INFORMATION TO USERS
This reproduction was made from a copy o f a docum ent sent to us for microfilming.
While the m ost advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce
this docum ent, the quality o f the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the
quality o f the material subm itted.
The following explanation o f techniques is provided to help clarify markings or
notations which may appear on this reproduction.
1.T he sign or “ targ et” fo r pages apparently lacking from the docum ent
photographed is “ Missing Page(s)” . If it was possible to obtain the missing
page(s) o r section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This
may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages
to assure com plete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an
indication o f either blurred copy because o f m ovem ent during exposure,
duplicate copy, o r copyrighted m aterials th a t should n o t have been filmed. For
blurred pages, a good image o f the page can be found in the adjacent frame. If
copyrighted materials were deleted, a target n o te will appear listing the pages in
the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing o r chart, etc., is p art o f the m aterial being photographed,
a definite m ethod o f “sectioning” the m aterial has been followed. It is
custom ary to begin filming at the upper left hand com er o f a large sheet and to
continue from left to right in equal sections w ith small overlaps. If necessary,
sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on
until com plete.
4. F or illustrations that cannot be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic
means, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and inserted
into y o u r xerographic copy. These prints are available upon request from the
Dissertations C ustom er Services D epartm ent.
5. Some pages in any docum ent may have indistinct print. In all cases the best
available copy has been filmed.

University
M icrtxilms
International
300 N. Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106

8324775

Van C leave, Ja m e s P o w ell

PLANNING PROCESSES IN POST-SECONDARY EDUCATIONAL
INSTITUTIONS IN THE STATE OF MICHIGAN: OPPORTUNITIES AND
CONSTRAINTS FOR POLICY-MAKING

Ph.D.

Michigan State University

University
Microfilms
International

300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106

Copyright 1983
by
Van Cleave, James Powell
All Rights Reserved

1983

PLEASE NOTE:

In all c a s e s this material h as been filmed in the best possible way from th e available copy.
Problems encountered with this d o cu m en t have been identified here with a check m ark V

1.

Glossy p h otographs or p a g e s ______

2.

Colored illustrations, p ap er or p rin t______

3.

P hotographs with dark b ac k g ro u n d ______

4.

Illustrations a re poor c o p y _______

5.

P a g e s with black marks, not original copy_______

6.

Print show s through a s th e re is text on both s id e s of p ag e______

7.

Indistinct, broken or small print on several p a g e s

8.

Print ex ceed s margin req u irem en ts______

9.

Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine_______

10.

.

Com puter printout p ag es with indistinct print______

11.

P a g e (s)____________ lacking w hen material received, and not available from school or
author.

12.

P a g e (s)____________ seem to b e missing in numbering only a s text follows.

13.

Two pages n u m b e re d _____________. Text follows.

14.

Curling and wrinkled p a g e s _______

15.

O ther_________________________________________________________________________

University
Microfilms
International

PLANNING PROCESSES IN POST-SECONDARY
EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS IN THE STATE
OP MICHIGAN: OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS
FOR POLICY-MAKING
By
James Powell Van Cleave

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OP PHILOSOPHY

Department of Administration and Curriculum

1983

ABSTRACT
PLANNING PROCESSES IN POST-SECONDARY
EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS IN THE STATE
OP MICHIGAN: OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS
FOR POLICY-MAKING

By
James Powell Van Cleave

Problem - Postsecondary educational

institutions in

the State of Michigan are faced with a turbulent environment
and the threat of some form of statewide coordination which
could cause the environment to become more tightly coupled
and turbulent.
institutions

The long term issue

tends

to

exacerbate

of autonomy for state

relations between members

of the postsecondary organization-set.
scarce,

and

education,

many

interests,

State resources are

including

are demanding a greater

share.

postsecondary
The

interaction

of these issues may lead to some form of statewide planning.
There

is general agreement that

institutions have both the

capability and the interest to plan, but it is the outcomes
and their cost which are the center of controversy.
Purpose
assumption

that

-

To

investigate

postsecondary

the

educational

validity

of

institutions

the
in

the State of Michigan are both interested in and capable of
planning,
in

the

and to determine if education indicators are used

planning

assumptions.

process

and

how

they

relate

to

planning

Method

-

The

planning

postsecondary

education

Michigan were

inventoried.

collect

from

topics

data

282

attributes

institutions

in

possessed
the

State

by
of

Two questionnaires were used to

postsecondary

institutions.

Survey

included planning processes and planning style;

no

attempt was made to evaluate planning effectiveness or the
quality of the institution's plan.
Analysis
institutions

-

Twenty-seven

responding

to

of

the

the

seventy-seven

initial

questionnaire

indicated strategic planning processes were implemented.
many

cases

the planning horizon was

short,

1-3 years,

In
and

the strategic planning process was not related to the budget
preparation

process,

which

half

of

the

institutions

reported was based on incremental methodology.
Conclusions

and

Implications

-

Limited

planning

interest,

limited planning horizons and incremental budgets

indicated

that

many

like the present.
prepared

for

institutions

The risk, of course,

value

shifts

those

almost

institutions

two-thirds

using

indicated

the

future

to

be

is they will not be

affecting

educational needs and interests,
Of

expect

their

public's

should such changes occur.

strategic
use

of

planning

planning

processes,

assumptions.

Preferred sources for planning assumptions tended to be the
president,

provost

and financial vice president.

Faculty,

students and outside planning resources had little influence
on

the

development

of

planning

assumptions,

institutions completing the survey instrument.

in

those

To Nancy

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
To all the individuals who contributed in any way to
the
To

completion of this study go my most heartfelt thanks.
those

testing,
offer

individuals
conduct,

may

who

analysis

sincerest

participated
and/or

appreciation;

in

critique
the

of

the

design,

the

study

efforts

of

I

several

require further comment.
My guidance committee is deserving of special praise
for

their

outstanding

his

encouragement

and

contributions:
innovative

Dr.

ideas

Peatherstone
which

led

to

for
the

design concept; Dr. Riethmiller and her class in Puturistics
and Education for the gestalt which provided direction and
focus

during

the

search

demanding rigorous

for

a

study

topic,

reporting standards;

and

and Dr.

later

for

Moore for

his guidance and untiring editorial assistance.
Special

thanks

must

go

to

Dr.

Goldhammer,

my

committee chairperson, who in the process of helping me grow
intellectually,
friend.

He

in

played

a variety
a major

of ways,
role

also

became

in making my

a good

educational

adventure both rewarding and enjoyable, while adding meaning
to the concepts of intellectual discipline and scholarship.
The

presidents

of

the

forty-six

postsecondary

educational institutions, and their staffs, who participated
in the study, also deserve special thanks for their efforts
iii

in completing a rather demanding research instrument.
thougthful

comments

were

also

appreciated

and

Their

contributed

greatly to the study.
Finally,

I

must

thank

my

family

for

their

generous support throughout the doctoral program:
Grace

for

Tom for

a lifetime

their

love

of encouragement;

and

acknowledge the special

cheerful

and

Ewing and

Cindy,

cooperation.

role played by my wife,

warm,

Tim and

I must also
Nancy,

who

worked tirelessly in pursuit of the perfect manuscript,

the

errors are my responsibility.

More

important, however, was

her encouragement, love and indefatigable spirit.

TABLE OP CONTENTS

Chapter
I

Page
INTRODUCTION

.

.

.

.

.

Background of the Study
.
.
.
An Economic Metamorphosis.
.
Statement of the Problem .
.
Purpose of the
Study
.
.
Value of Study
.
.
.
Limitations of
Study
.
.
Assumptions
.
.
.
.
Definition of Terms.
.
.
.
Overview
.
.
.
.
Notes
.
.
.
.
.
II

III

1
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

1
7
11
13
15
15
16
18
22
25

REVIEW OP LITERATURE
.
.
.
.
The Planning Process
.
.
.
Planning Theory.
.
.
.
Quantitative Planning Pactors
Qualitative Planning Pactors
Instrumentalist vs. Teleologist
The Planning Context: Organization
Typology .
.
.
.
.
Goals
.
.
.
.
.
Mission
.
.
.
.
.
Performance
.
.
.
.
Domain
.
.
.
.
Climate
.
.
.
•
The Planning Context: Environment
Typology
.
.
.
•
Segment
.
.
.
.
Social Indicators
.
.
Scanning
.
.
.
.
The Planning Product: Policy
.
Assumptions
.
.
.
Policy
.
.
.
.
Conclusion
.
.
.
.
Notes
.
.
.
.

* 9
•
.
•
.
.
.
.
.
•
.
.

5
104
110
110
121
122
141
156
157
172
185
190

METHODOLOGY
.
Data Analysis.
Procedures
.

•
.

209
212
214

.

.
.
.

v

.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.

28
28
31
32
37
43
71
72
74
82
83

Research Instruments
Planning Model
.
Model Components
.
Notes
.
.
IV

V

FINDINGS
.
.
Organization .
.
Planning Style
.
Type of Plan .
.
Functional Focus
.
Time
.
.
Planning Focus
.
Environmental Scanning
Strategic Orientation
Notes
.
.

.

•

•

.
.
.

.
.
.

.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
•
.
.
.
Perspective
.
.
.
.
.

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS
Summary
.
.
.
.
Background
.
.
.
Purpose
.
.
.
.
Procedures
.
.
.
Findings
.
.
.
.
Conclusions
.
.
.
.
Implications
.
.
.
.

APPENDICES

•

A:

•

SURVEY DATA

•

•

.

•

.

•
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

218
227
232
238
230
240
248
251
255
257
259
265
271
277

278
278
280
281
283
288
301

•

.

.

305

RETURN ANALYSIS:
A .P .1. PRIMARY SURVEY
A.P.2. PRELIMINARY SURVEY
.
A.P.3. SURVEY COORDINATOR TITLES .
A.1.-A.8. SURVEY QUESTIONS .
B:

SURVEY INSTRUMENTS

.

PRELIMINARY QUESTIONNAIRE
PRIMARY QUESTIONNAIRE.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

.

.

350

.

368

LIST OF TABLES

Number
2.1
3-1
3-2.
3-3.
3 .4a.
3.4b.
3-4c.
3-5
4*1 •
4.2.
4.3.
4.4.
4.5.
4*6.
4.7.
4-8.
A.P.1 .
A.P.2.
A.P.3*
A.1-.1 •
A.2A.1 •
A.2B.1 •
A.2C.1 .1 .—6.
A.3A.1 .1.-2.
A.3B.1 .1 .
A.4-.1 .1 .
A. 5A. 1 .1 .-4 .
A.5B.1 .1.-5.
A.6A.1 .1.-2.
A.6B.1 .1.-2.
A.6C.1 .1.-2.
A.6D.1 .1.-2.

Table
Strategic Information System
Return Analysis
First Flight Results
Second Flight Results
Planning Variables, Preliminary
Instrument
Planning Variable Abbreviations
Planning Variables, Primary Instrument
Operationalizing The Model
Influence, Futurity and Value System
Planning Style
Type of Plan
Functions With Plans
Planning Resource Distribution
Domain Map
Scanning Perspective
Funds Forecast
Return Analysis
Preliminary Survey
Survey Coordinator Titles
Question 1, Integrating Budgeting and
Long-Range Planning
Question 2A, Organization: Planning
Structure
Question 2B, Organization: Planning
Structure
Question 20, Plan(s) Status and
Revision Policy
Question 3A, Mechanization
Question 3B, Hardware/Software
Question 4> Plan Detail
Question 5A, Planning Resources:
Outside
Question 5B, Planning Resources:
Internal
Question 6A, Assumptions: Organization
Question 6B, Assumptions: General
Environment
Question 6C, Assumptions: Specific
Environment
Question 6D, Assumptions: Forecast
vii

Page
146
213
215
217
234
234
235
236
250
253
254
256
261
264
267
273
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
317
319
320
321
325
330
332
334
336

A.6E.1.1.
A -7— .1.1.—3•
A.8A.1.1.-4*
A.8B.1.1.-4*

Question 6E, Assumptions: Education
Indicators
Question 7, Goal Evolution
Question 8A, Personnel Trends
Question 8B, Funding Trends

viii

338
339
342
346

LIST OF FIGURES

Number

5*1

Figure

Page

Strategic Planning Process Model

237

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study
In
District

1978,

the

in Michigan,

State Representative

from

Dan Angel,

the

published

the

49th

results

of

his Higher Education Survey^ and listed what he concluded to
he

the

ten

major

scholars.^

planning

Each

problem

state's higher
the

State

colleges

policy
of

the

for

ten

facing

issues

or

more

and

of

of

Education;

universities;

universities;

the

institutions,

the

community

not

included

the

component

of

of

the

the legislature;

the

state

private

supported

colleges
and

Angel's

the

and

a strategic

members

colleges;

in

taxpayers

reflected

education organization-set:

Department

important

one

questions

proprietary

survey

state's

and

but

an

postsecondary

educational resources.
The
first,
agentin

most

pervasive of

the

"Who should be Michigan's
matters

of

higher
in

ten issues

was

listed

planning and coordinating

education?"^

Regents

of

A

the

1975

Michigan

Supreme Court

decision

University

of

Michigan vs.

the State of Michigan^ removed the State Board

of Education as the keeper of that trust and, thus, nothing
short

of

a

constitutional

amendment

could

restore

its

2
position.

This

left

the

appropriations

mechanism

as

the

only viable coordinating alternative; a political process.
The

responsibility

for

this

regulating

void

rests

with the most recent Constitutional Convention held in 1962,
and the members responsible for drafting the Constitution's
language pertaining to higher education.

More specifically,

Article VIII:5
State Board of Education; duties.
Sec. y .
^ ^ ^ It shall serve as the general
planning and coordinating body for all public
education, including higher education, and shall
advise
the
legislature
as
to
the
financial
requirements in connection therewith.
Unfortunately,

the

authors1 added

some

ambiguity

to

this charge in a subsequent paragraph:
Boards
of
institutions
of
higher
education,
limitation.
The power of the boards of institutions of
higher education provided in this constitution to
supervise their respective institutions and control
and direct the expenditure of the institutions'
funds shall not be limited by this section.
The policy issue of autonomy is long standing.
University
since

1850;

University,
supported

of Michigan

has

Michigan

State

1959;

and

four-year

enjoyed

constitutional

University,

finally,

colleges

the

1908;

autonomy

Wayne

remaining

and universities

The

State

publicly

were

granted

of

higher

constitutional status in 1965-^
The
education,

issue
from

of
a

statewide

historical

coordination

perspective,

emerged

only

recently. The first coordinating board was authorized in the
State of Kentucky in 1934, and the first to become operative
was

in

Oklahoma

in

1941;

by

1969,

48

states,

including

3
Michigan,

had some type of coordinating agency.

governing board,

on the

other

hand,

was

The first

authorized by the

State of New York in 1784.^
It

was

unparalleled

during

growth,

the

that

1950s

and

education

1960s,

a

in general

period
and

of

higher

education in particular, underwent dramatic changes; as the
need for public

support

increased,

state control and/or coordination.
predictably,

by

citing the need

so did the pressure for
Institutions responded,

for,

or,

the

existence

of

autonomy.
. . . Increases in government appropriations were
matched with increased oversight and questioning
both
of program
objectives
and
resource
use.
Threats of withholding money became a tool of
legislators
and
government
agencies
to
obtain
compliance with their objectives.
Attachment of
policy language to appropriation bills required
specific actions to be taken and limited the use of
funds, but by failing to challenge such regulation
for
fear
of
greater
retaliation,
institutions
invited increasing legislative intrusion through
the budget process.
What had been a partnership
between
government
and
academic
institutions
deteriorated to an adversarial [sic] relationship.
A historial review of higher education in Michigan,
beginning

with

Education

in

Russell
Committee

in

Final

Michigan,
1958,

for

Report
a

of

report

the

on Higher Education,

the

Survey

prepared

Michigan
provides

by

of

Higher

John

Legislative
ample

Dale
Study

evidence of

this conflict:
It is recommended that the legislature take
immediate steps to create and establish a board for
the coordination of the State-controlled program of
higher education in Michigan . . . After some
experience has been had with its operation, so that
details
of the necessary provisions have been
agreed upon, it might prove desirable to provide
constitutional status for the Coordinating Board.

4
This

recommendation

commissions,

was

panels

and

repeated

many

committees

in

times
the

by

other

following

25

years.
Pew

would

coordination

argue

vacuum

with

existed

the

then,

assertion

currently

that

exists,'

a
and

fewer still with the observation that no politically viable
solution is in sight; nevertheless, Michigan will spend more
than

15 percent of

education.10

It

its 1983

should

general fund budget

also

be

recognized

that

on higher
additional

funds will flow into the postsecondary education sector of
the

state's

economy

from

private

organizations

and

institutions, philanthropies, Federal and local governments,
and tuition from students.
education

to

the

The importance of postsecondary

state's

economy

should

be

obvious;

less

clear is how it should be managed, if at all.
As
during

controversial

periods

exacerbated

of

by

enrollments,

as

growth

the

it

is

declining

stemming

from

issue

of

likely

coordination

to

public

become

support;

out-migration

and

a

was

further
reduced

long-term

trend of diminishing fertility rates; and other changes,

as

evidenced by shifting demographic and cultural patterns.Each
of

these

factors

will

contribute

to

the

retrenchment

syndrome manifest by many colleges and universities.
aggressive
innovation;
changes

in
12

students.

institutions,

on

the

redirect their focus;
mission,

role

or

other

hand,

will

11

More

rely

on

or, even make significant
scope

hoping

to

attract

Admission
institutions;
the

standards

of

"competitive.*1
institutions

often

and

ignored

services

The
the

programs

proprietary

"be

lowered

by

some

others may reduce the quality of programs,

availability

sponsored

may

by

in

changing

order
role

increasing

of

education

institutions,

will

and

add

of

areas,

too

a

be

more

proprietary

appearance

in high/low technology
higher

to

or

industry
which are

expensive

new,

for

competitive

element to the potpourri of postsecondary options available
to learners.
College
and
university
administrators
will . . .
be challenged to maintain necessary
institutional independence by resisting excessive
regulation,
oversight,
and
intrusion
that
may
accompany funds, whether from government, industry,
or individuals.
Faculty will be challenged to
protect program quality in the face of strong
financial incentives tp lower standards in order to
maintain enrollments. '
For
the

the

state's

reasons

noted

coordinating

above,

role

to

and

others,

higher

limiting

education,

as

difficult as even that task has proven to be, may not result
in the right mix of educational goods;

"coordination" of all

postsecondary education may be req ui re d. ^
An Economic Metamorphosis
Michigan

is

in

the

midst

of

economic

change

so

disruptive and debilitating as to cast serious doubt on its
ability to remain financially viable.

While the rest of the

nation looks with some optimism for signs marking an end to
the

worse

trough

recession

appears

in

fifty

bottomless

to

years,
many.

Michigan's
One

reason

economic
for

such

6
pessimism

is

automobile

the

state's

industry

as

historical

the

reliance

principal

on

contributor

the

to

its

Gross State Product.
Michigan and other Great Lakes and North-East States
developed economic infrastructures to accommodate the growth
of

heavy

industry

facilities;

which

required

cheap

transportation

close proximity to natural resources and markets

for its products; as well as a suitable labor pool.
these

industries,

including

steel

and

Many of

automotive,

have

allowed the net investment in plant and equipment to decline
in recent years,

for a variety of reasons, sharply reducing

their ability to compete with less expensive imports.
with

government

facilities
the

incentives

to build more modern,

it is unlikely those

dominant

position

they

Even

efficient

industries will return

previously

enjoyed

in

to

world

markets.
By

the end

of the second

beginning to

World War, the industrial

revolution

was

give

way

revolution;

apparently the early signs

to

the

of this

unnoticed by many policy makers in Michigan.
great

waterways,

obsolete;
working
unlimited

markets

railways
shifted

andassembly
quantities,

and
to

skills,
were

no

newly
the

built

South

and

available
longer

operating at a fraction of capacity;

needed

knowledge

change went

Suddenly, the
roadways
West;
in
by

were
metal

seemingly
companies

or, they were replaced

with robotics and computers by the few businesses still able
to mechanize.

7
Lumber and iron ore which had attracted industry to
Michigan

at

the

beginning

of

the

20th

century,

were

J

displaced, either competitively or technologically, by lower
cost

materials

processing
nation's

available

material
economy

has

than

when

technology

become

regions.

less

important

ideas

and

are

made

looking

for

by

of economic

1983 >
to

the

information.

prospective,

plant

sites

pools which possess the skills they require;
incentive

By

lags far behind other areas of the

comparisons

industries

other

processing

Michigan, unfortunately,
country

in

and

political

high

near

labor

and the added

infrastructures

geared

16

to the needs of a diverse industrial base.

Michigan must now concentrate on developing policies
which

will

rapidly

economy based

shift

its

focus

from

on automotive related products,

an

industrial

to one which

encourages diversity: from agriculture and autos to silicon,
software,

satellites,

resources

such

revitalized and

as

and

tourism.

lumber,

mining

combined with

Old
and

interests

fishing

development

must

in
be

of more recently

discovered resources, such as petroleum.

In addition to the

need

need for

for

innovation,

there

is a greater

policies

which are both far-sighted and cohesive.

state's

A reasonable place

to start the retooling of the

economy

vital

education.
laissez
posture,

is

in

the

area

of

postsecondary

But should this effort proceed under a policy of

faire,

or

squeezing

should
as

much

the

state

utility

as

assume

a

possible

husbandry
from

this

vital

resource?

simplistic.

The

question

as

framed

A far more pluralistic,

is

actually

too

if not divisive set of

forces will make the final determination.

Ryan has noted:

The more valuable the university becomes to
both the conservators and changers of society, the
more each will bring pressure, including political
pressure, to bear on university decision-making.1 '
The
political

problem,

arena.

however,

is

Policy must

not

one

be based

limited

to

the

on leadership,

the

presence of consensus of at least a strong coalition capable
of

identifying

social

needs

consistent with resource
is taken

to mean

and

positing

availability.

a long

and

The

continuing

set

solutions

"Policy making
of activities

involving feedback."^®

Such policy one might hope, would be

the

debate,

result

of informed

informed

in the

sense

the question is one of how a need should be addressed,
not

on

certain

the

immediacy,

Although
exists,

existence

there

is

is

the debate,

of

that
how

need.
to

general

An

deal

agreement

a political process,

example,

with

that
and

with

a

unemployment.

that

unemployment

is focused on how

it should be reduced.
Political indicators are measures of political
conditions,
whether
relevant
to
the
internal
processes of government or external conditions.
the significance of social and economic
indicators in policy-making is .determined by their
status as political indicators.
No

such

basis

for

describing

education have been agreed to.
indicators which

the

attributes

of

Worse, there are no reliable

decision makers

what kind of changes "education"

regularly use

to describe

should be compatable with;

9
propagate;

or

initiate

to

existing public policy.
social

spectrum,

has

effect

social

goals

implicit

in

Indicator research, across a broad

been

reported

for

more

than

twenty

years; on the more narrowly defined subject of economics and
particularly

welfare

economics,

it

has

seen

prolific

reporting for many more years.
Education

has

not

received

very

great

attention,

however, perhaps because of its mystique, but more probably,
due

to

its

lack

it

be

should

of

definition.

measured?

satisfactorily?

What

What is
When

indicators can

it?

How

can

or

is

it

performing

be

used

by

policy

makers and administrators to determine whether or not it is
fulfilling
Educators

its

and

claim these

generalized

is responsive

questions

statements,

meaningless,
been

purpose

except

ambiguity

in

on the

and

local
part

are

of

so

to social

needs?

complex

as to make

performance

criteria

situations.
educational

The

result

has

administrators,

and, often, ambivalence on the part of education’s publics.
Policy,

directed

formulated
indicators

on

at

local,

"education,"
state

and

nevertheless,
national

levels.

of need or performance were not available,

what "guidelines" were used by policy-makers?
possible

has

insight

based

on role values.

He

been
If
then

Rose offers a
suggests

ideal-type roles:
The
politician's
role
is
that
of
a broker,
specially valuing the esteem of others.
His type
of information is likely to be unreliable and nonquantifiable.
The administrator's role emphasizes
concern with procedural aspects of policy: such
information may not be quantifiable, but it is

three

10
likely to be reliable, . . . A third . . . role is
that of the expert, who will seek information
concerning features of policies that relate to the
field in which his expertise lies.20
The

point,

of

course,

is

that

policy

will

be

formulated

regardless of the protestations by educators that political
expediency is a poor substitute for pedagogy.
How can "education"
described?

How

can

products and produce
of

the

market

admissions,
institutional
serve

the

educational

through

is

at

autonomy

best

result

educational

the

ordinal

in

process

guide?

adaptability

of

design

if they are unaware

balloting

an

needs

if it cannot be

institutions

educational goods

except

which

be coordinated

the

to

of
Does

better

public?

Does

institutional autonomy lead to an adequate use of education
indicators
any

be
and

basis,
with

institutional

indication

could
Must

in

that

achieved
is

more

processes?

responsiveness

through

planning

planning

coordinated

done

on

or are

institutional

autonomy

resulting

there

societal

needs

planning

efforts?

individual

institutional

efforts weak and

inconsistent,

in

an

to

Is

an

overemphasis

upon

the

maintenance of institutional integrity and an underemphasis
upon

adaptability and

responsiveness?

These

are questions

which may not be pertinent as one discovers what actually is
happening

in the

institutional use

in the planning process.

of education

indicators

On the other hand, such data may

lead to the conclusion that relatively little use is made of
lead education indicators in the planning process, resulting
in modest,

if any, institutional efforts to adapt rapidly to

11
changing

needs!

utility

of

Perhaps,

generally

planning process,

would

an

adequate

accepted

lead

"be a great

perception
indicators

asset

to

of

the

in

the

postsecondary

educational institutions in serving public needs and wants.
Statement of the Problem
Proponents

of

statewide

coordination

postsecondary educational institutions

rely,

for

implicitly,

the assumption that although satisfactory coordination

on
of

resources is occurring at the institutional level to promote
its parochial interests, the broader, long-term needs of the
state

may

not

be

met,

greater than necessary,
et

al,

1971;

or,

are,

the

G-lenny, 1959; Berdahl;

Educational

1973 and 1981 *21

if they

Commission

r^g Michigan

of

Citizens

the

cost

will

be

1971;

G-lenny

States,

1971,

Committee

on Higher

Education offered the following guideline in March,1 965*
As
the
Citizens
Committee
views
it,
coordination of higher
education means
(1) to
coordinate the distribution of institutions and
types
of
institutions
throughout
the
state
according
to
predetermined
criteria
for
the
establishment
of new institutions,
and
(2) to
coordinate
the
offering
of
undergraduateprofessional programs among the institutions.
This
must be carried out in such a way as to preserve
and encourage the aggressive and creative qualities
expected of autonomous institutions and at the same
time
to prevent
unnecessarily
inefficient
and
wasteful duplication and uniformity of educational
programs that may result from sheer imitation and
from competition for sheer
institutional size,
comprehensiveness, and prestige.
Any
institution
in
the
state
should
be
permitted to offer any education program provided
the State Board of Education is satisfied that (1 )
there is a social need for it, (2) there is a valid
unsatisfied student demand for it, and (3) the
institution
is
well
qualified
in
scholarly

12
tradition, staff, facilities, and location to offer
it effectively, efficiently, and e c o n o m i c a l l y . ^
Proponents of autonomy for postsecondary educational
institutions,

on

the

assumption that what
the

final

other

hand,

is good

for

analysis

specifically,

they

he

and

entrepreneurial

combine

to

imperatives
the

long-term

needs

a

on

the

institution will,
the state.^3

laissez

faire

in

More

attitude

combined with the academic freedom

the

favoring

implicitly

for

that

interests

effect

the

good

believe

toward their governance,

rely

of

adoption

both
of

the

their

faculties',

of

rational

a

institution's

the state.

Success

will

set

clientele
in meeting

of
and
the

state's needs

will bemanifest by

efficient and effective

utilization

of

aggregate

educational

facilitated

through

voluntary

cooperation

the

resource,
of

the

institutions.^4
But what
sides,

is not

myth?

plan?

in place?

Or, perhaps

likely,
their

if the capacity

some

Could

to

Whatever

assumed

by both

the capacity to plan be a

it has atrophied due to disuse?

variability

ability

to plan,

plan,
the

exists
or

their

case,

utilization of educational

among

the

awareness

the

institutions

in

of

to

forces

resources would

Or more

the

need

for

improved

need to

face an

administrative problem of such magnitude as to overarch the
political/power

issue

of

autonomy

vs.

state

coordination.

Polger has considered this possibility and concluded:
The . . . question relates to the technical
basis
for
planning:
Are
current
methods
of
projecting the major influences on the development

13
of higher education adequate?
Do we have the
techniques
necessary
for
providing
rational
solutions to-complex educational problems? . . .
The answers to these questions are not very
reassuring: examples of poor techniques are more
abundant than examples of effective techniques .. .
We
must
conclude,
then,
that
planning
technology is not very far advanced and that our
data and methodology may be inadequate for planning
the best way to achieve our educational objectives.
Ten years

earlier

statewide

planning

higher education.

Brumbaugh
is

the

. . ."26

was moved
key

to

to

an

assert,

effective

"Careful
system

of

rp^g political rhetoric obscured

the reality of planning practice limitations.
Knowledge

of

the

current

status

of

planning

practices employed by postsecondary educational institutions
could aid in confirming the efficacy of one assumption over
the

other,

enactment

but,
of

more

policies,

importantly,
public

and

may

facilitate

private,

to

the

encourage

improved planning practices and coordination of educational
resources, without abridgment of institutional values.^7
Purpose of the Study
This
practices

of

study

is

designed

postsecondary

State of Michigan for

to

eductional

examine

the

institutions

planning
in

the

indicants of style and commitment in

meeting their strategic goals and the long-term educational
needs of the state.
If
colleges
and
universities
are
to
turn
adversity to opportunity in the turbulent 1980s,
planning must be viewed as a management process
with controlled change as its objective.
It cannot
be a separate activity conducted apart from other
decision processes.

14
This,

the central thrust of the study,

can he divided into

three discrete focal areas:
Focus I

Explore the planning

attributes inventory of

postsecondary educational institutions in terms
of:
Strategy:

Goals; environmental indicators;
organizational resources and
climate; futurity, planning
horizon

Structure:

Planning variables; formal,
comprehensive;

informal; and

strategic
Performance

External indicators
Internal indicators

Focus II

Explore the efficacy, based on the planning
attributes inventory, of one or both (autonomy,
statewide coordination) political models as an
implemented system using existing planning
processes; or, if a new political model is
required to ensure an adequate postsecondary
education delivery system

Focus III Explore the possibility,

if one exists, that the

casual use of indicators by the institutions
surveyed suggests a pattern which could lead to
the institutionalization of educational indicators
in the State of Michigan

15
Value of Study
It

is

hoped

this

study

will

contribute

in

both

practical and theoretical ways:
1.

to the identification of lead education indicators

and

their use by policy makers to facilitate the
coordination of postsecondary educational resources
in the State of Michigan;
2.

to a better understanding of the planning process
as practiced by postsecondary education institutions
in the State of Michigan and

3.

to the more efficient and effective utilization
of scarce state resources, while providing greater
variety and higher quality educational experience
to all who wish to learn without diminution
of academic freedom.
Limitations of Study
This

scope

is

State

study

limited

of

is

to

descriptive

higher

Michigan

and

and

education
other

exploratory.
institutions

postsecondary

Its
in

the

education

institutions regulated by either the Michigan Department of
Education or a state licensing agency.
to

planning

process

and

style

with

Its focus is limited
emphasis

on

planning

assumptions which may suggest the informal use of education
indicators.
quality

of

limitation

The
plans
is

the

study
or

the

is

not

results

availability

designed
of
of

to

evaluate

planning.
data

A

the

further

describing

each

institution's planning practices and structure. This problem

16
is

manifest

institution's

in

two

ways:

1)

the

president to participate

willingness

of

the

in the study and 2)

the knowledge of planning practices and structure possessed
hy

the

survey

coordinator

selected

"by the

president,

when

s/he was unable to complete the instrument personally.
Assumptions
1.

Postsecondary educational institutions recognize the
need for long-range planning and many have developed
their own strategic plans.

2.

Many postsecondary educational institutions use a
planning horizon which is greater than three years.

3*

Mission, role and scope will significantly influence
the selection of planning criteria by the institution.

4.

Assumptions about the future provide a "map" for
strategic planning and policy making.

5*

The type of indicator(s) selected by the institution
in developing the assumption-set reflects leadership
traits and environmental perspectives.

6.

The mission of the institution is closely related to
the major segment, domain, of postsecondary education
it serves, but this relationship is dynamic; that is,
each major segment has a life cycle, as does each
institution within that segment.

7»

Effective coordination of postsecondary education at
the state level is possible through the utilization
of budgeting processes and lead education indicators
to effect public policies by the legislature, which

are designed to maintain a dynamic equilibrium
between supply and demand for educational "goods."
The state legislature and the governing boards for
state institutions would agree that some degree of
coordination is both reasonable and desirable.
All parties participating in the planning process,
including private institutions, are, or could be,
motivated to join in a cooperative effort to improve
the utilization of postsecondary education facilities.
Statewide planning coordination to be viable, must be
both effective and transparent, vis., the autonomy of
each participating institution.
The ultimate purpose of postseeondary education
coordination is the formulation of compatible

policies

by all members of the organization set, and without
public policies promoting coordination, it cannot be
achieved.
A uniform strategic planning system for postseeondary
education institutions is possible and desirable.
Identifying those education indicators presently used
by postseeondary institutions is required as one of
several initial efforts to develop a uniform strategic
planning system.
It is possible to develop a system for coordinating
postseeondary education in Michigan, which is both
effective and efficient in terms of satisfying a
variety of learning needs and politically viable to
assure continuity and public support.

18
Definition of Terms
The following terms were selected for comment and/or
definition

at

this

point

because

centrality to the study.

of

their

importance

Many more terms will he

and

defined

and/or explained as they appear in the text.
Autonomy, the right of self-determination.

Michigan

was the first state to grant constitutional autonomy to its
institutions

of

higher

education.

The

University

Michigan was first to receive this treatment in 1850.
means that,

of
This

in the state of Michigan, the Board of Trustees

for each state university and college
equivalent

to

every

other

is

state

constitutionally

agency

or

executive

including the Governor. There is no position superior to, or
able to exert its will on, the institution.
Heteronomy, the state of being subject to the rule
of authority of another;
Statewide

the opposite of autonomy.

coordination,

organization,

or

organization,

for

new

role

the

the

adding

an

already

to

purpose

of

of

an

existing

collecting

and

disseminating information to all members of the organization
set of postseeondary institutions.

The new organization, or

role for an established organization would be controlled by
or

became

a

Legislature
addition

to

coordinating
the

other

part
or

the

of

a state agency;

State

Department

controlling the

flow

organization would also,

members

of the

for
of

Education.

of
in

organization

plans and recommend funding arrangements.

example,

the
In

information

the

consultation with
set,

develop

master

19
Organization-set, includes
educational

institutions;

all of the postseeondary

all state agencies they regularly

interact with; special interest groups; suppliers, and other
groups

and organizations

having an

interest

in educational

inputs, processes and outputs.
Focal organization, a relatively formal collectivity
created for the purpose of achieving one or more collective
goals on a relatively continuous hasis.
hy

identifiable

norms

and

authority

boundaries

values;

encompassing

groups

relationships,

It is characterized

and

a

subgroups

engaged

domain;

structured

in tasks

activities, based on an incentive system.
is communications.

primary

or

goal

with

related

The bonding agent

Focal refers to a specific organization

which is the subject of interest.
Organizational domain, a pattern of interdependence
with

various

regulatory

agencies,

associations,
etc.

environmental

staff,

“Domain"

elements:

unions,
special

represents

organization has

staked

competitive
interest
.

out

for

.

or

services)

population of actual

the

. the

suppliers,

claims
These

that

the

claims

are

1. the range of products

organization

or potential

faculty,

institutions,

groups,

itself.

asserted in terms of the following:
(goods

students,

produces;

customers

2.

served;

the

and 3*

services rendered.
Environment-General,
social,

economic,

regulatory.

political,

consists

of

five

sectors,

scientific/technological

and

These sectors are relative in importance to the

20
focal organization,

they have little direct influence on it

and will not he influenced hy it,
significant
specific

way.

Future

environment

may

in the near term,

turbulence

be

found

in

in any

correlates
the

in

present

the

general

environment.
Environment-operating, available and specific, these
qualifying

terms

are

rough

equivalents.

also consists of five sectors:
scientific/technological
important
shifts

but

and

not

is

and

important;

on

environment

social, economic,
regulatory.

equally

dependent

This

relations

political,

Each
their

sector

is

significance

between

the

focal

organization and members of the organizational set, and the
positioning

of the

organization
general

is

organizational

relatively

environment,

and

more

domain.

Here

influential

the

level

of

the

than

focal

in

uncertainty

the
is

significantly reduced.
Organization

climate,

is

a reflection

of

its

character— how those individuals coming in contact with the
organization perceive it.

The term character is complex in

the sense that it refers to both objective criteria, such as
type of communication and task specialization performed; and
psychological

attributes

manifest

in perceptions;

such as,

felt attraction and satisfaction with performance.-^®
Education
indicators.

indicators,

have

an analogue

in

economic

One characteristic is a statistical time series

that reflects changes

in those

by

in

education

and

this

sectors of society influenced
sense

they

are

output

21
descriptive;31
analytic,

program

normative
take

other

characteristics
evaluation,

c o n s i d e r a t i o n . 32

issue,

priorities,

suggesting
and

policy

Sheldon

that

the

and

include:

Freeman,

setting

of

and

(3)

the

and

however,

goals

and

impossible uses

add, they do have potential for:

(1) improved descriptive reporting;
change;

may

development

evaluation of programs are

of indicators; but

social

also

".

. .

(2) the analysis of

prediction

of

future

social

events and social life."33
Assumptions
When

dealing

likely

to

(premises),

with

education

exist

contingencies

are

futures

concerning

while

surrogates
some

even

facts.

uncertainty

events,

developing

for

outcomes

the

most

is
and

general

planning cases; as the need for detail increases so will the
degree of uncertainty.
even

in the

absence

until

more

concrete

So that the plan can be formulated,

of facts,
data

are

assumptions
available

are

substituted

which

can

then

replace the assumptions(s); this updating is continuous and
cummulative until aggregate data suggest a need for plan or
policy revision(s).
Planning,
institution

assesses

(assumption(s))
identifies

is

a
its

future

possible

conscious
current
condition

future

states

process
state

by

and

which
the

of

its

for

itself,

an

likely

environment,
and

then

develops organizational strategies, policies, and procedures
for selecting and getting to one or more of them.

34

22
Policy,
process,
out

both

planning.

guidelines

which

is

are

a

plan

and

the

It is prescriptive,

for

achieving

congruent

with

product

generally,

specific goals

its

or

organizational

of

the

setting

objectives

mission,

its

organizational climate, and its organizational domain.
Overview
Chapter II contains a review of the literature which
contributed
study

and

to

the

analytical "tools" used

evaluate

reviewed

includes:

practices;

the

research

planning

organization

to

data.

theory

theory,

design

The

and

the

literature

administrative

from

a

sociological

perspective based on general system concepts; organizational
development and management; and environmental analysis, from
sociological,

managerial,

political,

technological perspectives.
notions,
from

metaphors,

these

provided
clearer

a

rich

source

understanding

designs,

or

existing

planning

resolve

at

tenuous

and

theories,

sometimes
for

of the

least

and

The welding together of ideas,

concepts,

different

educational,

the

"tools"

and

disparate

analytical
imperatives

relaxing
from

even paradigms

of

being

disciplines

constructs;
for

and

new planning

forces

preventing

utilized

relationships which threaten

to

centuries

help
old

values and even more importantly, public trust.
The

use

formulators and
if

not

solution

end,
for

of

educational indicators

by

institutional decision-makers
the

debate

optimizing

the

surrounding
use

of

an

state

policy

could reduce,
organizational

educational

resources

23
"between

advocates

coordination.

of

institutional

autonomy

and

statewide

Replacing the saga(s) of educational pedagogy

and the mystique of "product" correlates with more concrete
information,
processing

if

not

and

secondary,

accurate

evaluating

measures,

educational

even tertiary affects,

toward that goal.

for

designing,

goods

and

their

is a required first

step

Van Alstyne has noted:

We cannot wait.
While striving to develop more
comprehensive conceptual frameworks for defining
and
interpreting
indicators
in
postseeondary
education,
and
while
recognizing
both
the
analytical and the political risks of misusing, or
simple using, possible misleading data, we should
go
ahead
trying
to
construct
indicators
from
existing data, with the conviction that the active
use
of
data
is
essential
to
improving
the
collection, processing and interpretation of such
data. ^
Indicators
disguised

as

may,

in

assumptions.
and be

holding

positions

makers.

These

already

Many ofthese

lack verification
advisory

fact,

shared by

assumptions,

close

to

future
when

"reality"

most likely,

or

even

makes

by

changes

A major question,

then,

educational

planners

and

knowledge

generalizable

lead

may

individuals

policy/decision

reflect

"reality"

substance and form from

the

necessary.

this

the

use;

and often are not recorded for use by

administrations
new

in

assumptions

only a few

based on indicants which may vary in
occasion to occasion,

be

develop
to

educational

more

same

to

administrators

existing

policies

is how do postseeondary

use

assumptions,

abstract,

and

aggregated,

can
and

indicators that would be used by

both state and institutional policy makers?

If both parties

24
could shift the debate from what is reality, to how best to
cope

with

reality,

it

seems

reasonable

that

policy

could

effectively provide coordination for achieving desired ends.
The
first,

by

are

literature

the

tools

with

mission

identify

in the
and

application
environment

notion

that

logic-set:
theory

to

institutions;

is

and

management

organization

necessitating

environmental

planning

context

planning

educational

selection

environment,

manage
of

for

of

this

availability of organization designs

confirming the

found

follows

evolution

suitable

by noting the

compatible
third,

of

noting

analytical
second,

review

explored

in

an

with

the

constraints

strategies

relations;

theory,

style;

finally,

to
the

organizationobjective

of

identifying viable analytical methods to provide information
for

policy

providing

makers

charged

suitable,

adequate

with

the

educational

responsibility

of

opportunities

for

Michigan's citizens.
The research design is
III.
and

Responses
the

planning

to the

research
in

the

fully described

survey are

implications
State

of

reported
for

in Chapter IV;

higher

Michigan,

recommendations are reported in Chapter V.

in Chapter

educational
along

with

25

NOTES
1Dan Angel,
"Michigan
Higher Education
Survey"
(Lansing, Mi.:
House
College and
Universities
Committee, Legislative Service Bureau, 1978).
2ldem, Critical Issues
Facing
Education (Lansing, Mi.: House
of
Legislative service Bureau, 1978).

Michigan
Higher
Representatives,

3ibid., p. 7.
4Regents of the University of Michigan v.
of Michigan, 235 N. W. 2d 1 (1975).

The State

5Legislative Service Bureau, The Constitution of the
State of Michigan.
6Norman James Schlafmann, An Examination
of the
Influence of the State Legislature on
the
Educational
Policies of the Constitutionally Incorporated
Colleges and
Universities of Michigan Through Enactment
of public Acts
From 1851
Through
1970"
Ph.D.
Dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1970), pp. 126-7.
7Richard M. Millard, State
Boards of
Higher
Education (Washington, D.C.:American Association for Higher
Education.
8chester 0. McCorkle, Jr., and Sandra
Orr
Archibald, Management
and_____ Leadership in_______ Higher
Education (San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass
Publishers,
9John Dale Russell, The Survey of Higher Education
in Michigan (Lansing: Michigan Legislative Study Committee
on Higher Education, 1958), pp. 114-8.
101983 State of Michigan Budget. The percentage used
here is subject to change resulting from
executive orders
and cost of delayed payments.
llRaymond
F. Zammuto
and
Kim
S.
Cameron,
"Environmental Decline and
Organizational Response,"
A
paper submitted to the 42nd annual national meeting of the
Academcy of Management, December, 1981, Academy of Management
Proceedings, 1982
(in press).
12Ernest
L.
Boyer,
Formulating policy
in
Postseeondary Education, eds., John F. Hughes and
Olive
Mills (Washington, D.C.: American Council on
Education,
1975), pp. 30-38.
!3McCorkle, Ibid., p. 8.

26
1 4.

Thomas F.
Educational Systen
1980).

Green, Predicting the Behavior of the
(New York': Syracuse University Press,

^ F . Clever Bald, Michigan in Four Centuries (Harper
and Brothers, Publishers, 1954), especially pp. 205-370.
^"Business Climate? State Rated Worst."
News, 8 February 1985, sec. A, p. 1.

The Detroit

^J.
W. Ryan,"Caught in a Thicket of Political
Pressures,"
The
Christian
Science
Monitor
(August
4,
1969): 9, cite!! in Ernest 0T Palola and William Padgett,
Planning
for
Self-Renewal
(Berkeley:
University
of
California, 1971), P* 88.
1 ft

K. Deutsch, Nerves of Government (New York: The
Free Press, 1965), P* 157, cited by Richard Rose, Social
Indicators and Social Policy
eds., Andrew Shonfield and
Stella Shaw (London: Heinemann Educational Books), p. 12519

^Richard Rose, Social Indicators and Social Policy,
eds., Andrew Shonfield and Stella Shaw (London: Heinemann
Educational Books), pp. 120-12520Ibid., p. 155Pi

Lyman A. Glenny, Autonomy of Public Colleges: The
Challenge
of Coordination
(New York:
McGraw-Hill
Book
Company,
Inc . ,
1959);
Robert
0.
Berdahl,
Statewide
Coordination of Higher Education (Washington, D.C.: American
Council on
Education, 1971 );
Lyman
A. Glenny et a l .,
Coordinating Higher
Education
for
the
7 0 s , (Berkeley:
University of "California, 1971); Education Commission of the
States, Comprehensive Planning for Postseeondary Education
(Denver: 1971 ; Idem, Final Report and Recommendations: Task
Force on State Policy and Independent Higher Education
(Denver, 1977); Idem, State Postseeondary Education Profiles
Handbook (Denver: 19817"^

22 Dan E. Karn, A Consolidated and Summary Statement
of Findings and Recommendations (Lansing: Michigan Citizens
Committee on Higher Education, 1965), p. 5525
Committee on Government and Higher Education, The
Efficiency of Freedom
(Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins
Press,
1959)*
24.

Special Task Force to the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare, The Second Newman Report: National
Policy and Higher Education (Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press,
1975)"-

27
^ J o h n k . Folger, Formulating Policy in Postseeondary
Education eds., Hughes and Mills, Ibid., pp.232-234.
2^A. J. Brumbaugh, Guidlines for the Establishment of
Community Junior
Colleges, as cited
in Brian Lawrence
Donnelly, Criteria For Community College Role and Scope
Specifications
For
Statewide
Master
Mans
Higher
Education (unpublished Ph.D. M s s e rt at ion, Michigan State
University, 1973), P* 1*
27
'Warren G. Hill, Formulating Policy in Postseeondary
Education, eds., Hughes and Mills, Ibid. pp. 247-252.
28McCorkle, Ibid., p. 37-

29
^Patrick E. Connor, ed., Organization:
Theory and
Design (Chicago: Science Research Associates, Inc., 1980 ),
P- 1235°Ibid., pp. 396-398.

31

Karl A. Fox, Social Indicators and Social Theory:
Elements of an Operational System (Hew York: John Wiley and
Sons, 1974), p. 432
^ Denis F. Johnston, Basic Disaggregations of Main
Social Indicators (Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1977), p. 9*
■^Eleanor Bernert Sheldon and Howard E. Freeman,
"Notes on Social Indicators:
Promises and Potentials,"
Policy Sciences, 1 (Spring, 1970):97-111, referred to by
Peter J. Henriot, Political Aspects of Social Indicators:
Implications
for
ResearcE
(New
York:
Russell
Sage
Foundation, 1972) , p . 4 •
•^Marvin W. Peterson, Improving Academic Management
eds., Paul Jedamus and Marvin W . Peterson (San Franciso:
Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1980), p. 114*
^^Carol
Van
Alstyne,
Planning,
Managing,
Financing in the 1980s (Boulder, Co.: National Center
Higher Education Management Systems, 1977), P* 62.

and
for

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OP LITERATURE
The

authors

in

the

literature

reviewed

for

this

study focused on three themes: planning theory, the process;
organization/environment

theory,

policy or strategic theory,

the

planning

context;

the planning product.

and

Each of

these themes overlap to some extent, making it desirable to
utilize an analytical framework to achieve a synthesis which
is

both

parsimonious

and

substantive:

environment are the units of analysis;

organization

strategy,

and

structure,

-j

and performance are the analytical variables.
The Planning Process
Planning
Payol

p

more

Taylor,

was

than

Urwick

included

sixty

and

years

others

is

as

a management

ago

and

along

function by
with

associated with

Gulick,

a management

philosophy which is variously known as scientific managment
or classical organization theory.
management

concepts,

including

which

prominent

during

were

planning

in

a

formal

the

This "school"
the

planning

1930s

nonmilitary

and

sense,

claims many
imperative,

1940s.^

Yet,

other

than

budgeting, was not widely practiced until the 1950s, even by
industrial

organizations.

whether a budget

is a plan,

There

is even

some

debate

over

or a political process.^- Jones
28

29
and

Trentin

provide

a definition which

is consistent

with

the usage found in this study:
A budget can he regarded as primarily a plan or goal
or objective, and we know of no better definition of budgeting than to say it is primarily a planning and
control system. Each word in that definition is
important for a full understanding of budgeting’s
proper role.
The planning and control aspects
relate to the fundamentals of the management
process. . . . To regard budgeting as a system is
most important, because this implies a continuing
process through the year— the key to good budgeting
in any business operation.^
As a plan,

the budget

and quantitative but

is clearly the most

detailed

even here a great deal of variability

exists between functional forms, such as master budgets; and
budgeting methods.
incremental

Caruthers and Orwig suggest ” . . . that

budgeting;

programming,

and

performance

budgeting

frequently

formula

budget

discussed

systems;
are

and

budgeting;
zero-base

budgeting

representative

practiced

planning,

of

methods

and

the

most

today."

The

C

following definitions are used in this study:
Incremental Budgeting, each line item is either
considered for an increment or remains unadjusted
in the base.
Frequently, increments are calculated
as uniform percentage adjustments for every line
item or group of line items.
Formula Budgeting is an objective procedure for
estimating the future budgetary requirements of an
institution by manipulating data about future
programs and by utilizing relationships between
programs and cost.
Planning, Programming, and Budgeting Systems is a
managerial technique designed to merge the planning
process with the allocation of funds by making it
impossible to allocate funds without planning.
Zero-Base Budgeting assumes nothing about prior
budgets but starts from zero each year to build a
new budget.

30
Performance Budgeting pertains to activities, not
to objectives.
Its principal thrust is to improve
work efficiency by means of activity classification
and work/cost measurements.
Incremental budgeting is the oldest,
the early 1920s,
some

authors^

dating back to

and most frequently used method;

believe

the

trend

is

toward more

however,

systematic

budgeting methods in postseeondary educational institutions.
Higher level, more comprehensive planning methods have also
emerged

in a

slow,

fragmented

way,

with

the

influence

of

various disciplines shaping and directing that development.
Of

the

several

management

imperatives

suggested

by

Fayol,

planning has been perhaps the slowest to find acceptance by
both business and educational leaders.
When the text Long-Range Planning For Management was
published
and

".

in 1958,

it became the first book on the subject

. . the number

of articles

magazines

was

relatively

companies

had

organized

long-range

planning."8

reported

case

which
for

a

along with
projecting

horizon;
positioned

study

to

formally

of

fiscal
and

implement

and
and

Nevertheless,

several

education

small,

on planning in business

one

small

others
needs

had

few

a

handful

systematically
Tickton,^

liberal

arts

developed

over ' a

industry
the

only

were

in

of
for

1959>

college,

a technique

ten-year

planning

almost

equally

state-of-the-art

planning

techniques available in the late 1950s.

Planning Theory
LeBreton and Henning also observed that the planning
literature

was not well developed

fact, they explained,
. because
theory:

of

an

a

void

In the

of

planning.

two

private

and

andHenning

parts:

the

dealing

with

on

many

.

planning process,

that

of books

and

subject

of

the

organizations,

postseeondary

".

planning

however,

planning systems.

developed

management

the

hundreds

written

including

on

to follow,

filled;

period

implemented

LeBreton

literature

decades

were

this

public,

institutions,

the

then

articles

During

in

ofwriting

literary void was more
thousands

In

"We were prompted to write this book .

absence

function."^

prior to the 1960s.

educational

The

framework

. consists

the

both

of

three

dimensions

or

characteristics of a plan, and the influence a given set of
dimensions

will

developing

their

theory

from

have

on

general

the

planning

theory

existing

of

process."

planning they utilized

fields of

study

communications, decision-making and persuasion.
Planning,

seen

as

the

In

integrating

such

as,

11
dimension

of

management, facilitating the establishment of objectives and
goals,

the development

allocation

of

of policies and procedures,

resources

rather

than

as

a

and the
function

incorporating these activities, is central to LeBreton's and
Henning's

planning

theory.

task

seen

Fayol

as

increasingly

by

important

Of course,
and

as

the

many

planning

others

sphere

of

is also a

which

becomes

responsibility

32
expands.

In fact,

it is this recognition

of planning that

led to the creation of the staff functions in organizations
which are so complex that the planning process itself must
be coordinated. 1 2
The
formal.
fact,

plan

by

It could be described

they list

address.1-^
formal

envisaged

eleven

They

plan

and

also
a

LeBreton

thirteen

principle

Henning

in very concrete

(11 ) areas which
list

and

for

terms.

every plan

(15)

each

was

should

dimensions

one.^

In

of

Boxx

a

and

Johnson, however, did not find detailed planning of the type
suggested by LeBreton and Henning.

Reporting the results of

a recent study covering 220 colleges and universities they
found

. . that many

thorough

and

institution’s are not engaged

comprehensive

type

of

planning.

instances planning is done sporadically,

In

in a
many

it is vague, and it

is seldom communicated to others in concrete detail."

15

Quantitative Planning Factors
Jedamus and Peterson make a similar observation, but
in a totally different context.
of their
1980,

text

They comment in the preface

Improving Academic

Management, published

in

"Five years ago, a book of this nature would not have

been possible
and

chief

and

planning

this

range

administrative
were

overcommitted
techniques.

for

to
^

seldom
the

of readers.

officers]
related

[Faculty,

Institutional
.

.

manipulation

. and
of

staff

research

planning was
simulation

33
There was little doubt the computer represented the
educational

planning

vehicle

of

the

1970s;

however,

the

planning perspective of the institution remained unchanged.
Before the computer the best solutions were
reached by intuition and by random evaluation of
possible alternatives. . . .
What is needed is a conceptual framework within
which the complex interrelationships of a
university's operations can be viewed as a coherent
system.
Systems planning provides an approach
whereby key university problems can be stated in a
form appropriate for mathematical analysis.
Comprehensive planning models of this type were operational
at the University of California, Michigan State University,
University
College

of

Toronto,

of Baltimore,

University

Maryland,

of

and

Rochester,

other

Loyola

institutions

by

1970.18
The
designed
members

by

George

P.

Keane

at

and

Loyola

James

College

N.

Daniel,

Marwick,

was
Jr.,

Mitchell and

Seven other colleges participated in this project

Park

College,

designation.
System

implemented

of the consulting firm Peat,

Company.
with

system

for

The

Kansas

City,

system was

Exploring

The system,

enough to

satisfy

the

small

large,

simple

and

named

Alternative

Higher Education.

Missouri

the

lead

Search; an acronym for
Resource

Commitments

in

it was claimed, was powerful

planning needs
and

having

complex.

of

institutions
It

both

had -sufficient

capacity for 522 state variables.
Under the leadership of Park College, a group
of eight colleges was assembled to undertake, a
long-range planning project with two major
obj ectives:

34
1. To train key administrators and planning
officers in the concepts, techniques and
organization of overall institutional planning
2. To design and implement mathematical simulation
which makes possible the exploration of a wide
range of planning alternatives by enabling the
planners to project resources, resource demands,
and institutional charcteristics quickly and
easily for each alternative they wish to
consider.'°
The

model,

Comprehensive

Planning

in

University

developed

in

1965*

others
RRPM,

such

as

A

the

Analytical

Systems,
recent

Resource

Campus,

version

Methods

was

of

initially

this

Requirements

for

system

Planning

and

Model,

designed for academic resource allocation were judged

to be

".

. . seriously

research universities,
of-education
graduate

to complex

since they consider neither quality-

variables

education

incomplete when applied

and

nor

the

joint-product

research

(i.e.,

the

character

fact

that

tend to be produced jointly from the same inputs)."
concern expressed here by Hopkins

o r\

and Massy is whether

relatively high cost of limited application systems

of

they
The
the

can be

justified.
Bleau,
systems

such

however,
as

argues

faculty

flow

that
models

limited
are

application

beneficial

as

planning aids and will help institutions respond to changing
enrollment
faculty;

patterns

keep

while:

instructional

maintaining

a

costs

and

attract promising young scholars.
models
state

and

techniques

models

which

including
she

found

down,

high

quality

continue

to

She reviewed a variety of
both

three

inferior

to

state

and

two

Markov-Chain

35
modelsHopkins
enthusiastic,

and

Massy,

however,

were

somewhat

less

but also acknowledge some advantages favoring

Markov-Chain

models

approaches.^2

and

Faculty

include:

The

Stanford

Academic

Flow

offer

flow

Model;

Model

(Based

several

models
The

on

alternative

reviewed

Oregon

by

State

EDUCOM);

The

Bleau

Model;
USC

The

Faculty

Planning Model and The Purdue Faculty Projection M o d e l s . ^3

models

In

addition

for

colleges

to

comprehensive

and

and

universities

special

several

purpose

large

scale

models of the economy have been developed.

Conceptualized

on

model

the

same

educational
work

out

scale,

system

the

Stone^

in

Great

present

described
Britain.

a

It was

implications

of

of

designed

future

levels

the
to
of

educational activity as determined by the evolution of the
demand
for

for places

the

argued

products
that

on the
of

economic

one hand

education
and

on

social

and

the economic

demand

the

other.

author

activity

The

models

should

be

thought of as a set of linked models operating by means of
exchange

of

information

monolithic structure.
treats
stage

demand

for

epidemic.

rather

than

in

terms

of

a single

Interestingly, the logic of the model

places

in higher

T i n be rg en ^

has

education
also

as

a multi­

developed

several

econometric models of education.
In
educational
and

a

wide

ranging

planning models

national;

and

micro,

review

that

of

education

covers both macro,

institution

level

Correa offers this definition for a model:

models,

and

region
Hector

36
. . . (1) a set of variables classified as
endogenous and exogenous; (2) the cause-effect
relationships among these variables; and (3) the
consistency of these relationships.
By
’consistency' I mean that, whenever the values of
the exogenous variable are specified, the values of
the endogenous variables can be determined in one
and only one way. . . .
Models are attempts to 'explain' the phenomena
characterized by the endogenous variables.
By
definition, a phenomenon is explained when a model
of it is constructed, that is, when the values of
its endogenous variables can be d|^ermined, given
those of the exogenous variables.
Quantitative
with

broad

methods,

aspects

organization

and

of

its

including models,
the

which

postseeondary

environment

are

interest to the research in this study,

of

deal

education
considerable

but not central to

it; nevertheless, methodologically speaking they are perhaps
the

more

advanced

reviewed.
the

of

the

It is important,

objective

extent models

of

modeling,

perform this

several

planning

however,
to

not to loose sight of

explain

function

techniques

reality.

they,

To

as will

be

the
seen

later, are an important planning "tool;" not all models need
to be, or even can be based on mathematical expressions:
A verbal model is better than no model at all,
or a model which, because it can be formulated
mathematically, is forcibly imposed upon and
falsifies reality. . . .
Mathematics essentially means the existence of
an algorithm which is much more precise than that
of ordinary language.
The
education
early
factors

development

applications

1960s
of

and

is

equal,

of
has

likely
if

not

planning
progressed
to

models
steadily

continue.

greater,

for

higher

since

However,

importance

the

other
to

the

37
development

of

planning

theory

and

practice

were

also

emerging as early as the 1960s.
Qualitative Planning Factors
A long term interest in organization environment "by
three
to

somewhat

form

a

explained

diverse

"school"
in

terms

disciplines

have

of

organization

of

an

coalesced

theory which

ecological

population— ecology m o d e l , o r

recently

planning

could

model;

be
the

the ecosystem.^9

The language of this school of thought is
decisively anthropomorphic:
environments act,
organizations respond; environments select some
organization’s for extinction, and allow others to
survive. . . .
Organizations can be said to exist in an ecological
setting, just as the pond is an ecological setting
for fish. Independent of any of the individuals in
these organizations or individuals directing them,
they maybe subject to laws governing the
competition for resources; they may have the
ability to adapt to changes in the pond, to retain
adaptive forms or programs within them; and to grow
complex as the pond grows complex.
Principles
formulated for general systems theory, such as the
law of requisite variety, are adapted:
Organization structure should be only as complex as
the complexity existing in the environment. To be
less complex reduces adaptability; to be more
complex signifies waste.^0
Interest

in the

organization's

environment

sociological roots in human relations theory,
the

mid-1960s;

technological
Thompson,
however,

followed
school

Lawrence
to the

contingency

represented

and

Lorsch,

progress

period was

a growing

that

organizational

some

by

of

and

social

concern held
problems

by

theorists

Perrow.-^

and
such

the
as

Essential,
during this

by management
required

its

popular until

theory

scientists

has

theorists

explanations

38
which

could

not

developmental

he

work hy

found

within

the

firm;

general

system

theorists.

and

the

The

fact

that some researchers such as Bertalanffy, Boulding, Ackoff,
Parsons, and Simon wore more than one intellectual "hat" was
significant

in

providing

theoretical synergy.

a

vehicle

for

the

needed

32

Actually, the external environment of organization's
hegan attracting the attention of management
This attention was due
techno-economic

in the 1950s.

in part to a growing concern that a

mismatch

existed

Between

products

and

services on the one hand and the demands of the market place
on the other.

Ansoff and

the strategic problem.
found

hy

evaluating

refer to this malaise as

H a y e s 5 3

The solution, they assert, was to he
the

opportunities

offered

hy

the

external environment and the strengths and weaknesses of the
organization

(organizational

climate),

then

selecting

the

hest match consistent with the mission of the organization.
The
environment
workers

and

different
of

a

second

source

stemmed

from

management

from those

hierarchy

of

of
a

interest

growing

could

in

the

realization

have

goals

external
that

separate

hoth
and

of the organization,54 and the notion
roles,

linking

organization to the external

internal

e n v i r o n m e n t .

levels

of

the

55

A third force gaining momentum during the 1950s was
general system theory.

The movement was helped considerably

with an article appearing

in Science hy von Bertalanffy in

1950,

of

titled

"The

Theory

Open

Systems

in

Physics

and

Biology,
system

"Emery

theory

to

demonstrated
sociology

and

the

importance

management

by

of

general

synthesizing

six principles enunciated by an early contributor, Kohler,36
in 1938, with the major thrust of the concerns of management
and the organization concepts noted above:
1.

The construct boundary, as a system property is
recognized and the maintenance of the
orgnization's boundary with its environment is
posited as management’s primary task if the
enterprise is to survive.

2.

The concept of equilibrium, as a system property is
used to differentiate between open and closed
systems.

Whereas equilibrium is the goal of a

closed system,

in open systems the goal is to

establish those forms of interdependence that
enable the system (organization) to maximize its
potential for energy or capacity for work.
3.

The desired result, a steady state, can only be
achieved when the direction, mission, of the
enterprise remains constant and maintains a "rate
of progress" toward that end and is within tolerable limits.

Stated another way, ". . . a n

enterprise cannot hope to achieve steady state
(except accidentally) unless it sets a mission for
itself in terms of outcomes that are capable of
achievement and yet are sufficiently beyond present
performance to allow for some measurable degree of
progress.

37

40
4»

To maintain a steady state, management must
constantly "balance the organization's "capacity"
with environmental "demand."

The ability to

achieve this match would imply that both actual and
potential values are known in each case.

This

would indicate continuous monitoring of the
internal and external environment with sensitive
measures.
5*

Yet, maintaining a steady state requires more than
measurement or even regulation.

"In a human

organization, the two requirements for a steady
state, unidirectionality and progress, can be
achieved only by leadership and commitment."38

This

requires goals which are well defined and agreed
upon so the system can respond to a wide range of
perturbations and changes; and the strength of
commitment by members is such that emergencies will
be met with additional effort.

Open systems, then,

are essentially self-regulating.
One corollary is that it is only within this
framework that regulatory mechanisms, such as cost
controls, can make an effective contribution.
In
creating these mechanisms it is essential to ensure
that they do not run counter to, or undermine the
requirement for self-regulation, and to remember
that mechanisms which are appropriate in one phase
of a system's existence may, with a change in
location with respect to the mission, became
inappropriate.3° •
6.

Finally, the requirement for a steady state can
only be met if members are allowed a degree of
autonomy and "selective interdependence," this

41
requirement that the coordination of components be
.maximally brought about by themselves . . .
requires some sacrifice of autonomy and to that
extent threatens commitment.

This threat can be

lessened by allowing selective interdependence.
The concept of time as a planning variable can also
be

traced

to

the

early

1960s.

Initially,

the

horizon was dichotomized using Fayol's model,
term

period,

one

year;

and

a long-term

planning

into a short­

period,

ten-years.

This designation did not mean two different plans;

rather,

each

and

year

years.

a

new

plan

was

developed

for

one

year

ten

Nor was there a different plan for each functional

area of the firm; however, Fayol did permit the plan to be
divided into several parts.
Unity of plan is an instance.
Only one plan
can be put into operation at a time; two different
plans would mean duality, confusion, disorder.
But
a plan may be divided into several parts.
In large
concerns, there is found along side the general
plan a technical, commerical, and a financial one
or else an over-all one with a specific one for
each department.
But all these plans are linked,
welded, so as to make up one only, and every
modification brought to bear on any one of them is
given expression in the whole plan.
The guiding
action of the plan must be continuous.
In
offered

by

addition
Fayol,

to

the

futurity

characteristics
and

of

integration,

planning

Koontz

O'Donnell suggest the characteristic, uncertainty.

and

"It has

sometimes been objected that planning in the face of great
uncertainty

is wasteful

. . . But,

just

as

the

navigator

must premise some kind of winds in order to make a start . .
. the

businessman

must

make

his

decisions

against

some

42
kind

of

assumption

characteristic

is

as

to

the

variety.43

future."42

Plans

take

Another
many

forms:

Objectives; Policies; Procedures; Budgets and Programs.44
LeBreton
characteristics,
they

called

the

and
and

Henning

others

dimensions

organized

these

into a comprehensive

framework

of

a

plan.

