Creating a New School of Computer Science and Engineering in Kansas City
Publication: Leadership and Management in Engineering
Volume 6, Issue 3
Abstract
A new school of computing and engineering was formed in 2000 by uniting two programs needing organizational legitimacy in the university. Program faculty members and a broadly supportive community created a bold, rapid plan using best practice business strategies to form the new school. The plan for joining these two programs was accepted by the university’s governing board six months after the planning group was convened. The new school continues to execute the business practices learned in the tumultuous formation period for ongoing success.
In 2000, a ripe leadership opportunity created a new engineering school in Kansas City. Two existing programs were united, solving several historic administrative ailments. The administrative situation was unstable for both the Computer Science and Telecommunications Program (CSTP) and the Coordinated Engineering Program (CEP). CST had always been classified as a program rather than as a school at the University of Missouri-Kansas City (UMKC), and its leadership was titled “director” instead of “dean.” The CSTP was identified as one of UMKC’s “pinnacles of excellence” in 2000. The new school needed to be on equal footing with the other schools at UMKC, with its dean on equal footing with the other deans. CEP was administered by the engineering dean at the University of Missouri-Columbia, away. CEP needed to be part of a school at UMKC to prosper. Therefore, both programs needed the same bold administrative change for different reasons.
A change in the chief executive at UMKC catalyzed the formation of the new school. The new chancellor began aggressive strategic planning at the same time as the new school proposal. This campus-wide planning was inclusive, bold, and a departure from strategic planning “as usual.” The atmosphere of catalytic change (Collins 1999) infused a growing sense of success and innovation on the campus that was an important backdrop to the framing committee for the new school.
Elsewhere in the United States that same year, the Olin College of Engineering in Massachusetts was forming as well (Sanoff 2000). It was created as a new entity with a large endowment commitment to the new school (more than $300 million). Olin has successfully hired a president, faculty, and enrolled a student body. The vice president of Olin, Sherra Kerns, was the 2004-2005 president of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), demonstrating Olin’s vitality and commitment to engineering education. Another seminal event that same year took place at Smith College, also in Massachusetts. The Picker Engineering Program started that year was the first engineering program at a traditional women’s college (Picker Engineering Program 2003). Smith College brought tremendous alumnae energy and resources to this venture. Picker attracted a director, faculty, and students (including a waiting list). Smith has now graduated its first engineers (Mulrine 2005).
Kansas City was the largest metropolitan area in the country that did not have a freestanding engineering program, and the engineering community was ready for a locally controlled engineering school. Kansas City has a significant consulting and research and development engineering economy, and most engineering alumni/ae remain in the area as successful engineers. Practicing engineers and their employers count on the formal (MS, PhD) and continuing education provided by UMKC. Employers use the access to local graduate school as a recruiting tool for out-of-town job candidates.
Negotiating Team
The chancellor appointed three faculty from each of the two affected groups—computer science and engineering. She also appointed four very accomplished senior faculty from other academic units with an interest in the success of the new school. The inclusion of outside senior faculty from other units on the campus was a successful specification by the chancellor. These interested senior faculty provided a balanced objectivity to an emotionally charged group. These four faculty were absolutely committed to a positive outcome, but were not affected by the sometimes parochial concerns voiced by the two groups.
The leadership opportunity had real consequences tied to failure that many academic leadership situations lack. While professors often work on tight deadlines on grant proposals, an unsuccessful proposal seldom leads to job termination, and while committee work is often important, it doesn’t usually need broad support from multiple stakeholders. The university was “creating a culture of leadership” (Kotter 2001).
A successful proposal to the University of Missouri Board of Curators (the governing board) was needed by December 2000. The group was assembled and a chair appointed by the new chancellor in late May 2000. A workable draft was required by July 31, 2000. The time frame of this proposal was far more rapid than faculty were accustomed to, and the group had not yet established rapport.
The chairwoman for the school formation committee had served on a national nonprofit board of directors from 1995 to 1997 for the Society of Women Engineers. During this time, she learned first-hand about meeting management, conflict resolution, business demeanor, and how agendas are set and adhered to—all invaluable skills with which to lead the new framing committee. The time frame alone imposed on the process required a different type of meeting structure than is usually found at the academy. Agendas were set, discussions were limited to an agreed-upon time limit (with a timer), and meetings started and ended on time. Minutes were recorded by an experienced administrative associate. “Business as usual” at the university implies endless meetings where participants are ill-prepared and agendas are seldom set ahead of time. Adherence to business meeting expectations at first drew challenges from the committee members until they could see that highly disciplined meetings would quickly produce a good product.
There was no need to motivate the committee members to accept the legitimacy of the committee’s work. The engineering faculty members were committed to creating a new school because faculty attrition was quickly endangering the engineering accreditation, which, if lost, would lead to the elimination of the engineering departments. The four senior faculty from other units on campus were interested in the success of the project as well, because a new school of computing and engineering would enhance their own departments and research. The motivation of the team was key in bringing a quick, useful proposal to the chancellor.
Change Management
“Turnarounds are when leadership matters most…. [P]utting an organization on a positive path toward future success also requires that leaders energize their workforce, throughout the ranks. The small wins that newly empowered people create are the first signs that a turnaround is on track. And this is the true test of leadership—whether those being led out of the defeatism of decline gain the confidence that produces victories” (Kanter 2003). Some of the “small wins” Kanter (2003) describes that followed the new school formation included: merging of electrical engineering and telecommunications groups, a successful ABET (Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology) visit, hiring of an MD/PhD for the bioinformatics program, and the senior capstone course in computer science being coordinated with an area medical networking company.
