I. Preamble: Building on Our Past and Present

In accordance with the provisions of the Morrill Act, the New Mexico College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts was established in the late 19th century as a land-grant institution “to promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions of life.” As a result of steadily increasing student demand and the growth of institutional programs and services to meet the range of New Mexico citizens’ needs, by the late 20th century New Mexico State University has become a comprehensive doctoral-level university renown for its research activities as well as for its excellent academic instructional programs and extension services.

As New Mexico State University looks forward to a rapidly approaching 21st century, we recognize the need to pause and reflect on how our directions and priorities throughout the past century+ have been shaped by the needs of our students and by the needs and expectations of citizens across New Mexico. During this tremendous period of expansion NMSU never lost sight of its land-grant mission, but the specific choices of new and expanded programs and services were made easier by the steady growth in student enrollment and in the institution’s resource base. It was during this growth period that NMSU moved toward a practice of decentralized planning and program development. Over time, this became institutionalized--a focus on the individual college/ unit vision, goals and strategies rather than on a sense of teamwork in striving toward a common university vision.

Change in environmental forces is now so much more volatile, a proactive stance is necessary for survival rather than just for advantage. There is much less certainty from year to year as both enrollments and revenues fluctuate. Program responsiveness, an essential element of our land-grant mission, is no longer automatic--it becomes a difficult choice among programs and activities. Societal needs and expectations, technological advances, demographic and economic change--all indicate an opportune time for NMSU to take stock, assess its current position and strengths and build for the future, while keeping in sight its land-grant mission and the tradition of state service which has served NMSU and New Mexico so well. In this process of creating our future, we as a university community need to come together once again--to reaffirm a common sense of institutional mission and to foster an attitude of collaboration and shared responsibility in achieving that mission.

II. A Strategic Planning Process for NMSU

Definition. Strategic planning, as used in this proposal, is a process by which NMSU can take charge of its future by asking the question “Where do we as a university want to go in the next three -five years?” and answering it in light of opportunities we see on the horizon and existing university strengths which will help us get there.

Purpose. By looking ahead and anticipating both the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century, NMSU can shape its own future. The alternative is to be in the perpetual position of reacting and coping with problems or crises as they arise. The purpose of this strategic planning process is to provide a framework within which the university community and its external stakeholders can exercise their shared responsibility for shaping NMSU’s future. How seriously we take these responsibilities, how willing we are to come together to make difficult choices regarding direction and priorities and how committed we are to work together to support those choices in our future actions will determine whether this planning process is ultimately successful.

Anticipated Outcomes. Three major outcomes are anticipated from the strategic planning process as proposed:

1. An institutional plan providing direction and criteria to guide NMSU ’s actions for the three - five year transitional period from the 20th to the 21st century. The plan should clarify and reaffirm our common mission and interests, focus on our priority institutional goals, lay out strategies and the timetable by which these goals can be achieved, and suggest the ongoing processes by which university units and constituencies can participate in addressing the respective roles and responsibilities of programs, services and resources in working toward the university’s vision for the future. The plan development process should take a broad view of our stakeholder (constituent) base and invite and facilitate inspection of the university’s activities by such stakeholders. Its focus on participation and priority-setting should promote the development of a cooperative organizational culture.

This plan, or planning framework, while providing a vision and focus for the talent and energy of the university community, must exhibit three additional characteristics if it is to make a difference. The plan must be realistic; it must be capable of being implemented and evaluated through demonstrable measures of achievement; and it must have the support and commitment of the university community and interested citizens throughout the state.

2. Increased communication and discussions across the university community and broad participation in institutional priority-setting and the subsequent choice-making that carries out those priorities. Such a process will provide a firm foundation for strategic decision-making (whether popular or unpopular) as it may affect programs, services and resource allocation.

3. Development of an ongoing planning process and a collaborative organizational culture. Institutionalizing the planning process will result in integrated decision-making based on institutional priorities and the assessment of results.

III. Preliminary Assumptions on Institutional Culture

Leadership. Institutional vision and institutional direction need to come from top administration. The primary leadership for the entire planning process must come from the president. The president’s role and commitment are critical to the success of the planning process. Whether the planning process and plan developed ultimately make a difference in terms of university direction and university culture is dependent on the continuing leadership of the president, the support of the Board of Regents and the support and commitment of both academic and administrative leaders.

Perceptions of Institutional Culture. For planning to be successful at any institution, it must recognize the institutional culture and internal political environment and adapt the planning process accordingly. The specific nature, purpose and structure of the planning process being proposed is influenced by the following assessment of institutional culture:

The university community as a whole has little sense of common institutional direction and, thus, few parameters within which to develop constituent or unit strategies to contribute to achieving institutional goals.

