Machado2004The Status of Strategic Planning in

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/234721141
Strategic Planning in Portuguese Higher Education

Institutions
Article · January 2005
CITATIONS READS
5 319
4 authors, including:
Maria De Lourdes Machado-Taylor

CIPES- Centre For Research In Higher Education Policies
366 PUBLICATIONS 1,200 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
"An Examination of Academic Job Satisfaction and Motivation in Portuguese Higher Education"- ESMAESP View project
Corruption and Academic Dishonesty in Higher Education View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Maria De Lourdes Machado-Taylor on 19 June 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Higher Education Policy, 2004, 17, (383–404)
r 2004 International Association of Universities 0952-8733/04 $30.00
www.palgrave-journals.com/hep
The Status of Strategic Planning in Portuguese

Higher Education Institutions: Trappings or
Substance?
Maria de Lourdes
c
Machadoa, Minoo Farhangmehrb and James
Stover Taylor
a
Centre for Research on Higher Education Policies, Council of Rectors of Portuguese Universities,
Portugal.
E-mail: lmachado@cipes.up.pt
b
University of Minho, Portugal.
c
University of Aveiro, Center for Research on Higher Education Policies, Portugal.
Economic, regulatory and social pressures are challenging higher education

institutions (HEIs) in the 21st century. Strategic planning is a frequently used
method for implementing appropriate institutional responses to changing internal
and external conditions. The degree to which strategic planning is being utilized is
an important predictor of institutional vitality and prosperity. This article draws on
a national study recently conducted on strategic planning throughout Portuguese
HEIs. Participants came from public and private universities, polytechnic institutes
and other establishments. Data included interviews, an extensive survey and
documentary evidence. Research indicates many institutions are engaged in a
process of planning to various degrees, and many of those that are not, wish to
integrate it into their policy development arsenal. However, claims of strategic
planning implementation are tempered by data from the study, which analyzed how
far key factors in strategic planning had been addressed by the institutions
examined. Accordingly, the number of institutions that can legitimately be
classified as strategic planners is incongruent with the self-reported findings of
the data. A critical discussion from both institutional and system perspectives are
brought to bear on the findings.
Higher Education Policy (2004) 17, 383–404. doi:10.1057/palgrave.hep.8300064
Keywords: Portuguese higher education; strategic planning
Introduction
Higher education represents one of the oldest institutions in the world.
Throughout history, academic institutions have sought to respond to the
demands of endlessly changing and evolving environmental conditions. The
global economy of today demands the development of management
capabilities, innovation strategies and competitive advantages within the
Maria de Lourdes Machado et al
Status of strategic planning in Portuguese higher education
384
higher education enterprise. Institutions have to be prepared for the challenges

of a highly competitive and ever-increasing global market that is in a constant
state of flux. Institutions of higher education are not exempt from this
overwhelming trend. Education in general, and higher education in particular,
is a factor of great importance to the development of this dynamic trans-
national metamorphosis. Higher education is a mainstay in the development
and support of the economic, social and cultural development of our world
(Kerr, 1994; Dill and Sporn, 1995; Peterson, 1995, 1999; Meek et al., 1996;
Neave, 1996; Teichler, 1996; Scott, 1998; Sadlak, 2000; Castells, 2001;
Farhangmehr et al., 2001; OECD, 2002; Kwiek, 2003).
The prescriptive literature strongly advocates strategic planning as the key to
superior institutional and system performance. This process focuses on strategic
and operational goals, objectives and strategies based on organizational policies,
programs and actions designed to achieve the institution’s aims and desired
results. It is argued that it is an extremely important tool for organizational
effectiveness (Keller, 1983; Steeples, 1988; van Vught, 1988; Hunt et al., 1997;
Peterson, 1999; Taylor et al., 2001; Stembridge, 2001; Austin, 2002; Hayward
and Ncayiyana, 2003; Whitlock, 2003). Strategic planning can help organizations
clarify their future direction, develop a coherent basis for the decision-making
process, establish priorities, improve organizational performance and, overall,
think strategically (Bryson, 1988; Ansoff and McDonell, 1990). This literature
would support the contention that institutions that correctly implement strategic
plans are more likely to be successful. While there are numerous testimonials of
the many benefits of planning as described in the literature from intuitive and
conceptual points of view, the empirical evidence is far from conclusive
(Birnbaum, 2000). Moreover, no studies to date have been conducted in the
setting or unique context of the Portuguese higher education system.
European Perspective
Much of the literature on strategic planning in higher education is from the
USA. There are notable contributions from Europe. Strategic management
and planning was recommended in 1998 by The European University
Association (formerly the Conference of Rectors of Europe, CRE). With a
document authored by Tabatoni and Barblan (1998) and published by CRE,
recommendations concerning principles and practices of strategic management
in universities to develop a model to reinforce institutional integration were
widely dispersed throughout the European higher education community. After
this Guide came a follow-up publication in August 2002, Thema no 2, by
Tabatoni et al. entitled, ‘Strategic Management and Universities’ Institutional
Development’.
Higher Education Policy 2004 17
385
In 1989, Mehallis questioned if the United States’ models could be successful

