Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
STRATEGIC PLANNING IMPLEMENTATION: A CASE
STUDY OF A CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE
by
Jesse Eugene Wilcoxson
B.S. (Humboldt State University) 2000
M.S. (California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo) 2005
A dissertation
submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctorate in Education
Doctoral Program in Educational Leadership at Fresno State
Kremen School of Education and Human Development
California State University, Fresno
2012
ii
ii
Jesse Eugene Wilcoxson
May 2012
Educational Leadership
STRATEGIC PLANNING IMPLEMENTATION: A CASE STUDY OF A CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE
Abstract
Strategic planning is designed to help plan for the future, which affords
institutions the opportunity to avoid or minimize the impact of unforeseen or
sudden events and at the same time implement the institutions goals and
objectives. When completed successfully, strategic planning can provide valuable
insight about the opportunities and challenges that an institution may face.
All colleges within California‘s public community college system conduct
some form of strategic planning. While some institutions struggle with developing
a meaningful strategic plan, other institutions go beyond the required accreditation
standards and put a great deal of effort into making the process effective and
meaningful. This case study was conducted using a California community college
that has placed a strong emphasis on their strategic planning practices. Although
this study focuses predominantly on the implementation phase of the strategic
planning process, all phases of the strategic planning process were investigated.
The study sought to answer five research questions: (a) How are the planning,
documentation and dissemination phases of the strategic planning process
conducted at a community college known for its strategic planning; (b) what
methods have been used to implement the strategic plan; (c) what methods have
been most effective in implementing the strategic plan; (d) what are the biggest
iii
iii
challenges a community college must overcome to successfully implement a
strategic plan; and (e) how is strategic planning implementation monitored?
The findings of this study revealed that SPCC places a strong emphasis on
planning for institutional effectiveness which feeds into the strategic plan,
units/departments are assigned to submit and report on strategic objectives,
strategic decisions are based on the strategic plan, resource allocation is tied
closely to the strategic plan and strategic planning practices at SPCC utilize both a
top-down and a bottom-up approach. Challenges to implementing the strategic
plan include the large size of the institution, resistance to the planning process,
integration of other planning processes with the strategic plan, conducting the
strategic planning process annually and having too many college goals. Methods
to more effectively monitor the implementation of the strategic plan are being
adopted.
iv
iv
Copyright by
Jesse Eugene Wilcoxson
2012
v
v
California State University, Fresno
Kremen School of Education and Human Development
Doctoral Program in Educational Leadership
This dissertation was presented
by
Jesse Eugene Wilcoxson
It was defended on
May 8, 2012
and approved by:
Diane Oliver, Chair
Educational Research and Administration
Juan Carlos González
Educational Research and Administration
Kenneth Magdaleno
Educational Research and Administration
vi
vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to start by thanking my committee members, Dr. Diane Oliver,
Dr. Juan Carlos González and Dr. Kenneth Magdaleno for their guidance and
support. To Diane Oliver, committee chair, I wish to express my sincere
appreciation for her dedication, quick response, and willingness to provide expert
advice. It was a true pleasure to work with individuals who are so knowledgeable
and willing to go out of their way to ensure the successful completion of this
dissertation.
I would also like to thank my entire family, whose support made the
completion of this dissertation possible. A special thanks to my Aunt Joycelynn
for her help with editing, and my mom for her willingness to watch our three
children at a moment‘s notice. Lastly, I would like to thank my wonderful wife
Deanna, and my children, Steven, Ashlynn, and Jesse. They were supportive,
understanding, and they provided me with the inspiration and drive necessary to
complete this dissertation.
vii
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................. xi
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................ xii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 1
Background ......................................................................................................... 1
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................... 6
Significance of the Study .................................................................................... 6
Conceptual Framework ....................................................................................... 8
Definitions ........................................................................................................... 9
Summary ............................................................................................................. 9
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ................................................ 11
History of Strategic Planning ............................................................................ 14
Periods of Development .............................................................................. 16
Use of Business Models in Higher Education ............................................. 20
The Higher Education Context .................................................................... 21
Why Conduct Strategic Planning? .................................................................... 22
Benefits to Strategic Planning ..................................................................... 24
Effective Strategic Planning Practices ........................................................ 27
Accreditation and Strategic Planning ............................................................... 30
Accreditation in the U.S. ............................................................................. 30
Accreditation and Self Studies .................................................................... 33
Strategic Plan Development .............................................................................. 36
Mission, Vision, and Goals ......................................................................... 36
viii
viii
Phase I: Planning ......................................................................................... 39
Phase II: Documentation and Dissemination .............................................. 42
Phase III: Implementation ........................................................................... 45
Phase IV: Monitoring .................................................................................. 52
Summary ........................................................................................................... 57
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY .......................................................................... 59
Review of the Purpose and Research Questions ............................................... 59
Research Design ................................................................................................ 60
Qualitative Methodology ............................................................................. 60
Case Study Approach .................................................................................. 60
Participants and Sampling................................................................................. 61
Case ............................................................................................................. 61
Participants .................................................................................................. 61
Researcher as the Instrument ............................................................................ 63
Data Collection Methods and Procedures ......................................................... 63
Gaining Access ............................................................................................ 63
Questionnaire ............................................................................................... 64
Individual Interviews ................................................................................... 64
Document Review ....................................................................................... 66
Field Notes .................................................................................................. 66
Ethical Considerations ...................................................................................... 67
Data Analysis .................................................................................................... 67
Content Analysis ......................................................................................... 67
Data Managing and Storage ........................................................................ 68
Trustworthiness ................................................................................................. 69
ix
ix
Limitations ........................................................................................................ 71
Summary ........................................................................................................... 71
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS ....................................................................................... 73
Strategic Planning at SPCC .............................................................................. 73
Research Question 1 ......................................................................................... 79
Planning for Institutional Effectiveness ...................................................... 79
Documentation and Dissemination ............................................................. 82
Research Question 2 ......................................................................................... 84
Research Question 3 ......................................................................................... 87
Research Question 4 ......................................................................................... 90
Research Question 5 ......................................................................................... 95
Additional Themes ............................................................................................ 97
Summary ......................................................................................................... 100
CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 102
Summary of Study .......................................................................................... 102
Summary of Findings ...................................................................................... 103
Research Question 1: Plan, Document, Disseminate ................................ 103
Research Question 2: Implement .............................................................. 104
Research Question 3: Effective Methods .................................................. 105
Research Question 4: Challenges .............................................................. 106
Research Question 5: Monitoring ............................................................ 107
Additional Themes .................................................................................... 109
Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 110
Phase I: Planning ....................................................................................... 110
Phase II: Documentation and Dissemination ............................................ 113
x
x
Phase III: Implementation ......................................................................... 114
Phase IV: Monitoring ................................................................................ 117
Institutional Effectiveness and Strategic Planning .................................... 119
Recommendations ........................................................................................... 121
Recommendations for Practice .................................................................. 121
Recommendations for Future Research .................................................... 123
Summary ......................................................................................................... 123
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 125
APPENDIX A: ACCJC RUBRIC FOR EVALUATING INSTITUTIONAL
EFFECTIVENESS .......................................................................................... 137
APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE ............................................. 140
APPENDIX C: INTERVIEW PARTICIPANT INFORMED
CONSENT FORM .......................................................................................... 141
APPENDIX D: SEMISTRUCTURED INTERVIEW QUESTIONS .................. 143
APPENDIX E: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL ........................................................ 145
xi
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1 Norris and Poulton’s “Eras in Planning and Decision Making”............ 17
Table 2 Participant Descriptors and Demographics ............................................ 62
xii
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1. Model of institutional effectiveness that integrates accreditation, planning, assessment, and improvement initiatives. Adapted from ―Accreditation as a Catalyst for Institutional Effectiveness,‖ by Dodd, 2004, New Directions For Institutional Research, 123, p. 18. .... 34
Figure 2. Flow diagram of the SPCC PIE summary process as it feeds into the strategic planning process. ...................................................................... 77
1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Background
Community colleges play a significant role in United States higher
education. There are more than 1,000 community colleges nationwide, accounting
for nearly 25% of all postsecondary institutions (Tollefson, 2009). Collectively,
community colleges enroll about 45% of all college students (Tollefson, 2009).
As one of the largest, California‘s community college system consists of 72
community college districts, comprised of 112 community colleges (California
Community College Chancellor‘s Office [CCCCO], 2011b). As a result of
statewide admission criteria, the top one-eighth of California‘s statewide high
school graduating class must be admitted to the University of California (UC)
system, and the top one-third must be admitted to the California State University
(CSU) system (University of California, 2009). Unlike the UC and CSU systems,
California community colleges must admit any student capable of benefiting from
instruction (University of California, 2009).
On a national scale, full time equivalent (FTE) student enrollment increased
by 35% between 2000 and 2010 (State Higher Education Executive Officers,
2010). Enrollment in California community colleges has increased by 44% over
the past 15 years (CCCCO, 2011a). The California Department of Finance
projected that over a 10-year period, extending through 2013, new student
enrollment in the UC system will increase by 40,145, CSU enrollment will grow
by 84,824, and community colleges will increase their student enrollments by
478,009 (Center for Student Success, 2005). This massive influx of students,
often referred to as Tidal Wave II, is in part due to higher birth rates and
immigration levels in California (Center for Student Success, 2005; Kissler &
2
Switkes, 2005). Approximately 80% of the Tidal Wave II students are expected to
attend community colleges (Center for Student Success, 2005). Many students
who attend community colleges would not have otherwise attempted to engage
with the challenges of higher education. Although community college systems
vary in size from state to state, they are an important educational component for
most states. The California community college system provides a valuable
opportunity for upward social and economic mobility. The California community
college system is the largest in the world and serves over 2.5 million students
annually (Center for Student Success of the Research and Planning Group for
California Community Colleges, 2005). Specifically, 76% of California‘s
undergraduate population attends a community college, as compared to only 45%
for the rest of the country (Moore & Shulock, 2005; Price & Guevara, 2010).
In addition to drastic increases in student enrollments, higher education is
currently facing some of the most difficult financial challenges in several decades
(CCCCO, 2011b; State Higher Education Executive Officers, 2010). When states
are faced with economic recessions and increasing student enrollments, significant
stress is placed on their higher education systems, including California (Center for
Student Success, 2005; Kissler & Switkes, 2005; State Higher Education
Executive Officers, 2010). Issues such as budget cuts, high unemployment rates,
reductions in tax revenues, and increases in health care costs have all had a
negative impact on community colleges (Israel & Kihl, 2005). Funding per full-
time equivalent student (FTES) in the California community college system is
among the nation‘s lowest. California‘s spending per community college student
is $2,500 less than the national average (Price & Guevara, 2010). In 2009-10,
California community colleges experienced a $520 million or 8% budget cut
(CCCCO, 2011a) and the 2011-12 state budget reduced state appropriations to
3
community colleges by $400 million (CCCCO, 2011b). Nationally, in 2010, state
and local support per full-time-equivalent students was $6,451 (State Higher
Education Executive Officers, 2010). Accounting for inflation adjustment, this is
the lowest educational appropriation per FTES that higher education institutions
have experienced in the past 25 years (State Higher Education Executive Officers,
2010). Whereas many students previously had the luxury of attending community
colleges at a low or no cost, many community college students now pay $3,000 or
more per year in tuition and fees. To compensate for reductions in state and local
support, many states, including California, have recently implemented steep
increases in student tuition (Tollefson, 2009).
Another major concern for California community colleges is the low
success rate of many community college students. Although California has placed
a strong emphasis on providing a low cost education and open access to
community colleges, the rate of degree completions and transfers has been less
than desirable. As of 2010, the number of California community college students
who received an associate‘s degree or certificate, or transferred to a 4-year
institution, was less than one-fourth of all community college students (Price &
Guevara, 2010). As indicated by Moore and Shulock (2005) ―on other indicators
of completion, including retention of community college students and the number
of certificates and degrees awarded per 100 undergraduates enrolled, California
performs very poorly in comparison to other states‖ (p. 10). In fact, California
ranks almost last among all states in the number of degrees and certificates
awarded (Shulock & Moore, 2007).
California community colleges are experiencing added pressures from
increased student enrollments, significant reductions in funding, and poor
completion and transfer rates. These issues all raise concerns about how
4
California community colleges can work effectively to address, and potentially
overcome, the hurdles they face. When experiencing such challenges, many
questions regarding reductions in spending, identification of programs requiring
reduction or elimination, methods to increase revenue, revenue investments,
maintenance of student access, evaluation of procedures or programs to make
them more efficient, assessment of the potential for the institution to increase the
completion and transfer rates of students, and others must be considered. Placing
a strong emphasis on effective strategic planning may be one avenue that will help
community colleges address their numerous challenges (Welsh, Nunez, &
Petrosko, 2006).
In addition, accreditation is a driving force behind the strategic planning
process in California community colleges. As indicated by Beno (2011), president
of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC), Accrediting
Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC):
Since 1994 the commission‘s accreditation standards have required
institutions to engage in systematic and regular review of program quality
as well as in short-and long-term planning, and an allocation of resources to
assure that institutions achieve their stated mission and assess and improve
institutional effectiveness. (p. 1)
WASC accredited community colleges have been provided with a rubric that is
used by the ACCJC to evaluate the level of planning and implementation in
community colleges (see Appendix A). The levels of implementation from least-
to-most effective are awareness, development, proficiency, and sustainable
continuous quality improvement (Beno, 2011).
Strategic planning can be described as ―a systematic process designed to
examine the opportunities and challenges related to the college‘s mission and
programs and facilitate the orderly allocation of resources to anticipate and
respond to the changes in both the internal and external environment‖ (Office of
5
the Chancellor, 2004, p. 6). Strategic planning is used as a mechanism for future
planning, which allows organizations to avoid or reduce unexpected events while
implementing institutional goals and objectives. Combining strategic planning
with future thinking, institutional leaders are better able to make decisions that
will help the institution capitalize on potential opportunities and avoid possible
threats (Office of the Chancellor, 2004).
Strategic planning was originally used in the business industry beginning in
the mid-1960s (Mintzberg, 1994). After the business sector succeeded with
strategic planning, it was subsequently adopted by higher education (Birnbaum,
2000). Although numerous institutions of higher education actively engage in the
strategic planning process, many of them find the process to be difficult because it
is time consuming and requires the support and cooperation of individuals from all
levels of the organization. In most cases, even an effective strategic planning
process will prove to be challenging. In addition to developing strategic plans, the
plans must be implemented, evaluated and modified. Strategic plan cycles may
range from three to 10 years, but are often conducted on a 5-year cycle (Office of
the Chancellor, 2004). Continually adapting to the ever changing and often
challenging environmental forces is essential for most community colleges. As a
result, strategic plans should be modified and updated in an ongoing and cyclical
manner (The RP Group, 1997).
Although strategic planning has become an integral part of most
community colleges and has gained the support of many educational institutions
(The RP Group, 1997), an identified concern with the strategic planning process is
the effectiveness with which the strategic plans are actually implemented.
Although literature pertaining to the strategic planning process is plentiful, the
body of the literature focuses on the planning and assessment phases of the
6
strategic planning process. Literature pertaining to the implementation of strategic
plans in the community college system is severely lacking. Most of the literature
that does exist on the implementation of strategic plans is directed toward the
business sector as opposed to higher education. Additionally, there is even less of
a focus on strategic plan implementation in the community college setting.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to examine the strategic planning and
implementation methods used by a selected California community college that has
paid close attention to the implementation phase of the strategic planning process
and to identify promising approaches that could be adopted or adapted by
community college leaders. Five research questions are used:
1. How are the planning, documentation and dissemination phases of the
strategic planning process conducted at a community college known for
its strategic planning?
2. What methods have been used to implement the strategic plan?
3. What methods have been most effective in implementing the strategic
plan?
4. What are the biggest challenges a community college must overcome to
successfully implement a strategic plan?
5. How is strategic planning implementation monitored?
Significance of the Study
Today‘s chaotic economic and political contexts have resulted in increased
demands being placed on institutions of higher education (IHE). IHE are
increasingly being held accountable for greater knowledge production, wealth
creation and social relevance (Taylor, Machado, & Peterson, 2008). IHE must be
7
prepared to identify and pursue opportunities, partnerships and other trends, which
may prove to be beneficial. In higher education, planning is ingrained in all
organizational units and processes (Norris & Poulton, 2008). Additionally,
colleges and universities invest a substantial amount of time and effort in the
strategic planning process (Calareso, 2007). Strategic planning is one of the
primary mechanisms by which institutions of higher education establish priorities,
set goals, and organize methods for predicting and managing change (Tromp &
Ruben, 2004).
Understanding the strategic planning process and its significance is vital to
institutional leaders and members (Achampong, 2010). Not only is it important
for IHE to develop strategic plans, but also having the capacity to effectively
implement the strategic plans is essential (Bryson, 1995; Taylor, Amaral, &
Machado, 2007). Strategic planning efforts can fail to achieve their goals due to a
variety of reasons. Typically the reasons for failure include deficiencies or
weaknesses in the development or implementation of the strategic plans (Tromp &
Ruben, 2004). Strategic planning is a complex process that involves the work of
numerous individuals, including administrative leaders, faculty, staff, students and
other stakeholders (Calareso, 2007; Norris & Poulton, 2008). Identifying
approaches to orchestrate effective development and implementation of strategic
plans will increase the community colleges‘ capacity to persevere and possibly
flourish, even when confronted with adverse conditions and great uncertainty.
Much of the literature pertaining to strategic planning in higher education
focuses on the planning and assessment phases. This study will contribute to the
body of literature related to strategic planning and provide a deeper insight into the
implementation phase of the strategic planning process in California community
colleges. In addition, this study aims to identify best practices that may be useful
8
to community college leaders who need to establish or improve their strategic
planning and implementation methods.
Conceptual Framework
A number of different strategic planning models have been developed (see
Bryson, 1995, 2011; Crittenden & Crittenden, 2000; Hayward & Ncayiyana, 2003;
Norris & Poulton, 1991, 2008; Rieley, 1997; Rowley, Lujan, & Dolence, 1997;
Taylor & Miroiu, 2002; Tromp & Ruben, 2004; Weimer & Jonas, 1995).
Although variation exists among most of the different frameworks, they all have a
number of common threads. The four steps most commonly identified in these
strategic planning models are: (a) planning, (b) documentation and dissemination,
(c) implementation, and (d) monitoring. However, variations in terminology are
common. For example, what one model refers to as monitoring may be referred to
as evaluation by another; situation analysis in one model may be referred to as
environmental scanning in yet another.
Variations among models are also apparent when comparing the number of
steps or phases that exist throughout the strategic planning process. Some models
are more basic and describe only the four fundamental steps, whereas others are
more detailed and include a greater number of phases or steps. The strategic
planning model described by Taylor and Miroiu (2002) provided a less specific,
but more inclusive framework of the strategic planning process. The strategic
planning phases as described by Taylor and Miroiu included (a) planning, (b)
documentation and dissemination, (c) implementation, and (d) monitoring. Due to
its inclusive nature, the model described by Taylor and Miroiu was used as a
conceptual framework for this study.
9
Definitions
Environmental scan – An analysis of environmental factors such as social,
economic, technological, cultural, and political, which can influence an
organization‘s function and impact the organization‘s possible plans or the
planning process (Tromp & Ruben, 2004).
Institutional effectiveness – ―The systematic, explicit, and documented process
of measuring performance against mission in all aspects of an institution‖
(Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, 2011, p. 121).
Mission statement – The declaration of an organization‘s primary purpose and
reason for ―why it should be doing what it does‖ (Bryson, 2011, p. 127).
Stakeholders – Refers to individuals who are provided with programs or services.
Examples would include beneficiaries, users, audiences, consumers, clients,
publics, constituencies, or customers (Tromp & Ruben, 2004).
Strategic planning - ―A deliberative, disciplined approach to producing
fundamental decisions and actions that shape and guide what an organization (or
other entity) is, what it does, and why‖ (Bryson, 2011, p. 8).
Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis – An
analysis of an institution‘s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats which
is used to help an institution gain a better perspective of the alignment between the
institution and its external environment (Trainer, 2004).
Vision statement – A statement that illustrates ―the future aspirations of the
organization.‖ The vision statement reflects what an organization would like to
eventually become (Tromp & Ruben, 2004, p. 39).
Summary
Community colleges make an essential contribution to the education of
students in California, and without the access currently available to all students,
10
there would be many students left without a path to complete their goal of
obtaining a degree. Community colleges are facing many challenges including
significant reductions in state appropriations, decreasing tax revenues, higher
enrollment, and low retention and completion rates. Strategic planning is utilized
in many of the community colleges to evaluate potential opportunities, along with
addressing the challenges to the institution‘s future. Of significant importance is
the need to include all the stakeholders in this process and to properly implement
the plans along with ongoing evaluation and re-direction, if warranted. This study
examined strategic planning and implementation processes at a selected
community college to gain insights and discover best practices.
11
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Although institutions of higher education have long played an extremely
important role in society, the U.S. higher education system has been in a
continuous state of flux and has had to change and adapt to varying circumstances
(Altbach, 2011). One of the central reasons for the expansion of higher education
throughout the 19th
century was the advancement of modern societies and
economies (Altbach, 2011). An expectation for providing training and knowledge,
which was once provided on the job, has become formalized in institutions of
higher education. Entirely new fields have been created and rely on IHE as a
source of research and training. Many modern IHE retain key elements of
historical models from which they originated and it is unlikely that the basic
framework of academic institutions will change dramatically (Altbach, 2011;
Hearn & Heydinger, 1985).
In recent decades IHE have grown in size and complexity, endured
increased demands by stakeholders for knowledge production, experienced
shifting student demographics, encountered changes in underlying philosophical
assumptions, placed tremendous efforts into wealth creation and worked harder to
prove their social relevance (Brinkman & Morgan, 2010; Bryson, 2011; Girotto &
Hiern, 2009; Taylor et al., 2008). Higher education is enduring radical changes
and is continually forced to adapt and mold to new challenges (Girotto & Hiern,
2009). Many changes have been the result of significant external pressure and
were implemented despite opposition from academe. The impact of technology,
demands for knowledge production from stakeholders and numerous other
external forces continue to affect colleges and universities and the future will
12
provide major challenges for higher education (Altbach, 2011; Girotto & Hiern,
2009; Middaugh, 2009).
Institutions of higher education often have reacted to environmental
fluctuations without being given time for deliberative decision-making and
planning. For example, the GI bill and a report by the President‘s Commission on
Higher Education for Democracy in 1947 led to a massive increase in the demand
for higher education (Mullin & Honeyman, 2008; Palmer, 1996). The GI Bill
resulted in 2,232,000 veterans, at a cost of $5.5B to attend college (Olson, 1973).
This in flux forced many institutions to quickly meet the demands of increased
student enrollments by constructing additional facilities, and hiring new staff
(Tollefson, 2009; Toutkoushian, 2003). Circumstances surrounding higher
education have changed dramatically since the introduction of the GI Bill.
Although nationally, there have been significant increases in enrollments, in recent
years, there have also been dramatic decreases in funding in many states (State
Higher Education Executive Officers, 2010).
Funding has not been adequate to support the 44% increase in enrollment
that California community colleges have experienced over the past 15 years. As
students try to enroll in California‘s institutions of higher education, many of the
institutions are dramatically cutting course offerings. The California Community
College Chancellor‘s Office (2011a) estimated that during the 2009-10 academic
year approximately 140,000 California community college students were turned
away from community colleges due to course reductions.
With the onset of a major recession that began in 2008, subsequent high
unemployment, and a slow recovery, ―the demand for a community college
education is continuing to outstrip resources‖ (CCCCO, 2011b, p. 4). On a
national level, there was a 15% increase in enrollment between 2005-10 and a 6%
13
increase between 2009-10 (State Higher Education Executive Officers, 2010).
The demand for enrollment in the California community college system is so great
that during the 2011-12 academic year it has been estimated that upwards of
670,000 students trying to pursue an education will not be served (CCCCO,
2011a). Also, as the workforce struggles to adapt to the changing global economy,
it has become even more important for community colleges to prepare, retain, and
transfer their students to 4-year institutions (Carnevale & Rose, 2011; Shulock &
Moore, 2007).
Under the American Graduation Initiatives' call to increase community
college completions by 5 million nationally by 2020, California‘s share of the goal
could be interpreted as 1,065,000, as California enrolled 21.3% of the nation‘s
full-time equivalent public community college students in 2007 (Community
College League of California, 2010). The number of high school graduates that
colleges and universities will need to educate without appreciably greater
resources will grow significantly throughout this decade (Center for Student
Success, 2005; Kissler & Switkes, 2005). Community colleges disproportionately
enroll students from groups that have been underrepresented in higher education
and that are estimated to grow dramatically in the next two decades (Handle,
2007). Between 2009 and 2010 the number of Hispanic students who enrolled in
college increased by 349,000, a 24% increase (Redden, 2011). During that same
time, Black and Asian student enrollments increased by 88,000 and 43,000
students respectively (Redden, 2011). Although Hispanic students now make up
the largest minority group of 18- to 24-year-old students on campuses in the
country, much of their growth can be attributed to students enrolling in community
colleges. When comparing student enrollment rates at 4-year institutions by
ethnicity, Hispanics have the lowest enrollment rate with only 54%. This is
14
compared to young Black students at 63%, young White students at 73%, and
young Asian students at 78% (Redden, 2011). This phenomenon, combined with
reductions in state appropriations, speaks to the need for colleges and universities
to become more efficient and strategic in planning for the future.
