Research
Request by Prof. Godwin Booysen, Founder of Dunamis Consultants 2006
Compiled
by Prof. Louis Mathys De Bruin Dunamis Degree Accreditation Association (DDAA) and New World Mission Dunamis International
University (NWMDIU) and Partners.
STRATEGIC PLANNING
EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
A Strategic Planning Primer for Education in South Africa and the rest of the educational world for
2006 to 2010.
This
article provides an overview of the strategic planning process. It is intended to help
you
understand the concept of strategic planning, the need for strategy in South African and International education, and
the
dynamics of the university-based strategic planning. It includes a brief history of strategic
planning,
emerging challenges in education, basic models and steps of a strategic
planning
process, adapting strategic planning to unique needs of education as well as higher education, and a look
into
the strategic planning at the California State University , Universities and Schools within the United Kingdom as well as
a few successful Schools within South African educational systems as Super model for the Southern African situation . A glossary
of terms and an
annotated
bibliography are included.
By
Prof. Louis M. De Bruin for Dunamis Consultants based in South Africa.2006.
Introduction:
To find the Strategy to fit the African “Business Plan for Educational Planning” is not an easy
task.
To aim our focus on the super models around the developed countries only will not be effective strategic planning
for Africa.. We need to return to the basics. From time to time we have to strengthen the roots of
a young, growing, tree by cutting dead branches, trimming even some who might be alive, watering the tree, right at the roots,
protect the tree from frost, parasites and violent “animals”.
Educational Development began right at the beginning of the Creation of this world -”as we know it”-
from Historic Writings , Teachings and Discoveries. Our main source to explore and to find satisfying
answers for our quest and purpose- to improve education for Africa is found in:- Excavations,
The Bible, Reality- Science, manuscripts, art, traditions and cultures yesterday and today with our eyes open for future breakthroughs,
opportunism, empowerment and recognitions of leadership within Africa who already make a difference
but have more potential for development and as participants for strategic planning reach the ultimate goal of Global Educational
competencies.
A Strategic Planning Primer for Higher Education
Economic
projections available around the world offer an invaluable source of information for
university-based
strategic planning. To provide data for studying changes in the external
environment,
setting empirically based goals related to the labor market, and examining an
individual
campus’s position in relation to entire higher education sector in the state.
You
may search for articles on the Internet about- the following:
Why
Higher Education Needs Strategic Planning
Brief
History of Strategic Planning
Steps
in a Strategic Planning Process and a Strategic Planning Process Model
Unique
Aspects of Strategic Planning in Higher Education
Strategic
Planning at CSU
Limitations
Glossary
of Terms
Basic
Models
Annotated
Bibliography
References
You may click here for NWMDIU Strategic Planning
website at: http://www.university.zoomshare.com/ and follow the LINKS
Why Higher Education Needs Strategic Planning
Why-
the concept of strategic planning, the need for strategy in higher education, and
the
dynamics of the university-based strategic planning?. It includes a brief history of strategic
planning,
emerging challenges in higher education, basic models and steps of a strategic
planning
process, adapting strategic planning to unique needs of higher education, and a look
into
the strategic planning at the California State University system. A glossary of terms and an
annotated
bibliography are included.
By
Alexandra L. Lerner, Research Associate. College of Business Administration and
Economics,
California State University, Northridge. July 1999.
Universities
are driven to engage in a strategic planning process by a variety of forces. These
include:
increasing demand for higher education concurrent with a decline in government
funding,
changing student demographics, and a need to compete with the emerging models of
higher
education while keeping the essence of a traditional comprehensive university. A
strategic
planning process can help prepare a university to face these emerging challenges.
According
to Benjamin & Carroll (1998, p.3), “if current trends continue, more than onethird
of
the Californians seeking to enroll in ”a state university “will be unable to do so by the
year
2015.” Consequently, to avoid such outcomes, universities need to “make major structural
changes
in their decision-making systems … and reallocate scarce resources” (Benjamin &
Carroll,
1998, p.21). Universities should also “pursue greater mission differentiation to
streamline
their services and better respond to the changing needs of their constituencies”
(Benjamin
& Carroll, 1998, p. 22-23). Strategic planning can aid the university in accomplishing
these
tasks.
CHALLENGES FACING CALIFORNIA HIGHER EDUCATION
Recent
years have brought many changes to the landscape of California’s higher education.
Following
is a brief description of these challenges.
Decrease
in state government funding
Public
universities’ share of the state budget is plummeting; according to David Breneman, it
will
decline to 1% in 2002 (from 12% in 1994). At the same time, according to Benjamin &
Carroll
(1998) the operating costs per student in higher education are rising.
