Post on 19-Oct-2019
UNIVERSITY LEADERSHIP COUNCIL
Developing and Administering Strategic
Plans
Custom Research Brief
I. Research Methodology
II. Executive Overview
III. Overview Table
IV. Administrative Structures and Strategic Planning
Leadership
V. Engaging Institution Stakeholders
VI. Implementing a Strategic Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS RESEARCH
ASSOCIATE Laura Nickelhoff
RESEARCH
MANAGER Ehui Nyatepe-Coo
THE ADVISORY BOARD COMPANY WASHINGTON, D.C.
II. EXECUTIVE OVERVIEW
2
© 2011 The Advisory Board Company
Project Challenge
Leadership at a member institution approached the Council with the following questions:
Project Sources
Education Advisory Board’s internal and online (www.educationadvisoryboard.com) research
libraries
National Center for Education Statistics [NCES] (http://nces.ed.gov/)
What organizational structures do other institutions use to develop and maintain strategic
plans?
Which administrators lead the strategic planning process at other institutions?
How do other institutions effectively engage campus and external stakeholders such as faculty,
staff, and students in the planning process?
Do other institutions align the reaccreditation and strategic planning processes?
Who is responsible for implementing and maintaining strategic plans once they are created,
and how do other institutions measure the progress of the plan’s initiatives?
II. EXECUTIVE OVERVIEW
3
© 2011 The Advisory Board Company
Research Parameters
The Council targeted its outreach to administrators responsible for strategic planning at large research
universities across the United States.
A Guide to the Institutions Profiled in this Brief
Institution Location Type
Approximate
Enrollment
(total/undergraduate)
Classification
University A West 4-year,
Public 70,400/56,600
Research Universities
(very high research
activity)
University B Northeast 4-year,
Private 20,900/13,900
Research Universities
(very high research
activity)
University C South 4-year,
Private 13,400/7,200
Research Universities
(very high research
activity)
University D Midwest 4-year,
Public 21,100/18,300
Doctoral/Research
Universities
University E Midwest 4-year,
Public 42,500/32,400
Research Universities
(very high research
activity)
University F Midwest 4-year,
Private 20,500/9,500
Research Universities
(very high research
activity)
University G Midwest 4-year,
Public 29,500/21,200
Research Universities
(very high research
activity)
University H South 4-year,
Public 24,400/15,600
Research Universities
(very high research
activity)
University I Midwest 4-year,
Public 42,200/30,200
Research Universities
(very high research
activity)
Source: National Center for Education Statistics
II. EXECUTIVE OVERVIEW
4
© 2011 The Advisory Board Company
Key Observations
Contacts recommend that senior administrators lead the strategic planning process to promote
engagement in the process across the campus community. Senior leadership’s management of the
strategic plan typically signifies that the finalized plan will truly impact institutional goals and
priorities. Faculty, staff, and students are more likely to participate in a planning process if they know
that initiatives proposed in the plan will ultimately be funded and implemented.
Although administrators in charge of academic affairs typically play a central role in the
planning process, several institutions also include finance or budget administrators in the
planning process. Contacts emphasize that streamlining academic and financial planning is
important because it ensures that adequate financial resources will be available to enact the priorities
of the strategic plan. Contacts suggest that incorporating fundraising initiatives in the strategic plan
helps to provide adequate financial resources to implement the plan.
Institution-specific characteristics and history inform the scope of the strategic planning
process. At institutions that use a responsibility centered management fiscal system where
departments and colleges have financial autonomy, the lack of centrally managed financial
resources makes it difficult to implement the initiatives of an institution-wide strategic plan.
Although reaccreditation and strategic planning processes typically occur independently,
contacts recommend coordinating the two processes. Contacts report that reaccreditation is
typically a natural precursor to strategic planning and offers administrators an opportunity for
institutional self-study.
Contacts emphasize the importance of creating a transparent strategic planning process by
providing all campus stakeholders with opportunities to view and comment on drafts of the
plan. Contacts report that faculty, staff, and students are more accepting of a strategic plan when they
are involved in its creation. Contact institutions engage campus stakeholders through inclusion on
committees, live and virtual discussion forums, meetings with campus groups, and surveys. Contacts
stress that administrators’ willingness to publish unrefined drafts of the plan increases the success of
the process because it engages the public and allows stakeholders to offer insights, comments, and
constructive criticism.
