UMD SWOT* Preliminary ResultsFebruary 5, 2011

*Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats

Draft Prepared by Dennis Falk

An important first step in a strategic planning process is to identify the internal

strengths and weaknesses of an institution and the opportunities and threats that
exist external to the institution. This report provides a preliminary summary of the
results of SWOT survey of the UMD campus conducted during December, 2010
and January and February, 2011, ending on February 4. The report includes a brief
description of the methods used in the survey, a description of the respondents,
the results, and some initial conclusions.

Methods

The survey was developed by starting with items identified as strengths,

weaknesses, opportunities, and threats in previous university planning activities.
The Strategic Planning Executive Team and some additional members of the
Steering Committee identified the items most appropriate for use in a SWOT
questionnaire for UMD.

The online process referred to as UM Survey was used in asking respondents to

review the list of potential strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats and
to rate on a Likert-type scale the degree to which each item was characteristic of
UMD and its situation. Survey respondents were asked to rate whether they
strongly disagree, disagree, were neutral, agree, or strongly agree with
each item on the four lists. Respondents were also asked to comment on any
items in each list if they wanted to do so and to add strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities, and threats related to UMD if they did not appear on the original
lists. All of the items that appeared on the questionnaire appear in Tables 1-4
(attached).

Respondent Demographics

Over 1100 individuals (1112) associated with UMD completed the SWOT
questionnaire, mostly in response to email messages from Chancellor Black
encouraging them to complete the survey. Included in the survey were 546
undergraduate students, 82 graduate students, 301 current staff members, 212
faculty members, 41 administrators, 63 community members, 100 alumni, and
smaller numbers of additional groups. Some respondents fit into more than one
category. Gender distribution was 650 females (62%) and 397 males (38%). Of
those respondents who indicated their race/ethnicity, about 90% were
white/Caucasian and about 10% were respondents of color.
[more specific demographics will be provided in subsequent reports.]

Results

The results of the quantitative portion of the questionnaire are reported in Tables
1-4 (attached). For each item in the survey, a strongly disagree response was

1
coded as a 1, a disagree was coded as a 2, a neutral was coded 3,
agree was coded 4, and a strongly agree was coded 5. Thus, a higher
average in each of the tables indicates that respondents were more likely to
strongly agree that that a particular item was a strength, weakness, opportunity,
or threat for UMD.

The total number of respondents follows each item in the table, followed by the
average ratings for all respondents. It should be noted that many respondents did
not respond to all items, and the default option of no response is not included.
The averages for undergraduate students (Ugrad), graduate students (Grad),
faculty (Fac), staff, administrators (Admin), alumni (Alum), and community
members (Com) follow in subsequent columns of the table. The items in each
table are listed in the order of the highest total average to the lowest total
average.

In many cases the average ratings of specific subgroups were different from that
of the other respondents at a statistically significant level (p<.05). When the
average rating for a subgroup was higher than for other groups, the average
rating is in bold font. For example, undergraduate students are significantly more
likely to agree that UMDs campus is friendly and safe than other groups. When
the average rating for a subgroup is lower at a statistically significant level than
for other groups, the average rating is in italics. For example, faculty are less
likely to agree that UMDs campus is friendly and safe than other groups.
Because of the large number or respondents and the numerous t-tests that were
run, some relatively small absolute differences in averages between groups are
reported as statistically significant.

Strengths identified in the quantitative rankings from UM Survey include 1)

enriching academic and co-curricular activities, 2) many accredited programs, 3)
a friendly and safe campus, and 4) UMDs significant impact on the regional
community, and 5) new and well-maintained facilities and attractive buildings and
grounds. Over 700 respondents agreed to the statement that UMD has
particularly strong academic programs in:, with the opportunity to fill in a blank
to identify the specific program. Programs from across the campus were
identified, with science and engineering, education, business, the fine arts, and
the liberal arts and specific CLA programs being mentioned frequently.

Preliminary qualitative results from the open-ended responses include strengths

such as 1) UMD is an excellent employer, 2) caring and competent faculty and
staff, 3) the Duluth community and the beautiful geographic location, 4) quality
athletics, 5) the Tweed Museum and fine arts programs, and 6) cooperative
research among students and faculty.

Weaknesses identified in the quantitative rankings from UM Survey include 1)

the need to enhance diversity among students and faculty, 2) the work and family
commitments of students that limit the time and energy they have for their
academic activities, 3) inconsistent advising structures and expectations across
and within college units, and 4) the need to strengthen dispersal of information by

2
administration.

Preliminary qualitative results from the open-ended responses on weaknesses

include 1) large class sizes the first two years, 2) limited funding, 3) limited
diversity on campus, 4) inadequate advising, 5) parking problems, 6) not
attracting as many top students, and 7) lack of healthful food.