Their

framework

included: Complexity; Significance; Comprehensiveness; Time;
Specificity;
Confidential

Completeness;
nature;

implementation,
the

significance

Flexibility;

Formality;

Authorization;

and Ease of control.45
of each

of these

Frequency;
Ease

of

To fully appreciate

dimensions

the

authors'

posited a principle of interrelations of dimensions.
. . .: All dimensions of a plan are
interrelated and thus exert a combined influence on
the planning process, the greater the ease of
implementation, ease of control, specificity,
frequency,
authority, completeness,
the easier the obtaining of cooperation at all
stages
EEe shorter the full period between
authorization of a major project and its
completion.
The greater the comprehensiveness, complexity,
and significance,
the higher the level in the organization for
approving the plan
greater the need for exercising tight
control and coordination
the greater the likelihood that the planner
will use group or committee action rather than
single action in carrying out the planning
process
A companion principle was

also posited

by LeBreton

and Henning, primacy of dimensions.
. . .: When two or more dimensions occur with
one or more relatively high and one or more
relatively low on the intensity scale (complexity
high-significance low, for example) one or more

43
dimensions will take priority over the other
dimensions and thus exert the primary influence
over the planning process.
Primacy of a dimension
is a function of the nature of the plan, the
dimension itself, the intensity of the dimension,
and the direction and intensity of other
dimensions.^ '
The purposes for presenting the concepts of LeBreton
and

Henning

major

in

some

contribution

detail
to

formulation

of

theoretical

framework

planning

in

two:

management

their

concepts,

were

theory

first,

they

literature

of

planning;

will

he

used,

this

dissertation.

made

a

with

the

second,

the

along

with

One

other

of

their

recommendations for future research is particularly salient
and

contributed

to

research thurst: ".

an

early

definition

of

this

study's

. . A n empirical study to determine just
A O

where plans do originate in an enteprise."
By

1960,

established;

the

function

was

planning

tools

process

then,

was

a

planning

importance

generally
was

of

established,

planning

accepted;

growing,

and

albeit

yet,

literature

not

as
the

slowly.
many

a

had

been

management

inventory
The

of

planning

organizations

were

prepared to use it effectively, some ignored it altogether.
Instrumentalist vs. Teleologist
The
educators
must

was

include

Henning.
fear

reluctance

that

due,
all

This
it

to

in part,

of the

"planning"

to the

misconception

dimensions

reluctance,
was

implement

costly,

by many,

by

some

that

it

listed by LeBreton and
also

complicated

stemmed from the
and

threatening.

Further, educators were faced with a unique problem, growth.

44
Most

were

happy to

"suffice"

and

saw little

justification

for "optimization," which they equated with planning.
planning was utilized

When

it was frequently treated as an end,

resulting in a formal document with all the specificity of a
comprehensive budget, rather then a means, or process, which
could tolerate a great deal less formality and specificity.
Salloway and Tack report the results of a two-part
study

of

33

large

public

educational

institutions.

They

first surveyed the chief planning officers to determine the
status

of

comprehensive

institution and
part

of the

found

study

planning

as

practiced

it to be fragmented.

they used

a delphi

at

In the

survey

each
second

to determine

what the same planning officers, "experts," would include as
components in an "ideal"
unit.

The components

function;

centralized comprehensive planning

nominated were:

organizational

purpose;

placement;

access to a campus computer system,

philosophy;

staffing

patterns;

and interface personnel

assigned by each unit or sub unit to work with planning unit
personnel to coordinate planning activities.
Because of the inherent need to plan, the
establishment of a centralized comprehensive
planning unit (to coordinate and facilitate
academic, administrative, facilities, and financial
planning at all levels within the institution) is
paramount.
Such an organizational component will
enhance the institution's ability to create rather
than inherit its future.49
Lahr^O reports the results of a study to: determine
the

long-range

private
the

planning

colleges

five

and

colleges

characteristics

universities
determined

to

of

a

in Michigan;
have

the

group

of

20

to

compare

most

formal

45
approach to long-range planning with the five determined to
evidence

the

intensive

least

formality;

examination

institutions.

of

Several of

and

finally,

planning

to

conduct

practices

at

an
six

his observations are of interest

to this study.
He
planning,

found

the

and

president

concluded

if

to

be

the

heavily

trend

involved

toward

in

shorter

presidential tenure is continued, a formal planning approach
may help reduce the trauma of such transitions by involving
more

members

of

the

staff,

the

board

and

faculty

in

the

planning process.
lahr cautions, however, that excessive formalization
may be dangerous;

"Formalization is excessive when planning

no longer is an instrument to be used in the achievement of
a purpose but rather becomes an end itself . . ."
The author
planning methods
they had
found

also found

was

not been

that

only

limited

that knowledge
and when such

implemented for
of

the

of long-range
plans

existed,

a very long period.

twenty

colleges

He

studied

had

regularly conducted long-range planning prior to 1975-

He

also found that,

one

51

"structure and process descriptors provide

definitive characterizations of the extent of formalization
of long-range planning at colleges and universities."
finding

led

to

the

recommendation

taking an "inventory"

that

an

instrument

of planning characterises

This
for

should be

developed so that institutions and other interested agencies
could make structure and process comparisons.

52

46
The

type

of

instrument

Lahr

had

in mind may

have

been used in a study conducted by Boxx and Johnson,
included 170 participating institutions,

which

indentified from a

randomly selected group of 400 academic institutions listed
in

the

1977-78

Universities.
Lahr's

Educational

The

in that

purpose

it too was

Directory,

of

the

study

Colleges
was

similar

and
to

interested in identifying levels

of formality in planning.
A
which

Formalized

included

Planning

eight

Environmental

Analysis;

Strengths

Limitations;

and

Development
Goals;

of

Criteria;

Development

of

Process

Model

sequentially
Assessment

oriented
of

Formulation
Development

Strategies

for

was

steps:

Institutional

of
of

utilized

Assumption's;
Objectives

Attaining

and

Objectives

and Goals; Development of Long-Range and Short-Range Plans;
and Evaluation of Performance.
Questionnaires were
institution;

220

responded

sent to
and

of

the presidents
those,

of each

170 indicated

formalized planning, as defined by the questionnaire, was in
use at their

institution.

While the results were somewhat

different than Lahr's, the authors', nevertheless, reached a
conclusion which was remarkably close

to his.

Even through 170 institutions reported the use
of a formalized planning process, . . . many did
not actually perform all of the steps in the
process model . . . The findings of this study
support the conclusion that many institutions are
not engaged in a thorough and comprehensive type of
planning. . . . Rarely was found the kind of
detailed planning which would enable decision­
makers to perform step-by-step what must be done to
realize the goals of the institution and each of
its subprograms.

47
The management of educational institutions
should seek to apply all.steps in the formalized
planning process model.
Palola and P a d g e t t ^

report the results of a study

on institutional planning which approached the issue of how
institutions
principal
public

plan

objective

and

planning.

of

private

still
this

goal

study

was

it

was

direction.
to

assess

performed

The
how

80

long-range

was to determine the impact on

effectiveness

this

another

institutions

A further purpose

institutional
achieve

from

resulting
necessary

from
".

.

planning.
.to

To

provide

a

framework within which certain problems of self-analysis and
self-renewal

can

model

on

based

Renewal;

be

resolved."

four

Planning

principles:

as

a

The

authors

Program

Process;

developed

Development

Responsibilities

a

and
and

Contingencies.
The data for the study was the by-product of another
study conducted earlier by Palola,

Lehmann,

and Bliscke to

identify how critical decisions made outside the institution
affects

its

institutions

mission
located

and
in

role.

The

California,

study

Florida,

covered
Illinois

80
and

New York.
The types of institutions included state and private
funded universities,

colleges

principal

research

documents

and publications

reviewed.

technique

and community colleges.
was

the

from each

Approximately five

interview;

The

however,

institution were also

interviews were held at each

institution with faculty, administrative and staff personnel
who in one way or another were involved with planning.

48
Prom

data

institution
Scope,

was

gathered

evaluated

ends/means;

Priority,

during
on

the

eight

planning

Integration,

priorities/no

interviews

each

dimensions:

integrated/piecemeal;
priorities;

Style,

periodic/continuous; Research, research hased/limited
Participants,

joint/separate

special/existing

structure.

showed

that,

"Over

50

structure;

The

results

percent

of

Structure,

of this

the

data;

analysis

institutions

were

rated in a positive manner on only three of the dimensions."
Even in those areas the performance was only marginal.
key

variables

were

found

dimensions:

State

(university,

college,

to

be

(where

related

located);

community

to

six

Five

of

Functional

the
type

college); .Control(private,
C £

public); Character (new or old); and Size.
From

the

analysis

planning dimensions,
were defined;

three

of

performance

types

of

on

the

eight

institutional planning

and when the 80 institutions were distributed

between the three planning categories, the resulting groups
were approximately equal

in size.

The first planning type

was

indicated

that

substantive,

planning

style

priorities;
wide

which

was

ends-oriented;

continuous;

faculty

used

participation,

the

institutional

integrated;

established

a variety of sources;
and

used

a

special

enjoyed
or

joint

planning structure.
The

second

planning type was

expedient,

(according

to the authors this type of planning had been stimulated by
the

development

of

statewide

coordinating

agencies)

which

indicated

49
institutional
planning

the

oriented;

piecemeal;

failed

to

style

was

establish

means-

priorities;

reflected little faculty participation and used existing or
separate planning structures.
mixed,

and

indicated

The third planning type was

the

institution

possessed

both

substantive and expedient characteristics.
The results of this study indicated that substantive
institutions

tended

homogeneous;
percentage

to be

private;

smaller

low

of students

in size;

newer

student— faculty

living

on

campus

and

and more

ratio;

high

interested

in

liberal arts; few faculty conflicts; small number of Ph.D.'s
awarded
These

and

less

faculty

characteristics

orientation

were

to

interpreted

their

by

the

discipline.
authors'

to

produce an environment conducive to planning.
Taken together these factors probably help develop
morale and commitment to the institution, and help
simplify the definition of a single mission or set
of priorities.
These features also facilitate
communication and interaction, and diminish the
negative impact of bureaucracy and vested interest.
. . . The institutions with Mixed planning seem to
have the resources (or "Inputs") of Substantive
schools but are hampered by their large size and
age. . . . The Expedient institutions share the
problem of Mixed schools and have the additional
problem of a lack of money (i.e., about one-half
the income per student).
The

authors'

suggested,

as

did

Lahr

institution's planning style could be

that

knowledge

indicative of,

of

an

or an

indicator for, institutional behavior.
Master
concept.
which

planning

The master

includes

a

represents

plan

yet

another

planning

is a document

(formal

approach)

philosophical

statement

concerning

the

50
institution's mission,
and

an

explanation

implemented

during

certain

desired

referred

to

and

an assessment
of

mission

strategic

the

planning

outcomes,

variously

of its

as

planning.

current

changes

period,

which,

will

goals.

Master

long-range

planning;

C a r u t h e r s ^ 3,

status

adds

when

result

in

planning

is

self-study,
that

increasingly referred to as strategic planning.

it

Yet,

is
many

authors would argue that the formality of master planning is
not

required,

or

is

even

to

he

avoided

in

strategic

planning.
Master
year

segment

expected,
entire

plans
of

they

the
are

institution

perspective.

typically

focus

planning
broad
and

on

horizon

scoped,

and,

usually

reflecting

Early versions

the

a

three
as

ten

might

including

holistic

of master

to

plans

be
the

planning

developed

in

the 1970s, were criticized for frequently being out of date,
more

recent

terms

of

complaint.
complete;

plans

tend

to

implementation,
Master
involve

be
in

less
an

plans may take
many

specific,

effort

to

at

least

overcome

in

this

as long as two years to

participants;

they

are

frequently

costly, and are usually the responsibility of a master plan
committee.

According to Caruthers:

One of the more controversial topics in
institutional planning has been master planning.
Its proponents, largely from the systems approach
school of management, see the master plan as the
logical capstone of all planning activity— the
grand design for all to follow.
Its detractors,
however, find that time spent on master planning
all too frequently is wasted.
Conditions often
change to such an extent before the planning is ^0
half over that the master plan becomes obsolete.

51
Parekh
development

provides

of

master

a
or

model

for

operationalizing

comprehensive

plans.

The

the

model

consists of six interrelated stages:
.Mission: How the mission of the institution is
defined
.Goals: What the mission means in terms of
quantitative goals
.Responsibilities: What the goals mean in terms
of organizational responsibilities
.Activities: What the responsibilities mean in
terms of daily, weekly, monthly, and annual
activities
.Budget: What the activities mean in terms of
resource requirements
.Evaluation^qWhat the actual results have been
versus the pla
According to the author the stages do not have to be
completed

in any particular

begin

a

at

convenient

or

order,

he

comfortable

stages, however, must be completed.
attention

to

process

as

advises

the user

point;

each

of

these

forms

may

reduce

possible,

the

the

To do this with as much
the

model

contains

variety of multipurpose matrices related to each stage.
of

to

size

of

the

plan.

a

Use
"This

eliminates the need for ponderous planning documents running
300 to 500 pages in length, seldom read or digested in their
entirety by anyone."

In addition to reducing "verbiage" the

matrices also increase specificity and quantification;

they

may be used to reflect the plan of the entire institution or
an individual department.^
Parekh1s model,

ostensibly,

environmental assumptions;
other

planning

diminution

of

models

use

importance

minimizes

the need

for

however, he recognizes that most
them.
is

that

His
the

reason

for

this

development

of

52
assumptions

introduces

restrictions,

".

He

asserts

factors,

author

that

In

while

planning

the

model

primarily

de-emphasizing

departs

many

uncertainties

. . that planning dies before

it is based

factors.

so

somewhat

advocates.

internal,

these

planning

from
He

the

adds

it begins."

acknowledges

on

to

and

external

action driven
concepts,

position
this

of

the

strategic

difference

by

observing:
Similarly, attempts to determine institutional
standing, within a group of similar institutions,
are helpful but by no means vital to the planning
process.
As a purposeful system, the planning
process is useful to the extent that it can
generate concerted action purely through its own
volition and not merely in response to predetermined
assumptions or comparisons.
The
educational
would
it

fact

planning

indicate

has

that

been

Parekh

is

literature,

frequently
without

cited

critical

some agreement with his position.
demonstrated

that

planning

by

in

the

comment
However,

educational

institutions has often been characterized as means oriented,
driven by a need to quantify internal relationships and to
focus on the planning process, risking a result (plan) which
may be

out

environment.
model

of touch with the

reality of the

institution's

One of several anomalies contained in Parekh*s

is the emphasis he places

on evaluation,

(stage six)

and the disemphasis on organizational environment.

Yet,

in

his chapter on evaluation he seemingly reverses his earlier
position:
The institution must be continually on guard to
ensure that its mission is valid in the present and
future context of higher education and society.

53
Otherwise it might become functionally oriented to
a purpose or mission that will no longer be
valid.
Planning
several

courses:

techniques,

was

adherred

education
one

developed

with planning,
course

in

turned

has

to

simulation

developed

operations

models

and

the

One

planning

group

experimented
the other

advocating

theory which

along

research

programming and budgeting systems;

bifurcated.

to

then

formality,

promulgated

formal,

comprehensive plans produced regularly by a planning staff;
the

other

the

less

formal group,

permanent

staff

and

used the

relied

same

on

ad

approach,

hoc

sans

committees,

producing formal plans at irregular intervals.
In

other

same forces were
on

by

that

sectors,

both

public

and

private,

evident although less pervasive.

group

of

organizations

put-off

these
Spurred

by

excessive

formality and rigid rules, a pragmatic approach to planning
which

offered

developed;

a

wider

requiring

flexibility

it

range
less

of

alternatives

formality

incorporated

the

and

concepts

was

being

emphasizing
of

those

organization theorists which advocated greater cognizance of
the

external

environment;

these

efforts would

concept of strategic planning by the mid-1960s.
specifically
commenting

referring

on planning

to

strategic

in general,

lead to

the

While not

planning,

Warren

and long-range planning

in particular, observed:
It cannot be over-emphasized that with few
exceptions the purpose of long-range planning is
not nearly so much having a plan as developing
process, attitudes, and perspectives which make
planning possible. . . . 5

Prom 1960 to

1965>

54
however,

the literature

is rich

with interest in extending the general planning theories of
LeBreton

and

Henning,

Koontz

and

O'Donnell

and

others

applications areas such as long-range planning.

to

George A.

Steiner was a major contributor during this period.
Long-range planning has received widespread
attention in recent years. More and more companies
are creating more or less formal long-range
planning programs.
Many more are thinking about
doing so.
Yet there are also widespread
expressions of vague doubt about the whole thing.
Both trends are understandable.
On the one
hand, many companies have properly recognized the
need for integrating and formalizing long-range
planning.
On the other hand, the state of the art
is still rather rudimentary.
There exists no
generally accepted concept of long-range planning
or the methodology best suited to do it.
There are
many concepts and methods.
Long-range in 1963 was considered by the executives
at

one

of Steiner's seminars

to be

about five years;

also expressed agreement on several

other aspects

they

of long-

range planning: setting goals and objectives with strategies
to achieve

them;

developing detailed programs

to implement

them; and finally, in a more philosophical tone, while doing
these
The

things
group

strategies

to

recognize

referred
as

to

strategic

the

futurity

setting

of such

goals

planning;

and

and

decisions.

establishing

developing

programs for implementing those strategies,

detailed

as programming.

The first year of the long-range plan was typically referred
to by the group as the operating plan.
Strategic

planning

in

1963>

however,

was

not

much

more than associating goals with strategies and conveying a

55
sense

of futurity.

When

"strategic

planning"

occurred

it

was generally performed by managers who were following the
debate

between

classic

recently

arrived

relations

advocates;

organization

but,

nevertheless,

both

of

introspective view of the firm.
include
over

organization

the following

theorist

ecologist
ten years,

which

and

the

more

important
took

a

human

decidedly

The debate would expand to
and

general

causing the

system theorist
term,

strategic

planning, to attract a variety of meanings and suggest even
more applications— a fact that lead to misunderstanding and
controversy.

Kast

and

Rosenzweig

sum

the

underlying

planning problem as it existed in 1972, with their comment
on contingency theory.
The general tenor of the contingency view is
somewhere between simplistic, specific principles
and complex, vague notions.
It is a mid-range
concept which recognizes the complexity involved in
managing modern organizations but uses patterns of
relationships and/or configurations of subsystems
in order to facilitate improved practice.
The art
of management depends on a reasonable success rate
for actions in a probabilistic environment. Our hope
is that systems concepts and contingency views,
,

„

,

searchers/theorists
Even

though

the

will also be more

environment

was

increasingly

referred to in the planning literature of the early 1960s,
the concept

of boundary as it applied to organizations was

not

understood

widely

comments

appearing

after the other.
is

a

receiver

in

by

planners,

as

the

literature,

suggested
one

by

nineteen

years

Boulding noted that the executive ".
of

messages

from

the

receptors

of

two

. .
the

56
organization,

and

his

job

is

into

instructions

or

The

domains

houndries

apparently

ignored

Melcher88
to

or

patterns,
they

or

complex

not

a

go

to

suggested
accepted

by

concentrating

closed

these

the
by

effectors."

67

were

theorist,

who

internal

variables

structures,

behavior

the implication,

systems

messages

Boulding

some

on

organizational

and effectiveness;

utilized

transform

orders which

charged with

explain

to

approach

of course,

rather

than

is
the

open-system advocated by others, including Melcher.
Negandhi

also

argued

that

until

general

systems

concepts have been developed to a fuller extent researchers
should utilize contingency theory— a mid-range approach— in
order to benefit from systems concepts as they apply to the
study of complex organizations.

However, this required some

adjustment:
The systems frame of reference enables one to
think in terms of the interdependence and patterns
of relationships.
The mechanistic approach which
stresses the determination of the causal link
between two variables continues to be dominant in
present studies of complex organizations.
While
the patterns of relationships and interdependence
of various subsystems in the functioning of a total
system are recognized by some scholars, few studies
deal with interrelationships among variables.
Even
the contingency theorists, who ought to be
examining interdependent patterns of relationships,
are investigating simple causal relationships.
Only the kinds of variables under investigation
have changed, not the fundamental approach to
scientific studies. . . .
Another
strategic
on

the

which

planning occurred

scene

attributes

debate

of

but

it

too

also

had

long before
centered

organizations.

on

some

impact

the ecologist
the

According

on
came

anthropomorphic
to

Steiner,

57
A n t h o n y ^ and others, a major strategic planning activity is
choosing

organizational

objectives

and

goals.

Ansoff

77

states this position both succinctly and perspicuously with
the

observation

".

.

. the

business

firm

does

not

have

objectives which are different and distinct from individual
objectives

of

the

participants."

Cyert

consonance with the "managerialists"
"organizations

do

not

have

and

point

objectives,

March^

in

of view argued,

only

people

have

objectives."
In
objectives,
policies,

addition

to

strategic

planning

each

implications;
confused,
should

yet,

as

it

of

it

be

setting

these

is,

confused

also

with

with

and

includes

activities

strategic

often

goals

long-range

should

long-range

operational

establishing

have

planning

choosing

not

planning.

planning,

be
Nor

Moskow

offers this insight:
The distinction between strategic and
operational planning is sometimes blurred.
In most
cases, however, strategtic planning is conducted at
higher levels of management, includes a larger
range of alternatives, covers a longer period of
time, and includes a higher degree of uncertainty
and more unstructured problems.
In addition,
strategic planning takes a corporate-wide
perspective, while operational planning is done
principally from a functional or suborganizational
point of view.
It
planning
scholars;
to

should

concept

also
was

be

not

observed

wholeheartedly

even Ansoff acknowledges,

practice

has

l a g g e d .

"^4

that

He

the

strategic

supported

by

all

"its actual application

suggests

Robert

McNamara's

efforts to install program, planning and budgeting systems,

58
PPBS, (an advanced version of the strategic planning system)
were

successful

of

two

Presidents and the force of McNamara's own personality.

"As

soon

and

as

Mr.

only

because

McNamara
to

of

departed,

transform

the

the

support

pent-up

planning

resistance

began

political,

incremental process, which does not even vaguely

resemble strategtic planning."75

into

enertia
the

previous

Davous and Deas add:

Ve believe the term 'strategic planning' is a
bad and misleading one; better to distinguish
strategy analysis, planning, strategic decisions
and strategic behavior, §gch of which is a
distinguishable element.
Young summarizes several arguments against strategic
planning.

It is argued by some that for public institutions

strategic

planning

determined
Others

by

argue

has

little

political
that

rather

higher

unchanging even abstract

merit

because

than

education

funding

strategic

objectives

is

factors.

are

stable,

or seen in a priori terms.

Young

rejects both positions; the first on the grounds that public
institutions
their

are

increasingly

ability to meet

being

the needs

held

of their

accountable
publics;

and

for
the

second argument is countered with the admonition to use all
available tools to keep the public support indicated by the

77
a priori mo de l. 1
Peter Drucker^® wrote "Long-range planning does not
deal with future decisions.
present

deicisons."

administrators
and

It deals with the futurity of

The

and faculty will

alternatives

available

actions

taken

influence

to tomorrows

today

by

actions taken by

administrators

and

59
In some cases those decisions will literally be

faculty.
made

tomorrow by

the

same

cast

of actors making

decisions

today; on other matters, the futurity referred to by Drucker
may be realized several decades later,
an entirely different cast.

serving or limiting

The distinction between long-

range and short-range planning is simply the period of time
separating the initial decision point and the action point.
The

distinction

unfortunately,

is

not

between

as

observation on futurity.

simple

planning

processes,

as delineating

Drucker's

Various typologies and dichotomies

have been offered during the past twenty-five years on the
nature
the

of the

planning process

organization.

used

to

Today,

connote

and

the

futurity,

its proper

position

in

term strategic

planning

is

as

in long-range

planning;

formulation of important objectives by top management,
as,

organization goals which may be short-range,

budget;

and

the

organization's

awareness

of

such

as in the

its

external

environment.
The concept of planning,

as noted earlier, has been

present in management literature since Frederick Taylor, and
someone has claimed to have traced its roots as far back in
literary

history

published

in 1776.

Henri

Fayol

referred

to

management

as

Adam

It

Smith's Wealth

is generally agreed,

of

however,

set the pattern for its generic usage
it

in

a

1916

functions;

coordination and control.

publication

planning,

as

one

Nations,

of

organizing,

that

when he
five

key

command,

Several of these terms have been

60
updated tut planning remains on almost every author's list
as

a

legitimate

planning

Fayol

management

described,

function.

"both

to

The

assess

attributes
the

future

of
and

make provision for it,"79 have survived, even if his formal
definition

has

Budgeting;
Tactical

since

seen

Short-range
planning;

a

variety

planning;

Long-range

of

permutations:

Operations

planning;

planning;

Master

planning;

Comprehensive planning and other process oriented terms have
been used to describe both planning process and function.
Anthony, in his seminal work elaborated and expanded
the

concepts

notion
must

of LeBreton

of a

plan having

involve

Third,

the future.

there

is

identification

an

or

and

Henning.

three

of

causation."80

the construction and dimensions
function.

He

accepted

characteristics:

Second,

element

He

differentiated

it must

personal
However,

"First,

involve

or

their
it

action.

organizational

he

argued,

that

of plans depended on their
strategic

management control and operations control.

planning

from

81

In 1965» Anthony undertook the task of sorting— out
the usage of several planning terms which he believed were
causing confusion.
literature
statement
that,

and
on

is considered by

strategic

"Strategic

operational
have

The resulting work is often cited in the

to

do

with

organization."8^

planning.

planning,

control

are

some

However,

He contrasted

the

oriented,

that

definitive

Anthony

management

internally

activities

to be

occur

argued

control
that

and

is they

inside

an

these terms with financial

accounting

which

he

considered

to

be

the

organization1s

vehicle for reporting about the firm to the outside world.
Our objective is . . . to distinguish clearly
between financial accounting and management
control.
The difference stems essentially from the
fact that society has developed certain financial
accounting principles to which all businesses are
expected to adhere, whereas no such externally
imposed principles govern management control
information.
Anthony,
financial

and

discerned

from

determine

is,

of

course,

accounting
his
did

had

theory,

publications.
he

anticipate

an
a

academic
fact
What

the

interest

which
is

is

less

importance

in

easily
easy
of

to
the

organizational environment, an attribute almost every author
associates with strategic planning, or did he literally mean
that

strategic

occur

inside

planning

the

was

oriented

organization?

While

to

activities

this

point

that

may

be

unclear, Anthony was emphatic on another:
Since we shall emphasize differences, the
reader may get the impression that we view
strategic planning and management control as
discrete entities.
This is not so.
The planning
and control process is in fact a continuum, and we
imply a discrete dichotomy only because we believe
that this is the best way to explain the
distinction. . . .
Management control is a process carried on
within guidelines established by strategic
planning. . . . Decisions about next year's budget,
for example, are constrained within prescribed
policies and guidelines . . . Although budgets are
prepared within guidelines that emerge from the
strategic planning process . . . ^
While

Anthony

considered

strategic

planning

to

subsume other planning activities such as budgeting, he did
not,

in contrast to comprehensive or master plan advocates,

62
believe

it

should

include

every

planning

aspect

of

the

organization.
Ordinarily, the system that is used in the
management control process is a total system in the
sense that it embraces all aspects of the company's
organization . . . The strategic planning process
is much less likely to relate to the totality of the
organization; rather, with rare exceptions, a given
strategic plan relates to some pacts of the
organization, but not all of it. •3
Anthony suggested
planning were based

have

their

the

principles

of strategic

on economics and reflected a theory of

the firm orientation;
control

that

"whereas, the principles of management

roots

in social

psychology."

As the

human relations and operations research prominence gave way
to system theory and an ecological orientation,
concept

of

external

organization

making.

Strategic planning and strategic management appear

to

be

on

strategic

planning
factors

converging

become

so did the

and

courses

associated

flexibility

to

form

philosophy for coping in a turbulent

a

with

in decision­

new

management

environment.

Drucker

sagely observes:
One can have strategies for tomorrow that
anticipate the areas in which the greatest changes
are likely to occur, strategies that enable a
business or public service institution to take
advantage of the unforeseen and unforeseeable.
Planning tries to optimize tomorrow the trends of
today.
Strategy aims to exploit theRnew and
different opportunities of tomorrow.

planning
His

Ansoff,

on the other

can

address

only

perspective

of

hand,

part

believes

of

strategic

diametrically opposed to Anthony's.

the

that strategic

strategic

planning

is

problem.

apparently

He limits the strategic

63
planning focus to the problem of external linkages which he
asserts stems from the view,

"strengths of the firm will be

emphasized and weaknesses minimized."
believe,

as

management
asserts

does

Anthony,

control

that

primarily

are

parts

strategic

with

that
of

planning

Further, he does not

strategic
the

same

".

.

problem-solving,

.

planning

and

continuum.

He

concerns

determining

itself

the

new

preferred linkages with the environment under the assumption
that

implementation

activities."

and

Ansoff

control

will

advocates

follow

a

form

as
of

secondary
strategic

management which subsumes strategic planning.®®
Strategic Planning: A Framework
Many

contemporary

institutional

planning

scholars,

such as P e t e r s o n , ®9 refer to Anthony's model for analyzing
planning

and

control

systems

when

explaining

strategic

planning processes:
Strategic Planning is the process of deciding
on objectives of the organization, on changes in
these objectives, on the resources used to attain
these objectives, and on the policies that are to
govern the acquisition, use, and disposition of
these resources.
Management Control is the process by which
managers assure that resources are obtained and
used effectively and efficiently in the
accomplishment of the organization's objectives.
Operational Control is the process of assuring
that specific tasks are carried out effectively and
efficiently.-^
As noted

earlier,

Anthony

did not mean that

processes are discrete entities.

each of these

Rather, he considered them

to be integral parts of a framework which could be described

64
as a continuum, where on one end is found the pure planning
function,

strategic

combination
control;

planning;

planning

and

midway

execution

is

found

function,

the

management

and at the opposite end the focus is on execution,

operations control.
Anthony also makes a distinction between long-range
planning and strategic planning which extended the planning
theory of LeBreton and Henning and also made clear that the
two concepts were not interchangable.
Strategic planning does not correspond to what
some call long-range planning . . .
The long-range, short-range distinction has
more validity in relation to the duration of the
consequences of decisions.
Strategic decisions
tend to have long-term effects: often they are
irreversible in the short run.” '
Recalling
does

not

futurity

deal
of

Drucker's

with

future

present

between long-range

comment,

"long-range

decisions.

decisions.

planning and

It

The

deals

planning
with

difference,

strategic planning

the

then,

is that

one is time sensitive, and the other adds to time, level and
scope dimensions.

Strategic planning is usually carried out

at relatively high management levels and deals with issues
which

are

critical

to

a

relatively

large

segment

of

the

organization.
Scott,

offers

this

definition

of

planning

which

elaborates on a theme expressed by LeBreton and Henning and
one Scott attributes to the work of Fayol.
Planning is an analytical process which encompasses
an assessment of the future, the determination of
desired objectives in the context of that future,

65
the development of alternative courses of action
to achieve such objectives, and the selection of a
course (or courses) of action from among these
alternatives.
This

definition

improvement;
because

implies

further,

it

a

certain

implies

dynamic

acceptance,

it represents a good plan technically,

toward
not

just

but that

it

94
is also "practical and intelligent."^
Scott's

planning

model

provides

an

interesting

typology of plans and somewhat different from Anthony's,
is task oriented.
describe

in

First, goals are plans in the sense they

operational

organization;

second,
provide

to

actions,

at all levels,

their
future

terms,

policies

intended

level plan, goals;

guidelines

the
are

for

mission
plans,

those

of

the

strategic,

responsible

for

necessary to accomplish the higher

third, budgets reflect the resources and

allocation necessary to achieve
period;

it

and

finally,

certain results

procedures

are

in a

plans,

instructions,for accomplishing higher level plans: Budgets,
policies and goals.95

The key variables in plans are:

1. Subject area. This variable is a low-level
abstraction: Plans are simply described in the
terms of observable specifications. . . .
2. Scope. This second variable is a more
complex abstraction: Plans are distinguished
according to differing ranges of influence and
differing amounts of detail.
5* Time.
The third variable, time, may be
classified specifically (a one-year or a five-year
plan) or vaguely (a short-range or a long-range
plan).
This is the variable by which 'long-range*
planning is distinguished from other forms of
planning, . . .°°

66
The

planning

variable

time

is

used

to

describe

variety of relationships, both systemic and strategic.
organization
planning
plans

engaged

cycle, the

are

in

planning

is

concerned

frequency with which various

reviewed,

revised

or

even

Each

with

the

types

discarded;

a

of
and

preparation time, the gathering of information concerning a
variety

of questions

long will planning
are

also

"how long will

resources be

concerned,

implementation

such as,

once

lead

the

time.

committed?"

plan

A

it take— how
Organizations

is agreed

third,

and

to,

perhaps

with

the

the most

concrete of the questions regarding time is, "how long will
a

given

activity

operations,
concrete,

impact

epochal

in

the

time?"

plan

continue

At the other

time, is the

basis

to

influence

extreme, the least

for

many fundamental

planning questions such as, "how long will this trend last?"
Other planning models developed about the same time
and

reflecting

concept

of

continuous

processes,
conceptual

similar

included:
model,

characteristics,
as

opposed

George

and

The

to

especially

discrete

Steiner's

model;

distribution

of

planning

categories

along

the

concurred,

however,

activities

imaginary

within

planning

what

Steiner listed

ever

The

SRI
The

grouping or
the

several

continuum.9®

All

that strategic planning belonged at one

extreme end of the continuum and the most
planning,

planning

Gilmore-Brandenberg model.

principal differences were terminology and the

the

label,

the following

belonged

at

detailed form of

the

characteristics,

opposite

end.

which he and

67
others used to differentiate strategic planning and tactical
planning.
1. Level of Conduct. Strategic planning is
conducted at the highest levels of management . . .
2. Regularity. Strategic planning is hoth
continuous and irregular . . .
3. Subjective values. Strategic planning is
more heavily weighted with subjective values of
managers . . .
4. Range of alternatives . The total possible
range of alternatives from which a management must
choose is far greater, by definition, in strategic
. . . planning . . .
5. Uncertainty. . . . uncertainty is usually
much greater in strategic planning . . .
6. Nature of problems. Strategic planning
problems are unstructured and tend to be one of a
kind.
7* Information needs. Strategic planning
requires large amounts of information derived from,
and relating to, areas of knowledge outside the
corporation . . .
8. Time horizons. Strategic planning usually
covers a long time spectrum but sometimes is very
short, and varies from subject to subject.
9. Completness. Strategic planning
conceptually covers the entire scope of an
organization.
10. Reference. Strategic planning is original
in the sense that it is the source or origin for
all other planning in an enterprise.
11. Detail. Strategic plans are usually broad
and have many fewer details . . . The further out
in time the strategic plans stretch, the fewer
still are the details.
12. Type of personnel mostly involved.
Strategic planning for the most part is done only
by top management and its staff.
Included in the
concept of staff here would be line managers when
acting as staff.

68
13* Ease of evaluation. It is usually
considerably easier to measure the effectiveness
and efficiency of . . . plans than of strategic
plans.
14• Development of objectives, policies, and
strategies. The objectives, policies, and
strategies developed in strategic planning are new
and generally debatable.
15* Point of view. Strategic planning is done
from a corporate point of view, whereas . . .
planning is dong principally from a functional
point of view.
Peterson
continuum;

yet,

Peterson's
the

has

most

useful

typology
complete

Development, its
and

planning

suggested

includes
and

is

Philosophical
analysis;
adaptation
Coordinated

and

emphasizes

Advocacy,

Organizational

the

organization,

learning

pluralistic,

activity;
techniques;

logic

pragmatic,

boundary

style.

Formal-Rational,

planning

stresses

recognizes

Anarchy,

models:

group

different

planning

recognized;

a

Synthesis,

Political

six

understanding

considered

Technocratic/Empirical,

somewhat

describing

widely

focus

is

for

a

first,
focus

spanning

then
is

on

roles;

and

need

for

recognizes

autonomous units within the organization structure.
The formal-rational model,
the most

complete

and

also

according to Peterson is

the most

preferred by

colleges

and universities; the least rational is coordinated anarchy.
The

author

acknowledges

that

pure

usage

of

any

model

is

unlikely; rather, some combination will emerge in most cases
as the dominent model.
This dominent model stands a better chance of
success if it takes as its basic planning focus an
organizing assumption that reflects the basic

69
tradition of the institution; if the planning
orientation, purpose, and content reflect the real
planning issues facing the institution; and if the
dynamics of planning and participation reflect the
governance process and administrative style of the
institution. . . . '
Combining
continuum,
detail

which

with

describes

the

a

concepts

describes

Peterson's
range of

nontraditional,

levels

Steiner's

of planning

rationality

planning

provides

of

styles

a

process
focus

continuum,
from

convenient

and

which

traditional
vehicle

to
for

summarizing the review to this point and establishes a base
for

the

discussion

that

follows.

To know something about

the way an organization plans is to know a great deal about
the

organization

planning has

itself.

Over

the

last

evolved both as a process

two

decades,

and as a function,

from a rigid structure with well defined processes,
to the publication of a document;
administrative

philosophy

which

to a flexible,

views

planning

leading

pragmatic
more

as

a

tool than a function.
Institutional master planning will vary,
depending on whether a more rational (or O.D. or
technocratic/empirical) or less rational
(philosophical synthesis, political advocacy, or
controlled anarachy) process model is assumed.
The
more rational will tend to make greater use of top
down, centralized, or highly coordinated and
analytically oriented processes with more organized
participation . '
As

noted

earlier,

master

planning

planning are often considered synonymous

and

strategic

in at least three

areas: environment assessment; institutional assessment; and
values assessment.

Peterson would add a fourth area, master

plan c r e a t i o n . T h i s

final point, however,

is the source

70
of considerable
plan?”

If

agree,

in

controversey; what

is meant by "the master

it is comprehensive and formal then many would
the

tradition

strategic plan,

of

Steiner,

that

it

is

not

for such plans must deal only with the few

critical

issues

dynamic,

continuously monitoring those select issues,

to

shift

needed.

first

facing

emphasis,

the

organization

dropping

and

and

adding

they

new

must

be

ready

concerns

as

Peterson would seem to be congruent with the latter

position,
process

a

viewing
of

the

creation

consolidating

three

activities

the

into

of the

master

information
a

cohesive

plan

as

the

gathered

in

the

pattern

or

design

which emphasizes strategy.
Strategic planning then seeks to establish the
fundamental assumptions about the environment, the
institution, and the future form of the
institution.
It involves policy decisions, which
are the broadest and most encompassing decisions
concerned with a college's or a university's long­
term future. . . . These decisions may or may not
reside in a single master planning document.
Strategic planning then deals with the
organization-environment interface and is intended
to provide a framework within which tactical
planning occurs.
This, the first section of the review of literature
focused on the planning process and more will be reported on
this aspect of planning in the final section; but first,

it

is

in

necessary

to understand

something

which the planning process functions.
will

deal

mission,

with
the

environment

the

third

its

section

describe

will

terms and

the

context

The following section

organization,

in contextual

implications.

about

structure
the

and

its

external

its strategic planning

The final section, dealing with strategy and

policy,

71
the product of strategic planning,

provides closure

for the review of planning literature.
The Planning Context; Organization
The

conceptual

framework

for

this

section

of the

review of literature relies on the systems concept of inputoutput analysis and cyhernetics.
used

here

in

the

Parsonian

The term input-output

sense

of

exchanges

is

occurring

across organizational boundaries as expressed in the several
concepts,
making.

constructs and processes used to describe policy­
The term cybernetics is used in the Boulding sense

of flows of information which describe the symbolic medium
of those exchanges required to effect policy implementation.
The

organization

is a useful

the

purposes of this study; yet,

in

attempting

a

"Organizations
complexity

synthesis

are

is

reflected

one

of

complex

unit of analysis for
must remain cognizant

the

literature

social

in

the

that,

phenomena.
eclectic

This

nature

of

organization theory, the diversity of scientific research in
the

field,and

the

myriad

of

organization

designs

in the

modern world . . .
The
with

are:

analytical
mission,

variables

including

role

this

study

and

scope;

is

concerned

policies

or

strategies, for allocating resources to achieve mission; and
performance,

the

use

of

efficiency

and

effectiveness

measures to revise policy or mission or both when necessary
to ensure continued access to resources.

The organization

then is viewed as a "tool" in the Perrow sense for managing
these variables.

Typology
Ackoff^^

has

based

on

structure

point

and

provides

proposed

which

an

serves

organizational

as

a framework for

a

typology

convenient

analyzing the

starting
first

of

two key elements in policy formulation, resource allocation.
The concepts of geneity and nodality are utilized.
relates

a

part

dichotomy

or

element

employed

heterogeneity.

hy

to

the

Ackoff's

whole

typology

or

Geneity

system.

is

The

homogeneity-

Homogeneous organizations are characterized

by the locus of control residing in the power structure of
the organization.

Heterogenous organizations,

on the other

hand, are characterized by the locus of control residing in
the

general membership

and serves,

nominally,

some limited

purpose each member strongly identifies with.
According
members
labor

as

Ackoff,

instruments,

and,

decreasing.
their

to

in

terms

homogeneous

rely
of

on

member

a

organizations

functional
behavior,

use

division
are

of

variety

Heterogeneous organizations are instruments of

members

and

through

such

coalitions

expand

member

opportunities and thus can be considered variety increasing,
in terms of member behavior.
Nodality
Uninodal

describes

organizations

are

the

distribution

hierarchically

decision-making authority always found
level,
for

of

authority.

structured

on the

with

next highest

so that utlimately one decision-maker is responsible

what

the

organization

does.

Multinodal

organizations

require agreement between two or more relatively autonomous
decision-makers.

73
Postsecondary education
typology

in

university

a

variety

viewed

proprietary

of

as

institutions could fit this

combinations

ranging

from

multinodal-heterogeneous,

vocational

institution

the

to

having

a
the

characteristics of a uninodal-homogeneous organization.
The second element in policy formulation is resource
generation.

Vickers has

user-supported;

suggested the

public-supported;

following typology:

member

and/or

donor-

supported; and endowment-supported institutions.
Another typology is based on organization function.
Katz and Kahn describe four types of organizations in terms
of geno-typic function:
managerial-political.

economic, maintenance,

adaptive and

According to Katz and Kahn:

To ensure some viable integration or compromise
among organized groups and interest publics there
must be an authoritative decision-making structure
for the allocation of resources.1 0 '
This

is

accomplished

through

a

variety

of

productive

activities which provide basic goods and services.
a

central

set

of

norms

and

values

must

Further,

exist

with

socializing agencies capable of promoting belief systems and
provide training for social roles.
The typology offered by Katz and Kahn is similar to
one found in Parson's10® theory of action.
"model"

Parsons

describes

In his expansive

or differentiates

organizational

types based on the needs or context of larger sub-systems or
systems in which they function: adaptation, goal attainment,
integration, or pattern-maintenance.

74
The
typologies

literature
hased

on

provides

function:

other

organization

socio-technical

psychological distinction made by

and

socio-

the Tavistock group;

the

criterion of cui-bono? , for whose benefit, developed by Blau
and

Scott.

technology,

Additional

typologies

consider

Thompson;

regulation,

organizational

Etzioni;

and

total

institutions, Goffman.
The formal organization as the unit of analysis was
selected

for

this

study

over

a

superordinate

perspective,

using a Parsonian like framework with the argument that the
level of abstraction was to great for proper analysis of the
role

of

planning

Parsonian

in

influence
found

Kast

Rosenzweig.

particularistic
Bennis,

find

views

decision-making

will

eclecticism
and

in

the

be

the

literature,
At

of

individual

apparent,

the

organizational
and dyadic

thought

Concepts

will

a

humanists

the

in

organizational

of

extreme,

by

relationships useful

"school"

viability

earlier

as

behavior.

the

noted

the

such

organizational

reinforcing

yet,

reflecting

other

explicating
of

as

process;

also be

pragmatic

from

this

included,

approach

to

planning, but the organization remains the unit of analysis.
The

concept

of planning,

theories of organization,

as

will

be

seen,

transcends

the

from Weber to Boulding and Ackoff

to Zald.
Goals
The

issue

to this study,

of purposefulness,

of course,

is central

and one which is troublesome when applied to

organizational
convenient

75
Fortunately,

goals.^ 9

way

to

handle

the

Thompson

problem;

he

offers
makes

a

the

distinction between goals of and goals for an organization.
Goals for may be held by individuals and/or collectivities
in the organization's environment who wish to influences its
scope

and

"future

mission.

domains"

Goals

held

of

important

the
by

organization
members

of

reflect

the

power

structure or dominant coalition within the organization.
Romney

reporting

on

a

study

which

covered

110
1150

faculty, administrators and trustees at 45 American colleges
and

universities

asserted:

indicates that faculty,

"analysis

of

the

responses

administrators and trustees largely

agree on what their institutions' goals should be."
Romney observes "the apparent existence of a broad,
albeit tacit,
the

three

consensus with respect to these matters among

principal

control

groups

on

campus

has

large

implications for at least two issues of insistent import in
higher

education— accountability

and

productivity."

His

study describes goals of the institutions be surveyed.
The problem of goals for those institutions having a
different
Romney.

thrust
"Much,

or
if

direction
not

all,

of

did
the

not

go

effort

unnoticed
devoted

by

by

a

college or university to the attainment of high purposes is
bound

to

be

questioned

by

funders

who

either

do

not

appreciate the worth of the stated goals or, while admitting
their worth, do not see that they are being attained."

111

76
Romney's research findings which indicated agreement
on goals between the "three principal control groups" and a
shared view of skepticism "about the value of the measures
of

productivity

problem

which

information.

most

he

widely

used

attributes

This

is,

to

in part,

.

.

reflect

misapplied

or

inadequate

a defense for the goals ^f

the organization against the goal for the organization.
seems
of

to suggest

and

for

a

He

that congruence between conflicting goals

the

institution

is

really

only

a

matter

of

defining productivity.
Anthony
nonprofit

and

Dearden

organization

is

posit
not

between outputs and inputs.
as

much

service

resource

as

. . ."^3

qualitative

is

that

to

widen

Rather,

possible

"the

goal

the

its goal

with

a

of

a

difference

is to render

given

amount

of

r^g emphasis here appears to be on the

rather

than

the

quantitative

aspect

of

the

input/out relationship.
Romney also indicates that productivity is the ratio
of value

(subjective)

consumed

which

will

produced,
usually

monetary (objective) terms.
funders,
media

clients,

such

as

be

to

value

measured

of resources

by

"funders"

What other "value"

and publics use?

general

the

commitment,

well as pecuniary value systems.

in

system will

Parsons offers exchange
influence,

and

power

as

Romney adds, "Clearly,

productivity involves not only efficiency but effectiveness:
low unit cost is of no avail if the unit has no appreciable
quality."^^

The

problem

of

effectiveness

and

efficiency

77
will

"be covered

in more

detail

later under

the

topics

of

output measurement and performance.
Continuing with the goals of organizations, however,
and not withstanding Romney's findings, Katz and Kahn voice
concern

with

agreement
leaders

a

about

and

congruence

different

view.

the mission

m e m b e r s . " ”'

between

"Nor

of the

stated

goals

there

organization

Further,

^

is

there

and

always

among

may

be

its

little

activities.

These

writers would use open-systems theory to monitor the goals
of organizations.
Pfeffer and Salancik suggest a similar concern while
discussing

organizational

legitimacy,

they

observe,

"organizations may themselves seek to establish their status
in society by generating statements of their goals which in
the current environment would be found to be acceptable by
the

relevant

alter

and

public's.

restate

supporting

new

their

many

values

goals

ideas." ^ 7

social system's value
organization

When

to

Thus,

change,

give

to

appearance

by monitoring

shifts vis-a-vis

continue

the

organizations

enjoy

the

larger

its own values,
the

support

of

of

the
that

system by simply repackaging its goals, rather than changing
them;

or

restructure

environments

to

reduce

its

goals

to

dependence

on

accommodate
old

or

new

existing

1 18
environments.
The
the

goal

similar

problem
related

to

that

of futurity has not
literature,
of

the

Steiner

human

gone unnoticed
takes

relations

a

in

position

school

of

78
organizational thought when he lists five reasons for shortrange goals:
First, they make long-range objectives meaningful.
Without a direct linkage between long-range
objectives and short-range plans the objectives may
become idealistic and impracticable. . . .
Second, short-range goals provide benchmarks
for measuring progress towards long-range
objectives.
All managers can see how step-by-step
achievement of short-range targets can lead to
achieving ultimate purposes.
Third, they provide a basis for managerial
performance appraisal. . .
Fourth, short-range goals should have
motivating power . . .
Fifth, if the planning process is conducted
with substantial participation by all concerned,
the setting of short-range goals should improve
suborinate-superior managerial
relationships. . . .^ 9
Thompson

writes

of

domains

which

the

institution

stakes out or claims as a strategy for goal attainment.
"Thus universities are universities, but their
domains may range considerably; some offer
astronomy courses, others do not; some serve local
populations, others are international; some offer
students housing and graduate education, others do
n ot ."TZO

Harvey

Some

authors

and

Mills

Organizational
with
goals.

the

view
in

a

Adaptation:

concept
They

of

goals

as

chapter
A

decision
titled

Politicial

issue-perception

state,

constraints.
"Patterns

Perspective,"
and

of
deal

formulation

"'issue-perception'

refers

of
to

identification in terms of some kind of cognitive structure
of an event or pattern of events that in some way demands an
organizational

response,

'goal-formation'

is

simply

the

79
process

of

response."

delimiting

view

decision-making;

of

direction

which

the

Parsons,

organizational

however,

goal types as well.

pursue:

giving

to

the

1 21

This

types

and

the

goals

literature

is

relates
rich

in

to

other

Connor provides a partial list of goal
following

Etzioni,

authors

Cyert

and Kahn, E. Cross and Perrow.
According to Connor

claim

and March,

organizations
B.

Cross,

Katz

1 22

a useful way of thinking about

organizational goals is:
Organizational goals represent a future state
toward which all or part of the organization is
striving.
This striving is reflected in activities
of members and the utilization of organization
resources.'
Schutzenberger
considering

goals

by

provides
suggesting

goal-seeking behavior.
foresight"

yet

another

a framework

approach
for

He offers the concepts

and "degree of flexibility."

to

analyzing

of "span of

To these concepts

he adds a scale of strategies and tactics.
. . . it will be seen that any goal-seeking
behavior may be classified on a scale of strategies
and tactics, each one depending on a general
function representing some measure of the distance
between the present position and the goal. . . . so
we have many tactics,each depending on a single
function.
The complete specification and full
classification, are given when to this function we
add the "span of foresight" and the "degree of
flexibility."
The latter being conveniently
measured by the minimal time at which the
provisional goal may be replaced by another.12^
Consider the planning horizon for a given problem to
be

equal

attaining

to
the

the
goal

"span

of

is the

foresight."
strategy.

The

solution

for

Schutzenberger would

80
divide

the

planning

increments.

horizon,

Similarly,

he

"span

would

of

foresight"

design

a

into

strategy

for

achieving the goal.

In turn the strategy would he composed

of discrete

tactics.

actions,

increments
completion

would
of

he

tactic

These

scheduled
"1"

in

tactics

to

the

coincide.

first

performance

has

not

heen

time

At

increment

progress toward the goal would he evaluated.
definition,

and the

the

of

time,

If optimal, hy

achieved

then

the

strategy would he reevaluated and either the entire strategy
or

certain

of

flexibility."
was

the

tactics

would

he

changed,

"degree

of

This process would he repeated until the goal

achieved,

changed

or

considered

no

longer

worth

pursuing.
If now we apply the theory of inductive
behavior as defined hy Wald on the Ville-von
Neumann principles, we find that the optimal
strategy is just the simple tactic of attempting to
do one's best on a purely local basis.
^
A final consideration
is

the seminal work

of goals to he considered

done hy Simon where he

here

introduces

the

proposition that organisms adapt well enough to "satisfice"
hut do not,

in general,

"optimize."

In other words,

in an

organizational setting the individual will select the first
satisfactory

solution

which is optimum.
which views goals as
Ackoff
planning

has

advanced

rather

This concept

methodology

which

for

one

is also congruent with one

c o n s t r a i n t s .

proposed

than search

^6

that

a

need exists

for

a

utilizes

quantitative

optimization in every case where permitted,

and satisficing

81
only when necessary.
results

superior

to

He claims such a process would yield
either

satificing

or

optimizing

when

used alone and labels this pragmatic approach, adaptivising.
This type of planning is sometimes referred to
as innovative planning.
It is not prevalent today
. . . Therefore it is more an aspiration than a
realization.
Adaptive planning has three main planks in its
platform:

1 . . . . effective planning cannot be done t£
or for an organization; it must be done by; the
responsible managers
2. . . . the principal objective of planning
should be to design an organization and a system
for managing it that will minimize the future need
for retrospective planning— that is, planning
directed toward removing deficiencies produced by
past decisions— . . .
3. Our knowledge of the future can be
classified into three types: certainty,
uncertainty, and ignorance; each requires a
different kind of planning: commitment,
contingency, and responsiveness1 2 '
According

to

organizations,

insofar

hierarchically

oriented.

set

by

the

leaders

and

Perrow,
as

each level of the orgnization
also be

termed

goals

"First,
then

objectives.

the

we

broken

Simon

model

of

are

concerned,

is

learn

that

down

into

goals

are

subgoals

at

. . .»128 These subgoals may
Caruthers

and Lott

offer

this

definition: Objectives are specific ends to be achieved with
regard to a particular goal.,l129

Romney and Bogen define "a

goal

sought

as

a

mission."1

set

of

circumstances

in

pursuit

of

the

82
Mission
A
broad
social

mission

statement
and

They also

according

of

to

Caruthers

and

fundamental

purposes;

it

intellectual

aspirations

offer useful

definitions

of
for

the
the

lott

"is

embraces

a

the

institutions."
terms

role

and

scope:
An institution's role as stipulated in the mission
statement, differentiates it from many other
colleges and universities, especially in terms of
current program activity . . . an institution's
scope specifies its current boundaries or range of
activities . . .
Terms such as mission, role and scope according to Caruthers
and Lott

"describe the static

is, its philosophy,

indentity of a college— that

clientele,

and services— and how it may

differ from other institutions."

1 "51

Contrasted to this "static identity" are terms such
as

goals

and

objectives

which

connote

planned by the institution

in order

desired

in

mission;

substantive,

which,

turn,

action(s)

to move
would

taken

or

closer to the
require

more

and therefore less frequent change, than role;

and scope, representing the most dynamic area, is subject to
constant "fine tuning."
Goals and objectives are evidence of planned change.
As noted above these goals and subgoals or objectives may be
of the

organization

and/or

for

the

organization.

If the

goal(s) relate to mission the change(s) will be substantial;
if the

goal(s)

relates

to role

or scope

its

impact on the

institution as a whole will be less but could be substantial
at the unit level.

83
It follows

then that

current performance

where

goals

for

or

and

of

is in

evidence,

is less than desired hy the sponsor(s)

of the goals(s) and objective(s).
the

change

The operational state of

objectives may be determined by the

the

institution

and

the

amount

of

actions

resources

allocated.
Performance
The
describing

terms

most

often

performance

effectiveness.

found

evaluation

Zammuto

in
are

reporting

on

the

literature

efficiency
the

and

findings

of

Campbell et al. who had conducted a comprehensive review of
the

literature

"First,

the

on

authors

organizatinal
found

that

over

variables had been used as measures
The authors concluded:"

effectiveness
twenty-five

states:
types

of effectiveness

of

. . .

132

Organizational effectiveness as it has been defined
and measured in the literature is an extremely
untidy construct.
When twenty-five separate
variables can be identified (as proxies for
effectiveness) and most of these variables have
several different operational forms, life becomes
rather difficult.
Pfeffer

and

Salancik

distinguish

between

effectiveness and efficiency as follows:
The difference between the two concepts is at the
heart of the external versus internal perspective
on organizations.
Organizatinal effectiveness is
an external standard of how well an organization is
meeting the demands of the various groups and
organizations that are concerned with its
activities. . . .
The effectiveness of an organization is a
socio-political question. . . . it reflects both an
assessment of the usefulness of what is being done

84
and of the resources that are being consumed by the
organization.
Organizational efficiency is an internal
standard of performance.
The question whether what
is being done should be done is not posed, but only
how well is it being done.
Efficiency is measured
by the ratio of resources utilized to output
produced.
Efficiency is relatively value free and
independent of the particular criteria used to
evaluate input and putput.
Because efficiency
involves doing better what the organization is
currently doing, external pressures on the
organization are often defined internally as
requests for greater efficiency. . . .
Cameron

differentiates

program

effectiveness

and

organizational effectiveness.
Program effectiveness, refers to success in
performing a program— a specific set of behaviors,
tasks, and purposes defined by the designers or
initiators of the program.
Most organizations,
however, comprise multiple, contradictory, and
often ambiguously specified programs, which are
defined by a broad array of constituencies.
Therefore, adopting a single indicator of
organizational effectiveness— such as profit— may
serve to measure success in one program but does
not address the other multiple programs operating
simultaneously in the organization.
Cameron
effectiveness

also
and

acknowledge

efficiency

are

that

organizational

often

confused

and

indicates that organizational efficiency is usually defined
as the ratio of organizational inputs to outputs and asserts
that little
or how
with

controversy exists

to measure

Pfeffer

and

efficiency.
Salancik

in

either

about

However,
limiting

internal standard of performance role.

the

he does

definition
not

efficiency

to

join
an

136

While it is clear that something less than unanimity
exists concerning organizational efficiency, the differences
between

researchers

are relatively trivial

compared

to the

85
treatments

proposed

organizational
the

meaning

this

efficiency

compared

describing

describing

effectiveness.
of

study,

for

the

to

These
are

the

and

subtleties

relatively
problems

characteristics

measuring
concerning

unimportant
associated

and

to

with

properties

of

effectiveness; therefore, it seems reasonable to concentrate
on the latter; although, both must ultimately be dealt with
in any strategic planning model.
Zammuto, benefiting from Campbell, Cameron and other
researchers advances the following:
Thus, the process of evaluating can be reduced into
three conditions necessary for an attribution of
effectiveness: (1 ) an effect is desirable (element
of value); (2) the effect is observed or reliably
predicted (element of fact); and (3) the desirable
effect is perceived as having been produced by the
activity being evaluated (element of fact).
The

author

conditions must

be met

can be rendered.
evaluative
observed,
by

the

asserts

that

before

a

or predicted,

activity being

An

three

judgment

"In other words,

judgments.

all

of

of

these

effectiveness

value underlies fact in

effect

must

be

desirable,

and be perceived as being produced
evaluated

before

it will

be

judged

effective.
The literature provides several types of models for
considering the value aspect of effectiveness:

goal models;

system

models;

constituency

models

are

is

not

based

models,

and

multiple

identified by Cameron. ^59

quite
and

process

as

discriminating,

systems

models

are

he

Z a m mu to 1s^ 4-0 analysis
argues

logical

that

extensions

the

of

goaleach

86
other.

He

unique

agrees

in

its

that

the multiple

treatment

of

information,

possibility of conflicting sources
also

views

this

model

model approaches.

as

is

recognizing

for evaluative

integrating the

goal

data;

and

is
the
he

system

He makes no menton of the process model

Cameron attributes to Likert.
study

constituency model

limited

While our interest for this

to multiple

constituency models,

description of each type will

a brief

help explain why one is more

useful here than the others.
The first type, goal-based, is often associated with
Etzioni1^
goals.

and links effectiveness to achieving organization
Outputs

of

the

organization

are

compared

to

its

goals and the relationship yields a level of effectiveness.
This model is most useful when organization goals are clear,
consensual,
that

an

and measurable.

organization

accomplishes

its

The problem with this model is

can

goals,

be
if

inefffective
the

goals

even

are

set

when
too

it
low

compared with the expectations of its publics.
The

second

type,

system-resource

associated with Yachtman and

S e a s h o r e .

^42

model,

success

in acquiring

resources

often

Organizations are

viewed as being goal-free and effectiveness
their

is

is measured by

necessary

for

system

maintenance.
This model

is useful when the

relationship between

the products (outputs) of the organization are easily linked
to

the

resources

it

acquires

(inputs).

Effectiveness

is

measured by the "fit” both in terms of quantity and quality.

87
The greatest problem with this model is that its application
is quite limited.
The

third

organizational

health

characterized
stress

free

type,

by

internal

process,

relates

or

internal

climate.

smooth

internal

functioning,

and

generally

in

good

to

Organizations
relatively

"health"

are

more

effective than organizations which possess a smaller degree
of these characteristics.^^3
the

internal

processes

This model is most useful when

of

the

organization

related to its products or services

are

(output).

closely

Application

of this model is most likely to cause confusion

between the

terms efficiency (organizations which produce little waste)
and

effectiveness.

Unfortunately

organizations with slack

(unused resources) are often effective.
The

fourth

constituencies,

is

type,
the

multiple

newest

model^^

referred to in the literature.
environments
sets

are

where

tightly

explaining effectiveness.
to

which

the

and

the

influence

ability
and

effectiveness.

to

The

These

model

least

organization
be

useful

in

considers the extent
constituents

relationships

some

the

in turbulent

or
can

"strategic"

maintain

satisfaction

it

This model

organization's

kept minimally satisfied.

networks

coupled

strategic

and

Nevertheless,

organization

relatively

or

near

are dynamic

optimum

determines

the

looses

viability

its

placid and loosely coupled environments.

are

mix

of

organization's
in

more

88
The

presence

organizational

of

four

effectiveness

models

instead

of

explaining

one

or

two

indication of the enigmatic nature of the concept.
claims

organizations

can

be

".

.

. both

is

an

Cameron

effective

and

ineffective at the same time depending on the aspect of the
organization

being

perspective.

Zammuto refers to differences arising from the

public's

expectation

performance
these

considered,11145

as

and

a "social

differences

as

the

and

the

institution's

anxiety factor. "14-6

changes

evaluators

which

actual

n e explains

reflect

qualitative

shifts in public preferences for products or services other
than

those

being

quantitative

offered

preferences

by

remain

the

institution,

relatively

stable;

while
or

the

demand for more of the same products or services, which is
evidenced by qualitative preferences remaining stable while
quantitative preferences increase.
In

an

effort

to

make

statements

regarding

effectiveness more meaningful to the focal organization and
research

studies

more

comparable

organizations, Cameron suggests " . . .
decisions

must

effectiveness
This

to

framework

be

made

a

specific

for

guiding

that

across

different

that certain critical

limit

assessments

organizational
evaluation

should

referent."

of
147

specify

six

conducted

to

attributes.
1. What domain of activity isgthe
focus of the evaluation?
C a m e r o n ^

49

describes

a

study

he

identify empirically the major domains that typify colleges

89
and universities
each

of

those

and

to

assess

domains.

The

levels

of effectiveness

study

identified

in

relevant

characteristics of institutions for four domains to explain
the differencs in effectiveness among institutions of higher
education:
1.

External adaptation.

This domain includes student

development, system openness and community
interaction.

These two dimensions reflect the

institution’s success in transactions with its
external environment.
2.

Morale.

This domain includes student educational

satisfaction, faculty and administrator employment
satisfaction, and organizational health.
dimensions reflect the

These

institution's success

in dealing with its internal environment or
organizational climate.
3*

Academic-oriented.

This domain includes student

academic development, quality of the faculty, and
ability to acquire resources.

Cameron does not

link this domain explicity with the external
environment and the data as presented would make it
impossible for the reader to do so; however, to the
extent the institution must rely on external
sources for necessary resources the institution's
interactions with those sources would be critical
and success would be indicative of effectiveness.

90

4.

Extracurricular.

This domain includes student

personal development.

This dimension reflects

personal, non-academic development.
In

addition

analyzing the nine

to

describing

effectiveness

the

four

dimensions

domains

noted,

by

Cameron

also found that the forty-one (41) institutions studied were
distributed over four groupings which he labeled as follows:
the

Scholarly-high

institutions;
four

(4)

included

the

morale

Scholarly-medium

institutions;
eight

group

(8)

the

included
morale

group

Externally

institutions,and

five

(5)

included

oriented

group

Mediocre

group

the

included twenty-four (24) institutions.
The

five

(5)

institutions

in

the

scholarly-high

morale group rated well in the academic and morale
but

ineffective

in

the

external

adaptation

domains

domain.

The

eight (8) institutions in the externally oriented group were
ineffective
domain.

in

all

domains

The twenty-four

except

(24)

the

external

institutions

adaptation

in the mediocre

group scored below average in effectiveness in all domains.
Finally,

the four

(4)

institutions

in the scholarly-medium

morale group excelled in the academic domain, was average in
the

morale

domain

and

were

ineffective

in

the

external

adaptation domain.
Each

of

these

groups

was

found

by

Cameron^ ^0

possess a unique set of institutional characteristics:

-fc0

91
Institutional Group

Major Distinguishing Characteristics

Scholarly-high
morale group

Affluent, Academic Institutions
Charges high tuition
High endowment revenue
High endowment value
High state revenue for research
High expenditures for academic
support
Offers liberal arts programs

Scholarly-medium
morale group

Affluent,
Professional Institutions
Charges high tuition
High endowment revenue
High endowment value
High state revenue for research
Goal of faculty development
High total expenditures
Offers professional programs

Externally-oriented
group

Developing, Professional Institutions
High endowment value
Emphasis on fund raising
Goal of faculty development
Growing enrollments
High total expenditures
Offers professional programs

Mediocre group

Developing, Teaching Institutions
High emphasis on fund raising
Goal of faculty development
Growing enrollments
Offers teacher training programs

In

Summarizing

the

results

of

his

study,

offered the following propositions:
1.

Organizational effectiveness is a multidomain
construct

2.

When organizational effectiveness is viewed as a
multidomain construct, relationships among other
organizational variables are altered

3*

Organizational effectiveness in external domains
may mitigate against effectiveness in internal
domains^ 51

Cameron

92
These propositions suggest that prestige ratings may
actually

indicate

high

effectiveness

hut low levels of academic
The

second

in external

e f f e c t i v e n e s s .

critical

choice

relations

^2

to

he

specified

in

assessments of effectiveness:
2. Whose perspective, or which
constitutency's PPft^t of view is
heing considered?
Cameron
organizational
reflect

the

notes

effectiveness

interests

multiple domains.
to

that

institutions

one

is

to

select

of a variety

will

he

to

evaluate

indicants

of constituencies

which
from

Social indicators may provide information
which

could

he

useful

strategies for dealing with various
area

way

reviewed

in

the

in

developing

interest groups.

following

section

This
which

considers environment factors in more detail.
A third critical choice which should he included in
effectiveness studies is:
3) What level of analysis is heing
used?154
If

an

individual

should he stated;

is

likewise,

the

focus

of

analysis

this

if the level of aggregation is

the group, sub-unit, unit or overall organization it must he
described and if comparisons are made or if ratios are used
the methodology must he clearly compatible with the purpose
1RR
of the study.
Further, as noted by Cameron and Whetten,
the

development

important

stage

of

the

organization

is

equally

in that a level of analysis may he appropriate at

one stage of development and not at some other stage.

