PLANNING 

Although university planning is a process remote from most students’ minds, comprehensive and careful planning is fundamental to students’ success. Through the combination of planning and assessment, the University operates on a continuous improvement model to ensure the success of our students.

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES FOR PLANNING

There are several organizational structures that contribute to the planning process.

Office of Institutional Research
The Office of Institutional Research offers a broad array of decision-support services to all units of the University and to external bodies as necessary. Among many other activities, the Office prepares reports on the various environments within which the University operates, highlighting information that is critical to success in achieving our mission. Thus, the Office contributes centrally to the culture of evidence in decision-making at the University. For instance, an ongoing set of reports analyzes multiple components of the decision-making environment:

• The competitive environment addresses trends at other institutions with which the University may be competing for students. Competitors include traditional four-year residential universities, community colleges, proprietary institutions, virtual universities, and corporate training programs [DE1].

• The demographic environment has a substantial impact on the potential student population and on the overall environment in which the University functions [DE2].

• The economic environment has become increasingly challenging for all public universities in Ohio. Ohio ranks among the lowest in the nation in state support per full-time equivalent student and among the highest in tuition. Recent trends have been unfavorable for higher education. For example, while higher education accounts for 12 percent of the state budget, it absorbed 54 percent of the state budget cuts in FY 2002 [DE3].

• A number of national trends relate to the work life of faculty, the curriculum, instructional practice, and the technological environment. All are relevant to plans for the future of the University [DE4]

• Issues and concerns in the social and political environment have a substantial influence on the planning process. These are tracked at the national, state, and local levels [DE5].

The analyses of external environments, described above, are used in conjunction with analyses of student background characteristics (e.g., distributions by age, gender, ethnicity); student experiences (e.g., participation in programs and services); student outcomes (e.g., first year retention rate); institutional resources (e.g., faculty characteristics, student-to-faculty ratio); institutional processes (e.g., percentage of courses taught by full-time faculty); and institutional outcomes (e.g., number of graduates, economic impact) to form the Planning Support Indicators. Taken together, the Planning Support Indicators are used as tools for institutional strategic planning efforts [PS2].

In addition, the Office conducts analyses of university operations, including comparisons to relevant peer groups of institutions, via participation in the National Study of Instructional Cost and Productivity. Data from the National Study are provided to academic departments for their periodic program reviews, allowing comparison of their operations to those of departments at peer institutions.

University Planning Council
The University Planning Council was formed in fall 1998 to serve as an advisory group to the President on matters related to the long-range planning process, and as a mechanism for communication between the President and the university community on matters of planning priorities. Council members represent a broad spectrum of the university community, including students, faculty, staff, and administration. The President and the Director of Planning and Institutional Research are co-chairs of the Council [UP2].

The Council meets monthly throughout the academic year. Its charge is threefold:

• To establish a statement of internal strengths and weaknesses, and external opportunities and threats;

• To review and recommend refinements of the Strategic Future Directions; and

• To recommend annual priorities for the following year to the President.

The Strategic Future Directions embody the major purposes of the University, and have provided the rationale for organization of the self-study report. The Annual Priorities are designed to focus on a specific subset of the Strategic Future Directions each year. They are announced by the President at the Opening Day Address at the beginning of each fall semester, and provide a set of shorter-range goals specifically couched within the context of the longer-range Strategic Future Directions [AP2].

The Strategic Future Directions are accompanied by a set of Planning Success Indicators, which provide evidence of progress in achieving the university’s purposes [PS3]. For example, under the first Strategic Future Direction, which relates directly to student success, the Planning Success Indicators include

• University learning outcomes have been developed and disseminated;
• First-year retention rates have improved;
• Four-year graduation rates have risen; and
• Ninety-nine percent of 1995 graduates and ninety-eight percent of 1999 graduates who are in the labor force are employed.

Program Review
All units on campus, academic as well as support units, undergo a regular process of program review. Periodic program review assists units with evaluating their progress in the context of their unit’s plan. Program review also helps units to establish resource needs, timelines, designation of responsibilities, and benchmarks of success. The Office of the Provost coordinates the academic program review process, while vice-presidents and their designated, divisional program review liaisons coordinate program review for support units. Documents describing the program review process for academic [PR9] and support unit [PR10] program review, schedules [PR8 and PR11], and complete reports on units reviewed since 1997 [PR1 – PR7] are available in the Resource Room. The following excerpt from the academic program review document describes the relationship of the program review process to planning:

Above all else, the purpose of periodic program review is to provide a mechanism to ensure the improvement of academic programs on a continuous basis. Program review is a process for monitoring the status, effectiveness, and progress of academic programs; recognizing and responding to program strengths and weaknesses; identifying important directions in the disciplines or professions that need to be addressed; responding to the directives and incentives of the Ohio Board of Regents; assessing the relationships among and contributions to other academic programs and the overall mission of the university; selecting among the opportunities and options available to the programs; and recognizing the implications of the choices made. Thus, program review is a process by which the future directions, needs, and priorities of academic programs can be identified. As such, program review is inextricably linked to strategic planning, resource allocation, and other decision-making at the program, department, school, college, and university levels.