in European universities. de Boer and Maassen (1994) noted the intent of
European Union universities to strengthen their credibility globally, identified
emerging actions to initiate and stimulate strategic planning. Conway et al.
(1994) conducted an exploratory study to discover the degree to which new
universities and higher education colleges in the United Kingdom applied a
market orientation to their strategic planning. In Norway, Larsen and
Gornitzka (1995), in a study about the impact of planning at Norwegian
universities, found some change particularly with regard to the clarifying of
priorities at the departmental level. McNay (1997) studied strategic planning
and management for higher education in Central and Eastern Europe. He
recognized the need for strategic planning within universities and other
institutions of higher education in order to be more proactive. In 1997,
Kriemadis in Greece examined ‘Strategic Planning in Higher Education
Athletic Departments’ with an analysis of its several components presented.
Sporn (1999) analyzed the broader, all-embracing concept of institutional
adaptation in both the US and European universities using case studies. The
findings and implications clearly supported the need for institutional planning
as a sub-set of adaptation and change. More recently, Brennan and Shah
(2000, 39–40) refer to a French university with a strong international research
reputation as a case study in planning wherein the authors point ‘yto the rise
in student enrollments, the diversification of programmes, and the demand for
vocationally oriented training and changing pedagogical practices, including
the use of multimedia techniques’. Mora (2001) called for strategic planning
within Spanish higher education institutions. Ball (2001) presented an enquiry
entitled, ‘The History of Strategic Planning in British Universities’ and noted
that strategic planning helped promote institutional diversity, giving institu-
tions a clearer perspective of their range of development options. Pratt (2001)
referred positively to the planning process, implemented at Oxford Brookes
University in the UK, where some institutional sentiment speaks of the
university being ‘planning overwhelmed’. A project on higher education
governance and management in South East Europe by UNESCO-CEPES and
the European Commission produced four publications. The second, by Taylor
and Miroiu (2002), summarized the outcomes as integration, coordinated
networking, strengthening of individual HEIs and financial management based
on autonomy and accountability.
Portuguese Higher Education

Portuguese universities originate in the middle of the 11th century. Early in the
1970s, with the exception of artistic education, higher education consisted in
386
four universities — Coimbra, Lisbon, the Technical University of Lisbon and

Porto. From 1970 to April of 1974, corresponding to the period known as ‘The
Reforma Veiga Simão’, new universities and polytechnic institutes were
created. After April of 1974 (Revolution of April), the law creating Polytechnic
Higher Education was published in 1979; however, most dated from the late
1980s.
In 1986, with the publication of the Comprehensive Law of the Education
System, two subsystems of higher education, namely universities and
polytechnic institutes, were initiated. Portuguese higher education today is
organized into public and non-public HEIs. In the public sector are
universities, polytechnic institutes, military and police schools. Private and
cooperative higher education includes universities and other establishments.
There is also a multi-campus Catholic university with special status (see
Table 1).
From the early 1980s to the present, the number of students enrolled in
public and private higher education in Portugal quadrupled to a 2002/2003
total of 395,478. Public higher education is the largest component of
Portuguese higher education, with the majority of students, 285,362 — that
is, 72.16% of the total national enrolment. The category of other establish-
ments numbers 106 HEIs, many containing only a few hundred students each.
A number of strategic issues come to mind with respect to Portuguese higher
education. First is the broad concept of European integration. Research
collaboration, interdisciplinary curricular developments, business–institutional
partnerships and trans-national degrees are a few of the issues facing the
Table 1 Number of Portuguese higher education institutions
Higher education Type of institution Number of institutions
Public higher education

Universities and university institutes 15a
Polytechnic institutes 15
Other polytechnic schools 2
Nursing and health schools 18
Military and police schools 6b
Private and co-operative higher education

Universities 9
Other establishments 98
Catholic university
Catholic university 1
a
Two public universities (Algarve and Aveiro) include polytechnic schools.
b
Four university schools and two polytechnic schools.

387
contemporary HEI. This, of course, requires institutional as well as national

vigilance. According to Arroteia (1996, 10): ‘The panorama of Portuguese
higher education is considered in terms of a steady growth in the education
system and diversity of courses, along with enormous needs of a duly qualified
teaching staff and this fact is reflected not only in the preparation of the
graduates but also in the organizational and scientific culture of these
institutions’. This exemplifies the essence of institutional quality. It can become
reality if a strategic plan drives the process, defines the road and sets the
course; or it can simply end up in myth with rhetoric and uncharted
meanderings leading nowhere and everywhere. The government is engaged in
public discussion on Portuguese higher education that will, hopefully, bring
new and proactive legislation into place. Clearly, from the authors’ point of
view, this ought to include further advances toward institutional autonomy
and a national strategic plan for public and private higher education.
To provide additional perspective and underline the circumstances and need
for action on the part of Portuguese higher education, a few statistics from the
OECD (2002) are presented. OECD data covering 30 countries suggest that
Portugal vies for last place with Turkey at 9% in terms of the percentage of the
population aged 25 to 64, completing a higher education degree. Among the
younger adult population aged 25 to 34, the findings are slightly better.
Portugal ranks 26th out of 30 with a 14% rate. Only the Slovak Republic,
Italy, the Czech Republic and Turkey were lower. Arguably one of the best
ways to redirect a visionless process, adrift and rudderless in the winds of
change is to establish a strategic model to provide guidance, direction and
cohesion to the higher education enterprise. Ultimately, this depends upon
government, leadership and higher education stepping forward in a legitimate
effort to create improvements.
Substantive Criteria for Planning

