WASC CPR Group Five: Strategic Planning

Reflective Essay

Committee Members

Dan Martin (chair) – Vice President for University Advancement, Keith Bell (liaison) – Interim Provost and Chief Academic Officer; Vice Provost for Academic Administration, Bob Brower – President; Professor of Communication, Lily Davis – Director, Diversity and International Student Services, Don Evans – Visiting Instructor in Mathematics, Joyce Falk – Associate Vice President for Human Resources, Tim Hall – Assistant Chaplain; Men's Soccer Coach, Becky Havens – Vice Provost for Educational Effectiveness; Dean of the College of Social Sciences and Professional Studies; Professor of Economics, George Latter – Vice President for Financial Affairs, Sherita Lucky – ASB President, Ken Martin – Professor of Chemistry; Chair, Department of Chemistry, Scott Shoemaker – Dean of Admissions, Lois Wagner – Associate Professor of Nursing, Joe Watkins – Associate Vice President for Community Development and Maria Zack – Professor of Mathematics; Chair, Department of Mathematical, Information, and Computer Sciences

Committee charge

In March of 1997, Ralph Wolff, Executive Director of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) sent a letter (Wolff Letter) commending Point Loma Nazarene University (PLNU) for much of its good work and indicating areas that WASC believed needed to be addressed before the next accreditation visit in 2006. Planning and assessment were among the items that needed attention.

The specific issues raised by WASC in these two areas (pages 2-4 of the Wolff letter) can be summarized in the following way.

There needs to be a single systematic university planning effort which considers all areas of the University together (e.g. academics, physical resources, financial resources, etc.)
The planning process should be highly participatory and consistent with a tradition of consensus building.
Institutional data (including assessment data) needs to be evaluated and incorporated into decision making and planning. This link to the use of data needs to be documented.
There needs to be an academic plan that considers the broad scope of academics (majors, graduate programs, general education, library and information technology resources, etc.) in light of the institution’s academic values.
Outcomes of the planning process need to be documented.

The charge of Capacity and Preparatory Review (CPR) Group Five falls into five major areas:

To document past planning efforts.
To describe how the specific concerns expressed by WASC have been addressed.
To describe the current (2004-2006) planning process.
To evaluate the current (2004-2006) planning process and consider WASC planning standards.
In light of this evaluation, to make recommendations for future planning activities (2006 and beyond).

This report provides information about all five of these items.

Past Planning Efforts

The planning efforts of the University over the last fifteen years have worked to find the appropriate balance between responsiveness and precision for an institution of our size and character. The institution has refined its process to be one that is thorough, participatory, data-driven, flexible and practical. For a detailed description of the history of PLNU’s planning efforts see University Planning History. This section gives a brief summary of each major planning group and the lessons learned from the period in which the group functioned.

Planning and Institutional Research Office (1990-present)

The institutional research function of the University had been part of the work of the Records Office. A separate Office of Institutional Research was created in 1990. This office has carried out a variety of tasks over the years including:

Preparing statistical reports for several agencies and publications (IPEDS, US News and World Report, etc.);
Overseeing various surveying processes;
Preparing summary statistics for faculty and board presentations;
Maintaining some data on the web.

The institutional research needs of the University were considered as part of the WASC CPR Group One: Data and recommendations for expansion of the office are discussed in the text and detailed in an appendix to this report.

Lessons learned:

We need an office responsible for data collection and reporting.
We need to expand the function of this office to conduct research for planning purposes rather than simply responding to reporting needs.
More use needs to be made of web technology to build a central data set for the University. (this function was greatly expanded as part of the preparation for the WASC visit in 2006).
The IR Office has an essential supporting role in institutional planning.

Strategic Planning Group (1990-1995)

In January of 1990, the President of PLNU (Dr. Jim Bond) appointed an experienced faculty member (Dr. Dwayne Little) as the Director of Planning. Within a year, Institutional Research became part of this role as well. In March of 1990, the Administrative Cabinet created the Strategic Planning Group (SPG) with the Director of Planning as the chairman of the committee. This was a first step in creating a formalized system of strategic planning. The SPG was made up primarily of faculty members. The SPG was an advisory body and was not directly connected to the institutional budgeting process; thus, the SPG had limited authority to carry out plans.

