Strategic Planning Conference Report

DISTANCE EDUCATION AT NEW MEXICO STATE

UNIVERSITY “Your one-room school with a window on the

world”

The Future of Distance Education 2007

Strategic Planning Conference

August 7-9, 2002

THE FUTURE OF 0001001010111101010101111010100100100010010101011100001010001001010011010001010001010

DISTANCE

EDUCATION AT NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY

STRATEGIC PLANNING CONFERENCE REPORT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY1

Introduction

In April 2002, Dr. Carmen Gonzales assumed the position of New Mexico State University’s (NMSU) Vice Provost for Distance Education. Her appointment came at a critical juncture for the University’s efforts in the Distance Education/Distributed Learning (DE) arena. As a Land Grant institution NMSU has historically played major role in making education accessible at a distance for clientele in the state and for regional, national and international audiences. This history (of largely positive and productive experiences with DE) provides a solid platform for considering the future. However, recent history has taught nothing if not that, in turbulent and rapidly changing times, accurately anticipating the future is problematic. While it is virtually certain that DE will play a major role in the future of education at all levels, the academic landscape is littered with the wreckage of ill-conceived, ill-timed, overly ambitious, and ultimately ill-fated DE initiatives.

NMSU is poised to make significant investments of faculty and professional staff time and finances in the future of DE. For future DE efforts to be successful, at a minimum these efforts must have broad administrative, faculty, and technical staff understanding and commitment—in addition to being well-conceived, timely, adaptive to changing needs, appropriately funded, etc.

The Strategic Planning Process

August 7-9, 2002, 43 participants convened for a strategic planning conference focused on the future of Distance Education at New Mexico State University (NMSU)2. The participants were systematically selected from the University’s administrators, faculty and staff for their interest and involvement in DE issues3.

1 http://agecon.nmsu.edu/plan/DistEd/PlanXsum.pdf

2 Vice Provost Gonzales initiated the planning process following consultation with, and endorsement by NMSU Provost Flores. The broadly based initiative is a tangible manifestation of the Vice Provost’s sense of the importance of the intimate involvement of the University community in the design of the program that they will be asked to implement.

3 Selection of participants was part of the pre-planning activity

i

THE FUTURE OF 0001001010111101010101111010100100100010010101011100001010001001010011010001010001010

DISTANCE


The planning process used to focus and structure their work was the Open Systems Theory - based Search Conference (SC) methodology. The SC is a process specifically developed for dealing with planning in highly uncertain environments. It is used world-wide in contexts ranging from product development in high tech industry, program planning in academia, reliability planning for critical infrastructure systems such as the North American electric industry, to development planning for indigenous communities in rural Mexico. There is a history of successful use of the process at NMSU for institutional, research oriented and issue focused planning. Examples of such NMSU planning in 2002 include: strategic planning for developing the university-wide Information Sciences Initiative; the NM Chile Pepper Task Force – Mechanical Harvester program (a collaborative venture involving NMSU, USDA and Sandia National Laboratories); a College of Education (RETA, PT3/NMSU, CETP) sponsored, state-wide, Technology in Teacher Education, strategic planning and coordination initiative; and strategic planning for future programming by the NM Cooperative Extension Service4.

The process is highly participative, yet task and outcome oriented. Using this approach, the planning participants systematically viewed and analyzed NMSU (the system) in the context of the dynamic, larger environments (Global and Task) in which it exists. These environments contain phenomena that create challenges and opportunities for the NMSU’s programming on a continuing basis. Developing and analyzing these system contexts is critical to effective, strategic planning.

Strategic Planning Outcomes

The strategic planning process had a five-year time horizon. The planning participants focused on answering the question5:

What is the Most Desirable Future for NMSU Distance Education/Distributed Learning— 2007?

The answer to this question took the form of a set of present-tense statements that together constitute a unanimously agreed-upon most desirable scenario for the future of Distance Education/Distributed Learning (DE) at NMSU. The thirteen (13) goal

4 http://agecon.nmsu.edu/plan/infoscience/StrategicPlan2007.pdf

http://agecon.nmsu.edu/plan/ChileTF/MechHarvestReport.pdf http://agecon.nmsu.edu/plan/nmttec/StrategicPlan2007.asp http://agecon.nmsu.edu/plan/NMCES/StrategicPlan2007.pdf

5 Identification of the planning question was part of the pre-planning activity

ii

http://agecon.nmsu.edu/plan/infoscience/StrategicPlan2007.pdf

http://agecon.nmsu.edu/plan/ChileTF/MechHarvestReport.pdf

http://agecon.nmsu.edu/plan/nmttec/StrategicPlan2007.asp

http://agecon.nmsu.edu/plan/NMCES/StrategicPlan2007.pdf

THE FUTURE OF 0001001010111101010101111010100100100010010101011100001010001001010011010001010001010

DISTANCE


statements that together constitute the strategic direction/most desirable future for NMSU’s DE—2007 are as follows6:

Strategic Goals for NMSU Distance Education/Distributed Learning —2007

A. The DE program is based upon a comprehensive costing model that will support funding sufficient to appropriately compensate all stakeholders for the delivery of quality programs and courses

B. NMSU has a center that provides faculty training and support for technology

integration and DE curriculum development and implementation on institutionally adopted platforms

C. We have achieved Increased recognition for NMSU through implementation of

a targeted marketing plan for DE initiatives

D. There is a portal that provides access to comprehensive student services

E. We have developed assessment processes for all aspects of DE

F. All students my use a cafeteria plan that allows them to choose among distance, blended and traditional delivery methods (across institutions) to meet educational goals

G. NMSU P&T, faculty compensation and intellectual property policies and

procedures are well known, understood and implemented to encourage and reward faculty participating in DE

H. There is a clear model of decision-making that includes a

centralized/decentralized model

I. Students have clear expectations of all requirements needed to complete a DE degree or certificate program

J. We have a process in place to ensure DE programs have broad-based buy-in

and long-term sustainability

K. NMSU research specialties have become topic areas for DE

6 There was one additional potential goal statement that was considered but set aside

since all participants were not in agreement.

iii

THE FUTURE OF 0001001010111101010101111010100100100010010101011100001010001001010011010001010001010

DISTANCE


L. DE collaborations with other institutions promoting degree completion, retraining/certification, articulation, and resource sharing are in place

M. NMSU has mechanisms to guarantee adequate student skills in NMSU

sanctioned learning technologies

Following the development of the thirteen goal statements, participants subjected their work to a “reality” check. This reality check was the identification of the major barriers to the accomplishment of the goals. Strategies were then identified to address the barriers. When the participants were satisfied that it was possible to overcome the barriers actionable plans for realization of the goals were developed.

The detailed report of the complete planning process is located at:

http://agecon.nmsu.edu/plan/DistEd/StrategicPlan.pdf

iv

THE FUTURE OF 0001001010111101010101111010100100100010010101011100001010001001010011010001010001010

DISTANCE


CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i INTRODUCTION TO THE PLANNING PROCESS 2

CONFERENCE REPORT 5

CONFERENCE PARTICIPANT EXPECTATIONS 5 I. GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT: SCAN AND ANALYSIS 8

TASK 1 ANALYSIS OF THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT SCAN ANALYSIS: The Most Probable Future—Global Environment 2007 ANALYSIS: The Most Desirable Future—Global Environment 2007

II. TASK ENVIRONMENT: SCAN AND ANALYSIS 16

TASK 2 ANALYSIS OF THE TASK ENVIRONMENT TASK ENVIRONMENT SCAN ANALYSIS: The Most Probable Future: Task Environment 2007

III.THE SYSTEM: HISTORY—DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS 22

TASK 3 HISTORY OF DE AT NMSU DISCUSSION OF HISTORY OF DE AT NMSU ANALYSIS: Keep, Discard, Create

IV.THE SYSTEM: MOST DESIRABLE FUTURE 2007 27

TASK 4 THE MOST DESIRABLE FUTURE—DE AT NMSU 2007

V. BARRIER IDENTIFICATION AND STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT 29 TASK 5 BARRIER IDENTIFICATION TASK 6 STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT

IV. ACTION PLAN DEVELOPMENT 39 TASK 7 ACTION PLANNING APPENDICES 41 APPENDIX A Action Plans APPENDIX B Notes to Action Plan G APPENDIX C Planning Conference Participants

1

THE FUTURE OF 0001001010111101010101111010100100100010010101011100001010001001010011010001010001010

DISTANCE


INTRODUCTION TO THE PLANNING PROCESS

New Mexico State University has been involved in “distance education” for many years—by some definitions, as long as the institution has been in existence. In recent years a number of entities and programs across the university have invested in infrastructure and the development of programming to better respond to traditional distributed and remote constituencies, as well as in response to emerging needs and opportunities. Some of the higher profile examples include the College of Engineering’s WERC programming; the New Mexico Cooperative Extension Service’s statewide information/training infrastructure (recently upgraded to the CENTRA System); the Criminal Justice Department’s online program offerings, and a variety of programs offered by entities within the College of Education. All of these efforts involved investments of faculty and professional staff time and finances in the future of DE. Historically the investment in DE has occurred at the college, department or other unit level. However, for future DE efforts to be successful, at a minimum these efforts must have broad administrative, faculty, and technical staff understanding and commitment—in addition to being well-conceived, timely, adaptive to changing needs, appropriately funded, etc.

THE PURPOSE OF THE PLANNING INITIATIVE

The creation of a Vice Provost position to lead and coordinate DE activities at the university level signaled a change in the university administration’s approach to DE. The planning initiative reported here is the first campus-wide effort to bring cohesion and programmatic strength to the largely disparate efforts that exist today. The purpose of the planning effort was to engage many of the University’s most knowledgeable faculty and staff in the development of tangible, actionable plans for the program. More importantly, the broadly based, and ongoing initiative is a tangible manifestation of the Vice Provost’s sense of the importance of the intimate involvement of the University community in the design of the program that they will be asked to implement.