Increase
in demand for higher education
Demand
for higher education is expected to increase sharply in the next decade. According
to
former CSU chancellor Barry Munitz, university enrollment in California will increase to 2.7
million
in 2010, a 50% increase over 1.8 million in 1994. For CSU, this translates into an
additional
100,000 full-time equivalent students (FTE) annually by 2010 (Cornerstones,
appendix,
p.2). In addition to the expected population growth, the proportion of the population
that
will attend universities will increase. According to Benjamin & Carroll (1998, p. 9), “only
college
graduates will be able to hold their own economically” by 2015. As more and more
people
recognize that a college degree is essential to their economic well being, demand for
higher
education will increase.
Changing
demographics
Students’
demographic makeup is changing. As the number of Latino and Asian students
increases
over the next decade, the universities will not have a single racial “majority” group. By
2005
about half of the entering class of students will come from non-“Anglo-white” families. In
addition,
the average age of the student population will increase, as more “older” students return
to
universities to get undergraduate degrees. Seeking “the best conditions for success of all its
diverse
students,” universities need to provide education that will allow graduates to “fully
participate
in a diverse society committed to democratic values” (Cornerstones, appendix, p 3).
New
models of higher education
New
models of providing higher education have emerged in recent years. According to some
researchers,
a gap between what the public wants and what traditional universities provide is
growing
(Rowley, Lujan, & Dolence, 1997). Changes in the educational needs (i.e. a need for
more
specific, applied education), unmet by the existing system of higher education, have
prompted
emergence of for-profit, “convenience” universities, such as the University of Phoenix
and
National University. Adapting to the needs of the consumer-driven market (Traub, 1997),
they
view the student as a customer, target specific functions (based on the market need), and
offer
schedules convenient for students. Thus “traditional” universities must find ways to deal
with
this new competition.
Keeping
elements of a “traditional” model
“Universities
can’t move completely away from a provider-driven model to a consumerdriven
form
of higher education. … The quest for new knowledge, the analysis of theories and
practices,
and the free exchange of ideas would suffer if colleges and universities only offered
what
was popular” (Rowley, Lujan, & Dolence, 1997, p. 54). Eliminating disciplines because
they
are currently not in demand is contrary to the mission of a comprehensive university. Yet to
some
degree all campuses must consider student preferences for applied education and the larger
labor
market.
Lack
of consensus in state government
The
government is debating the purposes of higher education and who should have access to
it.
At the same time, universities, and particularly the CSU, are challenged to meet their mission
to
provide access and affordability, ensure quality through maximum attention to the teaching
and
learning process, and provide evidence for their results (Cornerstones, appendix, p. 3-4).
Economic
transformation
“California’s
economy has undergone a profound transformation in the last two decades.”
The
major economic growth areas, high-tech and high-tech based industries, will employ welleducated
individuals,
able to move easily among careers and employers. Californians, who lack
adequate
education and competencies useful across career lines, especially those without at least
a
college degree, will be at a disadvantage, in terms of employment opportunities, earning
capacity,
and higher unemployment rates (Cornerstones, appendix, p. 2).
Click
here for Cornerstones Report, Appendix
NEED FOR STRATEGIC PLANNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Strategic
planning is one of the major steps the universities can take to address these
challenges.
Strategy is a tool for the university to find its competitive advantage and place
within
the environment.
California’s
universities must bring about the needed institutional redesign and devise an
effective
strategic plan for developing California’s human resources. By pursuing a greater
mission
differentiation and reallocation of resources they will better respond to the changing
needs
of their constituencies (Benjamin & Carroll, 1998).
The
present lack of effective strategic planning has lead to dire predictions from many
observers.
According to Benjamin & Carroll (1998, p.1), “the present course of higher
education
in the state – in which student demand, tuition, and costs are rising much faster than
public
funding - is unsustainable. Unless significant steps are taken to address the situation,
hundreds
of thousands of Californians will be denied access to higher education within the next
20
years.” “That is a serious, sobering, economic, political, and social catastrophe, and there is
nothing
in the framework of a current situation that is likely to prevent that from occurring”
(Breneman,
1995).
“Institutions
of higher education that do not rethink their roles, responsibilities, and structures
… can
expect a very difficult time in the next decade and the next generation. Some will not
survive.
Most will be expected to do much more with far less” (Glassman & Rossy, n.d.).
BENEFITS OF STRATEGIC PLANNING
Engaging
in a strategic planning process benefits universities in a variety of ways.
