Chief Academic and Finance Officers' Perceptions of The Effectiveness of Strategic Planning in Minnesota Community and Technical Colleges

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 N um ber: 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.
UMI
UMI 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
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ABSTRACT
Jeffery D. Williamson, Ed. D. Higher Education Administration, University of
South 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 schools 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 colleges strategic planning process.
As community colleges evaluate the effectiveness of their institutions
strategic plans, the perceptions of the chief academic and finance officers
responsible for fully executing the strategic plan must considered. The
identification of each others 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\j
Dr. Mark Baron
Dr. Devon Jensen
Dr. Charles Kaufman
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............................................................................................
Acknowledgments............................................................................................... vi
Table of Contents................................................................................................ vii
Chapter
1. Introduction..............................................................................................
Statement of the Problem...................................................................
Research Questions...........................................................................
Significance of the Study....................................................................
Definition of Terms.............................................................................
Delimitations of the Study...................................................................
Organization of the Study...................................................................
2. Review of Selected Literature and Research..........................................
History and Background of the Problem.............................................
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...................................................................... 28
vii
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 schools
mission and purpose, vision, and the core institutional values. It should also
enhance the institutional effectiveness and academic assessment of the
institution.
A colleges strategic plan should not only guide changes based on the
schools 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 selfstudies 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?
3.
What differences exist between the chief academic and finance officers
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 plannings 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).
C hiefAcademic O fficer (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.
C hief Financial O fficer (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 P lanning:k systematic and ongoing activity that an organization
uses to anticipate and respond to major decisions facing it during a three-to fiveyear period beyond the present (Paris, 2002).
SWOT: The identification of an organizations strengths, weakness,
opportunities, and threats (Dolence & Norris, 1995).
Vision: An ideal, credible, attractive and unique future image for an
organization (Peterson, 1989).
Delim itations 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. Websters 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 colleges 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 schools 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). Dolences model provides intricate steps which involve many of
the needed stakeholders.
Lim itations 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 companys 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 colleges
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.
Lim itations o f Doiences 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 Dolences 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 ChiefAcademic 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 institutions 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 Mintzbergs 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 Murrys 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, Minnesotas 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
Minnesotas community and technical colleges have one of the youngest
centralized systems. Minnesotas 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 PsychologicalAssociation, 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 systems 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 twoyear 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
Program planning decisions
CAO
N=2b
Mean
3.30
SD
1.26
CFO
/V=24
Mean
3.45
SD
1.22
t
-.406
P
.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
Characteristic
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 /^test 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 plannings 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
Limited response from members
CAO
N=2b
Mean
2.17
CFO
N=2A
SD Mean
1.03 2.41
SD
t
1.05 -.757
P
.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
1.57
.90
1.20
.62 1.415 .165
Strategic plan is too rigid therefore
limiting the ability to address the
sensitive operations of accounting
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 colleges
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
SD
.84
CFO
N=2A
Mean
3.50
SD
.91
t
P
-1.715 .094
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
Characteristic
New initiatives
CAO
N=25
Mean
3.05
Accountability measures
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.
1.
What differences exist between the chief academic and finance officers

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 systems 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 colleges 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
plannings 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 researchers 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 studys 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 institutions 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 fo r Practice
The following recommendations for practice evolved from the studys
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 fo r Further Study
The following recommendations for further study evolved from the studys
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 institutions
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 others 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 fo r Higher Education, 30 {A), 15-23.
Cleary, T. 8. (2001). Indicators of quality. Planning fo r 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 fo r 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 fo r Higher
Education, 31 {2), 26-32.
Epper, R. M. (1999). Applying benchmarking to higher education. Change, 24-31.
55
Fayol, H. (1949). Generalprinciples o f management. London: Pitman Publishing,
Ltd.
Flack, H. (1994). Three critical elements in strategic planning. Planning fo r 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),^Q23.
Gaither, G. H. (2002). A campus approach to efficiency and productivity. Planning
fo r Higher Education, 30 {2>), 27-33.
Greenberg, M. (1999). Tasks fo r 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 pragm atic
approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Helland, P. C. (1987). Establishment o fpublic 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.
56
Hill, C. L., & Jones, G. R. (2001). Strategic management{bXh ed.). Boston, MA:
Houghton Mifflin.
Howell, E. (2000). Strategic planning fo r 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
fo r 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 fo r
Community Colleges, 109, 27-32.
Lambert, L. (2002). Chief academic officers. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
57
Layzell, D. T. (2002). Higher education cost: Concepts, measurement issues,
data source, and uses. Planning fo r 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 doesnt 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 fpostsecondary 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 fo r 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
fo r 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.
59
Sevier, R. A. (2003). From strategy to action. University Business {2), 18-19.
Shapiro, L. T. (2001). Strategy planning synergy. Pianning fo r 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- 1 0 .
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). F ifty 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
program s:2000 edition
63). Jessup, MD: ED Pubs.
Vandament, W. (1989). Managing money in higher education. San Francisco:

