REPORT

Process Action Team

For

Establishing Doctoral Supervisory Committees

June 14, 2000

Committee Members:

Julia Carlson, Graduate School, Chair

Christine Di Stefano, Political Science

John Drew, Graduate School

Linda Hegrenes, Forest Resources

Tracy McKenzie, History

David Miles, Linguistics/Slavic Languages and Literatures

Brooke Miller, Mathematics

Francis Spelman, Bioengineering

Introduction

The Graduate School has received an increasing number of requests to streamline administrative procedures and to complete procedures electronically. A procedure that requires a high volume of paper exchange and duplicates staff effort is managing doctoral supervisory committees. In response to the requests, an on-line program for establishing doctoral supervisory committees was proposed and well received at the November 1999 Graduate Program Assistant (GPA) Workshop. Concurrently, a UIF proposal was submitted and granted, in part, to aid in creating this on-line committee program.

In January 2000, the Graduate School Process Improvement Team (PIT) designated a Process Action Team (PAT) to:

1) review and identify problems associated with the current process of establishing doctoral supervisory committees;

2) consider alternatives for a better process;

3) design a new process and report to the PIT no later than the end of Spring Quarter 2000.

The PAT was comprised of eight members - three GPAs, three Graduate Program Coordinators (GPCs) and two Graduate School staff. The members represented eight doctoral degree-granting units covering a variety of disciplines and met four times over a three-month period.

Current Process

Currently, the process involves:

the GPC sends a committee nomination memo to the Graduate School
the Graduate School approves the committee and assigns a Graduate School Representative, GSR (Graduate Faculty are assigned to no more than two GSR appointments at any one time)
if the committee is not approved, the Graduate School calls the GPA
the Graduate School mails an invitation letter to the appointed GSR
the Graduate School mails an official committee letter (with GSR instructions for the student) to the GPA who then copies and distributes to the student and committee members
if the GSR accepts and confirms the appointment, the Graduate School notifies the GPA who notifies the student
if the GSR notifies the Graduate School that he/she does not accept the appointment, the Graduate School will assign a new GSR and mail a new copy of the official committee letter to the GPA
if the GSR does not respond, it is assumed that he/she has accepted the appointment
the Graduate School places a hard copy of the committee letter into the student’s file

Identifying Problems/Needs of the Current Process

After reviewing the current process, the PAT identified the following problems/needs:

students and faculty do not understand the role or the assignment system of the GSRs
students do not contact the GSRs when committees are established
students are not notified regarding their appointed GSRs
GSRs do not confirm their new appointments
GSRs forget their appointments
Graduate Faculty are unaware or unhappy with their discipline choices for GSR appointments
GSRs object to the discipline assignment when chosen from the Graduate Faculty group pool
Graduate School may take too long to establish committees
GPAs are not always aware of established committees
communication is needed when committees are terminated for reasons other than completion of the degree

Considering Alternatives

The PAT then reviewed a proposed process flowchart that was suggested by the Graduate School and initially presented at the GPA Workshop. This process was designed with the anticipated impact of reduced paperwork, instant committee set-up and an overall better communication system. The major differences between the two processes were:

students establish committees on-line vs. GPC memos mailed to the Graduate School
students choose GSRs from a Graduate School approved list vs. the Graduate School appointing GSRs
committee confirmation e-mails sent to all participants vs. hard copies of letters mailed to departments, then copied and mailed to students and committee members
Graduate School notified of committees vs. Graduate School approving committees

The current and the proposed flowcharts were available on-line for GPAs’ and GPCs’ comments. Though few comments were received a singular concern did become apparent. Both GPAs and GPCs were apprehensive about allowing students to establish their committees on-line. The concern was that students would not adhere to departmental committee requirements thus causing a potential increase in miscommunication between the departments, faculty and students and possibly contributing to unequal faculty workloads within a given department.

After reviewing the processes, addressing problems and discussing the GPAs’ and GPCs’ comments, the PAT agreed that an on-line procedure would be a more efficient method of establishing doctoral supervisory committees, thereby reducing paperwork and staff workload, potentially decreasing the amount of time needed to establish committees and developing a better communication system between all involved parties.

