Vision Subgroup – notes from the meeting on  17 November 2005

(With thanks to Alan Gabrielli for taking notes about topics that were raised and discussed)

Process for developing a vision statement:

Vision statements cannot be written by committee.

Development of the vision statement will be an iterative process.

Lisa will draft and distribute a statement for comments from the group.  For the next iteration, everyone should consider range of existing documnets and drafts, but not try to combine these into a single document, rather, make comments and suggestions on how to improve the draft statement.

Some questions and comments:

• what our grads need to look like
• define what vision statement is
• focus on big picture
• education is the future – we are saving the world

Lisa distributed a draft vision statement handout for initial comments; how can we improve it?

Should it contain a measurable target to determine success?

We can be best in the world = outstanding faculty, staff, students, grads

Vision implies commitment, team-oriented environment, recruit and retain the best people (Charles Azebeokhai handout with items to include in considering statement).

“Technology” is limiting – we use more than this in solving problems.

Creativity is important

Critical thinking is important

Technology is a tool, not a goal.

Current trend for one-sentence vision statements; we need to include a “who we are” statement.

We are a comprehensive state university, not narrowly focused.

Alternative:  we are a comprehensive university with a special purpose.

Do we want to identify ourselves as a state institution? We decided our name says enough.

Why should people want to come here?

How far into the future do we look with vision statement?

The academic plan is 3 years -- the vision statement will look 10 years ahead.

Can we bea comprehensive university in 10 years?

SPSU as a comprehensive institution:

There was a great deal of discussion over whether we should set a goal of becoming a comprehensive institution.  Some comments and questions included:

• Why should we be comprehensive?
• What is the advantage of being comprehensive?
• We are perceived as being narrow
• If we want to grow, we should be comprehensive
• Is there confusion over the term “comprehensive”?
• How can we establish a common understanding of what “comprehensive” means?

Initial reluctance by some members to include “comprehensive” in the statement; suggestion to post two visions and get campus reaction.  It was pointed out that a vote would polarize the campus and alienate the minority camp.

After some discussion, there appeared to be some consensus on “comprehensive university with a special purpose”.  Other comments included:

• add something about research
• “graduates who are critical thinkers and leaders”
• if you are going to make a real difference, you can’t do this simply with just technology or just with liberal arts
• C.P. Snow’s “two culture” argument – salvation comes with fusion of the 2 cultures
• fear of being outsourced – tech can be outsourced, we need value added – the fusion of liberal arts with technology
• we can be the place that “gets it” – we can provide an education that does not go out of date

Keep last two lines of draft statement as-is;  this provides recipe for change.

We can offer a comprehensive range of programs, all of which are technology-focused.

What does he market need?  Don’t limit ourselves.

There is a place in our mission for non-traditional students.

Fusion is a term that most understand:  “fuse liberal arts with technology.”

We can be a smaller suburban version of Virginia Tech – polytechnic and state university.

Fusion is better way of achieving our vision of being best

There was some discussion of what it meant to be “best in the world.”  Comments:

• how are we going to be better than, say , MIT?
• “best in the world” is happy talk
• replace with “exceptional”
• we can be best at our focus
• one measure of being “best” is if others come to us to see how it is done

Next steps:

Alan will complete notes from today’s meeting and send to LAR.

LAR will posts notes and a revised draft statement (rev. 2.0) on the Discussion Board.

Vision subgroup members will send comments to LAR by Wednesday, 23 November.

LAR will revise draft statement (rev. 3.0), post on the web site, and notify entire Strategic Planning Task Force that this is available for review and comment by Monday, 28 November.

Task Force members will comment on revised draft by 30 November.

LAR will have the next iteration (rev 4.0) available for next Task Force meeting on Friday, 2 December.