Strategic Planning Draft Report
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Strategic Planning Draft Report

on

  • 567 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
567
Views on SlideShare
567
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft Word

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Strategic Planning Draft Report Document Transcript

  • 1. HIGHER LEARNING COMMISSION OF THE NORTH CENTRAL ASSOCIATION Report of the Subcommittee on Strategic Planning Members of the Subcommittee on Strategic Planning: Dr. Paul R. Challen, Chairperson, Chemistry Department Ms. Sarah Dickson, Student Mrs. Christine M. Gibbons, Director, Continuing Education Mrs. Barbara Lovequist, Secretary, Academic Vice President’s Office Dr. Beth A. Martin, Professor, Psychology Department Dr. Jonathan E. Smith, Professor, Department of Management, Marketing and Logistics Dr. Sally H. Wertheim, Chair of Subcommittee, Director, Planning and Assessment Though the University through the efforts of the University Planning Group (UPG) has been engaged in strategic planning for many years, it was in the 1999-2000 academic year that the position of Director of Planning and Assessment was established. The director assumed her position in June of 1999 and worked to support the University Planning Group (UPG), chaired by the Academic Vice President in its ongoing planning process. The UPG is comprised of representatives of all University divisions, including students, faculty, staff and administrators. The Director of Planning and Assessment, working with the UPG, developed a planning process that involves all departments and divisions of the University. First the UPG reviewed the University Mission Statement. A Subcommittee categorized the ideas in the Mission Statement as they reflected the University’s core values and sent them out to the University Community for review. These categories became the basis for the core values, which underlie the strategic planning process. The UPG reaffirmed the Mission statement. Next an abbreviated Mission Statement was developed. The abbreviated statement was approved by the Board of Directors and has been placed in key locations throughout the University. The UPG used the Mission and Vision Statements of the University to develop a University Strategic Plan that has six key goals. The process included the completion of a SWOT analysis, which required an evaluation of the University’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. Based upon the SWOT analysis, strategic goals for the University were developed. Once the six goals were agreed upon by the University Planning Group, an open hearing was held to gather input from the entire University community. Once finalized, the six goals, along with the Mission and Vision, became part of the University Plan, that was subsequently approved by the Academic Affairs and Planning Committee and the Board of Directors in October of 2001. Next the UPG developed strategic action steps for each goal. The action plans included designating persons responsible for the individual goals, review dates and evidence of achievement. See planning model and support documents in the Evidence Room. All departments/divisions across campus became engaged in the planning process using the same process as that used by the UPG. A SWOT analysis was conducted, goals were
  • 2. set and action plans were developed for each department and division of the University. Goals and action plans were submitted to the Director of Planning and Assessment during the spring semester 2001. The Director of Planning and Assessment then compiled all of the department/division goals and categorized them according to the University Goals to ensure that these goals reflected the overall University goals. The information is available on the University Planning Group’s Website at http://www.jcu.edu/vision. John Carroll University HIGHER LEARNING COMMISSION OF THE NORTH CENTRAL ASSOCIATION Subcommittee on Strategic Planning Report Page 2 of 4. The UPG and the departments/divisions began the current implementation process in the fall of 2001. the Director of Planning and Assessment developed a system for reviewing these implementation plans and these results were reported to the UPG. See forms used in the Evidence Room. It was also determined that all strategic goals which involved expenditures of funds for capital or endowment needs should be prioritized by the UPG. This process began in the 2002-2003 academic year. In September of 2002, Fr. E. Glynn informed the faculty at the opening Convocation that the University Planning Group would now have twice as many faculty (3 elected and 3 appointed). The role and purpose of the Committee will now reflect that the Group’s work has greater significance and weight than before, although that does not diminish the strategic planning done prior to this time. In this reorganization, the size of the group was kept relatively large to ensure breadth of input. In the past, sometimes planning priorities that occurred within the committee were one thing, but then what actually happened at the University was something different, which created ill feelings. Issues filtered up through several layers in the past, and were altered or eliminated along the way. In this new version of the UPG, the in-between lines will not exist; all parties will contribute positive and negative details to the discussion and recommendations will go directly to the president for him and the board to act on as they see fit. The Group is now poised to make some decisions on the Strategic Plan. There was a Board of Directors Retreat in May of 2003 where the Academic Vice President discussed the recommended strategic plan and requested Board of Directors reactions. The focus of the retreat was on both the University Mission and Strategic Planning. At this retreat, the Board became directly involved in the discussions. Several Board members were very positive about this opportunity to engage in planning discussions. As a result, the plan was refined based on Board members’ input. The Board asked for a follow-up plan to include a discussion of priorities to be presented at its December meeting. The report, including the priorities, was deliberated upon by the University Planning Group and presented to the Academic Affairs and Planning Committee and the
