- Email: [email protected]
Strategic planning at a Canadian University
104
Long Range Planning, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 104 to 113, 1990 Printed in Great Britain
0024b6301/90 s3.00 + .oo Pergamon Press plc
Strategic Planning at a Canadian University Edward A. Holdaway
and J. Peter Meekison
Strategic planning in universities received increasing emphasis during the 1970s and 7980s. Planning models from business and government were frequently used, but these were often too complicated. Successful university planning requires appropriate procedures, wide involvement, trust, recognition of the political reality of universities, emphasis on the process, and proper timing. The strategic planning experience of the University of Alberta, Canada, in the 7980s is described. Four representative planning groups examined the University’s capabilities and capacities, computing, graduate studies, and new program initiatives. Overall co-ordination was the responsibility of the President and Vice-President (Academic). Preliminary and final reports were widely distributed.
Interest in planning, and especially strategic planning, has grown steadily at universities in western countries since about 1970. Individual universities have undertaken strategic planning with varying degrees of intensity and comprehensiveness and with different levels of success. This article describes the experience of a large Canadian university which undertook focused strategic planning from 1984 through 1987. It emphasizes the principles and procedures that were followed more than the substance of planning reports. A summary is also presented of some of the relevant literature about strategic planning in higher cducation. As Hearn’ has stated, this is far from being a mature literature, it is rarely based on theory or empirical research, and it is ‘more frequently hortatory and prescriptive than analytic’. This view was supported by Schmidtlein and Milton’: ‘Much . . . is basically prescriptive advocacy for a particular approach based on little or no systematic analysis of actual campus-planning environments and experiences.’
Edward Holdaway is Professor of Educational Administration at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada; Peter Meekison is VicePresident (Academic) and Professor of Political Science at the same University.
Literature Review Dejkitions
Most writers would appear to be in general agreement with Lang’s3 definition of strategic ‘a process of maintaining a planning, namely, continuous fit between a university’s environment, its resources and its purposes as an institution’. Lang identified these elements of strategic planning-clearly stated goals, capability to conduct institutional research and analysis, senior-level commitment, awareness of the cyclical nature and diversity of decision making, a sense of priority, recognition of the political nature of many decisions, and development of plans for both academic and support units. In Lang’s view, a plan consists of a process for determining goals, for deciding how to achieve goals, for predicting implications of condifor developing alternative tions and decisions, actions, for identifying necessary decisions, and for setting priorities; a plan is not a static map or a developmental blueprint. Lang distinguished strategic planning from long-term planning, short-term planning, and budgeting decisions. Hearn4 noted that both ‘strategy’ and ‘planning’ are used in disparate ways. However, he stated that five broad characteristics can be identified in the writings on strategic planning: (a) it focuses on broad goals, purposes, value, and mission; (b) it is medium-term in orientation; (c) it simultaneously focuses on both internal and external matters; (d) it is on-going; and (e) it pursues a blend of qualitative and quantitative approaches. Hearn also considered that a ‘rough consensus’ exists on these four cyclical steps: (a) ‘catalogue current mission, goals, values, products, services, and activities’; (b) ‘assess constraints facing the institution in its strategy development’; (c) ‘initiate two interfacing aspects of strategic planning: internal and external’; and (d) ‘implement the developed strategic vision’. Development
Such
strategic
planning
was
identified
by
Strategic Heydingel-5 as the fourth phase in the evolution of planning in higher education. It was preceded by these phases: (a) planning as part of budgeting, but this had too much focus on finances; (b) specification of goals and objectives, in the pre-computer age; and (c) forecasting, which faltered because of uncertainty about the future. Several authors have identified reasons why planning in higher education has recently received considerable attention. For example, Schmidtlein and Milton6 identified the declining population of traditional college-age students, increasing competition for resources, and wavering public confidence. Hearn’ concluded that strategic planning was often initiated because of concerns about resources: ‘The strategic planning and management literature [about U.S. higher education] has usually stressed the interplay of organizational mission, environment, and values, and the necessity for aggressive action by institutions to shape their futures in difficult times.’ Other observations were made by Lang*: ‘That universities should plan, is a proposition that has been widely accepted, sometimes with an almost religious zeal. Why universities should plan and how they should plan are problematic questions.’ Most universities have accepted some form of strategic planning as the preferred mode. Micek’ has also advocated the use of strategic planning by individual academic departments in universities. Sibley’s comprehensive analysis has set his remarks in the context of the five main themes addressed by Keller”: Post-secondary institutions are faced with the needs to compete, to scan the environment, to assess themselves far more rigorously, to emphasize quality (especially of faculty), and to reform their governance and management. Success and Failure In 1984, Lelong and Shirley” concluded that planning in higher educationis ‘better known for its weaknesses and lack of impact than for its strengths and positive contributions!. For example, Nilsson” has assessed that the Swedish system of planning and budgeting in higher education ‘has not been entirely successful’. However, lack of research into strategic planning activities and their consequences may have obscured the level of success, especially if the process is valued more than the product. Hearn13 reported that some strategy proponents ‘argue that strategic success means maintaining program variety but also requires market attentiveness and a willingness to cut programs that are unsuccessful’, whereas he considered that administrators commonly find appeal in avoiding tough decisions associated with internal program review in strategic planning. Chaffee” noted that the attributed success of planning is partly due to its resolution of financial issues.
Several impediments to successful planning in Canadian universities were identified by Sibley15: (a) public funding means that they are less competitive
Planning
at a Canadian
University
105
than private institutions; (b) quality is unlikely to be emphasized; (c) the levels of both operating and capital funding are inadequate; and (d) the social and economic context is volatile and unpredictable. Schmidtlein and Milton” also noted much resistance in higher education to strategic planning; Lang” referred to inconsistent, uneven commitment, and observed that ‘in the absence of a continuous planning process and of a ready capacity for institutional research and analysis, universities do not usually plan until events require it. And by then it is too late. In consequence, universities plan more to manage crises than to avoid crises’. Much attention was also given by Schmidtlein and Milton’* to the use by universities of corporate and government planning models without appropriate consideration of their applicability; complex computerized planning models and highly structured processes, such as PPBS, were found to be too demanding of resources. They assessed that use of such external approaches was based on faulty assumptions about the bureaucratic nature of higher education institutions rather than seeing behaviour in such institutions as ‘reflecting a varying mixture of political, structural, environmental and psychological dynamics . . .‘. Their opinions were supported by van Vught.” Another cause of failure was noted by Hearn” who observed that ‘the often complex links between the process of strategic choice and the actual financial workings of institutions’ have received insufficient attention. Similarly, Lang2’ proposed that the greatest difficulty is linking plans and budgets. Lang’s other reasons why planning fails included an absence of goals, unrealistic goals and objectives, over-reliance on personal inclinations, lack of proper organization of planning, turnover of senior administrators, incomplete analyses, poor diagnoses, insufficient capability to conduct institutional research and analysis, and separation of planners from decision-making procedures.P
Lessons Such analyses and experiences have important lessons. Based upon site visits to 16 diverse higher education institutions in the U.S., Schmidtlein and Miltor? drew these conclusions: (a) both central leadership and faculty initiatives are needed in different aspects of planning; (b) development of trust is essential; (c) the political realities of the campus must be accepted; (d) the planning process is more important than any resulting documents; and (e) major planning activities should not be undertaken too frequently, although the setting of budget priorities has to be conducted annually. They concluded that ‘while planning can help to inform and expand one’s understanding of possible futures, it cannot provide a detailed blueprint for future actions, nor can it avoid the need for skillful improvisation and careful judgement’.
