UMD SWOT* Preliminary Results—February 5, 2011
*Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats
Draft Prepared by Dennis Falk
An important first step in a strategic planning process is to identify the internal strengths and
weaknesses of an institution and the opportunities and threats that exist external to the
institution. This report provides a preliminary summary of the results of SWOT survey of the
UMD campus conducted during December, 2010 and January and February, 2011, ending on
February 4. The report includes a brief description of the methods used in the survey, a
description of the respondents, the results, and some initial conclusions.
Methods
The survey was developed by starting with items identified as strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities, and threats in previous university planning activities. The Strategic Planning
Executive Team and some additional members of the Steering Committee identified the items
most appropriate for use in a SWOT questionnaire for UMD.
The online process referred to as UM Survey was used in asking respondents to review the list of
potential strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats and to rate on a Likert-type scale the
degree to which each item was characteristic of UMD and its situation. Survey respondents were
asked to rate whether they “strongly disagree,” “disagree,” were “neutral,” “agree,” or “strongly
agree” with each item on the four lists. Respondents were also asked to comment on any items
in each list if they wanted to do so and to add strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats
related to UMD if they did not appear on the original lists. All of the items that appeared on the
questionnaire appear in Tables 1-4 (attached).
Respondent Demographics
Over 1100 individuals (1112) associated with UMD completed the SWOT questionnaire, mostly
in response to email messages from Chancellor Black encouraging them to complete the survey.
Included in the survey were 546 undergraduate students, 82 graduate students, 301 current staff
members, 212 faculty members, 41 administrators, 63 community members, 100 alumni, and
smaller numbers of additional groups. Some respondents fit into more than one category. Gender
distribution was 650 females (62%) and 397 males (38%). Of those respondents who indicated
their race/ethnicity, about 90% were white/Caucasian and about 10% were respondents of
color.
[more specific demographics will be provided in subsequent reports.]
Results
The results of the quantitative portion of the questionnaire are reported in Tables 1-4 (attached).
For each item in the survey, a “strongly disagree” response was coded as a “1,” a “disagree” was
coded as a “2,” a “neutral” was coded “3,” “agree” was coded “4,” and a “strongly agree” was
coded “5.” Thus, a higher average in each of the tables indicates that respondents were more
likely to strongly agree that that a particular item was a strength, weakness, opportunity, or
threat for UMD.
1
The total number of respondents follows each item in the table, followed by the average ratings
for all respondents. It should be noted that many respondents did not respond to all items, and
the default option of “no response” is not included. The averages for undergraduate students
(Ugrad), graduate students (Grad), faculty (Fac), staff, administrators (Admin), alumni (Alum),
and community members (Com) follow in subsequent columns of the table. The items in each
table are listed in the order of the highest total average to the lowest total average.
In many cases the average ratings of specific subgroups were different from that of the other
respondents at a statistically significant level (p<.05). When the average rating for a subgroup
was higher than for other groups, the average rating is in bold font. For example, undergraduate
students are significantly more likely to agree that “UMD’s campus is friendly and safe” than
other groups. When the average rating for a subgroup is lower at a statistically significant level
than for other groups, the average rating is in italics. For example, faculty are less likely to agree
that “UMD’s campus is friendly and safe” than other groups. Because of the large number or
respondents and the numerous t-tests that were run, some relatively small absolute differences
in averages between groups are reported as statistically significant.
Strengths identified in the quantitative rankings from UM Survey include 1) enriching academic
and co-curricular activities, 2) many accredited programs, 3) a friendly and safe campus, and 4)
UMD’s significant impact on the regional community, and 5) new and well-maintained facilities
and attractive buildings and grounds. Over 700 respondents agreed to the statement that “UMD
has particularly strong academic programs in:”, with the opportunity to fill in a blank to identify
the specific program. Programs from across the campus were identified, with science and
engineering, education, business, the fine arts, and the liberal arts and specific CLA programs
being mentioned frequently.
Preliminary qualitative results from the open-ended responses include strengths such as 1) UMD
is an excellent employer, 2) caring and competent faculty and staff, 3) the Duluth community and
the beautiful geographic location, 4) quality athletics, 5) the Tweed Museum and fine arts
programs, and 6) cooperative research among students and faculty.
Weaknesses identified in the quantitative rankings from UM Survey include 1) the need to
enhance diversity among students and faculty, 2) the work and family commitments of students
that limit the time and energy they have for their academic activities, 3) inconsistent advising
structures and expectations across and within college units, and 4) the need to strengthen
dispersal of information by administration.