93
The concept of organizational life cycles is key to
the

fourth

critical

area

engaged in effectiveness

to

be

s t u d i e s .

specified

by

researchers

^6

4) What time frame is being
employed?
Two concerns are raised by this question: the issue
of futurity, a short term opportunity being taken or turned
down because of longer term considerations; and the evolving
relationships

of

constituencies

development

over

frame

important

is

short-term

time.

to

Cameron notes
because

effectiveness

in

organizational

"The

choice

organizations
order

to

may

of time

trade

guarantee

off

long-term

effectiveness."
A fifth

choice

which

evaluators

must

specify when

assessing organizational effectiveness is:
5) What data are tQp.be used in
the evaluation? 5
Cameron dichotomizes the data choice as one between
objective
perceptual

data
data

(organizational

records)

(interviews

questionnaires).

or

and

subjective,
Another

data source not mentioned by Cameron is public data or data
supplied by one or more of the institution's constituencies.
Cameron

notes

efffectiveness
judged

"the
is

effective

selection

of

data by

which

to measure

important because

an organization may be

on

subjective

the

basis

of

while objective data may indicate that the

perceptions

organization is

ineffective." ^ 9
6) What referent is being employed
in the evaluation?

94
A

variety

of

referents

may

"be

selected

once

the

indicator(s) for evaluating effectiveness has been selected,
alternatives

include:

comparative

evaluation;

normative

evaluation; goal-centered evaluation; improvement evaluation
and

trait

evaluation.

Knowing which

referent(s)

was

used

helps users of research studies whether they are interested
in

improving

researchers

effectiveness

interested

as

practitioners

or

fellow

in comparing results of two or more

effectivenss studies.
The

final

area

to

be

included

in

this

review

of

organizational effectiveness concerns two salient properties
of

organizational

the

ambiguity

effectiveness

and

confusion

which

Cameron

have

contributed

to

is typical

in

asserts

the literature addressing organizational performance.
As a construct,
effectiveness

cannot

the

be

first

property,

observed

organizational

directly.

Constructs

differ from concepts in that they cannot be generalized from
specific

to

abstract,

theory development.^ ^

concepts

can

and

frequently

are

in

Cameron argues:

"This difference . . . helps explain why no single
model of effectiveness is acceptable . . . Each of
the
models of effectiveness is valuable in its
own right because it includes distinctions absent
in the others.
But no model haSg|nough explanatory
power to supersede the others."
The
relative
should

idea

that

effectiveness
not

be

organizations

was

inferred

presented
that

have
above;

the

domains

of

however,

it

boundaries

of
v

organizational
"

.

.

.

the

effectiveness
construct

are
space

known.
has

Cameron
never

been

asserts
mapped

95
fully.Different

criteria

effectiveness

though

even

contradictory.

Efficiency

organizational
availability

slack;

can serve
they

are

is a measure

adaptability

of slack,

as

yet both

indicators

unrelated
of the

is

a

are used

as

and

absence

measure

of

of

indicators

of
the
of

effectiveness.
Subjectivity,
effectiveness
preferences

the second property of organizational

stems

from

so

called

of

the

presence

strategic

of

the

values

constituencies.

and
The

variety of values and preferences among and between various
constituencies present four rather well defined problems for
researchers:
First, it is difficult to identify criteria that
match the preferences of more than one
constituency, especially in the not-for-profit
sector.
Second, preferences change, sometimes
dramatically, over time.
Third, individuals
frequently cannot even identify their own
preferences for an organization.
And fourth, a
variety of contradictory preferences may be persued
simultaneously in the organization.
Domain
The notion of interdependence offers the opportunity
to

introduce

the

organizational

domain.

coupling

is

where

he

posits

other

things,

coupling
variables

concept

similar

occurs

that

if

of

coupling

as

G-lassman' s1^5

to

Simon's

most

connected

either when

1

two

in common or when the

compared to the other variables

property

notion

empty world

things
at

a

are

all.

weakly
Weick

separate

of

loose

hypothesis,
connected

adds,

to

"Loose

systems have

common variables
that

of

few

are weak

influence the system.

96
Two systems that are joined by few common variables or weak
common

variables

are

said

to

be

loosely

coupled.”

167

Pfeffer and Salancik suggest:
Loose-coupling is an important safety device for
organizational survival . . . The fact that
environmental impacts are felt only imperfectly
provides the organization with some discretion, as
well as the capability to act across time horizons
longer than the time it takes for an environment to
change.
Peibleman

and

Friend

provide

a useful

for considering the "coupling” concept.
the

basis

of

organization

organization
itself

as

which

a whole.

First they consider

begins
The

perspective

by

regarding

whole,

then,

the

may be

analyzed in terms of its parts and the parts are formed from
subparts.

From this they assert ". . . it is our contention

that

purposes

for

of

analysis

of

structure

no

more

is

required than the whole from which the analysis starts and
two levels of analysis."169
The

analysis

of the

relations

between

parts

of

an

organization is aided by an understanding of the determinate
ones,

organization qua organization; that is, the following

relations are necessary to describe the concept organization
at the level specified, parts and subparts.
a) Transitivity is such that if it relates two
parts to a middle part, it relates the extreme
parts to each other.
Intransitivity is the absence
of this relation . . .
b) Connexity is the relation of two parts without
the mediation of a third part . . .
c) Symmetry is the relationship in which the
interchange of the parts does not involve any
change in the relation.
Asymmetry is the relation
in which the interchange of the parts does involve
a change in the relation . . .

97
d) Seriality is the relation which is transitive,
asymmetrical, and connected.
Aseriality is the
absence of any one of these relations . . .
e) Correlation (one-many.j , one-one?, many-one,,
many-many^) is the relation between two series such
that for ivery part of one series there is a
corresponding part in the other series and no part
of either series is without a corresponding part in
the other . . .
f) Addition is the relation of the joining of parts
so as to increase their number . . .
g) Multiplication is the relation of the joining of
parts so as to involve them with each other . . .
h) Communication is the relation in which addition
and/or multiplication is symmetrical . . .
Non-Communication is the relation in which addition
and/or multiplication is asymmetrical . . .
i) Association is the relation which is commutative
and connected . . .
j) Distribution is the relation which is
commutative and intransitive . . .
k) Dependence is the relation in which the
existence of one part is conditioned by some other
part . . .T '°
Finally,
rules

of

Feibleman and Friend provide the following

organization

organization

and

the

which

operationalize

elements

of

the

relations

constituent parts:
1) Structure is the sharing of subparts between
parts
2) Organization is the one controlling order of
structure
5) One more level is needed to constitute an
organization than is contained in its parts and
subparts
4) In every organization there must be a serial
relation
5) All parts are shared parts

basis

of

between

98
6) Things in an organization which are related to
parts of the organization are themselves parts of
the organization
7) Things in an organization which are related to
related parts of the organization are themselves
parts of the organization
8) The number of parts and of their relations, i.e.
subparts, constitutes the complexity of an
organization,
e.g. by counting the number of parts
and subparts a value for complexity can be
stated. '
The

following typology

structural

differences

of

describes

the

organizations

logical

flowing

and

from

the

basis, elements and rules of organization noted above.

The

first

the

"kind"

of

organization

agglutinative.

Its

to

controlling

be

considered

relation

is

is

aseriality,

where the elements for describing parts are intransitivity,
connexity

and

symmetry.

This

is

the

loosest

organization and it could be argued that since
rules

1 , 4 , 5 and

nothing

more

6 of

than

an

the

rules

aggregate

organizations.

"We include

organization

because

borderline

only

c a s e .

of

the
its

This

is

independent

agglutinative
illustrative

as

value

an
as

a

have only

Its controlling relation

category of organizations

frequently encountered and where,
parts

it

kind of organization noted by Feibleman

is the participative.

is seriality.

it violates

organization
of

of

"^72

The second
and Friend

of

form

the spatial

is the most

in the agglutinative type

relation

of

contiguity,

in

participative types additional relations exist binding then
closer

together;

that

is,

parts

are

held

together

by

the

99
However, the ways this sharing occurs

subparts they share.

may vary and therefore a subclassification is necessary to
explicate the difference.
o

Adjunctive organizations are the most looselycompiled of the participative kind.

While parts

share subparts, this sharing is not so integral
to either part that separation would be fatal.
Thus to a certain extent parts are independent of
the organization of which they are parts, and this
independence contributes to the flexibility of the
whole organization.
o

Subjective (subordinate) organizations are more
tightly coupled.

While parts share subparts

only one could survive separation.
o

Complemental organizations are tightly coupled.
Parts share subparts and this relation is
critical to both the parts.
In the case of complemental organizations, the
governing relation is one of symmetrical
dependence.
This means that parts are on a parity
with respect to their relations with other parts,
and that each is dependent upon the other.
The

theory

of

organization

described

above

was

considered from a statics perspective, but to understand how
organizations function it is also necessary to consider them
from a dynamic
organization

standpoint.

structure

To

Feibleman

effect within upon parts

illustrate
and

the

Friend

dynamics

suggest,

of

"The

(the strains) will be examined as

it is occasioned from without by the interaction of wholes
(the stresses).
stresses)

will

Or, conversely, the effect upon wholes (the
be

examined

as

it

is

occasioned

by

the

100
interaction of parts (the strains).

Viewed either way, what

is being considered is function.11175
Dichotomies for seven (7) elements of interaction in
a dynamic state are noted:
1. Organization-Environment. The relation of
organization to environment is a reciprocal
election. . . .
2. Action-Reaction.
Every actual organization is
in constant change or motion.
This change or
motion is of two sorts.
The environment changes
the organization and the organization changes the
environment. . . .
3. Availability-Virtual Indifference.
Availability
is a charactertistic of a limited part of the
environment of an organization— that part which,
determined by the nature of the organization,
importantly affects and is affected by it. Virtual
indifference is a characteristic of that less
limited part of the environment of an
organization— that part which, determined by the
limited nature of the organization, hardly affects
or is affected by it. . . . [Stated another way,
the organization must attend to relations of
availability and can ignore the rest until
circumstances change the mix and actors move from
one category to the other.]
4* Equilibrium-Disequilibrium.
Equilibrium
condition in which the influence exerted by
organization upon its available environment
influence of the available environment upon
organization are in balance. . . .

is the
the
and the
the

5• Saturation-Insufficiency-Superfluity.
Saturation is the condition where . . . all parts
share and all subparts are shared.
Insufficiency
is the condition where all parts share and there
are some unshared subparts.
Superfluity [the
opposite condition] is . . . where there are some
unsharing parts and all subparts are shared.
A
saturated organization is one which hardly reacts
with the available environment.
It is more or less
'satisfied' . . . There is an optimal pragmatic
limit to the numbers of parts in an organization.
An insufficient organization is one which is to be
satisfied or saturated, and which is therefore
elective . . . A superfluous organization is over
saturated, and can achieve equilibrium only by

101
interacting with the available environment in order
to get rid of its superfluous parts. . . .
6. Flexibility-Rigidity.
[An organization's
capacity for change without suffering
disorganization is flexibility.]
A rigid
organization . . . must resist absolutely the
action of the available environment, for if it
cannot it falls into disequilibrium, i.e. it is
destroyed as an organization. . . .
7* Stability-Instability. Stability is the
capacity of an organization to remain in
equilibrium. . . .1
Just as there were rules of organization reflecting
the

static

state

so

reflecting the dynamic

are
state.

there

rules

of

interaction

The following rules describe

how the interacting elements function.
1. Every organization elects some other
organization or organizations.
Dynamics pervades
the organizational field.
No organization is ever
at rest or neutral toward all other organizations
2. In every action there is a sharing and an
interchange.
No action ever takes place without
altering all those organizations which are involved
in the action. . . .
3. All action is occasioned by the available
environment.
Every strain in an organization is
initiated by the stress.
The largest change may
take place within the organization, which may in
turn react with the environment; but even in this
case the initial disturbance must have occurred in
the environment . . . But although the
organization is dynamical in its response, it is
never absolutely initiative. . . .
4* Available environment is limited by interaction
with organization.
We have said that available
environment is that part of the environment which
importantly affects or is affected by the
organization.
We can see now that by 'importantly
affects' is meant interacts dynamically. . . .

5 . All organizations strive toward equilibrium
. . . its absolute attainment would mean permanence
for the attaining organization. . . .

102
6. Saturated organizations remain unchanged.
An
ideally saturated organization by definition could
not interact with the environment since it has
nothing to give to it and wants to take nothing
from it. . . .
7* Insufficient and superfluous organizations tend
to change.
Under- and over-saturated organizations
react with the available environment in the effort
to gain an equilibrium. . . .
8. Flexibility is a condition of growth. . . . The
condition of flexibility depends upon the internal
constitution of the organization, i.e. upon the
fact that its parts are independent to some extent.
This makes growth possible.........
9. Rigidity is a condition of maintenance.
The more
resistance an organization offers to the
environmental changes imposed on it, the more
permanent it is.
The condition of rigidity depends
upon the internal constitution of the
organization, i.e. upon the fact that its parts are
inte
to some extent and closely
knit • • • •
The
above

elements

provide

the

and

the

rules

framework

for

of

interaction

describing

the

stated

kinds

of

interaction expected from the dynamic sequence of
stimulus-response-effect
organization

and

environment

are

insignificant
actually

may

in

environment.
of

to

the

vary

point

from minimal

organization;

the

it

comment
order.

that

concerning

no

destroys
effective

optimal

elastic,
3)

the

l)

response;

to

between

generated

types:

of

response by the

relations

Stimuli

three

produces either a tenacious,

point

the

by

the

negligible,
2)

to

effective,
drastic

and

or self-determinative

destructive, excessive to
organization.

environmental

A

stimulus

further
is

in

The character of the organization will determine the

nature of the response.

103
A tenacious response is one which is marked in
the organization by a tendency to preserve its
original available environment, and thus by fending
off external intrusions it resists any change
whatsoever . . .
An elastic response is one which
is marked in the organization by a tendency to give
and take with its original available environment,
and thus by working with external intrusions it
resists change . . .
A self-determinative response
is one which is marked in the organization by a
tendency to change with its available environment
and yet to remain itself by taking elements from
the available environment and transforming them to
suit itself.
The effect each of these organization responses has
on the environment range from little or none, tenacious; to
adjustive, elastic; to extensive when it takes the
self-determinative form.
The conservative effect on the environment is
that of resistance; whereas the adjustive and the
extensive are those of cooperation.
The first is
blind; the second and third progressively
perceptive.
The area of available environment
becomes wider with each of the three types of
effect.179
If
available
between

the

organization

environment
the

external

tendency (equilibrium)

it

does

will

not

respond

perish.

disturbances

The

and

the

to

the

interaction
conservative

of the organization causes a variety

of changes which may take several directions, or "dodges" to
escape

destruction.

These

dodges,

as

noted

tenacity, elasticity, and self-determination.
tenacity

and

elasticity

reflect

degrees

above,

are

The dodges of
of

status-quo.

These strategies restrict growth in complexity and so their
integrality has too little to integrate.
Self-determination on the other hand is a dodge
which seems indefinitely capable of improvement and
this dodge alone gives the opportunity for working

104
toward the ideal.
However, the self-determinative
organization, by its very ability to grow has to
sacrifice a large amount of its
integrality . . .180
The

available

organization's
relations.
indefinite

internal
These

they

be.

"Specifying

the

The

boundaries
an

the boundary of a cloud.

especially

when there

and other turbulence."

taking

organization's
is

not

organization

specifying

however

relations
the

the

external

boundaries,

represent

of

of

its

aggregate

these

boundary

and

have

boundaries

Mapping

consists

relations

relations

may

place within those
domain(s).

environment

is

easy;

akin

The lines are

to

fuzzy—

is a great deal of movement,

change,

1ftl

Climate
It is, of course, obvious that relations internal to
the

organization are within the

organization's domain,

and

if the unit of analysis in this study were units or subunits
of the organization it would be necessary to evaluate each
of

these

analytical

"domain."

The

entities

domains

of

in

members,

overlap within the organization and,
the

organization's

boundaries

of

unit

internal
and

terms

of

subunits

unique

and

units

in fact, extend beyond

environment.

subunit

its

The

domains,

however,

external
do

not

necessarily coincide with those of the focal organization:
Perrow,
White,
may

1968;
1961;

lead

Etzioni,
and Connor,

to

conflicts

1961;
1980.
and

Thompson,
It

1967;

Levine

and

is this mismatch which

ultimately

influence

the

relationship

"between

the

105
organization

and

its

available

environment.
According

to

Miles

interdependencies which the

et

al.,

the

organization must

pattern

of

cope with is

determined by the domain(s) it establishes.
For example, if the organization decides to be a
general hospital, it defines a pattern of
interdependence with environmental elements that
may be distinctly different from a hoggital
specializing in only a few ailments.
Another
which

exist

construct,

way

within

to
the

consider

organization's

organizational

describing

this

the

notion

climate.
may

be

complex
domain
The
divided

of
is

relations
with

literature
into

perspectives:
1. Multiple Measurement-Organizational Attribute
Approach which regards organizational climate
exclusively as a set of organizational attributes
or majj-g^effects measurable by a variety of methods;
•

•

the

•

Representative of . . . This approach is the
definition of organizational climate as a set of
characteristics that describe an organization and
that (a) distinguish the organization from other
organizations, (b) are relatively enduring over
time, and (c) influence the behavior of people in
the organization.
2. Perceptual Measurement-Organizational Attribute
Approach which views organizational climate as a
set of perceptual variables which are still seen as
organizational main effects; . . .
Organizational climate was defined as a set of
attributes specific to a particular organization
that may be induced from the way the orgnization
deals with its members and its environment.
For
the individual member within an organization,
climate takes the form of a set of attitudes and
expectancies which describe the organization in
terms of both static charteristics (such as degree
of autonomy) and behavior— outcome and
outcome— outcome contingencies.1

three

106

3. Perpetual Measurement-Individual Attribute
Approach which views organizational climatepas
perceptual and as an individual attribute.
What is psychologically important to the individual
must be how he perceives his work environment, not
how others might choose to desribe it.^°°
James

and

organizational

climate

theoretical

and

recommended

that

the

use

of

Jones

the

have argued
is

subject

methodological
a different
term.

that

the

to

both

problems.

approach

They would

construct
serious

They

might

help

rearrange

have

clarify

the

three

approachs to produce two distinct designations for climate:
organizational

climate,

limited

to

organizational

attributes; and psychological climate, limited to individual
attributes.

While

this

may

definition and measurement,
definitive

conceptual

organizational climate
of research."

permit

increased

the authors

statement

".

of

clarity

of

. . feel that a
the

nature

of

is not possible at the current stage

189

Consistent with the selection of the organization as
a

unit

Jones,

of

analysis

climate

is

and

the

treated

caveat
in

offered

this

study

by

James

as

a

set

and
of

organizational characteristics that are real insofar as they
are perceived

by the

"organizational
researchers

climate"

concerned

characteristics
differential

organization's membership.

have

with

stems

from

a

taxonomy

borrowed

psychology

factor analytic approach,

making

from

the

the

The
fact

of

that

situational

methodology

considerable

term

use

of

of
the

and in doing so tended to use the

term in place of "environment" or " s i t u a t i o n . 90

Forehand
three

mechanisms

individual

and

107
Gilmer have

which

"behavior

account,

reflects

identified
in

part,

differences

in

and
for

defined
the

way

organizational

environment.
1. Definition of stimuli. Environmental
characteristics such as the structure of an
organization, the implicit theories held "by its
management, or the economic condition of the
industry have considerable influence on the
relevant stimuli which impinge on an individual in
his work role.
2. Constraints upon freedom. Certain
attributes of the situation may actually prevent
certain behaviors from occurring.
The structure of
the organization may place a number of constraints
on management communication or the degree of
autonomy.
Such structurally imposed constraints
may be either deleterious or facilitative, relative
to performance effectiveness.
3. Reward and punishment. Besides influencing
what sorts of stimuli will be perceived and what
types of responses are permitted, the environment
can also specify the reinforcement contingencies
for various managerial behaviors.
These mechanisms may help explain why postsecondary
educational institutions have met resistance by faculty and
unit

administrators

The

issue

institutions

of

when

undertaking

autonomy

protect

it

in

education is

and

individual

diminishing

of

hierarchical

mechanisms

described by

institution,

portion;

organization
fashion?

well

known;
and

is autonomy a right held by

shared with the

his/her absolute

characteristic
some

and

initiatives.

individuals both protect

covet it. But how does it flow,
the

planning

which

Onetest,

Forehand

or,
flows

is
to

suggested

and

thus

Gilmer

it

a

members

in

by

the
is

the

individual's perception of the ability to act, or not to act

108
independently.

The notion

and Friend would
withheld,

the

loosely

of wholes

offered by

Feibleman

indicate that when planning assistance

individual

coupled

and

has

assessed

his/her

the

maintenance

environment
of

autonomy

is
as
is

nonthreatening to the agglutinative host; or, the individual
has assessed the environment as tightly coupled and it is an
act of hostility to the complemental organization.
A

number

climate

have

results

of

of

been
those

studies

concerned

conducted,

Connor

he

reviewed,

with
in

noted

orgnizational

synthesizing

four

the

factors

were

consistantly reported as important:
1) Individual autonomy
2) The degree of structure imposed upon the
position
3) Reward orientation
4) Consideration, warmth and support.1
Connor
models

and

describes

the

characterized

as

mechanistic.
the

climate

Environmental
uncertainty

is

relatively simple,
role

and

invokes.

The

the

goals

stability

are

placid,

first

is

stable

organizational

efficiency,

low,

organizational

(relatively),

model

conditions

contrasting

each

closed

In this

attributes

two

and
the

organization's

and

focus

security.
level

of

structure

variety

is

is

composed of a small number of parts; low
and

high

formalization/standardization/centralization.
technology

on

simple,

requiring

low

levels

Its
of

skill

members who, in turn, exhibit low levels of commitment.

by

109
climate in

Organization

such

organization's

will

tend to "be characterized by:
1. Individual autonomy, low
2. Degree of structure imposed upon the position,
high
3. Reward orientation, low
4. Consideration, warmth and support, low.
A contrasting organizational model
as open

(relatively),

organizational
growth,

and

goals

risk

complex.

adaptive and organic.
focus

taking

Environmental

uncertain.

The

on

and

Members

and

the

will

commitments.

have

high

goal

conditions

organization's

reflects

In this model

adaptability,

informal and role variety high.
nonroutine

is characterized

mix
are

innovation,

is

relatively

turbulent

structure

is

and

complex,

Its technology is complex,

low

levels

of

standardization.

skill

levels

and

relatively

high

Tasks are broad in scope and control processes

are interpersonal,

relying on norms and values

established

by peers.
Organizational

climate in this type of organization

will tend to be characterized by:
1. Individual autonomy, high
2. Degree of structure imposed upon this position,
low
3* Reward orientation, high

4 . Consideration, warmth and support, high.

110

These two models
would

expect

to

find

represent

near

organization

structure

organizations

will

extreme types which

each

end

of

a

continuum

characteristics.

fall

somewhere

Most

between

C o n n o r .

of

actual

the models

considered on the four variables offered by

one

when

^3

The external environment presents a far more complex
set of relations than organizational climate; however,
study

will

continue

to

use

the

concepts

of

this

boundary

and

domain as the central framework for reviewing the literature
on the second unit of analysis, environment.
The Planning Context; Environment
One reason the units of interest in this study are
limited

to organization-environment

individual,
organization,

is
as

that

described

behaviors and not
vital

to note

the

parts
by

and

it

is behaviors,

include the

subparts

Feibleman

individual people.

that

and do not

and

of

Friend,

Weick states,
not persons,

"It

the
are
is

that are

interstructured. 9 4
Any given individual is only partially included in
any system of organized behaviors, being also
partly included in many other behavior systems as
well.
Consequently, it is perfectly possible for a
person to be both part of an organization and part
of its [external] environment through different
behaviors occurring at different times.
Typology
There
the

are many typologies

interaction

environment.

The

of

the

concept

available

organization
of

and

for

describing

its

external

loose-coupling was

presented

111

earlier

and

implied

collectivities,

that

coalitions

and

other

organizations,

individuals

exist

in

the

organization's available environment.
Thomas
the

offers

environment

an

into

interesting

a hierarchy

analysis;

he

beginning with

divides

internal,

which consists of the relations within the firm's official
jurisdiction;

the

next

level

is

labeled

the

operating

environment and includes suppliers and other interest groups
with
which

which
is

the
the

political,

firm

deals;

national

and

and

regulatory,

the

general

global

context

economic

environment,
of

and

social,

technological

conditions.
In

Thomas'

environments
available
attached

structure

are

equivalent

environment.
substantial

vis-a-vis

the

least

important

as

the

firm,

But

to

as

and

Feibleman

contrary to

importance
".

internal

and

them,

operating

general

Friend's

Thomas

to the general

. . the

operating

environment

environment

environment

also

is at

analysis

for

purposes of corporate strategic planning."196
The
environment

importance
is that

of

the

relations

available

or

occurring there

operating

(between the

organization, which will subsequently be referred to as the
focal

organization

interacts
uncertainty

with,
to

and
the

the

other

organizations

organization

focal

set)

organization

and

which

present
outcomes

it
less
are

relatively less problematic than relations stemming from the
general environment.

112
Emery and Trist, in their seminal work provide still
another

perspective

relation.
theory;

Their

of

work

the

"builds

organization-environment

on

the

concepts

the work of Eeihleman and Friend,

of

system

reviewed earlier,

also utilized systems theory, "but their construct focused on
the

relations

of

wholes

to

parts,

a

closed

system

(relatively).
"In contradistinction to physical objects, any
living entity survives by importing into itself
certain types of material from its environment,
transforming these in accordance with its own
system characteristics, and exporting other types
back into the environment.
By this process the
organism obtains the additional energy that renders
it 'negentropic'; it becomes capable of attaining
stability in a time-dependent steady state— a
necessary condition of adaptability to
environmental variance.
The

concept

of

entropy,

on

the

other

hand,

is

derived from the second law of thermodynamics which states
that

no

work

However,

can

be

done

when

equilibrium

is

reached.

the steady state of open systems differs from that

of classical

physics

in that

the

capacity

of the

organism

for work is maintained through openness to the environment,
without

which

adaptability

would

be

impossible,

and

continuity problematic.
The contribution claimed by Emery and Trist extended
von

Bertalanffy1s

processes
environment

between
to

be

formulation,
the

which

organization

viewed

from

a

allowed
and

holistic

the

exchange

elements

in

its

perspective,

to

include those processes in the environment itself which are
among

the

determining

conditions

of

the

exchanges.

They

113
credit

the

prior

suggesting the
which

work

of

term the

overarches

the

Tolman

causal

earlier

and

Brunswick

texture
work,

von

of the

(1935)

for

environment

Bertalanffy1s

and

theirs, so as to permit the following general proposition:
that a comprehensive understanding of
organizational "behavior requires some knowledge of
each member of the following set, where 1 indicates
some potentially lawful connection, and the suffix
1 refers to the organization and the suffix 2 to
the environment:
L1 1» L1 2

l 2 1 » L2 2
L 1 . here refers to processes within the
organization— the area of internal
interdependencies; Im 2 an<^ ^2 1
exc^-anSes
between the organization and its environment— the
area of transactional interdependencies, from
either direction; and L 2 2 to processes through
which parts of the environment become related to
each other— i.e. its causal texture— the area of
interdependencies that belong within the
environment itself. ™
The causal texture

of the environment as described here

is

considered as a quasi-independent domain.
This proposition led Emery and Trist to four ’’ideal
types"

of

causal

differentiating

textures,

which,

organizational

"simultaneously in the

while

environments,

useful
also

in

exist

'real w orld’ of most organizations—

though, of course, their weighting will vary enormously from
case to case."^-^
by

a

number

disciplines.

of

The first three types have been described
theorist

representing

a

variety

of

The fourth, was identified by Emery and Trist.

As indicated above, they consider these "types" to represent
stages

or

complexity.

steps,

each

leading

to

increasing

degrees

of

114
Step one.
Placid, randomized environment. The
simplest type of environmental texture 7 ~ . . in
which goals and noxiants ('goods' and 'hads') are
relatively unchanging in themselves and randomly
distributed . . . While organizations under these
conditions can exist adaptively as single and
indeed quite small units, this becomes
progressively more difficult under the other types
(Also described by Simon (1957); Ashby (1960); and
Schutzenberger (1954))*
Step two.
Placid, clustered environment. More
complicated . . . characterized in terms of
clustering: goals and noxiants are not randomly
distributed but hang together in certain ways . . .
and is the case with which Tolman and Brunswick
were concerned; it corresponds to Ashby's 'serial
system1 and to the economist's 'imperfect
competition' . . .
The new feature of organizational response to this
kind of environment is the emergence of strategy as
distinct from tactics.
Survival becomes critically
linked with what an organization knows of its
environment . . .
In the clustered environment the
relevant objective is that of 'optimal location,'
some positions being discernible as potentially
richer than others.
To reach these requires concentration of resources,
subordination to the main plan, and the development
of a 'distinctive competence,' to use Selznick's
(1957) term, in reaching the strategic objective.
Organizations under these conditions, therefore,
tend to grow in size and also to become
hierarchical, with a tendency towards centralized
control and coordination.
Step three.
Disturbed-reactive environment. It
may be compared with . ^ . the ec onomises
oligopolic market.
It is a type 2 environment in
which there is more than one organization of the
same kind; indeed, the existence of a number of
similar organizations now becomes the dominant
characteristic of the environmental field.
Each
organization . . . will wish to improve its own
chances by hindering the others, and each will know
that the others must not only wish to do likewise,
but also know that each knows this. . . .
If strategy is a matter of selecting the 'strategic
objective'— where one wishes to be at a future
time— and tactics a matter of selecting an
immediate action from one's available repertoire,

115
then there appears in type three 3 environments to
he an intermediate level of organizational
response— that of the operation . . . The new
element is that of deciding which of someone else's
possible tactics one wishes to take place, while
ensuring that others of them do not . . . The
flexibility required encourages a certain
decentalization and also puts a premium on quality
and speed of decision at various peripheral points.
It now becomes necessary to define the
organizational objective in terms not so much of
location as a capacity or power to move more or
less at will, i.e. to be able to make and meet
competitive challenge.
This gives particular
relevance to strategies of absorption and
parasitism.
It can also give rise to situations in
which stability can be obtained only by a certain
coming-to-terms between competitors, whether
enterprises, interest groups, or governments.
One
has to know when not to fight to the death.
Step four.
Turbulent fields. In these, dynamic
processes, which create significant variances for
the component organizations, arise from the field
itself,
like Type 3 and unlike the static types 1
and 2, they are dynamic.
Unlike type 3» the
dynamic properties arise not simply from the
interaction of the component organizations, but
also from the field itself.
The 'ground* is in
motion.
Three trends contribute to the emergence of these
dynamic field forces:
(i)
The growth to meet type 3 conditions of
organizations, and linked sets of organizations, so
large that their actions are both persistent and
strong enough to induce autochthonous processes in
the environment . . .
(ii) The deepening interdependence between the
economic and the other facets of the society.
This
means that economic organizations are increasingly
enmeshed in legislation and public regulation.
(iii) The increasing reliance on research and
development to achieve the capacity to meet
competitive challenge.
This leads to a situation
in which a change gradient is continuously present
in the environmental field.
For organizations, these trends mean a gross
increase in their area of relevant uncertainty.

116
Under
present

type

4 conditions

situations

are

trends reflecting past

meaningless,

new

factors

or

and

value

shifts in old elements may lead to consequences which become
increasingly

unpredictable.

threatened.
that

have

Organizational

stability

is

In these environments the emergence of "values
overriding

field"^04

become

potential

solutions

significance

equivalent
under

to

type

for

all

members

of

strategy

and

2 and

conditions.

3

the

operations

as

Here

social values are regarded as coping mechanisms for dealing
with persistent areas of relevant uncertainty.
As effective values emerge,
the

character

transform
are

".

of

tightly

to more
.

.

transformation
adaptive,

coupled,

loosely coupled

simplified

and

will

be

according

to

Emery and Trist assert,
turbulent
and placid

relatively

far

fields

static.

regressive,
how

fields

or

the

will
which

Such

constructively
emergent

values

adequately represent the new enviromental requirements."
Changes

stemming

from

such

a

transformations,

to be

205

managed

effectively, require new paradigms for action.
One

such

hierarchically
in favor

competitive,

promote

accommodation

be

the

replacement

conducive to cooperation.
accommodation

organizations

negatively

environments

may

of

the

structured forms with which we are familiar

of a form more

environments

degree

paradigm

will

with

futures

correlated.
require

between

a

between
which

Type
structure

dissimilar

Type 3

like,
are

4,

to

but
some

turbulent

which

organizations

promotes
whose

117
interests

are,

basically,

positively

correlated.

"This

means relationships that will maximize cooperation and which
recognize that no one orgnization can take over the role of
'the other'
of

this

and become paramount.
type

of

We are inclined to speak

relationship

as

an

organizational

matrix."206
A familiar
the

professional

standard

organizational matrix
organization.

(value)

setting

Such

mechanisms

type

structure

structures
which

tend

is

serve
to

as

limit

membership in terms of numbers, values and competence.
We do not suggest that in other fields than the
professional the requisite sanctioning can be
provided only by state controlled bodies.
Indeed
the reverse is far more likely . . .
As with
values, matrix organizations, even if successful,
will only help to transform turbulent environments
into the kinds of environments we havepdiscussed as
'clustered' and
'disturbed-reactive'.
y
While a degree of stability could be expected with
such

transformations,

environments

an

organzation

could

not

expect

indentical with the original to result.

"The

strategic objective in the transformed cases could no longer
be stated simply in terms of optimal location (as in type 2)
or

capabilities

formulated
has

in terms

indicated

they

are

(as

that

able

embodiment

of

to

in

type

3).

It

must

now

of institutionalization."
organizations
relate

congruent

to

become

wider

values.

?1 1

be

Selznick^O

institutions

society
Green

rather

through
relates

when
the
this

condition to education.
Once
change

in

the
the

need
thrust

for
of

transformation
the

is

recognized

organization,

a

strategic

118
planning, is required.
becomes

a

As institutionalization increasingly

prerequisite

for

stability,

policy

formulation

must reflect both a recognition of goals congruent with the
organization’s
which

own

recognize,

and

other parties.
systems

character,
are

and

selection

congruent

Economic

with

indicators,

the

social

of

goal-paths

interests

indicators and

of national accounts are techniques which,

fully developed,

of

if ever

hold some promise as a tool(s) for mapping

such goal-paths.
It

is

possible that

organizations

will

be

"coordinating/regulating”

developed

to

meet

the

problems

stemming from the type 4 environments.

If the pathology of

existing

however,

structures

these

new

organizations may 11. . . b e

construed in type 3 terms,

and

attempts

secure

will

be

is

not

made

to

understood,

for

them

a

degree

of

monolithic power that will be resisted overtly in democratic
societies
mission

. . . preventing them from ever undertaking their
.

..”212

attempts

(v ± s

to

coordinate

higher

education by the Michigan Department of Education).
McGregor ’
by

theory

Emery

and

"X"

dichotomized value system represented

and

Trist,

through

four environmental
change.
in

types,

the

is

clarified,

perspective

according

provided

as representing a trend

by

to
the

in value

Type 4 environments, may present some dicontinuity

such

value

theory ”Y"

trends

shift

explication.

or

and
a

may

be

change

explained
requiring

more
a

rationally

new

paradigm

as a
for

’’The establishment of a new set of values is a

119
slow social process requiring something like a generation—
unless new means can he developed."214
Perhaps the most abstract of the several typologies
depicting

relations

external

between

environment,

the

and

organization

members

internal

and

the

to

the

organization is Parsons’ concept of the imperative functions
of

social

systems.

environment

is

relations

on

functions

are

by

labeled

this

bifurcated
the

(ends)

the

axis

between

along

the

intersection

"Adaptation,"

model

between

vertical

bifurcated

consummatory
formed

In

organization's

internal
and

the

and

external

organization's

instrumental

horizontal

of

and

the

(means)

axis:

and

the

cell

external— -instrumental

represents

continuity

is
and

stability over time in relation to the environment; the cell
formed

by

labeled
relation

the

intersection

"Goal-Attainment"
to

the

of

and

external— consummatory

represents

environment;

the

gratification

cell

formed

by

is
in
the

intersection of internal— instrumental is labeled "PatternMaintenance"

and

represents

continuity

and

stability

over

time in relations among members; and the fourth cell, formed
by

the

intersection

"Integration"

and

among members.
The
which

every

priority

to

of

internal— consummatory

represents

gratification

is labeled
in

relations

21 5
^

model

suggests

organization
the

two
must

problems

environment between members,

fundamental
deal:

existing

1)

problems

Whether
in

the

to

with
give

internal

or to the problem of improving

120
relations with the external environment.
of balancing the assignment

2) The trade-offs

of priority between continuity

and stability over time, or consummation.
The two salient points concerning this dimension of
the model are:

it describes a resource

allocation problem;

and one of the imperative functions is usually primary and
indicative

of

This knowledge

the

character/mission

is important

of

the

organization.

in understanding the nature of

the organization's domain and the types of exchanges likely
to occur along its boundaries, the pattern variables.
The
deal

with

second
the

and

third

hierarchy

dimensions

of

the

the

most

unified

Parsons'

organization

interface with society (environment).
continuum with

of

model

and

its

One might consider a

level

at the

top and

most highly differentiated levels at the bottom:

the

the lowest

level, technical, is characterized by roles; the next level,
managerial,
level,
norms

is

characterized

institutional,
and

the

is

highest,

by

collectivities;

charcterized
societal,

by

is

the

next

institutionalized

characterized

by

a

system of values.
To

summarize,

Parsons'

model

consists

following variables:
o Functional imperatives.

Adaptation,

goal-attainment, pattern-maintenance, and
integration,
o Organization levels.

Technical, managerial,

institutional and societal.

of

the

121
o

Organizational hierarchy. Roles, collectivities,
norms and values.

The

relationship

hierarchies

explained

understanding
consists

between

the

of

organizational

by

this

following

the

model

is

environmental

segments:

social;

levels

and

important
typology

economic;

in

which

political;

technical and regulatory.
In
are

Parsons'

organized

regulated
which

by

into

what

include:

by

exhibiting

the

for

example,

specific

Parsons

certain

management

In

might

environmental

segments

institutions,

authority
example,

engage
but

responsible

and

interact

not

all;

and

established

for
with

other

occupational

organization behavior

function

collectivity,

this

roles

collectivities,

generalized

property,

norms.

occupational

functions,

terms

contracts,

institutionalized
roles

model

a
one

transactions

certain
or

more

would

be

limited to those legitimated by the value system controlling
the transaction.
Segment
Segmenting

the

environment

by

major

societal

institutions and value systems reflects the highest level of
societal

ordering.

to: Social,

Economic,

Regulatory,

is

however,

Pour

often

referred

Political and Technological;

a fifth,

gaining

segments

some

are

most

attention.Many

problems,

have been encountered by both users and developers

of information at this level of analysis.

122
Social Indicators
The
conditions

desire
is as

to

collect

old as

data

recorded

reflecting

societal

history,examples

are

found in The Holy Bible, Numbers, I; The Constitution of the
United

States,

Article

I,

Section

2 authorized

the

census

and Article II, Section 3 requires that the President ’'shall
from time

to

time give

to the

Congress

information of the

State of the Union.
To comply with this mandate, the President relies on
a sophisticated data collection and
produces

such

"messages",

critical

reports

as

analysis
the

system,

budget

and

which

related

started under the Budget and Accounting Act of

1921; the Economic Report initiated by the Employment Act of
1946,

the

Manpower

Report

initiated

Development and Training Act of 1962;

by

the

Manpower

and various documents

such as the Statistical Abstract of The United States.

The

Budget Message and the Economic Report are now integral to
the annual State of the Union message.
The
almost

entirely by

fungible
the

"state"

numbers;

with "how good."

structure

interaction,
condition

noted above,

of
or

does

society
absence
not

however,

"how much"

is

is

one described

not necessarily

Such reports tell little about
or

the

thereof,

indicate

fabric
by

lack

its
of

woven

from

members.

interest,

the
This

only a

failure to produce meaningful information reflecting quality
of life.

123
Throughout the twentieth century attempts have been
made

to

cure

this

deficiency

by

investigating

aspects

of

society other than those economic; the report, Recent Social
Trends in the United States published by the Hoover Research
Committee

in 1943 is an

direction,

was

taken

gained by President

A major step,

example.2^

in the

1960s

in this

stemming from momentum

Johnson’s "Great

Society"

legislation;

the earlier work of the Department of Health, Education and
Welfare
HEW

during

Trends,

the

an

Indicators.

Kennedy

annual

These

administration,

publication;

reports

were

and

the

culminating

the

monthly

forerunners

of

in
HEW
the

triannual Social Indicators, first published in 1973*
In

1966,

the

National

Commission

on

Technology,

Automation and Economic Progress published a report critical
of the nation's ability to "chart" social change, and called
for

the

Parallel

development
to

the

of

a

increasing

system

of

interest

social

in developing

systems for reporting on the quality of life,
Aeronautics

and

Space

problem in a more

Administration

parochical way;

accounts.

was

220

general

the National

looking

at

the

the security and success

of its mission.
Because that
only

interested

in

"mission" was
its

primary

pervasive,
impact

on

NASA was not
the

nation's

economic and social institutions, it was also concerned with
secondary effects.
NASA has been charged with a broad primary
mission— the exploration of space— with numerous
related subsidiary missions.
Manifestly, the
administrator of NASA must give priority to

124
feedback that affects the Agency’s ability to
carry out its primary mission.
Since ability to
execute the primary mission is affected by a wide
range of concerns— including support in the
various publics, Congress, and other branches of
the administration . . . With these issues in
mind, even a casual reading of the newspaper will
reveal that M S A is already aware of, and having
to deal with a considerable number of second-order
consequences of its primary mission.221
The basic problem,
communication;
experience,
organized

more

NASA

specifically,

was

interest

as perceived by M S A ,

confident

groups

would

feedback.
that

the

provide

was one of
Based

on

"system"

of

information

little direct initiative on the part of M S A ;

however, such

information almost always reported hurts and concerns.
kind of information M S A

with

The

was looking for would allow it to

anticipate such problems thus permitting the agency to avoid
or

reduce

the

impact

undesirable/unnecessary

on

public

its

pressure;

programs
an

of

information

system that "feeds forward."
The highest priority in building a deliberate
feedback system in the environment must be given to
the earliest possible detection or anticipation of
impacts that bear on the primary mission"
In this
way opportunities can be capitalized o n m a x i m a l l y ,
and difficulties nipped in the bud.
The system proposed by NASA was constrained
important ways:

1)

the

system must not

exceed

amount

of

information

in two

entering

its processing capacity,

the

"Once that

limit is exceeded, the organization will be less rather than
more,

responsive to its environment

identification,
system,

must

not

for

which

exceed

the

. . . ;"223

information
agency's

is

desire

2 ) problem

sought

by

the

or ability to

125
render solutions,

"Any information system that is explicitly

identified with a given program ought to he constructed and
operated

in

such

impression that

it

a

way

that

it

does

not

create

the

is concerned with issues clearly beyond

its capacity to handle."

224

The system of social indicators of interest to NASA,
however,

would

assessing the

be

more

than ■ a

consequences

of

feedback

actions,

mechanism

it would

also

for
have

the additional requirement of anticipating possible futures.
. . . the purpose of social indicators is not
primarily to record historical events but to
provide the basis of planning for future policies.
Such planning should not be based on the assumption
of the single most probable outcome, nor should it
confuse the probability with the seriousness of the
outcome.
Rather, it should take into account the
range of important consequences that can be
anticipated, and both their probability andppc
importance should also be considered. . . .
NASA's commitment to achieving its primary mission,
space

exploration,

programs

might

consequences,

led

and

its

have
the

on
agency

concern

for

society,
to

the

impact

"second

commission,

in

its

degree"
1962,

the

seminal work Social Indicators, which was published in 1966
and

edited

by Raymond

A.

Bauer.

Since

then

thousands

of

articles and hundreds of more lengthy texts have appeared on
the

topic.

Many

have

contributed

important empirical findings.
literature

addresses

two

to

theory

or

reported

Most of the social indicator

salient

themes:

aggregation

and

selection of surrogate variables.
Until

consensus

of

paradigm

making

magnitude

is

reached, however, by researchers and users concerning these

126

primary issues, the potential of social indicators will not
he

fulfilled.

Nevertheless,

constructs

useful

environment

have

indicators,

and

accounting has
used,

in
come

while

not been

selectively,

theoretical

assessing
from
an

the

accepted

realized,

frameworks

the

and

organization's

research

on

system

indicator

social

of

social

theory can be

to good advantage for policy formulation

in such public interest areas as postsecondary education.
Social indicators have been grouped and segmented in
a variety

of ways

by numerous

investigators

interested

in

some conceptual aspect of society.
A social indicator is defined as the operational
definition or part of the operational definition
of any one of the concepts central to the
generation of an ifl^prmation system descriptive of
the social system.
The
social

typology

offered

by

indicator's use within the

Carlisle

is

based

on

information system.

the
The

categories are not intended to be mutually exclusive and are
based

on

implied

the

operationalization

in the above

definition:

of

the

central

concepts

system components;

system

goals; social problem areas, and policy goals.
First,

informative

indicators.

This

category

consists of operationalized system components and goals.

It

is intended to describe both the static and dynamic nature
of the social system; data is subject to regular production
as time
the most
are

not

series,

with

relevant
intended

the

possibility

variables.
to

explain

social condition they describe.

of disaggregation by

Indicators
or

provide

in this

category

remedies

for

the

127
Informative indicators, together with the
system of social statistics hacking them up should
eventually provide a more balanced descriptive
account of the social system than is at present
available.
However, the absence of a social theory
specifying the components of the social system and
their relationships has repercussions for both the
construction and interpretation of the information
system.
Firstly, there is no guarantee that it is
anything other than partial and subjective.
Secondly, in many areas of social life the
description provided by informative indicators will
not be capable of normative interpretation.
It
will be only in those areas positively or
negatively valued by society or related to the
latter by existing social theories, that
'diagnosis' will be possible . . .
The question is whether purely descriptive
informative indicators will serve any practical
purpose apart from the generation of necessary
sections of the overall information
system. . . . '
Of

course,

informative

the

of

addtional

development

the

of

become

development,

more

emerge
of

mutually

"For

the

the

and

use

by

to

whom.

complete,

requiring new
information

As

the

it could
data;
and

stimulating.
policy

which

be

thus

theory
Assuming

overseer

and

the

informative indicators will provide a precis of

social

choice

will

in

directed

availability

could

politician,

lies

society becomes

new theories

continued

answer

indicators are

description
argued,

the

situation perhaps
priorities

within

allowing for
the

a more

prevailing

rational

value

system.

p p O

Indicators will not be expected to set priorities."
Secondly,
consists

of

that

into

fit

predictive

"operationalized
explicit models

indicators.
system

This

components

(in this

sense,

category
and

goals

theoretical

reconstructions) of the social system or its components."229

128
Predictive indicators are of spcecial importance to policy­
makers.

Not

only could

existing

programs,

they warn

they

could

of future

identify

the

shortfalls
need

for

in
new

programs.
Thirdly, problem-oriented indicators.
consists

of

component

operationalized

part

represented

of
by

the

problem,

a

indicators."230

social
i.e.

problem
each

areas.
goal,

problem-oriented
will

be

the

This category
"Each

should

indicator

responsibility

of

be
or
the

policy-maker to assess against performance or needs criteria
what

changes

are

required

effecting those changes.

and

to

design

programs

for

It is the task of the researcher

to provide the relevant information.
Finally,

program-evaluation

category consists of policy

indicators.

'targets.1

This

Once a program has

been implemented it is necessary to measure how effectively
it is meeting its goals and objectives,
it is using the resources made
evaluation

indicators

are

and how efficiently

available

intended

to

to

it.

Program-

approximate

such

measures.
. . . until we have the theoretical framework
adequate for the assessment of programme
effectiveness or until we acquire the resources to
carry out detailed research on all programmes
implemented, we consider crude approximations to be
better than no assessment at all, when scarce
resources are being,utilized and individuals
manipulated. . . .
The social indicator typology suggested by Carlisle,
while developmental and addresses
the British social system,

immediate concerns within

is, nevertheless,

typical of the

129
approach to social indicator research underway in the early
1970s

in

the

influence
general

of

United
such

States

social

system theory,

models

developed

and

Europe

indicator

as

well.

research,

is clearly demonstrated

for

postsecondary

education

The

based

on

in planning
in

the

late

1970s.
The Resource Center for Planned Change has developed
a model

which

they

titled

A

Futures

Creating

Paradigm:

A

Guide To Long-Range Planning From The Future For The Future.
The model is designed to focus attention on both trends and
value

shifts

scenerios

as

leading

the
to

institution
alternative

develops

futures.

alternative
The

model

is

divided into ten discrete stages.2-^2
In

stage

I the

institution

identifies

trend

areas

which it feels will be important in policy planning.

These

areas include local, regional and national concerns stemming
from such topical issues as: population, government,
affairs,

environment,

technology,

human

energy,

settlements,

economy,

work,

global

science

lifestyle,

and

women

and

participation.
In
values

stage

which

it

II

the

believes

during the next decade.

institution
will

prevail,

identifies
change

societal

and

emerge

The underlying principle for this

stage is ” . . . the concept of societal values as basic to
the

dynamics

assumption
education.”

of

that

the

planning

values

drive

process

is

based

institutions

of

on

the

higher

The authors note that in terms of institutional

130
policy

formulation,

procedurally.

trends

Values,

the

relatively

however,

complex understanding
within

are

at

represent 11. . . a

. . .

societal

clear,

Indeed,

structure

it

that

is the

the

value

least

far more
direction

will

take

during the next decade and how this direction will determine
the alternatives available to higher education that must he
explored.”233
leisure,

Examples

foresight,

include:

change, freedom,

pluralism,

localism,

equality,

responsibility,

knowledge, quality, goals, and interdependence.
In

stage

making matrix
model

allows

"Approach
etc.)

1,"

and

affected
detailed

III

for

the

the

where

trends

all

develops

a

identified

in stage

to

a

trend

choose

areas

(curricula,

included

method,

institution

institution

sectors
are

the

on

the

same

"Approach

2,"

where

I.

simple

(political,

faculty,

policy­

method,

economic,

students,

matrix;
each

The

or,

sector

etc.)
a

more

requires

its own form.^ 4
The
strong

and

prevailing
trends

developers
long-term
propensity

may be

of this model

define

societal movement;
in

the

strengthened

or

social

it

a trend

represents

system."235

weakened

by

as

the

"a
the

Further,
effects

other trends— or values— within the social system.
A trend area is a system unto itself, composed of a
number of trends and/or other forces that work
separately or in concert. . . . But some trends are
more independent of . . . the impacts of other
trends . . . the further into the future a trend
extends,
the more likely it is to interact and
intersect with other trends . . . the time horizon
. . . becomes a significant determinator.2-?o

of

131
Users of "Approach 2" are encouraged to segment the planning
horizon into three time frames:

the next three years; years

four through nine, and ten years and "beyond.
In stage IV the institution develops a policy-making
matrix for

value-shifts.

Planners

are

warned

that

values

mix easily and to avoid tracing the influence of the mix as
opposed

to

discrete

planners."237
significance
expert

values;

"values

When ever possible,
attached

opinion

and/or

to

each

the

must

"be

isolated

"by

the anticipated level of

value

literature

should
with

be

the

based
source

on
and

anticipated impact clearly stated.
In

stage V

formulated.

has

of two exercises:

1)

sector;

institution's

objectives

are

This, ofcourse, assumes that the institution's

mission statement

by

the

2)

those identified

been completed.

This stage consists

identify potential objectives,

formulate

an

institutional

sector

objective

from

in exercise 1.

What we have obtained is a view of
how societal
trends and values can come together, relate, and
interrelate, and create the need tOgachieve a
specific institutional objective.
In stage
of

objectives:

IV the institution tests "thecompatibility
with

institutional purpose,

objectives, and with value shifts."239

with

other

This is accomplished

with cross-impact matrices.
In

stageVII

the

institution

develops

detailed

scenarios for the most optimistic and pessimistic cases.
In stage VIII the

institution develops a path from

the futures described in stage VII to the present.

This is

132
achieved by starting with planning assumptions for milestone
"X," which immediately preceeds and leads to objective "Y."
Once milestone "X" has been described, then a set of tactics
developed in earlier stages are envoked which will identify
precedent events stemming from milestone X-1 .

This process

is repeated until the present is reached.
In stage IX, labeled "Foresight" by the developer’s
of the

model,

the

institution

assesses

the

impact

of

its

objectives when stated in policy terms.
Stage 9 of the planning paradigm is concerned with
the possible results of proposed policies for the
future on the sectors of the institution and the
institution as a whole.
It anticipates conditions
caused by the impact of such policies.
In

stage

X

the

institution

In this model constraints

tests

are evaluated

for

at the

feasibility.
end of the

process.
Restricting the free-flowing thrust of the
paradigm— or checking the
imagination of the
planners— would seem to be counter-productive.
Planning for the future is a process that requires
conditions, and a maximum amount of open-mindedness
on the part of the planners to deal with these
conditions.
Clearly,the climate within which this
open-mindedness can be achieved must be created and
cherished; constraints are, of course, a reality
now and must be confronted in all planning.
But to
determine what the institution ought to be in the
future requires the generation of a multitude of
ideas by as many people.
Constraints, however
relevant or pressing, cannot be examined until the
process has run its course.
This is not to say
that the questions posed by national and
institutional feasibility should be ignored.
A cross-impact matrix is then completed in which constraints
and policies are assessed.

133
The "futures creating" model promotes two important
concepts.

First,

that trend analysis,

while

important,

is

not enough; the planning process must consider alternatives,
the future may not he a reflection of the past.
trends

from

changes

values

callsattention

such as the Renaissance,

to

the

Separating

fact

that

mega

the Industrial Revolution

and the Space Age became "apparent" to different segments of
society

in

a

variety

of ways

and

with time

separation

measured in years and even decades.
The

second

contribution

stems

from

the

model's

approach to time as a planning variable with relevance both
in

a

temporal

sense

and in

a

contextual sense

as

well.

Planners using this model will not only select a focal point
on

the

planning

horizon

for

analysis,

tn , but

will

also

construct the events and resources to reach that point from
the

precedent

milestone, tn-1,

and

through

subsequent

iterations construct a "critical" path back to the present.
The "gap" between the resources available and the resources
required

to

"managed"
allocation
this

reach

by

the

changes

variable;

relationship

as

initial

to:
or

the
the

milestone,
time

variable;

objective.

time-budgeting

research in this area may lead to ".
conditions and subjective response."

t

and

+

the

Carley
is

1,

can

be

resource
refers

hopeful

to

that

. . linking objective

242

The Oregon State Department of Education reports on
a project which was directed at evaluating the potential use
of indicators as an aspect of statewide assessment.

While

134
this study was focused on elementary and secondary levels it
has some significance for postsecondary education levels as
well.

The

April,

Cooperative

1972,

and

Accountability

included Michigan,

Project

Oregon and

began
five

in

other

States.243
Oregon's participation in the project,
due to its timing.
testimony

in part, was

In 1971 the Oregon legislature had heard

concerned

with establishing

responsibility

for

desired outcomes of elementary and secondary education.
postions emerged:
".

. . students

basic

subject

one would limit responsibility to helping
acquire

responsibility

beyond

well

perform

roles

as

desirable

matter."244

students
wage

Two

those

The
limits

after

earner,

and knowledge

second
to

would

include

graduation

citizen,

legislation was forthcoming,

skills

in

expand

".

. . how

such

critical

consumer."245

in 1971,

in

While

no

interest continued to

grow.
Results
for

the

terms,

term
of

useful

indicator:

the

significant
for

of the study

included a working definition

"a

description,

status

at

a

condition

or

variable

an

analysis

specified

of

point

which

progress

in

quantifiable
in

time

provides
toward

a

of

a

evidence
goal

or

objective."^46
The
elements

researchers

appearing

in

attached
the

importance

definition

of

to
the

"indicator.”
(1) The expression is quantifiable— data does
exist, or can be collected, to show 'how much' of
the indicator exists.

three
term

135
(2) The condition or variable that is described
has, by general agreement, a relationship to the
goal with which it is associated.
(3) The7measurement is associated with a point of
time.
From

these

elements

a

set

of

specifications

was

developed for assessment indicators which required that they
should be:
(1) related to agreed upon goals;
(2) derived from reliable and valid data;
(3) derived from data that will continue to be
collected so that comparisons over time may be
made and
(4) derived from data for which the measurement
techniques have stability over time.
The Oregon study produced four types of indicators;
based

on

Carisle's

typology,

these

indicators

would

classified as informative:
Input indicators describe a condition or variable
over which the school (institution) has some
control and which affects the school's ability to
achieve an instructional, management, or support
goal.
Context indicators describe a condition or variable
over which the school has little or no control.
It
affects the school's ability to achieve an
instructional, management, or support goal.
Performance indicators describe a measurable or
observable behavior or variable used to determine
program effectiveness or efficiency.
Data may
concern: (a) student performance scores, or (b) a
program variable such as instructional process or
availability of learning experiences.
Societal indicators describe a measurable aspect of
a social condition affected to some degree by
education.248a

be

136

The

study

lists

numerous

sources

of

data

for

indicators and describes a classification summary which, the
authors
from

assert,

inputs

are

as

indicative

measures

of

of an

effort

schooling's

to move

away

success.

The

classification is divided into three phases:
Phase 1. Primary Effects
Product Consumption
Quantity
Quality
Investment
Income
Employment
Phase 2. Secondary Effects
Investment Feedback
Consumption Feedback
Phase 3* Tertiary Effects
Intergenerations Effects
(educational motivation of
children)
Herriot

divides

the

American education

six levels ranging from nursery/kindergarten,

system

into

at the lowest

level; followed by elementary/secondary; postsecondary, noncollegiate;

postsecondary,

graduate/professional,

and

properties

of

American

adult

education

collegiate;

education.
when

He

viewed

as

lists

the

an

open

sociocultural system and the indicator variables associated
with

each.

This

indicator

typology

is useful

in that

it

complements the indicator categories noted earlier with both
a general and

specific

environmental

perspective,

from the

educational institution's point of view.
The
those

institution's

objects

and

general

patterns

of

environment
relationships

consists
that

of

exist

137
outside

an

significantly
environment

system

influence

are

indicator

participation
population;
public

educational

rates;
public

attitudes

actions

requirements

attitudes

public

of

include:
funding;

toward

curricula

education;

schooling problems;
towards

source

public

confidence

educational

any

influenced by

variables

towards

affecting

attitudes

or

at

racial

it.

but

General

labor

force

general

U.S.

integration;

emphases;

judicial

attitudes

towards

in educators;

expenditures,

of American industry.

level,

and

public

manpower

These variables can be

grouped into the following indicator categtories:
Science and technology indicators describe the
state of knowledge pertaining to utilization
through "tools" and "process" of the resources
found in the institution's environment which may
affect its ability to achieve one or more of its
goals.
Economic indicators describe the state of values
pertaining to utility through exchange or
conversion of resources found in the institution's
environment which may affect its ability to achieve
one or more of its goals.
Demographic indicators describe the state of
population variables or behavior found in a group's
environment which may affect the institution's
ability to achieve one or more of its goals.
Political indicators describe the state of
governmental variables or behavior pertaining to
incentives and sanctions which influence exchanges
between individuals, groups and the institution
which may affect the institution's ability to
achieve one or more of its goals.
The
consists

of

institution's specific
the

following

or available environment

indicator

categories

indicator variables associated with each category.

and

the

138
Structure indicators describe the relatively stable
patterns of social interaction which integrate the
various elements of an educational system at any
level.
Indicator variables include: size of the
organizational unit; degree of systemic
differentiation; cost of access; authority
relationships, and intensity of educational effort.
Cultural indicators describe sentiment, meanings
and commitments which various actors (e.g.
teachers, pupils, administrators) within an
educational system at any level attach to its
goals, activities and problems.
Indicator
variable: faculty involvement in work stoppages.
Output indicators include the knowledge, skills,
and orientations required by the environment and
posessed by students at the time they leave an
educational system at any level.
Indicator
variables include: adult’s highest educational
level attained; youth and adult cognitive
performance; youth dropouts; youth college plans;
youth knowledge of the world of work; adult
completion of college degree programs; adult years
of schooling completed: graduate attitudes and
youth occupational plans.
Throughput indicators include the raw materials
(.basically the students in attendance) which an
educational system at any level operates upon in
producing output for its environment.
Indicator
variables include: student enrollment status;
student degree programs; student special needs;
student minority status; student parental language;
student violence; student pervious education;
student distance between home and college, and
student motivation for attending school.
Input indicators include the materials (e.g.
textbooks), personnel (e.g. teachers and
administrators), and information (e.g. knowledge
and values) imported by a system at any level from
its environment and used to transform throughput
into output.
Indicator variables include: dollar
expenditures; teacher sex; instructional staff
salary; instructional services offered;
instructional staff responsibilities; educational
gross national product, and instructional staff
authority. ^
A final typology of social indicators is provided by
Bureau of the Census in a tri-annual publication titled

Social
text

139
III, published

Indicators

reviews

eleven groups

in December,

of social

1980.

This

indicators which

are

considered to reflect significant aspects of social concern
or

topics

of

interest.

The

indicators

are

basically

descriptive and are of three broad types:
System performance which relates resource inputs to
resource outputs.
Well-being which suggests relative, directional
movement.
Public perception which presents subjective
feelings regarding certain aspects of respondents’
current
condition, quality of life.2-?2
The

data

for

these

publications

sampling techniques and,

were

collected

using

therefore, are subject to sampling

and non-sampling varibility.
The indicator categories covered are: Population and
the Family which lists seven (7) indicator variable groups,
containing

a

total

of

twenty-three

(23)

variables;

Health

and Nutrition which lists six (6) indicator variable groups,
containing a total
the

Environment

groups,

groups,

which

containing

Transportation

of thirty

a

containing

lists
total

which

(30)

of

lists

a

total

six

variables.
(6)

indicator

twenty-one

six

(6)

containing

a

(21)

of twenty-five

total

of

variable
variables;

indicator

Public Safety which consists of five (5)
groups,

Housing and

twenty

(25)

variable
variables;

indicator variable
(20)

Education and Training which consists of six

variables;

(6)

indicator

variable groups, containing twenty-five (25) variables; Work
which

consists

of

five

(5)

indicator

variable

groups,

140
containing
Security
groups,
and

a

total

and

of

Welfare

thirty-two

which

(32)

consists

variables;

of

four

(4)

Social
variable

containing a total of twenty (20) variables;

Productivity

variable

which

groups,

variables;

consists

containing

Social

a

of

total

Participation

six
of

(6)

Income

indicator

twenty-nine

which

consists

(29)

of

(5)

indicator variable groups, containing twelve (12) variables,
and Culture,
(6)

Leisure and Use of Time which consists of six

indicator

variable

groups,

containing

a

total

of

eighteen (18) variables.
The six (6)

indicator variable groups for Education

and Training reported in Social Indicators III were: public
perceptions, three (3) charts; resource commitments, six (6)
charts;

enrollment

performance

and

and

attainment,

achievement,

education and training,

(2) charts.

is

a

brief,

type

and

covered

explaining

by
the

comparisons
indicator
section

with

prior

variables

of

Social

five

three

comparisons, two

(5)

(3) charts;

(5)

charts;

charts;

adult

and international

Each indicator variable group
one

page

source

of

periods

covered

five

in

Indicators

the

in
the

III

or

less,
data

most

covered,

cases.

Education
follow

narrative

and

and
The

Training

Herriot's

output

indicator variable category.
Social

indicators

hold

much

promise

for

planners,

and one day indicator science, through the use of structural
models,
regarding

may
the

materially

reduce

anticipated

behavior

degrees
of

of

target

uncertainty
groups.

In

141
most cases the science of social indicators has not yet heen
so fully developed; hut that still leaves the art of social
indicators, which, conceptually,
tool.
which

is also a powerful planning

Spilerman describes the so called "hydraulic" model,
for

certain

groups may

"characterize

performing activities from a collection,

their

rates

of

in the sense that

by removing the possibility of carrying out some,

we raise

the rates for others."2 ^4
Cross-impact studies, such as those suggested by the
Resource

Center

creating model,
stemming from
without the
for

for

identifiable

trends

additional burden

the

Change

using

the

futures

allow planners to consider possible effects

the behavior.

concerning

Planned

use

Van
of

and hypothesized

changes

of understanding the reasons

Alstyne,
indicators

responding to
for

a

question

educational

planning

urged: . . .
We cannot wait.
While striving to develop more
comprehensive conceptual frameworks for defining
and interpreting indicators in postsecondary
education, and while recognizing both the
analytical and the political risks of misusing, or
simple using, possible misleading data, we should
go ahead trying to construct indicators from
existing data, with the conviction that the active
use of data is essential to improving the
collection, processing, and interpretation of such
data.255
Scanning
Social

indicators

deal with

large

segments

of the

general environment and thus create application problems for
institutional planners attempting to relate that information
to their

organization's

specific

or available

environment.

A

technique

described

environmental

scanning,

142
by
Aguilar,
may

aid

which

planners

he

in

labeled

interpreting

information gleaned from environmental studies and their own
organization's

current

and

planning.

strategic

thirty-seven

managers

operations,
The

from

for

study

forty-one

policy

formulation

covered

one-hundred

companies

located

•the United States and six Western European countries.
purpose
managers
of

of

the

"research

obtain about

determing

information,

was

to

the outside

strategy,
the ways

the

study

what

in
The

information

environment for purposes

sources

they

in which they get

use
it,

to

get

and

this

. . . why

they scan the environment as they do."256
Research techniques included interviews, examination
of

relevant

company

information

storage

was

to

asked

documents,
and

cover

display
the

communication
devices.

following

devices

Each

topics

and

respondent
during

the

interview:
1. To describe briefly his job, where he fits into
the company's organization, and the organization or
persons reporting to him on either a solid— or a
dotted— line relationship.
2. To list and describe the various sources from
which he gains external information and to estimate
their relative importance to him.
3. To recall a number of specific recent instances
of gaining external information and to specify the
source and how he came to receive the
information. ^4
Answers to
statistical

survey.

statistical

survey

the

third
In

a

topic

addition

situational

formed
to

the basis

interviews

analysis

of

for

and

a

the

scanning was

143
also conducted to determine how firms responded to selected
situations requiring data gathering activites.
The need to look far into the future greatly
hroadens the environmental boundaries of search.
Scanning must move farther and farther from the
immediate environment of the company in search of
basic trends.
Emphasis must shift from the
immediate areas in which the company competes to
the industry as a whole, and thence to the
aggregative and general economic, technological,
political and social spheres.
Each outward step
multiples the number of relevant factors and the
volume of information to be considered.
Each
outward step introduces increasingly tenuous
relationships
There

are

several

problems

which

the

organization

committed to environmental scanning must face.

