ad hoc ad hoc Committee on Committee on

University Strategic University Strategic Planning and Planning and AssessmentAssessment

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 Sit

e 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 TransparencyCritical to effective communicationOpen and well designed web siteClear and concise language, termsGraphs, diagrams, illustrations…

Three Substantial Components

Vision

Strategies

Assessment

I. Vision

Realistic

Aspirational

“Challenges and Opportunities…”

I. Vision

MissionGoalsValues

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 classesMeans-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 (graduate-

research / 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 goalsResource allocationEnvironmental- and Performance-

basedSpecific 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 UniversityMeasure:

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: 3.7– Benchmark schools 4.1– Change from previous -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…