- Email: [email protected]
Use of a faculty investment model to attain the goals of a college of nursing
ORIGINAL ARTICLES Use of a Faculty Investment Model to Attain the Goals of a College of Nursing ANN F. MINNICK, PHD, RN, FAAN,* AND LOIS HALSTEAD, PHD†
Driven by demands for fiscal prudence, new services, and an orderly transition as aging faculty approach retirement, a new model for administrative planning and decision making was tested. In its first year of using an investment model, a private, 600ⴙ student, College of Nursing was able to achieve a labor savings of 10 per cent, an enhancement of revenue of 3 per cent, and a human capital pool equal to 12 per cent of total full-time faculty equivalents. The model, which includes the integration of strategic planning, benchmarking, continuous quality improvement, and management by objectives, was accomplished by taking three investment steps. The steps included goal determination, market understanding, and resource allocation. Investment activity distribution and work determination frameworks were developed as a result of the commitment to the investment process. Suggestions for the future include the need to continue to reorient administrative and faculty thinking as definitions of the educational enterprise evolve. (Index words: Educational administration; Faculty workload; Strategic planning) J Prof Nurs 17:74-80, 2001. Copyright © 2001 by W.B. Saunders Company
I
N READING THE GENERAL business literature, most nursing education administrators have been exposed to a variety of management frameworks and techniques that purportedly improve productivity and *Associate Dean, Research and Support Services, College of Nursing, Rush University, Chicago, IL. †Associate Dean, College of Nursing, Rush University, Chicago, IL. Address correspondence and reprint requests to Ann Minnick, PhD, RN, FAAN, Associate Dean—Research and Support Services, College of Nursing, Rush University, 600 South Paulina, Suite 1062A, Chicago, IL 60612. E-mail: aminnick@rushu. rush.edu Copyright © 2001 by W.B. Saunders Company 8755-7223/01/1702-0006$35.00/0 doi:10.1053/jpnu.2001.22269 74
quality. Among these suggestions are strategic planning, benchmarking, continuous quality improvement, and management by objectives (Fisher, 1995; National Association of College and University Business Officers, 1996). The results of any applications of these ideas within a single institution have not been reported through the professional literature. The informal network of educational administrators is the usual source of anecdotal information regarding the efficacy of even individual techniques. This article details the initial experiences of a large (⬎600 students) senior nursing college’s experience with a model that integrates several of these techniques.
Impetus for the Project
Our institution faced the triad of demands common to late 20th century nursing education programs. One demand is for fiscal prudence because of the limitations of traditional revenue sources such as tuition and student fees (Zemsky & Massy, 1990; The Institute for Higher Education Policy, 1999). Revenues cannot be enhanced indefinitely by tuition increases at rates greater than those of overall prices. The point of customer (student) resistance to such increases must be acknowledged and responded to before it becomes extreme, especially given that static wage rates for nurses in the mid- and late 1990s cannot begin to compensate for an ever more expensive education. The limitations of funds from non–tuition based sources also contributes to this demand. The second demand is for new services. One of these new services involves arranging faculty practice opportunities that maintain access to clinical and research sites while enhancing faculty expertise (Boettcher,
Journal of Professional Nursing, Vol 17, No 2 (March–April), 2001: pp 74-80
75
FACULTY INVESTMENT MODEL
1996). Although our school has a distinguished history in pioneering the practitioner-teacher model, the existing clinical links use only a fraction of the sites in which modern nursing is practiced. Another service demand is to provide alternative educational opportunities at all levels of nursing education and for professional development (Broussard, Delahoussaye, & Poirrier, 1996). The proliferation of techniques to provide such opportunities and the investment costs to secure assistive information technology makes it essential that a nursing program avoid unnecessary duplication of expensive technology. The final demand, that colleges plan for an orderly transition in expertise as the baby boomers who dominate the faculty ranks approach retirement, is a final impetus (Minnick, 2000). For example, our faculty’s average as well as median age is 48 (SD ⫽ 7.6) years. The fine balance between supporting and encouraging experienced faculty and anticipating the need to have a cadre of excellent teachers and researchers ready to assume responsibilities when this group begins to withdraw their labor participation (a period projected to occur within the next 5 to 8 years) is challenging indeed. Our school had attempted to deal with these demands in a variety of ways. Strategic plans had been completed for each of the past 7 years but there was growing dissatisfaction with the length of time (5 years) that the plans were expected to encompass. More serious flaws in the application of the plans were centered around accountability (many of the projects did not coordinate well with the resources and abilities of the named responsible party). The process also failed to allow for considerations of new, typically unanticipated, initiatives within the context of the strategic plan. Benchmarks, difficult to obtain for meaningful comparisons, were used in fiscal justification but never within the strategic context. Resource (human and capital) allocations, managed separately from the strategic plan, were based around the traditional department structures. There was no clear link between the allocation of resources and the strategic plan, especially during times of budget negotiation, making it difficult to track what efforts could be afforded to support faculty practice, alternative education initiation, and an orderly faculty transition plan.
