The Strategic Planning Process and Assessment
The strategic planning process in use at VCSU for most of the time since the last selfstudy began with the appointment of a new president in 1993. Given the new shared
administration with Mayville State, the president asked diverse representative individuals
from both campuses to work together on a strategic plan. They did so during 1993-94,
meeting often together and including university-wide sessions for input and discussion.
The most enduring and focal outcome of these sessions was the identification of four key
goals that were endorsed by both universities:
Maximize learning for a lifetime
Share and develop resources
Provide organizational efficiencies
Document results.
These four statements became the goals of each VCSU strategic plan through the year
2000. The structure of each strategic plan has been:

Purpose (what the university will be like in six years, the time frame
corresponding to that of the state higher education plan)

Current conditions (brief overview of where the university is now relative to the
purpose statement)

Goals (the four listed above, often customized to apply more specifically to the
focus needed in the immediately upcoming year)

Objectives (action items for the current year to implement each of the four goals,
each with a responsible party identified).
The first such strategic plan was adopted in 1994. Then and since, VCSU and Mayville
State have published a single strategic plan. Many of the goals and objectives were the
same for both universities, but institution-specific objectives were also included. At no
time has an institution-specific objective been rejected. The ability to have highly similar
strategic plans without compromising institutional integrity arises from factors such as (a)
the similarities of the two universities’ missions, histories, and circumstances, (b) the
focus of each on ensuring the success of universal access to computing, and (c) the focus
of each on ensuring excellence in providing personal attention to each student.
The brevity of VCSU’s strategic plan (one page) means that the plan includes relatively
little detail. Details that would comprise an “action plan” are not included. It is at that
level that the two universities’ plans would differ, if spelled out in writing. However, the
Executive Team strongly affirms the wisdom of annual revisions and exceptional brevity
for the strategic plan.
Having a brief plan with frequent updates is increasingly common in the business world
for many of the same reasons that apply to us, especially the need to deal proactively with
a rapidly changing environment and the desire to foster significant levels of autonomous
creativity among our personnel. Valley City State University requested and received a
mandate for leadership in instructional technology in the late 1980s, long before many
people in higher education saw the opportunities for major improvements with
technology. Given the rapid pace of technological change and the pioneering role VCSU
was playing in instructional applications, it was essential to review what we were
learning on a regular and frequent basis and incorporate that learning into our strategic
plan. Furthermore, our high expectations for change and our small size mitigated against
any highly detailed planning—once we had a shared purpose, a good sense of what we
needed to do next, and a strong communication system, we were well positioned to act.
Finally, the fact that we revise the plan annually means that it is constantly before us. Far
from sitting on a shelf gathering dust, the plan is both long enough and short enough to
serve as a useful guide for us.
Also in 1994, the university established the Institutional Improvement Committee (IIC).
Broadly representative, the committee was intended to be a kind of permanent self-study
group, overseeing strategic planning, assessment, and institutional mission. At
approximately the same time, the State Board of Higher Education began a legislatively
mandated statewide planning process for higher education. The law and Board practice
have evolved several times during the decade with ever-greater direct impact on the
university’s strategic plan. Early in the 1990s, the university needed only to have a
strategic plan that was reasonably consistent with that of the state. By the end of the
1990s, the university had to submit annual progress reports showing how it had
contributed to the objectives of the state plan. The university and state plans used a
different structure, but their underlying goals and premises were similar enough to make
such a progress report feasible without rewriting the university plan.
In the planning process used throughout the 1990s, the strategic plan retained a relatively
constant long-term purpose statement. Since 1997, the purpose statement has focused on
the development of customized learning. In order to ensure steady movement toward the
purpose statement, two major processes occurred each and every year. First, the
Executive Team and the IIC reviewed progress on the strategic plan. Each fall, the
Executive Team published a progress report for all faculty and staff as part of the annual
Baselines document. The progress report described actions taken with respect to teach of
the objectives for the previous year.
Second, the strategic plan was revised, rolling forward each year to identify the next set
of action steps needed to continue moving toward the purpose statement. Generally
speaking, the Executive Team would propose revisions in the winter and invite the IIC to
consider these and propose others during the spring. That input went to the Executive
Team’s summer retreat, through which the plan for the coming year was prepared. The
process included opportunities for divisions, departments, and others to have input as
well, either through their IIC representation or through a more formal solicitation process.
The annual Baselines publication for all faculty and staff also included the revised
strategic plan for the current year.
During the year 2000, significant changes occurred at the state level that impacted
VCSU’s strategic planning in 2000-2001. A statewide group of legislators, educators, and
business leaders met frequently and issued a report in May 2000 called the Roundtable
Report. The State Board of Higher Education adopted the report in July and required each
campus to produce a plan by December 2000 through which it would implement relevant
portions of the Roundtable Report.
Once again, the state-level plan was so consistent with the university’s plan that it would
have been possible to make a simple translation from one to the other. However, the
Executive Team had concluded that it was time for broader university engagement with
strategic planning to ensure widespread input and understanding after a number of years
with more limited revision processes. Moreover, it would be helpful if the university’s
plan adopted the same structure as the Roundtable Report.
Unfortunately, the state deadline allowed only one semester to develop the new plan.
Given preparations for both NCATE and NCA visits as well as other major activities, the
scope and extent of participation in strategic planning was not as comprehensive as
originally planned. Nevertheless, the Institutional Improvement Committee ensured that
every division and department had several opportunities to review, discuss, and propose
materials for the new plan through several draft stages.
[insert here something about the plans for a strategic planning process into the future—
are we going to continue annual updates and progress reports? Are we going to flesh out
the Roundtable plan to be more inclusive? Etc.]
[Do we need to say more about the “assessment” side of strategic planning? More about
the Roundtable-based strategic plan? Other?]