UNIVERSITY PLANNING HISTORY
Planning 1990 - 1995 (summary by Maria Zack and Dan Martin, December 2005)
In January of 1990, President Jim Bond appointed Dwayne Little as the Director of Planning. A few months later, the Strategic Planning Group (SPG) was formed. In 1991, Institutional Research was moved to Dr. Little’s area of responsibility and the Planning and Institutional Research Office was created. SPG designed a formal planning process.
In March 1990 the Cabinet created the Strategic Planning Group (SPG). Its primary responsibility was to “develop an institutional planning process which is uniquely tailored to the needs of Point Loma Nazarene College and assures linkage of budget planning with an effective ongoing assessment of programs and priorities in the context of the College mission.” The SPG moved rapidly to design a planning process to help the University plan. This was particularly important because of the significant changes being created by both a General Education revision and a switch from a quarter to semester schedule. This planning process was approved by the Cabinet in December of 1990 (Strategic Planning Process December 11, 1990).
The role of the SPG as defined in the document is to coordinate the planning efforts of the 42 planning units of the college (details of the units can be found on p 25-26 of the planning document). The roles were defined as (p 12 of the document):
- The SPG is advisory in nature and represents one of several sources of input to the Administrative Cabinet.
- The SPG is an advocacy group for College initiatives.
- The SPG represents a direct line of communication between units as a group and the Administrative Cabinet with respect to strategic planning.
- The SPG strives to simplify and systemize the strategic planning process and help ensure that unit plans reflect the College mission, continuing goals, and implementing strategies.
- The SPG attempts to condense and synthesize unit plans into an Annual PLNC Strategic Plan and identify major thrusts being addressed across campus.
The SPG developed a somewhat “bottom” up system for setting institutional goals and connecting them to institutional mission. There was not an institutional vision statement. The SPG had a clearly defined process for unit plans (see page 15 of the document) that required four pieces of information:
- Unit statement of purpose
- Long range unit objectives (currently in use)
- Progress toward meeting objectives
- New objectives and implementation strategies (these were to be two-year plans and the associated costs).
As the process was defined, the Strategic Planning Group was to integrate the Institutional Mission Statement and Continuing Goals with the Planning Units Purpose Statements/Objectives into a long range strategic plan for the institution. Based on this plan the SPG would offer recommendations to the Administrative Cabinet regarding budget allocations.
In early 1991, The University’s focus was on GE, schedule changes, the development of a construction master plan, new construction and the approval of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP). These issues consumed the majority of the administration’s planning time and energy. Thus, in February of 1991 it was decided to delay the implementation of the strategic planning process in each of the 42 planning units.
Also in 1991, Institutional research was moved from the Records Office (where it had been housed since 1985) and became part of the Planning and Institutional Research Office. In that period the SPG worked with the President, Cabinet and campus community to create:
In the 1994 University self-study for WASC, it was noted that “it has become increasingly unclear as to the line of authority for academic departments with respect to space-use planning and who has the authority to address what issues.” The confusion was demonstrated using an organizational diagram (see WASC Self Study 1994). It is very clear from this diagram that much of the confusion about various areas in planning was resulting from the fact that the SPG and the Planning Office were outside of the Cabinet structure.
Planning and Budgeting Committee was designed in address some of these problems, in particular the need for a higher level of involvement on the part of the Cabinet.
During these years, the Institutional Research arm of the University began to mature. In addition to generating reports for various agencies (IPEDS, US News and World Report, etc.), the office conducted surveys and created an annual “fact book” of institutional data that could be used for planning (see Institutional Research at PLNC and A Review of Planning at PLNC).
Note that much of this history is taken from the summary written by Dwayne Little in February of 1995 (see Brief Summary of Planning at PLNC).
Planning 1995 - 1999 (summary by Ken Martin, November 2005)
In 1995, the Strategic Planning Group was redesigned to address some of the problems that had been identified in the previous five years. The redesigned team was called the Planning and Budgeting Committee.
