Pros and Cons -- Edited and Combined
Academic Model
Among our peer and benchmark universities structures similar to our academic model are found at the University of California (Davis) and at the University of Oregon.
Pros
- This model would be close to our present arrangement, with a possible realignment of departments into colleges. The transition would be easy and the model would be acceptable to the faculty.
- This model would allow more flexibility in organizing colleges of academic disciplines. For example, smaller colleges would allow academic disciplines to be brought together in ways that better match our needs in Hawai'i and in ways that would allow more effective fundraising and other college activities.
- Each college or division would generate a strong sense of identity for faculty, students and the community.
- Smaller colleges would allow greater faculty access to decision-making at the level of the dean and greater faculty participation in governance.
- Smaller colleges would bring budgetary autonomy closer to the departments.
- Universities are about intellectual work-this model emphasizes the academic structure of the university over the functional structure.
Cons
- The duplication of functions within colleges is not the most cost efficient way to organize university administration.
- It is difficult to coordinate functional activities across colleges in this model.
- A greater number of colleges might also mean fragmentation of Arts and Sciences as a unit.
- A greater number of academic colleges might reduce opportunities for interaction among faculty in different colleges-leading to less interdisciplinary cooperation.
- Retaining this traditional structure might cause the university to miss the opportunity to introduce innovative modes of organizing administration to meet our goals, including a better student experience.
Functional Model
Examples Among our peer and benchmark universities, this structure is found at Iowa State University, the University of Kentucky, the University of Tennessee, Indiana University, SUNY(Buffalo), the University of Florida, the University of Iowa, and the University of Missouri.
Pros
- Due to the centralized functional infrastructure and support at the College level, all administrative policies and procedures would be applied uniformly to all units within Arts and Sciences.
- Through centralization, it may be possible to achieve economy of scale for providing necessary functional infrastructure and support.
- Every unit would have access to the same functional infrastructure and support, thus eliminating disparities across different units. (E.g. research infrastructure, administrative support for undergraduate and graduate education, etc.)
- Coordination of various administrative initiatives could be done more efficiently (e.g. various databases, management information systems etc).
- A lack of fixed disciplinary clusters could be conducive to the development of fluid interdisciplinary education, scholarship, research and programs.
- The budget for the College of Arts and Sciences would be large enough to permit new initiatives and strategic programs.
- Undergraduate education for the College of Arts and Sciences could be more streamlined and coordinated, thus improving the student experience.
- This would be a simple structure. Department chairs would report directly to the Dean of Arts and Sciences. Functional offices could be headed by Associate Deans and Directors.
Cons
- The large number of departments reporting to a single dean could make access more difficult.
- Small departments might have diminished access or voice in a large College of Arts and Sciences compared with smaller disciplinary colleges.
- The centralized functional infrastructure and support might reduce flexibility to account for unique circumstances at each department.
- Simplification of the structure would take away the additional layer of voices of the academic deans, thus giving too much discretionary power to the Arts and Sciences Dean to make changes, both budgetary and organizational.
- There might be a loss of traditional academic-discipline-based identities. This could negatively affect our ability to raise funds from discipline-based target constituencies
Hybrid model
Examples In our survey of peer institutions, we found this structure in schools such as Arizona State University, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the University of Colorado at Boulder, the University of Georgia, the University of Wisconsin, and the University of Michigan.
Pros
- Divisional and functional units would absorb work tied to operational duties, leaving more time for the Executive Dean to provide broad leadership, to serve as an advocate for Arts and Sciences and a strong liberal arts program, and to seek support for Arts and Sciences.
- Effective implementation of functional services requires multi-level efforts that are complementary. Functional units located at the College of Arts and Sciences level would effectively incorporate considerations at the department (faculty) and student levels.
- The budgetary support of functional units at the Arts and Sciences level would signal the determination of the University to bring its vision to its students.
- Functional and academic units at the same level within the College of Arts and Sciences would more easily align their perspectives and priorities.
- Separate management of functional and academic activities could be more efficient and lead to improvement in both.
- This structure would bring an Arts and Sciences perspective to all programs and initiatives.
- Policies and procedures would be consistent across Arts and Sciences
- There would be equal access and services for all programs.
Cons
- The task of coordinating the many divisional and functional priorities and initiatives would fall upon the Arts and Sciences Dean, adding substantially to the workload.
- The addition of functional units at the college level would be inflationary and redundant (given similar units at the Vice-Chancellor level).
- The priorities of academic and functional units might not always agree.
- The establishment of discrete functional offices might lead to a loss of flexibility for new initiatives and programs that involved multiple functions and disciplines.