Transcript The challenge facing the Governance and management of universities Strategic planning and the

10th Anniversary Conference
25-26 May 2007
The challenge facing the
Governance and management
of universities
Strategic planning and the
stakeholders approach
FERNANDO CASANI
UNIVERSIDAD AUTÓNOMA DE MADRID
Index
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Environmental changes
Future Scenarios for Higher
Education (CERI/OECD)
Strategic problem
Implementing strategic change
The role of the Head of Administration
1.
Environmental changes
THE EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY SYSTEM

Lisbon European Council 2000: Presidency
conclusions

Education and Training 2010 work program
(European Commission)

Bologna Process: European Higher Education Area
(EHEA)
Lisbon European Council 2000

The Lisbon strategy of the European Union identifies the
University as an important moving force for achieving the
central European goal of establishing the knowledge
society in the European Union.

This choice brings forward the importance that Europe
assigns to Universities; at the same time, it brings
forward the need for modernization of the model of the
European University, so that the latter can successfully
play its role.
Education and Training 2010 work program (European
Commission)

The role of the universities in the Europe of
knowledge
(Communication from the Commission 2003)

Mobilizing the brainpower of Europe: enabling
universities to make their full contribution to the
Lisbon Strategy
(Communication from the Commission 2005)

Delivering on the modernization agenda for
universities: education, research and innovation
(Communication from the Commission 2006)
The role of the universities in the Europe of
knowledge (2003)
 How to achieve adequate and sustainable incomes for
universities, and to ensure that funds are spent most
efficiently;
 How to ensure autonomy and professionalism in
academic as well as managerial affairs;
 How to concentrate enough resources on excellence,
and create the conditions within which universities can
attain and develop excellence;
 How to make universities contribute better to local and
regional needs and strategies;
 How to establish closer co-operation between
universities and enterprises to ensure better
dissemination and exploitation of new knowledge in the
economy and society at large
Mobilizing the brainpower of Europe (2005)
Universities should be responsible for:
■ Setting specific medium-term priorities (including by
defining types/areas of research, teaching and services in
which they will achieve outstanding quality) and targeting
the collective effort of their staff towards achieving these;
■ Managing and developing their human resources
■ Defining their curricula - subject to internal QA and in
accordance with the common principles of the European
Higher Education Area;
■ Professionally managing their facilities (owning, running
and developing them), financial resources (including
budgets, investment and borrowing) and external
communication (image building).
Delivering on the modernization agenda for
universities (2006)

MEMBER STATES need to take the necessary measures with
respect to universities, including aspects such as management,
granting real autonomy and accountability to universities, innovation
capacities, and access to higher education and adapting higher
education systems to new competence requirements.

UNIVERSITIES need to make strategic choices and conduct
internal reforms to extend their funding base, enhance their
areas of excellence and develop their competitive position;
structured partnerships with the business community.

THE COMMISSION can contribute through implementation of the
Community Lisbon Programme, through policy dialogue and mutual
learning, in particular within the Education and training 2010 Work
Programme, and through financial support to Member States and to
universities in their modernisation activities.
Bologna process*
It is an intergovernmental initiative which aims to create a European
Higher Education Area (EHEA) by 2010 and to promote the
European system of higher Education worldwide
Affects 46 countries
Objectives:



to remove the obstacles to student mobility across Europe;
to enhance the attractiveness of European higher education
worldwide;
to establish a common structure of higher education systems
across Europe, based on two main cycles.
Bologna 5th Ministerial Conference London, 17-18 May 2007
1. There has been good progress in the Bologna Process since Bergen (2005).
2. The outlook for achieving the goals of the Bologna Process by 2010 is good,
but there are still some challenges to be faced.
2. Future Scenarios for Higher Education
(CERI/OECD, 2006)
“consistent and coherent descriptions of alternative
hypothetical futures that reflect different perspectives on past,
present, and future developments, which can serve as a basis
for action”.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Open networking
Serving local communities
New public management
Higher education Inc.
Scenario 1:
Open Networking

HE is very internationalized and involves intensive
networking among institutions, scholars, students and
with other actors such as industry.

Based more on collaboration than on competition.

Students have a great deal of autonomy. They often
study abroad and take courses offered exclusively online

English is the lingua-franca in education.

There is still a strong hierarchy among HEI: some
institutions or research departments attract more funding
and have better working conditions and higher prestige.

