AQIP Steering Committee Meeting Report for March 14 , 2005
Attendees: Jim Hull, Brad McCormack, Bev Walker, Carol Easley, Lew Milner, Kate Peresie, Diane Hipsher
TOPIC
DISCUSSION
Celebration
of AQIP
Acceptance
Brad reported on his conversation with IA: We have about 200-210 full
time employees. T-shirts cost $6 – 8, polo style shirts cost $12 – 14,
desktop articles $4 and up, banners 3’ x 5’ up to 8’ wide cost $65-140.
ACTION STEPS
PERSONS
RESPONSIBLE
TIME
LINE
Investigate further with IA.
Brad
Next
meeting
It was suggested that 4 different banners rotating among buildings
would keep it fresh.
Other possibilities brought up by Committee members included holders
for 8 ½ x 11 flyers, foam boards from IA, “business cards” and AQIP
pop-ups on computers.
Follow-up on
Consultants/
Options
The Committee liked the idea of a block of sticky notes (or not-sticky
notes) for desktops with the logo/text similar to that proposed by Kate.
Jim reported on Washington State’s experience with self-assessment
and identifying Action Projects. They used AQIP Examiner and
Kask/Urso, consultants.
 Used internal and external focus groups and surveys to identify
APs.
 APs were Distance Learning (3 year project), Communication
and Valuing People (2 year project), and Continuous
Improvement (1 year project).
 For the Continuous Improvement Project, 10 mini-projects were
selected from a pool of applications. Teams received training.
This broadened the understanding of and involvement in AQIP
and continuous improvement. 10 were too many, will be pared
down for next year. Projects included request for information
processes, off-campus site improvements, registration access,
handling student complaints processes, student misconduct
procedures. No additional compensation. All documented
online. Steering Committee designed the process, monitored
projects, activities and measurement.
The Committee discussed other possible consultants. Carol suggested
Dave Baldwin (working with TechPrep and College Now) and Jay
McCreary from Marion Tech. Kate said that she has a call in to
Rosemary Jones, IR at Tri-C to see who they used. Sharon Miller may
know someone.
Kate also suggested the option of hiring Kask/Urso to do an executive
summary of the Examiner results and hire in-house experts in
facilitation and quality tools, etc., such as Sharon Miller to help us
develop and implement processes. What would Kask/Urso charge for
Examiner report?
Contact Kask/Urso
regarding fees.
Kate
Next
meeting
The Committee decided to hear from other consultants.
Contact other consultants
to set up presentations.
Kate
April
Add list to the left side of
the matrix, include brief
definition of criteria, send
to Committee members.
Diane and Kate
April 1
The Committee agreed on the following regarding process:
 That we not assume that we already know what we should work
on for APs for AQIP.
 That is it important to explicitly align data, initiatives, and
organization elements with the AQIP Criteria.
 That we will proceed with a process to identify APs based on
the data to see what bubbles up.
 That we communicate the process.
 That we don’t need more data or focus groups.
AQIP Criteria Kate presented a draft of an AQIP Criteria Matrix that could be used to
Matrix
align information with the AQIP Criteria in the areas of data mining,
organizational alignment, and initiatives impact.
The Committee decided to start in the area of data mining.
 Discussed data available at the College: Gardner Shaw Survey
and Report; Examiner; Transition Team Report; Caucuses and
Administrative Cabinet Responses to Report; ACT Survey;
Passage Rates on Licensures; Graduate Survey; Employer
Survey; Board of Trustees’ Strategic Direction; Program
Review, Governor’s Report Card, HEI, Financial Aid reports.
Next Meeting

Decided to ask for input on additional data sources and experts
for those sources from MAC.
Get on April 14 MAC
meeting agenda. Send
revised matrix with
agenda.
Carol
With
agenda

Have a retreat in the future with data source experts and the
Committee to fill in the matrix, identify areas of strength and
opportunities for improvement.
Present to MAC
All Committee
members
available
April 14
In the future, the Committee may use the matrix in the area of
organizational alignment. – sending it out to each department/program
to have them identify the areas of strength and opportunities for
improvement for each of the AQIP Criteria.
Next scheduled meeting is April 4, 2005, 3-5:00.