The$Developmentof$aStrategic$Planning$Framework$...

The Development of a Strategic Planning Framework for VCU’s College of Humani?es and Sciences

Data Analysis and Representa?on Interpreta?on U?liza?on

Why are we here?

•  During the fall 2013 CHS retreat, Dean Coleman charged us to iden?fy priori?es to include in a strategic plan for the college. – Requested a boNom-‐up, stakeholder-‐driven, empirically-‐derived process for determining the major components of the plan

– Sought a more engaged and intensive approach to understand the various facets and nuances of iden?fied priori?es

How long did it take us to get here? What did we do to get here?

•  In about 45 days… – We engaged every CHS unit and over 350 administrators, faculty and staff

•  Full-‐?me and part-‐?me employees – We systema?cally organized 125 strategic priori?es of the college

•  Form and structure (a mul?dimensional strategic planning framework)

– We “priori?zed the priori?es” of the college •  Rela?ve importance and impact (Tier I, II, III)

How much has it cost thus far? •  Dollars

–  $1,600.00 for project license •  Original price for project license was $5,800. •  An external consultant would have cost between $12,000-‐$15,000.

•  Time – About 610 hours donated by CHS administrators, faculty, and staff

•  ~300 brainstorming and ra?ng x 75 minutes = 22,500 minutes or 375 hours

•  ~27 CHS/ACM members brainstorming, sor?ng, and ra?ng x 135 minutes = 3,645 minutes or roughly 60 hours

•  My ?me offered in-‐kind ~175 hours

Where do we go from here?

•  CHS Dean and staff will hold forums/mee?ngs – To beNer understand specific priori?es across key stakeholder groups and units

•  CHS Dean and staff will map priori?es onto Quest themes and university ini?a?ves – To facilitate the development of an ac?on plan to address Tier I, II, and III priori?es

Recap: Concept Mapping Ac?vi?es •  Step 1: Prepara+on

–  Development of focus prompt, ra?ng items, and procedures •  Step 2: Genera+on

–  Par?cipant Ques?ons and Brainstorming •  CHS administrators, faculty and staff (i.e., stakeholders) completed five

demographic items •  CHS stakeholders brainstormed priority statements

•  Step 3: Structuring –  Sor?ng

•  Select group of CHS stakeholders sorted priority statements into conceptually similar piles

–  Ra?ng •  CHS stakeholders rated priority statements based on rela?ve importance and

rela?ve impact •  Step 4: Data Analysis and Representa+on •  Step 5: Interpreta+on •  Step 6: U+liza+on

CHS Stakeholders by Type of Posi?on

CHS Stakeholders by Years of Service

CHS Stakeholders Familiarity with CHS Mission, Values and Goals

CHS Stakeholders Perceived Empowerment

Recap: Concept Mapping Ac?vi?es •  Step 1: Prepara+on

–  Development of focus prompt, ra?ng items, and procedures •  Step 2: Genera+on

–  Par?cipant Ques?ons and Brainstorming •  CHS administrators, faculty and staff (i.e., stakeholders) completed five

demographic items •  CHS stakeholders brainstormed priority statements

•  Step 3: Structuring –  Sor?ng

•  Select group of CHS stakeholders sorted priority statements into conceptually similar piles

–  Ra?ng •  CHS stakeholders rated priority statements based on rela?ve importance and

rela?ve impact •  Step 4: Data Analysis and Representa+on •  Step 5: Interpreta+on •  Step 6: U+liza+on

Overview •  Step 4: Data Analysis and Representa+on

–  Research methodology and sta?s?cal analysis •  Primary Analyses

–  Sort Data Aggrega?on –  Mul?dimensional Scaling (MDS)

–  Representa?on of CHS Strategic Planning Framework primary components and domains

•  Primary Analysis –  Hierarchical Cluster Analysis

•  Step 5: Interpreta+on –  Empirical and interpreta?ve guidance

•  Secondary Analyses –  Anchoring/Bridging Analysis –  Go Zone Analyses –  PaNern Matching

•  Step 6: U+liza+on –  Applica?ons of CHS Strategic Planning Framework

•  Next Steps

Step 4: Data Analysis and Representa+on

•  Research Methodology and Sta?s?cal Analyses – Too complex to show analyses using sor?ng data for 23 of 28 people who sorted 125 items / strategic priori?es.

– However, I will integrate findings from the CHS Strategic Planning Framework Report where appropriate.

