Transcript Document

CALS 8/21/14
Shane Burgess, Vice Provost & Dean
State of CALS
State of AZ
Never Settle/RCM
Leadership goals for semester
State of CALS
State of AZ
Never Settle/RCM
Leadership goals for semester
PERMANENT BASE SALARIES FOR INSTRUCTION AND RESEARCH
FY12
1/7/2012 (ERE paid
centrally)
FY13
FY14
FY15
FY16
FY17
FY18
FY19
SUM
($1,883,907)
$310,241 ($215,415) ($763,250) ($1,215,483)
Today (ERE added to
colleges in FY14)
($27,001) $508,183
Already committed
($343,206)
($238,186) ($186,832)
($73,124) ($841,348)
$164,977
$594,311 $1,058,833
$1,599,417 $3,417,538
$177,491
$181,041
$184,662
$188,355
($12,514)
$413,270
$874,171
$1,411,062
$1,137,003$1,895,004
Available for new hires
ERE increase 2% annually
on $8,874,559
Available for new hires if
ERE increase
RCM Reserve 3-5% OF
$37,900,086 by FY19?
Increase or decrease due to
CALS' T/R performamce ?
?
$832,497 $1,245,665 $1,672,541 $4,231,885
?
?
?
College BUDGETED TEMPORARY FUNDS
FY15
T&R
$2,569,999
FY16
T&R
$1,440,033
FY17
T&R
$1,664,735
FY18
T&R
$1,989,049
FY19
T&R
$2,402,217
FY15
Extension
T&R
$1,731,234
$2,569,999
FY16
Extension
T&R
($192,044)
$1,440,033
FY17
Extension
T&R
($86,267)
$1,664,735
FY18
Extension
T&R
$62,167
$1,989,049
FY19
Extension
T&R
$209,054
$2,402,217
January 7, 2013
College-level temporary commitments
Temporary commitments are temporary.
Temporary funds are temporary.
We can’t expect to solve permanent issues with temporary
funds—we need to find permanent funds to do so or solve the
problem another way.
6
State Perm Dollars/student
$25,000
$20,000
$15,000
$10,000
$5,000
$0
00
01
02
03
04
05
10
11
12
13
14
T/C track faculty and other Appointed Professionals
300
250
200
150
T/C track
100
Other APs
50
0
00
01
02
03
04
05
10
11
12
13
14
State of CALS
State of AZ
Never Settle/RCM
Leadership goals for semester
http://www.azleg.gov/jlbc.htm
http://www.azleg.gov/jlbc/K-12InflationFundingLawsuitUpdateR.pdf
State Balance Sheet Impact
FY 2015
• Conclusion of the Dept of Child Safety Special Session: projected FY 2015 General Fund
ending balance of $130M, based on January’s Finance Advisory Committee (FAC) forecast.
• However, General Fund revenue collections are below $55M below January forecast.
• FY 2015 projected ending balance is $96M.
• If July 11 Superior Court K-12 Litigation “base level reset” ruling stands, the FY 2015
balance would become as low as $(220)M.
• If the Court ultimately to concurs with the plaintiff’s K-12 Litigation - Reset and Back
Payments the FY 2015 balance would become as low as $(473)M.
FY 2016
• Even without the K-12 litigation, the FY 2016 budget was already projected to have a
shortfall.
• At the end of the Special Session, this was low as $(295)M.
• The second year of “reset” could take this to $(932)M.
• A second year of back payments would then take the budget balance to $(1.4)B.
Budget Stabilization Fund
• The ending balance estimates do not include the projected $459 million in the Budget
Stabilization Fund
http://www.azleg.gov/jlbc/K-12InflationFundingLawsuitUpdateR.pdf
State of CALS
State of AZ
Never Settle/RCM
Leadership goals for semester
Growth without additional state investment
“UA administrators will now have to take a new
approach……recruit more out-of-state students……focus
on entrepreneurship…”
“Along with seeking other revenue sources, efficiency will
be key…..”
