|
|
|
|
|
Dear Friends and Colleagues, At the beginning of last semester
(September 2003), the In the six months that have intervened, the
primary tasks of the Strategic Planning Steering Committee have been to
analyze the original assessments of strengths/ weaknesses and
opportunities/threats and then to develop strategic objectives and place
them into an organized framework. What follows is the process we’ve
taken to accomplish these two tasks. In September 2003, the thirteen taskforce
reports were gathered by the Steering Committee. Then, over successive
weeks of the fall semester, each one of these 10-page single-spaced
reports was presented to the entire committee by the chair of the
individual taskforce. The presentations and following discussion required
a great deal of time, note taking, and analysis. What emerged from these presentations and
the incumbent analysis was a deeper understanding of the university’s
internal and external environment. From these discussions of this data
snapshot, a complex set of strategic ideas began to emerge. Through the
committee’s assiduous work, a set of some 70 or so strategic ideas
formed the distilled result of that analysis. These ideas ranged from
communication processes to equipment objectives, from recruitment to
retention objectives, and from physical plant to new facilities
objectives. We discussed everything from campus signage to faculty and
staff development. Once the many strategic ideas were written,
the next step then was to determine whether they could be grouped in
larger patterns. In other words, the Steering Committee looked for
repetitive patterns with the purpose of identifying major areas or themes
so that some ordering of the many different ideas could be clustered more
simply. In so doing, the Steering Committee devised five such thematic
areas into which the 70+ strategic ideas fell. These areas became Student
Focus, Academic Focus, Culture and Climate of the University, External
Relationships, and the Campus Physical Environment. Understandably, the members of the Steering
Committee were very familiar with the individual area that each had
originally analyzed in the data gathering stage, so it was felt that to
regroup committee members in new ways would give the entire process a more
dynamic analysis because new people would be looking at each area.
Consequently, the Steering Committee was reorganized into ‘theme
teams’ of two or three members, each team to study a particular thematic
area and organize the strategic ideas pertaining to that thematic area
into the traditional rendering of Goals and Objectives. This stage was reached in January, and
since then, we have been working to shape up these five areas into clear
and consistent strategic statements. By regrouping the Steering Committee
into different teams, committee members who had studied and authored
taskforce sections were now examining and writing thematic sections
different from their original areas. This process made for broader
participation; no one person or group became the author of any one
section. Rather, by regrouping into thematic areas, everyone played a
different role in this part. The challenge at this point, from January
to March, was to consolidate and cluster the many different ideas in such
a way as to incorporate all of the areas touched upon in the SWOT analysis
and all of the strategic objectives in the original list of 70+
objectives. Now as spring arrives, the steering
committee is working very hard to complete the writing of the Strategic
Plan (Level One), and soon this will be made available to everyone. This
document will be no longer than twenty pages and will consist of an
introduction, a description of the various constituencies and
stakeholders, the Vision and Mission statements, a statement of ULM’s
Core Values, the section of the five strategic thematic areas, and a
conclusion. The original taskforce reports that we began with last
September will form the Appendix of the Strategic Plan (Level One), an
appendix of some 130 pages or more. Perhaps you noticed that each time I typed
Strategic Plan, I parenthetically noted Level One. That is to indicate
that once the Plan with the many objectives are in place, then the work of
the next phase will begin. Level I planning sets up the objectives in a
clear format and framework, and Level II planning provides the tactics to
achieve the objectives. The work of this committee over the past twelve
months will provide a solid foundation for the Level II strategic planning
which will be underway this spring. Under President Cofer’s leadership The
University of Louisiana at The people who have made this effort
possible are too many to thank, and I am particularly thankful for the
strong leadership of President Cofer and the commitment of the members of
the Steering Committee. As the Strategic Plan (Level One) goes to press
soon and the Level Two process takes shape, I ask every member of the
university community to read and discuss what has been written and thereby
extend to everyone the process of analysis and discussion that have been
initiated by those in the middle of the strategic planning process. Thanks again, |
|
|
|
|
