Strategic Plan Data Collection Report

SUMMARY REPORT Data Collection │ Fall 2010

SUMMARY REPORT: DATA COLLECTION, FALL 2010 in support of the Strategic Planning Process for South Dakota School of Mines & Technology

in support of the Strategic Planning Process facilitated by Sumption & Wyland │ Sioux Falls, SD

Interviewers: Wyland, M; Sumption, M; and Oelmann, R Report Date: November 22, 2010 Focus Group Facilitator: Sumption, M Summary Prepared By: Oelmann, R; Sage Project Consultants, LLC │ Sioux Falls, SD Page | 2

SUMMARY REPORT: DATA COLLECTION, FALL 2010 in support of the Strategic Planning Process for South Dakota School of Mines & Technology TABLE of CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................................ 4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................................. 5 Population Demographics..........................................................................................................................6

RESULTS.................................................................................................................................................. 8 Mission, Vision and Values........................................................................................................................8 Quality of Services....................................................................................................................................10 Image and Branding.................................................................................................................................17 Master Campus Plan................................................................................................................................21 Planning for the Future...........................................................................................................................22

CONCLUSIONS...................................................................................................................................... 27

Interviewers: Wyland, M; Sumption, M; and Oelmann, R Report Date: November 22, 2010 Focus Group Facilitator: Sumption, M Summary Prepared By: Oelmann, R; Sage Project Consultants, LLC │ Sioux Falls, SD Page | 3

SUMMARY REPORT: DATA COLLECTION, FALL 2010 in support of the Strategic Planning Process for South Dakota School of Mines & Technology

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY During the summer of 2010 the administration of South Dakota School of Mines & Technology contracted the services of Sumption & Wyland, a consulting firm based in Sioux Falls, SD, for the development of a comprehensive, data-driven strategic plan. The intent of this strategic plan was to outline the directional priorities for the School, based largely on feedback from key stakeholders to SDSM&T via an extensive data collection process.

The research methodology for this project consisted of two main data collection elements: individual interviews, conducted both face-to-face and via phone, and focus groups held on the SDSM&T campus.

Data collection instruments were created with input from senior leadership of SDSM&T and scripted to maintain consistency amongst interviewers. Interviews were conducted over a three-week period beginning in October 2010. The focus groups were conducted over a two-week period at the end of October. In total, 43 individual interviews were conducted and 11 focus groups were held. Margaret Sumption of Sumption & Wyland facilitated the focus group session. Rachel Oelmann of Sage Project Consultants, LLC (Sioux Falls, SD), Michael Wyland of Sumption & Wyland, and Margaret Sumption were the interviewers for the individual discussions.

In summary, the key results of the data collection process as detailed within this report are as follows: • SDSM&T should first and foremost strive to maintain its reputation in undergraduate academic excellence in the fields of engineering and science; • The core strength of SDSM&T is its faculty, based upon the components of student-faculty relationships, academic excellence, and high quality, industry-relevant curriculum; • The strategic foci as identified by the Administration of SDSM&T are both appropriate and on track, but should include the element of faculty development; • Recruitment efforts need to expand to a nationwide focus in order to achieve the goals of SDSM&T; • There is a lack of synergy and collaboration between administrative bodies of key SDSM&T entities; • Student body diversity needs to be a strategic focus of recruitment and student programs to facilitate a culturally and ethnically diverse student experience; • The number one concern of the campus as it relates to the goals and desired growth for SDSM&T is lack of space for expansion; • SDSM&T holds a clear and concise reputation amongst industry as a center for undergraduate academic excellence in the field of engineering; • There is a lack of community integration between SDSM&T and the City of Rapid City that needs to be addressed and nurtured; and • The growth of the research enterprise and graduate programs need to operate in sync, where faculty development provides the foundation for academic excellence in graduate studies, which will inadvertently fuel the growth of the research enterprise.

Interviewers: Wyland, M; Sumption, M; and Oelmann, R Report Date: November 22, 2010 Focus Group Facilitator: Sumption, M Summary Prepared By: Oelmann, R; Sage Project Consultants, LLC │ Sioux Falls, SD Page | 4

SUMMARY REPORT: DATA COLLECTION, FALL 2010 in support of the Strategic Planning Process for South Dakota School of Mines & Technology

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The data collection process for this exercise was initiated in October 2010 and consisted of two primary methodologies: individual interviews and focus groups. In total, 43 individual interviews were conducted over the course of three weeks, facilitated by three interviewers using a standardized data collection instrument and scripted questions for the respondents. The data collection instrument was jointly developed by the contractor, Sumption & Wyland, the leadership of SDSM&T, and representatives from Perkins Will and Architecture, Inc. that are facilitating a concurrent Campus Master Planning process for SDSM&T. Consisting of a series of questions relating to five (5) broad categories of interest, the data collection instrument was constructed to accommodate all respondents independent of their knowledge level or engagement with SDSM&T. Subsequently, the majority of questions were posed to all interviewees, but subject to the discretion of the interviewer some of the more detailed questions (notably those regarding mission, vision, and values) were eliminated from the question process for individuals with a more distant relationship to SDSM&T. Individual interviews were largely conducted via phone. Due to scheduling opportunities, however, several interviews were conducted face-to-face on the campus of SDSM&T. In addition to the individual interview process 11 focus groups were held on the campus of SDSM&T, facilitated by Margaret Sumption of Sumption & Wyland and Rachel Oelmann of Sage Project Consultants, LLC, a sub-contractor for the project. The focus groups utilized selected questions from the developed data collection instrument used for the individual interview process so as to maintain consistency.

Key stakeholders that comprised the interview or focus group pool were identified by the leadership of SDSM&T and contacted by the Executive Assistant to Dr. Wharton to arrange scheduling. The administration office had no other involvement in the data collection process aside from brief welcome statements by key representatives from the leadership team at most of the focus group sessions; the key representative did not stay for the focus group discussion.

As referenced, two tiers of questions were developed and asked relative to the engagement level of the interviewee, subject to the interviewer’s discretion. The questions included in the primary tier captured information on the following core components: • Indication of core values of SDSM&T • Discussion of what SDSM&T is best known for • Core strengths and weaknesses (areas of improvement) for SDSM&T • Capacity for SDSM&T to meet the various needs of its stakeholders • Discussion of major industries in which SDSM&T graduates are employed • Discussion of key challenges that inhibit SDSM&T from moving its mission forward • Reputation of SDSM&T • Preparedness of graduates • Recruitment concentration, and how to enhance recruitment at the national level • Assets and concerns in terms of campus facilities and resources, as well as ideas on how to fund campus improvements • Discussion of Administration’s strategic foci • Residential housing and student life Interviewers: Wyland, M; Sumption, M; and Oelmann, R Report Date: November 22, 2010 Focus Group Facilitator: Sumption, M Summary Prepared By: Oelmann, R; Sage Project Consultants, LLC │ Sioux Falls, SD Page | 5

SUMMARY REPORT: DATA COLLECTION, FALL 2010 in support of the Strategic Planning Process for South Dakota School of Mines & Technology •

Near and long term focus areas for growth and development

The questions included in the secondary tier captured information on the following core components, in addition to those noted above (primary tier): • For each of the elements of the mission statement, the respondent was asked to comment on if the statement was an accurate reflection of what was happening at the School, and how effective the School was in fulfilling that component of the mission statement.

• Respondents were asked to comment on how they felt the core values as they had articulated (primary tier question) were translated into their specific program or department.

All interviews and focus group sessions were initiated with standard language and protocol to ensure the respondents were aware of the use of their comments in the development of this data summary report.

The interview script and question list was developed to maintain consistency amongst interviewers.

Questions were asked in order of priority for discussion purposes in the event time became a limiting factor for a particular interview. Responses to each question were tallied and reported as appropriate in the summary report. The interviewer began with a brief introduction and stated representation of Sumption & Wyland and relationship to SDSM&T as a contractor for the strategic planning process.

All data responses collected by the interviewers remained anonymous throughout data analysis and reporting. All results were de-identified so as to protect the respondent and normalize the results across all stakeholders. It was expressed to the interviewees that the answers they provided would be used to help target the focus of determining strategic priority areas for SDSM&T, and would help SDSM&T administrators better understand how its stakeholders perceived the current environment and future plan for SDSM&T. Following the introduction, respondents in both the individual interviews and focus groups were asked several questions to determine the demographics of the respondent pool. Time (in years) affiliated with SDSM&T, nature of the respondent’s involvement with SDSM&T, and alumnus status were collected in this process.