Administrators overseeing strategic planning typically invite feedback from the Board of
Trustees and other external stakeholders, such as local government agencies, during the
planning process. Contacts recommend that drafts of the strategic plan be presented to the Board of
Trustees to ensure that the plan aligns with the vision, goals, and priorities of an institution.
Administrators at several contact institutions hold formal discussions with board members to facilitate
a detailed and thoughtful discussion about the strategic plan. Additionally, planning leaders at contact
institutions also hold meetings with city and county government officials to incorporate external
perspectives into the strategic plan.
Contact institutions use a variety of methods to oversee and implement the initiatives proposed
in a strategic plan. Administrators of strategic plans typically delegate responsibility for plan
maintenance to academic affairs administrators, although at some institutions, members of the
strategic planning steering committee or the finance and budget office implement the initiatives of the
plan.
II. EXECUTIVE OVERVIEW
5
© 2011 The Advisory Board Company
Contacts report that though college- and department-level academic plans do not formally align
with an institution’s central strategic plan, strategic planning at the institution level provides a
loose framework for academic planning within colleges. Contacts note that the annual budgeting
process also streamlines institution-wide and department-level planning by allocating additional funds
to department-level efforts that promote institutional priorities such as globalization or
interdisciplinary work.
III. SUMMARY TABLE
6
© 2011 The Advisory Board Company
F: Office or constituent group is formally engaged in the strategic planning process by assuming leadership positions, serving on committees, etc.
I: Office or constituent group is informally engaged in the strategic planning process and may provide input during the drafting state of a strategic
plan.
Y: Accreditation is formally aligned with the strategic planning process through intended coordination of the two processes.
X: Accreditation and strategic planning operate simultaneously although the two processes are not formally aligned.
Institution Charge Provost Finance/
Budget
Institutional
Research
Student
Affairs
University
Advance-
ment
Health
Affairs Faculty Staff Students Alumni
Accredi
tation
University A President F F
University B Provost F F
University C Provost F F F I I I
University D President F F F F F I I I
University E
No
Centralized
Plan
University F Provost F I F F F X
University G President F F F F
University H President F F F I I I
University I Provost F I I I F I I I Y
IV. ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURES AND PLANNING
LEADERSHIP
7
© 2011 The Advisory Board Company
Administrative Leadership of Strategic Planning
At most contact institutions, senior administrators charge and lead the strategic planning process. Although
strategic planning may be initiated by the president or the provost, the provost typically plays a leadership
role in the planning process. Contacts emphasize that strategic planning efforts should originate among
executive leadership in order to bolster faculty confidence in the process. Contacts at University F report
that one of the biggest challenges to their strategic planning process was faculty member’s skepticism
about the strategic plan’s potential to truly impact institutional priorities. The president and provost played
key roles in communicating the plan’s legitimacy to the campus community, thereby energizing faculty to
participate in the process..
Involvement in the strategic planning process by senior administrative leadership is especially important at
institutions with limited experience in strategic planning because administrators have an institution-wide
perspective that faculty typically lack and are better able to evaluate proposed initiatives for financial
feasibility.
At several contact institutions, representatives from other administrative offices assist the provost or
associate provost in leading the planning process. Including a broad range of administrative offices in the
planning process ensures that the effort results in comprehensive and viable initiatives built on the
cooperative effort of senior administrators with varied specialties. For example, administrators at
University H align fundraising efforts and capital planning with strategic planning to integrate the
institution’s financial and academic goals.
Financial affairs, health affairs, and institutional research are among the various administrative offices that
share responsibility for leading strategic planning processes at contact institutions.
Financial Affairs
Institutional Research
Health Affairs
Budget or finance administrators at University H, University A, and University D
assume leadership roles in the planning process. At University H, the provost, chief
financial officer, and senior planner direct the university planning process to integrate
the financial and academic objectives of the plan.
The health colleges at University C undertook strategic planning several years before
the entire university embraced strategic planning, so when the Board of Trustees
charged the university president with creating a university-wide strategic plan, the
Executive Vice President for Health Affairs and other affairs administrators contributed
their experience and expertise to the process.