Preliminary qualitative results from the open-ended responses on weaknesses include 1) large
class sizes the first two years, 2) limited funding, 3) limited diversity on campus, 4) inadequate
advising, 5) parking problems, 6) not attracting as many top students, and 7) lack of healthful
food.
Opportunities identified in the quantitative rankings from UM Survey include 1) Duluth’s
natural environment are an important draw, 2) more conversations with local employers, and 3)
the potential to develop programs that take advantage of UMD’s location. A number of additional
opportunities were rated closely behind these top three.
2
Preliminary qualitative results from the open-ended responses related to opportunities include
1) increasing the number of non-traditional students such as veterans, 2) attracting a more
diverse student body, 3) improving sustainability on campus, and 4) developing more online and
hybrid courses.
Threats identified in the quantitative rankings from UM Survey include 1) declining resources
from the state and increasing dependence on tuition revenue and 2) declining financial support
for students. These two items were rated considerably higher than other possible threats to
UMD. Preliminary qualitative results from the open-ended responses supported these two
threats with budget cuts and higher tuition mentioned frequently, along with growth of
administration and needing to attract students that may not be as well prepared for college.
Tentative Conclusions
A number of tentative conclusions can be drawn from the results reported above and observed
in Tables 1-4. First, all respondents identified a number of notable strengths for UMD, with eight
items averaging 4.0 (agree) or above. Conversely, none of the potential weaknesses averaged
over 3.73 for all respondents. These notable strengths included enriching academic and cocurricular activities, strong, accredited academic programs, and a friendly and attractive campus.
UMD can build on these and other strengths.
Several relative weaknesses were also noted. Lack of diversity, student commitments that limit
time and energy for academic activities, advising, and communication from the administration
were more often identified as weaknesses. In focusing on addressing these and other identified
weaknesses, UMD can be enhanced as an educational institution.
A number of opportunities and threats were also identified. Highly ranked opportunities
included the draw of Duluth’s natural environment, learning from local employers about what
they are seeking in graduates, and attracting a more diverse student body. UMD can take
advantage of these opportunities and others mentioned in the results above. At the same time,
the campus needs to address the perceived likelihood of threats such as declining resources from
the state and increased dependence on tuition revenue and declining financial support for
students.
Some differences between the responses of various groups can also be noted. Faculty members
were less likely to agree with campus strengths and more likely to identify weaknesses. Students
were more likely to see UMD as friendly and safe and more likely to agree that work and family
commitments interfered with their academics. UMD employees were more likely to agree that
diversity needs to be enhanced than were students. Faculty members were far less likely to see
the use of performance assessment as an opportunity and were more likely to see the positive
potential in raising admissions standards. Administrators were more likely to agree that
potential opportunities and threats, particularly those external to UMD, were important.
These tentative conclusions must be examined in light of several limitations of this study,
including a possibility of biased sample and the relatively small differences in absolute responses
between groups. Future versions of this report will report more intensive qualitative analysis,
will more closely examine the results for possible conclusions, and will further specify
limitations of the study.
3
Table 1: Strengths are current, internal characteristics of UMD that are likely to be helpful to the campus in achieving its mission. Strategies to
capitalize on these strengths can be developed.
Rank
Potential Strength
N
Total
Ave
Ugrad
Ave
Grad
Ave
Fac
Ave
Staff
Ave
Adm
Ave
Alum
Ave
Com
Ave
1087
4.23
4.25
4.05
4.17
4.32
4.32
4.27
4.29
2
UMD offers many enriching academic and cocurricular activities for students, such as civic
engagement, study abroad, undergraduate
research, internships and recreational sports.
UMD has many Accredited Programs.
1039
4.22
4.19
4.26
4.21
4.31
4.40
4.29
4.18
3
UMD’s campus is friendly and safe.
1111
4.19
4.29
3.93
4.00
4.20
4.29
4.12
4.08
1076
4.13
4.02
4.01
4.12
4.34
4.48
4.44
4.40
1112
4.12
4.08
4.12
3.95
4.30
4.37
4.38
4.29
989
4.11
4.16
3.87
4.02
4.17
4.03
4.15
3.88
1072
4.07
4.19
3.96
3.96
3.92
4.20
4.03
3.98
1084
4.01
4.02
3.99
4.00
3.99
3.97
4.04
3.87
1064
3.97
3.91
3.82
4.00
4.08
4.13
4.10
3.83
1087
3.79
3.88
3.69
3.70
3.79
3.45
3.75
3.57
1048
3.74
3.76
3.50
3.80
3.71
4.00
3.86
3.73
1024
3.67
3.75
3.62
3.69
3.51
3.51
3.63
3.50
1074
3.55
3.71
3.39
3.33
3.52
3.38
3.48
3.39
1037
3.54
3.62
3.42
3.44
3.48
3.59
3.53
3.48
1
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
UMD has significant impact on the regional
community--educationally, economically, and
culturally.