History of Strategic Planning
Bryson (2011) defines strategic planning as ―a deliberative, disciplined
approach to producing fundamental decisions and actions that shape and guide
what an organization (or other entity) is, what it does, and why‖ (p. 8). Strategic
planning emerged as a useful tool in the private sector sometime between the
1950s and the1970s (Dooris, Kelley, & Trainer, 2002). Steiner (1979) claimed
that large companies and conglomerates first introduced strategic planning under
the rubric of long term planning in the mid-1950s. Mintzberg (1994), however,
contended that strategic planning originated around 1965 with corporate leaders.
Many considered strategic planning the most effective method for devising and
implementing strategies that would increase their corporation‘s competitiveness.
Although strategic planning was initially used by for-profit organizations, it has
since been applied to a number of public and non-profit organizations. Strategic
planning in institutions of higher education originally focused on facilities and
space planning, but has since become an integral part of most IHE operations
(Bryson, 1995; Welsh et al., 2006).
Although widely accepted at numerous higher education institutions, there
is also skepticism about the strategic planning process. Institutes of higher
education have subsequently adopted numerous management systems and
techniques, which were designed and implemented in the business sector. In a
qualitative study conducted by Birnbaum (2000), he analyzed the following
management innovations: ―Planning, Programming, and Budgeting Systems
15
(PPBS), Zero-Based Budgeting (ZBB), Management by Objectives (MBO),
Strategic Planning, Total Quality Management/Continuous Quality Improvement
(TQM/CQI), Business Process Reengineering (BPR), and Benchmarking‖ (p. 3).
Birnbaum referred to these management innovations as ―fads,‖ which often go
through a brief period of popularity, but ―are ultimately not widely adopted
throughout an organizational system‖ (p. 2). Each of the aforementioned
management fads was first used in a governmental or business organization and
subsequently embraced by higher education. As described by Marchese (1991)
these fads typically ―arrive at higher education‘s doorstep 5 years after their trial
in business, often just as corporations are discarding them‖ (p. 6).
The success and performance claims of management systems are often
over-exaggerated and unsustainable. This would lead many to ask why higher
education would adopt a system that is currently being discarded for its lack of
effectiveness in the business sector. Part of the explanation lies in differences
between the people who work in education and business. Many times individuals
from the education and business arenas read different journals, attend different
events, possess different values, beliefs, and perspectives and exist in different
organizational cultures. The discontinuity between the two systems often creates a
gap in which information and events that are common knowledge for one group of
people may not be available to another (Birnbaum, 2000). These management
fads are often promoted or pushed into higher education by individuals who
partake in both business and academic organizations. Examples would include
business leaders or legislators serving on the board of trustees, business members
or legislators who become college presidents, and consultants who work with
business and educational sectors (Birnbaum, 2000).
16
The significant differences between the business industry and higher
education make the transition of management systems difficult. Potential
explanations for the failure of many of the business management systems after
their introduction into higher education would include the various reactions of
each system to different kinds of data (e.g., business responds to profit and loss,
while higher education is described as spending whatever is received—revenue
theory of cost), reactions to data and environmental change are faster in the
business sector than in higher education, and the degree to which the management
innovation is adopted can vary significantly. Also, although an institution of
higher education may ―adopt‖ a new management system, the dual governance
structures and increased autonomy found in higher education often make the
management innovation difficult to fully implement (Birnbaum, 2000).
Periods of Development
In, A Guide to Planning for Change, Norris and Poulton (2008) described
and categorized many of the changes that have occurred in strategic planning
beginning with the 1950s. Their taxonomy, ―Eras in Planning and Decision
Making,‖ is divided into decades (eras) with each era describing the conditions,
primary focus, nature of institutional decision making and nature of planning and
strategy formulation (Norris & Poulton, 2008). A summarized version of the
taxonomy is presented in Table 1.
Although strategic planning in higher education was initially directed
toward facilities and space planning, there was a need to meet the demands of
rapid increases in student numbers and research and graduate study (Dooris et al.,
2002; Norris & Poulton, 2008). Consequently, throughout the 1950s and 1960s
higher education experienced a push to move away from more traditional methods
of planning which were characterized as a ―less participatory style of planning and
17
Table 1
Norris and Poulton’s “Eras in Planning and Decision Making”
Decade Era Nature of planning
1950s Age of authority Traditional, less sophisticated planning and
strategy models
1960s Age of developing
quantitative
techniques
Facilities master planning, institutional research
and state system planning, application of
management science techniques
1970s Age of pragmatic
application
Comprehensive master plan, program planning
and evaluation, resource allocation, emergence of
strategic management techniques, planning as
staff function
1980s Age of strategic
redirection
Strategic planning gains popularity; focus on
external environment and conditions,
reemergence of master planning, focus on
partnerships and external relationships, emphasis
on application rather than techniques
1990s Age of new
paradigm for
universities
Focus on cost containment, quality and
productivity, strategic and tactical planning are
mainstream, focus on new clienteles and
partnerships, linking strategy to process
reinvention
2000s Age of globalization
sustainability and
performance
improvement
New approaches to master and facilities planning,
sustainability, leading, supporting and navigating
change, culture of measuring, performance
accountability, alignment and analytics, greater
emphasis on executing and refining strategy
18
decision making‖ (Norris & Poulton, 2008, p. 64) and toward more participatory
practices; information was made more available to decision makers. Many
institutions ―experimented with quantitative models and other management style
techniques‖ (Norris & Poulton, 2008, p. 64).
Throughout the 1970s, IHE encountered a series of shifting forces which
included various changes: demographics, economics, advancements in technology,
education costs, lack of public support for higher education, enrollment declines
and a surplus of doctoral-educated professionals (Dooris et al., 2002; Norris &
Poulton, 2008). As a result of these fluctuations, perspectives towards planning
changed and many new quantitative and qualitative planning approaches were
developed. However, at the same time, institutional decision makers became
aware of the limitations (e.g., too direct, prescriptive and rigid) imposed by a
multitude of available planning tools. Much of the planning during the 1970s was
reactive to the shifting conditions, and there was little future thinking (Norris &
Poulton, 2008).
During the 1980s, institutions continued to be challenged by shifting
environmental conditions such as changing demographics and technology. It was
during this period that the concept of strategic planning became more valued and
embraced. New strategic planning methods were developed which provided novel
approaches to the planning process and, although interactions between institutions
and the environment grew more complex, institutions were perceived as being
better able to adapt than in the past (Norris & Poulton, 2008).
By the 1990s, accreditors were promoting strategic planning as a main
component of institutional effectiveness (Dooris et al., 2002). In addition, funding
issues and demands for cost control led to a variety of quality control programs
such as Continuous Process Improvement (CPI), Total Quality Management
19
(TQM) and the Baldrige Award. There was also an increased emphasis on
technology and communications, and numerous books were being published on
the strategic planning process (Norris & Poulton, 2008).
The 2000s experienced even more significant advances in web and
computer technology than previous decades. Additionally, there was a shift
towards globalization, sustainability, performance measurement and improvement,
and analytics and alignment. Resulting from these ever shifting factors was
increased global competition, a focus on assessments and performance
improvement, and decision making (Norris & Poulton, 2008). Changes in
environmental factors have been a powerful force leading to the integration of
strategic planning into higher education. Many of these changes also have been
responsible for amplifying the already complex relations between strategic
planning and IHE. It is unlikely that IHE will ever experience an environment
without change; therefore, in order to survive, it is important that IHE continue to
develop and modify their strategic planning processes so they may continue to
adapt and evolve with the environment.
IHE often engage in strategic planning as a result of mandates by governing
boards to solve campus problems or improve campus performance and leaders
who push for strategic planning because they want to change the direction the
institution is headed or to take advantage of available opportunities.
Consequently, most colleges and universities in the United States and around the
world have become involved in strategic planning (Rowley & Sherman, 2001).
For many IHE, the goal is to replicate the success that many businesses and not-
for-profit organizations have had with strategic planning.
20
Use of Business Models in Higher Education
Although a number of successful and popular models for developing and
implementing strategic plans exist in the business world, non-business institutions,
particularly colleges and universities, have not experienced positive results with
implementing business models (Rowley et al., 1997). The lack of success in
implementing strategic planning business models in IHE is in part due to the
fundamental differences between the two types of organizations. Although
parallels may exist among businesses, higher education, health care and
government, giving consideration to the numerous, potentially significant,
differences also is important. As argued by Birnbaum (2001), when introducing a
planning and change model from a different sector into higher education, the
model must first be modified to fit the language and culture of higher education.
Businesses, which are innovative and adaptive, often succeed in
implementing strategic planning. A business is able to recognize available niches,
and then develop a new, or modify an existing, strategic plan that allows the
business to adapt to the changing marketplace. Businesses have more flexibility
with the choices they make; they are often more innovative than IHE and can
change product lines and services to match their environment.
IHE have little control over their niche in the marketplace and cannot
manipulate their environment as easily as businesses do (Rowley et al., 1997;
Kotler & Murphy, 1981). Entities such as state legislatures, university system
managers, and governing boards have extensive control over IHE in the public
sector. Public IHE must serve the purposes that have been outlined, either
implicitly or explicitly, by legal state authority, which means that IHE must
structure their strategic planning within a context that is predetermined by external
entities (Rowley et al., 1997). Moreover, internal factors of governance tend to
21
decentralize control (Hayward & Ncayiyana, 2003; Kotler & Murphy, 1981).
Most universities and colleges have some form of shared governance, which
translates into the need for broad internal consensus when undergoing changes in
strategic planning. Even when an internal consensus has been reached, there may
still be a requirement for external approval (Rowley et al., 1997). Thus, unlike
businesses, colleges and universities are constrained in their ability to develop
independent organizational strategic planning.
In brief, most of the internal and external influences that impact higher
education strategic planning are not factors in businesses (Kotler & Murphy,
1981), which tend to operate within a command and control organizational
structure. As a result of the fundamental differences between businesses and IHE,
the transition of strategic planning models from the business world to IHE has
been largely unsuccessful. Norris and Poulton (1991) further argued, ―every
planning process should be tailored to fit the needs of the particular setting,‖ and
this includes the transfer of a planning process from one higher education
institution to another (p. 44). In some cases the planners may utilize other proven
frameworks for planning as a guide, but even these will have to be adapted to fit
the new institution (Norris & Poulton, 1991).
The Higher Education Context
In higher education, strategic planning is not always a welcome venture,
and countless individuals question its practice as well as its effectiveness. In many
cases, planning documents fall by the wayside, sit on a shelf, or end up in a
wastebasket (Bryson, 1995; Dooris et al., 2002; Miller, 2002; Rowley & Sherman,
2001). Even the best strategies will fail if an organization is unwilling or unable to
successfully implement the plan (Aaltonen & Ikavalko, 2002; Bryson, 1995;
Girotto & Hiern, 2009; Rieley, 1997; Taylor et al., 2007). However, Rowley and
22
Sherman (2001) asserted that the failures attributed to strategic planning often
have little to do with the strategic planning process but rather have much more to
do with the misconceptions and false expectations about strategic planning. What
is important to understand is that in many cases, planners themselves are
responsible for the failure of the strategic plan. Planners often fail to identify or
implement appropriate strategies for the institution.
Unfortunately, IHE have been slow to adapt to a changing landscape and
have had a difficult time in implementing many of the necessary changes
(Cowburn, 2005; Taylor et al., 2007). With an increasing number of stakeholders
and demands, IHE must develop a clear focus, make deliberate decisions and do
all they can to steer the institution in a particular direction (Cowburn, 2005;
Girotto & Hiern, 2009). Organizations whose goal is to survive and prosper must
face the challenges of the world. Although some organizations may respond to
future challenges by doing a better job of what they have done in the past, it may
also be necessary to shift their focus and develop new strategies (Bryson, 2011).
Leadership must become proactive in the decision making processes and the
direction they want their institutions to take and the goals they should strive to
achieve (Goho & Webb, 2003; Taylor et al., 2008).
Why Conduct Strategic Planning?
The objective of strategic planning in higher education is to provide a
process through which an institution can examine its strengths, weaknesses, goals,
objectives and future direction (Hayward & Ncayiyana, 2003; Taylor et al., 2008).
In response to the findings from this process, strategic plans should be developed
to help the institution enhance its performance, and foster the growth of a stronger
more effective institution (Hayward & Ncayiyana, 2003). In spite of the problems
that many institutions have with implementing strategic plans, it has been
23
repeatedly shown that strategic planning can work well (Goho & Webb, 2003;
Taylor et al., 2007). Taylor et al. (2007) argued that ―planning implementation,
rather than the model being implemented, is at the core of failed attempts‖ (p. 8).
A wide variety of reasons have been put forth to explain why strategic plans often
fail, including lack of leadership, failure to communicate, insufficient participation
in shared governance, lack of resources, resistance to change, and inadequate
understanding of the process itself (Birnbaum, 1988; Norris & Poulton, 1991;
Taylor & Miroiu, 2002).
Strategic planning is more important now than it was even a decade ago
(Bryson, 2011). Rapid changes in information technology require significant
investment in equipment and personnel, expanded globalization, under-resourcing
due to reduced federal and state budgets and increasing costs of institutional
resources, tuition and fees, increased competition among institutions of higher
education, growing diversity of student populations including ethnicity, socio-
economic status, religion, and educational background, along with other
environmental factors all add to the urgency of strategic planning (Cummings,
Phillips, Tilbrook & Lowe, 2005; Girotto & Hiern, 2009; Goho & Webb, 2003;
Middaugh, 2009). In today‘s world of higher education, strategic planning can
serve as an effective mechanism to help an institution to identify its niche and
achieve its goals and objectives (Bryson, 2011; Hayward & Ncayiyana, 2003).
Hundreds of models designed to help organizations develop and implement
strategic plans have been proposed (Mintzberg, 1994). The Basic Planning Model,
which Mintzberg (1994) refers to as the core ―design school‖ model is based on
the idea that strategy formation can occur by using only a few basic ideas. The
most important of these ideas is that there must be a good fit between external and
organizational factors (Mintzberg, 1994). Based on an extensive literature review,
24
Mintzberg (1994) summarized three basic premises of the planning model: (a) the
formation of strategies needs to be a controlled, conscious and formalized process
with well-defined steps; (b) responsibility for the overall process rests with the
chief executive officer, while responsibility for implementation rests with the staff
planners; and (c) strategies developed by this process are generally generic
positions, clarified so that they can then be implemented through detailed attention
to objectives, budgets, programs, and operating plans.
Strategic planning is a complex evolution of thoughts and ideas which
requires planners to use future focused thinking. For strategic planning to be
successful a number of factors must be considered throughout the process.
According to Hayward and Ncayiyana (2003), some of the keys to successful
strategic planning at the institutional level include feasibility of the vision, mission
and goals, deep devotion to the strategic plan by the institution‘s leadership and
members, the degree to which the strategic plan is conveyed to the institution‘s
leaders and members, the level of analysis used to develop the plan, a tight link
between the plan, institutional budget, human capacity and environmental
conditions, careful attention to how the strategic plan is developed and
implemented, a willingness to be flexible during the implementation phase and a
strong commitment to regular and ongoing evaluation and readiness to change the
plan as needed.
Benefits to Strategic Planning
If done well, strategic planning can generate a number of potential benefits
and have a positive impact on the value of the organization (Bryson, 2011;
Mankins & Steele, 2006). One potential benefit that strategic planning can lend to
an organization is the promotion of strategic thought and action (Bryson, 2011).
25
There has been a strong push to shift from traditional thinking to strategic
thinking. Bryson (2011) defines strategic thinking as,
thinking in context about how to pursue purposes or achieve goals. This
also includes thinking about what the context is and how it might or should
be changed, what the purposes are or should be; and what capabilities or
competencies will or might be needed and how they might be used, to
achieve the purposes. (p. 15)
Bryson defined strategic action as ―acting in context in light of future
consequences to achieve purposes and/or to facilitate learning‖ (p. 15).
Traditional planning is overly bureaucratic, too measurement driven, and
too incremental for today‘s ever changing environment. In the current
environment, organizations must be able to address rapid changes in technology,
lifestyle, economic, demographic and politics (Goho & Webb, 2003). Goho and
Webb (2003) go so far as to claim that ―strategic thinking is more important than
the current slate of strategies themselves‖ (p. 379). Liedtka (1998) considered
strategic thinking to be ―a particular way of thinking, with [five] specific
attributes‖ (p. 122): (a) systems oriented, addressing the need to consider both the
internal and external context of an organization; (b) intent-focused, helping
individuals to avoid distraction; (c) in time thinking, enabling individuals to
consider the past, present and the future; (d) intelligent opportunism, supporting
the intended strategy and also providing options for new strategies to emerge; and
(e) hypothesis-driven, creating and testing of hypotheses as fundamental activities.
As indicated by Bryson (2011), if done effectively, strategic planning can
yield multiple benefits. Strategic planning can aid in organizing and managing the
change process. Strategic planning allows organizations to maintain effective
strategies while at the same time determining what needs to change. A second
benefit of strategic planning is improved decision making. Improved decision
making helps an organization formulate and communicate their strategic
26
intentions, factor in future consequences, develop a fundamental basis for decision
making, coordinate the resulting decisions across levels and functions, and use the
greatest amount of discretion in areas under the organizational control (Bryson,
2011).
A third benefit of strategic planning is enhanced organizational
effectiveness, responsiveness and resilience. Organizations that use strategic
planning are encouraged to tackle major organizational issues, respond to internal
and external demands and pressures and attend to their ever changing
circumstances. Fourth, strategic planning can enhance organizational legitimacy.
Organizations that meet the demands of key stakeholders and create public value
at an acceptable cost deserve the right to exist. Fifth, strategic planning can help
produce enhanced effectiveness of broader societal systems. Strategic planning
can assist organizations in considering other organizations and how they might
partner up to create a better environment. Lastly, strategic planning can directly
benefit the people involved; managers, policy makers, and key decision makers
will likely arrive at better decisions and more effectively fulfill their roles and
address their responsibilities, and teamwork and expertise will likely be
strengthened among organizational members (Bryson, 2011).
Similar to Bryson (1995), Mintzberg (1994) also indicated that strategic
planning is an important component to managing an organization‘s future.
Mintzberg (1994) suggested that organizations use strategic planning for four
reasons. First, organizations must plan to coordinate their activities. Failure of
organizations to coordinate the multitude of activities often leads to problems that
could have been resolved by more effective planning. Second, organizations must
plan to ensure that the future is taken into account. Considering the future while
making decisions today allows for long-term thinking. As further described by
27
Starr (1971), the future can be considered by: preparing for the inevitable,
preempting the undesirable and controlling the controllable. Third, organizations
must plan to be ―rational.‖ Mintzberg (1994) suggested that ―the prime reason put
forth for engaging in planning is that it is simply a superior form of management:
formalized decision making is better than non-formalized decision making‖ (p.
18). Fourth, organizations must plan to control. Control through planning extends
to all areas of an organization and is intended to manage others within an
organization, specifically, those whose work is coordinated, as well as external
factors which may influence an organization. Overall, planning can be used as an
effective method of controlling an organization‘s future.
Effective Strategic Planning Practices
A variety of strategic planning assessment models have been developed for
use in business and education related organizations. In higher education, the
Malcom Baldrige model, the balanced scorecard/dashboard approach and
benchmarking are three commonly used models (Tromp & Ruben, 2004). Many
of the available models help institutions answer questions such as ―what should be
the focus of our assessment and planning efforts?‖ and ―How should the
assessment and planning process work?‖ (Tromp & Ruben, 2004, p. 22). The
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award program was established by Congress
in 1987. According to The Foundation for the Malcom Baldrige National Quality
Award (n.d.) the Malcom Baldrige award ―promotes excellence in organizational
performance, recognizes the achievements and results of U.S. organizations, and
publicizes successful performance strategies‖ (para. 2). Organizations eligible for
the award include manufacturers, service companies, small businesses, education
and health care organizations and non-profit organizations (including charities,
28
trade and professional associations, and government agencies) (The Foundation
for the Malcom Baldrige National Quality Award, n.d.).
The Baldrige assessment model considers seven areas of organizational
function: leadership, planning, stakeholder focus, measurement and knowledge
management, human resources, process effectiveness and results (Tromp &
Ruben, 2004). Each of these areas plays a vital role in the strategic planning
process. A detailed scoring system is used to develop a profile of the
organization‘s strengths and target areas for improvement. The program
recognizes quality role model organizations with high performance excellence and
encourages dialogue within and among the education, health care, and business
sectors (Jasinski, 2004).
In an analysis of eight model organizations, all Baldrige award recipient
organizations were asked a series of questions about their strategic development
process, strategic objectives, action plan development and deployment and
performance projections (Jasinski, 2004). As described by Jasinski (2004), the
analysis identified 11 themes, related to strategic planning that each of the
organizations had in common. The following italicized phrases highlight the key
aspect in each of the 11 themes. Each organization began their strategic planning
practice by developing a clear map (e.g., flow chart) of the organization‘s strategic
planning process. Organizations mapped out components such as key steps,
participants, timelines and goals. The strategic planning functions used an
ongoing closed-loop cycle, which means that certain aspects of the strategic plan
were re-visited on a regular basis (e.g., quarterly or monthly). The organizations
exercised regular and recurring reviews of an organization‘s mission, vision,
goals, and progress through key phases of the strategic planning process. Strategy
development relies on systematic collection and analysis of multiple internal and
29
external factors such as risk assessments and environmental changes ranging from
local to international levels.
Organizations identify an appropriate number of strategic objectives (four
to six) to help the institution address major challenges in both the short and long
term. Organizations detail a deployment plan to help them meet their strategic
objectives. The deployment plan must also factor in a step for resource allocation.
Benchmarks are used to analyze progress in meeting strategic objectives. Plans
such as human resource plans, technology plans, and academic plans are
integrated with strategic objectives and action plans. Generally, strategic plans
are interconnected to all levels of an organization. Organizations commit to
spending a specified period of time (varies from a single day to an entire week)
each year to focus on strategic planning activities such as examining the planning
process, examining key performance results, modifying strategic objectives, etc.
Organizations construct an evaluation and improvement cycle. Performance
results are used to help build and execute strategy. Performance results, for
example, in higher education, may include institutional effectiveness, governance
and stakeholder influence, budget and financial trends, etc. Organizations have a
straightforward and swift communications framework available to all. Although
there may be a substantial amount of variation in how organizations address these
strategic planning practices, having an understanding of their significance may
prove to be invaluable as organizations try to maintain successful strategic
planning practices.
30
Accreditation and Strategic Planning
Accreditation in the U.S.
As previously stated, the introduction of the GI bill led to soaring increases
in student enrollment and a rapid expansion in the number of higher education
institutions. Many of the institutions that emerged during this time were of
questionable quality, and in 1952, the federal government opted to use
accreditation as a mechanism for determining institutional quality. To help ensure
that federal funds were utilized efficiently, the federal government provided the GI
bill only to students who attended a nationally accredited institution (Wellman,
1998). Six regional accrediting agencies are responsible for accrediting
institutions throughout the United States: The Middle States Association of
Colleges and Schools, The New England Association of Schools and Colleges,
The North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, The Northwest
Accreditation Commission, The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools,
and The Western Association of Schools and Colleges (Dodd, 2004). Each of the
six accrediting agencies contains subcommissions which are responsible for
accrediting IHE. The Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC)
accrediting agency, for example, encompasses the Accrediting Commission for
Community and Junior Colleges (WASC-ACCJC) and Accrediting Commission
for Senior Colleges and Universities (WASC-ACSCU).
In addition to the six regional accrediting agencies, there are also a number
of national accrediting agencies which are discipline specific (Dodd, 2004). Of
the two types of accrediting agencies, regional accrediting agencies are the most
recognized type of accreditation in the United States. The discipline specific
accrediting agencies focus on areas such as arts and humanities, education and
31
training, legal, community and social services, personal care and services, and
healthcare.
Accrediting agencies are private educational associations which can be
regional or national in nature. Unlike regional accreditation, national accreditation
is not based on geographic location. National accreditation is designed for
particular schools and colleges such as career schools and technology programs.
