SFU
MEMORANDUM
OFFICE OF Till-
VICE-PRESIDENT.
ACADEMIC AND PROVOST
University Drive, Burnaby,
BC
Canada V5A 1S6
TEL: 778.782.3925
FAX:
778.782.5876
S.12-138
www.sfu.ca/vpacadenuc
attention
Senate
from
,v. Jon Driver
'
Vice President, Academic and Provost
RE:
NWCCU Accreditation - Year One Self Evaluation Report
date
August 22, 2012
PAGES
1/1
The Year One Report as required by the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (NWCCU) has
been completed and submitted for evaluation. This Report has been reviewed by the Accreditation Steering
Committee (VPs and Deans). It is being made available to the University Senate for information.
The contents of the report include:
1. SFU's response to the four recommendations made by the NWCCU after their campus
visit/assessment conducted October 2011
2. Executive summary of NWCCU eligibility requirements 2 and 3, which pertain to the authority
granted to SFU by the province to grant degreesand SFU's adoption of a Vision/Mission
3. Response to NWCCU's Standard l.A, which is a description of SFU's Vision/Mission
4. Response to NWCCU's Standard l.B, which is a further look at SFU's Vision/Mission with
particular attention given to each of the core themes of the Vision/Mission
SFU will submit two further reports to the NWCCU in 2014 and 2016, wliich will each be followed by an on-
site visit/evaluation from the NWCCU (no on-site visit is associated with the Year One Report).
This Report has already been submitted to the NWCCU, meeting their submission due date of September 14,
2012.
c:
Glynn Nicholls
SIMO N
FRASKR
UN1V E R S I T Y
ENGAGING THE WORLD
Year
Self Evaluation
One
Report
Submitted to
The Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities
August 22, 2012
Table of Contents
1. Institutional Overview ................................................................................................... 5
2. Preface........................................................................................................................... 6
2.1 Institutional Changes ................................................................................................... 7
2.2 Response to Recommendations .................................................................................. 8
2.2.1 Recommendation 1: Indicators for Assessment................................................ 8
2.2.2 Recommendation 2: Learning Outcomes ......................................................10
2.2.3 Recommendation 3: Integration of WQB Courses ........................................14
2.2.4 Recommendation 4: Deferred Maintenance...................................................18
3. Chapter One: Mission, Core Themes, and Expectations...............................................21
3.1 Executive Summary of Eligibility Requirements 2 and 3 .............................................22
3.2 Standard 1.A – Mission................................................................................................23
SFU’s Vision/Mission .........................................................................................23
Strategic Goals....................................................................................................23
Interpretation of Vision/Mission Fulfllment.......................................................24
Integrated Planning Framework..........................................................................24
SFU’s Long-Term and Continual Planning Process .............................................25
Acceptable Threshold, Extent, or Degree of Mission Fulfllment ........................26
3.3 Standard 1.B – Core Themes.......................................................................................27
3.3.1 Core Theme 1: Engaging Students.................................................................27
3.3.2 Core Theme 2: Engaging Research................................................................28
3.3.3 Core Theme 3: Engaging Communities.........................................................29
3.3.4 Leveraging Institutional Strength ...................................................................30
3.3.5 Underlying Principles of the Three Core Themes of the Vision/Mission .......31
4. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................32
5. Appendix: University Planning Framework ...................................................................33
5
• SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
1. Institutional Overview
Simon Fraser University (SFU) was created in 1963 by the government of British Columbia to relieve
enrollment pressures on the University of British Columbia by providing basic programs in the arts and
sciences and teacher education. The province created SFU by amending the
University Act
1
that governed
the University of British Columbia, which ultimately granted SFU a signifcant measure of autonomy.
SFU’s frst chancellor, Gordon Shrum, was quick to exploit this by expanding the University’s
mandate to incorporate graduate education and research; thus, setting the stage for SFU’s quick rise to
prominence as both a teaching and research intensive institution. When it opened its doors in 1965,
SFU’s 2500 new students included 83 graduate students, 33 of whom were PhD candidates.
SFU’s institutional culture was profoundly shaped by its birth in the cultural ferment of the mid-1960s.
From the outset, there was a visionary quality to SFU’s creation, and that vision—in keeping with its
moment—was experimental, fuid, and surprisingly and consciously democratic.
In many ways, SFU’s youth shaped its future: newly minted PhDs came to SFU seeking an opportunity
to shape the new University in ways not possible at older institutions. They were young and idealistic
and their hopes were more than met. Empowered beyond their expectations within the new and quickly
developing institution, they brought their youthful energies, creativity, and desire for innovation, and
built them into the fabric of SFU’s institutional culture. In doing so, they contributed enormously to the
boldness and the willingness to try new ideas and approaches that still distinguish SFU. Innovative faculty
were matched with adventurous students, who chose SFU precisely because it was new and promised to
be diferent.
Among Canadian universities, SFU was the frst to introduce the trimester system (1964), to ofer
athletic scholarships (1964), to instill student representation on its senate (1967), to create an executive
MBA (1968), to implement computerized registration (1970), and to appoint a woman president (Dr.
Pauline Jewett—1974). This tradition of innovation continues into the present day, with SFU becoming
the frst university outside of the United States to complete the National Collegiate Athletic Association
Division II membership process in good standing. The Division II Membership Committee approved
the institution as an active member at its July 2012 meeting.
Today, SFU has grown into one of Canada’s premier comprehensive universities and BC’s second largest
research intensive university. It boasts three campuses in three adjacent cities within the lower mainland
of BC: Burnaby (its main campus), Vancouver, and Surrey. SFU has approximately 35 000 students
enrolled in for-credit programs, another 19 000 participating annually in non-credit programs, 3000
faculty and staf, and over 100 000 alumni. SFU’s economic impact for 2009/10 was estimated to be in
the order of $3.65 billion.
2
http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/00_96468_01
http://www.sfu.ca/archive-pamr/media_releases/media_releases_archives/sfus-economic-impact-365-billion-a-year.html
6
• SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
2. Preface
7
• SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
2.1 Institutional
Changes since SFU’s
Changes
Last Report
Since SFU’s submission of the Self Evaluation report in August 2011 and the NWCCU Evaluation
Committee’s evaluation visit in October 2011, a number of signifcant changes have occurred at SFU.
These include the following:
• Adoption of a Strategic Vision/Mission – “SFU: An Engaged University”
was approved
by the University Senate on November 7, 2011 and adopted by the Board of Governors
on November 24, 2011. SFU ofcially launched the Vision/Mission to the University
community and the public on February 20, 2012. Along with this Strategic Vision/
Mission, SFU announced the new institutional tag line “Engaging the W
which orld,”
replaces the previous “Thinking of the W
motto.
orld”
• Due to the high number of well-qualified international student applicants, the 2011/12
new international student intake was 74.9% above the Senate approved new international
student admission target. To manage the level of international student intake, SFU has
begun to use diferentiated admission grade point averages for admission purposes.
• The official opening of Podium 2 in the Surrey campus was held on November 4, 2011
– 54 000 square feet of added classroom and science lab space.
• SFU completed a renewal upgrade of the 100 000 square feet Chemistry wing at the
Burnaby campus. The ofcial opening ceremony was April 16, 2012.
• The Mechatronic Systems Engineering program in Surrey became the School of
Mechatronic Systems Engineering within the Faculty of Applied Sciences.
• The First Nations program became the Department of First Nations Studies.
• A number of new degree programs and certificates were created. Among them, were the
certifcate in Environmental Literacy, a joint major in Earth Sciences and Chemistry, a
certifcate in Linguistics of Speech Science, and a Bachelor of Arts in Cinema Studies.
8
• SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
2.2 Response
to Recommendations
to Recommendations
Requested by the Commission
Listed below are SFU’s responses to the specifc recommendations that were made by the NWCCU
Evaluation Committee in their initial Candidacy Evaluation Report, which came as a result of the
committee’s visit to SFU October 12-14, 2011.
2.2.1 Recommendation 1: Indicators for Assessment
The committee recommends that the University develop a manageable set of meaningful,
assessable, and verifable indicators for assessment of its cores themes, programs and services and
ensure that it has the capacity to collect, assess, disseminate and utilize the data for institutional
improvement (Standards 1.B.2, 2.C.1, 3.B.3, 4.A.1, 4.A.5, 4.B.1).
Introduction
In accepting this recommendation, and as part of SFU’s regular planning cycle, a more critical
view has been taken to incorporating meaningful, assessable, and verifable indicators in all levels
of planning. This is evident in the sections of this report related to Standards 1.A and 1.B.
Progress to Date
In 2011, SFU adopted a new Vision/Mission after extensive consultation within and beyond
the University. This Vision/Mission is now the centre of SFU’s University Planning Framework
(appendix) and the intention is that all University planning is to be clearly aligned with the
Vision/Mission.
SFU’s Vision/Mission (fg. 1)
SFU’s Vision/Mission
To be the leading engaged university, defned by its dynamic integration of innovative
education, cutting-edge research, and far-reaching community engagement
ENGAGING STUDENTS
Equipping students with the knowledge, skills, and experience that
prepare for life in an ever-changing world.
ENGAGING RESEARCH
Being a world leader in knowledge mobilization building on a
strong foundation of fundamental research.
ENGAGING
COMMUNITIES
Being Canada’s most community-engaged research university.
From SFU’s Vision/Mission fow three core themes: engaging students, engaging research, and
9
• SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
engaging communities. Each theme has a corresponding goal that has been developed, and from
each goal a number of achievable outcomes have been determined. For each outcome, a number
of indicators have been identifed. For each indicator, a rationale has been identifed, which
justifes its adoption as a valid and reliable indicator of progress on that particular outcome. These
indicators focus on outcomes and will provide a means to assess whether or not each outcome is
being achieved.
SFU will be judged as achieving its outcomes when the indicators refect a positive trend. Once
a consistent positive trend is achieved for all indicators, SFU will be deemed to be fulflling its
Vision/Mission.
Process
The fgure below demonstrates this approach, beginning from the Vision/Mission through the
core themes, to outcomes, indicators and their rationale, to a review of performance, and vision/
mission fulfllment.
Vision/Mission Fulfllment Process Model (fg. 2)
The development of outcomes and indicators has followed a highly consultative process that
included reviews by Deans, Vice Presidents, the Board of Governors, and other stakeholders.
These were incorporated into a revision of the University Planning Framework, which once
fnalized, was disseminated to the University community.
Ultimately, the University Planning Framework is intended to provide direction for all other
planning activities throughout the University. Evidence of this can already be found in the
development of the Academic Plan for 2013-2018, which is closely aligned to the three core
themes of the Vision/Mission and follows the philosophies and principles of the University
Planning Framework. The Plan is currently in draft form and is undergoing an extensive
consultation process, which includes Senate and Board review, as well as Faculty and departmental
consultation. There have also been a number of public forums in which the draft Plan has been
presented for information purposes and feedback.
