INSTITUTIONAL MISSION AND
GOALS, PLANNING AND EFFECTIVENESS
INTRODUCTION
Montana State
University - Bozeman(MSU) has undergone significant changes related to
its institutional mission and goals since the time of the last full-scale visit
by the Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges (NASC) Commission on
Colleges [Exhibit 1.01, October 1990 Institutional Self-Study Report]. The context for
these changes was the restructuring of the Montana University System (MUS),
formally approved by the Montana Board of Regents (BOR) in 1994 [Exhibit 1.02,
BOR Approval of MUS Restructuring]. This restructuring resulted in the designation
of two (2) comprehensive universities of the MUS, and consequently, this
institution changed its title from "Montana State University" to "Montana State
University - Bozeman". Additionally, the Bozeman campus became the
administrative center for Montana State University with affiliated units of MSU.
Billings, MSU. Northern, and MSU College of Technology, Great Falls.
Restructuring has brought forth
significant opportunities and challenges for MSU which will continue well into
the future. As described in
Phase One of the Restructuring of the MUS [Appendix 1-A, MUS Restructuring Phase
I], institutions which comprise the MUS are to function as part of an integrated
whole, seeking to achieve maximum cooperation and interdependency while
recognizing the uniqueness and importance of all campuses to the unified system.
Administratively, substantial progress has been achieved towards this goal.
Less progress
has occurred with respect to academic, student affairs, and other
university-wide issues.
Prior to the restructuring of the MUS,
role and scope statements served to define the mission and goals of each campus,
while the MSU Long Range Plan (LRP) served as the implementation guide for the
MUS role and scope guidelines. In Phase Two of the Restructuring of the MUS
[Appendix 1-B, MUS Restructuring Phase II], several policy items were approved
by the BOR in 1995-96, and campus role and scope statements were eventually
repealed [Exhibit 1.03, BOR Repeal of Role and Scope Statements]. This repeal,
designed to create a competitive environment with respect to educational
providers, resulted in the mandate to develop new campus and university mission
statements.
MISSION AND
GOALS
Given the Regents' mandate to develop
campus and university mission statements, a representative task force was
charged in 1996 to create a mission statement synthesizing appropriate
information from the LRP and MSU's former role and scope statement [Exhibit
1.04, MSU Repealed Role and Scope], and to address relevant restructuring
issues. Prior
to crafting a new institutional mission statement, the task force solicited
input from all major constituent groups seeking to develop a consensus mission
which would be supported by all. After this period of campus input and review,
the resulting Mission Statement was submitted to the BOR and approved in January
1997. The
Mission of Montana State University. Bozeman is stated in Figure 1-01.
MISSION STATEMENT
·
Montana State University. Bozeman, the state's
land grant institution, is a comprehensive public university serving
Montana and its people through a tripartite mission:
providing quality undergraduate and
graduate educational programs;
conducting research and creative
activity, both basic and applied;
providing service through
outreach to the state, region, and nation.
·
MSU - Bozeman is the administrative center of Montana
State University, which also includes MSU. Billings, MSU. Northern, and
MSU College of Technology. Great Falls. Administratively, MSU - Bozeman is
committed to maintaining the identity and autonomy of the affiliated
campuses so that each may effectively contribute to the overall mission of
Montana State University.
·
MSU - Bozeman provides a comprehensive array of high
quality instructional programs in the sciences, liberal and creative arts,
and selected professions, particularly agriculture, architecture,
business, education, engineering, and nursing. The University gives top
priority to maintaining full national accreditation of its professional
programs. Through its many educational programs, MSU - Bozeman is
committed to:
emphasizing the centrality of the liberal arts and sciences to
undergraduate education;
integrating instruction with research and creative activity;
fostering interdisciplinary educational
opportunities;
developing critical and creative thinking, effective
communication, and multicultural and global awareness.
·
As the state's leading creator of research-based
knowledge, MSU - Bozeman is committed to:
exploring, discovering, and disseminating new
knowledge;
enhancing its educational programs by its research
and creative activities;
applying research findings to meet the social,
cultural, and economic needs of the state, region, and
nation.
·
Through a century of public service in the land grant
tradition, MSU - Bozeman is committed to:
providing outreach to Montana citizens that draws
upon the University's strengths in teaching and research;
facilitating wise stewardship and utilization of the
state's resources by forming effective and creative partnerships with business, government, educational, and service
organizations;
enhancing educational opportunities through
distance learning programs using appropriate electronic delivery
systems.
