Strategic Directions Advisory Committee Meeting

Friday, February 26, 2010; GCS 345

Notes

Present: V.P. James (Jim) Parker (chair,) Eunice Lund-Lucas, John Wordley, Karen Maki, Kate Ramsey, Ralph Shiell, Rory Coughlan, Terry Humphreys, Christina Warne, Jennifer Bowe, Joanna Freeland, Andy Cragg, Patricia Lynch, Ivana Elbl, Margaret Steffler, Matt Taft, Paul Wilson.
Regrets: Alisha Embury, Meri-Kim Oliver, Sheldon Willerton, Kathryn Campbell, Richard Morgan, Peter Dillon, Paula Sherman.

Welcome, Review Agenda

V.P. Parker welcomed everyone and thanked them for coming in such snowy weather, explaining that some members would have to come and go as their schedules allowed.

Presentation by V.P. Parker

• Summary of strategic directions of competitor universities (Word doc)

Jim presented highlights of other, comparable, universities’ current strategic directions, noting in particular that the University of Lethbridge has used an interesting approach that might be a useful model for Trent. Most of the institutions in Ontario identify three to five major strategic directions (the average is four.) The other Canadian universities in the comparison identified between four and eight, with an average of six.  The general message of each major direction is to ‘be better at’ or ‘stay good at’ something.  Jim had grouped all of these strategic direction into common themes, ranked according to frequency. It was surprising at first that so many universities had separated out ‘student engagement and/or accessibility’ from the ‘teaching and learning’ theme, but explained by the influence of maritime universities whose demographic challenges are similar to Trent’s.  Jim explained that almost all universities address themes one through five in their major directions. The remaining topics reflect unique challenges a certain universities or particular aims of others.

Some members expressed surprise that ‘financial health’ was not identified as a strategic direction more often; discussion about how this and other themes do not have to be singled out separately; can pervade other strategic directions.  The list only identified discreet topics.

• Trent’s existing strategic plan, mapped to competitors’ (Word doc)

Jim pointed out that extensive consultation was done to develop Trent’s existing strategic plan (2007-2014), yet that document was never formally approved . Hundreds of additional hours have gone into the current process of integrated planning renewal. He explained his analysis of the existing document revealed a list of 35 strategies of sorts, spread among and often duplicated across various headings. Some are called ‘priorities (15), some ‘academic strategies (6), others are called ‘goals’ (7) and still others are called ‘institutional objectives’ (7).  The group readily agreed that 35 is too; that identifying seven (plus or minus) should be the goal of the SDAC.  That does not necessarily mean abandoning most of Trent’s current strategies, rather organizing and articulating them better. Jim had mapped Trent’s strategies onto the above list of themes identified by other universities, showing where each of the 35 fit, plus three that did not. He asked if the group could work today to agree on some of the most obvious four or five major directions, then focus attention on the remaining two to four topics that will make Trent unique, give us a competitive advantage.

The group’s ensuing discussion raised various points and questions about:

• The future of research in Oshawa; Oshawa campus’s influence over the Universities’ financial situation and responsiveness to demographic trends.
• OK for some long-term strategies to remain uncertain; this renewed strategic plan only needs to look five years out.
• How provincial priorities and policies influence Trent and other institutions’ plans.
• Comparators scanned have varying time frames of their own; some plans were just developed recently, some will soon expire.

Consensus that there would be little to gain and much time lost by undertaking further open-ended consultation. The group discussed how best to utilize the existing list of strategies, input already received, the above environmental scan, the new vision and emerging mission to develop renewed ‘elements of strategic directions.’ This preliminary proposal would be used to invite feedback from the wider Trent community, beginning with Senate on March 9, or possibly Faculty Board on March 5.

The Vision Renewal Committee’s ‘final cut’ of a vision statement was circulated, along with  preliminary points for a mission statement. Jim reminded members that it is unclear what will happen with the vision statement at Senate next week; it will be presented for approval, but they could adopt, reject it, or recommend revisions.  ‘Elements of mission’ will be also be shared with Senate, but only for comment, as will ‘elements of strategic directions’ with the memo/scan presented today. A question about the difference between a vision and a mission prompted the next agenda item.