Assessment of student learning outcomes is one component covered in academic program review. Academic planning within departments is thus guided by information about students’ success in achieving the departments’ stated learning outcomes. Our assessment program has been described in detail in the Efficacy chapter.

Academic Planning Team
We have recently added another layer of depth and richness to the planning process, complementing the university-wide perspective of the University Planning Council and the plans of individual units, which are much narrower in scope. The need for an additional component to planning is probably the greatest for academic departments and programs, where faculty from many areas suggest potential areas for growth, but do not provide guidance for how to choose among them. Similarly, program review provides direction and recommendations for individual programs, but does not offer a comparative venue for choosing among competing opportunities. At the end of spring 2002, therefore, the President charged a new planning group, the Academic Planning Team, to guide strategic planning for academic programs. The overall purpose of the Team is to assess institutional strengths, within national and international contexts, and identify a limited number of specific academic themes to lead the University for the next 20 to 50 years. Effective themes will be ones that

• identify, create, and enhance the university’s distinctiveness, in comparison with other institutions of higher education;
• establish expectations for students and faculty regarding the purposes of education and the level of performance necessary to be successful at the University and in contemporary society;
• require intellectual engagement and active participation as foundations for academic and civic performance; and
• create the understanding that the University is an institution that nurtures transformation among its students, faculty, and staff.

In order to provide academic guidance for the long term, the team’s report will lay the groundwork for making difficult choices among the many possible strategic initiatives. Although strategic initiatives might be conceived of at the level of programs or degrees, a more useful strategy is to identify initiatives that connect interests and opportunities across the University. The Team began to meet in early summer 2002, and will have produced a document by the end of fall 2002 [AP1].

PLANNING TO ACHIEVE EACH PURPOSE

The planning and decision support processes described above are used by the Board of Trustees, the President’s Cabinet, and other university agents to make decisions affecting the institution. Specific examples of planning and resulting decisions designed to achieve each purpose of the University are highlighted below.

Student Success
There is a positive feedback between student success and recruitment and retention of new students: our studies show that word of mouth about the University is an important source of information for prospective students. However, we also understand the need to be very intentional about recruitment and retention, as we are about building strong, relevant academic and student affairs programs that meet students’ needs.

Enrollment and Retention. Enrollment and retention issues have been at the top of the university’s agenda for several years. Our efforts have been guided by the Retention Task Force [RT1] and the Strategic Enrollment Management Committee [SE1]. The following is an overview of enrollment and retention plans.

In the next ten years the University anticipates that enrollment levels will remain relatively stable and that the number of new students in fall will remain in the 4,200 – 4,300 range. Increases in enrollment may occur in off-campus and web-based offerings.

Enrollment planning at the University encompasses a wide range of activities, programs, and assessments affecting both undergraduate and graduate populations. In 2001-2002, we paid particular attention to the relationship between student enrollment and university mission in order to draft and effect an institutional philosophy toward enrollment. Within this context, enrollment planning examines the relationships of enrollment to educational values, revenue, economic climate, political climate, competitive climate, and the associated national and statewide demographic trends regarding college-going populations.

In addition to setting the context for the university's enrollment approach, a comprehensive enrollment plan should describe and state preferences and objectives for student composition. For example, the plan should address the following items: overall size of the student population, retention and graduation rates, balance of in-state and out-of-state students, gender make-up, diversity of the student body, the balance between graduate and undergraduate populations, non-traditional students, international students, and academic quality and preparedness of the students. The plan should also propose a timetable for meeting these objectives and an assessment plan for review of the process.

Although the Strategic Enrollment Management Committee is new, the university’s efforts to increase enrollments are not. A university-wide Enrollment Network Committee was established in 1997. This network of approximately 60 members works collaboratively to initiate new enrollment-related strategies and to communicate recruitment and enrollment information back to their constituencies. The Enrollment Network has played a significant role in the university’s enrollment increase in the past 4-5 years. Also assisting the Office of Admissions is the Faculty Senate Admissions Advisory Council, which advises the Director of Undergraduate Admissions on the development of long-range recruiting and admission planning [AA8].

The Office of Admissions’ recruitment plan is organized around the goal of generating the greatest amount of prospective student interest possible. During the 2000-01 year over 43,000 inquiries were received from prospective freshmen for the fall 2001 class, an increase of over 8,000 inquiries from fall 1992. This increase has been achieved through a combination of strategies, including the purchase of more names of qualified students from the national testing services, inviting Northwest Ohio high school guidance counselors to campus, taking the University “on the road” for a series of guidance counselor receptions, and the aggressive use of geodemography. Geodemography is the process of grading the probability of success with a particular inquiry based on that student’s geographic and demographic characteristics. Since we began to utilize geodemographic estimation procedures, applications for admission have risen by over 20%.

Technology plays an increasingly important role in the recruitment and enrollment area. Personalized web pages are created for all prospective students who make an inquiry via the World Wide Web. Electronic applicant information is directly uploaded to the student information system. The Office of Admissions and the Student Affairs Division began collaborating this past year on an electronic pre-orientation program.

