SWOT Analysis, Priorities, and Competitive Factor … SWOT Analysis report presents the results of...

SWOT Analysis, Priorities, and

Competitive Factor Analysis

2015-16 Report

SPPE ● Strategic Planning and Performance Excellence (210) 485-0750 www.alamo.edu/planning

1

SWOT Analysis, Priorities, and Competitive Factor Analysis 2015-16 Report

Table of Contents Page

I. Executive Summary 3

II. SWOT Analysis 6

SWOT Analysis Results (Top 5) 6

SWOT Analysis Top Results by Stakeholder Category 7

SWOT Analysis Top Results by Campus 8

III. Alamo Colleges Priorities (What to Address, Preserve, and Avoid) 9

Top Priorities for the Alamo Colleges by Stakeholder Category 11

Top Priorities for the Alamo Colleges by Campus 12

IV. Competitive Factor Analysis 13

Overall Competitive Factor Analysis Results 13

Competitive Factor Analysis Top Results by Stakeholder Category 15

Competitive Factor Analysis Top Results by Campus 15

V. Appendices 16

Appendix A. Sample of SWOT Analysis Survey 17

Appendix B. Frequency Distribution of Responses to SWOT Survey by Stakeholder Category 25

Appendix C. Frequency Distribution of Responses to SWOT Survey by Campus 28

Appendix D. Frequency Distribution of Responses to Priorities by Stakeholder Category 31

Appendix E. Frequency Distribution of Responses to Priorities by Campus 33

Appendix F. Frequency Distribution of Responses to Competitive Factors by Stakeholder Category

35

Appendix G. Frequency Distribution of Responses to Competitive Factors by Campus 36

Appendix H. Comments Provided by Survey Respondents 37

2

I. Executive Summary This SWOT Analysis report presents the results of the Fall 2015 online survey on the Alamo Colleges’ strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. The report includes a list of priorities for the Alamo Colleges identified by survey respondents as well as a list of competitive factors related to area institutions of higher education. This information is provided prior to the Spring 2016 Alamo Colleges stakeholders’ strategic planning retreat as a tool for the review, update, and reaffirmation of the strategic plan. The Survey The online survey (sample in Appendix A) addressed the following areas: Strengths: What are the top 3 things that the Alamo Colleges do well? Weaknesses: What are the top 3 things that the Alamo Colleges should improve? Opportunities: What opportunities could the Alamo Colleges take advantage of in the next three years? Threats: What is changing in the environment which could adversely affect the Alamo Colleges? Priorities 1: What should the Alamo Colleges address immediately? Priorities 2: What should the Alamo Colleges preserve at all costs? Priorities 3: What future direction or decision should the Alamo Colleges avoid at all costs? Competitive Factors 1: What do the Alamo Colleges do better than other institutions of higher education in the area? Competitive Factors 2: What do other institutions of higher education in the area do better than the Alamo Colleges? The Respondents 114 Alamo Colleges stakeholders completed the online survey. The distribution of respondents according to seven stakeholder categories and six campuses was the following:

Adjunct Faculty

Full-Time Faculty

Vice Chancellor or College President

District Staff or Administrator

College Staff or

Administrator

Community Member Student Total

SAC 2 2 7 2 13 SPC 1 3 7 1 12 PAC 2 1 1 1 6 1 12 NVC 4 1 1 7 3 16 NLC 4 6 2 12 DSO 2 35 37 Community 12 12 Total 13 7 4 36 33 12 9 114

Methodology Collected responses to multiple choice questions were tabulated by stakeholder category and campus. Responses to open-ended questions were synthesized, categorized, and tabulated by stakeholder category and campus. The identified Alamo Colleges strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats, priorities, and competitive factors are presented below.

3

Highlights of Results by Stakeholder Category 1. Top SWOT Results: Stakeholder S W O T

Adjunct Faculty Affordability/value; Student support services; Instruction quality; Technology.

Employee support (benefits, development).

Articulation agreements with four-year institutions.

Student/citizen issues (poor preparation, illiteracy, LEP).

Full-Time Faculty Affordability/value; Instruction quality.

Collaboration between district and colleges; Communication (internal, external).

Articulation agreements with four-year institutions; Establish/strengthen partnerships.

Funding reductions.

Vice Chancellor or College President Instruction quality.

Collaboration between district and colleges; Communication (internal, external); Funding.

Articulation agreements with four-year institutions; Establish/strengthen partnerships; Technology (demand for new technologies, distance education, etc.); Dual credit program revenue increase; Annexation leading to increased enrollment and revenue.

Funding reductions.


Affordability/value; Economic and workforce development (training, education, programs, support); Student centeredness.

Collaboration between district and colleges.

Articulation agreements with four-year institutions; Workforce needs (capitalize on workforce demands for emerging industry programs, trained/skilled workers by existing and incoming industries/companies).

Funding reductions.

College Staff or Administrator

Affordability/value; Instruction quality.

Communication (internal, external); Collaboration between district and colleges.


Funding reductions; High school misalignment with colleges.

Community Member

Affordability/value; Economic and workforce development (training, education, programs, support).

Communication (internal, external); Collaboration among colleges; Collaboration between district and colleges.


High school misalignment with colleges.

Student Affordability/value; Leadership.

Facilities.



S = Strengths; W = Weaknesses; O = Opportunities; T = Threats

4

2. Top Priorities and Competitive Factors: ADDRESS = Priorities 1: What should the Alamo Colleges address immediately? PRESERVE = Priorities 2: What should the Alamo Colleges preserve at all costs? AVOID = Priorities 3: What future direction or decision should the Alamo Colleges avoid at all costs? C1 = Competitor Factors 1: What does the Alamo Colleges do better than other institutions of higher education in the area? C2 = Competitor Factors 2: What do other institutions of higher education in the area do better than the Alamo Colleges?

Stakeholder ADDRESS PRESERVE AVOID C1 C2

Adjunct Faculty

Leadership Issues (inclusiveness, top-down decision making, trust).

Quality Education. Excessive Initiatives. Small Classes. Image/Prestige.

Full-Time Faculty


Student-Centered Focus; Quality Education.

District Centeredness. Affordability. Marketing.



Accessibility. Excessive Initiatives. Value. Image/Prestige;

Marketing.


Personnel Issues (capacity, capability, resources, morale, hiring).

Student-Centered Focus.

Excessive Initiatives. Affordability. Image/Prestige



Student-Centered Focus; College Cultures/ Autonomy.

Excessive Initiatives. Affordability. Image/Prestige

Community Member

Collaboration, Coordination. Affordability.

Excessive Initiatives; Weakening Curriculum/Course Content, Value, and Standards.

Affordability. Image/Prestige

Student

Personnel Issues (capacity, capability, resources, morale, hiring); Budgeting/Funding

Affordability.

Single Accreditation; Neglect of Developmental Education.

Affordability. Program/Courses Variety.

