Challenge 1

Enhancing the University’s Leadership Among Public Research Universities in the World.

The University of Minnesota aspires to become one of the top three public research universities in the world.  This bold vision is outlined in President Bruininks’s June 2005 recommendations to the Board of Regents, Transforming the University of Minnesota (download PDF). 

This seminal document – and the comprehensive consultation that led to its development – is the centerpiece of the self-study report to the Higher Learning Commission.  The document and its recommendations have a direct bearing on virtually every aspect of the self-study report and process.

Transforming the University of Minnesota is the culmination of intensive planning work carried out during the initial years of the Bruininks presidency (2002-2005), and particularly during the 2004-05 academic year.  During this period, the University undertook a comprehensive review of its mission, academic and administrative strengths and weaknesses, institutional culture, and core values; the state, national, and global competitive environment in which it operates; demographic trends affecting its students, faculty, and staff; and the myriad long-term financial issues affecting public research universities.

The impetus behind this comprehensive review was the recognition by the Regents and President Bruininks that the University serves a state and nation that is undergoing significant demographic, economic, and social changes and that the University is increasingly competing in a global arena for resources and talented faculty and students. 

It became abundantly clear that if the University did not adapt to these changes, it risked falling behind and losing quality – while other institutions in other states and nations reaped the rewards of innovation and excellence.  The University must take what it does well and make it even better.  It must align its academic units to make the most of resources, reduce expenses, create strong leadership, expand academic collaborations, and facilitate interdisciplinary connections. And it must anticipate and seek national and international leadership in vital and emerging fields.

Two external reports – one mandated by the Minnesota Legislature in 2001 and one produced by the non-partisan, non-profit Citizens League in 2004 – underscored the University’s conclusion that it needed to undergo significant transformation through a comprehensive strategic positioning process.

return to section menu

Commission on Excellence

In 2001, the Minnesota Legislature created an independent Commission on University of Minnesota Excellence with a charge to:

• review the University’s nationally ranked areas of excellence;

• review the major investment efforts in interdisciplinary initiatives identified by the University in 1998;

• evaluate and make recommendations on additional centers of excellence;

• examine the University’s mission, scope, and financing of programs and propose possible ways in which the University could refocus or refine its mission and offerings;

• identify undergraduate degree programs in which quality and productivity could be achieved through increased collaboration with public and private post-secondary institutions inside and outside of Minnesota.

Because the legislation emphasized sustaining and establishing centers of excellence of national prominence, the Commission focused its attention on the programs of the Twin Cities campus.

In its final report, the Commission detailed eight principal findings, all of which were subsequently factored into the University’s strategic positioning process:

1. The measure of excellence at the University of Minnesota, like every other institution or corporation in a competitive environment, is not to be found in comparisons to the past, but in predictions of sustainable future success against the competition.
2. The unique scope of the University’s mission is at the same time challenging and appropriate.  The mission needs to be understood and actively supported by the Legislature and the general public as the University makes choices which will determine its future success in serving the state and competing with the very best institutions of higher education in the world.
3. The five Centers of Excellence established in 1998 have met their initial objectives.  Great progress has been made toward the achievement of national prominence in all five areas. Significantly greater investment however, will be particularly required in digital technology and molecular and cellular biology to achieve sustainable advantage in these highly competitive fields.  The Commission strongly recommends that before initiating major initiatives in new centers of excellence, the existing centers of excellence should be adequately funded in order to sustain and build the momentum the University has now generated in these areas. The Commission also encourages the University to continually assess the outcomes of its investments and to differentiate and focus on targeted areas of opportunity with high potential for competitive advantage and high relevance to the State of Minnesota. (see Challenge Two which provides a summary of the external reviews of these initiatives.)
4. The Commission affirms the value of the University’s overall research mission and the urgent need to continue to build its research capacity.
5. To achieve status as a top ranked research institution, the University must have an excellent undergraduate program. In outstanding universities, the research, teaching, and outreach missions are mutually supportive.
6. The graduate and professional programs of the University are strong and competitive. The University must achieve its objectives in research and undergraduate education while maintaining and promoting the health of its graduate and professional programs.
7. The achievement of excellence will require extraordinary focus and priority setting, greater efficiency efforts, and more aggressive reallocation of internal resources on the part of the University of Minnesota.

