'.' J." J J J‘JJ ,JJJJJ IIJ JJ l‘;4"14b8“[ ”4424444 1"" 4 ‘J'I‘WJJJJJ 44441;": 4 ', WW" '1', JJ’" . 4,4 4.44414‘44443J4 444414 , . ‘ “M 'J"‘ 21;" ~ 'J' .JJJ‘Js- JR." 1 ,,. W‘" 1'11 .“1‘7‘1 - .4 4 """""J1 41 1’74," *“tr 4. 14:44 . “4" 4,4444,544,4'4'4‘454‘)14"'1J‘24.4'44’444' 4444414444 ”44‘ . ”‘44" '44‘J4W‘43) 4 4 ‘ “" " J‘ “E: 1., _ A.“ ___.-..., ”II—7‘23 ..' h— .‘v J)- —— ‘A—u— rm? .: q: \ _ - n 1:. - I a- 3‘...- 3'“ -———','.::::.—_‘ -m— I... 3... 4:23 ‘3' ~— 1‘3;- A,— . J ' 4"}! I I| ' ..:':;; “14.: '11‘4‘4" W 1'11“ 4. 1 ,J ' J 94:. 4 ".1 3]] *2” {4" ‘3; .4“: 4) 4 " 1 414‘ll494 '4‘4.‘ 4 4 ‘44s . - of. K '. . ‘ '4'1', »--.|‘J4, H c J 1' " ' 1' . g :1: .449, "" .JJ 4 1.44 4"':4'l"""" ‘1' " '7 051‘ "34. 1441".“ F .441” J. ° ‘ and" ' 4'4???) 44331124444454'444'4' ’5" 4342:3313" 1"“ '1 WJ; 1 J A!" :'|'"" ' "7' l.‘ ' " >"J.' "'1" 11111!” .J Hg; """" 'a't'j':,'1fi\"€g"‘7"":‘3'.'4 Jl,'J"",":( 11‘1“‘4 ‘13}. . 4' .J'J‘ii‘f=r.,1’ 1ng ,. ,1, {$1‘WEJJJJJ.‘4‘$J‘3.;J}WIJJJW'lJ‘fW‘“'3'. 94:44,; ‘1‘3‘46' ”.1 1 ‘1 "' ‘5; {45.JJ'J11351‘4‘JJJ'J'JJJJ'f.".JJ-‘J‘JJJ'J,J J39..'JJ.,JJJ'-'f3'=.’?14‘1{1'4“. 'JJ $5334 ‘15 ‘ 3‘41," ,.. 5‘: .1145“ "‘ J" ' "".’;'.J.'.'I'.‘J‘;'1J'1".'.'J-'. .1 J; J. _;;t1;:.."i1" ‘J J; 1491.. :J "J‘; J,,J1;‘JJ"'J4,.,J'.';JF.J:,.‘,'JJ1J.J'J. :1 11:21.14. , ’ 'Jfif " ' 1 ' j}? 11"“ , lid” 44 4 1',""'41"'3"':.";4‘4‘4’14","144 fl j'géh‘ JIJJJ. J'134jf‘l4 ‘1‘ W444:‘,::;é;l£;4‘1;4;3'm 4:145:44}. ,_44' 1"4‘ {4:1'55': 144' 14': [‘44 11-34444“ "i‘ LIJ4 \:444. J.4J4 444:4‘3'4'144. 3 443.4 444-444 4:. 4 '434Jl44 444:4 4-44 43' 4144,44 syn-4444 .11 -.o444JJ.-.4, 4 “'1‘4'41411 1'44“": '444-, 4 4,4444 ‘ ‘ J.J ”.1443; J‘.J,.J;"f,';: .4,.3.,‘,.'J,,. MW, ,.. ; "";" 4. ‘1‘ "'l' JJ""1‘J‘ '§"' "7" "'J|"'1J"' WM" "‘1'."1"”J'.'."I}‘;"‘E'TJJJ-{J 51' ':"". 4.," ' nfi‘ '1‘! 0.44 '."JL\ 4 3.1"“). an”: 4 4, , Haj}, 4 4-4.4. 4 J' fJ' "" ifig""'"""' "J 331,2”.4‘3 (1:11! F W“: «£1,334,494? if"! 1.4741531 3 4 ‘JJ-‘J ‘-‘.‘_‘4' f' 1 444444414 ,J". 0‘ "I i J") ‘hfl'w rlpJ‘J‘4 2": 1"4‘4‘4 ""14” 141444‘41.‘4:44 4 1M.“ 4'4444'41'” 44444 :4” 44‘ 444444 . 4444414441444 $34va" :14 )1‘44114‘ .. r-.44;4“§ , 414. ,' 44.44444 0 (”MG "111% 4444444; 144'." 4:4:94143'1 [Hf-w..- 414r44gj441 43444 441.4%: """"“' 1:44;]:4‘i'4 "W $4?" "4'4'4 4:91;: "4 144.4? 4 4 4‘44” 444444 I {17.1"} 2 'EWW " "'1' . v'T ' "' """" . . :":J -J 44,434, J ., 4,4. 1 1:11 J 0. H- _., . 1' "I“ J 4.3 ‘1. 4‘14 r ‘5'"."9 J} "' 144131414th 4 J '1"";"' “3" "' "" '3:ij {'J‘Jx 2'8" 44‘ f1 {(4.}. '4'4'4'4fJ‘i. 4;:‘441 ‘ 1:312"? " . ' . ’u I _ ‘ . . " .J'J JJ‘. . '1? 51%4'1'1'344314’44'44417‘1'4 I.‘ 3‘ v" "z \4 @9431424'4", "41;"0'444' :5 E" "" .444 ..'_ J 44' 'hi'L alva.) d'4'4' 414:, u will! I Illilllfll/TWWII L 129 00094 1876 LIBRARY Michigan State University — This is to certify that the dissertation entitled Development of Planning Processes in a Merged, Multi—Campus College Setting presented by Tlnomas H. Brown has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Ed. Admjh. Date 6-25-8 7 mum,” _. . . ,1 u: . . ~ - 0.12771 )V‘ESI.) RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to LIBRARJES remove this checkout from 4—! your record. FINES will - be charged if book is returned after the date ‘ stamped below. ‘ 1 34100.41?” -. iii|?? r Mad/$7.7 W DEVELOPMENT OF PLANNING PROCESSES IN A MERGED, MULTI-CAMPUS COLLEGE SETTING BY Thomas H. Brown A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educational Administration 1987 ABSTRACT DEVELOPMENT OF PLANNING PROCESSES IN A MERGED, MULTI-CAMPUS COLLEGE SETTING BY Thomas H. Brown In part, the purpose of the study was to facilitate the creation of a long-range planning model that would include strategies, techniques, and procedures uniquely appropriate for multi-campus institutions. Formal planning literature acknowledges the positive role of long-range and strategic planning in higher education, and includes many models previously developed for colleges and universities, but these models have been developed almost exclusively for single-campus institutions. The practice of long-range planning within the context of multi-branch institutions has received very little attention. A related purpose of the study was to expand the notion of the multi-campus long-range planning model so that it would also serve as an important method to enhance the integration of new institutions brought together through acquisitions or mergers. The model was designed for the specific application in 'two recently merged private business colleges in the riidwest, each of which has multiple campuses. Thomas H. Brown The model was developed by using a five-part process. The first step was to conduct a review of the literature. The second step was to develop an initial planning model to be used by the two institutions in the study. The third step was an assessment of the model's effectiveness by the participants in the planning process. The fourth step was to have the planning model evaluated by a panel of experts from outside the institutions. The fifth step was to conduct a follow-up survey of the planning participants to determine the appropriate changes to make in the initial planning model. The study includes an analysis of the assessments and evaluations of the initial planning model, and concludes with a summary of recommendations for planning in multi- campus educational systems. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my appreciation to Dr. Howard Hickey, graduate committee chairman and director of this doctoral research project. Dr. Hickey provided constant encouragement and support, especially during times when it would have been much easier to find other things to do. Additional support and direction was provided by two other members of my doctoral committee: Dr. Richard Gardner and Dr. Robert Poland. I am deeply grateful for their assistance. I wish to offer my special appreciation to the fourth member of my doctoral committee, Dr. Walter Johnson. Not only has Dr. Johnson provided me with an ample amount of professional support as a member of my doctoral committee, but has served as a source of friendship, personal inspiration and encouragement for many years. For their willingness to serve as members of the panel of experts, I am grateful to Dr. Martha L. Hesse, Dr. M. Douglas Reed, Dr. Adelbert Purga, Ms. Marie A. Giacomelli, and Mr. Rick Stephens. Finally, I warmly acknowledge the support, patience, cooperation, and understanding of my wife, Lorna, and my son, Aaron. Their willingness to encourage my studies when other family responsibilites were competing for my time proved to be of enormous assistance. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES O O O O O O O O O O O O Vii LIST OF FIGURES O O I O O O O O O O O O Viii Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . 1 Background . . . . . . . . . . l The Problem . . . . . . . . . 3 Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . 4 Importance of the Study . . . . . . 6 Limitations of the Study . . . . . 8 Definition of Terms . . . . . . . 9 Methodology . . . . . . . 12 Organization of the Study . . . . . 13 II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . 15 Definitions of Planning in Higher Education . . . . . . . . . 16 General Theoretical Models and Approaches to Planning . . . . . 21 Formal-Rational Model . . . . 22 Organizational Development Model . . 23 Technocratic/Empirical Model . . . 24 Philosophical Synthesis . . . . . 25 Political Advocacy . . . . . . 26 Long-Range and Strategic Planning. . . 29 Reasons for Planning in Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . 31 Characteristics of Planning Processes . . . 34 The Need for Integrated Multi-Campus Planning . . . . . . . . . . 37 Assessment, Data Collection, and Institutional Research . . . . . 38 Assessment . . . . . . . . . 38 Data Collection . . . . . . . . 40 Institutional Research . . . . 41 Criteria for Planning in Multi-Campus Systems . . . . . . . . . . 44 Pitfalls of Planning . . . . . . 48 Summary of the Review of the Literature . . . . . . . . . 50 iii III. DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY . . . . . . Rationale . . Procedure . . Planning Manual Summary . . . IV. DEVELOPMENT OF THE INITIAL PLANNING MODEL. The Merger Between Davenport College and Detroit College . . . . . Governance Structure of the Merged Institutions . . . . . . . . President's Cabinet . . . Necessity for a Multi-Campus Planning Process . . . . . Purposes of Multi- -Campus Planning . Expectations of Multi-Campus Planning History of Planning at Davenport College . . History of Planning at Detroit College Goals for the Planning Structure . . The Initial Planning Model . . . The Model Development Process . Statement on Planning . . . The Terminology of Planning . . Types of Plans . . . . . . The Elements of Planning . . . . Definitions of the Planning Elements Information Used for Planning at the Campus Level . Information Used for Planning at the System Level . . . . . . . Responsibilities of Planning Personnel . . . . . Planning Components . . Planning Cycles . . Summary of Planning Model Summary . . . . . . . iv Page 53 53 61 64 65 67 67 68 69 72 73 74 78 80 81 83 84 85 86 86 87 87 90 91 91 94 97 98 100 V. VI. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . . . First Assessment - Survey of Planning Personnel . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Survey Responses . . . . Second Assessment - Interviews with Panel of Experts . . . . . . . Summary of Observations by Panel of Experts . . . . . . . . . Third Assessment - North Central Evaluation of Detroit College . . . Summary of North Central Evaluation . Fourth Assessment - Follow-up Survey of Planning Participants . . . . . . Summary of Follow-up Survey Responses. Recommendations for Changes in the Initial Planning Model . . . . . Other Recommendations for the Planning Model . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . SUMMARY, MAJOR FINDINGS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary of the Study Major Findings . . Reflections . . . Recommendations . BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O I O O O O O I O APPENDICES O O I I O O I C O O O O O O A. B. DAVENPORT COLLEGE OF BUSINESS MISSION STATEMENT O O O O O O O O O O O DETROIT COLLEGE OF BUSINESS MISSION STATEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . EXAMPLE OF WRITING CAMPUS COMPONENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . EXAMPLE OF WRITING SYSTEM-LEVEL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . DAVENPORT/DETROIT COLLEGE SYSTEM PLANNING O O O O O O O O O O O V Page 100 102 112 114 140 142 143 144 149 150 156 158 159 159 161 165 167 168 172 172 174 177 178 179 APPENDICES (CONTINUED) F. G. H. LONG-RANGE PLANNING SURVEY (DIRECTIONS) PANEL OF EXPERTS . . FOLLOW-UP SURVEY (DIRECTIONS) REVISED PLANNING MODEL vi Page 184 185 186 188 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 3.1 Summary of Steps in Research . . . . 64 5.1 Follow-up Survey Items . . . . . . 149 vii Figure 2.1 LIST OF FIGURES Page Brown's Dimensions of Planning . . . . 27 Cope's Comparisons of Long-Range Planning and Strategic Planning . . . . . . 29 Planning and Governance Structure of the Davenport/Detroit system . . . . 68 Planning Structure . . . . . . . . 94 Timetable for Planning Activities . . . 95 viii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Background American colleges and universities have been experiencing profound changes in recent years; changes that have caused them to seek new methods of management, to create aggressive marketing programs, to initiate stringent cost-cutting programs, and to seek more efficient organizational structures. According to Keller (1983) these changes are caused by worsening financial conditions and changing demographics, which "have pushed into motion a deep, sustained decline in the number of traditional students available for college, the first such decline in American educational history" (p. viii). One organizational change that colleges have initiated in recent years is to attempt to become more accessible to students, a trend that has resulted in the addition of off- campus programming and the creation of multiple branch campuses. Multi-campus institutions are relatively common in .higher education today. Another trend is that colleges have begun to take more seriously their efforts to engage in long-range strategic planning. Both of these trends, adding branch campuses and increasing long-range planning efforts, have received much attention in recent years and both have been subjects for a significant amount of research. This research has been helpful to institutions that are hoping to broaden options for programming or that are planning to begin formal long- range planning activities. Long-range strategic planning in private industry has led to the merger of many companies in recent years. These mergers are intended to improve market penetration, to provide more efficient purchasing of resources, to provide economies of scale in the production of goods and services, and to provide better customer service. As they have in long-range planning, college administrators have also begun to look to private industry for solutions to their common problems of shrinking resources and declining, or potentially declining enrollments. One solution is to follow the lead of private industry and combine resources through acquisitions and/or mergers, thereby striving to achieve the same kinds of benefits that private industry has experienced regarding resource acquisition, economies of scale, and customer service. In the case of higher education the student is the customer. According to Buhler-Miko (1985) the key question for college leadership is: "given the growing competition for limited resources and an increasingly sophisticated and demanding clientele, how does a college or university maintain a viable position?" (p. vii). Buhler-Miko claims 2 the answer is "that increasingly leaders in higher education think, plan, and act strategically" (p.vii). Educational leaders are using strategic thinking to achieve economic and academic success. With increased frequency strategic thinking is resulting in decisions to merge institutions. Unlike the trends of increased long-range planning and the creation of multi-branch institutions however, the practice of long-range planning within the context of multi-branch institutions and/or merged institutions has received very little attention and does not frequently appear in higher education literature. The Problem Past planning practices in higher education have focused primarily on single-campus institutions. A review of the literature does not indicate that these planning practices meet the needs sufficiently of an institution with multiple branch campuses, or for an institution that functions as part of a larger educational system. Very little is known about whether planning strategies and processes for single campuses are adequate for dealing with an educational system that has a centralized group governing several constituent campuses, each having its own distinct ‘problems and opportunities. An institution's planning processes must sometimes be :judged by external accrediting agencies. Because it is not «clear how a single-campus planning model can be applied in a anxlti-campus setting, it also is not clear whether a multi- 3 campus institution can use a single-campus planning model and expect to be able to demonstrate its long-term ability to adequately deal with issues related to its more complicated structure. There appears to be little evidence in the literature that traditional single-campus planning models include strategies and techniques that satisfy the unique needs of multi-campus institutions or multi-institutional educational systems. Therefore, this question is relevant for further study. Purpose of the Study In part the purpose of this study is to facilitate the creation of a long-range planning structure/process to include strategies, techniques, and procedures uniquely appropriate for multi-campus institutions. Because long- range planning in higher education is not new there have been many models developed for most types of colleges and universities, but in most cases they have been developed for single-campus institutions. A review of these models, when analyzed in the context of their potential for multi-campus institutions, provides the basis for the creation of a modified structure appropriate for an institution with branch campuses or for a multi-college system. A more difficult problem, and a major purpose of this study, is to create a long-range planning process model that not only suits the needs of a multi-campus institution, but will also enhance the integration of new institutions 4 brought together by acquisitions or mergers. No model was found designed specifically for this purpose. This study will include the development of a model for specific application in two recently merged private business colleges, each of which has multiple campuses. Womack and Podemski (1985) have described eleven unique criteria for effective system-level planning. To be effective multi-campus and/or multi-institutional plans should: - Articulate Appropriate Goals. - Demonstrate Relevance. - Preserve Individuality. - Incorporate Resource Allocation. - Coordinate Decision Making. - Foster Cooperation Among Campuses. - Facilitate Communication with Internal and External Publics. - Promote Accountability. - Facilitate Competition with Other Agencies. - Coordinate Change. - Facilitate Future Planning. (pp. 1-3) It is important when building a planning structure to jUdge alternative models, structures, procedures and strategies against these criteria. It is also necessary to extend the test of these criteria beyond the multi-campus environment and consider the implications for a system that inCludes more than one institution. 5 Importance of the Study The development of a planning model can help similar institutions as they consider plans to develop branch campuses and/or merge with other institutions. Jaggers (1985) indicated that research by McCorkle and Archibald (1982) found significant support for improvement in planning efforts in higher education, but at the same time found little evidence that college administrators knew how to design or implement planning processes. As new organizational structures evolve in the years ahead this problem will likely become even more acute. The development of a multi-campus, multi-institutional planning model in this study can be of assistance to college administrators as they seek planning processes to meet the needs of these new and evolving organizational structures. The model will: 1. Provide a concrete example of how long-range planning could occur when two or more similar institutions merge, especially if either or both have branch campuses. 2. Provide a tool for college officials of merged institutions to use when developing relationships between planning structures and management structures. 3. Provide an example of how a multi-institutional planning process could satisfy the evaluative criteria of regional accrediting agencies. 4. Provide a set of planning definitions, strategies, applications and procedures that could be useful for a complex single-campus institution just beginning the development of a long-range planning process. Any institution of higher education considering the addition of branch campuses would likely experience the necessity of demonstrating to external accrediting agencies that it had in place an adequate process of long-range planning: a process that would assure the continuing ability of the institution to provide adequate resources and the ability to continue to effectively accomplish its purposes. In the case of two institutions considering a merger the implications relative to regional accreditation are enormous. Unless neither institution was regionally accredited, and there was no interest in seeking regional accreditation, any possible combination of colleges would likely necessitate significant developments or changes in long-range planning procedures to satisfy the evaluative criteria of accrediting agencies. A major importance of this study is its relevance to the accreditation issue. During the initial stages of the study one of the two institutions involved in the merger, Davenport College of Business, was regionally accredited and the other, Detroit College of Business, was not. Detroit College was scheduled for a comprehensive evaluation for initial accreditation by the North Central Association of 7 Colleges and Schools in May, 1986. A major issue surrounding that visit is the judgement of the visiting team relative to the effectiveness of the long-range planning process being utilized. The long-range planning process being evaluated will be the one described in this study. A detailed description of the conditions surrounding the merger between Davenport College and Detroit College will be presented in Chapter IV of the study, but it is important to indicate here that almost any conditions that might exist when two institutions decide to merge would create a situation where the results of the study would be relevant and helpful when working through the difficulties of dealing with accreditation issues. Limitations of the Study This study was limited by a number of constraints. Among them were the following: 1. The study was made in a relatively new type of organizational structure in higher education. The study provides analysis and conclusions based on the limited current status of research on recently merged institutions. 2. The long-range planning structure/process was developed in part from existing structures, procedures and activities that existed in the two institutions prior to the merger. Because each of 8 the colleges had an established history of successful planning activities it was decided to maintain a degree of familiarity and consistency. 3. The study depended on the combined experiential knowledge of the participants in the planning structure and the panel of experts selected to provide specific expertise, all of whom have had direct experience with either long-range planning or multi-campus planning, but most of whom have not had direct experience with mergers. 4. The long-range planning model has limited application to institutions similar to those used in the study. 5. The study was limited by the final judgments of the researcher in interpreting the results of the opinions of the planning participants and the suggestions of the panel of experts. Definition of Terms Some terms are used throughout the study and have rather general meanings. The definitions of those terms are presented below. There are other terms that have specific meanings and are presented and defined in the context within which they are used. In some cases even those terms listed here take on more specific definitions later in the study. Planning is a formal process that includes some or all of the activities of establishing missions, collecting data, assessing strengths and weaknesses, determining goals and objectives, and deve10ping strategies for implementation. A Plan is a document containing evidence of the planning process described above. It would likely contain written mission statements, strengths and weaknesses, goals and objectives, and descriptions of strategies to accomplish goals or solve problems. Lgng-Range Planning is generally meant to include the same or similar activities described under the previous definition of planning above, but generally is focused on the internal institutional environment. Strategic Planning also includes the same types of activities described above, except that its focus is usually on an institution's relationship with its external environment. Tactical Planning is detailed planning at the component or divisional/departmental level. It generally focuses on operational strategies and is carried out within some larger context of planning. A Planning Model is a generic description or illustration of a planning structure/process which may be applied to some related set of circumstances or conditions. 10 Campus-Level Planninq is a process of planning that includes the activities listed under planning above, but focuses only on the implications of a specific campus, whether or not that campus is part of a larger system. System-Level Planninq is a process of planning containing the same or similar components as described by planning above, but includes the added dimension that it attempts to integrate the planning activities of many campuses of the same institution, or in some cases, of more than one institution. A Multi-Campus Institution is an organizational structure for an institution that has a main campus, and also has at least one other campus that functions largely as an independent unit, having its own facilities, faculty, administrative staff, and offering its own programs. A Mission is a statement of educational philosophy and purpose and provides a long-term sense of direction to an institution. A Goal is a philosophical and/or qualitative statement that serves as a guide for activities supporting a mission. A goal falls between a very general mission statement and a very specific objective statement. An Objective is a specific and concrete explanation of an action taken to accomplish a goal. An objective statement usually contains a time of estimated completion and a measurable outcome. 11 Methodology The planning structure/process (model) was developed by using a five-part process. The first step was to conduct a comprehensive review of literature in the field of long- range and strategic planning, with special attention given to structures and procedures used in institutions similar to those involved in the study, those institutions having multiple campuses and/or having been involved in acquisitions or mergers. The second step was to design and implement an initial planning model to be used by the two institutions in the study. This model was to be used for a period of time sufficient for those involved in the planning process to be able to make judgments about its effectiveness. 4 1 A The third step was to be an analysis of the model by those involved in the planning process during the trial period. This analysis primarily includes a survey that was distributed to the planning participants and returned to the researcher. The fourth step was designed to obtain external expert opinions about the initial planning model and to get suggestions for solutions to problems and concerns that were raised in the survey that was distributed to the participants. Five individuals were selected to function as a panel of experts to provide this outside expertise and assistance. All 12 members of the panel were selected because of their relevant long-range planning experience in institutions similar to those in the study. The fifth step was designed to obtain consensus from the planning participants as to what modifications should be made to the initial planning model. From the comments and suggestions offered by the panel of experts, as well as other sources, a list of proposed modifications was prepared and distributed to planning personnel at all the campuses. Consensus of opinion was obtained through a follow-up survey and a summary of the recommended changes to the initial planning model is presented. Organization of the Study Chapter I of the study developed some background and introduced the problem under consideration. The first chapter also included sections pertaining to the purposes and significance of the study, the limitations of the study, definitions of terms used in the study, and the organization of the study. Chapter II contains a review of related literature on long-range and strategic planning models, structures, strategies, and procedures. Chapter III includes an explanation of the methods and procedures used to develop the initial planning model, which is to be specifically applied to the two institutions in the study. Chapter III also contains a rationale for the 13 study, and an explanation about what procedures will be used to evaluate and modify the initial planning model. Chapter IV includes the background and conditions surrounding the merger of the institutions in the study, a description of the development of the initial planning model, and a description of the purposes of the planning model. Chapter V contains an analysis of the data from the assessment methods and a summary of the recommended changes to the initial planning model. Chapter VI contains a summary of the study, the major findings in the study, the researcher's reflections, and recommendations. 14 CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Long-range planning is an activity almost everyone agrees is important and worthwhile. At the same time however, most people have difficulty incorporating long- range planning activities into normal working routines. Kenneth Eble has observed that "long range planning has, like a magnet, its poles of attraction and repulsion. Academics share a common frustration in feeling that important business calling forth one's greatest powers and yielding equally great satisfactions never quite gets attention. Instead, one is consumed with petty details" (p. 60). Despite Eble's observation, the review of literature reveals that much has been done and written about long- range and strategic planning in higher education. Many planning models have been developed and a multitude of planning approaches have been attempted. There have been very few attempts however, to expand the common planning structures and procedures into more comprehensive models that incorporate the elements essential for multi- institutional systems, or even for institutions having multiple campuses. It appears that many colleges with multiple campuses have treated them as independent and autonomous units, rather than to link them together into system-wide planning structures. 15 Definitions of Planninq in Higher Education Many authors and researchers of planning in higher education have drawn upon planning notions previously used in private industry to develop specific definitions of the planning function in higher education. Peterson defined planning as a conscious process by which an institution assesses its current state and the likely future condition of its environment, identifies possible future states for itself, and then develops organizational strategies, policies, and procedures for selecting and getting to one or more of them. (p. 114) Peterson's definition views institutional planning as an organizational process that could or could not be developed as part of a larger institutional management function. This is important because in multi-campus and/or multi-institutional systems it is necessary that the planning structure be part of, or closely related to, some larger management structure. Peterson's definition also says little about how a planning process is conceived, how it can be organized, what other elements it includes, or how planning relates to the rest of an institution. But it is helpful because it does focus on planning as a dynamic process, a condition that must exist as part of planning in a multi-campus institution. 16 Peterson's notion of planning views the process as being made up of elements arrayed in two broad categories: (1) strategic elements, such as environmental scanning, institutional assessment, values assessment, and master planning, which focus on the broadest issues of institutional policy and direction: (2) tactical elements, such as program planning, priority setting, resource allocation, and program review, which focus on policy implementation. (p. 115) When considering planning as an aid to administrative decision-making, Hesse (1985) cited numerous definitions, or elements, previously summarized by Gonyea (1971) in an attempt to completely describe the planning function in practice in higher education. Included were these definitions: A major technique to give direction to any organized endeavor. A process for anticipating future conditions and preparing to meet them. A continuous activity, which constantly seeks to meet changing circumstances, changing needs, and changing ideas. Producing plans: judged in terms of the results they project and achieve. A duty of management, an essential ingredient in decision-making. Needing the participation of all groups or elements in a structural operation. Preparation for action. Intelligent cooperation with the inevitable. An integrated activity which seems to maximize the total effectiveness of an organization as a system in accordance with the objectives of the enterprise. The vehicle for accomplishment of system change. (p. 25) 17 Like Peterson's definition, Gonyea's elements of planning focus on planning as a process within an institution, and also assumes that planning activities are a part of some larger management and decision-making structure. A very basic definition of planning that simplifies, but includes the previous definitions of planning was quoted by Jaggers (1985) from a text prepared by the National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO). It defined planning as: the act of identifying, specifying, and selecting goals, objectives, and alternative courses of action for accomplishing the mission of an institution. (p. 25) The key tactical element of almost any notion of planning is goal setting, and as such is almost always identified as part of a planning definition. Etzioni (1964) explains that goals "provide orientation by depicting a future state of affairs which the organization strives to realize. They set down guidelines for organizational activity. Goals constitute a source of legitimacy which justifies the activities of an organization and, indeed, its very existence" (p. 5). An additional important role of goals in contemporary planning in higher education is the issue of outside assessment of institutional effectiveness. Etzione adds that "goals serve as standards by which members of an 18 organization and outsiders can assess the success of the organization" (p. 5). These definitions capture the key elements necessary for the development of a planning model appropriate for the institutions in the study. The reader is referred to studies by Hesse (1985), Jaggers (1985), Lahr (1981), and Brown (1980) which include numerous other definitions of planning commonly used in higher education. When attempting to define planning it becomes necessary to describe tasks associated with planning. Because definitions become similar, so do the associated tasks. MacKinney (1984) lists common tasks or elements associated with planning that were written by Peterson. They are: 1. Environmental Assessment - Planning necessarily begins with some understanding of what environmental events and developments are influencing the organization. Shifts in the market that are served by the organization is perhaps the classic example. 