Transcript Provost’s Professional Development Series California State University Northridge

Provost’s Professional
Development Series
California State University
Northridge
Moving Forward with Intention I:
Planning and the Uses of
Evidence
Brian Nedwek, Ph.D.
[email protected]
March 8, 2006
CSU Northridge
Goals for the Day
• Develop understanding of good practices in
planning
• Understand the social and political context of
planning
• Learn techniques of evidence-based planning
What is planning about?
• Fundamental choices
• Integrated choices
Focus of strategic planning
“. . . A disciplined effort to produce fundamental
decisions and actions that shape and guide what
an organization is, what it does, and why it does
it.”
(Bryson, 1995, p. 5)
“. . . A formalized procedure to produce an
articulated result, in the form of an integrated
system of decisions.”
(Mintzberg, 1994, p. 12)
Planning should foster a . . .
• Focus on fundamental and integrated choices
• Commitment to allocate resources for chosen
priorities
• Nimbleness in responding to unanticipated
opportunities or threats
However ….
Most institutions are unrealistically striving to be
all things to all people rather than focusing
resources on the mission and programs that they
can accomplish with distinction.
(Dickeson, 1999)
Results
• Program bloat
• Incremental or decremental resource allocation
• Institutional drift
• Loss of stakeholder support
Planning is intended to promote
• A sustainable competitive advantage
• Information-guided decisions about
fundamental choices
Making fundamental choices
about . . .
• Whom do we wish to serve?
• How do we want to be perceived?
• What programs and services will
reinforce this distinctive image?
• How will we know we are succeeding?
Question 1: Whom to Serve
• Student Quality Characteristics
• Demographics
• Market Segments
– Primary Market
– Secondary Market
Question 2: Programs and
Services Needed
• Program review and prioritization creating
candidates:
– Enhancement
– Maintenance
– Closure
• Opportunities for Investment
– Institutional Development
– Opportunities for Reallocation
Question 3: Image
• Brand Image
– Symbols and Artifacts
– Positioning Statement
• Third Party Endorsements
– Rankings
– Accreditation
Question 4: Knowing that we
are succeeding
• Enterprise-wide
Indicators
• Unit Success
Measures
Good planning produces an
integrated set of decisions about
• Academic Programs and Services
• Campus and Facilities
• Financial and Development Resources
• Human Resources
• Information Technology
Linking plan with campus
and facilities choices
• Priorities and space implications for
–
–
–
–
–
–
Classrooms, labs, offices
Residential living
Library/media facilities
Sports/recreational facilities
Parking
Research
Linking plan with library/media
facility choices
• Vault or vibrant interactive space
• Locating information technology
• Collaborative learning spaces for faculty and
students
Linking plan with classrooms, labs
and office choices about
• Preferred pedagogy and androgogy
• Faculty roles and responsibilities
• Student demographic characteristics
Good planning . . .
• Is a priority-driven decision tool.
• Focuses on fundamental choices and a
commitment of resources for chosen priorities.
• Informs human resource, space and technology
alternatives.
• Fuels the academic case statement.
Effective planning requires . . .
• Goals/objectives/strategies/outcomes
that are clear and linked to mission,
vision and values
• Objectives and strategies are financially
and politically feasible
• Information-based choices
• Clear timelines and task specification
• Accountability and measurable results
• Linkage to resource allocation choices
Effective planning requires a
capacity to actually plan
• Leadership commitment
• “Plan to Plan”
• Planning team
• Adequate resources
• Adequate data bases
Effective planning needs a
“plan to plan” for choices about
• Structure
–
–
–
–
Who participates?
Who leads?
Who manages and evaluates?
Scope of authority
• Timeframes and Decision Cycles
• Communication
• Information Warehouse
The Planning Team
• Appointed by CEO to review and approve processes,
participants and schedule
• Reviews and recommends plan elements to CEO
and/or senior management
• Staff to senior management on plan approval and
modifications
• Keeps institutional stakeholders informed
Plan Elements
•
•
•
•
•
Mission, vision and values
Environmental conditions
Critical issues
Goals/objectives/strategies
Implementation and assessments
Mission Vision Values
• Mission: What’s your purpose.
• Vision: What your organization will
become.
• Values: Desired states of affairs
–
–
–
–
Core
Aspirational
“Pay-to-play”
Accidental
(Lencioni, 2004)
Goal
1
Objectives
Strategies
1
2
3
Goal
2
Goa
l
3
Goa
l
4
Objectives
Objectives
Objectives
Strategies
1
2
3
Strategies
1
2
3
Strategies
1
2
3
Strategic Goal
Broad statement of what the institution
hopes to do
To be recognized as the leader among
universities in the California State System
in teaching and learning activities, applied
research and technology applications, and
collaborative alliances and partnerships.
Another example . . .
