systems appraisal feedback report completed in … · systems appraisal feedback report . completed...

Systems Appraisal Feedback Report

Completed in Response to a Systems Portfolio Submitted by

1742 - Lake Forest Graduate School of Management

August 28, 2017

TEAM CHAIR RENEE F. AITKEN

TEAM MEMBERS DEBBIE BELOW

MARIA CONNOLLY ROBERT S. HAAS JL HENRIKSEN TARA PETERS

Higher Learning Commission


Systems Appraisal Feedback Report Template Revised May 2017

1

Contents I. Reflective Overview ........................................................................................................................ 1

II. Strategic Challenges Analysis ....................................................................................................... 4

III. AQIP Category Feedback ................................................................................................................ 4

IV. Criteria for Accreditation Evidence Screening .............................................................................. 7

V. Quality of the Systems Portfolio .................................................................................................. 10

VI. Using the Systems Appraisal Feedback Report ......................................................................... 10

APPENDIX A: Stages in Systems Maturity ........................................................................................ 12 APPENDIX B: AQIP Category Feedback ............................................................................................ 14 APPENDIX C: Criteria for Accreditation & Core Component Evidence Screening ......................... 63



2

I. Reflective Overview Upon completing its review of the Institutional Overview and Category Introductions included in the

Systems Portfolio, the Systems Appraisal team formulated its understanding of the institution, the

institution’s mission, and the constituents served. This understanding is conveyed in the following

Consensus Reflective Statement. Additional team insights are also summarized here in relation to the six

AQIP Pathway categories.

Reflective Overview Statement

LFGSM has been serving adult working professional students for over 70 years. Their programs

leverage the insights of their Business Leader Faculty and employ research-based adult learning

principles. Five leadership traits make up their Leadership Model: Agility, Engaging Others,

Innovation, Self-Awareness, and Strategic Vision. They offer two Masters level business degree

programs (an MBA and MSM) and plan to add an MSPL. A continuing challenge exists to develop

and maintain an AQIP Steering Committee for projects. The Core Values are commitment to

customers, continuous improvement, and integrity.

Category Summary Statements

1. Helping Students Learn: The LFGSM’s new Leadership Model is still in the process of

development, which includes curriculum mapping to align the programs and coursework along

with the Common Learning Outcomes Rubric to assess if the five leadership traits are being

attained. This process is still in the reacting phase; not yet systematic. LFGSM states that this

new Leadership Model will be fully implemented by 2018.

2. Meeting Student & Other Key Stakeholder Needs: LFGSM partners with a variety of

community stakeholders (area corporations) primarily selected based on these corporations’

needs for leaders with business acumen. LFGSM’s 22 corporate partners have become

Corporate Learning Solutions (CLS) educational partners with tuition discounts and other

benefits for their employees.

3. Valuing Employees: LFGSM has reduced costs and simplified the performance evaluation

system for staff and administrators by eliminating the costly software and instituting a staff-

driven system. Annual performance reviews of staff and administrators are conducted.

Faculty are evaluated after each term (6X per year) at a formal Term Review and action plans

are developed to address any performance issues. All employees were required to complete

a Hogan Assessment. (Hogan assessments enable employers to assess employees’

personality in the workplace. The assessments predict the employees’ potential performance



3

based on their strengths, weaknesses, values, and problem-solving approaches. Additionally,

these assessments measure personality characteristics, risk of career derailment, core

values, and cognitive style).

4. Planning and Leading: LFGSM indicates the need for better and more frequent

communication of progress on Strategic Plan initiatives. 4I2 discusses plans for an annual

report and all staff (town hall) meetings to meet this need. 4R1 includes a repeat of the same

CSSS data. It would be helpful to know which data elements within this survey the institution

is using to demonstrate result in the respective areas. The portfolio does not demonstrate

using a data driven process for planning and leading. Aside from the CSSS data, there are no

internal or external benchmarks.

5. Knowledge Management & Resource Stewardship: LFGSM created the Office of

Institutional Research within this past year. LFGSM has several key information systems

where data are housed, such as Jenzabar, Blackboard, TaskStream, and AccPac. Data

mining and analysis from the Office of Institutional Research and other administrative offices

may assist in providing evidence for decisions to improve institutional effectiveness. LFGSM

has undergone successful annual financial audits for the accounting practices and financial

aid fund management. LFGSM met the three-year Strategic Plan financial target in year two.

The institution continues to maintain a positive cash flow amidst the declining enrollment of

the past several years, and carries no short or long-term debt. The VP/CFO has moved

financial accounts to a regional bank, consolidating holdings and reducing fees. The theme of

declining enrollments is present many times in the LFGSM portfolio. Anecdotal reasons for

the declining enrollment have been provided, but a systematic plan for attracting more

students is limited in its scope.

6. Quality Overview: Overall, LFGSM appears to have a quality program. LFGSM has been

serving adult working professional students for over 70 years. Their programs leverage the

insights of their Business Leader Faculty and employ research-based adult learning

principles. Five leadership traits make up their Leadership Model: Agility, Engaging Others,

Innovation, Self-Awareness, and Strategic Vision. They offer two Masters level business

degree programs (an MBA and MSM) and plan to add an MSPL. A continuing challenge

exists to develop and maintain an AQIP Steering Committee for projects. Core values are

commitment to customers, continuous improvement, and integrity. The portfolio demonstrates

LFGSM’s commitment to the core values.



4

II. Strategic Challenges Analysis In reviewing the entire Systems Portfolio, the Systems Appraisal team was able to discern what may be

two overarching strategic challenges or potential issues that could affect the institution’s ability to

succeed in reaching its mission, planning, and overall quality improvement goals. These judgments are

based exclusively on information available in the Systems Portfolio and thus may be limited. Each item

should be revisited in subsequent AQIP Pathway reviews, such as during the comprehensive evaluation

in Year 8.

Strategic Challenge: There is a lack of identification of internal and external benchmarks. In any

continuous quality improvement process, the measurement of the institution’s work against both

internal and external benchmarks is essential to assuring the improvements and changes are

effective. LFGSM could use benchmarks to help determine areas of strengths and weaknesses.

Strategic Challenge: There is a lack of reporting data in the portfolio. With the exception of the

CSSS data, LFGSM does not present sufficient data reports to support their initiatives or their claims

in the portfolio. Data should be used to help guide the institution to make informed decisions and

demonstrate their commitment to a data driven quality improvement process.

III. AQIP Category Feedback As the Systems Appraisal team reviewed the Systems Portfolio, it determined the stages of maturity of

the institution’s processes and results. These stages range from “Reacting” to “Integrated” and are

described in Appendix A. Through use of the maturity, stages and its analysis of the institution’s reported

improvements, the team offers below summary feedback for each AQIP Pathway category. This section

identifies areas for further improvement and possible improvement strategies. In addition to the summary

information presented here, Appendix B conveys the team’s specific feedback for all Process, Results,

and Improvement items included in the institution’s Systems Portfolio. The summary feedback below,

and the detailed feedback offered in Appendix B, is based only upon evidence conveyed in the Systems

Portfolio. It is possible that the institution has additional information on specific processes, results and

improvements that was not included in the Systems Portfolio. In such instances, the institution should

plan to provide this evidence in a future AQIP Pathway review process.



5

Category 1: Helping Students Learn

LFGSM is reacting in Category 1. Some of the new initiatives for Helping Students Learn put the

institution on the right path to help move to systematic. For example, LFGSM revised its Common

Learning Outcomes in 2016 as part of its Leadership Model. The Leadership Model was

communicated to stakeholders via a series of written documents, meetings, webinars, and is featured

on their website. A Comprehensive Student Satisfaction Survey (CSSS) was implemented in October

2016, but limited data was made available in this portfolio. Utilization of this tool over time should

result in more comparative data.

LFGSM could improve in this category by developing internal targets and external benchmarks,

establishing peer and aspirant school comparisons, and updating its strategic plan to align with the

new Leadership Model and the plans for additional degree programs. LFGSM may want to consider

developing internal targets and looking at distance learning options as a way to try to improve in this

category.

Category 1 Strategic Issues: Need internal targets and external benchmarking.

Category 2: Meeting Student & Other Key Stakeholder Needs

LFGSM is reacting in Category 2. The institution can move to systematic with additional use of

benchmarking. LFGSM’s small size and narrow focus mean it is critically important for the institution

to understand student and other stakeholder needs. LFGSM has effective processes in place to

measure student persistence and success and has appropriately adapted definitions of retention and

persistence to fit its purpose. LFGSM is in the beginning stages of using longitudinal data and

external benchmarks in some processes. The institution has an appropriate self-awareness of its

maturity levels for the processes in this category.

Category 2 Strategic Issues: There is a lack of results, key metrics, data collection, internal targets

and external benchmarks presented. There is a lack of identifiable processes in relation to non-

academic support services. Steps have been taken to address enrollment, however enrollment

targets and future planning should be clearly identified.

Category 3: Valuing Employees

LFGSM is systematic in demonstrating how the institution values employees. The institution defines

their multi-step processes for recruitment and selection of qualified candidates. A Degree Program

Faculty Rubric has been designed for selection of faculty qualified for the job. Course Evaluation data

occurs on all classes every term and new faculty are monitored for the first two assignments. The



6

CSSS has been recently implemented and is being used for various data. Initial data indicated

additional effort was needed in financial aid so a new IR Director was hired.

Future planning centers around expansion of Faculty Academy courses in adult learning pedagogy

and course design. The Faculty Engagement Survey is to be revised to include external benchmark

items.

Category 3 Strategic Issues: LFGSM assesses the evaluation of employees on a regular basis.

The process is loosely connected to ILOs. LFGSM can enhance their commitment to employees by

sharing more examples of professional development programs completed by staff who support

students and by offering part-time faculty access to a more robust Faculty Academy program.

Category 4: Planning and Leading

Overall, LFGSM is systematic in planning and leading. While some areas are aligned, others areas

are reacting. For example, the Strategic Plan and Mission, Vision and Values (MVV) were reviewed

and confirmed for continuation in a 3-year strategic planning cycle. The President ensures the MVV

are threaded throughout the institution. LFGSM has had some success in its financial process with

no findings in its audits and low student default rate. Data was presented throughout this category,

which will help LFGSM make plans, implement changes, and improve performance. The strategic

planning process was described and results and progress made, but no comparison of results with

internal targets or limited external benchmarks i.e. (only CSSS survey). In fact, the only tool with

results described was the CSSS survey data.

Category 4 Strategic Issues: LFGSM does not clearly present how it benchmarks against other

institutions, internal benchmarks, or how it uses the information presented in the portfolio to improve.

Category 5: Knowledge Management & Resource Stewardship

In Category 5, LFGSM is systematic about knowledge management and resource stewardship.

LFGSM created the Office of Institutional Research (OIR) within the past year. LFGSM has several

key information systems where data is housed, such as Jenzabar, Blackboard, TaskStream, and

AccPac. Data mining and analysis from the OIR and other administrative offices may assist in

providing evidence for decisions to improve institutional effectiveness.

LFGSM has undergone successful annual financial audits for accounting practices and financial aid

fund management. It met the three-year Strategic Plan financial target in the second year. LFGSM

continues to maintain positive cash flow amidst declining enrollment over the past few years, and



7

carries no short- or long-term debt. The VP/CFO has moved financial accounts to a regional bank,

consolidating holdings and reducing fees.

Category 5 Strategic Issues: The theme of declining enrollments is present throughout the portfolio.

Anecdotal reasons for declining enrollment have been provided, but a systematic plan for attracting

additional students is limited. Presentation of enrollment projections and a pro forma budget would be

useful, especially since two new programs are to be launched soon.

Category 6: Quality Overview

The team agreed with LFGSM rating of systematic/reacting in this category. A small institution

completely dependent on enrollment should consider continuous process improvement as a core

function.

LFGSM has conducted multiple Action Projects that have focused on various AQIP Categories that

provided LFGSM with a framework for continuous quality improvement. LFGSM is working to make

improvements in its processes and this has resulted in changes in its communication of results from

Action Projects. The institution has still not addressed the resource constraints adversely affecting its

ability to ensure a culture of quality is embedded in its culture. LFGSM is challenged with identifying

success measures beyond completing milestones on time and on budget. LFGSM senses that

important opportunities are emerging for them to rededicate themselves to the principles behind the

AQIP Pathway.

LFGSM might consider moving the establishment of a CQI process and a systematic reporting

structure ahead of the development of new degree programs, expanding its CLS to mid-and large

corporations, and implementing distance-learning methodology.

Category 6 Strategic Issues: There is a lack of identifiable internal and external benchmarks and a

lack of reporting data and demonstrating they are making data driven decisions.

IV. Criteria for Accreditation Evidence Screening The Systems Appraisal team screened the institution’s Systems Portfolio evidence in relation to the

Criteria for Accreditation and the Core Components. This step is designed to position the institution for

success during its comprehensive evaluation in Year 8. In order to accomplish this task, HLC has

established linkages between the Systems Portfolio’s Process and Results items and the Criteria’s Core

Components. Systems Appraisal teams have been trained to conduct a “soft review” of the Criteria and

Core Components for Systems Portfolios completed in the third year of the AQIP Pathway cycle and a

more robust review for Systems Portfolios completed in the seventh year. The formal review of the

Criteria and Core Components for purposes of reaffirming the institution’s accreditation occurs only in the



8

eighth year of the cycle and is completed through the comprehensive evaluation, unless serious

problems are identified earlier in the cycle. As part of this Systems Appraisal screening process, teams

indicate whether each Core Component is “Strong, clear, and well-presented”; “Adequate but could be

improved”; or “Unclear or incomplete.” When the Criteria and Core Components are reviewed formally for

reaffirmation of accreditation, peer reviewers must determine whether each is “Met,” “Met with concerns,”

or “Not met.”

Appendix C of this report documents in detail the Appraisal team’s best judgment as to the current

strength of the institution’s evidence for each Core Component and thus for each Criterion. Institutions

are encouraged to review Appendix C carefully in order to guide improvement work relative to the Criteria

and Core Components. Immediately below, the team provides summary statements that convey broadly

its observations regarding the institution’s present ability to satisfy each Criterion, as well as any

suggestions for improvement. Again, this feedback is based only upon information contained in the

institution’s Systems Portfolio and thus may be limited.

Criterion 1. Mission:

Students attending LFGSM are working adults and business professionals. To address the institution’s

role in addressing the unique needs of this population, the institution offers “as much flexibility and as

many schedule and delivery options as possible.” LFGSM”s mission as a non-profit is primary and there

is no conflicting interests or ownership by external entities. The president is responsible for allocating

resources to fulfill mission and vision while upholding values with input from Leadership Team. The

Director of Marketing is responsible for studies to measure appropriateness and reach of mission and

vision. Although the evidence is strong regarding IC2, the institution could present stronger adherence to

1C1 if they were to discuss the race, ethnicity, gender, etc. of the student population efforts to connect

with this population in their recruitment practices.

