practical guide to strategic planning in higher education

• Kindle Store
• Kindle eBooks
• Education & Teaching

Promotions apply when you purchase

These promotions will be applied to this item:

Some promotions may be combined; others are not eligible to be combined with other offers. For details, please see the Terms & Conditions associated with these promotions.

Buy for others

Buying and sending ebooks to others.

• Select quantity
• Buy and send eBooks
• Recipients can read on any device

These ebooks can only be redeemed by recipients in the US. Redemption links and eBooks cannot be resold.

Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required .

Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.

Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.

Image Unavailable

• To view this video download Flash Player

Follow the author

A Practical Guide to Strategic Planning in Higher Education: Second Edition, with New and Updated Content Kindle Edition

• Print length 122 pages
• Language English
• Sticky notes On Kindle Scribe
• Publication date December 11, 2022
• File size 4287 KB
• Page Flip Enabled
• Word Wise Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting Enabled
• See all details

Customers who bought this item also bought

Product details

• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0BPVCDVDW
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 11, 2022
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 4287 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 122 pages
• #280 in Higher Education Administration
• #281 in Education Administration (Kindle Store)
• #838 in College & University Education

About the author

Karen hinton.

Discover more of the author’s books, see similar authors, read author blogs and more

Customer reviews

Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.

To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.

No customer reviews

• Amazon Newsletter
• About Amazon
• Accessibility
• Sustainability
• Press Center
• Investor Relations
• Amazon Devices
• Amazon Science
• Sell on Amazon
• Sell apps on Amazon
• Supply to Amazon
• Protect & Build Your Brand
• Become an Affiliate
• Become a Delivery Driver
• Start a Package Delivery Business
• Advertise Your Products
• Self-Publish with Us
• Become an Amazon Hub Partner
• › See More Ways to Make Money
• Amazon Visa
• Amazon Store Card
• Amazon Secured Card
• Amazon Business Card
• Shop with Points
• Credit Card Marketplace
• Reload Your Balance
• Amazon Currency Converter
• Your Account
• Your Orders
• Shipping Rates & Policies
• Amazon Prime
• Returns & Replacements
• Manage Your Content and Devices
• Recalls and Product Safety Alerts
• Conditions of Use
• Privacy Notice
• Consumer Health Data Privacy Disclosure
• Your Ads Privacy Choices

5 Steps To Highly Effective Strategic Planning In Higher Education (FREE template)

A crystal clear strategic plan can be the big difference between becoming the leading university… VERSUS ending up at the bottom. You know - where you struggle to attract students, the right staff members or even funds to support your institution.

So, in order to achieve your university’s goals, you need to learn how to build an effective strategic plan. 

In this blog post, we will reveal:

• The #1 reason university strategies fail
• The overlooked role of a strategic plan for higher ed
• The 5-step process you can follow to build a plan with your team

What is strategic planning in higher education? 

Strategic planning is the process an institution follows to realize its vision of its ideal future state. It’s a roadmap for getting there. Your vision becomes a reality through the process that defines specific goals, needs, and actions. It helps you to structure and contextualize information leading to important decisions. 

Sounds obvious, right? 

So, the question is:

Why do so many universities fail at strategic planning?

Because they forgot what the main role of a strategic plan is.

Most universities and colleges work on some form of strategic planning, but they usually come out as a 28-page PDF. They create an impressive presentation with shiny headings, upload it to their website and consider themselves successful. 

The end result is a ‘strategic plan’ that serves more as a marketing brochure and less like a roadmap to success.

What’s wrong with this usual approach?

Most vice-chancellors and vice presidents are not even aware of what they are losing. Staff members and faculty members work in silos with no focus on the big picture. Departmental plans are unaligned with the overall strategic plan. This leads to inefficiency, wasted resources, and things getting missed.

Clearly, this approach lacks the organization and accountability necessary for success. As a result, some institutions are losing their reputation, while others are losing program accreditation, experiencing declining student success, or having fewer funds available.

Sometimes all of the above. 

Strategic planning goes beyond ambitious and attractive presentations that describe the organization’s state in the next 5, 10 or more years.

Now let's take a closer look...

What is the real purpose of the strategic plan in higher education?

Your first and foremost goal should be to stay true to the promises you made to your stakeholders.

Think of your strategic plan as the foundation to achieve your long-term goals.

It’s supposed to help you translate high-level ambitions into tangible actions at a departmental level. Furthermore, it organizes everyone so that they can do those actions and report on them in a systematic and transparent manner. 

It serves as a guiding light for your staff, allowing them to focus on the things that drive real progress towards the university's strategic goals. 

On top of that, it’s an important resource for planning your yearly budget allocation. Even in the most difficult financial times, integrating strategic planning and budgeting throughout the organization creates opportunities for success.

It's obvious, isn't it? You need to stop treating your strategic plan as merely a glorified marketing document.

What are the 5 steps in the strategic planning process?

This five-step process will help you to craft a strategic plan that goes beyond marketing and delivers on promised results.

1. Understand your current situation

An effective planning process starts with a thorough understanding of your current situation. 

You can start by asking these questions: 

• What are our core competencies?
• Which important KPIs are trending over the last few years upwards? 
• Where do we notice a drop in performance? What led to this drop?
• Where do we want to be in 5 or 10 years?
• Do we need to develop new programs?
• How do we get there? 
• What external factors can impact us in the future?

Search for answers and go deep into every department and aspect of your institution. From financial health and university rankings to student enrollment, retention rates, and placement rates.

Next, understand the expectations and needs of your internal and external stakeholders.

Remember, top-down approach doesn’t work for universities. Higher education institutions are highly interconnected with their community and shouldn’t neglect its interest when making strategic decisions.

Collect feedback from every stakeholder group whose expectations affect your performance:

• Alumni members
• Faculty members & campus community
• Community groups
• Senior administrators
• External partnerships

Include their input into planning and translate it into the institution’s major goals. Embrace this collaborative approach and prevent too many unexpected "buts" in the future.

Don’t forget that you’re only collecting information at this stage, not brainstorming solutions or action plans. 

‍ Cascade tip:

The SWOT analysis framework  is still one of the most effective methods for evaluating internal operations and the external environment. Be honest and thorough in your evaluation. You can use it numerous times through strategic planning but you should start early in the planning process.

2. Lead with vision and values

Your university's vision is a part of its identity and a powerful latent tool.

Higher ed institutions of any size can utilize it, but they usually don’t. They don’t believe that people care about the big picture or that it affects the university's daily operations.

However, a clear and unique vision statement will set you apart from the competition and make you more memorable to potential students. They will know exactly what to expect from studying at your university and why they should come. 

At the same time, it gives a strong sense of pride and belonging to current students, faculty, and alumni. It becomes an emblem that attracts the right students, staff members, and funding opportunities. 

Here’s  an example  of a vision statement for the university: 

We will work as one Oxford bringing together our staff, students and alumni, our colleges, faculties, departments and divisions to provide world-class research and education.

- University of Oxford

You can take it one step further and include your institutional mission statement. 

And don’t forget about the values. They define your university’s culture. They determine how people act, which behaviors are praised and which are condemned. 

When you build a culture intentionally, then everyone inside and outside your school knows what you stand for, reinforcing all the benefits of a harnessed vision.

Cascade tip:

One of the biggest blockers to the successful execution of a strategic plan is the attempt to accomplish too much at once.  Creating a Vision Statement  will help you to avoid that trap right from the start. It becomes your north star guiding your strategy. It will be easier for you to identify what is relevant and worthy of your attention versus what isn't.

3. Concentrate your strategic planning efforts on key areas

There's a problem most presidents and strategic planning committees face: they don't define the real focus of their plans. 

You see, you can’t achieve everything, everywhere, all at once.

Your resources are limited, and you should prioritize accordingly. 

I’m glad you followed the first two steps. Now you have all the information you need to identify the biggest and most urgent challenges your university faces.

Clarifying the obstacles ahead of time helps you prioritize your strategic goals and develop focused efforts to achieve them.