Designing the Program

Though the PAT agreed to an on-line procedure, it was decided that the initial proposed process had two major flaws that needed to be addressed. First, they agreed that GPAs/GPCs or their alternates would establish the committees on-line instead of the students. This was decided because of the aforementioned concerns of the GPAs/GPCs and a concern that students may neglect to establish their committees in a timely manner. Second, the group decided that the Graduate School would continue to assign GSRs instead of allowing students to select GSRs from an approved list. The group was concerned that an approved list of GSRs may allow for students or faculty to choose GSRs who are affiliated with the students, committee members or departments and this would potentially create conflicts for the GSRs who should be unaffiliated to better perform their required duties.

E-mail was sent to the GPAs and GPCs asking for input regarding the current vs. revised proposed process. The process differences were listed and both flowcharts were made available for review. Overall, the respondents described the proposed process as well designed and efficient. Most agreed it was an improvement with fewer problems than the current system. Positive feedback was given in regards to minimizing the use of paper, better communication with the GSRs, providing information to the students, tracking committees and the initiation process remaining with the GPAs/GPCs. The following is a brief summary of the comments received (for a complete list of comments, see GPA/GPC Comments Regarding Supervisory Committee Changes):

who will be authorized to use the program and how will they be authorized
will departments have proper technology to use this program
how will participants with no e-mail be notified
what will occur if faculty will not read e-mails or forget their appointments
clear instructions are needed for students and chairs regarding committees and GSRs
program should have capability of printing hard copies
GPAs want to be copied on all text sent to students and committee members
changing committees and establishing reading committees on-line should be available
applying for exams on-line should be available
an accessible web-based master list of committees should be available

Most of these concerns had previously been addressed by the PAT but had not been thoroughly communicated to the respondents in the e-mail or flowchart. This will be remedied by placing this report on-line and presenting the new program at the GPA Workshop in November 2000. Also, the Graduate School will provide group training sessions for administering this program as well as individual assistance if necessary.

PAT Recommendation

The PAT agreed that the general requirements for the on-line program must include:

§ a system that is secure

§ a system that uses authorized GPAs/GPCs/alternates with UW NetIDs (maximum 4 per department -- Graduate School will maintain a list of authorized users)

§ a system that has accessible committee tracking capabilities

§ a system that is easy to administer

§ a system that will accommodate old and new technology

The specific program requirements will be:

§ GPAs/GPCs/Alternates establish committees on-line

§ committees must meet Graduate School requirements prior to submittal

§ error messages with appropriate instructions will appear if committees do not meet Graduate School requirements

§ automatic GSR selections that are based on Graduate School requirements

§ automatic appointment e-mails will be generated and sent to the GSRs

§ GSRs must respond to e-mails within one week

§ if GSRs do not respond within one week, automatic e-mail notices are sent to the Graduate School who will mail hard copies of the committee appointments with response cards to the GSRs (if response cards are not returned within a week, the Graduate School will call the GSRs’ departments)

§ once GSRs accept appointments, automatic committee notice e-mails will be generated and sent, with separate instructions, to students, GPAs/GPCs, committee members and the Graduate School

§ if GSRs do not accept appointments, the Graduate School receives e-mail notices and directs the program to choose new GSRs

§ GPAs/GPCs must be allowed to make changes to committees

§ GPAs/GPCs must be allowed to establish reading committees

In addition, the PAT agreed that the program must be managed to include:

§ transaction logs that will include, dates, times, who performed the transactions, prior states and descriptive texts

§ a system to track who accepts/does not accept GSR appointments and reasons for refusal

§ master lists for GPAs/GPCs to access their own students and faculty committees

The major differences between this and the current process are:

§ GPAs/GPCs/alternates will establish committees on-line via an authenticated login vs. submitting memos signed by the GPCs

§ the Graduate School will be “notified” of committees by e-mail vs. receiving hard copies of committee “nomination” letters

§ GSRs will be notified of their appointments by e-mail vs. receiving letters from the Graduate School

§ GSRs will be asked to confirm their appointments (preferably on-line) and, if they do not accept their appointments, will be asked to submit reasons for refusal (optional) vs. the Graduate School assuming GSRs have accepted their appointments upon receiving appointment letters

§ once GSRs have accepted their appointments, the program will generate and send committee notice e-mails to students, GPAs/GPCs, appointed committee members and the Graduate School vs. the Graduate School mailing the committee letters to the GPAs that then must be copied and distributed to the students and committee members

