IT customer support, or have IT customer support as an important component oftheir operations:

CBUS Administration

CEET Computer Operations

CLAS Distributed IT

Collaboration and Conferencing Support (DoIT)

Desktop and Media Technologies Support (DoIT)

Distributed IT (CEDU)

Distributed IT (HRS)

Housing and Dining (Residential Technology)

Technology Initiatives and Support Services (University Libraries)

The number of programs has produced inequities in service and support, as well as created challenges

for efficient use of resources. The issues of efficiency appear to be less about personnel than about

consistency and efficiency in hardware and software purchasing.

The task force calls for a systemic evaluation of all of these IT support functions, including both

personal/desktop support and classroom/computer lab support. The task force does not have

sufficient information or expertise to specify what configuration the university’s IT support should

have, but it recognizes that the support should be both centralized and local, and should ideally have

the following features:

Support for highly specialized hardware and software is more appropriate to deliver locally;

support for basic hardware, software, and connectivity is a better candidate for centralization;

Standardization of basic software and hardware will increase efficiency, but needs to be

balanced by diversity of needs. An effective mechanism for the campus community to have

oversight and input into the selection of hardware and software is essential.

IT Hardware

The task force put the following hardware programs in the Transform category:

Network Architecture and Support

Server Hosting and Administration

Voice Services

The unifying theme of these programs is the need to transform both the business model and the

campus coverage. The current chargeback model for these services produces inequities in access to


33/88

27

services that are now absolutely essential infrastructure. It also encourages local solutions and

workarounds that limit the efficiency, and compromise the effectiveness and security, of the

university’s IT infrastructure. While the task force takes no position on the specific technical solutions

proposed, it believes IT hardware must be considered and centrally funded as a campus-wide utility.

Baseline infrastructure (e.g., internet connection, server space) should be universal for every member

of the NIU community, with the ability to enhance and/or adjust that infrastructure for high-impactand/or more complex projects as needed.

IT Software

The task force placed in the Transform category the three programs associated with PeopleSoft:

Financial Systems Support

Human Resource Systems Support

Student Administrative Systems Support

While the task force does not have the expertise to comment on particular software solutions, one of

the glaring issues noticed across these reports is that the university has paid for, but not yetimplemented, numerous PeopleSoft modules. Those modules have the possibility of transforming

how the university works, providing better data-driven decision-making and cross-campus

efficiencies. The university should consider whether and where implementation is feasible, and

reexamine its processes to move away from inefficient workarounds and/or custom solutions.

Off-Campus and Online Course Delivery and Fee Structure

The university has a historic distinction between on-campus and off-campus courses, and has evolved

structures in response to that model. The advent of online courses has created a complex three-fold

division of on-campus, off-campus, and online course offerings. The current structure, with multipleoffices involved in the logistics of delivering online and off-campus courses, reflects this evolution:

CBUS Graduate Academic Affairs

CEDU External and Global Programs

CEET External Programming

CLAS External Programming

CVPA External Programs

Faculty Development

Office of the Vice President for Outreach, Engagement and Regional Development (OERD)

Outreach Managed Online and Regional Academic (ORA) and Continuing Professional

Education

Regional Centers, UCLC, TAFT, EIGERLab, Registration and Conference Services

In addition, there appears to be duplication of marketing, recruiting, record-keeping, and other

administrative functions between those housed in OERD and those located in central offices such as


34/88

28

Admissions, Marketing and Communications, and Registration and Records. The task force

recommends a deep examination of the model for online and off-campus course delivery, including

the organizational structure and fee model.

3. COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS

Athletics

The task force is supportive of NIU’s membership as a Division 1 Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) NCAA

institution. Participation as a FBS institution provides the university with substantial earned media,

engages alumni, and improves the campus experience for students, faculty, and staff.

That said, as noted in the numerous athletics program narratives, the intercollegiate athletics

department must find ways to become more self-sustaining. Spending on athletics comprises about 2

percent of the university’s general funds and a portion of student fees. Therefore, the intercollegiate

athletics department needs to leverage its relationship with alumni and the community to rely less on

university resources.

Reducing costs is difficult unless the university wants to reconsider its standing as a FBS institution.

Per NCAA rules, FBS schools are required to sponsor at least 16 sports. Since NIU currently sponsors

17, there are limited opportunities for reductions. In order for NIU to remain in compliance with Title

IX, any reduction in sports programs must come from a non-revenue generating, male sport. The task

force recommends that the intercollegiate athletics department examine whether it can continue to

support 17 sports programs. If the department can become more self-sustaining, then eliminating a

sport program may not be necessary. However, if it cannot, then such a move may be required.

Communiversity The task force recognizes that NIU's residential campus makes “place” very important in providing

students with a rich learning, cultural, and social environment. It also wishes to underscore the

importance of NIU’s role in supporting thriving communities, and the role of community engagement

as part of students’ learning experience. The university’s commitment to strong, positive relations with

the local DeKalb/Sycamore community, referred to as “communiversity,” should remain a component

of the university’s mission. The program narratives reveal that NIU expends resources in the

local community in a variety of ways. The task force notes examples of functions that serve the

broader communiversity mission in the narratives from the following programs:

Center for Black Studies

Child Development Lab

Community Outreach and Strategic Partnerships

Couple and Family Clinic

Jerry L. Johns Literacy Clinic

Latino Resource Center


35/88

29

Office of the Vice President for Outreach, Engagement, and Regional Development

Physical Therapy Clinic

Police

Speech-Language-Hearing Clinic

Student Engagement and Experiential Learning

Student Life Service

program prioritization administrative task force report

Documents