The SPG created a careful system for developing unit plans (the University was divided into 42 planning units) and proposing initiatives to further institutional mission. Because there was not a clear PLNU vision statement, the SPG used a “bottom up” model for developing goals. The SPG worked with the University President to create a “Centennial Vision.” Due to other pressing issues at PLNU including the revision of the general education requirements and the shift from a quarter to semester schedule, much of the planning process designed by the SPG was put on hold. The SPG moved to focus on the main campus master plan (see PLNU Master Plan Progress Report), the construction of a large number of buildings (a significant part of the Centennial vision) and the work needed to obtain approval for the University’s Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from the City of San Diego.

Lessons learned:

Strategic planning must be done through a centralized planning process.
A planning system needs to involve key decision makers (the Cabinet and the President must be involved).
A planning system needs a direct connection to the budgeting process.
The planning process needs to be integrated with the on-going function of the University so that it is not seen as an “add on” that can be set aside in seasons of significant institutional work or change.

Planning and Budgeting Committee (1995-1999)

By 1995, the master plan was well under way and the University had completed the revision of General Education and the change from a quarter schedule to a semester schedule. President Bond determined that it was time for a renewed focus on strategic planning and the Planning and Budgeting Committee (PBC) was created to replace the SPG and to address some of the lessons learned from the SPG. The PBC was comprised of the President, the Cabinet (including the Vice President for Finance), five faculty members, a staff representative and the student body president. PBC had a new mission of deliberately linking planning and budgeting. This direct linkage recognized that planning could give budgeting vision, and in turn budgeting could keep planning realistic.

The PBC based its work on unit plans (the University was divided into 57 planning units) and solicited broad-based input from the University community. This information aided in the creation of President Bond’s Goals 2000, which focused on improving the quality of teaching and learning. Much of the work of the PBC over the next few years was based on planning the steps needed to achieve the goals presented in the Goals 2000 document and institutional issues related to the University nearing the enrollment cap placed on the Point Loma campus by the Conditional Use Permit.

In 1997 President Bond left PLNU and in January 1998, Dr. Bob Brower arrived as the newly elected President of PLNU. Though the PBC continued to exist in the 1998-1999 academic year, the University’s planning energies were focused on the new president’s Century II Commission work.

Lessons learned:

There needs to be a clear connection between budgeting and planning.
The role of the President and Cabinet in planning is essential for success.
An effective planning system needs broad-based input (faculty, staff and administration).
Unit plans provided a structure for individual areas of the University to think strategically and document their ideas.
All planning must be grounded in a clear and broadly recognized mission and vision in order for it to be possible to prioritize initiatives.

Century II Commission (1998-1999)

The work of the commission was part of the first years of the tenure of a new president, Dr. Bob Brower. The Goals 2000 initiatives were coming to an end and, as the University was looking ahead to its Centennial in 2002, it needed a vision that would carry it forward into the next century. The Century II Commission was designed to take a broad look at the institution and to gather information to aid in vision casting. The Commission set some goals, but was not designed to be a substitute for an on-going planning process. Each of the nine task teams was comprised of faculty, staff and administrators. The significant reports generated by the task teams of this commission provided an overview of the institution and made both specific and general recommendations. For further details see the Century II Commission report and summary .

Lessons learned:

It is important for a wide variety of people from the University community to be involved in institutional planning and vision setting.
Cross-unit discussions among faculty, staff and administrators generate significant enthusiasm for the mission of the University and provide valuable insights.
It was valuable for the Board of Trustees to be exposed to a broad overview of the University.
Very large scale plans can be overwhelming when it comes to implementing them.
Any plan must have both modest implementation steps and individuals accountable for the execution of those steps.

Planning Officer (2000-2002)

For two years PLNU employed an individual to serve both as a Planning Officer and as the Head of Community Relations. Though this individual met regularly with the Cabinet, he was not a member of the Cabinet. Because of the volume of new construction on the main campus, the majority of his time was consumed by community relations. At the end of this period, the University celebrated its Centennial. As part of the Centennial celebration, PLNU began to focus on the question “What will it take to move to the next level as a university?” It became clear that in order to move forward with strategic planning, the University needed to examine its mission statement.

