College of the Redwoods
Facilities Planning Committee
Feedback on Process for Linking Program Review to Functional Planning Efforts
Process Comments from March 7 and March 21, 2008 meetings:
• It would be helpful for TAG and FPC to see each other’s comments
• If practical/feasible, have the persons making the requests present their own
needs/requests to the FPC – consider dividing into “pods” to facilitate this.
• More careful analysis of cost estimate breakdowns should have been presented,
where known (e.g. floor space versus equipment costs)
• Need tighter communication between program review author and Division Chair
to ensure the needs are clearly stated
• This process provides inadequate information for decision-making related larger
scope items. Appropriate decision-making would require an analysis of returnon-investment/FTES, alignment with strategic goals and objectives, etc.
• Limited information is available in the database. Diagrams and specific quotes
were unavailable for review.
• Some FPC members expressed feeling unsure about the appropriate FPC output
and/or the role of the FPC related to program review requests.
• The process felt rushed, members did not have enough time to review the
information.
• Program reviews should be more uniform/standardized to make it easier to
process them. If there is more uniformity/standardization, this may also change
the role of the FPC related to input and review
• There is FPC interest in continued monitoring/input as longterm planning
proceeds
• The linkage flowchart was confusing to some: 1) The ‘functional team or area’
label is unclear and does not clearly indicate that this means the Facilities
Planning Committee. Column headings for committee names need to be spelled
out.
• Timeline? Process? Expectations? Paperwork? These seem to be some
unanswered questions creating some unease about the workload.
• The summary reports that were provided were helpful, but “cold”
• The process was largely a success – it needs more modification, but it “went
well”.
• Unsure about why requests related to the new building is being brought to the
FPC
• Need a more formal grant-like process for requests (e.g. a competitive grant
process)
• Need an opportunity to review the information prior to the meeting, at least
summarized reports.
• Make database more user friendly
• Want to have direct computer access to original program reviews, etc.
• Need capability to see entire database