CoE Strategic Plan - Spring 2014 Thanks to the Strategic Planning - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

CoE Strategic Plan - Spring 2014

Julie Carrier (BAEG) Kartik Balachandran (BMEG) Greg Thoma (CHEG) Craig Thompson (CSCE, Chair) Norm Dennis (CVEG) Alan Mantooth (ELEG) Manuel Rossetti (INEG) Doug Spearot (MEEG) Richard Cassady (FEP) Adrienne Gaines (FEP) Colleen Briney (Dean's staff) Greg Parnell (INEG, SP Expert) Thanks to the Strategic Planning Task Force (SPTF) committee members for their hours of service to the college this spring. Thanks to all faculty, staff, students, administrators, and alumni who took time to meet with SPTF members to share your recommendations. Thanks to Kathy Jones and Kristi Fink in the Dean’s office for arranging meetings. Preliminary This is the short version of the SPTF presentation leaving out a lot of detail.

The Dean, DHs, and SPTF have reviewed the strategic plan and the Dean has read all recommendations. More work ahead to operationalize the plan.

Level of effort so far: 270 emails & 90+ documents & 20+ meetings & ~250 hours

CoE Strategic Plan Objective

Take CoE to the next level

taking into account

UA Top 50 by 2021* + UA Growth CoE SP – executable plan for continuous improvement

2 * 2021 is UA’s sesquicentennial. Are we chasing rankings? Our objective is to take CoE to the next level. The metrics help identify hot spots but we are more improvement-driven than metrics-driven. Which Top 50? The UA web sites focuses on being a Top 50 public research university by 2021 and most measures they look at are USNWR undergraduate statistics (see http://top50.uark.edu/). In CoE, we are focused on those Top 50 undergraduate measures but also we want to be a Top 50 Graduate Engineering School. In USNWR 2015, UA ranks 63 and CoE ranks 66. NOTE: Strategic Planning is not about telling people to work harder. NOTE: Current CoE Strategic Plan has reasonable initial coverage of issues that face CoE. Received inputs from perhaps 1/3 of

• CoE. This sample appears sufficient to identify some important mid-course corrections.

The Dean’s charge: be transformative

How-to guide for strategic planning

3

METRICS

Vision, Core Values, Tagline Mission Statement, Scope Stakeholders Strategic Goals

THREE WORKING GROUPS

Feb Mar Apr Feb Preliminary Report May 2 Feb Mar Apr USNWR Top 50 (2015) CoE 2009 metrics updated Growth – Faculty/student ratio PhD:faculty ratio, $/faculty Honors pipeline Diversity

VISION TIMELINE

Research Pipeline Improvements - mentoring Econ Prosperity - Univ-Industry Research Gap Reputation – Honors & Awards, … Continuous Improvement Digital Measures? ABET process supported by hotspots Top 50/UA/CoE/Dept. Past ten years/Goal: 2021 Summer Final Report June aligns with

RECOMENDATIONS

Goals  actions

Strategic Plan translates vision to actionable strategies that improve metrics The Strategic Planning Task Force met every week with homework in between.

SPTF did not start from scratch

• National

– USNWR ranking (2015), ASEE, Top American Research Universities, … – Peer and aspirational institutions - reviewed the Top 35-55+ Engineering Grad Schools, all have metrics, few have strategic plans

• UA

– Vision, institutional goals, UA Top 50 website (top50.uark.edu) – Transforming the Flagship, Providing Transparency Progress Report – Office of Institutional Research (UA metrics)

• CoE

– Legacy CoE – existing org chart and business processes – CoE Fact Book 2013, CoE metrics from Colleen Briney – Research Task Force Report Jan. 2014 – ABET 2014-2015 – Strategic Plan 2004, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014

4

Objective - define*

• CoE Vision**
• CoE Mission Statement**
• CoE Strategic Goals/Objectives**

* Needed to define these terms and how they related to the Strategic Plan ** Not starting from scratch - we revised existing statements for these

Vision Working Group

see long version of this presentation

UA/COE Visions

University of Arkansas Vision By 2021, the University of Arkansas will be recognized as

• ne of the nation’s Top 50 Public Research Universities,

with nationally ranked departments and programs throughout the institution.