THE PLANNING QUESTION

The process that used for the strategic planning was the Search Conference (SC) methodology. The SC is based on Open Systems theory, Pepper’s world hypothesis of Contextualism, and participative democracy as an organizational

2

THE FUTURE OF 0001001010111101010101111010100100100010010101011100001010001001010011010001010001010

DISTANCE


mode. The SC was specifically developed for dealing with planning in highly uncertain environments. It is used world-wide in contexts ranging from product development in high tech industry, program planning in academia, reliability planning for the North American electric industry, to community planning for indigenous communities in rural Mexico. There is a history of successful use of the process at NMSU for institutional, research oriented and issue focused planning. Recent examples include: strategic planning for developing the university-wide Information Sciences Initiative (http://agecon.nmsu.edu/plan/infoscience/StrategicPlan2007.pdf); the NM Chile Pepper Task Force – Mechanical Harvester program (a collaborative venture involving NMSU, USDA and Sandia National Laboratories) (http://agecon.nmsu.edu/plan/ChileTF/MechHarvestReport.pdf); a College of Education (RETA, PT3/NMSU,CETP) sponsored, state-wide, Technology in Teacher Education, strategic planning/coordination initiative, (http://agecon.nmsu.edu/plan/nmttec/StrategicPlan2007.asp); and strategic planning for the future of programming by the NM Cooperative Extension Service, (http://agecon.nmsu.edu/plan/NMCES/StrategicPlan2007.pdf); The process is highly participative, yet task and outcome oriented. A nominal, five-year, time horizon was selected for the DE planning. The specific question answered by the planning group was:

“What is the most desirable future for Distance Education/Distributed Learning at NMSU in 2007?”

The highly structured process focused on developing answers to the planning question—answers stated as goals for which action plans could be developed.

PRE-PLANNING ACTIVITY

Pre-planning is critical to the success of the strategic planning process. These activities began in April with the assembly of a small group of faculty and staff drawn from the membership of the university’s existing DE support group. This group first met on May 6, 2002 to address pre-planning needs including the following:

Identification of the planning question to be addressed Identification of the planning scope—metaphorically a picture puzzle of

the planning issue with many pieces that make up a coherent whole

3

http://agecon.nmsu.edu/plan/infoscience/StrategicPlan2007.pdf

http://agecon.nmsu.edu/plan/ChileTF/MechHarvestReport.pdf

http://agecon.nmsu.edu/plan/nmttec/StrategicPlan2007.asp

http://agecon.nmsu.edu/plan/NMCES/StrategicPlan2007.pdf

THE FUTURE OF 0001001010111101010101111010100100100010010101011100001010001001010011010001010001010

DISTANCE


Identification of a set of criteria to be used in the process of nominating potential participants

Identification of pre-planning research needs Assembly of a set of background materials with which all participants

should be familiar prior to the conference Participant selection from the peer nominated pool of potential

participants—this activity is focused on the selection of a group of 20 – 35 qualified participants that provides the most complete set of knowledge/experience with respect to the planning issue

Other planning logistics issues—timing, location, funding, etc., for the conference and related activities

4

THE FUTURE OF 0001001010111101010101111010100100100010010101011100001010001001010011010001010001010

DISTANCE


CONFERENCE REPORT

OVERVIEW The conference began with a brief review of the purpose, structure and the process that would be used to gather and analyze the data. CONFERENCE PARTICIPANT EXPECTATIONS

Following the overview, participants were asked to break into six groups to briefly discuss and record their expectations for the conference. These expectations were reported back to the whole group. A discussion of expectations at the outset of the conference provides an opportunity to share concerns and begin the process of working together and developing a shared sense of purpose with regard to the future of the Distance Education (DE) program at NMSU. The identification of expectations also provides the conference managers with an opportunity to identify unrealistic or unfocused expectations and to clarify the extent to which the conference can contribute to the development of a desirable future for the DE program at NMSU.

Participants' responded to the question,

What are your expectations for this three- day strategic planning conference?

Their responses were as follows. Expectations:

• More clearly understood set of policies • Definition: What is a DE class? What is not a DE class? • CHE definition and policy • Due process to develop faculty compensation • How do we “handle” DE courses (advertise, catalogue list, revenue generating

and return to colleges)? • Will there be $$ return to college? • Flexibility of support base for DE (ex., continuous negotiation) • A vision and organized approach • Transfer articulation • Sequence and critical mass of students needed to do degrees • Funding? • Competitive positioning/Competition?

5

THE FUTURE OF 0001001010111101010101111010100100100010010101011100001010001001010011010001010001010

DISTANCE


• Grasp of student support (i.e., counseling)? • Regulation payments? • Learning disabilities? • Delivery types • Train and retrain faculty • Vision with other institutions • Institutional collaboration (cooperative agreements) • What is our exposure? • Accreditation (regional) for DE (NCA accreditation?) • NC bodies and their approach? • Quality control • P & T consideration? • Bond students to NMSU and alumni list • Spectrum of classes • Technology in all classes • Get to know group • Shaping our DE program • Contribute to the program • Clarify goals and direction • Streamline admissions procedure • Identify problems • Develop a unique program • ID services • Streamline registration process • DE internationally • Budget? • Technological support? • Marketing and recruiting • Retention • Who teaches courses? • Tuition rates? • Socialization

o Student to student o Student to Teacher

• Participation in programs o On campus o Off campus

• Consistent blanket university policy for DE • Free structure/billing • Formula funding to specific departments • IT incorporation/integration/support • Student training for web courses (who will do it?) • Student services for DE students

6

THE FUTURE OF 0001001010111101010101111010100100100010010101011100001010001001010011010001010001010

DISTANCE


• Faculty support to create courses • Copyright/intellectual property • Graduate assistant support—training etc. • Organizational chart—how entities relate to one another? • Documentation—policies and procedures of DE program • Tracking of admissions/student contact • Transferability/articulation/admission criteria • Acquisition of books at distance • Acquisition/distribution of course materials • Technological requirements for students • Teaching through multiple modalities • Improve DE infrastructure • How to assure quality? • Policy barriers for DE (identify, eliminate) • Policy issues (identify existing and, when there are none, create new one) • Tie real funding to programmatic agenda, e.g., support services • Determine whether DE is integrated with colleges • Results of sessions do not restrict “successful DE effects—in place • Assessment of support services for DE (expansion) • Guidance • Buy-In • Something that will work for faculty departments • Shared understanding of all DE components (to make it work due to

complexity) • Make changes and do something about current situation • Profile of our customers • Functions and resources (to include people) • What technologies will be embraced? • Develop standardization that can be emulated (by branches, etc.) (by modality) • Who will be the “decision-makers?” (i.e., CHE, NCA) • Seamless support system for DE students and faculty • Identify audiences to be served • How/who is doing marketing? • Developing process for new courses/programs • Standardized delivery or mix? • Evaluating courses, programs or success? • Course integrity (security) • Priority commitment (by administration) to DE • Money flow • University core and requirements in DE • State’s virtual college? • Identification of DE categories (what are needed?):

o Regional

7

THE FUTURE OF 0001001010111101010101111010100100100010010101011100001010001001010011010001010001010

DISTANCE


o BS completion o MS o Etc.

• Legal (Intellectual property) • Impact on P&T?

I. GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT: SCAN AND ANALYSIS

TASK 1: ANALYSIS OF THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT Global Environment Scan The world outside of our system7 is the broader, environmental context for the activity that takes place within our system. The conditions and the ever-changing phenomena of the global environment determine much of what we, and our institutions, can and cannot accomplish. The environment contains obstacles and opportunities. These phenomena and conditions range from the alleged warming of the earth’s atmosphere and consequent melting of the ice caps, to the current exchange rate of the $US for the Euro. The first step in the process of developing Desirable Future scenario and strategic plan for the system is an analysis of the larger environment. To elicit a sense of the condition of the environment—as seen by planning participants, they were asked to respond to the following question:

“In the past 5-7 years (right up to the present day) what have you seen happen in the global environment, that impressed you as novel or significant in some way?”

The participant’s responses8 were as follows DATA: Global Environment Scan

Litigation over (alleged) Microsoft monopoly Genetic mapping Failure of Dot Coms Increased scrutiny of big COs— Martha Stewart, Global Crossing, Enron, etc.

7 The “system” for planning purposes is New Mexico State University and the NMSU DE program.

8 The participants (meeting in plenary) spent approximately 30 minutes in the scanning/recording activity.

8

THE FUTURE OF 0001001010111101010101111010100100100010010101011100001010001001010011010001010001010

DISTANCE


Cloning Individual customization of everything 9/11 Failure of traditional K-12 worldwide Decreased privacy Federal and state involvement in education increases Digital divide Technology transfer Market volatility Cult of lying (deterioration of ethics) New homeland security office Digital millennium copyright act Devaluation of printed formats Genome mapping and GE (cloning) Attack on affirmative action Decrease in minorities in higher education Accountability everywhere tightening as a result of corporate scandals

Virtual universities are already tapping into the market for

advanced high school students

Economic globalization Deregulation of industries Better coffee Consumerism Increased accountability requireme Greater disparity – “haves” and “h More people in higher education Baby/boom retirement issues International balance of trade chan Culture is easy and quick Kids killing kids Increased communication (electron Computer hackers No technology Worldwide challenges to resources Maquiladoras move from Mexico to DNA technology applied in justice s US health cost out of control Technological explosion and increa Broad band problems that we will g Suicidal terrorists causing freedom Greater weather pattern shifts (glo More auto accidents due to cell ph

China—population one billion+— isemerging as a huge market for

higher education in English
nts
ave nots”

ging for the worse (for the US)

ic)

from AIDs epidemic China because of lower labor cost ystem

sed connectivity et rid of

problems bal warming) ones/electronics

9

THE FUTURE OF 0001001010111101010101111010100100100010010101011100001010001001010011010001010001010

DISTANCE


Economic and market success of private E-universities Many state budget cuts for universities Emphasis of quantity over quality Increased amount of recycling AIDs crisis in 3rd world Portability of technology Telematics Increased in women in higher education Opening of world markets We (US) have become litigious society Increased childcare needs Do more and more with less and less Increased cell phone technology and use Increased expectation of medical science to “save” everything “Blaming society”- no accountability Flex time

Martha Stewart revives traditional domesticity, …succumbs to 21st

century corporate greed

r Increased viruses “Sound bite” mentality More super stores Decrease water supplies Worker alienation Increased dependence on foreign oil Parents (two) working (multiple jobs Increased workload expectation Fear of people different than us Lack of hope Increased in “postal” incidents Increased job switching Decreased salaries Overall lack of trust Increased violence in work place—“p Russian financial system weakness Shift away from religious values Increased freedom of self-expression High retirement in workforce Telecommuting Non-stop access to anything Family structure model changing Gene splicing Ageing population

With investment incomes down etired seniors are going back to work and need new work skills

)

ostal” incidents

10

THE FUTURE OF 0001001010111101010101111010100100100010010101011100001010001001010011010001010001010

DISTANCE


Cryogenics Pervasive high stress Inflation Bridge on PDA’s Lance Armstrong and Tiger Woods War on terrorism, Bioterrorism More families have computers in homes and they’re cheaper Lack of respect for authority Different (less respectful) attitude towards teachers and instructors Debit cards/plastic society Growing disparity between rich and poor from 3rd world Deregulation of www Increased internet sex, violence, etc. getting more attention from media Increased average age of world populations Space station Over-reliance on technology Increased expression of alternative life-styles Increased longevity (life expectation) Decreased loyalty to “profession” Increased loyalty to “hobbies” Decreased loyalty to company/firm/….. Increasing xenophobia Nuclear proliferation among unstable nations and groups Exponential increase in information Increased wireless technology Cell phone obsession Increased work years, decreased stock market European union and “Euro” Growth of intolerance (worldwide) Rise of fundamentalism (all religions) Legalization of drugs (US) “Creeping” credentialism Increased resistance to change Scaling up of Middle East conflicts Increased skills based on education Religious conflicts and Zealots Increased medical technology in U.S. Increased immigration Increased refugees Global release of XML definition Increased obesity and diabetes Another election year in the U.S. Using up natural resources

11

THE FUTURE OF 0001001010111101010101111010100100100010010101011100001010001001010011010001010001010

DISTANCE


ANALYSIS: The Most Probable Future—Global Environment 2007

Analysis of the responses to the question on novel or significant occurrences in the global environment takes two forms, a Most Probable future and a Most Desirable future—both of which provide information of importance to the planning process. The Most Probable analysis involves projecting the trends and phenomena forward to identify a Most Probable Future (MPF) at a five-year time horizon. This time horizon coincides with the planning time frame. This projection is done to provide the planning group members with a common, and credible, sense of what the context of their work (in general as well as the field of DE) will look like in 2007. What it will probably look like is important because it gives us a working glimpse of what the “environment” will allow us to do—specifically, what constraints and opportunities will exist that qualify the array of options open to us.