For example, let’s say you’re creating a 5-year strategic plan. Here are some key focus groups you might want to focus on: 

• Provide superb undergraduate experience 
• Ensure graduate education and lifetime learning 
• Increase community engagement 
• Increase research excellence 
• Optimize financial resources

Focus areas help you decide what falls outside the university's priorities and prioritize your strategic planning efforts. 

We usually suggest creating between 3 to 5 Focus Areas. Any fewer and they will probably be too vague. Any more, and well..... you lose your focus. Dive deeper into focus areas with this  guide . 

4. Translate plan into tangible actions

This is the part that turns your strategic plan into reality. 

If you ever want to achieve your goals, you need to break down the plan into smaller, granular pieces specific to each department. Start by adding strategic objectives to your focus areas. 

The secret to  writing great strategic objectives  is simplicity and specificity. Avoid jargon and use a verb to indicate action. Accompany it with a deadline and preferably an owner (or two).

Here is an example:

Increase citations per faculty by 5% by May 2024, owned by Jane Doe.

The next step is to migrate from goal-setting to action-planning with projects. Projects describe what you’ll do to accomplish your objectives.

Projects  articulate a set of actions within a certain timeline. They include specific tasks, milestones, dependencies and dates (deadlines). Every objective should include at least one project or action-like event. Otherwise, you’ll never achieve any progress towards it.

Of course, nothing is so linear, but this process forces you to come up with action plans to support every strategic initiative and allocate funds and your staff’s time appropriately.

One of the most important steps in the planning process is to take the high-level plan and break it down into tangible actions at the departmental level. 

Cascade  helps you to achieve that with  planning models completely customizable  to your strategic planning approach. 

You can create a university-wide strategic plan and then break it down into  portfolio or departmental plans.  Clarify their goals, projects and key metrics. Collaborate with your teams to build multiple inter-connected plans and tie them back to the overall plan.

You get complete  visibility into how different plans or projects are connected  and contribute to the overall strategic plan. 

5. Don’t forget to measure progress

There is no perfect strategic planning for higher education (or anywhere for that matter). 

Every plan can be derailed by events beyond our control (such as a pandemic, change in public policy, or an unstable economic environment on a global scale). There is, however, disciplined execution through regular reviewing habits. The secret lies in the way you measure your progress and the frequency of reviewing it.

Determine the indexes that you want to improve and then  set key performance indicators (KPIs)  to drive and measure your performance against set targets. 

Here are some examples of KPIs you might want to keep track of:

• University ranking
• Post-graduation placement rate
• Number of students involved in undergraduate research
• Fundraising ROI

Establish the KPIs you will be reporting on in advance, and always end your reviews with a "next steps" discussion.

Create dashboards to measure progress in real-time.  Cascade’s customizable dashboards  help you to quickly identify areas that are underperforming and act before it’s too late.

Zoom your screen in on the screenshot below to check out Cascade's beautiful dashboards!

Extra tip:  Use Cascade reports to help you demonstrate your success in a transparent way and attract more investments in the key areas of your university. 

What’s next for your university?

Most university’s failure to reach their strategic goals isn’t because of bad strategy, but because strategy is constrained by PowerPoint. Kept miles from those who can make it happen. The best in Advancement, the finest HR, the most profound ideas - they’re all framed in slides rather than shaping every day’s activities for everyone across the university.

Remember, a strategic plan isn’t just a glossy presentation to attract new students or to get that accreditation approval for your academic program. It’s a manifesto for every employee to embrace and enact in whatever they do at your university. 

So, the next step is to transform your strategy from an intellectual exercise to an executable plan. It’s just a matter of shifting your approach and using the right tools. 

And once you make that shift, you’ll be able to create  an organized and aligned approach  to make your strategic goals happen.

Do that and get your plan to everyone, and your competition will be choking in your dust.

Are you ready to create your plan and start executing it? Turn your strategic plan into a competitive advantage with our 100% free, battle-tested strategic plan template , built for teams in higher education. 

Popular articles

Viva Goals Vs. Cascade: Goal Management Vs. Strategy Execution

What Is A Maturity Model? Overview, Examples + Free Assessment

How To Implement The Balanced Scorecard Framework (With Examples)

The Best Management Reporting Software For Strategy Officers (2024 Guide)

Your toolkit for strategy success.

Strategic planning in higher education: Providing equitable access to experiences and building strong career pathways

Lewis Carrol once said, 'If you don't know where you are going, any road will take you there.' But educators and institutional leaders know better. They know the power of planning and work diligently to build strategic plans that improve educational outcomes.

Strategic planning can be both a reflective and proactive process, one that respects the rich traditions of academic institutions while boldly embracing the challenges and opportunities of the future. 

This article will explore the importance of strategic planning for higher educational institutions and how it can be used to address evolving student expectations, highlighting the importance of aligning educational pathways with real-world applications and equitable access. 

We will examine how institutions can leverage technology and collaborative platforms like Riipen, not just for academic purposes, but also to meet the needs for employability and practical skill development.

{{key-takeaways}}

Laying the foundations: a basic guide to the strategic planning process.

Strategic planning in higher educational institutions is a complex process, involving committees and teams, that’s not undertaken annually. Typically, it’s a three- to five-year initiative that lays out the way the university or college intends to serve its students and its communities.

The goal is to align the institution's actions with the needs and aspirations of its learners, ensuring that the strategic plan reflects the institution's commitment to its core values and objectives.

As such, no two strategic plans will look alike. Depending on the size of the institution, funding, the type of programs offered, location, etc., each institution will have a different way to approach and implement its strategic plan.

That being said, there are some components that are commonly seen in strategic plans , such as:

• Mission and vision: A modern strategic plan begins with clear, concise mission and vision statements that define the institution's primary purpose and its long-term goals.
• Environmental scan: This involves a thorough analysis of internal and external environments using tools like SWOT analysis, which is crucial for shaping a strategic plan according to the current landscape.
• Goals and objectives: Every plan will have clearly defined goals and objectives. Typically, they follow SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound) guidelines, and objectives should provide overarching direction. Timing of goals and objectives is key, with adjustments made over different time frames.
• Strategies and tactics: Strategies outline the broader approach to achieving goals, while tactics are specific action steps. For example, enhancing student employability could be a strategy, implemented through tactics like industry-relevant training and business partnerships.
• Implementation and action plans: This involves executing the strategies and tactics through detailed planning, resource allocation, and setting timelines.
• Monitoring and evaluation: Strategic plans require ongoing evaluation to assess progress and make necessary adjustments. This ensures continuous alignment with the institution's mission and vision.

Emerging approaches to strategic planning in higher education

As technology continues to advance and student expectations shift, modern strategic plans have adopted more innovative and data-centric methods to tackle the intricate challenges that educational bodies face.

Some key emerging strategies in this realm include:

• Data-informed strategy: More and more educational institutions are harnessing the power of data to shape their strategic decisions. A prime example is Green River College in Washington , which has adopted a data-centric approach to promote equity, focusing on detailed data to drive grassroots changes.
• Cultivating a unified vision and values: The focus of strategic planning is increasingly shifting towards cultivating a common vision for the future and aligning steps to fulfill this vision. This strategy underscores the significance of guiding with clearly defined visions and values.
• Holistic planning methodology: This approach to strategic planning considers the broader picture, centering on the institution's mission and encompassing its faculty, staff, and students. It emphasizes outcome-based measurements and aims to reduce resistance to change.
• Performance measurement: A key best practice in strategic planning involves clarity on the objectives being measured and the reasons behind them. It's vital to have a concrete understanding of what constitutes success and to pinpoint the key areas for action. ‍

These evolving strategies illustrate a shift towards more inclusive, sustainable, and student-centric development in higher education. 

How to address student expectations with strategic planning

One of the key strengths of strategic plans is their ability to articulate the institution's thematic focus in a manner that's both loud and clear. Today, strategic plans within higher education institutions often clearly state that employability and workplace training are fundamental to their ethos. 

This emphasis resonates deeply with the aspirations of today's students, who are eager to see a direct connection between their academic pursuits and their practical implications in the real world. In fact, more than 80% of students express a desire to see more real-world, company-led projects in their coursework.

