Annual Update and Reviewer’s Comment
Title
Strategic Planning and Institutional Effectiveness:
Implementation Phase
Status
REVIEWED
Category 7-Measuring Effectiveness
Updated
9-09-2010
Timeline
Reviewed
9-29-2010
Planned Project Kickoff
01-01-2008
Created
11-242009
Target Completion
12-31-2010
Last
Modified
09-292010
Project Accomplishments and Status
Dakota State University’s Action Project “Strategic Planning and Institutional Effectiveness:
Implementation Phase” was the institution’s second AQIP action project tied to strategic
planning. (The first AQIP action project, “Strategic Planning, AQIP and Institutional
Effectiveness: Moving in New Directions”, established the University’s framework and
processes for strategic planning and continuous improvement.) This second AQIP project
focused more closely on reporting processes developed in the first AQIP project in support of
the 2007-2012 strategic plan. A web–based reporting mechanism, based on the balanced
scorecard concept, has been internally developed and 100% (34) of the units and colleges at
DSU have submitted their initiatives linked to the University’s strategic focus. The balanced
scorecard is aligned with the University’s organizational chart and each of the 34 units has a
unique user name and password to submit their project data. The 34 units submitted a total of
163 outcomes with a minimum of one project associated with each outcome. The outcomes
are directly aligned with the seven strategic goals (called focus areas in the plan) from the
2007-2012 Strategic Plan. The following is a summary of the number of units who submitted
outcomes under each strategic focus:







Focus 1: Expand current information technology leadership through cutting-edge
programs.
 41% of units / colleges declared one or more outcomes related to this focus
Focus 2: Optimize on-campus student enrollment and enhance program quality by
attracting high-ability students.
 68% of units/ colleges declared one or more outcomes related to this focus
Focus 3: Increase student retention and graduation by providing an exceptional student
experience.
 50% of units / colleges declared one or more outcomes related to this focus
Focus 4: Advance DSU's emphasis on applied research.
 23% of units/ colleges declared one or more outcomes related to this focus
Focus 5: Extend DSU's educational outreach through online and alternative-location
delivery.
 26% of units / colleges declared one or more outcomes related to this focus
Focus 6: Promote increased visibility and recognition of the University.
 29% of units / colleges declared one or more outcomes related to this focus
Focus 7: Develop new sources of revenue.

44% of units / colleges declared one or more outcomes related to this focus
At the annual Planning Council retreat in August, each Vice President and Director selected
one outcome from their balanced scorecard and “publically declared” one of their project
plans. Campus processes have now been merged to run in parallel tracks – campus
improvement plans/activities are tied to strategic goals and both are tied to budget requests.
In addition, campus leadership and staff have been trained in use of the balanced scorecard.
The campus balance scorecard information will be used in the annual budget hearings for the
FY12 fiscal year.
Review:
The University is to be commended for its systematic, highly structured and cohesive
organizational process and framework for accomplishing what is clearly the most challenging
aspect of any continuous improvement program: data collection. Clearly an organization
of such scale and complexity requires a centralized data collection system that allows access,
information sharing (Principle #5), and the measurement of effectiveness (Principle
#7) and impact, and that communicates a commitment to collaboration (Principle #9)
and transparency to the community as a whole. The "balanced scorecard" system, explicitly
connected to strategic goals and budget allocation, confirms for all constituencies that the
University is committed to continuous improvement (Principle #8), is measuring its
progress (Principle #9), and is committing its resources to achieve its objectives
(Principle #2). Excellent work.
Institution Involvement
All members of the campus community had opportunities to be involved in the creation and
declaration of their unit’s strategic plans and activities. Overall, evaluation and tracking of
progress on the strategic plan is the responsibility of the Institutional Effectiveness Committee
(IEC) and the committee is made up of membership from each functional unit on campus.
Minutes of the IEC meetings, survey reports, and presentations are communicated to the entire
campus via e-mail. The balanced scorecard database is on the DSU website and the directors and
deans are expected to review their unit’s projects and outcome targets at departmental meetings.
