' 'u‘ y .1 I‘I‘IIIIODQOQQ"~ :1 . .|-.. .. .. y ..,l «v. . 1.1. u. . .. u. . . .- ‘ . . o- { .u 4...; . ‘ v. .. ... ‘ . . . 0‘ D} V ‘ u ‘ ‘ I I: r t . . .I I. ‘0 4| ll'yz.‘-‘ A ‘ .‘u . r I I - -L L . . In...‘.I....1....;.. .l‘nfia .‘o. n n . I :1 . .. ., ., . _ . . u u ‘ L. . . Lh‘ ‘3 A first"? —-thI‘ r-2,1-- Iv “‘51:..3-“ 5;;1'8 Univerzfiy This is to certify that the dissertation entitled THE PLANNING PROCESS AT SELECTED FEDERAL UNIVERSITIES IN BRAZIL presented by Wagner Saleme has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree m Educational Administration Major professor Date 11/14/85 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 MSU LIBRARIES fl RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. THE PLANNING PROCESS AT SELECTED FEDERAL UNIVERSITIES IN BRAZIL BY Wagner Saleme A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educational Administration 1985 ABSTRACT THE PLANNING PROCESS AT SELECTED FEDERAL UNIVERSITIES IN BRAZIL BY Wagner Saleme The purpose of this study was to describe the planning process at three selected federal universities in Brazil. Specifically, the study was undertaken to: (1) describe the present structure for planning, (2) identify the methodologies and techniques used in planning activities, (3) describe the concepts, attitudes, and influence had by planners and decision-makers on planning, (4) identify the obstacles and problems encountered by participants in performing their duties, and (5) suggest or recommend models for use in planning activities. To accomplish the above, three sources of information were used: questionnaire, interview, and documents related to planning. A total of seventy-five respondents participated in the study. Among the findings participants were in general, ill— prepared for dealing with the complex governance of their universities. Their experience as professors, has failed to give them the background necessary to carry out many of their administrative duties. Despite a great acceptance of planning and management principles among the universities, ‘little or no progress has been made. There are no diagnostic studies, nor plans and, consequently, no techniques or model Wagner Saleme have been used for planning activities. Much of what has been done in Brazilian universities seems to result from the requirements imposed by outside factors dictated mainly by governmental agencies. The groups exercising the greater degree of influence on planning were identified as: the university president and general vice presidents, vice presidents for planning, governmental agencies, members of the decision-making bodies. Problems related to financial resources, autonomy, and lack of participation and motivation of the academic community in planning were perceived as the major obstacles for planning. The following recommendations were submitted: (1) training programs should be promoted and supported by the universities and governmental agencies; (2) decision-makers should insist on well documented planning and budgets, and should also examine the careers of the top administrators for previous experience in planning; (3) the vice president for planning should be given more authority, and should delegate administrative responsibilities that can be performed by subordinate personnel; (4) planning models and techniques have to be tailored for specifics conditions and for different purposes. DEDICATI 0N This study is dedicated to my wife, Dagraca, for her love, patience and support, and to our children, Daniela, Bruno and Gabriela, for their patience and understanding. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my sincere appreciation to those who have contributed to the development of this study: Dr. Louis F. Hekhuis, Committee chairperson, for his support and personal interest during my doctoral program, and completion of this study. Dr. James L. Buschman, Kenneth L. Neff and Richard T. Houang, members of my guidance committee, for their advice and contribution. My wife, DaGraca, and my children, Daniela, Bruno and Gabriela, who gave me joy and moral support while I was preocupied with my studies. Without their presence this degree would not have been possible. My brother, Rogerio, for his patience and efficiency during these years, and my mother, Hilda M. Saleme, for her expectation. Dr. James H. Nelson, for his encouragement and support to pursue a doctoral degree. Dr. Mario de Souza Couto Barbosa, for his friendship and encouragement throughout my doctoral program. Helio Pontes, Artur Diniz and Gilberto Fidelis for their help in developing my dissertation. Fernanda Verillo for her effort in typing this manuscript, and Aecio Lira for data processing help. The Federal University of Minas Gerais for its support and financial assistance. Finaly, appreciation1is also extended to the federal universities, vice presidents for planning, and members of the university council whose participation made this study possible. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page List of Tables ................................ .... vi Chapter I. INTRODUCTION .............................. 1 Background of the Study ................. 1 Statement of the Problem ................ 5 Purpose of the Study.. .................. 11 Significance of the Study ............... 12 Definition of Terms............... ...... 14 Limitation of the Study ................. 15 Overview of the Study ................... 16 II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .................. 18 Introduction ........................... 18 SECTION ONE: PLANNING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION. ......... ...... ......... 19 Concepts of Planning .................... 19 Planning and Management Science Applied to Higher Education .............. . . 23 Structure for Planning Organization ..... 31 Steps. ........... ....... ........... 33 Participants in Planning ................ 36 Planning Models... ...... . ..... . 39 Planning Models Applied to Higher Education. . .... . ......... 42 Advantages and. Disadvantages of the Use of Models .............. ...... 52 SECTION TWO: PLANNING IN BRAZIL......... 54 Brazilian Higher Education....... ....... 54 Historical Outline.... ..... ........ 54 The Present Structure.............. 58 The development and Organization for Planning. ............................. 65 The Development. . . ............ 65 The Decennial Plan and Strategic Plan for Development. ..... . ........ 67 The Sectoral Educational Plans....................... 69 The Organization................... 72 Summary................................. 76 III. STUDY METHODOLOGY. ..... . .......... .. ...... 78 Research strategy.... ................... 78 The Study Population .................... 79 iv The Participants .......... . ..... ........ Data Collection and Instrumentation ..... The Development of Instrumentation. The Questionnaire ............. The Interview ................. Other Sources ...... .... ....... Pretesting the Instruments ......... Procedures for Data Collection ..... Information Analysis .................... IV. ANALYSIS OF THE INFORMATION..... ........... Introduction ..... .. ................... The Structure for Planning .............. Background Information ............. Experience...... ..... .... .......... Qualification ...................... Activities they Perform............ The Nature of Planners' Activities. The Planning Unit. ............ .... Techniques and Models Used in Planning Activities ............................ Concepts, Attitudes, and Influence an Planning. ......................... Concepts and Attitudes Toward Planning ............ . ..... .. ..... Influence on Planning... ...... ..... Obstacles and Problems in Planning...... Problems Facing Higher Education... Obstacles to Planning.............. V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS... Summary of the Study .................... Purpose........... ...... . ..... ..... Review of Literature ...... . ........ Methodology ........................ Finding and Conclusions .......... . ...... Recomendations .......................... APPENDICES A. QUESTIONNAIRE ......... ....... ......... .... B. INTERVIEW GUIDE ........................... BIBLIOGRAPHY.. ......................... . .......... Page 81 83 83 83 84 85 85 86 88 90 9O 92 92 95 96 98 102 105 107 114 114 119 123 123 126 132 132 132 133 133 134 139 144 149 154 Table 1. 10. 11. 12. 13. LIST OF TABLES Resources Allocated to Maintanance Expenditure to Brazilian Institutions of Higher Education by the Federal Government .......... Number of Institutions of Higher Education ........ Enrollment Growth .......... . ...................... Members of the University council ................. Response Rate by Respondent'sAdministrative Position ..................................... .Decision-makers' Degrees Accordingto Institution and Academic Areas. ..... ......... ...... ...... Activities Performed by Planners Identified by the Respondents ..... .. ....... ..... ........... Percentage of Total Time per Week Spent by Planners......... .................... ... ..... Categories of Activities Performed by P1anners.... Reasons for Planning.. ............................ Influence on Planning Policies.... ...... .......... Problems Comfronting Federal Institutions of Higher Education in Brazil ................... Obstacles to Planning Identified by Decision- makers...... ............... .. . ............. vi Page 14 56 57 82 88 94 99 103 104 117 121 125 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Background 2; the Study Despite the long and outstanding history of American higher education, the emphasis on and wide-spread practice of administrative planning are relatively new in higher education. Until 1960, there was very little evidence of planning in post secondary education. Only a small proportion of the literature deals with planning as an administrative process. Dror (1963) observed that " . . . it is very interesting to note that, despite the growing number of articles and books dealing with planning on one level to another, only a few efforts have been made to develop a systematic approach to the study of planning as an administrative process" (p. 46). Instead, the literature would treat as individual and independent the many and varied issues which might justify the development of planning at colleges and universities (Dober, 1963). In the late 1960's, many college administrations are becoming increasingly aware that they must improve planning. The needs for funds could no longer be met in public and private institutions, and those responsible for providing funds increasingly asked for an accounting of how much money was being spent. Questions of resource allocation and efficient resource utilization are crucial. The interest in planning for higher education has grown at such a rate as to suggest the existence of a "planning movement" (Fincher, 1966). In the seventies and eighties, planning is needed in many colleges and universities to cope with the declining state of enrollment. For the university administrator without a planned direction and policy limits for acceptable organizational behavior, the administrator has no reference point upon which to "fix" the course of organizational behavior. Planning provides the fixed point of reference upon which all the other dynamic elements of the administrative process can be joint (Cunningham, 1982).1 Newatha.anleewport (1977) point out that for any specific operation, planning is the fundamental and primary management function. It is considered to be the basis for performance of a manager's Job. A lack of planning results in waste and inefficiency. This viewpoint is echoed by Hicks and Gullet (1981). They see planning as the first managerial function performed by a particular activity. From an organizational viewpoint: (1) The other dynamic elements of the administrative process cited by Cunningham are: organizing, commanding, coordinating, and controlling..According to him planning is the foundation upon which the other four functions rest (p. 3). 