By embedding this focus in their ethos, institutions can use this to attract different kinds of students as well as to communicate their value for ROI . On top of that, a significant component of strategic planning is its emphasis on equity and the need to create access for all learners. 

It's not just about making sure everyone has access but ensuring that this access translates into real-world readiness and skills development. 

This demonstrates a commitment to student success and the overall student experience. This is key because student success is closely tied to how students engage with their education, including their retention and persistence .

By focusing on these areas, institutions are directly responding to the evolving expectations of students. This dynamic process not only sets goals but also forges pathways leading to tangible outcomes for students.

Ways to communicate employability and career readiness in strategic plans

While there are multiple ways to communicate employability and career readiness in your strategic plans, here are a few you could try:

• Clearly outline the specific skills and competencies that are in demand and how they are integrated into the curriculum. 
• Establish strong relationships with employers and industry leaders to bolster course offerings and provide real-world experience and networking opportunities for learners.
• Develop robust career services that offer guidance, resume building, interview preparation, and job search assistance. 
• Bring attention to the importance of lifelong learning and the availability of continuous education opportunities
• Use data and metrics to demonstrate success in employability and career readiness, including graduation rates, employment rates, success stories, and other relevant outcomes.
• Emphasize interpersonal skill development, such as communication, teamwork, problem-solving, and adaptability, which are increasingly valued by employers.

What are some best practices shaping today's robust strat plans?

Creating a strategic plan isn't a one-and-done type of project. Like any great plan, it's a cyclical, iterative process that necessitates regular revision, careful planning, and ongoing evaluation to navigate the continually evolving realms of academia and societal needs effectively. 

Whether you're drafting a new plan or making adjustments to the current one, here are some things you should consider. ‍

Recognizing and prioritizing employability in the strategic plan

Developing a strategic plan that prioritizes employability and workplace training is vital for institutions looking to foster a vibrant learning environment directly connected to real-world applications.

This focus not only boosts student attraction and underscores a clear ROI but also guides the recruitment of dedicated educators and administrators, ensuring a cohesive understanding and application across all institutional members.  ‍

Emphasizing equity and access

Equity and access consistently find their place within institutional strategic commitments, addressing the imperative to serve all, especially the underserved. 

It's not merely about ensuring everyone gets an education; it's about ensuring everyone gets equal access to all experiences and opportunities that make them job-ready.  ‍

Understanding and nurturing the relationship between student success and experience

Student success isn't just about grades; it's about engagement, persistence, and retention. It's about providing students with the experiences they crave and aligning the curriculum to include the skills they need to succeed. This could include providing more hands-on activities or incorporating more real-world scenarios. 

Therefore, strategic planning becomes crucial to communicate and actualize an institution's commitment to fulfilling these expectations, ensuring students are educated and comprehensively prepared for the professional world ahead. ‍

Addressing evolving student expectations

There's an ever-growing sentiment among students today: they want real-world experience and skills that will prepare them for life outside the classroom . It's no longer just about academic prowess; it's about career readiness and employability.

It's crucial for institutions to recognize and adapt to these expectations, equipping students with modern technology, tools, and real-world connections, ensuring they are both academically sound and career-ready. ‍

Anticipating challenges and devising solutions

Every change comes with challenges. For higher education institutions, this could include issues like resistance to change, budgetary constraints, and balancing academic freedom. Even though these aspects are important and valuable, institutions need to be flexible in their strategic planning and execution.

The ultimate goal is to navigate through these obstacles in a manner that preserves the integrity of academic pursuits while progressively adapting to the multifaceted demands of the educational landscape. ‍

Committing to the holistic student experience in all facets

A comprehensive student experience extends beyond the academic realm, encapsulating mental health services, dorm facilities, food availability, and more, each integral to a student's overall well-being. 

An institution's role in this is monumental—ensuring that a student's overall experience is positive and supportive and that they emerge job-ready, armed with skills and knowledge in tandem with market demands.

Crafting strategic plans with the modern student in mind

As institutions work to create strategies that address students' needs and expectations, they often spend a lot of time thinking about how equity, employability, student success, and student experience will be integrated into their strategic plans. They need to carefully balance: 

• Student engagement, retention, and enrollment
• Course and experience relevancy
• Relationships with industry partners

The goal is to provide impactful student experiences without diluting the quality, accessibility, or relevance of their offerings. Many seek out innovative, robust solutions, like Riipen, to turn strategic planning into tangible student experiences and outcomes. 

With Riipen, institutions gain access to: 

• A global network of over 31,000 industry partners and their current projects
• A collaborative learning tool that lets students work on authentic, real-world projects 
• A platform that enables equitable access to essential industry experiences for all student

By adopting Riipen, institutions give their strategic plans a tangible, actionable ally, making sure students get market-relevant skills, industry networks, and practical experience that's not just aspirational but achievable.

Umair Shah, an educator from the University of Waterloo, had this to say about the transformative power of Riipen in the educational journey:

"Riipen was presented as an alternative to case studies, and I jumped on it right away. I still remember that experience. It gave me both learning and networking opportunities, and I knew this would be good for my students…The biggest outcome was that the students could connect what they're learning in every module to the real world."

{{inline-cta}}

Key takeaways

• Strategic plans provide a thorough architecture where educational pathways, resources, and institutional efforts converge to prepare students for the professional world.
• Educational institutions are tasked with performing a balancing act – ensuring traditional academic pursuits are honored, while simultaneously adapting to the evolving expectations of students, especially in terms of employability and practical skill development.
• By incorporating technology and platforms such as Riipen, academic learning can be made more practical and real-world applicable through collaborations and partnerships.

If you're curious about how Riipen can seamlessly integrate into your strategic plan and enhance employability outcomes for your students, schedule a demo . 

You may also like

• Error message label

Strategic Planning in Higher Education

• Living reference work entry
• First Online: 23 January 2018
• Cite this living reference work entry

• Tatiana Fumasoli 3  

236 Accesses

Strategic planning is a formal and rational process through which universities (re-)define their mission (what and for whom they stand for), elaborate their vision (what ambitions they have) and their values (how they operate), define roles and allocate resources, design implementation, and indicate how achievements will be assessed, as well as mechanisms for adaptation. Strategic planning relates to a specific period of time.

Relevance of Strategic Planning

The policy reforms in higher education have started to consider universities as organizational actors. This means primarily that universities have been restructured in order to act autonomously and define their own objectives. This development can be explained from different perspectives. Since Coase’s work on firms (Coase 1937 ), economists have taken into consideration hierarchies (i.e., organizations) as efficient alternatives to pure market forces (supply and demand) tackling transaction costs. According to sociological...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Albert, S., and D. A. Whetten. 1985. Organizational identity. Research in Organizational Behaviour 7: 263–295.

Google Scholar  

Amaral, A., G. Jones, and B. Karseth, ed. 2002. Governing higher education: National perspectives on institutional governance . Amsterdam: Kluwer.

Baldridge, J. 1971. Power and conflict in the university: Research in the sociology of complex organizations . New York: Wiley.

Barzelay, M., and C. Campbell. 2003. Preparing for the future. Strategic planning in the U.S. Air Force . Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Birnbaum, R. 1988. How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and leadership . San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Birnbaum, T. 2000. Management fads in higher education: Where they come from, what they do, why they fail . San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Bonaccorsi, A., and C. Daraio, eds. 2007. Universities and strategic knowledge creation. Specialization and performance in Europe . Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Brunsson, N., and K. Sahlin-Andersson. 2000. Constructing organizations: The example of the public sector reform. Organization Studies 21: 721–746.

Article   Google Scholar  

Chaffee, E.E. 1985. The concept of strategy: From business to higher education. In Smart, J. C. (Ed) Higher education: Handbook of theory and research , vol. 1, 133–171, New York: Agathon.

Chandler, A.D. 1990. Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the industrial enterprise . 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Clark, B.R. 1983. The higher education system. Academic organization in cross-national perspective . Berkeley: University of California Press.

Coase, R. 1937. The nature of the firm. Economica 4 (16): 386–405.

Cohen, M.D., and J.G. March. 1974. Leadership and ambiguity: The American college president . Hightstown: McGraw-Hill.

