Program-Level Questions
In respect to Peer and Aspirant Institutions, are you all using IPEDS to make informed decisions in regard to this topic?
Morgan Carter, Director of Institutional Analytics, Effectiveness, and Accreditation at Tarleton, assisted with the current peer/aspirant list using IPEDS data. However, the Executive Cabinet anticipates an updated list being implemented once the work of Dr. Scott Cook, Associate Professor of Mathematics and Mathematics Graduate Program Coordinator, and his team is complete.
Will Huron be meeting with department/program on campus?
Huron is meeting with a wide range of individuals on campus for each project. Tarleton leadership has worked to ensure adequate representation from all groups.
Transformation Realization Office (TRO)
What size constitutes a project… people… dollars… wheel of fortune?
The primary consideration for a project’s inclusion in the TRO support model is the level of strategic alignment and/or student impact. The depth and breadth of impacted stakeholders and the level of funding for a project are considerations, along with risk, revenue impact, institutional capability, compliance and others but there are no specific thresholds for inclusion. We recommend engaging with the TRO for a consultation if there are questions about the support needs for a particular project.
What is a TRO?
The TRO, or Transformation Realization Office, is a central University resource that leverages a team of experienced subject matter experts, in a consultative approach, to guide enterprise-level transformation with unit-level resources.
What is the role of the TRO?
The TRO will play a number of important roles at Tarleton. Primarily, the TRO will provide portfolio and project management support to the enterprise as they execute the specific projects that enable the realization of the Tarleton Forward 2030 vision. Additionally, the TRO will also provide services related to continuous improvement and long-range planning. The services in continuous improvement help to further build the capabilities in the enterprise to identify opportunities for change and transformation and move that forward in a positive way. And the long-range planning services ensure that important activities related to planning around the future year budgets comes together with other planning activities going on in ITS and Facilities and across the enterprise to provide a more comprehensive view of where Tarleton is going in the longer term. Collectively, all the services and activities of the TRO are meant to ensure that Tarleton builds and maintains the capability to execute on its strategic vision and continue moving forward.
What types of projects will be subject to the TRO processes?
The TRO will typically engage with projects that have significant strategic alignment and/or student impact, that impact multiple groups of stakeholders and that have significant implementation complexity. Implementation complexity is evaluated based on several criteria including risk, institutional capability, compliance, revenue impacts, costs, and the depth and breadth of stakeholders.
What is the governance for projects for Tarleton?
The governance process begins with a unit, or the Strategic Planning Committee, submitting a request for project support through the TRO office. That request is then reviewed, clarified and amended as appropriate with the requestor and sent to the Integrated Planning Council for additional guidance and allocation of TRO support resources.
Budget Process Redesign
Under the new budgeting system, will colleges be treated more like a profit center or a cost center?
As part of the budget redesign project, Huron will work with Tarleton to determine what type of budget model framework will best serve the Tarleton community to promote transparency, sound fiscal stewardship, and advancement of strategic priorities. Under most incentive-based budget model frameworks, colleges are treated as revenue-generating units due to their ability to generate revenue as a result of their focus on teaching and research. In those models, it is not always an expectation that all colleges be profitable. Instead, a central mechanism is often created to help top-off colleges who, based on the model rules alone, cannot cover their direct and allocated expenses. Examples of other budget model frameworks that will be explored will include performance funding, margins-based responsibility center management (RCM), and contemporary RCM.
Will colleges be allowed to retain “profits” (e.g. cost savings)?
This will also be considered as part of the redesign. With responsibility center accounting, aligning revenues with expenses is critical.
Leadership will evaluate the current carryforward and reserve policy in conjunction with other initiatives to arrive at a balanced financial management policy. However, some form of profit sharing/retention is expected.
Next-Level Data Project
Are you hiring an outside consulting firm to implement and run the strategy?
Tarleton has engaged Huron Consulting Group to support this initiative. Huron is a leading provider of advisory services in higher education and has worked with more than 500 colleges, universities, and research institutions globally.
Will you be hiring a CDO?
Organizational structure and service model adjustments are in scope for this review. Specific future position and responsibility needs have not yet been determined.
Do you have a proposed framework yet?
We are just getting started and have not picked a framework yet.
Will you be including MDM (Master Data Management) in the process?
This initiative will seek to understand all components of Tarleton’s data management and data analytics strategy. Master Data Management is a frequent component of a mature data-driven organization and as such will remain in scope for this review. An effective data governance structure, even without changing the systems of record for various domains of data, will be a critical component of Tarleton’s Next-Level Data Strategy.
Will this process include a Data Warehouse and BI initiative?
