UNIVERSITY-WIDE PROGRAM REVIEW
Institutional Research and Planning
May, 1998
Visiting the past, assessing the present, and planning for the future
|
Prior Vision, Mission, Values, and Goals Plan for Assessment Using the Data Assessment-based Evidence Executive Management Interview Client Interview Self-assessment Survey Assessing Informational Requests Summary of Findings Information and Analysis Planning Human Resources Process Management Performance Results Customer Satisfaction THE OFFICE IN THE FUTURE Potential Obstacles Vision, Mission, Values, and Goals Institutional Research and Planning Program Review: Visiting the past, assessing the present, and planning for the future OVERVIEW This is the first program review for Institutional Research and Planning (IR&P). Like many administrative offices at Shippensburg University, the office had no official mission statement prior to this first review and the only goals available were loosely associated with budgeting and the director's personal evaluation. Much of the energy spent on this review focused on the generation of vision, mission, value, and goal statements. This was considered a significant accomplishment for the first review. The entire office was involved in the process and we're rather proud of what we developed. Importantly, however, we also conducted assessment. This review was conducted over a period of six months. Planning for the process began in the fall and by the spring semester we were fully into assessment. The office was rather critical in choosing a model for assessment and spent significant time planning. The 360-degree feedback performance model was used in an effort to substantiate changes and improvements made over the last five years. This model stresses improvement and proactive endeavors and gathers performance data from multiple sources creating a multidimensional assessment. We weren't sure how much assessment of outcomes could be achieved in this first review. In fact, we weren't too concerned with that. We wanted to provide a firm foundation for this and future reviews. In time, we're sure that the office will become more sophisticated in self-assessment. This document opens with a narrative description of the office with a summary of prior goals. A second narrative of the present office environment is followed by assessment strategies, results, and a summary of the findings organized along the guidelines for administrative program review. The final section focuses on recommendations for change and improvement in the context of potential obstacles. The review concludes with revised vision, mission, value, and goal statements. THE OFFICE FIVE YEARS AGO Narrative Description Five years ago, the office was titled Institutional Research and its functions included traditional data production for managers, committees, departments, and outside agencies. The primary role of the office was to distribute descriptive statistical reports within the university and to provide outside agencies with enrollment reporting. The office consisted of three full-time employees (Director, Descriptive Statistician, Stenographer) and one graduate assistant. The Director's duties included responding to requests for data, developing and maintaining appropriate data to profile the university, and supervising personnel. The Descriptive Statistician was responsible for collecting, organizing, classifying, and summarizing quantified data. The Stenographer supported the Director and updated office publications, completed internal and external requests, managed surveys, and maintained a file system. The graduate assistant provided clerical and quantitative assistance to office personnel. Technology assets in the office included three non-networked computers, printers, a typewriter, and calculators. The office functioned by the use of the centralized UNISYS computing system. All data, including enrollments, for reporting and publication were ordered from the computing center at the beginning and end of each semester. The data originated in the form of printouts that were picked-up in the computer center on the other side of campus. Publications were constructed from data hand-tallied and entered into computer format for formatting and production. Statistical analyses were performed via mainframe software. Documents produced by IR included the Snyder Report, Faculty Staffing Plan, Profile and the Retention Rates Report. These publications provided a synopsis of the university's demographics concerning student enrollment and faculty counts. Further, IR was responsible for numerous mandatory, yearly submissions to the Chancellor's office. These included student and university reports such as Institutional Characteristics and Basic Student Charges. Institutional Research also served as a data resource for external agencies (e.g. U.S. News & World Report). Prior Vision, Mission, Values, and Goals It is important to review historical vision and mission statements when beginning the process of program review. No specific vision, mission, or values statements existed, however, for Institutional Research. Goals were extracted from the job description of the director and from the annual program planning documents. These goals were:
THE OFFICE TODAY Narrative Description Significant change has occurred in the office over the past five years. The office was titled Institutional Research and Planning when the new director was hired in 1994. The office is the university's official source of information and data. This function is accomplished through the production, distribution, and utilization of publications such as Profile, the Snyder Amendment Reports, Faculty Staffing Data, and the Retention Rates Report. An indexed report series, Institutional Research and Planning Reports, was added in 1994 that focuses on policy, analytical, educational, and organizational issues that warrant detailed analysis and investigation. An informational request system was also established that tracks all requests for information from the university community and external sources. This system allows for the management of information flow to insure optimal client service. An important role of the office is to provide expertise and