Analyzing the LongTerm Impacts of Strategic Planning on the UWMadison Campus

1
Analyzing the Long-Term Impact of Strategic
Planning March 29, 2005 Dean Pribbenow Justin
Ronca Beth Stransky
2
History of Strategic Planning

• 1950-1975 Forecasting and Long-range Planning
• Formal campus master plans to justify resources
  responsive institutions long-range plans to
  emphasize results/accountability
• 1975-1995 Strategic Planning
• Universities as strategic organizations
  strategic niche intentionality and adaptation in
  less predictable and more complex environment
• 1995-beyond Contextual Planning
• Combines long-range and strategic planning but
  focuses on proactively shaping rapidly-changing
  external contexts macro change

M.W. Peterson, 1997
3
Strategic Planning on the UW-Madison Campus

• Late 1980s Future Directions/Accreditation
• Early- to Mid-1990s Updated Directions and
  Strategic Plan
• Late 1990s Vision/Priorities
• 2001 Strategic Plan
• Office of Quality Improvements (OQI) Role
• Guide campus strategic planning process
• Consultation/facilitation with more than 80 units
  on campus

4
(No Transcript)
5
Why do this research?

• Gap in the literature and our working knowledge
• The university (as an organization) and strategic
  planning (as a leadership/management practice)
  share common aims
• Learning, discovery, and integration
• Critical analysis
• Asking the tough questions
• Continually making things better
• Advancing dialogue on important issues

6
Four Initial Research Questions

• What is the impact of a campus-wide planning
  process with clear priorities?
• What factors most contribute to effective
  implementation of the campus-wide strategic plan?
• What is the impact of strategic planning
  processes at the level of schools, colleges,
  administrative units, and academic departments?
• What factors contribute most to effective
  strategic planning implementation in schools,
  colleges, administrative units, and academic
  departments?

7
Two Part Study

• Part I Survey
• Campus leaders
• Aimed at identifying units with which to do
  follow up studies

• Part II Case Studies
• In depth design to identify more specifically
  factors and impact of effective strategic planning

8
Part I Outcomes of Interest

• To what extent did your unit or area of
  responsibility achieve the goals set forth in
  your strategic plan?
• Overall, how beneficial was your strategic
  planning effort?

9
Survey Development

• Three month process to create
• Used literature on strategic planning and
  consultation with academics in the field
• Focus groups and field tests

10
Survey

• 23 questions total
• Aimed at all levels of UW-Madison leadership
• Sample 146 campus leaders
• Completion Rate 46
• Questions omittedlack of data or lack of
  variation

11
Survey Design Considerations

• Target group campus leaders
• Both free response and Likert scale
• No pre-test or control group
• Limited to perceptions of success
• Difficult to generalize beyond UW-Madison
• No ability to address issues of causation
• Issues of privacy

12
Correlation v. Causation

• Survey analysis focuses on correlation between
  unit characteristics and outcomes of interest
• Cannot explain causation
• Outcomes are measured in terms of perceived
  success

13
Results

• Respondents reporting higher levels of perceived
  success with strategic planning also tended to
• use student assessment data (.38)
• assign a point person for each goal (.38)
• identify measures of success (.38)
• engage in collective review of existing data
  (.43)
• have sharpened focus and prioritized needs (.52)

14
Free Response Results

• Free response questions were coded as follows
• 1 negative/no effect
• 2 neutral/dont know
• 3 positive/effect
• The extent to which the respondent perceived that
  his or her unit achieved the goals set forth in
  its strategic plan correlates with the following
  free response items
• positive effects of teaching and learning (.39)
• positive effects of resource management (.42)

15
Results

• Respondents indicating high levels of perceived
  benefit also reported
• Increased efficiency and maximized scarce
  resources (.49)
• Building trust (.50)
• Aligning unit goals and objectives with available
  resources (.52)
• Increased morale (.57)
• Fostering collaboration and teamwork (.60)

16
Additional Findings

• An inverse relationship exists between perceived
  success in planning and
• wasted time as an effect (-.27)
• raised expectations for change that did not occur
  (-.20)
• This means that as the degree of perceived
  success decreased, respondents were more likely
  to say strategic planning was a waste of time and
  raised expectations for change that did not
  occur.

17
Additional Findings

• An inverse relationship exists between perceived
  success in planning and
• respondents rank (-.21)
• This means that the higher up you are in
  UW-Madison leadership, the more likely you are to
  perceive success in strategic planning
• Weak correlationshould be investigated further
  through different means

18
What Can It Tell Us?

• For campus leaders who have engaged in strategic
  planning
• How do they characterize the process?
• What do they perceive as the outcomes and
  effects?
• Correlation of effects and perception
• Those who believe in the value of planning report
  more positive effects
• We dont know why this is, but it could be due to
  increased awareness of planning outcomes, greater
  commitment and effort devoted to planning, or a
  matter of selective perception
• Identify places for further inquiry

19
What Cant It Tell Us?

• How to define success
• What causes success
• If strategic planning is worth the effort
• Whether or not perceived success is a valid
  construct for success

20
Future Research on Strategic Planning

• Different mode of inquiry (i.e., ethnographic
  case studies)
• Different levels of inquiry (i.e. going beyond
  campus leaders)
• Role and impact of leaders on successful planning
• Change over time

21
Discussion

• What does this mean for UW-Madison?
• What does this mean for strategic planning
  efforts in higher education?
• What does this mean for research in this area?

22
Wisconsin Center for the Advancement of
Postsecondary Education University of
Wisconsin-Madison 409 Education Building 1000
Bascom Mall Madison, Wisconsin 53706-1398 Telepho
ne 608-265-6342 Fax [phone] E-mail wisca
pe-info_at_education.wisc.edu Web site www.wiscape.w
isc.edu