Update from Mission Statement Working Group

Chair Terry Humphreys explained that the Mission Group enlisted the help of a facilitator to help it distinguish between vision, mission and strategic directions, and incidentally. They  determined that a vision statement should express what an organization seeks to be, and a mission statement describes what it needs to do, to achieve the vision.  Mission describes the broad strokes of actions, whereas strategies are more specific.  The Mission Group set about identifying those big ‘to do’s.’ To arrive at this preliminary list, it utilized the data generated through the vision consultation process (on-line and workshops); the ‘Elements of Vision’ circulated earlier this winter; and examples of vision and mission statements from other institutions. Though wordsmithing will continue, the essence of each point should be clear in the list circulated today, so the Mission Group wanted to share it with the SDAC to facilitate work on the strategic plan and get this group’s reaction. Once completed next week, a draft called ‘Elements of Mission’ will go out for consultation between Mar 9 and April’s Senate meeting.

Terry noted that the Mission Group received the final version from the Vision Committee fairly late in the process, however the Group feels confident that the draft mission provides a good bridge between the vision and potential strategic directions.

Comments:

• Overlap between vision and mission;
• ‘Corporate’ wording; lacks charisma;
• Debate about wording implying that Trent does not already have/do things in the list – not what we want to present to the world; could be addressed with a preamble;
• Debated how closely mission must be tied to vision – whole process like a ‘funnel.’ Importance of fit of strategic directions; they the ‘walk of the talk.’
• Critique of vision statement
• Debate about intrinsic vs. marketing value of vision-mission-strategic directions
• Discussed how success of all three, but particularly strategies, will eventually be judged; e.g. by simply enacting/achieving stated plans, or by how well they attract people to Trent
• Possible benefit of further SWOT analysis while fleshing out strategic directions (Jim distributed newly available data on Trent’s Key Performance Indicators)

Consider Trent’s strategic directions in light of new vision and emerging mission

Jim asked the Advisory Committee to turn its attention back to the broad strategic direction themes presented earlier and asked members to discuss each of the top four in turn and see if there is consensus about including them in the renewed plan:

Discussion included:

• Themes/directions listed are so broad – not really strategies; but can be used as starting point for fleshing out strategies. The drafting subcommittee could pull/compose details using base materials gathered and bring them back to the whole Committee.
• Agreed that ‘teaching and learning’ is an obvious priority; whether/now  to address graduate-undergraduate and research strategies here or not
• To what extent the them of ‘community’ encompassed such considerations as coop programming, marketing, the University’s reputation, etc.
• Financial health as a direction unto itself, part of all others, or part of the notion of sustainability.  The latter would be most consistent with the emerging mission.
• Consensus that ‘investment in people’ theme is important but best combined with concept of communities encompassing both internal and external communities.
• ‘Student engagement’ as a discreet category rather than rolled into ‘teaching and learning, and it could encompass the theme of ‘internationalism.’
• Debate about environmental sustainability being a direction of its own, or part of  general ‘sustainability.’ Again the latter would align best with the mission points.
• Agreement that ‘reputation’ is not a strategy, but a result of good strategies.
• The persistent and system-wide problem of financial strain. The trade-off between ‘financial health’ and other strategies and whether this balance is about the theme of ‘governing/ accountability.’
• The need to address retention while fleshing out the ‘teaching and learning’ strategies.

Next steps

• Aim for a document laid out similar to Lethbridge’s ready for the April Senate meeting.
• Convene the drafting subcommittee to flesh out details for the first five strategic directions using the base materials already gathered (existing SP/list, vision, mission, slides from earlier meetings, etc.) and a few more that Jim will provide shortly. Bring SDAC back together once this draft is available to share with the whole Committee.
• Jim to present scan and preliminary strategic directions to Senate March 9 for feedback, as well as the questions about directions that were not resolved today.

---

Strategic Directions Advisory Committee (SDAC)
Reception and Planning Meeting

Monday, November 25, 2009
GC 344 5:00 - 6:30 PM

Notes

• Welcome and Introductions

Following introductions, Jim Parker reminded reviewed the three sub-committee’s created by the SDAC:  the Mission Statement Working Group, which met last week; the Engagement Team, which also met last week; and the SD Drafting Sub-committee, which may be asked to do some work by email this fall, but will become more active in the new year.

