The Status of Strategic Planning in Portuguese

The Status of Strategic Planning in Portuguese

Higher Education Institutions: Trappings orSubstance?

Maria de Lourdes Machadoa, Minoo Farhangmehrb and JamesStover TaylorcaCentre for Research on Higher Education Policies, Council of Rectors of Portuguese Universities,

Portugal.

E-mail: [email protected] of Minho, Portugal.cUniversity of Aveiro, Center for Research on Higher Education Policies, Portugal.

Economic, regulatory and social pressures are challenging higher educationinstitutions (HEIs) in the 21st century. Strategic planning is a frequently usedmethod for implementing appropriate institutional responses to changing internaland external conditions. The degree to which strategic planning is being utilized isan important predictor of institutional vitality and prosperity. This article draws ona national study recently conducted on strategic planning throughout PortugueseHEIs. Participants came from public and private universities, polytechnic institutesand other establishments. Data included interviews, an extensive survey anddocumentary evidence. Research indicates many institutions are engaged in aprocess of planning to various degrees, and many of those that are not, wish tointegrate it into their policy development arsenal. However, claims of strategicplanning implementation are tempered by data from the study, which analyzed howfar key factors in strategic planning had been addressed by the institutionsexamined. Accordingly, the number of institutions that can legitimately beclassified as strategic planners is incongruent with the self-reported findings ofthe data. A critical discussion from both institutional and system perspectives arebrought to bear on the findings.Higher Education Policy (2004) 17, 383–404. doi:10.1057/palgrave.hep.8300064

Keywords: Portuguese higher education; strategic planning

Introduction

Higher education represents one of the oldest institutions in the world.Throughout history, academic institutions have sought to respond to thedemands of endlessly changing and evolving environmental conditions. Theglobal economy of today demands the development of managementcapabilities, innovation strategies and competitive advantages within the

Higher Education Policy, 2004, 17, (383–404)r 2004 International Association of Universities 0952-8733/04 $30.00

www.palgrave-journals.com/hep

higher education enterprise. Institutions have to be prepared for the challengesof a highly competitive and ever-increasing global market that is in a constantstate of flux. Institutions of higher education are not exempt from thisoverwhelming trend. Education in general, and higher education in particular,is a factor of great importance to the development of this dynamic trans-national metamorphosis. Higher education is a mainstay in the developmentand support of the economic, social and cultural development of our world(Kerr, 1994; Dill and Sporn, 1995; Peterson, 1995, 1999; Meek et al., 1996;Neave, 1996; Teichler, 1996; Scott, 1998; Sadlak, 2000; Castells, 2001;Farhangmehr et al., 2001; OECD, 2002; Kwiek, 2003).The prescriptive literature strongly advocates strategic planning as the key to

superior institutional and system performance. This process focuses on strategicand operational goals, objectives and strategies based on organizational policies,programs and actions designed to achieve the institution’s aims and desiredresults. It is argued that it is an extremely important tool for organizationaleffectiveness (Keller, 1983; Steeples, 1988; van Vught, 1988; Hunt et al., 1997;Peterson, 1999; Taylor et al., 2001; Stembridge, 2001; Austin, 2002; Haywardand Ncayiyana, 2003; Whitlock, 2003). Strategic planning can help organizationsclarify their future direction, develop a coherent basis for the decision-makingprocess, establish priorities, improve organizational performance and, overall,think strategically (Bryson, 1988; Ansoff and McDonell, 1990). This literaturewould support the contention that institutions that correctly implement strategicplans are more likely to be successful. While there are numerous testimonials ofthe many benefits of planning as described in the literature from intuitive andconceptual points of view, the empirical evidence is far from conclusive(Birnbaum, 2000). Moreover, no studies to date have been conducted in thesetting or unique context of the Portuguese higher education system.

European Perspective

Much of the literature on strategic planning in higher education is from theUSA. There are notable contributions from Europe. Strategic managementand planning was recommended in 1998 by The European UniversityAssociation (formerly the Conference of Rectors of Europe, CRE). With adocument authored by Tabatoni and Barblan (1998) and published by CRE,recommendations concerning principles and practices of strategic managementin universities to develop a model to reinforce institutional integration werewidely dispersed throughout the European higher education community. Afterthis Guide came a follow-up publication in August 2002, Thema no 2, byTabatoni et al. entitled, ‘Strategic Management and Universities’ InstitutionalDevelopment’.

Maria de Lourdes Machado et alStatus of strategic planning in Portuguese higher education