Czarniawska, B., and R. Wolff. 1998. Constructing new identities in established organization fields. International Studies of Management & Organization 28: 32–56.

Daraio, C., A. Bonaccorsi, A. Geuna, et al. 2011. The European university landscape: A micro characterization based on evidence from the Aquameth project. Research Policy 40 (1): 148–164.

Degn, L. 2015. Sensemaking, sensegiving and strategic management in Danish higher education. Higher Education 69 (6): 901–913.

Drori, G., J.W. Meyer, F.O. Ramirez, and E. Schofer. 2003. Science in the modern world polity: Institutionalization and globalization . Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Duderstadt, J.J. 2000. A university for the 21st century . Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Egeberg, M. 2012. How bureaucratic structure matters: An organizational perspective. In The SAGE handbook of public administration , ed. G.B. Peters and J. Pierre, 2nd ed., 157–168. London: SAGE.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Fuller, B.A. 1976. Framework for academic planning. The Journal of Higher Education 47 (1): 65–77.

Fumasoli, T. 2011. Strategy as evolutionary path. Five higher education institutions on the move . Lugano: USI. http://doc.rero.ch/record/23135?ln=it .

Fumasoli, T. 2015. Multi-level governance in higher education, In J. Huisman, H. de Boer, D. Dill, M. Souto-Otero. Handbook of Higher Education Policy and Governance , Palgrave Macmillan, 76–94.

Fumasoli, T., and G. Barbato. 2017. The organizational dimension of university strategic positioning. SRHE Annual Conference, Newport, 6–8 December.

Fumasoli, T., and J. Huisman. 2013. Strategic agency and system diversity: Conceptualizing institutional positioning in higher education. Minerva 51 (2): 155–169.

Fumasoli, T., and B. Lepori. 2011. Patterns of strategies in Swiss higher education institutions. Higher Education 61 (2): 157–178.

Fumasoli, T., R. Pinheiro, and B. Stensaker. 2015. Handling uncertainty of strategic ambitions. The use of organizational identity as a risk-reducing device. International Journal of Public Administration 38 (13/14): 1030–1040.

Gioia, D.A., and K. Chittipeddi. 1991. Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal 12 (6): 433–448.

Gornitzka, A. 1999. Governmental policies and organisational change in higher education. Higher Education 38 (1): 5–31.

Hambrick, D.C., and J.W. Fredrickson. 2001. Are you sure you have a strategy? The Academy of Management Executive 15 (4): 48.

Hazelkorn, E. 2009. Rankings and the battle for world-class excellence: Institutional strategies and policy choices. Higher Education Management and Policy 21: 1 .

Huisman, J., J.D. Norgård, J. Rasmussen, and B. Stensaker. 2002. Alternative’ universities revisited: A study of the distinctiveness of universities established in the spirit of 1968. Tertiary Education and Management 8: 316–332.

Jarzabkowski, P., and D.C. Wilson. 2002. Top teams and strategy in a UK university. Journal of Management Studies 39: 355.

Keller, G. 1983. Academic strategy. The management revolution in American higher education . Baltimore/London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Kezar, A. 2013. Understanding sensemaking/sensegiving in transformational change processes from the bottom up. Higher Education 65 (6): 761–780.

Kezar, A., and P.D. Eckel. 2002. The effect of institutional culture on change strategies in higher education: Universal principles or culturally responsive concepts? The Journal of Higher Education 73: 435.

Kotler, P., and P.E. Murphy. 1981. Strategic planning for higher education. The Journal of Higher Education 52 (5): 470–489.

Krücken, G., and F. Meier. 2006. Turning the University into an organizational actor. In Globalization and organization . World society and organizational change, ed. Drori, G.S., J.W. Meyer, and H. Hwang, 209–240. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Maassen, P., and H. Potman. 1990. Strategic decision-making in higher education. Higher Education 20: 393–410.

Mampaey, J., and J. Huisman. 2016. Defensive stakeholder management in European universities: An institutional logics perspective. Studies in Higher Education 41 (12): 2218–2231.

Mampaey, J., J. Huisman, and M. Seeber. 2015. Branding of Flemish higher education institutions: A strategic balance perspective. Higher Education Research & Development 34 (6): 1178–1191.

Meyer, J.W., and R.L. Jepperson. 2000. The ‘actors’ of modern society: The cultural construction of social agency. Sociological Theory 18 (1): 100–120.

Mintzberg, H. 1994. The rise and fall of strategic planning. Harlow, England: Free Press/Prentice-Hall International.

Mintzberg, H., B. Ahlstrand, and J. Lampel. 2005. Strategy safari . Harlow, England: Free Press.

Morphew, C., T. Fumasoli, and B. Stensaker. (2016). Changing public and private missions in higher education? How research-intensive universities in Europe and North America balance competing objectives in their strategic plans. Studies in Higher Education, published online 11. August.

Musselin, Ch. 2006. Are universities specific organizations? In Towards a multiversity? Universities between global trends and national traditions , ed. G. Krüchen, A. Kosmützky, and M. Torka, 63–84. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.

Rolfe, H. 2003. University strategy in an age of uncertainty: The effect of higher education funding on old and new universities. Higher Education Quarterly 57: 24.

Stensaker, B., and T. Fumasoli. 2017 Multi-level strategies in universities: Coordination, contestation or creolization? Higher Education Quarterly 71(3), 263–273.

Stensaker, B., N. Frølich, J. Huisman, et al. 2014. Factors affecting strategic change in higher education. Journal of Strategy and Management 7 (2): 193–207.

Thoenig, P., and C. Paradeise. 2016. Strategic capacity and organisational capabilities: A challenge for universities. Minerva 54 (3): 293–324.

Toma, J.D. 2010. Building organizational capacity: Strategic management in higher education . Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Vuori, J. 2015. Making sense of institutional positioning in Finnish higher education. Tertiary Education and Management 21 (4): 316–327.

Vuori, J. 2016. Towards strategic Actorhood? The execution of institutional positioning strategies at Finnish universities of applied sciences. Higher Education Quarterly 70 (4): 400–418.

Whetten, D.A. 2006. Albert and Whetten revisited: Strengthening the concept of organizational identity. Journal of Management Inquiry 15: 219–234.

Whitley, R. 2008. Constructing universities as strategic actors: Limitations and variations. In The university in the market , ed. L. Engwall and D. Weaire, 23–37. Colchester: Portland Press Limited.

Whittington, R. 2001. What is strategy – And does it matter? 2nd ed. London: Thomson Learning.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department Education, Practice and Society, University College London Institute of Education, London, UK

Tatiana Fumasoli

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tatiana Fumasoli .

Section Editor information

Department of Education, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

Bjørn Stensaker

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Fumasoli, T. (2018). Strategic Planning in Higher Education. In: Encyclopedia of International Higher Education Systems and Institutions. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9553-1_530-1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9553-1_530-1

Received : 23 December 2017

Accepted : 29 December 2017

Published : 23 January 2018

Publisher Name : Springer, Dordrecht

Print ISBN : 978-94-017-9553-1

Online ISBN : 978-94-017-9553-1

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Education Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Education

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Support Our Mission

Planning Types

Focus Areas

• Academic Planning

Strategic Planning

• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Planning
• Campus Planning
• Institutional Effectiveness Planning
• Resource Planning
• All Planning Types >>

A framework that helps you develop more effective planning processes.

Discussions and resources around the unresolved pain points affecting planning in higher education—both emergent and ongoing.

Common Challenges

• Student Success, Retention, and Graduation
• Planning Alignment
• Change Management
• Engaging Stakeholders
• Accreditation Pressures
• All Challenges >>

Learning Resources

Featured Formats

• Example Plans
• All Learning Resources >>

Popular Topics

• Implementation
• Higher Education Trends

Conferences & Programs

Upcoming Events

• Trends that Impact Higher Education Planning: Spring 2024 Webinar | May 9
• All Events >>
• SCUP Planning Institute: Foundations Philadelphia, PA | July 19
• SCUP Planning Institute: Design Philadelphia, PA | July 20-21
• Annual Conference
• Event Recordings and Presentations
• Planning Institute
• Integrated Planning Coaching
• Share Your Expertise

The SCUP community opens a whole world of integrated planning resources, connections, and expertise.