sumption of our model is that an institution, just like an individual, invests resources. In the case of an institution, there are human and capital investments. The degree to which an institution chooses passivity/activity and risk/risk avoidance is as likely to influence institutional success as it is that of an individual. It is thus equally important for the institution to take the traditional steps in investing: (1) decide on goals; (2) develop a clear understanding of what the market environment, cost and benefits are/might be through benchmarking and research, and reconsider goals if necessary; and (3) acquire and allocate resources accordingly. The process must be repeated as often as any component changes. The investment model had appeal for two reasons. First, it presents an opportunity to bypass the traditional structural road blocks and allocate resources by goal. This is especially important given that few goals are department specific, and, because the number of faculty was relatively small (50 to 60 full-time equivalents [FTE] during the period under discussion), the overhead in planning by department is high. The second reason for the model’s appeal is that it provided a framework to organize the administrative techniques that were already familiar to the leadership of the College’s departments. The investment model posits that the mission or purpose of the College should be reflected in its goals (Figure 1). The goals are brought into focus by making an educated determination of the level of investment needed to achieve each goal. This goal statement is a familiar aspect of strategic planning, but one difference is the investment model’s requirement of determining how the goal is attached to a long- or short-term investment of people and capital. Faced with the level of investment required to achieve any particular goal, the informed investors may decide (1) to abandon or modify other goals to make the needed investment, or (2)
The Investment Model
Faced with these challenges, we proposed a model based on general investment principles. The basic as-
Figure 1. Investment model components.
76
MINNICK AND HALSTEAD
abandon or modify the goal itself. Benchmarking what the costs of goal achievement are likely to be and what level of goal attainment may be anticipated in a given time helps to make the informed investment decision. Once the goals and projected level of investment are determined, the workload assignment and selection of the faculty best suited to the task can be made. One point in considering the model is to note that the relatively large size of the goal determination box in the diagram is based on the model’s assumption that goals based on the institutional mission (not resources), must be the ultimate drivers of the process. If one can describe and commit to achieving a purpose, backing in to the goal by assignment of activities is comparatively easy. For example, researchers know that to administer an instrument by week 48 of a study, they must “plan backwards” (i.e., determine which weeks they will need to secure a printer, pretest the instrument, secure permission for use of copyrighted items, and so forth). When the goal is ambitious (i.e., one in which the investment is more on the risk-taking versus the risk-averse side of investing), new ways to accomplish the task may need to be invented for each of the steps to the goal. A second point about the diagram is that the model is filled with arrows, indicating that there is little unidirectionality expected. For example, benchmarking might indicate that the goal probably cannot be achieved within the institution’s currently allotted resources. A change in resource allocation may follow, or, in extreme cases, goals or their timetable for achievement may need to be revised.
Once investments are generally planned within the framework of the goals, diagrams such as those in Figure 2 can be drawn. Note that the distribution of resource commitment is not only different from the current state, the circle is also larger, indicating the need for more resources. The only way to attain more resources, barring an unexpected endowment, is to redirect current resources toward activities that are investments for the future. This means the application of the model will result in an emphasis on activities not constrained by outside funders requirements (e.g., funded research and practice) as sources for investment. These activities are primarily those related to the educational goals and those that might be called enabling (i.e., those that meet traditional university goals such as governance).
Applying the Model
The model’s implementation steps were accomplished within 15 months. During the first 3 months, most efforts were devoted to explaining the model and achieving support from key administrative personnel. A presentation was made at the academic administrative council and, with the support of the group, time was scheduled at future meetings for key decisionmaking activities. One lesson from this experience is that emphasizing the rationality of the model and appealing to the administrators’ charge to consider the overall good of the college can be effective techniques to achieve adoption of the model. In addition, the level
Figure 2. Comparison of hypothetical goals attained versus current state of resource commitment.
77
FACULTY INVESTMENT MODEL
of dissatisfaction with previous methods used for meeting college goals and for allocating resources was helpful. Beginning the discussion well before the traditional budget planning for the next fiscal year is imminent is another useful technique. Finally, a real readiness to reconsider and adjust to changing environments on the part of senior administrators makes adoption of a new technique less anxiety provoking and lessens resistance. Regular communication by senior leadership about institutional realities, as well as those of the outside environment, helps to ensure all participants are working from a similar knowledge base and ready to see change as a necessity. The next step was to begin the strategic planning process to determine goals. Administrators were comfortable in developing goals based on the College mission. What was new was the requirement that these goals be explicated in terms of investment costs and in terms of overall College goals. The tension arising from the need to consider long- and short-term goals and to weigh goals as diverse as faculty practice, research, and the educational programs was high because, even on a visionary allocation basis, the 18 people involved in the basic strategic planning process understood real change would be the result of these deliberations. More lessons became apparent during the period between the “visionary allocation of resources” step and the efforts to check relevant benchmarking data. Administrators were surprised, often pleasantly, in terms of the projected degree of investment required to achieve a goal. These data enabled the group to reallocate resources to attain additional goals and to shorten the timeframe in which labor-intensive goals could be achieved. Making decisions that are based on more than one’s own limited or nonexistent experience help liberate people from a “we can’t” to a “we can” attitude. During the next phase, the work determination framework period, the first task was to attain the commitment that the College budgets times for an activity based on what it is worth in terms of mission and goal attainment and any available benchmarks. The commitment meant that work determination would not necessarily be based on how much time a given activity took during the previous year. The second required commitment was that the time needed to perform an activity would be assigned to the faculty member(s) best able to do the job. If no one currently on faculty was capable of doing the task, a new person would be recruited. This commitment resulted in painful but objective decisions. Some faculty’s effort allotments were decreased to 9-month or part-time contracts. In other areas in which no qual-
ified faculty member existed to fill a need, the result was the reprioritization of recruitment efforts. The work determination process must be completed in a timely fashion because of obligations to inform faculty of changes in future contract offers within university-specified time periods. In our case, these time periods often mean that it is 1 to 2 calendar years before a change in specific faculty workload can be fully accomplished. Our system operates on a 5-year maximum renewable contract basis. There may be additional challenges for implementing work determination within a tenured system that has different periods in which renewal of support may be required.
