Shark Tank: PSU’s Experience in Academia’s Version of Reality Competition Show

 At the joint National Associate of Land Grant and Public Universities (APLU) and Urban Serving Universities (USU) annual conference this week I had the pleasure of “pitching” an idea for PSU.  The competition was to showcase ideas universities had to create better alignment between what a student learns and what employers need. The Innovation Pitch Challenge session was modeled on the television show Shark Tank (which I admit, I had not seen until we were selected for this competition).

Our Idea

In September, we, along with dozens of universities, submitted an idea. Ours was to create a professional master’s program in Industrial Mathematics; a proposal that had been originally submitted by the mathematics and statistics department for the Provost Challenge. PSU was among 11 universities selected to make a pitch at the conference. Each participant had five minutes for the presentation.

Big Thanks

Mathematics Professors Jay Gopalakrishnan and Gerardo Lafferriere were the brains behind the idea for the program and the content of the script.  Thanks also to Professor Devon Allen in the School of Theatre and Film who spent a session coaching me on how to memorize the script (which I did and now can recite it for anyone!), and to Mark Wubbold in the President’s Office for helping me make math flash cards of the mastery and competencies handed out to the judges.

The Pitch

Here is my pitch. I share it because the ideas your colleagues have for this proposal is exciting. Please note the script was not written to be published, but to be delivered verbally.

I want to start with a question: What does 5x5x5x5x5 equal?  A well-formulated question with a precise answer, 3125.  But wait, in rare cases are problems so easily defined or so easily solved. Imagine training that would prepare employees already in the work place to address computationally intensive problems in science and industry.

I have a proposal for a professional master’s degree in industrial mathematics.  A program that meets business and industry’s need for dealing with complex, discontinuous and disruptive change. An academic program that lies in that void between basic undergraduate math programs and our research-focused mathematical doctoral programs.  A program that takes the concepts and fundamentals and applies them-- not to the well-formulated questions-- but rather to identifying messy questions that exist in our knowledge-based industries.

Think about it--practitioners trained in logical thinking within a business setting; employees that are able to effectively use contemporary computational and statistical tools.  A program that has higher level skills grounded in mathematical thinking and theory, but not one that trains someone to be a mathematician. Just last week, I had four business dean candidates tell me that computational and analytical skills are what employers want most.

I get this. I am not a mathematician. My background is cartography and GIS. I have been a faculty member for over 3 decades and my research and teaching has led me to understand how to deal with change and complex problems.  But I have to say, had I become a practitioner early in my career I would have so benefited from a program like this.  Not only would I have had the skills to map things, but I would have had the perspective to conceive of potential complex interrelationships that go beyond the lines on the map.

We’ve done the math—by working with employers we’ve identified 5 mastery areas where a student would gain 5 competencies each to create this customized program. 5x5 in this case is not 25. Learning is exponential —I can truthfully say it is 5 to the power of 5. One of the most powerful forces in the world is the exponential power of mathematics.  Regardless of how knowledge changes—there is one universal constant—math.  Employees need these skills in their back pocket.

This program is targeted for people already with jobs as engineers, supply chain managers, social entrepreneurs, and even cartographers.  The program will be delivered online, competency based, have no credits, will count experience, and is learner paced.

The number one thing employers are asking for are employees that can innovate. This program delivers on that. We will produce practitioners with mathematical knowledge as applied to their broader skill set.  The saying “do the math” exists for a reason. The evidence shows--Math is a constant no matter what disruptions take place –you all know this, you’ve done the math-- at the heart of all innovation lies computational thinking.

We have the experience to design this program in less than 12 months—Portland State has just innovated over a dozen large-scale curricular projects in 6-12 months through a university-wide crowdsourcing effort called rethink PSU.

We are asking for $5,000, but wait, per each of the 5 mastery areas –do the math—5x5 --we are asking for a total of $25,000. Thank you.

The Many Wins

Unfortunately, we did not win the competition.  But we do have some wins to show for it.  A number of participants and members of the audience thought the idea our mathematics faculty had was “brilliant.”  I learned a lot about the potential this program could have for PSU, and Gerardo’s great sense of humor helped make for a good pitch.  And, upon getting the news that we had not won, I received a great email from mathematics saying:

“All that energy you brought to this effort has energized us and the proposal. None of this effort was wasted. Thank you again.”

