FAQ Archive

Criteria for academic programs as well as administrative services prioritization will include questions about a program or service’s alignment with UM 2020 and its core values. In addition, there will be a criterion addressing opportunities for the future, in which programs/services can address the principles outlined in the new Strategic Vision: Creating Change Together.

Some Task Force members currently serve on the Diversity Advisory Council; in addition, one ex-officio member was selected to provide insight on diversity for the prioritization process. The Task Force continues to seek ways to appropriately address diversity in the prioritization process.

The Task Force continues to discuss how the perspectives of deans (for academic programs) and directors and sector heads (for administrative services) will be included in the program and services reports submitted to the APASP Task Force for review. The President and Provost feel their perspectives will be valuable and have encouraged the Task Force to seek the best way to include them in the review process.

The Criteria and Metrics subcommittees are designing the process such that program/service unit contributions to student success will be included.

Units that are not sure what category they fall into will be able to choose which one fits best with their activities and the services they offer. Once the criteria and metrics are finalized, programs/services will have more clarity on what information they are expected to provide. This will make it easier to decide which category to select. Units will not be penalized for choosing one category over another.

The Task Force has solicited feedback from all members of the UM campus community and will continue to do so through online feedback forms and campus forums. Program/unit leaders (department chairs, directors, others) will be charged with developing reports for their programs and services. Task Force members expect that reports will be written in a collaborative manner by members of academic programs and administrative service units. The guidelines developed for the preparation of program and service unit reports will articulate this expectation.

The Task Force will determine your overall score for individual criteria sections based on the information provided. Many programs/services may find one or two questions that do not apply. Questions that do not apply to your program/service may be answered N/A with a short explanation. A question that is answered N/A will not count against your score for that section of criterion or metric.

Advising will be assessed as an administrative service provided by a broader unit. Within Academic Affairs, both academic programs and administrative services will be evaluated. Academic advising may emerge in academic program reports, as well as in the administrative services reports submitted by the academic units.

Section 18.530 of the UFA Collective Bargaining Agreement describes the procedure for retrenchment as follows:

The President shall draft a retrenchment plan which documents the need for retrenchment, the number of faculty members to be terminated by department, discipline, program, degree, option or area of concentration, and any relevant supporting information. Documentation will include, but not be limited to, references to duplication, quality and productivity.

The President shall submit the retrenchment plan to a Review Committee at least two (2) months before the matter is taken to the Board. The Review Committee shall consist of three (3) faculty members selected by the Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate, three (3) faculty members selected by the UFA, three (3) faculty members selected by the President, and three (3) students appointed by the President of ASUM. No member shall be from any unit affected by the President's retrenchment plan.

If enacted, retrenchment would be a separate process from prioritization, and the selection of Review Committee members would depend on the groups and individuals named above; specifically, the Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate, the UFA, the President, and the President of ASUM.

UM will ensure that all students who are enrolled in an academic program can complete their declared degree program before it is phased out. The University is held to these standards by our accrediting organization, the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities.

The Office of the Commissioner of Higher Education (OCHE) and the Board of Regents approved a flat budget for UM for Fiscal Year 2018 (this means they gave UM the same amount of money they gave us for 2017.) In return for keeping our funding flat (despite lower revenue from the state for the whole university system), the University of Montana has promised to engage in a process of analysis and evaluation to strategically balance its budget (as opposed to the alternative of across-the-board cuts). This process of analysis and evaluation is being determined by the University of Montana, not OCHE or the Board of Regents. Prioritization is one part of that process. While the Board of Regents and OCHE will approve a final implementation plan for prioritization, the process is guided by University of Montana stakeholders (students, faculty, staff, and administrators) rather than by OCHE or the Board of Regents.

Forward125 represents a number of initiatives President Stearns has initiated as the University approaches the 125^th anniversary of its chartering. Forward125 is the "umbrella" under which several institutional initiatives, including prioritization, are organized. Other initiatives under the Forward125 "umbrella" include the University Budget Committee, the Strategic Planning Coordinating Council, the University Planning Committee and the University Assessment and Accreditation Committee. More detailed information about all these efforts can be found on the President's Office website.

Our efforts to establish the prioritization process are ongoing. Campus input is important to the Task Force, which is why we post information, ask for feedback, close the deadline for feedback, incorporate the feedback into our work, then post updated versions and request feedback once again. The Task Force plans to continue to share its progress in this way. As the Task Force makes progress, it will finalize certain parts of the process and solicit input on the next set of items it’s working on.

The work of the APASP Task Force is critical in supporting the final decisions reached by the President and Cabinet on prioritizing academic programs and administrative services. These recommendations, along with the guidance upon which they will be based (the data, metrics, criteria, rubrics, unit assessments, etc.) will be the foundation upon which the President’s final decisions are made.

The FY18 budget has already been developed so it is unclear if any of the recommendations and rankings will have a direct impact on this year’s budget. If, however, there are final decisions emanating from final prioritization that will impact the FY18 budget, these will be incorporated as appropriate. APASP recommendations will directly impact budget planning decisions for FY19 and will guide the (re)allocation of resources available for implementing the recommendations as funds become available.

The fundamental purpose of engaging in such a collaborative and extensive review process is to provide data, information and analysis that will lead to rational recommendations. The Cabinet and President have every reason to expect that what APASP provides will serve such a purpose. However, as with any shared governance process, such input is advisory in nature and must always be balanced by the responsibility and authority of the President to ensure that any final decisions reflect the best interest of the University and that these meet her fiduciary and legal accountability responsibilities. This notwithstanding, every effort will be made to incorporate the Task Force’s recommendations into the final decisions reached.

