vision 2015 faqs

1. What is VISION 2015?         
VISION 2015 is, fundamentally, a concept by which decisions about the next ten years’ advancements at Widener University will come into clear focus.  Based on the Strategic Plan, we are all called to implement a number of processes, activities, and/or structures that assure sound financial, curricular, and personnel practices.  As we move forward to articulate the plan’s implications for each unit and then to implement the plan at every level of the organization, it is critical that we protect the time and energies of all constituents while ensuring that faculty governance, the various stakeholders across the campus community, and those with special expertise are included in the process.  Thus, on a more concrete level, VISION 2015 is a steering task force, charged with ensuring the coordination of multiple efforts on campus to implement the Strategic Plan and eventually culminating in directions for a capital campaign.  

At the same time, we are in the process of preparing for our Middle states re-accreditation review.  As both a result and a byproduct of our work with the Strategic Plan, Middle States has invited us to participate in a pilot project, self-designed to focus on and document the work of the Strategic Plan and VISION 2015.  This project will document our accreditation efforts and strategic planning efforts, as well as other visionary and improvement projects, into a manageable, ongoing process.  VISION 2015’s task forces, described below, are charged with specific elements of that documentation.  

Members of VISION 2015 will offer guidance on processes and implementation of all relevant initiatives related to the Strategic Plan, Middle States re-accreditation, intersections with disciplinary [re]accreditations, and continuous process improvement. 
More specifically, VISION 2015 will meet regularly to

• Report on the work of the five task forces to ensure coordination, completeness, and relevance of their work;
• Help determine the cross-overs and linkages throughout the strategic plan and accreditation self-study, as well as any gaps between the two documents, and parse responsibility for coverage to one of the 5 task forces;
• Report back to the five task forces the results of the coordination and other conversations among the steering group;
• Ensure that each task force is incorporating other participants, wherever necessary, to gain access to information from which determinations of processes and directions may be clarified;
• Advise the chairs of any complications, resource needs, or other impediments to the overall process of integration;
• Review the final drafts of unit strategic plans to ensure conformity with the university’s plan;
• Review the final Middle States documentation for submission to the President and, ultimately, the accrediting body; and
• Review recommended areas for focus during the capital campaign.  

2. What are the five task forces?   
The five task forces correspond to the outline of Middle States’ expectations of documentation for re-accreditation.  Rather than the traditional outline of 14 equally weighted areas of interest (which Middle States calls “Characteristics of Excellence,” our pilot study allows us to document standard information and practices for 10 of the guiding characteristics, focusing on the four that best attest to the financial, curricular, and personnel soundness of Widener University.  As such, the task forces are

• Institutional Assessment;
• Planning Resource Allocation, and Institutional Renewal;
• Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes; and  
• Institutional Resources.

The fifth task force is the Middle States Task Force itself, charged with assembling the documentation for the other 10 standards and, ultimately, writing the document for submission for re-accreditation.  

3. What is the rationale for forming these task forces?  
In looking at the strategic plan and then at the Middle States subcommittee recommendations for the self-study design, it was abundantly clear that we are asking two separate groups to answer many of the same questions.  For instance, both the Strategic Plan and the Middle States study require us to document or enhance various aspects of our budgeting processes, but it would be difficult to improve the process (a strategic plan charge) without first clarifying the current process (a Middle States charge); the order of “who does what?” when?” is likely to create grave difficulties in either process’s performance. As another good example, the strategic plan outlines the goal of developing a process for institutional academic program review while the Middle States self-study document asks for descriptions of that process.  The two queries readily assume a linked process which, unfortunately, does not exist in many areas. In short, we need to link the strategic planning and Middle States functions, and we need to make sure that only one group is addressing any given charge or issue. 

Similarly, we need to make sure that we are generating the same response to the same question, regardless of the questioner.  In other words, when budget questions are asked, we need universal responses (even if the answers are area-specific), so that everyone is clear that and in what ways responses may vary. It makes little sense to have to re-craft our responses to questions about planning, budgeting, assessment, or other institutional processes and outcomes based on who’s asking whom at what time.  We can do better.  Our new task forces will help us create a consistent message, based on consistent sources of data and consistent processes and methods for collecting data.  Similarly, they will help us generate appropriate decision-making strategies and means of communicating those decisions.  All of these benefits work to the good of the institution and our goal to be inclusive and communicative about the institution’s strengths and its future.  

4. What are the charges of the task forces?       
We are still in the process of devising the specific charges for each task force.  In crafting those charges, we are working with each task force to have input on the members’ interpretations of their roles, careful that discrete functions are clarified while also ensuring communication across task forces as well.

That said, we already know some of the basic charges, even as they are evolving.  For instance, each task force will

• Review the Strategic Plan and Middle States’ Characteristics of Excellence, documenting cross-overs in questions/expectations/areas of concern;
• Submit that list of cross-overs to the VISION 2015 co-chairs for review; the co-chairs will make sure that the appropriate task force is answering the appropriate questions and that no significant area is escaping notice;
• Establish a timeline for completion of work due to the Middle States co-chairs for the self-study document;
• Identify likely sources of information needed to answer Middle States questions and to direct the implementation of the Strategic Plan;
• Confer with the Middle States co-chairs to prepare a document for inclusion in the Middle States self-study report, due at the end of the summer to the Middle States office (the Middle States co-chairs will have the authority for editing the various task force reports, with the co-chairs of VISION 2015 and the President having the final approval of that report);
• With the approval of the self-study design, begin the process of answering questions for Middle States; and
• Complete the documentation for Middle States and submit to the MS co-chairs by early Fall 2006.  