5

II. SWOT Analysis The overall top five Alamo Colleges strengths and weaknesses as well as the overall top five opportunities and threats to the Alamo Colleges appear, along with their relative frequencies, in the following chart. SWOT Analysis Overall Results (Top 5)

Top 5 Strengths - Affordability/value, 21.1%*

- Student centeredness, 7.5%

- Instruction quality, 7.5%

- Student support services, 6.8%

- Economic and workforce development

(training, education, programs, support), 6.2%

Top 5 Weaknesses - Collaboration between district and colleges, 13.6%

- Communication (internal, external), 11.5%

- Collaboration among colleges, 7.3%

- Employee support (benefits, development), 6.4%

- Process improvement, 5.2%

Budgeting/resource allocation, 5.2%

Top 5 Opportunities - Articulation agreements with four-year

institutions, 20.6%

- Workforce needs (capitalize on workforce

demands for emerging industry programs,

trained/skilled workers by existing and

incoming industries/companies), 14.1%

- Establish/strengthen partnerships, 11.9%

- Technology (demand for new technologies,

distance education, etc.), 10.3%

- Dual credit program revenue increase, 9.6%

Top 5 Threats - Funding reductions, 17.2%

- High school misalignment with colleges, 15.0%

- Student/citizen issues (poor preparation, illiteracy,

LEP), 10.0%

- Competition from other higher education

institutions, 9.4%

- Accreditation requirements, 7.8%

* Percentages indicate proportion of responses within each cell.

6

The top SWOT Analysis results are presented by stakeholder category and campus in the following two tables. See Appendices B and C for a complete frequency distribution of all SWOT Analysis results. SWOT Analysis Top Results by Stakeholder Category

Top

Strength Top

Weakness Top

Opportunity Top

Threat

Adjunct Faculty Affordability/value. Employee support (benefits, development).


Student/citizen issues (poor preparation, illiteracy, LEP).

Full-Time Faculty Affordability/value. Communication

(internal, external).

Articulation agreements with four-year institutions; Establish/strengthen partnerships.

Funding reductions.


Instruction quality. Collaboration between district and colleges.

Articulation agreements with four-year institutions; Establish/strengthen partnerships; Technology (demand for new technologies, distance education, etc.); Dual credit program revenue increase; Annexation leading to increased enrollment and revenue.

Funding reductions.

College Staff or Administrator Affordability/value. Communication

(internal, external). Articulation agreements with four-year institutions. Funding reductions.

District Staff or Administrator Affordability/value.

Collaboration between district and colleges.

Workforce needs (capitalize on workforce demands for emerging industry programs, trained/skilled workers by existing and incoming industries/companies).

Funding reductions.

Student Affordability/value. Facilities. Articulation agreements with four-year institutions.


Community Member

Affordability/value; Economic and workforce development.

Communication (internal, external); Collaboration among colleges.

Articulation agreements with four-year institutions; Workforce needs (capitalize on workforce demands for emerging industry programs, trained/skilled workers by existing and incoming industries/companies)


7

SWOT Analysis Top Results by Campus

Top

Strength Top

Weakness Top

Opportunity Top

Threat

SAC Affordability/value; Communication (internal; external).


Funding reductions.

SPC Affordability/value; Communication (internal; external).



PAC Affordability/value. Employee support (benefits, development).


High school misalignment with colleges; Competition from other higher education institutions

NVC Affordability/value. Communication (internal; external).


Funding reductions; High school misalignment with colleges; Competition from other higher education institutions.

NLC Affordability/value. Collaboration among colleges.

Workforce needs (capitalize on workforce demands for emerging industry programs, trained/skilled workers by existing and incoming industries/companies)

Funding reductions.

DSO Affordability/value. Collaboration between district and colleges.


Funding reductions.

Community Affordability/value; Economic and workforce development (training, education, programs, support)

Communication (internal; external); Collaboration among colleges.



8

III. Alamo Colleges Priorities The following three tables include the Alamo Colleges priorities and frequency distributions regarding what the institution should address, preserve, and avoid.

1. What should the Alamo Colleges address immediately?

NUMBER OF RESPONSES %

Leadership Issues (inclusiveness, top-down decision making, trust) 25 22.5% Personnel Issues (capacity, capability, resources, morale, hiring) 18 16.2% Budgeting/Funding 11 9.9% Collaboration/Coordination 10 9.0% Recruitment/Enrollment 9 8.1% Compensation 7 6.3% Accountability 5 4.5% Completion/Graduation 5 4.5% Process Improvement/Student Support Services 5 4.5% Communication 4 3.6% Innovation 4 3.6% Employee Development 3 2.7% Retention 2 1.8% New-Initiative Issues 1 0.9% Technology Issues 1 0.9% Accreditation issues 1 0.9% Total 111 100.0%

9

2. What should the Alamo Colleges preserve at all costs?


Affordability 19 17.4% Student-Centered Focus 19 17.4% Quality Education 18 16.5% Accessibility 11 10.1% College Cultures/Autonomy 10 9.2% Faculty (autonomy, diversity, support) 7 6.4% Employee Development/Benefits 6 5.5% College Collaboration/Communication 5 4.6% Program/Course Offerings 4 3.7% Image/Integrity 3 2.8% Small Class Sizes 3 2.8% Vision/Mission/Values/Alamo Way 2 1.8% Community Commitment/Outreach 1 0.9% Services 1 0.9% Total 109 100.0%

3. What future direction or decision should the Alamo Colleges avoid at all costs?


Excessive Initiatives 33 30.3% Weakening Curriculum/Course Content Value/Standards 16 14.7% District Centeredness 13 11.9% Single Accreditation 12 11.0% Neglect of Developmental Education 8 7.3% Faculty Issues (reduction, replacement, marginalization) 5 4.6% Over-standardization/-consolidation 5 4.6% Staffing/Resource Inefficiencies 4 3.7% Tuition/Fees Increases 4 3.7% College/Building Expansion 3 2.8% Imposing Leadership/Management Concepts 2 1.8% Limiting Innovation/Focus 2 1.8% Not Serving All Populations 2 1.8% Funding Issues 0 0.0% Technology Issues 0 0.0% Total 109 100.0%

10

The top priorities for the Alamo Colleges are divided by stakeholder category and campus in the following two tables. Top Priorities for the Alamo Colleges by Stakeholder Category

1. What the Alamo

Colleges should address

immediately

2. What the Alamo Colleges

should preserve at all

costs

3. What the Alamo Colleges should avoid at

all costs

Adjunct Faculty


Quality Education. Excessive Initiatives.

Full-Time Faculty


Student-Centered Focus; Quality Education. District Centeredness.



Accessibility. Excessive Initiatives.



Student-Centered Focus; College Cultures/Autonomy.

Excessive Initiatives.


Personnel Issues (capacity, capability, resources, morale, hiring).

Student-Centered Focus. Excessive Initiatives.