·
In addition to its many on-campus programs, Montana
State University - Bozeman serves constituencies throughout the state via
the Montana Extension Service, the Montana Agricultural Experiment
Station, and the Extended Studies Program. MSU - Bozeman is committed to
enhancing educational and professional opportunities for all protected
classes and has a special dedication to developing progressive options for
Montana's Native American population.
|
| Figure 1-01
Montana State University - Bozeman
Mission Statement |
The Mission Statement is published in the
MSU Bulletin [Exhibit 1.05, Montana State University 1998-2000 Graduate and
Undergraduate Bulletin], on the MSU Web site, and is linked to the BOR Web
site. The Mission Statement serves as the guiding principle for MSU, giving
direction and guidance to all institutional activities, including, but not
limited to, the work of the 1997-98 Special Review Committee (SRC), the
Strategic Planning and Budget Committee (SPBC), and the Long Range Planning
Committee (LRPC). The charge and function of each of these
planning bodies is described in detail later in this Standard.
MISSION
REVIEW
As part of the Regents' approval process
of the MSU - Bozeman Mission Statement, it was stipulated in Board policy that
mission statements shall be reviewed by the Regents every three (3) years. Such BOR review has
not taken place since the formal adoption of the campus mission statements, and
it is presently unclear as to when or how such review will occur.
Consistent with the representative nature
of the mission creation process, recent survey results of both faculty and
professional staff (see Planning and Effectiveness, pp. 16) indicate widespread
agreement that the mission is appropriate, and that the activities of the
University are directed by, and consistent with, the tripartite mission.
The President's Executive Council (PEC),
consisting of the President and the four (4) vice presidents, assess MSU's
Mission on a periodic basis to ensure consistency with long-term goals and
objectives. Other campus organizational
entities, such as academic colleges,
utilize the Mission Statement in the development and assessment of
programmatic goals and objectives. Through
administrative units such as the Extension Service (ES) and the Montana
Agricultural Experiment Station (AES), the off-campus constituents of MSU are
informed and partake in examination of the institution's mission.
INSTITUTIONAL
PERFORMANCE AND ASSESSMENT
As the state's land-grant institution, MSU
is committed to accomplishing the institutional mission of research, teaching,
and public service, and to sharing these accomplishments through the
dissemination of information to its constituents. The Office of
Institutional Research (IR) coordinates the institutional documentation related
to accomplishment of the University's mission and goals. IR maintains data
histories which are used throughout the institution to support the planning and
assessment of institutional performance.
IR maintains trend databases of student
and employee data to produce official university statistics. IR provides these
statistics for a wide on-campus constituency, including the following on-campus
and off-campus requesters:
·
Students
writing class reports for Associated Students of Montana State University
(ASMSU) proposals
·
Faculty developing grant proposals or trend studies for particular courses
·
Administrators planning resource allocation
·
Local news media
·
The Office of the Commissioner for Higher Education (OCHE)
·
The Governor's Office of Budget and Program Planning
·
Federal agencies
·
Other colleges and universities
Many of the statistics produced by IR are
available to the campus and the general public through MSU's Web site under MSU
Info, the informational resource for faculty, staff and students developed by
IR. IR played a key role in developing the university's first Web site in late
1994 and has given high priority to placing data and documents on-line. IR's
first on-line publication was Quick Facts [Exhibit 1.06, MSU Quick Facts], a
basic institutional profile based on the printed brochure "MSU - Bozeman at a
Glance." IR's
oldest collection of institutional data, the Blue Book, dates from 1976-77 and
reports five (5) years of productivity indicators for instructional departments,
with data aggregated by college [Exhibit 1.07, MSU Blue Book].
IR provides data for over 100 surveys sent
to MSU annually. Some are federally mandated, such as the Integrated
Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) for the U.S. Department of
Education's National Center for Education Statistics. The Director of IR serves
as the campus IPEDS coordinator and completes all surveys except Finance and
Libraries. IR completes other surveys for state and federal agencies and for
private enterprises, many of which collect comparative student data for college
guidebooks. The Common Data Set (CDS) , a format developed by four (4) major
guidebook publishers that has become the de facto standard for basic college
data reporting, is available on-line [Exhibit 1.08, Common Data Set].