• Contextual Information Relevant to Strategic Planning at Trent (J. Parker)

Jim explained that there was no prior circulation of the materials he was about to present because many pieces involve information only recently available from the November count process. Jim presented slides with graphs and tables showing (download presentation):

• Part time vs. full time enrolment; noted that fewer students are taking more courses;

• The make-up of enrolment and its evolution through recent years;

• Undergraduate enrolment by campus and status (f/t, p/t) over the past eight years;

• Retention rates from first to second year; noted that even a small (i.e. 1%-2%) translates into a million(s) of dollars.

• Retention by college, for students in residence; noted that last year the University created some special programs for students who wanted to live in residence but couldn’t get space. He also noted high retention levels for athletes;

• Retention by high school GPA.

Distributed two tables : Percentage of total full course equivalents by department, for Peterborough since 2003, and for Oshawa since 2004.

• Types of courses students take in recent years; noted very stable data by program, with a couple of exceptions, which seem to be system-wide (i.e. experienced by most universities;)

Distributed another table, showing new students by program according to the Ontario Universities Application Centre (OUAC.)

• Courses students take across Ontario, which reflects, to some extent, which programs are funded by the government;

• New students for 2009, by program, and comparing Trent to Ontario; explained that this is one way of assessing Trent’s market share, which in turn helps estimate Trent’s chances of attracting more students to a particular program, i.e. if market share is currently low, more potential exists to attract students than if Trent’s market share is high for a given program;

• Where Trent’s Ontario students come from, organized into broad regions; noted that the numbers that apply are not the same as the numbers that actually end up coming to Trent.  Applicants are fairly well distributed, but a far greater proportion of students from the region surrounding Trent actually come.

• Where Trent students come from by traditional liberal programs vs. professional programs: Arts & Science, BBA, Nursing, Education, etc.;

• Where students come from by GPA for Peterborough and Oshawa campuses.

Jim wrapped up by explaining that, though the above is merely a glimpse into the wide range of relevant information, he can’t imagine proceeding with a strategic planning process without some understanding of this contextual knowledge.  He then opened the floor to questions and comments. Following are excerpts from that discussion:

• It would be useful to compare not only the courses students take, but also their declared majors, because students from certain programs populate many more generic courses, e.g Forensics students populate chemistry and biology courses.

• Important to remember that staffing levels, not just student demand, affect course and program enrolment; for example, a) if no one is available to teach a formerly popular course, course and even program enrolment may drop; b) Arts & Humanities enrolment might be down due to reduced staffing levels, rather than reduced demand. Argument applies to provincial funding/enrolment patterns as well.

• Graph showing graduate student numbers as such a small proportion of student body can be misleading if used inappropriately.

• Similarly, be careful about assuming that Trent cannot recruit more students to a program if it already attracts a high proportion of the market for that program. Many subtler factors should be considered, such as what determines the size of the overall market for that program; whether Trent offers something rare and uniquely attractive in that field, etc.

• Is it possible to have an impact on the rate at which applicants from Northern and S.W. Ontario accept Trent’s offers of admission – can these regions be ‘drilled down’ more specifically?

• Have any focus groups been done with students from the GTA, about why they don’t come to Trent?  Answer: Yes, will make available for this committee to use.

• Other universities’ mission statements and strategic plans are almost all the same and almost universally vague. Is the latter because the specific information that should be in a strategic plan would be too sensitive/proprietary to share? Do most universities – should Trent – need the public version and the confidential version?  Group reaction: good point, not sure how to handle this responsibly, ethically.  ‘May become more clear as SD process unfolds.

• It seems to make sense to target the greater Ottawa region for recruiting purposes.

• With enrolment increasing rapidly in Oshawa, can we get more specific data about O. students?

• Can data on students who live off-campus be meshed with the chart/data about full time vs. part time students – to learn more about them?  Also need to ‘dis-aggregate’ that group called “other” (i.e. non-traditional) students.  Group/chair agreement: the existing strategic plan does not address adult learners. One third of our students are not coming straight from high school.

