Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5

.' ?

. ?

SIWi1iOiN

0) .. .............. ....... Menib.e.r.s...of..Senat.e.

....................................

Acting..Prc.s.iden.t .... ................ ....... ...

Dak.. .........

..................... Mar-Ch ..19,....1.9.69

......................... . ......... .....

14733-11C

The attached document contains my views on the need

for academic planning and a proposal for a planning process

at this University. I am presenting it before Senate. at this

time for debate and analysis. If the proposal is adopted in

principle, I would then prepare specific implementation

proposals.

K. Strand

:dk

End.

March 10, 1969

. ?

ACADEMIC_PLANNING AT SIMON FRASER_UNIVERSITY

THE NEED FOR ACADEMIC PLANNING

Academic planning is necessitated because of two reasons. The

first is

that physical planning (buildings, etc. ) must conform to the

requirements of the academic program. Since construction of buildings

takes time, academic planning is a prerequisite to physical planning.

The scconcl is that, at any moment of time, resources (faculty,

space, finances for operating, etc. ) 'are limited and choices must be made

among alternative uses of the University's resources.

Accordingly, what is meant by academic planning is a decision-

making process which will permit choices to be made among alternative

academic programs and which will develop a projected academic program

against which faculty recruitment, library resources, space and other

support services can be matched.

For example, if the University adopts a particular type of program

which requires a particular configuration of space, then in order for that

space to be available it is necessary to know the dimensibns and characteristics

of that program. In addition, adoption of a particular program requires

that a certain pattern of faculty recruitment be undertaken. Furthermore,

if the Library and other resources are going to meet the needs of this

program, prior knowledge of the nature of the program is required. The

conclusion is that if balanced growth of space, faculty, and support'

services is to occur, then projection and planning of academic programs

are essential.

Given a limited amount of money, there are two approaches to growth.

The first is

that every program can be given some money or that certain

programs be given enough money so that they can be meaningful. The first

alternative is inefficient but does not require decisions as to relative merits.

The, second alternative is efficient but requires decisions as to relative

merits. In general, the first alternative was followed in establishing the

University. A major premise of this paper is that at that time no other

alternative was feasible; however, at this time' a transition must be made

to the second alternative. In short, individual programs have to be given

a sufficient commitment of resources in order that they can be viable.

Another characteristic of academic planning at Simon Fraser University

has been that the ieliberations of Senate have not made a clear delineation

between a "change in calendar" and a "new program". As a result, this has

. ?

developed an atmosphere where the apparent manner to obtain approval of

new programs and hence a claim on the resources to effectuate it, has been

to "get it by Senate". This has led to acrimony.. Accordingly, another

premise of this paper is that "new programst must be clearly distinguished

from "calendar changes".

.. . 2

A final characteristic of Simon Fraser University is that it was

founded on the concept of departments with strong department heads. This

•

type of organization, leads to strong traditional disciplines at the cost of

development of inter-disciplinary or multi.. disciplinary studies. In other

words, the unit for decision making and planning has been that of a department

and it must be recognized that a department represents an administrative

abstraction for a discipline. However, as disciplines coalesce in some

•

areas

and expand in others, a strong traditional department is apt to be

divorced from the frontiers of the changing disciplines. This implies that

departments should not be the only source from which ideas can be put into

the planning process.

PROPOSAL

What is proposed here is a system of priority planning within the

university which will develop a list of the academic priorities of this

university. The objective is to use the list of academic priorities as the

starting point from which to develop the plans necessary for building,

recruitment, budgeting and support services.

The proposal is built on the premise there shall be a distinction

between ongoing programs and new programs. New programs can be of

two types. The first consists of an expansion of the University's offerings

based .on the new program. The second consists of a restructuring of

existing offerin g

s into a new program and may entail no expansion of

W ?

offerings. An operational definition of the first type of new program is

"any change in the University's offerings which requires additional

teaching staff, funds and/or space. " An operational definition of the

second type of new program would be "any restructuring of courses

designed to give a different emphasis to the program of a department or

a new degree, but which does not require additional teaching staff, funds

and/or space.