UMD’s facilities include new and wellmaintained, attractive buildings and grounds.
Enrollment continues to increase in both
undergraduate and graduate programs.
UMD benefits from its association with the
University of Minnesota system.
UMD has an effective and supportive teaching
and learning environment.
UMD’s workforce is stable and talented.
UMD enjoys a positive reputation in the external
community.
UMD has a richness/diversity of disciplines and
of modes of thought and inquiry.
Full-time faculty teach the vast majority of
classes, and there is a strong bond and a high
level of interaction between faculty and students.
UMD faculty, staff, and students have a strong
sense of community, engendering loyalty to
institution, place, and coworkers.
UMD is a fiscally sound and well-managed
institution.
4
Table 2: Weaknesses are current, internal characteristics of UMD likely to have a negative effect on achieving its mission. Strategies to
minimize the effects of these weaknesses can be developed.
Total Ugrad Grad Fac Staff Adm Alum
Rank Potential Weakness
N
Ave
Ave
Ave
Ave
Ave
Ave
Ave
Although diversity among students and faculty has increased
1095 3.73
3.48
4.06 3.99 3.85 4.18 3.98
1
significantly, it needs to be enhanced.
Most students have work and family commitments, limiting
1047 3.68
3.84 3.64 3.69 3.39 3.23 3.47
2
the time and energy they have for their academic activities.
UMD has inconsistent academic advising structures and
958
3.53
3.46
3.67 3.52 3.69 3.78 3.86
3
expectations across and within college units.
Dispersal of information by administration needs to be
1028 3.50
3.31
3.62 3.54 3.70 4.02 3.49
4
strengthened and streamlined.
5
UMD lacks sufficient financial support for faculty scholarship.
861
3.41
3.28
3.51 3.86 3.23 3.33 3.26
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
UMD has higher tuition than other public 4-year institutions in
the state.
Time demands on faculty limit their commitment to teaching
and students.
Time demands on faculty necessarily constrain research,
professional development, and training efforts.
UMD’s transfer credit policies discourage cooperative degree
completion.
UMD has an inadequate 4-year graduation rate, and low
retention between freshman and sophomore years.
Services offered by support offices are not adequate, likely due
to lack of necessary staff, e.g., support for writing grants,
addressing compliance issues, completing building repairs in a
timely and cost effective manner, addressing problems with
workstations and the information network, etc.
UMD has inadequate resources for recruitment, retention, and
advising of students.
Compliance with federal, state, U of M System, and accrediting
mandates and requests are overly burdensome.
UMD lacks a strong mission, vision, and identity.
Duluth’s reputation as a place with bitterly cold winters
restricts UMD’s ability to attract prospective “weathersensitive” faculty and students.
5
Com
Ave
3.89
3.73
3.67
3.69
3.48
893
3.32
3.32
3.23
3.16
3.36
3.88 3.41
3.45
984
3.25
3.14
3.52
3.60
3.16
2.92
3.14
3.33
927
3.25
2.95
3.45
3.89
3.16
3.06
3.18
3.09
866
3.24
3.32
3.08
2.56
3.40 3.13
3.22
3.18
935
3.22
3.19
3.02
3.10
3.30
3.43
3.34
3.26
979
3.20
3.00
3.40
3.44
3.30
3.73 3.18
2.98
1003
3.09
2.85
3.32
3.42
3.27 3.29
3.11
3.09
900
3.04
2.80
3.15
3.38
3.21 3.22
3.10
3.04
1036
2.92
2.66
2.96
3.27
3.00
3.68 2.96
3.00
1052
2.88
2.89
2.80
3.01
2.69
2.95
2.98
2.64
Table 3: Opportunities are conditions external to UMD likely to have a positive effect on achieving its mission. Strategies to exploit
these opportunities can be identified.