Criterion 2. Integrity: Ethical and Responsible Conduct Continuous improvement is a core benchmark for institutions who choose the AQIP pathway. LFGSM

describes some informal continuous improvement processes including how they learn key lessons and

references informal lessons learned sessions. The CSSS results presented demonstrate the students

see LFGSM as operating with integrity. However, developing processes that are more formal would help

continue the quality improvement by allowing previous lessons to influence the future.



9

The Student Conduct Policy for ethical behavior, integrity, respect, and academic freedom is published in

the Academic Catalog, Student Handbook, and on the Student Portal. The students acknowledged these

policies were in place in the CSSS.

LFGSM demonstrates ethical and responsible conduct through the publication of policies and in its daily

actions. The VP/CAO is the HLC ALO and has responsibility for state regulations and accreditation

requirements. The VP/CAO has responsibility for assuring the policies are in place, there are

mechanisms for reporting any issues, and that each issue comes to a resolution. There were no issues

reported in the portfolio. The public website, faculty portal, and student portal are regularly reviewed for

accuracy and clarity, and at a bare minimum, after the new academic catalog is published. Information

about programs, including degree requirements and costs, is posted on the public website.

The BOD appoints the President and evaluates his performance. Bylaws are the established policies

that govern the BOD membership. The BOD are high-level executives and represent business leaders

from area corporations, local business community members, and the President of the Lake Forest

College.

Criterion 3. Teaching and Learning: Quality, Resources, and Support LFGSM offers services relevant to the adult working professional student population they serve, including

career counseling, tutoring, online registration assistance, and financial aid assistance. Staff and faculty

identify students at risk for additional support. Course evaluations and the Comprehensive Student

Satisfaction Survey indicate appropriate levels of student satisfaction.

Employees and instructors are required to complete training in FERPA and Title IX. Annual evaluations

are used to measure student satisfaction with tutoring services. Evaluations are presented in formal

workshops and completed annually.

LFGSM relies primarily on part-time practicing business professionals and a small administrative staff to

deliver its programs. This model works well given LFGSM’s mission. Part-time faculty are provided with

guidance and support to deliver effective online education. However, a lack of evidence that program

and course learning outcomes are met makes it difficult to assume the institution has adequate faculty

resources.

Evidence was shared that the appropriate processes and practices exist. For example, “course teams

responsible for curriculum subject matter are organized for each course”, and “Courses and programs

offered at all locations and in all delivery modalities use the same program goals, etc.”

The co-curricular programs offered by Student Services align with the mission. The use of a Student

Advisory Group, affinity groups, webinars and focused learning workshops provide evidence that this

criterion is met.



10

Criterion 4. Teaching and Learning: Evaluation and Improvement As an institution, it is clear educational program quality is a priority. They have adopted a regular

program review process, new curriculum is piloted, and the courses all follow the Plan-Do-Study-Act

cycle but there is limited evidence of its effectiveness. Although development guidelines regarding the

program and course assessment data are well stated, little data is presented to show the results. The

portfolio offered limited evidence of student rigor, or outcomes of student learning. Currently, a

commitment to educational improvement relies heavily upon the results of the CSSS. The CSSS data is

used to indirectly assess outcome attainment of graduates. This commitment could be enhanced through

evidence of efforts to measure student progress and completion at the program level and by various

student characteristics. Indirect measures of outcome achievement of the ILOs are planned for inclusion

in a graduating student survey. Full program review is planned to be conducted every three years.

Criterion 5. Resources, Planning, and Institutional Effectiveness Administration, faculty, staff and students are involved in setting academic requirements, policies and

processes. There is clear evidence of engagement of all internal constituencies with the exception of

adjunct faculty. This oversight may be problematic since the institution relies heavily on adjunct

faculty.

No financial data are presented in Category 3, so it is not clear if the resource base is adequate.

President and Leadership Team capitalize on opportunities based upon current capacity, financial

results and resource availability using management dashboard.

The BOD is governed by the LFGSM Bylaws. The Bylaws establish the policies of the Board

concerning membership, officers, meetings, committees, terms, nominations, and responsibilities.

Strategy cascades were developed in alignment with the strategic plan but process is not described.

It is noted that the strategic planning process involves internal and external stakeholders.

V. Quality of the Systems Portfolio

It is evident LFGSM devoted substantial time and effort into developing the portfolio. The content of the

portfolio should provide the institution with a clear overview of the activities the institution has undertaken

to support its mission. In writing the next portfolio, it may prove beneficial to LFGSM to coordinate the

process, results and improvements sections for each key process. In the process section, it is best to

describe detailed processes, step by step, for each key process. A process map may be helpful in this

regard. Then in the results section, report the outcome metrics for each process. Lastly, based upon the

outcome metrics, focus improvement efforts and feed those improvements back into the process. This



11

coordination reflects the process improvement feedback loop. The result is an efficient, effective process

that is consistently understood and implemented.

VI. Using the Systems Appraisal Feedback Report The Systems Appraisal process is intended to foster action for institutional improvement. Although

decisions about specific next steps rest with the institution, HLC expects every institution to use its

Feedback Report to stimulate improvement and to inform future processes. If this Appraisal is being

completed in the institution’s third year in the AQIP Pathway cycle, the results may inform future Action

Projects and provide the focus for the institution’s next Strategy Forum. In rare cases, the Appraisal

completed in the third year may suggest either to the institution itself or to the Commission the need for a

mid-cycle (fourth year) Comprehensive Quality Review. If this Appraisal is being completed in the

institution’s seventh year in the cycle, again the results may inform future Action Projects and Strategy

Forums, but more immediately, they should inform institutional preparation for its comprehensive

evaluation in the eighth year of the cycle when the institution’s continuing accredited status will be

determined along with future Pathway eligibility. Institutions are encouraged to contact their staff liaison

with questions.



12

APPENDIX A

Stages in Systems Maturity: Processes Reacting Systematic Aligned Integrated

The institution focuses on activities and initiatives that respond to immediate needs or problems rather than anticipating future requirements, capacities, or changes. Goals are implicit and poorly defined. Informal procedures and habits account for all but the most formal aspects of institutional operations.

The institution is beginning to operate via generally understood, repeatable, and often documented processes and is prone to make the goal of most activities explicit, measurable, and subject to improvement. Institutional silos are eroding and signs of coordination and the implementation of effective practices across units are evident. Institutional goals are generally understood.

The institution operates according to processes that are explicit, repeatable and periodically evaluated for improvement. Processes address key goals and strategies, and lessons learned are shared among institutional units. Coordination and communication among units is emphasized so stakeholders relate what they do to institutional goals and strategies.

Operations are characterized by explicit, predictable processes that are repeatable and regularly evaluated for optimum effectiveness. Efficiencies across units are achieved through analysis, transparency, innovation, and sharing. Processes and measures track progress on key strategic and operational goals. Outsiders request permission to visit and study why the institution is so successful.

Stages in Systems Maturity: Results Reacting Systematic Aligned Integrated

Activities, initiatives, and operational processes may not generate data or the data is not collected, aggregated, or analyzed. Institutional goals lack measures, metrics, and/or benchmarks for evaluating progress. The monitoring of quality of operational practices and procedures may be based on assumptions about quality. Data collected may not be segmented or distributed effectively to inform decision-making.

Data and information are collected and archived for use, available to evaluate progress, and are analyzed at various levels. The results are shared and begin to erode institutional silos and foster improvement initiatives across institutional units. The tracking of performance on institutional goals has begun in a manner that yields trend data and lends itself to comparative measures in some areas.

Measures, metrics and benchmarks are understood and used by all relevant stakeholders. Good performance levels are reported with beneficial trends sustained over time in many areas of importance. Results are segmented and distributed to all responsible institutional units in a manner that supports effective decision-making, planning and collaboration on improvement initiatives. Measures and metrics are designed to enable the aggregation and analysis of results at an institutional level.

Data and information are analyzed and used to optimize operations on an ongoing basis. Performance levels are monitored using appropriate benchmarks. Trend data has been accrued and analyzed for most areas of performance. Results are shared, aggregated, segmented and analyzed in a manner that supports transparency, efficiency, collaboration and progress on organizational goals. Measures and metrics for strategic and operational goals yield results that are used in



13

decision-making and resource allocations.



14

APPENDIX B

AQIP Category Feedback

Category 1: Helping Students Learn

Category 1 focuses on the design, deployment and effectiveness of teaching-learning processes (and the processes required to support them) that underlie the institution’s credit and non-credit programs and courses.

1.1: Common Learning Outcomes

Common Learning Outcomes focuses on the knowledge, skills and abilities expected of graduates from all programs. The institution should provide evidence for Core Components 3.B., 3.E. and 4.B. in this section.

1P1 Describe the processes for determining, communicating and ensuring the stated common learning outcomes, and identify who is involved in those processes. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

Process Comments on Process Maturity and Improvement Aligning common outcomes to the mission, educational offerings and degree levels of the institution

LFGSM described a systematic process for aligning its Institutional Learning Outcomes to its mission. This process was implemented in 2016 to align the ILOs to emphasize learning outcomes related to leadership in business. The updated ILOs are collectively referred to as the LFGSM Leadership Model and each LFGSM graduate is expected to demonstrate these outcomes: Agility, Engage Others, Innovation, Self-Awareness, and Strategic Vision. LFGSM can progress to an aligned level of maturity in this process by developing a repeatable process for reviewing the alignment of ILOs to the institutional mission.

Determining common outcomes

LFGSM used a systematic process for determining its common learning outcomes, which it refers to as ILOs. Executive staff engaged multiple sources, including its board of directors and working professionals serving as adjunct faculty, in deciding the ILOs should focus on business leadership principles.

Articulating the purposes, content and level of achievement of the outcomes

LFGSM described a systematic process for communicating its Leadership Model of ILOs to the Faculty Senate, faculty, staff, and Board by the President. LFGSM used a series of written documents, meetings, and webinars for the communication. LFGSM can progress to an aligned level for this process by developing and implementing a process to ensure this



15

communication is systematized and periodically reinforced with faculty and staff. This is especially important given the relatively high percentage of adjunct faculty LFGSM employs.

Incorporating into the curriculum opportunities for all students to achieve the outcomes

LFGSM is progressing from a reacting to a systematic process for incorporating opportunities for all students to achieve the ILOs. Faculty are currently designing curriculum maps for all courses, and plans are being developed to implement ILO assessment rubrics for all courses, including non-credit Corporate Learning Solutions courses.

Ensuring the outcomes remain relevant and aligned with student, workplace and societal needs

LFGSM discusses its ILOs with the board of directors and adjunct faculty who are practicing business professionals. LFGSM can progress from systematic to aligned in this process by developing a predictable process for conducting these conversations, fully implementing the planned assessments, and developing a process to analyze the results from the assessments.

Designing, aligning and delivering cocurricular activities to support learning

LFGSM’s has developed co-curricular activities that meet the needs of its student population, which is comprised mainly of working professionals. LFGSM could progress from systematic to aligned in this process by fully describing how student satisfaction with co-curricular activities such as learning lunches and affinity groups is determined.

Selecting tools, methods and instruments used to assess attainment of common learning outcomes

LFGSM is progressing from reacting to systematic in this process. A capstone leadership rubric is under development that will measure the overall achievement of the five ILOs. The leadership rubrics were reviewed and vetted by the faculty senate, and it seems these tools are beginning to be incorporated into courses and used with the students. Plans are described to measure outcome achievements by including ILO traits in its new graduate student survey to be deployed in 2018.

Assessing common learning outcomes

LFGSM is at a current level of reacting for this process but is progressing towards systematic. The assessment rubrics have been developed but it does not appear they have been integrated into all courses yet; therefore, assessment has not yet been completed. It appears the assessment plan has not yet been fully developed.

Other identified processes The plan to incorporate the ILOs into LFGSM’s Corporate Learning Solutions is noteworthy and a good example of a systematic process that validates the ILOs are appropriate, practical and relevant with the students and their workplace regardless of the type of coursework. This reinforces the LFGSM mission.



16

1R1 What are the results for determining if students possess the knowledge, skills and abilities that are expected at each degree level? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 1P1. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:

Results Evaluation of Results and Systems Improvement Summary results of measures (including tables and figures when possible)

LFGSM is in the beginning stages of presenting results that inform its progress towards helping LFGSM students achieve common learning outcomes. It seems that LFGSM will move from the current level of reacting in this process to systematic as the assessment rubrics and plan are fully implemented.

Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks

LFGSM presented comparative results from a CSSS survey and a national grad student survey, but states the surveys are different; thus it is not clear if the survey scales are similar enough to provide a meaningful comparison. No results against internal benchmarks are presented. LFGSM recognizes it is at a reacting level for this process and has taken steps to progress to a systematic level by creating an IR office and beginning to develop plans for routine comparisons with similar institutions.

Interpretation of results and insights gained

LFGSM is at a reacting level in this process. Since minimal results were available, it is difficult for LFGSM to present evidence of how it interprets results. LFGSM reports that CSSS survey data is being shared with internal stakeholders and is being used to inform the work of faculty for purposes of curriculum alignment and mapping. However, there is no discussion of other key metrics and insights gained and the data reported does not include any direct assessment measures. LFGSM might consider adding other measures such as exit interviews, focus groups, and similar metrics that could be used to measure its effectiveness in delivering common learning outcomes to LFGSM students.

1I1 Based on 1R1, what process improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years?

Evaluation of Improvement Efforts



17

LFGSM has described some planned process improvements that should serve the institution well when implemented. The Leadership Model has been widely adopted, and the comprehensive assessment plan should provide important information for LFGSM when it is fully implemented. LFGSM is encouraged to follow through on its use of the AQIP action project process to move forward in this area.

1.2: Program Learning Outcomes

Program Learning Outcomes focuses on the knowledge, skills and abilities graduates from particular programs are expected to possess. The institution should provide evidence for Core Components 3.B., 3.E. and 4.B. in this section.

1P2 Describe the processes for determining, communicating and ensuring the stated program learning outcomes and identify who is involved in those processes. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

Process Comments on Process Maturity and Improvement Aligning program learning outcomes to the mission, educational offerings and degree levels of the institution

LFGSM described an aligned process for aligning its program learning outcomes (PLOs) to the LFGSM mission. PLOs are reviewed every three years as a part of the Program review process, and LFGSM states it uses a Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) quality methodology as a part of the program review.