“The vision is for the heart, the mission statement is for the mind.” The vision is the North Star, guiding us toward our goal.

College of Engineering Vision In support of the University of Arkansas vision, the College of Engineering will pursue excellence in research, scholarship, and education, ensuring personal and professional growth for future generations of engineering leaders who will stimulate prosperity for Arkansas, the nation and the world.

• -Transforming the Flagship, The University of Arkansas, 2014

The CoE vision should tie into and be consistent with the UA vision but we want it to be inspirational and reflect

• ur aim to be a Top 50 school at all levels (see CoE Goals later on). This vision is a variant of the vision crafted by

the Dean and DHs last semester.

CoE Mission Statement

The mission of the College of Engineering is threefold:

• Teaching — to provide a high-quality education for undergraduate and

graduate students that enables them to become leaders in their chosen professions.

• Research — to create, explore, and develop innovations in engineering and

science through undergraduate and graduate research.

• Service — to benefit university, local, state, national, and industry, and

government communities via educational, technical, professional, and entrepreneurial activities.

Scope

The College of Engineering offers ABET accredited undergraduate degree programs and graduate masters and doctorate degree programs in biological engineering, biomedical engineering, chemical engineering, civil engineering, computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, industrial engineering, and mechanical engineering.

7

• The mission statement can be inherited by all CoE departments just by narrowing scope
• The mission is aligned with Faculty Activity Report and reads like a job description

 Modified from MEEG mission

CoE Strategic Goals (2014)

1. Provide a student-centered educational experience that attracts diverse, high-quality students, helps them to realize their potential, inspires them to pursue excellence at all degree levels and grooms them to become leaders in their profession. 2. Create a supportive collegial research environment that encourages scholarship and interdisciplinary collaboration. 3. Attract, recruit, mentor and retain a diverse workforce team: a high-quality faculty and a skilled staff. 4. Implement service and outreach to enhance the impact of the College of Engineering both within and outside the university and be a catalyst for economic development through entrepreneurship and collaboration with industry and government in Arkansas, the nation and the world. 5. In support of the UA growth goal and the UA vision (Top 50 public university by 2021), define the corresponding COE growth goals for the undergraduate and graduate programs, the faculty and staff, the facilities, and the research and institutionalize continuous improvement.

8

Strategic goals should guide decision making

• Covers the CoE mission (teaching, research, service) and key CoE stakeholders
• CoE goals complement the UA institutional goals
• Strategic planning metrics need to measure progress towards CoE goals
• Strategic planning recommendations must align with CoE goals

In addition, UA has 15 institutional goals – CoE inherits those goals.

Metrics Working Group

Process

• Benchmarking, an evidence-based approach. We used

metrics to benchmark ourselves against our past progress and aspirational schools. We identified dimensions and hotspots.

• We gathered metrics from

– USNWR 2015 CoE vs Top 35-50 - aspirational – USNWR CoE 2005-2015 Grad and UG - historic – UA Office Institutional Research and CoE metrics – Other sources: PhD and Honors College

• This helps us identify some areas we want to improve

and also gives us a dashboard to measure our improvement.

• Metrics can be revealing even though some data is dirty
• r incomplete

9

USNWR 2015 – among public graduate engineering schools, we rank 66 *

USNWR 2015 Public Engineering Graduate Schools Rank USNWR 2015 All Engineering Graduate Schools Rank School Name 35 62 University of Iowa 36 63 University of Illinois—​Chicago 37 63 University of Tennessee—​Knoxville 38 67 Auburn University 39 67 Colorado State University 40 69 Stony Brook University—​SUNY 41 69 University of California—Riverside 42 71 Clemson University 43 71 University of Connecticut 44 71 University of Texas—Dallas 45 78 Oregon State University 46 78 University of Houston (Cullen) 47 78 University of North Carolina—​Chapel Hill 48 81 Missouri University of Science & Technology 49 81 University of California—​Santa Cruz 50 81 University of Central Florida 51 81 University of Cincinnati 52 81 University of Missouri 53 81 Washington State University 54 87 University of Nebraska—​Lincoln 57 90 Mississippi State University 58 94 Louisiana State University—​Baton Rouge 61 94 University of Kentucky 66 102 University of Arkansas—​Fayetteville