Jossey Bass.
VanWagoner, R. (2001). A framework fo r 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 fo r
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
CNJ
CD
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?
Somewhat Neither Effective
effective
4
3
2
Very
Effective
5
1. Making program planning decisions
Not
Effective
1
2. Making financial allocation decisions
3. Making facilities management decisions
4. Making technology planning decisions
5. Using data for making decisions
6. Making general decision making
7. Using community input for establishing strategic planning

decisions
8. Providing the necessary communications to its constituents
to fully understand the vision and mission of the college
9. Explaining, applying and implementing so that the relevant
managers can understand them
10. Committing all the realistic resources needed in order to
support the planning.
11. Communicating the mission of the college to constituents
Questions
(/)
(/>
CD
Q .
CD
OD
c
CD
.O)
Q .
O
O
O
cg
'(/)
(/>
CD
Q .
D
O
3
O
D
CD
CD
q:
oo
CO
Section B: Rate each of the following regarding, to which each represents a barrier to the effectiveness of your colleges
Questions
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
There was a limited response from members of

our college in developing the plan
There was a lack of organization wide
participation
Strategic planning does not respond quickly
enough to the external changes of the
environment
Strategic planning process does not truly allow for
creativity
The strategic plan was not based on strong data
The perception is that strategic planning has
become a tool to gain control over individual
areas such as employees, management.
marketing, and students rather than being a
comprehensive tool for planning
There was political activity during the process
which caused conflict within the organization
Our strategic plan is too rigid therefore limiting the
ability to address the sensitive operations of
accounting
Minimum
Extent
Some Extent
Moderate
Extent
3
Considerable
Extent
4
Maximum
Extent
5
(/)
(/>
CD
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
o
Q.
C
o
7D
O
Q.
CD
c
u_
C
o
.O)
Q .
O
O
(/>
(O
CD
Q .
D
O
3
0D
CD
CD
01
CD
Section C: Rate the extent of Impact on the MnSCU system community and technical colleges strategic planning process of
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
New initiatives
Accountability measures
Funding allocations
Program approval process
Grants
Minimum
Extent
1
1
1
1
1
Some
Extent
2
2
2
2
2
Moderate
Extent
3
3
3
3
3
Considerable
Extent
4
4
4
4
4
Maximum
Extent
5
5
5
5
5
Section D:
1. What do you believe are the major strengths of your colleges strategic planning process?
(O
(/>
CD
Q .
D
CD
O
C
o
O
D
c
2. What do you believe are the major weakness of your colleges strategic planning process?
.05
Q .
O
O
3. How many years ago did your college last update or complete a strategic plan?
(/)
(/>
CD
Q .
D
O
3
0D
CD
CD
01
65
Appendix B
Reference Matrix
66
Survey Question Validation

Reference Matrix
c
ro
'S'
I
0)
_gj
0)
UT3
c
CD
0
w
0
I
Q 1
02
03
04
0 5
06
07
08
09
0 10
O il
0 12
0 13
0 14
0 15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
X
X
X
X
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
w
o
z
D
c
CD
0
o
c
0
o
o
c
ro
0
5
0
01
03
O
c
0
o
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
c
0
E
0
x:
CO
a
c
0
>>
0
5
Dd
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
CO
o
o
Q
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
c
o
CO
0
0
D)
0
N
o
0
"c
> .
CL
o
CD
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
0
LL
X
X
X
X
X
0
CD
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
<
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
67
Appendix C
Critique Sheet: Pilot Survey
68
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 unfam iliar or
confusing
4.
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
69
Appendix D
Panel Cover Letter
70
Letter to Expert Panel Members
January 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,
1638 South Shore Dr.
Worthington Mn. 56187
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
This study is being conducted under the direction and approval of the students
doctoral committee.

Chief Academic and Finance Officers' Perceptions of The Effectiveness of Strategic Planning in Minnesota Community and Technical Colleges

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Chief Academic and Finance Officers' Perceptions of The Effectiveness of Strategic Planning in Minnesota Community and Technical Colleges

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

CHIEF ACADEMIC AND FINANCE OFFICERS PERCEPTIONS OF

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF STRATEGIC PLANNING IN

B.S., South Dakota State University, 1988

A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of

UMI N um ber: 3127838

ProQuest Information and Learning Company

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

Dr. Karan Card

Dr. Mark Baron

Dr. Devon Jensen

Dr. Charles Kaufman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The survey was limited to the perceptions of chief academic and

The conclusions are only applicable to the colleges identified in the

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

a response of five indicated very

Program planning decisions

Financial allocation decisions

Facilities management decisions

Technology planning decisions

Data for making decisions

General decision making

Explaining, applying and implementing

Committing resources needed to

Communicating the mission

Note. 1 = Not effective, 2 = Somewhat effective, 3 = Neither, 4" = Effective,

Limited response from members

Lack of organization wide participation

Strategic planning does not respond

Strategic planning process does not

Strategic plan was not based on strong

Strategic planning has become a tool

Political activity during the process

Program approval process

Note. 1 = Minimum extent, 2 = Some extent, 3 = Moderate extent,

perceptions regarding the effectiveness of the strategic planning process on

Hieghts, MA: Simon & Schuster Publishing.

ed.). San Francisco, CA:

Swenk, J. (1999). Planning failure: Decision cultural clashes. The Review o f

63). Jessup, MD: ED Pubs.

Vandament, W. (1989). Managing money in higher education. San Francisco:

Academic and Financial Administrators Perceptions of the Effectiveness of Strategic Planning

1. Making program planning decisions

2. Making financial allocation decisions

3. Making facilities management decisions

4. Making technology planning decisions

5. Using data for making decisions

6. Making general decision making

7. Using community input for establishing strategic planning

There was a limited response from members of

Survey Question Validation

CRITIQUE SHEET: PILOT SURVEY

all words were understandable