384

Higher Education Policy 2004 17

In 1989, Mehallis questioned if the United States’ models could be successfulin European universities. de Boer and Maassen (1994) noted the intent ofEuropean Union universities to strengthen their credibility globally, identifiedemerging actions to initiate and stimulate strategic planning. Conway et al.(1994) conducted an exploratory study to discover the degree to which newuniversities and higher education colleges in the United Kingdom applied amarket orientation to their strategic planning. In Norway, Larsen andGornitzka (1995), in a study about the impact of planning at Norwegianuniversities, found some change particularly with regard to the clarifying ofpriorities at the departmental level. McNay (1997) studied strategic planningand management for higher education in Central and Eastern Europe. Herecognized the need for strategic planning within universities and otherinstitutions of higher education in order to be more proactive. In 1997,Kriemadis in Greece examined ‘Strategic Planning in Higher EducationAthletic Departments’ with an analysis of its several components presented.Sporn (1999) analyzed the broader, all-embracing concept of institutionaladaptation in both the US and European universities using case studies. Thefindings and implications clearly supported the need for institutional planningas a sub-set of adaptation and change. More recently, Brennan and Shah(2000, 39–40) refer to a French university with a strong international researchreputation as a case study in planning wherein the authors point ‘yto the risein student enrollments, the diversification of programmes, and the demand forvocationally oriented training and changing pedagogical practices, includingthe use of multimedia techniques’. Mora (2001) called for strategic planningwithin Spanish higher education institutions. Ball (2001) presented an enquiryentitled, ‘The History of Strategic Planning in British Universities’ and notedthat strategic planning helped promote institutional diversity, giving institu-tions a clearer perspective of their range of development options. Pratt (2001)referred positively to the planning process, implemented at Oxford BrookesUniversity in the UK, where some institutional sentiment speaks of theuniversity being ‘planning overwhelmed’. A project on higher educationgovernance and management in South East Europe by UNESCO-CEPES andthe European Commission produced four publications. The second, by Taylorand Miroiu (2002), summarized the outcomes as integration, coordinatednetworking, strengthening of individual HEIs and financial management basedon autonomy and accountability.

Portuguese Higher Education

Portuguese universities originate in the middle of the 11th century. Early in the1970s, with the exception of artistic education, higher education consisted in


385


four universities — Coimbra, Lisbon, the Technical University of Lisbon andPorto. From 1970 to April of 1974, corresponding to the period known as ‘TheReforma Veiga Simao’, new universities and polytechnic institutes werecreated. After April of 1974 (Revolution of April), the law creating PolytechnicHigher Education was published in 1979; however, most dated from the late1980s.In 1986, with the publication of the Comprehensive Law of the Education

System, two subsystems of higher education, namely universities andpolytechnic institutes, were initiated. Portuguese higher education today isorganized into public and non-public HEIs. In the public sector areuniversities, polytechnic institutes, military and police schools. Private andcooperative higher education includes universities and other establishments.There is also a multi-campus Catholic university with special status (seeTable 1).From the early 1980s to the present, the number of students enrolled in

public and private higher education in Portugal quadrupled to a 2002/2003total of 395,478. Public higher education is the largest component ofPortuguese higher education, with the majority of students, 285,362 — thatis, 72.16% of the total national enrolment. The category of other establish-ments numbers 106 HEIs, many containing only a few hundred students each.A number of strategic issues come to mind with respect to Portuguese higher

education. First is the broad concept of European integration. Researchcollaboration, interdisciplinary curricular developments, business–institutionalpartnerships and trans-national degrees are a few of the issues facing the

Table 1 Number of Portuguese higher education institutions

Higher education Type of institution Number of institutions

Public higher education

Universities and university institutes 15a

Polytechnic institutes 15

Other polytechnic schools 2

Nursing and health schools 18

Military and police schools 6b

Private and co-operative higher education

Universities 9

Other establishments 98

Catholic university

Catholic university 1

aTwo public universities (Algarve and Aveiro) include polytechnic schools.bFour university schools and two polytechnic schools.


386


contemporary HEI. This, of course, requires institutional as well as nationalvigilance. According to Arroteia (1996, 10): ‘The panorama of Portuguesehigher education is considered in terms of a steady growth in the educationsystem and diversity of courses, along with enormous needs of a duly qualifiedteaching staff and this fact is reflected not only in the preparation of thegraduates but also in the organizational and scientific culture of theseinstitutions’. This exemplifies the essence of institutional quality. It can becomereality if a strategic plan drives the process, defines the road and sets thecourse; or it can simply end up in myth with rhetoric and unchartedmeanderings leading nowhere and everywhere. The government is engaged inpublic discussion on Portuguese higher education that will, hopefully, bringnew and proactive legislation into place. Clearly, from the authors’ point ofview, this ought to include further advances toward institutional autonomyand a national strategic plan for public and private higher education.To provide additional perspective and underline the circumstances and need

for action on the part of Portuguese higher education, a few statistics from theOECD (2002) are presented. OECD data covering 30 countries suggest thatPortugal vies for last place with Turkey at 9% in terms of the percentage of thepopulation aged 25 to 64, completing a higher education degree. Among theyounger adult population aged 25 to 34, the findings are slightly better.Portugal ranks 26th out of 30 with a 14% rate. Only the Slovak Republic,Italy, the Czech Republic and Turkey were lower. Arguably one of the bestways to redirect a visionless process, adrift and rudderless in the winds ofchange is to establish a strategic model to provide guidance, direction andcohesion to the higher education enterprise. Ultimately, this depends upongovernment, leadership and higher education stepping forward in a legitimateeffort to create improvements.