The program will be designed by the Graduate School’s Computer and Information Resources division and will be tested by three Ph.D. units. The projected timeline is:

PAT report presented to the PIT	June 2000
Mock-up program designed and presented at the GPA workshop	November 2000
Program testing begins	January 2001
Training sessions begin	March 2001
Program in full use	April 2001

To assess the outcome of this program, the PAT recommends that the Graduate School will keep an on-going record of all participants’ comments regarding the program. After one year in full use, a survey will be sent to GPAs/GPCs asking for their input. At this time the project will be re-evaluated, possibly by another PAT, and changes to the design may occur.

Continued Development

The proposed process will be designed within MyGrad Program and many new procedures may become available as this program develops. In the future, potential benefits include scheduling General and Final Examinations, students accessing committee information, and Graduate Faculty accessing their own committees and GSR service choices.

*************************************************************************************************************

GPA/GPC COMMENTS REGARDING SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE CHANGES

(Individual names have been masked with XXX)

I think the proposed new system seems excellent. I do think it

would be great if it included capabilities to make changes to committees

from the beginning. (The capabilities to set up reading committees should

really be linked to requests for final exams).

I know that faculty would be thrilled if they could get

information re their committee assignments annually (a lot of faculty

don't keep track very well and these things come up when we help assemble

tenure case files, or as supporting documentation for grant proposals when

faculty supervisory responsibilities often have to be listed in some

detail).

Will the system be able to accommodate the assigning of a non-UW

faculty member (i.e. someone of whom the Graduate School now requires the

submission of a CV, or will that requirement simply go away)?

Great work!! I bet it'll cut down on our phone calls to

you over the long run.

*************************************************************************

The procedures below seem fine to me, with the

odd exception of faculty who refuse to use email!

*************************************************************************

I like the email idea of transmitting committee requests.

*************************************************************************

About notifying GSRs via email: what if they don't have email? or don't

check it regularly. This has been a problem for some of our students

trying to contact GSRs.

Will it be possible for DEPARTMENTS to select GSRs from a pre-designated

list?? OR maybe look for emergency REPLACMENT GSR's on a pre-designated

list and then email down the list till we reach the jackpot?

The natural progression would be to apply for the exams on-line right?

Thanks for your GREAT work.

**************************************************************************

I think this is a great idea. To get rid of the paper work is

wonderful! My hope that the process we type in is easy and intuitive.

I would assume that it would cover all students and not new students in

the program. Keep up the good work! It make sense to me.

**************************************************************************

The proposed change is excellent. It looks well thought out and just a

quick review shows me all the steps and potential outcomes are covered.

**************************************************************************

We like the new procedure. A few questions--will you ask departments for the name(s) of those authorized to set up the committees on-line? How will the system verify that an authorized person is submitting the on-line form? Can a department have more than one person authorized to do this (i.e. in our case, 3 people)

We look forward to this new process and hope to see changes to committees, setting up reading committees etc. added to the list of things we can do on-line. We hope these changes cut down on your work as well.

Thanks for all your work on this.

**************************************************************************

I recently participated in a conversation among Associate Editors of a

board I belong to about handling reviews via email. The sponsoring

organization had a task force that recommended the changes, and the Editor

asked all his AEs for their responses. The majority of AEs were not in

favor of doing everything on-line. They reported that they'd be making

print copies of the materials anyway, so that it didn't save paper, and

that due to the large number of email messages received each day, there

was no guarantee that this method would solve any problems generated by

lost paper or forgotten commitments. I respond similarly to this set of

proposed plans. I don't deny that there are problems with GSRs, committee

appointments, etc., but I don't think that moving the procedures on-line

will solve them. Perhaps there could be some on-line complements or

options for some parts of the process. GPCs could either work with paper

or via e-mail. GSRs could get a paper notification and respond via

e-mail. And so on. But I'm skeptical about whether, at this stage of the

academic culture's adoption of e-mail, a 100% move to this modality,

channel, or venue would work for everyone.