Population Demographics Individual Interviews As previously noted, the stakeholders that comprised the interview pool were identified by the leadership of SDSM&T. In order to determine population demographics for this representative body of stakeholders, several questions were asked. The questions are listed below with collected data responses, respectively.

•

Which of the following categories best describes how long you’ve been involved with SDSM&T? [A] LESS THAN 2 YEARS 10 respondents (23.3%) [B] BETWEEN 2 AND 5 YEARS 6 respondents (14%) [C] BETWEEN 5 AND 15 YEARS 13 respondents (30.2%) [D] LONGER THAN 15 YEARS 14 respondents (32.5%)

•

Please describe the primary nature of your work or involvement with SDSM&T. [A] FACULTY MEMBER – PART TIME 0 respondents (0%) [B] FACULTY MEMBER – FULL TIME 1 respondent (2.2%) [C] ADMINISTRATOR 10 respondents (23.3%) [D] UNIVERSITY TRUSTEE or REGENT 3 respondents (7%) [E] ADVISORY BOARD MEMBER 6 respondents (14%)

Interviewers: Wyland, M; Sumption, M; and Oelmann, R Report Date: November 22, 2010 Focus Group Facilitator: Sumption, M Summary Prepared By: Oelmann, R; Sage Project Consultants, LLC │ Sioux Falls, SD Page | 6

SUMMARY REPORT: DATA COLLECTION, FALL 2010 in support of the Strategic Planning Process for South Dakota School of Mines & Technology [F] OTHER

•

Are you an alumnus/alumna of SDSM&T? [YES] [NO]

23 respondents (53.5%)

22 respondents (51%) 21 respondents (49%)

Focus Groups The demographics of the selected focus groups were varied and consisted of a similar pool of stakeholders as that of the individual interviews. A total of 11 focus groups were held, inclusive of the following areas of focus: academic department heads, career services, exempt staff, faculty, Foundation executive committee, Foundation staff, Hardrockers, research leadership, and students.

3 of the 11 focus groups were dedicated to students; combined, 30 students were included in this activity, one (1) of which was a graduate student.

Interviewers: Wyland, M; Sumption, M; and Oelmann, R Report Date: November 22, 2010 Focus Group Facilitator: Sumption, M Summary Prepared By: Oelmann, R; Sage Project Consultants, LLC │ Sioux Falls, SD Page | 7

SUMMARY REPORT: DATA COLLECTION, FALL 2010 in support of the Strategic Planning Process for South Dakota School of Mines & Technology

RESULTS The discussion that follows is a summary of interview responses organized by focus area. For the purposes of this analysis, interview questions were categorized into five (5) focus areas: Mission, Vision and Values; Quality of Services; Image and Branding; Master Campus Plan; and, Futures Plan.

As noted in the preceding section of this report describing research methodology, a total of 43 individual interviews were conducted via phone or in person. The following response analysis reflects these individual interview responses. Responses to the primary tier questions were obtained in all instances or otherwise noted. Responses to the secondary tier questions were obtained as deemed appropriate by the interviewer relative to the interviewee’s relationship with SDSM&T. Responses to questions asked of all focus groups are integrated into the results below, organized by section and question as appropriate, and noted as such separate from those results reflective of the individual interview component of data collection.

Mission, Vision and Values Question: Please indicate the three (3) or four (4) things you believe to be the core values of SDSM&T. • 41 respondents (44 total asked) • Most respondents provided three (3) responses. 103 total responses captured across all respondents.

Response # of Responses Academic excellence in undergraduate engineering and 27 science education Academic integrity 16 Engaged faculty - student relationship 10 Work ethic 8 Emphasis on and commitment to research and graduate 8 programs Citizenship and community service 7 Translation of laboratory and classroom education to 5 industry Responses > 5 incidences, listed in order of occurrence • Respect • Scientific innovation • Teamwork • Community and industry partnerships • Cost value of education • Quality of student and community life • Foundation and alumni support The focus group responses largely mimicked that of the individual interviews. The overwhelming consensus of most groups was that SDSM&T does a wonderful job of providing students with opportunities for leadership and fundamental educational components. Some improvements cited included opening students up to a greater awareness of how they are an integral part of society and the world, and how their influence at the local level can and does translate to longer term impacts.

Interviewers: Wyland, M; Sumption, M; and Oelmann, R Report Date: November 22, 2010 Focus Group Facilitator: Sumption, M Summary Prepared By: Oelmann, R; Sage Project Consultants, LLC │ Sioux Falls, SD Page | 8

SUMMARY REPORT: DATA COLLECTION, FALL 2010 in support of the Strategic Planning Process for South Dakota School of Mines & Technology Students and fellow stakeholders commented that broadening the focus of curriculum would be of benefit to that point.

Question: Thinking about the School today, describe what you believe SDSM&T is best known for.

• 36 respondents (44 total asked) • 35 positive responses • 4 negative responses # of Response Responses High caliber graduates and engineers 16 Academic excellence in undergraduate engineering and science education with high placement of graduates into 13 industry Best value for the dollar in education 3 National reputation as a premiere science and engineering 2 school Academic rigor 1 The large majority of respondents believe that SDSM&T is best known for producing high caliber graduates, and subsequently high caliber engineers. Several respondents noted that SDSM&T is becoming better known for research development in key areas and that research was being effectively integrated into the undergraduate curriculum via competitive-based programs on campus. In addition to the qualitative components previously noted, several respondents also discussed how SDSM&T is known in national circles amongst industry and collegiate partners, but not necessarily well known at the local or regional level.

While most responses were in a positive regard to SDSM&T, several negative responses were expressed via the following comment list. One (1) incidence of each response was recorded.

• Life sciences are not presented well, but growing.

• Have an “old” feeling in the community that the School is unapproachable.

• Lack of solid relationship between Administration and Foundation.

• Lower than expected graduation rates.

• Best value for the dollar in education. Note: Respondent felt this was both a positive and negative attribute to SDSM&T. Respondent noted that tuition could be doubled and still provide a great education at a great price. Emphasized that promotion should instead focus on academic excellence and placement percentages versus “bang for your buck”.

This specific question was not directly asked of focus group participants.

Interviewers: Wyland, M; Sumption, M; and Oelmann, R Report Date: November 22, 2010 Focus Group Facilitator: Sumption, M Summary Prepared By: Oelmann, R; Sage Project Consultants, LLC │ Sioux Falls, SD Page | 9

SUMMARY REPORT: DATA COLLECTION, FALL 2010 in support of the Strategic Planning Process for South Dakota School of Mines & Technology

Quality of Services Question: What are the top three (3) things you feel that SDSM&T “does right”? Rather, where do their core strengths lie?

• 42 respondents (43 total asked) • Most respondents provided three (3) responses. 107 total responses captured across all respondents. # of Response Responses Faculty 25 Academic excellence 19 Student experience 17 Preparedness of graduates for industry 13 Research & development 11 Ability to secure resources 7 Community engagement 6 Reputation 4 Communication of image and mission 3 Best value for the dollar in education 2 Based upon the noted responses it is clear that faculty, by and large, is viewed as the leading core strength of SDSM&T. Several comments are listed below that attest to this observation: • Ability to attract high quality faculty • Supportive and engaged relationship between faculty and student • Most memorable component of the educational experience • Leaders in academia and industry • High quality and industry-relevance of instructional curriculum • Student engagement in curriculum and the pursuit of knowledge Comments regarding the component of academic excellence are as follows: • Rigor of science and engineering curriculum • Well-rounded undergraduate curriculum • Students held to a high standard and pushed to do even better • Opportunities for laboratory and hands-on learning Comments regarding the component of student experience are as follows: • Opportunities for students to become involved in campus and leadership activities • Proactive, driven, and committed student body – an environment unique to SDSM&T compared to other State institutions • Incorporation of community service to student experience and learning • Ability to attract high quality students • Emphasis on small community and small student body size as a positive component for the overall experience • Diversification of faculty, staff, and students

Interviewers: Wyland, M; Sumption, M; and Oelmann, R Report Date: November 22, 2010 Focus Group Facilitator: Sumption, M Summary Prepared By: Oelmann, R; Sage Project Consultants, LLC │ Sioux Falls, SD Page | 10

SUMMARY REPORT: DATA COLLECTION, FALL 2010 in support of the Strategic Planning Process for South Dakota School of Mines & Technology Responses within the focus groups complemented the above results. SDSM&T was noted as widely known and highly regarded amongst industry partners via the preparedness of its graduates and demonstrated, repeat recruitment of graduates by companies. Attesting to the leading core strength as noted above, faculty were recognized by the majority of contributors to focus group discussion as well known in academia and industry, and that several faculty members were known as leaders in their field of study.

