SUNY Brockport Organizational Effectiveness Task Force Final Report
April 1, 2024
Members of the Organizational Task Force
Priya Banerjee (Institutional Research)
Mustafa Canbolat (SOBAM, Business Management)
Denise Copelton (School of A&S, Sociology) Co-chair
Peter Dowe (Registrar)
Cathy Houston-Wilson (Brockport University Senate)
Yin Liu (SOBAM, Accounting)
Kathy Peterson (School of EHHS, Nursing) Co-chair
Carly Reed (School of A&S, Chemistry)
Summer Reiner (School of EHHS, Counselor Education)
Amy Shema (School of EHHS, Education)
Michael Slater (School of A&S, English & Integrative Studies)
Kim Young (School of A&S, Journalism & Broadcasting)
Amy Schmitt - Administrative Assistant (Nursing)
The Charge to the Organizational Task Force
From Provost Abraham in the Fall of 2023
Now that we are a University, should we organize units into Colleges? And if so, does that allow us to structure Schools within the Colleges?
Do we have the right number of Colleges/Schools? Are the right departments within each unit? What moves would you recommend?
If we have structural changes, what does that mean for the management of academic affairs? For example, who administers a School? Consider compensation or support levels (not just dollars, but other issues such as administrative support and release time).
Are the departments configured correctly? Should some be distributed into multiple units? Are there portions of some departments that might better fit with other units? Do some need to combine?
Members of the OETF met weekly, but alternated the times and days of the meetings, as well as the format of the meetings between Teams and face-to-face.
The Academic Organizational Effectiveness Task Force Consensus of Engagement
(adopted 10/11/23)
Working as a task force, we will endeavor to:
Operate under the principles of shared governance such that the membership is intentional to gather a broad range of perspectives to further the academic affairs strategic plan.
Have the courage to tell the truth.
Put everything on the table, even those ideas that appear unpalatable.
Let all ideas be presented prior to finding reasons either to dismiss or to endorse them.
Maintain respect and collegiality in all conversations and assume the good will of all members.
Manage healthy conflict and recognize its inevitability (disagree without being disagreeable).
Seek consensus while recognizing that unanimity may not be a possible state.
Communicate periodic updates to our wider community through agreed upon channels.
Engage actively as members of the task force.
Avoid attribution of ideas to individuals when discussing the work of the task force.
Debate as a task force and share collective responsibility for our discussions.
Have the chairs recap our meeting at the end to clarify points of consensus and at the beginning of the next meeting to ensure common messaging.
The OETF Defined Organizational Effectiveness as Follows
Organizational Effectiveness is a measurement/evaluation of how successful Academic Affairs is at reaching its goals.
Organizational effectiveness is a method of grouping programs together which increases enrollment and collaboration within the University and enhances our reputation regionally and globally. This organizational method achieves these goals in a way that is cost-effective; equitably distributes administrative work (individual / department / school / college) and resources to best extent possible; makes pedagogical sense in the respective disciplines; and engages in interdisciplinary practices.
Changes made to increase organizational effectiveness are made based on internal (enrollment, accreditation, retention) and external measures (marketplace demands, student success (employment and salary)), and faculty and staff expertise.
An effective organization demands collaborative leadership, a healthy and vibrant culture, shared ideas and values, open and authentic communication, opportunities for growth, and the ability to adapt to an ever-changing environment.
Definition of resources: course releases, marketing, funding, faculty, staff, stipends, administrative positions, graduate/teaching assistantships, work study students, facilities.
Methods of Research
Members of the OETF researched the organizational structure of 50 comparison institutions to inform the development of an academic organizational structure. The schools included in our analysis are included in Appendix A. In addition to compiling data on these 50 schools, members of the OETF collected more detailed organizational charts for academic units within the Division of Academic Affairs at Brockport to better understand our current organizational structure. Members of the OETF also met with Chairs & Directors from each current School.
Creation of Academic Organizational Models
Individual members of the OETF each created models based on the research conducted on the comparison colleges and universities. After careful consideration, debate, and modification, the task force agreed on four models that were initially presented to the provost, with the understanding that those models would then be shared with and discussed among the deans. The co-chairs then met with the Provost on January 23, 2024, and were presented with a single model that he suggested to be moved forward. While this model had some features in common with one or two of those created by OETF members, it was not identical to any of the four originally draft.
