Academic Affairs > University Design Team > Reports > Phase I Report and Recommendations

University Design Team Phase I Report and Recommendations

Preface

The University Design Team (UDT) envisions ASU as a single research university, with multiple campuses sharing the ASU identity, and yet each with its own character and spires of excellence. The recommendations in this report represent the beginning of the conversation about possible program realignments designed to facilitate the strengthening of the ASU brand and the differentiation of the four campuses.

The Team recommends that the next steps in the process be consultative and deliberative, as decisions such as these must consider a multitude of factors. The process must include an analysis of enrollment impacts, constituencies served, program interdependencies for faculty and students, financial resources, organizational alternatives, space, research, accreditation issues, etc. on a case-by-case basis. Further analysis of these factors is necessary to determine the extent to which individual program realignments may actually achieve desired outcomes (e.g., dispersion of student enrollment, sharpened research focus, quality improvements). Another critical recommendation of the Team is that the further deliberations involve the affected units, faculty, and other relevant constituencies to ensure issues are fully assessed. Finally, the Team would stress the imperative that the next steps be initiated with dispatch.

Team Charge

Within the context of preparing a five to ten year “road map” to accommodate increasing numbers of students, the University Design Team was charged to:

Phase I

• Determine the identity and character of the four different campuses.
  How does one establish differentiation among the four campuses? Do they have distinctive missions, thrusts, and/or topical clusters of programs? Do they all have the ASU brand?
  
• Recommend programs that are needed at the campuses to support or define those identities in charge # 1.
  Should existing programs on one of the campuses be moved to reinforce the identity of another campus? Should new programs be started that help build the image of a particular campus?

Phase II

• Determine how the various university services need to be provided.
  Should support services be centrally organized and managed or should they be decentralized to the campuses? How much autonomy should each campus have in the various service areas? Should the roles of the Graduate College, College of Extended Education, and the Office of VPR be revised? (Also coordinate with the other task forces, such as the admissions standards, University College, etc.)
  
• How should we manage enrollment within and among campuses?

Imperative to Plan

The need to do this type of planning and potential reorganization of the university is driven by the desire to increase the capacity of the university to serve students, to increase quality, and to increase research productivity. Given that ASU Main is essentially capped at its current enrollment and some ASU Main programs will need to grow, other ASU Main programs and significant university growth must be accommodated at the other three campuses and through extended education.

University Identity

Prior to discussing campus identities, the Team felt it necessary to identify the characteristics of ASU and the common elements the four campuses must share as parts of ASU. The common elements are intended to define a single university with multiple campuses that shares the characteristics of the most successful state university systems in the U.S. The unique qualities of each campus must be embedded in the fundamental qualities of ASU, yet demonstrate the opportunity for a distinct character. The common elements could define ASU as the primary brand and allow each campus’ differentiated identity to represent secondary brands.

Thus, the four campuses of ASU should share the following core elements and values. Within the approved differentiation stated in their missions, each campus shall:

• Offer degree programs at the baccalaureate, master’s and doctoral levels.
• Conduct programs of research and creative activities.
• Offer programs leading to professional degrees at the baccalaureate and post-baccalaureate levels.
• Promote continuing and extended education, and encourage faculty and staff to be engaged with the greater metropolitan region.
• Serve the needs of women, minority, disadvantaged, disabled, and non-traditional students.
• Seek racial and ethnic diversification of the student body and the faculty and staff.
• Support activities designed to promote economic, cultural, and social development of the state.
• Commit to student success in all aspects of their academic and personal development.

Campus Identities

Guided by the “one university with multiple campuses” model for ASU, the UDT considered existing strengths and future potential to identify the distinguishing qualities, or secondary branding, of the four campuses. The following set of descriptors for the campuses emerged:

ASU Downtown

ASU Downtown would focus on connecting to the downtown community. It would do so through programs that: build on the emerging clinical biosciences thrust, serve the needs of downtown professional communities, and enhance ASU’s connections to the downtown arts community. ASU Downtown could become a focal point for centers and institutes that serve the broader region and that draw on university-wide expertise. Within all of these possibilities, Downtown would not develop as a traditional, four year campus, but rather focus on upper division, graduate, or otherwise self-contained programs that do not require a broad array of lower division course offerings or support services.

ASU East

ASU East is envisioned as the campus whose focuses will be professional and applied programs, with a strong emphasis on technology that distinguishes the curricula and out-of-class experiences of students, faculty, and staff. ASU East will offer a multifaceted student life, including a wide array of support services that serve a diversity of students.

ASU Main

ASU Main would continue to focus on developing the profile of a research-intensive institution with the qualities and programmatic diversity of non-land grant AAUs. As programmatic themes, ASU Main would emphasize global and trans-disciplinary initiatives. As the largest campus, ASU Main would be distinguished by its comprehensive student life, including intercollegiate athletics and Greek life.

ASU West

ASU West would be known as the campus that focuses on studying and addressing metropolitan and social/cultural issues. It would continue to develop the interdisciplinary thread among programs and would “carry the torch” for ASU’s community embeddedness mission. Like ASU East, West would offer the full, four-year university experience to students, including the necessary support services.

Program Structures and Distribution

Given these distinctive features, the UDT discussed the many possibilities for the redistribution and restructuring of programs offered throughout the university. The sections that follow discuss issues and concerns, principles to guide reorganization, organizational alternatives, general studies and seamless transfer, core liberal arts and sciences, and potential program alignments based on campus identities.

Issues & Concerns

• Members of the Design Team felt there was inadequate time to properly understand the dynamics of individual programs and departments as a basis for making strong and informed recommendations.