10
• SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
When selecting indicators, the following fve principles were considered:
Principles Used in the Selection of Indicators (table 1)
Principle
Relevant
Description
An indicator should be relevant to SFU’s goals as described in the University Planning
Framework.
Practical
An indicator should be simple to measure and not require an investment of time and
money in data collection.
Intuitive
An indicator should be easy to understand conceptually and widely understood by the
SFU community.
Meaningful
An indicator should support decision-making about improving performance. It should
lead to actions to improve performance if a target is not met.
Focused
The number of indicators should be limited to 2 to 3 for each of the outcomes in the
University Planning Framework.
The Ofce of Institutional Research and Planning has recruited additional analysts to partially
assist in the reporting and assessment of indicators.
Conclusion
SFU now has a well-articulated set of indicators that will measure the selected outcomes and
provide the evidence necessary to demonstrate that the University is achieving its goals.
This model is further documented in Standards 1.A and 1.B of this report.
2.2.2 Recommendation 2: Learning Outcomes
The committee recommends that the University establish and assess student learning outcomes
across the institution and use the results for continuous improvement (Standards 2.C.1, 2.C.2,
2.C.5, 2.C.10).
Introduction
With the adoption of SFU’s new Vision/Mission, the University is also working toward related
shifts within its academic culture. Establishing published and assessable learning outcomes is one
such shift. Although some academic units at SFU have already established learning outcomes and
have achieved professional accreditation, such as the Beedie School of Business and the School
of Engineering Science, formal university-wide adoption of a learning outcomes and assessment
model has not yet occurred. Learning outcomes and assessment models are not common in
Canadian universities, and adopting a learning outcomes and assessment approach is a signifcant
cultural and administrative change for the SFU academic community. The engagement of
faculty in a change management process, including wide and meaningful consultation, will be
crucial to the successful adoption and implementation of a set of learning outcomes that will do
three things: (1) satisfy the NWCCU requirements; (2) allow SFU to maintain its identity as a
leading, renowned Canadian post-secondary institution; and, most importantly, (3) allow SFU to
continually improve in all aspects of its education delivery and research.
Progress to Date
In the fall of 2011, the Vice-President, Academic established the Learning Outcomes Assessment
Working Group to consider and recommend how learning outcomes and meaningful, assessable,
11
• SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
and verifable outcomes can be established for courses, programs, and the University. The
Working Group is chaired by an Associate Dean from the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
(SFU’s largest Faculty, with more than 25 programs), and is comprised of representatives from
several of SFU’s academic units; the Ofce of the Vice-President, Academic; the Teaching and
Learning Centre; and the Ofce of Institutional Research and Planning.
The Learning Outcomes and Assessment Working Group’s Terms of Reference
1. Draft principles to guide the establishment and use of learning outcomes for curricular
assessment at SFU. (Note: this will not include evaluations of individual instructors)
2. Identify academic units that currently use, or are in the process of developing, processes
for learning outcomes assessment.
3. Identify the curricular assessment processes (regular and of-cycle) currently utilized in
academic units.
4. Review best-practice processes for establishing a learning outcomes assessment process,
and recommend the most appropriate process for SFU.
5. Recommend appropriate timelines and milestones for implementing learning outcomes
assessment at SFU, bearing in mind the timeline for accreditation with NWCCU, the
importance of a communication plan, and the need to take a consultative approach.
6. Recommend how an ongoing process of learning outcomes assessment and curricular
review could best be incorporated into current structures and processes at SFU.
With the Terms of Reference in place, the Working Group proceeded to draft principles to
guide the consideration and establishment of learning outcomes and assessment across all courses,
programs, degrees, Faculties, and the University. The draft principles underwent an important
consultation process in the SFU community. In February 2012, the draft principles went to the
Senate Committees on Undergraduate and Graduate Studies, respectively. Simultaneously, they
were sent out to the general University community, and later also forwarded to the chair of the
Senate Committee on University Teaching and Learning. Feedback was collected and evaluated
for relevance prior to incorporation into the draft principles. The fnal draft of the principles was
ofcially approved by the University Senate on June 11, 2012. In the course of the discussion
at Senate, it was strongly emphasized that extensive consultation must continue if the adoption
and implementation of learning outcomes and assessment by the University community is to be
successful. A commitment was made to this consultation process.
Learning Outcomes and Assessment Principles
In an efort to improve upon existing pedagogical practices and to facilitate greater student
achievement, Simon Fraser University is considering the establishment of learning outcomes and
their assessment across all courses, programs, Faculties, and the University. This process will be
informed by a consultative approach and guided by the principles articulated herein.
Curriculum development and learning outcomes (if adopted) at SFU will be informed by the
institutional goals recently articulated in the University’s Strategic Vision/Mission. They are
summarized as follows:
1. To equip SFU students with the knowledge, skills, and experiences that prepare them
for life in an ever-changing and challenging world.
2. To be a world leader in knowledge mobilization building on a strong foundation of
fundamental research.
12
• SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
3. To be Canada’s most community-engaged research university.
There are many models of learning outcomes and assessment to examine, and SFU will
draw knowledge from the best practices of other communities and institutions. SFU seeks to
recommend practices that will ultimately improve curriculum and the learning experiences of its
students at the course, program, and degree levels.
Ideally, if recommended, learning outcomes and assessment should ft within SFU’s existing
curricular development and review processes. SFU departments and units will analyze learning
outcomes assessment data and act on fndings independently, and will retain institutional
autonomy over curriculum.
The seven Learning Outcomes and Assessment Principles were approved by University Senate on
June 11, 2012.
Principles
1. The primary purpose of learning outcomes and assessment processes is to communicate
transparently the purposes of all degree, program, and course requirements.
2. As per its Strategic Vision/Mission, SFU is committed to academic and intellectual
freedom. Learning outcomes for courses and programs will be developed and
determined at the local academic unit level and will refect local disciplinary cultures.
These will be aligned with enduring institutional goals, values, and principles as
articulated in the SFU Strategic Vision/Mission.
3. SFU values regular assessment of achievement of specifed learning outcomes as a means
of promoting continuous improvement of its courses and programs, and acknowledges
that appropriate assessment of learning outcomes can occur before, during, and after
completion of a course or program.
4. Process required by the establishment of learning outcomes and their assessment will be
integrated into the regular processes of curricular and program review, and renewal and
disciplinary accreditation wherever possible.
5. Learning outcomes assessment will enable instructors to improve upon existing curricula
and teaching methodologies. Process of regular assessment will allow the academic units
and the University to collect data concerning unit and university level achievement of
identifed learning outcomes. Learning outcomes assessment data will not be utilized for
the evaluation of individual instructor and TA/TM performance, nor will the data be
used as evidence to demote, fail to promote, dismiss, or otherwise penalize individuals.
6. It is the responsibility of the University to provide resources (human, capital,
technological) to academic units as required to enable and support learning outcomes
and assessment procedures. Provision of this support is intended to minimize any
addition to the net workload of instructors, TAs/TMs, and department staf.
7. As much as possible, the documentation generated by the Learning Outcomes and
Assessment Working Group will be made broadly available to the SFU community for
transparency and in accordance with SFU’s sustainability goals.
Guided by this set of principles, the Learning Outcomes and Assessment Working Group turned
to its second and third tasks: the collection and analysis of key data gathered through a University-
wide survey of all undergraduate and graduate level programs within every academic unit. The
survey, both quantitative and qualitative in design, provides the Working Group with a broad
perspective on the current state of learning outcomes and assessment activity (or lack thereof)
13
• SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
across campus. It captures practical, measurable data and yields important insights into the state
of afairs of unit-level learning outcomes and assessment practices, particularly with regard to the
various cultural and/or administrative approaches of these units. Analysis of the survey results will
be completed by the end of summer 2012. Follow-up investigations will occur in early fall 2012.
In conjunction with the internal research, the Working Group is addressing the fourth task
identifed in the Terms of Reference: researching accredited educational institutions across North
America to collect information on best-practice processes for learning outcomes and assessment.
Combined with the results of the internal research, this external research will provide the
Working Group with important points of comparison that will better position it to recommend
ways of integrating appropriate learning outcomes and assessment models into SFU’s current
structures and processes over the course of a specifed timeline. The Working Group anticipates
providing recommendations to the Vice-President, Academic within the Fall 2012 term.
Concurrently, SFU is developing its internal expertise. To date, the University has invited two
renowned experts to speak to SFU audiences on learning outcomes and assessment in an efort
to better inform SFU’s internal expertise, and to build University community understanding and
buy-in. Dr. Peter T. Ewell from the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems
presented in September 2011, and Dr. Kathi A. Ketcheson from Portland State University in June
2012. More presentations and professional development by invited experts are being planned for
the Fall 2012 semester. SFU has sent key internal academic and administrative personnel who
are engaged in learning outcomes and assessment planning and/or processes to relevant national
and international symposia and conferences. The University has also hired one full-time staf to
coordinate the afairs of the Learning Outcomes and Assessment Working Group. Additionally,
the Teaching and Learning Centre is training instructional development staf in learning
outcomes and assessment in order to provide support to faculty in formulating assessable learning
outcomes.
A dedicated website was created to inform the SFU community as to the parameters and progress
of the Learning Outcomes and Assessment Working Group initiative. The site is updated
frequently to refect the latest initiative developments and knowledge
3
, and is a strategic and
practical communications tool developed to ensure transparency, to inform, and to regularly
answer questions posed to the Vice-President, Academic and the Working Group by the SFU
community. The website is supplemental to direct communications sent out to the community
by the Ofce of the Vice-President, Academic, and makes available such documentation as the
Terms of Reference, the Senate-approved principles, key learning outcomes and assessment-
related defnitions, links to external tools and resources, and slides or video presentations of the
various invited speakers.
Conclusion
SFU is striving to identify and adopt best practices for the implementation of assessable learning
outcomes across the curricula in as realistic a timeframe as is feasible, given the contextual
challenge the University faces in promoting change to institutional culture. The Terms of
Reference and Senate-approved principles have furnished SFU and the Learning Outcomes
and Assessment Working Group with guidance as the University navigates the politically and
administratively complex process of transforming into an institution that practices learning
outcomes assessment thoroughly and consistently across more than 100 undergraduate programs,
http://www.sfu.ca/vpacademic/committees_taskforces/LOAWG/principleslodefinition.html
14
• SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
and more than 45 graduate oferings. Ground-laying research is being conducted internally
through quantitative and qualitative surveying of all academic programs, and informative
research is being conducted on external institutions’ learning outcomes and assessment-related
administrative structures and processes.
The Working Group will recommend to the Vice-President, Academic the methods for
integrating new or improved learning outcomes and assessment processes best suited to SFU’s
uniquely Canadian institutional culture. The recommendations must take into account the
importance of supporting SFU faculty and staf over the course of this cultural shift, while
promoting the direct and positive benefts of adopting a learning outcomes and assessment
approach for SFU’s academic programs, students, instructors, and the University as a whole. If
approved by Senate, SFU’s new learning outcomes and assessment approach will hold true to the
values of the University’s Vision/Mission.
