In a recent post, I highlighted the metaphor of the moose on the table, the corollary to the elephant in the room that everyone knows is there, but rarely will anyone discuss it. Those that do, at times, learn about the old gaslight trick.

This post highlights the much bandied and celebrated, but generally useless Strategic Plan. This fluffy friendly critter of many an organization, came about around the time that the typewriter pictured above was clacking and circulating.

A couple points to highlight.

First, the etymology and literal definition of “strategy” relates to the military. The word comes directly from Greek strategia “office or command of a general,” from strategos “general, commander of an army.”

The present-day definition is not much different.

Strategy (ˈstra-tə-jē):

1 a. the science and art of employing the political, economic, psychological, and military forces of a nation or group of nations to afford the maximum support to adopted policies in peace or war.

b: the science and art of military command exercised to meet the enemy in combat under advantageous conditions.

2. a careful plan or method.

3. the art of devising or employing plans or stratagems toward a goal.

_ _ _ _ _

Second, a few searches on the goo-machine reveals no shortage of chronologies on where and how “Strategic Planning” became the multi-sector encompassing, and consultant bank account-filling, process that it is now. Many point to the 1950s and 60s as the early era of strategic planning, arising in US-based corporations, after World War II. All that “strategic planning” had won the war - must be good for business; thought many.

Many signs point to the Harvard Business school, especially in the use and incorporation of the systematic analysis of: strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) - a key component of strategic planning. A post on the Brittanica website (remember when those came to your door, not to your mouse click?) suggests that:

“Strategic planning clearly defines the purpose of the organization and establishes realistic goals and objectives consistent with that mission in a defined time frame within the organization’s capacity for implementation.”

Maybe this is where things got lost in the forest, or, just plain lost. Just like encyclopedias don’t get delivered door-to-door anymore - strategic plans have lost those critical pieces in the quote above, such as “realistic goals” with “defined time frames” and “organizational capacity for implementation”?

I wonder if at some point Brittanica had the evolution of the Internet, and Wikipedia, in their corporate strategic plans? Times change, and thus, so do the tools.

It is quite remarkable that a high-school student, a first year business school student, anyone doing a business plan - will contemplate the good ‘ol SMART approach to goals. Specific. Measurable. Achievable. Realistic. Time-bound.

I’ve come to appreciate the further addition to these, SMART-ER goals. Add on Evaluation and Re-do.

The concept of SMART goals has been around since at least the early 1980s.

Take a tour of post-secondary education institutions, maybe those in BC, see how many have a Strategic Plan with SMART goals. Add to that, how many have a process for evaluating the goals, or, at a minimum the Strategic Plan itself.

Here is an Institution Directory at Post-Secondary BC. There is a link to each institutions’ website. One can generally find the Strategic Plan in the “About” tab.

Maybe this is a situation of post-secondary administrators suggesting, and demonstrating, to students: “do as we say, not as we do”?

_ _ _ _ _ _

Third, the evolution of strategic planning suggests that in the 1980s, it became more prevalent in the public sector and with non-profit organizations - including post-secondary.

In the U.S., post-secondary has some checks-and-balances through a pretty rigorous accreditation system. There are six main accrediting bodies set up regionally. Some Canadian post-secondary institutions (in BC: Capilano, SFU, and TRU) have received accreditation from these US-based bodies. Within this accreditation process is the need for institutional planning, as well as evidence of implementation. However, there does not appear to be any mention in the six accrediting bodies of actually requiring a ‘strategic plan’ - just mention of planning in general, and often of the ‘integrated’ kind.

Plus any planning in the institution, is expected to be connected to systems of quality assurance in services and programs - as well as in the plans themselves.

The equivalent does not exist in Canada - partially due to the structure of the Constitution and the separation of powers between the federal and provincial governments (Sections 90 & 91). Education is a provincial responsibility, including post-secondary. However, important to point out, Canada is one of the few federated countries without federal/national oversight or a Minister of Education. This also then means no national accreditation standards. The provincial processes are a bit of a patchwork quilt.

