|
Outcome: |
Re-engineering
Complete and
implement CE
re-engineering. |
|
Assessment
Measurement: |
The
following will be
completed:
|
1. |
Roles
and
responsibilities
defined and
documented |
|
2. |
People
assigned and
training
implemented |
|
3. |
Processes
will be
realigned |
|
4. |
Assessment
of
understanding/use
of
communication
channels |
|
5. |
Communication
pathways
established |
|
|
Frequency: |
Once |
|
Results: |
|
1. |
During the
past year
major
processes,
roles and
responsibilities
were defined |
|
2a. |
Action was
taken by the
dean to
reorganize
based on
process
findings. |
|
2b. |
The
reorganization
developed a
non-credit
team, credit
team, and a
position for
director of
students
support
services and
faculty
services. |
|
3. |
Process
realignment
has been
discussed
and needs to
be
formalized
with the new
organizational
structure in
mind. |
|
4. |
Assessment
of
understanding/use
of
communication
channels has
yet to be
completed. |
|
5. |
Communication
pathways
have yet to
be
established |
|
|
Closing the Loop: |
|
1. |
Document
roles/responsibilities
of new roles
in the
university
Job
Description
Website.
|
|
2. |
Implement
training
plan for
employees in
new
positions. |
|
3. |
Formalize
the process
realignment
within the
new
organizational
structure. |
|
4. |
Assess
current
communication
channels and
flow of
information
in CE. |
|
5. |
Establish
clear
communication
pathways
based on
assessment.
|
|
| |
|
|
Outcome: |
Customer Service
& Satisfaction
Identify and assess
existing customer
satisfaction. |
|
Assessment
Measurement: |
|
1. |
Develop
instrument
to assess
faculty
satisfaction |
|
2. |
Develop
instrument
to assess
student
satisfaction |
|
3. |
Assess
baseline
satisfaction
for both
faculty and
students |
|
|
Frequency: |
Annually |
|
Results: |
|
1. |
Faculty/academic
partners
survey was
developed to
assess
satisfaction
of deans,
chairs, and
department
secretaries.
Survey was
administered
in May. |
|
2a. |
Non-credit:
Students in
all
non-credit
activities
were
surveyed at
the end of
each event.
|
|
2b. |
Online:
Instrument
is in place.
Information
has been
shared with
deans/chairs. |
|
2c. |
Independent
Study:
Instrument
developed. |
|
2d. |
Face-2-Face
credit:
moved from
institutional
standardized
survey to
departmental
survey so
that
departments
can
incorporate
results into
their
assessment
efforts.
|
|
3a. |
Aggregate
results from
faculty/academic
partners
survey were
distributed
and
analyzed.
Benchmark
was
established.
Results were
analyzed
with each
college
liaison and
areas for
improvement
were
identified.
As a result
of the
survey, a
new liaison
was added to
meet needs
of
faculty/academic
partners.
|
|
3b. |
Feedback
from student
surveys was
used to
reassign or
de-assign
instructors
in contract
trainings
and to
provide
feedback to
deans/chairs |
|
|
Closing the Loop: |
|
1 & 3a. |
Re-administer
faculty/academic
partners
survey in
May of next
year to
assess
whether
satisfaction
has
improved. |
|
2a & 3b. |
Non-credit:
Continue to
survey at
the
conclusion
of each
event and
make
adjustments
as
appropriate. |
|
2b & 3b. |
Online:
Administer
survey
annually to
identify
target areas
for
improvement.
Continue to
share
results with
deans/chairs. |
|
2c & 3b. |
Independent
Study:
Administer
survey and
establish
baseline
customer
satisfaction.
|
|
2d & 3b. |
Face-2-Face
credit:
Build and
administer
survey for
students
regarding
satisfaction
with CE
services. |
|
| |
|
|
Outcome: |
System Migration
Replace Legacy
systems (STAARS, WSU
Online) in
accordance with
established
guidelines utilizing
change management
strategies. |
|
Assessment
Measurement: |
|
1. |
CE will meet
campus
deadlines
for system
migration |
|
2. |
Transition
plans will
be developed
and
communicated
to CE |
|
|
Frequency: |
Ongoing |
|
Results: |
|
1. |
Deadlines to
date have
been met and
will
continue
throughout
the project. |
|
2a. |
Continuing
Education
has had
representation
on each of
the major
teams for
the Banner
transition.
This
includes
finance,
human
resource,
and student
(admissions,
registration,
scheduling,
accounts
receivable,
financial
aid,
academic
history, and
graduation).
These
individuals
have also
made up a
team within
CE and meet
as the needs
arise for
transition
planning. |
|
2b. |
C.E. staff
participated
as
appropriate
in the
campus
conversion
from FRS/HRS
(Finance and
Payroll) to
Banner |
|
2c. |
Feeds for
C.E.
Accounting
from FRS/HRS
were
converted to
run with
Banner |
|
2d. |
All C.E.
staff who
needed
access were
trained in
Banner
Finance
Self-Service |
|
2e. |
C.E. staff
who had
previous
access to
FRS were
trained to
use Banner
Finance INB |
|
|
Closing the Loop: |
|
1. |
Continue to
meet campus
deadlines
for system
migration
throughout
the coming
year. |
|
2. |
Continue to
communicate
transition
plans to CE
employees
via CE
representation
on Banner
Teams,
communication
via monthly
staff
meetings and
team
meetings. |
|
| |
|
|
Outcome: |
Financial Mgmt
Identify, map, and
implement the
components of a
budgetary process. |
|
Assessment
Measurement: |
|
1. |
Plan will be
mapped by
April 1,
2004 |
|
2. |
Information
in-filled by
June 1, 2004 |
|
|
Frequency: |
Once |
|
Results: |
|
1. |
Plan was
mapped,
Budget
Template and
approval
process were
developed.
|
|
2. |
Information
was filled
into the
plan by
deadline. |
|
|
Closing the Loop: |
|
1. |
Consistent
implementation/utilization
of plan,
template,
and approval
process. |
|
2. |
As
information
has been
filled in,
it is
appropriate
to
discontinue
this goal. |
|
| |
|
|
Outcome: |
Relationships/Partnerships
Develop new
relationships that
may lead to
potential credit and
non-credit programs. |
|
Assessment
Measurement: |
|
1. |
Develop 6-8
new
relationships. |
|
|
Frequency: |
Annually |
|
Results: |
|
1a. |
Non-credit:
24 new
partnerships |
| |
- Nine
new
contract
training
clients
with
programs
completed
(LDS
Church
Offices,
Watson
Labs,
Abbot
Labs/Hospira,
Weider
Nutrition,
Thiokol
[two
different
units],
Goldenwest
Credit
union,
Select
Comfort,
MAP
organization
at HAFB
-
Seven
new
contract
training
clients
with
proposals
under
development
(Futura,
another
Thiokol
unit, L3
-
Communications,
Kroger,
ClearOne
Communications,
MAKA
group at
HAFB,
Clearfield
City)
- Two
new
conference
partners:
Ogden
City and
Utah
Non-Profits
association
for
Non-profits
conference,
Performing
Arts
faculty
for
Pro-Tools
workshop
-
Three
new
program
parthers/co-sponsors:
Management
Action
Program
(GSBE
movie-themed
seminars)
and
Maximum
Impact
(Living
Leadership
simulcast);
Karta
Technologies
for Air
Force
DESP II
proposal
-
Three
new
on-going
lessees
at TLD:
HAFB LG
unit,
Northrup,
Grumann,
and
Weber
State
Banner
training.
|
|
1b. |
Credit:
__x__
partnerships |
|
continuing
education