While not necessarily a required component of Tarleton’s future data strategy, the initiative will include a review of all existing data infrastructure and enterprise management and analytics tools. Data Warehouses and BI/Data Science applications are frequent components of a mature data-driven organization and will remain in scope for future-state systems and platforms.
Does the strategy include democratizing the data?
Data access, data quality, and data usage are critical elements of Tarleton’s desired future data landscape. This initiative will include a review of the systems and tools available to institution stakeholders, the access controls and limitations to engaging with relevant data across departments, and the quality of data available for decision-making across the institution.
Will it be cloud based or on-prem?
This initiative will assess the need for cloud-based or on-prem solutions in the near and long term to achieve a more mature data management and analytics organization. Where possible, Tarleton is focused on a cloud-based strategy to assist in modernization of campus processes and tools.
If the AVP-Level Leader is responsible for this area, why does the Chief Data Scientist not report to the AVP?
The AVP will be responsible for Analytics and Governance, while the Chief Data Scientist will be responsible for Advanced Analytics and Data Science. Both report to the Vice President for Strategic Initiatives and work together to achieve the outcomes of our roadmap. The Chief Data Scientist’s team will allow us to tackle more complex institutional issues/questions raised by cabinet, deans, and department heads through greater synergy with the analytic team, governance committee, and IT.
What’s the rationale for the Analytics Center going through the Chief of Staff rather than the Provost? Is that a best practice or is there a specific institutional reason for that structure?
The center will report to the Vice President for Strategic Initiatives/Chief of Staff. The newly named division of University Strategic Initiatives houses functions that are enterprise-wide in scope and move us forward in meeting the goals of our strategic plan. Moving our data efforts to this division broadens the scope of the type of data domains we can leverage for strategic decision making: i.e. not just student data, but also research, alumni engagement, finance, workforce, and space/sustainability domains.
Organizational Optimization
To what extent does this process (for possible reorganization and streamline of services) fold in national standards and best practices, particularly with NACE- National Association of Colleges and Employers. For instance, when looking on paper at how a department, such as Career Services, is arranged, it could be assumed that the “ratio” of employee: supervisor needs to be addressed. How much does this process explore and factor in such national departmental specific information, competencies to uphold and special skills associated, coupled with projected institutional student growth, R2/R1 status and D1 institution?
The Organizational Optimization project is grounded in best-practices, seeking to create an optimal organizational structure that will support Tarleton’s growth and institutional goals, while concurrently working to increase opportunities for career achievement across positions.
To design this structure, the project team will leverage higher education best-practices (and industry standards), knowledge specific to the unit’s needs and goals, and benchmarking of existing staff and activity against a repository of higher education institutions.
The result will provide Tarleton with a best-fit, best-practice organizational structure, which will position Tarleton and its employees for success in the years to come.
Academic Portfolio
Can we sustain the number of low productivity academic programs we have?
Huron will develop an internal benchmarking analysis to identify Tarleton programs with lower section enrollments and completions relative to institutional and unit-level averages, as well as an analysis of program completions relative to the competitive landscape and to external occupational data. In conjunction with academic cost analyses, these efforts will help Tarleton prioritize academic programs to align with its strategic goals.
Will academic program review include analysis of delivery methods (face to face vs online)and locations (on-campus vs off-campus)? Will there be comparison in online program infrastructure among aspirant or peer institutions? We have potential for growth (which is needed to achieve our strategic enrollment goals), but we don’t have the infrastructure that many of our competitor institutions have around online programs.
Huron will provide an analysis of credit hour production and cost per credit hour based on a variety of institutional markers, including location and delivery method. The analysis can utilize market-level data to understand growth in degree programs by delivery type as well as to understand the current internal cost of delivery of online degree programs. The analysis will not focus on a direct comparison of online program infrastructure among aspirant or peer institutions but can compare overall academic program spending and additional infrastructure metrics (e.g., staffing, IT) that comprise indirect cost of instruction for these program methods.
Additionally, as part of the Organizational Optimization project, Huron will be evaluating the organizational infrastructures across strategic areas of focus.
Space Assessment
University Space Committee
Does this committee exist or is this a proposal?
This is the proposed committee. Tarleton previously had a space committee but we have not had a space committee in at least three years.
Staff Representation
How was the University Space Committee representation determined and does it adequately represent staff as well as faculty?
The project team for the Space Assessment project included 8 staff and 1 faculty member. That team working with Huron determined the representation of the University Space Committee recommendation. The University Space Committee includes each Division and each VP will most likely delegate participation to a staff member. The project team did not feel that additional representation from Staff Senate was necessary because there was sufficient staff representation. However, they did feel that faculty were not adequately represented so Faculty Senate was added. The composition of the University Space Committee is subject to change moving forward.
Registrar Representation
Why is the Register’s Office not represented on the University Space Committee?