Get Connected

• Membership Options
• Emerging Leaders Program
• Member Directory
• SCUP Fellows
• Corporate Visibility

SCUP Membership

Access a world of integrated planning resources, connections, and expertise-become a member!

Planning for Higher Education Journal

A guide for optimizing resource allocation.

The article presents a framework for integrating assessment, strategic planning, and resource allocation at all levels of an institution. For that purpose, data are collected from academic departments and non-academic units. They are then integrated with strategic planning metrics into an assessment report that identifies the resources that need to be allocated, and to evaluate progress toward developing a strategic plan. The framework can be applied at the departmental or unit level, as well as at the institutional level. It provides valuable input for the budget process and can be used for updates in strategic planning.

3 Takeaways . . . . . . For Using Research to Guide Asset Apportionment

• Explore best practices for assessment, strategic planning, and budgeting processes.
• By programs/units, colleges, and at the institution level, evaluate the link between assessment, strategic planning, and budgeting processes.
• Integrate assessment findings to inform institutional planning and decision-making related to budgeting and resources allocation.

Introduction

Most colleges and universities have well-established processes for assessment, strategic planning, and resource allocation. Those processes are often disconnected in practice (Middaugh 2009), which results in inefficient allocation of resources. Reinforcing the link between assessment, strategic planning, and budgeting is important for meeting accreditation standards, for better use of assessment results, and for ideal allocation of resources. Accreditation standards require institutions to demonstrate institutional effectiveness by providing documented evidence that all activities using institutional resources support the institution’s mission (Hinton 2011; Hollowell, Middaugh, and Sibolski 2006).

Reinforcing the link between assessment, strategic planning, and budgeting is important for meeting accreditation standards, for better use of assessment results, and for ideal allocation of resources.

In light of the requirements issued by regional accrediting agencies to demonstrate institutional effectiveness, higher education institutions are greatly concerned with bridging the gap between assessment and decision-making—and effectively linking assessment, planning, and budgeting processes (Middaugh 2009). In this article, we present a framework for connecting assessment, strategic planning, and budgeting processes at higher education institutions to optimize resource allocation.

According to Banta and Palomba (2014), the term assessment is commonly used to measure student learning, but it can also be used to evaluate academic programs, academic support services, and administrative services. Assessment happens at the academic, non-academic, and institutional levels of the college or university. Different assessment practices and processes often exist at each level.

Academic Assessment

Academic assessment practices include appraisal of program learning outcomes, periodic program reviews, and program accreditations, which happen at the level of program, academic department, and college/school. Academic assessment practices often result in a set of recommendations or actions for improvement.

Assessment of program learning outcomes is widely used in higher education institutions as a means of evaluating student learning achievement in academic programs (Banta and Palomba 2014). Periodic program reviews are usually conducted at the academic department level and address areas such as teaching, research, student enrollment, and instructional facilities, in an effort to assess the quality of academic programs and identify areas for improvement (Hollowell et al. 2006). Program reviews often consist of preparing a self-study by the department, which is then followed by an external evaluation that results in an improvement plan. Academic programs, departments, or colleges may also seek accreditation by a specialized professional accrediting body that evaluates the extent to which a department or program maintains a set of standards and practices that are deemed to be of high quality (Wuest 2017).

Non-Academic Assessment

Assessment also happens at the level of non-academic units, which include administrative and academic support divisions. Although assessment processes in non-academic units are less common than assessment processes for academic units, they can occur through periodic reviews (White 2007) and outcomes assessment (Banta and Palomba 2014) for the purpose of improving service offerings (Nichols & Nichols 2000). Those processes can also result in a set of recommendations or actions for improvement.

Periodic unit reviews resemble occasional program reviews: Units prepare a self-study report and invite external reviewers to evaluate the unit and the quality of its services (Middaugh 2011). The unit review usually results in a set of recommendations for improvement that is based on the requests of the unit and the observations of the external reviewers. Unit outcomes assessment resembles program learning outcomes assessment. However, it focuses on the functions, processes, and services offered by the unit, rather than learning outcomes acquired by students upon completion of an academic program (Nichols & Nichols 2000). By measuring a set of key performance indicators and comparing them to preset targets, unit outcomes assessment determines whether the unit’s functions and services are being performed properly (UCF Administrative Assessment Handbook 2008).

Institutional Assessment

One of the major types of institutional assessment is regional institutional accreditation, which provides the university and the accrediting agency with insight into areas where the institution meets or exceeds expectations and where areas for improvement exist. Another type of institutional assessment is a performance evaluation of the university’s strategic plan through tracking selected metrics and comparing them to targets. That method is commonly used to evaluate the implementation of the institutional strategic plan and monitor the achievement of the institutional goals.

According to Wuest (2017), different appraisal practices should be well integrated, and the link should be made evident to stakeholders to reinforce a culture of continuous improvement where faculty, staff, and administrators are motivated to participate in assessment activities (Aloi 2005). Having that integrated view of assessment at the institutional level serves several purposes: identifying interactions among different programs, helping students achieve institution-wide learning goals, supporting resource allocation decisions, and demonstrating institutional effectiveness to external stakeholders (Miller and Leskes 2005).

Strategic planning is a systematic and data-based process, which helps organizations set their priorities, build commitment, and allocate resources (Allison & Kaye 2011). According to Hinton (2011), the foundation of the strategic plan is the institutional mission statement, which is a basic declaration of purpose that delineates why an entity exists and what it intends to achieve. Strategic goals and objectives are considered the basic elements of the strategic plan. The implementation plan helps turn the goals and objectives into a working proposal. It documents the responsible entity for implementing an action, a deadline for every action, and a measure to assess the progress toward the completion of the action (Hinton 2011).

Successful strategic planning is characterized as being integrated, strategic, and aligned (Norris & Poulton 2008).

Integrated, Strategic, and Aligned Planning

Successful strategic planning is characterized as being integrated, tactical, and aligned (Norris & Poulton 2008). Integrated planning takes a comprehensive view: Academic, resource, and facility planning are all interconnected. For planning to be strategic, it should define what the institution as a whole unit should do, taking into consideration external factors. In addition, alignment of activities such as strategic planning, capital planning, accreditation, and performance management across the college, department, and unit levels is important for successful planning (Norris & Poulton 2008).

Strategic Planning Across the Institution

Strategic planning happens at different levels of the institution. At the level of academic departments, colleges, and schools, each academic dean is responsible for developing strategic plans for the school, while each department chairperson formulates a strategic plan for the department (Nauffal and Nasser 2012). Strategic planning at the level of non-academic units focuses on the means through which to contribute toward meeting institutional goals and serving the institution (Nichols & Nichols 2000).

Academic and non-academic strategic plans are typically interconnected with the institutional strategic plan. Some institutions follow a top-down approach where administrators lead institutional planning activities, some institutions utilize bottom-up movements, and others use a mixed approach (Brinkhurst, Rose, Maurice & Ackerman 2011). Bottom-up strategic planning is characterized as participative, and division managers play an important role in the process. Higher-level administrators do most of the planning at institutions that follow a top-down strategic planning approach (Dutton & Duncan 1987).

Cowburn (2005) argued that top-down and bottom-up approaches have both proven to result in failure. A balanced method where top-down meets bottom-up is required for institutions to effectively formulate and implement their strategic plans. Simply collecting objectives from different levels of the institution does not make a strategic plan, and dictating strategic goals without consultation doesn’t lead to coherent and effective planning. Consulting with academic departments and administrative units is essential when setting strategic priorities for the institution. Once those priorities are set, individual units need to link their plans to the university’s objectives in a consistent and structural way (Cowburn 2005).

Strategic Plan Assessment

In order to monitor the implementation of the strategic plan, an assessment that includes the frequency of evaluation, the objectives to be measured, entities that will conduct the appraisal, the methods, and how the results will be utilized for decision-making is used (Trettel & Yeager 2011). In general, key performance indicators are identified for each objective of the strategic plan in order to provide quantitative and qualitative insight about the achievement of the intended outcomes (Trettel & Yeager 2011).

