Chapter 3
Mission, Planning, and Governance

 

3.2 University Planning Processes

During the past decade, planning processes have evolved from statements of purpose (Promises to Keep, 1990, and Constancy to Purpose, 1995) to the strategic plan (Next Steps 2000-2005) which currently sets the direction for the university. The plan is action- and outcomes-oriented and undergoes regular revision.

A consultant from Dow Corning was hired to facilitate this more complex strategic planning process. A diverse campus group with 41 members of the campus community was assembled to execute the task. The group included administrators from multiple divisions, academic deans, directors, staff from multiple units, 16 faculty, a member of the Board of Control, and a member of the SVSU Board of Fellows. Divided into committees, each focusing on discrete aspects of the mission, the group developed what would become the six defining goals of the plan. Members from each of the committees formed an additional task force to review and revise the Mission and Vision statements.

The committees met during Spring/Summer 1999 and held two open forums with the campus community that fall. Diverse ideas were solicited, considered, compiled, condensed, and ultimately distilled to the current document. The Mission and Vision statements and Next Steps 2000-2005 were then approved by the Board of Control to become the organizing document for a 5-year planning cycle.

These documents are comprehensive, addressing all aspects of university life. The goals are presented in table format with Indicators listed for each goal. Goals are further defined by “Critical Success Factors,” “Direction Toward Goal,” and “Key Actions.” Progress toward the goal is indicated in the final column for each goal. Units responsible for addressing specific goals are identified, although there is considerable and intended overlap in this regard. Vice-Presidents report periodically on unit progress to the Institutional Planning Officer, who revises the document. The Board of Control reviews and approves these updates.

The execution of SVSU’s 5-year plan is coordinated by the President with the Board of Control and the President’s Planning Council. These processes are facilitated by the Planning Officer and implemented by the President’s Staff. The structure of the plan and annual institutional review invite self-assessment by all divisions, although units vary in their utilization of this planning/implementing/assessing/revising process.

Input for on-going institution-wide planning as well as assessment of current plans is based on the efforts of various committees and task forces. Some of these are standing committees, while others are ad hoc groups charged by the President to review specific issues, such as diversity in the curriculum, graduate program enrollment, and university website revision. A notable example of this approach is the work of the Long-Term Enrollment Planning Group. The group, which included selected faculty, staff, administrators, and community members, produced Right Sizing the University: Enrollment Goals for the Next Decade. This document was presented to the Board of Control for consideration and approval, and has been pivotal in assessing future institutional priorities after four decades of steady growth.

Although in some respects institutional planning is centered in the President’s Planning Council, in other respects it is decentralized, or at least compartmentalized, and carried out by individual units. Planning in each division is guided by the university strategic plan, around which unit goals are set. These goals then guide the annual development of department goals. Administrative staff performance evaluations are tied to the achievement of office and individual goals. Thus goals that are the responsibility of an individual unit can be monitored effectively.

However, when inter-divisional and intra-divisional collaboration and cooperation are necessary for the achievement of office and divisional goals, those in leadership positions report that governance and organizational structures of the institution make the resolution of certain kinds of issues problematic. As a result, issues that cross division boundaries and/or demand university-wide resources and commitment to address may go unresolved (e.g., multi-disciplinary program development, university-wide assessment, diversity), or fall to individuals who lack the power or institutional status to address such concerns systemically and directly.

The aforementioned task forces are a typical means used to plan across institutional boundaries. Individuals appointed to serve on such groups do not represent defined institutional constituencies, although there is an attempt to include individuals from different sectors of the university. Multiple successive task forces are frequently organized to address complex issues (e.g., diversity, graduate programs). Such task forces can serve to break down structural barriers and bring together faculty, staff, and administrators from across the institution to discuss issues of common interest and generate ideas for resolving issues of common concern. However, such task forces and committees are advisory only; because they work outside established university structures with no direct responsibility for subsequent review or implementation, task force members may see little or no evidence of their work or how it contributes to institutional planning. Thus they may question the value of this work and the time commitment it requires.

The creation of Next Steps 2000-2005, itself, is an extended example of this process. As noted above, a variety of faculty, staff, and administrators worked in various task forces to develop the plans and create the document. Although individual faculty and staff members may have been involved in the original planning process, once it was approved by the Board of Control, it became the responsibility of the President and his Planning Council and Staff to implement; the update of the plan occurs at the vice-presidential level.

Resource allocation is an additional component that is integral to the university planning process. Planning that takes place at division, college, department, or task force level is brought to the President’s Planning Council by the Vice-Presidents for inclusion in the overall strategy and for resource allocation. (See Chapter 4 for an expanded discussion of Resources.) Budgets are then allocated for each office within a given division. Office directors have some discretion to request additional resources; such requests are judged against division-wide and university-wide resource allocation requests. Individual projects may also be brought directly to the President for approval and resources.

As the subcommittee's planning survey indicates, at the Vice-Presidential level resources are defined as a significant aspect of planning, and Vice Presidents control the resources necessary to implement planning processes. At the program, chair, and director levels, however, resources, particularly human resources, are viewed as a constraint in planning. Department chairs, who lack control over resources, have expressed the most distance from the university planning process. Both faculty and staff indicated they would do more in terms of program development if there were resources available to develop and carry out plans without time-consuming negotiations. Faculty and staff indicated that because of these constraints, they often limit their initiatives to what they personally are able to do. Support staff for projects is often provided through work-study students, who may or may not have the necessary skills or long-term commitment to carry out particular projects. Creative ideas and commitment to larger goals may thus be lost.