X hits on this document

232 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

88 / 111

dreaming big, it is hallucinating. I can not get past the idea that it is just absurd. And it is absurd not just because of the dollar amount. It is absurd because if the university received $40 million dollars tomorrow, we would not spend it all on the items listed in the strategic plan. We would certainly spend some, but what percentage? Another aspect of a strategic plan (in my opinion) is that it should guide the investment of resources, and I do not believe we would use these reports as the guide to how we would spend this money. To reiterate, my expectations of a strategic plan are that it sets goals the university wants to achieve, and then develops a plan to achieve those goals. The allocation of resources would then be based on the strategic plan. I am willing to accept criticism that my expectations are either unreasonable or do not fit within the strategic planning process adopted by the university. I do think that the reports presented lack cohesiveness because while some clearly operate according to my expectation (such as producing a seamless university), others appear to me to be nothing more than a wish list. This last point begs the question – why did some units produce a wish list while other units did not? I find it difficult to avoid coming away with the impression that these are the units that will be favored with available resources.

Rick Klann

Response to Comment: The subcommittee agrees with the major points raised by the author of this comment. The subcommittee agrees that work still needs to be done to assure that the intended actions/activities in support of various strategies are appropriate and applicable. We further agree that the various strategies should share an appropriate relationship to each other so that the plan represents a coherent, single body of work. Concurrently, it is the subcommittee’s impression that some have viewed what was presented for public comment along a continuum far closer to a completed draft than it was intended to represent. Instead, this first public comment period was intended provide an opportunity for comment and participation during a more formative stage of strategic thinking (albeit, perhaps this point was not sufficiently emphasized). Accordingly, the subcommittee acknowledges the degree to which certain intentions and ideas contained herein need to be further detailed, articulated, and evaluated.

Clearly, once the primary strategies have been identified, a strategic plan must be supported by the development of more detailed annual operational plans that identify specific actions to be undertaken (objectives), performance indicators, baseline data, identification of individuals responsible for carrying out the activities, etc. within the major operating units of the University. The University actually began using this process in support of the most recent strategic plan developed in 2004. The development of annual operating plans as described here has been a practice in place at the Vice President’s level for the last two years.

As pointed out by the author of this comment, some committees produced anticipated resource needs while others did not. All committees were encouraged to do so, but at the time of this public comment period, not all may have progressed in their dialogue to the point where they were prepared to do so, or they determined that minimal

4

Document info
Document views232
Page views232
Page last viewedSat Dec 03 12:30:11 UTC 2016
Pages111
Paragraphs1463
Words37072

Comments