The most common budgeting models for institutional resource allocation are incremental budgeting, formula-based budgeting, zero-based budgeting, performance-based budgeting, responsibility-center budgeting, and initiative-based budgeting (Goldstein 2012). There is no one perfect budgeting model for all institutions, and some colleges and universities may choose to implement a hybrid model by combining components from two or more budgeting models. A summary of the common budgeting models with their description and pros and cons is included in figure 1.

Program prioritization decisions include addition, reduction, consolidation, restructuring, or elimination of programs based on assessment results (Dickeson 2010).

Figure 1 Common Budgeting Model

Data from Goldstein (2012)

Integrating Assessment, Strategic Planning, and Budgeting Processes

Linking assessment and strategic planning.

The link between strategic planning and assessment is two-way, where assessment results inform strategic planning efforts and provide evidence of meeting institutional outcomes. On the other hand, the strategic plan supports the assessment process by providing a framework for revising assessment outcomes and driving program reviews and accreditation efforts (Wuest 2017). According to Aloi (2005), to establish an effective link between strategic planning and assessment, both should be part of an ongoing and decentralized process where all levels of the university undergo evaluation and use the results for planning purposes.

Linking Assessment and Budgeting

Higher education institutions should streamline their assessment processes—for example, improvement plans resulting from activities such as periodic reviews—in a way to collect data that can inform the budgeting process (Trettel & Yeager 2011). Dickeson (2010) noted that the majority of resources in higher education institutions are consumed by programs. According to him, proper reallocation of resources can be achieved through a rigorous and effective program prioritization process. The programs are ordered based on a list of 10 criteria, which may be modified by the institution. Data related to each criterion are collected and can be benchmarked with other institutions. Stronger programs are rewarded by allocating additional resources to them, while weaker programs receive a reduced budget. Program prioritization decisions include addition, reduction, consolidation, restructuring, or elimination of programs based on assessment results (Dickeson 2010).

Linking Strategic Planning and Budgeting

Because higher education institutions have a limited budget to allocate per year, it is important to prioritize and assign funds to the most rewarding and strategic activities, projects, or initiatives. In general, there should be a strong link between strategic planning and budgeting: Activities that are directly linked to strategic key priorities are funded, while other activities based merely on people’s wishes are not funded. According to Stack and Leitch (2011), integrated planning occurs when planning and budgeting processes are coordinated in an effective manner at different levels of the institution and in alignment with the institutional mission and priorities. Even though the main components of an integrated planning framework are common in most institutions, Stack and Leitch (2011) recommended that each institution develop its unique framework, taking into consideration its culture.

Framework for Linking Assessment, Strategic Planning, and Resource Processes

In order to integrate assessment, strategic planning, and resource allocation processes, we created a linking framework as shown in figure 2. The framework reflects the two-way link that exists between assessment processes and strategic plans—and comprises decentralized and ongoing processes, which happen at all levels across the university. As shown in figure 2, different processes exist at different levels of the institution, and findings are used to update the corresponding strategic plan at each level.

Figure 2 Framework for Integrating Assessment, Strategic Planning, and Resource Allocation

Click image to view larger.

To integrate resource allocation processes with assessment and strategic-planning processes, it is important to align all cycles.

We developed the framework at American University of Beirut (AUB) in response to the accreditation standards related to closing the loop between assessment, planning, and resource allocation. At AUB, the main entities involved in that process were the Academic Assessment Unit, the Institutional Assessment Committee (IAC), the Office for Financial Planning, and the Planning and Budgeting Committee; therefore, we based our framework assuming the existence of those entities. Although most colleges and universities do not have those exact same units, they may have different ones with similar responsibilities. Depending on their organizational structure, assessment processes, strategic planning processes, and resource-allocation methods, higher education institutions can adapt the framework by using the same main components and customizing the details.

Our framework begins with the more detailed assessment and strategic plans occurring at the level of academic departments and non-academic units. It then moves up to the level of college and faculties, and, finally, to the level of the institution as a whole. The assessment and strategic planning conducted at the level of faculties incorporates the feedback from departments; the assessment and strategic planning at the level of the institution includes feedback from colleges and non-academic units. At all levels, assessment results are organized into annual progress reports that include planned actions for improvements with their estimated resources attached. Strategic plans are developed at all levels through a balanced top-down and bottom-up approach. All strategic plans are updated based on assessment findings.

At the level of academic departments, an assessment committee is formed and prepares an annual progress report. That includes improvement plans and recommendations resulting from all assessment processes—with relevant intended actions and estimated resources noted. By the end of the academic year, all academic departments submit to the dean’s office their college’s/school’s annual departmental progress reports. They detail their progress in implementing the improvement actions that resulted from the periodic program review, program learning outcomes assessment, strategic-planning initiatives, and/or accreditation processes. At the level of colleges and schools, all departmental progress reports collected from all respective academic departments are compiled to develop annual faculty assessment reports. Those annual reports are augmented with the results of the evaluation of college/school strategic plans, which include activities, requested resources, and an estimated timeline for implementation.

Non-academic units perform ongoing assessment activities similar to those conducted by academic departments. Unit outcomes assessment, periodic unit reviews, and the performance evaluation of unit strategic plans, if available, are compiled. Those annual unit progress reports list activities completed during the previous year, along with planned activities and their estimated resources.

At the institutional level, the academic assessment unit collects the annual faculty assessment reports and the annual unit progress reports from all colleges and units. AAU compiles those reports and the assessment results of the institutional strategic plan to generate the University Assessment Report (UAR). The UAR includes the university’s overall assessment plan and a list of improvement actions and requested resources. All planned activities are categorized and linked to the institutional strategic goals, objectives, or initiatives in the UAR. By assigning categories to activities, similar actions across the university can be easily grouped and their resource requests isolated. Additionally, linking activities to the institutional strategic plan lets administrators identify the highest-priority actions, those that are needed to achieve the institutional goals, objectives, or initiatives.

The Institutional Assessment Committee (IAC), which is formed of representatives from all faculties and non-academic units, provides leadership in the implementation of the different university assessment processes, ensuring the integration of findings with strategic plans and resource allocation. The IAC reviews the UAR, provides feedback, and approves improvement plans submitted by all departments and units. The IAC also identifies the highest-priority activities that have direct links to key initiatives of the institutional strategic plan.

The Office for Financial Planning links capital budget requests to the recommendations received from IAC. Non-recurring operating budget requests are also linked to those recommendations. The Planning and Budgeting Committee reviews all operating and capital budget requests collected from different internal constituencies. The budget requests related to high-priority activities, projects, and initiatives resulting from assessment are allocated immediately—because they are aligned with the institution’s key priorities. Other budget requests that are not linked to the improvement plan or to the institutional strategic plan are postponed or not granted. Based on assessment data, strategic plans, capital and operational requests, and available budget, all stakeholders decide on resource allocation for the following year. Consequently, the framework ensures the distribution of resources based on strategic priorities, assessment results, and stakeholder feedback.

To integrate resource allocation processes with assessment and strategic-planning processes, it is important to align all cycles. Because the assessment and strategic planning cycles are based on the academic year—while the budgeting cycle is based on the fiscal year—a two-year timeline can be adopted, where assessment data collected in one year are used to inform the next year’s budget. Therefore, the progress report filled by departments and units should include the list of improvements resulting from assessment findings, the planned actions for coming years, and the estimated resources for implementing those actions.

Based on assessment data, strategic plans, capital and operational requests, and available budget, all stakeholders decide on resource allocation for the following year.

By linking assessment, strategic planning, and budgeting processes, results are better utilized, strategic plans reflect the real needs and priorities of the institution, and resources are distributed more effectively. In addition, the integration between assessment, planning, and budgeting can be used to improve internal processes, functions, and services, which is usually required for institutional accreditation. In order to ensure the successful implementation of the linking framework, it is extremely important to have strong support from the top administration, mainly the president, provost, and deans. Because ongoing assessment and regular reporting are essential for the success of the process, the buy-in of department chairs, faculty, and directors is needed. Colleges and universities can tailor the framework to reflect their own institutional structure and processes. While it is challenging to change processes in higher education institutions, having a documented link between assessment, strategic planning, and budgeting processes can help colleges and universities identify areas for improvement and address them to achieve institutional effectiveness.

