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.

The institution provides evidence of substantial planning and assessment beginning with a three-tiered process initiated in 1999. However, the relationship between Levels I and II is not clear for all areas, and Level III plans (some of which do not reference respective Level II goals) were provided only for one division—Student Affairs and Enrollment Management. In addition, institutional effectiveness reports commissioned for 2002-03, though well done in isolation, do not reference the Strategic Plan Levels and often contain objectives that differ from those in the master planning document.

The On-Site Review Committee should review a sample of academic and support unit Level III plans to determine linkages to respective goals in Levels I and II. The On-Site Review Committee also should review the institutional effectiveness reports for these same areas to ascertain if these assessments relate to the strategic planning process and therefore to the institutional mission.

As stated in Georgia Southern University’s June 2004 Mission Statement, Georgia Southern strives for academic excellence and embraces a campus culture that is dedicated to creating teaching and learning experiences of the highest quality. Since 1999,¹ the University has been engaged in assessing its tools and processes which encompass planning and assessment activities, and this work continues to unfold, develop, and improve with each iteration.² In implementing its three-tiered strategic planning process, the University continuously strives to strengthen the linkages between the three levels of planning and to more overtly link our strategic planning processes with our various assessment activities related to learning outcomes. Each iteration is designed to simultaneously build on the strengths of the previous iteration while addressing any weaknesses that may have been found in that same effort.

In 1999, the President of the University charged the Strategic Planning Council (SPC), a cross-functional team comprised of faculty, staff, and students, with developing a new strategic plan. After lengthy discussions on the merits and weaknesses of various models, the Council eventually settled on the three-tiered model currently used by the University. Based upon this model, all planning, resource allocation, and assessment at Georgia Southern is grounded in the Level I Strategic Plan. This plan describes an ambitious destination for the University organized around six themes, of which five themes are subordinate to and supportive of the core theme of Academic Distinction. All reporting units find guidance in the themes. It is useful to note that in developing the Level I plan, the Council identified Georgia Southern’s “culture of engagement” as the primary comparative advantage of the University. This trait not only informed the development of the other plans, but also helped to guide the campus in its selection of Advancing the Culture of Engagement as the topic for its Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP).

The three-tiered planning model called for a series of campus-wide implementation plans that would describe the actions necessary to attain the Level I goals articulated in the thematic aspirations. Guided by the Strategic Planning Council, eight Level II plans were developed: the Academic Plan, the Enrollment Management Plan, the Facilities Plan, the Financial Plan, the Human Resources Development Plan, the Marketing and Communications Plan, the Organizational Plan, and the Technology and Information Resources Plan. While oversight for the implementation of each Level II plan is assigned to a specific member of the President’s Cabinet, ultimately all units within the University are accountable for the implementation of these Level II plans. Each Level II plan is organized using the six themes articulated in Level I. Table 2.5a summarizes each of the Level II plans by Level I thematic aspiration. The only exception to this design is the Organizational Plan which is comprised of a brief narrative followed by a succession of organizational charts. It is important to note that the University’s Quality Enhancement Plan will become the ninth plan of Level II.

The original three-tiered model was envisioned to represent a planning process where the specificity of the actions increased at each level. For instance, the Level I plan established a broad framework that maps out Georgia Southern’s vision, mission, and ambition. This thematic framework then informs the development of the second level of planning. The Level II plans function as broad implementation plans for advancing the University toward achievement of its Level I goals. In the original conception, Level III plans were unit specific implementation plans which were to include the specific strategies and tactics that the unit would follow in helping to meet the University level objectives at Levels I and II. The relationship between the three levels is portrayed in Figure 2.5b.

Furthermore, in conceptualizing the Level III plans, the Strategic Planning Council believed that reporting units should be allowed maximum flexibility in developing action steps and assessments since the faculty and staff in these units were ultimately accountable for achievement of its learning and programmatic outcomes. Consequently, the Strategic Planning Council provided no standard template for the development of these plans beyond asking reporting units to describe the actions that unit would undertake to implement the goals and objectives of the Levels I and II plans. The Strategic Planning Council left it up to divisions to determine the scale, format, and frequency of the various Level III plans.

While this flexibility increased unit “ownership” of the Level III plans and allowed adaptation to meet the specific requirements of the various unit accrediting bodies, the Strategic Planning Council (also serving as the Institutional Effectiveness Committee) found that the linkages to the strategic themes and to program specific outcomes were not consistently identified across all units. The Strategic Planning Council also found considerable variation in the understanding and use of both programmatic and learning outcomes. As suggested by the Off Site Review Team and our SACS liaison, a sample of both Level III and Institutional Effectiveness plans is presented in Table 2.5c. This sample includes plans from units that span the continuum from “needs clarification” to “excellent.” All units were required to relate their unit mission to the mission of the University in their Institutional Effectiveness Plans. Level III and Institutional Effectiveness plans for all units, including Student Affairs and Enrollment Management, are available electronically or in print for inspection by the On-Site Review Committee.

Compounding this issue of variation, the Strategic Planning Council/Institutional Effectiveness Committee (SPC/IEC) found that academic department chairs and support unit heads were all suffering from “reporting plan overload.” At various intervals, these frontline campus leaders were asked to produce Level III plans, Institutional Effectiveness Plans, Annual Reports, budget requests, Program Reviews, and personnel evaluations. Even though all of these are linked by the various planning processes, in many cases, they were perceived to be separate and discrete activities.

As noted by the Off Site Review Team, Georgia Southern has provided evidence of “substantial planning and assessment.” Yet, again, with each iteration, we strengthen our planning and assessment processes. Development continues on a proposed reconceptualization of our planning and assessment processes that will directly address the above concerns. In the new model, Levels I and II remain the same. Level III plans are prepared by academic colleges and support unit departments, with divisional oversight and coordination. Academic department chairs and support unit heads would only be required to maintain Institutional Effectiveness Plans which would be specifically formatted to provide links to the strategic themes AND learning and programmatic outcomes. All other plans would be derived from or informed by these Institutional Effectiveness Plans. The new conceptualization is represented in Figure 2.5d. This reconceptualization greatly simplifies the workload of our frontline leaders and explicitly links the planning process with assessment of learning and programmatic outcomes. Proposed templates for the Level III plans and the new Institutional Effectiveness Plan are provided in Tables 2.5e and 2.5f respectively.

The Strategic Planning Council established a regular review cycle for updating all three levels of the plans. Initially approved in 2000, the Level I Strategic Plan was revised and updated in 2004 to realign it with the University’s new Mission Statement, adopted by the Board of Regents in June 2004. The Level II plans, originally approved in 2002, were likewise examined and updated in 2004. Preparation and training for the next round of planning are already underway and will be coordinated by the new Office of Institutional Effectiveness and Strategic Planning.

² For a more detailed description of ongoing assessment activities since FY 2002, please refer to the Office of Strategic Research and Analysis web site (http://services.georgiasouthern.edu/osra/assessment/).