Mission and Mission Fulfillment Tom Miller University of Alaska Anchorage

UAA’s Context Public university Public university Part of a system of three independently accredited campuses Part of a system of three independently accredited campuses Largest of three major campuses Largest of three major campuses 20,000 students 2,000 staff 1,200 faculty Extended reach Extended reach Five community campuses

UAA’s Context Comprehensive mission Comprehensive mission 200 programs of study Certificates to 2-year to graduate programs Open access Open access Wide diversity of student body Wide diversity of student body Double identity Double identity Community college Four-year university

Mission Useful components for a Mission Statement Identify purpose for activities: Identify purpose for activities: discover and disseminate knowledge through teaching, research, engagement, and creative expression. serve the higher education needs of the state, its communities, and its diverse peoples.

Mission Useful components for a Mission Statement Identify important characteristics: Identify important characteristics: open access university academic programs leading to associate, baccalaureate, and graduate degrees rich, diverse, and inclusive environment sustainable practices

Mission Useful components for a Mission Statement Identify impacts – the result will be Identify impacts – the result will be Graduates prepared for: workforce, further education in…, citizenship, life-long learning Students will demonstrate (critical thinking, leadership, etc.) Economic development in region Engagement in arts and humanities

Mission Not so helpful statements Bragging: Bragging: We will be (renowned for, recognized for, famous for …) risk spending too much effort getting noticed Comparisons or predictions: Comparisons or predictions: We will double our (enrollments, space, foundation account, state appropriation, etc.) too many factors that institutions don’t control We will be the top producer of aircraft mechanics in the state. Set benchmarks and thresholds in other documents

Mission Alignment with strategic and other operational plans Common priorities and objectives Common data sets to measure performance Common reporting and evaluation Program level reviews System level performance reviews Evaluation tied to improvement

Institutional Planning and Accreditation Involved parties Timeline Collection of evidence Role of values

Handling Transformation Thinking deeply and in new ways… The role and practice of institutional vision When and how to include, delete or alter an institutional goal or core theme When and how to measure effects

Mission Fulfillment Definition of fulfillment: Broad range between unacceptable and superior.. Acceptable Level of Performance – Internal or external guidance? Status or trends? Need for comparable data sets? Evaluation of programs and services Role of institutional indicators. Rolling up into Core Themes and Mission

The Use of Indicators As markers of performance - not directly pointing to process or goal adjustment. Prompts for further review Distinguish between poor performance and inconclusive data Careful analysis needed to connect cause and effect Properties of good evidence: meaningful, repeatable, verifiable, multiple measures Steps between data collection and action

Susan Kalina University of Alaska Anchorage

Principles Established by Steering Committee from the outset Transparency Inclusiveness Community Involvement Sensitivity in Approach Student Centered Respect

Communication with University and Community Initial briefings Ongoing updates Requests for feedback Distributed results

New Standards and Process: Briefing All Major Organizational Units Aims at improvement based on evidence of achievement Engages entire institution Encourages collaboration across units Focuses on mission fulfillment Provides an opportunity to adjust as we go along

Ongoing Updates and Briefings Existing faculty, staff, student, administrative and community governance groups In writing and in person Additional focused briefings Widely distributed drafts, clear feedback mechanism Accreditation 2010 Web site

Feedback Solicited at Each Major Step Core themes Outcomes and Indicators Resources and Capacity Performance and recommendations Standards – reviewed simultaneously

Distributed Leadership Across Groups, Units, and Campuses Steering Committee Leadership team Governance groups Core Theme evaluation teams Chancellor’s Cabinet

Intra-institutional Benefits and Implications for Practice Engages the entire institution and community in meaningful discussion Encourages dialogue across traditional boundaries and up and down the traditional hierarchy Helps individuals and units see how they contribute to the mission as a whole and to see their connections to other units

Intra-institutional Benefits and Implications for Practice Encourages thinking about efficiency of effort Alignment with strategic plan and management processes (evidence collection and analysis, decisions, measure effects, improve) Renews discussion of mission and strategic plan Incentives for responsible groups to take control

Intra-institutional Challenges and Implications for Practice Cost and time implications Training and expectations of institution and the commission Temptation to select only safe outcomes (easy to measure or easy to accomplish) Unavailability of conclusive evidence – not enough, not directly related to performance Inaccurate analysis Actions not related to mission or overwhelmed by events