2. Institutional Assessment - Similarly, planning must take into account the present status of the institution. This should specify the general present status of the organization, including mission, programs, resources, the collective attitudes, and so forth. 3. Values Assessment - Here, Peterson refers to understanding the values or priorities that are agreed on within the organization, and particularly among the key decision-makers. 4. Long-range Planning - As in values assessment, there should be specification of the long-range vision of the future of the organization. 19 Program Planning - The longer range mission of the organization must be translated into more specific action plans. This usually translates into the development of courses, specialities, and degree programs. Priority Setting and Resource Allocation - As part of the overall planning process, budgets for subparts of the organization must be set. This requires establishing priorities among alternatives and allocating funds for these purposes. Program Review - This involves assessing the effectiveness of programs after they have been in operation for an appropriate period. This process provides the data on which the future priority setting and resource allocation decisions can be based. (p. 639) Hesse (1985) identified work by Holloway and King (1979) that attempted to review planning literature for the purpose of creating a generic list of planning tasks associated with most definitions of planning. The list includes: * * Identification of problems and needs. Development of data inputs for environmental monitoring and forecasting, including assumptions about the environment. Integrating information and analysis of external threats and opportunities and internal strengths and weaknesses. Development of alternative courses of action. Quantify and qualify alternatives. Establish priorities and targets. Identify the actions of choice. Implement - performance standards, budget requirements, resource allocations. Evaluate - review and recycle plans and the planning process. (p. 43) 20 In the development of a planning model it becomes necessary to place the tasks or activities associated with planning into a context that makes them manageable. Personnel engaging in planning activities need a structured format and need to be able to relate these activities to familiar disciplines. A method that is commonly used to organize activities and tasks around functional areas is to establish planning components. If a formal/rational planning approach is used, these functional areas tend to be the same as what would appear on an institution's table of organization. Brown (1980) says that these components "may be developed around functional definitions based on the nature of activities" (p. 102). This would mean, for example, that personnel working in the area of academic affairs would limit their planning tasks to academic issues, and people working in the area of marketing and admissions would focus on only issues related to those areas. General Theoretical Model§_and Approaches to Planning To assist institutions in assessing and selecting a planning process to develop, Peterson categorized the many planning models or structures into six basic theoretical types. In considering the development of a multi-campus planning structure, the review of these basic types is very helpful, as they provide a framework against which to match an institution's history, culture and style. Following is a brief sketch of the basic planning models: 21 1. Formal-Rational Model A rational view of the planning process is the most widely recognized and used approach in higher education. This approach typically uses a rather standard sequence of activities and includes formulation of institutional mission, development of goals and objectives, establishment of program and resource strategies, selection and design of action programs, implementation, and review. (p. 127) The intent is that these activities will be continuously monitored and recycled. This model comes closest to containing the elements outlined in the earlier definitions of planning. This should be expected, as the largest number of institutions that develop planning models do so based on a philosophy similar to the Formal-Rational Model. Although the rational model may have many variations and alternatives, it always is rational and formal, and tends to fit with a common organizational structure. There is a tendency to view the institution as a set of formally defined offices, processes, and structures that exist to carry out a formally adopted statement of mission and purposes. For these reasons it seems that a rational planning structure would encounter the least resistance when being proposed, as it would fit the normal activities of an institution. This is probably the best explanation as to why it is the most frequently used. 22 The focus of a formal-rational planning structure tends to be goal-centered - seeking some formal goal(s) or set of priorities that will guide institutional behavior. Decision- making reflects the planning outcomes and rational, analytical techniques are used to solve problems. The advantage of the formal-rational model is the high visibility, clarity, and continuity it gives to the planning process. Because it is formalized and focused on formal units, it should not be as subject to whims of personality or internal political squabbles. The disadvantages flow from the fact that the processes and governance mechanisms in most colleges and universities are often not as rational as the model presumes. (p. 133) Peterson stresses that it is important that an institution not create a staff of formal planners that become isolated from the rest of the formal institution. The process should be participative, including those at all levels of the formal institutional structure to prevent this danger. 2. Organizational Development Model Peterson's Organizational Development model of planning has its roots in the human relations tradition. This approach to planning is less concerned about the formality of the planning process and focuses more on the organization as composed of individuals or groups whose needs, abilities, attitudes, and activities making up the social and cultural 23 patterns of the institution. Instead of being concerned with actual functional characteristics, in this model planning is concerned with innovation and change in the institution's culture, management style, work structure, decision-making patterns, communications, interactions, and influence. The major planning issue is not so much what is done, but rather to understand the institution as a human system and to develop its capacity to plan as a means of improving individual, collective, and organizational well-being. (p. 133) Planning structures built on the Organizational Development model work best when used in an organization already committed to a consensus-centered management style, one that attempts to seek changes that most members will endorse. Decision-making must involve collaboration along with frequent and open interaction around issues and problems. In an organization with a more closed and autocratic management style such a planning structure would probably not function very well. Critics of this structure point out that in large or complex multi-campus institutions collaborative, consensus-oriented planning is idealistic or naive. Another concern is that such an approach is very time-consuming, a condition not acceptable in most higher education management structures having to deal with urgent and important issues. 3. TechnocraticzEmpipical Model The Technocratic/Empirical model is not so much a model as it is a concept of planning that focuses primarily on techniques of planning. These techniques usually are specific to a particular part of the planning process, such 24 as budgeting, goal setting, forecasting, and developing management information systems. It is not particularly helpful to consider Technocratic/Empirical structures in developing an overall planning process, but it could be helpful as a source of potential tools for planning personnel to use within their own work areas. These techniques take on special significance within those basic units of any college or university that deal with quantifiable and measurable resources, such as the business office or the admissions department. The Technocratic/Empirical approach tends to be consistent with the Rational/Formal model of planning. It's tools are appropriate for a heirarchial structure that focuses on goal-setting and formalized programs. It's advantages are its great emphasis on precision and analysis, and on the preparation of quantifiable and rational justifications for plans. If viewed in this way rather than as an alternative planning model, these two models could be combined into a single philosophy. 4. P 050 h ca 8 nthesis Like the technocratic/empirical model, this is not a well-developed integrated process and structure for planning. It is more a philosophical view of the role of the college or university, drawing on many disciplines and 25 fields of endeavor. This approach to planning deals with broad, grand issues, asking questions about the present and future nature of society, humankind, teaching, learning, and knowledge. The planning implications are to search out the answers to these types of questions and to discover trends about where the political, social, ethical, economic, and educational environments are going and, in turn, to develop or revise an appropriate mission for the institution. (p. 135) This approach to planning was popular during the 19605 when new special purpose institutions were being created, institutions with a new educational rationale or a new delivery system. As new alternative or experimental institutions are created this method could prove to be useful. For traditional institutions organized and staffed around a heirarchial structure it probably holds little practical value as a planning method. 5. Political Advocacy Like the technical/empirical and philosophical synthesis models, this approach is not a well-developed planning model, but it does have a clearer process notion of how major issues are determined in the typical college or university. Peterson noted that this notion of process was identified by Balbridge (1971) and suggested five stages: (1) social context analysis, in which the problem or issue emerges and the various interest groups concerned with it are identified: (2) interest articulation, in which interest groups develop their positions on the issue and attempt to influence others: (3) policy formulation, in which policy positions are developed, analyzed, and reacted to by the interest groups; 26 (4) legislative transformation, in which a policy is formally enacted or endorsed by a legitimate planning or governance group: (5) enactment, in which the regulations and guidelines for administrators who enforce and operating units who follow the policy are prepared. (p. 137) This approach assumes that the basic organizing units of colleges are interest groups that must be confronted and that, whether desirable or not, all planning and decision- making needs to begin with this assumption. In a sense this notion is an argument for no planning at all as it assumes that decisions are made politically rather than rationally. Perhaps the best way to view this method is to recognize that in any institution there are constantly political forces at work that must be considered by planning personnel in whatever planning structure or process is used. The goal is not to deny political reality but to recognize it and integrate it into planning and decision-making. Long-range planning must address the many formal and informal political groups it will encounter. This is especially true in a complex institutional structure, such as one with multiple campuses. It must be recognized that absolute rational decisions are very rare. In the final analysis the decision is to choose between the Rational/Formal and the Organizational Development models of planning, as these are the two really distinct and well-developed structures for integrated planning. Beyond 27 that choice the other models should be considered as possible sources for additional ideas and insights into the planning process, based on the unique characteristics of any institution. An effective depiction of characteristics of six dimensions of planning developed by Brown (1983) and described by Jaggers (1985) clearly demonstrates the differences between degrees of rationality. (See figure 2.1) Even though most institutions believe they use planning models that are grounded in rationality, the extent to which planning is an art should not be underestimated. According to Crothers "planning is still as much an art as it is a science and the decision-makers must consider both intuition and analysis. To orchestrate a planning process requires a tolerance for ambiguity, a good sense of humor, and the courage to take a stand." Informal/ad hoc < ------------------------ >Formal/systematic Short-term< -------------------------------------- >Long-term Functional< ------------------------------------ >Substantive Incremental< --------------------------------- >Comprehensive Fragmented< ------------------------------------- >Integrated Subjective/political< ----------------- >Objective/data-based < ------------------------------------------- > Lesser Rationality Greater Rationality Figure 2.1 -- Brown's Dimensions of Planning (From Jaggers, p. 45) 28 Long:Bange and Strategic Planning One of the more useful distinctions is the difference between long-range and strategic planning. Many writers have attempted to describe those differences. One of the most popular is Robert Cope. As he explains the difference between long-range planning and strategic planning, he maintains that long-range planning focuses more on final outcomes, while strategic planning focuses more on process. The strategic view emphasizes creativity and intuition - the art of planning, management, and decision making. (9- 1) Cope also focuses on the concept of strategy. He traces the history of strategic thinking as applied in the military and political contexts, and then translates that history into a list of attributes that are relevant to higher education. He then combines those attributes into a single definition in this way: Strategic planning is an institutionwide, future examining, participative process resulting in statements of institutional intention that synergistically match program strengths with Opportunities to serve society. (p. 8) In his writings Cope goes to great lengths to demonstrate how strategic planning can be applied to higher education. He argues that the characteristics of higher education are similar enough to other kinds of institutions, that the benefits and outcomes are appropriate for both. Cope states that the techniques essential to strategic planning, decision making, and management focus on the 29 environment, on the institution, and on the links between the two. The process of focusing on the environment is called "environmental scanning". The focus on the institution comes from an analysis and review of the missions and programs that have been established. The key to effective planning then becomes to combine these two activities. It is likewise important to combine both the elements of traditional long-range planning with the concepts identified by Cope as strategic planning. His table illustrates the attributes of these two types of planning. (See Figure 2.2) Conventional Attribute Long-Range Planning Strategic Planning Perspective Internal External System View Closed Open Data Quantitative Qualitative Function Separate Office Participative Integration Process Deduction Induction Basis Science Art Result Blueprint Process Result Plan System of Decisions Result Decisions for the Today's decision from a future future perspective Figure 2.2 -- Cope's comparison of long-range planning and strategic planning. (From Cope, p. 7) The reader is referred to studies by Hesse (1985) and Jaggers (1985) and writings by Buhler-Miko (1985) for additional definitions of strategic planning. 30 Reasons for Planning in Higher Education Many writers have attempted to describe and explain many different reasons for planning in higher education, including Fuller (1976) and Parekh (1977). In a presentation at the National Convention of the American Association of Community and Junior Colleges on April 22, 1987 in Dallas, Texas Jon H. Larson described seven reasons for planning in higher education today. Mr. Larson indicated that the seven represented a fair summary of the reasons that had been found in a survey of current literature. The seven were: 1. To improve communication, cooperation and coordination among campus organizational units. 2. To establish institutional priorities. 3. To enhance institutional efficiency. 4. To develop and improve programs and services. 5. To ensure that the institution has defined specific means to accomplish its mission, goals, and objectives. 6. To identify emerging issues and to assess and adopt to changing trends and conditions in the campus' external environment. 7. To provide evidence to trustees, state coordinating boards, and accrediting agencies that the campus has a mission and has a program to pursue it. Planning does not represent the reason an institution exists. Rather planning should be a priority of an institution that supports its other priorities. Brown (1980) cites some specific examples from the extensive writing done by Parekh on the role of planning in higher education. 31 The list includes: 1. Long range planning provides a commonality of understanding about the mission and goals of the institution and the strategies to implement them. It summarizes the profile for the institution in quantitative terms. It encourages better allocation and utilization of resources. It helps direct energies away from nonessential to the essential activities. It makes evaluation possible in objective terms simultaneously with implementation. It assists in generating funds by strengthening the institutional case with granting agencies, governmental and corporate. It helps ensure survival and growth of the institution. (p. 18) In addition to citing reasons for planning by other well-known authors, Brown includes in his study a comprehensive list of planning reasons he compiled from summarizing his research. They include: 1. The duration of the effectiveness of most college decisions becomes shorter and shorter due to the complex times. The complexity of decisions is increasing. Ad hoc decision making, which is very evident on campuses today, is inadequate. There needs to be a concern for the quality and fairness of decisions by making the decision- making process more rational by eliminating ad hoc characteristics and minimizing subjectivity. It is important to identify how unplanned functions have resulted and prevent them from occuring: (a) because there is no self-destruct mechanism once they are taken on, (b) because they have been added by default of other institutions, or (c) because of the sheer instinct for empire building among certain individuals. 32 6. Current and traditional problems are redefined in a long-range perspective. 7. It is important to identify and to anticipate social, technological, and institutional problems before they become a crisis or unmanageable. 8. The world is changing from a state of sporadic and infrequent change to one of continuous change. 9. It is important to protect against goal displacement. 10. Colleges need a process that can assure self- renewal so that it does not atrophy and decline, but so that it can capitalize on opportunities which are unforseen or considered unlikely. 11. Structure is important. Informal associations are insufficient to assure concerted action under conditions of stress and conflict. These conditions heighten existing differences rather than strengthen informal relationships. 12. Colleges must have a clear concept of what they will and will not do. (pp. 77-79) Probably the most commonly stated reason for engaging in planning is its assistance in decision-making. Jaggers (1985) cites work by LeLong and Shirley that indicates planning tends to improve the quality of decision-making. Decisions when supported by planning tend to be: - more goal oriented - better informed and supported by data - more rational - better coordinated and integrated - less naive and politically narrow - less short-sighted - given greater legitimacy and acceptance when made by administrators 33 - more facilitative of internal governance (i.e., more orderly, less crisis-oriented - given greater credibility by external constituencies (p. 39) Characteristics of Planning Processes Beyond basic definitions of planning and reasons for planning, many researchers have also attempted to identify and describe characteristics found in planning processes. A study by Cooper described five basic characteristics found in educational planning. A summary of the Cooper study was provided by Jaggers (1985): - Planning has a behavioral component. As an activity, planning involves people, working collaboratively. The human element is an unavoidable characteristic in planning. - Planning takes place in an institutional context. Suggested in such a characteristic are the political realities that govern the distribution of power and resources within an organization. - Planning involves a controlled sequence of events. If a future state is desired, control of events through decision-making and deliberate action must take place. - Planning rests upon a critique of some desired future state. The main motivation of planning is a desire to change by improvements to existing programs. - Planning must be planned. Studies indicate that two types of coordination are needed in planning processes: (1) expert opinion and involvement in directing planning activities (2) inter-relatedness among all participants in planning activities. (pp. 40-41) In another study cited by Jaggers, characteristics of successful planning were identified by Poland and Arms. Included were: 34 Flexibility -- planning procedures and protocol can be altered and improved during a process on the basis of experience. Comprehensiveness -- a perspective on planning which results in an integrated, wholistic approach to the process. Closure -- a characteristic in which planners assertively implement and secure outcomes of agreed upon actions emanating from planning activities. Coordination and Feedback -- a chief coordinator is provided regardless of the planning methodology which is selected. Introspection -- a deep probing into all aspects of institutional programs. (p. 41) The National Association of College and university Business Officers (NACUBO) has provided extensive planning literature, including an extensive list of characteristics of effective planning processes. Eleven principles were identified and listed by Jaggers (1985): Planning must reflect a total institutional commitment. Planning must generate action. Planning must be carefully organized and possess continuity over time. A planning coordinator should be appointed to facilitate the process and assure cohesion. Planning needs involvement at all levels of an organization which encourages commitment to achievement. Planning must be comprehensive in scope and focused on overall integration of instruction, academic support, institutional support, student affairs, facilities, research, and support factors of human resources, and public service in the context of the total institution. 35 10. 11. Planning should be integrated with the entire management function, especially with budget development, reporting, and evaluation. The planning-management system must have built-in checks and balances that lead to realism in planning and responsible execution. Planning must be supported by adequate information and data. Resources to support the planning process must be provided. Planning by individual units must be coordinated by the person responsible for the total planning function. (pp. 46-47) Finally, a comprehensive list of characteristics and observations about successful planning models was developed by Brown (1980). The following list includes those items that seem most appropriate for the development of a model to be specifically applied to the institutions in the study. 1. The President has the responsibility to create an environment supportive of long-range planning. The President must actively participate in the process. People and the college need an opportunity to buy into their goals and their future. Participatory planning requires time, effort, and energy. For a plan to be meaningful and thoroughly institutionalized it must be developed through the opportunity for participation by all. This participation has to be more meaningful than supplying data to the planners. Planning is meaningful to participants insofar as it has an effect on decisions and budgets. Tradition and past history play a significant role and cannot be ignored. 36 10. 11. 12. 13. Decisions affecting curriculum, faculty, and staff, budget, and space must support one another. If they do not the effectiveness of the plan must be questioned. Goals are the roadmaps for small colleges. They activate the entire academic and non-academic processes. The planning process should be viable and adaptable, not mechanistic. Planning must be supported with staff expertise. Feedback is a critical element in the long-range planning process. The process must become part of the campus information system. Feedback must permit evaluation to become action rather than merely information oriented. There has to be commitment by the total administration team to support, participate, and implement the plan. Long-range planning in a small college should be concerned with the quality and fairness of decisions by eliminating and minimizing subjectivity and ad hoc characteristics. (pp. 83-85) The Need for Integrated Multi-Campus Planning Multi-campus planning itself must be planned. In summarizing characteristics of effective planning, Brown (1980) observed that ”effective planning requires two conditions which appear to be in opposition to each other: on the one hand, the planning activities must be divided among experts in various fields who work with varying time tables. On the other, they require coordination and inter- relatedness among people and among sets of decisions, otherwise chaos results" (p. 16). 37 Assessment, Data Collection, and Institutional Research 1. Assessment The need for multi-campus and/or multi-institutional planning takes on added significance because of a recent trend in higher education. That trend is a significant increase in activity focused on the issue of educational outcomes. At the same time that institutions began putting more emphasis on assessment of outcomes for internal reasons, Peter Ewell (1985) was reporting that "powerful voices from government, business, and industry, and from professional and regional accreditation agencies, began calling for institutional and program accountability based on the measurement of educational results" (p. 32). As a result, all institutions are now attempting to figure out how they can determine what their educational expectations are and how they can be measured. The most logical structure to address these issues is within the context of institutional planning. An institution that has branch campuses or is part of a multi-institutional system can no longer allow its component parts to plan in isolation. It is necessary to address outcome issues across all locations. External agencies expect it to be done in this way in order to demonstrate accountability. This simply means that outcomes assessment has by necessity become a major thrust of long-range planning structures in higher education. This thrust has a special significance for the institutions in 38 the study and will be described in more detail in the rationale section of Chapter III. Institutions have responded to the cry for increased assessment and accountability in many different ways. Not all have viewed it positively, but regardless of institutional attitudes, it cannot be ignored. Ewell suggests that "institutional self-assessment, if it is perceived to be undertaken rigorously and with an eye toward self-improvement, can be effective in establishing external confidence”. Another opinion offered by Bok (1986) is that "it is inappropriate and unrealistic to expect professors to subordinate everything to helping students achieve a set of shared objectives. But it is equally wrong for faculties to pay no attention to common goals and to ignore the question of how well these aims are being realized. What we need is a middle way that avoids both of these extremes" (p. 22). Research by Smith (1984) concludes with the observation that "institutions must become more sophisticated about the educational outcomes they seek to achieve and how to measure them" (p. 41). Through planning efforts educators need to focus more on the costs of specific outcomes and attempt to balance resources across locations to achieve the best blend of costs and benefits. The scope of assessment is demonstrated in a recent study by Patricia A. Thrash (1987) as she states that "the identification and measurement of institutional effectiveness, the assessment of educational outcomes, or 39 whatever terms we choose to call these exercises - have in recent years moved from being esoteric concepts, curiosities and poorly-understood terms to becoming an integral part of institutional evaluation and planning" (p. 481). 2. Data Collection The key ingredient for doing effective and meaningful assessment is the collection of appropriate data. As a result, data collection has become a primary planning activity. William J. Byron (1984) reports that "most institutions are not doing strategic planning: some do not know how, and others do not understand its value. However, most fail to plan because they don't have the data base that can support a good management information system. Data should be collected every day in five categories: (1) students: (2) curriculum/programs: (3) facilities: (4) finances; and (5) personnel. Subdivisions within these divisions can be multiplied, and should be, to match the institution's purpose" (p. 28). Byron's categories match the notion of planning components described earlier by Brown. Byron further argues that good managers are planners. "Good managers want to have institutional goals clearly articulated, and departmental or divisional objectives clearly defined for the pursuit of those goals. The planning function requires the development of action strategies to be pursued over time: therefore, the planner must have a useful 40 data base, workable measures of progress, and knowledge of efficiency ratios" (p. 30). The departments and divisions referred to by Byron include multiple campuses and/or multiple institutions in college systems. Centralized managers in such a setting also need to understand goals and objectives that have been determined as part of the plans at every campus. Centralized planners need a global perspective. According to Peterson (1984) the model for such an environment "assumes leadership involving an analytic understanding of the whole institution and its environment combined with skill in strategic management, i.e., identifying strategic issues, coordinating the strategic decision process, and organizing and implementing plans" (p. 43). Brown (1980) also describes the importance of data collection in the assessment process as highlighted by Wakefield (1977) as he writes "that planning is influenced by the enormous volume of data which can be readily mustered. Much time must be invested in data management as the volume of available data is beyond the basic level of need. With so much data the ability of the planner to make effective use of it deteriorates" (p. 37). 