From: 'Juan Antonio Bueno'



REORGANIZATION

SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE

DECEMBER 1, 2004

INTRODUCTION

On June 23, 2004 Provost Rosenberg sent an e-mail letter to the FIU faculty (see Attachment A for complete e-mail.) In Part that message stated:

… I have asked Deans Bruce Dunlap (Arts and Sciences), Vishwanath Prasad (Engineering), Juan Antoniuo Bueno (Architecture), Lillian Kopenhaver  (Journalism and Mass Communication) and Director Yi Deng (School of Computer Science) to work with their faculties to consider options for reorganization to be submitted to me by December 1, 2004. 

These initiatives have the following objectives: (emphasis added for this report)

*  both internal and institutional reorganization through the development of partnerships in which larger units might join with smaller units (that could maintain their autonomy and budget);

*  more focused and efficient approaches to learning through curricular consolidations, course cross-listing, multidisciplinary teaching, resource sharing, enhanced doctoral instruction, and the measurement of results--particularly focusing on learning and institutional  effectiveness;

*  the development of large-scale, multidisciplinary, funded research initiatives around clusters of faculty and graduate students.

….

Through these initiatives, we have focused our efforts and improved our operational efficiency, while enhancing the quality of service to students.  I also believe that similar opportunities for enhanced programs and improved efficiencies exist in other colleges and schools.  

I will appreciate your best efforts and thoughtful consideration of the challenges presented by my request that you step back to examine whether our academic enterprise is optimally organized to serve our students and our state. 

Mark Rosenberg, Provost

This report is presented by the School of Architecture in response to this request.

A SHORT HISTORY OF THE SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE

Taken From 2004 Program Review Document.

The School of Architecture offers bachelors programs in architectural studies and interior design and masters programs in architecture and landscape architecture. Each of these is a registered profession in the State of Florida. The School has a strong faculty, growing national recognition, an expanding and improving pool of diverse students, an outstanding location and environment, and strong accreditation to carry it forward to the next levels. The School is an integral part of the FlU experience as a top urban public research university.

The vision and mission of the School of Architecture are closely aligned with those of the University which are to be a top, urban, public, research institution. Architecture defines our urban experience to a great extent, interior design is a hallmark on many of our public and private spaces, and landscape architecture links our unique environments and tropical settings.

Vision

The vision of the School of Architecture is excellence in design education. We aspire to be recognized nationally and internationally as a leader of innovation in teaching, research, creativity, and service. We aspire to be ranked among the top design schools in the Americas.

Mission

The mission of the School of Architecture is to educate men and women who will lead and serve the community in the enhancement of the quality of life through aesthetic, meaningful, and sustainable design of the physical environment.

Current Degree Programs

Architecture Master of Architecture (MArch)

Landscape Architecture Master of Landscape Architecture (MLA)

Architectural Studies Bachelor of Design in Architectural Studies (BD)

Interior Design Bachelor of Science in Interior Design (BS)

Aspirational Programs

Architecture Doctor of Architecture (DArch) Professional

Doctor of Philosophy in Architecture (Ph.D.) Academic

Landscape Architecture Bachelor of Landscape Architecture (BLA)

Interior Design Master of Interior Design (MID)

Accreditations

National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB) accredited through 2008

Landscape Architecture Accreditation Board (LAAB) accredited through 2006

National Association of Schools of Art and Design (NASAD) accredited through 2008

Foundation for Interior Design Education and Research (FIDER) Candidate – initial visit 2005

Organizational History

The School of Architecture emerged as a separate academic unit in the fall of 1996. The School of Architecture was known formerly as the School of Design within the College of Engineering and Design. The College of Engineering and Design was one of the founding academic units at the 1972 inauguration of Florida International University. The School of Design included Architecture, Landscape Architecture, Apparel Studies, Interior Design and Construction Management. Apparel Studies was dissolved in 1995 and Construction Management remained in the College of Engineering when the School of Architecture became a separate academic unit.

PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING THIS REPORT

This report emerged after numerous meetings with faculty and administrators of other academic units. The Dean and faculty of the School of Architecture discussed each of the potential models. A list of the formal meetings held is contained in Attachment B. Many additional informal discussions, telephone calls, e-mails and “hall conversations” contributed to the ideas presented here. In the end it became the responsibility of the School of Architecture Dean’s office to produce this report. The primary authors are Dean Juan Antonio Bueno and Associate Dean David F. Bergwall.