1) planning sets organizational goals and objectives, 2) planning then forecasts the environment in which objectives must be accomplished, and 3) determines the approach by which the goals and objectives are to be accomplished. Planning serves to orient the organization and the general approach it will use to get there (Hicks and Gul let, 1981, p. 249). The justification for planning can be found in the assumption that management can.do something to affect the future, at least partially, so that the future state would more closely approximate a desired state (Scott, 1965). Planning, as viewed in this study is based on the assumption that it is the only key to the viability of colleges and universities, and the only process by which managers visualize and determine future courses of action that will lead to a realization of desired objectives. As John Stecklein states: " . . . The sheer magnitude of the increases in number [of students] and finances has made the operation of colleges and universities much more complex and harder to understand. Because of the increased magnitude of the enterprise, and because of the markedly more conspicuous allocation of resources, individuals and boards responsible for the conduct of the enterprises have become increasingly concerned about efficient operations and effective utilization of resources. The administrators running the enterprise have been forced to adopt management science techniques to assist them in understanding a multitude of bewildering problems" (Knowles, p. xiii). In Brazil, during the last decade, the administration of higher education has been undergoing significant changes. Responding to new times and faced with several problems, the universities now is more complex and sensitive to the administrative problems facing the organizations. (Finger, 1979). This has led to the introduction of many new concepts and, to a certain degree, a restructuring of its administrative organization. Various solutions have been formulated and efforts have been made. However, Brazilian universities, like other Latin American universities, have invested a great deal of time» moneyu and.human resources, in structural reforms, aimed at increasing its organizational efficiency, but these efforts have not experienced a multiplier effect due to several factors such as the scarcity of resources, the inability to meet the demands of education, excessive centralization. noncompetitive remuneration the increasing cost of goals and services, etc (Crane, 1976). This study recognizes that many problems are confronting higher education in Brazil, and there is a substantial amount of administrative responsibilities in today‘s colleges and universities. It further recognizes that planning is one of the methods by which higher educationfladministration can reasonable expect to come to terms with the financial, social and political crises of our times (Enrich and Tickton, 1976). Those who are responsible for university administration will find this study helpful in ascertaining the efficiency and adequacy of their own system of administration. Statement 9: the Problem Since the early 1960hs higher education in Brazil began a process of expansion unprecedented in its history. The government had set out to drastically increased the capacity of the university institutions in which the total enrollment increased by 500 percent from 1960 to 1971 (Sourceu Cunha, p. 106). During this last two decades the Brazilian university-student population has increased by 1,042 percent, and the annual increment has been more than 10 percent in recent years (Source: Anuario Estatistico do Brasil, 1981). By 1968, a reform of university structure and curricula was started. Inspired by the American model, the intention was to use available financial and human resources ix:a.more rational way, and to guarantee a more effective utilization of staff and students. Silva (1977) observed that the university reform was also the product of the social and economic transformations taking place in the society. In the process of development, the society had begun.to pressure the university'to ". .. assume a critical consciousness of itself, to reformulate its objectives, to rethink its method of action, and to activate its structure in order to adjust itself to the ongoing social pressures" (p. 28). Several educators and authors in Brazil in.analyzing the rapid expansion of Brazilian universities, generally' agree that the spectacular growth occurred without and rationality and planning (Mendes, 1972, Silva, 1977, Braga, 1978). According to Silva (1972), the rapid grown of higher education has created serious problems. Two opposing forces are in operation in the university system in Brazil. They are largely the result of the rapid opening of higher educational institutions to serve the large number of candidates pressing for places in the university. In this particular, the problems of higher education in Brazil are similar to those of other developing countries. In contrast to developed countries, the amount of available resources (public and private) is lower, the pressure for education to contribute to the overall development program is greater, the need to offer more education to more students is greater and, consequently, the margins for error are narrower. A developed nation can afford more mistakes, more experimentation and more waste that the developing countries. Not surprisingly, the crises in education are felt more strongly in the developing nations and the search for solution in conducted with greater urgency (Chadwick, 1970). The other force results from the urgent need for modernizing the university both in cultural and administrative terms. In regard to the latter, Fidelis (1982), (”1 his research about university administrators in Brazil, identified fivelmain.areas of problems related to higher education. These problems are the following: 1) Problems related to finance. The lack of financial resources; lack of equipment or physical space; and bad or insufficient salary. 2) Problems related to administrative centralization. Lack of autonomy; excessive bureaucracy; inadequate institutional structure; excessive centralization; and lack of autonomy for specific decisions, i. e., academic, political, and financial decisions. 3) Problems related to personnel. Staff inadequacy; lack of training; lack of leadership; and lack of interest. 4) Problems related to faculty. Assessment of the faculty; lack of interest; poor selection; lack of preparation; excessive politics in academic life; and lack of professionalism as a teacher. 5) Problems related to the planning process. Inadequate planning; lack of planning; lack of integration; problems of coordination among various academic areas; and administrative disorganization (p. 130-131). These problems are the same as those described by Finger (1978), who investigated Brazilian university presidents (cited by Fidelis, 1982, p. 131), and similar to those cited by Eurich (1970) for American universities. These problems are: 1) not enough money; 2) vague, not clearly defined objectives; 3) confuse and hostile constituencies including students, faculty, alumni, parents, and community groups, 4) anachronistic curricula; 5) out moded and inefficient teaching techniques; 6) lack of qualified teachers and administrators; 7) disagreement about the top priorities; and 8) inefficient use of plants and facilities. Admittedly, planning will not solve all these problems. But the process of planning is the process of addressing precisely these questions, and doing oneds'best to answer them (Enrich, 1970). There have been attempts to plan in Brazilian universities. However, the efforts have been disorganized. Data has been accumulated on rather arbitrary bases, rather than by well-devised scientific methods, suggesting an awareness of the need for specific information to be obtained through specific research (Mendes, 1972, p. 57). " . . . the planning organs have consistently tried to come closer and closer to a scientific process, but they suffer from two pressures: The government always wants rapid, new solution to its immediate problems. And the public, being poorly informed about the problems and anxious for the practical solutions, has probably been oversold on what planning can and cannot accomplish" (Mendes, 1972, p. 58). Today's planning in Brazil is complicated by increased government regulation, inflation, high costs, centralization, and a rapid improving technology which creates costly "obsolescence." In addition, there is a widespread belief that many colleges and universities are extremely poorly managed and incapable of producing quality planning. Fidelis (1982), concluded his study that two major problems in university administration may be due to underqualified administrators. a) improvisation as a method of administration; and b) excessive attention to routines, formats and process, and a lack of emphasis on the ultimate goals of the institution. Daland (1967) in his review of the Brazilian planning stated that " . . . planning has come to Brazil not because of innate sense of rationality and order. In many respects, on the contrary, the temperament and values of the Brazilian people do not accept the order, efficiency, and nationality which planning implies" (p. 12). In summary, there is generical consensus or at least one issue in Brazilian universities - the inadequacy of the educational system's response to the needs of the society. Changes are needed in practically'all institutions of higher education. However, the response to necessary change has been slow, and at times nonexistent. Faced with a huge increase in the number of students, the normal approach has been to do the same things for those growing numbers, 1. e., 10 perpetuate the existing structure and ways of doing things. The expansionist approach for expansion has been to enlarge the existing educational system as rapidly as possible, without modernizing its structure (Braga, 1978). Possibly no period in the history of higher education in Brazil has seen greater pressures on colleges and universities to be more efficient and effective» There is no doubt that planning is a necessity in our times. The profound and accelerating changes have impelled the search for new instrumentalities (Mendes, 1972, p. 47). It is reasonable to say that Brazilian universities have grown according to the circumstances and there has been little concern for planning for its development. This is so true that there is not a single university in Brazil that knows what it will be like in the future (Oliveira, 1982L What is called "planning" in Brazilian university is the mere distribution of resources among the school systems*within the university (Novais, 1968). In this study the emphasis was placed, at least in part, on identifying appropriate planning procedures enabling those involved in planning and decision-making roles an understanding of the present situation. It is expected that the finding of this study help those involved in university administration to understand the planning process and gain acceptance of new management concepts. 11 Purpose 9: the Study From a practical perspective the purpose of this study is to describe the planning process at selected federal universities in Brazil by focusing on the activities engaged in by planners and decision—makers. Specifically, this study was developed with a view to the following purposes: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) to describe the current structure of the planning entities; participants in planning; their responsibilities inherent to their posts; their perceptions as to the importance of training, degree, and personal characteristics necessary in the performance of their duties; to identify the methodologies and techniques which have been adapted in the elaboration of diagnosis and planning activities to identify concepts, attitudes and influence of the planners and decision-makers toward planning; to identify obstacles and problems encountered by planners and decision-makers in the performance of their duties. to suggest or recommend pdanning techniques that might be helpful to Brazilian universities. l2 Significance _f the Study Despite the aforementioned problems, efforts have been made in Brazil to develop planning approaches at the national, regional, state and local levels. However as Paiva (1979) stated, despite the importance that the federal government has assumed in planning, efforts to discuss its problems have been very few and very little research is available. Many studies and researches have been developed by Brazilian authors dealing with university administration. However, a literature search conducted in Brazil by the author revealed that no one has conducted research dealing with planning as an administrative process in a university setting.‘There are very few articles or books concerned with planning. Most of the studies, articles and books, dealt with planning at the national level. One of these studies was conducted by Paiva (1979) that focused its attention on planning activities performed by the members of the Ministry of Education. Several factors motivated the choice of this study. First, as Ackoff (1970) stated, the need for planning is so great that is hard for anyone>to be against it. The second is related to the financial situation facing higher education in Brazil. The resources allocated by the federal government for higher education have decreased substantially' each year. According to Table I, the total amount of 13 financial resources abailable~in 1985 represent only'21.5 percent of the total existent in 1981 in real terms. Although these resources have decreased substantially, the federal appropriations for higher education are still high. The large amount of financial resources allocated for education (which represent 70 percent of the total fund allocated in education in Brazil) each year by the government requires an efficient administration and a well organized structure. The need for planning can be justified on the grounds that the resources of a college and university are limited , and the needs seemingly limitless. In other words, planning is concerned with the effective use of scarce resources to achieve desired goals (Vaccaro, 1976). Another concern which is addressed is the interest the universities have in planning. The awareness of how planning has been performednwill give the institutions studied the opportunity'to acquire insight into the situation and, if possible, to take action at the different levels of organization. Finally, it is expected that this research provide useful information to those involved in planning and afford them greater understanding of the present planning process at Brazilian universities. It is expected also that this study will provide guidelines for comparative research, and serve as a basis for further studies in the area of university administration. 14 Table I Resources Allocated to Maintenance Expenditure to Brazilian Institutions of Higher Education by the Federal Government 1981/1985 - CRS 1,000,000 I I I | Inflationx | Real Value) Index Year Total RatelDeflationl Base=1981 1981=100|1984=100 I l I l I I l I I I 19811 14,912 1 1 1 1 14,912 1 100 1 234 I I l I I I 19821 26,217 1 99 1 2 1 13,174 1 88 1 207 I I I I I I 19831 43,080 1 211 1 6 1 6,971 1 46 1 109 I I I I I I 1984| 127,895 1 223 1 20 1 6,356 1 42 1 100 I I "‘ l I I I 19851 212.524 1 230 1 66 1 3,218 1 21 1 50 I I | I I I Source: MEC/SESU. * Projected. Definition 9; Terms The following terms were used in this study: Federal ggiygrgity: Institutions of higher education supported by the federal government and developing its educational service in accordance with federal laws CFinger, 1978). Autarchy: The autonomous service created by lawn with a legal status, self-government, and budget, that perform typical administrative activities (Montandon, 1981). Eggnggtigg: An institution of the private sector that receives governmental subsidies and is subject to 15 ministerial supervision (Montandon, 1981). glgnnggs: They are the Vice-presidents for planning, and report directly to the president of the university. 