“…administrators, faculty and staff will constantly have to
reevaluate where they can improve in saving money …to
increase the amount of money that goes into the core
mission”
‘It’s a new day….we’re constantly going to be surveying
ways to redirect resources to our education and research
mission”
UA Business Cost Savings & Efficiency FY15--$5.5M permanent
savings:
Facilities Management:
$1.0M reduction in temporary employee expenses
$0.2M reduction in employee overtime expenditures
$1.05M reduction in utilities costs due to:
Aggressive insulation of steam pipes ($0.5M)
Raising the chilled water temperature ($0.3M)
Replacing air handler filters ($0.25M)
Credit Card Services Fee: $3.2M from implementation of credit card service fee—makes
UA consistent with ASU & NAU existing practices
Savings from prior years:
• utilities gas contract renegotiation—annual savings estimated for FY14 and future
years @ $1.3M
• multiple refinance & refunding of system revenue bonds during the last 3 years which
will result in ~$15M University debt service savings over the next 20 years.
CALS
Cost savings will be a continual goal
and these savings will be diverted into
the critical TR and CES missions
There are “Revenue Responsibility Center Units (RCUs)”
and “Cost RCUs”.
CALS is the RCU; CALS’ units are not.
CALS is a Revenue RCU
Budget Cuts will happen to RCUs
RCM is T&R ONLY.
The vast majority of revenue is from teaching.
The CES is not part of RCM
The CES is a “tub-on-its-own-bottom” and must pay its
costs i.e. new space, activities, increases to base costs.
How CALS allocates funds internally is its own business
We can do very well under RCM
RCM rewards entrepreneurs: CALS is already
entrepreneurial in many places.
CALS’ future internal budgeting system is to be defined
this semester and this will be a shared governance
process.
CALS’ internal budgeting system will be activity-based
but not RCM
• Cost centers must have a continual drive to greater
efficiency and effectiveness.
• All costs must accounted for.
• Absolute and relative budget cuts will happen to
some units as early as FY16.
• This money will move to other units.
• Budgets will be aligned with mission-critical
revenue generation and the best opportunities.
• Opportunity costs must be accounted.
• Investments/disinvestments will be based on equity
and not equality .
CALS 2010-2011 undergrad RCM outcome
AgED
NET to CALS $138,276
ABE
AREC
SWES
AS
6 negative = $(456,989)
ENT
NS
FCS
5 positive = $595,266
VSc&M
SNRE
SPS
-$150,000.00
-$100,000.00
-$50,000.00
$0.00
$50,000.00
$100,000.00
$150,000.00
$200,000.00
$250,000.00
CALS
Cost savings will be a continual goal and
these savings must be diverted into the
TR and CES missions
Investees will be accountable for positive
RCM outcomes and Never Settle targets.
“We are busy professionals
who focus on the real world
and its problems and have
little appetite or desire for
administrative obstacles”.
Peter Ellsworth, CALS
“Never send a human to do a
robot's job.”
Gentry Lee, Chief Engineer,
Interplanetary Flight, Jet Propulsion
Labs
January 7, 2013
College-level temporary commitments
Temporary commitments are temporary.
Temporary funds are temporary.
We can’t expect to solve permanent issues with temporary
funds—we need to find permanent funds to do so or solve the
problem another way.
A. Replacing the Temporary Commitment List with:
1. a Subvention Fund
2. a Strategic Investment Fund
B. Changing carry-forward policy
28
$160M
CALS’ research targets
$140M
$120M
Target prior to Never Settle
$100M
$80M
$60M
Research expenditures, all accts
$40M
Research expenditures, all accts: Higher productivity only
$20M
$0
'9 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14 '15 '16 '17 '18 '19 '20 '21 '22 '23
FY
CALS ABOR METRICS TARGETS (Page 6 of CALS21)
SUM OF FIRST ITERATION OF UNITS’ ABOR METRICS TARGETS
FY2015 Hiring planning, June 2014
• Must be compliant with AZ’s shared governance statutes and the UA’s and CALS'
shared governance mores.
• The rationale for all hiring decisions must include how these fit into Never Settle and
will help us meet our ABOR metrics.
