Comments from the UIF Working Group Chair: Modest but far-reaching changes stress innovation

In an era of constrained resources, the University of Washington must have the flexibility to renew itself and to seize opportunities of compelling importance. This is the spirit behind the University Initiatives Fund (UIF). The overarching purpose of the UIF is to encourage those strategic investments that will help ensure the UW's continuing competitive strength and enable it to fulfill its fundamental missions in teaching, research and service.

There are many paths that lead to this common goal. For example, there are broad institutional themes such as these recently enunciated by the President: the fuller integration of teaching and research, a broader environmental emphasis, the challenge of introducing greater international dimensions to our programs, and expanded opportunities for experiential learning.

There are also increasingly important interdisciplinary teaching and research programs. These are often difficult programs to launch, since they are usually not the highest priority for a given unit, much less for three or four units simultaneously. Nevertheless, these programs may be critical for the future of the institution, and are demanded by society.

High-quality interdisciplinary work depends on strong disciplinary units and programs, which must remain healthy and vital. This suggests that the UIF should also consider compelling proposals that are focussed on a single discipline, if they are consistent with the overall strategic directions of the institution.

With one round of awards behind us, we are recommending modifications to the UIF guidelines in order to address two primary issues. First, we now recognize that proposals in the first round were not well enough aligned with school and college goals. Consequently, not only were these goals left largely unaddressed, but the proposals themselves may have inadvertently imposed even further financial demands on the unit. The interdisciplinary nature of the proposals, while responding to UIF criteria, exacerbated this lack of alignment with unit goals. (Throughout this discussion, the term "unit" refers to units at the dean and vice president level.)

Second, it was mostly larger proposals that were successful in the first round. Thus smaller units seemed to be at a disadvantage in competing for UIF funding. This is a serious concern, since even modest allocations could make significant differences in the quality of such programs. Here again, this problem was intensified for the smaller units by the interdisciplinary requirement.

The proposed remedies for these concerns are modest but potentially far-reaching. First, all deans' and vice-presidents' units will be invited to submit proposals for UIF funding that represent each unit's highest strategic priorities. For these smaller, unit-specific proposals, awards will be limited to roughly a third of the amount contributed to the UIF pool by that unit. These unit-specific proposals can be submitted at any time. Second, for all other proposals (those submitted once during the biennium at the designated date given in the guidelines), the interdisciplinary criterion, though still central, will be relaxed somewhat in this round.

Thus, proposals may focus on institutional themes, interdisciplinary collaborations, or more discipline-specific programs, but must be consistent with department and unit goals. One criterion will be constant: that proposals further the strategic goals of the UW and ensure that it remains at the forefront of intellectual endeavor and scholarly activity.

UIF-2 will thus provide a suite of options. A unit can emphasize its own highest-priority initiatives (up to the limit stipulated), and it can also submit collaborative proposals in concert with other academic or administrative units. This new broad-spectrum approach should provide greater flexibility, so that all units have a chance to achieve their strategic goals regardless of size or collaborative opportunities.

Flexibility is one of the key elements. As before, the Provost can retain up to 20 percent of the fund for unique opportunities that might arise between the proposal submission rounds. If there is an insufficient number of high quality proposals submitted, the Provost is encouraged to fund only the most meritorious, to retain the unallocated funds for future strategic opportunities, or for other purposes consistent with the UIF guidelines.

Funding for academic and administrative proposals would be limited to the respective revenue contributed by each of the two categories of units. Collaborative projects that join academic and administrative forces are encouraged. In any event, a criterion for the larger-scale administrative proposals shall be the enhancement of the support services for academic programs.

By encouraging deans and vice presidents to become more actively engaged in the development of proposals, the new guidelines will promote greater consistency of purpose. This emphasis on "alignment" is not intended to discourage imaginative ideas that originate with individual faculty. Indeed, most proposals are expected to originate with the faculty. But UIF-2 suggests a stronger partnership between faculty, chairs and deans to identify emerging opportunities or constructive reshaping of existing programs, consistent with the highest and best needs of the units and the institution. The stronger this partnership, the more effective and constructive the proposal is likely to be.

Other features of the original UIF remain intact. These elements are outlined in the formal guidelines. As before, the Provost can call upon internal and/or external advisors to help evaluate the proposals, and these may include faculty, staff or students as the situation may indicate. In response to comments made after the first round, more extensive feedback will be provided in UIF-2 to those who submit proposals that are not selected for funding.

The first round of the UIF generated a number of imaginative new programs that are expected to yield significant benefits to the University over the coming years. (See article above as an example). The modifications embodied in UIF-2 are designed to make the process even better, so that these precious permanent funds can be expended for the greatest possible long-term good of the institution. We will learn more with UIF-2, and further adjustments may be appropriate. We believe the UIF is an essential tool for ensuring the long-term vitality of the UW, and we intend, with your help, to make it as productive as possible. ¶

Alvin L. Kwiram, Vice Provost for Research and Chair of the UIF Working Group