support to the university on assessment, measurement, and improvement issues. This aspect is accomplished by consulting with academic departments, administrative areas, and system groups on issues concerning educational and academic assessment, organizational effectiveness, measurement and methodology, and the availability and use of information. Additionally, the office provides technical expertise on information system and data management issues. The most significant change in the office related to assessment and planning. Multiple demands were placed on the university regarding the reporting of data on educational and organizational processes and programs. In conjunction with campus leadership, the office established and maintains a university-wide data collection and assessment system. This strategy ensures the availability and uniformity of assessment information. This increased workload has had significant resource demands that have been met by the addition of low-cost student staffing and through process improvement. The office still consists of three full-time employees; a Director, Assistant Director (an upgrade from Descriptive Statistician), and Stenographer, three graduate assistants, and an undergraduate work-study. Given the addition of three student workers, office management is responsible for maintaining a highly flexible work environment that requires teamwork, training, and significant personal development. Some role specialization does, however, exist in the office. The Director primarily is responsible for the overall management and leadership of the office and is concerned with project management, long-range and strategic planning and budgeting. Additionally, the Director oversees the university-wide data collection and assessment plan. The Director is ultimately responsible for the functions of the office. The Assistant Director is the primary informational specialist and ensures timely and accurate reporting of all required data to internal and external agencies. A significant role is the management of the Data Collection Plan, data sent to the Chancellor's office in the State System of Higher Education. The Assistant Director also supervises the production of the major publications, supports the Director, and supervises graduate assistant staff. The Stenographer supports the Director and Assistant Director. Additional duties include assisting in the completion of external and internal requests, updating office publications, maintaining a file and archive system, and various clerical duties. The student staff is now critical to the productivity of the office. The three graduate students assist with large survey research projects and statistical analyses and participate on research project teams. They also perform literature research in the library and via the Internet. Student development and learning is paramount; the office provides the graduate assistants with ample opportunities to interact with university management and to engage in stimulating, collaborative research. The undergraduate work-study assists the office in various capacities. The addition and development of this student staff has significantly contributed to the increases in productivity necessary to meet new informational and assessment demands place on the office. While the staff totals seven individuals, technological resources are limited to four computers capable of running the sophisticated software necessary for the manipulation of complex data sets. All computers must be linked to the university's mainframe and have Internet capabilities. Information necessary for publications, reports, and special studies is extracted from the university's databases directly to the office hard drive for analyses. Further, the Internet and World Wide Web are utilized in disseminating research electronically. This method is accomplished by the office's web page (see www.ship.edu/~irp). The web page includes information from various publications, special studies, the Middle States Self-Study, and most recently the Common Data Set. Technological and physical resources were adequate for the four employees five years ago, but the addition of student staff has created a crisis. Seven employees occupy three small offices with four computers and makeshift furniture. Plan for Assessment 360 Degree Feedback. To show evidence of change over the past five years, assessment was accomplished via 360-degree feedback. The concept of 360-degree feedback stresses holistic assessment. For example, 360-feedback for an employee would include feedback from his/her peers, supervisors, subordinates, clients, and customers, as well as self-appraisal. Applied to the office, the method was employed to gather information provided by several sources including managers, coworkers, and customers. This information produced a systemic impression of performance. Using the Data. In an effort to increase the reliability of the findings, the assessment plan contained multiple methods to acquire information such as interviews, surveys, and narratives. Further, in consonance with 360-degree feedback, several different sources were tapped. For example, to assess executive management support, the university President and Vice Presidents were interviewed. Also, client support was assessed through interviews with deans, department chairs, and others. In sum, the methodology of this review was a multidimensional and multilevel assessment. Instruments included two structured interviews with clients and management, a survey of those same individuals, and a self-assessment survey completed by the office staff. An analysis of related data assessed the effectiveness of the information request system. Information gathered via these methods was utilized as evidence for achieving the goals over the five-year period. The assessment was complete in scope but manageable in size. Assessment-based Evidence Client Support Survey. Surveys were administered to department chairs, deans, directors, and executive management. Individuals as clients were asked to rate the office's performance on quantifiable issues on a Likert Scale. Information obtained from these surveys was applied as evidence of change and to identify areas