• Because we simply do not have the resources to fund every request, implicit in this
hiring plan is the continued need for unit heads to implement the structural changes
in their units in both business and academic areas.
• Hiring must also take account of critical college-level needs in advocacy, branding,
communications, compliance, legislative affairs, management, marketing,
philanthropy.
Shared Governance
FCG Committee Hiring Criteria, June 18, 2013
• Hiring to meet strategic planning needs, and meet ABOR’s performancebased funding metrics.
• Based on 1. Need, 2. Impact and 3. Synergy all of equal importance.
• Fit into the strategic plans and our land grant mission.
• Units must estimate the potential impact of a new hire in regard to
revenue generation and helping CALS improve in ABOR’s performancebased funding metrics.
2014 Guidelines used by EC
State Perm Salary Investment Guiding Principles
1. Existing contractual commitments made by the previous CALS administration.
2. Retention negotiations.
3. Consistent with the unit’s clear vision and consistent with CALS’ and the UA’s
strategic directions and so will help CALS improve in ABOR’s performance-based
funding metrics.
4. Infrastructure needs especially wrt compliance.
5. Positions that have specific support (e.g. start-up funding) from sources other
than college level temporary commitment funds.
6. Positions that support revenue generation including cost recovery.
7. Units that are managing faculty work load distributions optimally, equitably and
transparently.
8. Support cross cutting activities.
Strategic Faculty Hiring Plans, Provost memo May 13, 2014.
...plans and collaborations on hiring will be guided by the priorities set out in our
Never Settle strategic plan.
...considering some limited strategic investments in interdisciplinary strategic
priority areas (small cluster hire).
...hiring plan demonstrates a clear and strong alignment between the strategic
plan of the relevant department/school, your college strategic plan and Never
Settle.
...plan considers carefully the balance between meeting the day-to-day
operations of your units with the significant opportunities in the strategic plan.
Provost memo continued.
Guiding Questions:
• How will the proposed hire contribute to engaging students?
o How will your hire help develop innovative and inclusive online, experiential, and other
research-based learning initiatives?
o How will the faculty member contribute to engaging and graduating a diverse student
body in critical high demand fields?
• How will the proposed hire contribute to innovating research?
o How will the faculty member help increase research awards, develop alternative sources
of funding, and build on areas where we have established or emerging strengths, including
nationally-ranked graduate programs?
o How will the hire contribute to interdisciplinary strengths in areas that have been
prioritized for investment?
• How will the proposed hire help us expand partnering with community and business groups?
o How will the faculty member contribute to tech transfer, business start-ups, and strategic
collaborations that address local issues and global challenges?
• How will the proposed hire contribute to fostering interdisciplinary synergies across colleges and
units?
o How will your hire add to our distinctive strengths in diversity, including interdisciplinarity,
as a cross-cutting catalyst to spark innovation and increase our competitive advantage
across the University?