3. Institutional Beseapch With the increase and importance of effective data collection procedures has come an increase in the number of institutions that have created centralized offices to engage 41 in institutional research. A significant part of the research function is the process of collecting and analyzing data. It will be reported in Chapter III that in some cases accrediting agencies are mandating that institutions establish centralized research offices. The implications for multi-campus institutions are enormous. In its broadest sense, Mason (1972) defines institutional research "as the systematic appraisal and evaluation of the processes and operations of institutions of higher education" (p. 31). When viewed in a planning context, especially as it relates to assessment, institutional research can take on a much narrower connotation. It becomes focused on the issues associated with defining and measuring educational outcomes, and the allocation of resources toward those ends. Undoubtedly much will be written on this subject in the next few years as institutions struggle with developing structures and personnel dedicated to this planning activity. The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools has listed reasons why institutions should determine their institutional effectiveness through a comprehensive planning process. The Association believes that these evaluation activities should occur within the context of an institutional research office. Thrash (1987) identifies the ten reasons as: 1. It helps institutions become more aware of the consequenses and impact of what they do: 42 10. it improves planning and resource allocations at all levels: it is increasingly used by state governing boards and legislatures as part of mandated procedures for program review, approval, and funding of public institutions: it provides more accurate information for consumers: it is valuable to private institutions in building effective recruitment and retention programs in times of intense competition: it demonstrates institutional success which increases effectiveness in obtaining grants and other funding: it encourages institutional improvement for its own sake; it assists in the recruitment of appropriate faculty: it serves students by accurately indicating what they can expect: it promotes institutional accountability. (p. 483) Even before external agencies starting pressing for increased assessment activity through institutional research Cohen and Brawer (1982) described a report by the Educational Testing Service that ”urged that community college institutional research shift to future-oriented studies: enrollment projections, career program outcomes, economic impacts of the college on the community, and the plotting of curricular needs. As such, it could help the staff establish institutional goals, furnish information for planning, and provide the means for appraising the effects of the practices adopted" (p. 124). Today these are the very 43 elements that would be listed as being strategic and that accrediting agencies like the Southern Association would find appropriate. Criteria for Planning in Multi-Campus Systems Womack and Podemski (1985) have identified eleven criteria they consider necessary to accomplish effective planning in multi-campus systems. The research of Womack and Podemski is especially helpful because almost all of the current planning literature has its focus on individual campus or institutional-level planning. Planning strategies for single campuses are not sufficient in the case of a system having several constituent campuses, with each campus potentially having a distinctive mission, student body, set of needs and problems, and ability to provide services. The challenge for planning in a multi-campus system is one which cannot be met by simply combining individual campus plans into one system-level plan. Greater coordination and integration is necessary within a multi- campus system, since the system itself is greater than the sum of all the individual campuses. The challenge becomes even greater if the multi-campus system has been partially or totally created by a merger of two institutions. The process of system-level planning must account for and facilitate the interaction of administrators and faculty from different campuses and create an environment in which all can be meaningful involved. If there has been a merger 44 of two institutions this environment and context for planning must also accomodate the integration process, so that the two institutions can come to understand each other while attempting to become one. Because of the unique relationship between the criteria described by Womack and Podemski and the nature of the research, each of the eleven criteria will be extensively cited: 1. Articulates Appropriate Goals Both the nature and scope of goals are broadened in a multi-campus system context since not all campuses are the same nor can deliver the same services. The system planning process must make it possible for each campus to identify unique goals for itself. However, while each campus may have different goals the planning process also must make sure that the needs of the total system are addressed. System-level goal planning must result in the identification of goals which reflect the real needs of the system and not mere justifications of what already exists at each campus. These goals must show that the system has reviewed carefully the requests of each campus and has made decisions which represent a realistic picture of what can and will be accomplished by each campus individually and by the system as a whole. Demonstpates Relsvancs Institutions of higher education must produce viable programs which are relevant to society, the state and local community, as well as the individual student. All goals which are identified in the planning process must pass the test of relevance. Because of this pressing need for relevance, the system planning process must be data based. Without data about the real needs of the communities and clients served be each campus as well as the system as whole, relevant planning cannot take place. 45 Ppeseryes Individuality The planning process must not constrain the individuality of each campus by forcing an artificial conformity. Each campus must be allowed to identify unique mission statements and promote its own areas of excellence. These areas of excellence differentiate one campus from the other while helping the system capitalize on all its potential. In identifying the individuality of each campus the plan itself helps each campus communicate its uniqueness to other campuses as well as demonstrates how the total needs of the entire system are being met by cooperation among the campuses. Incozporates Resource Allocatiop Efficient resource use requires that wise decisions be made regarding the allocation of human and fiscal resources. The scope, size, and diversity of a multi-campus system compounds the resource utilization question. Within the context of several campuses, determining the costs and benefits of allocation becomes increasingly difficult as does the application of realistic and consistent criteria for such decisions. Yet the very nature of a multi-campus system requires that limited fiscal and human resources be allocated judiciously across the system. A system-wide plan must create the framework within which all campuses can receive resources in proportion to their mission and need. Coordinates Decision-Making The system planning process must be structured so that traditionally diverse and often advesarial groups from the individual campuses may cooperate. The dynamic nature of system-wide planning creates a context in which administrators from each campus must be given the opportunity to participate in the decision-making process and exert equal influence over planning decisions. The procedures for planning and decision-making must be articulated clearly so that campus administrators will be aware of the proper way to present arguments and respond as to the appropriateness of requests from other campuses. 46 6. Fosters Cooperation Among Campuses The planning process must create opportunities for administrators from each campus to deliberate with others and come to an understanding of the unique nature of each campus in the system. This understanding can serve as the basis for cooperation as well as to support the general understanding that each campus may have a unique need and mission. Unless the planning process helps these administrators develop such an understanding the tendency is for each campus to believe in its own needs while discounting the needs of others. Facilitates Communication with Internal and Extspnal Ppblics A well designed and written plan describes the goals of the system and each campus as well as the procedures which will be used to accomplish those goals. Thus the plan itself is a vehicle which communicates vital information about the system and the role to be played by each campus to faculty, staff, and students on each campus. The plan must also be written so that it communicates well with external publics. Promo es ccountabil In addition to statements about system and campus goals the system plan must describe the ways in which each campus will accomplish its goals as well as the appropriations which will be allocated to support the attainment of each goal. Thus the plan itself establishes an agenda for each campus to follow during the period covered by the plan. Accountability is enhanced since each campus is aware of its mission and the resources available to accomplish its goals. In addition all other campuses as well as external agencies are aware of the outcomes described in the plan and the role which each unit in the system will play in accomplishing those outcomes. The process used in the development of the system plan should also increase the likelihood that the outcomes projected in the plan will be accomplished. Commitment to the plan achieved through the planning process will increase the likelihood that system goals will be accomplished, resulting in increased accountability. 47 9. Facilitates Compstition yith Othsr Agencies The multi-campus system must compete as a single higher education voice for scarce resources with other state agencies. Competition places the system at the mercy of state legislatures or higher education governing boards whose decisions about state appropriations will have a pervasive effect upon the character of higher education within the state. Thus the system-level plan must demonstrate logically its unique need for resources and be persuasive enough to influence decisions at executive decision-making levels so that higher education can receive necessary resources. 10. Coordinates Change Planning involves the identification of future goals to be accomplished, and thus change becomes an important concept to be considered within the plan itself. The dynamic nature of system-level planning must allow administrators to identify those conditions at their campuses as well as within system-level operations which need to be changed in order to assist in the accomplishment of goals. 11. Facilitates FuturssPlanning The completion of a successful planning process and the implementation of that plan should serve as the basis of continued planning. Successful accomplishment of one system-level plan must also create the expectation for continued planning so as to help the system respond with greater ease to rapidly changing needs. (pp. 1-4) Pitfalls of Planning After reviewing the many lists of what should be done in an effective planning process, to focus on what should not be done is also important. At least one should attempt to discover what can go wrong even when it appears that an institution has developed a planning model that appears to meet all its needs. 48 MacKinney has summarized six major ways in which a planning process can go wrong: 1. The planner must guard against failure to consider the importance of consensus. Acceptance of the planning process is key, and the route to acceptance is through participation. One must be conscious of the importance of timing, and this usually means guarding against moving the process too fast. Ideas have to be allowed to become part of the organization's collective attitudes, and if they do not, they tend not to be adequately accepted and thus, consensus suffers. There is the potential problem of confusing product with process. Planning must be thought of an an on- going process and not merely as a project to be completed. There is a tendency to confuse the long-range vision of the organization with the planning process. The long-range vision is merely one part of the overall planning effort. There is the potential problem of failure to communicate with, and involve, relevant persons. Communication and involvement are aspects of the consensus-building process. There is the problem of losing sight of the main business of the organization and thus focusing too much on the ancillary issues. (p. 643) Another assessment of planning obstacles is provided by Brown (1980). He summarizes the most common as "lack of support from the president and/or administration: the complexity of the organization with so many political constraints: the threat to existing power structures: failure to understand the nature and process of long-range planning: the lack of coherent agreement upon goals: and the enormous volume of data that is expected to be made available" (p. 28). 49 Summary of the Revisw of the Literature A review of planning literature in higher education included a survey of definitions of planning, of tasks associated with the planning process, of alternative planning models, of the strategic planning elements, of the basic reasons for planning, of the characteristics of effective planning processes, of types of planning, of reasons for planning, of the need for multi-campus planning and the criteria for multi-campus and multi-institutional planning, and of the pitfalls of planning. There is no perfect planning structure/process for all types of institutions. Each institution must become acquainted with these basic models and planning procedures and attempt to customize a model into a unique set of structures and procedures that best suits its individual characteristics and needs. Perhaps the best conclusions about planning in higher education were identified in an NCHEMS study in 1978, and described by MacKinney, that resulted in the identification of several "conclusions" about planning that seem to provide an accurate summary of all the different planning approaches and could be of sound advice to anyone under-taking a formal planning program. Those conclusions were: 1. Planning cannot be separated from the mainstream of institutional decision-making. Planning and the allocation of resources constitute a single system. 50 2. Planning must be a continuing, never completed process, not an ad hoc project: it is cyclical and none of its various stages is final. 3. Planning must not be limited to quantifiable or measurable considerations: much that is worthwhile in higher education is not measureable. This does not mean that quantification can be ignored. 4. A planning process should rationalize decision making by minimizing its ad hoc character: no important decision can be made in isolation. Administrative allegiance to a planning process requires maintenance of planning as the primary force in the determination of a budget. 5. Strict schedules and calendars for planning are necessary. 6. Effective planning must be appropriately supported with staff expertise. An executive position responsible for the facilitation and coordination is necessary. Ultimate planning responsibility should lie with an executive officer. 7. Planning requires information about internal aspects of the institution. 8. Planning requires information external to the institution. 9. The importance of planning with the institution is symbolized by the visible commitment of the institution's chief executive officer. 10. As a planning process becomes operational, it will become more mechanistic. Such specificity will facilitate implementation and operation. 11. Any planning process requires considerable time and energy. An institution should expect to spend 2 to 3 years developing an operational planning process. 12. Effective planning is comprehensive; it involves academic student services, administrative support, auxiliary programs, and major resource allocation issues. 13. Planning is both short and long range. (p. 643) Chapter III will include a description of the purpose of the study, will present a rationale for the study based 51 on the unique situation of the institutions in the study, and will describe the research methods that will be used. The knowledge gained from the review of the literature plays a significant role in the development of the initial planning model that will be described in Chapter IV. 52 CHAPTER III DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY The purpose of the study was to develop a planning structure/process (model) for application in two recently merged private business colleges that would be appropriate for institutions with multi-campus organizational structures, and also that would contain elements that would enhance the integration of two institutions into one, or into a multi-institutional system. Chapter III contains an explanation of the methods utilized in developing and modifying such a planning structure/process. The chapter also contains a rationale detailing the need for such a structure/process (model) in general terms, and specifically for the two institutions involved in the study. Rationals Evaluation requires that the quality of an object be judged in relation to some measure. Relative to institutional accreditation the object becomes the college. The basis upon which an institution is judged is its ability to meet the criteria for accreditation as determined by regional or professional accrediting agencies. Both of the institutions in the study are located within the nineteen state area which makes up the North Central Association of 53 Colleges and Schools. Every college in the United States would be located in one of the regional areas and would be served by its own regional accrediting association. Although each regional accrediting agency determines its own criteria for evaluation they all are very similar. The colleges in the North Central region are governed by the Association's Commission on Institutions of Higher Education. This Commission, in its Guide to Self-Study (1986), has outlined four evaluative criteria against which each institution is judged for accreditation. They are: l. the institution has clear and publicly stated purposes, consistent with its mission and appropriate to a postsecondary institution; 2. the institution has effectively organized adequate human, financial and physical resources into educational and other programs to accomplish its purposes: 3. the institution is accomplishing its purposes: 4. the institution can continue to accomplish its purposes. (p. 8) It is the fourth criterion that takes on special significance in this study. This criterion speaks to the institutions's potential for continuing effectiveness, and any institution involved with expansion, merger, or any other significant change must provide evidence to the appropriate accrediting commission that such continuing effectiveness is likely. Past and present success as well as able leadership and adequate resources, although necessary, do not alone ensure continuing effectiveness. What needs to 54 be demonstrated is that the institution (or in the case of a merger the institutions) has effective long-range planning. It is primarily through the presence of sound long-range planning processes that the institution addresses its ability to respond to future challenges while maintaining its effectiveness and improving its quality. In its Guide to Self-Study (1986) North Central's Commission on Institutions of Higher Education states that: to continue to accomplish its purposes, an institution must confront problems and be alert to opportunities. The institution should identify plans and structures which should maintain those strengths and resolve those concerns. No institution is so excellent that it need not seek ways to make improvements. (p. 15) Effective planning structures provide the means to satisfy criterion four by providing the ability to establish and modify institutional goals, develop programs, alter methods of instruction, develop alternative delivery systems, cope with shifting levels and sources of institutional support, and continually monitor institutional health and vitality. Regardless of the institutions involved, demonstrating sound long-range planning becomes a necessity when plans are being developed for adding campuses or engaging in an acquisition or merger, and as such provides a general rationale for the development of the model in this study. 4 Perhaps the strongest argument for developing methodologies for planning and research activities in higher education comes from the Southern Association of Colleges 55 and Schools. The Southern Association has led the way among the regional accrediting agencies in pushing for increased assessment of effectiveness in colleges and universities today. In fact it has gone so far as to mandate that the institutions in its region must establish adequate procedures for planning and evaluation. Each institution must define its expected educational results and describe how the achievement of these results will be ascertained. Although it prescribes no specific format for planning and evaluation it lists in its most recent Criteria for Accreditation five elements that its process should include. They are: 1. broad-based involvement of faculty and administration: 2. the establishment of a clearly defined purpose appropriate to collegiate education: 3. the formulation of educational goals consistent with the institution's purpose: 4. the development of procedures for evaluating the extent to which these educational goals are being achieved; 5. the use of the results of these evaluations to improve institutional effectiveness. (p. 10) Also in its Criteria go; Accreditation the Southern Association takes a very strong position relative to the role of an office for institutional research in higher education. Its position includes the following statements: 56 Because institutional research can provide significant information on all phases of a college or university program, it is an essential element in planning and evaluating the institution's success in carrying out its purpose. The nature of the institutional research function depends on the size and complexity of the institution and may vary from a part-time operation to an office staffed by several persons. All institutions, however, must engage in continuous study, analysis, and appraisal of their purposes, policies, procedures and programs. Institutions should assign administrative responsibility for carrying out institutional research. Institutional research should be allocated adequate resources, and those responsible for it should be given access to all relevant information. Institutions regularly must evaluate the institutional research function. (p. 11) The regional accrediting bodies have become so interested in assessment and planning that they have begun to provide assistance to their institutions. Peter Ewell reports that "regional accreditors want to assist institutions in undertaking appropriate assessment efforts: SACS (Southern Association of Colleges and Schools) is preparing a manual on conducting such inquiries and plans self-study workshops articulating different approaches. The North Central Association now provides guidance on student outcomes assessment in its publications and self-study workshops, as do most of the other regional organizations" (p. 26). All of this leads to a specific accreditation issue which provides a rationale for the application of the model to the institutions involved in the study. 57 Detroit College of Business, the institution being acquired through the merger, had requested to be evaluated in 1983 by North Central's Commission on Institutions of Higher Education. On October 10-12, 1983, a North Central Association Evaluation Team visited Detroit College as an element of a comprehensive evaluation for initial accreditation at the bachelor's degree-granting level. Detroit College of Business had been granted the "Candidate for Accreditation" status by North Central in 1981. The mission of the 1983 team was to assess the clarity of purpose of Detroit College of Business, the organization of resources and educational effectiveness of the institution, and its ability to continue to function effectively in the future. Although the 1983 North Central team gave Detroit College many high marks, its observations relative to long- range planning were not favorable. In its report following the visit the team remarked that "long-range planning is a necessary element in the development of Detroit College of Business. The purpose should be to anticipate the impact of future changes in student constituency, financial resources, faculty needs, and curriculum, and to integrate these expectations into an overall plan that anticipates where additional resources will be needed and where problems and/or opportunities will arise. It should assist in providing needed coordination between multiple branches, off-campus programs, and the main campus” (p. 48). Of 58 particular significance to this study was the team's observation that the planning process lacked the ability to effectively link the branch campuses with the main campus. The team added that "implementation of an effective, on-going long-range planning process would aid in the annual budgeting process and would provide a mechanism to deal with operational issues critical to the development of Detroit College of Business, such as faculty development, library improvement, and faculty enhancement. Communication to all levels in the organization would be facilitated if participation in the planning process is dispersed among all important institutional constituencies” (p 48). The important point made here by the team was that the process needed to be broader based, to include more personnel at all locations of the institution, not just a select few making all the decisions. Finally the report was critical in stating that "while the College cites a continuous cycle of establishing goals, refining those goals when needed, and replacing accomplished goals with new ones, there is little evidence that this process, in fact, is utilized by the College in its planning. Further, there is no evidence that the planning process is in any way related to the shorter term budgeting process nor is there a record of continuous and on-going planning activities. Rather, this process appears episodic and primarily related to the process of seeking accreditation (p. 49). 59 The team made it clear that the planning processes and procedures used at that time were not sufficient for a multi-campus college that desired regional accreditation. In fact the team concluded that the College's shortcomings relative to long-range planning meant that it did not satisfy evaluative criterion four, that it could not ensure its ability to continue to accomplish its purposes. As a result the team recommended that Detroit College not be granted initial accreditation, but rather be continued with ”candidate" status. It's position was that continued candidate status would permit the institution time to adjust its already developed practices and procedures to meet the accreditation criteria. It listed nine concerns that would need to be addressed prior to achieving accredited status. Two of those concerns were related to problems with the planning process: one was that "there is no apparent system for comprehensive planning and coordination of efforts in the institution", and the other that "the mechanism for coordinating programs offered at multiple locations should be improved" (p. 54). The critical remarks made by the North Central team carried significant weight in making decisions about the design and methodology of the study. It became imperative that all of the concerns be addressed and satisfactorily resolved by the time Detroit College would again be visited by a North Central team of evaluators in 1986. The planning structure/process developed in the study will have been in 60 place at Detroit College before the 1986 visit takes place. The assessment of the 1986 team relative to planning will be presented as a part of the results of the study in Chapter V. Procedure The method designed for developing a long-range and strategic planning process for the Davenport/Detroit College system consisted of five basic steps. The first was conducting a comprehensive review of selected literature in the field of long-range and strategic planning. The literature review examined research, theory, and applications of planning structures and processes used in a variety of settings in higher education. Special attention was given to structures and procedures used in institutions similar to those featured in the study, those institutions having multiple campuses and/or having been involved in acquisitions or mergers. The review also included examinations of self-study reports written by colleges in preparation for evaluation visits. The selection of literature in the first step was influenced greatly by the comments made by the 1983 North Central evaluation team. The second step was to design and implement an initial planning model to operate for one year or one planning -cycle. The structure was designed as a single integrated process to include all six campuses served by the two merged institutions, Detroit College of Business and Davenport College of Business. To develop an initial planning model, 61 findings from the review of literature were studied and analyzed. The findings, along with the insights gained by the researcher during several years as an administrator and planner at Davenport College, assisted the construction of the theoretical framework for the model. The theoretical model was then shared with key administrators from both institutions to ensure that the structure and process would meet the needs and expectations of all campuses and the system as a whole. Feedback from these meetings resulted in final improvements in the design prior to formal implementation of the planning process. The final activity in this step was to staff all the positions in the planning model and hold subsequent meetings with all the personnel to familiarize them with the process and to inform them of the expectations for the first cycle. A complete description of the initial planning model is presented in Chapter IV. The third step was designed to be an analysis and evaluation of the model by those participants selected to engage in the planning activities during the first cycle. The researcher, who also serves as the Director of Planning for the two institutions, met with the planning personnel from all the campuses as a regular part of his duties. The meetings provided the participants an on-going method to 'provide the researcher with feedback on the effectiveness and progress of the process. At the end of the first planning cycle all participants were asked to complete a survey prepared by the researcher. The survey served as 62 formal feedback to the researcher, and provided the researcher a source of ideas and suggestions for modifications of the planning structure, process, procedures and activities. The survey, along with the written conclusions, appears in Chapter V. The fourth step was designed to obtain expert external input into the initial planning model prior to making the modifications suggested by the participants in the third step. A panel of five experts involved in long-range planning was identified and asked to evaluate the initial model. Each of these experts was selected on the basis of his/her experience with institutions having multiple-campus planning structures or with institutions having been involved with mergers. In addition to their comments about the planning model, the experts were asked to comment about the results of the survey distributed to the planning participants in step three. A list of the questions asked and the results of the interviews with the panel of experts appears in Chapter V. The fifth step was designed to obtain consensus from the planning participants as to what modifications should be made in the initial planning model to improve it. The researcher prepared a list of proposed changes and distributed a survey to the planning participants. The proposed changes were developed from the opinions and suggestions offered in the first participant survey 63 described in step three, from the interviews with the panel of experts in step four, and from the comments and suggestions offered by the North Central Evaluation Team following the accreditation visit to Detroit College in May of 1986. The results of this survey and the results of the North Central visit are presented in Chapter V. A summary of the steps in the research methodology is presented in Table 3.1 below. Table 3.1 Summary of Steps in Research Step Activity 1 Review of related literature. 