Top Navigation

Side Navigation

Criterion 2 - Planning

Criterion 2: focuses on planning and evaluates the extent to which the University's allocation of resources and its processes for evaluation and planning demonstrate its capacity to fulfill its mission, improve the quality of its education, and respond to future challenges and opportunities.

Core Component - 2a The University realistically prepares for a future shaped by multiple societal and economic trends.

Examples of Evidence

  • The organization's planning documents reflect a sound understanding of the organization's current capacity.
  • The organization's planning documents demonstrate that attention is being paid to emerging factors such as technology, demographic shifts, and globalization.
  • The organization's planning documents show careful attention to the organization's function in a multicultural society.
  • The organization's planning processes include effective environmental scanning.
  • The organizational environment is supportive of innovation and change.
  • The organization incorporates in its planning those aspects of its history and heritage that it wishes to preserve and continue.
  • The organization clearly identifies authority for decision making about organizational goals.

Core Component - 2b The University's resource base supports its educational programs and its plans for maintaining and strengthening their quality in the future.

Examples of Evidence

  • The organization's resources are adequate for achievement of the educational quality it claims to provide.
  • Plans for resource development and allocation document an organizational commitment to supporting and strengthening the quality of the education it provides.
  • The organization uses its human resources effectively.
  • The organization intentionally develops its human resources to meet future changes.
  • The organization's history of financial resource development and investment documents a forward-looking concern for ensuring educational quality (e.g., investments in faculty development, technology, learning support services, new or renovated facilities).
  • The organization's planning processes are flexible enough to respond to unanticipated needs for program reallocation, downsizing, or growth.
  • The organization has a history of achieving its planning goals.

Core Component - 2c The University's ongoing evaluation and assessment processes provide reliable evidence of institutional effectiveness that clearly informs strategies for continuous improvement.

Examples of Evidence

  • The organization demonstrates that its evaluation processes provide evidence that its performance meets its stated expectations for institutional effectiveness.
  • The organization maintains effective systems for collecting, analyzing, and using organizational information.
  • Appropriate data and feedback loops are available and used throughout the organization to support continuous improvement.
  • Periodic reviews of academic and administrative subunits contribute to improvement of the organization.
  • The organization provides adequate support for its evaluation and assessment processes.

Core Component - 2d All levels of planning align with the University's mission, thereby enhancing its capacity to fulfill that mission.

Examples of Evidence

  • Coordinated planning processes center on the mission documents that define vision, values, goals, and strategic priorities for the organization.
  • Planning processes link with budgeting processes.
  • Implementation of the organization's planning is evident in its operations.
  • Long-range strategic planning processes allow for reprioritization of goals when necessary because of changing environments.
  • Planning documents give evidence of the organization's awareness of the relationships among educational quality, student learning, and the diverse, complex, global, and technological world in which the organization and its students exist.
  • Planning processes involve internal constituents and, where appropriate, external constituents.

A summary of the core components 2a-2d, institutional strengths, challenges, and next steps is also required.

Members

  • Kristi Mindrup, Director of Administrative and Institutional Services, Co-Chair
  • Bill Brewer, Assistant Director, Physical Plant, Co-Chair
  • Matt Bierman, Director, Residential Facilities
  • Richard Chamberlain, Executive Director, University Technology and Director, Center for the Application of Information Technologies
  • Felix Chu, Professor, Libraries
  • Julie DeWees, Director, Budget Office
  • Pam Bowman, Director, Human Resources
  • Bob Emmert, Director, Electronic Student Services
  • *Janet Gabbert, Accountant, Western Illinois University Foundation
  • Al Harris, Associate Vice President, Student Services
  • Ken Hawkinson, Associate Provost, Budget, Planning and Personnel
  • JoHyun Kim, Associate Director, Planning, Budget and Institutional Research
  • Paul Kreider, Dean, College of Fine Arts and Communication
  • *David Lane, President, Inter Hall Council
  • Kathy Neumann, Department Chairperson, Computer Science
  • William Ratzburg, Loaned Executive, ReNew Moline
  • Jacqlin Richmond, Coordinator, University Field & Clinical Experience, Center for Preparation of Education Professionals
  • *Dwaine Roche, Associate Athletics Director
  • Carmen Sandoval, Office Support Specialist, Western Illinois University-Quad Cities
  • *Kristi Terry, Assistant to the Provost
  • Ron Ward, Director, Business Services

*former member

Meeting Schedule

  • 2008
    • November 11 - 10:00 am QC Rm265A CODEC to SH205
    • December 9 - 10:00 am QC Rm265A CODEC to SH205
  • 2009
    • January 13 - 10:00 am QC Rm265A CODEC to SH205
    • February 10 - 10:30 am - SH205 CODEC to QC Rm265A
    • March 10 - 10:00 am - SH205 CODEC to QC Rm265A
    • April 14 - 10:00 am - SH205 CODEC to QC Rm265A
    • May 12 - 10:30 am - SH205 CODEC to QC Rm265A
    • June 9 - 10:00 am - SH205 CODEC to QC Rm265A
    • July 14 - 10:00 am - SH205 CODEC to QC Rm265A