2012 - grand rapids community college | grand rapids ... michigan quality award...certificate...

GRCC | 143 Bostwick Ave NE, Grand Rapids, MI 49503 | (616) 234-4000 | www.grcc.edu

2012

Michigan

Quality Leadership

Award

Application


Table of Contents

2012 Application Form

2012 Intent Application

Site Description

Organization Chart

Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations

Preface: Organizational Profile .................................................................................................................................... i

P.1. Organizational Description .............................................................................................................. ii

P.2. Organizational Challenges ............................................................................................................... iv

Responses Addressing All Criteria Items

1.0 Leadership ...................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Senior Leadership.............................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Governance and Social Responsibilities ........................................................................................... 4

2.0 Strategic Planning ......................................................................................................................................... 6

2.1 Strategy Development ....................................................................................................................... 6

2.2 Strategy Implementation ................................................................................................................... 9

3.0 Student, Stakeholder, and Market Focus .................................................................................................. 12

3.1 Voice of the Customer .................................................................................................................... 12

3.2 Customer Engagement .................................................................................................................... 14

4.0 Measurement, Analysis, and Knowledge Management ............................................................................ 18

4.1 Measurement, Analysis, and Improvement of Organizational Performance ................................... 18

4.2 Management of Information, Knowledge, and Information Technology ........................................ 21

5.0 Workforce Focus ......................................................................................................................................... 24

5.1 Workforce Environment .................................................................................................................. 24

5.2 Workforce Engagement................................................................................................................... 27

6.0 Operations Focus ......................................................................................................................................... 31

6.1 Work Systems ................................................................................................................................. 31

6.2 Work Processes ............................................................................................................................... 33

7.0 Results .......................................................................................................................................................... 37

7.1 Student Learning and Process Outcomes ........................................................................................ 37

7.2 Customer -Focused Outcomes ........................................................................................................ 41

7.3 Workforce-Focused Outcomes ........................................................................................................ 43

7.4 Leadership and Governance Outcomes ........................................................................................... 46

7.5 Budgetary, Financial, and Market Outcomes .................................................................................. 49


Site Description Grand Rapids Community College

February, 2012

Address of Site Number Employees, Faculty, Staff

Percentage Sales Revenues Budgets Services

Description of Relevant Products or Services

GRCC Main Campus (includes DeVos campus) 143 Bostwick, NE Grand Rapids, MI 49503

624 Credit program instruction and administration

Learning Corner Wealthy 1154 Wealthy Street SE Grand Rapids, MI 49506

3 High School completion/GED

Learning Corner West Corner of Seward St. and 4th St. Grand Rapids, MI 49503

Shared with Learning

Corner Wealthy ESL instruction

Leslie E. Tassell M-TEC 622 Godfrey Ave. SW Grand Rapids, MI 49503-4941

52

Automotive

Construction Trades

Job Training

Welding

Workforce Training

Lakeshore Campus (includes MI Works!) Midtown Center 96 West 15

th Street

Holland, MI 49423

9 Credit program instruction and administration

Patrick A. Thompson M-TEC 6364 136th Avenue Holland, MI 49424

5 Credit program instruction

http://cms.grcc.edu/automotive

http://cms.grcc.edu/constructiontrades

http://cms.grcc.edu/jobtraining

http://cms.grcc.edu/welding

http://www.grcclearn.com/


President’s Office

President

Communications

College

Advancement

Finance &

Administration

Academic &

Student Affairs

General Counsel

Information

Technology

Equity, Community

& Legislative

Affairs


Finance & Administration

Finance &

Administration

Financial Services

Facilities

Student Financial

Services

Ford Fieldhouse

Purchasing

Campus Police

Operational

Planning

Human Resources

Graphics & Print

Solutions

Financial Aid

Cashier’s Office

Payroll

Benefits

Human Resources

Student

Employment

Services

Staff Development

Banquet Services


Provost, Student & Academic Affairs

Provost, Student &

Academic Affairs

Adult &

Developmental

Education

Interdisciplinary

Studies

Institutional

Research &

Planning

Interdisc. Studies

& Instructional

Support

Lakeshore

Campus &

Regional Centers

Student Affairs

Arts & Sciences

Workforce

Development

Applied Technology

Automotive

Business

Computer Applications

Criminal Justice

Culinary-SICE

Dental Auxiliaries

Mechanical & Arch. Design

Manufacturing

Nursing

Occupational Therapy Asst.

Radiologic Technology

Workforce Training

Construction Trades

Job Training

Academic Testing Services

Academic Support Services

ATC Open Comp. Lab

Counseling & Career Ctr.

Occupational Support Prg.

Disability Support Services

TRiO Support Services

Upward Bound

Admissions

Career Development Svcs.

Enrollment Center

Student Records

Student Life

New Student Orientation

Biological Sciences

Education

English

Language & Thought

Mathematics

Music

Physical Sciences

Preschool Lab

Psychology

Social Sciences

Spectrum Building

Visual Arts

Wellness

Ctr. for Teaching Excellence

Experiential Learning

Innovation

Library & Learning Commons


Information Technology

Information

Technology

Project

Management

Office

Media

Technologies

Infrastructure

Customer Support

Enterprise

Applications


GRCC Glossary

ADA American’s with Disabilities Act

AFP Academic Foundations Program

AGC Academic Governing Council

APR Academic Program Review

AQIP Academic Quality Improvement Program

ASAD Academic and Student Affairs Division

BMR Board Monitoring Report

Board Board of Trustees

BPEP Baldrige Performance Excellence Program

CAP College Action Project

CARP Course Approval and Review Process

CCSSE Community College Survey of Student Engagement

CEBA College Employees Benefit Association

CHES Contact Hour Equated Student

CMT Complaint Management Team

CPA Certified Public Accountant

CQIN Continuous Quality Improvement Network

CRS Crisis Response System

CRT Crisis Response Team

CSRDE Consortium for Student Retention Data Exchange

CTE Center for Teaching Excellence

CTV Cable Television

CWIS Campus-wide Information System

DAP Department Action Project

DB Dashboard

DEL Department of Experiential Learning

DLIT Distance Learning and Instructional Support

DSL Digital Subscriber Line

DU Davenport University

EC Ends Committee

EMS Ethics Monitoring System

EMT Emergency Planning Team

EPAS Emergency Phone Alert System

ES Environmental Scan

ESP Educational Support Professional

F/S Faculty and Staff

FACE Financial Aid Customer Express Initiative

FEP Faculty Evaluation Process

FERPA Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act

FGIP Faculty Goals and Improvement Plan

FSU Ferris State University

FTE Full time equivalent

FTF Fall to Fall

FTNT Fall to Next Term

FYES Fiscal Year Equated Student

GPA Grade Point Average

GPS GRCC Path to Success

GRCC Grand Rapids Community College

GRJC Grand Rapids Junior College

GVSU Grand Valley State University

HDI Help Desk Institute

HEITS Higher Education Information for Technology Services

HIPPA Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996

HLC Higher Learning Commission

HR Human Resources

IDP Individual Development Plans


ILO Institutional Learning Outcomes

IOS Indicators of Success

IPEDS Integrated PostSecondary Educational Data System

IRP Institutional Research & Planning

IT Information Technology

KISD Kent Intermediate School District

KMP Knowledge Management Process

LCI Leadership Coaching Institute

LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design

LI Leadership Institute

LP Learning Plan

M & C Meet and Confer

MACRAO The MACRAO Transfer Agreement is designed to facilitate transfer from community colleges to baccalaureate

colleges and universities

MCCHRA Michigan Community College Human Resources Association

MCCN Michigan Community College Network

MEDC Michigan Economic Development Corporation

MI Michigan

MQLA Michigan Quality Leadership Award

MTEC Michigan Technical Education Center

MVV Mission/Vision/Values

NCCBP National Community College Benchmarking Project

NEO New Employee Orientation

NILIE National Initiative for Leadership and Institutional Effectiveness

OGC Office of General Counsel

OLC Older Learner Center

OP Organizational Profile

OSD Office of Staff Development

PACE Personal Assessment of the College Environment

PAF Position Authorization Form

PDD Performance Development Discussion

PDIA Process Design and Improvement/Innovation Approach

PDS Professional Development System

PES Performance Evaluation System

PLT Presidents Leadership Team

PMO Project Management Office

PTP Progress to Plan

RMT Risk Management Team

SAAR Selection Appointment Activity Record

SAN Storage Area Network

SENSE Survey of Entering Student Engagement

SFMP Student Feedback Management Process

SFMT Student Feedback Management Team

SLT Strategic Leadership Team

SOS Staff Opinion Survey

SPS Strategic Planning System

SSL Secure Socket Layer

SSS Student Support Services

SWOT Strength, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats

TAG The Avalon Group

USDOE United States Department of Education

VDI Virtual Desktop Infrastructure

VOC Voice of Customer

VP Vice President

WD Workforce Development

WDLC Woodrick Diversity Learning Center

WE Wellness & Enrichment

WSDM Work System Development Model

1

Preface: Organizational Profile

P.1 Organizational Description

The Grand Rapids Board of Education founded Grand

Rapids Junior College (GRJC) in 1914 following a

resolution by the University of Michigan faculty that

encouraged the establishment of junior colleges in

Michigan. In the 1950’s and 1960’s, the state of Michigan

passed constitutional language and legislative acts that

outlined the responsibilities of and requirements for

community colleges. Under the 1966 Community College

Act, Michigan included postsecondary vocational-technical

education in the community college program. In 1991, the

citizens of the Kent Intermediate School District (KISD)

voted to redistrict GRJC, and it became Grand Rapids

Community College (GRCC). For the first time, our own

Board of Trustees governed our college with boundaries

extended beyond the Grand Rapids Public School District to

include the 20 districts within the KISD.

Community colleges in the United States are chartered to

serve the communities in which they are located as a higher

education alternative to four-year university systems. They

serve as stepping stones for students to accomplish their

educational goals, which often include transfer to one of

those universities. Today, we are a two-year, degree and

certificate granting institution with 119 Associate Programs

and 25 Certificate Programs. Our downtown campus serves

primarily an urban and commuter population and we have

enjoyed significant growth in enrollment over the years.

During academic year 2010-2011, we enrolled 33,580

students in more than 5,000 classes, seminars, programs,

and workshops.

P.1a. Organizational Environment (1) Educational Programs and Services – our main

education programs and services (Figure P.1-1) meet the

educational goals and needs of our students and

stakeholders, thereby creating success in fulfilling our

mission.

(2) Vision and Mission – achievement of student success is

at the core of our culture. Our Mission, Vision, Values

(MVV), and Ends define our culture and create the

framework that shapes all college services, programs,

initiatives, and partnerships. In 2009, consistent with the

arrival of new President Dr. Steven C. Ender, we

determined that an adjustment was in order and embarked

on a collaborative process that included the voices of most

of the faculty and staff, as well as students and stakeholders,

to revise the MVV and the Ends. The process included the

opportunity for every department to propose a mission

statement and a series of work sessions to incorporate,

review, and discuss proposals. This resulted in new guiding

principles - mission statement, vision statement, set of

values, and new Ends as shown in Figure P-1.2, which also

displays our Core Competencies. We ensure that our defined

core competencies relate to our Ends through the Strategic

Planning System (SPS), during which the Ends are

translated into specific Strategies and the Core

Competencies needed to achieve them.

(3) Workforce Profile - our workforce consists of 693 full

time personnel and another 631 part-time adjunct faculty.

Full time employees include 58 administrative

appointments; 268 faculty; 126 technical and professional

staff; 53 training service employees; 78 maintenance,

facility, and food service staff; 96 office personnel staff; and

14 campus police officers. The workforce is segmented for

bargaining and data analysis purposes into the following

groups: Faculty; Meet and Confer (administrative,

professional, technical staff); ESP (executive support staff);

Campus Police; and CEBA (maintenance staff). Unions

represent all segments with the exception of Meet and

Confer. 87% of faculty hold Master’s degrees or earned

Ph.D.’s, 55% of employees are female, 81.3% are

Caucasian, 11.7% African-American, 5.1% Hispanic, 1.5%

Asian-American, and .4% Native American. Benefits and

health and safety requirements are discussed in Category 5.

Key elements that engage the workforce include:

trust and empowerment to do their jobs;

an environment that promotes teamwork and

cooperation;

a strong organizational focus on student success; and

an environment in which others are committed to

shared goals and values.

4) Assets - our main campus in downtown Grand Rapids

includes the Spectrum Theater, the Applied Technology

Center, Main and Cook and Sneden Classroom Buildings,

the Cook Administration Building, College Park Plaza

(administration and faculty offices, White Hall (faculty

offices) two parking ramps, a library, a music building, field

house with natatorium, student center, Bostwick Commons

Programs and

Services

Importance to Success Delivery

Methods

Workforce

Degree

20% of students; enable

them to meet employer

job requirements

Classroom, distance learning, community service, seminars, workshops, training classes, active and collaborative learning

Transfer


them to earn credits to

transfer to a 4 year

degree program

Workforce

Development

25% of students; re-

train current workers so

they have needed skills

Developmental

Ed

52% of new students;

enable them to achieve

success college courses

Student

Support

Critical services to

produce student success

Counseling,

advising,

tutoring,

activities, etc.

Figure P.1-1 Educational Programs and Services

2

(pedestrian mall), and the Calkins Science Center. In

addition, the Tassell Michigan Technical Education Center

(MTEC), located in Grand Rapids about three miles from

the main campus, provides training in manufacturing, auto

service, and

Mission

GRCC is an open access college that prepares individuals to

attain their goals and contribute to the community.

Vision

As a college of distinction, GRCC inspires students to

meet the needs of the community and the world.

Values Ends

Excellence

Diversity Academic Alignment

Responsiveness Access

Innovation Community Outreach

Accountability The GRCC Experience

Sustainability Student Success

Respect Workforce Development

Integrity

Core Competencies

1 - Close collaboration with K-12 and transfer schools to

provide a seamless transition for students to/from GRCC.

2 - Minimizing the barriers to a college education including

underpreparedness for college-level work, time constraints,

place constraints, and cost.

3 - Enriching the Kent County community through

educational offerings and civic programming.

4 - Providing students with a "university experience" with a

community college philosophy to allow them to develop into

good citizens.

5 - Providing quality programs and high level support to assist

students in achieving their educational goals.

6 - Close collaboration with and responsiveness to employers

to meet needs and enable students to secure good jobs.

Figure P.1-2 MVV, Ends, Core Competencies

the building and construction trades. Our Lakeshore

campus, located in Ottawa County, includes the Thompson

MTEC and four other facilities offering a full slate of

learning opportunities. We also offer instruction at other off-

site facilities and high schools throughout the Grand Rapids

metropolitan area. All buildings provide students and staff

with access to computer and information technology. To

extend our campus, the GRCC Foundation owns the

McCabe-Marlowe House, providing additional meeting

space and dining facilities.

We strive to maintain leading edge technology in all our

facilities and instructional programs, and we employ state-

of-the-art applications to support our business operations

and administrative functions. Our enterprise systems

infrastructure consists of four interrelated networks that

cover every building on our multiple campuses: a wireline

and complementary wireless data network; a standards-

based voice network; a digital video network; and a network

for telemetry, alarm, and control signals. The backbone of

the data network is based on a ten gigabit-speed system with

limited points of failure, and provides approximately 4800

10/100/1000 megabit/s ports for our college systems along

with wireless coverage that provides the access to

institutional information services, a state-wide library

network, and internet access campus-wide. Administrative

and instructional staffs use commercially available

applications in client-server and browser-based editions

from leading vendors including Oracle/PeopleSoft,

Blackboard, Novell, and Microsoft.

(5) Regulatory Requirements - based on the 1966

Community Colleges Act, the Michigan legislature each

year passes an appropriations bill including specific

regulations under which we must operate. As one of 28

Michigan community colleges, we report to the state

through the Michigan Economic Development Corporation

(MEDC). We are also affiliated with the Michigan

Community College Association, made up of the boards of

trustees and presidents of all Michigan community colleges.

We comply with all appropriate federal and state regulations

numbering more than 250. Our legal service region

encompasses the KISD; however, no law restricts our

enrollment from other counties, regions, or countries.

Students residing within the KISD service region have the

benefit of reduced tuition rates. Since 1917, the Commission

on Institutions of Higher Education of the North Central

Association of Colleges and Schools (HLC) has

continuously accredited GRCC. In 1999, we were admitted

into the Academic Quality Improvement Program (AQIP)

for re-accreditation and currently are one of seven colleges

participating in the HLC’s Baldrige Pilot Project whereby

development of a Baldrige or state award application can be

used for reaccreditation purposes. In the past we have

submitted five Michigan Quality Leadership Award

(MQLA) applications and one Baldrige application,

resulting in two MQLA site visits and designation as a

MQLA recipient in 2007. In all, GRCC is accredited by 15

different agencies.

P1.b. Organizational Relationships

(1) Organizational Structure - our organizational structure

and governance system promote leadership accountability,

collaboration in executing the mission, decision making at

the point of service, a focus on the future, and high

performance. The key leadership teams that comprise the

governance system are:

Board of Trustees (Board) – the Board is a community-

based group of seven independently elected members that

provides governance oversight for the College. The

President participates, facilitates, and collaborates with the

Board in an ex-officio capacity and provides the link to the

College administrative team and all College operations. The

President reports to the Board, which assures management

and fiscal accountability for the organization’s actions

through a Policy Governance approach that includes

3

Executive Limitations, a Governance Process, and Board -

President Relations.

President’s Leadership Team (PLT) – PLT is a new team

consisting of the President and Vice Presidents. The PLT

meets weekly the first three weeks of each month in

conjunction with Cabinet to provide a free flow of ideas

pertaining to College performance, policy, and improvement

priorities. The PLT meets separately the last week of the

month to discuss strategic institutional decisions and to

monitor and serve as a resource on personnel and

compensation issues, including contract negotiations.

President’s Cabinet (Cabinet) – Cabinet is a sixteen

member body comprised of administrative leaders from both

the academic and operational sides of the College. Cabinet

meets weekly the first three weeks of each month focusing

on the development and on-going management of

operations, including review of Ends monitoring reports and

budgeting.

Strategic Leadership Team (SLT) – SLT guides the

development and on-going implementation of the strategic

plan, reviews performance relative to the plan, assesses

budget realities, and recommends budget priorities. It is

comprised of 80 people representing a broad spectrum of the

College community, including the Board and students.

Academic Governing Council (AGC) – AGC is made up

of faculty members - Department leaders, program directors,

and departmental members at large - and administrative

leaders. This group meets once per month during the

academic year and focuses on the development of policies

and procedures concerning academic and professional

matters. AGC has further established a network of cross-

functional teams or committees including: Ethics,

Sabbatical, Instructional Improvement and Professional

Development (IIPD), Excellence in Education, and Deans’

Council.

(2) Customers – Key market segments and student and

stakeholder groups are shown in Figure P.1-3 along with

their key requirements and expectations. Selection of

student groups is driven by “Achieving the Dream”

guidelines that seek to balance outcomes for different

groups that may have variation in their ability to achieve

success in college. We collected significant amounts of

student-related data and found that the groups shown had

such variation and established special accommodations to

enhance their ability to succeed.

(3) Suppliers and Partners - Partners, collaborators, and

suppliers are important to us for four reasons. First, partners

are generally directly involved in the delivery of services to

students and stakeholders; second, we devote substantial

time and effort working with partners and collaborators to

achieve short- or long-term objectives; third, the products

and services that we procure can directly impact the quality

of educational programs and services we provide and how

effective we are in delivering that education; and fourth,

non-labor expenses represent a significant component of our

costs. For these reasons, we have established a large number

of partnerships and collaborations, and identified key

suppliers of vital products and services. We categorize

suppliers, partners, and collaborators into three types –

Academic, Business, and Community. Examples of these

are shown in Figure P.1-4 along with their role in delivery

of our educational programs and services and innovation

initiatives. Communication differs depending upon the

organization, but most of these relationships start with an

agreement that defines the relationship and the

Market Segments Requirements/Expectations

Workforce Degree

Students

Degree completion; academic

support services

Transfer Students

Transfer articulation; degree

completion; academic support

services

Workforce Development

Customers

Access; customized training to meet

specific needs

Student Groups Requirements/Expectations

Developmental

Education

Access; specialized tutoring;

advocacy/academic support

services

Gender

Specialized support for those

enrolled in non-traditional gender

programs

First Generation Preparation to navigate the college

experience

Non Traditional

(Older)

Specialized support; early alert

systems

Part Time Short-term goal attainment options

to keep motivated

Race/Ethnicity Specialized support within the law

First Year First year experience course; early

alert systems

Distance Learning Online access to services; broader

set of classes and programs

Stakeholder Groups Requirements/Expectations

Feeder Schools

Access; partnerships; enrollment

and transition services; dual

enrollment options

Transfer Schools

Partnerships; clear articulation and

transfer agreements; high student

skill levels

Community

Access to events, programs, and

services; citizenship skills for

students; quality

education programs

Employers

Access to high quality customized

training; employment ready

graduates

Key Constituents

(alumni, retirees, donors)


services; information updates

Regulatory and

Accrediting Agencies

Meet compliance requirements;

provide reports

Figure P.1-3 Segments and Groups

4

communication methods and frequency planned. Those that

are providing services to GRCC are routinely involved in

meetings on a monthly or quarterly basis to review

performance and discuss issues that may arise. Supply chain

requirements for suppliers of goods and services include

order accuracy, on time delivery, low cost, proactive

communication, and product/service quality.

P.2 Organizational Challenges

P.2a. Competitive Environment

(1) Competitive Position - we have three direct sources of

competition: other institutions of higher learning; private

business and industry training providers; and distance

learning providers. Within the domain of higher education,

the primary state-funded university serving the greater

Grand Rapids area is Grand Valley State University

(GVSU). GVSU is the fastest growing university in the state

with a 2010-2011 student count of 24,662. GVSU has a

main campus approximately 20 minutes away from Grand

Rapids and a growing satellite campus inside the city. In

addition, we compete with Ferris State University (FSU)

and other state-funded universities that have established

service centers in the Grand Rapids area.

In the area of business and industry training, our most

significant competition comes from two of the local

colleges, FSU and Davenport University (DU); the local

intermediate school district; the Employers Association; The

Right Place Program; Michigan Manufacturing Technology

Center; and private training consultants. Access to learning

via technology, primarily through the Internet, continues to

expand and has emerged as a competitor for potential

students. Distance learning offerings from national

organizations and colleges and universities throughout the

world are beginning to appear. We offer our locally-

developed Internet through a state-coordinated program and

compete with other MI community colleges for Internet

students through that medium.

(2) Competitiveness Changes - Key changes that affect our

competitive situation and provide opportunities for

innovation and collaboration include:

collaboration with “Achieving the Dream” and the

resulting development of innovative approaches to

enhance the ability of student groups with special

needs to achieve greater success.

acquisition of the DeVos Complex (former DU

campus) to provide additional capacity at our main

campus increasing educational areas by 21.4%, student

capacity by 15.6% , and parking by 540 spaces.

the state and national economic condition that may

produce further declines in state funding while tending

to drive students to community colleges for education

to make them more employable.

(3) Comparative Data - our primary sources of academic

comparative data (Figure P.2-1) are the MEDC and the

Michigan Community College Network for state

comparisons,nationally normed surveys for student and

employee satisfaction, NCCBP for national comparisons

with best-practice institutions, and federal competitive data

sources for higher education such as IPEDS. Sources of

Key Types of Suppliers,

Partners, and

Collaborators

Role in Programs, Services,

Innovation

Academic

K-12

Supply students; share processes

for access, data, info on students;

dual enrollment opportunities

Transfer schools

Receive students; collaborate to

develop transfer and

articulation agreements

Library Center of West

MI, GR Public Schools,

State of MI Region 10

Adult education outlets

Advisory Boards; Safety

Technology USA; IBEW;

Rockford Berge

Curriculum development

support groups

St Cecilia Music Center;

Hospitals and Health

offices; Actors’ Theater

Curriculum support

organizations

Business

Follett, Creative Dining,

Rapid Transit

Student support service

providers

Blackboard, Ed-To-Go Support curriculum delivery

PeopleSoft, Central

Interconnect

Information technology support

team

Radio/TV; GR Press;

Career Focus Magazine

Promotion, marketing and

communication outlets

Smith, Haughey, Rice and

Roegge; Miller, Johnson,

Snell, and Cummiskey;

Miller, Canfield, Paddock

and Stone

Regulatory environment support

services – litigation, bond

counsel, and specialized legal

services regarding labor

Community

ASCET, The Right Place,

Lakeshore Advantage

Regional workforce

development agencies

Goodwill, Women’s

Resource Center, Lake

Michigan Credit Union,

Huntington Bank

General support service

providers

Michigan Works!, West

MI Higher Ed Consortium

for Renewable Energy,

Hope Network

Services for dislocated workers

Greenforce Initiative,

Alliance for Construction,

The SOURCE, Family

Futures, Seeds of Promise

Specialized programming

outlets

Figure P.1-5 Key Types of Suppliers, Partners and

Collaborators

5

academic and non-academic comparative data and

benchmark information are publications, internet, and best-

in-class groups through the Continuous Quality

Improvement Network (CQIN), AQIP, and Baldrige.

Limitations in our ability to obtain data relate primarily to

the traditionally noncompetitive nature of higher education

and inconsistency in how colleges collect and analyze data.

Data Type Source of Data

Engagement and

Satisfaction

CCSSE, SENSE; Noel-Levitz; NCCBP

Student Performance MEDC; NCCBP; CSRDE; IPEDS

Financial MCCN; NCCBP

Human Resource PACE; TAG; MCCHRA; USDOE

Operations HDI

Figure P.2-1 Comparative Data Sources

P.2b Strategic Context

Our most important strategic challenges and advantages are

shown in Figure P.2-2.

P.2c Performance Improvement System

The GRCC Path to Success (GPS) (Figure 1.1-1) depicts

our performance improvement system and indicates that

performance improvement and innovation occur

systematically at three levels - College, Department, and

key process. During strategic planning Strategies and

College Action Projects (CAPs) are identified to support

achievement of each of our Ends (Figure P.1-2) and reflect

overall College objectives. These are deployed to each of

the Departments who develop Department Action Plans

(DAPs) to further support the Strategies and CAPs and to

ensure alignment of the plan. To assure accountability at all

levels, Indicators of Success (IOS) are created to align

with the plan at the College level, the Department level, and

the Individual level. The IOS measurement system is the

tracking mechanism we use to determine if our plans are

being executed successfully, to make modifications to plans

when needed, and to understand when underperforming

areas are emerging that require improvement/innovation

action.

Performance of the College as a whole, then, is monitored

through the IOS measurement system which contains two

major components, the Dashboard system that provides a

means of displaying and sharing IOS performance results,

and the Indicator Report, which is a document updated

monthly to provide detailed information concerning the

IOS, including current performance levels, trends,

comparisons, and goals. Both are used to support reviews

and decision-making.

Departments choose IOS to align with the College level IOS

and also add Department-specific indicators to their

Dashboards to permit tracking the status of CAP and DAP

implementation and effectiveness, Department process

performance, and other items of interest. Individual IOS are

assessed as part of the Performance Evaluation System

(PES - Item 5.2). At the key process level, the Work

System Development Model (WSDM – Figure 6.1-1) and

the Process Design Improvement/Innovation Approach

(PDIA – Figure 6.2-1) drive identification of work system

and process level indicators and monitoring of those

indicators to ensure that work system and process

performance is stable and to identify when improvements

are needed.

We have also integrated the Baldrige Performance

Excellence Program (BPEP) Criteria for Performance

Excellence and assessment methodology as a business

model and undergo a Baldrige-type organizational

assessment in most years. We also use the AQIP

Accreditation Standards and assessment methodology to

understand improvement needs on a continuous basis. These

assessments permit an overall evaluation of the approaches

used to lead and manage College activities and provide

feedback that is integrated into the SPS through our

Knowledge Management Process (Figure 4.2-2) so that

improvement actions can be developed to positively impact

the entire organization. At the program level, Academic

Program Reviews are conducted to determine effectiveness

and opportunities for improvement.

Area Strategic Challenges Strategic Advantages

Education

Programs and

Services

1 - More than 50% of

students arrive

unprepared for college

level work

1 - Ability to provide

flexible programming

2 - 5 year Title 3 grant

to support innovations

in Developmental Ed

2 - Retention of

students to goal

attainment

3 - Collaborative

partnerships with K-12

and transfer schools

4 - College success

program model

Operational

3 - Significant deferral of

funding - $35M in

facilities and $21M in

Instructional Technology

5 - Fundraising capacity

through GRCC

Foundation

4 - Lack of adequate

parking

Societal

Responsibility

5 - Provide quality

learning opportunities

for the community

6 - Office of

Community Outreach

Human

Resources

6 - Recruitment of

diverse candidates to fill

open positions

7 - Strong reputation as

a great place to be

employed

7 - Align culture with

new goals 8 - Significant

resources allocated to

support professional

development

8 - Simplify organization

to allow for greater focus

on priorities

Figure P.2-2 Key Strategic Challenges and Advantages

6

Preface: Organizational Profile

P.1 Organizational Description

The Grand Rapids Board of Education founded Grand

Rapids Junior College (GRJC) in 1914 following a

resolution by the University of Michigan faculty that

encouraged the establishment of junior colleges in

Michigan. In the 1950’s and 1960’s, the state of Michigan

passed constitutional language and legislative acts that

outlined the responsibilities of and requirements for

community colleges. Under the 1966 Community College

Act, Michigan included postsecondary vocational-technical

education in the community college program. In 1991, the

citizens of the Kent Intermediate School District (KISD)

voted to redistrict GRJC, and it became Grand Rapids

Community College (GRCC). For the first time, our own

Board of Trustees governed our college with boundaries

extended beyond the Grand Rapids Public School District to

include the 20 districts within the KISD.