2 Design of initial planning model. 3 Assessment of initial planning model by planning participants. 4 Assessment of initial planning model by panel of experts and North Central evaluators. 5 Revision of initial planning model. Planning Manual A long-range planning manual was developed to serve as an on-going resource for all the planning participants in the Davenport/Detroit system. The manual was prepared by the -Director of Planning and was intended to assist all planning personnel in learning their roles in the planning process. Each time there were changes in the material covered in the manual a revision would be made and each participant would 64 get an up-dated copy. Following is a list of the major content areas in the manual: (A copy of the planning manual is available from the researcher). * A narrative describing the history of planning at the two institutions. The mission and purposes of the two institutions. The goals, objectives, and purposes of the planning process. Definitions of the terms used in the planning process. Descriptions of the types of plans that will be developed within the structure. Descriptions of the components of the planning structure. Examples of how to prepare planning documents. Illustrations showing how all the planning components and locations fit together. Job descriptions for all the planning positions. A list of all planning personnel with their titles, addresses, and phone numbers. Suggestions for effective planning activities. Summapy Chapter III has presented descriptions of the research methods used in the study to develop and evaluate a planning model appropriate for the institutions in the study. Also, a ~summary of recent developments relative to assessment and accreditation was presented as a rationale of the increasing need for planning models in higher education. The unique situation surrounding the institutions in this study 65 demonstrates the specific need for the development of a multi-campus planning model. Chapter IV will further describe the backgrounds of the institutions and will trace the development of the initial planning model. 66 CHAPTER IV DEVELOPMENT OF THE INITIAL PLANNING MODEL Chapter III described the situation of Detroit College relative to the issue of regional accreditation. The relationship between Detroit College and the North Central Association necessitated the development of a multi-campus planning structure. Between the first North Central accreditation visit and the planned follow-up visit, Detroit College of Business was acquired by Davenport College, which further increased the need for a comprehensive planning structure: a structure that would serve the unique needs of Detroit College relative to the accreditation issue, and also that would serve the needs of the new educational system formed by the merger. The purpose of Chapter IV is to describe the development of the initial planning model for the two institutions. This is accomplished by summarizing the backgrounds of the two institutions, describing the reasons for the merger, and listing the objectives and expectations of the planning process. The chapter concludes with a presentation of the initial planning model, including observations about the relationships between the elements of the model and the knowledge gained by the review of literature. The Merger Between Davenport Collegs and Detroit College On June 28, 1985 the Board of Trustees of Davenport College of Business passed a motion to negotiate a merger 67 between Detroit College of Business and Davenport College. This approval by the Davenport Board of Trustees culminated several months of discussions between officials of Davenport College, the Chairman of the Board and the President of Detroit College of Business. The Boards of Detroit College of Business (Dearborn) and Davenport College of Business (Grand Rapids) agreed that it was in the best interest of both institutions, and their respective students and alumni, that Detroit College of Business transfer its ownership and control to Davenport College of Business. Detroit College was restructured from a non-profit membership corporation to a non-profit stock corporation and Davenport College become its sole stockholder. The present Board members of Detroit College are now members of the Davenport College Board, making the Detroit Board identical to the newly formed Davenport Board. GovernancssStructure of the Merged Institutions The president of Davenport College functions as the chief executive officer of the Davenport system with the main campus in Grand Rapids and branches in Kalamazoo and Lansing, Michigan. The president of Detroit College continues to be the chief operating officer of Detroit College with the main campus in Dearborn and branches in < Flint and Madison Heights, Michigan. Both colleges continue to operate under their respective corporate names. Officials of both institutions supported the merger believing that the combined administrative expertise would provide an economic 68 advantage to both colleges in the areas of purchasing, marketing, financial aid, placement, development, and articulation of credits and would strengthen the financial stability of the colleges in an era of extreme competitiveness in higher education. The net administrative effect is that the two Boards, consisting of identical members, are governing the two colleges. The two colleges are under common control. A simple illustration of the administrative table of organization appears in (Figure 4.1) President's_Cabinet The governance of the newly formed educational system is provided primarily by a group of administrators from both institutions called the President's Cabinet. This name was chosen by the President of Davenport College, who was appointed to the position of President and Chief Executive Officer of the Davenport/Detroit system. The President's Cabinet exists as an advisory body to the President of the Davenport/Detroit College system in all matters of multi-campus significance. The Cabinet consists of eight individuals appointed by the system President that are in appropriate strategic positions and/or have specific expertise in special areas. 69 | Board of | | Trustees | | Executive | | Vice President | | Detroit College | | Davenport College | | of Business | | of Business | l l l I | Dearborn Campus | | Grand Rapids Campus | | | l I l I l | l I l | | Flint || Madison Heightsl | Kalamazoo | | Lansing | |Campus || Campus | | Campus | | Campus | Figure 4.1 -- Planning and Governance structure of the Davenport/Detroit system. In addition to general areas of involvement, each member of the Cabinet is assigned responsibility for one or more specific functions throughout the system. It is i expected that each member will become especially knowledgable in those areas and be able to advise the President and inform the Cabinet of matters of significance. 7O The Cabinet is also responsible for the annual revision of the system-level long-range plan, which is part of the overall institutional planning process described later in this chapter. The eight specific areas of responsibilities that have been assigned to the Cabinet members are: Resource Development Information Processing Student Services Business Affairs Academic Affairs Placement Student Financing Enrollment These specific areas were determined following many discussions between the President and the eight members of the Cabinet. At the very beginning there was a commitment to continue to link the planning and management responsibilities of the Cabinet members. This occurred primarily because the President and most members of the Cabinet had previously been involved in the planning activities at the two institutions and understood the importance of having the executive officers as participants in the total institutional planning process. It should also be noted that the researcher serves as one of the members of the President's Cabinet and at the time of the merger was appointed as the Director of Planning for the A Davenport/Detroit system. As a result, the researcher played a significant role in advising the President how the system's management structure and the planning structure should be related. 71 Necess t or A Multi-Cam us Planning Process For many years Davenport College has made extensive use of long-range planning activities in the conduct of its affairs. The College was given permission by the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools to use its long- range planning format for the Institutional Self-Study Report submitted in 1981 in preparation for its comprehensive evaluation. As a result, the thrust for the development of the initial model came from the planning history at Davenport College. The literature review provided significant evidence that successful planning practices should be perpetuated as modifications to planning models are made. In recent years Davenport College has grown from a single-campus institution offering the Associate's degree to one with three campuses offering the Bachelor's degree. It also operates numerous attendance centers and other specialized programs at off-campus locations. The success of these recent developments has been largely due to the long- range planning process used at the college. It has been evident that growth and change require a disciplined planning approach. Detroit College has expanded in a similar manner by developing branch campuses and other off-campus > activities. The merger with Detroit College greatly expanded the scope of educational activities. Therefore it became critical that the newly formed enterprise be managed and coordinated with a similar kind of planning structure. 72 Pppposes of Multi-CampusyPlanning It was the collective opinion of the President's Cabinet that a single integrated process and structure of long-range planning for the newly formed institution would be helpful in many ways. It should provide the framework to assist both institutions and their campuses to carry out their missions effectively, to help promote multi-campus efficiency, and to assist in the continuing process of change and growth throughout the college system. These conclusions were based on the previous planning experiences of the Cabinet members and are supported by the views of many others cited in the literature review. A review of the literature also indicated that the planning process should facilitate innovation. The success of any college requires the ability to anticipate trends and events and to quickly adapt to unexpected circumstances. The planning process should systematize such thinking and make it more likely that the system's individual campuses would respond to these changes through a coordinated effort. In a large multi-campus environment it is essential that personnel be aware of how they fit into the larger structure and have an opportunity to participate in activities with people from many sites. The planning process I should provide a participative structure and exist as a means for effective communication. 73 Perhaps above all the planning structure and process should be an integral part of the governance and administrative structure of the system. It is through the formal multi-campus decision-making structure where programs, policies and procedures are developed and changed, and where major resource allocations are made. Many of the authors encountered in the literature review stressed this point. To combine planning and management appears to be one of the most important characteristics of effective planning models, regardless of the complexity of the institution(s). The Davenport/Detroit College system is a large, complex, multi-campus institution. Because of the dynamic nature of having many separate locations, it is even more essential that the planning process be, and continue to be, integrated, flexible, responsive, and continuing. Expectations of Mulpi-Campus Planning Following the merger the Cabinet members that had been appointed from the two institutions met several times to determine specific goals and objectives that could be achieved through a combined planning process. This was in addition to reaching some of the general conclusions mentioned above. Following is a list of those objectives, followed by a brief assessment of how it was believed the long-range planning process could help facilitate their achievement: 74 1. MAKING MAXIMUM USE OF ALL COLLEGE FACILITIES There has been a great deal of sharing of resources between the various campuses of both institutions, including frequent exchanges of office equipment and supplies. The merger greatly increases the possibility of sharing even more resources, thereby decreasing the occurences of having one institution throwing things away while the other might be purchasing comparable items. 2. EXPANDING FUND AND FRIEND RAISING ACTIVITIES This is an area where there is tremendous opportunity for collaboration. Davenport College has increased its fund-raising activities in recent years. The potential exists for state-wide fund-raising projects and governmental funding projects. Each institution has contacts and relationships that could be beneficial to the other. 3. BY FURTHER DEVELOPING ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF STUDENT FINANCIAL AID INCLUDING THE DAVENPORT COLLEGE FOUNDATIONLsTO REPLACE FUNDS CUT BY STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS Davenport College has experienced success with the recent creation of the Davenport College Foundation. The potential now exists to include the eastern part of the state as a source of additional funds for the foundation. In addition, many joint projects between Davenport College and Detroit College to aid their students could be funded by the Foundation. 75 4. BY CONTINUING TO IMPROVE STUDENT ACCESS TO COLLEGE SERVICES Both institutions have initiated new student services in recent years, especially in the academic areas of delivery of instruction. By having a multi- campus organization it becomes possible to experiment with new services on one campus before instituting them college-wide. Davenport College has found this practice very valuable in dealing with its branch campuses in Lansing and Kalamazoo. Detroit College has experimented in similar ways with its branch campuses. 5. BY CONTINUING TO OFFER STUDENT OPTIONS REGARDING PROGRAMS, MAJORSl LOCATIONS, AND TIMES The two institutions currently offer many similar programs and both are reaching out to the adult and non-traditional markets by offering classes off campus using many different delivery methods. By sharing mutual successful developments in these areas, each should be able to do an even better job of reaching all students and providing them with the most effective and convenient methods of instruction. 6. BY MAINTAINING THE OUTSTANDING RECORD OF STUDENT AND GRADUATE PLACEMENT Both institutions have placement departments that consistently place graduates at greater than a 90% rate. Both institutions feel strongly that their missions are to prepare students to have successful 76 careers. The two placement departments could work in tandem to better serve the students in each geographical area. Many graduates from Davenport College are interested in working in the eastern part of the state, and could be effectively served by Detroit College. Likewise any Detroit graduates wishing to relocate to western Michigan could be served by Davenport College. 7. BY CONTINUING TO SUPPLY THE QUALITY AND VARIETY OF STUDENT SERVICES THAT MEET THE NEEDS AND DESIRES OF TUDENTS The same opportunity that exists to share ideas and programs in the area of instructional delivery also can be used in the area of student services, such as student housing, student activities, counseling, and food service. 8. BXsCONTINUING TO HIRE. DEVELOPL AND RETAIN EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTORS WHO HAVE WORKED IN THEIR FIELDS AND/OR ARE CURRENT IN THEIR FIELDS AND WHO DEMONSTRATE A IGH EVEL OF NTHUSIASM D CONCERN FOR STUDENTS Faculty sometimes find opportunities at the branch campuses or at main campuses as a result of working cooperatively with each other. It is feasible that as needs change from one campus to another that faculty resources could be shared or exchanged. The same could be true for administrative and staff personnel. 77 9. BY CONTINUING TO PROVIDE A STRONG STUDENT RECRUITING SYSTEM One of the areas where cost effectiveness can be achieved is in the area of recruiting, advertising, and public relations. There are certainly many possibilities to create state-wide projects that would end duplication of efforts. By determining these goals in advance, it became possible in the initial development of the planning model to select planning components that were best suited to deal with these issues. Histogy of Planning at Davenport Collsgs The first formal introduction to long-range planning at Davenport College occurred in the mid 1970's, when Board of Trustee member Dr. Walter Johnson was asked to serve as the first Chairman of the college's Long-Range Planning Committee. This appointment proved to be especially significant because Dr. Johnson was then a Professor of Higher Education at Michigan State University and had much previous experience with long-range planning processes in higher education. Dr. Johnson was successful in raising the awareness of the importance of planning among the employees he worked with, and was able to get the planning committee committed to continuing a long-range planning process. In January of 1979, the Executive Committee of the college met with Dr. Daniel H. Pilon, Vice President for Campus Services, The Council for the Advancement of Small 78 Colleges, to discuss long-range planning models and to develop an on-going planning process. Subsequently, Dr. Pilon was retained as a long-range planning consultant, and in April a long-range planning committee was selected that consisted of 12 members from among the administrative staff, faculty, support staff, and Board of Trustees. Dr. Johnson continued to serve on the planning committee as the Board representative. Later that spring, Dr. Pilon returned to conduct training sessions and explain the process that was to become the Davenport College model of planning. That method involved the participation of all members of the college in a series of processes: The development of a college mission statement, the appraisal of data, the analysis of that data resulting in a listing of institutional strengths and weaknesses, the determination of institutional goals and objectives, and the process of implementing, evaluating, and recycling the planning process. These steps were then begun and led to the writing of a mission statement and college history that were presented at the all-college fall orientation session in 1979 and in turn presented to the Board of Trustees on October 3, 1979, to replace existing statements of purpose and to be used in evaluating strengths and weaknesses of the college in light of the data collected and analyzed. 79 The process of collecting data, determining strengths and weaknesses, and writing goals and objectives has remained as the essential element in the planning process since that time. This process has been repeated every year since 1979 at both the college and department (or component) level. During that time the membership of the Long-Range Planning Committee changed many times, and during the 1984 - 1985 year it was decided to change the name of the committee to the Institutional Planning and Assessment Committee. With few significant changes, the planning process has remained active and has provided the college with much experience in planning. As explained earlier, the decision was made to redesign the planning process subsequent to the merger with Detroit College in the fall of 1985. Many of the elements of the new initial planning model described later in this chapter came from the original models introduced by Dr. Johnson and Dr. Pilon. Histopy of Planning at Detroit College The initiation of planning at Detroit College was essentially the same as it was at Davenport College. In January of 1980, Dr. Daniel Pilon was also hired by Detroit College to help put in place the same planning process as that used at Davenport College. With the exception of a few minor differences, the structure and process used was the same as described above for Davenport College. 80 It was decided after the first cycle of planning that the structure and process was not working as well as expected. Since that time the institution has been looking for an alternative structure that would better serve its needs. As a result of the merger with Davenport College, it was decided that a comprehensive, system-wide planning structure was necessary and would provide the necessary integration with the Davenport College process. Goals_for the Planning Structure It was previously reported that the President's Cabinet was instrumental in determining some specific goals and objectives for the planning process. An analysis of the literature review was also very helpful in determining the characteristics or conditions that should be met by an effective planning structure and process. One example of this is that the researcher (the Director of Planning) used Womack and Podemski's eleven criteria (listed in Chapter I and described in Chapter II) as a guide in developing the initial model. In addition, the review of literature indicated that the following list of other guidelines appeared frequently. Where appropriate, the model should contain elements that allow the process to: 1. Facilitate innovation and change. 2. Be participative throughout the system. 3. Be an integral part of the college governance and decision-making structure. 81 The literature review provided evidence that the following basic elements should be incorporated into the planning system to ensure that the above conditions are met. 1. Planning should include the systematic, continuing examination of institutional missions, goals, and objectives. 2. The planning process should help the colleges clarify and communicate their values and goals to each other, to all campus locations, and to the publics they serve. 3. The planning process should promote understanding throughout the system of campus purposes and programs. 4. The planning process should foster communication and exchange of information among the various locations, and provide the context for better decision-making at every level of administration. One of the most important observations made by previous planners is that a planning structure should create an effective means of communication between the many locations and between multi-campus administrators. The structure must include as part of its process the formal exchange of assessment results between all individuals on each campus, between campuses, and between each campus and the group responsible for creating overall system-level plans. Also, many planning experts indicated that an effective system of multi-campus planning must enhance the process of 82 resource allocation, both at the campus level and at the system level. A strong emphasis on the creation of campus and system-level goals and objectives must provide the necessary direction for those individuals charged with budgeting and controlling responsibilities. In summary, the literature review led the researcher to the conclusion that to be most useful in a multi-campus college system, planning: should facilitate innovation: should be participative: should exist as a structure for effective communication: should facilitate resource allocation: and should be an integral part of the college governance and administrative structure. The Initial Planning,Modsi The combination of the knowledge gained from the literature review and many years of planning experience served as the researcher's foundation for the development of the initial planning model for the new institution formed by the merger. Following a description of the process used to create the model, the remainder of this chapter will describe the essential elements of the initial planning model. It was indicated in Chapter I on page 9 that many of the general definitions presented there would have more specific meanings later in the study. These specific meanings are used in the following sections to describe the initial planning model. 83 The Modsl Development Procsss The following steps were taken to create the initial planning model: First, the Director of Planning (also the researcher) developed a model and presented it to the President's Cabinet for approval. Because the Cabinet is the group responsible for doing the system-level planning and writing the system-level plan, it was critical that they understand and agree with the process. Following a few minor changes suggested by the Cabinet, the next step was for the Director of Planning to jointly meet with the chief executives from the six campuses to explain the model and solicit additional input. It was important that these executives understand the value of the process and believe that there would be specific benefits for each campus as well as for the system. Following the endorsement of the six campus deans, the next step was to have the campus deans appoint the personnel to staff the positions called for in the model. The Director of Planning assisted the deans by making specific recommendations in some cases and giving general direction in other cases, depending on the Director's familiarity with the campus' personnel and environment. After the personnel were selected, the Director of Planning held a joint all-day workshop with all the participants to acquaint them with the structure and process, and to give them enough direction to begin the 84 planning activities. This joint meeting was followed by additional visits by the Director of Planning to each campus to make sure everyone understood what was expected of them. Throughout these introductory meetings everyone was always given a chance to offer suggestions for changes in the model. It was agreed however, that once the process began there would be no additional changes until after one planning cycle had been completed and everyone had an opportunity to assess the model's effectiveness. Statement on Planning The first step necessary to acquaint the participants with the model was to create a planning statement intended to express to them what the focus of the planning process should be. The following statement was used: Planning involves the systematic, continuing examination of institutional missions, goals, and objectives so that the entire college system, as well as every campus location, may function as effectively and efficiently as possible while it encourages innovation and accommodates appropriate change and development. The planning process should help the colleges clarify and communicate their values and goals: provide understanding throughout the system of their purposes and programs: foster greater communication and exchange of information among the various locations: and provide the context for better decision-making at every level of administration. Planning will take place in successive stages. The plans of the individual campus locations become the primary elements of the overall plan for the multi- campus system. To some extent, each annual cycle of planning depends on the decisions, goals, and objectives determined during the previous year's planning. Successive planning efforts require the modification of previous results. 85 An effective system of multi-campus planning must enhance the process of resource allocation both at the campus level and at the system level. The strong emphasis on the creation of campus and system-level goals and objectives provides the necessary direction for those individuals charged with budgeting and controlling responsibilities. The Terminology of Planning It was important that the Cabinet members and all the planning personnel selected to work at the campus level understood the terminology used in the planning structure. They were told that: The term piap is used in the model to describe both a process and a product. The planning process is the process of writing or revising mission statements, determining strengths and weaknesses, and writing goals and objectives. The lann n roduct is the actual written document that includes collected data along with a mission statement, stated strengths and weaknesses, and stated goals and objectives. es lens The planning model was made up of two distinct types of plans: System-Level plans and Campus-Level plans. Womack and Podemski stressed that in multi-campus planning it is essential that each campus be able to preserve its individuality. At the same time it was essential that the planning process address the needs of the system as a whole. A system-level plan must be more that a compilation of campus plans. The following language was used to describe the two types of plans to the participants: 1. s em eve 1a Planning personnel at the system-level of management (President's Cabinet) prepare system-wide mission statements, collect and analyze data for the 86 purpose of determining system-wide strengths and weaknesses, and determine the overall goals and objectives for the Davenport/Detroit system. 2. gampus plans Planning personnel at each campus location follow the same procedures to write an annual campus plan. Personnel at the campus locations perform the tasks of writing mission statements, collecting and assessing data to determine campus strengths and weaknesses, and determine campus goals and objectives. These plans stand alone as separate documents for the purpose of providing information and direction to campus decision makers, and are also used as data to be assessed as a part of the overall system-level plan. The Elements o; Planning The primary elements of the two planning processes are those activities that result in the writing of missions, the collection of data, the determination of strengths and weaknesses, the setting of goals and objectives, and the implementation of goals and objectives. For the most part these elements match those most frequently described in the literature and also are the same as the elements that existed in earlier planning structures used at Davenport College. These elements are defined as follows: Definipions of thsAPlanning Elements 1. Mission A mission is a statement of purpose(s), including basic and fundamental values, enduring principles, responsibilities and commitments. Each of the institutions has a thorough statement of mission and purposes that is used by planning personnel as a basis for assessment within the planning components. The mission statement for Davenport College is in Appendix A, and the mission statement for Detroit College is in Appendix B. 87 2. Data collsction Each cycle of planning involves the collection of current information necessary for assessment and planning. Self-assessment and the subsequent setting of goals can only be as good as the data that is used. Data collection is a necessary part of planning activities at both the campus level and at the system level. 3. Strsngths and weaknesses A significant activity of each planning cycle involves the assessment of the information accumulated during the data collection stage. Each year a review and analysis of data is used as the basis for drawing conclusions about the strengths and weaknesses of each campus component, each campus, and the entire multi-campus system. The initial model has been designed so that the assessment of strengths and weaknesses is to be done only by personnel working within the designated planning component areas. The reason that all the assessment of strengths and weaknesses is done only be personnel working within components is primarily because of previous difficulties associated with having campus-wide assessment. Also, the majority of personnel selected to participate in the planning model felt more comfortable with this process, at least for the first cycle. The model calls for five strengths and five weaknesses to be determined during each annual planning cycle for each component on each campus, and also for each component at the system level. 