2129222291993: £22 21982129: The principal administrative officer in charge of planning activities in the universities. All federal universities in Brazil have a vice-president in charge of planning. Qggigigg;§§k__e_r_§: As used in this study refers to members of the university council. Qniygggity Qggggil: Like the Board of Trustees in American universities the university council is the body provided by the lawn existing at each federal university, responsible for approving or developing the general policy in all areas. Planning process: Refers to the process of formulating an alternative set of decisions by optional means, in order of helping decision makers to create a future. Limitations 2; the Study Among the limitations of this study were the following: 1) Generalizations of this study should be exerced with cautions Although this study offered some empirical observations about the planning process of Brazilian universities, it was limited to three federal institutions and, therefore, generalizations can be made in these institutions; 16 2) The method of data collection was based on interviews and questionnaires applied to vice- presidents for planning and members of the university council and, thus, were dependent in part on the perceptions and insights of these individuals related to planning; 3) The scope of this study was limited to the literature available in the library of the Michigan State University, the archives of ERIC, and the library of the College of Education of the Federal University of Minas Gerais in Brazil. 4) The researcher has been working in the administration of federal university for almost 20 years, and may have cultural and professional biases that affect this study. Overview 2; the Study This study is divided into five chapters. Chapter I included a background of the study, the purpose of the study, a statement of the problem, significance of the study, limitation, and a review of the study. In Chapter II a review of the pertinent literature was presented. This Chapter was organized into two sections. The first one deals with the literature related to planning for higher education. The second section described higher education in Brazil, and the development and organization of 17 planning. Chapter III contains a detailed presentation of the methodology used in this study. Included in this presentation were information related to: research strategies; the study population; the participants data collection and instrumentations; a pretest and pilot study; procedures for data collection; and information analysis. The in—depth analysis of the data was described in Chapter IV. Finally; Chapter V contains a summary of the study, the major findings, conclusions, and recommendations. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction This review is presented in two sections. The first reviews the theoretical aspects of the literature concerned with planning for higher education. First, a discussion of planning, including some views taken with respect to planning is presented followed by an overview'of the aspects of the organization related to planning. Thus, planning is presented as an important aspect of management science. Next, the phase in and organization of planning are reviewed. Special attention is given to the participants in planning. In the final part of this section, planning models are defined, including a presentation of the models most commonly used in American post secondary institutions. The second section deals with planning in Brazil. It starts with a historical outline of Brazilian higher education growth, followed by a brief presentation of its present structure and problems related to planning. Another part of this section discusses the development and organization of planning in Brazilian higher education. The purpose of this second section is viewed as necessary to 18 19 understand the formal aspects of higher education in Brazil, and the context upon which the planning activities are developed. SECTION ONE: PLANNING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION Concepts pf Planning There are various concepts of planning and the theme is explored from several viewpoints. A brief examination of some commonly used definitions is presented in this review. This facilitated the formulation of the concept of planning used in this study. Chirikos and Wheeler (1968) noted that, despite the rapidly growing number of studies done on the subject, they found little agreement as to the dimensions or scope of such planning. According to them "planning is fundamentally a technical activity related to the decision- making process. Its purpose in the context of a national program is to assess the implications of alternative set of policies and thereby assist decision makers in choosing the set which is most appropriate to the specified objectives of the program. In the sense that good decision-making always clarifies alternative courses of action and seeks to satisfy predetermined targets" (p. 264). The IOWA State Department of Education provided the fol lowing def inition: 20 "Comprehensive planning is a process to produce valid information in the form of alternative courses of action, together with predicated consequences of such alternatives, to aid decision-making by those engaged in educational policy formulation and administration. The process should be capable of providing information relative to any educational problem input and should incorporate self renewal and updating as essential features" (Wolvek, 1968, p.9). A definition of the planning process as it relates to administration is defined by UNESCO (1980) in the International Conference on Educational Planning.'h planning is . . . the application to education itself of a rational scientific approach to examining the implications of alternative courses of action and choosing wisely among them, deciding on specific targets to be met within specific time limits, and finally developing the best means of systematically implementing the choices thus made" (p. 12). From this perspective planning is much more than the drafting of a blueprint; it is a continuous process following the succession of interdependent actions: a) classification of educational objectives; b) diagnosis of present conditions and recent trends; 0) assessment of alternatives; d) translation.of plans into action; and e) evaluation and adjustment. Planning has also been conceptualized as a process deeply involved with political dimension and political roles. This political model "sees planning as an outcome of group interest involved in a power relationship. Instead of 21 a rationally asserted set of goals, the planning process is involved with competing goals" (Faludi, 1973, p. 12). Daland and Parker (1962) define the roles of the planners the technical role, the political innovator role and the educator”s role. To play the political innovator role, the planner must be capable of infusing new ideas into the political decision process. There is a wealth of other planning definitions, each tending for one position. Some authors tried to ignore these tendencies, and formulate a generally valid conception. One of these authors is Redford (1952) who defined planing as: "Planning is a world of many meanings. To some it means a blueprint for the future; to others it means onlyforesight, and action with the forward policies of the government for regulation of the economy as a whole. To some it means government responsibility to take whatever action is necessary to ensure that the economic system operates efficiently, to others it means only that the government should correlate whatever function it undertakes toward desired overallobjectives" (Redford, 1952.;L 18). Planning itself has been restricted to Dror (1963), Anderson and Bowman (1964), and Adams' and Bjorkfls (1969) definition of "the process of preparing a set of decisions for future action pertaining to education". This, combined with the certainty of future changes in present situations, in Diez-Hochleitner's words, "planning is an attitude reflecting the desire for orderly change and the strategy by which this change can be brought about" (Cited by Inbar, 1980, p.379). 22 This review could go on and quote a large number of planning definitions. However, as stated before, the primary purpose of this review is to present some concepts in order to assist in the formulation of the basic concept used in this study. Although planning as seen in this study is considered to be the only key to the viability of colleges and universities in this time of crises and limits "resources in Brazil, it should be emphasized that planning is not a panacea for curing all the ills of educational system. Nor a standardized formula to be imposed on all situations regardless of their cost differences. It is not a conspiracy to destroy the freedoms and prerogatives exercised by teachers, administrators and students, nor a desire for enabling'a small group of technocrats to usurp their freedom of choice and decision over educational aims. policies and priorities of a society. Nor is it an exercise in planning for its own sake, which neglects the fundamental characteristics of education, and the all-important fact that man and the full life of man is the ultimate end of education" (UNESCO, 1970, p. 12). It seems that, for the purposes of this investigation, planning can be defined as a process of formulating an alternative set of decisions by optimal means, in order to help decision—makers create a future. Planning, as a process, should always be considered as merely a means to achieve appropriate ends, and a "continuous activity taking place within a unit and 23 requiring some input of resources and energy in order to be sustained" (Dror, 1963, {L50}. The planning process is directed at suggesting the optimal means for achieving the objectives of the organization, i.e., at selecting on the basis of rational processes - including collection of information, utilization of knowledge, systematic and integrative data processing, etc - the optimal strategy for achieving the desired goals. Planning, also, is seen not as a design for a future, but a process of helping create the future, in a sense that "if the planner merely projects into the future present states, and claims that he is forecasting or predicting the future, he too is justifying the present" (McGin, 1980. p.8). Planning and Management Science Applied pg Higher Education There is, in general, an agreement among several authors, that planning is the primary'managerial function which logically precedes all other functions (Koontz and (flDonnell, (1964), Newatha and Newport (1977); Hicks and Gullet (1981); Cunninghan, 1982L The management process begins - or should begin - with planning. More than any other function, planning determines the degree»of success an organization achieves..All other managerial activities have only one purpose: to help the organization achieve its goals. The functions of organizing. 24 staffing, directing, and controlling will be performed haphazardly if the organization.has no purpose to achieve (Schwartz, 1980). Planning, as seen by Koontz and O'Donnell (1959) is the function of a manager involving the selection, from among alternatives, of objectives, policies, procedures, and programs.'fln:is, thus, decision making which affects the future course of an organization. Planning is the job of making things happen that would not otherwise occur. It is thus the conscious determination of courses of action, and the basis for decisions on purposes, facts, and considered estimates" (p. 453). The same viewpoint is shared by Le Breton and Henning (1961). They described the planning function as comprised by the following components:(l) establishing objectives and goals, (2) determining policies and procedures; (3) preparing necessary plans for meetings; (4) stated objectives and goals, and; (5) implementing plans (p. 5). The justification for planning is based on the assumption that management can do something to affect the future, at least partially, so that the future state would more closely approximate a desired state (Lahr, 1981, pu26). Besides that, as King and Cleland (1978) observed, "managers are becoming increasingly aware of the need for better information techniques, and processes to cope with the risks and uncertainties that are the handmaidens of change. Managerial assessments of the likely impacts of the 25 constantly occurring social, economic, and technological changes have become essential to organizational survival and growth. Among the most perplexing problems facing contemporary managers is how to anticipate future problems and opportunities and how to designate strategies to cope with and take advantage of them" (p.3). The essential nature of planning, according to Koontz and O'Donnell (1982), can best be understood by four fundamental truths concerning this important management functionu‘The first of these truths is contributing to objectives. Every plan and all of its derivatives must contribute in some positive way to the accomplishment of group objectives. "Plans alone cannot make an enterprise successful. Action is required .. . Plans can, however, focus action on purpose. They can forecast which actions will tend toward the ultimate objectives.. ., which tend away; which will likely'offset one another, and*which are merely irrelevant. Managerial planning seeks to achieve a consistent, coordinated structure of operations geared to the desired ends. Without plans, action becomes merely random activity, producing nothing but chaos" (Goetz, 1969, p.2). The second premise is that planning is a fundamental prerequisite to the managerial function of organizing. staffing, direction, and control. Although in practice all the functions intermesh as a system of action, planning is unique in that it involves establishing the objectives 26 necessary for all group. The third truth refers to the pervasiveness of planning. The