Community colleges in the United States are chartered to

serve the communities in which they are located as a higher

education alternative to four-year university systems. They

serve as stepping stones for students to accomplish their

educational goals, which often include transfer to one of

those universities. Today, we are a two-year, degree and

certificate granting institution with 119 Associate Programs

and 25 Certificate Programs. Our downtown campus serves

primarily an urban and commuter population and we have

enjoyed significant growth in enrollment over the years.

During academic year 2010-2011, we enrolled 33,580

students in more than 5,000 classes, seminars, programs,

and workshops.

P.1a. Organizational Environment (1) Educational Programs and Services – our main

education programs and services (Figure P.1-1) meet the

educational goals and needs of our students and

stakeholders, thereby creating success in fulfilling our

mission.

(2) Vision and Mission – achievement of student success is

at the core of our culture. Our Mission, Vision, Values

(MVV), and Ends define our culture and create the

framework that shapes all college services, programs,

initiatives, and partnerships. In 2009, consistent with the

arrival of new President Dr. Steven C. Ender, we

determined that an adjustment was in order and embarked

on a collaborative process that included the voices of most

of the faculty and staff, as well as students and stakeholders,

to revise the MVV and the Ends. The process included the

opportunity for every department to propose a mission

statement and a series of work sessions to incorporate,

review, and discuss proposals. This resulted in new guiding

principles - mission statement, vision statement, set of

values, and new Ends as shown in Figure P-1.2, which also

displays our Core Competencies. We ensure that our defined

core competencies relate to our Ends through the Strategic

Planning System (SPS), during which the Ends are

translated into specific Strategies and the Core

Competencies needed to achieve them.

(3) Workforce Profile - our workforce consists of 693 full

time personnel and another 631 part-time adjunct faculty.

Full time employees include 58 administrative

appointments; 268 faculty; 126 technical and professional

staff; 53 training service employees; 78 maintenance,

facility, and food service staff; 96 office personnel staff; and

14 campus police officers. The workforce is segmented for

bargaining and data analysis purposes into the following

groups: Faculty; Meet and Confer (administrative,

professional, technical staff); ESP (executive support staff);

Campus Police; and CEBA (maintenance staff). Unions

represent all segments with the exception of Meet and

Confer. 87% of faculty hold Master’s degrees or earned

Ph.D.’s, 55% of employees are female, 81.3% are

Caucasian, 11.7% African-American, 5.1% Hispanic, 1.5%

Asian-American, and .4% Native American. Benefits and

health and safety requirements are discussed in Category 5.

Key elements that engage the workforce include:

trust and empowerment to do their jobs;

an environment that promotes teamwork and

cooperation;

a strong organizational focus on student success; and

an environment in which others are committed to

shared goals and values.

4) Assets - our main campus in downtown Grand Rapids

includes the Spectrum Theater, the Applied Technology

Center, Main and Cook and Sneden Classroom Buildings,

the Cook Administration Building, College Park Plaza

(administration and faculty offices, White Hall (faculty

offices) two parking ramps, a library, a music building, field

Programs and

Services

Importance to Success Delivery

Methods

Workforce

Degree


them to meet employer

job requirements

Classroom, distance learning, community service, seminars, workshops, training classes, active and collaborative learning

Transfer


them to earn credits to

transfer to a 4 year

degree program

Workforce

Development

25% of students; re-

train current workers so

they have needed skills

Developmental

Ed

52% of new students;

enable them to achieve

success college courses

Student

Support

Critical services to

produce student success

Counseling,

advising,

tutoring,

activities, etc.

Figure P.1-1 Educational Programs and Services

7

house with natatorium, student center, Bostwick Commons

(pedestrian mall), and the Calkins Science Center. In

addition, the Tassell Michigan Technical Education Center

(MTEC), located in Grand Rapids about three miles from

the main campus, provides training in manufacturing, auto

service, and

Mission

GRCC is an open access college that prepares individuals to

attain their goals and contribute to the community.

Vision

As a college of distinction, GRCC inspires students to

meet the needs of the community and the world.

Values Ends

Excellence

Diversity Academic Alignment

Responsiveness Access

Innovation Community Outreach

Accountability The GRCC Experience

Sustainability Student Success

Respect Workforce Development

Integrity

Core Competencies

1 - Close collaboration with K-12 and transfer schools to

provide a seamless transition for students to/from GRCC.

2 - Minimizing the barriers to a college education including

underpreparedness for college-level work, time constraints,

place constraints, and cost.

3 - Enriching the Kent County community through

educational offerings and civic programming.

4 - Providing students with a "university experience" with a

community college philosophy to allow them to develop into

good citizens.

5 - Providing quality programs and high level support to assist

students in achieving their educational goals.

6 - Close collaboration with and responsiveness to employers

to meet needs and enable students to secure good jobs.

Figure P.1-2 MVV, Ends, Core Competencies

the building and construction trades. Our Lakeshore

campus, located in Ottawa County, includes the Thompson

MTEC and four other facilities offering a full slate of

learning opportunities. We also offer instruction at other off-

site facilities and high schools throughout the Grand Rapids

metropolitan area. All buildings provide students and staff

with access to computer and information technology. To

extend our campus, the GRCC Foundation owns the

McCabe-Marlowe House, providing additional meeting

space and dining facilities.

We strive to maintain leading edge technology in all our

facilities and instructional programs, and we employ state-

of-the-art applications to support our business operations

and administrative functions. Our enterprise systems

infrastructure consists of four interrelated networks that

cover every building on our multiple campuses: a wireline

and complementary wireless data network; a standards-

based voice network; a digital video network; and a network

for telemetry, alarm, and control signals. The backbone of

the data network is based on a ten gigabit-speed system with

limited points of failure, and provides approximately 4800

10/100/1000 megabit/s ports for our college systems along

with wireless coverage that provides the access to

institutional information services, a state-wide library

network, and internet access campus-wide. Administrative

and instructional staffs use commercially available

applications in client-server and browser-based editions

from leading vendors including Oracle/PeopleSoft,

Blackboard, Novell, and Microsoft.

(5) Regulatory Requirements - based on the 1966

Community Colleges Act, the Michigan legislature each

year passes an appropriations bill including specific

regulations under which we must operate. As one of 28

Michigan community colleges, we report to the state

through the Michigan Economic Development Corporation

(MEDC). We are also affiliated with the Michigan

Community College Association, made up of the boards of

trustees and presidents of all Michigan community colleges.

We comply with all appropriate federal and state regulations

numbering more than 250. Our legal service region

encompasses the KISD; however, no law restricts our

enrollment from other counties, regions, or countries.

Students residing within the KISD service region have the

benefit of reduced tuition rates. Since 1917, the Commission

on Institutions of Higher Education of the North Central

Association of Colleges and Schools (HLC) has

continuously accredited GRCC. In 1999, we were admitted

into the Academic Quality Improvement Program (AQIP)

for re-accreditation and currently are one of seven colleges

participating in the HLC’s Baldrige Pilot Project whereby

development of a Baldrige or state award application can be

used for reaccreditation purposes. In the past we have

submitted five Michigan Quality Leadership Award

(MQLA) applications and one Baldrige application,

resulting in two MQLA site visits and designation as a

MQLA recipient in 2007. In all, GRCC is accredited by 15

different agencies.

P1.b. Organizational Relationships

(1) Organizational Structure - our organizational structure

and governance system promote leadership accountability,

collaboration in executing the mission, decision making at

the point of service, a focus on the future, and high

performance. The key leadership teams that comprise the

governance system are:

Board of Trustees (Board) – the Board is a community-

based group of seven independently elected members that

provides governance oversight for the College. The

President participates, facilitates, and collaborates with the

Board in an ex-officio capacity and provides the link to the

College administrative team and all College operations. The

8

President reports to the Board, which assures management

and fiscal accountability for the organization’s actions

through a Policy Governance approach that includes

Executive Limitations, a Governance Process, and Board -

President Relations.

President’s Leadership Team (PLT) – PLT is a new team

consisting of the President and Vice Presidents. The PLT

meets weekly the first three weeks of each month in

conjunction with Cabinet to provide a free flow of ideas

pertaining to College performance, policy, and improvement

priorities. The PLT meets separately the last week of the

month to discuss strategic institutional decisions and to

monitor and serve as a resource on personnel and

compensation issues, including contract negotiations.

President’s Cabinet (Cabinet) – Cabinet is a sixteen

member body comprised of administrative leaders from both

the academic and operational sides of the College. Cabinet

meets weekly the first three weeks of each month focusing

on the development and on-going management of

operations, including review of Ends monitoring reports and

budgeting.

Strategic Leadership Team (SLT) – SLT guides the

development and on-going implementation of the strategic

plan, reviews performance relative to the plan, assesses

budget realities, and recommends budget priorities. It is

comprised of 80 people representing a broad spectrum of the

College community, including the Board and students.

Academic Governing Council (AGC) – AGC is made up

of faculty members - Department leaders, program directors,

and departmental members at large - and administrative

leaders. This group meets once per month during the

academic year and focuses on the development of policies

and procedures concerning academic and professional

matters. AGC has further established a network of cross-

functional teams or committees including: Ethics,

Sabbatical, Instructional Improvement and Professional

Development (IIPD), Excellence in Education, and Deans’

Council.

(2) Customers – Key market segments and student and

stakeholder groups are shown in Figure P.1-3 along with

their key requirements and expectations. Selection of

student groups is driven by “Achieving the Dream”

guidelines that seek to balance outcomes for different

groups that may have variation in their ability to achieve

success in college. We collected significant amounts of

student-related data and found that the groups shown had

such variation and established special accommodations to

enhance their ability to succeed.

(3) Suppliers and Partners - Partners, collaborators, and

suppliers are important to us for four reasons. First, partners

are generally directly involved in the delivery of services to

students and stakeholders; second, we devote substantial

time and effort working with partners and collaborators to

achieve short- or long-term objectives; third, the products

and services that we procure can directly impact the quality

of educational programs and services we provide and how

effective we are in delivering that education; and fourth,

non-labor expenses represent a significant component of our

costs. For these reasons, we have established a large number

of partnerships

and collaborations, and identified key suppliers of vital

products and services. We categorize suppliers, partners,

and collaborators into three types – Academic, Business,

and Community. Examples of these are shown in Figure

Market Segments Requirements/Expectations

Workforce Degree

Students

Degree completion; academic

support services

Transfer Students

Transfer articulation; degree

completion; academic support

services


Customers

Access; customized training to meet

specific needs

Student Groups Requirements/Expectations

Developmental

Education

Access; specialized tutoring;

advocacy/academic support

services

Gender

Specialized support for those

enrolled in non-traditional gender

programs

First Generation Preparation to navigate the college

experience

Non Traditional

(Older)

Specialized support; early alert

systems

Part Time Short-term goal attainment options

to keep motivated

Race/Ethnicity Specialized support within the law

First Year First year experience course; early

alert systems

Distance Learning Online access to services; broader

set of classes and programs

Stakeholder Groups Requirements/Expectations

Feeder Schools

Access; partnerships; enrollment

and transition services; dual

enrollment options

Transfer Schools

Partnerships; clear articulation and

transfer agreements; high student

skill levels

Community


services; citizenship skills for

students; quality

education programs

Employers

Access to high quality customized

training; employment ready

graduates

Key Constituents

(alumni, retirees, donors)


services; information updates

Regulatory and

Accrediting Agencies

Meet compliance requirements;

provide reports

Figure P.1-3 Segments and Groups

9

P.1-4 along with their role in delivery of our educational

programs and services and innovation initiatives.

Communication differs depending upon the organization,

but most of these relationships start with an agreement that

defines the relationship and the communication methods and

frequency planned. Those that are providing services to

GRCC are routinely involved in meetings on a monthly or

quarterly basis to review performance and discuss issues

that may arise. Supply chain requirements for suppliers of

goods and services include order accuracy, on time delivery,

low cost, proactive communication, and product/service

quality.

P.2 Organizational Challenges

P.2a. Competitive Environment

(1) Competitive Position - we have three direct sources of

competition: other institutions of higher learning; private

business and industry training providers; and distance

learning providers. Within the domain of higher education,

the primary state-funded university serving the greater

Grand Rapids area is Grand Valley State University

(GVSU). GVSU is the fastest growing university in the state

with a 2010-2011 student count of 24,662. GVSU has a

main campus approximately 20 minutes away from Grand

Rapids and a growing satellite campus inside the city. In

addition, we compete with Ferris State University (FSU)

and other state-funded universities that have established

service centers in the Grand Rapids area.

In the area of business and industry training, our most

significant competition comes from two of the local

colleges, FSU and Davenport University (DU); the local

intermediate school district; the Employers Association; The

Right Place Program; Michigan Manufacturing Technology

Center; and private training consultants. Access to learning

via technology, primarily through the Internet, continues to

expand and has emerged as a competitor for potential

students. Distance learning offerings from national

organizations and colleges and universities throughout the

world are beginning to appear. We offer our locally-

developed Internet through a state-coordinated program and

compete with other MI community colleges for Internet

students through that medium.

(2) Competitiveness Changes - Key changes that affect our

competitive situation and provide opportunities for

innovation and collaboration include:

collaboration with “Achieving the Dream” and the

resulting development of innovative approaches to

enhance the ability of student groups with special

needs to achieve greater success.

acquisition of the DeVos Complex (former DU

campus) to provide additional capacity at our main

campus increasing educational areas by 21.4%, student

capacity by 15.6% , and parking by 540 spaces.

the state and national economic condition that may

produce further declines in state funding while tending

to drive students to community colleges for education

to make them more employable.

(3) Comparative Data - our primary sources of academic

comparative data (Figure P.2-1) are the MEDC and the

Michigan Community College Network for state

comparisons,

Key Types of Suppliers,

Partners, and

Collaborators

Role in Programs, Services,

Innovation

Academic

K-12

Supply students; share processes

for access, data, info on students;

dual enrollment opportunities

Transfer schools

Receive students; collaborate to

develop transfer and

articulation agreements

Library Center of West

MI, GR Public Schools,

State of MI Region 10

Adult education outlets

Advisory Boards; Safety

Technology USA; IBEW;

Rockford Berge

Curriculum development

support groups

St Cecilia Music Center;

Hospitals and Health

offices; Actors’ Theater

Curriculum support

organizations

Business

Follett, Creative Dining,

Rapid Transit

Student support service

providers

Blackboard, Ed-To-Go Support curriculum delivery

PeopleSoft, Central

Interconnect

Information technology support

team

Radio/TV; GR Press;

Career Focus Magazine

Promotion, marketing and

communication outlets

Smith, Haughey, Rice and

Roegge; Miller, Johnson,

Snell, and Cummiskey;

Miller, Canfield, Paddock

and Stone

Regulatory environment support

services – litigation, bond

counsel, and specialized legal

services regarding labor

Community

ASCET, The Right Place,

Lakeshore Advantage

Regional workforce


Goodwill, Women’s

Resource Center, Lake

Michigan Credit Union,

Huntington Bank

General support service

providers

Michigan Works!, West

MI Higher Ed Consortium

for Renewable Energy,

Hope Network

Services for dislocated workers

Greenforce Initiative,

Alliance for Construction,

The SOURCE, Family

Futures, Seeds of Promise

Specialized programming

outlets

Figure P.1-5 Key Types of Suppliers, Partners and

Collaborators

nationally normed surveys for student and employee

satisfaction, NCCBP for national comparisons with best-

practice institutions, and federal competitive data sources

10

for higher education such as IPEDS. Sources of academic

and non-academic comparative data and benchmark

information are publications, internet, and best-in-class

groups through the Continuous Quality Improvement

Network (CQIN), AQIP, and Baldrige. Limitations in our

ability to obtain data relate primarily to the traditionally

noncompetitive nature of higher education and

inconsistency in how colleges collect and analyze data.

Data Type Source of Data

Engagement and

Satisfaction

CCSSE, SENSE; Noel-Levitz; NCCBP

Student Performance MEDC; NCCBP; CSRDE; IPEDS

Financial MCCN; NCCBP

Human Resource PACE; TAG; MCCHRA; USDOE

Operations HDI

Figure P.2-1 Comparative Data Sources

P.2b Strategic Context

Our most important strategic challenges and advantages are

shown in Figure P.2-2.

P.2c Performance Improvement System

The GRCC Path to Success (GPS) (Figure 1.1-1) depicts

our performance improvement system and indicates that

performance improvement and innovation occur

systematically at three levels - College, Department, and

key process. During strategic planning Strategies and

College Action Projects (CAPs) are identified to support

achievement of each of our Ends (Figure P.1-2) and reflect

overall College objectives. These are deployed to each of

the Departments who develop Department Action Plans

(DAPs) to further support the Strategies and CAPs and to

ensure alignment of the plan. To assure accountability at all

levels, Indicators of Success (IOS) are created to align

with the plan at the College level, the Department level, and

the Individual level. The IOS measurement system is the

tracking mechanism we use to determine if our plans are

being executed successfully, to make modifications to plans

when needed, and to understand when underperforming

areas are emerging that require improvement/innovation

action.

Performance of the College as a whole, then, is monitored

through the IOS measurement system which contains two

major components, the Dashboard system that provides a

means of displaying and sharing IOS performance results,

and the Indicator Report, which is a document updated

monthly to provide detailed information concerning the

IOS, including current performance levels, trends,

comparisons, and goals. Both are used to support reviews

and decision-making.

Departments choose IOS to align with the College level IOS

and also add Department-specific indicators to their

Dashboards to permit tracking the status of CAP and DAP

implementation and effectiveness, Department process

performance, and other items of interest. Individual IOS are

assessed as part of the Performance Evaluation System

(PES - Item 5.2). At the key process level, the Work

System Development Model (WSDM – Figure 6.1-1) and

the Process Design Improvement/Innovation Approach

(PDIA – Figure 6.2-1) drive identification of work system

and process level indicators and monitoring of those

indicators to ensure that work system and process

performance is stable and to identify when improvements

are needed.

We have also integrated the Baldrige Performance

Excellence Program (BPEP) Criteria for Performance

Excellence and assessment methodology as a business

model and undergo a Baldrige-type organizational

assessment in most years. We also use the AQIP

Accreditation Standards and assessment methodology to

understand improvement needs on a continuous basis. These

assessments permit an overall evaluation of the approaches

used to lead and manage College activities and provide

feedback that is integrated into the SPS through our

Knowledge Management Process (Figure 4.2-2) so that

improvement actions can be developed to positively impact

the entire organization. At the program level, Academic

Program Reviews are conducted to determine effectiveness

and opportunities for improvement.

Area Strategic Challenges Strategic Advantages

Education

Programs and

Services

1 - More than 50% of

students arrive

unprepared for college

level work

1 - Ability to provide

flexible programming

2 - 5 year Title 3 grant

to support innovations

in Developmental Ed

2 - Retention of

students to goal

attainment

3 - Collaborative

partnerships with K-12

and transfer schools

4 - College success

program model

Operational

3 - Significant deferral of

funding - $35M in

facilities and $21M in

Instructional Technology

5 - Fundraising capacity

through GRCC

Foundation

4 - Lack of adequate

parking

Societal

Responsibility

5 - Provide quality

learning opportunities

for the community

6 - Office of

Community Outreach

Human

Resources

6 - Recruitment of

diverse candidates to fill

open positions

7 - Strong reputation as

a great place to be

employed

7 - Align culture with

new goals 8 - Significant

resources allocated to

support professional

development

8 - Simplify organization

to allow for greater focus

on priorities

Figure P.2-2 Key Strategic Challenges and Advantages

11

1 Leadership

1.1 Senior Leadership

The GPS, depicted in Figure 1.1-1, was established by

senior leaders to provide the entire college a framework to

achieve performance excellence. The GPS is the core of the

Leadership system and shows that overall direction for all

college activities stems from the MVV which are

operationalized through the six Ends, their Strategies and

CAPs, IOS, the WSDM, and the PES. Our focus is

achievement of the Ends, so Strategies and CAPs are

developed to attain them, work systems and processes are

designed meet their requirements, IOS are created to

measure effectiveness, and the PES ties individual

responsibilities to them.

GRCC Path to Success (GPS)

Strategic Planning

Mission Vision Values

Strategic Challenges

Core Competencies Ends

Performance Results

Organizational

Assessment

Knowledge

Management

Refresh

Strategies

College

Action Plans

Department Action Plans

Monitoring and

Modifications

Accountability

College Indicators of

Success

Department Indicators of

Success

Individual Indicators of

Success

Individual Performance Evaluation

System

Individual Goals and Actions

Performance Appraisal Process

Individual Performance Improvement

Work System Development

Model

Component Work Systems

Key Processes

PDIA

Figure 1.1-1 GRCC Path to Success (GPS)

1.1a Vision, Values and Mission

(1) Vision and Values – the Board and SLT review the

MVV as part of the SPS annually. Although intended to

endure over time they are reviewed regularly and adjusted

as needed based on changing priorities. The MVV

established in 2009 were communicated to the faculty and

staff during new employee orientation, through Coffee and

Conversation meetings with the President and GRCC Today,

and are continually reinforced and deployed through senior

leader communications, the strategic plan, department

action projects, individual action plans, the PES processes

described in Item 5.2, postings on walls throughout the

College, and the additional methods shown in Figure 1.1-2.

Deployment of the MVV to students, stakeholders, key

suppliers, collaborators, and partners is accomplished

through our website, publication and distribution of the

strategic plan, through a variety of marketing initiatives and

materials, and directly during interactions and meetings as

well as the additional methods displayed in Figure 1.1-2.

Senior leaders strive to demonstrate their commitment to the

vision and values constantly and show others the level of

that commitment through their daily actions. Senior leaders

develop a strategy to pursue the vision, establish high

performance expectations to lead toward realization of the

vision, and reinforce what is needed through a variety of

communication vehicles. For example, to help all faculty

and staff understand how the vision is to be achieved, senior

leaders have defined the behaviors associated with the

values to ensure consistent understanding and application

across the College:

Excellence – we commit to the highest standards in our

learning and working environment as we strive for

distinction in all aspects of our work.

Diversity – we create an inclusive learning/working

environment that recognizes the value and dignity of all.

Responsiveness – we anticipate and address the needs of

students, colleagues, and community.

Innovation – we seek creative solutions through

experimentation and adaption.

Accountability – we set benchmarks and use outcomes to

frame our decision-making, measure our performance, and

evaluate our results.

Sustainability – we use resources in responsive ways to

achieve balance among our social, economic and

environmental practices and policies.

Respect – we treat others with courtesy, consideration, and

civility.

Integrity – we commit to GRCC values and take personal

responsibility for our words and actions.

(2) Promoting Legal and Ethical Behavior - senior leaders

place a heavy emphasis on legal and ethical behavior and

have created an environment that helps assure compliance

with all laws and regulations, and “doing the right thing,” on

a continuous basis. The foundation for this approach is a

formal Ethics Monitoring System (EMS). HR provides

written policies that provide detailed guidance concerning

appropriate behaviors, and in conjunction with the Office of

the General Counsel (OGC) and Student Affairs, provides

ethics brochures and information to the faculty, staff, and

students concerning the content of the policies to ensure that

institutional standards are consistently communicated, and

regularly receives updates from the faculty and staff

regarding compliance. GRCC’s website includes a link to

the OGC web page to remind students and staff of our

commitment to ethical behavior and reporting methods.

Administrators in HR or OGC are assigned responsibilities

to monitor and/or investigate any potential breaches and

leadership is advised of outcomes as appropriate.

(3) Creating a Sustainable Organization - senior leaders

are responsible to move the College forward to attain ever

higher levels of performance and to sustain those levels over

time. The GPS provides senior leaders, as well as all faculty

and staff, the mechanisms by which to make this happen.

The SPS, for example, produces the Strategies, CAPs, IOS,

and Goals to accomplish the mission, achieve the Ends,

drive role model performance at every level, and ultimately

sustain the organization at a high level of performance.

Senior leaders oversee the implementation of the CAPs,

continuously monitor and review progress against the CAPs

using the IOS Measurement System, and make adjustments

1 LEADERSHIP

12

as needed to enhance the ability to achieve the Strategies.

The Ends demand that a strong focus on students be at the

forefront in planning and implementing initiatives so the

workforce has clear guidance on student success,

satisfaction, engagement, and positive experience.

Agility is another important characteristic of the leadership

system. We are able to act with agility because leaders

promote empowerment throughout the College, provide

timely information across the organization, and maintain an

organizational structure that is conducive to efficient

decision-making at the point of greatest impact. We

embrace change through tools such as the SPS and the

PDIA and encourage the identification of change

requirements. Further, the performance improvement system

described in the OP contributes to the ability to act with

agility through daily, monthly, and annual performance

reviews at various levels.

Learning and innovation are embedded in the MVV and

senior leaders are heavily focused in these areas.

Expectations are implicit in each senior leader’s job

responsibility and are part of their evaluation, and the same

is true for all faculty and staff. The WSDM produces

continuous learning, improvement, and innovation at the

process level through the PDIA which has a process

evaluation emphasis specifically focused on learning and

improvement. The PDIA is deployed across the College,

and faculty and staff members are trained on how to use and

apply the concepts. Cross-functional teams are encouraged

and formed to seek innovative ways to create organizational

learning and improve overall College performance.

Faculty and staff learning is also an important aspect of the

organization as emphasized in Item 5.2. Leadership has

implemented a Leadership Institute (LI) for emerging

leaders including both faculty and staff. The LA provides a

year-long program with a mentor and structured curriculum

to enhance the professional development of participants. In

addition, learning plans allow employees to identify skills

they want to improve during the year, and their g oals align

directly to their responsibilities and DAPs. Their plan is

approved by their supervisor and tracked by a data system

within HR.

In accordance with our value of “Innovation”, senior leaders

encourage faculty and staff at all levels to identify methods

to create breakthrough change in education delivery and

support process performance. A variety of performance

improvement techniques are used, risk-taking is encouraged

and numerous examples of innovative practices exist.

Additionally, the College hosts a faculty-led learning day

where they share with others about teaching and

technological innovations that they are using in the

classroom. Further, we designed and implemented an

Innovation Curriculum in 2009 to teach students how to

develop innovations in a business environment, and

established the Keller Futures Center in early 2010 to

provide opportunities for faculty and staff to work together

on innovation project teams. So effective have our

innovation practices been that we were selected as a finalist

for the 2010 Edison Award for Innovation, placing second

nationally among all sectors, and were the only community

college ever considered.

1.1b. Communication and Organizational Performance

(1) Communication - GRCC leaders use multiple methods

to communicate with the workforce and to encourage open,

two-way communications throughout the organization as

shown in Figure 1.1-3. Of particular note, we have

developed a well-defined process to communicate major

decisions that impact the entire campus. Each time a key

decision is made, the President ensures that the Vice

Presidents and other members of the leadership team are

informed if they have not been involved in the decision

process, and then meets with the units within the College

that are impacted by the decision to explain how and why

the decision was made. Once that is complete, the President

sends a decision e-mail to all persons within the units

impacted and follows that with an “all hands” decision e-

mail to inform the entire workforce. The President then

informs the community of the decision as appropriate. Other

senior leaders follow a similar decision dissemination

process. The President also makes a significant effort to

engage with the faculty and staff. For example, twice a year

the President addresses the entire College at the “Opening

Day” ceremony – the day before the beginning of classes –

with the College’s accomplishments, updates and future

goals. The President also hosts “Coffee and Conversation”

Fa

cult

y

Sta

ff

Stu

den

ts

Pa

rtn

ers

Su

pp

lier

s

Co

lla

bo

rato

rs

Co

mm

un

ity

GPS * * * * * * *

Job/Service Description * *

Standards of Conduct * * * *

Strategic Planning * * * * *

Orientation * * *

Core Competencies * *

Dashboard * * * * * * *

Performance Evaluations * *

GRCC Today * * * * * * *

Meeting Agendas * * * * * * *

Team Activity * * * * * *

Reward and Recognition * *

Community

Conversations * * * * * * *

Faculty and Staff

Meetings * *

Formal Contact * * * *

Facility Postings * * * * * * *

Marketing Materials * * * * * * *

Website * * * * * * *

Job Postings * * * * * * *

Grant Proposals * * *

Coffee and Conversation * *

Figure 1.1-2 MVV Deployment Methods

1 LEADERSHIP

13

– open to all employees – on a regular basis to provide

updates and generate feedback on issues of concern.

Additionally, video messages are produced on important

College updates and made available to all employees.

