Members absent: Cunningham, Motloch, Ober
Interim Provost Deborah Balogh convened the meeting at 7:35 a.m. Two handouts were distributed: "A Dynamic Plan" and "Best Practices Committee Recommendations, October 14."
Announcements: Dr. Balogh reported that the Board of Trustees, at its recent retreat, had responded favorably to the work of the task force thus far.
Minutes: The minutes of September 30, 2005, were approved as distributed.
Report from Best Practices Committee: Jim McKenzie referred the group to the Best Practices Committee handout, addressing specifically Items #1 and #2 on the first page. The first recommendation is to shorten the Strategic Directions list and re-state the items as strategic goals for 2006-2011. The second is to re-title the current three Strategic Goals and call them simply "Goals" or "Themes." Dr. McKenzie observed that these recommendations arise from the sense that some of the Strategic Directions and perhaps all three Goals are not truly "strategic" as stated. The third recommendation from the committee suggests modified language for current Strategic Goal #1 so that units outside Academic Affairs can "buy in" more easily. In their deliberations, committee members relied heavily on findings from their study of other strategic plans.
In the discussion that followed, some task force members supported the committee's recommendations and concerns, but others observed the following:
- The three Goals are primary, so they should be left at the top of the chart. (See p. 3 of the handout, "Diagram showing the relationship between goals and objectives.") The word "Themes" would reduce their importance. The three goals together represent a holistic view, a totality.
- The three Goals are the core of our educational endeavor. They will not change 50 years from now. The words themselves are simply labels for goals.
- Perhaps we could consider the drive to distinction to be a meta-Goal. Then we could keep the three Goals and call them "Opportunities for Distinctiveness."
- We could place "Core Goals" at the top of the chart using our proposed 3 Goals and view the Strategic Directions (or whatever we decide to call them) as giving energy to the Goals.
- The word "Opportunities" may sound too optional. We should work on the list of Strategic Directions instead.
- The word "Directions" or "Directives" needs to go into the chart somewhere.
- Another way to look at the question is to see the 2006-2011 Strategic Directions as embedded in our enduring Core Values. The Strategic Directions are the "how" and the Core Values the "what."
- If we value these three Goals, they should be in the Values and Culture statement as an organizing principle. Our Goals and our Values need to be associated.
- If the Strategic Directions were categorized under the Goals, a fourth goal might emerge.
Another concern was that the thinking of units not be limited by the chart: "Let's not get departments too far down in the chart." There was also discussion about the time frame. As an example, access to immersion experiences might take longer than five years, and so not all of the strategic directions can be contained within 2006-2011. Dr. Sabatine reminded the group that in 2011, there will be another planning process and that then we can focus on "the next layer." The chart gives us a method, a basic framework for planning.
A task force member stated that a framework has been developed already and that the group is now very close to the "how." Although the Strategic Directions may not suggest a lot that is distinctive, the question is really how directive we need to be with units. Besides, the framework must be kept simple, or faculty will ignore it. It's now time to let others in the university community respond and for the task force to listen.
The consensus appeared to be that while a bridge is still needed from the Goals to the Objectives, it will be productive to find out how the university community will react to the work to date, and particularly to the terminology of the Goals. Other group members stated that the Vision, Mission, and Goals are "pretty close" to being done, but that it is really the Strategic Directions that need to be discussed while keeping the ideas expressed in this meeting on hold. The group also commended the Best Practices Committee for its good work.
Further, the decision was made to take the following proposed items to the forums: the Values and Culture statement, the Vision statement, the Mission statement, the Goals statement, and the list of Strategic Directions for University Planning. Suggested dates for the forums were October 28th and November 1st.
Further Discussion of Strategic Directions:
Additional questions were raised concerning the list of Strategic Directions: Is the assumption that not everyone can contribute to each item? If a unit "buys in," does it get the resources to address the item? Do we force units to contribute to a particular direction? An observation was made that herein lies the difference between the business culture and the academic culture, and so we must engage people in the academic culture in strategic decision-making. An observation was that one value of strategic planning is that people talk about what they are doing and then about how to improve. At any rate, the implementation process will not be uncoordinated; there will be guidance from leadership (deans and directors). Also, it was pointed out that most academic units can work on at least the first three items.
The question seemed to be whether to finish finalizing the list or to accept the current version. (We can suspend thinking about diagramming the bridge between Goals and Objectives for the time being.) Some members stated that we should proceed with what we have, and, in fact, be careful in eliminating items. Distinctiveness can be achieved in
how the Directions are implemented. In the process of turning the framework over to units and professional areas, we can ask that they seek new ways of implementing these directions.
However, other members emphasized that "distinction" has an "edge." We just need to decide whether or not to take the issue of distinction to the forums. Perhaps a first step is to define "distinction." Some of the list's items have the capability of being distinctive in Indiana, and others distinctive in the nation. Perhaps we could re-title the list as "Strategies for Achieving Distinction" and emphasize that this is draft terminology. At the forums, an item for discussion can be a definition of "distinctiveness."
Some members thought it better not to share the list at all at the forums, but rather get new ideas. It was pointed out that some units do not have a mechanism for national ranking (Item #3). The list may suggest a "top-down" process to some people, so perhaps it would be better to call the items "examples" at the forums.
As the group returned to the Best Practices Committee's diagram on page three, someone asked if it might not be wise to bring it to the forums, as well as a second diagram, perhaps something like the conceptual "Dynamic Plan" handout. Another suggestion was to go ahead and show the committee's diagram with the addition of a box for the Board of Trustees.
As the meeting came to a close, Dr. Balogh proposed that the next task force meeting include discussion of the structure of the forums and what materials to distribute at them. She asked Linda Hanson, Jim McKenzie, and Frank Sabatine to prepare an outline for the forums in advance of the meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 a.m. Next week's meeting will be held on Friday, October 21, 7:30-9:00 a.m., in Cardinal Hall A.
RELATED LINK:
Agenda for October 14, 2005