The strategic planning office at University F is administered by the same vice president
as the office for institutional research and the two offices worked closely during the
planning process. Contacts report that the close structural relationship between the
strategic planning and institutional research offices facilitates the inclusion of
institutional data into the strategic planning process and results in a more detailed and
effective strategic plan.
IV. ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURES AND PLANNING
LEADERSHIP
8
© 2011 The Advisory Board Company
Determining Administrative Structures for Strategic Planning
The administrative structure established at contact institutions to develop strategic plans relies on a variety
of institutional characteristics, including an institution’s strategic planning history, an institution’s
financial status, and the structure of academic and administrative leadership. Consequently, contact
institutions use distinct organizational structures to develop and maintain strategic plans. The goals of a
strategic plan dictate how much involvement administrators will seek from the larger campus community.
Institutions creating academically focused strategic plans tend to engage a limited number of campus
constituents, while institutions attempting to write broader institution-wide strategic plans seek
engagement from all campus constituents. Furthermore, the economic climate in which institutions
undertake strategic planning may impact the extent to which they incorporate financial planning into the
institution-wide plan. During the current economic downturn, several institutions have struggled to allocate
adequate funding for strategic initiatives.
Despite the impact of external factors and institution-specific characteristics on administrative structures
for strategic planning, contacts recommend that institutions with little experience in strategic planning use
a senior administrator-led hierarchical planning structure. Contacts explain that while faculty members
may serve as idea generators, administrators are needed to ensure that proposed ideas are financially
feasible. As institutions gain strategic planning experience they may begin to incorporate more grassroots
methods of planning and engage a wider variety of stakeholders. Contacts at University I emphasize that
their comprehensive strategic planning process evolved over several decades, giving administrators the
time to engrain strategic planning into the institutional culture.
Strategic Planning Led by
Academic Affairs
Administrators at University B began the most recent strategic planning process in 2009,
when the financial recession prevented administrators from completing a long-term financial
plan. Instead, the strategic planning process focused entirely on academic initiatives, while
evaluating and allocating the needed financial resources needed to realize the priorities in the
plan on an annual basis, during the budgeting process.
Combining Administrative
Leadership with Engagement across
Campus
Contacts at University G report that the most recent strategic planning effort was the most
effective because it incorporated both administrative leadership and close involvement from
the larger campus community. Contacts explain that an administrator-led process ensures that
the initiatives laid out in the plan are viable. Yet, actively involving all stakeholders in the
planning process secures commitment from across the campus to the plans initiatives by
generating support from groups that typically have little influence in institutional leadership at
the central level, such as students, staff, and faculty
IV. ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURES AND PLANNING
LEADERSHIP
9
© 2011 The Advisory Board Company
Aligning the Strategic Planning and Reaccreditation Processes at University I
University I’s first campus-wide strategic plan was developed in 1989, as a byproduct of the reaccreditation
process. Since then, administrators have continued to align the strategic planning and reaccreditation
processes, using reaccreditation as an opportunity to identify the institution’s strengths and weaknesses, and
evaluating opportunities for growth. While aligning the strategic planning process to reaccreditation,
administrators at University I also incorporate the perspectives of the entire campus community including,
students, staff, faculty, and alumni, in the drafting of the plan, as seen below.
Assign Leaders to Develop Broad
Themes The Provost appoints administrators,
including chancellors, deans, and vice
provosts, to the Core Reaccreditation
Team. The Core Reaccreditation Team
identifies the broad themes for
reaccreditation by considering:
1. What will it mean to be a great
public university in a changing
world?
2. How will University I uniquely
embody this greatness?
Solicit Campus Input through
Surveys The Core Reaccreditation Team, along with
other faculty and administrators, solicits
engagement from the campus community
through a web-based survey, asking three
open-ended questions:
1. What about University I do you most
value and want to carry forward?
2. Ours is a changing world. In our
changing world, what are issues for
University I to address?
3. What will define University I as a
great public university in the future?
Committees Aggregate Responses
and Identify Primary
Themes/Goals The leadership team analyzes the
responses to the online survey
(approximately 13,000 responses) and
identifies 22 emerging themes. A
leadership group that includes
administrators, alumni, and student
leaders, aggregates the 22 themes into
six overarching themes. Administrators
assign a committee of faculty, staff,
students, and alumni to develop each of
the six themes into potential strategic
initiatives.