The Vice Presidents have access to a strategic overview report on the balanced scorecard, which
has hot links to all of the units / colleges’ outcomes. Campus publications have featured stories
about the successful projects that can grow out of the institution’s strategic planning efforts;
individual success stories have been featured as well. The President’s summer retreat for Planning
Council (deans and directors of all the functional units) focused on accomplishments to date on the
strategic plan and identified additional activities / plans for those strategic areas where progress is
lagging behind.
Review
Clearly, the execution of the Strategic Plan is a collaborative process across the campus; the
institutional leadership has been intentional and energetic in its efforts to create both a framework
and a process that shares information, celebrates success, and holds the community accountable
for outcomes. Those are the key elements of an AQIP process, and this is certainly reflective of
the best aspects of an effective effort to achieve continuous improvement,(Principle #8) ,
institutional goals, and community collaboration.
Next Steps
The action project, scheduled to be completed in December 2010, will be retired this September.
As mentioned above, the three colleges and all functional units have submitted their outcomes,
with measurable goals, and associated projects on the scorecard. The campus will utilize the
balanced scorecard submissions to identify future AQIP action projects. The current and any
future submissions will also be used for the annual budget hearings and to track progress towards
the university’s strategic goals.
The balanced scorecard was developed by a graduate student, with assistance from a faculty
member. Now, the university has identified a staff member with knowledge of programming
languages to maintain the current functionality and to improve the balanced scorecard database in
these areas: improve the declaration function of the balanced scorecard based on user feedback,
upgrade the reporting function and maintain the program and the submitted information on the
balanced scorecard server.
Review:
The University's "next steps" reflect an understanding of the importance of supporting the
institution's ongoing operations (Principle #6): the database must be maintained and
improved if it is to retain its usefulness beyond the project stage. Continuous improvement
(Principle #8) requires sustained commitment and planning, and the University clearly
recognizes the importance of maintaining its focus on the scorecard in order to retain its
credibility with constituents. That kind of leadership and foresight are critically important to
positive outcomes, and the institution is to be commended for its effectiveness.
Resulting Effective Practices
The University used this AQIP project to develop a balanced scorecard system as the primary
means of recording and tracking progress relative to the 2007-2012 Strategic Plan (and future
strategic plans). The balanced scorecard (BSC) database includes data entry capabilities,
which allows colleges/ units to submit their institutional effectiveness plans and to submit an
annual update on progress towards their plans. All projects are required to have specific,
measureable outcomes with timeframes and metrics. The reporting function in BSC provides
the University administration with several options for generating reports and tracking progress
on the strategic plan. For example, one report aligns activities to the strategic goals and the
objectives within each strategic goal and also identifies the functional units with declared
projects for each goal and outcome (see the summary in Question 1 for an example of the
output that’s available). Collaboration between units can also be tracked. The scorecard
provides a repository for this information and is easily accessible on the institutional
effectiveness website.
Review:
To reiterate, the University's development of an effective data platform and framework, in
combination with the adoption of an institution-wide process for the entry and sharing of
assessment data that maps projects and progress, represents the best kind of continuousimprovement management. Collaboration, data collection, assessment, action steps,
measurement and clear links to resources and other institutional processes combine to create
an exceptional model of effective planning, execution and assessment.
Project Challenges
The challenge for Dakota State University will be to continuously maintain and improve the
functionality of the balanced scorecard database , e.g., to enhance its reporting capabilities, so that
it becomes even more valuable to both leadership and to individual campus units and committees.
Dakota State University is also going to be challenged to carry these processes forward, as it begins
its new strategic planning process.
Review:
It is always a challenge to maintain the momentum and integration of a complex process into the
permanent workflow and culture of a complex institution. Early adoption in the context of a new
strategic plan -- as well as a pressing sense of obligation to participate in the data collection and
sharing during the first phase of its use -- often drive compliance and participation during the initial
project or process. The University acknowledges that it is far more challenging to maintain that
enthusiasm and willingness to remain attentive to the data-collection and reporting processes over
time. As is always the case, however, cultures will perform those tasks for which they are rewarded;
the administrative decision to tie budget resources to scorecard outcomes could be the single most
important incentive it can offer to its constituent groups to continue to value and participate in these
processes going forward.