4. Goals Goals interpret the mission(s) and identify directions and intentions. They take on significance in relation to the strengths and 88 weaknesses determined from assessing the information collected in the data collection stage. Goals should be established that enhance strengths and/or overcome weaknesses. They serve as guides for activities and help establish priorities. Where appropriate they should be stated in terms of time. The planning model calls for three goals to be determined during each planning cycle for each component at the campus level and also at the system level. Goals should be established that can be accomplished within a time period of one to three years. A sample campus planning goal statement given to planners to follow is in Appendix C, and a sample system-level goal statement given to planners to follow is in Appendix D. 5. Objectives Objectives are definable accomplishments which describe performances and are derived from goals. They should be finite, measurable increments or steps that are taken in the process of fulfilling the achievement of goals. They should be consistent and realistic with other objectives and with the goals. Like goals, they should have specific dates when results should be expected. The planning model requires that planning personnel describe objectives necessary for the successful accomplishment of each goal. 6. Implementation Objectives should be comprehensive enough to include the tactical elements necessary to assure accomplishment. In addition to deadlines they should indicate specific actions necessary, and also designate individuals charged with primary responsibilities. 89 The planning model requires that the necessary individuals and actions necessary for accomplishing objectives be described. An example of completed strengths, weaknesses and goals for one system-level component is presented in appendix E. Information Used For Planning at the Campus Level An important part of the planning process used in the model is the collection and evaluation of information necessary for assessment. There are three key types of information that are used: 1. 2. Self-Determined A basic purpose of planning is to give managers at every level information to aid in decision making. Therefore, the most important information to be collected is whatever the campus Component Leaders think they need for their own benefit. Most of their planning efforts should be self-directed. Determined by Component Directors Component Directors give planning content direction to campus Component Leaders. They may request certain kinds of information from each campus location. This would be done when a Component Director is interested in something specific for the system-level plan. 90 3. Determined by Director of Planning The Director of Planning asks campus Component Leaders for specific information that is needed for reporting to external agencies and/or accrediting commissions. Information Used For Planning at the System Leysi The eight Component Directors (President's Cabinet) basically follow the same procedures as outlined above when writing the system-level plans. The major difference is that they rely heavily on the data collected and summarized in the individual campus planning documents. To a large extent the results of the campus plans become the data that are assessed by Component Directors when writing the system- level plan. Responsibilities of Planning Personnel The total number of personnel called for in the model is 63, distributed as follows: 1 Director of Planning: 8 Component Directors: 48 Campus Component Leaders (8 at each campus): and 6 Campus Coordinators. Following is a brief description of the duties for each classification: Director of Planning The Director of Planning has the primary responsibility for the design, implementation, and monitoring of the planning structure and all planning activities. The Director consults widely with college 91 officers, all planning personnel, and other constituencies across all campus locations to ensure that the planning process continues to serve its intended functions and accomplishes the goals of the planning process. Component Directors In the planning model the President's Cabinet described earlier become the Component Directors in the planning process and directly supervise the corresponding Campus Component Leaders. They direct or request that specific data be collected at the campus level that will also be needed at the system level. Also, they assist Campus Component Leaders in determining what information will be useful as a part of each campus plan. Each Component Director is a specialist for one of eight planning components. The Component Directors as a group also develop the system-level plans during each cycle of planning. Campus Coordinators The Campus Coordinators operate at the campus level in the same way that the Director of Planning operates over the whole system. Campus Coordinators coordinate the Campus Component Leaders. They give specific direction as determined by the Director of 92 Planning, and generally monitor the local planning activities. Campus Coordinators perform the technical task of collecting, editing, and writing campus data into a final document called the campus plan. It is then the responsibility of the Campus Coordinators to see that this document is shared on the local campus with those individuals that can most effectively use it. Campus Component Leaders The Campus Component Leaders have the responsibility for directing the collection of information in each of the eight components at the local campus locations. After the information has been collected, each Campus Component Leader will use other personnel working within that component to determine the strengths, weaknesses, goals and objectives for the component. This information, in turn, will be sent to the local Campus Coordinator to become part of the campus plan, and will also be sent to the appropriate Component Director to be used as part of the data for the system-level plan. In this way the system plan does not just become a collection of individual campus plans. Campus components are essentially self-contained units. With the exception of some specific requests 93 from the Director of Planning and/or the Component Directors, the personnel involved in component planning have the freedom to collect the information they feel most appropriate and helpful. Also, the determination of strengths, weaknesses, goals and objectives will be the combined judgments of those within the component. Both the literature review and the researcher's previous experience influenced the decision to place the major emphasis on self-determined data. People cannot be expected to maintain a commitment to efforts that provide them no personal benefit. People must believe that their efforts will benefit them in their regular jobs or they will quickly lose their interest and enthusiasm for participating in the planning process. Planning Components The planning model is designed to focus on specific functional areas common to both institutions. Eight specific areas have been selected, each having a common focus at all six campuses and each sharing significant importance as a part of the management structure at each campus. These eight components were selected jointly between the Director of Planning and the eight Cabinet members. Following is a list of the eight components, along with a brief sublist of the major activities relative to each. These activities would be common to most institutions but would not necessarily be associated with the same component areas . 94 Acadsmic Affair§ Faculty Curriculum Academic Advising Learning Resources Academic Governance Non-Credit Programming Tutoring and Other Academic Services usiness Affairs Business Office Procedures Finances Physical Plant and Grounds Bookstore Personnel Administration Student Services Personal Counseling Student Activities Student Housing Student Scholarships Enrollment Registration and Records Admissions Recruiting and Marketing Student Demographics Enrollment Statistics Resource Development Fund Raising Programs Alumni Grants Foundation Placement Placement Programs for Graduates Placement Programs for Alumni Placement Programs for Part-time Students Placement Statistics Cooperative Education Information Processing Computing Resources Information Technology Staff Development and Training 95 8. Studenp Financing Financial Aid Programs Financial Aid Statistics Financial Planning (See figure 4.2) for an illustration of the relationships between the planning personnel and the planning components. PLANNING STRUCTURE (Relationship of Planning Personnel and Components) COMPONENT DIRECTORS CAMPUS COORDINATORS I I I Academic Affairs | | Davenport/Grand Rapids | Business Affairs | | Davenport/Kalamazoo | Student Services | | Davenport/Lansing | I | | I I | l I | | l | | I l Enrollment Resource Development Detroit/Dearborn Information Processing Detroit/Flint Student Financing Detroit/Madison Heights Placement CAMPUS COMPONENT LEADERS Campus (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Academic Affairs x Business Affairs Student Services Enrollment Resource Development Information Processing Student Financing Placement XXXXXXX xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx Figure 4.2 Planning structure. 96 Plannimg gyciss Although the planning process used in the model is continuous, it is designed so that the planning elements occur on an annual cycle. Once each year each campus writes a campus plan and the Component Directors write a system plan. The model requires that campus plans be completed each year by the first day of June, and that the system plan be completed by the middle of August. These dates are used because they best match the budgeting procedures and the academic calendars in the two institutions. (See figure 4.3) for a detailed list of planning activities and the dates that they are to be performed. Campus Planning Deadlins 1. Data collection for campus components Ongoing 2. Five strengths and five weaknesses determined 5/1/87 for each campus component. 3. Three goals and supporting objectives 5/1/87 determined for each campus component. 4. Final writing of campus plans completed 6/1/87 System Planning 1. Data collection completed for system Ongoing planning. 2. Five strengths and weaknesses determined 8/15/87 for each component at the system level. 3. Three goals and supporting objectives 8/15/87 determined for each component at the system level. 4. Final writing of the system plan completed 9/15/87 Figure 4.3 Timetable for planning activities. (86 - 87 planning cycle) 97 Summapy pf Planning Modei The initial planning model was developed and implemented during the academic year of 1985-86. Its essential elements and characteristics include the following: Levels of Planning 1. CampuseLevel Planning - Each of the six campuses of the two institutions prepare a campus plan each year. 2. System-Level Planning - One plan is prepared each year for the overall system. Elements of Planning The primary elements of the planning process include: 1. Development of institutional mission statements. 2. Collection of planning data. 3. Assessment of component strengths and weaknesses. 4. Setting of component goals. 5. Writing of objectives. 6. Implementation of goals and tactical planning. Planning Data The data that is collected to be used in the assessment process comes from three primary sources: 1. Data collected by campus Component Leaders considered helpful and necessary for routine performance of job duties. 98 2. Data collected by campus Component Leaders as directed by their respective Component Directors. 3. Data collected by campus Component Leaders as directed by the Director of Planning. Planning Personnel The formal planning positions prescribed by the model are: 1. One (1) Director of Planning, responsible for administering the overall planning process. 2. Eight (8) Component Directors, responsible for supervising the campus Component Leaders and writing the system-level plan. 3. Forty Eight (48) campus Component Leaders (eight from each of the six campuses), responsible for campus-level planning activities. 4. Six (6) campus Coordinators (one from each of the six campuses), responsible for giving process direction to the campus Component Leaders and for writing campus plans. Planning_Components There are eight planning components (specific functional planning areas) included in each of the campus plans and in the system-level plan: 99 1. Academic Affairs 2. Business Affairs 3. Student Services 4. Enrollment 5. Resource Development 6. Placement 7. Information Processing 8. Student Financing Summary Chapter IV contains a description of the merger between the two institutions, a description of the subsequent planning/governance structure of the educational system, a summary of the necessity of a multi-campus planning models, and a list of planning expectations. Chapter IV also includes a summary of the history of planning activities at both institutions and outlines the goals for the proposed planning process (model). Finally, chapter IV contains both a complete description and a summary description of the initial planning model for the educational system formed by the merger of the two institutions. Chapter V will present the results of the research instruments used to assess the effectiveness of the initial planning model following its implementation. Following the 100 assessment, specific recommendations will be made for changes in the initial planning model based on the research findings. 101 CHAPTER V ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Chapter V includes the results of the methods used to assess the effectiveness of the initial planning model. This assessment is done in four parts: first is a survey distributed to the planning participants in the initial planning model: second is a summary of observations and suggestions made by a panel of experts from outside the institutions in the study: third is a report of observations about the planning model made by a team of evaluators from the North Central Association as part of a comprehensive accreditation visit to Detroit College in May of 1986: and fourth is a follow-up survey to the planning participants who participated in the first survey. Each of the four assessment procedures are presented in their entirety and followed by a summary of findings. No attempt is made to determine statistical significance. All conclusions are based on inspection. Following the analysis of the data, the chapter concludes with a list of the researcher's specific recommendations for changes in the initial planning model. First Assessment - Survey Of Planning Personnel In the winter of 1987 (following the completion of the first planning cycle and midway through the second planning 102 cycle) all personnel involved in the planning process from both institutions were surveyed by the Director of Planning as the first method of assessing the effectiveness of the initial planning model. Forty five individuals were requested to complete the survey. This is a smaller number than the total number of positions in the planning model because some individuals held more than one planning position, and a few positions were vacant because of resignations. Following is a list of the twenty five questions in the survey, with a brief summary of the results for each. In this first survey the respondents were identified by name, by campus, and by positions held in the planning structure. All 45 surveys were returned. The instructions to the participants are included in appendix F. Long RangsAPlanningLSurvsy List of Questions and Summapy of Results Question £1: The presently used component areas are: Academic Affairs, Business Affairs, Resource Development, Enrollment, Student Services, Student Financing, Information Processing, and Placement. Please describe any suggestions for additions, deletions, or changes to the component areas: Pssults of Responses to Question #1: No changes needed ( Changes needed ( 4) No response ( Some suggestions were: A. Create "Auxiliary Enterprises" component. B. Have a Marketing (beyond what is done in admissions) Component. C. Break up Academic Affairs into smaller units. D. Establish component to focus on "Retention". 103 Questiop £2: The present practice is for each component to determine five strengths and five weaknesses during each planning cycle. Does this number seem like (please check one) too many , too few , or just right . Comments or suggestions: Resultsspf Responses to Qusstion 52: Too many ( Too few ( Just right ( No response ( 8 0 33 4 ) ) ) ) Suggestions included these options: A. "no more than 5" B. "3-5” (2 people) C. ”3" (4 people) D. "no restrictions" (2 people) Question 1;: At the present time all strengths and weaknesses are determined by a consensus of those working within a component. Do you think (please check one) this is appropriate , or that others from outside the component should also be able to assist in this process ? If you chose the latter please explain and/or offer suggestions: Pesuits g; Responses to Question #3: Inside is appropriate (28) Also from outside (17) Suggestions and observations included: A. Many suggested outside views would be more objective. 8. Some observed that weaknesses would more likely surface from outsiders. C. Let each campus leader assess the strengths and weaknesses of every component on that campus. Many thought outside views would be very valuable, but there were no specific suggestions for process. Quespigm £5: The present practice is for those working in a component to determine three goals (with supporting objectives) during each planning cycle. Does this number seem like (please check one) too many , too few , or just right . Comments or suggestions: Resulps of Responses to Question #4: Too many ( 1) Too few ( 3) Just right (40) No response ( 1) 104 Suggestions included these options: A. "5" (3 people) 8. "3-5" (2 people) C. "less than 3" Quespion £5: There should be broad-based participation of personnel on each campus to collect data, to assess strengths and weaknesses, and to determine component goals. On your campus do you think (please check one) there is enough participation or not enough participation . Comments or suggestions: Resultssof Responses to Question #5: Enough participation (29) Not enough participation (13) No response ( 3) Suggestions included: A. Component Leaders need to involve subordinates more. B. Faculty and students are too often excluded from assessment. C. Data collection could be facilitated by additional staff. D. People aren't motivated enough to do it without a push. Note - Many people indicated there should be more participation. Question 16: At the end of the planning cycle there should be an opportunity for personnel on each campus to become aware of the goals and objectives that have been determined. Do you think that on your campus there is (please check one) sufficient sharing of this information or not enough sharing of this information . Comments or suggestions: Results of Pesponses to Question #6: Sufficient sharing (22) Not enough sharing (22) No response ( 1) Suggestions included: A. Send a list of all campus strengths, weaknesses, goals, and objectives to each faculty and staff member on that campus. 8. Place a copy of the campus and system plans in each campus library. C. Have a meeting or workshop on each campus to share results. 105 Question #7: The establishment of campus goals and objectives should enhance the process of resource allocation. On your campus (please check one) is there an apparent connection between planning and budgeting or is there no apparent connection between planning and budgeting ? Comments or suggestions: Results of Responses to Qusstion #7: Connection (3 No connection ( No response ( ooqo ) ) ) Note - There were no significant comments for this question and none offered suggestions. Question £8: Campus Component Leaders are accountable to the management at each campus for working on the established goals and objectives. Do you think that they (please check one) should or should not also be formally accountable to their respective Component Directors for the results? Comments or suggestions: Pssultssof Responses to Question #8: Should be accountable (19) Should not be accountable (19) No response ( 7) Suggestions and comments included: A. They should be - but to a lesser extent. 8. Only for meeting deadlines. C. Component Leaders and Directors should set objectives together. D. It would be difficult to report to two bosses. E. Only for purposes of feedback and sharing of information. Question #9: Please check what you consider to be the easiest of the following planning activities: data collection , assessment of strengths and weaknesses , writing of goals and objectives . Comments: Pssults of Responsss to Question #9: Data collection (12) Strengths and weaknesses (13) Goals and objectives (15) No response ( 5) Note - No comments or suggestions. 106 Question #10: Please check what you consider to be the most difficult of the following planning activities: data collection , assessment of strengths and weaknesses , writing of goals and objectives . Comments: Results of Responses to Question #10: Data collection (22) Strengths and weaknesses ( 7) Goals and objectives (12) No response ( 4) Note - No comments or suggestions. ues on 1 : Present planning cycles have annual campus plans concluding in May and system-level plans concluding in August. Does this approach (please check one) seem appropriate? Yes No Comments or suggestions: Pssults of Responses to Quespion #1 : (Yes) Appropriate (3 (No) Not appropriate ( I No response I-‘U‘ID ) ) ) Comments included: A. A little late to tie in effectively with budgeting. B. System-level planning should be done earlier. Question 112: The present structure has one Component Director for each of the eight components, along with one Component Leader on each campus, and one Campus Coordinator on each campus. Is this structure (please check one) functioning effectively? Yes No . If no, please explain. es ts s 0 see to use 0 1 : (Yes) Functioning effectively ( (No) Not functioning effectively ( No response ( Note - There were very few comments. The comments that were offered all indicated that the structure is working well, but in some cases there are individuals not sufficiently committed. 107 ********************** Campus Coordinators were instructed not to answer the folloyinq twosguestions: (13 & 14) Question #i3: There should be periodic communication and coordination between the Component Directors and the Campus Component Leaders. In your component has this contact been (please check one) too frequent , not frequent enough , never , or just about right . Comments or suggestions: Results_pf Responses to Question #13: Too frequent ( 0) Not frequent enough ( 7) Never ( 4) Just about right (21) No response ( 7) Note - Some that did not check an answer commented that they had not met enough, or at all. Many of the same comments appeared here that appeared in # 12 (lack of enough direction from Component Directors/Cabinet Members). Question fig: The planning process should provide an Opportunity for Campus Component Leaders to have inter- campus contact with each other, either formally or informally. In your component (please check one) has this contact occurred too frequently , not frequently enough , never , or about the right frequency . Comments or suggestions: Results of Responses to Question #1 : Too frequently ( 0) Not frequently enough ( 9) Never ( 6) About right frequency (20) No response ( 4) ********************** Question fis: The planning process should help facilitate the exchange of ideas and information between the two colleges. Do you think (please check one) the planning process has promoted this type of exchange? Yes No . Comments or suggestions: 108 Resuits of Responses tosQuestion #15: Yes (26) No (16) No response ( 3) Note - The comments indicated that some felt there was not as much inter-campus and inter-institutional communication taking place as there should be. Question £16: Do you (please check one) feel you have a good understanding of the planning process or do you not have a good understanding of the planning process . If not, please identify the areas where you feel the need for more information or explanation: Rssults of Responsessto Question #16: Good understanding (38) Not good understanding ( 4) No response ( 3) Note - No comments. Question £i7: We have a single integrated planning structure for both colleges. Do you think (please check one) that the two institutions are similar enough to warrant the continuation of this system , or that the two institutions are so different that two separate planning structures would work better . Comments or suggestions: Results:pf Responses to Question #17: One system (33) Two systems ( 2) No response (10) Note - No comments. Question £18: Please describe what you may have experienced as political problems associated with having a single integrated planning process for both institutions: Results of Responses to Question # 18: Note - No comments. 109 Question £19: In a multi-campus planning structure it is important that each campus be able to address its own needs: to write goals and objectives that help solve its own problems. Do you think (please check one) that the present structure allows this to occur , or that it does not adequately allow this to occur ? Comments or suggestions: Results of Responses to Question #19: Does occur (32) Does not occur ( 2) No response (11) Note - No comments. Question £20: Please explain ways that you think the planning process could be used to help bring the two colleges closer together: Resultspof Responses to Question # 20: Suggestions included: A. More contact between Component Directors and Component Leaders. 8. More meetings. C. More inter-campus contact of Component Leaders. D. Don't believe they should be closer together. (mentioned four times) Question £21: The most important value of long-range planning is: Rssults of Responsss to Question £ 2 : Some observations were: A. Sharing of ideas for solving problems. 8. Being creative. C. Borrowing ideas from other campuses. D. Forces people to engage in self-assessment that otherwise wouldn't occur. E. Forces setting of goals and directions, forces critical analysis, and helps people focus on tasks. F. Assists in the accreditation process. G. Provides a method of getting participants involved in goal setting and decision-making. 110 Question £22: The most difficult thing about long-range planning is: 8811 8 es onses t uestion 22: Some observations were: A. B. C. Coordinating schedules to be able to meet. Getting people to realize that it is important and should be a natural part of their jobs instead of something extra. Not getting administrative support, because some bosses see it as taking time away from jobs that need to be done. No follow through after goals are set - a feeling of "There I'm done!". Question £2}: The most needed change in the long-range planning structure/process is: Results oflResponsss to Question #23: Comments included: A. B. C. D. E. Need formal feedback on results - goals that are achieved. More commitment from Component Directors. More support from managers. Forced inter-campus contact. Establishing more trust. Question £24: The best idea for the next planning workshop or seminar would be: Results of Responsss to Qusstion # 24: Comments included: Set up a single meeting of all Campus Component Leaders with their Component Directors. To assess the best and worst of last year's planning process, to share the results of the survey with everyone. Techniques of data collection. How to develop a planning work schedule (time management). 111 Question £35: Please make any other observations or suggestions that could be helpful: Rssults of Responses to Question #25: Suggestions were: A. Involve Board of Trustees at all planning levels. 8. Suggestion plan with cash incentives. Summaty of Survey Responses The following findings were judged to be important and contributed to the list of questions that were prepared for the panel of experts in the second assessment procedure that will follow: 1. A large majority of respondents thought no changes should be made in the eight components. 2. A large majority thought five strengths and five weaknesses was an appropriate number. 3. Most thought all strengths and weaknesses should be determined by individuals working within each component. However, many also indicated that others from outside each component should participate in each component's assessment process. 4. A large majority indicated that the number of goals to be determined by each component should remain at three. 5. Although most indicated that there was broad-based participation in the assessment process, many did not feel the participation was as broad as it should be. 112 10. 11. 12. 13. Half of the respondents indicated that campus plans were shared with all campus personnel and half indicated they were not. This leaves plenty of room for improvement on some campuses. Most said they believed there was a connection between campus planning and the allocation of resources - that budgeting was appropriately related to planning activities. The planning participants seem unsure to what extent campus Component Leaders ought to be accountable to the Component Directors. Half thought they should be and half thought they should not be. Most participants find data collection to be the most difficult planning activity. A large majority believe the annual planning cycles begin and end at appropriate times. A large majority indicated that the planning structure/process was working effectively. Many clearly indicated there was not enough communication between the Component Directors and the campus Component Leaders. Although many felt the planning process was facilitating the exchange of ideas and information between the two colleges, many also indicated that much more should occur. 113 14. Almost all the planning participants had a good understanding of the planning process. 15. Most indicated that an integrated planning process for the two institutions should continue. 16. Most believed the planning process enabled each campus to adequately focus on its own needs - rather than putting too much emphasis on system needs. Second Assessment - Interviews with Panel of Experts The methodology of the study next called for a review of the initial model by a panel of experts from outside the institutions. The panel of experts also reviewed the results of the survey distributed to the planning participants. The group of experts consisted of five members, each selected on the basis of his/her experience with institutions having multi-unit or multi-campus planning structures or with institutions having been involved with mergers or consolidations. A list of the members of the panel is presented in appendix G. Each expert was interviewed individually and asked the following questions: 1. Do you have any suggestions for changes in the component areas? 114 2. What is the most appropriate number of strengths and weaknesses to be determined by each component during a planning cycle? 3. Do you think it would be beneficial to attempt to solicit outside views while those within a component are assessing strengths and weaknesses? If so, do you have any suggestions for a process to solicit outside views? 4. What is the most appropriate number of goals to be written by each component during a planning cycle? 5. Do you have any suggestions for methods or procedures that would make the planning process more participatory? 6. Do you have any suggestions for techniques that could be used to better share the planning results with all the personnel on each campus? 7. Do you have any thoughts about the relationship between planning and budgeting? 8. To what degree should the Campus Component Leaders be accountable to the Component Directors? 9. Do you have any suggestions about how to simplify or improve the data collection process? 115 10. How can the Cabinet Members (Component Directors) be encouraged to exert more leadership in the planning process? 11. Do you have any suggestions for ways to increase the communication between the Component Directors and their Campus Component Leaders? 12. Do you have any suggestions about how the planning process could be used to provide additional opportunities for exchanging information and ideas between the two institutions? 13. Do you see any benefits that could be derived from having separate planning structures for the two institutions? 14. What can be done to make the planning personnel more comfortable with the process and to alleviate any possible feelings of distrust resulting from the merger? 15. Do you have any suggestions about how the planning process could be used to improve relations between the two colleges? 16. Do you have any other comments or suggestions about the planning structure/process? 116 A synopsis of the interviews and responses is presented in the following section. In discussing responses to questions, experts were referred to as Expert A, B, C, D, and E. use 0 One: Do you have any suggestions for changes in the component areas? Expert A: Expert A observed that Enrollment appeared to be the only component that was external, that looked outside the system. It is necessary to occasionally view the issues related to each component from an "unconventional point of view”, and this point of view can only come from outside the institutions. Expert A also commented that this internal focus prevents the planning structure/process from being as "strategic" as a multi-campus, multi-institutional planning model should be. Expert A suggested that another component could be added, a component that would be totally "strategic" in nature. This component could be designed for the unique purpose of assisting the other components to become more focused on outside influences. Expert B: Expert 8 had no suggestions for changes in the components. 