Strategic responsiveness and market repositioning in Higher Education
Author: Luminiţa – Gabriela Popescu
Ph.D., Associate Professor, Faculty of Public Administration
National School of Political Studies and Public Administration, Romania
E-mail: luminitapopescu@snspa.ro
Abstract. This essay addresses contemporary challenges facing managers of the higher education
institutions for adaptation to shifting environmental demands that environmental demands have
often been a force shaping the structure and policy of higher education does not mean that those
demands have been consistent or predictable.
Facing these challenges, future decryption is completely neglected by Higher Education
Institutions which are, in particular, concerned the adoption of defensive positions, with the aim of
preserving the current market position gained. But to respond to current environmental challenges
we need to develop a "vision of the future", a concept devoid of academic rigor and, therefore,
difficult to define, but which emphasizes, on the one hand, the force of a clear strategic intent and,
on the other hand, the irreplaceable role in achieving this vision of public service to meet the
legitimate expectations of citizens. A visionary manager is able "to work today for tomorrow." In
this context, the managerial approach has a twofold focus: (a) to solve current problems and (2) to
anticipate problems that will face. In other words, environmental demands have shifted from
asking the university to do what it does for less money to asking the university to change what it
does.
The contemporary question is not whether higher education can continue “business-asusual” given adaptation to increased environmental turbulence; rather the question is what sort of
purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the link between strategic responsiveness and market
repositioning in the case of Higher Education institutions, by focusing on the Romanian case.
The strategic responsiveness model proposed is likely to reduce theses vulnerabilities, and
even provide a “vision of the future1” where the higher education sector plays a visible and
prominent role in the discourse of society and in forging its future technological possibilities and
social transformation. The condition of this model to be viable but it is to be framed in a strategic
responsiveness space universities will emerge from adaptation to these inexorable demands.
The where are developed new types of relationship between universities and their
stakeholders and which encourage and facilitate their efforts to engage one another in on-going
debate and cooperation.
The paper is divided into three parts.. The starting point of this research is the current state
of the Romanian education system that demonstrates lack of strategic vision, lack of
communication with the external environment and too much formalism, seriously vulnerable to
challenge an increasingly turbulent external This analysis was performed using a complex set of
methods, both qualitative and quantitative (questionnaire survey applied to representative samples
of students, teachers and employers
In the second part are designing of a model for institutionalizing strategic responsiveness
The third section examines the contribution of the proposed model to better market positioning of
Higher Education Institutions and will make some proposals and recommendations
Key words: strategic responsiveness, dynamic capabilities, strategic, inventing new education
produces, building alliances/partnerships
1 a concept devoid of academic rigor and, therefore, difficult to define, but which emphasizes, on the one hand, the force of a clear strategic intent and, on
the other hand, the irreplaceable role in achieving this vision of higher education system to meet the legitimate expectations of stakeholders and society,
in general
1. The concept of strategic responsiveness in higher education
From the systemic perspective, responsiveness can be defined as the outcome which can be
achieved when institutions and institutional relationships are designed in such way that are
cognizant and respond appropriately to the legitimate expectations of stakeholders.
The responsiveness approach is not a reaction, it is a planned state of preparedness on
which HEIs should aspire. This preparedness is both tactical and strategic, often dealing with
issues about which students- customers may not yet be aware.
Responsiveness in higher education refers to the myriad expectations-some tangible other
intangible –that are applied to university by stakeholders. Some students , for example, demand a
strong institutional commitment to quality teaching. In addition, they want a safe and enjoyable
campus environment and the prospect for gainful employment to other opportunities upon
graduation. Some students want the institution to be respectful and responsive to broader social
and political issues
Politicians and oversight agencies want assurances that educational
institutions
are
contributing to some definition of public good (e.g. economic development) as well as complying
with law and procedural regulations. Alumni want assurance that the reputation of their alma mater
is being advanced so that the value of their degree continues to grow. Special interest groups
continuously demand institutional policies and practices that are responsive to their needs. (Kevin
Kearns, 1998) .
From I. Ansoff and E. J. McDonnell's (1990, p.342) perspective, responsiveness refers to a
type of organization behavior.
