Core Requirement 2.5 (planning and evaluation processes)
The institution engages in ongoing, integrated, and institution-wide research-based planning and evaluation processes that incorporate a systematic review of programs and services that (a) results in continuing improvement and (b) demonstrates that the institution is effectively accomplishing its mission. 

Compliance
North Carolina State University is in compliance with this requirement.

Explanation
Since the 1970s NC State University has employed systematic, university-wide planning processes to drive key decisions, including program development and resource allocation.  Plans have evolved from a simple collection of broad, university-wide goals to a comprehensive set of plans describing specific actions at all levels.  

·         1970s: General, whole-university plans were prepared in response to the University of North Carolina Board of Governors’ mandates and addressed primarily mission and new academic programs without reference to implementation strategies. 

·         1980s and 1990s: Planning was expanded to include development of mission, long-range goals, and annual objectives in all units at all levels of the institution.  These plans were used to develop priorities and prepare legislative budget requests.   

·         1999 to present: Compact Planning refocused the process on concrete, action initiatives to be implemented by each academic and administrative unit, and by groups of partnering units.  Completed Compact Plans reflect on assessment results and include performance measures, measures of the impact of planned initiatives, and decisions about resource allocations.  

Like planning, evaluation at NC State University has evolved since the 1970s from centralized, input-oriented processes limited to academic programs, to assessment-based processes employed by units across the university.  Comprehensive Standards: Institutional Mission, Governance, and Effectiveness #16 provides a thorough discussion of the university’s evaluation processes.

Over the years, NC State University has increased support for both planning and evaluation.  In the early 1980s, offices of Institutional Research (IR) and University Planning (UP) were established to provide information and decision support services to units across campus.  In the early 1990s, these two offices were consolidated into University Planning and Analysis (UPA) to provide research-based support for planning and evaluation and to improve support and coordination for assessment.  In addition, as assessment has diffused across campus, some units assigned staff to provide additional support for local efforts, including the Graduate School, College of Engineering, College of Education, Student Affairs, Undergraduate Affairs, and others.

In tandem, planning and evaluation processes support decision making in all corners and at all levels of the university. 

·         Academic and administrative units: Through outcomes- and performance-oriented evaluation, units monitor and improve their programs and services at the level of delivery.  They use evaluation results to plan program improvements.   

·         College, division, and university levels: Administrators use unit plans and evaluation results to develop institutional priorities that inform planning, resource allocation, and administrative personnel evaluations.  

NC State University engages in two types of planning: compact planning, which focuses on the implementation of specific programmatic initiatives, and strategic planning, which focuses on broad goals and directions of the university.

Compact Planning
The university’s current planning process, compact planning, replaced a more traditional, biennial planning process in 1999.  Every unit (academic department and administrative office) negotiates a compact with its supervising administrator (dean or vice chancellor).  Unit compact plans are integrated into compact plans for whole colleges and administrative divisions.

The resulting compact plans outline an agenda of action initiatives to which both parties commit their support and, as necessary, their resources.  Compact plans address problems discovered through assessment as well as emerging opportunities.  They consist of initiatives describing specific actions, outcomes, performance expectations, assigned responsibilities, costs, and funding sources.  As explained in the compact planning guidelines, each unit proposes initiatives in five categories, namely those advancing university-wide goals, the University’s QEP effort (Learning in a Technology-Rich Environment, or LITRE), unit-specific goals, performance on selected measures, and achievement of enrollment goals. 

Agreements describing initiatives to be undertaken as partnerships among multiple units are called codicils. Codicils provide an effective mechanism for developing interdisciplinary academic programs and cooperative efforts to address shared issues.  Examples include expansion of the campus writing-and-speaking-across-the-curriculum program, which involved eight partners, and the Center for Marine Sciences and Technology, in which several of our colleges collaborated with a community college at the coast.

Unit leaders and supervisors negotiate initiatives based on a shared view of the unit’s long-range goals, its contributions to achievement of university goals, and the results of recent performance evaluations and outcomes assessments.  Weaknesses surfaced through evaluation and assessment would be addressed by initiatives.  For example, compact plan initiatives lead to the College of Engineering addressing problems with matriculation and retention and the College of Design focusing on the computing skills of its graduates.

Each compact planning cycle is iterative, involving a series of meetings between units and their supervisors to negotiate plans.  The schedule is complex, as different levels negotiate compacts simultaneously.  The first cycle, which required 12 months for administrative units and 18 months for academic units to complete, lasted from summer 1999 to spring 2001.  The second cycle began in fall 2002 and is scheduled for completion during 2003-04, depending on state budget finalization and resource allocation.  Despite the length of the process, 2001 survey results indicated that most participants found the 1999-2001 compact planning cycle useful and a significant improvement over previous planning processes.

