Requirement 2.5: The institution engages in ongoing, integrated, and institution-wide research-based planning and evaluation processes that incorporate a systematic review of programs and services that (a) results in continuing improvement and (b) demonstrates that the institution is effectively accomplishing its mission.

Full Compliance

Georgia Southern University’s Strategic Plan guides all University planning and evaluation activities. Initiated in 1999, completed in 2000, and updated in 2004, the Strategic Plan provides a framework within which all University functions operate and clearly describes an ambitious yet realistic destination for the future of the University. Furthermore, the Strategic Plan aligns with and supports the University’s Mission Statement (approved by the Board of Regents in June 2004). The University’s current Strategic Plan began its evolution on September 1, 1999, when incoming President Bruce Grube charged the Strategic Planning Council (SPC—a cross-functional planning committee composed of faculty, staff, and students) with producing an institutional level strategic plan. The charge included developing a vision of Georgia Southern’s future that could be shared with and valued by the entire University community and which would solidify the institution’s role within the University System of Georgia. The plan would be expected to guide the University toward its intended state of being and would be the primary determinant of resource allocation and the yardstick for assessment .

The SPC initiated their task by inviting a representative array of constituents to conduct an analysis of the institution’s strengths and weaknesses as well as environmental opportunities and threats. Those constituencies included undergraduate and graduate students, the Faculty Senate Executive Committee, the Personnel Advisory Committee, the Deans’ Council, the African-American Caucus, the campus chapter of the American Association of University Professors, administrative directors, and community leaders. Results of these forums were shared across campus. Given this realistic shared assessment of the University’s current status, all constituencies were invited to share their vision of an appropriate future for the University. The collective response was: “Georgia Southern University will be recognized as one of the best public comprehensive universities in the country within the next ten years.”

Using the suggestions received from the institution’s on- and off-campus publics, the SPC moved quickly to formulate a University-level action plan arranged according to six strategic themes: Academic Distinction, Student-Centered University, Technological Advancement, Transcultural Opportunities, Private and Public Partnerships, and Physical Environment. The core theme is Academic Distinction, and all the other themes are described in terms of how they support this ambition—depicted in the Strategic Plan’s Theme Whorl. The draft went through numerous revisions which were each shared with the campus community and revised further based upon feedback received. The Level I Plan was presented to campus on May 2, 2000.

Elements of the Level I Plan were then used to guide the development and implementation of Level II plans, and Level II plans were used to guide the development and implementation of Level III plans. The relationship between the three levels of planning is depicted in the Strategic Plan schematic—Path to a New Strategic Plan. In keeping with Georgia Southern’s strategic emphasis on broad university-wide engagement, the creation and implementation of this three-tiered planning model have involved hundreds of individuals across the University and have had a profound impact on all levels of decision making. All decisions, resource allocations, and assessments are made according to the precepts of the appropriate strategic plan(s) and the overarching ambition of the University.

Level I: A New Strategic Plan for the University

The Level I Plan, described above, articulates a destination for the University and is built around the six strategic themes. The Level I Plan is designed to guide all campus activities and resource allocations as well as function as the ultimate yardstick for assessment and continuous improvement activities. It inspires University constituents on an emotional level as well as informs actions on a functional level. It is the most frequently cited source of guidance for all campus documents and processes.

Level II: Program Review and University-wide Implementation Plans

The original Strategic Plan called for the creation of eight pan-university implementation plans. These plans describe how the University as a whole intends to achieve the destination articulated in Level I. Level II of the planning process, initiated in Fall 2000, involved two main components: 1) conduct a campus-wide review of all academic and non-academic programs for use as a guide for resource allocation (program review); and 2) create eight university-wide implementation plans.

As part of the strategic planning process and the regular cycle of program assessment, Georgia Southern made the decision to review ALL academic and non-academic campus programs (over 200) within the same time frame. This ambitious project was completed within a period of 18 months and was consistent with Board of Regents policies regarding the cyclical review of all academic programs.¹ Because of the number and diversity of programs across campus (130 academic programs, 56 business and finance programs, 17 student affairs programs, and 10 advancement and marketing/communications programs), the review process was a strenuous exercise in coordination and planning. First, programs within each division had to be identified as entities that would be reviewed. Second, program members prepared a self-assessment based on appropriate variations of four criteria: centrality to the University’s mission, publics served, viability, and quality. Third, deans and directors across campus provided a separate assessment of all programs within their sphere of responsibility. Fourth, programs were reviewed by university-level “blue ribbon panels” (composed of faculty, staff, and students), one for each division, charged with making an impartial non-parochial university-level review. Fifth, the review process and the recommendations in each division were reviewed by the Strategic Planning Council to ensure the integrity of the process. Sixth, programs were reviewed by each divisional vice president. Seventh, programs were reviewed by the President.

