Challenge 2

Identifying, Aligning, and Supporting Areas of Core Academic Excellence.

At the heart of the University’s strategic planning process are identifying, aligning, and supporting areas of core academic excellence. 

One of the University’s greatest strengths is the breadth of its academic programs, research endeavors, and public engagement activities.  For example, the University is one of only four campuses in the nation that have agricultural programs as well as an academic health center with a major medical school. 

However, this breadth – as the strategic planning process has made clear – also can limit the development of areas of core academic excellence by spreading University resources too thinly. In its strategic planning efforts of the past few years, the University is attempting to strike a balance between preserving an appropriate range of programs that fully support its land-grant and public-research mission and, at the same time, identifying, aligning, and supporting areas of core academic excellence.  The organizing principle in all of this work centers on the University’s interdisciplinary initiatives.

This section describes the University’s academic priorities and how they are aligned and connected and examines the ways the University uses and assesses the effectiveness of its human, financial, technological, and physical resources to support those priorities.

return to section menu

Interdisciplinary Initiatives

The University is actively committed to maintaining and strengthening excellence by investing in its outstanding academic programs and building a culture that supports interdisciplinary work.

The University has many highly ranked academic programs, and it is critical that it continue to provide significant support to these programs in order to maintain the strong disciplines that form the core of basic knowledge.  The distinctive contributions of individual disciplines create an intellectual framework for developing deep expertise in specific arenas.

At the same time, the University community recognizes that today, more than ever, pushing the boundaries of knowledge in one field often means crossing into other disciplines.  Answering the complex questions that confront society in the 21st century requires interdisciplinary teams of researchers and educators working together.

In the last decade, the academy has begun to realize the untapped potential of interdisciplinary research, and, increasingly, funding agencies are encouraging and funding interdisciplinary and multi-institutional proposals.  Many scholars at the University are already involved in interdisciplinary research, and new initiatives are providing the infrastructure for enhancing collaborative inquiry.

return to section menu

1998 Academic Interdisciplinary Initiatives

In 1998, then-President Yudof commissioned a set of academic interdisciplinary initiatives designed to strengthen the University’s research, teaching, and outreach programs and to advance the University’s reputation in areas that are critically important to the economic development of the state. Subsequently, the 1998 Minnesota Legislature appropriated $18,575,000 to support these initiatives.

The University supplemented this initial investment with internally reallocated resources, externally leveraged funds, and capital investments to establish five academic interdisciplinary initiatives:  Agricultural Research and Outreach, Design, Digital Technology, Molecular and Cellular Biology, and New Media.  The table below summarizes the systemwide financial impact of the initial state appropriation. 

1998 State Appropriations for University of Minnesota Interdisciplinary Initiatives

A major consequence of the state’s investment was the ability to strengthen academic departments through the creation of 87.5 new faculty positions, including: 

• 20 positions in Digital Technology
• 41 positions in Molecular/Cellular Biology
• 2.5 positions in Design
• 8 positions in New Media
• 8 positions in Agriculture
• 8 positions on the coordinate campuses.

In 2004, under the direction of the Office of Planning and Academic Affairs, a self-study report was prepared for each initiative, and teams of external reviewers were formed to evaluate the initiatives and offer recommendations for the future.  In particular, reviewers were asked to:

• consider whether the initiative had achieved its stated objectives,
• compare the initiative to similar programs across the country,
• assess the initiative’s impact on the University and the fostering of interdisciplinary activities,
• evaluate the return on investment, and
• identify theoretical and empirical advancements that occurred as a result of the initiative.

Each external review team prepared a written report summarizing their findings and recommendations.  A summary of the 1998 initiatives is provided below.

Agricultural Research and Outreach:  The investment in Agricultural Research and Outreach enables the University to respond to important challenges in food production, food quality, and the marketing of agricultural products – all areas of critical importance to Minnesota’s rural economy.  In these areas, agricultural research is strongly linked to the University’s initiatives in genomics.

The external review team used such terms as “dramatic progress” and noted that the University had increased its research and outreach capacity within and outside the institution.

Design:  The Design Institute develops advanced research, educational programs, and interdisciplinary partnerships to improve design in the public realm.  The Institute addresses the design of products, services, and environments, as well as the social processes that bring the everyday material landscape into being. 

Looking beyond issues of styling, the Institute sees design as a strategic mode of thinking, a form of conflict resolution whose tangible outcomes express successful negotiation of diverse values and interests. 

Through its program of fellowships, events, and communications, the Institute fosters new models for collaboration and connection among many fields of inquiry, such as genetics, computer science, anthropology, public art, engineering, civic governance, and graphic design.  By supporting the development of new design tools and prototypes, the Design Institute champions expanded design choices to enhance the lives of citizens, in Minnesota and nationwide.

The external review team concluded that the objectives “[had] been achieved, and in a remarkably short period of time.”  It noted the exemplary achievement in design research.

Digital Technology:  The Digital Technology Center’s goal is to become a center of excellence at the University of Minnesota and to form partnerships with the community to re-establish Minnesota’s commanding position in digital technology. 

The Center focuses on leading-edge research and these business areas:  data storage, analysis and visualization, scientific computation, telecommunications, and software engineering. 

The Center also includes the Supercomputing Institute for Digital Simulation and Advance Computation and the Laboratory for Computational Science and Engineering, two research units that predate the establishment of the academic interdisciplinary initiatives. 

The external review team noted that this initiative better positions the University to attract greater funding for research.

Molecular and Cellular Biology:  The University aspires to be at the leading edge of the biological sciences revolution.  The Molecular and Cellular Biology Initiative is founded on reorganization of the biological sciences into four new departments:  Biochemistry, Molecular Biology, and Biophysics; Neuroscience; Genetics, Cell Biology, and Development; and Plant Biology. 

The initiative is strengthening the University’s capacity to connect science to industrial applications across plant, animal, and medical fields.  The initiative focuses on functional genomics, a branch of science that determines the mechanisms by which thousands of genes are orchestrated to develop and maintain an organism.

The external review team observed that this initiative had fortified basic cellular and molecular biology throughout the University.

New Media:  The New Media Initiative is strengthening the School of Journalism and Mass Communication by building a nationally preeminent program that provides students with the best possible academic and professional education for entry into diverse careers in this rapidly changing industry. 