106
Long Range
Planning
Vol. 23
August
by the British Another aspect was addressed University Grants Committee (UGC)” which recommended in 1984 that the Government should introduce a longer planning horizon for grants, namely, a firm grant for 1 year together with provisional grant estimates for the three following years. The UGC recognized that ‘universities must be able to plan ahead’ and that this requires confidence in their being able to obtain the grants necessary to achieve the plans. Several additional lessons were identified by Peterson.25 First, planning is but one of several functions that can assist institutions in facing major challenges. Second, we should neither attempt to do too much nor be too complex. Third, planning has moved from a primarily reactive role (1950s and 1960s) through a more responsive role (1970s) to a more adaptive role in the 1980s. Fourth, the planning techniques used must be appropriate. Fifth, different planning approaches should be used in different situations. Sixth, ‘limited evidence [exists] of the evidence of the efficacy and long-term impacts of planning’; more research is needed on successful and unsuccessful approaches under different circumstances. Peterson also observed that ‘after ‘decades in which physical planning and resource issues dominated planning, academic issues may now be central’.
1990 professorial boards of British and Australian universities. Directors of support units belonged to the Administrative Council, chaired by the VicePresident (Finance); it too had limited decisionmaking authority. Its General Faculties Council (GFC)-composed of approximately 50 faculty members, 50 students, and 35 ex-officio administrators-was responsible for overall academic development, although all of its actions were legally subject to approval of the Board of Governors (see Figure 1). GFC had these three major planning and operational committees:
(1) Planning
and Priorities Committee (PPC)-set priorities for development of academic programs and facilities, and allocated operational and capital funds to faculties and support departments; it was chaired by the President, being ex-officio with all Vice-Presidents members.
(2) Academic
Development Committee (ADC) -developed the overall academic program for the university and recommended proposals for academic development to PPC, which normally accepted ADC’s academic judgement when assigning priorities; it was chaired by the Vice-President (Academic), with the VicePresident (Research) being an ex-officio member.
(3) Facilities The University’s
Experience
Background In common with other universities,26 the University of Alberta (U of A) undertook strategic planning largely in response to increased pressure on resources. Its first overall planning report in 1986 identified these four additional stimuli:
(1) Enrolment
had grown substantially, from 18,228 full-time students in 1980-1981 to 22,908 in 1983-1984 (26 per cent increase).
(2) This
growth had been unevenly distributed across the 17 faculties and 78 teaching departments.
(3) New
research in many fields had created new opportunities and demands.
both
(4) Changes
in society’s expectations were leading to development of new programs and reexamination of personnel and student policies. Over the Cyear period up to 1983-1984, the FTE full-time faculty had increased from 1490 to 1579 (6 per cent) whereas the FTE part-time faculty increased more substantially from 544 to 678 (25 per cent).
In 1983, the University President (Vice-Chancellor) was supported by four Vice-Presidents-Academic, Finance, Facilities and Research. The Deans’ Council, chaired by the President, had limited decisionmaking authority and could not be equated with the
Development Committee (FDC)developed the overall facilities development plan for the university and made binding decisions upon some facilities matters while it recommended action to PPC and the Board of Governors on other matters; it was chaired by the Vice-President (Facilities).
The linkage between PPC and ADC was understandably closer than between PPC and FDC. For example, a joint PPC-ADC subcommittee was formed in 1985 to formulate academic and budgetary priorities and to generate operational proposals in the light of budgetary restrictions, but no similar PPC-FDC subcommittee existed. Also, in 1980, the University established a President’s Advisory Committee on Campus Reviews (PACCR) with the primary focus being improvement in academic and support units. This was prompted by (a) the perceived need to incorporate review information with resource decisions and (b) trends in the U.S. A four-person PACCR, consisting of three distinguished professors and the director of a support unit, commenced operations in 1980. Reviews have typically been conducted by a fourCommittee (URC-two person Unit Review expert outsiders and two U of A staff), with selfreports, and the unit’s study reports, the URC response being considered by PACCR, PPC, the President and appropriate Vice-Presidents. All 130 academic and support units should have been reviewed by December 1990, 10 years after the
Figure 1. Riationships
’
’
I
’
’
I
I
among
LL-*_
’
I
I
I
major groups
Committee
-
and senior administrators
Facilities Development
Recommendations
------_+------_-
I
r I
in 1985
Chairman
I
Board of Governors and Bbard Committees
Vice-President
Vice-President
I President’s Advisory Committee on Campus Reviews
108
Long Range
Planning
Vol. 23
August
process began. The review information has been incorporated in planning activities by vice-presidents, deans, directors, chairmen, PPC, ADC, and FDC. Overall Planning Approach
Although the program review process was very valuable, the president and vice-presidents decided that the U of A should also undertake a separate planning activity. Rather than attempting to undertake strategic planning across all of the U of A’s major functions, a focused approach was used in 1983. Four major areas-capabilities and capacities, computing, graduate studies, and program initiatives-were selected as needing the most planning attention. Each planning group was chaired by a dean, with the other 12 or 13 members being chosen from the Board of Governors, academic staff, support departments, the Students’ Union, and the Graduate Students’ Association. They met about every 2 weeks for 18 months, approached their tasks in different ways, and produced reports for the VicePresident (Academic) (see Figure 2). The Director of Institutional Research and Planning was a member of the first three planning groups; he provided institutional data and obtained informa‘tion about planning activities at other universities. The Vice-President assignments together addressed :
(Academic) provided these with examples of topics to be
Planning Group One (PGl). To determine means for assessing the University’s capabilities and capacities; to begin as soon as possible the process of assessment, especially where pressing issues are concerned; and to identify courses of action that will bring us into accord with our capabilities and capacities. Planning Group Two (PG2).
zation
of the University’s
To attempt a rationalicomputing activity.
Planning Group
Three (PG3). To assess the University’s graduate activity and offer advice where there is need for improvement. Planning Group Four (PG4).
policies
for accommodating
To develop University program initiatives.
At initial meetings of senior administrators planning groups in 1983, the Vice-President demic) identified these aspects:
(1)
and (Aca-
An on-going academic strategy is needed for guidance of the physical, financial and administrative components.
(2) Planning
will be grounded in the new reality that a mismatch exists between resources and mandate.
(3) The
overall objective is to produce concrete planning assumptions that will enable administrators to make enlightened institutional choices
1990 within existing resources.
and
possibly
depleting
(4) The
planning activity will be a blend of central initiative and activities at the department and faculty levels.
(5) Existing
statements about the University’s sion will be accepted.
mis-
(6) The PACCR
initiative
reviews and the strategic planning will be complementary.
(7) The
President will provide general leadership and policy co-ordination through a steering group including the Vice-President (Academic) -who will have chief operational responsibility for planning-and the Vice-President (Finance).
PGl struggled with the problem of how to ascertain the U of A’s capabilities-what can it do-and its capacities-how many students it can effectively teach in the various programs. Its dclibcrations during the first 6 months wcrc diverted because the U of A faced a problem of rapidly increasing cnrolments and the Vice-President (Academic) requested that PGl make dcvclopmcnt ofa means of coping with this its first priority. After that, PGl split into two sub-groups-one addressed the question of assessment of capacity of the U of A, while the other concentrated upon the U of A’s mission especially with respect to liberal education. The first sub-group cxamincd the possibility of having all academic dcpartmcnts assess their capacity for teaching and supervising undergraduate and discarded this graduate students, but eventually idea. The issue of computing involved PG2 in the most meeting time of any group. ‘Computing’ proved to be a highly pcrvasivc function. Two extensive surveys of opinions and computer usage on campus were conducted; replies were rcccived from 1116 staff and 133 administrators. PG2’s report and related information assisted the directors of the academic and support computing ccntrcs in their operations, even bcforc the overall draft planning report was prepared. PG3 decided against asking faculty mcmbcrs to complete a qucstionnairc about aspects of the administration of graduate studies but rather to prepare recommendations based upon its collective experience and opinions. Many of the group’s deliberations focused upon the rclativc place within graduate studies of the preparation of future and the continuing proacademics/researchers fessional education at the master’s dcgrcc level. PG4 considered both how new programs could bc incorporated into U of A offerings at a time of financial constraint and rcduccd govcrnmcnt support for such programs and which new programs should have priority.