Question: Conversely, what are the top three (3) things you feel that SDSM&T could improve upon?

• 41 respondents (43 total asked) • Most respondents provided two (2) responses. 95 total responses captured across all respondents. # of Response Responses Faculty resource allocation 11 Breadth & depth of academic programs 11 Infrastructure 11 Recruitment 11 Community engagement 9 Leadership 9 Student campus experience 8 Marketing 6 Securing resources 5 Enrollment 5 Athletic program development 3 Research & development 3 Legislative communications 3 Four key elements indicate concern across the respondents: Faculty resource allocation, Breadth and depth of academic programs, Infrastructure, and Recruitment. Comments regarding each of these four elements are featured below, listed in order of priority/occurrence: Faculty resource allocation (11 responses) • Balance between faculty and programs/research needs to be obtained. Current professors do not have capacity to teach, mentor, perform research, and secure grant resources. Without adding faculty and developing the existing faculty, expanding research is not an obtainable goal.

Student:Faculty ratio needs to be improved.

• Need to build and use a sustainable model for faculty recruitment, promotion, tenure, and succession planning.

• Faculty need to be engaged in terms of leadership and strategic direction for the School, but also need to move forward with new leadership and not dwell on past experiences.

Breadth and depth of academic programs (11 responses) • Need exists to engage students in the development of non-science skill sets required for managers of organizations so as to foster future leaders. Offer more than STEM-based courses that include the application of science skills using a management, leadership, or global perspective.

• Incorporation of internet-based or distance-learning education components into curriculum would enable outreach to more students, particularly non-traditional students.

Interviewers: Wyland, M; Sumption, M; and Oelmann, R Report Date: November 22, 2010 Focus Group Facilitator: Sumption, M Summary Prepared By: Oelmann, R; Sage Project Consultants, LLC │ Sioux Falls, SD Page | 11

SUMMARY REPORT: DATA COLLECTION, FALL 2010 in support of the Strategic Planning Process for South Dakota School of Mines & Technology •

Need to evaluate degree offerings to best position SDSM&T for the future (e.g. a doctorate in physics to support DUSEL research).

Infrastructure (11 responses) • Optimization of residential housing needed, inclusive of more modern, non-dorm approaches and options for non-traditional or married students.

• Parking is a detrimental problem for campus life, student access, and community engagement.

• Athletic facilities need to be updated and/or built (e.g. field house).

• Campus beautification is important.

• Maintenance of existing, old buildings needs to be addressed.

• Student resource facilities need to be improved (e.g. library) and available 24/7.

Recruitment (11 responses) • Need to recruit more diverse student body, particularly women students.

• Need to expand scope of recruitment to a national audience.

• Need to do a better job of recruitment in-state, especially to east river schools.

A second grouping of results pertaining to the elements of Leadership, Community engagement, Marketing, and Student campus experience were also significant. A sampling of comments for each are featured below: Community engagement (9 responses) • Widely regarded as great School in national engineering and science communities, but not well recognized in local community due to lack of engagement.

• Lack of mutual acknowledgement of City and SDSM&T. Need to improve relationship, and increase interaction with partners, specifically area high schools.

• Market and leverage geographic location and connection to the Black Hills.

Leadership (9 responses) • Relationship between key leaders – Administration, Foundation, and Alumni Association – is not effective and standing in the way of success. Need for improved communication, respectful dialogue, and cessation of “turf wars”. Leadership must foster interpersonal skills that can facilitate change at all levels.

• Lack of unified strategy between Administration, Foundation, and Departments. Disengaged, and often operating as separate entities.

• Need for streamlined processes and focus on key initiatives.

Student campus experience (8 responses) • Significant lack of school pride as compared to other State institutions.

• Student safety is compromised, both on and off campus, due to proximity to nearby neighborhoods.

• No options for student socialization that are found at other Universities (equated to Dinky Town at U of M, but on a much smaller scale).

Marketing (6 responses) • Current marketing lacks clear approach on logo presentation, colors, and style; overall, a lack in clear marketing position and brand.

Interviewers: Wyland, M; Sumption, M; and Oelmann, R Report Date: November 22, 2010 Focus Group Facilitator: Sumption, M Summary Prepared By: Oelmann, R; Sage Project Consultants, LLC │ Sioux Falls, SD Page | 12

SUMMARY REPORT: DATA COLLECTION, FALL 2010 in support of the Strategic Planning Process for South Dakota School of Mines & Technology • •

Reputation is not widely known, particularly in non-engineering audiences.

Extreme lack of advertising and publicity, both locally (Rapid City) and regionally, in all audiences. No one knows about SDSM&T.

In addition to the above elements, the lack of athletic prominence, school pride, and program awareness was noted in several focus group discussions. It was noted that the athletic program at SDSM&T tends to be less significant based upon historical perspectives. It was recommended by several contributors that broadening the athletic program would not only assist in recruitment efforts, but also help to better facilitate the transition to NCAA Division II and ultimately provide a positive, enriching and memorable student experience.

Question: What is the capacity of SDSM&T to meet the needs of its students?

The large majority of respondents (37 out of 43) indicated that SDSM&T is both effective and thorough in meeting the needs of its students. It was routinely noted that this is one area where the School not only is strong, but continues to demonstrate improvement, most specifically demonstrated by the integration of research into the undergraduate curriculum. High placement rates for the graduates of SDSM&T were also noted.

Several areas of suggested improvement were noted by the respondents. Most frequently, respondents commented on the lack of diversity amongst the student body. It was noted that recruitment should target women, specifically, in aims of increasing student diversity as well as other minority populations. While it was recognized that some minorities are not heavily represented in the region, the ability for a University to demonstrate effective, diverse recruitment methodologies is a positive sign to eventual employers in industry as they, too, are seeking diverse workforce representation.

In addition to lack of student diversity, the following elements were noted, although not by a majority of respondents: • Curriculum too narrow; lack of vision towards creating leaders by missing management course components and training.

• Disconnect between use of technology by the students and faculty (e.g. tablets).

• Noted problems and opportunities with residential housing and student life; need to evaluate more modern approaches to student housing so as to effectively compete with other institutions.

Six (6) out of 43 respondents noted that the School was not meeting the needs of its students. All of these respondents indicated that the basis for their answer was due to inadequate student life and residential housing options.

This specific question was not directly asked of focus group participants.

Question: What is the capacity of SDSM&T to meet the needs of the faculty and staff?

Out of 43 respondents to this question, 22 felt that the School was meeting the needs of its faculty and staff, while 16 did not feel that those needs were being met. Five (5) were indifferent or did not know.

Of those that indicated the School was meeting the needs of the faculty and staff, little explanation was garnered from the respondents on the basis for their opinion. Several respondents indicated that the felt SDSM&T was doing a good job of recruiting professors, and that the School was effectively addressing the classroom and technology upgrade issues as voiced by the Faculty.

Interviewers: Wyland, M; Sumption, M; and Oelmann, R Report Date: November 22, 2010 Focus Group Facilitator: Sumption, M Summary Prepared By: Oelmann, R; Sage Project Consultants, LLC │ Sioux Falls, SD Page | 13

SUMMARY REPORT: DATA COLLECTION, FALL 2010 in support of the Strategic Planning Process for South Dakota School of Mines & Technology The comments below demonstrate a sampling of opinions offered by those that indicated the School was not meeting the needs of the faculty and staff: • Low faculty morale and support due to organizational and leadership doctrine of past administrators. Faculty in need of support, encouragement, and inclusivity in strategic direction for the School.