Determining program outcomes

LFGSM states the CAO and Dean of Faculty determined PLOs with input from IR and a review by the faculty senate. The outcomes were benchmarked using the Lumina Degree Qualifications Profile. PLOs are reviewed every three years. The degree to which faculty are involved in this process is not clear; therefore, this process is judged to be systematic. LFGSM could move to an aligned level by a broader sharing of the PLO determination by faculty, especially since many LFGSM faculty are working professionals serving as adjunct.

Articulating the purposes, content and level of achievement of these outcomes

The process of articulating the purpose, content, and achievement of PLOs relies on anecdotal evidence and feedback from adjunct faculty and is at a current level of reacting. LFGSM could easily move to a systematic or aligned level by developing a process to systematically capture the qualitative feedback provided by adjunct faculty and describe specifically how the feedback is used.

Ensuring the outcomes remain relevant and aligned with student, workplace and societal needs

The current level of this process is aligned. The PLOs are reviewed every three years as part of the Program Review process and is overseen by a Dean of Faculty and Degree Programs and the Vice President and Chief Academic Officer following the Plan-Do-Study-Act



18

(PDSA) methodology. Workplace partners provide valuable feedback that LFGSM uses to ensure PLOs are relevant.

Designing, aligning and delivering cocurricular activities to support learning

LFGSM describes an aligned process for delivering co-curricular activities. Co-curricular programs are suited to the mission, degree programs, and student educational needs and interests. Webinars, workshops, guest speakers, and affinity groups are selected based on ILOs and PLOs.

Selecting tools, methods and instruments used to assess attainment of program learning outcomes

LFGSM states it is reviewing the manner in which PLOs are assessed. LFGSM describes several assessment methods currently in place, including course evaluations, and a capstone course; this provides evidence of a systematic process for selecting tools to assess PLO attainment. LFGSM can progress to an aligned status by continuing the effort to review PLO assessment, and develop a process to share results across all institutional units, including the large pool of adjunct faculty.

Assessing program learning outcomes

LFGSM is progressing from reacting to systematic in this process. LFGSM recognized that the McGraw-Hill Businesses Strategy Game (BSG) results might not align with LFGSM’s updated PLOs and ILOs. They are searching for a new way to assess PLOs. LFGSM is in the process of developing a capstone course for its MSM degree program.

Other identified processes

1R2 What are the results for determining if students possess the knowledge, skills and abilities that are expected in programs? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 1P2. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:

Results Evaluation of Results and Systems Improvement Overall levels of deployment of the program assessment processes within the institution (i.e., how many programs are/not assessing program goals)

LFGSM described a systematic process for the level of deployment of program assessment processes. LFGSM offers two degree programs; each of these has a program-level assessment process, although the process is under revision.

Summary results of measures (including tables and figures when possible)

LFGSM provided summary results, including longitudinal tables, to faculty Course Team/Academic Discipline Team teaching the capstone course and to all administrators. Changes are made based on results of



19

the BSG, course evaluations and student survey results. This is currently a systematic process but can progress to aligned as LFGSM continues to refine its assessment process for PLOs.


LFGSM students performed at 50th percentile of US graduate students in six of the nine competency categories on the BSG. LFGSM also provided results from an assessment of its career service functions, but no longitudinal results were available since the survey was first administered in April 2017. LFGSM is in an early systematic maturity level for this process and is encouraged to continue with consistently administered internal surveys and to look for additional external benchmarks.

Interpretation of assessment results and insights gained

LFGSM explains the variances among different onsite locations and demonstrated the interpretation of qualitative data provided in the career survey. The summary provided is for the most part a verbal description of the results and only minimally addresses changes that might be implemented or existing practices that might continue as a result of the survey responses. LFGSM describes a good process for sharing the “raw” survey results, but could improve from reacting to systematic by providing additional details about the analysis of the results.


Evaluation of Improvement Efforts It would be helpful to have the MBA and MSM programs described in more detail along with an organizational chart showing the board, upper administration, deans, the discipline teams, and course teams and the manner in which businesses fit into the organization as partners and the onsite locations and programs offered at these sites. The review panel encourages LFGSM to follow through with its plan to create an exit survey to gather indirect assessment data for the PLOs for each program as a crosscheck to course evaluation results.

1.3: Academic Program Design

Academic Program Design focuses on developing and revising programs to meet stakeholders’ needs. The institution should provide evidence for Core Components 1.C. and 4.A. in this section.

1P3 Describe the processes for ensuring new and current programs meet the needs of the institution and its diverse stakeholders. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for



20

the following:

Process Comments on Process Maturity and Improvement Identifying student stakeholder groups and determining their educational needs

LFGSM’s mission of serving adult working students guides development of new programs through an aligned process. LFGSM utilizes a variety of resources including Business Leader Faculty, Board of Directors, and Corporate Learning Solutions to identify stakeholders and uses its academic design process to collect current data about the needs of its target audience, business professionals in the workplace.

Identifying other key stakeholder groups and determining their needs

LFGSM’s process for identifying other stakeholder groups is aligned. LFGSM purposefully focuses on working business professionals, but recognizes that the companies for which their students work are also a key stakeholder, along with business professionals who desire training but do not necessarily need a degree. LFGSM’s close connections with the business community afford it a distinct advantage for identifying needs.

Developing and improving responsive programming to meet all stakeholders’ needs

The process described states LFGSM “taps into” the needs of the business community, and that its board of directors informs its degree planning process. The process described is at the systematic level of maturity. LFGSM could progress to an aligned process by detailing how and when this data is systematically gathered to ensure the institution is responsive to the needs of all stakeholders. LFGSM might also benefit from developing a uniform survey that asks questions about how well the curriculum meets the needs of business and industry and where improvements could be made.

Selecting the tools, methods and instruments used to assess the currency and effectiveness of academic programs

LFGSM is in the early stages of a systematic maturity level for the process for selecting tools and methods to assess program currency. The CSSS is used along with end-of-course evaluations; these instruments measure student satisfaction, which is an important consideration, but might not provide all of the information needed about the overall currency and effectiveness of the academic programs. There is some evidence of anecdotal conversations with program faulty, many of who are working business professionals.

Reviewing the viability of courses and programs and

LFGSM used a systematic formal program review process to evaluate programs every 3 years. Several



21

changing or discontinuing when necessary

data points are identified in the program review process, but many are not collected (e.g. Exit Survey, Alumni/Employer Survey and standardized tests). As result of gaps in the data collection, LFGSM’s ability to evaluate the viability of its courses and programs may be limited. LFGSM may benefit from sharing its program review findings with external stakeholders to gather additional input before making changes.

Other identified processes LFGSM used a systematic six-phase course development process which includes running pilots of newly developed or revised courses to obtain feedback from both faculty and students before launching the new course or replacing the old course. Similarly, LFGSM has a New Degree Program design process that begins with external data analysis and environmental scan and curriculum review for competitive programs.

1R3 What are the results for determining if programs are current and meet the needs of the institution’s diverse stakeholders? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 1P3. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:

Results Evaluation of Results and Systems Improvement Summary results of assessments (including tables and figures when possible)

LFGSM described the beginning of a systematic process to understand its success in academic program design. LFGSM presents some results from the CSSS survey, but the items chosen might not inform progress towards institutional understanding of how well the academic program design process works. For example, although it is important that adult students are made to feel welcome, the connection of this survey item to academic program design is not clear. Additionally, the comparison of items from the CSSS to the ASPS survey is not clear. It is noteworthy that LFGSM routinely conducts indirect assessments of its programs through end-of-course surveys and its close connections with the business community through its adjuncts and working professional students.


LFGSM is in the early stages of developing a systematic process for comparing results to internal and external benchmarks. LFGSM is using the national CSSS survey, but did not present results related to progress towards achieving internal benchmarks.



22


Based on the portfolio discussion, LFGSM is at the reacting level of interpreting results of instruments that inform academic program design. It is quite possible there is insight gleaned from the anecdotal / qualitative discussions LFGSM has with its business contacts, but this analysis is not directly presented.


Evaluation of Improvement Efforts LFGSM seems to have a plan to use the data collected to support the development and implementation of an assessment process. LFGSM is reviewing the Academic Program Design Process to make improvements. The institution has also created an Instructional Technologist position and the Dean of Faculty and Degree Programs will determine the areas of the program design process where the newly hired Instructional Technologist will be involved. LFGSM might consider providing the details of its most recent Strategic Plan that should encompass how LFGSM results compare to peer institutions schools. The Strategic Plan could aid LFGSM in establishing internal targets and external benchmarks and provide guidance into new program development, academic program design and quality. An Instructional Technologist has been hired who reports to the Dean of Faculty and Degree Programs; this is a positive step towards understanding and improving academic program and course design.

1.4: Academic Program Quality

Academic Program Quality focuses on ensuring quality across all programs, modalities and locations. The institution should provide evidence for Core Components 3.A. and 4.A. in this section.

1P4 Describe the processes for ensuring quality academic programming. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

Process Comments on Process Maturity and Improvement Determining and communicating the preparation required of students for the specific curricula, programs, courses and learning they will pursue

LFGSM has described an aligned process for communicating student preparation. Preparation for specific learning is determined using input from a number of different individuals including the Vice President, Dean, and the Registrar. LFGSM outlines several methods the institution utilizes to ensure students are prepared and knowledgeable about their degree program. LFGSM has a philosophy of “high-touch” student support and offers bundled services to facilitate this support.



23

Evaluating and ensuring program rigor for all modalities, locations, consortia and dual-credit programs

LFGSM states that program rigor and consistency is the same across all locations and modalities, and describes an aligned process overseen by the Dean and Faculty and Degree Programs in concert with the faculty. Rigor is overseen by the Dean and indirectly assessed through questions on course evaluations administered to students each term.

Awarding prior learning and transfer credits

LFGSM describes an aligned process for evaluating and awarding transfer credits. This includes transfer credits for courses taken at other institutions and life experience.

Selecting, implementing and maintaining specialized accreditation(s)

LFGSM has deliberately made the decision not to pursue specialized accreditation for business programs. The review team has judged this process to be at the reacting maturity level. Although LFGSM provides rationale for why it chose to not pursue specialty accreditation, it might consider revisiting this decision to evaluate whether peer institutions have reached the same conclusion, or if the lack of an accreditation is negatively impacting enrollment or the ability of students to transfer credits or enter a PhD program.

Assessing the level of outcomes attainment by graduates at all levels

LFGSM states it cannot separate or quantify the effect of attainment of a Master’s level business degree for other variables in a student’s career success. Since LFGSM is small, it might consider developing a formal process to conduct either a survey or perhaps focus groups of graduates to provide examples of how the learning that occurred in their degree programs impacted their employment and leadership abilities. The CSSS data from October 2016 has been used to indirectly assess the level of outcome attainment with plans to add a graduate exit survey. The current maturity level of this process is reacting.

Selecting the tools, methods and instruments used to assess program rigor across all modalities

LFGSM relies on anecdotal evidence to assess program rigor, and is beginning to implement the CSSS survey as a measure of program rigor. However, it is not clear how this survey will inform program rigor. The current maturity level of this process is reacting. To progress to a systematic maturity level, LFGSM might consider ways to more formally analyze the considerable anecdotal evidence it collects from conversations with its stakeholders, and which elements of the CSSS survey can be used to assess rigor.


1R4 What are the results for determining the quality of academic programs? The results presented



24

should be for the processes identified in 1P4. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:

Results Evaluation of Results and Systems Improvement Summary results of assessments (including tables and figures when possible)

The level of maturity for the results of academic program quality is systematic. The CSSS elements presented include two items potentially related to program quality: Content of courses and quality of instruction. It is evident from other sections of the portfolio that other anecdotal evidence exists related to program quality and that results are communicated. This response could be improved by including other items specifically related to program quality.


LFGSM does not describe comparison against internal benchmarks, and includes only limited results for external benchmarks. Including specific benchmarks and eventually longitudinal data will help LFGSM progress from the current level of reacting to a systematic level of maturity.


Interpretation of results is limited in the portfolio discussion. It is quite possible interpretation is occurring informally; formalizing and describing these discussions, if they exist, will help LFGSM improve the maturity level of this results process from reacting to systematic.


Comments LFGSM is working to develop and implement its comprehensive assessment plan. Since the institution changed its ILOs in 2016, no historical assessment data has been provided to provide context. The only exception is the inclusion of BSG data from 2012 to current academic year. The trend of academic program rigor and quality improvement will become clearer as direct assessment data has been collected and analyzed. Even though LFGSM is not pursuing specialized business accreditation, it might consider creating a peer group by selecting some institutions who are members of a relevant accrediting agency. This might enable LFGSM to compare its practices and results regarding accreditation guidelines/standards/criteria for curriculum, teaching/learning, and assessment/evaluation for revising current programs and designing new programs.

1.5: Academic Integrity

Academic Integrity focuses on ethical practices while pursuing knowledge. The institution should provide



25

evidence for Core Components 2.D. and 2.E. in this section.

1P5 Describe the processes for supporting ethical scholarly practices by students and faculty. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

Process Comments on Process Maturity and Improvement Ensuring freedom of expression and the integrity of research and scholarly practice

LFGSM describes an aligned process for ensuring freedom of expression and research integrity. The process by which faculty are involved in setting the standards is not described explicitly, possibly because of the high number of adjuncts compared to full-time faculty.

Ensuring ethical learning and research practices of students

LFGSM describes an aligned process for ensuring the ethical practices of students. Students are offered guidance in the ethical use of information resources through policies relating to copyright, fair use, and infringement published in the Academic Catalog, Student Handbook, and on the Student Portal.

Ensuring ethical teaching and research practices of faculty

LFGSM has created written guidelines related to ethical teaching and research practices for faculty. This process could improve from systematic to aligned if LFGSM could more fully discuss the process used for communications to assist faculty in this area.

Selecting the tools, methods and instruments used to evaluate the effectiveness and comprehensiveness of supporting academic integrity

The end-of course survey is used to assess the effectiveness of supporting academic integrity, but it is not clear how the results are used to inform improvements. This process is at the reacting level of maturity.


1R5 What are the results for determining the quality of academic integrity? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 1P5. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:


LFGSM is performing at a systematic maturity level in this results area. LFGSM uses course evaluations, which suggest students find faculty to be evaluate and grade fairly and treat students and their ideas with respect. Class evaluations are used to assess the commitment to academic freedom and integrity. Data show consistency from 2012



26

until 2016. Data provided included the response rate and number of classes/students surveyed.


LFGSM is performing at a systematic maturity level in this results area. Although minimal comparative results are presented, LFGSM has plans in place to use the CSSS for external benchmarking and to present longitudinal results for internal comparisons.


LFGSM states results are presented to the leadership team, but they do not contextualize any results in the portfolio. LFGSM is performing at a reacting level of maturity in this results area.


Evaluation of Improvement Efforts LFGSM might consider how it assures that the academic integrity policies and actions are being followed by all faculty and students. A new learning module on grading and feedback is in development for the Faculty to help with a transparent grading structure.