BGSU Firelands serves a different audience, and so has an independent plan for enrollment and retention [FS3]. That plan calls for increases in enrollment in a controlled fashion at a rate of 3-5% a year for five years. Careful attention is paid to issues of an expanded recruitment base, retention, and transfer of students to 4-year programs where that is within the students’ educational goals.

Many positive things have occurred with regard to enrollment over the past decade, but many challenges remain. While we have become more aggressive in the recruitment of new students, competitors have been similarly active. Many direct competitors have been much more aggressive than we in awarding new scholarship dollars and building new residence halls. While our raw numbers of highly qualified applicants have risen steadily over the past five years, our yield percentage of enrolled students, especially among the most qualified students, has steadily declined. At the same time, our ability to diversify our incoming class geographically has been negatively impacted by competitors’ aggressive use of out-of-state fee reductions and reciprocity programs, which the University is restricted from offering.

Student Financial Aid. Future successes in enrollment and retention depend in part on financial aid to students. Student Financial Aid staff are actively engaged in planning, research, and assessment activities related to the university’s future needs for financial aid resources. Student Financial Aid’s planning efforts have been undertaken in collaboration with a variety of university groups including Institutional Research, Admissions, Academic Services, and Financial Affairs.

Because the university’s enrollment increases have begun to plateau, research and planning activities related to future needs for financial aid resources have focused on developing financial aid strategies that address the mix of the student body. Therefore, student financial aid planning includes the following goals:

• meeting enrollment and retention objectives;
• attracting a diverse student body;
• improving the academic quality of the student body;
• providing access for low-income and other targeted student groups;
• remaining competitive in the marketplace; and
• generating tuition income.

• Increase overall entering freshman yield rates by 0.5% per year over the next several years.
• Achieve an entering freshman class size of at least 3,700 students per year over the next three years.
• Maintain the university’s market share of entering freshmen with ACT scores of 28-36 and high school GPAs greater than or equal to 3.5; and increase the number and yield rates of entering freshmen who achieve ACT scores greater than or equal to 23 and high school GPAs of at least 3.25. University students with this academic profile are among those most likely to persist through to graduation.
• Increase the number of out-of-state students who exhibit the academic profile described above.
• Increase enrollment of students exhibiting high financial need (i.e., Free Application for Federal Student Aid–FAFSA–filers with expected family contributions of less than $6,000, particularly those students who meet the academic profile noted above).
• Increase the number of students who fill out the FAFSA form.

Given that tuition increases are anticipated for the next several years, it is imperative that the University make every effort to provide financial assistance to deserving students. Financial aid is critical to student recruitment and retention, and helps make us competitive with other institutions. We plan to devote as many dollars as possible to student financial aid.

Programs for Student Success. The Efficacy chapter has provided details about a large number of academic and student affairs programs designed to connect students to the University and to guide and support them to a successful experience at the University. We have plans to continue to develop new programs, being guided by our analysis of past efforts. In the case of residential learning communities and first year programs, for instance, we are guided by our analysis of what has been successful, as described in the previous chapter [FR3]. We also have planning documents that establish our intent to continue to develop residential learning communities [FR2]. The Values initiative is an area receiving a great deal of emphasis, as detailed in the next section.

Developing Identity: Values Exploration
In May 2001, the University Committee on Vision and Values concluded its work with a proposal to create the Bowling Green Experience. The BGX is a five-fold initiative that integrates critical thinking about values into the curriculum and co-curricular experiences, affords students rich opportunities for values enactment, and builds opportunities for serious discussion of ethical issues and civic engagement [VV2]. The major components of this proposal include

• an August orientation experience in which small groups of students have one-to-one connection with faculty and staff who will set the context for values exploration (part of the fall 2002 pilot BGX);
• one of several general education courses, each in a different discipline, and each adopting a common set of three learning outcomes regarding critical thinking about values [LO1] (part of the fall 2002 pilot BGX);
• integration of critical thinking about values into General Studies Writing courses;
• an annual Values Week, during which the whole campus would focus on a particular ethical issue;
• a program of co-curricular experiences and service learning opportunities that encourage students to explore and act on their values in their day-to-day lives;
• a Junior Bridge Experience and a Senior Capstone Experience that weave values and civic engagement throughout the students’ experience; a Junior Bridge Experience and a Senior Capstone Experience that weave values and civic engagement throughout the students’ experience;
• an interdisciplinary values center, which will coordinate the initiative as well as provide opportunities for faculty research.