In 1990, a WASC team made a five year interim visit to Point Loma Nazarene College (PLNC/PLNU). On the completion of their visit, the team made recommendations in six areas (Response to Recommendations from the Most Recent WASC Visit). These included a call for an explicit academic plan and “stronger mechanisms for faculty voice in governance, especially in planning and budgeting”.
In the spring of 1995, President Bond proposed, and the faculty and Board of Trustees approved, the establishment of the Planning and Budgeting Committee (PBC).
The PBC replaced the Strategic Planning Group (SPG) which had dealt with planning issues for the preceding 5 years. The SPG among other accomplishments developed the Campus Master Plan required by the college’s conditional use permit (CUP).
Informed by the successes and failures of the SPG, the new PBC was noteworthy in two ways. It had a broad representative membership, including the college president, his cabinet, five faculty members, a staff representative and the ASB president. And, it had a new mission of deliberately linking planning and budgeting. This direct linkage recognized that planning could give budgeting vision and budgeting could keep planning realistic. (See PLNC Strategic Planning Process January 23, 1995 for the PBC’s membership and responsibilities).
Neither the PBC nor its predecessor, the SPG, was created to fill a vacuum. The college administration had been creating successful budgets for years. Even with the PBC, the president and his cabinet continued as the ultimate decision-making group on campus and all recommendations to the Board of Trustees came through them. The PBC’s role was to enlarge the planning and budgeting process, by increasing the number and diversity of voices that were heard in the process. The first five faculty representatives were Jeanie Millikin, Dean Nelson, Herb Prince, Gene Shea, and Ken Martin (chair).
The new PBC immediately established the goal of soliciting grassroots input from across the campus and devising a process of feeding that information into the “front end” of the planning and budgeting process. It also established the ambitious goal of immediately moving to a three year budget cycle. To that end, the campus community was divided into 57 planning units and a leader was assigned to each unit. The units, in consultation with their supervising vice-president, were asked to establish three year unit goals and plans for achieving these goals. They were also to come up with reasonable cost estimates for their plans.
The PBC collected the unit reports in the late spring of 1995, and after a preliminary review, sent them on to the appropriate vice-president for revision and prioritization. The funding of the Student Commons was the largest budgetary challenge that year. With nearly $500,000 of the 1995-96 operating budget earmarked for this project, everyone realized that little discretionary money was available for other initiatives.
At the beginning of the 1995 fall semester, the PBC spent an entire day reviewing the revised planning units’ requests. These requests totaled approximately $2 million for supplies, equipment, and staffing and another $2 million for facilities remodeling and expansion. Discussions continued for the next two months as spending priorities were set. The president’s cabinet heard the perspectives of the PBC and took them under consideration as they finalized the 1996-97 budget parameters. The budget parameters were presented to the PBC for a final review in early November before they went to the Board of Trustees for their approval.
The planning units’ reports revealed that there were many issues related to computer technology and physical space limitations. Other issues that emerged were summarized in a “future issues for PBC” document (Future Issues for PBC). In early January 1996, the PBC reviewed the Vice-President for Finance’s plan to sell $25 million worth of CEFA (state) bonds to complete the funding of the Student Commons and other capital projects. This strategy was approved by the Board of Trustees at their 1996 spring meeting.
Later that spring the PBC had critiqued the first draft of President Bond’s “Goals 2000” vision (PLNC Goals 2000). Many of these goals grew out of the planning unit’s reports and they focused most deliberately on improving the quality of teaching and learning. The PBC discussed specific plans for reaching the goals and began to consider budget priorities related to the “Goal 2000” vision. During that same semester, the PBC had monthly meetings to discuss more global issues of institutional values and mission.