This kind of creative thinking on the part of faculty is part of PSU's DNA. My thank you to Jay, Gerardo and their colleagues!

Read More

We Missed You at the SEM and PBB Forums

On October 13^th and 17^th, I held open forums about the Academic Affairs FY 16 Strategic Enrollment Management (SEM) planning and Performance-Based Budgeting (PBB) process.

The presentation included the FY 16 SEM and PBB planning process, timeline and the final FY 15 performance requirements for units in OAA.

Approximately 30 individuals attended the forums, and it was great to see Michael Bowman, chair of the Faculty Senate Budget Committee, at both sessions. I was pleased all the deans and most of the associate deans were present. Given their knowledge of budget and/or enrollment management planning, they really came to listen to the input and questions faculty would have. Faculty provided commentary and asked many informative questions. However, only eight faculty members attended.

Seeking Feedback

Last year the budget was such a hot and controversial topic that I was surprised by the low attendance this month.

• Have we done such a good job explaining the SEM and PBB process that everyone has the information they need?
• Were faculty aware of the sessions? 
• Is everyone just too busy? (I can relate!)

Communication Efforts

On September 15^th I sent an email to all department chairs to forward the forum times and dates to faculty in their departments. Also, on October 5^th my blog on FY 16 SEM and PBB planning to begin listed the times and dates. Finally, on October 6^th the times and dates were provided in writing at the Faculty Senate meeting (see item B5- provost comments).

I would appreciate hearing any thoughts or suggestions you may have on the low attendance, and if there is any information needed on the OAA FY 15 budget or the FY 16 SEM and PBB planning.

Read More

Interest-Based Bargaining: A Possibility for PSU?

Back in May the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with the PSU Chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and the University went into effect. The formal negotiations for the next agreement are months away. However, it is not too soon for us to think about how to have healthier dialogs and agreements on the important issues.

This past year SEIU and PSU Human Resources used interest-based problem solving (IBPS) to help set up the Joint Communications and Consultation Committee. Given their success, I suggested to the AAUP leadership that we jointly explore interest-based bargaining (IBB) for our next contract.

The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) describes IBB as “a process that enables traditional negotiators to become joint problem-solvers. It assumes that mutual gain is possible, that solutions which satisfy mutual interests are more durable, that the parties should help each other achieve a positive result.”

IBB takes work and training on the part of all parties. Fortunately, The State of Oregon offers IBB training and prior to that training, “a trainer meets with representatives of both labor and management to help the parties assess their needs, desires, and chances for success. If following this assessment the parties want to try interest-based bargaining then a training agenda is developed to address the parties' needs.”

I encourage AAUP and the University together to explore IBB. In the meantime, I remain optimistic that the work of the following task forces will make progress to address some still to-be-resolved items.

Status Update on CBA Task Forces

Meetings have already taken place and will continue to do so for joint labor/management task forces called for in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. 

Article 18, Section 9 task force will examine current employment terms and notice requirements for non-tenure track faculty. 

Article 27 task force will evaluate and consider revisions to the imposition of progressive sanctions.  

We hope to soon have the names from the Faculty Senate Steering Committee to convene the task force on Academic Quality and the task force on Family Friendly Policies. The Academic Quality task force will examine academic quality at Portland State. Topics to be suggested shall include: the elements of high quality teaching and high quality student support.  The Family Friendly task force will focus on the review of relevant University policies and practices, and identify possible changes to provide greater support and career options for employees balancing family and career.

I look forward to your thoughts on interest-based bargaining--is it right for us at this time?

Read More

SCH—orbiting the giant hairball?

Would a one-day moratorium of not saying “SCH” (Student Credit Hours) change how we frame issues? Perhaps it would have us look differently at how we approach the curriculum, or how we derive alternative solutions?  I often hear that the way SCH is counted, attributed and valued prevents us from doing what we want to do.

Breaking the Myths

Some believe that PSU unit budgets were historically based on the SCH production. I am hard pressed to believe this as a past practice given there is little evidence that as units grew or shrunk that budgets followed these same patterns. I also hear that our new performance-based budget model (PBB) is solely SCH driven; that it sets up competition for SCH; and that administration thinks the more SCH the better.  This is not accurate either. PBB revenue requirements are based on tuition revenue, however PBB expenditure budgets take into account non-tuition revenue generated activities such as unfunded faculty research and service, as well department and college administrative costs. While there is no question we need the revenue generated by the tuition paid by students, we must put the SCH in perspective.  The focus should be on student success and quality.