That first draft model, which has ultimately not been endorsed by the OETF, had three colleges, with all departments residing within a school. It also had ten administrative positions in relation to those colleges and schools, three deans and seven associate deans:
College of Business, Math, & Science (CBMS)
School of Business Administration & Management
School of Math, Science, & Technology
College of Humanities, Arts, Social Sciences, & Education (CHASSE)
School of Arts, Humanities, Social Sciences
School of Education
College of Nursing, Health, & Human Performance (NHHP)
School of Nursing
School of KSSPE
School of Public & Behavioral Health
Both prior to and after circulating the draft model, the OETF shared updates regularly with the campus community. These were initially in the Daily Eagle, but chairs asked that they also be sent directly to chairs and directors. Please see Appendices B, C, D and E for the full text of these documents.
Beyond these periodic updates, the OETF also held two townhalls to gather feedback about the draft model, one in person on 2/14/24 and one in teams on 2/15/24. Both townhalls were well attended. The draft model was explained in detail, as were steps for moving forward. The power point from the townhalls is available as Appendix F.
Chairs and deans were asked to provide feedback on behalf of their units in terms of the strengths and weaknesses of the draft organizational model and the draft administrative structure via a Qualtrics form. The Qualtrics form was distributed to chairs and appropriate directors on 2/15/24, with feedback due by 3/1/24.
Detailed analysis of the survey results and a copy of the survey instrument are included in Appendices G and H. A subgroup of three OETF members reviewed all Qualtrics feedback, which it distilled into commonalities about and/or critiques of the draft model. The OETF at large then used this feedback to refine the model and its recommendations, which are presented in this final report.
The themes of the survey feedback noted the following weaknesses of this model:
Too many administrators.
Cost of this model is too high.
Too much disruption to current program and schools.
Arts & Sciences should not be split
Math and Science should not be put in the same school as Business.
Radically changes current organizational structure without sufficient justification for the disruption.
This model caused considerable dismay for many faculty across campus.
After significant discussion and analysis, the OETF agreed with many of these concerns, not least of which was the high cost associated with its administrative structure and the extent of its disruption to our current organizational structure without sufficient justification.
To determine a rough sense of the cost of this and subsequent administrative structures, the committee took available data on the salaries for all our current Deans and Associate / Assistant Deans and created an average “Dean” salary ($165,000) and an average “Associate Dean” salary ($121,500). While this average is necessarily a somewhat imprecise measure of future costs, it does present a relatively useful comparison both to our current administrative cost and that of the draft. With the average salaries used for the three Deans and seven Associate Deans called for by the original model, it would come in at roughly $365,000 above our current administrative costs for Deans and Associate Deans.
In our original charge from the Provost, financial considerations were not to be our primary concern. We were asked explicitly to develop the best model we could and to advocate for the resources to sustain it. The OETF recognizes that there will be some additional costs to provide the proper resources needed by large departments and to introduce Colleges and / or Schools to our new University structure. Nevertheless, given the steep administrative costs of the draft model, and given the shared concerns both within and outside the OETF about the extent of disruption this model would cause, the OETF has created two new models, referred to henceforth as Model A and Model B. The members of the OETF believe that these new models will have lower overall administrative costs (relative to the draft proposal) while still providing necessary investments to resource large departments adequately, both of which were strong concerns raised in the survey.