Substantive Criteria for Planning

Self-reported claims have to be scrutinized for their veracity through cross-checking and weighing the evidence. In this study, the broad overarchingconcept of planning was rendered into more operational terms for analysis.Planning considered strategic in nature should be differentiated frominstitutional planning. ‘Planning is about defining where we want to go —or what we want to be — and how we want to get there’ (Rose, 2003, 1).According to Kaufman (1995) planning implies choosing between passive

inaction and proactive engagement. There are many definitions of strategicplanning. Change is a central factor. Parker, (1994, 393) described two factorsas competing in the process of change ‘The first is that change is the only trueconstant. The second is that individuals and organizations routinely deny this


387


reality, believing that the status quo is both permanent and desirable. Theinertia of this denial must contend with the momentum of change.’ Strategicplanning is the means to achieve this end. Strategic planning is perceived as acontinuous process, an externally responsive approach to an ever-changingenvironment that requires constant adaptation on the part of the institution(Cope, 1981; Keller, 1983; Peterson, 1995, 1999; Ball, 2001; Austin, 2002).Kaufman (1996) viewed strategic planning as a way of creating the futurerather than waiting for the reality of change to overtake the organization.McCune (1986, 34) defined strategic planning as ‘ya process for organiza-tional renewal and transformation’. Strategic planning focuses on adaptivechange or change motivated by the external environment. Such change reflectsinstitutional responses to environmental pressures, both internal and external(Lovinguth, 1996).This study focuses on the opinions and perceptions of institutional leaders

regarding planning. Their viewpoints and understanding of it are central toinstitutional effectiveness. As Benveniste (1989, 26 suggested, ‘ythe normativeliterature on strategic planningy is careful to insist on the importance of theCEO in the planning process. The planner must work closely with the CEO. Infact, the CEO may be the real planner’. Moore (2001, 13) added that ‘Forplanning to succeed, the involvement and support of the president is essential.’Clearly then, the leaders of institutions are the central focus to strategicplanning.Obviously, the over-riding query is how far are institutions actively involved

in planning? To measure degree and type of involvement, plus the authenticityof such claims, the substantive criteria for planning must be examined andweighed against the responses received. If a legitimate planning process is inplace at an HEI, then the requisite, sequential components of planning will beevident. It may be assumed the appropriate individuals within the institutionparticipate in the process. Further, known variables for internal institutionaland external environmental analysis should be present. A thorough analysis ofthe level of operational presence of such criteria provides an index of how faran HEI is legitimately participating in a process of planning. These criteria canalso be utilized to measure the extent a planning model is strategic in itsapproach.

Methodology

The project comprised a nation-wide study of the extent to which HEIs wereengaged in the process of planning. Certain specialized schools focusing onareas such as nursing and police were not included because they were in atransitional state within the overall higher education organizational structure


388


and were non-classifiable. The purpose of the study was to measure the level ofHEI engagement in institutional planning as evidenced in the perceptions ofrectors and presidents, who were surveyed. Part of the design was to study theprocess for those involved in strategic planning by looking at the components,characteristics, strategies and goals that comprised this process. Finally, theinvestigation examined the level of involvement of institutions and measuredthe perceptions of institutional leaders about the benefits and effectiveness ofplanning. The methodology involved developing, piloting and administering asurvey to rectors and presidents. Supplemental documentation was alsoexamined to the extent institutions provided it.Within public higher education, with three times the students of private higher

education, 35.47% of the HEIs responded. Significantly, they represented74.77% of all students enrolled in the public sector — a large and highlyrepresentative sub-set of the overall sample. If we further dissect the public sectorsub-set of the sample, it shows 80% of the public universities are included, whichaccounted for 82.87% of the students enrolled in public university highereducation. For polytechnic institutes, 93.33% are in the sample which iseffectively 90.49% of their student total. This large and highly representativepublic sector sub-set of the sample is at the heart and soul of defining Portuguesehigher education. It provides strong support for the reliability and validity of theoverall sample and its findings. Finally, with over 100,000 students represented,it should be noted that the private and cooperative sector within the sampleencompassed 55.57% of all students enrolled in their HEIs and added weight tothe sample. HEIs representing 74.77% of all students enrolled in Portuguesehigher education were surveyed (see Table 2).

Research Findings and Analyses

Of the 61 HEIs, 48 self-reported they were actively engaged in the generalprocess of planning. Interestingly, 100% of the public universities and 92.9%of the polytechnic institutes made this claim. Only 50% of private HEIs and69.2% of other establishments did so. See Table 3 for a breakdown byinstitutional type.In the remaining group of 13 HEIs stating they did not have a formal

planning process, three stated they had partial planning in place (see Table 4).Thus, 48 institutions stated they had a formal planning process, plus three

with partial plans. The total sample, therefore, identifies 51 institutions withsome kind of planning. From a qualitative perspective based on interviews andthe authors’ personal knowledge of Portuguese higher education, it seems clearthe vast majority of those in leadership positions support the concept ofinstitutional planning and would like to advance the process further.


389


Table 2 Sample breakdown

Higher

education

Type of

institution

Number of in-

stitutions

Number of stu-

dents enrolled

2001/02

Number of

answering

institutions

Percentage of

answering

institutions

Number of

students

enrolled in the

answering

institutions

Percentage of

students en-

rolled in an-

swering

institutions

Public higher

education

56 280,638 26 46.43 226,777 80.81

Universities

and a university

institute

15a 171,014 12 80.00 141,727 82.87

Polytechnic in-

stitutes

15 93,990 14 93.33 85,050 90.49

Other polytech-

nic schools

2 1,279 b b b b

Nursing and

health schools

18 12,899 b b b b

Military and

police schools

6c 1,456 b b b b

Private and co-

operative higher

education

107 101,517 34 31.77 56,418 55.57

Universities 9 41,331 8 88.89 33,126 80.15

Other establish-

ments

98 60,186 26 26.53 23,292 38.70

Catholic univer-

sity

1 10,136 1 100 10,136 100

Total 164 392,291 61 37.19 293,331 74.77

aTwo public universities (Algarve and Aveiro) include polytechnic schools.bInstitutions not included in the study.cFour university schools and two polytechnic schools.

