Home / Forward

Task Force Notes and Reports

Task force final proposal

Issued to Dean Hillman in March 2018, the final proposal of the faculty task force discusses motivations, implications, and solutions of the W. P. Carey Forward initiative, including sections covering management, operations, space requirements, and possible next steps.

As a supplement to the final proposal, the faculty task force prepared a report examining topics of concern for faculty development, covering onboarding, professional growth, faculty mentoring, culture, performance reviews, recognition, and peer-to-peer research in the scholarship of teaching.

Task force progress report

Following months of research and meetings, the task force presented updates and its recommendations to Dean Hillman for review. Learn more about proposed next steps in the W. P. Carey Forward Initiative:

Latest updates

Faculty task force

  1. Introductions
  2. Review of task force charge
    1. Area leader and associated national/internal search
    2. Decide if “Professionals in Practice” should be the ongoing moniker; recommend alternates if not
    3. Make recommendations on space planning
    4. Work with department chairs to establish roles for discipline-specific teaching leads who will be the chief liaisons with the research units
    5. Make recommendations on the matrix structure to retain strong discipline identification and rich connections with research units
    6. Set priorities for teaching development workshops
    7. Begin working on a mentoring program for all new teachers (and related onboarding activities)
  3. Open discussion of task force process model for workload management
  4. AACSB Seats – analytics summit and teaching effectiveness seminar
  1. Old business
    1. ACSB seats — teaching effectiveness seminar (Mike Goul)
    2. Meeting times (Mike Goul)
    3. Task force process model for workload management (All)
  2. New business
    1. Proposed overall vision and opportunity for the group (Reynold Byers)
    2. Questionnaire/survey (Alexia Shentoff)
  3. Open forum

The task force is meeting regularly. Submit your feedback online.

The following subcommittees are also meeting regularly:

  • Space
  • Development
  • Administration/management
  • Governance issues

The subcommittee and TF are closely examining:

  • Visits to sample workspaces at ASU and the community for the renovation of the 4th floor of BA
  • The nature of leadership and titles for the 4th floor faculty
  • Areas of concentration for professional development
  • High-level goals to be achieved through this process (e.g., how we can better engage without students and support our faculty)
  • Implementing a process for sharing highlights and progress with the W. P. Carey community

Resources:

The task force is meeting regularly. Submit your feedback online.

The following subcommittees are also meeting regularly:

  • Space
  • Development
  • Administration/Management
  • Governance Issues

The subcommittees and TF are closely examining the following issues:

  • Development: continues to work through ideas for: Onboarding, Professional Growth, Faculty Mentoring, Culture, Performance Reviews, Recognition.
  • Governance: continuing to work through group identity, and concepts around: Scheduling, Hiring, Research Evaluation, Teaching Evaluation. Providing parameters and understanding how annual faculty evaluations will be conducted.
  • Management: work of this committee is contingent upon progress from other committees. Have requested meeting with Kay Faris and Michele Pfund to discuss the job description they will craft for the new lead teaching faculty position.
  • Space: group is collaborating in a blueprinting exercise (Nov. 6) with representatives from each department to conceptualize and capture the needs of each department, and take those into consideration for overall 4th floor BA design.
  • The task force will be meeting with Dean Hillman on Wednesday, Nov. 8 for an update on progress, and chance to ask questions/guidance from the dean.

    Resources:

    The task force is meeting regularly. Submit your feedback online.

    The following subcommittees are also meeting regularly:

    • Space
    • Development
    • Administration/Management
    • Governance Issues

    The task force met with Dean Hillman on Wednesday, Nov. 8 for a discussion on progress and to provide an opportunity for task force members to ask questions/seek guidance from the Dean. Along with specific questions by task force members, the subcommittees discussed where they were in their deliberations, and issues that they wanted the Dean’s feedback on were surfaced.

    Overall, the discussion addressed the complexities of the W. P. Carey Forward initiative particularly with respect to space — and the need to get this right. Given the complexities, a phased approach was discussed for the transformation plan, including delaying the timeline of physical space development in order to create the best and most effective outcomes for the design and for meeting the needs of those using the space. Among items for subcommittee discussion, it was brought out that if there were a delay, it may be best that reporting lines are not altered until progress on space could be realized. However, it was discussed that the phasing in of other task force initiatives such as investments in teaching excellence should occur as they are finalized — in addition to task force efforts on evaluations, workload, rewards/recognition, service models, and on-boarding/mentoring for new faculty.

    Each subcommittee and the task force as a whole are conducting ongoing work on the W. P. Carey Forward agenda. Subcommittees continue to meet with school administration to determine best next steps for the transformation plan, including a focus on designing the role and responsibilities of the new lead teaching faculty position.

