Community Colleges of Ventura County
FUTURES FORUM
Camarillo Airport
[Note: You have not received minutes for the December 1, 2000 Futures Forum meeting. That meeting conducted an extensive examination of CCVC strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) in terms of levels of significance. Working groups then developed potential strategic directions in terms of small, medium and large gaps. All this work was emailed to you as a single document before the January 26 Futures Forum meeting. You received a second document that contained three items: a “key vulnerabilities” sheet, drawn by Burt Peachy from the December 1 work; a list of suggested solutions, provided by working groups and arranged by affinities and identified as short term (S), medium term (M) or long term (L) solutions and placed under general headings; and finally, a document titled “Identifying the Vital Few” that suggested criteria for determining the most significant potential strategic directions/goals. These documents constitute both the substance of the December 1 meeting and reflections on that work. Consequently, rather than issuing separate minutes for that meeting, those documents will be added here as appendices for reference.]
Elton Hall welcomed everyone back and asked new members to identify and introduce themselves. Cheryl Shearer then reminded participants that the CCVC core values were posted on the wall along with the Futures Forum ground rules, which she reviewed briefly. Elton also introduced Charles Giammona, who was visiting from Spokane to consulting on grant seeking. Charles joined the meeting to see first-hand what Futures Forum was doing at this time.
Burt reviewed the process that led to the ideas developed at the December 1 meeting that indicated where gaps exist between the various plans and where CCVC needs to go. They have been collapsed down to their essence and appended as Appendix A below. Looking at those lists led him to the conclusion that the document constitutes an excellent blueprint for what CCVC has done in the last ten years. It is not, however, the lineaments for a blueprint for the next decade. That conclusion does not mean that the work of December 1 was wasted. Rather it is the basis for going deeper into what we need to understand in order to think strategically. The caution he wished to communicate was captured in a quotation from Marvin Certon, a vice-president at Xerox Corporation: “If you always do what you always did, you’ll always get what you always got.” If we continue to do the same things we’ve always done, we’ll continue to get the same outputs.
We in Futures Forum and in CCVC as a whole, Burt explained, have to ask: is this approach appropriate to the 21st century? He reminded participants of a remark made by Joel Barker in a video on paradigm shifts, watched by participants over a year ago: “When a paradigm changes, your past history accounts for nothing; it doesn’t guarantee your future success.” Barker attached that idea to a brief exploration of the Swiss watch. (The Swiss had been world famous for their precision wristwatches and pocket watches. When the digital watch was invented, the Swiss were shown it first, and they rejected it because it was so different and did not rely on their well-honed watch-making skills. The Japanese took up the new idea, and the world knows the results. The Swiss were marginalized as watchmakers, even though still honored for their work. The Japanese made the money. In terms of the quotation from Barker, digital was the paradigm shift.)
Several years ago, Burt continued, a paradigm shift occurred for CCVC and everyone in it. It was called “www” and it fundamentally shifted how we do business. In 2002, the Continuous Quality Improvement Network (CQIN, to which CCVC and the colleges belong) summer learning experience will be at Microsoft in Seattle. Our guide up there will be Roberto Brumbaugh, a 38-year old Harvard Ph.D., who will show us amazing things. This is the www effect.
In order to stop planning our past, we need to ask some hard questions. They include:
In order to answer these questions, we need to have well-understood criteria for evaluating the potentials of strategic directions. Five broad criteria seem immediately relevant:
Dennis Cabral noted that the word ‘strategic’ pervades the conversation. Just how is it being used? Burt said that ‘strategic’ means taking the long view, looking at everything from the standpoint of whether what we are doing will take us to where we want to be in the long view.
‘Continuous improvement’ can be little more than a buzz word, but continuous improvement is essential to creating our institutional future. Commitment to continuous improvement takes an ongoing and significant amount of work, and people can resist the concept in part because they are already overwhelmingly busy. We have to think out ways to build in commitment to continuous improvement without further overloading people.
Burt then turned to key vulnerabilities (outlined in the document in Appendix A, and reworked for this presentation. Key CCVC vulnerabilities include:
Within the time people work, we have to devise ways of securing time for people to work on continuous quality improvement. One Dallas County Community College District college, for example, has learned how to use senior volunteers (who are trained by the college) for one day in financial aid so that financial aid staff can retreat and work on process.