The achievement of excellence at the University of Minnesota will require extraordinary financial support from the state and from the private sector.

return to section menu

Citizens League Study

The Citizens League, a non-profit, non-partisan public research and interest organization based in Minneapolis, in 2004 produced a report on Minnesota higher education entitled, Trouble on the Horizon:  Growing Demands and Competition, Limited Resources, and Changing Demographics in Higher Education.  The report’s four recommendations were aimed broadly at secondary education and higher education in Minnesota:

• Increase expectations in high school and in higher education.

• Increase accountability and innovation.

• Promote excellence and improve institutional focus.

• Improve value and financial leverage.

Among its findings and conclusions directly related to the University of Minnesota, the report noted that:

• The University of Minnesota should continue to enhance its role and focus as a world-class public research institution, which includes graduate/professional training, and nationally selective undergraduate and liberal arts education.

• Minnesota should increase its investment in the University of Minnesota’s research infrastructure, to be matched by contributions from the private community.

return to section menu

Strategic Positioning

Informed by both of these studies, during 2004-2005, the Board of Regents affirmed that the University must strengthen its role as Minnesota’s only major research university, as its land-grant institution, and as the state’s primary magnet for students, faculty, professionals, entrepreneurs, and civic and artistic leaders. 

Leading up to the development of his June 2005 recommendations, President Bruininks appointed a task force of University faculty, administrators, and staff, in fall 2004, to develop a strategic positioning document that addressed the issues outlined above. 

Environmental Scan: An essential ingredient in the development of this report was the commissioning by Provost Sullivan of over 50 environmental scanning reports (download PDF) by individual faculty and faculty governance groups, senior administrators, and outside experts.

In March 2005, President Bruininks and Provost Sullivan presented the task force’s report, entitled  Advancing the Public Good, to the Board of Regents, which endorsed the report and urged its further implementation. 

Following the Board’s endorsement, President Bruininks and other senior administrators made numerous presentations and held a series of campus-wide forums to discuss Advancing the Public Good and to solicit advice and comments.  The provost’s Web site also provided a means for faculty, students, and staff to offer suggestions. (comments available here)

Action Strategies

HLC 2a, HLC 2c, HLC 3b, HLC 4a, HLC 5c

Based on this comprehensive review, the University identified five action strategies necessary for the University to achieve its vision:

• Recruit, educate, retain, and graduate outstanding students.

• Recruit, mentor, and retain outstanding faculty and staff.

• Promote an effective organizational culture that is committed to excellence and is responsive to change.

• Enhance and effectively utilize our resources and infrastructure.

• Communicate clearly and credibly with all our constituencies and practice engagement responsive to the public good.

President Bruininks then named two task forces – one academic and one administrative – to develop recommendations in support of these strategies.

On March 30, 2005, the academic strategic planning task force submitted a 59-page report ( download PDF) to President Bruininks that included 31 recommendations in four key areas:

• Undergraduate Admissions, Enrichment, and Support
• Faculty Culture
• Design of the University
• Coordinate Campuses

Also on March 30, in a separate report ( download PDF), the administrative strategic planning task force made seven recommendations.

Consultation

HLC 1c, HLC 1d, HLC 2a, HLC 2d, HLC 5a, HLC 5b, HLC 5c

Both task force reports were made available to faculty, staff, students, and the broader community for critique and response.  President Bruininks, Provost Sullivan, other senior administrators, and faculty governance groups consulted widely within and outside the University community.  These consultations included, but were not limited to:

• Governance and Advisory Groups:  Faculty Consultative Committee (FCC), FCC Chair and Vice Chair, Civil Service Committee, Faculty Affairs Committee, Twin Cities Deans Council, Council of Academic Professionals and Administrators (CAPA), University of Minnesota Foundation (UMF) Executive Committee, UMF Board of Trustees, Minnesota Medical Foundation Board, AFSCME, Teamsters 320, President’s Multicultural Advisory Committee, University Senate, University of Minnesota Alumni Association, Academy of Distinguished Teachers.

