Learning Resources

Abstract: Succeeding at integrated planning at colleges and universities is a challenge. Many planning models do not work in higher education because they are not designed for higher education. Planning processes designed for corporations or non-profits do not account for the complex environment of higher education nor its unique challenges.

Many institutions struggle to leverage planning into lasting change because they create plans in a vacuum. They do not grasp the institution’s strategic issues or create a sound value proposition. They are not prepared for good planning.

To provide guidance on where to prioritize efforts, SCUP partnered with the Baker Strategy Group in 2015 to conduct a study with more than 2,200 leaders who plan at colleges and universities, and ran quantitative analysis on their responses. Several themes emerged around planning challenges and how to respond, which are explored in this report.

Abstract: “[This] is a complete guide on strategic planning, presenting step by step the 5 major components of an integrated planning process. It is also a most useful, exhaustive, and updated list of definitions; presentation of all components and subcomponents; suggestions of strategies; and well-chosen examples . . . As I continue my work with Francophone universities, some in Africa, it will be my honor and pleasure to be inspired and accompanied by the Fountains’ guide.”
—Roland Proulx, Consultant, Institutional Planning & Strategic Intelligence, University of Montreal

With a heavy use of SCUP resource materials, SCUPers Doug and JoEllyn Fountain have written the book they wish someone had handed them when they began working for eight years with a rapidly growing university in Uganda. “While North American universities are developing LEED certified buildings, we were trying to pave roads and get stable electricity. We looked long and hard for materials and advisors who could help us with basic issues.”

Abstract: A simple and readily understandable visual display of quantitative measures of academic efficiency and productivity is demonstrated in this article. This graphical construction facilitates annual comparisons of unit efficiency and productivity as well as an analysis of temporal changes in unit activity. By establishing a common framework upon which a data-driven conversation regarding unit activity is constructed, this method produces a single graphical representation of the activities of any academic unit. As such, this technique assists academic decision makers with goal setting, resource allocation and reallocation, and the program prioritization process.