Strategic Planning vs. Conventional Long Range Planning

Strategic Planning
 External focus
 Process oriented- a stream of
decisions by the CEO
 Dynamic and change oriented
 Innovation and creativity
 Vision of the future that
guides decision-making

Conventional Planning
 Internal focus by the CPO
 Product oriented- e.g, the approved
Master Plan
 Emphasizes stability
 Relies on tried and tested
 Blueprint for the future that is to
be be carried out
(Meredith, Cope, & Lenning, 1987)
Volkwein- Penn State
Planning, Assessment, and Improvement: The Penn State Model
Step 5
How do we get there?
•Target key processes for
improvement.
•Develop action plans to
close the gaps.
•Implement action plans.
Step 1
Where are we now?
•Identify current state
through existing data.
•Forecast future trends.
•Identify stakeholder needs
& wants.
Step 4
How far do we have to go?
•Identify gaps between
where we are now and
where we want to be.
Step 2
Where should we be in the
future?
Develop or renew:
vision, mission and goals
Step 3
How will we know when we
get there?
•Identify performance
indicators that align with
mission, vision, & goals to
measure outcomes.
p:/Q&P Presentations/Models &
Diagrams/Integrating Planning,
 2006 Office of Planning and Institutional Assessment, Penn State University.
Volkwein- Penn State
The Heart of Strategic Planning
(Dooris, NDIR #123, 2004)
•In the business world, bettering one’s condition includes
capturing market share and improving profits.
•In higher education, bettering one’s condition includes hiring
better faculty, recruiting stronger students, upgrading
facilities, strengthening academic programs and student
services, and acquiring the resources needed to
accomplish these things.
•Since most institutions of higher education share similar
missions and compete for these same objectives, the
“strategic” part of strategic planning involves shaping
the institution in ways that will ensure mission
attainment by capturing and maintaining a market niche
in the competition for resources, faculty, and students.
•Thus, strategic planning is more focused on the external
environment than on the internal organization.
Volkwein- Penn State
Institution Niche Building
Common Strategies for Capturing Market Share:
In Business
In Higher Education
High Quality
•Medallion/Name Brand
 Low Cost
Convenient
Special Product
•Best Buy
•Special Opportunity
•User Friendly/Convenient
Volkwein- Penn State
Strategic Niches
Separate Competitive Markets in higher Education:
National (US News)
Regional (US News)
126 Top Tier Universities
•North
•Bachelors
•Masters
 122 Other Universities
110 Top Tier Liberal Arts
Colleges
104 Other Lib. Arts Coll.
Local
Most Community Colleges
•South
•Bachelors
•Masters
•Midwest
•Bachelors
•Masters
•West
•Bachelors
•Masters
Volkwein- Penn State
Different within-sector Strategies
Examples from New York & California
Albany & Santa Barbara
Binghamton & Santa Cruz
Buffalo & UCLA
Stony Brook & Berkeley
City University of NY & San Francisco State
Volkwein- Penn State
SUNY Albany, U.C. Santa Barbara Strategy
Balanced, Rounded Image
Maintain Balance Across All Areas
Undergraduate & Graduate Education
Faculty Research & Teaching & Public Service
Student Selectivity & Access
Low Cost & High Quality & medium size
Sciences/Social Sciences/Humanities/Prof Schools
The Faculty & Administrative Culture at Albany has maintained this balance.
Every time the institution has started to tilt out of balance on one of these
dimensions, there has been a faculty governance body or Select Committee or
Mission Task Force that brought Albany back into balance.
Examples: Public = University of Virginia, Fla. State Univ.
Private = Harvard, Stanford, & Cornell University
SUNY Binghamton, U.C. Santa Cruz Strategy
Public Ivy Image
Fewer Students = Selective
Higher Quality
Invest in Undergraduate Education
Successful Models:
Public = William & Mary
Private = Dartmouth, Princeton, Rice
SUNY Stony Brook, U.C. Berkeley Strategy
National Research University Image
Invest Heavily in Research & Graduate Education
Recruit Faculty Stars
Successful Models:
Public = Michigan, Texas
Private = Johns Hopkins
SUNY Buffalo, UCLA Strategy
Flagship Image
More Students
Larger Size
More Resources
Successful Models:
Public = Ohio State, Univ. Nebraska, Penn State
Private = NYU, Boston University, U So.Calif.