Illustra?ve Example

Similarity Matrix: Ac?vity Sort for one par+cipant

Similarity Matrix: Ac?vity

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Sort for one par+cipant


Binary, square similarity matrix: one participant’s

sorting data

Sort for one participant Sort for one participant

Similarity Matrix: Ac?vity Sort for Individual 1.

5 629

410

7

138

Sort for Individual 2.

5 629

4 1071 3 8 Sort for Individual 3.


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 3 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 2 3 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 3 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 3 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 5 1 1 0 0 3 0 0 1 2 0 6 1 1 1 1 0 3 1 1 1 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 1 8 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 3 0 1 9 2 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 3 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 3


Binary, square similarity matrix: one par+cipant’s

sor+ng data

Total square similarity matrix: data from five

par+cipants

Sort for one par+cipant

Similarity Matrix (small sec?on)

Mul?dimensional Scaling

Input: A square matrix of rela%onships among a set of en++es

Output: An n-‐dimensional mapping of the en++es based on rela+onship

1 6

8

7 5

9 10

2

4 3

1 2 3 1 5 1 2 2 1 5 0 3 2 0 5

1

If 4 out of 5 people grouped statement 1 with 2





Similarity Matrix


1 2 3 1 5 1 2 2 1 5 0 3 2 0 5

1

2

Similarity Matrix



0 out of 5 people grouped statement 2 with statement 3

1

2

3

3

Similarity Matrix

1 2 3 1 5 1 2 2 1 5 0 3 2 0 5

2 out of 5 people grouped statement 1 with statement 3


2 3

1 4

Similarity Matrix

1 2 3 4 1 5 1 2 4 2 1 5 0 0 3 2 0 5 2 4 4 0 2 5


1 2 3 4 1 5 1 2 4 2 1 5 0 0 3 2 0 5 3 4 4 0 3 5

A map can be depicted as a coordinate matrix

2 3

4 1

x

y

Similarity Matrix

x y 1 2.8 1.0 2 5.9 3.2 3 1.1 3.2 4 1.9 1.3

Coordinate Matrix



1 2 3 4 1 5 1 2 4 2 1 5 0 0 3 2 0 5 3 4 4 0 3 5

3

4


x

y

Similarity Matrix

x y 1 2.8 1.0 2 5.9 3.2 3 1.1 3.2 4 1.9 1.3

Coordinate Matrix

And from the coordinates we can compute the

distances between all pairs of points

2!

1!

a2 + b2 = c2

a = difference between x values b = difference between y values c = distance

2

1 a

b c

1 2 3 4 1 5 1 2 4 2 1 5 0 0 3 2 0 5 3 4 4 0 3 5

2 3

4


1!

x

y

Similarity Matrix

x y 1 2.8 1.0 2 5.9 3.2 3 1.1 3.2 4 1.9 1.3

Coordinate Matrix

And can show these as a matrix of distances between points

1 2 3 4 1 0.0 3.2 2.8 1.1 2 3.2 0.0 4.8 4.6 3 2.8 4.8 0.0 2.1 4 1.1 4.6 2.1 0.0

Distance Matrix

And from the coordinates we can compute the

distances between all pairs of points

a2 + b2 = c2

a = difference between x values b = difference between y values c = distance


Multidimensional Scaling

Stress the rela+onship between the similarity input

matrix and the distances on the map

1 2 3 4 1 5 1 2 4 2 1 5 0 0 3 2 0 5 3 4 4 0 3 5

Similarity Matrix

1 2 3 4 1 0.0 3.2 2.8 1.1 2 3.2 0.0 4.8 4.6 3 2.8 4.8 0.0 2.1 4 1.1 4.6 2.1 0.0

Distance Matrix

1,1 5 1,2 1 1,3 2 1,4 4 2,2 5 2,3 0 2,4 0 3,3 5 3,4 3 4,4 5

1,1 0.0 1,2 3.2 1,3 2.8 1,4 1.1 2,2 0.0 2,3 4.8 2,4 4.6 3,3 0.0 3,4 2.1 4,4 0.0

Similari+es Distances

Low stress values means there is a greater correspondence

between the similarities and the map

Point Map CHS Strategic Planning Framework

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 14 15

16

17 18

19

20 21

22

23 24

25

26 27

28

29

30

31

32 33

34

35

36 37

38

39

40

41

42

43 44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68 69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79 80

81

82 83

84

85 86

87

88

89 90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99 100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108 109

110

111

112

113 114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122 123

124

125

Stress Index = 0.29 (Average Stress Index = .205 -‐ .365)