Faculty and Staff Success and Satisfaction
In the 1990s, the University’s Early Retirement Incentive Program and Supplemental Retirement Program motivated many senior faculty retirements. The total number of retirements from 1990 to 1998 was 356. With the close of the retirement programs in 1998, the number of retirements dropped to 18 from 1999 through 2001. The number of replacement positions was limited for several years, as we paid off retirement plan obligations. Resources have since been redirected to replacement and new tenure-track lines under plans initiated by President Ribeau. Consequently, the number of full-time, tenure-track faculty has increased over twenty percent since 1997-98. [NF1, NF2, NF3, NF4]

President Ribeau’s plan for increasing the number of positions calls for incrementally adding 110 new tenure-track lines from 2000-01 through 2004-05. Adjusting for increased average salaries and corresponding budget loads annually, the plan is separate from recruitment efforts to replace tenured and tenure-track faculty lost through attrition. One major intent is to decrease dependence on full-time, temporary instructors. Another is to accommodate the increased enrollment that the University experienced during the last several years. However, as the number of tenure-track and tenured faculty positions stabilizes, student enrollment is predicted to stabilize as well.

Academic year 2002-03, the current recruitment cycle, represents the midpoint of the President’s plan. As we have progressed with the implementation of this plan, we have made a decision to add more mid-career faculty, rather than all assistant professors as in the original plan. The result is an improvement in the overall mix and balance of faculty at different ranks. Overall, the cumulative number of new faculty positions filled over the last three years (72)  is very close to the president’s goal (70) [NF7].

            Faculty/staff compensation. In 1999, the Board of Trustees approved a compensation plan designed to address the issues specific to each classification of employee, bringing all groups into competitive (salary) positioning within 5-7 years. Differential monetary allocations each year have reflected the relative competitiveness of  employee compensation in comparison to peer groups. In addition, each year the allocations authorized under the compensation plan for merit increases, market adjustments, and promotion-related raises are reviewed by the university’s General Counsel to ensure that they do not adversely impact women or underrepresented groups.

Recent figures compiled from the 2001-02 Ohio Universities Faculty Salary Survey show that the University has given the largest average salary increase to continuing faculty of all reporting Ohio public universities for the past several years. The university’s average for the years 1999-00, 2000-01, and 2001-02 was 5.50 percent; the average for all reporting Ohio Regents universities was 3.89 percent. President Ribeau’s plan calls for attaining the 70^th percentile nationally (by rank) for faculty salaries among the former Research I/Doctoral I/Doctoral II universities.

We are also evaluating compensation for administrative staff and classified staff; we are evaluating the tools by which we “grade” administrative staff and assess the work performance of classified staff. Administrative staff receive compensation based on merit ratings and the salary scale within their assigned range. They have asked that these ranges be indexed so that limits are not reached too soon and so that the average salary within a range can truly be at the midpoint. The classified staff have been asked to consider a more merit-based system in which those who do not receive an evaluation of “acceptable” would not receive a salary adjustment for that year. In the context of national, regional, and local markets, administrative and classified staff salaries at the University compare well. Consequently, the University continues to strive to make adjustments to faculty compensation our highest compensation priority.

The self-study process suggests that the University is making progress in compensation and compensation-related issues. Reduced state support, the ongoing need for additional tenure-track and tenured faculty, and increased costs in other university areas (e.g., energy, health benefits, and technology) do, however, constantly put pressure on meeting goals for compensation.

Diversity and Global Awareness
The Enrollment Management Plan, described above, includes specific strategies for increasing diversity of the student body. For instance, the Office of Admissions is

• piloting recruitment in eastern Canada;  
• broadening recruitment in south Texas  and in New York City;
• working closely with the GEAR-UP program to prepare youth from East Toledo for college;  
• working with the Office of Development to expand scholarships for African American and Latino students; and  
• working with the President's Leadership Academy to recruit financially disadvantaged and underrepresented groups.  

The Office of Equity, Diversity, and Immigration Services has developed a Diversity Plan [DP1], to guide faculty and staff hiring and retention. The Plan identifies specific action steps, areas of responsibility, and timetables to address each of three general areas that present challenges to the University:

• improve our “non-diverse” public image;  
•  increase diversity among identified job groups; and  
• ensure that work environments are supportive of diversity and promote tolerance and civility.  

The Center for International Programs, housed in Continuing Education, International, and Summer Programs, also contributes to the diversity of campus life through its various programs and its recruitment of international students and scholars, and has produced a strategic plan available in the Resource Room that foregrounds its planning for expansion and innovation in its efforts [CE7].

Recently, the Task Force on Diversity submitted a report [DT1] that takes stock of and organizes the many diversity initiatives on campus. Discussions of that report and its recommendations were initiated during the final stages of writing the NCA self-study report.

Funding From Non-enrollment Sources
The Senior Vice President for Finance and Administration leads the university’s financial team and serves on committees of the Ohio Board of Regents that are charged with the review of funding issues for higher education. State support for higher education in Ohio, as in other states, is highly dependent on the overall state budget picture and thus, in turn, on the economic health of the state. Ohio experienced significant budget problems in the early 1980s, early 1990s, and is currently experiencing a serious revenue shortfall, which is adversely impacting higher education.

Financial Resources for the Next Ten Years. The ability of the University Boards of Trustees to offset shortfalls in state support through increases in student fees has been restricted in the past by action of the Ohio General Assembly limiting the year-to-year increases in undergraduate instructional fees; the limit was six percent from 1997 to 2001. Fee caps have the potential to damage the quality of higher education when they are coupled with decreases in state support.

