Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1993 15:14:45 -0700 From: "SCUPNEWS JCATE@UCBCMSA" Subject: SCUP Volume 8, Number 5, Part 2 of 2 To: Multiple recipients of list SCUPNEWS Reply-to: SCUPNEWS - Society for College & University Planners Digest =================================================== SCUP NEWS Volume 8, Number 5, Part 2 of 2 A service of the Society for College and University Planning Editor: Joanne Cate, University of California ADA Forum: Fred Tepfer, Univ. of Oregon Connections: Theo Leverenz, Georgetown College +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Table of Contents +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + + + COPY DEADLINE FOR NEXT ISSUE: Tuesday, September 21, 1993 + + 1. 1993 SCUP Board of Directors Election Results [deleted] + + 2. SCUP-28 Conference Highlights + + 3. SCUP-29: Call for Proposals and Graduate Student Paper Competition + +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ SCUP-28 CONFERENCE HIGHLIGHTS ---------------------------- SCUP-28 - An All-Time Record The twenty-eighth conference of the Society was a HUGE success! By 4:15 pm on Sunday, July 18, the official opening day of SCUP-28, there were more than 900 registrants which surpassed the attendance record set in Seattle in 1991 with 780 registrants. By 3:00 pm on Tuesday, July 20, attendance had soared to 985 registrants! SCUP-28 Conference Chair, Deborah Teeter; Plenary Sessions Chair, Gregory Lozier; and their SCUP-28 conference committee put on a stimulating program that focused on "Planning For Continuous Improvement." The concurrent sessions offered a rich and varied array of papers and presentations, many of which dealt with linking "quality" and strategic planning. Teeter's rousing and spirited opening of "work hard, play hard, learn a lot, have fun!" became the conference's on-site motto. And setting new and higher standards in local arrangements were the members of the SCUP-28 Local Hosts Committee, chaired by Bob Kaynor. Those who attended SCUP-28 will attest to the fact that the SCUP-28 team put on a spectacular program that will be a tough act to follow. ------------------------------------------- Members of the SCUP-28 Conference Committee ------------------------------------------- Heartfelt thanks to members of the SCUP-28 Committee: Deborah J. Teeter, University of Kansas, SCUP-28 Conference Chair; Robert K. Kaynor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, SCUP-28 Local Hosts Chair; G. Gregory Lozier, Pennsylvania State University, SCUP-28 Plenary Sessions Chair; Gary Bishop, University of Nevada, Reno; Rebecca Clifford, Bentley College; Jeffrey S. Cribbs, Virginia Commonwealth University; Michael J. Dooris, Pennsylvania State University; Kevin P. Duffy, Boston College; Arnold J. Gelfman, Brookdale Community College; Martha L. Hesse, Michigan State University; Margaret A. Lackner, Margaret Lackner Architects; Jo-Anne S. Lema, Bryant College; Arthur S. Lidsky, Dober, Lidsky, Craig & Associates; Gail Y. Milgrom, University of Toronto; Susan B. Morriss, Indiana Commission for Higher Education; Persis C. Rickes, Rickes Associates; David V. Taylor, University of Minnesota; William R. Tibbs, Tibbs & Associates; Mark Allen Wright, Clemson University; and to ex-officio members, SCUP President David D. Dill, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and SCUP Director Mary Ann Armour. Thanks also to all the affiliated volunteers. Grateful appreciation to the SCUP Central Office staff who handled the registration desk and all the behind-the-scenes logistics: Constance M. Taylor, Terry P. Calhoun, Brenda Hummell, Kafi A. Laramore, Melinda G. Spencer, and Lisa Thompson. ---------------------------- SCUP Thanks SCUP-28 Sponsors ---------------------------- The Society wishes to thank the following firms and organizations for their generous sponsorship of the SCUP-28 conference. Their support contributed significantly to SCUP's capacity to provide a comprehensive program of educational sessions and social events! SCUP members are encouraged to add their own, personal thanks to these sponsors and their colleagues whenever the opportunity offers itself. ARA Campus Dining Services Plenary Panel - Tuesday The Architects Collaborative SCUP-28 Name Badges Coopers & Lybrand Awards Luncheon (partial) Finegold Alexander & Associates SCUP Hospitality - Sunday Flad & Associates SCUP Connection - Saturday Hellmuth, Obata and Kassabaum, Inc. Morning Refreshment Break - Monday Honeywell, Inc. President's Reception (partial) Kaludis Consulting Group Boston Bash Entertainment Luckenback/Ziegelman & Partners Inc SCUP Hospitality - Sunday McLellan & Copenhagen SCUP-28 Tote Bags Sasaski Associates, Inc. Opening Plenary Session - Sunday Shepley Bulfinch Richardson & Abbott SCUP Hospitality - Saturday Stubbins Associates Graduate Student Paper Competition ---------------- Awards Luncheon ---------------- The Master of Ceremonies for Monday's Award Luncheon was SCUP President David D. Dill. He introduced SCUP President-Elect, Helen Giles-Gee, who, in turn, presented the Distinguished Service Award to Haskin Pounds, Vice Chancellor for Research and Planning, University System of Georgia. Haskin was honored for his years of exceptional contributions to the activities and success of the Society. The Founder's (Casey) award, which recognizes exceptional achievement and distinguished work in higher education planning, was given to Professor Lyman Glenny, Professor Emeritus, School of Education, University of California, Berkeley. Michael J. Dooris, Graduate Student Paper Competition Chair, announced this year's winners. Congratulations to Kris M. Smith, South Dakota State University, for her award-winning paper on "Enhancing Quality through Multiculturalism and Campus Diversity," and