Self-reported claims have to be scrutinized for their veracity through cross-
checking and weighing the evidence. In this study, the broad overarching
concept of planning was rendered into more operational terms for analysis.
Planning considered strategic in nature should be differentiated from
institutional planning. ‘Planning is about defining where we want to go —
or what we want to be — and how we want to get there’ (Rose, 2003, 1).
According to Kaufman (1995) planning implies choosing between passive
inaction and proactive engagement. There are many definitions of strategic
planning. Change is a central factor. Parker, (1994, 393) described two factors
as competing in the process of change ‘The first is that change is the only true
constant. The second is that individuals and organizations routinely deny this
388
reality, believing that the status quo is both permanent and desirable. The
inertia of this denial must contend with the momentum of change.’ Strategic
planning is the means to achieve this end. Strategic planning is perceived as a
continuous process, an externally responsive approach to an ever-changing
environment that requires constant adaptation on the part of the institution
(Cope, 1981; Keller, 1983; Peterson, 1995, 1999; Ball, 2001; Austin, 2002).
Kaufman (1996) viewed strategic planning as a way of creating the future
rather than waiting for the reality of change to overtake the organization.
McCune (1986, 34) defined strategic planning as ‘ya process for organiza-
tional renewal and transformation’. Strategic planning focuses on adaptive
change or change motivated by the external environment. Such change reflects
institutional responses to environmental pressures, both internal and external
(Lovinguth, 1996).
This study focuses on the opinions and perceptions of institutional leaders
regarding planning. Their viewpoints and understanding of it are central to
institutional effectiveness. As Benveniste (1989, 26 suggested, ‘ythe normative
literature on strategic planningy is careful to insist on the importance of the
CEO in the planning process. The planner must work closely with the CEO. In
fact, the CEO may be the real planner’. Moore (2001, 13) added that ‘For
planning to succeed, the involvement and support of the president is essential.’
Clearly then, the leaders of institutions are the central focus to strategic
planning.
Obviously, the over-riding query is how far are institutions actively involved
in planning? To measure degree and type of involvement, plus the authenticity
of such claims, the substantive criteria for planning must be examined and
weighed against the responses received. If a legitimate planning process is in
place at an HEI, then the requisite, sequential components of planning will be
evident. It may be assumed the appropriate individuals within the institution
participate in the process. Further, known variables for internal institutional
and external environmental analysis should be present. A thorough analysis of
the level of operational presence of such criteria provides an index of how far
an HEI is legitimately participating in a process of planning. These criteria can
also be utilized to measure the extent a planning model is strategic in its
approach.
Methodology
The project comprised a nation-wide study of the extent to which HEIs were
engaged in the process of planning. Certain specialized schools focusing on
areas such as nursing and police were not included because they were in a
transitional state within the overall higher education organizational structure
389
and were non-classifiable. The purpose of the study was to measure the level of
HEI engagement in institutional planning as evidenced in the perceptions of
rectors and presidents, who were surveyed. Part of the design was to study the
process for those involved in strategic planning by looking at the components,
characteristics, strategies and goals that comprised this process. Finally, the
investigation examined the level of involvement of institutions and measured
the perceptions of institutional leaders about the benefits and effectiveness of
planning. The methodology involved developing, piloting and administering a
survey to rectors and presidents. Supplemental documentation was also
examined to the extent institutions provided it.
Within public higher education, with three times the students of private higher
education, 35.47% of the HEIs responded. Significantly, they represented
74.77% of all students enrolled in the public sector — a large and highly
representative sub-set of the overall sample. If we further dissect the public sector
sub-set of the sample, it shows 80% of the public universities are included, which
accounted for 82.87% of the students enrolled in public university higher
education. For polytechnic institutes, 93.33% are in the sample which is
effectively 90.49% of their student total. This large and highly representative
public sector sub-set of the sample is at the heart and soul of defining Portuguese
higher education. It provides strong support for the reliability and validity of the
overall sample and its findings. Finally, with over 100,000 students represented,
it should be noted that the private and cooperative sector within the sample
encompassed 55.57% of all students enrolled in their HEIs and added weight to
the sample. HEIs representing 74.77% of all students enrolled in Portuguese
higher education were surveyed (see Table 2).
Research Findings and Analyses

Of the 61 HEIs, 48 self-reported they were actively engaged in the general
process of planning. Interestingly, 100% of the public universities and 92.9%
of the polytechnic institutes made this claim. Only 50% of private HEIs and
69.2% of other establishments did so. See Table 3 for a breakdown by
institutional type.
In the remaining group of 13 HEIs stating they did not have a formal
planning process, three stated they had partial planning in place (see Table 4).
Thus, 48 institutions stated they had a formal planning process, plus three
with partial plans. The total sample, therefore, identifies 51 institutions with
some kind of planning. From a qualitative perspective based on interviews and
the authors’ personal knowledge of Portuguese higher education, it seems clear
the vast majority of those in leadership positions support the concept of
institutional planning and would like to advance the process further.
390
Table 2 Sample breakdown
Higher Type of Number of in- Number of stu- Number of Percentage of Number of Percentage of

education institution stitutions dents enrolled answering answering students students en-
2001/02 institutions institutions enrolled in the rolled in an-
answering swering
institutions institutions
Public higher 56 280,638 26 46.43 226,777 80.81

education
Universities 15a 171,014 12 80.00 141,727 82.87
and a university
institute
Polytechnic in- 15 93,990 14 93.33 85,050 90.49
stitutes
b b b b
Other polytech- 2 1,279
nic schools
b b b b
Nursing and 18 12,899
health schools
b b b b
Military and 6c 1,456
police schools
Private and co- 107 101,517 34 31.77 56,418 55.57

operative higher
education
Universities 9 41,331 8 88.89 33,126 80.15
Other establish- 98 60,186 26 26.53 23,292 38.70
ments
Catholic univer- 1 10,136 1 100 10,136 100

sity
Total 164 392,291 61 37.19 293,331 74.77

a
Two public universities (Algarve and Aveiro) include polytechnic schools.
b
Institutions not included in the study.
c
Four university schools and two polytechnic schools.
391
Table 3 The existence of planning by institutional type
Institution ‘The institution has a planning process?’ Total
Yes No
n Row % Col % n Row % Col % n Row % Col %
Public universities 13 100.0 27.1 13 100.0 21.3

Public polytechnics 13 92.9 27.1 1 7.1 7.7 14 100.0 23.0
Private universities 4 50.0 8.3 4 50.0 30.8 8 100.0 13.1
Other establishments 18 69.2 37.5 8 30.8 61.5 26 100.0 42.6
Total 48 78.7 100.0 13 21.3 100.0 61 100.0 100.0
Table 4 The existence of only partial plans by institutional type
Institution ‘The institution, while not having a formal strategic Total

plan, has partial plans?’
Yes No No response n Row % Col %
n Row % Col % n Row % Col % n Row % Col %
Public polytechnics 1 100.0 33.3 1 100.0 7.7