The School’s Institute for New Media Studies is a center for interdisciplinary research, industry outreach, and collaboration on emerging issues in the new media arena.

The external review team stated that this initiative has been “transformative” for journalism and mass communication at the University:  “The institution’s responsiveness and foresight has allowed it to reclaim its place among the elite schools of journalism in the country.”

Crookston Campus:  Investments at the University’s Crookston campus have been made through the Agricultural Research and Outreach Initiative and the Digital Technology Initiative, funding two new faculty positions.

Duluth Campus:  Investments at the Duluth campus have been made through three of the Academic Interdisciplinary Initiatives – Molecular and Cellular Biology, Design, and Agricultural Research and Outreach – funding six new faculty positions.

Morris Campus:  Funds from the Agricultural Research and Outreach Initiative were used at the Morris campus to support the Center for Small Towns, a community outreach program that assists small towns with locally identified issues by creating applied learning opportunities for faculty and students.

return to section menu

Current Interdisciplinary Initiatives

Investments in interdisciplinary academic programs are achieving new prominence through President Bruininks’s interdisciplinary initiatives.  Also, through the University’s strategic positioning and planning process, colleges are being encouraged to consider investments in the highest level of interdisciplinary collaboration.

In addition, the President’s 21st Century Interdisciplinary Conference Series is providing opportunities for developing new interdisciplinary collaborations and expanding the connections of University of Minnesota research to the needs of society.  

In 2003, President Bruininks launched eight interdisciplinary initiatives representing areas of strength and comparative advantage for the University.  These areas have high-quality foundational programs, are central to the University’s land-grant mission and research enterprise, and reflect the needs and resources of Minnesota. 

The initiatives represent areas where further investment will yield significant return in intellectual quality and capital, where the University and the state possess a comparative advantage, and where considerable outside resources can be leveraged.  University students at all levels also reap the rewards of these initiatives as they learn in the midst of a dynamic interdisciplinary academic enterprise.

Three of these interdisciplinary priorities are being funded through reallocation of existing resources and private philanthropy – Children, Youth, and Families; Arts and Humanities; and the Consortium on Law and Values in Health, Environment and the Life Sciences. 

The remaining five are in the bio-sciences:  Brain Function Across the Lifespan; New Products from Biotechnology (Biocatalysis); Healthy Foods, Healthy Lives; Environment and Renewable Energy; and Translational Research in Human Health. 

These initiatives cannot be fully capitalized without additional support from the state and partnerships with the private sector.  Four of these initiatives, in a proposal called “Biosciences for a Healthy Society,” received support from the 2005 Minnesota Legislature.

For the past year or more, working groups have convened to map the future of all of the initiatives, and interdisciplinary collaborations are under way.

Arts and Humanities:  This initiative builds on the University’s strengths in the arts and humanities to expand interdisciplinary and collaborative efforts.  The initiative seeks to transform the arts and humanities at the University and beyond by developing a new interdisciplinary arts and humanities curriculum, supporting new creative processes and works of art, and deepening collaborations with other arts organizations and educators in the community. 

Biocatalysis:  This initiative uses cutting-edge approaches to biology, in areas where the University has substantial strength in faculty and facilities, to develop new uses for Minnesota’s agricultural products and natural resources.  

Brain Function Across the Lifespan:  The University’s core academic fields that support this initiative are highly productive and internationally recognized.  This initiative is creating new synergies and expanding capacity by bringing together the many research strengths of the University in order to contribute to advance understanding of how brain changes during development, adulthood, and aging influence the way people think and feel. 

Children, Youth, and Families: This initiative deepens and broadens the University’s capacity to bring together researchers and educators from throughout the University with practitioners, policy makers, and opinion leaders.  It seeks to create a new understanding of how to enhance outcomes for children and thereby enhance such public goods as school readiness, parenting skills, children’s mental health, workforce capacity, improved public policy and best practices, and economic and community development. 

Environment and Renewable Energy:  This initiative emphasizes three areas:  creating an integrated, transparent approach to the environment, focusing research and technology transfer on renewable energy, and integrating sustainable practices and energy conservation throughout the University.

Healthy Food, Healthy Lives: The University is uniquely positioned as a national leader for an initiative focusing on food and health promotion, being one of only two U.S. universities to integrate six key components on one campus: agriculture, human nutrition, medicine, public health, exercise science, and veterinary medicine. 

Law and Values in Health, Environment, and the Life Sciences:  This initiative deepens the University’s commitment to a consortium of the same name founded in 2000.  The consortium links 17 of the University's leading programs and centers, leveraging the University's strengths in the life sciences, biomedicine, law, bioethics, and public policy to do cutting-edge work on the societal implications of the life sciences. 

Translational Research in Human Health:  This initiative strengthens the University’s ability to continue to play an internationally leading role in the health sciences.  The initiative’s three key components are:  1) the Translational Research Facility,  2) the Minnesota Partnership with Mayo Clinic for Biotechnology and Medical Genomics, and 3) targeted investments in faculty to maintain leadership in cutting-edge research in areas such as oncology, neurosciences, cardiovascular disease, organ transplantation, applications of stem cell development, and clinical research. 

Enhancing Research Prominence

As part of its strategic positioning efforts, the University is committed to enhancing the prominence of its research through three primary goals: increased advocacy for research and scholarly works, enhanced commercialization of University technology and intellectual property, and further alignment of continuous improvement activities. Responsibility for coordinating the achievement of these goals is centered in the Office of the Vice President for Research

Advocacy for Research and Scholarly Works:  In light of dwindling federal support, and projections for even deeper cuts in future federal budgets, the University needs to improve its ability to identify research opportunities, foster interdisciplinary efforts, and leverage resources to support its highest research priorities. Principal activities to achieve this goal include:

• increasing academic input into critical research decisions,



• providing more systematic assistance to faculty in preparing and administering large, complex interdisciplinary and intercollegiate research grants,



• providing competitive seed grants of $200,000-250,000 to stimulate new interdisciplinary research projects, and



• leveraging existing resources to pursue University-wide research priorities.

Technology and Intellectual Property Commercialization:  Although the University is enjoying significant returns through its Glaxo royalty streams, a recent assessment of the overall technology transfer system suggests that performance can and should be improved. More needs to be done to encourage and nurture better commercialization prospects. In addition, relationships with external partners, including civic and corporate groups, need to be strengthened. Specific initiatives to achieve this goal include:

• clarifying and coordinating the roles and relationships between and among the University¿s functions involved in nurturing relationships with external partners and groups.
  