Lessons learned:

Having a single individual in charge of planning does not provide a sufficiently broad view of the institution.
There needs to be active Cabinet-level involvement in institutional planning; it is not sufficient to provide reports of the work of others to the Cabinet.
Planning needs to be connected to institutional operational and programmatic functioning. While strategic planning is more than setting operational plans, there does need to be a connection between the two.
Planning has to emanate from a clear mission and vision.

Strategic Planning Committee (2002- present)

With the departure of the Planning Officer, the University returned to a committee model for planning, but one with a high level of involvement of the President and the entire Cabinet (University Committees - Strategic Planning for a detailed description of the committee). The Strategic Planning Committee (SPC) created a set of strategic planning principles and assumptions, and set some basic goals for 2002-2004 (Principles for University Planning). The committee then began to work on developing an updated system for planning. The 2002-2004 goals informed the Cabinet unit goals and plans (see Cabinet Area Reports for Cabinet planning reports). For roughly eighteen months, the work of the SPC also focused on the revision of the mission statement and the creation of a vision statement and goals arising out of the mission statement.

In 2004, through a process of Board review and University community engagement, new mission and vision statements were finalized, a set of 2004-2006 goals was created (see Mission and Vision Statement) and goal managers were named. The goal teams developed action plans and carried them out (Strategic Goal Reports). Progress was also tracked on the Key Performance Indicators (KPI).

The SPC has completed an analysis of the existing process, has made modifications and will carry out the new process in 2006-2009. (For further details see later sections of this report.)

Lessons learned:

There needs to be deep involvement of the Board in reviewing and affirming the mission of the University.
The planning work done by each unit of the University needs to be carefully defined so that it does not become too time consuming or cumbersome.
Support needs to be provided for various units of the University who would like assistance in developing their unit plans.
There need to be clear links between planning and the budgetary process.
There needs to be a clear system of accountability.
The data used for planning should be linked to mission and vision to aid in the setting of goals.
A multi-year planning and budgeting cycle would allow for greater flexibility in planning.

Concerns Expressed by WASC in 1996-1997

The University has made significant progress in addressing the concerns expressed by WASC. The responses below discuss exactly how these concerns are being satisfied.

1. There needs to be a single systematic university planning effort which considers all areas of the university together (e.g. academics, physical resources, financial resources, etc.)

The current Strategic Planning Committee is specifically designed to include representatives from each major area of the University. In addition, a broad collection of information and data is considered so that a holistic approach to planning is used. The University is also emphasizing a “big picture” approach in unit planning. For example, academic departments and schools are asked to consider technology needs when proposing changes to their major programs. All new academic program proposals must discuss their impact on technology, library, facilities and student support services (records, student financial aid, etc).

2. There needs to be an academic plan that considers the broad scope of academics (majors, graduate programs, general education, library and information technology resources, etc) in light of the institution’s academic values .

The University is in the process of finalizing an Academic Plan . The plan discusses institutional academic values and is carefully linked to institutional mission and vision. The plan focuses on:

Faculty
Students
Curriculum (general education, academic majors and graduate programs)
Support for Instruction (pedagogy, information technology, library and physical resources)
Co-curriculum
Educational Effectiveness and Learning Outcomes
Quality Assurance
Academic Leadership

Specific initiatives were developed via the work of various PLNU WASC teams and a process of institutional dialogs (see Academic Planning Schedule). After each conversation, the full list of ideas and initiatives was posted for the faculty to see (see Academic Planning Initiatives Summary 2006 for the initiatives). The Provost, in consultation with the Academic Council and the Strategic Planning Committee, prioritized these initiatives in the spring of 2006 and they were incorporated into the strategic planning process. The final list of initiatives was presented to the faculty in the spring of 2006.

3. The planning process should be highly participatory and consistent with a tradition of consensus building.

The Strategic Planning Committee (SPC) is structured to include members from a wide variety of areas in our academic community. In addition, the committee makes use of focus groups, forums and scheduled conversations (either in person or electronically) to gather input. The information gathered from the larger University community was used in the development of the institutional vision and the goals for 2004-2006. A similar system of wide institutional community participation was used in the spring of 2006 to provide information to aid in the setting of the 2006-2009 goals.