Research data are available on the Internet in real time
Scenario 2:
Serving Local Communities





Higher education institutions are focused (or refocused)
on national and local missions. They are embedded in
their local and regional communities, and are
dedicated to addressing local economic and community
needs in their teaching and research.
Local authorities and businesses are keen to
support local institutions; recreational courses also
generate some revenue.
A small number of “elite” higher education institutions
and research departments are linked to international
networks
Research in “strategic” areas such as physics or
engineering is relocated in the government sector
University-based academic research is focused on
humanities and social sciences, two fields valued for
maintaining national culture.
Scenario 3:
New Public Management






Higher education is primarily publicly funded, but there is a greater
focus on the use of “new public management” tools, including
market forces and financial incentives.
Institutions have taken advantage of foreign education markets, the
deregulation of tuition fees, the patenting of their academic research
and their growing financial links with industry to diversify their
funding sources.
The boundaries between public and private higher education
institutions have blurred.
Institutions are more accountable to the state as well as to other
funders.
Most of the Institutions are specialized in different missions in
teaching and research .
Public funds for academic research is generally from external
sources, financing specific research projects and awarded according
to competitive peer reviewed processes.
Scenario 4:
Higher Education Inc.





HEI compete globally to provide education services
and research services on a commercial basis.
HEI concentrate on what they consider to be their
core business – either teaching or research.
There is fierce competition for students. International
rankings play an important role in informing students of
the comparative quality of different educational offerings.
Formerly “emerging countries” are developing
competitive advantages in selected/specific research
fields (for example, technology in India, agronomics in
China, etc.)
In the research segment of the market, there is fierce
international competition for super-star academic
researchers. Basic research projects are still funded by
governments.
3. Strategic problem
European university has to face the challenge of changing
his traditional role, structure and relation with the
environment in a context of higher competition and social
responsibility
Strategic challenge
 Challenge Intensity
 Management systems
 Key elements for success

Factors that characterize Strategic
Challenge
1
2
Each participant has a set
of objectives
Autonomy in decision
making
Disposal of certain
resources and capabilities
Allocation decision
AECA (1999)
3
4
Influence of the outside
environment
Existence of incontrollable
variables
Situation of competition
rivalry between participants
INTENSITY
of STRATEGIC CHALLENGE
4. Strategic management
Create the future
3. Strategic planning
Think strategically
Dynamic
analysis
Static
analysis
2. Forecast-based planning
Predict the future
1. Financial planning
Meet anual budget
GHEMAWAT (1998)
Evolution of Management systems
MANAGEMENT ENVIRONMENT BASIC
SYSTEM
PREDICTION CONCEPTS
MAIN
TECHNIQUES
• LONG TERM
PLANNED
GROWTH
• MARKET
• RESEARCH
• DIVERSIFICAITON
PREDICTABLE
THREATS and
OPPORTUNITIES
• STRATEGIC
BUSINESS UNITS
• PORTFOLIO
MANGEMENT
• STRATEGIC
MATRIXES
• SWOT ANALYSIS
• EXPERIENCE
CURVE
STRATEGIC
MANAGEMENT
PARTIALLY
PREDICTABLE
• STRATEGIC
POSITIONING
• COMPETITIVE
ADVANTAGE
• INDUSTRY ANALISIS
• COMPETITVE FORCES
• VALUE CHAIN
DYANAMIC
STRATEGY
IMPREDICTABLE
SURPRISES
LONG TERM
PLANNING
FORECAST
STRATEGIC
PLANNING
• CREATIVITY
• RESOURCES and
• DYNAMIC ASPECTS CAPABILITIES
STRATEGY
ANALYSIS
• INTELLECTUAL
• CORE
CAPITAL
COMPETENCIES
• ORGANIZATIONAL
• LEARNING
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM CONSISTENCY
DECISION
MAKING
LARGE
AUTONOMY
RELATIVELY
LARGE
STRATEGIC
CHALLENGE
HIGH
MEDIUM
LITTLE
LOW
NO
AUTONOMY
VERY LOW
MANGEMENT
SYSTEM
ORGANIZATIONAL
STRUCTURE
STRATEGIC
MANAGEMENT
AD-HOC
FLEXIBLE
STRATEGIC
PLANNING
PROFESIONAL
BUROCRACY
LONG TERM
PLANNING
BUROCRACY
FINANCIAL
PLANNING
SIMPLE STRUCTURE
Key elements
Clark (1998, 2004)
Strengthened steering capacity: from top
to basic units
 Enhanced development periphery
 Diversified and discretionary funding base
 Strong academic heartland
 Extended Entrepreneurial culture

A combination of sense of mission, strong executive leadership,
and a willingness to be independent
Inhibitors Clark (1998, 2004)




High dependence on state core support
(allocations based on students numbers)
Unbalanced authority structure: faculty deans
with excessive authority
Triumph of financial criteria over academic
judgment and initiative
Extended vertical structure of command that
frustrated new initiatives
4. Implementing strategic
change

Who?
GOVERNANCE
 Strengthened steering core

What?
STRATEGIC PLANNING
 Defining the project

How?
STAKEHOLDERS APPROACH
 Support for the project
Organized anarchies
(Cohen, March, Olsen 1972)
1) Problematic preferences, the organization
operates on the basis of a variety of inconsistent
and ill-defined preferences.
2) Unclear technology, although the organization
manages to survive and even produce, its own
processes are not understood by its members.
3) Fluid participation, participants vary on the time
and effort they devote to different domains.
Involvement varies from one time to another. As a
result, the boundaries of the organization are
uncertain and changing.
Strategic planning and university
governance

This requires new internal governance
systems based on strategic priorities and on
professional management of human resources,
investment and administrative procedures.