In the BC, there is a process underway called a Quality Assurance and Process Audit (QAPA), which is mandated by the Ministry of Advanced Education. This has only come to play in the last few years, and is suggested to be on an 7-year cycle for each institution in the province. The ‘audit’ is carried out by a panel of post-secondary peers (similar to accreditation in the US) and includes a ‘self-study’ by the institution, which is scrutinized by the panel of peers. The QAPA panel then analyzes, in-depth at least 3-5 specific programs within a post-secondary institution and focusses on how that post-sec institution actually reviews programs and carries out quality assurance.

It doesn’t review the programs for quality. It is an audit of process, not of actual quality within academic programs.

Nowhere in QAPA is there a requirement for post-secondary institutions to have a Strategic Plan. It appears that strategic planning in post secondary may actually be a herd mentality. Something that Canadian scholar Mintzberg was highlighting about strategic plans in general, in the 1990s. Strategic plans generally mimic others.

Look to the natural world and one can see mimicry is often a strategy to stay alive.

This leads to the next part on why strategic planning in post secondary will always fail. Or, maybe more accurately, be like a limp, ineffective personal greeting.

_ _ _ _ _

The fourth point has to do with cameral systems. No, not camera… well… actually, sort of.

cam·er·al (ˈkam(ə)rəl)

of or relating to a legislative or judicial chamber.

The word cameral, has the same etymology (or roots) as camera, comes from Medieval Latin camera “a chamber, public office, treasury,” in classical Latin “a vaulted room”

When you hear or read the phrase “in-camera” that goes to the roots of the original meaning. It means to retreat into a chamber for a private discussion. Many post-secondary Boards have public meetings, and other components of their meetings that are conducted in-camera, essentially retreating to a private chamber.

Chamber and camera have the same etymological roots. From Old French chambre “room, chamber, apartment” (11c.); from Late Latin camera “a chamber, room”. The present word camera, meaning a ‘picture taking device’ evolved from camera obscura meaning a “dark chamber” (a black box with a lens that could project images of external objects). Essentially, early cameras were little black chambers that evolved into what they are today.

Imagine, now one can buy a small black box that not only has multiple camera obscuras, but also a device that captures voices from afar - a tele (far) - phone (sound, voice), and, sights from afar (tele-vision).

This leads to a critical point on why strategic plans will always fail in post-secondary - or to be fair, almost always.

Most universities and colleges in Canada operate on a bicameral system. This means that there are two separate chambers - like the Canadian government, which has an upper chamber (the Senate) and a lower chamber (the House of Commons). Many democratic governments operate on this type of system; it is supposed to introduce checks-and-balances into government and governance, as well as into democracy. Some of this evolved out of England to provide distinction between the nobility and clergy from the common people.

As shared in a recent post, most post-secondary institutions in Canada also have two chamber checks-and-balances - a bicameral governance system. There are a few exceptions, but not many.

A Board of Governors (or Directors) and a Senate (or Academic Council), or in BC colleges an Education Council. The Board generally looks after fiscal, financial, administrative matters, and the Senate or Academic/Education council is expected to look after academic matters.

_ _ _ _ _

In comparison, corporations are essentially a unicameral governance system. There is only one chamber, the Board of Directors - and, they are paid. The BoD is the primary stakeholder influencing corporate governance and decision-making. Generally, Directors are elected by shareholders, or, appointed by other board members. Overall they are intended to represent the shareholders of the company; and they are generally compensated well to do this.

Well… the word “plan” by definition means: “a detailed proposal for doing or achieving something” - for example, a Peace plan intends to achieve, well… peace. Or in another dictionary definition, to plan: “to think carefully about a series of actions that you need to take in order to achieve something.”

“Something” seems to be prevalent here, alongside “achieve”.

Thus, with the absolute plethora of ‘strategic plans’ that are in existence, and have been in existence, there should be, in turn, an absolute gold mine of evidence on how excellent such-and-such strategic plan was, is, or has been. Long lists of the things achieved - No?

In this day in age of evidence-informed decision making and evidence-based decision making - leaders of organizations everywhere should have a mountain of ‘strategic plans’ to choose from, along with the requisite evaluation that was done along the way, and afterwards, like… for example, to inform the next ‘strategic plan’.