• Need to provide time for faculty to support their research initiatives. Felt by most respondents who indicated this as a concern that without additional resource allocation (both additional faculty and monetary support) the existing faculty lacks the capacity and time to effectively address the goals of the administration while maintaining a high level of undergraduate academic excellence and student mentorship.

• Faculty and staff are underpaid, which contributes to difficulty in retention and low morale.

Noted lack of perceived support from Board of Regents and State of South Dakota.

This specific question was not directly asked of focus group participants.

Question: What is the capacity of SDSM&T to meet the needs of the surrounding community?

The large majority of respondents indicated that the School is not meeting the needs of the surrounding community. Historical reference was made by several respondents to the extent that SDSM&T and the City have never had a very good connection, and that the City does not depend on the School for any of its needs or vice versa. Lack of community integration was attributed to a variety of elements, most notably the lack of jobs for SDSM&T graduates, thus retention of students in the State of SD and community of Rapid City. SDSM&T is not viewed by the majority in this exercise as a driver for economic development in the community or region. Furthermore, and of equal emphasis, was the lack of effective promotion and marketing of SDSM&T to the Rapid City community, yielding an indifferent reaction from community members to the presence and activities of the School. Several respondents noted that an active and well-promoted athletic program would serve to draw the community into campus activities.

Focus was specifically targeted on Rapid City as the identifying community. Out of the 43 respondents, only five (5) felt that the School and community were engaged with one another. Rationale for this was largely attributed to the leadership of Dr. Wharton, existing President of SDSM&T, and his recent efforts at community engagement.

This specific question was not directly asked of focus group participants.

Question: What is the capacity of SDSM&T to meet the needs of the State of South Dakota?

Responses to this question were largely indifferent, attributed mostly to the premise that the respondents were not sure what the expectations of the State of South Dakota were of SDSM&T, thus making it hard to comment on how effective SDSM&T is in meeting the needs of the State.

Of those respondents that indicated that SDSM&T was indeed meeting the needs of the State, their rationale was largely attributed to the fact that the School produces high quality graduates in engineering and science that can more than meet the State’s demands in terms of employed engineers and scientists.

On the contrary, most respondents felt that the State lacks sufficient business presence and development activity in the areas of science and engineering and thus most SDSM&T graduates are forced to find employment out of state.

This specific question was not directly asked of focus group participants.

Interviewers: Wyland, M; Sumption, M; and Oelmann, R Report Date: November 22, 2010 Focus Group Facilitator: Sumption, M Summary Prepared By: Oelmann, R; Sage Project Consultants, LLC │ Sioux Falls, SD Page | 14

SUMMARY REPORT: DATA COLLECTION, FALL 2010 in support of the Strategic Planning Process for South Dakota School of Mines & Technology Question: What is the capacity of SDSM&T to meet the needs of industry?

Respondents (43 out of 43) overwhelmingly felt that SDSM&T was meeting if not exceeding the expectations and needs of industry via the output of high quality, well trained graduates in the fields of engineering and science. Job placement rates and continual targeted employer recruiting to SDSM&T were some of the examples provided by the respondents. One respondent was marginal in their comments, stating only that SDSM&T should include more diverse and management-based course offerings in their curriculum so as to continue to meet the changing needs of industry and leadership development skill sets.

This specific question was not directly asked of focus group participants.

Question: What would you identify as the major industry in which SDSM&T graduates are employed?

• 31 respondents • Most (18) respondents provided two (2) or more responses. 59 total responses captured across all respondents. # of Response Responses All engineering disciplines (hard to differentiate) 9 Chemical processing 6 Manufacturing 8 Energy 6 Mining 5 Responses > 5 incidences • Computer engineering • Aerospace • Transportation and infrastructure • Design engineering • Defense • Graduate school, research, or applied sciences Two (2) respondents were not sure where SDSM&T graduates were employed.

This specific question was not directly asked of focus group participants.

Question: What is your impression of research performed by SDSM&T and how is it or is it not integrated with external organizations?

A total of 33 comments were collected in response to this question. A general characterization of responses is featured below: 11 3

Respondent(s) had a positive impression, and felt that research was integrated Respondent(s) had a positive impression, but felt that research was not integrated

4 11

Respondent(s) felt research was developing at SDSM&T, and that it was integrated Respondent(s) felt research was developing at SDSM&T, but that it was not integrated

4

Respondent(s) had a negative or indifferent impression and did not feel research was integrated

Interviewers: Wyland, M; Sumption, M; and Oelmann, R Report Date: November 22, 2010 Focus Group Facilitator: Sumption, M Summary Prepared By: Oelmann, R; Sage Project Consultants, LLC │ Sioux Falls, SD Page | 15

SUMMARY REPORT: DATA COLLECTION, FALL 2010 in support of the Strategic Planning Process for South Dakota School of Mines & Technology Based on the above characterization, the respondents were somewhat divided in terms of impression of research in that the majority either held a positive impression of research or felt that research was under development at SDSM&T. Interestingly, though, those that identified a positive impression felt that the research was well integrated with external organizations, while those that identified research as under development as it not being integrated with external organizations.

This specific question was not directly asked of focus group participants.

Question: What are the key challenges, in your opinion, that inhibit the School from moving its mission, goals, and priorities forward?

• 35 respondents • Most respondents provided one (1) responses, while some provided two (2) to three (3). 44 total responses captured across all respondents. # of Response Responses Limited financial resources 16 Lack of united vision for the organization 9 Infrastructure limitations 8 Recruitment of students interested in science and 4 engineering Limited availability and access to community and 3 campus resources for students Lack of student diversity 1 In addition to the above response matrix, two (2) respondents indicated that roadblocks existed but they were unknown specific factors. One (1) respondent indicated that there were no roadblocks or obstacles that would prevent the School from moving forward.

Further description of the top three responses are below: Limited financial resources • South Dakota and Board of Regents funding model is not conducive to growth. Need to adopt a more private-University based model for financial management in order to be successful in the future.

• Limited funding from non-state sources • Everything requires a financial component to its success, and without secure resources the development of any initiative is at risk.

• Financial aid support (scholarships) for students is lacking.

• Poor compensation package for faculty, which inhibits ability to recruit and retain high quality educators.

Lack of united vision for the organization • Relationship between Foundation and Administration is broken and diverts attention and focus from important issues. Broken relationship inhibits the ability to convey a united message to the community, staff/faculty, and region. SDSM&T does not speak with one voice.

• Lack of focus on maintaining quality education, and too much emphasis placed on doing research at SDSM&T; will dilute and damage core strength of undergraduate academic excellence with current resources. Need to sharpen focus and pursue excellence in a few areas, not too many.

• Lack of united vision and control of image and branding of SDSM&T. • Unsure of mission, so difficult to move forward. No sense of direction.

Interviewers: Wyland, M; Sumption, M; and Oelmann, R Report Date: November 22, 2010 Focus Group Facilitator: Sumption, M Summary Prepared By: Oelmann, R; Sage Project Consultants, LLC │ Sioux Falls, SD Page | 16

SUMMARY REPORT: DATA COLLECTION, FALL 2010 in support of the Strategic Planning Process for South Dakota School of Mines & Technology

Infrastructure limitations • Buildings on campus are dated and not energy efficient, which contributes to poor aesthetic appeal and insufficient infrastructure to effectively teach.

• Campus size is a limiting factor.

• Residential housing, both availability and options thereof, stand in the way of increased enrollment.

This question was indirectly addressed in focus group discussion via discussion about strengths and weaknesses of SDSM&T. Comments in this regard are featured earlier in the Quality of Services section of this report.

Image and Branding Question: Describe the reputation of SDSM&T. Respondents overwhelmingly demonstrated a positive, if not superb reputation of SDSM&T to produce high quality graduates in science and engineering that are prepared for industry. Several respondents noted that SDSM&T is a difficult school that requires individual student motivation for their success, and that SDSM&T has higher expectations of academic quality of its students compared to the other State institutions.

However, it is of note that the majority of respondents acknowledged that they have a stakeholder role at SDSM&T and that outside of the alumni, engineering and science industries, and peer Universities that the reputation of SDSM&T was non-existent. The reputation of SDSM&T is positive, strong, and wellregarded among those familiar with the institution.