2.2.3 Recommendation 3: Integration of WQB Courses
The committee recommends that the University clearly articulate its “General Education”
program as an integrated course of study related to the institution’s mission and assure that it has
clear and assessable student learning outcomes which are efectively communicated to students
and stakeholders (Standards 2.C.9, 2.C.10, 2.C.11).
Introduction
Post-secondary undergraduate education in Canada varies from that of the United States. While
the Canadian system follows similar general principles and structures to those in the American
system, Canadian post-secondary education also derives from the system of the United Kingdom.
As a result, the Canadian system blends the British approach of focusing a student in the subject
area for their declared concentration with elements of American diversifed General Education
program models. SFU does not have a General Education program, but has developed Writing,
Quantitative, and Breadth (WQB) requirements
4
, which, like General Education programs,
promote and provide all undergraduate students with a diverse education experience.
Progress to Date
In September 2006, after six years of intensive consultation and development, and following
Senate approval, SFU implemented changes to undergraduate degree requirements, introducing
for the frst time a set of core skill development and distribution requirements across all
undergraduate degrees. Prior to September 2006, the elective and breadth course requirements
needed for a degree at SFU were determined by each individual Faculty, and the only common
standard was that degrees were a minimum of 120 credit hours with a residency requirement of
upper division credits completed at SFU, in the major.
The new Writing, Quantitative, and Breadth (WQB) requirements were based in part on aspects
of General Education programs prevalent across US universities and colleges. However, because
of SFU’s decentralized approach to undergraduate degree requirements, it was not possible to
impose a traditional lower-division Gen Ed curriculum, which would have completely disrupted
well-developed and mature curriculum, and would have been extremely costly.
http://students.sfu.ca/calendar/writing-quantitative-breadth-reqmts.html
15
• SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
In addition, British Columbia has a well-developed college-to-university transfer system. This
has been extensively utilized by all post-secondary institutions in the province and has been in
place for more than 30 years. It is a best-practice model of transfer systems in North America
and is managed by the British Columbia Council on Admissions and Transfer (BCCAT)
5
, which
maintains and quality-assures transfer agreements and protocols. Through this system, many SFU
undergraduate students take their frst two years at a community college. As an active partner
in this system, SFU takes care to develop curricula and degree requirements that support and
enhance student transfer. Traditional two-year, standardized General Education programs do not
ft well in this system, and as an alternative, SFU has developed WQB requirements, which draw
on key features of General Education programs and are fully integrated into SFU undergraduate
degrees.
Students completing an undergraduate degree across all Faculties at SFU are required to meet
WQB core requirements. The requirements are as follows:
Writing Requirements
Courses with a “W”
designation assist students to learn course content through the process of
writing-intensive assignments. These courses help students to improve their writing abilities
and overall communication skills, and teach students to write in the genres of their disciplines.
Existing “gate keeper”
courses in degree programs were modified in their pedagogies to conform
to this approach, and new writing-intensive courses were specifcally developed to meet the
requirement. All W courses at SFU follow the practice of “writing in the discipline”
pioneered
by the Knight Institute at Cornell University in New York
6
.
Students take a minimum of:
• one lower-division W course (at least 3 units).
• one upper-division W course (at least 3 units), in the student’s major subject. The
upper-division W course must be taken at SFU.
Quantitative Requirements
Courses with “Q”
designation assist students to develop quantitative (numerical, geometric) or
formal (deductive, probabilistic) reasoning, and to develop skills in practical problem solving,
critical evaluation, or analysis.
Students take a minimum of:
• two Q courses, lower or upper division (at least 6 units).
Breadth Requirements
Courses with “B”
designation expose students to concepts and ideas from a range of disciplines
and perspectives outside of their programs. This is a distribution requirement, and students may
complete breadth courses throughout their degree programs, taking courses at the lower or upper
division. Many of the B courses are taken as program specifed electives (many undergraduate
degree programs have harmonized their allowable electives to this requirement), and only courses
outside of the student’s major may count as a B.
http://www.bccat.bc.ca/
http://www.arts.cornell.edu/knight_institute/index.htm
16
• SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
Students take a minimum of:
• two courses labelled as Breadth-Humanities (B-Hum, 6 units).
• two courses labelled as Breadth-Science (B-Sci, 6 units).
• two courses labelled as Breadth-Social Sciences (B-Soc, 6 units).
• two additional courses outside the student’s major program (6 units). These additional
courses may or may not be designated as breadth, and in most cases will fulfll the
particular Faculty or program breadth requirements.
An implementation committee was struck prior to the 2006 launch date of the WQB
requirements in order to assess SFU courses to determine which might be deemed Writing,
Quantitative, Breadth-Humanities, Breadth-Social Sciences, and Breadth Science. New courses
were created by academic departments where needed; for existing courses, departments were
required to apply for W, Q, and B course designations and rationalize why and how those courses
met the criteria. Where courses did not immediately ft the specifed criteria, they were amended
prior to designation approval. This assessment and amendment process continues and is applied
to all new courses designated as W, Q, and/or B prior to being added to the SFU undergraduate
curriculum.
The Undergraduate Curriculum Initiative carried out the implementation of these changes
in 2006, and oversight from the Ofce of the Vice-President, Academic continues in order to
provide quality assurance and maintenance of the requirements as well as information about
the requirements. Annual assessment of the impact of the requirements has been undertaken
through the annual Undergraduate Student Survey. Year over year, there has been improvement
in the extent to which students understand and appreciate the specifed outcomes of the WQB
requirements. It is of interest to note that the Breadth requirements remain the least well-
understood component by students of the WQB requirements. The statements about the B
requirements are now being examined in order to provide greater clarity to students on the
intended outcomes.
The requirements are communicated to students in every iteration of the SFU Calendar and on
the specifc website for the Undergraduate Curriculum Requirements. Faculties and departments
have also embedded information on the WQB requirements as part of their overall program
requirements. Additionally, faculty members are informed about the intended outcomes of WQB
requirements by information included in the application forms completed for designation. The
outcomes are as follows:
Writing-intensive (W) courses assist students to learn the course content through the process of writing
assignments. Specifcally:
• Students improve writing abilities and overall communication skills.
• Students use the process of writing as a way of exploring and critiquing complex
concepts.
• Students practice writing in such disciplinary forms as lab reports, literary analyses, or
policy briefs.
• Students use and produce samples of typical forms of the writing in their discipline.
• Students enhance their course content knowledge and communication skills by revising
their work, and via opportunities to make use of feedback.
17
• SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
Quantitative (Q) courses assist students to develop quantitative (numerical, geometric) or formal (deductive,
probabilistic) reasoning. Specifcally:
• Students deepen understanding and appreciation of quantitative and formal reasoning,
their utility, and their creative potential.
• Students develop skills in practical problem solving and critical evaluation.
• Students focus on the relation between concepts and structures and other systems of
abstract representation.
Breadth (B) courses expose students to concepts and ideas from a range of disciplines and perspectives.
Specifcally:
• Students are exposed to new theoretical perspectives, forms of thought, and modes of
enquiry.
• Students address how and why a discipline defines, acquires, and organizes knowledge in
particular ways.
• Students identify important questions and problems in the discipline.
• Students describe procedures used to generate valid answers to the questions or workable
solutions to the problems of the discipline.
• Students gain a broad understanding of the historical development and/or the
contemporary dynamics of the physical, natural, social, and/or cultural environments.
• Students are exposed to a survey of a substantial body of the knowledge, theories, and/
or controversies that are deemed to be central to a discipline.
In addition to the SFU Calendar, the “Undergraduate Curriculum Initiative”
website
7
is
available to students, faculty, and advisors as a resource. The history and development of the
Undergraduate Curriculum Initiative is given along with information pertaining to the WQB
requirements and the writing and quantitative admission requirements.
SFU would like to emphasize that although the WQB requirements are similar to and informed
by US General Education programs, they are not the same. WQB requirements are not a stand-
alone program but are a customized institutional response to SFU’s decentralized curricular
environment. The WQB requirements are one aspect of SFU’s undergraduate degree level
learning that form the basis for the development of common skills across programs. They provide
standardized breadth of knowledge for SFU students completing undergraduate degrees.
Currently, SFU’s Learning Outcomes committee is looking at ways of better connecting the
WQB requirements with SFU’s recently adopted Vision/Mission. It is likely the learning
outcomes arising from WQB requirements will be incorporated into undergraduate degree level
outcomes, and/or institutional “graduate attributes.
Appropriate assessment mechanisms will
”
then be developed for all of these outcomes.
Conclusion
Because SFU exists in an articulated Canadian post-secondary system that is based upon
components of the British and American education systems, it does not have an exact match
to American General Education program models. However, SFU’s WQB requirements require
students to diversify their scope of knowledge and expertise beyond their major concentration,
and to develop identifed core competencies in writing and numeracy. This approach may be
http://www.sfu.ca/ugcr.html
18
• SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
slightly diferent than that of American General Education program models, but essentially the
objectives are the same: to provide students with a diversifed education experience.
2.2.4 Recommendation 4: Deferred Maintenance
The committee recommends that the University develop more aggressive and comprehensive
short and long-term plans for addressing the institution’s deferred maintenance needs (Standards
2.F.5, 2.G.1).
Introduction
SFU’s challenge with deferred maintenance is similar to that of other public post-secondary
institutions of its size and age in British Columbia. In the absence of additional government
funding, deferred maintenance must be addressed by re-allocating resources. SFU, as suggested by
the NWCCU evaluators, must look at both long- and short-term goals to address the issue, and
the planning must be done with the realization that the government has numerous constraints
regarding the funds it can aford to allocate to SFU. As a result, the University will have to be
creative and efcient with these funds. SFU is managing this issue through its Capital Plan and
with the use of a facilities condition assessment tool called VFA
8
.
Progress to Date
SFU’s Capital Plan
In May 2012, SFU’s Board of Governors approved its 5 year Capital Plan for the academic years
2013/14 to 2017/18
9
. The Capital Plan is based on four strategic initiatives to carry out the
University’s Vision/Mission and to support the new Vision/Mission as an Engaged University.
The four initiatives are:
1. Expansion—SFU Surrey
2. Renewal and Rehabilitation—SFU Burnaby
3. Community Enhancement
4. Sustainability and Climate Action
SFU has made a commitment to addressing its deferred maintenance issue with strategic initiative
#2, Renewal and Rehabilitation—SFU Burnaby. Specifcally, the Capital Plan states:
“The SFU Burnaby campus continues to sufer from an on-going deferred maintenance problem. The
rehabilitation and renewal of signifcantly compromised and aging facilities and infrastructure at the Burnaby
campus is required to extend the useful life of facilities and to improve the sustainability and functionality of
these facilities. The condition of major infrastructure systems, such as the main campus road and the central
heating plant, impact access to reliable and safe facilities. Aged and deteriorated instructional spaces such
as classrooms, lecture theatres, and the Biology building, compromise learning and research activities. The
community and extracurricular experience of students and the community are also compromised by the poor
condition of the existing recreation and athletics facilities and student residences. Addressing these critical
deferred maintenance and capital renewal requirements directly supports SFU’s vision.”
