A Review of Unisa’s 2015 Strategic Plan
Presented to Council
27 August 2009
Prof Narend Baijnath
Vice-principal: Strategy, Planning & Partnerships
Acknowledgements
The following DISA staff members provided valuable
help and support in preparing the background
information and analysis, draft report and this
presentation:
– Suzette van Zyl: Background Information and Analysis
– Herbert Zemann: Preparation of Information
– Refiloe Sefadi: Preparation of Presentation
The efforts of other Unisa staff who provided additional
information is acknowledged
Background
• 5 years after the formulation and adoption of Unisa’s
2015 strategic plan, it is an opportune moment to
reflect on:
– Progress towards the achievement of its objectives
and targets
– Strengths and areas for review and improvement
– Drawing from various reflective instruments (see
below), positive and negative internal and external
factors shaping progress
• To these ends, management will be undertaking a
formal review of the 2015 Plan in relation to these
three sets of considerations at the forthcoming
planning Lekgotla during September
Purpose
• The purpose of this presentation is to present to
Council an overview of the 2015 review,
comprising:
– Unisa’s emerging planning framework
– Strengths and unique features of the 2015
plan
– Shortcomings and areas for review and
improvement
– Progress towards the achievement of targets
– An overview of internal and external factors
shaping progress
Unisa’s emerging planning framework
• Since the merger, Unisa has taken decisive steps towards
its stated goal of becoming a highly planned
organisation. These include:
– The 2015 Plan
– The annual three-year institutional operational plan
• Vertical integration: strategic and operational
dimensions
• Horizontal integration: across functional areas and
silos
– The strategic resource allocation model
– The emerging integrated strategic planning
framework
Various reflective processes
and instruments:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Over the past few years, Unisa has had the opportunity to
reflect on its organizational performance by means of a
variety of reflective processes and instruments. These include:
The COL and HEQC quality assurance audits and the
institutional quality assurance framework
The organisational architecture initiative
Numerous planning and review Makgotla, including periodic
reviews of the IOP and progress towards the achievement of
the 2015 targets
The service charter and focus on service excellence
Risk management
The emerging Business Intelligence/Institutional Research
framework, including the development of organisational
performance indicators
Strengths of the 2015 Plan
• Highly consultative process
• Very open and candid self-reflection of institutional
challenges and opportunities
• Very comprehensive and systematic in its scope,
substance and structure:
– 10 overarching objectives
– Strategies
– Targets
• Widely acknowledged as quite unique in this way
• Widely disseminated and acknowledged as the strategic
point of reference within the institution
Areas of improvement
•
•
•
•
•
With hindsight, it has become apparent that, despite its
strengths and unique features, the Plan has several
shortcomings:
In the absence of the IOP, an inordinate focus on
operational detail
Despite its systematic structure, sometimes unclear
relationships between strategies and targets, and gaps in
this regard
Clustered targets, which makes monitoring and
management difficult
No clear identification of performance indicators
In retrospect, some clearly unrealistic targets
2009 5-Year Review of the 2015 Plan
• Review progress – approved by Mancom
• Review: focus and number of objectives
• Review: focus and number of strategies, particularly in
relation to the IOP
• Review: validity of targets
• Systematically map objectives, strategies, targets and
performance measures/indicators
• Overall purpose: to produce a more focused and
structured plan, with clear measurable targets which
articulates appropriately with the IOP and the emerging
functional plans – which together make up the
Integrated Planning Framework
Review of progress
• Given the shortcomings outlined above, measuring progress
towards the existing plan is challenging
• Method:
– Examination and categorisation of all 84 targets in the 2015
Plan
– Identification of:
• Past original targets: reached/not reached/revised/
shifted/no longer valid
• Future original targets: on track/not on track/reached
• Revised targets: on track/not on track/reached
• Realistic/unrealistic targets
Limitations
• Not all targets are quantifiable; many relate to planned outputs and
milestones (e.g. approval of a plan or strategy)
• Most of the information gathered regarding the latter is selfreported