The data analysis took place in small groups. Three randomly selected groups were asked to discuss the list of responses and to come up with a set of six, concise, present-tense “scenario” statements in response to the question,

If you project the global scan data forward five years—i.e., if things continue the way they are going today—what do you see as the most probable future of the global environment in the year 2007?

The small groups were given 20 minutes to work through the issue9. They were encouraged to examine/debate as many points of view as necessary to thoroughly (as 20 minutes would permit) explore the question. In the end they distilled their discussion into the six scenario statements. Reports on small group work:

Clarification of Scenario Statements: The small groups’ work was presented in a plenary session. The presentations were followed first by an opportunity for all participants to request necessary clarification of any statements10.

9 This was the same for both of tasks (Most Probable and Most Desirable).

10 This step is an important quality check. The first attempt at small group work is often somewhat imprecise. Inappropriate assumptions regarding the use of “common” terms of

12

THE FUTURE OF 0001001010111101010101111010100100100010010101011100001010001001010011010001010001010

DISTANCE


Agreement/Disagreement with Scenario Statements: Following any clarifications, the participants were asked if they were in agreement with the statements presented. Agreement:

In the case of the MPF-Global Environment 2007 agreement meant that a scenario statement was probable11 based on the data available—i.e., a reasonably accurate reflection of what the environment would look like in 2007. In the case of the MDF-Global Environment 2007, agreement was explained to mean that the participant would like to see the outcome realized and, given the opportunity, would work to make it happen.

Disagreement: Where there was disagreement on a scenario statement, participants engaged in further discussion. When disagreement on the substance of a statement could not be resolved expeditiously, by additional clarification and/or rewording, the statement was moved to a list entitled Disagree/Needs More Research. This rationalization of conflict 12 keeps the work focused on areas of agreement and keeps the process moving forward.

At the end of the Reports/Clarification/Agreement-Disagreement process the outcomes of the work on the MPF-Global Environment 2007 were as follows:

reference and concepts occur frequently—a statement that is clear in the small group is revealed to be easily open to mis-interpretation.

11 prob·a·ble (i) likely to occur or prove true; (ii) having more evidence for than against, or evidence that inclines the mind to belief but leaves some room for doubt; (iii) affording ground for belief. Source: Random House Unabridged Dictionary.

12 It is very important to note that the process used here–Rationalization of Conflict–leads to an outcome upon which there is real agreement. This stands in contrast to the use of consensus or majority voting where there is a facade of “agreement” while in actuality a legitimate minority view is lost in process. When there are Disagree/Needs More Research lists they remain part of the permanent record of the conference. Point(s) of disagreement often stem from a lack of relevant information. As time passes such information may become generally available. For on-going entities the issues’ relevance may become more apparent and the questions then revisited.

13

THE FUTURE OF 0001001010111101010101111010100100100010010101011100001010001001010011010001010001010

DISTANCE


AGREE: The Most Probable Future—Global Environment 2007

Increased in individual/collective security has become more intrusive, but less apparent

Science/technology has caused individuals to have longer and more fulfilling lives

Increased globalization has increased the gap between the world’s “haves” and “have nots”

Increased global communications (connectivity) have fostered more open societies

Greater use of renewable resources have reduced the negative impact of population Increases

Digital monitoring stamps out personal privacy Nostradamus’s prediction—genetic breakthrough extends average life

five years The X factor—a new crisis replaces terrorism! Cubs finish last, again! We are experiencing a 75% Increased in centenarians due to medical

innovations Life-long learning is the norm There is a 100-fold Increased in computer processor speed There is further environmental degradation, particularly in 3rd world

countries Dow Jones hits 12,000

DISAGREE: The Most Probable Future—Global Environment 2007

o Average household in the U.S has three bathrooms and bandwidth of

400 mbps o Global minimum wage set at 3.74 Shankies

THE MOST DESIRABLE FUTURE—GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT 2007 The Most Desirable analysis involves the identification of a Most Desirable Future (MDF) for the world—again at a five-year time horizon—where the environment and the system are not at odds. In this scenario all good things are possible and our commonly held ideals can be identified and expressed.

The analysis took place in small groups. Three randomly selected groups were asked to discuss the list of responses and to come up with a set of six present tense statements in response to the question,

14

THE FUTURE OF 0001001010111101010101111010100100100010010101011100001010001001010011010001010001010

DISTANCE


If conditions of the global environment are not an obstacle, what would you see as the most desirable future for the global environment in the year 2007?

Here again, the small groups were given 20 minutes to work through the issue13. They were encouraged to examine/debate as many points of view as necessary to thoroughly (as 20 minutes would permit) explore the question. In the end they distilled their discussion into the six scenario statements. At the end of the Reports/Clarification/Agreement-Disagreement process the outcomes of the work on the MDF-Global Environment 2007 were as follows: AGREE: The Most Desirable Future—Global Environment 2007

Tolerance and peace Equal opportunity and responsibility and accountability (justice) Environmental balance Good quality of life Truth/integrity/trust There is universal access to affordable and equitable quality health care

services Education/educators are valued and respected There is easy and universal access to quality and appropriate learning

opportunities World hunger and poverty have been eradicated There is increased respect and caring for the environment and the

diversity of the people who live in it 90% global access to education and information Cure available for aids, cancer, Parkinson’s (Top 5 killers—2002) Greater connectedness Respect for diversity Meaning/rewarding life/work experience Increased economic stability Less bureaucracy

DISAGREE: The Most Desirable Future—Global Environment 2007

o None

13 This was the same procedure for both tasks (Most Probable and Most Desirable).

15

THE FUTURE OF 0001001010111101010101111010100100100010010101011100001010001001010011010001010001010

DISTANCE


II. TASK ENVIRONMENT: SCAN AND ANALYSIS

The second step in the identification of a Desirable Future for the system involves analysis of the Task Environment (TE)—the system’s specific future context. The task environment is a sub-set of the global environment that is specifically relevant to system for which planning taking place. As a sub-set of the larger environment, the TE is also in a state of constant change. The changes in the TE are, however, in theory, more likely to have discernable impacts on the system.

To gather information on the TE, participants (meeting in plenary) were asked to respond to the question:

What have you seen happen (globally) in the broadly defined area of Distance Education in the last 5-7 years that struck you as novel or significant?

The participant’s responses14 were as follows DATA: Task Environment Scan

Increased partnerships—university with university, university with business, and university with corporations

Increased GATT Increased control of intellectual property Fluctuating costs of tuition with currently values Legal implications of course content and delivery Increased con-current enrolments Less control on content and process for instructors DE reduces faculty numbers DE impacting promotion and tenure, as we know it Difficulty in assigning costs to content and delivery Cultural difficulties in expectations of what universities/instructors can/should

produce Increased spam Increased concerns about system integrity Increased faculty/student training needs Students more consumers than before On-demand media Perception that everyone should have college education

14 The participants (meeting in plenary) spent approximately 30 minutes in the

scanning/recording activity.

16

THE FUTURE OF 0001001010111101010101111010100100100010010101011100001010001001010011010001010001010

DISTANCE


Increased need for continuous education of adult workers Data access through PDA’s Move to decrease credits for B.S. Increased credit for experience Increased technology enabling more delivery models Increased technology in household applications Increased language translation software Increased differentiation between niches—some have to go to Harvard! Increased pressure for universities to act like businesses Increased customized degrees Increased turnover rate of software packages Meeting needs of mobile society Meeting needs of fixed in situation society Increased gap of bandwidth between urban and rural Increased competition for grants etc. Increased DE support services Increased satellite technology GPS, www. Com in general Student debt and cost concerns Changing clientele/needs

incr

Educational institutions are easingly being held accountablefor what they are producing

Increased/decrease expectations Increased tuition CMS integration Faculty compensation State/national shortages of teachers and Increased company, corporations, univers Copyright issues Promotion/tenure issues Increased technology capabilities States have maxed out % of state funds fo NMSU under appreciated by many Always on high sped Internet in urban are Unknown how valid DE credit is (uncertai Competition from other countries Access gaps (no access) Some systems (Europe) c/ on 4 align with Need to go outside of structure (fluidity, Blended approaches Customized curriculum People demanding one-stop shops Intellectual property issues

One half of U.S. universities are cutting budgets

nurses ities

r higher education

as nty of other person)?

ours flexible)

17

THE FUTURE OF 0001001010111101010101111010100100100010010101011100001010001001010011010001010001010

DISTANCE


Lack of student preparedness Tendency to double count high school credit Students thinking research is just Internet Text messaging – IM, cells Technologically interfacing more complex (compatibility) Bandwagon, keeping up Increased emphasis on workforce development Seeking the easy way syndrome (50 miles travel) Issues re: service areas-politics, etc. Piracy of web content Outmoded policies that don’t work with DE Cost benefit issues Assessment of whether or not this works Meeting needs of rural, homebound, etc. (time based jobs) Shifts in research funding Increased learning disability needs Lack of personal contact

m

Globalization has produced a 24/7 entality for everything—for DE this

means the 24/7 Professor
Loss of critical thinking skills Copyright restrictions Redefinition of quality in education Survival of the finest Regional/programmatic accreditation ag Need for more research of DE and synthe Increased value for higher education nat Blending of traditional and DE in college No significant difference research in DE Development of new fields like (informa No longer business/education/governme Local student demand for DE courses Use of mobile technology, PDA’s cells, e Legislative changes in financial changes Growing/Increased e-universities, compe Dying/decrease e-universities (backlash Increased cost of doing business Increased in community college enrollme Talking with acronyms (POP) Uneven infrastructure to support connec Other public spending priorities (correct Increased electronic access to informati Current revision of formula funding in NM
The DE environment will be heavily populated by “agent based”, virtual instructors