• developing a strategic plan to enhance commercialization of intellectual property.
  
• providing training and increasing communication with faculty about business development opportunities, and
• developing a stewardship plan for intellectual property royalty streams that enhance funding for core elements of the University's academic and research missions.

Continuous Improvement:  The University’s national reputation for oversight of sponsored research is based on an effective, efficient grants management and compliance infrastructure. However, with the proliferation of unfunded federal mandates and increased faculty research productivity, this infrastructure's capacity has been severely strained. To address these issues, as well as build capacity for future growth in concert with its strategic positioning goal, the Office of the Vice President for Research is examining a variety of ways to improve and align core processes.

Supporting the Core Mission

Identifying, aligning, and strengthening these and other core areas of academic excellence at the University depend for their success on the strategic allocation of resources.  This section of the self-study report describes the ways in which University resources – human, information, financial, physical, and technological – are allocated and supported and progress measured.

return to section menu

Human Resources

In the introduction to its 2004 report, The Top American Research Universities, the authors accurately characterize the “intensely competitive marketplace” in which research universities like the University of Minnesota exist and the human resource-intensive nature of academic institutions.

Unlike commercial enterprises that compete to create profits and enhance shareholder value, research universities compete to collect the largest number of the highest-quality research faculty and research productivity as possible. They also compete for the highest-quality but not necessarily the largest number of students. 

Because the demand for these high-quality students and faculty greatly exceeds the supply, research institutions compete fiercely to gain a greater share of these scarce resources. Although the process of competition is complex and has different characteristics in different segments of the research university marketplace... the pursuit of quality follows the same basic pattern everywhere.

Talented faculty and students go where they believe they will receive the best support for developing their talent and sustaining their individual achievement in the many marketplaces for their skills….The work that defines a research university’s level of competitive performance appears in the accumulated total productivity of its individual faculty, staff, and students.

The importance of individual talent in the research university marketplace helps explain the strategies institutions pursue to enhance their competitiveness.

The University of Minnesota measures its progress in attracting, retaining, supporting, and rewarding its faculty and students in a variety of ways. 

These include several measures used by the University of Florida in its annual study (National Academy members, faculty awards, and post-doctoral appointees), American Association of University Professors salary and compensation rankings, and a variety of internal benchmarks and surveys.  These measures are described below.

National Academy Members:  These prestigious honors are granted by the National Academies of Sciences and Engineering and the Institute of Medicine.  Prospective faculty and students, particularly at the graduate level, may compare institutions based on this measure.

Assessment:  The University of Minnesota – Twin Cities ranks 25th in the nation and 11th among public research universities.  Over the past few years, however, the number of University faculty selected for National Academy membership has increased only marginally, while other institutions have performed better.

Action:  The University believes it has many deserving faculty in a range of disciplines whose qualifications and contributions to their fields may not have been adequately brought forward.  A University-wide committee and committees within each college are being formed to identify, support, and nominate these faculty members.

Faculty Awards:  The Center at the University of Florida collects data on faculty awards in the arts, humanities, science, engineering, and health.  Some of these programs include: American Council of Learned Societies; Fulbright; Guggenheim; MacArthur Foundation; National Endowment for the Humanities; National Institutes of Health; Newberry Library; Pew Charitable Trusts; Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; Sloan Foundation; and Woodrow Wilson Fellows. 

Assessment:  The University of Minnesota – Twin Cities ranks 43rd nationally and 19th among public research universities in the number of these faculty awards.  Over the past five years the number of awards to University faculty declined by 50 percent.  This was a larger decline than the average decline among the top-10 public and private universities (22.6 percent) and the average decline among the top-10 public universities (14.3 percent). 

Action:  Provost Sullivan has formed a task force to identify more proactive mechanisms for broadening the University’s representation among these and other honorary societies and organizations.

Regents Professors:  The Regents Professorship was created by the Board of Regents in 1965 with support from the University of Minnesota Foundation. It is the highest recognition given by the University to a member of its faculty. Regents Professors exhibit outstanding academic distinction, judged by the scope and quality of their scholarly or artistic work, the quality of their teaching, and their contributions to the public good. Once designated Regents Professors, faculty members hold the title for as long as they remain at the University. Upon retirement from the University, a Regents Professor becomes a Regents Professor Emeritus. Since the inception of this award, 74 faculty members have been named Regents Professors.

McKnight Foundation Awards:  The University benefits from a number of faculty awards and prizes supported by funds from the McKnight Foundation. These include:

• Distinguished McKnight University Professorship. This program recognizes outstanding faculty members who have recently achieved full professor status. Recipients hold the title “Distinguished McKnight Professor” for as long as they remain at the University of Minnesota.

• McKnight Arts and Humanities Endowment. Established in 1991, this endowment’s mission is to support, sustain, and enliven arts and hu-manities research and activities at the University.
  
• McKnight Land-Grant Professorship. The goal of this program is to advance the careers of new assistant professors at a crucial point in their professional lives. The designation of “McKnight Land-Grant Professor” is held by recipients for a two-year period.

• McKnight Presidential Endowed Chairs. One of the highest honors for faculty at the Univer-sity, these chairs are named following recom-mendations by their college dean and chosen at the discretion of the president based, in part, on their academic and research accomplishments and their contributions to advancing the University among its peers.

• McKnight Presidential Fellows. The McKnight Presidential Fellows Program is tar-geted at the most promising faculty who have been newly granted tenure and promotion to associate professor, to recognize their accom-plishments and support their ongoing research and scholarship.

• McKnight Presidential Leadership Chair. The McKnight Presidential Leadership Chair is for individuals who exemplify the leadership qualities that inspire the rest of the University. Recipients of the award are deans and other leaders who are recognized both for extraordi-nary scholarly achievements and prominence in an academic field, as well as for their role as a respected leader and mentor.

Endowed Chairs:  The number of endowed chairs and fellowships at the University has risen dramatically over the past 20 years. The number of endowed chairs increased from 17 in 1984 to 374 in 2004 and the number of endowed fellowships increased from 23 in 1984 to 430 in 2004.

