|
Most institutions have a) not enough money for
faculty support and development, b) fragmented ways of spending
the few dollars they do have -- the money is split among units
such as a teaching center, faculty development program, the
library, information technology services (sometimes more than
one of these offices), distance learning, IT specialists in
certain departments and colleges... At many
institutions each of these units has a different budget,
different schedule of events, different services. They may be
competing with one another for funds. They often do not
have a centralized help number, events schedule, or web site,
which can make things confusing and frustrating for faculty who
need help or services.
In contrast, at some other institutions, some
or all of these development/support units work together
intimately. The TLT Group calls these coalitions "Virtual
Teaching, Learning, and Technology Centers." One such
institution is the University of Texas, El Paso. What
follows is an interview with Bill Roberson, Director of
Instructional Support Services at UTEP.
What is the
goal of this new entity, Instructional Support Services?
The idea has
been to integrate all functions on campus related to
instruction-- pedagogical, technological, formative assessment
of teaching. This has required a cultural as well as
administrative realignment. In order to ensure full integration,
ISS operates under an integrated team management structure. In
other words, staff members serve on multiple teams with diverse
representation from other function areas. Members of the
distance learning team, for example, serve on the faculty
development team, ensuring that their work is connected and that
opportunities to share resources and expertise are recognized.
2. What units
are involved and how does each fit into the organizational
structure?
Units or
“Functional Teams” include:
-
Faculty,
instructional, and curriculum development ( led by the Center
for Effective Teaching and Learning)
-
Mediated and
Distance Learning (instructional design; support for online
and hybrid courses; media and database production in support
of courses)
-
Instructional Technology Services (technology instruction for
users; includes the “Faculty Instructional Technology Lab”
where faculty can come at any time for assisted self-service:
access to staff expertise, software, hardware; Lab is staffed
full-time for either walk-in support or by reservation; this
team also runs classroom tech support)
-
Graduate
Student Professional Development (partnership with graduate
school to provide workshops, consultations, trainings on
teaching and instructional technology
-
ATLAS (a
student open lab that also serves to provide faculty with
course-specific technology instruction for their students. Lab
is integrated with Graduate Student Professional Development
programs, to provide management and teaching opportunities for
graduate students)
-
Publications
and Events Management (communications unit for promotion of
events, coordination of schedule—this is the office that
operates the SUN Conference, for example)
-
Administrative Support
Do
all these units report to you administratively? Do some have
other reporting lines?
All report to
me with the exception of the Director of the Center for
Effective Teaching and Learning. Her reporting line is to
Academic Affairs, although the close physical proximity of the
teaching and learning center to the other units of ISS (we are
all situated in one building at the center of campus) creates a
condition for easy and regular collaboration. The Director of
CETaL serves as facilitator of the ISS Faculty and Instructional
Development team, and serves on several of the other functional
teams that manage ISS operations. This ensures integration of
interests, projects, and work.
Are there any
units concerned with learning improvement or faculty
support/development that are
not part of your collaboration?
All faculty
and grad student support functions on campus, other than
home-grown departmental efforts, are tied to ISS in one way or
another, via collaborations. For example, the Women’s Faculty
Mentoring program is a collaboration between the Center for
Effective Teaching and Learning and an NSF Advance Grant. The
Graduate School is a partner in ISS’ programs for graduate
student instructional development. IT is a partner in
Instructional Technology Services, which includes campus-wide
support for multimedia classrooms.
What has UTEP
gained from this collaboration among disparate support units?
-
More focused
mission of support, which clarifies communications with
faculty, helps them better understand what help exists, rather
than their having to sort through a maize of discrete offices
of support
-
Increased
ability to develop and support complex programs that draw
resources from several areas (Example: Hybrid
Academies---year-long curriculum development programs—draw
expertise and resources from all of the teams)
-
More
energized and holistic support for faculty projects:
diversified team-based organization ensures that projects have
broad support from all related functions of ISS: pedagogy is
not separate from media production.
-
Efficiencies: MANY fewer human hours spent on redundant
administrative functions. Integration allowed for elimination
of 3 overlapping administrative positions (2 associate VP’s
and one Director). ISS also requires one fewer administrative
assistant than under original arrangement; These savings have
allowed for staff growth in more productive areas, such as
support for distance learning.
