Fillable Printable IT Strategic Planning - California State University

IT Strategic Planning - California State University

IT STRATEGIC PLANNING

“You’ve got to be very careful if you don’t know where

you are going, because you might not get there.”

i Berra

BACKGROUND

Henry Mintzberg, former president of the Strategic Management Society, points out that

“strategy can not be planned because planni ng is about analysis and strategy is about

synthesis.”

Failure to recognize this basic distinction accounts for the frequent failure

of such exercises, as does an excessive focus on technical detail, lack of suitable

leadership, and perhaps most important, failure to align technology to institutional

mission and priorities.

Strategic planning involves a structure or framework, a set of procedures (both formal

and informal), and of course content. Beyond these basic elements, the underlying

assumptions about strategic planning are that the future can be anticipated, forecasted,

managed or even controlled, and that the best way to do so is to have a formal and

integrated plan about it in place. The process of planning itself may turn out to be more

important than the results, and that process requires, as Mintzberg suggests, both

analysis and synthesis. Planning simply introduces a formal “discipline” for conducting

long-term thinking about an institution, and for recognizing opportunities in and for

minimizing risks from the external and internal environments.

Among the hundreds available, perhaps the most well-know model of strategic planning

has the SWOT (for strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) appraisal of

internal and external environments as its centerpiece. But whatever the model,

following decades of research across hundreds of organizations, empirical evidence on

the effectiveness of strategic planning is mixed at best. So, why plan? Again, the

answer may lie in the process itself; like the ritual rain dance, planning improves the

dancing, if not the weather.

But a more sophisticated response is required, especially if strategic planning is to be

justified in the context of professional organizations like universities. Strategic planning

found its origins and its fullest expression in the top-down, bureaucratic, centralized,

and standardized organizations that readily lend themselves to control. This “machine”

model hardly applies to what March and Olsen called the “organized anarchies” of

academe.

In the words of the ECAR alignment study: “we might describe colleges

and universities as networks of cottage industries rather than enterprises. Aligning

priorities in an enterprise is challenging. Aligning priorities within a network of cottage

Draft: Strategic Planning – 11/17/06 1

industries is downright hard.”

The IT culture and the academic culture differ in almost

every important respect: the former has an institutional focus, the latter a disciplinary

focus; one emphasizes speed, change, and short life cycles, the other values tradition

and long-term commitments to research and theory. Rather than control, then, the

advantages of formal planning in the university seem to revolve around communication,

education, prioritization, consensus building, and most important, legitimizing whatever

decisions do get made.

Cassidy has identified at least six reasons why strategic planning makes sense for

CIOs.

The first three address the administrative environment and help get IT off the

“cost page” and on to the “asset and investment page.” The last three address the

internal responsibilities of the IT organization itself.

1. It promotes effective management of an expensive and critical asset of the

institution.

2. It improves communication between the fiscal and IT units of the university.

3. It helps to align or even link the direction of IT to the business functions of the

institution.

4. It improves the flow of internal information and processes within the IT division.

5. It helps to efficiently and effectively allocate IT resources across the campus.

6. It tends to reduce the time and expense of IT life cycles, particularly in terms of

vendor review, selection, approval, and implementation.

The 2004 Educause study of IT alignment in higher education identified a total of 13

reasons for developing IT strategic plans, but three were dominant: align technology

with institutional priorities (76 percent of respondents); secure financial and other

resources (53 percent); and enhance IT service levels (45 percent). In general, these

motivations were strongly correlated with perceived outcomes.

The same study found that most publicly available plans (i.e., those on the Web) did not

conform to standard planning methods and frameworks in the professional literature;

tended to be inward-looking and rarely benefited from environmental scanning; were

more often tactical than strategic; rarely related IT planning to teaching and learning;

focused more on institutional vision and mission than on budgets; and had inadequate

communications and assessment strategies. Apparently, the bar is not very high from a

national perspective.

Each year, Educause conducts a survey of institutions nationally to identify the top ten

issues in IT. In 2006, strategic planning ranked seventh in the list, behind security,

Draft: Strategic Planning – 11/17/06 2

funding, ERP, disaster recovery, faculty development, and infrastructure.

Of course,

all of these issues lend themselves to comprehensive or individual strategic planning.

Educause posed this list of critical questions for strategic planning:

• What process models will the IT organization use to develop its strategic

planning process?

• Will the IT organization hire consultants, or will it in sou r ce strategic planning?

• If consultants will be hired, will the organization use their methods to maintain

strategic planning after they leave?