Cluster Analysis •  Hierarchical

–  Clusters get built in a tree-‐like method

•  Agglomera?ve –  Builds toward all items in one pile (divisive -‐ all start in one and divide)

•  Clustering criterion –  The rule used to decide the next cluster merge –  Ward’s algorithm – minimum variance method -‐ Clusters merge based on op?mal value

•  Number of Clusters

Cluster Analysis: Ac?vity

1 6

8

7 5

9

10

2

4 3

Merge # Points Merged

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 & 6

Cluster Analysis

1 6

8

7 5

9

10

2

4 3

1 6 8 3 4 7 5 9 10 2 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Num

ber of Clusters

Merge Points Merged

1

Cluster Analysis

1 6 8 3 4 7 5 9 10 2 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Num

ber of Clusters

1 6

8

7 5

9

10

2

4 3

1 + 6

Merge Points Merged

1

Cluster Analysis

1 6 8 3 4 7 5 9 10 2 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Num

ber of Clusters

1 6

8

7 5

9

10

2

4 3

1 + 6 5 + 7

Merge Points Merged

1 2

Cluster Analysis

1 6 8 3 4 7 5 9 10 2 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Num

ber of Clusters

1 6

8

7 5

9

10

2

4 3

1 + 6 5 + 7 9 + 10

Merge Points Merged

1 2 3

Cluster Analysis

1 6 8 3 4 7 5 9 10 2 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Num

ber of Clusters

1 6

8

7 5

9

10

2

4 3

1 + 6 5 + 7 9 + 10 (1 + 6) + 8

Merge Points Merged

1 2 3 4

Cluster Analysis

1 6 8 3 4 7 5 9 10 2 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Num

ber of Clusters

1 6

8

7 5

9

10

2

4 3

1 + 6 5 + 7 9 + 10 (1 + 6) + 8 3 + 4

Merge Points Merged

1 2 3 4 5

Cluster Analysis

1 6 8 3 4 7 5 9 10 2 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Num

ber of Clusters

1 6

8

7 5

9

10

2

4 3

1 + 6 5 + 7 9 + 10 (1 + 6) + 8 3 + 4 2 + (9 + 10)

Merge Points Merged

1 2 3 4 5 6

Cluster Analysis

1 6 8 3 4 7 5 9 10 2 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Num

ber of Clusters

1 6

8

7 5

9

10

2

4 3

1 + 6 5 + 7 9 + 10 (1 + 6) + 8 3 + 4 2 + (9 + 10) ((1 + 6) + 8)) + (3 + 4)

Merge Points Merged

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Cluster Analysis

1 6 8 3 4 7 5 9 10 2 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Num

ber of Clusters

1 6

8

7 5

9

10

2

4 3

1 + 6 5 + 7 9 + 10 (1 + 6) + 8 3 + 4 2 + (9 + 10) ((1 + 6) + 8)) + (3 + 4) (5 + 7) + ((2 + (9 + 10))

Merge Points Merged

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Cluster Analysis

1 + 6 5 + 7 9 + 10 (1 + 6) + 8 3 + 4 2 + (9 + 10) ((1 + 6) + 8)) + (3 + 4) (5 + 7) + ((2 + (9 + 10)) (((1 + 6) + 8)) + (3 + 4)) + (5 + 7) + ((2 + (9 + 10))

1 6 8 3 4 7 5 9 10 2 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Num

ber of Clusters

Merge Points Merged

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 6

8

7 5

9

10

2

4 3

Point Map CHS Strategic Planning Framework

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10

11

12

13 14 15

16

17 18

19

20 21

22

23 24

25

26 27

28

29

30

31

32 33

34

35

36 37

38

39

40

41

42

43 44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68 69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79 80

81

82 83

84

85 86 87

88

89 90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99 100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108 109

110

111

112

113 114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122 123

124

125

Cluster Map CHS Strategic Planning Framework

Graduate Programming

Engagement Principles

Interdisciplinary Exchanges

Enhancing Undergraduate

Educa+on

Empowering Academic Units

Administra+ve Efficiency and Op+miza+on

Accountability and Performance-‐Based

Incen+ves

Culture of Inclusiveness and Wellness

Promo+ng Diversity

Professional Development and Training

Development and Fundraising

Research and Scholarship

Pathways to Professional Success

Establishing Excellence in Teaching

Cluster Map CHS Strategic Planning Framework Primary Components and Domains





Educa+on




Incen+ves


Promo+ng Diversity






Undergraduate Teaching!Excellence!

Academic Faculty!Support Systems!

Administrative Efficiency!and Optimization!