“Our university will effectively and
responsibly acquire, strategically manage
and deploy the financial, facility and
equipment resources necessary to sustain its
mission.”
“Develop our academic and institutional
culture to be student-centered and
committed to lifelong learning.”
Another example . . .
We will develop a learner-centered environment
that promotes the improvement of learning and
personal development of students.
We will continuously improve the quality of
teaching and learning in its academic programs.
Strategic Objective
More specific statement of how a goal will
be accomplished
“To hire and retain diverse and highly qualified
professional educators who are committed to
meeting the educational needs of an
increasingly diverse and changing society . . .”
Another example . . .
• Assess learning outcomes continuously and
use assessment results to improve the
learning process and experience of
students.
• Integrate appropriate technology into the
curriculum to improve student learning.
(Adapted from the University of Missouri)
What’s a strategy?
• Answers the question of how a core
objective will be realized.
• Creates the essential link to unit actions.
• Provides the basis for articulating the
performance indicators
What makes a strategy
statement work?
• Stating who is going to do what
• Precision in what actions will be taken
• Articulation of outcomes and benchmarks
• Articulation of timeframes and priorities
The “what” is the
“outcome”
The observable results of specific actions
taken to implement a strategy.
The “what” is the outcome”
• Faculty Review and Development Plan
• Multi-media studio and training facility
• Implemented new Core Curriculum
• Increased student satisfaction &
retention from 80% to 84%
• Increased alumni support to 25%
Some outcomes must be
expressed as “benchmarks”
• Marks progress toward achieving the objectives
• Can be expressed as critical success factors
• Reflects realistic assessment of what institution
might accomplish
What’s a benchmark?
A statement of how attainment of
the strategy will be measured; it
specifies the criterion for success
Benchmark
By 2007, 55% of the courses will have an
electronic syllabus available to students.
By 2010, 60% of the credits taken by
freshmen will be delivered by full-time
faculty.
Illustrative administrative
benchmark
“By 2006-2007, one-third of all classrooms will
be updated to support instructional
technologies.”
Let’s recall the four key questions
• Whom do we wish to serve?
• How do we want to be perceived?
• What programs and services will reinforce this
distinctive image?
• How will we know we are succeeding?
Capacity to deliver effective
programs and services to achieve
institutional vision requires …
• Environmental Analysis
– Internal Strengths and Weaknesses
– External Opportunities and Threats
• Program Review and Prioritization
• Faculty Resource Prioritization
• Disciplined Program Proposal Process
SWOT Analyses
•
•
•
•
•
•
Internal Strengths
& Weaknesses
Program quality
Resources
Students
Faculty
Facilities
Finances
•
•
•
•
•
•
External Opportunities &
Threats
Competition
Politics
Technology
Economy
Demographics
Cultural forces
SWOT Interactions
Internal
External
Opportunities
Strengths
Weaknesses
A
B
C
D
Threats
Specialized SWOT: Program quality
assessment using Review and
Prioritization
•
•
•
•
•
Dimensions
Criteria
Standards
Information Management Requirements
Translating Recommendations into Action
Some of Dickeson’s
Postulates on Prioritization
• Traditional approaches, like across-theboard cuts, tend to mediocrity for all
programs.
Some of Dickeson’s
Postulates on Prioritization
• Reallocation cannot be appropriately
accomplished without rigorous,
effective, and academically responsible
prioritization.
What’s a program?
“Any activity or collection of activities
of the institution that consumes
resources (dollars, people, space,
equipment, time).”
Dickeson (1999, p. 44)
Typical Prioritization Dimensions
• History, Development, and Expectations of the
Program
• External Demand
• Internal Demand
• Quality of Inputs and Processes
• Quality of Outcomes
Typical Prioritization Dimensions
• Size, Scope, and Productivity
• Revenue and Other Resources Generated
• Costs and Other Expenses
• Impact, Justification, and Essentiality
• Opportunities
Excellence compared to what?
• Benchmarking performance against
–
–
–
–
–
Competitors
National or regional norms
Other institutions in system
Institutional “wanna be’s”
Other programs within & among institution
Synchronization
• Were budget development procedures complementary
to plan priorities?
– To what extent do unit plans reflect budget priorities, e.g.,
faculty positions?
• Were special funding mechanisms established to
support creativity and innovation in strategy setting?
• Does the strategic plan coincide with timing of major
capital or comprehensive campaigns?
Ratings and Program
Recommendations
• Programs could be candidates for:
–
–
–
–
–
Enhancement
Maintenance
Maintenance but monitored
Reduction in resources
Suspension or Closure
Links Recommendations to
Resource Allocation
• Strategic initiative set-asides
• Annual or biennial budget commitment
• Timing faculty slot authorization
• Reallocation of resources
• Incorporating sunset provisions
With evidence-based planning, the
question is: How do we know we
are succeeding?