IR provides data and analysis support for
numerous campus departments, including the following:
·
The Registrar's Office. IR handles requests for
ad-hoc reports that can be generated from the trend databases
·
Employee Relations and Services. IR answers
questions concerning the count and composition of the workforce, and completes
many of the surveys requesting this information
·
The Affirmative Action Office (AA/EO). IR produces
the annual federal compliance reports including the workforce analysis, the
utilization analysis, and the termination study
·
Career Services. IR assists with its annual
employment survey of graduates by analyzing the data and producing on-line
reports
·
Athletics. IR prepares the NCAA graduation rate
survey and the report required by the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act
·
New Student Services. IR developed a report
detailing the high school background and college persistence of entering
freshman cohorts that is prepared for and shared with any high school counselor
in the state
·
University Relations. IR has provided the design,
data, and analysis for two (2) economic impact studies
IR developed and maintains the University
Committees Web site [Exhibit 1.09, University Committees], which is based on a
database of membership and organizational information for committees with a
campus-wide focus. IR provides the data and analyses for conducting the annual
faculty salary review, prepared in conjunction with Faculty Council to ensure
that merit raises reflect performance evaluations and market raises are
commensurate with national market salaries by rank and discipline.
Each semester, IR prepares department and
institutional teaching load reports based on course instructor information
collected from and verified by each academic department, using definitions
developed with the OCHE and the Governor's Office of Budget and Program Planning
[Exhibit 1.10, Teaching Load Reports]. The director also serves as a member of
the Banner Implementation Team for the student records module and is responsible
for coordinating student reports among the MSU campuses. She/he will serve as
the primary MSU contact for the MUS data-warehousing project during the next two
(2) years.
IR reports to the Provost and Vice
President for Academic Affairs, and provides data and analytic support for that
office. As MSU's first assessment coordinator, the Director of Institutional
Research helped develop the university's student outcomes assessment program and
the Web site where Assessment Plans and Summaries are published. IR also
conducts the annual surveys of graduating seniors and alumni in conjunction with
the assessment program.
The Assessment Plans and Summaries and
surveys of seniors and alumni are discussed in Standard Two. IR tracks student
retention, both overall and for particular institutional retention programs such
as freshman seminars, the challenge course, and outreach efforts based on
results of the College Student Inventory (CSI) as described in Standard
Three.
PLANNING AND
EFFECTIVENESS
Planning efforts at MSU focus on
achievement of the institutional mission and goals. The planning
processes and structures are well defined and are appropriately representative
of all constituencies. Details of the planning structures in place at
MSU are provided in Standard Six in the description of institutional governance
structures.
The planning and governing structure of
the University is hierarchical with the President of the University providing
leadership and direction. The President works in concert with a variety
of representative bodies including the PEC [Exhibit 1.11, President's Executive
Council], University Governance Council (UGC) [Exhibit 1.12, University
Governance Council], Faculty Council [Exhibit 1.13. Faculty Council],
Professional Council [Exhibit 1.14, Professional Council], and the Classified
Employees Personnel Advisory Committee (CEPAC) [Exhibit 1.15, Classified
Employees Personnel Advisory Committee]. Groups devoted specifically to institutional
planning, goal setting, and strategy formulation include LRPC and the SPBC.
An overview of
the major planning outcomes and the functions of these groups is provided
below.
LONG RANGE PLAN
The genesis of the present Mission
Statement was the development and approval of the MSU LRP [Appendix 1-C, Long
Range Plan, 1994]. This planning effort began by the LRPC
[Exhibit 1.16, Long Range Planning Committee] in 1991 with a broad
representation of campus constituents and culminated in a campus-endorsed
document in 1994. A detailed description of the updated LRP is
provided below.
With the adoption of the Mission Statement
of January 1997, the MSU LRP of February 1994 was revised, and the new plan was
adopted in 1998 [Appendix 1-D, Long Range Plan (Revised 1998)]. The plan includes
nine (9) university-wide goals and strategies that, collectively, provide a
comprehensive framework for improving the product of MSU. While broadly
stated, the goals and strategies (based on surveyed responses and reports by
academic and non-academic units and others) are intended to suggest the
direction MSU should take in fulfilling its mission. The goals and
strategies are also accompanied by an action plan for implementation and a plan
for setting measurable objectives to support goal attainment.
In undertaking strategic planning, the
LRPC considered how political, economic, and social factors would affect the
University, and, in turn, how the University should respond. Specifically, the
committee attempted to develop goals that foster the knowledge, skills, and
attitudes MSU graduates will need in order to function effectively in the
workplace. Also sought was the establishment of strategic
directions in research, creative activities, and outreach consistent with MSU's
heritage as a land grant institution and as the leading provider of
research-based knowledge in the state. The goals were designed to improve the quality
and promote the integration of teaching, research/creative activities, and
outreach efforts at MSU, and to create an environment that enhances the
fulfillment of the University's mission.