1200
CALS Fall Majors Bachelor Enrollment
1000
800
ACBS
FCS
NS
SWES
AREC
SNRE
AGED
PS
ABE
ENT
600
400
200
0
'07
'08
'09
'10
'11
'12
'13
'14
But outputs are relative to inputs
Instructional Budget vs CALS Undergraduate Enrollment
35%
FCS
Proportion of CALS Undergraduate Enrolment
30%
ACBS
25%
20%
NS
15%
10%
AREC
SWES
5%
0%
0%
SPS
Ag Ed
ABE
ENTO
5%
SNRE
10%
15%
Proportion of CALS Instructional budget
NS
FCS
ACBS
AREC
SWES
Ag Ed
SNRE
ABE
SPS
ENTO
20%
2.5
1.7
1.7
1.1
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.0
Instructional Budget vs CALS Masters Enrollment
45%
SNRE
40%
Proportion of CALS Masters Enrolment
35%
AREC
SNRE
SWES
ABE
ACBS
NS
Ag Ed
SPS
FCS
ENTO
30%
25%
20%
SWES
15%
AREC
ACBS
10%
Ag Ed
ENTO ABE
5%
NS
SPS
FCS
0%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
Proportion of CALS Instructional budget
25%
2.86
2.54
1.85
0.73
0.57
0.54
0.42
0.39
0.14
0.00
Direct research expenditures (MTDC) vs Res $
30%
PS
MTDC Expenditures
25%
SNRE
Unit
20%
FCs
AGED
NSc
SNRE
PS
ENTO
SWES
ACBS
ABE
AREC
15%
NSC
FCS
SWES
10%
ACBS
Ento
5% AgEd
0%
0%
ARECABE
5%
10%
15%
20%
Share of Total Res Perm $
25%
Res/inves
tment
3.0
2.5
1.6
1.3
1.1
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.2
0.2
30%
Research Budget vs CALS PhD Enrollment
25.0%
SWES
FCS
SNRE
Proportion of CALS PhD Enrolment
20.0%
SPS
15.0%
ABE
10.0%
ACBS
Ag Ed
5.0%
NS
ENTO
FCS
Ag Ed
SWES
SNRE
ABE
SPS
NS
ACBS
ENTO
AREC
AREC
0.0%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
Proportion of CALS Res $
20.0%
25.0%
5.12
5.09
1.85
1.13
1.01
0.56
0.47
0.44
0.26
0.00
IDC Return per Research FTE--to UA (Blue) and to CALS (Red)
Jan-March 2014
50,000
45,000
40,000
35,000
IDC/FTE
IDC to CALS/RES FTE
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
ABE
ACBS
AREC
AGED
ENTO
FCR
NSC
SNRE
SPS
SWES
IDC return vs Res FTE
30%
25%
FY12-14 proportion of CALS IDC
PS
Unit
20%
SNRE
ACBS
SNRE
ENTO
FCs
NSc
PS
SWES
AGED
ABE
AREC
15%
ACBS
SWES
ENTO
10%
NSc
FCS
5%
ABE
AGED
0%
0%
5%
AREC
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Share of Total Perm Research Base (state & fed-formula funds)
IDC
/FTE
1.69
1.61
1.29
1.20
1.08
0.93
0.84
0.65
0.49
0.03
CA$H I$ KING: Total Budget vs Soft $
Proportion of “soft” money in unit
25.0%
SWES
NS
FCS
20.0%
15.0%
SNRE
ACBS
10.0%
Ag Ed
5.0%
0.0%
0.0%
ENTO
AREC
5.0%
SPS
ABE
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
NS
FCS
Ag Ed
SWES
SNRE
ACBS
ENTO
SPS
ABE
AREC
2.74
2.07
2.01
1.99
0.98
0.85
0.76
0.13
0.12
0.04
25.0%
Share of Total Perm Research Base (state & fed-formula funds)
Philanthropic Potential
Unit Head commitment and ability
Development
Unit
College of Science
College of Agriculture & Life Sciences
College of Engineering
College of Social and Behavioral Sciences
College of Fine Arts
Eller College of Management
College of Education
College of Humanities
College of Architecture
Rogers College of Law
Institute of the Environment
Total DO Salaries
(5 year)
$1,792,445.00
$1,441,650.00
$847,950.00
$884,690.00
$810,000.00
$1,718,100.00
$487,500.00
$424,875.00
$408,480.00
$889,730.00
$507,500.00
5 Year Gift Total
$76,883,744.14
$40,338,256.46
$18,976,434.10
$19,299,070.96
$11,560,567.10
$21,547,182.29
$5,602,270.85
$4,699,116.13
$3,531,671.32
$4,910,028.11
$141,248.96
5 Year Ratio
(5 Year Gift/5 Year Salary)
42.9
28.0
22.4
21.8
14.3
12.5
11.5
11.1
8.6
5.5
0.3
State of CALS
State of AZ
Never Settle/RCM
Leadership goals for semester
Leadership goals to be completed by end of fall ‘14 semester
1. All unit business centers to be operating optimally. Ratje, Unit
Heads
2. Finalize unit targets and begin measuring outcomes from
investments. Unit heads, Associate Deans
3. Recommend activity-based business model for operating the
college. Academic unit heads and Faculty Council separately.