The U.S. Department of Education and the Council for Higher Education
Accreditation (CHEA) recognize accrediting organizations and the U. S. Secretary
of Education is required by law to publish a list of all nationally recognized
accrediting agencies (CHEA Institute for Research and Study of Accreditation and
Quality Assurance, 2011; Wellman, 1998)
As described by the CHEA (2010)
Accreditation is both a process and a status. It is the process of reviewing
colleges, universities, institutions and programs to judge their educational
quality—how well they serve students and society. The result of the
process, if successful, is the award of ―accredited status.‖ (p. 1)
Meeting the accreditation standards is an ongoing process and if institutions fail to
adhere to the set standards of quality, their accreditation may be jeopardized or
even revoked (ACCJC/WASC, 2010; Dodd, 2004). The accreditation process
helps to assure the public, students, and government that a uniform and sound
quality education is provided to students who attend accredited institutions and to
promote ongoing improvement with an institution (Accrediting Council for
Independent, 2004; Council for Higher Education Accreditation, 2010; Dodd,
2004). Although institutions of higher education are not required to be accredited,
only accredited institutions are eligible to participate in federal and state financial
aid programs (Barker & Smith, 1998; Dodd, 2004). Other important aspects of
accreditation include the fact that it is nongovernmental, self-regulating and
32
evaluative (Barker & Smith, 1998). Accreditation is also important for students
who transfer from one institution to another. Accredited institutions often accept
college credits from other accredited institutions (Prager, 1995).
The ACCJC, a component of WASC, is responsible for accrediting all
community and junior colleges in California, Hawaii, the territories of Guam and
American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the
Republic of Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of the
Marshall Islands (Council for Higher Education Accreditation, 2011). This study
was conducted at a California community college, falling under the jurisdiction of
the ACCJC accrediting agency. The four accreditation standards, along with their
subcategories, are set forth in the ACCJC/WASC, 2010:
Standard I: Institutional Mission and Effectiveness
a. Mission
b. Improving Institutional Effectiveness
Standard II: Student Learning Programs and Services
a. Instructional Programs
b. Student Support Services
c. Library and Learning Support Services
Standard III: Resources
a. Human Resources
b. Physical Resources
c. Technology Resources
d. Financial Resources
Standard IV: Leadership and Governance
a. Decision-Making Roles and Processes
b. Board and Administrative Organization
33
Although each of the four standards has a particular focus, there are several
common ―themes of quality that pervade the accreditation standards‖ (ACCJC/
WASC, 2010, p. 5): institutional commitment, evaluation, planning and
improvement, student learning outcomes, organization, dialogue, and institutional
integrity.
Accreditation and Self Studies
The benefits of accreditation extend beyond access to federal and state
funding. Accreditation standards require institutions to address areas such as
planning, assessment, mission, and resources (financial, human technology and
physical). These principles are also an integral part of the strategic planning
process. Consequently, institutions should strongly consider methods for
integrating accreditation and strategic planning. Accreditation standards can be
used as a guide for planning, assessment, and resource allocation. Due to the
nature of accreditation standards, they may also symbolize best practices (Dodd,
2004). As stated by Dodd (2004), ―accreditation can be an important driver for
assessment, planning and improvement‖ (p. 15). The institutional self-assessment,
which is required for accreditation, is often used as a vehicle for starting the
strategic planning process (Barker & Smith, 1998; Dodd, 2004). Along these
same lines, Barker and Smith (1998) claim, ―incorporating the necessary goals and
plans for accreditation in the strategic planning process serves to add unity to the
institution‘s efforts to effectively serve both internal and external constituents‖ (p.
747). This approach also increases the efficiency of both the accreditation and
self-study processes, while at the same time making better use of resources
(Barker & Smith, 1998). Figure 1 presents a model depicting how the strategic
planning process and the accreditation process may be merged.
34
Figure 1. Model of institutional effectiveness that integrates accreditation, planning, assessment, and improvement
initiatives. Adapted from ―Accreditation as a Catalyst for Institutional Effectiveness,‖ by Dodd, 2004, New Directions
For Institutional Research, 123, p. 18.
Accreditation
standards and
other external
influences
Institutional
context:
mission and
goals
Data on
student
learning and
other
outcomes
Self-
assessment
and peer
review
planning
Learning
assessment
and program
review
Accreditation
conferral or
denial
Resource
allocation
Plans for
improvement
and program
renewal
Institutional
effectiveness
and
accountability
Inputs Processes Outputs Outcomes
Accreditation
standards and
other external
influences
Institutional
context:
mission and
goals
Data on
student
learning and
other
outcomes
Self-
assessment
and peer
review
planning
Learning
assessment
and program
review
Accreditation
conferral or
denial
Resource
allocation
Plans for
improvement
and program
renewal
Institutional
effectiveness
and
accountability
Inputs Processes Outputs Outcomes
35
Banta, Pike, and Hansen (2009) described several examples of how
different institutions link strategic planning with accreditation. The National
Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) has proven to be a helpful tool for
purposes such as accreditation, accountability reporting, strategic planning and
program assessment (Banta et al., 2009). The survey has been utilized by a
number of institutions ranging from baccalaureate granting institutions to
doctorate granting universities. For many institutions the NSSE is an ―especially
useful assessment tool for measuring the quality of student experiences and
involvement in educationally purposeful activities‖ (Banta et al., 2009, p. 26).
The NSSE provides many institutions with data that can be used in the self-
studies, and many of the NSSE questions have even been directly tied to specific
accreditation standards for all six regional accrediting associations (Banta et al.,
2009).
Illinois State University included the NSSE in its self-study ―to develop
goals for its partnership for student learning emphasis‖ (Banta et al., 2009, p. 26).
In a re-accreditation process at Mississippi State University, the Commission on
Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) accrediting
agency identified several areas that the institution needed to address. Specifically,
the SACS was concerned about whether or not ―faculty members were adequately
assessing student outcomes related to the institutional mission‖ (Banta et al., 2009,
p. 26). Since the NSSE provides information directly pertaining to this area, the
institution began using the NSSE regularly to monitor student learning and
development in the areas of concern. The NSSE results are still being used to
provide information to SACS to continue improvements in the area of student
outcomes.
36
Skidmore College used the NSSE results in their 2003 self-study report that
was presented to the Middle States Commission on Higher Education Accrediting
Agency. As a result of the NSSE evaluation, the ―faculty decided to focus more
on improving student engagement, especially for first year students‖ (Banta et al.,
2009, p. 26). This tied in directly with the institution‘s strategic plan titled
―Engaged Liberal Learning.‖ One of the goals in the strategic plan focuses
specifically on student engagement and academic achievement.
In addition to the accreditation process, the NSSE is also a powerful tool
that can be used in the strategic planning process to help institutions evaluate
progress being made to achieve strategic planning goals. The NSSE has been used
in the strategic planning process by numerous institutions, including Fort Hays
State University, Central Oklahoma, Humboldt State University and Norfolk State
University (Banta et al., 2009). These institutions are examples of how using the
assessment tools can be beneficial in both strategic planning and the accreditation
process. While addressing the accreditation standards, institutions can also gather
valuable information for developing and implementing their strategic plans.
Strategic Plan Development
Mission, Vision, and Goals
Although strategic plans may vary among organizations, all strategic plans
should contain four basic elements: a mission statement, a vision for the future
based on the institution‘s values, a set of goals, and a financial plan designed to
support the strategic plan (Achampong, 2010; Hayward & Ncayiyana, 2003; Lane,
Bishop, & Wilson-Jones, 2005; Manderscheid & Kusy, 2005; Rieley, 1997;
Rowley et al., 1997). Statements that communicate an organization‘s mission,
vision, and values help to ―clarify the philosophy, purpose, directions, and
37
aspirations of the organization as a whole‖ (Tromp & Ruben, 2004, p. 39). The
mission statement is an integral part of most IHE. By design, a mission statement
is a general statement that clearly identifies the values and goals of an institution.
The purpose of a mission statement is to help an organization identify
strategies that will ultimately result in a more effective and higher quality
institution (Morzinski, 2010). A good mission statement should be able to provide
information pertaining to seven questions: (a) Who are we; (b) What is our
purpose (i.e., what social or political problems or needs do we exist to meet); (d)
How do we recognize, anticipate and respond to needs or problems; (e) How do
we respond to our key stakeholders; (f) What are the organization‘s philosophy
and core values; and (g) What makes us distinct or unique? (Bryson, 1995;
Hayward & Ncayiyana, 2003; Kotler & Murphy, 1981).
Unlike the mission statement, a vision statement is a portrayal of what an
institution aspires to become. The vision statement should challenge the
institution and its members and help drive it in the right direction. Vision
statements should also be easy to remember and easily understood (Hayward &
Ncayiyana, 2003). An institution‘s goals and objectives are the mechanism of
action by which an institution will come to realize the mission and vision
(Hayward & Ncayiyana, 2003; Kotler & Murphy, 1981). However, due to
financial limitations it is extremely unlikely that all objectives will be pursued
simultaneously. Fluctuations in internal and external factors often force
institutions to prioritize objectives and focus on the objectives considered to be
most crucial (Kotler & Murphy, 1981). An institution‘s goals are, in essence, a
measurable form of the objectives. The function of goals is to allow an institution
to determine the depth and scope to which they intend to meet their objectives
(Kotler & Murphy, 1981).
38
The strategic plan and the financial plan, at any institution, should be
inextricably linked. While developing a financial plan, the financial planners must
work closely with those involved in developing the strategic plan (Rowley &
Sherman, 2001). If the strategic planning process is to have a sense of importance
to the institution or its members, budget distributions must be reflective of the
strategic planning priorities. Financial planners can be an important ally in
helping to fund the implementation of strategic plans and should work closely with
the strategic planning process at multiple institutional levels (Brinkman &
Morgan, 2010; Hayward & Ncayiyana, 2003; Rowley & Sherman, 2001). Rowley
and Sherman (2001) asserted that, ―a college or university‘s budget is the single
most powerful controller of activity there is on a campus‖ (p. 174). The
implication from this statement is that ―control of the budget is control of the
strategic plan and control of the campus‖ (Rowley & Sherman, 2001, p. 174).
The strategic planning process can vary significantly among organizations
and yet be equally effective. Due to differences between institutions, a specific
strategic planning process that is highly effective at one institution may not be
completely effective at another institution. Therefore, variations in the steps or
phases required to transcend the strategic planning process have been posed
(Bryson, 1995; Crittenden & Crittenden, 2000; Hayward & Ncayiyana, 2003;
Norris & Poulton, 1991; Rieley, 1997; Rowley et al., 1997; Taylor & Miroiu,
2002; Tromp & Ruben, 2004; Weimer & Jonas, 1995). In general, much of the
literature demonstrates similarity and overlap among the proposed steps or phases
of the strategic planning process. The number of steps or phases used to describe
the strategic planning process typically ranges from 4 to 10.
Although the 10-step descriptions are often more defined and detailed than
the 4-step descriptions, they include the same or similar content. Taylor and
39
Miroiu (2002) provided a comprehensive, yet general description of the four main
phases of the strategic planning process: (a) Planning—conducting research on
and analyzing strategy and plans, and creating ideas and choices; (b)
Documentation and dissemination—preparing and making the plan available to all
interested parties; (c) Implementation—taking action to achieve the set goals and
objectives; and (d) Monitoring—assessing achievement or non-achievement so
decisions about future strategies can be made.
Phase I: Planning
Although many institutions claim to engage in the strategic planning
process, they actually are engaged in traditional planning (Rowley et al., 1997). A
number of differences exist between these two types of planning. Traditional
planning is more focused on addressing problems using an inside-out approach
(internal emphasis), whereas strategic planning uses an outside-in approach
(externally focused). As described by Rowley et al. (1997), four other major
differences between the traditional and strategic planning processes include:
1. Alignment—traditional planning allows goal setting and then the
development of steps to achieve the set goals, whereas strategic
planning aligns the organization with the environment
2. Specificity versus direction—traditional planning is more specific
regarding the particular targets it sets. Strategic planning is less
specific and places an emphasis on broad directions and states of
being rather than exact targets.
3. Focus—traditional planning gives attention to specific colleges,
schools, departments and individual instructors, limiting the
planning process. Strategic planning, however, focuses on aligning
the whole organization with the environment.
40
4. Time-relatedness—Strategic planning is an ongoing process,
whereas, traditional planning is more periodic.
Although different strategic planning models may ultimately address the
planning phase from different angles, the models typically have much in common.
One of the first actions in developing a strategic plan includes the selection of a
planning committee. This process is often initiated by institutional leaders and
should ultimately include a broad range of constituents representing each major
area of the institution (Bryson, 1995; Goho & Webb, 2003; Hayward &
Ncayiyana, 2003; Kotler & Murphy, 1981; Norris, & Poulton, 1991; Rieley, 1997;
Rowley et al., 1997; Weimer & Jonas, 1995; Welsh, Nunez, & Petrosko, 2005).
The planning committee is responsible for establishing broad support for the
strategic plan, organizing the process, developing the strategic plan document,
developing timelines, determining the roles of the various stakeholders, and setting
criteria for evaluating the plan (Bryson, 1995; Rowley et al., 1997).
The actual planning phase typically begins with an environmental scan,
designed to identify characteristics and changes that will impact the institutions.
To conduct an environmental scan, the organization must gather information and
data related to both internal and external factors. Factors to consider during an
external scan include government policy changes, economic changes, changes in
technology and societal expectations, funding, and competitive or collaborative
forces. An internal scan should include factors such as inventory, staff, resources,
student enrollment, pass rates, available physical resources, programs, culture, and
politics (Bryson, 1995; Hayward & Ncayiyana, 2003; Hearn & Heydinger, 1985;
Kotler & Murphy, 1981; Rowley et al., 1997; Taylor & Miroiu, 2002; Tromp &
Ruben, 2004). As a component of the environmental scan, organizational
mandates must also be considered. These mandates (internal and external) often
41
have a significant impact on institutions and play a major role in the planning
process.
A Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis is a
common tool used to help conduct the environmental scan (Bryson, 1995;
Hayward & Ncayiyana, 2003; Kotler & Murphy, 1981; Rowley et al., 1997;
Taylor & Miroiu, 2002). There are several methods that can be utilized to conduct
an environmental scan, including (a) undirected viewing, which is usually broad
(no specific focus) in scope but also shallow; (b) conditioned viewing, more
directed at a particular area, topic or issue which is related to the institution; (c)
informal search, actively looking for information to gain additional knowledge
(limited and unstructured); (d) formal search, a proactive mode of scanning that is
structured, systematic and focused on gathering decision making information
(Goho & Webb, 2003). Upon completion of the environmental scan a thorough
analysis of the compiled information must be performed. The analysis should be
used to help identify the organization‘s strategic issues such as policy problems,
critical challenges affecting mandates, mission, vision or goals, etc. Ideally the
analysis will help identify areas in which the institution is achieving success or
encountering difficulties. Conclusions drawn from the analysis should be
reflected in the final strategic plan (Bryson, 1995; Taylor & Miroiu, 2002).
Another component of the planning phase often includes generating ideas
that can be divided into three categories: (a) undertaking new ideas, (b) making
improvements to existing activities, or (c) withdrawing from existing activities.
The institution should seek out ideas from all levels within the institution as well
as from external parties. Strategic thinking helps to generate ideas and, although
many of the ideas are influenced by data and analysis, it is important to include
room for human judgment and imagination (Taylor & Miroiu, 2002).
42
Lastly, Taylor and Miroiu (2002) used the term ―enabling‖ to describe
conditions that must ultimately be present if the planning process is to be
successful. Although most other authors do not apply a specific term to these
necessary conditions, many of the conditions are addressed throughout the various
strategic planning processes. As described by Taylor and Miroiu (2002), enabling
conditions that ultimately lead to a successful strategic plan can be broken down
into three categories: (a) personal qualities—positive attitudes toward new ideas,
willingness to change and learn from mistakes, incentives to encourage people to
make contributions, determination, ability to enthuse and motivate others, vision,
imagination, creativity, leadership, presentation, marketing (internal and external),
flexible teaching and research personnel, planning and monitoring, and
counseling; (b) resources necessary to support change—incentives to cut costs and
generate income, time to prepare and consult, financing to invest in change, and
estate and other physical assets; (c) information for managers—data for analysis,
monitoring reports on return plans, and project progress reports (e.g., data
analysis).
Phase II: Documentation and Dissemination
The planning process is a complex, integrated process that must factor in
numerous aspects of an institution. One major component described in most
strategic planning processes is the mission, vision and goals of the institution.
These three components often provide a framework for the strategic planning
process and provide a basis for the future. There is, however, some discrepancy as
to where the mission and vision statements should enter into the planning process.
Typically strategic planning processes focus on the institution‘s mission at the
beginning of the process (Hayward & Ncayiyana, 2003; Kotler & Murphy, 1981;
Paris, 2003; Rieley, 1997; Tromp & Ruben, 2004). Some models suggest review
43
of the mission statement even prior to conducting an environmental scan
(Hayward & Ncayiyana, 2003; Paris, 2003; Tromp & Ruben, 2004). It is,
however, also common for this process to occur, or be repeated after completing
the environmental scan (Bryson, 1995; Kotler & Murphy, 1981; Rowley et al.,
1997).
In contrast to what many models suggest, Bryson (1995) and Rowley et al.
(1997) have advocated focusing on the mission and vision statements much later
in the strategic planning process. If an institution chooses to focus on the mission
statement too early in the process, those responsible for developing the strategic
plan may not have gained a deep enough understanding of the core nature,
limitations, and capabilities of the mission statement. Additionally, it is vitally
important to fully comprehend and understand the internal and external forces and
challenges that the mission statement must endure; otherwise, the mission
statement may not be realistic. Once an institution has a clear understanding of
what is expected of it and once it has gained a sense of purpose, it will then be
able to develop a meaningful mission statement which is ―focused, concise and
evident in the strategic choices of the institution‖ (Rowley et al., 1997, p. 155). In
terms of the vision statement, Bryson (1995) claimed that institutions will be
incapable of producing a ―detailed vision of success‖ until they have gone through
several repetitions of strategic planning (p. 36). This repetition is often a
necessary process before members ―know what they want, what they can have,
and what the difference is between the two‖ (Bryson, 1995, p. 36).
In addition to the mission and vision statement, the strategic plan will be
comprised of numerous additional elements, such as an introduction and rationale
for why the strategic plan was prepared, high-level aims and aspirations, analysis
of current institutional status, a statement of institutional organization, a schedule
44
for implementing the objectives, a discussion and summary of operational
strategies, financial and other data expressing the plan‘s feasibility, and a
clarification of arrangements for implementation, monitoring and review (Taylor
& Miroiu, 2002). In addition to strategic plans, the strategic planning process will
generate operational (or integrated) plans which are necessary for the strategic
plans to meet the set objectives.
Using the institutional objectives as a guide, operational plans will develop
a more specific set of targets and time scales. Included in the operational plans
would be features such as targets or activities that can be measured over a period
of time, milestones which can be useful in identifying the steps necessary to
accomplish long term objectives, responsibility which helps to ensure that
particular individuals or committees work to meet specific targets, and integration
of various operational plans (Taylor & Miroiu, 2002). It is important to realize
that in many cases several areas within an organization may already have
operational plans in place. If so, these plans should harmonize with, be in
reference form, or included as part of the developing strategic plan. This
integration will help to increase efficiency and consistency with the developing
strategic plan (Rowley et al., 1997). Rowley et al. (1997) stated that
Adequacy of facilities, maintenance of the capital plant, the accounting
function, the personnel function (human resources management), and other
critical operations of the campus are but a few of the sub areas that
particular colleges and universities might want to highlight in their strategic
planning process. (p. 251)
A successful, strategic planning process is heavily dependent on support,
participation, and communication from the entire campus community (Goho &
Webb, 2003; Weimer & Jonas, 1995; Welsh et al., 2005). Often a public
announcement that the strategic planning process is about to begin will help gather
momentum and support during the beginning stages (Hayward & Ncayiyana,
45
2003; Rowley et al., 1997). Once a strategic planning committee has completed a
draft strategic plan, the plan should be disseminated throughout the campus
community and to all stakeholders. Although most of the campus community
should have already had the opportunity to offer input, this review provides an
additional opportunity for the entire campus community to provide further advice
or contributions. After circulating the plan, final adjustments or modifications
may be necessary. Upon completing changes, the final draft strategic plan is
submitted for approval by the appropriate governance structures (e.g., senate,
management, and council) (Bryson 1995; Hayward & Ncayiyana, 2003; Rowley et
al., 1997; Welsh et al., 2005). Final draft versions of strategic plans are often a
public document and are typically made available outside of the institution.
Phase III: Implementation
Although numerous studies have shown that strategic plans are useless
when not implemented, and that implementation is a vital part of the strategic
planning process, few studies have focused predominantly on implementation
(Aaltonen & Ikavalko, 2002; Bryson 1995; Taylor & Miroiu, 2002). The review
of literature revealed that strategic planning research primarily has focused on
strategy formulation, development, and assessment rather than on implementation
(Aaltonen & Ikavalko, 2002; Alashloo, Castka, & Sharp, 2005; Gratch & Wood,
1991; Noble, 1999). Several studies have made reference to the fact that only a
limited number of models or frameworks exist for the implementation process of
strategic planning (Aaltonen & Ikavalko, 2002; Alashloo et al., 2005; Gratch &
Wood, 1991; Noble, 1999; Rowley et al., 1997). Yet other authors claim that,
although strategic planning models used for implementation exist, ―there is no
agreed-upon and dominant framework in strategy implementation‖ (Okumus,
2003, p. 871).
46
Noble (1999) stated, ―there is a significant need for detailed and
comprehensive conceptual models related to strategy implementation‖ (p. 132).
Noble went on to say that ―although it has long been recognized that the majority
of failed strategies break down in the implementation phase, researchers and
practitioners have little concrete knowledge in this area‖ (pp. 132-133).
Alexander (1991) described several reasons for the lack of focus on strategic plan
implementation: there is less glamour in strategy implementation than there is in
strategy formation; strategy implementation is often overlooked because of a
belief that anyone can do it; people are not exactly sure of what strategic
management includes, where it begins, and where it ends; and as previously
mentioned, there is a deficiency of conceptual models of strategy implementation.
Another important factor is that most of the literature pertaining to the
implementation of strategic plans discusses the private sector rather than the
public sector (Alashloo et al., 2005). In an attempt to distinguish between
structural and interpersonal views of implementation, and to draw attention to
conceptual and empirical research related to implementation, Noble (1999)
conducted a comprehensive review of the literature. By using a ―more broadened
view‖ of implementation, Noble (1999) identified and briefly described over 50
studies which contribute to the body of knowledge related to implementation (p.
120). However, the studies referenced by Noble are somewhat dated. One study
was conducted in 1969, 2 in the 1970s, 29 in the 1980s, and 18 in the 1990s
(mostly the early 1990s). More important than the timeline is the fact that a vast
majority of the referenced studies pertain directly to private organizations. Most
of the research subjects described in the studies were management (senior, middle,
general, top), executive, vice president, MBA student, or similar classification.
The studies were predominantly conducted using an assortment of different firms.
47
A more recent meta-analysis conducted by Okumus (2003) analyzed
articles that focused on strategic planning in business related organizations.
Okumus identified 11 key implementation factors: strategy development,
environmental uncertainty, organizational structure, organizational culture,
leadership, operational planning, resource allocation, communication, people,
control, and outcome. Although not a definitive list, these factors have been
categorized into four groups: (a) strategy content including strategy development;
(b) strategic context, external and internal, including organizational structure,
culture and leadership; (c) operational process focusing on operational planning,
resource allocation, people, communication and control; and (d) outcome
including results of the implementation process. Many of the key implementation
factors Okumus described were also identified by Noble (1999). Although there
are a number of significant differences between the public and private sectors,
some of these key implementation factors are also commonly cited as being
relevant to higher education (e.g., Anderson, Matson, & O‘Brien, 2007; Bryson,
2011; Rowley & Sherman, 2001; Taylor & Miroiu, 2002).
The implementation process should filter through all levels of the
organization and will impact features such as organizational structure, resource
allocation, change management, project management, and communication (Taylor
& Miroiu, 2002). In essence, the implementation process is about assigning
particular responsibilities and objectives to members of the organization whose
progress towards accomplishing those goals can then be monitored. Bryson
(2011) identified a number of guidelines, which if followed, are likely to lead to
the successful implementation of strategic plans. Bryson‘s guidelines are
presented in three categories: (a) general guidelines, (b) communication and
educational guidelines, and (c) personnel guidelines.