A campus wide forum was held on April 29, 1996 to report to the college community the first year activities of the PBC. The forum also provided President Bond with a venue for presenting the final version of his, now approved “Goals 2000” vision. Preliminary budgets had been proposed for each of these goals as the supervising vice-president refined the requests in his area. In May a year-end committee report was delivered to the faculty by the committee chair (Planning and Budgeting Committee Chair’s Report 1995-1996).
The membership of the PBC remained essentially constant into its second year (1996-97). The PBC met eleven times that year. An all day meeting in mid-August set the stage for the fall agenda. After reviewing historical budget priorities and the status of the current, 1996-97 college budget, the committee considered the specific programmatic changes needed to realize President Jim Bond’s “Goals 2000” vision. The Vice President for Finance, Art Shingler, presented the revised costs associated with each recommendation in the “Goals 2000” plan (Point Loma Nazarene College Goals 2000). The PBC reviewed these and at subsequent meetings that semester these budget implications were refined further. Eventually the costs were incorporated in the 1997-98 budget parameters. The PBC also reviewed a Master Plan update, and discussed a detailed analysis of vital external performance indicators.
The 1996 visiting WASC team met with the committee on October 30, 1996 to discuss institutional planning and budgeting procedures. Their subsequent report expressed satisfaction that previous recommendations were being addressed and that there was now significant faculty involvement in these processes. However, they also noted the continuing lack of an academic plan and that the whole planning and budgeting process at PLNC was in an embryonic stage (WASC Comments on Planning at PLNC).
In early November the final 1997-98 budget parameters were reviewed one last time by the committee and sent on to the Board of Trustees. The PBC also approved a three year planning budget mapping out a funding mechanism for the “Goals 2000” programs.
During the spring semester the committee again turned its attention to more global concerns as it sought consensus on a vision for the future. Broad questions like “What is the next level for PLNC?” and “Which other institutions do we esteem and why?” were considered. Strategic questions like, “Should PLNC become Point Loma Nazarene University” and “How will enrollment be managed once the enrollment cap is reached?” and “Should off campus programs be expanded beyond the fledging graduate education efforts in Pasadena?” were discussed. The committee also considered the need for a more service oriented attitude in administrative offices and college relations with external constituents particularly as it relates to fundraising. Discussions of these topics were helped along by some writing exercises (see PBC Meeting Memo for an example). These discussions were robust and informative but no concrete conclusions were reached by the end of the spring semester. Some issues like the college/university name change awaited the report from a special presidential commission; other issues simply required more time and focused attention to achieve closure.
As mentioned earlier, the use of computer technology emerged as an issue in the first round of planning units’ reports. This was partially addressed in the “Goal 2000” initiatives, but it was one of the unresolved issues passed along to the 1997-98 PBC.
With the expiration of his two year term, chair, Ken Martin gave his second and final committee report at the May 1997 faculty meeting (Planning and Budgeting Committee Report to the Faculty May 5, 1997). President Bond named Gene Shea as the new chair of the PBC. That summer President Bond accepted the call to become a General Superintendent of the Church of the Nazarene and Patrick Allen became responsible for the day to day operations of the university in the interim period.
During the fall of 1997, the campus community was preoccupied by the search for a new college president. The faculty was also considering a revised method of calculating faculty salaries and a major reorganization of the committee structure. While waiting for the selection of a new president, the PBC turned its attention from large global issues to specific ones. That fall, the PBC created a Technology Study Group to determine how effectively computer technology was being used in instruction and what might be needed for the future. Gene Shea gave a mid year report at the December 2, 1997 faculty meeting describing the work of this study group. A copy of his report is in the files of that year’s faculty secretary, Ann Ruppert.