Category 2: Meeting Student and Other Key Stakeholder Needs

Category 2 focuses on determining, understanding and meeting needs of current and prospective students and other key stakeholders, such as alumni and community partners.

2.1: Current and Prospective Student Need

Current and Prospective Student Need focuses on determining, understanding and meeting the non-academic needs of current and prospective students. The institution should provide evidence for Core Components 3.C. and 3.D in this section.

2P1 Describe the processes for serving the non-academic needs of current and prospective students. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:



27

Process Comments on Process Maturity and Improvement Identifying underprepared and at-risk students, and determining their academic support needs

LFGSM serves adult working professional students seeking graduate education. Students identified as underprepared during the admission process, through a combination of the personal statement and interview, are not admitted. This approach is systematic. Time management was identified as an area where some admitted students might be underprepared. Consequently, Student Services personnel address time management during orientation, demonstrating communication and coordination among units. LFGSM can progress to an aligned status by providing further evidence of explicit, repeatable processes related to applicant evaluation and efforts to assist employers in identifying and preparing their employees for this professional education experience.

Deploying academic support services to help students select and successfully complete courses and programs

The institution is aligned in its approach to deploying academic support services to help students select and successfully complete courses and programs. Free tutoring is available to students once they are identified as needing assistance. Faculty can identify students or the students can request tutoring for themselves. Free Microsoft Excel and PowerPoint software workshops are offered for students struggling with data analysis or presentation tools.

Ensuring faculty are available for student inquiry

LFGSM has developed and adheres to an aligned approach to ensure faculty are available for students. Expectations for Teaching are described in the Faculty Handbook. This includes an expectation that faculty will be available to students outside of class time. The CSSS confirmed that the institution emphasizes on instructor availability. While the Faculty Handbook is mentioned many times, it is not hyperlinked for review inspection.

Determining and addressing the learning support needs (tutoring, advising, library, laboratories, research, etc.) of students and faculty

The process for determining and addressing the learning support needs of students and faculty is at a current level of aligned. LFGSM provides free tutoring to students, including those struggling with business writing because English is the student’s second language. Students who are in need of support are identified several ways, including academic standing evaluations, asking faculty to identify students at risk, monitoring students with incomplete grades, and intervening with students who have ongoing unpaid account balances. Individual and group career coaching are offers to students and alumni.

Determining new student groups to target for educational offerings and services

LFGSM is performing at a systematic maturity level in its efforts to identify new student groups to target for educational offerings and services. The Student Advisory Group provides recommendations to the Director of



28

Student Services on needed services information, and programs. The institution is supportive of this group’s input and last year two affinity groups were established. This is an institutional strength and fits with the LFGSM’s “high-touch” student culture.

Meeting changing student needs

LFGSM is operating at an aligned maturity level in efforts to meet changing student needs. The institution serves adult working professional student. As such, services are designed to accommodate the lifestyle of the student population. Library services are provided online, pre-registration and academic advising services are provided. The Comprehensive Student Survey (CSSS) and course evaluations are used to determine the effectiveness of many of these services.

Identifying and supporting student subgroups with distinctive needs (e.g., seniors, commuters, distance learners, military veterans)

LFGSM described a systematic approach to identify and support student subgroups by creating student affinity groups in the areas of Innovation and Entrepreneurship and Healthcare. The groups were formed based on a recommendation of a Student Advisory Group, comprised of students from various teaching programs. LFGSM may benefit from exploring the potential for affinity groups based on gender, race/ethnicity, nationality, age, military veterans).

Deploying non-academic support services to help students be successful

LFSGM is in the early stages of a systematic maturity level for the process of deploying non-academic support services to help students succeed. There does not appear to be any non-academic support services beyond career counseling. However, the small size and target audience may affect the need for other services.

Ensuring staff members who provide academic and non-academic student support services are qualified, trained and supported

LFGSM allocates financial resources to the professional development of academic and non-academic student advisors annually. Staff actively participate in state and regional professional meetings and participate in training relevant to their positions. The career coach has a certificate in career counseling. This process, which is currently operating at a systematic maturity level, could advance to aligned, if LFGSM were to document the minimum employment requirements for staff and faculty roles, and demonstrate a commitment to professional development in their written business procedures and performance evaluation system.

Communicating the availability of non-academic support services

Communication pertaining to the availability of non-academic support services occurs through a website, email and telephone calls. The Student Advisory Group and institutional personnel disseminate the information. This process is at the reacting level of maturity.



29

Selecting tools, methods and instruments to assess student needs

LFGSM described a reacting approach to selecting tools, methods and instruments to assess student needs, whereby personnel collaborate to determine the tools that will be used. Student needs are assessed through end-of course surveys and an evaluation of career services by students who used that service. To advance in maturity in this area, the institution might investigate best practices of peer institutions or identify recommended best practices from professional organizations.

Assessing the degree to which student needs are met

LFGSM uses the end-of-course survey results and national-normed surveys to measure student satisfaction with services. At this time, the maturity level in this area is considered to be systematic. A more thorough description of the process may lead to a higher level of maturity.


2R1 What are the results for determining if current and prospective students’ needs are being met? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 2P1. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:


The results from the CSSS student survey were provided. The survey included parallel items to the Ruffalo Noel-Levitz Adult Student Satisfaction Survey. The survey was administered to all active enrolled students in Fall 2016, with a response rate of 67.4%. It is not clear how those surveys were administered. The scores indicate that LFGSM is exceeding national averages in several performance areas. LFGSM also reported aggregated results from Spring 2017 semester for course evaluations, tutoring services, career coaching and Excel workshops. Because the instruments were launched in Fall 2016 and Spring 2017, the longitudinal significance cannot be evaluated. At this time, the institution is operating at a systematic maturity level, but could advance by using longitudinal data across multiple measurements.


LFGSM is performing at a reacting maturity level in this result area. LFGSM might consider its peer and aspirant competitive programs in its future Strategic Plan. The data can be used to develop internal targets and reasonable benchmarks for all areas of its academic and non-academic services “to be known as the higher



30

education institution that partners with large and mid-sized businesses to deliver high-value leadership learning products and services that develop their people (Strategic Aspirations developed 2015)”. Initial data regarding issue such as financial aid counselors caring and helpful staff, admissions representatives, and billing policies appear to be initially positive.


LFGSM described a reacting process for interpretation of results of measures, in part due to the lack of available data. The institution is beginning to interpret results and make improvements based on the results. LFSGM recognizes a need to track longitudinal results but has not yet done so. Student comments are favorable for faculty caring about them, providing timely feedback, quality of instruction, and faculty availability outside of class.


Evaluation of Improvement Efforts LFGSM recognized the need to develop instruments to examine student success and satisfaction, but has not yet done so conclusively. A redesigned New Student Survey was recently implemented to identify the reasons students chose LFGSM and their level of satisfaction with new student processes and several student needs assessments are planned. The changes are recent and no historical data is available. Consequently, Based on the limited results provided and the plans for improvements, it appears the institution’s has only recently made a commitment to gathering and tracking data that measures outcomes and results is still developing.

2.2: Retention, Persistence and Completion

Retention, Persistence and Completion focuses on the approach to collecting, analyzing and distributing data on retention, persistence and completion to stakeholders for decision making. The institution should provide evidence for Core Component 4.C. in this section.

2P2 Describe the processes for collecting, analyzing and distributing data on retention, persistence and completion. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

Process Comments on Process Maturity and Improvement Collecting student retention, persistence and completion data

The definitions for student retention and persistence at LFGSM differ from those of a typical undergraduate institution. LFSGM describes aligned processes for collecting student persistence, retention, and completion data. Enrollment and completion data is updated in real



31

time, and historical trends are available on a dashboard. This data is reviewed by several staff and administrators.

Determining targets for student retention, persistence and completion

The process of determining targets for student retention, persistence and completion are currently operating at reacting level of maturity. Although several staff and administrators are involved in establishing enrolment and completion goals, the process might be better informed by the review of peer data using IPEDS and the establishment of trend reports by student group (i.e. employer, academic background, and demographic data).

Analyzing information on student retention, persistence and completion

LFGSM has designated staff who are responsible for analyzing data to measure goals and set realistic targets for retention, persistence and completion. Staff review student withdrawal information and other data. The timetables for reviewing data, process for reviewing and development of strategies to address gaps is not described. Including this information could lead to a higher level of maturity. LFGSM remains in a reacting level of maturity as it is adapting its own method of tracking students. The institution has developed policies that are flexible and lenient to help the working student remain in a program and the only requirement is that a student must finish within six years.

Meeting targets for retention, persistence and completion

The maturity level was determined to be reacting, as no information on how the institution is meeting targets was provided. Enrollment and completion targets for continuing students are set by the Registrar, but no enrollment projection or completion targets were presented.

Selecting tools, methods and instruments to assess retention, persistence and completion

This maturity level was determined to be reacting. LFGSM does not describe the process the institution uses to approve the selection of tools/instruments to assess retention, persistence and completion.


2R2 What are the results for student retention, persistence and completion? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 2P2. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:

Results Evaluation of Results and Systems Improvement



32


LFGSM presents several charts and tables designed to help LFGSM understand enrollment trends. The use and explanation of longitudinal data reflects an aligned maturity level. The student retention summary presented indicates that the percentage of students graduating is declining. It may be more useful to present an annual graduation rate that applies to a cohort year over a set period of time. As it is currently presented, it is unclear if the rate is actually declining or if the rate is influenced by the number of years a student has invested in the program.


It is unclear how LFGSM compares itself to external benchmarks. They have indicated this is challenging based on their student population. Perhaps IPEDS could be used to develop a peer group. At this time, this process is determined to be reacting.


Using a process that appears to be systematic at this time, LFGSM presents evidence that results for persistence are used to guide improvements and develop strategies to increase enrollment. The results for persistence are used to guide improvements and develop strategies to increase enrollment. As the institution faces enrollment challenges, it is important to consider further data segmentation to determine how location and several other variables may be impacting enrollment and completion.


Evaluation of Improvement Efforts As a private institution with a narrow focus, understanding enrollment is critical for LFGSM. The portfolio presents evidence that LFSGM continues to improve its efforts in improving student retention and persistence. The use of the management dashboard has also proved helpful in evaluating real-time institutional data. Further, standardization of definition for student type and status, will improve data integrity. While the institution presented various tables and graphs, it is missing internal targets and external benchmarks for enrollment, retention, and completion. A 2015-16 Strategic Plan is mentioned, but it does not provide any the strategic goals for recruitment and enrollment projections. Sprinkled throughout Category 1 and 2 there are hints about new degree programs, opening another corporate site that will ensure 20-40 new students, and statements that the decline in enrollments is showing signs of reversal. LFGSM is seeking opportunities to benchmark outcomes related to enrollment, retention and graduation and has found the College Navigator tool to be limited in use. The review team suggests they explore the Integrated Postsecondary Educational Data



33

System (IPEDS) database. IPEDS offers a robust set of data that can be used to develop peer assessments and goals.

2.3: Key Stakeholder Needs

Key Stakeholder Needs focuses on determining, understanding and meeting needs of key stakeholder groups, including alumni and community partners.

2P3 Describe the processes for serving the needs of key external stakeholder groups. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

Process Comments on Process Maturity and Improvement Determining key external stakeholder groups (e.g., alumni, employers, community)

LFGSM provides evidence of a systematic process for determining key external stakeholders. The institution recognizes corporations in its geographic area as a key external stakeholder. The institution may benefit from expanding its identification of key stakeholder groups as part of its efforts to increase enrollment.

Determining new stakeholders to target for services or partnership

The president and faculty target services and partnerships through informal networking with the local business community. The faculty who comprise the Business Leader Faculty establish and maintain direct connections to the business community, and provide their business acumen in the classrooms of LFGSM. As a result of the 2015-2016 Strategic planning process, LFGSM implemented a process and assigned resources to identify new company targets, both mid-to-large size. Beyond geographic location, LFGSM may benefit from identifying specific criteria that guide its targeting of companies. LFGSM is operating on at a systematic maturity level in this category.

Meeting the changing needs of key stakeholders

The Business Leader Faculty make connections to the business community and their own or other employees and incorporate this information into the curriculum. LFGSM reviews local business trends, national and state workforce data, market intelligence and degree program enrollment and completion at other area institutions for new program development and strategic planning. While the institution describes a new program development process in 1.3, that integration is not reflected here. Integrating processes could help the institution to better leverage its resources and move beyond its current maturity level of systematic.



34

Selecting tools, methods and instruments to assess key stakeholder needs

The Office of Institutional Research proactively monitors trends and market intelligence data. However, at this time without evidence of the actual instruments used, the process is determined to be reacting.

Assessing the degree to which key stakeholder needs are met

This process is not described in the portfolio and the maturity level in this area is considered to be reacting. LFGSM did indicate they do not maintain an active, institution-led alumni community, but that they are an important source of enrollment leads. In previous sections, it was mentioned that alumni have access to career counseling.


2R3 What are the results for determining if key stakeholder needs are being met? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 2P3. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:


The data provided in 2R3 indicates the names of top feeder companies to enrollment at LFGSM and demonstrates a reacting maturity level. Though the data is descriptive and helpful in understanding the employment background of students, it is not evidence of meeting the needs of the organizations. At a minimum, longitudinal data would have shown the year-to-year trends in enrollment from these companies. No other data on stakeholder needs are provided.


A reacting maturity level is presented, as no results or comparative data are presented for external benchmarks. Goals are not identified in the portfolio.


LFGSM presents a minimal interpretation of results for assessing key stakeholder needs. The analysis is focused solely on the number of students generated by employer. Due to this lack of data, there is little opportunity to interpret results and identify insights and the maturity level is considered to be reacting.





35

LFGSM has revised the new program decision process to include decision factors based on workforce data, business community data and fit with corporate onsite locations. Limited attention has been given to alumni in the portfolio and appears to be a missed opportunity. 2I3 offered little discussion of plans to improve upon meeting the needs of key stakeholders. As LFGSM plans for enrollment growth, future efforts will require documented plans, to identify and meet employer needs. This includes the selection of tools, methods and instruments to assess key stakeholder needs.

2.4: Complaint Processes

Complaint Processes focuses on collecting, analyzing and responding to complaints from students or key stakeholder groups.

2P4 Describe the processes for collecting, analyzing and responding to complaints from students and stakeholder groups. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

Process Comments on Process Maturity and Improvement Collecting complaint information from students

The complaint process, an aligned process, is published in the Academic Catalog, Student Handbook, Faculty Handbook, and student portal. Formal complaints can be delivered using an email link published on the public website or by contacting the Illinois Board of Higher Education. Complaints are reviewed by appropriate staff and contact is made with the complainant. Appropriate course(s) of action is taken and documented.