MariadeLourdesMachadoetal

StatusofstrategicplanninginPortuguesehighereducation

390

Higher

Educatio

nPolicy2004

17

Most HEIs (62.7% out of 51 engaged in planning or partial planning)indicated the process was a mixture of top-down and bottom-up planning, withan emphasis on the former. This was the most frequent response for allinstitutional types. This may reflect the fact that of the many groups possiblyinvolved in the process within an institution, the two most cited were therector/president followed by the vice rectors/vice presidents — the top of theorganizational hierarchy. No other categories came close to these two.Institutional autonomy is clearly a necessary ingredient for the implementa-

tion of strategic planning. The degree to which institutions of different typesbelieved they had autonomy varied decidedly. This is set out in Table 5,controlling for institutional type.Leaders of HEIs surveyed were asked their perceptions of how the process

benefited the institution. A principal component factor analysis found four

Table 3 The existence of planning by institutional type

Institution ‘The institution has a planning process?’ Total

Yes No

n Row % Col % n Row % Col % n Row % Col %

Public universities 13 100.0 27.1 13 100.0 21.3

Public polytechnics 13 92.9 27.1 1 7.1 7.7 14 100.0 23.0

Private universities 4 50.0 8.3 4 50.0 30.8 8 100.0 13.1

Other establishments 18 69.2 37.5 8 30.8 61.5 26 100.0 42.6

Total 48 78.7 100.0 13 21.3 100.0 61 100.0 100.0

Table 4 The existence of only partial plans by institutional type

Institution ‘The institution, while not having a formal strategic

plan, has partial plans?’

Total

Yes No No response n Row % Col %

n Row % Col % n Row % Col % n Row % Col %

Public polytechnics 1 100.0 33.3 1 100.0 7.7

Private universities 1 25.0 33.3 3 75.0 42.9 4 100.0 30.8

Other establishments 1 12.5 33.3 4 50.0 57.1 3 37.5 100.0 8 100.0 61.5

Total 3 23.1 100.0 7 53.8 100.0 3 23.1 100.0 13 100.0 100.0


391


major factors explained the overall variance. Foremost, improvement of theinstitution explained 20.94% of the variance. This factor had six indicators. Allfour factors and their specific indicators, as well as their variances explained,are shown in Table 6.Despite planning being in place, difficulties and problems were experienced

by all HEIs. Factor analysis identified four factors that contributed to this —Lack of Resources, Absence of Communication/Information, Conflict andFast Changes, and Lack of Time and Unfavorable Environment. The first twoexplain 47.60% of the variance (see Table 7).The critical criteria utilized in this study to ascertain whether an HEI was

engaged in a strategic planning process were based on the literature citedpreviously. The variables assessed in the survey were:

(1) scanning of the external environment,(2) assessing internal strengths and weaknesses,(3) analyzing external opportunities and threats,(4) identifying major directions (vision) that will guide the institution forward,(5) establishing goals and objectives,(6) developing strategies,(7) allocating resources,(8) evaluating results and(9) utilizing performance indicators. While the survey instrument was far moredetailed, this overview provides the essential structure of the queries.

Finally, the data analysis looks at those institutions that, based on theirutilization of the specified criteria, were judged to be legitimately engaged in astrategic planning process. A comparative analysis between percentages inTable 3 above and Table 8, which follows, reveals interesting findings. Fromthe 13 public universities engaged in some form of planning, four met thecriteria for strategic planning (30.8%). The polytechnic institutes’ rates wentfrom 13 to 8 (57.1%). Private universities were reduced from four to three(75%) and the other establishments went from 18 to 9 (50%). Thus, of the 61HEIs surveyed, 48 institutions were engaged in some form of planning process,

Table 5 Degree of perceived autonomy by institutional type

Very high % High % Medium % Low % Very low %

Public universities 23.1 53.8 15.4 7.7

Public polytechnics 15.4 15.4 53.8 7.7 7.7

Private universities 40.0 20.0 20.0 20.0

Other establishments 36.8 31.6 26.3 5.3


392


Table 6 Perceptions regarding the benefits of planning

Factors

designation

Indicators Component

1 2 3 4

Factor 1 —

improvements

to the institution

It helped in the development of activities that met the needs of the community 0.826

It made an increase of creativity in the institution possible 0.710

It contributed to the integration of all activities consistent with the mission

of the institution

0.660

It contributed to the internal strengthening of the institution 0.656

It allowed for better optimization of resources 0.528

It made better internal coordination of the institution possible 0.510

Explained variance % 20.94

Factor 2 —

benefits/

motivation/

changes/

weaknesses and

problems

Generally, it brought more benefits than costs for the institution 0.750

It helped motivate the people within the institution 0.684

It helped us create changes 0.557 0.564

It helped us to identify our institutional weaknesses and problems 0.535

It facilitated performance measures of each unit in accordance with already defined

and specific objectives

0.521 0.511




393

Higher

Educatio

nPolicy

2004

17

Factor 3 —

future priorities/

management

It determined priorities for the future of the institution 0.794

It lead to transparent management 0.779

It contributed to cohesion between the different levels of management 0.559

It provided for more stability in an environment of constant change

It helped us to know the external environment better


Factor 4 —

institutional

knowledge

It helped us to know the institution better 0.870

It helped us become conscious of the comparative advantages 0.667


Total variance=67.65%; KMO=0.785; Bartlett’s test of sphericity o0.001.

