Transcript ad hoc Committee on University Strategic Planning and

ad hoc
Committee on
University Strategic
Planning and
Assessment
CUSP…
CUSP Members:










Laura Brady (ECAS)
John Estep (SGA)
Russell Dean (Provost's Office)
Parviz Famouri (CEMR)
Arthur Jacknowitz (PHAR)
Keith Jackson (CAC)
Michael Lastinger (ECAS, chair)
Kevin Outterson (LAW)
Terry Nebel (Staff Council)
William Riley (BE)
Charge, Phase I
Phase I: Interim Report due on or before
Sept 27, …:
 Review and report on the nature and structure of
comprehensive strategic planning and
assessment processes at peer institutions...
 Review in the context of peer comprehensive
strategic plans both the Provost’s June 10, 2004
“Challenges and Opportunities Report” as well as
the draft strategic assessment document due to
the BOG in September 2004. . .
Charge, Phase 2
Phase II: Report due on or before November
25, 2004 to the FSEC:
 Outline specific recommendations regarding the
content areas and implementation of a
comprehensive strategic planning and
assessment process at WVU. . .
 The function of this ad hoc committee is to
inform the Senate and campus community . . .
This committee is not itself a strategic planning
entity.
Peer schools evaluated
 Peer universities reviewed by the Committee:
• University of Wisconsin, Madison
• Ohio State University
• University of Minnesota
• University of Kentucky
• University of Florida
• University of Missouri
• Michigan State University
• University of Arizona
• University of Maryland, College Park
• Virginia
Other documents reviewed :
“WVU 2010 Main Campus Challenges and Opportunities”
presented by Provost Lang to the Faculty Senate, June
14, 2004
Other documents reviewed :
 Final Team Report of Higher Learning
Commission Site Visit, April 2004
“The stakeholders faculty, staff, students,
alumni - should enjoy a
genuine ownership of
the plan.”
Other documents reviewed :
 WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY POLICIES AND
PROCEDURES FOR PROGRAM CHANGE
(Accepted by the President March, 1987, adjusted
February, 2003)
“It is the purpose of this
policy statement to affirm
program change as
a tool for institutional
enhancement…”
Other documents reviewed :
 “Dealing with the Future Now: Principles
for Creating a Vital Campus in a Climate of
Restricted Resources,”
by Alan E. Guskin and Mary B. Marcy
(Project on the Future of Higher Education)
 Muddling Through…
vs.
 Transforming the institution…
Transforming the institution…
 Create a Clear and Coherent Vision
of the Future
• focus on student learning,
• quality of faculty work life, and
• reducing cost per student
 Transform the Educational Delivery System
 Transform the Organizational Systems
(Future Now, page 13)
Two models:
Ohio State University
University of Kentucky
Surface Tangibles
 Planning Committee Structure
– Critical to buy-in and function
– Representative and manageable
– Often a Steering Committee w/ subcommittees
(no more than the number of major goals)
 Readability and Transparency
Critical to effective communication
Open and well designed web site
Clear and concise language, terms
Graphs, diagrams, illustrations…
Three Substantial
Components
Vision
Strategies
Assessment
I. Vision
Realistic
Aspirational
“Challenges and
Opportunities…”
I. Vision
Mission
Goals
Values
a. Mission
 Review and/or Revise the Mission
Statement
 Keep these principles in mind
throughout and at all levels
 The Foundation for all other
considerations
The Mission of WVU
“…West Virginia’s primary mission is to provide
high-quality programs of instruction at the
undergraduate, graduate, and professional
levels; to stimulate and foster both basic and
applied research and scholarship; to engage
in and encourage other creative and artistic
work; and to bring the resources of the
University to all segments of society through
continuing education, extension, and public
services…”