The methodology employed in the new school formation followed the E/O model in Beer and Nohria (2000). A sequenced management style of E (hierarchical/economic) followed by O (organizational capacity building) enabled a rapid response to the opportunity to create the new school. The chancellor dictated the general direction to take, the committee essentially worked on an E model, and then the broader school faculty, alumni/ae, and corporate partners were involved in the decision making. There wasn’t enough time to build enough organizational capacity to frame the school in time; however, the O model did affect significant changes in the continuing outcomes. The faculty/alumni/ae partners were fully involved and committed to a positive result.
An organizational/culture clash between computer science and engineering was identified during the process. There were certain issues that always divided along computer science/engineering lines, and resolution on those issues seemed bleak. As Heifetz and Laurie (2001) explain, “The work of the leader is to get conflict out into the open and use it as a source of creativity.” Once the cultural differences were known to everyone, they were addressed. The computer scientists were more casual with a flat organizational plan, where the engineers tended to be hierarchical and formal. An analogy we found useful was: “It’s like a merger between IBM and Yahoo.”
Another useful business model for the new school is the mind-set Ertel (2004) describes as necessary for the long-term success of a business deal. His five points and how they played out for the new school can be seen in Table 1.Table 1. Ertel Model
| Ertel’s goals for successful negotiation | Corresponding goals for the new engineering school |
|---|---|
| Start with the end in mind | The goal was always a thriving engineering and computer science school |
| Help them prepare, too | Both parties were represented in the school formation committee, and helped shape the form of the new school |
| Treat alignment as a shared responsibility | A successful school would need consideration of the goals of each party |
| Send one message | The only solution was one school formed from a merger of both parties |
| Manage negotiation like a business process | Frequent and open communication of the process, and forthright resolution of conflict |
Early Outcomes
The following early outcomes were enjoyed:
•
The new school was approved by the university president and board of curators in January 2001 (Jaffe 2001).
•
The UM president allocated for shared distance education within the University of Missouri system, with UMKC as the lead institution.
•
The interim dean was appointed in February 2001, and for the first time, both computer science and engineering faculty had their own dean.
•
The successful ABET EAC accreditation visit in December 2001 resulted in accreditation. Previous ABET visits identified faculty morale, chain-of-command problems, etc., which were cured by the new school formation.
Continuing Outcomes
The following outcomes continue to evolve:
•
The successful dean search attracted an experienced candidate, who started in June 2002 (Sorcher and Bryant 2002); the entrepreneurial nature of the school attracted a good cadre of applicants.
•
The nimble organizational structure has fostered a novel relationship between the school and the city government to allow for design of small traffic bridges by the capstone civil engineering design class (O’Bannon and Kimes 2004).
•
Undergraduate enrollment growth in civil and mechanical engineering has exploded—a 20 percent increase for Fall 2004, and a 24 percent increase for Fall 2005—and plans are being put in place to accommodate the increased number of students and to tighten admission criteria.
•
An advisory board for civil and mechanical engineering was established in 2004; the eight-member board is energetic and optimistic about the school’s and the department’s future.
•
The civil and mechanical engineering programs are aggressively planning for a successful accreditation visit under ABET EC2000 criteria. They are incorporating continuous quality improvement and open business practices in their departmental operations.
•
The research area of bioinformatics now includes four faculty in the new school.
Summary
A new school of computing and engineering was formed in Kansas City by adopting current best practices from the business literature. The new school has continued to flourish because these best practices became normal business procedures.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank Martha Gilliland, Marjorie Smelstor, and Ronald MacQuarrie for their instrumental roles in the new school formation.
References
Beer, M., and Nohria, N. (2000). “Campuses and university outreach meeting strategic plan objectives.” Spectrum, 27(4), 1.
Collins, J. (1999). “Turning goals into results: The power of catalytic mechanism.” Harvard Bus. Rev., 77(7), 71–82.
Ertel, D. (2004). “Getting past yes: Negotiating as if implementation mattered.” Harvard Bus. Rev., 82(11), 60–68.
Heifetz, R., and Laurie, D. (2001). “The work of leadership.” Harvard Bus. Rev., 79(12), 131–140.
Jaffe, A. (2001). “New school at UMKC will address need for tech, bioscience workers.” Kansas City Business Journal, 19(18), 4.
Kanter, R. (2003). “Leadership and the psychology of turnarounds.” Harvard Bus. Rev., 81(6), 58–67.
Kotter, J. (2001). “What leaders really do.” Harvard Bus. Rev., 79(12), 85–96.
Mulrine, A. (2005). “The Real World.” Prism, 14(9), 28–35.
O’Bannon, D., and Kimes, T. (2004). “Civil engineering capstone design at UMKC: A partnership with government to design small structures.” Proc., Integrating Practice into Engineering Education, University of Michigan, Dearborn, Mich.
Picker Engineering Program. (2003). “First annual report.” Picker Engineering Program, Smith College, Northampton, Mass.
Sanoff, A. (2000). “Creating a masterpiece at Olin College.” Prism, 10(2), 20–24.
Sorcher, M., and Brant., J. (2002). “Are you picking the right leaders?” Harvard Bus. Rev., 80(2), 78–85.
Biographies
Deborah O’Bannon is an associate professor of civil engineering at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. She can be reached by telephone at 816-235-1287, or via e-mail at [email protected].
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Leadership and Management in Engineering
Volume 6 • Issue 3 • July 2006
Pages: 93 - 96
Copyright
© 2006 ASCE.
History
Published online: Jul 1, 2006
Published in print: Jul 2006
ASCE Technical Topics:
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.