Building the Systems Portfolio: Accreditation Report or Strategic Document? Chris Crawford and Larry Gould Fort Hays State University

April 2005NCA/HLC Annual Meeting - AQIP Colloquium2 Building the Systems Portfolio  Intention vs. Reality  Exigent Circumstances  Systems Portfolio as Accreditation Tool  Systems Portfolio as Strategic Document  Lessons Learned  The Whole New Ballgame

April 2005NCA/HLC Annual Meeting - AQIP Colloquium3 Intention vs. Reality  “Back in the day” when AQIP was the new program  Goal of AQIP was to avoid the problems associated with static self-study reports  Quality improvement requires reporting for the sake of change first, compliance second  Systems Portfolio seen as a method to capture the essence of the processes and results  A living document, dynamic and responsive, updated not rewritten

April 2005NCA/HLC Annual Meeting - AQIP Colloquium4 Intention vs. Reality, cont.  AQIP serves as a quality improvement and quality assurance program  Oversight, but with a focus on improvement rather than control  Eagerness to work with institutions  Assessment workshop  Criteria workshop  But still…oversight is oversight and decisions must be made

April 2005NCA/HLC Annual Meeting - AQIP Colloquium5 Exigent Circumstances  More than 40 states have some sort of performance based funding model  Current higher ed budgets require lean solutions; quality management can be a strategic way to approach issues  For-profit institutions continue to challenge traditional models, more problems for private colleges seeking to increase revenue by increasing already formidable tuition

April 2005NCA/HLC Annual Meeting - AQIP Colloquium6 Systems Portfolio as Accreditation Tool  140 questions requiring critical reflection on the current state of academic quality in an institution  No easy questions, no easy answers  Primary focus on process and results, context will come naturally as will improvement issues  Portfolio Index to Criteria is central toward building the case for accreditation  It really still is about meeting standards

April 2005NCA/HLC Annual Meeting - AQIP Colloquium7 Systems Portfolio as Accreditation Tool, cont.  Extensive review of every important academic, personnel, strategic, and student focused system  Systems Appraisal focuses on critical characteristics, strengths and opportunities, and strategic and accreditation issues  Institution then takes action based on internal review and external feedback report  Real benefit…you learn very quickly where you are failing when answering the questions

April 2005NCA/HLC Annual Meeting - AQIP Colloquium8 Systems Portfolio as Strategic Tool  Use it or lose it - Systems Portfolio does no good on the shelf  Be prepared to learn/teach others  Overcome the myth…”I think we are doing much better than this”  Two primary strategic uses:  Prompt to re-evaluate the traditional strategic planning model  Provide on-point examples of weak/non-existent process, poor results, or no plan for improvement

April 2005NCA/HLC Annual Meeting - AQIP Colloquium9 Systems Portfolio as Strategic Tool, cont.  Primary learning point…makes an institution focus on the future while reflecting on the past  Excellent excuse to take a solid review of your strategic planning and performance reporting systems and processes  Review not just of processes, but also of anticipated results

April 2005NCA/HLC Annual Meeting - AQIP Colloquium10 Lessons Learned  Start early by collecting data – Year 1  Start with the end in mind – Year 1  Get the campus and leadership on board with the effort – Year 2  Assemble a crack team of writers and analysts, buy their time if you must – Year 2  Get the training you need for your team – Year 2

April 2005NCA/HLC Annual Meeting - AQIP Colloquium11 Lessons Learned, cont.  Pull together your data, conduct a data retreat – Year 3  Solicit involvement of the campus in building unique data points/processes – Year 3  Make team assignments for individual criterion – Year 3  Make sure each criterion has 2 knowledge experts – Year 3  Make firm assignment deadlines – Year 3

April 2005NCA/HLC Annual Meeting - AQIP Colloquium12 Lessons Learned, cont.  Edit criteria chapters, send out to other knowledgeable team members for review/editing – Year 3  Pass along to campus QI committee (likely many of the same people anyway) for their input/review/edit – Year 3  Assemble final draft – Year 3  Get buy-in of campus leadership – Year 3  Production and distribution –Year 3

April 2005NCA/HLC Annual Meeting - AQIP Colloquium13 Lessons Learned, cont.  Get Systems Appraisal Feedback Report - Year 4  Assemble team, share report – Year 4  Share report campus wide, meet with leadership and communicate the implications, strengths and opportunities – Year 4  Build a plan for improvement, strike while the iron is hot – Year 4  Strategy Forum – Year 4

April 2005NCA/HLC Annual Meeting - AQIP Colloquium14 It’s a Whole New Ballgame  “We're recommending that each institution address in its Systems Portfolios no fewer than one-third of the Process, Results, and Improvement items in each Category. Practically, this means that instead of trying to write responses to all 19 items in Category 1 ("Helping Students Learn"), an institution could select as few as 7 total, and use the space in its Portfolio to explain more fully and usefully how it is approaching a smaller number of issues. In Category 4 ("Valuing People"), responding to at least 6 would be the minimum expectation.” AQIP News, March 2005

April 2005NCA/HLC Annual Meeting - AQIP Colloquium15 Closing Comments  Start with Strategy (not just institution, but enterprise units) and create an execution- supportive structure  The execution supportive structure must be designed to gather the information to write the Portfolio. This structure must foster information sharing, coordination and clarify accountability/timelines, etc. It also impacts the “politics of portfolio writing” and the need for integration of the process across campus.

April 2005NCA/HLC Annual Meeting - AQIP Colloquium16 Closing Comments, cont.  Where you can, make it align and be useful with unit activities and needs. If their data collection and input is also helpful to their initiatives, they’ll be much more willing to help you.  Provide resource help where you can. Don’t expect departments, colleges and administrative units to have the time, money and people by themselves to make contributions to the process. This provides incentives, but adds to your ability to control the process of development. Both incentives and controls have to be considered to make either one work.  In the end, take pride in what you do and have fun!

Building the Systems Portfolio: Accreditation Report or Strategic Document? Chris Crawford and Larry Gould Fort Hays State University