The goals toward fulfilling LRP
implementation are listed by priority under two (2) headings:
·
Program Goals
·
Process Goals
The Program Goals and accompanying
strategies address the three (3) major components of the University in carrying
out its educational mission. The Process Goals and strategies pertain
primarily to improving the integration of the three (3) components through a
better use of resources and infrastructure of the university, and are essential
to the attainment of the program goals and the University's mission. The strategies for
attainment and effective measurement of these goals are described in the Long
Range Planning Document: Goals and Strategies - Revision 1998. The nine (9) goals
of the LRP are specifically called out in Appendix 1-E, Long Range Plan Program
and Process Goals.
Much progress has been made towards
achieving the intent of the LRP with many strategies continuing to receive
attention. A
recent review of the state of LRP goals and strategies was conducted, and the
referenced review provides substantial analysis of progress achieved towards
meeting these goals, as well as identification of issues remaining to be
addressed. Many of these remaining issues are tied to
limited monetary resources available to address remuneration and development of
staff and faculty, infrastructure issues, and operational support for the
University's programs.
PRODUCTIVITY, QUALITY, AND OUTCOMES AGREEMENT,
1995
In 1994, the Governor engaged higher
education officials in discussions regarding efficiency, enterprise, and
productivity within the MUS. The result of this initiative was the
development and adoption of the Productivity, Quality, and Outcomes (PQO)
Agreement [Appendix 1.F, Productivity, Quality, and Outcomes Agreement]. By
execution of this agreement, the Governor's Office, the BOR, the Commissioner of
Higher Education (CHE), and MSU pledged their commitment to enhancing
educational quality and efficiency, as well as raising faculty salaries to
competitive market levels. The agreement established specific goals and
objectives identifying the areas where the University and its faculty would
focus their efforts and resources. [PQO Interim Reports can be found in Appendix
1-G, PQO Interim Report for FY 1997; and Appendix 1-H, PQO Interim Report for FY
1998.]
The PQO Agreement, which can be viewed as
a subset of the University's LRP, has served as an influential, albeit
controversial, planning document since 1995. Because the agreement called for a 15%
increase in a specific faculty teaching load measure over a four (4)-year term,
as well as other outcome measures, the document has served as a focal point of
campus discussion in recent years. Faculty have expressed significant
disagreement with the PQO teaching metric as being an appropriate measure of
teaching loads. Through discussions in various campus
representative bodies such as Deans Council and Faculty Council, the PQO
measures, particularly those related to faculty workload, continue to be
evaluated and assessed on a regular basis.
SPECIAL REVIEW COMMITTEE, 1997-98
Because of pressing budgetary issues, the
1997-98 SRC [Exhibit 1.17, Special Review Committee] was formed to examine all
aspects of University operations. The committee was charged with identifying
potential ways to resolve acute budgetary problems, as well as to prevent these
problems from becoming chronic. The final report of the SRC highlighted the need
to change the strategic planning and budgeting process at MSU [Appendix 1-I,
Special Review Committee Report]. Given current budgetary realities, the
committee recognized that either the University must expand revenue enhancement
activities or face the reality of programmatic reductions and re-allocations of
existing resources. A major outcome of this Committee was the
recommendation for the formation of a strategic planning and budget committee.
STRATEGIC PLANNING AND BUDGET COMMITTEE,
1998-
The SRC report resulted in the formation
of a single committee, designated the SPBC, with representation from all major
campus constituent groups [Exhibit 1.18, Strategic Planning and Budget
Committee]. The SPBC replaced the University Budget Committee (UBC) and serves
as the primary advisory entity to the President on budgetary and shorter-term
planning issues.
The primary charge to the SPBC is to make
strategic planning and budgeting recommendations to the President that are
relative to funding priorities that fit the academic mission and institutional
goals of MSU. The SPBC examines the total University budget picture and assesses
potential areas of revenue enhancement and resource allocation. The SRC
envisioned the SPBC's charge to include working with existing programmatic
review committees; providing recommendations concerning all university program
revisions, enhancements, reductions and/or eliminations; and analyzing existing
or proposed resources to support the university's programs.
The SPBC's activities to date have served
to provide the framework for future short term planning efforts, including the
preparation of a draft report of its objectives [Appendix 1-J, Strategic
Planning and Budget Committee Strategic Objectives for MSU. Bozeman -
Draft]. Given the short history of this Committee's existence, assessment of its
effectiveness and its ultimate impact upon the planning at MSU will likely
require a perspective of several years into the future.
