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