• Traditional approaches
• Innovative approaches
Innovative approaches include:
• Balanced Scorecard
• Dashboard Indicators
• Key Performance Indicators
• Critical Success Factors
Balanced Scorecard
• Management tool to gauge organizational
effectiveness in terms of:
–
–
–
–
–
–
Quality of academic programs
Student-Centeredness
Quality of faculty
Value for money
Alumni satisfaction
Employer satisfaction
Key Performance Indicators
• Monitor conditions or resource usage
• Measure performance against stated policy or
program goals
• Forecast problems
• Build policy agenda
• Support resource allocation
• Create bases for comparisons
Nedwek (1996)
What are Critical Success
Factors?
Characteristics of an institution that
when realized represent its ideal state
at a point in time.
Three levels of CSF’s
• Systems of institutions
• Institutional or Enterprise-wide
• Unit-specific
Enterprise-wide Factors
• Driven by institutional goals, mission & values
• Multiple measures narrowed to critical factors
• Benchmark standards
• Established realistic timelines
• Senior management accountability & Board
oversight
Unit-specific measures
• Sensitive to distinctive mission of academic unit,
e.g., College or support service
• Consistent with institutional mission, goals and
institutional CSF’s
• Timelines consistent with unit plan
• Unit level accountability
Model-building Choices:
Institutional Level
• What dimensions make sense?
• What measures in each dimension make
sense?
• What is the best baseline?
• What is an appropriate comparative standard?
• What level of success can be achieved and by
when?
Critical Success Factors: Enterprisewide Level
– Retention rate increases to XX% by year X
– XX% of faculty position offers to first-choice
candidates are accepted
– XX% of students reporting satisfactory
engagement
– Bond rating increases to XX level by year X
– Enhanced academic quality in three dimensions
Nedwek (2004)
Critical Success Factors:
Unit Level
– Licensure exam passage rates
– Market share increases by XX%
– External recognition of faculty performance, e.g.,
funded research, leadership in organizations
– XX% of programs meeting accreditation
– XX% of course syllabi meeting principles of good
practice
– Enhanced academic quality in three dimensions
The Special Case of
Academic Quality
Academic Quality Dimensions
• Conditions for learning
• Activities that facilitate learning
• Results achieved from processes
Unpacking types into dimensions
• Inputs: Conditions for Learning
– Student Academic Readiness
– Faculty Academic Readiness
– Supportive Physical Environment
– Supportive Technological Environment
Unpacking types into dimensions
• Processes:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Activities that facilitate
learning
Curricular integrity and coherence
Teaching excellence and vibrancy
Developmental advising
Co-curricular activities
Timely progress through curriculum
Effective assessment practices
Active learning environments
Unpacking types into dimensions
• Outcomes:
–
–
–
–
Results achieved from
processes
Graduation rates
Demonstrations of knowledge and skills
Achievement of personal and professional goals
Success in contributing to community
Measuring Academic Quality
Let’s take a look at
the handout.
Putting It All Together
• Academic planning is a priority-driven
decision tool.
• Good planning is guided by responses to
four key questions.
• Good planning focuses on integrated
choices and a commitment of resources
for chosen priorities.
The end product of strategic planning is not so
much to write a ‘plan’ as it is to change thinking
and introduce a model in which ongoing
decisions are made strategically.
Rawley, Lujan, and Dolence ( 1997)
Resources
• D.J.Rowley, H.D. Lujan, M.G. Dolence. (1997).
Strategic Change in Colleges and Universities:
Planning to Survive and Prosper. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.
• J. Bryson. (1995). Strategic Planning for Public and
Nonprofit Organizations. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Resources
• R. C. Dickeson. (1999). Prioritizing Academic
Programs and Services. San Francisco: Jossey Bass
Publishers.
• B. Bourne, L. Gates, and J. Cofer. (2000).
“Setting strategic directions using critical success
factors.” Planning for Higher Education, 28 (4): 1018.
Resources
• B. Nedwek (1996). “Linking Quality
Assurance and Accountability: Using Process
and Performance Indicators.” In Nedwek, B.
(ed.). Doing Academic Planning. Ann Arbor:
Society for College and University Planning.
137-144.
• B. Nedwek. (2004). Benchmarking Success:
Academic and Facilities Factors. SCUP-39.
Workshop K. Toronto.
Resources
• P. Lencioni. (2002). Make your values mean something.
Harvard Business Review, (80) 7: 113-117.
• H. Mintzberg. (1994). The Rise and Fall of Strategic
Planning. New York: Free Press.
• B. Nedwek. (2005). Measuring Strategic Plans and
Planning. Becoming a Learning Focused Organization.
A Collection of Papers on Self-Study and Institutional
Improvements. Chicago: Higher Learning
Commission. Pp. 35-37.