Student

Personnel Issues (capacity, capability, resources, morale, hiring) Budgeting/Funding

Affordability. Single Accreditation; Neglect of Developmental Education

Community Member

Collaboration/ Coordination Affordability.

Excessive Initiatives; Weakening Curriculum/Course Content Value/Standards.

11

Top Priorities for the Alamo Colleges by Campus 1. What the

Alamo Colleges should

address immediately

2. What the Alamo

Colleges should

preserve at all costs

3. What the Alamo Colleges should avoid at

all costs

SAC Recruitment/Enrollment. Quality Education. Excessive Initiatives.

SPC Leadership Issues (inclusiveness, top-down decision making, trust).

College Cultures/Autonomy. Single Accreditation.

PAC Leadership Issues (inclusiveness, top-down decision making, trust).

Accessibility. Excessive Initiatives.

NVC Leadership Issues (inclusiveness, top-down decision making, trust).

Quality Education. Excessive Initiatives; District Centeredness.

NLC

Personnel Issues (capacity, capability, resources, morale, hiring);

Affordability. Excessive Initiatives.

DSO Leadership Issues (inclusiveness, top-down decision making, trust).

Student-Centered Focus. Excessive Initiatives.

Community Collaboration/ Coordination. Affordability.

Excessive Initiatives; Weakening Curriculum/Course Content Value/Standards.

12

IV. Competitive Factor Analysis The analysis of responses on competitive factors revealed that the Alamo Colleges are stronger than area schools of higher education in offering affordability, accessibility, small classes, dual credit, workforce development and technical programs, value, quality education, student centeredness, student support services and partnerships, whereas competing schools in our area have more effective image/prestige, fundraising and alumni support, marketing, employee/faculty support, completion/graduation, program/courses variety, and processes. Overall Competitive Factor Analysis Results

What Alamo Colleges Do Better Than Competitors


Affordability 67 23.3% Accessibility 32 11.1% Small Classes 29 10.1% Dual Credit 25 8.7% Workforce Development/Technical Programs 24 8.4% Value 21 7.3% Quality Education 19 6.6% Student Centeredness 18 6.3% Student Support/Services 15 5.2% Partnerships 12 4.2% Community Outreach/Support 9 3.1% Flexibility/Agility 7 2.4% Program/Courses Variety 7 2.4% Employee/faculty support 1 0.3% Innovation 1 0.3% Total 287 100.0%

13

What Competitors Do Better Than Alamo Colleges


Image/Prestige 53 19.9% Fundraising/Alumni Support 38 14.3% Marketing 34 12.8% Employee/Faculty Support 28 10.5% Completion/Graduation 25 9.4% Program/Courses Variety 18 6.8% Processes 16 6.0% Student Support/Services 14 5.3% Quality Education 13 4.9% Student Retention 12 4.5% Innovation 10 3.8% Internships 2 0.8% Student Centeredness 1 0.4% Utilization of human resources 1 0.4% Employee compensation 1 0.4% Total 266 100.0%

14

Competitive factor analysis results are presented by stakeholder category and by campus in the following two tables. Competitive Factor Analysis Top Results by Stakeholder Category

Competitive Factor Analysis Top Results by Campus

What Alamo Colleges Do Better Than

Competitors

What Competitors Do Better Than Alamo

Colleges SAC Affordability. Image/Prestige.

SPC Affordability. Marketing.

PAC Affordability. Image/Prestige.

NVC Affordability; Small classes. Image/Prestige.

NLC Affordability. Image/Prestige.

DSO Affordability. Image/Prestige.

Community Affordability. Image/Prestige.

What Alamo Colleges Do Better Than Competitors

What Competitors Do Better Than Alamo

Colleges Adjunct Faculty Small classes. Image/Prestige.

Full-Time Faculty Affordability. Marketing.


Value. Image/Prestige; Marketing


Affordability. Image/Prestige.


Affordability. Image/Prestige.

Student Affordability. Program/Courses variety.

Community Member Affordability. Image/Prestige.

15

V. Appendices

Appendix A. Sample of SWOT Analysis Survey (Page 17) Appendix B. Frequency Distribution of Responses to SWOT Survey by Stakeholder Category (Page 25) Appendix C. Frequency Distribution of Responses to SWOT Survey by Campus (Page 28) Appendix D. Frequency Distribution of Responses to Priorities by Stakeholder Category (Page 31) Appendix E. Frequency Distribution of Responses to Priorities by Campus (Page 33) Appendix F. Frequency Distribution of Responses to Competitive Factors by Stakeholder Category (Page 35) Appendix G. Frequency Distribution of Responses to Competitive Factors by Campus (Page 36) Appendix H. Comments Provided by Survey Respondents (Page 37)

16

Appendix A. Sample of SWOT Analysis Survey

The Alamo Way: Always Inspire, Always Improve

2015-2016 SWOT Analysis Survey What is a SWOT analysis? SWOT analysis is the tool we use to evaluate organizational strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. The strengths and weaknesses represent internal factors. The strengths refer to competitive advantages or core competencies that give the Alamo Colleges a better position in meeting the needs of students and the community. Weaknesses refer to any limitations the Alamo Colleges might face in developing or implementing a strategy. Opportunities and threats are external factors that can negatively impact the Alamo Colleges' operation. Opportunities refer to external favorable conditions that could produce positive outcomes for the Alamo Colleges, whereas threats refer to external negative conditions or barriers that may prevent the Alamo Colleges from reaching stated goals and objectives. Knowing each SWOT element will help us develop suitable strategies to more effectively meet the needs of our students and the community.

Please complete this SWOT analysis survey from your perspective/role as a leader or supporter of the Alamo Colleges system (all colleges and District Support Operations combined). Your input will help shape the future of the Alamo Colleges. All responses will be collected together to produce a summary report, thereby ensuring your anonymity. If you have any questions, contact Dr. Carlos Ayala

at (210) 485-0750.

1. Indicate your affiliation. SAC

SPC

PAC

NVC

NLC

District (District Support Operation

Not an employee of Alamo College 2. Indicate your occupation category

Full-Time Faculty

Adjunct Faculty




Student at one of the Alamo Colleges

17

Community Member (not an Alamo Colleges employee or studen

3. Alamo Colleges Strengths What are the top 3 things that the Alamo Colleges do well? Limit: only 3 selections. (Specifically, consider the greatest internal institutional strengths which should be maintained; all aspects that affect the organization’s performance and its prospects for the future; services, operations, relationships, facilities, resources, technology, people, etc.; competitive advantages or core competencies)

Accessibility/recruitment

Affordability/value

Budgeting/resource allocation

Collaboration among colleges

Collaboration between district and colleges

Communication (internal, external)

Data-informed decision making

Distance education

Employee support (benefits, development)

Employees' capabilities

Facilities

Financial management

Funding

Fundraising

Graduation/completion

Institutional image/culture/pride

Instruction quality

Leadership

Marketing/promotion program

Partnerships

Planning

Process improvement

Programs offerings

Retention strategies

Student centeredness

Student support services

Technology

Economic and workforce development (training, education, programs, suppor

Other (please provide other strengths not listed above):