48
Bryson‘s (2011) general guidelines for implementing a strategic plan
include planning and management of the implementation process in a strategic
manner; developing implementation strategy documents and action plans focusing
on vital decisions, actions, and responsible parties; aiming for changes that can be
initiated without difficulty and quickly; grouping changes into clusters or
programs which consist of specific projects; allotting sufficient people, time,
attention, money, administrative and support services and other necessary
resources; trying to make a connection between new strategic initiatives and
continuing operations; working quickly and trying to avoid unnecessary or
undesirable competition with new priorities; focusing on preserving or building a
coalition of dedicated implementers; establishing advocacy and interest groups;
making sure that legislative, executive, and administrative policies and actions
work in favor of the implementation process rather than against it; considering
methods for resolving disputes; recognizing and considering the impact that
changes are going to have on the organization‘s culture; emphasizing learning;
considering the best methods for using information and communication
technologies to help support the implementation process; developing an
accountability system to assure key stakeholders that all accountability
requirements are being met; and being persistent.
Bryson‘s (2011) guidelines for the area of communication and education
include investing in communication activities, focusing on reducing negative
attitudes which affect participation, developing a guiding vision of success, and
frequently monitoring indicators of progress. Lastly, Bryson (2011) offered
several guidelines in the personnel areas: to the fullest extent possible, fill
leadership and staff positions with highly qualified people who are committed to
change; place the strategic planning team in charge of implementation; ensure
49
access to top administrators throughout the implementation phase; and make a
concerted effort to avoid including individuals who are not likely to help the
change effort.
Anderson et al. (2007) conducted an analysis in which one of the goals was
to ―identify best practices and insights discovered in the course of implementing a
strategic planning initiative that fosters innovation, integration, assessment, and
inclusiveness‖ (p. 1). This mixed methods analysis was carried out at a 2-year
community and technical college that is part of the Minnesota State Colleges and
Universities system. The analysis identified several ―best practices‖ as being
important to the strategic planning process at the college. Strategic planning
processes are well documented and results based; the strategic planning process
identifies action steps, designates someone to be responsible for each action step,
and identifies measurable outcomes with predetermined timelines. There must be
significant communication and college-wide reporting. Action plans are clearly
tied into other planning documents and progress is recorded using a database that
holds individuals accountable. The databases also allow for instant creation of
progress reports.
Open participation is central to the strategic planning process; there are
numerous opportunities (e.g., committees, planning documents, presentations,
online information) for both college wide and community input and review.
Strategic planning events are embedded throughout the institution; specific yearly
events and meetings (special events, development days, unit meetings with
president, etc.) are planned and supported by the institution. The focus is planning
and assessment. Communication of the strategic planning process is provided in
multiple formats; for example, ongoing communication through college web site,
50
employee computer share drive, publication of articles, and committee minutes
that are easily accessible.
Planning process accomplishments are measured and monitored; the
college cabinet continuously monitors the Biennial Action Plan.
Accomplishments and barriers are reviewed; solutions to barriers are discussed at
cabinet and executive cabinet meetings. Strategic accomplishments are
communicated to the community. Communication of the Biennial Action Plan
accomplishments occurs via the Biennial Action Plan report, annual president‘s
report to community and institutional accomplishment awards (Anderson et al.,
2007).
Anderson et al.‘s (2007) research also found the college maintains a
growing list of suggestions for improvement during the next round of strategic
planning. This finding indicates even colleges that claim to have an effective and
efficient method for developing and implementing a strategic plan have room for
improvement.
Alashloo et al. (2005) conducted a quantitative study in which they focused
on identifying ―impeders‖ to strategy implementation. A questionnaire using a
Likert-type scale included 32 potential implementation impeders and two open-
ended questions. The potential impeders were identified from the literature and
the two open-ended questions asked for other impeders and additional suggestions
that were not included in the questionnaire. The questionnaire was distributed to
individuals who had knowledge and experience with strategy implementation.
The study was conducted in Iranian Universities and participants included
individuals in various positions—―lecturer, senior lecturer or research deputy,
teaching deputy in various faculties‖ (p. 139).
51
Results from the study identified impeders having the most significant
influence on strategic implementation, listed in order of greatest to least impact:
lack of exact strategic planning, unsuitable training programs, insufficient resource
allocation, insufficient distribution of power due to political factors,
incompatibility with the organizational culture, lack of preparation for problems
that could arise during the implementation, lack of suitable communication in the
university, inadequate number of employees connected to the vision, and
unsuitable personnel management for developing incentives. Although the
Alashloo et al. (2005) study was conducted at Iranian universities, it reaffirms
many of the same factors that U.S. based studies have identified as being
important to the implementation of strategic plans.
Strategic plan implementation does not occur all at once but rather
incrementally (Rowley et al., 1997). The implementation of specific parts of a
strategic plan often begins while the rest of the plan is still being developed
(Hayward & Ncayiyana, 2003; Rowley et al., 1997). An essential factor in
successful strategic plan implementation is whether or not the action plans have
dedicated sufficient resources to support the plan. Should the organization fall
short on time, money, attention, or administrative and support services, the
strategic plan will be at increased risk of failing or only reaching a minimal level
of success (Bryson, 1995; Taylor & Miroiu, 2002). Another important
consideration is the selection of those responsible for the implementation process.
Although a mix of less and more experienced individuals will be a part of the
strategic planning process, ensuring that a number of ―seasoned‖ individuals who
have greater influence, knowledge, determination, power and capabilities is
essential. These more seasoned individuals often have a significantly positive
impact on the implementation process (Taylor & Miroiu, 2002). In the end, much
52
of the implementation success hinges on the organization‘s willingness to provide
resources, time, training, incentives, and overall support to the strategic plan.
Phase IV: Monitoring
The final monitoring phase, also referred to as the evaluation phase, in
strategic planning is a necessary process, as the institution will experience ongoing
changes in situations, partnerships, and circumstances. Monitoring is designed to
evaluate the progress that has been made towards reaching the desired goals and
objectives. Formal evaluations are one of the most useful tools utilized in the
strategic planning process (Rowley et al., 1997). As described by Bryson (2011),
the purpose of reassessing and revising strategies and plans is ―to review
implemented policies, strategies, plans, programs or projects, and to decide on a
course of action that will ensure that public value continues to be created‖ (p.
319). A variety of methods can be used to monitor progress including checklists,
audits, and key performance indicators such as student data, measures of research
activity, and financial information (Rowley et al., 1997; Taylor & Miroiu, 2002).
A primary reason for monitoring progress is to enable an organization to
determine if the strategic plans it has developed are working. Ongoing and regular
(e.g., quarterly and annually) monitoring will help determine whether or not
specific strategic strategies should be maintained, adjusted, revised, or deleted
from the plan entirely (Bryson, 2011; Rowley et al., 1997; Taylor & Miroiu,
2002).
The monitoring process should be thorough and precise. To help ensure
continued progress and support for the strategic plan, the monitoring process
should provide constructive criticism and inspire creativity. Also, the monitoring
process should not be threatening as this may lead to a lack of support or even
cause individuals to rebel against the plan entirely. An effective monitoring
53
process should allow for corrections and modifications that will have a positive
impact on future planning activities. Bryson (2011) described four main reasons
that strategies fail: First, there are insufficient resources to effectively implement
the plan. Second, problems and issues change over time. This often leads to a
potentially effective strategy being used in a situation for which it was not
designed. If this situation occurs, the strategy will need to be altered or replaced
with an appropriate strategy. Third, the overproduction of policies and strategies
can lead to ―various inconsistencies, misalignments, and unintended consequences
of crowded policy and strategy areas‖ (p. 318). This is a very convincing reason
to create an organization-wide performance management system. Fourth, the
political environment may shift due to member turnover and focusing attentions
elsewhere.
Middaugh (2009) asserted that a major problem at many IHE is that the
―planning and assessment processes all too often do not talk to each other‖ (p. 5).
Organizations often fail to set up the necessary feedback loop which is valuable in
informing members of just how effective the plans have been in allowing the
organization to realize the mission and planning goals. Student learning outcomes
are one common assessment that provides information and helps guide the
planning process. The University of Delaware uses numerous measurements of
institutional effectiveness to support planning (Middaugh, 2009). A significant
budget shortfall during the late 1980s and early 1990s forced the institution to
make a variety of cost saving changes. Deans, chairs, faculty governance groups,
and the office of institutional research and planning developed a set of metrics
designed to measure instructional productivity and cost. The end result was a tool
that could be used to investigate differences among units within the organization
(e.g., chemistry, English, math, foreign language and arts).
54
Use of the metrics eventually led to questions about how specific units
within the organization compared to similar units at other organizations.
Ultimately, a tool designed to measure productivity and cost and to make
comparisons among peer organizations was developed. The power of these
assessment tools is that they provide a mechanism by which organizations can
more accurately determine similarities or differences between units or other
national benchmarks (Middaugh, 2009).
A second example of tying assessment data to planning decisions at the
University of Delaware is their participation in the Admitted Student
Questionnaire (ASQ) (Middaugh, 2009). This tool provides institutions with
student applicant feedback, much of which allows the institution to determine how
they measure up to other similar institutions. One of the objectives is to analyze
data from students who received offers to attend and accepted those offers, and
students who received offers to attend and decided not to attend the institution.
Data collected from students included perceptions about the institution‘s quality,
rigor, facilities, social life, financial aid packages offered by other institutions, and
how or where they received information. The results from the assessment data
ultimately helped the University of Delaware gain a deeper understanding of the
importance of having students actually visit institutions when making a decision.
The University of Delaware found that 80% of students who actually visited the
institution placed it as their top choice, whereas, a competing land grant institution
was the top choice for most students at the time they actually applied. The ASQ
assessment data supported the strategic planning initiative to ―eliminate deferred
maintenance to the largest extent possible‖ (Middaugh, 2009, p. 14). The ASQ
assessment data also became the basis for ―reinventing its summer campus
visitation program‖ (Middaugh, 2009, p. 14). The University of Delaware
55
example clearly supports the need for institutions to integrate their planning and
assessment processes.
Another important aspect of the assessment process is an institution‘s
ability to create a ―culture of assessment‖ (Lakos & Phipps, 2004; Ndoye &
Parker, 2010). Lakos and Phipps (2004) defined a culture of assessment as ―an
organizational environment in which decisions are based on facts, research, and
analysis, and where services are planned and delivered in ways that maximize
positive outcomes and impacts for customers and stakeholders‖ (p. 352).
Understanding an organization‘s culture can help individuals gain better insight as
to how an organization changes over time and how it operates. Although the exact
interpretation of an organization‘s ―culture‖ can take on different meanings for
different people, it is generally considered to focus on concepts such as beliefs,
values, and principles (Lakos & Phipps, 2004). Organizational culture has a
significant influence on the choices people make, the ideas they generate, and their
perceptions. Understandably, it is common for members of IHE to have a firm
commitment to an organization‘s culture. However, the culture can create
additional challenges when trying to implement change (Lakos & Phipps, 2004).
Commitment to an organization‘s culture and history frequently leads many to
become hesitant about change and also results in a sluggish change process. This
resistance is often one of the limitations that many organizations will encounter in
the planning process (Norris & Poulton, 1991).
Ndoye and Parker (2010) conducted a mixed methods study in which they
investigated strategies used by institutions to develop and sustain a culture of
assessment. More specifically, the study focused on the relationship between
institutions in different phases of the assessment process and six factors:
―leadership, faculty, resources, students, access to data, and systematic use of
56
data‖ (Ndoye & Parker, 2010, p. 29). Of the 119 individuals who participated in
the study, 83.8% were from 4-year institutions and 13.7% were from 2-year
institutions. Of the respondents, 65.55% were from public institutions, 32.77%
were from private institutions and 1.68% were from ―public universities that are
privately supported‖ (Ndoye & Parker, 2010, p. 30). Each of these factors has
been shown to have an influence on the assessment process (Ndoye & Parker,
2010). Three phases had been used to describe where institutions were in the
assessment process: ―have not established shared principles governing assessment
(beginning), establishing shared principles governing assessment (progress), and
have established shared principles governing assessment (maturation)‖ (Ndoye &
Parker, 2010, p. 31).The most commonly cited challenges for establishing a
culture of assessment included faculty involvement, resources, and systematic use
of assessment data.
Faculty who were from institutions in the maturation phase described
―faculty involvement and systematic use of assessment data‖ as the most
significant challenges in establishing a culture of assessment (p. 32). Faculty
working at institutions in the beginning phase cited, ―a lack of resources‖ as the
most significant challenge (p. 32). In terms of leadership, institutions in the
beginning phase cited this as the third most challenging factor for establishing a
culture of assessment and institutions in the progress and maturation phase ranked
it fourth and sixth respectively. In the end, each of the listed factors (leadership,
faculty, resources, students, access to data, and systematic use of data) were
determined to be of value in developing and sustaining a culture of assessment
(Ndoye & Parker, 2010), although some factors appear to be more important than
others during different phases of developing and sustaining a culture of
assessment. Ndoye and Parker (2010) also identified four major strategic themes
57
used to overcome the challenges of establishing a culture of assessment: (a)
assessment integrated in daily practice, (b) leadership, (c) use of data, and (d)
communication.
Summary
Developing and implementing a strategic plan is important to the well-
being of the HEI. Through strategic planning, attention is given to areas that may
impact the goals identified as important to mature and improve as a learning
institution. Considerations given to potential economic changes and planning in
advance of those changes make goals attainable. Evolution in society and its
impact on the success of the institution is considered in strategic planning to
produce goals that are realistic and achievable. The process of achieving
accreditation for the institution is also exceedingly beneficial to the strategic
planning process. Accreditation requires evaluation and consideration of some of
the same areas as the strategic planning process. Planning, assessment and
evaluation of resources is essential to both processes and should be merged when
feasible.
The strategic plan process includes planning, documentation and
dissemination, implementation, and monitoring. The plan must have support and
participation from all areas of the organization. Each step of the plan is vitally
important to warrant the time and effort that is utilized to make the plan a working
model of the direction that the institution wants to move toward. The importance
of the last phase, monitoring, must be addressed so that changes in direction can
be made, if warranted, and monitoring should be closely linked with institutional
assessment. The strategic plan should be fluid in nature and remain flexible and
open to changes that will improve and strengthen the institution‘s mission and
58
goals. The strategic plan can be an effective motivator and with the participation
of all the stakeholders, the institution will grow in a positive direction.
Although the literature on strategic planning is abundant, literature
pertaining to the implementation of strategic plans is limited. There is a great
need to identify effective methods for implementing strategic plans. By
examining an institution known for its effective methods in strategic planning
implementation, this study will help fill the void in strategic planning
implementation research. Methods identified in this study may prove to be
invaluable to institutional leaders, faculty and staff who seek additional knowledge
about the strategic planning implementation process. Considering the vast amount
of work and time it takes for an institution to develop strategic plans, it is essential
for institutions to effectively implement their strategic plans. In the end, even the
best crafted strategic plans are useless if people are unwilling to implement them.
59
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
This chapter provides a review of the study‘s purpose and research
questions followed by a description and rationale for the research methodology,
sampling, data collection methods and data analysis procedures. In addition,
techniques for ensuring the trustworthiness of the research are described and
limitations are discussed.
Review of the Purpose and Research Questions
The purpose of this study is to examine the strategic planning and
implementation methods used by a selected California community college that has
paid close attention to the implementation phase of the strategic planning process
and to identify promising approaches that could be adopted or adapted by
community college leaders. Five research questions are used:
1. How are the planning, documentation and dissemination phases of the
strategic planning process conducted at a community college known for
its strategic planning?
2. What methods have been used to implement the strategic plan?
3. What methods have been most effective in implementing the strategic
plan?
4. What are the biggest challenges a community college must overcome to
successfully implement a strategic plan?
5. How is strategic planning implementation monitored?
60
Research Design
Qualitative Methodology
The goal of qualitative research is to interpret how people construct
meaning and make sense of the world around them (Merriam, 2009). Moreover,
as stated by Creswell (1998), qualitative research is a ―process of . . . inquiry that
explore[s] a social or human problem. The researcher builds a complex, holistic
picture, analyzes words, reports detailed views of informants, and conducts the
study in a natural setting‖ (p. 15). The aim of this study was to gain a holistic
understanding of the strategic planning process, a detailed comprehension of the
implementation phase, and insights into the implications of these processes for
institutional effectiveness. Answers to the research questions were sought through
interviewing participants who are involved in strategic planning processes, and
analyzing related documents to gain perspectives and insight.
Case Study Approach
A case study approach was selected in order to gain an in-depth
understanding of the phenomenon of interest (strategic planning). As explained by
Stake (1995), when a researcher has a need to gain insight into a particular
question, such as how to effectively implement strategic plans, this can be
achieved by studying a particular case. The case in this study is a community
college and its strategic planning processes. Merriam (2009) described a case
study as ―an in-depth description and analysis of a bounded system‖ (p. 40).
Creswell (1998) further stated a case study is ―an exploration of a ‗bounded
system‘ or a case (or multiple cases) over time through detailed, in-depth data
collection involving multiple sources of information rich in context‖ (p. 61). Data
61
were collected in this case study through interviews, document review, and field
notes.
The context of the case study helps to determine which type of case study is
utilized, and in this research, an instrumental case study was chosen. Stake (2000)
stated an instrumental case study is used to ―provide insights into an issue‖ and the
case ―plays a supportive role, which facilitates our understanding of something
else‖ (p. 437). The community college enabled examination of strategic planning
processes and particularly the implementation phase.
Participants and Sampling
Case
Purposeful, criterion-based sampling was used to select a California
community college that met three criteria: (a) showed evidence of paying close
attention to the phenomenon of interest, (b) provided accessibility to relevant
documents and interview participants, and (c) expressed an interest in participating
in the research. Moreover, as stated by Stake (2000), ―The researcher examines
various interests in the phenomenon, selecting a case of typicality, but leaning
toward those cases that seem to offer opportunity to learn‖ (p. 446).
The California college selected for this study is a 2-year institution, and to
preserve confidentiality, the college will be referred to as Strategic Planning
Community College (SPCC) throughout this study.
Participants
Purposeful sampling was used to select faculty, classified members, and
administrators as participants for face-to-face interviews. In total, six
administrators, two faculty and two classified member were each interviewed for
approximately 55 minutes. The number of interviews conducted in each category
62
was determined by when the data saturation point was reached. The Director of
Research and Institutional Effectiveness (DIRE), who served as the point person
for this study, selected participants who have the greatest knowledge and
experience, as well as diverse perspectives, about the strategic planning process.
However, Classified Member 2 was recommended by three administrators and
interviewed on a single topic in which she had expertise-- the procedures for
reporting Planning for Institutional Effectiveness (PIE) data using the institutions
software program called TracDat. Descriptive information that is relevant to the
study is provided for each participant in Table 2.
Table 2
Participant Descriptors and Demographics
Code
Age
group
(years)
Gender
Years
employed
with
SPCC
Years
involved
with
strategic
planning
Administrator 1 56-65 Female 16 20+
Administrator 2 46-55 Female 11 11
Administrator 3 56-65 Male 1 27
Administrator 4 46-55 Male 8.5 8.5
Administrator 5 56-65 Male 6 16
Administrator 6 56-65 Female 26 10
Faculty Member 1 36-45 Male 13 4
Faculty Member 2 36-45 Male 12 6-8
Classified Member 1 46-55 Male 26 18
Classified Member 2 26-35 Female 15 11
63
Researcher as the Instrument
Throughout my 7 years as a community college instructor, I have been
involved in several aspects of the institution including, teaching, the academic
senate, member of the union executive board, and science division chairperson.
Although my experience in working directly with the development of strategic
plans is limited, exposure to various aspects of the strategic planning process has
led me to believe that the process is ineffective and needs to be improved. By
conducting this study I hoped to gain a deeper understanding of effective strategic
planning implementation, which can improve practices at my college and help to
inform processes used by other institutions.
My previous experience in conducting research, studying about research
and research methodologies, and integrating multiple aspects of research into the
science classes I teach has laid the groundwork for this study. I have a great
appreciation for research that has already been conducted on strategic planning
and this study will add to the growing body of literature pertaining to the strategic
planning process. Reflexivity was utilized as a method to help minimize
researcher bias. During the 1-hour time frame between interviews and as part of
the continuous data analysis process, reflections were recorded in the field notes.
Data Collection Methods and Procedures
Gaining Access
Multiple people from different institutions recommended the DIRE as
someone who is very knowledgeable about the strategic planning process. This
individual was first contacted via email, and subsequently via telephone to explain
the rationale for selecting that particular community college as the desired case
study institution and to provide an overview of the study. After clarifying and
64
discussing research expectations, the DIRE agreed to serve as the point person for
the study.
After identifying the point person, and receiving assurance that the college
would be willing to support the research, it was necessary to gain permission from
the appropriate administrator to conduct the study. Upon completion of the
required procedures, access to the site was granted and work on identifying
potential interviewees at the site was initiated.
After identifying appropriate individuals, the DIRE provided contact
information for potential participants. The DIRE made the initial introduction to
the study by emailing all of the potential participants and asking for their
participation. Immediately following, the researcher sent out a follow-up email to
all potential participants explaining the purpose of the study and asking for their
cooperation. The DIRE was also carbon copied in the follow-up email sent out to
potential participants. The researcher subsequently arranged interview dates and
provided contact information. Prior to conducting interviews, the consent form,
interview questions and questionnaire were all emailed to the participants.
Questionnaire
To ensure efficient use of interview time, some data were gathered from the
participants by asking them to complete a questionnaire prior to the face-to-face
interview (see Appendix B). The questionnaire was designed to gather
information pertaining to demographics, experience with strategic planning and
attitude toward the strategic planning process.
Individual Interviews
In-person interviews lasted approximately 55 minutes. A minimum of a 1-
hour intersession period was scheduled between each interview. During the
65
intersession, the digital recorder was prepared for the next interview, additional
notes and reflections about the previous interview were recorded and preparation
for the next interview was completed. At the beginning of each interview the
interviewees were asked to sign an informed consent document. Both the
researcher and the interviewee retained a copy of the informed consent form (see
Appendix C). The interviewees were informed of how much time the interview
was expected to take, the purpose of the study, and how the results from the
interview were to be used.
Due to its flexibility, a semi-structured interview format was used for
conducting the interviews. In semi-structured interviews, specific topics and
issues to be explored guide a majority of the interview, but the exact wording and
order of the questions are not predetermined (Bailey, 2007; Merriam, 2009). A
scripted set of questions designed to answer the research questions (see Appendix
D was used to guide the interview process in this study. Follow-up or probing
questions were asked when more information or elaboration was warranted.
To help maintain consistency and organize thoughts throughout the
interviews, an interview protocol was utilized (see Appendix E). The interview
protocol helped to insure that all appropriate interview measures (e.g., confirming
permission to digitally record the interview, concluding thoughts, information on
ending the interview, follow-up information, and thanking the respondent) were
completed. During the interval between interviews, field notes that were written
throughout the interview process were reviewed and any necessary adjustments
(e.g., probing questions) were made.
In order to enhance the clarity and quality of the research protocol, a pilot
interview was conducted with an individual having expertise in strategic planning
at a different community college. The pilot was used to confirm functionality of
66
the digital recorder and to address any concerns about the wording of questions,
content, or interview format prior to interviews with the case study participants.
Document Review
Documents are an important source of data in qualitative research and were
utilized in this study. The term documents ―is broadly defined to include public
records, personal papers, popular culture documents, visual documents, and
physical material and artifacts‖ (Merriam, 2009, p. 162). The case study
institution‘s website was thoroughly searched for documents that focused
primarily on the strategic planning process. Examples of relevant document types
include accreditation and planning reports. Most of the documents used
throughout the study were available online and easily downloaded. The strategic
planning documents were then analyzed for content related to strategic planning
implementation and were used to reveal meaning, better understanding of the
institutions strategic planning processes, and insights relevant to the research
questions.
Field Notes
As indicated by Merriam (2009), field notes are a written account of
observations made by the researcher. According to Merriam, the field notes
should be highly descriptive and include observations of ―the participants, the
setting, the activities or behaviors of the participants, and what the observer does‖
(p. 130). Field notes were recorded throughout the interview process and during
the intervals between interviews. In addition, field notes were used throughout the
interview process to record probing questions. They also served as reminders for
follow-up questions inspired during the interviews, a guide for monitoring the
interview process, and a data collection method. Hand written reflective notes
67
also were recorded and subsequently transcribed into Microsoft word documents.
As suggested by Merriam, (2009), the field notes were typed as soon after the
interviews as possible.
Ethical Considerations
Before any research began, the study was cleared through the Institutional
Review Board. Participation in the study was strictly voluntary, and each
participant signed and received a copy of an informed consent document prior to
starting the interview process (see Appendix C). The informed consent document
explained the purpose of the study, the participant‘s role in the study, and the
responsibilities of the researcher. Any questions or concerns of the participants
were addressed prior to beginning the interview. Details that could be used to
identify the case study institution were intentionally omitted from the study and
confidentiality of the case study institution, point person, and all participants were
maintained through the use of pseudonyms. The data were maintained in two
separate storage devices that were locked in a file cabinet accessible only by the
researcher.
