June 2013The 21sT CenTury universiTy iniTiaTive DrafT finDings anD reCommenDaTions

Draft: for Discussion PurPoses only

Table of ConTenTs

Introduction ............................................................... 2–5

Academic & Research Priorities .............................. 6–22

Technology, Demographics, Engagement & International .................................. 23–34

Financial Health ..................................................... 35–50

Culture of Excellence ............................................. 51–62

InTRoDUCTIon

In support of our sustained commitment to excellence and to ensure a successful and vibrant future, the University of Louisville has set in motion a campus wide conversation about the university of the 21st Century. This collaborative, inclusive and transparent undertaking was designed to closely examine the university’s successes and challenges, and to better understand how the evolving landscapes of higher education, the economy, globalization, and other forces impact our strategic 2020 vision for the future. The 21st Century University Initiative was launched in the fall of 2012 and was led by Provost Shirley Willihnganz. This ambitious initiative has taken an in-depth look at the entire university beginning with a comprehensive review of the University’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT analysis). By soliciting broad based feedback and input of the entire campus community over 8,000 comments were generated from faculty, staff, students and other interested stakeholders. These comments helped the University understand the diversity of views and perspectives within our campus community and to gain insight into the subjects and issues that are the most pressing among our university family.

Following the collection and review of the SWOT analysis the Provost commissioned a Steering Committee and four content committees to help guide critical thinking about our collective future. These Committees have focused on where we want to be as an institution, and how we can sustain excellence in our academic enterprise, maintain our financial health, enhance our university culture, and understand the impact of technology, demographics, engagement, and international education in shaping the 21st century University.

As a framework for the initiative a few shared principles were used to guide the conversation. First, our goal continues to be a premier, nationally recognized metropolitan research university with a commitment to the liberal arts and sciences, and to the intellectual, cultural, and economic development of our diverse communities and citizens. Second, sustained and enhanced excellence in teaching, scholarship and research must always be our guidepost. And third, our students and their success is at the heart of all we do. It is within these contexts that the Committees formulated their diverse ideas, perspectives and suggestions for moving the conversation forward.

The attached report outlines the collective work of the Steering Committee, the four content committees, several sub-committees, and the advisory committees. In all, approximately 300 members of our university community have been engaged in the weekly or bi-monthly meetings that shaped the committees reports. The reports outline several themes that begin to provide direction for shaping the University of Louisville in the 21st Century. Those themes include the following:

• The path to enhancing and enriching scholarship, teaching and research must include new and innovative collaborative and multidisciplinary concentrations in which investments and resources are aligned to foster our institutional strengths.

• The University must be globally engaged, accessible, and student centered in order to be a leading institution of the 21st Century.

• The values we share must be used to foster a culture of excellence and be supported by high levels of accountability and strong leadership capabilities across the institution.

• The complex fiscal environment demands responsible and effective financial stewardship across the enterprise so that we continue to protect the investments made by the Commonwealth, our students and their families, our donors, and our many partners.

exCellenCe In TeaChIng,

sCholaRshIp anD ReseaRCh

ResponsIble anD effeCTIve

fInanCIal sTewaRDshIp

a CUlTURe of exCellenCe

globally engageD, aCCessIble anD

sTUDenT-CenTeReD

The following four core committees were formed around each of these major areas of focus, and their respective charges and scopes were as follows:

The Academic and Research Priorities Committee was charged with examining several critical questions and issues facing the University:

• What strategies, activities, investments and resources are necessary to enhance the University’s academic reputation?

• What are the most effective process and approach for identifying the academic programs, initiatives, and efforts that have the have the greatest potential for national and international distinction and prominence?

– What are the University’s best opportunities for academic prominence?

• What are the most effective process and approach for identifying the research programs, initiatives and efforts that have the greatest potential for national and international distinction and prominence?

– What are the University’s best opportunities for research prominence?

– What are the two or three ‘big’ research ideas or opportunities?

• What are the most effective ways of measuring and evaluating “non-traditional” academic performance at the University of Louisville (e.g., commercialization and innovation, scholarship of engagement, others)?

The Technology, Demographics, Engagement and International Committee was charged with examining four critical questions and issues facing the University:

• What is the appropriate role and use of technology and on-line learning at the University of Louisville over the next 10 years?

• What is the appropriate size and composition of student enrollment (including professional, undergraduate and graduate) at the University of Louisville over the next 10 years, paying special attention to a changing, more diverse demographic?

• What is the appropriate size, composition and role of international programs and initiatives at the University of Louisville over the next 10 years?

• What is the role of “engagement” as it pertains to the teaching/learning environment at UofL?

Four subcommittees supported the Committee’s work and focused on the following areas:

• Technology Subcommittee

• Enrollment Subcommittee

• International Education Subcommittee

• Engagement Subcommittee

The Financial Health Committee was charged with examining several questions and issues aimed at improving the financial health of the University:

• What is the most effective and efficient model for budgeting campus financial resources?

• How can the University deliver its core business services (HR, IT, accounting, etc.) in the most effective and efficient manner possible?

• How can the University better leverage its physical assets?

• How can the University better leverage its purchasing power?

• How can the university continue to benefit from the 501c3 structure without undermining governance?

Subcommittees were also formed to assess UofL’s budget model, the structure and delivery of business services across the campus, and enhancing the university’s Procurement model and operations.

The Culture of Excellence Committee was charged with examining several questions aimed at improving how people work, live and learn at the University of Louisville, and to explore ways to ensure diversity and that the values of shared governance are modeled across all University entities and affiliates.

• What barriers or challenges exist that may limit a culture of excellence in support of the 21st Century Initiative?

– What are the attributes of the desired workplace culture at the University of Louisville?

– What are the strategies and initiatives necessary for achieving cultural transformation and diversity and creating a culture of excellence in support of the 21st Century Initiative?

• What cultural barriers or challenges exist that limit student success?

– What are the strategies and initiatives necessary for achieving a culture of excellence and success among students?

• What are the existing models and practices of governance across the university?

– How can the University support and model the values and principles of shared governance in an era of expanding partnerships and affiliations?

The report outlines the emerging ideas and perspectives of the Committees and is submitted in the spirit of collaboration. It is intended to stimulate further discussion and debate about our collective future. The reports are preliminary by design so that broader voices and perspectives can be solicited to shape the conversation further. Each Committee report requires further evaluation, validation, data and analysis to support or contradict these early themes and perspectives. The 21st Century University Initiative will continue to pursue these objectives and advance the conversation within the principles of shared governance, collaboration, inclusion and transparency.

aCaDemiC anD researCh PrioriTies

Core CommiTTeeDraft finDinGs

anD recoMMenDations

June 2013

fInDIngs anD ReCommenDaTIons

background and Context June, 2013

The future success of the University of Louisville depends significantly on the strength of its academic and research enterprise. Indeed, at the very heart of the 21st Century University Initiative is the recognition that the academic and research mission of the institution is of paramount importance to achieving prominence and excellence in the 21st Century and beyond. A commitment to and investment in academic and research excellence must be the cornerstone of UofL’s identity and reputation as a university, as well as the foundation of our aspirational vision and goals for the future.

The 21st Century Initiative is intended to provide a roadmap for UofL to be a leading edge university, and provide significant and enduring impact to our local, regional and global communities. This framework will guide UofL’s long- and short-term planning and decision-making, and strategies for achieving academic excellence and leading edge innovation and discovery.

The Academic and Research Priorities Committee (A&R) has led the critically important effort to shape and define the future vision and strategy for UofL’s academic and research enterprise. The A&R Committee was formed and charged with examining several critical questions and issues facing UofL:

• What strategies, activities, investments and resources are necessary to enhance the University’s academic reputation?

• What are the most effective processes and approaches for identifying the academic programs, initiatives, and efforts that have the have the greatest potential for national and international distinction and prominence?

– What are the University’s best opportunities for academic prominence?

• What are the most effective processes and approaches for identifying the research programs, initiatives and efforts that have the greatest potential for national and international distinction and prominence?

– What are the University’s best opportunities for research prominence?

– What are the two or three ‘big’ research ideas or opportunities?

• What are the most effective ways of measuring and evaluating “non-traditional” academic performance at the University of Louisville (e.g., commercialization and innovation, scholarship of engagement, others)?

The A&R Committee, like the other three core committees, was charged with completing the first two phases of a three phase methodology: (1) “Where are we today?”, and (2) “Where do we want to be?” The third phase, which will focus on implementation of the adopted recommendations and plans by answering the question “How will we get there?”, will occur in the next and final phase of planning, as depicted below.

Phase 1Where are we today?

Phase 2Where do we want to be?

Phase 3How will we get there?

Given the critical importance of having diverse perspectives, a broad group of faculty and staff across the campus participated in the A&R Core and Advisory Committees.

aDvIsoRy gRoUp:

Tyler Bosley, Student Sandi Johnson-Byers, VPIT

Brent Fryrear, EVPRI Steven Koenig, Speed Faculty

Vicki Tencer, CEHD, Staff Bruce Kemelgor, COB Faculty

Brad Keller, Medicine Faculty David Tollerud, SPHIS Faculty

Don Demuth, Dentistry Faculty Mark French, Civil Engineering, SSE

Chris Stivers, Finance, COB Faculty Tony Arnold, Law

Suzanne Meeks, Chair, Psychology, A&S Jasmine Farrier, Political Science, A&S Faculty

Tom Starr, SSE Faculty Brian Leung, English, A&S Faculty

Scott Whittemore, Medicine Faculty Dwight Dozier, VPUA

Thomas Tretter, CEHD Faculty Joy Hart, Communication, A&S

Aruni Bhatnagar, Medicine Faculty Holly Clark, OTT, EVPRI

Jack Ashworth, Music Craig Roberts, Medicine Faculty

Russ Vandenbroucke, Theatre Arts and Peace Studies, A&S Faculty

The Core Committee met bi-weekly from March 2013 through May 2013. Following an initial assessment of the research and academic enterprises, the Core Committee split into two subgroups, one devoted to focusing on academic priorities and the other on research. In addition, the Core Committee benefitted from the thinking and input of an Advisory Group, which met in April, 2013. All of the groups met collectively throughout May to develop a recommended path and suggested strategies for enhancing academic and research performance and reputation.

phase 1 – wheRe aRe we ToDay?Prior to the commencement of the Committees’ work, a comprehensive SWOT analysis that solicited feedback on the University’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats, was conducted across the campus, and yielded approximately 7,500 responses from a broad and diverse cross section of the campus. With respect to UofL’s academic enterprise, views on the University’s greatest strengths and areas of prominence varied widely, with no clear common understanding of academic priorities.

The wide range of academic strengths identified was largely siloed by discipline, with limited multidisciplinary focus. The SWOT responses pointed to a perception that UofL did not have a consistent reputation of academic excellence, and was missing opportunities to capitalize on its areas of existing academic strength. The SWOT submissions further revealed that while UofL holds tremendous potential to expand and enhance its research portfolio, it has underperformed with respect to both research and innovation.

The A&R Core Committee examined several external and internal measures as benchmarks to begin answering the primary question, “Where are we today?” This self-examination also focused on strategies, activities, investments and resources believed to be necessary to enhance the University’s academic reputation. This process included a review of UofL’s Nationally Recognized Programs, UofL’s ratings and rankings in multiple national rating services, and focus groups conducted of public opinion of the University.

CoRe membeRs:

Chris Doane, Dean, Music, CHAIR

Ron Butt, Trustee

Margaret Handmaker, ULF

Chuck Denny, BOO

Mary Hums, CEHD and ULAA

John Ferré, Interim Dean, A&S

Toni Ganzel, Dean, Medicine

David Hein, Associate Provost

Judy Bristow, EVPRI

Riaan Van Zyl, Kent School Faculty

Milton Pierson, Cancer Center

Carrie Mattingly, SGA

Christian Gamm, Admissions, Staff Senate

Amy Lueck, Graduate student

Jon Klein, Medicine Faculty

David Brown, Physics, A&S, Faculty Senate

Becky Simpson, SAVP, Communications & Marketing

Craig McClain, EVPRI

Susan Griffin, Chair, English, A&S

America’s Top 25 ‘Best Neighbors’

Sierra Club 2010 list of Top 100 Coolest Schools

Department of Emergency Medicine – Division of Protective Medicine

University Community Engagement

Community Service

Signature Partnership Initiative

Computational Biology

Breast Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics Program

Children’s Environmental Health

Center for Health Hazards Preparedness

Environmental Health Sciences Training Programs (T32 and T35)

Institutional Center for Environmental Genomics and Integrative Biology (CEGIB)

Kentucky Institute for Environment and Sustainable Development (KIESD)

Digestive Health Center

Diagnostic Teacher Assessments in Mathematics and Science (DTAMS)

National Research Center for Career and Technical Education (NRCCTE)

The Southern Police Institute

Kentucky Biomedical Research Infrastructure Network (KBRIN)

African American Theatre Program

Birth Defects Program

Cardiac Assist Devices

College of Arts and Sciences (Public Affairs, English)

College of Business (Entrepreneurship)

College of Education and Human Development (Graduate Program)

Computer Engineering and Computer Sciences/CIS “Center for Academic Excellence

Cystic Fibrosis

Industrial Engineering Graduate Program

International Service Learning Program

James Graham Brown Cancer Center

Kentucky Pollution Prevention Center

Molecular Cardiology

Movement Disorders Program

Nanotechnology and MEMS Research

Neuroscience and Cognition

Pan-African Studies Program

Pediatric Pharmacology Research

Proteomics

School of Law

School of Music Ensemble Program

School of Nursing

Spinal Cord Injury Research

Sport Administration

Stroke Program

Transplant Immunology

University Libraries

Kentucky Cancer Program

These National Recognized Programs were last updated in or about August of 2010. Consequently, several UofL programs that have achieved national recognition and prominence in the last few years did not appear on the list. Similarly, due to faculty departures, changes in focus, and lack of sufficient performance of some of these programs, the Core Committee questioned whether some programs still warranted inclusion on the list. Given these factors, the Core Committee determined that reviewing the list of UofL Nationally Recognized Programs was a helpful starting point, but a more thorough analysis would be needed in order to determine what UofL’s current strengths are among its academic and research programs. In addition, there was a shared sense that 47 programs of distinction was too many, and that further streamlining and consolidating of programs was likely needed.

foCUs gRoUps

The Committees also had the benefit of considering perspectives gathered from the external community. The Office of Communications and Marketing presented findings from a series of statewide focus groups conducted in Spring 2012, which focused on four major geographical areas across Kentucky.

One key finding was that few individuals within the focus groups had detailed knowledge about what was going on at the University of Louisville, or what UofL was known for, from an academic or research standpoint. The primary finding of these focus groups was that the University of Louisville is a “blank slate”, with vast opportunities to enhance its reputation and perception academically in its surrounding communities.

The feedback gathered from the focus groups, along with the subsequent development of an image campaign and www.UofLNow.com “micro-site,” represent some of the strategies, activities, investments and resources that have already been committed to promoting the academic and research reputation of the University of Louisville. Both the Core Committee and the Advisory Committee offered a number of suggestions for how to further promote the academic and research accomplishments of the University.

naTIonally ReCognIzeD Uofl pRogRams

As a starting point for understanding UofL’s current academic reputation, the Core Committee assessed a recent list of what UofL considers nationally regarded programs. The list included 47 distinct programs across the campus, including the following:

Key benChmaRKs

The A&R Core and Advisory Committees discussed and debated several of the key national ratings / rankings mechanisms, and the impact they play in formulating the University of Louisville’s reputation in both academics and research. The two ratings/rankings the Committees primarily focused on were the Lombardi Center for Measuring University Performance and the U.S. New & World Report Best Colleges Rankings.

lombaRDI CenTeR foR measURIng UnIveRsITy peRfoRmanCe

The Lombardi Center for Measuring University Performance (CMUP) is a research enterprise focused on the competitive national context for major research universities. The CMUP provides rankings of the Top American Research Universities, by rating each institution against nine measures: total research, federal research, endowment assets, annual giving, National Academy members, Faculty Awards, Doctorates Granted, Postdoctoral appointees and SAT scores.

According to the 2011 CMUP report, the University of Louisville rates in the Top 50 Public Research Universities in the nation. (For comparison purposes, the University of Kentucky rates in the Top 50 of all Private and Public Research Universities.) Chief among the reasons UofL ranks in the Top 50 of Public Research Universities is its strong showing (31st) of Endowment Assets. Uofl’s total research and federal research expenditures ranked outside of the Top 50, at 74th and 81st place, respectively.

The appeal of the CMUP ratings is its focus on research, not simply academic reputation. The Core Committee concluded, however, that recent reductions in total research expenditures and reduced funding at the federal level (from the NIH in particular) may negatively impact UofL’s future rating with the CMUP.

U.s. news & woRlD RepoRT besT Colleges RepoRT

The Committees also looked at the U.S. News & World Report (USNWR) Best Colleges Report as a potential benchmark. While many Committee members felt this particular ranking was not the most appropriate academic benchmark for a research institution, it was conceded that this list plays a factor for many incoming students in influencing the perceived academic reputation of the institution, and therefore warranted consideration. As a result, the Core and Advisory Committees sought out information regarding how the USNWR Best Colleges Report is compiled, including the wide range of categories that make up the ranking, including undergraduate academic reputation, retention, student selectivity, ACT/SAT scores, class size, student-faculty ratio, proportion of full-time faculty, and faculty compensation.