It also requires universities to overcome their
fragmentation into faculties, departments,
laboratories and administrative units and to
target their efforts collectively on
institutional priorities for research, teaching and
services.
STRONG LEADERSHIP
AND MORE PROFESSIONAL MANAGEMENT
Stakeholders: Satisfaction of the different groups’ necessities that
integrate the organization, and on which it depends for his survival
Board
Financial
community
y
Political
groups
Activist
groups
Governm’t
Students
Suppliers
University
depart
Departments
ments
Competitors
Unions
Evaluation
Agencies
Employees
Stakeholders management approach
Political strategy competence to
negotiate the future of the organization
successfully
 Focused on linking economic,
environmental, and social sustainability


Annual sustainability reporting:
provides stakeholders a universallyapplicable, comparable framework in
which to understand disclosed information.
Triple bottom line
(Global Reporting Initiative, GRI)
Financial, social and environmental results, taken together
as an integrated whole, constitute a company’s triple bottom line.

Economic: The economic dimension of sustainability
concerns the organization’s impacts on the economic
conditions of its stakeholders and on economic systems
at local, national, and global levels

Environmental: The environmental dimension of
sustainability concerns an organization’s impacts on
living and non-living natural systems, including
ecosystems, land, air, and water.

Social: The social dimension of sustainability concerns
the impacts an organization has on the social systems
within which it operates.
Stakeholders management
Careful assessment of five core questions:
Who are our stakeholders?
 What are our stakeholders’ stakes?
 What power, legitimacy and urgency have
the stakeholders?
 What attitudes to strategic changes do
stakeholders present?
 What strategies or actions should we
take to best manage stakeholders?

PRACTICAL CASE: Project management for
Information systems in Higher Education
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF “ERP” INFORMATION SYSTEM

ERP (Enterprise Resource planning). The combination of all the
discrete information decentralized in different departments into a
single integrated real-time database (It facilitates Data warehouse
applications)

Universities are typical functional organizations in which each
department generally stores much of its own information. (Problems
of duplication, lack of accessibility, distortion, and inefficiency
problems).

ERP is oriented towards processes instead of to the functional
structure. The consequence is a centralization of information and
standardization of processes and procedures.
IMPORTANCE OF STAKEHOLDERS ATTITUDE FOR THE
SUCCESS OF THE PROJECT?
STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS
It typically refers to the range of techniques or tools used to
identify and understand the needs and expectations of
major interests inside and outside the project
environment.
1.
2.
3.
The starting point is the identification of the
focal organization
Identify project stakeholders. To be classified
as a stakeholder, the person or group must
have some interest or level of influence that can
impact the project.
Identify stakeholders' interests, impact level,
and relative priority.
1. Stakeholder impact and interest table
Stakeholder
Stake in the project
Potential
impact
on
Project
Estimated
priority
of
interest
Head of
Administration
Policy and process owner who determines
institutional administrative policy and
procedures
High
1
Heads of School
Manages School admin staff who will operate the
new system at local level and academic staff
who will indirectly input and directly extract
data
Medium
=3
Admin Staff
Will operate new system
High
4
Academic
Departments
Have to adapt their systems to the new policy and
procedures
High
=3
Board
(Social Council)
Will have the opportunity to set internal and external
benchmarking in order to analyze the efficiency
of the processes
Low
=2
Government
Will receive better and more transparent information
Low
=2
2. Stakeholder Power and Importance matrix
High importance
A
Board
(Social Council)
Government
D
B
Head Administration
Heads of School
Academic Departments
C
Admin Staff
Low Importance
Low Power
High Power
A Stakeholders that will require special initiatives if their interests are to be protected.
B will need to construct good working relationships with these stakeholders,
to ensure an effective coalition of support for the project.
C stakeholders may be a source of significant risk,
and they will need careful monitoring and management
3. Force field analysis worksheet
Head of Administration 5
Focus on business process
Board
(Social Council )
3
More consistent information
Government
More transparency
2
10
Academic Departments
Little incentive to support it
ERP
Project
Senior Management
Lack of linkage with
organizational strategy
3
1
Admin staff
more workload
4
Heads of School
Loss of autonomy
2
10
4. Stakeholders participation matrix
Participation matrix ERP project
TYPE OF
PARTICIPATION
INFORM
CONSULT
PARTNERSHIP
CONTROL
Admin
Staff
Heads of School
Academic Departments
Senior management
Head Administration
Heads of School
Academic Departments
Head Administration
STAGE IN CYCLE
IDENTIFICATION
Board
(Social
Council)
PLANNING
IMPLEMENTATION
Admin Staff
MONITORING &
EVALUATION
Social
Council
Government
Summary stakeholder analysis
Stakeholder
Stake in the
project
Impact
What does the Project
expect the
Stakeholder to
provide?
Perceived attitudes
and/or risks
Head of
Adminis
tration
Stakeholder
Management
Strategy
Responsibility
Policy and
process
owner
who
determin
es
institutio
n
process
High
Experienced staff to
be involved in
user group and
user
acceptance
testing.
Commitment to
implementing
change.
Lack of clarity about
preferred
approach.
Views project team
as too
technically
oriented.
Involvement in
Project
Steering Board,
Regular
updating
meeting with
project leader.
Project
Manager
Heads of
School
Manages
School
admin
staff
Mediu
m
Commitment to
implementing
change.
Lack of interest in
project.
Involvement in
briefing
sessions at
quarterly
School
meetings.
HoA and
Project
Sponsor
Admin Staff
Will operate
new
system
High
Contribute to system
and process
design and
testing.
Concern about
increased
workload.
Worried about what
training they
will receive.
Involvement in user
groups.
Project Team
…..
….
….
5. The role of the Head of
Administration
“ Successful universities are successful primarily
because of their teaching and research, not
because of their management,
but good management can over time
provide the conditions in which teaching and
research can flourish …
poor management can undermine teaching and
research and precipitate institutional decline …”
(Schattock, 2003)
The role of the Head of Administration
“Effective leaders are those who understand
their role in securing resources so that those
they serve may effectively and efficiently perform
their own responsibilities”
(Hoff, 1999)
The development of professional management to equip
university leaders with adequate skills and competencies.
DO THE RIGHT THING
Developing systems to support:

