1.3 Mission Focused Management

Mission Focused Management SoT-1-3-Mission balanced scorecard, senior leadership, delivering value mission focussed management, knowing what you do not know, the how and the what goals, definitions, strategy, quality, mission, expectations, delivering, value, resources, management

If the university was treated like a business, there would be resources to ensure quality control in teaching.
Instructors would have the opportunity (time and resources) to learn more about teaching at a cognitive science level; to understand learning.
There should be resources to assist with improving the necessary skills required to excel as a teacher.

We are funded to do whaaat?????

In theory, teaching is one of the expectations of almost all post-secondary education institutions. This institutional organization is the system that you plug into, that is what you are becoming a part of. Some things you may not have control over but others you might.

If a balanced scorecard (ASQ Balanced Scorecard, Kaplan and Norton 1992) approach is used for the institution, teaching would be one of the top, strategic objectives, along with research. Depending on strengths, competitive advantages, and other strategic goals, there can be other items on the balanced scorecard. The trick is to have relatively few and then have all of the operating units within the organization aligned and moving together based on the balanced scorecard. A cascading balanced scorecard approach can be used throughout the organization, where each, more granular, scorecard is matched and driven by the one(s) above. Significant or substantial efforts should align with the goals and objectives; why they are done. The concept of mission focused management is what is behind the balanced scorecard and ‘good’ strategic planning.

What is the mission? Then set appropriate standards and expectations for the goals. Next, figure out what it takes to go from the current state to the desired state. Complete and execute the tasks required by the ‘mission’.

The mission steers the organization and helps set the priorities, where resources will be allocated and what activities will be undertaken. It is possible to have more than one mission, but it is not wise to have more than two or three, perhaps four, and only if you can clearly articulate and execute each; dealing with conflicts between mission demands. Compromises are not pretty and it is easily possible to create a situation where everyone fails, none succeed.

It is usually not possible to have equally valued missions and one needs to be the priority and weights are used; hence the concept of a balanced scorecard. The technique helps identify the proportions of the organization’s assets used or directed toward each ‘mission’.

What would it look like if a mission focused management perspective is taken toward teaching?

Some thoughts are...

There would be a dedicated, VP or Assoc. Provost for Teaching. Perhaps even a VP for Quality.

This role would not be part of a larger portfolio, but a single mission. Just as many institutions have a VP or Assoc. Provost for Research, teaching on campus should be important enough to warrant someone’s full time attention.
Cascading down, there would be a dedicated Associate Dean for Teaching in each Faculty without other portfolio items. Within a Faculty, there is sufficient with respect to teaching to warrant full time attention!
Cascading down yet again, each department would have an Associate Chair for Teaching with some voice and influence with respect to yearly reviews and teaching practice. The Assoc. Chair can mentor new faculty (and sessionals) and provide timely advice and support for issues ranging from small to large. This role can provide some degree of quality assurance function; assuring that minimum expectations are met for teaching quality.

A two-pronged strategy would exist for high quality teaching (to the level desired by the institution).

For the ‘how’ and the ‘what’. Well stated goals and definitions are needed to set expectations of both instructors and students.

It is often assumed that faculty members know how to plan and design curriculum, to conduct reviews and make changes. Why? What courses and training have they had in these cognitive skills?

Short courses and guidance should be mandated to faculty members on these topics, as well as quality management principles which are relevant. Quality methods do not restrict innovation and freedom per se; however, they can set minimum standards, expectations, and avoid less than desired quality.
The majority of instructors are not trained in process evaluations and analysis. A small team of process evaluation experts would be available on campus to help departments and programs do the ‘big’ program and curriculum reviews.
The average faculty member is not trained or experienced with continuous improvement, change management, risk management, or implementation science. A centralized resource would exist to help departments and programs plan and manage change.

Department and program level resources.

There would be an appropriately trained teaching resource individual per department or program. Their job would be to work with instructors on yearly or bi-annual reviews of teaching and assessment methods, course design, etc. There are enough courses in a program that if serious, sincere reviews are undertaken, the individual will be busy.
There would be an appropriately trained resource within the department or program to help with the actual mechanics of course preparation and materials when a course gets a major overall, re-design.

Centralized resources.

There would be one or more of what was once called ‘flying squadrons’ of course preparation experts that would work as a team out of a central resource, loaned and dedicated to help with major program or course re-designs. These individuals and teams would be multi-skilled and not assigned other conflicting tasks. They would be able to focus and dedicate their efforts to the task at hand. Time would be given between assignments for other tasks, learning, etc.
Sufficient resources would also be available to support peer-review and course evaluations; the outside arm’s length perspective.
There would be sufficient technology support. More and more reliance is being placed upon the technology used to facilitate and deliver courses. The appropriate technology should be where it is needed and work when it is needed; along with the appropriate instructor training.
In today's world, there should be someone, dedicated to the task, reporting to the VP for Teaching on institutional teaching technology and probably someone in the same role at the Faculty level. If high quality teaching is an objective, it is worth the investment.
Similarly, there should be someone focused on instructional methodology and assessment methods - institutional and Faculty level.
Higher education institutions are multi-million dollar operations and should act accordingly with the appropriate strategic and tactical support for their priorities. They are not neighborhood, Ma and Pa convenience stores.

1.3 Mission Focused Management

We are funded to do whaaat?????

What would it look like if a mission focused management perspective is taken toward teaching?

Further reading