It must be

prepared to process voluminous data, from numerous sources,
often incomplete, and always of questionable relevance.
latter,
with.
the

relevance,

may be the more difficult

Two factors
relevance

affect

of

data

the
1)

scanner's
his

own

The

issue to cope

ability

to assess

knowledge

of

the

organization's strategies and 2) his competence relative to
the data and its source.
The
the

issue of relevance can also be

perspective

considered

of

relevant

distorted when he

distortion.

considered from

Eirst,

data

if it were known by the

comes

in contact with

could

be

scanner to be

it;

secondly,

the

scanner may inadvertently or with purpose distort the data.
The

possibility

of

inadvertent

explanatory;

motives

the

believing

scanner

organizational

for

distortion

intentional
his

uncertainty,

role
thus,

is

self-

distortion range from

to

be

one

reduces

or

of

reducing
eliminates

144
certain value laden aspects of the data, or finds it in his
(or his units)

best

interest

to filter

and/or

distort

the

data.^59
Scanning
undirected

may

viewing

be

divided

occurs

into

when the

four

modes.

viewer has

First,

no specific

purpose but through contact intuitively discerns a change in
the

field which

scanning

mode

requires

is

further

investigation.

conditioned viewing.

This

A second

mode

is

in

effect when the scanner is aware of an area of interest but
is

not

engaged

informed
search

search,

an

activesearch.

is similar

is active but

search,
aimed

in

unorganized.

is deliberate,
at

securing

to the

The

second

third

mode,

except that

The final mode,

follows a predetermine plan,

specific

information

or

the

formal
and is

information

relative to a specific issue.
Aguilar
collect

external

tidings,

industry

the

field;

2)

acquisitions,

interest

survey,
in
in

Technical

3)

industrial

Other tidings,

his

activities

technology;

leads for

of

in

information

current

competitive

outside

found

Broad

the

Broad

the

market

tidings,

4)

tended
1)

to

Market

and

the

relating

events

to

occurring

Acquisition

leads,

ventures,and mergers;

and 5)

miscellaneous data.
in

five areas:

issues,

environment;
joint

companies

He considered the lack

issues category

"to

be

most

discouraging to proponents of long-range planning— the more
so when it is considered that thirty-nine

(39) per cent of

the survey respondents numbered among the high echelons
management."260

of

145
Major

sources

of

strategic

information

used

by-

managers surveyed were found to be distributed as follows:
all

Outside

suppliers;

members
all

associates;
publications

10

percent,

Nonmembers

all
and

17

Publications
newspapers;

includes

percent,
27

includes

percent,

Other

customers

business

includes

impersonal

and

trade

sources

2

percent; Subordinates 19 percent; Peers 8 percent; Superiors
1 percent; Others 8 percent; Internal reports 5 percent; and
Scheduled company meetings 3 percent.
interesting

categories

are:

only 1 percent of the time;
percent.
be

Perhaps the two most

Superiors,

which

contributed

and company meetings at only 3

The low value attributed to company meetings could

explained by their

operations.

In

all,

generally having
the

information was unimpressive.

vertical

to do with
flow

of

current

strategic

Diagrammatically, the merging

of external and internal sources of strategic postsecondary
education information could present
in Table 2.1.

the flow pattern shown

146
STRATEGIC INFORMATION SYSTEM
THE INTERNAL ENVIRONMENT

THE EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT
FACTORS

FACTORS

ECONOMIC
TECHNOLOGICAL
POLITICAL
SOCIAL

NORMATIVE
PERFORMANCE
STRUCTURAL
CULTURE

\
MONITORING VEHICLE

MONITORING VEHICLE

I

*

PERSONAL EXPERIENCE
JOURNALS
REPORTS
BOOKS
MEETINGS
CONFERENCES
COLLEAGUES
BOARD MEMBERS
FRIENDS
FACULTY/STAFF
ALUMNI
STUDENTS
CONSULTANTS
STATE AGENCIES

TOP
ADMINISTRATION

RESPONSES TO DATA
ASSUMPTIONS
INTERPRETATIONS
CORRELATIONS
EXTRAPOLATIONS
DECISIONS
INSTITUTIONAL STRATEGY

\
INPUT
THROUGHPUT
OUTPUT
TABLE 2.1.

PERSONAL EXPERIENCE
REPORTS
CONFERENCES
COMMITTEES
MEMORANDA
SUBORDINATES
FACULTY
STAFF
UNION
MANAGERS
STUDENTS
RESEARCH
OTHER

147
A final

area of

dealt

with

study

relationships.

The

interest

contained

in the

Aguilar

information/interest/influence

researcher

concluded

that

.

. the

usefulness of a body or category of external information to
the making of strategic

decisions

depends directly in some

manner on a 'match1 between the contents of the information
and

the

interests

of

the

executives

making

or

influencing

those decisions.
Turning again to a chart to make the point, Aguilar
describes

a

variables:

content,

abscissa

technique

of

the

of

diagramming

interest
gridis

and

the

three

influence.

depicted

the

key

Along the

executive's

inward/outward (relative to the environment) orientation and
his

orientation to

new/old business

ordinate.

Interest/influence

executive

are shown by his position

relative

to

other

executives

is

depicted

characteristics

and

(location)
the

size

along the
of

each

on the grid
(strength of

influence)

of the symbol chosen to represent his position.

With

use

the

of

broken

and

solid

arrows,

lines of

communication and changes in position on key issues can also
be diagrammed.263
Techniques
the

environment

asserts,
system

"the
are

Wilson's
monitoring

for

recording

have

salient

also

the

reported

characteristics

continuity

opinion

been

information

the

and
best

socio-political

by

gleaned
Wilson

from
who

of a good monitoring

comprehensiveness."^64

jn

self-operated

system

for

environment

managed

for

is

148
the

life

insurance

industry

by

the

Institute

of

Life

Insurance.
Again the familiar matrix form is used to describe
the results of the Institute's trend analysis program.
axis

lists

segments

(social

along the
a

categories
change,

other axis.

"Monitor"

who

of

is

publications;

technology,

One

environmental

etc.)

are

displayed

Each participating company nominates

assigned

a

particular

cell,

and

that

individual then has responsibility to review a publication
or class of publications for trends
of the environment.

impacting that segment

Reports by monitors are analyzed by the

system and the results are shared by all member companies.
Another

technique

probability-diffusion
provoke

debate,

but

described

matrix.
it

also

Its

by

Wilson

principal

serves

the

added

is

use

the

is

to

function

of

testing internal consistency for a variety of assumptions or
predictions.

Across

one

axis

is

placed

a

probability

continuum ranging from low to high; across the other axis is
a

diffusion

continuum

assumptions/predictions
placing them

ranging

from

high

are then tested

to

for

low.

consistency by

in the cells formed by the matrix.

Still

another

technique

suggested

by

Wilson

often cited by other researchers is the value profile.
chart

made

up

of

contrasting

pairs

of

and
The

values,

e.g.

conformity vs. pluralism, work vs. leisure, means vs.

ends,

etc.

is

All

Two or more points in time may be represented for each

set of values:

1983

(current)

changing to another position

149
toy say 1988 or some later period.

Wilson cautions,

"It is

important to stress that the chart attempts to predict value
change, not necessarily events."2*^
In

this

chapter

the

researcher

has

reviewed

organization structure and its importance if the mission of
an organization is to be achieved.
understood

and

a

structure

objectives is established,
development

of

implementation
members,

as

the
of

they

Once the mission is well

compatible

the next step,

institution,

policies
employ

with

is

which

resources

in

goals

and

in the growth and

the

will

its

formulation

serve

to

pursuit

guide

of

and
its

specific

objectives.
As indicated by the literature,
action are not
must be

enough to

ever mindful

existing

success.

of the fragile

within the organization,
relations

ensure

these implements of
The

relations which exist

internal climate,

between

coalitions representing,

institution

members,

as well as those

collectivities,

and

with varying degrees of force, the

organization's interests in the external environment.
Aguilar
the

specific

studied

a group

environment

interviews and a survey;

of

the

of

companies

chemical

operating

industry

in

using

Wilson reported the findings of a

continous environmental monitoring system established by the
General Electric Company in 1967*

Each of these studies had

as

relation

their

principal

organization(s)
individuals,

interest

and

its

collectivities

the

between

organizational
and

other

set,

a

focal
those

organizations

in

150
direct interaction with the focal organization.

A different

perspective for analyzing organization-environment relations
is provided

through a study conducted hy Frey.

The

study

had several objectives:
First, this was a case study, essentially
exploratory and descriptive in nature . . . a
second objective . . . was to make a contribution
to organizational theory and to provide some
direction for future research . . . since I do not
hold the general environment as a "constant" as is
usually done . . . thirdly, this study was designed
to contribute to the knowledge of the university as
a complex organization . . . Few conceptual
comparisons have been made between the
organizational characteristics of universities and
those other organizational types particularly on
strategic or policy-making levels.
. . . Finally,
the results of the study should be of some value to
university officials, legislators, legislative
staffs, and any others concerned with the operation
and management of the institutions of higher
education.
Success
with

which

output;

is

it

transforms

success,

relations

is

".

in

internally
units

terms

measured

effectiveness.
asserts,

measured

of

by

of

a

which

Effectiveness

management

input

into

strategy

more

nebulous

of

external

yardstick,

must

be

able

to

assess

the

if they are to use it to their

and
to

an

organizational

environmental

structure

contingencies

and boundary maintenance— autonomy on the

research

t
,.
,,268
relations."

units

organization's

Despite the magnitude of this dilemma,

empirical

efficiency

is contingent upon the development

adaptability

on the one hand,
other.

the

Frey in establishing the need for his study

. . institution's

promotes

the

the

nature of their environment
benefit.

of

by

exists

on

litte or no

university— environment

151
Prey

concluded,

after

reviewing the

literature

on

organization— environmental relations, that four themes were
clearly
avoid

discerned.
relations

relations

First,

with

almost

that

their

always

environments;

result

resources are exchanged; thirdly,
uninterrupted
attempt

to

specific

supply

of

control

organizations

in

environment;

not

secondly,

transactions

such
where

in an effort to ensure the

resources,

their

could

organizations

environments,
and

will

especially

finally, the

the

number

and

significance of these transactions will determine the amount
of

autonomy

or

freedom

of

control

the organization must

relinquish.
Prey,

taking

issue

of autonomy,

this

study

necessary
transaction

that

a

asserts

for

parties

different

”. . .

engagement

condition
both

somewhat

with

It

is the

the

give

up

on

and

some autonomy
Further,

the

position

environment

effectiveness,

necessarily in equal proportions.”271
loss

posture

of

is

in

a
any

and not

evidence of

of autonomy was indicated by the gradual usurption of

decision-making through legislative activity.
The Washington state legislature, by virtue of its
control of the budgetary process and its reliance
on an enrollment based funding formulas, is moving
closer to defining the parameters of strategic
decision-making within the university.2 '
In an effort to offset legislative interference, the
focal

organization

and

other

reacted

by

institutions

included

increasing their

in

its

organization

set,

legitimation

activities.

The objective of such activities was to justify

152
their

products

increased

(educational

contacts

"goods")

(transactions)

and

with

the

both

method
the

was

general

environment and the specific environment.
The
consists

general
of

environment,

political,

technological factors;
a factor of concern
was

of

concern

as

described

ecological,

by

Frey,

economic

and

the last factor, technology, was not

in Frey's study.

because

it

The political factor

struck

at

the

heart

of

the

institution's functioning, autonomy and academic freedom.^73
The autonomous functions of higher education: ". . .
transmission of culture,
maintenance of experts
.»274 f

have

the creation of new knowledge,

in all fields and social criticism.

evolved

over

time

to

include

education and service to community groups.
This
upon

expansion

autonomy

public

joined

institutions,

of

mission

as

resources

the

debate

".

.

.

the

has

became

over

there

275

tended

more

the

to

infringe

scarce.

mission

occurred

universal

a

of

As

the

educational

decline

in

the

'academic mystique1 and a rise in the public's concern that
higher
•

•

•

education

return

to

teaching

the

mainstream

values

..276
Frey found evidence of lowered levels of legitimacy

and

social

themes

approval

of

existence

public
was

for

colleges

and

accountability

evident

in

many

of

universities.

and
his

The

justification
interviews.

of

"They

largely focused on efficiency and effectiveness with regard
to

the

use

of

resources.

But

the

demand

was

not

only

financial

153
accountability but also

responsiveness.”277

for

social

and

cultural

prey asserts that a turn away from the

four-year liberal arts program to one emphasizing vocational
and technical education reflects this lowered legitimacy.
Another example, suggested by Frey, of the change in
status of higher education vis.
the

incidence

universities.
as

in

the

of

the general environment

litigation

involving

colleges

is
and

Such incidents range from defense of autonomy

case

of

The

University

of

Michigan

to

Hobart

College's indictment for tolerating coercive conduct on the
part of certain student groups.

?7R

Courts are likely to become more accessible and
increasingly utilized by aggrieved members of the
university boundaries by external agents and this
means still another blow to the university's right
to determine7and control institutional
activities.
The
tends

Ecological

to

factor

highlight

the

of

the

general

growing

environment

importance

of

interorganization relations and the corresponding diminution
of

individual

relations.

and through those

resources

amount

they are

of control

Organizations
control their
able to

control

resources

environment;

the

exert depends upon the

relative size of the resources controlled and their need to
acquire more,

in relation to

other organizations operating

within the same environment.
” . . . organizational density, or the number of
organizations per spatial or social unit, is
important because it represents the presence of
organizations of other institutional spheres who
are in competition for resources with the units of
the educational sphere.M280

Prey

in

154
on the Economic

commenting

factor

of

the

general environment considered two perspectives.

First, the

lower

issues for

level

of

educational

economic

purposes

support, vis.,

suffering

bond

increasing

numbers

of

defeats.

Second, growing competition for a finite resource

indicated

further

reduction

in economic

support for higher

education.
Society has been able to endure this unusual rise
in educational cost with no additional productivity
because the demand was 'income elastic1. The
public has both paid the price and increased the
quantity of education demand . . . Now the demand
is decreasing as is the amount of income available,
resulting in less resources for higher education.
Costs must be reduced to match this downward
adjusting resource supply.281
Prey
activities

found,
were

as

noted

increasing,

earlier,
as

that

were

legitimation

efforts

to

efficiency through resource-saving techniques,
other

organizations

in

improve

and improved

coordination

with

the

specific

environment.

The increase in interorganizational exchanges

is to be expected when one or more of the organizations is
suffering from
The

dominant

network

is

diminished

a reduction

organization

the

state

with

the

of

its

internal

resource

within

the

legislature

but

interaction

with

the

legislature,

of

creation,

by

focal

base.

organization's
it
the

Council of Higher Education and the creation of the Council
of Presidents, by the higher education institutions.
The

Washington

Higher

Education

permit

closer

to

legislature

provide

surveillance

a
over

created

the

coordinative
the

state's

Council

of

function,

and

colleges

and

155
universities.
committee

Further,

also reduces

use

of

the

legislative

the legislature's

budget

dependence on the

Office of Program Planning and Fiscal Management for higher
education budget interpretation.

Each of these entities add

to

making

the

university's

visability,

its

behavior

more

predictable and subject to control by others, especially the
legislature.

This,

imbalance,

one

been

to

able

institution's

of course, leads to a significant power

the

higher

counter.
and

education
Frey

the

institutions

noted

Council

of

that

both

have

not

individual

President's

had

been

ineffective in reducing this power imbalance.
In sum, colleges and universities appear almost
completely subject to the whim of the legislature.
There are so many areas in which control can be
exercised which makes it virtually impossible to be
antonomous . . .
With the advent of the CHE, the
performance audit and the concomitant rising
negative image of higher education, strategic or
policy level activities are also, or will soon be,
defined by external agencies, particularly the
state legislature.
Heteronomy, not autonomy, is
the reality.
If Frey's

observations

are

accurate,

and

there

is

much in the theoretical literature to support the basis for
his

conclusions,

literature,
organizations

it

as

described

becomes
to

apparent

systematically

with the environment.

the

preceding

that

a

evaluate

need
their

review
exists

of
for

relations

In the past two decades many attempts

have been made to use models,
others,

in

to quantify both

some more sophisticated than

internal/external

organization/collectivity/individual

environment

relations;

and

strategic

planning may offer a rational approach for institutions and

156
funding agencies
to

improve

interested in establishing a rapprochement

institutional

images

of both,

in the matter

of

the public's perception of performance.
The Planning Product; Policy
In the first section of this review
on the
the

planning process;

direction

postsecondary
second

it

seems

educational

section

importance

what

of

this

it is;

to

be

heading

section introduced

are

in-so-far
concerned.

attempted

of matching organization

The third

a brief history,

institutions
review

the focus was

to

as
The

describe

structure

and

the

and mission.

the notion that organizations

have a better chance of accomplishing their mission if they
are

aware

of

environment

the

forces

that

(organization

shape

climate)

both
and

the

internal

the

external

environment.
In

this,

literature,

the

the

policies/strategies

final

section

researcher
designed

by

of

is
the

the

concerned

organization

its members in the proper use of resources.
must

reflect

review

of
with

to

guide

These policies

a through understanding of the organization's

structure, its strengths and weaknesses; the dynamics of its
available environment;
to

occur

in

performance.
possible,
it

be

the
This

the value shifts occurring or likely
general

environment;

"understanding"

codified,

must,

and
to

its
the

reduced to a specification,

is shared by members

rather

member or subunit "following"

than fragmented,

own

extent
so that

with

each

a separate, unguided version.

157
Three elements are necessary for such an information
system to work:

goals and their assessment criteria must he

known hy members,

the level of detail should he consistent

with the member's degree of responsibility for the outcome;
regularperformance
assumption's

reports

on which

actions to achieve

must

policies

be

produced; and

are based

(for

the

implementing

objectives leading toagreed upon goals)

must be

documented and well know by all

Purther,

as

policies

and

reviewed

to

goals

and

their

objectives

underlying

determine

that

affected parties.

are

changed, so

assumptions;
changes

or,

are

must

at

least

unnecessary.

Conversely, as assumptions are added, modified or dropped so
must

the

strategic

impact
plan,

of

these

whether

changes

they

stem

be
from

reflected
an

in

the

inward-outward

perspective as in the first

case or from an outward-inward

perception as in the latter.

The key element in planning is

assumptions.
Assumptions
Planning is a management function and therefore goes
on wherever "managers" are located within the organization.
Koontz and O'Donnell
manager,

add,

"Planning is a function of every

although the character and breath of planning will

vary with his authority and the nature of policies and plans
outlined

by

routinely
Koontz
expected

his

superiors."^85

contribute

and

O'Donnell

results

to

the

formulation

consider

expressed

Managers,

in

a

plan,

numerical

at

of
"a

all

levels,

budgets

which

statement

terms."^84

of
^g

158
"budget,

an

annual

activities,

plan,

commits

resources

to

prescribed

many of which produce effects which will spill­

over into subsequent planning periods.

These ripples spread

out along the full length of the planning horizon,
the

actions

taken by

even the

least

senior

so that

administrator,

contribute to the "futurity" of the institution's plan.
Another

of Eayol's management

and this assumes feedback,

functions

is control

or the ability of the manager to

assess results.
Performance
expected
the

presence

manager

to

criteria
or

are

absence

make

of

proper

often

predicated

influencing factors.

judgments

magnitude of corrective actions,

on

on

the

the
For

type

and

he must be fully aware of

all qualifying aspects of the criteria he and others use for
evaluating

outcomes.

Assumptions

represent,

in

concrete

terms, the logic on which strategies are based; whether for
setting

departmental

control

budget;

institution,

objectives

the

for

the

reflected

"profit"
coming

targets

year;

or,

in
of

an

expense

the

entire

enrollment

goals

a

decade into the future.
Assumptions

provide

the

rational

basis

for

operationalizing planning definitions, such as Ewing's:
A method of guiding managers so that their
decisions and actions affect the future of the
organization in a consistant and rational [-manner,
and in a way desired by top management.
According

to

Scott

"It

is

fair

to

say

that

the

appropriateness of any plan always depends upon the validity
of

. . .

assumptions

about

the

future."

Developing

assumptions

is

159
subsystem of

a

the

planning

and

control

system.
In Anthony’s framework,
found

in

each

of

his

management control,

planning, as a function,

topical

areas:

and operations

strategic

control.

For

planning;
instance,

he includes "budgeting as a management control activity.
planning

is

assumptions
planning

found
are,

in

each

as Scott

process,

are

of

these

asserts,
they

management

a vital

used

If

areas

element

differently

is

and

in the

in

each

application area?
Assumptions,
result

of analysis;

the start.

like objectives, usually emerge as the
only a few are fixed and

settled from

Therefore, making assumptions can be thought of

as a complete subprocess

in several stages within the main

planning

nature

process.

developing
emphasis

these
on

qualitative

The

assumptions

quantitative
factors

to

of

varies

the

analysis

widely,

forecasts

to

reliance

used

ranging
emphasis

upon

in

from
on

intuitive

presuppositions.
Assumptions provide a vehicle for bringing a variety
of management levels and functions together and facilitating
the

understanding

goals.

of

the

organization's

objectives

and

In contributing to strategy formulation through this

assumption development process, individuals are also able to
close the gap between the institution's goals and their own,
if a gap exists.

160
Assumptions
planning

process

provide

together.

the
All

cement
levels

which

holds

of management

the
and

many technical areas as well are able to contribute, in this
way,

to

the

understand
necessary

budget

how
step

formulation,

achieving
toward

According to Scott,

the

its

and

near

through
term

that

process

objectives

organization’s long-term

is

a

goals.

there are many alternative methods for

developing assumptions:
1. 'Imposed' assumptions. Some assumptions are
imposed by . . . top management.
The planners do
not need to take time to investigate these
assumptions further: they are 'givens’ in their
planning task and can be accepted without question.
•

•

•

2. 'High probability' assumptions. In any plan
there are a great many underlying assumptions which
can be made with a high degree of confidence, based
upon past experience. . . .
3. 'Irreducible uncertainty* assumptions. There
are some subjects which have a substantial degree
of uncertainty.
Attempts to analyze these subjects
quickly reach a point of diminishing returns beyond
which further analysis is not fruitful. . . .
4. 'Previous information' assumptions. Since
any company which undertakes this kind of
long-range planning activity is a going concern it
is bound to have accumulated studies of many
subjects, and some of their findings prove most
useful to planners in developing assumptions.
5. 'Planning analysis' assumptions. Finally,
there are those subjects which demand special
investigation by the planners in order to develop
assumptions, a category accounting for most of th
planners' activity in this phase of forecasting.
The

ability

assumptions
The

is

planner

important

to

distinguish

extremely
must

guard

assumptions

on

between

important
against

in

these
strategic

accepting

superficial

types

evidence;

of

planning.

potentially
or

using

161
assumptions which are not well documented, this is to ensure
that

the

planner

or

any

other

person working

on the

plan

will know its hasis and source.
Just as there are different types of assumptions, so
are there different stages in their development:.
1. Initial assumptions are developed early in
the planning process, and their main purpose is to
provide some hasis on which the planners may work.
Some . . . are imposed hy top management: . . .
Other[s] . . . can hest he characterized as
conditional or preliminary: . . . Some of them are
high probability assumptions, hut others are quite
uncertain, . . .
2. Working assumptions are developed during the
course of planning analysis.
As with the
establishment of objectives, various assumptions
are seen as relevant only after some planning
analysis has been carried out.
5.
Pinal assumptions are those which are
incorporated in the written presentation of ’the
plan' in its completed form. . . . They are not
intended to provide a compact summary of the
innumerable assumptions made during the course of
the planning process, . . .288
Pinal

assumptions

are usually selected

by planners

with both the user and his/her needs clearly in mind.

It is

essential that the user have a thorough understanding of the
basis

for

each final assumption

so that he/she

is able to

judge when and to what extent the plan should be qualified,
modified
data,

or

even

relative

changes

abandoned.

to

the

in assumptions,

plan;
to

Users
planners
users

who

feedback
(staff)
must

performance
feed-forward

then

decide

if

changes to the plan are required.
Planning

assumptions

are

frequently organized

into

three major subject area categories for strategic planning:

162
general

environment;

industry

environment;

and

factors

of

production.
1 . *General environment1 assumptions.
. . .
about political, social, economic, scientific, and
technological factors are all likely to have an
important impact in determining the eventual
strategy. . . .
Assumptions about the general environment are
not simply projections of the past.
Since changes
are not noticeable from day to day, the present
environment is liable to be viewed as permanent.
However, important discontinuous changes are taking
place; . . . Second, the challenges which general
environment assumptions present to the planner are
generally challenges of adaptation.
Rarely can a
company hope to influence significantly any of
these assumptions.
The assumptions are designed to
set the boundaries within which the company
operates; the company has to recognize their
dimensions and organize its activities accordingly.
Third, companies are aided in their quest for
information about general environment subjects by
the growing number of management service
organizations .
2.
’Industry environment1 assumptions. In the
term industry environment the word ’industry1
includes concepts of product line, process and
product mission.
A company, in drawing up
strategic plans, needs to take special account of
(a) expected changes in competitive relationships
with an industry and (b) anticipated developments
of a technical, distributive* and organizational
nature within that industry.
The significance of this category
in which progress

is: 1) the way

in one area is frequently dependent upon

commensurate progress in supporting or related areas; and 2)
there

is

peripheral
between

a

need

items

existing

for
or

sensitivity

awareness

activities

the "industry” environment.

and

of

to

the

possible

newly

potential

of

relationships

emerging

changes

in

The
used

Leontief

by business

could

also

to

be

163
input-output
carry
used

out

grid

this

by

is a

type

technical

aid

of analysis.

It

postsecondary

educational

organizations as an aid in making assumptions about both the
"industry” and the "general"
compile

information

environment.

in a grid

which

This model could

indicates

sources

and

quantities of inputs contained in specific programs, as well
as the volume of outputs and ultimate success of graduates.
It could also reveal the relationship of one segment of the
education

economy

to

every

other

segment,

and

enable

institutions to learn which segments of the general economy
are dependent upon its "products," and to what extend.
The last

of the

"subject"

category

of assumptions,

refers to the availability of capital, material and manpower
availability
assumptions

and
is

quality.
most

often

Planning

analysis

directed

toward

dealing with
subject

areas

which are external rather than internal to the institution.
Often,

top

management

imposes

assumptions

relative

to

factors which are internal to the planning institution.
3.
'Factors of production* assumptions. . . .
important to developing strategic long-range plans
treats the availability and the quality of factors
of production.
This is to say, certain assumptions
are needed about capital availability, material and
equipment availability andqfluality, and manpower
availability and quality.
Koontz and O'Donnell suggest that premises (assumptions) may
be divided into three groups:
1.
Uncontrollable. There are those planning
premises that are noricontrollable, in the sense
that the individual institution doing the planning
cannot do anything about them. . . .

164
2. Semicontrollable. Then there are those
planning premises t h a t m a y he regarded as
semicontrolla'ble, in the sense that the individual
firm cannot control them hut can
influence their
happening to a greater or lesser
degree. .. .
3. Controllable. Among these are those policy
matters and programs that the company management
can decide largely for itself. ^92
In sum, planning assumptions must he considered from
a variety of perspectives by- the planner:
for developing assumptions:
given

assumption

considered,

may

and 4)

he

the

1) the method(s)

2) the stage of development any
at:

3)

amount

the

subject

of control

or

area

to

he

influence the

institution will he able to exert.
Uncertainty
assumptions

to

is

he

the

final

considered

in

strategic planning discussion.

however,

this

of

development

planning
of

this

Some

perceive planning as a

In

the realm of long-range

means of controlling the future.
planning,

the

aspect

is almost

always unrealistic.

The

planner has to live with and deal with uncertainties which
exist now and which

will continue to

exist.

Uncertainty . . . is said to he present, when
the experiment in question cannot he carefully
replicated by (or upon) other persons or at other
times or places; that is when the situation is
unique. Its frequency distribution, therefore,
cannot he objectively specified. . . .
A
simply

further

a means

tendency

for

is

to

minimizing

conceive

risk.

This

of
is

planning
an

as

orderly

concept which has utility in certain quantitative approaches
to

planning.

generalized
often

needs

Nevertheless,

way

of

thinking

to

he

more

it

is

not

about planning.

concerned with

fruitful
The

being sure

as

a

planner
he

is

165
taking the right risks, even though this can be in many ways
a more difficult task.
To qualify as a risk situation, then, an experiment
must be repetitive in nature and must possess a
frequency distribution from which observations can
be drawn and about which inferences can be made by
objective, statistical procedures. . . .294
Scott,

in his analysis of uncertainty tends to use

the terms uncertainty and risk interchangably.
is

never

Business

completely
is

fundamental

a

risk-taking
fact

differentiation,
far

more

of

of

for

utility.

possibility

absent

the

from

activity,

business
purpose

For

planning
and

activities.

uncertainty

life."^95
of this

instance,

reducing

"Uncertainty

Scott

uncertainty,

distinction this amounts to a nonsequitur.

using

a

Farrar’s

dissertation
speaks

is

of

has
the

Farrar’s

It is extremely

important for planners to clearly separate risk assumptions
from uncertainty assumptions.
. . . one should inquire as to the usefulness of
nonobjective information which may be available.
That" is, should no objective information about an
event's probability density function be equated to
no information about it, or should a decision
maker's ideas 'about the probability of an
experiment's alternative outcomes, that is, his
subjective probability distribution, be treated as
though it were of equal importance to its objective
counterpart? If not, how should such information
be treated?
Should it be discarded altogether?
One's whole outlook on the problem of decision
making under uncertainty turns crucially upon his
answers to the preceding questions.
Two paths
diverge sharply at this point.
He who chooses not
to accept the legitimacy of subjective probability
can proceed via the route of game theory, whereas
he who will do so is likely to seek the problem's
key in the realm of statistical decision theory.296

166
Knight

addressed

the

problem

of

uncertainty

reduction by suggesting:
1. increase the accumulation and study of existing
data;
2. average out uncertainties by relying on largescale organizations and
3. try to contcol some aspects of future
developments
Farrar would argue that Knight was addressing risk,
not uncertainty.

However, it is true that further study and

accumulation of data will
aspects of it,

aid

in defining the

problem,

or

as one reflecting conditions of uncertainty

or risk; objective or nonobjective information.
This
objective

distinction

and

quantification
observation

between

nonobjective
of

data,

data.

regarding

risk

uncertainty,

raises

the

makes

an

Scott

the

and

unwarranted

issue

of

important

attribution

of

certainty to information:
In developing assumptions about the future, in so
broad an undertaking as strategic planning,
arbitrary figures are frequently used to provide
approximate bench marks.
This is both useful and
necessary in many circumstances, but problems may
arise if the figures subsequently have greater
certainty attributed to them than their original
means of development justifies.
Because a
strategic plan serves as a basis for many
supporting planning activities, an error of this
kind may have a multiplier effect upon the
institution
whole and produce adverse
consequences
Scott
indicate

a

suggests

the

probability

assumptions

dealing

scenerio.

The

use

a

weighting

distribution

with

danger

of

each
is

that

for

the

scheme

various

problem/opportunity
these

to

figures

or
will

167
subsequently "be misinterpreted to

imply an exactness which

is not in fact justified, or a reduction in uncertainty when
299

in fact no such reduction has been achieved.
If

objectivity

flexibility
identified

is

the

three

is

hedge

aspects

the
to
of

key

to

risk

taking,

uncertainty.
the

future

then

Scott

which

he

has

argues

demonstrate a need for flexibility in strategic planning:
first, the future itself is always clouded in
uncertainty;
second, a large part of the environment of the
future is not controllable by an individual
organization and
third, it is certain that the future— whatever its
form— will differ in a great many ways from the
present-^OO
Given
long-range

these

planning

three

"facts,"

decisions

should

sequential basis, where possible,
no-go commitment.

Scott
be

concludes
formulated

that
on

a

and not as a one time, go

Flexibility, then, takes on two different

aspects, each significant in strategic planning:
built-in flexibility includes contingencies for
'what if* occurrences and
deliberate-postponement flexibility allows certain
actions to-.be delayed while others move ahead on
schedule.*
Flexibility

is a key strategy;

yet,

not be diminished by excessive patronage.
flexibility

is

a

hedge

to

its value must

As noted earlier,

uncertainty;

nevertheless,

effectiveness can only be achieved through decisiveness and
promulgation of values.
is

manifest

to

Scott suggests:

the

Flexibility when employed to excess

organization's

publics

as

ambivalence.

168

First, lip service to the need for flexibility
can sometimes cover up a lack of courage or an
indecisiveness on the part of top management. . . .
Second, incorporating flexibility into a decision
is sometimes uneconomic. . . . Finally, there can
be excessive preoccupation with flexibility which^.
results in continued revision of strategy. . . .
Someone once said,

"Strategy is when you are out of

ammunition, but keep right on firing so that the enemy w o n ’t
know."
brand

Occasionally,
of

several

strategy

in

objectives.
first

than

alternatives

resurces,

budget

classic

this

might

to

one

reach

idea

in

reflect

job; the

reflect more of this
of

optimal way

effort

Stating

protecting his

the

a near

an

condition

requests

an

second,

choosing

to utilize
an

from

scarce

organization's

problematic

form,

individual's

the

objective,

saving the jobs of many by

keeping the organization viable.
Assumptions
allows

a

large

permit
segment

organization's goals,
them.

closure,
of

to

reach

if

management

artificial
to

"see"

is

where

hoped,

an

each

of the

will

equilibrium

find

in

individual member

organization

the

it may be easier for individual
between

their

individual

needs and aspirations, and those of the organization.
it

it

and strategies selected for achieving

With this knowledge,

managers

even

and

this

rapprochement

a

They,

"climate"

clearly understands the goals

finding them to be

consonant with

his own goals recognizes that contributing to one, enhances
the

possibility

of

achieving

the

other;

management by objectives in old clothes?

could

this

be

The
growth

in

1950s

and

169
theory necessary

planning
demand

for

1960s;

educational
the

trauma

to

goods,
of

manage

the

occurring

social

rapid
in

unrest

the
and

disobedience during the same period and extending into the
1970s; and the declining demand expected,
already experienced,
to

educational

and in many cases

in the 1980s and 1990s,

leaders.

Unfortunately,

was available

the

press

for

coordination by politicians and some educators was running a
parallel

course,

and

the

term autonomy became

a code word

for intransigence and the resulting organizational entropy,
in many institutions, could not support new strategies.
Drucker

(1980)

elaborated

on an earlier

definition

(1959) of corporate planning by adding emphasis to strategy:
.

.

making

decisions
knowledge

present

systematically
of their

entrepreneurial
and

futurity,

with

results

organized,

.

.

.

the

best

taking)
possible

organizing systematically

efforts needed to carry out these
the

(risk

against

decisions,

the

systematic feedback”3Q5

the

and measuring

expectations

through

is a continuous process

in long-range planning; twenty-one years later he added:
Planning tries to optimize tomorrow the trends of
today.
Strategy aims to exploit the new and
different opportunities of tomorrow. . . . Any
institution needs to think strategically what its
business is doing and what it should be doing.
. . . Typically, businesses— but even more, non­
profit public service institutions— believe that a
strategy that aims at 'a happy medium’ is most
comfortable, least risky, andQadequately
profitable.
They are wrong.
Should the educational organization develop a formal
long-range,

strategic

plan;

organize

a

formal

planning

170

function;
reviews,

and

institutionalize

revisions

process

and publications?

institutions

experimenting

attempted

do

to

a

just

with

that.

of

It may be

planning

Even

continuous
that many

concepts

Trickton's

case

have

subject

appeared to create such a plan; however, that case suggests
this

was

done

on

an

ad

hoc

basis

rather

than

through

a

formal planning entity.
The major problem appears to be one of organization,
but

this

is

emphasis

misleading.

of

continuous,

most

planning

and the

are

just

confusion

arises

definitions

on

from
the

the
term

implied scope of the planning process.

Comprehensive plans,
basis

The

maintained

not

on a formal

practical

for

and continuous

most

institutions.

Reacting to this incongruity in an exiguous manner by paying
lip

service

altogether,
problem

to
is

planning,or

equally

lies

in

entrepreneurial

ignoring

unrealistic.

Drucker's

decisions.

The

the
answer

definition;
.

.

."

with

function
to

. .
an

the

making

emphasis

on

"strategy."

product

Industry has long been aware

of the need to relate

worth

the

toproduct

Miles

developed

micro

analytical

Carlos

Fallon

a

cost.

technique
basis,

(1964)

for

it

is

offers

a

In

1940s,

accomplishing
known

as

somewhat

value

Lawrence
this

on

a

analysis.

simplistic,

accurate definition:
Value analysis/value engineering is a functionally
oriented scientific method for improving product
value by relating the elements of product worth to
their corresponding elements of product cost in

but

171
order to accomplish the required function at least
cost in resources.
The

application

of

this

technique,

first

to

the

planning function problem, and subsequently to institutional
planning

problems,

provide

a

requiring

solution

for

strategic

the

analysis,

organizational

could

question

of

establishing a framework for rational planning and control.
Assumptions,
the

as

this

review has

substantive

including/excluding

demonstrated,

linkage
planning

for

topics

of

can

provide

incrementally
importance

to

the

strategic management/planning process.
Periodic,

comprehensive

review

of

long-range

strategic plans is probably necessary at most institutions.
However,

planning

continuing basis,
projects
sense,

or

one

continuous

resources

should

for only those

programs
or more

analysis;

requiring

planning
the mix

be

committed,

carefully selected,
current

packages

review.

may be

of topics

and

on

a

vital

In

this

subjected

to

projects being

determined by the needs and interest of top management, the
resources

for

this

analysis

should

be

recruited

from

all

areas of the institution, as needed.
Only one aspect of strategic planning,
should be

continuously reviewed

by the planning staff.

and amended,

This process will,

assumptions,
as necessary,

of course, help

management assign priority to the various planning projects,
maintaining a balance between the planning resources and the
strategic planning needs of the institution.

172

Policy
The product

of planning is policy.

This review of

literature has covered the planning process, beginning with
early theoretical
planning

development

methodology.

and

Both

concluded with

the

strategic

organization

and

environment combine to form the planning context,
world as it were, where planners must function.
of this labor,
is policy.

its

the real

The product

using the planning tools available to them,

This section of the review of literature deals

with the process

of policy formulation, which occurs

once

the investigative phase of planning has yielded information
and assumptions necessary for decision-making.
Autonomy is a property of organization and, as such,
is an

integral

focus

of

a

part

of

its value

continuing

educational

institutions

agencies.

A

crucial

debate
and

state

question

is

system.

It

between

is also

postsecondary

regulatory
how

the

does

and

the

funding
issue

of

autonomy manifest itself in the planning process: as policy,
as a goal,
process?

or as a myth which restricts the decision-making
If policy,

on what goal is it focused;

if a goal,

how will its achievement lead to fulfillment of mission?
a myth, how does

it influence planning assumptions and can

it obfuscate performance?
is to ask,

If

Another way to frame the question

is autonomy an object of action; the impetus for

action or a source of inertia?
Goal was
sought

in pursuit

defined as

".

. .a

of the mission. "306

set of circumstances
wouia seem this

definition

would

postsecondary
Anthony

173
autonomy

exclude

educational

and

Dearden

organizations

as

institutions,
on

is accepted;

the
".

a

goal

if the

mission

for

position

of

. . the goal

most
of

nonprofit

of a nonprofit

organization is not to widen the difference between outputs
and inputs.

Rather,

its goal

is to render as much service

as is possible with a given amount of resources . . .

307

Policy is defined by Thompson and Strickland as,
. the organizational methods, procedures, rules, and
administrative

practices

associated

strategic plan into results.
form,

the

managerial

organizational
strategic

thrust

mechanisms

success.”508

hierarchical

dichotomy

distinguishes

between

organization
organization

purpose,

It

in

place

that

the

is

is

definition
by

the

(In

terms

clear,

then,

set

support

reflects

authors,

both
are

to

will

implementation,

strategy.

the

Whatever the scope and
policy

advocated
decision

converting

of

This

literature

interchangeable.)

. . .

with

a

which

policy,

and

management

and

frequently

autonomy

is

used
not

a

policy as narrowly defined by Thompson and Strickland.
It is also unlikely that a convincing argument could
be made

for autonomy as a strategy,

accept

the

organization
boundary

general

systems

structure.

if,

concept

Absolute

is willing to

of

autonomy

exchanges between the autonomous

other organism.

one

open/closed
precludes

entity and every

The organization with absolute autonomy is

a perfectly closed system,

experiencing no exchanges across

its

"boundaries

174
permitting no

and

autonomy

for

parts

or

subparts within its boundaries.
On
measure

the

other

hand,

autonomy

is

relative,

is a

for determining the strength and directionality of

influence

exerted

between

relationship may be
dominant

member

transaction
organisms

the

interact,

interacting

described

gives

than

two

up

in terms

less

other

organisms;

each

of dominance.

The

autonomy

member;

in

when

effecting

shares

each

than

set,

each pair

as in an organizational

transaction,

interacting
can be

accumulated

concerning

the

member

forecast

the

other.

will

greatest
The

after

the

of which member

amount

member

two

The eventual

retain

on the basis

the

more

of members will establish such a relationship.

has

it

of

information

controlling

the

vital

resource(s) will give little information and demand a great
deal.

In this sense autonomy is a surrogate for measuring

dominance,
called

a

the

impetus

policy

or

a

for

action,

strategy

and

could

be

according

to

has

noted,

properly

Thompson

and

Strickland; but for what purpose?
Strategic

planning,

as

been

leads

to

decision-making or choosing one course of action as superior
to

other

actions.

alternative
The

(includes

elaboration

the

of that

option

choice,

of
plan,

no

action)

is policy

formulation; the final step in the strategic planning cycle.
Policy implementation,

is the first step

control cycle, using Anthony's continuum.

in the management

175
Ewing offers a dichotomy for evaluating policy hased
on the decision-maker's perspective: outside-in;
He

suggests

that

some

policy-makers

reflect

inside-out.

an

outside-in

approach rationale.
As Theodore Levitt observes in a famous statement
of marketing philosophy: 'an industry begins with
the customer and his needs, not with^a patent, a
raw material, or a selling skill!
Applying this notion to an educational setting would
suggest working back from the mission of
to

teaching students,

theselection of teachers possessing the correct

skills

and values, to the maintenance of adequate facilities in the
proper

location.

In

classical

economics

such

organization would be characterized as a need taker.

an

511

Outside-in thinking always emphasizes fitting the
organization to the market or public need, adapting
to anticipated opportunity, responding to external
change.
Its trademark is the primacy of the
forecast.
De
adaptive.

Greene

describes

this

type

of

organization

as

He suggests that modern organizations should be

thought of as dynamically interacting subsystems consisting
of

social,

technological,

psychological

and

political

components.
Maintaining congruence or fit between the
organization and its environments has emerged as
probably the single most important function of top
management.
Maintaining fit cannot be done without
anticipating changes in the internal and externa!
environments and in tfre organizatlon-environment
interrelationships.
The

type

of

interrelationships

De Greene

describes

fully involves the focal organization with its environment,
through

boundary

spanning

roles

assigned

to

functions and levels within the organization.

a

variety

of

176

Applied to organizations the structures, equipment,
personnel, techniques, functions, plans and actions
that handle organization-environment interactions
are referred to as boundary-spanners.514
As

these

boundary-spanning

roles

are

performed,

information concerning each of the interacting organizations
is exchanged, and the bargaining chip, according to Prey, is
autonomy.5
The

other

inside-out

a

p

p

r

o

rationale assume
influence
would

over

tend

c

h

.

516

offered

the

specific

emphasize

and their

by

Policy-makers

their organization

to

organizations

a

perspective

Ewing

reflecting

the
this

exerts some measure of

environment.

differences

relative

is

Further,

between

strengths

they

competing

and weaknesses.

This strategy is decidedly market oriented in the sense that
■51

7

the environment can be manipulated or enacted.
. . . The inside-out approach . . . leads to
different results from outside-in because of the
different role assigned to forecasting.
It also
leads managers to place different priorities on the
information-gathering process so important in
strategic planning; information about
organizational strengths and weaknesses, instead of
being a kind of check or limiting factor, as in
outside-in, becomes a crucial starting point which
sets the whole tenor and scope of strategic
analysis. . . . inside-out will lead management to
search more intensively . . . for alternative goals
and programs.51°
The

inside-out

organization is more
set

is central

to

approach

suggests

continuity of the

important than which mission or goal-

that

existence.

However,

this

approach

also includes

boundary spanning roles, in fact, they may be

more

in

critical

rationale.

this

Managing

approach
information

than
flow

under

the

is pivotal

outside-in
for both

the

exercise

177
avoidance of

and

influence

resulting

from

interactions between organizations.
What information is available about organizational
actions is the outcome of a political process in
which social actors, each trying to advance its
interests, attempt to acquire or withhold
information as it serves their position in the
political struggle.519
This,
educational

then,

is

the

institutions:

problem

opt

for

facing

an

postsecondary

outside-in

approach

(traditional) and take what the environment will offer; or,
elect

an

inside-out

approch

and

attempt

to

adapt

the

organization to the most favorable market position through a
combination

of

matching

environment,

and

organization

more

resources.

However,

sacrificed;

or

organizational

influencing

the

environment

in

utilizing

effective
in

each

conversely,

strengths

a

dominate

loss

is selected,

of legitimation as

its

case, some

the

make

the

available

autonomy

position

achieved by one of the interacting parties.
second alternative

to

to

will

is
be

Further, if the

the organization also risks

it changes

its mission

or role

to

ensure continuity.
This

problem

is

faced

by

all

members

of

the

organization set, including regulatory and funding agencies.
Frey’s case study
autonomy

to

postsecondary

provides an example where the policy of

achieve

dominance

educational

policy revealing itself as
described

by Emery and

turbulent,

environment

environment.

by

one

institutions
a myth;

Trist,

resulted

in

of
the

with the added problem,

occurring when

is treated

segment

as

a type

a type four,
two,

placid,

178

Prey

describes

the

creation

of

intermediary

organizations by interacting members of the higher education
organization

set in

organization,

the Council

the

State

contacts

the

legislature)
of

legislators

State

of

Washington.

of Higher

reduced

the individual
and demanded

One

Education,

the

specific

(created by

information

institutions

such

with

gathering
individual

information.

The

President's Council was created by the institutions to limit
the

information

flowing

to

the

legislators

and

provide

a

more efficient vehicle for collecting information for member
institutions.

Each

of

these

intermediary

organizations,

however, once established, retained some autonomy from their
transactions,
more

complex

and
and

the

turbulent;

organizations

served

coupled.^2®

Both the

for

Higher

evolving

Education

to make

specific
these

the

President's
could

be

environment became

additional

mediating

environment

more

Council

the

expected

and
to

tightly
Council

selectively

withhold information in an effort to establish and maintain
some degree of autonomy for themselves.
One of the inherent dangers in over-centralized
planning and direction in a system is the tendency
of the central governing or coordinating agency to
instigate uniform policies as controlling devices
. . . Thus, the most defensible stance for the
central leadership is decision-making through
broadly uniform policies and procedures.
Not
infrequently, however, institituions find that
conformity to such rigid policies is at
cross-purpose with good management practices.-^'
Glenny, more than thirty years ago listed increasing
complexity as a reason for coordination of higher education.

179

Even when political maneuvering did not influence
legislative action, the determination of the
relative needs of a complex university, a landgrant institution, and other colleges required
information too voluminous and technical for
legislatures to gather and inperpret.
As a partial
solution, numerous states began to centralize the
control of some if not all of their institutions .522
Glenny

also

responsible

noted
for

coordination;

that

many

as

economic

states

moving

the

publics

was

considerations
toward

some

demand

were

form

for

of

greater

efficiency and less bickering between institutions.523
Dunbar

noted,

"The

need

for

performing

certain

of

these functions recently has been recognized by the Michigan
Council of State College Presidents.
been

created

and

purpose."524
report by

has

been

by

which

Glenny.

the

Universities

of Michigan;

Association

Vocational

essentially

the

legitimacy and

included many

The

Association;

Private

provided with a

staff for

this

ihe functions he alluded to were listed in a

R u s s e l l , 525

enumerated

A voluntary agency has

same

Michigan
of

of the

concerns

Community

College

Independent

Colleges

and

and the Michigan Organization of

Schools

were

purpose,

improve

effectiveness as

organized
the

to

level

serve

of member

perceived by their various

publics.
In
force

1973>

after

appointed by

reported

its

coordination,
education.
pre-eminent

more

than

the Education

conclusions
governance

The

task

of

work,

Commission of the

and

and

force

a year

task

States

recommendations

structure

agreed

a

that,

of
11The

on

postsecondary
states

have
"526

responsibility for postsecondary education.'1

180

It further
period

endorsed the concept of diversity;

of

leveling-off

college-age

population,

or

decrease

along

in

with

recognized a

the

other

traditional
social

and

demographic change; and listed the basic characteristics for
. . an effective coordinating agency or governing agency
charged with statewide planning . .
1. Broadened responsibility for the range of
postsecondary education— public, private and
proprietary— at least in relation to planning . . .
2. Concern for education innovation and new forms
of educational 'delivery* . . .
3. Concern for articulation with
a. State departments of education . . .
b. Career and occupational education . . .
c. The various segments of what has been
considered higher education . . .
d. Individualized learning, home study,
proprietary education and nontraditional
studies
e. Other educational enterprises including
industry* business, labor and the armed
forces P 2-'
The task force also recommended that where multiple
statewide
central

agencies

agency,

exist,

and

each

they should
state

authority

and

responsibility

consistent

with

that

that planning and

authority.

be

should
and
The

coordinated

determine

develop

levels

state

task force

by a
of

plans

concluded

implementation were the key to effective

coordination and governance:
1. Two critical objectives for the planning process
must be pursued simultaneously:

181

a. To determine the goals of postsecondary
educational systems and the institutions and
programs in the light of the changing needs of
society
h. To use
review to
community
goals and

the planning process for continuous
establish, through institutional and
involvement, a consensus for the
their means of attainment

2. A flexible advisory structure assures that
relevant information and advice will be received on
a continuing basis
5• Essential to effective planning are an accurate
and consistent assessment of current trends and'
changing conditions, and the reconsideration and
reassessment of the meaog of attaining goals in the
light of those changes.
Finally,
legislative
should

the

and

support

appropriate

task

force

executive

branches

planning

and

state

educational

concluded

that

of

government

state

coordination
agency

and

the

through

the

role

an

of

the

federal governement should be one of partnership with local,
institutional,
partnership

and

the

state

task

interests.

force

urged

".

To

achieve

. . Congress

this

and

the

Administration to develop federal legislation and guidelines
for

postsecondary

education

that

uniqueness of individual states.

take

..."

account

of

the

329

The task force suggested that the state educational
agency

assigned

the

coordinating

function

”.

.

. b e

accountable to the state government for planning, review and
related

procedures

legislative

and

institutions

should

"

.

.

• post

and

for

executive
be

audits

free
to

recommendations

action."530
of

Further,

pre-audits

determine

that

requiring

but

that

subject

institutional

to
and

182

program

objectives

and

proper

fiscal

"The

state

achieved.Finally,
primary,
and

comprehensive

recommendations

and
for

branches of government.
The

task

institutions
environment

were

would
of

tightly coupled,

objective
the

source

executive

expressed

followed,
be

the

agency

have been

should

be

a

of information

and

legislative

. . .”532

force

recommendations

management

the

belief

both

the

agency

strengthened.

Of

organizational-set

the number

of

that

would

contacts

if

its

and

the

course,

the

become

more

along boundaries

would be increased, and domination would be transferred from
the

legislature

to

an

administrative

intermediary,

separating the institutions from the resources they require
for survival.
Palola
terms

and

Padgett

look

of politicalization.

increased

politicalization

They

at

the

autonomy

suggest

is likely

to

the

issue

in

trend toward

continue.

First,

the rapid and pervasive growth of education during the 1950s
and

1960s

resulted

in

greater

visability.

States

had

to

create or at least increase existing staff to accommodate if
not control the growth.
new

conception

of

With this growth ” . . .

public

higher

education

as

has come a
an

integral

part of society subject to the same pressures and procedures
as any other state service.
Second,
sense

of

revealing

organizational

community
coalitions

which

climate

shrouded

and/or

has

faculty

powerful

erroded.
was

individuals

The

removed,
taking

183
their

case

for

special

programs and

interests

funding agencies and the legislature,
more visable

to state

officials and

directly

to

"What has become much
to the general

public

are the various groups within the institution all struggling
to promote their own interests,

often at an expense to the

citizens of the state."334

jn SOme cases politicalization

has

with

been

and/or

institutionalized

officers

ensconced

in

public

the

state

relations
capital

offices

to

ensure

effective communication.
A third
militancy

exhibited

during the

by

evidencing
both

politicalization

faculty

1960s and early 1970s.

activities,
engaged

force,

and

is

student

the

groups

"In addition to student

faculties have formed unions and

in some cases

in strikes to promote by political means their own

interests.
Fourth, the importance of an educational institution
or

branch

terms,

has

campus
not

to

gone

a

community,

unnoticed

by

especially
legislators

in

economic

seeking

to

solidify a power base or a candidate seeking a constituency.
"Not only is the spread of new campuses vital to the vested
interests
also

of

reflects

certain
the

politicians

growing

and

awareness

investment in future economic health.

communities,
of

education

but

it

as

an

Of course, a new

campus brought with it increased educational opportunity for
those students unable to afford the expense of living away
from home.

184
A final reason offered "by the authors for increased
politicalization

is

due

contemporary problems.
more

involved

contact

with

increased;

in

other

higher

education's

role

in

As colleges and universities become

urban

local,

to

and

state

areas

environmental

issues

and

even

federal

include

ROTC

programs,

their

agencies

has

affirmative

action, and military research.
Each
traditional

of

boundaries

awareness by

activities

of

its publics

dependencies.
tightly

these

higher
and

has

education,

clients

expanded

the

created

more

of mission,

and more

Education's organizational set is both more

coupled

and

more

vulnerable

in

a

turbulent

environment.
The increased politicalization of higher
education has several consequences for autonomy in
educational planning . . . because this period has
been one of great growth . . . educators have been
willing to accept certain local and state controls
regarding budget approval and program formulation.
In most cases, colleges and universities accepted
these new procedures, showed great flexibility in
their operations, and developed in directions most
appropriate to their own objectives.
These efforts
resulted in substantial improvements in academic
autonomy even though legally and formally
institutions
lost some of their traditional
independence.
Glenny
share

a

(1959)

common

Terrebarry (1968).
Terrebarry

would

and Palola and Padgett

view

of

autonomy

with

(1971)

Erey

do not

(1977)

or

Researchers sharing the view of Erey and
argue

that

autonomy

is

negotiated

and

represents one characteristic of a relationship between two
organisms

engaged

in

a

transaction;

those

sharing

the

position taken by Glenny and Palola and Padgett would argue

185
it is a "right” defined in contractural terms.
each

position

evidence

to

been

defended

and

claims.

The key point for this

support their

dissertation
".

has

rests

in

Palola's

both

Of course,

and

groups

Padgett's

cite

statement

. . as the degree of interdependence among organizations

increased

and

the

rate

of

social

change

accelerated,

organizations were forced to become sensitive to, and learn
how

to

their

deal

with,

autonomy

existence."

their

and

in

However,

environment

some
the

cases

to

position

in

order

guarantee

of Prey

and

to

protect

their

very

Terrebarry

would argue that some of these organizations did trade some
770

portion of their autonomy for survival.
The Palola and Padgett study suggests that a turning
point
higher
1970s.

in

theory

application,

education,

at

least

as

occurred during the late

it

applied

to

1960s and early

"A rigid formal hierarchy and stable rule system are

now often

dysfunctional

Thus a new approach,

features

of complex

organizations.

called the 1open-systems strategy'

has

developed to meet the problems posed by rapid social change
and environmental

i n f l u e n c e s

.

Unfortunately the promise

of this approach has not been realized by many postsecondary
educational institutions.
Conclusion
This is not a summary of the material covered in the
review,

for

synthesis.
simply

a

after
This,

all
the

restatement,

that

was

concluding
in

a

both
part,

bit

more

a

summary

of the

and

review,

detail,

of

a
is
the

186

introductory comment which described the

framework for the

review of the literature.
The
was

to

researcher’s purpose

establish both

a

in

designing

theoretical

and,

this

where

review

possible,

empirical basis for the research to be described in chapter
three.

The

review

Organization;

covered

three

and Environment.

using the variables:

broad

Each

structure,

topics:

Planning;

subject was

analyzed

strategy and performance in

a postsecondary educational setting.
The topic planning included the subjects of: theory;
budgets; long-range planning; comprehensive/master planning;
strategic

planning;

assumption

formulation;

policy

formulation and implementation.
The
theory;

topic organization,

structure;

including

mission,

efficiency

included

role

and

and

the subjects

scope;

of:

performance,

effectiveness;

goals

and

objectives; boundary; boundary spanning roles; and domain.
The

topic environment,

organizational

climate;

included

specific

the subjects

environment;

of:

general

environment; social indicators; and environmental scanning.
These
provided
context
than

the

topics,
ground

it was
fact;

’’autonomy"
agencies

has

also

for

the

demonstrated
that

postsecondary

subjects

and

analytical

figure,

autonomy.

that

autonomy

conventional

wisdom

educational
failed,
desiring

institutions

and

those

to protect

variables

is more

regulating

this

a myth

practiced

wishing

their

In

by

to

protect

and

funding

autonomy

actually

187
in those states which introduced coordinating

saw it erode,
agencies;

the

additional

structure

turbulence already pervasive

simply

added

in the environment.

to

the

It would

appear that statewide coordination, or the threat of such an
agency has produced more losers then winners.
Michigan,
colleges

and

excellent

one of very few states to grant its state

universities

test

coordination

bed

has

for

constitutional

determining

produced

a

viable

if

autonomy,
the

is

immunity

network

of

an

from

operating

institutions with well defined planning systems; or, if they
too

have

failed

to

develop,

voluntarily,

viable

planning

techniques, as have institutions subjected to the additional
turbulence created by the presence of coordinating agencies.
If that

is the

case what untried

alternatives

are left

to

improve the ability of postsecondary education institutions
to develop strategies for
and

services

enjoy

the

in

a

delivering their valued products

turbulent

academic

environment,

freedom,

if

not

and

the

continue

autonomy,

to

they

require to maintain a high level of quality?
The
potential
the

first

for

step,

of

course,

a coordinated planning

postsecondary

organization

set.

is

to

determine

effort by members
This

is

the

research

effectively
developed;

suggests

then
if,

only

on the

that
a

institutions

coordination

other hand,

are

model

planning

of

major

thrust of the research reported in this dissertation.
the

the

If,

planning

needs

to

be

is marginal

or

poorly defined then a planning model will also be required.

188
In

no

case,

should

a

however,

given

the

concepts

coordinating/organization

presented

solution

above,

be

given

that

adding

priority.
The
structure
produce
What

thesis

of

an

already

to

more

diversity

is needed

members

of

this

dissertation

turbulent

or

quality

is

environment
in

will

educational

not

goods.

is a vehicle for gaining congruence between

the

educational

set,

which

includes

the

legislature, on the nature of those educational goods, their
distribution
with

and

cost.

development

of

Once
simple

institutions through their own

this

is

accomplished,

performance

along

criteria,

initiative could find zones

of effectiveness, niches, for mission focus.

Concurrent and

commensurate with the institution’s independent effort,
legislature

should

enact

the

policies

which

would,

the

through

a

system of incentives and penalties, provide the organization
set both

coordination and thrust

publics and clients.

to meet

the needs

of its

The argument is well stated by Cyert:

The major problem in planning is, of course, the
lack of market prices and Professor Pox argues (in
Chapter 10) for substituting weights as estimated
by the relevant administrator to units of various
outputs as a substitute for a pricing system.
Conventional techniques can then be used to
determine an optimum allocation of resources, given
the weighting scheme.
I have some sympathy for
this approach, but I think that it is not
sufficiently sophisticated.
I believe that the
whole problem of determining these weights is the
central consideration the solution of which is
lacking not only in most universities, but also in
many profit-making organizations.
The decisions
involving the internal allocation of resources in a
firm pose exactly the same problems as decisions
determining the allocation for a university; one
problem is the inability to determine the benefits

189
from allocating certain resources to particular
kinds of activities— advertising being one example.
More generally, I am arguing that a major problem
in making planning more quantitative is the
determination of the goals of the organization.
In
universities, in particular, we lack knowledge on
how to determine a set of goals and priorities.
Without such a set of goals and priorities, the
process of resource allocation is one that is
political.
The resources allocated to a particular
output depend on the kinds of influence that can be
asserted by various administrative officers making
the allocation decisions.
Thus an allocation of
resurces is made that is not related directly to
either the value of output in the market or the
goals of the institution.
Even the procedure
recommended by Eox might still fall into this
category because the weights might be determined
politicaly. . . .
. . . one of the major factors that is untouched in
the book is the need for more elaborate information
systems than currently exist within most
universities.
We need to have better cost data and
better means of searching the environment for
trends and changes in the values of various
potential outputs of the.university in both
education and research.
Models,

with

solution

potential,

are

described

in

the

recommendations chapter of this dissertation.
The following chapter describes a research strategy
for

inventorying

institutions
exploratory
research

the

located
and

planning
in

the

descriptive

hypotheses

were

be

attributes
State

of

methodology
developed.

of

postsecondary

Michigan.
was
The

Since

employed,
theory

no
and

empirical evidence presented in literature reviewed in this
chapter will serve as the basis for analysis and comparison,
if required.

190
NOTES
iThis framework was suggested by Lee E.
Preston,
Structure + Strategy = Performance, ed.Hans
B.
Thorelli
(Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1977), PP* 30-49*
^Henri Payol, General and Industrial Management
York: Pitman Publishing Corporation, 1949), PP* 44— 46*

(New

^Charles
Perrow,
Organization
Analysis:
A
Sociological View (Monteray, C a . : Brooks/Cole Publishing
Company, 1970), p. 14*
^J. Kent Caruthers and Melvin Orwig, Budgeting In
Higher Education (Washington, D.C.: The American Association
Tor Higher Education, 1979), PP* 6-7* The authors cite
various positions held by other authors
on this issue,
including Pyhrr and Wildavsky.
^Reginald L. Jones and H. George Trentin, Budgeting:
Key to Planning and Control (New York: American Management
Association, 19bb), P* 14, cited in Ibid., p. 6.
C

Definitions
reflect
the work
of the
following
authors cited in Caruthers and Orwig, Ibid., pp. 36-54:
Incremental
Budgeting
Caruthers
and Orwig;
Eormula
Budgeting, James L. Miller, Jr.; P.P.B.S., Kenworthy; ZeroBase Budgeting, NACUBO; and Performance Budgeting, Allen
Schick.
7Ibid., p. 33-34*
O
David
W.
Ewing,
ed.,
Long-Range
Planning
For
Management (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1% 4 ) , p7
ix.
^Sidney G. Tickton, Ibid., pp. 505-523*
^ P r e s t o n P. LeBreton and Dale A. Henning, Planning
Theory (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.'i 1961 ),
p. vii.
^ ^Ibid., p. v i i i .
12Ibid., pp. 5-21.
^ Ib id .,

p. 10.

14
^For the complete list see p. 43*
Randy Boxx and Jerry W. Johnson,,"An Examination
of formalized Planning as Currently Used in Institutions of
Higher Learning," Planning For Higher Education 8 (Summer,
1980):39*

191
1 fi
Paul
Jedamus
and
Marvin
W.
Peterson,
eds.,
Improving Academio Management (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers, 1980), p. xii.

17

Juan A. Casasco, Planning Techniques For University
Management (Washington* D.C.: American Council On Education,
1970), p. 1 .
18 Ibid., pp. 21-22.
19lt)id., p. 21.
20

David S. P. Hopkins and William F. Massy, Planning
Models
For
Colleges
and
Universities
(Stanford^
Ca.7
Stanford University Press, 1981 ) , pT 21*7
CAMPUS was also
reviewed by Casasco, Ibid., p. 17*
^ B a r b a r a Lee Bleau,
"Faculty Planning Models: A
Review of the Literature," The Journal of Higher Education
53 (March/April, 1982):195-2UFT
^ H o p k i n s and Massy, Ibid., pp. 340-382.
23

Hopkins and Massy cite reviews of education related
models by: Paul Gray, 1976, "College and University Planning
Models,"
Paper read at the Conference on Academic Planning
sponsored by University of Southern California; Richard C.
Grinold, David S. P. Hopkins, and William F. Massy, Bell
Journal of Economics 9 (1978):396-420; Richard
C. Grinold
and Kneale T. Marshall, Manpower Planning Models (New York:
American Elsevier,
1977T; Bobert W .
Oliver", "Analysis of
Public Systems eds., A. Drake, Ralph L. Keeney, and P. M.
Morse (Cambridge, Mass.: The M.I.T. Press, 1972); Roger G.
Schroeder,
"A Survey of Management Science in University
Operations," Management Science 19 (1973):895-906.
^ R i c h a r d Stone, "A Model of the Educational System,"
Minerva 3 (Winter, 1965)s172—186.
25
^Jan Tinbergen and H. C. Bos, Economic Models of
Education
(Paris,
France:
Organization
for
Economic
Cooperation and Development, 1965)*
Also see Jan Tinbergen,
Stefan Jensen and Barry Hake, Possible Futures of European
Education (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1972).
^Hector
Correa,
ed.,
Analytical
Educational Planning and Administration (New
McKay Company, Inc., 1975) , P*

Models
in
York: David

2^Ludwig von Bertalanffy, General Systems Theory (New
York: George Braziller, 1968), p. 24*
PR

Charles Perrow, Complex Organizations: A Critical
Essay (Glenview, 111.: Scott, Foreman and Company, 1979), p*
2S4T "

192
^Thorelli,
Ibid.,
"Organizational
Theory:
An
Ecological View," in Strategy + Structure = Performance,
ed. Hans B. Thorelli (Bloomington: Indiana University Press,
1977), p. 284.
•^Perrow, Ibid., p. 238.
51 Ibid., p. 200.
•*2
'
R.
L.
Ackoff,
"System,
Organizations
and
Interdisciplinary Research,"
General Systems Yearbook 5
(Society for General Systems Research, 1960):1-8.
■^H. Igor Ansoff and Robert L. Hayes. From Strategic
Planning to Strategic Management. H. Igor Ansoff, Roger P.
Declerck an<f Robert L. Hayes, eTs. (New York: John Wiley and
Sons, 1976), p. 1 .
■^James G. March and Herbert A. Simon, Organizations
(New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958), p . 84 •
•^Talcott, Parsons, Sociology Today , eds. Robert K.
Merton, Leonard Broom, and Leonard S. Cottrell, Jr. (New
York: Basic Books, 1959), pp. 10-14.
^F.
E. Emery,
ed.
Systems Thinking (Baltimore:
Penguin Books, Inc., 1969), p* 10.
Bertalanffy, Ibid., p.
11 , notes that Kohler had made an early contribution to the
field of general system theory with the publication of
Physical Gestalten in 1924, and more direct contribution in
a later work in 1927•
57Ibid.
38Ibid.
•^Ibid., p. 11.
4°Ibid.
^ Henri Fayol, Long-Range Planning For
ed. David W. Ewing (New York: Harper and Row,
1964), pp. 52-53-

Management,
Publishers,

^Harold
Koontz
and
Cyril
O'Donnell,
Planning For Management, ed. David W. Ewing
Harper and Row, Publishers, 1964), p* 32.
Ibid., pp. 23-30.