Inclusive and Supportive!Academic Contexts!

Development and!Fundraising!

College Interfacing!and Exchanges!

Cluster Ra?ng Map CHS Strategic Planning Framework Primary Components and Domains

Rela?ve Importance

Cluster Legend Layer Value 1 4.36 to 4.59 2 4.59 to 4.82 3 4.82 to 5.05 4 5.05 to 5.28 5 5.28 to 5.51

Graduate Programming Engagement

Principles



Educa+on




Incen+ves


Promo+ng Diversity






Undergraduate Teaching!Excellence!

Academic Faculty!Support Systems!

Administrative Efficiency!and Optimization!

Inclusive and Supportive!Academic Contexts!

Development and!Fundraising!

College Interfacing!and Exchanges!

Figure 1. The CHS Strategic Planning Framework: Primary Components and their Domains

Step 5: Interpreta+on

•  Empirical and Interpreta+ve Guidance – Demonstrate how secondary analyses can be used to determine the importance and impact of certain strategic priori?es; domains; and components.

– Go Zones and PaNern Matching can be used to examine individual differences between stakeholders

•  Sets the stage for more nuanced interpreta?ons of data •  Adds depth to strategic planning documents

The Anchoring/Bridging Value

•  Helps us interpret what content is associated with specific areas of the map

•  Statements with lower bridging values are generally beNer indicators of the meaning of their part of the map: they are considered anchors

•  Statements with higher bridging values means the statements are a bridge between different areas on map

An Anchor

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10

11

12

13 14 15

16

17 18

19

20 21

22

23 24

25

26 27

28

29

30

31

32 33

34

35

36 37

38

39

40

41

42

43 44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68 69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79 80

81

82 83

84

85 86 87

88

89 90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99 100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108 109

110

111

112

113 114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122 123

124

125

116. To provide addi?onal service-‐learning and study abroad opportuni?es for students.

Bridging value = .01 (Low)





Educa+on




Incen+ves


Promo+ng Diversity







A Bridge

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10

11

12

13 14 15

16

17 18

19

20 21

22

23 24

25

26 27

28

29

30

31

32 33

34

35

36 37

38

39

40

41

42

43 44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68 69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79 80

81

82 83

84

85 86 87

88

89 90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99 100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108 109

110

111

112

113 114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122 123

124

125

78. To increase ethnic diversity among faculty, specifically African American, Hispanic / La?no, and Pacific Islander.

Bridging value = .72 (High)





Educa+on




Incen+ves


Promo+ng Diversity







Go Zone Analyses •  The resultant map can be used iden?fy strategic priori?es of highest importance and impact within each component or domain.

•  Go Zones are bivariate rela?onship paNerns (V1: Importance and V2: Impact) presen?ng strategic priori?es in a scaNerplot.

•  The scaNerplot is divided into quadrants: – High Importance/High Relevance (Tier I) – High Importance/Low Relevance (Tier II) –  Low Importance/High Relevance (Tier II) –  Low Importance/Low Relevance (Tier III)

1 17

87

89

97 114

14 18

53

58

61

70

110 117

7

Example: Go Zone Analysis for Research and Scholarship Domain

6.55

5.21

3.05

CHS Rela?ve Impact

2.81 5.13 6.49

CHS Rela?ve Importance

r = 0.96

7. To significantly improve startup packages for new faculty.

1. To implement a 2-‐2 teaching load policy in the College, in par?cular for ac?ve researchers and scholars. 17. To encourage and promote faculty par?cipa?on in interna?onal research conferences and projects. 87. To protect faculty researchers from administra?ve ini?a?ves that detract from their produc?vity. 89. To recruit and retain high quality teacher/researchers. 97. To increase the number of research leave opportuni?es for tenure/eligible faculty at all ranks. 114. To offer small seed grants (~$5,000) for research and scholarly work.

18. To recruit faculty researchers with federal funding. 53. To construct or purchase wet-‐lab research space on Monroe Campus. 58. To create funding ini?a?ves designed specifically for tenure-‐eligible faculty in the Humani?es. 61. To focus more on providing funds to sustainability-‐related research. 70. To develop ini?a?ves that support a visi?ng faculty scholars program. 110. To allow faculty greater autonomy and control in determining soqware and technologies for instruc?onal purposes. 117. To expand services provided by the College grants office to make the funding process easier for faculty.

14. To resource and support faculty scholarship areas (e.g., crea?ve expression, public works) not limited to community-‐based or health-‐related research.