Burt’s overview was followed by an activity that divided participants into working groups, and each group was assigned a process facilitator and a scribe. Each group was asked to review strategic directions as suggested in the December 1 document and to recast them in terms of whether they are short, medium or long-term directions. After about half and hour, groups admitted that they found the exercise difficult and confusing. The activity stopped, and one table showed what it had tried to do with the activity. Ana Maria Valle illustrated one table’s efforts. It had suggested as strategic directions:
ü Student learning and services anytime, anyplace, and anything needed
ü Flexible curriculum, both modularized and responsive to student needs
ü Create environment attractive to faculty to community college employment
ü Education without walls
ü Multiple matriculation tracks
ü Coherent, articulate mission
ü Every faculty member a counselor
ü Environment where all employees feel sense of ownership of institution
ü Technology to link classes throughout district
ü CCVC funding structure to eliminate location competition for funds
ü Reduce barriers to students between colleges—economic, transportation, organizational
ü Satellite campuses on company sites established quickly to meet specific needs
ü Continuous improvement
After some discussion, it seemed better to reorganize the activity around the general headings provided in the affinity diagram (Appendix B) rather than in terms of timing of goals. As an experiment, the groups took up long-term goals in respect to teaching and learning/student support services; insofar as possible, each group would back up and iterate medium term goals, then short term ones. Burt outlined on a flipchart what the effort was intended to accomplish. Ideas for short (1-3 years), medium (3-5 years) and long (5-8 years) term goals would lead to general and global strategic direction statements. Those identified strategic directions would yield the CCVC goals. Various CCVC strategies would aim to accomplish one or more of these goals, and they would reflect upon the location plans. By the time this had happened, it would be appropriate for locations to revisit their plans to see if any realignment might be called for.
After the reconstituted small group discussion, tables reported on results.
Table 1 focused on the ideas of mission, student learning, staff and continuous improvement. It argued that the idea of community was so pervasive that it suffused other goals. The question for this group became: How do strategies get formulated and implemented so that the goals are achieved?
ü Mission: coherent, articulate, answering: Who are we? Where are we going?
ü Values as way to make mission real (current core values statement: too many words); everyone should know values and internalize them through their presence everywhere, including
o Orientation
o Business cards and stationery
ü “Students ‘R’ Us” approach (in both meanings of the double meaning here)
ü Employee education (including values)
ü Students first
ü Better use of identifying mottos that capture values; current examples include
o “The college with a heart”
o “Together we make a difference”
ü Are employees living the mottos?
ü Publicizing values, posting them
ü Make values real
ü Empower employees to make values real in practice
Table 2 looked at steps and modalities needed to achieve goals.
ü Importance of securing passage of bond issue to provide funding, including major expansion of facilities
o Conejo Valley Center
o Simi satellite
o Santa Paula Center
o Appropriate police service
o Oxnard College development
ü Modalities included
o Registration
o Learning and curriculum
o Location technology
o Access and partnerships
ü Research and development: learning strategies committee
ü Eureka ideas
ü Vision for 10 years: CCVC will be a leader in providing timely, responsive, high quality teaching, learning and student support services through vigorous research and development, using continuous quality improvement processes
ü Legislative issues clean-up
ü Coordinated program offerings among the three colleges
ü Outcomes focused learning
Table 3 examined similar issues but took an approach that combined elements used by Table 1 and Table 2:
ü Teaching, learning and student support
o Student success
§ Measurement through research
§ Identify student needs as ongoing project
§ Expand options for students
§ Restructure teaching paradigm
§ Identify learner (now and future, changing types)
§ Identify and track changing needs and demographics
o Staff development—consistent effort
o Review catalogs, curriculum patterns, etc.
o Improve response time
o Continuous entry courses
o Identify community/industry needs
o Respond to industry needs
o Attract and compensate qualified faculty (with industrial support)
ü Change ‘basic skills’ to ‘work skills’
ü Writing and computation across the curriculum
ü Improve intake and matriculation process
ü Electronic degree audit, assessment process, education planning tool
ü Coordinate and communicate efforts
ü Improve intervention systems (e.g., early alert)
ü Evaluate transfer centers and develop CCVC plan
ü Address articulation issues from high school and to 4-yr school
ü Service learning effort (e.g., internships)
ü Identify best practices elsewhere
ü Focus on retention
ü 8-10 year view
o Customized programs
o Expanded offerings
o High placement rate
o Strong career services
o Mobility of course offerings
o Acquired reading, writing and competency skills
o Preparation partnerships: K12 ties
o Fast track remedial programs
o Early assessment (basic skills imported into junior year of high school)
o Basic skills integrated into courses across the curriculum
Burt asked whether this process worked better than the earlier one, and the feeling was that the discussions were better because more focused. Table 1 noted that it had the strong feeling that the CCVC core values had to be reduced in number and into simple phrases. Burt noted that this is part of February’s meeting. Larry Kennedy suggested that the next steps need to be taken in light of the materials generated over the last months. Burt agreed. He asked that participants looked that the flipchart pages over lunch and write post-it comments where they have ideas. After lunch, the goal would be to reduce this material into a few strategic directions.