+ I
Four Planning Groups
Second Report
Figure 2. Major steps in the strategic planning process
#
Establishment
University Administrators and Committees
Vice-President (Academic) I
President’s Steering Committee
Interactions
4
Vice-President (Academic)
and
Recommendations
interactions
/
First Report
President’s Steering Committee
110
Long Range
Planning
Vol. 23
August
The four deans who chaired the planning groups continually interacted with the President and VicePresidents. Their final reports were discussed by these senior administrators. An Associate VicePresident (Academic) prepared a summary document in 1986 entitled The Next Decade and Beyond: A Plan for the Future. About 5000 copies of this report were distributed both on and off campus. In its foreword, the President invited ‘thoughts and suggestions’ about this First Report. Following receipt of many submissions and further discussions, and the holding of hearings in various locations in Alberta, a Second Report, Draft Policies: The Next Decade and Beyond, was produced in 1987 and distributed less widely. In the foreword the President emphasized the following points: (a) the document will be studied by the major decision-making bodies; (b) these deliberations will probably lead to modifications; (c) the U of A should soon endorse policies to guide future development; and (d) an on-going planning mechanism will be developed. Reports from
Planning
Groups
The four reports prepared by the planning groups differed substantially. PGl prepared a philosophy statement-which emphasized excellence in scholarship, research, teaching, learning, and serviceand identified strategic statements and examples of operational procedures which could be taken to achieve these excellence goals. It did not provide measures of the university’s capabilities and capacities, mainly because of unanticipated difficulties in assessing these variables. A major recommendation of PGl was that a mandatory core curriculum based on 10 specific areas-for example, Technology, Literature and the Arts, and Moral and Legal Reasoning-be taken by all first-year students so that they would obtain a distinctively well-rounded education. PG2 prepared a lengthy list of detailed recommendations about computing. Many of its deliberations related to (a) the linkage between academic and administrative computing facilities and (b) the need to develop a campus-wide computing network. PG2 argued that computing is the most important change agent in higher education today and that academic staff, support staff and students arc all potentially touched by the technology. For graduate studies, PG3 emphasized the goal of doubling the proportion of full-time graduate students from about 12 to about 20 per cent. This was considered desirable if the U of A were to achieve first-class status, which was seen to be associated far more with graduate programs than with undcrgraduate programs. A substantial number ofrecommendations were provided, including the need for the provincial government and the corporate sector to provide an additional %20-25m for new faculty positions, graduate assistantships, and start-up and infrastructure costs.
1990 PG4 identified the following program initiatives in this priority order: (a) a major graduate program in a broad range of areas; (b) a curriculum which would ensure that all undergraduate students receive a liberal education; (c) program initiatives to meet the needs of communities in northern Alberta; (d) maintenance of current professional programs; and (e) expansion of international initiatives. PG4 also identified these ‘facilitating priorities’ which were not in rank order-accessibility, innovative instruction, support by external groups, and better use of facilities. First Report The First Report, which was widely distributed, contained several policies and major recommendations placed in the context of the U of A’s position that teaching, research and service to the community were its major responsibilities. The main goal was identified as achieving excellence and being among the world’s best universities. This raised several questions such as should excellence be pursued selectively or broadly? How can excellence be balanced with the heavy demands of service courses, such as English, which are provided by one department for students from other departments? In what areas must we develop programs to meet emerging societal needs ? How should_ scholarship and research activities be fostered? Graduate programs were ranked first in priority for development especially because the scholarship and reputation of any university were seen to be heavily dependent upon graduate research and the number of graduate degrees awarded. Devclopmcnt of strong doctoral programs in areas of excellence was perceived to be the foundation of the U of A’s research policy. The goal of 20 per cent graduate students in 15 years was set, but reference to associated costs was dclctcd. At the undcrgraduatc level, liberal education was emphasized. Also discussed were programs relevant to northern communities and the professions, togcthcr with the needs to assess continuation of full-time study rcquircmcnts and to implcmcnt greater use of computer-based instruction. Because funding difficulties existed, the First Report recommended that any new programs should either have lower demands for new funds or be funded through other mechanisms. The need for broad involvement of the University community in on-going planning activities was emphasized. Second
Report
About 18 months after the First Report was distributed, the University in 1987 published the Second Report which incorporated suggestions from the internal and external committees and hearings. The President again invited reactions to the Second Report, which consisted of 12 sections; some highlights of their content are provided below (see Figure 3).
Strategic
Planning
at a Canadian
111
University
Jnds
Professional Associations
Fig11x-c 3. Interactions arc finely shaded.)
among
components
involved
Many of the rccommcndations and issues idcntificd in the First Report wcrc rcpcatcd, but the major goal of the Second Report was that the size of the U of A should bc limited to 25,000 students in Winter Session credit programs, consisting of 20,000 undcrgraduates and 5000 graduates. The possible needs for more quotas, incrcascd rcsourctis, and divcrsification of funding sources wcrc rccognizcd. Scvcral matters which wcrc not addrcsscd in detail in the First Report wcrc discussed in the Second Report, including student access to the University, the quality of student lift, relationships with public and private sectors, international activities, conditions of cmploymcnt, and physical facilities and material rcsourccs. Two new thcmcs wcrc introduced, namely that co-operative or work-study programs bc cncouragcd and that part-time studies should no longer bc viewed as abnormal after 1992. Rclationships with other post-secondary institutions wcrc fully trcatcd in the Second Report, and scvcral specific actions, for cxamplc, continuation of active co-operation with other Alberta institutions to facilitate student transfer, wcrc rccommcndcd. In
in planning.
(Note: the four strategic
gcncral, the Second Report covered of issues than did its prcdcccssor.
planning
a broader
foci
range
Follow-up Activities A brief ovcrvicw is provided below of some of the actions taken by the University and by the provincial government. Draft policies. The politics cnunciatcd in the Second Report have been very influential. The University has dccidcd to have an cnrolmcnt target of 25,000 students, as rccommcndcd. Increased support is being provided for graduate students, and doctoral programs have been identified as a priority by the current Prcsidcnt who took of?icc in 1989. The provincial government has approved expansion of a community college in Edmonton at which more students can undertake the initial years of their first dcgrcc. Computing activities and co-ordination have rcccivcd increasing emphasis; a director of a combined academic-administration computing operation was appointed in 1987. Employment practiccs wcrc scrutinized and scvcral changes made.
