Nov. 30, 2001

Setting a Strategy for the Future

President Announces New Strategic Initiative
to Move the University Into the Forefront

By Thomas Kohout

Representatives from all corners of the University are joining forces to map a strategic plan to continue to guide GW well into the 21st century. The initiative stems from an address by President Trachtenberg before the Board of Trustees last June in which he outlined the University’s need to “retain our momentum and continue our move into the ranks of the top-tier institutions.”

Over the next several months, two groups, the Selective Academic Excellence Committee co-chaired by Vice President for Academic Affairs Donald R. Lehman and C. Dianne Martin, professor of computer science in the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, and the Business and Service Committee co-chaired by Vice President for Student and Academic Support Services Robert A. Chernak and Vice President and Treasurer Louis H. Katz, will work to develop a strategic initiative to continue GW’s rise in prominence. To assist them, the chairs have assembled committees representing eight of the University’s nine schools (Lehman says the College of Professional Studies is too new to participate) as well as several members of the Board of Trustees.

In his address, Trachtenberg cited the last major strategic initiative at GW, The Commission on the Year 2000, initiated by then-president Lloyd Elliott in 1985. Trachtenberg pointed to the plan’s 12 recommendations for the development of the University, and indicated the bulk of the goals had been “essentially accomplished.” Now, Trachtenberg argues, it is time to develop a “framework within which effective and optimal decision making can take place as we work proactively to define GW’s path in the early part of the 21st century.

“The University must define its destiny along a productive path of positive internal change that positions us to meet external changes,” Trachtenberg says.

As an initial exercise, the committee chairs conducted a survey posing one simple question: “What do you think GW is most known for?” According to Lehman and Senior Assistant Vice President John S. Wilson, who serves as a liaison between the committees, both groups received a wide-ranging and “flat distribution” of responses, and therein lies a key goal of the initiative — clarifying GW’s strengths.

“We are hoping that this initiative will result in a much narrower set of responses to that question,” Wilson says. “If people familiar with GW have responses that are varied, then I wonder about the responses from those unfamiliar with GW. That speaks to one set of issues that can be addressed by this process.”

The first goal of the Selective Academic Excellence Committee is to generate criteria to be used for recommending academic areas that will receive additional investment to enhance their growth toward excellence. The Business and Service Committee has a similar agenda, but a different approach. Starting with the identification of current areas of strength, the committee will look to achieve a greater level of visibility in the academic marketplace and shape GW’s operations.

“The committees look at this as a three-to-five year strategic plan,” says Lehman, stressing the importance of establishing and maintaining an evaluation system. “You don’t want to look at this as being a rigid blue print. If we do, it’s not going to serve its purpose.”
He adds that the final proposal should be viewed as a strategic document that lays out strategic directions, but is reviewed on a yearly basis.

The Selective Academic Excellence Committee is currently working to meet a five-point agenda, including the development of criteria so it can accept proposals submitted by the faculty. The proposals the committee receives from the schools, pared down and prioritized by the Selective Academic Excellence committee, will constitute its own agenda item. Another focus of the committee is ensuring that GW offers an academically challenging experience for students. The group also will consider the suggestion that GW switch its current curriculum at the undergraduate level, moving from five three-credit courses per-semester to four four-credit courses. Finally, the question of GW’s ability to support its existing doctoral programs will be among the items reviewed, as well as the criteria used to evaluate those programs.

Lehman says it is crucial to understand this initiative is designed to “improve the academic excellence at the University through participation of the faculty.”

On the Business and Service side, Katz says the group will “look at what kinds of policies, whether it be policies that affect students or policies about how we reallocate resources, can help build the academic excellence.” The committee, he adds, won’t concentrate on establishing individual standards and policies for programs or services, but instead will take a broader approach to positioning GW for the future.

Wilson agrees, adding that the committees will avoid forecasting trends in education. “Rather than be purely market driven in the workplace or in academia, we are going to look more closely at our strengths. This is not a process that will result in academic micro-managing to simply meet external demands.

“I think the current mission, in terms of education, research, and service, is immutably clear,” Wilson adds, explaining why the president has called for this planning process. “What is not clear, however, is where we are going to put our academic emphasis in terms of trying to add dimension to our reputation and power to our prestige.”

The committees will conclude their work by March, and then come together to integrate their ideas into a concise and comprehensive plan that will be presented to the Board of Trustees in May.

 

Send feedback to: bygeorge@gwu.edu