18

4. Alamo Colleges Weaknesses What are the top 3 things that the Alamo Colleges should improve? Limit: only 3 selections. (Specifically, consider the greatest internal institutional areas for improvement; all aspects that limit or negatively affect the organization’s performance and its prospects for the future; services, operations, relationships, facilities, resources, technology, people, etc.; competitive advantages or core competencies)

Accessibility/recruitment

Affordability/value

Budgeting/resource allocation

Collaboration among colleges

Collaboration between district and colleges

Communication (internal, external)

Data-informed decision making

Distance education

Employee support (benefits, development)

Employees' capabilities

Facilities

Financial management

Funding

Fundraising

Graduation/completion

Institutional image/culture/pride

Instruction quality

Leadership

Marketing/promotion program

Partnerships

Planning

Process improvement

Programs offerings

Retention strategies

Student centeredness

Student support services

Technology

Economic and workforce development (training, education, programs, suppor

Other (please provide other weaknesses not listed above):

19

5. Opportunities for the Alamo Colleges What opportunities could the Alamo Colleges take advantage of in the next three years? Limit: only 3 selections. (Specifically, consider the most important EXTERNAL opportunities; all favorable conditions in the current and future operating environments, e.g., social, cultural, demographic, economic, political, legal, local, state, national, global, etc.; the full range of stakeholders)

Annexation leading to increased enrollment and revenue

Articulation agreements with four-year institutions

Demographic changes

Dual credit program revenue increase

Establish/strengthen partnerships

Global initiatives

Political changes

Slow economy prompting higher enrollments

Socio-cultural changes

Sustainability trends

Technology (demand for new technologies, distance education, etc.)

Workforce needs (capitalize on workforce demands for emerging industry programs, trained/skille workers by existing and incoming industries/companies)

Other (please provide other external opportunities not listed above):

6. Threats to the Alamo Colleges What is changing in the environment which could adversely affect the Alamo Colleges? Limit: only 3 selections. (Specifically, consider all EXTERNAL threats to the organization; all Alamo Colleges current and likely future operating environments, e.g., social, cultural, demographic, economic, political, legal, local, state, national, global, etc.; all conditions or barriers that may prevent the Alamo Colleges from fulfilling the mission or achieving the vision)

Accountability requirements

Accreditation requirements

Alternative energy issues

Community's disengagement/complacency

Community's negative image about community colleges

Competition from other higher education institutions

Demographic changes

Economic downturn

Funding reductions

Globalization

High school dropout rates

20

High school misalignment with colleges

Inflation/cost of living

Lawsuits and bad press

Legal/regulatory changes

Limited Nursing/Allied Health instructor availability

Political changes

Population growth

Poverty

Student/citizen issues (poor preparation, illiteracy, LEP)

Technology changes

Other (please provide other external threats not listed above

7. Alamo Colleges Priorities A. What should the Alamo Colleges address immediately? Limit: only 1 selection.

Accountability

Budgeting/Funding

Collaboration/Coordination

Communication

Compensation

Completion/Graduation

Employee Development

Innovation

Leadership Issues (inclusiveness, top-down decision making, trust)

New-Initiative Issues

Personnel Issues (capacity, capability, resources, morale, hiring)

Process Improvement/Student Support Services

Recruitment/Enrollment

Retention

Technology Issues

Other (please indicate here what must be addressed other than the above choices

B. What should the Alamo Colleges preserve at all costs? Limit: only 1 selection. Accessibility

Affordability

College Collaboration/Communication 21

College Cultures/Autonomy

Community Commitment/Outreach

Employee Development/Benefits

Faculty (autonomy, diversity, support)

Image/Integrity

Leadership Opportunities

Program/Course Offerings

Quality Education

Services

Small Class Sizes

Student-Centered Focus

Vision/Mission/Values/Alamo Way

Other (please indicate here what must be preserved other than the above choices

C. What future direction or decision should the Alamo Colleges avoid at all costs? Limit: only 1 selection.

College/Building Expansion

District Centeredness

Excessive Initiatives

Faculty Issues (reduction, replacement, marginalization)

Funding Issues

Imposing Leadership/Management Concepts

Limiting Innovation/Focus

Neglect of Developmental Education

Not Serving All Populations

Over-standardization/-consolidation

Single Accreditation

Staffing/Resource Inefficiencies

Technology Issues

Tuition/Fees Increases

Weakening Curriculum/Course Content Value/Standards

Other (please indicate here what must be avoided other than the above choices

8. Alamo Colleges Competition A. What do the Alamo Colleges do better than other institutions of higher education in the area? Limit: only 3 selections.

22

Accessibility

Affordability

Community Outreach/Support

Dual Credit

Flexibility/Agility

Partnerships

Program/Courses Variety

Quality Education

Small Classes

Student Centeredness

Student Support/Services

Value

Workforce Development/Technical Programs

Other (please indicate here other things that Alamo Colleges does better

B. What do other institutions of higher education in the area do better than the Alamo Colleges? Limit: only 3 selections.

Completion/Graduation

Employee/Faculty Support

Fundraising/Alumni Support

Image/Prestige

Innovation

Marketing

Processes

Program/Courses Variety

Quality Education

Student Centeredness

Student Retention

Student Support/Services

Other (please indicate here other things that area institutions do better than the Alamo Colleges

9. Comments (Optional)

23

Finish

24

Appendix B. Frequency Distribution of Responses to SWOT Survey by Stakeholder Category

STRENGTHS Adjunct Faculty

Full-Time Faculty




Community Member

Student Total %

Affordabi l i ty/va lue 10 5 1 23 18 6 5 68 21.1%Student centeredness 2 1 1 9 7 2 2 24 7.5%Instruction qual i ty 5 3 3 3 10 0 0 24 7.5%Student support services 6 0 1 5 7 1 2 22 6.8%Economic and workforce development (tra ining, education, programs, support)

0 1 0 10 3 6 0 20 6.2%

Programs offerings 2 1 0 7 6 2 0 18 5.6%Faci l i ties 3 1 0 7 3 1 1 16 5.0%Access ibi l i ty/recrui tment 2 1 0 5 4 3 0 15 4.7%Employee support (benefi ts , development) 0 0 0 6 7 0 0 13 4.0%Partnerships 1 0 1 1 3 4 2 12 3.7%Leadership 1 0 0 2 3 2 4 12 3.7%Technology 4 1 1 2 1 1 1 11 3.4%Graduation/completion 1 1 1 2 4 0 1 10 3.1%Data-informed decis ion making 0 0 1 3 4 0 0 8 2.5%Employees ' capabi l i ties 2 1 0 3 2 0 0 8 2.5%Financia l management 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 5 1.6%Marketing/promotion program 0 1 0 3 0 1 0 5 1.6%Insti tutional image/cul ture/pride 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 5 1.6%Budgeting/resource a l location 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 4 1.2%Planning 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 4 1.2%Col laboration among col leges 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 3 0.9%Col laboration between dis trict and col leges 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 3 0.9%Communication (internal , external ) 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 3 0.9%Process improvement 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 3 0.9%Distance education 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0.6%Funding 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0.6%Retention s trategies 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.3%Fundra is ing 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.3%Total 39 17 12 103 95 32 24 322 100.0%