*************************************************************************

Several of us have looked at this and generally it looks great! Good job

for instituting this. We had a few suggestions:

How about trying to solve the problem of students not contacting their

GSRs by a 2-step process. You could send the email to the GSR as to

whether s/he were willing to consider being a GSR for a particular

student. If the answer is yes, then the student has to go visit the GSR

within 2/3 weeks. Then another email goes to the GSR asking if the

student has contacted them. If the student does not visit the GSR, the

committee is not official and the student cannot take their General.

Also it would help to include the GSR in the email to the committee

members when the student accepts.

Also it would help to have very clear instructions to the student and to

the committee chair about when and why (and consequences if they don't)

they have to contact the GSR. XXX tells me that we've gotten

committee letters where there is just a letter to send to the committee

with no particular instructions to the student.

XXX mentioned that it would be good if you could include in the

instructions that go to the student, what to do if committee members are

out of town during an exam and how to hold the exam in that case. It would

be good to have a simpler system of allowing committee members to

participate by conference call. Faculty in the sciences travel so much,

it is often hard to arrange a date for exams. I've had students tell me

that it has taken them 6 months or more to come up with a date when the

committee members are available. By the time the dates comes sometimes a

committee members has become unavailable.

I would personally like to suggest some kind of similar system although

must simpler for master's students who write theses.

*************************************************************************

From what I can see the proposed process for establishing Supervisory

Committees looks good to me. I have only two suggestions and if they are

not feasible it seems to me the system will work wonderfully anyway!!

1) could we have an option on the computer when filling out the computer

form for supervisory committee to request a GSR that speaks French (in

case a student later wishes to petition the Grad School to write their

dissertation in French)

2) Should both the student AND the chairman of the supervisory committee

be expected to contact the GSR to introduce themselves? In the past it

was always just the student and if a chairman has a lot of committees to

chair, as within our dept, perhaps the chairs will find the current system

easier (wherein only the student is expected to contact the GSR)

Thanks for encouraging us to make suggestions... I realize my first one

might be better left ignored since I can /should always mention to people

drawing up supervisory committees that they are expected to write the

dissertation in Eng and will need to petition to have it in Fr, etc.

*************************************************************************

We consulted our students and their questions were mostly around how this

might change our front-end here in the department, which will obviously be

little change. I am worried about not being cc'd on everything the system

automatically generates for students.

My only question about the final step in which Student & Chair receive

separate instructions regarding committee responsibilities/GSR.

Is this also an email? If so, I think it will be important that the

GSA/GSC be cc'd on the emails. I plan to print-out hard copies of all

emails to place in our student files. It could be useful to have paper

proof that students/chair were notified of their responsibilities at the

appropriate time.

*************************************************************************

I checked out the website and although the proposed process was a little

off center, I think I got the gist of it and it looks good to me purely on

the standpoint of cutting down all this extraneous use of paper! I know

you agree. Kudos for getting this change happening!

*************************************************************************

I'd like to pass on the following comment. I agree with the

procedure for setting up grad committees on line. It will make things

much faster and easier. HOWEVER, when the committee is set up, a paper

copy should be sent to all members of the committee. There needs to be

something that I can file away, and refer to, when I try to remember who

is or is not a member of a particular committee. I'm on enough committees

so that I just don't remember who is on each committee.

**********************************************************************************************

I just wanted to say the process for online establishment of Supervisory

Committees sounds great. I definitely think we should do it this way.

**************************************************************************

I think it is all wonderful but an email from you to all faculty on the GSR list

explaining how this new system works ahead of time would be helpful. I think

you will also be chasing down a lot of GSRs to get their replies. They won't

print out appointment letters and keep them in a file etc. email has gone the

way of leaving a phone message for many of these people - ignored. But I like

the idea and it is worth pushing it until the faculty get it.

*************************************************************************

I am in favor of your revised system.

*************************************************************************

XXX forwarded your inquiry to us at the School of Library and

Information Science. We are just beginning our Ph.D. program this fall but

we agree the suggested changes will improve the process from the point of

view of efficiency and in terms of knowing and verifying the supervisory

committee membership.

**********************************************************************************************

This makes eminent sense. Tracking GSRs has always been a difficult issue.

**************************************************************************

I think this sounds great. I would love to be able to do "it all" on line.

It seems so much more efficient. We can make copies of anything that we

need. I vote YES to 1-5!

*************************************************************************

I heard about this plan also from XXX, who is on the committee --

and I think it's a very good idea.