Opportunities identified in the quantitative rankings from UM Survey include 1)

Duluths natural environment are an important draw, 2) more conversations with
local employers, and 3) the potential to develop programs that take advantage of
UMDs location. A number of additional opportunities were rated closely behind
these top three.

Preliminary qualitative results from the open-ended responses related to

opportunities include 1) increasing the number of non-traditional students such as
veterans, 2) attracting a more diverse student body, 3) improving sustainability
on campus, and 4) developing more online and hybrid courses.

Threats identified in the quantitative rankings from UM Survey include 1)

declining resources from the state and increasing dependence on tuition revenue
and 2) declining financial support for students. These two items were rated
considerably higher than other possible threats to UMD. Preliminary qualitative
results from the open-ended responses supported these two threats with budget
cuts and higher tuition mentioned frequently, along with growth of administration
and needing to attract students that may not be as well prepared for college.

Tentative Conclusions

A number of tentative conclusions can be drawn from the results reported above
and observed in Tables 1-4. First, all respondents identified a number of notable
strengths for UMD, with eight items averaging 4.0 (agree) or above. Conversely,
none of the potential weaknesses averaged over 3.73 for all respondents. These
notable strengths included enriching academic and co-curricular activities, strong,
accredited academic programs, and a friendly and attractive campus. UMD can
build on these and other strengths.

Several relative weaknesses were also noted. Lack of diversity, student

commitments that limit time and energy for academic activities, advising, and
communication from the administration were more often identified as
weaknesses. In focusing on addressing these and other identified weaknesses,
UMD can be enhanced as an educational institution.

A number of opportunities and threats were also identified. Highly ranked

opportunities included the draw of Duluths natural environment, learning from
local employers about what they are seeking in graduates, and attracting a more
diverse student body. UMD can take advantage of these opportunities and others
mentioned in the results above. At the same time, the campus needs to address
the perceived likelihood of threats such as declining resources from the state and

3
increased dependence on tuition revenue and declining financial support for
students.

Some differences between the responses of various groups can also be noted.
Faculty members were less likely to agree with campus strengths and more likely
to identify weaknesses. Students were more likely to see UMD as friendly and safe
and more likely to agree that work and family commitments interfered with their
academics. UMD employees were more likely to agree that diversity needs to be
enhanced than were students. Faculty members were far less likely to see the use
of performance assessment as an opportunity and were more likely to see the
positive potential in raising admissions standards. Administrators were more likely
to agree that potential opportunities and threats, particularly those external to
UMD, were important.

These tentative conclusions must be examined in light of several limitations of

this study, including a possibility of biased sample and the relatively small
differences in absolute responses between groups. Future versions of this report
will report more intensive qualitative analysis, will more closely examine the
results for possible conclusions, and will further specify limitations of the study.

4
Table 1: Strengths are current, internal characteristics of UMD that are likely to be helpful to the campus in achieving
its mission. Strategies to capitalize on these strengths can be developed.

Tota Ugra Sta

Ran Grad Fac Adm Alum Com
Potential Strength N l d f
k Ave Ave Ave Ave Ave
Ave Ave Ave
UMD offers many enriching academic
and co-curricular activities for students, 4.3
108 4.25 4.05 4.17 4.32 4.27 4.29
1 such as civic engagement, study abroad, 4.23 2
7
undergraduate research, internships and
recreational sports.
UMD has many Accredited Programs. 4.3
2 1039 4.22 4.19 4.26 4.21 4.40 4.29 4.18
1

UMDs campus is friendly and safe. 111 4.29 3.93 4.00 4.20 4.29 4.12 4.08
3 4.19
1
UMD has significant impact on the 4.3
107 4.02 4.01 4.12 4.48 4.44 4.40
4 regional community--educationally, 4.13 4
6
economically, and culturally.
UMDs facilities include new and well- 4.3
111 4.08 4.12 3.95 4.37 4.38 4.29
5 maintained, attractive buildings and 4.12 0
2
grounds.
Enrollment continues to increase in both 4.16 3.87 4.02 4.17 4.03 4.15 3.88
6 989 4.11
undergraduate and graduate programs.
UMD benefits from its association with 107 4.19 3.96 3.96 3.92 4.20 4.03 3.98
7 4.07
the University of Minnesota system. 2
UMD has an effective and supportive 108 4.02 3.99 4.00 3.99 3.97 4.04 3.87
4.01
8 teaching and learning environment. 4
UMDs workforce is stable and talented. 106 4.0
3.91 3.82 4.00 4.13 4.10 3.83
9 3.97 8
4
1 UMD enjoys a positive reputation in the 108 3.88 3.69 3.70 3.79 3.45 3.75 3.57
3.79
0 external community. 7
UMD has a richness/diversity of
1 104 3.76 3.50 3.80 3.71 4.00 3.86 3.73
disciplines and of modes of thought and 3.74
1 8
inquiry.
1 Full-time faculty teach the vast majority 102 3.67 3.75 3.62 3.69 3.51 3.51 3.63 3.50
2 of classes, and there is a strong bond 4