Long-Range
(New York:

^Brian
Scott,
Long-Range
Planning
in
American
Industry (New York: American Management Association”, Inc.
1965), p. 23.
^ L e B r e t o n and Henning, Ibid., pp. 22-58.

193
4 6Ibid., p. 342 .

47Ibid., p. 34348lbid.

4 -^Shirley
E.
Salloway
and
Martha
W.
Tack,
"Comprehensive
Planning:
An
Organizational
Approach,"
Planning Eor Higher Education 7 (October, 1978):6.
^ L e l a n d Allen lahr," A Compartative Study of LongRange Planning At Selected Independent Colleges in the State
of
Michigan11
(Ph.D.
Dissertation,
Michigan
State
University, 1980), pp. 141-150.
^i b i d . , p. 4952Ibid., p. 141 •
Boxx and

Johnson, Ibid., pp. 25-40.

54ibid., p. 58.
55

Ernest G. Palola and William Padgett, Planning for
Self-Renewal:
A Mew Approach to Planned Organizational
Change
(Berkeley: Center for Research and Development In
Higher Education, University of California), p. 86.
This
study was aided by prior work done by E. G. Palola, T.
Lenmann, and W. R. Blischke reported in Higher Education by
Design: The Sociology of Planning (Berkeley: University of
California, Center for Research and Development in Higher
Education, 1970).
5 6 Ibid.,

pp. 22-24.

^7 Ibid., p. 44.
^7aJ. Kent Caruthers, "Strategic Master
Directions
For
Institutional
Research.
8
iW)':T7-"2B:

Plans," New
(September,

^8 Palola and Padgett, Ibid., p. 17*
59satish
B.
Parekh,
Long-Range
Planning
Rochelle, N.Y.: Change Magzine Press, 1977), p. 9-

(New

60Ibid., p. 10.
61 Ibid., p. 11.
62Ibid., p. 70.

63

E. Kirby Warren, Long-Range Planning: The Executive
Viewpoint
(Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.:
Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
;z);
p.- 25 .

194
^George
A.
Steiner,
ed.,
Managerial
Long-Range
Planning (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 19£>3), P* 1•
65Ibid., p. 15Fremont E. Kast and James B. Rosenzweig, "General
Systems
Theory:
Applications
for
Organization
and
Management",Academy of Management Journal 15 (1972):463, as
cited in Anant R. Negandhi, General Systems and Organization
Theory: Methodological Aspects, ed. Arlyn J~. Melcher (The
Comparative Administration Research Institute of the Center
For Business and Economic Research,
Graduate School of
Business Administration, Kent State University, 1975), p.
118.
^ K e n n e t h E. Boulding, The Image (Ann Arbor: The
University of Michigan Press, 1 956), p. 27•
/To
Arlyn
J.
Melcher,
Structure
Process
of
Organization
(New York:
Prentice-Hall,
TW5T1
cited
In
Negandhi, Ibid., p. 118.
Anant R. Negandhi,

Ibid., p . 119-

^ R o b e r t N. Anthony, Planning a.nd Control Systems: A
Framework For Analysis (Boston: Harvard Univesity, 19&5),
71 Igor Ansoff, Corporate Strategy
Hill Book Company, 1965), p* 39^

(New York: McGraw-

7^R. m . Cyert and J. G. March, A Behavioral Theory of
the Firm (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 19^3),
cited in Ibid., p. 35*
7-^Michael H. Moskow, Strategic Planning in Business
and
Government
(New York:
Committee
for
Economic
Development, 1978), p. 6.
74.

H. IgorAnsoff, Roger
P. Declerck
and Robert L.
Hayes, eds., From Strategic Planning to Strategic Management
(New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1976), p. 40.
75 a . Schick, "A Death in the Bureaucracy: The Demise
of Federal PPB," Public Administration Review (March/April,
1973): ^46, cited in Ibid.
PierreDavous
and
James
Deas,
From
Strategic
Planning to Strategic Management, eds. Ansoff, Declerck and
Hayes. Ibid., p. 79*
77

'Stanley
Young, "Some
Dimensions
of Strategic
Planning
For Higher
Education,"
Planning For Higher
Education 9 (Summer, 1981):1—7-

195
78Peter P. Drucker, "Long-Range Planning," Management
Science (April, 1959):3779Henri Payol, Ibid., p. 43*
8®LeBreton and Henning, Ibid., p. 78 ^Robert N. Anthony, Ibid., pp. 16-18.

82Ibid., p. 21 .
85Ibid.
84Ibid., p. 30
8 5ibid., pp. 34- 35 .
86Ibid., p. 51•
87Peter P. Drucker, Managing in Turbulent Times
York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1980J, p. 5T7

(new

88Ansoff and Hayes, Ibid.
89Marvin W. Peterson, Improving Academic Management,
eds., Paul Jedamus and Marvin W~. Peterson (San Prancsco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1980), p. 21.
98Anthony, Ibid., pp. 16-18.

91Ibid., p. 26.
9^Peter
P.
Drucker,
Management, ed. David Ewing
Publishers, 1964), p. 8 .
9^Scott t Ibid., p. 21.

94Ibid., p. 22.
95Ibid., p. 2396Ibid., pp. 29-30.
97Ibid., p. 63.
98George

A.

Steiner,

Long-Range
Planning Por
(New York: Harper and Row,

196

^I b i d . ,
pp.
37-38,
cited also as using listed
elements were Robert N. Anthony, "Framework For Analysis in
Management
Planning,"
Management
Services
(March/April,
1964;: 18-24; Idem, 1 9 6 3 Planning and Control Systems, and
George A. Steiner and Warren M. Cannon, eds., Multinational
Corporate Planning (New York: Crowell-Collier and MacMillan
Company, 19bb.
1^Peterson,

Ibid. , pp. 127-139*

101Ibid., p. 140.
102Ibid., p. 150.
105Ibid., p. 141 *
1°^Ibid.
1^ F r e m o n t Kast
and James Rosenzweig,
Forward to
Organization; Theory and Design, ed., Patrick E. Connor
(Chicago; Science Research Associates, Inc., 1980), p. x i .
^ ^ J . E. T. Eldridge and A. D. Crombie, A Sociology of
Organizations (London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd, 1974),
PP* 37-56.
The authors summarize organizational typologies
developed by a variety of scholars from Weber to Goffman and
of particular interest to this study: Ackoff; Vickers; Katz
and Kahn; Parsons; Blau and Scott; Thompson and Etzioni.
10^Daniel
Katz
and
Robert
L.
Kahn,
The
Social
Psychology of Organizations (New York: John Wiley and Sons,
I nc., 1966), p . 113.
Also cited in Eldridge and Crombie,
Ibid., pp. 38-39*
1 OR

R. Jean Hills, Toward a Science of Organization
(Eugene:
Center For the Advanced Study of Educational
Administration, University of Oregon,
1968), pp. 19-21.
Referenced also in Eldrige and Crombie, Ibid., p. 39* While
the term model is used to describe this aspect of Parson's
work the problem of synthesis has accrued to other scholars
such as Hills.
^^E ld ri dg e and Crombie, Ibid., p. 61.
110James D. Thompson, Organization in
York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1967), P* 127•

Action

(New

^ ^L e o n a r d
Romney,
Measure
of
Institutional
Goal
Achievement
(Boulder,
Co.!
National
Center
for
Higher
Education Management System, 1978), p. 1.

197
^-^Robert N. Anthony
Control Systems (Homewood,
19 8 0 ) p. 644.

and John Dearden, Management
II.: Richard D. Irwin, Inc.,

1U Hills, Ibid., pp. 44-49.
Ibid., p. 2 .
116Katz and Kahn, Ibid.
^ "^Jeffrey
Pfeffer
and
Gerald
R.
Salancik,
The
External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence
Perspective (New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1976), FT
194.

118Ibid., p. 131119ste iner, Ibid., pp. 163-164120
Thompson, Ibid., p. 26.

1 21

Edward
Harvey
and
Russell
Mills,
Power
in
Organizations,
ed.,
Mayer
N.
Zald
(Nashville,
Tn.:
Vanderbilt University Press, 1970), p. 194*
Design
p. 92.

^^Patrick
(Chicago:

E. Connor, ed., Organization: Theory and
Science Research Associates, Inc".”, 1980),

125Ibid., p. 12312 a

M. P. Schutzenberger, Systems Thinking, ed., P. E.
Emery (Baltimore, Md.: Penguin Books Inc., 1974), p* 210.

125Ibid., p. 211.
1 Pfi

Herbert Simon, Models of Man (New York: John Wiley
and Sons, 1956).
^2^Ackoff, Ibid., pp. 15-16.
^^Perrow,

Ibid., p. 145*

1 2Q

^J. Kent Caruthers and Gary B. Lott, Mission Review:
Foundation for Strategic Planning (Boulder, Co.: National
Center for Higher Education Management Systems, 1981), p.
28.
1^0

Leonard C. Romney and Gerald K. Bogen, "Assessing
Institutional Goals: Proceed With Caution."
In Using Goals
in Research and Planning, Robert H.
Fanske, idT (San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1978), cited in Caruthers and Lott,
Ibid.
^ Caruthers and Lott, Ibid., pp. 26-28.
J

198

1 ’352
•'Raymond
F.
Effectiveness (Albany:
1982), p. 23-

Zammuto,
Assessing
Organizational
State University of New York Press,

133

"J.
P.
Campbell
et
Organizational. Effectiveness: A
ana Opinion (San Diego: Naval
1974), P* 1"31* cited in Zammuto,

al.,
The
Measurement
of
Review of Relevant Research
Personnel Research Center,"
Ibid.

154Pfeffer and Salancik, Ibid., p. 11.
^ Kim
Cameron,
"The
Enigma
of
Organizational
Effectiveness"
New
Directions
for
Program
Evaluation:
Measuring Effectiveness 11 (September 1981):1.
^^^Cameron, Ibid., p. 2.
^■'^Zammuto, Ibid., p. 29-

158Ibid.
139

'Cameron, Ibid., pp. 3-8.
The multiple constituency
model has also been referred to by the author as the
ecological model and the participant satisfaction model in
tfDomains o? Organizational Effectiveness in Colleges and
Universities"
Academy
of
Management
Journal
24(March,
1981):26 .
^^Zammuto,

Ibid., pp. 29-30.

141Amitai Etzioni, Modern Organizations
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall"J Inc., 1964), p- 8 .

(Englewood

1^2e. Yuchtman and S. Seashore, "A Systems
Approach
to
Organizational
Effectiveness,"
Sociological Review 32 (December, 1967)s891-903*

Resource
American

1 4.3

^'Rensis
Likert,
The
Human
Organization:
Its
Management and Value (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company,
--------T W 7 T ^^Cameron, Ibid., p. 4* Thorelli called attention to
this type of model as early as 1967, see Thorelli, Ibid.,
pp. 277-298.
145

'Cameron, Ibid., p. 8 .

^^Zammuto,
147

Ibid., p. 8 .

Cameron, Ibid.,

Kim
S.
Cameron,
"Domains
of
Organization
Effectiveness in Colleges and Universities," Academy of
Management Journal 24 (March, 1981):25-47-

199
150ibia., p. 40.
^Ibid.,

pp. 42-44*

152n3id., p. 45*
^9^Cameron,
"The
Effectiveness," Ibid., p. 9*

Enigma

of

Organizational

154Ibid.
1cr
Kim S. Cameron and David A. Vhetten, "Perceptions
of Organizational Effectivenss Over Organizational life
Cycles,"
Administrative Science Quarterly 26
(December,
1 981 ): 5 2 5 - 5 4 4 ^
^-^Cameron,
"The
Enigma
Effectiveness," Ibid., p. 10.

of

Organizational

157Ibid.
158ib id .

159Ibid.
160Ibid., p. 11 .
A /* A

Paul
Davidson
Reynolds,
A
Primer
in
Theory
Construction (Indianapolis, In.: Bobbs-Merril Educational
Publishing, 1971), PP* 45-65*
1fiP
Kim Cameron,
"Construct Space and Subjectivity
Problems
in
Organizational
Effectiveness,"
Public
Productivity Review Y (June, 1981):107•
"'^Ibid., p. 108.

164Ibid., p. 113*
^ 9R. B. Glassman, "Persistence and Loose Coupling in
Living Systems," Behavioral Science 18 (March, 1975):83-98.
A. Simon,
"The Architecture of Complexity,"
Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 106 (No.
6 ) : 462-487*
Cited in Karl E. Weick, The Social Psychology
of
Organizing
2nd
ed.
(Reading
Ma.:
Addison-Wesley
Publishing Company, 1979)» P* 111*
^ 7Karl E. Weick, The Social Psychology of Organizing
2nd ed. (Reading, Ma. : Addison-Wesley Publishing Company7
1979),,2ft 111 *
Pfeffer and Salancik, Ibid., p. 13*

200
1697James
Feibleman
and
Julius
W.
Structure
and Function
of
Organization,"
Review LIV (1945):20.

Friend,
"The
Philosophical

17°Ibid., PP . 21- 22.
171 Ibid., PP . 23-24.
172Ibid., P- 26
175Ibid.
174Ibid., P- 27.
175Ibid., P- 28.
176Ibid., PP . 28- 30 .
1

K\

*

177Ibid., PP

178Ibid., P* 55.
179Ibid., P- 36.
180Ibid., P- 42.
181 ,
T. .
William

"Organizations
and
Their
H.
Stai ick,
Environments," Handbook of Organizational and Industrial
Psychology, ed., Marvin D. Dunnette (Chicago: Rand McNally,
1976), pp. 1069- 1124, as cited in and elaborated on by
Connor, Ibid., p. 122.
1flP
Raymond E. Miles, Charles C. Snow and Jeffrey
Pfeffer,
"Organization-Environment
Concepts and Issues,"
Industrial Relations 13 (October, 1974):250, as cited in
Conner, Ibid., p. 123*
^8^Lawrence
R.
James
and
Allen
P.
Jones,
"Organizational Climate: A Review of Theory and Research,"
Psychological Bulletin 81 (December, 1974):1096-1097*

18^G. A. Forehand and B. V. H. Gilmer, "Environmental
Variation
in
Studies
of
Organizational
Behavior,"
Psychological Bulletin 62 (1964):362, as cited in Ibid., p.
1097.
185 James and Jones, Ibid., p. 1099*
186 J.
P.
Campbell
et
al.,
Managerial
Behavior,
Performance,
and
Effectiveness
(New
York:
McGraw-Hill,
1970), p. 390, as cited in Ibid., p . 1099•
187 James and Jones, Ibid., p. 1097.

201
^®8B.
Schneider
and
J.
C.
Bartlett,
"Individual
Differences and Organizational Climate II: Measurement of
Organizational
Climate
by
the
Multi-Trait,
Multi-Rater
Matrix," Personnel Psychology 25 (1970):510, as cited in
Ibid., p. 1105*
18 9

^James and Jones, Ibid., p. 1108.

^99Connor, Ibid., p. 401.
1 91

Forehand
Ibid., p. 400.

and

Gilmer,

Ibid.,

as

cited

in

Connor,

^92Connor, Ibid., p. 405*
”'93connor, Ibid., pp. 408-411*
1 94

J Karl E. Weick, The Social Psychology of Organizing
(Reading, M a . : Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1969), P*
46 as cited in Pfeffer and Salancik, Ibid., p. 50.
Weick,
1979, Ibid., p. 55, adds to this notion "When we assert that
an organization acts, it will also be true that shorthand
phrase can be decomposed into a set of interlocked behaviors
between two or more persons and a set of assembly rules by
which those behaviors were assembled and sequenced to
produce an outcome."
1 9 C5

H.
Allport,
"A Structuronomic Conception
Behavior: Individual and Collective," Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology 64 (1962):5-50 as referred to in
Pfeffer and Salancik, Ibid., p. 50.
^^Philip
s.
Thomas,
"Environmental
Analysis
for
Corporate Planning," Business Horizons (October, 1974):29*
^9^F. E. Emery and E. L. Trist, "The Causal Texture of
Organizational Environments," Human Relations 18 (February,
1965) s21 .

198Ibid., p. 22.
1" i b i d ., p. 24 *
200Ibid.
201 Ibid., p. 25*
202 Ibid., pp. 25-26.

205Ibid., p. 26.
iQJlbid., p. 28.
5Ibid.

202
206Ibid., p. 29*
207Not used.
288Not used.

209Ibid.
21 0

Philip Selznick, Leadership in Admininstration: A
Sociological Interpretation" (Evanston, IlTi Row, Peterson
and Company, 195?)» also referred to in Ibid., p. 29*
P1 1

Thomas P. Green, Predicting the Behavior of the
Educational System (New York: Syracuse University Press)-.
2^2Emery and Trist, Ibid.
21V
McGregor, The Human Side of Enterprise
York: McGraw-Hill, 1960), as reported in Ibid".

(New

2^4Emery and Trist, Ibid., p. 31 •

21^Hills, Ibid.
P 1 fi

Etzioni among other scholars has referred to the
regulatory
sector
as
distinct
from
social,
economic,
political and technological segments of the organizational
environment.
21 7

'Bertram M. Gross, Preface to Social Indicators, ed.
Raymond A. Bauer (Cambridge, M a . : The M .1 .1'. Press, T‘966),
p. x.
P 1 ft

Constitution of the United States of America.

^ 9Hoover Research Committee, Recent Social Trends In
The United States (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Printing Office,
r m r - --------------PPO

Report
of
National
Commission
on
Automation and Economic Progress (Washington,
Printing Office, 1966).
221

Technology,
D. C .: U.S.

Raymond
A.
Bauer,
Ed.,
Social
Indicators
(Cambridge,Ma.: The M.I.T. Press, 1966), pp. 10-11.

222Ibid., p. 11.
22^ibid., p. 12.
224Ibid.
225Ibid., p. 19-

203
226,Elaine
Carlisle,
Social
Indicators
and
Social
Policy, eds. Andrew Shonfield and Stella Shaw (London,
England: Heinemann Educational Books, 1972), p. 25*
227Ibid., p. 29228Ibid.
229Ibid., p. 26.
230lbid., p. 30.
251 Ibid., p. 31.
252Kent A . A i m , A Futures Creating Paradigm: A Guide
To Long-Range Planning From the Future For the Future
(Washington, D.C.: American Association of State Colleges
and Universities, 1978).
255Ibid., p. Macro 13234ibid., p. Macro 27.
255Ibid., p. Macro 24.
236Ibid., p. Macro 25.
257Ibid., p. Macro 35.
258 lbid., p. Macro 39.
259Ibid., p. Macro 44.
240lbid., p. Macro 61 .
241 ibid., p. Macro 65.
242
Michael
Carley,
Social
Indicators: Issues of Policy and
Allen "and Unwin, 1981), p. 44.

Measurement
and
Social
Theory (London, England:

^■^Evelyn
Gunter,
ed.,
Indicators
and
Statewide
Assessment (Denver, Co.: Cooperative Accountability Project,
Colorado Department of Education, 1974)*
244ibid., p. 1.
245Ibid.
246lbid., p. 2.
247lbid., p. 34°ibid .

204
248aI M d >

249

U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare,
Indicators of Educational Outcomes, Fall, 1972 (Washington,
D. C .: Government Printing Office, 1973)•
‘^ R o b e r t
E.
Herriot,
"Some
Observations
on the
Condition
of Education,"
Social
Indicators
Research
6
(April, 197 9):185.
251 Ibid., pp. 185-196.

252
' Dennis P. Johnston and Murray S. Weitzman, Social
Indicators III (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Printing Office,
1980) .
253n,ld.
2-^Seymore Spilerman, Social Indicator Models, eds.
Kenneth C. Land and Seymore Spilerman (New York: Russell
Sage Foundation, 1975), B. 396.

255
■'Carol Van Alstyne, Planning Managing and Financing
In the 1980s, The 1977 NCHEMS National Assembly (Boulder7
Co.: National Center for Higher Education Management, 1978),
p. 62.
256
'Francis
Joseph
Aguilar,
Scanning
the
Business
Envrionment (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1967), p- 9*
257 i

258

m

<1.

-

Ibid.

259-Ibid.,
P* 18.
260-Ibid.,
P- 44.
261
Ibid., P- 11 .
262 Ibid.,
-

P- 220.

263-Ibid., pp. 220
264-Ian H. Wilson,
Dimension to Strategic Planning,"
XXVI (July, 1974):20.
'Ibid., p. 22.

Michigan Business Review

266Ibid., p. 232^ J a m e s
H.
Frey,
An
Organizational
Analysis
of
University-Environment
Relations
(Washington,
D.C.:
University Press of America, 1977), pp. 1-3*

205
268Ibid.
,
X D1Q •y p. 19*

2 6 9 r,.

27°Ibid., p. 23271 Ibid., p. 152.
272Ibid.
275Ibid., p . 60.
274Martin

Trow,

1970):2-7, as reported in Ibid., p. 48.
275]3urton
Clark,
"Interorganizational
Patterns
in
Education," Administrative Science Quarterly 10 (September,
1969):224-57, as reported in Ibid.
276Frey, Ibid., p. 49277Ibid., p. 50.
278R. M. O'Neil, The Courts, Government and Higher
Education (New York: Committee for Economic Development,
1972), as reported in Ibid., p. 58.
279-prey, Ibid., p. 59*
280Ibid., p. 65281 Ibid., p. 75.
282Ibid., pp. 98-100.
28^Harold Koontz and Cyril O'Donnell, Principles of
Management: An Analysis of Managerial Functions^ 4th ed .
(New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1968, p. 83•
284Ibid., p. 90.
28^David ¥. Ewing, The Practice of Planning (New York:
Harper and Row, Publishers^ 1968), p. 104•
286Scott, Ibid., p. 104.
287Ibid., pp. 108-110.
288Ibid., pp. 111-112.
“ibid., pp. 113-116.
290Ibid., pp. 116-119-

206
^

^

I

b

i

d

.

,

p

p

.

116— 119-

291Ibid., p. 119292Koontz
and
O'Donnell,
Management, Ibid., p. 45-

Long-Range

Planning

for

29^Donald Eugne Farrar, The Investment Decision Under
Uncertainty (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
1 W ) 7 “p.” 2.
294Ibid.
299Scott, Ibid., p. 105*
^96parrar> ibid., p. 2.
29?F. H. Knight, Risk Uncertainty and Profit
Houghton Mifflin Company, 1921), p. 548.

(Boston:

298Scott, Ibid., p. 107.

259jbid.
500Ibid., p. 141.
501 Ibid., pp. 141-142.
502Ibid., p. 143.

10.

■^•^Drucker, Long-Range Planning For Management, pp. 9-

^°^Peter F. Drucker, Managing In Turbulent Times, (New
York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1980;, p. 61.
•^^Carlos Fallon, Value Analysis Value Engineering,
ed.
William
D.
Falcon
(New York:
American Management
Association, 1964), p. 10.
•'^See Romney and Bogen,
earlier on p. 81 .
■^^See Anthony and
used earlier on p.76.

Ibid.,

Dearden,

p.

28,

Ibid.,

p.

citation used
644,

citation

308Arthur A. Thompson, Jr. and A. J. Strickland, III,
Strategy and Policy Concepts and Cases, Revised Edition
(Plano7 Tx. : Business Publications, Inc., 1981) , pp. 20-21.
•^9Anthony, Ibid.

■310

^ T h e o d o r e Levitt as cited by Ewing,
Planning, Ibid., p. 34-

The Practice of

207
311 pfeffer and Salancik, Ibid., p. 106.
^ 2Ewing, Ibid., p. 312.
^ ^ K e n y o n B. De Green, The Adaptive Organization:
Anticipation and M anagement of Crisis (New York: John Wiley
and Sons, 1 982),“ p .“
3 U Ibid., p. 255.
313prey, Ibid., p. 100.
^I^Ewing, Ibid., p. 52.
31^Pfeffer and Salancik, p. 107.
518Ewing, Ibid., p. 53319pfeffer and Salancik, p. 106.
^28Shirley
Terrebarry,
"The
Evolution
of
Organizational
Environments,"
Administrative
Science
Quarterly 12 (March, 1968):590—613*
3^1 Arthur D. Browne, Long-Range Planning in Higher
Education,
ed.
Owen
A.
Knorr
(Boulder, C o .:
Western
Interstate Commission for Higher Education, 1965), P* 4-2.
•^22Lyman A. Glenny, Autonomy of Public Colleges; The
Challenge
of
Coordination
(New York:
McGraw-Hill
Book
Company, Inc.", 1959), P* T3".
525Ibid., p. 20.
■^24Willis F. Dunbar, Higher Education in Michigan's
Constitution
(Constitutional
Convention
Preparatory
Commission, State of Michigan, September, 1961), p. 20.
^2^John Dale Russell, Higher Education In Michigan:
Pinal Report of the Survey of Higher Education in Michigan
(Lansing, M I . : Prepared for the Michigan Legislative Study
Committee on Higher Education, 1958).
'5>26
Task
Force
on
Coordination,
Governance
and
Structure of Postsecondary Education, Coordination or Chaos?
Report No. 45 (Denver, Co.: Education Commission of the
States, 1973), P* vi.
^2glbid., pp. viii-ix.
3^°lbid., p. x.
329Ibid., p. 96.
33°ibid., p. 109-

208
331 ibid.
552Ibid., pp. 109-110.
^ ^ P a l o l a and Padgett, Ibid., p. 7.
554Ibid.
555Ibid.
556Ibid., p. 8.
537ibid., p. 9558Ibid., p. 12.

^^^ibid.
•^°Cyert as cited in Karl A. Fox, Social Indicators
and Social Theory (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1974J> P*
153.

CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
The

researcher's

inventory

and

belonging

to

compare
four

purpose

planning

in

this

attributes

traditional

study
of

was

to

institutions

postsecondary

education

groups: state colleges and universities; community colleges;
independent
schools.

colleges
The

and

study was

universities
both

and

proprietary

exploratory and

descriptive.

Survey methodology

was

two

questionnaires.

types

of mail

employed

to

collect

data utilizing

Theoretical

constructs

were developed from the planning literature to develop the
questionnaires and analyze the data.
The

survey

questionnaires

method

in

general

in particular were

and

the

choosen over

use

of mail

alternative

data collection methods for the following reasons:
1.

Cost:

The population selected for the study

consisted of 162 institutions.

While all of the

institutions were located in the State of Michigan,
more than 500 miles separated the extreme sites.
2.

Time:

Respondents indicated that the questionnaire

required several hours to complete; interviews
covering the same areas of interest would require

209

210
more time and the sessions would have "been
conducted in series rather than parallel where
the questionnaire permitted each institution to
work toward completion in a more or less
simultaneous manner.
3*

Detail: Many of the questions required thoughtful
consideration and/or review of records; hoth
demanding more time and facilities than is usually
available during an interview.

4.

Bias and interviewer errors: While the study may
have suffered from ambiguity of terminology (some
planning terms have more than one meaning
attributed to them) it also benefited by not
having an interviewer intervene with textured
definitions reflecting local knowledge, picked-up
during the interview and which could not be
explicitly repeated for every case.

5.

Timidity: Many of the institutions indicated they
were involved with the implementation of new
planning methodologies or techniques, others were
only in the exploratory stage of making a
decision to use some form of planning methodology.
Interviews could have had an intimidating affect
on personnel who could not show concrete evidence
1

of planning

products.

Questionnaires

were

sent

to

institutions in the State of Michigan.

162

postsecondary

This represented 100

211
percent of the thirteen state colleges and universities;
percent

of the tw,enty-nine

community colleges;

100

100 percent

of the fifty-four independent colleges and universities and
37

percent

or

Institutional
1982-83

67

of

listings

Michigan

the

for

182

proprietary

each group were

Postsecondary

schools.

taken

from the

&

Financial

Admissions

Assistance Handbook published by the Michigan State Board of
Education.
The
education

four

in

categories
typology

the

State

found
is

formality,
these

groups,

in

also

by

the

institutions

colleges

then,

of

the

Michigan,
handbook

manifest,
state

represent
as

adding

are affiliated.
with

evidenced

described

with

the
this

degree

which

many

The first group,

13 autonomous

is represented by the Presidents'

by

above;

another

associations

and universities,

postsecondary

of
of

state

institutions

Council of State Colleges

and Universities whose membership also lists the chancellors
for the two University of Michigan branch campuses located
at

Dearborn

colleges,

and

with

Flint.
29

Michigan

Community

members.

The

universities,
Independent
institutions
actually

College

group,

surveyed
three

and
are

is

group,

the

Universities
members

locations

counting

independent
by

for

community

represented

Assoication,

represented

Colleges

lists

second

institutions,

third
is

The

(the

by
26

colleges
Association

and

34

of

membership

Davenport

the

the
as
and
of
54

roster

College

of

Business and three locations for the University of Detroit,

212
identifying

separately

the

Schools

of

Law

and

Dentistry).

Finally, the fourth group, proprietary schools, numbers some
186

institutions

represented

and

by

Vocational

67

the

of

the

Michigan

Schools.

Many

of

larger

oranizations

Organization
the

of

proprietary

are

Private

schools

are

extremely small, the staff, for instance, may be limited to
the owner or members of the owners’ families.
These "natural” groups were useful to this study in
a

variety

of

ways,

mentioning.

two

First,

of

the

the

more

important

are

worth

director/president

of

each

association was willing to support the study by allowing his
name and the name of the association to be mentioned
cover
groups

letters

accompanying

provided

possible

a

realistic

typologies

etc.)

Voluntary

considered

to

be

the

surveys.

basis

included

participation
a

strong

interests

which

would

be

comparing

group

planning

defining

the

the

indicant

for

institution

was

a

community
study

the

voluntary

(other
age

any

on

these

location,

of

in

attributes

comparison

size,

by

important

potential

Secondly,

for

mission,

in the

one

aimed

of
at

hand,

and

coordination

of

planning on the other.
Data Analysis
Since

the

study

descriptive,

methods

for

descriptive

statistics,

was
data

such

both
analysis
as,

to

the

various

were

measures

tendency and measures of variability.
responses

exploratory

questions,

and

limited
of

to

central

The number of useable
by

group,

is

an

213
indication
seemed
were

of the

extremely

appropriate

to

small

select

values

encountered.

analytical

treatments

consistent with the complexity of the data;

It
which

Table 3*1

shows this relationship:
PUBLIC
COLLEGES

COMMUNITY
COLLEGES

Q1

Q1

MOST
RESPONSES
N=
NEWEST
RESPONSES

NONPUBLIC
COLLEGES
Q1

Q1
6

8

11

20

Q7

Q7

Q3B

3

8

9

N=

PROPRIETARY
SCHOOLS

Q3B
.

2

TABLE 3-1
Rankings
method.

were

Questions

established using a weighted
and

5

6 asked

respondents

to

average
assign a

number from "1"-"4", with "1” having the greatest value, for
each planning resource listed for each segment
three)

of

the

recommended
certain

when

segment

planning
the
of

horizon.

resource

the

item

planning

(there were

The

number

did

not

horizon.

”0"

apply

The

was
to

a

weighting

system, when used to calculate relative values, consisted of
multiplying
value:

The

the

number

response

of

responses

"1" was

for

assigned

each

cell

by

its

the numerical value

’'4"; the response ’'2" was assigned the numerical value "3";
the response

"3" was assigned the numerical value

"2"; and

the response

"4" was assigned the numerical value

"I".

penalty was imposed for "0” or blank responses.

No

The value

214
in each cell was aggregated by planning resource type within
groups and then summed to yield a combined weighted average
(C.W.A.) for all groups.
Question 5 dealt with the utility of each planning
resource for each segment of the planning horizon,

sources

were not compared to each other.
Question 6 dealt with the influence of each planning
resource,

sources

respondent

but

were

were

not

selected

compared

directly

based

the

on

by

frequency

the
of

planning assumption suggestions.
Procedures
The four groups surveyed represented 57*7 percent of
the
of

State's 282 postsecondary
the

Board

"higher
of

education"

Education:

universities;

institutions

segment

four-year

independent

colleges

listed
state
and

and 100 percent
by

the

Michigan

colleges

universities;

and
and

community colleges.
The survey was conducted in two flights.

The first

flight was mailed to the presidents of the 162 institutions.
Contents of this mailing included a cover letter describing
the purpose and value of the survey.

This letter also noted

sponsorship by the director/president of the association the
President's

institution was

either affiliated with,

or,

if

not a member, one that s/he would recognize as representing,
in some way,

its general

interests.

Along with

the cover

letter the mailing also included a brief questionnaire.
purpose of the

questionnnaire was twofold:

The

to identify the

21 5
general status of planning at each institution;

and to name

the person who would act as survey coordinator in the event
the

institution's

function.

To

president
further

was

unable

encourage

to

the

preliminary questionnaire a stamped,

perform

return

that

of

the

addressed envelope was

also included; 78 presidents responded.
First Flight Results
Public
Community Nonpublic Proprietary
Colleges Colleges Colleges Schools_____ Total
Presidents
Contacted

13

29

53

67

162

8

19

34

17

78

62

66

64

25

48

8

17

25

14

64

62

59

47

21

40

Replies
Received
%

Agreeing to
Participate
%

Table 3-2
The
3*2)

were

required.
respond
mailing;

final

results

encouraging;

of the

however,

one

flight

(see

follow-up

Table

letter

was

It was sent to those institutions which did not
within
and

four

weeks

from

generated more

than

replies eventually received.
reviewed

first

for

this

study

the

date

one-third

of
(27)

the

first

of the 78

Most of the planning research
relied

on

interviews

as

the

principal method for collecting data, and for that reason it
is difficult to compare the response results of this survey
with those reviewed.

216

One

Toyohiro

Kono,^

purpose

was to

compare long-range planning methods used by United

States

used

and

planning

a mailed

Japanese

study,

conducted

questionnaire.

companies.

by

Kono's

He

mailed

questionnaires

U.S. companies and received 26 replies
17 percent);
and 74

(a response

survey

Kono's

with

especially

152

(a response ratio of

536 Japanese companies received questionnaires

responded

Michigan

to

response

48

ratio

ratio

percent,

Japanese

was

but

companies

of 15*8 percent).
somewhat

private

might

be

The

better

than

organizations,
expected

to

be

somewhat more reluctant to share sensitive information than
educational

institutions

information

of

the

education survey.
of

25

percent

is

accustomed

type

contained

in

to

requests

for

the

postsecondary

The response by the proprietary segment
probably

more

comparable

with

Kono's

survey was mailed

to the

results.
The

second

flight

of the

persons named as survey coordinators by the
contained

a

comprehensive

research

letter

explaining,

should

be

arise,

on topics which were

and

instructions

contained

in

questionnaire

included

eight

parts.

invited
not
the

All of the questions,

closed-end

type;

instrument

in general terms,

approached

the

and

It

a cover

how the questionnaire
questions,

adequately
survey

questions,
except

exceptions

presidents.

should

any

covered by the

instrument.
some

The

with multiple

for two, were of the
required

very

responses, consisting of two or three words or numbers.

brief

217
The primary instrument was constructed and pretested
with

the

assistance

of

planning/institutional

research

personnel at three of the surveyed institutions; only one of
the persons participating in the development and/or pretest
activity
his/her
tests

actually

completed

institution.

a

research

instrument

for

The pretesting was followed hy pilot

of the finalized form to determine time requirements

and data sources.

This revealed that the time necessary to

complete

the instrument was significant and

decision

to suggest to the

should

he

appointed

participate

so

resulted in the

institutions that a coordinator

that

more

in assembling the data.

than

one

person

could

Because of the length

and complexity of the instrument, a great deal of follow-up,
including

telephone

necessary

to

achieve

calls

and

reminder

the

return

ratios

post

cards,

finally

was

attained.

The survey was initiated November 10, 1982 and closed March
15,

1983;

details

forty five

of second

usable

flight

questionnaires were

responses

are

described

returned,
in Table

5-5.
Second Blight Results
Public
Colleges

Comm
Nonpublic
Colleges Colleges

Prop.
Schools

Total

Surveys
Mailed

7

18

25

14

64

Surveys
Returned

7

11

21

6

45

100

61

84

43

70

1°

Table 3-5

218
Research Instruments
The

survey

instruments

were

of

two

types:

a

preliminary questionnaire designed to provide a self-report
on the

general

postsecondary
Michigan.

status

of planning systems implemented

educational

institutions

in

the

hy

State of

This instrument was sent to the presidents of 162

institutions

and

asked

that

s/he

selectfrom

five

statements, one which most nearly matched that institution’s
interest in strategic planning:
1.

This institution has implemented a strategic
planning process.

2.

This institution _is in the process of preparing or
implementing a strategic plan.

3.

This institution is evaluating the benefits of
strategic planning.

4*

This institution has no interest, at present, in
strategic planning.

5-

This institution does not require, a strategic
plan.
The

other

terms,

term
such

’’strategic
as,

planning"

simply,

was

"planning,"

selected
or

over

"long-range

planning" because it is the broadest in scope of the various
types of plans, and, for the president who might not be upto-date
least

on

planning

restrictive

terminology,

and

provided

its
a

connotation

good

match

is

the

with

the

prevailing mood of many educators in the State of Michigan.
The prevailing educational climate is one of urgency,

in an

environment

many

219
to

believe

be

threatening,

if

not

intimidating and not conducive to any type of planning.

One

president captured this despair:
For years I occupied planning positions in R & D as
well as V.P. for Academic Development and
Coordination
in a multi-campus system.
Now, as
President in rather unpredictable times, I find the
old tools don't work so well and the new ones
emerging are completely without merit, except to
the consultants who try to peddle them.
Each
institution has to look at its reality, both
exogeneous and endogeneous, and work out its own
destiny, step by step, never locking itself into
long term assumptions, least the entire planning
superstructure crumble.
The

purpose

of

the

preliminary

encourage

a positive

response

establish

a

point

starting

the maximum number
planning,
might

One

the

for

the

planning
survey

of institutions engaged

regardless

be.

to

instrument

of how

concern

informal

was

that

and

was

to

inquiry;

to

which

included

in some type of
discontinuous

institutions

it

actually

engaged in some form of planning might respond negatively if
the definition of planning was restrictive.
The

second

questionnaire.
the

global

instrument

was

a

more

The purpose of this instrument was to reduce

responses

elicited

through

the

questionnaire to specific areas of inquiry
discriminating,
the

following

comprehensive

using
section

which were both

the planning variables
of

this

chapter,

preliminary

and

described

in

exploratory,

hoping to identify education indicators used by institutions
in the development of their plans.
The

first

question

was

designed

to

start

with

a

familiar planning subject, budgeting, and determine which of

220
several

types

explored

the

the

institutions'

concept

of

used.

futurity

in

This

question

decision-making

also
by

asking if the budget reflected commitments for periods less
than, equal to, or greater then the budget period.

Finally,

several parts of the question explored the planning style of
the

institution and organization of the planning function,

probing issues such as: linking the budget with
planning;

long-range

and identifying the types of documents typically

produced by those processes.
probe was

to determine

The principal thrust

of this

if these processes were controlled

by one function responsible for both long-range planning and
budgeting,

or

if

these

two

planning

processes

were

the

responsibility of separate functions.
The second question was concerned with organization
and dealt

with

planning

the

function

and

existence
its

and

location

in

size of the central
the

organization's

hierarchy; asking the respondent to identify the level where
the function was positioned,
it reported.

as well as the level to which

The second part of this question was concerned

with the decentralized planning organization; if one existed
did it function on a formal, as opposed to an ad hoc basis?
More specifically, were unit and subunit personnel assigned
planning
The

tasks

third

as

part

part

of

the

of their
second

job/position
question

description?

looked

at

the

planning organization in terms of its planning policies: by
type of plan and function; planning horizon for each type of
plan or function;

age of the current plan(s)

and frequency

221
of plan revision.

This

into

the

the

scope

of

information provided
function

and

its

some

work

insight

load.

The

relationship assumed, was that organizations with many types
of plans, requiring frequent revision, and
planning

horizon

require

more

units

covering a broad

of planning

resources

than organizations with less active planning demands.
The third question complemented the second in terms
of manpower requirements and turn-a-round time required for
plan

revision.

This

question

the

planning function(s).

was

concerned

with

file

dealt with mechanization of

The first

part

organization

and

of the

question

data management.

The second part of the question focused on type of hardware
used

for

available,

planning
which

and,

vendor

if

proprietary

supplied

and

relationship to organization was

also

software

supported

was

it.

The

straightforward,

the

more powerful the planning system, the higher the potential
planning output per unit of planning personnel.
Question
type

of

plan

four

addressed

contained.

the

Again,

level

the

of

detail

question

each

assumed

a

straightforward relationship, the more data processing power
and

personnel,

the

greater

expectation might be.
of

the

plan,

six levels

of detail

organization’s

planning

This question did not address quality

only

corresponding work.

the

volume

of

planning

detail

and

Five types of plans, with from three to
choices,

and a planning horizon with

three time frames provided the reporting matrix.

222
Question five dealt with planning style.
part

of

the

question

looked

at

the

type

The first

and

level

importance attributed to outside planning resources.
resource

categories

write-in

were

choices.

listed

These

along

with

categories

immediate and the general environment.
ask to

for

both

the

Each respondent was

identify those sources used by the organization and

the segment(s)
competent
looked

to

at

of the planning horizon they were especially
address.

the

institution.
were

Eight

provision

covered

of

The

internal
Seventeen

listed

with

second

part

of

planning

resources

different

functions

provision

for

write-in

this

question

used
or

by

the

categories

choices.

The

response matrix also included three planning horizon segment
choices for each resource category.

The instructions called

for each resource category and time frame to be rated; this
was

accomplished

by

institution placed
the

planning

indicating

on each

horizon

the

the

level

resource

type

resource

of

emphasis
part

of

qualified

to

institution's use

of

was

and that

the

most

address.
Question six
planning

investigated

assumptions.

presented:

part

structure,

and

A

dealt

offered

planning assumptions.
with

integrative

a
The

issues;

pattern-maintenance
described

Five

adaptive

issues;

the

types
with

the

choice

of

of

assumptions
type,

four

first category
next,
the

concerns:

organization
categories

"societal"

"normative,"
third
and

category,
the

were

last

of

dealt

referred

to

"context,"
category,

223
"performance,”
alternative.

offered

a

goal-attainment

selection

A time frame rating was required for each of

the three segments of the planning horizon, indicating where
this type of assumption was most viable.

A third selection

was required from a list of twelve assumption sources, both
internal

and

contribute

external,

planning

institution's

six

which

were

assumptions

functional

frequently

for

one

planning

called

or

more

areas.

The

on
of

to
the

problem

for the respondent, then, was to match one of the assumption
categories

with

rate

segment

each

a

frequently
of

the

used

planning

planning

horizon

resource
in

terms

and
of

emphasis for each of six differnet functional planning areas
of

the

institution.

same procedure,
changed.

Parts

"B,"

"C"

and

"D"

followed

the

except the type and category of assumptions

The list of sources and segments of the planning

horizon remained

constant through the first

four parts of

the question.
The

assumption

environment,
assumptions
"economic;"

and
to

type

offered
choose

type

for

part

"C"

five

categories

of

was

part

four

from:

"demographic;"

for

"B"

categories

"science

planning

of

and

and "political."

"specific

was

planning

technology,"
The assumption

environment" and

assumptions

general

to

offered

choose

from:

"structural," which referred to the internal environment or
organizational

climate;

"cultural,"

which

also

referred

to

the internal environment;

"input," referred to the external

resources

the

required

by

institution;

"throughput,"

224

referred

to

the

internal

assumptions,

described

"educational

goods"

referred

to

assumption

of

market

produced
or

part

perspective:

categories

choose

the

domain

type for

planning
Two

a

environment;

by

the

the

for

the

institution,

and

environment.

dealt with the

inward-outward

planning

"output”

conditions

external

"D"

and

vs.

assumptions

The

institution’s

outward-inward.

were

available

to

from for this assumption type: "trend" assumptions,

indicated a reactive perspective and "paradigm" assumptions
reflected a proactive perspective.
Part "E" of question six utilized the experience of
participating institutions as a basis for defining education
indicators.

The assumption types used

"C"

were

and

match

"D"

each

of

repeated

them

with

informative;

predictive;

evaluation.

The

and
one

the
of

in parts

respondent

four

was

indicator

problem-oriented;

"informative"

"A,"

category

and

reflected

"B,"

ask

to

choices:
programgeneral

trends or tendencies in one or more segments of the general
environment.
and

The

dealt

with

environment
category

of

also

"predictive"
trends

the

category was more

occurring

institution.

referred

to

the

within
The

specific

the

concrete
specific

problem-oriented
environment,

it

focused on one or more of the institution's domains, and was
effectiveness oriented.
category was
focused

on

oriented

resource

terms of efficiency.

The "program evaluation" indicator
toward

the

allocation

internal

issues

and

environment
performance

and
in

225
Question 7 looked at futurity as a planning process
variable,
Nineteen

it

dealt

different

with
goal

the

macro

categories

concept

were

of

listed

mission.

along with

the three familiar segments of the planning horizon, to form
a response matrix.

Responding institutions were

to assign a value to each segment

of the

requested

planning horizon

indicating the relative importance of the goal category for
that

future

period.

considered an indicant
the

planning

horizon

The

goal

mix

of management
with

the

of

an

institution

style,

greatest

was

the segment of

emphasis

was

an

indicant of planning style.
Part

"A" of question eight dealt with the futurity

of five specific performance indicators:
1.

Retention.

The ratio of new students to graduating

students is one indicant of the holding power of an
institution.
2.

Effectiveness.

The institution's ability

to

attract the desired number and quality of students
is a referendum on its effectiveness.

As an

institution flexes values to maintain a planned
level of enrollment, the flex direction is an
indicant of effectiveness.
3-

Growth.

The relationship of ETE students

to total

students is a management variable, and reflects on
the administration's decision to optimize the
relation of efficiency and effectiveness variables.

226

4.

Efficiency.

The ratio of cost per studentcredit

hour is one

measure of efficiency.

One of the

institution’s largest cost elements is faculty
salaries.

The ratio of student credit hours to

total faculty is one indicant of efficiency
(reduction of slack).
5.

Flexibility.

The

ratio of FTE faculty to tenured

faculty is an indicant of flexibility.
The aggregate

effect

of these five structural

elements may

also reflect on issues such as organizational climate.
Part

"B"

institution’s

of the

attract

dealt

with

the

manage the resources

necessary to maintain a steady state.

The response to this

indicated

to

question
and

question

ability

eighth

both

changes

in

level

of

expected

resources and mix of sources providing those resources.

As

the institution relies more on ’’market’’ sources and less on
benevolent

sources,

for

funding,

flexibility

and

planning

will become more important, and

uncertainty will increase.

As

even

appropriations,

important

the

state,

local

institution

will

federal

be

forced

become
to

more

exchange

autonomy for resources.

As research and auxiliary funding

gain

will

importance,

interests.

The

so

level

and

the
mix

of

indicators of institutional control.
future

the

institution

is

willing

influence

of

funding are
The farther
and

able

to

special

sensitive
into the
plan,

the

greater will its control be over both funding and personnel
resource variables.

A

planning

instruments.
variables

model

The

are

227
was used

model's

described

to

develop

components

in

the

and

the

the

following

survey

planning

section;

model

components and planning variables are illustrated in Figure
3.1

.

Planning Model
Surveys
positivist,

a

have,
term

in

which

the

past,

Kolokowski

been

reduced

labeled
to

four

as
main

elements:
(i)

the rule of phenomenalism, which asserts that
there is only experience and which rules out
all abstractions be they of matter or spirit;

(ii)

the rule of nominalism, which asserts that
words, generalistions, or abstractions are
linguistic phenomena, and do not give us new
insight into the world;

(iii)

the

separation of fact and value;

(iv)

the

unity of the scientific

Positivism

suggests

to

some

a

method.^

"sinful"

boundary

researcher to avoid; yet, one is also reminded
the

correct

evidence

of

model."4
pragmatic
developed;
were

use
a

of

survey

causal

Somewhere

data

process
within

to
is

these

approach utilized by this
certainly

the

concepts

provide
in

the

vague

the

"the key to
corroborative

adoption
perimeters

study was
of

for

Glaser

of

a

the

isolated and
and

Strauss*^

influential, as were those of Catherine Marsh.^
While this study used survey methodology to collect

data

through

mail

questionnaires,

the

researcher's

purpose was to take an inventory of "facts"

sole

concerning the

228
status

of

planning

as

opposed

to

"opinions"

of

what

the

status should he. A difficulty with this assertion, however,
stems

from the

underpinning

need for

the

a

certain theoretical framework

questions.

The

point,

nevertheless,

is

directed at disavowing any claim of science as a defense for
the

methodology

interested

in

selected.
finding

Simply

answers

postsecondary

educational

their

ideosyncratic, or

the

methods
selection

group

to

methods
The

of

endemic

answers

resolving,

the
of

to
or

was

questions:
plan;

if

do

so,

characteristic

belongs;

postsecondary

making

resolution of the

methods

of

study

are

are there similarities

institution

each

the

to the

institutions

planning

which

put,

or,

institutions

these

questions

recommendations

are
in

is

leading

argument between advocates

of

in
the

these

general?
vital
to

in
the

for statewide

planning organizations and institutional autonomy.
The

fact

questionnaire

that

should

inferred causality.
establish causal
variables

that

a

model

not be

was used to

develop

taken as a priori

the

evidence

of

If the model helps other researchers to

relationships between
contribution

will

any of the planning

be

serendipitous.

The

model’s purpose here was simply to aid in the development of
an

approach

aimed

at

gleaning

answers

to

the

questions

noted.
Planning Variables
1.

Organization.

The first, and perhaps most important,

variable is organization.

Organization as used in this

229
context refers to both the way the institution is
organized and to the presence of: a centralized planning
organization; a decentralized planning organization
under the direction of a small central planning staff;
or totally decentralized planning, without the aide of a
central planning f u n c t i o n . 7

Organizational structure,

as a design characteristic, of the institution must be
compatible with the organizational design of the
planning function or it is unlikely to be effective.
One design is not intrinsically better than any other,
but it must be congruent with the overall organization
structure.

In addition to the structural

characteristics of the function, other design
considerations include: the level within the
organizational hierarchy where the activity takes place;
and the level responsible for its performance.

A

second design consideration is participation: how many
functions and levels are included within the
organization?

and how many planing resources external

to the organization are included?
Planning style.

Even with a supportive organizational

design there is no guarantee of the existence of
planning or the quality of planning.

Lahr conducted a

study to analyze the presence of formalized long-range
planning at 20 independent colleges and universities in
the state of Michigan.®

The data reflected a range of

formality, with lack of definition representing one

230
extreme and a well defined, comprehensive approach at
the other extreme; formal vs. informal.

Another

dimension can he added to Lahr’s, and that is one of
strategy.

Here the dichotonomy distinguishes between

selective strategic planning vs. comprehensive strategic
planning (by definition, all planning it not equally
strategic).
Type of plan.

The literature includes in the generic

term, plan: policy, budget, operational, tactical,
long-range and strategic types.

These are not mutually

exclusive designations— institutions could and do select
more than one type of plan as important to their
organization, but frequently do not include all types.
These discrete plans may over-lap, and often are
developed,

implemented and maintained by different units

or functions within the same organization.

Other

institutions have attempted to integrate several types
of plans; for example, policies, budgets, and long-range
plans.

The dichotomy here is discrete vs. integrated.

Functional focus.

Postsecondary educational

institutions typically include many, but not necessarily
all, of the following functional activities as important
in carrying out their mission: academic, of primary
importance; followed by service and research; pecuniary
and physical resources are represented by finance and
facilities and/or operations functions.

The interest

in and level of emphasis directed at these functions

231
provides a focus for looking at both individual
institutions and groups. Community colleges are
expected to be less interested in research than
comprehensive universities and more interested in
maintaining a broad array of services than independent
colleges and universities.

Functional focus, as a

planning variable provides several dichotomies; outwardinward, or inward-outward management perspective;
homogeneity vs. heterogeneity management styles, and
goal congruence in the form of efficiency vs.
effectiveness.
Time.

Time is manifest by the planning horizon

and reflects foresightedness. Concentration
on the 1-3 year segment is both fatalistic
and reactionary; concentration on segments ranging
farther into the future reflects a more proactive deterministic management philosophy.

It also indicates

a more open structure, reflecting the institution's
confidence in its ability to "enact" its environment.
Planning focus.

This variable in some ways is similar

to functional focus in that it too is concerned with an
inward-outward, outward-inward management perspective,
not in terms of discrete functions but rather in a
holistic sense.

It deals with organizational climate

from the outward-inward perspective and interaction with
the external environment from an inward-outward
perspective.

Further, there is a component of

foresightedness in terms of the environmental elements
included: the active (immediate) environment and/or the
general environment.
7-

Environmental scanning perspective. A full
perspective takes in all of the environmental segments:
economic, political, scientific/technical and
regulatory.

It also includes both the active and the

general environment.

A partial perspective takes in one

or more hut not all of the environmental segments.

It

too includes both the active and the general environment
for those segments of interest.

A limited perspective

includes one or more of the environmental segments but
limits its concentration to the active environment.
8.

Strategic orientation.

The eighth and final planning

variable is strategic orientation.

Here the question

is, will the future be an extrapolation of the past,
reflecting continuous patterns in the institution's
interactions with its external environment and a steady
state in organization climate? or, will value shifts
create discontinuities?

The orientation dichotomy is

trend vs. paradigm.
Model Components
In addition to the planning variables which operate
on the planning model,
elements.

the model

The elements

performance,

both

assumptions;

policies

include:

efficiency
and

and

itself has
mission,

components

goals and roles;

effectiveness;

resource

or

allocation

domain(s);
subsystems,

233
budgets,

programs

information
3*1.

The

and

activities.

flows between

the

The

elements

relationship between

the

planning

is shown

model

on Figure

planning model

and

the

survey instruments are shown in Tables 3*4a, 3*413 and 3*4c.
Table 3*5 operationalizes the model.
In Chapter IV the researcher
of

this

research

and

interprets

the

data

literature.

The research instruments were also developed in

incorporated

certain
in

interpretation
literature found
alternative

in the

In each case, choices were necessary,

it is possible, therefore,
or

found

the

theories,

available

and notions

using

terminology,

the same manner.

constructs

presents the findings

the

of

the

analytical

that more viable approaches were

areas

more

survey
data

in chapter

and

important

instruments

than

those

and/or

collected.

The

two presented

several

of these

of the

planning

arguments

variables selected for this study.

for

each

review

the
of

234
PRELIMINARY INSTRUMENT
Planning Variables*
Questions (check one)_______ ORG- STY

TYP

1. This institution has
implemented a
Strategic Planning
Process.

X

X

2. This institution _is
in the process of
preparing or
implementing a
Strategic Plan.

X

X

3- This institution is
evaluating the
benefits of Strategic
Planning.

X

X

4* This institution has
no interest, at
present, in Strategic
Planning.

X

X

5- The institution does
not require a
Strategic Plan.

X

X

PC

Table 3*4a
Planning Variable Abbreviations*
ORG: Organization
STY: Planning Style
TYP: Type of Plan
FC : Functional Focus
TM : Time (planning horizon)
PF : Planning Focus
ESP: Environmental Scanning Perspective
SO : Strategic Orientation
Table 3 -4b

TM

PE

ESP

SO

235
PRIMARY INSTRUMENT
Planning Variables*
Questions
1

Links between
budgeting and longrange planinng

2A Central planning
organization
B Unit planning
organization

ORG

STY

TYP

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

C Institutional
planning
3A Mechanization
B Hardware/software
4

Level of plan detail

5A Outside resources used
for planning
B Internal resources
used for planning
Assumptions:

6

EC

TM

PE

ESP

S(

X

X
X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

(Type)
X

A

X

B

X

X

X

X

X

C

X

X

X

X

X

X

D

X

X

X

X

X

X

E
7

X

Goal evolution

8A Personnel trend data
B Funding trend data
iable 3*4-c

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

236
Operationalizing The Model:
Continuum
planning

is

objectives

a

"A"

relative

cover

institution;

represents

and

the notion that

concept;

that

increasingly
as

those

is,

broader

expanding

influenced by exogenous variables,

and

strategic

as

goals

and

areas

of

the

objectives

are

more

increasingly higher

levels of management become involved; and as the futurity of
decisions impacts increasingly more distant planning horizon
points, so raises the level of "strategic" planning.
Continuum
information;

the

the planning processes,

modifications.
entire

"33" represents

This

institution;

planning
a

unit;

or,

a

of

a

planning

flows

of

the resulting strategy

process

project with strategic implications.
pervasiveness,

input-output

could

discrete

represent
"package"

the
or

The emphasis is not on

but rather on integration where the futurity
decision

for

an

area

or

project

extends

beyond the budget period.
Continuum "C" represents the temporal aspect of the
integrated

planning

three years,

modules.

Long-term

could

be

two

or

perhaps even less time; tactical could be five

to ten years, and operations could extend beyond the current
fiscal year.

The

temporal

nature

of the

controls positioning on this continuum.

TABLE 3-5

planning

subject

STRATEGIC
PLANNING PROCESS
MODEL
i
A

DECENTRALIZED

CENTRALIZED

PLANNING PROCESSROUTINIZED

SPORADIC
B
INTERNAL ENVIRONMENT

I-------------- 1

SPECIFIC

HISTORICAL
EXPERIENCE

T

GENERAL

+

'------------- <
I
POLICY CURRENT ^POLICY ASSUMPTIONS POLICY
ACTIVITIES
OPERATIONS-^
TDYNAMIC)
(FUTURE OPERATIONS)
I----------- 4 --------------------------4

I

CERTAINTY

EFFICIENCY

,
i
OBJECTIVES wGOALS
■
EFFECTIVENESS -1

(SCOPE)
MISSION
(ROLE)

UNCERTAINTY

T
I EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT!
DOMAIN

DOMAIN

DOMAIN

PLANNING CONTINUUM
CURRENT
PLAN YEAR I
OPERATIONAL---------------------------- TACTICALBUDGET
BUDGET

LONG-TERM

ORGANIZATION VARIABLES FOR HOMOGENEOUS ORGANIZATIONS
POSIT

ff\ :

AS THE EASE OF ENTRY/EXIT TO AND FROM "EDUCATIONAL MARKETS" INCREASES,
PROCESS WILL BECOME LESS CENTRALIZED AND MORE FORMAL.

THE PLANNING

POSIT #2:

AS RESOURCE LIQUIDITY INCREASES, THE PLANNING PROCESS WILL BECOME LESS CENTRALIZED
AND 'MORE FORMAL.-----

POSIT #3:

AS DEGREES OF UNCERTAINTY INCREASES, THE PLANNING PROCESS WILL BECOME MORE
AND LESS FORMAL.
FIGURE 3-1

CENTRALIZED

238

NOTES
1C. A. Moser and G. Kalton, Survey Methods in Social
Investigation 2nd Ed.
(New York*
Basic
Books,
Inc.,
Publishers, 1972), pp. 257-260.
2Toyohiro Kono, "Long Range Planning— Japan— USA— A
Comparative Study," Long Range Planning 9 (October , 1976),
pp. 61-71.
3l .
Kolakowski,
positivist_______ Philosophy
(Harmondsworth, England: Penguin^
1972), as
cited in
Catherine Marsh, The Survey Method (London: George Allen &
Unwin, 1982), p. 49.
4catherine Marsh, Ibid., p. 72.
5Barney G. Glaser and Anselm L. Strauss,
The
Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for
Qualitative
Research (New York: Aldine Publishing Company, 1967).
6catherine Marsh, Ibid.
^Ronald J. Kudla, "Elements of Effective
Corporate
Planning," Long Range Planning (August, 1976), pp. 82-93.
^Lahr, A Comparative Study of Long Range
p. 106.

Planning,

CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS
The
report

the

researcher's
results

purpose

of a

survey

in
to

this

chapter

inventory

the

is

to

planning

attributes of postsecondary educational institutions in the
State of Michigan.

The data are organized according to the

postsecondary education institutional types described by the
Michigan

State

1982-85

Board

Michigan

Assistance

of

Education

Postsecondary

Handbook:

Michigan

in

their

publication,

Admissions

Public

&

Junior

Financial

&

Community

colleges; Michigan Public Four-Year Colleges & Universities;
Michigan

Nonpublic

Vocational
of

School

Education,

and

Two-Year

Programs

Colleges

&

Universities;

Licensed by Michigan Department

Occupational

Programs

Licensed

by

Other

State Agencies.
The first

type,

Michigan Public Junior & Community

Colleges will be referred to in this chapter as "Community
Colleges."
Colleges

&

Colleges."
Four-Year

second

Universities
The third

Colleges

"Nonpublic
Programs

The

&

Colleges."

Licensed

type,

Michigan

will

type,

be

The

referred

Michigan

Universities
fourth

by Michigan

to

Nonpublic

will
type,

Department

239

Public

be

Four-Year
as

Two-Year

referred

Vocational
of

"Public

to

&
as

School

Education

and

240
the

fifth

type,

Occupational

Programs Licensed

by

Other

State Agencies are combined and referred to as "Proprietary
Schools."
The

planning

attributes

these

four postsecondary

using

eight

planning

organization;
focus;

for

each

of

education groups will be compared

variables

planning

time;

inventories

described

style;

planning

type

focus;

of

in

Chapter

plan;

III:

functional

environmental

scanning

perspective; and strategic orientation.
Organization
A major assumption made by the researcher
study

was

that

organization

the

design

organizations,

planning
and

process

management

is

this

dependent

style.

using Ackoff's1 typology,

in

on

Homogeneous

are more likely to

limit participation of both internal and external resources
in the planning process.

One organizational manifestation

of this constraining influence
of communication
policies;

resource

preparation;
single

channels

reporting level
planning

detail.

criteria

would

planning input:

allocation,

planning

individual

for

is the availability and use

of the

especially

organization,

performing

a

even

reflect

if

and

organizations,

a

in

budget

limited

to

coordinating

planning function

Heterogeneous

assumptions;

more

open

role;

the

level

a

the
of

using these
system

of

communicationand broader dissemination of the institution's
goals, objectives and strategies.

Nodality,
management

241
using Ackoff's

again

style.

Scalar

chains

typology,

represent

reflects

a hierarchical

structure with decision-making authority always on the next
highest level, uninodal.
with

one where

Contrast this type of organization

relatively autonomous

decision-makers

agree

on strategies affecting their respective units or sub-units
without mandatory next level involvement, multinodal.
Questions
primary
First,
and

research
to

gain

second,

contained
instruments

some

The

both

were

insight

differences

function.

in

into

in

the

preliminary

aimed

at

preliminary

organization.

contextural

organization

differences;

of

instrument,

and

the

in

planning

addition

to

soliciting participation also asked for the name and title
of the person who would act as
anticipated

that

in

those

survey coordinator.

institutions

with

a

It was

planning

function the responsible

administrator would be named;

in

supporting

those

without

institutions
a

formal

planning

the

planning

function

the

and

process

administrator

responsible for

coordination of the planning process would

be

Table

named

(see

A.P.3*

coordinator titles).
the

president

coordinator.

a

In all cases,

was
Of

for

the

the

most

eight

complete
except

frequently

public

listing

public
named

colleges

of

colleges
survey

responding,

diverse positions were named; the president was named twice,
as

was

the

instruction,
officer

were

director

of

planning;

provost,

vice president for state relations,
each

named

once.

The

dean

of

and budget

absence

of

an

242
organization function or role designated as having planning
responsibility
reflect

both

and

the

position

properties

of the

identified

selected

surrogate

in Ackoff's typologies:

geniety and nodality.
Budget
organization
assumes

methodology

and

the

resources

is

management

currrent

between

also

style.

indicant

Incremental

allocation

activities

an

or

and/or

of

budgeting

distribution

functions

to

be

of
both

equitable and optimum on a period-to-period basis.
variable

is the size of the resource pool.

all

activities

all

suffer.

weaknesses,

and
The

as

functions
dynamics

they

participate;

of

interact

an

changing goal-set may go unnoticed.
resource
method

allocation
requires

organizational
institution's
Existing

continuum
at

mission,

programs

must

as

it

declines,

strengths

or

On the other end of the

an

and

and

evolving misssion

is zero-base budgeting;

least

strengths

As it increases

institutional
with

The

annual

weaknesses

goal(s)

and

present

a

assessment
compared

role(s)

case

this

for

of

to

the

relations.
funding

as

persuasive as that demanded of new programs competing for a
share of available resources (see Table A.1-.1. for detailed
listing

of

budget

methodology

reported

by

participating

institutions).^
Public colleges (E=8) reported incremental budgeting
as

the

method

most

often

used,

62.5

percent;

formula

budgeting was used by 12.5 percent of the institutions— none
reported

zero-base

budgeting.

Proprietary

schools

(N=8)

243
reported 66.6 percent used zero-base budgeting;
of the
using

institutions were
incremental

budgeting

formula budgeting.
(14=11 )

and

evenly

the

colleges

budgeting;

and

preferred

21.1

formula

same

16.7

as

a

using

36.4

percent

percent

of

the

resource

using

community

programming and budgeting

of

budgeting.

reported

the

For

nonpublic

all

four

allocation

colleges

groups,

percent of the institutions indicated they used
budgeting

percent

percentage

(11=20)

colleges reported using planning,
systems

with

More than half of the community colleges

nonpublic

incremental

and

divided

the balance

fifty

incremental

method.

Table

4*3

compares all types of plans, including budget methodology.
Another

dimension of the

with

planning

methods;

function,

its size, hierarchical location and reporting

the

planning detail

concerning

organization was

explored

level;

questions

planning

presence

of

the
a

integration
central

of

planning

and frequency of plan revision

(see

Tables A.1-.1. to A.2C.1.6.).
None
integrated

of

the

planning

public

processes

colleges
and

reporting institutions

(N=45)

Of

separate

those

(N=22),

reporting

59.1

employees.

percent
However,

a

indicated

only

indicated
central

(N=8)
20

reported

percent

this

of

all

capability.

planning

function

it employed more than three

only 48.8 percent of all

institutions

(N=38) reported the existence of a separate central planning
function.

The

most

frequently

location of the function, when

mentioned

it existed,

level
was "2"

for

the

(senior

244
staff);

reporting to level

"1"

(president).