Brief History of Student Credit Hours

Where did SCH as a measure come from anyway? Over 100 years ago, as a trustee of Cornell University, Andrew Carnegie set out to create a pension system for university professors that would be administered by the nonprofit Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.  He borrowed a system that had been used by high schools for measuring a standard unit of time a student spent on a subject.  It forever became known as the “Carnegie Unit” and the defacto standard for determining high school graduation and college admissions requirements. Carnegie’s  pension  system  also spurred  higher  education to convert its own course  offerings  into time-based units, which  were  used  to  determine  faculty-workload  thresholds to qualify for the new pension program. 

Understanding how Student Credit Hours translate into revenue

Let us re-examine the credit hour to understand its proper relationship to budget and not let it be the driver of what we do.

First, all SCH are not the same in the revenue they generate.  Out-of-state students pay more than in-state students, graduate students pay more than undergraduates, and some programs have differential tuition. How SCH growth is generated is also important both in terms of student success and finances. 

For example, we may find that competency-based learning or credit for prior learning (CPL), although lowering SCH, enhances student success and reduce costs to students.  And in turn, is less costly to the university than recruiting and attracting a new student, or having students not see their program of study through completion.

Stuck in a hairball?

SCH is important, but it should not be the goal. I have on my shelf a book I read a number of years ago—Gordon McKenzie’s Orbiting the Giant Hairball (the image above is from the book).  The book highlights how even the most innovative organization become "giant hairballs" – tangled in an impenetrable mass of rules, traditions, and systems; all based on what worked in the past. I would like to see us work on creative curricular solutions that guarantee high-quality learning that allow us to break away from the giant SCH hairball we find ourselves getting stuck in so often.  I wonder what others think.

Read More

Changes in OAA and EMSA

I do not believe in change for the sake of change alone.  In my two years at Portland State I occasionally have asked if our structures optimize the accomplishment of our goals and mission.  With the opportunity presented by the search for a new Vice President for Enrollment Management and Student Affairs (EMSA), I, along with the guidance of the Academic Leadership Team (ALT-comprised of the deans, vice provosts and myself), assessed some of the services in EMSA that are most aligned with our academic functions and wrote a white paper with a set of recommendations.  EMSA provided their perspectives and conversations took place between the two divisions, with final recommendations reviewed and discussed with President Wiewel. 

As a result, President Wiewel made a decision that we should move Advising & Career Services, the Learning Center, the Office of the Registrar, and graduate student recruitment and admissions from EMSA to the Office of Academic Affairs (OAA).  There are many details to work out in making these moves that will involve the participation of numerous individuals and groups over the next few months.

It is important to note: 1)  Certain reporting structures will change to better align with the university’s academic priorities, and that will require reorganizing some functions. However, there are no plans to eliminate positions as a result of the change in reporting lines, and 2) this change is not in criticism of the great work that EMSA has done, but rather to better align and implement the strategies critical to our academic programs and student success. For example, PSU faces increasing competition for graduate students and we need to develop a comprehensive graduate admissions system that is separate from undergraduate admissions and coordinated closely with our schools and colleges.   

This is not the first time, nor will it be the last that we ask if our structures serve our current and future needs. I asked that question in “my own back yard” when I first arrived at PSU by taking a critical look at the functions of the provost office.  In that case, I merged and reduced leadership positions.

Last year when the dean position in the School of Social Work (SSW) was vacated, I asked SSW faculty and staff about their structure and leadership. There were some initial concerns that I might have already made up my mind to merge the school with another college.  I assured them that was not the case. As a result of SSW’s thoughtful and deliberate conversations it was determined that their current status as a school, with a dean, was critical to the success of their programs.

I again asked a structure question this spring when the CLAS dean position was vacated.  At the suggestion of faculty and staff in CLAS we administered a poll to see if they wanted to have a discussion about the structure of their college.  Seventy-one percent (248 out of 349) of the full-time faculty and staff responding to the poll indicated a desire to do so.  That conversation is taking place now--again with no predetermined outcome. 