18

encies acceptance of DE sis of what we already know ionally s

tion) nt distinctions/lines/ etc.

tc.

tition to DE)

nt

tivity ions health care) on (only server)

THE FUTURE OF 0001001010111101010101111010100100100010010101011100001010001001010011010001010001010

DISTANCE


Increased partnerships for educational support/training Ambiguous governmental support Credit, degrees, home institution ID E-army university/large institution education (grocery shopping) Tapping into indigenous knowledge base DE fees waived/re-structuring for DE if out of-state National accreditation agencies for DE Because of distance government thinks we don’t need “brick and mortar”

infrastructure How to blend physical and virtual campus infrastructure Use of virtual reality in teaching techniques (medical, army, etc.) Faculty training institutes Lack of clear criteria as to what constitutes good DE Faculty incentives How to deal with hands-on requirements of curriculum Consumer oriented students Increased use of technology, DE in job descriptions Higher education over built for tradition models Technology elitism What happens to failed entitles student inventor/grads More digitized learning materials Restrictions on content? Value of U.S. degree in foreign markets Collaborations with other institutions in other countries Different philosophies of what constitutes plagiarism Cross-cultural different in teaching and learning More curricular/program options for students Lack of response/fit between what Increased education produces and what job market and technology needs Innovative partnerships with other education institutions Not all businesses support DE, they want residence Artificial intelligence-software Preparation/preparation…. Edutainment?? In five years many current faculty will “retire” Increased use of DE in position descriptions Teaching/learning in retirement Time zones Low cost interactive media Privatization of DE components of universities Credit for experience Increased societal value of life-long learning Increased untapped K-12 markets Thailand – DE will not count How valid will a DE course be in _____?

19

THE FUTURE OF 0001001010111101010101111010100100100010010101011100001010001001010011010001010001010

DISTANCE


Uncertainty of sender- receiver (source? – student?) Universities at – international universities English fluency No clear “catchment” area Increased huge and growing middle class aspirants (wannabes) Understanding cultural relevancy Blended approaches – technology dependant

TASK 2: ANALYSIS OF THE TASK ENVIRONMENT Here, as in the case of the global environment, the analysis takes the form of future scenarios that reflect constraints on freedom of choice—what the probable TE will allow the system to do. This scenario is the Most Probable Future—Task Environment 2007 (MPF-TE 2007.) For this task six (6) randomly selected small groups were directed to develop scenarios for the task environment in the year 2007. The three groups worked in parallel to answer the question:

If you project the task environment scan data forward–if things continue the way they are going today–what do you see as the Most Probable Future of the Task Environment in 2007?

The groups were given 20 minutes to work through the issue. They were encouraged to examine/debate as many points of view as necessary to thoroughly (as 20 minutes would permit) explore the question. In the end they were to distill their discussion into no more than 5 (5) concise, present-tense statements to describe the MPF-Task E in 2007. Reports on the MPF-Task Environment Upon completion of their analyses the small groups presented reports in a plenary session. The presentation of group reports was again followed by the discussion sequence, Clarification–Agreement/Disagreement (see Section I of this report). AGREE: The Most Probable Future—Task Environment 2007

Every major higher education institution has DE delivery capabilities A “quality” backlash to DE has impacted promotion, tenure, and curriculum

decisions

20

THE FUTURE OF 0001001010111101010101111010100100100010010101011100001010001001010011010001010001010

DISTANCE


The “last mile of connectivity” has decreased the gap between urban and rural areas

Regional programmatic accreditation has improved in their acceptance of DE degrees

There is reduced state support for out-of-state DE students, nationwide Increased numbers of students are taking significant courses from multiple

institutions There are significantly more classes that have international/national

students enrolled at remote locations A marked Increased in quality asynchronous delivery has occurred

(Note: this item was the subject of an extended discussion) Increased restrictions on access to electronic information exist Global competition for technologies results in more and better integrated

products

Excellent student support services are proving to be critical to the

survival of DE-initiatives

Increased E-resources (i.e. texts) Most courses have integrated

instructional technologies into teaching and learning processes

There is increased global competitiinformed and demanding

There is intense competition amongstudents therefore; there is a premmarkets

There is more emphasis on certificadegrees

Institutions are in the training/educ There are a higher proportion of no

education Faculty/university/students are mo Winners in DE are based on sound b DE programs have a different fundin

education programs DE students receive unique student

recognize cultural differences Definitions of a faculty’s role/respo

service and technology

Universities are moving toward business models for managing DE

programming

21

on for consumers who are savvy,

universities and private DE providers for ium for identifiable markets or niche

te/performance rather than on specific

ation business through partnerships n-traditional students in higher

re entrepreneurial usiness models g model than traditional higher

support services and curriculum, which

nsibility include teaching, research,

THE FUTURE OF 0001001010111101010101111010100100100010010101011100001010001001010011010001010001010

DISTANCE


Successful DE contains adaptive and culturally relevant active agents A tremendous increase in student accessibility Anytime education (convenience store approach—open 24 hours a day) There is an increase in non-terminal educational offerings to support

workforce development and lifelong learning Relevant educational resources are available regardless of place and time

for consumers and providers Globalization demands sensitivity to a diverse educational environment

DISAGREE: Most Probable Future—Task Environment 2007 o Control of intellectual property is improved

III.THE SYSTEM: HISTORY—DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

The history session provides participants with and opportunity to share information and experiences from a variety of perspectives, both short and long term. Invariably, even those who have had the greatest breadth and depth of experience with the system, find that there are historical artifacts of which they were unaware. The discussion of those experiences, including successes and failures, and other significant events and personalities in the history of DE enhances the understanding and appreciation of all participants. No history is complete or even “correct” from all perspectives. However, the discussion and reflection plays an essential role in the development of a sense of community, and a sense of shared purpose.

TASK 3 HISTORY OF DE AT NMSU DISCUSSION: History of Distance Education at NMSU

1970 s Videos to Clovis, Holloman, had to make three live site visits - pseudo-interactive, military sites were excluded, would subtract from appropriations??

1970 s DE in Farmington - sent people out. 1970 s Ambivalence to use of DE to teach courses. AB 1980 s NM CHE had discussions on how to fund DE; had line item but not reported; then with two-way made policy re: modes ITV reported; then needed to report formula - eligible only, but branches doing only regular file… 1984 I.E. courses in Alamogordo, tried every type of delivery, billing, etc. LR 1985 Faculty member denied tenure - too much PO (?) on teaching in the classroom "wasted" (this was in review), now teaching encouraged. 1986 Engr. Coll./E.E. Dept. with Juarez--courier hand carried videos into Mexico 1986 Progs. (Engr.) were satellite synchronous technology (a-sync not acceptable) 1987 -88 NMSU-EE/Mexico: Led to live - one way video with 2 way audio, then

22

THE FUTURE OF 0001001010111101010101111010100100100010010101011100001010001001010011010001010001010

DISTANCE


to 2-way video, now anytime-anyplace. 1990 On-line access to NMSU library catalogues 1990 s Mesa Airlines was a delivery mode to deliver special education to Farmington.1980 -90s College of Business - traditionally sent the instructor (Pakistan, Thailand…). 1990 s College of Engr. DE to support students on "COOP" - good experience. 1990 s BAMMEA Project? (five sites in Mexico); many students never made contact; two-way video,…very complicated; good lessons learned 1992 Two-way synchronous environment better 1992 Innovative faculty wrote grant to get speech language pathologists out in field, grant ended year she got here, off-site via Mesa Airlines and driving, to get courses delivered. JD

1993 Support scarce (essentially non-existent) for early adopters. LR, AB, etc.,

I was the original pay “pal.”

We can learn from the risk-taking and creative, entrepreneurial

behavior in our DE history

1993

AB money from research to "self-support".

1993 NM CHE redid higher education database. 1996 Boeing Initiative (cross coll/dept.) died for lack of support (students…). 1996 Video tapes to students in remote NM who had no access 1996 DABCC sent VCR tapes to remote located students -- met need. 1996 Web CT brought to campus - partnership of WERC & ITC 1996 CG taught web-based course no real support and class changed. 1997 First ITAL (Institute for Technology Assisted Learning) helping faculty integrate Instructional Technology. 1998 Library completed shift to web based access. 1998 -99 PhD cohort for community college leaders began - funded by grant; students now in dissertation phase; some attrition; residency issues - clarified as on-campus requirement; originally Dept. Heads/Deans said no issues, now … Ramon Dominguez 1990 s Took funds from research for DE, e.g., ITAL, training, software, etc. AB 2000 DE Directive from President - CT has done it; difficult for branches 2002 s More development in last 2 years than in last 19 years. AB 1985 today Campus a "hodge-podge" of approaches/incentives/rewards 1985 today Where we've gone is due to few core faculty 2001 Ph.D. program for community college administrators showing cracks …problems solved by current administration. 2001 President Gogue promised degree completion programs at branches.