• Student Groups:  Student Affairs Committee, Student Senate, Minnesota Student Association, Graduate and Professional Student Association, Student Senate Consultative Committee, College Board Representatives.

• Collegiate/Campus Units:  Dean Steven Yussen, Dean Susan Stafford, Dean David Taylor, Dean Charles Muscoplat, Dean Thomas Fisher, Dean Robert Elde, Dean Shirley Baugher, Coordinate Campus Chancellors, College of Human Ecology, College of Human Ecology Dean’s Advisory Council, College of Education and Human Development, General College, College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, College of Biological Sciences, College of Natural Resources, College of Agricultural, Food, and Environmental Sciences, University of Minnesota-Morris.
• Board of Regents:  Clyde Allen, Anthony Baraga,  Peter Bell, Frank Berman, Dallas Bohnsack, John Frobenius, Steven Hunter, David Larson, Richard McNamara, David Metzen, Lakeesha Ransom, Patricia Simmons, and Executive Director, Ann Cieslak.

• Community/Others:  Governor Tim Pawlenty, former Regents William Hogan and Maureen Reed, leaders of the Twin Cities African-American community; Metropolitan Club; Urban League; Women’s Economic Forum, and others.

In addition, President Bruininks brought the recommendations to the public through a series of meetings with news media and radio/television appearances, including the following:

• News Media:  StarTribune editorial board and reporters, “Don Shelby Show” on WCCO Radio, “Almanac” on Twin Cities Public Television, “Midday” with Gary Eichten on Minnesota Public Radio and MPR reporters, Pioneer Press editorial board; Radio City Network News on K102FM, KFAN, KXFN, KDWB, KQQL, KZJI, Cities 97, KQRS, KXXR, WGVX, WGVY, WGVZ, and KTTB; Minnesota Daily (student newspaper) editorial board and reporters; Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s radio show; and “At Issue” with Tom Hauser on KSTP.

(media accounts of the University’s strategic planning recommendations can be viewed here)

Board of Regents Action

Following these consultations, President Bruininks presented his final recommendations to the Board of Regents on May 13, 2005.  At the next meeting of the Regents, on June 10, 2005, the Board voted 11-1 to approve the recommendations (download PDF) that required formal Board action and also endorsed the implementation of other academic and administrative recommendations.

Approved Academic Recommendations

HLC 1d, HLC 2a, HLC 2d, HLC 3c, HLC 4c, HLC 5a

The Board of Regents approved reducing the number of Twin Cities campus colleges by three, effective July 1, 2006, and integrating their academic units into other colleges.  Specific changes include the following:

• College of Human Ecology:  1) Integrate the Department of Design, Housing and Apparel with the academic departments of the College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture to create a new College of Design; 2) integrate the Department of Family Social Science and the School of Social Work with the academic units of the current College of Education and Human Development to create a new, expanded college dedicated to education, training, and human development across the lifespan; and 3) integrate the Department of Food Science and Nutrition into a new, expanded College of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Sciences, with strengthened relationships with the School of Public Health and/or the Medical School.

• College of Natural Resources:  Integrate the College of Natural Resources with the academic units of the current College of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Sciences to create a new, expanded college focused broadly on food systems, environmental science, policy and renewable resources.

• General College:  Integrate the academic units of the current General College with the academic units of the current College of Education and Human Development, Department of Family Social Science, and the School of Social Work to create a new, expanded college dedicated to education, training, and human development across the lifespan.

With the Board’s approval, Provost Sullivan, in consultation with President Bruininks, appointed task forces to design, plan, and implement these changes.  The task force reports are due by December 10, 2005.

return to section menu

Strategic Positioning Timeline

return to section menu

Endorsed Academic Recommendations

President Bruininks’s report to the Board of Regents included a series of other academic and administrative actions the University administration intends to implement.  Most of these actions will be implemented following work now under way by Twin Cities campus or University-wide task forces composed of faculty, staff, and students. 

The task forces – accountable to Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost Thomas Sullivan, Senior Vice President for Health Service Frank Cerra, and Senior Vice President for System Administration Robert Jones – will focus on the following issues:

Undergraduate Enrichment, Admission, and Support:  The University has reaffirmed its commitment to high expectations and diversity for students while providing support that improves student outcomes, retention and graduation rates, and satisfaction.

