Blog Post

Today, strategic planning in colleges and universities is more crucial than ever. Yet many strategic plans in higher education lack a clear strategy, instead resembling a long-range plan. By contrast, strategy is a choice—what you are going to do and not do. It should be responsive to a dynamic environment and have elements of boldness, innovation, and distinction.

When partnering on institutional, school, and unit strategic planning efforts, I have noticed that what often starts with strategic intent evolves into a myopic, tactical plan. While the tactical implementation of strategy is important and necessary, implementation should be anchored in strategy and not formulated independently.

Here are 8 common and interrelated ways strategic planning gets off course:

1. The plan highlights or reorganizes what is already underway. This is often signaled by language that includes continuing, expanding, improving, or renaming current efforts. It’s either “stay the course” or “do the same but a little better.” It’s a safe, incremental approach. In some cases, the current efforts may be strategic—this is an appropriate course of action to scale and enhance—but often they are not.
2. The plan drifts from core mission to mission-enabling. Strategy should be the lead, then comes an assessment of what it would take to achieve it. If we choose this strategy, what organizational capabilities, skills, funding, space, technology, and more are needed? Sometimes the mission-enabling wish list becomes the plan itself without a clear line of sight to how it supports the strategy. No doubt, the enablers on the list are critical for success and must be considered, but they are not the core strategy. The order matters to ensure intention and alignment.
3. The plan has a strong internal focus, instead of responding to a dynamic environment. It becomes about being the “best of,” “a leader,” or “a model” for something specific, often defined by rankings or not defined at all. The plan turns out to be about achieving accolades and recognition, instead of impact and outcomes.
4. The plan includes something for everyone. It is too broad and doesn’t guide decisions about what the organization will/will not do based on alignment with the strategy.
   1. Input is considered a directive. A collaborative, participatory planning process is important and necessary. Engaging diverse stakeholders, beneficiaries, and collaborators in the process enriches the work. Yet there must be a moment of inflection from divergent thinking to convergent thinking and making decisions. Soliciting input shouldn’t come with an expectation to include everything. Strategy should narrow an organization’s focus.
   2. The strategic plan is general so that everyone can see their work in it. Instead of having work align with the strategies, the planning shifts to align with current work and account for all that is done today. Although being inclusive is well-intentioned, the approach results in a diluted and expanded plan.
   3. Strategic planning is seen as adding only. The S-curve of innovation should be evident in your plan: Initiatives and organizational work have a lifecycle that includes growth, maturity, and decline. What current strategies, programs, or initiatives will be sunset or creatively destroyed to make way for new, innovative pursuits? In general, colleges and universities are not particularly adept at stopping and discontinuing efforts. Frequently, strategy is equated with growth by addition. What more can we do?
5. The strategic plan is siloed with a vertical orientation, which is often demonstrated by focus areas that reflect only one element of the institution or organization. For example, some goals are singularly centered on teaching, research, or service. The most powerful strategies are horizontal, providing an integrated direction across mission-focused work.
6. The strategic plan is considered static. It includes as many initiatives as possible and doesn’t have adaptive capacity built in. Having a well-articulated strategy and an initial set of key initiatives, with plans to monitor and adjust, creates space for adaptation as environmental conditions change. It’s open to shifting contexts and emerging opportunities. Looking into the future 5 to 7 years will always have a degree of uncertainty. The plan should be flexible and adaptable.
7. The strategic plan lifecycle is too long, often spanning 10 years. It was standard practice to create strategic plans for a 10-year horizon. But a lot can happen in 10 years, and it’s difficult to see that far into the future with much certainty. The further out, the greater the uncertainty. Because the strategic plan is intended to be in response to a dynamic environment, a shorter period of 5 to 7 years helps create a more actionable plan.
8. After the strategic plan is created, the work ends. The creation of a strategic plan is often seen as the end. Strategic planning and doing are inseparable for success. You plan so you can do. An effective strategic plan anchors and guides day-to-day actions and decisions. The strategic plan should be a means, not an end.

All types of planning (e.g., long-range or short-term) can hold value for an organization, and every one is needed. Each plan helps create alignment and understanding of priorities, guiding execution. However, in the absence of an umbrella strategy, subsequent plans become disjointed, leading to isolated progress rather than integrated, unified direction.

Learn More

We’ve distilled the integrated planning approach into key hallmarks or characteristics that can be observed in any planning process, from institution-wide strategic planning to more focused unit planning carried out by departments, divisions, and offices, to change initiatives and other one-off processes.

Learn more about Integrated Planning Hallmarks.

Put your strategy to the test

At a time of great challenge in higher education, how might we become more strategic in our thinking, planning, and doing? Here are key “strategic-ness” questions to help you assess the strength of your plan:

• Would the opposite approach from what’s in your plan be absurd? Strategy is about choice and trade-offs. Is this a deliberate choice in direction?
• Is the plan responsive and relevant to the dynamic environment?
• Are there elements of distinction that set your organization apart from others with the same mission and in the same market?
• Does the strategy outlined in the plan establish priorities?
• Is it evident from your plan what may need to be stopped or modified to realize the strategy?
• Is the plan a filter and guide for decisions, making clear what actions and activities align—and which don’t?
• Is the strategic plan front and center in the organization, visible, referenced, and embedded in the day-to-day?
• Are key performance measures at the goal (outcome) level monitored for progress, with actions adjusted as needed?
• Is the plan dynamic and adaptive so that you can respond to changes in the environment and emerging opportunities?

Higher education has inherent constraints to becoming more strategic. There are structures, policies, and practices in place, often mandated by regulatory and accreditation bodies, that limit agility, adaptability, and risk-taking. However, there is still room for more strategic, innovative thinking and action. Let’s alter our mental model of status-quo thinking that leads to stable, safe plans. Let’s create the conditions for bolder, more strategic plans and actions.

To comment on this post or share your thoughts with the author, email Sarah Collie at slc6h@virginia.edu.