CIM Programs Implementation

Although extensive, planning for this implementation will not have anticipated every contingency. Through AY 2024-2025, a change management team will meet monthly to assess concerns and identify improvements, enabling iterative enhancement of the software.

It is anticipated that formalizing the program approval process may expose process ambiguities and reveal gaps between policy and current (or intended) practice. The implementation team will engage the University’s policy-revision processes to clarify policies governing program approvals.

Because CIM Programs will distinguish program approvals from catalog changes, implementation presents an opportunity to reevaluate conventions for organizing and formatting program information in the catalog. A Catalog Beautification Project will run in parallel with implementation to engage stakeholders in developing shared conventions for presenting program information.

July

• Develop policy on Creation and Revision of Courses and Plans of Study
• Charge Change Management Teams (CMT)

 

August

• CIM Programs Go-Live
• Launch Catalog Beautification Project
• Publish how-to guides
• Review workflow steps with stakeholders
• Pilot new program proposals
• CMT review of change requests
• Implement fixes

September

• Catalog Beautification Project - report progress, refine path
• Prioritize new program proposals (Sept. 17 deadline for UCC submission)
• CIM programs migration
• Seek approval for comprehensive policy statement, which should include guidance regarding minor changes exempt from Assembly review
• CMT review of change requests
• Implement fixes

 

October

• Program proposals - all phases
• CIM programs migration
• CMT review of change requests
• Implement fixes

 

November

• Catalog Beautification Project - Discuss "zoning" for non-program catalog pages
• CIM programs migration
• Program proposals - all phases
• CMT review of change requests

 

December

• CIM programs migration
• Target for units to start workflow for 2025-26 any program changes requiring Assembly review
• CMT review of change requests
• Implement fixes

January

• Program proposals - all phases
• CMT review of change requests
• Implement fixes

 

February

• Catalog Beautification Project—close-out cycle, recommend next steps
• Deadline for units to start workflow for 2025-26 catalog program changes requiring Assembly review
• CMT review of change requests
• Implement fixes

 

March

• Deadline for units to start workflow for 2025-26 catalog program changes exempt from Assembly review (minor changes)
• CMT review of change requests
• Implement fixes

 

April

• Program proposals for action next AY
• CMT review of change requests; recommendations for formal governance structure; recommendations for next phase improvements
• Implement fixes
• Final approval must be complete by April 30, 2024

 

May

• Generate report
• Close-out implementation phase

The ad-hoc change management team will review, approve, and prioritize proposed changes to CIM workflows and forms. At the end of the implementation period, the team will recommend a formal governance process for review of future changes and process enhancement.

To request a change, email the CIM Programs listserv (a moderated list). It will be most helpful if, in your request, you describe specifically what you were doing when you encountered a problem, the result or behavior you anticipated or desired, and what happened instead.

Shawn Christensen, Graduate Assembly
Mark Cooper, Office of the Provost
Rebecca Dean, College of Liberal Arts
Tom Ingram, Undergraduate Curriculum Committee
Joe Jackson, Graduate School
Fernando Jaramillo, College of Business
Jeni King, Office of the Registrar
Rebecca Lewis, Institutional Effectiveness and Reporting

The Catalog Beautification Project is a cross-campus gathering of faculty, professional staff, and students interested in enhancing the catalog’s function and appeal. Through workshops, style-guides, training, and brainstorming the Project defines and promotes best-practices for the catalog and envisions its future.

The Project is organized by:

Mark Cooper (Office of the Provost),
Jeni King (Office of the Registrar), and
Sarah Story (Marketing, Messaging, and Engagement).

All are welcome.

Beginning with the 2025-2026 catalog each degree, certificate, or minor will have its own catalog page. Tracks within degrees that are sufficiently distinct and have their own plan codes will also have their own pages. Information in CIM Programs will automatically populate these pages. To make this happen, currently existing programs must be manually migrated to the new format. We will migrate programs by department, completing one department each working day through the fall and releasing groups of five for departments to review each Friday. Departments are asked to review records in CIM Programs within two weeks, making any necessary changes and then starting the CIM workflow. Next steps will depend on how much has been changed and the resulting approvals required.

Visit a department-by-department calendar of review windows with live project tracking.

The department chair and associate dean of the college will receive notification when migration begins and again when records are complete and ready for departmental review. Advising information should be updated in the migration window (see below). Do not initiate changes to existing programs in CIM outside of the assigned department review window.

In migrating programs, we will look at the current catalog, the THCEB inventory of programs approved for distance and off-site delivery, and the list of approved plan codes. We will not consult college/school or department web pages, as there is no way to know if information there has been approved through shared governance. In reviewing records, departments may want to conform catalog language to their web sites if the web site is felt to be more accurate. Changes may then require Assembly review—and that’s ok! The goal is to get complete, trusted, approved information in CIM, and therefore in the catalog.

To get a head start, departments are encouraged to take the following steps before their review window opens:

1. Identify who will be responsible for reviewing and updating each CIM Programs record. All faculty will have access to CIM. For each degree, certificate, or minor, one person should enter changes and start workflow. It may make sense to involve a small team or committee in reviewing records.
2. Identify the Faculty Program Coordinator. SACSCOC requires that a faculty contact be identified for every program. There are required fields for this in the CIM Programs form. They will be blank when departments get them.
3. Identify program competencies. Departments should have these in their UER paperwork. If not, some discussion will be required (see help text). Competencies are required in the CIM Programs form and will be blank. Competencies are also a catalog integration point; they will show on the catalog program pages in an “overview” tab under the program description.
4. Give some thought to the “one page, one program” construct.  Where individual programs have been described collectively, we will give reviewers a running start by populating records with duplicate information. For example, admissions criteria that apply to all graduate programs in a department will be copied to each individual program. A bigger challenge will likely be presented by programs that share a description (i.e., multiple programs described in single catalog paragraph). We will do our best to capture the language that has been approved, but some adjustments will likely be desired. 

The Catalog Beautification Project (CBP) recommended that a tab with advising information be placed on every program page. To accomplish this, we will build shared content pages. Colleges/Schools/Departments will create advising information on these page(s), which will then populate every relevant program page. In the future, this is the only program page information that will not be updated through the CIM Programs workflow.

To initiate these shared content pages, please supply advising information through our online form before the migration window is complete, that is, before the department review window starts.

The form asks to which unit (department or school/college) and at which level (graduate or undergraduate) the advising information applies. It requires, at a minimum, a physical location, email, and phone number. Optionally, departments may provide a url and brief supplemental text, for example, about when it is appropriate for students to seek advising help for this program.

Note that the CBP recommends setting up a generic advising email (as opposed to a single person’s name/address). This allows multiple people to monitor the address and limits the need to update contact information with personnel changes.