Overall, the PBC met four times in 1997-98 (Planning and Budgeting Committee Report to the Faculty May, 1998). They reviewed progress toward the “Goals 2000” objectives, discussed the revised 1997-98 college budget and the 1998-99 budget parameters. The committee also received reports from the Technology Study Group and reviewed the proposed block tuition plan. President Bob Brower joined the campus community in January 1998. During the 1998 spring semester Gene Shea met with the President Brower and his cabinet on four occasions to discussion how to make the planning process more effective. Other initiatives were also underway. A January survey concerning facility and program support went out from the President’s office attempting to collect “needs” information from departments and programs. In April of that year, Dwayne Little resigned his post as Director of Institutional Planning and Research, a position he had held for eight years. This signaled an administrative reorganization of its planning activities.
The PBC continued to exist into the 1998-99 academic year but the significant energy for planning was redirected to the Century II Commissions created that year by President Brower. A new approach to planning was proposed in the fall of 1999 and after a year of inactivity, the Planning and Budgeting Committee ceased to exist.
Planning 1998 - 1999 (summary by Maria Zack, December 2005)
The Century II Commission was created and carried out a broad analysis of the University and its needs for the future.
In the fall of 1997, Bob Brower was elected as President of PLNU and arrived at the University in January of 1998. In August of 1998 President Brower appointed a Century II Commission (CIIC) to create broad-based engagement in assessing the key planning needs for the future.
For seven years, PLNU’s strategic vision had been focused on the Goals 2000 created under the guidance of President Jim Bond. As the year 2000 approached and a new President arrived, it was necessary for the University to begin to lay the groundwork for casting a vision beyond PLNU’s Centennial in 2002. In addition, the most recent accreditation letter from WASC had recommended some further changes and planning in PLNU’s processes that included a broader engagement of the University community in planning (see Wolff Letter). The CIIC committees took a very broad look at the University. The areas studied were:
- Academic Quality
- Admissions Standards
- Housing and Admissions Timelines
- Master Plan
- Financial Aid and Scholarships
- Technology
- Student Experience
- Staff Training and Development
- University Advancement (focus on a capital campaign)
This process was not designed to be an on-going planning process but rather to provide a snapshot of the University and its current needs while identifying priorities for planning and action. The committees made both general and specific recommendations of steps that PLNU should take as the University moved into its second century of existence and the process was the foundation for building a modified on-going planning cycle (see Century II Commission Report for details).
Planning 2000 - 2002 (summary by Dan Martin, December 2004)
As a result of this Commission’s work, the Planning and Budgeting Committee was discontinued and in the fall of 2000 PLNU hired Job Nelson as the Planning Officer who was directly accountable to the President but not a member of Cabinet.
After collaboration with the Cabinet, this new administrator for planning outlined strategic planning elements and began the process of formulating a new strategic planning committee.
The task of the committee was to create an institutional-wide strategic plan that incorporated multiple perspectives, quantitatively and qualitatively assessed progress in achieving planning goals and was built on data (both internal and external). The expectation was that the resulting planning process would use existing decision-making processes.
The Planning Officer was also the Head of Community Relations. Because of the volume of new construction on the campus, the majority of his time was consumed by community relations and advocacy. Near the end of this period, it became clear that the model of Planning Officer was not well suited to the University’s organizational structure. In the spring of 2002, President Brower, asked two members of Cabinet to take over responsibility for strategic planning. In this period, it also became apparent that the University needed to reexamine its mission and vision statements.
In August of 2002 the Planning Officer left the University to pursue other opportunities.
Planning 2002 - 2004 (summary by Dan Martin, December 2004)
In the spring of 2002, the President asked Patrick Allen, Provost, and Dan Martin, Vice President for University Advancement, to Co-chair the strategic planning efforts. A revitalized Strategic Planning Committee (SPC) was formed and a new cycle of planning was created while the University mission and vision were being updated..