2. Building the Organizational Responsiveness Space
From the beginning of the 90’s, resource related strategies were elaborated through the
concept of distinct capability or core competence. Both core competencies and distinct capability
can be thought as advanced-creating resources based on the synergistic combination of knowledge
and other resources which create barriers to both imitation and mobility.
Igor Ansoff and E. McDonnell (1990, p.270) consider that operational responsiveness can
be described by three capability attributes: climate (will to respond); competence (ability to
responds) and capacity (volume of response)2.
2 Climate is the management propensity to respond in a particular way, for example to welcome, control or reject change; Competence is the
management’s ability to respond. For example, to anticipate change in a complex environment, the organization needs a sophisticated environmental
Each of these three is determined on one hand by managers and on the other by the organization
through which they work. These considerations lead to the following equation:
Operational Responsiveness= f(capabilities)
Organizational
Mentality
Power Position
CLIMATE
CLIMATE
WILL
WILLTO
TO
RESPOND
RESPOND
Culture
Structure of the
organization
(1)
CAPACITY
CAPACITY
VOLUMEOF
OF
VOLUME
RESPONSE
RESPONSE
Personal
Operational
Responsiveness
space
COMPETENCE
COMPETENCE
ABILLITY
ABILLITY TO
TO
RESPOND
RESPOND
Talent, Skills,
Knowledge
Structures
Systems,
Shared knowledge
Figure 1. The architecture of Responsiveness Operational Space
surveillance system. Capacity is the volume of work that general management can handle. Its adequacy is related to the type of response used. For
example, the number of general managers needed for change controlling management by exception is very much smaller that for vigorous change
generating strategic development.
In our point of view, strategic responsiveness expresses a differentiation and adaptation
driven by demand from environment, and from this perspective we are able to examine a variety of
strategic organization behaviors for example, whether a higher education institution anticipates or
reacts to discontinuities in the environment.
Dynamic capabilities refer to the particular capacity of higher education institution possess
to shape, reshape, configure, and reconfigure assets so as to respond to changing technologies and
markets.
Dynamic capabilities relate to the institution’s ability to sense size and adapt in order to
generate and exploit internal and external institution specific competences and address the
institution ’s changing environment3.
The shift to capabilities - based planning strategy reflects and recognizes that the
challenges from the environment are becoming increasingly rapid and more diverse. A
capabilities-based strategy requires HEI to focus more on how might changing external
environment in the future than what might be the current demands. From the previous
consideration, strategic responsiveness can be defined by dynamic capabilities, according to
equation:
Strategic responsiveness = f (dynamic capabilities )
3 This definition is adapted from Teece, 2009,p.89
(2)
Continuing this logic, organizational responsiveness space will be configured for two areas:
operational and strategic, as shown in Fig. 2.
Strategic
responsiveness
space
Operational
responsiveness
space
Fig.2. Organizational Responsiveness Space
In the normal resources constrained world, decisions regarding the appropriate combination
of capability components are critical to maintain strategic responsiveness. These decisions are
especially crucial given the long lead times and considerable expenses involved in making
significant changes or establishing new capabilities in these components. Trying to find out the
correct mix to maintain strategic responsiveness, the HEI must determine requirements based on
national education strategy, national interests, challenges and threats in the mid-term and long term
time frames.
What became clear is that successful HEI invest heavily dynamic capabilities to enhance
their operations. Not all university -level responses to opportunities and threats are manifestations
of dynamic capabilities. As Sidney Winter (2003, p. 991) notes “ad-hoc problem solving” isn’t
necessarily a capability. Nor is the adoption of a well-understood and replicable best practice likely
to constitute a dynamic capability. Implementing best practices may help a HEI become or remain
viable, but best practices which are already widely adopted cannot by themselves enable a HEI to
outperform its competitors in a competitive market situation.
Responsiveness of the higher education sector to student’s demands is mentioned as an
important part of academic performance control since it refers to the speed and accuracy with
which a service provides replies to a request for action or for interactions4.