10

GOAL

We’ll need to aim high to hit Top 50 by 2021

* UA ranks 63 in Best National Universities – public ranking (2014)

SEC Institution Enrollment Public CoE rank Texas A&M University 52,585 7 Vanderbilt University 12,093 private University of Tennessee 27,523 37 Auburn University 25,078 38 University of Missouri 34,255 49 Mississippi State University 21,424 57 Louisiana State University 29,549 58 University of Kentucky 28,094 61 University of South Carolina 30,721 62 University of Alabama 33,602 66 University of Arkansas 25,365 66 University of Georgia 35,520 tbd University of Mississippi 19,822 RNP

What Metrics Tell Us

• UA CoE is smaller than most of the Top 35-55+.

– Of 23 other schools we compared ourselves to, UA ranked 15th in size, its CoE faculty ranked 17th and is grad population ranked 21st. So UA may be underinvesting in engineering and our grad program needs to grow.

• In terms of USNWR rankings

– We are strong in NAE membership (7.5%) and middling in

• ur grad acceptance rates and GRE requirements (10%).

– We need most improvement in

• Reputation (40%) - UA … a best kept secret  frustrating
• Research expenditures per faculty and overall (25%)
• PhDs granted and PhD/MS per faculty (17.5%)

11

 Warning: USNWR is an odd ranking – popularity, contest, NAE, no metrics on scholarship per se. Note: According to Dr. Rankin, UA federal research expenditures are $32.7M (public rank 128). If UA had over $40M, we'd be tied for #38 public. CoE had $19M total research expenditures.

• Reasonable tuition
• Gender and minority diversity of workforce (faculty, staff,

grad and UG population) – rank reasonably but still below

• ur aspirational target esp. our UG population and faculty
• Some departments are ranked well (INEG, BAEG) but others

are ranked lower.

• Unbalanced growth within CoE  underinvestment

– CoE has 2944 UGs and 106 faculty at present (less than 1/10 UA faculty). Our current UG student:faculty ratio 27.8-to-1 would mean we currently need over 163 faculty to have an 18:1 student:faculty ratio!!! A reasonable target for CoE in 2021 would be 200 faculty assuming UA continues to grow and CoE expands its faculty % share. – CoE departments range in UG student:faculty ratio from the low teens to the upper twenties. UAF goal is 18 or 19. – Some departments are too small relative to aspirational CoEs

12

Metrics …

• Our 6 year graduation rate needs to improve (63%  70%).
• Need a metric for # UG intern – target 80%
• Too few of our undergrads are completing in Honors –

under 20% of the seniors in honors complete a thesis.

• Perhaps 2/3 of our PhDs go to industry and relatively few

are teaching at Top 50 schools (est. ~6%). Our Ph.D. retention should be better.

• Our faculty websites are of variable quality – often out of

date and do not list faculty accomplishments so do not contribute to reputation or creating relationships.