Strategic planning

Stakeholders management

Management Information Systems

…
DO THINGS RIGHT
Best practices
Financial management
 Human resources management
 Quality assurance systems
 Marketing and public relations
 Accountability
 …

UNIVERSITY NETWORK
Business
Community
Rector
Vice-rectors
Head of
Administration
Deans
Government
Board
(Social
Council)
Administrative
staff
Students
Teaching
staff
UNIVERSITY AS A NETWORK





University could be defined as a network of
activities, management and economic flows,
defined by power relations
The network must achieve certain institutional
goals
Each network node (stakeholders) has its own
interests and its corresponding quota of power
to protect them
A shift from a hierarchical tree to a web or
network organization, flat and with lots of
cross-links between the nodes (stakeholders)
The stability of the links between
stakeholders allows the network to obtain
results in the long run.
A NETWORK MANAGER
NOT A GENERAL MANAGER…
NOT A MERE EXECUTOR… A NETWORK MANAGER?

The Head of Administration must move beyond
structure and topology and start focusing on
the dynamics that take place along the links.

The mission of the HoA is to manage the
network, establishing equilibrium between
the different forces, so that the activities flow
to achieve the institutional goals, by means of
negotiation and agreement.
Final conclusions

The key factor to implementing strategic change in
universities is a combination of strong academic
entrepreneurial leadership and a more professional
management that can provide the tools and the
information systems needed for strategic planning and that
guarantees financial management and accountability.

In the strategy process it is essential to identify the main
stakeholders and their necessities in order to approach the
strategies that better respond to the institution’s objectives
and that satisfy at the same time the group’s interests.

In a management system orientated towards stakeholders,
having an adequate system of information and
accountability, that clearly shows the exact image of the
university, is fundamental in order to maintain the
confidence of both, the different groups of interest and of
society as the whole.
Bibliography








CERI (2006): “Four Futures Scenarios for Higher Education”. Meeting of
OECD Education Ministers, Atenas, 27-28 junio, 2006.
CLARK, B. (1998): Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational
Pathways of Transformation. Oxford: International Association of
Universities and Elsvier Sciences Ltd. (Issues in Higher Education Series).
CLARK, B. (2004): Sustaining Change in Universities: Continuities in Case
Studies and Concepts. Maidenhead UK: Open University Press.
FREEMAN, R.D. (1984): Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach.
Pitman, Boston.
GRI (2006): Global Reporting Initiative. http:// www.globalreporting.org
GHEMAWAT, P. (1998): Strategy and the business landscape, Addison
Wesley Longman, Reading, Mass.
HOFF, K. (1999): Leaders and managers: Essential skills required within
higher education. Higher Education 38: 311-331.
SHATTOCK, M. (2003): Managing Successful Universities, Buckingham:
The Society for Research in Higher Education and Open University Press.