The Committees concluded that there was value in exploring ways to target specific categories over which UofL could have the greatest influence in improving UofL’s portrayal and ranking. Currently, the University of Louisville is ranked #160 on the USNWR list, and has seen modest increases in its rankings over the last several years. However, the Committees also concluded that more could be done to increase the slope of the upward trajectory of those rankings.

oTheR benChmaRK measURes

The Committees also considered UofL’s recent inclusion in the Athletic Coast Conference (ACC) as another potential benchmark measure, particularly among public ACC schools. It was recognized that several public universities of academic prominence could serve as aspirational peers of UofL within the ACC.

In addition, the Association of American Universities (AAU), an organization of leading public and private research universities, was also considered a potential benchmark measure, particularly given its focus on research-intensive universities, including their funding, policy and education. The Committees discussed the need to explore the steps necessary to become an AAU member.

sURveys

The Committees also elected to conduct a survey of their members to determine what measures they felt most appropriate to determine UofL’s academic and research reputation. The results are set forth below:

The survey results demonstrated varying opinions, even within the committees, as to which measures were highly or moderately appropriate. As a result, the committees determined that other mechanisms with broader and more detailed focus would be needed to determine UofL’s academic and research priorities.

phase 2 – wheRe Do we wanT To be? CenTRal ComponenTs of a DynamIC aCaDemIC plannIng moDel

In devising a foundation for an academic plan and identification of academic and research strengths, the Core Committee determined that a sound methodology to identify specific areas of academic and research strengths was needed as a central component of the planning effort. The Core Committee identified a process focused on a few key criteria to represent an internal and external “lens” through which all areas of academic and research areas could be effectively measured.

Building off emerging or existing areas of strength for UofL was seen as the best starting point to create academic priorities and goals to build prominence. It was also determined that strong consideration should be given to student demand and interest, as a critical driver to attracting the very best students to UofL and providing them with the necessary skills and capabilities for the future. Given UofL’s leadership in the community and strong commitment to community engagement, the Core Committee further determined that societal need or relevance was an important factor in determining areas of strength. Finally, the opportunity for investment and generating new or enhanced revenue was viewed as a critical component to growing and supporting academic and research strengths. In order to illustrate the convegence of these factors, a Venn diagram was developed, with the goal of identifying those academic and research strengths that cut across these four factors:

Existing programs or fields that have gained some degree of academic or research prominence and that the university considers as among its best opportunities for achieving significant academic prominence and recognition.

Local, regional, national and international fields of study and discovery that have high levels of demand, need, interest and relevance

Fields of study that have high potential for generating opportunities for external funding and investment

Existing and emerging programs and fields that have the highest demand and interest among students

emeRgIng aReas of exCellenCe

aT Uofl

oppoRTUnITy foR InvesTmenT

sTUDenT DemanD

anD InTeResT

soCIeTal neeD oR

RelevanCe

The valUe of a mUlTI-DIsCIplInaRy appRoaCh To aCaDemIC plannIng

As UofL plans for excellence in its academic and research enterprise and creates a dynamic academic plan for the future, building on existing areas of academic and research prominence and strength and capitalizing on its best opportunities for excellence will be necessary. Today’s leading universities have embraced modern approaches to teaching, research and scholarship, with a strong interdisciplinary focus. Collaborative work and focus across the disciplines is driving discovery and innovation, and holds great potential for expanding intellectual boundaries, solving the most pressing societal demands and scientific answers to real world problems. In addition, the increasing complexity of science demands that concepts and methods from different disciplines be brought together to maximize intellectual resources, and increasingly require diverse backgrounds, knowledge, perspectives, and expertise. Few would argue that the UofL must effectively align its academic enterprise to these changing dynamics and demands and create a clear path for bolstering its academic and research strengths.

Moreover, as UofL grows its research agenda and strives to be a leading research university, work across the disciplines and research collaborations are critical to creating a competitive and high performing research operation. Leading funding sources of research like the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health are investing resources and supporting initiatives with an interdisciplinary focus and approach. There are currently over 10,000 research centers across United States universities, and the top 25 research universities average nearly 100 interdisciplinary research centers per institution, well above what exists at UofL today, the majority of which are interdisciplinary in nature. In order for UofL to create a competitive and compelling academic and research profile and reputation, a multidisciplinary focus on academic and research strengths is needed.

The leading edge universities of the 21st Century will also compete for top talent in ways that advance interdisciplinary teaching and research, and those institutions with distinguished areas of prominence and strength that provide for interdisciplinary collaborations will recruit and retain the best and brightest faculty and researchers. The student of the 21st Century University will also seek to be taught with an interdisciplinary approach in which they receive an integrated pedagogy and develop relevant and lifelong learning skills and literacies. UofL is poised to create a bold academic and research plan that attracts the best faculty and researchers, that addresses the needs of the future student and places it in a class of the most reputable and prominent universities of the 21st Century.

ReCommenDaTIonsThe A&R Core Committee looked at several potential approaches to academic and research planning from the perspective of existing strengths. Several models were considered, including a top-down approach (whereby the University’s senior administration dictate the priorities), versus a faculty-centric model (whereby faculty come together to determine where the institution’s priorities should lie).

The Core Committee’s strong conclusion was that the latter approach was the most appropriate path forward and better aligned to a culture of inclusion and collaboration in the planning process. To accomplish this goal, the committees recognized that a campus-wide dialogue that broadly involved faculty input was needed. Specifically, the Committee concluded that finding areas of ‘concentrations’ located at the point of convergence in the Venn diagram offered the most focused and relevant framework for determining academic and research priorities for the future.

For the purposes of initiating a campus-wide dialogue, the A&R Core and Advisory Committees identified and developed thematic groups of academic and research priorities, using the Venn diagram as a guide. The goal of developing these groups was to identify potential areas of multi-disciplinary and inter-disciplinary focus that would bring together many groups under a single umbrella. These resulting broad topics of strength are intended to serve as a working model to be discussed, vetted and refined by the larger campus community in the next phase of planning.

Building on what was viewed as broad, thematic categories of UofL’s existing and potential strengths and prominence, the Committees identified eight subject areas of strength to potentially build an academic plan upon, which included:

• Literacies and Competencies

• Major Disease Research, Prevention, Education and Services

• Family and Human Development

• Relationship Science

• Environmental Interactions

• Justice and Conflict Transformation

• Risk Management and Security

• Economic Growth

Within each of these areas, the A&R Core and Advisory Committees further populated the thematic areas with potential supporting subjects and disciplines, utilizing an inclusive and multidisciplinary focus and approach. A detailed breakdown of the Committees’ work in the eight subject areas is contained in Appendix A of the report.

The Committees identified a concentration within “Literacies and Competencies,” based on the critical skills and capabilities needed to effectively prepare students to succeed beyond their education. Drawing from a diverse spectrum of disciplines, Literacies and Competencies is intended to form a well-rounded student body and enrich the curriculum with a broad range of skills and knowledge, including critical thinking, excellence in writing and literature, and providing strong knowledge, understanding and appreciation of culture, literature, the arts, health, and sciences. It is imperative that the University’s leadership support the growth and success of the humanities with the same degree of commitment and focus as it has for other critically important programs within the University.

Recognizing the significant strengths and momentum across the Health Sciences, the category of “Major Disease, Research, Prevention, Education and Services”, represents a critical need in serving the significant public health challenges in Kentucky and beyond. Substantial health challenges in Kentucky provide a significant opportunity for UofL to play a leading role in preventing and managing disease, and promoting lifelong physical and mental health and well-being. From a research perspective, UofL has outstanding strength in neurosciences, cardiovascular, cancer prevention and treatment and metabolic diseases, which can be further strengthened through renewed focus and collaborative approaches at preventing and managing disease across a host of disciplines, led by existing leaders doing leading edge, pioneering research and discovery in these fields.

Likewise, the field of “Family and Human Development” builds on many of UofL’s strengths, especially UofL’s demonstrated competencies in lifelong wellness, long term care and pediatrics. This focus is particularly relevant in the City of Louisville, home to the nation’s largest collection of headquarters in nursing home, rehabilitation, assisted living and home health administration. This multidisciplinary category was also viewed as a catalyst for addressing the many challenges in the region and state facing families and children, including poverty, education, domestic violence, child abuse, and substance abuse. This area of focus builds on existing strengths in education, law, social work, nursing and pediatrics, and provides substantial opportunity for cross-disciplinary scholarship and research across many UofL schools and departments.

Similarly, recognizing the strong presence and reliance on manufacturing and distribution in Louisville, along with UofL’s proximity and historical relationship with nearby military installations such as Fort Knox, a focus on “Risk Management and Security” was viewed as a significant opportunity for UofL in its academic and research focus. It was also felt that Louisville’s geographic location, coupled with strong programs in environmental science, engineering, and other related disciplines, make disaster preparedness a potential area of study in this category of strength. UofL’s established partnerships with the military, as well as opportunities to establish new relationships with industries in the region, also provide an opportunity to continue to expand UofL’s commitment to community engagement and involvement.

The Committee also identified an innovative and cross disciplinary area of focus and strength in “Relationship Science”. Personal and professional dynamics and interactions form the basis for this area of concentration, with the intent of building critical life and work skills and preparing UofL students to be valuable contributors and leaders in their communities. This concentration was viewed as an opportunity to create a new area of focus to enable areas of study in a wide range of behavioral and social areas, along with building skills and competencies in communication, negotiation, collaboration, and new types of social networks. Strengths in Communications, Social Work, Psychology, Business, Law, Health Sciences, Nursing and a host of other diverse disciplines were seen as bolstering this area of potential strength.

The Committees also concluded that the focus on “Environmental Interactions” was of critical importance in Kentucky and beyond, and existing strengths and leadership in this field will provide a platform for further growth in multi-disciplinary research opportunities and community partnerships. Environmental Interactions was viewed as having high societal relevance, particularly in the State of Kentucky where environmental factors play a significant role in public health challenges. This area of concentration seeks to build on existing strengths in the health sciences, engineering, environmental areas of study, and a wide range of other potential disciplines to conduct interdisciplinary work in advancing this area of scholarly work and discovery.

“Economic Growth” represents a significant opportunity as an area of strength given UofL’s current economic impact in the region and its potential to be a driver of the local and regional economy. UofL’s School of Business, with its national and international reputation as a leader in entrepreneurship, is just one example of an existing opportunity to drive economic development and growth. This is bolstered by UofL’s role as a major employer and educator of the local and regional workforce, and a focused effort around economic growth in the curriculum and research endeavors will serve as a basis for expanding this potential impact. This area was also viewed as having significant social and community relevance, given the high levels of poverty and need for an educated workforce in the region and state, and presents a significant opportunity for UofL to play a leading role in reversing these trends and developing and growing the economy and workforce.

The Committee also identified “Justice and Conflict Transformation” as a potential area of concentration, building on the existing strengths in law, conflict resolution, peace building, and other areas of scholarly work, which have been identified as natural, interdisciplinary fields that cut across

multiple schools and divisions. The focus on social issues involving justice, equity, fairness, acceptance and embracing diversity is also viewed as enhancing UofL’s commitment to these important values and principles as an institution.

After considering each of these areas, a further effort was undertaken to consider the potential connection of the identified academic and research concentrations with Schools and disciplines across the campus. The result demonstrated that these thematic areas cut broadly across the university, and offer significant opportunities for multi-disciplinary collaboration. Appendix B depicts these potential cross-disciplinary connections across the various UofL schools. The perceived benefits of this model included opportunities to expand collaboration and cross disciplinary scholarship and research, consolidated areas of expertise across the disciplines, and enhanced innovation and discovery in new areas. In addition, the model was viewed as creating improved opportunities for funded research from funding entities that have a demonstrated preference for supporting multi-disciplinary programs and research, and multi-disciplinary approaches tend to address real world issues and bring faculty together to create new fields of scholarship and learning.

Similarly, an effort was undertaken to ensure consistency of the areas of strengths with leading societal issues and challenges within Louisville (including within the Louisville public school system), regionally and in Kentucky, including: poverty, an underperforming education system, public health threats, public safety concerns, child abuse and neglect, an aging population, substance abuse and addiction, and a large prison population. A review of these societal issues confirmed and strengthened the support of the eight areas of concentration. Appendix C depicts this alignment in more detail. By their very nature, concentrations that correlate strongly with issues impacting the region and state are also likely to receive greater support and investment from public and private resources, dramatically improving the chances this greater investment will provide a pathway for success.

As noted above, the list of eight thematic areas is not intended to represent a final model for academic and research strengths for UofL: rather, it is meant to serve as the first step in a broad, collaborative and inclusive campus-wide conversation. These concentrations must be vetted and validated through further discussion and debate that incorporates, applicable data, metrics and other performance measures that the campus community deems relevant.

aspIRaTIonal vIsIon

The A&R Core Committee was also charged with identifying and considering aspirational ideas as part of an overarching vision of the academic planning process and basis for transformational change. Both the Core and Advisory Committees brainstormed various ideas, and developed the following list:

• Develop ways for students to become more active and less passive in their own education. Students should be encouraged to be more entrepreneurial in their learning.

• Develop the internal infrastructure necessary to create a “talent pool” of faculty that could be called upon at a moment’s notice to assist the public and other faculty members, staff and students with availability to answer research and academic questions.

• Improve the training of graduate students to approach their work in more multi-disciplinary and inter-disciplinary ways, improving their chances for success in securing the limited jobs available.

• Focus on critical thinking skills that are discipline-specific, inter-disciplinary and job-related.

• Develop a “porous” classroom that encourages service learning and collaboration.

• Create resilience education and research (i.e., resilience of social and ecological systems).

• Becoming a leader, not a follower, in LGBT issues.

• Becoming a university known for eliminating silos.

• Provide Freshmen seminars that identify research opportunities for students.

Consistent with the work surrounding academic and research strengths and concentrations, the Committees’ work on ideas for an aspirational vision was intended as a beginning step in a larger scale discussion that incorporates broad based feedback and input from the campus on strategies for guiding the institution to national prominence in the 21st Century.

enhanCIng Uofl’s naTIonal RepUTaTIon

The Committee also concluded that an investment needs to be made in improving the reputation of the University of Louisville, and developed the following recommendations:

1. Identify appropriate measures and benchmarks to assess academic reputation and performance

a. Consider the Lombardi Center for Measuring University Performance as a potential measure

b. Consider use of the U.S. News and World Report rankings, and identify specific measures used by the ranking

c. Further assess ACC and AAU factors as potential benchmark peer institutions

d. Identify specific goals for achieving rankings and performance measures among the various benchmark organizations

2. Develop specific strategies to bolster UofL’s academic stature and reputation

a. Invest in Phi Beta Kappa and build deliverables into scorecards for key leaders

b. Pursue NCI designation for the Brown Cancer Center and make necessary investments to support plan

3. Create a compelling, sustained marketing campaign around UofL’s academic and research strengths and performance, and incorporate final areas of strength concentrations from academic planning process

4. Develop a comprehensive recruitment and retention plan for attracting top faculty and researchers to UofL

5. Assess admissions requirements and incorporate goals for increased academic statistics for UofL students

6. Examine retention and graduation rates and incorporate goals for improvement into long-term academic plan

7. Examine classroom size and ratios and compare against best practices

phase 3 – how wIll we geT TheRe?Beginning in the Summer and Fall 2013, broad based vetting, validation and refinement of the recommendations identified in this document will take place with many of UofL’s key constituent groups, including (but not limited to): the Steering Committee, the Board of Trustees, Deans, the Faculty Senate, the Staff Senate, the Student Government Association and the Board of Overseers.

This will be followed in mid- to late Fall 2013 with the finalization of the concentrations noted above and the development of strategic plans. This process will be led by UofL’s President, Provost, Executive Vice President for Health Affairs and Executive Vice President for Research. These campus leaders will be materially assisted by a multi-disciplinary group of faculty, including utilizing the continued expertise and input of the A&R Core and Advisory Committees, in addition to other campus and external resources as appropriate.

In the Winter of 2013, organizational and budget models will be created to implement the strategic plans, as guided by the Provost, Deans, Concentration leaders and Finance. Finally, in the Spring of 2014, alignment of hiring and investment around the strategic plans and organizational/budget models will begin in earnest, again with the guidance of the Provost, Deans and Concentration leaders. Appendix D outlines the timeline anticipate for the third phase of this initiative.

Draft – for discussion purposes only appenDIx a

Draft – for discussion purposes only appenDIx a

Draft – for discussion purposes only appenDIx a

Draft – for discussion purposes only appenDIx a

Draft – for discussion purposes only appenDIx a

Draft – for discussion purposes only appenDIx a

TeChnoLogy, DemograPhiCs,

engagemenT anD inTernaTionaL Core anD suBCommiTTees

Draft finDinGs anD recoMMenDations

June 2013

fInDIngs anD ReCommenDaTIons

background and Context June, 2013

The Technology, Demographics, Engagement and International Core Committee (TDEI) was charged with examining several areas of critical focus for the University of Louisville (UofL). Specifically, the TDEI Committee considered the following questions:

• What is the appropriate role and use of technology and on-line learning at the University of Louisville over the next 10 years?

• What is the appropriate size and composition of student enrollment (including professional, undergraduate and graduate) at the University of Louisville over the next 10 years, paying special attention to a changing, more diverse demographic?

• What is the appropriate size, composition and role of international programs and initiatives at the University of Louisville over the next 10 years?

• What is the role of “engagement” as it pertains to the teaching/learning environment at UofL?