5
 and a high level of interaction between
faculty and students.
UMD faculty, staff, and students have a
1 strong sense of community, engendering 107
3.55 3.71 3.39 3.33 3.52 3.38 3.48 3.39
3 loyalty to institution, place, and 4
coworkers.
1 UMD is a fiscally sound and well- 103
3.54 3.62 3.42 3.44 3.48 3.59 3.53 3.48
4 managed institution. 7
Table 2: Weaknesses are current, internal characteristics of UMD likely to have a negative effect on achieving its
mission. Strategies to minimize the effects of these weaknesses can be developed.
Ugra Gra Sta Ad Alu Co
Ran Total Fac
Potential Weakness N d d f m m m
k Ave Ave
Ave Ave Ave Ave Ave Ave
Although diversity among students and faculty has 4.0 3.9 3.8 4.1 3.9
1 increased significantly, it needs to be enhanced. 1095 3.73 3.48 3.89
6 9 5 8 8
Most students have work and family commitments, 3.6 3.6 3.3 3.2
2 limiting the time and energy they have for their 1047 3.68 3.84 3.47 3.73
4 9 9 3
academic activities.
UMD has inconsistent academic advising structures 3.6 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8
3 and expectations across and within college units. 958 3.53 3.46 3.67
7 2 9 8 6
Dispersal of information by administration needs to 3.6 3.5 3.7 4.0
4 be strengthened and streamlined. 1028 3.50 3.31 3.49 3.69
2 4 0 2
UMD lacks sufficient financial support for faculty 3.5 3.8 3.2 3.3
5 861 3.41 3.28 3.26 3.48
scholarship. 1 6 3 3
UMD has higher tuition than other public 4-year 3.2 3.1 3.3 3.8
6 institutions in the state. 893 3.32 3.32 3.41 3.45
3 6 6 8
Time demands on faculty limit their commitment to 3.5 3.6 3.1 2.9
7 984 3.25 3.14 3.14 3.33
teaching and students. 2 0 6 2
Time demands on faculty necessarily constrain 3.4 3.8 3.1 3.0
8 research, professional development, and training 927 3.25 2.95 3.18 3.09
5 9 6 6
efforts.
9 UMDs transfer credit policies discourage cooperative 866 3.24 3.32 3.0 2.5 3.4 3.1 3.22 3.18

6
 degree completion. 8 6 0 3
UMD has an inadequate 4-year graduation rate, and 3.0 3.1 3.3 3.4
10 low retention between freshman and sophomore 935 3.22 3.19 3.34 3.26
2 0 0 3
years.
Services offered by support offices are not adequate,
likely due to lack of necessary staff, e.g., support for
writing grants, addressing compliance issues, 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.7
11 979 3.20 3.00 3.18 2.98
completing building repairs in a timely and cost 0 4 0 3
effective manner, addressing problems with
workstations and the information network, etc.
UMD has inadequate resources for recruitment, 3.3 3.4 3.2 3.2
12 retention, and advising of students. 1003 3.09 2.85 3.11 3.09
2 2 7 9
Compliance with federal, state, U of M System, and 3.1 3.3 3.2 3.2
13 accrediting mandates and requests are overly 900 3.04 2.80 3.10 3.04
5 8 1 2
burdensome.
UMD lacks a strong mission, vision, and identity. 2.9 3.2 3.0 3.6
14 1036 2.92 2.66 2.96 3.00
6 7 0 8
Duluths reputation as a place with bitterly cold 2.8 3.0 2.6 2.9
15 winters restricts UMDs ability to attract prospective 1052 2.88 2.89 2.64 2.98
0 1 9 5
weather-sensitive faculty and students.
Table 3: Opportunities are conditions external to UMD likely to have a positive effect on achieving its
mission. Strategies to exploit these opportunities can be identified.