The situation in the Romanian system is different as reflected in the Quality Barometer
:”when they are considered aims of the system, the resulting image is largely a system centered
itself. It is rather the perception of a system whose links with the environment are insufficiently
explored and analyzed, the system follows its own logic, coherent but is less involved in society
and this rather disconnectedre reveals” ( Quality Barometer-2010 ). To recover this reality, , the
development of a new type of relationship between university and their stakeholders is necessary.
C. Pollitt and G. Bouckaert stated “the blurring of roles between service providers and
service consumers has been paralleled by role shifts within provider organizations” (C. Politt and
G. Bouckaert, 1995. p.11). We can see the result of this deep change determined by the principles
on which the new type of relationship develops; from the traditional type where the
consumer/student was “stopped at the gate of the university” to the new one where he becomes co
participant throughout the quality cycle: co-design, co-decision, co-produce and co-evaluation.
In the Romanian higher education system, unfortunately, we notice a relative disposition of
the university by their students. Consequently, the general view of students is that the university is
not an institution to generate senses or provide directions. Thus, “students appear to be alone and
insecure in the face of uncertainty in relation to the type of training they receive in the university”
(Quality Barometere-2010, p.22)
The importance towards the actors in the network gives this type of approach. The
characteristics of the backtracking-pull system in which goal achievement is the result of the
pulling of the processes within the higher education institution by the actors in the network.
It is a point of view completely different from the traditional strategic approach similar to the push
system in (on) which only the managerial efforts of pushing the processes are intended to lead to
goal achievement.
Achievement means giving up old paradigms and acceptance of some innovative
approaches in which costumers are, at the same time, co-participants in the innovation of the
higher education system they benefit from. Moreover, the new managerial approaches related to
strategic responsiveness impose closer attention paid to results. Guskin calls this overall process
4 According to this definition, speed can refer to the waiting between students’ requests and the reply of the university Accuracy means the extent to
which the university’s response is appropriate to the needs or wishes of the student. Accuracy in higher education system must take into consideration
social welfare, equity, equal opportunities
“outcomes” thinking. Our need is twofold: “to reduce student costs and increase student learning”
(1994, p. 25)
Focusing on results expresses the need for the creation of a strategic vision of the expected
finality, vision which exceeds the orders of the organization and which takes into consideration, on
one hand the fruition of the positive influences from external factors, and on the other hand
reduction (elimination) of threats coming from them. Such an approach would lead to ease tensions
that currently exist in the Romanian system:” Employers shall adopt a relatively neutral position,
there also an important gap between the current level of skills necessary for graduates in the minds
of employers. In contrast, a substantial majority credited university lecturers or university system
with much more confidence in its ability to provide labor market quality graduates.
The images contrast the two types of actors, the academics are much more positive than
employers. Solving this tension is crucial for social engagement system higher education, which
otherwise risks losing contact with the labor market and cause a significant deterioration of its
image in the future” (Quality Barometer-2010, p.15).
3. A Model of Responsiveness Organization (RO )
“… most organisations in which graduates are employed have undergone significant change in
the last decade and expect internal organizational structure and strategic objectives to continue to
change. These changes will be prompted by the continuing information revolution, by a growing
awareness of the need to be responsive to customers, clients and other stakeholders, and by the
need to adopt an international perspective
`
The main changes include:
− downsizing, which has been a feature of the last decade and many organisations, large and small
alike, believe that they have become ‘leaner’ and ‘fitter’;
− delayering, which involves a combination of removing ‘unnecessary’ layers of middle managers
and giving managers a broader portfolio;
− flexible contractual arrangements, including part-time and short-term
contracts, outsourcing and home working”(L.Harvey, 2000, pp.3-4)
Control system of operations management would not be capable of to identify and evlauate
new opportunities.
The existence of these conflicting issues is an explanation of rejections,
inefficiencies and delays occured when strategic tasks are imposed on the operating capabilities.
These inefficiencies will be due not only to cultural/politic rejection and overload, but also to
inapplicability of operations management’s skills to for strategic work.
A possible answer to
eliminate those tensions could be institutionalalizing strategic responsiveness by design a dualorganization; we call this Responsiveness Organization. (RO).