ORGANIZATIONAL MODELS CONSIDERED

Although many ideas emerged as to the units that might be combined in the reorganization, there were four basic models considered. The progress in discussions with each model is quite different.

Model 1 - Architecture

Program in Architecture

Program in Landscape Architecture

Program in Interior Design

Either status quo or with limited new partners.

Free standing Schools or Colleges of Architecture are the norm in U.S. universities. Of the 123 accredited programs in architecture in the United States and Canada, 120 are freestanding units. Only three are a component of colleges of engineering and 12 are affiliated with arts and humanities.[1] Both Dean Dunlop of the College of Arts and Sciences and Dean Prasad of the College of Engineering are on record suggesting this as the preferable model for the School of Architecture at FIU.

When examining the desire for reorganization, one is compelled to ask about the state of the status quo. In this model partnerships may be internal and cross-unit in nature. Such partnerships have been developed with Engineering, the Metro Center, and other units in the University. Curriculum consolidation has already taken place at the lower division level in the School of Architecture. The addition of new degrees is based on extending current consolidations. Research initiatives within the School have expended in the past two years due to external partnerships with the College of Engineering and the International Hurricane Center. In addition, the School is beginning to build its own research agenda.

As a professional school with a distinct culture, the needs of the students and faculty can best be met by preserving an independent and autonomous unit. It is possible to add a limited number of programs, for example Art and Art History and perhaps create a School of Architecture and Art. Some operational efficiency will be realized through consolidation of curriculum and consolidation of support staff. The model provides the opportunity to enhance the quality of service to students due to greater depth in the support staff of the unit.

Model 2 - Professional Schools

School of Architecture

School of Hospitality and Tourism Management

School of Journalism and Mass Communication

This model received limited discussion. The synergy within the group was extremely limited and the grouping itself seemed to be a holding company of highly differentiated enterprises (perhaps a “marriage of convenience”). Some potential partnerships appeared between Architecture and the graphics design and advertising elements of Journalism and Mass Communication. Although similar models exists in one or two other universities, there is no substantial evidence of this relationship is working well elsewhere. This model does not seem logical from the perspective of the objectives of curriculum consolidations or research initiatives. The discussions did not progress far enough to examine operational efficiencies or services to students.

Model 3 - Engineering and Architecture

College of Engineering

School of Architecture

Departments in Engineering

Substantial effort went into the discussions with Engineering. While there was some feeling by School of Architecture faculty that this grouping would be a return to the past, it was considered seriously. In addition, Dean Prasad made a very cogent and appreciated presentation to the faculty in Architecture suggesting the potential for the future. The challenge with this set of discussions was that it stayed far from any of the details on which to base an image of the future.

The objective of developing partnerships does not seem to extend much beyond the relationships currently in place. The major potential appears to be with Construction Management which does not see itself moving in the same direction as Architecture. The hallmark of the current Architecture faculty is design and aesthetics rather than building technology. Engineering faculty have limited background in aesthetics. A partnership would seem to require one or the other partner to move away for their current vision and mission. Either Architecture would need to move further towards construction technology or Engineering would need to expand an interest in design. Probably both of these changes would be necessary for the model to work. The potential for curriculum consolidation becomes a major challenge in this model. The School of Architecture has in the past year created its own version of several courses that were previously taken through Engineering due to missing content mandated by the Architecture accreditation or prerequisites not appropriate for architecture students. The math and physics requirements for engineering students are substantially higher than those for architecture students. Currently there are research initiatives with the College of Engineering focused mainly on the Solar Decathlon project. Substantial increases in large-scale, multidisciplinary, funded research initiatives do not seem likely with the current faculty, especially in architecture. Operational efficiencies and enhancements to student services could be achieved in the relationship between Construction Management and Architecture and perhaps other units in Engineering. Both units maintain a substantial interest in students from other countries due to the diversity and qualities they bring to FIU. Details of enhancements were not discussion or fleshed out in the meetings that took place.