-
Better
relations with IT department, now that IT knows who is
responsible for what and where to find him/her, quality of
service has increased measurably. Collaborations between ISS
and IT to support faculty are frequent and effective.
-
Uncovered
hidden skills and talents among the staff
What
kinds of activities, values, etc. are needed to make ISS work?
The changes
were introduced in two phases. Phase one was to simplify
administration and create new pieces of the infrastructure.
Phase two was more dramatic: Every position in the organization
has been redefined over the past 7 months (since August 2004).
That redefinition accompanied the implementation of a team-based
organizational structure.
We created
teams in August 2004 and assigned a “facilitator” to each
one—this was in general a staff person who had a position of
responsibility in the old structure, but not in every case.
Staff members were assigned to a “home” team, but then were
allowed to volunteer for as many additional teams (of 6 total)
as desired. Most chose to belong to 3 or 4 teams total. The idea
was to build shared ownership and responsibility across all
functions. We also wanted to give staff opportunities to grow in
new areas of interest.
We assigned
teams to define themselves and their identities, to establish
operations plan, based on guidelines provided by me as the
Executive Director. Elements of
the plans included: team objectives/mission; operations/work
management plan; assessment plan; statement of resources needed.
Over 3 months
teams met regularly to accomplish their planning; plans were
submitted to me, discussed, and then confirmed.
We held a
retreat after 4 months to review accomplishments and begin
planning ahead; the initial emphasis was on coordination and
time management: for example, all ISS staff members were issued
a Franklin Planner, given 2 workshops on how to use it.
For
professionalization and morale-building, the director has
encouraged staff members to seek out professional development
opportunities. Half the staff (about 10) have attended or are
scheduled to attend conferences and professional development
workshops. Remainder will be encouraged to do the same over the
coming year. A substantial part of the ISS budget was assigned
to this initiative.
That's the "organization chart" story. How did this really come
about?
This is a
story about opportunities, chain reactions, cultural change, and
patience.
It's taken two years, so far.
The provost made the decision in fall 2003 to
eliminate the competing administrative structures of faculty
development, media production, and distance learning.
Year One involved elimination of two senior
administrative positions and one technical position. A new
position was created -- Executive Director for a consolidated
Instructional Support Services -- and two other existing
positions were redefined to put into place some infrastructure
for the future organization: Communications (events and
promotions) manager and an assistant director for Graduate
Student Professional Development.
During the course of year one, our first efforts
to integrate the functions of the discrete units failed
completely, due to territorial issues. One director never bought
into the new structure. Over the course of the year, he and two
others of the old guard decided to leave. This created the
opening needed to accelerate the re-organization.
Year Two: With several key positions vacated,
there were no longer major obstacles to dissolve the discrete
organizational units that had existed up until this point.
Units were dissolved and the team structure was
presented. The teams met every two weeks for 4 months and worked
out their management plans. The executive director visited each
team twice over the 4 months to receive updates and offer
support. Whole-staff meetings were used to address issues and
problems encountered along the way.
Any problems that another institution should expect if they try
to do something like what you're doing?
The biggest challenge is classic in management
tomes: the cultural change when moving from a steeply
hierarchical organization to one that functions more
horizontally.
Our goal is to distribute leadership broadly
through the organization, provide autonomy along with
responsibility, and reward collaborations among units. The key
is to create trust throughout the institution. This is done by
making statements that are consistent with actions; avoiding
preemptive decisions; soliciting input on important decisions.
My not having a fixed idea on the final shape of ISS was a
bonus…it made me less controlling.
Also, leaders need to make clear by their actions
that this is not a zero sum game. We have to place
responsibility of decision-making on the staff. That means
providing support and honest feedback, but above all preserving
the integrity of their decisions. In the early phases it’s
essential to provide staff with the resources they have
determined they need to meet their goals, even if that means a
realignment of resources.
Some staff members will thrive in this
environment; others will not. For those who want to control
through isolation, it will be awkward. This process requires
time to let the teams get a handle on their responsibility. It’s
also important to help those who don’t like the new structure to
move on quickly.
Thanks Bill!
For more information on Instructional Support
Services at UTEP, you can check out
their web site or contact Bill Roberson at
roberson@utep.edu.
- Interview conducted by Steve Ehrmann for The
TLT Group |