25

WEAKNESSESAdjunct Faculty

Full-Time Faculty




Community Member

Student Total %

Col laboration between dis trict and col leges 3 3 3 21 11 4 0 45 13.6%Communication (internal , external ) 3 4 2 8 13 6 2 38 11.5%Col laboration among col leges 3 1 0 9 3 6 2 24 7.3%Employee support (benefi ts , development) 9 0 0 6 6 0 0 21 6.4%Process improvement 2 0 1 5 7 1 1 17 5.2%Budgeting/resource a l location 1 1 0 8 6 0 1 17 5.2%Data-informed decis ion making 1 1 1 5 7 0 1 16 4.8%Leadership 2 2 0 3 6 1 0 14 4.2%Technology 0 0 0 4 6 0 2 12 3.6%Retention s trategies 2 0 0 4 2 2 2 12 3.6%Graduation/completion 1 0 0 2 3 3 2 11 3.3%Employees ' capabi l i ties 1 0 0 5 4 1 0 11 3.3%Funding 0 0 2 4 1 1 2 10 3.0%Programs offerings 2 0 0 2 2 1 2 9 2.7%Insti tutional image/cul ture/pride 0 0 1 1 4 3 0 9 2.7%Access ibi l i ty/recrui tment 1 2 0 3 3 0 0 9 2.7%Marketing/promotion program 1 0 0 2 2 2 0 7 2.1%Faci l i ties 0 0 0 4 0 0 3 7 2.1%Planning 0 2 0 1 3 0 0 6 1.8%Instruction qual i ty 0 0 1 2 0 1 2 6 1.8%Economic and workforce development (tra ining, education, programs, support)

0 0 0 0 1 3 1 5 1.5%

Student support services 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 4 1.2%Distance education 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 4 1.2%Student centeredness 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 0.9%Partnerships 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 0.9%Financia l management 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0.9%Accountabi l i ty 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0.6%Fundra is ing 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.6%Employee morale 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.3%Poor textbook selection 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.3%Affordabi l i ty/va lue 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.3%Total 38 17 12 102 99 36 26 330 100.0%

26

OPPORTUNITIESAdjunct Faculty

Full-Time Faculty




Community Member

Student Total %

Articulation agreements with four-year insti tutions

8 3 2 16 21 8 6 64 20.6%

Workforce needs (capi ta l i ze on workforce demands for emerging industry programs, tra ined/ski l led workers by exis ting and incoming industries/companies )

4 1 0 17 9 8 5 44 14.1%

Establ i sh/strengthen partnerships 2 3 2 11 10 6 3 37 11.9%Technology (demand for new technologies , dis tance education, etc.)

4 2 2 8 12 3 1 32 10.3%

Dual credi t program revenue increase 2 0 2 12 7 4 3 30 9.6%Annexation leading to increased enrol lment and revenue

4 0 2 13 8 1 0 28 9.0%

Demographic changes 5 0 1 5 8 3 0 22 7.1%Susta inabi l i ty trends 3 2 1 4 8 0 2 20 6.4%

Slow economy prompting higher enrol lments1 1 0 2 3 1 2 10 3.2%

Global ini tiatives 1 0 0 6 2 0 1 10 3.2%Socio-cul tura l changes 3 0 0 1 1 0 1 6 1.9%Pol i tica l changes 0 0 0 4 1 1 0 6 1.9%Establ i sh/strengthen partnerships2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0.6%Total 37 12 12 99 92 35 24 311 100.0%

THREATSAdjunct Faculty

Full-Time Faculty




Community Member

Student Total %

Funding reductions 6 4 4 22 18 1 0 55 17.2%High school misa l ignment with col leges 5 1 1 12 15 9 5 48 15.0%Student/ci ti zen i ssues (poor preparation, i l l i teracy, LEP)

8 0 0 8 7 6 3 32 10.0%

Competi tion from other higher education insti tutions

2 2 2 6 13 4 1 30 9.4%

Accredi tation requirements 3 1 0 7 11 1 2 25 7.8%Community's disengagement/complacency 2 1 0 8 6 4 1 22 6.9%Community's negative image about community col leges

0 2 0 6 5 3 2 18 5.6%

Accountabi l i ty requirements 4 1 0 7 2 3 0 17 5.3%Legal/regulatory changes 1 1 1 2 5 0 0 10 3.1%Inflation/cost of l iving 0 0 0 3 3 1 3 10 3.1%Technology changes 0 1 0 4 3 1 1 10 3.1%Economic downturn 4 0 0 1 1 1 1 8 2.5%Poverty 1 0 1 2 1 0 1 6 1.9%High school dropout rates 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 6 1.9%Limited Nurs ing/Al l ied Heal th instructor ava i labi l i ty

1 1 0 1 0 1 1 5 1.6%

Population growth 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 4 1.3%Global i zation 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 4 1.3%Pol i tica l changes 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 0.9%Lawsuits and bad press 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 3 0.9%Demographic changes 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 3 0.9%Alternative energy i ssues 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%Total 39 15 10 97 98 36 24 319 100.0%

27

Appendix C. Frequency Distribution of Responses to SWOT Survey by Campus

STRENGTHS SAC SPC PAC NVC NLC DSO Community Total %

Affordabi l i ty/va lue 8 7 8 10 7 22 6 68 21.1%Student centeredness 2 2 5 0 3 10 2 24 7.5%Instruction qual i ty 4 3 2 8 3 4 0 24 7.5%Student support services 0 2 5 6 3 5 1 22 6.8%Economic and workforce development (tra ining, education, programs, support)

1 2 1 1 0 9 6 20 6.2%

Programs offerings 4 2 0 2 1 7 2 18 5.6%Faci l i ties 0 2 2 1 3 7 1 16 5.0%Access ibi l i ty/recrui tment 2 1 2 0 2 5 3 15 4.7%Employee support (benefi ts , development) 2 0 1 2 2 6 0 13 4.0%Partnerships 2 1 2 0 2 1 4 12 3.7%Leadership 4 0 2 0 2 2 2 12 3.7%Technology 1 2 0 2 2 3 1 11 3.4%Graduation/completion 3 2 0 2 1 2 0 10 3.1%Data-informed decis ion making 0 0 2 0 2 4 0 8 2.5%Employees ' capabi l i ties 2 0 1 2 0 3 0 8 2.5%Marketing/promotion program 0 0 1 0 0 3 1 5 1.6%Insti tutional image/cul ture/pride 0 2 0 1 0 0 2 5 1.6%Financia l management 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 5 1.6%Planning 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 4 1.2%Budgeting/resource a l location 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 1.2%Process improvement 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 3 0.9%Col laboration among col leges 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 3 0.9%Col laboration between dis trict and col leges 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 3 0.9%Communication (internal , external ) 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 3 0.9%Distance education 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0.6%Funding 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0.6%Retention s trategies 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.3%Fundra is ing 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.3%Total 37 32 36 43 36 106 32 322 100.0%

