TAXONOMY TEAM
Final Report
January 8, 1997

There is growing concern among citizens that institutions of higher education place too many of their resources in unnecessary administration. On January 12, 1996, Provost Stiles formed an ad hoc team to study this issue. Members of the team were:
 

The Provost charged the team to develop a taxonomy to define what administration is and isn't, and how much administration should there be. Any administrative taxonomy developed was to: 1) assist in determining if too many resources are, in fact, placed in administration, 2) assist in explaining the true and useful functions of administration to our internal and external constituents, and 3) be translatable to any other administrative taxonomy currently in use.

The "Taxonomy Team" (TT) convened for 1.5 to 2 hours for each of its five (5) meetings: February 12, March 4, March 18, April 8, and April 22. The team approached its charge by first attempting to define what tasks, roles, and functions fall under the work classifications traditionally known as "Administration." To this end, the TT reviewed:
 

    1. existing rules, regulations, and statutes that outline, or imply, a set of definitions related to administration,
    2. current personnel data file definitions from UNC-GA to understand their current taxonomy,
    3. budget issues as they relate to personnel functions, and other currently existing system-wide or institutional guidelines that might impact the team's charge.
WHAT IS "ADMINISTRATION" AND WHO ARE "ADMINISTRATORS?

Depending on who is asked or what data are studied, there are differing definitions of "administration". The TT found that definitions and discussions of "administration" tend to fall into three categories: personal opinion, occupational activity (OA) codes, and sources of position funding.

  1. Personal Opinion: The TT's definitional discussions ranged from believing administration is anyone not in the classroom on a regular basis or engaged in research/extension to believing administration is any position not directly connected to the broad academic functions of the institution. In an effort to find other definitions of "administration," the TT solicited definitions of administration from other institutions.

    2. Via the Southern University Group (SUG) listserv, four questions were posted: 1) What are the institutional definitions (including rules and regulations) to define "administration" at your institution?, 2) Are there any "guidelines" which relate to the types of activities associated with administration at your institution?, 3) Are there any budgetary constraints, in the form of quotas or ratios that limit staff/administrative positions?, and 4) What % of your campus' professional workforce is associated with administration, as opposed to direct teaching, research, or extension? Responses were received from Kentucky, Oklahoma, Alabama, Texas Tech, Auburn, Florida State, Texas, and Clemson. While the answers were interesting to read, they shed little new light on the issue at hand.

    Another source of information was the draft of the "Report from Goal #1 Implementation Team on Faculty Satisfaction & Success" which included among its eight members, two members of the TT, Lumpkin and Bernhard (see Appendix A). Two portions of the Report provided the opportunity for considerable discussion in the TT. First, the Report called for "a study to be undertaken to assess how the university can function effectively with fewer administrators and to identify where reductions could be made." Second, the Report recommended that "faculty/administrators should spend a significant portion of their academic time in their academic departments in order to remain in touch with their faculty colleagues and students."

     

  2. Occupational Activity (OA) Codes: The Office of Civil Rights and the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission use a standard set of OA codes that place employees into rather broad categories of work according to the position's major function (see Appendix B). Three of the OA codes provide the foundation of NC State's EPA category employees. There can be only one code assigned per person even though an individual may be paid from both 1110 and 1310 funds:
  3. Sources of position funding: Much discussion takes place each year at salary increase time regarding the differences between 11XX and 13XX funds (generically referred to as 1110 and 1310 funds). The State of NC Executive Budget Manual defines these funds as follows:
 

QUESTIONS AND OTHER SOURCES OF INFORMATION

 The review of 11XX and 13XX definitions led to three questions among team members:

 
To further understand the issues of 11XX and 13XX funds, the TT also reviewed:  

CONCLUSIONS

The TT believes several annual reviews are appropriate ingredients in clarifying the questions posed by faculty and others relative to the term "administration":

It is recommended that NC State's Office of University Planning & Analysis and Office of Academic Personnel Services provide the data needed for the following annual reviews:
  1. The TT recommends that OA codes be the primary classification system used to measure the extent of administrative assignments of EPA personnel. By relying on the OA code taxonomy the need to create a new classification scheme is not necessary. In addition, OA data across institutions can be compared using the same taxonomy. The TT recognizes there are limitations to the accuracy of the OA code, especially the inability to partition an individual's duties among OA categories. Nonetheless, the TT believes the aggregate data provided by the OA codes are sufficiently accurate and unbiased to be useful in describing the work assignments of our EPA personnel.
  2. The OA code and related titles table should be reviewed annually prior to NC State's submission of the Personnel Data File (PDF) to UNC-GA. This table is the source for maintaining OA code/title consistency across colleges/divisions and for defining who is faculty (OA 20) and who is not (i.e., in general, administration = OA 10 + OA 30). The relationship of OA codes to titles is currently determined by the Office of Academic Personnel Services. In order to be useful for managerial analysis, the OA code must be applied uniformly across campus and they must be updated continuously. The TT's examination of selected data indicated that some employees' OA codes are currently erroneous. It is essential the OA codes be based on some standard of official criteria, e.g., a department head who spends less than half of this time performing administrative duties should not be classified OA 10 (administrative) simply because his title indicates an administrative position. Each department head should review the OA codes' analysis for all EPA employees who have that department as a primary OUC and should resolve any concerns with the Office of Academic Personnel Services.
  3. Three specific tables (see citations below) based upon 1995 "Analysis of EPA Non-Faculty Personnel" should be produced each year by the Office of University Planning and Analysis and the Provost should review them with the Faculty Senate annually. These tables provide an overview of the types of administrative growth/decline and the location where the growth/decline occurred. Significant growth or decline should be explained. The three tables to be produce on an annual basis are:
  4. Each Department Head should review annually the 1110/1310 salary distribution for all EPA employees who have that department as a primary OUC. Any employee receiving 1310 funds should have duties appropriate to and involving teaching and/or instructional support. The results of the departmental review should be discussed by the Department Head with his/her Dean and then each Dean should provide a summary of the review to the Provost. While it is understood that some EPA employees have 1310 functions but receive 1110 funds, it is important that NC State be able to demonstrate that all 1310 funds are appropriately assigned.

Return to: Task Forces and Ad Hoc Committees