13

Metrics …

Metrics – some details

USNWR 2015 - Ranking UA CoE against Top 35-55+ (ranges Low to High in category) Weight CoE Rank (1..24) Low UAF CoE High GOAL SCORE 100.00% 24 21 21 34 Top 35-55+ selected to outscore us 45 QUALITY ASSESSMENT (REPUTATION) Peer Assessment out of 5 25.00% 23 2.3 2.3 2.9 poor reputation 2.7 QUALITY ASSESSMENT (REPUTATION) Recruiter Assessment out of 5 15.00% 22 2.6 2.6 3.3 poor reputation 3 STUDENT SELECTIVITY Overall Acceptance Rate 3.25% 12 59.2% 33.5% 19.4% middle of the pack 30% STUDENT SELECTIVITY Mean GRE Quant (MS+PhD) old - new 6.75% 15 725 - 159 745 - 162 774 - 162 middle of the pack 757-162 FACULTY RESOURCES PhD Student to Faculty Ratio 7.50% 21 1.2 1.7 5.1 somewhat low 2.8 FACULTY RESOURCES MS Student to Faculty ratio 3.75% 17 0.9 1.4 9.7 somewhat low 2.2 FACULTY RESOURCES PhDs Granted 6.25% 20 10 36 77 low > 45 FACULTY RESOURCES calculated (# phd/ faculty size) 20 0.24 0.35 0.64 low 0.43 FACULTY RESOURCES Faculty in National Academy of Engineering 7.50% 6 0.0% 1.9% 4.5% good re NAE 1.90% RESEARCH ACTIVITY Research Expenditures 2011-2012 15.00% 22 $9,209,275 $18,973,163 $68,899,360 low research expenditure per faculty $36,400,000 RESEARCH ACTIVITY Research Expenditure per faculty 10.00% 19 $147,554 $180,696 $668,925 low research expenditure per faculty $350,000

14

The above visual shows UA CoE in yellow compared to Top 35-54+ schools in terms of USNWR metrics. This is a ranking with the top as best our of 24 and the bottom as the opposite of best. The above table shows how USNWR ranks UA CoE and improvement goals we could set. For example, doubling the research expenditure per faculty and increasing the PhD:faculty ratio from 1.7 to 2.8 would be helpful.

Recommendations Working Group

Process

• Strength-Weakness-Opportunity-Threat (SWOT) Analysis
• Recommendations – collected 160 recommendation

from around 40-50 individuals (faculty, staff, students, admin, alums), consolidated to 115 recommendations, mapped to CoE Goals, then prioritized.

• Identify dashboard model

15

Mapping Goals to Recommendations

CoE Strategic Plan Goals 1. Provide a student-centered educational experience that attracts diverse, high-quality students, helps them to realize their potential, inspires them to pursue excellence at all degree levels and grooms them to become leaders in their profession. 2. Create a supportive collegial research environment that encourages scholarship and interdisciplinary collaboration. 3. Attract, recruit, mentor and retain a diverse workforce team: a high-quality faculty and a skilled staff. 4. Implement service and outreach to enhance the impact of the College of Engineering both within and outside the university and be a catalyst for economic development through entrepreneurship and collaboration with industry and government in Arkansas, the nation and the world. 5. In support of the UA growth goal and the UA vision (Top 50 public university by 2021), define the corresponding COE growth goals for the undergraduate and graduate programs, the faculty and staff, the facilities, and the research and institutionalize continuous improvement. CoE Strategic Plan Recommendations and Metrics Categories  correspond to CoE vision, mission, goals, FAR

• 8 - Vision and Goals – aligns us towards a common vision – a culture or success and impact
• 25 - Enriching Educational Experience – affects our undergraduate and graduate students, produces leaders
• 19 - Culture of Scholarship / Research Productivity – supportive, collegial, multidisciplinary research environment
• 11 - Economic Impact / Community Service – industry and government in Arkansas, the nation and the world; also

entrepreneurship

• 12 – Reputation / Visibility / Brand – based on impact and success
• 22 - Balanced Growth – undergraduate program, graduate program, faculty and staff, facilities
• 4 - High quality, skilled, diverse workforce – students, faculty, staff, administrators
• 15 - Continuous improvement – institutionalized

SWOT Analysis

Strengths

• Strong UG programs and job placement
• Honors College, FEP
• Strong faculty, competitive compensation
• Several departments ranked nationally. 25th best
• nline graduate engineering program
• Interdisciplinary centers
• Access to Walmart, JB Hunt, Tyson, Acxiom, …
• Strong alumni support
• Flagship, razorback, location, community, quality of life
• Healthy academies

17

Weaknesses

• Poor career advising
• Honors completion rate
• Placement of PhDs
• UG, grad, and faculty retention
• Underinvestment in some departments
• Interdisciplinary research
• Weak research connections to regional industry limits
• ur economic impact
• Reputation, perception
• Need for balanced growth – ratios including

student:faculty, UG:grad, dept:dept. Continuously improve diversity.

