Nov. 30, 2001
Setting a Strategy for the Future
President Announces New Strategic Initiative
to Move the University Into the Forefront
By Thomas
Kohout
Representatives from all corners of the University
are joining forces to map a strategic plan to continue to guide GW well
into the 21st century. The initiative stems from an address by President
Trachtenberg before the Board of Trustees last June in which he outlined
the Universitys need to retain our momentum and continue
our move into the ranks of the top-tier institutions.
Over the next several months, two groups, the Selective Academic Excellence
Committee co-chaired by Vice President for Academic Affairs Donald R.
Lehman and C. Dianne Martin, professor of computer science in the School
of Engineering and Applied Sciences, and the Business and Service Committee
co-chaired by Vice President for Student and Academic Support Services
Robert A. Chernak and Vice President and Treasurer Louis H. Katz, will
work to develop a strategic initiative to continue GWs rise in
prominence. To assist them, the chairs have assembled committees representing
eight of the Universitys nine schools (Lehman says the College
of Professional Studies is too new to participate) as well as several
members of the Board of Trustees.
In his address, Trachtenberg cited the last major strategic initiative
at GW, The Commission on the Year 2000, initiated by then-president
Lloyd Elliott in 1985. Trachtenberg pointed to the plans 12 recommendations
for the development of the University, and indicated the bulk of the
goals had been essentially accomplished. Now, Trachtenberg
argues, it is time to develop a framework within which effective
and optimal decision making can take place as we work proactively to
define GWs path in the early part of the 21st century.
The University must define its destiny along a productive path
of positive internal change that positions us to meet external changes,
Trachtenberg says.
As an initial exercise, the committee chairs conducted a survey posing
one simple question: What do you think GW is most known for?
According to Lehman and Senior Assistant Vice President John S. Wilson,
who serves as a liaison between the committees, both groups received
a wide-ranging and flat distribution of responses, and therein
lies a key goal of the initiative clarifying GWs strengths.
We are hoping that this initiative will result in a much narrower
set of responses to that question, Wilson says. If people
familiar with GW have responses that are varied, then I wonder about
the responses from those unfamiliar with GW. That speaks to one set
of issues that can be addressed by this process.
The first goal of the Selective Academic Excellence Committee is to
generate criteria to be used for recommending academic areas that will
receive additional investment to enhance their growth toward excellence.
The Business and Service Committee has a similar agenda, but a different
approach. Starting with the identification of current areas of strength,
the committee will look to achieve a greater level of visibility in
the academic marketplace and shape GWs operations.
The committees look at this as a three-to-five year strategic
plan, says Lehman, stressing the importance of establishing and
maintaining an evaluation system. You dont want to look
at this as being a rigid blue print. If we do, its not going to
serve its purpose.
He adds that the final proposal should be viewed as a strategic document
that lays out strategic directions, but is reviewed on a yearly basis.
The Selective Academic Excellence Committee is currently working to
meet a five-point agenda, including the development of criteria so it
can accept proposals submitted by the faculty. The proposals the committee
receives from the schools, pared down and prioritized by the Selective
Academic Excellence committee, will constitute its own agenda item.
Another focus of the committee is ensuring that GW offers an academically
challenging experience for students. The group also will consider the
suggestion that GW switch its current curriculum at the undergraduate
level, moving from five three-credit courses per-semester to four four-credit
courses. Finally, the question of GWs ability to support its existing
doctoral programs will be among the items reviewed, as well as the criteria
used to evaluate those programs.
Lehman says it is crucial to understand this initiative is designed
to improve the academic excellence at the University through participation
of the faculty.
On the Business and Service side, Katz says the group will look
at what kinds of policies, whether it be policies that affect students
or policies about how we reallocate resources, can help build the academic
excellence. The committee, he adds, wont concentrate on
establishing individual standards and policies for programs or services,
but instead will take a broader approach to positioning GW for the future.
Wilson agrees, adding that the committees will avoid forecasting trends
in education. Rather than be purely market driven in the workplace
or in academia, we are going to look more closely at our strengths.
This is not a process that will result in academic micro-managing to
simply meet external demands.
I think the current mission, in terms of education, research,
and service, is immutably clear, Wilson adds, explaining why the
president has called for this planning process. What is not clear,
however, is where we are going to put our academic emphasis in terms
of trying to add dimension to our reputation and power to our prestige.
The committees will conclude their work by March, and then come together
to integrate their ideas into a concise and comprehensive plan that
will be presented to the Board of Trustees in May.
Send feedback to: bygeorge@gwu.edu