Private universities 1 25.0 33.3 3 75.0 42.9 4 100.0 30.8
Other establishments 1 12.5 33.3 4 50.0 57.1 3 37.5 100.0 8 100.0 61.5
Total 3 23.1 100.0 7 53.8 100.0 3 23.1 100.0 13 100.0 100.0
Most HEIs (62.7% out of 51 engaged in planning or partial planning)

indicated the process was a mixture of top-down and bottom-up planning, with
an emphasis on the former. This was the most frequent response for all
institutional types. This may reflect the fact that of the many groups possibly
involved in the process within an institution, the two most cited were the
rector/president followed by the vice rectors/vice presidents — the top of the
organizational hierarchy. No other categories came close to these two.
Institutional autonomy is clearly a necessary ingredient for the implementa-
tion of strategic planning. The degree to which institutions of different types
believed they had autonomy varied decidedly. This is set out in Table 5,
controlling for institutional type.
Leaders of HEIs surveyed were asked their perceptions of how the process
benefited the institution. A principal component factor analysis found four
392
Table 5 Degree of perceived autonomy by institutional type
Very high % High % Medium % Low % Very low %
Public universities 23.1 53.8 15.4 7.7

Public polytechnics 15.4 15.4 53.8 7.7 7.7
Private universities 40.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Other establishments 36.8 31.6 26.3 5.3
major factors explained the overall variance. Foremost, improvement of the

institution explained 20.94% of the variance. This factor had six indicators. All
four factors and their specific indicators, as well as their variances explained,
are shown in Table 6.
Despite planning being in place, difficulties and problems were experienced
by all HEIs. Factor analysis identified four factors that contributed to this —
Lack of Resources, Absence of Communication/Information, Conflict and
Fast Changes, and Lack of Time and Unfavorable Environment. The first two
explain 47.60% of the variance (see Table 7).
The critical criteria utilized in this study to ascertain whether an HEI was
engaged in a strategic planning process were based on the literature cited
previously. The variables assessed in the survey were:
(1) scanning of the external environment,
(2) assessing internal strengths and weaknesses,
(3) analyzing external opportunities and threats,
(4) identifying major directions (vision) that will guide the institution forward,
(5) establishing goals and objectives,
(6) developing strategies,
(7) allocating resources,
(8) evaluating results and
(9) utilizing performance indicators. While the survey instrument was far more
detailed, this overview provides the essential structure of the queries.
Finally, the data analysis looks at those institutions that, based on their
utilization of the specified criteria, were judged to be legitimately engaged in a
strategic planning process. A comparative analysis between percentages in
Table 3 above and Table 8, which follows, reveals interesting findings. From
the 13 public universities engaged in some form of planning, four met the
criteria for strategic planning (30.8%). The polytechnic institutes’ rates went
from 13 to 8 (57.1%). Private universities were reduced from four to three
(75%) and the other establishments went from 18 to 9 (50%). Thus, of the 61
HEIs surveyed, 48 institutions were engaged in some form of planning process,
Table 6 Perceptions regarding the benefits of planning
Factors Indicators Component

designation
1 2 3 4
Factor 1 — It helped in the development of activities that met the needs of the community 0.826
improvements
to the institution
It made an increase of creativity in the institution possible 0.710
It contributed to the integration of all activities consistent with the mission 0.660
of the institution
It contributed to the internal strengthening of the institution 0.656
It allowed for better optimization of resources 0.528

It made better internal coordination of the institution possible 0.510
Explained variance % 20.94
Factor 2 — Generally, it brought more benefits than costs for the institution 0.750
benefits/
motivation/

changes/
weaknesses and
problems
It helped motivate the people within the institution 0.684

It helped us create changes 0.557 0.564
It helped us to identify our institutional weaknesses and problems 0.535
It facilitated performance measures of each unit in accordance with already defined 0.521 0.511
and specific objectives
393
394
Table 6 (Continued)
Factors Indicators Component

designation
1 2 3 4
Factor 3 — It determined priorities for the future of the institution 0.794

future priorities/
management
It lead to transparent management 0.779
It contributed to cohesion between the different levels of management 0.559
It provided for more stability in an environment of constant change
It helped us to know the external environment better
Factor 4 — It helped us to know the institution better 0.870

institutional
knowledge
It helped us become conscious of the comparative advantages 0.667
Total variance=67.65%; KMO=0.785; Bartlett’s test of sphericity o0.001.

395
Table 7 Problems affecting the process of planning
Factors designation Indicators Factors
1 2 3 4
Factor 1 — lack of resources Lack of necessary 0.896

resources — Physical
Lack of necessary 0.880
resources —Technological
resources — Financial
resources — Human
Factor 2 — absence of Absence of communication 0.901

communication/information
Lack of information 0.869
Lack of engagement of the senior 0.748
administrators
Lack of motivation of involved 0.623 0.515
staff in its implementation
Factor 3 — conflict and Development of conflicts 0.760

fast changes
Tendencies for excessively fast 0.746
changes
Factor 4 — lack of time and Lack of time 0.774

environment unfavorable
Changes in the environment 0.541 0.628
unfavorable to the
implementation of the plan
Absence of an adequate 0.539 0.608
implementation process
Inconsistencies in the 0.510
planning process
Total variance=75%; KMO=0.785; Bartlett’s test of sphericity o0.001.