character and breadth of planning will vary with each manager's authority and with the nature of policies and plans outlined by superiors. Finally, the last one deals with the efficiency of plans. Plans are efficient if, when implemented, they bring about the attainment of objectives with a minimum of unsought consequences and with results that are cost- effective. The current conditions confronting higher education have created an awareness of the need to increase the importance of planning and formal management system in colleges. The improvement of educational efficiency through planning must be accompanied by the modernization of educational management. As Hopkins and Massy (1981) stated ". . . an era of philosophical discussion on the priorities of a college'has been replaced by an era characterized by the necessity of tight management by the central administration and careful long-range planning. Many institutions independently come to the conclusion that the traditional intuitive judgments must be replaced by sophisticated modern management" (p.2). In the literature» the following factors - economic, political, and social - have been driven administrators to seek new principles and techniques to assist them in university operation: (Cited by Wilson, 1982, pula) 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 5) 7) 8) 9) 10) 27 The existence of an economic crisis due to dwindling enrollments, rising costs, and a scarcity of resources (Fuller, 1976; Schroeder and Adams, 1976; Seaman, 1979); The need to allocate their resources effectively and efficiently (Huddeelston, Ehl, Klein, and Boehm, 1969); The lack of public confidence in its institution (Fuller, 1976; Schroeder and Adams, 1976); A time of student disenchantment (Schroeder and Adams,1976); Public disenchantment with the rising cost of education, and questioning of the value of the investment (Cherrington, 1979); Pressure from students, faculty, and the public for more effective and efficient administrative procedures (Krampf and Heinlein, 1973); The need to respond to the often repeated, but rarely validated, charge that colleges are poorly or inefficiently managed (Diran, 1978); The need to respond to pressure from groups demanding accountability for administrative decisions (Nwagbaraocha, 1979); The need for more sophisticated information to demonstrate.accountability'to regulatory groups (Nwagbaraocha, 1979); The importance of demonstrating fiscal 28 responsibility to the legislative or supporting body and to taxpayers and the community (Wager, 1976); and 11) The realization of the continuing fiscal situation confronting higher education (Huddelston, Ehl, Klein, and Boehm, 1969). In response to these problems, many colleges and universities have emphasized the importance of planning and a more formal management system to deal more effectively with the present stressful condition. The field of management development in higher education is relatively new and has yet to achieve its full potential (Bogard, 1972; John, 1980). Historically, as John (1980) stated, there has been a lack of emphasis on management development in education in general, and higher education in particular. Although it is a product of the university, there is a shortage of training programs for colleges and universities administrators. Schroeder and Adams (1976), have found that most higher education administrators want to make use of the principles of management science to assist them in operating their organizations. According to them, despite this positive attitude, "these administrators seem to lack a systematic method for approaching their specific organizations in order to decide which areas of application and what techniques should be introduced" (p.117). There has been considerable resistance to the adoption 29 of the new management techniques in higher education. Concerns about this were expressed by Plourde (1976) when he stated that " the primary issues are not new, and they have long been at the center of the ancient debate between administrators and faculties about the "proper" role of administrators in higher education" (p .18). Among these issues are: 1) Defining and measuring educational output are difficult tasks. 2) The production functions of higher educated are not precisely defined, and there is no accepted formula for determining the resources required to produce a unit of output. 3) Quantifying basically subjective concepts such as the value added by the institution is a problematic task. 4) Whether centralization or decentralization are better. 5) There is an inherent conflict between administrative efficiency on the one hand and academic effectiveness on the other (Rourke and Brooks, 1966, p. 3). Rourke and Brooks (1966) supported this contention when they concluded that "university personnel are highly reluctant to accept changes in the operation of the university" (p.1). Another factor in the success or failure of a planning or managerial system is the degree of 30 commitment on the part of educational manager. In this regard Van Dusseldorp (1969) express the viewpoint that: "It is not possible to develop a manage- ment system unless management is willing to devote its own time to the effort. Management systems cannot be developed by systems and informational technologists working by themselves or working with personnel at the operations level. The development requires a joint effort of management personnel and information specialists. Only management itself knows what decisions it must make and what information is needed for decision making" (p. 32-33). Many other conditions can be identified. Among these conditions are internal conflicts among offices, resistance from operational staff, lack of technical expertise, lack of financial resources, lack of adequate computer facilities, lack of direction and planning, and the degree of uncertainty facing the universities (Wilson, 1982). Some authors believe that the failure to recognize planning and management as sciences can be overcome. Seaman's viewpoint is that data processing staff could avoid it by assuming a greater role in the management of educational institutions. Nwagbaraocha (1979) suggests that any development program must have the following: (1) a clear methodology for involving those who will be affected by the program and its design; (2) continual briefing sessions for those individuals as the system is being developed and implemented; (3) extensive training programs in the use of the system once it is developed; and.(4) a corresponding professional development program in management and planning 31 to improve the skills of those who will be using the systems (p. 43). In summary, the principles of planning and management cannot be enforced by law. This must be understood and accepted. There is, therefore, a developing feeling that it cannot be effective if the higher education community is not always better informed and consulted. The efficiency of the system is an essentially democratic process. Structure for Planning Organization One of the most important issues in internalizing the planning process is how an institution be organized to achieve its goals more efficiently. According to Hdcks and Gullet (1981), from an organizational viewpoint, planning: (1) sets organizational goals and objectives; (2) forecasts the environment in which objectives are to be accomplished; and (3) determines the approach to be used to this end. Thus, planning determines where the organization is going and the general approach it will use to get there. The organization of the planning process, as described by Eberle and McCutcheon (1970), is divided into three parts - educational development, campus Much I Mean 1 2 3 4 : Rating I I (frequency of response)| Decision—makers (university : council) ............... 5 11 24 23 : 3.03 Teaching and research coun— : cils ................... 4 11 28 20 : 3.01 President and general vice : presidents ............ 1 1 21 35 g 3.81 Planners (vice presidents : for planning) ......... 2 7 16 36 : 3.53 Academic vice presidents... 3 17 28 12 : 2.82 Deans ...................... 6 2O 28 10 : 2.66 Professors ................. 19 31 13 2 : 1.97 Students. . . ................ 25 24 14 2 : 1.89 £Politicians......... ....... 28 18 5 5 : 1.77 (Sovernmental agencies ...... 5 12 17 25 E 3.05 ‘ The respondents decision-makers, who confirmed the anistence of a planning document, were also questioned on luow' much influence they have exerted in the formulation of 122 plans. Four of these respondents declined to answer the question. Twenty-nine percent of the respondents claimed to exercise no influence, 29 percent were deans and had worked in the coordination of the financial plans of their colleges, 19 percent assisted in the formulation of financial plans, 10 percent in the preparation of the annual report, 10 percent had little influence, and only 5 percent had a great influence. Those who had exercised on influence in the formulation of the plan were identified as members of the upper levels of administration in the universities. The decision-making body was identified by the respondents of this study as having some influence on the planning activities, but have not been identified as participating in the formulation of the plan. In summary, this investigation of planner's and decision-maker's concepts of planning shows once more the positive attitude of the participants toward planning. A great majority see planning as a rational and important activity. In spite of these feelings a small, but representative proportion of the respondents, see planning in a realistic manner. They translated their feelings in terms of the reality, due to the fact that none of the institution has concrete plans. They view the problems facing higher education as formidable obstacles to planning. However, all of them, regardless of their concepts, seem to have a positive attitude in terms of expectations of what planning can accomplish. 123 Obstacles and Problems in glnnning This section was investigated under two questions. In part one, the respondents - planners and decision-makers - were asked to list the most crucial problems currently facing their universities and were then asked to rate them in the order of their importance. In part two, participants were asked to draw from an open-ended list of obstacles to planning, four which they considered the most important. Problems facing nigngg education. The question -..—...“- addressed to the vice presidents for planning was: "In your opinion, what problems confront your university today? How do these problems differ from the problems of the past? What problems do you expect will emerge in the university's future? How significant are those problems to the university? Ranked in order of importance, planners listed the following problems facing their universities: 1- the lack of financial resources 2- administrative disorganization 3— low salaries 4- inadequate planning 5— staff inadequacy Planners tend to have a pessimistic outlook on the problems facing their universities. They see their universities in turmoil with problems that can be solved only through medium or long term, planning, and depend on the redefinition of governmental priorities. Higher 124 education and, in general, public universities are low among governmental budgeting priorities. In the past, financial problems were less acute. In the future, technological problems will acquire paramount importance. The most important role of the planner is to prepare the universities for the challenges of the future. Decision-makers tend to hold similar views on the planning in confronting the problems facing their institutions. The major problems, in their perception are related to financial matters as shown in Table 12. Among the problems related to financial matters the following were cited: lack of financial resources (37); lack of equipment and material (6); lack of autonomy to use the financial resources (5); and lack of physical space (3). Other problems are related to administrative organization in the universities. Fifty four percent of the respondents mentioned problems of inadequate institutional structure (14); lack of input from the community on university priorities and problems (9); administrative disorganization (7); a cumbersome bureaucratic structure (5); and the lack of clearly defined goals (4). Lack of autonomy (20), excessive centralization and a dependence on funding from the central government (9), the lack of a clear education policy in the central government (5) were the most common responses to the problems related to governmental centralization. 125 Table 12 Problems Confronting Institutions of Higher Education in Brazil Problems Areas Number of Percentage of Respondents all Respondents Finance.. ..................... 51 71 Administrative Organization... 39 54 Governmental centralization... 34 47 Personnel ..................... 32 44 Faculty ....................... 24 33 Planning process .............. 16 22 Others ........................ 