8
VFA is one of the leading providers of integrated software and services for facilities asset management, facilities capital planning, and capital spend
management. Organizations in a wide range of industries rely on VFA solutions to help them strategically manage their facility assets and maximiz
value of their capital investments. http://www.vfa.com
http://www.sfu.ca/fs/Campus-Planning/5-Year-Capital-Plan.html
19
• SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
To address the deteriorating state of the University residences, consideration is being given to a
private partnership to improve the maintenance and upkeep of the buildings. Also, the Simon
Fraser Student Society has proposed a 100 000 square foot student union building. Besides adding
much-needed lounge space, individual study areas, meeting rooms, and recreational facilities at
the Burnaby campus, the proposal would construct a 2500 seat outdoor stadium. The outcome of
these two proposals could clearly go a long way to helping improve the quality of student life at
SFU.
To decide upon the most benefcial and efcient way to use these resources, SFU purchased a
Capital Asset Management System called VFA.
Benefts of using VFA:
• Consolidate all existing building condition information
• Provide a comprehensive database of building condition information
• Create a formal, organized, and ongoing approach to assessing building conditions and
updating information
• Provide all stakeholders with reports that accurately demonstrate building conditions,
areas of risk, and funding requirements
• Assist in the development of a renewal strategy
• Assist in managing and correcting SFU’s deferred maintenance situation
Deferred Maintenance Pilot Project - VFA
VFA was purchased in 2008 to help SFU assess its deferred maintenance situation. VFA provides
an efcient assessment tool, which assists SFU in prioritizing and determining where best to
spend the limited resources supplied by the provincial government for deferred maintenance.
Using VFA, an initial facility condition assessment of all buildings was done. This involved an
inventory of building system components, their condition, and their potential replacement costs.
VFA provided an industry standard parametric tool which considered all of these issues and
produced a list of requirements categorized based on priority, which helped SFU to develop a
deferred maintenance and capital renewal strategy based on the University’s priorities. While VFA
is a great support tool, it does not take into account maintenance outside of buildings such as
roads, sidewalks, etc. SFU is in the process of documenting and assessing the conditions of these
infrastructure items so that a full and complete database of capital assets is available. VFA also has
its limitations in that it does not factor in the risk of a given requirement remaining unresolved,
but it has been excellent in helping SFU ascertain the most in need maintenance issues on the
campus. The four initiatives laid out in the Capital Plan were determined in part by utilizing the
VFA.
Working with Government
SFU has also been working very proactively and collaboratively with the provincial government
on the deferred maintenance issue, which is an issue that extends to a large degree throughout
all post-secondary institutions in BC. The BC government has followed SFU’s lead and has
purchased VFA. It has also set up an advisory committee to deal with the deferred maintenance
issue (SFU’s Director of Facilities Development is a co-chair of this committee). The committee
has been able to get government’s attention as to the extent of the deferred maintenance need.
The provincial government has allocated an additional $260 million over the next three years to
20
• SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
deferred maintenance and capital renewal throughout the province’s post-secondary institutions
(the amount allotted to each institution has not yet been determined). From July 9 through to
mid-October, 2012, Simon Fraser University will be participating in a province-wide Facility
Condition Assessment covering 37 core-academic facilities across all three of the SFU campuses.
The assessment will be conducted by a team of engineers employed by VFA. This team will
be conducting “walk-throughs”
to visually inspect and document each facility’s mechanical,
electrical, and structural condition.
Additional Internal Funding
SFU has also added $2 million in base funding to help alleviate the deferred maintenance
situation as well as committing funds from additional internal sources such as unplanned revenue.
This is not part of the regular budget and this funding may or may not be available each year,
but it does show that when SFU experiences budget windfalls, that it is aware of its deferred
maintenance situation and is committed to addressing it. For the current fscal year 2012/13,
SFU has committed revenue from additional internal sources to fund these deferred maintenance
projects:
Maintenance Projects 2012-13 (table 2)
Student
Maintenance
Building
Water
Washroom
General
Classroom
Tower
Maintenance
Lounge
Envelope
Upgrades
Rehabilitation
Upgrades
Project
Repairs
Projects
$2.0
$1.0
Cost
$2.6
$0.6
$2.7
$0.7
million
Total
$9.6 million
Conclusion
There is no doubt that the deferred maintenance situation at SFU represents a signifcant
challenge for the University. Provincial funding has not kept up with the maintenance demands
of the University. To alleviate this, SFU has been allotting a portion of its Capital Plan to
maintenance and renewal. SFU has also been proactively conversing and engaging with
government in an efort to raise awareness regarding the deferred maintenance plight at not
only SFU, but all post-secondary institutions in the province. The provincial government has
become more sensitive to this issue and has allocated additional money, specifcally for deferred
maintenance, to post-secondary institutions throughout the province for the next three years.
And fnally, the University has added $2 million in base funding to help with the deferred
maintenance situation. Through both external and internal sources, SFU is fnding creative ways
to alleviate the deferred maintenance issue.
21
• SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
3. Chapter One
Mission, Core Themes, and Expectations
22
• SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
3.1 Executive Summary of Eligibility
Requirements 2 and 3
Eligibility Requirement 2 – Authority
The institution is authorized to operate and award degrees as a higher education institution by the
appropriate governmental organization, agency, or governing board as required by the jurisdiction in
which it operates.
In 1963, British Columbia’s
University Act
created SFU and prescribed its governance system, which
is composed of a chancellor, a convocation, a board, a senate, and faculties. The Board of Governors
and the Senate are the principal governing bodies, with the
University Act
defning the scope and limits
of each one’s authority, membership, and responsibilities. Amendments to the
University Act
have not
signifcantly altered either the structure or roles of these bodies. The
University Act
also grants SFU the
authority to award its various degrees.
Eligibility Requirement 3 – Mission and Core Themes
The institution’s mission and core themes are clearly defned and adopted by its governing board(s)
consistent with its legal authorization, and are appropriate to a degree-granting institution of higher
education. The institution’s purpose is to serve the educational interests of its students and its principal
programs lead to recognized degrees. The institution devotes all, or substantially all, of its resources to
support its educational mission and core themes.
On February 10, 2011, SFU started one of the most extensive community consultation processes ever
undertaken by a Canadian university. The goal was to develop a strategic vision/mission that builds upon
the University’s three defning strengths:
1. SFU’s commitment to students
2. SFU’s dedication to research
3. SFU’s engagement with community
On November 7, 2011, the SFU Senate concurred that SFU’s Vision/Mission and Goals had been
developed from a comprehensive and inclusive process, and fairly refects both the aspirations and the
Mission of Simon Fraser University. On November 24th, the University Board of Governors gave fnal
approval to the Vision/Mission (details of which can be found in Standard 1.A). Approval was also given
to adopt a new associated tag-line, “Engaging the World.”
SFU is currently incorporating this Vision/Mission into its University Planning Framework, Academic
Plan, Strategic Research Plan, as well as all corresponding plans throughout the University community.
This Vision/Mission is now the driving force behind SFU’s movement into the future as an “Engaged
University.”
23
• SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
3.2 Standard
1.A—Mission
1.A – Mission
1.A.1
The institution has a widely published mission statement—approved by its governing board—that
articulates a purpose appropriate for an institution of higher learning, gives direction for its eforts, and
derives from, and is generally understood by, its community.
1.A.2
The institution defnes mission fulfllment in the context of its purpose, characteristics, and
expectations. Guided by that defnition, it articulates institutional accomplishments or outcomes that
represent an acceptable threshold or extent of mission fulfllment.
SFU’s Vision/Mission Statement
The interpretation and fulfllment of SFU’s mission are being spearheaded by a newly adopted Vision/
Mission
10
, which focuses on the University’s strengths and aspirations as an “Engaged University.”
Looking to further enhance an ongoing historical reputation of community inclusiveness, SFU has
adopted a three themed vision/mission to become the leading engaged university defned by its dynamic
integration of innovative education, cutting-edge research, and far-reaching community engagement.
The core themes of the Vision/Mission are: engaging students, engaging research, and engaging
communities. The Vision/Mission not only sets standards for the University, but it also fosters a constant
strive forward, putting extra emphasis on goal achievement.
SFU’s Vision/Mission
SFU’s Vision/Mission: An Engaged University
SFU strives to be the leading engaged university defned by its dynamic integration of innovative
education, cutting-edge research, and far-reaching community engagement.
Strategic Goals
Engaging Students
Goal: To equip SFU students with the knowledge, skills, and experiences that prepare them for
life in an ever-changing and challenging world.
Engaging Research
Goal: To be a world leader in knowledge mobilization building on a strong foundation of
fundamental research.
Engaging Communities
Goal: To be Canada’s most community-engaged research university.
These three strategic goals make up the foundation of the core themes of SFU’s Vision/
Mission. The themes themselves have a unique synergy as displayed in fgure 3. Each theme
has both a strong sense of independence and interdependence to the other two. As a result, the
http://www.sfu.ca/content/dam/sfu/engage/StrategicVision.pdf
24
• SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
corresponding success of each of the themes’ goals depends not just on their individual attainment
but on their integration – on the degree to which each contributes to the others.
The Integration of SFU’s Core Themes (fg.3)
Along with this new vision, SFU has established a new complementary tag-line: “Engaging the
World,” which replaces the previous “Thinking of the W
tag-line. The philosophy behind
orld”
this switch can simply be seen in the power of the adjectives themselves. Both “thinking”
and
“engaging” are very positive and powerful adjectives, but to “engage”
suggests more action than
to “think. Essentially
”
, “Engaging the W
is an evolution of “Thinking of the W
orld”
as SFU
orld”
strives forward with a Vision/Mission that looks to take action in order to make it a world leading
university that both celebrates and encourages inclusivity of all communities.
Interpretation of Vision/Mission Fulfllment
To understand how SFU interprets the fulfllment of its Vision/Mission, it is important to
consider the process to which the current Vision/Mission came to be. It started with a process
which involved listening to thousands of students, faculty and staf, along with thousands more
alumni, community partners and supporters, in what turned out to be one of the most extensive
consultations undertaken by a major Canadian university. The result of this process was the
current Vision/Mission, which was ofcially launched in February 2012.
To strive to make the Vision/Mission fulfllment a reality, SFU conceptualized and designed a
Planning Process model that began with the Vision/Mission. Using the values and philosophies
of the Vision/Mission and its core themes, SFU established goals, which led to the construction
of strategies to achieve these goals, which further led to the need to identify indicators to ensure
that progress was being made and that the goals were being met. From this process, the University
Planning Framework was developed, which is now the framework upon which all other
University plans are modeled. The University Planning Framework impacts all other planning
at SFU and this can be seen in the Integrated Planning Framework diagram (fgure 4), which
provides an overview of how the diferent University plans are connected.