After each level of review, programs would receive one of four recommendations: enhance (programs that with additional resources have the greatest potential to help the University achieve its strategic ambitions), maintain (healthy programs that can be expected to continue to provide strong support for the strategic planning initiatives with resource requirements consistent with current levels of function), reduce (programs that can succeed with fewer resources), and eliminate (programs which do not advance the University’s agenda). The ultimate goal of program review was to ensure that the University remains focused on its strategic objectives while maintaining conscientious stewardship of its human, physical, and financial resources. The results of the reviews were communicated to the campus in Fall 2002. Board of Regents policies require that all academic undergraduate programs be reviewed at least once every seven years and that all academic graduate programs be reviewed once every ten years.² In response, the University has developed a cyclical program review schedule.

Concurrent with this extensive program review undertaking, eight separate teams (each team composed of faculty, staff, and students) were convened and tasked with developing the pan-university implementation plans. Guided by the Level I Plan, each of these groups drafted specific university-wide goals and objectives related to one of eight areas of interest: Academics, Technology, Enrollment Management, Facilities, Organization, Finance, Marketing/Communications, and Human Resources. While the theme of the Level I Plan is “where we want to go,” the Level II plans describe “how we intend to get there.” All Level II plans were reviewed by the Strategic Planning Council to ensure consistency with the Level I Plan. These eight plans were completed in 2002. As a result of our work on the Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) for Reaffirmation of Accreditation, the QEP was added to the set of Level II plans in 2004.  

Level III: Program Level Implementation Plans

Using the framework articulated in the University’s Level I and II plans and closely guided by the results of program review, each functional University unit developed a Level III plan, describing activities under the control of that unit which would facilitate achievement of the University’s objectives. The Level III plans for the 15 units reporting directly to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs are shown in Appendix III of the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs Annual Report for FY 2002-2003. The Level III plans essentially contain each unit’s objectives for 2003-2004. For example, under the Jack N. Averitt College of Graduate Studies, 20 objectives were listed. Enumerated below are five.

• Articulate and implement a vision of academic excellence for graduate studies and research. Continue to enhance the College’s image within and beyond the University. Collaborate with colleges, faculty, students, and alumni to create our brand-name/image.
• Facilitate the development of national reputations for graduate teaching, scholarship, and service. Target recognition from the US News and World Report’s “Best Graduate Schools.”
• Enhance our marketing and promotion program for Graduate Studies and Research.
• Increase enrollment, recruit and retain an increasingly diverse and high ability graduate student body. Our 10-year objective is for 20% of the student body to be graduate students.
• Increase sponsored program activity and level of funding.

The Center for Excellence in Teaching identified 23 objectives of which the first five are shown below.

• Expand and conduct a wide variety of activities to promote faculty development and effective teaching in support of the teacher-scholar.
• Provide support for new faculty to Georgia Southern University at the beginning of the academic year and throughout the year with an enhanced semester-long program for new faculty.
• Promote the integration of effective, innovative teaching strategies within course instruction.
• Promote faculty understanding of human learning and motivation within instructional technology training.
• Increase the number of faculty involved in the development and facilitation of workshops or other programs.

Furthermore at the conclusion of the 2002-2003 academic year, these same units were then tasked with reporting their effectiveness or progress in meeting these objectives. These responses are contained in Appendix I of the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs Annual Report for FY 2002-2003. The same 15 units that report directly to Provost responded. The table below captures those responses for the objectives shown above and highlights the relationship of these objectives to the University’s mission.

Jack N. Averitt College of Graduate Studies

Center for Excellence in Teaching

To ensure that the University’s extensive planning process outlined above continues to accurately inform and guide the University in achieving its mission, Georgia Southern implemented an annual review cycle for each level of the strategic planning process. Furthermore, the University acted to ensure that requests for resources and resource allocations were tied to the Strategic Plan. All resource requests must be linked to strategies that when employed will support the goals identified in the Level I and II plans. Likewise, resource allocations are based on the results of program review and the probability of moving the University toward achievement of its strategic objectives. Resource requests filter up the chain of command from the Level III unit implementation plans to respective divisional vice presidents. The President’s Cabinet makes final budget reconciliations.

In addition, the University, in concert with the Board of Regents, periodically reviews its mission to ensure congruence with system goals and state requirements. The present Mission Statement was the result of extensive discussion with all key internal and external University stakeholders. The Strategic Planning Council coordinated the collection and assimilation of feedback into the new Mission Statement. The proposed mission was shared in draft form on multiple occasions with the campus for reaction and suggestions for improvement. Once approved, the Strategic Planning Council incorporated the new Mission Statement back into its 2004 revision of the Level I Strategic Plan.