Below are the details of that planning process:
2002
| March |
The University’s Strategic Planning Committee was re-constituted. This committee comprises representation from a broad cross-section of the university including Administrator, Faculty, Staff and Students. The charge for the committee was to assist in developing a strategic planning process that was effective and sustainable – engaging the campus community in a dialogue that would result in the establishment of a vision and corresponding Strategic Plan with identifiable action steps toward accomplishment. The committee is a valuable resource for input and insight often providing the impetus for new ideas and structures. |
| May |
The SPC committee decided to begin with a fresh start and instituted a review of the University Mission Statement. Additional items of engagement and dialogue were the University’s planning assumptions, an assessment of the external and internal environment, University Values and strategies toward the development and creation of a guiding Vision. Additionally, the Principles for Planning were identified and established. |
| June |
A Cabinet planning session was held to begin the work of identifying key themes and components for consideration to foster a discussion regarding a restatement of the University’s mission statement. It was noted that the Mission will not change but the expression as found in a statement would be updated.
Six initial University Strategic Goals were defined based on current level of knowledge of planning. |
| June |
A Strategic Planning Framework was created to provide a road map for the University’s planning efforts. |
| July |
The Strategic Planning Committee formed a sub-committee to develop the University’s Key Performance Indicators. (KPIs) The KPIs will inform the University’s planning efforts by tracking various internal trends across the range of the University’s operations. |
| July |
An initial draft of the re-stated Mission Statement was established by the Cabinet and SPC. |
August –
September |
Unit Plans were developed across the University’s five operating units, Academics, Finance, Student Development, Spiritual Development and University Advancement. Unit plans encompassed both operational and strategic planning toward the accomplishment of the stated Strategic Goals. This system was cumbersome and some units did not complete the strategic portion of their plans. |
| August |
Through various small groups as well as through electronic discussion modes, the SPC received comments and input from the campus community (Board members, Faculty, Staff and Students) regarding the re-stated Mission Statement. Changes were made based on the input received.
Value statements assigned to appropriate faculty and staff and narratives written that illustrates how the values are integrated into daily operations. |
| October |
An initial list of 13 KPIs were developed that listed a base year for a data point and then outlined a one-year objective for improvement as well as five-year and ten-year goals. |
| October |
An initial Strategic Plan was developed which collated all of the previous work as defined with appropriate action plans for accomplishment established. |
| October |
All materials to date were reviewed and refined by the SPC |
| November |
Re-stated Mission Statement and complete Strategic Plan submitted to Board of Trustees |
2003
| January |
Special Session of the Board of Trustees called to engage in a dialogue on the re-statement of the Mission Statement |
| January |
Strategic Plan reviewed and analyzed alongside annual budget meetings to shift necessary funding for accomplishment |
| March |
Re-stated Mission Statement approved by Board of Trustees |
| May |
At the conclusion of the first cycle of the reconstituted strategic planning process, upon review, the SPC determined that the planning elements should be adjusted and re-designed. It was determined that University’s annual “operating” plans would be the focus of the KPIs while the “strategic” plan should develop out of the University’s vision statement.
Furthermore, the SPC determined that the next step in the planning process would be the development of a University Vision Statement which will provide the impetus for clarifying the University’s strategic initiatives. |
| June |
A cabinet planning session was held to begin the work of outlining a University Vision Statement |
| July |
It was determined that in order to engage the campus and gather input and foster dialogue regarding the future of the University, “Vision Groups” comprised of Board of Trustee members, Faculty, Staff, and Students were established through appointment by the President. (Approx. 60 people) |
August –
September |
Vision Groups engaged in electronic forums where they answered and a variety of questions that were designed to draw out the corporate vision for the University. |
August -
September |
Unit Plans developed under re-designed model where the KPIs serve as the base for development. Actual unit plans were not developed just goals related to KPI’s. |
| October |
An all-day meeting was held with the Vision Groups designed to flesh out the basis for the creation of the University’s Vision Statement. The results from the two-month Vision Group discussion was gathered, assessed and analyzed for themes and patterns and was presented to them for their consideration and approval. Upon conclusion the data was compiled and culminated and given to the SPC for review. |
| November |
A report was made to the Board of Trustees regarding the output from the Vision Groups. Additionally, the Board was presented follow-up questions to discuss within the committee structure that extended the conversation regarding Vision and captured their thoughts and ideas on such. |
| December |
A cabinet planning session was held to draft an initial Vision Statement that captured the essence of the previous five months of discussion among the University constituency. |
2004
| February |
SPC received the Vision Statement as written and provides feedback and suggested changes. Vision Statement agreed upon by Cabinet and SPC.