112
Long Range
Planning
Vol. 23
August
Not all of the recommendations were implemented, as could be expected, but they certainly helped to sensitize the campus community to many issues. Unfortunately, reductions in capital grants from the provincial government have not permitted the expansion of physical facilities needed to allow for large-scale increases in numbers of graduate students and attainment of other objectives. FactrIty ofEdtrcatio~. In 1986, the Faculty of Education commenced a strategic planning project because the University’s strategic planning activity had implications for each faculty and because the PACCR reviews of individual departments did not address matters relevant to the Faculty as a whole. This approach was consistent with Micek’s view presented above. Various task forces were established, hearings held, draft reports prepared, reactions obtained, and a final report” containing recommendations and issues to be addressed was distributed in 1989. The Faculties of Law and Extension have undertaken somewhat more limited planning in relation to PACCR activities. Provincial co-ordination. In May 1989 the Alberta Department of Advanced Educatior?’ distributed ‘guidelines regulating planning activities of all postsecondary institutions in the province. The U of A strategic planning activity probably had bearing on this government action. The guidelines state that ‘each institution has an ongoing responsibility for maintaining a current institutional development plan and for maintaining the currency of the courses and programs it offers’. A proposed mandate statement, dealing with current programs and longer-term directions, enrolment projections, and funding requirements, is to be included. Each plan is to be revised at least every 5 years, is to relate to previous plans, is to be distributed to other postsecondary institutions, is to be reviewed by the Department, and is to be updated annually in association with the institution’s budget submission. Administrative
organization. When the U of A’s planning activity began, the Vice-President (Academic) was assigned half-time to planning functions. This action indicated the seriousness with which planning was viewed. However, other administrative responsibilities and prcssurcs prevented the Vice-President from being as heavily involved in planning from 1983-1989. In 1989, the new President re-introduced the approach that the Vice-President (Academic) would have the major responsibility for strategic planning, and simultaneously announced organizational changes to facilitate this reorientation.
Concluding
Comment
The original intent of the U of A’s strategic planning activity was to focus upon four selected areas-capacity and capability, computing, gra-
1990 duate studies, and new programs. But reactions to the First Report broadened the scope to encompass aspects such as physical facilities, student access, external relations, and employment policies. This was understandable and probably predictable; nevertheless, the initial decisions to restrict the scope of considerations to four major emerging areas of concern and to have different planning groups discuss each of these were defensible. As an approach it can be recommended, but care should be given to careful selection of the planning areas to avoid overlay and to ensure that the planning focus is not too narrow. What else was learnt? We can fairly state that ‘planning of the planning’ was ad hoc in that we were uncertain as to where each step would lead and to some extent we fell into strategic planning. Maintaining a fit with the environment, which is the essence of the definition of strategic planning provided above, became a central part of the U of A’s activity cvcn though it was not an initial priority. We must acknowledge that some of the factors which experts state can reduce the effectiveness of planning were involved in the U of A’s activity, especially some turnover of senior administrators, the loose linkage of plans and budgets, and separation of many of the planning group members from decision-making processes. Our experience supports the implications of Schmidtlcin and Milton concerning both central leadership and faculty initiative, trust, political realities, importance of the process, and periodic planning. We also agree that skillful improvization and careful judgement cannot be replaced by a detailed planning blueprint, and that the lessons and impediments identified by Peterson and Sibley, especially the rcliancc upon external funding, are valid. We have found the information obtained through our program reviews to be of very substantial importance in planning. Some generalizations from these reviews, such as those about graduate studies, were valuable for university-level planning, whereas conclusions about individual departments and facilities are obviously more valuable for planning at the unit level. The reviews-planning linkage although somewhat serendipitous, had mutual benefits. With respect to successes and failures, perhaps the most significant success has been in the computing area where several major developments were supported by the planning documents. To speak of rather, we prefer to ‘failures’ is inappropriate; identify the following areas as those in which we have achieved less than was hoped for-expansion of the graduate proportion and development of a core curriculum. As referred to above, possibly the planning process has had its greatest impact in sensitizing the university community to a variety of
Strategic issues, with manifest not being directly documents. In some to that of the muted upon policy, in that arc more influential
results coming later and often identified with the planning ways, such expericncc is similar impact of social science research socio-economic-cultural factors than are research results.?”
Planning
at a Canadian
113
University
of Sixth Annual Forum of the European Association Institutional Research, Free Uruversity of Brussels (1984).
for
(10) W. M. Sibley, Strategic planmng and management for change,
The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 16 (2). 81-102 (1986). G. Keller, Academic Strategy: The Management Revolution in Higher Education, The Johns Hopkins University Press,
Baltimore (1983).
(11) D. Lelong and R. Shirley, Planning: identifying the focal points
we recommend that univcrsitics In summary, contemplating strategic planning should carefully identify their foci, adopt appropriate proccdurcs, involve senior administrators in group discussions, cmphasizc the process more than the product, USC conproper timing, be aware of cnvironmcntal straints, couple planning with budgeting, and, above all, acknowlcdgc the political rcalitics of university lift.
for action, Planning
planning and management in higher education, in J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, Vol. IV, Agathon, New York (1988).
comment les concilier? Politiques 69-113 (1986).
(3)
for
D. W. Lang, Planning and decision making in universities, CSSHE Professional File, Canadian Society for the Study of Higher Education, 4. l-l 4 (1988).
and
Techniques
of Futures
(6)
Schmidtlein and Milton, op. cit., p. 1.
(7)
Hearn, op. cit., p. 212.
Research.
39,
(8)
Lang, op. cit., p. 2.
(9)
S. S. Micek, Applying strategic planning in academic departments: taking charge of change, in C. H. Belanger (Ed.), Beyond Retrenchment: Planning for Quality and Efficiency, Proceedings
et Management
Public, 4 (4).
E. E. Chaffee, Successful strategic management in small private colleges, Journal of Higher Education, 55 (2), 212-241 (1984)
(15)
Sibley, op. cit., pp. 85-86.
(16)
Schmidtlein and Milton, op. cit., p. 5.
(17)
Lang, op. cit., p. 2.
(18)
Schmidtlein and Milton, op. cit., pp. 2-3.
(19)
F. van Vught, A new autonomy in European higher education? Unpublished paper, University of Twente. The Netherlands (1986).
(20)
Hearn, op. cit., p. 214.
(21)
D. W. Lang, Linking plans and budgets, CSSHE Professional File, Canadian Society for the Study of Higher Education, 5, l-11
(1989).
(22)
Lang, op. cit., pp. 8-l 0 (1988).
(23)
Schmidtlein and Milton, op. cit., pp. 15-l 7.
(24)
M. W. Peterson, Continuity, challenge and change: an organizational perspective on planning past and future, Planning for
(25)
Applying Methods 85-98 ( 1983).
(1984).
(14)
Higher Education,
R. B. Heydinger, Institutional research and planning: is futures research the next step? in J. L. Morrison, W. L. Renfro and W. I. Boucher (Eds), New Directions in Institutional Research:
l-7
Hearn, op. cit., pp. 246-247.
(4) J. C. Hearn, op. cit., pp. 217-223. (5)
12 (4).
(13)
(2) F. A. Schmidtlein and T. H. Milton, College and university planning: perspectives from a nationwide study, Planning . Higher Education, 17 (3). l-l 9 (1988-l 989).
Education,
(12) T. Nilsson, Planification d’aujord’hui et realite de demain:
References (1) J. C. Hearn, Strategy and resources: economic issues in strategic
for Higher
14 (3),
6-l 5 (1986).
University Grants Committee, A Strategy for Higher Education Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London (1984).
into the 7990s. (26) (27)
Hearn, op. cit. Faculty of Education, Mapping
the Future:
University of Alberta, A Focus
on Priority
Exploring and Issues. Edmonton,
Alberta (1989). (28)
(29)
Alberta Department of Advanced Education, Guidelines System Development, Edmonton, Canada (1989).
for
See. for example. E. A. Holdaway. Making research matter, The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 32 (3). (1986); and F. Heller (Ed.), The Use and Abuse Science, Sage, London (1986).
