Strategic Innovation Initiatives

Vision:  The University is faced with a constellation of challenges and opportunities regarding how to best recruit, retain, and engage students in high quality learning experiences. In decades past, this was a relatively straightforward task: Students graduated from high school, and, in ever-increasing numbers, applied to institutions of higher education (with relatively few active university recruitment efforts); colleges and universities accepted students; and the students enrolled and attended courses in classrooms where the bulk of their learning often occurred through lecture-based teaching methods.

Today, many parts of that picture have changed.

• Our state has one of the highest rates of high school graduation and lowest rates of college attendance.
• Students who consider postsecondary degrees have a number of choices: schools in the state, out-of-state, and online.  They expect and increasingly require a variety of delivery methods, whether it is the traditional classroom experience, online courses, dual-enrollment programs prior to high school graduation, or active learning experiences that deepen engagement far beyond traditional classrooms.
• Students have many educational opportunities in a highly competitive market and are shopping for schools that can offer the learning content and style they desire. While increasing numbers of students are focused on career aspirations, their aspirations often include altruistic goals to benefit society.

Traditionally, the University of Idaho has been the institution of choice for the state’s most accomplished students. There are many options today with our growing sister institutions in the state as well as rapidly growing online opportunities. To provide the best learning experience and continue to attract the quality and number of students that fits our mission, it will be important to continue to enhance our commitment to active and engaged learning. While our retention rate is very high relative to other public schools in Idaho, there is significant room for improvement relative to national norms. This affords us an opportunity to create solutions and experiences for students that will both serve their needs and be models for higher education throughout the country. As such, three innovation proposals addressing dual enrollment, online learning, and active learning will serve as the foundation for the creation of a comprehensive approach to increasing access and providing increasingly effective learning experiences for students.

Dual Enrollment:

The State Board of Education, concerned about the low rate of college attendance, has mandated Idaho universities to expand their dual-enrollment programs in partnership with state high schools to engage secondary-level students in college courses. There is evidence that taking dual-enrollment courses increases college participation and persistence rates. While we have offered dual-enrollment courses for a number of years, our increased offerings in the past two years provide the first of many opportunities to increase college participation rates, enhance our recruitment and retention, and fulfill the Board’s expectations. We need to expand these efforts.

Active Learning:

Engaging students in active learning opportunities (e.g., service learning, volunteerism, undergraduate research, internships, problem-based learning, and education abroad) also can have positive effects on student retention and their transformative experience. This is an area of growing strength for the University of Idaho; it is an area in which we will continue to focus and in which we can take a leadership position.

Technology Enhanced Learning:

Technology can be used to enhance both active learning pedagogies and dual-enrollment courses. Current and prospective students expect such online learning opportunities, and, in the state of Idaho particularly, they are not finding what they need from us. Currently, 13 percent of the Moscow campus schedule is online and 30 percent of the off-Moscow campus schedule is online. Some of our in-state sister institutions teach three times as many online credit hours as we do, and even this amount does not match national trends, which indicate acceptance of and demand for online education.

Across each of these areas (dual enrollment, improved teaching and learning, and online and distance education) we share a common current state of affairs: our efforts are disaggregated and lack coordination. While we have many good individual programs in place with dedicated faculty and staff running them, the lack of integrated strategic, structural, technology, fiscal, teacher, and student support impacts our opportunities to join in, and then to lead in these critical instructional venues.

Three of the innovation proposals addressed significant portions of these issues: Supporting the Dual Credit Program at the University of Idaho: A Model for Better Operationalizing a State Mandate; Improving the Quality of Instruction While Significantly Lowering Costs: Teaching in the 21^st Century; and Enhancing Online and Distance Education at the University of Idaho. Taken together, these proposals suggest an important series of next steps. A report submitted by the Distance Education Task Force in 2007 will continued to inform this work. Recognizing that we cannot do everything for every potential student, we need to set priorities for segments where we can have the greatest impact on student learning, fill specialized market niches, and expand our offerings. To meet these priorities, we need to strategically plan the degree programs, certificates, traditional and dual-enrollment courses in which we have strengths and that we wish to pursue. We then need a coordinated support structure to implement those priorities.