Students sent me money and I registered them—AB

23

THE FUTURE OF 0001001010111101010101111010100100100010010101011100001010001001010011010001010001010

DISTANCE


2001 NM CES learning centers at regional offices - an option for DE. 2001 ITAL created "DE Program" application to give more priority to DE programs. 2001 Web site launched library (easy proxy) working on 24 hours support. 2001 WRT entrepreneurial spirit, would like to learn from successful programs… learn from the history. AB, 2001 I.E. - second most masters degrees in entire university - many off-site 2001 DABCC struck agreement with U. of Phoenix 2002 Preparing grant for alternative licensure for speech pathologists. JD 2002 Virtual reality 2002 Still wouldn't recommend DE to untenured faculty. AB 2002 Library has DE web site - needs access issues clarified 2002 NMSU Eng. Coll. contract courses not reported to CHE, only "formula eligible" 2002 NM CHE now discussing treating DE and on-site courses the same-- as part of revising the funding formula. 2002 I.E. has history of contract course delivery for MS program given recognition problem, enrolled = x degrees granted = 4x. 2002 I.E. sees value of life-long learning and "certification" training…CD's, Web streaming, Downloadable materials, Support critical 2002 Faculty workloads relate to state supported funds. 2002 Technology drives course delivery -- better to blend techs to meet need. 2002 People asking for the "Beef" but not being delivered yet! Administration asks/promises-support not there (courses). 2002 Appears to be a need for a core DE curriculum, if not forthcoming this will probably kill degree programs. 2002 No web-based general education courses in F2000 schedule. 2002 Articulation problems even within NMSU! 2002 DABCC has Ed. Ctrs. in some under-served areas and other branches. 2002 "Blue Ribbon task force" working on funding formula. 2002 I.E. concept of traditional degrees not what should be focus, should be lifelong learning, certificate programs, many already have masters and Ph.D.'s - need further training/certifications 2002 Engr. Coll. have figured out issues such as library, IBS, different types of student (C. Bremm - I.E. problem solver) 2002 Engr. Coll. - downloadable lectures - issues of bandwidth and firewalls. 2002 Contracted certification for I.E. - pilot program not approved by NM CHE. 2002 Losing students, low transfer rate. 2002 Branches united in effort to supply DE through interactive video 2002 Faculty participation voluntary (never "in load", rather, "over load") 2002 Payroll refused to pay LR cause she hit "limit"- system tweaked to get paid. 2002 Faculty should be able to double salary, consult, etc., without 1.3 invoked. 2002 Lack of institutional acceptance of faculty earning "a bit too much".

24

THE FUTURE OF 0001001010111101010101111010100100100010010101011100001010001001010011010001010001010

DISTANCE


ANALYSIS—Keep, Discard, Create At the conclusion of the history session participants were asked to reflect on the information that had been generated. They were specifically asked to focus their attention on identifying those historical artifacts (attitudes, behaviors, organizations, etc.) from their collective past that were appropriate and worthwhile to Keep or continue; those that should be Discarded or discontinued. In addition, they were asked to identify things that should be Created or developed. The participants developed a list for each as follows: Keep

• ITAL • Cross-disciplinary work • DE Vice Provost • Entrepreneurial spirit • Extension clearing centers • CMS/WEB CT • Building collaborations with community colleges • DE Support group • Following existing national standards • Contract courses

Discard

• Notion that we will get rich quickly—or ever! • Sense of no responsibility • Mindset that the competition is between us, and others that are already out

there—find new models! • Articulation problems • Bureaucracy • Manual processing • Multiple tuition/fee rates (except contractual) • Mode drives pedagogy • Negative impact of DE on P&T decision process • Cap on faculty salaries • Need for hand written signatures • Barrier created by being 12 month faculty vs. 9 month faculty • Misconceptions that persist regarding use of DE, e.g., advising, asynchronous

delivery,

25

THE FUTURE OF 0001001010111101010101111010100100100010010101011100001010001001010011010001010001010

DISTANCE


Create

• An institutional process to develop programs and courses so that all of the players are informed and all of the support services are in place and available

• Internal funding methodology • A marketing strategy and plan • A vision for the DE program • A faculty training cadre to train faculty in best processes and practices • A position and process for DE admissions • Streamlining articulation process • A business plan • A process to develop and deliver programs • A plan for hiring adjunct faculty to take the load off of existing, full-time

faculty • A way to identify DE students and courses • A process for using digital signatures • A flexible registration and reporting system • Faculty perks and benefits for involvement in DE activity • A culture that is open to change • A holistic approach to education and learning—no boxes, i.e., DABCC, NMSU,

Weekend College, … • A standardized fee structure • Comprehensive policies and procedures for DE—everything • A method to focus and set priorities for resource allocation to programs • A method to prioritize programs • Process to evaluate long-term program viability • A competitive positioning statement • Cost identification mechanisms • New “models” and new “audiences” • A reason to say Yes! • Identify and develop niche markets • Mechanisms and plans for working collaboratively with other institutions • Cafeteria plan for compensation for DE work • Incentives for 12-month faculty participation in DE • Plans to process and distribute financial aid for DE • Resources for implementation of plans • Integration with “bookstores” so that students can acquire texts and materials

in a timely fashion • Criteria for assessing quality and efficacy of programs • Re-evaluation process for “general education” component of curricula:

o Core for Undergraduate DE programs o Core for Graduate DE programs

• Funding mechanism for support services for DE

26

THE FUTURE OF 0001001010111101010101111010100100100010010101011100001010001001010011010001010001010

DISTANCE


• Continuing education opportunities for DE faculty • Committee for standardized curriculum (NMSU model) • Information literacy module for DE • A system for program support • A teaching academy • A tech “boot camp” for students • Plan to provide tutoring/counseling/advising • Student tracking and evaluation of course • Extended technical assistance • Plan to accommodate/cater to special needs markets

IV.THE SYSTEM: THE MOST DESIRABLE FUTURE 2007

The Most Desirable Future (MDF) is a scenario within which truly desirable things are possible and the participants’ commonly held ideals are expressed and identified in a future of their own design. For this task, six (6) randomly selected groups were directed to develop MDF scenarios for DE at NMSU in the year 2007 in response to the question:

If it can be whatever you want, what is the Most Desirable Future of DE at NMSU in 2007?

The groups were asked to review their prior work, in particular The MDF—Global Environment 2007, and the Keep and the Create lists from the history analysis. They were given 60 minutes to work through the issue. The product of the discussion was to be no more than five (5) concise, present tense statements to describe the MDF for DE at NMSU in 2007. Upon completion of the task, the groups presented reports. The discussion sequence, Clarification, Agreement/Disagreement followed presentations. For The Most Desirable Future when the Agreement/Disagreement part of the discussion was complete the agreed upon statements were assembled in like groups and consolidated/rewritten into single statements. These statements eliminated only redundancies. The follow statements are the product of that consolidation and rewriting.

27

THE FUTURE OF 0001001010111101010101111010100100100010010101011100001010001001010011010001010001010

DISTANCE


TASK 4 THE MOST DESIRABLE FUTURE—DE AT NMSU 2007 AGREE: Most Desirable Future—DE at NMSU 2007

A. The DE program is based upon a comprehensive costing model that will

support funding sufficient to appropriately compensate all stakeholders for the delivery of quality programs and courses

B. NMSU has a center that provides faculty training and support for

technology integration and DE curriculum development and implementation on institutionally adopted platforms

C. We have achieved Increased recognition for NMSU through

implementation of a targeted marketing plan for DE initiatives D. There is a portal that provides access to comprehensive student services E. We have developed assessment processes for all aspects of DE F. All students my use a cafeteria plan that allows them to choose among

distance, blended and traditional delivery methods (across institutions) to meet educational goals

G. NMSU P&T, faculty compensation and intellectual property policies and

procedures are well known, understood and implemented to encourage and reward faculty participating in DE

H. There is a clear model of decision-making that includes a

centralized/decentralized model I. Students have clear expectations of all requirements needed to

complete a DE degree or certificate program J. We have a process in place to ensure DE programs have broad-based buy-

in and long-term sustainability K. NMSU research specialties have become topic areas for DE L. DE collaborations with other institutions promoting degree completion,

retraining/certification, articulation, and resource sharing are in place

28

THE FUTURE OF 0001001010111101010101111010100100100010010101011100001010001001010011010001010001010

DISTANCE


M. NMSU has mechanisms to guarantee adequate student skills in NMSU sanctioned learning technologies

DISAGREE: Most Desirable Future—DE at NMSU 2007

o We have true 2+2 degree plans with all HE institutions in NM.

V. BARRIER IDENTIFICATION AND STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT

It is inappropriate and naive to expect that any really desirable future will be achieved without effort—including that of having to overcome an array of barriers and obstacles to the accomplishment of plans. Planning that fails to identify barriers and to develop strategies for dealing with those barriers is doomed to fail. For initial and continued success, organizations and on-going initiatives must have mechanisms in place to do this on a continuing basis. Threats (and opportunities) to an entity’s success are constantly emerging from the environment. The success of an entity is contingent upon timely, active adaptation to threats and opportunities. TASK 5 BARRIER IDENTIFICATION In preparation for developing action plans for the thirteen statements in the MDF—DE NMSU 2007, the participants were asked to reflect on the statements and respond to the question:

What are the major barriers to achieving the MDF—DE NMSU 2007? Note: The following (with relevant MDF statement and strategies) were identified as the major barriers—The Major Barriers to A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, are shown along with the Strategies developed for dealing with the barriers : TASK 6 STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT—DEALING WITH THE BARRIERS The identification of the major barriers to the MDF statements was followed by a brief introduction to strategy formulation. The introduction focused on the importance of developing effective strategies for overcoming barriers before those barriers manifested themselves. The concept of strategy is commonly understood to be one of conflict or confrontation. However, the briefing

29

THE FUTURE OF 0001001010111101010101111010100100100010010101011100001010001001010011010001010001010

DISTANCE


focused on the decidedly non-confrontational Strategy of the Indirect Approach15. The indirect approach is derived from the short treatise, The Art of War, attributed to Chinese General Sun Tzu [circa 400-320 B.C.]. The indirect approach places a premium on avoiding direct confrontation in favor of subtler, indirect and “strategic” approaches to accomplish goals. Sun Tzu was one of the seminal contributors to the concept of strategy formulation from a holistic perspective. His ideas are captured in six core principles. These principles are all relevant to contemporary strategy for business, and virtually any competitive endeavor16. The briefing focused on the application of Sun Tzu’s concepts to strategy development for DE activities. While not a commitment to “war” in the strictest sense of the term, the level of DE programming contemplated here certainly warrants strategic consideration consistent with engagement in a challenging and sustained competition that involves significant amounts of both human and financial capital.

It’s a “war” for coming generations of students—a

war we must prepare to win

"To rely on rustics and not prepare is the greatest of crimes; to be prepared beforehand for any contingency is the greatest of virtues."

Following the briefing participants broke into small groups with the task of developing strategies to overcome the constraints. As noted above, the Barriers and Strategies are presented together in the following section.

15 Western cultures tend to apply a direct approach to problem solving. While it is true that the

shortest distance between two points is a straight line, it does not necessarily follow that going in a straight line or using a direct approach is the fastest, least resource intensive or most profitable means of reaching your objective.

An entity may assume that the way to marketplace success is to directly attack their competitors. However, direct attacks most often generate the greatest resistance from those being attacked. An indirect approach—through the back door—often has considerably more potential to be successful. Careful positioning may make it possible to “capture the house” without a fight, if because of strategic superiority capture is the inevitable outcome anyway. This is what Sun Tzu calls for.

16 Mark McNeilly, Sun Tzu and the Art of Business: Six Principles for Managers, Oxford Press University, 1996. Note: McNeilly’s treatment of Sun Tzu is particularly accessible for readers primarily interested in the practical application of the ideas.