Faculty Workload Specifics
Essential to making decisions about investments in new or continuing faculty is the use of a format for quantifying faculty workload that relates to the stated goals. Although many schools use a workload formula, the link to the institutional goals and the strategic is often missing (Grams, 1992; Hawker, Braj, Campbell, Durrant, & McLean, 1996). Quantification provides the means by which workload can be assessed, compared, and adjusted. The model requires that faculty work be defined sufficiently to enable it to be transferred rationally from one person as opportunities present themselves. For such work transfer to occur, there must be a way to determine equivalency between vastly different types of assignments if some sense of equitable workload allocation is to be preserved. Faculty workload is composed of two main categories of activities. The first category consists of those activities that are revenue generating and fairly easily related to strategic goals. These include teaching, funded research projects, and compensated clinical practice. The second category of activities includes role activities expected of university faculty. These include nonfunded scholarship, student advising, governance, community and professional services, and personal development. Though not revenue generating, this second group of activities must be carefully considered in terms of strategic goals. Looking on the tasks in this area as enabling activities helps in determining their value. Each activity is allocated a percentage of the total work of the College (Table 1). During the planning stage, the administrative group determined that approximately 30 per cent of available time needed to be dedicated to the enabling activities and 70 per cent to perform direct revenue-generating activities based on decisions related to the goals. The faculty workload
78 TABLE
MINNICK AND HALSTEAD
1. Example of Overall Investment Activity Distribution
Activities
*Practice development *Research proposal development and scholarship *Research seed projects Faculty governance Community and professional service *Faculty development Teaching (direct, preparation, and grading) Student advising Course administration Nonproductive time
Per Cent of Total Faculty Labor
5 7 5 6 3 5 55 8 4 2
NOTE. This distribution changes from year to year based on a review of resources and goals. The percentages are applied to that portion of resources not generated by funded research grants or faculty practice contracts. *Activities are considered major investment categories. For example, if a college has 50 FTE of faculty and an FTE is estimated to work 1,800 clock hours, a 5 per cent investment in practice development would mean 4,500 hours were to be used in seeking out new practice sites, developing collegial relationships, and negotiating contracts. The evaluation of the wisdom of this would be ascertained through a comparison of results to goals regarding numbers and types of new sites.
framework calculates an individual activity with a formula that converts effort into clock hours. Thus, the effort for teaching a course can be compared with that required for funded research or to the time dedicated to clinical practice. This part of the model is based on a number of assumptions that define a typical work week and work year. The College operates on a 12-month calendar for many faculty appointments and thus calculates a 45week work year. This provides time for vacation, holidays, and personal time off. Although some professional literature cites weekly time commitments as greater than 50 hours per week, our workload framework uses a 40-hour per week standard. Thus, a fulltime faculty member has a total of 1,800 clock hours of productive time per year (45 weeks ⫻ 40 hours per week). If 70 per cent of this time is devoted to a revenue generating activity, an average full-time faculty member is able to devote 1,260 hours to such activities. We have found that quantifying percentages in terms of actual time in hours to be useful in clarifying investments. For example, an investment of 2 per cent with the anticipated product being community service translates to slightly more than 1 paid week (41 hours) to devote to a service project. It is also helpful in grounding investments in reality. For example, the al-
location of 2 per cent (41 hours) is clearly an insufficient investment if the goal is production of an RO-1– level grant application. Assumptions about effort required to teach a course are, perhaps, the most controversial. Faculty members have widely differing views concerning the number of hours of preparation time it takes to give a lecture or lead a seminar. In addition, there can be significant differences in the work required to precept graduate clinical practica. The model requires that administrators agree on the per cent allocated to various teaching activities and assign the percentages uniformly. Courses have a predetermined effort allocation assigned by administrative officers of the college. Faculty who need or want additional time for course preparation are not given additional workload credit. MAKING FACULTY ASSIGNMENTS
When applying the investment model to faculty assignments, administrators must consider College initiatives and individual faculty goals. Although the overall investment of allocation of faculty effort is 70 per cent direct revenue-producing activities and 30 per cent enabling activities, actual faculty assignments vary considerably. When a faculty member is chosen for an investment activity, the required percentage of time devoted to that activity is made a part of that person’s workload. In most cases, that means that the faculty will have the teaching load decreased and the teaching activity reassigned. When an investment activity is completed, the faculty may resume the previous assignment or may need another change in allocation if, for instance, a research or clinical project is funded. Even the 30 per cent time devoted to professional activities is allocated differently within departments. Student advising may be assigned to a selected group of faculty within a department to allow other faculty additional time to develop new course materials. Likewise, some faculty may be given additional teaching responsibilities so that another faculty member may devote time to student recruitment. Thus, the College is able to distribute workload fairly while ensuring that faculty assignment and organizational goals are a good fit. The system allows the college to plan systematically for the development of junior faculty for specific roles because we can direct investment to their development. Faculty workload is affected by a number of factors. The many activities of the College necessitate that fac-