• Support Services.  A Twin Cities campus task force is designing and planning the implementation of expanded and strengthened student support services, including one-stop service centers; improved coordination of existing services, including those in academic programs; improved retention and graduation rates, and better student outcomes. Report due date:  December 10, 2005. 

• Diversity.  The Provost’s Diversity Admissions Task Force has been expanded to include community members and the President’s Multicultural Advisory Committee.  This task force will examine ways to expand scholarship support for low-income students, implement a new Center for Transfer and International Admissions, and deepen and expand the Minnesota Cooperative Admissions Program in cooperation with the Minnesota State Colleges and University system.  Report due date:  December 10, 2005. 

• PreK-12.  A University-wide task force is designing and planning a statewide PreK-12 strategy that includes the creation of a Consortium for Postsecondary Success.  The consortium’s goals would be to raise academic aspirations, narrow the achievement gap in low income communities, and improve the preparation of students for post-secondary education. 

Leveraging existing University programs and interdisciplinary centers, this consortium would include the involvement of the Minnesota P-16 Partnership Board, composed of representatives from post-secondary education, pre-school, elementary school, high school, and community organizations.  Report due date:  October 1, 2005. 

• Baccalaureate Writing Initiative.   A campus-wide task force is designing and planning the implementation of a program to ensure that every University student can demonstrate an effective command of written English upon graduation.  Report due date:  December 10, 2005. 

• Honors Program:  A task force is considering the design, planning, and implementation of a Twin Cities campus honors program to offer a more coherent honors experience to students in all colleges.  Report due date:  December 10, 2005. 

Faculty Culture:  The University understands the urgent need to implement a broad range of new strategies to attract, retain, recognize, reward, and develop its faculty.  A Provost-appointed task force is examining current standards and practices in light of the University’s goal of becoming a world-class public research university and making recommendations for changes, as appropriate.  Report due date:  May 1, 2006. 

Future Design of the University:  The University’s breadth of high-quality programs enables unique opportunities for interdisciplinary research, teaching, and public engagement, yet traditional academic and administrative structures oftentimes create barriers or obstacles to prevent such collaboration.  A number of task forces are working to re-define the design of the University:

• Collegiate/Departmental Mergers:  Three separate task forces are defining relevant issues and developing plans for merging colleges and departments of the College of Agricultural, Food, and Environmental Sciences and the College of Natural Resources; College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture and the College of Human Ecology; and College of Education and Human Development, College of Human Ecology, and General College.  Reports due date:  December 10, 2005.

• Big Research:  A campus-wide task force – chaired by the Vice President for Research and composed of representatives from Academic Health Center schools, Institute of Technology, College of Biological Sciences, and other academic units – is developing recommendations to ensure the University’s competitive position and advantage in interdisciplinary and inter-institutional research, primarily in the sciences.  Report due date:  May 1, 2006.

• Sciences and Engineering:  A task force is considering ways to reconfigure and promote collaboration among the sciences and engineering disciplines across the College of Biological Sciences, Institute of Technology, the to-be-merged College of Agricultural, Environmental, and Food Sciences and the College of Natural Resources, and the Medical School.  Report due date:  May 1, 2006. 

• College of Liberal Arts:  A task force is developing recommendations to ensure that the College of Liberal Arts, the campus’s largest academic unit, will become a premier international model for a more competitive liberal arts education.  It is also developing strategies to enhance the College’s collaboration with other academic units.  Report due date:  May 1, 2006.

• Graduate Education:  The Dean of the Graduate School will begin submitting to the Provost an annual report on ongoing efforts to reduce and consolidate low-enrollment graduate or professional programs. 

• Administrative Support:  The academic and administrative strategic planning task forces both called for finding new ways to increase administrative efficiency so that cost savings could be reinvested in the academic enterprise.  A new task force is exploring ways for units on the campus’s West Bank (Humphrey Institute, Law School, and Carlson School of Management) and within the Academic Health Center (College of Pharmacy and School of Nursing) to share administrative functions.  Report due date:  March 15, 2006. 