in need of improvement. A total of 92 surveys were distributed (see Appendix II for distribution list) while 42 were completed and returned indicating a response rate of 46.0%. Of those respondents, 31.0% identified themselves as department chairs, 14.3% were deans, 43.0% were Administrators or Directors, and 12.0% indicated they held other positions at the university. Results suggest the office has become quite successful in several endeavors but may need to improve in others. The office's main objective is to provide data and information. By its nature, it should be accurate, consistent, and on time for effective use by managers. Further, as a center for expertise and support for various university systems, good working relations were found to be critical for productive and accurate feedback. Based on these findings, some areas although adequate, need to be examined and objectives need to be constructed for their improvement. Others believed that the office should be making better use of technology (18% of respondents noted this as only adequate or poor). Although strides like the Common Data Set have increased access to university information, individuals may be unaware of its existence or its usage. Supporting individuals to become self-sufficient in utilizing available data and information will alleviate some resource constraints. Moreover, self-sufficiency can increase university assessment capabilities. Table 1 shows the success ratings from the client support survey. Table 1 - How well do you feel the office succeeds in:
The office developed value statements as part of the program review process that have been integrated into vision, mission, and goal statements. In an effort to evaluate the degree to which these values have been conveyed, participants were asked to indicate their agreement that the office operates with each value. The results suggest that accuracy was the value most highly communicated through the office's work. Service and integrity also appeared to have met with significant levels of agreement. Lower ratings were observed with regard to flexibility and a holistic focus, two values important to the office. These are areas should be further developed in the future. Table 2 - The office operates with:
The office worked diligently to produce and refine clearer, more concise goals. These goals include providing leadership to constituents with various projects, surveys, or assessment, ensuring a high standard for quality, and improving the quantity of data and information available. The office hopes to develop beyond a passive data resource to a dynamic entity utilized for informational, assessment, and strategic purposes. In an effort to examine how well these objectives have been met, customers were asked to indicate their level of satisfaction with each issue. The data suggest that the office is meeting customers' expectations in terms of providing information and general interaction. Publications could be designed to better suit the needs of customers. Since these needs vary widely, however, content of the publications must be balanced to serve the entire university. Clients are in need of more planning and development support. There may be resistance to assessment; many would rather have IR&P develop and implement the assessment of their areas. While one of the office's objectives is to aid in the conceptualization and development of strategies, the office cannot be the sole proprietor of this undertaking. Given the office's resources, it is necessary to support and educate areas to become self-sufficient in these objectives. Table 3 - How satisfied are you with:
Executive Management Interview. Structured interviews were conducted with executive management (see Appendices III and IV). Questions allowing for qualitative dialogue were constructed around issues such as accuracy, performance, and support. It was important to note patterns that were generated during the discussions. These patterns yielded evidence used to assess change and to identify areas for improvement. Three major patterns or themes arose from executive management. The first related to productivity and resources. It was repeated that IR&P has performed "above and beyond the call of duty". The office's leadership, personnel, and structure have produced high-quality information and data that are accurate and consistent. These aspects are essential, according to management, due to their dependence on the information for decision-making. Further, this performance was maintained during significant constraints in the number of personnel and physical space. One concern arose with the amount of turnover in the office over the last five years. This instability has led to strains within the office in the forms of lost man-hours due to training within the office itself and throughout the university system. The second theme related to increased concern that outside pressures continue to influence the office, namely the heavy demand for information by external requestors including the Chancellor's office. Overall, management felt these constraints have limited the office's resources and capabilities to contribute to diverse planning aspects of the university. This has limited the availability of the office to develop and implement various studies and analyses. Although management understands the essential nature of these requests, their taxing nature on the office has become a concern. In sum, the office's contribution to planning at the university has been stifled due to these external demands. Finally, management has become increasingly interested in the special study series. For example, qualitative information gathered from Alumni such as where and why they choose certain career paths and its relationship to SU's education have proven useful. Interests in other special studies were mentioned several times during the interviews. The content and analyses of these studies, according to management, could be used in expanding ways. Some individuals wished for their own personal "research assistant" within IR&P to serve as a liaison between their administration and the office. Demand for detailed studies on particular issues is very high. Client Interview. Similar