While most respondents felt that the excellent reputation of SDSM&T as a niche technical institution was a positive attribute, a respectably sized minority of respondents noted that the hard core science and engineering curriculum may be more of a deterrent than attractant for new students.

Question: From your experience or impression describe how employers feel about the preparedness of SDSM&T graduates.

• 27 respondents # of Response Responses Well prepared graduates 20 Technically prepared graduates, but lack 5 communication/soft skills Not sure 2 Further descriptions of the responses are below: Well prepared graduates • High quality academic preparation of students, largely due to applied curriculum.

• Demonstrated by employer participation in campus career fair(s) and placement rates.

Interviewers: Wyland, M; Sumption, M; and Oelmann, R Report Date: November 22, 2010 Focus Group Facilitator: Sumption, M Summary Prepared By: Oelmann, R; Sage Project Consultants, LLC │ Sioux Falls, SD Page | 17

SUMMARY REPORT: DATA COLLECTION, FALL 2010 in support of the Strategic Planning Process for South Dakota School of Mines & Technology •

Feel that graduates communicate well and are technically sound.

Technically prepared graduates, but lack communication/soft skills • Perceived preparedness due to placement rates, but uncertain if that is accurate.

• Graduates are technically prepared, but not as sought after as those from larger Universities such as Texas A&M or Stanford. Noted as a second-tier engineering school.

• Students lack refined ability to communicate and to be concise in those communications; students can speak and interact well with other technically-minded individuals but lack ability to communicate at an executive or management level.

This specific question was not directly asked of focus group participants.

Question: From your experience or impression do you feel that the facilities and equipment offered to students as part of their course of study is current and appropriate for preparing them for industry?

• 34 respondents # of Response Responses Facilities and equipment are current and appropriate 12 Facilities and equipment are marginal 18 Facilities and equipment are inadequate; needs 4 improvement Based upon the responses as indicated, the majority of respondents feel that the facilities and equipment are marginal in terms of preparing students for industry. A small number of respondents indicated that the facilities and equipment are simply inadequate and in need of immediate improvement. 12 of 34 respondents felt that the students were well prepared due to available equipment and facilities for education.

Further descriptions of the responses are below: Facilities and equipment are current and appropriate • SDSM&T does an excellent job acquiring and maintaining equipment and facilities with the resources available.

• Respondents felt that a plan was in place to address these needs now and in the future, and felt recent improvements were appropriately addressed.

Facilities and equipment are marginal • Instrumentation and equipment available to students is generally acceptable, but not easily accessible due to poorly stored old equipment and clutter in storerooms. Laboratories are not reflective of industry.

• Lack of support from a facility standpoint for athletic program, especially in light of move to NCAA Division II. • Respondents in this category held a marginal or mediocre opinion of equipment status and facility utilization.

• Noted lack of focus on maintaining resources; more on building new.

Interviewers: Wyland, M; Sumption, M; and Oelmann, R Report Date: November 22, 2010 Focus Group Facilitator: Sumption, M Summary Prepared By: Oelmann, R; Sage Project Consultants, LLC │ Sioux Falls, SD Page | 18

SUMMARY REPORT: DATA COLLECTION, FALL 2010 in support of the Strategic Planning Process for South Dakota School of Mines & Technology •

Lack of technology integration on campus.

Facilities and equipment are inadequate; needs improvement • Serious need for additional new buildings.

This specific question was not directly asked of focus group participants.

Question: Do you feel that SDSM&T should concentrate on regional, national, or both audiences in terms of recruitment?

Generally speaking, the majority of respondents indicated that SDSM&T should strategically target a national audience for student recruitment. Notable reasons for doing so included: • Hard to recruit from the Midwest due to lack of critical mass of students interested in pursuing a career in science and engineering.

• Noted that if the goal is to increase enrollment, recruitment will have to come from outside of the immediate region.

A minority of respondents indicated that recruitment should primarily focus on local and regional audiences. The following comments serve to illustrate this point: • First priority and target in recruitment should be in-state students; inadequate job done thus far in terms of in-state student recruitment.

• Recruiting success rate will be higher from audiences that have a tie to the regional identity, and appreciate the rural, small-community environment that South Dakota offers.

• Noted that SDSM&T cannot compete with larger, premier institutions on the west and east coasts.

Several respondents also noted that if recruitment efforts are to increase, that specific and targeted attention needs to be paid to student housing (lack thereof) and lack of faculty breadth to support additional enrollment.

This specific question was not directly asked of focus group participants.

Question: What should SDSM&T be doing to attract students from a more broad geographic region or nationwide?

Out of the respondents that commented on preference towards regional or nationally based recruitment policies, several comments were captured in terms of what SDSM&T could do to attract from a broader region. These comments are listed below: • Foster the alumni to continue the tradition of demonstrated success – noted that success breeds success, and that attraction for national and international students often relies upon direct contact with successful alumni of SDSM&T. • Continue to make campus improvements and enhancements in the way of facilities and equipment.

• Establish a national presence via research or other unique program opportunities (e.g. DUSEL).

• Significantly improve and communicate the marketing strategy for SDSM&T. Market the school’s capacities, as well as the unique geographic location of the Black Hills and the beauty of the Midwest. Incorporate social media marketing techniques, and more effectively engage high school recruitment efforts within the region.

• Establish a targeted model for recruitment by identifying key areas within the country to recruit from based upon established alumni presence or industry presence.

Interviewers: Wyland, M; Sumption, M; and Oelmann, R Report Date: November 22, 2010 Focus Group Facilitator: Sumption, M Summary Prepared By: Oelmann, R; Sage Project Consultants, LLC │ Sioux Falls, SD Page | 19

SUMMARY REPORT: DATA COLLECTION, FALL 2010 in support of the Strategic Planning Process for South Dakota School of Mines & Technology One (1) respondent indicated that they felt the existing recruitment policy was more than adequate to target both regional and national audiences.

This specific question was not directly asked of focus group participants.

Question: What can SDSM&T do from a program or research standpoint to enhance its recruitment at the national level?

A variety of responses were obtained to this question. A representative sampling of these is provided below, in order of occurrence: • Identify core competencies for research disciplines and areas, establish a strategic focus for excellence, and stick to it.

• Partner with more prominent and premier institutions in physics research to effectively engage in DUSEL; may be unrealistic to strive for a leadership role at the outset due to lack of depth in physics research and terminal degree programs at SDSM&T. • Continue to foster relationship with Department of Defense contracts and projects, particularly in conjunction with Ellsworth AFB and defense systems.

• Be cognizant of competitive industries and markets, and seek to excel in areas that yield realistic and attainable outcomes.

• Establish endowed chairs and professorships to recruit and support high quality research faculty.

Recruitment of high quality faculty will attract graduate students, and subsequently boost programs.

• Investment in resources available to graduate students to support assistantships and research.

• Actively promote and publish research findings and projects to increase awareness and utilization.

This specific question was not directly asked of focus group participants.

Question: Do you feel that the current buildings and facilities of SDSM&T impact the decisions of students to attend?

A total of 29 comments were collected in response to this question. A general characterization of responses is featured below: 14 8 7

Respondent(s) felt that the campus had a positive impact on the prospective student.

Respondent(s) felt that the campus had no impact on the prospective student.

Respondent(s) felt that the campus had a negative impact on the prospective student.

Based on the above characterization approximately half of all respondents feel that the campus had a positive impact on the student’s decision to attend SDSM&T. On the contrary, half of all respondents felt that the campus had either a negative impact or no impact at all on the student’s decision to attend.

Several examples of each perspective are provided below: Positive impact • Majority of respondents in this category noted that students look for newer and nicer facilities, which signals that the campus is progressive and capable of making progress. Students are influenced by campus architecture and social opportunities.

Interviewers: Wyland, M; Sumption, M; and Oelmann, R Report Date: November 22, 2010 Focus Group Facilitator: Sumption, M Summary Prepared By: Oelmann, R; Sage Project Consultants, LLC │ Sioux Falls, SD Page | 20

SUMMARY REPORT: DATA COLLECTION, FALL 2010 in support of the Strategic Planning Process for South Dakota School of Mines & Technology • •

Campus has been improved in recent years by dorm upgrades, which is appealing to new students.