Table 6 (Continued)

Factors

designation

Indicators Component

1 2 3 4



394

Higher

Educatio

nPolicy2004

17

Table 7 Problems affecting the process of planning

Factors designation Indicators Factors

1 2 3 4

Factor 1 — lack of resources Lack of necessary

resources — Physical

0.896

Lack of necessary

resources —Technological

0.880

Lack of necessary

resources — Financial

0.818

Lack of necessary

resources — Human

0.800


Factor 2 — absence of

communication/information

Absence of communication 0.901

Lack of information 0.869

Lack of engagement of the senior

administrators

0.748

Lack of motivation of involved

staff in its implementation

0.623 0.515


Factor 3 — conflict and

fast changes

Development of conflicts 0.760

Tendencies for excessively fast

changes

0.746


Factor 4 — lack of time and

environment unfavorable

Lack of time 0.774

Changes in the environment

unfavorable to the

implementation of the plan

0.541 0.628

Absence of an adequate

implementation process

0.539 0.608

Inconsistencies in the

planning process

0.510


Total variance=75%; KMO=0.785; Bartlett’s test of sphericity o0.001.


395


three more pursuing a partial process of planning and a final 24 (39.3%) thatwere actually conducting strategic planning (see Table 8).A great many internal and external variables can have an impact on the

strategic direction an institution ultimately pursues. For those HEIs engaged ina planning process, 12 factors were noted as contributory to the directions theinstitution chose to pursue. The most pronounced factors were Leadership,Innovation and Budgetary Priorities, and the least notable was Families (seeFigure 1).

Table 8 The status of strategic planning by institutional type (institution * strategic planning

institutions crosstabulation)

Institution Institutions Total

Strategic

planning

institutions

Institutions

not engaged

in strategic

planning

Public universities n 4 9 13

Row % 30.8 69.2 100.0

Column % 16.7 24.3 21.3

Total % 6.6 14.8 21.3

Polytechnic institutes n 8 6 14

Row % 57.1 42.9 100.0

Column % 33.3 16.2 23.0

Total % 13.1 9.8 23.0

Private universities n 3 5 8

Row % 37.5 62.5 100.0

Column % 12.5 13.5 13.1

Total % 4.9 8.2 13.1

Other establishments n 9 17 26

Row % 34.6 65.4 100.0

Column % 37.5 45.9 42.6

Total % 14.8 27.9 42.6

Total n 24 37 61

Row % 39.3 60.7 100.0

Column % 100.0 100.0 100.0

Total % 39.3 60.7 100.0


396


Presumably, institutions actively engaged in the planning process see benefitsfrom their efforts. When this question was posed, several factors stood out.First and foremost, respondents said the process helped them to understand theinstitution better. Four other strong responses involved determining futurepriorities, cohesion between management levels, internal institutional strength-ening and better awareness of the institution’s comparative advantages (seeFigure 2).Each of these last figures reveals factors, essentially internal in nature, as

opposed to external. Institutional leadership, how budgets are allocated based

" Leadership "

" Budgetary priorities "

" Expectations of the students "

" Families "

" Expectations of the academic staff "

" Needs of internationalization "

" Competition with other institutions of higher education "

" Expectations of future employers "

" Judgments of the scientific community "

" Innovation "

" Size of the institution "

" Governmental regulations "

Mean2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00 3.25

Figure 1. Factors that influence the direction of the institution.

" The strategic plan was used as a guide in the development of the institution "

" The strategic plan was used to support the presidency/rectory in the management of the institution "

" When the final planning document is finished, a budget will be allocated to accomplish the plan "

" The resultant strategic plan was based more on capacities than on aspirations "

Mean3.00 3.20 3.40 3.60 3.80

Figure 2. Institutional benefits from the planning process.


397


upon priorities, institutional innovation and the perception that planninghelped the HEI develop itself are all driven by internal forces and initiatives.Other factors, while less pronounced, suggest a similar trend. Overall, thesefigures suggest that planning might be essentially an independent exercise byeach institution.This assumption is reinforced by the findings shown in Figure 3. Personal

benefits seen from engaging in planning were led by the fact it helped leadersknow the institution better. This was followed by the identification ofinstitutional priorities, better internal coordination, internal strengthening ofthe HEI and awareness of comparative advantages.

Perspectives on the Portuguese case

Sporn (1999) points to planning as an appropriate first step towardinstitutional change. Among the seven propositions for a theory of adaptation,she suggests that adaptation:

(1) is initiated by environmental demands,(2) requires clear institutional mission statements and goals,(3) must be supported by shared governance and(4) must have the commitment of strong leadership. Each of these is reflectiveof important tenets within strategic planning models. Amaral et al. (2003)pointed to the need for better management tools and processes to creategreater effectiveness and efficiency. Strategic planning would serve withinthis role very well.

Throughout the world, higher education is evolving and literally transforming.To be internationally competitive, Portugal needs to address contemporary

Figure 3. Personal benefits from the planning process.