Strategic
planning:
· Creates a framework for determining the direction
a university should take to achieve its
desired
future,
· Provides a framework for achieving competitive
advantage,
· Allows all university constituencies to participate
and work together towards accomplishing
goals,
· “Raises the vision of all key participants,
encouraging them to reflect creatively on the
strategic
direction” of the university (Hax & Majluf, 1996, p. 32),
· Allows the dialogue between the participants
improving understanding of the organization’s
vision,
and fostering a sense of ownership of the strategic plan, and belonging to the
organization,
· Aims to align the university with its environment,
· Allows the university to set priorities.
Please click here for a complete list of References
Brief History of Strategic Planning
MILITARY ROOTS
The history of strategic planning begins in the military. According to
Webster’s New World
Dictionary, strategy
is “the science of planning and directing large-scale military operations, of
maneuvering
forces into the most advantageous position prior to actual engagement with the
enemy”
(Guralnic, 1986). Although our understanding of strategy as applied in management has
been
transformed, one element remains key: aim to achieve competitive advantage.
Taking
its name and roots from the military model, early models of formal strategic planning
“reflected
the hierarchical values and linear systems of traditional organizations. Undertaken by
elite
planning function at the top of the organization, its structure was highly vertical and timebound.
A
certain period would be set aside to analyze the situation and decide on a course of
action.
This would result in a formal document. Once this was done, the actual work of
implementation
- which was considered a separate, discrete process - could begin” (Wall & Wall,
1995).
Although
individual definitions of strategy vary between authors, traditionally, theorists have
considered
planning an essential part of organizational strategy. For a comprehensive definition
of strategy, please refer to the Glossary
of Terms.
BUSINESS
Strategic
planning in organizations originated in the 1950s and was very popular and
widespread
between mid-1960s to mid-1970s, when then people believed it was the answer for
all
problems, and corporate America was “obsessed” with strategic planning. Following that
“boom”
strategic planning was cast aside and abandoned for over a decade. The 1990s brought
the
revival of strategic planning as a “process with particular benefits in particular contexts”
(Mintzberg,
1994).
Here is a brief account of several generations of strategic planning.
SWOT analysis model
dominated
strategic planning of the 1950s. “The 1960s brought qualitative and quantitative
models of strategy. During the early 1980s, the shareholder value model
and the Porter model
became
the standard. The rest of the 1980s was dictated by strategic intent and core
competencies,
and market-focused organizations. Finally, business transformation became de
rigueur
in the 1990s” (Gouillart, 1995).
Subsequent
newer models of strategic planning were focused on adaptability to change,
flexibility,
and importance of strategic thinking and organizational learning. “Strategic agility”
is
becoming more important that the strategy itself, because the organization’s ability to succeed
“has
more to do with its ability to transform itself, continuously, than whether it has the right
strategy.
Being strategically agile enables organizations to transform their strategy depending on
the
changes in their environment” (Gouillart, 1995).
HIGHER EDUCATION
During
the past decade institutions of higher education had to confront numerous changes in
their external and internal environment, and respond to emerging challenges, such as decreasing
financial
support, rapid technological advances, changing demographics, and outdated academic
programs.
As a result, many universities engaged in strategic planning as means to “make
beneficial,
strategic changes … to adapt to the rapidly shifting environment” (Rowley, Lujan, &
Dolence,
1997).
Overall,
strategic planning at universities has been only moderately successful, as only few
were
able to achieve significantly successful results and “transformed themselves dramatically.
Others
have been able to make important changes in parts of their operations. … But many
institutions
have stumbled, dissolved into controversy, or lost their nerve” (Rowley, Lujan, &
Dolence,
1997). Although several authors have endeavored to explain successes and failures of
strategic
planning in higher education, scholars differ in their opinions. As a result, there is no
consensus
(or clarity) on major determinants of strategic planning’s success in universities.
Please click here for a complete list of References
Steps in a Strategic Planning Process
Although
every strategic planning process is uniquely designed to fit the specific needs of a
particular
university, every successful “model” includes most of these steps.
The
university begins by identifying its vision and mission. Once these are clearly defined, it
moves
on to a series of analyses, including external, internal, gap, and benchmarking, which
provide
a context for developing organization’s strategic issues. Strategic programming follows
and
the organization develops specific strategies including strategic goals, action plans, and
tactics.
Emergent strategies evolve, challenging the intended tactics, and altering the realized
strategy.