FACULTY INVESTMENT MODEL
ulty be involved in a number of projects at one time. Faculty practice opportunities require continual upgrading of clinical skills. Practice and research abilities are not evenly distributed among faculty and assignments are made on the basis of ability and interest. This can lead to individual dissatisfaction but does allow for best use of faculty talents. Departmental cooperation is facilitated because faculty effort is translated to an equivalent unit of work. In addition, the College is able to implement dynamic programs in practice, teaching,
79
and scholarship while maintaining reasonable expectations for faculty effort. A necessary tool to assist departments’ administration in this investment assignment process is an interdepartment work format that can be used by the entire administrative group as actual faculty assignments are determined (Figure 3). This form was used in the two sessions attended by administrators to determine who would be assigned to specific activities. Having the sheets as a ready reference enabled the group to note
Figure 3. College of Nursing Rush University definitions and work determination framework faculty role components.
80
MINNICK AND HALSTEAD
when someone was being overassigned and when new persons would need to be recruited. For example, one talented faculty member was suggested as ideal to develop clinical practice activities as well as to complete a research project. Her work allotment indicated that this was impossible. When the faculty member’s preference was used as a guide, it became apparent that recruitment of a new faculty member to invest in practice development would be needed. It was also apparent in the actual assignment process that departmental administrators must be aware of the individual faculty member’s preferences and career plans and be able to articulate them to the entire group. In systems in which this sort of communication between departmental officers and faculty has not taken place, the model will have a secondary benefit of stimulating such discussions. During the faculty assignment phase, the value of several tactical activities was confirmed. The first is that the vision must be shared with the faculty. In year two, we increased the frequency and reach of the message through a variety of small groups and one-to-one contacts. Building a supportive faculty in conjunction with clear expectations and rewards were other actions that contributed to the success of the model’s implementation. In the first year, some modest rewards were available to individual faculty and groups who supported key projects. An important basis for the award structure was attainment of
objectives, not the process used. Finally, building a new accounting report structure is important. We have partially achieved the goal of being able to allocate costs to the goals that are achieved, especially in the areas of research, faculty practice, and professional development, and continue to explore the ways to assess seemingly intangible benefits. Results
After the first full year of implementation, a comparison with the previous year indicated the College achieved a faculty labor savings equivalent to 10 per cent of the FTEs expanded in the previous year. It also enhanced revenue by 3 per cent as a result of increased faculty practice and teaching productivity. Perhaps most importantly, it formed a human capital pool equal to 12 per cent of total faculty FTEs available for new business development and faculty renewal to meet the impending decline of the baby boomers participation in the workforce. The most important results are less tangible. One is our reorientation to thinking of the College as an institution that exists to set and attain new and ever-changing goals in a proactive manner. The second is that administrators and faculty are beginning to see labor and capital resources in a new light. This recognition brings renewed vigor and futuristic thinking to an enterprise that is undergoing enormous challenges and opportunities: nursing education.
References Fisher, D. (1995). Baldrige on campus: The assessment workbook for higher education. New York: Quality Resources. National Association of College and University Business Officers. (1996). Organizational paradigm shifts. Washington, DC: Author. Zemsky, R., & Massy, W. (1990). Cost containment: Committing to a new economic reality. Change, 22, 16-22. The institute for higher education policy. (1999). The tuition puzzle. Washington, DC: Author. Boettcher, J. (1996). Nurse practice centers in academia: An emerging subsystem. Journal of Nursing Education, 35, 63-68.
Broussard, A., Delahoussaye, C., & Poirrier, G. (1996). The practice role in the academic nursing community. Journal of Nursing Education, 35, 82-87. Minnick, A. (2000). Retirement, the nursing workforce and the year 2005. Nursing Outlook, 48, 1-7. Grams, K. M. (1992). Faculty work load formulas in nursing education: A critical theory perspective. Journal of Professional Nursing, 8, 96-104. Hawker, R. W., Braj, B., Campbell, J., Durrant, M., & McLean, M. (1996). Development and application of a computerized workload measurement tool for nurse educators. Canadian Journal of Nursing Administration, 9, 51-66.
