Strategic Planning Meeting Minutes: January 2019

January 14, 2019
10 a.m. – 12 noon

Strategic Planning Task Force Members:

Bob Wood, Director
Jennifer Eichmeyer
Lutana Haan
Kristy Grabert
Catherine Masters
John McChesney
Lillian Smith

Also attending:

Tim Dunnagan, Dean

Facilitator:

Lynn Owens

Next meeting:

• Tuesday, February 26 10 a.m. – noon
  Where? TBD
• Please provide names and contact info (phone, email) of key stakeholders to Lynn
  lynn@lynnmowens.com

Summary:

The purpose of the first meeting of the Strategic Planning Task Force (SPTF) was
to lay a foundation for beginning the work of developing a Strategic Plan for the School
of Allied Health Sciences. The SPTF will be meeting throughout the Spring 2019
semester. Lynn Owens, Ph.D., has been contractually hired to facilitate this process in
collaboration with SPTF members. The Strategic Plan process will be completed by
June 30, 2019. Given that the School of Allied Health Sciences is relatively new and that to begin our work, the SPTF engaged in three activities during this first meeting. Members partnered with each other and reflected on past accomplishments either
within the School of Allied Health Sciences or within their respective departments. They were also asked to answer two questions:

• What made it work?
• What was learned?

Group 1: Lutana and Cathy

Accomplishments:

• Strong community partnerships
• IS program
• Student pass rates and job placements
• MSRC program
• Strong research by some faculty

What made these work?

•  Strong relationships with community partners
• There was a need and a champion
• Foundation support
• Experience of a highly qualified person

What was learned?

• People are key with support
• Take time in planning with a strong foundation
• Pay it forward and pay it back
• Take advantage of opportunities

Group 2: Jen and Tim
Accomplishments

• Using a collaborative approach to programmatic growth

What made it work?

• $$$ available
• Collective desire (will) to invest in program growth
•  Flexibility in organizational structure
• Nimble – able to move quickly
• Ability to execute with collaborative support
• Knew it would be successful (slam dunk) – demand & need for it

What was learned?

• Academia can be creative in organizational structures
• Move quickly
• Financial support helps
• Collaboration and willingness essential
• Ok to take a risk

Group 3: John and Bob
Accomplishments

• Progress on multiple programs (MAL, MAT, BS emphasis, joint PhD)
• Developed digital faculty evaluations
• Created a policy committee What made these work?
• Additional faculty
• Number of high quality faculty
• Commitment of faculty
• Partnership with Athletics
• Relationship with IT
• Collegiality between DH and Faculty
• Willingness to support new initiatives What was learned?
• Kinesiology Department has a different (enhanced) position as
  scholars since moving from College of Education to College of Health
  Science
• Processes for managing information and moving forward
  – what’s involved
  – what are the barriers
• Faculty shared views and perspectives that are unique and contribute to the whole

Group 4: Lillian and Kristy
Accomplishment

• Bringing on new leadership as a school

What made it work?

• Break away from the past (shared leadership with CEH)
• Fresh ideas
• Department Heads came together as a group in creating job description for Director position

What was learned?

• The vision as a whole was actually more “alike” than previously thought
• We could work as a whole (School) and were strong together
• We (as departments) are still unique

Additional Discussion: “We hire well”

A point was made that there has been a history of making strong hires within the various departments and the school. Reasons for this included the following:

• People feel valued
• We are value based – see values operationalized
• Attractive place
• We give people an opportunity to make a difference professionally
• Encourage people to have room in life beyond work
• Great search communicate that they care
• Personal touch
• Culture of inclusivity
• Long term faculty – willing to grow
• Willingness of faculty

Members focused on the present. A SWOT exercise (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) was completed by each individual. Individual responses are listed under SWOT Results. Note: Duplicate responses are included here. The number of similar responses suggests agreement on behalf of SPTF members.

Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) Results:

Use the search field to filter table content.

Strengths	Weaknesses	Opportunities	Threats
4 Departments	Limited Space	Self-support programs	New Admin gets rid of incentive based budgets
Quality in demand programs	Limited institutional programs for resources, equipment, etc.	Research of potential clinical programs
Quality programs	School is still fairly new	Student organizations	School of Public Health
Committed faculty	Lack of space	Development Alumni	High teaching loads
Collaborating as a team- relationships	Old building	Positive support for new ideas	Retaining faculty
Unique	New leadership	MPHS	Other schools in territory
Highly skilled	Unsure of budget	BB 2.0
Talent	Limited funding for GAs	School of Public Health
Office of Research	Diversity	Finding ways to share services
Largest undergraduate program at Boise State	Infrastructure	IPE
Positive Morale	Difficult to focus	New faculty and new ideas
Longevity of faculty	Service loads	Kinesiology's potential of growth
Research capacity of certain scholars	No clear school mission or vision	Opportunity to create a collaborative plan
Good reputation of academic programs	Experience to grow across areas varies	New academic programs
Move quickly	Space	Partnership programs
Dept. chairs collaborate well	New equipment is expensive
Can monetize efforts	Ability to partner across units
New leadership	Clinical and non-clinical differences
Lab space
Community Partnerships
Strong college identity
Healthy enrollment
Diversity

SPTF members forecast into the future. They identified events, issues, and trends which they believe will occur over the next ten years and which should to be taken into consideration while creating the Strategic Plan.

• New president
• Space
• Growth in Idaho
• Need approach to increase diversity
• ICOM
• Advising
• Infrastructure
• Less public funding relative to need (as a % of total)
• BB 2.0 process
• $ from extended studies to College to Dept.
• ICOM
• Expansion of enrollment
• Growth in programs
• Need for Office of Research to increase role
• Technology advancement and staying current
• Data management as a feature of healthcare and delivery
• Aging of faculty
• Aging of population
• School of PH
• Expansion of Programs
• Older adult population
• Economic downturn?
• Increase in number of grad students
• New School of PHS (not a threat ☺)
• More and more working students
• Increased need for health professionals
• u. S.T.E.M. designation
• Maintaining affordability of programs
• Retirements and deep knowledge pool depletion
• Board of Medicine oversight?
• Loss of tenured faculty
• Any change in health care funding
• Who controls health programs in ID
• Changes in 3rd party reimbursement
• ACSM Accreditation (2025)
• Fund raising
• Flattening of high school graduate numbers
• Non-traditional degrees, continuing custom programs
• Genomics as a staple of preparing profession