Alignment in Planning

Outcomes from a Focus Session”Planning for Transformation”

Worcester, MA, March 17, 2001

Presenters

John Cavanaugh, Provost, V-C for Academic Affairs, University of North Carolina at Wilmington

Helen Knibb, Learning Designer, Sir Sandford Fleming College, Peterborough, Ontario; NLII Fellow 2001

Overview

Purpose and format

Front end research activities

Questions that framed our thinking

Resulting observations, themes and issues

Indicators of success

Next steps in the NLII research cycle

Purpose of Focus Session

To advance the body of thought on how to

align action, including policy, budget,

project selection and assessment

with strategic goals

Participants

Sponsors: University of Rhode Island, MITProvosts, vice provosts, faculty, directors of IT Universities of Utah, Maryland, California (Davis), Hartford, Central Florida, Rice, etc.

Scope

Assessing the institutional meaning of “transforming teaching and learning”

 Developing a methodology for assessing institutional readiness to transform

Identifying the elements of an integrated tactical plan e.g. technology plan, resource allocation, project

selection, policy, assessment

 

Scope, cont.

Evaluating effective practices for stakeholder engagement and involvement.

Scoping the boundaries for, and the continuum of, institutional transformation based on local culture.

Participant Preparation

Collection of key plans: strategic academic IT communication budget, funding guidelines assessment, etc.

Key questions & insights

How easy to find and locate these plans?

What was their degree of “aliveness”?

How aligned with strategic goals?

What were the findings and insights from the exercise?

Questions to frame thinking: strategic level

How can leaders communicate what transforming the institution really means?

What processes can be used to map strategic initiatives, policy, resources and assessment to the strategic plan? 

Strategic, cont.

How to set priorities for large-scale investment to advance transformation?

How to maintain agility and responsiveness in budgeting and human resource planning?

Questions to frame thinking:tactical level

 How to assess the readiness of the institution to change so as to apply scarce resources, address weaknesses, build on strengths, work around barriers?

 The stakeholders: who, for how long and when?

  

Tactical, cont.

How to align strategic initiatives, budgets, policies and assessment with the strategic plan?

How to distinguish between processes related to scale of planning?

 What dimensions of scalability and sustainability should be explored?

 

Tactical, cont.

What processes should be used for project selection in order to advance transformation?

Some key issues and themes

Planning not linked to budgetingWeak communication strategiesNeed to “consistently practice a credible process”Fund directions, not projectsPlanning processes could do more to leverage new partnerships

Work Product

What would a good planning process look like?

Strategies result from a credible, open planning process

 The context for change is understood

Communication is effective throughout organization

Success Factors, cont

Plans are a reflection of a shared vision

 

Strategies are supported by leadership, promoted by stakeholders

 

There is evidence of outcomes in action

 

Success factors, cont.

Strategies are sustainable, embedded and integrated

Strategies are iterative and continuous, while permitting random acts of progress

Strategies support institutional transformation, but preserve local autonomy

 

Success factors, cont.

Process for resource allocation is public

Plans match where money flows

IT integrated in core institutional values

 IT goals reflect reality of revenues and resources

Success factors, cont.

There are no linkage weaknesses

Assessment is integrated and effective

Summary of ideas

The term strategic planning is amisnomer. What we’re really doingis finding new ways of:

Planning and doing Setting goals on our compasses Engaging the individual Using the power of dialogue

Summary cont.

Engaging stakeholders in reflective process

Reaching a deeper level of internal engagement and oversight

Changing more rapidly Sustaining stakeholder engagement

and autonomy

Conclusion

Alignment: Allows for quick and decisive actionHas to be continuous Planning doesn’t happen in chunks,

the world doesn’t operate in discrete units of time

Workshop Legacy

Maintaining the “aliveness of alignment”

Embedding alignment as an operating principle

Detecting and analysing patterns, themes and issues arising from alignment - and acting on them

Legacy, cont.

Maintaining a vision while addressing the mechanics of alignment

Recognising the value of “leading from the middle”

Understanding the enablers and the inhibitors to the alignment process

Legacy, cont.

Challenges of aligning technology life cycles and obsolescence, with the vagaries of external funding cycles

Aligning with major external state/ provincial initiatives

Developing more effective assessment tools

NLII: next steps

Development of a branch of the ReadY system to enable institutional assessment of alignment

Maintain key resource links to best practices (NLII key themes web page)

Linking alignment themes to transformative assessment

Participation

Please sign up on the circulatingsheet if you’re interested in participating in the authoring and review of the READY Branch onAlignment in Planningwww.educause.edu/ready