During lunch, the executive vice-presidents and academic senate representatives worked on a vision statement that suggested a basis for the afternoon’s discussion. After lunch, task teams were selected to work on broad issues:
Task 1: Teaching/learning/student support (executive vice-presidents and academic senate representatives). Focus: 3-4 goals, including one on technology and an examination of recruitment and enrollment.
Task 2: Human Resources (Marion Boenheim and staff development representatives). Focus: HR system goal.
Task 3: Continuous Improvement/Institutional Effectiveness/Innovation. Focus: research, development, quality, planning, efficiency.
Task 4: Publicity/Image (public information officers and others). Focus: expand countywide presence.
Task 5: Resource Development/Government Relations. Focus: increasing funding and changing rules.
Task 6: Facilities. No group was constituted, since facilities will be a specific topic at the February Futures Forum meeting.
While discussions proceeded, tasks were reworked, with some groups taking on parts of tasks from other groups and with others redefining their tasks. Eventually, the broad tasks began to look increasingly like strategic goals. When this shift in thinking became clear, discussion was suspended for rethinking of the activity.
Phil Westin explained that, in his vision of CCVC, CCVC’s chief goal is student success. In attempting to ensure student success, we have to engage in continuous improvement, innovation and increasing institutional effectiveness. To do those things CCVC needs human resource development and ongoing organizational learning. Both lead naturally to the need to develop a recognizable and respected image and to establish strong community and governmental relations. The whole dynamic project, focused on student success, requires dynamic resource development. And all that drives facilities. Here the logic of goals serves one architectonic value: student success.
Burt noted that, looked at in this way, the goals do not change over the years, though the strategies will change to meet changing circumstances. Beginning with the overarching goal—ensure student success—the rest become fundamental aspects of that goal. Everything else will then be strategies to achieve these intermediate goals, and, ultimately, the overarching goal.
Using that perspective, the tasks were reordered as CCVC goals:
Ø Ensure student success
Ø Continuous Improvement/Innovation/Institutional Effectiveness
Ø Human Resource Development/Organizational Learning
Ø Image/Community and Governmental Relations
Ø Resource Development
Ø Facilities
After returning to their discussions for a while, the task teams reported out.
Task Team 1 focused on the overarching value: ensure student success, and worked on what would do that:
ü Identify student, community and institutional needs to guide recruitment, curriculum, schedules, staffing and instructional/student services modalities
ü Use traditional and innovative teaching/learning/service modalities
ü Effect institutional change as rapidly and a often as needed
ü Assess systematically and continuously student and institutional outcomes
ü Legislation supporting innovative curriculum without state funding penalties
ü Maximizing student access and success
o Establishing a coordinated research and development function
o Establishing a continuous quality improvement arm
ü Using technology to improve student services
o Bookstore: using STAR option to order books
o Validation of student adds by phone
ü Adopting and supporting customer service model that emphasizes core values
ü Initiating and being dedicated to improved processes
ü
Ensuring institutional effectiveness through commitment
to continuous quality improvement (process), research and development
(future/planning), and research (outcomes)
For this group, everything fit under the term ‘institutional
effectiveness’.