Integrated Planning Framework
The Integrated Planning Framework (shown below) is at the foundation of the University
Planning Framework. It illustrates how SFU’s University Planning Process model works. Various
operational plans are integrated and aligned with SFU’s long-term strategic vision and planning
25
• SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
framework. SFU’s Vision/Mission is at the core of the framework. Its principles and philosophy
are the overreaching consistency within the framework as they permeate their way throughout
all aspects of the University’s governance and culture. Essentially, the University is shaped by
its Vision/Mission. The process starts with the Vision/Mission and the strategic goals. The
Academic Plan and the Strategic Research Plan form the connection between the Vision/
Mission and the Faculty and Department plans. Surrounding these plans are the supporting plans.
The entire depiction is constrained by the two outer circles—the Budget and Financial model,
and the Governance model.
The Integrated Planning Framework (fg. 4)
SFU’s Long-Term and Continual Planning Process
The Integrated Planning Framework, shown above, is the result of a consultative administration
process that is derived from the Vision/Mission itself. This framework exists to continually
support and foster the Vision/Mission. The timeline for the Integrated Planning Framework
follows below:
1. Long-term strategic vision/mission; every 5 to 10 years, paints the future of SFU
University Planning Framework; every year, the framework is reviewed and updated
based on SFU’s priorities and previous year’s performance assessment.
26
• SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
2. Supporting plans:
i. Academic Plan; updated every 5 years.
ii. Strategic Research Plan; updated every 5 years.
iii. Other plans; reviewed and updated as required every year to guide the annual
budgeting and resourcing exercise.
3. Accreditation and assessment; the accreditation process required the development of a
long-term vision/mission for SFU. Fulfllment of the Vision/Mission will be assessed
against the goals identifed as a result of the planning process applied to the University
Planning Framework.
4. Execution and monitoring; the President and Vice-Presidents as a group are accountable
for the execution of the planning process. A monthly review of the strategic initiatives
will be implemented to ensure that plans are being executed according to the agreed
upon schedule.
SFU is also aware that vision/mission fulfllment has an organic quality to it in that a well-
conceived vision/mission should grow and develop with the community that it serves; hence,
SFU’s self realization that it has evolved beyond its old philosophy and tag-line “Thinking of
the World, by taking the next step with the new tag-line “Engaging the W
”
SFU has orld.”
moved beyond thinking and is now engaging. And communication is an integral part of any
form of growth and development. For SFU’s Integrated Planning Framework to work, efective
communication within and between all facets of the Framework must take place. To be an
“Engaged University open, inclusive, and transparent communication has to take place.
”
Acceptable Threshold, Extent, or Degree of Mission Fulfllment
SFU regards vision/mission fulfllment as having been achieved once all indicators for the
outcomes for the set goals point toward a positive trend.
Steady progression forward via its prescribed indicators will show that SFU is achieving its
Vision/Mission. To monitor this progression, SFU identifed a strategic goal for each core theme
of the Vision/Mission. To achieve and maintain these goals, SFU has developed various respective
strategies that will help the University to attain the favoured outcomes. For each outcome,
indicators have been established and are weighted against statistics from previous years. If the
numbers improve each year, then SFU is meeting its goals and ultimately fulflling its Vision/
Mission.
Since this best-practice method has been only recently adopted by SFU, it will be looking frst
for positive trends in the statistics. Once this model has been established, SFU will then look at
establishing set targets in order to further assess the fulfllment of its Vision/Mission.
27
• SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
3.3 Standard 1.B – Core Themes
Standard 1.B—Core Themes
1.B.1
The institution identifes core themes that individually manifest essential elements of its
mission and collectively encompass its mission.
1.B.2
The institution establishes objectives for each of its core themes and identifes
meaningful, assessable, and verifable indicators of achievement that form the basis for evaluating
accomplishments of the objectives of its core themes.
SFU’s Vision/Mission to be an “Engaged University”
is fuelled by its continual support and
encouragement of academic and intellectual freedom; academic, cultural, and individual diversity;
and internationalization. SFU values knowledge and perspectives from all communities, and
in keeping with its original philosophy from its inaugural year in 1965, puts extra emphasis
and value on innovative ideas and ways of thinking. This marriage of inclusiveness and open
mindedness is the essence of SFU’s Vision/Mission, and the three core themes are:
• Core Theme 1: Engaging Students
• Core Theme 2: Engaging Research
• Core Theme 3: Engaging Communities
SFU’s engagement of students, research, and communities are themes that are interlinked. This
structural unifcation of the themes within the Vision/Mission contributes to a vigorous sense
of purpose within the University, encouraging individual and collective action, and providing
a touchstone for future development. In the words of SFU president Andrew Petter, the
new Vision/Mission is “an affirmation of what is already great about SFU and an ambitious
commitment to further strengthen our University.”
The success of the following goals of each of the corresponding core themes depends not only
on their individual attainment but on their integration—on the degree to which each contributes
to the others. Students will aid and inspire research and contribute to community. Research
will enhance the learning experience while enriching the community, socially, economically,
scientifcally, and artistically. And the SFU community of communities—local and global—will
serve as a dynamic and limitless classroom, ofering context and applicability for students, as well
as partnerships, challenges, and opportunities for research.
3.3.1 Core Theme 1: Engaging Students
Goal
To equip SFU students with the knowledge, skills, and experiences that prepare them for life in
an ever-changing and challenging world.
Strategies
SFU will foster supportive learning and campus environments.
Combining the best traditions of academic and teaching excellence, SFU will provide students
with diverse and transformative learning opportunities that enable them to gain the knowledge,
28
• SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
critical capacities, research skills, and civic understanding required to become engaged global
citizens and to thrive and adapt in demanding and dynamic environments.
Students will have opportunities to participate in advanced research, thereby sharing in the labour
and joy of creating and applying knowledge, while acquiring the skills for lifelong learning.
Students will have access to an unparalleled selection of experiential learning opportunities that
allow them to apply knowledge, to grow as individuals, to engage with diverse communities, to
develop entrepreneurial skills, and to refne their sense of civic literacy.
Core Theme 1: Engaging Students (table 3)
Outcomes
degree
knowledge
Students
requirements.
gain
to complete
the
Indicators
Rationale
Composite
programs,
graduation
and 6 year
4
for
graduation
rate
year
Doctoral
for
undergraduate
Masters
rate
programs).
(%)
programs
(6 year
for
This
indicator.
of
based
graduation
degrees
the
indicator
on
respective
the
The
we
rates
average
selected
offer
enables
of
types
the
as
completion
one
us
timeframes
various
of
to
degrees.
composite
measure
types
times
are
Students
necessary
changing
acquire
world.
in an ever-
skills
Average
learning
undergraduate
credits
completed
student.
in experiential
graduating
acquired.
Experiential
well
as
students
The
necessary
proxy
average
as practice
to
for
to
apply
number
learning
measure
an
and
ever-changing
their
enhance
of
courses
the
knowledge
credits
extent
the
enable
is
world.
of
skills
used
as
skills
Students
further
in the workplace
studies.
apply knowledge
or
Percentage
employed or
of
engaged
graduated
in further
students
studies.
graduation.
SFU
employment
knowledge
alumni
gained
most
or further
likely
at SFU
apply
studies
in their
after
3.3.2 Core Theme 2: Engaging Research
Goal
To be a world leader in knowledge mobilization building on a strong foundation of fundamental
research.
Strategies
SFU will leverage its fundamental research strengths, including interdisciplinary research, close
community connections, and partnerships and collaborations to become a global leader in
research mobilization.
SFU will support and promote the full continuum of research, from the fundamental generation
of knowledge, through the dissemination of that knowledge within the academic community and
beyond, to the application of transformative ideas for the beneft of society.
SFU will promote research excellence, supporting and encouraging all researchers, including
undergraduates, graduate students, faculty, staf members, and community partners who assist the
research mission.
SFU will seek opportunities to transfer the results of its research to the broader society, including
policy-makers, civil society leaders, and the community.
29
• SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
Core Theme 2: Engaging Research (table 4)
Outcomes
Research
quality and
is
level.
at a high
Indicators
Rationale
Total
research
dollar
funding.
amount of
university
infosource,
Total
etc.).
surrogate
and is
It
research
commonly
is an
for
research.
Times
input
research
funding
used
Higher
measure
It is
in
reputation
is
collected
a
university
Education
generally
that serves
and
annually
rankings
Index,
accepted
capacity.
as a
Maclean’s,
by
good
(Research
KPI
CAUBO
for
Number
year
papers
period.
published
of citations
in 5
for
several
Citation
was
reflects
incorporates
work
research
measure.
chosen.
from
years
the
analysis
productivity,
The
other
impact
The
both
for
actual
selected
serves
the
researchers,
changes
of
number
research
the
while
as
publications.
performance
in
the
of
output
a
to
citations
5
frequency
be
year
incorporated
and
time
As
indicator
reflects
impact.
outcome
it
of
window
takes
citations
into
Research
external
collaborations
through partnerships/
partners.
is mobilized
with
partners.
Number
projects
collaborative
with
of funded
research
external
Council
Almost
is
organizations
requires
branches)
funded
all
set
some
by
research
or
up
contracts
through
(business,
to
funding.
support
carried
special
Collaborative
foundations,
grants
partnership
out
programs
in
from
the
research
partner
University
government
grants.
by the Tri-
Research
learning and
is integrated
teaching.
into
courses
Number
undergraduate
completed
per year.
per
of
in
credits
graduating
research
student
Active
and
research
teaching.
participation
projects is the
of undergraduate
best way to integrate
students
research
in
3.3.3 Core Theme 3: Engaging Communities
Goal
To be Canada’s most community-engaged research university.
Strategies
SFU will maintain and expand its community connections as an integral part of its academic
mission, creating opportunities for practical and experiential learning, informing and inspiring
research, and contributing to its relevance and success.
SFU will develop partnerships and maximize the capacities of its three campuses to enhance
the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of communities both locally and
globally. The University will build respectful and mutually benefcial community relationships.
SFU will meet lifelong learning needs of students, alumni, and the community, and will respond
with innovative programs and learning opportunities for academic, personal, and professional
development.
SFU will be BC’s public square for enlightenment and dialogue on key public issues, and will be
known as the institution to which the community looks for education, discussion, and solutions.
30
• SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
Core Theme 3: Engaging Communities (table 5)
Outcomes
with
SFU is
its
engaged
alumni.
Indicators
Rationale
Alumni engagement score.
This multi-level approach is based on research on
engagement.
us
best
to
practices
evaluate the
at several
multi-faceted
other universities.
nature of alumni
It allows
SFU
locally.
is engaged
Number
local outreach
of participants
programs.
in SFU
opportunities
The
and
also
outreach
offers
development
Community
participate
of
such
opportunities
community
measure
provide
BC
communities
number
to
as
communities
a
learn
SFU’s
spectrum
meaningful
of
programs
in
SFU’s
and
lectures
from
of
Public
SFU’s
to
members
children
where
share
engage
community
in
of
the
and
support
outreach
engagement
topics
outreach
Square
and
community.