Other Faculty Awards:  In addition, a number of other University awards and recognitions acknowledge the vital role of faculty and reward their outstanding contributions to the University's teaching, research, and public engagement mission:

• Awards for Outstanding Contributions to Education
• College and Unit Awards for Faculty
• Other University Awards
• Recipients of National and International Awards and Honors
• Research Awards

Post-Doctoral Appointees:  Post-doctoral appointees are individuals holding doctorates in science and engineering, medicine, dentistry, and veterinary medicine who have temporary appointments, without academic rank, to receive additional training through the conduct of research activities.  These appointees contribute to the quality of research and scholarship at the University.

Assessment:  The University ranks 13th among all research universities and 5th among public research universities in the number of post-doctoral appointees.  Over the past five years, the number of post-doctoral appointees at the University of Minnesota grew at a significantly higher rate than the average of the top-10 public and private research universities and the top-10 public universities.  

Action:  The University is seeking to identify the academic units that are contributing most to this performance trend in order to establish best practices and to share these practices with other units.  In addition, the Graduate School has established an Office of Postdoctoral Affairs to address the increasing number of post-doctoral fellows and their career needs and to ensure the University’s continuing strength in this arena.

Faculty Salary and Compensation:  The American Association of University Professors conducts annual salary and compensation surveys of full-time instructional faculty (excluding medical school faculty). 

Comparing salaries and compensation across institutions and campuses, however, is inherently imperfect because they differ in many ways, e.g., mission, public vs. private, size, mix of disciplines, etc.  Cost-of-living, tax burden, and variations in fringe benefits only add to the imperfection.

In addition, it is important to emphasize that changes in average salary reflect not only salary increases for continuing faculty but also are influenced by retirements, promotions, and new hires.  Thus, percentage changes will be different than those stipulated in an annual salary plan.  This is true for all campuses nationwide.  These differences will vary from year to year, and they can be very significant when the cohort sizes are relatively small.

The Twin Cities campus’s peer group – the nation’s top 30 research universities (16 private, 14 public) within the Association of American Universities (AAU) – is representative of the kinds of campuses with which the Twin Cities campus competes in recruiting and retaining faculty. 

Assessment:  Over the past five years, the University of Minnesota – Twin Cities has lost ground compared to its peer group in average salary and compensation for professors at all levels.  The greatest disparity is at the full professor level, where average salary and compensation lag the peer group averages by nearly $20,000. 

Currently, at the full professor level, the University ranks 27th among its AAU peers in average salary and compensation; associate professor rank, 26th in average salary and 20th in average compensation; assistant professor rank, 28th in average salary and 17th in average compensation.  (download PDF)

Action:  As part of its strategic planning efforts, the University recognizes and is committed to making substantial, not incremental, gains in comparative salary and compensation levels.  The goal is to reach the median among its AAU peers. In furtherance of this goal, the University has committed $6.0 million in FY 2005-06 compact funding to enhance faculty salary in the coming year.

Faculty and Staff Diversity:  Another measure of faculty and staff quality is the diversity of its workforce.  The University remains committed to recruiting and retaining a diverse faculty and staff.  This commitment is exemplified in the University’s mission statement, which clearly articulates diversity as a core goal and strategic initiative: 

…share that knowledge, understanding, and creativity…in a strong and diverse community of learners and teachers, and prepare…students…for active roles in a multiracial and multicultural world….[T]he University strives to sustain an open exchange of ideas in an… atmosphere of mutual respect, free from racism, sexism, and other forms of prejudice and intolerance…

A recent example of this commitment is the 2004 “Keeping Our Faculties of Color” symposium, the third such national gathering hosted by the Univer-sity.

Assessment:  The Twin Cities campus has made modest but steady progress in hiring and retaining faculty and staff of color over the past eight years.  Between 1996 and 2004, the percentage of faculty of color increased steadily among Hispanics, American Indians, Asians, and African Americans. 

Tenured/tenure-track faculty of color increased from 8.2 percent in 1996 to 13.0 percent in 2004.  Other faculty of color increased from 6.1 percent in 1996 to 11.0 percent in 2004.  During the same period, the percentage of female tenured/tenure-track faculty and other female faculty increased from 23.6 percent to 28.0 percent and from 27.2 percent to 32.3 percent, respectively.

In 2004, the Twin Cities campus had 12,918 staff in the Executive, Professional and Administrative, and Civil Service/Bargaining Unit classifications.  Of these, 7,674 (59 percent) were female, approximately the same percentage as in 1996.  The percentage of staff of color increased from 8.7 percent in 1996 to 11.5 percent in 2004.  In 2004, the largest minority group among staff was African Americans, at 4.8 percent, followed by Asians at 4.1 percent. 

Action:  Increasing the diversity of faculty and staff is a central commitment of the University’s strategic plan.  To provide additional leadership focus in this area, the University has created a new position – vice president for access, equity, and multicultural affairs – and a national search is currently under way.

Faculty and Staff Attitudes:  The University recognizes the value of continuously monitoring employee attitudes (download PDF) and perspectives on the workplace.  The level of satisfaction with compensation, benefits, supervisor behaviors, and work-life support play an important role in an individual’s decision to stay or leave. 

Assessment:  With this monitoring goal in mind, the University commissioned a survey conducted in partnership with the Human Resources Research Institute of the Carlson School of Management.  The first Web-based Pulse Survey was conducted in April 2004.  Over 6,000 faculty and staff responded to the survey.

The survey examined the following areas:  job satisfaction, pay and benefits, supervisor and departmental support, University climate, retention and considerations in leaving, and life outside of work. 

Taken as a whole, the survey results suggest that faculty and staff were most satisfied with their work, their supervisors or responsible administrators, their benefits packages, and their overall quality of life.  They were less satisfied with salaries and with attempting to find balance between work and family demands. 

Action:  The results from this first survey suggest the University must continue to address the issue of salary levels.  Retention of faculty and staff will depend on increasing the University’s competitive position in this area.  While University benefits programs are viewed as a positive feature of employment, good benefits cannot compensate for erosion of base salaries against peer institutions. 

Efforts to better prepare supervisors and managers appear to be paying off, as the survey indicates many employees feel positive about the quality of their supervisors and managers.  More attention to career development opportunities seems particularly important for staff employees, many of whom remain at the University for their careers. 

Staff Development:  University Services provides an example of the way in which the University is striving to use staff development to increase its effective use of resources.