8 11 Problems related to personnel were the fourth most frequently cited problems. Forty-four percent of the respondents chose this as a problem area comprised of the following: staff inadequacy (8); lack of interest on the part of staff and faculty (7); lack of general competence (6); inadequate training of the university administrators (4); incompetence among the top administrators (4); and lack of leadership by the university top administrators (3). Lack of preparation of the academic personnel (14); and quality of teaching (10) were the faculty problems most often cited. Finally, problems related to inadequate planning (10), 126 and lack of coordination among the various areas and departments of the university (6) were the problems cited which are related to planning. Other problems listed by a few respondents were poor salaries (2); lack of a chain of command (2); disorganization (2); a university structure which is unsuited to the Brazilian reality (1); and poor quality research (1). Because of the small number of respondents, by which they were mentioned these problems were not included in any area specified above. These findings tend to bear out previous studies on university administration conducted in Brazil and other countries, such as those conducted by Fidelis (1982), Finger (1978), Sunlay (1974), and cited by Eurich (1970) to American universities in the decade of 1970s, which leads to a similar comment made by Fidelis who concluded: "these sets of problems transcend time and geographical boundaries, but it do not imply that local solutions to the problems will necessarily be the same" (p.132). Obstacles fig Planning. This study sought to elicit responses which pinpoint the possible obstacles to planning. Previous studies on planning indicated that several factors, or events have influence on planning. Some of these problems were listed in a list compiled by UNESCO (1970) and others (Lahr 1981, Paiva 1970) of the most common negative influences on educational planning. — inadequate training of personnel (Paiva, 1979) 127 - financial problems (Lahr, 1981) - inadequate statistical data (Paiva, 1979) - lack of human resources (Paiva, Lahr) — the lack of continuity in leadership (UNESCO, 1970) - ineffective educational administration (UNESCO, 1970) - limited funding (Paiva, 1979; Lahr, 1981; UNESCO, 1970) — the lack of reliable current data on recent trends and present state of education. (UNESCO, 1970) - the lack of a common technical language for planning and budget activities (Paiva, 1979). — inattention to the political dimensions of planning and the inability of planners to allot time for consultation and lobbying for support (Benneviste, 1970). A list of these problems was compiled and participants-planners and decision-makers-were asked to rate four of them, according to their degree of importance for their universities. The major concerns presented by planners were the difficulty of involving the academic community in the planning process, lack of financial resources, lack of support from the deans and chairpersons in the consolidation of the planning process, lack of a comprehensive assessment of the governmental agencies, lack of autonomy, lack of financial resources, and lack of tradition. Decision-makers identified a wide variety of obstacles to planning as shown 128 in Table 13 (listed in decreasing order). Limited financial resources were identified by the majority of respondents (70%) was rated the most formidable obstacle to planning. The shortage of revenues appropriated for higher education in Brazil, ( Table 1) have placed Brazilian universities in the worse crisis in its history. In Latin American countries, according to Paiva (1979), the financial factor has not been a real obstacle to planning (p. 138). The second most important obstacle to planning is the lack of university autonomy vis-a-vis the federal government (63%). This level of centralization was identified by Montandon (1982) as a structural limitation to the development of the federal institutions of higher education. The nonexistence of a planning document was cited by planners in section II, as the result of excessive orientation of and dependence on the central government. 129 Table 13 Obstacles to Planning Identified by Decision-makers Obstacles Number of Percentage of Respondents Responses Lack of financial resources ....... 50 70 Lack of autonomy .................. 45 63 Lack of a comprehensive assessment of the country’s educational needs .......................... 39 54 Lack of participation of chair- persons in the planning process 32 44 Lack of motivation of the academic community in planning matters.. 28 39 Difficulty of involving teachers in the planning process ........ 23 32 Lack of human resources ........... 21 29 Lack of instruments and a mechanism for efficient planning ......... 19 26 Inadequate training of the person— nel in the planning unit ....... 15 21 Lack of tradition ...... . .......... 4 6 130 The third and fourth most important obstacles to planning were related to the participation of the university community in the process: lack of participation of the chairpersons (44%), and lack of motivation of the academic community (39%). The wording of this question did not allow to for identifying the reasons for the low degree of participation by the academic community in the planning process. However, the lack of a clearly defined planning policy and directives, strategies, resources, autonomy, and other factors can explain the low participation level in the academic community. The experience of university A in preparing a Three Year Plan can, in part, explain what happens when a plan has no raison d'etre, and no support from key persons. The success of a plan, as pointed out by Vaccaro (1976), depends directly on the effectiveness of the chief executive officer in gaining the support, interest, and commitment on the part of those involved in the process. In addition to this, planning is associated with change "any significative change will provoke resistance. Those who currently benefit from the system will fight the loss of privilege. And since that privilege is accompanied by power, their resistance has meant the failure of many a proposed reform" (McGinn, 1980, p.34). In summary, the four most important obstacles to planning identified by the participants in this study were some of the main problems facing higher education in Brazil. The nature of the problems is the same. The most revealing 131 finding of all was that, although these problems have been identified in Brazilian institutions since 1978 (Finger, 1978; Fidelis 1982), no solutiOn has been formulated nor have university administrators made efforts toward solving them. Not too long ago, the phrase "planning for growth," was in vogue. Today planning is more often mentioned in connection with the words "budget cuts," "streamlining," "efficiency," and “retrenchment." The universities in Brazil have grown in size and complexity; however, their form of governance has remained relatively unchanged. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary 9: the Study Purpose During the past few years, there has been a growing amount of literature concerning the efficiency of university administration. However, Brazilian universities seem not to have benefited from this evolution. Studies dealing with planning and management principles applied to higher education in Brazil have been scant and almost non-existent. The author, recognizing this deficiency in university administration, proposed this study to provide a preliminary description and analysis of the planning process at three selected federal universities in Brazil. In particular, this research was conducted to: a) describe the present structure for planning of three selected federal universities in Brazil; b) to identify the methodologies and techniques which have been adopted in the elaboration of diagnoses and planning activities; c) to identify concepts, attitudes and the influence had by planners and decision-makers on planning; d) to identify the obstacles and problems encountered by participants in planning in the performance 132 133 of their duties; 3) to suggest or recommend planning techniques that might lead to great improvements in Brazilian universities. In order to serve as a framework for this study, the literature review was divided into two sections: In Section one the literature on planning and management science applied to higher education is presented including the following topics: concepts of planning, planning and management science concepts applied to higher education, structure for planning, the participants in the planning process, and planning models. Section two, includes educational planning in Brazil including a brief outline of Brazilian higher education system, and the development and organization for educational planning. Methodology Three sources of information- questionnaires, interviews, and documents related to planning - were chosen to collect the data needed to carry out this study. The participants in the study were identified as the vice presidents for planning (planners), and university council members (decision-makers). A total of 75 participants (respondents) participated in this study corresponding to 62 percent of the total population. Because this study was done without a working hypothesis, descriptive statistics and measures of central tendency, were the statistical methods used for much of the 134 analysis. Findings and Conclusions The information presented in Chapter IV, lead to the following findings, and conclusions: 1- Participants in planning were identified as the vice presidents for planning (planners), and university council members (decision-makers). The "typical" participant was a male, with an average age of 44 years, holding the rank of associate professor, and working in "exclusive dedication." In terms of academic degree, a high percentage had master degrees in humanities and social sciences earned from foreign universities. 2- The planners, except in the university A, had no experience in university administration or expertise in planning and public administration. All of them were chosen for their positions owing to personal relationships with the president and experience as professors within the same institution. The great majority of decision-makers had been members of the university council for a period corresponding to the presidents' term or service. Their background as a professional educators rarely include training in administrative techniques and, thus, leaves them ill prepared to deal with the complex governance of the university. 3- A high percentage of decision-makers (28%) felt 135 unqualified to exercise their decision-making duties. Fostering better relationships with the top administration, and better orientation and communication from the central administration were among the main ways suggested for improved university administration. 4- A wide variety of duties (27) was described by members of the university council in performing their decision-making functions. Among these activities none was related to planning. 5- A great amount of time has been spent by planners on routine administrative tasks, and contacts with external agencies and members of the university community. Planners being burdened with trivial details, devote more time to administrative routines than to planning. 6- The personnel working in the planning unit were selected from among the university administrative staff, and had no previous experience in university administration or expertise in planning, which should be important factors in the selection criteria. In general, the quality and number of these personnel is satisfactory. Many completed short- term courses related to university administration and internships in the Ministry of Education. Almost all of them have learned through on-the-job training. 7- For all their deficiencies, Brazilian university administrators are full of good intentions. In the universities visited, there seemed to be an awareness of the fact that good planning and management are the keys to the 136 overall university development. In spite of a wide degree of acceptance of the need for planning, little or almost no progress has been made. Its structure, isolation and lack of contact with other more advanced institutions, its unfamiliarity with the traditions of political and administrative autonomy, and its lack of trained administrators and personnel have served to impede the process of modernization. 8— All three universities planners acknowledged having no long-range planning documents of any kind. According to the participants, they receive their overall orientation from the Ministry of Education, and the programs and projects executed by their universities, have to be consistent with the guidelines set by the governmental agencies. 9- Much of what has been done in Brazilian universities seems to be dictated by requirements imposed by external forces, mainly governmental agencies. Many managerial practices have been curative, rather than anticipatory, preventive or creative. 10— The availability of some of the planning documents is variable. In general, the university community is unaware of the ongoing activities in the planning units and. consequently, there is little input from the community in the process. 11— Planning has been defined by the great majority of participants as the application of a rational and systematic 137 process of educational development. However, a small but representative proportion (20%) expressed the belief that planning is still more mystical and symbolic rather than a rational activity. For them, three factors - financial problems, inexperienced university administrators, and their short-terms in office - limit the freedom to innovate, by making planning virtually impossible. Nevertheless, regardless of their concepts, all of them hhave positive attitudes in terms of their expectations as to what planning can accomplish. 12— The levels of knowledge of planning and managerial practices seem to be very narrow and limited. The participants in this study were unfamiliar with the planning literature, and were unaware of the planning models and techniques developed in American universities. 13- In spite of the differences in size and legal structure in the universities under consideration, no differences were found in the organization of the universities and the use of planning and management systems. 14- Planners perceive their universities as conservative and reluctant to change. In their view, there is a conflict between generations, and certain areas of the universities tend to be more traditional and dominated by the old generation. 