We strive to fully engage the workforce and focus on their

key requirements to develop methods to promote

engagement and high performance. For example, a key

requirement is to have a role in decision-making. Therefore,

we promote delegation of authority and allow decision

making at the point of greatest impact. Teams and

individuals are empowered to identify and implement

improvement ideas, and all faculty and staff are empowered

to resolve issues on the spot. Various departments within the

College empower their staff to make decisions such as

resource allocation, scheduling, and action planning; and

faculty and staff members are routinely involved in

departmental decision-making. In addition, senior leaders

strive to afford the workforce “ownership” in the success of

the College through the empowerment initiatives in place

and by generating the understanding that everyone’s

responsibilities lead to our core mission of creating learning

environments and producing student success. We strive to

ensure that the entire workforce understands his or her

contribution to organization success by providing “line of

sight” from their individual responsibilities to the

organization’s objectives. The learning culture has instilled

a strong sense of pride throughout GRCC, and the vision

and values provide a set of expectations that all aspire to

realize in working towards achievement of the Ends. Senior

leaders are also directly involved in the faculty and staff

recognition program, routinely presenting or otherwise

participating in events where individuals are recognized

with awards. For example, the President presents several

awards at the annual recognition luncheon and awards the

Raider Spirit Award throughout the year.

Method What With Whom Frequency

Opening Day Vision, values, direction, performance expectations Workforce Twice per Year

Council & Committee

Meetings*

Values, direction, new initiatives, performance results,

decisions

Council/Committee

Members

Weekly

Faculty Learning Day* Values, Ends, improvements, best practices Academic Leaders

and Faculty

Annual

Coffee and Conversation* Values, direction, new initiatives, performance results Workforce Quarterly

VP Updates* Values, direction, new initiatives, performance results Workforce Monthly/Quarterly

School Meetings Values, direction, new initiatives, performance results Academic Leaders

and Faculty

Twice per year

President’s Video Message Values, direction, new initiatives, results, decisions Workforce Twice per year

GRCC Today Values, new initiatives, improvements, best practices,

decisions, announcements

Workforce Daily

Career Focus Values, direction, new initiatives, performance results,


Stakeholders Three times per

year

Foundation Annual Report Values, direction, new initiatives, performance results,


Stakeholders Annual

Website Communications Values, direction, performance results Workforce and

stakeholders

Continuous

E-mail* New initiatives, decisions, announcements Workforce Continuous

Surveys Upward communication Workforce Multiple times per

year

One-on-one Discussions* Direction, performance expectations, requirements,

satisfaction

Workforce Spontaneous

FGIP/PDD Evaluations* Direction, performance expectations, requirements,

development needs

Workforce Annual or Tenured

every three years

DB Reports Performance results, direction Workforce Quarterly

Department Reviews* Performance results, direction Workforce Monthly

Supplier/Partner Meetings* Values, direction, expectations, performance results Suppliers & partners Varies

Community Conversations* Values, directions, expectations, public concerns Stakeholders Varies

CTV Channel Values, directions, expectations, public impacts Stakeholders Continuous

Board of Trustee Meetings Values, directions, expectations, public concerns Stakeholders Monthly

Community Boards &

Meetings*

Values, direction, public concerns & impacts Stakeholders Continuous

Social Media Announcements, general information All Continuous

Figure 1.1-3 Communication Methods with Faculty, Staff, Partners and Stakeholders (*= 2-way Communications)

1 LEADERSHIP

14

(2) Focus on Action – senior leaders create a continuous

focus on action through two major efforts; first, through

identification of CAPs and DAPs during strategic planning,

and the subsequent assignment of “Champions” for each of

the CAPs. Leaders may serve as a CAP Champion and in

that role are responsible to ensure that the projects are

implemented, monitored, and reviewed in leadership team

settings throughout the year. If not actually serving as a

CAP Champion, senior leaders are assigned accountability

for the implementation of Strategies and CAPs, thereby

providing oversight to the champions during

implementation of the plan. As such, they play a pivotal role

in communicating and deploying the plan to the

Departments and following through to track progress against

the Strategies. Department Directors have similar

responsibility at the Department level to ensure follow

through and effectiveness of Department planning.

Furthermore, individual performance plans align directly to

Department plans and to the Strategies and CAPs. In this

manner, they ensure that the entire College maintains its

focus throughout the plan year. Second, senior leaders

participate in reviews of the IOS used to track progress to

plan and the monitoring reports which go to the Board to

provide understanding of performance in relation to the

Ends. If progress lags in either of these reviews, leaders

direct action to determine cause and implement corrective

action or plan modifications to improve performance.

Maximizing value for students and stakeholders is another

area of focus. The Cabinet and SLT create and balance

value for students and stakeholders during the SPS as they

direct environmental scanning that allows them to assess

needs and the value we offer and to create a focused

strategic plan. In addition to our students, we focus on

understanding requirements of and engaging our feeder

schools, universities, workforce, community, Board, and

accrediting agencies. We identify competing requirements

through this assessment, then prioritize our efforts to ensure

that we provide value where it is most critical.

1.2 Governance and Social Responsibilities

1.2a Organizational Governance

(1) Governance System - The Board provides overall

governance oversight for the College and is a community-

based group of seven members selected through a formal

election process that ensures Board independence. The

Board assures management and fiscal accountability for the

organization’s actions through its Policy Review and

Development Process. This process calls for the Board to

identify policy needs, gather information pertaining to

policy development or revisions, define and assess

alternatives, adopt the new/revised policy, and monitor and

evaluate the policy to determine its effectiveness. Policy

types include Executive Limitations, Governance

Process, and Board-President Relations. Eight specific

executive limitations policies directly address organizational

accountability and asset protection as shown in Figure 1.2-1.

These policies state specifically what the President is

authorized to do and what he is not authorized to do, and

provide detailed guidance within the specific policy.

The Board also reviews financial and purchasing reports

during their monthly meetings and during budget work

sessions. Also, a variety of external audits are conducted to

assure the effectiveness of our internal control structure.

First, we engage an independent certified public accounting

firm to conduct an independent audit each year. In addition,

the Auditor General of the State of Michigan performs an

audit of both financial and student performance information

reported to the state on a periodic basis. Further, we

routinely perform internal audits conducted by personnel in

our Financial Services who have the appropriate accounting

and auditing background. Audit reports are sent to the Board

for review and to supervisors with recommendations for

improvement. Follow up actions are taken to ensure that

needed changes to internal controls are implemented.

The Board is transparent in its operations to permit

confirmation that its decision-making process is objective,

fair, and equitable to all stakeholders. Meeting agendas are

published in advance, meetings are open to the public and

broadcast on television, and minutes are published and

posted for public review. Third party auditors are used to

determine financial compliance and reviews by various

accreditation bodies are used to ensure that academic and

support activities meet or exceed industry standards. To

protect stakeholder interests, the Board reviews and

approves the College budget and the strategic plan. The

Board also reviews and evaluates the President and the

leadership system through the Board Monitoring Report

(BMR) process and further ensures stakeholder interests are

safeguarded through the review process described in Item

4.1. Further, the Board periodically commissions a

community committee to review our financial position,

forecasts, and relevant student and program-related data to

obtain an external stakeholder perspective; and we provide

the community a summary of financial performance in the

GRCC Foundation Annual Report.

(2) Performance Evaluation - the President’s performance

is assessed annually by the Board. Other senior leaders are

evaluated by the President, who provides each individual

feedback so a personal development plan can be created.

The President’s evaluation is conducted by a sub-team of

the Board that evaluates GRCC’s progress against the Ends

and the College vision to determine the President’s

effectiveness. An assessment document is prepared annually

to summarize this information and forms the basis for the

evaluation. The sub-team reports its findings to the Board,

which makes an assessment regarding the President’s

Treatment of People Financial Condition

Budgeting/Forecasting Asset Protection

Compensation and Benefits Academic Freedom

Communication and

Counsel to the Board

Emergency Executive

Succession

Figure 1.2-1 Executive Limitations Policies

1 LEADERSHIP

15

performance, determines compensation adjustments,

developmental needs, etc.

Senior leaders are evaluated using the PES system in the

same manner that non-union employees are as described in

Item 5.1. Areas evaluated include contribution to the

organization’s MVV, Ends, and Strategies; leadership

effectiveness; and team participation. Learning plans are

developed and feedback is used to improve leadership and

management effectiveness. In addition, GRCC leaders and

managers participate in a formal, 360° performance

assessment process. The Board conducts an annual self

assessment that includes an appraisal of its committees. The

tool used is an assessment completed by each Board

member relating their perception of Board strengths and

opportunities for improvement. The results are tabulated,

reviewed, and follow-up action is taken.

1.2b Legal and Ethical Behavior

(1) Legal Behavior, Regulatory Behavior, and

Accreditation - we have established numerous community

“listening posts” to understand potential adverse impacts on

the community and public concerns about the services

provided now or in the future. To anticipate, assess, and

address public concerns, we solicit public input through our

Community Conversations process, Coffee and

Conversation meetings with students and staff, and through

leadership participation on community boards and in other

community volunteer groups that allow frequent interaction

with community leaders to obtain input on concerns and

requirements. Community Conversations are conducted by

the Board and President multiple times each year to seek

input regarding College performance from a community

perspective to identify future needs and uncover concerns

that may exist relative to current or future GRCC

operations. The outcomes are documented and provided to

leadership for discussion at subsequent leadership team

meetings. Information that is obtained through these

listening posts is incorporated into the Environmental Scan

and evaluated during the SPS, as well as at various

leadership team meetings during the year. This approach

permits us to address adverse impacts and public concerns

as they arise or during the next planning cycle.

We also take into consideration risks, regulations, and other

legal requirements that are handed down by regulatory

bodies when planning and setting education and support

process requirements. We manage regulatory and legal

requirements through various Departments and teams; the

AQIP (accreditation) process through the SLT; risks

through the Risk Management Team (RMT); and potential

crises through the Crisis Management Team (CMT). Each is

responsible to identify the requirements when changes occur

and to ensure they are communicated and considered in

planning and process design efforts. Additionally, the OGC

provides, manages, and coordinates legal services to

proactively minimize our legal risks and liability.

(2) Ethical Behavior - the EMS describes our commitment

to an ethical culture, provides a process for

reportingpotential ethics violations, establishes procedures

for responding to reports of potential violations, and

outlines examples of violations. An important component of

the EMS is a series of Ethics Policies as indicated in Item

1.1. Policies are developed pertaining to the areas shown in

Figure 1.2-2. The policies are documented, widely

distributed, and in place for the primary purpose of

providing guidelines on how to conduct business with an

attitude of honesty, integrity, and diligence. The intent is to

promote legal and ethical conduct in all business

transactions and to prevent wrongdoing whether by intent,

mistake, or inadvertent behavior. The EMS and these

policies are reviewed with new staff at New Employee

Orientation, and EMS training is provided on a recurring

basis throughout the year.

1.2c Societal Responsibilities and Support of Key

Communities

(1) Societal Well-Being – Sustainability is one of our

values and provides the basis for our social, economic, and

environmental practices and policies. From an economic

perspective, we partner with regional economic

development organizations across West Michigan with an

emphasis on supporting business retention, expansion, and

attraction. Our unique role in economic development is

training and development of the workforce. The Michigan

New Jobs Training Program allows us to work with area

employers who are hiring to utilize captured payroll taxes to

cover the cost of training newly hired employees. In

addition to providing these employers with a highly skilled

workforce, these programs better equip individuals with

skill sets, allowing employees to increase their earning

potential.

From an environmental perspective, we have implemented

several initiatives related to environmental systems

stewardship. First, a living/green roof was installed on the

Wisner-Bottrall Applied Technology Center that has

resulted in reduced rainwater run-off and increased

heating/cooling efficiency. Second, we partner with Energy

Education to gain their knowledge and experience, applying

it to the process of reducing energy consumption. Third, our

Sustainability Council has implemented mini-grants to

Authority of the

President

Conflict of Interest

Board Code of Conduct Academic Honesty

Student Code of

Conduct

Contributions

Faculty Code of Ethics Supplanting Federal Funds

Administrator Code of

Ethics

Acceptable Use of Technology

Harassment Lobbying

Academic Freedom Purchasing

Sexual Harassment

Figure 1.2-2 Ethics Policies

1 LEADERSHIP

16

faculty and staff seeking to implement various instructional

and operational initiatives. Fourth, we have committed to

new construction and renovation projects being completed

to meet LEED standards. Finally, we have implemented

composting programs in the Raider Grille (cafeteria) and the

restaurants in the Secchia Institute for Culinary Education.

(2) Community Support - we have identified our key

community as our primary service area, the KISD. The

Board and senior leaders encourage a strong and vibrant

community support program focused on social well-being,

community education and growth initiatives, and have taken

the lead by establishing a support program with six major

components as described below.

The Keller Futures Center serves as a catalyst for social

change and human capital capacity building by fostering

community learning, problem-solving and creation of

innovations. Community members serve with College

innovation project teams to learn and develop innovations

for the betterment of the College and the community.

As an open access institution we provide opportunities for

all students including under-represented groups. The

Woodrick Diversity Learning Center (WDLC) offers a

comprehensive, integrated, cross-cultural approach to

diversity inclusion. Education offerings are provided to

community members to ensure an inclusive, flexible

learning environment in support of personal growth and

respect for individual differences.

The Sustainability Initiative is an extension of our internal

effort and is designed to make sustainable and innovative

practices the norm throughout the community through

education and example. We provide education to

community members pertaining to ethics, alternative

resources, innovation creation, and best practices needed to

create a sustainable environment and serve as a leader and

partner in sustainability and innovation efforts in the region.

Through the Department of Experiential Learning,

students are provided with unique practical hands-on

learning opportunities within the local communities.

Instructors are also afforded alternative teaching methods,

and community partners receive needed resources and

services. The College strives to understand and advocate for

the needs of each stakeholder through this program and to

make meaningful differences in the lives of our constituents.

Two Learning Corners were established to allow minority

neighborhood residents to access and explore education

opportunities in a convenient, familiar, and non-threatening

environment. GRCC provides GED preparation, college

preparation, college-level courses, workforce development,

pre-employment training, and lifelong learning activities at

the Centers in an effort to demonstrate the value of

education to academically and economically disadvantaged

individuals and to encourage them to better themselves. This

concept has been so successful that it now serves as a model

for other communities throughout the state. The Older

Learner Center (OLC) offers adults 55 and older

opportunities for lifelong learning and life enrichment The

OLC produced Successful Aging, an award winning

television program that is distributed nationally on video;

administers a number of community-wide program

initiatives; has a leadership/support role in the Kent County

Caregiver Resource Network and Greater Grand Rapids End

of Life Coalition; and sponsors public forums, conferences,

trainings, and events within the community on issues

relating to an aging America. The Center was selected as a

national role model program in 2007 by AARP.

In addition, GRCC leaders, staff, and students are actively

engaged in numerous community boards and groups and

play a significant role in leading community support

activities. These include the Schools of Hope reading

program at local public schools, United Way activities,

Upward Bound, and the Latino Youth Conference.

Practices, measures, and goals for legal and ethical behavior

and community support are displayed in Figure 1.2-3.

2 Strategic Planning 2.1 Strategy Development

2.1a Strategy Development Process

(1) Strategic Planning Process – the Strategic Planning

System (SPS) is shown in Figure 2.1-1. The system has

undergone cycles of improvement for more than ten years

and was redesigned in 2009 as part of the leadership

assessment and subsequent revision of the MVV and the

Ends. The SPS was included in that assessment which

resulted in the formation of the SLT to provide broader

involvement of the campus leadership in developing long-

term strategy, to integrate the Ends into strategy

development such that they became the driving force of

strategy, measurement and work system design; and to

enhance the environmental scanning approach such that it

became a continuous, year-long process of gathering and

updating data. The improved approach was implemented

with the 2010 planning cycle.

The SLT consists of three categories of campus leaders

totaling 80 members: team leaders from 15 cross-functional

teams, including the AGC, Dean’s Council, Diversity Team,

and Career Development Team among others; 36

Department Leaders, including the President’s Office and

the Provost; 26 leaders of various employee groups,

including faculty and all levels of administration; three

student leaders; and one Board liaison. The stated purpose

of the SLT is to provide a forum that will enable a wide

variety of College constituency groups the opportunity to

provide input into the future direction of the College. The

SLT conducts the SPS, guiding the development and on-

going communication of the plan, reviews performance

results and benchmarking data, studies budget realities, and

offers recommendations to the President.

The SLT is comprised of an Executive Committee and six

standing committees, one for each of the Ends, and conducts

2 STRATEGIC PLANNING

17

much of its work in committee work sessions. The SLT

began development of our current three-year strategic plan

(July 2011-June 2014) in October 2010 and used monthly

work sessions to complete the project. Initially, the SLT

reviewed the newly created MVV and Ends and identified

alignment requirements and a framework for the plan. These

included the key components of the plan - Strategies, CAPs,

DAPs, and IOS. Detailed environmental scanning followed,

stretching out over two work sessions focusing on both

external and internal data. This included a review and

analysis of community data; GRCC budget priorities;

demographic trends; student outcomes; faculty data team

findings; The College of 2020; information technology

long-term plans and requirements; and the IPEDS data

feedback report for 2010.

The scanning data are compiled by IRP throughout the year

and provide the necessary insight for the SLT to identify our

strengths, weakness, opportunities and threats, which was

accomplished as the analysis proceeded. Figure 2.1-2

summarizes the methods used to secure the scan data. The

team then used a Visioning Exercise, an IOS Exercise, and a

Mix-Max Session to formulate strategic challenges,

advantages, and core competencies. A Conceptualizing

Strategies and Action Projects exercise was used to identify

potential blind spots. As significant updates to the scanning

data appear throughout the year, they are provided to the

SLT for potential modification of the plan prior to the next

planning cycle as necessary.

The Strategies reach out three years or more into the future,

while the CAPs may be designed as short-term (one year) or

longer term (two to three years). The criteria for selection of

a CAP include a requirement for a designated cross-

functional team to implement it or for multiple departments

to collectively support it with

action plans. Department Plans

are designed to be short-term

actions, generally of one-year

duration, to support a CAP or an

individual Department

requirement. The three-year

time horizon was chosen based

upon the dynamics of higher

education and the experience

we have gained over time

dealing with our market area.

We have learned that we can

project reasonably well three

years out, and this has been

sufficient to give us the

necessary insight to changing

student requirements and

market conditions and enough

lead time to initiate actions to

sustain and enhance our ability

to meet student and stakeholder

needs. Short-term CAPs are

designed to be initiated in the

first year of the plan and completed earlier in the three-year

cycle; long-term CAPs are typically more complex and

often require policy changes so they may be worked

throughout the life of the plan.

(2) Strategy Considerations – plan development begins

with work by the SLT to focus on the key strategic

challenges that we must address if we are to sustain our

success into the future, as well as the key strategic

advantages that we can build on to continuously improve

our performance. With those in mind, the Visioning

Exercise is used to identify the characteristics and

performance levels we need to achieve to move toward

realization of our vision, and the Conceptualizing Strategies

and Action Plans Exercise is used to begin identification of

the strategies and actions needed to overcome the

challenges, close the gaps between where we are now and

where we want to be, and build on the advantages we have

relative to our competitors and similar colleges. After

development of the conceptual strategies, the Mix-Max

Session is used to generate feedback and discussion on

everything that has transpired thus far and from that activity

the SLT produces an initial draft of the Strategies. At this

point, the Ends Committees kick into action, taking the

Strategies that pertain to their End so they can do a more

detailed assessment of the potential they offer and to

determine if modification is required. During these

discussions a determination is made if there is a need to

develop new core competencies in the respective areas, and

if there is that information is put forth in the committee

report. The teams produce 2nd draft Strategies, which are

then distributed via Zoomerang surveys, mix max groups,

and post-it showers to solicit input from the rest of the SLT

and a broader segment of the campus community. Based on

Responsibility Process Indicator of Success Target

Legal,

Regulatory,

Ethical

Ethics Monitoring System

Administrative Policy

Review & Development

Board Policy Review &

Development

# Ethics Breaches

# Compliance Issues

Ethics/Compliance Training

Board Member Independence

Zero

Zero

100%

100%

Financial Accountability Financial Audits No discrepancies

Risk

Management

RMT

OSHA Violations

EPA Violations

ADA Violations

Zero

Zero

Zero

Crisis

Management

CMT EPAS Success Rate 100%

Accreditation AQIP Accreditation Results Full Accreditation

Community

Support

Keller Futures Center

WDLC

Sustainability Initiative

Learning Corners

Older Learner Center


Leadership Involved

Participation

# Served

Energy Consumption

# Served

# Served

Community Impact Value

% Leaders Involved

100 per project

1000

3% reduction

400

1200

500 Students

100%

Figure 1.2-3 Social Responsibility Processes, IOS, and Goals


18

Figure 2.1-1 GRCC Strategic Planning System

the feedback received, a 3rd draft of the Strategies is then

developed along with a proposal for the CAPs and the IOS.

These then go into a whole group session of the SLT for

review, discussion and approval.

Once the Strategies and CAPs have been approved,

accountability for each CAP is assigned to the Champion

who then selects a cross-functional team to help

communicate the content of the CAP to all Departments

requiring development of supporting plans; mentor

Department leaders in development of those plans and

indicators; ensure Department plans are developed and

implemented; track progress of the implementation; identify

key performance outcomes and establish outcome IOS;

report on progress to plan throughout the year; prepare

monitoring reports for the Board; and understand causative

factors if performance lags and mentor Department leaders

in development of corrective actions, plan improvements, or

plan modifications. Once the Strategies and CAPs are set,

the Ends Committees develop the IOS to ensure alignment

with them, and develop performance projections based on

plan content, historical performance and/or comparative

data trends. These are then proposed to the Board and an

iterative process is used to gain consensus on the indicators

and their targets. Once agreement is reached the entire plan

is submitted to the Board for review and approval.

2.1b Strategic Objectives

(1) Key Strategic Objectives – our Strategies and most

important goals for accomplishing them are shown in Figure

2.1-3. Each of the Strategies is long-term in nature with a

goal of making significant progress against them or

completing them within the three-year strategy window.

(2) Strategic Objective Considerations – how the

Strategies address the Strategic Challenges and Advantages,

and capitalize on current Core Competencies is shown in

Scanning Key

Elements

Data Sources

Technology

shifts

Technology associations, publications,

websites, benchmarking, IT research,

technology suppliers

Education

programs and

services

Advisory Committees, websites, regional

workforce trends, K-12 and transfer

schools, publications, benchmarks,

education associations, program reviews

Student and

community

demographics

Multi-county demographic trends, local

and national census data, feeder school

trends, internal data tracking, partners

Student and

stakeholder

preferences

VOC methods, meetings and interactions

with students, surveys, focus groups,

educ. associations, internal data,

Advisory Committees, Community

Conversations

Competition Publications, websites, education

associations, state data, newsletters

Economy

Publications, websites, newspapers,

federal and state reports, economic


Regulatory

environment

Accreditation and regulatory bodies,

publications, websites, federal/state

reports, educ. associations, conferences

Figure 2.1-2 Environmental Scanning Data Sources

GRCC Strategic Planning SystemMission, Vision, Values, Ends

Environmental Scanning Data

Strategies and Indicators of Success (Dashboard)

(as organized by the Ends)

College Action

Projects (including

AQIP Projects)

(Tactical, 1-3 year,

Champions, Budget

supported, Cross

functional)

Division/Depart

ment Plans (1

year)

(College goals,

Department goals,

Space needs,

Professional

development needs)

Individual

Performance

Evaluation

Measure

and

compare

results to

plan

Determine

areas to

improve

Monitor

progress via

scoreboards

Teams

Interface with budgeting process


19

Figure 2.1-3. Other key factors are addressed by the

Strategies as shown in Figure 2.1-4.

2.2 Strategy Implementation

2.2a Action Plan Development and Deployment

(1) Action Plan Development – when the Strategies and

CAPs have been determined, the Champions complete CAP

Worksheets which identify the title of the project; who the

Champion is; who the team members responsible for

implementation of the CAP are; a description of the purpose

of the project; the goals of the project; the IOS chosen to

demonstrate success of the project; the personnel resources

and Departments required to deliver the project

successfully; financial and other resources needed to

complete the project; additional budget dollars for the

current year that have not already been allocated; if the

project is dependent upon or related to another CAP; and

aproject timeline. This information is developed in

collaboration with the teams and Departments impacted,

who then develop their plans, IOS, goals, resource

requirements, etc., to support the CAP. The Champions

work with Department and team leaders to ensure this work

is accomplished effectively. The CAPs and their alignment

to the Strategies are shown in Figure 2.2-1 where planned

changes to education programs and services, students,

stakeholders and markets, suppliers and partners, and how

we will operate are identified with an asterisk. Department

and team action plans are too numerous to display and are

available for review on site.

Ends Strategies S

C

S

A

C

C

Goals IOS

Aca

dem

ic

Ali

gn

men

t 1.1 Provide a seamless transition to

other institutions of higher learning.

1.2 Integrate the K-12 - College

Preparation Experience.

2

1

1

3

2

3

1

1

GRCC collaborates closely

with other institutional

providers to provide a seamless

transition across all educational

sectors.

# Articulation Agreements

% Students Transferring

Graduate Satisfaction

Acc

ess

2.1 Implement the College Success

Program and Interdepartmental Support

Team.

2.2 Increase flexible educational

options.

1

2

2

2

4

1

2

2

2

Minimize the barriers of time,

place, cost, and education prep

levels so that all community

members have an opportunity

to participate in college

programs

% Non-Traditional Classes

% Minority Students

AFP Student Success (Math)

AFP Student Success (English)

% Students Requiring Dev Ed

Co

mm

un

ity

Ou

trea

ch 3.1 Collaborate with community

organizations and employers to expand

programs and services that benefit the

community at large and strengthen

GRCC’s identity.

5

6

3

GRCC enriches the community

through educational and civic

programming and partnerships.

Community Satisfaction

Community Penetration Rate

# Collaborative Partnerships

GR

CC

Ex

p

e

4.1 Enable students to articulate their

achievements, skills, and co-curricular

experiences

2

5

1

4

4

GRCC provides students with

co-curricular experiences that

help them develop their

citizenship skills.

% Students in Co-Curricular

Learning

% Classes Offering Co-

Curricular Option

Stu

den

t S

ucc

ess

5.1 Improve student support services

that promote success in their academic,

community and personal lives.

5.2 Acquire highly qualified, diverse

faculty and continue to provide

opportunities for prof development.

5.3 Create, revise, monitor, and assess

curriculum and learning.

4

6

7

1

2

6

1

2

5

4

5

7

8

1

2

4

5

5

5

GRCC students will achieve

their educational goals.

Student Achievement

Graduation Rate

FTF Retention Rate

FTNT Persistence Rate

Course Success Rate

Student Engagement - CCSSE

New Student Engage - SENSE

F/S Diversity

Accreditation

Transfer Student Performance

Wo

rkfo

rce

Dev

elo

pm

ent

6.1 Develop new collaborations with

community business leaders to ensure

workforce programming is relevant to

current market and economic

conditions.

6.2 Provide increased transfer and

employment opportunities to students.

2

5

2

5

1

3

6

6

GRCC students are prepared to

secure employment in all

sectors of the economy.

% Graduates Still in School or

Employed in their Field

WD Student Performance

Against MI Standards

Licensure Pass Rate

Figure 2.1-3 Ends and Strategies and Linkage to Strategic Challenges (SC), Strategic Advantages (SA), Core

Competencies (CC), Goals, and Indicators of Success (IOS) – see Figures P.1-2 and P.2-2 for SC, SA, CC codes


20

(2) Action Plan Implementation - once the Strategic Plan

is finalized and approved, electronic and face-to-face

communications are used to share the plan with all staff.

Copies of the strategic plan are distributed at the August

“Opening Meeting” and plan content and implementation is

the subject of the President’s opening address. All strategic

plan materials are available for review on the website, and

members of the SLT are responsible to communicate

content of the plan to their respective Departments and

teams. Key changes resulting from plan implementation are

sustained through the action plan measurement system and

the monitoring report process. IOS are established for both

plan implementation and plan outcomes, and they are

tracked over time to ensure that plans are effective in

producing the desired outcomes. If so, the new actions

resulting from these plans are reinforced in subsequent

planning sessions and monitoring report reviews; if not,

plan modifications are developed to generate the desired

outcomes. Deployment of action plans to individuals

throughout the College is achieved through the PES. Copies

of the MVV, Ends, and the Strategic Plan are provided to

key suppliers, collaborators, and partners along with a

summary of the Community Partner survey results. In

addition, our Purchasing Department includes discussion of

the MVV and Ends in a newsletter sent to key suppliers.

(3) Resource Allocation – financial resource needs are fed

into the budget process. As the proposed budget is

developed funding requests to support the CAPs are flagged

and specified to show both the personnel costs needed as

well as all other costs associated with a CAP. In that way,

the resource impact of each CAP is fully understood as

budget discussions are held and it can be balanced against

the resources needed to meet day-to-day obligations. As

budget decisions are made, priority consideration is given to

CAP-related requests to ensure that all, or at least the high

priority CAPs, are resourced. If a CAP is unable to be

funded due to budget limitations, it may be placed in “long-

term” status. It will always be considered for supplemental

funding in December of the plan year, when excess funds

often become available if tuition revenue exceeds the

conservative budget amounts that have been forecast. Since

budgets have been cut to historically low levels due to

statewide funding shortages, it has been very difficult to

fund new initiatives. For 2011-2012, $250K was allocated

for CAPs that were underfunded in the budget process.

Champions applied for those funds and a subcommittee of

the SLT evaluated requests and made decisions.

(4) Workforce Plans - key human resource plans to

support the Strategies and CAPs are summarized in Figure

2.2-2. How these plans address the potential impact on the

workforce and potential changes to workforce capability and

capacity needs are also shown.