interviews were conducted with department chairs, deans, and directors (see Appendices V and VI). Several patterns emerged. Overall, clients were satisfied with the attention to detail in response to their informational and planning needs. Most understood that due to the office's responsibilities to external agencies such as the Chancellor's office, internal requests needed to be prioritized by importance. This led to an increase in response time for some clients. Clients utilized information given in publications such as Profile and Faculty Staffing Data as support for a variety of issues such as FTEF and resource allocation. Other information, such as the Snyder Amendment Reports, however, seemed of little use to most individuals. It was suggested that these more specialized publications be distributed selectively to individuals requesting it, rather than globally. Of the utilized information, participants felt the publications gave a collective picture of the university; however, most faculty and departmental chairs requested more specific breakdowns of the data such as student full or part time status and departmental trends over semesters. These divisions, according to those interviewed, would provide a compartmentalized picture of how their department rates (i.e. retention) compared to the overall rates of the university. Therefore, assessment strategies could be produced in light of this more specific and personalized information. Finally, some clients felt the office's abilities and services were not being advertised within the university. Those who had experience with IR&P understood its capabilities well. Others with infrequent exposure had little understanding of the office's services. Some felt that although the office's name has changed in response to increased efforts within the planning arena, they have seen little trickle down to either the academic or administrative departmental level. Self-assessment Survey. This instrument was administered internally to office staff and was constructed based on the administrative guidelines in the Program Review Handbook. To measure internal perceptions of the office's performance, office members were asked to identify strengths and weaknesses of the office and its mechanisms. The following are summaries of the responses by staff to each area of concern. The role of leadership in the office is paramount to both its own success and success within the larger picture of the university. Staff as a whole felt leadership provided direction when necessary without stifling the creative process. However, some staff felt that more information was necessary to adequately complete complex projects. Suggestions included integrating more "brainstorming sessions" before starting a project and increased feedback during a project. Finally, all staff felt the atmosphere created within the office provided unique opportunities for learning. Planning within the office was observed to be effective, allowing for high productivity. From conception to the final distributed report, all areas are carefully reviewed in an effort to provide the most accurate and objective information. However, staff felt external demands are too high (especially by SSHE and external agencies). These demands constrain the office to a limited amount of special studies and improvement projects. The office atmosphere promotes creativity and professional and personal growth. Limited physical space and technology, however, were reported to be significant constraints. Staff noted that the office might be reaching its limits of productivity when, at the same time, the demands for information and assessment are drastically increasing. Expanding technology and deleting vestige processes were reported as possible changes to accommodate the increasing workload. While staff felt productivity is high and customers are satisfied, demands are increasing and there is little time for reflection and improvement. Burnout is an issue that can contribute to data errors "slipping through the cracks". The office contributes to planning and management for many of the university's processes. Comparisons of data to the SSHE and national data provide benchmarks for the university's progress. Several areas, however, are not fully assessed. Staff noted resistance to assessment by departments that want IR&P to develop and implement the assessment for them. Finally, feedback within the university planning process needs to be considered. Some areas seem to have an "open planning loop". Although they conduct assessment, they are either not inclusive or may not "close the loop" to foster improvement. Many staff perceived that some departments, offices, or areas do not understand the purpose of institutional research and, especially, planning. More can be done to support data collection and assessment of the university if these individuals became more involved in the process. Assessing Informational Requests. To measure the effectiveness of the office's request system, requests were catalogued and analyzed. The request system works as follows: (1) Requests for information are received via telephone, personal visits, e-mail, Internet, or in writing. A Research Request Form is filled out for tracking purposes. (2) Office publications are checked first and if the information is readily available the requestor is referred to that publication. (3) If the information is not available, past data runs are consulted to see if the data are quickly available. (4) If the data do not exist in printed form, database extractions are completed. (5) Information is checked for accuracy then returned to the requestor. (6) Follow-up requests may be submitted. The average request time was 5 days with an average response time of 4 days. Most requests were completed days ahead of time and less than 5% of responses were late. Of the all the requests, 48% were needed in one day and 52% were needed in two days. The following two tables show internal and external request response. Table 4 - Most Frequent Internal Requestors
Table 5 - Most Frequent External Requestors
