This presentation is being revised and re-discussed as per a suggestion from MSCHE’s Site

Visitors in their preliminary report. The suggestion reads specifically:Visitors in their preliminary report. The suggestion reads specifically:

The Team suggests “closing the loop” on the, “Evolution of the Planning & Institutional

Effectiveness Cycle” identifying completed phases, outcomes and changes.

1

2

This meeting was our first strategic planning meeting for 2010, conducted at the

headquarters of the General Conference for SDA. The original presentation is here, headquarters of the General Conference for SDA. The original presentation is here,

unchanged.

3

4

Timing – when we approaching the MSCHE Self Study.

5

6

7

8

9

10

Phase I has been more specifically defined as years 2008 and 2009.

The Spiritual Master Plan was completed in 2008/2009, but was not shown on the original

presentation.

The SWOTs, both Institutional and Departmental are a type of assessment, and have been

moved from the Context box to the Evaluation box.

11

Phase II has been more specifically defined as years 2010 and 2011. At the time of the August 2010, the new items on the Phase II slide (compared with the slide I) were those anticipated to be immediately implemented.Phase II slide (compared with the slide I) were those anticipated to be immediately implemented.

The green items were those listed in the 2010 presentation, that were immediately implemented, as planned.

The orange items are related significant activities that were implemented, but that were not listed in the original presentation.

Yellow items are activities that were anticipated by the 2010 presentation, that were either not implemented or that were implemented very differently from what was envisioned.

While there has been a lot of discussion about the need for annual re-prioritization of strategic initiatives and plans, agreement has not been met on how to reprioritize. Ideas on prioritization include creating an all inclusive list of all actions prioritized against each other from 1 to the last. Other ideas include creating a top tiered priority.

Project management tools were anticipated to be used as templates for documenting resources and predecessors of actions. We did not proceed with plans to use the project management tools.

Although budget requests are reviewed, the full impact of actions on resources are not documented.

Resource plans were anticipated, but are not in use. This probably should have been listed within the Planning box in the original presentation.

Non-academic department assessments were created by most departments. However, during the self study, the realization was made that the structure of assessing if the goals/plans of the department ultimately supports the goals/plans of the institution is built into the strategic planning structure. To avoid duplication, this area has been redirected to focus less on plans. Phase III shows the new intention of departmental assessments.

While the original assessment plans focused well on the institutions mission, the request was made to link academic assessment plans to the institutional objectives which are outlined in the academic bulletin. MSCHE’s expectation was that institutions should define which programs (or even courses) support the overall objectives of the school. This linkage was not done by most department, but a few completed this mapping.

Within the Context framework, resource constraints have been met using a top down approach by budget category that provides a constraint to financial resources (for the budget impact of strategic actions). However, constraints have not been considered on time.

12

Phase III has now been defined as from 2012 onward.

Three additional plans were requested to be created (as separate standalone documents).

Plans for each of these units are in the strategic plan, and can overlap with what will be in

these plans.

• Student Life

• Marketing/Enrollment

• Development/Advancement

13