Wouldn’t that be ‘strategic’?

Say for example, those in the military that study old battles and maps to inform their strategies of today. What worked? What didn’t work? Why, or why not? What did the losing commander miss strategically? What did the winning army have? Was the battle won because of superior strategy? Or luck?

I’m still looking… and I’ve increased my search criteria… it now also includes the latest and greatest in academia - Strategic Enrolment Management, or a Strategic enrolment plan (that’s for a future post). Yet, my database is small. Actually… there isn’t one. Still searching for strategic success.

Why is my database empty? Because strategic planning is largely an exercise in sheep herding. If one sheep is doing it, then it must be good for all the other sheep. Wouldn’t want to look like a goat in a sheep herd…

“Strategic planning”, even in a somewhat simpler governance system - e.g. corporate governance, or, unicameral - fails far more than it works. Imagine if planes had the same success rate as strategic plans? No one would fly.

I’d be thrilled if anyone reading this could send me documented examples of successful and effective strategic plans. Like, for example, ones that achieved what they said they would; that ‘some-thing’. Or, better yet, how about one that was adapted mid-plan and achieved the new-thing; that thing that was not initially identified. Say, like, for example, that pandemic that blitzed the institution mid-plan.

(I’m foreseeing my inbox will be overflowing).

One of the fundamental stumbling blocks is that ‘strategic plans’ are generally fluffier than a sheep in full wool season. There is little that sticks to the old acronym of SMART. However, there are a lot of beautiful colors, and photos of happy students, slogans, verbiage, and the like. Yet, at the end of it all, the ‘plan’ that is supposed to provide details about achieving a thing… fades away into the sunset. Floating on pillows of fluffy sheep wool clouded in mission vision falling over everyone’s eyes with endless verbose value propositions that say some-things, yet, often not much at all.

The process of the ER in SMART-ER; well, why would we do that.

“No time to explore problems of the last plan, let’s get on with the solutions of the next plan.”
“That last plan was Churchill’s… let’s get on with Eisenhower’s, it will get us where we need to go.”

Here’s an exercise for fun. Have someone cut-and-paste the Mission and Values statements from 5-8 post-secondary institutions, including the one you work at. Put them randomly on a piece of paper, or digital survey, send them to students and staff at your post-secondary institution, with two simple asks:

Can you please circle the mission and values of our post-secondary institution?
Can you please go through the list of statements here and cross off all the statements that could be universally applied to any post-secondary institution.

After the second exercise, I can almost guarantee there will be little left on the paper, not crossed out.

_ _ _ _ _ _

Post-secondary institutions are now awash in “Plans” (most with the applied verbiage of every other institution.)

Maybe it shouldn’t be missed that the etymology of ‘plan’ means flat surface. A plan is that which is drawn on a flat surface.

Yet, the reality of post-secondary environments is that they are dynamic, fluid, multi-dimensional spaces and places, now networked globally and through the metaverse. However, their purpose is clear, and rather singular. Rhymes with prudent… starts with an “s”.

Turning back to the natural world for a moment. It’s not very flat. When one takes that reality and puts it on a flat surface, like paper (e.g. map) - much is lost, if not all. Google maps does not maketh the road trip. Although it can be helpful… if you know where you want to get to. (It provides specifics, like distances and times).

A strategic plan in a bicameral governance system, shouldn’t it, theoretically, be heavily invested in, and by, both governance chambers (fiscal-administrative & academic)? And more, not just in the ‘planning’ part, but in the implementation part, the evaluation part, and the rinse-and-repeat part as the new ‘strategic plan’ takes shape.

I can hear the collective groans of post-secondary Executives everywhere with the prospect of having to run a ‘planning’ process through both chambers of the cameral system. Is that collective groan maybe not highlighting some symptoms of the issue? Like a runny nose a potential early sign of Covid? Impending challenges?

The problem is… that to plan means to de-limit options; to make decisions and eliminate options. Planning is inherently about making choices - just like mapping. What goes on the map, what stays off? Can’t put it all on there, like the bird in the tree, or, do we map low tide, or, high tide? Do maps of the ocean include the waves?

Here’s a parallel allegory: When I chose, and then planned to get married and raise children - that then also meant I could not remain single and childless at the same time. Limit and de-limit.

Doing actual planning and engagement in a complex, and slowww governance process, is akin to sitting and waiting and watching the grass grow before the first cut of the spring. And in that process in the north, one has to watch the snow melt first…

Maybe that’s a sign that the square-rectangular strategic plan was not intended for two separate swirling, cycling cameral systems?

_ _ _ _ _

Post-secondary institutions, and other public sector agencies, love the org chart. It gives a perception of cleanness and clear chains of command (like the military). There’s nice boxes, and straight lines, and bold titles.

In reality, organizations simply don’t work that way. First, you ever seen both bicameral bodies clearly laid out in a post-secondary org chart - together? Nope.

Post-secondary, like many organizations, have some messiness. Executive members regularly reach across the org chart to rattle the box of someone not in their tree, but another Executive’s decision tree. Many bemoan the ‘personal agendas’ in governance processes, annual budget discussions can revert to bickering like that of who gets picked for the school yard game, and so on.

And where do faculty members fit on the org chart? Reporting to Deans? To department chairs? Well, yes, and… well, no.

For teaching load and schedules, that’s Dean’s and VP Academic’s purview, as well as other departments. For curriculum, course content, and other ‘academic’ components, that navigates Senate or Education Council governance, or, maybe even Program Advisory Committees (with community and industry players). In some ways, faculty can operate like independent contractors within an institution - and many have months of holidays in a year. That doesn’t “map” well on a flat org chart, that is generally missing key governance mechanisms in the ‘chart of the organization’.

This does not even get into the other ‘shadow hierarchies’ that criss-cross through academic institutions. For example, those that control and produce the “data” - the great black box within any institution. In some cases, these departments report directly to Presidents - and in others, VPs in charge of planning or institutional effectiveness (curious term); and in others, they can be free-floating teams wielding inner secrets and workings of institutions. Such as calculations of Full-time equivalents (FTEs) and the like, which are attached to funding formulas.

from: Leventhal Map & Education Center at the Boston Public Library

On the coast, where I grew up, a chart is a map. A map of the pitfalls, perils, and possibilities of coastlines. Why?

Well… because that’s its purpose.

Why are there sea monsters and mermaids?

To fill empty space and to decorate.

And, to suggest the mapmaker was not sure what was out there.

It’s not to indicate that in fact mermaids navigate the North Pacific. It’s pretty filler.

Like all the color and photos in post-secondary plans. Look at all those smiling faces; everything is awesome.

_ _ _ _ _

Here’s one last messy component related to why ‘strategic plans’ in post-secondary will continue to be fluffy pretty space fillers on book shelves and websites. The life cycle of those that permeate the spaces, and for how long.

A student, may be 2 to 6 years, depending on the institution and programming. At some colleges, it may be one or two courses. Similar with online programming.
A Senior Administrator and/or a Dean, probably five year institutional life span tops - watch the churn of administrators and deans through institutions (myself included). It’s almost as regular as the cycle of moons and tides, just not as predictable.
An Executive member - you may be hard pressed to find any that are in position longer than a standard strategic plan (five years)… most likely a minority of those have lasted that long..
A Board member - in Canada, volunteer and limited terms over a few years (with zero criticism for the efforts put in by dedicated volunteers, but it’s a time limited offer).
Senate - limited terms and limited terms over only a few years. Not volunteer positions, and part of members day jobs in institutions.
And then the generally the single main driver of a ‘strategic plan’ - the President. Another source of churn at most post-secondary institutions.

There is actually a dearth of analysis on university and college presidents in Canada. However, a 2014 article in Canadian Public Admin journal pointed to some surprising results on how many left prior to 3 years in office. I can imagine, with a few exceptions, that the standard life span in an institution is close to the standard strategic plan - five years. Come in, develop new strategic plan over first year or so, try to get in place, pursue a few items, depart. Next president comes in, gets rid of Napoleon’s strategies, and implement Charlemagne’s. Way better, way clearer.

On the whole, most likely the most stalwart, long-standing members of post-secondary… faculty.

_ _ _ _ _ _

My recent post highlighting the independent reviewers reports of Laurentian University, which was forced into creditor-protection proceedings last year after years of financial mismanagement, highlights one of the absurdities of ‘Strategic Plans’ in post-secondary. (RECOMMENDED READING FOR CANADIAN POST-SECONDARY SECTOR. IT'S ABOUT THE MOOSE. WHAT MOOSE?)

For one, the independent reviewers found that most Administrators they spoke to at LU, could not place their work within the context of the current Strategic Plan. Imagine that. The Strategic plan that is currently in place for that institution, is the same strategic plan that was in place as the institution entered creditor protection to avoid bankruptcy. At the time of filing for protection, LU was over $300 million in debt. In comparison, it reports that it has about 7,000 students.

Cycle back to the top of this post… strategic planning is supposed to establish realistic goals consistent with the mission of the institution, within a specific time frame, and, within the organization’s capacity. Finances are a critical component of organization’s capacity, no?

_ _ _ _ _

To wrap up here. Suggestions for alternatives?

Post-secondary in Canada, to the most part, is funded by government. Generally to the tune of 50% of overall budgets. With government funding, comes government reporting. It’s significant; it happens monthly, quarterly, bi-annually, and annually (generally no further). It’s onerous; however, when the majority of one’s bread is buttered by certain players, we provide feedback on their bread, their butter, and the wrapping they came in. That’s not going to change.

Rather than institutions and leadership setting up more ‘things’ (e.g. plans) that outline more ‘somethings’ (e.g. goals - although most plans don’t do this well), that need to be reported on, measured, debated, discussed, and then lost into the ether because they’re so clichéd and fluffy - put those resources towards the core business of post-secondary: education and students, and when appropriate, research.

I know, it’s revolutionary thinking… : /

In the current age, how many Administrators does it take to develop a: Strategic Plan, Academic Plan, Indigenization Plan, International Plan, Strategic Enrolment Management Plan, Facilities Plan, IT Plan, Organizational Development Plan, and so on?

Simple answer: a lot. The entire process of multiple plans and planning processes, is the inherent justification for many administrators.

Not only does it take a lot of administrators and planners to develop (and administrate) all of these plans and planning - many plans are now done by outside consultants that specialize in these areas. Through the pandemic, more of these have gone to online input forums.

Endless hand-wringing and committee meetings to discuss the metrics, the KPIs, the measurables, the data, and otherwise. The reality is that all of these ‘plans’ become their own circulating solar systems, orbiting around each other, with the occasional interaction of a few of the plans, as one leaves a crater in the body of the other.

These plans then begin to need an organizational chart of their own. Then as one Executive member leaves, their orbiting planet becomes little more than an asteroid that disintegrates on re-entry into the new Executive’s planetary plan.

I recognize it’s a rather cynical and stark analysis here; however, it has gone on too long. My perspective comes from sitting in at least three of the roles highlighted in this article: student, faculty, and administrator.

There are better options; like, for example Scenario Planning. There are varied approaches to this, however, it is based upon understanding context - strategic planning is not. Post-secondary institutions are not in a war or military conflict. Often times a “competitor” is also a partner - certainly the case in northern and north-central BC and probably other more rural-based institutions.

For a student, the relationship between one institution and another is that of pathway and tool. The path to the core purpose of post-secondary: an education, and generally a credential.

Post-secondary institutions serve a core purpose: students and learning. The single largest interaction point for institutions with students: faculty.

Why not focus there first?

The evidence base for strategic planning is not a strength of their existence. They will continue to fail what they are in fact intended to be, and intended to do, within post secondary institutions. They have become neither plans; nor strategic.

Times change; tools change. Time for these particular tools to change.

Why strategic planning has failed, and will always fail in post-secondary institutions

Strategy (ˈstra-tə-jē):

cam·​er·​al (ˈkam(ə)rəl)

International education tuition in public post-secondary in Canada and budgetary houses of cards?

Recommended reading for Canadian post-secondary sector. It's about the moose. What moose?

cam·er·al (ˈkam(ə)rəl)