The Registrar’s Office will have a support and advisement role reporting to the committee and providing input on space requirements but will not be a deciding role on the committee. The space utilization data coordinator (title) will also have similar support and advisement responsibilities to the committee but not as a deciding member.
Project Participation and Interviews for the Space Study
How were participants selected for the space study? What was the methodology used to select the participants? Clarification of rank (administrator versus faculty) and campus location would be helpful.
Huron identified key participants based upon roles and best practices and reviewed those recommendations with Tarleton Leadership on the project steering committee for additional participants. The list of interview participants is included below. Please note that primary interviewees were encouraged to bring relevant staff to the interview and many of them did. Those additional participants may not be reflected on the list below.
| Primary Interview | Title | Department |
| Tyler Fowler | Manager Facilities Management | Campus Operations |
| Dr. Sherri Benn | Vice President for Global and Community Connections | Global and Community Connections |
| Dr. Scott Blackwell | Executive Director of Residential Life | Student Engagement & Success |
| Dr. Javier Garza | Vice President for Enrollment Management | Enrollment Management |
| Dr. Denise Martinez | Acting Associate Provost for Student Academic Support Services | School of Engineering |
| Dr. Karen R. Murray | Provost & Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs | Academic Affairs |
| Dr. Eric Morrow | Dean of the College of Liberal and Fine Arts | College of Liberal and Fine Arts |
| Dr. Chris Shao | Dean of the College of Business | College of Business |
| Toby Buckalew | Interim Chief Information Officer | Information Technology |
| Dr. Barry Lambert | Dean of the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources | College of Agriculture and Natural Resources |
| Walter Bridges | Interim Director of Risk Management | Risk Management & Safety |
| Lonn Reisman | Vice President for Intercollegiate Athletics | Athletics |
| David Martin | Assistant VP, Campus Operations | Finance and Administration |
| Dr. Aimee Shouse | Associate Provost and Associate Vice President for Curriculum & Faculty Affairs and Dean of Faculty | Academic Affairs |
| Dr. Jordan Barkley | Senior Associate Provost and Associate Vice President for Academic Administration | Academic Affairs |
| David Sutton | Associate Registrar & Director of Academic Scheduling | Academic Affairs |
| Hector Govea | University Registrar | Academic Affairs |
| Mike Benge | Director of Auxiliary Services | Campus Operations |
| Dr. Credence Baker | Vice President for University Relations and Chief of Staff | University Relations / Office of the President |
| Dr. Matt Laurent | Interim Associate Dean for the School of Kinesiology | College of Education |
| Dr. Katherine Quinnell | Dean of Libraries | Libraries |
| Dr. Diana Ortega-Feerick | AVP Student Engagement & Success and Dean of Students | Student Engagement & Success |
| Dr. Michael Huggins | Dean of the College of Science and Technology | College of Science and Technology |
| Dr. Kim McCuistion | Vice President for External Operations | External Operations |
| Barbara Saldivar | Research Services Administrator | Division of Research & Innovation |
| Jennifer Colley | Interim Vice President for Institutional Advancement | Institutional Advancement |
| Dr. Rupa Iyer | VP of Research, Innovation and Economic Development | Research |
| Dr. Kelli Styron | Vice President for Student Engagement & Success | Student Engagement & Success |
| Dr. Kayla Peak | Interim Dean of the College of Health Sciences | College of Health Sciences |
| Lori Beaty | Executive Vice President/Chief Financial Officer | Finance and Administration |
| Billy Gibbs | Director of Planning Design & Construction | Planning Design & Construction |
| Ben Kunze | Director of Facilities Management | Facilities Management |
| Dr. Jarrod Schenewark | President – Faculty Senate (2019-2021) / Associate Professor | Department of Sport Science |
| Eva Lopez | Associate Vice President for Human Resources | Human Resources |
| Dr. Nathan Heller | Associate Provost and Associate Vice President for Student Academic Support Services / Interim Dean of Graduate Studies | Academic Affairs |
| Dr. Kimberly Guay | Faculty Senate President Elect | Faculty Senate |
Scope of the Study
What aspects of space utilization were addressed in study?
The space assessment focused on office space, teaching space, research space and event space and the governance, policies and procedures attendant to those types of space. While utilization of space was evaluated using available data and feedback from interviews, the focus of the project was on the ways in which decisions get made about space and not on specific uses or allocations of space in unique buildings. Parking space was not included in the assessment.
Storage
What consideration was given for storage space?
The focus of this project was on teaching, research, office and event space and policies and procedures related to the allocation and management of those space types. Storage space is usually a sub-component of these space types but was not highlighted as an area of particular focus during our current state review or discussions with the project steering committee.