PROPOSED ACADEMIC INITIATIVE
IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES
For
Pilot Fall 2014
As
a result of information gathered at the Senate/Administration Round-Table
discussions held on May 11 and November 30, 2011, a Joint Administration/Senate
Taskforce on Academic Decision Making and Governance was appointed by the
College and Senate presidents to develop a procedure to better inform the
College Community of the academic decision making process at Bristol Community
College. The charge to the taskforce was to:
Establish a clear, inclusive, closed-loop
process for academic decision-making, including timelines, identification
of stakeholders, clear roles & responsibilities, broad input,
and verification that stakeholder input was heard.
The guidelines included here
provide a framework to consider and debate academic initiatives prior to implementation. They are designed to be
inclusive, encourage creativity and foster innovation. By following these guidelines an initiator
can develop consensus earlier in the process, solicit, confirm institutional
support and insure necessary resources are available for their project. These guidelines are not designed to replace
or supersede any existing academic policies or requirements. What
these guidelines do not do:
·
They do not infringe on the
current governance structure.
·
They do not infringe on rights of
faculty and staff currently outlined in the C.B.A in total, but particularly
Article 7.
·
They do not infringe on
management rights currently outlined in the C.B.A., particularly Article 4.
Section
1: Academic Initiative Definitions
For
the purposes of these guidelines an Academic
Initiative (AI) is defined as a new initiative that affects the offerings, personnel and/or facilities
in a way that is outside the scope of our current governance structure (i.e.,
expansion of dual enrollment-type programs) that
has a direct or indirect effect on academic personnel and professional
staff. Due to the varied level of
impact these types of projects can entail, it is important to define the
different types of AIs. These guidelines are intended to apply to the
following categories of AIs:
College-wide
Initiative – This
is an AI which affects the offerings, personnel and/or facilities of many
departments or service areas. These
would include but are not limited to projects involving, new programs (including
new, non-traditional programs) and changes in placement policies or facilities
that are available for use by the entire staff or student body.
System-wide Academic Initiative – This
is an AI which has impact beyond the institution and may impact offerings at
multiple institutions. It is important
to understand that these are often initiated and controlled by agencies
external to the college and may be beyond the scope of these guidelines. It is understood however, that while external
agencies may not require it, the College is committed to following an
inclusive, transparent process similar to the process described in these
guidelines, as circumstances allow.
To maintain the integrity of the college’s academic
offerings and to insure the decision is transparent, inclusive and has the
appropriate level of impact, a process similar to the one laid out in these
guidelines is recommended (especially the guideline associated with
reporting). It is also important to
understand that while many AIs are initiated by individuals, departments or
divisions, they can grow into larger College-wide or even System-wide projects.
Section 2: Establishing an Initiative
STEP 1 – The
Academic Initiative
The first step of the process is to
develop a clear and easily communicable concept of what this initiative will
entail. To do this an Academic Initiative
Proposal form (attached) must
be completed by the prime contact person for the initiative (lead faculty
member or administrator). This form must include the following:
·
Working Project Title – expresses the nature of the initiative
clearly and concisely & maybe changed prior to final implementation.
·
Working Project Summary – a brief description of project including any resources
(funds, personnel, facilities, etc.) which appear to be necessary for the
project’s success which will be modified throughout the process based on stake
holder responses.
·
Due
Date – include an explanation why a decision must be made by
this date. A review period of two
weeks is recommended unless quicker responses are necessary.
·
Population(s) to be Served –
stated population is congruent with college’s mission and strategic plan
·
Estimated
Budget & Source of Funding – either identified or requested
This form is
meant primarily as an internal communication tool, so please keep it simple and
use clear language. This proposal form is
then forwarded to the appropriate Academic Leadership.
STEP 2 – Implementation Team
STEP 2 – Implementation Team
Academic
Initiative requires someone to take ownership of
the project and accept the responsibilities of developing consensus among stake
holders, determining all necessary information, making sure the project(s) is
in compliance with college policies and inform the wider college community of
project impacts. To do so, the creation
of an Implementation Team is suggested.
The team composition is suggested:
·
Lead Faculty or Professional Staff
·
Lead Administrator
·
Students Services Representative (if AI has a significant SS Component)
In addition, other members of the community or
other agencies or institutions may be included, depending on the nature of the
AI being investigated and implemented.
Section 3: A Transparent and Inclusive Process
The centerpiece of our recommendation is the
recognition, acceptance, and agreement that transparency and inclusion are
necessary components of an effective College Governance system that values
Shared Governance-Shared Responsibility.