In order to address these varied topics with greater focus, the TDEI Core Committee utilized a unique process, unlike the other core committees:

• Four (4) formal subcommittees were established and populated prior to the initial core committee meeting, devoted to the following areas of concentration: Engagement, Enrollment, International and Technology/On-Line.

• These four (4) subcommittees met regularly, and their respective chairs reported back to the TDEI Core Committee at its regular meetings.

• The TDEI Core Committee received reports of the subcommittees’ progress, asked thoughtful questions of the subcommittee chairs regarding the subcommittees’ discussions, provided feedback, made additional requests for information, and solicited proposed recommendations.

At first blush, these four subcommittees, and their associated charges, present disparate questions that are seemingly unrelated to one another. However, in their discussions, both the core committee and its subcommittees found common bonds and points of integration that spanned across the different charges and groups. For example:

• Discussions centered on the appropriate percentage of UofL students studying abroad ultimately include consideration of the underlying technological support necessary for UofL students to remain connected to the university during their studies in other countries.

• Whether to grow the size of the student body at both the graduate and undergraduate levels inevitably includes a discussion of how those students will be engaged in their community, and whether the university will reach students through “live” or on-line / distance learning courses.

These multiple points of intersection, cutting across these four (4) topics areas, provide valuable insight in answering the following critical question: “Who are we as a University?” These four strategic areas of interest also serve to keep the University and its students relevant in an increasingly changing world.

The TDEI Core Committee and four (4) Subcommittees were charged with completing the first two phases of a three phase methodology: “Where are we today?”, and “where do we want to be?”. The groups participated in a robust analysis of the current environment at UofL in each respective field, assessed common attributes of high performing institutions, and created a vision for the desired environment at UofL. As a result of this process, the Subcommittees concluded their work by offering numerous recommendations reflecting the product of their discussions, and the chairs of those Subcommittees delivered those recommendations to the TDEI Core Committee for consideration and comment.

The third phase, which will focus on implementation of the adopted recommendations and plans, will occur in the next and final phase of planning.

Phase 1Where are we today?

Phase 2Where do we want to be?

Phase 3How will we get there?

• Serving the needs of our community through scholarship and research

• Encouraging, empowering and enabling a greater connection between our scholarly work and the needs of our community

• Preparing our students to compete in the global economy

• Ensuring a diverse range of literacies, competencies and experiences

• Enriching the student experience• Maintaining access to higher education to diverse populations

• Strategic growth in undergraduate and graduate areas with the highest demand and opportunity

• Keeping pace with technological advances that support our pedagogical interests and aspirations

• Meeting student demands and interests for enhanced use of technology

• Broadening access to education and research

• Leading edge practices and programs

engagemenT

DemogRaphICs

TeChnology InTeRnaTIonal

The TDeI Core Committee was comprised of the following individuals:

The four (4) TDeI subcommittees were comprised of the following individuals:

TeChnology/on-lIne sUbCommITTee:

Gale Rhodes, Associate Provost, Delphi Center, CHAIR

Al Futrell, Chair, Communication, A&S, Faculty Senate

Kristin Brown, Delphi, Staff Senate

Andrew Wright, CIS, COB

Tom Simmons, T&L, CEHD (Faculty Senate)

Michael Keibler, Medicine Staff

Deborah Keeling, Justice Admin., A&S Faculty

Pritesh Prakash, Graduate Student

Joe Dablow, Undergraduate Affairs

enRollmenT sUbCommITTee:

Jenny Sawyer, Admissions, CHAIR

Stephanie Salings, Enrollment Management

Angela Napier, Kent School, Staff Senate

Michael Abboud, Financial Aid

David Powers, Ultra

Margaret Pentecost, Dean’s Office, CEHD

Paul DeMarco, SIGS, Faculty

Connor Tracy, Student

Scott Burks, Registrar

InTeRnaTIonal sUbCommITTee:

Mordean Taylor-Archer, Vice Provost, Diversity / International Affairs, CHAIR

Ashley Grey, International Affairs

Anne Griner, Director, ESL

Shiping Hua, Asian Studies, A&S

Daya Sandhu, CEHD Faculty and Int’l Center

Elizabeth Liebschutz, COB Staff

Diane Pecknold, A&S Faculty

Nefertiti Burton, A&S Faculty

Virginia Hosono, International Center

InTeRnaTIonal sUbCommITTee:

Vicki Hines Martin, Nursing Faculty and VP Community Engagement, CHAIR

Matt Real, Career Center

Karen Christopher, WGST, A&S

Lisa Blum, COB, Faculty

Muriel Harris, Health Promotions, SPHIS

Anna Faul, Kent School, Faculty

Leslye Erickson, Career Services

Nisha Gupta, i2a Engagement Specialist

Brian Shelangoski, Housing

Linda J. Wilson, VPHR

CoRe membeRs:

Marcia Hern, Dean, School of Nursing, CHAIR

Larry Benz, Trustee

Dale Billingsley, Vice Provost, Undergraduate Affairs

Dan Hall, Vice President for Community Engagement

Tracy K’Meyer, Chair, History, A&S

Bruce Alphenaar, Speed School, Faculty Senate

Ginger Brown, Justice Administration, A&S, Staff Senate

Matt Bergman, Faculty, CEHD

Chad Frederick, Graduate Student

Henry Heuser, BOO

Anita Moorman, Faculty HPES, CEHD

Ben Weyman, Student

The TDEI Core Committee met every two weeks from March 2013 through May 2013. The four (4) Subcommittees met every other “off” week (opposite the week the Core Committee was meeting) from March 2013 through May 2013, allowing for a continuing dialogue to occur between the core and subcommittees. The Subcommittees were comprised of many subject matter experts and leaders in their respective fields. In some instances, where additional views and opinions were not otherwise represented, additional committee members were added to reflect this other points of view.

phase 1 – wheRe aRe we ToDay? The TDEI Core Committee tasked the four (4) subcommittees with the initial responsibility of answering the question, “Where are we today?” The subcommittees, in turn, conducted their inquiry into answering this question, and each reported back to the TDEI core committee as follows:

TeChnology / onlIne eDUCaTIon

The Technology / Online Learning Subcommittee (Gale Rhodes, Chair) focused its attention on the role of technology in driving education and online / distance learning. In particular, the subcommittee focused on the fact that technology and online / distance learning are tools that allow the University to respond to various external demands. The subcommittee determined that the use of technology in the 21st century university is far more encompassing than simply online / distance learning, and also includes labs, simulators, computer servers and information technologies, to name but a few.

The subcommittee also concluded that UofL as a whole needs to recognize the continuing and growing impact of technology on education and how it is changing traditional instructional means. Toward that end, it should be emphasized in strategic planning at the university level, as well as through the recognition that new technology needs to be reflected in budgetary planning. Through a more robust use of technology and a wide range of online / distance course and program offerings, the University can achieve many of its stated goals and objectives, including the following:

• recruiting undergraduate and graduate students;

• improving graduation rates;

• remaining competitive for the best students and faculty;

• providing broad access to higher education;

• maintaining relevance and presence in technology trends;

• producing more college graduates;

• keeping the costs of education affordable; and

• increasing revenue generation.

The subcommittee also considered the question of the appropriate blend of online/distance learning and “live” courses. This focus included the number of courses and programs taught in an online or distance learning format, as well as “hybrid” courses, in which a course has both live and online components.

The subcommittee observed that UofL was an early adopter of online / distance learning, based largely on a grant received from the Department of Defense to provide courses to military personnel. In recent years, however, UofL has not kept pace with other institutions within Kentucky, in terms of not only the numbers of online / distance education courses offered, but also the number of online programs available.

The subcommittee members further reported that faculty experience with online / distance learning on campus is extremely varied, and this variation occurs between schools and departments, and even within schools and departments. To better illustrate these variations, the subcommittee developed a matrix that categorizes the use of online / distance learning by faculty, based on whether such faculty have embraced online / distance learning and whether they have engaged in online / distance learning.

• One group of faculty members has embraced online / distance learning, and has engaged in its delivery;

• Another group of faculty has embraced the notion or value of online / distance learning but has not yet engaged in the delivery for a variety of factors;

• A further group of faculty does not embrace the notion or value of online / distance learning, but has nevertheless engaged in its deliver for a variety of factors;

• The final group of faculty neither embrace online / distance learning, nor engage in its delivery for a variety of factors.

The subcommittee’s findings illustrate that UofL is presented with great opportunities for better use of technology in the classroom, as well as the removal of barriers to those faculty seeking to deliver courses and programs in an online / distance learning format.

DemogRaphICs

The Enrollment Subcommittee (Jenny Sawyer, Chair) focused its primary attention on looking at the question of the appropriate size and composition of the student body at the University of Louisville (UofL) for undergraduate and graduate programs.

For undergraduate programs, the subcommittee considered the trends associated with enrollment demographics at the local, regional and national level, and the influence of those demographics on the pipeline of students coming into UofL. Among other findings, the subcommittee noted that the population of 15-18 year olds is relatively flat in Kentucky, unlike the nationwide trend (where the population is decreasing). In fact, institutions in neighboring states (such as Indiana, Illinois and Ohio) have undertaken increased recruiting efforts in Kentucky, causing increased competition for the best and brightest students.

In response to these trends, the subcommittee considered alternate strategies that would allow UofL to achieve the optimal size of its graduate and undergraduate student body. Specifically, the subcommittee discussed the degree to which UofL must consider new strategies that place greater emphasis on out-of-state students. The subcommittee noted that UofL has not traditionally advanced strategic initiatives focused on this group, and consequently may have an underdeveloped infrastructure to pursue strategies focused on out-of-state students.

The subcommittee also considered whether pricing policy regarding out-of-state tuition must be reexamined to become more competitive for both undergraduate and graduate programs. The current ratio of out-of-state tuition to in-state tuition is higher at UofL than at some other Kentucky institutions, and this differential may be negatively impacting the degree to which out-of-state students select UofL. Reducing the tuition ratio differential for graduate programs, in particular, may create additional intramural scholarship funds for graduate students and reduce the tuition burden on extramural grants that fund graduate research assistants.

Beyond simply maintaining its current numbers in the face of increased competition, the subcommittee determined that the University of Louisville may achieve greater economies of scale by growing the size of the graduate and undergraduate student body. Nevertheless, the subcommittee considered the associated risks and benefits of any approach that increases the size of the student body:

The benefits associated with growing the size of the student body include:

• Providing more tuition revenue to UofL to fund additional programs;

• Raising the overall number of graduates from UofL;

• Improving the local and regional economy through a better educated population;

• Increasing the size and scope of alumni to tap as potential donors; and

• Offering the potential for enhanced reputation.

The risks associated with growing the size of the student body include:

• Increasing costs, possibly beyond the incremental revenue gained;

• Decreasing (potentially) the graduation rate for UofL students;

• Reducing quality of some programs, due to competition for resources;

• Raising the number or graduates without jobs available for them; and

• Adding to the number of students with loan debt but without a degree.

The subcommittee further determined that any strategy focused on the size and composition of the graduate and undergraduate student body must be subject to the following caveats and provisos:

• UofL must continue to focus on the admission of college-ready students;

– Simply increasing the number of students by, for example, reducing admission standards to admit students who may not be ready for college places additional burdens on the University support system, at increased expense.

• UofL must improve its graduation and retention rates;

– Just as with the need to focus on college-ready students, increasing the number of students without concern for their ability to and likelihood of graduating reduces the University’s overall graduation rates and does not provide a service to students.

• UofL must maintain its commitment to diversity.

– While the overall percentage of minority students among the UofL student body has remained largely unchanged over the last several years, any increase in enrollment must, at minimum, maintain the percentage of minority students.

engagemenT

The Engagement Subcommittee (Vicki Hines-Martin, Chair) focused its attention on looking at the question of the appropriate role of outreach and engagement at the University of Louisville. The subcommittee collected data demonstrating the number and breadth of partnerships UofL is presently committed to throughout the community, state and nation.

The subcommittee observed that outreach and engagement activities are commonly measured by the number of established partnerships. The subcommittee determined that UofL’s strategic goals for the future (whether financial, academic, athletic or other) will continue to be supported by the continued development of these partnerships. Moreover, high-level community engagement will help boost the University of Louisville toward achieving its strategic objectives by:

• enhancing the educational experience of students;

• building its research, scholarship, and creative activity;

• fostering diversity, opportunity, and social justice; and

• practicing creative and responsible stewardship.

The subcommittee also considered the impact of the President’s challenge to increase engagement on campus. The prevailing view among subcommittee members was that the University community has embraced the President’s challenge to increase engagement. However, the committee also concluded that traditional recognition and reward measures, such as promotion and tenure, do not recognize adequately an individual’s commitment to outreach and engagement. Indeed, the consensus within the subcommittee was that an individual with high levels of engagement could languish without promotion, while another individual with high degrees of teaching and/or research (but low levels of engagement) would be more likely to be promoted.

The subcommittee also found that faculty and staff often perceive that engagement is a stated goal, but lacking in meaningful value to some administration and faculty leaders. As a result, faculty and staff with this perception intentionally limit their participation in engagement activities, curbing the potential development of additional and/or more meaningful partnerships that could benefit UofL as an institution.

In approaching or developing faculty participation, the subcommittee felt that the focus must be (in part) on increasing the level of scholarly engagement that is deemed valuable to administration and faculty leaders:

• UofL must make it an institutional priority;

• Have measureable goals and metrics;

• Reward and recognize scholarly engagement;

• Create and align organizational strengths to promote outreach and engagement.

The subcommittee also developed a better understanding of the relevant components of outreach and engagement (community, student, alumni and other entities), and reached the following conclusions:

• At the most fundamental level, outreach and engagement facilitate mutually beneficial relationships between the University of Louisville and the community.

• If community engagement is sufficiently understood and genuinely embraced by the University of Louisville, then engagement will help advance the other strategic priorities of the university.

To maintain its standing as a premier metropolitan research university in the 21st Century, the University of Louisville will benefit from making an institutional commitment to outreach and engagement as a central and defining characteristic of the university. To achieve this goal, UofL must recognize that engagement is a process by which mutually beneficial partnerships can also include staff, students, alumni, policy makers and government.

InTeRnaTIonal

The International Subcommittee (Mordean Taylor-Archer, Chair) focused its attention on determining the appropriate percentage of international students attending the University of Louisville, and the percentage of UofL students studying abroad.

In order to determine the present state of affairs at UofL, the subcommittee reviewed data comparing UofL to other peer institutions in terms of the percentage of international students among UofL’s overall student body, and the percentage of UofL students studying abroad. The subcommittee found that, in comparison to its traditional peers and in comparison to its new peers in the ACC, UofL ranks relatively low:

• For 2010-2011, UofL ranked last in percentage of international students, as compared to traditional peer institutions;

• For 2010-2011, UofL ranked 8th out of 18 in percentage of students studying abroad, as compared to traditional peer institutions;

• For 2010-2011, UofL ranked last in percentage of international students (ACC);

• For 2010-2011, UofL ranked 14th out of 16 in percentage of students studying abroad (ACC).

The subcommittee determined that the following factors may be some of the root causes for these relatively low numbers:

• UofL has maintained a highly decentralized infrastructure supporting both study abroad and international students;

• Faculty are afforded limited incentives for building study abroad and international programs, such as protected time and compensation, that would encourage growth in these programs;

• Students have limited knowledge and access to information, especially financial aid, scholarship and advising opportunities and support, creating barriers for student participation in international programs;

• UofL lacks an institutional priority to increase the percentage of its student body comprised of international students;

• UofL lacks a comprehensive, developed strategic vision or supporting strategies for international education that reflects the value of international education for our students, for our communities, for our nation and for our institution.

The subcommittee discussed the value of having international students attend UofL, as well as the value of UofL students having an “international experience” through study abroad opportunities. The subcommittee’s view of the value of an international experience can best be stated as follows:

The University of Louisville must prepare its students to work effectively in an increasingly global economy. To that end, we must provide our students with international experiences through study in other countries and through interaction with international students here at UofL that enhance their understanding of cultural, religious, ethnic and linguistic similarities and differences among global citizens.

The subcommittee also challenged itself to consider more broadly what it means to have an “international experience” as not limited to credit-producing, study abroad opportunities, as traditionally reflected in the comparison data noted above. The subcommittee considered alternative means and mechanisms, beyond interacting with international students or traveling to foreign countries, which would provide students with an “international experience,” including technological advances such as Skype and social media that provide a virtual window on the world.

phase 2 – wheRe Do we wanT To be?As noted above, the TDEI Core Committee solicited recommendations from the four (4) subcommittee in each of their respective areas. The subcommittees drafted and revised sets of recommendations that applied at varying levels of focus (i.e., general versus specific), and in various sub-topic areas. These recommendations were presented to the Core Committees by the subcommittee chairs at the final meeting of the Core Committee. Core committee members provided feedback at that meeting, including specific revisions to certain recommendations. The following represents the sets of recommendations proposed by the Subcommittees and adopted (as revised) by the Core Committee.

ReCommenDaTIonsTeChnology / onlIne

The subcommittee has determined that the impact of technology in education can be felt in both educational and classroom settings, as well as from an administrative standpoint. The subcommittee offers the following educational/classroom setting recommendations:

1. Develop criteria for basic technology and infrastructure available in every classroom.

a. In some classrooms at UofL, students bring with them to class electric outlet power strips, due to inadequate access to electricity.

b. While not every classroom needs to be similarly outfitted, some basic technology needs should be consistently available in all classrooms.

2. Test and filter innovative academic technologies through a measurable and consistent rubric to ascertain its long-term value.

a. Every new piece of academic technology needs to be filtered through the lens of pedagogy, regardless of its “cool-ness” factor.

