IMPLEMENTING ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE WITHIN THE DEAN’S OFFICE 75 on a wealth of data—was to create a centralized “intrusive” advising model. This ap- proach requires advising be done only by faculty who enjoyed it and are given either reassigned time or additional compensation. These faculty advisors are assisted by staff skilled in identifying students who were at risk and working with those students. The NSF grant was funded and a staff director knowledgeable about best practices in advisement was hired. The faculty supported the change to a centralized model as they no longer had an “unfunded advising mandate” as part of their workload. The lone exception was a department with few majors that believed all the faculty should serve as advisors to help recruit students into their programs. Within a year, an effective team of faculty and staff were enjoying their work ad- vising students, and student feedback was supportive of the advising they were re- ceiving. Retention and progression increased over the next few years. Although this approach requires several staff lines and the equivalent of a few faculty lines (reassigned time for faculty), additional income generated through increased retention and progression more than compen- sated for the investment. Permanent funds need- ed for the lines to replace the grant funding were later secured through the provost’s office based on this argument. Another example of centralized services requiring new investment comes from Northern Illinois University. There, the departments and the college were trying to in- crease their external visibility through press releases, the college website, brochures, and so forth. However, they had been trying to do so using already over-obligated faculty and staff, and the impact of the marketing effort was less than desired. The dean hoped to create a centralized service called the College Communications Group with dedicat- ed staff including a director who specialized in these services. The dean was sensitive about new resources going to the dean’s office instead of to departments. He therefore developed the office slowly, demonstrating step-by-step the value added by it. As a first step, an ad hoc advisory group was planning and pub- licizing the college’s 50th anniversary [Symbolic]. This advisory group morphed into a temporary office, then after another two years, into a permanent structure for which a director was hired. At each step, the quality and volume of communications about the college improved and the buy-in for the office did as well. At the University of Alaska Anchorage, budget cuts were impending due to flat enrollments and declining state support. The dean of Arts and Sciences proposed and led a centralization of all college support services. Prior to reorganization, each department had one or two administrative assistants. Except for a few of the largest departments that retained a receptionist, all positions were reassigned and co-located to one of four divisional “shared service hubs” (arts, humanities, social sciences, sciences). So inherently, pressure exists against consolidating staff in a central office with hiring controlled by the dean’s office.