• How will strategic planning inform decision-making: at the cabinet/executive

level or at the operational/tactical levels?

• What approaches will the organization use to articulate service or program

success (e.g., benchmarks, metrics, service-level agreements)?

• How will a focus on strategic planning be maintained in an organization with

varying planning cultures?

• What methods or approaches will IT leaders use to align future-oriented

programs and services across the entire organization?

ACHIEVING ALIGNMENT: SOME LESSONS LEARNED

Whatever the model of institutional strategic planning employed by a campus, the IT

division must find a way to “align” with it. The good news is that both institutional and IT

strategic planning have things in common that can make them effective: namely, a

compelling vision, a clear communication plan with a wide array of campus

stakeholders, leadership combined with collaboration, and a practical means for

execution together with access to the necessary resources. While all of these elements

are important, linking IT planning to institutional budgets may be one of the most

effective means for achieving alignment, at least in the short-term.

Gartner Group has identified five organizational styles that are crucial to strategic

technology planning.

The first is a navigator that tracks and evaluates the impact of

emerging technologies for strategic advantage. The second is the guerrilla, a pragmatic

and tactical team for deploying new technologies. Third, a priest or evangelist is

needed for educating and persuading senior management. Fourth, a conductor is

required for coordinating the plan with other organizational units. Finally, a research

team should be in place to investigate technologies ahead of institutional need. In each

instance, there is a balance between being technology-focused versus being business-

focused.

Draft: Strategic Planning – 11/17/06 3

The experiences of CSU campuses together with those from institutions nationally offer

some useful guidelines for insuring that the IT plan is aligned with institutional mission

and priorities. The Educause study of IT alignment was based on: a quantitative online

survey of 483 higher education institutions; qualitative telephone interviews wit h 22

higher education IT executives; an in-depth review of 57 higher education plans found

on the Web; and four case studies from on-site visits. The key findings from that study

were largely independent of campus size or Carnegie classification and suggested that

institutions with greater IT alignment were those:

• With a clearly articulated campus vision and/or priorities;

• That consider planning important and closely linked to the institutional budget;

• That have published an institutional plan or campus IT plan or that engage in

planning activities continuously;

• Reporting dynamic or stable environmental climates (as opposed to turbulent or

volatile ones);

• That perceive both their IT governance process and their IT strategic planning

process to be effective;

• That have greater communication with and involvement of key constituents,

especially faculty and deans; and

• Where objectives are clearly documented at the time IT initiatives are approved.

While the themes of institutional culture, leadership, communication, relationships, and

the like may sound familiar, there is at least one key element where the CSU appears

to be well ahead of institutions nationally, namely measurement and assessment of IT

performance. This is an expensive process, both in time and money, but the 10-year

Measures of Success commitment in the CSU stands out as a relatively unique

example of promoting institutional and IT alignment.

When given the stark choice between a “top down” or “bottom up” strategic planning

process, not surprisingly CSU executives chose the former almost unanimously. In the

view of most presidents and provosts, strategic planning always starts with a vision from

the top that is clearly and consistently communicated to everyone; only then can a plan

be created that will have any meaning or effect.

While presidents and provosts, and most deans, agreed that “top down” planning

models seem to work best, they also recognized that the mission, size, age,

demographic composition, programmatic emphases, culture, and “complexity” of the

campus (not to mention personalities) could each play a role in the process. However,

everyone agreed that budgetary links and specificity in the plans (e.g., the percent of

Draft: Strategic Planning – 11/17/06 4

FTES instruction that will be del ivered online by a date certain) made all the difference,

regardless of the process. Budget allocations, specificity of objectives, and staff

accountability were the themes that drove implementation as opposed to plans that sat

on the shelf.

Several CSU officials indicated that multi-year budgeting makes sense to the extent that

IT strategic planning is explicitly linked to the budget cycle; transparency and

predictability are crucial to stakeholder buy-in. There was also considerable support for

the president or provost taking funds “off the top” for IT at the beginning of the process

to serve long-term institutional needs.

THE CSU EXPERIENCE

In the 2005 campus computing survey, 77 percent of CSU campuses reported having a

strategic plan for IT; 18 percent were currently preparing a plan; and five percent did not

have one. The corresponding percentages for comparison institutions nationally (i.e.,

Carnegie Public Masters 1) were similar; 81, 16, and 4 percent, respectively.

In the

2006 campus computing survey, 70 percent of CSU campuses responded “yes”

compared to 76 percent of institutions nationally.

The spring 2006 survey of CSU campus presidents showed that 13 campuses currently

have a campus wide IT strategic plan and three more have them under development.