The SPC is currently developing an e-mail and web-based system of providing the entire PLNU community with regular updates on the planning process and inviting comment.

4. Institutional data (including assessment data) needs to be evaluated and incorporated into decision making and planning. This link to the use of data needs to be documented.

The current planning process has made use of the following data:

Key Performance Indicators (institutionally developed benchmarks);
Consolidated financial reports;
Survey data;
Institutional research data such as the information assembled for the University Data Tables (required by WASC);
Topic-specific data is gathered for particular decisions (e.g. the amount of refuse leaving the main campus).

For information about the use of this data in planning see Cabinet Area Reports and Strategic Goal Reports .

The next round of the strategic planning process has been modified to organize goals and data around the five key themes in our Vision Statement. The five key themes of the vision are arranged in the following way:

Nationally Prominent Christian University
Excellence in Academic Preparation
Wholeness in Personal Development
Faithfulness to Mission

Leading Wesleyan Voice
In Higher Education
In the Church

Additional data is being gathered to build a larger longitudinal core data set that will assist in decision making. This core data set will include items from the University Data Tables, curricular and co-curricular assessment data, and additional selected information identified by the SPC as critical measures of progress. See Strategic Planning Data Set (section 8 in the University Data Tables) for a draft of the data set. Specific recommendations for the handling of University data were made by the WASC CPR Group One: Data committee.

5. Outcomes of the planning process need to be documented.

See Cabinet Area Reports for the outcomes of Cabinet unit planning. See Strategic Goal Reports for progress reports on the six 2004-2006 PLNU strategic goals. See Key Performance Indicators for the update on the Key Performance Indicators. See Century II Commission Outcomes for outcomes from the Century II Commission work.

Current Planning Process (2004-2006 Planning Cycle)

The most recent cycle of planning (2004-2006) was based on an updated statement of mission and vision. In addition to the planning continuing in various units of the University, there were six strategic goals identified for this two year period. Each goal had a “goal manager,” and a team of people was assembled to work on each goal. Progress has been made on five of the six goals. One of the goals (Goal 5) was set aside with the intention that it would be incorporated into the 2006-2009 planning cycle. Preliminary work on that goal began late in the fall of 2005.

The characteristics of the current planning cycle include:

A two-year cycle length;
Mission and vision are considered carefully at the start of the cycle;
Broad community input is gathered in preparation for building goals;
The day-to-day management of the process is the joint work of the President, Administrative Cabinet, Strategic Planning Committee and the goal managers;
Annual planning related to the goals is tied to the PLNU budgeting cycle;
Progress on the six goals and the 13 Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s) has been the focus of the strategic efforts;
Assessment has been a growing part of the culture of PLNU, and a greater emphasis on assessment has become part of planning.

Detailed steps in the planning process as it was originally designed (for the 2002-2004 cycle) can be found at the end of University Planning History. The key modifications made in the 2004-2006 round of planning include a reduced emphasis on formal unit plans and a more structured approach for progress on goals and KPI’s. The results of this change can be seen in the goal and KPI reports (Strategic Goal Reports).

The Academic Plan has been developed during the spring of 2005 and the 2005-2006 academic year. The Academic Plan is intended to be a model for unit plans for the larger divisions of the University, those seven areas linked with Cabinet members (for a more detailed summary see Cabinet Organizational Chart). The document describes philosophy and practice that will be updated on a longer cycle (coinciding with the re-examination of University vision). Associated with the Academic Plan is a list of initiatives that are being incorporated into the strategic planning process. These initiatives are updated annually to reflect progress that is made, tasks that are completed and the shifting priorities of a dynamically changing university.