OPERATIONAL UNIT
Are we doing things right?”quality control
A mechanistic and narrow
approach to quality typically
(predictably)
adopted
by
external quality assurance
agencies (In).
RESPONSIVNESS
ORGANIZATION
STRATEGIC UNIT
Are we doing the right things?”
Improvement of the quality
The answer for this question
has led to a reconsideration of
the mission, maybe the identity
the future market for higher
education
Figure 3.2 Dual system of the Responsiveness Organization
`
The structure of this organization is divided into two parts, which are detailed below :

Operational unit, which is focused on the question “Are we doing things right?”(i.e quality control) A mechanistic and narrow
approach to quality typically
(predictably) adopted by external quality assurance agencies (In). The goal is to
apply new technological competencies to reduce the cost of production and
consequently to educate more students without additional funding.

Strategic unit, which is focused on question “Are we doing the right things?”, (i.e
improvement of the quality ). The answer for this question has led to a
reconsideration of the mission, may be (maybe)the identity and the future market
for higher education in every sector. In other words, capabilities which define RO
are dynamic capabilities, and that includes operational capabilities necessary for
operational unit. As Collin (1994) and Winter (2003) note, one element of dynamic
capabilities is that they govern the rate of change of operational capabilities.5
And more, in this organizational model we refer to capability in terms of the types of
generic things that the management need to do to pursue any policies effectively. A capable
management has a relatively high ability to do two kinds of things in particular:
(a) To formulate policies effectively both in political and technical terms, i.e. to find out
what important stakeholders want; to broker political compromises between different interests so
that there is a wide commitment to the paths chosen; to explore the costs and benefits of different
options from a technical perspective etc; to work out whether objectives are best achieved by a
direct, overt program or by more subtle, incremental 'encouragement'); and generally to come up
with policies that are sensible and likely to 'stick'.
(b) To implement policies effectively, i.e. to coordinate different actors and forces; to
organize some kind of feedback on program effectiveness etc., a new organizational culture and a
new management style.
Our model offers a better positioned than a uniform system to respond to entirely new
situations in new, while simultaneously delivering a high degree of institutional stability. The
importance of (to maintain)maintaining this stability should not be overlooked. It is a key factor in
maintaining significant elements of the HEI ‘brand value’ both at home and abroad. Retaining
this stability while encouraging dynamism will be a challenge for us and for institutions.
5. Requirements for Responsiveness Organization- A new organizational culture and a
new management style
In the center of the responsiveness lays the human aspect. No activity can be carried out
effectively if the people involved are not willing to cooperate. In order to do so, they have to be
convinced that what they are asked to do is for their own benefit, rather than for another person or
group of persons, regardless if would be the stakeholders or customers. Soundness of the proposed
construction is ensured by developing a new culture, in order to be able to overcome threats and
transform the resistance into active support. “Personal attributes are attitudes and abilities
including intellect, knowledge (in some cases) willingness and ability to learn and continue
learning, ability to find things out, willingness to take risks and show initiative, flexibility and
5
Cited by D. J..Teece in Dynamic capabilities and Strategic Management, Oxford University Press, 2009, p. 88.
adaptability to respond, pre-empt and ultimately lead change and ‘self-skills’ such as selfmotivation, self-confidence, self-management and self-promotion. These personal attributes are
important to allow graduates to fit into the work culture, do the job, develop ideas, take initiative
and responsibility and ultimately help organizations deal with change “(Harvey et al. 1997).
In order to achieve the institutionalizing strategic responsiveness, an organization has to
change. This change goes far beyond altering a method or modification of a process. It is, at first, a
change in culture that is required; all other major changes will then follow from that.
Culture is not a static concept or reality; it evolves with time and changes, often gradually
but sometimes noticeably and abruptly. Cultural changes result from a constant feedback whether
formal or informal, conscious or unconscious - from the results of the culture. In other words, the
success of changing the organizational culture depends on the total involvement of the public
management, carefully focused on the institution’s clients, but also on the public servants.