University
SFU
age
all
but
events
of
that
levels
can
groups.
the
not
will
their
offerings
engagement.
programs
are
community
add
only
provide
with
of
expertise
New
aspirations.
important
Our
value.
government
the
a
is
programs
range
youth
that
academic
further
one
SFU
that
but
to the
SFU
globally.
is engaged
Number
partners.
of active international
partners.
The
place.
cover
research
programs,
are
international
are
and
development,
indicator
faculty,
organizations
into
not
strategic
deepen
number
formal
SFU’s
and
renewed
range
projects.
of
field
agreements
staff
SFU’s
our
international
of
and
organizations
of
will
around
current
schools,
relationships
opportunities
including
if
resources
global
Agreements
ensure
meaningful
the
agreements
with
faculty
engagement.
world.
that
strategy,
student
are
is
universities
with
an
new
activity
for
are
in
exchanges,
These
important
place
SFU
time
exchange
currently
international
agreements
with
SFU
has
students,
agreements
to
limited
and
support
enters
not
and
under
other
taken
and
3.3.4 Leveraging Institutional Strength
For SFU to be successful in achieving its Vision/Mission, it must leverage the strength within its
human, fnancial, and capital infrastructures. It must become fnancially fexible by continuously
improving its administrative systems, strengthening its infrastructure, and engaging the best
people. SFU’s commitment to this principle is refected in the following supporting goals
and associated activities, which help to strengthen and support SFU’s Vision/Mission and the
fulfllment of the corresponding goals of the Vision/Mission.
Supporting Activities
1) Improved Administration Systems:
• Access to transparent and efficient administrative systems for students
• Long-term growth and viability of endowments
• Resource alignment for the University’s priorities
• Increased revenue generating activities and cost efective and efficient
administration units
31
• SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
2) Recruitment and Retention of Best People:
• Competitive compensation package for staf and faculty to attract and retain well-
respected researchers and teachers
• Career
enhancement
through
educational
opportunities,
professional
development,
and leadership training for staf and faculty
• Recognition and reward of performance excellence through an efective
performance management framework, merit based recognition, and public
acknowledgement for staf and faculty
• Promotion of diversity, inclusion, collaboration, and a respectful workplace for
staf and faculty
3) Strengthened Infrastructure:
• Information Technology strategic plan that supports the University’s priorities
• Management and reduction of the facilities deferred maintenance cost
• Teaching and research space that meets the needs of students and faculty
3.3.5 Underlying Principles of the Three Core Themes of the Vision/Mission
Academic and Intellectual Freedom
SFU will be an open and inclusive university whose foundation is intellectual and academic
freedom.
Diversity
SFU will foster a culture of inclusion and mutual respect, celebrating the diversity and multi-
ethnic character refected amongst its students, staf, faculty, and our society.
Internationalization
SFU will value international knowledge, understanding, and engagement, and will seek to
engender an active global citizenship among its students, faculty, and staf, to ensure that SFU is
an engaged partner and contributor on the international stage.
Respect for Aboriginal Peoples and Cultures
SFU will honour the history, culture, and presence of Aboriginal peoples. The University will
welcome and nurture Aboriginal students and seek opportunities for greater representation of
Aboriginal peoples amongst its faculty and staf.
Supportive and Healthy Work Environment
SFU will recognize, respect, and value the essential contribution made by staf and faculty, and
will seek to build and sustain a work environment that is equitable, supportive, rewarding, and
enjoyable.
Sustainability
SFU will pursue ecological, social, and economic sustainability through its programs and
operations. Through teaching and learning, research, and community engagement, SFU will
seek and share solutions. In its own operations, it will develop and model best practices, from
minimizing its ecological footprint, to maximizing its social health and economic strength.
32
• SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
4. Conclusion
This Year One Self Evaluation Report is Simon Fraser University’s formal response to the standards set
for institutional accreditation by the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (NWCCU)
and is submitted as a partial fulfllment of the requirements to progress toward full accreditation.
SFU would like to thank the NWCCU for their on-site visit in October 2011 and the subsequent
Evaluation Committee report that followed. The University appreciates the feedback and has gone
through considerable eforts in this Year One Report to address each of the four recommendations that
were presented in the Evaluation Committee Report.
Response to Recommendation 1 has required SFU to look deeper into its assessable and verifable
assessment indicators and how they relate to and serve SFU’s new Vision/Mission. Recommendation
2 was a contributing factor to the development of the Learning Outcomes and Assessment Working
Group, which now looks at ways of establishing assessable learning outcomes throughout all facets
of the University. This same committee is also looking at ways of integrating the University’s WQB
requirements with undergraduate degree level learning outcomes, which is in direct response to
Recommendation 3. And fnally, Recommendation 4, which has the University considering as many
diferent options as possible (including potential private partnerships) to help alleviate its deferred
maintenance issues.
SFU takes great pride in its newly adopted Vision/Mission, which is presented in Sections 1.A and 1.B
of this report. The essential elements of the Vision/Mission are articulated by the corresponding core
themes: engaging students, engaging research, and engaging communities. Concise, clear, assessable, and
meaningful indicators of achievement have been established for each theme and have been incorporated
into the University Planning Framework, which serves as the model for all other University planning
models. SFU’s ultimate goal is to be the leading engaged university and it feels that adoption of its new
Vision/Mission is a defnitive step toward achieving this goal.
With completion of the Year One Self Evaluation Report and the university-wide adoption of its new
Vision/Mission, SFU is positioned to address the requirements of subsequent reports. The Year Three
Report requires an assessment of the resources, capacity, and processes of a variety of institutional
systems from the perspective of the Vision/Mission and each core theme. The Year Seven report
will require an analysis of the University’s Resources and Capacity as well as discussions regarding
Institutional and Core Theme planning, and Mission Fulfllment. With this Year One report, SFU has
reported on what will ultimately serve as the foundation for the remaining reports.
33
• SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
5. Appendix
University Planning Framework
2012
University Planning Framework
Prepared By:
University Planning Committee
Jon Driver, VP Academic, Executive Sponsor
Bill Krane, AVP Academic, Co-Chair
Martin Pochurko, AVP Finance, Co-Chair
Norbert Haunerland, AVP Research
Tim Rahilly, AVP Students
Erica Branda, Director, Marketing & Communications
Joanne Curry, Special Advisor to the VP External Relations
Date Prepared:
May 8, 2012
Contact:
Scott Penney, Director, Planning & Analysis
scott_penney@sfu.ca | 778-782-7513
May 8, 2012
Page 1
Contents
Contents ........................................................................................................................................................................1
Introduction...................................................................................................................................................................2
envision>SFU .................................................................................................................................................................3
Planning Process............................................................................................................................................................4
Integrated Planning Framework....................................................................................................................................5
Indicator Principles ........................................................................................................................................................6
Core Themes, Goals, Supporting Activities, Outcomes and Indicators .........................................................................7
Appendix 1 – Indicators and Data................................................................................................................................11
Appendix 2 – Committee Members.............................................................................................................................20
May 8, 2012
Page 2
Introduction
The University Planning Framework shows how SFU’s vision and mission is to be achieved and supported through
the contributions of other institutional plans and planning processes, and their alignment with the vision. The
membership of the authoring University Planning Committee is provided in the Appendix.
SFU’s Vision/Mission has three Core Themes: Engaging Students, Engaging Research and Engaging Communities.
Each of these Core Themes has a Goal associated with it and each of the Goals has a number of identified
Supporting Activities which are intended to lead to the attainment of that Goal. These Goals and Supporting
Activities will help direct all institutional-level planning activities at SFU. In addition, for SFU to be successful in
achieving its Goals, it must leverage the strength found in its infrastructure: human, financial, and capital. The
importance of this supporting goal and associated activities, which underpin SFU’s three Goals, is described
subsequently.
To assess the efficacy of our efforts to achieve the Goals, a number of observable and/or measurable results,
termed Outcomes, have been identified. These Outcomes are expected to be attained by the end of the planning
horizon. Also, for each Outcome, one or more qualitative and/or quantitative Indicators of achievement have been
identified. These are meant to assess performance at the institutional level, not the unit level. The Indicators are
general in nature and, as such, cannot be used to capture the performance of individual units. They are primarily
used to demonstrate the direction of trends at the institutional level and not the performance of specific units
within SFU. However, Vice-Presidents’ portfolios and the units comprising them, including the Faculties, are
expected to develop relevant metrics to assess their performance and set specific achievement levels with respect
to their own plans.
The Indicators in this planning framework may be used as a foundation for decision making, but only at the
institutional level. It is acknowledged that any resource allocation decisions within SFU’s hierarchy will require data
collection and careful analysis at the appropriate level, with sensitivity to the varying characteristics of the
disciplines and administrative areas of the University.
May 8, 2012
Page 3
en
vision>SFU
The following table displays SFU’s vision/mission, themes, goals, and principles resulting from the en
vision>SFU
process.
To be the leading engaged university, defined by its dynamic integration of innovative
education, cutting edge research, and far-reaching community engagement.
ENGAGING STUDENTS
ENGAGING RESEARCH
ENGAGING COMMUNITIES
Equipping students with
the knowledge, skills, and
experiences that prepare
them for life in an ever-
changing and challenging
world.
Being a world leader in
knowledge mobilization,
building on a strong
foundation of
fundamental research.
Being Canada’s most
community-engaged
research university.
?
Intellectual and Academic Freedom
?
Supportive Work Environment
?
Diversity
?
Respect for Aboriginal Peoples and Cultures
?
Internationalization
?
Sustainability
VISION/
MISSION
THEMES
GOALS
PRINCI-
PLES
May 8, 2012
Page 4
Planning Process
The Figure 1 describes SFU’s strategic planning process, beginning with en
vision>SFU
, leading to the Planning
Framework, followed by the supporting plans.
Figure 1 – High Level Planning Process
1.
Long-term strategic vision reviewed every 5 to 10 years; paints the future of SFU.
2.
University Planning Framework reviewed every year; the Framework is updated based on SFU’s priorities
and previous year’s performance assessment.
3.
Supporting plans:
a.
Academic Plan updated every 3 years;
b.
Strategic Research Plan updated every 5 years;
c.
Other plans reviewed and updated every year or as required to guide the annual budgeting and
resourcing exercise.
4.
Accreditation and assessment: the accreditation process required the development of a long-term vision
and mission for SFU. Mission fulfillment will be assessed against the goals identified in this document.
5.
Execution and monitoring: the President and Vice-Presidents as a group are accountable for the execution
of the planning process. A monthly review of the strategic initiatives will be implemented to ensure that
plans are being executed according to an agreed-upon schedule.
en
vision>SFU
(Strategic
Vision)
University
Planning
Framework
Communication
Functional
Plans
(Operational)
Accreditation &
Assessment
Execution &
Monitoring
Strategic
Research Plan
(5 Years)
Academic Plan
(3 Years)
May 8, 2012
Page 5
Integrated Planning Framework
The Figure 2 illustrates how various operational plans are integrated and aligned with SFU’s long-term strategic
vision and planning framework. The plans that are italicized are currently under development. All plans are
updated annually in accordance with institutional priorities for the upcoming year.
