<top of page

There are certain historical events that are illustrative of the issues that must be addressed when building a coherent and cohesive resource development and management plan that will meet the university’s needs as it moves into the new millenium. These events provide clear insights into the dilemmas and conflicts the campus must confront if it is going to meet the increasing resource demands of the campus. Several projects on campus, including external consultations, have come to similar conclusions, such as the ACE Project (Appendix D3) and the Advantage Technology Report (1999; Team Room).

<top of page

Funding for CSU campuses is based on the number of Full Time Equivalent students (the total number of student quarter units divided by 15) served or taught during a given college year — a budgetary construct consisting of the three Academic Year mean plus one third of the summer quarter. General state support for Cal Poly Pomona is therefore increased by expanding the number of students attending the university, who will, correspondingly, increase the number of courses taken by the student body. With effective enrollment planning, resources are acquired in anticipation of changes in program capacity (a condition that is typically not achieved in the CSU). This implies that effective planning, as enumerated in the previous section, has taken place. After managing enrollment down at the beginning of the decade to compensate for the significant reduction in budget, Cal Poly Pomona has aggressively recruited students for the explicit purpose of increasing the amount of funds that are available to the academic and co-curricular programs.

A review of enrollment management and planning over the last decade provides a clear picture of the strengths and weaknesses of this campus activity. Having accomplished its goal of aligning the number of students and FTES served during the reduced budget and down-sizing period, Cal Poly Pomona vigorously emerged from this conservative strategy by constructing and implementing an aggressive marketing campaign that had the desired result of dramatically increasing enrollment. This growth came at a price. An already depleted administrative core could not be replaced with the funding available, so much of the recruitment and admissions infrastructure struggled along, coping with inadequate funding and with enhanced goals and expectations. Figure 28 describes college year enrollment statistics over the past eight years. It also describes Academic Year units per student and the average class load taken by students for the traditional enrollment year. Two trends are apparent. The number of students attending this campus has rebounded to pre-decade highs and the number of units taken by students has increased at a faster pace. FTES has grown by over 13 percent since its low point in 1994-95. (It must be emphasized that FTES enrollment is a budget construct that is the fundamental unit of budgeting higher education in the California State University system [Appendix D1].)

Figure 29 shows the number of students enrolled in the top 10 majors at census time fall quarter. These figures represent students declared in that major taking some course(s) in the university. These figures are not the number of students taking courses in that major. The number within parentheses is the ranking of program in terms of numbers of majors.

Enrollment planning and management are linked, at least theoretically, to enrollment expansion discussions, student demand, persistence, and institutional mission. The easiest method of planning for and implementing growth is to increase all programs proportionately or at the same rate as demand increase. This approach is both historical and consistent and is the mechanism used most often at Cal Poly Pomona. Under this growth scenario, every program benefits and suffers at the same rate. Unfortunately, demand does not quite function in this egalitarian manner. The table describing the top ten academic programs clearly demonstrates this point. In the last five years, the number of students majoring in Accounting has dropped by almost a third while enrollment in the computer-related majors has skyrocketed. Other programs such as Liberal Studies appear to have constant demand. This is the easiest growth scenario to manage because the need for campus intervention is minimal. If enrollment demand and employment opportunities remain stable, future students will mirror present student demands and interest. As demand and interest change, the university must respond in an effort to keep up. Over-capacity in one program cannot be transferred to meet the demand in another. Faculty in an Accounting program cannot be assigned to cover classes in Computer Information Systems. As a campus reaches its physical capacity or begins to consider the extent to which the programs currently offered reflect the mission or vision, a more introspective or analytic approach is necessary. Programs can, for instance, stop growing in size and elect to grow in quality. In this mode, enrollment management recruits students based on program needs and capacity. This type of growth requires communication and consensus across disciplines, colleges, and divisions, but once achieved it offers the best vision and chance of attaining a community of scholars. At least one CSU campus (Sacramento State) has made enrollment management and growth one of the central pillars of its strategic planning process (Shulock and Harrison 1998).

Cal Poly Pomona’s Institutional Research and Planning Office made an enrollment projection in Summer 1999 of growth in the next decade, for fall quarter census [Figure 30]. Annex D7, IRP’s Annual Report for 1999/2000, offers additional information on the kinds of data collected by this office for the use of the university and its components in planning.

Enrollment planners at the California Postsecondary Education Commission and the Chancellor’s Office of the CSU have been forecasting a huge increase in enrollment for the system and Cal Poly Pomona, so-called "Tidal Wave II". A recent memo from the Chancellor’s Office asserts that the bulk of the growth will occur in counties adjacent to the university — Riverside, Orange, and San Bernardino.

What type of planning have enrollment management and recruiting personnel done to cope with this enrollment bonanza? Until now Cal Poly Pomona’s enrollment planning and management policies did not take into account program capacity or balance as a major consideration. As the campus reaches its Master Plan FTES capacity and considers the directions in which to take higher education, it must do more than meeting system FTES targets so that state budgeted resources are maximized. Cal Poly Pomona is starting to come to grips with the problem of managing enrollment growth, as shown in the recent report on enrollment planning and management (Annex D8).