• “No battle plan survives contact with the enemy”:
Inevitable shifts and unanticipated obstacles in operationalising
strategies (e.g. phased roll-outs, prioritisation, dependencies,
external factors)
• Performance indicators are not clearly specified and in some cases
targets are no longer valid or have shifted
• Clustered targets difficult to separate and measure
• In some cases, information regarding progress towards targets not
available
• For all these reasons, this review must regarded as a rough, highlevel assessment of progress
• The BI/IR Framework, as it is operationalised, will provide systematic
evidence of performance ito performance indicators
Past and Future Targets
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
N
%
Past
Future
Ongoing
56
67%
24
29%
4
1%
Realistic and Unrealistic Targets
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
N
%
Realistic
Unrealistic
59
67%
25
27%
Target Types
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
N
%
Output/Milestone
Quantitative
54
64%
30
36%
Original and Revised Targets
50
40
30
20
10
0
N
%
Original Target
Revised Target
44
52%
40
48%
Overall Performance – 84 Targets
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Original &
Original Target
Revised Target
Not Reached
Reached
Original &
Revised
Targets On
Track
Original &
Revised
Targets
Targets Not On shifted/Unclear
Track
N
35
6
22
16
5
%
41.7%
7.1%
26.2%
19.0%
6.0%
Findings and Analysis
• Methodologically, assessing progress towards the achievement
of the 2015 SP targets is very challenging
• Accordingly, this review must be regarded as a rough, highlevel assessment of progress, with inevitable information gaps
at this point
• Of the 84 targets:
– 56 (67%)of the target dates were in the past, and 24 (29%) in
the future, with 4 ongoing
– 59 (67%) were regarded as realistic and 25 (27%) were
regarded as unrealistic
– 54 (64%) related to outputs and milestones, while 30 were
quantitative in nature
– 44 (52%) of the original targets were unchanged and 40
(48%) were revised
Overall Performance – 84 Targets
• Progress towards the original 2015 targets can be
described as generally on track
– 35 (41,7%) original and revised targets have been
reached
– 6 (7,1%) original targets have not been reached
– 22 (26,2%) original and revised targets are on track
– 16 (19,0%) original and revised targets are not on
track
– 5 (6,0%) targets have shifted or are unclear
Factors shaping progress
•
•
•
•
Progress towards these targets is shaped by a number of
factors. These include:
Inevitable changes in the process of operationalisation
resulting in targets being shifted, revised and regarded
as no longer valid
– Many strategies and targets have been subsequently
subsumed into the IOP
Internal institutional shifts in policy, practice and
priorities
A range of positive and negative organisational factors
(see below)
External environmental shifts in policy, economy and
market conditions, amongst others
Organisational factors shaping progress
The various reflective processes and instruments mentioned
above have highlighted variety of organisational factors that
obstruct progress towards achieving strategic and operational
goals. These may be summarised as follows:
• Lack of horizontal integration:
– Inability to transcend functional silo barriers to achieve
integrated and efficient service delivery
– Dependencies, especially on severely delayed HR
integration processes
• Severely strained operational systems as a result of rapid and
unanticipated student growth
• Organisational architecture not aligned to institutional growth
and complexity and to the new ODL business model
Organisational factors shaping
progress (2)
• Inadequate human resources and capacity, especially at
mid-management levels
• Unconducive organisational culture and climate, as a
result of merger process and perceived tensions and
mistrust
• Proliferation of change initiatives, resulting in pressure
and change fatigue
• Lack of shared understanding of, and buy-in to key
strategic focus areas, including ODL, Africanisation and
academic identity
Next steps
• As indicated, Management will formally review the 2015 SP at
its forthcoming planning Lekgotla. This will include:
– A detailed review of progress, and an analysis of factors
shaping this
– A review of the Plan itself
• This will result in a leaner, more focused document, clearly
articulated and aligned with the IOP and comprising
appropriate, measurable targets
• Simultaneously, the rollout of the BI/IR framework, as part of
the Integrated Strategic Planning Framework, will provide
evidence-based organisational performance management
• This will provide Management and Council with the
information and analysis by which to monitor and evaluate
ongoing progress towards the achievement of institutional
goals