    Please direct any questions regarding the new timeline for space development to your Task Force representative, Mike Goul, or Dean Hillman.

    Resources:

    The task force is meeting regularly. Submit your feedback online.

    The subcommittees and task force are closely examining the following issues:

    • Changes in Timelines: Based on adjustments to the timeline for the initiative announced by Dean Hillman on Nov. 13, an updated timeline for the task force and its sub-committees is under discussion.
    • Development: continues to work through ideas for: Onboarding, Professional Growth, Faculty Mentoring, Culture, Performance Reviews, Recognition.
    • Governance: continuing to work through group identity, and concepts around: Scheduling, Hiring, Research Evaluation, Teaching Evaluation. Providing parameters and understanding how annual faculty evaluations will be conducted.
    • Space: group conducted a blueprinting exercise (Nov. 6) with representatives from each department to conceptualize and capture the needs of each department, and take those into consideration for overall 4th floor BA design. Additional work is planned to refine the outcome.
    • The next task force meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, Nov. 22.

    Please direct any questions regarding the new timeline for space development to your Task Force representative, Mike Goul, or Dean Hillman.

    Resources:

    The task force is meeting regularly. Submit your feedback online.

    The following subcommittees are also meeting regularly:

    • Space
    • Development
    • Administration/Management
    • Governance Issues

    The subcommittees and the task force overall have been working on finalizing deliverables for the “state of the initiative” report. Each subcommittee — Space, Development, Administration/Management, and Governance — will submit separate sections of ideas and concepts to share with Dean Hillman about their respective areas. The report is due Dec. 1, and will allow the Dean time to consider options put forth by each group, and provide prompt feedback, in addition to the task force seeking feedback broadly from the WPC community. Today’s meeting discussed each section, and allowed for the group to offer feedback to each other. Additionally, Dr. Goul provided some details about policies and rules established by the Provost’s Office that may impact the task force.

    The Task Force will meet again on Dec. 8 before taking a brief winter break recess.

    Please direct any questions regarding the new timeline for space development to your task force representative, Mike Goul, or Dean Hillman.

    Resources:

    The task force is meeting regularly. Submit your feedback online.

    The following subcommittees are also meeting regularly:

    • Space
    • Development
    • Administration/Management
    • Governance Issues

    The subcommittees and the task force overall delivered their “state of the initiative” progress report last week. This week the committees have shared the report with their respective departments.

    The Governance subcommittee has been working on concepts related to budget categorization.

    The Space subcommittee has submitted a brief to the Dean’s office, outlining their request to collaborate with ASU’s School of Design. The Dean’s office approved the request and has asked for a specific plan, including any deliverables that may impact the March 2 deadline. Preliminary workspace use blueprinting results have come in and a final report will be provided to the task force soon.

    Additionally, Dr. Goul asked the task force how they would like to start sharing the progress report with the overall W. P. Carey community. The task force will deliberate and make a recommendation.

    This is the last task force meeting before taking a brief winter break recess. The task force will resume weekly meetings in January 2018.

    Please direct any questions regarding the new timeline for space development to your task force representative, Mike Goul, or Dean Hillman.

    Resources:

    The task force is meeting regularly. Submit your feedback online.

    The following subcommittees are also meeting regularly:

    • Space
    • Development
    • Administration/Management
    • Governance Issues

    The task force reconvened after a brief winter holiday, to resume their work. The meeting discussion covered the following three areas: the upcoming Coffee Chat, confirming the calendar for ongoing meetings, and providing subcommittee updates.

    The task force encourages all faculty to attend the upcoming Coffee Chat on Feb. 1, hoping for an excellent turnout. They will be working within their individual departments to encourage attendance and participation in the conversation.

    Subcommittees will continue to meet as necessary. Weekly meetings of the entire force, as well as subcommittees will resume immediately. Group task force meetings will now occur on Friday afternoons.

    The task force begins engagement with the School of Design in the coming weeks as well, working with Mike Nixon as their Dean’s Office liaison for space needs.

    Please direct any questions regarding the new timeline for space development to your task force representative, Mike Goul, or Dean Hillman.

    Resources:

    The task force is meeting regularly. Submit your feedback online.

    The following subcommittees are also meeting regularly:

    • Space
    • Development
    • Administration/Management
    • Governance Issues

    The task force discussed the upcoming Coffee Chat (Feb. 1) and their materials and approach for presentations. Task force members will be working within their individual departments to encourage attendance and participation in the conversation.

    Subcommittees will continue to meet as necessary.

    The task force hosted students from the School of Design to begin their assessment of space planning. Their preliminary results will be presented on Feb. 7; final results on Feb. 28.