ATTAINMENT OF
MISSION AND PLANNING OBJECTIVES
A December 1998 survey of faculty
[Appendix 1-K, Faculty Survey], classified staff [Appendix 1-L, Classified Staff
Survey], and professional staff [Appendix 1-M, Professional Staff Survey]
provided information on the internal perspective of mission and goal attainment.
Agreement
exists for future decision making to be guided by the current LRP. The survey results,
however, indicate that many constituent groups are not aware of the process
undertaken by the 1997-98 SRC in assisting the University in its planning
efforts. Those
that are aware are in agreement with it. Similarly, many respondents are not aware of
the process undertaken by the SPBC towards the resulting implementation of more
integrated budgetary and planning decisions.
EFFECTIVENESS
OF THE INSTITUTION'S PLANNING AND EVALUATION ACTIVITIES
MSU clearly defines its evaluation and
planning processes, and develops and implements procedures to evaluate the
extent to which it achieves its goals. In 1996-97, the LRPC evaluated the
effectiveness of the 1994 LRP by assessing the progress MSU had made toward
reaching each established goal in the plan. The extent, however, that the PEC has
incorporated the findings of the LRPC review into the decision-making process at
MSU has been questioned by some constituencies.
Though there has been progress in the
direction of meeting goals in the LRP, there has been little evidence of its
direct use to systematically plan, nor of any concerted effort to verify that
current activities are in agreement with the institutional goals in the LRP.
The SPBC
appears inclined to use the LRP within a limited focus. At present, however,
it is uncertain whether the specific inititiatives of the SPBC will be totally
consistent with goals of the LRP.
The results of MSU's systematic evaluation
activities and ongoing planning processes appear to some constituents to have
marginal influence on resource allocation and improvement of its instructional
programs, institutional services, and activities. The impact that the
SPBC has already had upon budgetary decisions, however, is early evidence that
MSU is beginning to use the results of its systematic evaluation activities and
ongoing planning processes to influence resource allocation.
MSU is beginning to more fully and
effectively integrate its evaluation and planning processes to identify
institutional priorities for improvement. It can be argued that this is precisely what
was done when the LRPC, at the President's request, reviewed progress in 1996,
followed by formation of the SRC. The beginnings of this happened years ago, and
today this task rests with the SPBC which is now actively engaged in the
process.
The University systematically reviews its
research efforts, evaluation processes, and planning activities. These
activities exist primarily at the Vice President for Research level. Assessment and
review of these efforts to ensure integration with institutional planning occurs
through the PEC, Dean's Council, and appropriate committee structures.
MSU clearly recognizes the need to
effectively use information from its planning and evaluation processes to
communicate evidence of institutional effectiveness to the public. The results of the
work of the LRPC and other planning efforts have been made widely available on
campus, though more public exposure of these results would have improved
the effectiveness of these activities.
In summary, MSU has much of the
appropriate infrastructure in place to engage in effective planning and
evaluation. The institution has also made progress toward
achievement of institutional goals, though much of it appears incidental rather
than strategically planned. The institution appears to be appropriately
positioned to go forward in confidence - resources permitting.
CONCLUSION
·
The institutional Mission Statement as stated, adopted, and promoted by the
institution is appropriate and
supported.
·
The LRP and its Goals/Objectives as stated, adopted, and promoted as the
long-term future guiding vehicle for
the
institution are appropriate and supported.
·
The activities of the LRPC, the SRC, and the SPBC, working toward the long-term
and short-term guidance of
the
institution's activities, have been well directed.
·
Assessment of institutional effectiveness has been integrated into the planning
processes of the University.
·
The planning process at MSU is participatory, involving constituencies
appropriate to the institution (board members, administrators, faculty, staff,
students, other interested parties). In this respect, the institution has done an excellent
job. The
membership of the LRPC was specifically designed to incorporate
administrative, faculty, classified staff, and student
input. Each of
these constituencies has a voice in the planning effort.
·
It would appear from these results that the LRP and Mission Statement are well
directed and supported from inside the institution. It would also appear
that integration of budget and short-term strategic planning activities through the SPBC to
achieve LRP goals would be better supported if people inside the institution
knew more about
the SPBC and its work.
STANDARD ONE - LIST OF
FIGURES |
Figure 1-01 |
Montana State University - Bozeman
Mission Statement |