(Undergraduate Catalog, 2003-2005, page 11)
b. Goals
 Derive from the mission
 Open the way to implementation
 Set framework for effective decisions
and choices
b. Goals: Two classes
 Means-Targeted:
• “Build buildings”
• “Raise money”
Mission-Targeted:
“Create Knowledge”
“Educate the people of …”
Hybrid:
“Increase Enrollment”
–Can provide more resources
–Can educate more students of…
b. Goals: Ohio State
 Build a World-Class Faculty
 Develop Academic Programs that Define
Ohio State as the Nation's Leading Public
Land-Grant University
 Improve the Quality of the Teaching and
Learning Environment
 Enhance and Better Serve the Student Body
 Create a More Diverse University Community
 Help Build Ohio's Future
b. Goals: Kentucky
 Reach for National Prominence
 Attract and Graduate Outstanding Students
 Attract, Develop and Retain a Distinguished
Faculty
 Discover, Share and Apply New Knowledge
 Nurture Diversity of Thought, Culture,
Gender and Ethnicity
 Elevate the Quality of Life for Kentuckians
c. Values
 “Universal”:
• The Quest for Knowledge
• The role of the university in the
progress of humanity…
 Local:
•“Why Ohio needs a great university”
•“Maryland relies on its Flagship…”
•“Promote the Wisconsin Idea”…
c. Values
“No great state has
ever existed without a
great university…”
II. Strategies
 Action oriented
 Resource allocation
 Organizational adjustments
 Coordinated across the institution
 Open to innovation
(cf. our Curriculum/GenEd forms)
Strategies: examples
 streamline organizations and
bureaucracies to facilitate innovation
 streamline capital resources
 enable new partnerships, both across
the campus and in the community
 manage enrollments (graduateresearch / undergraduate-enrollment
as per objectives)
 increase funded research
Strategies: examples
 raise ACT/SAT scores of incoming students
(a way to improve retention…)
 focus on learning outcomes
(jobs, life-long learning, school’s reputation…)
 innovate and improve on delivery systems
 recognize significant contributions in all forms
 work with legislatures and policy commissions
to increase support and flexibility
Strategies: pitfalls
 Balance between competing approaches:
 “Increase student-faculty interaction”
(mentoring, research, service learning,
etc)
 “Increase enrollment through larger class
sizes…”
III. Assessment
 The key to accountability
 Considers institutional history and
current realities
 Terminology may vary:
– “Benchmarks”
– “Targets”
– “Steps”
Assessment
 Clear goals
 Resource allocation
 Environmental- and Performancebased
 Specific measures
(not just “improve,” “promote,” encourage,” etc.)
 But recognizes both
– Quantifiables and
– Qualifiables
Assessment Examples:
Kentucky’s Key Indicators
 Increase the first-to-second year
retention rate of first-time, full-time,
degree-seeking students to 83
percent.
 Increase the six-year graduation rate
to 60 percent.
Assessment:
Kentucky’s Key Indicators
 Increase the average faculty salary to
at least 90 percent of the benchmark
median.
 Increase the number of patent
applications by 10 percent.
Graduate Outstanding Students
OSU’s Academic Scorecard
 http://www.osu.edu/academicplan/scorecard_2003.pdf
 Specific goals and measures
 OSU’s performance
 Benchmark universities’ average
(Arizona, UCLA, Illinois, Michigan, Penn State,
etc.)
 OSU change from previous year
OSU’s Academic Scorecard 2003
 Goal: Build a World-Class University
 Measure:
Academic Honors and Awards:
– OSU:
39
– Benchmarks schools:
88.8
– Change from previous:
NC
OSU’s Academic Scorecard 2003
 Goal: Define OSU as a Leading Land
Grant University
 Measure:
US News Academic Reputation Score
– OSU:
– Benchmark schools
– Change from previous
3.7
4.1
-0.1
A Final Note: Scope
 Three- to Five-year plans are typical
 Kentucky: 1997-2020
 Yearly measures of some goals
Chronology as important as
any other factor…
Except….
…except
the culture of
planning and assessment
itself…