Leadership Team Develops Self-
Study After a few weeks of considering
potential initiatives, the committees
submit reports to the Core Reaccreditation
Team, which uses the reports to develop
metrics for a self-study. This evaluation
fuels the development of campus-wide
strategic planning priorities.
IV. ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURES AND PLANNING
LEADERSHIP
10
© 2011 The Advisory Board Company
Decentralized Strategic Planning at University E
University E uses a responsibility centered management fiscal system that permits major academic,
financial, and strategic decisions to be made at the campus and school level, rather than at the central
university level. Autonomy at the school and campus level creates a decentralized leadership structure that
affects the way strategic initiatives are administered at the institution.
When a new president began at University E in 2007, he decided in favor of communicating his vision for
the institution through a mission statement, rather than launching a traditional strategic plan. The document
includes ten to twelve values that the president prioritizes as integral to the mission of the institution.
Contacts report that rather than mandate concrete strategies for institutional improvement for all schools
and campuses within the university, these principles merely act as a loose framework to provide guidance to
schools and campuses, helping them to identify and shape their individual missions.
Although contacts acknowledge that there are challenges with consistency that come with the absence a
central strategic plan, they assert that a decentralized system is most effective at University E, where
individual campuses and departments have autonomy over financial and academic planning. The table
below discusses that advantages and disadvantages of a decentralized strategic planning process in more
detail.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Decentralized Strategic Planning
Advantages:
Contacts at University E argue that decentralized
strategic planning is beneficial because
administrators of individual schools and
programs have more specialized expertise in their
specific areas of focus than do senior
administrators. Consequently, departmental
heads are given the opportunity to insightfully
integrate unique issues of concern in their field
into the strategic planning process. For example,
strategic planning at law schools is heavily
influenced by a comparative analysis of programs
and initiatives that exist at competing law
schools. Expectedly, law school administrators
are more knowledgeable about peer institution
performance in the field than a university’s
central leadership and are, thus, better able to
identify areas where a law school can
strategically plan to achieve distinction.
Additionally, contacts emphasize that while an
institution-wide plan can set broad goals for
research, interdisciplinary work, and
globalization, administrators within individual
academic faculties are best equipped to translate
these themes into the specific needs of their area.
Disadvantages:
Because strategic planning at University E occurs
at the campus and school level, the centralized
strategic planning department is small and does
not collaborate strongly with the office of
institutional research. Although individual
departments might have more specialized
knowledge of their field, they also lack the time
and personnel required to fully integrate data
collection into the planning process. Though
administrators at University E have prioritized
strengthening the relationship between planning
and institutional research, data still plays a minor
role in campus- and school-level planning.
Furthermore, individual units that create
independent strategic plans rarely communicate
with each other, impeding cohesion among
individual plans.
Although the president’s mission statement
provide a common reference point for schools
and campuses at University E, university
administrators have difficulty ensuring that the
plans contribute collectively to the improvement
of the institution.
V. ENGAGING INSTITUTION STAKEHOLDERS
11
© 2011 The Advisory Board Company
Contacts emphasize that conducting a transparent strategic planning process by creating opportunities for
direct input from the campus community is important because an institution’s stakeholders are more
accepting and supportive of strategic planning when they have the opportunity to contribute.
Administrators achieve transparency by publicizing strategic planning committee membership, posting
drafts of the plan online, and by giving the campus community the opportunity to offer feedback through
discussion forums, surveys, and meetings with interest groups.
Committees
Committee formation is the most common method contact institutions use to increase stakeholder
participation in the strategic planning process. Strategic planning committees typically include faculty
members, students, and, less typically, staff, and focus on single themes or goals of the strategic plan.
Between 100 and 150 individuals typically serve on planning committees.
Characteristics of Planning Committees at Contact Institutions
Members Include a
Variety of Campus
Stakeholders
Committees at University F, University G, and University I include a
variety of faculty, staff, and students to ensure adequate representation
of all opinions and views across campus. Planning committees at
University I also include alumni and community members.
Each Committee Focuses
on a Specific Theme or
Initiative
Each committee is assigned a specific theme or initiative within the
strategic plan to examine in greater depth and to provide feedback on.
Some examples of common strategic planning themes and initiatives
include globalization, teaching, learning, and assessment.