Data Analysis
Content Analysis
As suggested by several researchers (e.g., Bailey, 2007; Merriam, 2009;
Stake, 1995), data analysis for this study was essentially started from the time the
study began. When researchers begin the process of conducting a study they
typically know the problem being addressed, what questions they would like
answered, and the general methods that will be used to conduct the study.
However, there are also many unknowns such as the discoveries to be made, what
or who to concentrate on, and the outcome of the final analysis. As stated by
68
Merriam (2009), ―without ongoing analysis, the data can be unfocused, repetitious,
and overwhelming in sheer volume of material that needs to be processed‖
(p.171).
An open coding system was utilized throughout the data collection and
analysis process. The open coding system provided an opportunity to begin
developing categories of common themes, produced insights for ongoing field
work, and afforded opportunities to make necessary adjustments to the study. By
combining the ―open coded‖ data categories through the use of focused coding,
the data were further condensed into fewer categories.
Content analysis was used to analyze documents and interview transcripts.
As described by Merriam (2009), ―content analysis is a systematic procedure for
describing the content of communications‖ (p. 152). After documents were
located, they were analyzed to determine characteristics such as the author, the
reasons for being written, audience, context in which they were written,
authenticity, and bias (Merriam, 2009). NVivo 9 software was used as the data
analysis tool.
Data Managing and Storage
NVivo 9 is software used for analysis of qualitative research data (QSR
International, n.d.). The software is designed to help the researcher manage and
codify various types of data including textual and media data. Some documents
such as field notes, and a methodological log were created and maintained directly
in the NVivo 9 program. Other documents were scanned or transcribed (e.g., field
notes, memos, and handwritten work) and imported into NVivo 9 for analysis.
Eventually, all the field notes, documents and interviews were coded using NVivo
9, and categories pertaining to strategic planning and implementation at the case
69
study institution emerged. Throughout the study, data were stored on an external
device and locked in a secured location accessible only to the researcher.
Trustworthiness
There are a variety of perspectives on what criteria actually constitute
trustworthiness. Stake (1995) used validation and naturalistic generalizations
(referred to as transferability by others) as criteria to establish trustworthiness.
Validation can be accomplished through triangulation and member checking
(Stake, 1995). Stake (1995) defined naturalistic generalizations as ―conclusions
arrived at through personal engagement in life‘s affairs or by vicarious experience
so well constructed that the person feels as if it happened to themselves‖ (p. 85).
Guba (1981) discussed criteria for trustworthiness that includes credibility,
confirmability, dependability, and transferability.
Credibility refers to how credible or believable the analysis, formulations
and interpretations of a study actually are (Guba & Lincoln, 1982). A variety of
mechanisms exist for establishing the credibility of a study including prolonged
engagement, persistent observation, triangulation, peer debriefing, collection of
referential adequacy materials, member checks, establishing structural
corroboration or coherence, and establishing referential adequacy (Guba, 1981).
Credibility of this study was established through triangulation using multiple
sources of data, and multiple methods for collecting data (e.g., interviews, field
notes, and documents). Bias was controlled for by collecting data from a variety
of sources and individuals with varying perspectives about the strategic planning
process. The inclusion of a diverse group of individuals with various roles and
responsibilities along with a confidentiality agreement for both the site and the
participants allowed for openness and the collection of differing perspectives.
70
Moreover, a member check was conducted with the DIRE to confirm the accuracy
of the strategic planning process.
Confirmability refers to an inquiry that ―examines the product-the data,
findings, interpretations, and recommendations-and attests that it is supported by
data and is internally coherent so that the ‗bottom line‘ may be accepted‖ (Lincoln
& Guba, 1985, p. 318). Methods used to establish confirmability may include
triangulation, reflexivity or a confirmability audit (Guba, 1981). Confirmability of
this study was strengthened through the use of reflexivity and triangulation.
Reflexivity is when a ―qualitative researcher systematically reflects on who he or
she is in the inquiry and is sensitive to his or her personal biography and how it
shapes the study‖ (Creswell, 2003, p.182). In particular, reflexivity was utilized
during the intervals between interviews. Confirmability was also strengthened by
utilizing ongoing records of the data and interpretations.
Dependability refers to the level of stability a study would have if it were to
be reproduced. The level of stability (dependability) however, must be considered
only after discounting the natural differences that occur within any social
phenomenon (Guba & Lincoln, 1982). Dependability can be established through
the use of overlap methods, stepwise replication, establishing an audit trail and by
conducting a dependability audit (Guba, 1981). Dependability of this study was
supported through the use of multiple overlapping methods and by maintaining
detailed records of the research design and implementation (dependability audit
trail). An ongoing analysis of the data was also conducted throughout the study.
The transferability of a study may be increased through the use of
purposive sampling, collection of ―thick‖ descriptive data, and by developing a
thick description of the context (Guba, 1981, p. 86). The detailed rich thick
descriptions of the strategic planning implementation protocols and the findings
71
from the study will allow readers to identify specific components that may be
transferable to their institution, depending on the context. Using purposive
sampling to identify potential interview candidates also increased transferability.
The overall purpose of this study was to provide information about strategic
planning implementation processes are shown to be effective and adaptable to
other California community colleges.
Limitations
The use of a single institution is the greatest limitation of this study.
Efforts to identify additional colleges that focus on strategic planning
implementation were not successful and time constraints also were a factor for
delimiting the study to a single institution. However, the benefit of using one
institution was the ability to conduct a comprehensive and detailed examination of
the phenomenon of interest by focusing on depth rather than breadth. A second
limitation is that results of a qualitative case study cannot be generalized. As
stated by Merriam, (2009), ―Special features of case study research that provide
the rationale for its selection also present certain limitations in its usage‖ (p. 51).
To offset this limitation, rich thick description is provided to enable readers to
determine what aspects of the research may be transferable to their own contexts.
Summary
The qualitative case study design enabled gathering and analyzing a wide
array of data types and information that focus on a specific phenomenon (strategic
planning). Both the institution and the individuals who participated in the study
were selected using purposeful sampling. The case study institution was selected
based on accessibility and interest in participating, availability of documentation,
recent reaffirmation of accreditation, and recommendations by external sources
72
who considered the institution‘s strategic planning process to be effective.
Purposeful sampling was used to select faculty, classified members, and
administrators as participants. Documents were obtained either through the
institution‘s website or were provided directly to the researcher.
Data from interviews, field notes, and documents collected throughout the
study were used as part of a holistic analysis process. Content analysis and
categorical grouping was utilized to discover common themes related to the
strategic planning process, and particularly implementation. The data
management and analysis processes were facilitated in part by using the NVivo 9
software program.
73
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS
To identify effective strategic planning practices at SPCC, 10 interviews
were conducted with members from SPCC. The interviewed participants included
six administrators, two faculty and two classified members. This chapter is
organized around the five research questions and presents the findings from
analysis of the interviews, as well as documents and field notes. The chapter
begins with an overview of the strategic planning process at SPCC and then
transitions into each of the five research questions. The chapter‘s structure also
reflects the four phases of the strategic planning process: (a) planning, (b)
documentation and dissemination, (c) implementation, and (d) monitoring.
Strategic Planning at SPCC
This section presents an overview of the strategic planning process at
SPCC. The data were gathered from planning documents and synthesized into a
holistic description of the process.
A strategic planning implementation document on the SPCC website
provided a definition of strategic planning: ―Strategic planning is a systematic
process through which an organization agrees on and builds commitment among
key stakeholders to priorities that are essential to its mission and are responsive to
the environment.‖ Moreover goals were distinguished from objectives:
Goals (and mission statements) can be broad and overarching. Strategic
objectives are developed to operationalize these goals. A strategic
objective is a statement that converts a goal into concrete terms that are
measurable for the ultimate purpose of determining whether or not the goal
was achieved.
74
The document also stated ―strategic objectives serve to clarify the organization‘s
intentions and work most effectively when communicated with the campus
community.‖
SPCC‘s strategic plan consists of 16 goals, each containing two or more
strategic objectives. The goals and strategic objectives of the strategic plan are re-
visited on an annual basis during which time they may be modified, deleted or
new goals may even be added. The same strategic plan implementation document
stated that by associating the institution‘s strategic objectives with its college
goals, SPCC ―strengthens its ability to focus action and measure progress towards
its goals.‖ The strategic objectives provide a focus that may well span numerous
assessment cycles. Because not all strategic objectives can be accomplished in a
single year, the document stated that some of the strategic objectives may remain
under a particular college goal for 2 to 3 years. Strategic objectives spanning
multiple assessment cycles provide SPCC the opportunity to carry on their effort
in a desired direction for continuous improvement over a period of time.
At SPCC the strategic plan is developed by the Institutional Effectiveness
Committee (IEC) and must be approved by the President‘s Advisory Council
(PAC). The PAC and IEC are both shared governance committees which include
representatives from across SPCC‘s campus (e.g., faculty, classified, managers
and students). While conducting the interviews for this research, Faculty Member
1 referred to the IEC as the institution‘s strategic planning committee. It was later
confirmed by the DIRE that this is a correct statement. To develop the strategic
objectives, the IEC first identifies specific units/departments throughout the
campus which have close ties to or fall under the purview of certain college goals.
These specific units/departments are then asked to provide proposed strategic
75
objectives that have some means of assessment. As described in the SPCC
implementation document already discussed, SPCC‘s strategic objectives are:
(a) central--they are relevant to the current and future needs and align with
the college‘s goals/mission statement; (b) measurable--they identify
indicators to determine whether or not the goal is achievable, (c) feasible--
they are realistic (but a bit challenging) given the internal and external
conditions, (d) specific--they are clear about what they are measuring, (e)
time-bound--they identify a time frame in which the objective will be
accomplished.
While developing the proposed strategic objectives, unit members are asked
to consider the current plans and planning efforts within their unit or department.
For example, if the human resources department is asked to propose a strategic
objective related to one of the college goals, the human resources department
should also consider the goals and objectives they are currently working towards
achieving. It is likely that goals may have strategic objectives emanating from
various units/departments on campus. In describing how IEC collects and
identifies new strategic objectives from units/departments Administrator 2 stated:
PIE is reviewed to determine which activities are occurring and whether or
not people are addressing a lot of the college goals. The unit plans and the
college goals are analyzed and from this, some sort of generic college
strategic objectives which are important to be met are developed. The IEC
then goes back to select departments or units and asks them to develop
some specific strategic objectives which align with specific college goals.
The departments will then develop objectives, which are ultimately
provided to the IEC, which decides which of the strategic objectives is most
salient or important. These are the objectives that are then passed onto the
next level [PAC].
Upon receiving the requested proposals for strategic objectives, IEC selects
and recommends strategic objectives to PAC. PAC then accepts the strategic
objectives, edits them, or returns them to IEC for further modification. Upon
approval by PAC, the strategic plan is updated to reflect any modifications. The
new strategic objectives and their corresponding goals are launched at the start of
76
the annual Planning for Institutional Effectiveness (PIE) cycle. PIE is the name
assigned to the annual program review process used at SPCC. The PIE process
will be discussed in further detail later in this chapter. Towards the end of the PIE
cycle, all units/departments responsible for a specific strategic objective are
accountable for providing an analysis of their results as related to the proposed
strategic objective(s). On behalf of IEC, the research team monitors the progress
that units/departments make toward achieving the strategic objectives. In order to
monitor progress, the research team contacts each unit/department responsible for
reporting on a strategic objective and has them complete a document (template)
describing their progress towards meeting the objective(s). It is more efficient for
IEC to find the strategic objective outcomes when presented directly to them in a
single document. Although the information is provided directly to the research
team, it is very likely (but not necessary) that the information will also be
incorporated into the unit/department PIE report.
Once the PIE reports have been completed and submitted, they go through
a series of summary processes (Figure 2). For example, the unit PIE reports are
condensed into a manager‘s summary by the appropriate managers/deans. The
manager summaries continue on to the designated vice president who summarizes
the manager‘s summaries. SPCC has four vice presidents, each generating a VP
PIE summary. Administrator 6, one of SPCC‘s four VP‘s, provided the following
description about how PIE reports are summarized:
I am presented with the division level planning for institutional
effectiveness reports from each one of my divisions. . . . I take that second
level, the departments send their PIE reports to the division dean, there is a
summary that is created, an evaluative summary, that comes to me and then
I need to create an evaluative summary taking into account all of the PIE
reports I get. I do that myself, I sit at the computer and I spend many days
going over each report trying to decide what is representative, what we
include in the team PIE summary. When I get that drafted, I take it back to
77
Figure 2. Flow diagram of the SPCC PIE summary process as it feeds into the strategic planning process.
Note: The number of unit/department PIE reports varies for each manager. Figure 2 depicts the unit/departments
summary for a single manager. The number of manager PIE reports passed onto the appropriate VP also varies. For
clarity, Figure 2 only shows the manager PIE summary process as it would pertain to the VP of instruction.
78
the team, I ask all the deans to look at it and I ask them to let me know
whether they think their departments are being fairly represented, if there is
anybody we are leaving out, if there is something important that was
contributed that was left out.
It should also be noted that as the summary process continues, each
summary is sent back to the appropriate constituent groups to help confirm the
accuracy and comprehensiveness of the summary. Administrator 6 asserted that
providing access to the VP summary helps to ensure accuracy and make sure that
none of the important details were left out:
I ask them [deans] if they have time, to share it [VP summary] with your
department chairs, let them speak up and see what will represent our team
and let us know if there is something we‘ve missed or if something was
stated incorrectly or if there are any errors in representing their efforts on
behalf of the college, and when I get responses I make revisions to mine
and I turn it in. So I document the instruction team planning efforts as the
team lead.
When complete the VP summaries are passed onto IEC, which uses the VP
PIE summaries to create a condensed annual report that will be presented to PAC.
In discussing the annual report generated by IEC Administrator 6 stated:
[IEC] creates an institutional annual report . . . which is presented to the
PAC. It‘s a recommendation along with any recommended changes to
process, format, college goals, it‘s received and it either gets approved at
president‘s advisory council, or it gets sent back for a different kind of
work or modification of recommendations.
In addition to other information such as planning context and data trends,
summary of progress on student learning outcomes, team goals and resources
identified in relation to planning and evaluation, the IEC annual report (Planning
for Institutional Effectiveness (PIE) Annual Summary document) lists all of the
goals as well as their strategic objectives and their outcomes. The annual report
indicates the campus-wide progress in meeting the strategic objectives. Based on
the VP PIE reports, IEC can ascertain the need for any revisions to the strategic
79
plan and goals. As described by one administrator, ―college goals emanate from
multiple sources, but mostly the PIE Summary provides the impetus for changes to
college goals.‖ A variety of factors, including progress towards meeting goals,
internal and external conditions, and input from leadership will direct the setting
of new strategic objectives aligned with the goals of the next assessment cycle.
Any recommended changes or modifications to the strategic goals and objectives
are provided to PAC for approval and finally by the board of trustees.
Three administrators, Faculty Member 2 and Classified Member 1 made
comparisons between the strategic planning process at SPCC and other
educational institutions. The overarching theme from these participants was that
the strategic planning process at SPCC was as good, or better, than that of other
institutions.
Research Question 1
The first research question asked: How are the planning, documentation
and dissemination phases of the strategic planning process conducted at a
community college known for its strategic planning? The primary planning
mechanism for SPCC is called PIE and was discussed extensively by interviewees.
Between the strategic plan and PIE, the participants focused more prominently on
PIE; in fact, some participants indicated that numerous members throughout the
institution do not think the strategic plan and PIE are closely linked.
Planning for Institutional Effectiveness
One of the most common themes that emerged from the interviews was the
relationship between SPCC‘s program review and strategic planning processes.
As described by a number of participants, planning efforts at SPCC occur at
different levels throughout the institution. Administrator 6 stated, ―We have the
80
unit level planning effort, we have the team level planning effort, and we have the
institutional planning effort.‖ Documents found on the SPCC website,
triangulated with many of the participants‘ comments pertaining to the strategic
planning process.
One process that did not seem to be as clearly understood by some of the
participants was how PIE is actually tied into the development of the strategic
plan. There were obvious differences among participants in describing the steps
taken to develop the institution‘s strategic plan. In terms of developing the
strategic plan, once the units or departments complete the PIE reports, a series of
prioritizations at various levels throughout the institution will occur.
Administrator 6 stated:
Any prioritization always starts at the department level. So the department
as a unit will prioritize its needs, or its positions for any resources. They
[the department prioritizations] go to the division, then all of the
department chairs bring their prioritized lists and they dialogue at that level
and a division prioritized list is created. Then it [division prioritized list]
comes to the team and then we do the same thing [prioritization process]
with the deans and associate deans.
At some point throughout the interview all of the participants addressed the
PIE process, which is conducted by every unit or department at SPCC. All
administrator participants and Faculty Member 2 briefly described how the PIE
process is based on standard documents that everyone utilizes. The standardized
PIE reporting form, posted on the institution‘s website, is titled Planning for
Institutional Effectiveness (PIE) 2011-12 UNIT/DEPT Worksheet. The same
information can also be reported using a software program called TracDat,
discussed in more detail later in the chapter. The UNIT/DEPT worksheet
document was very thorough and contained multiple headings and sub-headings.
The document began with a description of the institutions mission and goals. The
81
PIE worksheet contained multiple headings typical of a community college
program review document. Some of the key headings found throughout the
worksheet include accomplishments, internal and external conditions, information
analysis, outcome assessments such as student learning outcomes (SLOs), general
education outcomes (GEOs), and administrative unit outcomes (AUOs), resources
needed to achieve goals, planning for the future, team goals, and an evaluation of
the planning process.
With the exception of Classified Member 1, all of the participants indicated
in some way that PIE is an important planning process at SPCC. However, the
connection between PIE and the strategic planning process was not as well defined
by some of the participants. Comments about PIE as it relates to the planning
efforts at SPCC included:
[PIE report forms from each unit are reviewed to] see what activities are
happening and whether people are in fact addressing a lot of the college
goals and whether there is some substantial information being addressed
there. So from the strategic planning point of view we look at those unit
plans, and then we also look at the college goals and we come up with some
sort of generic college strategic objectives that we feel would be important
to be met and be focused on. (Administrator 2)
As indicated by Faculty Member 2, PIE seems to be the biggest planning
effort at SPCC.
What I think is the biggest planning effort is PIE, planning for institutional
effectiveness. What it‘s allowed a department like ours to do is really think
more long term. So, in 5-years where do I want to be? Where do we want
to be as a department? So it does actually allow us to think more long term
. . . [the PIE process] does help, I think, to keep the powers that be in
alignment or at least in an understanding with what our department sees as
our vision. (Faculty Member 2)
The summary process as previously described in the strategic planning
overview, ultimately produces four VP PIE summary reports which are forwarded
to IEC. The four VP summaries, along with any other related documents, are
82
ultimately submitted to the institutional effectiveness committee (IEC). The IEC
reviews all of the VP summaries and related documents. The IEC will use the
summaries, along with other related documents, to prepare a year-end report
which is given to PAC. PAC is a shared governance body, which provides an
advisory vote to the president. Referring to the fact that PAC can only formulate
an advisory vote, Faculty Member 1 said:
If the president‘s advisory council recommends that the president not sign
it, it would probably not be a good idea for the president to sign it…. It
normally is that presidents will not sign off on something unless we [PAC]
think it is a good idea.
The IEC‘s year-end report provides PAC with information about the
progress made towards meeting the college goals. The IEC report also makes
recommendations to PAC for improvement and modifications to the strategic
plans. PAC will review the IEC report and either approves the IEC
recommendations or sends the report back to IEC for additional modifications.
Faculty Member 1said ―the president‘s advisory council reads comments, decides
whether its [IEC report] good enough to go forward or if it should be returned for
more revision.‖
Documentation and Dissemination
Participants‘ descriptions of the PIE and strategic planning processes
triangulated with documents available on the SPCC website. In terms of the
strategic planning process, the actual strategic plan document provides at least two
figures showing the various levels of planning and the relationship between the
strategic plan and other institutional components. One figure in particular
provides an easy to follow chart that depicts the unit, team, and institutional levels
of the planning process and how they relate. Each level has a detailed description
of how the college goals and strategic objectives are developed and
83
communicated. A second planning document, a memo for the 2011-12 academic
year, was sent to the college community on March 9, 2012. This document from
the IEC chair provided a detailed description of additions and modifications to the
college goals, as well as any changes to the planning process from the previous
year. It also provided a detailed timeline and description for the 2011-12 PIE
reports. The timeline included due dates for the unit PIE reports, managers PIE
summaries, VP PIE summaries, and the IEC year-end-report.
Documentation and dissemination of the strategic plans at SPCC are
conducted in a consistent manner. Each unit at SPCC has the option of
completing their PIE reports in either a MS word document or a software program
called TracDat (also called ePIE). Administrators 4, 5, and 6 and Faculty Member
2, mentioned the fact that SPCC‘s staff can now use either MS word or TracDat
for completing the PIE process. Classified Member 2, who is responsible for
inputting much of the PIE data for the college, explained the two PIE reporting
methods and stated that regardless of which method is used to input the PIE
reports, the content is the same.
A thorough search of the SPCC website revealed strategic planning
documents from as early as 2006-07. Also available through the SPCC website
are strategic planning progress reports, team goal summaries, the four vice
president summary reports, planning for institutional effectiveness annual
summaries with recommendations to the President‘s Advisory Council (report
prepared by IEC), future planning summaries, an evaluation of the VP summary
process, an employee‘s evaluation summary of PIE, a committee goals and
progress report, assessments of internal and external conditions and other strategic
planning related documents.
84
With regard to dissemination, three of the administrators and Classified
Member 1 referred to the SPCC website as a key mechanism for disseminating
various planning documents. Administrator 2 stated that the strategic plan ―goes
out on the web for the world to see.‖ Administrator 5 added that ―dissemination is
a lot of sharing up front and then research takes over from there, making sure it is
all available.‖ At least two other administrators mentioned that planning
documents are shared and reviewed by a variety of individuals, but the specifics of
how this occurs was not addressed.
At SPCC PIE is a valuable documentation method. IEC‘s PIE annual
summary report is one of the most important documents leading up to the
development of the strategic plan. As previously described, this document
contains a culmination of information about units/departments from across
campus. More importantly, it includes recommendations for modifications to the
next year‘s strategic plan. Although some documents are disseminated via email
from the IEC chair, most of them are made available online through the SPCC
website. Strategic planning documents for 2006-01 to present have been archived
on the SPCC website and are easily accessible.
Research Question 2
The second research question asked: What methods have been used to
implement the strategic plan? Responses to this question were not as numerous or
varied as expected. Instead, responses to the third research question yielded
greater insight regarding strategic planning implementation methods used at
SPCC, as will be discussed in a later section. Four explanations emerged from this
question: (a) units/departments were assigned to submit and report on strategic
objectives, (b) PIE directs the implementation, (c) strategic decisions are based on
the strategic plan, and (d) training is provided to facilitate implementation.
85
The strongest theme that emerged, which was addressed by Administrators
1, 2, and 4, and Faculty Member 1, described how various units/departments
across campus are asked, or assigned, the task to develop strategic objectives
which correspond to the department‘s focus. The strategic objectives that are
developed are supposed to align with certain college goals found within the SPCC
strategic plan. While describing the method for implementing the strategic plan
Administrator 2 stated:
To implement it [strategic plan] was just getting on the email and just
saying congratulations ‗you have been chosen.‘ Your department‘s going
to provide, and here is what you are going to do. Dictatorial absolutely.
But it all comes from the IEC through the president so, therefore, thou shall
do it.
Along the same lines, Faculty Member 1 stated:
We [IEC] solicit parties to come up with strategies [which address the goals
of the strategic plan] and then they report back that they did and we read
them and all nod. Then a few months later we receive a draft report that
says what progress they are making towards their objective.
Two administrators and one faculty member brought up the use of PIE as a
method of implementing the strategic plan. While describing how
units/departments work to meet the strategic goals, Administrator 1 asserted, ―the
easiest way that departments address the goals is through PIE because you have to
write to the college goals. So it forces you at least once a year to reflect on the
college goals and see the overlay.‖
Although most of the participants addressed either PIE or assigning
unit/departments the task of developing strategic objectives as a method of
implementation, Administrator 3, however, provided a deeper insight into how the
institution actually uses the strategic plan as a guiding document to make campus-
wide decisions. The strategic planning document drives a number of processes
including the hiring of faculty, determining what projects are funded,
86
strengthening the student support system and more. In discussing the
implementation of the strategic plan, Administrator 3 explained:
We discussed the strategic plan goals and objectives with the board of
trustees who set priorities for the campus going forward. Also, the cabinet
members, the senior management, is intensively involved in the process so
the executive decisions we make are strongly influenced by the strategic
plan. The strategic plan has been used to inform what fulltime faculty
positions we hire, it‘s [strategic plan] been used to inform the projects that
are funded by general obligation bonds, it‘s been used to strengthen our
students support system, it‘s been used to direct what grants we compete
for… it‘s influenced our ability to work with the business community. It‘s
a good annual way that we do a check that everybody is moving in the
same direction.