The Ohio General Assembly removed caps from the funding legislation in this (2001-03) biennium. If the legislation continues without caps, and in the absence of increases in state support for higher education, the University anticipates increasing fees. The challenge will be to set fees at a level necessary to sustain a quality education without making that education unaffordable to our potential students.

Financial modeling. During the fiscal year, the Faculty Senate Budget Committee and the University Budget Committee meet to review revenues and enrollment estimates and, ultimately, develop a budget recommendation for the main campus for the coming year. Part of this process involves modeling of different scenarios that reflect changes in assumptions for such revenue variables as tuition, enrollments, and out-of-state enrollments. The primary expense variables include salary pool, costs for fringe benefits, fee waivers/scholarships, utilities, and technology. The Provost and the Vice Provost for Academic Services provide enrollment estimates for the coming year. Tuition increases are considered in relation to projected enrollments and the level of funding provided through state share of instruction. If enrollments increase significantly, the tuition increase may be lower than would be expected with decreasing state share of instruction. A similar process is followed at BGSU Firelands, which is self-budgeted.

There are a number of issues that impact budget development. The Finance and Administration area is kept informed of pending state and federal legislation that may require resource commitments. Some of the more recent federal mandates were postage increases for non-profits and minimum wage increases. Inflation is not a major factor at this time, but is reviewed when developing models that are affected by increasing inflation. Energy costs fluctuate greatly and are significant to budget planning. Health care costs are another significant factor that all entities must include in their planning. Future predictions are for health care costs to increase at approximately 20 percent per year.

Most of the financial planning is on a two-year cycle. A major source of our revenue is state share of instruction. The University is dependent on the Ohio General Assembly and the Ohio Board of Regents for funding in each biennium. State share of instruction, along with estimated enrollments, ultimately determines the level of tuition increase to be recommended. Since state funding is on a biennial basis, the University does not attempt to develop detailed models beyond a two-year time frame.

Development. As state support for higher education has not kept pace with inflationary and enrollment pressures, private support has become increasingly important to the financial stability and potential of the University. The Office of Development has established a set of ambitious plans to raise funds, for the period 2003 to 2009. The funding priorities were developed through consultation with constituencies on a university-wide basis, with contributions from vice-presidential areas, colleges, academic departments, and academic support units. The priorities, which have been approved at the presidential level, will focus on the following four funding objectives: 1) support for academic excellence; 2) support for student success; 3) support for the learning community; and 4) support for on-going initiatives.

Research and Creative Activities
The Office of Sponsored Programs and Research has completed its most recent reorganization with the main objectives of developing a more robust research infrastructure and preparing for changes in federal and state regulations affecting externally-funded programs.

The Office has developed new methods of supporting and encouraging faculty involvement in research and sponsored program activity:

• new internal seed grant funding mechanisms to establish and promote the research agendas of probationary faculty;
• carefully targeted funds in niche research areas to support on-going efforts of the more established faculty;
• a variety of electronic resources to assist in the identification of funding sources; and
• increased emphasis on organizing interdisciplinary projects, facilitating proposal development, assisting faculty members to develop relationships with industry, and assisting new faculty members in establishing their research agendas.

With the addition of new, research-intensive faculty members, the likelihood of increased research activity and development of intellectual property is very good. By insuring that the needed policies are in place, by establishing relationships with local technology development organizations, by showcasing our research capabilities beyond the region, and by carefully investing in the future of research, we are positioning the University to develop excellent research and outreach capabilities.

The challenges we face include a fluctuating federal funding environment that continues to be highly competitive and highly focused, and a shrinking budget supporting higher education in Ohio. Nationally, research and sponsored program funding will continue to be focused on issues of national security, health, education, and technology commercialization. At the state level, the Ohio Governor’s proposed “Third Frontier” program aligns all available state research funding to build and strengthen the state’s technology-driven economy. That plan depends on and utilizes much of the technology developed in institutions of higher education and requires collaboration with industrial partners.

With so much attention paid to scientific research and the advancement of technology, the Office of Sponsored Programs and Research is challenged to provide sufficient support for scholarly development in as many productive areas as possible.

External Partners
Planning around developing external partnerships has included a number of efforts, many involving either the Vice Provost for Research or the Office of Sponsored Programs and Research. These include the following:

• University representatives have participated on the advisory board and the steering committee of the Regional Technology Alliance since its inception in 1999. With the input from key individuals from regional institutions of higher education, business, and industry, the Alliance has made great headway in stimulating collaborative business research and commercialization ventures. The University has been and will continue to be a key player in offering guidance to the Alliance.
• The Vice Provost for Research has been involved with the Research Officers Council of the Ohio Board of Regents and has participated in the initial efforts to develop program guidelines for the Governor’s Third Frontier, a state-wide plan to stimulate the knowledge economy in Ohio. The university’s research community has realized that establishing collaborative regional research cores will be the best way to access state funding for research and technology development.
• The Technology Innovation Enhancement (TIE) grants were designed to foster university-industry partnerships in emerging technology areas. One requirement of the grant is to expand industrial interest in intellectual property being developed in the funded project. This is a long-term relationship-building process. Like the other seed-fund efforts, the TIE grants serve the purpose of introducing faculty members to industry and engaging them in strategic planning of their research agendas.