396
Table 8 The status of strategic planning by institutional type (institution * strategic planning
institutions crosstabulation)
Institution Institutions Total
Strategic Institutions
planning not engaged
institutions in strategic
planning
Public universities n 4 9 13
Row % 30.8 69.2 100.0
Column % 16.7 24.3 21.3
Total % 6.6 14.8 21.3
Polytechnic institutes n 8 6 14
Row % 57.1 42.9 100.0
Column % 33.3 16.2 23.0
Total % 13.1 9.8 23.0
Private universities n 3 5 8
Row % 37.5 62.5 100.0
Column % 12.5 13.5 13.1
Total % 4.9 8.2 13.1
Other establishments n 9 17 26
Row % 34.6 65.4 100.0
Column % 37.5 45.9 42.6
Total % 14.8 27.9 42.6
Total n 24 37 61
Row % 39.3 60.7 100.0
Column % 100.0 100.0 100.0
Total % 39.3 60.7 100.0
three more pursuing a partial process of planning and a final 24 (39.3%) that
were actually conducting strategic planning (see Table 8).
A great many internal and external variables can have an impact on the
strategic direction an institution ultimately pursues. For those HEIs engaged in
a planning process, 12 factors were noted as contributory to the directions the
institution chose to pursue. The most pronounced factors were Leadership,
Innovation and Budgetary Priorities, and the least notable was Families (see
Figure 1).
397
Presumably, institutions actively engaged in the planning process see benefits

from their efforts. When this question was posed, several factors stood out.
First and foremost, respondents said the process helped them to understand the
institution better. Four other strong responses involved determining future
priorities, cohesion between management levels, internal institutional strength-
ening and better awareness of the institution’s comparative advantages (see
Figure 2).
Each of these last figures reveals factors, essentially internal in nature, as
opposed to external. Institutional leadership, how budgets are allocated based
" Governmental regulations "

" Size of the institution "
" Innovation "
" Judgments of the scientific community "
" Expectations of future employers "
" Competition with other institutions of higher education "
" Needs of internationalization "
" Expectations of the academic staff "
" Families "
" Expectations of the students "
" Budgetary priorities "
" Leadership "
2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00 3.25

Mean
Figure 1. Factors that influence the direction of the institution.
" The strategic plan was used as a guide

in the development of the institution "
" The strategic plan was used to support the presidency/rectory

in the management of the institution "
" When the final planning document is finished, a budget

will be allocated to accomplish the plan "
" The resultant strategic plan was based more

on capacities than on aspirations "
3.00 3.20 3.40 3.60 3.80

Mean
Figure 2. Institutional benefits from the planning process.

398
Figure 3. Personal benefits from the planning process.
upon priorities, institutional innovation and the perception that planning

helped the HEI develop itself are all driven by internal forces and initiatives.
Other factors, while less pronounced, suggest a similar trend. Overall, these
figures suggest that planning might be essentially an independent exercise by
each institution.
This assumption is reinforced by the findings shown in Figure 3. Personal
benefits seen from engaging in planning were led by the fact it helped leaders
know the institution better. This was followed by the identification of
institutional priorities, better internal coordination, internal strengthening of
the HEI and awareness of comparative advantages.
Perspectives on the Portuguese case

Sporn (1999) points to planning as an appropriate first step toward
institutional change. Among the seven propositions for a theory of adaptation,
she suggests that adaptation:
(1) is initiated by environmental demands,
(2) requires clear institutional mission statements and goals,
(3) must be supported by shared governance and
(4) must have the commitment of strong leadership. Each of these is reflective
of important tenets within strategic planning models. Amaral et al. (2003)
pointed to the need for better management tools and processes to create
greater effectiveness and efficiency. Strategic planning would serve within
this role very well.
Throughout the world, higher education is evolving and literally transforming.
To be internationally competitive, Portugal needs to address contemporary
399
issues from a strategic platform of strength. Evidence presented earlier suggests

the need for proactive and progressive leadership and strategy at the
institutional and system-wide levels within Portugal. Findings from this study
provide more focused evidence of the need for strategic action at the
institutional level. Together, these positions represent a call to action. As
Marçal-Grilo (2003, 11), a former Minister of Education in Portugal, stated,
‘Only with strong leadership and strategic planning is it possible to increase the
role of the universities in our modern society.’
This is not a problem unique to Portugal, but it is no less an issue that must
be confronted and resolved within the country. A major problem for higher
education everywhere, as Tierney (2000) noted, is the realization that
administrators and faculties have not been very successful in handling change
and reform. Tierney further suggested five roadblocks to reform:
(1) a lack of agreement on the problem, its resolution and/or the responsible
individuals;
(2) unclear timeframes resulting in extended and confused processes;
(3) no evaluative criteria in the rush to finish the project;
(4) ineffective campus communication systems and
(5) rigidity when the system freezes and no one believes efforts toward change
will be productive.
While the specific analyses of this study examine strategic planning at the
institutional level, the implications can be applied more broadly. Strategic
planning represents a multi-layered, coordinated, well-communicated system
of goal identification and attainment that takes into consideration all relevant
internal and external factors. No individual institution can plan in isolation.
Planning is reality based and must be done within the parameters of larger
governing and legislative bodies. It is a highly participatory process and
requires many people at many levels to work in synchrony.
As the survey probed deeper into specific activities that reflect legitimate
aspects of planning, the number of HEIs steadily dropped. The total sample of
61 HEIs surveyed was reduced to 48 involved in planning, plus three engaged
in some kind of planning. Analyzing the process of planning, we find 24
pursuing the basic component steps of the process of planning and finally to a
strategic planning model. Of the initial rate of 78.6% of institutions assuring
they are engaged in planning, only 39.3% can be classified as strategic
planners. This is not an indictment of Portuguese HEIs. While directives and
pressures (primarily in the realm of funding allocations) create external forces
that encourage institutional planning, such influences are viewed as insufficient
to ensure successful planning. HEIs are still left on their own to develop
appropriate processes and execute them successfully, a situation which, more
importantly, fails to provide the multi-layered structure needed for a
400
coordinated national model. As stated earlier, HEIs should not be expected to