28

WEAKNESSES SAC SPC PAC NVC NLC DSO Community Total %

Col laboration between dis trict and col leges 3 5 3 5 4 21 4 45 13.6%Communication (internal , external ) 5 6 3 6 3 9 6 38 11.5%Col laboration among col leges 1 0 0 2 6 9 6 24 7.3%Employee support (benefi ts , development) 3 0 4 3 5 6 0 21 6.4%Process improvement 2 2 1 4 2 5 1 17 5.2%Budgeting/resource a l location 4 1 2 1 1 8 0 17 5.2%Data-informed decis ion making 4 1 5 1 0 5 0 16 4.8%Leadership 1 4 1 3 1 3 1 14 4.2%Technology 0 1 3 2 2 4 0 12 3.6%Retention s trategies 2 0 0 3 1 4 2 12 3.6%Graduation/completion 0 0 2 2 2 2 3 11 3.3%Employees ' capabi l i ties 3 2 0 0 0 5 1 11 3.3%Funding 1 1 0 1 1 5 1 10 3.0%Programs offerings 0 1 3 2 1 1 1 9 2.7%Insti tutional image/cul ture/pride 2 2 0 0 0 2 3 9 2.7%Access ibi l i ty/recrui tment 2 1 1 2 0 3 0 9 2.7%Marketing/promotion program 1 0 1 0 1 2 2 7 2.1%Faci l i ties 1 1 1 0 0 4 0 7 2.1%Planning 1 0 3 1 0 1 0 6 1.8%Instruction qual i ty 0 0 2 1 0 2 1 6 1.8%Economic and workforce development (tra ining, education, programs, support)

0 1 1 0 0 0 3 5 1.5%

Student support services 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 4 1.2%Distance education 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 4 1.2%Student centeredness 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 3 0.9%Partnerships 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 3 0.9%Financia l management 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 3 0.9%Accountabi l i ty 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.6%Fundra is ing 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0.6%Employee morale 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.3%Poor textbook selection 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0.3%Affordabi l i ty/va lue 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.3%Total 39 32 36 47 35 105 36 330 100.0%

29

OPPORTUNITIES SAC SPC PAC NVC NLC DSO Community Total %

Articulation agreements with four-year insti tutions

10 7 8 11 4 16 8 64 20.6%

Workforce needs (capi ta l i ze on workforce demands for emerging industry programs, tra ined/ski l led workers by exis ting and incoming industries/companies )

3 2 4 4 6 17 8 44 14.1%

Establ i sh/strengthen partnerships 6 1 5 5 3 11 6 37 11.9%Technology (demand for new technologies , dis tance education, etc.)

3 6 4 3 3 10 3 32 10.3%

Dual credi t program revenue increase 2 2 5 3 2 12 4 30 9.6%Annexation leading to increased enrol lment and revenue

3 1 2 5 2 14 1 28 9.0%

Demographic changes 3 1 4 1 5 5 3 22 7.1%Susta inabi l i ty trends 2 3 4 5 2 4 0 20 6.4%Slow economy prompting higher enrol lments 2 1 0 2 2 2 1 10 3.2%Global ini tiatives 0 1 0 2 1 6 0 10 3.2%Socio-cul tura l changes 1 1 0 1 2 1 0 6 1.9%Pol i tica l changes 0 0 0 1 0 4 1 6 1.9%Establ i sh/strengthen partnerships 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0.6%Total 35 27 36 43 33 102 35 311 100.0%

THREATS SAC SPC PAC NVC NLC DSO Community Total %

Funding reductions 8 4 5 7 6 24 1 55 17.2%High school misa l ignment with col leges 5 6 6 7 3 12 9 48 15.0%Student/ci ti zen i ssues (poor preparation, i l l i teracy, LEP)

4 2 1 6 5 8 6 32 10.0%

Competi tion from other higher education insti tutions

3 3 6 7 2 5 4 30 9.4%

Accredi tation requirements 2 2 4 4 5 7 1 25 7.8%Community's disengagement/complacency 3 1 1 3 2 8 4 22 6.9%Community's negative image about community col leges

3 2 2 3 0 5 3 18 5.6%

Accountabi l i ty requirements 2 1 1 0 3 7 3 17 5.3%Legal/regulatory changes 2 2 3 1 0 2 0 10 3.1%Inflation/cost of l iving 2 1 0 0 3 3 1 10 3.1%Technology changes 0 3 2 0 0 4 1 10 3.1%Economic downturn 2 1 0 2 1 1 1 8 2.5%Poverty 1 0 1 0 1 3 0 6 1.9%High school dropout rates 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 6 1.9%Limited Nurs ing/Al l ied Heal th instructor ava i labi l i ty

1 1 0 1 0 1 1 5 1.6%

Population growth 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 4 1.3%Global i zation 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 4 1.3%Pol i tica l changes 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 3 0.9%Lawsuits and bad press 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 3 0.9%Demographic changes 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 3 0.9%Alternative energy i ssues 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%Total 38 32 34 45 36 98 36 319 100.0%

30

Appendix D. Frequency Distribution of Responses to Priorities by Stakeholder Category

WHAT AC MUST ADDRESSAdjunct Faculty

Full-Time Faculty




Community Member

Student Total %

Leadership Issues (inclus iveness , top-down decis ion making, trust)

4 3 2 4 10 1 1 25 22.5%

Personnel Is sues (capaci ty, capabi l i ty, resources , mora le, hi ring)

1 0 0 9 6 0 2 18 16.2%

Budgeting/Funding 0 0 1 6 2 0 2 11 9.9%Col laboration/Coordination 2 0 1 2 2 3 0 10 9.0%Recrui tment/Enrol lment 1 1 0 2 4 0 1 9 8.1%Compensation 3 0 0 3 1 0 0 7 6.3%Accountabi l i ty 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 5 4.5%Completion/Graduation 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 5 4.5%Process Improvement/Student Support Services

0 0 0 1 3 1 0 5 4.5%

Communication 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 4 3.6%Innovation 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 4 3.6%Employee Development 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 3 2.7%Retention 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1.8%New-Ini tiative Issues 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.9%Technology Issues 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0.9%Accreditation i ssues 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.9%Total 13 6 4 34 33 12 9 111 100.0%