International University:  Building on the University’s already considerable international presence and reputation, a task force is developing a strategy, plan, and structure to expand the University’s international student services, learning abroad programs, and transnational scholarly network.  Report due date:  December 10, 2005. 

Academic Health Center:  The Academic Health Center’s strategic planning initiatives, launched in 1998, align well with the University’s overall strategic vision for its future.  Five current task forces are working to accelerate progress even further:

• Knowledge Management:  A task force is analyzing the knowledge management technology needs within the community-based health care training and education disciplines of the Academic Health Center and addressing the long-term financing requirements for meeting these needs.  Report due date:  May 1, 2006. 

• State Workforce Needs:  A task force is developing plans to adjust enrollments according to state workforce needs in the health professions, identifying new models to deliver education in more cost-effective ways, and addressing the long-term financial requirements of such models.  Report due date:  May 1, 2006. 

• Clinical Science Practice:  A task force is developing plans and recommendations to enhance clinical practice within the Academic Health Center’s health professional schools.  Report due date:  May 1, 2006.  (In addition, another task force is examining and making recommendations about future directions of allied health education within the Academic Health Center.)

• Facilities Planning:  A task force is updating the Academic Health Center’s capital plans to ensure that its schools, as well as the Fairview Health Services partnership, have adequate research, teaching, and support spaces for its programs.  Report due date:  January 1, 2006. 

Coordinate Campuses:  Senior Vice President for System Administration Robert Jones is working with the coordinate campus chancellors to establish fiscal and academic accountability models under which they will operate and be evaluated.  The chancellors’ reports are due December 10, 2005. 

return to section menu

Regents-Endorsed Administrative Recommendations

In approving the “Transforming the University” resolution of June 2005, the Regents endorsed the President’s seven administrative recommendations and the plans to charge specific senior administrators with responsibility for their implementation. Many projects emerging from these recommendations — some already under way, some ready to be initiated, and others yet to be envisioned — will be necessary to achieve the University’s transformation.

President Bruininks has put in place an implementation structure to coordinate this multi-year, inclusive process. Each administrative recommendation is being guided to implementation by a task force (see descriptions below). The work of the task forces is being coordinated by a steering committee comprised of the task force chairs. Each task force is identifying the requisite projects to advance its assigned recommendation and provide coordination, support, and resources; identify cross-functional issues; ensure alignment, prioritization, and sequencing; and make strategic course correc-tions.

The task forces will provide interim reports to President Bruininks in January 2006 that identify specific projects and establish milestones, assignments, and schedules. A report to the president and Board of Regents is planned for early 2006.

The seven administrative recommendations and task forces are:

Single Enterprise:  Recognize the University of Minnesota, its campuses, colleges, departments, and units as a single enterprise.  Establishing uniform standards and systems will help reduce duplication of administrative processes and their associated support structures. 

Culture:  Embrace and achieve a culture that is committed to excellence, service, and continuous improvement.  A culture that is aligned with and encourages transformational behavior and outcomes is essential for the University to achieve its strategic vision. 

Administrative Structure:  Transform the “centralized vs. decentralized” administrative structure.  A new model of how we organize and structure administrative support to the academic enterprise must be created so we can maximize our resources. 

Best Practices:  Adopt best-practice management tools throughout the University.  Providing better information will support fact-based decision-making and will demonstrate successes, target areas for improvement and maximize the effective use of resources. 

Customer Service:  Focus administrative support on serving students, faculty, and academic units.  Strengthening our understanding of the people we serve will allow administrative and support units to provide excellent services in alignment with their needs. 

Professional Development:  Maximize opportunities for the people of the University to grow, develop, and contribute.  The University of Minnesota must transform its human resource system to foster creativity and innovation while enhancing effective, accountable administration.  This means not only recruiting individuals at the top of their disciplines, but also providing individuals the means to develop new skills, once hired. 

Resource Optimization:  Optimize the use of the University’s physical, financial, and technological resources.  Strategic resource acquisition, management, and redeployment are essential if the University is to achieve its long-term goals and advance academic quality. 