Decentralized

planning, on a formal basis (part of the employee's position
description), was generally confined to administrative staff
and unit
for

administrators.

instance,

resource

types

influence was
ranked
most

ranked

tenth

valued

Faculty

sixth

listed

overall

for

considered

as a planning resource,
among

question

5B;

in question 6,

on

a list

of

at

nonpublic

twelve

sixteen

internal

however,

when

faculty importance

resources.

institutions

where

Faculty was
they

ranked

•3

fifth on a list of twelve resource types.^
Twenty-nine,
completing
indicated
those

the

strategic

frequently.
horizon

primary

they were using

with

between

46 institutions

(comprehensive)

questionnaire

strategtic

plans

Fifty-eight

of

of the

or 65 percent,

revised

them

percent

four

and

plans;

nine

69 percent

annually

or

of

more

indicated

a

years;

institution

no

planning

indicated use of a planning horizon greater than nine years
for strategic plans.
The
functional

final aspect
imperatives

of

organization

(Parsons);

dealt

assumptions

with

(Scott);

planning horizon (Steiner); and environmental scanning focus
(Aguilar).^
Parson's
concepts

for

interface.
organizational
term

Theory

of

considering
First,

his

typology

imperative

is

for

Action
the

model^

two

organization-environment

functional

imperatives

comparing value

indicative

provides

of

its

provide

systems.

fulfillment

The
as

a

an

condition

of

integration
value

stability

imperative

system

parallels

where

the

assumptions
condition

245
and/or

found

in Parson's

solidarity

assumption

describe
affected

a
to

orderly

is

the

change.
model

unit

societal.

measurable

aspect

degree

reflects

of utility

type,

some

The
a

and

Societal
of

by

a

social

postsecondary

education.
Normative

assumptions

pattern-maintenance
unit

of value.

are

imperative,

equivalent

to

Parson's

reflecting integrity as the

This assumption type describes a condition

or variable over which the institution has some control and
which affects

the

institution's

ability to

achieve

one. or

more of its goals.
Context assumptions describe a condition or variable
over which

the

institution has

little

or no

control; yet,

affects the institution's ability to achieve one or more of
its

goals.

adaptive

This

assumption

imperative

and

type

utility

is

is

similar

central

to
to

Parson's
its

value

system.
Performance
observable

behavior

assumptions

describe

or variable

used

to

a

measurable

determine

or

program

effectiveness or efficiency.

This assumption type reflects

effectiveness as central to

its value system and parallels

Parson's goal-attainment imperative.
Parsons also provided an insight into organizationenvironment
levels

relations

of organization

by

describing

in societal

the

functions

systems:

of four

the technical,

the managerial, the institutional and the societal.

246
In a postsecondary educational setting the technical
levels parallel instructional and administrative staff; unit
administrators

such as

deans,

functional

directors

senior administrators such as vice-presidents,
provost,

and

levels;

a

trustees

the

president

variety of

for

the

would

roles

focal

satisfy

ranging

institution,

to

including the

the

from

and

managerial

the

state

board of

and

federal

agencies would satisfy the institutional role.
The
planning

source

of

assumption

assumptions

and

planning

assumptions,

proposed,

the

context

the

the

futurity

within

which

type of

of

the

those

planning

process operates will both coalesce and direct the thrust of
the

institution.

significantly
ability

to

Further,

affect

cooperate,

this

the

climate

for

institution’s

coordinate

and

planning will

willingness

even

and

articulate

its

planning activities with those of the organization set.
Results

of

the survey

indicated

public colleges

(N=5) tended to select pattern-maintenance assumption types
for administrative and research planning areas;
assumptions
service

were

planning

frequently

preferred
areas;

selected

for

adaptive

for finance.

academic

1-3 year

the planning horizon was considered most
planning

areas.

No

outside

and

assumptions
The

sources

integrative
community
were
segment

most
of

important for all

for

assumptions

were

mentioned by public colleges and the most important internal
sources,
provost.

by

a

wide

margin,

were

the

president

and

the

247
Community

colleges

(N=9)

also

preferred

pattern-

maintenance and integrative assumption types Taut they showed
a

much

stronger

especially for
Community

interest

in

goal-attainment

administrative

colleges,

like

and

public

academic
colleges

assumptions,

planning areas.
were

preoccupied

with the 1-3 year segment of the planning horizon.

Outside

resources for

planning assumptions were mentioned,

but the

frequency and

importance

not

even

indicate

associated with these choices did

moderate

academic vice president

interest.

The

president

and

were the most frequently mentioned

sources for planning assumptions.
Nonpublic colleges (N=13) were the most pragmatic in
selecting

assumption

types:

for

finance

they

favored

adaptive assumptions; for administration their choice tended
toward goal-attainment; the academic planning area was split
between

goal-attainment

and

integrative;

facilities,

reflected pattern-maintenance; and community service favored
integrative values.

Nonpublic

institutions

reflected much

more concern for the out-years of the planning horizon than
any

of

the

variety

of

favored,

other

groups.

assumption

followed

They

sources:

closely

by;

also

utilized

president
financial

a

was
vice

greater

the

most

president;

provost; faculty; board of directors; and department heads.
For
(N=32)

all

postsecondary

the functional

educational

imperative most

organizations

favored was adaptive

when aligned with the financial planning function.
year

segment

of

the

planning

horizon

was

The 1-3

considered

most

248
crucial,

and the president was most

often mentioned as the

source for planning assumptions.
Both

Ackoff's^

and

Parson's^

typologies

emphasize

the importance of hierarchical relationships in professional
organizations.

The

means

selected

for

accomplishing

planning process

in terms of organizational

the

climate may he

more important than the ends achieved or the plans produced.
A balance must be maintained which
preserve

value

Turbulent

systems

environments

abridgement

of

even

when

are

not

institutional

recognizes
expediency

sufficient

values.

the need
is

cause

Influence,

to

mandated.
for

the

futurity

and values were the planning process variables investigated
with question six,
with

assumptions; part "A” dealt specifically

organization— who plans?

Table 4.1

shows

comparative

relations for the four groups for each of these variables.
Planning Style
Budgeting generally represents the most detailed and
comprehensive of the types of plans covered in the review of
literature,

it also covers a relatively close-in segment of

the planning horizon, generally one year.
responding
and,

as

to

the

noted

survey

indicated

above,

methodology to prepare it.

50

Every institution

a budget

percent

used

was

prepared

incremental

37•8 percent of the institutions

indicated that no long-range plan was prepared.
In fact,

of

the 77

institutions

preliminary survey only 27

(35*1

strategic

(see

plan

was

in use

percent)
Table

responding to the
indicated that a

A.P.1

for

detailed

249
analysis
survey

of

the

responses

instrument;

analysis

of

the

reported

proprietary
colleges

10,

ratio

of

schools

27*3

Planning
institution's
planning.

the

having

51*2

response
Community

of institutions with
public

colleges

strategic

percent;

strategic

plans

and

plans;

nonpublic

in use.

All

planning styles which concentrated on a

planning

participation, and

for

percent;

percent

with

(comprehensive)

instrument).

number

52.6

57*5

percent

short

survey

indicated

groups demonstrated
very

or

primary

A.P.2.

the greatest

plans,
a

the

Table

preliminary

colleges reported
strategic

and

to

horizon,

reflected

limited

fragmented planning processes.
style,

interest

then,

in

reflects

planning

and

both

its

the

approach

Palola and Padgett® described planning style

terms of a dichotomy:

to
in

proactive, continuously anticipating

and adapting to new conditions and commitments, or, reactive
to

situations

and

demands.

Question

6D

explored

this

dichotomy by asking the institutions to match two types of
assumptions,

trend

planning areas;
often used,
Trend

paradigm,

behavior

were
in

defined
ways

influence

determine goal selection.
describing

shifts.

the

six

functional

and the source suggesting the assumption type.

significantly

as

with

they were then ask to select the one most

assumptions

societal

and

the

its

describing

institution

ability

to

anticipated

believes

achieve

will

goals

or

Paradigm assumptions were defined

anticipated

These forecasted

as

effects
"shifts"

stemming

from

value

may be based on new

250
INFLUENCE
PUBLIC
COLLEGES

NONPUBLIC
COLLEGES

COMMUNITY
COLLEGES

PROPRIETARY
SCHOOLS

^ H

I
H

M. ADMINISTRATION
(MANAGERIAL)
I. BOARD OF DIRECTORS/
TRUSTEES AND OTHER
OUTSIDE SOURCES
(INSTITUTIONAL)

T. FACULTY (TECHNICAL)
H. DEPARTMENT HEAD
(INTERSTITIAL)

FUTURITY
PUBLIC
COLLEGES

NONPUBLIC
COLLEGES

COMMUNITY
COLLEGES

A. 1-5 YEARS

B.

4-9 YEARS

PROPRIETARY
SCHOOLS

C. 10 + YEARS

VALUE STYSTEM
PUBLIC
COLLEGES

NONPUBLIC
COLLEGES

COMMUNITY
COLLEGES

1. SOCIETAL
2. NORMATIVE
(INTEGRATIVE)
(P-M)

PROPRIETARY
SCHOOLS

5- CONTEXT
4- PERFORMANCE
(ADAPTIVE)
(G-A)

TABLE 4-1

251
perspectives gleaned from existing theories or new theories.
Value shifts may impact the institution in a direct way, the
public's perception of the worth of education; or indirectly
through public policies such as those formulated immediately
after the first Russsian satellite was launched into earth's
orbit.

leisure, knowledge, quality, equity, and freedom are

examples
they

of

concepts

manage

change.

presentation
areas

of

and the

institution's
See

may

Table

responses.

A.6D.1

Table

assumption type

monitor

4-2

most

closely

for

shows

as

a

complete

the

planning

frequently

selected by

the four groups.
Type of Plan
The

institutions

budgeting process was
what

form

colleges

that
(N=8)

plan

(N=45)

related
took.

indicated

were

to the
Fifty

that

while

asked

longer

percent
they

how

their

term plan
of

the

prepared

and

public
budgets

they did not prepare a long-range plan; 36.4 percent of the
community
colleges
(N=6)

colleges
(N=20);

made

the

responding
document

(N=11);

30

and 50 percent
same

response.

indicated

that

percent

of

the

nonpublic

of the proprietary schools
Still,

50 percent

periodically

a

of those

comprehensive

referred to as the plan was prepared.

This seemed

to indicate that such plans had not recently been prepared;
those

plans

returned

with the

questionnaire by

several

of

the institutions were two or more years old.
In

addition

institutions

(N=46)

to

a budget,

almost

responding indicated

half

(21)

of the

the presence

of a

252
financial

plan

(45*7

percent).

However,

less

than

half,

indicated the planning horizon covered a period greater than
four

years;

existed,

and

was

52.4

percent

continuously

revised.

institutions,

21,

plan, and

or two-thirds,

than

one

14,
year

indicated

old.

Eight

indicated

the

the

The

same

presence

reported the
institutions

plan,

of

when

it

number

of

an

academic

plan to be less

reported

research

plans; eighteen reported facilities plans, with one covering
a period greater than ten years.

Fourteen institutions,

31

percent, indicated the presence of a community service plan,
while community colleges, with 6 institutions indicating the
existence

of

such

plans,

accounted

for

more

than

forty

percent.
Strategic plans were prepared by 29 institutions and
17 indicated planning horizons exceeding four years.

This

seemed to suggest a preference for plans which dealt with a
limited number of issues rather than the comprehensive plans
recommended

in

mathematical

models.

the use
the

of the

grounds

the

literature
While

term

that

several

a few respondents

"strategic"

it

was

years

a

planning,

buzz-word,

earlier

or

objected

to

critizing
conjured

it on
up

by

consultants, the term seemed to be understood, based on the
replies, by an overwhelming majority.
use

of

incremental

budgeting,

The data suggest wide

followed

by

some

type

of

strategic plan covering a relatively near-term period as the
type of planning most often done by those responding to the
survey.

Table 4«3 shows the type of plans currently in use

by each group.

253
PLANNING STYLE
PLANNING
AREA

PUBLIC COMMUNITY
COLLEGES COLLEGES

NONPUBLIC
COLLEGES

PROPRIETARY
SCHOOLS

TOTAL
____

T

P

T

P

T

P

T

P

T

FINANCE

1

2

5

3

9

3

3

2

18 10

ADMIN.

2

1

5

3

4

8

3

2

14 14

ACADEMIC

3

1

4

4

6

6

1

4

14 15

RESEARCH

-

2

2

1

2

6

1

1

5 10

FAC.

2

1

7

1

10

2

2

3

21

COM.SER.

1

1

2

6

7

4

1

2

11 12

TOTAL

9

8

25

18

38

29

11

14

83 68

N =

4

8

12

5

29

NOT
APPLICABLE

4

3

8

1

16

T = TREND ASSUMPTIONS

P = PARADIGM ASSUMPTIONS
TABLE 4-2

THE DATA SHOWN ON THIS TABLE SUGGEST THREE POINTS:
1. THE FUTURE IS NOT VERY CLEAR.
THERE WAS SIGNIFICANT
VARIABILITY BOTH WITHIN AND BETWEEN GROUPS.
2. OF THE FORTY-SIX INSTITUTIONS PARTICIPATING IN THE
SURVEY MORE THAN 1/3 INDICATED THE QUESTION WAS NOT
APPLICABLE TO THEIR PLANNING PROCESS.
5. NO GROUP IS MORE PROACTIVE THAN ANY OTHER, WITH THE
POSSIBLE EXCEPTION OF PROPRIETARY SCHOOLS IN THE
AREA OF ACADEMIC PLANNING AND NONPUBLIC COLLEGES IN
THE AREA OF ADMINISTRATION.

P

7

254
TYPE OP PLAN
BUDGET
100#

FUNCTIONAL
♦
♦

♦

♦

♦

!

i

♦
♦
♦
♦

COMPREHENSIVE
♦

♦

:
i:
:
♦
♦

♦

STRATEGIC
♦

♦

♦

:

♦

♦

♦

♦

75#

50#

25#

INCREMENTAL
FORMULAP.P. & B.S.ZERO-BASE
PERFORMANCE
FINANCIAL--------ACADEMIC -------FACILITIES ------COMMUNITY SERVICEPUBLIC;

COMMUNITY;
••••••••••

NONPUBLIC;
3PBBBB'B<

TABLE 4.3*

PROPRIETARY.
.<*♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦

255
Functional Focus
Functional
receiving

the

refers

greatest

planning input;
dominant

focus

attention

in both

function.

to

those
and

planning

the

areas

source(s)

instances academic was clearly the

Academic

plans,

other

than

budgets,

were mentioned more frequently than any other type of
The

of

plan.

president was mentioned more frequently than any other

administrator as

the source of planning input.

(See Tables

A.2C.1., A.5B.1., and A.6A.1.-A.6D.1 .)
The

planning

variable,

functional

focus,

takes

Ackoff's^ course grained concept of geniety, described under
the

planning

Ewing's^®

variable,

dichotomy

decision-makers

organization,

for

evaluating

perspective:

and

combines

policy

outside-in;

it with

based

on

inside-out.

the
The

homogeneous organization is most likely to take the insideout approach
to

decisions

rationale.
which

This management

place

more

perspective leads

priority

on

continuity than on mission, goal or role.
perspective,
This

type

of

on the other hand,
organization

organization

to

organization,

following

on

a wide-range

provides

an

meet

of

seeks

those
this

planning

interface

organization

The

outside-in

is more "market” oriented.
out

needs

needs.

The

and

adapts

heterogeneous

outside-in approach will
resources.

between

the

organization and strategic orientation.

the

Functional
planning

draw
focus

variables

Table 4*4 compares

the four groups of postsecondary educational institutions on
the

type

of function

for

which a plan or plans

have been

developed and the source for the planning assumptions.

256
FUNCTIONS WITH PLANS

Fa

PROPRIETARY
SCHOOLS

NONPUBLIC
COLLEGES

COMMUNITY
COLLEGES

PUBLIC
COLLEGES

Ac
Ac

Fa

Ac

Ac

Fa

Fa

F. FINANCE
A. ADMINISTRATION
Ac. ACADEMIC
R. RESEARCH
Fa. FACILITIES
C . COMMUNITY SERVICE
K. SEVERAL CATEGORIES
TO SMALL TO LIST SEPARATELY
SOURCE OF INPUT
PROPRIETARY
SCHOOLS

NONPUBLIC
COLLEGES

COMMUNITY
COLLEGES

PUBLIC
COLLEGES

A. ACADEMIC VICE PRESIDENT/PROVOST

H. HEAD OF DEPARTMENT

B. BOARD OF DIRECTORS/REGENTS

0. OPERATIONS VICE
PRESIDENT

C. COMMITTEE (ANY)
P. PRESIDENT
D. DEAN
S. STAFF
E. EXPERT (OUTSIDE)
X. OUTSIDE
ORGANIZATION

F. FACULTY
K. SEVERAL CATEGORIES
TO LIST SEPARATELY

Z. ADMINISTRATIVE/
FINANCIAL VICE
PRESIDENT

TO SMALL

TABLE 4*4*
Nonpublic colleges displayed the greatest propensity
toward

heterogeniety

Proprietary schools
outward

perspective;

and

a

appear to
however,

outward-inward
represent the
even

the

perspective.
other,

nonpublic

inwardgroup

showed

little

interest

257
outside

in

planning

resources,

a

point which was strengthened by their responses to question
5A. (see Table A.5A.1)
Time
The
two

study

ways:

the

included

futurity

time
of

as a planning variable

current

decisions,

anticipation of trends or value shifts.
covered

with

the

question

the budget period.
responding

to

commitments
The

20

variety

the

The first issue was

commitments

extending beyond

Eighty percent of the forty institutions

this

question

of funds beyond

percent
of

of

and

in

responding

contracts

indicated

the budget period
in

with

they

a

positive

maturities

did

not

make

of one-year.

manner

extending

cited
beyond

a
the

budget period (labor contracts).
This perspective of time sought to address the issue
of

"will the

that

future

future be
is the

like the present"

trend

expected

to

and how far

last?

Seven

eight general survey questions explored this
of the

institutions focused

into

of the

concept.

All

their planning energies on the

next 1-3 years and indicated that the near-term future would
be most like the current period, the balance of the planning
horizon was

either

ignored

or addressed

in a very minimal

way.
The second
question 6D.

perspective of time was

approached with

It considered the future, not in terms of the

futurity of present decisions, but, rather,
how one's perspective

of the future

on the basis of

is likely to influence

258
present

decisions.

This logic

follows

Al m ' s ^

concept

of

"planning from the future for the future."
Public colleges
shifts

should

he

research;

current

however,

for

community

service

(N=4) favored the notion that value

considered
trends

in

should

he

administrative,
planning

planning

areas.

areas;

for

expected

academic,

primary source for assumptions,
facilities

planning

The

except

however,

finance
to

and

continue,

facilities
president

and

was

the

in the academic

and

one

assumption

source

was as likely as any other to name either assumption type,
trend or paradigm.
Community colleges

(N=8)

indicated a preference for

trends in all planning areas, except community service where
a

strong

expectation

president

was

assumptions;

of

value

considered
however,

an

in

shifts

was

important

the

area

indicated.

source

of

for

finance

The

planning
the

vice

president for finance was the most important contributor as
was the

dean of instruction or academic vice president for

the academic area.
Nonpublic
the

areas

of

colleges

(N=12)

administration

and

expected value
research.

shifts

Half

of

responding expected value shifts in academic areas.
were

expected

community

to

continue

service.

institutions

the

In

in

contrast

nonpublic

finance,
to

colleges

the

indicated

variety in sources for planning assumptions.
listed

was

selected

at

least

once

those
Trends

facilities
other

with

groups
far

in

and
of

greater

Every source
the

board

of

259
directors/trustees

reflecting

faculty was mentioned

significant

strength,

in connection with academic,

even

research

and community service planning areas (see Table A.6D.1.)
Proprietary
academic,

schools

facilities

and

(N=5)

expected value

community service

shifts

in

planning areas.

Forty percent of those responding also expected value shifts
in

finance

and

administration.

The

president

and

vice

president of operations were most often named as sources for
assumptions,
times more

with

the

often.

president

Homogeneous

being

named

tendencies

almost

were

three

evident

in

all groups, however, proprietary schools showed the greatest
tendency
when

toward

that

organizational

strategic planning variables

structure,

especially

such as forecasting were

concerned.
Planning Focus
Planning

focus

reflects

interacts with both the

internal

how

the

institution

and external environment.

Choice of assumption sources, planning resources and type of
planning

assumptions

used

were

considered

indicants

of

planning focus.
The first
considered

is

the

aspect
use

of this

of

planning

planning

attribute

resources.

to be

Table

4*5

lists both the internal and external resources used by each
group.

A composite r a n k i n g ^ based on the weighted average

of

responses

the

description

of

for

the

all

groups

resource.

is

The

shown
data

next

to

analyzed

the
were

responses to question 5 which requested respondents to rate

260
each

resource

type

in terms

of emphasis for

each of three

segments of the planning horizon; the scale ranged from "1,"
reflecting
minor

greatest

interest,

categories
Part

the

"A"

which
listed

emphasis,

"0"

was

were

not

eight

used

to
to

applicable

outside

"4"

reflecting

indicate
to

resources

that

only

resource
institution.

with

space

for

additions; part "B" listed seventeen internal resources with
space for additions.

Two observations are worth mentioning:

1. The highest rating assigned to an outside
resource, 3*45» was surpassed by six internal
resources
2. The ranking of faculty as the sixth most
important resource for planning was somewhat
inconsistant with its lower level of importance
as a source for planning assumptions described
in question 6.

This discrepency is explained, in

part, however, by the degree of homogeniety
exhibited and the fact that parameters for
strategic planning, typically, have been
established by a few high level administrators.
Development

of the strategic plan usually

includes a more diverse mixture of functions and
levels.

This relationship is changing, however,

as environmental scanning systems are being
developed which include a wide-range of
resources, both internal and external to the
organization.

It would appear this planning

261
PLANNING
RESOURCE DISTRIBUTION
u ± oiniDU x XKJXi
ruiiiyn
xjwvj aBjuuuxiuLj
P.C.
7
4
3
1
2
8
5
6
_
—
—
—
9

C.C.
2
5
4
1
6
3
8
7
_
9
10
11
-

N.C.
4
1
5
8
3
6
2
—
7
—
—
—

P.S.
1
4
7
3
6
2
5
—
_
—
—
—
-

RANK
C.W.R.
SM'IE/LOC a L a Ss OCT.
3*36
REGIONAL/NATIONAL ASSOC.
3.06
OTHER POSTSECONDARY
2.94
LEGISLATIVE FISCAL AGENCIES
2.85
PAID CONSULTANTS
2.82
STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
2.73
PROFESSIONAL ASSOC.
2.60
DEPARTMENT OF M G T . BUDGET
.79
RELIGIOUS
•58
LOCAL/REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCIES .30
CENSUS DATA
•30
M.E.S.C.
.18
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
.09

INTERNAL PLANNING RESOURCES
1
2
4
3
5
6
7
14
9
11
10
8
13
16
12
15
P.O.
C.C.
N.C.
P.S.
C.W.R.

1
2
5
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
10
13
15
16
14

1
2
3
4
5
6
8
7
11
9
10
16
13
12
14
15

1
8
2
3
6
7
5
9
11
14
10
4
15
12
13
16

PRESIDENT
ACADEMIC VICE PRESIDENT
FINANCIAL VICE PRESIDENT
GOVERNING BOARD
DEPARTMENT HEAD
FACULTY
PLANNING OFFICER
REGISTRAR
STUDENT, FACULTY ADM. COMM.
ACADEMIC COUNCIL
INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH
OPERATIONS VICE PRESIDENT
STUDENT GROUPS
ALUMNI INDIVIDUAL
ALUMNI GROUPS
STUDENTS INDIVIDUAL

PUBLIC COLLEGES
COMMUNITY COLLEGES
NONPUBLIC COLLEGES
PROPRIETARY SCHOOLS
COMBINED WEIGHTED RESPONSE

TABLE 4-5

7-09
5-52
5.06
4-76
4-24
3-67
3.53
3-27
2.79
2.73
2.73
2.58
2.09
1 .85
1 .82
1 .73

262

concept has not yet gained wide-spread acceptance
in postsecondary education.
Each
this

of

study

the

fifteen

permits

a

assumption

slightly

types

different

appearing

glimpes

at

in
the

planning process from five perspectives: type of assumption,
which

includes

environment-specific,
style,

who

mapping.

plans;

environment-general,

and forecasting;

futurity;

lead

Planning

mapping to compare

organization,

education

focus

indicators;

utilized

the

concept

management
and

domain

of

domain

the environmental relations of the four

postsecondary educational groups.
Each group's

domain

consisting of societal,
specific

environment

includes

a general

environment

and context assumption types;

consisting

of normative,

cultural,

assumptions.

The boundaries of the domain are selected from

environmental

technology,
maps

segment

economic;

projection

may

throughput

performance,

structured,

the

input,

and a

assumptions:

demographic;
be

and

trend,

and

paradigm

science

they

groups'

should

not be

identical.

and

political.
or

a

The domains of the four groups should touch,
but

output

Table 4*6

The

combination.
even overlap,
compares the

domains.
Public

colleges

(N=4)

selected

assumptions

which

indicated tendencies toward traditional education values and
a

relatively

broad

scoped

perspective

which

suggested

a

confidence in its capacity to influence some aspects of the
environment.

263

Community
tending

toward

traditional

colleges
integrative

(N=8)
values

pattern-maintenance

more

interested

and

presented

a perspective

along

traditional

with

the

system

more

generally

This group was confident

in its ability to deal with and
group was

less

value

associated with higher education.

The

were

influence its environment.

in

its

specific

which was

environment

both short-term

and

trend oriented.
Nonpublic colleges (N=12) projected a more proactive
value

system,

orientation
community

combining pattern-maintenance values
toward

colleges

performance.
indicated

their primary service areas.
schools

indicated

greater

concern

an

Both

concern

nonpublic

for

trends

an
and

affecting

All groups, except proprietary

inward-outward

for

with

the

perspective

internal

reflecting

environment

and

organizational maintenance, than an outward-inward approach.
The
the

same

proprietary

organizational

school

(N=5)

characteristics

by the community college group,
integrative

was

group

stronger.

as

showed
those

some

of

displayed

except the tendency toward

This

group

was

oriented toward the external environment;

proactive

and

it expected value

shifts to occur in the short-term.
Although there were
traditional higher
more obvious.
are:

education

subtle

differences between

groups,

similarities were

the
far

The two which could be of greatest importance

1) the extremely near-term planning horizon all groups

relate

to,

and

2)

the

tendency

of

the

higher

education

DOMAIN MAP
PUBLIC COLLEGES

COMMUNITY COLLEGES

NONPUBLIC COLLEGES

PROPRIETARY SCHOOLS

ORGANIZATION:

PATTERN-MAINTENANCE

PATTERN-MAINTENANCE/

PATTERN-MAINTENANCE/
GOAL-ATTAINMENT

INTEGRATION/

ENVIRONMENT,
GENERAL :
SPECIFIC:

COMBINATION
NORMATIVE

SOCIETAL
STRUCTURAL

COMBINATION
NORMATIVE/CULTURAL

SOCIETAL
INPUT

BOUNDARY

:

ECONOMIC

DEMOGRAPHIC

DEMOGRAPHIC

ECONOMIC

PROJECTION

:

COMBINATION

TREND

TREND

PARADIGM

INFORMATION/
PROBLEM-ORIENTED

PREDICTIVE

INFORMATION/
PREDICTIVE

PREDICTIVE

LEAD
EDUCATION
INDICATOR:

264

ftMXB 4.6

265
groups
past

to believe

educational

the

future

will

environment.

be a reflection

All

groups

tended

of

the

to limit

the planning resources utilized to senior administrators, as
noted earlier this
changing.

characteristic of strategic planning is

Nevertheless,

the futurity and perspective of the

planning process seemed to contradict
institutions
planning,
a

that

strategic

the assertion by the

planning,

or

other than incremental budgeting,

regular

or

systemic

basis

(see

any

type

of

is occurring on

Table

A.P.2.

for

preliminary survey data).
Environmental Scanning Perspective
This

planning

identifying

which

institution
interest

was

environment.

of

most

between

variable

the

the

concerned

environmental

concerned
specific

A g u i l a r ^

was

with

and

environment

found

segments
the
and

several

with
the

range

the

of

general

problems

which

organizations must be willing to deal with in order to enjoy
the

benefits

quantities

of
of

distinguishing
information.

environmental

scanning:

data,

2)

between

and

1 ) process

develop

relevant

and

methods
non

large
for

relevant

The second problem leads to the recognition of

two quasi-organizational

issues:

1)

informing the

scanners

of the organization's strategies, and 2) helping the scanner
learn his/her competence level relative to the data scanned
and their source.
have

fewer

Homogeneous, uninodal organizations will

scanners,

level positions.

and

those

scanners

will

have

higher

Heterogeneous orgnizations will tend to be

266
more

open

and

therefore

will

use

a

greater

number

and

variety of scanners.
The assumption sources listed for question 6 reflect
possible

scanning roles

and the assumption types represent

areas or segments of the environment available for scanning.
Question

6E

listed

might use to
the

types

interpret

forecasting

listed

four

the

of

filters

information.

perspective

equipment

of

and

the

which

scanners

Question 6D explored
scanner.

software

Question

available

institutions for information processing

to

3

the

(See Tables A3 and

A6 for detailed responses).
The

general

environment

represented

by

technology;

economic; demographic;

specific

planning

in

environment

assumption

types:

(internal);

input

output (external).
likely

to

be

this

assumption

was

types:

and

(external);

science

political.

represented

structural

study

by

the

and
The

planning

(internal);

throughput

was

cultural

(internal);

and

Table 4*7 indicates the environment most

scanned

if

scanning

is

included

in

the

institution's planning process.
Question 6E presented

respondents with the

problem

of matching assumption categories with education indicators.
Scanners
types

searching

of

for lead

filtering

education indicators

models

environmental

signals

postsecondary

education

available

which
plans:

may,

or

for

identifying

should,

informative,

problem-oriented, and program-evaluation.

have four

impact

predictive,

267

SCANNING PERSPECTIVE
PUBLIC
COLLEGES

COMMUNITY
COLLEGES

NONPUBLIC
COLLEGES

PROPRIETARY
SCHOOLS

GENERAL
ENVIRONMENT:

ECONOMIC DEMOGRAPHIC DEMOGRAPHIC ECONOMIC

SPECIFIC
ENVIRONMENT:

COMBINED INTERNAL

INTERNAL

EXTERNAL

FORECASTING
FOCUS
:

TREND

TREND

PARADIGM

PREDICTIVE

PREDICTIVE

TREND

INTERPRETING
MODE
: PROBLEM- PREDICTIVE
ORIENTED

--------------------------------

m

x

x

T

.

7

----------------------------------------------- :-----------------------------

Informative indicators describe the state of society
and

changes

model,

taking

social

production

place

within

it.

must

he

statistics

as

time

series

To

qualify

subject

with

the

for

to

this

regular

possibility

of

disaggregation by what are considered through research to be
the most relevant variables.
Public colleges (N=3) apparently use this model most
often for monitoring organization
segment

of

the

environment;

general

and value

climate;

environment;
shifts,

the

the

demographic

external

specific

all of these variables take

an outward-inward approach and their selection is consistent
with
Two

the

data

problems,

response:

1)

criteria

indicated

however,

are

"N"

is

for use

associated

extremely

small;

with

with
2)

it

the model.

this
is

group's

generally

inconsistent with the group's response to question 8A; where
only one respondent indicated availability of forecast data
of the type noted above.

268

Community

colleges

(N=8)

selected

this

model

for

monitoring organization climate; science and technology, and
political segments of the general environment;
specific

environment

colleges these
criteria

for

variable.

As

selections were

data;

in this

in the

and input,

case

compatible with

case,

however,

a

of public

the model's

"N" was

a bit

larger and represented 73 percent of all institutions in the
group.

Six of the institutions actually presented forecast

data for question 8A,

indicating some response consistency;

still, much of the data requested was supplied by only four
institutions.
Nonpublic
areas

dealing

environment.
requirements;

colleges

with

(N=13)

preferred

organization

These

choices

this model

climate

and

the

match

the

model's

also

for

specific
data

"N" is reasonably large compared to the total

for the group (N=20) and, more important, eight institutions
were

able

to

question 8A.

provide

forecasts

for

all

the

variables

in

This represented reasonable evidence that some

planning was being accomplished by the group.

While only 13

responded

responded

question

to

this

question,

6E,

eighteen

to

8 and 44 percent had developed forecasts for the

full range of data requested.
Four proprietary schools responded to this question
(6E)

and

climate

preferred
and

environment.

the

the

informative

demographic

model

segment

for
of

organization
the

general

Each choice was a good fit for the model and

three of the four respondents were able to provide forecasts

269
for some of the areas covered hy question 8.

Some of the

areas,

other

were

such as
of

tenured

little

faculty did not

interest,

such

as

apply;

student

credit

areas
hours.

Still, where there was planning interest, forecast data was
available.
Predictive

indicators

are

those

operationalized

system components and goals that fit into explicit models of
the

social

system;

indicators with the

they

are

similar

to

informative

additional criterion of belonging to a

formal model.
Public
the economy.

colleges

selected

this model

for monitoring

Community colleges selected it for monitoring

the adaptive

aspect

of organization climate,

the economic,

and demographic sectors of the general environment and as a
forecasting vehicle for both value shifts and trends.
Problem-oriented
social
helpful

problem
in

areas.

providing

indicators
They

the

are

basis

are

operationalized

intended
for

to

policy

be

directly

solutions

and

should ideally point toward required action or the need for
further

investigation;

supporting

statistics

are likely

to

be "one-off," as opposed to regularly produced.
Public

colleges

(N=3)

selected

this

model

most

frequently, and it was least popular with community colleges
(N=8).
(N=13)

It was only marginally useful to nonpublic colleges
and proprietary schools

reasonable
problem

because

area,

unique

requiring

(IT=4).

studies
staff

or

are

These

responses are

required

institutional

for

each

research

270
personnel.

Institutions using

strategic

planning concepts

would be more likely to choose this indicator model.
Program-evaluation

indicators

provide

base-line

information concerning national or statewide programs.

Once

a program has been developed and implemented by an agency or
bureau

it

is

important

to

have

some

measure

of

how

effectively it is meeting its aims (policies/ goals) and how
efficiently it is using the aggregate resources committed to
it.

Program-evaluation

indicators

may

be

useful

for

comparing the institution's goals and mission with state and
national policy.
Public

colleges

(N=3)

found

this

indicator

model

useful for monitoring the internal environment as it applied
to programs where standards or norms were well established.
Community

colleges

(N=8)

internal performance
(N=13)

found

indicator
anomaly.
type,

this

selected

and
to

models.

client
be

This

the

this

needs.
least

appears

to

model

to

monitor

Nonpublic colleges
attractive
be

of

somewhat

the

of

an

The group preferred the goal-attainment assumption

performance,

and

one

would,

therefore,

expect

the

program-evaluation model to be valued more highly than one
of the other models.
Based
appear
could

that
make

versions,

on

the

regular
these

quite

responses
reporting

indicator
useful

for

to
and

models,

question

6E

government
or

effecting

more

it

would

incentives

sophisticated

coordination

in

a

relatively unobtrusive way, and at the same time provide the

271

means

for

implementing

planning

institutions on the planning fringe,

systems

to

those

a position which would

appear to he heavily populated.
Strategic Orientation
The

principal

area

variable was forecasting.
and,
use

if so,
of

how did

education

institutions was
discriminate
direction

and

of

for

this

planning

Did the institution expect change

it expect to prepare for change?

indicators
of

by

interest,

between

postsecondary

as well

indicators

magnitude

institution tended

interest

of

ability to

anticipating

change.

Which

to be more proactive

preparing for change?

educational

as their

in

The

the

type

of

in dealing with or

Question eight asked for time series

data covering a variety of personnel and funding trends to
observe

the

interaction

of

the

planning

variables

in

specific forecasting areas.
Strategic

orientation

includes

forecasts

for

retention of students; effectiveness; growth; efficiency and
flexibility.

It also

considered

the

issue

of autonomy by

looking at forecasted funding sources and changes in mix and
level of contribution from each type

(see Tables

A.8A-A.8B

for detailed responses).
Six public colleges answered this question but only
one

supplied

data

beyond

1983

for

new

students,

and

no

institution was able to supply graduating student forecasts
beyond
expects

1985;

therefore,

to perform

it

on this

is

not

important

known

how

criterion.

this
The

group
same

272
problem occurred for the other data categories.

Of course,

it is possible the institutions did not wish to share this
information (only one was able or willing to supply forecast
information beyond 1983, except for total students where two
institutions

supplied

forecasts)

or,

a

more

provocative

possibility is they have not established a plan beyond the
1983

budget.
Ten

community

colleges

answered

the

question

but

only six were able to supply forecasts beyond 1983 and only
three were able to furnish forecasts for all items.
Eighteen
for

nonpublic

colleges

answered the

question

the period through 1983; however, only six were able to

supply forecasts for all items.
Five proprietary schools

responded

to the

question

but only one was able, or willing, to provide forecasts for
all items.
The

second

part

patterns

and

trends.

forecast

data

beyond

of

question

Only

one

1983*

8

dealt with

public

The

other

college
groups

funding
supplied

were

more

responsive and the results are noted in Table 4*8.
The planning resources, scanners, used by each group
are

listed

on

Table

internal,

senior

with

data

the

limited

responsive

shown

indicates

on

Table

however,

questions

a

preference

This knowledge,
4*8

ability/interest

schools,
to

and

administrators.

scanning

Proprietary

4*5,

indicates
by

were

dealing

all

combined

a

somewhat

the

groups.

consistantly
with

for

the

more

external

FUNDS FORECAST
FUNDING
SOURCE

PUBLIC
COLLEGES

COMMUNITY
COLLEGES

NONPUBLIC
COLLEGES

1982

1983

1987

iysz'

1983

1987

5
23 .7 *
8.1

4
30.4*
8-3

1
4 0 .0 *

9
25-3*
7.1

9
26 .9*
7.4

7
29-5*
6.7

-

-

-

—

-

-

10
2 7 .1 *
10.4

10
29. 2*
10.3

8
27-1*
11.9

5
46 .1 *
17-7

52 .9*
13-6

9
37-3*
7 -9

9
35-3*
6.9

33-9*
6.2

6
5.1*
2.7

2.7*
2-3

1982"

PROPRIETARY
SCHOOLS

1983

1987

1982

1983

1987

15
64.2*
22.2

11
66 .6 *
2 4 .8

5
96.0*
8.9

5
95-0*
11.2

4
91-3*
17.5

0 TUITION
N
X
SD

-

16
61-3*
2 2 .4

0 LOCAL
N
X
SD

—

—

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0 STATE
N
X
SD

4

1
50 .0*
-

7

7

1.4*

7

5

1-3*

1.5*

-

-

1
10.0*

1
10.0*

-

-

1
15.0*
-

N
X
SD

0 OTHER

5

10.8*
7-3

3
5 .4 *
9. 2

1
—
-

19-4* 11.3* 10.0*
1OO.0* 100.0* TOorc*

6

4

2 .2 *
1.6

5.2*
5.9*
7.3*
100.0* 100.0* lo o rc *

7

7

8.7*
7 -9

7.6*
7.2

5
5-4*
4-9

1
10.0*

1
15.0*

1
2 0. 0*

-

-

-

28 .6* 26 .9 * 26 .5* (1 6 .0 * ) (2 0 .0 * ) ( 2 6 .3 * )
TOO.'O* 10(7.0* 10U/0*" 100.0* 100.0* 100.0*

TABLE 4-8.

273

0 FEDERAL

274
environment

and

tended

to

anticipate

change more

than the

other groups.
The

final

covered

by

question

goals.

Twenty goal types ranging from research to faculty

development

aspect

were

of

7 which

listed

strategic
considered

with

orientation
the

provision

evoluation

for

was
of

additions.

Respondents were requested to rate each goal type over three
time-frames:

1-3

rating

started

scale

significant;

"3"

years;

4-9

with

years;

"1"

moderate;

for

"4"

and

10+

greatest

minor,

years.

The

emphasis;

"2"

and

"0"

for

not

applicable.
Public

colleges

(N=3)

research and professional
time

frames.

organization,
greatest

They

also

were

most

interested

level preparation
recognized

a

over all three

growing

faculty and program development,

level

of

emphasis

in

the

10+

in

need

for

reaching the

segment

of

the

planning horizon.
Community
vocational
skills,
Strong,

and

colleges

preparation,
organization,

continuing

(N=8)

with

growing

faculty

interest

were

was

most

interested

interest

and program
indicated

in

in

leisure

development.
in

associate

degree programs; however, very little interest was shown for
compensatory education.
Nonpublic colleges (N=13) indicated strong immediate
interest in organization development and continuing into the
4-9 year time-frame.

The general or liberal arts degree was

the main focus of degree programs.

275
Proprietary
continuing

interest

indicated
programs

schools
in

interest
in

later

(N=5)

indicated

vocational

in

associate

years.

This

strong,

education.
and

group

Several

"bachelor's
was

also

degree

concerned

about organization development in the near-term.
The
relative

goals

selected

degrees

postsecondary
institutions

of

by

all

emphasis

educational

four

reflected

values.

indicated

any

findings

presented

groups,

the

traditional

Only

interest

and

a

very

few

in exploring uncharted

areas.
The

considered to be
of

the

study.

important
As

the

in

data

are

both by this researcher

planning

for

greater

postsecondary
planning,

significance

subjected

and others

education,

additional
than

chapter

were

and representative of the value

analysis,

educational

this

those

to

further

interested

and

in

postsecondary

findings,
presented

perhaps

here,

will

of
be

forth coming.
The most

significant finding was made at the very

start of the study.

Only 27 of the 77

institutions

(35-1

percent) responding to the preliminary survey indicated they
had prepared and were currently using a strategic plan.

Of

course,

of

many

more

indicated

they

were

in

the

process

preparing a plan or evaluting the benefits of planning.
This study was not designed to predict the number of
postsecondary

educational

institutions

that

would

have

a

plan by some future date, nor was it designed to comment on

276

the quality of planning presently "being accomplished.

The

study was intended to inventory certain planning attributes
of

as

many

possible,

the

institution’s
presented

postsecondary
only

constraint

willingness

in this

educational

chapter

to

toward

that

participate.

are

the

institutions

result

end

being

The
of that

as
the

findings
effort.

Hopefully, they will be useful to other researchers, so that
cummulative
conducted
planning.

results will be possible as future studies are

in this important area— postsecondary educational
In

the

following

chapter,

the

researcher

will

summarize these findings and make recommendations, both for
future research and ways to encourage more
plan.

institutions to

277
NOTES
^Ackoff, Ibid. chapter II, p. 72.
2
Data for each survey question are presented in
Appendix A.
References to those data will take the form:
Appendix "A"; followed by the question number, "6A", for
example; followed by the chart number "I", for example; the
last character will indicate multiple pages.
References
will read, for example, see Table A.6A.1.1.
^See chapter III p. 213
regarding ranking methodology.

for detailed explanation

^Hills, Ibid. chapter II, p. 73
Scott,
chapter II, p. 65
Steiner, Ibid., chapter II,
Aguilar, Ibid., chapter II, p. 142.

Ibid.,
p. 66

5Ackoff, Ibid.
6Ackoff, Ibid.
7Hills, Ibid.
O

Palola and Padgett, Ibid.
^Ackoff, Ibid.
^ Ew in g,
^Alm,
12

Ibid.

Ibid.

See Ranking Methodology discussion in chapter III.

^Aguilar,

Ibid., pp. 58-59*

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS,
AND IMPLICATIONS
In this chapter,

the writer has presented a summary

of the study and findings followed hy his conclusions, which
were based on the findings,

theories

study as well as research

found

and

constructs of the

in the

literature. The

implications are the product of that analysis.
Summary
Background
The issue of autonomy has influenced virtually every
major

state

1850.

In

policy
fact,

aimed

at

Michigan

postsecondary
has

led the

education
other

since

states

in

measures to guarantee autonomy toits state higher education
institutions.
incorporated

in

The

latest

the

1963

effort
State

Of

toward

that

Michigan

end

was

Constitution

(effective January 1, 1964)*

Unwittingly, or otherwise, the

language

document

contained

in

that

not

only

guaranteed

autonomy for the institutions but also, by designating them
as

coequal

possibility
threat

that

entities
of

any

with

state

regulatory

voluntary

agencies,

coordination,

cooperation

might,

diminish the institution’s legal status.
278

eliminated
and
in

posed
some

the
the
way,

279

Michigan's
decades

of

educational

enjoying

environment has been

large

has

covering

a

been

after

growth

a

scale

and

several

supportive

faced with the problem of adjusting to

one which is both turbulent
change

community,

linked

variety

of

and more tightly coupled.

to

militant

social

and

campus

political

roots dating to the 1950's and 1960's.

The

involvement
issues,

with

Coupled with higher

education's more proactive role was a perceived devaluing of
advanced

degrees

and

loss

maintenance object

of value).

by

a

critics

special

given

interest

roles,

reflected

of

(a

pattern-

Both of these charges,voiced

platform

groups

integrity

as

seeking

''activists"
ways

to

substantive changes

in

and

other

legitimate

their

what

was

once

considered by some to be an impenetrable curtain, sheltering
academe from a harsh political reality, and making

autonomy

a fiction.
As the criteria for allocating a shrinking resource
base

between

focuses
of

competing

on performance,

some

educational

social

institutions

the status,

institutions

heard

again

and

constitutional

again

amendment

with

if not the continuity,

will

The cry for statewide coordination,

increasingly

become

problematic.

if not control, will be

either

retrenchment

finally legitimating

what

or

a

many

administrators have already recognized, namely that autonomy
is a relative and not an absolute status.
The
educational

turbulence

is

pervasive.

environment

tenuous but

so

Not

only is

are

the

the

state's

280
economic,
spread

social

and

trauma may,

political

in

some

environments.

ways,

however,

This

he

wide

a friend

to

education; postsecondary education could, in fact, provide a
near

term

other

solution

for

environmental

economy,

for

some

of

sectors.

instance,

the problems faced
Restructuring

must

begin

postsecondary education effort.
of

course,

is

perhaps

the

postsecondary educators.
focal

point

of

this

a

is

state's

coordinated

divisive

of

any

the heart of this issue

study

the

The issue of coordination,

most

At

with

the

by

the

question of

facing
and the

planning.

Advocates of autonomy argue that institutions are capable of
planning and the outcome will benefit both the state and the
institutions.

Advocates

of statewide

other hand, argue that an

they assert,

have been
seem

to

have

on the

institution can no doubt plan for

itself but will the state benefit?
benefit,

coordination,

the

Even if the state should

cost will be higher

than would

incurred under statewide coordination; both sides
agree

the

that
ability

postsecondary
and

the

educational
incentive

institutions

to

plan,

the

disagreement is centered on cost and benefits.
Purpose
The purpose of the study was focused on exploring a
fundamental premise, accepted by both critics and friends of
postsecondary education:

institutions plan.

The study was

designed to examine the planning practices of postsecondary
educational

institutions

in

the

State

of

Michigan

for

indicants of style and commitment in meeting their strategic

281

goals and the long-term educational needs of the state.
accomplish this objective the study was divided

To

into three

discrete activities:
1.

Inventory the planning attributes of postsecondary
institutions.

2.

Explore the efficacy, based on the planning
attributes inventory, of both (autonomy, statewide
coordination) political models as implemented
systems, using existing planning processes; or, if
a new political model is required, to ensure an
adequate postsecondary education delivery system.

3.

Consider the possibility,

if one exists, that the

casual use of indicators by the institutions
surveyed suggests a pattern which could lead to the
institutionalization of educational indicators in
the State of Michigan.
Procedure
The

research

questionnaires

were

utilized
developed

survey
and

methodology.

pretested.

The

Two
first

instrument was designed to serve as a response vehicle.

It

was mailed, along with a cover letter explaining the study,
to 162 presidents of postsecondary educational institutions
in the State of Michigan.
following

information:

involving five
person

the

choices

president

survey coordinator.
received.

the

This questionnaire requested the
current

; and the

would

status

name

designate

as

of
and

the

planning,
title

of a

institution's

Seventy-seven responses were eventually

282
The
named

second

hy

the

coordinator.
questions,
were

of

President
The

as

closed-end

with

completed

one

was

mailed

that

or

two

All

except

words

questionnaires

were

the

consisted

parts.

type,

to

person

institution's survey

questionnaire

six with multiple

the

answered

questionnaire

or

of

eight

of the questions

two

which

could

numbers.

returned;

he

Forty-six

this

required

numerous telephone calls and one reminder-card mailing.
Each

response,

tabulated; and

on

both

instruments,

was

carefully

statistical treatments to determine

central

tendency and variability were used where appropriate.
objective

of

these

instruments

was

to

record

The

certain

planning attributes of each participating institution.
The
groups:

institution's

public

colleges

and

responses

colleges;

were

community

proprietary

sorted

colleges;

schools.

These

into

four

nonpublic

designations

generally followed a typology used by the State of Michigan
Board of Education.
the

groups

were compared

organization;
focus;

The data were aggregated by group and

time;

planning
planning

using
style;

eightplanning
type

focus;

of

constructs:

plan;

environmental

functional
scanning

perspective; and strategic orientation.
Comparisons were limited to the planning attributes
inventoried.

The study did not attempt to develop planning

attributes as correlates of quality for either the planning
process or institutional management traits.
developed

from

a

review

of

the

literature,

The constructs,
suggested

the

presence

of

certain

attributes

283
characteristics

certain

organizational

could

or

the

indicate

pathologies.

Some

of

absence

a

of

variety

these

of

possibilities

were explored in the process of analyzing the data.
Empirical Findings Summarized
This

study

attributes,

inventoried

suggested

in

certain

the

salient

planning

planning

literature,

to

determine the status of planning, the potential for planning
and

planning

style

institutions
analysis
general

in

detailed

and

sixty-four

evaluate

the

directed

a

forty-six
state

of

study.

toward

Michigan.

to

This
to

determined

The

institution's

identifying

detailed

institutions

participate.

of the

educational

invite participation

Seventy-seven

agreed

quality

postsecondary

preliminary survey

of planning and

more

was

the

followed
status

at

the

existence

in the

responded

study

plan;

the

did

not

its focus
of,

and

in

some cases the strength of, certain planning attributes.
Study Participation
Public Community Nonpublic Proprietary
Colleges Colleges Colleges
Schools
Total
Total
Population

13

29

54

186

282

Population
Surveyed

13

29

53

67

162

Responses
Received

8

19

34

16

77

Agreed to
Participate

8

17

25

14

64

Surveys
Returned

8

11

21

6

46

Twenty-seven

284
the
seventy-seven

of

institutions

reporting on the general status of planning indicated that
strategic

planning

processes

were

implemented,

this

accounted for 35-1 percent.
Twenty-four
reported

of

strategic

the

seventy-seven

planning

institutions

processes were

going

to

he

implemented; this accounted for 31•2 per cent.
Twelve
benefits

of

additional
strategic

institutions

planning

were

indicated
being

the

evaluated

preparatory to making an implementation decision.
Combined,
interest

in

these

three

strategic

groups

planning,

represented

76.6 percent

a

strong

of

those

responding; however, a much smaller number 35*1 percent were
actually benefiting from the planning process.
A
survey

diverse

list

coordinators

of

titles

selected

participating institutions.

was

by

reflected
the

for

the

presidents

of

These titles and the functions

they represented were indicative of the status of strategic
planning:

twenty-seven

included;

dean of instruction (7);provost (3); director of

academic
(2);

planning

director/vice

(3);

presidents

director

president

named themselves,

of

for

others

institutional
development

research

(3)

and

a

variety of other second and third level positions were named
among the remaining nineteen coordinators.
Twenty-two
affirmatively

the

of the

forty-four

question,

"Is

a

institutions

answered

comprehensive

document

prepared periodically which is referred to as the plan?"

285
Budgeting methods favored by the institutions were:
incremental, 50 percent; planning, programming and budgeting
systems,

18.2

percent;

zero-base,

15*9

percent;

formula,

13-7 percent; and performance, 2.2 percent.
When

asked

how

long-range planning,
range

plan

personnel

was
were

the

budget

process

was

related

to

37*8 percent indicated no formal long-

prepared;
used

but

24*4

percent

different

indicated

processes

the

were

same

employed

and planning for one period was not directly tied to other
periods; 20 percent indicated they were integrated; and 17-8
percent indicated the processes were totally unrelated.
Central planning functions were used by 37*2 percent
of

the

second

institutions
level

level.

of

Where

percent

of

and

the

were

organization

central

the

generally

planning

institutions

positioned

reporting

to

functions

reported

a

at

the

existed,

staff

the

first
59-1

of three

or

more.
When
where

asked

the activity,

about

decentralized

planning,

was

planning

incorporated

functions

in position

descriptions, 88.2 percent named finance; 73*5 percent named
the

provost's

services.
department

office
Outside

and
the

heads

were

and

faculty

institutions
decentralized

planning

67*6
central

named
by

percent

by

26.5

resources

named

student

administration
61.8

percent
(when

percent
as

of

area
the

representing

influence

was

considered, however, faculty was mentioned less frequently).

286
Budget information processing questions were of two
types:

1)

file

organization

and

2)

system

capability.

Manual processing at the institutional level was reported by
37*2 percent of the institutions;

data base facilities were

available at 14*7 percent of the institutions.
responses
the

The range of

indicated 4*2 percent had data base capability at

course

level

and

46.4

percent

were

processing

information manually at the department level.
Long-range planning information processing responses
indicated

60.7

planning

compared

systems.
the

percent

used

with

manual

14*5

71*4 percent

systems

percent

for

financial

employing

data

reported using manual methods

generation of academic plans compared with 7*1

having

base
for

percent

data base facilities.
Level of plan detail was greatest for the 1-3 year

segment

of

the

planning

horizon,

with

few

reporting plans covering more than three years.
were constructed using a

institutions
Most plans

high level of detail.

A further indication of planning style was the type,
level

of

influence,

resources.
outside

and

of

use

of

planning

All institutions favored internal resources over

resources and

management,

frequency

faculty

rarely named,

top level

and

administrators

staff.

Student

and

over middle
alumni

were

on a list of sixteen internal resources they

held the lowest positions.
Questions
assumptions,

relating

premises,

were

to

the

most

institution's

planning

often designated as

"not

applicable,"
questions.
were

the

only

287
percent answered

62

The president,
most

frequent

followed

sources

this

category

of

closely by the provost

for

planning

assumptions.

Lower levels of the organization and outside resources were
rarely

used

and

the

focal

point

for

assumptions

on

the

planning horizon was the 1-3 year segment.
Assumption categories and types favored by the four
postsecondary education groups reflected

diversity in such

areas as organization,

dealings with both the

external

and

these

environment,

preferences

were

forecasting

combined

with

models it was possible to infer changes

internal and

perspective.
education

When

indicator

in mission and/or

performance perspective.
A final

aspect

of planning

with a question on goal

1) all

noting:

groups

style was

evolution.
showed

2 ) relatively little

compensatory

education

3 ) and

Three points are worth

interest

development,

investigated

in

organizational

interested

several

was

shown

proprietary

in

schools

showed interest in becoming degree granting institutions.
The final
was

planning

forecasts
prevailed.
to report

area investigated by the

products:

were

available

forecasts
beyond

and

empirical study

strategies.

1983, trend

Twelve of the forty-six

When

assumptions

institutions were

able

1987 forecasts for all data categories requested;

twenty-five were

able

more of the categories.

to report

1987 forecasts for one or

288
In summary, the survey reflected a limited number of
institutions

with

a

currently

implemented

long-

range/strategic planning system.

When planning systems were

implemented

fragmented

the

processes

were

and

reflected

limited participation in the planning process.
Conclusions
Analytical statements contained in this study relate
to the data collected and are limited

to the institutions

submitting responses to the question or questions analyzed.
Since

all

postsecondary

choose to participate,
of

participants;

Nevertheless,

detail,

as

well

attributes

as

institutions

did

not

the data can only reflect the status

this

group.

educational

limitation
the
in

identified

study

is

each

true

attempted

comparative

by

also

to

terms,

participating

for

each

describe
the

in

planning

institution,

aggregated to one of the four referent groups.
Fourteen study assumptions
of this dissertation.
manner

through

indirectly,
literature
survey

an

Some could be addressed

empirical

and

the

data,

others

literature

In

in a direct

were

and constructs

reviewed in Chapter II.

complimentary approaches.
of course,

study;

through theories,

data

were listed in Chapter I

approached

found

in the

some cases both the
provided

useful

and

The constraints mentioned above,

apply to the assumptions evaluated using survey

and the logic of the arguments developed through the

review of

literature

the balance.

apply

to the

conclusions

reached

for

1•

289
Postsecondary

Assumption:

educational

institutions recognize the need for long-range planning and
many have developed their own strategic plans.
The postsecondary educational
did

not'

report

planning

is

a

organizational
achieved

strong

evidence

vital

activity

climate

with

more

of

and

a

recognition

for

ensuring

optimum

institutions surveyed

both

its

improving

mission

utilization

that

of

will

be

resources.

Perhaps the most revealing finding was the relatively small
number

of

institutions

currently

using

strategic

compared to the number responding to the survey.

plans

However,

the number of institutions indicating interest in developing
strategic plans was encouraging, and this interest should be
recognized and encouraged.
2.

Assumption:

institutions

use

Many

a planning

postsecondary

horizon which

educational

is greater

than

three years.
The

survey

only were those
current

plans

horizon

in use

did

not

confirm

this

assumption.

Not

institutions reporting the availability of

small

in

number,

was

also

cause

but
for

the

limited

concern by

planning

all who

are

interested in a strong postsecondary educational capability.
Most institutions'

planning horizon was three years or less,

and, based on the availability of forecasts for key planning
areas,

it is not

measured

in months

unlikely the practical horizon in use is
rather than years.

When this truncated

planning perspective is combined with incremental budgeting,

290
performance criteria cannot be effectively used to maintain
viable programs and eliminate those which are declining or
marginal.
3*

Assumption:

significantly

influence

Mission,
the

role

and

scope

will

selection of planning criteria

by the institution.
Both
the

survey

the

domain

data,

assumption.

and

the

However,

institutions'

with

mapping

the
plans

technique

literature

tend

relatively
and

used

the

to

to

confirm

small

very

analyze
this

number

short

of

planning

horizons suggest some inconsistency between the institutions
responses to

questions

concerning planning assumptions

and

the reality of planning practice, forecasts.
Mission,
the

role and scope,

institutions

than

seemed less

survival.

While

important to

this

might

be

expected in the strongly entrepreneural group of proprietary
schools,
other

indicants of this tendency were also

groups

course,

as

well.

might

well

Greater

attention

ensure

survival

apparent in

to

planning,

by

of

improving

effectiveness in programs closely identified with mission.
4.

Assumption: Assumptions about the future provide

a "map1' for strategic planning and policy making.
The domain maps of the four groups were surprisingly
well

balanced

implemented

for
and

institutions
often

with

fragmented

planning

Perhaps this positive view of mission,
reflects

what

might

be

achieved

rather

goal(s)

with

more

sparsely
processes.

and role(s)
widespread

planning,

especially

if

291
that planning

were

accomplished

using horizons measured in years rather than months.
5.
the

Assumption; The type of indicator(s) selected by

institution

in

developing

the

assumption-set

reflects

leadership traits and environmental perspectives.
The possibility of institutions using lead education
indicators

to

produce

more

viable

plans

and

achieve

some

measure of unobtrusive statewide coordination was indicated
by the study. Four education indicator models for filtering
data supplied by environmental scanners and translated into
assumptions by planning
public

colleges

community
schools

resource

preferred

colleges,
preferred

personnel

the

non-public

were

described;

problem-oriented model;
colleges

the predictive

and

model.

proprietary

The

informative

and program-evaluation models were selected less frequently.
As

noted

in

chapter

IV

oriented model by public
the

type

of

information

the

preference

colleges

for

is not

frequently

the

problem-

inconsistent with

sought

for

strategic

planning processes.
Interestingly,

no predictive

educational

indicators

were found during the review of the literature; however, the
publication
modest
criteria

Indicators

attempt
for

to
the

I II , previously

provide

cited,

information

informative

model.

does

meeting
One

make

the

a

data

conclusion

stemming from this observation was that this information is
not

widely

disseminated,

nor

is

it

enough to meet the needs of educators.

published
Further,

frequently
information

292
specifically

oriented

to

Michigan

would

come

closer

to

meeting the relevancy test for scanning.
If the concepts developed for social indicators have
any validity, it is clear those theories could he applied to
the Michigan education setting.

Of course, there must he

a

spirit of cooperation on the part of users and confidence hy
hoth educational clients and publics alike in the integrity
of systems using indicator methodology.

6 . Assumption:
closely

related

The mission

to

the

of the

major

institution

segment,

domain,

is
of

postsecondary education it serves, hut this relationship is
dynamic;

that

is,

each major segment

has a life

cycle,

as

does each institution within that segment.
Planning
limited

to

in

a

nevertheless,

the

small

the

institutions
number

goal

of

evolution

surveyed

senior

was

clearly

administrators;

question

showed

concern

for three development areas: institution, program and staff.
This

finding

was

considered

significant

perspective.

Greater

participation

should

in more

frequent

the

result

congruence

between

the

hy

from
faculty

and substantive

institution's

a

planning
and

staff

testing of

mission

and

the

mission

of

the

educational needs of its service area.
According

to

the

literature

the

institution must he challenged from time-to-time hoth from a
directional
difficult
measuring

and
without

a

substantive
performance

performance.

Of

perspective.

criteria
course,

and

This
feedback

high-marks

is
for
for

performance
wrong;

293
meaningless if the

are

this

scanning

can

only

and

he

determined

an "open"

hi-directional manner.

mission

system

and

through
of

goals

are

environmental

communicating in a

Somehow a collegial spirit must he

incorporated in the planning process.

7.

Assumption:

Identifying

those

education

indicators used hy postsecondary institutions is required as
one

of

several

initial

efforts

to

develop

a

uniform

strategic planning system.
The study indicates wide-spread interest, if not the
capability,
surveyed.

in

strategic

of those

the

institutions

institutions with a strategic planning

capability do

not

assumptions.

However,

the

among

The study also clearly shows that many, more than

one third,

is viable

planning

regularly

develop and

the concept

and could he developed

institutions

using

test new planning

of education indicators

around the

assumptions.

63 percent of

Procedurally,

the

change would he one of substituting published indicators for
the

intuitive

or

thinly

senior admininstrators.

developed

assumptions

with

more

a

few

Importantly, the judgment of those

administrators would not be diminished;
enhanced

of

reliable

rather

it would be

data— scanning would

still

be

required, but it could be opened up to a more diverse group.
Based
knowledge

of

on the review of literature it is clear that
the

planning

criteria

used

by

postsecondary

educational institutions is critical for the development of
a

coordinating

system.

There

is,

however,

an

important

distinction

to

be

made.

294
Although

a

uniform

strategic

planning system might not be considered desirable,
system

of

education

information to the

indicators

supplying

institutions,

uniform

a state
planning

and supporting the return

flow of assumptions educators were incorporating into their
plans,

based

on

the

education

supplied by the system,
compatible

state

state

policy.

agency;

and

statistics

is necessary for the development of

consist of three parts:
a

indicators

Structurally,

the

system

educational indicators,

individual

could

supplied by

institution's

planning

assumptions based on their interpretation of the meaning of
the educational

indicators

vis-a-vis

their unique mission;

and state legislation (policies).

8.

Assumption:

It is possible to develop a system

for coordinating postsecondary education in Michigan, which
is both

effective

and

efficient

in

terms

of

satisfying

a

variety of learning needs and politically viable to assure
continuity and public support.
The survey

indicated a small but

apparently viable

nucleus of postsecondary educational institutions with both
a

planning

capability.
of

the

capability
Further,

interest

the literature

expanding

that

supports the efficacy

development of a system of state education indicators.

This

to

planning

in

the

appears

of

an

to

approach

concept

and

be

assumptions

possible

developed for social indicators.

using

leading

existing

research

295
According

to

the

literature

the

mission

of

the

institution must he challenged from time-to-time hoth from a
directional
difficult

and
without

measuring

are

this

scanning

substantive
performance

performance.

performance
wrong;

a

can

and

directional

only

an

he

"open”

manner.

criteria

Of

meaningless

perspective.

the

system

of
a

feedback

high-marks

mission

determined

Somehow

and

course,

if

This

and

through

for
for

goals

are

environmental

communicating

collegial

is

spirit

in

a

must

bi­
he

incorporated in the planning process.
Need For Additional Research
The
was

empirical

focused

on

the

study described
postsecondary

in this dissertation

education

other members of the organizational-set,
Legislature were not
was

established

included.

in the

Their

institution,

such as the

importance,

review of literature.

State

however,

Each of the

following assumptions deal with these members and/or their
relations with educational
subject
its

of an

treatment

empirical
in the

institutions,

and

could be the

study to test the

literature

vis-a-vis

assumption and
the

environment

found in the State of Michigan.
9•
education
utilization
indicators

Assumption:
at

the
of

to

state

Coordination
level

budgeting
effect

public

is

of

postsecondary

possible

processes
policies

and
by

through

lead
the

the

education

legislature,

which are designed to maintain a dynamic equilibrium between
supply and demand for educational "goods."

296
The review of the literature revealed that a system
for performance/need evaluation, supported by a wide variety
of special interests within the state, is, perhaps, the only
viable

approach to

in Michigan.

coordination

It is clear,

exacerbate

the

commission

was

very

organization

will

seek

"autonomy."

This

action

a

to

newly

cure.

to

created
Each

"stake-out"

reduces

the

organizations, state and institutional,
new entity.

education

organization solutions will only

problems

intended

of postsecondary

Since the "autonomy"

agency

or

layer

of

share

of

new
its

"autonomy"

of

those

interfacing with the

of any organizational set

is finite, what one member gains must be reflected in losses
for one or more of the others.
10.
governing
some

Assumption;

boards

degree

The

for, state

of

State

Legislature

institutions

coordination

is

would

both

and

the

agree

that

reasonable

and

desirable.
The literature
assumption.

The

(Parsons) would tend to support this

problem

occurs

at

the

management

level.

Both institutional managers (presidents) and agency managers
(directors) might equate coordination with loss of autonomy.
If

this

happens,

information
possible.
likely

each

(Prey)
With

state

so

would
as

to

tend

preserve

constitutional
educational

to

reduce
as much

protection,

institutions

the

flow

of

autonomy

as

however,
would

be

it

is

more

successful in restricting information flows than the agency.
The Legislature,

of course, could change that balance, with

a stalemate resulting.

297
11 .
planning
could

Assumption:

process,

“be,

improve

including

motivated
the

All parties participating in the

to

private

join

utilization

in

institutions,

a

of

cooperative

are,

or

effort

to

postsecondary

education

facilities.
This

assumption

literature.
of

intimidated,

makes

have

no

support

in the

all

hut

the

most

powerful

could

he

not withstanding the constitutional protection

enjoy.

