Creating a Unified Culture for Planning and Assessment

1. Meeting the ‘Great Divide’: Establishing a Unified Culture for Planning and AssessmentCathy A. FleurietAna Lisa Garza Presented at the 2006 Conference of the National Consortium for Continuous Improvement in Higher Education

2. 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 drives university goals and initiatives

3. Presentation Objectives • The presentation specifically addresses the following: • The “bottom up, top down” process used to create unit, division, and university plans • Communication strategies implemented to establish a unified culture of buy-in from the entire university community • Steps taken to create a collaborative working relationship between academic and administrative areas • Methods implemented to reestablish the importance of unit and division plans • Overview of assessment and feedback

4. Issues Faced with Existing 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

5. 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

6. Academic Planning Calendar • Calendar Development • Frames the planning process • Incorporate recommendations • Includes mandatory feedback loops

7. 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”)

8. “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

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

10. 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.

11. Mission Statement Review Process • In an effort to begin changing the culture of 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. • Important components of the mission statement guide Texas State’s direction.

12. University Mission Statement Process • Academic and administrative units respond electronically to mission review questions via the mission review feedback template provided on the planning and assessment website. • Units discuss as a group and come to a general agreement on answers to the discussion questions. • Units provide responses to these questions via the electronic template. • Mission review committee constructs first draft and presents to the university community for review.

13. Administrative Division Planning • Administrative staff reviewed new academic plans and developed their own plans with academic plans in mind. • Administrative units and divisions used the five academic planning categories with a focus on “support”, along with an overall institutional support category to develop plans. • Administrative divisions used a collaborative process to prioritize initiatives. • Administrative vice presidents presented plans in university open forums.

14. Expansion to University Planning • Steering Committee for University Planning • Charge • Administrative Division Process • Calendar Additions

15. 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

16. “Read Across” Committee Goals • Identify “opportunities” within the areas reviewed • Aggregate/outline resources requested • Identify infrastructure needed to fulfill request • Report on types of support/guidance that could be provided • Make recommendations for additions or deletions in college plans, particularly those that require funding

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. Developing Final University Plan: “Embracing a Culture of Change” • Description of Document • Division Plans • Support Plans • Diversity, Research, Investment, Facilities, Distance Learning • Dissemination to University Community • Board of Regents’ Approval

20. Planning Process Review • Planning Steps • Feedback Loops • Planning Website • President and Vice President Updates • Planning Calendar Feedback Loops • Open Forums on Planning • Committee Liaisons • Tie to Budget Process • Assessment Plans

21. 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

22. 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)

23. 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 – it’s a gradual process! • Keep the plan alive!

24. Thank you! Questions???

25. Texas State UniversitySan Marcos Honor the Past Claim the Future