(5) Performance Measures - College level IOS are shown

in Figures 2.1-3, 2.2-3, and 4.1-1. These measures reflect

progress relative to the Strategies and CAPs. An important

component in achieving our college-wide performance

projections is the establishment of a Dashboard system at

the College, VP, and Department levels. Department and

CAP team IOS align with the Dashboard IOS and also

include Department-specific key measures which

collectively support and drive improvement in the IOS

reflected on those Dashboards. The plan development step

of the SPS requires resetting of the Department IOS, which

are available for review on site. In addition, as previously

indicated, every Department establishes action plans which

relate to the CAPs where appropriate. IOS are identified for

the DAPs, which provide for an understanding and

assessment of Department progress towards accomplishing

their objectives. CAP Champions are responsible to

aggregate DAP IOS as they relate to each CAP and to create

a CAP Dashboard which is used to demonstrate progress

during reviews and in Monitoring Reports. CAP measures

and status are also available for review on site.

(6) Action Plan Modification – review and assessment is

the basis for establishing and deploying modified plans

during the course of the plan year when it becomes

necessary to change direction. The BMR process provides

the opportunity for discussion and mid-course corrections

depending on progress and changes in the environment and

ensures that a full-blown review of every CAP is brought

before the SLT and the Board for an in-depth discussion of

actions taken twice per year. The CAP Champion may bring

the CAP team – the faculty and staff members involved in

the CAP – to SLT for this discussion. SLT uses this

opportunity to ensure that the plans to support the CAP are

Key Factors Strategies/CAPs to Address

Opportunities

for innovation

5.1.2 Starfish Early Alert program

5.3.1 Reading Apprenticeship across

curriculum

6.2.1 New Career Pathways system to

revolutionize career placement options

New core

competencies

4.1.1 Student portfolio system

5.3.4 Deploy data warehouse

Balance

challenges

and

advantages

2.1.1 College Success Program for

developmental education students

2.2.1 Expand distance learning program

5.3.2/5.3.3 New model for program

review; includes assessment of learning

outcomes

Balance needs

of students

and

stakeholders

1.2.1 Complete Programs of Study to

map curriculum between K-12 and

GRCC

5.2.2 Improve adjunct faculty experience

5.2.3 Strengthen faculty professional

development programs and processes

6.1.1 Develop faculty-led learning

experiences with area employers

Adapt to

sudden shifts

1.1.3 Create/revise articulation

agreements with 4-year

colleges/universities

6.2.2 New certificate programs to meet

emerging industry needs

Figure 2.1-4 Strategic Key Factors Addressed in Plan


21

on track and direct modifications as needed. The BMR is

also used for a SLT review of the Dashboard and all CAP

IOS. If lagging performance is indicated, the SLT focuses

its attention in those areas and directs modified actions as

necessary. In addition, information is constantly provided to

SLT from other means that may cause a new plan to be

established. This information could come from the many

“listening posts” we have established or from various data

collection sources. We have shown the will to make changes

where needed to assure long-term success. For example,

recent changes to the HLC Criteria for Accreditation have

resulted in the need for several policy changes. Many of

these have been addressed through alterations in the CAPs.

2.2b Performance Projection We compare our IOS against past performance and relevant

benchmarks wherever possible. When performance is not at

the desired level or further improvement is warranted,

strategies and plans are created as part of the SPS or

modifications to existing plans are made as part of the BMR

process. Performance projections are created to reflect the

expected improvement that will occur as a result of

implementation of the CAPs. The overall intent is to

increase the success rate of our students. Figure 2.2-3

displays our projected performance and comparisons.

Strategy College Action Projects

1.1

1.1.1 Increase the # of students who graduate with a MACRAO certificate/endorsement.

1.1.2 Promote leadership in academic advising.

1.1.3 Create and revise agreements with 4-year schools for students seeking to transfer.*

1.2 1.2.1 Continue and complete the Programs of Study initiative to map curriculum between high school and college in

all academic areas.

2.1 2.1.1 Implement the College Success Program for developmental students.*

2.2 2.2.1 Expand the distance learning program.*

3.1

3.1.1 Promote the various educational, arts, and cultural activities made available to the community at large.

3.1.2 Expand cultural learning experiences that strengthen and equip our changing community.

4.1 4.1.1 Implement a student portfolio system across the campus to track co-curricular and service learning activities.*

5.1

5.1.1 Mandate the student success course for all first time, degree seeking and developmental students as appropriate.

5.1.2 Integrate the Starfish Early Alert program into all programs and courses.*

5.1.3 Expand the Integrated Tutorial Support program.

5.2

5.2.1 Strengthen the recruitment and hiring process to attract highly qualified and diverse full time and adjunct

faculty.

5.2.2 Improve the adjunct faculty experience.*

5.2.3 Strengthen faculty professional development programs and processes.

5.3

5.3.1 Implement Reading Apprenticeship.*

5.3.2 Develop a new model for program review which includes the assessment of learning outcomes.*

5.3.3 Establish an assessment and reporting process for institutional learning outcomes.*

5.3.4 Promote data-based decision-making including the implementation of a data warehouse.*

6.1

6.1.1 Develop faculty-led learning experiences with area employers that enhance curriculum and result in expanded

learning opportunities for students.*

6.2 6.2.1 Develop a college-wide Career Pathways system.*

6.2.2 Develop new certificate programs that meet industry needs.*

Figure 2.2-1 College Action Projects

Workforce Plans CAP Impact

Establish new position –

Transfer and Articulation

Coordinator

1.1.3

Added capability

and capacity

Establish new positions – Asst

Director of Title 3, Lead

Learning Coach, Learning

Coaches (4)

2.1.1

Added capability

and capacity

Provide Instructional Designer

to assist faculty; offer online

certification professional

development to faculty

2.2.1

Added capacity

Provide professional

development for faculty and

staff in new portfolio system

4.4.1 Added capability


Counseling Program Director


and capacity

Assess recruiting and hiring

process and identify

improvement actions

5.2.1 Process analysis

initiative

Use Train the Trainer approach

to broaden curriculum impact

5.3.1

Added capability


Curriculum Specialist

5.3.3

Added capability

and capacity

Establish new positions – Data

Warehouse Architect, Data

Base Administrator; provide

learning in new technology


and capacity

Figure 2.2-2 Workforce Plans and Impacts


22

3 Customer Focus 3.1 Voice of the Customer

3.1a Student and Stakeholder Listening

(1) Listening to Current Students and Stakeholders - we

serve a wide variety of students and stakeholders and have

established a robust system of gathering data to understand

their needs and expectations, relative importance,

andsatisfaction as it relates to them. The Voice of the

Customer (VOC) process is the means by which this is

accomplished. The VOC includes a variety of listening and

learning methods as shown in Figure 3.1-1 for all students

and stakeholder groups to provide both needs and

expectations, and satisfaction data. For students the

Academic and Student Affairs Division (ASAD) is

responsible to understand students and identify methods to

enhance service to better address their needs and

expectations. ASAD aggregates and analyzes student-

related data from the variety of sources used and provides a

continuous flow of knowledge about emerging concerns and

issues to all Departments. In addition, every employee is an

integral part of the VOC process and has an extremely

strong focus on student needs and expectations. Faculty and

staff stress student contact and personalized service as high

priorities and spend significant time interacting with

students to understand what progress they are making and

how they feel about their student experience. This approach

is used to adjust and improve service delivery, is embedded

in our culture, and is characteristic of the entire workforce.

As shown in Figure 3.1-1, the VOC process for stakeholders

is also well developed. We gather and analyze the data that

are captured and use those data to determine stakeholder

needs and expectations, and to make program and service

adjustments to enhance satisfaction and program

effectiveness. The information is also aggregated and

compiled in the environmental scan documents to allow for

review during the SPS and throughout the year, and is also

monitored by the Dean’s Council.

(2) Listening to Potential Students and Stakeholders –

methods to listen to and learn about potential students and

former students (Key Constituents) are shown in Figure 3.1-

1. We obtain information about the students of competitors

through a scan of data obtained by means of direct

discussions with partners and other area institutions of

higher learning, websites, journals, research reports, job

fairs, and high school visits. This information is analyzed

and potential impacts discussed during appropriate reviews

(SLT, Cabinet, Dean’s Council), then is used for planning

and program or service design, improvement or innovation.

3.1b Determination of Student and Stakeholder

Satisfaction and Engagement (1) Satisfaction and Engagement – we continually assess

student and stakeholder satisfaction and actively solicit

information on suggestions for improvement using a

number of the VOC methods. These tools are designed to

ensure that satisfaction determination is valid and thorough,

satisfaction benchmarks are obtained for comparison

purposes, satisfaction results are trended over time, results

are used to enhance the knowledge of the faculty and staff

and the information obtained is used to improve service

offerings. To achieve these objectives, we partner with two

third party organizations. First, we work with the

Community College Leadership Program at The University

of Texas at Austin to administer the Community College

Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) to measure

student satisfaction and engagement every other spring

semester, and the Survey of Entering Student

Engagement (SENSE) every other fall semester to evaluate

early experiences of first-year students and developmental

education students. Second, we have started work with

Noel-Levitz Consultants to administer their Student

Satisfaction Inventory every other spring semester to

determine satisfaction across all elements of student services

and offerings. In addition, we conduct Point of Contact

Service Surveys to obtain feedback on a select set of

student services. Student satisfaction and engagement

reports from CCSSE, SENSE and Noel Levitz are

coordinated by IRP and the data contained in them are

analyzed, trended, and distributed throughout the campus

for review and action. Each Department uses the data to

monitor service delivery and for performance improvement.

Measure PY 2012 2014 Comp

# Articulation Agreements

% Students Transferring

Graduate Satisfaction

36

27.4

57.5

38

29.8

61.5

42

34.6

65.5

N/A

33.0

N/A

% Non-Traditional Classes

% Minority Students (Kent)

AFP Student Success (Math)

AFP Student Success (Eng)

% Students Req Dev Ed

35.5

27.6

53.6

58.7

52.8

38.5

28.1

54.6

59.7

54.8

44.5

29.1

56.6

61.7

56.8

N/A

N/A

51.5

56.9

N/A

Community Satisfaction

Community Penetration Rate

# Collaborative Partnerships

82

12.8

56

N/A

16.8

58

85

20.8

62

N/A

N/A

N/A

% Students in CC Learning

% Classes Offer CC Option

5.6

.9

6.6

1.15

8.6

1.65

N/A

N/A

Student Achievement

Graduation Rate

FTF Retention Rate

FTNT Persistence Rate

Course Success Rate

CCSSE Results

SENSE Results

F/S Diversity

Accreditation

Transfer Student GPA

98.5

15.4

55.7

76.3

75.3

47.1

45.1

-5.7

100

2.93

>94

15.9

57.7

78.3

76.3

N/A

46.1

+/-5

100

2.99

>94

16.9

59.7

80.3

78.3

48.1

47.1

+/-5

100

3.05

88.0

11.0

64.0

78.0

77.4

46.6

50.0

N/A

N/A

2.88

% Graduates Still in School

or Employed in their Field

WD Student Performance

Licensure Pass Rate

25.7

48.9

83.3

96.4

26.3

49.5

100

97.0

26.9

50.1

100

97.0

22.0

53.3

Varies

87.7

Figure 2.2-3 Performance Projections

3 STUDENT, STAKEHOLDER, AND MARKET FOCUS

23

We obtain community satisfaction information by means of

the Community Perception Survey and the Community

Conversations process described in Item 1.2, and employer

satisfaction through the Advisory Committee process, or

through direct input to the President and other staff

members. All comments are documented and reviewed by

the Cabinet or the Deans’ Council and specific issues are

sent to the appropriate staff member or Department for

review and action. We also conduct an Alumni Survey to

obtain the perspectives of former students on their college

experience one year and five years after graduation, and we

use Reverse Transfer Surveys with our higher education

partners to obtain performance feedback on our former

students who have transferred.

Students Listening Methods Data Use/Follow Up

Current

Students

Student Conversations Results are reviewed by the Deans Council and assignments are made for

follow-up to improve student services and academic programs.

Point of Contact Service Surveys Outcomes shared with student services departments; actions generated to

improve student services.

CCESSE, SENSE, Noel-Levitz, First

Year Experience surveys

Results reviewed and analyzed by IRP and provided to the Deans

Council for study; results shared with student services and academic

departments for use in improvement planning; data input into the

environmental scan for use in strategic planning.

Advisory Committees Feedback used to modify and improve workforce development programs,

and create new programs.

Board Meeting Open Comments Students come before the Board and provide comments; outcomes are

compiled and shared with departments for action planning.

Online and on campus comment forms;

Student Feedback Fair

Student can express a concern, provide suggestions, or request

assistance. Follow up action to respond and provide assistance as

appropriate.

E-blast communications New student welcome series from the Dean provides an email for

feedback which is analyzed and shared, generating appropriate actions.

Social Media – Facebook, Twitter and

You Tube

Unsolicited feedback, blogs and questions provide information in a

variety of areas, which are disseminated and appropriate actions taken.

Potential

Students

High school visits (prospect cards) Outcomes are recorded and follow up actions taken to establish and

maintain contact with prospective students to generate enrollments.

Recruitment events, campus visits, open

houses, attendance at community events

Prospects are identified and follow up actions taken to establish and

maintain contact with prospective students to generate enrollments.

High school counselor breakfast each

semester

Share updates on admissions process and college programs for

prospective students; obtain feedback on student needs and determine

how to better assist them in the college selection and admissions process.

New Student Information Form

Gather information from prospective new students prior each semester;

follow up action to respond; seek and provide additional information.

Stakeholders

Feeder

Schools

Ongoing contact and communication

through visits and meetings; assessment

of dual credit instructors

Build stronger relationships; improve student services and access;

improve dual credit curriculum and access.

Transfer

Schools

Reverse Transfer Survey; regular

meetings to exchange information and

work on agreements and student

programs

Improve transfer process and student readiness to transfer; improve

existing and create new articulation agreements; develop and improve

student programs.

Employers

Satisfaction surveys; events and tours on

campus; Sector Skill Groups; Advisory

Committees; experiential learning

Improve workforce development programs, develop stronger experiential

learning opportunities; improve student readiness for employment create

new workforce programs.

Community

Community Conversations; community

survey; experiential learning; events and

tours on campus; service programs;

community support activities

Build stronger relationships; improve workforce development programs,

community services, marketing approaches; generate better

understanding of community needs and concerns and generate plans to

address them.

Key

Constituents

Satisfaction surveys, campus events and

tours; ongoing communication and

contact

Build stronger relationships; improve alumni and donor services.

Figure 3.1-1 Student and Stakeholder Voice of the Customer Methods, Data Use and Follow Up


24

(2) Satisfaction Relative to Competitors - our primary

methods for determining our student and stakeholder

satisfaction relative to that of students at other colleges are

the analyses we conduct of the data provided by the

nationally-normed surveys we use; CCSSE, SENSE, and

Noel-Levitz. Each of these survey processes produces

comparative data reports that we use to determine our

relative performance. Less formal methods used to obtain

comparative data include Student Conversations,

Community Conversations, focus groups and other methods

that we have to converse informally with students and other

stakeholder groups. We use these and other comparisons to

identify opportunities for improvement, to confirm that we

are meeting and exceeding stakeholder expectations, and to

identify areas of outstanding performance.

(3) Dissatisfaction – we determine dissatisfaction through

three methods. First, assessment of the various survey

methods used to determine satisfaction and engagement.

The lowest rated areas are analyzed and trended so that we

understand where concerns exist and address them

accordingly. Second, as a learning organization we seek

opportunities for improvement proactively in the formal and

informal conversations that we conduct with students and

stakeholders. Whenever a formal conversation is held, and

most times when informal conversations are held, we ask

for input on what people are unhappy about and what we

can do better. Third, we analyze unsolicited feedback data to

identify not only individual areas of concern but also to

identify more systemic issues that emerge when multiple

concerns are submitted. For each of these methods,

information is provided to leadership and various

Departments as appropriate, and actions are taken to

improve when needs are validated.

3.2 Customer Engagement

3.2a Education Programs and Services and Student and

Stakeholder Support (1) Programs and Services - we identify student and

stakeholder requirements for our educational programs and

services through environmental scanning (Item 2.1), use of

the PDIA (Figure 6.2-1), application of the VOC to listen

and learn directly from students and stakeholders (Figure

3.1-1), sharing best practices and ideas with CQIN and

AQIP colleges, and monitoring accrediting and regulatory

bodies. Inputs from these methods are reviewed and

analyzed to identify emerging needs and expectations, the

desire for new or modified program or service features, and

the need for completely new programs and/or services. If a

new educational program is suggested, the New Academic

Program Development Process is applied as explained in

Item 6.2. An Associate Dean, in conjunction with the

appropriate Program Director or Department Leader,

complete a New Program Application addressing and

providing evidence of supply and demand, employment

projections, student interest, and external consultation. We

use Advisory Committees, Student and Community

Conversations and environmental scanning in this process.

The application must document the need for the program,

the resources needed to deliver the program, provide an

estimate of revenue and expenses, faculty and staff

requirements, a description of the curriculum, the proposed

design of the curriculum, and endorsements up to and

including the Provost. The application is submitted to Pro-

Deans for final approval. An example of a new innovative

program recently approved using this process is the

Composite Technician Program, which was given a League

for Innovation award for development of curriculum,

employer lab location, and a 90% student placement rate.

A new service program requirement might be generated

through Community Conversations, Student Conversations,

Point of Contact or other surveys, ASAD continuous

improvement discussions, or the Academic Program Review

Process. When a new service is warranted, Departments are

empowered to identify the requirements as part of

Department level planning, then design and implement the

service at their discretion. Examples of service programs

recently implemented include: UJIMA, a support group for

African American students created based on input received

from the Black Student Union; the Athletic Academic

Support Program; the Student Records Registrar

Restructuring initiative; the Medical Assistance Program;

and the Motorcycle Safety Program. All of these, we

believe, are methods to attract new students to GRCC.

(2) Student and Stakeholder Support – Access is one of

our Ends and we have established a requirement to

minimize the barriers of time, place, cost, and educational

preparation levels so that all in the community will have an

opportunity to obtain educational programs and services

from us. Consequently, we have developed a variety of

methods to enable students and stakeholders to seek

information and support, gain access to our offerings, and

provide feedback on our performance (Figure 3.2-1).

We determine key support requirements using the PDIA as

individual program and service work processes are designed

and evaluated. Step 2 of the PDIA requires process owners

to obtain input from the customers of their processes to gain

an understanding of needs and expectations and how they

might be changing over time. Support and access are major

considerations as this work is accomplished. The PDIA

team considers various methods to provide the greatest

support and access possible using their background and

expertise; VOC data; research into best practices; direct

contact with customers and stakeholders of the process; and

benchmarking with CQIN and AQIP learning partners.

Teams look beyond the norm striving to establish new and

innovative approaches. For example, the Pathways to

Employment Innovation Project strives to develop a

proactive and relevant integrated and collaborative career

and employment services model that meets the personalized

needs of our students. These services would prepare and

successfully assist students in preparing for, and finding

employment while pursuing and completing their

educational goals at GRCC and beyond.


25

Support and access requirements are deployed to the faculty

and staff involved in student and stakeholder support by

involving these process stakeholders on design and

improvement/innovation teams, by process owners as they

collaborate with them on process steps and changes that

might be made over time, by sharing information on process

performance and effectiveness with process stakeholders,

and during process performance reviews. Process owners

establish IOS to determine how well their process meets

requirements and monitor performance by collecting data,

including feedback from their customers and stakeholders.

(3) Student and Stakeholder Segmentation – we use

student and stakeholder, market, and educational program

and service information to identify groups and segments in

the following ways. For market segmentation, our primary

market area is that served by the KISD where we provide

education to three market segments: Workforce Degree

Students, Transfer Students; and Workforce Development

Customers in accordance with our mission and the Ends.

Within these market segments, we have established a

number of student and stakeholder groups as shown in

Figure P.1-3. We define segments as groups that have

special needs and require special accommodation during

their interaction with the College, beginning with

recruitment and continuing throughout each segment’s

experience at or with the school, with special emphasis on

academic achievement. After a group is identified, the

accommodations needed are specified and plans are

developed to meet those needs. Segmentation involves a

review of the data associated with the ES, data produced by

the VOC methods, and student performance results. The ES

provides a detailed summary of community education needs

in the market area, emerging student and stakeholder

requirements, and an assessment of competing institutions;

the VOC provides detailed information on current and

emerging student and stakeholder preferences, and levels of

engagement and satisfaction; and student performance data

indicate if performance differs for student groups. In

assessing this information we seek to determine if

segmentation should be altered based on the following

considerations:

do special needs exist for a certain group of students

and stakeholders that are significantly different than

the entire group;

do engagement, satisfaction or performance results

indicate differences for a certain group of students and

stakeholders; and

do services or accommodations provided differ

sufficiently to warrant a separate group.

To illustrate, in August 2010 a GRCC Data Team was

appointed by the Provost to study outcome data and identify

where achievement gaps existed among different groups of

students. The team studied the following five data sets using

Fall 2009 results as a baseline:

successful completion of AFP courses and

subsequent enrollment in college level courses;

Student or

Stakeholder

Support and Information Access to Offerings Feedback

Students

Website, phone, e-mail, texting

Online registration

Student Conversations

Web/phone advising

Technology in classrooms and labs


Faculty office hours

Transfer and articulation agreements

Work-study opportunities

IDEA Newsletter

Student services offices

Dual enrollment Developmental Ed

offerings

Online course offerings

Flexible course schedule and

variety of delivery

Experiential learning

Multiple campus locations

Extended hours for services


Student Feedback Fair

Satisfaction and engagement

surveys

Faculty, counselor and

advisor evaluation surveys

Point of Contact Service

Surveys

Student Focus Groups

Facebook, Twitter and

YouTube

Feeder

Schools

Website, phone and e-mail

Staff liaison

High school visits

Meetings

Articulation agreements

Dual enrollment

Counselor breakfasts

Campus events and tours

Counselor breakfasts

Meetings

Transfer

Schools


Staff liaison

Campus tours

Transfer and articulation

agreements


Reverse Transfer Survey

Meetings

Employers


Advisory Committees

Meetings

Classes at work location


Advisory Committees

Employer Surveys

Community


Community Conversations

Foundation Annual Report


Learning Corners

Community Conversations

Community Perception

Survey

Key

Constituents

Website, phone and e-mail Campus tours and events Alumni Survey

Figure 3.2-1 Key Support, Access and Feedback Methods


26

successful completion of “gatekeeper” courses;

completion rates for all courses;

retention of student cohorts through initial term

completion, fall to winter and fall to fall; and

graduation rates after three years.

All data was disaggregated by ethnicity, age, gender, and

Pell Grant status, and the team broke into seven work

groups based on priority areas established from an

assessment of the data. Subsequent analysis found sufficient

differences in student achievement to establish the student

groups shown in the OP. This work also provided the basis

for our partnership with “Achieving the Dream” to help us

develop improvements and innovations to increase student

success for these groups.

(4) Student and Stakeholder Data Use - marketing also

involves use of ES and VOC data, which provide an

assessment of our primary market area as well as the

surrounding regions, movement of students within the

market, an assessment of the competition, and identification

of new education needs that may be emerging within the

community. Based on this information, we determine if the

existing market strategy is still valid, if an adjustment to that

strategy is needed to improve education and operational

outcomes, and if the market should be segmented differently

for data collection and tracking purposes. As part of this

process we evaluate information pertaining to community

education needs through networking within the communities

served and formal participation by GRCC leaders in local

business and civic groups, as well as input from Community

Conversations and the Advisory Committees. Data from

these sources are analyzed to help determine how to target

the market and determine the need for new or improved

services. For example, we determined that regions outside

our primary market area were not being served by another

community college and established a secondary market area

in Ottawa County and regional centers.

The data and information described throughout Category 3

are communicated broadly to the College through reviews

and meetings in order to focus the workforce on student

success as our most critical outcome and build a student and

stakeholder focused culture. An illustration of how we use

student and stakeholder data to accomplish this and to

encourage identification of opportunities for innovation is

our approach to monitoring community enrollment trends.

This includes a determination of the number of potential

students available to attend GRCC and those who actually

do within the district, outside the district, and outside the

state. These data also allow us to identify our primary feeder

schools, compute our market share, and calculate the market

potential of students who may attend GRCC. These data are

synthesized and converted into marketing strategies to

attract students who might go elsewhere. These data are also

tracked throughout the year by IRP, which maintains an

Enrollment Scoreboard to compare enrollment trends from

year to year in order to improve student services. Data

displayed are intended to show how many students are in

the pipeline and at what stage, i.e., how many total

applicants, how many have submitted all necessary

materials; how many are without a high school diploma and

need to take the Intake Test; how many are registered; how

many are from the primary and secondary market areas; and

the mix of returning, transfer, and new students. The data

are updated weekly and reported to the Dean’s Council so

they can initiate actions to remedy developing issues or

concerns before they become problems. For example, if the

percentage of returning students is lower than anticipated at

any given time, a notice is sent to those who have yet to

register for the upcoming semester encouraging them to do

so. In addition, these data permit monitoring changes in

demographics and academic preparation, comparative

trends, and student preferences that may require further

segmentation. This information is shared with the Dean’s

Council and Cabinet leading to mid-course corrections

and/or initiatives for targeting segments that appear to

present growth opportunities or that need specialized

attention.

3.2.b Building Student and Stakeholder Relationships

(1) Relationship Management – we build relationships

with students and stakeholders through highly focused

interactions, provision of a variety of personalized and

innovative services, and two-way communications both in

and out of the classroom. Figure 3.2-2 summarizes the wide

variety of relationship building methods we use to acquire

new students and stakeholders and build market share; to

retain students and stakeholders, meet their requirements,

and exceed their expectations; and to increase engagement.

At the core of new student acquisition is our recruitment

process and relationship building with feeder schools and

employers. Our intent is to work collaboratively with our

stakeholders to engage potential students in the pursuit of

higher education and develop systems, processes, and events

to support a shared vision of advanced learning. We build

relationships with future students and feeder schools

through an extensive network of outreach programs. Feeder

high schools are located throughout KISD, which includes

20 public school districts with 42 public high schools and

nine private high schools. We also offer outreach operations

at 25 high schools in adjacent counties. We communicate

our expectations for incoming students through recruiting

visits to these schools, articulation agreements, our catalog

and other publications, our orientation program, and our

web site. In addition, programs such as Dual Enrollment,

Early College, Tech Prep, Girls in STEM Careers, and

Upward Bound serve to build strong relationships. This

college-wide recruitment effort makes it possible to contact

prospective students in both public and parochial high

schools, business, and industry. Our recruiting strategies

have increased our visibility among high schools and also

with employers though Advisory Committees, meetings,

and customized training offerings, and with transfer schools

through faculty to faculty meetings intended to improve

existing articulation agreements and produce new ones.


27

Relationship building approaches focused on retention of

enrolled students and stakeholders emphasize meeting

requirements and exceeding expectations. We build

relationships with students through personalized, innovative

service offerings such as our financial aid lab and

specialized tutoring for developmental math students; our

focus on interactive and collaborative learning; programs

and activities centered on social growth and development;

our efforts to provide assistance in transferring or gaining

employment as graduation nears; and a variety of personal

communications. An important retention factor for students

is the ease of access to a four-year institution therefore, we

place great emphasis on developing relationships with

different articulation agreements in place. We have

expanded our role as a premier transfer institution by

establishing comprehensive transfer guides with more than

30 schools and program-specific transfer guides with more

than 150 schools to facilitate transfer of our students and to

understand requirements so as to better prepare our students

for success and by partnering with FSU to operate an

Applied Technology Center. This on-campus facility houses

FSU staff and programs and makes it possible for students

to obtain a full four-year FSU degree at GRCC. GVSU is

our largest educational partner and we hold meetings with

GVSU and other transfer administrators to enhance

cooperation between our institutions. In addition, three plus

one (3+1) agreements with FSU, Davenport, Michigan

State, Siena Heights, and Northwood Universities allow

students to spend the first three years of a four-year degree

at GRCC. We also participate with 26 Michigan colleges

and universities using the MACRAO agreement to facilitate

transfer of our students to other colleges and universities.

Due to the nature of the community college, most student

engagement occurs within the classroom. To that end, our

use of collaborative learning has been productive in building

engagement as is evidenced in the CCSSE survey outcomes.

To increase the depth of engagement, faculty employ a

variety of strategies including student research projects,

student participation in the development of classroom

learning events, student involvement in sustainability

projects, and experiential learning opportunities. In addition,

we have listened to the needs of our students and

stakeholders via focus groups and surveys and further

developed opportunities for engagement outside the

classroom. We provide opportunities for social engagement,

learning, leadership building, and wellness through various

programs and sports activities. We further engage students,

the community and all stakeholders by providing various

cultural and educational events on campus.

(2) Complaint Management – our Student Feedback

Management Process (SFMP) shown in Figure 3.2-3

applies to unsolicited feedback received from students and

stakeholders. Feedback may be provided in any of the

following ways: online web form; suggestion boxes; filters

on Facebook, Twitter, and other social media; call center

tracking; direct input in person, via e-mail, or phone;

gathering observations during key times in key locations;

and listening events. The SFMP is decentralized,

empowering the faculty and staff receiving concerns to

resolve them on the spot and create an expectation that

resolution will be accomplished in 3 days or sooner. As

necessary, Departments initiate PDIA activities if concerns

suggest that a process improvement is required.

