Upload
michael-tate
View
213
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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