Administrator 6, who provided a slightly different perspective on the
strategic plan implementation method, focused more on the process used to
develop the strategic plan as opposed to how the institution uses the strategic plan
after it has been developed. The response indicated that in order for institutional
members to develop a solid understanding of the strategic planning process and
what was expected of them, they were provided with extensive guidance and help.
In describing the strategic plan implementation methods, Administrator 6 said:
We did a lot of presentations with people, a lot of training opportunities. A
little group of people from the IEC would go to the divisions and they
would explain to them how this was going to work. There is this part and
this part and this part and you would do this, do you have any questions? A
lot of trainings, a lot of presentations, managers, faculty groups, whatever.
There was a lot of public information that went out for probably the first 3
or 4 years.
Four explanations of how SPCC implements the strategic plan were
described. Of the four, the one with the strongest theme, supported by three
participants, was assigning strategic objectives to specific units/departments.
87
Research Question 3
The third research question asked: What methods have been most effective
in implementing the strategic plan? The three themes that emerged as being the
most effective methods for implementing the strategic plan included (a)
accountability, (b) gathering feedback about the strategic plan and the planning
process and then being responsive to the input and (c) closely tying resource
allocation to the strategic plan.
One theme specifically addressed by Administrator 2, and 4, and Faculty
Member 1 was accountability. Accountability also ties back to the theme of
assigning strategic objectives to specific units/departments as described under
research question 2. When referring to accountability as the most effective
implementation method Administrator 2 stated, ―Probably the best method is to
show them what happens with the strategic plan each year. It‘s the accountability
piece.‖ Administrator 2 went on to explain how in her opinion almost everybody
at SPCC is a high achiever and if they do not participate, the PIE reports are
incomplete when submitted to the PAC, which is a professional embarrassment:
There‘s going to be a big hole that says you didn‘t do what we asked you to
do. ‗Are you okay with that?‘ It‘s a simple question. ‗Are you okay with
that?‘ And clearly nobody is. Nobody wants to be that obvious that they
weren‘t able to do their job or they chose not to do their job.
The second theme pertaining to effective methods for implementing the
strategic plan was gathering feedback and then being responsive to the feedback.
Four administrators (1, 2, 4 and 6) discussed the feedback and responsiveness
theme. As stated by Administrator 6, ―Being responsive to people‘s feedback, it
makes implementation effective.‖ Administrator 6 provided two examples of how
the institution has been responsive to feedback:
For years people said the timeline doesn‘t work for us… finally after a few
years the timeline was adjusted to be more accommodating and people
88
loved it . . . . People like having changes made based on the reality of their
experience.
The second example had to do with the reporting mechanisms used for PIE.
She claimed that when PIE was first rolled out people initially complained that
they had to complete their PIE using hard copies, so the documents were made
available electronically. Administrator 6 further explained that even after making
the documents available online, people were not satisfied and many of them stated,
―Why don‘t we have some kind of software so we can just put our information
into the software?‖ After purchasing software and exerting a huge effort, many
remained dissatisfied. In the words of Administrator 6, ―They hated the software,
can‘t figure it out, it doesn‘t make sense. . . and we are now this year finally going
back. . . .They have their choice.‖ They can use either the MS word documents or
the TracDat software (ePIE) to complete their PIE reports.
The third theme was that having the strategic plan tied in closely with
resource allocation is an effective method for implementing the strategic plan.
Administrators 3, 4, 5, 6 and Faculty Member 1 mentioned resource allocation.
Although Administrator 1 was the only participant who explicitly stated that the
link to resource allocation was one of the most effective methods of
implementation, Administrator 3 said the strategic plan has a ―strong connection
with resource allocation. It‘s the primary way that the strategic plan is
implemented, by allocating resources.‖ Administrator 3 went on to provide a
more in depth explanation of how the strategic plan is tied to resource allocation:
Each program, through program review, sets priorities both for processes
that they want to do like curricular reform and for additional projects that
may need resources. That clearly drives at the program level. At the
institutional level, the large scale decisions are informed by program review
and we just don‘t do anything unless it‘s in program review or reflected in
the strategic plan. Because we update it every year, that gives us a chance
89
to keep current… I think that one of the reasons it works is that that‘s the
way we make decisions and end runs are by-in-large not allowed.
Although it was not specifically stated as one of the most effective methods
for implementing the strategic plan, Administrators 4, 5, and 6 and Faculty
Member 1 also addressed the idea that the PIE reports and the strategic plan are
closely tied to funding requests and resource allocation. When discussing resource
allocation as it ties to the goals of the strategic plan Faculty Member 1 stated: ―If
you cannot explain how your proposal is going to advance the colleges goals it‘s
not going to be funded.‖
Not everyone who discussed resource allocation was convinced that the
planning documents are actually used to determine how funding is distributed.
Some people seem to believe that the planning documents are only used for
recording and reporting progress. For example, Faculty Member 2 claimed that
when resources are required, the best way to get funding is to go directly to the
person in charge and start asking for the funds. He stated that if he waited for
funding to come from something that was put into PIE it would probably never
happen. When discussing this matter Faculty Member 2 stated:
If our department only put things in PIE and we waited for stuff to
magically appear. I don‘t believe that‘s how it ever appears… If I need
something, my first response is going to be to talk to my dean and then
she‘ll say make sure it‘s in your PIE. Is it [PIE] a reporting device,
recording device, or is it a driver? Currently I still say it‘s reporting and
recording, which is important. The drivers are all happening and in place,
but separate from, I think, the institutional documents.
Based on the strategic planning and PIE processes, as described by the
documents and participants, the dean would still need to have the funding requests
included in the PIE reports.
90
Research Question 4
The fourth research question asked: What are the biggest challenges a
community college must overcome to successfully implement a strategic plan? A
variety of challenges in implementing the strategic plan emerged from the
interview process including the large size of the institution, resistance to the
planning process, integration of other planning processes with the strategic plan,
conducting the strategic planning process annually, having too many college goals,
lack of clarity, compartmentalization of the PIE process, difficulty in balancing
planning efforts that are multidimensional, capturing data and having it available
in electronic format so it can be shared effectively among everybody, and how to
measure progress with integrity. Of the numerous challenges listed, the five
challenges with the strongest themes (addressed by three or more participants) are
discussed in this section. These themes include (a) the large size of the institution,
(b) resistance to the planning process, (c) integration of other planning processes
with the strategic plan, (d) conducting the strategic planning process annually, and
(e) having too many college goals.
The first theme centered on challenges to implementing the strategic plan
was the size of the institution. When compared with other colleges in the system,
SPCC is a large community college. Administrators 1, 3, and 4 all described the
institution‘s size as a challenge to strategic plan implementation. Administrator 1
stated, ―I think that we‘re too big and that things don‘t filter well because we‘re
just so big. So you don‘t always know how decisions get made.‖ Similarly,
Administrator 3 stated, ―We are a very large institution, so one of the continuing
challenges of strategic planning is getting as many people involved in the process
as possible. We don‘t just want department chairs to feed into the process.‖
91
The second theme that emerged was the idea that many people at SPCC
remain resistant to the planning process. Two administrators and one faculty
member made this point. Administrator 2 stated:
Getting somebody to care. . . . Trying to get them to understand that
strategic planning is an important piece, not just for accreditation, but
because we want to demonstrate the worth of their department, we want to
push things out there. It‘s just very hard.
Along the same lines, Administrator 6 stated, ―I would say apathy and
resistance. What are people really going to think when they are sitting at the
table—really another plan?‖ In elaborating on the reason for resistance,
Administrator 6 went on to say:
The development of the plan, I think especially when we were developing
the one we have right now, was done in the context that we had many failed
program review processes. They just didn‘t work and people had
developed quite a negative attitude. . . .A part of the resistance is created
because people don‘t know how to do it [strategic planning]. If you put out
a process and it‘s new to people, there is going to be resistance because
people don‘t like to be confused and they don‘t like to learn. That‘s a big
problem when you develop and implement a strategic plan. People become
confused, and they don‘t want to do it.
The third theme was how to further integrate the strategic plan with other
planning processes that are important at SPCC (e.g., facilities master plan and IT
master plan). Administrators 1, 2, 3 and 4, as well as Faculty Member 2, made
references to the challenges and the need for further integration of the planning
processes and committees from across the campus. Faculty Member 2 stated:
We‘ve got a facilities master plan, we‘ve got an IT master plan, we‘ve got a
budget committee, we‘ve got all these different efforts going on campus. If
we can marry them, and make sure that they are all moving closer together,
and that we can report on the work that‘s been done, that‘s strategic and it‘s
integrated.
While referring to the integration challenges, Administrator 3 stated:
92
This integration of the ancillary plans has been the biggest challenge. It has
happened that some of the work of these committees has gone in a different
direction than the strategic plan. That hasn‘t been constructive. It is a bit
of a challenge to do the program review piece that feeds into strategic
planning every year.
Administrator 2 discussed the current challenge of integrated planning
efforts, and some of the recent changes that have been made to address this issue:
I think there will be a big impact with the change we are trying to make
with strategic planning, again, talking about asking the focus plans or the
master plans to be part of the [strategic planning] process etcetera . . . the
master plans, although they are supposed to talk together, and they kind of
do, they don‘t really all of the time. . . . A lot of people don‘t understand
how planning happens, and certainly don‘t understand how integrated
planning happens.
Similarly, Administrator 3 also addressed the idea that SPCC currently
recognizes the need for better integration of planning efforts and is taking action to
address the problem. Because SPCC is currently working to further integrate the
planning process and committee efforts, Administrator 3 stated:
I think that the work we are doing to bring in the ancillary plans integrated
into the strategic plan are going to help a lot . . . . I think that‘s going to
help a lot of focusing the effort of the committee work on campus.
The fourth theme that emerged as a challenge related to the idea that the
strategic planning and PIE processes are conducted annually. Every participant
made one or more references to the fact that the strategic planning process is done
annually. However, Administrators 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and Faculty Member 2 addressed
this as being a challenge to the college. In many ways this annual periodicity was
considered a valuable part of the planning process, and several of the participants
attributed the annual periodicity to the success of the strategic planning process at
SPCC. However, a number of participants also addressed the fact that the PIE and
strategic planning process are very time consuming and require a significant
amount of work to complete. Conducting these planning processes on an annual
93
basis has proven difficult for many. While discussing the frequency of planning
processes, Faculty Member 2 stated, ―Some institutions complete 2, 3 or 5 year
plans, but our institution completes an annual plan.‖ In regard to the frequency of
the strategic planning, Administrator 1 stated,
The departments work on their individual program reviews called PIE.
Those forms use a continuous improvement process to try to make it as
relevant as possible. A lot of colleges do that [program review process]
every 2 or 3 years, we do that every year.
Administer 2 stated,
It‘s [strategic plan] not something that just sits on somebody‘s shelf and we
look at it every 5-years. It is an annual thing. It‘s a bit painful, but it‘s a
good thing because, again, it reminds us what we thought was important for
this year. We can get a reality check on what people were able to
accomplish based on the realities of budgets etcetera and then we can re-jig
it if we need to for the next year. Like I said, it‘s a combination of short
term and long term strategic objectives that are massaged as needed based
on the reality of the situation. What is nice is getting people to report out
every year on what they‘ve accomplished or not.
Similarly, Administrator 3 stated, ―I think because it‘s done annually and
there‘s really a rather serious discussion of the goals and objectives every year, I
think that adds to the impact of the strategic planning process.‖ Administrator 6
said, ―The fact that every unit does the entire program review planning process
every year means we get good information to pick from the group. I like that.‖
Administrator 6 concluded by saying
In terms of implementation, the challenge is not just when you implement
it, it‘s every year. You implement it every year. Every time you go
through the cycle you are implementing, and you have to think about how
you do it.
The fifth theme that emerged as a challenge in implementing the strategic
plan was the number of strategic goals that the college has. The institution is now
up to a total of 16 college goals. Two administrators and the two faculty members
all made reference to the idea that too many goals can cause the institution to lose
94
sight of its focus. Having too many goals may result in the institution‘s inability
to adequately address each of the goals rather than have fewer goals which are
adequately addressed. When discussing the idea of having too many goals,
Administrator 2 stated:
[The institution] lacks a big strategic ―thing‖ that we are going to do….
There is not a single big cohesive focus. We have these 16 college goals
now, 16, so right away it waters down what you are doing…. There isn‘t a
thing you can grab onto…. you can‘t make it [strategic plan] come alive.
Unlike the other participants who stated the large number of goals is a
challenge, Administrator 3 considered the large number of goals to be both a
strength and a challenge. The large number of goals can be a strength because
they make the institution more malleable and reactive but they can also make it
difficult to manage the institutional direction. While addressing both the positive
and negative aspects of having a large number of strategic goals Administrator 3
stated,
Unlike some colleges that have just a few goals the college has typically
between 10 and 15 goals, it changes a little bit. There are quite a few goals,
and under these are strategic objectives. I think that‘s both a strength and a
challenge. It‘s a strength in that the plan is very malleable and very
reactive to the program so people feel engaged in the strategic planning
process. It‘s a little hard to manage as an institutional direction.
Faculty Member 2 did not consider the strategic plan to be what he thinks is
a traditional strategic plan. In his opinion, a strategic plan should be more focused
and have a fewer number of goals (possibly even one). The institution should then
put a large amount of effort into addressing and improving that issue. In
discussing the idea that a strategic plan should have a fewer number goals Faculty
Member 2 said:
In my point of view, a strategic plan would say in lieu of the economy, or in
lieu of too many folks on our campus that we don‘t really know what to do
with. . . pick one of those things and say we‘re really going to hone in on
95
that particular aspect, and we are going to come up with a strategy to either
restructure the college or reshape the college, or change the college through
looking at this one fine issue. We don‘t do that.
In general participants thought that reducing the number of goals, or at least
developing a strategy to heavily emphasize a few goals may be one way to address
some of the concerns regarding fragmentation.
Research Question 5
The fifth research question asked: How is strategic planning
implementation monitored? Two of the participants openly admitted they were
not quite sure about this component and indicated that they may not be the best
person to provide an accurate answer. However based on responses from other
participants, the three emergent themes were that (a) the research department is
responsible for monitoring the strategic plan, (b) PIE is used as a method for
monitoring the strategic plan, and (c) the reporting mechanism for the strategic
plan could be improved. For the most part, participants described the research
department as being in charge of, or responsible for monitoring the
implementation of the strategic plan. Administrators 1, 2, and 5, as well as
Faculty Member 1 and Classified Member 1, referred to SPCC‘s research
department as playing a role in the monitoring process. In a follow-up interview
with the DIRE, it was determined that the monitoring process is indeed conducted
by the research department as most of the participants had indicated. However,
worth noting is that much of this work is done on behalf of the IEC, which will
ultimately be responsible for monitoring the progress that has been made.
Administrator 2 provided the most detailed description of the strategic planning
monitoring process:
At the end of each year, about June 30th
or so, the research department asks
each area that‘s been responsible for a strategic objective; they are
reminded what they said they were going to be doing and then they are
96
given a 30 to 45 day window to report the results. They are provided with a
very specific way to do it [record their results]. The departments are asked
to provide information such as ―what was accomplished, or what your
challenges were, and then also at the end, tell me what your
recommendation is. That the strategic objective continues as is or be
updated or be discontinued, or that a new strategic objective be made or
whatever you want.
The second theme, discussed by three participants, described PIE, or ePIE
(TracDat) as the mechanism used to monitor the strategic plan implementation.
As explained by Administrator 2, PIE is one component of the reporting
mechanism but it is not the primary reporting mechanism as three of the
participants indicated. As described by Administrator 2, the research department
sends a reporting document directly to units/divisions that are responsible for
strategic objectives. The unit/department uses the data reporting document to
report their progress towards meeting the strategic objectives. The completed
reporting document is sent back to the research department enabling the
department to easily identify information pertaining to the strategic objectives. All
of the strategic objective data collected by the research department is ultimately
included in the IEC‘s PIE annual summary. The strategic objective data reported
to the research department are most likely also included in the unit/department PIE
reports. However, sifting through every unit/department PIE report to identify
outcomes for strategic objectives would be much more time consuming than
obtaining the information in a separate, tailored document as is currently done.
Two administrators and one faculty member discussed the third theme that
emerged. This theme related to the idea that methods used to monitor the strategic
objectives could be improved. It was apparent that the monitoring process is not
clearly understood by all members at SPCC. From the information provided, it
was determined that the institution is currently working to address the monitoring
phase of the strategic planning process. The latest effort to improve monitoring is
97
through the development of Key Performance Indicators (KPI). Administrator 3
and 6, along with Faculty Member 2 specifically addressed the latest efforts of the
institution to implement the use of KPIs. While discussing the strategic plan
monitoring process and the use of KPIs, Administrator 3 stated:
It [data collection and reporting mechanism] could be better. That‘s one of
the pieces we‘re working on, is the database and the document repository
keyed both to the strategic objectives and to the accrediting standards.
Currently it‘s monitored on a year-by-year basis as the data is updated. We
have measurements for each of the strategic objectives, but we currently
don‘t have global key performance indicators. We are working on that at
the goal level, to set key performance indicators. . . that‘s one of the
innovations we will do in the next cycle or two.
Also commenting on the KPIs, Administrator 6 claimed:
For next year one of the changes to the plan is, we maintain the college
goals and accomplishments the way we have, but we also have an
integrated strategic plan aligned with the goals. So, each one of the goals
will then have strategic objectives and key performance indicators and at
the end of the year we will assess progress based on our strategic objectives
and those indicators to see where we are in terms of making progress.
The methods used to monitor the strategic plan were not easily identified by
some of the participants. The roles that the research department, PIE, and IEC
play in monitoring the strategic plan were not clearly defined by most participants.
SPCC is also in the process of implementing the use of KPIs which will help
identify the progress being made.
Additional Themes
Two important themes that emerged, but did not directly address any of the
five research questions, related to the (a) lack of inclusion of councils and
committees into the strategic planning process and (b) whether or not the strategic
planning process at SPCC is top-down or bottom-up.
98
The first theme was the fact that although PIE is widely used at SPCC,
councils and committees do not conduct a PIE. As a result committees and
councils are two components which do not partake in the PIE process. This issue
was brought up by three of the administrators. While addressing the fact that
councils and committees are not included in the PIE process, Administrator 1
stated:
One of the gaps with the PIE process is that it is conducted by department
so it leaves out the councils and committees that work on things. . . PIE is
very compartmentalized so your focus is very much within your own
department. How do you take that structure and our committee and
governance structure and make sure that we‘re hitting everything. . . Some
of the work of the councils is very good but we [certain departments and
councils] don‘t do a PIE. So how does it get reported and recorded and
placed into the whole part of planning?
Administrator 3 also recognized that committee work, which can be
valuable and informative, is not currently integrated into the strategic planning
process. His comment pertaining to this issue was, ―There are plans that
committees develop and the committees, while they have the opportunity to see
what‘s going on with the strategic plan, are currently not integrated into the
strategic planning process.‖
Although multiple participants brought up the concern that committees and
councils do not complete a PIE report, Administrator 3 was the only individual
who also discussed what SPCC is currently doing to address this problem:
The IEC and the PAC are working together to bring a process where the
committees who are in charge of plans . . . can bring their ideas into the
IEC in that meeting each year where they integrate what happens in the
program review. So, I think the strength is a very strong program review
system that people buy into; it‘s a lot of work but people see that it drives
the strategic plan, it drives the resource allocations and people buy into it.
Where we are working on improving it is that the ancillary plans are not
well integrated in with the strategic plans or this process [integrating
committees] that I am telling you.
99
A second theme, which did not specifically address the research questions,
revolved around the issue of whether or not the strategic planning process is a top-
down or bottom-up process. Administrator 2, 3, 5 and 6, along with Faculty
Member 2, all provided an opinion. Faculty Member 2 stated, ―It‘s definitely a
top-down policy in terms of getting it out. Faculty aren‘t really asked what do you
think of PIE? So it is not a ground-up sort of thing.‖ Administrator 2 stated:
Although the process was pushed down, how we got the strategic objectives
was basically bottom-up. But it was pretty directed, [providing an
example] it was grants come up with something. So there was the
directive, and you need to do something, so give it to me. But we told them
to do whatever you think was appropriate.
Administrator 2 went on to say that ―While its [planning process] top-down, we
tried to make it as bottom up as we could.‖ Voicing his opinion that the strategic
planning process is bottom-up, Administrator 3 stated ―The dissemination goes up
through program review to formulate the strategic plan, and then the strategic plan
is shared with the board and the college as a whole.‖ Administrator 5 thought
―Sometimes it‘s bottom-up driven, but usually it is percolated down because it
starts at the president‘s cabinet level.‖ It appears as though both top-down and
bottom-up processes apply to the SPCC strategic planning process. The idea that
all units/departments are required to participate in the PIE process makes it more
of a top-down model. On the other hand, there is lots of evidence indicating that
most of the information used to develop strategic goals and objectives flows in a
bottom-up direction (i.e., travels from the unit level up to the institutional level).
Based on participant responses, the strategic planning process seems to
incorporate both a top-down and bottom-up approach.
100
Summary
Overall, most people at SPCC seem to have reached the conclusion that
planning is a basic institutional requirement. Interviews and a thorough document
review have provided an abundance of evidence that supports this claim. There
does, however, seem to be differences of opinion with regard to how important or
effective some of the various strategic planning processes actually are.
Many of the participants were aware that unit/department and team goals
are supposed to align with the strategic plan goals, but beyond this, some did not
have a clear idea of the link between PIE and the strategic plan. Using VP PIE
summary reports, IEC creates an institutional PIE annual summary which includes
recommendations for modifications to the strategic plan goals and objectives.
PAC is responsible for approving recommendations to the strategic goals and
objectives which are dissemination through the SPCC website.
Four themes which were identified as methods used to implement the
strategic plan were the assignment of strategic objectives that units/departments
report on, the use of PIE, basing strategic objectives on the strategic plan and
providing training to help facilitate the implementation process.
The three themes that emerged as being the most effective methods used to
implement the strategic plan were accountability, gathering feedback about the
strategic plan and the planning process and then being responsive to the input and
closely tying resource allocation to the strategic plan. As with most institutions,
SPCC‘s strategic planning process has some elements which are very effective and
other elements which are less effective. It is clear that through the use of planning
evaluations and requesting input from across campus, SPCC is working hard to
address many of the less effective strategic planning processes.
101
Challenges with implementing the strategic plan included the large size of
the institution, resistance to the planning process, integration of other planning
processes with the strategic plan, conducting the strategic planning process
annually, and having too many college goals. While intentions to address some of
the challenges were not discussed, action is being taken to overcome, or minimize
some of the other challenges (e.g., to many college goals better integration of
planning efforts).
Methods used to monitor the implementation of the strategic plan included
the research department gathering progress from units/departments about progress
made towards reaching strategic objectives, the incorporation of data/results into
the PIE summary and the IEC relying using results to help identify new strategic
goals and objectives.
Although the strategic planning process at SPCC has been shown to have a
number of effective methods used to accomplish each phase of the planning
process the institution continues to make a concerted effort to identify and
implement procedures to make the planning process more effective.
102
CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary of Study
Much of the literature pertaining to strategic planning in higher education
focuses on the planning and assessment phases. This study adds to the body of
literature related to strategic planning and provides further insight into the
implementation phase of the strategic planning process at a California community
college.
The purpose of this study was to examine the strategic planning and
implementation methods used by a selected California community college that has
paid close attention to the implementation phase of the strategic planning process
and to identify promising approaches that could be adopted or adapted by
community college leaders. Five research questions were used: How are the
planning, documentation and dissemination phases of the strategic planning
process conducted at a community college known for its strategic planning? What
methods have been used to implement the strategic plan? What methods have been
most effective in implementing the strategic plan? What are the biggest challenges
a community college must overcome to successfully implement a strategic plan?
How is strategic planning implementation monitored?
The research design was a qualitative case study at a selected California
community college. Data collection methods included semi-structured interviews,
a brief questionnaire, document review, and reflective field notes. Participants
who interviewed and completed the questionnaire included six administrators, two
full-time faculty members and two classified members. Strategic planning
documents were downloaded from the institution‘s website, and reflective field
103
notes were recorded immediately following each interview. The trustworthiness
of this study was strengthened through triangulation of data sources.
Summary of Findings
The study‘s findings answered each of five research questions.
Research Question 1: Plan, Document, Disseminate
The first research question asks, how are the planning, documentation and
dissemination phases of the strategic planning process conducted at a community
college known for its strategic planning? The strategic planning process at SPCC
is conducted annually. Each planning cycle begins when the Institutional
Effectiveness Committee (IEC) chair distributes a campus-wide memo announcing
the start of the PIE process. The memo provides all necessary planning deadlines
and any modifications to the previous year‘s strategic goals and planning
processes. When completed, unit/department PIE reports are summarized by the
appropriate manager/dean into a manager‘s summary PIE report and presented to
the appropriate VP who creates a VP PIE summary.