Innovation Implementation:  Next Steps

As such, we will adopt pieces from the three innovation proposals noted above into a Strategic Innovation Initiative to build the strategic and structural infrastructure needed to address these teaching and learning needs. These activities will be centralized under the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs, who will, in turn, hire a director of Distance Education, Dual Enrollment, and Summer Programs using existing resources in these budgeted areas. That person will form an advisory group of key stakeholders including associate deans, faculty, staff, and students to advise on strategic directions and the transition to the new model. A program/course design, development, and assessment expert will also be hired to help improve the quality and efficiency of our teaching in the classroom and through distance approaches.

In that process, the group will be expected to identify our key niches, enhance our academic quality, and ensure support in key areas such as IT, Student Affairs, Advising, and Academic Affairs. The next steps will include:

1. Create Distance Education, Dual Enrollment, and Summer Programs unit with reporting line to Academic Affairs.
2. Move Center for Teaching Innovation from Information Technology to Academic Affairs.
3. Hire a Director of Distance Education, Dual Enrollment, and Summer Programs and a program/course design, development, and assessment expert.
4. Develop a strategic plan so that we can be competitive and meet stakeholder needs in prioritized areas.
5. Reallocate funding from existing sources and rework revenue flows to sustainably support the system. The new funding model will need to equitably compensate faculty who are designing, developing, and delivering programs and courses as well as cover the costs incurred in support areas.
6. Seek external funding where appropriate.
7. Work with the Advisory Group for Information Technology to identify IT systems and support.
8. Initiate a Teaching and Learning Center; recognize master teachers and early adopters; prepare Ph.D. students for teaching roles.

Integrate dual enrollment and summer school with all of the above.  Expand enrollments in the dual enrollment and in summer school for both credit and not-for-credit programs.

Lead:  Arthur Taylor

Vision: In recent years the University of Idaho has made significant strides in strengthening relationships with tribal communities. This has been achieved through the establishment of the Tribal Liaison position, expanding the role of the Native Student Center Director and programming for students, developing memorandums of understanding with Northwest Tribes and higher-education institutions, and expanding our recruitment, research, and outreach activities. In this proposal, it is suggested we build on that solid foundation by developing mutually beneficial relationships with the tribes. These relationships can help all of our students learn, inform our scholarship, and provide important outreach and engagement opportunities.

Innovation Implementation: Next Steps

To further this work we have asked Arthur Taylor, tribal liaison, to build on the foundation provided by the established Tribal Advisory Boards. The advice from the boards can help inform the work of our administration, faculty, and staff to recruit, retain, and enhance the transformational learning experience for our students. One of the suggested next steps is to enhance student-to-student mentoring to improve student learning and retention.  This can be done with upper-division University of Idaho students mentoring new students as well as our University students mentoring and recruiting Native high school and tribal college students.  This important work can be guided from the Native Student Center under the leadership of Steven Martin. Some of this work can be dovetailed with our dual enrollment and distance education programs so that college experience and opportunities are more available to tribal students in high schools.

Another important component of this proposal is the enhancement of a Native classroom experience in which representatives from the tribes come to our campuses to work with classes or cocurricular groups, or students and faculty travel to tribal locations in order to learn from the Native communities. A variety of important topics could be addressed such as tribal sovereignty, state and federal law, natural resource management, economic development, history, health care, art, and Native epistemology and philosophy, to name a few. These are important topics relevant to a broad range of our students, faculty, and staff.

Other topics suggested in this proposal will require additional resources. For example, a grant has been submitted to establish a bridge program to bring Native students to the Moscow campus in the summer to help them transition to the University. Additionally, this spring a National Science Foundation planning grant was used to bring Native leaders from around the country to Moscow to discuss their needs and how graduate education and research could help address some of their ongoing challenges. That work is expected to result in significant additional research grant applications. We encourage this work to continue through the existing leadership of Native faculty and staff, their colleagues across the University, as well as the Office of Research and the College of Graduate Studies.

Lead:  Jack McIver, Vice President for Research

Vision:  Goal 2 of the Strategic Action Plan is:  Achieve excellence in scholarship and creative activity through an institutional culture that values and promotes strong academic areas and interdisciplinary collaborations among them. Four innovation proposals outlined ways in which the University can expand and improve its research and scholarship enterprise. Building on national models and Idaho’s own culture and responsibility as the state’s international land-grant research university, the authors argued for expanding knowledge, creating efficiencies, and maximizing research and scholarship impact through better structures, facilities, and procedures that foster interdisciplinary work. The authors noted – albeit from varying vantage points – that we can be more effective in our scholarship by establishing high-performing Institutes, Centers, Clusters, and Core Research Facilities.   Concepts from each of these innovation proposals will be folded into a comprehensive series of actions led by Jack McIver, vice president for research.

Institutes and Centers

For the University of Idaho to successfully compete with other universities in basic research, as well as solve some of society’s complex and vexing problems, we must be more integrated in our collaborations. Currently, we have a set of research institutes and centers that, while enjoying a good deal of success, are not the product of a coherent set of policies and procedures to ensure their ongoing effectiveness.

One step to improve the success of our research and scholarly activity is to develop clear rules for the establishment, management, assessment, and dissolution of institutes and centers. We, like many universities, are good at starting such research groups, but often do not have mechanisms in place to assess their ongoing effectiveness, make continuous improvements, or ultimately close them and reallocate the resources to new, potentially more productive, projects.

Academic Research Clusters

Jan Boll, Ron Crawford, and their colleagues wrote a related innovation proposal and suggested that the University restructure around academic research clusters. Such clusters would provide for the establishment of key research areas in a flexible format that allows for the creation, growth, decline, and dissolution of research areas.  This proposal offered a more radical transformation of the University’s structure and function, with an accent on multidisciplinary scholarship and graduate education.

Gary Williams and his colleagues suggest a parallel need to integrate undergraduate education across the disciplines, in addition to research and scholarly activities. While we have chosen to instead follow more closely Dr. McIver’s proposal to address many of the same issues in our next steps, Boll, Crawford, Williams and their colleagues have proposed important and far-reaching ideas that will continue to be considered as our  innovation processes continue to move forward.

Their proposals call into question the fundamental structures of the University and suggest that if we truly want to foster interdisciplinary collaboration and outputs, we need a more flexible structure focused on interdisciplinary scholarly and creative work, as well as teaching and learning, rather than traditional research and degree production. This brings into question some of the fundamental college and department structures that we have had in place for decades. It also has implications for individual position descriptions, potentially suggesting the need for many more joint appointments across colleges or transdisciplinary units. This fresh examination of how we operate within the goals of the strategic plan is fundamental to our success in the future. As such, we need to continue the discussion that these groups started. Do we have the right number of colleges? Should some be combined to foster greater collaborations to address key research issues? Should we have colleges and departments, or are there other integrative structural forms that would allow us to better attain our goals? We ask that Dr. McIver and his colleagues continue these discussions as they undertake the stepping-stone task of Instituting Institutes.  We will also undertake these questions with others across the University, including the Faculty Senate, Provost Council, Staff Council, and student governments.

Proposed Research Units

The establishment of two research units was proposed in the RFI process: The Idaho Institute for Bioenergy and Bioproducts Research at the University of Idaho, Jon Van Gerpen et al.; The Academy of the Environment at the University of Idaho, Steven Mulkey et al. Implicit in each of these proposals is the desire to overcome barriers to collaboration also identified in the McIver, Boll and Crawford, and Williams proposals. In the Mulkey and Van Gerpen proposals, an underlying theme is that there are dramatic and complex problems facing society. The authors point at critical energy and environmental issues that have far-reaching implications. In all of the proposals, there is an implication that our existing college/department/institute/center structures are inhibiting the realization of the interdisciplinary scholarly and creative activity needed to address these complex societal problems.

The Mulkey et al. proposal focuses on building a broadly integrated Academy of faculty from nature- and human-focused disciplines to systemically research and apply findings on environmental sustainability. We have the human capital to make major contributions in this area if we can integrate the talents across disciplines such as law, business, design, planning, social sciences, humanities, agriculture, natural resources, engineering, and basic sciences. In fact, our small size, relative to other large universities, our strong faculty base, and the diversity of our natural and social environments across Idaho, give us many competitive advantages in this research area.

In the spirit of this proposal, this spring Dr. McIver brought together two diverse groups of scholars from across the University to develop National Science Foundation proposals for the long-term assessment of urban/rural development and agricultural sustainability. Those teams, in many ways, form case studies for the integrative structures suggested by Mulkey et al.  This work, in addition to that done by Dr. McIver as he pursues Instituting Institutes, should lay the groundwork for more effective and efficient structural forms.

The Van Gerpen proposal also draws on broad and long-standing strengths of the University in the areas of bioenergy and bioproducts. As the world struggles with issues of sustainability, alternate carbon-neutral energy sources must be developed. More than two dozen University of Idaho researchers have been doing research in a wide range of agriculture, science, public policy, and business areas. Again, developing an effective multidisciplinary team to address critical societal needs, and building on the strengths of our faculty and the unique resources of Idaho, will allow us to be successful in winning grants, performing high quality basic and applied research, and potentially building new, green industries for the state. A good deal of this work can dovetail with our existing work with our Center for Advanced Energy Studies (which, in this inaugural year, has won more than $10 million in grants and contracts in partnership with Boise State University, Idaho State University, and the Idaho National Lab), Waters of the West, Idaho Water Research Institute, National Institute for Advanced Transportation Technologies, and the soon-to-be-established Livestock and Environmental Research Center.

Once again, for this Institute to be appropriately established, grown, assessed, and transformed, we need policy and operational standards that foster success. We ask Dr. McIver to develop the ground rules for institutes and centers, and then assess the efficacy of the Van Gerpen et al. proposal; a proposal that addresses critical issues, builds on key Idaho and University of Idaho strengths, but that needs an established set of operating principles before being undertaken. We ask that he also consider how the themes from the Mulkey, Boll and Crawford, and Williams proposals be implemented.

Core Facility

In the Interdisciplinary Visualization Synthesis Initiative, Alistair Smith et al. suggest the need for a core facility to support all aspects of the University’s strategic directions in this interdisciplinary area. They rightfully note that a core visualization lab would allow students to participate in engaged learning, allow faculty to sharpen and explore new ways of literally looking at their research, and support all of our faculty, staff, and students interacting with the world around them in very new and exciting ways.

This proposal builds on substantial faculty and staff strengths from many sectors of the University. In fact, it was the product of the innovation review team bringing together six preproposals dealing with related topics.  They identified the need for a sophisticated lab, with strong support personnel, to facilitate the effective use of visualization tools that could be used from the nano to the macro scale in many aspects of teaching/learning, scholarly/creative activity, outreach/engagement, and the transformation of our structure/culture/climate.

We concur and believe this is a prime example of the opportunities that are immediately in front of us if we can pull together our substantial, but disaggregated, talents and resources into a highly functioning center. Such a center could help write grants or form partnerships with colleagues around the state (e.g., Idaho National Laboratory, Center for Advanced Energy Studies, Urban Design and Research Institute, etc.). We concur that such a core laboratory is critical to our long-run research and scholarly activity.

Innovation Implementation: Next Steps

We ask that Dr. McIver take responsibility for the successful strategic integration of these five related initiatives. Specifically, we ask that he undertake the development and implementation of policies and procedures governing Institutes, Centers, and/or Core Research Facilities that will allow for the enhancement of research and scholarly activity. This work should intersect with related implications for teaching and learning. This work will be done within the scope of existing Faculty and Staff Handbook regulations for such administrative changes, including the normal State Board Notice of Intent processes. This work will also be in conjunction with affected faculty and should include deans, Center executive officers, and other Center/Institute directors as appropriate. An advisory board will be established and metrics and timelines defined for this project to begin as soon as possible.

The Visualization Synthesis RFI team has met and is already beginning to write proposals. We ask that the team stay intact and continue to identify high-priority projects with internal and external partners. This work has a high likelihood of receiving external funding and providing the resources to build this core facility. We look forward to this team’s success, as well as the establishment of other core facilities to better serve internal and external stakeholders.

Lead:  Chris Murray, Vice President for Advancement and Jack McIver, Vice President for Research

Vision: More than 34,000 University of Idaho alumni live and work in Idaho. While that is a large number, there are many more potential students and stakeholders that are not intimately familiar with the important work of the University that enriches their daily lives and builds the prosperity of the state. An opportunity exists for us to improve our relationships with key stakeholders through the voices and advocacy of our alumni.

In the original innovation proposal, Steve Johnson suggests that we work closely with alumni – both individually and through social media and other networks throughout the state – to better educate them about key University activities, so that they, in turn, can influence a variety of audiences, including potential students, donors, and legislators. Our statewide presence and impact through academic centers, Research and Extension Centers, and County Extension Offices links our faculty to these alumni and many other influential people statewide.

This Strategic Innovation Initiative suggests we coordinate these existing resources into an integrated network that can help recruit students, increase donations, and influence legislative funding to support our mission and maximize our service to the state.

This is an opportune time for us to undertake these activities. Steve Johnson has been working to build alumni chapters, and their members are anxious to help the University. In addition, our government relations structure is undergoing reorganization as Marty Peterson, legislative relations director, undertakes a phased retirement after a long and productive career. Steve Neiheisel, assistant vice president for enrollment management, is working to build a recruitment network across the state so that we can attract more high-quality students with a diverse array of backgrounds. And, finally, the Office of University Advancement is in the silent phase of an ambitious fund-raising effort, and as such seeks to reach more Vandals, friends, and organizations statewide that benefit from our University’s work, with the hope of inspiring them to invest in our future. All of this work is consistent with Goal 3 of the Strategic Action plan which states that we must form mutually beneficial two-way partnerships with the people and communities of the state.

Innovation Implementation:  Next Steps

President Nellis has asked for a detailed plan of implementation and measurements for the state advocacy network, through a task force chaired by Chris Murray. Parallel work is underway to reshape our federal relations work being led by Dr. McIver. Both will work closely with the Outreach and Engagement Council, which will outline plans for the University of Idaho’s next phase of academic engagement with communities.  It will be important to connect the research and teaching impact that we bring to communities to the advocacy we seek from them and our alumni in order to advance our work on behalf of those we serve.

Lead: Trudy Anderson, Associate Vice President and Center Executive Officer, Boise, and John Tracy, Director, Water Resources Research Institute

Vision: As we work to build a statewide system to conduct our teaching/learning, scholarly/creative activity, and outreach/engagement activities, we need to capitalize on the opportunities presented by our academic centers in Boise, Coeur d’Alene, and Idaho Falls. Each of these Centers has different strengths and opportunities, but all share the need to have improved structural and functional relationships across the University system. Trudy Anderson and John Tracy suggest that the University of Idaho Boise take the next step in helping to clarify and implement changes in policies and procedures to help us mature as a system. This Strategic Innovation Initiative can link closely with the work to integrate our alumni, government relations, fund-raising, and recruitment activities into a statewide advocacy strategy.

Boise, and in fact the southwest section of the state, is a logical place to further develop this ongoing work. It is the economic, government, and media center of activity in Idaho. We have large alumni and donor populations, and a large group of prospective students from which to recruit. It is a location where faculty deliver their teaching, research, and outreach to citizens. This region is rich with opportunity to serve Idaho’s residents and fulfill our land-grant mission through new and increased collaborative and integrative work across our academic and nonacademic units – colleges, extension, and advancement. The Strategic Innovation Initiative is a next logical step of the coordinated implementation of the Strategic Action Plan, Center White Paper, and Goal 3 Team recommendations into the organization and culture of the University.

Innovation Implementation: Next Steps

• Anderson and Tracy suggest four sequential phases of action:
  The first focuses on improving shared governance structures so that faculty and staff in regional centers are more fully integrated into the University systems. Some of their suggested steps are underway or have already been accomplished. For example, last spring the Faculty Council voted to expand membership to include one voting member from each of the three Centers. They changed the constitution to more fully include faculty from around the state in votes of the Faculty Council (now renamed the Faculty Senate).
• The second phase focuses on improving operational plans for advancement, auxiliary services, K-12 relationships, government affairs, and outreach/engagement. This work dovetails with the Murray and Johnson innovation proposal for state government relations and with Goal 3 Team recommendations.
• In the third phase, business plans would be developed for entrepreneurial projects such as the expansion of continuing professional development programs and other academic offerings based on market demands. This work intersects with the distance education innovation initiative to be implemented by Jeanne Christiansen.
• In the fourth phase, the budgetary relationships between Moscow, Boise, and other campuses would be examined and more efficient models developed. This work will coincide with the initiation of the new Planning and Budget Office.

Lead: Larry Stauffer, Associate Dean, College of Engineering

Vision: For many years, public higher education has been asked to do more with a declining proportional share of the state budget. During that same time, the needs of society for the products of higher education have increased. These trends are unlikely to change in the near term. As such, we need to look for ways to increase revenue in creative ways, increase the quality and efficiency of our work, and stop doing nonessential activities. Through more effective use of our limited resources, we will be better able to meet today’s challenges and prepare for tomorrow’s opportunities.

This Strategic Innovation Initiative focuses on realizing the vision of a university whose people, processes, and technology combine to provide efficient and effective practices, leading to competitive advantages and a sustainable work environment. The work environment and quality of work are improved, providing excellent results for internal and external stakeholders.

Through the development of a culture of continuous improvement, the time and energy people expend each day is of clear value. There is minimal waste, so people have the real sense that they do what really matters and contributes to the overall success of the university.

Processes are based on what makes sense, not on what has evolved through years of work- arounds and personal preferences. In some cases, this requires a complete redesign of current processes. In other cases, this is a simple matter of standardizing similar approaches to the same process. The desired end result is clear, efficient, and effective processes that add value each time they are executed.

Technology is implemented in support of the work; not as a driver of activity. By designing effective processes and ensuring people have the skills and resources to execute those processes, the use of technology can improve on sound processes and assist employees by making the work more straightforward and easier to complete.

With the daily pressures on faculty, staff, and students, it is critical that their work be value-added. Using complex or inefficient processes not only wastes their time and increases their frustration level, but it also costs the university money. In addition, it reduces our ability to provide consistent, quality services.

Innovation Implementation: Next Steps

To start this Strategic Innovation Initiative, Larry Stauffer will chair a small steering committee composed of Rick Edgeman, Deb Manning, Ron Town, and James Grossman. Dr. Stauffer has done this type of work for many years through the University’s TechHelp program. This committee will identify any additional needed members to the steering team and establish the committee structure.

The vision, scope, and direction should be complete and a small number of initial projects started by the end of the fall semester. Educational opportunities for other units should also be identified and training for continuous improvement coordinated with the Creating a Respectful Culture Innovation Initiative.

Lead: Jeanne Christiansen, Vice Provost for Academic Affairs

Vision: Three proposals outlined a vision for improving our community and culture. Consistent with Goal 4 of the Strategic Action Plan — to create and sustain an energized community that is adaptable, dynamic, and vital, to enable the University to advance strategically and function efficiently — the Continuous Improvement proposal suggested that we need to examine and improve our organizational systems on a regular basis. In the proposal Cultivating a Respectful Community, author Dean Baird et al. recommend we continuously improve the skills of our employees as well as our culture and climate. They identify a number of topical areas that include leadership, conflict resolution, ethics, sexual harassment prevention, key policies and procedures, safety, cultural expectations for civil behavior, capitalizing on diverse backgrounds and perspectives, and communications skills. A number of venues could be employed to educate and develop our faculty, staff, and students around these topics to include: new employee orientation programs, unit safety committees and training, regularly scheduled education seminars, e-learning tools, training trainers in units across the University, etc. Initial steps have already been taken in this area including a President’s Leadership Retreat held in August.

Last spring’s news coverage raising questions about research ethics points to the critical importance of this issue to our faculty, staff and graduate students and to the reputation of our institution. A portion of the Ethics and Justice in the Age of Globalization proposal, authored by Doug Lind and Larry Forney, provides a concrete approach to ensuring the highest operating standards for our academic enterprise. Specifically, they suggested stronger training on the ethical conduct of research that could be incorporated into this work.

Innovation Implementation: Next Steps

Over the past few months, a broadly representative Professional Development Group, chaired by Jeanne Christiansen, has been working to develop a systemic approach to professional development for all employees in the University, including education and development topics and the appropriate forum for their delivery. As the Professional Development Task Force meets the essence of its charge this fall, we ask that this group be reshaped and work with both Innovation Implementation teams to integrate their ideas and plans in partnership with the Goal 4 team. To supplement the Education and Development Group’s work to date, we ask that it partner with the Ethics and Justice Innovation Proposal Team, Office of Research and Ethics Across the Curriculum Blue Ribbon Initiative group to provide the education and development opportunities outlined in the proposal. The Ethics and Justice Innovation Team’s suggestions on additional ethics training for students, fits well within the current Ethics Across the Curriculum Initiative, and we ask that they continue to build on the successes to date to further expand that work. The cross-University Professional Development Implementation Team will then work with our existing experts inside the University of Idaho, and those from outside when necessary, to execute the education individuals and groups need to continuously move the University forward.

Lead: Darin Saul, Sustainability Coordinator

Vision: The author of this Strategic Innovation Initiative challenges the University of Idaho to take further steps to become more sustainable. He lays out a series of steps to reduce our waste stream, recycle or reuse whenever possible, and, in the process, reduce costs. These activities will reduce our carbon footprint, and maybe most notably, provide models for our students to learn from so they can use these strategies in their personal and work lives as members of the University community and after graduation.

This initiative builds on the work of the University of Idaho Sustainability Center and illustrates strong collaborations with student governments, Dining Services, Student Affairs, and Facilities. It also builds on work in the Goal 4 team dealing with our culture and climate, as well as the Goal 3 team that calls for a closer partnership with our communities. This initiative is directly in line with the Talloires Declaration we have signed and our stated commitment to be a more sustainable University.

The specifics of the Strategic Innovation Initiative argue that we should reduce waste in three key areas: paper products, food waste, and electronic equipment waste. For example, in 2008 alone, the University disposed of almost 25 tons of computer monitors. This is an area where centralized purchasing and e-waste disposal could create a lower cost and more environmentally friendly system.

Innovation Implementation: Next steps

It will take the work of many individuals across the University to accomplish these and related tasks. Darin Saul and Lloyd Mues will continue their partnership on work that has already begun, identifying priorities for the projects and a timeline for their implementation. We have asked them to prioritize and accelerate this implementation in conjunction with an advisory committee of student, faculty, and staff members representing key stakeholders from across the University. This initiative will include a plan that includes clear goals and an assessment of our success in meeting them, with the goal of being carbon neutral by 2030.

A good deal of the work necessary to make waste minimization and recycling programs work is through education and cultural transformation. We ask that the advisory committee include in its charge, raising awareness and participation in these actions throughout our community. The president and provost pledge that the University will do its part to employ sustainable practices in our offices and at our sponsored events. We will also encourage the rest of the University to follow suit and commit to integrating sustainable education within the University community.