The
system must be responsive to stakeholders as a matter of everyday process. Both management and the faculty and
professional staff agree that communication of AIs and their status is an ongoing process as the proposal moves
forward. There are many communication
formats that can be used to provide this communication including:
·
Department & Division Meetings
·
Committee Meetings
·
Professional Staff & All-Academic Area Meetings
·
Web Based Tool
o Academic
Affairs Blog
o @
Everyone e-mails
o Bristol
Buzz
o Angel
Community Spaces
o Sharepoint
The purpose of this proactive
communication is to inform stakeholders of the initiative & engage feedback
at designated benchmarks to better inform the initiative. This allows for broad input and promotes a culture of accountability.
Initiators
are urged to:
1.
Use a Systems Perspective rather
than a Linear Process. This means to look at initiatives through the
perspective of how they affect the whole with each action having a
counteraction to consider.
2.
Use technology for dissemination
of information,
gathering feedback, and providing
status updates to move the process along in a timely manner. An
even faster process (fast track) may need to be established for very time
sensitive decisions.
3.
Make data-driven decisions. Take
advantage of existing sources of information including Institutional Research,
the Office of Grant Development, Student Services and Graduate Information
gathered by Alumni Relations, The Perkins Grant (for Employment Information)
and the Office of Transfer Affairs
It is the initiator’s responsibility to insure that all
important stake holders have an opportunity to provide their feedback, to verify that
stakeholder input was heard and to incorporate that feedback into the
proposal where appropriate. Stake holders are obligated to
provide their feedback quickly, concisely and in a constructive fashion. If this type of feedback is withheld or
significantly delayed the academic implementation team will re-direct efforts
to encourage greater participation. This should be a proactive process and Failure to Receive
a Response does NOT Constitute Support. An initiative
does not require 100% support, but must take all concerns into account prior to
further implementation.
Final decision on
any AI will require sign offs by the Academic Leadership including Dean and Department
Chair at the program level, AVP and the CAO at Divisional Level with the final
decision on all AIs resting with the President or his designee. To maintain a transparent and inclusive
policy of SG-SR, decisions will be made public with associated rationales/justification
for the decisions that were made.
Section 4: Communication & Continuous Performance Improvement
For this process to be fully
effective the Initiator/Implementation Team must provide regular updates to the
college community. While numerous
formats are available (see Section 3: A Transparent and
Inclusive Process) and their use is
strongly encouraged, it is essential that these updates occur as part of the
existing Academic Affairs reporting structure.
Lastly, to fully realize the
long-lasting benefits of any AI, Academic Affairs must adopt a policy of
proactive Outcome Assessment and Performance Improvement. This
means that there is never an end to the process because it is imperative to always
go back and recheck the processes; as one solution is found, it may affect other
processes within the system that need to be reevaluated.
Figure 1: Academic Decision Making Process
It
should not be a “closed” process, rather
an “open” process with a closed loop. Therefore, pilot initiatives must be
evaluated before being fully implemented and ongoing AIs must be evaluated at
designated intervals. This should always
include feedback from stakeholders. While
this is being accomplished at the program level with Academic Program Review, additional
evaluation
processes should be established where appropriate so that all initiatives are
reviewed and data generated closes the feedback loop to continue, modify or even
halt the AI.
Primary
Initiator(s):
Department/Division:
Telephone
# & Extension: Date:
Email:
Initial
Proposal
Working
Title of Proposed Project:
Working Summary
of Project – Include required resources (not to exceed one page
in length):
Due Date
(please indicate if fixed & why):
Identified
or requested funding source:
Notification
President of F&PS Senate __________________________
Required for all College-wide Academic Initiatives
Approval
President or his designee, usually Academic V.P.
Academic VP ___________________
Required for all College-wide Academic Initiatives
NOTE: Approval to Investigate Does NOT Constitute Final Approval
Stake Holder Communication & Feedback
(including
but not limited to “@ Academic Area” e-mail):
Communication Method Date:
Stakeholders Included (list by service
area and/or individual if appropriate - expand as necessary):
Feedback
provided:
Attachments
(meeting minutes, blog transcript, etc. if appropriate):
Repeat for multiple Communication & Feedback
Opportunities
NOTE: Failure to Receive a Response does NOT Constitute Support
Implementation
Team Leader:
Department/Division:
Telephone
# & Extension: Date:
Email:
Implementation
Team Members (if applicable):
Final Proposal
Project Title:
Project Summary (not to exceed one page in length):
Dedicated
Resources:
Implementation
Date:
Population
to be served:
Project Budget: $
Funding
Source:
Required
Signatures & Rationales:
Academic VP or Designee Date:
Approve
Approve with Modifications Disapprove
Modifications and Rationale:
Expand
section as necessary
President of College or Designee Date:
Approve
Approve with Modifications Disapprove
Modifications and Rationale:
Expand
section as necessary
Please send completed form to Central
Academic Affairs, D210, or
e-mail to: Robin.Riley@BristolCC.edu