**************************************************************************

I'm all for it. What's next like this we can do?

***************************************************************************

I have reviewed the new proposed procedure and believe that it will be a great improvement.

I approve.

****************************************************************************

The proposed process for supervisory committees looks very good

to me - extremely well thought out. Good work.

*****************************************************************************

1) departments who thought committees were established but they were not

I HAVE NOT EXPERIENCED THIS PROBLEM IN OUR DEPARTMENT BECAUSE WE HAVE A

GOOD PAPER TRAIL THAT IS EXPEDITED. I WOULD THINK THAT THIS PROBLEM STEMS

FROM DEPARTMENTS NOT EXPEDITING THE PAPERWORK. THE ON-LINE SYSTEM COULD

ALEVIATE THIS PROBLEM.

5) once GSRs have accepted their appointments, e-mails will be sent to the

students (with instructions regarding supervisory committees), the

departments (GPAs &/or GPCs) and the appointed committee members INSTEAD of

Comments cont.

the Graduate School mailing the committee letters to the GPAs which then

must be copied and distributed to the students and committee members

THIS IS A GOOD IDEA, TOO. HOWEVER, I'M CONCERNED THAT THIS MAY BE

PLACING TOO MUCH RESPONSIBILITY ON THE GRAD SCHOOL INSTEAD OF THE DEPARTMENTS.

IF COMMITTEE CONFLICTS ARISE, THE COMMITTEE MAY FEEL THE NEED TO CONTACT

THE GRAD SCHOOL INSTEAD OF THE DEPARTMENTS, ETC. I PERSONALLY FEEL I HAVE

MORE CONTROL OF WHAT GOES WHERE WHEN I MAIL THE COMMITTEE NOTIFICATIONS

OUT MYSELF. IF PROBLEMS ARISE, THEN THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS CONTACT ME OR

THE STUDENT/CHAIRPERSON. I'M CONCERNED THAT VALUABLE TIME MAY BE WASTED

IF WE HAVE THE GRAD SCHOOL AS A "MIDDLE MAN."

IT'S WORTH A TRY IF WE MUST DO IT. I FEEL MORE IN CONTROL WITH THE

"HANDS-ON" APPROACH, HOWEVER, AND WOULD PREFER THE METHOD WE NOW

USE. HOWEVER, I CAN SEE THAT, WITH SOME DEPARTMENTS, IT WOULD BE BETTER

TO DEVISE A "NEW" SYSTEM.

*************************************************************************

Your proposal, to establish and manage PhD supervisory committees by email

makes sense to me. We might *experiment* with it, so see how it works, to

learn by doing, and to generate interest since, after all, it is an

experiment.

*************************************************************************

I think that it's a great idea. It would certainly be more efficient.

**************************************************************************

I think that this is a great idea and am for it 100%!

***************************************************************************

I've reviewed your message and the flow charts, and I think the proposed

process looks marvelous. Admittedly, I do not have much experience with

the old way of doing things, but this looks like a well-planned process.

We have one student who will be establishing his committee soon, if you

need participants for a pilot program.

Thanks for the good work,

*************************************************************************

I agree that the process for doctoral Supervisory Committee appointment

could use a little "modernizing" and your proposal looks workable and

efficient.

I do have one question/concern: step #1 of your proposed system says

". . .will set up committees on-line via an authenticated login INSTEAD of

submitting letters signed by the GPCs. . ." Will the equipment I

presently have enable me to use ". . .authenticated login. . .etc"? I'm

concerned because many administrative departments/centers on campus set up

"cutting edge technologies" which they can originate - but those of us out

here in the poorer rural districts without funding

for "computer things" simply can't upgrade our equipment to enjoy them (we

still think an IBM Selectric is "to die for"!)

Outside of that concern, I like the new plan.

*************************************************************************

The proposed changes look great! I like the fact that the GPA/GPC

still have control over sending the request because it encourages the

grad students to communicate with us pro-actively instead of us

having to hunt them down re-actively. My only comment is that in the

new flowchart the Grad school wouldn't be notified of the proposed

committee until the GSR accepts or declines, so the approval process

could conceivably take longer in the new version. Not a big problem,

just some food for thought.

*************************************************************************

Thank you. This sounds like a fabulous improvement. I approve the who