Committees Provide
Formal Feedback to
Planning Leaders
Committees typically provide feedback to planning leaders or senior
administrators through formal reports. At University F, white papers
drafted by each planning committee recommend potential initiatives to
transform and distinguish University F in the areas prioritized by the
strategic plan.
Number of Committees
Range from Six to
Thirteen
Institutions where committees participate in the early stages of the
planning process and work to brainstorm initiatives for the plan typically
include a larger number of committees in the process. When committees
are responsible for examining specific initiatives in greater detail, each
initiative is assigned to a committee.
V. ENGAGING INSTITUTION STAKEHOLDERS
12
© 2011 The Advisory Board Company
Dedicated Websites
Planning leaders typically disseminate drafts of strategic plans to the public on websites dedicated to
communicating strategic planning initiatives; a few contact institutions also provide hard copy versions of
drafts to the public as well. Distributing drafts or presenting information online allows stakeholders the
opportunity to provide feedback throughout the planning process, and not only after the plan is
completed.
Public Discussion Forums
At several contact institutions, planning leaders hold discussion forums or town hall meetings throughout
the planning process. At these meetings, administrators present drafts of strategic plans to groups of
students, staff, and faculty, who then have the opportunity to offer feedback about the content of the plan.
Public forums take a variety of forms, including retreats and online discussions, but they most commonly
occur as town hall meetings.
Provide Stakeholders with Early Drafts During the most recent planning effort at University H, planning leaders published early drafts of the
strategic plan on a dedicated website. Stakeholders had the opportunity to read the drafts and submit
comments to the individuals responsible for writing the plan. These comments were collected and
distributed to the planning committee; recommendations were then incorporated into the final plan.
Contacts emphasize that incorporating feedback from across the campus community was one of the
most successful aspects of the planning process, and represents a major change from previous strategic
processes. Historically, administrators at University H have been hesitant to publish unrefined
documents, but contacts report that allowing the public to view and critique unfinished versions of the
strategic plan provides a wider breadth of perspectives to be incorporated into the process and
ultimately improves the quality of the final document.
Town Hall Meetings Online Forums Retreats
Planning leaders make
brief presentations about
the proposed themes
and goals of the
strategic plan to public
attendees. Community
members have the
opportunity to share
ideas and opinions
about the drafts.
Administrators at
University C created
online forums where the
public could access
drafts of the strategic
plan and discuss their
opinions of the drafts in
online discussion
threads.
Planners at University
C held weekend retreats
to gather feedback from
faculty members and
senior administrators
who were not selected
to serve on formal
planning committees.
V. ENGAGING INSTITUTION STAKEHOLDERS
13
© 2011 The Advisory Board Company
Meetings with Campus Associations
In addition to open discussion forums, planning leaders also meet with specific groups of students, staff,
and faculty to receive more formal input from influential members of the campus community. These
meetings may function as an alternative to planning committees and workgroups that include campus
stakeholders, or they may be held in addition to committee meetings.
Surveys
University I employed a comprehensive effort to gather widespread public opinion about the strategic
plan by using surveys. A web-based survey was sent to thousands of students, faculty, and staff on
campus, as well as more than 130,000 alumni living around the world. About three percent of individuals
who received the survey responded. The surveys asked the following questions:
Group Meetings as Alternatives
to Committees
Group Meetings in Addition to
Committees
Although administrators at
University D did not involve staff,
students, or faculty in the formal
planning process, planning leaders
met with about 25 student and
faculty groups to obtain feedback
on the plan. The planners met with
associations including the athletic
council, the Spanish club, the
graduate council, and faculty in
the college of business to better
understand their priorities for the
institution and to diversify the
perspectives represented in the
strategic plan.
The strategic planning steering
committee at University F
engaged the entire campus
community by including students,
staff, and faculty on the seven
planning workgroups, in addition
to meeting with groups of student
and faculty leaders. In order to
receive honest feedback on the
strategic plan in more informal
settings, administrators met with
the student government and a
group of National Academy
Faculty.
1. What about University I do you value
most and want to carry forward?
2. Ours is a changing world, what are issues
for University I to address?
3. What will define University I as a great
public university in the future?