  • 3. Board of Directors on Tuesday, December 9, 2003. Dr. La Guardia reported to the Board of Directors, who discussed the plan at its meeting on Tuesday, December 9, 2003. Open meetings were held in September 2003 to allow the University Community (Faculty, Students, Staff and Administrators) to provide their reactions and input to the Strategic Plan which had been posted on the Vision web-site in the Spring of 2003 at the time of the Board of Directors’ retreat. These meetings were well attended and comments and clarifications were discussed by members of the University Planning Group and the attendees. A summary of these hearings can be found on the Vision Web- site. The University Planning Group also reviewed the comments at its meeting later that week on September 26, 2003. A University Planning Group Subcommittee was appointed in the fall of 2003 to review the recommendations from the Higher Learning John Carroll University HIGHER LEARNING COMMISSION OF THE NORTH CENTRAL ASSOCIATION Subcommittee on Strategic Planning Report Page 3 of 4. Commission of the North Central Association Subcommittees, after they were discussed by the Steering Committee. This Subcommittee, chaired by Vice President Patrick Rombalski, reported to the University Planning Group in December 2003 about the implications of these recommendations for the University planning effort. They served as an updated SWOT analysis in many respects. The University Planning Group will be discussing the implications of these recommendations for the University Strategic Plan during the spring 2004 semester. Though most of them, such as the ones that deal with diversity, a sense of community, academic excellence, and mission and identity, are goals in the Strategic Plan. All constituencies throughout the University are engaged in the planning process. The University recognized the need to keep these constituencies and its publics informed of the University’s Strategic Plan and process. Many expressed satisfaction with the process and noted that this was a satisfactory way to engage each individual on campus in thinking strategically for their department/division and the University. During the planning process, planning reports were sent out by E-mail. These reports were also presented to the Board of Directors’ Academic Affairs and Planning Committee and their suggestions were shared with the UPG. A Strategic Planning Website was developed, designed as a way to keep people informed. The summary of the UPG minutes are available on the UPG Website. The Website can be accessed at http://www.jcu.edu/vision. The institutional commitment to excellence is apparent in the University Strategic Mission and Vision Statements and its Strategic Goals. Strengths: 1. Planning has become an ongoing process at John Carroll University. 2. Representation on the University Planning Group is wide and diverse. 3. The planning process involved many members of the University community at all levels with different opportunities for input through the SWOT analysis and goal-setting processes.
  • 4. 4. The implementation of the plan is proceeding and is being monitored. 5. The planning process allows for flexibility and is an effective process. 6. Most all departments/divisions have developed their own strategic plans reflective of the University’s Plan. 7. Planning is a dynamic process. As the process is ongoing and suggestions are made for improvement, they are implemented by the University Planning Group. Areas to be improved and Recommendations: 1. There appears to be some disconnect in the communication to departments/divisions about the approval of their goals and implementation plans. John Carroll University HIGHER LEARNING COMMISSION OF THE NORTH CENTRAL ASSOCIATION Subcommittee on Strategic Planning Report Page 4 of 4. 2. Though the construction of the science building went through a very thorough planning process, some projects have been initiated on campus that were not part of the University’s Strategic Planning process. 3. There seems to be some disconnect in the communication and recognition of the Plan by the broad University community. 4. It is recommended that Dr. La Guardia, Academic Vice President and Chair of the University Planning Group, communicate information about the Planning Process and how the planning, assessment and Higher Learning Commission efforts interact. The report should also include information regarding the University Planning Group Website. 5. It is important to motivate all those engaged in the Planning Process to continue to be involved in the ongoing implementation of the Plan. SHW:md 2002 F NC Sub Comm SP
  • 5. Entire Report (Draft presentation 102302/revised 022403) 7/28/03 insert paragraph on focus of retreat 10/8/03 insert paragraph on open meetings 12/16/03 updated paragraphs 5,6,7,8