Strategic Planning vs. Conventional Long Range Planning

1. 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) Strategic Planning vs. Conventional Long Range Planning

2. Planning, Assessment, and Improvement: The Penn State Model Step 1 Where are we now? • Identify current state • through existing data. • Forecast future trends. • Identify stakeholder needs • & wants. Step 5 How do we get there? • Target key processes for • improvement. • Develop action plans to • close the gaps. • Implement action plans. Step 2 Where should we be in the future? Develop or renew: vision, mission and goals Step 4 Step 3 How will we know when we get there? How far do we have to go? • Identify gaps between • where we are now and • where we want to be. • Identify performance • indicators that align with mission, vision, & goals to measure outcomes.  2006 Office of Planning and Institutional Assessment, Penn State University. p:/Q&P Presentations/Models & Diagrams/Integrating Planning, Assessement 5 Circles.ppt

3. 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.

4. Institution Niche BuildingCommon Strategies for Capturing Market Share: In Business • High Quality • Low Cost • Convenient • Special Product • In Higher Education • Medallion/Name Brand • Best Buy • Special Opportunity • User Friendly/Convenient

5. Strategic NichesSeparate Competitive Markets in higher Education: National (US News) • 126 Top Tier Universities • 122 Other Universities • 110 Top Tier Liberal Arts Colleges • 104 Other Lib. Arts Coll. • Regional (US News) • North • Bachelors • Masters • South • Bachelors • Masters • Midwest • Bachelors • Masters • West • Bachelors • Masters Local Most Community Colleges

6. 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

7. 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. Public = University of Virginia, Fla. State Univ. Private = Harvard, Stanford, & Cornell University SUNY Albany, U.C. Santa Barbara Strategy Balanced, Rounded Image Examples:

8. SUNY Binghamton, U.C. Santa Cruz Strategy Public Ivy Image Fewer Students = Selective Higher Quality Invest in Undergraduate Education Public = William & Mary Successful Models: Private = Dartmouth, Princeton, Rice

9. Invest Heavily in Research & Graduate Education Recruit Faculty Stars SUNY Stony Brook, U.C. Berkeley Strategy National Research University Image Successful Models: Public = Michigan, Texas Private = Johns Hopkins

10. 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.

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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)

14. Strategic Planning Model (Shirley and Volkwein, 1978) External Needs, Opportunities, and Constraints Institutional Mission Educational Philosophy, Role and Scope, Goals and Objectives Decisions on Programs, Priorities, Policies, Budgets “Matching Process” Internal Strengths and Capabilities

15. Criteria for Evaluation of Existing and Proposed Programs Program Evaluation Criteria QUALITY Quality of Faculty Quality of Students Quality of Library Holdings Quality of Facilities & Equipment NEED Centrality to Mission Present Student Demand Projected Student Demand Demand for Graduates Locational Advantage Comparative Advantage COST Cost/Revenue Relationship Other Costs and Benefits Program Clusters The Programs to be continued at the current level of activity regarding resource allocation, enrollments and number of faculty. 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. Rating Categories Exceptional, Strong, Adequate, Weak High, Medium, Low Excellent, Adequate, Insufficient Excellent, Adequate, Insufficient Yes, No High, Moderate, Low Growing, Stable, Declining High, Medium, Low Yes, No Yes, No Good, Adequate, Poor (Listing) Evaluation of Individual Programs

16. Pros and Cons of Selective vs. “Across-the-Board” Program and Budget Actions

17. 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).

18. 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.