TIER I Priori+es

TIER II Priori+es TIER III Priori+es

TIER II Priori+es

VCU’s College of Humani+es and Sciences Strategic Planning Framework

Priority Reference Table

21

40

91

36

42 51

85


6.55

5.65

3.05

CHS Rela?ve Impact

2.81 5.51 6.49

CHS Rela?ve Importance

r = 0.98

21. To raise faculty salaries to market rate. 40. To provide formal and rou?nized mechanisms for conver?ng term faculty lines to tenure lines when it would benefit the department. 91. To increase the number of tenure-‐eligible faculty.

36. To provide more training for faculty and staff on financial areas and grants management. 42. To increase faculty pay rate for summer courses. 51. To provide more support to junior faculty members, in terms of seed funding and faculty mentorship. 85. To invest in and maximize use of limited facili?es and workspaces for faculty.

TIER I Priori+es

TIER II Priori+es TIER III Priori+es

TIER II Priori+es

VCU’s College of Humani+es and Sciences Strategic Planning Framework

Priority Reference Table

PaNern Matching

•  PaNern Matching can be used to describe paNerns of rela?onships between components/domains and/or to determine consensus among key stakeholder groups

•  PaNern Matching produces a “ladder graph” that displays the rela?ve importance/rela?ve impact of components/domains.

Example: Comparing Ra+ngs of Rela+ve Importance and Rela+ve Impact

CHS Rela+ve Importance CHS Rela+ve Impact

Pathways to Professional Success Pathways to Professional Success

Accountability and Performance-‐Based Incen?ves Accountability and Performance-‐Based Incen?ves



Graduate Programming Graduate Programming



Empowering Academic Units Empowering Academic Units

Administra?ve Efficiency and Op?miza?on Administra?ve Efficiency and Op?miza?on


Establishing Excellence in Teaching Enhancing Undergraduate Educa?on

Enhancing Undergraduate Educa?on

Promo?ng Diversity

Promo?ng Diversity Interdisciplinary Exchanges


Professional Development and Training Professional Development and Training

Engagement Principles Engagement Principles

Development and Fundraising Development and Fundraising 4.36 4.38

5.51 5.66

r = 0.95

Figure Summary. Relative Importance Ratings. The top five domains were (1) Pathways to Professional Success, (2) Accountability and Performance-Based Incentives, (3) Culture of Inclusive and Wellness, (4) Graduate Programming and (5) Research and Scholarship. Importantly, the average importance ratings for these top five domains did not significantly differ; however, the Pathways and Accountability domains did significantly differ from the bottom half (or rungs of the ladder). Each of the top five domains significantly differed from Development and Fundraising. Relative Impact Ratings. The top five domains were (1) Pathways to Professional Success, (2) Accountability and Performance-Based Incentives, (3) Research and Scholarship, (4) Graduate Programming and (5) Culture of Inclusiveness and Wellness. Importantly, the average impact ratings for these top five domains did not significantly differ; however, the Pathways domain did significantly differ from the bottom half (or rungs of the ladder). Level of Agreement. There is a strong positive correlation between priorities rated as highly important and priorities rated favorably impactful (r = .95) in the college. !!

Example: Comparing Specific Department and College on Ra+ngs of Importance

AFAM Rela+ve Importance CHS Rela+ve Importance


Promo?ng Diversity

Promo?ng Diversity

Culture of Inclusiveness and Wellness Culture of Inclusiveness and Wellness

Accountability and Performance-‐Based Incen?ves


Research and Scholarship Research and Scholarship

Administra?ve Efficiency and Op?miza?on

Administra?ve Efficiency and Op?miza?on Graduate Programming











Engagement Principles Professional Development and Training



6.17 5.51

r = 0.73

Figure 27 Summary. Relative Importance Ratings. The top five domains for AFAM were (1) Pathways to Professional Success, (2) Promoting Diversity, (3) Culture of Inclusiveness and Wellness, (4) Accountability and Performance-Based Incentives and (5) Research and Scholarship. The Pathways domain was rated significantly more important than all other domains with the exception of Accountability, Promoting Diversity, and Culture of Inclusiveness and Wellness. AFAM vs. CHS on Relative Importance Ratings. AFAM stakeholders rated Promoting Diversity and Culture of Inclusiveness and Wellness domains significantly more important than the overall college. Level of Agreement. There is a moderate to strong positive correlation between the priorities rated by AFAM stakeholders and CHS stakeholders in general (r = .73).!!