University Services approaches staff development as a support to a learning environment where learn-ing carries forward into workplace behavior. The goal is to ensure all staff have the knowledge, skills, and competencies to perform their jobs. Successful staff development initiatives align skills and competencies with knowledge about the de-partment and the University in order to make deci-sions leading to success.

Examples of staff development that focus on en-hancing position-specific competencies aligned with workplace expectations include: new em-ployee orientation, harassment awareness training, report writing, proper use of cleaning products, and food preparation procedures.

Skill and competency enhancement programs are intended to prepare employees for expanded as-signments, lateral positions, or promotions, as well as to enhance current skills. Ongoing professional development is encouraged for staff to keep current in their professions and apply state-of-the-art principles and practices in the workplace. Examples of professional development include: mem-bership in professional organizations, participation in development offered by those organizations, and involvement in leadership roles and professional certification.

Other Initiatives:  The University’s Office of Human Resources has launched a number of other initiatives to support faculty and staff.  Ongoing assessment will help identify other areas for improvement.

• UPlan Medical Program:  The University introduced the UPlan Medical Program to employees and dependents in the fall of 2001, and the plan became effective in 2002. Contributions to the self-insured UPlan by the University and employees replaced premiums paid to the State of Minnesota for medical coverage in prior years. The decision to leave the state program and develop the UPlan was made based on significant input from University employees, through an employee survey, and through recommendations from the Benefits Advisory Committee — an employee-based committee with representation from faculty, professional and administrative staff, civil service employees and bargaining group employees. The program’s medical options were selected through a well-publicized request-for-proposal process, in which choice for employees was a key factor.  (download PDF of UPLAN Medical Program 2003 Annual Report Summary)

• Wellness Program:  The University’s Wellness Program, launched in 2004, aims to improve employees’ and their dependents’ health and lower the upward trend in health care costs through promotion of healthy behaviors and disease management. 
  
  The program includes a walking program, the distribution of a self-care booklet to all employees, a Web-based survey of employees to determine their attitudes and behavior regarding health, and a nutrition program. Employees who participate in wellness events will receive financial incentives.

• Online HR Functions:  The University has leveraged its investment in its PeopleSoft enterprise system to add a technology-based online capacity that makes many human resource functions more accessible to employees. 
  
  With the Employee Self Service site, employees can update their personal demographic information, view and enroll in benefits programs, view retirement accounts, get W-2 and W-4 information, check their flexible spending account balances, receive their pay statement, see their training records, check their official notice of appointment, and receive notification of reimbursement for travel and other expenses.  Other functions continue to be added to this site.

• President’s Emerging Leaders Program:  This program identifies, prepares, and supports high-potential individuals to further equip themselves for significant leadership opportunities within the University. 
  
  Each year, a cohort of up to 25 people is selected to participate in this one-year program.  They work on project teams to tackle significant University problems or initiatives, attend a retreat and a seminar series, spend time with a coach, participate in a 360-degree assessment of their strengths and weaknesses, and experience structured but more informal opportunities to work with senior administrators in the organization. 

Alumni from this group now number nearly 100 individuals, and an active alumni group has formed to continue to build on the leadership skills of the graduated participants.

return to section menu

Information Resources

The University’s success in achieving its strategic vision and supporting its areas of core academic excellence will depend on research support, strengthened University Libraries, and other information resources infrastructure. 

Research Support:  The Office of the Vice President for Research (OVPR) oversees all aspects of research at the University of Minnesota’s five campuses, providing guidance to individual researchers and managing the system-wide research enterprise.  The office is home to seven discrete administrative programs or units that focus on particular facets of the research process:

• Fostering Integrity in Research, Scholarship, and Teaching: provides a comprehensive curriculum to help faculty meet the challenge of responsible conduct of research and scholarship.

• Oversight, Analysis, and Reporting: promotes compliance awareness in sponsored projects administration.

• Regulatory Affairs: facilitates ethical and responsible research through education, monitoring and resources.

• Research Subjects’ Protection Programs: reviews and monitors use of human and animal subjects in research, ensuring oversight of risk, consent, and justified use issues.

• Sponsored Projects Administration: supports faculty in seeking, acquiring, and managing externally sponsored funding for research, training, and public service projects.

• Patent and Technology Marketing: identifies and protects University-developed technolo-gies and negotiates their transfer to the private sector through licensing.

• Office of Business Development: nurtures high-potential business opportunities based on University research by connecting and serving researchers, investors, and industry.
  

University Libraries:  The University Libraries on the Twin Cities campus provide collections, access, and service to students, researchers, and citizens.  As such, the Libraries are a key component in the educational and information infrastructure for the state of Minnesota. 

The University Libraries system is composed of 14 locations on the Twin Cities campus.  In addition, the University Libraries provide services in support of several independent libraries (e.g., Law, Journalism, and the coordinate campus libraries). 

Over 6 million volumes are held within five large facilities as well as specialized branch libraries.  With nearly 2 million user visits to campus libraries annually, the Libraries remain a critical and heavily used resource for the University. For a more detailed description of how the University Libraries support the University’s public engagement mission, go here. 

Assessment:  The University currently ranks 19th among the 113 North American university library members of the Association of Research Libraries, a drop of five places (from 14th) since 2000.  While this is a useful indicator of traditional resources, it does not provide a full picture of 21st century library programs or the quality of library services, the quality of its collections, or its success in meeting the needs of users.  The Association of Research Libraries is developing other measures as is the University to supplement its own continuous improvement efforts in information resources.

Action:  The University Libraries’ vision is to “restore strength and enhance leadership, bring the University of Minnesota Libraries to peer status with the top five public research university libraries within five years.”  For FY 2005-06, the University has committed an additional $3.3 million in recurring funding and $325,000 in non-recurring funding toward achievement of this vision. The vision is currently based on eight strategic goals:

• Develop collections in all formats and implement focused management strategies to ensure effective stewardship of collections.
• Develop the infrastructure for a mature digital library, including leadership on campus related to knowledge resources and leadership within the state and nationally.
• To better serve academic programs and realize opportunities for collaboration, the Libraries will focus on the needs of undergraduates…[and will] strive to develop a culture of collaboration and better integrate the Libraries within academic programs of the campus.
• Play a leadership role in developing, sustaining, and enabling a robust environment of information resources for the campus, the state, and worldwide communities.
• Design a well-integrated, highly functional campus digital infrastructure for content, tools, and services.
• Develop effective learning environments and programmatic strength in information literacy.
• Provide stable support for the Libraries’ technology infrastructure.
• Implement the Libraries’ compensation market program.