Periodically, the organization evaluates its strategies and reviews its strategic plan,
considering
emergent strategies and evolving changes. It usually takes several years before
strategic
planning becomes institutionalized and organizations learn to think strategically. The
Strategic Planning Process graph at the end
of this section provides a graphical representation
of
these steps.
Note:
Here we briefly review steps essential to success of any strategic planning process. For
a more detailed description of strategic planning terminology, please
refer to the Glossary
of Terms.
VISION AND MISSION
Identification
of the organization’s vision and mission is the first step of any strategic
planning
process. The university’s vision sets out the reasons for organization’s existence and
the
“ideal” state that the organization aims to achieve; the mission identifies major goals and
performance
objectives. Both are defined within the framework of the university’s philosophy,
and
are used as a context for development and evaluation of intended and emergent strategies.
One
can not overemphasize the importance of a clear vision and mission; none of the subsequent
steps
will matter if the organization is not certain where it is headed.
ENVIRONMENTAL SCAN
Once
the vision and mission are clearly identified, the university must analyze its external
and internal environment. The environmental scan, performed within the
frameworks of the Five
Forces Model and SWOT, analyzes information about organization’s external environment
(economic,
social, demographic, political, legal, technological, and international factors), the
industry, and internal organizational factors. The labor
market projections provided on this site
are most valuable for the environmental scan. Please refer to the brief
description of the Basic
Models for more information.
GAP ANALYSIS
Organizations
evaluate the difference between their current position and desired future
through
gap analysis. As a result, a university can develop specific strategies and allocate
resources
to close the gap (CSUN strategic planning leadership retreat, April 1997), and achieve
its
desired state.
BENCHMARKING
Measuring
and comparing the university’s operations, practices, and performance against
others
is useful for identifying "best" practices. Through an ongoing systematic benchmarking
process
campuses find a reference point for setting their own goals and targets.
STRATEGIC ISSUES
University
determines its strategic issues based on (and consistent with) its vision and
mission,
within the framework of environmental and other analyses. Strategic issues are the
fundamental
issues the organization has to address to achieve its mission and move towards its
desired
future.
STRATEGIC PROGRAMMING
To
address strategic issues and develop deliberate strategies for achieving their mission,
universities
set strategic goals, action plans, and tactics during the strategic programming stage.
Strategic goals are
the milestones the campus aims to achieve that evolve from the strategic
issues. The SMART goals
model is essential to setting meaningful goals. Smart goals are
specific, measurable, agreed upon, realistic, and time/cost bound.
“Action plans …
define how we get to where we want to go,” the steps required to reach our
strategic
goals.
Tactics are specific
actions used to achieve the strategic goals and implement the strategic
plans.
EMERGENT STRATEGIES
Unpredicted
and unintended events frequently occur that differ from the university’s
intended
strategies, and the university must respond. Emergent strategy is “a pattern, a
consistency
of behavior over time,” “a realized pattern [that] was not expressly intended” in the
original
planning of strategy. It results from a series of actions converging into a consistent
pattern (Mintzberg, 1994, p. 23-25). Please refer to the Glossary of Terms for a more complete
definition
of emergent strategies.
EVALUATION OF STRATEGY
Periodic
evaluations of strategies, tactics, and action programs are essential to assessing
success
of the strategic planning process. It is important to measure performance at least
annually
(but preferably more often), to evaluate the effect of specific actions on long-term
results
and on the organization’s vision and mission (Rowley, Lujan, & Dolence, 1997). The
organization
should measure current performance against previously set expectations, and
consider
any changes or events that may have impacted the desired course of actions.
REVIEW OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN
After
assessing the progress of the strategic planning process, the university needs to review
the
strategic plan, make necessary changes, and adjust its course based on these evaluations. The
revised
plan must take into consideration emergent strategies, and changes affecting the
organization’s
intended course.
STRATEGIC THINKING
With
time, people in the university routinely make their decisions within the framework of
the
organization’s strategic vision and mission. Strategic planning becomes an organizational
norm,
deeply embedded within the organization’s decision-making process, and participants
learn
to think strategically as part of their regular daily activities (Lerner, 1999). Strategic
thinking
involves “arraying options through a process of opening up institutional thinking to a
range
of alternatives and decisions that identify the best fit between the institution, its resources,
and the environment” (Rowley, Lujan, & Dolence, 1997, p. 15).
See Glossary of Terms for
more
about strategic thinking.
Please click here for a complete list of References
Unique Aspects of Strategic Planning in Higher Education
The
following section discusses unique aspects of strategic planning at universities.