Departments track feedback information and actions taken

and report that information to the Student Feedback

Management Team (SFMT) for broader understanding of

issues and identification of more systemic opportunities to

improve. This team is comprised of members from across

Acquire Retain Increase Engagement

Recruiting visits to high schools

College Fairs

Breakfast with high school counselors

High school counselor newsletter

Campus visits

Facebook ads

Letter w/application to prospective students

Dual enrollment classes

Honors program mailing to applicants

Reminders to Accuplacer students

Applicant info to counselors

Admissions Twitter account

Enrollment website

Post card to admits with enrollment info

E-mail to admits with next step info

Ads in college newspapers

Advisory Committees

Meetings with employers

Customized training offerings

Faculty to faculty meetings w/universities

Veteran’s Group Partnership

Orientation program

Post card reminders, Posters, and Blackboard

messages w/enrollment info

Career Coach

Ads in Collegiate w/enrollment info

Summer Enrollment Poster

E-mails to students nearing degree completion

E-mails to students who withdrew from or failed a

class

Course placement

Experiential Learning opportunities

Financial aid lab to develop apps and forms

Specialized section for tutoring developmental math

Enrollment Center computer café with staff to assist

students

Dual Enrollment, Early College, Tech Prep

Academy and Upward Bound

Career Center and Career Expo Fairs

Transfer and articulation agreements

Transfer guides and Transfer Fairs

Advisory Committees

Active and collaborative

learning

Campus programs and

activities


Dean’s meetings with

university partners

GVSU Advisor meetings

Reverse Transfer project

Staff presentations at

conferences

Open houses for students

and parents

Figure 3.2-2 Relationship Building Methods


28

the campus and is led by the Associate Director of Student

Conduct and Student Satisfaction Initiatives. The SFMT

assesses trends in student feedback and compiles reports for

the Dean’s Council, which is responsible to take action.

Students who provide their contact information when they

submit feedback receive an e-mail and/or a phone call to

thank them for their input and advise them of action taken.

For complaints dealing with formal grades, students follow

a formal Student Academic Grievance Procedure.

Relevant to Area Not Relevant to Area

4 Measurement, Analysis, and Knowledge

Management 4.1 Measurement, Analysis, and Improvement of

Organizational Performance

4.1a Performance Measurement

(1) Performance Measures – measures to track daily

operations are identified as processes are designed. The

third step of the PDIA has as its objective the design of a

monitoring system for each process to understand if

requirements are being met and to identify when process

variations are occurring in an effort to preclude problems

from developing. When process measures are selected, data

collection methods to support them are identified and

collection procedures are established by process owners.

These vary depending upon the process and the specific

measure selected. For example, student engagement and

satisfaction data are collected through the CCSSE survey

process while student performance data are collected by

recording course and program outcomes. Department

leaders are responsible to identify which processes drive

critical outcomes and ensure that appropriate process data

and information are identified, collected, and monitored at

their level. This permits a drill down from the College level

directly to a particular process when performance lags or

other issues emerge. Process level data and information are

aligned and integrated at the Department level through

aggregation and analysis activities to support higher level

monitoring capability. For example, Course Success data are

aggregated from across disciplines at the Department level,

and from across Departments at the College level.

Department leaders are responsible to ensure that process

level measurement is a regular activity throughout GRCC

and hold faculty and staff accountable to follow prescribed

procedures to ensure that daily operations are tracked

effectively. Process-level measures are used to make

judgments about the effectiveness of daily operations and

work processes and include outcome (summative) and in-

process (formative) measures, including actual performance

data and perception data in the form of feedback from

process customers. This permits faculty and staff to

continuously monitor performance, identify improvement

actions, and generate innovations needed to ensure the

consistent delivery of high quality services to customers.

The IOS are used to track overall College performance and

are summarized in Figures 2.1-3 (Strategic Plan IOS) and

4.1-1 (Financial IOS). The IOS provide for strategic

alignment, linkage, and synergy across the campus and are

selected annually during the SPS so they are linked to the

Ends, Strategies, CAPs, and DAPs thereby permitting an

understanding of progress against the strategic plan

throughout the plan cycle. In general, IOS are chosen to

meet any of the following criteria:

they demonstrate progress against the strategic plan;

they provide data needed to understand performance in

other areas important to our success; and/or

they relate to compliance or risk factors that need to be

measured.

The IOS serve to align the entire College as they are

cascaded to the Provost and the Vice Presidents, to each

School, and to each Department, which incorporate them

into their individual measurement selection and tracking

methods. Each level of the organization evaluates its IOS

and results from the prior year, defines IOS and

performance projections based on its strategic plan for the

current year, ensures alignment with higher level IOS, adds

IOS that are important to its individual operation, and

establishes long-term targets. This process allows for

evaluation of the indicators that will drive data collection

requirements for the coming year, ensures alignment and

integration of the measurement system for the entire

organization, and provides a basis for communication

Receive

feedback

If not able,

bring to

supervisor

Respond

in 3 days

Resolve

concern Coordinate

action with

relevant area

Document and

track action;

send to SFMT

Supervisor

takes action

to resolve

Receive

feedback

Resolve or

verify action

planned

If resolved

provide

feedback for

recording

Figure 3.2.3 Student Feedback Management Process

4 MEASUREMENT, ANALYSIS, AND KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

29

regarding performance issues and challenges. Academic

disciplines also have a standard set of measures that they

track on a semester or annual basis. These measures align

with the “Achieving the Dream” indicators that have been

selected nationally for community colleges – fall to winter

retention, course success rates for all courses, and

graduation rates.

Department leaders ensure that the IOS are deployed to staff

through the PES. Staff members establish individual goals

linked to the Department goals in the IOS that are

appropriate for that staff member, and they are listed on his

or her performance management form. This ensures

alignment of the measurement system to the individual level

and integration of the PES, SPS and IOS processes.

We use the data and information that are produced in

support of the measurement system to understand our

performance at any given time through the review process

described in Area 4.1b. A priority is placed on actions to

enhance student achievement and success; identifying

opportunities for improvement; identifying changes needed

in service delivery to improve customer service; changes

needed to address changing market conditions; changes

needed to address changing student and stakeholder

requirements; and changes needed to address the longer-

term implication of current performance. Results in the IOS

provide for the identification of issues for corrective action,

improvement planning and innovation. Every month a

GRCC Indicator Report is created to document and

demonstrate the status of the IOS. The report provides

updated performance levels for each of the IOS, historical

data reaching back five years, benchmark data, IOS targets,

and a color-coded trend line display. The report is provided

to the SLT, Cabinet, and Board for review and the data

contained in the report are tracked by the relevant Ends

Committee of the SLT. If an indicator is red (below target)

the team reviews the status of the CAPs and DAPs that

have been designed to change the indicator. If they believe

that the projects and plans are still sufficient to create

positive change in the indicator they continue on the current

course. If they believe that a change is warranted they

develop a recommendation and take it to the SLT for

approval. In addition, Dashboards are used at the College,

VP, and Department levels to monitor performance.

(2) Comparative Data - Comparative data to determine

relative performance are selected based upon the importance

of the IOS and the availability of the data. Generally, if an

IOS is selected for strategic plan tracking it automatically

becomes a candidate for comparative data. These data are

included in the Indicator Reports and are used to identify

where improved performance is needed, to establish

performance projections, and to establish IOS targets. To

obtain comparative data results information we research

third-party providers to identify those who have

demonstrated an ability to obtain data relative to our IOS

and provide information about competitor or peer group

organizations. Based on these criteria, we have chosen those

shown in Figure P.2-1 as our primary sources.

(3) Student and Stakeholder Data - VOC data and

information are major components of our measurement

system and improvement/innovation initiatives. Item 3.1

outlines the methods we use to listen and learn, determine

satisfaction, engagement, comparative satisfaction and

dissatisfaction. These methods are determined through

ongoing cycles of improvement to our student and

stakeholder data collection approach. The criteria for

selection require that the data pertain to all student groups;

provide relative comparative data; focus on student and

stakeholder key requirements; and address areas of

importance to the College.

VOC data are used at the College level to determine

shortfalls and identify opportunities for improvement and

innovations in meeting student and stakeholder needs and

expectations; developing relationships; and creating greater

engagement. Figure 3.1-1 identifies the ways in which VOC

data are used. These data are monitored by the SLT, the

Provost, VPs and Department leaders in academic and

student services areas. For example, CCSSE and SENSE

provide detailed analyses of student-related data and these

are presented to SLT, Deans’ Council, School of Arts &

Sciences, and to the Student Affairs Leadership Team.

Areas needing improvement are noted and relayed to the

appropriate Department or team. For example, GRCC

students reported studying fewer hours than students in the

national sample so the importance of using regular hours

for study is now stressed during New Student Orientation.

(4) Measurement Agility - to stay current with educational

needs, the performance measurement system is evaluated

annually for changes to the IOS during strategic planning.

Changes are made as needed based upon changes in

Strategies, CAPs, or other factors such as new measurement

methods being introduced by the College. For example,

AGC is evaluating the academic measurement system in an

effort to define how to better gauge student achievement and

student success, and we continue to research ways to

measure achievement of the student learning outcomes.

Department level measures are also evaluated as part of the

planning system as the IOS are deployed throughout the

College. Every quarter, the IOS are reviewed to determine

the performance in the measured areas as compared to

target. The measures themselves are also discussed during

these reviews and changes are made as needed. Process

performance measures are also reviewed on a regular basis

using the PDIA as the processes themselves are evaluated.

Financial IOS

Revenue Sources Fund Balance Net Assets

FY Equated Students

(FYES)

Contact Hours

Revenue per FYES Budget Management

Expenditures per FYES Foundation Giving

Net Assets Tuition Comparison

Figure 4.1-1 Financial Indicators of Success


30

4.1b Performance Analysis and Review

In addition to the Indicator Report, a full-fledged review of

organizational performance, capabilities and success,

competitive performance, financial health, and progress to

strategies and CAPs is conducted through the BMR process.

BMRs are prepared on a monthly basis and summarize

progress in relation to the Ends. A CAP Reporting Schedule

is developed at the outset of the year and identifies the

month that a particular End will be reviewed, including the

Strategies and CAPs contained in that End. The Ends

Committees (EC) of the SLT are responsible to develop the

BMR and guide it through the BMR process, however, they

are supported by the CAP Champion and other members of

the SLT who volunteer to assist the team. The EC begins

work on the BMR three months in advance of the Board

meeting they are scheduled to present at. The report is

created based on a template that prescribes a written report

that includes an Executive Summary, Key Findings, status

of each CAP and supporting DAPs, and the performance

results for each of the College level IOS identified for that

End, as well as the supporting IOS identified at the VP or

Department levels. One month prior to the Board meeting

the EC brings the BMR to Cabinet where the indicators and

the status of the CAPs and DAPs are reviewed. Cabinet

provides suggestions for improving the report and for the

direction of the CAPs, particularly if the IOS are not

performing at target levels. The EC makes revisions as

needed based upon the outcome of the meeting with Cabinet

and then returns to Cabinet for a final review two weeks in

advance of the Board meeting.

The BMR is sent to the Board one week in advance of the

meeting, and the EC then presents it to the Board when the

meeting occurs. The team fields questions about the

indicators, targets, CAPs and DAPs, and accepts any

guidance from the Board, which can include alteration of

the IOS and targets if deemed appropriate. At the next SLT

meeting, the EC presents the BMR and explains suggestions

made by Cabinet and the Board, and any changes that have

been made to the IOS, targets, CAPs or DAPs.

Data analysis to support the Indicator Report and BMR

processes and ensure data validity includes a detailed review

and double check by those responsible to collect and review

the data at different levels. This includes process owners,

teams, IRP staff, and Deans and SLT members. These

individuals and groups have been taught to analyze patterns,

trends and comparisons for aberrations, signs of

irregularities, or other indicators that might make the data

suspicious. If such suspicions arise, data collectors track the

data back to make any corrections that may be appropriate.

In addition, we make an effort to select data from known,

approved sources that we have confidence in to help assure

the accuracy of data we use to make decisions. Additional

analysis to support the BMR process is designed to generate

ease of understanding of the data that have been collected so

they are more meaningful to review teams. This is

accomplished by each CAP team and typically consists of

action plan progress reports in the form of Gant charts or

similar milestone achievement and planning techniques.

Trend charts and comparison to prior year performance are

also used when data collection pertains to plans that have

already been implemented and an effort is being made to

determine effectiveness of the changes made. If plans are

not on track, Cabinet or the Board provides guidance and

advice, and directs plan modification as needed.

A number of analyses are also accomplished to support the

presentation of the IOS. The results of these efforts are

published in the Indicator Report and also provided in the

BMRs. These reports show how well the College is meeting

each of the Ends priorities within the strategic plan or other

priorities that may be the focus of the BMR. To obtain this

information, data are gathered from across the College.

These data are plotted in tables that segment the data as

appropriate, list the performance by year, including current

and past years, and show the percentage change from one

year to the next and/or a comparison to an appropriate

benchmark, the target, and a color-coded trend line where

green indicates that the performance is on track with the

plan and red indicates that the performance is lagging

behind plan. In addition, the Dashboard (DB) system has

been created so that performance can be easily displayed

and understood. The DB shows the Ends, the goals of the

Ends, the IOS, current year performance, prior year

performance, benchmark performance where data are

available, and the color-coded trend line.

During EC reviews, IOS that are performing in the red are

further analyzed to determine cause. In some cases the

cause is explainable and no further action is required. In

other cases the cause might be that the CAP has not had

sufficient time for the “treatment” to take effect. If a change

in the CAP is deemed necessary, the EC discusses the issue

with the CAP Champion, makes the decision, and informs

the SLT. The Champion then informs others who need to

know and the change is made to the strategic plan document

on the website. The results of Indicator Report and BMR

reviews are communicated through staff meetings and other

direct contact with faculty, staff, and work groups in the

various areas impacted by the decisions made by the CAP

Champions or EC members so appropriate supporting

actions can be taken. Where appropriate, the CAP

Champions also notify various stakeholders when their

support of GRCC is impacted. Access to the College DB is

also available to the faculty and staff, students, and

stakeholders on the GRCC website so changes to the plan

can be viewed at any time.

We also conduct analysis to support the annual budgeting

process to plan the allocation of capital and operating

resources for the upcoming year and set college financial

goals. The budgeting process uses comparative data to

analyze market trends, regulatory changes, and competitive

issues. The budget is integrated with the financial statements

to allow a monthly comparison of actual and budgeted

operating results. Administrative leaders and the Board

regularly compare the college’s financial indicators to the


31

averages of local competitors, peer colleges, and national

standards. In addition, our CPA firm prepares an analysis of

emerging financial trends within higher education and

reports its opinion of GRCC’s position as part of its

presentation of audited financial statements to the Board.

4.1c. Performance Improvement

(1) Best Practice Sharing – methods used to share best

practices are shown in Figure 4.2-2. Our values of

Excellence and Innovation have inspired development and

implementation of numerous best practices and innovative

approaches, which are shared and discussed formally and

informally across the College. Through cycles of

improvement, best practices and key lessons learned have

become expected outcomes of performance reviews and

what is learned is routinely communicated to Departments

where decisions are made to replicate a practice when

appropriate. In recent years, a few of the many best

practices shared across GRCC include PDIA techniques to

improve/innovate programs, services, and processes;

methods to implement the Baldrige Criteria; and innovative

teaching methods.

(2) Future performance – Figure 2.2-3 shows projections

of performance for each of the IOS over the near and longer

term. During planning, the SLT develops these projections

based on historical performance data, trends in the higher

education sector, performance of competitor and

comparative organizations, environmental scanning

information, anticipated impact of the CAPs and DAPs, and

anticipated impact of any planned changes in work system

design. The SLT also projects comparative performance

using information similar to that we use in developing our

own projections.

(3) Continuous Improvement and Innovation -

performance review findings emanating from the BMR

process are used to develop priorities for continuous

improvement and opportunities for innovation in several

ways. First, during reviews performance is evaluated against

the performance projections and preset target ranges that

were established during the SPS so that the SLT

understands if we are ahead of, at or behind projections, and

if trends are currently favorable (green) or unfavorable

(red). If performance is lagging and/or red trend lines

appear, those IOS become priorities in need of a PDIA

assessment seeking improvement or innovation. Second, as

the ECs prepare their BMR, they confer with various

Department leaders, process owners, and CAP teams to

determine the progress of their activities. If progress is

lagging, the EC is obliged to confer with the CAP

Champion and identify corrective action to get the project

back on track and then provide a recommendation to

Cabinet and the Board. Third, during these discussions,

recommendations for modification, an improvement or

innovation might be generated even if progress has been

achieved. In that case, the Champion will bring the new

ideas to the SLT and Board for consideration. With the

information generated from these methods, Cabinet and the

Board determine where the priorities should be placed and

direct action accordingly.

Our approach for deploying priorities and opportunities that

result from reviews throughout the College and to external

stakeholders is the responsibility of the Champions. He or

she is responsible to make the appropriate notifications to

anyone impacted by decisions that have been made or

anyone directly involved with the actions being taken to

continue implementation of the project. Champions do this

using direct contact in follow up meetings as well as e-mail

notifications to team members and those impacted.

4.2 Management of Information, Knowledge, and

Information Technology

4.2a Data, Information, and Knowledge Management

(1) Properties – we are committed to protecting

information and the information systems where it is

maintained. An information security policy has been put in

place that includes specific guidelines and procedures to

safeguard the College’s data and the systems used to collect

and manage it. Integrity, timeliness, reliability, security,

accuracy, and confidentiality of all data, information, and

knowledge are dependent on both the effectiveness of staff

and data management systems. Figure 4.2-1 summarizes our

efforts in these areas.

Access to all enterprise systems requires users

to authenticate with a unique login ID and password. All of

these systems use Secure Socket Layer (SSL)

encryption that provides secure communications of the

user's password and data as they are transmitted over the

network. Staff effectiveness is ensured through a detailed

hiring and recruiting process, the PDD system, and various

education, training, and development initiatives. These

establish performance expectations and boundaries and

focus on the need for integrity, reliability, accuracy, and

confidentiality of data, information, and knowledge.

Similarly, data management systems are selected,

developed, and maintained to maximize these properties. As

technology systems are selected, hardware and software

sources are screened. Specifications are defined through the

development of definitions, identification of needed data

elements, and user requirements. This structure provides for

integrity, reliability, and accuracy of the data elements.

(2) Data and Information Availability – our objective is to

maximize the amount of institutional data and information

that are available online. Our IT architecture is the basis by

which we accomplish this objective for faculty and staff,

partners, students, and stakeholders. The architecture

permits data and information accessibility from anywhere

on campus via the College Network, College Web Pages,

and the Campus Wide Information System (CWIS). The

network provides ubiquitous access to College resources

and the Internet via both wired and wireless connections on

campus. Wired access to these networks for college-owned

systems is available in all faculty and staff offices, student


32

services areas, library, computer labs, and many classrooms

allowing access to secure, firewall-protected data and

information. The wireless network canopy covers 100% of

the campus, allowing students, stakeholders, suppliers,

partners, and collaborators to access the Internet for

appropriate data and information. The Lakeshore and

DeVos campuses are connected to the main campus via

fiber to provide the same access to data and information that

stakeholders have on the main campus. We are

implementing a VDI (virtual desktop infrastructure) solution

to provide remote access to core systems from off campus.

This solution provides secure access to PeopleSoft,

ImageNow and other enterprise applications that contain

FERPA, HIPPA and other private information.

The architecture of our CWIS allows users to access

appropriate information as defined by their user profile.

Students have access 24/7 to their personal, academic, and

account information through the use of a portal that gives

them access to the network, e-mail, online learning systems,

registration, class schedules, grades, their personal portfolio,

and other online services. Faculty members use a portal to

gain 24/7 access to their schedules, class list information,

and grade rosters. All employees have online access to their

personal, payroll, benefit, and leave bank information via

the CWIS. Suppliers, partners, and stakeholders have access

to appropriate and related information via the College

website. Purchasing information, employment opportunities,

employment applications, campus events, news, and special

announcements are all accessible online. All members of the

community can utilize on-line, self service functionality to

identify, enroll, and pay for workshops, special training

programs, or continuing education offerings.

Care has been taken to seek and maintain quality Internet

connectivity and service, particularly to local cable and DSL

service users who constitute a significant portion of our

service community. Use of a secondary Internet service

provider eliminates service concerns by providing multiple

paths for access. The growth of wireless service utilization

by faculty, students, employees, customers, and

stakeholders drives continuous efforts to improve services

and explore next generation wireless technologies.

(3) Knowledge Management – multiple methods exist to

collect and transfer organizational knowledge as shown in

Figure 4.2-2. Our Knowledge Management Process

(KMP) is designed to collect and transfer knowledge

possessed by the workforce; transfer knowledge from

students, stakeholders, suppliers, partners, and collaborators;

identify, share and implement best practices; and assemble

and transfer knowledge for use in PDIA nd the SPS.

Workforce knowledge is collected through daily contacts

among the faculty and staff and formally transferred through

our leadership team and committee organizational structure.

In addition, collection and transfer of workforce knowledge

occurs through the documentation of work processes and

learning that is provided to their customers and stakeholders

so they understand how the processes are designed and

implemented. Further, our team-based culture produces

numerous cross-functional teams resulting in strong

collaboration and knowledge sharing in accordance with our

work system design. Knowledge generated by teams is

collected, stored, and accessible in our internal database.

Transfer of knowledge to students and stakeholders is

accomplished by VPs, Deans, Department leaders, and

process owners through social media, e-mail, phone calls,

publications, direct contact, and the website. Collection and

transfer of knowledge from students and stakeholders is

accomplished by the VOC methods shown in Figure 3.1-1.

For example, when student survey results are received by

IRP, they are inserted into appropriate databases, reviewed

with VPs, Deans, and Department leaders, and stored for

review by stakeholders. The information is then reviewed at

Cabinet and SLT, and then is sent to the appropriate

disciplines or Departments. The information is recorded on

the Indicator Report and on Dashboards for tracking and

follow-up action.

Factor Method to Ensure

Accuracy

Training

Audit reports

Data field validation

Input masks

Error reporting

Complaint data

Vendor monitoring

Relational database cross checking

Integrity and

reliability

User authentication

Training

Audit reports

Data validation functions

Comparison to standards

Hardware and software monitoring

Timeliness

Computer access and availability

Policies

Reports

Work orders

Training

Help desk

Network monitoring

Hardware recycle policies

Security and

Confidentiality

User authentication

Usage policies

Data encryption

Access log monitoring

Virus protection

Spyware identification

Firewall

File permissions

Data redundancy

Figure 4.2-1 Approaches to Address Data

Management Factors


33

We identify best practices as part of our systematic process

for performance reviews (Area 4.1b), performance

improvement (Area 4.1c), process improvement and

innovation (Figure 6.2-1), and through benchmarking

initiatives with a variety of outside organizations. Internal

and external best practices are shared through the methods

shown in Figure 4.2-2 and are implemented throughout the

College using the PDIA. We assemble and transfer

knowledge using the KMP. Knowledge is identified through

the methods described, input into KM storage, and made

available to groups who have a need for the knowledge

(Cabinet, Department teams, PDIA teams, etc.) and then

widely disseminated in meetings to support innovation ideas

and projects as appropriate and to the SLT via the internal

factors segment of the environmental scan.

4.2b Management of Information Resources and

Technology

(1) Hardware and Software Properties - we strive to

maintain leading edge technology in all facilities and

instructional programs and employ leading edge

applications in support of teaching and learning, business

operations, and administrative functions. To enhance

reliability and ensure user-friendly systems, minimum

hardware specifications and standardized software

applications exist for classrooms and administrative

computing needs. Hardware upgrades are made to the

instructional environment first to ensure students have

access to the latest technology before upgrades are migrated

to the office environments. Standards for software

deployment have been developed to ensure consistency

across the College for file and information sharing, and

applications are tested and validated before being deployed.

IT staff members continually monitor all network and

centralized computer infrastructure components to ensure

that they are running properly and efficiently to guarantee

the highest reliability and responsiveness. State-of-the-art

tools are used for tuning and safeguarding the college’s

system, providing immediate notification to appropriate IT

staff when measured indicators are out of the norm and

approaching ranges. Regular maintenance is done on all

system components to correct known problems and to

provide enhancements made by IT suppliers. Functional

areas are kept fully aware of enhancements and fixes and

are fully involved in all testing and additional training that

may be necessary with each update.

Our Help Desk also contributes to reliability and a user-

friendly environment by providing frontline technical

support to faculty and staff. Issues that can be resolved over

the phone are handled immediately, and technicians respond

directly to offices and classrooms as needed to provide

additional technical support and troubleshooting for

computers and multi-media equipment. The staff and

student support desk was recently combined into a single

point of contact. All customer support staff can support both

student and faculty/staff related issues. This includes

PeopleSoft applications, Blackboard accounts, and other

instructional applications. IT Customer Support staff

provide cross college, cross customer support to allow in-

person support during the day, and in some evening and

weekend classes. As scheduling options increase, we

continue to explore ways to assure 24/7 help desk support

services for all users. Security of systems and information

contained therein is also an important activity. User profiles

ensure that accessibility to data and information is limited to

those who have a need and are authorized. Vigilance for

computer viruses and worms and the control of externally

generated SPAM is ceaseless. Technology solutions such as

firewalls, SPAM service filters, and intrusion monitoring,

detection, and mitigation tools have all been successfully

implemented as layers of defense against ongoing threats,

both external and internal.

Knowledg

e Type Management Method

Workforce

Process documentation

Departmental or unit meetings

Staff reports/suggestions to leadership

Informal communication among peers

Suggestions to committees/councils/teams

E-mail /Daily GRCC e-Newsletter

Bulletin boards/Website

College input sessions

Exit interviews

Learning summaries

Student

Student representative

Faculty interaction with student

VOC survey processes

Direct customer contact

Printed material /Comment Cards

Student government

Stakeholde

r

Partner

Collaborat

or

Supplier

Communication within College staff

Input into teams/committees as a member

or stakeholder

Outreach activities

Presentations/College events

College publications/Website

Checking partner references/resources

Training of staff by supplier

Monthly and quarterly meetings

Sharing

Best

Practices

Faculty Learning Day

Instructional Technology Showcase

Provost updates

Distance Leaning IT Tweets

Customer Facing Knowledge Base

ITIL best practices distribution

Innovation;

Strategic

Planning

Environmental Scan

GRCC Indicator Report

Board Monitoring Reports

Dashboards

Archived PDIA Project Information

Figure 4.2-2 Knowledge Management Collection and

Transfer Methods


34

The CWIS and Blackboard leadership teams meet regularly

to review software functionality, address process and system

improvements needed, schedule routine maintenance needs,

and plan for upgrades. The Blackboard Learning

Management System and Oracle database was upgraded in

2010-11 to ensure that the database infrastructure is up-to-

date and to provide additional application functionality in

response to identified faculty concerns. Numerous processes

and procedures exist to assure instructional software and

hardware are kept current. Instructional software needs are

reviewed each semester to assure that applications

appropriately support curriculum needs, are integrated with

textbook applications, and support regional employer needs

as identified by program advisory committees. Additionally,

the instructional software selection process includes an

examination for accessibility to meet ADA compliance.

Classroom and lab computers are on a three-year

replacement cycle to assure hardware is adequate to support

software applications. Processes and procedures for service

deployment, including user account management and access

rights, are reviewed and updated to keep pace with resource

changes and maintain effective security and efficient

service. IT benchmarks organizational structure, FTE,

systems, budget, etc. against peer data available through the

Educause Core Data System, Campus Computing Project

and the HEITS project. The IT group recently started a

Project Management Office that is responsible for managing

projects to ensure schedules and budgets are met, and to

focus on business process improvement.

2) Emergency Availability - continuity of service is a

primary goal of our technology strategic direction. This is

achieved through a variety of tools, processes, backup, and

redundant systems such as multiple servers, load balancing,

swappable components, backup power sources, and regular

maintenance. To ensure systems are available 24/7, backups

occur without shutting down key databases and interrupting

service for students, faculty, and/or staff. A tape backup

system is installed at a satellite facility so all systems are

being backed up without the need to carry tapes offsite.

We are well underway toward implementation of business

continuity best practices by providing a technology

infrastructure able to respond to business operation needs in

the event of extended outage, emergency, or disaster

situations. A secondary data center, several miles away, has

been established and fiber connectivity between sites is

maintained via data network solutions focused on high-

availability. The foundational technology component of our

dual site implementation is an enterprise storage solution.

This Storage Area Network (SAN) system provides

complete redundancy for all transactions, and it is capable

of replicating disk storage in real-time. In the event that data

corruption occurs, the enterprise storage solution provides

the capability of rolling back data files to a point and time

prior to the time of the corruption. Campus servers utilizing

this service are provided with a readily expandable pool of

storage (currently over 28TB) and data are replicated to both

sites immediately as it is written. Layered on this enterprise

storage foundation is our dual site plan to deploy and utilize

servers at both sites and distribute services between them.

Campus Oracle and PeopleSoft services are being migrated

to use this storage solution, as have Blackboard, CWEST,

and core user, common, and email storage and volumes.