Driven by demands for fiscal prudence, new services, and an orderly transition as aging faculty approach retirement, a new model for administrative planning and decision making was tested. In its first year of using an investment model, a private, 600ⴙ student, College of Nursing was able to achieve a labor savings of 10 per cent, an enhancement of revenue of 3 per cent, and a human capital pool equal to 12 per cent of total full-time faculty equivalents. The model, which includes the integration of strategic planning, benchmarking, continuous quality improvement, and management by objectives, was accomplished by taking three investment steps. The steps included goal determination, market understanding, and resource allocation. Investment activity distribution and work determination frameworks were developed as a result of the commitment to the investment process. Suggestions for the future include the need to continue to reorient administrative and faculty thinking as definitions of the educational enterprise evolve. (Index words: Educational administration; Faculty workload; Strategic planning) J Prof Nurs 17:74-80, 2001. Copyright © 2001 by W.B. Saunders Company
I
N READING THE GENERAL business literature, most nursing education administrators have been exposed to a variety of management frameworks and techniques that purportedly improve productivity and *Associate Dean, Research and Support Services, College of Nursing, Rush University, Chicago, IL. †Associate Dean, College of Nursing, Rush University, Chicago, IL. Address correspondence and reprint requests to Ann Minnick, PhD, RN, FAAN, Associate Dean—Research and Support Services, College of Nursing, Rush University, 600 South Paulina, Suite 1062A, Chicago, IL 60612. E-mail: aminnick@rushu. rush.edu Copyright © 2001 by W.B. Saunders Company 8755-7223/01/1702-0006$35.00/0 doi:10.1053/jpnu.2001.22269 74
quality. Among these suggestions are strategic planning, benchmarking, continuous quality improvement, and management by objectives (Fisher, 1995; National Association of College and University Business Officers, 1996). The results of any applications of these ideas within a single institution have not been reported through the professional literature. The informal network of educational administrators is the usual source of anecdotal information regarding the efficacy of even individual techniques. This article details the initial experiences of a large (⬎600 students) senior nursing college’s experience with a model that integrates several of these techniques.
Impetus for the Project
Our institution faced the triad of demands common to late 20th century nursing education programs. One demand is for fiscal prudence because of the limitations of traditional revenue sources such as tuition and student fees (Zemsky & Massy, 1990; The Institute for Higher Education Policy, 1999). Revenues cannot be enhanced indefinitely by tuition increases at rates greater than those of overall prices. The point of customer (student) resistance to such increases must be acknowledged and responded to before it becomes extreme, especially given that static wage rates for nurses in the mid- and late 1990s cannot begin to compensate for an ever more expensive education. The limitations of funds from non–tuition based sources also contributes to this demand. The second demand is for new services. One of these new services involves arranging faculty practice opportunities that maintain access to clinical and research sites while enhancing faculty expertise (Boettcher,
Journal of Professional Nursing, Vol 17, No 2 (March–April), 2001: pp 74-80
75
FACULTY INVESTMENT MODEL
1996). Although our school has a distinguished history in pioneering the practitioner-teacher model, the existing clinical links use only a fraction of the sites in which modern nursing is practiced. Another service demand is to provide alternative educational opportunities at all levels of nursing education and for professional development (Broussard, Delahoussaye, & Poirrier, 1996). The proliferation of techniques to provide such opportunities and the investment costs to secure assistive information technology makes it essential that a nursing program avoid unnecessary duplication of expensive technology. The final demand, that colleges plan for an orderly transition in expertise as the baby boomers who dominate the faculty ranks approach retirement, is a final impetus (Minnick, 2000). For example, our faculty’s average as well as median age is 48 (SD ⫽ 7.6) years. The fine balance between supporting and encouraging experienced faculty and anticipating the need to have a cadre of excellent teachers and researchers ready to assume responsibilities when this group begins to withdraw their labor participation (a period projected to occur within the next 5 to 8 years) is challenging indeed. Our school had attempted to deal with these demands in a variety of ways. Strategic plans had been completed for each of the past 7 years but there was growing dissatisfaction with the length of time (5 years) that the plans were expected to encompass. More serious flaws in the application of the plans were centered around accountability (many of the projects did not coordinate well with the resources and abilities of the named responsible party). The process also failed to allow for considerations of new, typically unanticipated, initiatives within the context of the strategic plan. Benchmarks, difficult to obtain for meaningful comparisons, were used in fiscal justification but never within the strategic context. Resource (human and capital) allocations, managed separately from the strategic plan, were based around the traditional department structures. There was no clear link between the allocation of resources and the strategic plan, especially during times of budget negotiation, making it difficult to track what efforts could be afforded to support faculty practice, alternative education initiation, and an orderly faculty transition plan.