Several respondents did not feel that any present facility was a detriment to attracting prospective students.

No impact • Most respondents in this category noted that the quality of education is the primary driver of attracting students, not physical appearance.

• Noted that students do not pick up on any building or infrastructure issues until they are enrolled; not until the students are engaged in learning would they pick up on space issues.

Negative impact • Students desire facilities that have wellness centers, dormitories with space and privacy, and classrooms that meet their needs in terms of comfort and technology. Several respondents commented that SDSM&T is lacking in all areas.

• Several respondents noted that the campus is lacking the ivy-covered, traditional campus look that is attractive to students.

This specific question was not directly asked of focus group participants.

Master Campus Plan Question: What is the biggest campus asset?

• 30 respondents Response New construction and remodeling of facilities Small campus and community Old buildings Geographic location (Black Hills) Green space

# of Responses 12 8 4 3 1

Two (2) respondents focused their answers on non-physical characteristics of the campus that they felt were assets (e.g. faculty).

Question: What are your biggest concerns in terms of facilities and resources?

• 39 respondents # of Response Responses Space limitations for growth and expansion 14 Need for facility upgrades 9 Lack of adequate and modern residential housing 7 Inadequate parking 5 Interviewers: Wyland, M; Sumption, M; and Oelmann, R Report Date: November 22, 2010 Focus Group Facilitator: Sumption, M Summary Prepared By: Oelmann, R; Sage Project Consultants, LLC │ Sioux Falls, SD Page | 21

SUMMARY REPORT: DATA COLLECTION, FALL 2010 in support of the Strategic Planning Process for South Dakota School of Mines & Technology Campus aesthetics Infrastructure and facilities to support athletic programs

5 3

Responses > 3 incidences • Lack of dedicated research space for faculty and students • Lack of a defined and welcoming formal entrance to campus • Neighboring community • Lack of accessibility for disabled students or visitors Two (2) respondents focused their answers on non-physical characteristics of the campus.

Focus group discussion in this regard was largely subjective and respondents were encouraged to simply list positive and negative components of the campus in its physical sense. A detailed report of individual comments and suggestions collected is available under separate cover.

Question: Do you have any ideas/opinions on how to fund campus improvements?

The large majority of respondents openly acknowledged declining state funding. Most respondents indicated that focus should be directed to two groups/entities for future capital and financial support: 1) private industry, and 2) alumni or other donors. Complementary to that strategy, several respondents noted that an increase in research presence and infrastructure would increase funding to the School. One respondent noted that community sharing of resources could be leveraged to assist in developing a sustainable financial model. One respondent indicated that an increase in student fees could be used to offset some of these infrastructure expenses.

This specific question was not directly asked of focus group participants.

Planning for the Future Question: Please provide reaction to the four strategic areas of priority (optimize enrollment, grow graduate programs and research enterprise, secure resources, and continuously improve quality) and any advice you might have for SDSM&T in achieving these priorities.

Overwhelming support was indicated by all respondents, inclusive of the individual interviews and focus groups, that the four strategic foci as articulated by the present Administration were well stated and the right vision. Respondents largely acknowledged that dedicated resources and effort will be required to ensure the successful implementation of the strategic goals. Thus, the element of securing resources was largely viewed as a “given” to supporting the other focus areas. Integration of all focus areas was perceived as key to their combined successful outcomes.

Growing graduate programs and research had the most positive responses in terms of correct vision. It was expressed by the majority of respondents in this category that growth in this area would foster the other three foci, most specifically enrollment optimization.

Several respondents expressed confusion about the term “enrollment optimization” and inquired if that meant an increase in enrollment, in line with what has been discussed by Dr. Wharton (ref. 4,000 by 2020), or if it meant a true optimization analysis to determine the right number of students given a set of available resources.

Interviewers: Wyland, M; Sumption, M; and Oelmann, R Report Date: November 22, 2010 Focus Group Facilitator: Sumption, M Summary Prepared By: Oelmann, R; Sage Project Consultants, LLC │ Sioux Falls, SD Page | 22

SUMMARY REPORT: DATA COLLECTION, FALL 2010 in support of the Strategic Planning Process for South Dakota School of Mines & Technology Several respondents noted that although they agreed with the four strategic priorities, that they were not unique to SDSM but rather reflected the goals of any University or College. Several comments stated the priorities were vague, and too broad.

Question: What other items should be on the list of areas in which to focus?

Throughout the individual interview process, few respondents had anything to add to the list of strategic priorities. The comments that were expressed are listed below: • Partnerships with industry and Department of Defense to foster growth in research and development • Foster alumni community and build support • Become adaptive and receptive to non-traditional students, providing flexible learning options • Evaluate a non-traditional funding strategy equivalent to that used by Colorado.

Similar to the individual interview process, the focus groups did not yield a large number of responses to this question. However, the concept of faculty development and support was clearly enunciated in several focus group discussions. Concerns were raised with the inadequate capacity of faculty at present to meet the demands before them regarding incorporation of research. It was noted that all of the strategic foci would require faculty development to adequately address.

Question: Do you have any concerns with these areas of priority?

Of the 43 total responses in the individual interview component of data collection, two (2) respondents expressed concern with resources and being able to effectively support the strategic priorities as articulated. It was noted that with more focus and narrowed scope on the strategic foci that this concern could be addressed.

41 out of 43 total respondents did not express concern with the identified areas of priority.

Concerns in this regard were not expressed to any significant finding within the focus group sessions.

Question: Do you feel that any of these areas address student life activities or residential housing?

It was expressed by a majority of respondents that while student life, particularly residential housing, would be impacted by changes brought forth by the strategic focus areas that the impact would be relative to that felt by other entities on campus. At present enrollment levels, most respondents felt that student life and residential housing were being effectively addressed. However, concern was expressed if enrollment increases at even moderate scale support for student life and residential housing would need to be separately addressed outside of the strategic focus areas.

Interviewers: Wyland, M; Sumption, M; and Oelmann, R Report Date: November 22, 2010 Focus Group Facilitator: Sumption, M Summary Prepared By: Oelmann, R; Sage Project Consultants, LLC │ Sioux Falls, SD Page | 23

SUMMARY REPORT: DATA COLLECTION, FALL 2010 in support of the Strategic Planning Process for South Dakota School of Mines & Technology

Question: Thinking about how SDSM&T in your opinion should grow and change in the coming years, what should the School emphasize in the short term (next 2 years) to achieve their goals?

• 40 respondents # of Response Responses Build infrastructure to support increased enrollment 8 Develop and implement an effective marketing strategy 7 Optimize enrollment 6 Recruitment of additional faculty 5 Secure resources 5 Develop or leverage relationships to capitalize on 4 DUSEL Responses > 3 incidences • Engage and empower faculty • Enhance athletic programs • Student and alumni engagement Further comments on the top three categories above are offered below: Build infrastructure to support increased enrollment • Immediate need for additional student housing options, especially in light of projected growth in enrollment • Need to lay the foundation for long term projected growth in terms of enrollment, research capacity, and campus master plan.

• Emphasize flexibility in facility resources and utilization so as to accommodate new generation of students.

Develop and implement an effective marketing strategy • Identify core components and market them; get the word out using a common strategy, vision, and content control.

• Adopt a social media strategy to optimize search engine and quality of electronic media.

• Critically evaluate successful marketing strategies deployed by peer institutions and model as relevant to SDSM&T. Optimize enrollment • Work to find balance between available resources in support of sustainable and supported enrollment numbers. Calculate the optimum number of students versus declaring a set value.

Interviewers: Wyland, M; Sumption, M; and Oelmann, R Report Date: November 22, 2010 Focus Group Facilitator: Sumption, M Summary Prepared By: Oelmann, R; Sage Project Consultants, LLC │ Sioux Falls, SD Page | 24

SUMMARY REPORT: DATA COLLECTION, FALL 2010 in support of the Strategic Planning Process for South Dakota School of Mines & Technology • •

Develop and implement a solid recruitment strategy, both regionally and nationally, utilizing common vision and brand from redefined marketing campaign.

Focus on steady and manageable growth relative to available resources.

Question: What should the School emphasize in the long term (next 12-15 years) to achieve their goals?

• 40 respondents # of Response Responses Develop and establish a national identity 12 Build infrastructure to support increased enrollment 8 Optimize academic program offerings 6 Increase graduate programs and research capacity 6 Secure resources 5 Develop or leverage relationships to capitalize on 3 DUSEL Responses > 3 incidences • Optimize enrollment • Student and alumni engagement Based on the above, the development of a national presence and identity was indicated as high priority in the long term planning for SDSM&T. Further comments on the top two categories above are offered below: Develop and establish a national identity • Despite some recognition in national circles, SDSM&T needs to market itself as a nationally prominent undergraduate and research institution in the future.

• Leverage DUSEL and partnerships therein to obtain a national identity amongst industry peers.

• Seek to be a resource on a national basis to the needs of industry and government (e.g.

Department of Defense research).

Build infrastructure to support increased enrollment • Need to lay the foundation for long term projected growth in terms of enrollment, research capacity, and campus master plan.

• Emphasize flexibility in facility resources and utilization so as to accommodate new generation of students.

Focus groups comments regarding futures planning both short and long term were noted as merited within the initial reaction statements noted in the first question analysis of this section of the report.

Question: What do you believe SDSM&T should strive to be known for in 20 years?

Interviewers: Wyland, M; Sumption, M; and Oelmann, R Report Date: November 22, 2010 Focus Group Facilitator: Sumption, M Summary Prepared By: Oelmann, R; Sage Project Consultants, LLC │ Sioux Falls, SD Page | 25

SUMMARY REPORT: DATA COLLECTION, FALL 2010 in support of the Strategic Planning Process for South Dakota School of Mines & Technology Nearly all respondents (total of 40) to this question, as well as focus group members, indicated that SDSM&T should strive to be known for exactly what it is known for today – academic excellence in the undergraduate preparation of scientists and engineers. In addition, a majority of respondents felt that this could be amplified by a national presence in research notoriety, marketing and branding, and recruitment.

Several respondents indicated that SDSM&T could have a niche market in catering to the Department of Defense in terms of applied research. Fundamentally, though, the respondents overwhelmingly agreed that SDSM&T needs to maintain the highest of standards in their core strength of undergraduate education excellence.

Interviewers: Wyland, M; Sumption, M; and Oelmann, R Report Date: November 22, 2010 Focus Group Facilitator: Sumption, M Summary Prepared By: Oelmann, R; Sage Project Consultants, LLC │ Sioux Falls, SD Page | 26

SUMMARY REPORT: DATA COLLECTION, FALL 2010 in support of the Strategic Planning Process for South Dakota School of Mines & Technology

CONCLUSIONS Throughout the individual interviews and focus groups several key conclusions were obtained. These points of interest are indicated below, organized by topic area.

While the individual points of interest serve to demonstrate conclusions based upon specific criterion, the overarching theme resulting from this exercise was both clear and concise. No matter how SDSM&T grows, matures, or changes in the future – whether by increased research capacities, graduate program offerings, broader recruitment efforts, or re-invented marketing and branding strategies – the School should maintain what it is known for today: academic excellence in undergraduate engineering education.

As a testament to this core strength, not one respondent or focus group indicated that SDSM&T should deviate from this element of sustained success; rather, all respondents routinely and decisively articulated the imperative need for SDSM&T to continue its tradition of excellence in its undergraduate programs. It is with that assured undertone that the following criterion serve to testify to that very point.

Core Strengths While multiple questions in the data collection instrument addressed the core strengths of SDSM&T, two key questions focused directly on this element. As respondents were asked to reflect on the core values of SDSM&T, one response in particular yielded a high response rate. Academic excellence in undergraduate engineering and science education was indicated as the highest indicated core value of SDSM&T by 67% of all respondents (individual interviews). This was consistent amongst focus group discussions as well.

As respondents were asked to comment on the core strengths, or what SDSM&T “does right”, a similar response was noted. 23% of all responses (individual interviews) indicated the most notable core strength of SDSM&T was its faculty, which was directly based upon the components of student engagement, high quality and industry-relevant curriculum, and academic excellence. Closely following the element of faculty as a core strength was the element of academic excellence (18% of all responses) as a core strength of SDSM&T. Combined, nearly half (41%) of all responses indicated that the core strength of the School was delivering a high caliber academic program in science and engineering to its students.

Strategic Foci Throughout the data collection process the four strategic foci, listed as 1) optimize enrollment, 2) grow graduate programs and research enterprise, 3) secure resources, and 4) continuously improve quality, were consistently identified as appropriate for SDSM&T. Of note, however, was the consistent viewpoint that while these strategic foci were “right on” in terms of scope and broad focus, they seemed vague and lacking in actionable elements. Concern was routinely voiced in the existence of a tactical/action plan that supports the strategic foci; while it certainly is helpful to clearly articulate the goals of the School, it was articulated by most respondents that it is equally helpful to have an action plan which supports the strategic priorities.

The element of faculty development was notably missing in the strategic foci list. Most respondents noted that in order for SDSM&T to be successful in its stated goals (ref. 2020 goals as stated by Dr. Wharton) that the present capacity of the faculty would need to be critically evaluated. It was noted by nearly all respondents, regardless of their perspective, that the faculty at present can handle, at most, what is before them in terms of present responsibilities. Any addition in responsibility, whether via integrated research, increased student to faculty ratio, or additional course requirements, was largely perceived by the respondents as debilitating to the faculty.

Interviewers: Wyland, M; Sumption, M; and Oelmann, R Report Date: November 22, 2010 Focus Group Facilitator: Sumption, M Summary Prepared By: Oelmann, R; Sage Project Consultants, LLC │ Sioux Falls, SD Page | 27

SUMMARY REPORT: DATA COLLECTION, FALL 2010 in support of the Strategic Planning Process for South Dakota School of Mines & Technology Furthermore, extensive emphasis was placed by both individual and focus group interviews on the fact that it seems that a large percentage of faculty are also alumni of SDSM&T. Respondents commonly noted that this presented the concept of “academic inbreeding” that can be counter-productive to the continued evolution and broadening of academic rigor and sustainability. Specific research in support or in dispute of this concept was not conducted as part of this exercise; the comments are noted only as subjective opinions of the interviewed stakeholders.

Recruitment & Student Body Composition The findings largely indicate that SDSM&T should certainly focus on a broader geographic base for recruitment, but not lose sight of its core mission to service the students of South Dakota and the surrounding region. The goals set by the Administration (see Strategic Foci), especially in terms of enrollment optimization, seem to indicate a movement towards increased student enrollment. A large majority of respondents in this exercise indicated their agreement with that goal, but noted that in order to be successful SDSM&T would undoubtedly need to expand their geographic base for recruitment.

Several respondents suggested a targeted model for recruitment based upon a secondary data exercise wherein several additional data elements are evaluated, including 1) alumni distribution in industry as well as, 2) science, engineering, and math-minded students are found (e.g. metropolitan areas with technical-based training high schools).

It can also be concluded by the majority of respondents and per focus group discussion that an inadequate job of recruitment has been done thus far, both for in-state and out-of-state prospective students. While it is arguably difficult to recruit from the region due to lack of critical mass of students interested in pursuing a degree in the fields of science or engineering, it is recommended that a successful and sustainable recruitment model be developed and executed nationwide.

Relationships Widely varying opinions were expressed concerning the intra-organizational relationships, specifically between the key administrative bodies which serve and represent SDSM&T – the School Administration, the Foundation, and the Alumni Association. Stakeholders representing each of these entities were interviewed or included in focus group discussions. While the opinions varied in terms of depth and complexity, some citing specific incidences of conflict and some providing generalized feedback, the general consensus by respondents was that synergy between each entity was simply not there, and needed to be.

When asked what the top areas of needed improvement were, a subset of respondents (9.5% of all responses) indicated that leadership was an area in which changes were merited to better serve the students and stakeholders of SDSM&T. Of specific note, the relationship between the key leaders of each entity was noted as ineffective and standing in the way of success. Further, respondents stated that a strong need for improved communication was present, coupled with the need for respectful dialogue and the cessation of “turf wars”. Leadership must foster interpersonal skills that can facilitate, and not inhibit or prevent, change at all levels of the organization; this combined leadership, representative of all entities of SDSM&T, does not exist as perceived or noted by the respondents. A lack of unified strategy is evident amongst each entity, often noted as disengaged and mutually exclusive of one another’s activities.

