Memorial University Business Professor Thomas Cooper has provided his assessment of the university’s proposed models as part of its faculty and school structure review.
According to Cooper, the strength of Model 1 (Blended Model) is that it protects professional identities and accreditation relationships. However, its weakness is ambiguity about who decides.
For a federated grouping with a rotating or coordinating leader to work, Cooper suggested that at least four conditions be defined before implementation rather than after:
1. Explicit decision rights: which matters sit with the grouping and which stay with the unit.
2. Budget authority: whether shared resources are allocated by formula, negotiation, or the coordinating leader.
3. A dispute resolution path that does not default to the Provost’s Office for every disagreement, which would defeat the purpose of reducing direct reports.
4. A defined review point, perhaps at three years, to assess whether the federation is working or needs to become something firmer.
Without these conditions, Cooper said, federated models tend to drift toward either informal dominance by the largest unit or gridlock.
Regarding Model 2 (Integrated Model), Cooper flagged one interdependency: aligning Human Kinetics and Recreation with Science changes the academic home of a unit closely tied to shared athletic and recreational facilities, varsity programming, and work-integrated learning. He said that those facilities involve arrangements with a separately incorporated entity that is itself under review.
Cooper encouraged the Working Group to coordinate with the review of the separately incorporated entity so decisions about HKR’s academic placement and facility governance do not pull in different directions.
He also suggested identifying any unit whose operations depend heavily on shared infrastructure, contracts, or external partners, since those units carry transition risks that are not visible in an organizational chart.
Cooper said that larger combined units raise questions about budget transparency and that smaller units within a college will want assurance that their revenue and costs remain visible rather than being absorbed into an aggregate.
Regarding Model 3 (Pan-Memorial Model), Cooper said it promises the most administrative streamlining but also carries the largest transition cost, which is easy to underestimate.
He noted that experience with university and other organizational mergers elsewhere suggests that savings usually arrive later and are smaller than projected, while the disruption arrives immediately.
If this model goes forward, Cooper suggested four conditions:
1. A transition budget and timeline developed separately from the projected savings, so the case does not depend on optimistic numbers.
2. Early confirmation from accrediting bodies that the proposed structure meets their requirements for autonomy, leadership, and control of resources.
3. Clarity on what school-level autonomy actually means: which budget, hiring, and curriculum decisions stay local.
4. Phased implementation with defined checkpoints, not a single reorganization date.
Cooper noted that the model states local autonomy is “likely maintained at School Level.” He said this assumption carries a lot of weight and should be designed into the model rather than hoped for.
Regarding Model 4 (Nesting Model), Cooper suggested that it may be undervalued because it looks modest. He said its main opportunity is that it lets the university test closer integration without irreversibly committing to it.
According to Cooper, nesting smaller units within larger ones provides administrative depth and financial stability while preserving promotion and tenure processes, accreditation, and identity. He said that is often what small units need most.
Cooper also suggested that the model could work as a first stage. He said that if nested arrangements show where shared services, joint programming, or collaboration develop naturally, that evidence could inform whether any deeper restructuring is worthwhile later.
Cooper said that this would be a more evidence-based path than choosing a larger model upfront.
Information about the four models is available here.
Leave a Reply