sumption of our model is that an institution, just like an individual, invests resources. In the case of an institution, there are human and capital investments. The degree to which an institution chooses passivity/activity and risk/risk avoidance is as likely to influence institutional success as it is that of an individual. It is thus equally important for the institution to take the traditional steps in investing: (1) decide on goals; (2) develop a clear understanding of what the market environment, cost and benefits are/might be through benchmarking and research, and reconsider goals if necessary; and (3) acquire and allocate resources accordingly. The process must be repeated as often as any component changes. The investment model had appeal for two reasons. First, it presents an opportunity to bypass the traditional structural road blocks and allocate resources by goal. This is especially important given that few goals are department specific, and, because the number of faculty was relatively small (50 to 60 full-time equivalents [FTE] during the period under discussion), the overhead in planning by department is high. The second reason for the model’s appeal is that it provided a framework to organize the administrative techniques that were already familiar to the leadership of the College’s departments. The investment model posits that the mission or purpose of the College should be reflected in its goals (Figure 1). The goals are brought into focus by making an educated determination of the level of investment needed to achieve each goal. This goal statement is a familiar aspect of strategic planning, but one difference is the investment model’s requirement of determining how the goal is attached to a long- or short-term investment of people and capital. Faced with the level of investment required to achieve any particular goal, the informed investors may decide (1) to abandon or modify other goals to make the needed investment, or (2)
The Investment Model
Faced with these challenges, we proposed a model based on general investment principles. The basic as-
Figure 1. Investment model components.
76
MINNICK AND HALSTEAD
abandon or modify the goal itself. Benchmarking what the costs of goal achievement are likely to be and what level of goal attainment may be anticipated in a given time helps to make the informed investment decision. Once the goals and projected level of investment are determined, the workload assignment and selection of the faculty best suited to the task can be made. One point in considering the model is to note that the relatively large size of the goal determination box in the diagram is based on the model’s assumption that goals based on the institutional mission (not resources), must be the ultimate drivers of the process. If one can describe and commit to achieving a purpose, backing in to the goal by assignment of activities is comparatively easy. For example, researchers know that to administer an instrument by week 48 of a study, they must “plan backwards” (i.e., determine which weeks they will need to secure a printer, pretest the instrument, secure permission for use of copyrighted items, and so forth). When the goal is ambitious (i.e., one in which the investment is more on the risk-taking versus the risk-averse side of investing), new ways to accomplish the task may need to be invented for each of the steps to the goal. A second point about the diagram is that the model is filled with arrows, indicating that there is little unidirectionality expected. For example, benchmarking might indicate that the goal probably cannot be achieved within the institution’s currently allotted resources. A change in resource allocation may follow, or, in extreme cases, goals or their timetable for achievement may need to be revised.
Once investments are generally planned within the framework of the goals, diagrams such as those in Figure 2 can be drawn. Note that the distribution of resource commitment is not only different from the current state, the circle is also larger, indicating the need for more resources. The only way to attain more resources, barring an unexpected endowment, is to redirect current resources toward activities that are investments for the future. This means the application of the model will result in an emphasis on activities not constrained by outside funders requirements (e.g., funded research and practice) as sources for investment. These activities are primarily those related to the educational goals and those that might be called enabling (i.e., those that meet traditional university goals such as governance).
Applying the Model
The model’s implementation steps were accomplished within 15 months. During the first 3 months, most efforts were devoted to explaining the model and achieving support from key administrative personnel. A presentation was made at the academic administrative council and, with the support of the group, time was scheduled at future meetings for key decisionmaking activities. One lesson from this experience is that emphasizing the rationality of the model and appealing to the administrators’ charge to consider the overall good of the college can be effective techniques to achieve adoption of the model. In addition, the level
Figure 2. Comparison of hypothetical goals attained versus current state of resource commitment.
77
FACULTY INVESTMENT MODEL
of dissatisfaction with previous methods used for meeting college goals and for allocating resources was helpful. Beginning the discussion well before the traditional budget planning for the next fiscal year is imminent is another useful technique. Finally, a real readiness to reconsider and adjust to changing environments on the part of senior administrators makes adoption of a new technique less anxiety provoking and lessens resistance. Regular communication by senior leadership about institutional realities, as well as those of the outside environment, helps to ensure all participants are working from a similar knowledge base and ready to see change as a necessity. The next step was to begin the strategic planning process to determine goals. Administrators were comfortable in developing goals based on the College mission. What was new was the requirement that these goals be explicated in terms of investment costs and in terms of overall College goals. The tension arising from the need to consider long- and short-term goals and to weigh goals as diverse as faculty practice, research, and the educational programs was high because, even on a visionary allocation basis, the 18 people involved in the basic strategic planning process understood real change would be the result of these deliberations. More lessons became apparent during the period between the “visionary allocation of resources” step and the efforts to check relevant benchmarking data. Administrators were surprised, often pleasantly, in terms of the projected degree of investment required to achieve a goal. These data enabled the group to reallocate resources to attain additional goals and to shorten the timeframe in which labor-intensive goals could be achieved. Making decisions that are based on more than one’s own limited or nonexistent experience help liberate people from a “we can’t” to a “we can” attitude. During the next phase, the work determination framework period, the first task was to attain the commitment that the College budgets times for an activity based on what it is worth in terms of mission and goal attainment and any available benchmarks. The commitment meant that work determination would not necessarily be based on how much time a given activity took during the previous year. The second required commitment was that the time needed to perform an activity would be assigned to the faculty member(s) best able to do the job. If no one currently on faculty was capable of doing the task, a new person would be recruited. This commitment resulted in painful but objective decisions. Some faculty’s effort allotments were decreased to 9-month or part-time contracts. In other areas in which no qual-
ified faculty member existed to fill a need, the result was the reprioritization of recruitment efforts. The work determination process must be completed in a timely fashion because of obligations to inform faculty of changes in future contract offers within university-specified time periods. In our case, these time periods often mean that it is 1 to 2 calendar years before a change in specific faculty workload can be fully accomplished. Our system operates on a 5-year maximum renewable contract basis. There may be additional challenges for implementing work determination within a tenured system that has different periods in which renewal of support may be required.