SPCC generates four VP PIE summaries that are forwarded to the IEC.
The IEC then creates a Planning for Institutional Effectiveness (PIE) Annual
Summary for that academic year. This summary contains all the current strategic
goals and objectives along with the status of each objective for that year (i.e., was
the objective met, and why or why not). The IEC uses the VP PIE reports along
with any recommendations and suggestions made by campus members to
determinate what strategic goals and objectives should be included in the next
cycle. The final IEC PIE annual report is forwarded to PAC for approval. PAC
either approves the new goals and objectives, or returns them to IEC for
modification. Upon approval by PAC, the proposed goals are forwarded to the
104
Board of Trustees for final approval. In the last planning cycle at SPCC one goal
was removed and three new goals were added, bringing the total number of
strategic planning goals to 16.
Most of the documentation and dissemination of SPCC‘s strategic plan is
done through the institution‘s website. The PIE reports can be submitted to the
research department in a software system called TracDat, or as a MS word
document. Most of the strategic planning information is disseminated via the
SPCC website.
Research Question 2: Implement
The second research question was what methods have been used to
implement the strategic plan? The four explanations that emerged from this
question were: (a) units/departments were assigned to submit and report on
strategic objectives, (b) PIE directs the implementation of the strategic plan, (c)
strategic decisions are based on the strategic plan, and (d) training is provided to
facilitate implementation.
The first explanation was that the IEC directly contacts specific
units/department and assigns them the task of developing a specific strategic
objective, or objectives, which align with one or more strategic goals. Although
the IEC is making the requests, the directive actually comes from the president.
Strategic objectives can be developed by a wide range of units/departments from
across campus. Because some goals apply more to certain areas,
units/departments might have strategic objectives for some goals but not others.
Assigning strategic objectives to specific units/departments helps ensure that
groups across campus are addressing the college goals.
The second explanation, PIE directs the implementation of the strategic
plan, stems from the idea that units/departments can, and usually do, have their
105
own strategic objectives that may not be included as part of the college‘s strategic
objectives. Even if this is the case, however, all of the unit/department level goals
as well as the team level goals, which are in PIE, are supposed to align with the
college‘s strategic goals. This approach helps to reinforce the idea that the
strategic plan is being used as a guiding document.
The third explanation, strategic decisions are based on the strategic plan,
relates back to the fact that many strategic decisions are made based on whether or
not they help the institution move closer to achieving the strategic goals.
The fourth explanation, training is provided to facilitate implementation,
was discussed as yet another method to aid in the implementation of the strategic
plan. People who are ill informed or unsure of how to participate in the process
are more likely to become resistant and apathetic to the process. To help facilitate
and increase cooperation with the strategic planning process, training and
presentations were conducted.
Research Question 3: Effective Methods
The third research question asks, what methods have been most effective in
implementing the strategic plan? Three methods for effectively implementing the
strategic plan at SPCC were most prominent: (a) accountability, (b) gathering
feedback about the strategic planning plan and the planning process and then being
responsive to the input, and (c) closely tying resource allocation to the strategic
plan. The accountability piece stems from the idea that once a strategic objective
has been assigned, the outcomes for that strategic objective are going to ultimately
be written in the IEC‘s final PIE annual summary. If a unit/department fails to
accomplish a strategic objective, or if they do not show progress, they likely will
be questioned and possibly held accountable.
106
The second theme focused on asking for feedback about the strategic plan
and the planning process and then being responsive to the feedback. SPCC has
annual evaluations for both the strategic planning and the PIE processes. The
evaluations solicit suggestions for modifications to the strategic plan goals and
objectives as well as the planning process. As described by at least three of the
participants, a number of changes to strategic goals, objectives, and the planning
process have been made based on feedback.
A third theme, having resource allocation tied closely to the strategic plan,
works well with the accountability theme. An example of how resource allocation
is tied to the strategic plan would be if a unit or department on campus does not
participate in the planning process, or if they fail to achieve their outcome due to a
lack of effort, that unit/department not only runs the risk of losing additional
funding in the future but funding to that unit or department may be reduced.
Research Question 4: Challenges
Research Question 4 asks, what are the biggest challenges a community
college must overcome to successfully implement a strategic plan? The five most
predominant themes that emerged related to:(a) the large size of the institution, (b)
resistance to the planning process, (c) integration of other planning processes with
the strategic plan, (d) conducting the strategic planning process annually, and (e)
having too many college goals. SPCC‘s large size has made it difficult to get
everyone involved in the strategic planning process and to get information to filter
throughout the institution.
Moreover, there are still people at SPCC who are resistant to the process.
In some cases it seems as though the resistance comes from a lack of
understanding about the strategic planning process or how it is used and in other
cases it appears as though the resistance comes from a lack of buy-in or
107
skepticism. The idea that resource allocations are based on the strategic goals does
not seem to permeate to all levels of the institution.
Integration of other institutional plans (e.g., facilities master plan, and IT
master plan) with the strategic plan, as well as recognizing input from committees
and councils has presented challenges. Even though the various plans at SPCC are
supposed to align with the strategic plan, this has not always been achieved.
Committees and councils do not participate in PIE, therefore, much of what the
committees and councils do is left out of the planning process.
The fourth challenge centered on the fact that the strategic planning process
at SPCC is conducted annually. One of the benefits to conducting the strategic
planning process on an annual basis is that people are regularly forced to review
and discuss the strategic plan. This procedure also provides SPCC the ability to
have a very up-to-date strategic plan. On the other hand, the process is time
consuming and requires a great deal of work. Two participants indicated that they
believe the intervals between developing the strategic plan should be at least every
other year, if not longer.
The fifth theme that emerged as a challenge to implementing the strategic
plan was the number of college goals. SPCC currently has 16 college goals. Four
participants stated this is probably too many goals.
Research Question 5: Monitoring
Research Question 5 asked, how is strategic planning implementation
monitored? The three themes that emerged are (a) the research department is
responsible for monitoring the strategic plan, (b) PIE is used as a method for
monitoring the strategic plan, and (c) the reporting mechanism for the strategic
plan could be improved.
108
The first theme, the research department is responsible for monitoring the
strategic plan, is in part correct. Monitoring implementation of the strategic plan
is a collaborative effort between the research department and IEC. The research
department collects and analyzes reports on progress towards meeting strategic
objectives. The reports are forwarded to IEC who is specifically tasked with
monitoring (reviewing) the reports. Toward the end of each planning cycle
(usually in late June) the research department asks each unit/department
responsible for a strategic objective to complete a report describing their progress
in meeting the strategic objective(s). The report also asks for recommendations
about what should be done with the strategic objectives (e.g. remove, modify, or
roll it over to next year). All of the strategic goals, objectives and the status as to
how the objectives were met ultimately are contained in the IEC‘s PIE annually
summary report.
The second theme, PIE is used as a method for monitoring the strategic
plan, is also partially correct. The progress towards meeting strategic objectives,
as reported to the research department, is also likely to be reported in the
unit/department PIE reports. Although PIE is a component of the strategic plan
monitoring process, it is not the predominant monitoring mechanism.
The third theme was that the reporting mechanism for the strategic plan
could be improved. Several participants thought that the strategic plan monitoring
process is not effective and needs to be improved. SPCC is currently
implementing the use of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) as a method for more
closely monitoring the institution‘s progress in meeting their goals. The
implementation of KPIs is set to begin in the next planning cycle.
109
Additional Themes
Two additional themes that were of importance, but did not fit within the
research questions were (a) not including councils and committees in the strategic
planning process and (b) nature of the strategic planning process—a top-down or
bottom-up approach.
The first theme related to the fact that councils and committees do not
currently conduct PIE and have no input into the strategic planning process.
Although the work produced by councils and committees is potentially valuable
and informative it is not integrated into the strategic planning process. IEC and
PAC are currently working to develop a process by which committees, who are in
charge of planning, can present their ideas to IEC for consideration.
The second theme that was of importance, but did not fit within the
research questions was the nature of the strategic planning process—a top-down or
bottom-up approach. The top-down component comes from the fact that IEC
assigns the task of developing strategic objectives to particular units/departments
across campus. These units/departments then become responsible for meeting the
strategic objectives. Once IEC makes recommendations about what the new
strategic goals and objectives should be for the upcoming planning cycle, PAC has
to then approve them. Participating in the PIE process is a basic requirement of
the institution. The bottom-up component stems from the fact that the strategic
objectives are mostly developed and suggested at the unit/department level.
Although this is a directed process, the units/departments have flexibility in
creating what they feel is appropriate. Therefore, the strategic planning process at
SPCC is both a top-down and a bottom-up approach.
110
Conclusion
The conceptual framework for this study comprised Taylor and Miroiu‘s
(2002) four strategic planning phases: (a) planning, (b) documentation and
dissemination, (c) implementation, and (d) monitoring. The research questions
that guided the study were based on the conceptual framework. In addition, the
strategic planning phases as described by Taylor and Miroiu are used to frame the
discussion of conclusions drawn from the research study. One other area
warranting discussion that may be unique to SPCC is the close link, or perhaps
even integration of institutional effectiveness and strategic planning.
Phase I: Planning
Some of what occurs with the strategic planning process at SPCC aligns
more with traditional planning than strategic planning. With traditional planning
the focus is more of an inside-out approach (internal emphasis), whereas strategic
planning takes more of an outside-in approach (externally focused). According to
Rowley et al. (1997), traditional planning allows goal setting and then the
development of steps to achieve the set goals, whereas, strategic planning aligns
the organization with the environment. The fact that SPCC assigns
units/departments to develop strategic objectives that align with specific goals
exemplifies traditional planning.
A second observation concerns time-relatedness, which according to
Rowley et al. (1997) referred to the belief that ―strategic planning is an ongoing
process rather than an event tied to a single completion date‖ (p. 37). The fact that
SPCC completes the strategic planning process on an annual basis is consistent
with the literature. While describing a model university, Rowley et al. stated that
the institution updates their strategic plan ―each year by adding new goals and
strategies and deleting old ones as the university accomplishes them‖ (p. 38). This
111
description is consistent with the practice carried out at SPCC. Another time-
related characteristic is that strategic planning is designed to address the future.
As described by Rowley et al., strategic planning ―is long-term and tends to define
major outcomes several years in advance‖ (p. 36). Whereas the goals of SPCC‘s
strategic plan are somewhat general in nature, many of them could be considered
long-term goals. SPCC‘s strategic objectives, tied to the strategic goals, however,
are a mixture of long and short term. The target dates for achieving the strategic
objectives at SPCC may range from 1 year to 3 years. Having strategic objectives
with varying life spans can prove to be beneficial as it may provide an opportunity
to accomplish goals in phases (pieces).
As previously described, one of the first actions in developing a strategic
plan includes the selection of a planning committee. This process is often initiated
by institutional leaders and should ultimately include a broad range of constituents
representing each major area of the institution (Bryson, 1995; Goho & Webb,
2003; Hayward & Ncayiyana, 2003; Kotler & Murphy, 1981; Norris, & Poulton,
1991; Rieley, 1997; Rowley et al., 1997; Weimer & Jonas, 1995; Welsh et al.,
2005). As suggested by the literature, PAC and IEC are both shared governance
committees that include representative from across SPCC‘s campus (e.g., faculty,
classified, managers and students).
Environmental scans are commonly described as an essential part of the
planning process (Bryson, 1995; Hayward & Ncayiyana, 2003; Hearn &
Heydinger, 1985; Kotler & Murphy, 1981; Rowley et al., 1997; Taylor & Miroiu,
2002; Tromp & Ruben, 2004). The actual planning phase typically begins with an
environmental scan designed to identify characteristics and changes that will
impact the institutions. To conduct an environmental scan, the organization must
gather information and data related to both internal and external factors. Although
112
SPCC collects a variety of information from different sources throughout their
planning phase, they do not conduct an internal or external environmental scan.
Two administrators broached the fact that SPCC does not conduct an
environmental scan. They suggested that the institution should implement an
environmental scan as an ongoing practice. Conducting an internal and external
environmental scan may help the institution better identify potential impacts,
thereby, allowing the institution to plan accordingly and ultimately save time and
resources.
Also described by Taylor and Miroiu (2002) as necessary for the planning
process was the belief that the institution should seek out ideas from all levels
within the institution as well as from external parties. Strategic thinking helps to
generate ideas and, although many of the ideas are influenced by data and
analysis, it is important to include room for human judgment and imagination
(Taylor & Miroiu, 2002). The development of strategic goals and objectives at
SPCC includes feedback from multiple levels throughout the institution including
the unit/department level, manager/dean level and the institutional level.
Lastly, Taylor and Miroiu (2002) used the term ―enabling‖ to describe
conditions that must ultimately be present if the planning process is to be
successful. As described by Taylor and Miroiu, enabling conditions that
ultimately lead to a successful strategic plan can be broken down into three
categories: (a) personal qualities, (b) resources necessary to support change and (c)
information for managers. The following personal qualities, as described by
Taylor and Miroiu, became apparent at SPCC through the interviews and
document reviews: willingness to learn from mistakes, vision, leadership,
presentation and counseling, and flexible teaching and research personnel. In
terms of resources necessary to support change, the following were identified at
113
SPCC: financing to invest in change and other physical assets. With regard to
information for managers, SPCC provides data for analysis, monitoring reports,
and project progress reports (e.g., quantitative and qualitative data analysis is
conducted).
Phase II: Documentation and Dissemination
A successful, strategic planning process is heavily dependent on support,
participation, and communication from the entire campus community (Goho &
Webb, 2003; Weimer & Jonas, 1995; Welsh et al., 2005). Often a public
announcement that the strategic planning process is about to begin will help gather
momentum and support during the beginning stages (Hayward & Ncayiyana,
2003; Rowley et al., 1997). This is very similar to what SPCC does on an annual
basis. To mark the start of the PIE process, which feeds into the strategic planning
process, the IEC chair disseminates a campus-wide memo clarifying all deadlines
for the strategic planning/PIE process.
The literature indicates that once a strategic planning committee (at SPCC
this is the IEC) has completed a draft strategic plan, the plan should be
disseminated throughout the campus community and to all stakeholders. After
circulating the plan, final adjustments or modifications may be necessary. Upon
completing changes, the final draft strategic plan is submitted for approval by the
appropriate governance structures (e.g., senate, management, and council) (Bryson
1995; Hayward & Ncayiyana, 2003; Rowley et al., 1997; Welsh et al., 2005).
Final draft versions of strategic plans are often a public document and are typically
made available outside the institution (Taylor & Miroiu, 2002). Although
Administrator 6 stated that the PIE summary reports are sent back to the
constituent groups for re-evaluation, none of the participants indicated that a draft
form of the actual strategic plan is disseminated throughout the institution prior to
114
its completion. Once the IEC makes recommendations for a final version of the
strategic plan, the plan is passed onto PAC for approval. Assuming there are no
suggestions for revisions and PAC approves the latest version of the strategic plan,
the Board of Trustees provides a final approval. Per the literature, the final
version of the strategic plan is disseminated for all to review. Each year SPCC
posts the strategic plan on the institution‘s website making it accessible to all.
Phase III: Implementation
As stated by Noble (1999), ―although it has long been recognized that the
majority of failed strategies break down in the implementation phase, researchers
and practitioners have little concrete knowledge in this area‖ (pp. 132-133).
However, researchers have identified numerous methods designed to aid in the
implementation process. Some of these implementation methods were utilized as
part of the process at SPCC.
As described by Taylor and Miroiu, (2002), the implementation process
should filter through all levels of the organization and impact features such as
organizational structure, resource allocation, change management, project
management, and communication. Although SPCC uses a method by which the
PIE reports are summarized at multiple levels, implementation of the strategic plan
at some levels (e.g. unit/department) seems weak. Some of the participants were
concerned that information obtained at the higher levels (e.g., PAC) does not
always filter down to the unit/department level.
Bryson (2011) described two guidelines for implementing a strategic plan:
developing an accountability system to assure key stakeholders that all
accountability requirements are being met, and place the strategic planning team in
charge of implementation. Similar to Bryson (2011), Anderson et al. (2007) stated
the strategic planning process identifies action steps, designates someone to be
115
responsible for each action step, and identifies measurable outcomes with
predetermined timelines. There must be significant communication and college-
wide reporting. Action plans are clearly tied to other planning documents and
progress is recorded using a database that holds individuals accountable. Most of
what Bryson (2011) and Anderson et al. (2007) described as effective
implementation methods were identified at SPCC through the interviews or the
document review process. At SPCC, the practice of having IEC assign
units/departments the task of completing a specific strategic objective(s) and
holding them accountable appears to be one of the most effective implementation
methods. Accountability was a common theme described by participants. If a
unit/department, however, is not assigned the task of working towards a specific
strategic objective, they may not be directly impacted by the strategic plan. It
should be clarified that two administrators and one faculty member mentioned
that, although this is not a written requirement, the goals and objectives at both the
unit/department and team level are to be aligned with the strategic goals of the
institution.
One of the implementation methods described by Anderson et al. (2007)
that did not seem to be strong at SPCC was communication. At least five of the
participants stated that ―good discussions‖ take place between PAC and IEC.
However, one administrator and one faculty member also noted that
communication among these higher level committees (PAC and IEC) and the rest
of the college does not appear to be sufficient. Improving communication among
some of the higher level committees and the rest of the campus must be addressed
to improve the process.
Another finding of this study is that many of the executive decisions that
are made are strongly influenced by the strategic plan. This finding ties in with
116
another implementation method described by Bryson (2011). One of Bryson‘s
guidelines for implementation is making sure that legislative, executive, and
administrative policies and actions work in favor of the implementation process
rather than against it.
At SPCC, closely linking resource allocation with the strategic plan was
determined to be critical to implementation. As described in the literature, to
successfully implement a strategic plan there must be adequate funding to support
the necessary resources to accommodate the plan (Alashloo et al., 2005; Bryson,
2011; Okumus, 2003; Taylor & Miroiu, 2002). Tying funding to the strategic plan
was one of the strongest themes that emerged in this research study. However, at
least one faculty member did not believe that the funding his department received
had much to do with how his unit addressed the goals and objectives of the
strategic plan. This was contradictory to what most of the administrators claimed.
Two administrators were adamant that no funding is provided if the
units/departments do not link their funding requests to the goals and objectives of
the college and also include them in their PIE reports.
One other practice determined to be effective in implementing the strategic
plan was that each year SPCC asks for feedback pertaining to not only the
strategic plan, but also to the strategic planning process. Feedback is requested
from the entire campus community. Additionally, there are regular changes and
modifications to both the strategic plan and the strategic planning process in
response to the input. The goal is that each modification will improve some aspect
of the planning process to make it more acceptable, easier to perform, or more
beneficial to the campus community. Some of what has been described by Bryson
(2011) is supported by the aforementioned practice at SPCC. For example,
Bryson (2011) describes the following guidelines for implementing a strategic
117
plan: recognizing and considering the impact that changes are going to have on the
organization‘s culture; emphasizing learning; considering the best methods for
using information and communication technologies to help support the
implementation process.
Overall, SPCC seems to be receptive to the feedback and works to address
many of the needs and concerns identified by the campus community. In addition
to the feedback provided by campus constituents, SPCC‘s IEC analyzes and
discusses a wide variety of data and information ranging from strategic objective
accomplishments to feedback from the campus community. Based on the
successes, failures, and general outcomes, IEC will make recommendations to
PAC for the next strategic planning cycle. This practice ties in closely with a
study conducted by Anderson et al. (2007), which identified best practices and
insights discovered in the course of implementing a strategic plan. The study
noted the following as strategic plan implementation best practices: the college
cabinet continuously monitors the Biennial Action Plan, accomplishments and
barriers are reviewed, and solutions to barriers are discussed at cabinet and
executive cabinet meetings. Communication of the Biennial Action Plan
accomplishments occurs via the Biennial Action Plan report, annual president‘s
report to the community and institutional accomplishment awards (Anderson et al.,
2007).
Phase IV: Monitoring
At SPCC, the research department conducts the monitoring phase on behalf
of the IEC. Qualitative and quantitative data are collected directly from those
units/departments that were responsible for the strategic objective(s). These data
are used by the IEC to help determine the strategic goals and objectives for the
following year. Because each strategic objective must be achievable and
118
measurable, SPCC can monitor progress. Monitoring is conducted and results are
reported annually. Another monitoring component is an annual evaluation that is
typically completed at each level of the PIE summary process. These evaluations
are used to gather feedback about the strategic planning and PIE process.
According to three administrators, these evaluations provide valuable feedback
that is relied upon to make improvements each year. SPCC‘s monitoring process
is consistent with the literature. As described by Rowley et al. (1997), formal
evaluations are one of the most useful tools for the strategic planning process.
Bryson (2011) stated that the purpose of reassessing and revising strategies and
plans is ―to review implemented policies, strategies, plans, programs or projects,
and to decide on a course of action that will ensure that public value continues to
be created‖ (p. 319).
SPCC is currently working on improving its measures of accomplishment
by adding global key performance indicators (KPIs) to the next planning cycle.
These KPIs will be applied at the goal level and are intended to provide more
focus for some of the truly important measures such as graduation rates, course
completion rates and progress on curriculum. KPIs are commonly discussed in the
literature as a viable method for monitoring progress for items such as student
data, measures of research activity, and financial information (Rowley et al., 1997;
Taylor & Miroiu, 2002).
Rowley et al. (1997) defined a key performance indicator as ―a measure of
an essential outcome of a particular organizational performance activity, or an
important indicator of a precise health condition of an organization‖ (p. 108).
Rowley et al. (1997) claimed that KPIs can help in a number of ways including
―aligning a college or university within its environment, prioritizing resource
allocations and program initiatives, focusing attention, and setting a course of
119
action for the organization as a whole‖ (p. 112). Assuming that SPCC effectively
utilizes KPIs, this may assist in addressing the challenge that comes with having
such a large number of goals, as was discussed by some of the participants. Based
on the feedback from various participants the monitoring phase appears to be in
need of some improvement. The fact that actions are being taken to address some
of the issues that come with monitoring the implementation of a strategic plan was
notable.
Institutional Effectiveness and Strategic Planning
Most of the strategic planning practices used at SPCC in the four phases of
the strategic planning process (planning, documentation and dissemination,
implementation and monitoring) are commonly referenced in the literature. As
expected, some of the practices at SPCC are used more effectively than others.
However, one practice at SPCC that is not consistent with the literature is the way
in which the institution ties institutional effectiveness and program review (PIE) to
strategic planning. The process of having PIE feed into the development of the
strategic goals and objectives of the institution is unique.
Conducting both the PIE report and the strategic plan annually, forces
members of the institution to revisit and rethink their priorities on a regular basis.
One of the downsides to this process, however, seems to be that many of the
members tend to focus more on PIE than they do on the strategic plan. As
previously discussed, almost everyone at SPCC is familiar with PIE. As was
indicated by one of the administrators, if asked, most people would say PIE is the
strategic planning process. The idea that not everyone is clear on how the
strategic planning and PIE processes are connected was apparent. The widespread
use and heavy emphasis placed on PIE creates confusion about the relationship
between PIE and the strategic planning process. The PIE and strategic planning
120
processes may be more clearly understood if they were not as heavily integrated.
Further, distinguishing the two processes may help people better understand the
purpose of each process, why they are conducted and how they may be linked.
When units/departments develop strategic objectives in such a way as to
continue the ―status quo‖ instead of creating new and challenging methods of
meeting strategic goals, the process becomes ineffective. This appears to be the
current practice in some of the units/departments at SPCC as described by two
administrators and one faculty member. In many cases, the units/departments will
simply develop a strategic objective for projects that are already underway.
Education regarding the strategic planning process and clear explanations as to
how this process is necessary for the institution to plan and prepare to meet the
challenges of the future must be a focus for improvement. Developing new
strategic objectives, which are not already being addressed by a unit/department
would help to assure that the college is working towards strategic objectives
directed towards the strategic goals. The committee responsible for developing
the new strategic objectives would work in a collaborative manner with
constituent groups from across campus to develop the objectives. Although this
method would add more top-down pressure, it would further support the institution
in developing a strategic plan that would guide the institution in a positive
direction.
As indicated by Norris and Poulton (1991), many organizations have a
strong commitment to their culture and history, and are hesitant to change. This
resistance is often one of the limitations that many organizations will encounter in
the planning process. The culture at SPCC is one of success and achievement.
Two administrators, and both faculty members, made a direct reference to the
concept that most of the people at SPCC, including the students, work hard and
121
strive to achieve success. As stated by Faculty Member 1, ―we like calling
ourselves the college of champions.‖ The interviews and document review
supported the feeling that the SPCC community puts enormous effort into
developing and maintaining an effective strategic planning process. Although
there will always be people who are resistant to the planning process, it seems as
though most people at SPCC have come to accept it.