398


issues from a strategic platform of strength. Evidence presented earlier suggeststhe need for proactive and progressive leadership and strategy at theinstitutional and system-wide levels within Portugal. Findings from this studyprovide more focused evidence of the need for strategic action at theinstitutional level. Together, these positions represent a call to action. AsMarcal-Grilo (2003, 11), a former Minister of Education in Portugal, stated,‘Only with strong leadership and strategic planning is it possible to increase therole of the universities in our modern society.’This is not a problem unique to Portugal, but it is no less an issue that must

be confronted and resolved within the country. A major problem for highereducation everywhere, as Tierney (2000) noted, is the realization thatadministrators and faculties have not been very successful in handling changeand reform. Tierney further suggested five roadblocks to reform:

(1) a lack of agreement on the problem, its resolution and/or the responsibleindividuals;

(2) unclear timeframes resulting in extended and confused processes;(3) no evaluative criteria in the rush to finish the project;(4) ineffective campus communication systems and(5) rigidity when the system freezes and no one believes efforts toward changewill be productive.

While the specific analyses of this study examine strategic planning at theinstitutional level, the implications can be applied more broadly. Strategicplanning represents a multi-layered, coordinated, well-communicated systemof goal identification and attainment that takes into consideration all relevantinternal and external factors. No individual institution can plan in isolation.Planning is reality based and must be done within the parameters of largergoverning and legislative bodies. It is a highly participatory process andrequires many people at many levels to work in synchrony.As the survey probed deeper into specific activities that reflect legitimate

aspects of planning, the number of HEIs steadily dropped. The total sample of61 HEIs surveyed was reduced to 48 involved in planning, plus three engagedin some kind of planning. Analyzing the process of planning, we find 24pursuing the basic component steps of the process of planning and finally to astrategic planning model. Of the initial rate of 78.6% of institutions assuringthey are engaged in planning, only 39.3% can be classified as strategicplanners. This is not an indictment of Portuguese HEIs. While directives andpressures (primarily in the realm of funding allocations) create external forcesthat encourage institutional planning, such influences are viewed as insufficientto ensure successful planning. HEIs are still left on their own to developappropriate processes and execute them successfully, a situation which, moreimportantly, fails to provide the multi-layered structure needed for a


399


coordinated national model. As stated earlier, HEIs should not be expected toengage in institutional planning in isolation. A hierarchy that communicatesand coordinates guidance, vision and resources for success is needed. In ourview, this comprehensive planning structure does not exist in Portugal. Yet, itonly takes a short while and very few attempts at planning that fail for mostHEIs to abandon the effort as futile. Once an institution has tasted the bitterpill of inordinate work and commitment to implement a planning process onlyto see it end with no discernable changes or improvements, efforts to re-energize the institution to try again are extremely difficult.The Portuguese government requires documentation called ‘Planos de

Desenvolvimento’ (Development Plans), loosely defined as planning and whichare connected to funding allocations. The examples reviewed here revealedwide variability in format, style, compatibility with a planning documentand quality, reflecting marked departure from the guidelines provided bythe Ministry. Most HEIs do not believe these documents are dealt withseriously and are to some extent a waste of time. Yet, it is clear that failure tosubmit this annual document would be fiscally irresponsible and costly.Frustration grows. The will to create a more comprehensive institutional modelof planning slowly, but certainly, dissipates and ultimately vanishes. It is timefor change.As Cerych and Sabatier (1986) pointed out, major changes in public policy in

general involve a three-step process. First, policy formulation occurs in aneffort to improve the current situation. Second, specific program developmentand implementation is assigned to one or more entities. Finally, following theevaluation of initial efforts, a period of reformulation is implemented. Thegovernment of Portugal needs to assume, following Neave and van Vught(1991), a ‘facilitative role’ in support of higher education without undueintervention. The national leadership of higher education should take on therole of coordination by bringing together the expertise of the higher educationcommunity to develop an operational model for implementation. A dualprocess whereby government lessens its bureaucratic controls and HEIs arestrengthened in terms of internal management and autonomy would beimportant first steps (Goedegebuure et al., 1994). Institutional autonomy hasbeen increasing in Portugal consistent with the trend throughout continentalEurope (Amaral et al., 2002). This tends to suggest a positive indicator for thefuture of Portuguese higher education.

Conclusion

Only time will tell whether a true reform, grounded in strategic planning, cantake place within Portuguese higher education. Time, unfortunately, is not on


400


Portugal’s side. The failure of legitimate leaders to step forward and make adifference will impact on the Portuguese system of higher education for a longtime. Portugal cannot absorb this error of fundamental judgment. It calls for acomprehensive strategic plan to guide Portugal successfully into the future.

Avaliacao, revisao e consolidacao da legislacao do ensino superior (Evalua-tion, Revision and Consolidation of Legislation in Higher Education) preparedby Alberto Amaral (2003), Director of CIPES, at the request of the Ministry ofScience and Higher Education, was published with a request for comments andfeedback. Among the many received (see Amaral, 2003) were those of CRISES(Colectivo para a Reflexao e Intervencao Sobre o Ensino Superior). Theypointed out that evaluation of institutional governance models for publichigher education is not exhaustive and lacks sufficient rigor. However, expertopinion, with the support of public opinion, holds that higher educationgovernance models are too corporative, lack adequate professionalism andinhibit strategic development. This results in inefficient use of limited resourcesand an inability to promote institutional innovation.Clearly, if strategic planning is to become firmly anchored within Portuguese

higher education, all of the significant actors should be involved and, moreimportant, committed to the process. According to Amaral and Teixeira(1999), articulation between financing and development plans is absent. FromParliament to Ministry to governing councils to institutions, a coordinated,multi-level model of strategic planning is needed if Portugal wishes to maintainits vitality and competitiveness within the international arena of highereducation. Actors at all levels must also understand that to maintain aninstitution’s or system’s status quo is impossible. As competitors advance andprosper, by default, an enterprise that is static falls behind. The OECD datacited earlier suggest this has already happened to Portugal. The differencebetween reactive and proactive advancement must also be tackled. The formeris crisis management without direction or focus; the latter is visionary strategyguided by mission and foresight (Machado et al., 2003). The question is notwhether there will be change within higher education. Given the turmoil andunpredictability of the times, change seems inevitable and perpetual. At alllevels, the question is whether the change will be carefully orchestrated for thebenefit of the venture or instituted as a hastily conceived reaction to unforeseencircumstances. There is no doubt that the former is the only viable option.‘If we aren’t masters of change, we will be the victims of it.’ (Kaufman,

1995, 8).

