Strategic Proposal

Resources and Guidelines for New Academic Program Development
 

 

 

The process outlined below is designed to offer resources and support to faculty and departments exploring ideas for new academic programs.  Simpler programs may not need the resources mentioned in Stage IV and can proceed directly to the Curriculum Committee.  However, more complicated proposals (particularly those involving substantial investments of the College, e.g., faculty or infrastructure) ought to take advantage of the resources of the College to better justify and evaluate their ideas.

 

Non-academic programs may be pursued within the appropriate Division of the College.

 

Stage I: Fledgling Idea (led by individuals or departments)

A.     Individuals or departments generate ideas for new program

B.     Preliminary investigations are made concerning feasibility (involving anecdotal evidence)

1.      Resources needed and currently available (faculty, infrastructure, etc.)

2.      External market: Will this program attract students?

3.      Internal market: Will this program retain students?

4.      Institutional appropriateness: Does this integrate effectively with existing programs and the College generally

5.      Consistency with Mission

C.     Individuals or departments determine whether to proceed to stage II

 

Stage II: Circulation of Idea

A.     Idea is floated out to the parties who would need to either work on the development of the idea or be in support of it if it were to come to fruition

B.     Members of this group decide whether to submit the preliminary proposal to the Director of the Center for Academic Innovation

C.     Group produces a preliminary proposal to submit to the Director of the Center for Academic Innovation that includes:

 

1.      Potential course(s) or program

2.      Participating faculty

3.      Scheduling issues

4.      Credential issues

 

D.     The Director of the Center for Academic Innovation submits the proposal to the President’s Cabinet

 

Stage III:  Determination made by the Cabinet whether to proceed to stage IV and engage the resources of the Office of Institutional Research, Center for Academic Innovation, and any other relevant office.

 

Stage IV: Research

A.     Determine concretely whether we have the appropriate resources available in order to make the idea work

B.     Determine if incorporating additional resources is worthwhile

1.      New faculty

2.      Technology or other infrastructure such as lab facilities

3.      Marketing materials

C.     Evaluate the success of similar programs at other institutions

D.     Estimate the economic benefits of the program to the College

E.      Estimate the advantages that the program would present for our students

F.      Complete a Program proposal

 

Stage V: Submit to Curriculum Committee

A.     Curriculum Committee (and Academic Affairs Council) will determine whether the proposal needs to return to stage IV or should be forwarded to stage VI (Note:  The Curriculum Committee will need to develop an appropriate form for new academic program proposals, particularly if they involve hiring additional faculty)

 

Stage VI: Implementation

A.     Determine how to promote the program

B.     Develop program literature and web resources

C.     Finalize administrative procedures and personnel

D.     Make program available to students

 

Cost-benefit analysis:

 

The costs of this proposal vary with the number and type of new programs submitted.  They involve the time of individuals in the Office of Institutional Research and Center for Academic Innovation, but we do not believe that the proposal requires hiring additional personnel.  Benefits would similarly vary depending upon the program.

 

Rationale:

 

Saint Mary's College has never had a process in place to support the development of new academic programs.  In general, this failing has led to stasis in our academic programs, as established majors and minors tinker with their requirements.  The Contingency Plan and the Strategic Plan argue that the College should more effectively explore new academic programs to generate enrollment and revenue.

 

To promote new programs, we need to reduce the number of “false positives” and “false negatives”.  That is, we should minimize the likelihood that the College engages in a new academic program that does not generate enrollment and revenue, and we should minimize the likelihood that the College fails to add a program that could have generated enrollment and revenue.  Therefore, this proposal tries to find a middle ground that encourages potential proposals and yet also demands some evidence that the new academic program could reasonably be expected to succeed. 

 

The proposal recognizes that such enrollment and revenue generation is necessarily long-term, not short-term.  New academic programs will often require hiring additional faculty – a substantial immediate cost – but will not generate compensating enrollment and revenue for a period of years.  Hence, the College should not rush decisions on new academic programs in the belief that they can provide immediate relief for fiscal woes.  However, we would be negligent if we failed to attend to such long-term opportunities for institutional health and growth.  This proposal should move the College forward in supporting the development of exciting and productive new academic programs.