3. Consider the efficacy of mobile technologies, how to leverage them, how to train faculty on their proper use, ensure with I.T. that B.Y.O.D. (Bring Your Own Device) is a reality, and help students understand how to learn using this platform.

4. Continue growing with a learning management system (LMS) such as Blackboard, but also be open to newer LMSs that could help provide quicker implementation, a less steep learning curve, and more robust reporting features.

5. Provide greater public access to WiFi on campus.

6. Integrate the influence of social media into the curriculum, and how to leverage it in a safe, legal and structured manner.

7. Develop procedures that reinforce existing academic integrity policies as they are applied in online and mobile teaching.

8. Develop policies and procedures that address accessibility in online and mobile teaching.

9. Provide faculty development programs to aid them in the appropriate use of technology that adapts as technologies change.

10. Consider various forms of blended learning.

11. Pursue mobile alternatives, not just in on-line / distance learning, but for all elements of learning, e.g. reading materials (helping reduce student cost by having shared e-books, etc.), e-portfolios, etc.

The subcommittee offers the following administrative recommendations:

1. Ensure UofL has a point person and/or university-wide group that is monitoring and researching academic technologies.

2. Develop a culture that is both nimble and anticipatory in organizational structure and programming to keep ahead of the changes in technology.

a. Since academic technologies are changing at an ever-increasing pace, it is difficult to predict what it will look like in even a few years’ time.

3. Develop robust virtual student services across the board.

4. Provide an incubator for new technologies.

5. Assess what IT infrastructure needs to be in place so the university can continue to operate in case of floods, tornado strikes, etc.

6. Develop/consolidate a single Customer Relations Management software program to drive student success from cradle to grave.

The subcommittee offers the following recommendations related to online / distance learning:

1. Position the University to meet the student / technology demands of the future.

2. Remove barriers to on-line / distance learning for those faculty members who are interested (including addressing faculty work load issues).

3. Evolve financial models to encourage quality and efficiency in the delivery of on-line / distance learning courses and programs.

4. Create a clear vision for the role of on-line / distance education at UofL that is both measureable and time-bound.

5. Provide greater resources and training of faculty in how to teach on-line / distance learning courses.

a. UofL should remove as many obstacles as possible for those who want to engage in on-line / distance education, recognizing that on-line / distance education is not for everyone.

6. Provide more widespread and clever use of technology in the context of on-line / distance education to bolster international programs.

7. Recognize that decisions related to on-line / distance learning should not be guided by revenue, but instead be viewed as a way of expanding UofL’s curriculum and offering people who might not otherwise have access to higher education the chance to take college level courses.

8. Recognize that there are unresolved financial and pedagogical issues across the academy in on-line / distance learning, and that new models are being explored and tested that acknowledge that the risks and costs of failure of being the ‘market leader’ for UofL are too high.

a. The Subcommittee believes that being an ‘early adopter’ is a more sound strategy for UofL, as new models emerge.

9. Create a task force to consider the implications of Massive Open On-Line Courses (MOOCs) on the University of Louisville (including the advantages and disadvantages), as well as a complete analysis of current incumbents that are partnering with public universities (e.g. Coursera, Udacity).

a. The Committee further notes that, before joining the MOOC trend, this university wide task force (representative of all points of view) consider the ethical, pedagogical, and practical concerns that have been raised, and develop a way forward that addresses them.

10. Develop a plan for continuously seeking input from faculty and staff, and encourage a broad campus conversation on this topic.

DemogRaphICs

Given the potential benefits and risks outlined among its findings (noted above), the subcommittee is recommending that the University of Louisville pursue a strategy of targeted enrollment growth, as opposed to “growth for growth’s sake.” In order to pursue the goal of targeted enrollment growth in undergraduate and graduate programs, the subcommittee offers the following recommendations:

1. Commit sufficient resources to the enrollment process to ensure that, at minimum, UofL can sustain its existing enrollment numbers.

a. Increased competition from both out-of-state and in-state institutions presents UofL with a challenge to maintain its current enrollment. This fact cannot be overlooked, insofar as UofL will be challenged to keep its existing numbers.

2. Develop a process to identify underutilized programs at UofL that merit targeted enrollment growth.

a. The subcommittee discussed the need to identify underutilized programs, but wrestled with determining the appropriate factors to be considered.

b. To the extent existing programs contain the requisite infrastructure necessary to support growth, both in terms of facilities and faculty, leveraging those assets likely provides an opportunity for targeted growth.

c. Of paramount importance to any decision related to targeted enrollment growth is maintaining quality of instruction.

d. Consideration should also be given to funding models that incentivize units / departments to engage in such targeted enrollment growth.

3. Review (and to the extent necessary, revise) UofL’s out-of-state tuition policy to become more competitive with other Kentucky institutions.

a. UofL must also consider the impact of Kentucky’s residency requirements, and effectively lobby the Legislature to consider changes that could benefit UofL.

4. Consider targeted growth in fields that address state and national employment trends and critical thinking skills.

a. UofL can align aspects of its targeted growth to state and national employment needs, in order to promote the development of a better educated population, better-prepared for career fields.

b. The subcommittee also recognizes that the core Academic and Research Priorities committee is focusing on a number of areas of strength for UofL, and believes that targeted enrollment growth should also be matched to those priorities and objectives.

c. The core committee further notes that targeting growth in fields that address state / national employment trends alone is insufficient, and that UofL must also provide students with the critical thinking skills they need to develop successful and fulfilling careers and lives.

5. Increase the number of undergraduate students coming to UofL from KCTCS generally and Jefferson Community and Technical College (JCTC) in particular.

a. While JCTC has undergone dramatic increases in enrollment, UofL has not seen similar increases on par with JCTC’s growth.

b. More can be done to improve the quality of the pipeline of students coming from JCTC to UofL through increased outreach programs, such as developing partnerships between JCTC and UofL’s School of Education, as well as educating students on the value of a 2+2 degree.

c. UofL must also address the dramatic cost variance between JCTC and UofL through scholarships, expanded need-based aid for associate degree students or other creative pricing strategies.

6. Offer “degree completion programs” that permit students to use the varied credits that they have received at other institutions, and leverage those credits for a degree.

7. In graduate programs, focus targeted enrollment growth in STEMH fields (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics and Health), where there is a national shortage of students, especially at the graduate level, and a particularly critical shortage of under-represented, minority students trained in these fields.

8. Increase the number of doctoral and master’s degree students (especially within under-represented, minority groups), which will increase the reputation of the University.

a. The committee notes that any increase in doctoral and master’s degree students must include a careful analysis of the current and anticipated funding for such degree programs. Without adequate funding for such programs, such an increase in the number of doctoral and master’s degree students will do little to enhance the reputation of UofL or to benefit the students in such programs.

9. Consider increases in summer and night enrollment, where UofL can leverage its physical assets better and more adult students can be better served.

a. To achieve this recommendation, the subcommittee recommends a review of the current budget model for the summer program (in particular), which tends to discourage faculty from teaching such courses.

10. Focus on student- and faculty-centric models that more closely consider class meeting times, studying patterns and classroom space utilization to maximize UofL’s assets.

11. Pursue opportunities for creating Professional Science Master’s degree programs that can fill employment needs of local, state and national industry partners.

12. Strengthen veteran services to attract more veterans from neighboring military facilities.

13. Consider greater centralization of enrollment marketing.

14. Strengthen scholarship opportunities for under-represented, minority students.

a. UofL should consider scholarship opportunities within the growing immigrant population within Louisville.

15. Consider that undergraduate and graduate programs may need to grow in some areas and be reduced or eliminated in others.

a. These decisions should be made on a strategic basis, using metrics of degree productivity, time to degree completion, and resources available to support the programs.

16. Match housing decisions to UofL’s enrollment goals, including (to the extent necessary to meet targeted enrollment growth) new housing options in order to attract traditional student enrollments.

a. The focus on housing decisions should not be limited to undergraduate students, but also consider the unique housing needs to graduate students.

engagemenT

To support UofL’s broad goals of increasing outreach and engagement, the subcommittee offers the following specific recommendations:

1. Consider adopting an overall approach to UofL Outreach and Engagement, similar to Michigan State University and others, that would focus on the following:

a. Make an institutional commitment to have engaged scholarship become a central and defining characteristic of the University of Louisville;

b. Update the President’s scorecard goals to include engagement metrics throughout all strategic areas of the scorecard;

c. Facilitate the establishment of more community-based learning courses across academic disciplines;

d. Support academic units that desire to develop guidelines that recognize community-based teaching, research, and creative activity as valid criteria for hiring faculty and rewarding promotion and tenure;

e. Enhance the university’s capacity to meaningfully assess the impact and outcomes of engagement regarding the benefit to the university and to the community.

2. Consider adopting specific changes to promotion and tenure opportunities by providing greater recognition of outreach and engagement activities, similar to the model adopted by leaders in this field like Michigan State University, that contains the following attributes, among others:

a. Emphasizes multiple definitions of scholarship;

b. Promotes the use of evidence to document the quality of that scholarship;

c. Embeds opportunities to report scholarly outreach and engagement in promotion and tenure;

d. Distinguishes among service to the University, service to the profession and service to the broader community;

e. Broadens the list of recognized examples of scholarship to include scholarly engagement and outreach.

3. Develop a new program of peer-reviewed, intramural, community engagement grants that would foster outreach and engagement and offer greater recognition of those efforts by the University of Louisville.

a. Currently, the UofL Office of the Executive Vice President for Research and Innovation administers a program for Intramural Research Incentive Grants (IRIGs).

These IRIGs are designed to stimulate and encourage the development of research opportunities on campus through internal funding.

b. The subcommittee recommends the development of a similar program for internal community engagement grants (ICE grants).

c. These grants would be awarded through a peer-reviewed process, and carry the imprimatur of the University, leading to greater recognition in promotion and tenure.

4. Launch a campus-wide educational effort among administration and faculty leaders regarding the value of engaged scholarship toward the overall strategic goals of the University:

a. The subcommittee is recommending a renewed educational campaign be launched to educate administration and faculty leaders regarding the value of community outreach and engagement.

b. The objective is to inform institutional and department conversations about engaged scholarship, and about the many ways of engaging the public in scholarship.

c. The initiative will also have the goal of advancing the notion that engagement is a form of scholarship that cuts across teaching, research and service.

5. Develop a mechanism for staff to report additional hours of service outside of normal business hours:

a. Reward and recognize individuals that go above and beyond the one day of service presently afforded to staff;

b. Develop criteria to assist staff with self-reporting that aligns with the University’s goals and objectives.

InTeRnaTIonal

The subcommittee offers the following broad recommendations related to both study abroad and international students, intended to increase the percentage of study abroad and international students:

1. Create a dedicated, centralized, international studies unit, together with the requisite infrastructure (staff, tools and recruiters) and budget (funding) to adequately support the unit, by way of a top-down, institutionally funded priority.

a. This centralized unit would provide a primary point of contact for students studying abroad and for international students, including the financial aid and academic advising support they need.

b. This unit will also help to facilitate cross-campus collaborations and a common dialogue that is consistently presented to students by all distributed campus offices involved in international affairs.

2. Create an on-campus “global village” that provides UofL’s domestic and international students with an environment that exposes students of different countries, cultures and religions to one another.

3. Develop new (and further develop existing) partnerships and collaborative agreements / exchange programs with international institutions that UofL can work with cooperatively to create a “pipeline” for international students to attend UofL and for UofL students to study abroad.

a. The development of this process must provide a balanced approach to the number of students studying abroad, with the number of students UofL hosts from other countries.

The subcommittee offers the following recommendations related specifically to increasing the percentage of UofL students studying abroad:

1. Develop a plan that permits faculty to count study abroad as part of their teaching load, in order to increase the number of faculty-led and embedded programs, which can make study abroad more affordable and accessible through increased offerings.

2. Encourage study abroad as an integral part of targeted majors/minors, including programs in foreign languages, history, culture and religion.

3. Increase participation in quality study abroad programs across the globe, and continue to investigate the best study abroad programs available to UofL students.

4. Encourage diversity in student participation in study abroad, to provide an opportunity for UofL students who might not otherwise have had the means or motivation to study abroad.

5. Diversify locations of study abroad, particularly in developing countries, to provide students with greater access to a broad spectrum of potential study locations.

6. Facilitate faculty and curriculum integration, regardless of the program or course, to encourage students to consider how the education they have received fits in context with thoughts, theories and philosophies of other cultures.

7. Remove barriers to students pursuing study abroad opportunities by streamlining the CD1 and CD2 petition process.

8. Add study abroad to the culminating undergraduate experience.

9. Consider process efficiencies available through technology, such as Simplicity Horizons.

The subcommittee offers the following recommendations related specifically to increasing the percentage of international students within UofL’s student body:

1. Develop stronger orientation and concierge services for international students that begin upon arrival in Louisville.

2. Create mentor or “buddy” relationships between domestic and international students to facilitate a more seamless transition to campus life.

3. Recognize and foster truly exceptional experiences for international students on campus that will lead to a “trickle down” effect, whereby international students report back favorably on their experience upon return to their countries of origin.

4. Improve student services for international students, such as developing online advising, more vegetarian or international meal options, or easily processed waivers to meal plans or to the first year housing on campus requirement.

5. Provide scholarship funding for the best and brightest international students to attend UofL.

phase 3 – how wIll we geT TheRe?Once a final set of recommendations is adopted and approved, detailed plans to implement the recommendations will be developed and employed in the next phase of the planning process. It is anticipated that this third phase, “How will we get there?”, will move forward in the fall of 2013, utilizing the continued expertise and input of the TDEI Core Committee and Subcommittees, in addition to other campus and external resources as appropriate.

finanCiaL heaLTh

CommiTTeeDraft finDinGs

anD recoMMenDations

June 2013

John Sauk, Dean, Dentistry, CHAIR

Burt Deustch, University of Louisville Foundation

Phoebe Wood, Board of Trustees

Ed Glasscock, Board of Overseers

Mike Curtin, VP Finance

Stephan Gohmann, College of Business

David Martin, Purchasing

Michael Mardis, Student Affairs

Avery Kolers, Philosophy, A&S Faculty

Mitchell Payne, Business Affairs

Maurice Snook, Health Affairs

Greg Postel, School of Medicine Faculty

Timothy Lau, Graduate Student

Morgan Jenny, Student

Lisa London, Human Resources

fInDIngs anD ReCommenDaTIons

background and Context June, 2013

The 21st Century University Initiative set in motion a series of conversations about the future of the University of Louisville. No such conversation would be complete without examining the University’s financial health and fully understanding the financial demands and opportunities that will be placed upon the University over the next several years and decades. The University of Louisville must have exceptional financial practices and performance so that it can continue to deliver the highest quality teaching, research and service. Financial performance is an imperative for the University to deliver on its commitment to be exceptional stewards of the Commonwealth’s investment and to provide broad and affordable access to higher education to its students.

As part of the campus wide effort to solicit opinions about the University’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT Analysis) the University heard from many stakeholders including faculty, administrators, staff, students, and others that some of the University’s financial structures were ripe for assessment and evaluation. Several SWOT commentators opined that new financial models were necessary for the University to effectively compete in a rapidly changing higher education market suggesting that the current financial model at the University has become outdated. In addition, a faculty and staff Task Force known as the Administrative Efficiencies Team that was assembled in 2012 to identify opportunities to gain administrative efficiencies had similarly concluded that certain existing financial structures and processes should be assessed. They further commented that the University’s current financial structures and processes have been in place for several years and may not have appropriately evolved to keep pace with changing economics of higher education. The Administrative Efficiency’s Committee noted:

The university’s current budget model has been in place for several years and has not appropriately addressed changes in the overall funding structure of the university. The current top down decision making process does not reward or encourage new and different strategies and behaviors that are necessary to operate in an evolving higher education environment. The budget model and related practices need to stimulate and reward innovation, revenue growth and increased productivity. As the University sustained budget reductions from the state, the financial practices of the university and its fundamental approach to budgeting remained largely the same. Institutional structures and organizations are now outdated and the University is largely operating as it has for years, but with fewer resources. Shifts to more efficient operational models and strategic investments to stimulate growth are needed to keep the university on track to achieve its mission. The on-going practice of taking budget cuts largely against centralized administrative functions has resulted in reduced capacity of central university services and most campus departments have not been significantly challenged to change their core operations and structures or impose substantial cost cutting measures.

For all of these reasons the Provost commissioned the Financial Health Committee as part of the 21st Century University Initiative.

The Financial Health Committee was charged with examining several questions and issues aimed at improving the financial health of the University:

• What is the most effective and efficient model for budgeting campus financial resources?

• How can the University deliver its core business services (HR, IT, accounting, etc.) in the most effective and efficient manner possible?

• How can the University better leverage its purchasing power?

• How can the University better leverage its physical assets?

• How can the university continue to benefit from the 501c3 structure without undermining governance?

The Committee was assembled with a broad set of stakeholders each with unique and diverse backgrounds, experiences and perspectives. The Committee included faculty, staff and external stakeholders and was comprised of the following individuals:

CURRenT fInanCIal peRfoRmanCe anD pRaCTICes

In fiscal year 2013 the total annual budget for the University was approximately $1.2 billion. This amount consists of approximately $450 million generated from tuition, various fees, and state appropriations. This $450 million comprises what is known as the General Fund and consists of a state appropriation of approximately $144 million. The remainder of the $1.2 billion is derived from the UofL Foundation ($130 million), the Research Foundation ($350), and Athletics ($172 million). Revenue from the Foundation is derived from direct gifts and from endowment earnings. Revenue generated by the University of Louisville Physician’s Group (ULP) is not included within the $1.2 billion sum.