15— Several groups were identified and assumed to influence planning policies. Among these groups, the following were believed to exercise much influence: the 138 presidents, general vice presidents, vice presidents for planning, governmental agencies, university councils, and teaching and research councils. In spite of their considerable influence on planning, top university administrators and members of the university councils have had little participation in the planning process. Any attempt to make planning a continuous activity, rather than a series of isolated efforts should involve the whole university community, and external agencies in the process. Without broader participation and support on the part of all interested parties - teachers, administrators, students, research workers, political leaders - no plan, however logical, would stand a chance of being implemented. The planning process is political and is centered around the use of authority. When a financial planning system is first implemented, some members of the university community are invariably disturbed, because the process changes the known political dynamics. To insure that individuals in the constituent units understand who has authority for decision-making, a formal planning system must be used. There are, of course, alternative systems. Because of the nature of educational institutions and the typical involvement of all departments in the process, an opportunity for participatory governance is necessary (Dozier et al., 1980). 16- A wide variety of problems facing higher education, and obstacles to planning were identified by the 139 respondents. Among these problems the following were reported to be the most important: limited financial resources, lack of autonomy, and lack of participation and motivation among the academic community. Some of these problems could be relieved, if not solved, if the universities had better planning and applied certain managerial principles for increasing its administrative efficiency. Recommendatigns 1— Significant efforts in planning and management principles are visible in many universities around the world, but not in Brazil where the situation appears to be unchanged. Since the rapid growth in student enrollment many problems confront higher education, but no solution has yet been formulated by educational administrators. The task of educational administrators is to implement changes and adapt services in a period of unprecedented change. The experience in Brazilian universities, and the demand for higher education which must be met in the future, should give new impetus to the campaign to examine the ways in which planning can increase educational efficiency among university administrators. As Raymond (1969) stated "it is necessary to examine not only how planning can help administrators, but how educational administrators itself must change in order to cope with problems and tasks of a size and characters with which 140 earlier administrative structures, attitudes and procedures were not designed to cope" (p. 11). 2- Higher education in Brazil is no longer accorded top priority by the central government. A large portion of the appropriations for education have already been spent in these post secondary institutions. There is considerable criticism in the Third Sectoral Plan, (1980—1985), which remains in effect today. This plan criticizes the role of the university in meeting the country's needs, and excluded higher education from its priorities. Better accountability, and foresight through planning have become prerequisites for survival. 3- Training programs should be intensified and broadened to include university administrators seeking to develop their capabilities and effectiveness. The Ministry of Education should find the ways and means to support national training programs. Brazilian universities should require their personnel to attend seminars or short courses, and participate in on-going internal studies aimed at improving the structure and management of their universities, Universities should employ consultant firms to develop new operating systems. 4- Decision—making is fundamental to good management. Since members of the university councils play key roles in their universities, it is crucial that members understand and participate in the planning. Member should insists on well documented planning and budgets. Further, members 141 should examine the backgrounds of candidates for the positions of president, general vice president, and vice president for planning for previous experience in institutional planning, and public administration. 5- Vice presidents for planning are not accorded sufficient "clout". Their authority, official involvement with the university community, and the administrative support for their decision are coordinated through the president's office. They should be given more responsibility written in the by-laws of their universities to support their decisions and actions. 6- University administrators have been overburdened with routine administrative tasks. They must delegate responsibility and authority to subordinate personnel in order to better exercise their planning functions. 7- A major part of this study was devoted to suggesting or recommending planning techniques or models that might be helpful to Brazilian universities. In the review of the literature presented in Chapter II, the most common planning models were presented, and their major implications were discussed. There are several different planning models for different purposes, some of them more successful than others. Many of the models proposed for use in colleges and universities are deficient with respect to one or more factors (Hopkins and Massy,1981). The choice or recommendation of a specific model, as 142 Hopkins and Massy (1981) stated, requires an understanding of both what is important to the institutions, and what means can be used to achieve the desired ends. A model has to be tailored for a specific situation and for specific purposes. Concern about modeling arises from oversimplification, the indiscriminate use of modeling, and an overemphasis on the quantifiable dimension of a decision situation. Careful attention must therefore be paid to choosing the areas appropriate for analysis and constructing models that are properly tailored to the specific needs of colleges and universities. 8- Additional studies in planning and management should be considered. As a result of some of the findings of this study some of the following questions should be examined in greater detail and depth. Among them are: "What impedes the universities from having a systematic and comprehensive planning, if both planners and decision-makers recognize its importance as an approach to the solution of some of its problems?" "What impedes the use of modern managerial principles, and sophisticated planning techniques, if the use of managerial instruments can produce a better rationalization and utilization of material, human, and financial resources and, consequently, can be powerful tools that permit people to produce better plans or decisions than would otherwise be possible?" "What impedes the universities from hiring competent and expert professionals in management and planning?;" and the last question: "What impedes 143 Brazilian universities from applying the same managerial principles and techniques as the American universities if the academic model adopted by Brazilian institutions are the same used in American universities in terms of departmental and academic structures, faculty, council and careers? 9— This study should be applied to the situation of other federal universities in order to determine the consistency of findings. Studies in planning and management of public universities should also be encouraged by the research institutions, and governmental agencies of Brazil. APPENDICES APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE 14A! QUESTIONARIO O PROCESSO DE PLANEJAMBNTO EM UNIVERSIDADES BRASILEIRAS Controle: Universidade: Objetivos: 0 objetivo geral do estudo, em que se insere este questioné rio. é analisar. de forma descritiva. o processo de planejamento em trés universidades federais no Brasil, tal como ele se configura nas atividades desenvolvidas pelos-Pr6-Reitores (Diretores) de Planejamen to e membros do Conselho Universitirio, em cada instituigfio. Especifi camente, o estudo seri desenvolvido com vistas aos seguintes propési- tos: a) descrever a presente estrutura de planejamento de cada unive: sidade; b) identificar metodologias e técnicas usadas em planejamento; c) identificar atitudes e percepgées dos membros do Conselho Universi tario e Pro-Reitores (Diretores) de Planejamento com relagio a plane- jamento; d) identificar obstéculos e problemas encontrados no desen - volvimento de suas atividades de planejamento; e) sugerir modelos e técnicas de planejamento. Informagées sobre o qnestionério: Solicita-se aos membros do Conselho Universitario que preen cham o questionario. As universidades e as respondentes n50 serfio identificados no trabalho final. Qualquer informagao seri considerada confidencial. 0 name dos respondentes se faz necessirio apenas para controle do re- cebimento dos questionirios. Iodas as questfies apresentam espago para resposta. Solici - ta-se que seja usado o verso da folha para complementar respostas. se necessirio. A cooperagfio de V.Exa. seri grandemente apreciada. Por fa- vor, apés preencher o questionirio, remeta-o para o enderego abaixo. usando o envelope anexo. 1. Z. Qual é o seu cargo. (Marque com "X") IL45 QUESTIONARIO SBXO. idade, nivel e regime de trabalho ? P051950 que ocupa a tual- mente Sexo/Idade Nivel Regime/Trabalho Reitor Vice- Reitor Pr6— Reitor Diretor de orgao administrativo Diretor de unidade Vice-Diretor de unidade Representante de unidade Representante de Professores Representante dos Servidores Tecnicos e Administrativos Representante dos Estudantes Representante da Comunidade * Outro (eSpecificar) Masc.____ Fem. Idade____ Titular__ Adjunto__ Assist.__ Aux.de Ens. Outro Outro Ded.Exclus. 40 horas 20 horas Quando, onde e em que area obteve seus titulos académicos ? Nivel Ano Universidade Curso Doutorado Mestrado Graduagao Especializagao Outro (especifi- car) Quantas vezes 55 foi membro do Conselho Universitério (incluido o atual mandato) ? N9 de vezes Por quanto tempo (em meses) foi (é) membro do Conselho Université rio ? N9 de meses . Quanto tempo tem ainda de mandato como membro do Conselho Uni\er- sitario ? N9 de meses Dentre as suas atividades desenvolvidas no Conselho Universitario, poderia voce descrever as que lhe parecem mais importantes ? (Apxe sente-as em ordem de importancia. 6. 10. 11. 12. 13. IL46 Como membro do Conselho Universitirio, considera deter conhecimento suficiente sobre os objetivos da Universidade. seu funcionamento. as limitagoes e problemas no desenvolvimento de suas _fun;6es adminis - trativas e academicas, seu relacionamento com 6rgaos do Ministerio da Educacao ? Sim N50 Se respondeu negativamente a questao 6, indique de que forma pensa que poderia obter esse conhecimento. Na sua opiniao, que qualificagao deve ter 0 Pro-Reitor (Diretor) de Planejamento de sua Universidade ? Qualificagao Formal Qualificagao Informal Pés-Doutorado Treinamento em servigo Doutorado Seminarios Mestrado E/OU Estagios Especializacao Experiéncia em adminis- Outro (Especificar) tracao universitaria Outro (Especificar) Sua Universidade tem algum plano global de desenvolvimento para os préximos anos ? Sim Nao Nao sei. Se respondeu afirmativamente a questao 9, que influéncia p6de exer cer na formulagao do plano ? Se respondeu ne ativamente a questao 9. favor citar a (s) razao (6es) da nao ex1stencia de um plano para sua universidade. Na sua opiniao, quais sao os problemas mais “importantes de sua Uni versidade ? Apresente- 05 em ordem de importancia. Abaixo sao apresentadas algumas concepgoes de planejamento educa - Sional. Marque com um "X" aquela que lhe parece ser a nais adequa- a. Planejamento educacional é a aplicagéo de analise sistemfiti- ca e raciona1.visando ao desenvolvimento do processo educacional. Planejamento educacional e mais uma mistica e um simbolo do que uma atividade racional. Outta definigio (Bspecificar) 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 3L4? Justifique a escolha da resposta dada na questao 13. *— Marque com um "X", na tabela abaixo, a resposta que mais se apro- xima do grau de influencia que cada um dos grupos indicados exer ce na formulagao do plano em sua Universidade (Assinale uma res- posta para cada grupo). G R U P 0 I N P L U E N C I A as H Marque com um "X" o algarismo que 5 g a g 3 corresponds ao grau de influencia. .e a :3 .H 5 :5 g 8:: l8 :2 z: z: :z Conselho Universitario 0 l 2 3 4 Coordenagao de Ensino e Pesquisa 0 1 2 3 4 Reitor e Vice- Reitor 0 1 2 3 4 Pr6- Reitor de Planejamento 0 1 2 3 4 Pr6- -Reitores Academicos 0 1 2 3 4 Diretores de Unidades 0 1 2 3 4 Professores 0 1 2 3 4 Estudantes 0 l 2 3 4 Politicos 0 1 2 3 4 Orgios do Governo 0 1 2 3 4 Outro (Especificar) 0 l 2 ~ 3 4 Na sua opiniao, quais $50 as trés raz6es mais importantes para planejar (assinale-as com um "x"): Planejamento possibilita a Universidade realizar o processo de mudanga de maneira eficaz. Planejamento ajuda a assegurar que os objetivos da Universi dade serao alcangados ou mudados quando necessario. Planejamento ajuda na tomada de decisao diaria. Planejamento capacita a Universidade a manter o adequado controle de sua administragao. Planejamento 6 racional e a unica resposta viavel neste tem p0 de crise e de limitagao de recursos. Outra (Especificar) Tem conhecimento de algum documento de avaliagio da presente si - tuagio de sua Universidade ? Sim Nao Se reSpondeu afirmativamente a questao 17. marque com um "x" a(s) sentenga (s). que melhor descreve (m) o prop6sito do documento : manter a Universidade informada sobre a sua realidade enviar informa§6es a agencias governamentais fornecer informac6es para decis6es sobre planejamento selecionar areas. rogramas ou projetos como prioritarios outro (especificarg 19. 20. 21. 22. 