We start with an in-depth look at the Division of Instructional and Information Technology (Enterprise Computing’s Annual Report is presented in Appendix D2). Much of the information here was gleaned from a report by outside consultants hired by the university to study the Division, its problems, and its potential (Advantage Technology Consultants 1999). An earlier consultants’ report acknowledged that the problems associated with renewing and maintaining sophisticated machinery and elements are common to all institutions. Refreshing this technology has required continual attention and expenditure on this campus. It is possible that we have not always done this in the most expeditious and fruitful manner.

The Division of Instructional and Information Technology was formed in July, 1996, when it was realized that several computer and technological applications had a campus-wide user base but did not fit into any existing division. The old "Computer Resource Center" managed a computer system to support the academic mission of the university, and a separate system to support the administrative needs of the university. Since both systems required similar personnel infrastructure to maintain and support, the symbiosis gained by combining the two staffs was obvious. As the instructional and administrative infrastructure became more computerized and networked, it became apparent that these services had to be centralized, and their future growth prioritized. Telecommunications, media resources, and instructional technology were all folded into the new division. Tasks that had been split between all three Divisions were combined, with resultant initial confusion as to purpose.

Included among the major accomplishments listed by the report was the campus backbone. Evidently Cal Poly Pomona’s digital backbone is one of the top two or three in the system. Cal Poly Pomona’s intranet was noted as an interesting technical accomplishment whose future goals, breadth, and size has not yet been systematically thought out. A thorough reading of the report leaves the reader with the impression that these accomplishments were not due to luck or to planning. Instead they were due to the dedication, persistence, and skill of individuals within the IIT, operating independently. Projects outside of IIT and ITAC have also supported the development on campus of significant expertise in technology, on which we can draw in developing the next, more effective technology plan (e.g., the ACE Project, the Teaching and Learning Technology Roundtable, Flashlight Project, the technology lunch group, and others).

The many problems cited in the report revolved about four significant themes: lack of leadership, lack of a common vision, lack of any coordinated planning, and lack of staff sufficient to meet the demands set by the mission. These affected the optimum use and enhancement of resources. The Division now has a permanent Vice President to lead it. The Faculty Computing Support Center works closely with IIT. The University Technology Committee is broadly representative.

With continued support from the Cabinet, Technology can now fully meet the expectations of the campus. The immediate problem is to determine what these expectations are and start to plan to meet them. Should the Division maintain labs, should it offer training, or should it be essentially a storage utility that offers email, voicemail, and web hosting services? We experience a bewildering profusion of platforms, software, usage patterns, capabilities, and sources.

As in many operations on campus, the Division has had its share of edicts from above and its share of micro-management. These edicts often have constrained planning. The CSU as a system once mandated that all twenty-two campuses should have the same computer hardware. Recently, the CSU mandated a common administrative information system, and a contract was let to PeopleSoft to design and implement the system. (Material on PeopleSoft is available in the Team Room.)

Resource and planning issues have been raised in past academic program and accreditation. In response, to these reports, the Division of Academic Affairs attempted to build a consultative planning-budget-assessment process by establishing a Joint Review Committee. The Committee was first formed at the request of Dr. Sidney Ribeau during what became his last year as the Vice President of Academic Affairs. The Committee’s original charge was to build accountability into the budget allocation process of the Division of Academic Affairs by reviewing how each of the Division’s Colleges, Schools, and Units used their allocated resources. For three years, the ‘Joint Review Process’ mechanism ostensibly put both continuity and accountability into the Division’s planning process. Although the Joint Review Committee only wrote three reports, these reports are still having an impact on the Division and the university.

The broad goals of the Division of Academic Affairs’ Strategic Plan were the same as those enumerated in the University’s Strategic Planning Guidelines (Appendix A3). The sub-goals and implementation strategies reflected the mission of the Division. These were adopted as the policy context for joint review. Dr. Ribeau tried to build trust into the process by creating a Committee composed of three faculty nominated by the Academic Senate, three department chairs, and three Deans. His hope was that these nine individuals would examine the goals, policies, and perceived priorities of the Division and then make recommendations. His long-range goal was to revise the way resources were allocated to the various units within the division, so that such allocations were linked to a more rigorous form of assessment. To gain interest and participation in the first iteration of the ‘Joint Review Process’ a small sum of approximately $300,000.00 was set aside for a one-time allocation to the units after the review was completed. The first review, which covered the 1994-95, had consequences that provoked resentment. Several programs were downsized or combined when the JRC report raised the question of what was the minimum critical mass of resources, students, and faculty needed to maintain program quality and continuity. The main recommendations for the division are listed in Annex D3. People also disliked the additional reportage required.

The second JRC Report reviewed the global recommendations of the first report, and noted what progress had been made. Of the first eleven recommendations, the JRC noted minor progress on only three of the recommendations. The major questions raised by the second Joint Review Report are listed in Annex D4. The third Joint Review Report’s comments are in Annex D5.

A close reading of all three Reports by the Joint Review Committee reveals several recurring considerations. Planning within the Division must be integrated down to the Department level. Enrollment management based on program capacity must be given high priority. Division level budgeting and allocation should be needs-based and not historically based. A continuous need for technology planning and leadership was repeatedly stressed. Again, it should be noted that at the time the JRC published its initial reports, there was no stable Division of Instructional and Information Technology, and the Computer Resource Center was one of the support units of the Division of Academic Affairs. These were the same concerns raised by the WASC Review five years earlier.