Faculty Workload Specifics
Essential to making decisions about investments in new or continuing faculty is the use of a format for quantifying faculty workload that relates to the stated goals. Although many schools use a workload formula, the link to the institutional goals and the strategic is often missing (Grams, 1992; Hawker, Braj, Campbell, Durrant, & McLean, 1996). Quantification provides the means by which workload can be assessed, compared, and adjusted. The model requires that faculty work be defined sufficiently to enable it to be transferred rationally from one person as opportunities present themselves. For such work transfer to occur, there must be a way to determine equivalency between vastly different types of assignments if some sense of equitable workload allocation is to be preserved. Faculty workload is composed of two main categories of activities. The first category consists of those activities that are revenue generating and fairly easily related to strategic goals. These include teaching, funded research projects, and compensated clinical practice. The second category of activities includes role activities expected of university faculty. These include nonfunded scholarship, student advising, governance, community and professional services, and personal development. Though not revenue generating, this second group of activities must be carefully considered in terms of strategic goals. Looking on the tasks in this area as enabling activities helps in determining their value. Each activity is allocated a percentage of the total work of the College (Table 1). During the planning stage, the administrative group determined that approximately 30 per cent of available time needed to be dedicated to the enabling activities and 70 per cent to perform direct revenue-generating activities based on decisions related to the goals. The faculty workload
78 TABLE
MINNICK AND HALSTEAD
1. Example of Overall Investment Activity Distribution
Activities
*Practice development *Research proposal development and scholarship *Research seed projects Faculty governance Community and professional service *Faculty development Teaching (direct, preparation, and grading) Student advising Course administration Nonproductive time
Per Cent of Total Faculty Labor
5 7 5 6 3 5 55 8 4 2
NOTE. This distribution changes from year to year based on a review of resources and goals. The percentages are applied to that portion of resources not generated by funded research grants or faculty practice contracts. *Activities are considered major investment categories. For example, if a college has 50 FTE of faculty and an FTE is estimated to work 1,800 clock hours, a 5 per cent investment in practice development would mean 4,500 hours were to be used in seeking out new practice sites, developing collegial relationships, and negotiating contracts. The evaluation of the wisdom of this would be ascertained through a comparison of results to goals regarding numbers and types of new sites.
framework calculates an individual activity with a formula that converts effort into clock hours. Thus, the effort for teaching a course can be compared with that required for funded research or to the time dedicated to clinical practice. This part of the model is based on a number of assumptions that define a typical work week and work year. The College operates on a 12-month calendar for many faculty appointments and thus calculates a 45week work year. This provides time for vacation, holidays, and personal time off. Although some professional literature cites weekly time commitments as greater than 50 hours per week, our workload framework uses a 40-hour per week standard. Thus, a fulltime faculty member has a total of 1,800 clock hours of productive time per year (45 weeks ⫻ 40 hours per week). If 70 per cent of this time is devoted to a revenue generating activity, an average full-time faculty member is able to devote 1,260 hours to such activities. We have found that quantifying percentages in terms of actual time in hours to be useful in clarifying investments. For example, an investment of 2 per cent with the anticipated product being community service translates to slightly more than 1 paid week (41 hours) to devote to a service project. It is also helpful in grounding investments in reality. For example, the al-
location of 2 per cent (41 hours) is clearly an insufficient investment if the goal is production of an RO-1– level grant application. Assumptions about effort required to teach a course are, perhaps, the most controversial. Faculty members have widely differing views concerning the number of hours of preparation time it takes to give a lecture or lead a seminar. In addition, there can be significant differences in the work required to precept graduate clinical practica. The model requires that administrators agree on the per cent allocated to various teaching activities and assign the percentages uniformly. Courses have a predetermined effort allocation assigned by administrative officers of the college. Faculty who need or want additional time for course preparation are not given additional workload credit. MAKING FACULTY ASSIGNMENTS
When applying the investment model to faculty assignments, administrators must consider College initiatives and individual faculty goals. Although the overall investment of allocation of faculty effort is 70 per cent direct revenue-producing activities and 30 per cent enabling activities, actual faculty assignments vary considerably. When a faculty member is chosen for an investment activity, the required percentage of time devoted to that activity is made a part of that person’s workload. In most cases, that means that the faculty will have the teaching load decreased and the teaching activity reassigned. When an investment activity is completed, the faculty may resume the previous assignment or may need another change in allocation if, for instance, a research or clinical project is funded. Even the 30 per cent time devoted to professional activities is allocated differently within departments. Student advising may be assigned to a selected group of faculty within a department to allow other faculty additional time to develop new course materials. Likewise, some faculty may be given additional teaching responsibilities so that another faculty member may devote time to student recruitment. Thus, the College is able to distribute workload fairly while ensuring that faculty assignment and organizational goals are a good fit. The system allows the college to plan systematically for the development of junior faculty for specific roles because we can direct investment to their development. Faculty workload is affected by a number of factors. The many activities of the College necessitate that fac-