WHAT AC MUST PRESERVEAdjunct Faculty

Full-Time Faculty




Community Member

Student Total %

Affordabi l i ty 2 0 0 5 5 4 3 19 17.4%Student-Centered Focus 0 2 1 8 7 1 0 19 17.4%Qual i ty Education 4 2 1 4 4 2 1 18 16.5%Access ibi l i ty 0 0 2 5 3 1 0 11 10.1%Col lege Cul tures/Autonomy 0 0 0 2 7 1 0 10 9.2%Faculty (autonomy, divers i ty, support) 3 1 0 1 2 0 0 7 6.4%Employee Development/Benefi ts 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 6 5.5%Col lege Col laboration/Communication 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 5 4.6%Program/Course Offerings 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 4 3.7%Image/Integri ty 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 2.8%Smal l Class Sizes 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 2.8%Vis ion/Miss ion/Values/Alamo Way 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 1.8%Community Commitment/Outreach 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.9%Services 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0.9%Leadership Opportuni ties 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%Total 13 5 4 34 33 12 8 109 100.0%

31

WHAT AC MUST AVOIDAdjunct Faculty

Full-Time Faculty




Community Member

Student Total %

Excess ive Ini tiatives 3 1 2 13 11 3 0 33 30.3%Weakening Curriculum/Course Content Va lue/Standards

2 0 0 4 6 3 1 16 14.7%

District Centeredness 0 2 1 3 6 1 0 13 11.9%Single Accredi tation 2 1 0 3 4 0 2 12 11.0%Neglect of Developmenta l Education 1 0 0 3 1 1 2 8 7.3%Faculty Issues (reduction, replacement, margina l i zation)

1 0 0 1 0 2 1 5 4.6%

Over-s tandardization/-consol idation 0 1 0 0 2 1 1 5 4.6%Staffing/Resource Inefficiencies 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 4 3.7%Tuition/Fees Increases 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 4 3.7%Col lege/Bui lding Expans ion 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 2.8%Impos ing Leadership/Management Concepts 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 1.8%Limiting Innovation/Focus 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 1.8%Not Serving Al l Populations 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 1.8%Funding Issues 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%Technology Issues 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%Total 13 5 4 33 33 12 9 109 100.0%

32

Appendix E. Frequency Distribution of Responses to Priorities by Campus

WHAT AC MUST ADDRESS SAC SPC PAC NVC NLC DSO Community Total %

Leadership Issues (inclus iveness , top-down decis ion making, trust)

3 5 3 7 2 4 1 25 22.5%

Personnel Is sues (capaci ty, capabi l i ty, resources , mora le, hi ring)

1 2 0 2 4 9 0 18 16.2%

Budgeting/Funding 1 1 2 0 0 7 0 11 9.9%Col laboration/Coordination 0 0 1 2 2 2 3 10 9.0%Recrui tment/Enrol lment 4 0 3 0 0 2 0 9 8.1%Compensation 0 0 0 3 1 3 0 7 6.3%Accountabi l i ty 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 5 4.5%Completion/Graduation 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 5 4.5%Process Improvement/Student Support Services

1 0 1 0 1 1 1 5 4.5%

Communication 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 4 3.6%Innovation 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 4 3.6%Employee Development 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 2.7%Retention 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 1.8%New-Ini tiative Issues 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.9%Technology Issues 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.9%Accreditation i ssues 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.9%Total 13 11 12 16 12 35 12 111 100.0%

WHAT AC MUST PRESERVE SAC SPC PAC NVC NLC DSO Community Total %

Affordabi l i ty 3 1 1 1 4 5 4 19 17.4%Student-Centered Focus 1 2 2 3 1 9 1 19 17.4%Qual i ty Education 4 1 2 4 0 5 2 18 16.5%Access ibi l i ty 0 0 3 1 1 5 1 11 10.1%Col lege Cul tures/Autonomy 0 4 1 2 0 2 1 10 9.2%Faculty (autonomy, divers i ty, support) 3 1 0 0 2 1 0 7 6.4%Employee Development/Benefi ts 1 1 1 0 0 3 0 6 5.5%Col lege Col laboration/Communication 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 5 4.6%Program/Course Offerings 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 4 3.7%Image/Integri ty 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 3 2.8%Smal l Class Sizes 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 2.8%Vis ion/Miss ion/Values/Alamo Way 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 1.8%Community Commitment/Outreach 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0.9%Services 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.9%Leadership Opportuni ties 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%Total 13 11 12 14 12 35 12 109 100.0%

33

WHAT AC MUST AVOID SAC SPC PAC NVC NLC DSO Community Total %

Excess ive Ini tiatives 3 2 5 3 3 14 3 33 30.3%Weakening Curriculum/Course Content Va lue/Standards

2 1 2 2 2 4 3 16 14.7%

District Centeredness 2 1 1 3 2 3 1 13 11.9%Single Accredi tation 2 5 1 1 0 3 0 12 11.0%Neglect of Developmenta l Education 1 1 0 2 0 3 1 8 7.3%Faculty Issues (reduction, replacement, margina l i zation)

0 0 0 0 2 1 2 5 4.6%

Over-s tandardization/-consol idation 1 0 1 2 0 0 1 5 4.6%Staffing/Resource Inefficiencies 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 4 3.7%Tuition/Fees Increases 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 4 3.7%Col lege/Bui lding Expans ion 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 3 2.8%Impos ing Leadership/Management Concepts 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1.8%Limiting Innovation/Focus 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1.8%Not Serving Al l Populations 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 1.8%Funding Issues 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%Technology Issues 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%Total 13 10 11 16 12 35 12 109 100.0%

34

Appendix F. Frequency Distribution of Responses to Competitive Factors by Stakeholder Category

WHAT AC DOES BETTER THAN COMPETITORSAdjunct Faculty

Full-Time Faculty




Community Member

Student Total %

Affordabi l i ty 7 5 1 23 16 8 7 67 23.3%Access ibi l i ty 2 1 2 13 10 3 1 32 11.1%Smal l Classes 8 2 0 3 9 2 5 29 10.1%Dual Credi t 2 1 1 8 7 6 0 25 8.7%Workforce Development/Technica l Programs 2 0 1 8 5 7 1 24 8.4%Value 3 0 3 9 4 1 1 21 7.3%Qual i ty Education 3 1 0 4 9 1 1 19 6.6%Student Centeredness 2 3 1 5 5 0 2 18 6.3%Student Support/Services 2 1 0 3 6 0 3 15 5.2%Partnerships 1 0 1 2 5 2 1 12 4.2%Community Outreach/Support 0 0 0 2 5 1 1 9 3.1%Flexibi l i ty/Agi l i ty 1 0 0 3 2 1 0 7 2.4%Program/Courses Variety 3 0 0 1 0 2 1 7 2.4%Employee/facul ty support 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.3%Innovation 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0.3%Total 36 14 10 85 84 34 24 287 100.0%