References

Amaral, A. (ed.) (2003) Avaliacao, Revisao e Consolidacao da Legislacao do Ensino Superior,

Matosinhos: CIPES- Fundacao das Universidades Portuguesas.


401


Amaral, A. and Teixeira, P. (1999) Previsao da Evolucao do Numero de Alunos e do Financiamento,

Matosinhos: CIPES- Fundacao das Universidades Portuguesas.

Amaral, A., Jones, G.A. and Karseth, B. (eds.) (2002) Governing Higher Education: National

Perspectives on Institutional Governance, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Amaral, A., Magalhaes and Santiago, R. (2003) ‘The Rise of Academic Managerialism in

Portugal’, in A. Amaral, V.L. Meek and I.M. Larsen (eds.) The Higher Education Managerial

Revolution?, Dordrecht, NE: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Ansoff, H.I. and McDonell, E. (1990) Implanting Strategic Management, Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.

Arroteia, J.C. (1996) O Ensino Superior em Portugal, Aveiro: Fundacao Joao Jacinto Magalhaes

and Universidade de Aveiro.

Austin, W.J. (2002) Strategic Planning for Smart Leadership, Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.

Ball, R. (2001) ‘Strategic planning in British Universities — then and now’, Paper Presented to 23rd

Annual EAIR Forum, Portugal: University of Porto.

Benveniste, G. (1989) Mastering the Politics of Planning, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Birnbaum, R. (2000) Management Fads in Higher Education: What They Do and Why They Fail,

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brennan, J. and Shah, T. (2000) Managing Quality in Higher Education: An International

Perspective on Institutional Assessment and Change, Buckingham, UK The Society for Research

into Higher Education.

Bryson, J.M. (1988) Strategic Planning for Public and Non-Profit Organizations, San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass.

Castells, M. (2001) ‘The New Global Economy’, in J. Muller, N. Cloete and S. Badat (eds.)

Challenges of Globalisation: South African Debates with Manuel Castells, Cape Town: Maskew

Miller Longman, pp. 2–21.

Cerych, L. and Sabatier, P. (1986) Great Expectations and Mixed Performance, Stoke-on-Trent

(UK): Trentham Books.

Conway, T., Mackay, S. and Yorke, D. (1994) ‘Strategic planning in higher education: who are the

customers? International Journal of Educational Management 8 8(6): 29–36.

Cope, R.G. (1981) Strategic Planning, Management and Decision-Making, AAHE-ERIC/ Higher

Education Research Report No 9, Washington DC: American Association of Higher Education.

De Boer, H. and Maassen, P. (1994) ‘Looking for an answer: strategic decisions in European higher

education’, Paper Presented at the 16th Annual EAIR Forum Amsterdam, August.

Dill, D. and Sporn, B. (eds.) (1995) Emerging Patterns of Social Demand and University Reform:

Through a Glass Darkly, Paris: IAU Press, Pergamon Press.

Farhangmehr, M., Taylor, J.S. and Machado, M.L. (2001) ‘The dynamics of quality, change and

leadership in higher education: a critical analysis’, Paper Presented at the European Dimension in

Quality Assurance International Conference Iasi, Romania.

Goedegebuure, L., Kaiser, F., Maassen, P., Meek, L., van Vught, F.A. and Weert, E. (eds.) (1994)

Higher Education Policy: An International Comparative Perspective, Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Hayward, F. and Ncayiyana, D. (2003) Strategic Planning: A Guide for Higher Education

Institutions, South Africa: Centre for Higher Education Transformation.

Hunt, C.M., Oosting, K.W., Stevens, R., Loudon, D. and Migliore, R.H. (1997) Strategic Planning

for Private Higher Education, Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press.

Kaufman, R. (1995)Mapping Educational Success (revised edn) Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.

Kaufman, R. (1996) ‘Vision, strategic planning and quality — more than hype’, Educational

Technology, 36(5): 60–62.

Keller, G. (1983) Academic Strategy. The Management Revolution in American Higher Education,

Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Kerr, C. (1994) Higher Education Cannot Escape History, Albany: State University of New York.


402


Kriemadis, A. (1997) ‘Strategic planning in higher education athletic departments’, International

Journal of Educational Management, 11(6): 238–247.

Kwiek, M. (2003) ‘The State, the Market and Higher Education: Challenges for the New Century’,

in M. Kwiek (ed.) The University, Globalization, Central Europe, New York: Peter Lange.

Larsen, I.M. and Gornitzka, A. (1995) ‘New management systems in Norwegian universities: the

interface between reform and institutional understanding’, European Journal of Education

30: 3.

Lovinguth, S.J. (1996) Strategic planning outcomes at four-year private colleges and universities

Doctoral Dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, UMI No. 9710957.