engage in institutional planning in isolation. A hierarchy that communicates
and coordinates guidance, vision and resources for success is needed. In our
view, this comprehensive planning structure does not exist in Portugal. Yet, it
only takes a short while and very few attempts at planning that fail for most
HEIs to abandon the effort as futile. Once an institution has tasted the bitter
pill of inordinate work and commitment to implement a planning process only
to see it end with no discernable changes or improvements, efforts to re-
energize the institution to try again are extremely difficult.
The Portuguese government requires documentation called ‘Planos de
Desenvolvimento’ (Development Plans), loosely defined as planning and which
are connected to funding allocations. The examples reviewed here revealed
wide variability in format, style, compatibility with a planning document
and quality, reflecting marked departure from the guidelines provided by
the Ministry. Most HEIs do not believe these documents are dealt with
seriously and are to some extent a waste of time. Yet, it is clear that failure to
submit this annual document would be fiscally irresponsible and costly.
Frustration grows. The will to create a more comprehensive institutional model
of planning slowly, but certainly, dissipates and ultimately vanishes. It is time
for change.
As Cerych and Sabatier (1986) pointed out, major changes in public policy in
general involve a three-step process. First, policy formulation occurs in an
effort to improve the current situation. Second, specific program development
and implementation is assigned to one or more entities. Finally, following the
evaluation of initial efforts, a period of reformulation is implemented. The
government of Portugal needs to assume, following Neave and van Vught
(1991), a ‘facilitative role’ in support of higher education without undue
intervention. The national leadership of higher education should take on the
role of coordination by bringing together the expertise of the higher education
community to develop an operational model for implementation. A dual
process whereby government lessens its bureaucratic controls and HEIs are
strengthened in terms of internal management and autonomy would be
important first steps (Goedegebuure et al., 1994). Institutional autonomy has
been increasing in Portugal consistent with the trend throughout continental
Europe (Amaral et al., 2002). This tends to suggest a positive indicator for the
future of Portuguese higher education.
Conclusion
Only time will tell whether a true reform, grounded in strategic planning, can
take place within Portuguese higher education. Time, unfortunately, is not on
401
Portugal’s side. The failure of legitimate leaders to step forward and make a
difference will impact on the Portuguese system of higher education for a long
time. Portugal cannot absorb this error of fundamental judgment. It calls for a
comprehensive strategic plan to guide Portugal successfully into the future.
Avaliação, revisão e consolidação da legislação do ensino superior (Evalua-
tion, Revision and Consolidation of Legislation in Higher Education) prepared
by Alberto Amaral (2003), Director of CIPES, at the request of the Ministry of
Science and Higher Education, was published with a request for comments and
feedback. Among the many received (see Amaral, 2003) were those of CRISES
(Colectivo para a Reflexão e Intervenção Sobre o Ensino Superior). They
pointed out that evaluation of institutional governance models for public
higher education is not exhaustive and lacks sufficient rigor. However, expert
opinion, with the support of public opinion, holds that higher education
governance models are too corporative, lack adequate professionalism and
inhibit strategic development. This results in inefficient use of limited resources
and an inability to promote institutional innovation.
Clearly, if strategic planning is to become firmly anchored within Portuguese
higher education, all of the significant actors should be involved and, more
important, committed to the process. According to Amaral and Teixeira
(1999), articulation between financing and development plans is absent. From
Parliament to Ministry to governing councils to institutions, a coordinated,
multi-level model of strategic planning is needed if Portugal wishes to maintain
its vitality and competitiveness within the international arena of higher
education. Actors at all levels must also understand that to maintain an
institution’s or system’s status quo is impossible. As competitors advance and
prosper, by default, an enterprise that is static falls behind. The OECD data
cited earlier suggest this has already happened to Portugal. The difference
between reactive and proactive advancement must also be tackled. The former
is crisis management without direction or focus; the latter is visionary strategy
guided by mission and foresight (Machado et al., 2003). The question is not
whether there will be change within higher education. Given the turmoil and
unpredictability of the times, change seems inevitable and perpetual. At all
levels, the question is whether the change will be carefully orchestrated for the
benefit of the venture or instituted as a hastily conceived reaction to unforeseen
circumstances. There is no doubt that the former is the only viable option.
‘If we aren’t masters of change, we will be the victims of it.’ (Kaufman,
1995, 8).
References
Amaral, A. (ed.) (2003) Avaliação, Revisão e Consolidação da Legislação do Ensino Superior,

Matosinhos: CIPES- Fundação das Universidades Portuguesas.