117 Expert C: Expert C thought there should be a component that focuses only on physical facilities, and then linked in some way to resource development. Expert C also liked the suggestion from the survey to establish an ”auxiliary enterprises" component. Expert C also indicated that consideration should be given to establishing a component to focus on outside services provided to the institutions. Finally, Expert C suggested that admissions and marketing should not be in the same component, that they are very different functions. Expert D: Expert D had no suggestions for changes in the components. Expert E: Expert E had no specific suggestions for changes in the components but observed that there appeared to be no connecting link between the components. It was suggested that the components should be structured so that there are interrelationships between the components and some overall institutional objectives. Question Two: What is the most appropriate number of strengths and weaknesses to be determined by each component during a planning cycle? 118 Expert A: Expert A indicated that requiring five of each is appropriate, and added that it is a good idea to have a fixed number of strengths and weaknesses during the first couple of planning cycles because it makes people more comfortable and confident when they have very specific directions to follow. As they become more confident, having a fixed number would become insignificant because they would become better able to focus on the relative importance of issues without direction Expert A suggested that planners need to be encouraged to differentiate between strengths and what might be considered as ”emerging strengths", those strengths that might become increasingly significant in the future because of present conditions. Expert 8: Expert 8 thought five strengths and weaknesses was an appropriate number, but like Expert A, thought that in time an exact number would become insignificant. Expert C: Expert C had no opinion on the number of strengths and weaknesses that would be most appropriate, but did strongly suggest that the term "weaknesses" be changed to ”concerns". There is the danger that the term "weakness" implies that someone is not doing a good job, that for some the term relates to performance rather than conditions. The term 119 "concerns" would also parallel the terminology used in assessment for accreditation purposes. Expert D: Expert D felt the present number is appropriate, but added that maybe newer components should be encouraged to do more . Expert E: Expert E liked the idea of using a range, for example three to five. Using a single number could make it too easy for some components and and cause difficulties for others. Expert E also suggested changing the term ”weaknesses" to ”concerns". Question Three: Do you think it would be beneficial to attempt to solicit outside views while those within a component are assessing strengths and weaknesses? If so, do you have any suggestions for a process to solicit outside views? Expert A: Expert A thought it was very important to get outside views when determining strengths and weaknesses. Expert A agreed with many of the comments made by the participants that outside views can be more objective and can provide perspectives that would otherwise be missing. Expert A indicated that there can be confusion about what the term "outside" means: some may view it as outside the component, some as being outside the specific campus location, and some as outside the college or system. 120 According to Expert A it is very important that everyone understands what "outside" means and it is also very important who decides which outsiders will be allowed to participate in the assessment process. People need to feel that the outsiders are qualified to make judgments about a component's strengths and weaknesses. They should be in positions where they are significantly related to the activities of the component they are judging. If those within the component have the opportunity to choose the outsiders, then it becomes difficult to reject the outsider's views. To some degree then, those within a component must be willing to assume some degree of risk when looking outside for others' opinions. Expert A also commented that if outsiders are going to be involved in the assessment process it becomes very important to have missions established for the components. The missions then become the basis for the judgments. Finally, Expert A added that if outside assessment occurs, it should add relevance and meaning to the component's assessment, and also tend to validate the opinions of those working within the component. Expert 8: Expert 8 believes it is very important to get outside views when assessing component strengths and weaknesses. Expert 8 liked the suggestion of having each campus component leader assess the strengths and weaknesses of each 121 of the other components on his/her campus. They should agree ahead of time how this would be done. Expert 8 also thought that maybe campus leaders could develop a method of inter— campus assessment. Expert C: Expert C thought there definately should be outside views when doing assessment, and that one of the best ways is to get peer reviews from colleagues in similar institutions. Expert C also indicated that there are models that have been developed for this purpose. Expert D: Expert D felt it was essential to get outside views, as this is the only way to be sure that effective criticism takes place. Major issues are more likely to be discovered by a combination of inside and outside views. Expert D suggested that questionnairs could be written by those within a component and then distributed to others for responses. Those others should be people that are somehow classified as "customers" of components, like students would be for the Academic Affairs component. Expert E: Expert E also thought that outside views should be used. One suggestion was to develop some overall assessment instruments that could be used every year or two, and then share the results with all components for use in their 122 specific areas. Each component should play a role in determining the questions that would be used on the survey instruments. Question Pour: What is the most appropriate number of goals to be written by each component during a planning cycle? Expert A: Expert A made the same observations here as in question two. As the planners become more experienced and sophisticated the numerical benchmark will become less important. However, for the first couple of planning cycles it is helpful to require a specific number. This prevents some from having the feeling that they are preparing too few goals, or somehow not doing their fair share. Expert 8: Expert B thought that "3 - 5" is a good number. Expert C: Expert C thought that three was probably about right, but that maybe newer or less developed components should be asked to do more. Expert D: Expert D felt the number of goals should be influenced by their complexity. For example, if one or two goals require a very large number of related objectives, then a fewer number of goals would be appropriate, and conversely if the goals are simple and don't require very 123 many related objectives, then a larger number of goals would be more appropriate. Expert E: For goals and objectives, Expert E also preferred that a range be used, with a lower limit of three, and no upper limit. ststion Five: Do you have any suggestions for methods or procedures that would make the planning process more participatory? Expert A: Expert A felt it was very important that as many people as possible participate in the assessment process for each component. Everyone would feel as if they "own" the strengths, weaknesses, goals and objectives. Expert A had no specific suggestions for increasing participation, but indicated that the Campus Component Leaders should make everyone involved know exactly what his/her expectations were relative to the extent of their participation in the assessment process. Expert 8: Expert 8 believes that many effective managers do not routinely excercise a participative style of management, and by forcing them to be more participative they actually become less effective. To prevent this, one suggestion was to have managers actually do their own assessment, but then have the others within the component react to the results by agreeing, not agreeing, and offering other suggestions. 124 In this way the manager can do the bulk of the work, but others would not feel left out of the process. Another suggestion would be to make sure Component Leaders start the assessment process as early in the planning cycle as possible, so that getting others to participate would not slow the process down. Another suggestion was to have the campus Component Leader assign someone in the component the responsibility of doing all the writing associated with the planning process. Many people like to participate but don't like to write. Expert C: Expert C believes it is necessary to systematize the process and make it as formal as possible, even to the extent that everyone working in each component area be required to provide input, and to document the results by including the signatures of all participants. Only by formalizing the entire process can participation be assured. Expert D: Like the others, Expert D indicated that the key to getting more participation is to require many face-to-face contacts. Expert E: Expert E suggested developing staff development programs for planning personnel to teach them what participation really means. This could be done by an outside resource or perhaps by the Director of Planning. 125 Through such a workshop the planning staff could be taught how a participative planning process would benefit both the individuals and the institution. ststion Six: Do you have any suggestions for techniques that could be used to better share the planning results with all the personnel on each campus? Expert A: Expert A felt there should be as much communication of the planning results as possible on each campus. Expert A agreed that any of the suggestions made by the participants could assist in increasing the level of communications and suggested that the methods of communication should be decided by the Campus Coordinator on each campus. Each Campus Coordinator could be challenged to find the most appropriate methods of communications, those best suiting the unique conditions existing at each campus. As effective methods are discovered, they could be shared with other Campus Coordinators. Expert 8: Expert B believes that every employee at a campus should get a c0py of the annual campus plan, as well as placing copies in the library. Even if many didn't read it, it would send a message that the planning process is important and taken seriously. Also it would make everyone receiving a personal copy feel important. It also would force the writers to be concise. 126 Expert C: Expert C suggested that "brown bag" lunches be organized within work groups to share the annual plans. An interesting idea would be to print the campus strengths, weaknesses, and goals on place-cards to be used for the lunches. Expert D: Expert D indicated that the planning results should be prepared in as many different modes and formats as possible, such as in written form, expressed orally in meetings, and shared during workshops and seminars. Expert E: Expert E suggested that the Campus Coordinator on each campus be responsible for determining his/her respective communications plan, and be responsible for implementing the plan. ststion Seven: Do you have any thoughts about the relationship between planning and budgeting? Expert A: Expert A said that the positive response to this question by the participants was very good. It indicated that they at least perceive that there is a positive response to their resource needs. Expert B: Expert 8 believes that planning and budgeting must be linked. 127 Expert C: Expert C also stated that it is essential that planning and budgeting be combined into a single process. It was also suggested that a budget committee could be created that reports to the President's Cabinet, solely for the purpose of budgeting for the goals and objectives that are determined through the planning process. Expert D: Expert D suggested that budgets specifically indicate changes that occurred as a result of planning activities, which resources have been added, deleted, or in any other way changed. Expert E: Expert E had no suggestions or observations. Question Pigh : To what degree should the Campus Component Leaders be accountable to the Component Directors? Expert A: Expert A said that regardless of how the planning structure and management structure might be related, it is very important that authority and responsibility be linked. Campus Component Leaders should in some way be held accountable for results by the Component Directors. Expert 8: Expert 8 believes that the campus Component Leaders ‘must be formally accountable to the Component Directors. 128 Even though it violate unity of command, they should report to two bosses, one on the home campus and one for planning purposes. Expert C: Expert C indicated that the Component Directors should be responsible for establishing policies and procedures for the Campus Component Leaders to follow, and that the Component Leaders should then be accountable to follow them. The ”content” accountability could remain with the managers on each campus, but the accountability for following planning ”policies and procedures" would be directly to the Component Directors. Expert D: Expert D believes that the Campus Component Leaders should be accountable to the Component Directors and that the Component Directors should be accountable to the President. The Director of Planning should be the facilitator of the process. Expert E: Expert E believes that the planning process and the management process should be combined so that there is no need for Campus Component Leaders to have two bosses. The ‘management staff should be centralized and formally responsible for the planning activities at each campus. 129 ststion Nine: Do you have any suggestions about how to simplify or improve the data collection process? Expert A: Expert A indicated that it would be a good idea to provide institutional assistance in the data collection process. There is value in having all components assessing strengths and weaknesses from the same data. This could be accomplished by creating a single office or department designed to publish an annual "data book", containing all the information needed by the components. This could be done on each campus or by each college, or possibly even for the whole system if similar policies, procedures and practices are adopted. Expert 8: Expert B indicated, as did Expert A, that in a multi- campus planning structure there must be centralized data collection. A single office should have the responsibility for developing an annual collection of data that all locations and components would use. Everyone would be assessing strengths and weaknesses from the same data, at least some of it. This not only removes the difficult task of data collection from the campus Leaders, but also enables the institution to make the process much more strategic, by looking outside the institution. 130 Expert C: Expert C pointed out that it is important that the data collection process require the collection of data that otherwise would be needed to be collected in a normal and routine manner. Data collection must be tied to regular working responsibilities, otherwise it will be resisted. Expert C also suggested that it would be a good idea to centralize all data collection into a single office. It is likely that this will be essential for accreditation purposes in the near future. Expert D: Expert D feels that all data collection should be centralized in a single office, providing service to all the components at all the locations. This same office should be responsible for making the planning process strategic. This could be done in part by engaging in "environmental scanning" in all appropriate locations. Expert E: Like the others, Expert E believes the system needs a centralized office to collect data. This office, in turn, should be responsible for converting raw data into useful information and then distribute this information to all the planners and managers at each campus. Question Ten: How can the Cabinet Members (Component Directors) be encouraged to exert more leadership in the planning process? 131 Expert A: Expert A indicated that the Component Directors have to be convinced that they are perceived as planning role models. The Campus Component Leaders will likely place no more importance on planning activities than do the Component Directors. Expert 8: Expert 8 believes that the Component Leaders should have their planning activities tied to the budget, that they should each be budgeted a specific amount of money for travel, meetings, etc., with the expectation that it will all be spent. This money should be used for travel to branch campuses, for meetings, etc. Hopefully this would force face-to-face meetings for planning activities. Expert C: Expert C indicated that the key to getting effective leadership from the Cabinent members (the Component Directors), is for the President to require it. The President is the only one that can make this happen, not the Director of Planning. It should be made a requirement of all positions held by the Cabinet members and be included in their job descriptions. Unless the President makes planning a top priority and requires the others to take it seriously, it will continue to be a difficult task to get sufficient leadership from Cabinet members. 132 Expert D: Expert D indicated that effective leadership from the Component Directors won't occur unless there is effective leadership from the President. They must be convinced that planning is an important part of their jobs. Expert E: Expert E had no suggestions. Question Eleven: Do you have any suggestions for ways to increase the communication between the Component Directors and their Campus Component Leaders? Expert A: Expert A had no specific advice for increasing communications, but stressed again that if the Component Directors are sufficiently committed to the process, then adequate and necessary communications should follow. Expert B: Expert 8 again stressed that linking activities with the budget could be effective. One suggestion was to actually have the Component Directors meet with the Campus Leaders to decide how much should be asked for in the budget, and to decide how the money could be effectively used. Expert C: As in question ten, Expert C again indicated that the President must take a strong leadership role to get effective communication to take place 133 Expert D: Expert D suggested that joint meetings and workshops be held to "target" the needs of different levels of workers within the components on each campus, such as faculty, staff, and administrators. Expert E: Expert E suggested that it is not uncommon for top managers not to be interested in long-range planning. To overcome this problem it could be possible for much of the detailed planning work to be delegated to other staff. The top managers would only be responsible for assessing the data and setting goals and suggestions. Question Twelve: Do you have any suggestions about how the planning process could be used to provide additional opportunities for exchanging information and ideas between the two institutions? Expert A: Expert A had no suggestions. Expert B: Expert 8 had no specific suggestions, but stressed that people must have frequent face-to-face contacts, as this is the most effective way for people to exchange ideas. Expert C: Expert C suggested that the President should make regular visits to each campus and hold open meetings with the faculty and staff. This would provide employees an 134 opportunity to ask questions, to raise issues, and to make the President aware of how the merger is working from all perspectives. Expert D: Expert D had no suggestions. Expert E: Expert E had no suggestions, but commented that it appeared that a reasonable amount of exchanging was already taking place. Question Thirteen: Do you see any benefits that could be derived from having separate planning structures for the two institutions? Expert A: Expert A indicated that it was necessary to take the cue from the participants, and it appears that the vast majority of the participants feel it is appropriate to keep the colleges combined into one planning structure. If the combined process is continued, it is important to improve communications between all the campuses. Expert 8: Expert 8 sees no reason to have separate structures and processes . EXpert C: Expert C indicated that one system should be used 'xnless it appears that the two institutions have different missions . 135 Expert D: Expert D saw no reason to create two structures. Expert E: Expert E also saw no reason to create two structures. Question Fourteen: What can be done to make the planning personnel more comfortable with the planning process and to alleviate any possible feelings of distrust resulting from the merger? Expert A: Expert A expressed no specific suggestions. Most likely any feelings of distrust will diminish over time. Expert 8: Expert 8 believes that this will take some time, but stressed that people are most comfortable with people they know and trust. It is critical that the planners know the Component Directors, that an unknown, faceless administrator somewhere isn't judging their planning efforts. Expert 8 thinks they will feel more comfortable as they become more secure in their positions. Expert C: Expert C indicated that good planning can't take place in an environment where fear and confrontation are present. People can't be put in a position where there is a 136 possibility they will look bad in front of their peers. People must feel secure and comfortable before they will be willing to take the risks that should be associated with effective planning. Good planning can only take place in a relatively stable environment. Expert D: Expert D indicated that the President and the Cabinet members should provide as much information as possible to everyone throughout the institution. Expert E: Expert E observed that it may just take some time for things to settle down sufficiently for everyone to feel comfortable. In the meantime it is important to just keep moving ahead, involving as many people as possible, until eventually trusting relationships will have been built up and people will feel more comfortable and secure. ues on F fteen: Do you have any suggestions about how the planning process could be used to improve relations between the two colleges? Expert A: Expert A had no suggestions. Expert 8: Expert 8 thinks that the planning process could be used to identify a common enemy of both colleges. This enemy Could take the form of a piece of proposed legislation, or JPerhaps something happening in another institution. A group 137 process could then be used to address the problem. In the process the participants will become closer and develop a common respect for each other. Expert 8 believes the key to improved relations is the role that the President plays. The President should meet with the staffs at each campus regularly to explain the progress that is being made and just to listen to what people are thinking and to answer their questions. Relations will not improve as quickly if this task is delegated. Expert C: Expert C believes the key is to get the narrow views of each campus somehow integrated into the broader arena of system-wide planning. In this way people on each campus will come to believe their concerns are of sufficient significance to be important to the Cabinet members, that they really are a part of something bigger. Expert D: Expert D had no suggestions. Expert E: Expert E had no suggestions. ues o Sixteen: Do you have any other comments or suggestions about the planning structure/process? Expert A: Expert A suggested that when components are listing Strengths and weaknesses as part of the assessment process, 138 that they also list "opportunities" and "threats". These could then be incorporated into the goal statements. Expert 8: Expert 8 had no other comments or suggestions. Expert C: Expert C stressed that the key to effective multi- campus planning is to have as many face-to-face meetings as possible among the participants at all locations. The farther people feel they are from the ”source", the more fear and distrust there will be. Expert C also suggested that consideration could be given to a different planning approach that sometimes works effectively at complex, multi-campus institutions. That method is to take a more centralized, professional approach to planning. Instead of attempting to get system-wide participation, a small group of professional planners could be used to provide planning services to the management at each campus and to the President's Cabinet. Expert D: Expert D suggested that a system be established to periodically evaluate the relevance of the components, so that they can be deleted and established as needed. Expert E: Expert E was confused by the titles used for the Planning personnel. 139 SummarY,of Observations by Panel of Experts Following is a list of the major observations made by the members of the panel of experts. These observations contributed to the development of suggestions to be included in the follow-up survey to the planning participants. 1. Some felt the initial planning model did not provide enough opportunity for obtaining points of view from outside the institutions - that the process was not strategic enough. Most observed that requiring fixed numbers of strengths, weaknesses, and goals would not be necessary after the process had been used for two or three years. Two members of the panel made the suggestion to change the term "weaknesses" to ”concerns". All five panel members thought it was very important to get outside views while engaging in the assessment of component strengths and weaknesses. Some also stressed that consensus is an important consideration in deciding how outside views should be solicited. There was a common position among the panel members that planning should be as broadly based and participative as possible. Most indicated that many more face-to-face meetings of personnel from all the campuses should be forced as a means to increase inter-campus communication. 140 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. It was stressed that the campus Coordinators should play a major role in facilitating the sharing of campus plans. A suggestion was made to find a way to get more assistance for the Component Directors, so they could spend more time visiting the campuses. There were many suggestions for sharing planning results, but the most common was to place copies in each campus library. All the experts felt that campus Component Leaders should be more formally accountable to the Component Directors. Every expert suggested that the data collection process be centralized into a single office, with that office becoming a planning service center for all campuses. All experts agreed that a single integrated planning structure, with centralized leadership, should be used for both institutions. They should not have separate processes. It was observed that a formalized planning process can be a useful tool to enhance the merger process between the two institutions. Planning personnel need to feel comfortable and secure in their regular jobs before they will take their planning responsibilities seriously. 141 Third Assessment - Nortn Central Evaluation of Detroit College The third assessment of the planning model also came from outside the institutions. In the Rationale section of Chapter III there was a description of the shortcomings of the planning structure at Detroit College. Those problems were outlined in a report written by the members of the North Central accreditation team that visited Detroit College in 1983. It was indicated that another team would visit Detroit College in 1986 to evaluate progress in the planning procedures, as well as in other areas. The initial planning model described in Chapter IV had been developed and was put in place when the team made the visit to Detroit College in May of 1986. The visit of this team provided an opportunity to get a very valuable evaluation of the planning model from a second set of experts from outside the institutions. In its report to the North Central Commission on Institutions of Higher Education, the team stated that: Even though planning may have been episodic in the past, the team witnessed commitment to the rather new planning process. The team reviewed campus plans at Dearborn, Madison Heights, and Flint. These plans appear to be consistent with the overall Detroit College of Business mission and future direction. These plans also appear to be in unison with the opportunities created by the merger with Davenport College. (p. 20) The team added that: Clearly at the time of the visit, there is evidence that a system now exists to allow for a continuous cycle of establishing goals, refining these 142 goals when needed, and replacing accomplished with new ones. The college should be commended for their recent efforts in activating a system-wide Detroit College and Davenport College planning structure. It is clear to the team that the college is committed to the planning process and allocating resources accordingly so that individuals have opportunities to contribute to the future of their college. (p. 20) The team concluded its remarks on planning by offering advice to the institution about one possible change in the planning structure. The advice was: A consolidation of an emphasis on the responsibility of institutional research at this college might well be considered for the future. Even though a commitment to planning and research exists, the college may wish to consider the creation of an institutional research office providing additional elements and configurations of information for decision-making. (p. 21) Summary of the North Central Evaluation The team found the planning process to be a significant improvement over what the earlier team discovered in 1983. Their suggestion was similar to one made by many of the members of the panel of experts and one that was later included in the suggestions to the planning participants in the follow-up survey. The suggestion was agreed upon in the survey and resulted in one of the most significant changes in the revised planning model. The comments made by the North Central team were especially significant because they provided another source of suggestions to add to the suggestions made by the panel 'of experts. In fact, the advice and suggestions offered by ‘the North Central team was the same as some of those offered by the panel of experts. 143 Fourth Assessment - Follow-up Survey of Planning Participants The next step in the research methodology called for a follow-up survey with the planning participants to determine the extent of consensus relative to a list of suggestions for modifications to the planning model. The suggestions came from the results of the first survey of the participants and from the results of the interviews with the panel of experts. In addition, the suggestions offered by the North Central accreditation team described above were included in the follow-up survey. Following is a list of the thirty-five questions in the follow-up survey, an average score for each question, and an indication where each question ranked in consensus from among the total list. An average score above 3 indicates that, on average, the respondents disagree with the suggestion. An average score below 3 indicates that, on average, there is agreement with the suggestion. The lower the score, the more agreement with the suggestion: the higher the score, the less the agreement with the suggestion. The ranking is from #1 (the question with the most agreement) to #35 (the question with the least agreement). The questions appear in the order they were answered by the respondents, and grouped according to similar issues. 144 The participants were asked to score each question on a scale from one to five as follows: Score (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Extent of Agteement yithssuggestion You strongly agree with the suggestion You sgtss with the suggestion You are neutral You disagree with the suggestion You strongly disagres with the suggestion The instructions to the participants are included in appendix H. The follow-up survey was distributed to basically the same participants that received the first survey. Because of a few changes in personnel between the surveys, only 40 of the original 45 participants received ‘the follow-up survey. In the first survey the respondents ‘vere identified. In the follow-up survey the respondents Vwere asked to remain anonymous and were given the freedom to Choose to respond to the survey. Twenty nine participants responded to the follow-up survey. SECNDRE RANK 3.17 18 3.34 26 3.21 21 SUGGESTIONS - COMPONENTS 1. Create a new component to look at all non-credit educational programs. 