to runners-up Lisa Mets, University of Michigan, and Steven Kraal, University of Texas. ---------------- Plenary Sessions ---------------- JOHN WHITE, Regents' Professor and Dean of the College of Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, kicked off the opening of SCUP-28 with "Continuous Quality Improvement in Academe: Real, Imagined, or Destined?" White believes academia must teach total quality management (TQM), and in doing so, we must turn our world upside down, reexamine our fundamental processes and our true mission, and ask ourselves many questions, such as Who is the customer in higher education? What is the role of the library? Are we positioned for tomorrow or are we viewing ourselves from our narrow perspectives? How long would a firm stay in business if x percent of its customers (e.g., students) were unhappy? White believes continuous improvement is going to give us the competitive edge. He acknowledges the customer is not always right, but he also emphasizes that the customer deserves to be listened to and that customers should be given a chance to provide feedback. He offers three basic propositions of continuous quality improvements (CQI): constancy of purpose, focus on customers' needs, and continuous improvement. The bottom line for White, along with his recommendation for a national commitment to educational excellence, is that 1) costs must be contained and service improved; 2) value must be added to the product; and 3) quality must undergo continuous improvement. ROBERT W. GALVIN, Chairman of the Executive Committe, Motorola, Inc., was the keynote speaker at Monday's Plenary Session. To the question of "Is Continuous Improvement Enough?" Galvin says no. One will never improve if one refines what happened yesterday without understanding that one can't achieve improvement without challenging old truths. Galvin said some of the best thinkers are on campuses, but he doesn't think they've been focusing on quality or teaching people how to think. He believes there is value in being a counter-intuitive thinker. Motorola, he said, doesn't plan for conscious change unless they plan for at least a 50 per cent improvement. Moreover, Motorola measures everything since data is essential for a first-class analysis and measurement of quality. He adds, "if you improve quality, you must also lower costs," which is what many firms do not know how to do. Gold-plating an existing product does not equate to improving quality. He believes education can have a "giant influence on society" if we think differently, creatively, and counter-intuitively. Galvin presented his list of "The Welcome Heresies of Quality," which is reprinted below (OT = old testament; NT = New Truths): OT: Quality control is an ordinary responsibility of the Quality Dept. NT: Quality improvement is not just an institutional assignment, it is a daily personal priority and obligation for all. OT: Training is overhead and costly. NT: Training does not cost. OT: New quality programs have high up-front costs. NT: No up-front cost to quality "Quality Programs." OT: Better quality costs more. NT: You cannot raise cost by raising quality. OT: Keep measurement data to a minimum. NT: You cannot have too much relevant data. OT: To err is human. NT: Perfection is THE standard - TOTAL customer satisfaction. OT: Quality defects should be divided into Major and Minor categories. NT: Only one defect category--Intolerable! Single standard essential to unqualified dedication. OT: Quality improvements come only from small continuous steps. NT: Partially true. But, radical step-function improvements are essential and doable. OT: It takes extra time to do things right. NT: Quality doesn't take time, it saves it. OT: Haste makes waste. NT: (Thoughtful) speed makes quality. OT: Quality programs best fit products and manufacturing. NT: Quality's most crying needs and promises are in administration and services. OT: At a certain level the customer no longer cares about better quality NT: The customer will differentiate. Incremental improvements drive better pricing, delivery, performance. OT: Thou shalt not steal. NT: Thou shalt steal (non-proprietary) ideas shamelessly. OT: We take care of company--our suppliers better beat the price NT: An essential to being a world-class quality company is to be a world-class customer. The third plenary session involved a panel of four quality experts -- JOHN HARRIS, Assistant to the Provost for Quality Assessment, Samford University; GEORGE KELLER, Higher Education Division Chair, University of Pennsylvania; GARETH L. WILLIAMS, Professor of Educational Administration and Head of the Centre for Higher Education Studies, University of London; and CALLIE ZILINSKY, Director of the Academy for Quality in Education, Fox Valley Technical College. Akin to Luigi Pirandello's "Six Characters in Search of an Author," the distinguished experts were "four characters in search of a concept," the concept being Quality in Academe. The panelists presented and debated, in the spirit of good humor, four viewpoints on what constitutes quality improvement for higher education and how best to achieve this end. Zilinsky took on the role of the character who embraced and defended John White's three basics of TQM: constancy of purpose, need for customer focus, and continuous process for improvement. In her role as the one "smitten with constancy of purpose" she said that we should not be skeptical of customers (students), that teaching is a process which can be improved upon, and that we have to make TQM do-able and applicable in higher education. Keller acted as the doubting challenger of TQM, saying he was in favor of quality and improvement, but questioned whether people knew what they were talking about when they tossed around terms such as TQM