FACULTY INVESTMENT MODEL
ulty be involved in a number of projects at one time. Faculty practice opportunities require continual upgrading of clinical skills. Practice and research abilities are not evenly distributed among faculty and assignments are made on the basis of ability and interest. This can lead to individual dissatisfaction but does allow for best use of faculty talents. Departmental cooperation is facilitated because faculty effort is translated to an equivalent unit of work. In addition, the College is able to implement dynamic programs in practice, teaching,
79
and scholarship while maintaining reasonable expectations for faculty effort. A necessary tool to assist departments’ administration in this investment assignment process is an interdepartment work format that can be used by the entire administrative group as actual faculty assignments are determined (Figure 3). This form was used in the two sessions attended by administrators to determine who would be assigned to specific activities. Having the sheets as a ready reference enabled the group to note
Figure 3. College of Nursing Rush University definitions and work determination framework faculty role components.
80
MINNICK AND HALSTEAD
when someone was being overassigned and when new persons would need to be recruited. For example, one talented faculty member was suggested as ideal to develop clinical practice activities as well as to complete a research project. Her work allotment indicated that this was impossible. When the faculty member’s preference was used as a guide, it became apparent that recruitment of a new faculty member to invest in practice development would be needed. It was also apparent in the actual assignment process that departmental administrators must be aware of the individual faculty member’s preferences and career plans and be able to articulate them to the entire group. In systems in which this sort of communication between departmental officers and faculty has not taken place, the model will have a secondary benefit of stimulating such discussions. During the faculty assignment phase, the value of several tactical activities was confirmed. The first is that the vision must be shared with the faculty. In year two, we increased the frequency and reach of the message through a variety of small groups and one-to-one contacts. Building a supportive faculty in conjunction with clear expectations and rewards were other actions that contributed to the success of the model’s implementation. In the first year, some modest rewards were available to individual faculty and groups who supported key projects. An important basis for the award structure was attainment of
objectives, not the process used. Finally, building a new accounting report structure is important. We have partially achieved the goal of being able to allocate costs to the goals that are achieved, especially in the areas of research, faculty practice, and professional development, and continue to explore the ways to assess seemingly intangible benefits. Results
After the first full year of implementation, a comparison with the previous year indicated the College achieved a faculty labor savings equivalent to 10 per cent of the FTEs expanded in the previous year. It also enhanced revenue by 3 per cent as a result of increased faculty practice and teaching productivity. Perhaps most importantly, it formed a human capital pool equal to 12 per cent of total faculty FTEs available for new business development and faculty renewal to meet the impending decline of the baby boomers participation in the workforce. The most important results are less tangible. One is our reorientation to thinking of the College as an institution that exists to set and attain new and ever-changing goals in a proactive manner. The second is that administrators and faculty are beginning to see labor and capital resources in a new light. This recognition brings renewed vigor and futuristic thinking to an enterprise that is undergoing enormous challenges and opportunities: nursing education.
References Fisher, D. (1995). Baldrige on campus: The assessment workbook for higher education. New York: Quality Resources. National Association of College and University Business Officers. (1996). Organizational paradigm shifts. Washington, DC: Author. Zemsky, R., & Massy, W. (1990). Cost containment: Committing to a new economic reality. Change, 22, 16-22. The institute for higher education policy. (1999). The tuition puzzle. Washington, DC: Author. Boettcher, J. (1996). Nurse practice centers in academia: An emerging subsystem. Journal of Nursing Education, 35, 63-68.
Broussard, A., Delahoussaye, C., & Poirrier, G. (1996). The practice role in the academic nursing community. Journal of Nursing Education, 35, 82-87. Minnick, A. (2000). Retirement, the nursing workforce and the year 2005. Nursing Outlook, 48, 1-7. Grams, K. M. (1992). Faculty work load formulas in nursing education: A critical theory perspective. Journal of Professional Nursing, 8, 96-104. Hawker, R. W., Braj, B., Campbell, J., Durrant, M., & McLean, M. (1996). Development and application of a computerized workload measurement tool for nurse educators. Canadian Journal of Nursing Administration, 9, 51-66.