As you are well aware, the strategic planning committees will be forwarding their recommendations about the future of the university to the President on March 31, 2005. At that time, the recommendations will probably become public.
While I cannot speak with certainty about the recommendations that will be forwarded about the college, I can share with you that change will certainly occur and that the college as we know it today will be impacted.
If I were asked to synthesize the goals of the planning exercise into a few sentences, those would be:
1. Economy of scale. Units that are small are at risk. Efforts will be made to coalesce similar disciplines to obtain synergy as well as economy of scales to support the academic endeavors.
2. Number of colleges. The president believes that the university has too many colleges for efficient management and there is a potential to reduce the number of colleges in the current planning.
3. Synergy of disciplines. There will be an effort to bring like disciplines together to support scholarship.
Given these goals [and please note that the goals are my “take” on our planning], multiple scenarios can be created for the future of the college. I can share with you that I do not definitively know which scenario will be presented to the president at this time.
Regardless of the scenario for the future, this college will have three goals in the next few years:
1. Participate in the creation of a strong university for the future
2. Celebration of the philosophy of human ecology and its contributions to society
3. Celebration of the quality of the college and its programs
The college is recognized nationally as a world-class leader and is typically ranked #2 of its kind among public research universities. Many of the programs you create are ranked in the top 5 or 10 of their type. The college ranks among the top four within the University of Minnesota with regard to the quality indicators established by the university. The college is fiscally responsible. Those are points of pride that you have achieved and contribute to each day as you do your work.
Colleges of Human Ecology, nationally and in Minnesota, have historically been a front door for women to the halls of higher education. Our own alumni are testament to the pathways created because of their study in the college. A recent article in the New York Times, The Revenge of Ellen Swallow, reflects on the role of the founder of human ecology in opening doors of science to women in the past 100 years.
I spent some time reading about quality in organizations over the weekend. Edward Deming concluded his long years of work by stating simply that quality was about the human spirit.
What essential element has to be in place for an organization to be successful? While we understand that organizational success is really dependent upon a "thousand things" (Pete McVeigh), the exercise of trying to get down to the essentials is interesting ... and a great reminder about what is truly important and critical.
Margaret Wheatley, in her new book, "Finding Our Way" states:
There is only one prediction about the future that I feel confident to make. During this period of random and unpredictable change, any organization that distances itself from its employees and refuses to cultivate meaningful relationships with them is destined to fail. Those organizations that will succeed are those that evoke our greatest human capacities ... our need to be in good relationships, and our desire to contribute to something beyond ourselves. These qualities cannot be evoked through procedures and policies. They only are available in organizations where people feel trusted and welcome, and where people know that their work matters."
As we continue our journey, through unknown territory, celebrate our excellence, our history, our shared spirit, as well as the future we will create. Know that your work matters.
Interesting. Thanks for info.
Posted by: David Schroeder at October 14, 2009 7:09 PMAs a newbie, I am always searching online for articles that can help me.
Thank you for sharing this !
Posted by: Cash Advance at September 30, 2009 7:48 PMSmth interesting,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra
buy generic biagra [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra]buy generic biagra[/url]
U never try it before --
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra
buy generic biagra [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra]buy generic biagra[/url]
with holiday http://www.volny.cz/dian/1/dianabol-side-effects.html http://www.volny.cz/dian/1/dianabol-tablet.html http://www.volny.cz/dian/1/dianabol.html
your site is beatiful http://loan-till-payday-news.info http://military-payday-loan-news.info http://no-fax-payday-loan-news.info
Posted by: new at March 20, 2007 12:20 PMYou can't be 61126 serious?!?
Posted by: Max Ballstein at July 25, 2006 12:32 PMI read with interest your letter of April first and am pleased to have the opportunity to provide comment on the proposed changes to CHE. I am a grad of CHE in Nutrition and Dietetics, a registered dietitian, and the mother of a newly accepted freshman to CHE. She is also interested in following the RD track.
I understand that the Department of Food Science and Nutrition may be integrated into the college of Ag. I would like to suggest that the the best "fit" for Nutrition is in the college of Biological Sciences. While Nutrition encompasses the science of safe food, it also encompasses the study of the role of food in human health and disease, which is why it would be better suited for the College of Biological Sciences. Not only is it a more appropriate college for Food and Nutrition based on the mission and present strengths, ingegrating it in the College of Biological Sciences would also elevate the perceived value of the degree in Nutrition and Dietetics, which unfortunately, has suffered some identity issues over the years. You may be aware of the changes in education requirements suggested by a task force of the American Dietetic Association which are designed to assure the continued value and viability of the profession of Nutrition and Dietetics.
Keeping Food Science and Nutrition linked has the same effect as keeping USDA in charge of Nutrition and Health Policy at the federal level. It suppresses the role Nutrtition plays in health promotion and disease prevention and emphasizes the business and industry aspects of food and agrigculture. This is one of the reasons there is so much conflict in attemps to create meaningul Nutrition Policy in our government. It's time to unyoke Food Science and Nutrition to better match the differing missions and strenghts of each.
Thanks you very much for the opportunity to comment on the future of CHE. Rosalyn Haase, RD/CD, CDE, MPH, BC-ADM
Posted by: Rosalyn Haase at April 12, 2005 11:39 AMThank you for your notes on the U's Strategic Planning efforts. (And welcome to the blogosphere!)
In the three points regarding the goals of the planning efforts you make above, you use the word "synergy" twice. A definition of this word I found is "The interaction of two or more agents or forces so that their combined effect is greater than the sum of their individual effects."
This is an intriguing word. But it is also one that seems, the more I reflect on it, to be inherently difficult to use as a benchmark for program (re)design efforts. Specifically, it seems the first part of the definition is easy to do (bring two forces into interaction with each other), but doing that in order to ensure the second part (...so that the combined effect is greater than its parts) is not so easy.
How might those of us affiliated with the College meet the challenge of these two tasks as we are confronted with the changes that are likely around the corner?
Posted by: Yvette Perry at March 29, 2005 8:44 PM