|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since I was named Chancellor in June, faculty colleagues and others have frequently asked me, "What is a Chancellor?" The simple answer is that a Chancellor is half a Provost. Essentially, Bob Brown and I have each assumed a share of Joel Moses’ prior responsibilities. (Since our appointment, Chuck Vest has quipped on more than one occasion that it takes two people to replace Joel. Nothing could be truer.) Of course, to say that we have divided the job invites the inevitable question, "How?" Chuck invited Bob and me to work out the division of labor together. Fortunately, we were able to accomplish this potentially difficult task in about 45 minutes over a bagel at the S&S – a sign of a good partnership. If one thinks of MIT’s academic organization as a matrix organization with schools and departments forming the columns, and other functional activities forming the rows, I have responsibility for the rows and Bob has responsibility for the columns. The School Deans report to the Provost, as does the director of the Lincoln Labs and the director of the Libraries. Activities that cut across schools or departments report to the Chancellor. These include the Dean of Students and Undergraduate Education, the Dean of Graduate Education, and the Vice President for Research (for most, but not all of his activities – more about this below).
In addition, I have responsibility for strategic planning, campus development, and the oversight of MIT’s large-scale institutional partnerships, both industrial and international. The Provost retains responsibility for faculty development (although we consult on important issues like selection of Deans). Essentially we share responsibility for allocating the two scarce resources in the Institute, money and space. The Provost takes the lead on the budget as the Institute’s chief budget officer, and the Chancellor takes the lead in allocating space as the chair of CRSP. Given that both resources are required to get anything done, this division of responsibilities ensures that we work very closely together.
The Vice President for Research is the only person with a dual reporting relationship to both the Provost and the Chancellor. As we considered how to organize the office of the Chancellor, Bob and I realized that if the VP for Research reported to the Chancellor only, some labs and centers at MIT would report to the Chancellor while others would report to the Provost. This anomaly would occur because some labs and centers report to School Deans who report to the Provost, while others report to the VP for Research who would otherwise report to the Chancellor. After consulting with a few lab directors, we concluded that it would be best if all labs and centers reported to one senior academic officer. Consequently, the VP for Research also reports to the Provost for purposes of oversight of interdisciplinary labs and centers.
Why split the job of Provost in two?
In creating the new position of Chancellor, the President hoped to accomplish a number of objectives. First, there are now two senior academic officers at the table on major decisions with two complementary perspectives. Bob and I come from different intellectual traditions, and often see the world through different conceptual lenses. This diversity is valuable in decision-making. Second, by dividing the line reporting responsibilities, the amount of time available for direct interaction with faculty in each area will be increased. Bob and I also hope to be able to respond to issues in a more timely fashion. Better communication between the faculty and administration is one of our highest priorities.
Third, by creating a new position with responsibilities associated with both undergraduate and graduate education, this new structure promises greater attention to educational policy issues. Previously these issues had to compete for the Provost’s attention with a myriad of other concerns, especially the budget. Fourth, as MIT prepares to launch a campaign, we now have two senior academic officers to support the President in a variety of ways. If Bob and I do our jobs right, Chuck’s burden should be eased a bit, and we should all be able to get a lot more accomplished.
By creating a position with a primary focus on activities that cross school and department boundaries, we also hope to facilitate these types of interactions. MIT is a more complex place to manage today than it was 10 or 20 years ago in part because we keep inventing new ways to collaborate. For example, in the past five years, MIT has established major new collaborations with industry (e.g., partnerships with Ford, Amgen, Merck, and NTT), with other universities (e.g., the Alliance for Global Sustainability, as well as a number of initiatives in China), and with governments (e.g., the Singapore-MIT Alliance).
Similarly, our educational initiatives increasingly span multiple schools and departments (e.g., the Division of Bioengineering and Environmental Health, the Engineering Systems Division, Leaders for Manufacturing, and the new SM in Systems Design and Management). Invariably, each of these new types of collaborations raises important policy questions. Resolving these issues often requires enormous investments of time and energy to say nothing of exquisite diplomatic skills. (I am not sure what is more challenging – the negotiations between MIT and its industrial and international partners or the negotiations between different academic units internal to MIT.) Part of my job will be to try to coordinate and manage such efforts whether they involve curricular reform, international collaborations, or industrial partnerships.
What are my priorities?
Most of us keep "to do" lists. I am no different. I keep my long-term "to do" list on a white board in my office. The list currently includes getting the new undergraduate residence designed, built, and open by fall 2001; managing the transition to a new housing system with all freshmen living on campus by fall 2001; getting the new graduate residence open by fall 2002 (to be built at Sydney and Pacific Street in University Park); implementing the recommendations of the Task Force on Student Life and Learning; redesigning the process by which we make decisions regarding space planning and administration at the Institute (known to the cognoscenti as CRSP or Committee for the Review of Space Policy); organizing an Institute-wide strategic planning initiative; organizing a new Research Council to address research policy issues that often arise among labs, centers, and departments; developing a long-term strategy to govern our international initiatives; and identifying how we can act more strategically in developing our industrial partnerships. Lots of other issues occupy my time, but these are my long-term priorities.
I feel incredibly fortunate to have the opportunity to serve the Institute in this new capacity. Both the challenges and the opportunities are exciting. Chuck, Bob Brown, and John Curry are wonderful partners and colleagues, as are all of the members of Academic Council. While the days are long, the work is both exceptionally interesting and rewarding. I am looking forward to getting lots done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|