The state appropriation is ultimately the product of intense discussions between the University and three different stakeholders: the Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education (CPE); the Governor; and the Legislature. The University’s financial leaders have worked closely with the CPE in recent years developing the appropriation model. The appropriation was historically formulaic, largely tied to student enrollments but has evolved to include other factors including benchmarks and other performance indicators.

The process for establishing state funded Capital and Operating Budgets largely follow different paths. Historically, the state provided costs to build and maintain buildings. However, several budget cycles ago, the Commonwealth ceased its practice of funding maintenance expenditures. Consequently, UofL has had to anticipate and carefully budget its maintenance costs.

The UofL internal budget is developed annually through a highly collaborative and consultative process. Generally speaking, UofL utilizes a “Hybrid” budget model which is commonly used within higher education, including several ACC institutions. The term “hybrid” is used to describe the current budget model because it has aspects that are formulaic, aspects that are programmatic, and aspects that are incremental.

assessIng The CURRenT bUDgeT moDel

The Committee assessed the current budget and budget model and made several observations about its attributes and characteristics. The budget model today provides predictability to unit leaders which is useful in planning and executing the unit’s long term plans. Predictable and stable funding patterns allow deans and other institutional leaders to accurately budget expenditures, to make short and long term investments, and align resources to longer term strategic objectives. Budgets do not vary significantly from year to year which helps unit leaders create stability within their units and organizations.

However, the Committee also noted that the current budget model does not appropriately take into consideration changes in enrollments, emerging or diminishing trends, shifts in strategic priorities, or evolving student demands and interests. Also the current budget model does not effectively stimulate or incentivize innovation, cost-sharing, cost-reduction or revenue generation and has few incentives or rewards to start new programs or ventures. The committee observed that the current budget model is resilient to change, and that units rarely see funding lines fully eliminated. The Committee raised concerns that the current budget model may actually reward continuation of the status quo. Instead, the Committee observed that the budget model should be sensitive and responsive to enrollment patterns and other strategic and operational shifts. An incremental budget works when there is an ever-increasing resource base, but is slow to react to economic changes.

With respect to innovation the Committee observed that most strategic initiatives are driven from the top-down, when real innovation is perhaps best created within individual units. The problem for many would-be innovators is a sense that the University’s culture rarely rewards risk taking and doesn’t readily tolerate failure.

One of the aspects noted about the UofL, as is the case at many universities, is that there are three large, somewhat autonomous enterprises operating within the University today; Athletics, Health Sciences Center; and the Non-HSC Academic Enterprise. Each has its own set of challenges, opportunities, revenue streams, cost structures and cultures. Despite these differences, however, they largely operate under the same budget model. It was suggested that consideration be given to the unique revenue and cost structures within each of these units and that future budget modeling be structured to support their unique needs and opportunities.

Consistent with the other three 21st Century University Committees, the Financial Health Committee organized its work in three segments. The first segment, familiarly called “Where Are We Today?” was designed to allow the Committee to understand and assess the University’s current financial health, practices and performance. The Committee reviewed various reports and data and received a comprehensive overview of the University’s finances from the University’s budget director. The second segment was dedicated to developing ideas about the future and was called, “Where Do We Want To Be.” The third phase “How Will We Get There” will be conducted in the fall after various stakeholders have had an opportunity to review and comment on the Committee’s findings, observations and recommendations.

Some committee member noted that the University is not very nimble and that there may be too many fixed cost structures including employment that results in less flexibility and high cost structures. 70% of all expenditures are labor related.

CURRenT moDel foR bUsIness seRvICe DelIveRy

Like many large public research universities core administrative services and processes at the University of Louisville in the areas of human resources, financial management, accounting and budgeting, procurement, and information technology support are delivered across the campus in a highly decentralized structure. The result is that service quality and efficiency are varied at the department level – in some cases with high levels of proficiency, but in other cases lacking critical competencies and skills. The current decentralized delivery model is preventing the campus from gaining economies of scale and associated costs savings. The model fosters duplicated and redundant processes, systems and labor, and reduces the ability for the campus to achieve operational standards which promote consistency, equity and adherence to campus policies. The inability to deliver services in a consistent manner across the campus leads to increased institutional risk. The model also limits the ability of the campus to build deep skills and competencies in the people who are delivering the services. Unit Business Managers and other administrative staff often provide services across multiple disciplines (i.e., finance, HR, miscellaneous administrative duties) and as a result they may develop the necessary skills in one of the areas but likely lack expertise in all of the critical service areas.

A comprehensive review of the administrative processes within the Speed School of Engineering underscores the challenge. By surveying most staff and faculty across the School their internal study reflected above descriptions and also revealed that faculty are spending more than one-third of their time engaged in low-value administrative activities.

As the aforementioned Administrative Efficiencies Team noted in its findings the current decentralized model also limits the ability to deliver higher value strategic and consultative services to end users and focuses largely on delivering purely administrative services. Most administrative and support services can be categorized into three distinct group of functions: strategic, consultative and administrative.

• Long range planning• Building organizational capacity, competencies and value• Leveraging and maximizing resources

• Advising and counseling unit leaders• Seeking input on current and future needs• Consulting with employees and supervisors to address workplace issues

• Transactional processes• Record keeping• Compliance

DesIReD sTaTe

Strategic

Consultative

Administrative

UnIveRsITy of loUIsvIlle

Strategic • Very few

Consultative • Some, but varied

Administrative • Primary focus

As noted above, Unit Business Managers are routinely called upon to deliver a wide range of services, often limiting their ability to develop needed skills and competencies in financial management. In many cases UBM’s lack any formal financial and/or accounting education and experience. The result is that too many departments are lacking effective financial, budget and accounting services, often resulting in financial and accounting errors and significant inefficiencies. Various issues have surfaced in accounts payable, accounts receivable, financial tracking, grants management and other routine financial processes. Work and processes are often repeated to correct errors contributing to inefficiencies and slow turnaround times. The lack of financial management skills and competencies also limits the ability of units to strategically identify and evaluate potential costs reduction and revenue generation opportunities within their units. A recently implemented UBM Training Initiative has helped to address these issues but hasn’t gone far enough to sufficiently address the strategic challenges.

RevenUe geneRaTIon

In its deliberations about Revenue Generation, The Committee reviewed the work effort of prior working groups including the Administrative Efficiencies Team and others who have had exhaustive discussions about revenue generation opportunities. The Committee organized and endorsed the following set of revenue generation ideas.

wheRe Do we wanT To be?evolvIng bUDgeT moDels wIThIn hIgheR eDUCaTIon

In recent years several Universities have implemented or considered a budget model that is generally referred to as Responsibility Centered Management (RCM). While there are variations of the model most have common characteristics such as requiring each school, department or unit to create its own demands, create its own revenues and pay for its own costs. Many suggest that the model fosters entrepreneurship and innovation.

whaT Is RCm?

In most modern American universities, authority is highly decentralized, but responsibility (specifically financial responsibility) is held centrally. This decoupling of authority from financial responsibility poses problems for decision makers at every level of the University. Responsibility Centered Management (RCM) is a combination of policies and practices designed to overcome these problems by coupling decision making directly to the associated financial ramifications. These policies and practices should be clearly articulated and crafted to fit the mission of the institution. The backbone of an RCM is typically a Budget Model which:

• Prescribes precisely how revenues are shared amongst responsibility units,

• Associates revenues directly to revenue creating activity (for example student credit hours or degrees awarded),

• Allows decision makers to realize rewards from good financial decisions,

• Allows good local decision making to benefit the entire institution.

Evolve Organizational Units to Focus on Revenue Generation1 Improve tech transfer and commercialization efforts and strengthen the research enterprise

2 Create a Conference and Events Department / Unit

3 Improve the quality and effectiveness of campus development and fundraising

4 Provide incentives for units to generate revenues by allowing for greater revenue sharing

5 Create incentives for research collaboration

Develop or Expand Programs that have Revenue Growth Potential1 Expand distance education offerings where appropriate

2 Increase sponsorship opportunities

4 Review intellectual property policy - have we given faculty adequate incentive to generate IP revenues

5 Increase evening and weekend course offerings

6 Commercialize our bioinformatics intellectual properties

7 Support faculty release time and provide technical support to develop e-books for courses marketed through UofL

8 Look for opportunities to bring nationally famous entertainers, athletes, shows, commentators, authors etc. to UofL and charge admission.

9 Include giving to UofL during the UofL Cares campaigns.

10 Increase advertising on campus or on buildings on campus.

11 Explore ‘clean phosphorous’ strategies and programs

Evolve Student Generated Revenue Streams1 Grow undergraduate admissions and increase admissions standards simultaneously

2 Target out of state student growth with multiple strategies

3 Create a more robust summer term

4 Expand our transfer student enrollments, focusing on professionals returning to complete their degrees

The fundamental principles of an RCM are:

• Transparency – everyone knows the rules and has access to the information they need,

• Accountability – decision makers have clear lines of responsibility,

• Equity – everyone is playing by the same rules and is held to the same standards,

• Predictability – the rules don’t change without broad discussion and lots of warning.

RCM was fully adopted at the University of Pennsylvania in 1974. In the 1980’s RCM was adopted by University of Toronto, University of Michigan, University of Southern California and Indiana University. These Universities have well over a century of experience with the ideas, benefits and problems of RCM and all of them continue to embrace the system. In the last two decades, many other public and private universities have implemented RCM. Among these are University of New Hampshire, Kent State University, University of Illinois Urbana Champaign and University of Iowa. The Universities of Arizona and Washington both have plans to implement RCM models for fiscal year 2012-13 and the University of Kentucky is currently working toward implementing a RCM budget model.

In a NACUBO document entitled, “Responsibility Center Management: Lessons From 25 Years of Decentralized Management,” authors Jon Strauss and John Curry, concisely describe responsibility-centered budgeting and its strengths and weaknesses. In brief, RCM is best described as follows:

• Essentially a decentralized model of financial management, RCM attempts to couple academic authority with financial responsibility; college and departmental ownership of their revenues is coupled with the responsibility of paying both the direct and indirect costs, maintaining adequate financial reserves for the applicable unit, and funding annual debt service requirements on attributable debt.

• RCM retains a certain amount of centralization to remedy inter-unit financial disparities (such as the inability to charge differential tuition in some states) and to implement university wide strategic plans.

• RCM changes the role of the university’s chief business officer from a central financial manager to more of a central banking and rating agency analyst; the chief business officer establishes the financial parameters within which colleges and departments must operate, determines whether colleges and departments can borrow money from the university, and periodically evaluates the financial health of each college or department.

• RCM requires fully loaded (including direct and indirect costs) financial statements at the college and departmental levels; the chief business officer determines revenue and indirect cost allocation methodologies, which should be as simple as possible (e.g., based on credit hours taught, space occupancy, and full-time-equivalent employees).

• Incentives, rewards, and sanctions are necessary to effectively implement and sustain RCM; deans and department heads are given more control over their finances, but they are also held accountable for a more complex set of financial responsibilities

• These facets encourage entrepreneurial behavior at a level of the organization that is closest to university stakeholders.

• Another positive result is the increase in financial transparency, which is consistent with notions of academic shared governance and broader concepts of effective corporate governance, both of which depend on active dialogue that is informed by relevant and reliable information. All stakeholders—faculty, staff, trustees, students, administrators, legislators, accrediting bodies, alumni, and so forth—benefit from having access to the financial information that RCM necessitates.

• First among RCM’s weaknesses is that it places more financial decision-making authority at a level in the university that is arguably the most political. The role of dean is already very difficult; deans are relentlessly caught in the middle of often-conflicting expectations of central administrators and college faculty. Central administrators expect deans to function as leaders of change and managers of their colleges. Faculty, however, expect their dean to function less as a manager and more as a faculty advocate; they want to see their dean working hard to secure more resources for their college. The best deans are able to balance both roles, but this is difficult. Under centralized financial management, deans often default to the more politically acceptable role of faculty advocate. Under RCM, however, deans must function first and foremost as strong leaders and managers in the midst of faculty who see the role of the dean as something different.

• A second weakness of RCM is that it adds financial complexity to the role of dean or department head. Some deans and department heads will struggle to understand and manage the financial demands of RCM. In fact, Strauss and Curry report that when the University of Denver implemented RCM, “several changes in deans along the way were necessary.” To deal with the additional complexity of RCM, many deans and department heads will add to their staffs personnel with more financial experience, which adds to the administrative costs of these units. Universities with centralized financial models concentrate personnel with more financial experience in a central budget office to more cost-effectively support a larger set of colleges and departments. RCM, on the other hand, requires financial expertise at the unit level. One solution to this problem is to push existing financial staff within central budget offices into the colleges and departments; this helps to mitigate the additional staffing costs typically associated with RCM.

• A third weakness of RCM is that it invites seemingly endless conversations and arguments about revenue and indirect cost allocation methodologies. The answer to this problem in the context of shared governance is for the chief business officer to give all constituencies a chance to react to proposed allocation models within a specified time frame, evaluate the feedback, make changes to the proposed models as appropriate, and then move on. Strauss and Curry plainly state, “You cannot make [RCM] perfect by continually refining algorithms and the rules.... ‘keep it simple’ in mind.”

Within our Committee the biggest threat and risk of the RCM model is the concern that too much focus of the model is placed on the economics of the enterprise and not enough focus on preserving and enhancing academic quality. The Committee felt that in order for the model to be successful it would need to be equipped with appropriate policies, structures and mechanisms to ensure that academic quality is not compromised and instead is structured to advance and enhance academic quality.

RCM is not an entirely new concept to the campus and was considered and reviewed approximately seven years ago, but for a variety of factors did not proceed into implementation.

In its assessment of RCM some committee members thought “Responsibility Centered” modeling could benefit units through incentives to expand summer school and other revenue yielding offerings. The feeling among many is that additional revenues are available, but since only a portion of the revenue is retained by the schools and departments today there is little motivation to do it.

It was also noted that there are numerous tuition sharing arrangements in place across the schools and departments with no standard for sharing tuition revenue. In addition, concerns were expressed whether the current budget model reflects the most recent enrollment numbers with a general sense that the enrollment figures may be outdated, and that a reallocation is required.

bUsIness seRvICes

The other key charge of the Committee was to consider how the University delivers its business services. The general consensus among the Committee is that the current delivery of business services is inefficient and many business processes and systems are ineffective and redundant. As noted previously, the University suffers from differentiation of quality and service levels on campus and too many administrative tasks are performed by faculty which impacts scholarly work and research. Units across the campus are deploying IT, HR and Finance services in widely different ways leading to varied levels of service quality and efficiency. There are limited opportunities to gain economies of scale and the result has led to high degrees of inefficiency, shadow systems and higher costs. The Committee noted that inefficiencies are present within the distributed units and within central business services units as well.

The key question in front of the Committee, therefore, is how should the campus restructure the delivery of business services so that higher levels of efficiency, effectiveness and quality are achieved.

The Committee noted that one of the key objectives to reorganizing the distribution of business services should not be simply to save money, but to create a shift in focus. By effectively aligning business competencies and skills and then delivering them to end users in a more efficient manner units can be freed from the burdens of low level administrative tasks and engage in higher value pedagogical work.

In formulating its approach the Committee briefly reviewed and considered how other universities have evolved their business services model. The manner in which universities have delivered business services has generally tracked or followed corporate models. In the 1960’s and 70’s, many businesses deployed business services centrally through large Human Resources, Finance, and Information Technology units. As companies diversified they began to decentralize their core operations. In doing so each division of the company demanded its own HR, Finance and IT personnel arguing that their needs were unique. Their belief was that the closer these services were to the end users the more effective they would be. Universities largely followed suit, and increasingly decentralized their business services.

By the mid-1990’s, however, many private businesses began to recognize the flaws in the decentralized model. The decentralized model added a layer of costs through duplication of roles and services, provided little to no economies of scale, and produced inconsistency in the quality of services offered. Consequently, American businesses began to seek ways to restructure these services to improve service quality and lower costs. The result was often a hybrid model, where certain business services were delivered centrally (i.e., payroll, benefits administration, central policies), with higher value functions retained and delivered in the units (i.e., recruiting, employee development, etc.).

Within the last decade many universities began restructuring their business services in a manner similar to their corporate counterparts. If one looks at the state of business service delivery today at the UofL it mirrors many of the challenges and resulting high costs that companies experienced before deciding to restructure.

The notion of an appropriately constructed hybrid model for the delivery of business services at the UofL is one that naturally resonated with the

Committee. A draft hybrid model was created using the concept of “Service Centers” that would be structured to deliver business services to end users in common organizational units. For instance a “Service Center” might be organized to deliver services to all those working within the Health Sciences units with another organized to service all those working in The College of Arts and Sciences. Service Centers would be organized in logical ‘clusters’ to service the business needs of end users in common units or geographies across the campus. Services would include a broad range of HR, Finance and IT tasks and functions.

Presently, UofL delivers services across in multiple units, departments, centers, and schools. The Service Center strategy reduces the number of points of delivery which in turn allows the University to gain economies of scale, to better leverage and deploy technology, and to develop people with deep skills and expertise in the needed areas of HR, finance and IT. It creates meaningful career opportunities and progression for staff and builds organizational capacity. By reducing the points of delivery of these core services the University will gain consistency in the application and administration of policy. One of the most often cited weaknesses that came from the SWOT Analysis was the concern that campus policies are administered inconsistently and people are treated differently depending upon where they work within the institution. The Service Center model reduces the opportunity for multiple interpretations and applications of policies and creates meaningful standards and consistency across the University. In many cases today it’s the Unit Business Manager that implements HR, Finance and IT policies even though the UBM isn’t a functional expert in all three of those disciplines. The Service Center model allows the University to create functional experts.

