Page 21 - Southern PPI Final Report-5 16 19

In order for there to be merit to the process, there must be a means of evaluating each program
based on specific, measurable elements. We used well-established criteria for this purpose. The
proposed criteria are based on the work of Dr. Robert Dickeson and his seminal work,
Prioritizing Academic Programs and Services, which is the most commonly used guide for
conducting academic program reviews. A review of the literature for measuring academic
programs will find that Dickeson’s book is very highly regarded and is the most often cited
source for program prioritization.
There are several clear advantages to why we chose to use Dickeson’s
book. First, as the most recognized source for conducting academic
program reviews, it adds credibility to the process. Second, it provides
us with empirically validated measures that committee members can be
assured are independent and fair. Third, they provide a standard method
of review that can be universally applied to all programs. And lastly, the
measures cover very common factors that are heavily considered by
most colleges and universities in their strategic planning processes.
The process of prioritizing academic programs is probably the most
potentially disruptive effort to undertake at a university given the possibility of reducing or
eliminating low performing but highly prized programs. Hence, it is imperative that the
methodology used be sound. Oftentimes, faculty and committee members are automatically
suspicious of any attempt to measure programs for fear that their program may be eliminated.
Therefore, having a widely used and respected approach for measuring is critical to the
success of academic program prioritization.
Another important facet of our program prioritization is that we are also measuring
administrative programs. Members of the administrative units often do not think of their work
as a program. Therefore, they are often surprised when they are included in the process.
However, there are several reasons why it is very wise for academic leadership to include
them in the review. The most prominent reasons include:

• Faculty tend to believe that administrative programs take up an underserved portion of
the budget; therefore, excluding them could cause faculty to consider the process
unfair.
• Administrative programs are actually an important part of the support apparatus for
academic programs. By including them, there is the opportunity for enhanced
communication, coordination, and cohesion.
• Administrative program reviews are a fruitful exercise to prune ineffective and
inefficient processes. It gives them some “skin in the game” which enhances
credibility of the process.

With all of these factors in mind, the first task for the committees was to review and agree on
the criteria to be used to evaluate programs. To do this, I5O Consulting led a formal process of
reviewing the proposed criteria. Because this is the criteria by which programs will be judged,
it was imperative that the taskforce members have an opportunity to review, understand, and
agree on the criteria to be used. The source of the criteria was explained (from the Dickeson

21 | P a ge S O U T H E R N U N IVE R S IT Y