Performing an Academic Program Review

 Forward this article to a colleague

February 5, 2010

A January 31 article in the Chronicle of Higher Education discussed several institutions' approaches to academic program cuts, including the University of Iowa, Miami University, and others.  This week, even more institutions have announced similar program reviews.

Academic Impressions discussed the program review process with Robert C. Dickeson, formerly of the Lumina Foundation and author of Prioritizing Academic Programs and Services: Reallocating Resources to Achieve Strategic Balance.  In this interview, he gives his advice on how best to approach thorny program reviews.

Interview with Bob Dickeson

AI: What are the one or two key lessons you have learned as you have helped steward this process along at other institutions?

Dickeson:  The most important factor is for institutions to recognize the need for reform.  Often it takes a crisis for the multiple forces on a campus to come together and realize that reform is necessary.

Of course, many schools today face fiscal crises and the recognition that something different must be done is more apparent.  No effort to prioritize and then reallocate resources has been successful, however, without the proper alignment among the governing board, the president, and the chief academic officer.  I've seen some example of this process failing, and it always was due to lack of alignment among the chief players.

AI: Who are the executive level champions that need to be involved?

Dickeson:  The president, the CAO, and the CFO must be of one mind about prioritizing and they should have sought (and secured) the support of the governing board before proceeding.

AI: Who should be involved in the committee that manages the program review process?

Dickeson:  Campuses will differ on their views of inclusion.  Some institutions want the committee to be composed only of individuals who have budget responsibilities.  Others want the typical, representative committee.

My experience is that it doesn't much matter about the areas that are represented on the committee; what matters is the wisdom and courage of the individual members.  In the best cases, members see themselves as trustees of the institution, protecting its future.  On the other hand, some members see themselves as delegates only, representing their respective areas and protecting the past.

I have actually seen the trustee-type member vote against his own program because he saw, in comparison with other programs and based on the data, that it was not worthy of his support.

AI: What prerequisites must be in place, if any, for a successful process to take place?  How can this process work in a low-trust environment?

Dickeson:  The 2010 edition of the book [Prioritizing Academic Programs and Services: Reallocating Resources to Achieve Strategic Balance, Revised and Updated -- ed] lays out several steps that have to be thought through in advance of beginning the prioritization process.  The point is, we can anticipate the kinds of barriers, questions, and issues that will surface -- and we need to be prepared for them.  A communication plan, for example, can be designed in advance, and an excellent one used by Drake University is included in the current edition.

AI: How should institutions identify the criteria they will use to evaluate programs? Are there one or two critical criteria that should always be included?

Dickeson:  I recommend using ten criteria:

• History, development, and expectations of the program
• External demand
• Internal demand
• Quality of inputs and processes
• Quality of outcomes
• Size, scope, and productivity
• Revenue and other resources generated by the program
• Costs and other expenses
• Impact, justification, and overall essentiality
• Opportunity analysis
  

Institutions which are in dire crisis have sometimes used only three: size, cost, and quality.  However, I think a serious prioritization process, to be academically responsible, requires a more comprehensive analysis.

AI: How should institutions balance program reviews for academic versus administrative programs?

Dickeson:  Typically, institutions have been avoiding the academic side of the house -- because cuts there are more politically volatile -- and instead have been chopping away at the administrative side, particularly adding to the deferred maintenance problem.  

I recommend that all programs at the institution -- academic and non-academic -- undergo one review, simultaneously.  It's an entire institution, well-balanced for the future, that's what we're after.

AI: How do institutions ensure they account for the potential of new programs and the aging of older programs?

Dickeson:  The criterion -- history, development, and expectations -- can give you insights into the history of the program: why was it developed? How has it evolved over time?  Would it meet today's expectations for new programs? And other questions.

For new programs, you should apply the same criteria, but identify what expectations you have for the program, and what consequences will occur should the new program not meet expectations.  Many campuses, after prioritization, will reallocate resources away from legacy programs that are not performing and toward newer programs with greater quality and promise.

AI: How varied is the process based on different institution types? Should research institutions, for example, go through a program selection process fundamentally different than a land grant or a teaching college?  What variations in process would you recommend?

Dickeson:  I have seen every kind of campus use the same process.  What differs, of course, will be the scope of the exercise and the ease of securing the data to support responsible decision-making.

Larger campuses, with more sophisticated institutional research offices and cost-accounting methods, will have it easier than smaller campuses where the data may not be as centrally available, and allocating costs may be tougher.  But the steps of the process apply to all types of institutions, and all types have completed it successfully.  It's also true that no two institutions do it exactly the same way -- they take the principles, recommendations, and criteria and adapt it to their unique cultures and issues.

AI: Are there any other specific recommendations you would give to an institution looking to do a thorough programmatic review?

Dickeson: The 2010 edition of the book contains a check-list for getting started that was developed by the Society for College and University Planners (SCUP).  The checklist is contained as "Resource G: Prioritization Process and Implementation".


Amit Mrig and JB DeVries, Academic Impressions

In The News

Program Cuts Make for Hard Choices
Sierra College Plans to Cut Some Vocational Education Programs

Copyright 2010, Academic Impressions

Also in This Week's Edition

Copyright Policy in Online Learning

Naming Gifts for Campus Facilities