Collecting complaint information from other key stakeholders

LFGSM describes an aligned process, whereby the complaint process is published in the Academic Catalog, Student Handbook, Faculty Handbook, and student portal. Formal complaints can be delivered using an email link published on the public website or by contacting the Illinois Board of Higher Education. While LFGSM reports that external stakeholders groups can make formal complaints via an e-mail link published on the institution’s public website, the process for collecting complaint information from other key stakeholders should be described here.

Learning from complaint information and determining actions

LFGSM receives very few complaints, but a table was provided showing numbers and categories (academic, financial, or both) from 2010 to 2017. The process was satisfactorily described and possible actions discussed. The appropriate staff meet regularly to review communications with students, common issues and students at risk or dissatisfied. This is an aligned process.



36

Communicating actions to students and other key stakeholders

The formal complaint process includes the appropriate measures to communicate with all involved parties, indicating the institution is operating in an aligned manner.

Selecting tools, methods and instruments to evaluate complaint resolution

LFGSM has established a complaint process and uses a spreadsheet log to document and review each individual complaint. It is not clear what tools would be used by LFGSM to handle complaints not related to students. Having a comprehensive process in place to deal with different types of complaints may benefit the institution and demonstrates a systematic level of maturity.


2R4 What are the results for student and key stakeholder complaints? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 2P4. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:


The current level of this process is systematic. LFGSM provide the appropriate evidence that a formal complaint process exists and that complaints are managed appropriately. Data from the CSSS survey indicate that the processes in place are known to students and that students believe the institution is response to their concerns.


The CSSS survey was administered to all active students in the fall of 2016. Longitudinal trend data is not available yet. Initial data for channels being available for student expression of complaints and institution providing timely responses to student complaints are positive and exceed the average national adult graduate student population. The current level of this process is systematic.


The CSSS results confirm that students are “satisfied” with the channels available to express complaints and that LFGSM provides timely response to these complaints. The scores were both above the national benchmark. The current level of this process is aligned.


Comments



37

The size of the institution and the benchmarks used may be sufficient to demonstrate the institution is learning from the results, but it is not completely clear what is being interpreted and what impact it has on the institution. Complaint data and analysis will be included in future academic department staff meetings and the VP and CAO will share this information with the leadership team and the president. LFGSM has a process for communicating and handling student complaints. It is less clear how complaints from non-student stakeholders are received, tracked and resolved.

2.5: Building Collaborations and Partnerships

Building Collaborations and Partnerships focuses on aligning, building and determining the effectiveness of collaborations and partnerships to further the mission of the institution.

2P5 Describe the processes for managing collaborations and partnerships to further the mission of the institution. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

Process Comments on Process Maturity and Improvement Selecting partners for collaboration (e.g., other educational institutions, civic organizations, businesses)

LFGSM described a systematic approach to identifying and selecting partners for collaboration. LFGSM’s partnerships are central to their mission and “the DNA” of their role in the business community. Collaborations are generated and managed by the President and Leadership Team. While there is often alignment with the institution’s mission and strategic plan, that is not necessarily the outcome. Having a process that clearly defines criteria for determining partnerships may help LFGSM ensure appropriate resource allocation and fulfillment of institutional mission and goals.

Building and maintaining relationships with partners

LFGSM recognizes that they are in the beginning stages of building and maintaining relationships with partners. Nevertheless, a systematic approach of outreach to the business community was described in the portfolio. As an example, Lake Forest College (LFC) is one of LFGSM’s most important educational partners, the LFGSM President is a member of the LFC Board of Directors and a reciprocal relationship is true for LFC’s President. While LFGSM seeks to build and maintain relationships with partnerships, It’s not clear how LFGSM defines success in its relationships and the steps taken to ensure relationships yield intended outcomes.

Selecting tools, methods and instruments to assess partnership effectiveness

LFSGM recognizes it is at the beginning stages of developing this process and at this time, is operating at a reacting maturity level.

Evaluating the degree to which collaborations and partnerships are effective

LFGSM may conduct partnership/corporation satisfaction surveys, but was not provided in this portfolio and at this time, is operating at a reacting maturity level.



38


2R5 What are the results for determining the effectiveness of aligning and building collaborations and partnerships? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 2P5. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:


LFGSM offered several descriptive examples of how it is effectively aligning and building collaborations and partnerships. One creative example is its Global Focus 8-week course to Toronto, Canada and Mexico City, Mexico to study the effects of the NAFTA trade agreement and taught by faculty members experienced in this area. To advance beyond a reacting maturity level in this area, LFGSM should assign someone to be responsible for data collection, and how often the data is collected and evaluated.


LFGSM enjoys successful corporate partnerships that serve the needs of their employees. However, without comparison of results to internal targets and external benchmarks it is not possible to evaluate the effectiveness of these relationships. Consequently, the institution remains at a reacting maturity level in this area.


LFGSM describes a number of corporate partnerships with the potential to benefit the institution in positive ways. At this time, they are demonstrating a reacting level of maturity, as no data were presented that described the population studies or the results of evaluative work. Consequently, the institution remains at a reacting maturity level in this area.


Evaluation of Improvement Efforts Collaborations and partnerships are key to the success of LFGSM, as described in 2P5. LFGSM partners with a variety of community stakeholders (area corporations) primarily selected based on these corporations’ needs for leaders with business acumen. An environmental scan or community needs assessment is done to help to acquire new partners in the area. LFGSM hopes to expand the relationship with the Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science indicating the institution recognizes the importance of



39

collaboration with business partners and the importance. As this was the only collaboration/partnership expansion mentioned related to enrollment growth, it appears they are at the beginning stages of creating processes and procedures to support the effort.

Category 3: Valuing Employees

Category 3 explores the institution’s commitment to the hiring, development and evaluation of faculty, staff and administrators.

3.1: Hiring

Hiring focuses on the acquisition of appropriately qualified/credentialed faculty, staff and administrators to ensure that effective, high-quality programs and student support services are provided. The institution should provide evidence for Core Component 3.C. in this section.

3P1 Describe the process for hiring faculty, staff and administrators. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

Process Comments on Process Maturity and Improvement Recruiting, hiring and orienting processes that result in staff and administrators who possess the required qualification, skills and values

LFGSM has systematic institutional processes that ensure staff and administrators possess the appropriate qualifications and skills for the job. LFGSM has made major modifications to their staff hiring processes, especially in employee evaluation (Refer to 3 P2). The Human Resource Manager oversees the job requisition process which considers all options, e.g. outsourcing or eliminating the position. The hiring manager creates or updates position descriptions, the required qualifications, and along with the HR manager develop the recruitment plan, the interview/selection team, determine the appropriate assessments used in the decision process. The hiring manager completes an evaluation of the interview and selection process. It is not evident the assessment of the hiring process is done for faculty recruitment as well. Staff orientation is conducted by the HR Generalist who provides information on policies, benefits, mission and values and available training. The small size of the institution might limit the opportunity for a new employee mentor or coach to be hired.



40

LFGSM provides individual orientation for new faculty to meet with administrators and information on the learning management systems, policies, campus operations, and student support services. New faculty participate in the Faculty Mentoring Program and this program must be completed prior to receiving a teaching agreement (contract). Based on teaching evaluations completed by both the mentee and mentor, it is determined if the new faculty is prepared to teach. No mention who has ultimate approval for all new hires

Developing and meeting academic credentialing standards for faculty, including those in dual credit, contractual and consortia programs

Systematically, LFGSM has centralized the adjunct faculty recruiting and selection process under HR and since 2011 has a Faculty Search Committee. The Faculty Search Committee is made up of all administrators (p. 57) but there does not appear to be any faculty adjuncts, i.e. Business Leader Faculty, on this committee. Three full time faculty are employed to oversee the two master’s degree programs, the curriculum, and teaching assignments. It appears these full time faculty are administrators and do not teach and no information provided as to the process used to hire them. LFGSM follows the HLC Faculty Credentialing policy and uses a very detailed adjunct faculty hiring process that includes video interviews, online application, teaching presentation, and a faculty rubric ranking six areas: professional/educational background, communication skills, versatility, and cultural fit. No Staff or Faculty Handbook was provided.

Ensuring the institution has sufficient numbers of faculty to carry out both classroom and non-classroom programs and activities

Of the 393 enrolled students, 90 (23%) are Allstate corporation employees and all students taught by part-time faculty (129 Faculty; 3 full-time). Instructors are organized into Academic Discipline Communities- accounting, finance, data analysis, etc. along with Course Teams with each instructor who is qualified to teach. The LFGSM systematically utilizes the software program Jenzabar for easy retrieval and reference when determining instructor slotting and loads. LFGSM might consider providing data on average class sizes for campus, hybrid, and online programs, and student-to-faculty ratios as an indicator of its ability to employ sufficient numbers of adjunct faculty to carry out both teaching and non-classroom programs and activities. The institution does not describe how it ensures that it has sufficient faculty to conduct its programs. It appears to rely on the three FT faculty’s judgement and the Academic Discipline Communities to determine that sufficient numbers of faculty are available to teach all class sections.



41

Ensuring the acquisition of sufficient numbers of staff to provide student support services

LFGSM says in most cases each student support area has a single contact for all students to ensure the “high touch” philosophy. There is an opportunity for LFGSM move from reacting to the next level of maturity by describing this process of student-staff contact and give a few examples.

Tracking outcomes/measures utilizing appropriate tools

The LFGSM uses Jenzabar software program to match faculty profiles with slotting instructors. Other methods used to measure performance of both faculty and staff are the CSSS, course evaluations, formal student complaints and informal student feedback (systematic). No mention of online best practices utilized, re: online class capacity, engaging teaching strategies, class size variability and nature of the course, etc.


3R1 What are the results for determining if recruitment, hiring and orienting practices ensure effective provision for programs and services? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 3P1. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:


The HR Manager tracks and analyzes data on recruitment and selection of faculty. Annual data for Faculty Hiring (p.59) shows the great selectivity for 5/16-5/17 of 22 hired out of 254 applications reviewed. LFGSM might consider gathering data from the faculty to determine their views about the support LFGSM full-time staff provide and these would assist in moving from systematic to aligned. LFGSM tracks the number of new hires and adjunct faculty dismissals.


Faculty are required to get a rating of 4 out of 5 on course evaluations. Staff ratings are compared to the ASPS national average and the CSSS averages as demonstrated in charts. There does not appear to be any way to identify individual staff from those reports. CSSS shows the student services staff are well above the national average graduate satisfaction scores (p.59-60). By setting internal target and external benchmarks LFGSM might move from systematic to aligned level of maturity.


The results of the CSSS and anecdotal student feedback showed the need for additional effort in financial aid services. LFGSM hired a Director of Financial Aid with 30 years FA experience.



42


Evaluation of Improvement Efforts Faculty are comprised of practicing business professionals who serve as part-time faculty. LFGSM uses a detailed rubric to evaluate candidates for part-time faculty and uses external benchmarks (101 Best and Brightest Companies to Work For, CSSS, ASPS) to gauge employee and institutional performance in this category. It does not appear that there are any additional measures besides these two external benchmarks (ASPS and CSSS). It may be helpful to include more information about staff training and orientation in 3P1, as this section did not discuss the content of the orientation program.

3.2: Evaluation and Recognition

Evaluation and Recognition focuses on the assessment and recognition of faculty, staff and administrators’ contributions to the institution. The institution should provide evidence for Core Component 3.C. within this section.

3P2 Describe the processes that assess and recognize faculty, staff and administrators’ contributions to the institution. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

Process Comments on Process Maturity and Improvement

Designing performance evaluation systems for all employees

The LFGSM is systematic in this process. LFGSM has reduced costs and simplified the staff and administrator performance evaluation system by eliminating the costly software and instituting a staff-driven system. Annual performance reviews of staff and administrators are conducted. Faculty are evaluated after each term (6X per year) at a formal Term Review and action plans are developed to address any performance issues. The Leadership Team members participate in a 360-degree evaluation/feedback process.

Soliciting input from and communicating expectations to faculty, staff and administrators

Administrators and staff solicit and provide communication through weekly or biweekly department meetings, Town Hall meetings, and email to staff. No evidence presented as to the effectiveness of these endeavors and thus move from reacting to the next level of maturity



43

Aligning the evaluation system with institutional objectives for both instructional and non-instructional programs and services

LFGSM is systematic in this process. The department initiatives are aligned with the strategic plan and this is accomplished through department meetings. Department leaders usually meet weekly with staff individually. No mention of how the adjuncts take part in aligning the evaluation system with the strategic plan and with instructional programs. No examples given to show this alignment or any report on the effectiveness was presented

Utilizing established institutional policies and procedures to regularly evaluate all faculty, staff and administrators

LFGSM describes a systematic instructional and non-instructional evaluation system to evaluate its employees annually. Action plans for improvement are developed for faculty, if needed; however, it is not clear how LFGSM works with staff administrators who are rated as needing improvement. Consider providing the staff and faculty handbooks in future portfolios, which should contain these institutional policies and procedures.

Establishing employee recognition, compensation and benefit systems to promote retention and high performance

LFGSM describes a systematic comprehensive benefits and compensation package to its employees. It benchmarks each position against the market salary for the same or a comparable position. LFGSM also uses the involuntary employee turnover rate as a performance measure.

Promoting employee satisfaction and engagement

LFGSM identifies work/life balance as a unique strength of the benefits package, including alternate work hours, work-from-home flexibility where feasible, and “free” sick days that do not count against paid time off. Staff engagement and satisfaction is evaluated annually using the “101 Best and Brightest Companies to Work For” survey. LFGSM has established an employee recognition program that includes the “spot” reward program, which appears to be offered to all employees to recognize employee performance. LFGSM is aligned in this process.


There does not appear to be any tracking or tools used.


3R2 What are the results for determining if evaluation processes assess employees’ contributions to



44

the institution? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 3P2. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:


LFGSM presents summary charts and tables. These might be improved if full-time and adjunct faculty data were presented separately to progress from reacting to the next level of maturity.


No data are presented for internal targets. The results are presented using the tool “101 Best and Brightest” survey and the trend is generally positive for employee engagement and satisfaction. Results indicate compensation is generous and work-life balance is the greatest strength. LFGSM might move from systematic to aligned if internal target and external benchmarks were established.


Minimal analysis is presented in the portfolio. LFGSM remains in the reacting level throughout much of this portfolio.



As a result of the Employee Engagement Survey findings, the institution plans to increase communication and collaboration between departments, and restructure the Staff Success Sharing Plan.

3.3: Development

Development focuses on processes for continually training, educating and supporting employees to remain current in their methods and to contribute fully and effectively throughout their careers at the institution. The institution should provide evidence for Core Components 3.C. and 5.A. in this section.