Over the last year, the Dean of the Graduate College and Vice Provost for Research convened a corporate relations committee to assist in defining the university’s vision as it relates to engaging industrial partners. After visits to campuses that have implemented their partnering visions, the committee changed its name to PROJECT PARTner and developed the following vision statement:

Bowling Green State University is committed to sharing its knowledge, expertise, and technology to improve the social and economic well-being of Ohio and the nation. To achieve that goal, PROJECT PARTner, through BGSU faculty and administration, strives to create an environment that promotes excellence in research, economic development, and access to intellectual property by establishing partnerships within the University community and among public and private organizations.

Continuing Education, International, and Summer Programs actively pursues external partnerships as part of its mission, and engages in specific planning around each of its programs:

• Arts Unlimited is working with K-12 school systems and Educational Service Centers in northwest Ohio to expand its curriculum beyond the summer session and use the alternative learning style of aesthetic education to improve student success on state-mandated proficiency exams.
• Off-Campus Programs, in cooperation with the College of Education and Human Development, is initiating an ambitious agenda to meet the growing teacher shortage in Ohio and provide the newly implemented post-baccalaureate education requirements mandated for temporary and provisional licensure of all new teachers.
• The Computer Training Center is developing a partnership with the regional cable service provider in northwest and north central Ohio to offer on-line, non-credit computer training courses to local subscribers and businesses. It is also expanding certification programs to meet software/network training needs of community businesses and organizations.
• In cooperation with the University of Toledo’s Continuing Education office, the Training Center is exploring the viability of providing certified professional managerial training for the Ohio Department of Administrative Services' managers throughout the state of Ohio.

Information technology. The University commits over 16 million dollars per year, centrally, to support its academic and administrative computing systems. These funds are used to lease, purchase, and maintain hardware, purchase and lease software, and employ staff. Many units on campus also spend money to buy computers, hire their own support personnel, and acquire specialized software. Maintenance of existing systems will be expensive, and will have to address all of the following needs:

• update computers, replace aging systems, and support the activities associated with computer use;
• maintain the wiring and upgrade of hubs and electrical components of the recently completed infrastructure project; and
• maintain membership in Internet2.

Distance education, once conducted solely through off-site visits and sporadic television teaching, is now a sustained expectation at the University. The University sees distance education as a growth area because of a reliable network; a new software platform (Blackboard); an enhanced distance education unit (IDEAL: Interactive Distance Education for All Learners) in Continuing Education, International, and Summer Programs; and increasing competition from other institutions. Our current investment in distance education is over $200,000. While this may grow, there is some expectation that a return on investment will support many of these activities.

There are at least two large information technology challenges for the University. One is the need to replace its largest administrative computing systems–accounting, payroll, registration, financial aid, human resources. The administrative systems were originally implemented in 1990. They are not integrated with one another and are difficult to web-enable. Part of the replacement procedure should include development of a data warehouse capability that provides distributed access to report and query capability. The University has devised a system to make some of the information that exists on its mainframe administrative systems available to students, faculty, and staff through the World Wide Web, but a complete overhaul will have to be considered in the future. Balancing this view is the understanding that the current system is reliable and stable. Given that much of it is driven by in-house and application-specific programming, implementing a new system will be costly in time and money.

The second large challenge is the training, equipment, and exposure needed to make faculty use of technology more effective. The University has web-enabled many of the functions associated with administrative computing systems, including course catalogs, class schedules, bill payment, registration, and grades. Additional improvements of this nature will be undertaken on a continuous basis.

In sum, in the near term, the University will need to spend at least 18.5 million dollars a year on centralized information technology-related expenses in support of classroom, research, and administrative needs. This figure can be expected to grow in excess of 20 million dollars by 2005 and upward in the years ahead. Clearly, additional revenues will be necessary to pay for our technology needs. Possible sources include grants, additional fees, provision of services to other entities, or direct solicitation.

The University is currently in the process of developing a Strategic Plan for information technology [IT1]. This plan will guide our investment in the most effective and efficient ways to maintain and improve services to the university community.

Libraries. The libraries face challenges in several areas: the escalating costs of materials; an aging building on the main campus that is in serious need of repair; nationally-known special collections that should be in a temperature-regulated storage facility; and a redirection from traditional librarian-scholarship to a new set of virtual, dynamic skills.

For several years, the main campus libraries had been receiving a supplement of three to five percent to help cover some of the costs of inflation for books and journals. With mandated state reductions to all budgets, the libraries have had to return this supplement ($80,000) in 2001-02 and will in all probability have to do so again in 2002-03. Another challenge comes in the form of cuts to the state cooperative library service, OhioLINK. Many databases and electronic journals were accessed at a reduced rate because of OhioLINK’s combined purchasing power. With a reduction in OhioLINK funding comes some necessary shrinkage. The university libraries are at the point where they must cut paper subscriptions to journals if the same publication is available electronically.