249-264 of Social
Long Range Planning, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 104 to 113, 1990 Printed in Great Britain
0024b6301/90 s3.00 + .oo Pergamon Press plc
Strategic Planning at a Canadian University Edward A. Holdaway
and J. Peter Meekison
Strategic planning in universities received increasing emphasis during the 1970s and 7980s. Planning models from business and government were frequently used, but these were often too complicated. Successful university planning requires appropriate procedures, wide involvement, trust, recognition of the political reality of universities, emphasis on the process, and proper timing. The strategic planning experience of the University of Alberta, Canada, in the 7980s is described. Four representative planning groups examined the University’s capabilities and capacities, computing, graduate studies, and new program initiatives. Overall co-ordination was the responsibility of the President and Vice-President (Academic). Preliminary and final reports were widely distributed.
Interest in planning, and especially strategic planning, has grown steadily at universities in western countries since about 1970. Individual universities have undertaken strategic planning with varying degrees of intensity and comprehensiveness and with different levels of success. This article describes the experience of a large Canadian university which undertook focused strategic planning from 1984 through 1987. It emphasizes the principles and procedures that were followed more than the substance of planning reports. A summary is also presented of some of the relevant literature about strategic planning in higher cducation. As Hearn’ has stated, this is far from being a mature literature, it is rarely based on theory or empirical research, and it is ‘more frequently hortatory and prescriptive than analytic’. This view was supported by Schmidtlein and Milton’: ‘Much . . . is basically prescriptive advocacy for a particular approach based on little or no systematic analysis of actual campus-planning environments and experiences.’
Edward Holdaway is Professor of Educational Administration at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada; Peter Meekison is VicePresident (Academic) and Professor of Political Science at the same University.
Literature Review Dejkitions
Most writers would appear to be in general agreement with Lang’s3 definition of strategic ‘a process of maintaining a planning, namely, continuous fit between a university’s environment, its resources and its purposes as an institution’. Lang identified these elements of strategic planning-clearly stated goals, capability to conduct institutional research and analysis, senior-level commitment, awareness of the cyclical nature and diversity of decision making, a sense of priority, recognition of the political nature of many decisions, and development of plans for both academic and support units. In Lang’s view, a plan consists of a process for determining goals, for deciding how to achieve goals, for predicting implications of condifor developing alternative tions and decisions, actions, for identifying necessary decisions, and for setting priorities; a plan is not a static map or a developmental blueprint. Lang distinguished strategic planning from long-term planning, short-term planning, and budgeting decisions. Hearn4 noted that both ‘strategy’ and ‘planning’ are used in disparate ways. However, he stated that five broad characteristics can be identified in the writings on strategic planning: (a) it focuses on broad goals, purposes, value, and mission; (b) it is medium-term in orientation; (c) it simultaneously focuses on both internal and external matters; (d) it is on-going; and (e) it pursues a blend of qualitative and quantitative approaches. Hearn also considered that a ‘rough consensus’ exists on these four cyclical steps: (a) ‘catalogue current mission, goals, values, products, services, and activities’; (b) ‘assess constraints facing the institution in its strategy development’; (c) ‘initiate two interfacing aspects of strategic planning: internal and external’; and (d) ‘implement the developed strategic vision’. Development
Such
strategic
planning
was
identified
by
Strategic Heydingel-5 as the fourth phase in the evolution of planning in higher education. It was preceded by these phases: (a) planning as part of budgeting, but this had too much focus on finances; (b) specification of goals and objectives, in the pre-computer age; and (c) forecasting, which faltered because of uncertainty about the future. Several authors have identified reasons why planning in higher education has recently received considerable attention. For example, Schmidtlein and Milton6 identified the declining population of traditional college-age students, increasing competition for resources, and wavering public confidence. Hearn’ concluded that strategic planning was often initiated because of concerns about resources: ‘The strategic planning and management literature [about U.S. higher education] has usually stressed the interplay of organizational mission, environment, and values, and the necessity for aggressive action by institutions to shape their futures in difficult times.’ Other observations were made by Lang*: ‘That universities should plan, is a proposition that has been widely accepted, sometimes with an almost religious zeal. Why universities should plan and how they should plan are problematic questions.’ Most universities have accepted some form of strategic planning as the preferred mode. Micek’ has also advocated the use of strategic planning by individual academic departments in universities. Sibley’s comprehensive analysis has set his remarks in the context of the five main themes addressed by Keller”: Post-secondary institutions are faced with the needs to compete, to scan the environment, to assess themselves far more rigorously, to emphasize quality (especially of faculty), and to reform their governance and management. Success and Failure In 1984, Lelong and Shirley” concluded that planning in higher educationis ‘better known for its weaknesses and lack of impact than for its strengths and positive contributions!. For example, Nilsson” has assessed that the Swedish system of planning and budgeting in higher education ‘has not been entirely successful’. However, lack of research into strategic planning activities and their consequences may have obscured the level of success, especially if the process is valued more than the product. Hearn13 reported that some strategy proponents ‘argue that strategic success means maintaining program variety but also requires market attentiveness and a willingness to cut programs that are unsuccessful’, whereas he considered that administrators commonly find appeal in avoiding tough decisions associated with internal program review in strategic planning. Chaffee” noted that the attributed success of planning is partly due to its resolution of financial issues.
Several impediments to successful planning in Canadian universities were identified by Sibley15: (a) public funding means that they are less competitive
Planning
at a Canadian
University
105
than private institutions; (b) quality is unlikely to be emphasized; (c) the levels of both operating and capital funding are inadequate; and (d) the social and economic context is volatile and unpredictable. Schmidtlein and Milton” also noted much resistance in higher education to strategic planning; Lang” referred to inconsistent, uneven commitment, and observed that ‘in the absence of a continuous planning process and of a ready capacity for institutional research and analysis, universities do not usually plan until events require it. And by then it is too late. In consequence, universities plan more to manage crises than to avoid crises’. Much attention was also given by Schmidtlein and Milton’* to the use by universities of corporate and government planning models without appropriate consideration of their applicability; complex computerized planning models and highly structured processes, such as PPBS, were found to be too demanding of resources. They assessed that use of such external approaches was based on faulty assumptions about the bureaucratic nature of higher education institutions rather than seeing behaviour in such institutions as ‘reflecting a varying mixture of political, structural, environmental and psychological dynamics . . .‘. Their opinions were supported by van Vught.” Another cause of failure was noted by Hearn” who observed that ‘the often complex links between the process of strategic choice and the actual financial workings of institutions’ have received insufficient attention. Similarly, Lang2’ proposed that the greatest difficulty is linking plans and budgets. Lang’s other reasons why planning fails included an absence of goals, unrealistic goals and objectives, over-reliance on personal inclinations, lack of proper organization of planning, turnover of senior administrators, incomplete analyses, poor diagnoses, insufficient capability to conduct institutional research and analysis, and separation of planners from decision-making procedures.P
Lessons Such analyses and experiences have important lessons. Based upon site visits to 16 diverse higher education institutions in the U.S., Schmidtlein and Miltor? drew these conclusions: (a) both central leadership and faculty initiatives are needed in different aspects of planning; (b) development of trust is essential; (c) the political realities of the campus must be accepted; (d) the planning process is more important than any resulting documents; and (e) major planning activities should not be undertaken too frequently, although the setting of budget priorities has to be conducted annually. They concluded that ‘while planning can help to inform and expand one’s understanding of possible futures, it cannot provide a detailed blueprint for future actions, nor can it avoid the need for skillful improvisation and careful judgement’.
