COLLEGE OF DESIGN
OPERATIONS REDESIGN
August 13, 2013
The case for Operations redesign





Meet growing and changing needs of faculty and
staff
Accommodate new programs and initiatives
Accommodate ebbs and flows of enrollment and
support needs
Respond to Eric Kaler’s call for operational
excellence
Control our own destiny
This is how we are structured….
But this is how we work……
Our approach
The “how to” manual
*predetermined plan
*predetermined outcome
*clear, but rigid
The “yet to be written” manual
*collective plan
*no predetermined outcome
*messy, but flexible
Goal of CDES Ops Redesign is to…


By October 1, CDES Operations will have defined
our new organizational structure, culture and work
processes that enable CDES to meet its vision of an
integrated, flexible and student centered College.
Based on an Appreciative foundation, we will apply
Design Thinking to the work that we do and how we
do it.
Discovery of what works well
Discover
Implementation
of the proposed
design around
what works
Destiny/
Deliver
Appreciative
Inquiry
Map
Design
Plan & prioritize processes
that would work well
Dream
Envisioning
what would
work well
in the future
Design Thinking mindsets








Embracing diversity in all forms
Radical collaboration
Making things visible
Working with empathy for the user
Having creative confidence
Having a bias for action
Being open to failing forward
Committing to iterative action
Key milestone dates
Discovery
1.
Determine the best of “what is”
Culture, outcomes and workflows


2.
April/May
Dream
June/July
Determine what “could be”
 Culture, outcomes and workflows

3.
Design

4.
Plan and prioritize what will work well
Destiny

August/September
October
Prepare to “Go Live”
Workflow process teams






Hiring and assigning graduate students
Faculty support
Curriculum management
Supporting and promoting research and outreach
Student communication
Supporting and integrating new interdisciplinary
initiatives
From the perspective of…
Students
Staff
Faculty
Alumni
Teams in action
Teams in action
Teams in action
Team Leaders:
Martha McDonell and Carrie Vigen
Team Members:
Melodie Bard, Nancy Galas, Katie Leonard, and
Tisha VanHaaften

Discovery Phase
 Department Hiring Authority Survey
 Current CDes Graduate Student TA/RA Survey
 Process Mapping

Dream Phase
 Asked departments for more information about
current application/hiring processes/templates
 Brainstormed/Big Picture Metaphor: “Open Picnic
Grounds”
▪ ALL CDes graduate students have access to
information/hiring processes for ALL CDes graduate
TA/RA positions, including development of
Interdisciplinary TA/RA opportunities

Dream Phase (continued)
 Modified current process map to suggest three
new paths/options (see website):
▪ 1.) Small: Each department communicates their TA/RA
openings to all their students (more transparency)
▪ 2.) Creative: In addition to above, add college-wide
Interdisciplinary TA/RA opportunities (open to all CDes
students)
▪ 3.) Overhaul: Complete merger/centralization of process
to a college-wide assignment/hiring process with a
hiring committee, includes communication of all
positions and addition of Interdisciplinary opportunities


1.) Increased transparency/
communication/access regarding available
CDes graduate TA/RA positions (within the
departments and/or college-wide)
2.) Addition of Interdisciplinary TA/RA
opportunities, open to all CDes graduate
students

“Central Broadcast Tower”


Based on survey results, our current
processes are working well, from the
prospective of both current graduate student
TA/RA and the department hiring authorities
Suggestions by Interdisciplinary Process
Team could naturally lead to Interdisciplinary
TA/RA opportunities (college-wide intro
drawing course)



