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, MIT Provosts, 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 budgeting Weak communication strategies Need to “consistently practice a credible process” Fund directions, not projects Planning 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 a misnomer. What we’re really doing is 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 action Has 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 circulating sheet if you’re interested in participating in the authoring and review of the READY Branch on Alignment in Planning