July 18, 2017

Dear campus colleagues:

I write on behalf of the Academic and Administrative Services Prioritization (APASP) Task Force to update you on our progress over the last week and the various changes in our approach based on feedback from the campus community.

First of all, I am happy to report that we are mostly staying right on schedule.  Our pilot process is underway, with author trainings held last week and reports being written and assessed during the second half of July.  The pilots will help the Task Force evaluate which elements of the process are working and which need attention.  We are grateful to those programs and authors that have stepped up to participate in the pilots, knowing that they will not get any direct feedback on their reports. 

On Thursday July 13, the Task Force voted unanimously to approve the proposed ranking system for new programs/units (those with three or fewer years of centralized data).  This will facilitate a meaningful review of new programs/units without demanding the same set of data requirements associated with the review of established programs/units. 

Next, I would like to thank all of you who have taken the time to study the APASP website, read our documents and provide feedback to the Task Force.  We have been working diligently to address all of the comments received, both general and specific, and weave these sometimes contradicting statements into our work.  Your input helps us to create the best possible approach to assessing UM diverse set of academic programs and administrative units. 

I would highlight two issues that were raised by multiple commenters. First, several comments highlighted the incredibly daunting (and bureaucratic) task that lies before the Task Force and cautioned us to streamline the process and the total data volume used in assessing units and programs.  In contrast, other comments recommended that additional metrics be added to ensure a fair and effective process.  We appreciate both perspectives. The Task Force is trying to find the perfect balance between being fair and thorough while reviewing over 500 program and unit reports. Fortunately, the UM Data Office will provide centralized data for many of the quantitative metrics, which will ease the burden on those of you writing program reports.

Second, perhaps the most common specific concern raised was the lack of a quantitative assessment of scholarly productivity.  This issue has been discussed at length, both in subcommittee meetings and whole Task Force meetings.  We agree that there must be some type of output available for assessing scholarly activity; however, I should mention the two reasons why we did not have a single quantitative metric for scholarly activity:  (1) these data were not available centrally and thus would be hard to control as a quantitative variable; (2) there is a vast difference in the types of scholarly outputs that are generated in different disciplines, thus it would be hard to include a simple metric that would be comparable across programs. To address this, we will request that programs state how they measure productivity (e.g., peer-reviewed articles, juried exhibitions) and allow them to provide quantitative evidence of this productivity.

In addition, the Task Force is currently considering the deans’ request for clarification on their synthetic role in the review process.  A proposal is being floated to include a dean’s review of school/college programs and units as a whole while not directly modifying any of the materials submitted by individual programs or units. 

In reading through comments from the campus community, I have been struck by both support for our efforts as well as a level of skepticism verging on cynicism.  This is a daunting process, and it is easy to dismiss it as too big to be realistic or to dismiss the Task Force as being ill-equipped to carry this load.  However, as a Task Force member and as an Academic Officer, I can fully attest to the sincerity, integrity and effort put forth by all members of the Task Force.  We are committed as a group to creating a process that is fair, impartial, and effective.  I am consistently impressed with the incredible amount of energy, commitment, and thoroughness that Task Force members are expending to create a meaningful review process and I am proud to be a part of this group.

Thanks again for your time and efforts in helping make this prioritization process an effective and meaningful endeavor.


Thomas H. DeLuca
Dean and Professor
WA Franke College of Forestry and Conservation
APASP Task Force member