Do departments want/are they willing to
allow as much transparency as the students
want?
What/where/how is the best way to introduce
an Interdisciplinary TA/RA opportunity?
How would Interdisciplinary TA/RA positions
be funded (to allow for cross department
cost-sharing; college fund)?
Team Leaders:
Warren Bruland & Constance Severson
Team Members:
Michelle Belmont, Corrie Bozung, Ebony Chunn, Sara Grothe, Kathy
Guiney, Clay Kimber, Ella Stallings, Julieann Swanson, Tim Walters
Discovery
1. We found that “Faculty Support” is very
broad and hard to define.
2. We re-named the group “Faculty Teaching
Support.”
3. Improving Communication is key.
4. Faculty Surveys were conducted.
Improve communication by
reducing hierarchy between
employment groups
1.
2.
3.
Informational meeting for all staff and faculty at the
beginning of the school year to promote best
practices.
New employee orientation at the
College/Department level.
Move everyone to Universal use of google calendar

Information Meeting at the
beginning of the school year for
all staff and faculty to promote
best practices throughout the
college.
U
CDes
Dept. Breakout Sessions
• Arch/LA/DHA
• Specific Issues
CDes Presenters:
IT, Finance, HR, ER
Academic Resources
Departments/Units
Programs
If necessary
Information Meeting
 University
 CDes (all employees meet together)
◦ IT
◦ Finance
◦ Academic resources, etc.

Departments (breakout sessions)
◦ Teaching Specific





Moodle
Classroom/resource scheduling
Grades
Website, etc.
Programs (if necessary)
New Employee Orientation



Broader Issues related to University
Employment.
One-time only at beginning of employment.
Not teaching Specific. Includes policies and
procedures specific to CDes and
Departments
Universal use of Google calendar

Many of the groups dreams/challenges were
similar to ours.

Better Communication became the central
theme.


People seem to be interested in getting to
know others in the College in more social
settings.
Being housed in the same building or at least
on the same campus is still an important goal.

Faculty buy-in.

Top down support will be necessary.


Important to keep the momentum of this
process going among staff.
Working with talented diverse personalities
can be challenging.
Team Leaders:
Stephanie Dilworth and Lin Nelson-Mayson
Team Members:
Tara Faricy, Cheryl Johnson, Holley Locher, Lucy Reile, Theresa
Tichich, Inga Theissen, Amanda Underwood, Gayle Whitney
The Interdisciplinary Team developed two surveys on
existing interdisciplinary activities – one for faculty/staff
and one for students.
Student Survey (15 UG + 16 G respondents)
Definition
 Interdisciplinary activities are a broad, flexible view of
learning
 More than one CDes program involved
 More than one college involved
 Class not in student’s home program
 Outside of classroom experience
 Organized student groups
 UROP or study abroad experiences
Key Findings
 Respondents want more class time with students of other majors (in CDes
and other colleges)
 Minors are seen as adding interdisciplinary content
 Independent experiences can prepare for interdisciplinary activities
 Interdisciplinary activities are available primarily by taking classes
outside of CDes
 Interdisciplinary experiences are self-initiated, not promoted by faculty
Comments
 I'm excited to have other opportunities to learn in interdisciplinary
courses and opportunities. Even if this survey doesn't result in any
changes to offered courses, I will continue like I always have; enjoying
the vast opportunity nestled in a big university. (UG)
 We often hear the college talk about how important interdisciplinary
work is to our field so it would be awesome if the studios or other classes
could actually incorporate that into the curriculum. (UG)
 Most interdisciplinary opportunities are self-initiated by students with
their electives. (G)
Faculty & Staff Survey (49 respondents)
Definition
 Interdisciplinary activities explore common
connections
 Co-teaching with faculty from multiple CDes
departments or multiple colleges
 Research with faculty from multiple CDes
departments or multiple colleges
 Research with faculty from other academic
institutions
 Involved with community organizations
Key Findings
 Responses covered the full spectrum from involved to not involved;
supported to not supported
 Programs are not constructed to facilitate interdisciplinary activities
 A high number of respondents (41 of 49) self-identified as involved in
interdisciplinary activities
 Respondents report being positively involved in interdisciplinary
activities
Comments
 I feel that I do not know a lot about the interdisciplinary work done
in CDes. Many times I feel alone in that sense. We could be doing a
better job starting dialogues around this uses and spreading
awareness around all that is done. (faculty)
 I think design is increasingly viewed as a useful and important
partner by other non-design fields, and design – with its lateral way
of thinking and working – is inherently interdisciplinary in nature. We
should be good at this. (admin/faculty)
Conclusions
 CDes sends a stronger message of
interdisciplinary activities within the college
than students discover
 The majority of respondents want more
interdisciplinary opportunities
 Students outside of CDes see CDes courses as
interdisciplinary
 Start with existing CDes programs to increase
interdisciplinary activities within the college
The team focused attention on Interdisciplinary
Curriculum and Extra Curricular Opportunities
Why is this important?
 Give our students a well-rounded design
education
 Make our program unique
 Bring in more students
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Design Major
Creating a Major that combines
elements from all the disciplines
Joint Foundational Courses
Get rid of multiple intro courses
that cover the same material
Design Challenges:
Design challenges:
External Co-Courses
Develop courses with other
colleges that relate to real-world
work