As with any institution, there is always room for improvement. Although
many of the participants pointed out a number of positive aspects of the strategic
planning process, they also addressed a number of concerns and identified areas
that need improvement. Most of the participants, who described areas that need
improvement, also described mechanisms that have either been recently
implemented, or are scheduled to be implemented to address these concerns. For
those concerns not yet addressed, two of the participants stated they would
continue to focus on them until they are addressed. In view of the fact that
planning is an essential component for accreditation, SPCC remains dedicated to
continual improvement through their planning processes.
Recommendations
This section discusses recommendations for practice as well as
recommendations for future research. Recommendations are based on the
research.
Recommendations for Practice
Institutions should work to educate members about the need to understand
and utilize the strategic planning process. For a strategic plan to have an impact,
people must understand the process and its validity in planning for the future of
the institution.
122
Institutions should closely tie resource allocations to the strategic plan. The
concept that a unit or department will not receive funding for additional resources
that are not tied to the strategic goals of the institution helps ensure the institution
will move in the desired direction.
Institutions should clearly define the strategic planning process and
communicate this process throughout the institution. A strategic planning process
that is not clearly defined and communicated will, as Administrator 6 stated,
―create resistance and apathy.‖ Although people are willing to put the time and
effort required into developing, implementing and monitoring a strategic plan,
most of them want to know that their efforts are having a positive impact. Vague
and unclear communication, along with ineffective results, will likely lead to
frustration and resentment which will further impede the strategic planning
process.
Institutions should assign units/departments the responsibility of
completing certain strategic objectives and hold them accountable. Without
holding certain groups accountable for completing strategic objectives, the focus
can easily shift from meeting the goals of the institution to meeting the goals of
the unit/department. It is important that all constituents of the institution work
together to move in the desired direction.
Institutions should conduct the strategic planning process on an annual
basis. At a minimum, institutions should revisit and consider any necessary
revisions to the strategic plan annually. Revisiting the strategic plan on an annual
basis helps keep the goals and objectives of the institution fresh in the minds of the
institution‘s constituents. Additionally, small changes which may be required on
an annual basis are not as likely to face much resistance as compared to more
123
significant changes that may be necessary when only revisiting the strategic plan
every 3 or 5-years.
Institutions should regularly request feedback and input about the strategic
plan and the development process. A follow-up to this is the necessity to respond
to the input received to ensure all constituents remain active and engaged.
The number of goals set in the strategic plan should be limited to a
manageable and realistic number. Too many goals will inevitably make for a
cumbersome and ineffective strategic plan.
Recommendations for Future Research
This study could be conducted at the same institution in 3 years to evaluate
whether the changes currently implemented have been effective. These changes
include the use of KPIs, expanding the involvement of councils and committees in
the strategic planning process, and better integration of the strategic plan with
other institutional plans such as the facilities and IT master plans. Also,
comparative case studies could be conducted at additional community colleges
that also focus on the implementation phase of the strategic planning process to
add to the body of literature on implementation and potential best practices.
Summary
In answering the research questions and analyzing the findings, this study
reaffirmed several practices that have been determined necessary for the
successful development and implementation of a strategic plan. The conceptual
framework as outlined by Taylor and Miroiu (2002) provided an effective
mechanism for analyzing each phase of the strategic planning process. The
analysis identified strategic planning practices, which have been shown to be
effective in the strategic planning process. The analysis also identified strategic
124
planning practices that SPCC should improve. Moreover the conclusions show
that SPCC implements a unique planning practice that closely integrates the
institutional effectiveness process with the strategic planning process. Although
the strategic planning practices identified in this study are not generalizable, some
of them may be transferable to other community colleges.
125
REFERENCES
Aaltonen, P., & Ikavalko, H. (2002). Implementing strategies successfully.
Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 13(6), 415-418.
Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, Western
Association of Schools and Colleges. (2010, August). Guide to evaluating
institutions. Retrieved from http://www.accjc.org/all-commission-
publications-policies
Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges & Schools. (2004). Institutional
effectiveness: A guide to implementation. Retrieved from
http://web.acics.org/images/pubs/IEPjuly2004.pdf
Achampong, F. K. (2010). Integrating risk management and strategic planning.
Planning for Higher Education, 38(2), 22-27.
Alashloo, F. R., Castka, P., & Sharp, J. M. (2005). Towards understanding the
impeders of strategy implementation in higher education (HE): A case of HE
institutes in Iran. Quality Assurance in Education, 13(2), 132-147.
Altbach, P. G. (2011). Patterns of higher education development. In P. G.
Altbach, P. J. Gumport, & R. O. Berdahl (Eds.), American higher education
in the twenty first century: Social, political and economic challenges (pp. 88-
110). Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.
Alexander, L. D. (1991). Strategy implementation: Nature of the problem. In D.
E. Hussey (Ed.), International review of strategic management (pp. 73-91)
Chichester, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
126
Anderson, R., Matson, J., & O‘Brien, J. (2007). Strategic planning: Best practices
in implementing an integrated action plan. Unpublished manuscript,
Century College, White Bear Lake, MN.
Bailey, C. A. (2007). A guide to qualitative field research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Banta, T. W., Pike, G. R., & Hansen, M. J. (2009). The use of engagement data in
accreditation, planning and assessment. New Directions for Institutional
Research, 141, 21-34.
Barker, T. S., & Smith, J. H. W. (1998). Integrating accreditation into strategic
planning. Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 22(8), 741-
751.
Beno, B. (2011, July). ACCJC rubric for evaluating institutional effectiveness.
Retrieved from: http://www.accjc.org/all-commission-publications-policies
Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic
organization and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Birnbaum, R. (2000). The life cycle of academic management fads. The Journal
of Higher Education. 71(1), 1-16.
Birnbaum, R. (2001). Management fads in higher education. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Brinkman, P. T., & Morgan, A. W. (2010). Financial planning: Strategies and
lessons learned. Planning in Higher Education. 38(3), 5-14.
Bryson , J. M. (1995). Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations:
A guide to strengthening and sustaining organizational achievement. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
127
Bryson , J. M. (2011). Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations:
A guide to strengthening and sustaining organizational achievement (4th
ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
California Community College Chancellor‘s Office. (2011a). California
Community College Chancellor Jack Scott praises legislature for delaying
student fee increase until summer 2012 if mid-year cuts are necessary.
Retrieved from http://www.cccco.edu/ChancellorsOffice/IntheNews/
PressReleases/tabid/183/Default.aspx
California Community College Chancellor‘s Office. (2011b). California
Community College Chancellor Jack Scott says investing in college students
is an investment in the state’s future and economic recovery. Retrieved from
http://www.cccco.edu/ChancellorsOffice/IntheNews/PressReleases/tabid/183
/Default.aspx
Calareso, J. P. (2007). Successful processes to engender board ownership of
strategic planning. Planning for Higher Education, 35(4), 12-21.
Center for Student Success of the Research and Planning Group. (2005, April). A
resource handbook for strategic planning for the California community
colleges. Retrieved from http://www.rpgroup.org/resources/2005-
environmental-scan-complete-report
Center for Student Success of the Research and Planning Group for California
Community Colleges. (2005, July). Center for student success
environmental scan: A summary of key issues facing California community
colleges pertinent to the strategic planning process. Retrieved from
http://css.rpgroup.org/uploads/Project-13-ExecSumLitStrategicPln-RPCSS-
07-07-05.pdf
128
Community College League of California. (2010). A report of the Commission on
the Future of the Community College League of California. Retrieved from
http://www.cccvision2020.org/Portals/0/Documents/COTFReport.pdf
Council for Higher Education Accreditation. (2010). The value of accreditation.
Retrieved from http://www.chea.org/default.asp?
Council for Higher Education Accreditation. (2011). Regional accrediting
organizations 2011-2012. Retrieved from http://www.chea.org/Directories
/regional.asp
Council for Higher Education Accreditation Institute for Research and Study of
Accreditation and Quality Assurance. (2011, August). The Condition of
accreditation: US accreditation in 2009. Retrieved from
http://www.chea.org/default.asp?
Cowburn, S. (2005). Strategic planning in higher education: Fact or fiction.
Perspectives, 9(4), 103-109.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among
five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed
methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Crittenden, W. F., & Crittenden, V. L. (2000). Relationships between
organizational characteristics and strategic planning processes in nonprofit
organizations. Journal of Managerial Issues, 12(2), 150-169
Cummings, R., Phillips, R., Tilbrook, R., & Lowe, K. (2005). Middle-out
approaches to reform of university teaching and learning: Champions striding
between the top-down and bottom-up approaches. The International Review
of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 6(1), 1-18. Retrieved from
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/224
129
Dodd, A. H. (2004). Accreditation as a catalyst for institutional effectiveness.
New Directions for Institutional Research, 123, 13-25. doi:10.1002/ir.116
Dooris, M. J., Kelley, J. M., & Trainer, J. F. (2002). Strategic planning in higher
education. New Directions for Institutional Research,116, 5-11.
doi:10.1002/ir.115
Girotto, M., & Hiern, J. M. (2009). Strategic language and micro-practices
influence on strategy performance: a discursive approach to strategic
planning process in the higher education sector. Paper presented at the Sixth
International Critical Management Studies Conference, Warwick, UK.
Retrieved from http://www.upc.edu/cudu/arxius/pdf/catala/
CMS%206_MG_JM_final.pdf
Goho, J., & Webb, K. (2003). Planning for success: Integrating analysis with
decision making. Community College Journal of Research and Practice,
27(5), 377-391.
Gratch, B., & Wood, E. (1991). Strategic planning: Implementation and first-year
appraisal. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 17(1), 10-15.
Guba, E. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 29(2), 75-91.
Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1982). Epistemological and methodological bases of
naturalistic inquiry. Educational Technology Research and Development,
30(4), 233-252.
Handle, S. J. (2007). Second chance, not second class: A blueprint for community
college transfer. Change, 39(5), 38-45.
Hayward, F. M., & Ncayiyana, D. J. (2003). A guide to strategic planning for
African higher education institutions. Pretoria, South Africa: Center for
Higher Education Transformation.
130
Hearn, J. C., & Heydinger, R. B. (1985). Scanning the university‘s external
environment: Objectives, constraints, and possibilities. The Journal of
Higher Education, 56(4), 419-445.
Hodel, R., Laffey, M., & Lingenfelter, P. (2006, October). Recession,
retrenchment, and recovery: State higher education funding and financial
aid. Retrieved from the Center for Education Policy Website:
http://www.centereducationpolicy.ilstu.edu/initiatives/recession
/fullreport.pdf
Israel, C. A., & Kihl, B. (2005). Using strategic planning to transform a budgeting
process. New Directions for Community Colleges, 132, 77-86.
Jasinski, J. (2004). Strategic planning via Baldrige: Lessons learned. New
Directions for Institutional Research, 123, 27-31. doi: 10.1002/ir.117
Kissler, G. R., & Switkes, E. (2005). The effects of a changing financial context
on the university of California. In R. G. Ehrenberg (Ed.), What’s happening
to public higher education? The shifting financial burden (pp. 85-106).
Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press.
Kotler, P., & Murphy, P. E. (1981). Strategic planning for higher education. The
Journal of Higher Education, 52(5), 470-489.
Lakos, A., & Phipps, S. (2004). Creating a culture of assessment: A catalyst for
organizational change. Libraries and the Academy 4(3), 345-361. Retrieved
from: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/portal_libraries_and_the_academy
/v004/4.3lakos.pdf
Lane, R. J., Bishop, H. L., & Wilson-Jones, L. (2005). Creating an effective
strategic plan for the school district. Journal of Instructional Psychology,
32(3), 197-204.
131
Liedtka, J. (1998). Strategic thinking: Can it be taught? Long Range
Planning,31(1), 120-129.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
Manderscheid, S., & Kusy, M. (2005). How to design strategy with no dust just
results! Organization Development Journal, 23(2), 62-71.
Mankins, M., & Steele, R. (2006). Stop making plans; Start making decisions.
Harvard Business Review, 84(1), 76-84.
Marchese, T. (1991). TQM reaches the academy. American Association for
Higher Education, 44(3), 3-9.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: a guide to design and
implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Middaugh, M. F. (2009). Closing the loop: Linking planning and assessment.
Planning for Higher Education, 37(3), 5-14.
Miller, D. (2002). Successful change in leaders: What makes them? What do they
do that is different? Journal of Change Management, 2(4), 359-368.
Mintzberg, H. (1994). The rise and fall of strategic planning. New York, NY:
The Free Press.
Moore. C., & Shulock. N. (2005). The grades are in – 2004: Is California‘s
higher education measuring up? Institute for Higher Education Leadership
and Policy.
Morzinski, M. (2010). Multiple roles: The conflicted realities of community
college mission statements (Doctoral Dissertation). Available from ProQuest
dissertations and thesis database. (UMI No. 502056543).
132
Mullin, C. M., & Honeyman, D. S. (2008). The funding of community colleges:
Formulas & governance. Community College Journal of Research and
Practice, 32, 512-524.doi: 10.1080/10668920701382518
Ndoye, A., & Parker, M. A. (2010). Creating and sustaining a culture of
assessment. Planning for Higher Education, 38(2), 28-39.
Noble, C. H. (1999). The eclectic roots of strategy implementation research.
Journal of Business Research, 45(2), 119-134.
Norris, D. M., & Poulton, N. L. (1991). A guide for new planners. Ann Arbor,
MI: Society for College and University Planning.
Norris, D. M., & Poulton, N. L. (2008). A guide to planning for change. Ann
Arbor, MI: Society for College and University Planning.
Office of the Chancellor, City College of San Francisco. (2004, April).
Comprehensive guide to planning, budgeting & assessment. Retrieved from:
http://www.ccsf.edu/Offices/Research_Planning/pdf/planning%20guide.pdf
Olson, K. W., (1973). The G. I. Bill and higher education: success and surprise.
American Quarterly, 25(5), 596-610.
Okumus, F. (2003). A framework to implement strategies in organizations.
Management Decision, 4(19), 871-882.
Paris, K. A. (2003). Strategic planning in the university. Retrieved from:
http://oqi.wisc.edu/resourcelibrary/uploads/resources/Strategic%
20Planning% 20in% 20th e% 20University. pdf
Palmer, J. (1996). Funding the multipurpose community college in an era of
consolidation. In D. S. Honeyman, J. L. Wattenbarger, & K. C. Westbrook
(Eds.), A struggle to survive: Funding higher education in the next century
(pp. 187-208). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
133
Prager, C. (1995). The ties that bind: default, accreditation and articulation. New
Directions for Community Colleges, 91, 61-70.
Price, A., & Guevara, L. (2010). How the great recession is creating a crisis of
equal opportunity in California’s community college. California Community
Colleges Access & Equity Issue Brief. Retrieved from
http://www.californiatomorrow.org/media/Recession-Issue-Brief.pdf
QSR International. (n.d.). NVivo9. Retrieved from
http://www.qsrinternational.com /products_nvivo.aspx
Redden, M. (2011, August 25). Hispanic enrollment jumps 24%, making those
students the largest campus minority. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Hispanic-Enrollment-Jumps-24-
/128797/
Rieley, J. B. (1997). Doing effective strategic planning in a higher education
environment. The Center for Continuous Quality Improvement. Retrieved
from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED409955.pdf
Rowley, D. J., & Sherman, H. (2001). From strategy to change: Implementing the
plan in higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Rowley, D. J., Lujan, H. D., & Dolence, M. G. (1997). Strategic change in
colleges and universities: Planning to survive and prosper. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Shulock, N., & Moore, C. (2007). Rules of the game: How state policy creates
barriers to degree completion and impedes student success in the California
community colleges. Sacramento, CA: Institute for Higher Education
Leadership and Policy.
134
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges. (2011).
Handbook for institutions seeking reaffirmation. Retrieved from
http://www.sacscoc.org/pdf/081705/Handbook%20for%20Institutions%20se
eking%20reaffirmation.pdf
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stake, R. E. (2000). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),
Handbook of qualitative research (2nd
ed.) (pp. 435-454). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Starr, M. K. (1971). Management: A modern approach. New York, NY:
Harcourt.
State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO). (2010). Report of the state
higher education finance, FY 2010. Retrieved fromhttp://www.sheeo.org/
finance/shef/SHEF_FY10.pdf
Taylor, J. S., Amaral, A., & Machado, M. L. (2007). Strategic planning in U.S.
higher education: Can it succeed in Europe? Planning for Higher Education,
35(2), 5-17.
Taylor, J. S., Machado, M. D., & Peterson, M. W. (2008). Leadership and
strategic management: Keys to institutional priorities and planning.
European Journal of Education, 43, 369-386.
Taylor, J. S., & Miroiu, A. (2002).Policy-making, strategic planning, and
management of higher education. Papers on Higher Education. Bucharest:
UNESCO-CEPES. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/
ED475531.pdf
The Foundation for the Malcom Baldrige National Quality Award (n.d.). History.
Retrieved from http://www.baldrigepe.org/foundation/history.aspx
135
The RP Group of California Community Colleges. (1997, September). Planning
resource guide. Berkeley, CA: Author.
Tollefson, T. A. (2009). Community college governance, funding, and
accountability: A century of issues and trends. Community College Journal
of Research & Practice, 33, 386-402. doi: 10.1080/10668920802580481
Toutkoushian, R. K. (2003). Weathering the storm: Generating revenues for
higher education during a recession. New Directions for Institutional
Research, 119, 27-40.
Trainer, J. F. (2004). Models and tools for strategic planning. New Directions for
Institutional Research, 123, 129-138.
Tromp, S. A., & Ruben, B. D. (2004). Strategic planning in higher education: A
guide for leaders. National Association of Colleges and Universities
Business Officers, Washington, DC.
University of California, Office of the President. (2009). California Master Plan
for Higher Education - Major features. Retrieved from http://ucfuture.
universityofcalifornia.edu/documents/ca_masterplan_summary.pdf
Weimer, D., & Jonas, P. M. (1995). Strategic planning: A participative model.
Unpublished manuscript, Department of Institutional Research, Cardinal
Stritch College, Milwaukee, WI.
Wellman, J. V. (1998). Recognition of accreditation organizations: A
comparison of policy & practice of voluntary accreditation and the United
States Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.chea.org/pdf
/RecognitionWellman_Jan1998.pdf
Welsh, J. F., Nunez, W. J., & Petrosko, J. (2005). Faculty and administrative
support for strategic planning: A comparison of two- and four-year
institutions. Community College Review, 32(4), 20-39.
136
Welsh, J. F., Nunez, W. J., & Petrosko, J. (2006). Assessing and cultivating
support for strategic planning: Searching for best practices in a reform
environment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(6), 693-708.
137
APPENDIX A: ACCJC RUBRIC FOR EVALUATING INSTITUTIONAL
EFFECTIVENESS
138
139
140
APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE
1. What position do you hold at this institution?
Faculty Classified Administration
2. What age group do you identify with?
18 – 25 26 – 35 36 – 45 46 – 55 56 – 65 above 65
3. Gender
_____ Male _____ Female
4. How many years have you been employed with this institution?
5. Number of years involved with the strategic planning process?
6. Is there a best practice you would recommend from the strategic plan
implementation process used at your college? If so, please briefly describe
the practice.
141
APPENDIX C: INTERVIEW PARTICIPANT INFORMED
CONSENT FORM
You are invited to participate in a study aimed at identifying effective strategic planning
implementation practices at this college. The researcher is Jesse Wilcoxson, a
doctoral student in the Doctoral Program in Educational Leadership, California
State University, Fresno. The title of the dissertation is: Best Practices: A Case
Study of Strategic Planning Implementation Practices at a California Community
College.
If you decide to participate in this study, you will be asked to (a) provide brief
responses to a questionnaire that will take up to 10 minutes of your time and (b)
answer questions in an individual, audio taped interview lasting approximately 1
hour. You will be asked a series of questions about your perceptions of strategic
planning practices at your college. A transcript of the interview will be provided
and you will have the option of making changes or adjustments to your comments.
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be
identified with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your
permission or as required by law. Any information provided throughout the study
will be stored in a secure location accessible solely to the researcher, Jesse
Wilcoxson.
The results of this study may be published or otherwise reported to scientific
bodies. Your identity and the identity of this institution will remain confidential.
You will receive no form of compensation for your participation in this study.
Your decision whether or not to participate will not prejudice your future relations
with California State University, Fresno. If you decide to participate, you are free
to withdraw your consent and to discontinue participation at any time without
penalty. If you decide to withdrawal from this study at any time before its
completion, you must contact the researcher, Jesse Wilcoxson. The committee on
the Protection of Human Subjects at California State University, Fresno has
reviewed and approved the present research. Both the researcher and the
participant will receive a copy of this informed consent form.
SPCC supports this study. Should you have any questions about the study please
contact [DIRE]; phone [xxx-xxx-xxxx] or [E-mail address]
142
Should you have additional questions or require additional information please
contact the researcher: Jesse Wilcoxson, College of the Sequoias, 915 S. Mooney
Blvd, Visalia, CA 93277; (xxx) xxx-xxxx; or E-mail [email protected]
Concerns not addressed by the researcher can be forwarded to: Dr. Diane Oliver,
CSU Fresno, 5005 North Maple Avenue (M/S Ed303), Fresno, CA 93740-8025.
Phone (xxx) xxx-xxxx or E-mail: [email protected].
Questions regarding the rights of research subjects may be directed to Constance
Jones, Chair, CSUF Committee on the Protection of Human Subjects, (xxx) xxx-
xxxx.
You are making a decision whether or not to participate. Your signature indicates
that you have decided to participate having read the information provided above.
______________________________ (Signature) _________________ (Date)
Researcher:
______________________________ (Signature) _________________ (Date)
143
APPENDIX D: SEMISTRUCTURED INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
The phases of the strategic planning process include (a) planning, (b)
documentation and dissemination, (c) implementation, and (d) monitoring.
1. Briefly describe your understanding of the planning, and documentation and
dissemination phases and how they were presented in your unit or department.
2. What is your viewpoint regarding the strategic planning process at this
college? You can compare the process with other community colleges if you
wish.
3. What are your observations regarding the impact the strategic planning process
has had at this institution?
4. What impacts do you think the strategic planning efforts will have on the
future of the institution?
5. What have been the biggest challenges to developing and implementing
strategic plans at this institution?
6. What steps can you identify that were taken to implement the strategic plan?
7. What methods have been most effective in implementing the strategic plan?
8. How is the strategic plan implemented at different levels throughout the
institution?
9. How does the institution monitor the strategic plan implementation? (Is there a
data collection and reporting mechanism?)
10. What is your perception of the culture within the institution regarding the
strategic planning process?
11. What additional thoughts do you have about the strategic planning and
implementation processes that we have not yet addressed?
144
12. Is there anyone else on campus that you feel could contribute valuable
information regarding the strategic planning process at this institution?
145
APPENDIX E: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
1. Introductions
2. Confirm permission to digitally record the interview
3. Informed consent form (make sure both parties receive a copy)
4. Interview questions
5. Any concluding thoughts
6. Make sure participants have all of my contact information
7. Thank participant for their cooperation
146
California State University, Fresno
Non-Exclusive Distribution License
(to make your thesis/dissertation available electronically via the library‘s eCollections database)
By submitting this license, you (the author or copyright holder) grant to CSU, Fresno
Digital Scholar the non-exclusive right to reproduce, translate (as defined in the next
paragraph), and/or distribute your submission (including the abstract) worldwide in print
and electronic format and in any medium, including but not limited to audio or video.
You agree that CSU, Fresno may, without changing the content, translate the submission
to any medium or format for the purpose of preservation.
You also agree that the submission is your original work, and that you have the right to
grant the rights contained in this license. You also represent that your submission does
not, to the best of your knowledge, infringe upon anyone‘s copyright.
If the submission reproduces material for which you do not hold copyright and that would
not be considered fair use outside the copyright law, you represent that you have obtained
the unrestricted permission of the copyright owner to grant CSU, Fresno the rights
required by this license, and that such third-party material is clearly identified and
acknowledged within the text or content of the submission.
If the submission is based upon work that has been sponsored or supported by an agency
or organization other than California State University, Fresno, you represent that you
have fulfilled any right of review or other obligations required by such contract or
agreement.
California State University, Fresno will clearly identify your name as the author or owner
of the submission and will not make any alteration, other than as allowed by this license,
to your submission. By typing your name and date in the fields below, you indicate
your agreement to the terms of this distribution license.
Type full name as it appears on submission
Date
Jesse Wilcoxson
June 6, 2012
147
![Strategic Planning for Recovery [DGL 20/17] Planning for Recovery Director’s Guideline [20/17] i Foreword These guidelines on strategic planning for recovery support the implementation](https://img.pdfslide.net/doc/110x75/5af0411a7f8b9ad0618dd41d/strategic-planning-for-recovery-dgl-2017-planning-for-recovery-directors-guideline.jpg)