DIFFERENCES
BETWEEN A BUSINESS MODEL AND A UNIVERSITY MODEL
To ensure
success of the strategic planning effort, universities need to adjust the “business
strategy
model” to higher education. As discussed below, university-based strategic planning
differs
from the business model in several specific ways. By recognizing these differences and
changing
the traditional model accordingly, universities can increase understanding of, and
participation
in the strategy process throughout its constituencies.
Time
frame
In the
“business world,” strategic planning model timeframe is 2 to 3 years; at universities, it
usually
takes 5 or more years.
Consensus
The
business model is generally top down, although it is still necessary to get the support and
involvement
of people in the company. Because of the importance of shared governance in
university
management, faculty’s involvement is key, and building consensus right from the
beginning
becomes essential for university – based strategic planning. University faculty can’t be
“directed”
(i.e., command authority) in the same way as employees in a company, because
“centralized
power” at universities is not very strong.
Value
system
Universities’
guiding principle - long-term investment in educating people - is different from
business’
bottom line approach. Differences in the value system require a different approach to
strategic
planning at universities.
Customers
Universities
do not have a clearly defined customer; students, employers, and the community
may
all be considered “customers.” As a result, defining goals and measuring effectiveness
consistently
with the university’s mission is problematic.
Context
Change
is especially difficult to accept at the universities, because by nature universities are
about
preservation.
THE
PROCESS OF STRATEGIC PLANNING
The
process itself is important to opening the lines of communications, and engaging faculty
and
staff in the dialogue. The fact that we engage in “strategic thinking” is more important than
the
final product – the plan. The decision-makers can make choices in the context of their
understanding
of the faculty’s dialogue, different vantage points, and university’s overall
mission.
It is similar to the empowerment in the corporate model. If participants understand the
thinking
around issues, then management can empower them to make decisions, because
employees’
decisions will reflect the overall context.
According
to Barry Munitz, former CSU chancellor, universities need to establish where
their
strategic competitive advantage is. “As you begin your own strategic planning effort, be
thoughtful
and concise and specific about where you want to make this campus’s mark. What
do you
do well, what do you do differently, what do you do better than most others. Those things
that
you care less about and you do less well should disappear” (Munitz, speech at CSUN, 1995).
Reward
system
University’s
faculty are rewarded mainly based on research and teaching. For strategic
planning
to succeed, faculty should be rewarded for a broader range of things (i.e. initiatives
related
to strategic planning), while the essence of the university - teaching and research - is
preserved.
People participate in activities that get rewarded, so universities have to be willing to
shift
resources and allocate funds for strategic priorities. In essence, strategic planning goals and
objectives should be linked to the reward system.
Commitment
at the top
Commitment
at the top is essential for success. The university president has to be willing to
push
and support strategic planning activities, and never loose focus on that. Similarly, highlevel
executives
must be truly committed to and involved in it.
“Loosely
coupled system”
The
university is “a loosely coupled system of units that need to work together for a mutually
beneficial
future, but understand that their differences would often create tension. These units
simultaneously
seek autonomous distinctiveness and interdependence. The continued attention
to the
balancing of these two dimensions became the glue that held the strategic planning process
together
and provided the context for implementation” (Glassman & Rossy, n.d.). Designing a
loosely
coupled process recognizes uniqueness of each part of the university.
Participatory
planning
The
need for participatory planning stems from the universities’ “shared governance” model.
“Within
colleges and universities, the major means of production (teaching and research) are …
the
exclusive rights of the faculty, and …top-level strategic decision making cannot be
adequately
accomplished without the advice and consent of professoriate… The faculty … can
exercise
significant veto power over the options available to university administrative
leadership”
(Rowley, Lujan, & Dolence, 1997).
Finding
a mechanism to get faculty involvement at every stage, and particularly at the
implementation
stage, becomes essential to success; faculty can’t be “commanded,” but have to
be willing
to voluntarily participate.
Alignment
While
allowing for flexibility, alignment means that universities within the system support
strategic
goals of the larger system, and that the units within the university support campus goals.
Colleges
and deans could define their own ways to establish goals, and choose what is important
to them
within the framework of the university-wide strategic planning process. This fosters a
feeling
of ownership of the process, and personal contribution to it.
Allow
for differences
Design
of strategic planning differs between the university level, the college level, and the
department
level. The process for each college needs to be customized to that college’s unique
environment,
keeping in mind the high degree of heterogeneity of the population within the
university.
For example, CSUN, is not one homogenous university, but 9 colleges living on the
same
geographical turf.
Please click here for a complete list of References
Strategic Planning Process Model
MISSION / V