The estimated worth of the university’s special collections–in popular culture, music/sound recordings, the Great Lakes, and Ohio history–is in excess of 10 million dollars, but uneven temperature, humidity, and a lack of fire suppression put them at risk. A fund-raising effort is currently underway to help raise the approximately 15 million dollars needed to properly store and showcase these collections. A grant proposal is also being written to the National Endowment for the Humanities for matching funds for this project.

Moving toward a more virtual future is one of the greatest challenges the main campus and BGSU Firelands libraries face. There is a need for retraining, enhanced computing capabilities, a new approach to information literacy, and a rethinking of the library as “place” that must be assumed in this transition. Some of these new directions may require additional funding, but some may, more realistically, require difficult choices and creative problem-solving.

Despite the libraries’ access to the OhioLINK central catalog, the libraries, like university libraries everywhere, are confronted with difficult choices, as described above, of increased costs of journals and books as well as new demands to expand access to electronic information. The libraries are addressing these concerns:

• University students and faculty have been interviewed and surveyed to gather feedback about library collections and their ability to support course offerings and research agendas.
• The libraries are working more closely with the Development Office to identify funding opportunities for special collections.
• The libraries will continue to identify sustainable and cost-effective measures to improve the collection, and explore technological capabilities to provide users with new learning environments.
• Library staff will explore grant-funded opportunities to fund special projects.
• The Dean of Libraries and Learning Resources will continue to advocate for central funding, fully understanding that reliance on this source alone will not meet the needs of the libraries.

IDEAL is actively engaged with college offices, as well as individual faculty and program directors, to deliver online credit coursework to nontraditional degree-seeking students regionally and nationally. The Deans Council and affected vice presidents have recently agreed upon guidelines and priorities for developing web-based and web-centric courses and programs [PW1].

ALS has re-envisioned programs and services with new priorities stimulated by changes in internal and external environments or changes in university emphasis. The viability of the strategic plans delineated below for ALS is dependent upon the extent to which the University and CEISP are able to support them both philosophically and financially:

• Expanding educational programs and services for all BGSU adult and evening populations (both on-campus and remote) over the next three years. ALS has begun a major initiative to develop partnerships with regional community colleges to provide both evening undergraduate classes for adults on their campuses and comprehensive on-site advising for their students contemplating transfer to a four-year institution.

• Providing more easily accessible, comprehensive recruitment, career, and academic information to prospective and continuing students. ALS plans to expand our web presence significantly to provide more and better information to continuing and prospective adult students who are remote from campus.

• Increasing and improving services for continuing students to encourage student success and aid retention. ALS will continue to serve as an advocate for adult students to increase the number of classes offered during convenient evening or weekend hours.

• Developing and implementing improved assessment methods to measure the effectiveness of our programs and to allow for better monitoring and tracking of our student constituents.

The Capital Planning Process. The University finds itself in an interesting position with respect to capital planning, because we have concentrated many of our state-allocated capital dollars on rehabilitation of existing buildings rather than additional square footage [CI1]. Our most pressing physical needs have now been addressed, opening the way to address operational and physical needs of departments for new space.

The annual process for capital requests begins with deans and vice presidents identifying all of their capital needs, goes through several levels of review and prioritization, and ends with approval by the Board of Trustees and submission to the Ohio Board of Regents for those projects requiring state funding.

We are now limited by the OBR funding formula for debt service to 15.5 million dollars for major capital projects each biennium. This constrains what we can do in our academic buildings without seeking additional funding sources.

A line item in the state-funded capital improvement bill called “Basic Renovations”  is for items that are smaller in nature and that do not pertain directly to individual departments. Traditionally we have dealt with a number of infrastructure needs from these funds, including cooling towers, chillers, carpeting projects, and so on. The Office of Capital Planning works closely with the various departments and with Facilities Services to identify and prioritize these projects.

            The Capital Plan. The university’s capital improvements are targeted toward a mix of aging facilities inadequate to meet current needs, needs driven by enrollment growth, and changing expectations of students, faculty, and staff. The plan considers costs involved in ameliorating conditions in existing structures versus the costs entailed by new construction. Our state requests are carefully balanced against our aggressive pursuit of locally funded improvements, so that the campus shows consistent and well-developed improvement in all ways for our students.

The plan covering the next six years (2003-2008) weights programmatic needs over physical needs [CB1]. A new facility is planned in the Admissions Building project; while it reflects the programmatic needs of admissions and the competition for new students, it also deals with an outdated facility that is limited by location and parking problems. The Theater Building project also deals with programmatic needs (a change in theater types), but also moves the department from space that has not been changed or renovated in forty years, and which is lacking in accommodations expected in public performance spaces today. The Biology Building project deals with needed program expansion space, and also addresses the needs that have resulted from the physical limitations in the Life Sciences Building. The final project, University Hall rehabilitation, will consolidate the School of Family and Consumer Sciences, and will also address the physical problems existing in University Hall, a 90-year-old building.

