St. Cloud State University
Strategic Planning Committee Revised Minutes
April 19, 2001, 7:45 a.m. St. Croix
Members Present: Jim Bertram, John Burgeson, Judy Foster, Jeanne Hites, Pat Krueger, John Palmer, Addie Turkowski, and Brenda Wentworth
Members Absent: Deb Binsfeld, Marlene DeVoe, Bonnie Hedin, Debra Japp, Judy Kilborn, Arthur Mehrhoff, Glen Palm, Mike Pesch, Mary Soroko, Karen Thoms, Jay Vora, Fred Walker, and Eric Wimberger
Support Staff: Subimal Chopra and Lucie Schwartzkopf
- Jeanne Hites announced that President Saigo has agreed to attend the final Strategic Planning Committee meeting at 8:30 a.m. on. May 3, 2001.
- Jeanne Hites distributed the KPI summary and requested feedback. Feedback/discussion
- Suggested to divide it into categories/sections. People don't want to read all of it, but rather, just the section they're interested in.
- Bring up to President Saigo that there is nothing stated about how the survey information will be used. Want to ask him how he sees it being used, in an effort to help people "buy in" to it.
- What are the implications of striving for goals, but not succeeding? How will these grow the institution, or use the resources in a more focused way?
- Who is the audience for this plan? MnSCU, legislators, other institutions like ours, faculty, and/or administrators? Different sections may have different implications for different audiences.
- "What will be done with the data?" should be the first question rather than the last question asked.
- Decision-making is the purpose of the goals. If it won't help with decisions, the strategic planning process is unnecessary.
- There is a wide variety of audiences for this. Is this a high stakes measurement or feel good measurement? Will it result in the allocation of resources? Lots of problems with achieving all these things at the same time, as written. If the committee cannot make decisions with the data, someone else will make the decisions, i.e. if a legislator gets a hold of the document and learns that a graduate program is not meeting the standards, the program could be cut and funds reallocated.
- Easy part is done. Document of KPI's is established. Now, how will it be used?
- Would it be appropriate to evaluate existing resources with needed resources, and try to prioritize within the two groups and make some kind of recommendation? How do we make this input campus wide? Visibility for the process was not addressed this year.
- What if the same model as the facilities plan is used? That process began with staff input, was presented to several groups, and the feedback was taken back and implemented/discussed.
- How are the KPI's related to what is currently considered as the current strategic plan? It was determined that there is not a finalized plan at this time. Rather, pieces of a plan have begun. The KPI's are part of an effort to pull the pieces together.
- If there is not a match for the subcommittee's pieces, then that needs to be reconciled. The subcommittee chairs each have a draft of the compilation of the KPIs. It is their task to reconcile this.
- Now that goals are being measured, what will be different? If the campus does not decide what will be done with the findings, someone else decides. Whether it's the legislature, or students who decide to not come here. SCSU is realizing it can't be all things to all people. The brand of identity of "most opportunities to the state" hurts SCSU in other ways. So, does that identity continue, or should it be changed? Graduate education is not money-making. It hurts the university's undergraduate programs. There is a move to do more graduate programs here. The justification behind those decisions is not known. No research that the committee knows of has been done to support those decisions.
- Maybe we're not ready to do this plan. Perhaps there are pieces as a prerequisite. i.e. The reference to joint decision-making. While it would cause "buy-in" to the goals, it has not been determined that SCSU is willing to function in this framework. The campus community may be ready to do some of the things. Any change will take a long time; witness how long it has taken to get to the current point. Even without a plan, decisions will continue to be made.
- There are measures that can be "either/or". If it's going to happen, then a target date needs to be set. "Yes we did it, and/or no, we didn't do it, so…" The results have to be tied to something specific. The KPI's need to be tied to strategies and goals. There first need to be goals, then strategies, then measures, and then something must be done with the results. The measures will determine how well the goal was accomplished. Also, the goal of joint decision-making, for example, applies to someone else's job. It affects their job. A goal may affect more people than previously considered.
- It was suggested that it is time to do another data analysis cycle. SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats - a strategic planning model) is an option.
- If the committee continues to wait for administrators to lay out the goals, the process continues to bog down and not move forward as a result of so many changing administrators. The national average of a president to stay at an institution is less than five years. Rather than wait for administrators, the administrators can be assisted when they arrive by having the goals/history at their disposal.
- It was suggested to keep a list of things to follow-up on. It was also suggested that a follow-up process is needed, or this will not succeed. Last year at the end of the year the group supplied a list of concerns to be addressed. This same process will be placed at the beginning of the agenda for the next (and final) meeting of the fiscal year to identify other issues. Whether or not the committee is the appropriate group to address the concerns will not be the focus.
- Call for acceptance of minutes. State what the handouts on goals are: Goals and accomplishments for this year and KPI's. Accepted with revisions. Please review and send feedback. Labor intensive work of comparing KPI's Wed. at 3:00 in MC 117. All are welcome to join ad hoc.
- Prioritizing idea was liked between resourced vs non resourced pieces. Could easily axe non allocated resources. Other side of that is, if we want to make the case with the legislature. If we can document that in order to do these things, and meet these goals, we could make a better case if it could be documented.
Planned meeting times
Thursday, May 03, 2001, 7:45 am - 9:00 am, St. Croix