106
Long Range
Planning
Vol. 23
August
by the British Another aspect was addressed University Grants Committee (UGC)” which recommended in 1984 that the Government should introduce a longer planning horizon for grants, namely, a firm grant for 1 year together with provisional grant estimates for the three following years. The UGC recognized that ‘universities must be able to plan ahead’ and that this requires confidence in their being able to obtain the grants necessary to achieve the plans. Several additional lessons were identified by Peterson.25 First, planning is but one of several functions that can assist institutions in facing major challenges. Second, we should neither attempt to do too much nor be too complex. Third, planning has moved from a primarily reactive role (1950s and 1960s) through a more responsive role (1970s) to a more adaptive role in the 1980s. Fourth, the planning techniques used must be appropriate. Fifth, different planning approaches should be used in different situations. Sixth, ‘limited evidence [exists] of the evidence of the efficacy and long-term impacts of planning’; more research is needed on successful and unsuccessful approaches under different circumstances. Peterson also observed that ‘after ‘decades in which physical planning and resource issues dominated planning, academic issues may now be central’.
1990 professorial boards of British and Australian universities. Directors of support units belonged to the Administrative Council, chaired by the VicePresident (Finance); it too had limited decisionmaking authority. Its General Faculties Council (GFC)-composed of approximately 50 faculty members, 50 students, and 35 ex-officio administrators-was responsible for overall academic development, although all of its actions were legally subject to approval of the Board of Governors (see Figure 1). GFC had these three major planning and operational committees:
(1) Planning
and Priorities Committee (PPC)-set priorities for development of academic programs and facilities, and allocated operational and capital funds to faculties and support departments; it was chaired by the President, being ex-officio with all Vice-Presidents members.
(2) Academic
Development Committee (ADC) -developed the overall academic program for the university and recommended proposals for academic development to PPC, which normally accepted ADC’s academic judgement when assigning priorities; it was chaired by the Vice-President (Academic), with the VicePresident (Research) being an ex-officio member.
(3) Facilities The University’s
Experience
Background In common with other universities,26 the University of Alberta (U of A) undertook strategic planning largely in response to increased pressure on resources. Its first overall planning report in 1986 identified these four additional stimuli:
(1) Enrolment
had grown substantially, from 18,228 full-time students in 1980-1981 to 22,908 in 1983-1984 (26 per cent increase).
(2) This
growth had been unevenly distributed across the 17 faculties and 78 teaching departments.
(3) New
research in many fields had created new opportunities and demands.
both
(4) Changes
in society’s expectations were leading to development of new programs and reexamination of personnel and student policies. Over the Cyear period up to 1983-1984, the FTE full-time faculty had increased from 1490 to 1579 (6 per cent) whereas the FTE part-time faculty increased more substantially from 544 to 678 (25 per cent).
In 1983, the University President (Vice-Chancellor) was supported by four Vice-Presidents-Academic, Finance, Facilities and Research. The Deans’ Council, chaired by the President, had limited decisionmaking authority and could not be equated with the
Development Committee (FDC)developed the overall facilities development plan for the university and made binding decisions upon some facilities matters while it recommended action to PPC and the Board of Governors on other matters; it was chaired by the Vice-President (Facilities).
The linkage between PPC and ADC was understandably closer than between PPC and FDC. For example, a joint PPC-ADC subcommittee was formed in 1985 to formulate academic and budgetary priorities and to generate operational proposals in the light of budgetary restrictions, but no similar PPC-FDC subcommittee existed. Also, in 1980, the University established a President’s Advisory Committee on Campus Reviews (PACCR) with the primary focus being improvement in academic and support units. This was prompted by (a) the perceived need to incorporate review information with resource decisions and (b) trends in the U.S. A four-person PACCR, consisting of three distinguished professors and the director of a support unit, commenced operations in 1980. Reviews have typically been conducted by a fourCommittee (URC-two person Unit Review expert outsiders and two U of A staff), with selfreports, and the unit’s study reports, the URC response being considered by PACCR, PPC, the President and appropriate Vice-Presidents. All 130 academic and support units should have been reviewed by December 1990, 10 years after the
Figure 1. Riationships
’
’
I
’
’
I
I
among
LL-*_
’
I
I
I
major groups
Committee
-
and senior administrators
Facilities Development
Recommendations
------_+------_-
I
r I
in 1985
Chairman
I
Board of Governors and Bbard Committees
Vice-President
Vice-President
I President’s Advisory Committee on Campus Reviews
108
Long Range
Planning
Vol. 23
August
process began. The review information has been incorporated in planning activities by vice-presidents, deans, directors, chairmen, PPC, ADC, and FDC. Overall Planning Approach
Although the program review process was very valuable, the president and vice-presidents decided that the U of A should also undertake a separate planning activity. Rather than attempting to undertake strategic planning across all of the U of A’s major functions, a focused approach was used in 1983. Four major areas-capabilities and capacities, computing, graduate studies, and program initiatives-were selected as needing the most planning attention. Each planning group was chaired by a dean, with the other 12 or 13 members being chosen from the Board of Governors, academic staff, support departments, the Students’ Union, and the Graduate Students’ Association. They met about every 2 weeks for 18 months, approached their tasks in different ways, and produced reports for the VicePresident (Academic) (see Figure 2). The Director of Institutional Research and Planning was a member of the first three planning groups; he provided institutional data and obtained informa‘tion about planning activities at other universities. The Vice-President assignments together addressed :
(Academic) provided these with examples of topics to be
Planning Group One (PGl). To determine means for assessing the University’s capabilities and capacities; to begin as soon as possible the process of assessment, especially where pressing issues are concerned; and to identify courses of action that will bring us into accord with our capabilities and capacities. Planning Group Two (PG2).
zation
of the University’s
To attempt a rationalicomputing activity.
Planning Group
Three (PG3). To assess the University’s graduate activity and offer advice where there is need for improvement. Planning Group Four (PG4).
policies
for accommodating
To develop University program initiatives.
At initial meetings of senior administrators planning groups in 1983, the Vice-President demic) identified these aspects:
(1)
and (Aca-
An on-going academic strategy is needed for guidance of the physical, financial and administrative components.
(2) Planning
will be grounded in the new reality that a mismatch exists between resources and mandate.
(3) The
overall objective is to produce concrete planning assumptions that will enable administrators to make enlightened institutional choices
1990 within existing resources.
and
possibly
depleting
(4) The
planning activity will be a blend of central initiative and activities at the department and faculty levels.
(5) Existing
statements about the University’s sion will be accepted.
mis-
(6) The PACCR
initiative
reviews and the strategic planning will be complementary.
(7) The
President will provide general leadership and policy co-ordination through a steering group including the Vice-President (Academic) -who will have chief operational responsibility for planning-and the Vice-President (Finance).
PGl struggled with the problem of how to ascertain the U of A’s capabilities-what can it do-and its capacities-how many students it can effectively teach in the various programs. Its dclibcrations during the first 6 months wcrc diverted because the U of A faced a problem of rapidly increasing cnrolments and the Vice-President (Academic) requested that PGl make dcvclopmcnt ofa means of coping with this its first priority. After that, PGl split into two sub-groups-one addressed the question of assessment of capacity of the U of A, while the other concentrated upon the U of A’s mission especially with respect to liberal education. The first sub-group cxamincd the possibility of having all academic dcpartmcnts assess their capacity for teaching and supervising undergraduate and discarded this graduate students, but eventually idea. The issue of computing involved PG2 in the most meeting time of any group. ‘Computing’ proved to be a highly pcrvasivc function. Two extensive surveys of opinions and computer usage on campus were conducted; replies were rcccived from 1116 staff and 133 administrators. PG2’s report and related information assisted the directors of the academic and support computing ccntrcs in their operations, even bcforc the overall draft planning report was prepared. PG3 decided against asking faculty mcmbcrs to complete a qucstionnairc about aspects of the administration of graduate studies but rather to prepare recommendations based upon its collective experience and opinions. Many of the group’s deliberations focused upon the rclativc place within graduate studies of the preparation of future and the continuing proacademics/researchers fessional education at the master’s dcgrcc level. PG4 considered both how new programs could bc incorporated into U of A offerings at a time of financial constraint and rcduccd govcrnmcnt support for such programs and which new programs should have priority.