Figure 2 – Integrated Planning Framework
May 8, 2012
Page 6
Indicator Principles
Indicators will be used to assess the state of a Core Theme and whether a particular Goal has been achieved. They
should satisfy the following five principles:
Principle
Description
1
Relevant
An indicator should be relevant to SFU’s goals as described in the University Planning
Framework.
2
Practical
An indicator should be simple to measure and not require a heavy investment of time
and money in data collection.
3
Intuitive
An indicator should be easy to understand conceptually and widely understood by the
SFU community.
4
Meaningful
An indicator should support decision-making about improving performance. It should
lead to actions to improve performance if a target is not met.
5
Focused
The number of indicators should be limited to 2 to 3 for each of three goals in the
University Planning Framework.
May 8, 2012
Page 7
Core Themes, Goals, Supporting Activities, Outcomes and Indicators
This section identifies the supporting activities, outcomes, and indicators derived for each Core Theme and Goal.
Core Theme
Goal
Engaging Students
Equipping students with the knowledge, skills, and experiences that prepare
them for life in an ever-changing and challenging world.
Supporting Activities
?Supportive
learning environment and diverse learning opportunities that enable students to gain the
knowledge, critical capacities, research skills and civic understanding required to become engaged global
citizens and to thrive and adapt in demanding and dynamic environments.
?Opportunities
for students to participate in advanced research, thereby sharing in the labour and joy of creating
and applying knowledge, while acquiring the skills for life-long learning.
?Access
for students to an unparalleled selection of experiential learning opportunities that allow them to apply
knowledge, to grow as individuals, to engage with diverse communities, to deliver entrepreneurial skills and to
refine their sense of civic literacy.
Outcome
Indicator
Students gain the knowledge to
complete degree requirements.
?Composite
graduation rate (%) (6 year graduation rate for undergraduate
programs, 4 year for Masters programs and 6 year for Doctoral programs)
Students acquire skills necessary
in an ever-changing world.
?Participation
rate of graduating students in experiential learning (%)
(i.e. #
students (unique) registered in Semester in Dialogue type courses, coop,
research, field schools, international and experiential learning courses/total
# students)
Students apply knowledge in the
workplace or further studies.
?%
students employed or engaged in further studies
(BGS survey - students
employed or accepted to graduate schools after graduation)
May 8, 2012
Page 8
Core Theme
Goal
Engaging Research
Being a world leader in knowledge mobilization, building on a strong
foundation of fundamental research.
Supporting Activities
?A
global leader in research mobilization by leveraging our fundamental research strengths, including
interdisciplinary research, close community connections, and partnerships and collaborations.
?Promotion
of research excellence, supporting and encouraging all researchers, including undergraduates,
graduate students, faculty, staff members and community partners who assist the research mission.
?Support
and promotion of the full continuum of research, from the fundamental generation of knowledge,
through the dissemination of that knowledge within the academic community and beyond, to the application of
transformative ideas for the benefit of society.
Outcome
Indicator
Research is at a high quality
level.
?Total
research funding ($)
?#
citations for papers published in 5 year period
Knowledge is mobilized through
partnerships/collaborations with
external partners.
?#
funded collaborative research projects with external partners
Research is integrated into
undergraduate learning and
teaching.
?#
credits completed in research courses per graduating undergraduate
student
May 8, 2012
Page 9
Core Theme
Goal
Engaging Communities
Being Canada’s most community-engaged research university.
Supporting Activities
?Community
connections as an integral part of the academic mission, creating opportunities for practical and
experiential learning; informing and inspiring our research; and contributing to its relevance and success.
?Maximizing
institutional capacities to enhance the societal, economic, environmental and cultural well-being of
communities, both locally and globally, and respectful and mutually beneficial community relationships.
?Satisfying
lifelong learning needs of students, alumni and the community with innovative programs and learning
opportunities.
?BC’s
public square for education and dialogue on key public issues and reputation as the institutions to which
the community looks for education, discussion and solutions.
Outcome
Indicator
SFU is engaged with its alumni.
?
alumni engagement score
SFU is engaged locally.
?
# participants in SFU local outreach programs
SFU is engaged globally.
?
# active international partners
May 8, 2012
Page 10
For SFU to be successful in achieving its Goals it must leverage the strength found in its infrastructure, human,
financial, and capital. SFU’s commitment to this principle is reflected in the following supporting goal and
associated activities which underpin SFU’s three strategic Goals.
Infrastructure
Goal
Leveraging Institutional
Strength
To become financially flexible by continuously improving our administrative
systems and strengthening our infrastructure and to attract and retain the
best people.
Supporting Activities
1) Improved administrative systems:
?Access
to transparent and efficient administrative systems for students.
?Long
term growth and viability of Endowments.
?Resource
alignment for our priorities.
?Increased
revenue generating activities and cost effective and efficient administration units.
2) Recruitment and retention of best people:
?Competitive
compensation package for staff and faculty to attract and retain well respected researchers and
teachers.
?Career
enhancement through educational opportunities, professional development, and leadership training
for staff and faculty.
?Recognition
and reward of performance excellence through an effective performance management
framework, merit based recognition, and public acknowledgement for staff and faculty.
?Promotion
of diversity, inclusion, collaboration and a respectful workplace for staff and faculty.
3) Strengthened Infrastructure:
?Information
Technology strategic plan that supports our priorities.
?Management
and reduction of the facilities deferred maintenance cost.
?Teaching
and research space that meets the needs of students and faculty.
Outcome
Indicator
SFU is financially sound.
?Net
unrestricted asset (Financial indicator)
SFU has IT services that support
its priorities.
?Ratio
of ITS operating and project resources to total operating resources
(IT indicator)
SFU attracts and retains the best
people.
?Canada’s
Top 100 Employers (Human Resources indicator)
SFU has facilities that meet our
needs.
?Facilities
Condition Index (Facilities indicator)
May 8, 2012
Page 11
Appendix 1
2012
University Planning Framework
Indicators and Data
Prepared By:
University Planning Committee
Jon Driver, VP Academic, Executive Sponsor
Bill Krane, AVP Academic, Co-Chair
Martin Pochurko, AVP Finance, Co-Chair
Norbert Haunerland, AVP Research
Tim Rahilly, AVP Students
Erica Branda, Director, Marketing & Communications
Joanne Curry, Special Advisor to the VP External Relations
Date Prepared:
May 8, 2012
Contact:
Jacy Lee, Director of Institutional Research and Planning
jacylee@sfu.ca | 778-782-3600
May 8, 2012
Page 12
Contents
Introduction.................................................................................................................................................................13
Goal, Outcome and Indicator Summary ......................................................................................................................14
Indicators and Data .....................................................................................................................................................15
Definitions and Rationale ............................................................................................................................................16
May 8, 2012
Page 13
Introduction
This document supplements the University Planning Framework and presents the indicators used to measure the
Outcomes that assess the efficacy of Simon Fraser’s efforts to achieve the Goals associated with the Core Themes
within SFU’s vision and mission. In addition, for SFU to be successful in achieving its Goals, it must leverage the
strength found in its infrastructure: human, financial, and capital. Indicators to measure these are also included.
The indicators assess performance at the institutional level, not the unit level. The indicators are general in nature
and, as such, cannot be used to capture the performance of individual units. They are primarily used to
demonstrate the direction of trends at the institutional level and not the performance of specific units within SFU.
The data for fiscal years 2008/09 to 2011/12 are presented. Please note that 2011/12 data for certain indicators
are not be available yet. Indicator definitions, their source, and rationale are also included.
May 8, 2012
Page 14
Goal, Outcome and Indicator Summary
The following table lists the indicators according to their themes, goals, and outcomes.
Goal
Outcome
Indicator
ENGAGING
STUDENTS
Equipping students with
the knowledge, skills, and
experiences that prepare
them for life in an ever-
changing and challenging
world.
Students gain the knowledge
to complete degree
requirements.
Composite graduation rate (%) (6
year graduation rate for
undergraduate programs, 4 year
for Masters programs and 6 year
for Doctoral programs)
Students acquire skills
necessary in an ever-changing
world.
Average credits in experiential
learning completed per graduating
undergraduate student
Students apply knowledge in
the workplace or further
studies.
% students employed or engaged in
further studies
ENGAGING
RESEARCH
Being a world leader in
knowledge mobilization,
building on a strong
foundation of
fundamental research.
Research is at a high quality
level.
Total research funding ($)
# citations for papers published in 5
year period
Research is mobilized through
partnerships/collaborations
with external partners.
# funded collaborative research
projects with external partners
Research is integrated into
learning and teaching.
# credits completed in research
courses per graduating
undergraduate student
ENGAGING
COMMUNITIES
Being Canada’s most
community-engaged
research university.
SFU is engaged with its alumni.
Alumni engagement score
SFU is engaged locally.
# participants in SFU local outreach
programs
SFU is engaged globally.
# active international partners
LEVERAGING
INSTITUTIONAL
STRENGTH
To become financially
flexible by continuously
improving our
administrative systems
and strengthening our
infrastructure and to
engage the best people.
SFU is financially sound.
Net unrestricted assets
SFU has IT services that
support our priorities.
Ratio of ITS operating and project
resources to total operating
resources
SFU attracts and retains the
best people.
Canada's Top 100 Employers
SFU has facilities that meet
our needs.
Facilities Condition Index
May 8, 2012
Page 15
Indicators and Data
Goal
Outcome
Indicator
(Maintain or Increase)
Target
Direction *
FY
2008/09
FY
2009/10
FY
2010/11
FY
2011/12
ENGAGING
STUDENTS
Equipping
students with the
knowledge, skills,
and experiences
that prepare them
for life in an ever-
changing and
challenging world.
Students gain the knowledge to
complete degree requirements.
Composite graduation rate (%) (6 year
graduation rate for undergraduate
programs, 4 year for Masters programs
and 6 year for Doctoral programs)
↑
64.0%
66.8%
63.4%
63.9%
Students acquire skills necessary
in an ever-changing world.
Average credits in experiential learning
completed per graduating undergraduate
student
↑
36.9
38.2
38.9
39.3
Students apply knowledge in the
workplace or further studies.
% students employed or engaged in
further studies
↑
92.3%
90.4%
87.9%
88.6%
ENGAGING
RESEARCH
Being a world
leader in
knowledge
mobilization,
building on a
strong foundation
of fundamental
research.
Research is at a high quality
level.
Total research funding ($)
↑
$83.8M
$87.4M
$89.9M
**
# citations for papers published in 5 year
period
↑
34,448
40,482
44,797
45,300
Research is mobilized through
partnerships/collaborations
with external partners.
# funded collaborative research projects
with external partners
↑
357
329
381
**
Research is integrated into
learning and teaching.
# credits completed in research courses
per graduating undergraduate student
↑
2.11
1.99
1.91
1.90
ENGAGING
COMMUNITIES
Being Canada’s
most community-
engaged research
university.
SFU is engaged with its alumni.
Alumni engagement score
↑
-
-
-
1.04
SFU is engaged locally.