5 Workforce Focus

5.1 Workforce Environment

5.1a Workforce Capability and Capacity

(1) Capability and Capacity – skill sets are monitored by

supervisors and employees and documented in job

descriptions on a recurring basis. We have developed the

Selection Appointment Activity Record (SAAR) to guide

and record the recruitment and hiring of new faculty and to

assure the quality of instructional personnel. In addition, we

have established general technology skills all faculty and

staff candidates should possess or have the ability and

willingness to acquire. In addition to a unionized faculty, we

negotiate labor agreements with three other employee

groups that outline job requirements. Skill standards for

non-union employees are defined by related job descriptions

and updated annually based on changing job needs.

Assessment of competencies is initially completed during

the hiring process through interviews, demonstrations,

reference checking, and skills testing for some positions.

Once hired, competencies are assessed through the PES

(Area 5.2a). Staffing levels are determined by the Cabinet as

needed. Staffing analysis includes segmented data by

employee group and includes both headcounts and FTEs.

Faculty staffing needs are determined by student demand

and departmental and program course sections. Each

semester, the Associate Dean of Operations manages each

School’s enrollment report to monitor courses that may be

approaching capacity and determines whether additional

sections are needed. As sections are added, full-time faculty

are given the opportunity for assignment first, then adjunct

are assigned until requirements are met.

We ensure that faculty and staff are appropriately certified,

licensed, and/or meet regulatory criteria through careful

evaluation of their educational and career backgrounds

during the hiring process. At the time of hire any license

and/or certification required is submitted by the employee

and kept in the personnel file and documented in

PeopleSoft. HR reviews status annually and notifies those

whose documentation is nearing expiration so they can take

the necessary action.

(2) New Workforce Members – a formal hiring process

governs the recruitment, selection, placement, and hiring of

faculty and staff. Initially, the hiring manager submits a

Position Authorization Form (PAF) to seek approval to fill a

vacancy. The PAF goes to the appropriate VP for

coordination and then to Cabinet for review and final

decision. Next, HR and department leadership develop

proactive recruitment strategies, including directed efforts to

recruit qualified minorities, women, and non-traditional

candidates, implement those strategies, and document them

on the SAAR as candidates are identified. A screening

5 WORKFORCE FOCUS

35

committee reviews the candidates and provides

recommendations to a senior leader who decides on

interviews and ultimately submits a hire recommendation to

either the President (for faculty and higher level

administrative positions) or the appropriate Vice President

(for approval of all others).

Based on our value of diversity, our equal opportunity

hiring approach requires broad representation on hiring

teams to ensure a blend of cultural, racial, educational, and

professional backgrounds. Hiring committees look for

candidates who will add value to the student experience and

who live the values we uphold. We are committed to

recruiting faculty and staff with diverse backgrounds,

education, and perspectives to develop a workforce that is

reflective of our student population and have established

CAP 5.2.1 to find innovative ways to do this.

Once new employees are placed in their position, they go

through “Onboarding”. The Office of Staff Development

(OSD) plans and leads New Employee Orientation (NEO)

that is offered on a weekly basis and includes key staff

members covering MVV and Ends; campus safety;

technology; ethics policies; a campus tour, and other areas

of importance. New employees are invited to a quarterly

“Meet and Greet” breakfast where they can meet the

President, cabinet members, and other members of the

campus community. In addition, new employees are

assigned mentors, staff who have been specifically trained

for this role, to acclimate them to the institution.

Supervisors are sent a checklist by OSD to review with their

new hires to ensure everything has been addressed. Once

this form is completed, it is signed by the supervisor and the

new hire and returned to HR. New full-time faculty

members attend a special orientation day to prepare them to

meet their students’ learning needs. In addition, they

participate in a year-long New Faculty Institute to deepen

their learning, provide support, and help them with any

issues or problems they face in their first year. All Adjunct

Faculty members are given an orientation every semester

and are invited to participate in the Adjunct Faculty

Institute to get a more in depth introduction to teaching at

GRCC. These initiatives also serve to retain new faculty. In

addition, we place significant emphasis on the key

engagement and satisfaction factors (Area 5.2a) and offer a

very competitive compensation and benefits package in

order to retain employees for the long term.

(3) Work Accomplishment – we are organized around four

major components: President’s Office; Academic and

Student Affairs; Information Technology Support; and

Finance and Administration. Components are led by VPs,

Deans, Associate Deans, and/or Directors and include

specific departments with unique functions and

responsibilities. Each has a defined purpose, goals,

objectives and action projects that are aligned with the

College strategic plan. Plans are updated and performance is

reviewed frequently to ensure currency with changing needs

and expectations. Associate Deans and Directors stress

learning and continuous improvement while nurturing an

environment of integrity, collaboration, and teamwork. Our

decentralized decision-making structure and focus on shared

governance promotes empowerment, agility and innovation.

Job descriptions for each position reinforce the values and

professional skill requirements and are evaluated and

updated as part of the PES. To enhance our ability to

successfully live our values, jobs are designed with

requirements that extend beyond the professional skills to

include the ability to apply the values to everyday tasks. To

promote responsiveness and accountability, for example,

decision-making at the point of service delivery is

authorized and encouraged wherever possible. In addition,

all faculty and staff are expected to work on teams and

follow the departmental planning process as part of their

basic professional requirements.

Although organized by function, collaboration is a core

competency and we have a strong team-based culture built

around teamwork and cooperation. Work is typically

performed in one of the following team environments:

Department teams, which are generally self-directed and

empowered to share responsibilities, initiate cross-training,

improve processes, make decisions, and bring in other

individuals and teams who might contribute to the success

of their work; cross-functional teams, which bring different

areas together to communicate across Department lines and

make decisions, solve problems, plan events, improve

processes, create innovations, and provide feedback; and ad

hoc teams, which are formed as needed to collaborate in

goal-setting and problem solving activities. Figure 5.1-1

summarizes the methods used to organize and manage the

workforce to accomplish key work requirements.

(4) Workforce Change Management – our operational

environment constantly changes as a result of enrollment

growth, expansion, building renovations, budgetary

pressures, and the changing regulatory environment. We

prepare our workforce for potential and actual capability

and capacity changes through learning and development,

cross-training, involvement, and teamwork. We operate with

transparency and ensure that the workforce is aware of and

participates in decisions that require change at all levels. In

so doing, we are able to adjust to change in a manner that

minimizes rumor, allows for input, results in agility, and

maintains high employee morale. We encourage our

employees to remain flexible, acknowledge the emotional

impact of uncertainty, be proactive in how they incorporate

change into their procedures, and focus on student success.

We manage our workforce to ensure continuity and

prevent/minimize the effect of reductions by proactively

evaluating future capability and capacity requirements

during strategic planning. As strategies are developed, an

assessment is made regarding workforce capability and

capacity requirements to support them and plans are

established to ensure they are addressed. Since the faculty

5 WORKFORCE FOCUS

36

and staff participate in the planning process they have a

forecast of what is coming and can begin to prepare for the

needed changes. We also integrate capability and capacity

requirements with budget and enrollment projections so we

can manage fiscal requirements on a conservative basis. For

example, knowing that state funding was going to decline

and likely to continue to do so, we have relied on a high

quality adjunct faculty to adjust the academic workforce as

needed so that the quality of education we provide does not

decline even in extremely austere times.

When the need for workforce reductions occurs, we use

attrition to the maximum extent possible to minimize the

impact on the workforce, and also conduct discussions with

faculty and staff in the affected areas to identify those who

might voluntary retire or be willing to leave the organization

for some reason. When all else fails, decisions to identify

non-union people for removal from the workforce are based

upon skills and capability as opposed to tenure, while union-

represented personnel are dealt with in accordance with the

collective bargaining agreements. Outplacement services are

provided for those who are required to leave in an effort to

ease their transition. We prepare and manage for periods of

workforce growth through internal promotion and hiring

approaches and use of part-time and adjunct employees.

5.1b Workforce Climate

(1) Workplace Environment – we emphasize the

importance of a holistic approach to good health for faculty

and staff through the activities of the Wellness &

Enrichment (WE) Team, which sponsors wellness events

ranging from daily exercise classes, campus walking routes,

nutrition classes, stress management through meditation, to

personal self-defense classes. WE Team awards the

President’s Health and Wellness Award annually to an

employee who promotes an exemplary model for healthy

living and sponsors HIV/AIDS awareness, the Benefits Fair

for Employees, Alcohol Awareness, and more. The WE

team was central in coordinating campaigns to heighten

awareness and offer referrals regarding the dangers of

smoking and benefits of smoking cessation culminating in

the decision to make the campus smoke-free in 2008. In

addition, our Field house facilities are available to all

faculty and staff, offering a fully equipped fitness center;

and we partner with both the YMCA and MVP sports for

discounted single and family memberships for employees.

To ensure a safe work environment, the Risk Management

Team (RMT) stresses ergonomics, and works with other

Departments and teams to address a variety of safety issues.

Focus areas of the RMT include: Blood Borne

Pathogen/Exposure Control, HIPAA, Right-to-Know,

Industrial Standards, Personal Protective Equipment,

Chemical Hygiene, and Crisis Planning and

Communications. All employees receive training on “Right

to Know”, “Blood Borne Pathogens”, and what to do in case

of a “lock down” situation. The custodial and maintenance

staff participates in regular safety training in accordance

with OSHA and MiOSHA standards, and employees receive

mandatory HIPPA training. Information regarding first aid

kit, AED and emergency call box locations is available on-

line, and all kits and systems are checked regularly by

Campus Police. RMT has implemented an ergonomics

assessment process that includes a certified occupational

therapist who is contracted on a case by case basis to

analyze problems that have occurred and identify

improvement opportunities. For other safety-related issues,

the RMT identifies problems, investigates causes, and

develops corrective action as needed. RMT ensures that all

facilities are compliant with ADA standards and we conduct

safety training on a regular basis.

Our Police Department ensures a secure environment and is

comprised of a Chief of Police, a Lieutenant, a Sergeant,

and 10 other fully certified police officers. Campus police

patrol the campus on bicycles and provide escorts for any

employee to his or her vehicle at any time during the day or

evening upon request. All officers are CPR and First Aid

certified, trained in the use of automatic defibrillator

equipment, and are the “first responders” for any campus

medical emergency. IOS used to monitor health, safety, and

security, apply to all workplace environments and are shown

in Figure 5.1-2.

(2) Workforce Policies and Benefits – we offer a wide

variety of services and benefits to faculty and staff, with

Requirement Method

Accomplish

Work

Workforce organizational structure

Job descriptions and requirements

Team-based approach

Cross training

Collaborative work areas

Defined work processes

Workforce empowerment

Capitalize on

Core

Competencies

Student success focus

Workforce organizational structure

Team-based approach

Workforce empowerment

Student and

Stakeholder

Focus

Mission, vision and values

Strategic plan

IOS Measurement System

Leadership reinforcement

Performance Evaluation System

Exceed

Performance

Expectations

Rewards and recognition


Dashboards


Culture of accountability

Culture of continuous improvement

Keller Futures Center (innovation)

Strategic

Challenges

and Action

Plans

Strategic Planning System


Dashboards


Figure 5.1-1 Methods to Address Work

Accomplishment Requirements

5 WORKFORCE FOCUS

37

health benefits viewed as extraordinary as they provide

multiple options designed to meet the varying needs of the

diverse workforce. All plans include dental and vision

reimbursement and are offered to all according to the

various contractual and meet-and-confer agreements. We

utilize a healthcare consortium representing all employee

groups to pursue a long-term strategy for healthcare. The

group meets at least quarterly to evaluate alternative plans in

an effort to minimize employee cost share that was

mandated by the State in January 2012. In addition, we offer

a retirement package that includes a College-sponsored plan

and supplemental plans that can be added by employees. All

regular full and part-time employees receive paid vacation

and sick time in accordance with the various agreements.

Other benefits include a child development center on

campus, professional development opportunities, voluntary

time-off, earning compensatory time-off instead of overtime

pay, opportunity to donate vacation days to other employees

in need, tuition reimbursement with waiver for spouse and

children, special retirement payoffs for unused vacation and

sick days, pre-tax savings plan for medical and/or dependent

care, longevity pay recognizing years of service, leave of

absence with or without pay, holiday pay, and flex time

schedules or job sharing.

5.2 Workforce Engagement

5.2a Workforce Performance

(1) Elements of Engagement – we use two workforce

surveys to determine the key factors that affect engagement

and satisfaction. Every other year we conduct a campus

climate assessment of all staff using the PACE (Personal

Assessment of the College Environment) Survey.

Analysis of these results provides us insight as to what

employees believe are the key factors that impact their

motivation and satisfaction. We also conduct an internal

Staff Opinion Survey (SOS) using the Zoomerang survey

method. The SOS is a Baldrige-based survey that seeks both

satisfaction and importance data from the workforce,

thereby providing additional information to help us

determine the key motivators of workforce performance.

These data are supplemented with data from Faculty Day

sessions, learning and development forums, exit interviews,

focus groups, other electronic surveys, and informal

discussions with the workforce to enable us to determine the

key factors that drive engagement and satisfaction. As a

result of aggregation and analysis of these data, we have

identified four key engagement and satisfaction factors for

all categories of the workforce: Empowerment and Trust;

Teamwork and Cooperation; Student Focus; and

Committed Employees.

(2) Organizational Culture – we focus on the four key

engagement and satisfaction factors in an effort to drive

workforce engagement and satisfaction to higher levels, to

promote high performance, and to motivate the workforce.

To promote empowerment, for example, we encourage the

workforce to make decisions at the point of greatest impact

and to use their initiative to make decisions and

recommendations about process improvements and

innovations as individuals or as part of teams as described in

Item 1.1. Individual goal setting is accomplished as part of

the PES and provides the workforce with line of sight to the

College objectives and a sense of ownership in the

achievement of goals. To illustrate how we foster teamwork

and cooperation, we have designed and implemented a

variety of collaboration and communications methods, the

most significant of which is our team-based culture

described in Area 5.1a. In addition, regular department/unit

meetings, College-wide meetings, Division newsletters,

Faculty Days, Coffee and Conversation meetings, e-mail,

GRCC Today, and all-staff memos and videos from the

President make major contributions to our ability to

effectively communicate, cooperate, and share skills across

the campus. As indicated in Item 1.1, information flow and

two-way communications with leaders is also a high priority

with numerous methods in place to assure ample

opportunity for the entire workforce to be involved. Sharing

knowledge and skills, as well as vital organizational

information, is also accomplished through the knowledge

management methods, described in Item 4.2, that include

the use of efficient and current information technology

systems. In keeping with our belief that teaching is the best

way to learn and share skills, we continue to develop a more

intensive process of employees teaching employees, thus

creating a true learning community. We have used this

model in numerous learning and development offerings

where faculty and staff lead workshops for their peers.

To benefit from diverse ideas and cultures, we seek to

establish a workforce that represents the diversity we see in

our community and our student population. When

committees, councils, or teams are formed, we consciously

appoint members who represent the diversity that exists on

campus, as well as people with varied expertise and

experience. Many of our planning groups include students

and stakeholders and we promote diversity in perspectives

by ensuring cross-functional membership on major

committees. To ensure that the entire College community is

sensitive to our value of Diversity, the WDLC provides a

comprehensive, integrated, cross-cultural approach to

diversity inclusion.

(3) Performance Management – the key objective of our

Performance Evaluation System (PES) is to align an

individual's work goals and development plans to the MVV

and Ends; to the College and Department strategic plan; and

to the individual's job requirements. All of our performance

evaluation processes involve both self-assessment and

Indicators of Success Target

Participation in Wellness Programs 300

Staff Perception of Safety and Security 80% Positive

OSHA Lost Time Injury Rate <.75

Workmen’s Compensation Costs <$150K

Reportable Crimes on Campus 0

Hate Crimes on Campus 0

Figure 5.1-2 Health, Safety and Security IOS and

Targets

5 WORKFORCE FOCUS

38

discussion with supervisors. These discussions are key to

the development of common understanding of institutional

direction and support for increasing individual capacity to

contribute to achieving the mission and the Ends. The

specific performance evaluation approach varies depending

on employee category as follows.

Faculty – the Faculty Evaluation Process (FEP) includes

three components: the Faculty Goals and Improvement Plan

(FGIP), observations, and a portfolio. Tenured faculty

members are evaluated on a three-year cycle while others

are evaluated annually. For each evaluation cycle, the

faculty member develops his or her FGIP that summarizes

achievements over the last evaluation cycle and identifies

development and performance goals for the next cycle. The

FGIP is reviewed with the faculty member’s Associate

Dean, adjustments are made as needed, and the FGIP is

finalized. During the evaluation period, Associate Deans

make classroom visits to observe faculty performance, and

student evaluations are submitted to help determine if

performance objectives are being realized. At the end of the

cycle, the faculty member completes a portfolio to

document the achievement of development and performance

goals in five key areas: teaching; college service; student

service; professional development; and community service.

The portfolio is reviewed with the Associate Dean to

conclude the FEP cycle and to form the basis for the next

FGIP. For adjunct faculty, students complete classroom

evaluations each year for every class taught during the

semesters. During the first semester of employment adjunct

faculty are also required to have a classroom observation by

their Associate Dean.

Meet and Confer – the Performance Evaluation (PE) and

Learning Plan (LP) process is used by all in this non-union

group (administration and support staff) and includes a

guided discussion and evaluation each year focused on

achievement of high performance work assigned in relation

to CAPs, DAPs, and individual job requirements. Critical

professional skills are evaluated including: Job Knowledge;

Leadership and Supervision; Communication; Interpersonal

Relationships; Critical Thinking/Problem Solving;

Budget/Data Driven Decision-Making; Diversity and

Community; Personal Skills; Technology; Facilitation; and

Values.

ESP, Campus Police, CEBA. All other College staff

members are evaluated using a variety of tools depending on

employee function and group. Since these groups are

represented by unions, details are coordinated with the

various Joint Conference Committees. In most cases, the

process mirrors that used for the Meet and Confer segment

with annual performance development discussions and

learning plans.

We are in the initial phase of a pay-for-performance system

for our non-union employees, and two union groups have

agreed to this concept for their 2013/2014 potential pay

changes. Currently, the level, amount, and type of

competency are reviewed to determine position placement

within the compensation classification structure. The

structure for each employee group includes pay levels based

on factors such as degree status, years of experience, and

impact and scope of job responsibility. Formal and informal

employee recognition methods do encourage and reinforce

high performance as shown in Figure 5.2-1.

5.2b Assessment of Workforce Engagement

(1) Assessment of Engagement – Workforce engagement s

assessed formally by means of surveys and workforce

performance indicators, and informally by workforce

involvement and participation in various activities and

feedback from employees obtained through a number of

informal approaches. The same methods and measures are

used for all workforce groups and segments. The PACE

Survey and the SOS are the key tools used to assess

workforce engagement and satisfaction. We also survey

employees to gather information regarding views and

requirements in specific areas of interest using the

“Zoomerang”. Paper surveying is also be used to gather

information from those employees who do not have easy

access to computers. We also make use of exit interviews,

focus groups, and informal interviews with the workforce to

gather data on their views and concerns.

The PACE Survey is administered every other year to obtain

the perceptions of the workforce concerning the college

climate and to provide data to assist us in promoting greater

engagement and more open and constructive

communications among faculty, staff, and administrators.

We collaborate with researchers at the National Initiative for

Leadership and Institutional Effectiveness (NILIE) to

develop and administer the survey. In the PACE model, the

leadership of an institution establishes the Institutional

Structure, Supervisory Relationships, Teamwork, and

Student Focus climate factors needed to engage the

workforce toward an outcome of student success and

institutional effectiveness. NILIE has synthesized four

leadership or organizational systems ranging from Coercive

to Competitive, to Consultative to Collaborative, with the

latter generally producing better results in terms of

productivity, job satisfaction, communication, and overall

organizational climate. Our objective is to achieve a fully

collaborative organizational climate. The survey asks

employees to rate 56 separate items on a five point scale,

with a rating of five indicating high satisfaction and a rating

of one low satisfaction. The existing climate is determined

by these responses and is compared to the range of the four

managerial climates and also to a norm base of 45

community colleges across the country. PACE data are

compiled into areas for improvement and strengths based on

the highest and lowest rated items in four areas: institutional

structure; supervisor relationship; teamwork; and student

focus. Employees participate in focus groups to discuss

areas of concern and identify opportunities for

organizational improvement, which is then offered

supervisors for development of DAPs.

5 WORKFORCE FOCUS

39

The SOS is designed to be administered annually and

provides data regarding workforce views in sixteen major

areas. The survey is Baldrige-based and obtains data relative

to core values, strategy and leadership, quality initiatives,

customer focus, readiness for change, teamwork and

cooperation, empowerment and trust, employee

commitment, operating effectiveness, supervision skills,

performance management, training and development

opportunities, rewards and benefits, availability of

resources, working conditions, and overall satisfaction. The

survey poses questions in each of these areas using a five

point scale, with a rating of five indicating high satisfaction

and a rating of one low satisfaction. Based on the survey

results and input received through Faculty Day, OSD

learning sessions and other workforce feedback events, HR

determines what issues impact workforce engagement and

satisfaction, and identifies action plans to produce higher

performance. Retention rates and exit interviews are also

used to indicate workforce engagement and satisfaction.

(2) Correlation with Organizational Results –

engagement and satisfaction results are integrated with other

IOS and displayed on the Finance and Administration VP

Dashboard They are analyzed in relation to other

performance results to determine the impact that human

resource-related performance has on key organizational

results. Where a correlation is established to suggest that

faculty and staff performance, perceptions, or views are

adversely or positively impacting overall performance (See

Figures 7.3 – 1 and 2), actions are identified and taken to

improve or to further capitalize on a positive impact.

5.2c Workforce and Leader Development (1) Learning and Development System – a formal

Professional Development System (PDS) has been created

to provide College-wide focus on the specific learning needs

of our unionized and non-union employee groups. This

system includes the OSD and the Center for Teaching

Excellence (CTE), which seek to develop knowledge and

skills related to teaching, learning, technology, interpersonal

skills, wellness, communication, leadership, management,

and procedural knowledge, and the WDLC which provides

diversity and inclusiveness training and awareness.

Workforce learning opportunities are provided though face-

to-face classes, online courses and tutorials, and

instructional documentation. Participation is tracked through

our Enterprise Learning module within PeopleSoft, enabling

faculty and staff to produce professional development

reports as part of their annual performance reviews.

Curriculum for learning events is developed and

implemented by OSD, CTE, and WDLC based on

organizational needs and core competency requirements,

and operational support for faculty and staff learning and

development is provided by OSD and CTE. This includes

determination of needs, coordination of scheduling, and

recordkeeping. Full-time OSD staff members provide these

coordinated services, as well as planning for workforce

development and enrichment opportunities. A team of

faculty works in the CTE to focus on professional

development pertaining to teaching and learning. Individual

departments, teams, and units also plan and carry out

professional development activities with the help of OSD

and CTE, which also sponsor college-wide training and

development in subjects of interest throughout the year.

The PDS addresses key learning and development factors in

the following manner.

Core Competencies, Strategic Challenges, Action Plans –

workforce and leadership development initiatives are

designed to support the implementation of the strategic plan,

including our core competencies and strategic challenges.

Many CAPs include professional development action steps

and those are then included in the organization-wide

learning plan. Existing or emerging core competencies

normally require recurring or new learning opportunities

and are reviewed annually for inclusion in the learning plan

as well. OSD develops and provides learning events to

address all of these requirements.

Method Recipients Incentive Area

Excellence in

Education Award

One faculty

and one staff

Performance

excellence; reinforce

values

Excellence in

Teaching by Adjunct

Faculty

Adjunct

Faculty

Performance

excellence

GRCC Spirit Award All workforce Performance

excellence; reinforce

values

RAIDER Salutes All workforce Performance

excellence

Incentive Awards All workforce Health and Wellness

Salute to Women

Award

GRCC

Women

Role model

performance

Emeritus Scholar

Award

Former

faculty

administrator

Outstanding impact

Jerry Benham Award All workforce Student Service

Excellence

Student Employee of

the Year

Student

workers

Performance

excellence

Retirement

Recognition

All workforce Loyalty to GRCC

President’s Health &

Wellness Award

All workforce Seven Dimensions of

Wellness

Years of Service

Recognition

All workforce Loyalty to GRCC

Excellence in

Teaching with

Technology

One Faculty Performance

Excellence

Armen Award for

Innovation

Team Innovation

Figure 5.2-1 Reward and Recognition Methods

5 WORKFORCE FOCUS

40

Performance Improvement and Innovation – IOS and

Dashboard training has been provided to Department leaders

to facilitate understanding, implementation and use of the

measurement system to identify improvement and

innovation opportunities and understand process

performance; PDIA and process improvement training has

been provided to all key process owners and teams to

facilitate understanding, implementation, and use of these

tools. Innovation training has been provided to those who

have participated on innovation teams and will be provided

to a larger percentage of the workforce as we move forward

with this initiative.

Ethics and Ethical Business Practices – all GRCC leaders

are deeply committed to ethical behavior as described in

Item 1.1 and participate in ethics discussions and training.

Information on the Ethics Monitoring System and various

ethics policies is provided during Onboarding and recurring

training is provided in a variety of formats. For some

policies, leaders and the workforce attend training sessions

which include a test to determine adequate knowledge of the

policy; for others, e-mail and GRCC Today are used to

distribute information pertaining to that particular policy.

Student and Stakeholder Focus – the CTE is totally

focused on enhancement of faculty ability to teach

effectively and produce student success, therefore, it offers

workshops and online resources to: strengthen faculty

ability to use technology in the classroom; engage students

in academic service learning, the Honors program, and

Study Away; increase information literacy; and use Human-

Centered Design principles to develop innovative solutions

to community problems.

Learning and Development Needs – the PES is designed

to identify the learning and development needs of the

workforce. Each performance discussion results in a

learning plan designed to reflect the individual employee’s

goals for performance enhancement. Faculty members

complete the FGIP and staff members complete the LP, both

of which identify learning and development needs. An

online learning plan in PeopleSoft is completed annually by

all staff and administration to identify learning needs for

individuals, units, departments, and the College as a whole.

The learning plan data are organized and linked to our PES

using PeopleSoft, are accessed by OSD, and are then used to

drive offerings.

Transfer of Knowledge - knowledge transfer from retiring

faculty and staff is accomplished through documentation of

work processes, procedures, and teaching techniques to

capture basic information about work methods, and having

departing employees mentor their replacements whenever

possible. Exit interviews are also used to obtain information

from those leaving, and some departing individuals are

asked to continue to work with the College on a temporary

basis to provide help in transitioning new employees.

Reinforcement of New Knowledge and Skills – we

believe the best reinforcement happens when skills are

immediately used for real work and, therefore, use staff

resources to reinforce learning on the job. For example,

faculty members who are preparing to teach online complete

the Online/Hybrid Certification Course. Once the course is

completed, the DLIT staff provides support to the faculty

member during course implementation to ensure that the

necessary learning has occurred and is being applied.

Another approach is “learn/ apply/come back together for

more learning”. For example, following online course

implementation, faculty members meet together regularly to

discuss and learn how to maximize student learning in

online classes. Other examples of how this approach is

applied are the New Faculty Institute, Formation Series,

Leadership Institute, and the CQIN Summer Institute.

2) Learning and Development Effectiveness – to evaluate

learning effectiveness, participants in sponsored learning

opportunities are asked to evaluate the session based on how

clear the course objectives were and whether or not they

were met. Participants are asked if they are confident they

could apply what they learned, if given the opportunity. This

information is tabulated in Zoomerang and sent to the

session facilitator(s) and OSD or CTE as appropriate.

Results are reviewed immediately following the sessions,

which allows for modifications before the next session.

OSD and CTE also assess the number of unduplicated

participants to determine its saturation rate among the

workforce.

(3) Career Progression - GRCC leaders currently identify

faculty and staff members who have the skills and

capabilities to serve in higher level positions and provide

those individuals with training and development

opportunities and mentoring on an informal basis. We also

maintain up-to-date job descriptions for internal career

advancement or external hiring purposes. We also generate

opportunities within the College for employees to assume

various leadership positions for specific projects or

temporary assignments like committee work, interim

appointments, and special initiatives in order to further

develop their skills. When positions become open, they are

typically filled with internal candidates through a formalized

application and interview process or they are assigned to

staff based on skills or leadership in the area of need.

We recognize the need for a more formal approach to

succession planning and have created the Leadership

Institute (LI) for this purpose. LI provides enhanced

leadership development and learning opportunities for

leaders throughout the College. Its objectives are to shorten

the learning curve of employees in new assignments,

accelerate development for high potential personnel, and

foster a uniform understanding about GRCC amongst all

leaders. To accomplish these objectives the LI offers

programs for seasoned and developing leaders to develop

and hone individual leadership skills and creates a network

of leaders from among those who have been participants

who are then candidates for upward mobility within the

5 WORKFORCE FOCUS

41

organization. The LI consists of two components, the

Leadership Coaching Institute (LCI) for seasoned leaders

and the Leaders Institute (LI) for developing leaders. The

coaching approach includes three requirements: training and

resources that equip seasoned leaders with the skills to act

as coaches in developing leaders; a one-year commitment to

coaching a developing leader through Individual

Development Plans (IDPs); and joining a community of

leaders who are committed to our effectiveness and

sustainability. The developing leaders approach includes a

flexible, self-paced leadership development curriculum

offered over a one-year period; support from a seasoned

leader who has been trained in coaching; learning resources

to support IDPs; and completion of a project to address an

issue that is strategically relevant. Individuals must be

selected for LI participation; an employee may self-

nominate or be nominated by another member of the faculty

and staff for the LCI or the LI.