Other Information Resources:  The Office of Information Technology, Technology-Enhanced Learning Council, and other groups support the development and strengthening of information resources in advancing the University’s mission.  Many of these programs are highlighted in the Challenge 7 section of this report.

return to section menu

Financial Resources

Financial resources provide the fuel to achieve the University’s strategic goals.  This section summarizes the key sources of financial support – state appropriations, research grants, tuition and fees, debt financing, endowment, and annual giving – assesses the University’s performance in attracting those resources, and highlights future actions for improvement. 

State Appropriations:  State appropriations provide the most important and most flexible source of funding to the University.  Similar to many states, Minnesota has reduced its funding to higher education over the last two decades.  Adjusted for inflation, state support for the University is less today (download PDF) than it was in 1978.  (Minnesota dropped from 6th among states in 1978 to 26th in 2004 in the percentage of state budget support for higher education.)  Currently, state support represents just under 26 percent of University of Minnesota revenue.

In FY 2005-06, the State of Minnesota appropriated $614,238,000 to the University, an increase of $39,611,000 from the previous appropriation.  The University initially allocated these funds within the institution as shown below (with further allocations to occur during the year).

Tuition and Fees:  University policy mandates that “tuition assessments within the University of Minnesota as a public institution must reflect the shared responsibility, benefits, and needs of the state and of the individual student.”

The Board of Regents establishes tuition rates annually and factors in issues of access, choice, retention, progress toward degrees, the competitive environment, applicable state and federal policies and laws, and state appropriations to the University.

In the last 10 years, and particularly in the last five, as state appropriations have been reduced, the University has had to rely more heavily on tuition and fees. The figure below shows the relative proportion of University revenue derived from state appropriations and student tuition and fees.

FY 2005-06 State Appropriations to the University of Minnesota

Source:  Office of Budget and Finance, University of Minnesota.

Tuition/Fees, State Appropriations as Percentage of Revenue, 1970-2004

Source:  Office of Budget and Finance, University of Minnesota.

The University has responded to these significant reductions in state appropriations through an aggressive effort to reduce costs and increase revenues.  The impact of reduced state funding has been mitigated by such strategies as a recent one-year wage freeze, modification of employee cost responsibility for health care benefits, and reduced administrative and operating costs.

Assessment:  Undergraduate resident tuition and fees rank 3rd among Big Ten public universities and 5th for non-residents.   The University has made headway in recent years in improving its competitive position for non-resident undergraduate tuition and fee costs. 

Graduate resident tuition and fees also rank 3rd among Big Ten public universities and 8th for non-residents.  For first-professional students, the University’s rankings are:  law, 2nd and 3rd, respectively; business: 2nd in both; pharmacy, 2nd in both; medical school: 1st in both; and veterinary medicine, 1st and 3rd.  Tuition and Fees Report (download PDF)

Action:  With a modest increase in state support for 2005-06, the University’s undergraduate, graduate, and first-professional tuition increases are the lowest in several years.

Financing Graduate Education:   In 2004, a University-wide task force (download PDF) completed a comprehensive review of the challenges and possible solutions to funding graduate education at the University and, thus, remaining competitive with peer institutions.

As the task force noted in its final report to Provost Sullivan:

The University…is caught between dramatically decreasing state revenue and rapidly rising costs for virtually all goods and services including graduate education.  The University has met its financial needs partly through raising tuition and other fees and partly through internal reallocations and cost savings.  It is apparent that this extreme financial pressure will continue for the foreseeable future, necessitating changing methods of operations of many of the University’s functions. 

Recognizing the long-term nature and complexity of these challenges, the task force offered several possible solutions, including efforts to:

• provide specific legislative support for graduate fellowships;

• launch a major fundraising campaign to match fellowship funds provided by the legislature;

• use the University’s compact process to balance expenditures on graduate education with other priorities;

• right-size graduate programs in terms of graduate education needs for teaching and research assistants as well as employment projections for graduates;

• find ways to improve time-to-degree and completion rates;

• discontinue or merge low-enrollment and low-priority graduate programs;

• make adjustments to fringe-benefit recovery in order to smooth out financial implications;

• simplify and streamline administrative procedures in order to save time and money expenditures, and

• form working groups or task forces to further plan and implement needed changes.

Provost Sullivan is incorporating these recommendations into the work of the task forces formed to implement the University’s strategic plan. For example, included in the task force on state work force needs is a specific examination of the financing of health professions education. In addition, a total of $5.2 million in recurring funds and $1.1 million in non-recurring funds have been earmarked for FY 2005-06 to address graduate and professional education issues.

Grants and Contracts:  As one of the nation’s premier research institutions, the University attracts over $500 million in research grants and contracts each year.  These comprise about 26 percent of the University’s budget.  The Twin Cities campus is one of the leading higher education recipients of research grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF). 

In its rankings of public and private research universities, The Center at the University of Florida focuses on total research expenditures and federal research expenditures.  These measures include “all activities specifically organized to produce research outcomes that are separately budgeted and accounted for.”  This research may be funded either by an external agency, i.e., sponsored research, or by a unit within the university, i.e., university research.   

Assessment:  The University ranks 20th among all institutions and 10th among public universities in total NIH awards. The University ranks 15th overall in NSF funding and 8th among public research universities. NIH rankings: Schools of Dentistry, Schools of Medicine, Schools of Nursing, Schools of Pharmacy, Schools of Public Health, and Schools of Veterinary Medicine

Over the past five years, the University of Minnesota – Twin Cities has ranked consistently in the top 15 of public and private research universities and in the top 10 of public research universities in total and federal research expenditures. 

The University ranked 11th in 2002 for total research expenditures among U.S. public and private research universities and, for the second straight year, 7th among public universities. 

Similarly, the University ranked 15th nationally and 8th among public universities in federal research expenditures in 2002. 

However, the University’s stable ranking in total and federal research expenditures masks a more serious longer-term trend.  Over the past decade, when the percentage increases in total and federal research expenditures are calculated in constant 1983 dollars, the University was outperformed by all but four and all but one of the institutions in the two top-10 lists for 2002, respectively. 

Action:  The University is undertaking a thorough analysis of these findings to determine what steps need to be taken to improve this indicator and the University’s performance relative to its peers.