3P3 Describe the processes for training, educating and supporting the professional development of employees. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:




45

Providing and supporting regular professional development for all employees

Systematically, LFGSM identifies professional development needs at both the individual and organizational levels. This process includes both instructional and non-instructional staff. LFSGM offers tuition remission, encourages staff to enroll in LFSGM courses, and provides a budget for other training and professional development through the department budget and at the employee’s request.

Ensuring that instructors are current in instructional content in their disciplines and pedagogical processes

LFGSM engages the faculty through quarterly meetings and asynchronous media via the Faculty Academy. It could move from systematic to aligned by providing examples of the media offered to the faculty and show how it improves teaching effectiveness.

Supporting student support staff members to increase their skills and knowledge in their areas of expertise (e.g. advising, financial aid, etc.)

LFGSM is reacting in this category as the portfolio did not address how professional development activities are aligned with ILOs.

Aligning employee professional development activities with institutional objectives

The portfolio did not address how professional development activities are aligned with ILOs.


LFGSM conducted an internal survey of faculty to compare with the course evaluations as a way to determine if there is a gap between student perception and faculty perception. No outcomes were provided. LFGSM is reacting in this category.

Other identified processes Systematically, LFGSM identifies professional development needs at both the individual and organizational levels. This process includes both instructional and non-instructional staff. LFSGM offers tuition remission, encourages staff to enroll in LFSGM courses, and provides a budget for other training and professional development through the department budget and at the employee’s request.

3R3 What are the results for determining if employees are assisted and supported in their professional development? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 3P3. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:




46


LFGSM systematically uses the results of the internal survey to assess where faculty might need training. There is no equivalent for staff.


LFGSM systematically used for the teaching and learning portion, the internal measures – the course evaluations and the faculty survey. For services, the institution benchmarks against the ASPS and CSSS.


LFGSM is reacting as they recognized the need for more training in technology for faculty. No plans were presented.


Evaluation of Improvement Efforts LFGSM systematically describes planned improvements, including expanding its Faculty [Teaching] Academy and creating or using a survey that can be benchmarked.

Category 4: Planning and Leading

Category 4 focuses on how the institution achieves its mission and vision through direction setting, goal development, strategic actions, threat mitigation and capitalizing on opportunities.

4.1: Mission and Vision

Mission and Vision focuses on how the institution develops, communicates and reviews its mission and vision. The institution should provide evidence for Core Components 1.A., 1.B. and 1.D. within this section.

4P1 Describe the processes for developing, communicating and reviewing the institution’s mission, vision and values, and identify who is involved in those processes. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:


Developing, deploying, and reviewing the institution’s mission, vision and values

LFGSM has a systematic process where the President and Leadership Team are responsible for developing, deploying and reviewing the mission, vision and values (MVV). Last reviewed 2015-16 during the strategic planning process. The President communicates the MVV in all staff meetings and the Leadership Team does the same in department meetings, and academic programs and services are reviewed to be aligned with the MVV by VP and Chief Academic Officer.



47

Ensuring that institutional actions reflect a commitment to its values

LFGSM has an aligned process. LFGSM’s small size and narrow focus help to ensure its actions are consistent with its values.

Communicating the mission, vision and values

LFGSM’s process is systematic. The institution communicates its mission, vision, and values through its website and wall displays ion both campuses. There is no indication that adjunct faculty know the mission, so LFGSM might consider addressing how the mission is reinforced with adjunct faculty.

Ensuring that academic programs and services are consistent with the institution’s mission

LFGSM describes an aligned process where the purposeful and narrow focus of LFGSM naturally ensures that academic programs and services are consistent with the LFGSM mission.

Allocating resources to advance the institution’s mission and vision, while upholding the institution’s values

LFGSM states the President and Leadership Team allocate resources based upon its mission, but does not describe the process on this occurs. Describing the process would enable LFGSM to move from reacting to systematic.

Tracking outcomes/measures utilizing appropriate tools (e.g. brand studies, focus groups, community forums/studies and employee satisfaction surveys)

LFGSM describes a systematic process where the strategic planning process is used to identify outcomes and measures. Tracking methods include quarterly strategic plan review meetings for both financial and strategic targets. No brand studies or focus groups have been conducted since the strategic planning process was begun in 2014. Including these elements could help LFGSM move to the next level.


4R1 What are the results for developing, communicating and reviewing the institution’s mission, vision and values? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 4P1. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:


LFGSM presents qualitative results the CSSS and ASPS surveys in a table. LFGSM is at a reacting level. It is not clear how the results presented show evidence for planning and leading. LFGSM collected data for the first time in 2016.


The table presented on page 70 compares the data with external benchmarks, but no internal targets are described. While, longitudinal data is not available, preliminary data shows targeted areas as being above the benchmark for National Adult Graduate Students reported



48

by ASPS. Including longitudinal data, along with internal targets, will help LFGSM move from reacting to systematic.


LFGSM is at the reacting level due to a lack of discussion regarding interpretation and insights. Once academics, student services and other departments complete their reviews, LFGSM will likely be in a better position to interpret results and identify insights.


Evaluation of Improvement Efforts LFGSM has an opportunity to make improvements with its next strategic planning process. There is also an opportunity for increased collaboration between divisions and departments.

4.2: Strategic Planning

Strategic Planning focuses on how the institution achieves its mission and vision. The institution should provide evidence for Core Components 5.B. and 5.C. in this section.

4P2 Describe the processes for communicating, planning, implementing and reviewing the institution’s plans and identify who is involved in those processes. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:


Engaging internal and external stakeholders in strategic planning

LFGSM describes an aligned process for its strategic plan. The plan was finalized in March 2015 with the arrival of the new President and VP/CAO. A wide range of perspectives were considered, providing opportunities for internal and external stakeholders to participate in the process.

Aligning operations with the institution’s mission, vision and values

LFGSM is at the reacting level because while the institution describes a “Strategy Cascade” used to align operations with LFGSM’s mission, it is not clear how this is actually used to align operations with the mission.

Aligning efforts across departments, divisions and colleges for optimum effectiveness and efficiency

LFGSM states administration, faculty, staff and students are involved in setting academic requirements, policy and processes through the



49

Leadership Team, Faculty Senate and the Student Advisory Group. Because LFGSM does not describe the actual process for aligning efforts across the institution, LFGSM is at the reacting level.

Capitalizing on opportunities and institutional strengths and countering the impact of institutional weaknesses and potential threats

LFGSM states that it capitalizes on opportunities by using internal dashboard data and external data provided by IR when needed. Providing a few examples (i.e. institutional strengths or opportunities capitalized upon) or a more detailed description of the process would strengthen this section of the response and allow LFGSM to move from reacting to systematic

Creating and implementing strategies and action plans that maximize current resources and meet future needs

LFGSM is at the reacting level for this process. Although the institution states it has a process for implementing strategies that maximize resources, LFGSM does not describe the process by which this is accomplished.

Tracking outcomes/measures utilizing appropriate tools (e.g. achievement of goals and/or satisfaction with process)

LFGSM details the key performance indicators tracked through its management dashboard. However, there is no discussion regarding achievement of goals or an assessment of the process. Including this information, along with related KPI data, could move LFGSM from systematic to aligned.


4R2 What are the results for communicating, planning, implementing and reviewing the institution’s operational plans? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 4P2. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:



LFGSM makes reference to KPIs tracked in the management dashboard, but the data is not included other than a reference to financial targets. Inclusion could allow LFGSM to move from reacting to systematic.


No comparative data, targets or benchmarks were provided for the KPIs.


LFGSM does not interpret results or share insights gained, so no rating has been provided.



50


Evaluation of Improvement Efforts LFGSM plans to improve communication about strategic planning processes, but does not address potential improvements in the planning process. An Annual Report is being developed to communicate progress and results on strategic initiatives. Town Hall” all-staff meetings will better align comments and discussion about institutional results to the Strategic Plan.”

4.3: Leadership

Leadership focuses on governance and leadership of the institution. The institution should provide evidence for Core Components 2.C. and 5.B. in this section.

4P3 Describe the processes for ensuring sound and effective leadership of the institution, and identify who is involved in those processes. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

Process Comments on Process Maturity and Improvement Establishing appropriate relationship between the institution and its governing board to support leadership and governance

LFGSM describes an aligned process. The BOD appoints the President and evaluates his performance. Bylaws are the established policies that govern the BOD membership. The BOD are high level executives and represent business leaders from area corporations, local business community members and the President of the Lake Forest College.

Establishing oversight responsibilities and policies of the governing board

LFGSM describes an aligned process. The Bylaws establish the policies of the Board concerning membership, officers, meetings, committees, terms, nominations, and responsibilities.

Maintaining board oversight, while delegating management responsibilities to administrators and academic matters to faculty

This area is not addressed in the portfolio, so no rating has been provided.

Ensuring open communication between and among all colleges, divisions and departments

Communication among divisions is coordinated by the president and leadership team. LFGSM College may benefit from clarifying how inter-departmental communication is facilitated to move from systematic to aligned



51

Collaborating across all units to ensure the maintenance of high academic standards

LFGSM states that academic standards are the responsibility of the CAO, who works with a full-time faculty member to maintain standards. However, the process by which standards are maintained is not described, so LFGSM is at the reacting level.

Providing effective leadership to all institutional stakeholders

LFGSM reports that all leaders at all levels are developed through the support of the talent review process and support of faculty and employee development policies and processes. More description of these policies and processes with a few examples of support provided would be helpful in moving LFGSM from reacting.

Developing leaders at all levels within the institution

LFGSM refers to a talent review process, but it is not described in the portfolio, so LFGSM is at the reacting level.

Ensuring the institution’s ability to act in accordance with its mission and vision

This is not addressed in the portfolio, so no rating has been provided.

Tracking outcomes/measure utilizing appropriate tools

LFGSM states results are tracked by the President and Leadership Team; however, no metrics, tables or related data are provided, so the process is unclear. LFGSM is at the reacting level.


4R3 What are the results for ensuring long-term effective leadership of the institution? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 4P3. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:


LFGSM participates in “Chicago’s Best and Brightest Companies to Work For” and all employees are surveyed. Survey results for 2015, 2016 and 2017 are provided. While LFGSM has performed near the 40th percentile over the last 3 years, it is not clear what steps the institution has taken over time to address Communication and Shared Vision. In addition, besides the two categories in the above survey, no other results are provided in relation to ensuring effective leadership for the institution. Finally, it is not clear how LFGSM is including its adjunct faculty since the engagement survey only includes full-time employees. Addressing these issues could move LFGSM from reacting to systematic.



52


LFGSM presents survey with a comparison to other companies in the Chicago area. There are no longitudinal results or external benchmarks to other institutions. LFGSM is at the systematic level.


LFGSM provided sufficient analysis of the Employee Engagement Survey to demonstrate a systematic level of maturity. They identified that opportunities may exist to improve communication of the Vision and Strategic Plan to all employees, and provide updates more frequently during all-staff “Town Hall” meetings. Additionally, Employee Education and Development was determined to be an area where support of the institution’s leadership for employee development is clear, with improving scores over the three years of survey deployment.


Evaluation of Improvement Efforts The planned improvements listed in the portfolio would be positive steps to implement. Improvements in communication are planned via Town Hall meetings and more frequent updates on progress of strategic plan.

4.4: Integrity

Integrity focuses on how the institution ensures legal and ethical behavior and fulfills its societal responsibilities. The institution should provide evidence for Core Components 2.A. and 2.B. in this section.

4P4 Describe the processes for developing and communicating legal and ethical standards and monitoring behavior to ensure standards are met. In addition, identify who is involved in those processes. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

Process Comments on Process Maturity and Improvement Developing and communicating standards

LFGSM describes an aligned process for communicating standards, which are published on the LFGSM web site and in employee handbooks. Student conduct standards are clearly communicated to students.

Training employees for and modeling ethical and legal behavior across all levels of the institution

LFGSM describes an aligned process where employees are required to complete FERPA and Title IX training; the Title IX coordinator routinely attends appropriate training. Vendors are also held to FERPA standards.



53

Operating financial, academic, personnel and auxiliary functions with integrity, including following fair and ethical policies and adhering to processes for the governing board, administration, faculty, and staff.

LFGSM has an aligned process. The institution communicates its expectations for integrity to staff and students in a clear and consistent manner in multiple modalities (handbooks, website, and portals)

Making information about programs, requirements, faculty and staff, costs to students, control, and accreditation relationships readily and clearly available to all constituents

LFGSM describes an aligned process. Information about programs, requirements, faculty and staff, costs to students, control, and accreditation relationships are available to all constituents on the LFGSM public website and in the Academic Catalog. Admissions staff review key information with candidates during the admissions process and interview, using a standardized binder. The public website, faculty portal, and student portal are regularly reviewed for accuracy and clarity.


4R4 What are the results for ensuring institutional integrity? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 4P4. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:


LFGSM is in the beginning stages of identifying tools and presenting results. While LFGSM presents results from the CSSS and ASPS survey, which show the opinions of LFGSM students, no other groups are measured. Expanding results to include other key groups could move LFGSM from systematic to aligned.


LFGSM is at the systematic level. Results presented for students show LFGSM is higher than the national comparison group in the CSSS survey. Longitudinal trend data is not available yet and no internal targets have been established.


Minimal discussion is offered regarding an interpretation of results and insights. LFGSM is at the reacting level.



54


Evaluation of Improvement Efforts Changes to student portal and revisions are planned for faculty portal.

Category 5: Knowledge Management and Resource Stewardship

Category 5 addresses management of the fiscal, physical, technological and information infrastructures designed to provide an environment in which learning can thrive.

5.1: Knowledge Management

Knowledge Management focuses on how data, information and performance results are used in decision-making processes at all levels and in all parts of the institution.

5P1 Describe the processes for knowledge management, and identify who is involved in those processes. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

Process Comments on Process Maturity and Improvement Selecting, organizing, analyzing and sharing data and performance information to support planning, process improvement, and decision making

LFGSM has an aligned process. They utilize Jenzabar, Blackboard, Taskstream and AccPac to manage and store data. The Vice President of Information Technology/Chief Information Officer (VP/CIO) is responsible for developing processes and mechanisms for knowledge management. The IT department developed a management dashboard that allows for viewing reports for all key performance indicators.

Determining data, information, and performance results that units and departments need to plan and manage effectively

LFGSM has a systematic process for using dashboard data to support planning, process improvement, and decision making by employees and department meetings. The IT department developed a management dashboard that permits viewing of reports for all aspects of key performance indicators in real time.

Making data, information, and performance results readily and reliably available to the units and departments that depend upon this information for operational effectiveness, planning and improvements

LFGSM has a systematic process. Security of their data includes use of a password or fingerprint authentication. Software products are monitored and updated regularly, and employees are required to complete annual training to recognize SPAM and phishing email messages. Data archives are kept by individual departments. However, there does not appear to be a disaster recovery plan or offsite data backups.