30

THE FUTURE OF 0001001010111101010101111010100100100010010101011100001010001001010011010001010001010

DISTANCE


BARRIERS AND STRATEGIES STATEMENT A – Barriers & Strategies

The DE/DL program is based upon a comprehensive costing model that will support funding sufficient to appropriately compensate all stakeholders for the delivery of quality programs and courses. Barriers to A: • Identifying costs • Identifying revenues • State and university regulations • Defining “ students” • Un-funded mandates • Bureaucracy • Historical processes • Start-up costs • Competing priorities • Current allocations • Lack of appreciation for extant system Strategies for Barriers to A: • Develop a transition plan for processing students, for allocating funds, and

reporting to CHE. • Develop a cost model for DE. • Develop an allocation model for DE.

STATEMENT B – Barriers & Strategies NMSU has a center that provides faculty training and support for technology integration and DE curriculum development and implementation on institutionally adopted platforms. Barriers to B: • No more bricks and mortar • Funding stream • No institutionally adopted platforms • If we create will they come • Staffing • Organizational structure • Lack of consensus on instructional interface design • Release time Strategies for Barriers to B: • If you build it, will they come? Part of policy and procedure. • Faculty wants technology training

31

THE FUTURE OF 0001001010111101010101111010100100100010010101011100001010001001010011010001010001010

DISTANCE


• Departmental mandates • Money rewards • We have pedagogical training • Mentoring – new TAs • Release time for mentoring • Capitalize on teaching academy initiative and don’t restrict to face-to-face

training. • Funding Stream: possible sources

o Technology fee o Training fee – internal and external o “G” funding o Tuition driven model o Grants – TA and other existing o Internal lineate funding “hard money” o Private funds development

• Policy and procedure – at what level? • National standards • Guidelines for course • Interface design based on best practices • Bank of templates for various media • Feedback from students • Peer review (voluntary) with guidelines and criteria • Supported adopted platforms procedures • Task force to review existing options • Survey of usage • State standards and contracts • Public review forums for new technologies to provide input to task force • Staffing and organize structure • Identify providers • Chart training providers • Coordinate and integrate provider’s services • Eliminate duplication? • Needs assessment what do we need for pedagogical training for DE

STATEMENT C – Barriers & Strategies

We have achieved Increased recognition for NMSU through implementation of a targeted marketing plan for DE initiatives Barriers to C: • In place competition • No target market data available • No market driven culture • Unknown restrictions, e.g., legislation, … ?

32

THE FUTURE OF 0001001010111101010101111010100100100010010101011100001010001001010011010001010001010

DISTANCE


• No prioritization of resource needs—“bang for the buck” • Lack of vision for DE

Strategies for Barriers to C:

• Draw agreement among governing bodies on the role of DE in the state’s educational mission (e.g. institutional branding, state revenue stream) → Leads to NMSU mission statement for DE

• Scan and develop clear understanding of competitive environment (including NMSU)

• Articulate profit/benefits for industry and organization involvement in DE (see J).

• Identify and evaluate potential market share of various market segments. STATEMENT D – Barriers & Strategies

There is a portal that provides access to comprehensive student services

Barriers to D: • Resources (people and dollars) • No clear policy for access to information (University data, students’

records, grades, etc.) • Definition of portal (~web based) • Administration of portal • Students with disabilities

Strategies for Barriers to D: I. Create campus-wide task force(s) charged to make recommendations on:

a) Policies pertaining to record level access. b) Design (look and feel). c) Areas represented/services provided. d) Alternative delivery for disabled. e) Unique and permanent (persistent) ID for anyone associated with NMSU.

II. Recommendations sent to administrative decision makers (yes/no). III. High priority for new Chief Information Officer (strategic)

o Resource allocation o Funding support

STATEMENT E – Barriers & Strategies

We have developed assessment processes for all aspects of DE Barriers to E: • No common, clear, agreed upon assessment process for existing • Accreditation issues to address through tools • Poor/no communication about existing processes

33

THE FUTURE OF 0001001010111101010101111010100100100010010101011100001010001001010011010001010001010

DISTANCE


• Limited assessment tools for measurement of impacts on faculty, staff, students

• $$$ Costs related to developing, distributing, administration, of assessment “instruments”

Strategies for Barriers to E: • Increase communication about existing processes • Students:

o Design system to assess performance and degree completions proficiency (exit interview).

o Retention and attrition: assessment tools to evaluate should be developed and implemented—surveys and questionnaires.

o Support services o Technology o Faculty and TA performance

• Faculty: o Assess impact on faculty productivity—question how this will be done. o Get sense of their delivery skills (pre-screening and training). o Assess time management o How do they perceive the outcomes?

• TAs: o Assess productivity, retention, satisfaction, utilization, skills.

• Staff: o Assess need for additional training and support; satisfaction,

perceptions (qualitative), retention rate due to increased knowledge, or skills, or both.

• Accreditation o Secondary accreditation o Gather existing documentation o Develop DE assessment committee to assist and provide direction; as

well as liaison with university assessment committee. • $$$ Costs

o What funds are currently available? Seek grant funds; utilize grad students create research agendas (Refer to Statement K)

STATEMENT F – Barriers & Strategies

All students my use a cafeteria plan that allows them to choose among distance, blended and traditional delivery methods (across institutions) to meet educational goals Barriers to F: • No consolidated schedule • Lack of common course numbers • Catalog and course structure does not support DE (rolling registration)

34

THE FUTURE OF 0001001010111101010101111010100100100010010101011100001010001001010011010001010001010

DISTANCE


• Computer system support for data systems • General education courses not on-line • Slow state process for degree approval • Federal financial aid regulations • Coordinated tuition policy • Bureaucracy associated with evaluation and transfer of credits • Policies and procedures in general • Lack of student self responsibility • Lack of screening tools • Lack of timely, systematic, robust review of programs • Student database lacks codes • Poor history of collegiality at all levels • Insufficient strong, knowledgeable advisors Strategies for Barriers to F: (Refer to Statement M—common Strategies)

STATEMENT G – Barriers & Strategies NMSU P&T, faculty compensation and intellectual property policies and procedures are well known, understood and implemented to encourage and reward faculty participating in DE Barriers to G: • Funding formula • NMSU faculty—fear of unknown • Department/College P&T committees • Conflicting and restrictive federal/state legislation with respect to

Copyright issues • Inflexible compensation rules/policies • Lack of administrative mandate • Lack of agreement on intellectual property policy Strategies for Barriers to G: • Develop a consistent university allocation formula (e.g., %) for distribution

of DE funds based upon participation. o The formula must define % to go to university, college, department, and

faculty. o Only those departments and faculty who participate in DE will have

access to the %. This should not preclude startup funds being allocated from the “college cut.”

o The allocation formula must differentiate between LD, UD, and Graduate courses.

35

THE FUTURE OF 0001001010111101010101111010100100100010010101011100001010001001010011010001010001010

DISTANCE


• Upper administration must produce a mandate that departments and all colleges integrate DE into their P&T documents. o Department and college docs must not substitute DE for research or

service. o The mandate must include a statement requiring training for all P&T

committee members. o The mandate must not require universal participation by departments

or faculty. • The university attorney must develop a clear legal document that specifies

rights and rules for intellectual property/copyright/patents. This document must clearly specify who “owns” the material, copyright, and/or patent.

• Revise the 1.33 salary restriction/rule and allow market based pay for contract courses and consulting, particularly for consulting billed through the university.

STATEMENT H – Barriers & Strategies

There is a clear model of decision-making that includes a centralized/decentralized model

Barriers to H: • Un-funded mandates • Procedures and policies to back up decisions • Lack of a good policy framework for DE • Lack of clear identification of stakeholders • Administrative turnover • Lack of coordination among stakeholders (turf coordination) • Breakdown in implementation • Current policy manual needs revision Strategies for Barriers to H: • Find source of start-up funds, competitive grants, contracts for specific

services that may involve new infrastructure, software development, • Set new policies and procedures for DE • Set in motion the formal process for change. • Identify stakeholders • Use inclusive process to integrated them into the decision making model.

STATEMENT I – Barriers & Strategies Students have clear expectations of all requirements needed to complete a DE degree or certificate program

Barriers to I: (Refer to Statement F—common Barriers)

36

THE FUTURE OF 0001001010111101010101111010100100100010010101011100001010001001010011010001010001010

DISTANCE


Strategies for Barriers to I: (Refer to Statement M—common Strategies)

STATEMENT J – Barriers & Strategies We have a process in place to ensure DE programs have broad-based buy-in and long-term sustainability

Barriers to J: • Lack of incentives and lack of understanding of options • Lack of communication of option or incentives or both • Value systems • Lack of commitment

Strategies for Barriers to J: • DE office provides leadership in developing, promoting, and communicating

DE. • DE office will develop a program of incentives for the creation of DE

programs and find necessary startup funding. • Institution will require market justification for all now DE program

proposals. • DE office will assist and identify “Best Practices” for DE

delivery/development and a set of criteria to self-evaluate the quality of course materials.

STATEMENT K – Barriers & Strategies

NMSU research specialties have become topic areas for DE Barriers to K:

• Narrow concept of what DE is/can be—benefits go well beyond the simple issue of generating some tuition $$

• Lack of awareness of potential benefits of DE involvement • Naïveté with respect to the potential for DE to provide entrée to

previously inaccessible markets and collaborators • NMSU’s “research” culture (don’t bother me!; we need the overhead $$) • Branches are not research oriented (work force development) Strategies for Barriers to K: • Promote internal awareness of potential benefits of DE involvement

(including collegial development, funding relationship, teaching developments etc.)

37

THE FUTURE OF 0001001010111101010101111010100100100010010101011100001010001001010011010001010001010

DISTANCE


STATEMENT L – Barriers & Strategies

DE collaborations with other institutions promoting degree completion, retraining/certification, articulation, and resource sharing are in place Barriers to L: • Other institutions also believe they are at war • Conflicting rules between institutions • Time required • Financial aid constraints • Tuition sharing—cost and income issues • NM CHE’s lack of decision on graduate certificate • Communication • Academic elitism • Who counts students • Identification of suitable collaborators • Accreditation issues (accepting . . .) • Unknown market for programs (Refer also to Statements F and I—common Barriers) Strategies for Barriers to L: • Market survey – match strengths to needs • Assessment of other home economic providers strengths and needs • Develop strategy to establish ongoing rapport with two-year schools and

four-year school where appropriate. • Develop strategy to enlist College of Home Economics (CHE) and legislative

support for our DE efforts including partnerships within the state. • Ask Faculty Senate to create task force to do comprehensive review of all

academic rules that affect DE and assess similar rules other H.E. and state. • Ask each college to set up task force to address accreditation issues for any

DE programs that it offers. • Create DE advisory group to VP-DE to include financial aid, ADAC, IT, and

student services among others. • Periodic convocations focusing on DE among other forms of

communications. • Support Provost Task Force on faculty roles and rewards, teaching

academy. • Establish university awards and recognition for DE achievements. • Develop resources to allow DE office to buy out time to work on DE

projects. • Provost provides grant writer for DE office.

