Presentation on theme: " Highlights of the previous strategic plan Why strategic planning now? A brief reflection on state of higher education today Goal of the plan: What."— Presentation transcript:
Highlights of the previous strategic plan Why strategic planning now? A brief reflection on state of higher education today Goal of the plan: What needs to be accomplished? The strategic planning process ◦ Meet the Committees: Steering committee and circle of researchers/readers ◦ Timeline Call to action
Seven Strategic Themes 1. Academic Excellence 2. Culture of Respect 3. Campus Life 4. Continuous Improvement 5. Resource Management 6. Enrollment Management 7. University Image
“Laundry List”; not prioritized, not strategic Not informed by external forces or data If everything is a priority, then nothing is a priority Used anecdotal input to create a list of 37 goals Goals were not S.M.A.R.T. No end date of the plan or expectations when goals would be accomplished WEAVEOnline was poorly implemented as a planning tool
Opened and relocated employees to Swenson Hall and Barstow Hall in Summer 2011 Sponsored the Board of Regents and Chancellor’s Inauguration in 2012 Managed and recovered from a $23 million natural disaster Completed a comprehensive Self-Study and received reaffirmation of accreditation for 10 years!
10. Implemented programs to recognize and support students’ achievements (AE). 9. Made progress on assessment of student learning outcomes (AE/CI). 8. Expanded undergraduate research opportunities (AE). 7. Created a unified, comprehensive marketing strategy (UI). 6. Created structures to support the institution’s work through a Grants Office, Institutional Research Office and Assessment Coordinator and Liaisons (AE,RM).
5. Completed the equity scorecard, and climate study; implemented a supervisory management development series for employees in supervisor positions (CR). 4. Completed a $200 million + physical transformation of campus (UI/RM). 3. Developed a variety of programs targeted at increasing student recruitment and retention (CL). 2. Conducted a self-study that resulted in reaffirmation of accreditation. 1. Made significant progress on the implementation of six high impact practices as a part of our student’s Liberal Arts experience (AE).
A brief tour of trends, expectations, priorities, and realities regarding American higher education and the UW Superior campus today.
President Obama’s State of the Union 2013 ◦ Uncontrolled tuition increases ◦ Lagging graduation rates ◦ Perceived mismatch of degrees with workforce needs ◦ “College Scorecard” to guide students & parents HLC Accreditation ◦ Student Learning Outcome Assessment ◦ Linking of student learning to planning and budgeting
Wisconsin Legislative and Regent Perceptions ◦ Cost of attendance ◦ Perceived waste; administrative bloat ◦ Resistant to change and innovation Business, Industry, Professions ◦ Difficult to work with ◦ Slow to respond; often fail to follow through Prospective Students; Parents ◦ Cost of attendance ◦ Prospect of employment after graduation
“…a strategic planning process that builds from areas of strength, promise, and opportunity to create a plan that will guide the future of the University”
Sets overall direction for the University Identifies institutional distinctiveness and comparative advantages. Identifies strategic “best fit” with the University’s environment Develops a small number of goals; refreshes or replaces those goals as needed.
