NIU College of Business
STRATEGIC PLANNING COUNCIL XVI MEETING MINUTES
(Academic Year: 2012-13) ~ Friday, September 7, 2012 ~ 9:00 – 11:00 a.m.
STRATEGIC PLANNING COUNCIL XVI (SPC)
SPC Members:
Curtis Batterton (Alumni/McDonald’s Corporation), Amy Buhrow (Coordinator
AACSB/Assessment), Mike Cahill (Undergraduate Student Rep), Carolinda Douglass (Vice
Provost),Michelle De Jean (Director, COB Marketing), Ken Elliot (MGMT Instructor, UBUS 311),
Geoff Gordon (MKTG Chair), Brenda Hart (Staff Council President, MKTG Dept.), Lenita Hepker
(Administrative Assistant to the Dean), Vijay Krishnan (MKTG Faculty), Chang Liu (OMIS Chair),
Kyle Lundin (Undergraduate Student Rep), Len Lundstrum (FINA Faculty), Brain Mackie (OMIS
Faculty), Lori Marcellus (Director Undergraduate Studies), Sarah Marsh (MGMT Chair), Mark
Misic (Director of Technology), Paul Prabhaker (Associate Dean, College of Business), Nancy
Russo (OMIS Faculty), Denise Schoenbachler (Dean, College of Business), Rebecca Shortridge
(ACCY Faculty), Marc Simpson (FINA Chair)¸ Mahesh Subramony (MGMT Faculty), Ursula Sullivan
(MKTG Faculty), Beth Towell (Associate Dean of Undergraduate), Michael Welsh (Alumni/Welsh
Industries, Owner), Dan Wunsch (Associate Dean for Administration), Jim Young (ACCY Chair,)
and Lei Zhou (FINA Faculty)
SPC Members Unable to Attend:
Ann Carrel (Director, Executive, Professional, & Fast-Track MBA Programs), Anthony D'Andrea
(Director, Development, Senior Gift and Estate Planning Officer – COB), Pam Smith (ACCY
Faculty), and Cassandra Young (Director, Alumni Relations)
Guest:
Tim Aurand (MKTG Faculty)
The Dean welcomed and thanked the group for participating. She reviewed the agenda for the
meeting emphasizing the need for assistance in setting the priorities for the College in an
environment of constrained resources.
Introductions were made. Carolinda Douglass, Mahesh Subramony, Brenda Hart, Len
Lundstrum, Kyle Lundin, and Ursula Sullivan are new SPC XVI representatives.
The Dean asked for approval of the minutes from the May 18, 2012 meeting. Michael Welsh
made the motion, Nancy Russo seconded the motion. The minutes were approved as
presented.
Passport – Dr. Beth Towell
The Passport Program was developed by the College Board of Executive Advisors and the SPC to
encourage and track co-curricular student experiences. The College requested $225,000 from
the Vision 2020 grant process to fund start up costs for the first three years. We were given a
one-time award of $25,000. We will have to be careful with resources as we roll out the
program. When the Passport classes are offered and taken by the students, fees will be
collected to fund the program. Michael Welsh has discussed external funding possibilities for
the Passport Program with the Dean and Associate Dean.
The one-time $25,000 award will be used to partially fund a director to coordinate the program,
to further develop the in-house Engage software for tracking purposes, and to provide a stipend
for a campus-wide speaker on engagement at which the Passport Program will be featured to
serve as a model for other colleges to emulate, should they choose. This year the course that
explains the Passport program will be designed, the Engage software will be further developed,
assessment processes will be created, and co-curricular offerings that qualify for Passport will be
expanded.
The SPC XVI will need to determine where the Passport Program fits in the College’s priorities
going forward. Engagement is a priority of the University and the Office of Student Engagement
and Experiential Learning.
Differential Tuition – Dr. Denise Schoenbachler
The College has been exploring differential tuition as a funding option. A number of our peer
and aspirant institutions use this model fund student services. Use is based on the premise that
business schools have higher cost structures and students potentially have higher returns on
investment.
Dr. Mark Misic, Dr. Rebecca Shortridge, Dr. Dan Wuncsch, and Dr. Schoenbachler investigated
differential tuition models last year. Over the next few months they will create a proposal, in
cooperation with the College of Engineering and Engineering Technology, to take to the Provost.
The proposal will be based on the funding needed to sustain the quality of our programs. It will
include student opinions and placement/salary data. Once the Provost has approved the
proposal, it will be presented to President Peters, and ultimately, the Board of Trustees.
