SENATE
Subject: Draft Strategic Planning
Timetable
Origin: Deputy Vice-Chancellor
|
Date |
Action |
|
20 Feb 06 |
Draft Senate
paper to be discussed by EMG |
|
1 March 2006 |
Intimations, by
V-C and DV-C, of some fundamental strategic matters that will be addressed as
substantive matters in the next Strategic Plan; and an invitation to Senate. |
|
1 March 2006 |
Discussion with
Chair of Council on strategic planning process |
|
March 2006 |
Broad structure
of Strategic Plan to be agreed |
|
31 March 2006 |
Update on
planning process and on current strategic considerations and preparation of
next Strategic Plan to Council. |
|
April 2006 |
Arrangements
made for joint Senate/Council away day |
|
April
–May 2006 |
‘Vision
statement’ to be prepared (ie, a description of the University in
5/10/15 years’ time). Input from
Support Services. Input from
General Assembly. |
|
8 May 2006 |
EMG discussion
of ‘vision’ etc statement |
|
June 2006 |
Joint
Senate/Council Away Day |
|
July-September
2006 |
[Strategic
Planning Team] prepare Draft Strategic Plan |
|
October 2006 |
Consultation
with key University Committees on Draft Strategic Plan & Senate, Council,
R&P, Support Services, General Assembly, Trades Unions, Students’
Union, HEFCE, relevant Regional Agencies etc.& |
|
November 2006 |
[Strategic
Planning Team] prepare Final Draft of Strategic Plan |
|
December 2006 |
Strategic Plan
approved by Senate and Council |
A DRAFT AGENDA OF QUESTIONS
THE FUTURE
OF THE UNIVERSITY: Strategic Development and Planning Matters relating to its
development into a sustainable 21st century university
The
following (Institution-level) questions – not necessarily an exhaustive
set – are intended to enable contribution towards the discussion
framework that, when pursued, will lead to the University’s next
Strategic Plan. At this stage in the
planning timetable, the principal intention is to invite any amendments or
additions. to encourage participant discussion of the development of the
University. All are similarly
fundamental; they are not necessarily in hierarchical order; they are all
related, overlap, or are complementary.
The ‘basic assumptions’ are not likely to go away; there
could also be additions to these too.
0
Is the University’s current ‘mission statement’
sufficient? How should we express the
University ethos we wish to associate with our name? What are our core values, and how they can be
articulated, enacted, and embedded?
1
What will this University ‘look like’ in 5/10/15
years’ time?
(Basic
assumption: No HEI will or can remain as it is now (any more than this University has remained
the same as it was 15-20 years ago).)
2
What will be the University’s international quality, visibility,
and presence?
(Basic
assumption: International visibility etc is a necessary ambition and can be
achieved via a set of objectives with related plans.)
3
How, why, and in what ways, will u-g and p-g curricula and pedagogy
change?
(Basic
assumptions: (i) The nature of pedagogy will change (if only under the
influence of technologies); (ii) employer-led or employer-influenced programmes
or jointly provided programmes will be required by government (and by the
University too).)
4
How, why, and in what ways, will research change?
5
How, why, and in what ways, will the Enterprise stream of activities
change, and, in so doing, change the nature of the University?
(Basic
assumptions: (i) An additional value – that of social impact and engagement – will become more significant
in HE; (ii) all HEI will have to become less dependent on HEFCE grant; (iii)
Enterprise replaces ‘third leg’ and ‘third stream’:
this stream will be broadly interpreted: there are some ‘obvious’
constituents in the Enterprise stream, ranging between the academic departments
and work within the support services.
‘Advancement of the University’ will also come under this
umbrella heading. This stream will
become as important as T&L and R in universities. Thus, Enterprise will go beyond the presently
well understood range of activities: it will bring together elements of
R-industrial/commercial partnerships;
knowledge transfer; CPD; elements of sports; conferences; cultural activities
and events; mutually beneficial and collaborative town/region-university
events; working with others in new ways, for new purposes, and with different
power relationships, from outside the HE sector (employers et al); University Advancement activities; other ‘soft’
relationships yet to be fully articulated.
The development of this stream will be one of the biggest change
influences (and imperatives) on the nature of universities, and will need to be
coherently embedded with and related to T&L and R.) (iii) The development
of
6
How will the University be a sustainable 21st century HEI?
(Basic
assumptions: (i) The University has to change, in numerous ways and aspects of
its spend, in order to be in continuing financial good health: (ii) financial
good health is a necessary underlying condition for institutional development
and continuance; (at present, the University’s costs – especially
salary – are increasing beyond its income)).
7
How should the University be best structured and organised for the 21st
century?
(Basic assumptions: (i) Present structures are
not as effective or as useful or as flexible as they could be; (ii)
Organisational change is necessary: the University has too many cost centres,
too many ‘boundaries’ (to which, with regard to p-g provision and
experience, the Research and Graduate Schools are, in part, an organisational
response); (iii) too few staff keen to be managers (of academic departments:
ie, HoDs) and, therefore, some lack in coherent strategic thinking and
development; (iv) some fragmentation within the way support services are
organised, which should be addressed.)
Professor
PH Roberts
Copyright © Loughborough University.
All rights reserved.