Change for the sake of change is never a good idea.  But we need to remember that throughout PSU’s history we have been an institution that has been willing to look at how our structure serves our students, faculty, staff and community.  Today, we have seven schools/colleges (and maybe an 8^th if the Faculty Senate recommends creation of a School of Public Health), a division for Research and Strategic Partnerships, a division of EMSA, and an office of Global Diversity and Inclusion (GDI) – all a result of a willingness on the part of this university to occasionally change our organizational structure. 

I am interested in your thoughts on the topic of structural change and on any specific changes that have taken place or are under consideration.   

Read More

October 6, 2014 Faculty Senate Meeting

Yesterday was the first Faculty Senate meeting of the 2014-15 academic year.  The Senate has an ambitious agenda this year that includes, but is not limited to: academic program prioritization (APP), post-tenure review (a.k.a faculty peer review), university strategic planning, academic quality, family friendly policies, the potential joint OHSU/PSU School of Public Health, and textbook affordability.  This is on top of their normal business!

It is vital that the faculty play a front and center role on these important issues.  The Faculty Senate is committed to a high level of engagement, but it will require involvement beyond the Senate.  At the Senate meeting, Presiding Officer Bob Liebman mentioned a few committees and task forces (that by my simple count alone) will require the involvement of dozens of faculty members.  It will be necessary for many of you to join your Senate colleagues in the important work that will take place this year.

Some of the issues before the Senate are new areas of exploration.  Academic program prioritization (APP) is a good example.  We have never engaged in such a process at PSU.  I give great kudos to the Faculty Senate for their recognition that APP is, and must be, a faculty-driven process.  It is our faculty that must decide our array of academic programs.

The Senate is also working on existing issues with a renewed sense of commitment. Post-tenure review is an example.  PSU has had a post-tenure (peer) review process for a number of years, however, the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (NWCCU), found in 2012 that “While the review of tenure-track faculty is conducted through a well-defined process, the review of faculty who have attained tenure is uneven. The evaluation committee recommends that policies and practices regarding post-tenure review be strengthened to make certain that all faculty are evaluated in a regular, systematic, substantive, and collegial manner at least once within every five-year period of service.”  We have work to do here—and we need to get it done this year not only to be in compliance with NWCCU, but to ensure academic quality through fair, effective and formative evaluation for our tenured faculty members.

The great news is that we have a shared governance process that allows for thoughtful conversations and good decision making.  I look forward to working with the Senate and all of you on these and other items.  I value any input or comments you have on this shared work.

Sona

Read More

FY 16 SEM and PBB planning to begin

Last week was not only the first week of a new fall term, but it was also the start of the Academic Affairs budget and enrollment planning for FY16.  FY 16 will be our second year of performance-based budgeting (PBB).  PBB is a change from the incremental budget setting that PSU used in the past and it no doubt will take some time for everyone to have a full understanding of how it works and for us to use it to its full capabilities. 

This new model changes our budget paradigm.  Whereas in the past we set budgets and then determined what we could do with those funds, we now have a process whereby we assess what is possible and feasible and develop a budget to support that.  This requires an integrated planning approach that begins with school/college level Strategic Enrollment Management (SEM) plans.  SEM planning anticipates the ups and downs in trends of demographics, enrollment, and demand; articulates the strategies units will use to improve success of current students; lays out recruitment efforts for new students; and identifies potential new programs.  The SEM plans are done at the school/college level with each having an internal process. The SEM plans are critical to projecting revenue generated by tuition, which along with the state appropriation and fees establishes our Education and General (E&G) to support the teaching, research and services provided by the university. 

The process of SEM and PBB planning is an integrated one and is a combination of analyzing data and making assumptions on student decisions.  It needs to take into account the interdependence units have on one another and how we function as a university as a whole. It is a process that cannot and does not take place behind closed doors. It is iterative as can be seen in its timelines that are publically posted and have been shared with the deans, the Faculty Senate Budget Committee, and all academic department chairs/directors.  I do not expect that everyone has had a chance to grasp all the aspects and capabilities of this new way of planning and budgeting.  In the spring we did create a short 9 minute video to explain the basics of PBB and I have started to write PBB issue briefs to help demystify concerns as they emerge.

On October 13^th from 3-4 pm in SMSU 296/298 (and repeated again on the 17^th from 9-10 am in SMSU 236) I will host open forums to provide a recap on the Academic Affairs FY 15 budget, to share information on the FY 16 SEM and PBB process, and to listen to concerns and questions you might have.  I encourage you to attend as well as to use this blog to share your views.

Read More