V. ENGAGING INSTITUTION STAKEHOLDERS
14
© 2011 The Advisory Board Company
Engaging the Board of Trustees and External Stakeholders
Although strategic planning is primarily an internal institutional process, several contacts stress the
importance of including the Board of Trustees and external stakeholders in the planning process. The
Board of Trustees and external parties such as local government agencies and financial donors to the
institution typically do not have direct authority over the planning process, but are consulted because of
their close ties to the institution and their ability to provide unique perspectives, experience, and business
expertise that administrators may lack.
Board of Trustees
The Board of Trustees (or comparable body) at almost all contact institutions participates in the
planning process by providing feedback about drafts of a strategic plan or by endorsing the final
document. Less typically, the Board of Trustees initiates the planning process by charging the
president with creating a university-wide strategic plan, as at University C.
Provides Feedback:
Planning administrators at University F and at
University B formally consulted their Boards of
Trustees about the content, implementation, and
assessment of their strategic plans. The leaders of
the planning process at University B held a day-
long retreat with the members of the Board of
Trustees to generate input on how best to
implement the plan and measure its success. At
University F, the Board of Trustees provided
feedback on drafts and recommended individuals
outside the university community, such as Chief
Executive Officers of large consulting firms,
who could provide informal guidance on the
feasibility of the plan from a business
perspective.
Sets Indicators for Progress:
At University G, the Board of Regents not only
developed an independent strategic plan for the
university, but also created seven metrics by
which to measure the progress of the plan. The
indicators developed by the Board of Regents
include goals to increase graduation rates for
underrepresented minority students, distance
learning enrollment, and sponsored funding for
research. The seven additional metrics created by
university leaders supplement those set by the
Board of Regents and represent the collaboration
between university leaders and the members of
the board.
Endorses the Strategic Plan:
Although the Board of Trustees was not heavily involved during the planning process at University
D, the board endorsed the finalized plan, authorizing the document and ensuring that all university
leaders were in support of the plan.
V. ENGAGING INSTITUTION STAKEHOLDERS
15
© 2011 The Advisory Board Company
Local Government Agencies and Donors to the Institution
Administrators at University G and University D met with top donor societies and local government
officials to receive external feedback about the plan. Although external groups typically do not have
decision-making authority in the strategic planning process, contacts suggest that providing
opportunities for them to participate in the planning process indicates administrators’ awareness that
external parties both impact the institution’s success, and are effected by institutional priorities.
Local Government Officials:
As part of the planning process at University G,
university leaders presented the Mayor of the
surrounding city and the County Board of
Supervisors with drafts of the plan and solicited
their comments and opinions. Contacts suggest
that local government agencies are important
stakeholders because institutions typically have
responsibilities to their surrounding community
and administrators prioritize maintaining good
relationships with community leaders. The
strategic planning task force at University D met
with the city manager and his leadership team to
discuss the institution’s relationship with the
surrounding city.
Donors to the Institution:
Planning leaders at University G also consult
top donor societies to the university during the
strategic planning process. Contacts emphasize
the importance of incorporating financial
planning and fundraising into the university
planning process in order to ensure that the
initiatives in the plan can be feasibly
implemented. Communicating with donors
during planning helps to gauge an institution’s
financial strength and to accurately evaluate
which priorities are financially viable.
VI. IMPLEMENTING THE STRATEGIC PLAN
16
© 2011 The Advisory Board Company
Once a strategic plan is finalized, administrators must actively work to successfully implement its
proposed initiatives. Contact institutions use a variety of mechanisms to oversee the implementation of
the strategic plan and to measure the progress of the plan’s initiatives. Generally, these processes involve
creating annual reports to summarize the qualitative achievements of the strategic plan and measuring the
progress of the plan against several metrics that were designed in conjunction with the strategic plan.
While some institutions delegate responsibility for implementing the plan to mid-level administrators, at
other institutions the planning task force that created the plan also oversees its implementation.
Planning Leaders Delegate Responsibility for Implementation to Academic
Affairs Administrators at University G
At University G, the completed strategic plan is implemented by the academic affairs office. Each
area of focus or theme of the plan becomes the responsibility of a vice provost or other administrator
who oversees the implementation and progress of the specific initiative.
Strategic planning
leadership committee
delegates each initiative
to a designated
administrator for
implementation.