Models
Dean, College of Business Administration & Management
Associate Dean, College of Business Administration and Management
Chair, Department of Accounting, Economics & Finance
Chair, Department of Business Administration
Chair, Department of Public Administration
Dean, College of Arts & Sciences
Associate Dean, School of Arts, Humanities, & Social Science
Chair, African and African American Studies
Chair, Department of Anthropology
Chair, Department of Art
Chair, Department of Communication
Chair, Department of Criminal Justice
Chair, Department of Dance
Chair, Department of English
Chair, Department of History
Chair, Department of Journalism, Broadcasting, & Public Relations
Chair, Department of Political Science & International Studies
Chair, Department of Social Work
Chair, Department of Sociology
Chair, Department of Theater & Music Studies
Chair, Department of Women & Gender Studies
Associate Dean, School of Math, Science, & Technology
Chair, Department of Biology
Chair, Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry
Chair, Department of Computing Sciences
Chair, Department of Earth Science
Chair, Department of Environmental Science & Ecology
Chair, Department of Mathematics
Chair, Department of Physics
Chair, Department of Psychology & Philosophy
Dean, College of Nursing
Chair BSN programs
Director of Traditional BSN
Director of Accelerated BSN
Director of RN to BSN
Chair Graduate programs
Clinical Coordinator of MS-FNP
Clinical Coordinator of MS-AGPCNP
Dean, College of Public Health & Human Performance
Chair & Associate Chair of KSSPE
Coordinator of Kinesiology
Coordinator of Exercise Science
Coordinator of Physical Education-Teacher Education
Coordinator of Sport Management
Coordinator of MSAT
Coordinator of Graduate Pedagogy, Adapted and Athletic Administration
Chair, Department of Health Care Studies
Chair, Department of Public Health & Health Education
Dean, College of Education
Chair, Department of Counselor Education
Chair, Education & Human Development, Childhood & Early Childhood
Chair, Education & Human Development, Adolescent
Chair, Educational Administration
Director of Higher Education Programs
Chair of Professional Certification Programs
Director of TESOL & Bilingual
Director of Literacy
Director, Instructional Design
Cost Estimate for Model A
With five Deans and three Associate Deans, Model A will cost more than our current administrative structure, but significantly less than the draft model circulated in February. Using the average salaries, the OETF calculated based upon the salaries of our current administrators for the Deans ($165,000) and Associate Deans ($121,500), this model would cost somewhere around $207,500 more than our current administrative costs for Deans and Associate/Assistant Deans.
Rationale/Justification for Model A
Adding colleges could allow for more variety of administrative structures that reflect the needs of their constituent departments. Organizationally, this model significantly keeps to the current structure while elevating some larger units to colleges including Education, Nursing, and Public Health and Human Performance. We see this as a strength of the model, especially since so many chairs expressed concerns about, for instance, the breaking up of Arts and Sciences or the alignment of Business with Math, Science, and Technology.
Administratively, we think this model also has considerable merits. Though it does not deploy the same administrative structure for each College, with some having more administrators than others, the model nonetheless correlates those positions well relative to the size of the units in question. According to the data provided to the OETF from Institutional Research, the College of Business and Management has somewhere near 910 students and 38 faculty members (26 full-time / 12 part-time) and has one Dean and one Associate Dean to support it. The College of Arts and Sciences has more students at nearly 2250 and has considerably more faculty members at 257 (167 full-time / 90 part-time). While the College of Arts and Sciences still only has one Dean, given its larger size this model suggests two Associate Deans to support it, one for the Arts and Humanities and one for Math, Science, and Technology. The other three colleges are each somewhat smaller: Nursing with a little more than 820 students and 47 faculty members (31 full-time / 4 half time, 12 adjunct), Public Health and Human Performance with about 1560 students and 48 faculty members, and Education with some 1100 students and 68 faculty members (26 full-time / 42 part-time). As such, each of these smaller colleges would be headed by a Dean but have no Associate Dean. The model would thus allow us to elevate these larger units to the level of colleges, providing more administrative resources and support in a way that still seems equitable.
Strengths Identified by Members of the OETF
Aligns with a lot of the recommendations that we received.
Provides Associate Deans for the Arts and for the Sciences to help with workload issues.
Keeps Math, Science and Technology together.
Alleviates the workload issue in some especially large departments.
Combines Health and Human Performance which is a very common structure at many universities.
Chairs will report directly to the deans.
Breaks up Education to alleviate workload issues
Many of the General Education courses offered are provided by the College of Arts & Sciences
Provides a direct line between Deans and Provost.
For Nursing, maintains the current structure of directors and coordinators who have course releases, but no additional stipends.
For KSSPE, maintains the current structure of coordinators who have course releases, but no additional stipends.
Makes especially large and growing departments into colleges, which provides additional support to those departments with chairs, directors, or coordinators.
Addresses the feedback that more resources should be directed to departments rather than higher level administrators.
Lower cost compared to draft model circulated for feedback.