55

Ensuring the timeliness, accuracy, reliability and security of the institution’s knowledge management system(s) and related processes.

Security is maintained via a system of passwords or fingerprint authentication. Software products are kept up to date and policies are in place to require employees to complete annual training to recognize SPAM and phishing email messages. Data archives are kept by individual departments. LFGSM does not describe a disaster recovery plan or offsite data backups. This process is at a systematic level.

Tracking outcomes/measures utilizing appropriate tools (including software platforms and/or contracted services)

The LFGSM portfolio mentions use of Taskstream as an assessment/evaluation system, but does not elaborate on the process for effectively using the system. This process is at a reacting level.


5R1 What are the results for determining how data, information and performance results are used in decision-making processes at all levels and in all parts of the institution? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 5P1. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:


LFGSM is at a reacting level. They did not provide a summary of results of measures because the development and implementation of the management dashboards has just begun. LFGSM has a goal of breaking down department silos.


The Office of Institutional Research (OIR) has now begun participating in the State of Illinois Longitudinal Data System. However, no results are provided. LFGSM is at a reacting level.


No actual results are reported, so no substantive insights are shared.





56

Helping LFGSM administrators understand how to use data analysis tools is a planned improvement. This may move performance in this category forward by improving data analysis capabilities. As this improves, administrators may be able to recommend changes to the data report formats.

5.2: Resource Management

Resource Management focuses on how the resource base of an institution supports and improves its educational programs and operations. The institution should provide evidence for Core Component 5.A. in this section.

5P2 Describe the processes for managing resources, and identify who is involved in those processes. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

Process Comments on Process Maturity and Improvement Maintaining fiscal, physical and technological infrastructures sufficient to support operations.

LFGSM is at a systematic level. All areas of fiscal, physical and technological infrastructure responsibilities are appropriately under the direction of the Vice President/Chief Financial Officer (VP/CFO), VP/CIO, Facilities Manager, and Director of Campus Operations. Fiscal and physical infrastructure exist to support operations. Safety and security plans, campus crime reporting, and emergency preparedness are in place.

Setting goals aligned with the institutional mission, resources, opportunities and emerging needs.

LFGSM is at a reacting level. Although fiscal and physical resources are sufficient, the portfolio does not describe the process or policies used.

Allocating and assigning resources to achieve organizational goals, while ensuring that educational purposes are not adversely affected.

LFGSM is at a systematic level. Goals are tracked through the information management dashboard. Resource allocation is accomplished by the Leadership Team. Human and financial resources budgets are evaluated following an established process. To demonstrate alignment, LFGSM might consider clarifying how employees are given opportunities for identifying resource needs.


LFGSM is at a reacting level. Although tracking outcomes associated with IT are described, other processes for developing and evaluating systems for tracking outcomes aren’t described.


5R2 What are the results for resource management? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 5P2. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is



57

collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:


LFGSM is at a systematic level. Several charts and tables related to outcomes are presented. In some cases, the charts are included in the outcomes sections but not discussed in the process sections (ex. Financial aid). Including longitudinal data for key results may be helpful to better understand how LFGSM is managing its resources.


LFGSM presents longitudinal data for FA usage and the CDR, but does not present external comparison data in these areas. They are at a systematic level. Data from the CSSS are presented and results are generally favorable to the national comparison group in the categories chosen.


LFGSM is at a systematic level. Changes have been made in response to CSSS data. Plans to improve videoconferencing capabilities demonstrate appropriate prioritization of student needs. The inclusion of longitudinal data, along with metrics (ex. volume of trouble tickets) may help LFGSM better understand how its managing resources and meeting student needs.


Evaluation of Improvement Efforts Students indicate a high level of satisfaction with the physical facilities and student services. LFGSM has plans for further investment in classroom technology for computing, audio, and videoconferencing at both locations.

5.3: Operational Effectiveness

Operational Effectiveness focuses on how an institution ensures effective management of its operations in the present and plans for continuity of operations into the future. The institution should provide evidence for Core Component 5.A. in this section.

5P3 Describe the processes for operational effectiveness, and identify who is involved in those processes. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

Process Comments on Process Maturity and Improvement Building budgets to accomplish institutional goals

LFGSM is at a reacting level. Information on who develops the budget and when the budget is developed is provided.



58

However, it isn’t clear if there is a defined process for how the budget is developed.

Monitoring financial position and adjusting budgets

LFGSM is at a systematic level. A process is in place to monitor overall financial position. Monthly financial packages are generated and distributed to the Leadership Team for review and analysis. Department employees and managers are assigned account code responsibilities and monitor their line items throughout the year. However, it is unclear how budget adjustments are made during the fiscal year.

Maintaining a technological infrastructure that is reliable, secure and user-friendly

LFGSM is at an aligned level. Maintenance of reliable, secure, and user-friendly technological infrastructure is led by the VP of Information Technology/CIO. This includes vendor-provided software, the Microsoft Office Suite, telephone system, custom-developed software solutions and queries, server organization and maintenance, help-desk services, and in-house programming services. Daily maintenance and support are managed by the three-person IT department consisting of a contracted help-desk support technician, a network administrator, and a programmer. Processes and results for performance in this area are presented in section 5P1 and 5R1.

Maintaining a physical infrastructure that is reliable, secure and user-friendly

The CFO oversees the process of maintaining the physical infrastructure so that it is reliable, secure, and user friendly as part of overseeing the campus operations staff. This process is at a systematic level.

Managing risks to ensure operational stability, including emergency preparedness

LFGSM’s risk management plans are at a systematic level. They are developed by the CFO and reviewed by the leadership team. For movement to an aligned maturity level, LFGSM may want to consider describing the emergency preparedness and the extent to which all employees are trained.


The process for tracking outcomes and measures are not specifically described in this section of the portfolio.


5R3 What are the results for ensuring effective management of operations on an ongoing basis and for the future? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 5P3. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:




59


LFGSM is at a systematic level. A low default rate is maintained and a positive cash flow amidst declining enrollment. No short- or long-term debt is held. LFGSM has also implemented some energy efficiency measures.


No comparison results are presented in the portfolio.


No interpretation of results or insights are presented in the portfolio.


Evaluation of Improvement Efforts LFGSM introduces a statement about developing an investment policy in the improvement discussion, but is not clear about how this relates to the processes and results discussed. Perhaps a table or glimpse into the policies covered in this would provide better insight into how this will benefit LFGSM.

Category 6: Quality Overview

Category 6 focuses on the Continuous Quality Improvement culture and infrastructure of the institution. This category gives the institution a chance to reflect on all its quality improvement initiatives, how they are integrated and how they contribute to improvement of the institution.

6.1: Quality Improvement Initiatives

Quality Improvement Initiatives focuses on the Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) initiatives the institution is engaged in and how they work together within the institution.

6P1 Describe the processes for determining and integrating CQI initiatives, and identify who is involved in those processes. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

Process Comments on Process Maturity and Improvement Selecting, deploying and evaluating quality improvement initiatives.

LFGSM systematically selects quality improvement initiatives based on certain characteristics such as clear alignment with strategic plan or annual operating initiative. VP/CAO selects which quality initiatives will become action projects. LFGSM states that it evaluates action projects, but has not detailed the tools or methods used. LFGSM may want to elaborate on the department initiatives and give examples of one that was selected to become an



60

Action Project and provide the reader with the summary posted on the faculty portal.

Aligning the Systems Portfolio, Action Projects, Comprehensive Quality Review and Strategy Forums

LFGSM describes the systematic preparation process for its Strategy forum that includes a review of the strategic plan progress, last Systems Portfolio and Appraisal, reports from recent HLC visits and peer review feedback. 2015 Strategy Forum did not yield the expected results, but it is unclear if the steps taken in the interim, such as developing the Action Project framework, will lead to improvements. The institution might consider publishing the process and posting updates on their website.


6R1 What are the results for continuous quality improvement initiatives? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 6P1. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared.


What are the results for continuous quality improvement initiatives?

LFGSM systematically provides status updates for its sixteen action projects, but the list does not include the degree to which the project succeeded other than completion dates. LFGMS recognizes there are gaps in identifying success measures and is taking steps to close them through its Office of Institutional Research. It is not clear how LFGSM is working to address resource constraints that have adversely affected AQIP Action Projects.

6I1 Based on 6R1, what quality improvement initiatives have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years?

Evaluation of Improvement Efforts Better communication about AQIP Action Project selection and progress is a planned area for improvement. LFGSM might also consider communicating how the action projects align with overall goals and strategies. For example, the Action Project addressing curriculum redesign of LDR 5120, Effective Leadership, does not seem to be a comprehensive project. Only one course is being redesigned and there appear to be no plan for the entire curriculum for the additional MBA program. It is not clear that the one course redesign will drive the redesign of other courses.

6.2: Culture of Quality



61

Culture of Quality focuses on how the institution integrates continuous quality improvement into its culture. The institution should provide evidence for Core Component 5.D. in this section.

6P2 Describe how a culture of quality is ensured within the institution. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

Process Comments on Process Maturity and Improvement Developing an infrastructure and providing resources to support a culture of quality

LFGSM describes itself as reacting in developing an infrastructure and providing resources to support a culture of quality. LFGSM views itself as “a small institution with limited resources” and “there is no systematized, consistent use of quality improvement methods and tools, and no resources available to provide training.” Establishing a culture of continuous improvement is critical to LFGSM’s continued success and so that a culture of quality is embedded in the institution.

Ensuring continuous quality improvement is making an evident and widely understood impact on institutional culture and operations

LFGSM has limited processes in place to document and analyze evidence and appears to be reacting. They document the strategy for improving communications about quality initiatives, progress toward KPIs, and the changes made because of responses provided on student surveys. However, this information was not systematically communicated across the institution, which makes it difficult to ensure initiatives are widely understood and favorably impacting institutional culture and operations. LFGSM should consider a way to share information across all constituencies.

Ensuring the institution learns from its experiences with CQI initiatives

LFGSM is reacting to learning from its CQI initiative as the portfolio describes a few processes for learning from action projects. However, it is unclear how the institution learns from its experiences with CQI initiatives. LFGSM should consider developing improved processes for this category to match the stated commitment to the continuous improvement model.

Reviewing, reaffirming, and understanding the role and vitality of the AQIP Pathway within the institution

LFGSM is reacting to reviewing, reaffirming, and understanding the role and vitality of the AQIP Pathway within the institution. LFGSM is in the process of rededicating itself to AQIP and has stabilized its AQIP infrastructure over the last two years with new leadership. LFGSM should consider fully establishing and implementing processes to support the vitality of the AQIP Pathway within the institution.




62

6R2 What are the results for continuous quality improvement to evidence a culture of quality? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 6P2. All data presented should include the population studied, the response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared.

Results Evaluation of Results and Systems Improvement What are the results for continuous quality improvement to evidence a culture of quality?

LFGSM describes results for a culture of quality, but no actual data is provided. By providing only enrollment forecasting data, LFGSM is reacting. LFGSM should continue to develop a clear process for identifying appropriate Action Projects and demonstrate with data that the reporting cycle is now on track.

6I2 Based on 6R2, what process improvements to the quality culture have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years?

Evaluation of Improvement Efforts LFGSM plans to reinstate its Info Share sessions, which should improve communication about quality initiatives. In its most simple state, continuous improvement is a mindset that LFGSM can adopt without implementing formal quality improvement methods. LFGSM has recently made changes that have resulted in the re-establishment of “Info Share” sessions with staff and faculty in order to share quality improvement projects results. Faculty are working on an action project to imbed CLOs into the degree program curriculum; this includes reviewing and analyzing course evaluations and assessment data.



63

APPENDIX C

Criteria for Accreditation & Core Component Evidence Screening

Criterion 1. Mission The institution’s mission is clear and articulated publicly; it guides the institution’s operations.

Core Component Evidence Screening Feedback

1.A. The institution’s mission is broadly understood within the institution and guides its operations.

1. The mission statement is developed through a process suited to the nature and culture of the institution and is adopted by the governing board. 2. The institution’s academic programs, student support services, and enrollment profile are consistent with its stated mission. 3. The institution’s planning and budgeting priorities align with and support the mission.

• MVV is deployed by President in collaboration with leadership team. MVV were last reviewed and confirmed during strategic planning process in 2015-2016.

• VP/CAO is responsible for ensuring academic programs, student services and enrollment profile is consistent with mission.

• LFGSM has defined its public obligation

through its mission and non-profit status. • It is unclear how 1A3 is addressed in

portfolio.

☐ Strong, clear and well presented ☒ Adequate, but could be improved ☐ Unclear or incomplete

1.B. The mission is articulated publicly.

1. The institution clearly articulates its mission through one or more public documents, such as statements of purpose, vision, values, goals, plans, or institutional priorities. 2. The mission document or documents are current and explain the extent of the institution’s emphasis on

Mission, Vision, and Values are posted on public website

☒ Strong, clear and well presented ☐ Adequate, but could be improved ☐ Unclear or incomplete



64

the various aspects of its mission, such as instruction, scholarship, research, application of research, creative works, clinical service, public service, economic development, and religious or cultural purpose. 3. The mission document or documents identify the nature, scope, and intended constituents of the higher education programs and services the institution provides.

1.C. The institution understands the relationship between its mission and the diversity of society.

1. The institution addresses its role in a multicultural society. 2. The institution’s processes and activities reflect attention to human diversity as appropriate within its mission and for the constituencies it serves.

• Students attending LFGSM are adult working business professionals. To address the institution’s role in addressing the unique needs of this population, the institution offers “as much flexibility and as many schedule and delivery options as possible.”

• Although the evidence is strong in regards to

IC2, the institution could present stronger adherence to 1C1 if they were to discuss the race, ethnicity, gender, etc. of the student population efforts to connect with this population in their recruitment practices.

• LFGSM offers flexibility so students can

pursue graduate degrees.


1.D. The institution’s mission demonstrates commitment to the public good.

1. Actions and decisions reflect an understanding that in its educational role the institution serves the public, not solely the institution, and thus entails a public obligation.

2. The institution’s educational

• LFGSM’s mission as a non-profit is primary and no conflicting interests or ownership by external entities.

• LFGSM has defined its public obligation through its mission and non-profit status.

• The president is responsible for allocating

resources to fulfill mission and vision while upholding values with input from Leadership Team. Director of Marketing is responsible for studies to measure appropriateness and reach of mission and vision.




65

responsibilities take primacy over other purposes, such as generating financial returns for investors, contributing to a related or parent organization, or supporting external interests.

3. The institution engages with its identified external constituencies and communities of interest and responds to their needs as its mission and capacity allow.