WHAT COMPETITORS DO BETTER THAN ACAdjunct Faculty

Full-Time Faculty




Community Member

Student Total %

Image/Prestige 12 1 2 15 14 7 2 53 19.9%Fundra is ing/Alumni Support 4 0 1 12 12 6 3 38 14.3%Marketing 4 3 2 7 13 3 2 34 12.8%Employee/Facul ty Support 5 2 1 9 9 1 1 28 10.5%Completion/Graduation 2 0 0 9 7 3 4 25 9.4%Program/Courses Variety 3 1 1 3 5 0 5 18 6.8%Processes 0 1 0 9 5 1 0 16 6.0%Student Support/Services 0 0 0 6 4 2 2 14 5.3%Qual i ty Education 3 0 1 6 1 1 1 13 4.9%Student Retention 0 0 0 4 4 1 3 12 4.5%Innovation 0 2 0 1 4 2 1 10 3.8%Internships 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0.8%Student Centeredness 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0.4%Uti l i zation of human resources 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.4%Employee compensation 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0.4%Total 33 11 8 83 79 28 24 266 100.0%

35

Appendix G. Frequency Distribution of Responses to Competitive Factors by Campus

WHAT AC DOES BETTER THAN COMPETITORS SAC SPC PAC NVC NLC DSO Community Total %

Affordabi l i ty 9 7 5 8 7 23 8 67 23.3%Access ibi l i ty 4 3 2 1 5 14 3 32 11.1%Smal l Classes 7 3 0 8 6 3 2 29 10.1%Dual Credi t 0 3 2 6 1 7 6 25 8.7%Workforce Development/Technica l Programs 1 1 2 4 0 9 7 24 8.4%Value 3 1 0 3 2 11 1 21 7.3%Qual i ty Education 2 1 2 5 4 4 1 19 6.6%Student Centeredness 1 3 4 3 1 6 0 18 6.3%Student Support/Services 0 5 4 2 1 3 0 15 5.2%Partnerships 3 1 3 0 1 2 2 12 4.2%Community Outreach/Support 1 0 3 0 2 2 1 9 3.1%Flexibi l i ty/Agi l i ty 2 0 2 0 0 2 1 7 2.4%Program/Courses Variety 0 0 1 2 1 1 2 7 2.4%Employee/facul ty support 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.3%Innovation 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.3%Total 34 28 30 42 31 88 34 287 100.0%

WHAT COMPETITORS DO BETTER THAN AC SAC SPC PAC NVC NLC DSO Community Total %

Image/Prestige 7 3 6 9 7 14 7 53 19.9%Fundra is ing/Alumni Support 4 3 4 3 6 12 6 38 14.3%Marketing 6 5 4 7 2 7 3 34 12.8%Employee/Facul ty Support 5 3 4 3 2 10 1 28 10.5%Completion/Graduation 3 4 3 1 3 8 3 25 9.4%Program/Courses Variety 2 2 5 4 2 3 0 18 6.8%Processes 2 1 2 1 0 9 1 16 6.0%Student Support/Services 1 0 0 2 3 6 2 14 5.3%Qual i ty Education 1 0 2 1 2 6 1 13 4.9%Student Retention 2 1 0 2 2 4 1 12 4.5%Innovation 1 2 0 3 1 1 2 10 3.8%Internships 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0.8%Student Centeredness 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.4%Uti l i zation of human resources 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.4%Employee compensation 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.4%Total 34 25 30 37 30 82 28 266 100.0%

36

Appendix H. Comments Provided by Survey Respondents

Campus Stakeholder Category Comment

SAC College Staff or Administrator

We must increase accountability and be willing to let people go if they are not fulfilling their job responsibilities...after we have tried to develop them appropriately.

SAC Student While the Alamo Colleges is wonderful, there is some I wish I had the ability to pick more than one answer. We don't have to focus on one problem at a time. Departments already pick one of these initiatives; they should just be monitored better for actual results. The system will never be perfect, but this is a good step to helping as many students as possible.

SPC Adjunct Faculty Not sure how to put it but our greatest weakness/threat/challenge is the way the district's top leadership, including the Board, dismiss, disrespect, and disenfranchise the faculty. Trust is practically non-existent.

NVC Adjunct Faculty Construction of a child daycare center at NVC would provide an opportunity for more students to attend and be retained by NVC.

NVC College Staff or Administrator

It seems each option should be available for each item (ex: if a strength checkbox, should also be available as a weakness, if a better than others box, should also be a better than us option).

NVC Full-Time Faculty

Please base strategic planning on actual SWOT analysis at least partially. Last year the SWOT was posted and we only discussed the Institutes! No one at the table (including a high ranking district employee) or the table next to us had a proper and clear image of what the Institutes would be and we spent all day on how to promote it and advertise it to the community! There was a complete disconnect between the SWOT analysis and the actual planning! Please don’t dismiss your employees’ voices and concerns to fit an agenda because otherwise, what is the point?

NVC Student This survey only scratches the surface of the real problems. For example the lack of properly trained staff for emergencies or the inability for ADA access. Elevators that do not work for those who need them. Inability to select text books that do not have a good explanation of the material. A serious lack of tutors to help for STEM subjects. For some subjects and/or campuses too rely on multiple choice exams.

NLC Adjunct Faculty Most students have LOW reading comprehension which hinders the learning process in a college class. They have little historical frame of reference, so can't "connect the dots" in class discussions.

NLC Adjunct Faculty My perception is that faculty are very concerned about students being able to "pack” i.e. bring weapons on campus. If this occurs in any form, I will resign.

DSO District Staff or Administrator

Ask employees if they would rather attend a Covey or FOCUS PDCA session or have those funds used for raises or compensation. The priorities are wrong- take care of your employees first; bring the salaries to where they should be per the results of the Hays study (which also cost a lot of money). THEN spend money on these initiatives.

DSO District Staff or Administrator

In my opinion, the biggest risk to Alamo Colleges is the lack of critical skill sets to drive the process improvements and initiatives we are wanting. Our processes are wrought with inefficiencies and lack of communication between departments, which increases the frustration of our students and employees. Everyone seems to know what the problems are, but no one knows how to fix them. We have a tendency to move people around the district and put them in positions for which they are not qualified. At the same time, we can't attract people with the necessary skill sets because our pay ranges are so low we can't even get people to apply. We have archaic HR processes that do nothing to incentivize employees to perform. And there appears to be no accountability when goals or objectives are not met. Look at the admissions and enrollment processes. It has been broken for years and has caused an extreme amount of frustration for students. Yet, everyone just looks at the problem and points the finger at someone else or blames Banner. These are issues that no amount of 4DX and FOCUS PDCA training are going to fix. We need to get the right people with the right skill sets (at the right pay) to effectively drive change. Unfortunately, the politics of the organization will most likely prevent that.

37

SWOT Analysis, Priorities, and Competitive Factor … SWOT Analysis report presents the results of...

Documents

Transcript of SWOT Analysis, Priorities, and Competitive Factor … SWOT Analysis report presents the results of...