Endowment Assets:  Even though private fundraising is an increasingly important revenue source, it still represents less than 5 percent of the University’s annual operating budget.   In 2003, the University completed a six-year fundraising campaign that raised nearly $1.7 billion in private donations and pledges. 

Assessment:  The University ranks 26th nationally in total endowment assets among all U.S. universities and 6th among public research universities.  This measure includes the market value of the endowment assets of the University of Minnesota, the University of Minnesota Foundation, and the Minnesota Medical Foundation. 

Action:  As a result of Board of Regents-approved changes in asset allocation guidelines and a new emphasis on alternative investment classes, overall performance on this measure has improved.  It is anticipated that Minnesota’s ranking will improve over its current position; however, this measure warrants further analysis and monitoring.

Annual Giving:  Voluntary support of the University of Minnesota through the University of Minnesota Foundation and the Minnesota Medical Foundation takes many forms and plays an important role in supporting the University’s mission. 

Assessment:  The University ranks 15th nationally in annual giving and 7th among public research universities.  During FY 2003-04, new gifts and future commitments to the University totaled $145 million, down from the record levels achieved during Campaign Minnesota but nearly double the amount raised in 1995.  There were 81,979 donors, an all-time high.  These gifts have made possible an array of scholarships and fellowships, capital improvements, support for faculty, academic programs, and research, and other initiatives across the campus.

Over the past decade, the University ranked 8th among all institutions in the two top-10 lists for 2002, when the percentage increase in annual giving is calculated in constant 1998 dollars. 

The number of alumni donors has increased steadily each year since 2000, reaching a record 42,379 donors in 2004. 

Action:  Continuing efforts are being made to increase alumni participation rates in annual giving to the University.

Debt Management: Bonding for high-priority capital projects is another important component of the University’s management of financial resources.

The University’s debt management goal is to ensure that each long-term debt financing is completed in the most cost-efficient, professional manner and in accordance with the highest standards of the industry, law, and governmental practices. 

To achieve this goal, the University has established five debt management objectives:  maintain the University’s long-term and short-term credit ratings; minimize borrowing costs; limit issuance of revenue bonds due to uncertain internal revenue streams and higher costs of debt service; align debt maturity with the life expectancy of the projects to be financed; and issue debt only for qualified capital projects and not for operating or maintenance costs.

Assessment:  The current weighted average cost of capital for all University debt is approximately 4.4 percent.  The average life of University debt is roughly 11 years; 93 percent of the debt is fixed rate and 7 percent is variable rate.

The University enjoys the second highest credit ratings for its general obligation bonds from Moody’s Investors Service – Aa2 – and Standard & Poor’s Corporation – AA.   These credit ratings permit the University to borrow at low interest rates and reflect the University’s management, financial controls, economic conditions, and moderate debt levels.        

In its report on bonds issued in July 2004, Moody’s noted: “…under its strong leadership, the University of Minnesota will maintain and strengthen its reputation as one of the nation’s leading public universities in terms of financial resource base, academic reputation, and student demand.”

Action:  In addition to these basic ratings, the University carefully monitors Moody’s calculation of capital ratios, which measure institutions’ financial resources, in varying degrees of liquidity, relative to debt.  In FY 2003-04, the University improved in three of the four Moody’s key capital ratios. 

Key Financial Indicators:  The University tracks its financial health and stability through a broad range of financial indicators, including:  asset, liability, and accounts receivable comparisons; annual operating indicators (revenue and expense ratios); debt management; financial ratios (selectivity and matriculation ratios).

Assets.  The comparison of assets by category monitors changes in gross assets, changes in asset categories, and changes between asset categories.  A financially healthy institution generally has stable or rising assets and stable distribution among asset categories. 

The University’s performance during FY 2003-04 shows that:  University assets at the end of FY 2003-04 increased by $143.1 million, or 4.2 percent over FY 2002-03; cash and investments increased $79.3 million, or 6.4 percent; and other assets increased $15.7 million, or 53.9 percent.

Liabilities.  The comparison of liabilities by category monitors changes in gross liabilities, changes in liability categories, and changes between liability categories.  The desired trends for liabilities are stable or declining amounts of liabilities and a stable distribution among liability categories. 

In FY 2003-04, the University’s accrued and other liabilities increased $24.2 million, or 7.1 percent, and long-term debt decreased $110.6 million, or 14.3 percent.

Accounts Receivable.  Accounts receivable (A/R) balances depict how quickly the University is billing and collecting revenues.  A/R dollar amounts should be declining or stable around a benchmark.  An increasing A/R is not desirable and may highlight collection problems.  Distribution across A/R types also should be monitored for proportionality. 

When A/R balances are disproportionate there may be opportunities for business process redesign to improve collection cycles.  During FY 2003-04:  receivables balances for state and federal appropriations increased $16.9 million, or 15.5 percent, and receivables balances for sponsored grants and contracts declined $2.6 million, or 3.8 percent.

Revenue Contribution Ratios. Revenue contribution ratios are an important measure of the relative dependence of University operations on any one source of revenue.  In a strong financial environment these ratios should be stable around a relatively distributed revenue base, with no single source contributing a disproportionate share of total revenue.  The University continues to have a well-distributed revenue base. (download PDF)

Operating Expense Ratio.  Expense ratios illustrate trends in expenses over time and the relative mix of expenses in relation to each other.  Expense ratios should be stable around a relatively distributed expense base.

One of the University’s strengths is that it has a diversified revenue base.  In the most recent year, total University expenses decreased $19.7 million, or 0.9 percent.  The distribution of those expenses between the University’s major expense categories of compensation and benefits, supplies and services, and other was nearly stable.

Financial Ratios.  Moody’s also maintains key financial ratios for institutions in their database:  selectivity ratio, matriculation ratio, net tuition per student, education expenses per student, and total tuition discount. 

In addition, Lehman Brothers calculates the relative strength of institutional resources on a per student basis at the University of Minnesota and several of its public university peers.  “Resources per student” is calculated as the sum of unrestricted net assets, restricted expendable net assets, restricted nonexpendable net assets, and foundation total net assets divided by total full-time equivalent students.

Assessment:   In tracking its performance relative to Moody’s benchmark medians of Aa2- and Aa3-rated institutions, the University fell outside the range on three of the five measures. 