Do employers want this?
Do students want this?
Would students be
marketable?
Is this change too high level?
Faculty buy-in
Accreditation & licensing
Finding content
Developing new classes
Will this bring in money from
outside the college?
Time frame - at least 4 years
out









Making sure it meets program
requirements for all disciplines
Don’t want to add to students
cost or workload
Territoriality between faculty
How will money be split
among departments
Do we already have
overlapping content?
What courses should we
require?
Required social event (like a
research slam)?
Community-based project
Study Abroad programs
Location - both Rapson &
McNeal?
Design Challenges:




Funding across colleges
(tuition split)
Meets program
requirements for all
disciplines
Don’t want to add to
students cost or workload
Territoriality
How might we go about opening a program to
other disciplines?

The team proposed the development of a
professional design major that would
complement the academic programs by adding
leadership and entrepreneurial content
necessary for a student to achieve success.
 Faculty
and students see interdisciplinary
activities differently. Faculty members see
interdisciplinary activities as those that
explore common connections across
departments, colleges, community
organizations, or other academic institutions.
 Students
see interdisciplinary activities as a
broad, flexible way of learning that includes
more than one CDes program or college, a
class not in the student’s home program, or
activities outside the classroom
The direction that the dream and design phases took us resulted in an academic
decision that could only be addressed by the faculty, so was not an appropriate
solution to supporting interdisciplinary activities. However, returning to the
responses received in our original survey, we recognized that there were two
misperceptions were uncovered and a possible direction suggested:

That the importance of interdisciplinarity was part of the CDes
mission/vision/values statements.

