Environmental Scan Task Force

Minutes of January 30 Meeting

Environmental Scan Task Force
4-5:30 p.m., Tuesday
January 30, 2007

Members attending: Peter Ashbrook, Terry Barnes, Pam Benoit, Jim Coleman, John David, Kitty Dickerson, Carolyn Herrington, Tom Johnson, Ann Korschgen, Mary Ann McCollum, Dean Mills, Bart Wechsler. Staff attending: Vicki Dennison, Mark Ehlert, Mardy Eimers, Bill Elder, Pat Morton. Guest: Doug Raber

Following introductions of committee members, Carolyn Herrington reviewed the charge and timeline for the work of the Task Force. She reported the timeline is this semester, and the product is a report to SPRAC to identify environmental issues for the short-term future. It was noted that we have overlap in membership with a sister task force -- Strategic Advantages -- and with SPRAC.

Pam Benoit described the charge and current work of the Strategic Advantages Task Force. That group held two open forums and then scheduled focus groups with faculty, staff, and students. They are at work to review the data collected and identify 6-8 unique strategic advantages for MU. A possibility is to put present strengths together in new ways to create a new focus that would be larger than just specific programs, e.g., healthy life style, media. It was noted that we are looking for something unique to MU that someone like Berkeley can't steal away with big dollars. Other examples mentioned as unique advantages were the Reactor and the Midwest location. The report of the Strategic Advantages Task Force will be submitted to SPRAC this semester.

John David reported that the Provost appointed these two task forces to work independently of each other initially. Both reports will be submitted to SPRAC where further discussions might lead to necessary changes when the list of strategic advantages and the environmental scan are considered together.

A question was raised about the process for gathering data for the environmental scan. Carolyn said that the shape of this report will be determined mostly within the task force and that the staff work and writing of the report will be provided by members of the Provost's Staff.

We briefly discussed the environmental scan appendices from the June 2004 report on the strategic planning process. It was noted that one thing missing from that report was a distinction between those things that we cannot influence and those that we can try to alter to our benefit.

Doug Raber described his role as facilitator and began a discussion of the process we might use to frame the task force report. He raised a question about the charge to the group -- is it only external environment or also internal? It was suggested that the scan should include consideration of internal, operating, and external environments. It was noted that the Provost wanted a fresh start and that we didn't need to use the 2004 report as a template. Rather than reviewing those appendices in detail, a discussion followed about general categories to be included in the task force report. Some new items raised for consideration included competition, pluralism or diversity, and technology. It was noted that the "global trends and forces" heading seemed to be a mish-mash and that those items could possibly be included in different categories organized around the Provost's charge. A concern was raised about the importance of global issues. If this is not a separate category, then we should keep this in our minds and think more nationally as we develop items for each category. It was suggested that the 2004 appendix heading "external trends and forces" should now be "threats and opportunities," although a concern was raised that this title might assume an answer and keep folks from seeing the big picture. It was also noted that "Missouri" is missing from the previous report. We should note the land-grant research institution and what we will do for Missouri. It was also suggested that we define our role in a way that makes it important for MU to be in every part of the state. Perhaps all of the categories should consider organization by level within each area -- local, regional, national, global.

Jim Coleman summarized the items discussed, and it was agreed that the following categories should be considered for inclusion in the report: (1) economy -- global to local; (2) political; (3) academic -- including competition and mission creep -- we should consider what other universities are doing, not only as threats but also collaboration opportunities; (4) population analysis -- including demographics and population/migration issues; (5) University work force -- including faculty, staff, and post docs -- should identify where the University will get its future work force; (6) cultural/social -- perhaps include geographic location in this category; (7) environmental resource -- including energy, water, sustainability -- perhaps separate by local, regional, national; and (8) technology. It was suggested that we might phrase these issues as questions rather than categories in the final report.

It was agreed that the full group should brainstorm about all of these categories initially and then break into subcommittees to draft an initial list for further review. To prepare for that meeting, discussion leaders were identified for each category, along with identification of other members who might also give some thought to that particular category. The categories are shown below, with the discussion leader listed first.

Economy -- Tom Johnson and Kitty Dickerson
Political -- Bart Wechsler and Mary Ann McCollum
Academic -- Pat Morton
Population Analysis -- Ann Korschgen and Pam Benoit, Terry Barnes
Work Force -- Jim Coleman and Mardy Eimers
Cultural/Social -- Bill Elder
Environmental Resource -- Peter Ashbrook
Technology -- Mark Ehlert

To facilitate discussion for the February meeting, all members should prepare a list of items they think should be included in each category and send those to Vicki by February 15. A combined list will be sent to the task force in advance of the February 22 meeting. The time for that meeting will be extended to two hours and an agenda will be prepared setting out 15 minutes for discussion of each category. Following that discussion, we will make a final determination of the main categories to be included in the report and identify subcommittees to work on a detailed list of items to include in each section. The subcommittees should review the June 2004 data as they develop their report. There is no March meeting planned for the full task force membership. The subcommittees should meet during March and prepare a report to be presented to the full task force at the April 3 meeting.

Next Meeting Dates:

Thursday, February 22, 11:30 a.m. – 1 p.m., S304 Memorial Union
Tuesday, April 3, 1-3 p.m., S204 Memorial Union