402
Amaral, A. and Teixeira, P. (1999) Previsão da Evolução do Número de Alunos e do Financiamento,

Matosinhos: CIPES- Fundação das Universidades Portuguesas.
Amaral, A., Jones, G.A. and Karseth, B. (eds.) (2002) Governing Higher Education: National
Perspectives on Institutional Governance, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Amaral, A., Magalhães and Santiago, R. (2003) ‘The Rise of Academic Managerialism in
Portugal’, in A. Amaral, V.L. Meek and I.M. Larsen (eds.) The Higher Education Managerial
Revolution?, Dordrecht, NE: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Ansoff, H.I. and McDonell, E. (1990) Implanting Strategic Management, Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Arroteia, J.C. (1996) O Ensino Superior em Portugal, Aveiro: Fundação João Jacinto Magalhães
and Universidade de Aveiro.
Austin, W.J. (2002) Strategic Planning for Smart Leadership, Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.
Ball, R. (2001) ‘Strategic planning in British Universities — then and now’, Paper Presented to 23rd
Annual EAIR Forum, Portugal: University of Porto.
Benveniste, G. (1989) Mastering the Politics of Planning, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Birnbaum, R. (2000) Management Fads in Higher Education: What They Do and Why They Fail,
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brennan, J. and Shah, T. (2000) Managing Quality in Higher Education: An International
Perspective on Institutional Assessment and Change, Buckingham, UK The Society for Research
into Higher Education.
Bryson, J.M. (1988) Strategic Planning for Public and Non-Profit Organizations, San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Castells, M. (2001) ‘The New Global Economy’, in J. Muller, N. Cloete and S. Badat (eds.)
Challenges of Globalisation: South African Debates with Manuel Castells, Cape Town: Maskew
Miller Longman, pp. 2–21.
Cerych, L. and Sabatier, P. (1986) Great Expectations and Mixed Performance, Stoke-on-Trent
(UK): Trentham Books.
Conway, T., Mackay, S. and Yorke, D. (1994) ‘Strategic planning in higher education: who are the
customers? International Journal of Educational Management 8 8(6): 29–36.
Cope, R.G. (1981) Strategic Planning, Management and Decision-Making, AAHE-ERIC/ Higher
Education Research Report No 9, Washington DC: American Association of Higher Education.
De Boer, H. and Maassen, P. (1994) ‘Looking for an answer: strategic decisions in European higher
education’, Paper Presented at the 16th Annual EAIR Forum Amsterdam, August.
Dill, D. and Sporn, B. (eds.) (1995) Emerging Patterns of Social Demand and University Reform:
Through a Glass Darkly, Paris: IAU Press, Pergamon Press.
Farhangmehr, M., Taylor, J.S. and Machado, M.L. (2001) ‘The dynamics of quality, change and
leadership in higher education: a critical analysis’, Paper Presented at the European Dimension in
Quality Assurance International Conference Iasi, Romania.
Goedegebuure, L., Kaiser, F., Maassen, P., Meek, L., van Vught, F.A. and Weert, E. (eds.) (1994)
Higher Education Policy: An International Comparative Perspective, Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Hayward, F. and Ncayiyana, D. (2003) Strategic Planning: A Guide for Higher Education
Institutions, South Africa: Centre for Higher Education Transformation.
Hunt, C.M., Oosting, K.W., Stevens, R., Loudon, D. and Migliore, R.H. (1997) Strategic Planning
for Private Higher Education, Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press.
Kaufman, R. (1995) Mapping Educational Success (revised edn) Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.
Kaufman, R. (1996) ‘Vision, strategic planning and quality — more than hype’, Educational
Technology, 36(5): 60–62.
Keller, G. (1983) Academic Strategy. The Management Revolution in American Higher Education,
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Kerr, C. (1994) Higher Education Cannot Escape History, Albany: State University of New York.

403
Kriemadis, A. (1997) ‘Strategic planning in higher education athletic departments’, International

Journal of Educational Management, 11(6): 238–247.
Kwiek, M. (2003) ‘The State, the Market and Higher Education: Challenges for the New Century’,
in M. Kwiek (ed.) The University, Globalization, Central Europe, New York: Peter Lange.
Larsen, I.M. and Gornitzka, A. (1995) ‘New management systems in Norwegian universities: the
interface between reform and institutional understanding’, European Journal of Education
30: 3.
Lovinguth, S.J. (1996) Strategic planning outcomes at four-year private colleges and universities
Doctoral Dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, UMI No. 9710957.
Machado, M.L., Taylor, J.S. and Wilkinson, R. (2003) ‘Strategic planning in Portuguese higher
education institutions’, Paper Presented at the 38th Annual Society for College and University
Planning International Conference, Miami Beach, FL.
Marçal-Grilo, E. (2003) ‘European higher education society’, Tertiary Education and Management
9(1): 3–11.
McCune, S.D. (1986) Guide to Strategic Planning for Educators., Virginia: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
McNay, I. (1997) Strategic Planning and Management for Higher Education in Central and Eastern
Europe, Budapest: TEMPUS.
Meek, V.L., Goedegebuure, L., Kivinen, O. and Rinne, R. (eds.) (1996) The Mockers and Mocked:
Comparative Perspectives on Diversity, Differentiation and Convergence in Higher Education,
Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Mehallis, V.M. (1989) ‘Strategic planning and management: can successful United States models be
successful in European universities?’, Paper presented at European Association for Institutional
Research Conference.
Moore, J.W. (2001) ‘Planning, politics, and presidential leadership’, in Connecting the Dotsythe
Essence of Planning, Ann Arbor, MI: Society for College and University Planning.
Mora, J.-G. (2001) ‘Governance and management in the new university’, Tertiary Education and
Management 7: 95–110.
Neave, G. (1996) ‘Homogenization, integration and convergence: the Cheshire cats of higher
education analysis’, in V.L. Meek, L. Goedegebuure, O. Kivinen and R. Rinne (eds.) The
Mockers and Mocked: Comparative Perspectives on Diversity, Differentiation and Convergence in
Higher Education, Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Neave, G. and van Vught, F. (eds.) (1991) Prometheus Bound: The Changing Relationship Between
Government and Higher Education in Western Europe, Oxford: Pergamon Press.
OECD. (2002) Education at a Glance: OECD Indicators 2002, Paris: OECD.
Parker, J.M. (1994) ‘Into the Wind, Against the Tide: Change and the Operational Commander’, in
J.N. Petrie (ed.) Essays on Strategy XII, Washington, DC: National Defense University Press.
Peterson, M.W. (1995) ‘Images of University Structure, Governance and Leadership: Adaptive
Strategies for the New Environment’, in D.D. Dill and B. Sporn (eds.) Emerging Patterns of
Social Demand and University Reform: Through a Glass Darkly, Oxford: International
Association of Universities, Pergamon Press.
Peterson, M.W. (1999) ‘Analyzing Alternative Approaches to Planning’, in L. Mets, M. Peterson,
A. Trice and D. Dill (eds.) ASHE Reader on Planning and Institutional Research, Needham
Heights, MA: Pearson Custom Publishing, pp. 11–49.
Pratt, J. (2001) ‘Changing patterns of diversity in Europe: lessons from an OECD study tour’,
Higher Education Management 13(2): 93–103.
Rose, R. (ed.) (2003) Connecting the Dotsythe Essence of Planning, Ann Arbor MI, Society for
College and University Planning.
Sadlak, J. (2000) ‘Globalization versus the universal role of the university’, Higher Education in
Europe 25: 2.

