Strategic Planning Outcome Status Report
Date:
May 17, 2004
Sponsor: Iztok Hozo
Committee Co-Chairs: Alan Barr: (Academic Priorities Committee)
Outcome No. 5
Provide a brief description of your outcome:
The program prioritization process will have established a way to address introduction of new
programs and prioritization of existing support programs*.
Activities completed
to date
Method of
Engagement/Feedback
Results (for both activity
and engagement process)
Dates
We collected data on
current status and
historical ranking
(prioritization) of nonacademic programs.
Solicited documents from former
Support Services committee (VC
Don Steward).
Good participation. Most
Nov 14, 2003
committee members came to
all of the meetings.
Engagement and datacollection was informal.
Find out current
practices for
introduction of new
non-academic
programs.
Recommended the
establishment of a new
standing committee for
Non-Academic
programs -- “Support
Programs Priorities
Committee”
Recommended the
representation on the
new standing
committee.
Each member of the committee
was asked to conduct an informal
survey of their colleagues in their
unit in order for the views to be
well represented.
Committee and Faculty
Organization Executive committee
Scarce knowledge of current
practices.
Mar 26, 2004
Approved
April, 2004
Committee and Executive
Committee
The Hill-Huntington
Method (Congressional
apportionment) was used to
determine how many
representatives from each
Vice-Chancellor should be
allocated to the proposed
Support Programs Priorities
Committee (which will
parallel the Academic
March and
April 2004
2
Strategic Planning Outcome Status Report
Activities completed
to date
Method of
Engagement/Feedback
Results (for both activity
and engagement process)
Priorities Committee).
With an agreed upon
maximum of 25 members
and a little tweaking, we
determined that the makeup
of this committee should be
approximately as follows:
VCAA: 13 members
VCFA: 6 members
VCIT: 1 member
VCSS: 1 member + 1-2
students
VCUA: 1 member
Chancellor: 1 member
TOTAL: 24-25 members
Decided to use the same
criteria when introducing
new program as when
ranking and prioritizing the
existing programs.
See chart below.
Determined the criteria The sponsor and the Academic
to be used when
Priority Committee.
introducing new
academic programs.
Dates
April, 2004
Established a way to
The sponsor and the Academic
April, 2004
introduce new
Priority Committee.
academic programs
into the program
prioritization process.
The Academic priorities committee will participate in the campus approval process at the following point:
Graduate School Review if
Appropriate.
Department
initiates
program
proposal.
School Review
and Approval.
(School
Curriculum
Committee and
Dean)
Campus
Review and
Approval.
(Campus
Curriculum
Committee)
University Budget Office help with
preparing ICHE enrollment and
budget tables.
APC
Deans Council,
Campus Budget
Committee, Cabinet
and VCAA
Chancellor
3
Strategic Planning Outcome Status Report
Note: In filling out the next chart, any activities identified as well as engagement approaches
should only be listed if the sponsor is at least 95% confident of achieving their success by the dates
identified.
Activities remaining to be
completed
Obtain approval to establish a
new standing committee for
Non-Academic programs.
“Support Programs Priorities
Committee”
Obtain approval for
representation on the new
standing committee. (see
results)
Obtain approval of the process
to introduce new non-academic
programs into the program
prioritization process.
(see chart below)
Elect new committee.
Proposed Engagement
Committee, VCAA, Deans’ Council
and Cabinet.
Expected Completion
dates
August 31, 2004
Committee, VCAA, Deans’ Council
and Cabinet.
August 31, 2004
Committee, VCAA, Deans’ Council
and Cabinet.
August 31, 2004
VC’s
September 30, 2004
4
Strategic Planning Outcome Status Report
Activities remaining to be
completed
Vice-chancellors are to ask for
volunteers and conduct
elections (if necessary) to elect
members of this new
committee.
Proposed Engagement
The proposed new standing
committee (Support Programs
Priorities Committee) will have many
tasks including:
 Ensuring that the committee
membership is representative
(refine the pivot chart as
necessary),
 Establish criteria to evaluate
new and existing programs (at
this time we suggest to start
with the criteria established by
Don Steward’s Support
Services Prioritization
Committee of 2002—closely
parallels those of the
Academic Priorities
Committee),
 Advise administration on new
positions (based on the
continuous review of new and
existing programs)
Expected Completion
dates
If there are no objections
from the Cabinet, or the
Deans Council, it is
recommended that this
proposed Support Programs
Priorities Committee be
established (and members
volunteered/elected) at the
start of the fall semester so
that the members can begin
meeting early this fall and
be ready (as needed for the
advertisement of new
positions).
The Support Programs Priorities Committee will participate in the campus approval process at the
following point:
Department/Unit
initiates program
proposal.
Unit Review and
Approval.
(Unit Director,
Unit Curriculum
Committee and/or
Dean)
SPPC
Deans Council (if
appropriate), Campus
Budget Committee,
Chancellor and Cabinet
5
Strategic Planning Outcome Status Report
Some of the Executive
Committee faculty members
objected to the current
definition of “academic” vs.
“non-academic” program.
Currently the distinction is
simply whether a program is
credit-bearing or not.
Have a joint meeting of
Academic Priorities Committee
and the Support Programs
Priorities Committee in 20042005 to delineate the areas of
responsibility. (Fall 2004 if
possible, Spring 2005 if too
much work in Fall)
Academic year 2004-2005
What do you need in terms of support or other resources (including any identified personnel
listed above) to ensure achievement of your outcome by December 31, 2004?
AQIP
Describe whatever challenges you anticipate or have encountered in applying the AQIP process
to your outcome?

What data have you collected that address the AQIP questions that were assigned to your
committee’s outcome?
The committee has not yet collected data specific to AQIP question corresponding to our
outcome 5, specifically items #2. Accomplishing Other Distinctive Objections, #5. Learning &
Communicating and #6. Supporting Institutional Operations. The sponsor met with Marilyn
Vasquez on 5/13/2004 to gain greater understanding of this task1. The sponsor will meet with
the sponsor of outcome 6 (Don Coffin) in order to divide the task into manageable items (we
share all three AQIP items. The committee will meet in the summer I semester of 2004 to
discuss addressing these AQIP questions.
1
Sentence (like most other sentences in this report – and particularly the last page) stolen from Outcome 8 report.
6
Strategic Planning Outcome Status Report

What are your specific action steps to ensure that the data needed to complete the systems
portfolio related to your Outcome have been completed by November 30?
Activities remaining to be
completed
Meet with non-academic
programs committee and
provide them with information
and overview of AQIP. An
understanding of the
committee’s role in the
collection of information
needed to answer the
appropriate questions from the
AQIP Systems Portfolio will be
discussed.
Divide the duty of collecting
data among the members of the
committee and begin data
collection
Check-in meeting to discuss
status of data (information)
collection.
Review collection of data to
date and formalize plan and
timeline to ensure all data is
collected and collated by
11/30/2004.
Data is collected and collated
for AQIP questions 2, 5 and 6.
Proposed Engagement
Expected completion dates
Committee (see membership list
on page 1)
5/27/2004 10:31 a.m.
Committee and volunteers
(know of any?).
5/27/2004 10:34 a.m.
Committee survivors.
8/31/2004
Committees / (together with
Academic Priorities Committee
and the Support Programs
Priorities Committee)
10/10/2004
Academic Priorities Committee
and the Support Programs
11/30/2004
Priorities Committee, Director of
Institutional Research