Model 4 - Architecture and the Arts

Perhaps the greatest energy has been spent on this model, because there was greater familiarity with the parties involved. The studio culture of Architecture seems highly compatible with the studio and production culture of the arts. These cultures also share an appreciation for both the creation of art and the research of art. he discussions may have been more strained due to the suspicions of the parties and the strength of their individual creative arenas. Artists and architects have always valued individuality over group effort, my art more than our art. At the level of building partnerships, the potential appears greater in the Arts due the aesthetic core in Architecture. Inclusion of the Wolfsonian and Frost Museums in this model would add a major dynamic dimension to the partnerships. Other commonalities include selective admissions processes based on audition or portfolio review. There is definite capacity to develop curriculum consolidation with Art and Art History. Certain aspects of design could also be shared between the units, for example, stage set design, lighting design, apparel and costume design, computer aided design, historic preservation, graphic design, etc. Beyond consolidation, there is substantial potential for enhancement of the art component of a liberal education within the unit and throughout the University. It is important to note that with this model the Arts and Sciences requirement for three credit hours of intermediate foreign language and nine hours of additional Arts and Sciences electives, from which Architecture is exempt, is incompatible with the enhancement of the curriculum in the arts. The exemption should also include the other partners in this unit to provide for the full enrichment of the curriculum. In the area of research initiatives, there is a less clear advantage as the Arts are not an area of substantial collaborative research. The museums could assist in changing this. However, this model does provide enhanced funding possibilities due to the cultural and arts combination. Lectures, exhibits, and performances bring people to FIU, engage the community, expand our visibility, and can attract funding. A development officer to assist in these areas would be able to help finance and even endow a number of important events and activities for the unit. Operational efficiencies may be achieved in the middle management area of the schools including budget processing and student advising. Enhancements to student services might be achieved in student advising and the management of selective admissions based on audition or portfolio review. Extension of the living communities and joint programs in Genoa or other international settings are other possible enhancements. This model would greatly enhance the arts, culture and diversity theme of the University.

issues for consideration

In his memo the Provost stressed the idea of “reorganization through the development of partnerships in which larger units might join with smaller units (that could maintain their autonomy and budget).”

Autonomy

The concept of autonomy is especially important in the areas of governance and promotion and tenure. At the root of this concern is the need for the various disciplines and faculty to guide the academic and research programs of their relative programs. Any reorganization that would cause an existing program to subjugate its values and norms to those of a different discipline will ultimately lead to failure. Persons outside of a discipline may conduct rigorous review of the tenure review process, however, the ultimate content of the standards and norms for a discipline must come from and be judged from within.

In the past nine years the School of Architecture has made the journey from a department within the College of Engineering to an independent School with a unique building and enhanced standing within the design community. We hope this is a reflection of the maturation of the School and a recognition of its importance and special role in the University. Reorganization should foster the continuance of this evolution rather than stifle its further development.

Autonomy is an important element of many aspects of any reorganized unit including:

• Admissions, curriculum, graduation

• Resources including budget and space

• Governance, tenure and promotion

• Representation in the Faculty Senate and University-wide governance

• Representation in the Deans’ Advisory Council

Resources

Budget

A critical issue for the School of Architecture regardless of any reorganization is the resolution of a reasonable base budget. For any reorganization, this is as important for the partners as well.

Architecture is an expensive program due to its resource needs and the limitations placed on the programs by accreditation standards. Engineering and the arts programs are expensive as well. While some organizational efficiency will be achieved through this reorganization, substantial reductions in the cost education will not be an outcome. The financial goals for reorganization should be associated with the ability to build an endowment, the ability to charge student fees for special space, equipment and lab use, and the ability to charge of differential tuition.

Space

Any of the above reorganization models will be relatively neutral to the use of space. The Paul L. Cejas Building was designed to meet the needs and provide the flexibility require by Architecture education. The School remains committed to sharing the space with the broader University to the extent possible. Architecture education is based on a studio culture and requires flexibility in its scheduling of space. It cannot completely conform to the timetable of the University. Perhaps some efficiency can be gained through combining with other units that have similar space needs.

One negative aspect to a reorganization involving either engineering or the arts programs is the physical distance between the partners. Engineering is located on a separate campus. Architecture and the arts programs are located at far ends of the main campus. Unfortunately, this will minimize casual contact amongst the faculty on a day to day basis.