• There is great concern about the process that will follow this report. The Team believes it is absolutely critical that relevant constituencies be involved in further assessing the viability of the “recommendations” and, if viable, how to accomplish program moves, consolidations, organizational structure, etc. When recommendations affect units at more than one campus, those multiple units should work together on implementation (e.g., how computer science has been managed between Main and East).
• Recognizing the good of the greater university is the primary driver for reorganization, it would be desirable for reorganization to benefit programs in demonstrable ways (e.g., increased centrality to new campus mission, increased visibility, additional resources) and present the opportunity to enhance individual program success.
• Resources are a concern. The Team believes if programs are to move from one campus to another, all of the resources needed to support students, faculty, and other program requirements must be provided at the new campus. This includes the requirement that sufficient and appropriate space be made available to support relocated programs.

Principles to Guide Program Reorganization

Decisions about program structure and reorganization must be based on many factors. Some that were most relevant in the discussions of the Design Team are noted below:

• Centrality to campus identity - movement of programs from one campus to another should clearly support the distinctions among campus’ identities.
• Goodness of fit - programs should support and enhance the stated purposes and goals of the campus, college, and department.
• Interdisciplinary dependence - the degree to which a program’s courses serve other students or its students’ require courses in other disciplines (beyond general studies) should be considered. The same issue applies to faculty relationships with other programs.
• Duplication of programs - offering similar or the same programs at multiple campuses may be necessary in some cases (e.g., English, arts, teacher preparation, business, communication, nursing). Market demand (student and employer) should be the primary factor that drives duplication. In these cases, there should be sufficient and appropriate differentiation among programs based on campus identity.
• Collaboration among programs - all programs, wherever they are located, should be encouraged to collaborate and interact with related programs at other campuses for the benefits such collaboration brings as well as to ensure appropriate differentiation.

Possible Organizational Framework

Three different organizational structures for administering programs within the one university with multiple campuses model were discussed:

• Distributive - related programs or units located at more than one campus, differentiated based on distinct campus missions, and administered by a single academic unit within the university. This model requires a commitment to the same level of quality wherever programs are offered (e.g., similar or the same faculty at all locations). Each campus could have an appropriate array of these “headquarters”, consistent with campus missions.
• Duplicative - similar programs or units located at more than one campus, differentiated to the extent possible based on distinct campus missions, and administered at the campus level. To ensure the validity of the “one university” brand, formal coordination among duplicated programs is imperative.
• Unique - unique programs within the university primarily offered at one campus and administered at the campus level.

All three organizational models presume the use of extended education strategies to offer programs at other campuses, off campus, and via technology, as necessary. Faculty could be asked to teach at more than one campus under any of these models.

Appropriate organizational structures should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for each program or program area.

Potential Program Ideas

Common General Studies and Seamless Transfer

To reinforce the notion that ASU is a single entity, it is strongly recommended that there be a university-wide set of general studies requirements. The implementation and methods of delivery of general studies might differ on each campus. However, there should be a common set of curricular objectives, experiences, and student learning outcomes (“core competencies”) for the entire ASU undergraduate student body. ASU also needs to measure the success of students in attaining those outcomes, no matter where the students are located. In the same vein, transferring from one campus to another should not be difficult for students. Program and campus requirements should be articulated such that course credits taken at one campus transfer without question to any other campus.

Core Liberal Arts and Sciences

East, West and Main, as full-service, four-year university campuses, will need to offer a range of “core” liberal arts and sciences courses to meet student needs for general studies. However, separate disciplinary departments in each general studies area are not required on each campus to meet these needs. It is recognized, however, that there may be sufficient student demand to establish “duplicate” degree programs and organizational units in the liberal arts and sciences on the three campuses. The breadth, depth, and content focus of these offerings, programs, and units should be developed in relationship to the differentiated identities of the campuses.

Potential Program Alignments with Campus Identities

The Team discussed many academic programs in the university and their fit with the four campus’ identities, assuming that achieving campus distinctiveness will require redistribution of some programs. While the list that follows may not be exhaustive, the matrix demonstrates the Team’s thinking process as it relates to these programs. 

The Team discussed the potential realignment of several centers and institutes, recognizing the potential for such entities to further reinforce the campus’ identities. As an example, the Morrison Institute could fit with the identity of ASU Downtown or with the social and metropolitan focus of ASU West. It probably is best to consider centers and institutes as a part of further studying the appropriate campus locations for related degree programs and departments.

Potential New Programs for ASU

In addition to examining existing programs, the Team was charged to identify programs not currently offered at any ASU campus, which might bolster the identity of the four campuses. A partial list of degree programs that could be added include: allied health fields (Downtown, East, West); applied math (East); arts administration (Downtown); art therapy (Downtown); environmental and land use planning (East); fire and police science (Downtown, East); general engineering (East); gerontology (West); public health (Downtown); and, urban studies (Downtown, West). It is quite possible that some existing certificate programs could be added to this list as well.

Conclusions

Critical to the success of ASU, as one university with multiple campuses, are common values and characteristics shared by all campuses, distinctive identities for each campus that celebrate their unique contributions to the greater good, and distribution of programs among the campuses to realize those identities and best position the university to meet the many imperatives it will face over the next several years.

Achieving this vision of the university and campuses requires deliberation and consultation with many constituencies. Many potential changes were discussed by the UDT and summarized here, but work remains to be done to ensure the impacts and consequences of possible decisions are well understood.

Finally, the Team would argue for swift follow-up to this report. The process to move these discussions to decisions should be initiated immediately. And, not withstanding the need for a deliberative process, making some careful, yet speedy decisions could demonstrate early success in this process to transform the university.

Quick Links:
University Design Team Charge
University Design Team Roster

Phase I Report (Microsoft® Word format)
Phase I Report (HTML format, opens in new window)