• Is there an assumption that Trent has to grow? A finite size works for some institutions, e.g. Kings College.  Reaction: a valid point; given demographic projections, it may become increasingly difficult to sustain growth, or even current enrolment levels.

• Increasing the number of applicants to Trent could address both quantity and quality issues, though there are pros and cons.

• Retention is one marker of how students do once they’re here. There are others to consider.

• Have to be careful that any pursuit of growth doesn’t undermine academic rigour. Is it desirable to retain all students who come to Trent?

• If growth is no longer an option, can the existing program mix be maintained? Can new programs be viable?  Reaction: good point; for example, a recently approved program has one part time faculty coordinator; as compared to older, smaller programs, which have several faculty members. Viability and equity will be planning considerations.

• There is also a different mix of faculty at Trent now, compared to the past. What matters to them? More of a focus on research than there was 25 years ago. Trent has people with international reputations in their fields.  The importance of research is now embedded in collective agreements. All this has resource implications.

• Has the university commissioned market research?  We are not qualified to undertake strategic planning without information like that.  A lot of strategic planning comes down to dollars and cents.  Answer: Yes, we do have quite a bit of market research.  Keep in mind, also, that the Strategic Plan we recommend will have to be approved by Senate.  The size/composition of this committee, our engagement efforts, higher level vetting, etc. will ensure outlier perspectives won’t derail the whole process.

• Quite a few years ago now, Don Tapscott and his private sector colleagues released a document advocating liberals arts and science education for the employment market.  Can we find current information about the perspectives of CEOs?  Peter Gzowski’s consultation with university chancellors yielded similar results.

Noting the late hour, Jim suggested skipping the last agenda item (#3 Updates from other committees and sub-groups) in favour of updates by email/web – other than to mention that the SD Drafting Sub-committee may be called upon soon to help create a condensed version of the existing Strategic Plan for use in consultation activities.

---

Strategic Directions Advisory Committee
Reception and Planning Meeting

Monday, September 28, 2009
Alumni House 5:00 - 6:30 PM

Notes

Present: Steven Franklin, Jim Parker, Alisha Embury, Eunice Lund-Lucas, Eva Webster, Feyzi Baban, John Knight, John Wordley, Karen Maki, Kate Ramsey, Kathryn Campbell, Melanie Sedge, Meri Kim Oliver, Paul Wilson, Peter Dillon, Ralph Shiell, Richard Hurley, Rory Coughlan, Terry Humphreys, Dennis Murray, Christina Warne, Tara Harrington, Jennifer Bowe

Regrets: Andy Cragg, Joanna Freeland, Sheldon Willerton

1. Welcome and Introductions (Steven Franklin)

2. Renewal of Trent’s Planning Process (Steven Franklin)

Integrated Planning and Website

Briefly reviewed renewal purpose and structure. Confirmed everyone read overview, diagram, and committee briefing notes on website. Refer to website for future information/documents.

Achieving a system of more integrated planning will increase the efficacy of planning and budgeting, and increase the level of engagement in these activities throughout the Trent community, including students. Several activities are necessary to renew Trent’s planning processes, including a review of Trent’s Vision, its Strategic Directions, and its Academic and Administrative Structures. The group that will address Trent’s Vision Statement met last week.

Aim is to complete renewal activities in time to feed unit-level planning and budgeting next March. Though all reviews are being launched at the same time, they will proceed at different rates, hopefully ‘arriving at the same place’ in March 2010, with a view to finalizing all formal approval and adoption steps about four months later.

Engagement Strategy

Please think about effective and credible processes this Committee might use to engage those who should be consulted and/or involved. Complete consensus is unrealistic, but a broad and fair process hears all views and results in a legitimate outcome, worthy of widespread support. Universities tend to be better at planning than implementation. While moving through the review and renewal of Trent’s Strategic Directions, please consider how to implement our plans.  Engagement will also be valuable during implementation.

Q&A

Why a concurrent rather than a consecutive process?
Most organizations develop a vision then build strategic directions and specific integrated planning processes. Others rely on the development of strategic directions and integrated plans to guide a vision process. Both approaches can work. This committee may reach stages when it feels unable to continue work until, for example, it receives something from the Vision Committee.  There are many ways to share information. The website will become populated with notes, drafts, etc. from all committees and task forces. This group may wish to appoint liaisons between it and the other committees. Also, the executive sponsors/chairs will be meeting through the President/Vice President (PVP) Executive Committee.