In addition, to these academic and administrative task forces, the president and provost established a metrics/measurement task force to provide overall continuity in identifying appropriate measures of progress toward achieving the strategic plan. 

return to section menu

Redesign of Budget Model

In July 2004, about the same time as the University was beginning its strategic positioning work, President Bruininks created a working group (download PDF) to revise the University’s budget model and ensure that the budget framework and processes would be fully aligned with and responsive to the institution’s aspirations for the future.  He gave the group the following charge: 

The goal is to build a simple and responsive budget model that supports the stated values of the institution, allows for long-term financial investments, and addresses the overhead needs of the University, while providing reliable, stable and predictable incentives for sound financial planning and strong fiscal management.  The model should create appropriate incentives and disincentives to enhance the University’s excellence and use of resources.

The working group adopted the following principles to guide its work:

• Mission and Goals.  Model should encourage behaviors that support the University’s mission and goal to be one of the top three public research Universities in the world and the actions and strategies necessary to achieve that goal.  Specific attention should be given to supporting efforts at crossing disciplinary and collegiate boundaries in working toward that goal.

• Transparency.  Model should make budget decisions related to subsidies, investments, reallocations, etc., transparent and acknowledge that no units are “tubs-on-their-own-bottoms”.

• Efficiency/Cost Control.  Model should optimize the use of the University’s physical, financial and technological resources; encourage excellence, service and continuous improvement; and provide clear incentives for member of the University community to control costs.

• Revenue Enhancement.  Model should provide incentives where appropriate to enhance revenues.

• Simplicity.  Model should be as simple as possible to understand and administer.

• Predictability.  Model should result in predictable rules, consistent application of policies and clear outcomes.

• Adaptability.  Model should be responsive to external “shocks”.

• Central Investment.  Model should support the ability of the President to “steer the ship” through reallocations and central investments.

• Information Rich.  Model should foster an all-funds discussion using detailed information related to true costs and service levels and provide good information to support fact-based decision making at all levels of the University.

• Implementation.  Model should be as easy to implement as possible.

• Risk.  Model should place the management of financial risk at the level of the institution that can best control the contributing factors and act to address them.

Based on these guiding principles, the working group is analyzing the components and interrelationships within the University’s current budget model, examining models at other comparable institutions, and producing sample scenarios and spreadsheets for new models under consideration.

As it works, the group is consulting with the Twin Cities Deans Council, the Senate Committee on Finance and Planning, unit managers, and others, and expects to make its final recommendations to the President in late 2005, with implementation set for Fiscal Year 2006-07. 

return to section menu

Conclusion

President Bruininks summarized his June 2005 recommendations to the Board of Regents in the following way:

The University of Minnesota is entering an exciting time.  With these recommendations and the engagement of the University community, we have the opportunity to ensure that the University of Minnesota becomes one of the top three public research universities in the world.  

The recommendations in this report are initial action steps – springboards for new ideas at all levels of our organizational structure.  Board  approval of three critical recommendations will initiate changes in the structural design of the University by realigning academic departments and reducing the total number of colleges. 

The University community will be engaged, beginning in June [2005], in the work of the additional academic and administrative recommendations that were forwarded to the Board for information.  The academic recommendations include a continuing strong commitment to diversity, enhanced services to insure greater student success, improved undergraduate academic programs through enhanced honors and writing initiatives, strengthening the quality and support of our faculty, and improved academic alignment of resources to leverage our resources. 

The administrative recommendations strive to make the University as well known for its effective and efficient services and operations as it is for its academic excellence, and are expected to achieve cost savings that can be reallocated to the teaching, research and public engagement mission of the University.  While most of these initial recommendations directly apply to the Twin Cities campus, the concepts apply to all campuses.

To be truly successful, the entire University community must engage actively in ongoing evaluation and change efforts and think creatively about the future.  Leaders at all levels need to take time to step back and reflect broadly on the mission and future of their units; they must encourage their faculty, staff, and students to do the same. They must put their ideas into action.   And the University community must address its important, unique responsibilities in relationship to other resources in Minnesota’s system of higher education.

In order to elevate the University of Minnesota into one of the top three public research universities in the world within the next decade, we need to continue to think creatively, we must be dynamic and nimble, and we must engage in a process of reflection and commitment to continuous improvement.

Key Challenges  |  Challenge Two

Return to top of page