    Mike Goul provided materials and hosted a substantive conversation regarding AACSB requirements and accreditation processes. Group delved into how new activities proposed by the task force may have impact on faculty evaluation processes and AACSB sufficiency criteria — as it relates to the impact and quality of education and the school’s achievement of its mission.

    Please direct any questions regarding the new timeline for space development to your task force representative, Mike Goul, or Dean Hillman.

    Resources:

    Agenda

    1. Welcome and opening remarks
    2. Discuss task force progress
    3. Subcommittee updates
      1. Space
      2. Governance
      3. Management
      4. Development
    4. Open forum/Q & A

    Download the entire task force presentation

    W. P. Carey Forward task force charges:

    • Area leader and associated national/internal search
    • Decide if “Professionals in Practice” should be the ongoing moniker; recommend alternates if not
    • Make recommendations on space planning
    • Work with department chairs to establish roles for discipline-specific teaching leads who will be the chief liaisons with the research units
    • Make recommendations on the matrix structure to retain strong discipline identification and rich connections with research units
    • Set priorities for teaching development workshops
    • Begin working on a mentoring program for all new teachers (and related onboarding activities)

    Welcome and opening remarks

    Mike Fruitger, task force lead representative:
    The purpose of this Coffee Chat is to share the task force's progress and gain feedback and engagement from the faculty. The task force's role is to represent the school as a whole, and therefore need input and feedback.

    Task force formed in September, represents the non-tenure track faculty at large, created to respond to the changes laid out by the dean. Initiative was broken down into several focus areas: space planning, matrix organization structure for non-tenure track faculty, guidance/establishment of lead roles, provide input on leader for this new unit, name of the group, priorities for teaching development, mentorship and onboarding. The task force decided to create four working committees (space, governance, management, and development) to address these issues. The task force assumed that this Carey Forward initiative impacts approximately 90 non-tenure track (NTT) faculty and roughly 45 faculty associates, as well as additional staff and students.

    Subcommittee updates

    Space — Melissa Samuelson, subcommittee lead
    The Space subcommittee is tasked to make recommendations on space planning. This is complex, as they must address the needs of the NTT faculty, staff and students (with students as the key area of focus). Space development must consider a multiplicity of needs: space needed to meet with students/colleagues, quiet workspace for planning/research/writing, co-location of staff/tutors/TAs and resources.

    The subcommittee has conducted the following activities to aid their recommendation process:

    • Site visits: Examined open office concepts to learn about opportunities to design the 4th floor of BA (Co+Hoots, SkySong, Department of English).
    • Research and process blueprinting: mapped out workflow and needs.
    • ASU Herberger School Partnership: Working with faculty in School of Design, taking this project into the classroom and ask graduate students to create options and recommendations for academic open space planning.

    Space reconfiguration has a variety of challenges – examples include:

    1. Meeting the diverse needs of the NTT faculty
    2. Fourth floor in BA is likely not sufficient for all space demands
    3. There may be student confusion in locating faculty
    4. There might be limited access to department and staff
    5. There is a need to address related issues of academic identity
    6. The question of budget

    Governance — Reynold Byers, subcommittee lead
    The Governance subcommittee recommends a design for the stipulated matrix organization, and suggests how the NTT faculty would move forward, as the NTT faculty are still members of departments, but also members of the newly established teaching group.

    Highlights from the subcommittees recommendations:

    • The adoption of a teaching area lead position — to represent NTT faculty at highest level within W. P. Carey.
    • Functional liaisons would represent the faculty in each individual department/collaborate with department and teaching group.
    • Staff support still necessary, analyzed needs but more work needed to decide how many support staff are needed.
    • Solutions Center — uncertain of the intention of the center — needs more detail (therefore not part of task force analysis).
    • Collaborative working relationship with academic departments: scheduling, hiring and retention, evaluation on research, teaching evaluations, service assignments.
    • Curriculum: owned by the departments. Presumes that NTT would be present in decision-making.
    • Budget: still to be determined, looking for solutions to support faculty development, summer/overload pay.

    Management — John Eaton, subcommittee lead
    The Management subcommittee will make recommendations to identify and articulate attributes of the Teaching Area Lead. The subcommittee recognizes that this is an important position; the school must conduct a search for the best fit, with an anticipated hire for Fall 2019. This Lead will help determine the discipline area leads, set tone and direction, has large vision and must work in a cross-departmental fashion, to champion for the new NTT unit. Progress Report goes into detail on the specific qualities and skills recommended to the school for the Teaching Area Lead position. Most importantly, this person must really care about the student experience.

    Development — Alexia Shonteff, subcommittee lead
    The Development subcommittee focused on recommendations for the following: onboarding, professional development, aligning AACSB with performance evaluations, improving culture/community. Many structures are in place at ASU/W. P. Carey, but the subcommittee identified opportunities for improvement or design towards NTT faculty support. Faculty mentoring, recognition, and the name of group have also been considered (names suggested: Catalyst, AU (Gold), Omnex – still TBD).

