Presented at the 2006 Annual Meeting of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools

Meaningful Planning for the Campus of the Future: A Cultural Approach to Strategic ChangeCathy A. FleurietAna Lisa Garza Presented at the 2006 Annual Meeting of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools

Presentation Goal To highlight components of the collaborative strategic planning and assessment process used at Texas State University-San Marcos that led to a “living” plan that continues to drive university goals and initiatives

Presentation Objectives • The presentation specifically addresses: • The “bottom up, top down” process used to create unit, college, division, and university plans • Communication strategies implemented to establish a collaborative, unified culture of buy-in from the entire university community • Results of assessment and feedback • Action plan for integration and improvement

Issues Faced with Previous Process • While administrative units were involved in collaborative supportive planning, academic units lacked buy-in • Academic mission did not drive the university planning process, thus creating a disconnect between administrative and academic planning • Lack of trust from faculty because of little or no feedback from administration • Faculty feared negative repercussions if too much information was shared

Higher Education and Culture Change • Higher education institutions reflect the individualistic nature of our society. • Power resides at all levels of the institution. • Leadership becomes a “reciprocal relationship” between those who lead and those who decide to follow (Kouzes & Posner,2002). • Higher education stakeholders must understand the “why.”

Comprehensive Review of Planning Process • Review Committees • Presidential Task Force • Institutional Effectiveness Team • Council of Deans • Council of Chairs • Strategic Planning Review Committee • Committee Members • Recommendations • Academic Planning Steering Committee

Environmental Scan Process A three part process was developed to thoroughly identify all possible impacts to the university. • Academic department scan and SWOT analysis (“Inside-out”) • A study of external environmental impact factors (demographic information) • External environmental scan (“outside-in”)

“Bottom up” Process • Preliminary Planning Questions • Provided a planning framework to address new and current initiatives to be considered for implementation • Question Development Process • Planning Categories • Planning Questions • Feedback Loops • Impact on Planning Process

Planning Categories • Strategies to accomplish university goals were framed within the five planning categories used by all units: • academic programs • student learning and success • scholarly and creative activity/grant activity • development • diversity

Academic Affairs Planning Using the five planning categories to frame strategies • Departments prioritized maintenance needs and new initiatives based on faculty discussions; • Deans prioritized college needs based on discussions with chairs; • Provost/VPAA prioritized Academic Affairs maintenance and new initiatives based on discussions with deans; • Deans and Provost/VPAA present plans to university community in open forums. • Administrative divisions followed similar process.

Mission Statement Review Process • In an effort to continue the culture change within the University, an inclusive review of the mission statement was conducted. • Information gathered across campus through this process assisted in framing the new university mission statement. • Process was inclusive and public • Important components of the mission statement guide Texas State’s direction.

Creating a “Living” Plan • Creation of “Read Across” committees • Committees made up of faculty, staff, students, and stakeholders that “read across” academic plans with specific focus in mind (diversity, research, etc.) • Committees charge was to capture and report on important information to be used for planning purposes

Development of University Goals University goals: • Represent the “top-down, bottom-up” planning process; • Reflect information gathered from the original five planning categories; • Emphasize important components of the university mission statement; • Derived from academic goals; • Presented to University community for review and feedback.

University Plan Outcomes • University Goals contain “intended outcomes” that must be achieved in order to meet these goals. • Outcomes were derived from: • Initiatives outlined in college and division plans; • Reports and recommendations from “Read Across” committees; and • Presidential commitments and external expectations.

Implementing the University Plan:“Embracing a Culture of Change” • Creating and Clarifying Assessment • Feedback Loops • Planning Website • President and Vice President Updates • Planning Calendar Feedback Loops • Open Forums on Planning • Committee Liaisons • Tie to Budget Process • Annual University Plan Progress Report • Biennial Formal University Plan Update

Improving the Planning ProcessCampus Survey Results • In Fall, 2005 (1 year after implementation), we distributed a comprehensive planning and assessment survey to all faculty and staff, asking for feedback on the process. • We received a 28%response rate. • Of these respondents, a significant number had not been employees during the original planning process.

Survey Results • The respondents were 73% staff, 22% faculty, and 6% administrative. • 6 of 10 respondents participated in some type of strategic planning activity. • 50% of the survey respondents indicated participation in strategic planning was supported by their supervisor • 50% of the respondents who did not participate in planning activities were not supported by their supervisors or had conflicts with other job responsibilities.

Survey Results • More than 90% of those who were supported by their supervisors said they would be participants in future planning activities. And, only 3% of those supported by their supervisors were dissatisfied with the process. • About 75% of those who had supervisor support have assessed progress toward the major goals of their plans. And, about 80% of those who had supervisor support have made changes in their operations as a result of their plans.

Survey Results • Over 85% of those with supervisor support consider the amount of discussion and feedback they received to be adequate or somewhat adequate. And, nearly 60% found the quality of feedback received from administrators to be good or excellent, with an additional 30% finding the feedback to be of fair quality. • About 65% of respondents with supervisor support were familiar with the “Planning and Assessment” website, but only about 40% of them used the site to stay updated about events during the first year cycle.

Plan for Improvement • Publicize strategic planning initiatives. • Increase number of communication venues. • Hold public forums for Assessment & Revision. • Talk with college and division councils. • Present workshops for supervisors and other stakeholders to gain buyin. • Improve university plan update process. • Tie planning and assessment to SACS initiatives. • Reassess process every two years.

Texas State Processes How do Texas State’s ongoing processes relate to SACS reaffirmation?

Strategic Planning SACS Reaffirmation Student Learning Outcomes Educational Core Assessment EducationalSupport Outcomes Academic Program Review

Texas State Assessment • Texas State Institutional Effectiveness Calendar • Academic department and school student learning outcomes • Administrative division educational support outcomes • Strategic planning • SACS deadlines

Assessment of Revised Process – Two Years Later • Survey assessment results indicate gradual change in university’s culture to be more collaborative and inclusive • Overall culture of mistrust and cynicism is slowly waning • Gradual buy-in and participation from faculty • Departments are all revisiting their plans regularly and making modifications based on feedback from administration • Faculty are becoming more involved in administrative decision making and are participating more on university committees

Assessment of Revised Process – Two Years Later • Feedback and budget allocation decisions are being shared among members of the university community • Annual University Plan Progress Update is publicized and demonstrates a direct indication that plans are being read and assessed • Annual Provost and President’s Cabinet Planning Retreats held to discuss successes and future directions • Visible linkage between major processes to University Plan (i.e., Program Review, Outcomes Assessment, Accreditations)

Lessons Learned • Trust is lost if process does not produce usable results! • Communication and feedback throughout the process is critical to its success! • Strong leadership commitment is a must! • All planning efforts should be followed by an assessment of these efforts to share information gained and utilize information for improvement (Closing the loop)! • Change DOES NOT happen overnight • Keep the plan alive!

Texas State UniversitySan Marcos Honor the Past Claim the Future

Presented at the 2006 Annual Meeting of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools