Memo from President Gamble on Fisher report
January 25, 2011
Early in my appointment to the President’s Office, thanks to the professional interest
and strong support by the Rasmuson Foundation, I commissioned an external institutional
review of the University of Alaska (UA) system. Today I am releasing the Fisher Report
for general distribution. It is not a quick read, nor is it a blueprint to be followed
dogmatically. Dr. Fisher is a university president emeritus and a noted author on
the subject of university leadership. He and his team of experts have given us not
only the benefit of years of experience, but the benefit of their extensive institutional
research as well. This is not a report card. In most subject areas the report suggests
where we fit in relation to other peer or near peer universities for illustration
purposes. Where we markedly differ, it asks “why.” Dr. Fisher’s intention is not to
be prescriptive. The report does not contain a checklist. The Fisher report does not,
however, shy away from issuing a prescription where the symptoms are compelling.
The Fisher Report presents us with a timely opportunity to get our thinking better
organized before we begin work on updating the UA system strategic plan. It includes
observations and suggestions that, when combined with other analyses such as the 2008
MacTaggart/Rogers study of the UA System, allows us to establish trends, reinforce
or dispel previous conclusions, and set the stage for new directions. Let the reader
beware. Some will surely identify faults, perhaps an assertion that is obviously not
too applicable here in Alaska, and so on. But do not make the mistake of letting a
few off-target fragments obscure the credibility and value inherent throughout the
whole report.
Dr. Fisher touches on a wide array of programs and issues in varying degrees of detail,
both positive and negative. It is my intention to engage our leadership and governance
talent all across UA to identify and address the report’s fundamental themes. We will
methodically evaluate these themes and link our subsequent actions to desired outcomes
through good planning. In other words, our responses will not be designed to address
each critique per se, many of which are simply illustrative or symptomatic data points.
We will want to break out high order strengths, challenges and problems. Dr. Fisher’s
report will enable us to identify more clearly actions that could lead to the desired
effects we seek from following our strategic plan. There is a great deal of complexity
that characterizes much of what Dr. Fisher’s team points out and not much to be had
in the “low hanging fruit” category, quick reactions just waiting for a snap judgment/decision.
This will make our work more challenging, but also more valuable as we pursue affordable
ways to build value for our students, credibility with our communities, and the highest
return we can on Alaska’s investment in our university.
I encourage readers to jot down notes and send them to me at ua.president at alaska.edu.
Better yet, join us in the series of public meetings we will announce in conjunction
with our strategic planning process. More information on that will follow in the coming
weeks and months. Now, please enjoy a good think piece.
You can find the report at http://www.alaska.edu/files/pres/FinalFisherReport.pdf/.