Constituencies we serve Need for our programs and services Constituencies we could serve Our chosen geography Our competitors Our funders Our human resources Our special, distinctive assets
Redefine institutional Mission and Identity Identify and market “signature” programs Better position UW Superior in the marketplace Ensure program relevance Ensure high impact practices across all programs Increase enrollment across all categories of students Improve student retention Enhance engagement with larger community Diversify revenue sources
Strategic Planning Steering Committee (SPSC): Small team to work with our planning consultant to keep the teams on task and on time. (Jerry Hembd, Liz Blue, Brett Jones and Faith Hensrud) CIPT forms the core and is supplemented with others to provide leadership for 8 research groups. Peter Nordgren, Mary McCauley, Mary Balcer, Jan Hanson, Tim Cleary, Ryan Kreuser, Brent Notbohm, Jenice Meyer, Sue Masterson, Lynne Williams, Debbie Seguin, Wendy Kropid, Vicki Hajewski, Maria Cuzzo, Jeff Kahler, Harry Anderson, Jim Lane, Monica Roth Day (One additional faculty; two students; and the Assistant VC for Enrollment will be added to CIPT)
Campus members, businesses, employers, community & alumni CIPT Circle of Researchers/ Readers Strategic Planning Steering Committee Steve Reno, Strategic Planning Consultant Facilitator CIPT Research Groups: Members form the circle of readers for all planning documents; and will engage others across the institution and from business, community and alumni as appropriate for their work. Chancellor
Research Groups: Focus on specific questions Group One: Who are the constituencies we currently serve and who are the ones we could potentially serve? Peter Nordgren, Mary McCauley Group Two: What is the demonstrated need for the programs we currently offer? How effective are they? (Mary Balcer, Jan Hanson, Tim Cleary) Group Three: Who are our competitors and what distinctive advantages do we have (or could we have) relative to them? (Ryan Kreuser, Brent Notbohm) Group Four: What forces external to the University could affect its future either positively or negatively? (Jenice Meyer, Sue Masterson, Lynne Williams)
Group Five: What forces internal to the University could affect its future either positively or negatively? (Debbie Seguin, Wendy Kropid) Group Six: What is the current culture of our University and what should it be? (Vicki Hajewski, Maria Cuzzo) – June 3 rd summer conversation; please register through CETL Group Seven: What are our current revenue sources and what should they be? (Jeff Kahler, Harry Anderson) Group Eight: What mechanisms do we have in place by which we will be able to monitor the progress on the priorities of our new strategic plan? How effective are those mechanisms? (Jim Lane, Monica Roth Day)
Review, reaffirm, or revise Mission Statement Decide where we want to be in 3-5 years Define our strategic objectives Create an implementation plan Develop an evaluation mechanism Additionally: Calibrate with accreditation
Driven by UW-Superior’s Mission Guided by its Vision and Core Values Respectful of UW-Superior tradition and heritage Open, inclusive, and collaborative Data informed Creative and entrepreneurial Implementable Measureable
May 2013 – August 2013 CIPT Circle of researchers identify data sources, and constituent groups to involve in conducting an environmental scan for each question August – December 2013 CIPT Research Groups conduct environmental scan Early December 2013 CIPT Research Groups present findings of research at all campus meeting Two week open comment period
Jan ◦ Steering Committee begins initial draft of strategic initiatives and goals ◦ CIPT Circle of Readers reviews and provides input for revisions Feb ◦ All campus meeting to present the draft initiatives and goals ◦ Comment period; governance review and input
March 2014 ◦ Steering Committee refines Strategic Initiatives and goals and develops metrics and draft strategic plan ◦ Receives feedback from CIPT Circle of Readers ◦ Revisions made as needed April 2014 ◦ Strategic Plan with metrics presented to campus ◦ Comment period; Governance review and input ◦ Revisions as needed
May 2014 ◦ Draft plan reviewed by Chancellor’s Senior Staff ◦ Steering committee and Facilitator “polish” the Plan ◦ Superior Visions 2020 Plan presented to UW Superior Community ◦ Implementation and monitoring of the plan begins
Higher Learning Commission Criteria: ◦ Criterion One. Mission ◦ Criterion Two. Integrity: Ethical and Responsible Conduct ◦ Criterion Three. Teaching and Learning: Quality, Resources, and Support ◦ Criterion Four. Teaching and Learning: Evaluation and Improvement ◦ Criterion Five. Resources, Planning, and Institutional Effectiveness Higher Learning Commission March 2013 Site Visit, Evaluation and Recommendations Question: How do these relate to the University’s Strategic Initiatives?
Bring key partners/stakeholders on board Develop standards and metrics for accountability and performance institution-wide Structural, operational, and cultural change must proceed in concert There is no status quo
What kind of university do you want UW- Superior to be? What are the obstacles to that? What are you professionally prepared to do to make that happen?
What else do you want to know about our planning process? Website: