2024-2027 Year-One Strategies

Leads responsible for implementation:

• Andrew Feldstein, Assistant Provost for Teaching Innovation and Learning Technologies
• Nicole Frank, Director of Professional Development

Implementation team members:

• Faculty Development Committee
• TILT staff

Action Steps:

• Coordinate with the Faculty Development Committee to create and promote multiple opportunities for faculty to engage in professional development activities through TILT and other appropriate institutional outlets throughout the fiscal year.
• Create essential workshops and support systems designed to meet diverse faculty professional development needs.
• Implement a process and system for tracking faculty development participation and engagement on an annual basis.
• Systematically assess—via survey—engagement and perceived relevance of faculty development programming.

Desired Outcome Baseline and Benchmarks

% of Faculty Engaged

Desired Outcomes

1. By 2027, 100% of undergraduate degree programs will have articulated effective, concrete, measurable Program Learning Outcomes.
2. By 2027, assemble evidence of utilization of information from annual program assessment to improve student learning in programs, as indicated in the three-year benchmarks.

FY25 Budget: no new resources required for FY25 strategy.

Lead responsible for implementation:

Director of University Assessment

Implementation team members:

• University Assessment Team and University Learning Assessment Committee
• Department Chairs
• Program Chairs
• Faculty

Action Steps:

Outcome 1: By the end of Fall 2024 semester, audit of undergraduate Program Learning Outcomes is complete, identifying programs having Program Learning Outcomes that are not effective, concrete, or measurable. Further action steps include establishing actions plans with faculty in programs needing revision of Program Learning Outcomes. University Assessment Team and University Learning Assessment Committee members assist faculty in revising Program Learning Outcomes.

Outcome 2: By the end of Year 1 in May 2025, the three degree programs in Closing the Loop Cohort A (AccountingBBA, Modern Languages, and History) will have enacted the proposed curriculum changes and collected assessment data for the relevant Program Learning Outcomes.

Desired Outcomes Baseline and Benchmarks

Desired Outcome:

By 2027, all FHSU academic programs will complete the program review process.

FY25 Budget: no new resources required for FY25 strategy.

Leads responsible for implementation:

• Angela Pool-Funai, Assistant Provost for Academic Programs
• College Deans
• Department Chairs

Action Steps:

• Program review template completed, plan for data distribution identified, and program review training session(s) conducted, by May 2025.                       

Desired Outcome Baseline and Benchmarks

FY25 Budget: no new resources required for FY25 strategy.

• Engage each enrollment council members to provide insights into annual targets and justification for how these targets align with market trends and academic capacities.
• Articulate clear strategies to achieve their unit’s respective targets. This plan should include actionable steps and expected outcomes at each stage.
• Implement quarterly reviews and updates on enrollment progress to ensure accountability and adapt strategies as necessary.

Leads responsible for implementation:

• Kristin Herl
• Kristi Mills
• Dennis King (Enrollment Council Executive Team)

Implementation team members:

Enrollment Council Membership

• Dennis King
• Kristi Mills
• Kristin Herl
• Jon Armstrong
• Kayla Hickel
• Keith Bremer
• Kaley Klaus
• Haley Williams

Action Steps

• Initial Enrollment Vision Workshop (held July 2024):
  • Gather university leadership for a comprehensive workshop to define a cohesive enrollment vision.
  • Participants: Jon Armstrong, Kathleen Cook, Kayla Hickel, Keith Bremer, Kristi Mills, Kristin Herl, Haley Williams, and Kaley Klaus. 
    • Invite enrollment council members to present their established targets and strategies.
    • Review their connection to the overall enrollment vision and market realities.
    • Offer feedback and seek consensus on expected targets and strategies.
    • Discuss and establish clear university-wide enrollment priorities.

• Hold Quarterly Enrollment Strategy Reviews during Senior Leadership Team meetings:
  • Schedule routine sessions to assess progress towards enrollment targets.
  • Allow enrollment council members to present successes, challenges, and insights.
  • Adjust strategies and targets as needed based on real-world performance metrics.

• Continuous Communication Channels:
  • Develop internal communication protocols to ensure all relevant parties are adequately informed about enrollment updates and strategic shifts.
  • Implement digital dashboards for real-time monitoring and alerts to sustain informed decision-making.
  • Foster an environment of open dialogue to encourage feedback and collaborative problem-solving.

Expected Outcomes

• Clear and Unified Enrollment Strategy: A transparent and cohesively understood set of priorities and targets across the university.
• Increased Engagement: Higher commitment from enrollment council members and staff driven by participation in the strategy development process and a clear understanding of their role in achieving targets.
• Accountability: Regular monitoring and reporting mechanisms to track progression toward targets, incentivizing ownership among enrollment council members.
• Realistic and Attainable Goals: Enrollment targets congruent with market conditions, ensuring credibility and serious commitment from staff.
• Adaptability: The ability of the institution to adjust strategies dynamically in response to market feedback and internal performance analysis.

Lead responsible for implementation:

Provost and Vice-President for Academic Affairs

Implementation team members:

• Provost and Vice-President for Academic Affairs
• College Deans
• Assistant Provost for Academic Programs and Dean of the Graduate School
• Assistant Provost for Internationalization and Strategic Initiatives

Action Steps:

Develop strategic academic program opportunities to be vetted through the Office of the Provost and Executive Leadership Team for resource allocation. 

Process for Developing and Vetting Strategic Academic Program Opportunities

1. Identification of Strategic Opportunities:
   • Academic Affairs units initiate the identification of new academic program opportunities (i.e. majors, interdisciplinary programs, graduate programs) that align with institutional goals, industry demands, or emerging academic trends.
   • Faculty and department chairs collaborate to assess current gaps, strengths, and innovative potential within their academic offerings.  This process should include the following elements:  demand for and feasibility of the proposed program through data tools available (i.e. Hanover, Gray DI, regional employer input, etc.); resource requirements; and alignment with the institutional mission and goals. 
2. Deans bring forth ideas to the Office of the Provost:
   • After internal review, the refined academic program idea is submitted to the Office of the Provost for further vetting. This submission includes:
     • Detailed program description, strategic alignment, and justification for the new program.
     • Financial projections and resource requirements.
     • Market analysis and competitive positioning.
3. Review by the Office of the Provost:
   • The Office of the Provost conducts a thorough evaluation of the proposed program , which could include:
     • Academic quality review and alignment with institutional goals.
     • Financial viability and long-term sustainability analysis.
     • Alignment with available or potential resources (faculty, staff, infrastructure).
     • Institutional impact on enrollment, reputation, business, industry and community engagement.

• The level of evaluation will depend on the type of program being proposed. A certificate or concentration will have a different type of vetting than a full degree program.  Any significant resource needs for new programs will be taken to Executive Leadership Team (ELT).  For new program opportunities that do not need significant new resource, those programs will go through the program approval cycles as outlined on the curriculum webpage.  

1. Consideration of the Executive Leadership Team (ELT) and President:
   • After the Office of the Provost’s evaluation, should the program warrant new resource allocations, the proposal will be presented to the Executive Leadership Team (ELT) for high-level consideration, prioritization, and strategic alignment with the institution’s overall goals.
   • The ELT discusses the resource allocation strategy, including funding, faculty hiring, technology investments, and any other necessary infrastructure. 
   • President Mason makes a final decision about new resource allocation.
2. Formal Program Approval Process
   • If approved to move forward by the President, program proposal is vetted through the appropriate program approval cycles internally and externally.  See the curriculum webpage for those processes. 

Leads  responsible for implementation: 

• Wesley Wintch
• Director of HR

Implementation team members: 

• Wesley Wintch
• HR Director
• Director of Professional Development

Action Steps:

• Create and implement targeted staff employee survey to gather data
• Create plans to promote existing staff development opportunities.

Desired Outcome Baseline and Benchmarks: 

• Year 1 – Measure amount of staff engaged in development to establish a benchmark.  Determine staff professional development needs from survey.
• Years 2-3 – create target % increases from the benchmarks established in year 1.

FY25 budget: no new resources required for FY25 strategy. 

Leads responsible for implementation: 

• Wesley Wintch
• Mark Griffin

Implementation team members: 

• Wesley Wintch
• Mark Griffin
• Jason Huxman

Action Steps:

• Work together with the KBOR system to analyze and improve our cybersecurity preparedness.
  • Year 1: Complete NIST cybersecurity study with KBOR

Desired Outcome Baseline and Benchmarks:  

• NIST cybersecurity benchmark created during Year One. Set improvement targets for Years Two and Three based on benchmark and audit results during Year One.  

Leads responsible for implementation: 

• Wesley Wintch
• Dana Cunningham

Implementation team members:  TBD

Action Steps:

• Year 1: Investigate technologies and practices to gain operational efficiencies.
  • Establish a team who will create a process to gather and vet ideas using resources such as the Gordian report, KBOR space utilization reports, and university master plan
• Year 2: Adopt feasible technologies and practices to gain operational efficiencies.

Desired Outcome Baseline and Benchmarks: 

• Implement innovative practices and usage of equipment/technologies to improve operational efficiency. Give time back to employees who can use it to further the work of the University.  Measure cost savings gained from implementation of initiatives through potential ROI calculations.  

Leads responsible for Implementation: 

• Jeni McRay
• Kaley Klaus
• Andy Cutright

Implementation team members: 

• CLE Director
• PCE Staff
• AIT’s
• Baron Green
• Janette Meis
• Docking Institute
• GA/ISS

Action Steps:

1. Identify and prioritize which PCE offerings to launch.
2. Conduct PCE needs assessments among alumni network and area employers.
3. Implement a sustainable business model for Professional and Continuing Education that:
   1. aligns with the goals of the Strategic Affiliation,
   2. leverages the work of the FORGE grant-supported position and Consortium,
   3. supports workforce development needs in all areas where FHSU delivers educational programming,
   4. creates innovative learning pathways and alternative credentials, and
   5. meets the needs of existing corporate and industry clients and expands offerings in new modalities and with updated content.

Desired Outcome Baseline and Benchmarks:

By the end of 2027 we will offer an array of alternative credentials and stackable skills-based applied learning pathways to alumni, current, and prospective students that align with workforce and professional development needs of our stakeholders, internal and external, including our affiliated partner institutions and at select international partner locations.

Desired Outcome:

Create a sustainable framework for the institutionalization of Leadership for Public Purpose and Community Engagement Carnegie Classifications.

FY25 budget: no new resources required for FY25 strategy. 

Leads responsible for implementation:

• Donnette Noble
• Jeni McRay

Implementation team members:  Participating Department Chairs and Unit Directors (Opt-In)

Action Steps:

• Complete Community Engaged draft application by March 5, 2025.
• Assess self-studies from the completion of the Carnegie Foundation’s elective classification applications for Leadership for Public Purpose (LPP) and Community Engagement (CE) to determine the degree to which FHSU is meeting criteria on the specified rubric, as measured by members of Academic Council.

Desired Outcome Baseline and Benchmarks: By 2027, at least 5 campus units (curricular and/or co-curricular) will achieve growth as measured by the rubric for “Sustained Institutionalization” of LPP and CE.

Desired Outcome:

Diversify academic internationalization efforts.

FY25 budget:

 Funding approved through Strategic Plan Funds.

Leads responsible for implementation:

• Jeni McRay
• GA Directors

Implementation team members: 

• GA/ISS Staff,
• Deans having IP Programs,
• CAHSS Internationalization Coordinator

1. Identify and grow new programs/partnerships in South America, Africa, and Southeast Asia.
2. Increase faculty, staff, and student travel/exchanges to and from American University of Phnom Penh and Dakar University of International Studies.
3. Grow Study Abroad programs at Alnwick Castle.
4. Increase the number of students participating in the Global Citizen Leader Program by 25%.
5. Reimagine and strengthen co-curricular and global engagement opportunities across campus, which can include: increasing participation rates in ISU; increasing integrated participation in campus events; strengthening career resources for international students and the number of students who participate in OPT and CPT; and collaborating with academic departments and student engagement professionals to incorporate UNSDG content into the curriculum. 

Desired Outcome Baseline and Benchmarks: By 2027, we will increase the number of diversified degree programs offered at international partnership locations and include robust co-curricular opportunities, including student, faculty and staff travel/exchanges and student engagement efforts.

 FY25 budget: