chief academic and finance officers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of strategic planning in...

CHIEF ACADEMIC AND FINANCE OFFICERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF STRATEGIC PLANNING IN

MINNESOTA COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL COLLEGES

by

Jeffery D. Williamson

B.S., South Dakota State University, 1988

M.Ed., South Dakota State University, 1989

A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Education

Division of Educational Administration Adult and Higher Education Program

in the Graduate School University of South Dakota

May 2004

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

UMI Number: 3127838

INFORMATION TO USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy

submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and

photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper

alignment can adversely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript

and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized

copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

UMIUMI Microform 3127838

Copyright 2004 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.

All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against

unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road

P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346


©2004

Jeffery D. Williamson

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


ABSTRACT

Jeffery D. Williamson, Ed. D. Higher Education Administration, University ofSouth Dakota, 2004

Chief Academic and Finance Officers’ Perceptions of the Effectiveness of Strategic Planning in Minnesota Community and Technical Colleges

Dissertation directed by Dr. Karen Card

Strategic planning has historically been used as the management tool

selected by college presidents to set the direction of their institutions. Keller

(1983) alleged that the strategic planning process is essential to help campuses

transition from what has been to what can be. The strategic planning processes

should produce the evaluation of the school’s mission and purpose, vision, and

the core institutional values, and it should enhance of the institutional

effectiveness and academic assessment of the institution

This study examined the strategic planning process of Minnesota

community and technical colleges from the perception of the chief academic and

finance officers. The following conclusions can be drawn from the results

presented in this dissertation. These conclusions are founded within the

limitations of the study.

1. Chief academic and finance officers have similar perceptions of

strategic planning in the MnSCU system.

2. Chief finance officers should recognize that the chief academic officers

perceive strategic planning as a tool for communications.

3. Chief finance officers believe strategic planning is more effective as a

decision-making tool than the chief academic officers.


4. Chief academic and finance officers do not view strategic planning as

effective in finance, facilities, or technology decisions.

5. Chief academic and finance officers do not perceive any major barriers

to effectively using strategic planning process to make decisions.

Chief academic officers perceive that the MnSCU system does have some

influence on their college’s strategic planning process.

As community colleges evaluate the effectiveness of their institution’s

strategic plans, the perceptions of the chief academic and finance officers

responsible for fully executing the strategic plan must considered. The

identification of each other’s perceptions of the effectiveness of, barriers to, and

other outside sources which influence their strategic plan is necessary to begin

implementing a strategic plan.

This abstract of approximately 350 words is approved as to form and

content. I recommend its publication.

Signed Professor in Charge

IV


DOCTORAL COMMITTEE

The members of the committee appointed to examine the dissertation of

Jeffery D. Williamson find it satisfactory and recommend that it be approved.

Dr. Karan Card

/nmA.£aioj\jDr. Mark Baron

Dr. Devon Jensen

Dr. Charles Kaufman

V


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I sincerely appreciate the guidance and direction that Dr. Karen Card has

provided during the development and completion of this dissertation.

The members of my advisory committee including Dr. Karen Card, Dr.

Mark Baron, Dr. Floyd Boschee, and Dr. Charles Kaufman were instrumental in

making this dissertation a successful project.

I also would like to thank my family who played an important role in the

completion of this dissertation. To my wife, LouAnn, without your understanding

and support, this project would not have been possible. To my children, Kaylee,

Dayton, and Emily, you have provided me with the incentive to model the

importance of life-long learning. To my parents, thank you for providing me the

necessary foundation and direction to accomplish my educational goals.

VI


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Abstract............................................................................................................... iii

Doctoral Committee............................................................................................ v

Acknowledgments............................................................................................... vi

Table of Contents................................................................................................ vii

Chapter

1. Introduction.............................................................................................. 1

Statement of the Problem................................................................... 4

Research Questions........................................................................... 4

Significance of the Study.................................................................... 5

Definition of Terms............................................................................. 5

Delimitations of the Study................................................................... 7

Organization of the Study................................................................... 8

2. Review of Selected Literature and Research.......................................... 9

History and Background of the Problem............................................. 9

Organizational Theories in the Planning Process............................... 10

The Strategic Planning Process One Framework............................... 12

Limitations of the Strategic Planning Process.................................... 16

Limitation of the Dolences’ Strategic Planning Model........................ 17

The Roles of Chief Academic and Finance Officers.......................... 19

History of Community and Technical Colleges in Minnesota............. 21

The Origin of MnSCU......................................................................... 23

3. Methodology............................................................................................ 26

Review of Selected Literature and Research..................................... 27

Population and Sample...................................................................... 28vii


Instrumentation.................................................................................. 29

Data Collectlon.................................................................................... 30

Data Analysis...................................................................................... 31

4. Findings................................................................................................... 33

Return on the Survey............................................................................ 33

Research Questions.............................................................................. 33

Perceptions Regarding the Effectiveness..............................................34

Perceptions of the Barriers....................................................................37

Perceptions of MnSCU System Influence............................................ 40

5. Summary, Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations.................42

Summary............................................................................................... 42

Conclusions.......................................................................................... 46

Discussion............................................................................................. 47

Recommendations................................................................................ 51

References...........................................................................................................53

Appendixes

A. Survey Instrument................................................................................. 61

B. Reference Matrix.................................................................................... 65

C. Critique Sheet........................................................................................ 67

D. Cover Letter to Panel............................................................................ 69

E. Cover Letter to Administrators............................................................... 71

VIII


CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Strategic planning has historically been used as the management tool

selected by college presidents to set the direction of their institutions. The

benefits in having an effective strategic plan in place have been well established

through research. Keller (1983) alleged that the strategic planning process is

essential to help campuses transition from what has been to what can be. The

strategic planning processes should produce the evaluation of the school’s

mission and purpose, vision, and the core institutional values. It should also

enhance the institutional effectiveness and academic assessment of the

institution.

A college’s strategic plan should not only guide changes based on the

school’s mission, it should also position the institution to deal with future

budgetary problems. The development of a strategic plan helps the learning

communities come together and make difficult decisions that undoubtedly will

have to be made eventually. The plan will also allow institutions to know what is

not important: thus, the decisions and relationships will be based on objective

rationale and not power and/or influence (Leslie & Fretwell, 1996).

Fiscal strategies should also be built around the academic priorities of the

strategic plan. Leslie and Fretwell (1996) discussed two facets of fiscal strategies

based on budgeting and planning. The budgeting and planning processes need

to be interdependent because the strategic planning process should give the


2

direction of the academic plan, and the budgeting process should support the

plan. The presence of a linkage between both the general decision-making and

resource allocation processes connected to the strategic plan will allow the

college to become more effective (Steiner, 1997). Henri Fayol (1946) believed

that a good plan of action is the essential component of any successful firm. The

strategic plan provides the reasons for making decisions concerning all levels of

operation including budgetary planning and academic planning.

The strategic planning model used in this study was developed by Dolence

and Norris in 1995; they addressed 10 key steps to successful development of an

overall strategic plan. Later, another model was developed which concentrated

on how to implement the strategic plan based on the 10 key steps (Dolence,

Rowley, & Lujan, 1997). These models are both based on assessing data and

developing plans based on information provided by the data; this is the primary

difference between mission-based planning and other comprehensive self-

studies used for planning.

Mintzberg (1994) believed it is not the poor formation or implementation of

strategic plans that leads to the ineffectiveness of institutional planning; it is,

however, the artificial separation that exists between the two which causes

problems. He further elaborated that many institutions create closed strategic

plans and open the implementation of the plans-just the opposite of his beliefs.

He claimed that the plans need to be open to the dynamic change and needs of

the institution while the implementation is closed.


3

Rowley and Sherman (2001) believed that the implementation of strategic

plans requires careful consideration from the chief academic and finance officers.

Colleges must cooperate and understand that although the president uses that

strategic plan to define the institution, it falls on campus leaders such as the chief

academic officers and the chief financial officer to fully execute them. Lambert

(2002) acknowledged the basic natural tension built into these administrators’

jobs; however, he also noted that without a partnership very few college

initiatives, such as the implementation of the strategic plan, will be accomplished.

Two-year colleges’ chief academic officers are the principal persons responsible

for the academic leadership and thus institution effectiveness of the college,

while the chief financial officers are the principal persons in charge of the

resources. The present study investigated the chief academic and finance

officers’ perceptions of strategic planning as a tool for effective integration of their

charges at Minnesota State Colleges and Universities’ (MnSCU) two-year

colleges.

The MnSCU system is the largest provider of public higher education in

Minnesota. It consists of 34 state colleges and universities on 53 campuses

throughout the state. For the purposes of this study, only the two-year colleges

were invited to participate. The MnSCU mission is to provide the diverse citizens

of Minnesota the benefits of high quality, accessible, future-orientated higher

education; relevant research; and community service (Minnesota State Colleges

and Universities, 2002). The MnSCU system also articulated four broad strategic

goals to fulfill its mission: increase access and opportunity, expand high quality


4

learning programs and services, strengthen community development and

economic vitality, and fully integrate the system.

Purpose o f the Study

The purpose of this study was to examine the strategic planning process

of Minnesota community and technical colleges from the perceptions of the chief

academic and finance officers. Specifically, this study determined the extent to

which the chief academic and finance officers perceive the strategic planning

process is effective in making decisions regarding program planning, financial

allocations, facilities and technology management, and general decision making.

This study also examined the chief academic and finance officers’ perceptions of

barriers for effectively using the strategic plan in making decisions. Further this

study determined the extent to which the chief academic and finance officers

perceive that the MnSCU system influences their strategic planning processes.

Research Questions

The following research questions guided the study.

1. What differences exist between the chief academic and finance officers’

perceptions regarding the effectiveness of the strategic planning process on

a. program planning,

b. financial allocations,

c. facilities and technology management, and

d. general decision making?


perceptions of the barriers to effectively using the strategic planning process to


5

make decisions?


perceptions regarding the extent that the MnSCU system has affected the

community and technical colleges’ strategic planning process through

a. new initiatives,

b. accountability measures,

c. funding allocation, and

d. program approval processes?

Significance o f the Study

This study examined the chief academic and finance officers’ perceptions

of strategic planning’s usefulness and effectiveness. The perceptions were

compared empirically to understand differences and identify barriers to

implementing strategic plans of community colleges. These differences will be

useful to understand the contrasting perceptions that may exist between the chief

academic and finance officers. This identification and understanding will be

useful to administrators in assessing how to fully implement strategic planning

and in providing direction to the chief academic and finance officers as they

develop their related plans. The results will also assist presidents in developing

strategic plans based on the perceptions of their key administrators. The study

will also contribute to the general knowledge of strategic planning in community

colleges.


Definition o f Terms

For the purpose of promoting uniformity and understanding in the study,

terms have been selected for definition to provide clarification.

Academicpianning:Morrc\aX\ze6 procedure by which academic decisions

are made and integrated into the educational setting (Van Wagoner, 2001).

Chief Academic Officer (CAO): i\n individual, who oversees the largest

part of the budget for institutions: manages complex personnel processes; plays

a critical role in the budget, facilities, and technology planning; and influences

curriculum (Lambert, 2002). The CAO may be a vice president of academics or a

dean.

Chief Financial Officer (CFO): An individual, who is charged with keeping

the institution in the black, preserving resources such as reserves and

endowments, budgeting revenues, and helping to provide support for physical

plant, staffing, safety, and security (Lambert, 2002). The CFO may be a vice

president of finance or a business manager.

Community Coiieges: Those institutions that have been legislatively

designated to provide technical or transfer education on the post-secondary level.

They are often considered to be two-year institutions (Founation, n.d.).

Comprehensive colleges: Colleges which serve both a technical and

liberal arts mission to the students (Founation, n.d.).

Consolidated coiieges: Colleges which have been merged to gain

efficiency and share resources. They may or may not be located at same

geographic locations (Founation, n.d.).


7

Environmental Scanning:k kind of radar to scan of the world, to

systematically signal the new, and unexpected, and the major, and minor trends

(Rowley, & Sherman, 2001).

Mission: A general statement of fundamental purpose for an organization

and the foundation for developing the organizational goals and objectives

(Peterson, 1989).

MnSCU: Minnesota State Colleges and Universities (Minnesota State

Colleges and Universities, 2002).

Resource Aiiocation: The process of translating plans into actions, to

distribute resources including instructional and administrative resources, and to

foster accountability (Watkins, 1999).

Strategic Planning:k systematic and ongoing activity that an organization

uses to anticipate and respond to major decisions facing it during a three-to five-

year period beyond the present (Paris, 2002).

SWOT: The identification of an organization’s strengths, weakness,

opportunities, and threats (Dolence & Norris, 1995).

Vision: An ideal, credible, attractive and unique future image for an

organization (Peterson, 1989).

Delimitations o f the Study

The results of the study may be delimited by the following factors.

1. The survey was limited to the perceptions of chief academic and

finance officers who completed the survey and it was limited to the respondents’

willingness to respond and the accuracy of their responses.


8

2. The conclusions are only applicable to the colleges identified in the

study during the 2004 academic year and may not be generalized to other

colleges or systems.

Assumptions

The researcher assumes that the community and technical colleges in the

study use some type of strategic planning process.

Organization o f the Study

This study has been organized into five chapters. Chapter 1 includes the

introductory material, purpose of the study, research questions, significance of

the study, definition of terms, and delimitations of the study. Chapter 2 contains a

review of selected literature and research related to the strategic planning

process. Chapter 3 describes the methodology and procedures used to conduct

the study. Chapter 4 presents the results of analysis and findings of the study.

Chapter 5 includes a summary of the findings, conclusions, a discussion and

recommendations for further study.


CHAPTER 2

Review of Selected and Related Literature

To establish a framework for understanding two-year colleges in

Minnesota and their utilization of the strategic planning process, the following

selected areas will be presented within the review of literature:

1. History and background of strategic planning

2. Organizational theories in the planning process

3. The strategic planning process

4. Limitations of the strategic planning process

5. Participation and formulation of strategies

6. Roles of the chief academic and finance officers

7. History of Minnesota technical colleges and community colleges

History and Background o f Strategic Pianning

Strategic planning is not a new management fad, nor is it a new paradigm

for higher education (Dooris, 2003). Most theorists agree that the concept of

strategic planning began in the military and as early as ancient times. The

essence of the idea is to gain a competitive advantage. In higher education that

could be applied to a variety of management situations. Webster’s Dictionary

(2003) defines strategy as the science of careful planning or methodology and

directing large scale military operation. The application of strategic planning into

the higher education model allows for a precise, formal linear system.


10

The business sector applied this formal process during the industrial

revolution. While in the 1900s the business sector believed that strategic

planning would answer all the management problems by involving more people in

the decision-making process; however, due to rapid change it proved relatively

inefficient and cumbersome. According to Henri Fayol in the General Principles

o f Management, the management function finds its only outlet through the

members of the organization (Original work 1916). This outlet of management

added value to the planning and utilized both the members of the workforce and

shareholders in the process.

Keller (1983) cited the widespread use of strategic planning in higher

education during the 1980s and this has continued through 2000 (Shapiro, 2001).

Currently, there are 4,200 members of the Society for College and University

Planning an organization composed of individuals concerned with reviewing

facilities planning, governance, budgeting, and academic planning (Dooris,

2003). Although all member are involved in planning, they all may or may not be

using strategic planning to accomplish their goals.

Organizational Theories in the Pianning Process

Higher education has adopted many business practices in attempts to

become more efficient and to create a greater degree of effectiveness. The

strategic plan provides a tool for benchmarking and developing plans of action

(Peterson, 1989). When institutions began becoming more accountable for

finances and had to confront the many changing external and internal

environments, they began utilizing the strategic planning process to help them


11

respond to the ernerging problems in higher education (Rowley & Sherman,

2001). The strategic planning process can address the need for direction on

institutional-related problems such as decreasing financial support, changing

demographics of the student population, rapid technological change, and

outdated technical programming (Peterson, 1989).

Boyle (2000) compared the metaphor of a map and compass to the

strategic planning process. He cited the need for the map to provide the vision

and direction needed to identify both the external and internal environment. He

further discussed the compass as the tool to navigate the map. This metaphor

has changed over the decades of strategic planning from a rational tool to one

which includes visibility of the planning to its stakeholders (Dooris, 2003).

Modern day strategic planning uses the works of Dolence, Rowely, and

Sherman. This model is driven by the internal and external environment, and the

culture and values of the institution (Corderio & Vaidya, 2002). The model also

uses measured statistical data points and focuses on key performance indicators

(Dolence, Rowley, & Lujan, 1997).

George Keller (1983) identified the following basic parts to the strategic

planning process. The first common practice of successful planning is the

commitment of the senior administration to not only follow through with the plan,

but to commit funds to successfully implement the planning process. The

strategic plan must become a priority of the administration. Secondly, Keller

claimed that colleges need commitment from institutional stakeholders such as

deans, department heads, and the faculty who have influence on other faculty.


12

The third practice is good communications. Keller stated that the

communications must be continual from start to finish of the planning process.

Fourth, the plan must move from an analysis to implementation. The fifth point is

to pay close attention to details in the finance department while reflecting on the

small wins that the institution accomplishes.

The Dolence Strategic Planning Process

The Dolence strategic planning model that was reviewed is a

comprehensive process, one which incorporates the internal and external

environment. Mintzberg (1994) explained that strategic planning is not only

strategy: it is a process to create a strategy based on the environmental change,

one that will be dynamic and once this is understood can strategic planning be

implemented. Dolence (1995) has created 10 steps for the strategic planning

model:

1. Develop key performance indicators (KPI).

2. Perform external environmental assessment.

3. Perform internal environmental assessment.

4. Perform a SWOT analysis.

5. Conduct brainstorming.

6. Evaluate the potential impact of each idea on each strength, weakness,

opportunity, and threat.

7. Formulate strategies, mission, goals, and objectives.

8. Conduct a cross-impact analysis to determine the impact of the

proposed strategies, mission, goals, and objectives.


13

9. Finalize and implement strategies, goals, and objectives.

10. Monitor and evaluate actual impact of strategies, mission, goals, and

objectives.

The first step is to establish the appropriate key performance indicators

and to organize the key areas by compiling, discussing the value, and culling the

KPI, which do not measure essential outcomes. Some examples of KPIs which

colleges may want are PTE enrollment, graduation rate, retention rate, and

placement rate. The key performance indicators show how the college is

performing on identified levels that have been valued and agreed upon regarding

their importance as a measure. This can also be called benchmarking or the

development of reference points to compare the institutions goals and targets.

The second step is to perform an external environmental assessment.

This is an analysis of the environment in which the college survives. The process

involves reviewing the economic, social, demographic, political, legal, other

competitive institutions and technology factors that have an impact on the

college. This step represents a significant difference from other models, such as

long-range planning, which focus inward and monitor the institutional activity

(Howell, 2000). Howell, like Dolence, believed that the external scan is one of

the beginning steps to the strategic planning process.

The planning process can not take place in a vacuum (Dolence, Rowley &

Lujan, 1997). Most strategic planners utilize trend analysis in conjunction with

the external environmental scan. The trends are analyzed to determine if they

are short-term or long-term, positive or negative, and then are further studied to


14

see whether they align the college’s determined KPIs. Rowley and Sherman

(2001) suggested recognizing the most important external forces such as

governing boards or accrediting bodies. They further explained that the list

needs to be constantly culled, and then try and keep this part of the process short

due to the nature of academics’ enjoyment of comprehensive analysis of issues

(Rowley & Sherman, 2001).

Peterson, Dill, Mets, and Associates (1997) explained that the focus of

planning is on understanding the dynamics of a moving target, a rapidly changing

industry whose form is still being shaped. This rapid change can prevent

colleges from identifying the external context which defines the college. The

process of understanding the other stakeholders’ needs will allow colleges to

examine how, as an institution, they will be judged by the external groups.

The third step is to perform an internal environmental scan. Dolence

(1997) believed this step is the most difficult in which to maintain objectivity. The

defenses come up when topics of existing strengths and weakness of the college

are discussed in a group setting. He also identified the following internal factors

on which to focus: (1) the areas of excellence the college has been able to build

and maintain, (2) the resources it has at its disposal, (3) the source of the

resources, (4) the high demand programs and services, (5) the quality of its

human resources, (6) the academic tradition, (7) the internal political realities of

the campus, and (8) the quality and strength of its leadership and governance.

The difficulty and reality is that colleges can only achieve progress towards their


15

desired goals if they facilitate their own realization of existing conditions (Hill &

Jones, 2001).

The use of program review, citizens’ advisory boards, accreditation, and

surveys can help to gain outsiders’ views of the internal scan and provide a

discussion point for colleges to collect data (Cistone & Bashford, 2002). The data

should be collected from a widespread group of representative members;

however, Dolence (1997) recommended keeping the process time limited. He

stated that academic institutions and their member will tend to want to discuss

each piece of data and the merit before completing the steps and this should be

avoided because of lack of productivity over time.

The fourth step is to analyze the strengths, weakness, opportunities, and

threats (SWOT) that the scanning has on its developed KPIs. The process

involves measuring the key performance indicators to the SWOT items identified

by each voting member of the evaluation team, thus creating a rank order of

importance of external and internal factors that affect the KPIs. Once the matrix

is completed, reviewed, and presented, the next step can occur-the generation of

ideas.

The generation of ideas is the fifth step; this is a brainstorming activity.

The activity serves as a transition between what has been identified and what

can be done. According to Dolence (1997) this step can be slow to occur due to

the group having spent all of its time collecting data and facts. This step asks the

group to think creatively and ask “what if?’’ The sixth step is to test the ideas by


16

evaluating the potential impact on the KPIs, thus, further developing ideas of

change.

The seventh step begins the process of formulating strategies of change.

This is where another difference from other strategic planning models exsist; the

mission planning is one of the last steps, not the first step. As Keller (1983)

stated, the strategic planning process is essential to help campuses transition

from what has been to what can be. The strategic planning processes should

yield an evaluation of the school’s mission and purpose, vision, and the core

institutional values while enhancing the institutional effectiveness and academic

assessment of the institution. Once the strategic plan is determined, then the

mission can be correctly positioned. To address the strategic development, the

formulation of strategic goals and objectives will be developed. The strategic

goals are the milestones for which the college aims for based on the KPIs; the

objectives are specific actions to achieve the intended goal.

The eighth step is to determine the institutional readiness to implement the

strategic plan. To accomplish this, a cross-reference is performed with the key

performance indicators compared to the strategies, goals, and objectives that

have been determined from the previous steps. Dolence (1997) stated that this

will be a lengthy step; however, it also signals the end of data analysis.

The ninth step is the implementation of the strategy and documenting the

results of the strategy. According to Dolence, the strategic plan should be a short

concise document which reflects the central themes of the plan.


17

The tenth and final step is to evaluate the strategy. The periodic

evaluation of the strategies, goals, and objectives is a necessary step to assure

that the document will not just be another document on the shelf (Rowley, &

Sherman, 2002). Dolence’s model provides intricate steps which involve many of

the needed stakeholders.

Limitations o f the Strategic Pianning Process

There are many limitations to strategic planning. Howell (2000) suggested

that the plans may be damaging if they are not flexible. The strategic plan should

be interpreted and applied to the essential parts of the operations, not as a rigid

sequence of actions, but as a useful and flexible framework (Max & Majluf, 1996).

Mintzberg (1994) explained that the strategic planning may actually inhibit

change by being inflexible. Mintzberg, a former president of the Strategic

Management Society, believed that the process of strategic planning can actually

destroy the employee commitment, narrow the company’s vision, discourage

change, and breed internal politics. He further claimed that the term “strategic

planning” is an oxymoron because a strategy cannot be planned because

planning is about analysis and strategy is about synthesis.

Boyle (2000) believed that the overwhelming degree of uncertainty about

the environment and the persuasive influence of administrators make strategic

planning more feasible in theory than in practice. Peterson, Dill, Mets, and

Associates (1997) pointed out two influences that should be remembered when

approaching planning in institutions. First, the planning process is heavily

influenced by external forces. Second, new approaches do not supersede earlier


18

ones; rather, the approaches to planning have become more complex. After

identifying who and how to incorporate the external forces into the college’s

strategic planning, a process should be developed to support the systematic

change of its individual people, faculty, and staff. Peterson, Dill, Mets, and

Associates explained that there must be a paradigm shift in the perspective and

thinking of all the members of the institution from looking at the planning model in

a very isolated perspective to one which is not only dependent but relies on the

environment to help set the direction.

Limitations o f Doience’s Strategic Pianning Modei

Ronald Cervero (1999) claimed that Lesile and Fretwell provide a much

more realistic appraisal of a planning model for higher education than Dolence.

Cervero believed that one can not assume that strategic choices flow from the

strategic planning process. Other critics such as Taylor and Pfeiffer (2000)

believed that models such as Dolence’s compare the strategic planning process

of higher education to that of businesses, but they argue that businesses have

more control, fewer restraints, and less need for collaboration or shared

governance than colleges.

Corderio and Vaidya (2002) claimed that models which are Key

Performance Indicators driven are based on sound theory and, therefore, have

produced successful plans at many colleges and universities. However, they

further cite the experience of schools, such as Cal State, which have effectively

implemented strategic planning for two decades and have arrived at the following

conclusions concerning Key Performance Indicators: the process requires a large


19

amount of data gathering, which lends to academic units investing a great deal of

time and effort into the collection and analysis without the data being used,

strategic planning such as the Dolence model needed a dedicated and separate

focus which would require a paid professional (Corderio & Vaidya, 2002).

A common criticism of the Dolence model is that the strategic planning

process is too linear (Dooris, 2003). Mintzberg (1994) claimed that the process is

not only too linear but that it also relies too heavily on data, creates too much

paperwork, and is too formalized and structured. Dooris cited that Mintzberg and

Robert Birnbaum also believed that the process discourages positive and

creative change (Dooris, 2003). Even though theorists such as Mintzberg are

critical of many strategic planning processes, they still openly recognize that

organizations need high quality performance review to assess the environment

and to make good decisions.

The Roles o f Chief Academic and Finance Officers

Lesile and Fretwell (1996) stated that everyone with any claim to

ownership or citizenship in a college shares in the responsibility to seek good

solutions. Two leaders in the strategic building process are the chief academic

officer and the finance officer. Leaders such as chief academic officers and chief

financial officers are typically the personnel responsible for fully executing the

strategic plan. In two-year colleges, the chief academic officer is the principal

person responsible for the academic leadership and, thus, institutional

effectiveness of the college.


20

The chief finance officer is the primary person responsible for the financial

management of the college for overseeing the institution’s fiscal efficiency and

effectiveness. The National Association of Colleges and University Business

Officers in 1981 created working definitions of financial management outlining the

primary roles of the chief finance officer:

1. To help ensure, to the extent possible, that the valued institutional

activities of instruction, research, and public service are supported by

adequate resources;

2. To help protect the ability of the institution to continue its activities

through sound management, control, and investment of it financial

resources;

3. To help promote the efficient and effective management of existing

resources through sound planning and budgeting through responsible

stewardship.

According to Vandement (1989) the vice president of finance coordinates

the financial responsibilities of many departments without the direct supervision

of the department. Tension thus created is the reason finance officers and

academic administrators must operate with trust. As Vandement (1989)

explained, the presence of strong administrators in both roles results in the

institution gaining in financial planning when this relationship exists.

The academic vice president, according to Anderson and Murry (2002) in

their research of Mintzberg’s taxonomy of managerial roles as performed by chief


21

academic officers, performed all 10 roles; however, three roles were emphasized.

The three roles were those of leader, liaison, and disseminator. Although

Anderson and Murry’s research revealed that academic vice presidents believe

they understand their role, there are significant counters to role ambiguity.

Wolverton (1999) noted that although they are serving the president, they also

consider themselves extensions of the faculty. This is mostly due to the nature of

the bureaucracy; most chief academic officers were appointed to deanships or

other academic leadership positions from faculty positions. Kuss (2000) noted

that, in contrast, the presidents do not always see this coupled arrangement. In

fact, only 28% rely on the chief academic officers as the primary confidant. This

ambiguity and the built in tension between chief finance officer and the chief

academic officer leads to the conflicting roles of the chief academic officers and

chief finance officer.

History o f Community and Technicai Coiieges in Minnesota

The community and technical colleges have been a significant part of

postsecondary education during the past 50 years; however, the two-year college

post-secondary system has a history of almost 100 years in Minnesota. For

example, Minnesota’s history of technical education began in the early 1900s

when the Vocational Education Act was passed in 1917 (C. Johnson, 1995).

During this time, technical institutions such as Minneapolis Technical (1914) and

St. Paul Technical College (1919) were founded. Helland (1987) observed that

the Minnesota community colleges’ history began in 1914 when the university set

beginning standards for the junior college concept. The first Minnesota public


22

two-year college was established by the Cloquet school district (Tollefson, 1999).

Many schools attempted to establish community colleges in the state during the

early part of the twentieth century.

In 1917 the North Central Association of Schools and Colleges (MCA)

established specific standards for the accreditation of public and private junior

colleges. These standards, governing such areas as admissions policies, faculty

qualifications, and minimum funding levels, not only brought a degree of

uniformity to the young junior college movement but also demonstrated the

willingness of and capacity for junior colleges to participate in America's unique

system of institutional self-regulation (Greenbreg, 1999). These colleges were,

as Baker (1994) noted, like extensions of high schools, although the technical

schools were trade specific. In most cases, they were locally operated and

established within school districts. This remained true until 1963 when the State

of Minnesota established the junior college model. By the 1980s, there were 18

merged community colleges throughout the state. While some of the names

changed during the decade following the 1980s, the number and mission did not

significantly change until the formation of the Minnesota State College and

Universities (MnSCU) system.

Like most states with community colleges, the 1940s and 1960s provided

many legislative changes that caused community colleges to change their

mission and structure. According to C. Johnson (1995) the most dramatic

change in vocational offering in the State of Minnesota happened with the

Serviceman Readjustment Act of 1944, also known as the G.l. Bill. This bill


23

marked the beginning and the explosive growth of technical education. In 1945,

1,013,000 veterans attended college nationwide, doubling the existing college

population (C. Johnson, 1995). The First Area Vocational School of Mankato

was established in 1947, and from then until 1972, schools were added at

regional centers throughout Minnesota. There were 34 public technical colleges

in Minnesota until 1992 when they were consolidated into 18 technical colleges.

It was during this time that junior colleges began offering vocational education

programs while still being considered transfer schools (Helland, 1987). This

period provided the most significant steps in reforming higher education by

promoting access and the development of more affordable access geographically

close to the students (Johnson, 1995).

Community and technical colleges in Minnesota have matured in the last

40 years with their mission remaining relatively unchanged until the last decade.

Today, society sees both the community and technical colleges as providing

access to continuing education, career and vocational training, transfer education

leading to a baccalaureate, community service, and open-entry needed remedial

and developmental course work. Increasingly, community and technical college

enrollments reflect more diversity in their students.

The Organization o f Minnesota State Coiiege and University

In 1991 Minnesota passed a legislative act which created the Minnesota

State College and University system also known as “MnSCU” (MacTaggart &

Associates, 1996). The system, however, would not begin to function until 1995.

The merger of all state colleges and universities except the University of


24

Minnesota created the single largest provider of public education in Minnesota.

Colleges in the system would now be administrated by a single governing body.

The new system is made up of 36 colleges and universities in Minnesota

comprised of 53 campuses; it also iciudes one institution in Japan (Tollefson,

1999). The merger legislatively mandated that the three functioning boards

supporting the community colleges, the technical colleges, and the universities

become one. There are a total of 27 two-year colleges in the MnSCU system

which operate on 46 individual campuses. As a result of this merger, state

governance changed from a decentralized system of to one which was

centralized (MacTaggart & Associates, 1996).

Rick Garrrett, the Vice President of Instructional Services at Mayland

Community College, conducted a study in 1999 on the degrees of centralization

of governance structure in community colleges (Tollefson,1999). He found that

Minnesota’s community and technical colleges have one of the youngest

centralized systems. Minnesota’s community and technical colleges have less

than a decade of implemented governance, contrasted with the greatest

proportion, 78%, having existed for more than 31 years. The second finding was

that Minnesota has one of the largest systems; only 8% of the states have more

than 46 institutions within their governance; California has 106 institutions, and

only one in Alaska and Rhode Island. Finally, Garrett ranked Minnesota eighth

among states in degrees of centralization, arriving at an index value of 3.48

(Tollefson, 1999).


25

Summary

The function of the literature review was to examine the perspectives of

authors within the area of strategic planning. The review also included an

historical perspective on strategic planning, an analysis of the Dolence model of

strategic planning, and an examination of the limitations associated with both the

Dolence model and general strategic planning.

The strategic planning process in higher education was then presented

based on the roles and perspectives of the chief academic and finance officers.

The review concluded with a discussion on the background and history of the

Minnesota State Colleges and Universities.


26

CHAPTER 3

Methodology

This chapter will review the procedures involved in developing and

conducting this study. The chapter includes the methodology used for the review

of related literature, identification of the population, instrumentation, data

collection, and data analysis. The style of the writing for this dissertation was

found in the Publication Manual o f the American Psychological Association, 5‘ ̂

edition (2001).

The purpose of the study was to examine the strategic planning processes

of Minnesota community and technical colleges from the perception of the chief

academic and finance officers. Specifically, this study determined the extent to

which the chief academic and finance officers perceive the strategic planning

process as effective in making decisions regarding program planning, financial

allocations, facilities and technology management, and general decision making.

This study also determined the chief academic and finance officers’ perceptions

of barriers to effectively using the strategic plan in making decisions. Further, this

study determined the extent to which the chief academic and finance officers

perceive that the MnSCU system’s influence on their strategic planning process.


27

Research Questions

The following research questions guided the study.




b. financial allocations,





make decisions?


perceptions regarding the extent to which the MnSCU system has affected the


a. new initiatives,




Review o f Related Literature and Research

There were two primary sources for obtaining material used in the

research: the I. D. Weeks Library, located on the campus of The University of

South Dakota, and the Minnesota West library located in Worthington. The

Project for Automated Library Systems and Educational Resources Information


28

Center at both libraries was used to identify resources through its databases.

Other databases used included Current Index to Journals in Education,

Resources in Education, Dissertation Abstracts, and other educational internet

databases and web sites.

Population

The population for this study consisted of the chief academic and finance

officers of public two-year community and technical colleges in the MnSCU

system. Based on the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education,

there are four types of community colleges in the population: community colleges,

technical colleges, consolidated colleges, and comprehensive colleges. They are

all public two-year schools; however, their missions may vary. There are 162,000

students per semester enrolled in the MnSCU system, and the two-year colleges’

enrollment represents 92,203 (56.9%) of the total enrollment (Callan, 2000). In

Minnesota, MnSCU serves 55.0 % of the students attending college, and the two-

year colleges represent 31.3 % of the total students (Minnesota State Colleges

and Universities, 2002). The student populations vary at each college although

they will have the same governing body. The largest student population in the

survey was found at Normandale Community College, which has 4,864 full-time

equivalent students, and the smallest was at Rainy River Community College

with 334 full-time equivalent students.

All colleges offer similar degrees with the highest academic degree

offered being the Associate and the lowest being the certificate. There are a total

of 27 two-year colleges in the MnSCU system comprising 46 campuses. The


29

system has 32 academic administrators and 27 financial administrators at the 27

colleges: this was the total population surveyed for the study. The names of the

chief academic and finance officers were received from the MnSCU human

resources website. A cover letter (Appendix A) was included with the survey and

sent to each of the MnSCU two-year colleges’ chief academic and finance

officers inviting them to participate in the study.

Instrumentation

Following a review of the literature, a survey instrument (see Appendix A)

was designed by the researcher by identifying the needed criteria to assess the

perceptions of the population. The survey items are content based and

developed from the literature related to strategic planning. The survey questions

were collated to a matrix (Appendix B) to provide content validity.

The chief academic and finance officers’ perception survey was designed

with a five-point Likert scale. The administrators were asked to respond to the

extent of agreement they had with each question. Section A of the survey

gathered data related to the chief academic and finance officers’ perceptions of

the effectiveness of the strategic planning process on a scale of one to five. A

response of one indicated not effective a response of five indicated very

effective. Section B of the survey gathered the chief academic and finance

officers’ perceptions of barriers to the effectiveness of strategic planning. Section

C of the survey gathered the chief academic and finance officers’ perceptions of

the extent of the impact the MnSCU system has had on the community and

technical colleges’ strategic planning process through new initiatives,


30

accountability measures, funding allocations, program approval process, and

grants. In sections B and C, a response of one indicated a minimum extentar\6 a

response of five indicated maximum extent. The questions were developed

specifically for two-year community and technical colleges in the MnSCU system.

There was 24 objective items and three open-ended questions. The items were

derived from the research questions in this study.

To validate the survey instrument, it was reviewed by a group of experts to

determine the content validity of the questions. This group helped identify and

clarify misleading or confusing questions and make recommendations for

rewording the questions. The critique sheet (see Appendix C) is one page in

length and was included with a cover letter (see Appendix D) describing the

purpose of the study. Members of the expert group were selected if they had met

the following criteria; they had performed research, they had experience with

community/technical colleges, and they had served in an administrative capacity

either as an academic or financial administrator.

Data Coiiection

Included in each invitation was a cover letter (see Appendix E) asking for

the chief academic and finance officers to participate. A copy of the survey

instrument intended for the chief academic and finance officers to complete was

included with the invitation. Self-addressed stamped envelopes were also sent

with the surveys so that they could be easily returned. A coding system was

assigned using a three digit number to identify the respondents. Three weeks

after the initial survey was sent out, a reminder letter and a survey were sent out


31

to those who had not completed the survey. The individual data collected were

confidential and were only to be reported by group analysis. Once the data were

collected, the coding system was destroyed.

Data Analysis

The survey responses were collected, coded, and hand scored. The

objective data were then entered into a computer and analyzed using the SPSS

statistical software package. Independent ttests were used in the analysis of the

response of the population being surveyed at a .05 level of significance. The

descriptive statistics calculated included the means and standard deviation of the

responses to the questions. The survey items were analyzed for the number of

respondents who perceived the level of effectiveness and importance of the

strategic planning process. The patterns which exist and significance of the

results were then charted in tables. The open-ended questions were grouped by

like responses and then analyzed and discussed in the findings chapter.

Research question one determined the extent to which the chief academic

and finance officers differed in their perceptions of the effectiveness of strategic

planning by using independent ttests that determined if there was a significant

difference between the chief academic and finance officers’ perceptions of

effectiveness from the survey items in Part A. Research question two determined

the extent to which the chief academic and finance officers differed in their

perceptions of the barriers to effectively using strategic planning by using

independent f tests that determined if there was a significant difference between

the chief academic and finance officers’ perceptions of the barriers from the


32

survey items in Part B. Research question three determined the extent that the

chief academic and finance officers perceived that the MnSCU system has

affected their own strategic planning by using independent /tests, which

determined if there was a significant difference between their perceptions of the

extent to which the chief academic and finance officers perceive that the MnSCU

system has affected the strategic plan from survey items in Part C. The three

open-ended questions regarding the perceptions of their strategic plans strengths

and weakness were compared by listing all individual responses and grouping

them by theme.


33

CHAPTER 4

Findings

The results of the survey which examined the perceptions of the chief

academic and finance officers at the two-year colleges of the MnSCU system are

presented in Chapter 4. Chapter 4 data are organized by response rate,

demographic data, findings related to the research questions, and a summary is

provided.

Response Rate

Of the 59 surveys mailed to participants, 49 were returned. The overall

response rate was 83.05%. One survey was unusable due to a letter which

detailed many transitions which prevented that college from having a strategic

plan. The response rate for the chief academic officers was 78.13% (25), while

the response rate for the chief finance officers was 88.89% (24).

Findings

Research question 1 examined the perceptions of the extent to which the

chief academic and finance officers perceived the strategic planning process as

effective in making decisions regarding program planning, financial allocations,

facilities and technology management, and general decision making. Research

question 2 determined differences in the chief academic and finance officers’

perceptions of barriers to effectively using the strategic plan in making decisions.

Research question 3 examined the extent to which the chief academic and

finance officers perceive that the MnSCU system influences their strategic

planning processes.


34

Perceptions Regarding the Effectiveness o f the Strategic Pianning Process

The first research question examined the differences that exist between

the chief academic and finance officers’ perceptions regarding the effectiveness

of the strategic planning process. Respondents answered survey questions 1

through 11 with a response from “1” not effective \o “5” very effective. The means

for survey questions 1 through 11 were computed, and then independent /tests

were performed to determine if there were significant differences in perceptions

regarding the effectiveness of the strategic planning process.

The chief academic and finance officers did not significantly differ in their

perceptions of the effectiveness of strategic planning, although there was a

difference in their perception of the effectiveness of using strategic planning for

communicating the mission of the college to constituents (CAO mean = 3.61,

CFO mean = 3.18). As presented in Tablel, the chief academic officers

perceived communications of the mission to constituents as the most effective

result of strategic planning; however, the difference between administrators was

not statistically significant (/? = .230).

The chief academic officers perceived that strategic planning was the most

effective in communicating the mission (mean = 3.61), general decision making

(mean = 3.48), and technology planning decisions (mean = 3.48). The chief

finance officers perceived that strategic planning was the most effective in

program planning decisions (mean = 3.45), and facilities management decisions

(mean = 3.36).


35

The chief academic officers perceived that strategic planning was the least

effective in committing resources (mean = 2.65), using community input (mean =

2.91), and providing necessary communications (mean = 2.96). Chief finance

officers identified similar perceptions in what strategic planning was the least

effective in using community input (mean = 2.68), committing resources (mean =

2.77), general decision making (mean = 3.05).


36

Table 1

Perceptions Regarding the Effectiveness o f the Strategic Pianning Process

Characteristic CAON=2bMean SD

CFO/V=24Mean SD t P

Program planning decisions 3.30 1.26 3.45 1.22 -.406 .687

Financial allocation decisions 3.17 1.11 3.27 .98 -.316 .754

Facilities management decisions 3.35 1.30 3.36 1.04 -.045 .964

Technology planning decisions 3.39 1.12 3.27 1.08 .362 .719

Data for making decisions 3.13 1.14 3.18 1.37 -.137 .892

General decision making 3.48 .95 3.05 1.21 1.329 .191

Community input 2.91 1.50 2.68 1.36 .541 .591

Communications to constituents 2.96 1.11 3.23 1.41 -.714 .480

Explaining, applying and implementing 3.17 .94 3.05 1.36 .367 .716

Committing resources needed to support the planning

2.65 1.19 2.77 1.34 -.318 .752

Communicating the mission 3.61 1.03 3.18 1.30 1.218 .230

Note. “1” = Not effective, “2” = Somewhat effective, “3” = Neither, “4" = Effective, “5”= Very Effective.


37

Perceptions o f the Barriers to Effectiveiy Using the Strategic Planning Process

The second research question examined the chief academic and finance

officers’ perceptions of the barriers to effectively using the strategic planning

process. The question asked chief academic and finance officers to rate eight

survey questions as barriers to strategic planning. Respondents answered

survey questions 12 through 19 with a response from “1” minimum extentXo “5”

maximum extent. The means for survey questions 12 through 19 were

computed, and then an independent / t̂est was performed to determine if there

were significant differences in perceptions regarding the barriers to effectively

using the strategic planning process.

The chief academic officers and the chief finance officers did not view any

of the eight items as barriers to effectively using strategic planning at a moderate

extent or higher. They however perceived that strategic planning does not

respond quickly enough to the external changes of the environment, which may

create a barrier to effectiveness. The average mean of both the chief academic

officers and the chief finance officers was M= 2.56 as presented in Table 2.

The chief academic and finance officers did not significantly differ in their


make decisions; however, the second question in Table 2 had the greatest

difference in perception between them (CAO mean = 1.96, CFO mean = 2.36).

The question asked if they perceived the lack of organization wide participation

as a barrier in the effectiveness of strategic planning. This difference was

supported by the open-ended questions where 10 chief finance officers cited that


38

the lack of participation as a weakness of their strategic planning process being

used effectively as compared to four chief academic officers who cited lack of

participation as a weakness of their strategic plans.

The chief academic and finance officers, however, did agree on the

greatest barriers to strategic planning. The chief academic officers perceived that

the greatest barriers to effectiveness came from strategic planning’s failure to

respond quickly enough to the external changes of the environment (mean =

2.64), limited response from members (mean = 2.17), and lack of organization

wide participation (mean = 1.96). Chief finance officers also perceived that the

greatest barriers to effectiveness as coming from the failure of strategic planning

to respond quickly enough to the external changes of the environment (mean =

2.45), limited response from members (mean = 2.41), and lack of organization

wide participation (mean = 2.36).

Chief academic administrators and chief finance officers also agreed in the

three least significant barriers to strategic planning. The chief academic officers

perceived that least significant barriers to effectiveness as coming from political

activity (mean = 1.26), perceptions of strategic planning (mean = 1.30), and the

relationship with accounting (mean = 1.57). Chief finance officers perceived that

the greatest barriers to effectiveness came from the relationship with accounting

(mean = 1.24), perceptions of strategic planning (mean = 1.36), and political

activity (mean = 1.45).


39

Table 2

Perceptions o f the Barriers to Effectiveiy Using the Strategic Pianning Process

Characteristic CAON=2bMean SD

CFON=2AMean SD t P

Limited response from members 2.17 1.03 2.41 1.05 -.757 .453

Lack of organization wide participation 1.96 1.07 2.36 1.14 1.239 .222

Strategic planning does not respond quickly enough to the external changes of the environment

2.65 1.11 2.45 .911 .653 .517

Strategic planning process does not truly allow for creativity

1.65 1.03 1.91 .92 -.884 .382

Strategic plan was not based on strong data

1.87 .76 2.09 .92 -.878 .385

Strategic planning has become a tool to gain control

1.30 .56 1.36 .90 -.264 .734

Political activity during the process which caused conflict within the organization

1.26 .86 1.45 .86 -.754 .455

Strategic plan is too rigid therefore limiting the ability to address the sensitive operations of accounting

1.57 .90 1.20 .62 1.415 .165

Note. “1” = Minimum extent, “2” = Some extent, “3” = Moderate extent, “4” = Considerabie extent, “5”= Maximum extent


40

Perceptions o f the MnSCU Systems Influences on the Strategic Planning

Process

The third research question examined the extent to which the chief

academic and finance officers perceived that the MnSCU system Influences their

strategic planning processes. The research question asked chief academic and

finance officers to rate five MnSCU processes on their Impact on their college’s

strategic planning process. Respondents answered survey questions 20 through

24 with responses from “1” minimum extentXo “5” maximum extent. The means

for survey question 20 through 24 were computed, compared and reported for

research question 3.

An analysis of the perceptions using Independent /tests revealed a

significant difference between the chief academic and finance officers regarding

grants. The chief academic officers (mean = 2.86) perceived that grants had a

significantly greater Impact than did the finance administrators (mean = 2.05).

The chief academic officers perceived that the funding allocation (mean =

3.59) had the greatest Impact on the strategic planning process compared to the

chief finance officers’ perception that new Initiatives (mean = 3.50) had the

greatest Impact on strategic planning; however, the difference between

administrators was not statistically significant (p=.094).


41

Table 3

Perceptions o f Extent that the MnSCU System Influences the Strategic Planning

Process

Characteristic CAON=25Mean SD

CFON=2AMean SD t P

New initiatives 3.05 .84 3.50 .91 -1.715 .094

Accountability measures 3.41 .96 3.09 .92 1.122 .268

Funding allocations 3.59 1.37 3.18 1.33 1.005 .321

Program approval process 2.77 1.23 2.82 .96 -.137 .892

Grants 2.86 1.13 2.05 .90 2.665 .011

Note. “1” = Minimum extent, “2” = Some extent, “3” = Moderate extent,“4” = Considerable extent, “5”= Maximum extent

Summary

Chapter 4 reported the findings and results of the survey analysis. The

chief academic and finance officers perceived that strategic planning was only

somewhat effective; however, they both viewed very few barriers to its

effectiveness. The chief academic and finance officers only differed at a

significant level in their perception of the impact on the effectiveness of strategic

planning within the survey.


42

CHAPTER 5

Summary, Conclusions, Discussions, and Recommendations

This chapter is divided into four sections. The first section is a summary of

the purpose, review of the literature, methodology, and findings of the study. The

second section presents the conclusions which were developed as the results of

the data analysis and the findings. The third section is the discussion; it explores

the results, findings, and conclusions of the study. The final section presents the

recommendations of the study for practice and future study; this is based on the

analysis of the data collected for the study.

Summary

The introduction of the study provided the basic information on strategic

planning and the purpose of the study. This section also summarizes the

literature review, procedures, and findings.

Purpose o f the Study

The purpose of the study was to examine the strategic planning processes

of Minnesota community and technical colleges from the perceptions of the chief

academic and finance officers. Information was gained from the chief academic

and finance officers from the 27 two-year colleges in the MnSCU system with

regard to their perceptions. The following research questions guided the study.




b. financial allocations.


43





make decisions?


perceptions regarding the extent that the MnSCU system has affected the


a. new initiatives,




Literature Review

Chapter 2 presented a review of the related literature on the common

ideas and practices of strategic planning. The review identified great agreement

by many theorists on the value of the strategic planning process. Many citations

from the literature review note that strategic planning helps to set direction and to

focus on institutional priorities. Peterson (1989) noted that strategic planning can

address the needs for direction on institutional-related problems such as

decreasing financial support, changing demographics of the student population,

rapid technological change, and outdated technical programming. The Dolence

(1995) frame work reviewed was based on assessing the data and developing


44

plans based on information. This is the primary difference from mission-based

planning and other comprehensive seif-studies used for planning.

The literature review also suggested that there are authors who think that

the strategic planning model is not the most effective tool for higher education.

Some of the common criticisms from the literature review on strategic planning

are that they are too linear (Dooris, 2003) and labor intensive (Corderio & Vaidya,

2002). Another common criticism of strategic planning and the frame work

reviewed is that while they yield good plans, the implementation and

maintenance is too time consuming (Mitzberg 1994).

The review of the literature also included a historical review and utilization

of strategic planning within the two-year colleges of the MnSCU system. The

researcher found no other studies of the MnSCU system’s use of strategic

planning nor of the perceptions of the chief academic and finance officers on the

effectiveness of strategic planning. There are many resources on strategic

planning; however, this review focused on a theoretical framework by one

theorist.

Procedures

The researcher used a four part survey to collect the data. The survey

was validated by a group of experts who determined the content validity of the

questions. The survey questions were designed to answer the research

questions.

The population of the study consisted of chief academic and finance

officers from the 27 two-year colleges in the MnSCU system. All of the chief


45

academic and finance officers were mailed surveys and invited to participate in

the study. Fifty-nine surveys were sent, and 49 surveys were returned for a

response rate of 83.05%. The data collected were analyzed by the researcher

using descriptive statistics and ^tests.

Findings

This section describes the findings of the study.

1. The chief academic and finance officers did not significantly differ in

their perceptions of the effectiveness of strategic planning.

2. The chief academic officers perceived that strategic planning was most

effective in communicating the mission, general decision making, and technology

planning decisions.

3. The chief finance officers perceived that strategic planning was most

effective in program planning decisions and facilities management decisions.

4. The chief academic officers perceived that strategic planning was least

effective in committing resources, using community input, and providing

necessary communications.

5. The chief finance officers perceived that strategic planning was least

effective in using community input, committing resources, and making general

decision making.

6. The chief academic and finance officers did not significantly differ in

their perceptions of the barriers to effectively using strategic planning process to

make decisions.


46

7. The chief academic and finance officers agreed that to “some extent

barriers to the effectiveness of strategic planning arise because it does not

respond quickly enough to the external changes of the environment, because of

limited response from members, and because of the lack of organization wide

participation.

8. The chief academic and finance officers agreed on the “minimum

extent” to which barriers to the effectiveness of strategic planning arise because

of political activity, perceptions of strategic planning, and the relationship with

accounting.

9. The chief academic officers more than chief finance officers perceived

that grants had a significant impact on the strategic planning process.

10. The chief academic officers perceived that the funding allocation had

the greatest impact on the strategic planning process.

11. The chief finance officers perceived that new initiatives had the greatest

impact on strategic planning.

Conclusions

The following conclusions can be drawn from the results presented in this

chapter and the findings presented in the preceding pages. These conclusions

are founded within the limitations of the study.

1. Chief academic and finance officers have similar perceptions of

strategic planning in the MnSCU system.


perceive strategic planning as a tool for communications.


47

3. Chief finance officers believe strategic planning is more effective as a

decision-making tool than the chief academic officers.

4. Chief academic and finance officers do not view strategic planning as

effective in finance, facilities, or technology decisions.

5. Chief academic and finance officers do not perceive any major barriers

to effectively using strategic planning process to make decisions.

6. Chief academic officers perceive that the MnSCU system does have

some influence on their college’s strategic planning process.

Discussions

As community colleges evaluate the direction and mission of their

institutions, the strategic plan is often a tool used in the process. Because it is

often the role of the chief academic and finance officers to fully execute the

strategic plan, their perceptions are important. This discussion will primarily

address how the chief academic and finance officers perceive strategic planning.

The purpose, findings and conclusions of this study have been divided into three

areas that correlate with the research questions: the usefulness and

effectiveness of strategic planning, the barriers to implementing strategic plans,

and the impact of the MnSCU system on their strategic planning processes.

Effectiveness o f Strategic Planning

Two-year colleges’ chief academic officers are the principal persons

responsible for the academic leadership and, thus, institutional effectiveness of

the college, while the financial administrators are the principal persons in charge

of the resources. This leads to the basic natural tension built in to these


48

administrators’ jobs; however, Lambert (2002) noted that without a partnership

between these administrators, very few college initiatives will be accomplished,

such as the implementation of the strategic plan. This research indicated that

there is not a significant difference in perceptions between the administrators;

therefore, a partnership between the chief academic and finance officer may be

possible to achieve the stated goals of the strategic plan.

In this study, chief academic and finance officers’ views of strategic

planning’s effectiveness are similar; however, neither group rated the

effectiveness of strategic planning very highly. This similarity and lack of

perceived effectiveness raises questions regarding why did the administrators

generally agree on the strength of strategic planning and yet do not recognize the

effectiveness of it. This lack of recognition could be researched with future

studies or at least be acknowledged by presidents and senior administrators. It is

the researcher’s analysis that although the strategic plans do provide many

positive contributions for general college planning, they are secondary to its

intended purpose. If the strategic plan is to be effective, this study’s identified

perception and understanding should be assessed prior to fully implementing

strategic planning.

In the study, the administrators reported that strategic planning is neither

effective nor ineffective, which is supported by the critics in the research.

Although researchers such as Peterson (1989) claimed that the strategic plan

provides a tool for benchmarking and developing plans of action, critics such as

Howell (2002) claimed that strategic planning is not flexible enough to be


49

effective. The administrators who responded almost all cited many strengths of

strategic planning in the open-ended questions; however, their responses on

effectiveness indicate that there is not overwhelming support for effectiveness.

This could indicate that they perceive the process as effective in accomplishing

some goals but less effective in the actual implementation of the plan.

This lack of perceived effectiveness is perhaps the result of senior

administration not committing to the implementation of the plan. The research in

this study may imply that poor commitment to the implementation causes the lack

of effectiveness. More research may help identify the shortfalls. This study would

also indicate that the strategic plan does not help to commit the funds or direct

them. The commitment of the senior administration is needed to provide the

funds to implement the strategic plan (Keller, 1983).

Barriers to Strategic Planning

This study concurred with the literature review, that the greatest barrier

perceived by the chief academic and finance officers to effective strategic plan

was its ridgedness and lack of institution wide participation. Howell (2002) even

suggested that the plans may be damaging if they are not flexible. Flexibility of

the strategic plan should be interpreted by college leadership and applied to the

essential parts of the operations, not as a rigid sequence of actions, but as a

useful framework (Hax & Majluf, 1996).

This study also suggests that many of the cited barriers to strategic

planning are not perceived by the academic or finance administrators such as

political activity or accounting practices. This, coupled with the perceived lack of


50

effectiveness, tends to support more research on the implementation limitation.

The administrators in this study perceived the barriers identified in the past as

being insignificant barriers to effective strategic planning in the MnSCU system.

Mitzberg (1994) claimed that the strategic planning process relies too

heavily on data, creates too much paperwork, and is too formalized and

structured. He and Robert Birnbaum also believed that the process discourages

positive and creative change (Dooris, 2003). The data collected suggest as the

critics of strategic planning claim that the amount of work may be a barrier to

successful implementation of the strategic plan and not the process.

The Impact o f MnSCU

Tollefson reported in 1999 that Minnesota had a the degree of

centralization. The impact that the MnSCU system has on its colleges’ strategic

planning, however, is not perceived by the chief academic and finance officers as

considerable. The academic administrators did perceive funding allocations and

accountability measures as having the greatest impact on their planning. The

finance administrators perceived new initiatives as having the greatest impact on

their strategic planning. This difference in perceptions may be due to the

differences in role assignments.

This research does suggest that there is a limited difference in their

perceptions, which may expose tension among administrators. The difference in

perceptions creates the reason finance officers and academic administrators

must operate with trust when implementing the strategic plans. Vandement


51

(1989) claimed that the presence of strong administrators in both positions results

in the institution’s gaining in financial planning.

In addition, this research also suggests that the individual colleges of the

MnSCU system need to align themselves with the core goals of the MnSCU in

strategic plan. If the system is using tools such as grants, new initiatives, and

centralization to achieve its goals, the individual schools will need to recognize

that these are tools and that there are differences within there own perceptions.

Recommendations

Recommendations for Practice

The following recommendations for practice evolved from the study’s

findings and conclusions.

1. Chief academic and finance officers need to respond in a timelier

manner to external changes through the strategic planning process.

2. Chief academic and finance officers should seek greater participation in

strategic planning from a wider range of stakeholders.

3. Chief academic officers should recognize that the chief finance officers

perceive strategic planning as more of a decision-making tool than they do.


perceive strategic planning as a tool for communications

5. Community colleges should invest more time and resources into the

implementation of strategic planning if they are going to use strategic planning as

a tool for decision making.


52

Recommendations for Further Study

The following recommendations for further study evolved from the study’s

findings and conclusions.

1. The population of the study was limited to the MnSCU chief academic

and finance officers. Research should be done with the four-year schools that

are also members of MnSCU.

2. A follow-up study should be conducted to incorporate the perceptions of

the presidents of the colleges and compare the results.

3. A follow-up study should be performed later to see if chief academic and

finance officers perceptions change over time.

4. A replication of this study could be performed at other states that have

similar systems.

Summary

As community colleges evaluate the effectiveness of their institution’s

strategic plans, the perceptions of the chief academic and finance officers

responsible for fully executing the strategic plan must considered. The chief

academic and finance officers should seek each others’ perceptions to

implement a successful plan. The identification of each other’s perceptions of

the effectiveness of, barriers to, and other outside sources which influence their

strategic plan is necessary to begin implementing a strategic plan.


53

References

Alfred, R. P. (1999). Core indicators o f effectiveness for community colleges.

Washington, DC: Community College Press.

Alfred, R. L. (2000). Strategic thinking: The untapped resource for leaders.

Community Coiiege Journal, 7/(3), 24-28.

American Association of Community Colleges. (2001)

American Psychological Association. (2001). Publication manual o f the American

psychological association {b\h ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Anderson, P., & Murry, J. (2002). The managerial roles of the public college chief

academic officers. Community Coiiege Review, 30 (2), 1-26.

Bacig, K. L. (2002). Participation and communication in strategic planning in

higher education: A case study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.

University of Minnesota.

Barker, T., & Smith, H. W. (1998). Integrating accreditation strategic planning.

Community Coiiege Journal o f Research and Practice, 22 (8), 741-751.

Boyle, P. (2000). A map, a compass, asking for direction and visioning. Popular

Government, 31 {2), 22-24.

Burke, J. C. (2000). To keep or not to keep performance funding. The Journal o f

Higher Education, 7/(4), 432-453.

Callan, P. M., & Finney, J. E. (1997). Public and private financing o f higher

education. Phoenix, AZ: American Council on Education and The Oryyx

Press.


54

Callan, P. M., & Staff. (2000). Measuring up 2000{'pp. 106-107). Washington,

DC: The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.

Cervero, R. M. (1999). A review of strategic choices for the academy: How

demand for lifelong learning will recreate higher education. Journal o f

Higher Education, 70, 735.

Cistone, P. J., & Bashford, J. (2002). Towards a meaningful institutional

effectiveness plan. Planning for Higher Education, 30 {A), 15-23.

Cleary, T. 8. (2001). Indicators of quality. Planning for Higher Education, 29{2>),

19-28.

Cook, B. W., & Lasher, W. F. (1996). Towards a theory of fund raising in higher

ed ucation. The Review o f Higher Education, 20{^), 33-51.

Cook, K. L. (2002). Trends in strategic planning in Texas public community

colleges. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Texas A & M University.

Corderio, W. P., & Vaidya, A. (2002). Lessons learned from strategic planning.

Planning for Higher Education, 30 {2), 24-31.

Dolence, M. G., & Norris, M. N. (1995). Transforming higher education. Ann

Arbor, Ml.: Society for College and University Planning.

Dolence, M. G., Rowley, D. J., & Lujan, H. D. (1997). Working towards strategic

change (^s\ ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Dooris, M. J. (2003). Two decades of strategic planning. Planning for Higher

Education, 31 {2), 26-32.

Epper, R. M. (1999). Applying benchmarking to higher education. Change, 24-31.


55

Fayol, H. (1949). General principles o f management. London: Pitman Publishing,

Ltd.

Flack, H. (1994). Three critical elements in strategic planning. Planning for Higher

Education, 2S(1), 24-31.

Founation, C. (n.d.). Carnegie classification o f institutions o f higher education.

Retrieved March 26, 2003, from:

www.carnegiefoudation.org/classification/CIHE2000/defNotes/Definitions.

htm

Friedel, J., & Rosenberg, D. (1993). Environmental scanning practices in junior,

technical, and community colleges. Community Coiiege Review, 20{b),^Q-

23.

Gaither, G. H. (2002). A campus approach to efficiency and productivity. Planning

for Higher Education, 30 {2>), 27-33.

Greenberg, M. (1999). Tasks for higher education accreditation. Washington, DC:

Council for Higher Education Accreditation.

Gruber, C. (1997). Backdrop, Ashe reader series 203-221). Needham

Hieghts, MA: Simon & Schuster Publishing.

Hax, A. C., & Majluf, N. S. (1996). The strategy concept and process, a pragmatic

approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Helland, P. C. (1987). Establishment o f public Junior and community colleges in

Minnesota, 1914-1983. Minneapolis, MN: The Academic Bindery.

Herbkersman, N., & Hibbert-Jones, K. (2002). Advancing the community college.

Community Coiiege Journal, Z2(4), 8-13.


http://www.carnegiefoudation.org/classification/CIHE2000/defNotes/Definitions

56

Hill, C. L., & Jones, G. R. (2001). Strategic management{bXh ed.). Boston, MA:

Houghton Mifflin.

Howell, E. (2000). Strategic planning for a new century: Process over product

(ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 447842)

Hurley, R. G. (2002). Identification and assessment of community college peer

institution selection systems. Community Coiiege Review, 2 9 {A), 1-27.

Institute, T. C. (1996). interim evaluation o f draft strategic pians. Retrieved March

26, 2003, from: www.conginst.org/resultact/PLANS/eval.html

Johnson, C. (1995). 50years, Minnesota technical college system: Celebration

50 years o f quality vocational education. Nisswa, MN: Triad, Inc.

Johnson, R. G. (2002). Strategic planning in one community coiiege: Changing

the balance between analysis and synthesis. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, Oregon State University.

Julius, D. (1999). A memo to Machiavelli. The Journal o f Higher Education, 70

(2), 113-133.

Keller, G. (1983). Academic strategy: the management revolution in higher

education {J\h ed.). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Kirk, C. M. (2000). Mission critical-higher education for the 21st century. Planning

for Higher Education, 29 {X), 15-22.

Kolodny, A. (1998). Failing the future. Durham, NO: Duke University Publishing.

Kuss, H. (2000, Spring). The dean and the president. New Directions for

Community Colleges, 109, 27-32.

Lambert, L. (2002). Chief academic officers. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.


http://www.conginst.org/resultact/PLANS/eval.html

57

Layzell, D. T. (2002). Higher education cost: Concepts, measurement issues,

data source, and uses. Planning for Higher Education, 30{2>), 6-14.

Leslie, D., & Fretwell, E. (1996). Wise moves in hard times. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Liedtka, J. M. (1998). Linking strategic thinking with strategic planning. Strategic

and Leadership, 26 {Q), 30-36.

Lorange, P. (1982). impiementation o f strategic pianning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Pentice Hall.

MacTaggart, T. J., & Associates. (1996). Restructuring higher education: what

works and what doesn’t in reorganizing governing systems. San

Francisco, Ca: Jossey- Bass.

Miller, M. (1995). Administrators’ opinions of budgeting and funding formulas use

in community colleges. Community Coiiege Journal o f Research and

Practice, 19{^), 109-115.

Miller, M., & Benton, C. (1998). Managing scarce resources in the community

college: Strategies for the department chairs. Community College Journal

o f Research and Practice, 22 {2>), 203-212.

Minnesota State Colleges and Universities. (2002). Designing the future-strategic

pian. St. Paul, MN.

Minnesota West Community and Technical College. (2003). Reaching towards

the future-2003-2008 strategic pian. Granite Falls, MN.

Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring o f organizations-a synthesis o f the

research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.


58

Mintzberg, H. (1994). The rise and fa ll o f strategic planning. New York, NY: The

Free Press.

MnSCU. (2002). Minnesota state colleges and universities allocation framework.

Retrieved March 21, 2003, from:

www.budget.mnscu.edu/allocationframework/allocmodel.htlm

Palmer, J. C. (2000). National study o f postsecondary faculty. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and

Improvement.

Paris, K. A. (2002). Strategic pianning in the university. Retrieved January 25,

2003, from: www.wisc.edu/improve/strplan/struniv.html

Peterson, D. (1989). Strategic pianning {^R\C Document Reproduction Services

No. 312774)

Peterson, M. W., Dill, D. D., Mets, L. A., & Associates. (1997). Pianning and

management for a changing environment ed.). San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Puzon, B. (1994). Integrity in the college curriculum. Liberal Education, 80 {2>),

14-22.

Rowley, D. J., & Sherman, H. (2001). From strategy to change { 1st ed.). San

Francisco, Ca: Jossey- Bass.

Rowley, D. J., & Sherman, hi. (2002). Implementing the strategic plan. Planning

for Higher Education, 30 (2), 5-14.

Seerley, N., & Watkins, J. L. (1994). Environmental scanning through a

community needs assessment. Community College Review, 21 {A), 48-57.


http://www.budget.mnscu.edu/allocationframework/allocmodel.htlm

http://www.wisc.edu/improve/strplan/struniv.html

59

Sevier, R. A. (2003). From strategy to action. University Business {2), 18-19.

Shapiro, L. T. (2001). Strategy planning synergy. Pianning for Higher Education,

30(^),21-2A.

Simsek, H., & Seashore Louis, K. (1994). Organizational change as a paradigm

shift: Analysis of the change process at a large university. Journai o f

Higher Education, 65 {Q).

Soto, M., & Drummond, M. J. (2002). Establishing a vision and strategic plan

incorporating multiple stakeholders' voices; creating reciprocity and

acknowledging community knowledge. Metropoiitan Universities: an

internationaiForum, / J (2), 30-44.

Spangel, S. (2000). Academic quaiity improvement project. Chicago: North

Central Accreditation.

Steiner, G. (1997). Strategic pianning. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Strauss, L. (2001). Trends in community college financing, challenges of the past,

present and the future. ERiC Ciearinghouse for Community Coiieges (12),

1- 10 .

Swenk, J. (1999). Planning failure: Decision cultural clashes. The Review o f

Higher Education, 23 (;\), 1-21.

Taylor, A. L. (2000). A review of strategic change in colleges and universities.

Journai o f Higher Education, 71, 507.

Tollefson, T. A. (1999). Fifty state systems o f community coiiege: Mission,

governance, financing, andaccountabiiityfjJo\. 3). Johnson City, TN: The

Overmountain Press.


60

United States Department of Education. (2002). Classification o f instructionai

programs:2000 edition 63). Jessup, MD: ED Pubs.

Vandament, W. (1989). Managing money in higher education. San Francisco:

Jossey Bass.

VanWagoner, R. (2001). A framework for academic pianning: Engaging faculty in

strategic dialogue {ER\C Document Reproduction Services No. ED

454919)

Ward, D. (2003). Strategic planning at ace: Guiding a venerable institution

forward into a new century. The Presidency, 5(1), 18-23.

Watkins, J. L. (1999). Reflections on the value of strategic planning. Planning for

Higher Education, 2 7 {A), 18-24.

Webster (2003). Merriam-Websters coiiegiate d ic tio n a ry 1 ed.).

Wolverton, M. (1999). The impact of role conflict and ambiguity on academic

deans. The Journal o f Higher Education, 75(1), 80-106.


61

Appendix A

Survey Instrument


CNJCD

Academic and Financial Administrators’ Perceptions of the Effectiveness of Strategic Planning

Section A: How would you rate the effectiveness of your strategic planning process for the following activities?

Questions Not Somewhat Effective effective

Neither Effective VeryEffective

1. Making program planning decisions 1 2 3 4 5

2. Making financial allocation decisions 1 2 3 4 5

3. Making facilities management decisions 1 2 3 4 5

4. Making technology planning decisions 1 2 3 4 5

5. Using data for making decisions 1 2 3 4 5

6. Making general decision making 1 2 3 4 5

7. Using community input for establishing strategic planning decisions

1 2 3 4 5

8. Providing the necessary communications to its constituents to fully understand the vision and mission of the college

1 2 3 4 5

9. Explaining, applying and implementing so that the relevant managers can understand them

1 2 3 4 5

10. Committing all the realistic resources needed in order to support the planning.

1 2 3 4 5

11. Communicating the mission of the college to constituents 1 2 3 4 5

(/)(/>CDQ .

■DCD

OCo

■DO

■c

CDco£.O)

Q .OO

Ocg'(/)(/>CDQ .

■DCDO3■DOCDq:

ooCO

Section B: Rate each of the following regarding, to which each represents a barrier to the effectiveness of your college’s

Questions Minimum Some Extent Moderate Considerable MaximumExtent Extent Extent Extent

1 . There was a limited response from members of 1 2 3 4 5 O(/)

our college in developing the plan (/>

2. There was a lack of organization wide 1 2 3 4 5participation

3. Strategic planning does not respond quickly 1 2 3 4 5 o

enough to the external changes of theenvironment CD

4. Strategic planning process does not truly allow for 1 2 3 4 5creativity o

Q.5. The strategic plan was not based on strong data 1 2 3 4 5 C

o6. The perception is that strategic planning has 1 2 3 4 5

become a tool to gain control over individual 7DO

areas such as employees, management. Q.CD

marketing, and students rather than being acomprehensive tool for planning ■c

7. There was political activity during the process 1 2 3 4 5 u_which caused conflict within the organization

8. Our strategic plan is too rigid therefore limiting the 1 2 3 4 5 C

ability to address the sensitive operations of o

accounting .O)

Q .OO

(O(/>CDQ .

■DCDO3■D0CD01

CD

Section C: Rate the extent of Impact on the MnSCU system community and technical college’s strategic planning process of

Minimum Some Moderate Considerable MaximumExtent Extent Extent Extent Extent

1. New initiatives 1 2 3 4 52. Accountability measures 1 2 3 4 53. Funding allocations 1 2 3 4 54. Program approval process 1 2 3 4 55. Grants 1 2 3 4 5

Section D:

1. What do you believe are the major strengths of your college’s strategic planning process?

2. What do you believe are the major weakness of your college’s strategic planning process?

3. How many years ago did your college last update or complete a strategic plan?

(O(/>CDQ .

■DCD

OCo

■DO

■c

.05

Q .OO

(/)(/>CDQ .

■DCDO3■D0CD01

65

Appendix B

Reference Matrix


Survey Question Validation Reference Matrix

6 6

_gj0)

0)

U-T3cCD0w0

—I

w

oz■DcCD0oc0o

Q

cro'S'—I■ocro

0500103Oc0o

Q

c0E0x:

CO■ac0>>05ODd

CO

ooQ

coCO

00

CL

D)0N"c

0> .o

CD

o0

■ 2oo

■Da<

o0L L

0

0CD

0

0—I

Q 1 X X X X X X X X X X X X X0 2 X X X X0 3 X X X X X X X0 4 X X X X X X X0 5 X X X X X X X X X X X0 6 X X X X X X X X0 7 X X X X X X X X0 8 X X X X X X0 9 X X X X X X X X0 10 X X X X X XO i l X X X X X X X X0 12 X X X X X X X X X X0 13 X X X X X X X X X X0 14 X X X X X X X X X X0 15 X X X X X X0 16 X X X X X0 17 X X X X X X X X0 18 X X X X X X0 19 X X X X X X X X0 20 X X X X X0 21 X X X X0 22 X X X X0 23 X X X X0 24 X X X X


! I

67

Appendix C

Critique Sheet: Pilot Survey


6 8

CRITIQUE SHEET: PILOT SURVEY

Please check the most correct response for each item and supply the requested information, which follows each item. Your response will assist in producing the final form of the survey, which will be used to gather information from Vice Presidents of Academics and Finance. Thank you for your assistance.1. The time required to complete the survey was:

□ less than 10 minutes□ 10 to 20 minutes□ 21 to 30 minutes□ more than 30 minutes

2. The directions for completing the survey were:□ clear-easy to understand and follow□ too wordy- but could be followed□ confusing- hard to understand and follow□ other-____________________________________________________

NOTE: Please circle- on the survey itself- and any words or phrases in the direction that were confusing.3. When reading the survey items:

□ all words were understandable□ some words were unfamiliar - but did not affect my ability to answer□ many words were unfamiliar and my ability to answer some of the items was adversely affected□ other -____________________________________________________

NOTE: piease circle - on the survey its e lf- a ii words that were unfamiliar or confusing4. Please list the number of any survey item(s) that you feel was (were) unclear or ambiguous. What changes could be made to correct or improve it (them)?

5. Please list the number of any survey item(s) that you feel was (were) irrelevant. Should this (these) item(s) be omitted from the survey?

6. Please list the number of any survey item(s) that you feel should be omitted for any reason other than irrelevance. Please indicate why you feel it (they) should be omitted.

7. Please list any item(s) that you feel should be added to the survey.

8. Please make any further comments or suggestions.

Many thanks,Jeff Williamson


I I

69

Appendix D

Panel Cover Letter


70

Letter to Expert Panel MembersJanuary 12, 2004

Dear

To establish the validity of my research tool to be utilized in my dissertation, I am requesting your expert opinion to review and critique the enclosed survey. The intended results are to determine if the survey questions in the instrument serve the research objectives.

First, I will inform you the purpose of this study is to examine the strategic planning processes of Minnesota community and technical colleges from the perception of the chief academic and finance officers to determine to what extent the strategic planning process is effective in making decisions regarding program planning, financial allocations, facilities and technology management, and general decision making. This study will also determine what chief academic and finance officers perceive as barriers for effectively using the strategic plan in making decisions. Further this study will also determine to what extent chief academic and finance officers perceive that the MnSCU system influences their strategic planning process. Initially, I have constructed the questions related to the effectiveness and importance of the strategic planning process.

Since you are from a two year college in the Midwest and hold a position as either an academic or financial administrator, I greatly appreciate your constructive comments related to the survey. Please review the survey and respond using the critique sheet.

I would ask that all critiques be returned by January 17, 2004. Upon completion of this study I will be glad to share the findings with you.

Respectfully,

Jeffery D. Williamson 1638 South Shore Dr. Worthington Mn. 56187


I . i

71

Appendix E

Cover Letter to Administrators


72

Cover Letter to Chief academic and finance officers Requesting Participation

January 2004

Dear Administrator,

As a doctoral candidate at the University of South Dakota, I request your institutional participation in a study to the examine the strategic planning processes of Minnesota community and technical colleges from the perception of the chief academic and finance officers to determine to what extend the strategic planning process is effective in making decisions regarding program planning, financial allocations, facilities and technology management, and general decision making. This study will also determine what chief academic and finance officers perceive as barriers for effectively using the strategic plan in making decisions. Further this study will also determine to what extend chief academic and finance officers perceive that the MnSCU system influences their strategic planning process.

If you agree to participate, your involvement will include the completion of the survey will serve as the informal consent to participate in this study. The survey should take ten minutes to complete. Please be assured that your response will be confidential. Participation in this study is voluntary and you have the right to withdraw at any time. The surveys are coded to assist in compiling the data, your name and school will not be used in any of the reports. The code will be destroyed upon receipt of the completed survey. A follow up survey will be sent three weeks following the first mailing of the survey. If you have any questions, you may contact Dr. Karen Card, my advisor, at (605) 667-5815 or me at (507) 376-4015. If you have any questions about your rights as a human subject, you may call the Human Subjects coordinator, Dr. James Richardson at the University of South Dakota at (605) 677-6184.

Thank you for your time and consideration, your participation is greatly appreciated. Upon completion of this study I will be glad to share the findings with you. If so, please insert your name and address or business card.

Respectfully

Jeffery D. WilliamsonThis study is being conducted under the direction and approval of the student’s doctoral committee.


chief academic and finance officers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of strategic planning in...

Documents