The goal/rationale of adopting differential tuition and the means in which it is implemented, the
value communicated, and the tangible return on investment assessed were offered as important
components of the decision to implement this model. It was reiterated that the goal/rationale
of differential tuition is not to generate revenue. It is to sustain quality and fund services that
add value to our students, such as our undergraduate advising model, technology, Career
Compass. The differential tuition may replace individual course fees collected by the College.
Student representatives were open to the concept and agreed that tangible value needed to be
communicated to the students. The Student Advisory Board will serve as a focus group.
Effectively explaining the goal/rationale of differential tuition; its impact on affordability,
accessibility, and financial aid; and the value of an NIU College of Business degree should be
included in the messages communicated to students and parents. A contrast could be made
between the cost and value of the NIU College of Business and private institutions. More can be
done to inform students on the cost of a degree, the cost of debt, and the return on their
investment as it relates to students’ short and long term career prospects.
Conditioning students to later give back using the value message is also important. The
contribution of the state, the role of tuition and the impact of private giving should be shared
with our students now, before they become alumni. The College should also leverage microgiving, making it as easy as possible for alumni to give through multiple methods (text, facebook,
etc.). The abundance of giving potential could justify the addition of a second Development
Officer.
The team plans to tie the differential tuition to other tuition increases so the College does not
have to continually ask for Board of Trustee approval of future increases in the differential
tuition.
Priorities and Resource Allocations
The Dean asked for help in determining the priorities of the College going forward. She
introduced the concept and methodology of the Program Exploration/Mini Program
Reviews/SWOT Analyses.
For curricular programs, each faculty SPC representative will be paired with another faculty SPC
representative and asked to conduct a review of a department other than their own. Chairs will
not be on teams, but will support the team exploring their department with input and data. The
assignments below were made to encourage cross college relationships and information
sharing. Teams are welcome to involve other non-SPC faculty at their discretion. Students and
alumni are invited to participate on a team of their choosing.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
ACCY Department – Nancy Russo & Lei Zhou
FINA Department – Ursula Sullivan & Mahesh Subramony
MGMT Department – Pam Smith and Brian Mackie
MKTG Department – Rebecca Shortridge & Ken Elliot
OM&IS Department – Ann Carrel & Len Lundstrum
MBA – Vijay Krsihnan & TBD
Possible metrics:
1. Placement - % of students that have jobs at graduation
2. Student engagement
3. Research productivity
4. Headcount
5. Student credit hour production’
6. Best practices
Teams can also benchmark curriculum using the Vision 2020 and AACSB peer, aspirant, and
competitive institutions. Possible resources include the 2005 program reviews, the AACSB
Annual Maintenance Reports, and student advisory groups.
A mid-point meeting will be scheduled for faculty teams. They will discuss the information and
data collected to that point and to develop a common language, data analysis plan, and
reporting structure to present to the SPC in December. Faculty should go beyond the data we
already have. They should ask questions and the Chairs and College can determine if data is
available.
This semester, curricular teams are asked to meet with the chairs and faculty in their assigned
departments, learn about the programs, and conduct a SWOT analysis to help with priority
setting at the College level and assist chairs, as an external reviewer, in identifying
opportunities.
The program exploration process may assist chairs with the upcoming program reviews. The
process is open to revision, if needed.
The exclusion of the UBUS core was questioned. Since these courses are part of each
department’s curriculum and the College Curriculum Committee is currently reviewing the
courses, they are excluded from the SPC program exploration.
Co-curricular program exploration will be led by the Deans. Support programs will conduct
internal SWOT, ROI and budget analyses. Results will be shared with the entire SPC.
There is a Blackboard community for document sharing and storage.
Amy Buhrow is the core contact.
Action Items and Wrap-up
1. Dr. Schoenbachler and Amy Buhrow will fill the TBD faculty spot and determine Ann
Carrel’s role in the project.
2. Amy Buhrow will schedule a meeting with Brian Mackie, Pam Smith, Ann Carrel, and the
TBD faculty member to explain the program exploration.
3. Amy Buhrow will add potential resources to the Blackboard site (Vision 2020 and AACSB
peer, aspirant, and competitive institutions, Businessweek profile, program review
outline)
4. Faculty teams and Co-curricular and Support programs will begin the program
exploration processes.
5. Amy Buhrow will schedule a mid-point meeting with the faculty teams & Dr.
Schoenbachler to discuss consistency in reporting.
6. Dr. Schoenbahler will facilitate a focus group with the College Student Advisory Board
on competitors.
7. Dr. Schoenbachler will send a message to the College through CBUS explaining the
program exploration process to the faculty.
The next meeting will be Friday, December 14, 2012 from 9-11 a.m.
Curt Batterton moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Michael Welsh.
Meeting adjourned at 11:00 a.m.
Respectfully submitted by Amy Buhrow