What about long lead times in Physical Resources, i.e. construction projects?  Should work be suspended until renewal process is complete?
No. Developing a culture of integrated planning will take time. Planning is cyclical, e.g. three to five years. Work underway now, based on earlier planning, should continue.

3. Strategic Directions Advisory Committee (Jim Parker)

and

4. A Plan to Structure the Work Before Us (Jim Parker)

Referred to existing strategic directions document (to 2014) and key questions for this committee to address. In addition to “challenges and opportunities” outlined in briefing notes, important to realize why existing document contains too much detail in some places and too little in others. In the absence of companion planning tools (e.g. enrolment management plan, retention plan, college plan, etc.), it was forced to address issues that should have been addressed elsewhere. This renewal process will resolve those shortcomings, making Trent’s planning tools more comprehensive, and offering an opportunity to make the strategic directions document more concise and effective.

Explained seven sections in existing strategic plan:

• External Circumstances (largely historical now; context has changed)
• Mission and Objectives (recommend reviewing these in part in the context, i.e. environmental scan, what other Universities are doing, etc.)
• Vision (separate committee chaired by President Franklin, to examine in depth)
• Academic Strategies for Attaining Preferred Future (this Committee’s main task)
• Colleges (separate task force to address this topic, with shorter timeline-Dec.’09)
• Administrative Alignment (also has a separate task force)
• Resource Implications (tantamount to implementation considerations)

Asked those present to consider whether they are interested in one of the other task forces.

Other plans/documents are underway including:

• A Strategic Enrolment Plan.  Strategic Directions Advisory Committee will see draft before it goes to Senate.
• Ad Hoc Committee on Internationalism from which Strategic Directions group will seek input.

The Strategic Directions Advisory Committee will likely not need to meet as a whole more than 3-4 times. Rather form several sub/working groups. Suggestions include: a group to review the 2014 document; a mission statement working group; a writing group; an outreach/engagement group, etc. Welcome suggestions regarding process and sub-groups.

5. Possible Time Line and Activities (Jim Parker)

Drew attention to timeline proposed in Agenda, emphasizing that it is open to suggestions, revision as work progresses:

October-December 2009

• Form any needed subgroups and identify liaison strategy with other activities
• Obtain additional information as needed; prepare Working Group Reports
• First draft outline of Strategic Directions

January-February 2010

• Widespread circulation of first draft of Strategic Directions
• Continued consultation and discussion, additional Strategic Directions team activities as needed

March 2010

• Second draft Strategic Directions and summary of all feedback received
• Seek approvals/endorsements from governing bodies
• Roll-out of Strategic Directions

Q&A, Discussion

Q:  Elaborate on fit with between existing Strategic Plan and other plans. Clarify timelines.
A:  Committee’s task is to revisit the existing document, determine whether and how it needs to be revised, working within the same timeframe, to 2014.  Topics like enrolment management and retention will be shorter parts of the Strategic Plan.

Several people asked or commented about the following theme:
Q:  Usually plans at Trent get bogged down or watered down trying to be all things to all people. When the University has acted decisively, many continue to undermine decisions years later. (How) Will this Strategic Plan be different? Does political will exist to make hard decisions?
A:  Don’t know. Acknowledged this problem/risk/possibility. Trent has taken bold steps, made unpopular decisions in past. Sometimes processes were inadequate and results messy, sometimes handled well, with positive outcomes. Cited examples. Lesson: it can be done. President Franklin emphasized importance of inclusive process and acknowledged that not everyone will agree with end result. The broader the participation, the more likely the outcome will be acceptable to a majority of stakeholders. Also more likely to secure support if decisions are based on empirical data wherever possible.  Will need to be courageous.  Need to attend to the emotional impact of process, outcomes, and implementation. Trent, like most communities, has myths to which it is attached. When changes approach, may need a (cheer)leader who can dedicate energy, vocabulary to helping us create new and appealing myths to replace the old.