DATE:
February 26, 2001
TO:
Julie Furst-Bowe
Associate Vice Chancellor
FROM:
Bob Meyer, Dean
College of Technology, Engineering and Management
SUBJECT: Program Review Response for Graphic Communications Management
The following response regarding the program review of the Graphic Communications Management
program (GCM) is based on the PRC’s final report. In that report, the PRC provided a recommendation
for the program director and the dean, which follow, along with the respective responses.
Recommendations for the Program Director:
1. Review course content to determine if the overlap noted by students is necessary to prepare students
for their careers, or if it needs to be addressed by the program director and the chair of your
department to see if the overlap should be eliminated. Some discussion of the amount of courses
offered in the management, rather than technical, aspects of GCM would also be appropriate.
Response: Course content and potential duplication has been addressed by the faculty and reviewed
by the advisory committee. Changes in curriculum have been made and implemented in areas that do
not require CIC approval. Those that do require university approval will occur and will include
review of course titles, course objectives and course content.
In addition, as instructors deliver courses, emphasis needs to be made on the management vs.
equipment operation of the graphic communications process.
2. Though the program has received significant contributions in equipment from industry, it may be
possible that in some courses the equipment is not as up-to-date as in other courses. The director
might target available resources or find new funding or contributions to update equipment in all
courses offered.
Response: The issue of equipment and technology is a constant challenge for educational institutions.
However, with the GCM DIN, including $200,000 capital equipment budgeted on an annual basis,
this challenge should diminish. Examples of recent purchases include: The GCM program recently
invested in a four-page laser image setter at the cost of $29,000; a four-color highly automated
sheetfed offset press at the cost of $603,000, financed over a 5-year period; a laser platemaker CTP at
the cost of $30,000; and a matchprint ink jet proofer at the cost of $5,000.
The program is committed to ensure all lab areas and courses are updated, including pre-press, press
and post-press areas.
Recommendations for the Dean:
1. Increase the program director allocation above 0.25 to allow him/her to expand efforts in the
recruiting of additional students for the major, and allow the program director to seek sources of
additional equipment and outside resources. This is a solid, successful program, and if it is to remain
vital will require an appropriate level of commitment to the director.
Response: The current practices of the GCM program director exemplify what happens when
competent, entrepreneurial faculty are empowered to grow a program. The emergence of the program
from a concentration within Industrial Technology to a stand alone major with 165 students enrolled
is in itself testimony to his work. The standard release time provided to program directors housed
within the College of Technology, Engineering, and Management is a 0.25 allocation. The dean’s
office fully realizes this allocation does not represent the amount of work required to complete the
many tasks of a program director.
At this time there are no resources available in CTEM to provide for additional release time. The
issue of release time for each program director is under investigation and exploration. At this time
the dean’s office supports, encourages and will assist the GCM staff and advisory committee to
secure external funding, in the form of an endowment, to provide additional release time for the
program director.
2. Whenever possible, space and facilities issues should be brought forth to the Provost and Chancellor,
in order that this program can maintain its solid reputation.
Response: The dean’s office and university Space Committee is fully aware of the inadequacy of the
facility within and the entire Communication Technologies building. The dean’s office is concerned
with all faculty, staff and programs housed in that building.
Regarding the GCM program, the ceiling heights, loading dock access, ventilation and overcrowding
are a few of the building’s shortcomings. The Communication Technologies building is a remodeled
student center and has outlived its appropriateness for housing programs, students and faculty. We
recommend a heating and ventilation specialist to assess the building and determine its compliance
with health and safety requirements. Finally, the dean’s office strongly urges the Provost and the
Chancellor to prioritize this building as a dysfunctional facility and plan for its replacement.
3. Recruiting and keeping successful faculty in this program will require a realistic level of commitment
in terms of salaries, to prevent the best faculty from leaving into industry.
Response: The College of Technology, Engineering and Management is currently engaged in the
process of strategic planning. Part of this process is conducting a competitive analysis with regard to
programs, students and faculty. The utilization of the CUPA Model to determine faculty salaries is
not appropriate for programs that require hiring of faculty with related industry credentials in
technical fields. Using a model that incorporates a competitive analysis for salary comparison is
more appropriate and would provide means to recruit and retain quality faculty in technical fields.