Weaknesses Identified by Members of the OETF
This will moderately increase administrative costs for Deans and Associate Deans compared to our current structure.
Dean, College of Business Administration & Management
Associate Dean, College of Business Administration & Management
Chair, Department of Accounting, Economics & Finance
Chair, Department of Business Administration
Chair, Department of Public Administration
Dean, College of Arts & Sciences
Associate Dean, School of Arts, Humanities, & Social Science
Chair, African and African American Studies
Chair, Department of Anthropology
Chair, Department of Art
Chair, Department of Communication
Chair, Department of Criminal Justice
Chair, Department of Dance
Chair, Department of English
Chair, Department of History
Chair, Department of Journalism, Broadcasting & Public Relations
Chair, Department of Political Science & International Studies
Chair, Department of Social Work
Chair, Department of Sociology
Chair, Department of Theater & Music Studies
Chair, Department of Women & Gender Studies
Associate Dean, School of Math, Science, & Technology
Chair, Department of Biology
Chair, Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry
Chair, Department of Computing Sciences
Chair, Department of Earth Science
Chair, Department of Environmental Science & Ecology
Chair, Department of Mathematics
Chair, Department of Physics
Chair, Department of Psychology & Philosophy
Dean, College of Education, Nursing, Public Health, & Human Performance
Associate Dean, School of Nursing
Chair BSN programs
Director of Traditional BSN
Director of Accelerated BSN
Director of RN to BSN
Chair Graduate programs
Clinical Coordinator of MS-FNP
Clinical Coordinator of MS-AGPCNP
Associate Dean, School of Health & Human Performance & Education
School of Health & Human Performance
Chair & Associate Chair of KSSPE
Coordinator of Kinesiology
Coordinator of Exercise Science
Coordinator of Physical Education-Teacher Education
Coordinator of Sport Management
Coordinator of MSAT
Coordinator of Graduate Pedagogy, Adapted and Athletic Administration
Chair, Health Care Studies
Chair, Department of Public Health & Health Education
School of Education
Chair, Department of Counselor Education
Chair, Education & Human Development, Childhood & Early Childhood
Chair, Education & Human Development, Adolescent
Chair, Educational Administration
Director of Higher Education Programs
Chair of Professional Certification Programs
Director of TESOL & Bilingual
Director of Literacy
Director of Instructional Design
Cost Estimate for Model B
The principal aim of this model was to be as conservative as possible in proposed changes and administrative costs. With the exception of a new Associate Dean for the School of Nursing, required for accreditation purposes in this model, the structure basically replicates our current administrative roles. It calls for three Deans and five Associate Deans. Given the average costs for those roles in our calculations, it would cost somewhere in the area of $121,500 above our current administrative costs for Deans and Associate Deans, far less than the $365,000 of the draft model circulated in February.
Rationale/Justification for Model B
This model reflect feedback from the survey, presenting a streamlined and efficient structure (very much like our current one) while addressing varying needs of departments. Our effort here has been to present a model for restructuring that is as conservative as possible in terms of proposed changes, elevating what currently exist as schools to colleges and preserving, as much as is possible, the current administrative structure. This model responds to several concerns raised in the feedback survey, namely (1) not to increase administrative costs at the upper levels and investing more resources at the department level, and (2) not to make substantial changes simply for the sake of making changes. There is also notable symmetry in the structure of the two largest colleges, with a Dean of the College and two Associate Deans for the Schools that comprise the College. This allows for some additional resourcing for the Schools of Nursing, Health and Human Performance, and Education, who currently share a single Associate Dean. In this model, they would instead now have two Associate Deans, just like the Schools within the proposed College of Arts and Sciences.
Strengths of Model B Identified by Members of the OETF
Keeps college structure for Business and Arts & Science that is currently working, and adds Schools to address needs of nursing, health & human performance, and education.
More equitable distribution of faculty, staff, and students across colleges
Addresses the feedback that more resources should be directed to departments rather than higher level administrators.
Lower cost compared to draft model circulated for feedback.
Weaknesses of Model B Identified by Members of the OETF
It will still likely incur minimal additional costs over the current structure given the accreditation needs within the College of Education, Nursing, Public Health, and Human Performance.
