Context

An art school curriculum approval process had evolved over time through a mix of formal policy and informal practice. As part of a doctoral practicum, I was asked to evaluate the process and identify opportunities to improve clarity and alignment with broader university standards.

Approach

I conducted a qualitative analysis of the approval process by interviewing faculty, administrators, and committee members, then coding and organizing feedback to identify common points of confusion and friction.

This work focused on how the process functioned in practice compared to how it was documented, and where inconsistencies were creating delays, uncertainty, or unnecessary workload.

Design Decisions

The process was redesigned as a clear, visual workflow supported by written documentation. The goal was to make the system understandable at a glance while still reflecting the full complexity of institutional requirements.

The framework clarified roles, sequencing, and decision points across multiple layers of review, including departmental, committee, and institutional approval stages. It also introduced guidance to support faculty through required forms, stakeholder considerations, and submission steps.

Particular attention was given to transparency and usability, with the aim of helping faculty engage more easily with the process and reducing reliance on informal knowledge or institutional memory.

Proof of Concept

The redesigned workflow translated a fragmented process into a cohesive visual system. A full diagram mapped each stage of approval from initial idea through institutional review, including stakeholder input, committee evaluation, and final implementation (see diagram on page 4 of the documentation).

Supporting materials included step-by-step guidance, templates, and best practices for completing required documentation, allowing faculty to move through the process with fewer errors and less back-and-forth.

Outcome

A complete set of curriculum approval resources including a visual workflow, supporting documentation, and faculty-facing guidance materials.

The documents were adopted for use within the institution, establishing a clearer and more consistent process with the goal of improving efficiency, reducing administrative burden, and supporting curricular development.

Full documentation available upon request.