That, even with the two definitions of interdisciplinarity, it was unclear to both
sets of stakeholders what was actually taking place and what opportunities
existed to participate.
The resulting proposal for Supporting and Integrating New Interdisciplinary
Initiatives is to name, acknowledge, and celebrate interdisciplinary activities.
Identifying activities, classes, research, and events as interdisciplinary activities
draws attention to the partnerships involved and to the richness of CDes’
encouragement for this type of experience. By their nature, interdisciplinary
activities are hard to classify. Identifying this wealth of experiences as
interdisciplinary allows the college and community to view them as contributing to
diverse and innovative learning and service.
PERCEPTION OF INTERDISCIPLINARY ACTIVITIES
 IMPORTANT TO THE COLLEGE (yes)
 STATED IN THE COLLEGE MISSION (no)
 VERY LITTLE TO NOTHING IS HAPPENING (actually, quite a lot is!)
PROPOSAL
 IDENTIFY WHAT ARE WE CURRENTLY DOING <===> WHAT IS ITS
RELATIONSHIP TO OUR COLLEGE MISSION/VISION
 CALL OUT AND PROMOTE (COMMUNICATE) <===>
NAMING+ACKNOWLEDGEMENT = VALUE
ISSSUES
 DIFFERING DEFINITIONS – IS THERE A NEED TO SPECIFY WHAT IS
INTERDISCIPLINARY OR DOES A “BIG TENT” APPROACH ACKNOWLEDGE THE
VARIETY OF THESE ACTIVITIES?
 SUCCESS - HOW DO WE KNOW WE HAVE SUCEEDED? WHAT IS MEASURED?
Team Leaders:
Joline Brink and Terry Rafferty
Team Members:
Wanda Loerch, Jennifer Peterson, Matt Thoen, Chris
Schlichting, Jeanne Schacht, Mary Vincent Franco, Lori
Swenson, Peter Crandall, Katrina Thompson
STUDENT COMMUNICATIONS
Dream: to improve face-to-face and other communications
between students and staff/faculty.
• Scenarios #1: College of Design is on one campus.
• Scenario #2: If CDes is on two campuses, then schedule
more frequent meetings/events that bring everyone together.
• Scenario #3: Create a visual flow chart that shows most
effective means to communicate with particular groups within
college.
Discovery & Dream
1. Create a “genius bar” in McNeal and Rapson that
provides a dedicated space for staff & faculty to
communicate face-to-face with students.
2. Monthly events for staff & faculty that bring us
together.
3. Flow chart identifying key communicators within the
college and a “how to” guide for dispersing information
effectively within the college.
Design Challenge
Photo of Design Challenge
• With all the technology at our disposal, what we needed
was more face-to-face interaction and the space to do it
in.
What surprised us
• Creating buy-in and commitment from college staff
and faculty.
• Designing a user-friendly space that fulfills the dream.
• Periodic review of what we are doing to stay true to
our goal of effective student communications.
Challenges & Concerns
QUESTIONS?
Curriculum management
operations redesign
Curriculum management Team
Team Leaders
 Julie Hillman, DHA
 Amanda Smoot, LA
Team Members
 Laurie Gardner, Student Services
 Kevin Groenke, Academic Resources
 Char Klarquist, DHA (ad hoc)
 Val Trvdik Anderson, Student Services
 Tim Walters, IT
Discovery: What we did
 Acknowledged that we have unique resources in our college
posing challenges to curriculum management
 Reviewed CDes curriculum process in all three academic
units
 Surveyed other colleges to review their procedures and look
for similarities and differences
We discovered…
 VALUES:
 Put students first, don’t disadvantage them with course/program
changes; ensure timely graduation.
 Respectful communication
 THEMES:
 Gaps in communication exist between faculty, staff, academic
units and the college
 Upfront consultation is needed with CDes academic resources,
department administration, and outside the college
 Limited review of class prerequisites or consultation on resource
usage is done before courses are changed
I Wish….first staff meeting
 Course syllabi were accessible to all college staff
 We, the workers, are notified if new curriculum is coming down
the pike
 Needs for labs, shop, technology were communicated earlier
(when changes are made)
 We could address the process for the topics and DES courses
and freshman seminar
 We didn't have to have a process for everything, but see the
advantages outweigh
 We all had better communication
 There was more transparency
What if….first staff meeting
 Curriculum materials go to all faculty to make sure no cross-posting or
cross-subjects
 Current class syllabi were added to faculty bios [ = access to that info]
 A finance person or Admin who does budgeting was at the table during
higher level curriculum committee decisions
 Departments were following the same process
 Transparency of process
 Other colleges offices were involved in new course offerings?
 There was consultation within the various curriculum committees
 We process map a college level communication model? Other areas
can use it to find out who to communicate with or how?