|
| March |
Board of Trustees receives and approves University Vision Statement |
| June |
A cabinet planning session was held to identify six Strategic Goals toward accomplishing the Vision as defined. Furthermore, both qualitative and quantitative elements were identified as potential targets for the year 2015. These were intended to indicate direction as opposed to proposing specific goals. |
| June |
Further redesign of the Annual flowchart for planning was accomplished with direct attention to correlating the Budget process with the Strategic Planning Process for integration in the next fiscal year beginning July 1. |
July –
August |
Strategic Goal managers were assigned and given the assignment to develop an action plan for goal development. Action plans developed. |
| August |
Vision Statement and Strategic goals released to entire campus community at the annual Community Dinner. |
| September |
Strategic Planning process integrated with simultaneous Academic planning process. |
| October |
Strategic Plan for 2004-06 produced and reviewed by SPC |
| October |
Strategic Plan integrated with Annual Planning Cycle and the University’s Operational Plans. After integration and Strategic Goals considered alongside Annual operating needs, budget parameters for 2005-06 established. |
| November |
Strategic Plan for 2004-06 and Annual Operating plans submitted to Board of Trustees for approval. |
Planning 2005 - Present (summary by Maria Zack, December 2005)
In 2005, the SPC moved into an analysis of the current planning cycle and system; this lead to some adjustments to the system and the lengthening of the planning cycle from two years to three years.
Throughout 2005 the goal managers and their teams continued to work on the strategic initiatives (see Strategic Goal Reports) and work continued on the steps necessary to improve the Key Performance Indicators (see Key Performance Indicators).
In the Summer of 2004, the Strategic Planning Committee was also named WASC CPR Group Five: Planning with the responsibility for evaluating the University’s current planning processes (see the committee orientation guide). The SPC met in October of 2004 to discuss this task. In late 2004 and early 2005 the following tasks were carried out:
- Researching and summarizing PLNU’s planning history to analyze the lessons learned in preparation for updating the process.
- Significant work related to linking data to University mission and vision for planning purposes. This work was focused on gathering key data and putting it in a central location.
- The Academic Plan was drafted
In May of 2005, Patrick Allen resigned from his position as Provost of PLNU to become the Provost of Southern Nazarene University. In August of 2005, the President asked Maria Zack, Chair of the Department of Mathematical, Information and Computer Sciences to work with Dan Martin and himself in completing the necessary analysis for WASC and carrying the strategic planning process forward into the next round of planning. Since that time:
- The SPC has meet every two weeks
- The Academic Plan has moved its way through the faculty vetting process (it will be completed in March of 2006)
- The strategic goal updates and cabinet unit planning updates have been completed
- The history of PLNU planning has been completed and the lessons learned from that process have been complied and analyzed
- A set of core beliefs about planning was developed
- The 2002-2006 system of strategic planning has been analyzed and modified to be a three year planning cycle with a focus on the coordination with the budgeting cycle and the incorporation of unit assessment, WASC reports and other committee input.
- The WASC CPR report has been drafted and a large body of supporting documentation has been collected and digitized.
The work to be done in the spring and summer of 2006:
- Gather community input for the next round of goal setting (goals for 2006-2009)
- Refine the assessment and reporting processes that will be used by the units of the University in this next round of planning
- Finalized the core data set used for planning (this is linked to our vision)
- Create the 2006-2009 goals and work with units of the University to create three year action plans and budgets