In advancing the development of the Service Center model the Committee recommends that a comprehensive examination of key processes be full examined and restructured to successfully support the transition to the new more efficient model. In addition, work flow processes and technology must be given a high priority in developing and implementing the Service Center model, including opportunities to reduce paper based forms and payroll processing. Staff members who are involved in the delivery of business services today have commented that transaction volume has increased significantly in the last few years and that much of their time is devoted to addressing various internal controls with inadequate processes and technology.

ReCommenDaTIonsBased on all of the foregoing the Committee is prepared to make the following recommendations.

1. Continue to develop a Responsibility Centered Management budget model consistent with the themes articulated above and with the following components:

a. The model should be an all funds model and align investments from all funding sources

b. Institution resources to academic units should be allocated based on objective distributions measures

c. There should be a standard tuition distribution formula

d. Tuition distribution should be based on a three year rolling average of enrollment

e. A per-credit-hour distribution formula should be adopted

f. Individual units (schools, college) should retain a significant share of revenue generated by the unit

g. Individual units should retain a significant share of unit based cost savings

NOTE: During the Committee’s deliberations concerning an appropriate budget model for the University, and during its corresponding discussions about RCM, a member of the Committee suggested and submitted for the Committee’s review an alternative model. The Committee reviewed the alternative model and ultimately decided not to endorse the model for further development. Nevertheless, the Committee has included the alternative model as Appendix A attached hereto and encourages University stakeholders to review the proposal and consider its value as it further develops the most appropriate budget model for the future.

2. The emerging Academic Concentrations should be considered within the emerging budget model

a. Institutional investments to advance the development of the concentrations and to create infrastructure to mature the thematic strengths

b. There should be shared faculty lines to promote and stimulate multidisciplinary

3. Academic Centers should be aligned within the model to promote entrepreneurialism

a. Generally fee for services

b. Centers retain significant share of unit based revenue

c. Centers retain significant share of unit based cost reductions

4. Administrative and Other Units should be aligned within the model to promote efficiency and quality

a. Institutional resources should be allocated based on objective distribution measures

b. Administrative units retain significant share of unit based revenue

c. Administrative units retain significant share of unit based cost reduction

5. To enable success of the model several mechanisms need to be in place

a. Updated and redesigned financial reporting system and tools

b. Strict adherence to academic quality measures and standards

i. Graduation rate

ii. Persistence rate

iii. Academic ranking and reputation

iv. Etc.

6. Serious consideration should be given to creating a path for implementation that would involve one or two pilot units

a. Continue to test and validate model

b. Refine and move forward

c. Evolve model over long horizon (perhaps 4–6 years)

The DRafT moDel:

ii. Improved management of workload for UBMs and others

iii. Reduce random “one offs” in individual units/departments

iv. Leverage technology to gain more efficient processes

v. Create systems that talk to each other

vi. Provide consistency and appropriate controls, checks and balances for business service functions

vii. Create networks of business professional across the campus to share best practices and information, and gain more consistent, effective and efficient delivery of services

8. Create 4-6 Service Centers organized to deliver key business support services to end users

a. Organized around common units or around geographical locations

b. Deliver administrative services such as human resources, financial support, procurement, IT, and others as appropriate

9. Evolve Central Administrative units to assume more strategic roles

a. Establish campus policies and standards

b. Leverage scale

c. Build institutional competencies in functional areas

10. Leverage enterprise wide technology to gain process and operational efficiencies and improve data collection and business analytics

DRafT bUsIness seRvICes moDel:

Desired Outcomes• streamline processes and

reduce duplication and inefficiencies across units

• improved management of workload for uBMs and others

• reduce random “one offs” in individual units/departments

• leverage technology to gain more efficient processes

• create systems that talk to each other

• Provide consistency and appropriate controls, checks and balances for business service functions

• create networks of business professional across the campus to share best practices and information, and gain more consistent, effective and efficient delivery of services

• Medicine

• Dental

• nursing

• Public Health

• centers and institutes

• eVP Ha

Health affairs Business services center

arts and science Business

services center

Belknap Business

services center

administrative units Business service center

athletics Business services center

strategic role – set Direction – establish and implement university wide Policies. leverage scale, develop competencies

• academic Departments

• Graduate school

• library

• speed

• Kent

• law

• education

• Business

• Music

• office of President and Provost

• eVPri

• advancement

• finance

• Hr

• it

• student affairs

• auxiliary units

• Business affairs

• community engagement

cons

ulta

tive

and

supp

ort t

o un

its

fina

nce

– Hr

– it

- Pu

rcha

sing

shared service and technology

central unitsfinance – Hr – it - Purchasing

11. Due to the limited time constraints the Committee did not fully examine a few question set forth in the original charge which be completed during the next Phase of the project. The questions that need further review are

a. How can the University better leverage its physical assets?

b. How can the university continue to benefit from the 501c3 structure without undermining governance?

phase 3 – how wIll we geT TheRe?Once a final set of recommendations is adopted and approved, detailed plans to implement the recommendations will be developed and employed in the next phase of the planning process. It is anticipated that this third phase, “How will we get there?”, will move forward in the fall of 2013, utilizing the continued expertise and input from the Committee, in addition to other campus and external resources as appropriate.

nexT sTeps foR bUsIness seRvICe ReDesIgn:

• create survey tool to extrapolate fte and percentage of effort departmental resources are currently devoting to supporting business services activities

• identify individuals with People soft access to determine who to survey

• assess survey results identify common business services related duties and activities and integration points of services across units

• Gather data on budget size

• identify number of people performing business services activities in each school/unit

• identify number of business transactions currently being performed for each school/unit to determine volume of business services

• look at geographic locations for various units and schools and determine if alignment with new business service units are feasible

• finalize new structure

• identify activities that will be performed centrally and in the business services divisions

• identify competencies needed for new roles

• create job descriptions

• identify best practices in delivery of business services and incorporate in new model

• identify plan to assess workflow processes

• create plans for process improvements and align to new model

• identify leader and staff for new units

• Prioritize order and timeline for implementation of launching new business service units

• establish plan for training new business service units

• Develop communications and outreach plan to align new business service units with customers/end users/departments

confirm current state of delivery of business

services

Summer 2013 Fall 2013 Fall/Winter Early 2014

Vet model and confirm quantity and division of units for each new business service unit

refine service delivery and staffing

plans for new business service units

create implementation

plans launch new model

Quality-oriented RCmbasICs of RCm

This report endorses the basic commitment to a form of RCM:

• Individual units gain enhanced control of their spending decisions

• In return, units become accountable for how they use their money

• At least in part, accountability involves financial consequences (positive and negative)

pUTaTIve vIRTUes of RCm

• Accountability: units held accountable for the achievement of their aims

• Decentralization: units gain (some) control over how they allocate resources

• Incentives: if we want the institution to produce a given outcome, we should reward (incentivize) actions that tend to produce that outcome, and remove rewards for, and even penalize, actions that tend to hinder it

RIsKs anD open QUesTIons of RCm

• Which are the “responsibility centers” (RCs)?

• What is rewarded? What is penalized?

– Is anything other than revenue-generation rewarded?

– Is excellence rewarded if it is a net drain of financial resources?

• Will the university be willing/able to follow through:

– Reward financially productive units even if they have not been targeted for strategic investment?

– Cut strategically important units that don’t generate added revenue?

• Will RCs be able to borrow against future revenue in order to prime the pump? From whom? What if the hoped-for revenue never materializes?

IllUsTRaTIon of RIsKs & open QUesTIons

zeRo-sUm games

1. Enrollment:

• Assume: a principal lever of revenue generation is tuition

• First Result: if total overall enrollment is set centrally, then units play a zero-sum game against one another for FTEs.

• Second Result: if units control their own enrollments, they might admit students who are unprepared. Quality of education suffers.

2. Course-buying1

• Assume General Education requirements are set centrally

• Assume we adopt the “course-buying” model – enrollment units get funded per student, then pay whoever offers a course that its student takes (e.g., if COB student takes A&S course, student pays COB for enrollment and COB pays A&S for instruction)

• First result: to compete for big Gen Ed revenues, units increase offerings of low-level, cheap, large classes staffed by contingent faculty.

• Second result: units lobby to not have to “buy” courses that they can’t refuse. The logic of RCM would seem to support them in this.

• The dilemma of short-termism & internal redistribution

• Suppose RCM spurs a unit to be “entrepreneurial” and invest for the longer-term future. Where does the revenue for that investment come from?

appendix a

1. see Porter, “Variations on a Theme”

– From money that is tethered to RCM? But then the unit already has to have the money that it is investing to get. How did it get that money?

– From money that is untethered from RCM? But who produced that money? Won’t they resent its being redistributed?

• Strategic Investment

– Suppose the University decides to grow in Nursing & Family Medicine, but these units have not (yet)produced new funds to invest in expansion.

– Suppose most net revenue is generated by A&S. Is the university able to redirect that revenue to HSC? If so, see the dilemma of short-termism & internal redistribution, above. If not, the University will be unable to pursue its strategic plan.

fUnDamenTal pRoblems

• Almost any educational or research outcome worth producing will require net investment; it will not be a profit center, precisely because it is generating human capital that is then captured by the graduate or by the scholarly community or society as a whole, not by the university. We are in the business of positive externalities.

• Moreover, almost any administrative function worth doing will also be a net drain; administrators (e.g., HR) are not in the business of generating revenue from employees.

• But that’s okay; not everything in the world ought to be expected to generate net revenue. That’s why public higher education exists.

• Adopting a version of RCM that makes units accountable for their revenue generation will impose perverse incentives for quality, enrollments, and strategic investments.

sUmmaRy of vIRTUes & RIsKs

• What RCM gets right:

– Accountability

– Decentralization

– Incentives to produce desired outcomes

• Challenges:

– Accountability for what?

– In what sense is it really decentralized?

– What is incentivized? (Who decides?) Is the university willing to stand by its incentives even when those diverge from strategic priorities? From quality?

• Zero-sum games

pRoposal foR QUalITy-oRIenTeD RCm

1. Each RC defines “quality” by its own lights, subject to University-wide guidelines and review

• For academic units, “quality” must include objective, measureable indicators of:

– Desirability of programs (e.g. ratio of applicants to seats – not mere enrollments)

– Value added (e.g. difference between average incoming ACT and average outgoing GRE/LSAT)

– Commitment to students (e.g. graduation rate; employment rate for terminal degrees & professional schools)

– Research productivity (e.g. number and ISI rank of faculty publications, grant monies)

• Athletics, administrative, and non-academic units have distinctive definitions of “quality” appropriate to them.

2. The University rewards quality enhancement of each unit, relative to that unit’s prior baseline, and penalizes stagnation or decline

• Units that enhance their quality, so defined, get added revenue according to a set scale (e.g. +1% for each 2 units of enhancement)

• Units whose quality stagnates or declines lose revenue on a similar scale

analysIs of pRoposal

• Incentivizes the right thing: quality enhancement

– In contrast, standard RCM incentivizes the wrong thing: net revenue generation. Any link to quality is purely fortuitous and given no causal mechanism

• Decentralizes the determination of the desired outcome – each unit has a say in determining what it’s trying to produce

– Standard RCM centralizes determination of desired outcome – revenue generation – robbing units of a role in defining their mission.

• Link to net revenues

– General rule: to improve a balance sheet you can either add revenue or cut expenses, or both

– Quality-oriented RCM gives units an incentive to leverage whatever resources they have to generate quality as efficiently as possible.

– There is reason to think some revenues track quality: tuition, grant funding, alumni giving

analysIs/lInK To RevenUes

• Quality-oriented RCM can be applied to administrative units as well

• Consequently, one criterion of “quality” for central administration will involve identifying and enhancing revenue streams, and helping units identify efficiencies.

• Quality-oriented RCM avoids the zero-sum games that beset standard RCM.

– No course-buying required

– No competing for enrollment revenues against other units

• Strategic planning remains collective.

– If the university wants to have a veterinary school, it should decide to invest in one – not wait to see if the veterinary school can bootstrap itself into existence.

noTe: InCenTIves alIgnmenT & CaUsaTIon

• An argument that Budget model B1 is better than B2 at producing desired outcome G must demonstrate the causal mechanism whereby implementation of B1 achieves G better than implementation of B2

• In RCM and QOM, the incentives are the causal mechanism

• Any inference from B1 to G that does not align incentives is then an instance of magical thinking.

– I submit that the linkage between RCM and quality is an instance of magical thinking, whereas the linkage between QOM and quality is built into the incentive structure.

• Any inference from B1 to G that aligns incentives no better than B2 gives no reason to adopt B1 over B2

– I submit that the reasons that have been given for RCM tell at least as much, and in fact more, in favor of QOM

– I therefore submit that there is no good case for RCM that is not at least as good a case for QOM

procurement TeambaCKgRoUnD

The Procurement Team operated as a largely independent subcommittee of the Financial Health Committee. The Team’s goal was to examine the various processes by which the University purchases goods and services, and to offer recommendations on how to improve those processes.

Due to the expiration of certain vendor contracts, the Team began its work in December 2012, prior to the meetings of the core committees of the 21st Century University Initiative. Thereafter, the Team met continuously every other week through the end of May, 2013. During that time, the Procurement Team focused its efforts on four (4) primary areas: Office Supplies, Scientific Supplies, Technology Supplies and Travel Policies and Procedures,

The team was comprised of a blend of staff and a faculty representative from both the Health Sciences and Belknap campuses, with varied levels of experience in procurement related issues. Team members were highly engaged in the process, candid with their comments and (when necessary) sought opinions and advice from additional stakeholders in their respective academic and administrative units.

offICe sUpplIes – fInDIngs anD obseRvaTIons

The University of Louisville (UofL) is presently operating under an office supply contract with Staples that began on or about August 1, 2008, and will expire on July 31, 2013. UofL has negotiated an extension of its contract with Staples, through October 2013, to provide greater flexibility to consider fully all bidders on the next Office Supply Request for Proposal (RFP) and to provide adequate time to transition to a new vendor (should the existing vendor not be selected).

The UofL campus community currently purchases a remarkably wide range of office supply products within any given category (e.g., 750 different types of pens). The committee’s view is that this degree of variability stems from inadequate communication regarding a core list of items the University would prefer be purchased.

In addition, many units make purchases of items through Staples that are available through the University Stockroom. Two of the reasons identified as causes of this practice are: a lack of knowledge by end users that these items are available through the Stockroom; and a lengthy (i.e., 65-page) list of products (many of which are totally unrelated to office supplies) that end users must sift through to find needed items. Some end users have experienced greater cost by using Staples over purchasing office supply products through other on-line or “brick and mortar” office supply vendors.

offICe sUpplIes – ReCommenDaTIons

1. Revise (substantially) the Office Supply Request for Proposal (RFP) to incorporate behavior modifications.

a. As part of the new RFP, limit the variety of different types of office supply products and concentrate negotiation of competitive pricing for those products.

b. Request that vendors responding to RFP provide additional recommendations on ways the University can save money.

c. Negotiate an optimal incentive/rebate program with the selected vendor.

Since the committee first began meeting, an RFP has already been issued and the initial pre-bid meeting has been held, at which four (4) potential bidders attended.

2. Redesign the University Stockroom list of available products to make them more available and the catalog more useful.

a. Consider increasing the number of products available through the University Stockroom by leveraging the existing warehouse space available.

3. Develop a University-wide, virtual “swap meet” that would provide units and departments with a mechanism to “sell” surplus office supplies to other units and departments.

sCIenTIfIC sUpplIes – fInDIngs anD obseRvaTIons

UofL presently works with two (2) primary vendors supplying scientific supplies: VWR and Fisher. UofL purchases its scientific supplies cooperatively under a contract held by the University of Kentucky (UK). Due to UofL’s use of the UK contract, it is possible that UofL may be losing out on incentives and/or rebates. UofL spends approximately $3.1 million on scientific supplies with these two vendors.

Scientific supply vendors, like VWR and Fisher, maintain contractual relationships with ancillary vendors to provide service and maintenance on scientific products. UofL may be able to achieve significant cost savings by entering into a “prime vendor” relationship with either VWR or Fischer because any service/maintenance would be deeply discounted, due to these existing relationships with ancillary vendors.

Perhaps more so than with office supplies, faculty and staff tend to show greater loyalty or preferences for certain scientific supplies and suppliers

(e.g., rubber gloves, test tubes, etc.). Consequently, some faculty and staff may be resistant to recommended behavioral modifications designed to limit choice between scientific suppliers.

sCIenTIfIC sUpplIes – ReCommenDaTIons

1. Form and convene a panel of UofL’s scientific supply users to determine whether a core group of products (or a limitation of “brand” choice within product categories) is feasible, and develop a list of those core products.

2. Consider issuing an RFP separate from UK that would solicit competitive pricing, together with an upfront incentive payment and ongoing rebates.

a. As part of this RFP solicitation, seek incentives associated with naming the winning bidder as the “prime vendor.”