The remainder indicated either that the systemwide ITS serves as their strategic plan or

they have such plans at the divisional level.

Institutional strategic planning in the CSU can be thought of as a continuum, ranging

from relatively simple mission and goals statements posted to the Web, to full-scale

public relations campaigns that permeate the campus, to detailed “no-nonsense, by-the-

book” technical exercises. Of course, these models are not mutually exclusive, and

some campuses do all three.

Mission and goals statements, however brief, do several things. They establish the

underlying philosophical premises and purposes of the institution, and the things that

may be unique or distinctive about it. They identify the principal customers, clients, or

users, and the programs and services available to them. And they can give both

internal and external stakeholders a sense of historical perspective, i.e., what the

institution has accomplished in the past and what it hopes to accomplish in the future.

They usually represent the conventional wisdom or consensus of campus stakeholders.

A second type of institutional strategic planning in the CSU is the broad thematic

approach. This often has an identifiable slogan, a precise target date for achieving

results, and a concise set of outcomes that can be communicated easily and

ubiquitously across the campus. It may be accompanied by marketing brochures,

Draft: Strategic Planning – 11/17/06 5

charts, and other techniques for reaching both internal and external audiences, and is

often driven from the office of the president.

The third model relies heavily on research, collaboration, and technical detail. It

incorporates all of the elements about strategic planning found in the professional

literature, and requires an elabor ate process for filling in each. It tends to be broad in

scope, and seeks to integrate all campus strategic planning efforts under a single

umbrella. It also can be the most exacting in terms of developing budgets and fixing

accountability.

The systemwide Integrated Technology Strategy (ITS) has been portrayed more as a

framework and a process and less as a plan per se; that logic underlies many campus

plans as well. Perhaps the key difference is that the campus IT strategic plans have a

closer relationship to the annual budget process than the systemwide ITS. The units of

analysis in campus budgets are narrower (i.e., colleges and departments) and the

budgetary linkages between IT and institutional initiatives seem to be more tightly

drawn.

For some CSU campuses the ITS framework and initiatives have formed the basis for

the campus IT strategic plan for the past several years. Others have established

independent plans that link to the ITS but often go far beyond it to align with campus

strategic plans for libraries, student services, enrollment management, and facilities

planning. Still others fall somewhere in between. On balance, IT strategic plans in the

CSU tend to fall into two broad categories: those that are holistic, integrated, broad in

structure, process, and content, and those that focus on unique but narrower

capabilities for IT in the institution.

EXAMPLES

• There is almost everything about the CSU, Chico institutional plan and process to

recommend as a best practice. Procedurally, each vice president submits annual

strategic plans, and priorities are developed through campus-wide retreats and

reviews. Divisional goals are set and linked to budget allocations. System

initiatives and priorities play a role as well. All of this, including IT, is highly

integrated around the academic programs of the institution. Much like its IT

organizational and governance structure, Chico also has a highly integrated IT

strategic planning process. The campus has produced three five-year IT

strategic plans: Target 2000, Beyond 2000, and Aligning With The Future. Five

planning themes animated each of these efforts: teaching and learning,

information literacy, electronic information resources and infrastructure,

integrated administrative systems, and assessment and knowledge

management. The Chico library strategic plan is an integral part of the IT plan.

• Figure 1 shows the five-year strategic planning model used at CSU, Los Angeles.

It includes two-year and five-year objectives with initiatives for achieving them, a

set of seven strategic divisions (one of which is technology), fixed accountability,

Draft: Strategic Planning – 11/17/06 6

and an estimate of the money and timeframe required for each initiative. One

notable feature of the model is the identificat ion of specific sources of funding for

each initiative (general funds, non-state funds, and bonds). The plan is

developed by a campus-wide Strategic Planning Coordinating Comm ittee.

Figure 1

CSU, Los Angeles

• While most institutional strategic plans in the CSU extend out five to ten years

(e.g., Vision 2010 at San Jose or Destination 2010 at Sacramento), there is at

least one example of very long-term planning. Envision 2035 at CSU, Northridge

is a comprehensive effort to chart the future of the campus in every respect:

academic programs; facilities, enrollment growth; student services;

transportation, parking, housing, greenbelts, and other amenities. The draft

master plan and supporting documents are available for review on the Web

together with subscriptions for newsletter and email updates.

• The 2005 IT Strategic Plan at CSU, Monterey Bay relied heavily on a Web-based

process map (Figure 2). The map contains presentations, references, notes,

Draft: Strategic Planning – 11/17/06 7

and other documentation related to IT planning activities. The process map

provides the university community with an up-to-date summary of the entire IT

strategic planning process.