Summary of Findings Leadership: Office managers provide direction to staff and to the university community on assessment and informational issues. Support and guidance are paramount to this endeavor and ample opportunity is provided for interaction. Resistance and passivity to assessment exists in pockets across the university. The mentoring of student personnel has been a critical part of the high productivity of the office. Process improvement has also been important; leadership must continue to pursue improvement through the implementation of cutting edge strategies. Information and Analysis: The office's role as the official source of university information has contributed to consistency, accuracy, and respect from requestors. University-wide assessments such as Noel-Levitz and the CIRP have provided a plethora of information for decision-making. Although most have welcomed this information, some have found it a double-edged sword in that, the information requested has produced more questions to answer. While this contributes to workload, it is important in cultivating a culture of assessment. Planning: Planning within the office is critical to project success. The office's external focus on planning is somewhat different. The office did not focus on university planning five years ago. Changes have increased the planning focus -- a change that has become noticed. Numerous areas have asked for support for educational and academic assessment, organizational effectiveness assessment, and research methodology support. Additional planning and resource management is critical now as academic and administrative departments need support in their assessment strategies, hopefully leading to their self-sufficiency in assessment and improvement. Human Resources: Office staff is viewed competent and professional. Resources limit increased productivity and if demand increases in the near future, structural changes must occur in the office. Due to the swell of input from the university community, office staff has worked continuously to meet the demand. A key element has been the utilization and training of student personnel. They have significantly contributed to the output of the office. This does, however, change the nature of the Director's work as more time is spent in mentoring, development, and project management and less time is spent on analysis and data manipulation. Process Management: Process management starts with clear and shared mission, vision, value and goal statements. Communication regarding process among staff is high. Staff recognizes obsolete processes that need to be removed and replaced with innovative ideas to foster continued improvement. Performance Results: Customers reported satisfaction with office performance but noted areas for improvement. A simple review of the increase in amount and diversity of information flowing from the office over the past five years gives evidence of high output and performance. More work is needed in engaging the campus community in the utilization of information. Customer Satisfaction: Management reports satisfaction with the office. The demand for additional support by many offices is very high. Individuals and departments would like information and assessment that is directed at the special populations they serve. A balance of resources, external demands, and education leading to self-sufficiency must be achieved to maximize customer satisfaction. THE OFFICE IN THE FUTURE Change and Improvement A number of changes and improvements need to be made in the office based on feedback from assessment. It is most critical that steps be taken to balance office resources and workload. Pursuing permanent human resources is not an option given the budgetary environment. It may be possible in the long term to tap into additional student resources. This has the advantages of (1) increasing the students' learning and exposure to world-of-work experiences and of (2) adding to office productivity. The demands, however, require additional training, mentoring, office space, and access to technology. Several, more short-term steps are recommended. Balance responsibility for departmental assessment. It will be important to work more closely with academic and administrative departments on information and assessment issues, especially as they prepare for program review. A balance should be achieved between university-wide assessment, assessment consultation, and departmental assessment. Balance emphasis on external demands. Little can be done to change the demand for data by external sources. We must respond to the Chancellor's office requests. Choosing not to respond to external agencies may result in SU not being listed in publications to prospective students. One solution is the use of the Common Data Set (CDS) which the office piloted for the first time this year. The CDS is a collection of the commonly requested data developed in conjunction with the Association of Institutional Research, US News and World Report, Peterson's Guides, and the College Board. By making the CDS available on the IRP Web Page, IR&P can respond to external requests with a Web address that agencies can access very quickly. This will reduce office workload. Less important requests should receive low priority. Expand special studies. One of the most successful additions to the office has been the special studies series. This is a vehicle for specialized assessment and analysis that should be expanded. It is also a way to integrate faculty and student research into the office's operation. This process will be marked for expansion. Pursue mixed methodology research. Recently, significant progress has been made in qualitative research techniques. The most potent and useful investigations give multiple forms of evidence for phenomena. The office will pursue more research that mixes multiple forms of method to complement the rich quantitative data that is already produced. This would expand studies using focus groups, interview investigation, case studies, and other methods. Expand awareness of the office on campus. It was mentioned that awareness is a "double-edged sword". It is important that more of the campus know of the resources available from our office. Our roles will need to continually adapt to stimulate ownership of assessment by the academic and administrative departments. Eliminate