The Evolution of Strategic Planning and Assessment: Challenges, Triumphs

1
The Evolution of Strategic Planning and
Assessment Challenges, Triumphs Learning
Points

• Len Brazis Director of Strategic Planning
• Tiffany Phagan Assessment Coordinator
• Tamilla Curtis Senior Planning Analyst
• Michael Smith Strategic Planning Analyst

2
Overview

• Separate Origins of AP SP
• Evolution of the processes
• Where we are now
• Blended model?
• Challenges
• Triumphs
• Learning points
• Questions/comments

3
Separate Origins

• New President with corporate background motivated
  uptake of strategic planning (SP) creating
  separate office for SP in 1999
• SACS self-study (2000) later drove (re-) creation
  of formal assessment planning (AP)

4
Separate Origins

• Assessment
• Reported to Provost
• 1 volunteer per campus, tasked with training
  and coordination, paper forms, no budget
• Strategic planning
• Reported to President
• New SP office created, developed standardized
  process, paper forms, director and staff
• Roll up feature for initiatives with monetary
  requests developed within the process

5
Evolution

• Strategic planning supported and advanced by
• Senior administration
• Linking the annual budget allocation process to
  planning efforts
• Provides annual guidance for planning priorities
• Assisted in development and enhancement of web
  based tool through input
• Information technology
• Development of web based reporting tool replaced
  paper forms after only 1-year
• Continued enhancement of web based tool in
  subsequent years

6
Evolution

• Assessment limped along without any real
  support until
• Assessment Coordinator and assessment committees
  established in 2002
• Received guidance from UCF
• Coordinator provides departments with survey
  support
• Continued with paper forms until 2004 when web
  based reporting tool was launched

7
Evolution

• Considerable resistance to AP SP initially
  encountered
• SP responded by tying SP efforts to annual budget
  allocation process
• AP was reluctant to associate assessment with
  budget, instead creating assessment committees to
  push ownership of process down to planners

8
Evolution

• Realization that linking AP SP allows for
  evidence based planning and decision making
• Purposefully developed same look and feel for
  eventual link between AP SP
• Re-aligned AP SP timelines to make both
  processes sequential

9
Evolution

• Linking the SP and AP processes has proven
  difficult
• Used the same terms with different meanings
  for separate processes
• Territorial issues existed over the software tool
  and spread to clashes between AP SP philosophies

10
Where We Are Now

• APPM 4.3
• Examples of AP SP

11
Where We Are Now
Identifying a need for change

• No new money is available this year or in the
  next few years
• Strategic plans are wish lists focusing primarily
  on obtaining new funds
• Frustration levels are mounting, strategic
  planners feel the process is perfunctory
• The link between AP SP encourages planners to
  do assessment backwards
• Deciding what their monetary needs are,
  developing strategic initiatives and assessing
  that which shows a need for more money

12
Catalysts for Change
Where We Are Now

• Realization that SP follows a classical style of
  thinking (whats best for me or my department)
  rather than a progressive style (whats best for
  students or the institution)
• Discovered that the University strategic plan is
  really a vision statement
• Associate Provost for Institutional Effectiveness
  hired
• Realign organization structure-AP/SP are direct
  reports
• Acts as single voice to champion both processes

13
Blended Model?

• By redefining SP, began to see overlap with AP
• This led to the question Could strategic
  objectives become the focus of assessment plans?
• The idea of a blended model for AP SP is being
  considered and supported by the Associate
  Provost.
• Example

14
Blended Model?

• Can this be a fully blended process or might
  there be exceptions such as
• Couldnt/wouldnt want to devote resources to
  strategic initiatives now but need to continue to
  assess key functions of the unit purpose
  statement.
• Already efficient
  enough, no new
  initiatives needed
• blended with
  exceptions?

15
Challenges

• University buy-in with reduced emphasis on the
  budget allocation process for new money?
• Preventing planner burn out (right now, many/most
  planners wear two hats, SP AP)
• Retraining university community using
  collaborative/complimentary terminology
• Re-crafting software to fit process
• (not the other way around)
• AP SP processes should directly be linked to
  the University strategic plan/program
  review/program accreditation criteria

16
Triumphs

• Perceived potential problem with the processes
  BEFORE a complete breakdown of the system
• Meeting of the minds getting stakeholders
  together to hash out solutions to potential
  problem
• Realization that we lacked a true university
  strategic plan from which planners could draw
  guidance
• A refocus of mindsets from classical to
  progressive within both processes

17
Learning Points

• Clearly defined terminology is very important
• More progress made with effective support and
  proper budget
• Reaction to change could be positive
• AP SP should and can complement one other
• Collaboration between AP SP offices critical
  (but marriage is not required)
• Do not let the technology shape the process, the
  process should shape the technology
• Be cautious tying AP SP to budget
• Use AP SP effectively to improve the current
  planning processes

18
Comments/Questions

• Does anyone have any learning points they would
  like to add?
• Your experiences with blended process?
• Forums for AP/SP discussions?
• Assessment contact Tiffany Phagan
• phagant_at_erau.edu
• Strategic planning contact Len Brazis
• brazisl_at_erau.edu