    The subcommittee has applied additional focus to exploring AACSB credentialing as it compares to faculty evaluations — suggested that an additional personnel committee might need to form to follow-through with specifics.

    Open forum notes

    Question: The space planning team looked at English Department — what was it like?
    Response (Melissa Samuelson): Open space, NTT are in interior space, TT faculty in exterior offices. Engaged with faculty to discuss what worked for them, what W. P. Carey can learn.

    Question: Is there a misalignment between accreditation and current needs?
    Response (Alexia Shonteff, Mike Frutiger): Response (Alexia Shonteff, Mike Frutiger): AACSB credentials W. P. Carey, describes percentages of research and service, review of faculty with ranking system. NTT are very active and would prefer to have more analysis regarding their activities and how they may be reviewed in accordance with AACSB. AACSB classifications are varied, but their classifications don’t encompass all of the activities of the NTT, but the performance evaluations do not either, so want to bring it all under review and align dept/W. P. Carey/ASU/AACSB simultaneously. Would like for all aspects of service to be measured and valued.

    Question: Engaging with Herberger for design work — what is the timeline?
    Response (Melissa Samuelson): Preliminary responses in the next week, and final results in the next three weeks. Will review it all with the students.

    Follow-up (Anne Nguyen): Shared that this is a new venture for every university, has not been done before, thanked the task force for their work.

    Follow-up response (Melissa Samuelson): Accentuating the benefit of working with Herberger that those individuals who understand both open space design and academic design/needs. Consider “good” space to really serve and support students, and may need to examine other spaces for those needs.

    Question: Considering awards for faculty to achieve — “master teacher” as example – explain?
    Response (Alexia Shonteff): Many suggestions are new. So much great work is happening within the school, it would be good to expand recognition process.

    Mike Goul thanked the task force, and acknowledged their hard work and dedication.

    Adjourned: 8:50 a.m.

    Estimated number of attendees — 130: in-person: 125; WebEx login: 5

    Administrative task force

    1. Name of task force
    2. Nominations for staff Ex officio for the faculty (PiP) task force
    3. Buckets of work
      1. List out possible work streams
      2. How do we spread out the workload?
    4. What if statements
    5. Other items
    1. Staff Ex officio for faculty (PiP) task force: Angie Saric and Sarah Canales
    2. Update from first faculty task force meeting
    3. Non-tenured faculty: Why is this change important to me?
      1. “This Change will stimulate faculty-wide sharing of best practices for delivering high quality educational experiences to our growing student body. With rapid changes in educational technology, the advent of learning analytics methods to complement traditional pedagogical research and the excitement and real-life experience afforded through more frequent interaction with business practice, non-tenured faculty have an opportunity to focus on innovations that enable the school to lead the world through a business education redefined focused strategy.”
    4. What if statements — continuation from last meeting
    5. Other items

    Goal: “This Change will stimulate faculty-wide sharing of best practices for delivering high quality educational experiences to our growing student body. With rapid changes in educational technology, the advent of learning analytics methods to complement traditional pedagogical research and the excitement and real-life experience afforded through more frequent interaction with business practice, non-tenured faculty have an opportunity to focus on innovations that enable W. P. Carey to lead the world through a business education redefined focused strategy.”

    1. Faculty (PiP) task force update: Angie Saric and Sarah Canales
    2. Review a couple open office examples: Robin Gonzalez
    3. Review academic staff job duties — start reviewing where tasks will be done in new structure
      1. Review academic staff duties across academic units
      2. Develop job responsibilities out of the examples provided to support the “9th” unit
    4. What if statements — continuation from last meeting
    5. Other items

    Goal: “This Change will stimulate faculty-wide sharing of best practices for delivering high quality educational experiences to our growing student body. With rapid changes in educational technology, the advent of learning analytics methods to complement traditional pedagogical research and the excitement and real-life experience afforded through more frequent interaction with business practice, non-tenured faculty have an opportunity to focus on innovations that enable W. P. Carey to lead the world through a business education redefined focused strategy.”

    1. Faculty (PiP) task force update: Angie Saric and Sarah Canales
    2. Review a couple open office examples: Robin Gonzalez
    3. Review academic staff job duties — start reviewing where tasks will be done in new structure
      1. Review academic staff duties across academic units
      2. Develop job responsibilities out of the examples provided to support the “9th” unit
    4. What if statements — continuation from last meeting
    5. Other items
    1. Faculty (PiP) task force update: Angie Saric and Sarah Canales
    2. Continued discussion about formative discussions from Faculty task force
    3. Other items