Tot Ugr Gra Sta Alu Co

Ran Fac Adm
Potential Opportunity N al ad d f m m
k Ave Ave
Ave Ave Ave Ave Ave Ave
The natural environment surrounding Duluth is 107 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.5
4.37 4.48 4.56
1 an important draw. 1 3 8 4 1 5

More conversations and partnerships with local

employers those in the private, nonprofit, 104 4.2 4.3 4.2 4.1 4.2
4.10 4.23 4.27
2 2 3 0 1 0 9
and public sectors could make our students
more appealing to them.
3 UMDs location offers opportunities to develop 103 4.0 3.94 4.3 4.0 4.1 4.4 4.2 4.0

7
 and support undergraduate and graduate
programs that take advantage of this location, 8 4 0 3 3 3 6 5
which could result in increased enrollments in
strategically targeted programs.
UMD could focus on excellence with an 100 4.0 4.1 4.0 4.4 3.9
4 emphasis on areas in which the campus should 3.97 4.08 4.11
9 3 1 2 4 8
grow.
An undergraduate experience using the best 4.0 4.0 3.9 4.1
997 4.01 4.09 4.10 4.13
5 practices from throughout the country could be 2 3 8 0
developed.
Collaborative approaches could draw upon the
strengths of different faculty, supported by 4.0 4.1 4.0 4.1
6 990 3.96 4.05 4.12 4.14
resource and technical staff, to offer more 2 4 8 7
effective instruction that also creates time for
research and development.
Multi-media technology is changing the way
on-campus instruction is delivered and 106 4.0 4.1 3.8 4.1 4.1
7 represents a significant opportunity to develop 3.99 4.28 4.05
8 1 2 4 4 1
new and more effective ways of teaching and
learning, as well as generating new knowledge.
The demand for credit and non-credit
education at advanced levels has become a
3.9 4.2 3.7 4.1 4.3 4.1
career-long reality; technology could greatly 989 3.97 4.04
9 2 9 5 1 6
8 assist outreach efforts to meet the educational
needs of place-bound students.
Tot Ugr Gra Sta Alu Co
Ran Fac Adm
Potential Opportunity (continued) N al ad d f m m
k Ave Ave
Ave Ave Ave Ave Ave Ave
UMD could increase graduate student
enrollments in those disciplines where there is 3.9 4.0 3.9 4.0
9 957 3.87 3.92 3.88 3.93
departmental capacity, and which will not 1 7 1 0
adversely affect undergraduate instruction.
10 Becoming a leader in interdisciplinary and 903 3.8 3.78 4.0 3.7 3.90 3.95 4.0 3.9
8
 integrated learning. 2 8 4 2 8

Programs that specifically recruit and retain 3.6 4.1 3.9 4.0 4.0
971 3.44 3.74 3.88
11 students from Native American constituencies 9 3 5 3 0
could be developed.
Systematic and serious use of performance
assessment, especially of learning results, 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.1 3.8 3.8
997 3.72 3.79
12 7 6 3 4 5 2
could lead to improved effectiveness and
efficiency.
Raising admission standards could improve the 103 3.5 3.3 3.8 3.8 3.7
3.58 3.42 3.47
13 average scholastic ability of the student body, 2 7 5 7 7 6
resulting in improved retention as well.
There is a growing interest in developing
countries such as China and India for American 3.5 3.7 3.7 3.7
984 3.49 3.71 3.62 3.52
14 7 0 1 5
Education; targeted efforts could help recruit
full paying students from these countries.

Part 4: Threats are conditions external to UMD likely to have a negative effect on achieving its mission.
Strategies to defend against these threats can be identified.

9
 Ugra
Ran Total Grad Fac Staf Adm Alum Com
Potential Threat N d
k Ave Ave Ave Ave Ave Ave Ave
Ave
Declining resources from the state
1 and increasing dependence on 1046 4.42 4.22 4.54 4.65 4.58 4.73 4.58 4.39
tuition revenue.
Declining financial support for
students (Pell grants, etc.) that lead 1052 4.32 4.28 4.41 4.39 4.34 4.39 4.29 4.38
2
to more students working to stay in
school.
K-12 students less prepared for 1045 3.87 3.76 3.83 4.05 3.85 4.03 3.81 3.68
3
university education.
In a rapidly changing educational
environment, the time-consuming
and complex processes of securing
requisite approvals for new
programs, program changes, off- 895 3.64 3.58 3.68 3.69 3.69 3.89 3.63 3.63
4
campus delivery, and even delivery
by telecommunications are often
outdated, unnecessary, and mainly
detrimental to meeting educational
needs in a timely and efficient way.
Growth of administrative and
service functions required to be in 841 3.63 3.54 3.50 3.93 3.59 3.54 3.43 3.59
5
compliance with (unfunded)
mandates.
Loss of public support and shifting 1013 3.59 3.38 3.55 3.86 3.71 3.92 3.67 3.51
6
attitudes toward the university.
Decreasing ability to compete for 957 3.53 3.52 3.36 3.75 3.35 3.16 3.36 3.50
7
and retain top faculty.
Alternative providers, i.e., on-line
8 universities and community 1027 3.48 3.27 3.73 3.54 3.70 3.80 3.59 3.28
colleges.
9 Declining number of high school 963 3.45 3.34 3.39 3.46 3.56 3.61 3.54 3.37
10
graduate students.

11