Machado, M.L., Taylor, J.S. and Wilkinson, R. (2003) ‘Strategic planning in Portuguese higher

education institutions’, Paper Presented at the 38th Annual Society for College and University

Planning International Conference, Miami Beach, FL.

Marcal-Grilo, E. (2003) ‘European higher education society’, Tertiary Education and Management

9(1): 3–11.

McCune, S.D. (1986) Guide to Strategic Planning for Educators., Virginia: Association for

Supervision and Curriculum Development.

McNay, I. (1997) Strategic Planning and Management for Higher Education in Central and Eastern

Europe, Budapest: TEMPUS.

Meek, V.L., Goedegebuure, L., Kivinen, O. and Rinne, R. (eds.) (1996) The Mockers and Mocked:

Comparative Perspectives on Diversity, Differentiation and Convergence in Higher Education,

Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Mehallis, V.M. (1989) ‘Strategic planning and management: can successful United States models be

successful in European universities?’, Paper presented at European Association for Institutional

Research Conference.

Moore, J.W. (2001) ‘Planning, politics, and presidential leadership’, in Connecting the Dotsythe

Essence of Planning, Ann Arbor, MI: Society for College and University Planning.

Mora, J.-G. (2001) ‘Governance and management in the new university’, Tertiary Education and

Management 7: 95–110.

Neave, G. (1996) ‘Homogenization, integration and convergence: the Cheshire cats of higher

education analysis’, in V.L. Meek, L. Goedegebuure, O. Kivinen and R. Rinne (eds.) The

Mockers and Mocked: Comparative Perspectives on Diversity, Differentiation and Convergence in

Higher Education, Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Neave, G. and van Vught, F. (eds.) (1991) Prometheus Bound: The Changing Relationship Between

Government and Higher Education in Western Europe, Oxford: Pergamon Press.

OECD. (2002) Education at a Glance: OECD Indicators 2002, Paris: OECD.

Parker, J.M. (1994) ‘Into the Wind, Against the Tide: Change and the Operational Commander’, in

J.N. Petrie (ed.) Essays on Strategy XII, Washington, DC: National Defense University Press.

Peterson, M.W. (1995) ‘Images of University Structure, Governance and Leadership: Adaptive

Strategies for the New Environment’, in D.D. Dill and B. Sporn (eds.) Emerging Patterns of

Social Demand and University Reform: Through a Glass Darkly, Oxford: International

Association of Universities, Pergamon Press.

Peterson, M.W. (1999) ‘Analyzing Alternative Approaches to Planning’, in L. Mets, M. Peterson,

A. Trice and D. Dill (eds.) ASHE Reader on Planning and Institutional Research, Needham

Heights, MA: Pearson Custom Publishing, pp. 11–49.

Pratt, J. (2001) ‘Changing patterns of diversity in Europe: lessons from an OECD study tour’,

Higher Education Management 13(2): 93–103.

Rose, R. (ed.) (2003) Connecting the Dotsythe Essence of Planning, Ann Arbor MI, Society for

College and University Planning.

Sadlak, J. (2000) ‘Globalization versus the universal role of the university’, Higher Education in

Europe 25: 2.


403


Scott, P. (ed.) (1998) The Globalization of Higher Education, Buckingham, UK: Society for

Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.

Sporn, B. (1999) Adaptive University Structures: An Analysis of Adaption to Socio-Economic

Environments of US and European Universities, London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Steeples, D.W. (1988) ‘Concluding observations’, in D.W. Steeples (ed.) Successful Strategic

Planning Case Studies, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 99–104.

Stembridge, A.F. (2001) ‘Strategic planning — the basic steps’, InFo 4(2): 17–40.

Tabatoni, P. and Barblan, A. (1998) Principles and Practices of Strategic Management in

Universities. Volume 1 — Principles, Geneva: Association of European Universities, June, 1998,

CRE Guide No. 2- ISSN 1028-9291.

Tabatoni, P., Davies, J. and Barblan, A. (2002) Strategic Management and Universities’ Institutional

Development EUA-European University Association, EUA/Thema, No. 2, August, 2002.

Taylor, J.S., Farhangmerh, M. and Machado, M.L. (2001) ‘Responding to globalization: the

marriage of strategic thinking and visionary leadership’, Paper Presented at the European

Association for Institutional Research Annual Conference, Porto, Portugal.

Taylor, J. and Miroiu, A. (2002) ‘Policy-Making, Strategic Planning and Management of Higher

Education’, Papers on Higher Education, Bucharest UNESCO-CEPES.

Teichler, U. (1996) ‘Higher Education and New Socio-Economic Challenges in Europe’, in A.

Burgen (ed.) Goals and Purposes of Higher Education in the 21st Century, London and Bristol:

Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Tierney, W. (2000) ‘Developing the high performance organization: impediments to change and

innovation in colleges and universities’, Unpublished manuscript, University of Southern

California.

van Vught, F.A. (1988) ‘A new autonomy in European higher education? An exploratory analysis

of the strategy of self-regulation in higher education governance’, International Journal of

Institutional Management in Higher Education 12(1): 16–26.

Whitlock, J.L. (2003) Strategic thinking, planning, and doing: how to reunite leadership and

management to connect vision with action, The George Washington University Center for

Excellence in Municipal Management, Mimeo.


404


The Status of Strategic Planning in Portuguese

Documents

Transcript of The Status of Strategic Planning in Portuguese