The expectation is that the President make her final decisions on prioritization in December 2017. While the exact start date for the new President (and subsequently the new Provost) is not yet known, the goal is to ensure that by January 2018 UM’s prioritization decisions are final so that a new President (and new Provost) can continue this work, by starting implementation of these decisions.

The prioritization process will not be limited to state funded programs. Rather, the process will focus on all potential programmatic areas to include those determined to be of high priority by the University and consequently all programs will be given the opportunity to be considered in the process.

While the details of the prioritization process are now being reviewed and developed by the APASP Task Force, one specific area of attention includes how to incorporate the steps in this process into UM’s ongoing assessment, planning and budgeting strategies. As such, aligning these with the culture, mission, and vision of UM will be the goal. All recommendations emanating from the APASP Task Force’s deliberations will be shared with the  broader UM community as they are developed.

We believe that the significant work of the APASP Task Force will result in clear and impactful recommendations which will not only address UM’s current budget challenges but also identify areas of important focus for the institution’s future growth and progress. 

The APASP Task Force was built around the core value of shared governance and the inclusion of active involvement by all of our key stakeholders.  The intent is for each individual representing a stakeholder group to consult regularly with their respective constituency for guidance and feedback. In addition, as the process of prioritization is implemented inclusion of stakeholder input beyond those on the Task Force will be sought. 

The APASP Task Force is currently vetting the metrics and other aspects of the prioritization process.  Once agreement on what these will be are determined by the Task Force, these will be shared with the University community for feedback before being adopted.

The prioritization process will allow the university to better utilize its resources across our existing academic programs and administrative services. By so doing, UM will optimize our current portfolio of programs and services to achieve the best educational environment possible. Prioritization will also help identify areas of growth and enhancement towards which UM should expand.  This will help us in the areas of recruitment and admissions as potential students will be drawn to UM by the fact that we are strengthening our existing programs and potentially adding new programs of interest to them.

The criteria and metrics drafted by the Task Force are posted on the APASP website for review and comment until May 10, 2017. After that date, the Task Force will finalize them and they will be displayed on the APASP website.

One of the most important components of prioritization will by necessity involve departments/units providing information on how their respective areas align with the determinates of the prioritization process.  A sub-committee of the APASP Task Force is currently working on the details for unit/department involvement and these recommendations will be shared with the University community.

We relied on the existing governance bodies (Faculty Senate and UFA) for nomination of faculty members to the APASP Task Force. However, upon further consideration, we asked Associate Professor Ona Renner-Fahey from Modern and Classical Languages and Literatures, to serve on APASP and she has accepted. 

Among the core values of the APASP Task Force are transparency, open communication and engagement with the broader University community. All stakeholders across the University have a representative on the Task Force. Stakeholders are encouraged to share their ideas, opinions, concerns, etc. with their respective representatives. In addition, we invite you to use the APASP website as a source of information on the process. The website features a feedback form for you to share input with the Task Force. Campus forms are also advertised on the APASP website  and on the UM Events Calendar.

The specific answer to this question is probably best answered by Enrollment Management.  However, we do see a direct connection between strengthening our academic programs and administrative services in support of our ability to recruit, retain and graduate students.

The process for assessing a program’s outcomes or viability is not limited to its size, but is directly connected to the methods used.  This methodology will show the program’s strengthens and weaknesses; if the concerns expressed in the question are shown to be impactful to the program's success, this will become clear. Prioritization will concurrently identify areas where we should invest resources and this will support considerations for all programs assessed.

While it is not clear exactly what is meant by “service areas”, as expressed in the question, the APASP Task Force consists of representatives of UM's major stakeholder groups: students, staff, faculty, and administrators.

The APASP Task Force is currently developing the process to be used in assessing academic programs and administrative services. This will be shared with the broader University community for input. Metrics such as student head count are being considered for use in this process. In addition, an outcome of the prioritization process is to recommend connecting this process to UM’s ongoing planning, budgeting, and assessment process which should allow for better alignment of resources with student demand.

The work of the APASP Task Force will be guided by UM's Mission Statement as well as by the principles identified in UM Strategic Vision:Creating Change Together.

Although the APASP Task Force has not made a recommendation that a direct connection be established between these two earlier processes and our current charge, there may be valuable insight to be gained from considering all of UM’s prior and existing processes in determining how to move forward. 

There is no specific timeline for the program prioritization process. According to “Prioritizing Academic Programs and Services: Reallocating Resources to Achieve Strategic Balance” by Robert Dickeson, there are specific processes and procedures for initiating program prioritization which include gathering feedback, addressing concerns, and building consensus, that typically last 9-12 months.

Sustainable funding is a major concern at UM, coupled with a flat or declining allocation from the state to the Montana University System (MUS), and from the MUS to UM in past years based on various factors, including enrollment. A lot of UM’s budget is used to cover personnel costs and there is a shrinking amount available for operations. Right now we are operating all programs at less than they need to operate effectively. Prioritizing program will allow us to fund programs at the level necessary for them to operate effectively. There is a commitment to go through this process thoughtfully and intentionally. Program prioritization will strengthen the University and its programs and services.

The conversation on metrics is only just beginning. From a conceptual perspective,  if we use certain metrics, how should we use them? What should be the span of metrics considered? We need to articulate broad questions like these before identifying the metrics.

Program prioritization is in large part a collective effort to achieve the best possible outcome for the institution and its stakeholders. Much of the outcome depends on the community. Potential outcomes can include the reorganization of delivery of academic programs and services, the discontinuation of academic or administrative services, or the redesign of specific programs. These are only a few examples; many other outcomes are also possible.