Task Team 3 concentrated on human resource development:
ü Goal: provide quality human resource services to support the community’s learning needs
ü Objectives: recruiting/supporting the hiring of committed, quality employees; providing quality compensation and benefits; providing programs responsive to customer needs
o Develop employees through ongoing education and training throughout their careers
o Create and value diversity of every kind
ü Collegial climate, communication, and technology support and training
o Develop a collegial community that practices appreciation and fosters dignity, respect, equality and high morale
o Improve communication
o Internship program to hire women and minorities in leadership positions
o Civility statements at each location
ü We carry out our goal and objectives by
o Maintaining the highest professional and ethical standards
o Committing to quality in all that we do
o Understanding and anticipating learner needs
o Improving efficiency and productivity
o Reducing bureaucracy and simplifying processes
o Continuing to improve services
o Measuring outcomes
o Working as a team
Task Team 4 took on the challenge of image, community relations, government relations and also looked at resource development. The team began with a statement: Coordinate CCVC image to foster community awareness and support and to improve government relations. Pat Kistler reported on remarks by assemblywoman Sara Reyes, who as a former community college public information officer, is well aware that the community college story is not well or widely heard, because many legislators have no community college background or experience. This group’s ideas included:
ü Government relations
o Lobby state/federal/local: community colleges statewide, education secretary, state chancellor, K12 boards of education
o Attend meetings
o Work with government staff
o Form groups to work with these individuals and structures
ü Resource development
o Bond issue
o Help board of trustees to educate and inspire employees
o Seek grants and contracts
o Focus grant applications on CCVC and college goals
o CCVC and location goals should drive foundations’ functions
ü Image
o Consistent message
o Corporate identity
o Promote events, activities that are not ongoing
o Heighten internal communication
o Prepare public, students, staff for big impact messages (e.g., collection of fees)
o Joint marketing and promotional efforts
o Location marketing plans integrated with CCVC marketing plans
o Invest to develop CCVC center for printing, duplicating, graphic services
ü Community relations
o Target students
o Videos for prospective students, parents; workshops for both
o Make college a reality for prospective students
o Reach down into lower grades
o Mentor programs (faculty/student)
o Adopt-a-highway
o “Bright Horizons” outreach
o Chamber and business events
o Attract opinion leaders—sharing what we do
o Signage: reflect CCVC, not just individual location
o Billboards
Hall again proposed the idea of the academy for ongoing faculty and staff development. Lynn MacConnaire indicated that Ventura College is working on a similar idea. Phil asked how we do it; Hall suggested a small taskforce. Pat Kistler and Carmen Guerrero-Calderón noted that there are models for such activities.
On the basis of the accomplishments of the day, Burt asked for the formation of two task teams that would synthesize this work for the February Futures Forum meeting. These teams and the participants who volunteered to join them are:
Goals and Strategies Team; Cheryl Shearer, Leader
Pat Kistler, District Service Center
Jeannie Bailey, Moorpark College
Carmen Guerrero-Calderón, Oxnard College
Joan Beem, Ventura College
Mission, Vision, Values Team; Elton Hall, Leader
Judy Ramos, Moorpark College
Dennis Cabral, District Service Center
Helen Galindo, Ventura College
Ana Marie Valle, Oxnard College
Several people expressed a wish to continue the learning experiences that had been a part of Futures Forum early in its existence. Burt suggested two recent books that would be of interest to anyone wishing to continue that learning process:
Peter Senge, Schools that Learn
Joseph Pine, The Experience Economy
Burt drew attention back to the questions for the day and asked if we had answered any of them. This was not a question to be answered at this moment, but to be reflected upon for the February meeting.
With that, the group conducted a plus/delta on the day. (Plus is something especially helpful or effective; minus is something that should be changed, improved or added in the future.)
The minus column included:
ü Name tags with first name only (because new people have joined Futures Forum)
ü A presentation on learning styles, applicable to Futures Forum work
ü Reinstitution of learning point into Futures Forum activities
ü Mentors for new Futures Forum members
ü Update of the Futures Forum website
The plus column included:
ü Appreciation of Burt’s flexibility in changing activities
ü Appreciation of increased attendance and addition of new people
ü Appreciation of the contribution of new members
ü Humor
ü Good work by the process facilitators and scribes
ü Quality of work by Elton, Cheryl and Burt
The meeting adjourned at 2:35 p.m.
Special thanks are due to Cheryl, who brought together the work of December 1 into the documents used for the day. And thanks to the process facilitators for their fine work in facilitating complex discussions and capturing their essence for the record. And a special thanks to those participants who readily volunteer time from their already full schedules to join the teams that will prepare materials for the February meeting.
Next Meeting:
Friday, February
23, 2001
Ventura Room,
Cowan Center
Camarillo Airport
8:30 a.m.-5:00
p.m.
APPENDICES
The appendices attached below contain the documents used throughout this meeting. Appendix A consists of the work accomplished at the December 1 Futures Forum meeting. Appendix B contains Burt’s analysis of the vulnerabilities that emerge from examining the December 1 work, an affinity chart that relates strategies by area of concern, and a set of questions that help us to identify the vital few strategic directions we need to pursue in planning for the future.
Community Colleges of Ventura County
FUTURES FORUM
December 1, 2000
SWOT ANALYSIS: STRENGTHS