For a diagram of the 2004-2006 planning process see Current Planning Process . A brief linear overview of the process follows:

Preliminary

Spring

Review Mission and Vision
Gather broad PLNU community input for the development of goals
Draft strategic goals

Year 1

Summer	Refine strategic goals
Summer and early Fall	Finalize strategic goals (with further community input) Develop two-year action plans for the strategic goals
Late Fall	Begin any work on areas of the plan that do not require funding Develop budget assumptions for strategic goals Integrate strategic plan budget assumptions with University budget for Year 2 Board of Trustees approves budget assumptions for Year 2
Spring	Continue working on areas of the plan that require no funding Refine details of strategic plan budget Incorporate strategic budget details into University budget for Year 2 Board of Trustees approves detailed budget for Year 2

Year 2

Summer	Begin implementation of the first year of the strategic plan
Summer and early Fall	Continue implementing the first year of the plan Modify the second year of action plans for the goals (if needed)
Late Fall	Continue implementing the first year of the plan Develop the second-year budget assumptions for strategic goals Integrate strategic plan budget assumptions with University budget for Year 3 Board of Trustees approves budget assumptions for Year 3 Begin assessment of strategic plan
Spring	Continue implementing the first year of the plan Refine details of strategic plan budget Incorporate strategic budget details into University budget for Year 3 Board of Trustees approves detailed budget for Year 3 Preparation for next planning cycle : Carry out final assessment in preparation for the next strategic planning cycle Review Mission and Vision Gather broad PLNU community input for the development of goals Draft strategic goals

Year 3

Summer	Implement the second year of the strategic plan Preparation for next planning cycle: Refine strategic goals
Summer and early Fall	Continue implementing the second year of the strategic plan Preparation for next planning cycle: Finalize strategic goals (with further PLNU community input) Develop two-year action plans for the strategic goals
Late Fall	Continue implementing the second year of the strategic plan Begin assessment of the second year of the strategic plan Preparation for next planning cycle: Develop budget assumptions for strategic goals Integrate strategic plan budget assumptions with University budget for Year 4 Board of Trustees approves budget assumptions for Year 4
Spring	Continue implementing the second year of the strategic plan Complete assessment of the second year of the strategic plan Preparation for next planning cycle: Refine details of strategic plan budget Incorporate strategic budget details into University budget for Year 4 Board of Trustees approves detailed budget for Year 4

This cycle has served the University well for the last few years, but careful analysis of the current cycle has lead to some modifications.

Evaluation of the 2004-2006 Planning Cycle

In 2004-05 and the Fall of 2005, an evaluation of the current planning cycle was conducted by the Strategic Planning Committee (SPC). (To see details of this assessment see the documents in 04-05 Directory and 05-06 Directory.) This led the Strategic Planning Committee (which is also the WASC CPR Group Five: Planning committee) to notice three key issues that needed to be addressed as the current planning cycle is fine tuned for the next interval beginning in 2006:

There is a one-year time lag between the setting of strategic goals and the implementation of the strategic plan;

Assessment is happening too early. In particular, the process is being assessed in order to set the goals for the next round of planning before the first full year of the existing plan is completed (see spring of Year 2 above);

Goals are being set for the next round of planning when the current round has more than a year left (see the end of Year 2 and all of Year 3 above).

In addition, a review of the history of planning at PLNU and the many lessons learned have led the WASC CPR Group Five: Planning committee to build a set of core beliefs about planning that should be reflected in the University’s strategic planning system. These are:

SIMPLICITY: We cannot spend all of our lives either planning or assessing and therefore not getting any work done; thus the system must be relatively simple.

PLANNING MUST BE LINKED TO VISION: All initiatives and goals need to be tied clearly to vision. Beyond our five main vision categories, there needs to be an additional “support of vision” category where fundraising and management goals can be placed. Overarching goals need to be tied to the vision categories as well.

VISION EVALUATION: At regular intervals, the mission and vision need to be examined to see if they should be modified.

THREE-YEAR CYCLE: To balance planning with maintaining agility in the market place, it appears that a three-year window for planning and budgeting is the most practical. Annual updates and adjustments will be made in both budgets and plans.

DATA AND INFORMATION: Planning and evaluation need to be rooted in data (numerical as well as narrative). There should be a core set of data that is gathered at least annually and stored in a central location for institution-wide use.

ACCOUNTABILITY: Planning will not happen unless there is a clear indication that everyone is accountable to the President in carrying out their planning tasks.