It

is this uneven distribution

voluntary

cooperation

to

Because of the turbulence and perceived threat

extinction,

some

appears

cooperation

impossible.

combination

of

The

of power

difficult

and

solution must

effective

be

political

that

mandated
found

in a

processes

and

"statesmanship11 on the part of institutional leaders.
12.

Assumption:

Statewide planning coordination to

be viable, must be both effective and transparent, vis, the
"autonomy" of each participating institution.
This assumption is easily the most defensible of any
presented
education

in

this

literature

study,

both

would

tend

organization
to

confirm

theory

its

and

validity.

The key to effecting a climate where these conditions could
exist

is

contingent

selective

upon

interdependence,

the
by

acceptance
all

the

of

the

members

concept
of

the

purpose

of

postsecondary education organizational-set.
13*
postsecondary

Assumption:

The

education coordination

ultimate
is the

formulation

of

compatible policies by all members of the organization-set,

298
and

without

public

policies

promoting

coordination,

it

cannot be achieved.
This assumption has some
Statewide
the

coordination,

parties,

states;

and

has

for

achieved

some

would

support in the literature.

instance,
a

when

measure

argue

of

those

accepted hy all

success

positive

in

other

experiences

could he replicated in Michigan; so why try solutions which
have no record
historical
State

of

of success?

roots

of

autonomy

Michigan.

reliable

system

of

systemic

approach)

solution;

the

The
asa

Public

alternative

issue

in the

statesmanship

indicators

combine
is

is embedded in the

political

policy,

education
could

answer

to

a state

(or

some

effect

a

system

and

a

other
viable

imposed

by

a

disgruntled public through a constitutional amendment.
14-

Assumption:

A

uniform

strategic

planning

system for postsecondary education institutions is possible
and desirable.
The planning literature supports the notion that use
of

a

strategic

planning system

is

desirable

postsecondary educational institution,

for

every

and a generic system

could be developed for those institutions wishing to use it
(this might encourage many to plan that might not otherwise
do so

due

since

diversity is valued in Michigan,

system

to a

would

philosophy

if

probabilities
any at all).

perceived scarcity of

probably
it

were

operate
adopted

at
by

resources);

cross
all

however,

a uniform planning
purposes

to

that

institutions

(the

of such an occurrence are small if there are

299
context

Organizational
establish

the

limits

planning process.
planning

for

and

both

management

quality

and

style

scope

of

the

Organization climate sets the limit for

outcomes.

Low

levels

of

planning

skills

may

prevent the institution from reaching those limits, but even
the most superior skills will not allow it to exceed them.
Planning

does

not

appear

to

enjoy

a

very

priority at many of the institutions surveyed.
for

some

toward

portion

of

the

planning stems

admonishing

the

apathy

from the

felt

by

for

The source

administrators

literature

administrator

high

of a decade

not

using

techniques to produce formal comprehensive plans.

ago

modeling
Many took

this advice and found the models didn’t work and the plans,
if

completed,

experiences
found

were

are

always

combined

out-of-date.

with

in Michigan during this

the

When

turbulent

same period,

such

environment

these attitudes

can be understood if not accepted.
Turbulent
plan.

In

environments,

fact,

imperative.

if

survival

however,
is

are

important,

reason

to

planning

is

As the incidence of change accelerates, so must

planning systems become more responsive.
structure

a

of

some

institutions

must

The homogeneous
give

way

to

open

systems, more resources must be made accessible to planners;
planners

must

understand

be

the

institution
environment).

known

to

mission,

(even

if

those

resources

goal(s)

they

change

and
as

and

both

must

role(s)

of

the

rapidly

as

the

300
If this assessment of the planning process, is close
to

reality

statewide

in

many

planning

institutions,

then

the

problem

of

responsibility

should

be

considered.

Planning skills must be present at the

institutional level

first

have

for

statewide

success.

Central

system might

coordination

planning,

for

to
a

a

chance

statewide

work from a procedural

educational

perspective,

state with a long history of "autonomy,"

of

but

in a

it is unlikely it

would produce substantive, positive results.
Successful coordination of Michigan’s postsecondary
educational
approached
coupled

institutions
through

equally true

improved

implemented
to the

autonomy

model

short

satisfy
What

organizational

to change,

that

is left

fall

unlikely

organizational-sets

systems immune

to be

is

and

the

interdependence

is
which

More

more

it

planning processes

is

tightly

effective

in the name of survival.

It would

statewide

a

build

if

It is

are unlikely

initiative for their development

the

postsecondary

needed

occur

solutions.

will

institutions.

of producing

the

is

if the

to

coordination

planning

educational
new

the

seem that both the

model

model

will

systems necessary
needs

of the

reflecting

institutions

will

to

state.

selective

accept,

and

state policy makers can incorporate in the state's political
process.
First,
verified.

however,

Each

of

the

the findings of this study must be
groups

studied

should

conduct

a

comprehensive survey of all member institutions to determine

301
what planning processes are
planning

assumptions used

implemented,

and

the

source

indicators on which they were based,

and

catalogue

of

the

if any.

the

education

A reasonable

vehicle for effecting such studies is the state association
which represents the interests of the members of each of the
four
and

groups studied:
Universities;

Association

of

Presidents'

Michigan

Independent

Council

Community
Colleges

of State Colleges

College
and

Association;

Universities;

and

Michigan Organization of Private Vocational Schools.
Implications.for Postsecondary Education
In the State of Michigan
The
between

environmental

members

organizational-set
scarce.

of

stage

is

set

confrontation

the

postsecondary

in the State of Michigan.

Enrollment

is

declining

decline for several years.

and

education

Resources are

will

continue

to

The mission of each institution

may not be as clear to all members,
it once was.

for

publics and clients as

The environment is more tightly coupled,

and

the long-standing political issue of institutional autonomy
is

likely

to

postsecondary

emerge

educational

again.

The

facilities

in

restructuring
the

public

of

sector

may very well result from a combination of these factors and
demands

for

a

more

resources by advocates

equitable
for social

distribution
services,

of

state

prison reform,

conservationists and dozens of other special interests.
Changes in the quantity and quality of postsecondary
educational

facilities

and programs

may be

long over

due,

302
but if they stem from the type of pressures noted above the
result may be less than optimal.
divisiveness
maneuver
image

as

each

to gain

of public

In fact, the potential for

institution

some advantage,
institutions

and

its

constituents

could not only damage the

it could

reflect

adversey

on

private institutions as well.
Those
strategies

institutions

should be

with well

in a better

developed

position

plans

to defend

position than institutions with less evidence of

and

their

viability.

However, where a large number of institutions are unable to
present

carefully

continuity,
political

the

reasoned

positions

restructuring

processes,

and

will,

those

in
by

support

of

default,

institutions

their

turn

selected

to
for

survival may very well not be the best choice for the long
term interests of the state.
Postsecondary
important

resource.

educational
Great

care

institutions

should

go

into

are

an

preserving

these assets which are so vital

and in which such a large

public investment has been made.

Of course, all investments

must be measured

periodically to determine which should be

maintained, increased or liquidated.
Performance
should be based
on "profit."

criteria

for

educational

institutions

on the potential to render service and not

But

in order to gain agreement on this point

performance

must

be

measurable.

Yet,

few

standards

are

available.

This may be one reason why such a large number

of institutions have failed to develop strong, well defined

303
Plans require feed-back; the ability to

planning processes.
answer the question,

"how well are we doing?"

is integral

to the planning process.
This

dissertation

institutions that plan,
level

of

interest

in

was

interested

in

indentifying

determining how they plan and their

the

planning

process.

This

concern

stemmed from the long standing debate between advocates for
institutional

autonomy

seemed to accept,

and

statewide

assumption,

validity.

This

and

provided

study

also

review of the literature,
not absolute but

Each

side

as a given the existence of planning, the

controversy centered on outcomes.
that

planning.

This study has questioned

some

evidence

presented

to

evidence,

which suggested that

relative,

and

doubt

its

through

a

autonomy is

statewide planning may not

represent a viable alternative in the State of Michigan.
It has been suggested
indicators
education

be

developed

institutions

for

in

the

that a system of educational
use

by

all

state.

This

postsecondary
system

could

provide performance criteria for the institution in terms of
both needs and outcomes;

it could focus attention on problem

areas requiring remediation avoiding subjective and devisive
studies to fix blame for educational problems; and finally,
it could provide a basis for informed policy formulation by
the

State

legislature

on

matters

postsecondary educational institutions.

of

importantance

to

304
Closing Comment
There

are

several

alternative

strategies for

improving the educational climate in Michigan, and planning
is hut one aspect,
The

recommended

although, an integral component of each.

alternative to

the

autonomy model

and the

statewide coordination model may not produce better results.
One

certainty,

clinging

to the

notion that educational organizations are autonomous,

in any

absolute
and

a

driven

however,

sense, will

second
by

alternative.

rate

is

that

blindly

produce a model
educational

education

system of "autonomy,"

system.

indicators

may

Planning
be

a

systems

reasonable

APPENDIX A
SURVEY DATA

RETURN ANALYSIS
TYPE OF INSTITUTION

C
3A
B
4
5A
B
6A
B

C
D

E
7

8A
B

2
13

3
8

4

5*

8 100$
8 100
6 75
4
4
3
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
3
3

6
6

1 2 3
29 29 11

50
50
38
63
63
63
63
50
50
50
38
38
75
75

4

11
10
10

5

ro

2A
B

13

CM

1

1

UonpUblic
COLLEGES

COMMUNITY
COLLEGES

Fuirrc

COLLEGES

o
o

■

QUESTION

4

53 53 21

20

91
91
9 82
10 91
8 73
10 91
10 91
10 91
9 82
8 73
8 73
8 73
8 73
8 73
10 91
10 91

1. TOTAL INSTITUTIONS IN CATEGORY
2. TOTAL INSTITUTIONS SURVEYED
3. TOTAL INSTITUTIONS RETURNING COMPREHENSIVE INSTRUMENT
4. TOTAL INSTITUTIONS COMPLETING QUESTION
5. $ OF RETURNED INSTRUMENTS
*

ONE INSTITUTION SENT COPY OF LONG-RANGE PLAN BUT DI NOT
WISH TO COMPLETE RESEARCH INSTRUMENT

** $ OF INSTITUTIONS RETURNING INSTRUMENT

TABLE A.P.1.

14
13

11
15
9
14
13
13
13

12
12
12
13
13
18
17

PROPRIETARY
SCHOOLS
1
2 3 4
5
95$ 186 67 6 6
6
67
62
5
52
5
71
5
2
43
67
5
62
5
62
5
62
5
57
5
57
5
57
5
62
4
62
5
86
5
81
5

5

100$
100
83
83
83
33
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
67
83
83
83

TOTAL
2
3 4
1
281 162 46 45
38
34
29
34

21

34
33
33
32
29
29
29
28
29
39
38

5
98$
83
74
63
74
46
74
72
72
70
63
63
63
61
63
85
83

SURVEY SUMMARY;

PRELIMINARY
INSTITUTION CATEGORY

PUBLIC
COLLEGES
INSTITUTIONS IN CATEGORY
INSTITUTIONS SURVEYED
INSTITUTIONS RESPONDING
PERCENT

NONPUBLIC
COLLEGES

PROPRIETARY
SCHOOLS

61.5

29
29
19
65-5

54
53
33
62.3

186
67
16
23-9

25.056

52.456

45.45 6

13
13

8

COMMUNITY
COLLEGES

SURVEY COORDINATOR:

PRESIDENT-------------DIRECTOR/OWNER
PROVOST
DEAN
VICE PRESIDENT, ADMINISTRATION
DIRECTOR BUDGET/PLANNING/RESEARCH
OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE

12.5
12.5

26.4

9.1
15-2
9.1

37-5
12.5

10.6
10.6

9.1
12.1

6.2

TOD77JS6

TODTIT56

T007TJ?6

37-5*
50.0

52.656

12-5

10.5
5.3

100.056
NUMBER PARTICIPATING IN
COMPREHENSIVE SURVEY
NUMBER RETURNING COMPREHENSIVE
SURVEY
OF INSTITUTIONS RESPONDING
OF INSTITUTIONS SURVEYED
OF INSTITUTIONS IN CATEGORY

15.8

24.2

31 .3*
25.0
12.5
6.25
6.25
18.7

1 0 0 .0 5 6

1 0 0 .0 5 6

1 0 0 .0 5 6

21.0

27.356
27.3
12.1
9*1

8

17

25

14

8

11

21

6

100.056

64.7?6

62.0
62.0
62.0

58.0

imiraip.

38.0
38.0

84.056
64.0
40.0
39.0

42.956
38.0
9.0
3.0

306

PLANNING STATUS
UUKKENTLI’ USING STRATEGIC PLANNING
PREPARING/IMPLEMENTING STRATEGIC PLAN.
EVALUATING STRATEGIC PLANNING
NO INTEREST IN STRATEGIC PLANNING
NO NEED FOR STRATEGIC PLANNING
UNDETERMINED

5 6 .3 #

37-5

SURVEY COORDINATOR
TITLES

(9 )
2)
2)
2)
1)
1}
1)
1)
1)
(1 )
(1 )

(9 )
(1 )
(1 )
(1 )
(1 )

6)
1)
(1 )
(1 )
(1 ]
(1 )
1)
1)
(1 )

PUBLIC COLLEGES
PRESIDENT
PROVOST
DEAN OF INSTRUCTION
DIRECTOR OF INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH
DIRECTOR, ACADEMIC PLANNING AND
ANALYSIS
(1 ) ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT FOR STATE
RELATIONS

(2 )
f 1)
(1 )
1}
1)

TABLE A.P.3-

PROPRIETARY SCHOOLS
PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
VICE PRESIDENT
DIRECTOR
OWNER
ADMINISTRATOR
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS
ADMINISTRATOR
BURSAR

307

1)
1)
(1 )

COMMUNITY COLLEGES
PRESIDENT
DEAN, INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES
VICE PRESIDENT FOR INSTRUCTIONAL AFFAIRS
VICE PRESIDENT
DIRECTOR, INSTITUTIONAL AND MANAGEMENT
STUDIES
(1 ) DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND ADMINISTRATIVE
INFORMATION SYSTEMS
1) DIRECTOR, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NETWORK
1) DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT

NONPUBLIC COLLEGES
PRESIDENT
PROVOST
ACADEMIC DEAN
DEAN
DEAN, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
VICE PRESIDENT FOR PLANS AND OPERATIONS
VICE PRESIDENT, DEVELOPMENT
VICE PRESIDENT
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
DIRECTOR OF THE ADVISING AND CAREER
DEVELOPMENT CENTER AND COLLEGE
PLANNING COORDINATOR
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR
MANAGEMENT INFORMATION AND
PLANNING
LONG RANGE PLANNING FACILITATOR
PROGRAM COORDINATOR
GRANTS COORDINATOR

QUESTION 1: INTEGRATING BUDGETING AND LONG-RANGE PLANNING

PUBLIC
COLLEGES

COMMUNITY
COLLEGES

NONPUBLIC
COLLEGES

0 FISCAL PERIOD :JULY - JUNE
OCT. - SEPT.
JAN. - DEC.
OTHER

7
1
0
0

11
0
0
0

100.0?

14
0
1
5

7 0 .0 *

o FUNDS COMMITTED FULL BUDGET
PERIOD, YES:
NO :

8 1 0 0 .0
0
-

10
0

1 0 0 .0
-

0 FUNDS COMMITTED BEYOND BUDGET
PERIOD, YES:
NO :

1
7

1 2 .5
8 7 .5

2
8

0 BUDGET METHOD, INCREMENTAL:
FORMULA
:
P .P . & B .S .:
ZERO-BASE :
PERFORMANCE:

5
1
2
0
0

6 2 .5
1 2 .5
2 5-0

6
0
4
1
0

0 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BUDGETING
AND LONG-RANGE PLANNING,
INTEGRATED
:
SIMILAR
:
UNRELATED
:
UNRELATED/COMMITTEE:
NO LONG-RANGE PLAN :

0
1
1
2
4

87«5#
1 2 .5
-

—
-

PROPRIETARY
SCHOOLS

TOTAL

5 .0
2 5 -0

0
1
2
3

- *
16 .7
3 3 .3
5 0 .0

32
2
3
8

7 1 .1 *
4 -4
6 .7
1 7 .8

18
1

9 4 .7
5 .3

5
1

8 3 .3
1 6 .7

41
2

95-3
4 .7

2 0 .0
8 0 .0

3
14

1 7 .6
8 2 .4

2
3

4 .0
6 .0

8
32

2 0 .0
8 0 .0

54-5

10
4
2
2
1

5 2 .6
21.1
10 .5
10 .5
5 .3

1
1
0
4
0

1 6 .7
1 6 .7

22
6
8
7
1

5 0 .0
13-7
1 8 .2
15-9
2 .2

2 0 .0
2 5 .0
5 .0
2 0 .0
3 0 .0

2
1
0
0
3

—
5 0 .0

9
11
2
6
17

2 0 .0
24-4
4 .4
13-4
3 7 .8

-

-

—

3 6 .4
9.1
-

2 7 .2
3 6 .4

-

_

6 6 .6
-

1 2 .5
1 2 .5
2 5 .0
5 0 .0

3
4
0
0
4

3 6 .4

4
5
1
4
6

3 7 .5
6 2 .5

4
7

3 6 .4
63.6

9
11

4 5 .0
5 5 .0

0
4 1 0 0 .0

16
27

3 7 .2
6 2 .8

25.0
7 5 .0

5
6

45-5
5 4 .5

13
7

6 5 .0
3 5 .0

2
3

4 0 .0
6 0 .0

22
22

5 0 .0
5 0 .0

1 4 .3
85-7

7
3

7 0 .0

14
6

7 0 .0
3 0 .0

2
2

5 0 .0
5 0 .0

29
12

7 0 .7
29-3

-

33-3
1 6 .7
—

o CENTRAL PLANNING FUNCTION,
YES:
NO :
o COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING
DOCUMENT,
0 DYNAMIC PROCESS WITHOUT
DOCUMENT,

YES:
NO :
YES:
NO :

2

6

30.0

TABLE A.1-.1.

308

ITEM

QUESTION 2A

ORGANIZATION: PLANNING STRUCTURE

ITEM

PUBLIC
COLLEGES

COMMUNITY
COLLEGES

NONPUBLIC
COLLEGES

PROPRIETARY
SCHOOLS

TOTAL

YES:
NO :

3
3

5 0 .0 *
5 0 .0

6
4

6 0 .0 *
4 0 .0

9
5

6 4 .3 *
35-7

4
1

8 0 .0 *
2 0 .0

22
13

6 2 .9 *
37.1

IP YES, FEWER THAN THREE EMP:
MORE THAN THREE EMP:

1
2

33-3
6 6 .7

2
4

3 3 .3
6 6 .6

4
5

44-4
5 5 .6

2
2

5 0 .0
5 0 .0

9
13

4 0 .9
59-1

0
2
1
0

3
1
1
0

6 0 .0
2 0 .0
2 0 .0

2
4
1
2

2 2 .2
44-4
11.1
2 2 .2

-

6 6 .7
33-3

2
1
1

5 0 .0
2 5-0
2 5 -0

5
9
4
3

1 4 .3
2 5 .7
1 1 .4
8 .6

2
1

6 6 .7
33-3

3
3

5 0 .0
5 0 .0

1
7
—

11 .1
7 7 .8

1
3

2 5 .0
7 5 .0

5
15
1

1 4 .3
4 2 .9
2 .9

1

1 1 .1

1

2 .9

ORGANIZATION LEVEL WHERE
LOCATED,

1:
2:
3:
4:

REPORTS TO LEVEL, 0:
1:
2:
3:
4:
5:

—

-

—

-

-

-

—

—

—

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

(* = ONLY THOSE ANSWERING QUESTION)

TABLE' A12A'.r.

:

-

:
_

QUESTION 2B ORGANIZATION: PLANNING STRUCTURE

COMMUNITY
PUBLIC
COLLEGES COLLEGES

ITEM
______________________________________
o IN CONSULTATION WITH
ADMINISTRATION,
FINANCE
OPERATIONS
REGISTRAR
STUDENT SERVICES
OTHER

6 100.05*
5 83-3
2 3 3-3
4 6 6 .6
2 3 3 .3

10 100.0?
6 6 0 .0
4 4 0 .0
8 8 0 .0
2 2 0 .0

NONPUBLIC
COLLEGES

PROPRIETARY
SCHOOLS

12
7
7
10
3

92.35*
5 3 .8
5 3 .8
7 6 .9
23.1

2
3
1
1
0

4 0 .0
6 0 .0
2 0 .0
2 0 .0

11
5
7
3
0

8 4 .6
3 8 .5
5 3 .8
23.1

1
0
2
0
0

2 0 .0

2
0
1
1
1

1 5 .4

—

TOTAL

30
21
14
23
7

88.25*
6 1 .8
4 1 .2
6 7 .6
2 0 .6

25
12
21
9
1

73-5
35-3
6 1 .8
2 6 .5
2 .9

6
2
5
1
4

1 7 .6
5-9
1 4 .7
2 .9
1 1 .8

ACADEMIC,
5
5
4
2
1

8 3 -3
8 3 .3
6 6 .6
3 3 .3
1 6 .6

8
2
8
4
0

8 0 .0
2 0 .0
8 0 .0
4 0 .0

VICE PRESIDENT
DEAN(S)
DEPT. HEADS
FACULTY
OTHER

3
2
2
0
1

5 0 .0
33-3
33-3

1
0
1
0
1

1 0 .0

RESEACH,

—

1 6 .6

—

-

1 0 .0
-

1 0 .0

(5* = ONLY THOSE ANSWERING QUESTION)
tAB±.E A.2B.1 .

—

7 .7
7 .7
7 .7

0
0
1
0
1

-

4 0 .0
-

—
_
-

2 0 .0
—

2 0 .0

310

V.P./PROVOST
DEAN(S)
DEPT. HEADS
FACULTY
OTHER

QUESTION 2C

P1AN(S) STATUS AND REVISION POLICY

PLAN TYPE

HORIZON
____________

STRATEGIC

1-3 YRS.
4 -9 YRS.
10 + YRS.

PUBLIC
COMMUNITY
COLLEGES COLLEGES

NONPUBLIC
COLLEGES

1
3
0

2 5 .0 *
7 5 -0
—

6
3
0

6 6 .7 *
3 3-3

1
10

3
0
0
0
1

7 5 .0

7
0
0
1
1

7 7 .8

6
1
3

1
0
1
0
2

2 5 .0

3
1
3
1
1

33-4
11.1
33-3
11.1
11.1

PROPRIETARY
SCHOOLS

TOTAL
______

4
1

8 0 .0 *
2 0 .0

12 4 1 .4 *
17 5 8 .6

5 4 .5
9.1
2 7 .3

4
1
0

8 0 .0
2 0 .0

1

9 -1

0

20 6 9 .0
2
6 .9
3 1 0 .3
1
3-5
3 1 0 .3

4

3 6 .4

4 0 .0

6

5 4 .5

1

9.1

10 34*5
1
3 -4
10 34-5
1
3 .4
7 2 4 .2

0

9 .1 *
9 0 .9

0

0

AGE OP
1 YR OR LESS
1-2 YRS.
2 -4 YRS.
4 -5 YRS.
MORE

—
—

2 5 .0

-

11.1
11.1

0

0

REV. POL.
CONTINUOUS
BIANNUALLY
ANNUALLY
2 -5 YRS.
NO SCHEDULE

-

25*0
-

5 0 .0

TOBEFXT57T7T

0
0

2

0
0

0
3

6 0 .0

QUESTION 2C

PLAN(S) STATUS AND REVISION POLICY

PLAN TYPE

HORIZON

PUBLIC
COLLEGES

COMMUNITY
COLLEGES

FINANCIAL

1-3 YRS.
4 -9 YRS.
10 + YRS.

2 1 0 0.0
—
0
0

5
2
0

7 1 .4
2 8 .6

2 1 0 0 .0
—
0
0
—
0
0

6
0
0
0
1

8 5 .7

1
0
0
0
1

3
1
3
0
0

4 2 .9
1 4 .2
4 2 .9
-

—

NONPUBLIC
COLLEGES

PROPRIETARY
SCHOOLS

TOTAL
________

1
7

12.5
8 7 .5

4
0

1 0 0 .0

5
1
1
1

6 2 .5
1 2 .5
12.5
1 2 .5

3
1
0
0
0

7 5 .0
2 5 .0

16 76.1
2 9-5
1 4 .8
1 4 .8
1 4*8

5

6 2 .5

5 0 .0

11

2

25.0

2
0
0
0
2

0

0

12 57.1
9 4 2 .9

0

AGE OF
1 YR OR LESS
1-2 YRS.
2 -4 YRS.
4 -5 YRS.
MORE

—

1 4 .3

0

REV. POL
5 0 .0
—
—
-

5 0 .0

TABLE A.2C.1.2

0
0
1

1 2 .5

-

5 0 .0

5 2 .4
1 4 .8
5
2 .4
0
4 1 9 .4
-

312

CONTINUOUS
BIANNUALLY
ANNUALLY
2 -5 YRS.
NO SCHEDULE

QUESTION 2C

PLAN(S) STATUS AND REVISION POLICY

PLAN TYPE

HORIZON

PUBLIC
COLLEGES

COMMUNITY
COLLEGES

ACADEMIC

1-3 YRS.
4 -9 YRS.
10 + YRS.

1
1
0

5 0 .0
5 0 .0
—

6
1
0

8 5 .7
1 4 .3
—

2 10 0 .0
—
0
0
—
0
0
-

7
0
0
0
0

1 0 0 .0

-

0

0
0
1
0
1

3
1
3
0
0

4 2 .9
1 4 .2
4 2 .9

0

NONPUBLIC
COLLEGES

2
6

0

25.0
7 5 -0

PROPRIETARY
SCHOOLS
3
1

0

7 5 .0
25*0

TOTAL

12
9

57.1
4 2 .9

14
3
3

66.6
1 4 .3
1 4 .3
4 .8

0

AGE OP
1 YR OR LESS
1 -2 YRS.
2 -4 YRS.
4 -5 YRS.
MORE

—
—

2
2
3
1

25.0
25-0
3 7 .5
12 .5

3
1

7 5 .0
2 5 .0

0
0
0

1

0

REV. POL.
CONTINUOUS
BIANNUALLY
ANNUALLY
2 -5 YRS.
NO SCHEDULE

_
—

5 0 .0
-

5 0 .0

5
2

—

0

-

1

TABLE £c.1.3 .

6 2 .5

2

25.0

0
0
0

1 2 .5

2

5 0 .0

10
1

6

4 7 .6
4 .8
2 8 .6

4

19.0

0
50.0

VjJ

QUESTION 2C

PLAN(S) STATUS AND REVISION POLICY

PLAN TYPE

HORIZON

PUBLIC
COLLEGES

COMMUNITY
COLLEGES

RESEARCH

1-3 YRS.
4 -9 YRS.
10 + YRS.

0
1 1 0 0 .0
0
-

3
0
0

1 0 0.0

1 1 0 0 .0
0
0
0
0
-

3
0
0
0
0

1 0 0.0
-

0
1
1 1 0 0 .0
0
0
-

1
1
1
0
0

3 3-4
33*4
3 3-4
-

0
0
0
0
0

TOTAL

ooo

PROPRIETARY
SCHOOLS

3

7 5 -0

1

2 5 .0

6
2

oo ooo

-

NONPUBLIC
COLLEGES

0

3

7 5 .0

7

8 7 .5

1

25.0

1

1 2 .5

0

7 5 .0
25.0

0

AGE OF
1 YR
1 -2
2 -4
4 -5
MORE

OR LESS
YRS.
YRS.
YRS.

0

0
0

0
0

REV. POL.

TABLE A.2C.1.4*

2

50.0

0
0
0
2

3
1

2

3 7 .5
1 2 .5
25.0

0
50.0

2

25.0

314

CONTINUOUS
BIANNUALLY
ANNUALLY
2 -5 YRS.
NO SCHEDULE

QUESTION 2C

PLAN(S) STATUS AND REVISION POLICY

PLAN TYPE

HORIZON

PUBLIC
COLLEGES

COMMUNITY
COLLEGES

FACILITIES

1-3 YRS.
4 -9 YRS.
10 + YRS.

1
0
1

5 0 .0
—
5 0 .0

2
4
0

33-3
6 7 .7
-

3
4
0

4 2 .9
57.1

2 1 0 0 .0
—
0
0
0
0
-

5
0
0
0
1

8 3 -3
—
—
1 6 .7

4
2
0
0
1

57.1
2 8 .6

_
—
5 0 .0
—
5 0 .0

2
1
1
2
0

2 5 .0
1 2 .5
1 2 .5
2 5 .0
-

4
0
2
0
1

57.1

NONPUBLIC
COLLEGES

PROPRIETARY
SCHOOLS

3
0
0

1 0 0 .0

3
0
0
0
0

1 0 0 .0

1
0
0
0
2

3 3 .3

—

•

TOTAL

9
8
1

5 0 .0
4 4 .4
5-6

14
2
0
0
2

7 7 .8
11.1

7
1
4
2
4

3 8 .9
5 .6
2 .2
1.1
2 .2

AGE OF
1 YR OR LESS
1-2 YRS.
2 -4 YRS.
4 -5 YRS.
MORE

—
—

1 4 .3

—
—
—

—
_

11.1

REV. POL.
CONTINUOUS
BIANNUALLY
ANNUALLY
2 -5 YRS.
NO SCHEDULE

0
0
1
0
1

TABLE A.2C.1.5*

-

2 8 .6
—

1 4 .3

—
—

6 7 .7

QUESTION 2C

PLAN(S) STATUS AND REVISION POLICY

PLAN TYPE

HORIZON

PUBLIC
COLLEGES

COMMUNITY
COLLEGES

COMMUNITY SERVICE

1-3 YRS.
4 -9 YRS.
10 + YRS.

0
1 1 0 0 .0
0

6
0
0

1 0 0 .0

NONPUBLIC
COLLEGES

2
2

0

50.0
50.0

PROPRIETARY
SCHOOLS

TOTAL
________

3
0

1 0 0 .0
-

11
3

7 8 .6
2 1 .4

3
0

1 0 0 .0

13
0

9 2 .9

0

-

0

-

0
0

-

1
0

7.1

1
0
0

3 3-3
-

0
2

6 6 .7

0

-

0

-

AGE OF
1 YR OR LESS
1-2 YRS.
2 -4 YRS.
4 -5 YRS.
MORE

1 1 0 0 .0
0
0
0
0
-

6 1 0 0 .0
0
0
0
0
-

0
0
1 1 0 0 .0
0
0
-

3
1
2
0
0

3

0
0
1

0

7 5 .0
2 5 .0

-

-

-

-

REV. POL.
5 0 .0
1 6 .7
33-3
-

TABLE A.2C.1.6.

3

7 5 .0

0
1

0
0

25-0

-

7 5 0 .0
1 7.1
4 2 8 .6

0
2 14-3

316

CONTINUOUS
BIANNUALLY
ANNUALLY
2 -5 YRS.
NO SCHEDULE

MECHANIZATION

ITEM

PLANNING
STRATEGIC,

FINANCIAL,

ACADEMIC,

FACILITIES,

COMMUNITY
SERVICE,

DATA BASE
INTEGRATED FILES
COMPUTER ASS'T.
MANUAL
DATA BASE
INTEGRATED FILES
COMPUTER ASS'T.
MANUAL
DATA BASE
INTEGRATED FILES
COMPUTER ASS'T.
MANUAL
DATA BASE
INTEGRATED FILES
COMPUTER ASS'T.
MANUAL
DATA BASE
INTEGRATED FILES
COMPUTER ASS'T.
MANUAL
DATA BASE
INTEGRATED FILES
COMPUTER ASS'T.
MANUAL

1
1
1

- *
3 3 .4
33-3
33-3

1
1
1

33-4
33-3
33-3

—

_

—

1
2
—

-

3 3 .3
6 6 .7

COMMUNITY
COLLEGES

3
2
-

3 0 .0 *
2 0 .0
-

NONPUBLIC
COLLEGES
1
1
4
7

7.7*
7.7
30.8
53.8

1

8.3

12.9*
12.9
16.1
58.1

4
2
5
17

14.3
7.1
17.9
60.7

2
4
20

7.1
7.1
14.4
71.4

1
2

6.7
13-3

100.0

12

80.0

2

9.1
90.9

—
—
4 100.0

2
2
21

7.4
7.4
7.4
77.8

—
3 10 0 .0

—
—
2 100.0

1
2

14.3

5 0 .0

3
1
1
4

33-3
11.1
11.1
4 4 .5

3
8

2
2

2 2 .2
2 2 .2

—
-

-

5

5 5 .6

3
9

—

1
2

2 0 .0
4 0 .0 0

_
—

—

—

-

_

2 1 0 0 .0

2

4 0 .0

5

—

2
2

2 2 .2
2 2 .2

-

1
2

—

33-3
6 6 .7

-

5 5 .6
1 4 .3
2 8 .6

—

-

—

-

1
2

-

-

-

2 1 0 0 .0

-

5

4

-

57.1

TABLE A.3A.1.1.

- *
—
—

TOTAL

4
4
5
18

5

—

PROPRIETARY
SCHOOLS

1
10

—

—

25.0
66.7

—
-

5

—
4

100.0

—
100.0

—

25.0
75.0

-

—
-

4

100.0

—

-

o
1 •
o
o

RESEARCH,

PUBLIC
COLLEGES

3

_
-

-

2

r\
U

0
11

7.1
78.6

L I Z

QUESTION 3A

MECHANIZATION
PUBLIC
COLLEGES

ITEM

BUDGETING
INSTITUTION, DATA BASE
INTEGRATED PILES
COMPUTER ASS'T.
MANUAL
COLLEGE,

DEPARTMENT,

PROGRAM,

PROJECT,

COURSE,

N =

COMMUNITY
COLLEGES

4 0 .0 *
1 0 .0
3 0 .0
2 0 .0

NONPUBLIC
COLLEGES

1
1
2
-

2 5 .0 *
2 5 .0
5 0 .0

DATA BASE
INTEGRATED PILES
COMPUTER ASS'T
MANUAL

1
1
1
1

2 5 .0
2 5 .0
2 5 .0
2 5 .0

DATA BASE
INTEGRATED PILES
COMPUTER ASS'T
MANUAL

1
1
1
1

2 5 .0
2 5 .0
2 5 -0
2 5 .0

2
2
4
2

2 0 .0
2 0 .0
4 0 .0
2 0 .0

1
2
10

_
7 .0
13. 0
6 7 .0

1
3
4
2

1 0 .0
3 0 .0
4 0 .0
2 0 .0

_
1
2
9

_
7 .0
1 3 .0
6 0 .0

1
2
3
3

1 0 .0
2 0 .0
3 0 .0
3 0 .0

_

1
2
3
3

1 0 .0
2 0 .0
3 0 .0
3 0 .0

DATA BASE
INTEGRATED PILES
COMPUTER ASS'T
MANUAL
DATA BASE
INTEGRATED PILES
COMPUTER ASS'T
MANUAL
DATA BASE
INTEGRATED PILES
COMPUTER ASS'T
MANUAL

-

-

-

1
2

2 5 .0
5 0 .0

1

2 5 .0
-

—
-

-

2

5 0 .0

_

..

-

-

-

-

5 0 .0

2
4

4
1
3
2

-

-

2
5
8

1 3 .0
3 3-3
53*0

*

PROPRIETARY
SCHOOLS
—

-

-

2
3

4 0 .0
6 0 .0

_

_

—

_

_

_

-

-

-

-

-

—

—

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

7 .0

-

-

10

TABLfc A.3A.1.2.

_

_

_

-

-

1

2 0 .0

-

-

-

-

1
2

2 0 .0
4 0 .0
_

_

1
2
9

7 .0
1 3 .0
6 0 .0

—

—

1
1
9

7 .0
7 .0
6 0 .0
15

—

—

1

2 0 .0

-

-

_

_

-

-

1
1

2 0 .0
2 0 .0
5

*

TOTAL

5
4
12
13

1 4 .7 *
1 1 .8
3 5-3
37-2

1
1
1
2

2 0 .0
2 0 .0
2 0 .0
4 0 .0

3
4
8
13

1 0 .7
14-3
2 8 .6
4 6 .4

1
4
8
15

3-6
1 4 .3
2 8 .6
53-5

2
3
6
14

8 .0
1 2 .0
2 4 .0
5 6 .0

1
3
5
15

4 .2
1 2 .5
2 0 .8
6 2 .5

8

QUESTION 3A

QUESTION 3B

HARDWARE/SOFTWARE

ITEM

PUBLIC
COLLEGES

HARDWARE
MAIN FRAME -

COMMUNITY
COLLEGES

AMDAHL CORPORATION
DIGITAL EQUIPMENT
HONEYWELL
IBM
UNIVAC

1
1
1
-

1

BURROUGHS
DIGITALEQUIPMENT
HONEYWELL
IBM
PRIME
XEROX

-

1
1
1
5

MINI

-

MICRO

- APPLE .
- IBM
- OSBORNE

1

1
1
1

SOFTWARE (PROPRIETARY)
VENDOR
- EDUCATION MGT. SYS.
- HONEYWELL
- QUODATA

-

1

N =

3

8

TABLE A.3B.1.

NONPUBLIC
COLLEGES

PROPRIETARY
SCHOOLS

TOTAL

QUESTION 4

PLAN DETAIL
PUBLIC
COLLEGES

PLANNING HORIZON (YRS.)
PLANNING AREA

COMMUNITY
COLLEGES

1/5 4/9 10+

NONPUBLIC
COLLEGES

PROPRIETARY
SCHOOLS

TOTAL

1 /5 4/9 10+ 1/5 4/9 10+

1/5 4/9 10? 1/5 4/9 10+

8

-

2

2

A. FINANCIAL---------------------------

- LINE ITEM DETAIL, SAME AS BUDGET
- AGGREGATED TO MAJOR BUDGET
CATEGORIES
- DETAILED, BUT UNRELATED TO BUDGET
- SUMMARIZED BY MAJOR FINANCIAL
CATEGORIES
- NOT ORIENTED TO CHART OF ACCOUNTS

C. RESEARCH
- PROJECT/ACTIVITY (DESCRIPTION)
- DEPARTMENT/COLLEGE (GOALS)
- INSTITUTION (ROLE, SCOPE, MISSION)
D. FACILITIES
- EQUIPMENT (TYPE, PURPOSE, COST)
- BUILDING(S) (FUNCTION, SIZE, COST)
- DEPARTMENT/COLLEGE (GOALS)
- INSTITUTION (ROLE, SCOPE, MISSION)
E. COMMUNITY SERVICE
- CLIENT (NEEDS)
- PROGRAM/ACTIVITY (DESCRIPTION)
- DEPARTMENT/COLLEGE (GOALS)
- INSTITUTIONAL (ROLE, SCOPE,
MISSION)
N =

-

-

1
—

1

—

—

—

2

-

12

1

-

3

—

1

5
3

1

1

4
•

1
1

•

11

5

1

3

-

1
1

1
1
3
2
1

1

1

—

-

—

-

—

—

—

—

—

_

1

1

1

—

—

-

—

-

1

2

1

—

4

1
1

-

1

1

10

-

1
—
—
—

2
—

1
3
1
-

3
—
-

1

1

•

4

'

—

—

—

—

-

—

1
1

—

—

—

—

2

—

1
2

—

1

4

_

_

-

—

-

—

—

—

8

1
2

1
-

.
1
—

1
1
1
1

1
1

2
3

2

-

—

2

-

1

—

1

—

9
1

—

2

-

5

_

4

-

10

TABLE A.4-.1•

.

—

—

4
2
2
13
1

4
4
3
2

8
1

3
1

-

1

2
14

—

-

27

1

-

—

3
1

8
3

1

2

5
1

1

-

28

8

2

-

2
2
2

1
2
3
4
5

12
2
5

i
4

2
4

28
1
3
2

7
8
4
4

5

24
2

3
2
3

_

7

2

—
*

1
-

_

5
3

1

-

2

2
-

-

-

-

—

-

1

•

•

1

4

_

_

—

—

—

—

-

-

1
5

-

1

1
—
_

3

1
1
-

320

B. ACADEMIC
- STUDENT (CREDIT HOURS, FTE, ETC.)
- FACULTY (STUDENT CONTACT HOURS,
FTE, ETC.)
- COURSE (CONTENT)
- PROGRAM/ACTIVITY (DESCRIPTION)
- DEPARTMENT/COLLEGE (GOALS)
- INSTITUTION (ROLE, SCOPE, MISSION)

4

PLANNING RESOURCES
PUBLIC
COMMUNITY

R T- 3 4 -9 10+

T T=5 '4-9' 10+

1
2
3
4
0
B

4
2
1
-

PAID CONSULTANTS

—
1
2
2

3
2

"
1
2
1
1

1
1
1
2

1
2
2

4
6
4
2
16

1
2
3
4
0
B

—
3
2

1
2
2

TOTAL
LEGISLATIVE FISCAL
AGENCIES
1
2
3
4
0
B
TOTAL

2
1
2
—
—
—

16
— 15
1
4
1
3
8

7

TOTAL
STATE DEPARTMENT
OP EDUCATION

2
1
1
—
6

_
1
1
1
2

1
1
3
_
—
—
3
2

5
-

1
1
1
1
1

5
2
1
1
—
1

1
1
1
1
1

1
1
1
7

5
8
6
4
1
19

5
3
—
2

2
1
—
7

1 12
— 6
4
1
1
—
1
2

a|
1
1
8

20
9
6
3
38

20
1 18
1
4
— —
8
42

1 -3 '4-9 10+

2
4
1
1
5
4
4
1
1
2
1

2
1
1
4
5

3
—
—
R
5

TABLE A.5A.1.1.

5
1
1
1
4
_
2
1
1
2
7

2
1
1
2
7

PROPRIETARY
SCHOOLS

I

T ^ " 4 -9 10+

8
— 27
4
1
2
11
40

2
2
1

16
— 18
6
1
— 2
—
1
11

1
—
1

1 CM

1
2
3
4
0
B

4
3
—
1
—
2

T

00 1

TOTAL

1
1
—
3

NONPUBLIC
COLLEGES

1

OUTSIDE RESOURCES
STATE/LOCAL---------ASSOCIATIONS

COMMUNITY
COLLEGES

ro

QUESTION 5A

—
12

1
1
— —
2
4
7 11

8
9
4
5
-

—

—
3

2
1
1
1

26
12
3
2
—
17

1
1
1
—
2

2
—
—
—
3
_
1
—
—
—
4

2
—
—
3
_
1
1
—
—
3

TOTAL

T

1-3 4 -9 10+

8
2 18
— —
— —
—
1
2
8
26

9
9
2
1
4
8

4
6
2
—
—

6
6
5
2
4
10

1
—
—
—
4

_
—
1
—
1
3

1
1
1
6
24

36
60
10
5
_
111

12

8
1 12
— —
— 1
—
1
3
21

9
2
3
3
16

T

1
5
2
2
4
19

2
1
1
1
4
24

36
36
16
5
93

9
4
2
9
2
7

5
2
3
4
19

4 11
6
5
5
6
4
3
— — 1
— 5
5
9 19
16

1
1
2
3
26

36
30
10
14
90

44
1 33
2 16
— 1
6
24
94

QUESTION 5A

CONTINUED

PLANNING RESOURCES
PUBLIC
COMMUNITY

PLANNING HORIZON / R T-3 4-9 10+

T

COMMUNITY
COLLEGES

NONPUBLIC
COLLEGES

1-3 4-9 10+

T~ 1-3 4-9 10+

PROPRIETARY
SCHOOLS
T“ 1-3 4-9 10+ T

TOTAL

1-3 4-9 10+

T

OUTSIDE RESOURCES
OTHER 'STATE:-----

DEPT.MGT.6b BUDG. 1
2
3
4

1
1

1
—

-

6
2

3
—

1
1

1
—

1

15
2
1

—

-

—

—

—

—

—

_

4
1

2
1

1
1
1

0

21
4
1

B
TOTAL

8

MESC

1
2

-

-

-

-

18
1

-

-

1

3
4

4

26

—

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2

1

-

-

1

4
2

0
B
6

TOTAL
OTHER POSTSECONDARY
INSTITUTIONS
1
2

1
3

-

-

2
1

-

-

0

—

—

B

1

2

3
4

TOTAL
REGIONAL/NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION
1
2
3
4

0
TOTAL

1

1

-

-

1
1
2

-

2
2

—

16

9
2
2
-

13

2
1

1
1

—

—

—

4

7

8

12
12
6
1

4
2
1
1

1
2
2

-

-

-

—

—

—

—

—

31
2
2
1
1

1
1
1

-

-

-

4

7

1
8

1
-

8
9
6
2
-

20
12
6
1
—

1
1
—

_

1

-

4
6

-

—
-

1

—

—

—

2

4

1
4

1

39

11

-

1

—

1

3

—

—

4
3
6

-

-

-

-

-

—

-

-

-

-

—

1

4

1
4

—

6

1
11

—

4

5
2

—

-

25

TAM.fi'V. 5x:r.2".

1

—

12
30
8

3
5
1

1 in
o

B

m
1
1
1
1
1

2
1
3

3
10
3

3
1
1
1

6

13

8
1
5
5 1
1
5 3
2
3 3
_
1
4
11 21 25

36
33
22
6
_

97
6 _
8 8
5 3
2 2
1 1
11 19

1
2

—

—

—

5
25

_

101

QUESTION 5A

CONTINUED

PLANNING RESOURCES
PUBLIC
COMMUNITY
'4-9 Tg+~~T

PLANNING HORIZON / R

COMMUNITY
COLLEGES
1-5 4-9 10+

NONPUBLIC
COLLEGES
1-5 4-9" 10+ If

T

PROPRIETARY
SCHOOLS
1-5 4-9 10+ T

TOTAL
1-5 4-9 10+

T

OUTSIDE RESOURCES
Y m m S T W K L

----

ASSOCIATIONS

1 2 1
1
3 —
4 2 1
0 1

-

1 9 1
- - 3 2

1

B

1

2

3

—

2

1
2
3
4
0
B -

_

- _
-

_

—

-

_

-

—

-

8

8

-

_

-

-

-

-

-

_

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

.

1

—

-

-

-

-

-

1

1
3
4

0
B

-

_
-

-

-

_
-

-

_
-

-

1

1
1
1

-

-

-

1 12
-

_

_

-

- 3 4 _
_
_
_
_

-

-

-

-

1

-

-

86

1
1 12
- 3
1 4
_
_

1
1
_

-

28
42
10

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

6

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

1

_
-

_
-

-

-

-

4
6

-

-

-

-

10

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

TABLE A.5A.1.3-

_
-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

_
-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

4

-

-

- 1

-

-

1
1

-

10

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

_
-

-

-

-

-

-

-

—
19

19

4
6

-

2

-

-

- 1

-

-

7

20
1 - 4 4 2 1
- 18
1
1 6 7 5 2
— 8 1
- - 2 3 2
- - 4 2 - 6
—
—
—
1
—
1
1
5
- - - 14 21 25
46
12

1

—

- 1
1
1
_
-

1
2
3
4
0

—

5
16

-

—

1

-

TOTAL

TOTAL

-

4
2
2
9 4 2
- 2 2
3 -

1

—

12

B

CENSUS DATA

1
-

1

6

TOTAL
LOCAL ft REGIONAL
PLANNING

1
—

—

-

TOTAL
OTHER: RELIGIOUS

1

-

_
-

-

_
-

-

10
1

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

1

-

_
-

-

-

4
6

-

_
-

-

-

10

QUESTION 5A

CONTINUED

PLANNING RESOURCES

PUBLIC
COMMUNITY
NONPUBLIC
PROPRIETARY
COMMUNITY
COLLEGES
COLLEGES
SCHOOLS
PLANNING HORIZON / R 1-5 4-9 10+"If T~-T~4-9 T O +“TT 1-5 4-9 10+ 'If" f-5 '4-9 Iff? T
OUTSIDE RESOURCES
MH1RTTE51BSE
GOVERNMENT

1

-

-

2

-

-

3 1
4 - 1
0
B
-

-

-

-

TOTAL

-

- 2

1
-

-

1
3

-

— _
- -

-

-

-

_

-

-

-

-

-

—
-

-

-

-

-

—
-

-

-

-

—
_
- -

-

-

-

-

_
-

_

1-3 4-9 10+

-

_
- -

-

-

-

—
_

-

1
-

-

-

-

-

1

T

-

- 2
- 1
1
-

3

324

R = USAGE RATING BY RESPONDENTS:
1 . GREATEST
2 . SIGNIFICANT
3 . MODERATE
4 . MINOR
0 . NOT APPLICABLE
B. BLANK
T =TOTAL WEIGHTED VALUE (SEE

-

TOTAL

CHAPTER FOUR FOR EXPLANATORY)

1-3

= SEGMENT "A" OF PLANNING HORIZON, YEARS 1 -3 -

4 -9

= SEGMENT "B" OF PLANNING HORIZON, YEARS 4 - 9 .

10+

= SEGMENT "C" OF PLANNING HORIZON YEAR 10 PLUS ADDITIONAL
PERIOD DEFINED BY INSTITUTION.

TABLE A.5A.1.4.

QUESTION 5B

PLANNING RESOURCES

PUBLIC
COMMUNITY

1

cn

T

PROPRIETARY
SCHOOLS
10+ T

I

10+

NONPUBLIC
COLLEGES
T=T4-9 10+ T

JO

1

T*

1

T

JO

PLANNING HORIZON / R f-3 4-9 10+

COMMUNITY
COLLEGES

TOTAL

1-3 4-9 10+

T

INTERNAL RESOURCES
KflMmKTSUFF:

CENTRAL

1
2
3
4
0
B

2

—

-

-

-

1

1
1

2

1

—

—

8
3
8
1

1

1

1

—

2

2

TOTAL
COLLEGE

20
1

2

—

—

2
3

1

1
1

-

4
0
B

1

1
2

1

2
1

1

1
1

—

-

—
—

7

7

1
3

1
—

1
-

2
2

0

2

B

*■

6

3

5
3

—

1

3
2

—
-

—
-

—

—

—

2
2

2
3

2

2
1

_

_

8

4

1

-

4

-

-

1

6
2

—

1
2

1

1

4

8

8

18
4

2

—

1
1
—

-

4

8

8

2

-

1

1

1

-

2
3

—

1

1

2

-

-

1
1

0

—

—

—

B

—

1

2
33

3
3

2
—

3

3

2

2

4

9

1
3
3
1

3

2

-

-

-

-

—

—

—

2

7

8

52
18
—
—

3

1

1

-

1
-

—

—
—

2
70
36
21
—

1

20
3
2

—

_
—

_
_

3

3

3

1

7

6

-

-

1

2
1
3

1
1

24
1
6
1

4
3
2
4

2
5
2
2

—

—

-*

2
40

TABLE A.5B.1.1

1
1
-

2
9

2
-

2
9

16
42
2
3
—

1
—

—

68

8
5
2

4

3
15

7

1

1

12

9

—

—

—

6
1
1
6

—

—

—

4

4

4

—

10

12

4
5
1
5
18

1

1

1

12

—

—

—

11

—

—
-

—

—
—

2

1

1

—

—
-

—

4

4

4

5
9

2
3
17

1

12
4

2

1

-

-

-

-

—

—

-

—

3

3

1

1
3

12

5

9
8
7
5
—

4
16

5 120
1 27
3 12
1
_
3
21
160
—

64
33

3

10

4

-

3

-

-

47
24
30
8
6

17
3
1
1

25

57

22

12

1

—

_

3

—

2
1
2

9

17

3
4

16
9
6
2

1
2
3
4

2

40

45

4

TOTAL

TOTAL

-

22

2
3
4

GOVERNING BOARD

2

1

2
8

6
9
2
3
13

23
1

2
2
1
4

23
3
3
1
1
3
22

1
10B
32
63
10

4
—

109
72
60
30
9
_

157

325

DEPARTMENT

2

8
6
8

2

TOTAL

6
—
—

QUESTION 5B

CONTINUE

PLANNING RESOURCES
PUBLIC
COMMUNITY

PLANNING HORIZON / R 1-3 4 -9 10+

PLANNING OFFICER

—
_
2
1
—
2

—
—
2
1
2

1
-

1
-

2
2

2
2

2
2
1
-

_
*
2
1
—
2

_
2
1
2

TOTAL

6
8
4
-

3
1
1

1
2
—
2

_
—
3
2

8
6
—
14

T

1- 3 4-9 10+

T

2
3
3
2
—
3

2 28
— 24
- 12
4
—
2
9
68

—
2
1
—
3

1
—
—
3

— — 7
2
2 44
1 12 13
6
2 63
— — 6
— 24
6
1
2
3
4
9
— — — 4
—
1
4 15 23
3
140
h

3
1
—
2
4

1
—
1
8

1 20
3
— —
1
8

4
3
—
5
1

1
2
—
3
7

1 24
- 15
1
2
— —
2
6
41

1
-

1
-

1
-

12
-

4

—
—
4

—
—
4

—
_
— 10 6
9 18
12

1
2
4
2
2

_

2
3
7
1
-

1
4
4
2

1
3
1

—
1
1
3

—
1
—
1
3

3 1
8 5
3
10 16 7
— 4 4
— — 1
2 16
13

1
1
8

_
1
1
8

18
1
2
3
4
0
B

1-3 4 -9 10+

3
5
3
2
—

1
1
1
2
1
4

_

—

1
1

7

8

1
1
1

4
12
8
4
—

4
6
4
4
-

-

2

1 00
CM

1
2
3
4
0
B

T

8
1 24
6
— —
9

13

TOTAL
ACADEMIC COUNCIL

4
9
—
—

1-3 4-9 10+

2
1
—
7

CM

1
1
••
3
—

T

TOTAL

2
5
2
—
1

2?

TOTAL
FACULTY

8
3
6
4
—

1-3 4 -9 10+

1

1
2
3
4
0
B

2
1
1
1
—
•*

T

1G
toO

INTERNAL RESOURCES
EEFAKMTf TfEXD"
1
2
3
4
0
B
TOTAL

COMMUNITY
NONPUBLIC
PROPRIETARY
COLLEGES________ COLLEGES________ SCHOOLS

2
3
5
1
2

18

TABLE A.5B.1.2.

1
3
3
1
2
3

1
1
2
9
1
-

3
9

12
24
22
4
62
16
18
16
2
—
52

1

—
1

-

-

-

—

1
—

4

4

4

9
5

3
3

3 1
— 4 4
6 10 6
— 4 4
— 3 2
9 16
6

3 60
1 27
1
2
— —
—
5
23
89
__
2
1
4
4
22

16
45
48
12
—
121

1
_

1
4
4
23

20
24
24
12
90

QUESTION 5B

CONTINUE

PLANNING RESOURCES
PUBLIC
COMMUNITY
"4-9 1 0 + T

PLANNING HORIZON / R

INTERNAL RESOURCES
PRESIDENT
1
2
5
4
0
B
TOTAL
ACADEMIC VICE
PRESIDENT

TOTAL

TOTAL

2 36
1
6
— 2

8
1
—

4
—

2 56
3
— —

1

2

1

_
6

8

_

44
3
1
1
—

1
2
1
—

20
15
4
— —

4
5
—

2
2
—

1 28
1 24
— —

*

1

3

1

6

8

1
2

1
2
5
4
0
B

1
3
1

—
1
1
1
2

—
—
1
2
2

—
4
5
_

1
1
1

1
1

_

1

16
9
4
2

—

-

-

-

—

2

2

-

31

8
3
—

_
2

9

2
1

1
2
4
1
—
2

1
—

1
8

3
4
1
1
1

1
1
1

5
4
1
—
1
2

4
12
8
— 2
2
8
26

1
5
6
1
3

1
5
2
2
—
9

-

5
6
1

3
6
1

1
4

-

1
1
8

16
15
6
-

76
21
2

4
1
—

1
1
—

3

_
3

1
1

1
•

37

fABEES 'A.'S'b .T .'?.-

1
2

48
27
4
— —
—
3
9
79
•_
8
- 30
2 20
3
—
2

TOTAL
1-5 4-9 10+

24
6
2

25
6
1

16
5
—

2

12

1

1

-

-

-

1
—
—
3

1
—
—
4

1
—
—
4

1
1
3

1
1
3

4
3
7
3
1
2 11
1
6
3
— — 2
4
3
12

1
7
3
5
1
16

2
1
1

3
2
-

1
1

8
12
4

5
10
3

—

—

—

—

-

-

-

—

1

3

3

-

1
1
2
9

32
36
6
1
-

75

1
22
234

-

61

8
4 14
3 100
6 11
4 72
9
2
2
- 10
3
— — — — —
— 1
—
1
3
4 13 23
12
182

-

-

T

7 192
1 36
2
6

32

99
6
5
1
—
1
”

1

T

1

52

9
2
1
1
1

9
4
—

59

39

REGISTRAR'S OPPICE 1
2
5
4
0
B
TOTAL
FINANCIAL VICE
PRESIDENT

3
1
—

PROPRIETARY
SCHOOLS
1-5 4-9 1CTT T

24

12
12
4
1
2
2

1
3
2
5
22

16
45
34
13
—
108

-

2
13

1
2
3
2
3
22

72
72
20
3
167

327

1
2
3
4
0
B

4
—
1

COMMUNITY
NONPUBLIC
COLLEGES
COLLEGES
1-3 4-9 10+ T ' V-5 '4-9 10+

QUESTION 5B

CONTINUE

PLANNING RESOURCES

PUBLIC
COMMUNITY
PLANNING HORIZON / R T -3 4-9 10+ T

INTERNAL RESOURCES
OPERATIONS VICE
PRESIDENT
1

1
1

2
3

4
0

B

—

—

1

-

1
1

—

—

2
1

1
2

-

1
1
2

TOTAL
INSTITUTIONAL
RESEARCH

2 1
- 1
2 1
1
2

_
1 1
- 1
1
1
2

1
2
3
4
0
B

-

2
2
1
-

TOTAL

1 2
3
4 2
0 3
B -

-

2
2

2
2

16
12
2

1
2

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

1

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

2
4

1
7

1
8

—

7
2

5
4

3
9

—

-

—

2

4

-

1

-

23

_
1 1
2 1
1 1
- - 3 1
4 8 8
15

-

1 1 2 1
2
3
4
4
2 2 3
- 1
- 6
2
2
17

1
3
9

30

—

-

1

1

4
12

1-3 4-9 10+

5
8

-

-

-

-

—

—

—

—

—
4

—

11
9

3
5

1
1
7
17

—

3

1
—

T

32
48

4
1

5
23

16

1 2 - - - - 2
3 1 2
27
1 1
1 9 8 6 3
10 - - - 3 4
- - - - 1
- 11
4
5
4 4
4
9 1 6
23
49
9

85

4
51
14
1
90

- 1
1
8
1
1 8
3
9
3
9
- 4
4 1
2 1 4 1
3 - 8 1
1
1 6 8 5 3
32
2 6
2
1
3
6 5
- 1 1
- - 10
8 2
20
1
- 1
- 2
2
4
4
3
5
2
3
8
8
2
9
4
4
4
7
1
6
23
10
17
36
6
69

2
1
2

1
2
2

8
15

1
3

TOTAL

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

- - 1
1
1
1
1 4 4 1
1
2 - 1
2 3
8 8
4

-

- 1
3 - 6 4
6
6
2 1
15

TABLE A.5B.1.4.

1
1
8
2

— 8
— — —
10
1 1
1
- 14
- 4
_
9
4 4
4
32

— 1
1 8
1
- 3
6 6 3 2
22
12 10
2 24
6
3
6
7 1 6
23
6
57

328

1
2
3
4
0
B

TOTAL
STUDENT(S)
(INDIVIDUAL)

1
1

NONPUBLIC
PROPRIETARY
COLLEGES________ SCHOOLS
1-3 4-9 10+ T 1-3 4-9 10+ T

4
9
2

16

TOTAL
STUDENT GROUPS

COMMUNITY
COLLEGES
1-3 4-9 10+ *

QUESTION 5B

CONTINUE

PLANNING RESOURCES

PUBLIC
COMMUNITY
PLANNING HORIZON / R 1-3 4-9 10+— T

COMMUNITY
NONPUBLIC
PROPRIETARY
COLLEGES
COLLEGES
SCHOOLS
1-3 4-9 T O t ' T f-1 4-9 10+ ''T T-7'4-9 ~f(J+ T

TOTAL
1-5 4-9 10+

T

1
6
3
5
2
16

8
54
18
12

INTERNAL RESOURCES
STUDENT(S),-------

ADMINISTRATION,
FACULTY

1
2
3
4
0
B

—

_

_

_

3
2

1
2

1
2

10
6

—

—

_

—

—

2

2

—

TOTAL

16

ALUMNI (GROUPS)

1
2
3
4
0
B

TOTAL

-

2
—
—

21
4
1

—

-

—

7

8

—

1
3
1
3
2
3

1
4
1
2
4
1

26
—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

2
3

1
2

1
2

4

2

2

8

—

4
2

—

—

-

—

—

—

—

—

-

—

-

2

3
7

—

—

—

2
9

1

—

—

3

1

1

2
5

2
4

—

—

—

9

9

-

1

—

—

—

_

2

2

—

11

-

4
1

-

3

1
1

-

—

—

_

2
3
3
2

3
3

—

3

3
9

—

1
1
1

_

—

-

7

R = USAGE RATING BY RESPONDENTS:
1 . GREATEST 2 . SIGNIFICANT 3 . MODERATE 4- MINOR

8
24
4
5

_

_

_

—

1

1

1

9

-

—

—

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

—

-

-

—

4

4

4

-

—

4
12
16
8

_

_

1

1

1

9

—

-

-

-

—

-

-

-

-

—

-

-

-

—

2
-

1
1

1
8
5
5
6
8

4
1
2
3
23

1
2
4
11
7
8

_

—

3
3
6
4
17

2
1
3
4
23

1
2
1
4
3
23

1
2

9
_

_

_

_

1

1

1

9

—

16
6
8

-

-

-

-

-

3

-

-

-

-

1
10

-

-

-

-

-

—

4

4

4

-

33
0 . NOT APPLICABLE

2
1
5
9
7
17

9
B. BLANK

T » TOTAL WEIGHTED VALUE (SEE CHAPTER FOUR FOR EXPLANATORY).
1-3 = SEGMENT"A" OF

PLANNING HORIZON, YEARS 1 -3 .

4 -9 = SEGMENT"B" OF

PLANNING HORIZON, YEARS 4 - 9 .

10+ = SEGMENT"C" OF

PLANNING HORIZON YEAR 10 PLUS ADDITIONAL PERIOD DEFINED BY INSTITUTION.
TABLE A.5B.1.3.

—

9

40

—

1

—

8

4

3

1

41
1
1
4
5
2

_

—

-

4
1
24

-

92
4
21
16
20
-

61
16
15
12
17
-

60

329

ALUMNI ( INDIVIDUAL) 1
2
3
4
0
B
TOTAL

3
1
1
2
3

2
1

QUESTION 6A

ASSUMPTIONS
I

PUBLIC COLLEGES
F inance
ADMINISTRATION
ACADEMIC
RESEARCH
FACILITIES
COMMUNITY SERVICE
TOTAL

1
—

1
2
—
—

2
5

A

2
2
2
1
2
1

3
3
1
1

1
1
1

—

-

8

5

COMMUNITY COLLEGES
FINANCE
1 4
ADMINISTRATION
1 3
ACADEMIC
4 1
—
RESEARCH
1
1 4
FACILITIES
COMMUNITY SERVICE 6 1
TOTAL
13 14

_
-

4
—
—

1
2
1
—

2
1
_

2
1

3
2
2
2
1
1

_

—

1
1
1

—

—

3

6

4

1 6 3
4 5 3
3 7 2
—
2 2 1
3 1 6 1
1 1 5 3
9 12 31 13
3
1
1

ADMINISTRATION
ACADEMIC
4
RESEARCH
3
FACILITIES
2
COMMUNITY SERVICE 5
TOTAL
14
—

PROPRIETARY
finance
ADMINISTRATION
ACADEMIC
RESEARCH
FACILITIES
COMMUNITY SERVICE
TOTAL

2
1
2
2
2
9

2
2
4

1 4
2 4
1 5
- 1
- 2
- 2
4 18

1
1
1
1
1
5

3

4

—

—

—

—

—

-

—

-

-

-

1
1

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

4

2

-

1

1
3

1
1
1
3

3
4
2

-

-

-

-

_

—

—

—

—

1

-

1

3
3
7 15

—

-

1
3

-

1

1

2 6 3
1 3 4 3
—
5 4 2
2 1 3 2
—
2 4 4
—
2 5 2
3 15 26 16

_

_

1

—

-

2

2
1

-

-

1
4

1
4

2
2
1
2
1 3
3
4 13

-

1
1

1
2
1
4

1

—

—

—
—

8
—

—

—

1

-

—

—

—

1

1
2

_

_

—

—

—

1
1

1
2

-

_
-

2
3
1
1
1
2
1
9

III

C
2
1

_

3 9 1 8 4 1
5 — 8 6 4 2
3 1 5 7 5 1
3 1 1 1 3 1
7 - 4 7 4 2
3 1 2 3 5 3
24 12 21 32 25 10

2
2
—
3
1
8

1
—

1
1
3

NONPUBLIC COLLEGES
FINANCE . ........ -

4
—

—

4

II

B

1
1
2
1
2

3

4

1

—

—

—

1
2
2

1
—

—

—

_

—
—
1
1

1
1
2

1
2
2
1
1
6

2
1
1
1
1
6

A B
1 —
1 —
3
2

C D

E F

H 0

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

-

—

—

—

—

1

-

—

-

-

-

-

—

—

-

6

7

1
1
1

—

—

-

1

—

—

1

1
1
1

I ASSUMPTION I I HORIZON I I I SOURCE
SEE PAGE 2 FOR COLUMN DEFINITIONS

TABLE A.6A.1.1.