2. Create a new component to look at marketing (separate from what is done in the enrollment component). 3. Break up the academic affairs component into smaller units: for example into degrees or into major disciplines. 145 2.90 14 3.24 22 SCORE RANK 2.52 11 2.59 13 3.34 26 3.38 30 1.83 1 3.28 23 3.72 34 SCORE RANK 4.28 35 3.31 24 3.17 18 Create a component to look solely at physical facilities. Create a component that would do nothing but engage in "environmental scanning" for all the other components. ("environmental scanning" involves looking outside the institution for external influences). SUGGESTIONS - STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES 6. 10. 11. 12. Instead of requiring 5 strengths and 5 weaknesses, instruct component leaders to determine "no more than 5" strengths and weaknesses. Instruct component leaders to determine "from 3 to 5" strengths and weaknesses. Designate no number at all, allowing everyone to determine the appropriate number of strengths and weaknesses. Continue to use the present requirement of 5 strengths and 5 weaknesses. Change the term "weaknesses" to "concerns". Use two categories of strengths and weaknesses: (A) continuing strengths and emerging strengths and (B) continuing weaknesses and emerging weaknesses. In addition to determining strengths and weaknesses, have each component determine "threats" and "opportunities". SUGGESTIONS - GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 13. 14. 15. Instead of requiring 3 goals from each component, increase it to 5. Instruct component leaders to develop "from 3 to 5" goals. Designate no number at all, allowing everyone to determine the appropriate number of goals. 146 3.32 25 3.50 32 3.36 28 3.36 28 3.39 31 2.34 5 SCOR RANK 2.14 2 3.04 15 2.43 6 2.43 6 16. Continue to use the present requirement of 3 goals. SUGGESTIONS - ASSESSMENT 17. Have each campus component leader participate in the assessment of strengths and weaknesses for every other component on his/her campus. 18. Have each campus component leader develop an assessment survey and distribute it to all personnel on his/her campus for input. 19. Have each campus component leader develop an assessment survey and distribute it to a predetermined group of individuals on his/her campus. 20. Have each campus component leader participate in the assessment within his/her component on each of the other campuses. 21. Develop a method of getting input from colleagues at other institutions. 22. Have the Director of Planning develop assessment instruments to be used consistently across all campuses. SUGGESTIONS - COMMUNICATION OF PLANS 23. Make the Campus Coordinator responsible for determining the "best" method on each campus for sharing the results of the annual campus plan. 24. Distribute a copy of the annual campus plan to every employee at that campus. 25. Place copies of each campus plan in the campus library and notify everyone that they are available. 26. Place copies of each annual system-level plan in the libraries at every campus and notify everyone that they are available. 147 3.18 20 SCOR RANK 2.50 10 3.61 33 2.55 12 SCORE RANK 2.28 3 2.43 6 2.29 4 3.14 17 3.11 16 27. 28. 29. 30. Have each campus hold a workshop with all campus personnel each year to go over the annual campus plan. SUGGESTIONS - INTER-CAMPUS PARTICIPATION Have each Component Director hold joint regularly scheduled meetings with all campus Component Leaders. Have campus Component Leaders work together to develop a "component newsletter" to be regularly distributed to all personnel working within that component. Schedule regular fall meetings of all campus Component Leaders to establish common data collection activities each year. SUGGESTIONS - DATA COLLECTION 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. Create a centralized office to engage in institutional research and perform the data collection function for each campus component area (the components would still be responsible for doing their own assessment of the data). Centralize data collection to ensure that campus components are engaging in assessment from common data sources. Centralize data collection so that institutional reporting to external agencies (accrediting bodies, governmental agencies, etc.) could be integrated with the planning process. Continue to have Component Directors and campus Component Leaders totally responsible for their own data collection activities. Hold regular workshops during the early stages of each planning cycle to provide data collection suggestions for campus Component Leaders. 148 Summary of Follow-Up Surysv Rssponsss The next section of this chapter will specifically address the results of the survey as they relate to recommendations for changes in the initial planning model. See table 5.1 for a list of the follow-up survey items based on degree of consensus. Table 5.1 Follow-Up Survey Items Ranked by Consensus of Agreement Rank Score Question 1 1.83 10 2 2.14 23 3 2.28 31 4 2.29 33 5 2.34 22 6 2.43 25 6 2.43 26 6 2.43 32 9 2.45 16 10 2.50 28 ll 2.52 6 12 2.55 30 13 2.59 7 14 2.90 4 15 3.04 24 16 3.11 35 17 3.14 34 18 3.17 15 18 3.17 l 20 3.18 27 21 3.21 3 22 3.24 5 23 3.28 11 24 3.31 14 25 3.32 17 26 3.34 8 26 3.34 2 28 3.36 19 28 3.36 20 30 3.38 9 31 3.39 21 32 3.50 18 33 3.61 29 34 3.72 12 35 4.28 13 149 Recommendations for Changes in the Initial Planning Model Following is a list in order of the ten suggestions with the highest degree of agreement by the planning participants in the follow-up survey: Following each item is a recommendation relative to changing the initial planning model. RANK 1 - Change the term "weaknesses" to "concerns". This change should be made. It was recommended by several of the experts and has the highest degree of support by the participants. The term ”concerns" is consistent with the term used by regional accrediting agencies relative to institutional assessment. Some participants also indicated that they feel the term "weakness" implies poor performance rather than an area that may simply need attention. RANK 2 - Make the Campus Coordinator responsible for determining the "best" method on each campus for sharing the results of the annual campus plan. This change should be made. Actually this is not really a major change. The original model called for the Campus Coordinator to play a major role in communicating the results of the campus plan on his/her campus, but because they weren't sure how to best do it, it didn't always get done. What is needed is for the Director of Planning to 150 give the Campus Coordinators more direction in determining what the "best" method on each campus might be. The effective methods are unique on each campus because each campus has its own set of conditions and problems. RANK 3 - Create a centralized office to engage in institutional research and perform the data collection function for each campus component area (the components would still be responsible for doing their own assessment of the data). Even though this suggestion requires a major modification to the planning model, this change should be made. During every stage of the assessment of the planning model this issue surfaced as a major concern of the planning participants. They generally find data collection to be difficult and time consuming. Every member of the panel of experts suggested that the data collection process should be centralized into one office. This suggestion seems especially appropriate for multi-campus institutions because it would enable system-level planners to make comparisons among the campuses. Another advantage of this approach is that the campus Component Leaders would be able to spend more of their time assessing data rather than collecting it. 151 RANK RANK 4 5 Centralize data collection so that institutional reporting to external agencies (accrediting bodies, governmental agencies, etc.) could be integrated with the planning process. This suggestion is very closely related to the previous one. Some members of the panel of experts indicated that this would be another benefit of centralizing the data collection process. The results of the survey indicate that the participants agree and therefore this change should occur; To have one office performing all the data collection (relative to reporting to external agencies) for both institutions and for all campuses not only is efficient but it also would provide data that could be used for planning purposes. - Have the Director of Planning develop assessment instruments to be used consistently across all campuses. This change should also be made, In the first survey of the planning participants the majority of respondents indicated that they preferred to have the assessment of data done only by those working within each component. In contrast, all of the members of the panel of experts indicated that assessment should include views of employees working outside the components. At the same time they added that finding acceptable ways of doing this is difficult. They were right. None of the 152 specific suggestions for getting outside views on the second survey received any degree of agreement. But at the same time the suggestion of having the Director of Planning determine assessment methods was met with significant agreement. RANK £6 - Centralize data collection to ensure that campus components are engaging in assessment from common data sources. Like the items above ranked as #3, #4, and #5, this suggestion again deals with the issues of centralizing the data collection process and developing procedures for using common data for consistent assessment across campuses. A centralized office charged with the responsibility of conducting institutional research would naturally provide information to all campuses that would guarantee assessment from common sources, and therefore as a part of the items above tnis_ suggestion should be integrated into the planningl model. RANR £7 - (This item's score tied with #6). Place copies of each campus plan in the campus library and notify everyone that they are available. This change should be made. Three of the suggestions made relative to the communication of campus plans were met with a high degree of 153 agreement. It is important that when plans are completed they are shared with all appropriate personnel. The participants felt this was one effective method of sharing results. RANK 8 - (This item's score also tied with #6). Place copies of each annual system-level plan in the libraries at every campus and notify everyone that they are available. This suggested change:should also be msgst After the system-level plan is written by the Component Directors in the summer it should be placed in the library of each campus. There is a tendency for planning personnel to focus on the goals and objectives that have been determined for their own campuses and not pay much attention to what is happening on other campuses. They need to be encouraged to take a broader view of the institution and view the planning process as an integrated process. RANK 9 - Continue to use the present requirement of 3 goals. This suggestion was not a change in the model: rather it was offered as the alternative to the other suggestions for changing the number of goals to be written by each component during each planning cycle. There was no agreement with the suggestions for changing the number and there was 154 RANK 10 strong agreement with leaving the requirement at three goals. The model will continue to rsguire three goals; - Have each Component Director hold joint regularly scheduled meetings with all campus Component Leaders. One of the concerns that surfaced in the first survey of the planning participants was that there was not enough inter-campus contact between the Component Directors and the campus Component Leaders. This contact is not only important from a planning perspective, it is also important because this contact is an opportunity for personnel from the two institutions to get to know each other. The natural fear and anxiety that results from mergers can only be alleviated through continued face to face contact. After time fear is replaced by trust and confidence. One of the problems with the initial model is that frequent inter-campus meetings were not possible because of the heavy work demands placed on the Component Directors. Many indicated they didn't have time to initiate sufficient multi- campus meetings. As a result, the model will be changed to requirsseach of ths Component Dirsctors to appoint ons of his/her six campus Component Leaders to function as an Assistant Component Dirsctori It will be the responsibility of this 155 Assistant to schedule and arrange the necessary inter-campus meetings, and to also chair these meetings if the Component Director can't be present. Other Recommendations for the Planning Modsi There were four other suggestions in the survey that received a score of less than three (indicating some average degree of agreement). One suggestion in the component section was to "create a component to look solely at physical facilities". This item received a score of 2.89, just barely in the agreement range. At the present time this suggested change will not be made in the model, Instead, the Business Affairs Component Directors will be encouraged to create a sub-section within that area to focus on physical facilities. This suggestion will then again be included in a subsequent survey to determine the extent of agreement. There were two suggestions in the strengths and weaknesses area that received scores below three. One was to "instruct Component Leaders to determine (no more than five) strengths and weaknesses", and the other was to "instruct Component Leaders to determine (from three to five) strengths and weaknesses. At the present time neither of these suggested changes will be made in the model. Even though the alternative suggestion to "continue to use the 156 present requirement of five strengths and five weaknesses" received a high score of 3.38 (disagreement), to change it would be inconsistent with the previous decision to keep the goal requirement at three. Some members of the panel of experts indicated that it is necessary to have more than three strengths and weaknesses to determine three goals. If goals are well written, they can cover more than one strength or weakness. Strengths and weaknesses are frequently closely related to each other. This suggestion will be included in subsequent surveys to see if the disagreement continues. The other item receiving a low score (agreement) was the suggestion to "schedule regular fall meetings of all campus Component Leaders to establish common data collection activities each year." Because the suggestion to centralize the data collection activity will be incorporated into the model, it will not be necessary for Component Leaders to collect data, and therefore such meetings will not be necessary. All of the other items in the survey received scores of more than three (indicating disagreement). Therefore, none of those changes will currently be made in the model. Those items receiving scores of close to three will, however, be included in the next survey. The reader is referred to Appendix I for a description of the revised planning model. 157 Summary Chapter V includes an analysis of the data collected in the four assessment procedures and a summary of the major findings for each. Specific recommendations for changes in the initial planning model are made based on the findings. Chapter VI will include A summary of the study, the major findings in the study, recommendations, and the author's reflections and conclusions. 158 CHAPTER VI SUMMARY, MAJOR FINDINGS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS The summary of the study, the major findings from the research, reflections of the researcher, and recommendations for further research are presented in this chapter. Summary of the Study The purpose of the study was to develop a long-range planning structure/process appropriate for multi-campus institutions, and to contain elements and features that would at the same time enhance the integration of newly merged institutions. The development of the model was intended for specific application in two recently merged private business colleges, each having multiple campuses. The study was conducted in five stages. The first was to review related literature to discover planning features and elements that would be most appropriate for the institutions in the study. The second stage was to design and introduce a planning structure/process to the two institutions. The process was then used for a period of time sufficient to allow the participants to judge the effectiveness of the planning model. 159 In the third stage, the model was assessed by the participants in the process. All participants were asked to complete a survey. The results of the survey served as formal feedback to the researcher and provided a number of issues to address in an attempt to make improvements in the model that would benefit the two institutions in the study. The fourth stage involved taking the issues identified by the results of the survey and sharing them with a panel of experts from outside the two institutions. The experts were introduced to the initial model and were given the results of the survey and asked to make suggestions for changes in the structure/process. The fifth stage was to take the suggestions from the panel of experts and go back to the participants to determine which of the suggestions should be used to modify the model. A list of proposed changes was developed to survey the participants and determine a ranking of the suggestions according to the degree of consensus of agreement. The study included a final list of recommended changes for the planning model based on the results of the follow-up survey of the planning participants. The study concluded with a list of major findings from the research and recommendations for further research. 160 Major Findings The previous recommendations for changes in the initial planning model presented in Chapter V were based on the feedback provided by the follow-up survey, with primary consideration being the degree of consensus indicated. The following conclusions are based on the researcher's observations subsequent to reviewing the literature, analyzing the results of all of the research methods, and functioning as the Director of Planning in the applied model. * Tns theorstical models found in the literature zsvisw providsd a solid basis for the development of the initial planning model. The literature contains a sufficient amount of planning material that can be modified and customized to serve an institution's unique needs. * e mos s n ficant su estions or cha es in the initial planning model came from outside ths institutions using the modsl. The panel of experts and the North Central evaluation team provided the suggestions that generated the highest degree of consensus among the participants in the follow-up survey. 161 The assessment methods used to syaluats ths sffectiveness_pf the planning process appear to hays successtully ptovided a means for the participants to have meaningful input into the multi-campus planning structurel These same assessment methods will be used each year to continually monitor the effectiveness of the planning model. The use of a printed planning manual for planning participantslhas proved to bs very valuablsi In a multi-institutional, multi-campus educational system there will always be constant turnover of planning participants. It is critically important to have a printed manual available for new participants that contains explanations and illustrations of the planning structures and procedures. Ins revised planning model may serve as a guide to planning in other similar multi-csmpps institutions; Every member of the panel of experts thought the model appropriately suited the special needs of a multi- campus institution and/or a multi-institution system. Good planning:pannot taksiplace in anlsnvironment where tear and confrontation are present. Following a merger, institutional managers should focus their efforts on decreasing people's natural tendencies toward fear and anxiety. People cannot be expected to work on long-range goals when they feel insecure. 162 In ordsr to accuratslylassess strengths and yeaknesses in their own work areasiand to genetats ppprppripts long-term goals and objectives. planning petsonnel must be willing to take risks. The implication of this is similar to the issue above, and that is that people must feel confident and secure in their positions before they will willingly engage in self-criticism. Even a broadly based participative planning processsnesgslplanning specialists; There are some elements of planning that are more difficult than others or that are not typically associated with positions in the institution. Planning specialists can provide needed assistance in these areas. Examples might be data collection and analysis or environmental scanning. Qns of ths'mos m ortant eatures o multi- am us lann n rocess s ths intsr-campus_sxchangs of planning tesults. It is important for each campus to have its unique identity in a system and for the other campuses to know and understand what that unique identity is. The total character of an institution is determined by the sum of the individual features of every campus. 163 he lann n rocess 5 mo e im ortant than the plsnning ptoduct, Planning activities should always focus on looking for effective methods of allocating resources, or for workable solutions to problems, etc.: rather than on finding the best methods, or the best solutions. This ensures that the planning process will continue. People tend to become committed to rational processes for seeking solutions rather than to the absolute solutions. Thets must bsgconsensus among the planning participants about ths:planninglstructurs and processes, Participants must buy into the process and believe it will provide them personal benefits as well as serve the institution. Their motives for planning must be as least partly intrinsic. Assessment within the componsnt areas should not ps done entirely py petsonnel working within those component areas; Outside views are necessary to obtain objectivity. A single integrated planning structure can help snhance the process of merging two institutions, A formalized planning process will provide a disciplined approach that will force merged institutions to create relationships. 164 * The most needed change in the initiallplanning model was to centralizs ths data collection process; This was the clearest conclusion based on all the assessment data, and the only suggestion made by the North Central accreditation team. Reflections The following reflections are observations by the researcher based on the total experience with the research study, but are not based on the analysis of the data. Therefore they are not objective findings from the research, but rather subjective conclusions from the planning experiences related to the research. * Planninglparticipants_should be rsyarded for their efforts. Not everyone in a multi-campus environment will be participating in the planning process, and those that do will not necessarily participate equally. Unless their efforts are recognized, they will be reluctant to make significant contributions over time. The planning participants in the study were given no extra compensation for their planning responsibilities. It would have been helpful if they had. 165 Planning personnel at evety campus in an institution need to be conditioned to expect that decisions_fregpently get made at the system level that appear to contradict ths_goals and objsctivss that have previously been determined at the campusglevslt Such decisions are a natural part of multi-campus dynamics, and should not be interpreted as a threat to the planning process. This also reinforces the notion that the planning process is more important than the planning product. Plans get changed, but planning goes on. Decision-makers_should always attempt to explain how thei; decisions wers influenced by the planning processes that preceeded them. This reinforces the planning process and sends messages that planning really does influence an institution's future. It also helps guard against contradictory decision-making. Multi-campus and/orsmulti-institutional planning structures are, by thei; vety nature, more complex than single-campus,planningtstructurss: therefors. it is important to dsylep andystaylwith a process as long as it continues to meet the needs of the institution. The institution should guard against constantly changing its structure as an attempt to keep up with the latest planning fads. 166 * Asgmuch as possible in a multi-campus planning structurs. thsADirector of Planning should decidsgwho thslplanning personnel will be on evsry campusA This will minimize the possibility that personnel will be selected for reasons other than those related to planning needs. Recommendations Based upon the results of the study the following recommendations are presented. * Planning structures (models) should be developed for other institutions that are formed by mergers. * Models should be developed for newly merged institutions designed specifically for the purpose of enhancing the merger process. * Additional analytical techniques and tools should be developed for the centralized management of the planning function in multi-campus institutions. 167 BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Bok, Derek. "Toward Higher Learning: The Importance of Assessing Outcomes.” Change. (November/December 1986):“ 18-27. Brown, David Wesley. "The Development of a Model for the Implementation of a Futures Planning Process for a Small College.” Ed.D. dissertation, George Peabody College for Teachers of Vanderbilt University, 1980. l/ Byron, William J. "Needed: Good Managers in Academic Divisions." Change (October 1984): 26-31. Buhler-Miko, Marina. A Trustee's Guids to Stratsgic Planning. Washington, D.C.: Higher Education Strategic Planning Institute, 1985. Cohen, Arthur M. and Brawer, Florence B. The American Community Collegs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1982. Cope, Robert G. Strategic Planning. Management, and Decision Making. AAHE-ERIC/Higher Education Research Report No. 9. 1981. Crothers, William C. "The Politics of Planning." Planningl and Management Notes College of Education, Michigan State University, No. 4-3 (10-4-76). Eble, Kennith E. Tns Art of Administration. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1983. Etzioni, Amitai. Modern Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1964. Criteria for Accreditation. Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. Atlanta: 1987. Ewell, Peter. "Assessment: What's it all About?" Qhange. (November/December 1985): 32-36. , "Assessment: Where Are We?" Change. (January/February 1987): 23-28. Guids to Selt-Stugy. North Central Association of Colleges and Schools. Chicago: 1986. 168 Hesse, Martha Lide Robertson. "The Development of a Long- Range and Strategic Planning Guide for a Large, Public University.” Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1985. Jaggers, Charles Richard. "A Strategic Planning Model for Small, Private Institutions in Higher Education." Ph.D. dissertation, Ball State University, 1985. Keller, George. Academic Strategy: The Managsment Revolution in American Higher Education. Baltimore, Md.: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983. Lahr, Leland Allen. "A Comparative Study of Long-Range Planning at Selected Independent Colleges in the State of Michigan.” Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1981. MacKinney, Arthur C. "Planning in Academic Institutions." Professional Psychologyilesearch and Practics Vol. 15, No. 5, 1984: 637-644. Mason, Thomas R. ”Institutional Research." In Efficient Collegs_Management. Edited by William W. Jellema, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1972. Peterson, Marvin W. "Analyzing Alternative Approaches to Planning." In Improving_Acadsmic Management. Edited by Paul Jedamus, Marvin Peterson, and Associates. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1980. , "In a Decade of Decline the Seven R's of Planning.” Change (May/June 1984): 42-46. "Report of a Visit to Detroit College of Business." (Dearborn, Michigan. Oct. 10-12, 1983) Commission on Institutions of Higher Education of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools. (Mimeographed.) "Report of a Visit to Detroit College of Business." (Dearborn, Michigan. May 14-16, 1986) Commission on Institutions of Higher Education of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools. (Mimeographed.) Smith, Hoke L. "Planning for the Coming Resurgence in Higher / Education." Change (September 1984): 37-41. Thrash, Patricia A. "A Report on the Role of Outcomes Evaluation in the Accreditation Process." North Csntral Association Quarterly Volume 61, No. 4 (Spring 1987): 481-489. 169 Womack, Farris W., and Podemski, Richard S. "Criteria for Effective Planning in Multi-Campus Systems." lannin for Higher Education 13.2 (Winter 1985): 1-4 General Rsferences Arth, Maurice. "Planning and Budgeting in a Period of Resource Constraint: The New Climate." Planning for Education 12 (Spring 1984): 1-8. Anderson, Robert A., Jr. ”Institutional Response through Strategic Planning." Materials presented at the Critical Issues Seminar sponsored by the American Association of Community and Junior Colleges and Tarrant County Junior College District. (Hobbs, New Mexico, 1984): (Mimeographed.) Carlisle, Fred E. ”Long-Range and Strategic Planning at Michigan State." NACUBO Business Officer. (June 1986): 30-340 Condon, George. "Planning in the Real World of Colleges and Universities.” A Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Association for Institutional Research. (Little Rock, AR. Oct. 24-26, 1984) (Mimeographed.) Cope, Robert. "A Contextual Model to Encompass the Strategic Planning Concept: Introducing a Newer Paradigm." Planning for Righer Educati n. 13.3 (Spring 1985): 13-20. Drucker, Peter. Management: TasRs. Responsibilities. and Practices. New York: Harper and Row, 1974. Goode, John. "Merging Programs, Budget and Facilities Planning." Planning {or Higher Education 12 (Spring “ 1984): l8-21. Holloway, Clark, and King, William. "Evaluating Alternative Approaches to Strategic Planning." Long-Rangs Planning 12 (August 1979): 74-78. McDowell, Elizabeth. "Planning: The Participatory Process ' Model.” A Paper Presented at the AACJC Convention, San Diego, CA. (April 14-17, 1985): (Mimeographed.) Marcus, Laurence R. and Leone, Anita O. and Goldberg, Edward D. The Path to Excellencs:sQuality Assurancs in Higher Pdusation. ASHE/ERIC Higher Education Research Report No. 1. 1983. 170 Miller, John E. ”Planning in Small Colleges." Planning for Righer Education 9 (November 1980): 25—29. Morrison, James L. and Renfro, William L. and Boucher, Wayne I. Entures Research and the Strategic Planning Process: Implicationsgfor Higher Education. ASHE/ERIC Higher Education Research Report No. 9. 1984. Powers, David R. and Powers, Mary F. Making Participatory Ranagement Wor . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1983. Sturtz, Alan J. ”Institutional Planning as a Participative Process: A Community College Self-Study." A Paper Presented at the Annual Conference of the Northeast Association for Institutional Research. (Albany, N.Y., Oct. 13, 1984): (Mimeographed.) 171 APPENDICES Appendix A DAVENPORT COLLEGE OF BUSINESS MISSION STATEMENT The fundamental purpose of Davenport College of Business is to provide specialized vocational training and general education for rewarding careers in business and related services. Under an open door policy of accepting students with high school diplomas or their equivalent and offering special academic help as needed, degree, diploma, certificate and shorter programs are offered to meet both student and community needs. In addition to providing a solid educational background for initial employment and for further growth in career fields through the Associate in Science degree, Davenport College of Business offers students desiring to continue their education an accredited Bachelor of Business Administration degree. Lifetime placement services enable graduates to fulfill their ambitions through suitable employment. Davenport College of Business anticipates, investigates, and responds educationally to the changing needs of business and the business student. Because of technological change, more sophisticated concepts, and the demand for better educated and more highly skilled employees, the College continues to revise and expand its course of study. Up-to-date equipment and facilities create an atmosphere conducive to learning and personal growth. Davenport College of Business provides both students and the 172 community a comprehensive business library and, in conjunction with the community, provides resources for student learning and research. Davenport College of Business provides a program that embraces students' total collegiate experience. Academic and educational guidance and counseling help students identify career objectives and assess their qualifications. Educational training includes a variety of academic experiences, high standards of instruction, and educational leadership, and career related, supervised work experiences through co-operative education and internship. Student services include student employment, housing, personal counseling, financial aid, bookstore services, and parking. Student activities include co-curricular organizations, extra-curricular organizations, and publications. To fulfill its historic motto, "Make a living - Make a life - Make a contribution," Davenport College of Business educates students for careers in business, provides them with opportunities for social interaction and cultural enrichment, and encourages them to be responsible, contributing members of society. 