Entrepreneurial management also plays a critical role in the RO framework. As
Schumpeter notes, “the entrepreneurial function may be and often is filled cooperatively –in many
cases, therefore, it is difficult or even impossible to name
an individual who acts as the
entrepreneur”.6 The manager/entrepreneur plays a key role in coordination of economic activity,
particularly when complementary assets must be assembled. He is likely to have strong skills in
working out new business model which define the architecture of new business . The astute
performance of this function will help achieve what Porter (1996) calls “strategic fit”, not just with
internally controlled asset, but with the assets of alliance partners Teece, 2009, p.106).
6
Cited by Teece, D.(2009), p. 104.
STAKEHOLDERS SATISFACTION AND PROFIT FOR
SOCIETY
OPERATIONAL
RESPONSIVENESS
OPERATIONAL CAPABILITIES
STRATEGIC
RESPONSIVENESS
DYNAMIC CAPABILITY
Figure 4. Model of a Responsiveness Organization
6. A vision for enlarging the Responsiveness Organizational Space
Pragmatically, the achievement of such a structure implies overcoming a variety of
challenges. On one hand, are the members of the academic community aware of the importance of
commitment? Are they truly motivated to take part in such a structure? On the other hand, how
prepared are University representatives to accept co-operation with different categories of
stakeholders? At least until now, as result of the foregoing, there is a serious lack of
communication between communities, academics and stakeholders, the environment is not only
tense but very fragmented..
“To address the relationship between the academy and employment is to risk, at least in
some quarters of academia, being seen as an apologist for anti-intellectualism, for the erosion of
academic freedom and as proposing that higher education should be about training graduates for
jobs rather than improving their minds. However, the ‘New Realities’ facing higher education are
about responsiveness – not ‘downgrading’ higher education to training. On the contrary, in a
rapidly changing world, graduates need to be lifelong learners. The primary role of higher
education is increasingly to transform students by enhancing their knowledge, skills, attitudes and
abilities while simultaneously empowering them as lifelong critical, reflective learners (Harvey L.,
p.1)
Achievement means giving up old paradigms and acceptance of some innovative
approaches in which services beneficiaries/users are, at the same time, co-participants in the
innovation of the educational service they benefit from. In other words, the development of a new
type of relationship between universities- educational services providers and their stakeholders is
necessary. “The employer-higher education interface is a complex nexus that needs to address
organizational structures and missions on the one hand and graduate attributes on the
other”(L.Harvey ,2000, p.10)
Moreover, the new managerial approaches related to strategic responsiveness impose closer
attention paid to results. Focusing on results expresses the need for the creation of a strategic
vision of the expected finality, vision which exceeds the orders of the organization and which takes
into consideration, on the one hand the fruition of the positive influences from external factors, and
on the other hand reduction (elimination) of threats coming from them.
Consequently, the responsiveness space of public services according to these coordinates
becomes possible only when a meta-organization which the university –provider of educational
services, beneficiaries/users of educational service interested in outputs and other categories of
stakeholders interested especially in results are part of, can be achieved.
The meta-university, a flexible network-type structure, is built in such a way that it …”goes
beyond a single focus on an educated work force for economic competitiveness. It sees a welleducated and trained population as necessary for future economic prosperity, promotion of
innovation, productivity and economic growth, cultivation of community life, social and political
cohesion and the achievement of genuinely democratic societies with full participation” (L.
Harvey, 2000, p.12).
This construction represents a potential solution based on co-operation between all the
actors that the metauniversity consists in to the building of the responsiveness space.
”Cooperative solutions are required, not only in the form of co-operation between
governments but also through co-operation between governments (centrally, regionally, locally),
civil society associations and other stakeholders such as media and business.”(C. Pollitt, G.
Bouckaert, E. Loffler, 2006, p. 3.)
6. Conclusion
In conclusion, this model of strategic responsiveness will not only eliminate the danger of
„homogeneous practices7 which have been inhibiting creative solutions and, conversely, have
encouraged responses that do not always represent an adequate answer to external demands. In
other words, the process has weakened organizational performance” ( A.Miroiu, L.
