More than 100 CAOs and CFOs stayed for a post-conference workshop to learn how to prioritize programs using criteria and processes that have proven effective. Robert Dickeson, vice president of the Lumina Foundation and author of Prioritizing Academic Programs and Services: Reallocating Resources to Achieve Strategic Balance, said colleges and universities are facing “the four horsemen of the higher education apocalypse —increased demand, diminished capacity, economic and fiscal problems, and demands for accountability—that are forcing them to reallocate resources to achieve strategic balance.”
     Thus, “campuses are simultaneously trying to increase revenues, decrease expenses, improve quality, and strengthen their reputation,” he explained, noting that most efforts have been to “focus on the non-academic side, defer physical plant maintenance, ignore academics as too politically volatile, and make cuts across-the-board.” But the “inescapable truth is that not all programs are equal,” and campuses have no choice but to set academic priorities. College leaders must review programs through a set of criteria, Dickeson said, including: history, development, and expectations of the program; external and internal demand for the program; quality of program inputs, processes, and outcomes; and size, scope, productivity, revenue, and costs of the program. He concluded that “reallocation of resources is necessary; prioritization of programs is possible; and with courage—and your leadership—your institution can be strengthened.”
     William Julian, provost and dean of the faculty at Lindsey Wilson College (KY) related his experiences from setting program priorities. “Before you start, you need to know why you’re doing it and what you want to come out with—it’s a stressful process, so think carefully about when to do it.” He stressed that communication throughout the process is critical. “I learned that I needed to think about what I would communicate, when, and to whom. This is an inherently political process because we are proposing, however implicitly, a way of determining ‘who gets what of what there is to get.’”
     Julian suggested that administrators undertake the task “when you don’t have to—make it routine business. The best time to set program priorities is when it does not appear to be necessary.” He concluded that “this is a process through which you can create possibilities for your institution—you can come out of it with resources and choices and opportunities you did not know you had.”