Other Planning Activities

Annual Retreats

Early in the fall of each academic year, Georgia Southern hosts an administrative retreat, during which all administrators, deans, directors, faculty chairs of select committees, and invited guests gather to discuss issues of strategic importance for the approaching academic year. New strategic initiatives are introduced and plans for implementation shared and discussed. Invited guests make presentations on evolving issues in the external environment. Formal and informal opportunities abound to discuss institutional strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats.

The Strategic Planning Council (SPC)

The SPC facilitates the strategic planning process by serving as advisor and articulator. The SPC engages in collective strategic deliberation on behalf of the University and advises the President; solicits and gathers information, identifies and evaluates strategic issues, recommends and reexamines priorities, and devises/reviews strategic alternatives for initiatives across campus; connects the general campus community to the planning process, reviews and revises the University’s Mission Statement, regularly listens to the campus community to identify issues of strategic import, conducts SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) Analyses on behalf of the University; and generally coordinates all planning activities. It is a diverse team comprised of elected and appointed faculty, a representative from the Faculty Senate, appointed staff from every division and the Office of the President, and students from the Student Government Association and the Graduate Student Association. A representative from the Office of Strategic Research and Analysis provides staff support to the SPC.

Institutional Effectiveness (IE) Planning

During the period from 1995 to 1999, Georgia Southern operated under a system of decentralized responsibility for assessing institutional effectiveness. Although an extensive IE inventory was conducted in 1995, there was little central coordination of IE efforts until 2000. Essentially, divisions and programs were responsible for maintaining effectiveness plans and measures necessary for their respective national accreditations. Selected comprehensive surveys, such as the Cooperative Institutional Research Program, were conducted each year during this period to provide inputs relative to national benchmarks. A variety of other tools and instruments were also employed to measure effectiveness.

Following the development of the new Strategic Plan and completion of comprehensive program review, centralized coordination of institutional effectiveness planning began anew. In 2001, the Office of Strategic Research and Analysis (OSRA) coordinated the creation of an Institutional Effectiveness Assessment Inventory—a list of all assessment tools/techniques currently employed by every reporting unit on campus. In addition, the OSRA identified nationally administered surveys for institutional utilization and developed a survey schedule for administration. Moreover, in FY 2003, all reporting units participated in an Assessment Inventory in which all assessment activities that related to Institutional Effectiveness were identified. This was followed by submission of Institutional Effectiveness plans in FY 2004. Each plan contained a narrative that related the mission of the unit to the mission of the University. The second section focused on the processes used to measure institutional effectiveness and the utilization of the findings to make continuous improvements. Using the tools identified in the Assessment Inventory of 2002-2003, each unit identified its learning and/or programmatic outcomes, the multiple tools used to measure effectiveness, the benchmarks used to validate the results, and changes that were made after analysis of the findings.

Additional evidence of the University’s use of planning and assessment tools to map progress toward achieving its mission can be found in Georgia Southern University’s annual report. Each year, the University submits to the University System an annual report detailing its progress toward achieving its stated strategic goals. The University’s planning process is also operationalized in the Campus Master Plan. This document, which guides all construction, expansion, and renovations, was developed under the specific guidance of the Level I Plan (“Physical Environment”) and the Level II Facilities Plan. All physical projects must be congruent with both the Campus Master Plan and the relevant sections of the Strategic Plans.

Office of Institutional Effectiveness and Strategic Planning

The Strategic Planning Council was asked to review compliance certification responses related to institutional effectiveness to provide the linkage between planning and evaluation. After reviewing the first round of IEP’s, the SPC recommended a more centralized coordinated effort and communicated this need to the President. As proof of the University’s commitment to assessment and institutional effectiveness, effective Fall 2004, the Office of Institutional Effectiveness and Strategic Planning was established to coordinate and supervise the creation, review, and maintenance of IEPs. This office will also conduct training and development activities related to IE issues. The office will report directly to the President and will effectively link planning and assessment in a seamless relationship.

¹ See the Board of Regents Policy Manual, § 205, Institutional Effectiveness: Planning and Assessment—which mandates that each institution within the University System establish a strategic planning process and maintain a current strategic plan in which institutional priorities are identified and through which the institution’s mission is implemented. See also Board of Regents Policy Manual, § 205.01, Comprehensive Academic Program Review—which stipulates that each institution within the University System conduct academic program review on a periodic basis consistent with efforts in institutional effectiveness and strategic planning.

² Board of Regents Policy Manual, § 205.01.