38

THE FUTURE OF 0001001010111101010101111010100100100010010101011100001010001001010011010001010001010

DISTANCE


STATEMENT M – Barriers & Strategies NMSU has mechanisms to guarantee adequate student skills in NMSU sanctioned learning technologies Barriers to M: • $$, time and no mechanisms in place • Fear of losing headcount • No degree credit for student since it is “remedial/preparatory” work

Strategies for Barriers to M

• Consolidate all class schedules with a consistent format. Identify class location, technical requirements and tuition/fees cost.

• Registrar’s office, will ID codes for DE students and course status. • Develop strong articulation agreements with cooperating institutions,

administration work toward standardized course number. • Re-evaluate and re-configure general education requirements, ID, general

education, and courses with DE options. • Create an expanded and flexible administrative registration process, follow-

up on online admissions. • Administration work with legislators and lobby groups to support favorable

DE related legislation. • Develop and implement on-going training, coordination, and communication

between DE office and various advising entities across campus. • Develop “readiness” assessment for students who register for a DE class,

(built in component for repeat DE students).

VI. ACTION PLAN DEVELOPMENT Having developed an extensive array of strategies to deal with known barriers, the participants were first asked to consider whether or not the overall scenario (13 statements) seemed feasible—could the MDF be accomplished? After a brief discussion the participant concluded that there were no barriers that seemed to be insurmountable, and while implementation is always contingent upon an array of factors, the MDF could be accomplished if good plans were made, those plans followed through on. On the basis of that “reality check” the 13 statements became strategic goals for the NMSU DE program. The group was then given then asked to establish a nominal priority ranking of the goals for the purpose of plan development. Using several criteria, including immediate positive impact/visibility, relative expense (time, human resources, etc.), importance to the development of other program components (i.e., a foundation element) the participants developed a three-tier priority grouping for plan development. The grouping was as follows:

39

THE FUTURE OF 0001001010111101010101111010100100100010010101011100001010001001010011010001010001010

DISTANCE


Priority Goal Brief Description Level I A/H DE Comprehensive “business-like” Decision Model

B DE Training & Support Center C DE Marketing/Recognition G DE P&T Policies, etc., J DE Program Sustainability

Level II D DE Portal E DE Assessment Processes L DE Inter-Institutional Collaborations M DE Technologies Preparedness

Level III F Comprehensive Cafeteria Curriculum I DE Coherent Accessible Performance Expectations K Existing Research Areas

When the grouping had been established participants self-selected to work on the development of action plans. Plans were developed for all Level I goals and for Goals L and D in Level II. In each case plans take into account the barriers and use the strategies developed as components of the plans.

TASK 7 ACTION PLANNING

The action plans are presented as spreadsheets in Postscript Document format (.pdf.) To access the plan, click on the short item description below. Only those items marked with an asterisk have an associated document.

PLAN: GOAL A – DE Comprehensive “business-like” Decision Model* PLAN: GOAL B - DE Training & Support Center* PLAN: GOAL C - DE Marketing/Recognition* PLAN: GOAL D - DE Portal* PLAN: GOAL E - DE Assessment Processes PLAN: GOAL F - Comprehensive Cafeteria Curriculum PLAN: GOAL G - DE P&T Policies, etc.,* PLAN: GOAL H - Decision Model* PLAN: GOAL I - DE Coherent Accessible Performance Expectations PLAN: GOAL J – DE Program Sustainability* PLAN: GOAL K – Existing Research Areas PLAN: GOAL L - DE Inter-Institutional Collaborations* PLAN: GOAL M - DE Technologies Preparedness

40

http://agecon.nmsu.edu/plan/disted/planAH.pdf

http://agecon.nmsu.edu/plan/disted/planB.pdf

http://agecon.nmsu.edu/plan/disted/planC.pdf

http://agecon.nmsu.edu/plan/disted/planD.pdf

http://agecon.nmsu.edu/plan/disted/plang.pdf


http://agecon.nmsu.edu/plan/disted/planJ.pdf

http://agecon.nmsu.edu/plan/disted/planl.pdf

THE FUTURE OF 0001001010111101010101111010100100100010010101011100001010001001010011010001010001010

DISTANCE


APPENDICES APPENDIX A Action Plans APPENDIX B Notes to Action Plan G APPENDIX C Planning Conference Participants

41

THE FUTURE OF 0001001010111101010101111010100100100010010101011100001010001001010011010001010001010

DISTANCE


APPENDIX A Action Plans

PLAN: GOAL A – DE Comprehensive “business-like” Decision Model* PLAN: GOAL B - DE Training & Support Center* PLAN: GOAL C - DE Marketing/Recognition* PLAN: GOAL D - DE Portal* PLAN: GOAL E - DE Assessment Processes PLAN: GOAL F - Comprehensive Cafeteria Curriculum PLAN: GOAL G - DE P&T Policies, etc.,* PLAN: GOAL H - Decision Model* PLAN: GOAL I - DE Coherent Accessible Performance Expectations PLAN: GOAL J – DE Program Sustainability* PLAN: GOAL K – Existing Research Areas PLAN: GOAL L - DE Inter-Institutional Collaborations* PLAN: GOAL M - DE Technologies Preparedness

42


http://agecon.nmsu.edu/plan/disted/planB.pdf

http://agecon.nmsu.edu/plan/disted/planC.pdf

http://agecon.nmsu.edu/plan/disted/planD.pdf

http://agecon.nmsu.edu/plan/disted/plang.pdf


http://agecon.nmsu.edu/plan/disted/planJ.pdf

http://agecon.nmsu.edu/plan/disted/planl.pdf

Goal A/H: The DE program is based upon a comprehensive costing model that will support funding sufficient to appropriately compensate Pg.1 all stakeholders for the delivery of quality programs and courses; H. There is a clear model of decision-making . . . . Item Task & Sub-Task Start End Time After Resources or

# Description Date Date Span Item ? Skills Needed1 Transition Task Force in progress May-02 Sep-02 5 Mo. VP Finance; VP DE; VP Student Services; Registrar; IRP; Student Accounts; Provost;2 Task Force identify "DE Cost model" Sep-02 Knowledgeable college Reps; Support Services; Bus. IRP, DE ---Identify all cost areas and the cost: >This is how it is > This is how it should be ---Survey - Get information Sep-02 Nov-02 ---Analyze Nov-02 Dec-02 ---Create model Jan-03 Present and accept model Feb-03 3 Identify "DE allocation" Task Force Same as above.

---Evaluate existing/potential models May-02 Mar-03 ---Determine allocation methodology End of March 2003 - April 1?

4 Identify/Develop list of policies that need to be changed Aug-02 Aug-02 DE VP work with Faculty Senate P&T Task Force or developed at DE retreat DE VP work with staff and Administration ---Keep track, develop areas that are not currently in the policy manual and revise other areas

5 Form a DE Advisory Group to advise DE VP Aug-02 ---Define Nomination criteria ---Seek nominations

---15 members ---1-3 year terms staggered for 1st 3 years

Goa A/H: The DE program is based upon a . . . Year 2002 Year 2003 Year 2004Pg.2Item 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr

# Names/Sources Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Niv Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun1 xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

xxx

xxx xxx xxxxxx xxx

xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

xxx >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>

Goal B: NMSU has a center that provides faculty training and support for technology integration and DE curriculum developmentPg.1 and implementation on institutionally adopted platforms

Item Task & Sub-Task Start End Time After Resources or# Description Date Date Span Item ? Skills Needed1 Create an advisory committee to inititate assessment process 8/12 10/31 and provide report. (ID-Existing DE training, ID-State/National standards, Analyze technology usuage, ID-Pedagogical concerns.)

2 Coordinate organizational services: ID staffing needs to address trainin 10/1 12/31 3 ID and develop funding streams for DE training Jan-03 Apr-03 [ID-funding needs & distribution model; ID grant opps. (new/existing); ID other funding opps (tuition, G funding, time item, private funds, tech/traing fees) 4 Training participation - internal marketing of DE training, ID incentives Aug-02 On-going [Establish/ensure quality training, establish mentoring program and peer review (teaching academy), ID/establish comprehensive set of standards, tools, templates for trainin

Mentoring peer review overlap with "J"Funding overlap with "A".

Goal B: NMSU has a center that provides faculty. . . Year 2002 Year 2003 Year 2004Pg.2Item 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr

# Names/Sources Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Niv Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun1 Representatives from; DE, CED, Teachin Academy, Scholarly Technology, xxx xxx xxx

Senate Tech. Comm.; Grad School; Advisors as needed.[Advisors-knowledgable distance distance education faculty]

2 Same taskforce - advisors as needed xxx xxx xxx 3 Representatives from all organizational services providing training, xxx xxx xxx xxx

grant writer (see A), and advisors familiar with NMSU funding process. 4 Advisory committee and advisors xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

[Advisors from marketing and distance education faculty*]

*Advisory committee consists of those listed in #1 augmented by different advisors for the different tasks

Goal C. We have achieved Increased recognition for NMSU through implementation of a targeted marketing plan for DE initiativesPg.1

Item Task & Sub-Task Start End Time After Resources or# Description Date Date Span Item ? Skills Needed1 Central NMSU administration devises mission statement for DE 9/30

(including priority of NM/non NM markets and goals (revenue vs. state service) 2 Organize lobbying efforts specific to support of DE mission 10/1 Ongoing #1 Powerful, persuasive/passionate speaker with good reputation in stat

for 2002/20033 Identify schedule of implemented meetings on NM HE - insure 9/12 9/30

NMSU-DE up introduces #1 at each meeting for feedback.4 Resubmit mission for review by relevant stakeholders and 11/1 12/15 #3

revise as needed.5 Complete secondary data analysis of competitive market 1/15/03 2/15/03 4 Centralized data collection

environment6 Conduct primary market survey of target market perceptions. 2/15/03 8/15/03 5 $

7 Identify existing/potential products for market needs 2/15/03 10/15/03 5&6satisfaction

8 Develop marketing plan for NMSU-DE, focused on primary 8/15/03 1/15/04 6&7 Faculty/staff compensationtarget market(s).

9 Implement marketing plan 1/15/04 1/15/05 8 $ to need to know 8

Goal C. We have achieved Increased recognition . . . Year 2003 Year 2004Pg.2Item 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr

# Names/Sources Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr MayJun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr MayJun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov De 1 Gogue, Flores, and Gonzalez xxx xxx

2 Quintana, Gonzalez, and Gogue xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

3 xxx

4 NM CHE , Regents, Faculty Senate, Admin. Council xxx xxx

5 Bryan Ormand, Linda Riley, Carmen Gonzalez, Roy Rodriguez xxx xxx

6 IR, Center for economic development xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

7 IR, Assistant to Provost office xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

8 Pookie Sautter, Terry Canup, Daugherty, Cynda Clary xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

9 Ag Comm, Univ Comm., Advg Consultant, Extension offices xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xx

Goal D. There is a portal that provides access to comprehensive student servicesPg.1Item Task & Sub-Task Start End Time After Resources or

# Description Date Date Span Item ? Skills Needed1 Complete base portal system 6/1/02 8/1/02 14 mths Research, ICT Staff, L&F 2 computers, DB system,

Load server, portal2 Create task force 10/1/02 5/1/03 7 mths Faculty/students/admin./ICT/support serv.3 Policy committee, groups, roles, access policy 10/1/02 5/1/03 7 mths4 Content/service administraion and maintenance 10/1/02 5/1/03 7 mths5 Design specifications 10/1/02 5/1/03 7 mths6 Who and when in portal 10/1/02 5/1/03 7 mths7 Person ID's 10/1/02 5/1/03 7 mths8 Alternative services 10/1/02 5/1/03 7 mths9 Pilot system 11/1/02 6/1/03 7 mths ICT and approp orgs.