4. AZ Experiment Station (ES) strategic plan and ES unit plans.
Burgess, Silvertooth, ES unit heads.
5. Update strategic plans. All administrative unit heads.
6. CALS’ component of legislative plan. Burgess and UA central
administration.
7. Find administrative cost savings and performance increases with
positive revenue balance. Deans, unit heads and Faculty Council.
http://www.azcentral.com/story/life/food/2014/06/27/gmo-debate-injects-emotion-food-science/11570903/
“We are busy
professionals who
focus on the real
world and its
problems and have
little appetite or
desire for
administrative
obstacles”.
Peter Ellsworth, CALS
CALS Business
Services:
A Synergistic Vision to Enable
Engagement, Innovation &
Partnering
August 21, 2014
Guiding Principles of Change
Change is
constant and
rapid.
Business Services embraces, values, and nurtures:
• stewardship of the public trust;
• professionalism, planning, and management;
Business is a
touch point for
all activities.
• efficiency and effectiveness;
Business
Services must
transform or it
will stifle the
growth of
CALS.
• a culture of continuous improvement and innovation in the
• technical competence, lifelong learning, and accountability;
• a culture of ut prosim (selfless service);
business operations of the college;
• the diversity of units and their geographic locations across the
state;
• connection to and integration of the land grant missions;
• and transparency in financial information and decision-making.
51
Macro Environmental Change
•Competition in Higher Education
• Global Marketplace
• Growth of Private Universities
• Driving Lower Cost Education Options
•Changing Demographics of Students
• Non-traditional Students
• Career Readiness, Applied Education
•Financing of Public Education
• Public vs. Private Good: Privatizing Public Education?
• Healthcare Squeezes Out Other Budget Items
52
Source: State Higher Education Finance: FY 2013, SHEEO
State Funding of Higher Education Per Student FTE: % Change
FY 2008 - 2013
20.0% 17.6%
Court orders to fund pension and healthcare plans
accounts for some of the increases in IL, ND, and WY
10.0%
0.0%
-10.0%
-20.0%
-23.0%
-30.0%
-40.0%
-37.1%
-50.0%
-60.0%
IL
ND
WY
AK
NE
NY
IN
VT
ME
MT
WI
NM
KS
CA
OH
NC
SD
MD
OK
WV
TX
AR
US Avg
KY
IA
DE
MO
MI
MS
RI
NJ
CT
MA
HI
GA
VA
PA
UT
TN
CO
NV
MN
OR
WA
ID
SC
AZ
AL
LA
FL
NH
-50.7%
Source: State Higher Education Finance: FY 2013, SHEEO
Bright Spot, Public FTE Student Enrollment: % Change
FY 2008 - 2013
35.0%
31.5%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
16.0%
The major market for UA non-resident students is
losing enrollment due to high tuition prices - CA
15.0%
10.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
-5.0%
ID
OR
TX
UT
MO
NM
NH
SC
MD
AZ
MA
NJ
HI
NC
FL
CO
GA
AR
CT
VA
MS
AK
MT
TN
IA
WA
SD
WY
KS
US Avg
OK
DE
IN
NY
KY
VT
NE
MN
AL
WV
OH
ND
PA
LA
RI
ME
WI
MI
NV
CA
IL
-10.0%
-4.1%
Source: State Higher Education Finance: FY 2013, SHEEO
CALS Budget
CALS Sources FY2014 - $122,749,161
1%
1%
3%
9%
State (Tax + Tuition)
37%
15%
Sponsored Projects
Designated
Restricted
Fed Ag (NIFA)
Agency
TRIF (Sales Tax)
34%
57
We Have Choices…
Will we be the victims of these
financial realities?
Business as usual is a recipe for
mediocrity at best
The given resources must yield greater
value
Innovation is required
(Ideas + Implementation = Innovation)
58
The Business Culture
“Nothing is
less productive
than to make
more efficient
what should
not be done at
all.”
