As a resource allocation method, RCM guides major academic and support units in generating income and managing expenditures to meet their teaching, research and community service objectives. Its basic principles emphasize the delegation of responsibility to the points of decision-making and action within institutions, which precisely reflects the shifts now occurring in higher education.
As UCLA's pioneer simulation site for RCM, GSE&IS faculty and staff began preparing for changes last summer. Most members of the School community now have received extensive training in areas ranging from budget development and strategic planning to software use and team building. Their continued participation tests technology and implementation methods of RCM as well as approaches to engaging faculty and staff in the transition. These critical efforts are led by Dean Ted Mitchell, the Executive Committee and an RCM Sub-Committee. The Graduate Students Association in Education and the DIS Student Governing Board serve as channels for student opinions and concerns related to RCM. Education professors Wellford (Buzz) Wilms and Harold Levine, along with two graduate student research assistants, are conducting a year-long study of RCM implementation. Findings from their preliminary survey on the faculty and staff membersÕ awareness, perceptions and opinions were presented at the RCM Fall Forum in November.
Almost all GSE&IS faculty and two-thirds of the staff members participated in the study, as did 130 students. Student responses generally indicate they are not well-informed about RCM at this juncture. However, most faculty and staff say they know "something" or "a lot" on the issue. They acknowledge RCMÕs contribution to cost control and sound strategic decision-making although few regard it as a means to improve educational quality. Furthermore, faculty and staff are worried that RCM will discourage collaboration, reduce morale, precipitate job losses, worsen faculty-staff relationships, and promote individual gain over collective benefit.
"I agree with RCM. Some people use services without regard to cost. Maybe now they will become aware but I donÕt think theyÕll accept RCM with open arms because theyÕll now be held accountable for their spending," reads one staff memberÕs response.
"RCM is promising because of fuller disclosure about resource allocation and utilization...It may prod us to better understand what is valuable and deserves resources," writes a faculty member. But others say, "RCM runs counter to academic goals," or "RCM is a way to run UC cheaper by cutting benefits to employees..." Clearly there exists both support and opposition.
The concerns expressed by staff and faculty members in the study are not suprising to Mitchell, who understands that some elements of RCM, "like the impetus to draw up the drawbridge between competing programs, are highly problematic." However, he emphasized, "Our job as academic leaders is to minimize these elements and maximize those elements that create new opportunities for faculty creativity." Regarding the notion of organizational culture that Wilms and his team set out to examine, a conflict is perceived between traditional academic values and those of RCM which foster entrepreneurial (i.e. business-oriented) behavior. "The language (Ôemployees, management, customersÕ) is dismaying because it clearly reveals the effort of business culture to undermine and devalue academic culture," comments a faculty member.
Bringing resolution to such differences represents the challenge of implementing RCM in an existing organization. From Mitchell's perspective, "The trick is not to replace one set of values with another... just the opposite. The trick is to use new tools to enhance the fundamental values of the academy." The research teamÕs follow-up survey to be administered in Spring, 1996, should indicate whether movement has taken place toward this end.
At this early phase of organizational change, the jury is still out. And this may be a positive indicator. Caution and hesitation in adopting new policies may prevent negative, unintended consequences. By approaching RCM through a carefully orchestrated plan, GSE&IS certainly may find itself in an enviable position in the rapidly changing arena of higher education.
Return to Spring 1996, vol. 1, no. 1 Issue
Go to the UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies Home Page