10 Report to administration 5/1/03 6/1/03 1 mth.11 If yes, CIO 6/1/03 University administration12 Develops plan C1013 Implement14 Assessment ICT & approp. Orgs. (B&F, etc.)

Goal D: There is a prortal that . . . Year 2001 Year 2002 Year 2003

Pg.2Item 2Q 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qt4th Qtr 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr

# Names/Sources Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun JuAuSeOct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov D1 Volunteers: Anne Bock XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX

2 XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX3 XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX4 XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX5 XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX6 XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX7 XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX8 XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX9 XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX10 XXX XXX11121314

Goal G: NMSU P&T, faculty compensation and intellectual property policies and procedures are well known, understood Pg.1 and implemented to encourage and reward faculty participating in DEItem Task & Sub-Task Start End Time After Resources or

# Description Date Date Span Item ? Skills Needed1 Develop a consistent university allocation formula (e.g., %) for Sep-02 Apr-03 8 Mo. Task Force - University Level with all colleges represented distribution of DE funds, based on participation in DE activities Institutional Research and DE Office

1a Document and report current DE fund distribution practices Sep-02 Oct-02 across all units at NMSU

1b Investigate DE fund allocation models at other institutions of Sep-02 Nov-02 higher learning

1c Prepare document in which proposed allocation formula is set Nov-02 Dec-02 forth for university review

1d Revise allocation formula proposal based on feedback from Dec-02 Jan-03 university community

1e Finalize allocation formula proposal and initiate "ratification Jan-03 Feb-03 process

1f Communicate approved allocation formula to university Feb-03 May-03community

2 Incorporate DE into all college & departmental P&T Sep-02 Dec-02 Departments/Colleges/Facultydocumentation (policies & procedures)**** DE Office/Faculty Senate

2a Establish faculty commitees within each dept/college to review Sep-02 Nov-02and revise (as appropriate) current P&T documents****

2b Establish a training program for all dept/college P&T members Sep-02 Dec-02 3 Prepare a clear legal document that specifies rights, rules, and Sep-02 May-03 Task Force and University Attorney

regulations related to intellectual property, copyrights, and patents

3a Document current practices Sep-02 Nov-02

3b Investigate practices at other institutions Sep-02 Nov-02

3c Prepare document for university review Nov-02 Dec-02 3d Revise document based on feedbac Dec-02 Jan-03

3e Finalize and initiate ratification process Jan-03 Feb-03

3f Communicate approved document to university community Feb-02 May-03

4 Eliminate salary cap restrictions**** Oct-02 Oct-02 DE Office/President/Administrative Council/Faculty

4a Present proposal to Admin Council

**** See Appendix A of Conference Report

Goa G: NMSU P&T, faculty compensation and intellect . . Year 2002 Year 2003 Year 2004Pg.2Item 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr

# Names/Sources Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Niv Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun1 xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx

xxx xxx

xxx xxx

xxx xxxxxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxxxxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxxxxx xxx xxx xxx

xxx

Goal J: We have a process in place to ensure DE programs have broad-based buy-in and long-term sustainabilityPg.1

Item Task & Sub-Task Start End Time After Resources or# Description Date Date Span Item ? Skills Needed1 Leadership - DE: developing, promoting, communicating 8/1/02 ongoing ongoing Marketing plan will have impact

-- (overlap B)a. Advertising c local, state, and national 8/1/02 ongoing ongoing -- websites, listserves 8/1/02 ongoing ongoing -- business/corporate contacts 8/1/02 ongoing ongoing -- legislative bodies, lobbyists 8/1/02 ongoing ongoing

b. Internal university communications 8/1/02 ongoing ongoing -- faculty, staff, student input and involvement 8/1/02 ongoing ongoing -- DE office visibility (task-force driven) 8/1/02 ongoing ongoing

2 DE incentives and funding (overlap A) a. Faculty incentives (I.e. research opportunities, networking) -- recruiting adjunct faculty -- departmental collaboration -- P&T criteria -- Release time/more pay

3 Marketing addressed (overlap C)

4 Guidelines "best practices" for DE -- Identify quality instruction and delivery of courses -- set of guidelines developed -- publications made available -- peer review and shadowing

Goal J: We have a process in place to ensure DE . . . Year 2002 Year 2003 Year 2004Pg.2Item 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr

# Names/Sources Jan Feb Mar Apr MayJun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr MayJun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr MayJun1 Computers, funding, staff

Staff (business connection)Program coordinator-NMSU lobbyist-DE office staff-printing & duplicating-telecommunication-university communications-Department heads-

1b Student senate-interest groups-GA's DE staff

2

3

4

Goal L: DE collaborations with other institutions promoting degree completion, retraining/certification, articulation, and resource sharing are inPg.1Item Task & Sub-Task Start End Time After Resources or

# Description Date Date Span Item ? Skills Needed1 Know our strengths/contact potential partners 1/1/03 8/1/03 8mths. Provost, VP-DE, deans, NMSU branch CEO's, Provost council?

-- to access their needs, our strengths, and their strengths/our needs

2 Enhance/join/be active NMSU role in NM Virtual College 10/1/02 Ongoing Ongoing VP-DE3 Negotiate agreements where appropriate articulation, shared 10/1/02 Ongoing Ongoing Deans, VP-DE, Dept. Head, maybe Faculty Senate rep.

resources, joint project aggreements4 Develop Higher Education Consortium to seek DE money from 5/1/03 Ongoing Ongoing President, Provost, VP-DE

NM CHE State Legislature -- new rules, ok for programs, degrees

5 Faculty Senate task force -- for DE review all rules 9/1/02 5/1/03 Faculty Senate -- Access all academic rules - other H.E., State

6 Colleges task forces to address accredidation issues 9/1/02 1/1/03 Deans/Heads7 Advisory council to VP-DE 10/1/02 12/1/02 VP-DE8 University Annual Convocation/awards for DE 1/1/03 Ongoing Yearly President, Provost, VP-DE

-- enhance recognition9 Resources for DE office/grant writer 5/1/03 Tasks Ongoing Provost, VP-DE, VP-Business, VP-Development,

VP-Research, etc.

Goal L: DE collaborations with other institutions Year 2002 Year 2003 Year 2004Pg.2Item 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr

# Names/Sources Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr MayJun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr MayJun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov De 1 XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX

2 XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XX 3 XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XX

4 XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XX

5 XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX

6 XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX7 XXX XXX XXX8 XXX XXX

9 XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XX

THE FUTURE OF 0001001010111101010101111010100100100010010101011100001010001001010011010001010001010

DISTANCE


APPENDIX B Notes to Action Plan G

1c.The formula must include specification of percentages of the DE revenue stream to go to the unversity—including support services, e.g., library, IT, admissions, etc.—to colleges, to departments, and to faculty. Only those departments and faculty who participate in the DE delivery will have access to the formula allocation. However, startup costs for departments/faculty not currently participating in DE activities may be provided from the college level allocation. The allocation formula must consider I&G differentiations between lower and upper division courses, and graduate level courses.

2. The mandate must not require universal department/faculty participation. 2a. DE inclusion in P&T documents must not replace or substitute for the research

or service components of P&T decisions 4. The restriction should be eliminated thus allowing market-based pay for

contract courses and for consulting—particularly consulting that is contracted through NMSU

43

44

THE FUTURE OF 0001001010111101010101111010100100100010010101011100001010001001010011010001010001010

DISTANCE


APPENDIX C Planning Conference Participants

Administration Bill Flores [email protected] Josie DeLeon [email protected] Ida Baca [email protected] Miriam Meyer [email protected] Leland Kiehne [email protected] Donna Alden [email protected] Agriculture & Home Terry Canup [email protected] Economics Ann Bock [email protected] Tom Dormody [email protected] Arts & Sciences Jeffrey Brown [email protected] Peter Gregware [email protected] Lee Hamilton [email protected] Business & Economics Wayne Headrick [email protected] Pookie Sautter [email protected] Richard Oliver [email protected] Distance Education Carmen Gonzales [email protected] Teresa Lao [email protected] Bethany Bovard [email protected] Education Robert Moulton [email protected] Herman Garcia [email protected] Ramon Dominguez [email protected] Student Services Cydney Conway [email protected] Denise Esquibel [email protected] Cal Baca [email protected] Engineering Christina Brumm [email protected] Bill McCarthy [email protected] Bud Green [email protected] Linda Riley [email protected] Michael Dougherty [email protected] Graduate School Linda Lacey [email protected] Health & Social Services Jeffrey Brandon [email protected] Larry Olsen [email protected] Pearl Hawe [email protected] Library Elizabeth Titus [email protected] Susan Beck [email protected] NMSU Community Colleges Mark Workman [email protected] Teresa Meehan [email protected] Norice Lee [email protected] Richard DeRouen [email protected] Support & Infrastructure Denise Welsh [email protected] Jean Conway [email protected] Steve Leask [email protected] Dave Rocks [email protected] Brian Ormand [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]












































Strategic Planning Conference Report

Education

nmsu planning

strategic planning process

planning participants

development planning

planning question

reliability planning

strategic planning outcomes

future of education