Strategic Planning Committee Minutes, November 4, 2002

Strategic Planning Committee Minutes
November 4, 2002

Memebers Present: Bruce Morton, Bill Brown, Jon Wraith, Mary Noll, Jaynee Groseth, Mark Sheehan, Kay Chafey, Jerry Stephens.

Members Absent: Greg Johnson, Betsy Centa, ASMSU representative.

Others Present: Geoff Gamble, Dave Dooley, Jim Rimpau, Ben Sharp, Kathy Attenbury.

The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the capacity for growth document and SWOT analysis with the President and Provost.

President Gamble thanked the committee for its work. When he first proposed a planning process for MSU, he saw it as a three-year process. He said it takes longer for a campus to change its culture, to put assessment and data-gathering in place.

According to Provost Dooley, UPBAC is working through its response to both documents. UPBAC accepted the reports and will internalize them to use during this budget cycle. A sub-committee of UPBAC is drafting a follow-up. The sub-committee meets November 6, and UPBAC again meets November 12. There will not be a formal response to the reports but budget recommendations will take them into consideration.

Ideally, SPC looks out ahead for the institution, making suggestions for its direction. UPBAC takes some of the suggestions and implements them. Then, the implemented suggestions are assessed. How did an idea work out? Was the university able to do something positive with it? An idea might fail, but corrective action then needs to be taken and evaluated at the end of the next cycle.

According to the President, one of his main goals for MSU is to build capacity for planning and assessment so the institution can move forward without the direction of any specific individual.

Discussion about the capacity for growth document followed.

Bill Brown stated that the recommendation about growth came, partly, from a concern for student retention levels. Students coming to MSU should be adequately prepared, find available class sections, and receive the help needed to succeed. The committee looked at classroom space and carrying capacity of the university as a whole. In addition, if MSU is not all things to all people, MSU-Bozeman needs to be differentiated from the other units. Raising standards would increase retention, if the experience of other institutions is an indicator.

The President would like to know, given the shrinking resource base provided by the state, what the optimal size for MSU is. How will quality be maintained? Until the retention rate improves, MSU needs to continue recruiting nation-wide. States are generally stepping aside from funding universities as a "public good" in favor of viewing higher education as a "private good" to students. MSU needs to know where there is student capacity. Is that where MSU wants to grow? When new programs are developed, might some be discontinued? If so, which? MSU must balance admission standards with access issues.

There needs to be empirical data gathered that indicates what MSU does well. What should MSU be doing well but needs to improve? Student interest indicates that the quality of a particular course of study is important to them. How is MSU different from other institutions?

Is classroom space an issue? According to the Provost, studies done so far by the Space Management Committee indicate that the issue is space management, not availability of classroom space. Although the SMC is just beginning its work, suppositions about space don't appear to necessarily be supported by the data. Students like to take classes at particular times, and faculty prefer to teach at particular times. Support offices may not need to grow to accommodate additional students but may need to do business differently.

The President suggested the committee look at 5- or10-year trend data, by department, to see where there has been growth. However, by itself, growth doesn't indicate quality or centrality. It was pointed out that the core curriculum conspires to have students take certain courses. Other built-in program requirements may also affect departmental growth. MSU needs a data-rich environment, because data should inform every assumption. If the data doesn't support an assumption, corrective action needs to be taken. A complete analysis of the entire institution needs to be made to find out if MSU is optimally structured.

The issue of programmatic integration within the MSU system was discussed. It is complicated, because there are 4 units, each with a different culture, in addition to the Extension Service and the Ag Experiment Station.

The President is working to have the four units work together more effectively. The health of the other units is the responsibility of MSU-Bozeman. There actually is not much redundancy among the units, because the cohort of students is different at each one. He has been asking the leaders at each unit what conditions will keep that particular institution healthy. The other units have strong points and have been helpful to MSU-Bozeman, so sharing of expertise and knowledge is not a one-way street.

In order to make it possible to transfer from one state institution to another, transferability of credits needs to be guaranteed.

Key points of the discussion: MSU needs to keep recruiting actively until retention is improved. SPC needs to ask, "What information do we need?" Planning is dynamic.

It is the intent of the President that within two years, it will be possible to "read" the focus of the university from the budget.