Institute of Technology Ireland – ESTIP Project
Academic managers programme
Exercise: Common planning problems work material
Explanatory note
The details below are an extract from the final report of the ESTIP phase 1 project. The
details came from a standard survey carried out across all 14 institutes. There were 496
responses to the survey, broken down as follows:
Table 1: Organisational Level of Respondents
Grade 3 to 7/ Technician/ General Operative / Craftsman
HoDept/ APO/ CSM/ Tech Man/ Student Services manager
Dir/SecFC/ Registrar/ HoDev/ HoSch
Assistant Lecturer / Lecturer / Senior Lecturer 1
Others
34.8%
9.3%
6.3%
47.4%
2.2%
It is important to note that while the respondents were not all answering against
experiencing the same planning process, the questions are generic to any planning process
that might have been used and are aimed at finding out the extent to which staff felt
involved in the process and ownership of the outcome.
The survey results were used to provide general guidance to the ESTIP design team for
areas of focus to improve overall staff empowerment.
For this exercise with the academic managers, each table below (or a selection specifically
picked by the trainer) should be used to engage the group in discussing problems with staff
empowerment and identifying ways to improve it. The table numbers are not sequential due
to being extracted from a bigger report. Original number are retained, to ease cross
reference if the main report needs to be accessed.
Table 2: Level of respondent’s involvement in strategic plan development
Directly involved in organizing/ carrying out the strategic planning process
12.5%
Consulted as part of the strategic planning process
26.2%
Aware of the strategic planning process taking place but not directly consulted
45.7%
for input
Not aware of the strategic planning process taking place
106753257
Page 1 of 4
15.6%
Institute of Technology Ireland – ESTIP Project
Academic managers programme
Table 4: Respondents views on level of follow up in the development of the
strategic plan
There is real and meaningful follow up – together, we continued to build
15.1%
operational plans directly related to achieving the objectives in the strategic
plans
Some follow up but it is not enough – made aware of design and refinement of
49.7%
operational plans but not involved in formulating them
No follow up – didn’t hear anything about the strategic plan or its
35.3%
implementation and progress after it was published
Table 5: Level of satisfaction of respondents with their level of involvement
in strategic plan development
Very satisfied
8%
Satisfied
19.4%
Neither satisfied or dissatisfied
35.6%
Dissatisfied
23.9%
Very dissatisfied
13.1%
Table 7: Agreement of respondents that they feel a strong sense of
ownership of the strategic plan due to the empowerment felt from the
process used to develop it
Strongly agree
5.1%
Agree
12.6%
Neither agree nor disagree
26.5%
Disagree
31.3%
Strongly disagree
24.5%
Table 9: Level of agreement of respondents with the view that there should
be greater staff involvement in the strategic planning process
Strongly agree
37.1%
Agree
40.2%
Neither agree nor disagree
17.3%
Disagree
4.1%
Strongly disagree
1.2%
106753257
Page 2 of 4
Institute of Technology Ireland – ESTIP Project
Academic managers programme
Table 10: Level of involvement of respondents in operational planning at
School/ Department/ Functional area
Directly involved in organising the operational planning process
21.5%
Consulted as part of the operational planning process
29.8%
Aware of the operational planning process taking place but not directly
28.9%
consulted for input
Not aware of the operational planning process taking place
19.8%
Table 11: Level of satisfaction of respondents with their level of involvement
in operational plan development at School/Department/ Functional area
Very satisfied
11.6%
Satisfied
25.3%
Neither satisfied or dissatisfied
28.8%
Dissatisfied
19.1%
Very Dissatisfied
15.1%
Table 13: Respondents views on the level of follow that exists in operational
plan development in their School/ Department/ Functional area
There is real and meaningful follow up – we have regular reviews of progress
17.6%
of achieving our plans with all section members contributing to our reviews
Some follow up but it is not enough – we are told how much progress is being
47.1%
made with delivering planned activity but have no involvement in assessing
our own progress.
No follow up – After operational plans were made, we didn’t hear anything else 35.4%
about how the plan delivery progressed.
Table 14: Level of agreement with the statement that there needs to be a
greater level of staff involvement in the operational plan development in
their School/ Department/ Functional area
Strongly agree
34.5%
Agree
39.5%
Neither agree nor disagree
19.8%
Disagree
4.4%
Strongly disagree
1.9%
106753257
Page 3 of 4
Institute of Technology Ireland – ESTIP Project
Academic managers programme
Lessons learned from survey qualitative responses
1. Put time, resources, support and facilitation into the process.
2. Learn from international best practice
3. Develop better information sharing and communication around strategic planning.
4. Develop a cyclical model of strategic planning which includes emphasis on
prioritisation, follow up, implementation and measurement of outcomes.
5. Ensure that there is appropriate management and staff development to enable
both staff and management to develop the skills needed to engage in a strategic
planning process.
6. Poor staff morale, scepticism and cynicism about this process came through in all
of the institutes’ responses. In each institute, staff believe that the next strategic
planning process they are involved in must provide for genuine involvement and
really focus on follow through/ delivery or staff will feel even more disempowered
and apathetic.
Summary conclusions
A number of critical success factors emerged from the project which are covered in detail in
the ESTIP reference manual. It is recommended that these should be considered by the
Institutes as they move into their next phase of plan development.

The need for better pre-planning of the overall strategic and operational planning
processes.

The need for a more integrated approach to planning, linking strategic and
operational plans with the PMDS process

The effective use of performance measurement, review and management.

The need for a more systematic approach to evaluating current strengths and
weaknesses as part of plan preparation.

Effective and comprehensive communications with staff and stakeholders on all
aspects of the planning process.
106753257
Page 4 of 4