BUDGET LINKAGE: There must be a clear linkage between planning and budgeting. Otherwise the system will not work and there will be no evident gains for the effort invested by the planners.

INVOLVEMENT OF KEY DECISION MAKERS: It is essential that the President be highly engaged in the planning process. In addition, because the Cabinet serves as the budget committee and because its members are ultimately responsible for carrying out the work of each unit of the University, they must be involved in a meaningful way in the work of the Strategic Planning Committee.

TRANSPARENCY: The process must be open with information communicated regularly so that the University community knows what is happening.

VOICE: There need to be systems in place that allow for input into the process from all constituencies.

REPORTING: There will be a progress report made to the planning committee on each initiative/goal at least annually including any relevant data. Any adjustments to the initiatives or goals are based on this report.

ASSESSMENT AND CONTINUANCE OF INITIATIVES: There needs to be a way to assess the results of initiatives to decide if they become part of the operating budget or are terminated. This is going to involve overall assessment of the work of each unit and how any initiatives are incorporated into the operations of the unit. If this is not done, all of the resources for initiatives will be committed in the first year or two. The cycle must involve freeing up resources for the next round of planning.

Recommendations

As the result of its analytical and reflective process as well as a review of the relevant portions of WASC Standard 4 (see WASC Standards 4.1-4.3 ) the SPC has made the following recommendations:

Implement the three-year planning cycle described in detail below.
Implement a University-wide communication strategy to keep the PLNU community informed about the progress in planning.
Expand the existing planning data set to include a broader range of key performance indicators for the institution.
Examine and modify the structure of the Strategic Planning Committee with the goal of optimizing the communication between planning and budgeting and ensuring direct information access to all key University areas. Among the suggested changes is the inclusion of all Cabinet members on the SPC.

Items 1-4 are currently in process under the leadership of the Strategic Planning Committee in partnership with the Administrative Cabinet.

2006-2009 Planning Cycle

Below is a detailed description of the month-by-month strategic planning cycle including the individuals involved. As the SPC moves through this cycle, the necessary documentation for reporting and assessment will be modified from the wide variety of documents currently in use at the University. A diagram of this process can be found in the Three Year Cycle Diagram .