Compact planning strengthened the relationship between planning and resource allocation, a relationship that continues to grow.  In the first cycle, the process focused primarily on initiatives for new programs and services.  Initiatives served as formal budget requests for new resources, and highest priority initiatives were included in the University’s biennial budget requests to the legislature.  In 2003-04 compact planning will also be used to negotiate budget reductions as may be necessary to meet state-mandated budget cuts.

In addition, compact plans ensure accountability by assigning responsibility and deliverables for each approved initiative.  Vice chancellors and deans report on progress toward implementing initiatives during annual performance (personnel) evaluations.  Within Academic Affairs, deans and vice provosts review progress and update compact plans during the annual plan and budget reviews led by the provost.    

Overall, compact planning is evolving as a more effective decision-making tool than previous planning processes.  Examples of initiatives implemented because of compact planning include several college diversity strategies, the Anni Albers dual degree program offered by Textiles and Design, and expansion of the e-commerce program in Management.

Strategic Planning
Compact planning is guided by strategic planning, that is, by the university’s mission and goals, which provide an important criterion for selecting action initiatives and for measuring performance.  

The mission statement is reviewed biennially (see Comprehensive Standards: Institutional Mission, Governance, and Effectiveness #1). Other than a minor revision in 2001, the mission statement has remained unchanged since 1996.  The Board of Trustees (BOT) monitors university adherence to its mission through an annual planning retreat held every February.  At this retreat, the BOT and the executive officers review an annual benchmarking report, which compares NC State University to 15 peers and notes its historical progress on 62 performance measures associated with teaching, research, extension and engagement, reputation, and resources.  

Three university goals and four academic thrust areas were established in 1998 at a planning retreat attended by deans, vice chancellors, and newly elected Chancellor Marye Anne Fox.  In 2000, Chancellor Fox assembled a national panel of educators and leaders to advise the university on its vision and goals.  The panel produced a report entitled The New NC State: Becoming the Nation’s Leading Land-Grant Institution that identified the strategic issues facing the university, reviewed emerging compact plans, and endorsed the three goals and four academic thrust areas.  These goals and thrust areas were renewed at the chancellor’s annual retreat in June 2003.  

The university also develops institution-wide, long-range plans that address fundamental strategies or guide development of the infrastructure necessary for achieving its long-range goals, including:  

·         2012 Enrollment Plan (1998, revised in 2003)  

·         Physical Master Plan (2000)  

·         Space Plan (2001) 

·         University Housing Master Plan (2002)  

·         Quality Enhancement Plan: Learning in a Technology-Rich Environment (2004)  

Support for Planning

Institutional data are published by various offices across campus.  NC State University makes full use of its website to distribute data to campus users.  Following are the primary sources of institutional data for planning and evaluation. 

·         Institutional Strategy and Analysis (UPA) publishes data describing students (demographics, admissions, enrollment, progress toward degree), personnel (demographics), academic courses and programs (teaching loads, credit hours, cost), performance measures, and peer comparisons and benchmarking.  UPA also administers an extensive program of freshman, sophomore, graduating senior, and alumni surveys; senior and alumni surveys provide a tool that departments can use to evaluate specific learning outcomes as required by the Undergraduate Academic Program Review (UAPR) administered by Undergraduate Affairs.  UPA maintains a special, password-protected website to support planning and evaluation at the department and program level. 

·         The Graduate School maintains a password protected website for departments and colleges that includes graduate program profiles used in its graduate program review process.  In addition, the Graduate School publishes data describing graduate students (admissions, enrollment, progress toward degree, graduate student records), the graduate faculty, interinstitutional comparisons, and student exit interviews.

·         The Budget Office provides information about budgets and expenditures.

·         The Sponsored Programs office hosts a website where information about research proposals, awards, expenditures, facilities, patents, and rankings can be found.

·         The Facilities Division provides information to the campus about square footage, floor plans. 

·         Registration and Records publishes grade distributions, course enrollment, and various advising tools designed to help students and advisors develop plans of work and monitor progress toward degrees.

These offices pull information from source databases managed by Enrollment Management and Services, Human Resources, Financial and Information Systems, and the Facilities Division.  They work together on data definitions and uses to improve consistency and communication.  In addition, the College of Engineering and the College of Education maintain websites with data for planning and evaluation. 

Staff assistance for unit-level planning and analysis is provided by these offices upon request.  In addition, Human Resources can provide trained facilitators upon request.  

References 

§         Compact Planning Overview and Guidelines (/UPA/compactplan/index.htm)

§         Examples of Unit Compact Plans from 1999-2001 cycle (/UPA/compactplan/compact99/compact_99.htm); others are available upon request.

§         University mission, goals, and high priority academic thrust areas (/UPA/strategicplan)

NC State University Home--> Accreditation Home--> Compliance Reports --> Core 2.5

N.C. State University
Last Modified: Wednesday, 16-Jul-03 14:19:30