404
Scott, P. (ed.) (1998) The Globalization of Higher Education, Buckingham, UK: Society for
Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
Sporn, B. (1999) Adaptive University Structures: An Analysis of Adaption to Socio-Economic
Environments of US and European Universities, London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Steeples, D.W. (1988) ‘Concluding observations’, in D.W. Steeples (ed.) Successful Strategic
Planning Case Studies, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 99–104.
Stembridge, A.F. (2001) ‘Strategic planning — the basic steps’, InFo 4(2): 17–40.
Tabatoni, P. and Barblan, A. (1998) Principles and Practices of Strategic Management in
Universities. Volume 1 — Principles, Geneva: Association of European Universities, June, 1998,
CRE Guide No. 2- ISSN 1028-9291.
Tabatoni, P., Davies, J. and Barblan, A. (2002) Strategic Management and Universities’ Institutional
Development EUA-European University Association, EUA/Thema, No. 2, August, 2002.
Taylor, J.S., Farhangmerh, M. and Machado, M.L. (2001) ‘Responding to globalization: the
marriage of strategic thinking and visionary leadership’, Paper Presented at the European
Association for Institutional Research Annual Conference, Porto, Portugal.
Taylor, J. and Miroiu, A. (2002) ‘Policy-Making, Strategic Planning and Management of Higher
Education’, Papers on Higher Education, Bucharest UNESCO-CEPES.
Teichler, U. (1996) ‘Higher Education and New Socio-Economic Challenges in Europe’, in A.
Burgen (ed.) Goals and Purposes of Higher Education in the 21st Century, London and Bristol:
Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Tierney, W. (2000) ‘Developing the high performance organization: impediments to change and
innovation in colleges and universities’, Unpublished manuscript, University of Southern
California.
van Vught, F.A. (1988) ‘A new autonomy in European higher education? An exploratory analysis
of the strategy of self-regulation in higher education governance’, International Journal of
Institutional Management in Higher Education 12(1): 16–26.
Whitlock, J.L. (2003) Strategic thinking, planning, and doing: how to reunite leadership and
management to connect vision with action, The George Washington University Center for
Excellence in Municipal Management, Mimeo.
View publication stats

Machado2004The Status of Strategic Planning in

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Machado2004The Status of Strategic Planning in

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Strategic Planning in Portuguese Higher Education

Article · January 2005

Maria De Lourdes Machado-Taylor

Corruption and Academic Dishonesty in Higher Education View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Status of Strategic Planning in Portuguese

Economic, regulatory and social pressures are challenging higher education

Keywords: Portuguese higher education; strategic planning

higher education enterprise. Institutions have to be prepared for the challenges

In 1989, Mehallis questioned if the United States’ models could be successful

Portuguese Higher Education

four universities — Coimbra, Lisbon, the Technical University of Lisbon and

Table 1 Number of Portuguese higher education institutions

Higher education Type of institution Number of institutions

Public higher education

Private and co-operative higher education

Higher Education Policy 2004 17

contemporary HEI. This, of course, requires institutional as well as national

Substantive Criteria for Planning

Research Findings and Analyses

Status of strategic planning in Portuguese higher education

Public higher 56 280,638 26 46.43 226,777 80.81

Private and co- 107 101,517 34 31.77 56,418 55.57

Catholic univer- 1 10,136 1 100 10,136 100

Total 164 392,291 61 37.19 293,331 74.77

Table 3 The existence of planning by institutional type

Institution ‘The institution has a planning process?’ Total

n Row % Col % n Row % Col % n Row % Col %

Public universities 13 100.0 27.1 13 100.0 21.3

Total 48 78.7 100.0 13 21.3 100.0 61 100.0 100.0

Table 4 The existence of only partial plans by institutional type

Institution ‘The institution, while not having a formal strategic Total

Yes No No response n Row % Col %

n Row % Col % n Row % Col % n Row % Col %

Public polytechnics 1 100.0 33.3 1 100.0 7.7

Total 3 23.1 100.0 7 53.8 100.0 3 23.1 100.0 13 100.0 100.0

Most HEIs (62.7% out of 51 engaged in planning or partial planning)

Table 5 Degree of perceived autonomy by institutional type

Very high % High % Medium % Low % Very low %

Public universities 23.1 53.8 15.4 7.7

major factors explained the overall variance. Foremost, improvement of the

Factors Indicators Component

Status of strategic planning in Portuguese higher education

Explained variance % 20.94

Maria de Lourdes Machado et al

It helped motivate the people within the institution 0.684

Explained variance % 16.71

Factors Indicators Component

Status of strategic planning in Portuguese higher education

Factor 3 — It determined priorities for the future of the institution 0.794

Explained variance % 15.40

Factor 4 — It helped us to know the institution better 0.870

Explained variance % 14.60

Total variance=67.65%; KMO=0.785; Bartlett’s test of sphericity o0.001.

Table 7 Problems affecting the process of planning

Factors designation Indicators Factors

Factor 1 — lack of resources Lack of necessary 0.896

Explained variance % 25.10

Factor 2 — absence of Absence of communication 0.901

Explained variance % 22.50

Factor 3 — conflict and Development of conflicts 0.760

Explained variance % 14.00