 It had more expertise in online teaching technology?
 We had a manual. There was a mechanism for faculty to talk to shop
resources etc.
Dream: What we did
Created a process map from key ideas generated in the
discovery phase based on feedback from staff and our survey
Proposed process map
Faculty propose new
course or new
program or changes
to courses or
programs
Consult with
department
staff on
physical space
needs
Consult with
Department Head on
how offering course
will affect program
and/or financial
resources
Approved by the
University (if
required)
Faculty or staff
research if other
similar courses
exist at the
University
Consult with program
advisers to determine
impact on students
Send documents
to curriculum
committee for
review and
approval
Faculty consult with
academic resources on
impact of new course
(projects, resources
needed, number of
students, etc.)
Consult with
other colleges
(possible
interdisciplinary
offering)
Documents reviewed
and approved by CDES
curriculum committee
I wish….second staff meeting
 We could do this
 This is a great prototype and I look forward to seeing it in
action
 We could do this now
What if….second staff meeting
 Too many cooks in the kitchen?
 We use Workflow Gen
 This was used across programs and compared similar
classes?
 It was expanded outside of class/curriculum management
Design challenges being
addressed
 How to automate process to be simple and easy for faculty
without extra burden on staff
 How to get faculty buy-in
What we learned
 Currently there is minimal consultation, even though required
 All faculty should be informed, prior to college curriculum
committee vote
 Recruiters and advisors need to be in-the-know especially for
marketing materials
 Need documented process, i.e. curriculum management best
practices guide
Challenges & concerns
 Need Department Head and Collegiate support to implement
changes
 Deadlines must be followed for changes to be in ECS by
registration
 Minor programs, topics and freshman seminars need to be
captured in the process
 Pedagogy delivery changes should be included
 Workflow Gen may be our solution
Photo of design prototype
What’s next?
 Move forward with design and implementation for automating
the process to help make consultation happen
 Consider a systematic look at all the puzzle pieces
 Overlap between operations groups
 Consistent themes between groups
 How do we make it all work together?
 If the University is looking to us as a model, let’s capitalize on
that
 Compact request?
Questions?
Supporting and Promoting
Research & Outreach
The Team
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Jill Bezecny (Finance)
Jeff Bolduan (IT)
Missy Collins (CSBR)
Wanda Lee (Finance)
Lori Mollberg (External Relations)
Thomas Schenk (R&O)
Ben Sietsema (IT)
Karen Wood (MDC)
What we discovered
• Discussion: What is R&O?
– Lack of University level definition
– Project lifecycle
– Support roles in the current models
• Actions:
– Identified need for surveys and interviews
– Created process maps
Funding R&O
R&O Process
Current R&O Support Structure
Academic Departments
Idea
Deliverable
Centers
CSBR/Design Thinking
What we dreamed
Everyone in the college is well informed and can share relevant
and compelling stories/news about the significance of R&O work
as a shared point of pride for the college community.
What we dreamed
• Staff feel more connected to R&O
• Better connect through collaboration and partnership to
overcome the fractured nature of our work
• Give staff a better sense of value and representation
Design challenges
• Discussion
– Which approach is best?
• Goals
– Strong relationships
– Create better staff connection to R&O
Design challenges
• Unfinished Discovery homework
• Speed bump!
• Prototype focus: Expertise Menu
We are learning
• Relationships are essential
• All Centers need an administrative contact
• Administrators need more training and
information
• Functional units need to be included
• We need to tell our R&O stories
Looking forward
• Expertise Menu
• New models of support
– Administrators oversee process from proposal to award
closeout
– R&O support team have regular meetings
– Oversight
Prototype Photo
Questions?
Next Steps




Leadership gives feedback to teams
Teams will continue their design work
October 4 all-college staff meeting to end the
design phase
Implementation phase being planned
Important themes emerging….





Communication, communication, communication
Regularly connecting with colleagues, hearing ideas
Face to face interaction
Taking a step back and thinking about our college
in a different way
The collective energy of team work
Concerns




Only half the college is talking about these issues;
where are the faculty?
Will the proposed changes actually take place?
The teams should mix it up occasionally to share
ideas.
That we continue moving forward with support of
College leadership.
Questions