CUNY, S.F. State Strategy
Large, Urban Service University Image
Address Urban Problems
Open Access, Local draw
Examples:
Public = Temple, Wayne State, Cleveland State
Private = Boston U, Howard, Miami U
Typical Roles for Institutional Research in the Planning Process
(Trainer, NDIR #123, 2004)
• Environmental scanning at the beginning,
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Feedback at the end,
Benchmarking against peer competitors,
Analyzing the student admissions pool,
Projecting enrollments and revenues,
Studying salaries and turnover,
Assessing student and alumni outcomes,
Gathering demographic and economic forecasts,
Monitoring the use of space and facilities,
Evaluating the impact of programs and policies,
Developing and tracking key performance indicators & targets
Volkwein- Penn State
The Role of Institutional Research in the Strategic Planning Process
External Analysis
Determining Need
(scanning, monitoring,
forecasting)
Decision Analysis
Determining Cost
(The consequences of
alternative choices)
Internal Analysis
Determining Quality
(assessing strengths
& weaknesses)
Evaluation Analysis
Determining Effectiveness
(Documenting the Results,
monitoring performance)
Volkwein- Penn State
Strategic Planning Model
(Shirley and Volkwein, 1978)
External Needs,
Opportunities,
and Constraints
Institutional Mission
Educational Philosophy,
Role and Scope,
Goals and Objectives
“Matching Process”
Decisions on
Programs, Priorities,
Policies, Budgets
Internal Strengths
and Capabilities
Volkwein- Penn State
Criteria for Evaluation of Existing and Proposed Programs
Program Evaluation
Criteria
Program Clusters
Rating Categories
QUALITY
Quality of Faculty
Quality of Students
Quality of Library Holdings
Quality of Facilities & Equipment
Exceptional, Strong, Adequate, Weak
High, Medium, Low
Excellent, Adequate, Insufficient
Excellent, Adequate, Insufficient
NEED
Centrality to Mission
Present Student Demand
Projected Student Demand
Demand for Graduates
Locational Advantage
Comparative Advantage
Yes, No
High, Moderate, Low
Growing, Stable, Declining
High, Medium, Low
Yes, No
Yes, No
COST
Cost/Revenue Relationship
Other Costs and Benefits
Good, Adequate, Poor
(Listing)
The Programs to be continued at
the current level of activity
regarding resource allocation,
enrollments and number of faculty.
Evaluation
of
Individual
Programs
Existing Programs to be
continued but at a reduced level
of activity and resources.
Existing programs to be
continued but at an increased
level of activity and resources.
Programs now in existence to be
singled out for further development
as areas of excellence.
Programs now in existence that
are to be phased out.
New programs to be developed.
Volkwein- Penn State
Pros and Cons of Selective vs. “Across-the-Board” Program and Budget Actions
Selective
Pros
Cons
VERSUS
Across the Board
Recognizes
priorities
Is more coherent
Economically more efficient
Protects strong and essential programs
Maximizes resources
Protects quality
Recognizes dynamic nature of University
and the need for new ventures, and
accommodates shifting enrollments
Requires
Requires
Avoids
difficult value judgments
More costly in time and energy
Hurts or benefits a few a lot
Breaking of a trust
Depletes leadership and administrative
capital
Harms morale quickly and then dissipates
May be seen as drastic action
little administrative judgment
Usually perceived as fair and even-handed
Based on easily measurable or quantitative
actions
Less disruption because it leaves
organization and people intact
Recognizes stability
Politically safe
facing choices and values and
priorities
Hurts or benefits everyone a little
Slow erosion of quality
Is less coherent
Hampers new ventures
Harms morale gradually and lingers
Prevents organizational adaption to shifting
and new enrollments
Weakens strong and essential programs in
order to maintain other less central ones
Volkwein- Penn State
Volkwein Planning Predictions
Enrollment will Grow & become more diverse
fueled by population, by increased
participation, and by the increasing
connection between Educational credentials
and the economy.
Accountability and Attention to Educational
Outcomes will increase.
Higher Education Policy will become
increasingly research based (i.e., decisions
will be increasingly rational and budgets will
be increasingly performance driven).
Volkwein- Penn State
Volkwein Planning Predictions
Economies of scale will favor larger institutions, and smaller
campuses will struggle.
In general, (with some exceptions) larger colleges and
universities are more efficient to run (less administrative
cost per student).
Larger and better supported institutions (in general with
some exceptions) have higher salaries for attracting better
faculty and more financial aid for attracting better students.
The most successful colleges and universities (of all sizes) will
continue to be those that find a special niche -They achieve a special identity for particular populations of
students, particular areas of faculty expertise, or particular
curricula.
Volkwein- Penn State