Nomenclature

Nomenclature for any reorganized unit becomes a challenge. Normally a unit made up of schools is called a college. Care need to be taken to ensure that the outside world understands the organizational structure of the unit as well. A goal in finding the correct nomenclature should be to avoid any confusion with free standing or proprietary art schools. The names institute and academy are highly associated with proprietary schools (The Art Institute of … or The Dance Academy of …) One unit within a military school currently uses the name Academy of Architecture. Likewise, the name needs to encompass the units included in the entity. As examples:

College of Architecture and the Arts

College of Architecture, Fine Arts and Performing Arts

College of Art and Architecture

College of Art, Design and Architecture

Institutional Research

The implications of a reorganization based on the above models will need to be researched further in terms of credit hours, FTE, and other institutional research variables. An initial review of available data regarding the potential with the Arts shows the following numbers.

School Faculty Adjuncts Students

Architecture 18 30 400

Art 16 26 250

Music 20 40 350

Theatre 21 30 200

Total 75 125 1200

Timetable and External Consultant

The goal of implementing any reorganization by the Fall of 2005 is rapidly becoming a challenge. A substantial amount of effort will need to be expended to implement any model other than the status quo. An implementation plan needs to be designed to provide the best chances for success. It may be advisable, once the model is identified, to bring in an outside consultant to assist in developing such a plan.

The organizational structure of a reorganized unit needs attention as well. Clear roles and responsibility for the administration have to be developed as a part of the implementation process. These are especially important for the Executive Dean, Deans, Directors, and Chairs.

Attachemnt A – Provost’s Memorandum

MEMORANDUM

TO: The University Community

FROM: Mark B. Rosenberg, Provost & Executive Vice President

SUBJECT: Reorganization: Academic Affairs

DATE: June 23, 2004

At certain points in the University's brief history, we have reorganized our academic units with the goal of improving our ability to achieve our vision as a top urban public research university.

Two catalysts for these previous reorganizations have become more powerful constants in our current environment: these are the growing scarcity of resources--particularly state support--and the intensifying competition for students and research dollars. We can successfully address these challenges only if we work smarter by focusing our energies on promoting greater collaboration and efficiency across the entire spectrum of our curriculum and our research.

Several reorganizations have advanced our ability to prosper in these challenging times: we have merged the College of Urban and Public Affairs and the College of Health into a new College of Health and Urban Affairs. As the units in this College have moved forward, a new school has been created and endowed, three additional schools are now led by deans reporting to an executive dean, advanced research has expanded through Federal funding, and innovative community partnerships are underwriting new degree programs. This new College is playing an important role in supporting the institution's Board of Trustees'

approved Health and Medical Education Initiative.

Another reorganization established an executive deanship in the College of Business Administration, resulting in the creation of the Chapman Graduate School of Business. Graduate and undergraduate programs in the College of Business Administration have moved up in national rankings, both have growing endowments, and both have developed innovative, student-centered, and market-sensitive programs to address the unprecedented competition in business education in South Florida. The College is now leading the University annually in the production of undergraduate and master's degrees.

As a component of this reorganization, our School of Hospitality and Tourism Management has entered into partnership with the College of Business Administration. While many issues of this partnership remain to be refined, the primary beneficiaries have been undergraduate business students at Biscayne Bay Campus--through both enhanced advising and broader availability of courses.

The College of Education, as well, has reorganized itself from six major academic units into four departments focusing on teacher preparation. Administrative efforts have been consolidated, degree programs closed, and advanced research and doctoral degree production have been emphasized.

Through these initiatives we have focused our efforts and improved our operational efficiency, while enhancing the quality of service to students. I also believe that similar opportunities for enhanced programs and improved efficiencies exist in other colleges and schools.

Accordingly, I have asked Deans Bruce Dunlap (Arts and Sciences),Vishwanath Prasad (Engineering), Juan Bueno (Architecture), Lillian Kopenhaver (Journalism and Mass Communication) and Director Yi Deng (School of Computer Science) to work with their faculties to consider options for reorganization to be submitted to me by December 1, 2004. Parallel to these deliberations, the Faculty Senate might provide an excellent University-wide venue to discuss options and various

approaches.