Date	Activity	Who is involved?
February – April 2006	Carry out 2004-06 Action Plan	Cabinet and Goal managers with reports to SPC
	Budget for next fiscal year approved with funds for strategic goals without the money being assigned to specific categories.	Cabinet as part of budget finalization Board of Trustees approves
	Assessment of progress on current goals	Cabinet and Goal managers with reports to SPC
	PLNU community input needed to help with assessment and discerning the next set of goals.	Unit assessment recommendations Unit initiatives Focus groups (within units and across units) + natural groups (e.g. Academic Council, Provost’s Council). SPC to assemble this input and after discussion and sorting report it out to the PLNU community.
	Assessment from all units (including academic departments) due 4/30	Unit leaders to Cabinet and SPC
	Consider trends in data and other issues that might give rise to new goals	Cabinet and SPC
May 2006	Carry out 2004-06 Action Plan	Cabinet and Goal managers with reports to SPC
	Review PLNU Mission	Board of Trustees (if adjustments necessary), Cabinet and SPC to keep focus
	Review PLNU Vision	President, Cabinet and SPC with an emphasis on maintaining a long-term focus
	Review values, assumptions and current goals Consider ideas and trends that come from the PLNU community input and data analysis	Cabinet and SPC as preparation for next phase of goal setting
June 2006	Carry out 2004-06 Action Plan	Cabinet and Goal managers with reports to SPC
June 2006	Set 2006-2009 Goals Linked to the vision categories Over-arching and involving the work of many units of the University.	Cabinet and SPC
NEW FISCAL YEAR
July 2006	Finalize 2006-2009 Goals	Cabinet and SPC
July 2006	Begin work on Three-Year Action Plan	Units to work plan their roles in specific goals: Units to form action plans Units to rough out a budget
August 2006	Three-Year Action Plan developed with projected budget	Work continues in the units Preliminary work reviewed by Cabinet Work sent to SPC for consolidation
September 2006	Three-Year Action Plan reviewed	Cabinet and SPC to work to refine the details of the action plans. If goals are going to be multi-unit do we need a system of goal managers or some other way to make sure that the work continues to occur?
October 2006	Funding allocated to action plans for Year One (2006-07) Budget projections for action plans created for Year Two (2007-08) and Year Three (2008-09) Cabinet develops 2007-08 budget assumptions. Note that the budget discussion in Cabinet usually runs from 10/15-11/10	Cabinet (and goal managers in they exist) then brought to SPC.
November 2006	Year One of the Action Plan implemented	Cabinet and SPC each with monthly meetings All action plans need benchmarks with dates. These meetings will track the achievement of benchmarks and support needed activities to keep the machinery of planning running. Regular progress reports to be given to the PLNU community
November 2006	Board of Trustees approves 2007-08 budget assumptions (Year Two)
December 2006	Year One of the Action Plan implemented
January 2007	Year One of the Action Plan implemented
February 2007	Year One of the Action Plan implemented
February 2007	Cabinet refines the details of the 2007-08 budget (Year Two)
March 2007	Year One of the Action Plan implemented
March 2007	Board of Trustees approves the 2007-08 budget (Year Two)
April 2007	Year One of the Action Plan implemented
	Assessment from all units (including academic departments) due 4/30	Unit leaders to Cabinet and SPC
	Consider trends in data and other issues that might give rise to new goals	Cabinet and SPC
May 2007	Year One of the Action Plan implemented	Cabinet and SPC
May 2007	Evaluation of Year One of the Action Plan using information from assessments and data analysis and input from the PLNU community	Cabinet and SPC
June 2007	Year One of the action plan implemented	Cabinet and SPC
NEW FISCAL YEAR
July 2007	Small starts on Year Two of the Action Plan (this seems to be a time of the year when many are away from the University)	Cabinet, goal managers, SPC
August 2007	Years Two and Three of the Action Plan modifications made	Cabinet, goal managers, SPC
August 2007	Year Two of the Action Plan implemented with any needed budget adjustments	Cabinet, goal managers, SPC
September 2007	Year Two of the Action Plan implemented	Cabinet and SPC each with monthly meetings All action plans need benchmarks with dates. These meetings will track the achievement of benchmarks and support needed activities to keep the machinery of planning running. Regular progress reports to be given to the community
October 2007	Year Two of the Action Plan implemented
October 2007	Year Three (2008-09) Action Plan budgets updated Cabinet develops 2008-09 (Year Three) budget assumptions
November 2007	Year Two of the Action Plan implemented
November 2007	Board of Trustees approves 2008-09 (Year Three) assumptions
December 2007	Year Two of the Action Plan implemented
January 2008	Year Two of the Action Plan implemented
February 2008	Year Two of the Action Plan implemented
February 2008	Budget detail for 2008-09 finalized by Cabinet
March 2008	Year Two of the Action Plan implemented
March 2008	Board of Trustees approves detailed budget for 2008-09
April 2008	Year Two of the Action Plan implemented
	Assessment from all units (including academic departments) due 4/30	Unit leaders to Cabinet and SPC
	Consider trends in data and other issues that might give rise to new goals	Cabinet and SPC
May 2008	Year Two of the Action Plan implemented	Cabinet and SPC