lesser used publications and processes. Over the past four years, the office has redesigned all major publications. There is more that can be done to reduce the workload associated with the least useful products of the office. This will be necessary to meet the demand for additional studies and more useful products. Expand the IRP Web Page. Many of the above changes can be supported through the expanded use of the IRP Web Page. The Web has the advantage of allowing rapid dissemination of significant amounts of information to a very large audience. The office has had a web page in place for over two years but its effectiveness has been limited by the community's access to the Internet. Now, most of the university can and knows how to access the Web. This was a noted suggestion in the interviews. It will be possible in the future to move major publications and special studies to the IRP Web Page and significantly reduce the printing and copying costs of the office while increasing access to information for those who need the data. Increase involvement in planning and improvement. The office provides information for university planning through complex analyses, assessment feedback, and special studies. Departments are provided with data specific to their needs and assessment consultation and support. Management by fact is the approaching paradigm in higher education. Increased activity in national and system norming such as NACUBO Benchmarking and Performance Indicators are bringing data to bear on management practices. While executive management has been supportive in integrating feedback into the planning cycle, gaps between information and decision-making remain. As demands on the university increase, IR&P can contribute to planning and improvement by closing these gaps. While it is not the role of the office to make decisions, participation in planning is critical to better align information with decision-making. The office is poised to provide increased support to key decision-making processes. Potential Obstacles Several obstacles will make some of the above improvements difficult. Two, in particular, are immediate needs: available technology and limited physical resources. Additional technology. It is critical that each employee in the office is provided with access to technology. Seven individuals now share four computers. One solution this past semester was to increase the flexibility of individuals' schedules to include evening and weekend hours. This solution was not equitable given operation in most offices on campus and it limited access to resources outside the office. While, the office does not have the budget for the purchase of computers, we will need to stretch our monies to buy one new computer next year. A second new computer is needed to alleviate technology constraints. Additional physical space. It is also critical that each individual in the office is provided with adequate space. Student workers are now "squeezed" into space by the creative use of furniture acquired from campus leftovers. A temporary but expensive solution may be to install modular workstations but space in the three offices cannot be permanently arranged to accommodate all employees. The office should be relocated in a space that offers adequate working conditions. Campus leadership should have quick access to the new location of the office given their needs for access to information. Workload cannot be added and student research cannot begin until these two constraints are addressed. Vision, Mission, and Goals for the Future The following vision, mission, values, and goals will be adopted for the next five-year period. They will be reviewed again during the next program review. Vision: To achieve an environment where we maximize our ability to communicate, learn, and be flexible to serve the mission of the university. Mission: Provide information for decision-making by facilitating, maintaining, supporting, and innovating systems for data, assessment, planning and improvement. Values: Accuracy, Balance, Consistency, Holistic focus, Integrity, Flexibility, Learning and Improvement, Objectivity, Service. Goals:
Appendices Appendix II:Survey Distribution List Appendix III:Assessing Executive Support: Interview Appendix IV: Executive Management Interview List Appendix V:Assessing Client Support II: Interview Appendix VI: Client Interview List Appendix VII:Self-Assessment Survey Appendix I: Assessing Client Support Survey
How well do you feel the Office of Institutional Research & Planning succeeds in:
The Office of Institutional Research & Planning operates with:
How satisfied are you with:
Appendix II: Survey Distribution List
Appendix III: Assessing Executive Management Support: Structured Interview 1. Does IR&P information and products provide help in your decision-making? Explain. 2. Name a data product that you could really use that you don't have now? 3. What are the strengths of the office? 4. What are the weaknesses of the office and what improvements do you see that are needed? 5. It has been said that there is too much data and too little use of data in planning. How does this relate to your area? 6. Consider the following areas. Are your expectations of the office being met? Information and Analysis Planning Human Resources Process Management Overall Performance Customer Satisfaction Appendix IV: Executive Management Interview List
Appendix V: Assessing Client Support II: Structured Interview 1. Does IR&P information and products provide help in your decision-making? Explain. 2. Name a data product that you could really use that you don't have now? 3. What are the strengths of the office? 4. What are the weaknesses of the office and what improvements do you see that are needed? 5. It has been said that there is too much data and too little use of data in planning. How does this relate to your area? Appendix VI: Client Interview List
Appendix VII: Self-Assessment Survey The following are areas of concern currently being examined during the Program Review. Each area is identified followed by a description or questions to consider. Please comment on each area under review in regards to strengths and weaknesses of the office.
Strength: Weakness: |