If the new program is of the second type, 1. e. it does not require

additional teaching staff, funds and/or space, then approval by Senate is

authorization to implement the program.

New programs which require additional teaching staff, funds and/

or space, shall go through two cycles of decision making. The first cycle

shall be a22 ro

val inprinciple. This means that the idea has been approved

and that the faculty members who originated the idea have authorization to

develop the proposal in greater detail - but not authorization to implement

it. Implementation of new programs that require additional teaching staff,

•

funds and/or space depends upon the position that this item eventually

holds on the priority list. If the total program is rejected in principle,

this means that no further development can be done. If elements of the

. ?

program are rejected in principle, the faculty *members who originated it

will be required to revise the proposal and resubmit it. As a corollary,

approval in principle can occur at any time in the academic year but the

priority assignment can Only occur periodically.

... 3

-3-

Once a program of the second type has been approved in principle,

the next task is development of the

program

in detail. This wouldinvolve

the listing of the necessary financial obligations, both in terms of

operating expenses and salary, the space requirements, and other implied

requirements such as library facilities, audio visual, computer and

science workshop. These requirements shall be projected forward for

a five-year period.

- ?

Another premise upon which the proposal is built is that there is a

need for a channel to Senate for ideas of an interdisciplinary nature. Before

a proposal reaches Senate under the present system, it must first have

Faculty approval and Departmental approval. This procedure, by its very

nature, tends to preclude Senate consideration of interdisciplinary proposals.

What is proposed is that, in the case of new programs proposed by a group

of faculty members who are not in the same department, they would first go

to a Senate Committee on Interdisciplinary Studies (to be established) for

preliminary analysis and, if approved by this committee, the proposal would

directly to Senate for approval in principle. Once approval in principle

has been obtain ed, the detailed development could begin.

The second cycle

_shall b

rity assignment. In the case of new

programs proposed by departments, each department shall assi g

n a

priority to each new program (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. ) Once this departmental

• ?

priority has been assigned, the next step would be assignment of priorities

•

the faculty level.

•

the case of new programs originating from members of faculty

who are not in the same. department, i. e. interdisciplinary programs,

priorities would be assigned by the Senate Committee on Interdisciplinary

•

Studies.

When new programs originating from departments have been assigned

priorities at the level of each faculty and when new programs originating

from non-departmental units have been assigned priorities by the Senate

Committee on Interdisciplinary Studies, the next task is to integrate the

various priority ratings in order to rank all new programs in terms of

university priority. This would be the responsibility of the University

Academic Planning Committee (to be established by changing the terms of

reference and title of the Senate Long Range Academic Planning Committee).

The assignment to the University Academic Planning Committee would be to

generate the academic priority list.

When the academic priority list has been established, the next step

would be to evaluate these priorities against the existing constraints in

terms of money and space. Thus, the task of implementation of the academic

priority list would be the responsibility of the President. In other words,

S ?

his responsibility would be to implement,

in order of priority, those items

that are possible within the present constraints. In addition, his

• responsibility would be to remove the Constraints that prevent the remaining

items on the academic priority list froth being implemented.

-4-

It is

important to note that the academic priority list would not

imply immediate authorization for implementation. This authorization

would come from the President once the constraints permit implementation.

THE ADVANTAGE OF THIS PROPOSAL

The basic advantage of this proposal is that it would permit

orderly and balanced growth of academic priorities relative to the

constraints of space, finances, support facilities and recruitment.

Secondly, it would establish that a program had been in fact

endorsed by the Universityand that. it would be implemented as soon as

possible. This would remove a major cause of frustration, namely that

of uncertainty.

Thirdly, this proposal would enable new programs to be developed

as resources became available. In other words, when monies become

free, there would not be the confusion as to what should be done with

them, the answer would be to authorize the next item on the academic

priority list.

DISADVANTAGES

• A disadvantage of this proposal is that it would require acceptance

of the priority concept. It requires that there be a clear recognition that

there is a difference between acceptance in principle and imp,lementation.

Another disadvantage of the proposal is that there would be a

tendency for all units to say yes to all new ideas rather than to say no

but to kill in essnce',. these ideas by placin

them low on the priority

list.