These initiatives have the following objectives:

* both internal and institutional reorganization through the development of partnerships in which larger units might join with smaller units (that could maintain their autonomy and budget);

* more focused and efficient approaches to learning through curricular consolidations, course cross-listing, multidisciplinary teaching, resource sharing, enhanced doctoral instruction, and the measurement of results--particularly focusing on learning and institutional effectiveness;

* the development of large-scale, multidisciplinary, funded research initiatives around clusters of faculty and graduate students.

The following premises provide the foundation for these deliberations:

1. The decline of state support means that we will have to find additional ways to do more with less and that we should expect to be even more accountable for our efforts. (The recent decision by the Board of Governors to mandate Academic Learning Compacts for our undergraduate students is one manifestation of this trend.)

2. The state legislature will ask us to continue to expand our undergraduate enrollment even as the cost burdens for these students will be shifted to the University and the students themselves. We will be able to maintain reasonable faculty course loads in the face of heightening research expectations only if consolidation and efficiencies are gained through cross-listing, larger lecture sessions coupled with more graduate student led recitations, and more efficient student-centered scheduling.

3. Faculty control over degrees, and standards and expectations for tenure and promotion will continue to be discipline-based. We expect, however, that some long-standing departmental boundaries can be gradually eliminated as a means to gain the program scale that might not be achieved otherwise.

I will appreciate your best efforts and thoughtful consideration of the

challenges presented by my request that you step back to examine whether

our academic enterprise is optimally organized to serve our students and

our state. I look forward to working with you on options that we can

present to President Maidique early in 2005.

C: President Modesto Maidique

Attachment B – Formal Meetings Related to Reorganization

|Date |Participants |

|Jun 1, 2004 |Mark Rosenberg, J.A. Bueno, Bruce Dunlap |

|Jun 3, 2004 |Mark Rosenberg, J.A. Bueno, School of Architecture Faculty |

|Jul 12, 2004 |J.A. Bueno, Lillian Kopenhaver, Joseph West |

|Jul 21, 2004 |J.A. Bueno , Bruce Dunlap |

|Jul 22, 2004 |J.A. Bueno, Vishwanath Prasad |

|Jul 28, 2004 |J.A. Bueno, Bruce Dunlap |

|Aug 10, 2004 |J.A. Bueno, Irtishad Ahmad |

|Aug 19, 2004 |J.A. Bueno, Irtishad Ahmad |

|Aug 24, 2004 |J.A. Bueno, Gustavo Roig |

|Aug 25, 2004 |J.A. Bueno , Bruce Dunlap, Carol Damian |

|Aug 25, 2004 |Adam Drisin, Janine King, School of Architecture Faculty |

|Sep 15, 2004 |Mark Rosenberg, J.A. Bueno |

|Sep 23, 2004 |J.A. Bueno, Leroy Clark, Theatre Faculty |

|Sep 24, 2004 |Arts Council |

|Oct 5, 2004 |J.A. Bueno, Leroy Clark, Carol Damian, Joseph Rohm |

|Oct 14, 2004 |Mark Rosenberg, J.A. Bueno |

|Oct 19, 2004 |J.A. Bueno, Irtishad Ahmad |

|Nov 1, 2004 |J.A. Bueno, Leroy Clark, Carol Damian, Joseph Rohm |

|Nov 18, 2004 |J.A. Bueno, Vishwanath Prasad |

|Nov 19, 2004 |Mark Rosenberg, J.A. Bueno |

|Nov 23, 2004 |J.A. Bueno, Vishwanath Prasad, School of Architecture Faculty |

|Nov 24, 2004 |J.A. Bueno, Bruce Dunlap |

|Nov 24, 2004 |J.A. Bueno, Bruce Dunlap |

| |Leroy Clarke, Carol Damian, Adam Drisin, Janine King, Joseph Rohm (absent due to illness) |

| |Marta Canavés, Robert Dundas, Orlando García, Juan Martínez, Marilys Nepomechie |

|Nov 29, 2004 |Mark Rosenberg, J.A. Bueno |

|Nov 30, 2004 |J.A. Bueno, Bruce Dunlap |

|Nov 30, 2004 |J.A. Bueno, Bruce Dunlap, School of Architecture Faculty |

-----------------------

[1] Data are derived from Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture, Architecture Schools, 7th edition, Washington, D.C. 2003. This is the most recent directory available.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download