PSYC Rela+ve Importance CHS Rela+ve Importance




Culture of Inclusiveness and Wellness Culture of Inclusiveness and Wellness




Empowering Academic Units Research and Scholarship



Establishing Excellence in Teaching Administra?ve Efficiency and Op?miza?on






Promo?ng Diversity

Promo?ng Diversity

Professional Development and Training Professional Development and Training

Engagement Principles Engagement Principles


5.62 5.51

r = 0.95

Figure 41 Summary. Relative Importance Ratings. The top five domains for PSYC were (1) Pathways to Professional Success, (2) Graduate Programming, (3) Culture of Inclusiveness and Wellness, (4) Accountability and Performance-Based Incentives and (5) Empowering Academic Units. The top five domains did not significantly differ. The Pathways to Professional Success domain was rated significantly more important than the bottom four domains. PSYC vs. CHS on Relative Importance Ratings. PSYC stakeholders and CHS stakeholders in general did not significantly differ in their ratings of domains. Level of Agreement. There is a strong positive correlation between the priorities rated by PSYC stakeholders and CHS stakeholders in general (r = .95).!!


GSWS Rela+ve Importance CHS Rela+ve Importance

Promo?ng Diversity

Promo?ng Diversity






Research and Scholarship Engagement Principles







Enhancing Undergraduate Educa?on Professional Development and Training











6.76 5.51

r = 0.39

Figure 32 Summary. Relative Importance Ratings. The top five domains for GSWS were (1) Promoting Diversity, (2) Pathways to Professional Success, (3) Accountability and Performance-Based Incentives, (4) Research and Scholarship and (5) Engagement Principles. The top five domains did not significantly differ. The Promoting Diversity domain was rated significantly more important than all other domains. GSWS vs. CHS on Relative Importance Ratings. GSWS stakeholders and CHS stakeholders significantly differed in their ratings of importance for Promoting Diversity, Accountability, Research and Scholarship, and Engagement Principles. GSWS stakeholders rated each of these domains significantly more important than the college. Level of Agreement. There is a low to moderate positive correlation between the priorities rated by GSWS stakeholders and CHS stakeholders in general (r = .39).!!


Example: Comparing Key Stakeholder Groups on Ra+ngs of Importance

Classified Staff w/ 10 or Fewer Service Years Rela+ve Importance Classified Staff w/ 11 or More Service Years Rela+ve Importance


Culture of Inclusiveness and Wellness Professional Development and Training

Professional Development and Training Accountability and Performance-‐Based Incen?ves


Administra?ve Efficiency and Op?miza?on Administra?ve Efficiency and Op?miza?on

















Development and Fundraising Development and Fundraising

Promo?ng Diversity

Promo?ng Diversity

4.72 5.13

5.72 5.98

r = 0.65

Figure 47 Summary. Classified Staff w/ 10 Years or Less Importance Ratings. The top five domains were (1) Culture of Inclusive and Wellness, (2) Professional Development and Training, (3) Accountability and Performance-Based Incentives, (4) Administrative Efficiency and Optimization, and (5) Pathways to Professional Success. Classified Staff w/ 11 Years or More Relative Importance Ratings. The top five domains were (1) Accountability and Performance-Based Incentives, (2) Culture of Inclusiveness and Wellness, (3) Professional Development and Training, (4) Administrative Efficiency and Optimization and (5) Empowering Academic Units. Level of Agreement. There is a moderate positive correlation between priorities rated as highly important between key stakeholder groups (r = .65) in the college. Significant Differences Between Staff w/ 10 Years or Less and Staff w/ 11 or More Years. There were no significant differences between key stakeholder groups in their rating of the top five domains. Of note, however, is the significant difference in their rating of Promoting Diversity. Classified Staff w/ 10 or fewer service years rated strategic priorities related to promoting diversity significantly lower than their more experienced counterparts.!!!

Step 6: U+liza+on Applica?ons and Next Steps

•  No+fica+on to CHS stakeholders –  Comple?on of first phase. Technical report and report supplement available on Drive.

–  Timetable for second phase. Scheduling small group mee?ngs with key stakeholders.

•  Presenta+on to ACM –  The Development of a Strategic Planning Framework for VCU’s College of HumaniFes and Sciences

•  Small Group Mee+ngs – Disseminate and discuss report supplement

•  Clarifica?on of strategic priori?es •  Stra?fica?on of Tier I Priori?es •  Reposi?oning Tier II and Tier III Priori?es

The$Developmentof$aStrategic$Planning$Framework$...

Documents

Transcript of The$Developmentof$aStrategic$Planning$Framework$...