Considerations of program/services direction and resource allocation are often based on parochial interests rather than on colleges and units working together to achieve common goals.

NMSU has been in a reactive rather than proactive mode.

There has been little information-sharing or participation across campus or with our external publics in addressing issues affecting our state and our citizens. As a result, there is little experience in consensus-building or working together to achieve goals, engineer improvements or solve problems that cross established organizational lines.

The implications of this assessment for the planning process include:

a need to establish effective communications and avenues for participation throughout the university community and with external stakeholders.

a need to build mutual understanding across all levels of the university to ensure concerted action in carrying out NMSU’s mission.

a need to develop a planning process and also to support more definition in other decision-making and resource allocation processes, so planning can be integrated with these processes for consistent decision making and progress toward shared goals.

a need to accomplish the above three steps if NMSU is to be effective in capitalizing on its strengths and opportunities to provide leadership in meeting the educational needs of New Mexico’s citizens and of many others beyond our borders.

IV. An Outline of the Proposed NMSU Strategic Planning Process

Development of this strategic planning process resulted from a commitment to the following criteria:

maintain a holistic view of the university rather than a collage of its component parts

design an open and participatory process to ensure communication with and input of all university stakeholders

state clearly the purposes and intended outcomes of the planning process

lay out a firm timetable with clear assignment of responsibilities

focus on an initial strategic planning period while emphasizing the continuous requirement for planning, review and improvement

develop a process complete and specific enough to move NMSU from the present to a capacity for ongoing and integrated decision-making based on institutional goals and priorities

Figure 1 below provides a flowchart of the major steps in the proposed strategic planning process for NMSU. This flowchart represents planning activities projected to begin during Fall 1996 and leading to full implementation of the institutional strategic plan by the summer and fall of 1998.

Organization/Reporting Structure. The Board of Regents needs to endorse the strategic planning process and the proposed timeline and monitor the progress of the planning process. The institutional strategic plan must be approved by the Board.

The president provides leadership for the entire strategic planning process. In addition to defining the purpose and parameters of the planning process and enlisting the support and participation of university constituencies, the president appoints the two major planning bodies responsible for the conduct of the planning process and the development of the institutional strategic plan:

The Executive Review Board , appointed and chaired by the president, will have representation from the Board of Regents, the Academic Deans’ Council, the Office of the Executive Vice President, the vice presidents and the faculty. This board oversees all planning activities, provides management review and feedback at key points in plan development, commits management support for plan implementation and establishes accountability for progress toward institutional goals.

The Strategic Planning Committee , appointed by the president, will have representation from faculty, students, staff, branch campuses and community/alumni and will encompass a range of perspectives and functional areas consistent with the mission of a land-grant university. This committee will have full responsibility for involving the university community in defining a shared vision of NMSU as a responsive land-grant university and developing a strategic planning process which will provide focus for NMSU’s future programmatic and budgetary decisions. As a part of these responsibilities, the committee will conduct or oversee all planning activities and data/information collection and analysis. At frequent and key points in the planning process, this committee also will solicit input and feedback on recommendations from major stakeholders of the university.

Appendix A provides a more detailed overview of key players in the strategic planning process and their respective responsibilities. It includes the membership and selection processes for the two planning groups discussed above.

Steps and Timeline of Strategic Planning Process. While it is an intensive and ambitious timeline, it is anticipated that the institutional strategic plan can be developed (and shared, reviewed and revised) during Academic Year 1996-97 with time for full review and adoption by the NMSU Board of Regents at its July 1997 meeting. Meeting this timeline is contingent upon appointment of the Strategic Planning Committee no later than October 1, 1996. (Figure 2 below more graphically presents the steps and timeline of the proposed strategic planning process by means of a flowchart.)

The first phase of the planning process will involve information-gathering and analysis of NMSU’s institutional culture and values, the goals and expectations of stakeholders, the external environment and those opportunities and threats it holds for NMSU’s future, and the internal institutional environment with a focus on NMSU’s special strengths as well as its weaknesses.

This phase (environmental scans and analyses) can be completed by December 1996, if the Executive Review Board and Strategic Planning Committee are appointed and begin their work in early October 1996. The information and resulting analyses will be shared and discussed with planning subgroups, university policy groups, Faculty Senate and ASNMSU at the beginning of the spring term. With the addition of this feedback, the planning assumptions or principles which will serve as a foundation for the strategic plan can be drafted.

The second phase of the planning process includes the development of the draft institutional strategic plan and an accompanying background discussion document. These drafts will be shared broadly for review, comment and advice from campus constituencies. As a result of this feedback, the documents will be revised for another round of review by the Executive Review Board and internal and external constituent groups. A complete institutional strategic plan with supporting documentation will be submitted to the president in June 1997. The president will be able to recommend an institutional strategic plan to the Board of Regents for their review and adoption in July 1997. This strategic plan will address NMSU’s mission, goals and priorities for the three- to five-year period during which the university will move from its roots in the 19th and 20th centuries to shaping its future for the rapidly-approaching 21st century.