- Peter Drucker,
Management
Consultant and
Author
• Administrative Review of ALL College Business Procedures and
Policies – get rid of those that yield little or no value
• Working with Unit Heads; Shared Business Centers Created
•
Family Consumer Sciences, Ag Resource Economics, and Ag
Education
•
Nutritional Sciences and Ag Biosystems Engineering
•
Regional Extension Business Offices: Yavapai , Mohave,
Coconino & Yuma, YAC, La Paz & Cochise, Greenlee
• Dotted Line Reporting Relationship to All Academic Business
Officers
• Professional development and training for business staff college-
wide
• Accountability for ALL to Meet High Expectations
59
Linking Performance to Expectations
Quarterly Allfunds Budgets
• Every unit prepares quarterly budgets
• Enables meaningful financial conversations between
•
•
•
•
unit leaders, faculty, and business officers
Develops financial literacy and accountability
Projects and avoids deficits
Deepens the concept of tradeoffs and improves
decision making when resources are limited
Integrates programmatic and financial planning
Transparency of Data Allows All of Us to be Owners
60
Allfunds Budgets, June 2014
Academic and Research Unit Allfunds Balances
Unit Generated Data: 4th Quarter Allfunds FY14
$16,000,000
FY15 forward is a
projection
$14,000,000
$12,000,000
$10,000,000
Faculty Control
$8,000,000
Unit Control
$6,000,000
$4,000,000
$2,000,000
$0
FY12
FY13
FY14
FY15
FY16
61
Responsibility Centered
Management (RCM)
UA budget model that links College productivity and
efficiency to the budget it receives
•Revenues: SCH, Majors, Degrees, Research IDC
•Expenses: Administration, Space, Support Offices
•Subvention & Investments: Historical Subsidies and
UA-Controlled Strategic Investment Pool
62
Responsibility Centered Management (RCM)
• Colleges are the Revenue or Responsibility Centers (RCUs)
• Volatility requires RCUs hold reserves ~$1.8 million, 3-5%
• RCUs must meet revenue projections, repay prior deficits,
and live within its means
• Each RCU must develop its own internal allocation process
with units
• Facilities and central administrative offices are Cost Centers
paid for by taxing the RCUs
• ERE must be managed locally and increases planned for
Compact: Ownership of revenues in exchange for financial
responsibility for costs
63
RCM – Why & Impacts?
• Incentivizes entrepreneurship
• Drives efficiency of operations
• Improved decision making due to linkage between
decision and financial outcome
• Increases transparency
• Elevates the primary importance of data quality
and reliability
Leadership stakes and expectations are higher at
the College and Unit Levels!
64
Strategic Vision
Will CALS be relevant and:
Instruction: A primary choice for students?
Research: A leading partner for sponsors and innovation?
Extension: Of mutual interest with and impactful for
stakeholders and the public?
Development: Worthy of investment from donors?
UA Partners: Worthy of investment from our UA Partners?
Entrepreneurship/RCM is Optimism. Every employee in CALS
contributes to answering these questions.
These questions will shape the College into the future.
66
“If you do not change direction, you
may end up where you are heading.”
-Lau Tzu, Chinese Philosopher and Poet
67
Agricultural and Life Sciences Research:
A Path to the Future
Parker Antin
CALS Associate Dean for Research
August 22, 2014
68
Agricultural and Life Sciences Research:
A Path to the Future
 Research and the Land Grant Mission
 Public Support for Research and Education
 CALS Research Overview
 Research Vision and Strategic Plan
69
History of the Land Grant Mission
1862---Morrill Act Established the Land Grant Colleges “to focus on teaching of
practical agriculture, science and engineering and military arts...”
1887—Hatch Act Established the Experiment Stations “to promote scientific
investigation and experiments respecting the principles and applications of agricultural
science…bearing directly on the agricultural industry of the U.S....”
1914—Smith-Lever Act Established Cooperative Extension Services “ In order to aid in
diffusing among the people of the United States useful and practical information on
subjects relating to agriculture, home economics, and rural energy, and to encourage the
application of the same...”