# participants in SFU local outreach
programs
↑
7,888
8,764
8,729
8,704
SFU is engaged globally.
# active international partners
↑
158
170
177
183
LEVERAGING
INSTITUTIONAL
STRENGTH
To become
financially flexible
by continuously
improving our
administrative
systems and
strengthening our
infrastructure and
to engage the
best people.
SFU is financially sound.
Net unrestricted assets
↑
-$19.5M
$9.3M
$45.0M
$63.3M
SFU has IT services that support
our priorities.
Ratio of ITS operating and project
resources to total operating resources
↑
2.9%
3.1%
3.1%
3.4%
SFU attracts and retains the best
people.
Canada's Top 100 Employers
-
YES
YES
YES
YES
SFU has facilities that meet our
needs.
Facilities Condition Index
↓
0.417
0.434
0.452
0.469
* Target direction indicates the desired direction of the data, where applicable. For example, a "↑"
indicates
ng data
that
is desirable.
increasi
** Data is not available until September.
May 8, 2012
Page 16
Definitions and Rationale
Indicator
Definition and Source
Rationale for Indicator
ENGAGING STUDENTS
Composite
graduation rate
(%) (6 year
graduation rate
for
undergraduate
programs, 4 year
for Masters
programs and 6
year for Doctoral
programs)
The graduation rate is the percentage of SFU degree students who are graduating within the
expected timeframes set by the University Planning Framework committee (i.e. 6 years for
undergraduate students, 4 years for Masters students, and 6 years for Doctoral students).
The measure is based on undergraduate and graduate students who were in degree
programs in their first term at SFU. Exchange, study abroad, irregular, special entry, English
Bridge Program, visiting, visiting research, postdoctoral and Great Northern Way students
are excluded from the measure.
The graduation rate for each year is based on the entry cohort who started in a degree
program 6 years before, but each degree level cohort is only followed for their respective
expected timeframes. For example, the 2008/09 graduation rate is the percentage of
students from the 2002/03 fiscal year admission cohort (admitted in 1024, 1027, or 1031)
who completed their SFU degree within the expected timeframe. Each SFU degree student
is followed for the specified amount of time, depending on what type of student they are -
undergraduate, Masters, Doctoral - to determine whether they graduated. Graduation is
based on the completion term in the Student Information Management System, not
convocation date. Graduation is defined as completion of an undergraduate degree from
SFU for undergraduates, completion of a Master degree or Doctoral degree from SFU for
Master students, and completion of a Doctoral degree from SFU for Doctoral students.
Source: Institutional Research and Planning
This indicator enables us to measure graduation rates of
the various types of degrees we offer as one composite
indicator. The selected timeframes are based on the
average completion times for the respective types of
degrees.
Average credits in
experiential
learning
completed per
graduating
undergraduate
student
This measure is the average number of credits completed in experiential learning courses
prior to graduation completed by graduating undergraduate students by year. For
undergraduate students, completion in experiential learning is defined as a passing grade in
ANY of the following courses: semester in dialogue type courses, coop, research, field
schools, international and courses as defined by the Experiential Education Project.
Please note that prior to 2002, course section data in the Student Information Management
System was grouped together into one location. Therefore students whose experiential
learning consisted ONLY of courses taken at international locations prior to 2002 will not be
counted as having experiential learning.
Source: Institutional Research and Planning
Experiential learning courses enable students to apply
their knowledge as well as practice and enhance the
skills necessary for an ever-changing world. The average
number of credits is used as a proxy to measure the
extent of skills acquired.
% students
employed or
engaged in further
studies
Ratio of the number of students employed or who took further education in a Master
Degree, Doctoral Degree, or Professional Association Certification program within 2 years of
graduation from a Bachelor's degree to the number of graduates who responded to
questions about further education and employment.
Source: Baccalaureate Graduates Survey (BGS) - 2-year out results
SFU alumni most likely apply the knowledge gained at
SFU in their employment or further studies after
graduation.
May 8, 2012
Page 17
Indicator
Definition and Source
Rationale for Indicator
ENGAGING RESEARCH
Total research
funding ($)
Total dollars (in millions) of research funding per fiscal year. Research funding includes
consolidated and non-consolidated entities.
Source: VP Research Office
Total research funding is a generally accepted KPI for
university research. It is collected annually by CAUBO
and is commonly used in university rankings (Research
infosource, Times Higher Education Index, MacLeans
etc.). It is an input measure that serves as a good
surrogate for research reputation and capacity.
# citations for
papers published
in 5 year period
Represents the number of citations of SFU articles published in the 5 year period before the
reporting period. For example, for FY 2010/11, there were 44,797 citations made during
2005 - 2010 to SFU articles published during the 5-year period starting 2005 to 2009.
Source: InCites
Citation analysis serves as an output and outcome
measure. The actual number of citations reflects
research productivity, while the frequency of citations
reflects the impact of the publications. As it takes several
years for the research to be incorporated into work from
other researchers, a 5 year time window was chosen.
The selected performance indicator incorporates both,
changes in output and impact.
# funded
collaborative
research projects
with external
partners
Number of collaborative research projects: all grants and contracts from sources other than
NSERC, SSHRC, CIHR, CFI, and CRC (Granttrack), plus all NSERC partnership program grants
(NSERC search engine), SSHRC partnership grants (SSHRC search engine).
Source: VP Research Office
Almost all research carried out in the University requires
some funding. Collaborative research is funded by
contracts or grants from partner organizations (business,
foundations, government branches) or through special
programs by the Tricouncil set up to support partnership
grants.
# credits
completed in
research courses
per graduating
undergraduate
student
The average research credit hours taken by undergraduate graduates. Research courses are
defined as courses involving one on one mentoring or actual research projects that include
directed research, directed readings or directed studies courses OR include courses which
have the following words in the title: project, thesis, individual, honours, research, but
excluding research methodology courses.
Source: Institutional Research and Planning
Active participation of undergraduate student in
research projects is the best way to integrate research
and teaching.
May 8, 2012
Page 18
Indicator
Definition and Source
Rationale for Indicator
ENGAGING COMMUNITIES
Alumni
engagement score
Every contactable alumnus is assigned a score based on their level of alumni engagement as
follows: Informed (1), Involved (2) and Invested (3). Informed alumni are defined as those
who have provided SFU an active contact (email, address or telephone number). Involved
alumni are those who are involved with SFU in some way, e.g., attend SFU events, volunteer,
participate online or in the Alumni Directory or on the Board or Senate, etc. Invested alumni
are those who make an annual donation or pledge or gift during the fiscal year. Contactable
alumni exclude deceased and those who indicated they do not want any contact. The
alumni engagement score is the sum of all points divided by the total number of contactable
alumni (tentative). The first set of data available will be for 2011/12 and will be as of March
23, 2012. On a go forward basis, the data will be as of January 31 of each fiscal year.
Source: University Advancement
This multi-level approach is based on research on best
practices at several other universities. It allows us to
evaluate the multi-faceted nature of alumni
engagement.
# participants in
SFU local outreach
programs
Number of participants in SFU local outreach programs including SFU summer camps,
Friends of Simon, and Philosopher’s Café.
Source: External Relations
The number of members of the community that
participate in SFU's outreach offerings is one measure of
SFU's community engagement. SFU offers a spectrum of
outreach programs that provide meaningful engagement
with a range of BC communities and age groups. Our
youth outreach programs support not only the academic
development of children but their aspirations.
Community lectures and events provide opportunities
to share University expertise but also to learn from the
community. New programs such as SFU's Public Square
will provide further opportunities to engage all levels of
government and communities in topics that are
important to the community and where SFU can add
value.
# active
international
partners
Number of active international partners such as exchange, inbound study abroad,
Memorandum of Understanding, Letter of Intent, Dual Degree/Certificate, Field School, and
similar.
Source: External Relations
The number of current agreements with international
organizations is an important indicator of SFU's global
engagement. SFU enters into formal agreements with
universities and other organizations around the world.
These agreements cover a range of opportunities for SFU
students, faculty and staff including student exchange
programs, field schools, faculty exchanges and research
projects. Agreements are time limited and are not
renewed if meaningful activity has not taken place.
SFU's international strategy, currently under
development, will ensure that new agreements are
strategic and resources are in place to support and
deepen our relationships with international partners.
May 8, 2012
Page 19
Indicator
Definition and Source
Rationale for Indicator
LEVERAGING INSTITUTIONAL STRENGTH
Net unrestricted
assets
(Financial
indicator)
The value of net unrestricted assets per fiscal year. Net unrestricted assets are internally
restricted net operating assets.
Source: Financial Services
Net unrestricted assets are a measure of flexibility and
liquidity that indicates the degree to which the
University is effectively managing its revenue sources, its
operating expenses, and its investment portfolio. It is
important to build and maintain a healthy surplus as it
provides the University reserves that can be utilized to
absorb short-term, unanticipated cost
fluctuations not included in the operating budget.
Ratio of ITS
operating and
project resources
to total operating
resources
(IT indicator)
ITS operating and project resources as a percent of total operating resources.
Source: Financial Services and Information Technology Services
Indicator is under review.
Canada's Top 100
Employers
(HR indicator)
Recognition as one of the top 100 employers nationally and top 55 employers in BC as
evaluated by the editors of Canada's Top 100 Employers.
Source: Canada's Top 100 Employers
To attract and retain top quality employees, it is
important for the University to be viewed as a highly
desirable place to work. The Top 100 list is generated
through a rigorous examination of employers and is an
influential ranking that is utilized by prospective
employees when making career choices. Being included
on this list indicates the University has maintained high
employment standards and is creating a very favourable
environment in which to work.
Facilities Condition
Index
(Facilities
indicator)
Facilities Condition Index (FCI) is an accepted industry metric for determining the relative
condition of constructed assets at a specific point in time. FCI is the ratio of the cost of
deferred maintenance and capital renewal to current replacement value.
Source: Facilities
The FCI metric indicates the condition of the University's
buildings and related infrastructure and provides a
formal basis for analyzing and prioritizing the
maintenance needs of the campus. In order for
the University to provide a safe, suitable environment
for students, faculty and staff, it has to maintain its
assets to an acceptable level. The FCI is an important
planning mechanism to ensure this occurs.
May 8, 2012
Page 20
Appendix 2 – Committee Members
Academic & Students
Jon Driver, VP Academic
Executive Sponsor
Bill Krane, AVP Academic
Co-Chair
Tim Rahilly, AVP Students
Jacy Lee, Director, Institutional Research and
Planning
Glynn Nicholls, Director, Academic Planning
Anita Stepan, Director, Financial & Budget
Administration
Finance & Administration
Martin Pochurko, AVP Finance
Co-Chair
Janis Kennedy, Director, Budget
Scott Penney , Director, Planning & Analysis
Research
Norbert Haunerland, AVP
Research
Advancement & Alumni
Engagement
Erica Branda, Director,
Marketing & Communications
External Relations
Joanne Curry, Special Advisor
to the VP External Relations
Back to top