• The IT strategic plan at California Polytechnic State University (CalPoly) has

been portrayed as a three-stage highway project. Stage 1 includes initiatives

that are focused on fixing or improving existing “stuff” that are transactional in

nature (“preventing potholes and gridlock”); e.g., network, lab, and classroom

refresh; security and risk management; assistive technology. Stage 2 initiatives

are transitional and designed to move the institution “from highway to interstate;”

e.g., LMS, technological convergence, portals, e-commerce. Stage 3 projects

and initiatives are transformational and highlight new services and capabilities

such as “service stations, theme parks, and clover leafs;” e.g., one-card;

middleware; knowledge management. The campus conducts an annual “blue

book review” of IT services that documents lessons learned and benefits derived

from the previous year, list areas requiring further advice and study, and outlines

an action agenda for the coming year.

• Humboldt State University produces annual updates to its base IT strategic plan

of 2000 and supplements it with additional planning initiatives. Three of the latter

are worth noting, although funding issues have slowed their implementation: the

risk analysis and disaster recovery plan of 2002; the server

consolidation/migration plan of 2003; and the smart classroom build-out and

support plan of 2004. Other CSU campuses have developed “sub-IT strategic

plans” of this nature, but few match the scope of these at Humboldt. Similarly,

the campus strategic plan encompasses more than 200 pages, six thematic

strategies, and 19 focus groups. IT is part of the infrastructure theme.

• Almost all CSU campuses have an IT presence on the Web. As might be

expected, some are easier to navigate than others. But the print medium is still a

powerful influence in an academic culture. CSU, Fullerton is a good example..

Its annual reports and brochure of IT services for faculty and staff are slick,

colorful, informative, and written in a style for non-technical users. These are

useful reminders that a marketing and communications component should be

part of any IT strategic plan.

Draft: Strategic Planning – 11/17/06 8

Figure 2

CSU, Monterey Bay

Draft: Strategic Planning – 11/17/06 9

The degree of alignment between the campus strategic plan and the IT strategic plan is

sometimes direct and obvious (CSU, San Bernardino and CSU, East Bay are good

examples), but more often indirect. IT plans are infrequently mentioned in the

institutional plans, but the latter are almost always at least referenced in the former.

Almost all CSU institutional strategic plans speak of creating a “learner-centered”

environment, although they vary widely in the formal role devoted to technology in that

process. Community engagement and partnerships is another frequent theme (e.g., at

Fresno, Bakersfield, San Marcos, and East Bay), although Monterey Bay appears to be

one of the few examples where technology plays a prominent role. On the other hand,

as more and more technology initiatives move from goals to operational realities (e.g.,

portals, LMS, smart classrooms, wireless networks, etc.) they may lose their strategic

emphasis. One thing that was obvious from the campus visits was that enrollment

growth solves many problems. Campuses with little or no enrollment growth find that

budgets, facilities, and equipment rarely keep up with technolo gical change.

On balance, at least three things stand out about IT and institutional alignment in the

CSU: first, the commitment to accountability and a culture of evidence, as noted

previously; second, executive involvement with IT as represented by the Technology

Steering Committee of campus presidents and the Provosts Technology Steering

Committee; and finally, strong IT advisory structures at both the campus and system

levels.

A SAMPLE STRATEGIC PLANNING TEMPLATE FOR IT

In its simplest terms, strategic planning is an attempt to answer four basic questions:

“where are we now; where do we want to be; how big is the gap; and what will it take to

get there in terms of time and resources?” Answers require both a horizontal

awareness and understanding of the institution’s internal and external environments,

and a vertical, introspective analysis of the IT organization itself.

Perhaps the most widely known model of strategic planning is John Bryson’s Strategic

Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations and the companion workbook Creating

and Implementing Your Strategic Plan. Bryson proposes a ten-step strategic planning

process (Figure 3) to include:

1. Identify and agree upon a strategic planning process.

2. Identify organizational mandates.

3. Clarify organizational mission and values.

4. Assess the organization’s external and internal environments to identify

strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats.

5. Identify the strategic issues facing the organization.

6. Formulate strategies to manage these issues.

7. Review and adopt the strategic plan or plans.

Draft: Strategic Planning – 11/17/06 10

8. Establish an effective organizational vision.

9. Develop an effective implementation process.

10. Reassess strategies and the strategic planning process.

Figure 3

Draft: Strategic Planning – 11/17/06 11