Criterion 2. Integrity: Ethical and Responsible Conduct The institution acts with integrity; its conduct is ethical and responsible.


2.A. The institution operates with integrity in its financial, academic, personnel, and auxiliary functions; it establishes and follows policies and processes for fair and ethical behavior on the part of its governing board, administration, faculty, and staff.

• VP/CAO services as ALO and is responsible for state regulations and accreditation requirements.

• CSSS results are presented regarding

operating with integrity.


2.B. The institution presents itself clearly and completely to its students and to the public with regard to its programs, requirements, faculty and staff, costs to students, control, and accreditation relationships.

• The public website, faculty portal and student portal are regularly reviewed for accuracy and clarity. Annually, after new academic catalog is published, at a minimum.

• CSSS results are represented regarding

clarity and accuracy of information provided to students.

• Information about programs, including degree

requirements and costs, is posted on the public website.


2.C. The governing board of the institution is sufficiently autonomous to

• The BOD appoints the President and evaluates his performance. Bylaws are the established policies that govern the BOD

☐ Strong, clear and well presented



66

make decisions in the best interest of the institution and to assure its integrity.

1. The governing board’s deliberations reflect priorities to preserve and enhance the institution. 2. The governing board reviews and considers the reasonable and relevant interests of the institution’s internal and external constituencies during its decision-making deliberations. 3. The governing board preserves its independence from undue influence on the part of donors, elected officials, ownership interests, or other external parties when such influence would not be in the best interest of the institution. 4. The governing board delegates day-to-day management of the institution to the administration and expects the faculty to oversee academic matters.

membership. The BOD are high level executives and represent business leaders from area corporations, local business community members and the President of the Lake Forest College.

• It is not clear how 2C4 is addressed.

☒ Adequate, but could be improved ☐ Unclear or incomplete

2.D. The institution is committed to freedom of expression and the pursuit of truth in teaching and learning.

• Evidence demonstrated the appropriate policies exist.

• The Student Conduct Policy for ethical

behavior, integrity, respect, and academic freedom is published in the Academic Catalog, Student Handbook, and on the Student Portal.


2.E. The institution’s policies and procedures call for responsible acquisition, discovery

• Evidence was shared that the appropriate policies exist.

• Academic freedom and academic honesty

policies are published in the Academic

☒ Strong, clear and well presented ☐ Adequate, but could be improved



67

and application of knowledge by its faculty, students, and staff.

1. The institution provides effective oversight and support services to ensure the integrity of research and scholarly practice conducted by its faculty, staff, and students. 2. Students are offered guidance in the ethical use of information resources. 3. The institution has and enforces policies on academic honesty and integrity.

Catalog, Student handbook, and on the Student Portal.

☐ Unclear or incomplete

Criterion 3. Teaching and Learning: Quality, Resources, and Support The institution provides high quality education, wherever and however its offerings are delivered.


3.A. The institution’s degree programs are appropriate to higher education.

1. Courses and programs are current and require levels of performance by students appropriate to the degree or certificate awarded. 2. The institution articulates and differentiates learning goals for its undergraduate, graduate, post-baccalaureate, post-graduate, and certificate programs.

• There does not appear to be an assessment strategy to validate the processes and practices.

• Evidence was shared that the appropriate

processes and practices exist. For example, “course teams responsible for curriculum subject matter are organized for each course”, and “Courses and programs offered at all locations and in all delivery modalities use the same program goals, etc.”

• A HLC Multi-location visit determined LFGSM

was meeting all requirements.




68

3. The institution’s program quality and learning goals are consistent across all modes of delivery and all locations (on the main campus, at additional locations, by distance delivery, as dual credit, through contractual or consortial arrangements, or any other modality).

3.B. The institution demonstrates that the exercise of intellectual inquiry and the acquisition, application, and integration of broad learning and skills are integral to its educational programs.

1. The general education program is appropriate to the mission, educational offerings, and degree levels of the institution. 2. The institution articulates the purposes, content, and intended learning outcomes of its undergraduate general education requirements. The program of general education is grounded in a philosophy or framework developed by the institution or adopted from an established framework. It imparts broad knowledge and intellectual concepts to students and develops skills and attitudes that the institution believes every college-educated person should possess. 3. Every degree program offered by the

• No general education program exists, due to the nature of the institution.

• The LFGSM Leadership Model helps to guide

this. The five outcomes in their Model align with their mission.




69

institution engages students in collecting, analyzing, and communicating information; in mastering modes of inquiry or creative work; and in developing skills adaptable to changing environments. 4. The education offered by the institution recognizes the human and cultural diversity of the world in which students live and work. 5.The faculty and students contribute to scholarship, creative work, and the discovery of knowledge to the extent appropriate to their programs and the institution’s mission.

3.C. The institution has the faculty and staff needed for effective, high-quality programs and student services.

1. The institution has sufficient numbers and continuity of faculty members to carry out both the classroom and the non-classroom roles of faculty, including oversight of the curriculum and expectations for student performance; establishment of academic credentials for instructional staff; involvement in assessment of student learning. 2. All instructors are appropriately credentialed, including

• LFGSM relies primarily on part-time practicing business professionals and a small administrative staff to deliver its programs. This model works well given LFGSM’s mission.

• The limited data available suggest that

students are generally satisfied with their educational experience. A lack of evidence that program and course learning outcomes are met makes it difficult to assume the institution has adequate faculty resources.

• LFGSM offers services relevant to the

adult working professional student population they serve, including career counseling, tutoring, online registration assistance, and financial aid assistance. Staff and faculty identify students at risk for additional support.

• Course evaluations and the Comprehensive Student Satisfaction




70

those in dual credit, contractual, and consortial programs. 3. Instructors are evaluated regularly in accordance with established institutional policies and procedures. 4. The institution has processes and resources for assuring that instructors are current in their disciplines and adept in their teaching roles; it supports their professional development. 5. Instructors are accessible for student inquiry. 6. Staff members providing student support services, such as tutoring, financial aid advising, academic advising, and co-curricular activities, are appropriately qualified, trained, and supported in their professional development.

Survey indicate appropriate levels of student satisfaction.

• Employees and instructors are required

to complete training in FERPA and Title IX.

3.D. The institution provides support for student learning and effective teaching.

1. The institution provides student support services suited to the needs of its student populations. 2. The institution provides for learning support and preparatory instruction to address the academic needs of its students. It has a

• Annual evaluations are used to measure student satisfaction with tutoring services. Evaluations are formal workshops are performed annually. Annual evaluations are used to assess satisfaction with career coaching services.

• Part-time faculty are provided with

guidance and support to deliver effective online education.




71

process for directing entering students to courses and programs for which the students are adequately prepared. 3. The institution provides academic advising suited to its programs and the needs of its students. 4. The institution provides to students and instructors the infrastructure and resources necessary to support effective teaching and learning (technological infrastructure, scientific laboratories, libraries, performance spaces, clinical practice sites, museum collections, as appropriate to the institution’s offerings). 5. The institution provides to students guidance in the effective use of research and information resources.

3.E. The institution fulfills the claims it makes for an enriched educational environment.

1. Co-curricular programs are suited to the institution’s mission and contribute to the educational experience of its students. 2. The institution demonstrates any claims it makes about contributions to its students’ educational experience by virtue of aspects of its mission,

• The use of a Student Advisory Group, affinity groups, webinars and focused learning workshops provide evidence that this criterion is met.

• The co-curricular programs offered by

Student Services align with the mission. The use of a Student Advisory Group, affinity groups, webinars and focused learning workshops provide evidence that this criterion is met.




72

such as research, community engagement, service learning, religious or spiritual purpose, and economic development.

Criterion 4. Teaching and Learning: Evaluation and Improvement The institution demonstrates responsibility for the quality of its educational programs, learning environments, and support services, and it evaluates their effectiveness for student learning through processes designed to promote continuous improvement.


4.A. The institution demonstrates responsibility for the quality of its educational programs.

1. The institution maintains a practice of regular program reviews. 2. The institution evaluates all the credit that it transcripts, including what it awards for experiential learning or other forms of prior learning, or relies on the evaluation of responsible third parties. 3. The institution has policies that assure the quality of the credit it accepts in transfer. 4. The institution maintains and exercises authority over the prerequisites for courses, rigor of courses, expectations for student learning, access to learning resources, and faculty qualifications for all its programs, including dual credit programs. It assures that its dual

• The institution understands its responsibility

for educational program quality. A regular program review process is in place. New curriculum is piloted and assessed using the Plan Do Check Act. The portfolio offered limited evidence of student rigor, or outcomes of student learning.

• Needs assessments are fed back into a

degree planning process. The HLC AQIP Pathway criteria, requirements, and processes guide continuous quality improvement. The CSSS data is used to indirectly assess outcome attainment of graduates.




73

credit courses or programs for high school students are equivalent in learning outcomes and levels of achievement to its higher education curriculum. 5. The institution maintains specialized accreditation for its programs as appropriate to its educational purposes. 6. The institution evaluates the success of its graduates. The institution assures that the degree or certificate programs it represents as preparation for advanced study or employment accomplish these purposes. For all programs, the institution looks to indicators it deems appropriate to its mission, such as employment rates, admission rates to advanced degree programs, and participation rates in fellowships, internships, and special programs (e.g., Peace Corps and AmeriCorps).

4.B. The institution demonstrates a commitment to educational achievement and improvement through ongoing assessment of student learning.

1. The institution has clearly stated goals for student learning and effective processes for assessment of student learning and

• Although well stated development guidelines regarding the program and course assessment data, little data is presented to show the results.

• Indirect measures of outcome achievement of

the ILOs are planned for inclusion in a graduating student survey. Full program review is planned to be conducted every three years.




74

achievement of learning goals. 2. The institution assesses achievement of the learning outcomes that it claims for its curricular and co-curricular programs. 3. The institution uses the information gained from assessment to improve student learning. 4. The institution’s processes and methodologies to assess student learning reflect good practice, including the substantial participation of faculty and other instructional staff members.

4.C. The institution demonstrates a commitment to educational improvement through ongoing attention to retention, persistence, and completion rates in its degree and certificate programs.

1. The institution has defined goals for student retention, persistence, and completion that are ambitious but attainable and appropriate to its mission, student populations, and educational offerings. 2. The institution collects and analyzes information on student retention, persistence, and completion of its programs.

• Institutional retention and completion data is collected and monitored.

• Currently, a commitment to educational

improvement relies heavily upon the results of the Comprehensive Student Satisfaction Survey and course evaluations. This commitment could be enhanced through evidence of efforts to measure student progress and completion at the program level and by various student characteristics.




75

3. The institution uses information on student retention, persistence, and completion of programs to make improvements as warranted by the data. 4. The institution’s processes and methodologies for collecting and analyzing information on student retention, persistence, and completion of programs reflect good practice. (Institutions are not required to use IPEDS definitions in their determination of persistence or completion rates. Institutions are encouraged to choose measures that are suitable to their student populations, but institutions are accountable for the validity of their measures.)

Criterion 5. Resources, Planning, and Institutional Effectiveness The institution’s resources, structures, and processes are sufficient to fulfill its mission, improve the quality of its educational offerings, and respond to future challenges and opportunities. The institution plans for the future.


5.A. The institution’s resource base supports its current educational programs and its plans for maintaining and strengthening their quality in the future.

1. The institution has the fiscal and human resources and physical and technological infrastructure sufficient to support its operations

• LFGSM complies with State of Illinois Title IX requirements.

• Planned improvements to Faculty Academy offerings.

• The President and Leadership Team determine allocation of resources and prioritization of initiatives. Presence of VP/CAO on team assures educational processes are not adversely affected by resource allocation in other areas of institution.




76

wherever and however programs are delivered. 2. The institution’s resource allocation process ensures that its educational purposes are not adversely affected by elective resource allocations to other areas or disbursement of revenue to a superordinate entity. 3. The goals incorporated into mission statements or elaborations of mission statements are realistic in light of the institution’s organization, resources, and opportunities. 4. The institution’s staff in all areas are appropriately qualified and trained. 5. The institution has a well-developed process in place for budgeting and for monitoring expenses.

• Budget development is led by President and Leadership Team. Board of Directors approves the budget.

• Financial performance and budget performance is monitored by senior leadership as well as departments.

• Evidence provided the number of employees, cash flow, debt, etc. are appropriate.

5.B. The institution’s governance and administrative structures promote effective leadership and support collaborative processes that enable the institution to fulfill its mission.

1. The governing board is knowledgeable about the institution; it provides oversight of the institution’s financial and academic policies and practices and meets its legal and fiduciary responsibilities.

• Administration, faculty, staff and students are involved in setting academic requirements, policies and processes. (3)

• The BOD is governed by the LFGSM Bylaws. The Bylaws establish the policies of the Board concerning membership, officers, meetings, committees, terms, nominations, and responsibilities.

• There is clear engagement of all internal

constituencies with the exception of adjunct faculty. Adding additional information about how adjunct faculty are involved in governance would improve the argument for this core component.




77

2. The institution has and employs policies and procedures to engage its internal constituencies—including its governing board, administration, faculty, staff, and students—in the institution’s governance.

3. Administration, faculty, staff, and students are involved in setting academic requirements, policy, and processes through effective structures for contribution and collaborative effort.

5.C. The institution engages in systematic and integrated planning.

1. The institution allocates its resources in alignment with its mission and priorities. 2. The institution links its processes for assessment of student learning, evaluation of operations, planning, and budgeting. 3. The planning process encompasses the institution as a whole and considers the perspectives of internal and external constituent groups. 4. The institution plans on the basis of a sound understanding of its current capacity. Institutional plans anticipate the possible impact of fluctuations in the institution’s sources of revenue, such as

• Strategic planning process involves internal and external stakeholders.

• Strategy cascades were developed in alignment with the strategic plan but process is not described.

• Office of Institutional Research provides data

and analysis as requested. • President and Leadership Team capitalize on

opportunities based upon current capacity, financial results and resource availability using management dashboard.

• Ongoing environment scans and review of

industry expert report are conducted.




78

enrollment, the economy, and state support. 5. Institutional planning anticipates emerging factors, such as technology, demographic shifts, and globalization.

5.D. The institution works systematically to improve its performance.

1. The institution develops and documents evidence of performance in its operations. 2. The institution learns from its operational experience and applies that learning to improve its institutional effectiveness, capabilities, and sustainability, overall and in its component parts.

Continuous improvement is a core benchmark for institutions who choose the AQIP pathway. LFGSM describes some informal continuous improvement processes including how they learn key lessons and references informal lessons learned sessions. LFGSM should consider developing processes that are more formal, or improving the description of the processes in place.


systems appraisal feedback report completed in … · systems appraisal feedback report . completed...

Documents