173 Appendix B DETROIT COLLEGE OF BUSINESS MISSION STATEMENT The mission of Detroit College is to educate men and women for an enriched life and a successful career in any of a number of fields in business and related services. In addition, the college prepares students to pursue and achieve advanced degrees and professional certification. Under its open-admissions policy, the college accepts students who have earned high-school diplomas or the equivalent. In addition to four-year degrees, the college offers two-year degrees, one-year diplomas, and certificates for short-term specialized programs, in both day and evening college. These degrees and certificates are offered at the main campus in Dearborn: at the extensions in Flint and Madison Heights: and at various locations in the Detroit metropolitan area. To fulfill its mission, the college concentrates primarily upon the development of practical, career-oriented programs, this assuring that the students' education will be a direct benefit to, and have a direct effect upon, their future success in the business world. For this reason, the college believes that its students are most effectively served by a faculty with varied experience and background. Therefore, the business faculty includes practicing professionals and academically-oriented instructors, a 174 combination which fosters the integration of current business practice and recent theoretical developments. Students are also required to take a wide variety of general education courses. In fact, all bachelor's-degree programs require that a minimum of one-third of a student's courses be in this area. Such courses, taught by highly- qualified personnel who are aware of the relationship of their fields to the college's mission, round out the business student's education. The college thus ensures its students a broad education as they prepare for their futures. Because the college is interested in the lives of its students, as well as their formal education, it has developed a faculty that concentrates on teaching rather than research. Its goal is consistent effectiveness in the classroom, both in teaching and in personalized guidance. The college's commitment to its students also prevails in the Continuing Education program. The purpose of this program is to provide an education for those individuals who wish not only to enrich their lives but also to acquire additional skills that will be of use to them in their present and future employment. To accommodate these students, classes are conveniently offered either at their places of employment or at various locations in the Detroit and Flint metropolitan areas. 175 To support its mission and to enhance its programs, the college maintains many services and facilities for its students. Guidance and counseling services help students to plan their academic programs, identify their career objectives, and develop good study habits. The cooperative education program emphasizes the important relationship between academics and work, and exemplifies the practical orientation of the college's mission. The placement service helps students secure rewarding and challenging positions in business, both before and after graduation. The library provides students with a comprehensive selection of business- and career-oriented material, along with an extensive collection of general education resources. Another important service is financial aid, which provides assistance for many students who otherwise could not afford to pursue their education. Student activities include Student Council, social and fraternal organizations, intercollegiate and intramural sports, and college newspapers. The college also maintains close ties with the business community, in part through its alumni, who regularly communicate to the college their suggestions for curriculum changes that will meet the ever-changing needs of business. With such cooperation from both professional educators and business leaders, Detroit College will continue to provide a high level of service to its students and to its community. 176 Appendix C EXAMPLE OF WRITING CAMPUS COMPONENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Campus A - ACADEMIC AFFAIRS GOAL: The College will extend and strengthen articulation agreements with relevant colleges and universities to facilitate future enrollment of its graduates seeking additional study and advanced degrees. OBJECTIVES: The College will review and strengthen all existing articulation agreements by June 1, 1986. The College will develop new articulation agreements with all appropriate institutions in the state of Michigan by June 1, 1987. ACTIONS CONTEMPLATED: Undertake reviews, noting recommendations for program changes of credit assessment and transfer. Prepare and forward final report to appropriate administrators. PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY: Vice President for Academic Affairs RESOURCE PERSON(S): Registrar Dean of School of Business Associate Deans of Instruction 177 Appendix D EXAMPLE OF WRITING SYSTEM-LEVEL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES GOAL: In order to more effectively attract, retain and motivate employees, the College seeks to periodically evaluate and further develop its human resources, policies, and related procedures in such areas as: a) performance evaluation b) salary administration c) longevity recognition/benefits d) personnel records management e) faculty/staff development OBJECTIVES: The College will fully implement a new retirement benefits plan for all faculty and staff by July 1, 1986. ACTIONS CONTEMPLATED: Retirement plan administrator (agency/provider) will be selected following review of proposals. All faculty and staff will be provided with retirement plans counseling. New retirement plan will be introduced and reflected in the appropriate institutional budgets. PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY: President Vice President for Business & Finance RESOURCE PERSON(S): Director(s) of Personnel Board of Trustees 178 Appendix E DAVENPORT/DETROIT COLLEGE SYSTEM PLANNING 1985 - 1985 Information Processing Component Prepared by Information Processing Component Director STRENGTHS l. Campuses generally report having up-to-date and reliable information processing equipment, providing necessary support for both academic and administrative needs. 2. There is a general feeling from all locations that information processing personnel are working in pleasant environments, have comfortable physical surroundings, and have good working relationships with other administrative personnel, faculty, and support staff. 3. Directors of information processing departments from most campuses indicate that department personnel are well- trained and competent, therefore being able to satisfy most of the information processing requests that are being made at the present time. 4. Both colleges have recently made large commitments for the purchase and installation of IBM PC's for instructional use. IBM PC's have become the standard of the industry and should adequately provide our students with state-of-the-art equipment and software for the near future. 5. Detroit College has experience in developing information systems that provide administrative departments with data and statistical reports, that link across campuses, and that act as a database of information for surveys and reports such as HEGIS, MACRO, AICS, etc. Hopefully this experience can be of benefit as Davenport College attempts to expand it's information processing capabilities along the same lines. 179 _. i--. A ' DAVENPORT/DETROIT COLLEGE SYSTEM PLANNING 1985 - 1986 Information Processinqggomponent Prepared by Information Processinq.Component Director WEAKNESSES 1. Even though personnel at most campuses report their information processing equipment to be mostly state-of-the- art and reliable, at the present time the two colleges own eighteen different brands of computing and word processing equipment. In many cases this results in not having information systems that are compatible, which in turn results in much duplication of entry and reporting. 2. The various campuses are in very different stages in the development of information processing capability. In some cases the very basic administrative functions are not yet computerized, such as the business office, financial aid, admissions, and personnel records. 3. Problems are reported when information processing equipment and systems are being used for both academic and administrative departments. In some cases users are competing for hardware, and it is not always clear which has priority or who should make decisions about equipment utilization when conflicts arise. At the same time the present mainframe systems that are being shared are not large enough to accommodate all the administrative users that have made requests for future service. This is true, for example, of the HP 3000 on the Grand Rapids campus. 4. There is currently no centralized planning for information processing development, either college-wide or system-wide, resulting in redundant and inefficient processing procedures. The potential for this problem to continue is great, as more and more administrative departments are requesting information processing service. 5. Although there are many service requests of the information processing departments, there appears to be ‘minimal computer literacy and usage skills among the administrative, faculty, and support staff making those requests. At the same time there is presently no organized system or plan for computer education or employee development. 180 DAVENPORT/DETROIT COLLEGE SYSTEM PLANNING 1985 - 1986 Information ProcessianComponent Prepared by Information Processing Component Director GOAL # 1: Instructional personnel at all locations should be aware of how the IBM PC is being utilized throughout the Davenport/Detroit system. Instructional activities at each campus should be shared with all appropriate personnel and serve as a source of ideas for others in similar positions or disciplines. OBJECTIVES: A directory of all persons using the IBM PC for instruction, along with their areas of use, will be developed and distributed to other users at each campus by January 1, 1987. This directory will be expanded to include descriptions and uses of software by April 1, 1986. If this concept proves beneficial, a similar directory could be developed for administrative users. ACTIONS CONTEMPLATED: Bach campus component leader will be asked to provide relevant information for the directory. Individual campus users will be asked for additional input and ideas. The directory will be printed and distributed. PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY: Information Processing Component Director RESOURCE PERSON(S): Information Processing Campus Component Leaders Individual users of IBM equipment and software 181 DAVENPORT/DETROIT COLLEGE SYSTEM PLANNING 1985 - 1986 Information Processing Component Prepared by Information Processing Component Director GOAL # 2: The future development of information processing systems at each campus should be shared and coordinated with personnel at other locations for the purpose of minimizing the usage of incompatible equipment and systems and reducing redundant and inefficient processing procedures. OBJECTIVES: A meeting will be called of all campus information processing directors to begin exploring ideas and structures for the sharing of concerns and ideas by February 1, 1987. ACTIONS CONTEMPLATED: From this meeting a plan and/or structure will be developed for future coordination of hardware and software purchases. A recommendation will be made to the President's Cabinet if it appears that such a plan requires additional personnel at any or all campus locations. PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY: Information Processing Component Director RESOURCE PERSON(S): Information Processing Directors President's Cabinet 182 DAVENPORT/DETROIT COLLEGE SYSTEM PLANNING 1985 - 1986 Information Processing Component Prepared by Information Processing Component Director GOAL # 3: As many employees as possible should become computer literate and/or competent computer users. This would minimize the development of unnecessary and/or inefficient information processing systems and procedures. It would also minimize the demands placed on computer department personnel as more administrators, faculty, and staff become self- sufficient users. OBJECTIVES: A pilot program will be developed during the 1986 - 87 academic year to train the faculty to become competent users of the IBM PC within their disciplines, as well as in their roles as classroom managers. Another pilot program will be developed to teach computer literacy to administrators and staff during the next year. Instruction in basic word processing could be included in this process, depending on those in the class. ACTIONS CONTEMPLATED: One campus will be selected for each of these pilot programs. The results will be evaluated and shared with appropriate personnel at other locations and also with the President's Cabinet. Outside vendors should also be researched and considered as potential trainers. A subsequent recommendation will be made regarding employee development throughout the system. PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY: 'Information Processing Component Director RESOURCE PERSON(S): Information Processing Campus Component Leaders Selected campus administrators, faculty, and staff President's Cabinet 183 Appendix F LoanRan e PlannianSurvev - Directions (January, 1987) TO: All personnel involved in the Davenport/Detroit College long range planning structure FROM: Director of Planning In an effort to evaluate the long range planning structure/process I am asking for your assistance. Please complete this survey and return to me in the attached envelope before Jan. 30, 1987. The responses will only be used generally as a basis for determining potential improvements in the structure/process. Individual survey responses will be used only for long-range planning purposes. Please be as complete as you can in your remarks and suggestions. If you need additional space for any of the items use the back of the page or attach additional pages. ************************** Name College/Campus Component Director Campus Coordinator Component Leader 184 Dr. Dr. Ms. Mr. Dr. Appendix G PANEL OF EXPERTS M. Douglas Reed, President of Southern Ohio College, Cincinnati, Ohio. Adelbert Purga, President of Clinton Community College, Clinton, Iowa. Marie A. Giacomelli, Vice President of Institutional Research and Development, Robert Morris College, Chicago and Carthage, Illinois. Rick Stephens, Director of Institutional Research and Planning, Jostens Education Systems, Inc., Louisville, Kentucky. Martha L. Hesse, Assistant Director, Office of Planning and Budgets, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. 185 Appendix H Follow-Up Survey - Directions TO: All Davenport/Detroit College long-range planning personnel FROM: Director of Planning I have discovered that the planning process we are developing for the Davenport/Detroit College System is part of a relatively new planning structure/process that is needed in higher education today. There have been many planning models created for single-campus institutions but very few for multiple-campus institutions, and none that I know of for multi-institutional systems like ours. As a result, I have decided to look outside our system for other views about what we are doing and expand the development of our system into a formal piece of research. This would enable our final structure/process to become part of the formal planning literature in higher education. I have put together a ”panel of experts" to take a look at the structure and process we are using and to respond to a series of questions I have developed to solicit observations and suggestions for improving our system. The members of the "panel of experts" were selected based on their previous experiences with planning in general, with their experiences in multiple-campus institutions, and in a couple of cases because of their experiences with institutions involved with mergers. For the final stage in this process I need your help. I have compiled a list of possible modifications to the planning structure/process based on your earlier observations in the survey you completed in January and based on the observations and suggestions made by the "panel of experts." In order to get consensus about which of the suggested modifications seem most appropriate I am asking for your voluntary consent to participate in this survey. On the following pages is a list of the items to address and the specific directions for completing the survey. Please note that the decision to participate is 'vo;unta;y; you are in no way obligated to participate based on your position and role in the planning process. All results will be kept in strict confidence and all participants will remain anonvm0u§L_If you have any questions related to what I am doing or about the process please give me a call. 186 LONG-RANGE PLANNING SURVEY The purpose of this survey is to attempt to find consensus about what the participants consider to be the most important possible changes in the Davenport/Detroit planning process. Please read the instructions carefully and RETURN YOUR COMPLETED SURVEY FORM TO ME BY MAY 22, 1987. Your participation in this process is voluntary and your response should be anonymous (DO NOT PUT YOUR NAME ON IT). I have enclosed an envelope for you to return the survey. INSTRUCTIONS: Rank the extent to which you agree with the following suggestions. Rank them on a scale from 1 to 5 as follows: 1. You strongly agree with the suggestion 2. You agree with the suggestion 3. You are neutral 4. You disagree with the suggestion 5. You strongly disagree with the suggestion 187 Appendix I Revised Planning Model Statement on Planninq Planning involves the systematic, continuing examination of institutional missions, goals, and objectives so that the entire college system, as well as every campus location, may function as effectively and efficiently as possible while it encourages innovation and accommodates appropriate change and development. The planning process should help the colleges clarify and communicate their values and goals: provide understanding throughout the system of their purposes and programs: foster greater communication and exchange of information among the various locations: and provide the context for better decision-making at every level of administration. Planning will take place in successive stages. The plans of the individual campus locations become the primary elements of the overall plan for the multi- campus system. To some extent, each annual cycle of planning depends on the decisions, goals, and objectives determined during the previous year's planning. Successive planning efforts require the modification of previous results. An effective system of multi-campus planning must enhance the process of resource allocation both at the campus level and at the system level. The strong emphasis on the creation of campus and system-level goals and objectives provides the necessary direction for those individuals charged with budgeting and controlling responsibilities. 188 The Terminology of Planninq The term plan is used in the model to describe both a process and a product. The planning process is the process of writing or revising mission statements, determining strengths and concerns, and writing goals and Objectives. Ipssplanninq product is the actual written document that includes collected data along with a mission statement, stated strengths and concerns, and stated goals and objectives. Types of Plans The planning model is made up of two distinct types of plans: System-Level plans and Campus-Level plans. 1. S stem evel an Planning personnel at the system-level of management (President's Cabinet) prepare system-wide mission statements, collect and analyze data for the purpose of determining system-wide strengths and concerns, and determine the overall goals and objectives for the Davenport/Detroit system. 2. Campus plans Planning personnel at each campus location follow the same procedures to write an annual campus plan. Personnel at the campus locations perform the tasks of writing mission statements, collecting and assessing data to determine campus strengths and concerns, and determine campus goals and objectives. These plans stand alone as separate documents for the purpose of providing information and direction to campus decision makers, and are also used as data to be assessed as a part of the overall system-level plan. The Elements_of Planning The primary elements of the two planning processes are those activities that result in the writing of missions, the collection of data, the determination of strengths and concerns, the setting of goals and objectives, and the implementation of goals and objectives. 189 Definitions of thssPlanninq Elements l-Eissign. A mission is a statement of purpose(s), including basic and fundamental values, enduring principles, responsibilities and commitments. Each of the institutions has a thorough statement of mission and purposes that is used by planning personnel as a basis for assessment within the planning components. 2. Data collection Each cycle of planning involves the collection of current information necessary for assessment and planning. Self-assessment and the subsequent setting of goals can only be as good as the data that is used. Data collection is a necessary part of planning activities at both the campus level and at the system level. Data collection is done mostly by the Director of Planning through the office of Institutional Research. 3. Strengths and concerns A significant activity of each planning cycle involves the assessment of the information accumulated during the data collection stage. Each year a review and analysis of data is used as the basis for drawing conclusions about the strengths and weaknesses of each campus component, each campus, and the entire multi-campus system. The model has been designed so that the assessment of strengths and concerns is to be shared by personnel working within the designated planning component areas and others from outside the component areas. Instruments are designed by the Director of Planning to be to be used on every campus to ensure consistent assessment procedures. The model calls for five strengths and five concernss to be determined during each annual planning cycle for each component on each campus, and also for each component at the system level. 190 4. Goals Goals interpret the mission(s) and identify directions and intentions. They take on significance in relation to the strengths and concerns determined from assessing the information collected in the data collection stage. Goals should be established that enhance strengths and/or overcome concerns. They serve as guides for activities and help establish priorities. Where appropriate they should be stated in terms of time. The planning model calls for three goals to be determined during each planning cycle for each component at the campus level and also at the system level. Goals should be established that can be accomplished within a time period of one to three years. 5. Objecpivss Objectives are definable accomplishments which describe performances and are derived from goals. They should be finite, measurable increments or steps that are taken in the process of fulfilling the achievement of goals. They should be consistent and realistic with other objectives and with the goals. Like goals, they should have specific dates when results should be expected. The planning model requires that planning personnel describe objectives necessary for the successful accomplishment of each goal. 6. ImpIementapiop Objectives should be comprehensive enough to include the tactical elements necessary to assure accomplishment. In addition to deadlines they should indicate specific actions necessary, and also designate individuals charged with primary responsibilities. 191 The planning model requires that the necessary individuals and actions necessary for accomplishing objectives be described. Information Used For Planning at the Campuvaevel An important part of the planning process used in the model is the collection and evaluation of information necessary for assessment. There are three key types of information that are used: 1. Self-Determined A basic purpose of planning is to give managers at every level information to aid in decision making. Therefore, the most important information to be collected is whatever the campus Component Leaders think they need for their own benefit. Much of their planning efforts should be self-directed. 2. Determined by Component Directors Component Directors give planning content direction to campus Component Leaders. They may request certain kinds of information from each campus location. This would be done when a Component Director is interested in something specific for the system-level plan. 192 3. Determined by Director of Planning The Director of Planning asks campus Component Leaders for specific information that is needed for reporting to external agencies and/or accrediting commissions. The Director of Planning will also request information needed in the Office of Institutional Research that is needed for all campuses. Information Usedifor Planning at ths_§ystem Level The eight Component Directors (President's Cabinet) basically follow the same procedures as outlined above when writing the system-level plans. The major difference is that they rely heavily on the data collected and summarized in the individual campus planning documents. To a large extent the results of the campus plans become the data that are assessed by Component Directors when writing the system- level plan. Responsibilities of Planning Personnsi The total number of personnel called for in the model is 71, distributed as follows: 1 Director of Planning: 8 Component Directors: 8 Assistant Component Directors: 48 Campus Component Leaders (8 at each campus): and 6 Campus Coordinators. Following is a brief description of the duties for each classification: 193 Director of Eianning The Director of Planning has the primary responsibility for the design, implementation, and monitoring of the planning structure and all planning activities. The Director consults widely with college officers, all planning personnel, and other constituencies across all campus locations to ensure that the planning process continues to serve its intended functions and accomplishes the goals of the planning process. Component Directors In the planning model the President's Cabinet described earlier become the Component Directors in the planning process and directly supervise the corresponding Campus Component Leaders. They direct or request that specific data be collected at the campus level that will also be needed at the system level. Also, they assist Campus Component Leaders in determining what information will be useful as a part of each campus plan. Each Component Director is a specialist for one of eight planning components. The Component Directors as a group also develop the system-level plans during each cycle of planning. 194 Assistant Component Directors Each Component Director selects one campus Component Leader to serve as his/her assistant. The assistant then calls meetings, keeps track of component activities, and anything else the Component Director requests. Campus Coordinators The Campus Coordinators operate at the campus level in the same way that the Director of Planning operates over the whole system. Campus Coordinators coordinate the Campus Component Leaders. They give specific direction as determined by the Director of Planning, and generally monitor the local planning activities. Campus Coordinators perform the technical task of collecting, editing, and writing campus data into a final document called the campus plan. It is then the responsibility of the Campus Coordinators to see that this document is shared on the local campus with those individuals that can most effectively use it. Campus gomponent Leaders The Campus Component Leaders have the responsibility for directing the collection of information in each of the eight components at the 195 local campus locations. After the information has been collected, each Campus Component Leader will use other personnel working within that component to determine the strengths, concerns, goals and objectives for the component. This information, in turn, will be sent to the local Campus Coordinator to become part of the campus plan, and will also be sent to the appropriate Component Director to be used as part of the data for the system-level plan. In this way the system plan does not just become a collection of individual campus plans. Planninq Components The planning model is designed to focus on specific functional areas common to both institutions. Eight specific areas have been selected, each having a common focus at all six campuses and each sharing significant importance as a part of the management structure at each campus. Following is a list of the eight components, along with a brief sublist of the major activities relative to each. These activities would be common to most institutions but would not necessarily be associated with the same component areas. 1. Aggdemis Affairs Faculty Curriculum Academic Advising Learning Resources Academic Governance Non-Credit Programming Tutoring and Other Academic Services 196 2. Business Affairs Business Office Procedures Finances Physical Plant and Grounds Bookstore Personnel Administration 3. Student Services Personal Counseling Student Activities Student Housing Student Scholarships 4. Enroiimenp Registration and Records Admissions Recruiting and Marketing Student Demographics Enrollment Statistics 5. Resource Qevelgpmenp Fund Raising Programs Alumni Grants Foundation 6. Placement Placement Programs for Graduates Placement Programs for Alumni Placement Programs for Part-time Students Placement Statistics Cooperative Education 7. Information Processing Computing Resources Information Technology Staff Development and Training 8. Student Financing Financial Aid Programs Financial Aid Statistics Financial Planning 197 PLANNING STRUCTURE (Relationship of Planning Personnel and Components) -------- | DIRECTOR OF PLANNING |------- COMPONENT DIRECTORS AND ASSISTANTS I l : Academic Affairs | Business Affairs | Student Services | Enrollment | Resource Development | Information Processing | Student Financing | Placement | CAMPUS COORDINATORS | | : Davenport/Grand Rapids | Davenport/Kalamazoo | Davenport/Lansing | | I | | I Detroit/Dearborn Detroit/Flint Detroit/Madison Heights CAMPUS COMPONENT LEADERS Campus (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) x Academic Affairs Business Affairs Student Services Enrollment Resource Development Information Processing Student Financing Placement NXXXKXX XXXXXXflX KXXXXXXK XKXXXXXX xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx Planning structure. 198 Planninq Cycles Although the planning process used in the model is continuous, it is designed so that the planning elements occur on an annual cycle. Once each year each campus writes a campus plan and the Component Directors write a system plan. The model requires that campus plans be completed each year by the first day of June, and that the system plan be completed by the middle of August. These dates are used because they best match the budgeting procedures and the academic calendars in the two institutions. CampusiPlanninq Deadline Data collection for campus components Ongoing Five strengths and five concernss determined 5/1 for each campus component. Three goals and supporting objectives 5/1 determined for each campus component. Final writing of campus plans completed 6/1 System Planning Data collection completed for system Ongoing planning. Five strengths and concerns determined 8/15 for each component at the system level. Three goals and supporting objectives 8/15 determined for each component at the system level. Final writing of the system plan completed 9/15 199