TO:         The University Community
FROM       Dr. David M. La Guardia, Academic Vice President
               Chair, University Planning Group
SUBJECT:       Summary of the UPG Meeting, October 26, 2007

Following is a summary of the discussion items from the UPG meeting of October 26, 2007.

D. La Guardia called the meeting to order at 8:39 a.m. in the LSC Conference Room.  The minutes of the previous meeting were approved without objection.  N. Santilli then opened the meeting with a brief explanation of institutional performance and some measures of it and the related web site being developed by the University Budget Committee.  Its development is related to JCU’s institutional initiatives and to its integrated strategic planning, that is, integrating academic, financial and capital planning.  He showed the institutional initiatives (II) web site that he is developing.  It affirms the Vision, Mission, Core Values, and Strategic Initiatives document, making it and keeping it alive.  It provides a platform for charting institutional performance and progress by linking university data in the Fact Book to initiatives from the planning retreat.  It also allows us to communicate with internal and external constituencies, as well as addressing recent calls for the higher education community to demonstrate accountability.

The II web site development has been guided by institutional mission, and it is intended to have balance between inputs and outcomes of institutional performance (e.g. outreach and engagement with the community).  It is also intended to be easy to access and easily readable.  It focuses on what matters to the institution.  The nine areas identified at the June 2006 Planning Retreat are used to classify and report on progress of the top three initiatives in each of the nine areas at the institutional level.  The web site also has sections planned to allow for each of the five divisions of the university to show their strategic initiatives and performance indicators report.  N. Santilli then gave a few examples of some strategic initiatives and a performance indicator or two that could be used to track progress.  For example, the initiative to “recruit, enroll, retain and graduate a talented, diverse student body, etc.” from the VMCVSI document could use, as one performance indicator, retention and graduation rate graphs, again using Fact Book data.  The initiative “to secure the resources necessary to foster an extraordinary learning experience, etc.” could use the principal balance of endowment and similar funds as a performance indicator and/or the endowment per FTE student as another one.  N. Santilli gave this link to the II web site:   www.jcu.edu/intranet/initiatives.

He then asked E. Peck to demonstrate the web site that the University Budget Committee (UBC) has been developing.  E. Peck noted that the site is password protected and that those who need to access to it will get it.  A main project for the UBC last year and this year has been to come up with dashboard indicators, but the group preferred the term university performance indicators (UPI).  The Committee has also been charged with developing and implementing a fiscal review process both for academic and non-academic areas.  What type of data and/or ratios ought to be collected to show how departments are performing?  For example, the Delaware Study should help us compare our instructional cost to others.  The plan is for fiscal review to become part of any new initiative/program.  The UBC has been asked to develop a protocol for initiating a new program; a UBC subcommittee has been formed to work on that.

E. Peck then demonstrated the University Performance Indicators web site DRAFT, emphasizing that it is still a DRAFT.  Their plan was to show on one page the most significant indicators, with drill down capability for details, but also to allow going directly to a set of details.  The main UPI page showed six complete years of data in the main areas of Revenue, Costs, Enrollment, Faculty and Teaching, and Institutional Performance Ratios, with several items within each of those.  Some of the pages of drill down details were also demonstrated.  S. Wertheim made a point that setting goals is an important step in this approach.  She also noted the importance of developing a balanced scorecard, one that is not just revenue driven.  E. Peck agreed and said that this is an interactive process and that the UBC expects the UPG and others to help with that.  When asked by P. Murphy about showing endowment, E. Peck indicated that it is in the revenue details, which could perhaps use more definition.  P. Murphy suggested putting the ending endowment balance on the main UPI page, with drill down to the details.

J. Smith and J. Ivec brought up the development of one or more benchmarking groups.  E. Peck indicated that perhaps there could be a common set, with others allowed to be added subject to some constraints, e.g. endowment or athletic division.  E. Peck then made the point that he was presenting UPI for the Budget Committee, that is, the fiscal indicators.  More work is needed to determine who should do this for the rest of the university areas and what PI’s make sense for each of those areas.  N. Santilli is planning to go out to the vice presidents to begin this process.  There was some discussion of determining peer, competitor and aspirant groups of schools.  N. Santilli asked whether we are in a position to set targets and if the UPG should do that.  He also noted the difficulty of determining how to demonstrate performance, especially with respect to mission.  The group also was asked to consider whether the UPG should come up with those other PI’s and when we might be able to move toward setting goals.  Also, what other (besides fiscal) PI’s should we be considering?  D. La Guardia congratulated the UBC on getting this far and noted our tendency to be too insular.  Fr. Prehn asked how this is going to be used.  In addition to evaluating new proposals, it will also aid in assessment.  E. Peck also noted that Fr. Niehoff wanted to bring budgeting and planning more closely together, but UBC is not to over-step the UPG.

There was some discussion of other possible measures for other departments.  Participation could be used for the Counseling Center and Services for Students with Disabilities, for example.  Satisfaction could also be used.  J. Landis suggested developing an overall web page for integrating non-fiscal along with fiscal PI’s.  B. Williams noted that this is a huge culture shift from reporting what has happened to what our goals are and planning for it.  What are our goals?  How do we get there and know whether we are making progress?  Perhaps we could also consider some “historic best” within a PI presentation.

Before adjourning, D. La Guardia noted that this has been just the start of this conversation.

The meeting adjourned at 10:02 a.m.