More specific charges are likely to result from each of the individual task forces.  As these charges are articulated and refined, they will also be posted here.

5. How long will the task forces operate?      
While we want the chairs to stay on board throughout the process—for at least two years to help us document our Middle States achievements and well beyond, if at all possible, to promote our commitment to the “evergreen” nature of the Strategic Plan and into, eventually, a campaign to raise funds for Widener—we recognize that some changes in membership will likely take place, thanks to sabbaticals and other opportunities or responsibilities for the task force members. We currently anticipate the likelihood that these task forces—although not necessarily the specific members of the task forces—will continue to operate in some fashion throughout the next ten years, culminating in the success of the VISION 2015 campaign.    

6. Who is on the task forces?     
Committee membership for the Steering Committee; Planning, Resource Allocation, and Institutional Renewal; Institutional Resources; Institutional Assessment; Assessment of Student Learning; and Middle States Task Forces.

7. How did they get selected?      
We are so fortunate at Widener to have so many people who are so supportive of the institution and its future and who are more than capable of serving on any of these task forces.  We did, however, try to create a appropriate balance of members, based on numerous factors.  After a very long process of consideration, we selected people who

• Are committed to the mission and vision of the institution;
• Participated in and/or thoroughly understand the Strategic Plan and its process—along with its commitment to inclusiveness;
• Bring some expertise to the task force (i.e., budgeting, assessment, etc.);
• Represent a balance in junior vs. senior faculty so we get both “fresh ideas” and “institutional history”;
• Represent members of previous MS subcommittees and/or SP “go-teams”;
• Represent appropriate faculty governance committees;
• Represent college balance; and
• Represent gender, race, ethnic balances.  

Again, as noted above, we anticipate some “movement” on these task forces, with the need for some rotation to occur.  We may learn, for instance, that a particular faculty member’s expertise in an area would be a strong contribution to that task force, so we can add him or her.  On the other hand, if someone loses interest in the process and asks to be replaced, again, we would make some changes.  Sabbaticals and other time away from the institution would also necessitate changes.  And we certainly acknowledge that this is hard, time-consuming work that will create some natural turnover.

8. Who had input on their selection?    
In the initial process, the President’s Executive Team listed members of the University community who have special expertise in these task force areas.  The Senior Leadership Team, comprised of the deans, vice presidents, and various campus leaders, added its recommendations for additional membership.  In the Town Hall of December 2004, President Harris encouraged the faculty and other town hall attendees to recommend participants or to volunteer themselves.  We charted all the suggestions for potential members according to the criteria listed in #7, above, to try to ensure the appropriate expertise, commitment, and balance among variables.  Then, we resubmitted the names through the Executive Team, Senior Leadership Team, and the chairs of each task force.

What is also critical is that each member of the campus community should feel that he/she has at least one representative voice on each of the task forces.  Institutional perspectives vary tremendously based on all sorts of criteria—time at the institution, experience in other positions/institutions, familiarity with national trends, and so on.  We very much want to capture the broad realities, as well as the more subtle nuances, inherent in each of the areas of our planning and documentation of achievements, opportunities, challenges, and vision.

9. What advantage is there to having this group and itscharges versus the Middle States subcommittees and the strategic planning subcommittees?       
First, and most critical to note, is that nothing the Middle States subcommittees did is being abandoned.  The work of those subcommittees was fundamental in (1) helping us set directions for the Middle States review, which the task forces are now adapting for the actual self-study, and (2) providing evidence of the readiness of Widener University’s culture in serving as a national model for conducting a meaningful, campus-wide conversation about the future of institutional accreditation.

Second, as mentioned in the response to question 2, we are creating a one-source, intentional link to the questions and answers we provide regarding Strategic Planning, re-accreditation, and continuous process improvement.  Additionally, with this streamlined continuity, we can have a clear sense of who is reviewing the various areas of institutional processes and from what perspective; we also have a clear route for ensuring full input and review of responses from across the campus.

Driving all this change, of course, is the commitment to the Strategic Plan’s primary goal of creating a culture of excellence at Widener University.  Based on that commitment, the opportunity to participate in a special Middle States pilot project gave us the latitude to do things differently—to streamline processes and move the whole institution forward at one time.  Ultimately, the blending of this work should result in clearer directions, consistency in understandings and explanations of Widener’s mission and vision, and the foundation on which to establish the next generation of achievements for the University.

10. How will we know what’s going on….and can we offer input? 
Absolutely!  Each of the task force co-chairs will be providing routine updates that we will post on this site, letting everyone know where we are in the process.  Additional updates may be posted in any of a variety of mechanisms, but will most likely be included in the President’s town hall meetings, in the Senior Leadership Team meetings, in faculty meetings, and throughout each unit’s routine meetings.

We encourage anyone who has ideas about how such processes can be enhanced, how questions can be answered, and any other matters to communicate directly with the task force co-chairs, as well as with the VISION 2015 co-chairs Baker and Allen.   

   

Office of the Provost
Widener University
One University Place
Chester, PA 19013
tel: 610-499-4106

Joann Anderson
Administrative Assistant
tel: 610-499-4106