TeChnology sUpplIes – fInDIngs anD obseRvaTIons

UofL is currently operating under five (5) contracts for technology / computer purchases: Dell, Toshiba, Lenovo, Hewlett-Packard and Apple; however, the Apple contract is technically through the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Dell has the highest percentage of spending with UofL, as compared to other vendors. While most committee members had generally positive comments about Dell, some offered mixed reviews.

The committee has concluded that varying experiences within units often dictate the choice of computer system purchases. Some committee members expressed concern whether UofL’s contract with Dell always provided the best pricing. Certain schools (like the Business and Speed Schools) have negotiated separate agreements with particular vendors to meet unique needs.

TeChnology sUpplIes – ReCommenDaTIons

1. Explore limiting the variety of computer systems and printers by reducing the number of authorized vendors and/or the number of systems available from a single vendor.

2. Disseminate and, to the extent necessary, revise University policy on the purchase of refurbished computer equipment.

3. Develop consistent computer replacement cycles across campus.

4. Provide the campus with clear communication about the preferred vendors and systems to remove some of the confusion about where and what to buy.

5. Consider utilizing a single campus-wide file sharing program.

TRavel polICIes anD pRoCeDURes – fInDIngs anD obseRvaTIons

UofL presently uses two primary vendors to provide travel services: Egencia and Anthony Travel. Egencia is used by the majority of the University, while the Athletics Department uses Anthony Travel exclusively for team travel. UofL’s current contract with Egencia expires on December 31, 2013.

The committee members highlighted a number of concerns over the Egencia system, including the following: 1) group travel tends to be problematic; 2) multiple committee members expressed concerns that the best pricing may not always be available through Egencia, as compared to other on-line travel sites. Egencia does provide a price-matching guarantee, but not all end users are apparently aware of this policy; 3) planning and purchasing travel through Egencia provides some benefits insofar as a UofL ghost card can be used for certain types of expenses (avoiding out-of-pocket expenses for department/travelers). However, limitations on the use of ProCard for certain travel expenses has proved frustrating to some.

TRavel polICIes anD pRoCeDURes – ReCommenDaTIons

1. Revise the existing RFP, and highlight in the terms of the RFP many of the concerns expressed by the committee, and solicit advice from potential vendors on resolving those issues.

2. Explore the use of a single, campus-wide (including Athletics) travel vendor.

3. Develop an on-line tutorial on the use of the soon to be selected vendor and other critical travel policies (including travel reimbursement procedures), directed to the audience of faculty and staff who travel (or who book travel on behalf of others).

4. Investigate the benefits of mandating the use of the contracted travel agency and established travel policies.

5. Explore the possibility of utilizing the ProCard or a separate Travel & Entertainment card for use with travel.

CuLTure of eXCeLLenCe CommiTTee

Draft finDinGs anD recoMMenDations

June 2013

fInDIngs anD ReCommenDaTIons

background and Context June, 2013

The Culture of Excellence Committee and Advisory Committee was responsible for developing strategies to create a culture of excellence and a cultural transformation plan to support the larger planning effort. The Committee was charged with examining several questions aimed at improving how people work, live and learn at the UofL, and to explore ways to ensure that the values of shared governance are modeled across all University entities and affiliates. The Committee was charged with examining the following questions:

• What are the current workplace culture and climate, and what cultural barriers or challenges exist that may limit a culture of excellence in support of the 21st Century Initiative?

– What are the attributes of the desired workplace culture at the UofL?

– What are the strategies and initiatives necessary for achieving cultural transformation and creating a culture of excellence in support of the 21st Century Initiative?

• What are the current student culture and climate on the campus and what cultural barriers or challenges exist that limit student success?

– What are the strategies and initiatives necessary for achieving a culture of excellence and success among students?

The Culture of Excellence Committee was also charged with exploring ways to ensure that the values of shared governance are modeled across all University entities and affiliates, with a particular focus on the following questions:

• What are the existing models and practices of governance across the university?

– How can the University support and model the values and principles of shared governance in an era of expanding partnerships and affiliations?

The Core Committee and Advisory Group were charged with completing the first two phases of a three phase methodology: “Where are we today?”, and “Where do we want to be?”. The groups participated in a robust analysis of the current culture of UofL, assessed common attributes of high performing cultures, and created a vision for the desired culture at the UofL. Specific recommendations for achieving the desired culture of excellence at UofL were then discussed and developed. The third phase, which will focus on implementation of the adopted recommendations and plans, will occur in the next and final phase of planning.

Phase 1Where are we today?

Phase 2Where do we want to be?

Phase 3How will we get there?

The Culture of excellence Core Committee was comprised of the following individuals:Blake Haselton, Dean, CEHD, CHAIR

Bill Stone, Board of Overseers

Bruce Henderson, Board of Trustee

Charles Sharp, CODRE and College of Business Faculty

Elaine Wise, ULAA and Humanities, A&S Faculty

Joyce Hagen, ULF

Julie Hermann, VP Athletics

Keith Inman, VP University Advancement

Melissa Laning, Libraries Faculty

Nathan Bush, Graduate Student

Pam Yankeelov, Kent School Faculty

Sam Rechter, Board of Overseers

Spencer Scruggs, Student

Tracy Eells, Vice Provost and Psychiatry, Medicine Faculty

Valerie Casey, COSW and Women’s Center

members of the Culture of excellence advisory group included:Alyssa Murphy, Admissions/Orientation

Annette Robinson, Medicine Staff Nurse

Bill Forman, Retired Staff, UARP

Caroline Stephens, English, A&S, Staff Senate

Cynthia Logsdon, Nursing Faculty

Cynthia Wohl, Purchasing, VPBA

Dan Bennett, Physical Plant

Dave Willis, Dentistry, Faculty Senate

David James, DPS, Staff Senate

David Simpson, UPA, A&S Faculty

Dawn Heinecken, WGST, A&S, Faculty Senate

Diane Foster, Dentistry Faculty

Dorothy Veith, CEHD Staff

Gordon Strauss, Psychiatry Faculty and Student Health

Heather Parrino, Student Health, Staff Senate

Jill Riede, VPF

Joe Gutmann, Political Science, A&S Faculty

Krista Wallace-Boaz, Music Faculty

Mark Cambron, CEHD Staff

phase 1 – wheRe aRe we ToDay?baRRIeRs To a CUlTURe of exCellenCe aT Uofl

Prior to the commencement of the Committee’s work, a comprehensive SWOT analysis that solicited feedback on the University’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats, was conducted across the campus, and yielded approximately 7,500 responses from a broad and diverse cross section of the campus. Of the 7,500 total responses in the SWOT submissions, over one-third were identified as weaknesses. Of the identified weaknesses approximately 40% related to issues of culture - by far the most discussed topic. In general, comments pointed to low morale among faculty and staff, and raised issues involving fair treatment of employees, inconsistent application of policies and rules, lack of recognition and appreciation of faculty and staff contributions, and a lack of accountability.

The Core committee and Advisory group discussed the issues raised in the SWOT submissions, and engaged in discussions and brainstorming regarding the cultural aspects and barriers to creating a culture of excellence at UofL. An extensive list of themes that permeate both attributes and barriers to a culture of excellence were identified, including the following:

• Aspirational vision and core values

• University commitment to a culture of excellence

• Leadership

• Trust, Fairness and Equity

• Communication and collaboration

• Diversity and inclusion

• Hiring for Excellence

• Training and professional development

• Accountability and managing performance

• Recognition and appreciation

• Student engagement

• Community engagement

The Core Committee met every two weeks from March 2013 through June 2013. The Advisory group also met every two weeks during April and May of 2013. The Core Committee and Advisory Group engaged in debate and dialogue regarding cultural aspects at UofL and barriers to a culture of excellence. The two groups also assessed and discussed the characteristics of great work cultures, and brainstormed ideas for enhancing the culture at UofL. The Core Committee included active student representation, and discussed strategies to enhance the student culture at UofL, and developed recommendations to improve the student experience, to expand the involvement and engagement of students, and identify additional strategies for enhancing student culture.

While the initial scope of the Culture of Excellence effort also included looking at the governance structure of the university, the groups spent the short timeframe focused on a comprehensive assessment and development of strategies to enhance the culture, and did not engage in detailed discussion or develop recommendations specifically related to governance. The Committee therefore recommends that this issue be addressed in detail in the next phase of the planning effort.

Mimi Bell, VPHR

Morgan Cooksey, Student

Nora Allen Scobie, Undergraduate Affairs

Pete Walton, SPHIS Faculty

Rachelle Seger, Cancer Center Staff

Ralph Merkel, Communication, A&S Faculty

Richard Clouse, Graduate Medical Edu

Shaun Sowell, Nursing Staff

Susan Jenkins, VPCE, Staff Senate

Tamra Perez, Medicine Staff

vIsIon anD CommITmenT To a CUlTURe of exCellenCe

The Committee observed that a clearly defined long term vision for the university is not fully understood among faculty, staff, and students, and there are few strategies and efforts that unite the campus community. There is a sense that the University’s goals are not as aspirational as they could be, nor aligned with its potential, and in some cases may be causing the university to underperform. Culturally, many faculty, staff and students simply don’t identify with or know of the common vision for the future and consequently aren’t aligning activities in support of achieving a greater aspirational goal.

Further, although the University has an ongoing “Great Place to Work” effort, it was felt that to create a culture of excellence the effort needs to be established and communicated as a strategic priority of the University with a greater emphasis on the resources necessary to support and achieve the desired cultural outcomes. The Great Place to Work effort should also be enhanced and elevated as a major campus commitment as a way to help create and nurture a culture of continuous improvement. The core committee suggested the University identify and empower a network of champions to help lead the cultural transformation effort.

In addition, there appears to be a lack of knowledge about the University’s core values. Defining and/or clarifying the University’s goals, mission, vision, and values and then aligning them to cultural practices and norms is viewed as an important component in building a culture of excellence.

leaDeRshIp

Leadership is widely viewed as a key aspect to enhancing the culture at UofL. While the SWOT submissions across the campus were supportive and appreciative of the top leadership of the campus and the stability it has provided to the university, there was a sense that consistently strong leadership across the broader senior leadership team and middle and lower levels of management could be improved. Approaches toward managing and leading people are seen as inconsistent across departments and schools, and there is some evidence of a lack of trust and confidence in some university leaders and managers. There is also a sense of mistreatment of employees in some areas, along with a culture of unfairness and inequity as a result of ineffective leadership. All of these factors appear to be contributing to reduced levels of employee morale and reduced levels of motivation and productivity.

Recruiting and retaining competent, strong, passionate, inspiring leaders at all levels is a key imperative for UofL achieving a culture of excellence. Ensuring competent leadership at every level, and holding all leaders accountable for how they lead and the manner in which they treat faculty, staff and students, is critical to ensuring a culture of excellence.

TRUsT, faIRness anD eQUITy

The campus SWOT submissions and the feedback provided by the Core Committee and Advisory Group indicate that there are issues of trust, fairness and equity across the UofL culture. There are too many policies, rules and regulations, along with a perception of “aristocratic” vs. “peasant” classes within the culture. A culture of different rules being applied to different people, along with a sense of favoritism, reportedly presents a substantial challenge within the UofL culture. There is also a sense that rules and policies need to be clearer and applied more consistently, and that leaders and managers need to establish a fair and consistent environment for all faculty, staff and students. In order to improve morale, consistently high levels of trust, respect and fair treatment toward faculty, staff and students must be part of the culture, with corresponding accountability for leaders, managers, faculty and staff.

Insufficient and sometimes inconsistent or unfair compensation is also considered to be a contributing factor to reductions in morale. Long periods of time without salary increases are perceived to have hampered consistently high levels of motivation and productivity. In addition, complaints of inequitable compensation in some areas are further impacting morale among faculty and staff. A fair and equitable salary structure, with appropriate increases where possible, is needed to reverse this trend.

CommUnICaTIon anD CollaboRaTIon

In order to improve the culture at UofL, communication and collaboration must be enhanced. Current communication channels and tools are seen as not effectively informing faculty, staff and students of campus information on a consistent basis. There is also a sense that grassroots communication efforts are ineffective and there are limited opportunities for the campus to provide input, feedback and opinions in a meaningful way, leading faculty, staff and students to feel disenfranchised in some instances. In cases where campus input is provided, the cycle of communication is often incomplete, resulting in a perception of a culture of “non-responsiveness”. A full cycle of effective two way communication, with a broad and diverse range of effective communication strategies and tools, is a necessary component to a successful cultural improvement effort.

The culture is also siloed, with limited opportunities for cross unit collaboration, and limited points of integration. Many faculty, staff and students feel disconnected to the campus and to units outside of their own. More opportunities for the campus community to come together in positive ways are needed, with incentives and accountabilities to participate in important campus meetings and forums.

Collaborations in scholarship, research, and creative activity are viewed as limited at UofL, and departments need to be empowered and incented to collaborate through broad inclusion in committees and cross unit work. In addition, many faculty believe the campus needs to create and promote opportunities for faculty to engage in more multidisciplinary collaborations.

Collaborative and inclusive processes for decision making are also in need of enhancement. There is a strong perception that faculty and staff are often not provided with the appropriate context and complete information and understanding for key campus decisions. The Core Committee and Advisory groups suggested that the opportunity to provide greater input and feedback as major campus policies and decisions are being made would result in greater levels of trust and understanding with respect to the decision making process. A more transparent and collaborative approach, with enhanced transparency and communication, would help to elevate confidence in and support of campus decisions and policy implementation.

Achieving a high performing culture is also perceived as being limited by a current atmosphere of bureaucracy and lack of flexibility, further diminishing a positive, collaborative culture. Restrictive and cumbersome processes, policies and rules reportedly contribute to a lack of trust and frustration among faculty and staff. A perceived culture of “no” makes it difficult to move the culture forward in a positive way and promote collaboration, and in some cases is stifling innovation and creativity among faculty and staff. It is perceived that barriers to accomplishing the daily work and operations of the university exist, and “gatekeepers” across functions and services are perceived as preventing a results-oriented culture and is hindering excellence. The lack of robust institutional policies that reward excellence and creativity may be further contributing to reduced innovation.

Not having a well-defined and developed brand supported by a comprehensive marketing strategy was also identified as a barrier to excellence. There is a perception and belief that the university has tremendous opportunity to tell a compelling and inspiring story of institutional greatness, both internally and externally but misses many occasions to do so. The Core Committee also perceived that the University has not promoted its full potential in its branding and marketing effort, and should establish a more aspirational message about its future goals. The heavy marketing focus of Athletics is also perceived as potentially overshadowing the academic accomplishments of UofL faculty, researchers, staff and students. Broader marketing and branding focus is viewed as necessary, and more stories of the outstanding accomplishments of faculty, staff and students is needed to effectively give a compelling sense of what UofL is achieving. In particular, marketing and promotion of research and scholarly activity should be incorporated into marketing and communication strategies.

DIveRsITy anD InClUsIon

In order to achieve a culture of excellence diversity and inclusion must be embraced at all levels of the University. The current culture is viewed as one that understands the need for diversity but may need to place a higher value on its aims and objectives. There are perceptions of bias, lack of inclusivity, and narrow mindedness in some pockets of the culture. There is a belief that certain ceilings exist that impede career advancement for some employees, and there are few meaningful opportunities for development and growth across diverse populations. There is also a perception of limited support for professional learning and study, as well as opportunities for leadership roles among diverse populations.

A comprehensive diversity effort that fully embraces and prioritizes diversity of thought and perspectives, as well as recognizing and supporting diverse populations in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, gender expression, disability, nationality, language, religion, culture, and socio-economic background, must be a central component of all cultural improvement efforts.

hIRIng foR exCellenCe

Hiring is viewed as being critical to establishing a positive and productive work culture. The Core Committee viewed the hiring of senior leadership roles as critically important to the university’s long term success, and the Advisory Group supplemented this view with the opinion that competent and qualified leadership at every managerial level of the institution was needed to bring about a positive change in the culture. Greater transparency in the recruitment and hiring process is identified as a requirement to hire for excellence, with high levels of consistency in how hiring is conducted across departments and units.

There are varying levels of knowledge and competency in recruiting among university search committees, and it is believed that a lack of education, training and orientation on hiring for excellence is preventing consistent identification and selection of top talent.

enhanCeD TRaInIng anD pRofessIonal DevelopmenT

Comprehensive and widely accessible professional development opportunities and training are needed, and there was consensus that a greater investment in resources and programs for professional development and training of university leaders, faculty and staff will support a culture of excellence. Investment in and commitment to effective leadership training is viewed as especially important in ensuring high levels of trust within the culture.

UofL is also viewed as needing a more supportive and service oriented culture, particularly with respect to support organizations. Focus on and accountability for high service levels needs to permeate the culture at every level for faculty and staff. The Core Committee also believes that UofL needs a strong student centric approach and focus among faculty and staff, and does not adequately incorporate these concepts into existing performance expectations, evaluations, or professional development and training efforts.

peRfoRmanCe managemenT anD aCCoUnTabIlITy

Accountability and the need to consistently and effectively measure the performance of university leaders, faculty and staff was also identified as a substantial ingredient for creating a culture of excellence. Both groups described a work atmosphere where expectations are not consistently made clear, and where evaluating faculty and staff is inconsistent from department to department, particularly for faculty after tenure is granted. Without clear standards of excellence, performance expectations, and measurements of performance linked to consequences and rewards, a high performing culture was viewed as unachievable. Creating a service oriented and student focused culture are also viewed as important to an atmosphere of accountability.

A connection must also be made to individual contributions and institutional success. Incentives and rewards for excellence should also be built into an effective evaluation process and approach, including merit pay that is fairly provided.