6 Operations Focus 6.1 Work Systems

6.1a Work System Design

(1) Design Concepts – our work systems are designed,

structured and innovated to fulfill our mission and achieve

the Ends by maintaining focus on our core business –

teaching and learning. Using the Work System

Development Model (WSDM) shown in Figure 6.1-1,

work systems are continually assessed to identify changing

needs and expectations and emerging opportunities that can

enhance value for students and stakeholders. Inputs to

system design are obtained through the VOC listening

methods (Figure 3.1-1) and information solicited directly

from suppliers, partners and collaborators in meetings and

reviews; through input from the employees that is provided

in a wide variety of methods (Figure 1.1-3); and through the

outcomes of organizational learning events including CAPs

and DAPs, process improvement and innovation initiatives,

program reviews, and organizational assessments, among

others. These inputs are aggregated and analyzed and

assessed in relation to our core competencies to identify

potential changes in the requirements of our top tier work

systems - Student Learning and Operational Support.

These systems and their operational work systems and

related key processes are then assessed in an effort to

identify improvements or innovations that can enhance our

ability to produce our key outputs - successful achievement

of the Ends.

Cabinet determines which processes are to remain internal

to GRCC or are to be outsourced. Proposals relating to

outsourcing may be generated during strategic planning,

during the budget development process, or whenever a

viable option appears that might increase effectiveness

and/or reduce costs. Proposals are vetted through Pro-Deans

and VPs and may be brought to Cabinet for consideration at

any time throughout the year. Decisions are made based on

three criteria: impact on student success; relationship to our

core competencies; and financial benefit of outsourcing the

process. For example, we outsource parking management to

Ellis Parking because the responsibility aligns with one of

their core competencies and not with ours. Similarly, we

outsource food service management to Creative Dining for

the same reason. In both of these examples our cost-benefit

analysis also shows a sizable cost savings.

(2) Work System Requirements - determination of value

based requirements for our work systems is integrated into

the WSDM. Inputs are analyzed by action project or

improvement/innovation teams as they begin their quest to

create or modify a work system to maximize value for

students, stakeholders, partners and/or collaborators. If the

analysis indicates that a new or modified program or service

is required, for example, teams validate that need, assess our

core competencies to determine if they can support the need

or if new competencies are required, and then determine if

new or modified work system requirements are appropriate.

Typically, changes to our top tier work system requirements

are not necessary, but there may be adjustments necessary to

operational work system requirements or those of processes

that reside within one or another of those systems. Our

current top tier work system requirements were established

through a collaborative, College-wide process led by the

Board and Cabinet in 2009. While that effort was focused

on creating a new set of Ends, work system requirements

were also developed to ensure alignment of our work

systems to the Ends, our Strategic Plan, and our IOS

measurement system. The requirements are:

Collaborate closely with other educational providers to

achieve a seamless transition across educational

sectors (Academic Alignment)

Minimize the barriers of time, place, cost, and

educational preparation levels so the all in the

community have an opportunity to participate in

college programs (Access)

Enrich the community through educational and civic

programming and partnerships (Community

Outreach)

Provide students with co-curricular experiences that

help them develop their citizenship skills (The GRCC

Experience)

Ensure that students achieve their educational goals

(Student Success)

Ensure students are prepared to secure employment in

all sectors of the economy (Workforce Development)

Provide top quality support to achieve the Ends and

keep the College operating effectively and efficiently

6.1b Work System Management

(1) Work System Implementation – our work systems

emphasize a focus on students, stakeholders, partnerships,

collaborations, key suppliers, and key work processes to

maximize our ability to achieve the Ends. The structure

includes two top tier work systems, Student Learning

Systems, which includes three operational work systems –

Teaching and Curriculum, Student Intake, and Student

Support. The second top tier work system is Operational

Support Systems, which includes four operational work

systems – Human Resource Management, Financial

6 OPERATIONS FOCUS

42

Figure 6.1-1 Work System Development Model

Management, Campus Environment Management, and

Information and Knowledge Management. This structure

is depicted in Figure 6.2-2.

We manage and improve these systems using the WSDM

for ongoing/iterative design through our team structure with

oversight by the SLT, AGC and Cabinet. Input from

students, stakeholders, partners and collaborators along with

monitoring the Ends-focused IOS ensure that we continually

emphasize the delivery of student and stakeholder value.

Management of the work system structure is accomplished

by the SLT, AGC and Cabinet using IOS, Dashboards and

reviews of performance. Management of the top tier and

operational work systems is the responsibility of designated

VPs, using area IOS, Dashboards, and reviews of

performance, thus helping us to achieve success and

sustainability. When improvements to these systems are

identified through reviews or stakeholder inputs, teams are

formed around CAPs and DAPs or improvement/innovation

initiatives to enhance performance.

(2) Cost Control - we control costs by generating

efficiencies in operations, monitoring salaries, wages, and

related benefits, and relying on part-time employees and

technology innovations to increase the capacity of our

human resources. This effort is integrated into the strategic

planning and budget processes where positions are realigned

to support strategies, CAPs and DAPs, and budget priorities.

The VPs, Deans, and Department Leaders regularly evaluate

their actual to planned financial performance, as well as

performance in relation to anticipated costs, to identify any

out-of-control performance and take necessary action when

warranted to keep on plan. In addition, the annual costs for

support processes are evaluated within a financial context

using trend data within the College and comparative data

among peers plus state/national statistics to help us identify

where gains can be made. The Purchasing Department plays

a key role in minimizing expenses through competitive

bidding activities, the use of multiple year contracts, and

pre-determined rate increases. We also make use of

outsourcing, investment in new technology, and effective

management of supplier performance to control cost.

We prevent errors and rework first by emphasizing effective

design of work processes, and then ensuring that they are

aligned and integrated so that seamless handoffs are

commonplace from one process to another, thereby reducing

redundancy of effort and inefficiency. We also place

significant emphasis on enabling our workforce to be

successful. This includes simplification of work processes,

integration of technology in all areas of the College, and

learning and development initiatives to provide people

greater skills so they can achieve higher performance,

thereby making fewer errors and reducing and even

eliminating rework.

We minimize the costs associated with audits (financial,

financial-aid, enrollment, etc.) by ensuring that we have

well structured and designed work systems and processes.

We maintain strict adherence to compliance requirements

and monitor our own performance, proactively identifying

issues and taking corrective actions, thereby reducing the

number of findings in subsequent audits, which, in turn,

reduces the costs associated with those audits. Our work

systems and processes are also designed to electronically

capture information needed to support audits and tests so

that information is readily available, which increases the

efficiency of the audit process.

6.1c Emergency Readiness

We have implemented an emergency preparedness approach

called the Crisis Response System (CRS) to use for all

crisis situations. The CRS is a hierarchal approach that

provides for decision making at the appropriate levels and

dissemination of decisions to the appropriate response

personnel, as well as iterative and redundant communication

channels to provide information back to decision makers

and, most importantly, to the faculty, staff, and students

who are awaiting direction. The CRS includes an

Emergency Planning Team (EMT), a Crisis

Management Team (CMT) and a Crisis Response Team

(CRT) who work collaboratively and proactively to prevent

emergencies and then to manage them if they arise. The

EMT is responsible for overall planning and development of

Input Data

VOC

Employees

Learning Outcomes

Establish Rqmnts

Aggregate and Analyze Input Data

Apply Core Competencies

Identify Change

Requirements

Assess SLS

Teaching and Curriculum

Student Intake

Student Support

Assess OSS

Human Resource Financial

Campus Environment

Information and Knowledge

Achieve the Ends

Academic Alignment

Access

Community Outreach

The GRCC Experience

Student Success


6 OPERATIONS FOCUS

43

the Crisis Response and Communication Plan. The CMT is

responsible to convene in a crisis or emergency situation to

direct the response and determine necessary internal and

external communications. The CMT also directs drills and

exercises to ensure preparedness. The CRT serves as the

“troops on the ground” to support Campus Police, distribute

communications, and assist with building evacuations.

We have defined a crisis as an unexpected, critical event

that disrupts normal business operations and could threaten

people’s safety and welfare on any GRCC property. To help

prevent and manage a crisis, we have enhanced our

communications system with deployment of the Emergency

Phone Alert System (EPAS) in all classrooms and in close

proximity to all offices. The EPAS permits the campus

phone system to be used as a public address system for

instantaneous notification of an emergency. In addition, a

“Code 2” emergency feature has been installed on phones to

allow one touch access to Campus Police. Further,

emergency call boxes are installed in parking areas and

hallways that connect directly to Campus Police; video

surveillance cameras are installed; staff and students can

sign up to receive a text message in the event of an

emergency; auto-alert messages are sent to Campus Police

and CMT members in the event of an emergency; and

outdoor emergency call pedestals have been installed which

function as an outdoor public address system. When drills

are held or actual emergencies do occur, the CMT

documents the situation and our response and evaluates the

entire process. A debriefing session is held once the

documentation is complete in an effort to identify how our

response could be improved, and what changes are needed

to our plans. The CRS is evaluated whenever it is mustered,

whether in response to an actual emergency situation or as

part of an exercise. Actions and critical timelines are

recorded and a debriefing session is held once the crisis has

been resolved to identify improvement opportunities. The

CRS is introduced at new employee and student orientation

and is reinforced in training sessions throughout the year.

6.2 Work Processes

6.2a Work Process Design (1) Design Concepts – our work processes are segmented

into two distinct types: Student Learning and Operational

Support. Student Learning processes focus on teaching,

program and curriculum development, student intake, and

student services, while Operational Support processes focus

on support services. For both types, we utilize the Process

Design and Improvement/Innovation Approach (PDIA) shown in Figure 6.2-1. The need for design or redesign of

work processes may be determined through a variety of

ways, including data compiled during strategic plan work

sessions; student input; faculty and staff input; technology

advances; community input, input from the complaint

management process; changes in regulatory and/or

accreditation requirements; and/or process performance

results. Work process design or redesign is also driven by

process innovation initiatives such as process analysis,

benchmarking, new technology acquisition, or research.

When the need to design or redesign a work process is

determined, design teams are typically formed. These teams

incorporate the following important considerations into the

design process.

New Technology – the IT staff explores how existing

and/or new technologies can contribute to successful

completion of the CAPs, to improvement in our ability to

carry out our mission and achieve the Ends, and to ensure

that existing applications stay current and supported. The IT

PMO assists in coordinating and prioritizing the allocation

of IT resources for various campus projects and initiatives

and assigns staff to design or project teams to ensure that the

necessary technology expertise is present.

Organizational Knowledge – we ensure that people with

the greatest knowledge about a process are assigned to

teams when they are formed, including process owners,

stakeholders, and often customers. In addition, whenever a

team completes its work it documents what was

accomplished and how it operated. That information is

stored in our knowledge management data base which can

then be accessed by future teams to take advantage of what

was learned.

Educational, Program and Service Excellence – design

teams and process owners strive to achieve performance

excellence and maximize value for customers of their

processes and build these objectives into their designs in

two ways. First, by focusing on customer needs and

expectations as process requirements are determined. In

every design initiative, teams identify the customers and

stakeholders of their process, conduct research to identify

and validate their needs and expectations, and use those as a

basis for establishment of process requirements. As a result,

processes are designed to meet customer-driven

requirements, thereby enhancing value. Secondly, IOS are

established to determine if requirements are met and targets

are set to ensure that we push toward achievement of high

level performance which exceeds customer expectations and

benchmarks.

Agility – we want every process to be characterized by the

ability to make changes to it quickly to respond to changing

customer and stakeholder needs and expectations, as well as

the potential for changes in market conditions. Therefore,

we stress process simplification, require a clear

understanding as to what other processes are impacted by

the process being designed and who those process owners

are, and provide process owners the authority to make

adjustments to their process to the extent possible. As

processes are designed, each of these factors is incorporated

into the design so that we avoid complexity, document

connecting processes and points of contact as stakeholders,

and establish a clear understanding of approval authority for

future process change.

6 OPERATIONS FOCUS

44

Figure 6.2-1 GRCC Process Design and

Improvement/Innovation Approach (PDIA)

Efficiency and Effectiveness Factors – our objective is to

minimize the cost associated with carrying out our work, to

be able to complete processes in the minimum time

consistent with high quality work and accomplishment of all

requirements, and to minimize use of human capital as

processes are accomplished to enhance productivity. As

designs are created each of these objectives is addressed in

the “Create Design” phase of the PDIA, and again in the

“Pilot or Test as Needed” phase. Design teams make

projections of process costs and attempt to drive those down

where possible; seek to eliminate non-value added steps in

the process, bottlenecks, redundancy of effort, rework loops,

and other means by which the process could be slowed

down; and seek ways in which technology could be used to

support the work people are required to do to both enhance

efficiency, eliminate human errors, and speed the process.

Due to our strong emphasis on teaching and learning, more

defined design processes have been developed for

application in the academic area. New academic programs

are designed using the New Program Development

Process. This process determines if enough value will be

added to justify developing the program or service and

includes a needs study and analysis by IRP, Departments,

and Deans. Designs are driven by student and stakeholder

requirements, including state guidelines on the development

of occupational programs, work and transfer opportunities

for graduates, comparable programs in the area, resources

necessary for the program, and accreditation and licensing

demands. Faculty planners identify the target student

population and design the program to meet individual

learner needs and engage students in active learning. In

addition, the planners determine the scope and sequence of

courses, and if any new courses will have to be developed.

The final approval process for the new program includes the

Department, Deans’ Council, and the Provost. Once

approval is granted, faculty planners complete program

development details, including incorporation of technology

specific to the program, as well as delivery options to meet

individual learner needs.

If new courses are required, the Course Approval and

Review Process (CARP) is initiated. The CARP is used to

develop new courses or revise existing courses to ensure

that all sections of a particular course work toward

consistent outcomes and use diverse teaching strategies to

meet learner needs. It produces the course curriculum

addressing student learning outcomes, instructional

strategies, course outline, assessment, strategy and

requirements, prerequisites, and learning resources;

documents external needs such as transferability,

accreditation, and target population; documents GRCC

system needs such as graduation requirements, institutional

learner outcomes, relationship with existing programs, and

department needs; and provides institutional information

such as staffing requirements, infrastructure resources

needed and definition of linkages between courses within

and among departments.

(2) Key Work Process Requirements - we determine key

work process requirements by conducting research and

collecting data directly from students and stakeholders. In

our planning, we use research from specific fields and

research from the fields of adult learning and community

college education. The VOC process provides the majority

of the data that are used by design teams to formulate

student- and stakeholder-driven requirements that are

accomplished during the “Obtain Customer Input” phase

of our PDIA. In addition, we determine operational

requirements for our processes. These requirements are

created based on input from various stakeholders, including

GRCC teams, faculty and staff members, suppliers, partners

and collaborators, the community, and other interested

parties. The regulatory and accreditation environment is also

a driver of process requirements and is considered as the

Identify Opportunity and Assess Feasibility

Obtain Input from

Customers and Establish

Requirements

Design Process and Define

Measures and Goals

Test or Pilot as Needed and Implement

Process

Monitor and Assess

Performance

Determine Cause if

Performance Lags

Identify Improvement or Innovation

Options

Select Best Option

Implement Improvement or Innovation

Review Outcomes and

Monitor Impact

Institutionalize or Determine

Need for Further Change

Redesign as Needed

6 OPERATIONS FOCUS

45

key requirements are defined. Our key work processes are

shown in Figure 6.2-2 along with their relationship to our

work systems and core competencies. In addition, the key

requirements are shown as well as selected IOS (space does

not permit display of all process level indicators).

6.2b Work Process Management

(1) Key Work Process Implementation – we implement

and manage our work processes to ensure they meet design

requirements using a defined set of process performance

measures in accordance with our PDIA. Student and

stakeholder requirements are originally factored into the

design of work processes as previously explained and again

when measures are identified to evaluate the performance of

those processes. On a day-to-day basis, faculty and staff

monitor work process outcomes to ensure that desired

performance levels are being achieved based on the

predetermined key measures of success that were identified

during design. Performance requirements, including

regulatory, accreditation, and stakeholder requirements were

developed during the design phase as well and integrated

into the measurement system. The measurement approach,

therefore, allows us to determine if these requirements are

being met. Included in the measurement approach is

establishment of baseline performance, expected

performance of the process, and outcome goals or objectives

of the process. This permits faculty and staff to determine if

process performance is meeting expectations as they carry

out the “Monitor and Assess Performance” phase of the

PDIA. If a process exhibits excessive variability or a

problem is identified, process owners analyze the process to

determine root cause and generate solutions. Both formative

and summative achievement measures are used. Formative

measures are those used to modify programs and offerings

by making midstream improvements. The use of formative

(or in-process) measures allows for the opportunity to

prevent variability in process outcomes. Summative

measures are used to create baselines and track achievement

over time. The use of classroom exams is an example of a

formative measure and Course Success is an example of a

summative measure. Student and stakeholder feedback is

also used to ensure that requirements are being met.

In addition, we have developed a common profile of

indicators for each academic program and co-curricular

activity that align with a number of our Ends. These data are

distributed for analysis and trend line study and are

incorporated into the Academic Program Review Process.

This process is used by programs and departments to

accomplish their self-study, to assess the achievement of

student learning outcomes, to measure the program against

the institutional indicators, and to plan for instructional

improvements. The Deans’ Council reviews these data to

determine how well programs are performing and meeting

the needs of students and stakeholders and shares the data

with AGC. Long-term planning based on this information

allows for increased responsiveness in staffing, effective use

of resources, and continual improvement of instructional

experiences.

We have also established a common set of indicators to

evaluate student achievement. These Institutional

Learning Outcomes (ILOs) relate to those skills and

competencies which are embedded within every aspect of

the College to inspire and enhance each student’s

transferable learning skills. The ILOs represent the broad

categories of competence that enable students to be

successful in further education, in careers, as citizens, and in

their personal lives. Student achievement of the ILOs is

assessed within their courses and co-curricular experiences.

The results of those assessments are used to improve the

learning experience at GRCC. The ILOs include

Communication Skills, Critical Thinking Skills, Social

Responsibility Skills, and Personal Responsibility Skills.

(2) Supply Chain Management – suppliers are selected

based on quality of performance as well as pricing. For

procurements in excess of $10K a competitive sealed bid

process is used; three written quotes are needed for

purchases ranging from $5 to $10K; and procurement

officers can decide for purchases below $5K. In all cases we

assess supplier capability to meet our needs and

expectations based on their history with us and

recommendations from organizations they currently serve or

have served in the past. Supplier performance is evaluated

through student and employee satisfaction data, supplier

performance data, and complaint monitoring. We

communicate with suppliers to provide feedback on

performance and advise them on how to improve and to

obtain feedback from them on what they need from us to be

more successful in meeting our expectations. Techniques

used include shared oversight committees, regularly

scheduled review meetings, project debrief sessions,

customer feedback, surveys, a supplier newsletter, and daily

e-mail and phone communications. If a supplier is

performing poorly, we provide them guidance on what

improvements are needed; should poor performance persist,

suppliers are terminated within the terms of contracts as

appropriate. Our key suppliers are shown in Figure P.1-5.

(3) Process Improvement – we generate process

improvements on four levels. First, during strategic

planning we use the following inputs to identify

improvement opportunities: organizational and process

performance indicators; student and stakeholder feedback;

market research and community needs analysis; faculty and

staff needs analysis; technology assessments; workforce

capability and capacity strengths and weaknesses; financial

performance; SWOT analyses; and other internal and

external aspects of the environmental scan. Improvement

opportunities stemming from evaluation of these inputs

produce CAPs and DAPs as part of the strategic plan that

drives improvement at the process level. Second, as part of

our AQIP responsibilities, we identify three action projects

to drive improvement in both academic and support

processes. These projects are designed to address high

priority areas and our progress against these projects is

assessed continuously as part of AQIP process.

Demonstrating and documenting improvement is mandatory

6 OPERATIONS FOCUS

46

Work Systems and Key Processes CC Key Requirements Indicators of Success

Student Learning Systems - Teaching and Curriculum

Program Review

2

3

4

5

6

Relevance

Consistency

Flexibility

Compliance

Timeliness

Student Learning

New Course Time from Intent to Approval

# New Courses and Programs

#Transfer Agreements

#Online Courses Offered

Textbook Availability

#Partners Involved w/Experiential

Learning

New Program Development

Course Revision

Distance Learning

Textbook Ordering

Assessment of Learning Outcomes

Experiential Learning and Learning Partnerships

Student Learning Systems - Student Intake

Student Recruiting and Admissions

1

4

5

Customer Friendly

Consistency

Accuracy

Timeliness

Usability

Responsiveness

Student Satisfaction

New Student Satisfaction

# New Students Attending Orientation

#Days - application to matriculation

#Days - matriculation to enrollment

Market Share

Student Orientation

Student Financial Aid

Student Testing and Placement

High school partnerships

Student Learning Systems - Student Support

Counseling and Academic Advising

2

4

6

Easily Accessible

Meet Legal Rqmts

Compliance

Accuracy

Appropriate

Responsive

Student Satisfaction

Student Engagement

# Student Feedback Inputs

AFP Student Retention

# Early Alert Flags Raised/Cleared

# Students in Tutoring Services

# Advisor Contacts

Tutoring Services

Disability and Occupational Support

Athletics and Related Services

Student Life and Student Discipline

Student Feedback Management

Developmental Education (AFP)

Operational Support Systems - Human Resource Management

Recruiting and Hiring

5

Accuracy

Timeliness

Responsiveness

Efficiency

Effectiveness

Diversity

Faculty and Staff Satisfaction

Faculty and Staff Diversity

Faculty and Staff Retention

% Employees Completing 20 Prof Dev Hrs

% Faculty Participating in CTE

# Participants in Leadership Institute

Compliance Training %

PES Results

New Employee Orientation

Leadership Development

Faculty and Staff Professional Development


Employee Compensation, Benefits, and

Recognition

Faculty Assignment, Tenure, Promotion

Operational Support Systems - Financial Management

Budget Development and Review

5

Accuracy

Timeliness

Responsiveness

Efficiency

Effectiveness

Legal and compliant

Audit Results

Bond Rating

Billing Accuracy

# Days in AP

# Days in AR

Foundation Gifts and Grants Received

MBE/WBE Vendor Participation

Audit Process

Cash and Investment Management

Accounts Payable/ Accounts Receivable

Employee Reimbursement

Purchasing

Grant management /Fund development

Operational Support Systems - Campus Environment Management

Facility and Space Master Planning

5

Accuracy

Timeliness

Responsiveness

Efficiency

Effectiveness

Safe

Sustainable

Crime Statistics

Work Order Completion Rate

Energy Savings

Physical Resource Mgmt/Classroom Assignment

Space Renovation/Learning environment

Maintenance Work Order Management

Energy Management; Parking Services Mgmt

Incident Reporting and Management

Emergency Preparedness

Operational Support Systems - Information and Knowledge Management

Stakeholder Communication

3

5

Accuracy

Timeliness

Responsiveness

Efficient/Effective

Accessible

Work Order Completion Rate

Help Desk Completion Rate

System Reliability

# Visitors to Website

Software Selection

Community Outreach

New technology Implementation

Technology Life Cycle Management

Figure 6.2-2 Value Creation Work Systems, Core Competencies, Key Processes, Key Requirements, Key Measures

6 OPERATIONS FOCUS

47

and we have had an extremely successful track record in

reporting progress to AQIP and receiving positive feedback

for those efforts.

Third, throughout the year we use the IOS measurement

system to ensure that key performance requirements are

met. IOS are reviewed by leadership at all levels and when

indicators display less than optimal performance, CAP

champions and process owners identify causes, implement

solutions, and continue measurement for effectiveness.

Fourth, we strive to increase learning, reduce variability,

and improve educational programs and services through

regular process evaluation reviews during and at the end of

process cycles, enabling process teams to make immediate

changes. Each process owner is responsible to ensure their

process is evaluated and reviewed against the formative and

summative indicators they established as part of their

process design. Input data are analyzed and as a result,

faculty and/or staff determine corrective actions needed.

The appropriate phases of the PDIA are used to conduct the

necessary analysis, determine the improvement options, and

implement the best solution. In addition, CARP is used to

evaluate and improve all existing courses. Every four years,

courses are required to go through the CARP process so

they can be revised, updated, or discontinued as necessary.

This approach allows us to assess the currency of the course,

reconsider the desired outcomes, validate transferability,

and reconsider teaching strategies and assessment methods.

Student questionnaires used in the FEP are also used to

evaluate courses, and academic programs are reviewed

every four years as well.

To encourage innovation both on the campus and in the

community, we have embarked on a formal innovation

initiative as discussed in Item 1.1. Process improvements

and innovations emanating from all of these methods are

shared throughout GRCC by means of learning days,

newsletters, cross-functional teams, e-mail blasts, leadership

team meetings, and department meetings (Figure 4.2-2). We

also present our more significant improvements and

innovations at conferences, CQIN best practice sessions,

and AQIP sharing sessions at various times during the year.

7.1 Student Learning and Process Outcomes

7.1a Student-Focused and Process Results

Figures 7.1-1 thru 3 demonstrate the success we have

in producing positive outcomes in key student-focused

results. The transfer rate has improved by 36% over

the last four years and exceeds the NCCBP benchmark

by a considerable amount and is approaching the MI

peer level. Graduation Rate has held steady and

exceeds that of the MI peers, but lags the national

benchmark. Student Goal Achievement has improved

by almost 10 percentage points over the last four years

and exceeds the national benchmark by a wide margin.

Figures 7.1-4 and 5 show Persistence and Retention

Rates, with Fall to Next Term Persistence improving

and achieving top quartile results nationally, while

FTF Retention is an area that we are aggressively

attacking to redress the recent declining trend. Figures

7.1-6 thru 8 show current and transfer student success

in achieving grades in their coursework, with all three

indicators exceeding the national benchmark.

22 20.1 25.1 27 27.4

15

27 27 29

18.1 18.4 17.8

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

%

First Year at GRCC

Figure 7.1-1 Transfer Out Rate

GRCC MI Peers NCCBP

Better

Top 25% in US

15.5 14.9 15.1 15.4 15.4

11.6 12.4

10.9 10.9

18.8 18.2 19.8

5

10

15

20

25

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

%

First Year at GRCC

Figure 7.1-2 Three Year Graduation Rate

GRCC MI Peers NCCBP

Better

92 89.6 90.1

91

98.5

93.8 93.8

88

80

85

90

95

100

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

%

Last Year at GRCC

Figure 7.1-3 Student Goal Achievement

GRCC NCCBP Better

Top 25% in US

7 RESULTS

48

Figure 7.1-9 shows that workforce development

students have continued to outperform the MI standard

in 5 of the 6 Perkins Core Indicators by which they are

measured, and Licensure Pass Rates for students in

certification programs continually exceed the national

averages by a healthy margin (Figure 7.1-10). Degrees

and certificates awarded continue to climb as students

complete their experience at GRCC (Figure 7.1-11).

74.3 74.4

76.3

72 74

68.1

70.9 71.8

64

66

68

70

72

74

76

78

2008 2009 2010

%

AY - Winter Semester

Figure 7.1-4 Fall to Next Term Persistence Rate

GRCC MI CCs NCCBP

Better

Top 25% in US

61.4 61.6 62.6 59

55.7

63.1 63.6 64

67.2

63.7

50

55

60

65

70

75

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

%

Second Year at GRCC

Figure 7.1-5 Fall to Fall Retention Rate

GRCC CSDRE

Better

71.9

74.7 75.5 75.5 75.3

73.9 74.4 75.3

68

70

72

74

76

78

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

%

Fall Semester

Figure 7.1-6 Enrollee Course Success Rate

GRCC NCCBP

Better

85.3 85.7 85.6

83.1 83.6

82.5

78.0

83.0

88.0

2007 2008 2009

%

Fall Semester

Figure 7.1-7 Completer Course Success Rate

GRCC NCCBP

Better

2.95

2.67

2.93 2.96

2.89 2.88

2.88

2

2.5

3

3.5

2008 2009 2010 2011

G

P

A

AY

Figure 7.1-8 Transfer Student Performance

GRCC NCCBPBetter

96.8

38

67.2

93.6

21.6 23.4

85.3

33.8

65.5 56.4

24 21

0

20

40

60

80

100

1P1 2P1 3P1 4P1 5P1 5P2

%

Perkins Core Indicator

Figure 7.1-9 Workforce Development Student Performance

2008 2009 2010 MI 2010 Standard

Better

93.4

97.8

94.4 97 96.4

87.7 86.9 89.5

87.8 87.3

80

85

90

95

100

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

%

AY

Figure 7.1-10 Licensure Pass Rates

GRCC U.S.

Better

1427 1534 1482 1675

1888

138 161 121 141 181

1565 1695 1603 1816

2069

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

#

Year of Completion

Figure 7.1-11 Degrees and Certificates Awarded

Degrees Certificates Total

Better

7 RESULTS

49

We place a significant emphasis on students requiring

developmental education (AFP). Figures 7.1-12 thru

14 demonstrate course retention, success and

subsequent success in “gateway” courses relative to

students not requiring AFP courses. Of particular note,

AFP students have outperformed non-AFP students in

both English and Math over the last two years

indicating a very successful developmental experience.