and CQI. Finding the theme of the conference silly and the idea of statistical control absurd, he suggested we go back to using common sense. The customer (e.g., students, parents, government, alumni), he said, pays for a product or service, and in higher education, we are here to lead the "customer" out of ignorance, not "serve" them. The product is "education," the transmitting of knowledge and scholarship - our role is to help individuals develop their own talents. In his role as the TQM adversary, he ended his discussion with "TQM is like a penny a child has swallowed. It, too, will some day pass." Harris was the proponent of service. Service, he said, was the key to quality in higher education, and understanding the process is one of the most effective means of implementing TQM. Williams characterized his role as the "Man from Mars." In dealing with large and enormously diverse systems, he suggested that we are not really looking for "quality," but rather "qualities" and "management." We need to separate the best from the worst qualities and to stress to managers that we have more to gain than fear by implementing TQM. (Note: Thanks to Terry Calhoun, SCUP Publication Director, for his report on the closing plenary session, "How Can Total Quality Management Transform the Future of Higher Education." ) Convener Martha Hess, Michigan State University, set the stage for the closing presentations by observing that sessions and discussions throughout the conference had raised a multitude of questions. Speakers SHERRY PENNEY, Chancellor at the University of Massachusetts at Boston, and THEODORE J. MARCHESE, Vice President of the American Association for Higher Education, then proceeded to wrap up the conference with cogent descriptions of total quality management (TQM) in higher education from their two very distinct perspectives. Imparting knowledge gained from her efforts over several years to create "a more responsive institution," and to "work smarter not harder," Penney advised SCUPers to "give good advice to your chancellors and presidents, but proceed cautiously, expect no quick miracles, and don't call it TQM." Marchese then shared with the audience 14 points which he'd distilled from 18 pages of SCUP-28 notes. He views TQM as a movement which is "a rich, robust, tentful of ideas about organization, performance, service, leadership, people, collaboration, incentives, and intrinsic self-motivation," and which has been successful in helping the manufacturing sector. The movement has since moved on to services and to health care, and is now here in higher education. He called TQM the "best infusion of new ideas in many years." But Marchese also advised caution, saying that he is not completely sanguine about TQM in higher education. He noted that the literature of TQM sorely needed the growing body of critical examination represented by George Keller, University of Pennsylvania; Bob Pederson, West Virginia University, and others who had spoken at SCUP-28. Noting that some corporate response via the TQM route had included dropping formal planning titles from corporate structures, Marchese ended his talk by wondering aloud about the impact of planners on TQM and of TQM on planners. Audio Tapes Available --------------------- Audio tapes of fifty SCUP-28 sessions are available for purchase. Contact the SCUP Central Office for details (313-763-4776; FAX 313-747-1987). +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++ SCUP-29 CONFERENCE - CALL FOR PROPOSALS "THE TRANSFORMATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION: TAKING CHARGE OF CHANGE" SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA - JULY 24-27, 1994 Proposals due: October 15, 1993 Higher education is being redefined and transformed by a new constant -- change. Shifting resources, rapidly emerging technological developments, and increasing diversity, along with changing public expectations and demands, are bringing about unprecedented introspection and self-assessment within higher education. Taking charge of these changes requires the broader perspective and expertise of people who plan. The theme for SCUP-29, "The Transformation of Higher Education: Taking Charge of Change," will examine how people who plan transform these challenges into achievements. Some institutions are using planning to integrate their rich and diverse resources in ways that are transforming the external environment even as it is transforming them. Transformational planning embraces the inevitability of change in all of higher education's institutions--public and private, four-year and two-year, small and large. The Conference Committee invites you to submit proposals on planning processes, tools, and techniques that have proven to be successful in taking charge of change across higher education's planning areas: academic planning; budget, resource planning, and development; facilities planning; and institutional policy and governance. Bring your expertise to SCUP-29, share with others your planning edge, and help advance the role of individuals who are working to transform their institutions by addressing such issues as: - Will financing higher education be based on funding institutions or funding people? Or is an entirely new paradigm necessary? - How should planners address the revitalization of curriculum, optimization of faculty resources, and the integration of student services? - Does institutional governance foster stagnation, stability, or change? How can governance be an agent for transformation? - What processes and techniques are needed to assess, plan, design, and manage campus facilities and space within higher education's changing environment? - What kinds of relationships need to be forged between K-12, two-year and four-year institutions, and