148 Se reSpondeu afirmativamente 5 questao 17, marque com um "x" quem produziu 0 documento: Consultores fora da Universidade Pessoal Tecnico pertencente a0 6rg§o de planejamento Orgao de planejamento em 000peraga0 com outros setores den- tro da Universidade outros orgfios especificos da Universidade outro (especificar) Ill N50 sail Marque com um‘"x" as atividades que executa c0m0 membro do Conse- lho Universitario: Define 05 objetivos globais da instituigio. Participa ativamente na determinagao dos objetivos do plan; jamento educacional. Participa na decisao sobre projetos e/ou subprojetos. Advoga politicas de mudanga. Analisa projetos a serem submetidos a outras agéncias para obtencéo de recursos. Participa na formulagfio d0 orgamento anual. Outra (especificar) Abaixo, estéo listados itens que podem ser obstéculos e problemas para 0 apr0priad0 planejamento de sua Universidade. Indique os gnngnn que lhe parecem mais importantes, assinalando-os com as ng meros l (0 mais importante), 2 (0 segundo em importancia),3 (ate: ceiro em importancia) e 4 (0 quarto em importancia). Inadequado treinamento d0 pessoal do 6rg50 de planejamento Falta de avaliagio global das necessidades educacionais d0 pais Falta de autonomia Falta de recursos financeiros Falta de instrumentos e mecanismos adequados para a elaborn 950 de planos Palta de recursos humanos ‘ Pouca participagio dos Departamentos Universitarios n0 pro- cesso de planejamento Dificuldade de envolvimento dos professores n0 processo de planejamento Falta de motivagio dos Diretores de Unidades, Chefes de De- partamento e-professores_em assuntos de planejamento. Outro (especificarf ' ” ‘ Outros comentfirios e 0pini6es relativos ao planejamento em sua Uni versidade. APPENDIX B INTERVIEW GUIDE IL49 GUIA DE ENTREVISTA 1 - Qual 6 0 seu cargo, sexo, idade, nfvel e regime de trabalho ? (Marque com "X") Presente posicfio ocupada Sexo/Idade Nivel Regime/Trabalho Reitor Masc. Titular Ded. Exclusiva Vise-Reitor Fem. Adjunto 40 horas Pro-Reitor Idade Assist. 20 horas Diretor de Unidade Vice-Diretor de Unidade Representante de Unidade Representante de Professores Representante dos Servidores Tecnicos e Administrativos Representante dos Estudantes Representante da Comunidade Outr0(Especificar) Aux. de Ensino Outro Outro ‘1 2 - Quando, 0nde e em que area, voce obteve seus titulos académicos? Nivel Ano Universidade Curso Doutorado Mestrado Graduacio Especializacao Outr0(Especifi car) 3 - anis $50 as suas principais responsabilidades em sua presente posi- gao? (Especifique revemente). 4 - Poderia voce ordenar as responsabilidades que woce mencionou na questao n9 3, de acordo com sua importancia? S - Como voce veio a ser Pr6-Reit0r (Diretor) de Planejamento? (Hist6ria. processo de escolha, etc.) 6 - Qual experiencia profissional (educagao, experiencia universitaria . exercicio de funcao administrativa). voce pensa que 0 qualifica pa- ra sua fungao de Pr6- -Reit0r (Diretor) de Planejamento? 7 - Vocé pensa que os Pr6-Reit0res (Diretores) de Planejamento deveriam ter alguma preparacao para desempenhar as funcdes de planejamento? 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 15C) 2. - Se a quest60 n9 7 6 afirmativa, como vocé pensa que tal preparagfio deveria ser feita? Programa Formal . Programa Informal P6s-D0ut0rad0 Treinamento em serviqo Doutorado Curso de Curta Durac60 Mestrado Semin6rios Bspecializac60 E/OU Bst6gios 0utr0(Especifi Outro(Bspecificar) carT - Se 3 guest60 n9 7 6 afirmativa, indique a area on 6reas que tal pre paragao deveria ser feita? - Bstime 0 percentual de seu tempo gasto nas seguintes atividades: Atividades administrativas: por exemplo. relat6rios adminis - trativos. trabalhos de rotina, etc. Atividades t6cnicas: por exemp10:ac0mpanhament0 de estudos , f9rmu1ac60 e an6lise de projetos. preparag60 de relat6rios t6cnicos, implantag60 de planos, etc. Atividades de interag60: por exemplo: contatos com outros 6r- g6os. com ag6ncias externas, com 0 publico, etc. Outras atividades (Especificar) * _- — 100$ - Quantas pessoas em seu 6rg60 est60 trabalhando em atividades de pla nejamento? - Qual a formac60_ e experi6ncia profissional dessas -pessoas ? (Titu- los, posic60. n60 citar nomes). - Quais s60 05 tipos de atividades desenvolvidas por essas pessoas? - Existe algum documento em sua universidade, avaliando a presente si tuac60 9 (Se afirmativa, solicitar c6pia). Se a quest60 n9 14 6 afirmativa, qual das sentengas abaixo descrevem melhor 0 pr0p6sit0 d0 documento ? para manter a universidade informada sobre a realidadc; para enviar informag6es para ag6ncias governamentais; para fornecer informac6es para deci56es sobre planejamento; para selecionar 6reas. programas 0u projetos como priorit6rios. Outro (especificar - Se a quest60 n9 14 6 afirmativa, quem elaborou 0 documento? O pessoal t6cnic0 pertencente a0 6rg60 de planejamento. Consultores fora da universidade. 0 6rg60 de planejamento em cooperac60 com outros setores den- tro da universidade. Outras 6rg6os especificos da universidade. Outro (ESpecificar) N60 sei. Sua universidade tem algum documentosobre planejamento para os pr6xi mos anos? - Geralmente quanto tempo sua universidade projeta para 0 futuro? (5 anos, anualmente, em eSpecial circunstfincias, etc.) 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 1151. 3. 0 plano de sua universidade inclui especificos objetivos, metas , etc. ? 0 plano de sua universidade inclui estratégias. especifico curso de agao, prioridades, etc. ? O plano de sua universidade estima os recursos alocados para 0 futu- r0 ? Qual 6 a abrangéncia d0 plano de sua universidade ? O planejamento em sua universidade 6 frequentemente retrospective , isto e, planejamento flnto para corrigir situag6es passadas ? O planejamento em sua universidade 6 frequentemente prospectivo. is- to e. planejamento dirigido para criar um futuro desejado ? Existe algum procedimento (modelos, técnicas. etc.) especial na qual sua universidade segue em planejamento ? O que iniciou planejamento em sua universidade (crise, solicitag6ode entidades governamentais. mera formalidade exigida pelo Estatuto da Universidade, erc.). Na sua 0pini60. quais $60 as tr65 raz6es mais importantes para plang jar. (Coloque em ordem de prioridade). Planejamento possibilita a Universidade realizar 0 processo de mudanga de maneira eficaz. Planejamento ajuda assegurar que os objetivos da Universidade ser60 alcangados ou mudados quando necess6ri0. Planejamento ajuda na tomada de decis60 di6ria. Planejamento capacita a Universidade a manter 0 controle de sua administracao adequado. Planejamento 6 racional e a finica resposta vi6ve1 neste tempo de crise e de limitagao de recursos. 0utr0 (ESpecificar) O que v0c6 pensa que deveria ser incluido navers60 final d0 seu pla- no ? (Miss60, objetivos, an61ise da situac60, estrat6gias, estabele- cimento de prioridades, etc. ). Como 0 plano em sua universidade 6 transformado em plano operacional? 3O - Marque com um "X" na tabela abaixo a resposta mais pr6xima que corres ponde a inf1u6ncia que cada grupo exerce na formulag60 do plano em sua universidade. (Marque um para cada grupo). (SRIJF'O DUEMBKHA Marque com "X" 0 algarismo QLB corres ponde a0 grau de import6ncia. (hgaxidOvamnw 0utro (Especificar) Conselho Uhiversit6rio o 1 2 3 4 Reitor e Vice-Reitor o 1 2 3 4 It§~Reitor de Planejamento O 1 2 3 4 PnrReruneslkmdémnxm 0 l 2 3 4 Diretores de Uhidades 0 1 2 3 4 Professores 0 l 2 3 4 Eshxmmmes 0 l 2 3 4 Politicos 0 l 2 3 4 O 1 2 3 4 O 1 2 3 4 1563 . . . - 4. 31 - Marque com um "X" na tabela abaixo as at1v1dades que voce executa na 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 sua universidade. Define os objetivos globais da instituig60. Participa ativamente na determinag60 dos objetivos d0 planejamen to. Particpa na f0rmulac60 de projetos e/ou subprojetos. Coordena a execuc60 d0 planejamento. Conclui a elabora§60 d0 plano. Analisa projetos a serem submetidos a outras ag6ncias para recu: sos. Participa na formulag60 do orcamento anual. Outra (Especificar) Atividades, em geral, difer9m na quantidade de tempo que consomem. Ordene as atividade que v0c6 marcou na quest60 n9 31. de acordo com 0 tempo que consomem. (Marque 1 a atividade que consome mais tempo, 2 a seguinte, e assim por diante). Abaixo s60 apresentadas algumas c0ncepq69s sobre planejamento 9du cacional. Marque com um "X" aquela definig60 que v0c6 pensa que 6 a mais importante. Planejamento educacional 6 a aplicac60 de an61ise sistem6tica e racional visando 0 desenvolvimento d0 processo educacional. Planejamento educacional 6 mais uma mistica e um simbolo d0 que uma atividade racional. Outra definig6o(fav0r especificar) Se v0c6 n60 c0nsid9r0u nenhuma das definig6es apresentadas nacnwst60 n9 33, poderia v0c6 indicar sua pr6pria defini§60 ? Favor justificar a escolha da resposta dada na quest60 n9 33. De que forma a comunidade universit6ria participa na elaborac60 do plano em sua universidade ? Qual 6 a politica de sua universidade com relag60 a apresentag60 do plano para sua comunidade ? Como v0c6 pensa que planejamento poderia mudar sua universidade n0 futuro ? Abaixo est60 listadas quatro 6reas de atividades tipicas d0 planeja dor universit6ri0: 1 - Administrativa. Por exemp10,executar projetos sob a ordem do su perior dentro da hierarquia administrativa. 2 - Politica. Por exemp10,adaptar a proposta d0 plano dentro d0 am - biente politico. 3 - T6cnic0. Por exemplo, determinar os procedimentos 0u especificar as'ferramentas' necess6rias para alcancar os objetivos determina dos n0 plano. 4 - Bducacional. Por exemp10,9specificar a toda a comunidade e ao publico interessado. a politics. objetivos e 05 resultados espe- rados d0 plano. Marque uma ou mais das atividades que v0c6 acredita que fazem parte de seus deveres. Administrativa Tecnica Politica' Educacional 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 21525 S. Ordene as 9tividades que v0c6 marcou na quest60 n9 39, de acordo com sua import6ncia. (Ordene 1 a mais importante. ordene 2 a pr6xima em import6ncia e assim por diante). Na sua 0pini60, quais problemas enfrenta sua universidade h0j9 ? Como esses problemas diferem d0 p9ssad09 . Quais problemas v0c6 eSpera para 0 futuro 9 Qual 6 a signific6ncia desses problemas para sua uni- versidade 9 Muitas universidades incluem diversos grupos com variadas percepg6es sobre como deveria ser 9 universidade e c0m0 deveria ser dirigida.C0- m0 faz 0 planejamento em sua universidade para controlar as diferen - cas de 0pini6es, situac6es. conflitos, erc. 9 Se v0c6 tivesse 9 poder de mudar sua universidade, como seria a uni versidade que vocé criaria diferente da universidade hoje 9 Quanto receptiva 6 a sua universidade a novas id6ias, novos programas, nOV9s procedimentos, etc. 9 Como faz 0 planejamento para estimular inn vag6es em sua universidade 9 Qual 0 papel d0 Reitor em planejar 0 futuro de sua universidade 9 Na sua OpinlaO. como oRe1t0r conduz planejamento em sua universidade ? Qual 0 papel d0 pessoal administrativo em planejar 0 futuro de sua uni_ versidad9 9 Caracterize a administrag6o da universidade. Como voc6 descreveria a qualidade d0 pessoal administrativo de sua uni versidade 9 Abaixo est60 listados itens que podem ser 0bst6culos e problemas para 0 apropriado planej9ment0 de sua Universidade. Ordene quatro deles de acordo com 9 import6ncia para v0c6. (Ordene 1 0 mais importante. 0r- 2 0 pr6xim0 em importancia e assim por diante). inadequado treinamento d0 pessoal do 6rg60 de planejamento; falta de avaliag60 global das necessidades educacionais d0 pais; falta de autonomia; falta de recursos financeiros; falta de instrumentos e mecanismos adequados para a elabora§60 de planos; falta de recursos humanos; P0UC3 participagao dos Departamentos Universit6rios n0 processo de planejamento; dificuldade de envolvimento dos professores n0 processo de plan9 jamento; H:H |||||§ 0utr0 (especificar) - V006 tem algum c0ment6ri0 adicional que gostaria de formular 9 - V006 gostaria de receber uma c6pia d0 relat6ri0 final desse estudo 9 BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Abu-Merhy, Nair Fortes. "Emerging National Policies for Higher Education in Brazil." In Inn Yearbook g; gducation 1971172. Edited by Brian Holmes. Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, New York, 1973. Ackoff, Russel L. A Concept pf Corporate Planning. Wiley- Interscience, New York, 1970. Alvin C. Eurich and Signey G. Tickton. Long-Range Planning and gndgeting 93 Colleges and Universities. Academy for Educational Development Inc., Washington D. C., 1972. Benveniste, Guy. Bureaucracy and National Planning: A Sociological Case Study in Mexico. Praeger, New York, 1970. The Politics pf Expertise. University of California, Berkeley, Glendessary Press, 1977. Bleau, Barbara Lee. "Planning Models in Higher Education: Historical Review and Survey of Currently Available Models." Higher Education 10, 1981: 153-168. Bogard, L. Management in Institutions of Higher Education. Paper on Efficiency in $22 Management 9; Higher Education. Edited by Mood et. al. Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, Berkeley, California, 1972. Braga, Ronald. Q Ensino Superior ng Brasil: Presente g Futuro. MEC, Brasilia, 1978. Brasil. Anuario Estatistico 99 Brasil 1980. Fundacao Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatistica, Rio de Janeiro, 1981. . Ministerio da Educacao e Cultura. I; Plano Setorial gs Educacao (9975-;979), MEC, Departamento de Documentacao e Divulgacao, Brasilia, 1977. . Ministerio da Educacao e Cultura. III Plano Setorial gg Educacao Cultura g pespostos 198011985. Diretrizes de Planejamento do MEC (Programacao para 1983 e 1984), MEC, Brasilia, 1983. 154 155 Ministerio do Planejamento e Coordenacao Economica. glnno Decenal gg Desenvolvimento Economico 9 Social ;967-1976. Volume I, Parte VI, Ministerio do Planejamento e Coordenacao Geral, Brasilia, 1967. Caruthers, J. Kent and Orwig, M. D. Budgeting, in Higher Education. AAHE-ERIC/Higher Education Research Report No. 3, 1981. Chadwick, Clifton. Educational Technology in International Development Education. ED 046238, Florida State University, Florida, Nov. 1970. Chirikos, T. N. and Wheeler, A. C. R. "Concepts and Techniques of Educational Planning." Review 9; ggucational Research. Vol. XXXVII, No. 3, 1968: 264- 271. Cohen, Michael and March, James. Leadership and Ambiguity. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1974. Cope, Robert G. Strategic Planning Management and Qecisipn— Making. AAHE—ERIC Higher Education Research Report No. 9, 1981. Washington D. C.: American Association for Higher Education, 1981. Correa, H. and Adams, Don. "A Model for a Comparative Study of the Educational Planning Process." Educational Planning (Journal of International Society of Educational Planners); Vol. I, No. 3, December 1972: 3- 65. Crane, Andres Uribe. University Adminitration: Universal Access, Social Rglevance and Administrntive Reform in Higher Education. The 1976 meeting of the Council on Higher Education of the American Republics, Belo Horizonte, March 21-25, 1976. Cunha, Luis A. C. da. Politica gnucaciona1 np Brasil: 5 Profissionalizacao ng Ensino Medio. Livraria Eldorado Tijuca, Rio de Janeiro, 1973. Cunningham, William G. Systematig Planning for Educational Change, Mayfield Publishers Co., California, 1982. Daland, Robert T. Brazilian Planning: Development Politics and Administration. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, North Carolina, 1967. , and Parker, John A. “Roles of the Planner in Urban Development." In Urban Growth Dynamics. Edited by F. S. Chapin and S. F. Weiss, New York, 1962: 196- 219. 156 Dober, Richard P. Campus Planning. Reinhold Publishing Corporation, New York, 1963. Cited by Lahr, Leland Allen. "A Comparative Study of Long-Range Planning at Selected Independent Colleges in the State of Michigan." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1981. Dozier, J. et al. A Planning Manual for Colleges. National Association of College and University, ED185922, Washington, DC, 1980. Dressel, Paul L. and Associates. Institutional Research in the University. Jossey—Bass Inc., Publishers, San Francisco, 1971. Dror, Yehezkel. "The planning Process: A Facet Design." International Review pi Administrative Sciences, Vol. XXIX, No. 1, 1963: 46-58. Eberle, August W. and McCutcheon, C. " A System Model for Institutional Planning." Educationai Record, 51(1), 1970: 66-71. Eurich, Alvin C. "Plan or Perish" College and University Journal, Vol. IX, No. 3, Summer 1970: 18-22. Faludi, Andreas. A Reader in Planning Theory.Pergamon Press, New York, 1973. Fidelis, Gilberto. "Brazilian University Administrators' Perceptions of Their Training and the Administrative Appointment Process: A Case study." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1982. Fincher, Cameron. Planning in Higher Education. Institute of Higher Education, Georgia University, Athens, Georgia, 1966. Finger, Almeri Paulo. "The Rule and Functions of Brazilian University Presidents." Ph.D. dissertation, George Peabody College for Teachers, 1978. Geoffrion, A. M.; Dyer, J. S.; and Feinberg, A. Academic erartnent Management: in Application pi pn Interactive nnlti-Criteripn Optimization Approach. Report P-25, Ford Research Program in University Administration, University of California, Berkeley, October 1971. Goetz, Belly E. Management Planning and Control. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1949. In Essential pi Management by Koontz, Harold; O'Donnell Cyril; and Weihrich, Heinz. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1982. 157 Goode, William and Hatt, Paul K. Methods in Social Research. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1952. Gray, Paul. College and University Planning Models. Paper read at the Conference on Academic Planning for the Eighties and Nineties. Sponsored by University of Southern California, Office of Institutional Studies, and held on 22-23 January 1976 at the University of Southern California, University Park, Los Angeles. In Planning Models for Colleges and Universities. Edited by Hopkins, David S. P. and Massy William F. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California, 1981. Hicks, Herbert and Gullet C. Ray. Management. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1981. Hopkins, David S. P. "On the Use of Large-scale Simulation Models for University Planning." Review pi Educational Research 41, 1971: 467-78. , and Massy, William F. Planning Models for Colleges and Universities. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California, 1981. Huse, Edgar F. The Modern Manager. Publishing Company, Minnesota, 1979. Inbar, Dan E. "Educational Planning: A Review and a Plea." Review pi Educational Research, Vol. 50, No. 3, Fall 1980: 377-392. John, Edward P. St. "Management System Development: An Interventions Model for Developing Colleges and Universities." Journal pi Higher Education, Vol. 51, No. 3, 1980: 285—300. Keller, J. "The Uses of Models in University Decision- Making." Unpublished monograph. Berkeley: University of California, Office of the President/Planning and Analysis, 1967. In Institutional Use of Models: Hope or Continued Frustration? by Plourde, Paul J., Eng Directions ipi Institutional Research 9, Spring 1976: 17-32. Kidder, L. R. Research Methodos in Social Relations. Holt Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1964. King, William R. and Cleland, David I. Strategic Planning and Policy. Van Nortrand Reinhold Company, New York, 1978. Kleft, R. N. "Faculty Planning Parameters: A Shared Responsibility." College and University, 50, 1975: 263- 267. 158 Koontz, Harold and O'Donnell Cyril. The Nature and Purpose of Planning. In Long-Range Planning for Management Ewig, David W, Harper and Row Publishers, New York, 1964 , and Weihrich, Heinz. Essentials pi Manggement. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1982. Kornfield, L. L. et. al. "Simulation Models: Technic for Juggling the What Ifs." College and University Business 53(5), 1972: 31-37. Kowarich, Lucio. Estrategias pp Eianejamento Social np Brasil. Centro Brasileiro de Analises e Planejamento (CEBRAP), Sao Paulo, 1972. Lahr, Leland Allen. "A Comparative Study of Long-Range Planning at Selected Independent Colleges in the State of Michigan." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1981. Le Breton, Preston P. and Henning, Dale A. Planning Theory. Prentice-Hall Inc., New Jersey, 1961. Luce, Maria Beatriz Moreira. "An Assessment of Criteria to Evaluate the Graduate Education Program in Brazil." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1979. Mayhew, L. B. and the Committee on Administration and Policy Analysis. Educational Leadership and Declining Enrollments. Berkeley: McCutchan, 1974. In Management System Development: An Intervention Model for Developing Colleges and Universities, by John Edward P. St. Journal pi Higher Education, Vol. 51, No. 3, 1980:285-300. McGinn, Noel. Educational Research and Planning for Change in Latin America. Developing discussion paper no. 109, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachussetts, December 1980. McNamara, James F. "Mathematical Programming Models in Educational Planning." Review pi Educational Research, Vol. 41, No. 5, December 1971: 419-446. Mendes, Durmeval Trigueiro. Toward p Theory pi Educational Planning: The Brazilian Case. Latin American Studies Center, Michigan State University, Michigan, 1972. Montandon, Renato. "A Comparative Study of the Relative Efficiencies of IES - Autarchies and IES - Foundations in Brazilian Higher Education." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1981. 159 Morphet Edgar et. a1. Planning and Providing for Excellence in Education. Citation Press, New York, 1972. Nelson, C. A. "Observations on the Scope of Higher Education Planning in the United States." In P. W. Hamelman (ed.), Managing the University: A Systems Approach. New York: Praeger, 1972. Cited by Plourde, Paul J. in Institutional use of Models: Hope or Continued Frustration. New Eireciions for institutionpi Research, 9, Spring 1976: 17-32. Novais, Paulo. "Um Modelo Economico para Planejamento da Educacao." Revista Brasileira pp Estudos Pedagogicos, Vol. 49, No. 110, Rio de Janeiro, Abril/Junho 1968: 229-246. Oliveira, Evaldo Macedo de. "A Universidade e o Planejamento no Brasil." Revista Educacao Brasileira, Brasilia, 4(8), 1p semestre 1982: 33-42. Paiva, Edil Vasconcelos. "Educational Planning: Activities at the National Level in Brasil." Ph.D. dissertation. University of Pittsburgh, 1979. Peat, Marwick Mitchell and Co. SEARCH (System for Evaluating Alternative Resource Commitments in Higher Education). Computer Model Users Manual, New York, 1971. Philips, Bernard S. Sociai Research: Strategy and Tatics. The McMillan Company, New York, 1968. Plourde, Paul J. "Institutional Use of Models: Hope or Continued Frustation?" New Eirections for institutional Research, 9, Spring 1976: 17—32. Pontes, Zilda de Azevedo. "A Descriptive Study of Student Affairs Programs and Their Administration in Federal Universities Located in Northeastern Brazil." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1983. Porter, Randall; Zemsky, Robert; and Oedel, Penney. "Adaptive Planning: the Role of Institution Specific Models." Journal pi Higher Education, 50(5),1979: 586- 601. Primitivo, Moacir. A Instrucao e o Imperio. Colecao Brasiliana, Vol. 121. Sao Paulo, SP, Companhia Editora Nacional, 1936. In Finger, Almeri Paulo. "The Rule and Functions of Brazilian University Presidents."Ph.D. dissertation, George Peabody College for Teachers, 1978. 160 Raymond, Lyons. Administratiyp Aspects pi Educational Planning. United Nationas; Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. ERIC ed. 053442, Paris, France, July, 1969. Redford, Emmette S. Administration pi National Economic Control. The MacMillan Company, New York, 1952. Revista Brasileira de Estudos Pedagogicos, Brasilia, 64 (148), Set./Dez. 1983: 269-294. Rourke, F. E. and Brooks, G. E. The Managerial Revolution in Higher Education. The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, Md., 1966. In Institutional Use of Models: Hope or Continued Frustration? by Plourde, Paul J., Egg Directions ipi Institutional Research, 9, Spring 1976: 17—32. Ruscoe, G. C. The Conditions for Success in Educational Planning. Paris: UNESCO; IIEP, 1969 Cited by Paiva, Edil Vasconcelos. "Educational Planning Activities at the National Level in Brasil", Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pittsburg, 1979. Scheaffer, Richard L. et. al. Elementary Survey Sampling. Duxburg Press, Boston, 1983. Schroeder, Roger 6. En Approach for Improving Planning in Colleges. McGraw Hill Book Company, New York, 1978. , and Adams, Carl R. "The Effective Use of Management Science in University Administration." Review pi Educational Research, 46 (1), 1976: 117-131. Schwartz, David. Introduction ip Management: Principles, Practices and Processes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Inc., New York, 1980. Scott, Brian W. Long-Range Planning in American Industry. American Management Association Inc., New York, 1965. Seaman, A. Frederick Jr. "What Systems Professionals Ought to be Doing." College and University, 55 (11), 1979: 5- 13. SEEC. Ministerio pp Educacao p Cultura L Secretaria Geral. Secretaria de Articulacao e Estudos de Planejamento - 1970-1990. Brasilia, Marco 1985. Selltiz, Claire et. a1. Research Methods in Social Relations. Holt, Renehart, and Winston Inc., New York, 1959. 161 Research Methods in Social Relations, Holt Rinehart, and Winston Inc., New York, 1981. Silva, Jadiel Vieira. Higher Education and University Reform in Brasil. Latin American Studies Center, Michigan State University, Michigan; 1977. Stecklein, John E. Handboop pi College and University Administration. Asa S. Knowles editor-in-chief, McGraw- Hill Book Company, New York, 1970. Sutterfield, William D. "Managing Information: College Planning Could use HELP." College and gniversity Business 50(3), March 1971: 42-46. Teixeira, Anisio. "A Administracao Publica Brasileira e a Educacao." Brasil np Pensanpnto Brasileiro. Edited by Djacyr Menezes. Conselho Federal de Cultura MEC, Rio de Janeiro, 1972. . Educacao p p Mundo Moderno. Companhia Editora Nacional, Sao Paulo, 1969. Trewatha, Robert and Newport M. Gene. Management: Functions and Behavior. Business Publications Inc., Dallas, Texas, 1977. UNESCO. Educational Planning; 5 World Survey pi Problems and Prospects. UNESCO, Paris, 1970. Educational Planning and Social Change. Report on an iiEP Seminar, Paris, 1980. Vaccaro, Louis 0. "Planning in Higher Education: Approaches and Problems." College and University, 51, No. 2, Winter 1976:153—160. Valadao, Haroldo. "A Universidade e o Brasil" Revista Erasileira g3 Estudos Padagogicos 17, Abr./Jun. 1952: 38. Van Dusseldorp, Ralph. Some Principles for the Development of Management Information Systems. In Charles B. Johnson and William Katzenmeyer (Eds.), Management Information Systems in Higher Education: inp State pi inp nii. Durhan: Duke University Press, 1969. Wager, J. James. "A Simulation Model for Planning in an Institutions of Higher Education." College and University, 52(1), 1976:5-20. 162 Weathersby, George, "The Development and Applications of a University Cost Simulation Model." Graduate School of Business Administration and Office of Analytical Studies. University of California, Berkeley, June 15, 1967. In Planning Models for Colleges png gniversities. Edited by Hopkins, David S. P. and Massy, William F. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California, 1981. Wilson, Diane R. Management Science effort in Higher Education: A View from the Literature. Material prepared by Richard Feathestone, College of Education, Course EAC 971-B, Michigan State University, Spring 1984. Wise, F. H. "Simulation Models in College Planning and Administration." In J. G. Bolin (ed.), Management Information for College Administration. Athens, Ga.: The Institute of Higher Education, 1971, Wiseman, Charles. "New Foundations for Planning Models." Journal pi Higher Education, Vol. 50, No. 6, 1979: 726- 744. Wolfe, Marshall. "Social and Political Problems of Educational Planning in Latin American." In Problems and Strategies pi Educational Planning; p. 19-27. Edited by Raymond F. Lyons - Paris: UNESCO, IIEP, 1965. Wolvek, J. A; Comprehensive Planning Process for the State Department pi Public Instruction. Des Moines: Iowa Department of Public Instruction, 1958. Wyatt, J. B.; Emery, J. C.; and Landis C. P. (ed.). Financial Planning Models: Concepts and Case Studies in Colleges and Universities. Princeton: EDUCOM, 1979.