Academic affairs
administrators oversee
the implementation of
each initiative and
develop one- and three-
year metrics to measure
progress.
Academic affairs
administrators highlight
the plan’s successes in
annual progress reports
for university
administrators and the
board of visitors.
University funding
earmarked for each
initiative is provided to
academic affairs
administrators to
implement the strategic
plan.
After three years,
administrators receive
additional funding if they
demonstrate the
initiative’s progress and
outline areas for
improvement.
VI. IMPLEMENTING THE STRATEGIC PLAN
17
© 2011 The Advisory Board Company
Planning Leaders Oversee Strategic Plan Implementation
At University D, the task force that led the planning process also led the implementation of the strategic
plan for two years following the plan’s completion. This group of administrators met regularly to measure
the progress and success of individual initiatives. After two years, the finance and planning office
assumed ownership of the strategic plan and provides annual progress reports to the Board of Trustees.
These annual reports closely examine each goal and account for the actions taken in the previous year to
promote the plan’s initiatives.
Finance Administrators Transition a Strategic Plan to a Financial Plan
At University A, the finalized strategic plan was transitioned to a five-year financial plan. Administrators
use a commitment tracking system to project the costs of implementing the plan’s initiatives and to set
aside the financial resources to achieve the goals of the strategic plan. The planning and budget office
regularly reviews the components of the strategic plan and integrates them into the university budget.
Contacts indicate that one of the benefits of combining strategic and financial planning is that it gives
administrators more control over the implementation timeline for each initiative. The commitment
tracking system designates funding for the initiatives to be implemented at set times the future, allowing
finance administrators to plan several years ahead.
VI. IMPLEMENTING THE STRATEGIC PLAN
18
© 2011 The Advisory Board Company
Aligning Academic Planning with Strategic Planning
After completing the institution-wide strategic plan, administrators typically encourage individual colleges
and departments to align their academic plans with the institution’s central plan. However, contacts stress
that mandating faculty to adhere to an institution’s central plan is an ineffective way of ensuring that the
initiatives in the strategic plan are successfully implemented and typically results in backlash from faculty
members and deans. Rather, administrators use subtler methods to disseminate institutional priorities
throughout academic departments and colleges by allocating additional funds for programs, centers, and
initiatives that support the goals of the central strategic plan and by offering the institution-wide plan as a
framework rather than as a mandatory requirement for department and college plans.
Contacts at University F report that cooperation between college- and university-level plans is
formally attained through the annual budgeting process, when funding is allocated to support the
initiatives highlighted in the strategic plan. For example, the budgeting process designates money to
fund the construction of a new center that is prioritized in the strategic plan. Strategic planning and
budgeting processes may also be informally aligned. For example, one of the overarching themes of
University F’s strategic plan is promoting an interdisciplinary culture; faculty who engage in
interdisciplinary research or serve in multiple departments are offered higher salaries.
Several contact institutions offer the institution-wide strategic plan only as a framework for
department or college plans. This mandates department administrators to conform to the institution’s
plan, and encourages communication among departments, faculty, and administrators. When
administrators within the engineering school at University G underwent the most recent planning
process they looked to the central university plan for inspiration, extrapolating the goals of that plan to
apply to the mission of the engineering school.
Aligning the Budgeting and Strategic Planning Processes
Providing the Institution-wide Plan as a Framework for Department-level Planning
The Advisory Board has worked to ensure the accuracy of the information it provides to its members.
This project relies on data obtained from many sources, however, and The Advisory Board cannot
guarantee the accuracy of the information or its analysis in all cases. Further, The Advisory Board is not
engaged in rendering clinical, legal, accounting, or other professional services. Its projects should not be
construed as professional advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances. Members are advised to
consult with their staff and senior management, or other appropriate professionals, prior to implementing
any changes based on this project. Neither The Advisory Board Company nor its programs are
responsible for any claims or losses that may arise from any errors or omissions in their projects,
whether caused by the Advisory Board Company or its sources.
© 2011 The Advisory Board Company, 2445 M Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20037. Any
reproduction or retransmission, in whole or in part, is a violation of federal law and is strictly prohibited
without the consent of the Advisory Board Company. This prohibition extends to sharing this
publication with clients and/or affiliate companies. All rights reserved.
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES NOTE