In Lehman Brothers’ most recent calculations, the University of Minnesota’s resources per student declined by 5.4 percent from the previous year, the largest decline among the 13 institutions. 

Action:  The University Board of Regents and the administration will continue to carefully monitor all of these ratios in order to maintain the University’s high credit ratings and improve performance relative to peer institutions.

Return on Invested Assets: The University has invested assets in four investment pools: the Consolidated Endowment Fund (CEF) – $627.2 million, Temporary Investment Pool (TIP) – $543.2 million, Group Income Pool (GIP) – $49.2 million, and RUMINCO, Ltd. – $27.5 million, as of June 30, 2004. 

Assessment:  Three of the four pools outperformed their benchmark institutions for one-year, three-year, and five-year rates of return.  (download PDF)

Action:  The University Board of Regents and the administration will continue to carefully monitor the performance of these asset pools and make adjustments, as needed and within policy guidelines.

return to section menu

Physical Resources

The Twin Cities campus has more than 250 buildings and nearly 13 million assignable square feet.  About 65 percent of these buildings are more than 30 years old and more than 25 percent are over 70 years old.  The University continuously invests in maintaining and improving these facilities through capital improvement projects.

The University identifies its major physical resources needs within a six-year planning framework.  This framework sets priorities and directions for continued capital and academic planning efforts; identifies the impact of additional University debt; assigns responsibility for capital fundraising; and forecasts additional building operational costs. 

The framework takes the form of a six-year capital plan, divided into three prospective biennial budget requests to the Minnesota Legislature.  The plan is updated on an annual basis, and is presented by the president and approved by the Board of Regents.

The six-year capital plan is shaped by five guiding principles:

• Advance new and strengthen existing academic and programmatic priorities
• Support stewardship and sustainability by preserving existing infrastructure and repairing current facilities to support the University's mission activities.
• Protect the health and safety of faculty, staff and students.
• Support and strengthen the student experience.
• Manage long-term financing requirements and future operating costs within realistic resource goals.

Planning and Evaluation Process:  Capital planning at the University begins with academic planning and identifying programmatic priorities and needs through the compact process.  The capital planning process merges campus, collegiate, and disciplinary priorities, needs, and conditions into distinct project proposals.

New capital projects progress through a four-phase identification and planning process.  First, chancellors, vice presidents, deans, faculty, and officers from academic or administrative units identify potential projects.  During this phase general program and facility needs as well as potential risks are assessed. 

In the second stage, academic, finance, and operations staff review the academic and programmatic needs and principles, facility condition, financial and legal constraints, and project logistics.  Third, based on this review, the president then recommends a six-year capital improvement plan to the Board of Regents.  The president’s recommendation includes planning and feasibility, resource acquisition, and pre-design details. 

During the fourth stage, funding approval is secured and the design and construction process is finalized.

In addition to considering strategic academic priorities and facility requirements, there are a number of other considerations and constraints that help in the prioritization of capital projects:

• Projected size of future bonding bills:  The University reviews state economic forecasts, Minnesota Department of Finance reports and directives, past trends, and budget instruction documents to estimate the likely University share of future legislative capital appropriations.

• Operating and debt impact on the University:  The University has a limited capacity to absorb additional operating and debt costs from new capital projects.

• Timing and sequencing of projects:  Many capital projects depend upon other capital project “dominos”.  For example, Pillsbury Hall, a future home for English, cannot be renovated until Geology can be moved out and into a renovated Shepherd Labs which in turn must wait to be vacated by moving its programs into a new Teaching and Technology Building.

• Continuity of priorities:  The University and the State of Minnesota have already invested planning and design funds in a number of projects.  Examples include Folwell Hall and the Institute of Technology¿s Teaching and Technology Facility.

• University capacity for private fundraising:  The University reviews its capacity to fundraise for capital projects in total and for specific projects.

• Impact on instructional and research programs:  The University manages the level of disruption that can be absorbed while still maintaining the operation of its research and teaching. Renovations require “swing space” for programs to continue to operate and the institution needs to maintain a level of functional classrooms.

Using this planning and evaluation process, the University has significantly upgraded its research facilities and physical infrastructure during the past decade. 

Four examples are described below.

• McGuire Translational Research Facility:  The University opened this new 95,000-square-foot facility in 2005 to bridge basic science discoveries and develop therapies for the prevention and treatment of disease.  The building houses interdisciplinary researchers from the Stem Cell Institute (a collaboration of 17 University schools and centers participating in stem cell research), the College of Pharmacy's Center for Orphan Drug Development, and the new Center for Infectious Diseases and Microbiology Translational Research.


• Molecular and Cell Biology Building:  This 230,000-square-foot building, opened in 2002, provides research space for 70 research groups comprising over 400 scientists and a state-of-the-art vivarium for transgenic animals.  The building also includes classroom and instructional laboratories for undergraduate, graduate, and professional students.


• Cargill Building for Microbial and Plant Genomics:  This 64,000-square-foot building on the St. Paul campus opened in 2003. It houses 15 teams of scientists focusing on pathogenic microbes or beneficial microbes with uses in agriculture, environmental clean-up, and health care. Others will direct their attention to technology for screening biological agents and analyzing data through bioinformatics.  The building is an important component of the University-wide effort in genomics and the cornerstone of the planned University of Minnesota Biotechnology Precinct on the St. Paul campus.  Future buildings will provide space for research on biocatalysis, bio-energy, biomaterials, and biosensors. 


• Digital Technology Center:  The Center’s first-rate laboratory facilities offer researchers the tools to integrate research, education, and outreach in digital design, computer graphics and visualization, telecommunications, intelligent data storage and retrieval systems, multimedia, data mining, scientific computation, and other digital technologies. Opened in 2001, the 42,000-square-foot building also houses the Supercomputer Institute for Digital Simulation and Advanced Computation for supercomputing research, the Laboratory for Computational Science and Engineering for computational science and engineering and visualization, and the Usability Laboratory for evaluations of computational solutions. Additional, specialized laboratories assist with research projects. 

Other Projects: In addition, the 2005 Legislature approved the University’s bonding request, which includes a project to improve chemistry research and teaching labs, a facility to house collaborative research in the College of Education and Human Development, and a project to renovate the University’s Academic Health Center classrooms, clinics, laboratories, and other facilities.

Challenge One  |  Challenge Three

Return to top of page