We have also tried to remain consistent in dealing with our aging space, by prioritizing the renovations of our existing buildings. This is shown by the priority set for University Hall, as well as our desire to go forward with planning funds for both Hanna and Moseley Halls in the 2007-08 biennium. Because both of these buildings were built before 1920 and the building systems have never been updated, they represent our most pressing facility (versus programmatic) needs. However, with the crucial location that each building has in the middle of campus, the programmatic needs of departments to be assigned to those buildings are also extremely important.

Another area of some concern from a facility point of view is our utility infrastructure. While we have been able to make some progress in meeting these needs with basic renovation money, and with the construction of a new central heating plant, the tunnel system needs to be addressed before we have breakdowns requiring lengthy shutdowns of buildings. This is the type of concern we hope to address with the allowance for utility infrastructure rehabilitation in fiscal years 2005-06. The following two phases will continue with such work, but will also attempt to upgrade the options for the campus with central cooling plants, which will help to maintain building systems as well. A recent house bill allows us to pursue utility and infrastructure work, funded through utility savings [UI1].

The university’s new fiber-optic communications infrastructure allows direct contact with our Firelands campus. The opportunities that the infrastructure provided drove the expanded program for a new Cedar Point Center at BGSU Firelands. As the infrastructure project went forward, it became apparent that the Cedar Point Center was in a position to take tremendous advantage of the connections that the infrastructure would provide–if the building could adjust. That is why the allocation for fiscal years 2003-04 at the Firelands campus is still targeted for funding the Cedar Point Center. This building is designed for classrooms and laboratory spaces that take on new importance in light of additional undergraduate and graduate degree programs being available through distance learning at BGSU Firelands.

The additional opportunities this project makes available to Huron-area residents led to the raising of local funds almost equal to the funds targeted through the state capital process. While this priority has delayed the replacement of roofs for a biennium, it is important to point out the excellent record that the Firelands campus has for handling preventive maintenance. This delay will not hurt the existing buildings, and will only enhance the other project targeted for the 2005-06 biennium, the Instructional Laboratory rehabilitation.

The Master Plan. For the first time in 35 years, the University has turned its attention to the Master Plan. The Master Plan will define the direction the University is going to grow, both literally and figuratively. Part of the Master Plan will address the future use of university real estate, including land currently leased to the airport authority, farm leases, and land designated for the Research Enterprise Park. The update is scheduled for completion in January 2003 [MP2]. The main objective of the Master Plan is to formulate a guide to follow to improve learning opportunities for our students. Some topics that have already surfaced include the following:

• enhanced entrances to the University as well as a new North entrance to campus;
• defining a science complex;
• defining an arts quadrant;
• an Admissions/Visitor Center located close to the entrances of campus;
• a Mercer Street spine to allow for growth in that direction and link the east campus with the west campus;
• a Pedestrian Main Street that ties residential to academics;
• environmental sustainability becoming a priority in project development in order to enhance and maintain greening of the campus; and
• Wooster street development in conjunction with city needs.

Since the time of the last NCAHLC re-accreditation, the University has made substantial progress in the area of planning. A revived Office of Institutional Research provides a broad array of decision support services to all units of the University. This Office, along with the University Planning Council, coordinates a systematic planning process that includes both “bottom up” and “top down” elements and relates to institutional and external environments. Academic and support unit program review processes examine departmental accomplishments and plans, including resource needs, timelines, designation of responsibilities, and benchmarks of success. The university’s Academic Planning Team is working to identify a limited number of specific academic themes to lead the University for the next 20 to 50 years.

An analysis of the university’s planning within the context of each of its Strategic Future Directions has revealed both accomplishments and challenges. Much progress has been made towards rebuilding enrollment and establishing a culture of student success. The Bowling Green Experience initiative concerning critical thinking about values holds the promise of transforming the undergraduate experience and creating a unique institutional identity.

The University has made substantial progress in rebuilding its full-time faculty base after ending retirement incentive programs. This goal, along with a faculty and staff compensation program, have been complicated by resource constraints. Numerous plans have been implemented to improve diversity and global awareness among students, faculty, and staff. We are optimistic that our efforts and plans in all these areas will produce the desired results.

State support has not kept pace with inflationary and enrollment pressures; the desire to minimize increases in student fees has resulted in a recognition that revenue sources must become more diversified. Private support and sponsored research represent two important, non-enrollment based revenue sources that have been and must continue to be significantly enhanced.

The University has taken steps toward developing a more robust infrastructure to support research and creative activities. While the addition of many new research-intensive faculty members is a strength, a fluctuating federal and state funding environment remains a serious challenge towards achievement of this strategic direction. Many examples are available of the university’s efforts to achieve a greater presence in our community and region and become a more effective partner with external organizations.

Despite the many important accomplishments described in this chapter towards the goal of utilizing technology to enhance teaching, learning, research, and university operations, many challenges remain, including replacement of administrative computing systems; maintaining a diverse array of hardware, software, equipment, and services; and employing and training staff.