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Potential Opportunity
Total Ugrad Grad
Ave
Ave
Ave
Fac
Ave
Alum
Ave
Com
Ave
1071
4.43
4.37
4.58
4.44
4.48
4.56
4.61
4.55
1042
4.23
4.30
4.21
4.10
4.10
4.23
4.27
4.29
1038
4.04
3.94
4.30 4.03
4.13
4.43
4.26
4.05
1009
4.03
3.97
4.11
4.02
4.08
4.44
4.11
3.98
997
4.02
4.01
4.03
3.98
4.09
4.10
4.13
4.10
990
4.02
3.96
4.14
4.08
4.05
4.12
4.14
4.17
1068
4.01
3.99
4.12
3.84
4.14
4.28
4.05
4.11
989
3.99
3.97
4.22 3.79 4.15
4.31
4.04
4.16
N
The natural environment surrounding Duluth is an
important draw.
More conversations and partnerships with local
employers – those in the private, nonprofit, and public
sectors – could make our students more appealing to
them.
UMD’s location offers opportunities to develop and
support undergraduate and graduate programs that take
advantage of this location, which could result in increased
enrollments in strategically targeted programs.
UMD could focus on excellence with an emphasis on areas
in which the campus should grow.
An undergraduate experience using the best practices
from throughout the country could be developed.
Collaborative approaches could draw upon the strengths
of different faculty, supported by resource and technical
staff, to offer more effective instruction that also creates
time for research and development.
Multi-media technology is changing the way on-campus
instruction is delivered and represents a significant
opportunity to develop new and more effective ways of
teaching and learning, as well as generating new
knowledge.
The demand for credit and non-credit education at
advanced levels has become a career-long reality;
technology could greatly assist outreach efforts to meet
the educational needs of place-bound students.
6
Staff
Ave
Adm
Ave
Rank
9
10
11
12
13
14
Potential Opportunity (continued)
Total Ugrad Grad
Ave
Ave
Ave
Fac
Ave
Alum
Ave
Com
Ave
957
3.91
3.87
4.07
3.91
3.92
3.88
3.93
4.00
903
3.82
3.78
4.08 3.74
3.90
3.95
4.02
3.98
971
3.69
3.44
4.13 3.95 3.74
3.88
4.03
4.00
997
3.67
3.76
3.83
3.14
3.85
3.72
3.79
3.82
1032
3.57
3.58
3.35
3.87 3.87
3.42
3.47
3.76
984
3.57
3.49
3.70
3.71 3.71
3.62
3.52
3.75
N
UMD could increase graduate student enrollments in those
disciplines where there is departmental capacity, and
which will not adversely affect undergraduate instruction.
Becoming a leader in interdisciplinary and integrated
learning.
Programs that specifically recruit and retain students from
Native American constituencies could be developed.
Systematic and serious use of performance assessment,
especially of learning results, could lead to improved
effectiveness and efficiency.
Raising admission standards could improve the average
scholastic ability of the student body, resulting in
improved retention as well.
There is a growing interest in developing countries such
as China and India for American Education; targeted
efforts could help recruit full paying students from these
countries.
7
Staff
Ave
Adm
Ave
Part 4: Threats are conditions external to UMD likely to have a negative effect on achieving its mission. Strategies to defend against
these threats can be identified.
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Potential Threat
Declining resources from the state and
increasing dependence on tuition revenue.
Declining financial support for students
(Pell grants, etc.) that lead to more
students working to stay in school.
K-12 students less prepared for university
education.
In a rapidly changing educational
environment, the time-consuming and
complex processes of securing requisite
approvals for new programs, program
changes, off-campus delivery, and even
delivery by telecommunications are often
outdated, unnecessary, and mainly
detrimental to meeting educational needs
in a timely and efficient way.
Growth of administrative and service
functions required to be in compliance
with (unfunded) mandates.
Loss of public support and shifting
attitudes toward the university.
Decreasing ability to compete for and
retain top faculty.
Alternative providers, i.e., on-line
universities and community colleges.
Declining number of high school graduate
students.
N
Total
Ave
Ugrad
Ave
Grad
Ave
Fac
Ave
Staff
Ave
Adm
Ave
Alum
Ave
Com
Ave
1046
4.42
4.22
4.54
4.65
4.58
4.73
4.58
4.39
1052
4.32
4.28
4.41
4.39
4.34
4.39
4.29
4.38
1045
3.87
3.76
3.83
4.05
3.85
4.03
3.81
3.68
895
3.64
3.58
3.68
3.69
3.69
3.89
3.63
3.63
841
3.63
3.54
3.50
3.93
3.59
3.54
3.43
3.59
1013
3.59
3.38
3.55
3.86
3.71
3.92
3.67
3.51
957
3.53
3.52
3.36
3.75
3.35
3.16
3.36
3.50
1027
3.48
3.27
3.73
3.54
3.70
3.80
3.59
3.28
963
3.45
3.34
3.39
3.46
3.56
3.61
3.54
3.37
8