Opportunities

• New capital campaign
• Culture of scholarship; interdisciplinary research
• Increase diversity
• Build strong relationship to regional industry to solve

engineering problems and to provide economic impact

• Market CoE impact better

Threats

• Not improving faster than the competition
• International universities, other distance programs
• Being too insular
• Declining federal $
• Unbalanced growth and failure to invest in

departments and faculty

See final report for full SWOT analysis

Importance to the COE Relevant Important Critical Size of gap between current and goals Large

Highest strategic planning emphasis

Significant Small

Not a strategic planning recommendation

Strategic Planning Prioritizing the Metrics and Recommendations

The critical issues are how important the recommendation is to COE and the size of the gap between current status and the COE goals.

… BUT WE STILL NEED LOW COST/HIGH IMPACT ANALYSIS AND TO EXPAND RECOMMENDATIONS WITH ACTION PLAN AND RESPONSIBILITIES See final report for detailed recommendation priorities WE COMPLETED PRIORITIZING MATRICES FOR VISION, EDUCATION, CULTURE OF SCHOLARSHIP / RESEARCH PRODUCTIVITY, HIGH QUALITY DIVERSE WORKFORCE, ECONOMIC IMPACT / COMMUNITY SERVICE, REPUTATION, BALANCED GROWTH, AND CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT …

Recommendation Topics …

• VISION

– vision and SP are understood and accepted by CoE Dean, DH, Faculty and Staff and are institutionalized as an actionable plan we are committed to execute.

• EDUCATION

– better communication between FEP and Departments – improve UG career advising and grad student survival skills – increase UG retention from current 63% to 70%! – increase Honors completion rate from 20% to day 40% (?) – increase UG intern rate to 80% – encourage more UG to continue to grad school – quantize value of MS and PhD and increase PhD production (PhD:faculty ratio, PhD completion)

• CULTURE OF SCHOLARSHIP / RESEARCH PRODUCTIVITY

– increase research funding and scholarship (research expenditure per faculty) from X to Y – hire strategically based on research plan AND balanced growth at the dept. level – encourage interdisciplinary research – improve faculty mentoring

• HIGH QUALITY DIVERSE WORKFORCE

– faculty and staff retention – gender and minority diversity – staff advancement

19

• ECONOMIC IMPACT / COMMUNITY SERVICE

– CoE as a catalyst for economic development – Razorback corridor - research partnerships with regional industry  enhance CoE reputation with a CoE that solves real engineering problems – Encourage a culture of entrepreneurship

• REPUTATION/BRANDING

– influence Deans and DHs to influence USNWR – increase presence and publication visibility – improve faculty websites – nominate peers for awards

• BALANCED GROWTH

– define balanced growth goals - not just student:faculty ration but also PhD:faculty, teaching:research, ... – underinvestment in core competencies and some departments

• CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT

– improve collection of productivity data for CoE and Departments – involve Departments and faculty/staff in strategic plan execution – public Strategic Plan dashboard on CoE website – with Feedback button – continuous replanning

20

Recommendation Topics (cont.)

Next Steps

• This summer

– A public dashboard website for CoE Top 50 consistent with UA Top 50 (modeled after http://top50.uark.edu) – Written documents compiling process, cost/benefit analysis of recommendations, and expand recommendations with action plan and responsibilities

• Dean’s office to institutionalize recommendations, all

CoE to execute strategic plan, and iterate

21

UA Top 50 - Dashboard

22

http://top50.uark.edu a good model for the CoE dashboard

Note: continuous improvement

Why I am retiring …

23

The next generation of engineers needs me

Case study: my grandson Jacob before and after deciding to be an engineer

But my replacement is ready …

24

As an older model of avatar, I am being replaced by

• Dr. Thompson 2.0

QUESTIONS?

25