May 2008	Evaluation of Year Two of the Action Plan using information from assessments and data analysis with input from the PLNU community	Cabinet and SPC
June 2008	Year Two of the Action Plan implemented	Cabinet and SPC
NEW FISCAL YEAR
July 2008	Small starts on Year Three of the Action Plan	Cabinet, goal managers, SPC
August 2008	Year Three of the action plan implemented with any needed modifications and budget adjustments.	Cabinet, goal managers, SPC
August 2008	Begin significant evaluation of the effect of the first two years. The focus will be on what items need to be incorporated into the operating budgets of units of the University.	The evaluation process is going to involve a wide variety of campus department heads plus Cabinet and SPC
September 2008	Year Three of the Action Plan implemented	Cabinet and SPC with monthly meetings, benchmarks and reporting
September 2008	Continue significant evaluation of the effect of the first two years.	Cabinet, other department heads with input of SPC
October 2008	Year Three of the Action Plan implemented	Cabinet and SPC with monthly meetings, benchmarks and reporting
October 2008	Incorporate the results of the significant evaluation into the budget assumption setting process. In particular, which initiatives will be continued and should be included in the operating budget starting in 2009-10 In addition, money needs to be set aside for the new initiatives that will come from the next round of strategic planning (new plan for 2009-2012)	Cabinet
November 2008	Year Three of the Action Plan implemented	Cabinet and SPC with monthly meetings, benchmarks and reporting
November 2008	The Board of Trustees approves the budget assumptions	Board of Trustees
December 2008	Year Three of the Action Plan implemented	Cabinet and SPC with monthly meetings, benchmarks and reporting
January 2009	Year Three of the Action Plan implemented	Cabinet and SPC with monthly meetings, benchmarks and reporting
February 2009	Year Three of the Action Plan implemented	Cabinet and SPC with monthly meetings, benchmarks and reporting
	Include initiatives to be wrapped into operations budget in the detailed University budget.	Cabinet
	PLNU community input needed to help with assessment and discerning the next set of goals.	Unit assessment recommendations Unit initiatives Focus groups (within units and across units) + natural groups (e.g. Academic Council, Provost’s Council). SPC to assemble this input and after discussion and sorting report it out to the PLNU community.
March 2009	Year Three of the Action Plan implemented	Cabinet and SPC with monthly meetings, benchmarks and reporting
	Board of Trustees approves 2009-10 budget details	Board of Trustees
	Continue gathering information for next round of goal setting.
April 2009	Year Three of the Action Plan implemented	Cabinet and SPC with monthly meetings, benchmarks and reporting
	Assessment of progress on current goals – those of the three-year plan	Cabinet and Goal managers with reports to SPC
	Assessment from all units (including academic departments) due 4/30	Unit leaders to Cabinet and SPC
	Consider trends in data and other issues that might give rise to new goals	Cabinet and SPC
May 2009	Year Three of the Action Plan implemented	Cabinet and Goal managers with reports to SPC
	Review PLNU Mission	Board of Trustees (if adjustments necessary), Cabinet and SPC to keep focus
	Review PLNU Vision	President, Cabinet and SPC with an emphasis on maintaining a long-term focus President
	Review values, assumptions and current goals Consider ideas and trends that come from the PLNU community input and data analysis	Cabinet and SPC as preparation for next phase of goal setting
	Year Three of the Action Plan implemented	Cabinet and Goal managers with reports to SPC
June 2009	Set 2009-2010 Goals Linked to the vision categories Over-arching and involving the work of many units of the University.	Cabinet and SPC
NEW FISCAL YEAR
July 2009	Finalize 2006-2009 Goals	Cabinet and SPC
July 2009	Begin work on Three-Year Action Plans	Units to work plan their roles in specific goals: Units to form action plans Units to rough out a budget
August 2009	Three-Year Action Plan developed with projected budget	Work continues in the units Preliminary work reviewed by Cabinet Work sent do SPC for consolidation (a matter of paperwork)
September 2009	Three Year action Plans reviewed	Cabinet and SPC to work to refine the details of the action plans.

There are a limited number of issues that will be resolved as the University progresses through the 2006-2009 planning cycle. These include:

Funding: The University has defined the funding streams for strategic initiatives. The source of the funding depends on the type of initiative. These are:

Start-up fund for new programs – this is a separate fund from the annual operating budget that can be used for start up costs for new revenue generating programs. It is expected that the net income from a new program will repay its start up costs and grow the fund to keep up with inflation.
Annual Budget Allocation for Strategic Initiatives
- Strategic Goals and their action plans
- Other initiatives that are raised in unit plans focused on advancing vision but are not part of one of the strategic goals.

The method for dividing the annual budget allocation for strategic initiatives between strategic goal action plans and other initiatives has yet to be determined.

Goal Managers: If goals are going to be multi-unit, do we need a system of goal managers or some other way to make sure that the work continues to occur? Information Flow: What are the details of the flow of information between Cabinet (which meets weekly) and the SPC (which meets once every 2-4 weeks)?