70
1890 to World War II
71
-1950 to 2003Unprecedented Growth in Federal and State Support
for Education and Research
Appropriations to the National Institutes of Health
72
2003-2014
Eroding Public Support for Research
Appropriations to the National Institutes of Health
Eroding Public Support for Education
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3927
74
CALS Permanent Base Budget 1989-2014
>30% Reduction
75
CALS Research FTEs
140.00
115.5
120.00
100.00
# Research FTE
96.25
80.00
19.25 Research FTE Lost (17%)
60.00
40.00
20.00
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
0.00
76
CALS Sponsored Projects Activity (Grants and Contracts Expenditures)
2000-2014
50
$46M
45
-13.7%
Millions of Dollars
40
$39.7M
35
30
25
$23M
2000-2014
45% Inflation Adjusted Increase in Expenditures
17% Decrease in Research FTE
20
15
10
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
77
Two Realities:
We are in an era of diminishing public support for education
and research.
CALS significantly expanded research from 2000 to 2014; the
most financially challenging period since the 1930s.
Challenges
Opportunities
78
CALS Strengths
Faculty are Talented and Diverse
Natural “Centers” of Excellence
We are Lean!
CALS Administration Embraces Positive Transformation
A Future Focused and Developing Infrastructure
79
CALS Research 2014-2024
Strategic Plans
2
1
4
3
5
80
CALS Research 2014-2024
Vision
To be the most important driver in Arizona's economy
and the world's top college in 21st century agriculture, life sciences, and commerce.
….pound for pound
--------------------
Anywhere
81
Strategic Plan
OVERALL CALS RESEARCH EXCELLENCE GOAL:
DOUBLE RESEARCH BY 2020 ON CURRENT RESOURCE BASE
82
STRATEGIC GOAL ONE: BUILD ON EXISTING RESEARCH STRENGTHS
Six Focus Areas of CALS
1. Environment, Energy and Natural Resources: ABE, SWES, SNRE, PLS
2. Plant, Insect and Microbial Systems: ENT, SPS, ACBS, SWES
3. Health and Food Safety: ACBS, NSC, PLS, SWES
4. Families and Communities: FCS, SWES
5. Animal Systems: ACBS
6. Commerce: AREC, ABE, AGE, FCS
Accomplished through: Strategic Hires, Strategic Investment, Building Infrastructure
to Conduct Large/Complex Research Projects.
83
STRATEGIC GOAL TWO:
IDENTIFY AND INVEST IN CALS RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS
85
Bio5
CALS Research Administration Services
VPR
Complex Proposal
Support
UA
Research Development
Office
University Liase/
Knowledgebase
Training/Workshops
Grants and Contracts
Pre Award
Web Portal
Regulatory Support
Commercialization
Tech Launch AZ
SPS and ORCA
Sangita Pawar, PhD, MBA
Assistant Dean for Research Administration
Hire was Revenue Neutral
87
Bio5
CALS Research Administration Services
Mission: to maximize research productivity
“reduce the friction”
VPR
UA
Research Development
Office
Complex Proposal
Support
“identify your pain points” University Integration/
Knowledgebase
Training/Workshops
Grants and Contracts
Pre Award
Web Portal
Regulatory Support
Commercialization
Tech Launch AZ
SPS and ORCA
Some of the Events Planned to Date:
Pilot Research Workshop---TOMORROW (August 22)
CALS Poster Session---November 10
CALS Research Forum---Spring Term 2015
Research Essentials Series---Begins September 5
89
STRATEGIC GOAL TWO:
IDENTIFY AND INVEST IN CALS RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS
Cyberinfrastructure
“....the most cyber-savvy CALS in the US”
90
The iPlant Collaborative
Community Cyberinfrastructure for Science
91
Research Administration Services
Office Staff
Lorinda Mills
Bruce Schumaker
Glenda Thompson
Renee Ammonds
Renae Nelson
Sangita Pawar
Zaida Zalbidea
Jennifer Smith
Alma Enciso
Randy Ryan
92