SOAR – Preparing for LaunchTask Force Information

January 2015

Today’s Agenda

• 1. Welcome• 2. Methodology underlying the initiative• 3. Support service & academic program lists• 4. Survey questions for authors• 5. Process & workflow for authors and Task

Forces• 6. Next steps for launch• 7. Q&A

Greetings!

Coordination Committee Goalsfor Methodology• Goal 1: Define overarching initiative methodology

– to provide clear, transparent guidelines for program definition, survey questions

– that will drive data entry & program evaluation process,– safeguard process integrity, – and generate valid, meaningful outcomes.

• Goal 2: Listen to and incorporate Task Force feedback to accomplish the above

• Goal 3: Facilitate efficiency & effectiveness with sensitivity to time, effort of Task Forces, Authors, Approvers

Academic Methodology Overview (Sensible, Consistent)Step 1: List of “programs” populated using Campus Connection “academic plans” for AY 2013-14, including

– Majors, 2nd majors, minors, certificates, pre-majors

Step 2: “Program” refined to “a function engaged in by faculty,” leading to adjustments, per Task Force input

– 2nd Majors (removed as not distinct)– Essential Studies, Service Courses, Research/Scholarly/Creative

Activity, Service (added)

Step 3: Based on a list of “centers” and “institutes,” additional items added to Academic Programs list if functions engaged in by faculty

Step 4: Vice Presidents & Deans provide input regarding the programs identified for their unit. In no case are programs allowed to be “rolled up” (i.e., any of the above combined into one “program”)

Support Services Methodology Overview (Sensible, Consistent)Step 1: List of “programs” populated using PeopleSoft Department Code numbers as of AY/FY 2013-14, excluding those associated with academic departments

Step 2: Based on a list of “centers” and “institutes,” additional items added to Support Services Programs list based on function

Step 4: Vice Presidents & Deans provide input regarding the programs identified for their unit. In no case are programs allowed to be “rolled up” (i.e., multiple Department Codes combined into one “program”)

Because Code number may encapsulate multiple “functions” (i.e., designated purpose, activity, or service that, regardless of its size, does not fundamentally change), VPs & Deans identify any additional programmatic functions within each Code

Step 4: Guideline: anything falling outside of management, leadership, or administration (M/L/A) should be identified as a separate function

Support Service & Academic Program List Overview (Task Force-driven)

Survey Questions for Authors(Sensible, clear, meaningful, doable)

Three-Step Process & Workflow Overview(Straightforward for all)

Authors (Department Heads)

Electronic submission via SharePointData & survey questions provided

Approvers (Deans or Vice Presidents)

Receive electronic submission & data filesApprove & submit Authors’ program surveys

Taskforces

Receive approved program surveysConduct reviews of program surveys

Author Process & Workflow Overview(Straightforward)

PreparationInformation session on survey questions & data

AuthoringData & survey questions provided

Delegate writing as appropriate

Completion

Electronic submission to Approvers via SharePoint

Task Force Process & Workflow Overview(Straightforward)

Preparation

Norming sessions to establish review consistency

Review

All reviews are submitted anonymously

Completion

Data are aggregated & used to categorize each program

Survey Questions for Authors(Sensible, clear, meaningful, doable)

Survey Questions for Authors(Easy Data Entry)

SOAR Process Creates Common Language for Dialogue

• Generates snapshots based on collective peer evaluation

• Becomes information tool

• Creates common language for dialogue, discussion

• Predicated on commonly held & applied guidelines for time, effort

Evaluation Rubric

• Straightforward; Easily Internalized, Applied, Understood, & Interpreted

Support Service Programs

• Total Number of Programs: 200

• Review time per Program will vary– Guideline of 15 minutes per Program

• Process predicated on load-sharing– Rubric, norming, inter-rater reliability

• Time Commitment per TF Member:– Reviewing 1/2 of programs: 25 hours

• Approximately 2.5 hours/week

Academic Programs

• Total Number of Programs: 800

• Review time per Program will vary– Guideline of 15 minutes per Program

• Process predicated on load-sharing– Rubric, norming, inter-rater reliability

• Time Commitment per TF Member:– Reviewing 1/4 of programs: 50 hours

• Approximately 5 hours/week

Academic Programs

• Total Number of Programs: 800– “Service” programs: 83– “Service course” programs: 82– “Essential Studies” programs: 79– “Research/Scholarly Activity” programs: 83

• Each adds approximately 20 total hours:– Reviewing 1/4 of programs: 0.5 hour/week

Task Force Process MethodologyReview Sheet

• Easy online access to Program Evaluation Sheet

• Anonymous

• Submission automatically aggregates data for processing without identification

Sample Academic Program Output

Sample Program – Academic

Resources

Opportunity/Impact

ExpandTransform

Rethink Enhance

Sample Support Service Program Output

Sample Program – Support Service

Resources

Opportunity/Impact

ExpandTransform

Rethink Enhance

Timeline for Initiative Completion• Jan. 12-15 – process meetings with TFs, Authors• Feb. 2 – distribute survey questions, program-specific data to Authors• Feb. 16 – Priority deadline for Author survey completion

– Approval by Deans & Division Heads begins

• March 2 – Final deadline for Author survey completion– 4 weeks total to author – assumes staggered submission– Priority deadline for approved reports by Deans & Division Heads

• March 16 – Final deadline for approved reports from Deans & Division Heads– 4 weeks total to Approve – assumes staggered submission

• May 15 – TFs complete their program evaluations– 10 weeks total

• June 1 – TF co-chairs complete executive summary of TF evaluation results and recommendations

Timeline for SOAR Completion• Jan. 12-15 – process meetings with TFs, Authors• Feb. 2 – distribute survey questions, program-specific data to Authors• Feb. 16 – priority deadline for Author survey completion

– Approval by Deans & Division Heads begins– Rolling Task Force review begins as soon as practicable

• March 2 – Final deadline for Author survey completion– 4 weeks total to author – assumes rolling submission– Priority deadline for approved reports by Deans & Division Heads– Rolling Task Force review continues

• March 16 – Final deadline for approved reports by Deans & Division Heads– 4 weeks total to approve – assumes rolling submission– Final deadline for Task Force review to begin

• May 15 – Task Forces complete their program reviews– 9-13 weeks total review time