companies in order to respond to the new realities in higher education? Session Guidelines ------------------ Effective conference presentations depend on a number of factors. All sessions should provide new conceptual approaches and insights into current or emerging issues in higher education planning; present an original creative work that challenges old assumptions; or introduce processes, techniques, or tools that have proven to be useful in higher education planning. In addition, each presenter should have the professional expertise and experience necessary to meet the objectives of the proposal. Formats and Time Frame ---------------------- The session format should be appropriate to optimize the delivery of the content. The Society offers several options for presentation formats: formal paper, panel discussion, presentation. SCUP-29 concurrent sessions will range from 45 to 90 minutes. The number of presenters should be appropriate to the timeframe available for sessions. The Conference Committee strongly recommends that presenters allow time for questions and audience participation. The Committee will determine the timeframes for sessions based on content and available meeting space. Higher Education Planning Areas ------------------------------- Conference sessions should address higher education planning areas. Effective planning on campuses bridges and integrates these traditional planning areas. The Conference Committee encourages you to identify and explore the linkages among these areas in your proposal. Some of the issues that may be addressed with the planning areas include: - Academic Planning - Budget, Resource Planning, and Development - Facilities Planning - Institutional Policy and Governance In addition, there are issues which clearly cut across planning areas, such as strategic planning, policy development, and quality improvement. Graduate Student Paper Competition ---------------------------------- Graduate students interested in higher education planning are encouraged to enter SCUP's tenth annual Graduate Student Paper Competition. A winner and two runners-up will be recognized at SCUP-29. The winner will receive a $500 award. All three honorees will receive a complimentary conference registration and the opportunity to present their paper at SCUP-29. The process for selecting the Graduate Student Paper Competition winner and runners-up is separate from that for concurrent sessions. Students may enter the competition only by submitting a proposal for a formal paper following the guidelines outlined in this call and marking the "Graduate Student Paper Competition only" option on the proposal cover sheet. These proposals will not be included in the concurrent session proposal review process. Those wishing to have their proposal considered for a concurrent session in addition to the graduate student paper competition (which, if accepted, would ensure a slot on the program regardless of the outcome of the competition) should submit a proposal for a formal paper following the guidelines and marking this option on the proposal cover sheet. Graduate students whose proposals for formal papers are accepted are required to submit a complete paper by March 1, 1994 for review by the Graduate Student Paper Competition panel. The results of the competition will be announced by May 1, 1994. Individuals entering this competition must be verifiable graduate students enrolled in a graduate degree program for at least one term between August, 1993 and May, 1994. Jointly authored papers are not eligible. Preconference Seminars ---------------------- Preconference seminars are designed to provide SCUP conference attendees with opportunities for professional development in a structured seminar environment. These seminars focus on core knowledge relating to planning or on cutting-edge issues currently emerging in higher education. Half-day seminars (3.5 hours) and full-day seminars (7 hours) will be offered. SCUP is seeking individuals with proven expertise on a topic related to higher education planning and experience in presenting to higher education audiences. Teams submissions will be considered. Contact the SCUP Central Office to receive the preconference seminar packet and proposal form. All proposals must be returned by October 15, 1993. Proposal Submission Guidelines ------------------------------- For a copy of proposal form, please write to: SCUP Central Office, SCUP-29 Proposals, 2026M School of Education Bldg, 610 East University Avenue; Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1259, USA, or call (313) 763-4776 or FAX a note to (313) 747-1987. Proposals are due October 15, 1993. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++ + Reminders: + + The SCUP E-Mail News is published approximately every two weeks by + + the Society for College and University Planning. Contributions + + (e.g., articles, newsworthy items, requests for help, position + + announcements, thoughts for the day) are very much desired, but + + please format them with no more than 73 characters per line. + + Contributors who desire readers' responses should include a + + contact name, institution, address, telephone, and email address. + + Materials should be sent to Joanne Cate . + + + + New Subscriptions/Address Changes: Send your name, institution, + + address and e-mail address to Joanne Cate or + + . Phone: 510-987-0963; FAX: 510-987-0736 + + + + If you have other SCUP questions or business or news, send them to + + Mary Ann Armour, SCUP Director, 2026M School of Education Building, + + University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1259. + + Bitnet: UserTD8Q@UMichum Telephone: (313) 763-4776 + + + + If you have AIR news, send it to Larry Nelson . + +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++