Figures 7.1-15 thru 19 demonstrate performance in

student-focused process results. The time to develop

new courses has decreased due to process

improvements in recent years, while a substantial

number of new courses have been developed over that

timeframe, and we have increased the percentage of

non-traditional courses offered to meet changing

student expectations. The percentage of new students

attending orientation has declined, but remains fairly

high by historical standards, while the success of our

new Early Alert Flag process is growing allowing us to

intercede when indicators arise suggesting that a

student is beginning to face difficulties. In addition,

student use of key support services continues to climb.

72.4 74 76.2 71.4 63.3

0.0

50.0

100.0

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

%

Fall Semester

Figure 7.1-12 AFP Course Retention

Math Writing Reading Overall

Better

40.3

57 59.9 55.9 50.2

0

20

40

60

80

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

%

Fall Semester

Figure 7.1-13 AFP Course Success

Math Writing Reading Overall

Better

54.2 57.8 57.8 61.1 53.6 55.7 58.8 60

54.2 48.5

69.6 57.7 63.2 57.2 58.7

68.2 66.5 67.2

56.3 53.9

0

20

40

60

80

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

%

Fall Semester

Figure 7.1-14 AFP Student vs All Student Course Success

Math AFP Math All Eng AFP Eng All

27.3

15

54.6

22 15.8

12 13.6 12

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

Time to Develop # Developed

#

Average # Weeks/# Online and Hybrid Courses

Figure 7.1-15 New Course Development

2008 2009 2010 2011

Better Better

5.4 5.5 4.7

5.9 7.4

27 27.2 30 36.1 28.1

32.4 32.7 35.6 42

35.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

%

AY

Figure 7.1-16 Non-Traditional Course Formats

Dist Lng Time/Place Total

Better

52 56 59 54

47

20

70

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

%

AY

Figure 7.1-17 Participation in New Student Orientation

Better

4.2 8.5

2.1

9.5

24.4

4.1 7.2

1.4

6.3

19.1

0

10

20

30

Fall 2010 Winter2011

Summer2011

Fall 2011 Total

#K

Semester

Figure 7.1-18 Early Alert Flags (K)

Initiated Cleared

Better

7 RESULTS

50

7.1b Operational Process Effectiveness Results

Figures 7.1-20 thru 24 show the performance of

selected operational and emergency preparedness

processes. Financial management processes continue

to improve and remain at a very effective level;

facilities maintenance completes work orders at a very

high rate and subsequently enjoys high customer

satisfaction; the IT Help Desk solves problems on first

contact with a high degree of frequency and exceeds

the industry standard by a substantial margin; and the

EPAS success rate based on performance in drills

remains at a high level.

7.1c Strategy Implementation Results

Figure 7.1-25 indicates that two-thirds of the CAPs in

the 2011 strategic plan were completed as scheduled,

while the remaining one-third were of a longer term

nature and were carried over into the 2012 plan. In

addition, the IOS shown throughout the Category 7

presentation demonstrate that performance has

improved in most areas, further indicating the

successful implementation of the strategy in recent

years. A key strategy objective has been to grow

enrollment, which has produced more than a 33%

growth from 2007 to 2011 (Figure 7.1-26). The slight

decline in 2011 is due to the changing health care law

which permits young people to remain on their

parent’s health insurance without being a student, the

improving economy with more workers going back to

work, and the reduction in workforce development

grant funding which has resulted in reduced

participation in those programs.

123.9 100.6 100.5

174.9

14.4 22.4 20.8 26.4

0

50

100

150

200

2008 2009 2010 2011

#K

AY

Figure 7.1-19 Student Use of Student Support Services (K)

Tutoring Labs Advising

Better

25 25 18

34

22

-10

10

30

50

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

#

FY

Figure 7.1-20 Days in Accounts Receivable

Better

33

25

18 22 20

10

20

30

40

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

#

FY

Figure 7.1-21 Days in Accounts Payable

Better

98.9 95.3 97.6 95.9

60708090

100110

2008 2009 2010 2011

%

FY

Figure 7.1-22 Work Order Completion Rate

Better

86.6

96.0 96.4 97.1 98.8

73 73 73 73 73 60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

%

CY

Figure 7.1-23 IT Help Desk Solved First Contact

GRCC HDI Standard

Better

100.0 99.2

98.3

94.4

90.0

92.0

94.0

96.0

98.0

100.0

2008 2009 2010 2011

%

AY

Figure 7.1-24 EPAS Success Rate

Better

5

10

15

0

5

10

15

20

Working Completed Total

#

CAP Status

Figure 7.1-25 2011 Strategy Implementation Results

7 RESULTS

51

7.2 Customer-Focused Outcomes 7.2a Student and Stakeholder-Focused Results

(1) Student and Stakeholder Satisfaction – Figures 7.2-1

thru 3 reflect key indicators of student satisfaction as

measured by CCSSE. We have produced sustained high

satisfaction in response to the “Would Recommend” as well

as the “Experience at College” questions on the survey,

which we consider to be the key indicators of overall

satisfaction, and outperform our extra large community

college peers across the country. Similarly, our students

score us high in satisfaction with services provided, which

exceed CCSSE peers in all eight service areas shown.

Figure 7.2-4 reports 2010 Noel Levitz results for satisfaction

with instruction and student services. In all 11 areas

reported we exceed the norms, and in eight of the indicators,

including instruction, we are in the top 10% nationally

among those colleges reporting their Noel Levitz results to

NCCBP, and in two indicators we are in the top 25%.

New Student Satisfaction (Figure 7.2-5) has improved

significantly as a result of a series of process improvement

initiatives, and Alumni Satisfaction has been sustained at a

high level in key indicators (Figure7.2-6). New questions

placed on the survey of 2010 graduates produced high levels

of satisfaction as well (Figure 7.2-7). Figure 7.2-8 provides

the results of the 2011 Partner Satisfaction Survey, while

Figure 7.2-9 shows the results of the 2011 Community

Perception Survey. Partners are highly satisfied in all areas,

while the community perceives GRCC first among area

colleges in plans to “Take a Future Course” and second in

“Top of Mind”, “Took Courses”, and “Mean Score”.

Student dissatisfaction is reflected in the percentage of those

who would not recommend GRCC on the CCSSE survey

and those who indicate that their experience at GRCC was

poor. Those data are shown in Figure 7.2-10, again

indicating performance that is better than the peer group.

15.2 15.4

17.0 17.8 17.6

13

15

17

19

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

#

Fall Semester

Figure 7.1-26 Fall Enrollment (K)

Better

95.1 96.1

95.1 95.4

93.8 94.1 95.3

94.3

85

87

89

91

93

95

97

2005 2007 2009 2011

%

Year

Figure 7.2-1 "Would Recommend" Satisfaction

GRCC CCSSE Peers Better

84.8 84.9 85.7

85.3 85.1 85.2 86

84.3

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

2005 2007 2009 2011

%

Year

Figure 7.2-2 Satisfaction with Experience at College

GRCC CCSSE Peers

Better

85.7 78

60.1

87.2 91.3 85.8 92.7

77.8 85.1 76.4

59.6 81.4

87.3

78.6 92.4

75.5

0102030405060708090

100

%

Service

Figure 7.2-3 Satisfaction with Student Services - CCSSE

GRCC CCSSE PeersBetter

5.9 5.9 5.9

5.8

5.2

5.9

6 6

5.5 5.7

5.8

5.2

5.5 5.2

5.3

5

5.2

5.5 5.5

5.5 5.3 5.4

4.44.64.8

55.25.45.65.8

66.2

S

c

o

r

e

Service

Figure 7.2-4 Satisfaction with Instruction and Student Services -

Noel Levitz

GRCC Noel Levitz Better

Top 25%

7 RESULTS

52

(2) Student and Stakeholder Engagement – Figures 7.2-

11 thru 13 show the CCSSE and SENSE benchmark

engagement scores. Although we have improved overall in

the CCSSE indicators, we fell back slightly in 2011 and

currently have a significant analysis underway to determine

why and develop action projects to address the issues. We

are slightly below the SENSE Norm in all but one indicator

and actions are underway to improve those results.

49.8 46 47.9

51.1

73

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

%

Year

Figure 7.2-5 New Student Satisfaction with Services

Better

93.7 87.7

98.8 92.8 93.3 91.8

99.8 99

50

60

70

80

90

100

Exceed Expectations Would Recommend

%

Factor

Figure 7.2-6 Alumni Satisfaction

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Better

Last Year at GRCC

N/A

77.2 79.7 88.7 85 88 95

020406080

100

%

Factor

Figure 7.2-7 Alumni Satisfaction Better

91.5 91.3 87.2

97.9

93.6

80

85

90

95

100

%

Factor

Figure 7.2-8 Community Partner Satisfaction

Better

9

20

25

7.3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Top ofMind

TookCourses

Take FutureCourse

Mean Score

%

Factor

Figure 7.2-9 Community Perception Survey Results GRCC

GVSUFerris StateCalvinDavenportCornerstoneAquinas

4.9

3.9

4.9 4.6

6.2 5.9

4.7

5.7

1.7

0.7 1.2

2.1

1.4 1.5 1.3 1.6

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2005 2007 2009 2011

%

Year

Figure 7.2-10 Student Dissatisfaction

Not Rec - GRCC Not Rec - PeersPoor Exp - GRCC Poor Exp - Peers

Better

47.5

45.9 45.3 45

44.8

46.4 46.9

45.4 44.4

47

48.5 48.8 48

46.3 46.6

48.4 48.6

46.8

45.5 46.1

42

44

46

48

50

A&C SE AC SFI SFL

S

c

o

r

e

Benchmark

Figure 7.2-11 CCSSE Benchmark Scores

2005 2007 2009 2011

Better

7 RESULTS

53

Figures 7.2-14 thru 16 provide additional engagement

indicators – student participation in events, community

penetration percentage related to participation in various

activities, and partner/collaborator articulation agreements

and formal partnership agreements, an indicator just

established in 2011.

7.3 Workforce-Focused Outcomes

7.3a Workforce Results

(1) Workforce Capability and Capacity – Figures 7.3-1

and 2 indicate that our student to employee ratio has

increased and that we have employed a larger percentage of

adjunct faculty in recent years to control costs and meet the

growing demand for services. Despite these trends, student

success as measured by transfer rate, graduation rate and

student achievement has continued to improve as a result of

the improved capability of the faculty and staff. These

correlations are displayed on these two figures. Figures 7.3-

3 thru 5 provide additional indicators of workforce

capability – education level of faculty and years of service.

48.4 48.6 46.8 45.5 46.1 49.3 49.3 49.9 48.3 50

10203040506070

S

c

o

r

e

Benchmark

Figure 7.2-12 CCSSE Benchmark Scores vs Peers

GRCC CCSSE PeersBetter

44.4 45.9 42.4 39.5

48.2 50.4 50 50 50 50 50 50

0102030405060

S

c

o

r

e

Benchmark

Figure 7.2-13 SENSE Benchmark Scores

GRCC

NormBetter

199 193 188 194 191

465 450 525 690

565 533 441 608 675

690

1197 1084 1321

1559 1446

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

#

AY

Figure 7.2-14 Student Engagement

Teams Clubs/OrgsExp Learning Total Better

1.8

4.8 6.3

4.1 3.9 4

0

2

4

6

8

Cultural Activities Public Mtgs Sporting Events

%

Engagement Area

Figure 7.2-15 Community Engagement

GRCC NCCBP

Better

20 19 21 25

36

56

0

20

40

60

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

#

Year

Figure 7.2-16 Partner/Collaborator Engagement

Art Agreements Partnerships

Better

108.8 105.4 106.5 116.8 125.5

40.5 40.2 41.1 43.7 46

20.1 25.1 27 27.4

14.9 15.1 15.4 15.4

90.1 91 98.5

10

30

50

70

90

110

130

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

#

AY

Figure 7.3-1 Students Per Employee

Faculty F&S Tnsfr Rate

Grad Rate Stud Ach

7 RESULTS

54

(2) Workforce Climate – Figures 7.3-6 thru 9 provide

indicators of campus safety and security. The workforce has

a very positive view of campus safety as evidenced by the

results of the SOS, while both the OSHA Lost Time Injury

Rate and Worker’s Compensation Costs have declined

considerably. Campus Security data indicates that we have

achieved better performance than our MI peers with regard

to campus crimes and arrests.

(3) Workforce Engagement – Figures 7.3-10 thru 17

provide indicators of engagement and satisfaction. Retention

data show that we have enjoyed an overall retention rate of

greater than 90% from 2008 to 2011. Similarly, turnover

compares favorably with our MI peers for the years in

which comparative data are available. Our PACE results are

improved from 2009 to 2011 and meet or exceed the

national average in all of the rated areas, and improvement

45 43 45 49 53

55 57 55 51 47

20.1 25.1 27

14.9 15.1 15.4

90.1 91 98.5

0

20

40

60

80

100

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

%

AY

Figure 7.3-2 Contact Hours per Faculty Type

Adjunct Full Time Tnsfr Rate

Grad Rate Stud Ach

75.4

12.1 1.7

77.3

10.5 2.8

78.3

9.1 2.7

77

9.9 2.4

74.9

11.4 1.6

0

20

40

60

80

Masters Bachelors 2 Yr College

%

Level

Figure 7.3-3 FT Faculty Education Level

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

70.3

20.5

1.4

69.3

21.1

1.4

70.6

19.8

1.3

69.8

19.9

1.3

69.8

19.1

0.9 -5

15

35

55

75

Masters Bachelors 2 Yr College

%

Level

Figure 7.3-4 Adjunct Faculty Education Level

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

10.9 11.5 14.1

9.9

15.5

0

5

10

15

20

M&C ESP CEBA CP Faculty

#

Employee Group

Figure 7.3-5 Average Years of Service

2011

Better

79.6 90.3

84.6 73.5

84.4 84.4

80.9 88.1

81.1

81.8 90.3 88.3

0

20

40

60

80

100

Strong Emphasis Equipment Safe Feel Safe

%

Safety Factor

Figure 7.3-6 Employee Perception of Safety

2007 2008 2009 2011

Better

0.83 0.71

0.79 0.67

0.12

0.6 0.6

0

0.5

1

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011Year

Figure 7.3-7 OSHA Lost Time Injury Rate

GRCC U.S.

Better

140.1 171.5

139 140.9 128.5

100

150

200

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

$K

Year

Figure 7.3-8 Workers Compensation Costs

Better

0

2

3

5.5 5.6

4

0

1

0

4

0

1 0.86 0.71

2.1

0 0 0 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2008 2009 2010

#

Year

Figure 7.3-9 Campus Security GRCCCrimesPeerAverageBest Peer

Better

7 RESULTS

55

can be seen for our employee groups as well. Four key

questions on the SOS form the basis for our determination

of staff satisfaction, and the results for each show are

positive and exceed the national norms (Figure 7.3-14).

Figures 7.3-15 thru 18 indicate staff satisfaction in the areas

we have determined to be the key drivers of staff

engagement and satisfaction.

87.2 95 92.4

85.7 91.8 90.6

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

M&C ESP CEBA CP Faculty Overall

%

Employee Group

Figure 7.3-10 Retention

2008 2009 2010 2011

Better

4.5

6.6 5.5

9.2

4.2

8.3

2.7

4.8

0

2

4

6

8

10

2009 2010

%

Comparisons

Figure 7.3-11 Turnover

GRCC State Average Peer Average Best Peer

Better

3rd among peers 2nd among peers

3.38

3.84 3.78 4.03

3.73

3.38

3.7 3.73 3.94

3.66

33.23.43.63.8

44.2R

a

t

i

n

g

Rated Areas

Figure 7.3-12 PACE Cultural Climate Indicators

2007 2009 2011 2011 Norm

Better

80.8 86.8 88.5 87

79.6 83.1 81.7 82.3

50

60

70

80

90

100

Pos Pt of Life Proud Loyalty Job

%

Factor

Figure 7.3-14 Staff Engagement and Satisfaction Indicators

2007 2008 2009 2011 2011 US Norm

Better

92.5 98.1

75.4 89 91.3

020406080

100

M&C ESP CEBA Faculty Overall

Employee Group

Figure 7.3-15 Student Focus Satisfaction

2007 2008 2009 2011

Better

81 74

80 84.4 81.9

0

20

40

60

80

100


%

Employee Group

Figure 7.3-16 Teamwork and Cooperation Satisfaction

2007 2008 2009 2011Better

Employee

Group

Institutional

Structure

Supervisory

Relationships

Teamwork Student Focus Overall

07 09 11 07 09 11 07 09 11 07 09 11 07 09 11

Admin 3.64 3.39 3.63 3.97 3.63 4.07 4.07 3.58 4.08 4.02 3.93 4.07 3.88 3.61 3.93

Admin Spt 3.57 3.55 3.52 3.89 3.83 3.87 3.85 3.65 3.72 3.93 3.92 4.02 3.79 3.74 3.77

Faculty 3.48 3.45 3.22 3.83 3.77 3.86 3.79 3.75 3.81 3.98 3.92 4.04 3.75 3.70 3.69

Tech/Ops 3.22 3.41 3.42 3.53 3.35 3.56 3.43 3.30 3.55 3.88 3.88 4.00 3.50 3.50 3.62

Figure 7.3-13 PACE Results by Employee Group

7 RESULTS

56

(4) Workforce Development – Figures 7.3-19 thru 21

show results pertaining to our development initiatives. The

dollars we have invested in professional development and

tuition reimbursement have grown considerably despite

budget constraints in recent years. We have recently begun

collecting a broader set of data regarding participation in

development events and those are shown in Figure 7.3-20.

7.4 Leadership and Governance Outcomes

7.4a Leadership, Governance, and Social Responsibility

Results

(1) Leadership – Figures 7.4-1 thru 7 demonstrate

leadership effectiveness in a variety of areas. First,

workforce knowledge of factors directly related to the

values as determined by the SOS; second, leadership

effectiveness as determined by aggregate scores on the 360

degree evaluation; third, readership of GRCC Today as a

reflection of communications effectiveness; and fourth

through sixth the results of leadership emphasis on diversity

and access which have produced minority representation in

both students and faculty and staff which exceed that of the

main population areas we draw from. Figure 7.4-7

summarizes leadership involvement in community

leadership roles and their participation in workforce

recognition initiatives.

70 71 63.2 66.3 66.5

0

20

40

60

80

100


%

Employee Group

Figure 7.3-17 Empowerment and Trust Satisfaction

2007 2008 2009 2011

Better

68.9 64

90

78.1 73.4

0

20

40

60

80

100


%

Employee Group

Figure 7.3-18 Staff Commitment Satisfaction

2007 2008 2009 2011

Better

373.2 383.4

433.6 429.5

350.0

400.0

450.0

2008 2009 2010 2011

$K

FY

Figure 7.3-19 Staff Development Investment

Better

139 162.2

210.8 224.2 221.6

100

150

200

250

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

SK

FY

Figure 7.3-20 Tuition Reimbursement

Better

1715

303 248 152 82 18 0

500

1000

1500

2000

#

Development Area

Figure 7.3-21 Staff Development Participation

2011

Better

86.3 81.7 76 78.5

88.8

79.6 71

78.7 87.7 86

74

85.1

83.3 84.2

59

76.8

0

20

40

60

80

100

UnderstandValues

Provide GoodService

Commitmentto Improve

DiversityValued

%

Factor

Figure 7.4-1 Workforce Knowledge of Vision and Values

2007 2008 2009 2011

Better

7 RESULTS

57

(2) Governance – Figure 7.4-8 demonstrates that GRCC

has a sound financial footing based on the bond ratings

afforded by both Moody’s and S&P. Figure 7.4-9 shows the

results of our external audits, which have been near perfect,

and the number of internal financial audits conducted over

the last five years. Figure 7.4-10 shows an improvement in

audit outcomes with a steep decline in the percentage of

work centers that have overspent their budget allocation.

Year Moody’s S&P

2007 Aa2 AA

2008 Aa2 AA

2009 Aa2 AA

2010 Aa2 AA

2011 Aa2 AA

Figure 7.4-8 Bond Rating

2.75 2.6 2.63 2.67 2.86 2.7 2.65 2.55 2.69 2.71

00.5

11.5

22.5

3

R

a

t

i

n

g

Factor

Figure 7.4-2 Leadership 360 Degree Evaluation Results

2009 2010 2011Better

412.3 409.7

454.7 443 536.7

492.3 452.3 446

100

300

500

700

Q1/10 Q2/10 Q3/10 Q4/10 Q1/11 Q2/11 Q3/11 Q4/11

A

v

e

Quarter

Figure 7.4-3 GRCC Today Daily Readership

Better 2010 = 429 2011 = 481

3175 3303

4066 4358 4407

2000

3000

4000

5000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

#

AY

Figure 7.4-4 Minority Student Growth

Better

27.6 24.3

15.2 14.5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

KentMinorityStudents

KentMinority

OttawaMinorityStudents

OttawaMinority

%

Minority Populations

Figure 7.4-5 Student Minority Representation

2011

19 18.3 18.2 18.7 18.6 20.8 21.4

23.9 24.3 25

14 14 11.7 11.7

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

%

Year

Figure 7.4-6 Minority Representation

Faculty and Staff Students Grand Rapids Area

External Internal

# Conducted Year Mgmt

Comments Results

2007 0 Unqualified Opinion 6





Figure 7.4-9 Audit Results

Year Community Support Workforce

Recognition

2007 100% 100%

2008 100% 100%

2009 100% 100%

2010 100% 100%

2011 100% 100%

Figure 7.4-7 Senior Leader Involvement

7 RESULTS

58

(3) Law, Regulation, and Accreditation – Our compliance

and accreditation results are shown in Figure 7.4-11.

(4) Ethics – All Board members are independent; ethics

training has been provided to all faculty and staff; and ethics

breaches all are shown in Figure 7.4-12.

Year Independent

Board Members

Workforce

Trained

Ethics

Breaches

2007 100% 100% N/A

2008 100% 100% N/A

2009 100% 100% 12

2010 100% 100% 11

2011 100% 100% 11

Figure 7.4-12 Ethical Behavior and Stakeholder Trust

(5) Society – Figures 7.4-13 thru 16 demonstrate support of

our community. The community impact value of the

experiential learning program is growing stronger in terms

of students engaged in the classroom and in the community,

and the number of community partners participating,

thereby adding both economic and social value. Our

aggressive energy reduction program is paying dividends

both in terms of reduced energy use and cost as shown in

Figures 7.4-14 and 15. Finally, participation continues to be

strong in other programs as shown in Figure 7.4-16.

44.1

32.4

44.1

26.1 16.1

0

20

40

60

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

%

FY

Figure 7.4-10 % Work Centers Overspent

Better

557 439

576 631 698

10 20 50

1143

1388

15 65 81

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

#

AY

Figure 7.4-13 Experiential Learning Impact

Curriculum ASL Event ASL Partners

Better

17.6 18.1

9.1

16.6 18.3 20

11.6

18.3

05

10152025

%

Type of Energy

Figure 7.4-14 Reduction in Energy Use

Use Reduction

Cost Reduction

Better

330.6 482.1 507.6 445.3

1766.6

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2008 2009 2010 2011 Total

FY

Figure 7.4-15 Energy Reduction Cost Savings ($K)

Better

Compliance 2007-2011

ADA

100%

OSHA/MIOSHA

100%

EPA

100%

Workforce Certified/Licensed

100%

Program Yr Result

GRCC 2008 Full Accreditation

Nursing and LPN 2010 Full Accreditation

Criminal Justice Corrections 2010 Full Accreditation

Culinary Education 2006 Full Accreditation

Dental 2005 Full Accreditation

Law Enforcement Officers 2011 Full Accreditation

Music 2005 Full Accreditation

Occupational Therapy Assistant 2007 Full Accreditation

Child Development 2006 Full Accreditation

Radiologic Technology 2010 Full Accreditation

Visual Arts 2008 Full Accreditation

A/C, Heating, Refrigeration 2007 Full Accreditation

Automotive Technology 2008 Full Accreditation

Tutoring 2012 Full Accreditation

Figure 7.4-11 Legal, Regulatory, Accreditation Results

7 RESULTS

59

7.5 Budgetary, Financial, and Market Outcomes

7.5a Budgetary, Financial, and Market Results

(1) Budgetary and Financial Performance – We receive

revenue from four sources as shown in Figure 7.5-1. State

aid, tax funding, as well as other revenue streams have

continued to decline over the last five years placing a

greater dependence on tuition to provide the necessary

funding to enable the high quality education services that we

believe are critical to student success and our long-term

sustainability. As shown in Figure 7.5-2, we have been hit

harder by the decline in tax revenues than our eight college

MI peers, requiring us to set tuition at higher levels.

Nonetheless, we remain significantly below the tuition

levels of the colleges and universities we compete with on a

$ per credit hour basis (Figure 7.5-3).

Revenue and Expenditures per Fiscal Year Equated Student

are shown in Figures 7.5-4 and 5. We have maintained

revenue just above our 2006 level and have managed to

avoid the more significant declines our peers have

experienced, and are currently on a par with them. Our

expenditures have also been maintained at a level necessary

to meet our quality standards while at the same time

ensuring responsible cost controls and improved efficiency

of operations, which is evidenced by our ability to devote a

higher percentage of expenditures directly to instruction

which places us 2nd

among our peers. Our financial

foundation is sound with both Net Assets and General Fund

Net Assets growing as shown in Figures 7.5-7 and 8.

1180 1282

388 539

1000

1200

400 500

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

WDLC OLC LC KFC

#

Year

Figure 7.4-16 Community Service Results

2011 2011 Goal

42 45 50 53 56

33 33 31 28 27 20 18 17 17 15 5 4 2 2 2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

%

FY

Figure 7.5-1 Revenue Sources

Tuition Taxes State Aid Other

50

31 17

2

42.5 37.2

16.7

3.6 0

20

40

60

Tuition Taxes State Aid Other

%

Revenue Source

Figure 7.5-2 2009 Revenue Source Comparison

GRCC

Peer Average

96 87

412 348

406 367

0

100

200

300

400

500

GRCC State CC GVSU FSU MSU State UAve

$

Comparison Group

Figure 7.5-3 Tuition Comparison

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

8.5 8.5 9.4 9.1 8.6

9.5 9.2 9.6 9.1 8.6

13.3 12 12

11 10

5

7

9

11

13

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

$K

FY

Figure 7.5-4 Revenue per FYES

GRCC Peer Average Highest Peer

Better

3rd among peers

8.3 8.3 8.3 9.1

8.6 8.4

8.2 8.2 8.1 7.7

10.3 9.6

10.3 9.5

8.8

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

$K

FY

Figure 7.5-5 Expenditures per FYES

GRCC PeerAverage Highest Peer

Better

2nd among peers

7 RESULTS

60

Fiscal Year Equated Students, Contact Hours, and Fiscal

Year Equated Contact Hours all have grown considerably

from 2006 to 2010 and we are in a positive position relative

to our peer institution s as shown in Figures 7.5-9 thru 12.

We have consistently been close to meeting our planned

budget expenditures and giving to our Foundation has been

very generous in recent years (Figures 7.5-12 and 13).

(2) Market Performance – GRCC’s market share is shown

in Figure 7.5-14, reflected as a percentage of those high

school graduates who attended college and the percentage of

the workforce taking courses at GRCC. From both

perspectives, our market share has grown in recent years.

54.6 53.5 51 48.5 48.4 42.8 40.9

32.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Peer A GRCC Peer B Peer C Peer D Peer E Peer F Peer G

%

Peer

Figure 7.5-6 % Expenditures for Instruction

Better

81.6 92.4 92.0 100.1

110.6

50.0 70.0 90.0

110.0 130.0

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

$M

Fiscal Year

Figure 7.5-7 Net Assets ($M)

Better

9.9

10.7 10.7 11 11

9

10

11

12

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

$M

FY

Figure 7.5-8 General Fund Net Assets ($M)

Better

9.7 10 10.2 10.7 12.1

7.5 7.9 8.5 9.1

10.3 9.7 10

10.5 12.5

13.4

5

7

9

11

13

15

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

#K

FY

Figure 7.5-9 Fiscal Year Equated Students

GRCC Peer Average Best Peer

Better

3rd among peers

162.3 164.3 184 192.5 183.9

115

165

215

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

#

FY

Figure 7.5-10 Contact Hours

Better

11.2 11.5 11.7 12.2 14.1

9.1 9.4 10.1 10.9 12.2

11.2 11.5 13.5

15 15.9

4

9

14

19

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

#

K

FY

Figure 7.5-11 Contact Hours Equated Student

GRCC Peer Average Best Peer

Better 2nd among peers

97.4 100.6 99.9 98.6 99.8

90

95

100

105

110

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

%

FY

Figure 7.5-12 Budget Management Effectiveness

% Expended Goal

4.7 4.2

1.6

7.1

4.1

0

5

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

$M

FY

Figure 7.5-13 Foundation Giving ($M)

25.1 26.7 27.4 30.3 28.5

78.6 78.4 80 79.5 79.1

34.2 35.1 41.8 44.1 44.2

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

%

Year

Figure 7.5-14 GRCC Market Share

College Bound Share Grads to College

Workforce Share

Better

7 RESULTS

2012 - grand rapids community college | grand rapids ... michigan quality award...certificate...

Documents