Chapter 3
Mission, Planning, and Governance

 

3.5 Conclusions

The past decade’s growth and transformation have been accomplished within the administrative structure described. The periodic revision of the Mission Statement, as a consistent part of the overall University planning process, ensures continued validity and relevance of the Mission and Vision. Next Steps 2000-2005, the university strategic plan, established measurable goals, objectives, and outcomes to achieve that Mission and Vision and identified university units responsible for key actions.

Due to careful planning and conservative fiscal management in the current budget climate, SVSU has been able to maintain services without layoffs or major cuts in programs, in spite of a significant expansion of the student population and of the physical plant.

Next Steps 2000-2005 is used, in varying degree, by all major divisions of the University to shape their planning. However, not all units or university faculty and staff feel equally engaged in planning processes or achievement of defined goals. It is generally acknowledged that the planning process is top-down; some feel this is an effective approach, but others contend that individual units are too removed from the process, becoming involved only as it directly affects their own work.

Department self-studies and surveys indicate Next Steps 2000-2005 is not fully integrated into curriculum planning, and it is not clear whether department and college curriculum planning figures into Next Steps 2000-2005 revisions. Department chairs, who lack control over resources, have expressed the most distance from the university planning process; by contract, chairs are not vested with planning responsibilities and receive only limited release time for their work. Faculty participate in curriculum development through the process delineated in the Faculty Contract. Both administrative appointees and elected faculty serve on curriculum committees and participate in deliberations on proposals submitted to them. The faculty votes on committee recommendations at two ratification meetings each year. The allocation of resources for implementing curriculum decisions rests with the administration. This collaborative process requires that administration and faculty continue to communicate effectively.

While information from departments, task forces, and committees may be used in the planning activities of the university administration, the university community often does not see how such input from advisory committees and task forces informs planning and implementation, even when individuals have been directly involved. Many in the campus community feel inadequately informed of specific initiatives or how progress toward goals and objectives is measured.

The university is governed through a traditional hierarchical structure in the context of two collective bargaining units. The effectiveness of governance structures is perceived quite differently by different units and by individuals within these units. The impact of recent institutional reorganizations to accomplish both university goals and division objectives will need to be assessed. Many units noted the importance of student and alumni feedback in their on-going planning process and regularly carry out student satisfaction surveys. However, outcome-based assessment efforts are uneven. Many units are only beginning to establish assessment procedures to measure their effectiveness and do not yet consistently use assessment information to plan for improvement.

Although the university operates efficiently to accomplish its purposes, those purposes have been tied primarily to institutional growth. In an era with diminished resources, tensions may develop in the dual commitment to build qualitatively distinctive programs while remaining an institution of opportunity. Thus strategic alignment and broad engagement in the planning process will become more critical.