University Structure

May 21

The subcommittee met to review the data that has been collected and to arrive at a consensus on general considerations for the task force; and to provide input on campus communication from the perspective of this subcommittee. Discussion points included:

  • A general approval of the information to be circulated around campus, with a need to stress goals of the task force around customer service.
  • This meeting included in-depth conversation on several structure models with pros and cons for each.
  • It was decided that many of the suggestions/concerns needed additional input from Lynn Johnson, VPUO.

Apr. 23

The subcommittee met to review the work of the subgroups and review the matrix of other institutions’ structures.

Discussion points included:

  • Discussion of the CSU structures document. For our purposes, CSU as a whole will be considered decentralized, though there are pockets of centralization with in colleges and units. Currently, a college or division can set up any structure that they choose. There are certain aspects or transactions that rise to a central level. No reporting line centralization. Approvals may have one line of authority and reporting would have a different one.
  • Conversation around objectives in the matrix document. This document will begin to help the subcommittee evaluate the various types of structures that have been identified in the research. These objectives have been pulled from a number of conversations around needs of the university and observations from peer institutions. The main thrust of the objectives to measure by are:
    1. Internal controls to assure compliance and consistency
    2. Customer service
    3. Financial accommodations and capacity
  • Discussion about risk level in smaller areas because they do not perform certain tasks on a regular basis and how infrequency may be seen as less risk, in fact it creates more risk because they don’t have people with specialized training. Discussion about business centers with several “trees” taking care of certain areas. This allows for flexibility. If a service center is considered like a “tree” and that “tree” becomes overburdened, they can reassign (move other trees) from within the forest to assist in the load.
  • Conversation about School of Mines. They looked at their structure and wanted to move to a level of service centers but ended up with more hybrid. Key was doing systems mapping first and making decisions about structure after that. Discussion about how system process comes into this.
  • Decentralized may work well if the training of the specialized functions comes from the central office. If training is available and required for those functions. Centralized pools might still allow easier growth. Centralized allows ability to provide for colleges who don’t have resources. There isn’t really required training.
  • Additional considerations of how our work intersects with the other subcommittees. Specifically:
    1. Mapping subcommittee: how do lines of approval differ from lines of reporting? Dotted lines are not effective. It creates a situation of departments battling each other.
    2. Best practices subcommittee: are best practices universal, or are they influenced by the particular model? Best practice may drive structure.
    3. Skill and training subcommittee: what impact does each model have on the subsequent importance of skills and training? With a decentralized structure, skill sets and training become essential for that structure to be successful. Reporting lines would dictate who is responsible for ensuring proper training of those within the reporting line.

Outcomes or next steps for the subcommittee:

  • Members will review the communication plan and the proposed FAQs and provide feedback to the Chair.

Members will review the matrix objectives and provide feedback.


Mar. 26

The subcommittee met to review subgroups work and determine what other help may be needed to round out the scope of the deliverables.

Discussion points included:

  • A review of the outcomes from the initial task force meeting began a discussion around significant changes to structure will be very painful, but that shouldn’t steer us away from those changes if they are deemed to meet the needs of the University.
  • Discussion about the need for additional communication to the task force.
  • Review of what has been done to date with peer institution reviews. Multiple institutions have been through a similar process with varying success in the past 10 years. Implementation is where most failures seem to have occurred.
  • CSU’s various structures across colleges and units have been mapped. There is quite a bit of disparity between departments.
  • Overall review and discussion of information gathered. Specialist v. generalist discussion and issues of training. Benefit of a specialist is that then the supervisor doesn’t necessarily have to be fully trained in the area.

Outcomes or next steps for the subcommittee:

  • Members will review the CSU structures document prior to the next meeting.
  • Continued information gathering.

Feb. 19

The subcommittee welcomed new members and reviewed what peer institutions have been contacted to date.

Discussion points included:

  • Review progress since last meeting. Multiple responses have been received and some telephone conversations have been completed. After all data has been collected the committee will initiate a deeper dive into some of the information received.
  • Discussion about building a matrix of our current structure so that we could review unit structures, what works and what doesn’t, and pros and cons for each structure. Self-reflection may help drive us better than waiting for responses from other universities.

Outcomes or next steps for the subcommittee:

  • The survey process should be completed by end of March to review and compile collected data.
  • Members will analyze and determine any institutions where we’d like to take a closer look at by April 15th.

Subgroups were formed and those leading them will work on rounding out members for the groups.


Jan. 22

The university structure subcommittee had its initial meeting to determine the scope of what it has been tasked with and who could best help carry out the work.

Discussion points included:

  • Confirmation that subcommittee members understood their charge and scope of work: identify alternative structures and pluses and minuses that go with each and make a recommendation on what may serve CSU best. The subcommittee intends to identify several alternative structures and structure elements for consideration at CSU which balance risk vs. effectiveness. We want to consider structures which minimize risk, sustain CSU, support effective university-wide communication, create confidence in our people and systems, and empower employees to do their best work.
  • Discussion about a suggested approach – looking at CSU’s peer institutions, plus any others that may be identified to review types of structures currently in use. Discussion about needing to know what systems had most seriously failed and why the need for change. Significant errors caused external action – how can we avoid those moving forward?
  • Centralized system may offer advantages, and we need to clearly see where CSU is now and understand our current structure to make the best recommendation moving forward. The goal is to empower people to do their best work regardless of structure.
  • Discussion on what other institutions we need to survey or review who have already been through a similar process.

Outcomes or next steps for the subcommittee:

  • Members will develop a series of questions and conduct survey or interview with the identified peer institutions. Presumably there will be multiple structures for each system that will need to be captured in a consistent manner for evaluation.
  • Committee members to use that template to contact counterparts with sufficient time to complete interviews and have data and responses for next subcommittee meeting; this should include different layers, centralized and decentralized. There are 17 total identified institutions that will be contacted.

Members will contact other identified staff members across campus to join the subcommittee.