This fosters a spirit of competition, rather than collaboration, and dictates the need for streamlined processes and strategic, united focus on key initiatives. It was clear in the message delivered by the individual interviews and focus group sessions that the relationship between the leadership of each entity associated with the School of Mines was far from optimal, and that sincere improvements are needed in order for any of the strategic foci to be successfully implemented.

Interviewers: Wyland, M; Sumption, M; and Oelmann, R Report Date: November 22, 2010 Focus Group Facilitator: Sumption, M Summary Prepared By: Oelmann, R; Sage Project Consultants, LLC │ Sioux Falls, SD Page | 28

SUMMARY REPORT: DATA COLLECTION, FALL 2010 in support of the Strategic Planning Process for South Dakota School of Mines & Technology Diversity The concept of increased student diversity was consistent across several of the posed questions in all methods of data collection. Whether by indirect (alumni observation) or direct (student focus group) sources, it is noted that the campus of SDSM&T is lacking in student diversity. It was noted by several respondents, particularly in focus group discussion, that industry is attracted to a more diverse pool of graduates as they [industry] seek to create an ethnically and culturally diverse workforce. In addition, students are seeking diverse experiences during their undergraduate years; while there are multiple ways in which to provide a student a culturally enriching experience (e.g. study abroad opportunities) it was also routinely noted that an ethnically and culturally diverse student body would serve to provide the student body at large a more global undergraduate experience without leaving campus. Global experiences and opportunities are more and more becoming an expectation of students, both from an internal and external perspective.

As referenced in the Results section of this report, specifically in the area which measured the capacity of SDSM&T to meet the needs of its students and other stakeholders, it was specifically noted by several respondents that recruitment efforts should be targeted to women in aims of increasing diversity amongst the student body. Other minority populations, suggested by respondents to include Native Americans, should also be targeted in terms of new student recruitment.

NOTE: Specific student profile data was not collected for this report, so it is assumed for the purposes of this exercise that the observations as noted are relatively accurate.

Campus The majority of respondents indicated that their biggest concern in terms of campus facilities and resources was space limitations for growth and expansion. This element was also identified by a large number of respondents as a key challenge or barrier for the School in moving its mission forward. Thus, the availability of space for physical plant expansion is certainly noted as a significant concern in terms of executing the growth initiatives set forth by the Administration.

In addition, questions were posed concerning the respondents view of the campus in general. Differing viewpoints were noted; some respondents had a positive spin on their responses, indicating the success of recent campus improvements (e.g. dorm upgrades, student union, and laboratory spaces) were indicative of growth “in the right direction”. Other respondents held a much more negative viewpoint, choosing to focus on aspects of the campus that were lacking or otherwise unsatisfactory in their opinions. Examples of this are detailed within the Results section of the report, but largely focused on a simple lack of space for expansion, the need for further facility upgrades, and lack of adequate and modern residential housing options.

The lack of a formal, welcoming entrance to campus was clearly noted by a large number of respondents in both the individual interview and focus group sessions. Several respondents noted that visitors don’t feel as if “they have arrived” on campus, and that there is not a central area that draws visitors or guests in to campus in a welcoming way. Furthermore, the neighboring community, particularly to the west of campus, was noted as both an eyesore and safety hazard. Combined with the lack of a defined entrance to the SDSM&T campus, these elements demonstrate that improvements in this area are strongly desired by all stakeholders of the School.

Reputation Throughout all responses, a clear and concise viewpoint of SDSM&T was articulated, that being a widely recognized School of undergraduate academic excellence in the field of engineering. The value of Interviewers: Wyland, M; Sumption, M; and Oelmann, R Report Date: November 22, 2010 Focus Group Facilitator: Sumption, M Summary Prepared By: Oelmann, R; Sage Project Consultants, LLC │ Sioux Falls, SD Page | 29

SUMMARY REPORT: DATA COLLECTION, FALL 2010 in support of the Strategic Planning Process for South Dakota School of Mines & Technology graduates was clearly demonstrated by a variety of stakeholders – faculty, industry, and alumni alike – as a testament to the high quality education provided by SDSM&T. The foundational knowledge of SDSM&T graduates was perceived as utmost quality by these groups.

There was an overwhelmingly positive reputation conveyed by all respondents of SDSM&T in its ability to produce high quality graduates that are also well prepared for industry. However, it was clearly articulated that while the respondent(s) conveyed a positive perspective on the School’s reputation that those not familiar with SDSM&T, via industry, alumni, or other connection, would likely not share the same response. Rather, if a respondent was not familiar with SDSM&T through a stakeholder connection, it was assumed by the majority of respondents that their perspective of the School’s reputation would be indifferent, at best.

Graduate preparedness was discussed in several questions. In sync with the above responses noted regarding the School’s reputation, most respondents also felt that the graduates were well prepared for industry. Several of the focus group discussions, as well as several respondents, noted that while the graduates were very well prepared technically, that they lacked communication and/or soft skills necessary for leadership and management opportunities. Relative to the combined response pool, this opinion was not shared by the majority – most stakeholders felt that despite the niche engineering curriculum, the graduates of SDSM&T were well equipped for leadership and management opportunities in their careers should their interests and skill sets correlate with that career path.

Community Integration Despite noted recent improvements (since the arrival of Dr. Wharton and his administration), it was noted by the majority of respondents that SDSM&T was not well integrated, if at all integrated, with the surrounding community of Rapid City, SD. Small efforts at bridging this gap were observed by several respondents. It was felt by the majority of respondents, indicated in several of the questions with the data collection tool, that community engagement should be a key focus area for improvement in the future.

Whether to institute and foster a sense of community and School pride or to augment a community recruitment plan for high school (or younger) students, the majority of stakeholders indicated that the community relationship was vital to SDSM&Ts future longevity and that integration within the community at all levels would provide a sense of inclusion for both students and community members as they interact with the School of Mines.

Of note, it was clearly mentioned that poor community engagement was due to the efforts and responsiveness of both the School and City; lack of mutual acknowledgement has been a historical issue tracing back through multiple Administrations at the School. Increased interaction with community partners, specifically the area high schools, was felt by the majority of respondents as a key element to success in both marketing and recruitment moving forward.

Graduate Programs & Research Fundamentally, most respondents felt that the relatively new focus on increased research capacity and graduate programs for SDSM&T is and would continue to be a positive addition to the School and its program offerings. Several perspectives served to bolster this viewpoint. By incorporating research into the existing curriculum, more undergraduates would have the opportunity to be exposed to research at that level in their education; this was emphasized by several respondents as a significant edge over other peer institutions. The opportunity for undergraduate research at SDSM&T was viewed as both a luxury for most students nationwide – a luxury typically afforded strictly to graduate level students – as well as an integral component of the “comprehensive” education provided to the students of SDSM&T. Furthermore, the expansion of research would serve to not only provide an avenue for faculty Interviewers: Wyland, M; Sumption, M; and Oelmann, R Report Date: November 22, 2010 Focus Group Facilitator: Sumption, M Summary Prepared By: Oelmann, R; Sage Project Consultants, LLC │ Sioux Falls, SD Page | 30

SUMMARY REPORT: DATA COLLECTION, FALL 2010 in support of the Strategic Planning Process for South Dakota School of Mines & Technology development, but also would provide a vehicle for increased institutional and program support in the financial sense.

Elemental to these components, however, was the concept that if SDSM&T primarily directed its focus on building graduate programs, that the research enterprise would follow. Key to this is the recruitment of high quality faculty for graduate-level, if not terminal degree offerings. The faculty would bring with them a host of research programs and funding. However, it should be noted that key to the success of creating a research enterprise via the establishment of excellence in graduate or terminal degree programs would be thoughtful and targeted faculty development. Inclusive of current and future faculty, professors need to have the resources and infrastructure provided to them that would support such goals for research and graduate program growth.

Interviewers: Wyland, M; Sumption, M; and Oelmann, R Report Date: November 22, 2010 Focus Group Facilitator: Sumption, M Summary Prepared By: Oelmann, R; Sage Project Consultants, LLC │ Sioux Falls, SD Page | 31