+ I
Four Planning Groups
Second Report
Figure 2. Major steps in the strategic planning process
#
Establishment
University Administrators and Committees
Vice-President (Academic) I
President’s Steering Committee
Interactions
4
Vice-President (Academic)
and
Recommendations
interactions
/
First Report
President’s Steering Committee
110
Long Range
Planning
Vol. 23
August
The four deans who chaired the planning groups continually interacted with the President and VicePresidents. Their final reports were discussed by these senior administrators. An Associate VicePresident (Academic) prepared a summary document in 1986 entitled The Next Decade and Beyond: A Plan for the Future. About 5000 copies of this report were distributed both on and off campus. In its foreword, the President invited ‘thoughts and suggestions’ about this First Report. Following receipt of many submissions and further discussions, and the holding of hearings in various locations in Alberta, a Second Report, Draft Policies: The Next Decade and Beyond, was produced in 1987 and distributed less widely. In the foreword the President emphasized the following points: (a) the document will be studied by the major decision-making bodies; (b) these deliberations will probably lead to modifications; (c) the U of A should soon endorse policies to guide future development; and (d) an on-going planning mechanism will be developed. Reports from
Planning
Groups
The four reports prepared by the planning groups differed substantially. PGl prepared a philosophy statement-which emphasized excellence in scholarship, research, teaching, learning, and serviceand identified strategic statements and examples of operational procedures which could be taken to achieve these excellence goals. It did not provide measures of the university’s capabilities and capacities, mainly because of unanticipated difficulties in assessing these variables. A major recommendation of PGl was that a mandatory core curriculum based on 10 specific areas-for example, Technology, Literature and the Arts, and Moral and Legal Reasoning-be taken by all first-year students so that they would obtain a distinctively well-rounded education. PG2 prepared a lengthy list of detailed recommendations about computing. Many of its deliberations related to (a) the linkage between academic and administrative computing facilities and (b) the need to develop a campus-wide computing network. PG2 argued that computing is the most important change agent in higher education today and that academic staff, support staff and students arc all potentially touched by the technology. For graduate studies, PG3 emphasized the goal of doubling the proportion of full-time graduate students from about 12 to about 20 per cent. This was considered desirable if the U of A were to achieve first-class status, which was seen to be associated far more with graduate programs than with undcrgraduate programs. A substantial number ofrecommendations were provided, including the need for the provincial government and the corporate sector to provide an additional %20-25m for new faculty positions, graduate assistantships, and start-up and infrastructure costs.
1990 PG4 identified the following program initiatives in this priority order: (a) a major graduate program in a broad range of areas; (b) a curriculum which would ensure that all undergraduate students receive a liberal education; (c) program initiatives to meet the needs of communities in northern Alberta; (d) maintenance of current professional programs; and (e) expansion of international initiatives. PG4 also identified these ‘facilitating priorities’ which were not in rank order-accessibility, innovative instruction, support by external groups, and better use of facilities. First Report The First Report, which was widely distributed, contained several policies and major recommendations placed in the context of the U of A’s position that teaching, research and service to the community were its major responsibilities. The main goal was identified as achieving excellence and being among the world’s best universities. This raised several questions such as should excellence be pursued selectively or broadly? How can excellence be balanced with the heavy demands of service courses, such as English, which are provided by one department for students from other departments? In what areas must we develop programs to meet emerging societal needs ? How should_ scholarship and research activities be fostered? Graduate programs were ranked first in priority for development especially because the scholarship and reputation of any university were seen to be heavily dependent upon graduate research and the number of graduate degrees awarded. Devclopmcnt of strong doctoral programs in areas of excellence was perceived to be the foundation of the U of A’s research policy. The goal of 20 per cent graduate students in 15 years was set, but reference to associated costs was dclctcd. At the undcrgraduatc level, liberal education was emphasized. Also discussed were programs relevant to northern communities and the professions, togcthcr with the needs to assess continuation of full-time study rcquircmcnts and to implcmcnt greater use of computer-based instruction. Because funding difficulties existed, the First Report recommended that any new programs should either have lower demands for new funds or be funded through other mechanisms. The need for broad involvement of the University community in on-going planning activities was emphasized. Second
Report
About 18 months after the First Report was distributed, the University in 1987 published the Second Report which incorporated suggestions from the internal and external committees and hearings. The President again invited reactions to the Second Report, which consisted of 12 sections; some highlights of their content are provided below (see Figure 3).
Strategic
Planning
at a Canadian
111
University
Jnds
Professional Associations
Fig11x-c 3. Interactions arc finely shaded.)
among
components
involved
Many of the rccommcndations and issues idcntificd in the First Report wcrc rcpcatcd, but the major goal of the Second Report was that the size of the U of A should bc limited to 25,000 students in Winter Session credit programs, consisting of 20,000 undcrgraduates and 5000 graduates. The possible needs for more quotas, incrcascd rcsourctis, and divcrsification of funding sources wcrc rccognizcd. Scvcral matters which wcrc not addrcsscd in detail in the First Report wcrc discussed in the Second Report, including student access to the University, the quality of student lift, relationships with public and private sectors, international activities, conditions of cmploymcnt, and physical facilities and material rcsourccs. Two new thcmcs wcrc introduced, namely that co-operative or work-study programs bc cncouragcd and that part-time studies should no longer bc viewed as abnormal after 1992. Rclationships with other post-secondary institutions wcrc fully trcatcd in the Second Report, and scvcral specific actions, for cxamplc, continuation of active co-operation with other Alberta institutions to facilitate student transfer, wcrc rccommcndcd. In
in planning.
(Note: the four strategic
gcncral, the Second Report covered of issues than did its prcdcccssor.
planning
a broader
foci
range
Follow-up Activities A brief ovcrvicw is provided below of some of the actions taken by the University and by the provincial government. Draft policies. The politics cnunciatcd in the Second Report have been very influential. The University has dccidcd to have an cnrolmcnt target of 25,000 students, as rccommcndcd. Increased support is being provided for graduate students, and doctoral programs have been identified as a priority by the current Prcsidcnt who took of?icc in 1989. The provincial government has approved expansion of a community college in Edmonton at which more students can undertake the initial years of their first dcgrcc. Computing activities and co-ordination have rcccivcd increasing emphasis; a director of a combined academic-administration computing operation was appointed in 1987. Employment practiccs wcrc scrutinized and scvcral changes made.
