A second round of preparation

The long-term institutional approach of continuing to create quality and reputation was

repeated in the Strategic Plan for CLU 2001-2004, which confirmed many of the

environmental and institutional factors stated in the CLU 2001 statement. When it comes to

establishing particular areas of action in terms of three important elements, seven strategic

goals, 30 strategic initiatives and many more, the new plan went far further than the previous

planning document.

An extensive "roadmap" of projects and goals was now available to the University, which

was seen as critical to reaching the overall goal of improved quality and a better reputation.

All University employees were expected to agree on the plan's objective and take part in its

implementation as a result of the plan's inclusion of so many different areas of operation. It

had its drawbacks, however, since a thorough strategy made it difficult for some to

distinguish between things that were necessary to creating quality and reputation and things

that were "good to do," but were not genuinely strategic.

In addition, it became evident that the overarching strategic plan needed to be supported by

comprehensive operational plans in the major areas and that there was a need for deeper

integration of these supporting plans (e.g., academic planning and budget planning). Detailed

plans for implementation, including a capital campaign strategy, an academic framework, and

a business framework, were subsequently developed. Additionally, work has begun on

specific strategies for support areas such as undergraduate and graduate-level marketing, as

well as marketing for professional and technical degrees. Additional consideration has been

given to designing the University's systems for planning, approving, and evaluating projects.

The structure and methods of the company have been reworked in some areas in order to

improve execution and outcomes.

A genuine "planning culture" and more methodical mechanisms for ongoing evaluation and

assessment have been made possible thanks to all of this. There has been a great deal of

progress and significant, observable outcomes. The University's declared goals for quality

and reputation, as well as the planning, implementation, and operating methods by which

these achievements are to be realized, are still a long way off.

With the Bridge Plan 2004-2006, our third and current strategic plan for CLU, we hope to

bring to a close many of the projects and goals of the previous decade and position CLU well

for the future of strategic planning, operations, and results. In this "third wave" of strategic

planning, the institution as a whole will construct a coordinated planning, evaluation, and

change process. As a result of the Bridge Plan, institutional planning and budgeting will be

more tightly integrated, and progress will be measured against particular strategic indicators

or metrics.

Implementing the Bridge Plan and its area-specific planning documents should bring the

University into full compliance with the WASC model for an institution that conducts "...

sustained, evidence-based, and participatory discussions about how effectively it is

accomplishing its purposes and achieving its educational objectives," as stated in the WASC

model (WASC Standard Four). For us, this means that we can expect to see a much more

focused action agenda that is aided by a better integration of the University's strategic,

academic, as well as its business plans and budgets.