Athletics was pointed to as a benchmark practice of creating high standards of accountability, performance, team work and results. Some committee members suggested that Athletics be used as one best practice comparison in establishing a results-oriented culture of excellence.

ReCognITIon anD appReCIaTIon

Wide spread effective and consistent efforts at recognizing, appreciating, celebrating, and rewarding excellence and outstanding performance is reportedly a missing element of the UofL culture and further contributes to low morale. The lack of formalized programs to recognize and reward contributions contributes to the problem, as well as leaders, supervisors and managers consistently and broadly having the skills and capabilities to effectively reward and recognize faculty, staff and students across the campus.

In order to improve morale and create a positive and productive culture, and align measures and rewards to desired outcomes, a meaningful recognition initiative for faculty staff and students needs to be established.

sTUDenT engagemenT

Having a highly engaged student body is central to achieving a culture of excellence at UofL. As the University continues to move beyond a commuter school, it must continue to find ways to connect students in meaningful ways to each other and to the campus vision, mission and community. Today, other than in Athletics, the view is that there is a limited number of events, activities and initiatives that effectively draw high levels of student participation. In addition, effective broad based communication with the student body is seen as a key challenge, and the current tools used to engage and communicate with UofL students are viewed as ineffective.

The traditional model for engaging students at UofL is likely dated and in need of modernization. While the Student Government Association (SGA) serves as a central student voice with university officials and the university’s Board of Trustees, the organization does not necessarily represent the wide-scale views and perspectives of the larger student body. The SGA is also challenged to get the larger student body involved in their efforts, and other student clubs and organizations also appear to have connections with a small percentage of the student body. More student leadership opportunities, as well as additional mechanisms to get freshmen and transfer students involved in student organizations, are needed to achieve greater student engagement.

The Core Committee had the benefit of a student representative that was an outstanding contributor to the first two phases of the planning effort, but the group acknowledged that broader student input is needed to define more specific strategies and plans for engaging students and creating a student culture of excellence. It was acknowledged that in the next phase of planning, a dedicated effort to enhancing student culture that includes broad student involvement and perspectives should be employed.

CommUnITy engagemenT

The UofL has identified a commitment to community engagement as a major priority of the university. This strategic priority also needs to be incorporated into the UofL culture and formally recognized as part of the effort to create a culture of excellence. In order to incorporate the concept of community engagement into the culture, community engagement should be built into performance expectations, standards and measures for evaluating and promoting faculty and staff, training and development efforts, recognition programs, and events and initiatives for faculty, staff and students. The culture of excellence strategies and plans should also support and align with the plans and recommendations brought forth from the 21st Century University Technology, Demographics and Engagement Committee.

phase 2 – wheRe Do we wanT To be?ChaRaCTeRIsTICs of hIgh peRfoRmIng woRK CUlTURes

Both groups looked at the attributes of high performing cultures, using the criteria for ranking the Fortune 100 Best Places to Work in America, as well as reviewing the standards applied in the Chronicle of Higher Education Great Colleges to Work For rankings.

The first and most significant factor looked at was trust within the organization. Trust cuts across the following three dimensions:

• Respect – Showing appreciation for employees efforts and contributions, ensuring that people have the equipment they need to do their jobs, seeking employees’ opinions and involving them in important decisions, caring for employees as people with lives outside of work

• Credibility – Being approachable and easy to talk with, trusting people without looking over their shoulders, being reliable, delivering on promises, and “walking the talk”, articulating a clear vision for the organization

• Fairness – Ensuring all employees have opportunities for rewards and recognition, avoiding playing favorites, especially when promoting people, treating all employees fairly regardless of age, race, or sex, ensuring employees are paid fairly

Issues of trust were identified by the Core Committee and Advisory group as the biggest cultural challenge facing U of L and in need of the most focus and attention. The vast majority of discussions and resulting recommendations were aimed at building a trusting environment and culture.

The other two dimension of great work cultures that were discussed were pride and camaraderie, which are defined as follows:

• Pride – Helping employees feel they personally make a difference in their work, inspiring employees to feel pride in team accomplishments, helping employees feel proud of the whole organization and its contribution to the community

• Camaraderie – Creating an atmosphere where employees can be themselves and care about each other, welcoming new employees to a friendly environment and celebrating special events, creating a cooperative work environment and demonstrating that people are all in this together

The groups also assessed best practices at the Fortune 100 Best Places to Work in America, as well as at universities consistently ranked in the Chronicle of Higher Education Great Colleges to Work For assessments. Common themes and practices among top workplaces and work cultures were also reviewed. These characteristics should be embraced by U of L as it develops and implements plans and strategies to enhance the culture. Best practices in great work cultures include:

• Strong senior management leadership and involvement of the effort

• Significant attention paid to hiring, with a focus on hiring for fit (behaviors and values)

• Connecting new employees to organization values from day one (robust orientations)

• Connection to greater purpose (community / civic engagement and service)

• Care for the individual (wellness, work/life balance and other programs)

• Outstanding employee communications (multiple avenues to listen to employees)

• Commitment to develop employees personal and professional skills

• Innovative and creative programs

• Fairness and equity in practices

• Strong leadership training and development

• Competitive benefits (dependent tuition, child rearing and adoption leave, home loan programs, etc.)

• Equitable performance evaluations linked to merit pay

• Recognition programs

ReCommenDaTIonsFollowing considerable discussion and debate, and utilizing the knowledge gained from great work cultures and best practices of organizations with outstanding work cultures, along with the weaknesses and barriers identified for UofL, the Core Committee and the Advisory Group developed a number of specific recommendations aimed at enhancing the culture at UofL. These recommendations were structured around the following key thematic areas:

• Vision and commitment to a culture of excellence

• Leadership

• Trust, Fairness and Equity

• Communication and collaboration

• Diversity and inclusion

• Hiring for Excellence

• Training and professional development

• Accountability and managing performance

• Recognition and appreciation

• Student engagement

• Community engagement

vIsIon anD CommITmenT To a CUlTURe of exCellenCe

1. Establish strategic goals of what U of L aspires to be in the 21st century, supported by goals to sustain a culture and environment where teaching, learning, discovery, and creativity are the core of how the University operates and nurtured as life-long practice by each member of the campus community

2. Identify core values as part of the UofL culture

a. Identify a collaborative and inclusive process for identifying UofL’s core values

b. Once identified, broadly vet, share and communicate draft core values

c. Incorporate core values into all aspects of cultural improvement efforts (hiring, promoting, policy development, new employee orientation, performance evaluation processes, training and professional development programs, recognition programs, etc.)

3. Establish a culture of excellence as a strategic priority of the University:

a. Develop metrics and incorporate into scorecards

b. Incorporate into performance measures for leaders across the campus

c. Incorporate into cultural improvement efforts (great place to work initiatives, performance expectations, training and development, orientation programs, recognition efforts, etc.)

d. Incorporate goals for achieving excellence in academic achievement, such as Phi Beta Kappa

4. Assess resource requirements to support specific cultural improvement plans and initiatives and align to efforts

5. Identify and empower a network of champions to lead culture change and align work and efforts with existing great place to work committee

6. Develop tools to regularly assess and measure work climate and culture and use as a basis to guide ongoing strategies and programming

7. Assess, enhance, support, and promote great place to work effort and HR initiatives aimed at improving trust, pride and camaraderie (i.e. wellness program, employee volunteer initiative, etc.)

leaDeRshIp

1. Identify and articulate attributes and behaviors required for effective leadership (senior leaders, Deans, Vice Presidents, Chairs, and all manager and supervisors, and include in role descriptions, evaluations process, hiring processes, promotions, etc.

2. Link performance measures and standards for those in leadership positions to established leadership criteria

3. Invest in and require all chairs and supervisors to engage in leadership training and development on an ongoing basis. Development should include:

a. Core values and U of L culture

b. Soft skills (conflict management, motivation, communication, building trust among employees)

c. Communication and interpersonal skill development

d. Hiring rules and effectiveness, HR policies, Campus Policies, etc.

e. Professional qualities (responsibility, initiative, creativity, dependability, human relations, cooperation, courtesy, professionalism, diversity, inclusion, affirmative action)

f. Promotion, tenure for faculty and staff

g. Leading a multi-generational workforce

4. Link recruitment and hiring practices and policies to desired leadership attributes

a. Create Search Committee Orientation for leadership positions

b. Implement behavior based interviewing

c. Develop and implement mentorship programs

TRUsT, faIRness anD eQUITy

1. Provide perks and benefits consistently to employees at all levels

2. Provide equal opportunities for leadership development and mentoring

3. Streamline policies and administer consistently across campus

4. Conduct a salary study to ensure fair and consistent compensation practices

5. Conduct exit interviews and utilize findings to guide training and development efforts and to manage performance

6. Ensure fairness and consistency in promotion process

a. Clarify and communicate promotion criteria for faculty and staff

b. Incorporate a process for greater transparency in promotion policies and decisions

c. Develop and implement consistent promotion standards focused on desired behaviors of success

d. Consider establishing a review team or panel and process to assess questions or issues regarding promotion decisions

e. Ensure promotion policies are incorporated into training and development programs

CommUnICaTIon

1. Ensure a full and effective cycle of communication

a. Allow diverse voices and perspectives to be heard

b. Create an environment and mechanisms that allow for fair and constructive criticism of leaders

c. Create a culture of responsiveness through communication plans, as well as efforts to evaluate performance and provide training and development

d. Ensure effective communication strategies between departments and with students

e. Survey and assess current internal communication strategies and tools and evaluate for effectiveness, including communication with students

f. Explore new tools aimed at boosting internal communication with faculty, staff and students (i.e. intranet, tools to promote internal news, events, campus calendars and stories of faculty, staff, students and departments)

g. Establish a campus-wide communicators network of communications/marketing professionals and contacts across departments and schools to share information and knowledge

2. Establish grassroots communication channels and more opportunities for the campus community to provide feedback and input

3. Create opportunities, processes and structures to collect broad opinions relative to news, updates and significant issues impacting specific units

4. Broaden communication tools by considering the addition of new resources like a classified section, U of L version of “Angie’s List”, etc.

5. Develop and implement a modern, dynamic marketing strategy

a. Highlight stories and accomplishments of faculty, staff, students and alumni

b. Market and promote research and scholarly activity

c. Utilize contemporary tools and mechanisms to market to broader audiences

d. Incorporate a “we will “and “we are” vs. a “we can” mentality in messaging and promote that U of L is already a great institution doing great things

CollaboRaTIon

1. Create opportunities to promote cross unit communication and collaboration

a. Effective, collaborative and productive cross departmental/campus-wide meetings and events aimed at bringing groups across campus together

b. Incentives for collaborations, joint grant submissions, and other cross unit work (joint programs, joint research initiatives, etc.)

c. Regular and frequent faculty meetings/ discussions/ forums

2. Develop an inclusive process for broader selection of faculty and staff in committees and other leadership and development opportunities

3. Devise incentives and accountabilities for faculty and staff to participate in campus wide forums, town halls, and other campus-wide events and meetings. Look at current attendance patterns and compare against best practices

4. Create mechanism to identify bureaucratic cumbersome campus processes and services, and engage in review for efficiency, service levels, and user friendliness

a. Consider reengineering and streamlining processes that can be simplified for campus users and customers

b. Establish a culture of “yes” vs. a culture of “no” through training and development

c. Incorporate performance expectations for those dealing with students of being courteous, respectful and helpful in student interactions

d. Empower faculty and staff to make independent decisions and solve problems

e. Provide incentives and rewards for innovation and for ideas to streamline and improve processes and services

5. Create process for transparent, meaningful and effective sharing of information and education on campus decisions, and allow for campus input and feedback before major policies and initiatives are announced and implemented

6. Identify spaces for the campus community to come together for events, activities and social interactions

CommITmenT To DIveRsITy anD InClUsIon

1. Incorporate a robust diversity and inclusion plan and effort into cultural transformation efforts and establish new goals and metrics for enhancing diversity and inclusion

2. Diversity and inclusion efforts should encompass broad and diverse viewpoints and thinking, as well as supporting diverse populations in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, gender expression, disability, nationality, language, religion, culture, and socio-economic background

3. Align professional development, mentoring programs, performance evaluation efforts and employee recognition initiatives to diversity and inclusion goals

4. Identify events and activities aimed at enhancing inclusion and engagement of diverse populations

5. Adequately support departments and units responsible for ensuring effective diversity and inclusion efforts and initiatives

hIRIng foR exCellenCe

1. Link recruitment and hiring practices and policies to leadership attributes

a. Incorporate into key Dean and other leadership searches

b. Capitalize on opportunity to hire an outstanding Dean of Arts and Sciences

2. Review recruitment and marketing strategies and channels and revise as appropriate

3. Review posting and application processes to ensure transparent and broad outreach, and access and ease of application process

4. Create a robust Search Committee Orientation for search committee members

a. Consider implementation of behavior based interviewing

b. Ensure diversity on search committees

c. Incorporate appropriate affirmative action practices into hiring

d. Ensure broad and diverse applicant pools that include underrepresented candidates

5. Implement a spousal relocation policy to enhance recruitment of top talent

enhanCe TRaInIng anD pRofessIonal DevelopmenT

1. Create a robust training and development function to serve employees at every level

a. Allow time for faculty and staff to engage in meaningful participation of training and development opportunities

b. Allocate sufficient resources to support the training and development needs of leaders, faculty and staff

2. Incorporate service to constituents and effectively working with student colleagues in training and development programs

3. Enhanced new employee orientation for faculty, staff and students that teaches the desired culture, core values, etc.

4. Develop high levels of knowledge and understanding of relevant constituents, patrons and student colleagues served by faculty and staff

5. Develop competencies for being student and constituent centric where appropriate

6. Include interpersonal and communication skills into training and development programs

peRfoRmanCe managemenT anD aCCoUnTabIlITy

1. Create clear job descriptions and accountabilities for all positions

2. Link performance measures and standards for those in leadership positions to established leadership criteria

3. Identify and implement consistent and appropriate performance plans, evaluation standards and measures for Chairs and supervisors

4. Implement a formalized performance planning process and require compliance for all employees

a. Consider 360 evaluation process that encourages and embraces employee input

b. Connect performance to merit pay

c. Provide supervisory training and development on effectively evaluating performance

5. Develop and articulate appropriate success measures and link measures and plans to core competencies and indicators of success

6. Reward performance

7. Link rewards to performance

8. Conduct exit interview process for departing faculty, staff and students

9. Establish expectations and measures for a high performing culture

a. Identify appropriate service expectations in performance plans

b. Include a focus on professionalism and courtesy

c. Establish goals and expectations for faculty and staff for serving constituents and effectively working with student colleagues, and create measures to evaluate against

d. Incorporate service in training and development programs

e. Monetary and non-monetary rewards for performance

f. Develop improvement plans where necessary

ReCognITIon anD appReCIaTIon

1. Develop a formalized rewards and recognition program

a. Identify meaningful ways to recognize and reward faculty, staff and students

b. Focus on individual recognition at the departmental level, as well as campus-wide recognition efforts, activities and celebrations

c. Establish monetary and non-monetary rewards and awards

d. Link program to performance measures

2. Create and implement training and development efforts on effectively rewarding and recognizing employees

3. Incorporate recognition into new employee orientation programs

4. Integrate recognition into evaluating performance for leaders and supervisors

sTUDenT engagemenT

1. Create a strategy and process to collect student input and feedback on creating a culture of excellence and engagement for undergraduate and graduate students

a. Consider survey tools, focus groups, forums, and social media strategies for gathering student input and enhancing communication with students

b. Improve communication and coordination across student groups and organizations

c. Develop strategies and tools to obtain the perspectives of students not involved in SGA or other formal student groups

d. Develop strategies and communication tools to connect students not involved in SGA or other formal student groups

2. Expand opportunities for student leadership and governance to broaden student participation and engagement

3. Establish opportunities for students to engage in research and discovery, and professional development opportunities

4. Review student group and organization models, codes, and policies and revise and modernize where appropriate (i.e. review SGA role and structure)

5. Devise a plan aimed at enhancing engagement and involvement of commuter students

6. Assess best practices of student engagement at benchmark institutions

CommUnITy engagemenT

Incorporate community engagement into the U of L culture and formally recognized as part of the effort to create a culture of excellence

1. Build community engagement into performance expectations, standards and measures for evaluating and promoting faculty and staff, training and development efforts, recognition programs, and events and initiatives for faculty, staff and students

2. Align culture of excellence strategies and plans to enhance and support plans and recommendations brought forth from the Technology, Demographics and Engagement Committee

mIsCellaneoUs-ReCommenDaTIons

1. Streamline policies and processes to reduce bureaucracy and ensure consistent application

2. Review policies and procedures to insure positive interactions and service for students where appropriate

3. Consider expansion of food options for summer months to enhance quality of life on campus

4. Consider flexible work arrangements as a benefit in a resource constrained environment where salary increases are limited

a. Assess current use and application of alternate work arrangements, review policies and regulations impacting use of flexible work arrangements, and consider pilot of program in selected areas to test feasibility

b. Provide training and development to managers and supervisors on flexible work arrangements and managing in a more flexible work environment

phase 3 – how wIll we geT TheRe?Once a final set of recommendations is adopted and approved, detailed plans to implement the recommendations will be developed and employed in the next phase of the planning process. It is anticipated that this third phase, “How will we get there?”, will move forward in the summer and fall of 2013, utilizing the continued expertise and input of the Core Committee and Advisory Group, in addition to other campus and external resources as appropriate.