112
Long Range
Planning
Vol. 23
August
Not all of the recommendations were implemented, as could be expected, but they certainly helped to sensitize the campus community to many issues. Unfortunately, reductions in capital grants from the provincial government have not permitted the expansion of physical facilities needed to allow for large-scale increases in numbers of graduate students and attainment of other objectives. FactrIty ofEdtrcatio~. In 1986, the Faculty of Education commenced a strategic planning project because the University’s strategic planning activity had implications for each faculty and because the PACCR reviews of individual departments did not address matters relevant to the Faculty as a whole. This approach was consistent with Micek’s view presented above. Various task forces were established, hearings held, draft reports prepared, reactions obtained, and a final report” containing recommendations and issues to be addressed was distributed in 1989. The Faculties of Law and Extension have undertaken somewhat more limited planning in relation to PACCR activities. Provincial co-ordination. In May 1989 the Alberta Department of Advanced Educatior?’ distributed ‘guidelines regulating planning activities of all postsecondary institutions in the province. The U of A strategic planning activity probably had bearing on this government action. The guidelines state that ‘each institution has an ongoing responsibility for maintaining a current institutional development plan and for maintaining the currency of the courses and programs it offers’. A proposed mandate statement, dealing with current programs and longer-term directions, enrolment projections, and funding requirements, is to be included. Each plan is to be revised at least every 5 years, is to relate to previous plans, is to be distributed to other postsecondary institutions, is to be reviewed by the Department, and is to be updated annually in association with the institution’s budget submission. Administrative
organization. When the U of A’s planning activity began, the Vice-President (Academic) was assigned half-time to planning functions. This action indicated the seriousness with which planning was viewed. However, other administrative responsibilities and prcssurcs prevented the Vice-President from being as heavily involved in planning from 1983-1989. In 1989, the new President re-introduced the approach that the Vice-President (Academic) would have the major responsibility for strategic planning, and simultaneously announced organizational changes to facilitate this reorientation.
Concluding
Comment
The original intent of the U of A’s strategic planning activity was to focus upon four selected areas-capacity and capability, computing, gra-
1990 duate studies, and new programs. But reactions to the First Report broadened the scope to encompass aspects such as physical facilities, student access, external relations, and employment policies. This was understandable and probably predictable; nevertheless, the initial decisions to restrict the scope of considerations to four major emerging areas of concern and to have different planning groups discuss each of these were defensible. As an approach it can be recommended, but care should be given to careful selection of the planning areas to avoid overlay and to ensure that the planning focus is not too narrow. What else was learnt? We can fairly state that ‘planning of the planning’ was ad hoc in that we were uncertain as to where each step would lead and to some extent we fell into strategic planning. Maintaining a fit with the environment, which is the essence of the definition of strategic planning provided above, became a central part of the U of A’s activity cvcn though it was not an initial priority. We must acknowledge that some of the factors which experts state can reduce the effectiveness of planning were involved in the U of A’s activity, especially some turnover of senior administrators, the loose linkage of plans and budgets, and separation of many of the planning group members from decision-making processes. Our experience supports the implications of Schmidtlcin and Milton concerning both central leadership and faculty initiative, trust, political realities, importance of the process, and periodic planning. We also agree that skillful improvization and careful judgement cannot be replaced by a detailed planning blueprint, and that the lessons and impediments identified by Peterson and Sibley, especially the rcliancc upon external funding, are valid. We have found the information obtained through our program reviews to be of very substantial importance in planning. Some generalizations from these reviews, such as those about graduate studies, were valuable for university-level planning, whereas conclusions about individual departments and facilities are obviously more valuable for planning at the unit level. The reviews-planning linkage although somewhat serendipitous, had mutual benefits. With respect to successes and failures, perhaps the most significant success has been in the computing area where several major developments were supported by the planning documents. To speak of rather, we prefer to ‘failures’ is inappropriate; identify the following areas as those in which we have achieved less than was hoped for-expansion of the graduate proportion and development of a core curriculum. As referred to above, possibly the planning process has had its greatest impact in sensitizing the university community to a variety of
Strategic issues, with manifest not being directly documents. In some to that of the muted upon policy, in that arc more influential
results coming later and often identified with the planning ways, such expericncc is similar impact of social science research socio-economic-cultural factors than are research results.?”
Planning
at a Canadian
113
University
of Sixth Annual Forum of the European Association Institutional Research, Free Uruversity of Brussels (1984).
for
(10) W. M. Sibley, Strategic planmng and management for change,
The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 16 (2). 81-102 (1986). G. Keller, Academic Strategy: The Management Revolution in Higher Education, The Johns Hopkins University Press,
Baltimore (1983).
(11) D. Lelong and R. Shirley, Planning: identifying the focal points
we recommend that univcrsitics In summary, contemplating strategic planning should carefully identify their foci, adopt appropriate proccdurcs, involve senior administrators in group discussions, cmphasizc the process more than the product, USC conproper timing, be aware of cnvironmcntal straints, couple planning with budgeting, and, above all, acknowlcdgc the political rcalitics of university lift.
for action, Planning
planning and management in higher education, in J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, Vol. IV, Agathon, New York (1988).
comment les concilier? Politiques 69-113 (1986).
(3)
for
D. W. Lang, Planning and decision making in universities, CSSHE Professional File, Canadian Society for the Study of Higher Education, 4. l-l 4 (1988).
and
Techniques
of Futures
(6)
Schmidtlein and Milton, op. cit., p. 1.
(7)
Hearn, op. cit., p. 212.
Research.
39,
(8)
Lang, op. cit., p. 2.
(9)
S. S. Micek, Applying strategic planning in academic departments: taking charge of change, in C. H. Belanger (Ed.), Beyond Retrenchment: Planning for Quality and Efficiency, Proceedings
et Management
Public, 4 (4).
E. E. Chaffee, Successful strategic management in small private colleges, Journal of Higher Education, 55 (2), 212-241 (1984)
(15)
Sibley, op. cit., pp. 85-86.
(16)
Schmidtlein and Milton, op. cit., p. 5.
(17)
Lang, op. cit., p. 2.
(18)
Schmidtlein and Milton, op. cit., pp. 2-3.
(19)
F. van Vught, A new autonomy in European higher education? Unpublished paper, University of Twente. The Netherlands (1986).
(20)
Hearn, op. cit., p. 214.
(21)
D. W. Lang, Linking plans and budgets, CSSHE Professional File, Canadian Society for the Study of Higher Education, 5, l-11
(1989).
(22)
Lang, op. cit., pp. 8-l 0 (1988).
(23)
Schmidtlein and Milton, op. cit., pp. 15-l 7.
(24)
M. W. Peterson, Continuity, challenge and change: an organizational perspective on planning past and future, Planning for
(25)
Applying Methods 85-98 ( 1983).
(1984).
(14)
Higher Education,
R. B. Heydinger, Institutional research and planning: is futures research the next step? in J. L. Morrison, W. L. Renfro and W. I. Boucher (Eds), New Directions in Institutional Research:
l-7
Hearn, op. cit., pp. 246-247.
(4) J. C. Hearn, op. cit., pp. 217-223. (5)
12 (4).
(13)
(2) F. A. Schmidtlein and T. H. Milton, College and university planning: perspectives from a nationwide study, Planning . Higher Education, 17 (3). l-l 9 (1988-l 989).
Education,
(12) T. Nilsson, Planification d’aujord’hui et realite de demain:
References (1) J. C. Hearn, Strategy and resources: economic issues in strategic
for Higher
14 (3),
6-l 5 (1986).
University Grants Committee, A Strategy for Higher Education Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London (1984).
into the 7990s. (26) (27)
Hearn, op. cit. Faculty of Education, Mapping
the Future:
University of Alberta, A Focus
on Priority
Exploring and Issues. Edmonton,
Alberta (1989). (28)
(29)
Alberta Department of Advanced Education, Guidelines System Development, Edmonton, Canada (1989).
for
See. for example. E. A. Holdaway. Making research matter, The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 32 (3). (1986); and F. Heller (Ed.), The Use and Abuse Science, Sage, London (1986).
249-264 of Social