The results of the planning activities in these two major arenas will be shared across the university and will serve as the basis for development of both college and support unit operational plans at the various management levels to carry out NMSU's educational plans and achieve its goals and priorities. These operational plans also will be reviewed by the Strategic Planning Committee and the Executive Review Board for their consistency with institutional goals and priorities.

The operational plans of the colleges and the support units will provide the information base and rationale for subsequent program/resource requests submitted as of Spring 1998. At this point, the strategic planning process (priority-setting decisions) at NMSU comes together with the proposed strategic budgeting process (resource allocation decisions). The resource requests will be heard and reviewed by the proposed standing Budget Committee with recommendations for allocations forwarded for consideration by the Executive Review Board. Once the resource allocation decisions for FY99 are final, the implementation of the institutional strategic plan will be implemented through the programs and services of NMSU's colleges and support units. In the following years the institutional strategic plan and operational plans also will provide focus and direction as the university seeks new resources.

With implementation of the institutional strategic plan in AY 98-99, the strategic planning process outlined will have achieved two of its three stated outcomes, namely the development of an institutional plan which provides a sense of direction to guide NMSU's actions and broad participation in institutional priority-setting and the choice-making which follows. As a result of this effort, programmatic and resource decisions can be based on shared institutional goals and priorities and on strategies developed to achieve them.

However, at this point NMSU must not close the book on planning. We must institutionalize planning by maintaining a continuous, though less time-intensive, process of reviewing the effectiveness of the plans and strategies implemented in achieving our goals and priorities. This review will include outcomes assessment and other measures of performance effectiveness. We must measure our progress toward achieving our goals in order to plan our next steps. In such a way NMSU can move forward with the confidence that its agenda reflects a shared understanding of the university's responsibilities combined with a shared commitment to meeting those responsibilities.

The real measure of success for New Mexico State University's strategic planning process will be how well we as a university turn our plans into actions and accomplishments that demonstrate steady progress toward achieving our goals and fulfilling our mission.

V. Resource Requirements for Strategic Planning Process

A strategic planning process has the broadest possible resource base: the support, participation and perspectives contributed by faculty, students and staff throughout the university as well as by interested stakeholders external to the institution. This is the foundation for effective planning. Other anticipated resource requirements for the strategic planning process include:

Strategic Planning Committee and the Committee Chair. The time and energy of the members of the strategic planning committee will be key to the quality and timeliness of the planning effort. The most desirable profile for SPC members is strong and forward-looking individuals, contributing their individual experiences and knowledge but coming together to consider the good of the whole university.

The chair of the committee plays a critical leadership role, balancing the need for maintaining a participatory process with the need for resolution and development of a plan within a limited time period. The chair also has primary responsibility for communication during the planning process. This includes keeping the many constituencies informed and involved, providing progress reports and intermediate planning documents for discussion and response. The chair will need to be released for at least half-time in order to carry out these responsibilities.

Consultant. The most uniform piece of advice given by institutions which have undertaken a strategic planning process is to take advantage of the assistance and expertise of an experienced planning consultant at the beginning of the process. An outside consultant should be brought in to orient and provide a helpful voice of experience as the strategic planning committee begins its work, to raise awareness across campus of the important roles of stakeholders and the benefits of the planning process and to provide periodic monitoring to see that the process is staying on a productive and timely track.

The consultant also would be available to facilitate any conferences scheduled for the purpose of sharing planning information and assumptions to date and involving a wider range of constituencies in contributing their reactions and perspectives toward the next planning phase. The consultant may be an appropriate source/facilitator of the initial assessment of institutional culture and values also--a neutral outside party offering initial perceptions and questions for consideration in the planning process.

Approximately $18,000 should be budgeted for consulting services as a part of the strategic planning process.

Staffing. It is anticipated that the Director of Planning and Policy Analysis will serve as the primary staff support for the planning effort. As a result of the intensive activity level and timeline of the planning process as proposed, staff assistance should include a professional position as assistant to the director (and SPC chair) for a period of 15 months at a salary of $30,000-32,000.

Other staff support, including secretarial services, will be provided by the Office of Institutional Research and Planning. Additional, temporary secretarial assistance for peak planning periods should be budgeted at approximately $6,000.

Support Costs. The majority of support costs for the strategic planning effort will be borne by the Office of Institutional Research and Planning. Supplemental expenses of approximately $10,000 should be expected for major surveys, conferences or any papers commissioned as a part of the environmental scanning activities.