Andreescu,2010,p.90), but it involves creating internal organizational system that supports
responds more flexibly to signals from society; leads to a more accessible higher education; it
provides students with a larger range of options, and lets HEIs capitalize on their strengths in order
to meet the needs and abilities of the students. ”( A.Miroiu, L. Andreescu,2010,p.92).
Institutionalizing the strategic responsiveness allows different universities to decide which
part research should play in their mission, and to identify areas where they will seek to
demonstrate research strength in the periodic research assessments. Our contribution to “dual
support” funding is particularly significant in maintaining institutional flexibility, because it is not
tied to specific projects but allows institutions discretion to decide where and how to develop their
research infrastructure.
Strategic responsiveness expresses a differentiation and adaptation driven by demand from
environment, and from this perspective we are able to examine a variety of strategic organization
behaviors for example, whether a higher education institution anticipates or reacts to
discontinuities in the environment. The management of this kind
of university is able "to work
today for tomorrow." In this context, the managerial approach has a twofold focus: (a) to solve
current problems and (2) to anticipate problems that will face.
By contrast, in the freeze universities, there are positioned managers who "just look
carefully where they go, but never at the sky." They are only interested in the present, but
completely ignore the future. Such managerial behavior demonstrates lack of strategic vision, and,
obviously, the lack of performance
7
Through standardization achieve to uniform/homogeneous practices within a field using the same standards
In this new context a high degree of flexibility and adaptability of higher education systems
gives the opportunity to meet societal demands in real time, demands which are in constant
change. To outline of a new entrepreneurial management context based on results first means the
necessity to create new models of inter-relations development between between and within
institutions. Secondly, there is an imperative demand for structural changes within
the
universities, in order to maximize efficiency (so that they become compatible with flexible
structures – network type) and increase the capability in decision-making through involvement of
students/customers and representative interest groups for communities.
References
Ansoff, I., E. McDonneell, Implanting Strategic Management Prentice Hall, New York ,1990,
Fukuyama, F., State –Building. Governance and World Order in the 21st Century, Ed. Antet XX
Press, Bucuresti, 2004.
Guskin, A. , Part II: Restructuring the Role of the Faculty, 1994, Change 26, no.5: 16-25.
Gilles, P., New Patterns of Governance, Kenneth Press, Ottawa, 1994
Harvey L., New Realities: The Relationship between Higher Education and Employment, 200.
Source: Tertiary Education and Management
Harvey, L. & Knight, P.T. Transforming Higher Education. Buckingham: Society
for Research into Higher Education (SRHE) and Open University Press,1996.
Harvey, L., Moon, S.&Geall, VGraduatesWork: Organisational Change and Students’ Attributes.
Birmingham: Centre for Research into Quality (CRQ) and Association of Graduate Recruiters
(AGR),1997.
Miroiu,A., Andreescu, L., 2010, Goals and Instruments of Diversification in Higher Education,
2010, Quality Assurance Review, Volumr.2, No.2.
Pollitt, C., G.,.Bouckaert, E.,Loffler, Making Quality Sustainable: Co-Design, Co-Decide, CoProduce, and Co-Evaluate, 2006, Report of The 4QC Conference, Tampere.
Politt C., and G., Bouckaert, Quality Improvement in European Public Services, SAGE Publication
Ltd. London, 1995.
Popescu, L.G., Institutionalization of Strategic Responsiveness in Higher Education, Report of
The ISQM Conference, Sibiu, Romania-2011.
Teece J.D., Dynamic, Capabilities and Strategic Management, Oxford University Press, 2009.
Winter, S.G., Understanding Dynamic Capabilities, 2003, Strategic Management Journal,
Octombre Special Issue, 24, pp.991-996.
Lomas, L. , Zen, motorcycle maintenance and quality in higher education” ,2007,
Quality
Assurance in Education, Volume 15 No 4, pp402-412 .
Pirsig, Robert M. , Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance – An Inquiry into Values, 1974,
Boadly Head, UK. Woodhouse, David, Introduction to Quality Assurance, 2009, AUQA
Scott, P. (1995). The Meanings of Mass Higher Education. Buckingham: Society for Research into
Higher Education (SRHE) and Open University Press
Quality Barometer-2010, Romanian Agency for Quality in Higher Education.