Strategic Planning Committee Minutes, May 6, 2002

Strategic Planning (SPC) Committee Minutes
May 6, 2002

MEMBERS PRESENT:: Bruce Morton, John Carlsten, Mark Sheehan, Kay Chafey, Jon Wraith, Mary Noll, Bill Brown, Michelle McLendon, Jaynee Groseth.

MEMBERS ABSENT: Betsy Centa, Greg Johnson.

OTHERS PRESENT: President Gamble, Kathy Attebury, Ben Sharp.

Committee Chair Bruce Morton convened the meeting at 3:00 pm. President Gamble was present to discuss his view of the university and the work of the Strategic Planning Committee.

In response to the question, "What would you like SPC to do?", President Gamble responded that one thing he does not want is the committee to prepare a strategic plan for the university which is shelved and not used.

SPC should work in unison with UPBAC, taking information from UPBAC, clarifying and elaborating on it, and then taking it back to UPBAC for discussion. The role of the President is to take hold of a few ideas and to articulate them. The Strategic Planning Committee will use the give-and-take with UPBAC to put these ideas in a form so they can be implemented. The process would have been easier if the Strategic Planning Committee had been able to begin its work before UPBAC, but budget decisions had to be made. The committees will sort out their roles over time. Any strategic plan needs to have money tied to it and be evaluated. Then corrections need to be made.

During President Gamble's first 18 months at MSU, he has set forward a limited number of ideas, articulating them in different ways and in different venues. These ideas need to have buy-in from the rest of the community. The President's ideas are articulated in messages included on the web. The university community is encouraged to look at these and talk about them with others.

MSU is committed to growth. Students are looking for the right place to go to school, and they will pay the price, as long as the school is a good match for them. However, as the state gives less support to the universities, other sources of revenue become more critical to the success of the university. Scholarships become more important as the cost of education rises, and an endowment is needed to fund them.

The Strategic Planning Committee should first spend some time deciding how to make decisions. Upon what principles will decisions be made? What criteria will be used? What data does the committee need? UPBAC is doing some work in this area, and SPC should take a look at their methods for making decisions.

Traditional university criteria for decision-making include:

• Quality
• Centrality (a certain array of programs is always needed)
• Cost
• Need
• Unique characteristics

SPC should consider, with appropriate data, the appropriate size of the undergraduate and graduate programs at MSU. The institution should grow out to meet capacity where there is capacity, realizing there is not capacity everywhere within the university. As capacity is increased, quality should not be compromised. Although some measures of quality already exist, reaching common agreement about quality is an issue. There are measures for efficiency, also, such as KPI's. However, it must be recognized that some less-efficient units in the university may be very strategic, so efficiency by itself is not a good measure.

According to the President, the physical space issue at MSU is not as critical as the time-usage issue. How is use of classrooms distributed throughout the day and the week? Could web-based and video-based instruction be used to alleviate some of the pressure on space? SPC should gather information about this. Rather than build new space, other possibilities should be considered, such as leasing space.

Summer session could be used more effectively, given MSU's location and programs. There needs to be a decent return to faculty, departments and colleges as an incentive to offer more summer programs.

Once the basic structure for making decisions has been put in place, other questions to address include: Does MSU have the right array of programs? Are they funded appropriately? Although some less-efficient programs may be central to MSU's mission, some plans for increased efficiency should be expected.

Another area that SPC should consider is the age and expected retirement dates of faculty by department. If departments do not plan ahead, large numbers of retirements in a relatively short time can dramatically impact those departments. The University Budget Office is currently gathering this kind of information.

New programs should be expected to develop a plan which addresses investment needed (and there is always some kind of cost associated with a new program, although it is often argued otherwise), the pay-out (it can be money, quality, need, or other non-tangibles), and an exit strategy, if the program does not meet expectations.

Although MSU has reasonably lenient admissions standards, students are self-selecting and probably won't come to MSU if they don't think they can do the work. However, some students are not prepared to come to MSU and would do better to begin their education at the Colleges of Technology. MSU should develop tighter partnerships with the COT's to make it easier for students to get their education there or to begin school there and transfer to MSU. Probationary students at MSU need support and the assistance they need to help them to succeed. This does not mean that grades are given away. Many good students leave the university, also. Why does this happen? We need to find out and work toward remedying the problems.

MSU needs to have a strong sense about what MSU can do and then proceed (based on projected need/capacity/quality). Some joint programs with other institutions are a good idea to pursue, but MSU needs to proceed whether or not they occur. A larger resource base needs to be developed, but it doesn't all have to be done at one time.

Balance within the university is important, and the elements of the university need to be understood to achieve balance.

Part of the value of SPC is that this committee will go beyond consideration of the coming fiscal year. What ideas should be put on the table for 3-5 years down the road?

A concern expressed in the SWOT analysis done earlier this spring by SPC is the MSU system. How can the units work together? Campuses have different concerns regarding any move to share and co-operate and how it will affect that campus. President Gamble mentioned the Libraries as an area where the units are working together in a positive way. This year, federal initiatives from all the units were submitted as one package, as a step in presenting a unified vision and program. The President pointed out that the campuses need to administratively work as one because it is more efficient. At the same time, campuses need to maintain their autonomy and history. President Gamble's job is to make sure the CEOs at the campuses do their job. President Gamble also observed that it is in the best interests of MSU-Bozeman to help the other campuses to be successful because if they are not successful it will stigmatize all of MSU-they are us. Students today are discerning consumers and will choose the campus that is most suitable; each campus needs to develop its areas of strength. The perception that we are competing with each other does not stand up under scrutiny.

MSU should have a higher number of graduate students for the size of the student body. Increasing graduate fee waivers will help in recruiting graduate students. Combining the number of fee waivers given to the MSU system allows the smaller campuses to use all the graduate fee waivers they are able to use, while giving MSU in Bozeman the opportunity to use any that are not used elsewhere.

SPC should look at the graduate program. What is the optimal configuration of PhD programs and Masters programs?

How might program review, of both undergraduate and graduate programs, be conducted? Should it come from Academic Affairs and Faculty Council? How often should it be conducted? Department heads should be looking at programs on a regular basis.

If SPC would like to discuss issues with the President, he is willing to attend meetings any time they fit into his schedule. He suggested the committee start with the proposition that the institution is pretty well in balance and work from there.

The meeting adjourned at 4:40 PM.