Allison, M. & J. Kaye. Strategic Planning for Nonprofit Organizations: A Practical Guide and Workbook . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2011.

Aloi, S. L. “Best Practices in Linking Assessment and Planning.” Assessment Update 17, no. 3 (2015): 4–6.

Banta, T. W. & C. A. Palomba. Assessment Essentials: Planning, Implementing, and Improving Assessment in Higher Education . New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2014.

Brinkhurst, M., P. Rose, G. Maurice & J. D. Ackerman. “Achieving Campus Sustainability: Top-down, Bottom-up, or Neither? International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 12, no. 4 (2011): 338–354.

Cowburn, S. “Strategic Planning in Higher Education: Fact or Fiction?” Perspectives 9, no. 4 (2005): 103–109.

Dickeson, R. C. Prioritizing Academic Programs and Services . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2010.

Dutton, J. E. & R. B. Duncan. “The Influence of the Strategic Planning Process on Strategic Change.” Strategic Management Journal 8, no. 2 (1987): 103–116.

Goldstein, L. A Guide to College and University Budgeting: Foundations for Institutional Effectiveness , 4th ed. Washington, DC: National Association of College and University Business Officers, 2012.

Hinton, K. E. A Practical Guide to Strategic Planning in Higher Education . Ann Arbor: Society for College and University Planning, 2012.

Hollowell, D., M. F. Middaugh & E. Sibolski. Integrating Higher Education Planning and Assessment: A Practical Guide . Ann Arbor: Society for College and University Planning, 2006.

Middaugh, M. F. “ Closing the Loop: Linking Planning and Assessment .” Planning for Higher Education 37, no. 3 (2009): 5.

Middaugh, M. F. Planning and Assessment in Higher Education: Demonstrating Institutional Effectiveness . New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2011.

Miller, R. & A. Leskes. Levels of Assessment: From the Student to the Institution . Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2005.

Nauffal, D. I. & R. N. Nasser. “ Strategic Planning at Two Levels .” Planning for Higher Education 40, no. 4 (2012): 32.

Nichols, K. W. & J. O. Nichols. The Department Head’s Guide to Assessment Implementation in Administrative and Educational Support Units . New York: Agathon Press, 2000.

Norris, D. M. & N. L. Poulton. A Guide to Planning for Change . Ann Arbor: Society for College and University Planning, 2008, 99–120.

Stack, P. & A. Leitch. “Chapter 3: Integrated Budgeting and Planning,” in Integrated Resource and Budget Planning at Colleges and Universities . Edited by C. Rylee. Ann Arbor: Society for College and University Planning, 2011. 17–31.

Trettel, B. S. & J. L. Yeager. “Linking Strategic Planning, Priorities, Resource Allocation, and Assessment.” In Increasing Effectiveness of the Community College Financial Model . New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.

“UCF Administrative Assessment Handbook,” 2008. Retrieved from University of Central Florida: http://oeas.ucf.edu/doc/adm_assess_handbook.pdf .

White, Eileen Knight. “Institutional Effectiveness: The Integration of Program Review, Strategic Planning, and Budgeting Processes in Two California Community Colleges” (PhD diss., St. Andrews University, 2007), https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/dissertations/1539 .

Wuest, B. “Connecting the Dots: Integrating Planning and Assessment.” Assessment Update 29, no. 2 (2017): 1–16.

Author Biographies

Engage with the Authors

To comment on this article or share your own observations, message or email www.linkedin.com/in/dss00 , www.linkedin.com/in/hiba-itani-08789277 , or [email protected] .

LHE-7600: Strategic Planning and Operations in Higher Education

• Week 1 Resources
• Week 2 Resources

Week 3 Resources

• Week 4 Resources
• Week 5 Resources
• Week 6 Resources
• Week 7 Resources
• Week 8 Resources
• Optional Resources
• Library Portal This link opens in a new window
• A Model for Assessing Institutional Effectiveness Volkwein, J. F. (2010). A model for assessing institutional effectiveness. New Directions for Institutional Research, s1, 13-28. https://doi-org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1002/ir.328 The author outlines critical questions for institutions to ask regarding their strategic planning and institutional effectiveness processes. He outlines a model for organizing institutional effectiveness processes that is still relevant today. He also dissects the implications of these processes and departments and units and how they affect operational planning.
• A Practical Guide to Strategic Planning in Higher Education Hinton, K. E. (2012). A practical guide to strategic planning in higher education. Society for College and University Planning. Read pages 18-22. The rest of this resource provides an introduction to institutional effectiveness and its part of the planning process.
• Connecting the dots: Accountability, Assessment, Analytics, and Accreditation Baer, L. L. (2017). Connecting the dots: Accountability, assessment, analytics, and accreditation. Planning for Higher Education, 46(1), 1-16. This excellent article summarizes three overlapping forces in education affecting institutions: accountability, assessment, and accreditation. While each concept is unique, they overlap in practice, and it is essential to understand the distinctions, including the purpose and audience for each process.
• NCU Poster Template You may use this template to help you complete your Week 3 assignment.
• Organizing for Evidence-based Decision-making and Improvement Leimer, C. (2012). Organizing for evidence-based decision-making and improvement. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 44(4), 45-51. This author discusses institutional effectiveness processes at higher education institutions and how institutions can think about how to organize internal functions to maximize their effectiveness. Institutional Research offices are one common way for institutions to coordinate these functions.
• Strategic Planning and Assessment in an Outcomes-based Funding Environment in an Era of More Scrutiny and Less Funding, Higher Education Must be Adaptive to Changing Environment While Also Demonstrating Accountability Nwosu, P. O., & Koller, J. (2014). Strategic planning and assessment in an outcomes-based funding environment in an era of more scrutiny and less funding, higher education must be adaptive to the changing environment, while also demonstrating accountability. Planning in Higher Education, 42(3), 58-71. This article is a case study of a university planning and institutional effectiveness process under a new state legislature mandated accountability/performance funding system where the state partially funds the universities based on degree completion. This article is an excellent example of how, for many institutions, institutional effectiveness and accountability are linked.
• << Previous: Week 2 Resources
• Next: Week 4 Resources >>
• Last Updated: Mar 24, 2024 6:03 PM
• URL: https://resources.nu.edu/c.php?g=1123317

© Copyright 2024 National University. All Rights Reserved.

Privacy Policy | Consumer Information

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, strategic planning in higher education: a simplified b-var model.

International Journal of Educational Management

ISSN : 0951-354X

Article publication date: 3 August 2021

Issue publication date: 21 October 2021

Executives who are engaged in strategic planning for higher education generally complain about the process and the lack of clear outcomes from the strategic plan. They generally argue that the process is complex and sometimes confusing and the end result does not justify the time spent in preparing the plan. The extant literature on strategic planning in higher educational institutions (HEIs) is replete with these types of complaints. The work undertaken in this paper provides a solution to this problem. This paper proposes a simplified and efficient strategic planning model which executives can use to facilitate strategic planning in HEIs. This model takes into consideration, all the elements of previous models and synthesize them into a manageable, simplified framework that can be adapted to meet the planning needs of senior executives in any HEI.

Design/methodology/approach

The paper uses the action research framework to ground the solution to the problem identified. The action research framework is a sound research method that assists in resolving some of the practical problems executives in HEIs encounter as they move towards strategic planning. The researcher and a client in the higher educational sector, the UWI, engaged in collaborative problem-solving to develop a strategic plan for the client. To derive the solution, the researcher drew on the experience of the strategic planning process at the University of the West Indies (UWI) and also a number of selected universities in North American, Europe, Asia and Africa. The researcher then synthesized the outcomes from the deliberations and consultations with the client, the UWI and drew on theoretical knowledge in strategic management to derive the simplified model for strategic planning in higher education.

The research presented in this paper found that the existing strategic planning models used in higher education are generally complex, mostly designed specifically for an individual institution and lacks clarity regarding the implementation process. To overcome these problems for strategic planners in higher education, this paper proposes a simplified model that can be adapted by any HEI to assist with their strategic planning process. The Brainstoming- Visioning Action Results (B-VAR), the solution to the problem, presents the various elements of the strategic planning process that will need to be in place in order to develop a workable strategic plan and one that is implementable and will deliver tangible results for the HEI.

Originality/value

Besides adding to our knowledge in strategic management and specifically, strategic management in higher education, the greatest value from this paper is the solution it presents to solve the long-standing problem of having complex and ineffective planning models to lead strategic plan development in HEIs. The added value is that the model is integrative as it draws on elements of previous planning models but simplified them for their adaptation to any HEI.

• Higher education

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank all those who have participated in the various workshops, focus groups and research work during the planning phase for the development of the UWI's 2017–2022 plan. The ideas generated in those meetings have helped to motivate the writing and research carried out for this paper.

Williams, D.A. (2021), "Strategic planning in higher education: a simplified B-VAR model", International Journal of Educational Management , Vol. 35 No. 6, pp. 1205-1220. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-08-2020-0382

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2021, Emerald Publishing Limited

Related articles

We’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

Education Workforce

How higher ed institutions are strategically managing change, by abbie misha     apr 26, 2024.

Image Credit: EduLife Photos / Shutterstock

It is no secret. Higher education institutions are facing unprecedented challenges that are forcing strategic changes. Since the onset of the pandemic, institutions have grappled with financial sustainability concerns exacerbated by falling enrollment rates and political pressures on academic freedom . As dissatisfaction among higher ed employees rises , there is growing concern about retaining faculty amid widespread burnout .

In response to these pressing challenges, higher education institutions are engaging professional services to help them effectively navigate turbulent times. Rather than simply reacting to immediate crises as they arise, institutions are hoping to anticipate and plan for future uncertainties, implementing forward-thinking strategies to address both short-term hurdles and long-term sustainability.

Recently, EdSurge spoke with John McGrath , Director of sales and strategy at Alight Solutions , where he specializes in the education and government sectors in the firm’s Workday Adaptive Planning practice. McGrath’s background as a former budget manager and director in both for-profit and not-for-profit higher education and experience in financial and operational planning consulting across various industries positions him well to support higher ed institutions as they address planning challenges.

“We implement a forecasting and reporting tool that aggregates data to inform solutions,” says McGrath. “But we don’t just implement the software; we provide advisory services around change management to help organizations reach their goals.” He explains the importance of proactive measures supported by data analytic tools, like Workday Adaptive Planning , to align resources with an organization’s strategic priorities.

EdSurge: How do higher education institutions balance the need for tuition increases with the imperative to remain accessible to students from diverse economic backgrounds?

McGrath: One common approach from higher education institutions is tuition discounting. For first-year college students, the average tuition discount rate is 56 percent. That is impactful when considering an annual tuition of $50,000!

It is critically important for institutions to ensure that students are aware of available programs to help fund their tuition, whether state and federal grants such as Pell or private gifts through fundraising efforts such as academic or athletic scholarships.

In addition to implementing tools to help with workforce planning, what other creative tuition pricing strategies and alternative revenue streams have higher education institutions explored to enhance enrollment and maintain financial health?

One option is transparency-based tuition, which does not include hidden fees, such as an activity or a student government fee. Many colleges have taken another approach with a flat tuition structure, where the tuition charged today is held constant throughout the student’s education.

Another interesting approach is subscription-based tuition, which eliminates the cost per credit and allows students to take as many courses as desired over a set term. The challenge here is that it requires the incoming class to backfill a faster timeline to graduation, but it enables students to graduate with a degree at their own pace.

A third option is a try-before-you-buy, where students can sit in for three weeks of a semester, get a sample of what the program is like and then determine if they want to continue. Using these different pricing strategies requires the institutions to establish various scenario-based planning structures to ensure feasibility and financial responsibility.

How can institutions effectively attract and retain top talent while mitigating the negative impact of vacancies on workforce morale and turnover?

Institutions must have an effective workforce planning strategy in place. One common strategy for both recruitment and retainment is offering flexible work arrangements, either fully remote or hybrid approaches, to promote a healthier work-life balance. The flexibility of working remotely or knowing you can take unexpected time off is important for mental health. Other wellness programs are expanding, including fitness classes, mindfulness sessions, stress management workshops and counseling services, contributing to increased employee satisfaction.

For recruitment purposes, it is helpful for candidates to see employees with tenure across campus. But it is also important to establish transparent recruitment processes that make clear the criteria for employment, the time needed from interview to offer and the specific role expectations. Once employed, it is important to recognize and reward individuals when they take on additional responsibilities outside of their scope.

Another key strategy involves adopting a multi-layered approach to workforce feedback , which challenges the traditional top-down model. Institutions like Harvard advocate for feedback to be multidirectional, incorporating both top-down and bottom-up perspectives. This fosters a supportive leadership culture that comprehends campus dynamics and provides enhanced support accordingly.

Workforce planning strategies such as these foster collaboration between different departments and highlight efficiencies or improvement opportunities. For example, with communication between Human Resources and Finance, they are able to coordinate a quicker backfill strategy, decreasing the time and resources it would take if planning strategies were not set in place.

Once an institution is ready to make the transformation, how can it overcome stakeholder resistance and successfully adopt systemwide changes?

The integration of various new systems, such as Enterprise Resource Plannings (ERPs) like Workday, to enable institutions to shift from reactive to strategic approaches requires significant change management. Systemwide changes tend to provoke a natural human reaction of resistance. Stakeholders question, “What’s in it for me?” This is known as the WIIFM factor. To ensure greater buy-in, institutions can employ a few strategies.

First, there must be clear and transparent communication about the system change, including the goals, benefits and likely impacts. An educational institution's lifeblood is its faculty; getting their engagement early in the process is critical. Explore how implementation will improve workflow, productivity or student outcomes, or enhance collaboration among faculty. Provide reassurance that this change will positively affect the organization and highlight specific personal and professional benefits.

Second, there must be training and support for all involved. Ask about employees' specific needs and tailor implementation support to ensure those resistant to change can overcome their concerns. Cultivate advocates for the implementation who will motivate others and celebrate the successes during implementation, even if they are small. Recognition really helps foster a positive culture for change and innovation.

It's important to remember that no system will be perfect upon implementation, so soliciting continuous feedback from individuals around the organization helps adapt and refine the approach and ensures continuing success.

One great aspect of higher education institutions is their collaborative nature. Whether it be financial planning, enrollment planning or IT planning, they share experiences and solutions across the industry. We just need to have systems in place to leverage that collaboration and communication.

Institutions are navigating challenges with resilience and innovation, embracing strategic changes to ensure long-term sustainability. By leveraging professional services and implementing forward-thinking strategies like transparent tuition pricing, flexible work arrangements and multidirectional feedback mechanisms, these institutions are not only adapting to current uncertainties but also positioning themselves for future success.

At alight , we are committed to supporting higher education institutions in their journey towards strategic change. whether through our expertise in financial planning with tools like workday adaptive planning or our comprehensive advisory services, we stand ready to partner with institutions to navigate challenges and seize opportunities for growth., for more insights on how alight can support your institution's transformation, visit our website today. together, let's shape the future of higher education and empower your digital transformation..

This article was sponsored by Alight and produced by the Solutions Studio team.

More from EdSurge

They Started Teaching During the Pandemic Year. Where Are They Now?

By emily tate sullivan.

Diversity and Equity

What can colleges do better to help latino students succeed, by nadia tamez-robledo.

Putting People First as Higher Ed Grapples With AI

By mordecai i. brownlee.

The Intersection of Inquiry-Based Learning and High-Quality Instructional Materials in Social Studies

By abbie misha.

Journalism that ignites your curiosity about education.

EdSurge is an editorially independent project of and

• Product Index
• Write for us
• Advertising

FOLLOW EDSURGE

© 2024 All Rights Reserved