Docstoc

From Juan Antonio Bueno jabueno_

Document Sample
From Juan Antonio Bueno jabueno_ Powered By Docstoc
					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.


                                                    -1-
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



                                                 -2-
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


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


                                                   -3-
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


                                                 -4-
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


                                                 -5-
      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




                                                 -6-
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.




                                                -7-
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



                                        -8-
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




                                      -9-
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




                                              - 10 -