1
1

1

-

6

1
1

-

—

—

-

-

—

—

—

1
4

1
7

—

-

2

-

2
1
1

_

2

—

—

6
3

—

—

-

1
1
6

1
2
2
1
1
1
8

—

9

1
1

-

1

-

-

—

-

—

—

X

—

-

—

—

1

—

1
1

—

-

7

-

-

1

1 1
7 1
1 1
—
1 2
2 1 3
2 3
2 13 11

—

1

—

—

—

-

1

-

1
1

3

—

—

—

—

2

2

—

—

-

-

1
1

1

—

1

2

1
1
4

1
1
5

-

-

—

-

1
2

1
3

—

2

2
4

1
3

_
1
2
-

—
-

1
1

1
1

1
1

1
1
2

2

7

S
1

—

2
3

3

P
1
2
1
1
1
1

—

z
2
1

4

-

-

-

-

-

2

-

-

-

9

2
7
1

_

2

—

—

1

1

—

-

-

-

-

3
1
5 14

—

-

2
3

6
1 1
4 15

2
2
1
2
1
8

-

-

—

2
1
3

7
1

1
1
2

QUESTION 6A ASSUMPTIONS

II
TOTAL
1 2 3 4
FINANCE
3 11 15 3
ADMINISTRATION
3
12 2 14
ACADEMIC
12
5 4 10
RESEARCH
3
6 3 4
FACILITIES
5
15 4 6
COMMUNITY SERVICE15
2 3
TOTAL

1
20"
16
19
5
16
11

A 1-3
B 4 -9
C 10+

I I I ASSUMPTION SOURCES:

3

4

3

—

5
3
3
5
3
22

I PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS: COLUMN 1
2
3
4
I I PLANNING HORIZON:

III

B
2

1 2
2 11
3 8

-

6

2
2
2

2

3
3
8 19

9
5
9
7
49

3

4

1

8

1
2

-

-

2
2

1

-

3

9
7
5
7
6
9

3
1
2

7

-

1

2
2
2

1

1
5 10

3

4

A

B

C D E

F

H 0

P

2
2

4

1
2

2
2

-

—

—

—

_

3

_

_
1

1

_
1

6 2

3 18
4

2
1
2

5

5
3 5 15
3 2 5
4 5
4 3 1
18 24 24

3

3

—

—

1

1
1

1
1

—

9

5

4
8

2
1

1

—

3
5

4

2

S

X

2

1
2
2

1

7 3
4 5
6 11 41 15

2

1

2

Z

2 17

10
1

5 30

SOCIETAL (INTEGRATIVE)
NORMATIVE ( PATTERN-MAINTENANCE)
CONTEXT (ADAPTIVE)
PERFORMANCE (GOAL-ATTAINMENT)

YEARS COLUMN 1 GREATEST EMPHASIS
YEARS
2 SIGNIFICANT EMPHASIS
YEARS
3 MODERATE EMPHASIS
4 MINOR EMPHASIS
0 (NOT INCLUDED, LIMITED SPACE)

ACADEMIC VICE PRESIDENT/PROVOST
BOARD OF DIRECTORS/REGENTS/TRUSTEES
COMMITTEE (ANY)
DEAN
EXPERT (OUTSIDE)
FACULTY
HEAD OF DEPARTMENT
OPERATIONS VICE PRESIDENT
PRESIDENT
STAFF
OUTSIDE ORGANIZATION
ADMINISTRATIVE/FINANCIAL VICE PRESIDENT

“TA b l S A.6A.1.2.

v>!

QUESTION 6B

ASSUMPTIONS
I

PUBLIC COLLEGES
FINANCE
ADMINISTRATION
ACADEMIC
RESEARCH
FACILITIES
COMMUNITY SERVICE
TOTAL

1
—
—

2
2
—

2
3
2
1

—

4
1
2

1
1
1
1

1

_

-

—

1

—

3

—

—

1

—

1
5

—

_

4

3
—

9

1

4

2
2
—

1
2
1
1
7

COMMUNITY COLLEGES
Eina Nce
1 4
ADMINISTRATION
2 1 3
ACADEMIC
6 — 2
—
RESEARCH
1 1
FACILITIES
1 3 4
COMMUNITY SERVICE 1 1 4
TOTAL
11 10 14

6 1
4 3
—
6 1
—
1 2
—
4 2
2 4 1
7 25 10

NONPUBLIC COLLEGES
FINANCE....................... - 8 4
ADMINISTRATION
2 5 5
ACADEMIC
5 — 7
RESEARCH
4 - 3
FACILITIES
1 9 2
COMMUNITY SERVICE — 1 6
12 23 27
TOTAL

_
9 2
— 6 3
—
7 4
1 1 4
—
4 6
3 2 5
4 29 24

3
2

PROPRIETARY
FINANCE- '

ADMINISTRATION
ACADEMIC
RESEARCH
FACILITIES
COMMUNITY SERVICE
TOTAL

2
2
1
—
2
1

1
3
1
2
2
2
8 11

3
3

2
—
1
—
3

2
3
3
1
-

2
2
2
2
2
3
9 13

A
3
1
1
2
1

4

1

-

—

II
B
2 3
1 1

I ll
c
4

1

—

—

2
1

3
—

2

—

—

—

2

—

-

-

—

_

_

_

-

-

-

-

2
2

—

1

1

—

1

1

—

_

_

—

—

—

—

-

5

3

1

5

1
1
1
1
5

_

-

2
2

3

1

1

4

2
1

—

1
3
1
1
1

1
1
2
1
1
3
9

1
1
1

—

—

3
1
7

1

3

2
3
2 3
1
1 2
5
6 16

1
-

1
1
2
2
7
_

—

1

-

—

—

—

—

1
4

1

—

7

1
1

2
1
1
2
2
8

3 5 2
1 5 4
1 8 1
2 1 2 2
—
3 3 4
1 3 3
4 10 26 16

1
1
2

2 2
- 2 2
- 1 3
- 1 1
1 3 1
- 2 1
1 11 10

-

—
-

2
1
5

A

B

C D

—

—

—

1
1
1

—
—
-

-

-

—

—
—

—

—

—

_

_
—

-

-

2

1
1

-

2
4

-

-

1
1
1
1
4

2

H 0

—

—

—

—

—

—

-

—

—

_

—

1
1

_

_

_

-

-

-

7

'.v :

—

_

—

-

-

1
1
1

-

1

-

-

—

—

4

-

-

-

2

-

-

1

7

-

1
5

1
1
2
2
1
1
9

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

—

—

—

—

2

1

1
1
1

—

—

1
1
8

—

1
1

1
2
2
3

1
1
7

-

—

—

—

_

—

—

—

—

1

-

1

_

2

_

_

—

—

2

—

—

—

6
1

-

-

1

-

-

-

1
1

-

-

-

—

-

-

-

1
4

-

1
6

-

8

1
8

1
2
5

2
3

1
1
2

1
1

—
2
-

-

-

-

—

—

7

1

— —
- - - - - 1 _ _
3 - -

2

—
_
-

_
-

_
1

1
_
—

1
8

1
—

-

-

-

1

1

1
1

-

—

2

1

-

1

3
1
2 13

—

-

2
4

2
1
2

-

2
3
2
3
2
5 12

Z
2
1

_

—

—

1
2
1
2
2

X
—

—

-

1

S
—

—

—

3

1
2
1
2
1

P
2
2
1
1

—

1

_

I ASSUMPTION I I HORIZON I I I SOURCE
SEE PAGE 2 FOR COLUMN DEFINITIONS

t

F

—

1
1
1
1

—

E

—

—

1

—

tAfitfe1x :s k

4
1
1

—

4
5

—

—

-

-

1
1
2

1
1
8

3 4
1 —
1 —
1 1 6
1 1
8 11
-

1
1
-

-

-

-

2

QUESTION 6B

ASSUMPTIONS

1
TOTAL
1 2 3 4 1
F inance
r i T f 6 18
ADMINISTRATION
6 11
8 4 14
ACADEMIC
1 4 2 1 3 - 17
RESEARCH
6 3 4 2 2
FACILITIES
4 17 6 1 10
COMMUNITY SERVICE 2 4 10 6 6
TOTAL
35 53 45 19 67
I PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS! COLUMN 1
2
3
4
I I PLANNING HORIZON:

II
III
A
B
C
2 3 4 1
2 3 4 1
2 3 4 A B C D E F H O P S X Z
7 3 T T T T T
g '4 ' ~2~ 2 ~ g ' - g
- ~
g 6
2 3 12
8 3 4 3
10 5 3 1 2 3 4
1 - 3 - - - - 1 1 8
1 2
2
8 4 - 3 1 4 4 1
-5 5 2 1 5 2 - 1
2 2 1
-3 2 1
10
3 2 2 6 4 2 1
2
3 2 3 - 1 2 3 1
1 1 2 1 11 5 2 7 5 6 4 3 3 2 5 - 1
1 - 1
_ _ S 7 3 1
q
10 4 - 4 4 7 5 1 1
6 1 2 1
2 3 - 1
1 - 4 3 3 2
54 22 9 26 68 30 14
8 17 21 16 21 6 6 7 5
6 3
9 39 13 11 25
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
ECONOMIC
DEMOGRAPHIC
POLITICAL

A 1-3 YEARS
B 4 -9 YEARS
C 10+ YEARS

I I I ASSUMPTION SOURCES: A)
B)
C)
D)
E)
F)
H)
0)
P)
S)
X)
Z)

COLUMN 1
2
3
4
0

GREATEST EMPHASIS
SIGNIFICANT EMPHASIS
MODERATEEMPHASIS
MINOR EMPHASIS
(NOT INCLUDED, LIMITED SPACE)

ACADEMIC VICE PRESIDENT/PROVOST
BOARD OF DIRECTORS/REGENTS/TRUSTEES
COMMITTEE (ANY)
DEAN
EXPERT (OUTSIDE)
FACULTY
HEAD OF DEPARTMENT
OPERATIONS VICE PRESIDENT
PRESIDENT
STAFF
OUTSIDE ORGANIZATION
ADMINISTRATIVE/FINANCIAL VICE PRESIDENT

TABLE A.6B.1.2.

QUESTION 6C

ASSUMPTIONS
1

II
B
2 3

—

-

—

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1
1
1
1

—

—

4

1
2

2
2
1
2
2

2

-

-

-

I
3
1
1

4

5

1

-

—

—

-

-

-

1

1

1
1

-

-

-

—

2
2

-

—

1

1
4

6

1

1

5

COMMUNITY COLLEGES
6 —
FINANCE
ADMINISTRATION
2 5
ACADEMIC
4
1 —
RESEARCH
6 —
FACILITIES
COMMUNITY SERVICE — 5
TOTAL
15 14

2
1
2
1
2
1
9

PUBLIC COLLEGES
FINANCE
ADMINISTRATION
ACADEMIC
RESEARCH
FACILITIES
COMMUNITY SERVICE
TOTAL

1
2
1
1
-

1
1
6

2
—

1
1
1

NONPUBLIC COLLEGES
Finance
4 2
ADMINISTRATION
6 6
—
ACADEMIC
4
RESEARCH
5
6 1
FACILITIES
COMMUNITY SERVICE 1 6
11 14
TOTAL

—

-

—

—

-

2
1

—

—

-

2
5

-

3

3

_

—

1

1

-

-

_

6
3
4 1
1 2 1
5 10 11

A
2 3
2 —
1
1 2
3 —
2
1
6 6

6 2
6 2
5 2
3 4 2
4 3
28 11

4
1
1
-

1
3

—

-

-

-

-

1

-

2
1

-

-

-

2
1
4

-

-

-

1
4

3 1
4 2
5 4 1
4 4 4
2 6 3
24 26 11
7
6
5

-

1
—

1
3
-

5

-

9

4
1
-

-

3
—
ADMINISTRATION
ACADEMIC
RESEARCH
1
FACILITIES
COMMUNITY SERVICE TOTAL
4

—

1
—

2
2
2
2
3

1

1

-

-

1
2
6

1
1
3

— 1 2

5 2
6 3
5 3
2 3
6 4
4 4
6 28 19
2
1
3

1
-

2
-

1
4

1 1
2 12

1

2

4
3

-

-

-

2
2

-

-

-

-

1
1
1
1

1

-

2

1

2

-

2

2

-

-

1

-

1

2

-

-

1

2

-

—

3

4 13

9

3

-

7 14

-

-

-

-

3

-

2

1
1

1

-

-

-

1

1 - 1
— 1

PROPRIETARY
FINANCE " "

C
1 2 3
- - — 1
1
— — —
_ — —

3
3
3

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

-

—

I ll
4
1

A B
- 2
2
1

P
2
2
1
1
— — - — — — — 1
_ — — — — _ _ 1
1
• •
1 ■*
8

1

1
1
1
4

1
—
1
1
3

- - 1
- 7 — — —
1
— — —
7 2

5

C D E
- - ”

- - — 1
- 2
** 3

F
-

2
1
- - 7
- - 1
— — 1
1 1
— - 2 — 3
• — 4 1 14
- - — _

_
_
—
—

_ 4
_ 4
1 3
- 1
— 3
- 4
1 19

1
1
1
1
2
1
7

1
—
4
1
1
7

1 1
1 2
1 1
- 1 3
— 3
4 10

1
—
2
1
4

1
1
1
—
—
3

•
3
3
—
2
8

_
1
-

_
1
1
1
2
—
6

1
1
—
2

1
1
1

1
—
2

—
-

—
-

_
-

I ASSUMPTION I I HORIZON I I I SOURCE
SEE PAGE 2 FOR COLUMN DEFINITIONS

TABLE A.6C.T.T:

1
—
1

•
-

H 0
- •

1
— — 7

S X
- —

z
1
1

— _ _
1
— 1

—
1

_
1
2
1
4

3

5
_
— 3
_ • 8

-

3
— -

4
1

1
—
1
2

- 1 1
— 2
1 11

1
1
5

1 — 5
- 1
1 11

1
_
1

2 2
1 3
- 3
- 1
2 3
— 2
5 14

_
-

—
-

1
1
_
2

QUESTION 6C

ASSUMPTIONS
I

II

A
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3
TOTAL
FIlfaHCE
13 2 8 3 — 16 8 2
ADMINISTRATION
9 13 4 - 2 17 7 3
1 9 5 3 11 14 10 3
ACADEMIC
1 6 5
RESEARCH
4 3 9 1
FACILITIES
14 1 7 5 1 11 7 10
COMMUNITT SERVICE 2 12 3 3 3 7 11 5
TOTAL
39 43 32 14 21 68 52 24
I PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS: COLUMN 1
2
3
4
5
I I PLANNING HORIZON:

B
1 2 3
3 10 4
4 11 1
5 9 5
1 5 4
1 12 6
1 2 6 6
8 17 53 26
4
2
1
1
3

III

C
4
2
-

1
2
1

3
9

1

2

—

—

1
1
-

2
3
2
2

-

1

-

1 10

3 4 A
5 3 1
5 1 4 2 13
1 2 4
4 3 1
5 2 1
24 13 20

STRUCTURAL (INTERNAL)
CULTURAL (INTERNAL)
INPUT (EXTERNAL)
THROUGHPUT (INTERNAL)
OUTPUT (EXTERNAL)

A 1-3
TEARSCOLUMN1 GREATEST EMPHASIS
B 4 -9 TEARS
2 SIGNIFICANT EMPHASIS
C 10+ TEARS
3 MODERATE EMPHASIS
4 MINOR EMPHASIS
0 (NOT INCLUDED, LIMITED SPACE)

I I I ASSUMPTION SOURCES: A)
B)
C)
D)
E)
F)
H)
0)
P)
S)
X)
Z)

ACADEMIC VICE PRESIDENT/PROVOST
BOARD OF DIRECTORS/REGENTS/TRUSTEES
COMMITTEE (ANT)
DEAN
EXPERT (OUTSIDE)
FACULTT
HEAD OF DEPARTMENT
OPERATIONS VICE PRESIDENT
PRESIDENT
STAFF
OUTSIDE ORGANIZATION
ADMINISTRATIVE/FINANCIAL VICE PRESIDENT

TABLE A.6C.1.2.

B
1
2
2

C D E F
1 1 - —
2 - 1 —
1 2 1 3
2 1 3
2 3 - - 1 3 2 2
8 10 7 3 8

H 0 P
2 2 6
1 1 19
1 — 5
1 - 3
—
4 6
3 - 8
8 7 47

-

-

Z
11
3

—

-

-

1
3
2
9

1

-

—

9
1

S
3

X
—

1

2 24

QUESTION 6D

ASSUMPTIONS
I

PUBLIC COLLEGES
FINANCE
ADMINISTRATION
ACADEMIC
RESEARCH
FACILITIES
COMMUNITY SERVICE
TOTAL

1
1
2
3

2

A
2
2
1
1
2

1

1

2

—

—

1
1

3
1

4
2
2
1
1

—

—

—

2

-

1

—

-

1
1
1
6
1
—

—

1

1

_

_

9

8

2

1

5
5
4
2

3
3
4

II

B
1
-

2
1
1

III

C
3
1
1
1

4
1
1
1

1
1

2

3

—

—

4
1
1
1

A

B

C

D

E

F

H

0

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

-

-

1

-

-

2

-

-

—

1

-

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

—

—

—

—

—

—

5

2

1

-

-

2

1
-

-

-

2

-

1
-

-

-

6

-

-

-

-

—

—

-

-

—

—

1

-

-

-

1

1

-

1

-

2
7

—

—

—

4

5

1

1

2
1

2
1
1

-

-

1

-

-

1
1

-

-

3

1

-

1
1

1

2 3 1
3 2 —
1 2 2
1 - 2
2 1 3
1 3 2
8 12 12

-

—

9

1
2
1
2 3
4
5 13

-

1
1
1
1
1

-

1
1

-

-

-

-

_

_

-

1

1
-

1

1
1

-

1

- - - - -

5

-

-

5

-

3

1

2

-

1

-

-

1

1

2

-

1

1

—

—

9

1

2
1
2
2
1 1
— 2
1 10

^—
-

1
1
-

—

—

-

—

—

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

—

—

—

-

-

-

1

-

P
1
1

1
1
1
1
6

S

X

—

1

z
1
1

-

-

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

2

—

—

1

—

-

3

4

-

1

-

1
2

3
—
8

6

COMMUNITY COLLEGES
FINANCE

5 2
4 4
3 5
2
5 2
3 5
22 18

ADMINISTRATION
ACADEMIC
RESEARCH
FACILITIES
COMMUNITY SERVICE
TOTAL

1
7 1
2 6
25 18

NONPUBLIC COLLEGES
Fin AncE
ADMINISTRATION
ACADEMICC
RESEARCH
FACILITIES
COMMUNITY SERVICE
TOTAL

9 3 7 1 2 2
4 8 6 2 2 1
6 6 5 4 2 1
2 6 2 1 3 2
10 2 3 5 2 2
7 4 3 5 2 1
38 29 26 18 13 10

—
1

-

-

— -

1

1
-

4

2
7

6 1
1 2
7 2
3 1
6 4
—
3 6
7 32 15
3
7
2
1

-

3
1
1
8

—

-

1

6
1

1
1

1

-

6

1
7
2
-

-

-

2
3

-

2

-

1
2

1 2
— 3
1 13

-

1

2
3

1
2

1
4

-

1

-

-

—

1

2

-

—

—

-

1

6

-

-

—

5

-

1

—

—

-

-

2

1
1

-

-

1

-

-

-

1
1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2
4

-

1
3

—

—

1

2
4

-

1

1
1
9

1

1
1
-

2
2
2

-

1
1
1

1
1
—

2

3
2

-

-

-

4 11

-

3

2

3

—
-

6
1
2 13

PROPRIETARY SCHOOLS
FINANCE

ADMINISTRATION
ACADEMIC
RESEARCH
FACILITIES
COMMUNITY SERVICE
TOTAL

3 2 3
3 2 4
1 4 3
1 1 2 3 3
1 2 2
11 13 15

1
1
2
2
1
1
8

1
—
1
—

—

2

-

1 2
1 2
1 2
1 1
1 2
1 1
6 10

1
1
1

I ASSUMPTION I I HORIZON I I I SOURCE
SEE PAGE 2 FOR COLUMN DEFINITIONS

TABLE A.&D.1.1.

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

QUESTION 6D

ASSUMPTIONS

I
1 2
1810
14 14
14 15
5 10
21 7
11 12
68

GO

TOTAL
FltfAHCE
ADMINISTRATION
ACADEMIC
RESEARCH
FACILITIES
COMMUNITY SERVICE
TOTAL

A

B

1 2 3 4 1
15 4 5 4 6
15 7 2 4 3
12 11 4 2 6
4 4 4 3 4
11 8 4 5 2
8 10 3 2 3
65 44 22 20 24

II

III

C

2 3 4
9 5 2
12 4 3
10 5 2
5 2 4
10 7 2
4 11 1
50 34 14

4 A B C D E
3 - 2 - - 2
4 - 2 2 - 1
4 15 1 2 1 1
3 2 - 1 1 3
1 4 - 2 3 - —
2 4 2 —
1 4 4 2 17 13 20 17 8 12 6 6
1
1

2
2
3
3
3
4

3
.3
3
2

I PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS: COLUMN 1 TREND (REACTIVE/INTERNAL)
2 PARADIGM (PROACTIVE/EXTERNAL)
I I PLANNING HORIZON:

A 1 -3 YEARS
B 4 -9 YEARS
C 10+ YEARS

COLUMN 1 GREATEST EMPHASIS
2 SIGNIFICANT EMPHASIS
3 MODERATE EMPHASIS
4 MINOR EMPHASIS
0 (NOT INCLUDED, LIMITED SPACE)

I I I ASSUMPTION SOURCES: A) ACADEMIC VICE PRESIDENT/PROVOST
B) BOARD OF DIRECTORS/REGENTS/TRUSTEES
C) COMMITTEE (ANY)
D) DEAN

E) EXPERT (OUTSIDE)
F) FACULTY

H)
0)
P)
S)
x)
Z)

HEAD OF DEPARTMENT
OPERATIONS VICE PRESIDENT
PRESIDENT
STAFF
OUTSIDE ORGANIZATION
ADMINISTRATIVE/FINANCIAL VICE PRESIDENT

TAfiLE A.Sd J .2.

F
—
-

1
1
-

1
3

H 0 P S
1 1 5 2
1 15 2
1 — 4 —
1 - 1 1
3 7 2
1 — 7 3
4 5 39 10

X z
2 13
1 2
3 —
1 —
8
2 1
9 24

QUESTION

ASSUMPTIONS

ASSUMPTION
TYPE

PUBLIC
COLLEGES
A B

SOCIETAL (INTEGRATIVE)
NORMATIVE
( PATTERN-MAINTENANCE)
2
CONTEXT (ADAPTIVE)
3
PERFORMANCE
(GOAL-ATTAINMENT)
SCIENCE ft TECHNOLOGY
(GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL 1
ECONOMIC
(GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL) 1
DEMOGRAPHIC
(GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL) 2
POLITICAL
(GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL) 1
STRUCTURAL
(SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL) _
CULTURE (INTERNAL)
INPUT (EXTERNAL)
2
THROUGHPUT (INTERNAL)
1
OUTPUT (EXTERNAL)
1
TREND (INTERNAL)
2
—
PARADIGM (EXTERNAL)
TOTAL
16

COMMUNITY
COLLEGES

NONPUBLIC
COLLEGES

C D

A B

C D

A

B

C D

A B

C D

3

4

3

1

6

5

2

-

1

2

1

-

1

4
2

1
3

3
2

1

4
4

3
3

4

2
3

1
-

2
1

1
1

7

-

1

1 11

2

-

2

5

5

2

-

-

5

7

-

1

5

6

2

4

6

3

3
7
4
3

4

4
5

—

3
2

1
2

1

7

1

2

4

1

3

3

2

3

2
1
2

1
—

1
2
1
1
1

2
1
_

1

1
3
5 17

—

->

7

1

2 3 1 2
1 2 4 1
4 2 1 1
2 2 2 2
1
1 6
1 7
3 4 1 33 43 21 23

TABLE A.6E.

-

1

3
1
2

2

2
2

3

TOTAL

A

B

C D

11

10

7

-

2

11
9

6
7

9
5

2
6

1

1

3

1

2 22

3

1

-

9

10

6

2

-

3

-

1

6

19

1

2

-

2

1

1

-

11

12

4

1

-

1

1

1

1

9

10

8

1

1
2
3
1

2
2

1
-

3
6
7

8 2 ••
6 3 56 61 37 34
3
3

PROPRIETARY
SCHOOLS

—

1

—

2
2

1
_
—

1
2
1 2 —
1
—
2 - 2
9 24 15 12
-

-

-

8 8 6
5
8
5 13 2
11
8 4 4
6
5 7 9
2
2 7 16
18 2 1
7
6
12 7 2
114 133 90 76

GOAL EVOLUTION

PLANNING HORIZON/
ACTIVITY
RESEARCH/CONTRACT
RES./INDEPENDENT
PROP./MASTERS
PROP./DOCTORATE
VOC./EXPLORATORY
VOCATIONAL/SKILLS
VOC./LICENSE/CERT.
VOC./ASSOCIATE
VOC./BACHELOR'S
GEN./EXPLORATORY
GENERAL/ASSOCIATE
GENERAL/BACHELOR'S
COMPENSATORY
LEISURE SKILLS
COMM. SER./LOCAL
COMM. SER./STATE
ORG. DEV./ADMIN.
ORG. DEV./PROG.
ORG. DEV./FACULTY

PUBLIC
COLLEGES
4 -9 YRS.

1-3 YRS.
~ T

1 2
-

2

-

3

-

2

1
1

-

1

-

~~5 4
1 -

1
1

-

1
1

1

-

1

-

1

2

1
-

-

-

1
1

1
1

—

—

—

—

-

-

10+ YRS.

“ m
' - “ I—

1

2

-

-

2

1 1

1
-

—

COMMUNITY
COLLEGES

- ? -

— 2
1
_

1
3
3

1

—

-

-

-

—

1

-

-

1

-

-

-

- 1 4

1 1 - 1

-

2

-

2

1

-

-

-

2

-

1

-

1

1
1

1
1
1

T
—

T

2

1

_
-

1
1

1
-

-

-

3

-

2

2
2

1-3 YRS.

1 2 3 4:
- 1 3
1
2
2

1V
M1

QUESTION 7

—

2

1

1
1
1

2
2

1

1
1
1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1
1

1
1
1
1

1
2
2
2
2
2

1
1

TABLE A.7-.1.1

-

-

- - 1 1
2 3 2 1
5 1 1 1
2
2 - 4 1
2 3 3 -

4

2 2 2 - 2

2
4
3

5 - 1
4 - 5 - -

—
1
3
5
6
6
—
2
5

1
—
1
1
2
2
—
1
—
3
1

4
2
—
1
3
1
2
—
1
2
1

1
2
5
2
5
4

1
2
1
1
4
3
4

4
4
2
1
2
-

2
1
—
—
—
_
1
1
1
1
0.
c
1
—
—
2
—

-

r

10+ YRS.

2 3 7

1

-

2

1

-

-

1

1

1

-

2
5
6
6

2 1 1
1 1 1 - - 1

_

_

2
5

5 1 1
1 - 1

-

_

1

7

1 - 4 1
2 2 3 -

4

2

1

- 1 1 2
2 4 1 4 3 - 3 4 - -

-

GOAL EVOLUTION
NONPUBLIC
COLLEGES
1- 3 YRS.
4--9 YRS.
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
—
—
1 2 2
1 1 4
1 3 2 3
1 1 6 2
2 3 4 3 4 — 1
1 2 1 2 2 — 1 7 2 —
7 1 —
2 3 2 4
3 5 1 3
1 2 3 3
1 2 5 2
1 2 3 1
2 3 1 1
2 5 1 5 4 — 1
3 5 2 —
3 6 2 2 5 — 2 4 2 —
4 4 1 7 2 — 3 3 2
3 4 1
—
1 1 5 4
4 4 3
1 4 5 2
1 6 3 1
—
2
4 5
3 4 4
6 4 —
2
5 4 3 —
8 4 — 5 6 1 —
6 6 1 4 5 3 -

QUESTION 7 CONTINUED
PLANNING HORIZON/
ACTIVITY
RESEARCH/CONTRACT
RES./INDEPENDENT
PROP./MASTERS
PROP./DOCTORATE
VOC./EXPLORATORY
VOCATIONAL/SKILLS
VOC./LICENSE/CERT.
VOC./ASSOCIATE
VOC./BACHELOR'S
GEN./EXPLORATORY
g e n e r a l / a s s o c ia t e

BLE A.7-.1-2.

1-3 YRS .
1 2 3 4
2
—
1 1
— 1 1 - 1 - 1
3 - — 3 1 - 4 - — 1 1 - 1
1 1 1 1 1 — — 2
- 1 1 —
1 1 —
—
1
—
2
- 1 - 1
1 3 — 3 2 - 1 1

1
_

10+ YRS •
2 3 4
—
—

3

4
—

1
-

—
—
—
—

_
1
—
—
1
—
—

—
2
2
1
1
1
1

— 1
—
1

1
1

—

—

—

1
2
1

—
2
2
1
2
1
1

2
1
1

1
1
1
1
—
1
1

—

— — - 1 —
3 —
—
4 2 -

—

—
-

1
1
—
1
1
1
2
— 1
—
1

1
1
—
—

1
—
—
1
—
—

1
1

—

—

—

1
2
1

—

— — - 1 —
2 1
2 —
1 -

—

1
-

340

GENERAL/BACHELOR' S
COMPENSATORY
LESIURE SKILLS
COMM. SER./LOCAL
COMM. SER./STATE
ORG. DEV./ADMIN.
ORG. DEV./PROG.
ORG. DEV./FACULTY

10+ YRS •
2 3 4'
1 2
- 2 2 3
2 1 - 3
1 - 1 1
- 3 — 2
2 - 1 4
- 2 — 3
- 1 1 2
1 1 1 2
1 2 1 2
2 1 1 2
2 1 1 2
- 1 2 2
1 1 1 4
1 2 2 2
- 1 2 4
2 2 2 1
2 3 2 1
2 2 2 2
1

PROPRIETARY
SCHOOLS
4--9 YRS •

QUESTION 7 CONTINUED
PLANNING HORIZON/
ACTIVITY_________
RESEARCH/CONTRACT
RES./INDEPENDENT
PROP./MASTERS
PROP./DOCTORATE
VOC./EXPLORATORY
VOC./SKILLS
VOC./LICENSE/CERT.
VOC./ASSOCIATE
VOC./BACHELORS
GEN./EXPLORATORY
GEN./ASSOCIATE
GEN./BACHELORS
COMPENSATORY
LEISURE SKILLS
COMM. SER./LOCAL
COMM. SER./STATE
ORG. DEV. ADMIN.
ORG. DEV. PROG.
ORG. DEV. FACULTY

GOAL EVOLUTION
TOTAL

1-3 YRS.
1 2 3 4
3 3 4 5
2 6 4 7
4 9 1 2
2 5 2 1
9 9 4 —
12 8 2 3
12 2 7 2
9 5 1 3
6 6 3 2
7 10 4 2
7 8 1 1
8 5 1 2
5 5 9 2
2 7 7 6
6 9 5 4
7 4 9
8 12 4 3
15 10 3 —
10 12 5 -

4 -9 YRS.
1 2 3 4
1 3 1 2
1 3 10 4
4 8 4 1
2 5 2 1
6 10 4 —
10 6 3 4
9 2 5 3
9 3 3 3
3 7 3 1
6 10 4 2
7 7 3 1
4 8 2 4
5 9 3
3 3 9 7
7 5 8 5
4 7 9
4 14 7 1
10 15 2 8 13 3 -

TABLE A.7-.1.3*

r

10+ YRS.
2 3 4

2 - 4"''4
1 2
4 5
4 5 - 4
3 2 1 1
5 5 1 3
10 1 3 4
8 2 2 3
7 2 1 4
2 3 2 3
4 7 2 4
7 4 1 3
2 5 2 3
1 2
6 5
3 3 4 7
7 4 3 6
- 3 4 9
4 9 5 3
6 9 3 3
5 8 3 3

QUESTION 8A

PERSONNEL TRENDS
PUBLIC COLLEGES

DATA ELEMENT

NEW STUDENTS
N

7
S.D.
GRADUATING STUDENTS
N
X
S.D.
TOTAL STUDENTS
N
X
S.D.

STUDENT CREDIT HOURS
N
X
S.D.
TOTAL FACULTY

$
X
S.D.
FTE FACULTY
N

J
S.D.
TENURED FACULTY
N
X
S.D.

1977
34055
6
5680
4525

1980
33654
6
5609
4287

1981
30577
6
5113
3688

1982
277T7
5
4943
4144

1983
1T570
3
3857
4735

18358
4
4590
5420

16802
4
4201
4946

16912
4
4228
4927

16166
4
4042
4815

11246
2
5623
7197

10000
1
10000

114039
5
22808
19128

139451
6
23242
17685

140091
6
23349
174472

134725
6
22454
16496

130684
6
21781
15930

46708
3
15569
20947

97326
5
19465
16938

113225
6
18871
15459

112676
6
18779
15316

76605
5
15321
14352

74095
5
14819
13689

4949
2
2475
431

1429428
5
285886
247539

1668574
6
278096
228071

1658253
6
276376
226649

1605275
6
267546
216065

1564720
6
260787
209007

551648
2
275824
330154

3977
4
994
1209

6184
5
1237
1107

6314
5
1263
1158

6044
5
1209
1090

5784
5
1157
1040

2623
2
1312
1681

1248
2
624
738

4266
4
1067
774

4487
5
897
814

4395
5
897
787

5916
5
1183
1024

2585
2
1293
1566

1654
2
827
1106

3971
5
794
760

4749
6
792
700

4691
6
782
676

4625
6
771
658

1750
1
1750

TABLE A.8A.1.1.

—

-

1
700

1992
700
1
700

—

—

—

-

1987

—

—

-

-

7931
2
3966
2136

2
4068
2415

_
-

-

-

-

-

—

49529
1
49529
-

51585
1
51385
-

—

—

—

—

-

-

—

—

—
-

-

—

_
_

-

-

342

FTE STUDENTS
N
X
S.D.

1972
305TS
4
7669
4781

QUESTION 8A

PERSONNEL TRENDS
COMMUNITY COLLEGES

DATA ELEMENT

1972
1005!>
9
1118
722

1977
955?
9
1061
634

2024
8
253
201

TOTAL STUDENTS
N
X
S.D.
PTE STUDENTS
N

9
1275
893

1981
12295
10
12296
925

1982
10458
9
1162
934

1983
6780
6
1130
1159

1987
6833
6
1139
1053

1992
5261
5
1052
1090

3139
9
349
244

3392
9
377
300

4140
10
414
369

3168
9
352
199

1839
6
307
217

1979
6
330
241

1622
5
324
239

31923
10
3192
3694

40613
10
4051
4426

47335
10
4734
5201

48378
10
4838
5811

45115
10
5013
5877

17431
6
2905
2746

18400
6
3067
2733

13712
5
2742
2832

18601
9
2069
2165

24698
10
2470
2884

26378
10
2638
2770

27801
10
2780
3288

27165
10
2717
2963

7837
5
1567
1891

7555
5
1511
1695

7403
5
1481
1530

250719
9
27858
25222

351350
10
35135
38241

395395
10
39540
42076

398590
10
39859
46069

397665
10
30767
43588

147875
6
24646
19521

148182
6
24697
18061

106940
5
21388
16185

TOTAL FACULTY
N
X
S.D.

379
5
76
128

576
6
96
53

3487
8
436
862

3121
8
390
736

2987
8
373
685

1787
5
357
636

316
4
79
38

342
4
86
44

PTE FACULTY
N
X
S.T.

239
4
60
42

312
4
78
60

344
4
86
67

344
4
86
67

350
4
88
67

352
4
88
67

365
4
91
66

225
3
75
67

TENURED FACULTY
N

199
7
40
41

336
8
56
37

341
8
57
37

329
8
55
36

333
8
56
36

234
5
47
33

158
4
40
30

132
3
44
35

NOT 'STUDENTS-------N
X
S.D.
GRADUATING STUDENTS
N
X
S.D.

I
S.D.
STUDENT CREDIT HOURS
N
X
S.D.

7
S.D.

1980

11475

TAM.fi A..6A.1.2.

QUESTION 8A

PERSONNEL TRENDS
NONPUBLIC COLLGES

DATA ELEMENT
Students '
N
X
S.D .

1980
7384
18
410
458

1981
7543
17
444
577

1982
7480
18
416
556

1983
5250
15
350
352

1987
5152
13
396
360

1992
*328
11
393
388

14
196
201

3810
16
254
260

4258
17
250
303

4742
17
279
342

4818
17
283
342

4162
15
298
351

4041
13
337
358

3560
10
356
392

TOTAL STUDENTS
N
X
S.D .

14652
16
916
908

19289
17
1135
1215

20860
18
1189
1347

23204
18
1289
1480

23445
18
1319
1554

18568
14
1326
1296

17055
12
1421
1288

14155
10
1415
1390

PTE STUDENTS
N

12882
15
859
867

16453
17
968
1096

18345
17
1079
1197

18894
17
1111
1214

19234
17
1131
1254

15029
14
1074
1091

14572
12
1214
1092

12138
10
1214
1183

208022
11
18911
27835

257511
13
19809
31988

299495
13
23038
33986

306733
13
23595
34654

316181
15
21079
32181

238600
11
21691
33111

239590
9
26621
38784

231250
8
28906
44588

1025
16
64
60

1312
17
77
78

1559
18
87
86

1623
18
90
88

1680
18
93
92

1183
14
85
83

1097
12
91
80

941
11
86
79

PTE FACULTY
N
X
S.D .

784
13
60
58

915
14
65
65

1005
14
72
71

1033
15
69
69

1028
15
69
67

897
13
69
67

836
11
76
67

73
10
73
67

TENURED FACULTY
N

245
8
31
30

284
8
36
34

300
9
33
36

298
9
33
37

306
9
34
38

270
8
34
42

286
7
41
46

257
6
43
54

GRADUATING STUDENTS
N
X
S.D .

X

S.D .
STUDENT CREDIT HOURS
N
X
S.D .
TOTAL FACULTY
N
I

S.D .

1
S.D .

4413

16
292
278

\ 2745
\
'

TABLE A.8A.1.3

344

1977
6071
17
357
358

1972

nEW

QUESTION 8A

PERSONNEL TRENDS
PROPRIETARY SCHOOLS

DATA ELEMENT
NEW STUDENTS
N
X
S.D .
GRADUATING STUDENTS
N
X
S.D .
TOTAL. STUDENTS

z

X
S.D .

STUDENT CREDIT HOURS
N
X
S.D .
TOTAL FACULTY
N
I
S.D .
FTE FACULTY
fl
X
S.D .

4
375
242

1982
37TT
5
742
596

90
3
30
30

296
3
99
97

514
4
129
91

551
4
136
88

426
3
142
121

1301
3
434
447

1943
4
486
355

145
2
73
11

40
1
40
_

290

1280
1
1280

—

4
673
609

1987
5T92
4
798
663

1992
1 b42
2
821
1102

1043
5
209
121

1316
4
329
284

1627
4
407
331

767
2
384
518

2395
4
599
399

5180
5
1036
681

4157
4
1039
836

4900
4
1225
910

2259
2
1130
1514

422
2
211
232

595
2
298
357

2525
3
841
827

955
2
478
598

1359
2
680
878

59
1
59

5250
1
5250

7700
1
7700
-

38050
2
19025
11561

12600
1
12600

18200
1
18200

1499

1983

2692

-

—
—

-

-

-

16
3
5
3

49
3
16
20

69
4
17
19

88
4
22
21

189
5
38
34

113
4
28
22

126
4
32
22

36
2
18
24

4

38
2
19
24

49
3
16
18

50
3
17
17

116
4
29
25

63
3
21
18

63
3
21
20

1
1
1

2
2
-

TENURED FACULTY - NOT APPLICABLE

TABLE A.SA.1.4

-

-

-

-

345

FTE STUDENTS
N
X
S.D .

1980
1220
4
305
194

1981

3
97
74

1977
“ 705
3
469
207

1972

QUESTION 8B

FUNDING TRENDS
PUBLIC COLLEGES

DATA ELEMENT

1972

1977

1980

1981

1982

1983

1987

1992

5
1 8.7*
5-2

6
2 0 .9 *
5 .7

6
21 .0*
5 .6

6
2 3 .8 *
7 .0

5
23.756
8 .1

4
3 0 .4 #
8 .3

1
4 0 .0 *

1
5 0 .0 *

1
5 0 .0 *

1
4 0 .0 *

TUrildif & FEES--N

X
S.D.
LOCAL (MILLAGE)
NOT APPLICABLE
STATE
N

X
S.D.

5
4 7 .8 *
15.6

6
5 0 .0 *
17.0

6
5 0 .6 *
16 .3

6
4 7 .8 *
16.5

5
4 6 .1 *
1 7 .7

4
5 2 .9 *
13.6

4
1 3.7*
8 .2

6
8 .5 *
7.1

6
7-9 *
6 .8

6
8 .3 *
7 .5

5
10.8*
7 .3

3
5 -4*
9-1

FEDERAL
S.D.

cr>

TABLE A.8B.1.i

.

QUESTION 8B

FUNDING TRENDS
COMMUNITY COLLEGES

1972

1977

1980

1981

1982

1983

1987

1992

8
2 3 .4 *
2.1

9
2 7 .1 *
4 .7

9
2 1 .7&
4 .8

9
2 3 .7 *
5-3

9
25-3*
7.1

9
2 6 .9 *
7 .4

7
29-5*
6 .7

6
2 7 .8 *
4.1

LOCAL (MILLAGE)
N
7
S.D.

9
2 8 .9 *
4 -9

10
2 1 .5 *
9-3

10
2 3 .6 *
9 .7

10
2 6 .5 *
1 0 .0

10
2 7 .1 *
1 0.4

10
2 9 .2 *
1 0 .3

8
2 7 .1 *
1 1 .9

7
2 8 .7 *
1 1 .0

STATE
N
X
S.D.

8
4 0 .5 *
4 .4

9
45-8*
11.17

9
4 4 . 9&
7 .4

9
4 0 .3 *
8 .8

9
3 7 .3 *
7 .9

9
3 5 .3 *
6 .9

7
33-9*
6 .2

6
3 4 .5 *
9 .7

FEDERAL
N
X
S .D .'

5
5 .8 *
6 .5

6
4*4*
6 .0

6
3 -9 *
4 .0

6
2 .8 *
1 .7

6
5 .1 *
2 .7

6
2 .7 *
2 .3

4
2 .2 *
1 .6

3
3 -3 *
2 .9

TABLE A.8B.1 .£.

347

DATA ELEMENT
TUITION & FEES
N
X
S.D.

QUESTION 8B

FUNDING TRENDS
NONPUBLIC COLLEGES

DATA ELEMENT
TUITION & FEES
N

7
S.D.

1972

1977

1980

1981

1982

1983

1987

13
61 .056
2 4 .5

14
5 7 .8 *
2 4 .5

15
5 9 .0 *
2 3 .5

17
5 6 .8 *
2 3 .9

16
6 1 .3 *
2 2 .4

15
6 4 .2 *
2 2 .2

66.6*
2 4 .8

65.7*
2 5 .4

1-9*
1-9

1 .4 *
1 .7

7
1 .4 *
1 .4

7
1 .3 *
1 .3

5
1 .5 *
1 .5

4
1 .8 *
1 .4

7
1 0 .1*
9.1

7
10 .0 *
8 .0

7
8 .7 *
7 .9

7
7 .2 *
7 .2

5
5 .4 *
4 .9

4
7 .1 *
5 .6

11

1992
10

LOCAL (MILLAGE)
NOT APPLICABLE
STATE
N

X
S.D.

6
5 .4 *
5 .1 2

6

2 .3 *
2.8

6
1 1 .9 *
10.1

iAitfe A.8B.1.3.

348

FEDERAL
N
X
S.D.

1

5 1 .1 *

QUESTION 8B

FUNDING TRENDS
PROPRIETARY SCHOOLS

DATA ELEMENT

TUITION '£ 'PEES-N
X
S.D.

1972

1977

1980

4
95.0JC

4
93 -8 *
1 2.5

5
95-0*
11. 2

10.0

1981

1982

1985

5
96.0*
9 .0

5
96.0*
9 .0

9 5 .0 *

5

11 . 2

1987

1992

4
9 1 .2*
17.5

3
93-3*
11.5

LOCAL (MILLAGE)
NOT APPLICABLE
STATE
N
X
S.D.

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

FEDERAL
S.D.
VO

TABLE A.8B.1.4*

APPENDIX B
SURVEY INSTRUMENTS

PER30H(S) COKPIiETIHQ THI3 SURVEY
HAHE:_

HAWS:
TITLE:______________________________
TELEPHOHE: (
1
9
8
2

Inventory
of
Plennlng
Attributes

TITLE:

)________________________

TELEPHONE _____] _

QUESTIONS:_________________________

QUE3TI0I3:_______

COMEBTS:

C0MHBHT3:

BICHIGAB STATI Ul'lTESBITT

RETUR1 TO: J. P. TAB CLEAVE
1021 VEST MAIN STREET
QRAED LEDGE, MICHIGAI 48837
TELEPHONE ($17) 627-3356

Please select froa the following stateaents one which
The purpose of the survey Is to deteralne this

aoat nearly Batches this institution's interest in

Institution's level of interest in planning and how it

Strategic Planning:

approaches the planning process.

1• This institution has iapleaented a

It is not Intended to

evaluate planning aethode or the efficacy of planning
asauaptlons.
Planning Defined:

(check one)

Strategic Planning Process.
2. This Institution jIb in the process of

A conscious process by vhlch an
institution assesses its current
state and the likely future condition
of its environment, identifies possible
future states for itself, and then
develops organisational strategies,
policies, and procedures for selecting
and getting to one or sore of thea.f
and/or
Manageaent's ability or process for
sensing the envlronaent; exercising
soae control over those events that
offer both opportunities and constraints
for the organisation; establishing
processes to enhance this planningsensing ability; and identifying and
choosing aaong available choices of
action.*

Strategic Plannlng:As used here is the operationalisation
of Peterson's general planning
definition by adding a tine perspective
(planning horlson) and context (level
of detail) attributed to each segaent
of the planning horlson; beginning with
the current budget (Plan Tears 1-3)*
the aiddle planning years, or the
tactical period (Plan Tears 4*9); and
the long-range segaent (Plan Tears 10
and beyond.

preparing or lapleaentlng a Strategic Plan.
3* This institution 1b evaluating the
beneflte of Strategic Planning.

present, In Strategic Planning.

Strategic Plan.

____

If one of the first three stateaents describes this
institution's current level of interest in Strategic
Planning, please answer all of the following eight (8)
questions.

If stateaent 2 or statement 3 was selected,

please answer question 2-7 in the projective sense;
that is, if a Strategic Plan and a Planning Function
were in place, what would it look like and what
asauaptlons would the Plan be structured around.

Instrument to:
J. P. Tan Cleave
1021 Vest Main Street
Grand ledge, Michigan 46837
•Bassett, Roger, "Suaaary Of Forua Discussions" in
Integrating Academic Planning and Budgeting In a Rapidly
Changing tnvironsent. bldneya. niceic led.J, Boulder. Co.:

_

3* This institution does not require a

If stateaent 4 or 5 was selected, please coaplete

fpeterson, Marvin V., "Analysing Alternative Approaches To
Planning" in Improving Academic Management: A Handbook
Of Planning And Institutional Research, raui Jcdaausand
Marvin”W. Peterson (eds.J SanTrancTsco: Joseey-Bass,
Inc., 1980, P. 114.

____

4. This institution has no interest, at

Question 1. and 8 before returning this survey

nuuaa, Ȥ&>;

(

Telephone (517) 627-3356

)

Question t

Select froa the following stateaents one
which is closest to describing the
relationship between budgeting and longrange planning at this Institution:

Links Between Budgeting end Long-Range Planning
o

Vhat fiscal period Is covered by the currant
budget:
Month

Pros
fear

Tear

o

Are operating funds eoaaltted for the
full tera of the budget?

Tesa

o

Are operating funds eoaaltted for a
period of tlae greater than the budget
period?

Yesa

o

- Completely Integrated, same processes
and planning personnel are employed
to prepare a plan which covers both
the current period (budget) and
planning periods extending into the
future*

to
. Month

- Similar, aaae planning personnel are
used but different processes are
employed and planning for one period
is not directly tied (quantitatively)
to other periods* Assumptions are
tested for consistency on a periodto-perlod basis*

9elect froa the following liet one
"method” which is closest to the
aethod used to prepare the current
budget:

- totally Unrelated. different personnel*
dirrerent processes* planning occurs at
different times and different assumptlonssets are employed*

- Incremental Budgeting*. each line
itea is either oonslaered for an
incresent or reaalns unadjusted in
the base. Frequently* Increaents
are calculated as unlfora percentage
adjustaents for every line ltea or
group of line lteae.
- Formula Budgeting* Is an objective
procedure for estimating the future
budgetary'requlreaents of an
Institution by aanlpulatlng data
about future programs and by
utilising relationships between
progress and cost.
• Planning. Progressing, and Budgeting
Systems* is a managerial technique
designed to serge the planning process
with the allocation of funds by asking
It iaposslble to allocate funds without
planning.
- Zero-Base Budgeting* assuaes nothing
about prior budgets but starts froa
aero each year to build a new budget*
- Perforaance Budgeting* pertains to
activities* not to objectives* Its
principal thrust le to iaprove work
efficiency by aeans of activity
classification and work/cost
aeasureaent*

- Long-Range Plan Are Prepared Periodically
by select committees and are totally
unrelated to the budget function.
- This institution prepares annual budgets
but has not prepared a formal long-range
plan.

VJ1
hJ

o

Does this organisation have a central
planning function which is separate from
the budgeting function?

Tes

Ho

o

Is a coaprehenelve docuaent prepared
periodically which is referred to as
The plan?

Yes

Ho

o

Is the planning emphasis such that the
process Is on going and dynamic so that
documents which could be Identified as
the cosplete plan are rarely produced?

Tee

"Definitions reflect the work of the following
authors as reported In: Caruthers* J* Kent and
Melvin Orvig* Budgeting In Higher Education*
Vashington* D. C.T American Association for
Higher Sducatlon* P. 36-54* 1979*
•Formula Budgeting - James L* Miller* Jr.
•P.P.B.S* - Valter Kenworthy
•Zero-Base Budgeting - HACUBO
•Performance Budgeting - Allen Schick

Ho

Question 2A

Central Planning Organisation
o

Question 2B

Does a central planning organisation
exist In this institution?

Unit Planning Organisation
INSTRUCTIONS

Tee

.IDENTIFY DECENTRALIZED POINTS IN THE ORGANIZATION VHERE STRATEGIC PLANNIMO
Hov large la the staff?

fever than 3
3 or more

_
___

o

Select, froa figure 1, the organisation
level vhere the central planning function
la located:

o

Select, froa figure 1, the organisation
level to which the central planning
function reports:

IS RECOGNIZED AS A FORMAL ACTIVITY/TASK, AND STAFF ARB CURRENTLY ASSIGNED/
ALLOCATED:
CHECK ( )
IF APPLICABLE

AREA
ADMINISTRATION:
FINANCE

_____

OPERATIONS

____

BOARD OP

REGISTRAR

____

DIRECTORS

STUDENT SERVICES

____

OTHER______________

____

LEVEL

ACADEMIC:
VICE PRESIDENT/PROVOST

____

COLLBOE(S)

_____

DEPARTMENTS)

_ _

FACULTY

_____

OTHER______________

____

VICE

VICE
PRESIDENT

RESEARCH:

VICE

VICE PRESIDENT

____

COLLEGE(S)

____

PRESIDENT
DEPARTHENT(S)
DIRECTOR

7

FIGURE 1

(NOTE: If position titles do not natch those found In your organisation,
disregard the labels; the laportant criterion is level.)

FACULTY

____

OTHER______________

_____

Question ZC

Institutions! Hanning

ZC

IR3TITDII0HAL PURHIRO

(CHECK ALL APPROPRIATE RESP0H3E3)

IH3TRDCTI0R3
o

Planning Horlson la the distance Into the future
covered by tns plan. The horlson la divided Into
three segasnta:
**" refers to the flrat three years of
the plan. Typically, this Includes the
current (Ease) year of operations; nest
year, the year (Budget) currently being
planned, and the third (Out) year which
coapletea the so-called operational
segaent.
*B* refers to out years 4 through 9» the
tactical segaent.
*C* refers to years 10 and beyond, the
long-range segaent.
IIDICATZ WITH A CHICK (
BY 1ACB TTPB OP PUR.

PURHIRO HORIZOH

~m

to-- nrr

1-3TR3 4-9IR3 10* IRS

TYPE
OP
PURHIRO
ACTIVITT

DATE OF P U R
REVISION POLICE
OR REVI3I0H ---- ---------- TO
RORTU/IEAR
CORT. 1 2 ) 4 5 5 * SCHEDULE

STRATEGIC
PIHANCIAL
ACADEHIC
RE3EARCR
PACILITIE8 .
COHHURITT
SERVICE

) THI SE0HKM3 COTBBED

It is possible that several or all three eegaents
could be ooversd by aore than one type of plan.
o

Type of Planning Activity

- If any functional area has a separate
planning activity then respond for oach
activity listed.
- If each functional area has a separata
plan or planning process which Is
periodically aggregated Into a 'Strntegle*
?lan, then respond for each appropriate
ype of planning activity. Including
'Strategic*.
o

Pate of Plan refers to date of aoat current version,
or date of last review if no changes vers required.

o

Revision Policy refers to thb Institution's planned
revision points for each type of plants). 'COHT.*
refers to a policy of continuous revision. The nuabers
*1, Z, 3, 4, 3, 54* refer to specific revision points:
1 - annually; 2 * biennial; etc. It is quite poBsible
that eoae types of plane will be revised aore frequently
than others. *Ro Schedule* refers to a policy which
places no up-dating requlresent on the planning function.
PLEASE P U C E A (
) ORDER TUI READIED BEST DESCRIBINO
THB RETI3I0R POLICE POR EACH TTPB OP PURHIRO ACTIVITY.

354

- If an Integrated planning proceea la
esployed, check the appropriate
responses for the line 'Strategic''
and continue to question 3A.

Question 3A

Mechanisation

3A

MECHANIZATION:

(CHECK ALL APPROPRIATE RESPONSES)

INSTRUCTIONS
This question addresses the amount of mechanization
employed by the Institution in developing both the
Strategic Plan and the Budgets the Plan is analysed
by type and the Budget is analysed by~Ievel:
If the Plan is Integrated and fully
Mechanised, It is necessary to check
( ) only the coluan "Data Base System"
opposite the line "Strategic Plan." On
the other hand, If the Plan is not
integrated and Is developed In Its
entirety using annual methods, then
place a check { ) under the colusn
heading "Manual" on the line opposite
each type of Plan or planning process.
The Budget Is approached In the saae
Banner as the Plan, except it should
be noted that here the point of
Interest le the Organisation level.
If budgetary data is developed using
annual methods by department and
college units then place a check ( )
under the coluan heading "Manual"
opposite the lines "College" and
"Department." If the budget reflects
detailed program or project data
which is also maintained using manual
methods place a check ( ) under the
column heading "Manual," opposite
these lines. The Budget data may,
however, be Mechanised at the
institutional level; e.g., each
College or Department may submit
manually generated data for Input
to a summary level system which Is
Mechanised to some degree. Place a
check ( ) under the column heading
which best describes the level of
Mechanisation available for Budget
preparation and maintenance at the
summary or consolidated level for
the entire institution.

MANUAL

COMPUTER
BASED

STRATEGIC PLAN

_______

________ _________________

FINANCIAL PLAN

_______

_________

___________

ACADEMIC PLAN

_______

_________

___________

RESEARCH PLAN

_______

_________

___________

FACILITIES PLAN

_______

_________

___________

_________

___________

COHMUBITT SERVICE FLAN

INTEGRATED
PILES

BUDGET:
INSTITUTION
COLLEGE________________ _______

_

_

_________

_

______
___________

DEPARTMENT____________________

_________

___________

PROGRAM________________ _______

_________

___________

PROJECT________________ _______

_________

___________

COURSE

DATA BASE
3TSTEM

QUE3TI0H 3B

Mechanisation

IF ART PART OF IRS PLANNING SYSTEM IS MECHANIZED, PLEASE INDICATE:
INSTRUCTIONS

Computer Manufactured By: abbreviation of aanufacturer'a
name, such as IBrf or CDC, la acceptable.
Model lluaber; aystea 370 Nodal 168, for exaaple, will
provide aurriclent detail for the purposes of this
survey.
Software-Proprietary; If the strateglo planning ayatea
le dependent on a software package, purchaaed or leaaed
from an outside source, indicate this by aarklng 'Tea*.
Vendor Haaa: Indicate which fire supplied the aoftware
package.
Product Naae: if the software package la aold or leased
under a particular naae or tradeaark, please Indicate;
or, if unknown ao indicate.

COMPUTER MANUFACTURED BT _______________________________
MODEL NUMBER _______________________________
SOFTWARE - PROPRIETART

YES ___________

N O _________

IF YE3, VENDOR NANE: ___________________________________
PRODUCI(S) NAME: _______ _______________________________

Question 4

Level of Plan Detail

4

LEVEL OF PLAN DETAIL
PLANNING HORIZON
(A)
(B)
(C)
1-3TR3 4-9TB3 104- TR3

INSTRUCTIONS
PLACE A ( ) UNDER THE COLUMN HEADIMO(S) WHICH REPER
TO THE PLANNING PERIODS COVERED POR EACH AREA AND
LEVEL OP DETAIL.
Note It

Note 2:

PLANNING AREA
A.

- LINE ITEM, SAME AS BUDGET

Select the greatest level of detail Included
In the planning procese for each planning
area* Do not select aore than one level of
detail for each segaent ("A," "B" or "C")
of the planning horizon, within each Planning
Area: Financial; Acadealc; Research;
facilities, and Coaaunlty Service.
It is possible that one or aore planning
areas will not bo covered in the strategic
plan.

- AGGREGATED TO MAJOR BUDGET CATEGORIES
- DETAILED, BUT UNRELATED TO BUDGET
- SUMMARIZED BT MAJOR FINANCIAL CATEGORIES
- ROT ORIENTED TO CHART OF ACCOUNTS
B.

- FACULTY (STUDENT CONTACT HOURS, FTE, ETC.)
- COURSE (CONTENT)

Therefore, it is possible that one or aore
of the coluana for each planning area any
not require a check ( ) nark.

- PROGRAM/ACTIVITT (DESCRIPTION)
- DEPARTMENT/COLLEGE (GOALS)
- INSTITUTION (ROLE, SCOPE, MISSION)
C.

RESEARCH:
- PROJECT/ACTIVITT (DESCRIPTION)
- DEPARTMENT/COLLEGE (GOALS)
- INSTITUTION (ROLE, SCOPE, MISSION)

D.

FACILITIES:
- EQUIPMENT (TTPB, PURPOSE, COST)
- SUILDINO(S)

(FUNCTION, SIZE, COST)

- DEPARTMENT/COLLEGE (GOALS)
- INSTITUTION (ROLE, SCOPE, MISSION)
S.

COMMUNITY SERVICE
- CLIENT (NEEDS)
- PROGRAM/ACTIVITY (DESCRIPTION)
- DEPARTMENT/COLLEGE (GOALS)
- INSTITUTION (ROLE, SCOPE, MISSION)

357

Exaaple: The acadealc plan nay describe "courses” and
prograas by departnent/college as well as
the entire institution for plan years t and 2,
place ( ) under coluan "A" for "course"
level of detail; the plan nay only infer
course and prograa content will not change
beyond plan year 3 by naklng no further
references to specific acadealc areas or
conteaplated catalog or schedule aaendaents,
if this is the case do not check further
line lteae, or horizon eegnents for the
acadealc category. Indicate plan content
only when specific references are included
in the plan.

ACADEMIC:
- STUDENT (CREDIT HOURS, PTE, ETC.)

It is also possible that one or aore aegaents
of the planning horlson will not be Included
for certain planning areas.

Exaaple: The financial area aay be described in "line
ltea detail, ease as budget," for plan years
1 and 2 (place ( ) under coluan "A"); data aay
be "aggregated to aajor budget categories"
for plan years 3. 4 and 5 (place a ( ) under
coluan "B" on this line). If the plan does
not continue for the financial area beyond
plan year 5, then it is not necessary to ( )
any further categories. “ 17, however, for
plan years 6-10 the financial area is described
in global teras you should place a ( ) under
coluan "C" opposite "not oriented to chart of
accounts."

FINANCIAL:

Question 5 A ft B

Resources Used For Planning
INSTRUCTIONS

5A

o

Tyne refers to any source the Institution uses
Tor data, objective criteria, expert knovledge,
refereeing or professional planning assistance.

o

Planning Horizon. RATE EACH ITDI LISTED BT
RELATIVE (JRTSEHUF EMPHASIS, FOR EACH SEGMENT
OP PLANNING HORIZON, USING VALUES) 1 - OREATEST;
2 « SIGNIFICANT; 3 • MODERATE; 4 • MINOR;
0 > NOT APPLICABLE.

INTERNAL RESOURCES USED FOR PLANNING:
(RATE EACH ITEM LISTED BY RELATIVE ORDER OF EMPHASIS, FOR
EACH SEGMENT OF PLANNINO HORIZON, USING VALUES: 1 » GREATEST:
2 • SIGNIFICANT; 3 « MODERATE; 4 • MINOR; 0 > HOT APPLICABLE)

TYPE

PLANNING HORIZON
(A)
(B)
(C)
1 -3 YRS 4-9YR3 10+ YB3

PLANNINO STAFF:
CENTRAL__________________________________ _______________________
COLLEGE__________________________________ _______________________

OUTSIDE RESOURCES USED FOR PLANNING:

DEPARTMENT_____________________________________________________
GOVERNING BOARD

______________________

STATE/LOCAL ASSOCIATION

____________________

DEPARTMENT HEADS

______________________

PAID CONSULTANTS___________________________________________

PLANNINO OFFICER

______________________

STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

FACULTY MEMBERS

______________________

LEGISLATIVE FISCAL AGENCIES____________ ____________________

ACADEMIC COUNCIL

______________________

OTHER STATE DEPARTMENT OR A0ENCIE3

PRESIDENT

______________________

ACADEMIC VICE PRESIDENT

______________________

REGISTRAR'S OFFICE

______________________

FINANCIAL VICE PRESIDENT

______________________

OPERATIONS VICE PRESIDENT

______________________

____________________

------ m e --------OTHER POSTSECONDARY INSTITUTIONS

____________________

regional / national a sso c ia t io n s

________________________

PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION

____________________

OTHER ____________________________

______________ _________

INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH D E P A R T M E N T ______________________
STUDENT OROUPS

______________ ___

STUDENT(S) INDIVIDUAL

______________________

STUDENT(S), ADMINISTRATIVE
FACULTY COUNCILS________________________ ______________________
ALUMNI, INDIVIDUALS

______________________

ALUMNI, OROUPS

______________________

OTHER____________________

______________________

358

TYPE

PLANNING HORIZON
(A)
(B)
(C)
1-3YRS 4-9TB3 10+ IRS

Question 6

Planning Assumptions
Introduction
o

Asauaptlons represent, In concroto teraa, the logic
on which strategies are based, and nay be stated
explicitly In the strategic planning process,

o

"slice of reality" by plan contributors representing
a variety of disciplines and possessing diverse
backgrounds.
Asauaptlons, vhen recorded and related to each new
iteration of the "plan", provldo a "aap" vhich explains
ohanges In teras of the introduction of new variables
or nev perspectives for treating what eight otherwise

- Demographic asauaptlons describe the state
of population variables or behavior found In
a group's envlronaent vhich aay affect the
Institution's ability to achieve one or aore
of its goals.
- Political assumptions describe the state of
governmental variables or behavior pertaining
to Incentives and sanctions vhich Influence
exchanges between Individuals, groups and the
Institution vhich aay affeet the institution's
ability to achieve one or aore of its goals.

Aeauaptlone concerning near-tern changes aay be very
specific, while asauaptlons relative to expected value
shifts or long-tera changes aay be expressed In
Qualitative relationships,

o

- Economic assumptions deecribe the state of
values pertaining to utility through exchange
or conversion of resources found in the
institution's envlronaent which may affect
its ability to achieve one or aore of its
goals.

- Structural assuaptlons describe the relatively
stable patterns of social Interaction which
Integrate the various eleaents of the institution;
exaaples Include size of organisational units,
reaote locations or settings away froa the
central caapus and the presence of one or aore
bargaining units.

The concept "planning assuaptlons" aay be simplified,
for the purposes of this study, with the following
taxonoays
- Societal aeauaptlone describe a aeasurable
aspect or a social condition affected to s o b s
degree by postsecondary education.
- Noraatlve aseusptlons describe a condition or
variable over vnlch the lnetltutlon has some
control and which affects the institution's
ability to achieve one or aore of its goals.
- Context asauaptlons describe a condition or
variable over which the institution has little
or no control: yet, affects the institution1^ ability to achieve one or aore of its goals.

- Cultural assuaptlons describe the shared
sentiment, meaningsand coaaltaents vhleh various
actors (e.g., staff, faculty, students,
adainistrators) within the institution attach to
It goals, activities and problems.
• Input assuaptlons describe the materials (text*
boons), mroraation (knowledge and values), and
equipaent (language laboratories) laported by
the institution froa Its envlronaent and used
to tranefora throughput Into output.
* Throughput assuaptlons describe the raw aaterlal
(primarily the students In attendance) which the
institution affects In producing output for Its
envlronaent.
- Output aaauaptlone describe the knowledge, skills
and orientations required by students at the tlae
they leave the institution.

359

be considered noraatlve data,
o

- Science and technology assuaptlons describe
the state of knowledge pertaining to
utilization through "tools" and "processes"
of the resources found in the institution's
envlronaent which aay affect its ability to
achieve one or aore of ite goals.

Asauaptlons nay also be used by planners as constraints,
or, serve as referents to facilitate the sharing of a

o

- Performance assuaptlons describe a aeasurable
or observable behavior or variable used to
deteraine program effectiveness or efficiency.

- Trend assumptions describe anticipated societal
behavior in ways the Institution believes will
significantly Influence Its ability to achieve
goals or deteralne goal selection*

X) Outside Organisation
Z) Administrative/Financial flee President
o

- Paradigm assusptlons describe anticipated effects
steaming rroa value shifts, they say be based
on new perspectives gleaned froa existing
theories or new theories* Value shifts say
Impact the institution In a direct way, the
public's perception of the worth of education;
or Indirectly through public policies such as
those foraulated laaediately after the first
Russian satellite was launched into earth's
orbit. Leisure, knowledge, quality, equity, and
freedom ere examples of concepts institutions say
nonltor closely as they nanage change.
o

Assusptlons useful In strategic planning possess a
teaporal quality, expressed In this study as a point
located In one of three tlae periods or segments on
the Planning Horlson:
Segment "A" refers to Plan Tears 1 through 3
Segment "B" refers to Plan Tears 4 through 9
Segment "C" refers to Plan Tears 10 and beyond

Assumptions within each of the above categories say
IB SUHHART, FLAIBIBQ ASSUMPTION IB THIS 8URVBT BILL BE
be based on one of several Indicator variable types:
AHALT2ED:
- Informative
o

- Predictive

Sl SOS.

- Societal

- Political
«* Structural

- Context

- Cultural

- Performance

- Input

- Science and

- Throughput

- Problem-Oriented
- Prograa-Xvaluation
The above typology represents,

in broad terns, the

■basis" for aoceptlng or rejecting the assumption,
Technology
o Assumptions sust also have an author, sponsor or
advocate.

These "sources*

- Economic

• Output

- Demogrmphio

- Trend

have been organised into

eleven oategorleai
- Paradigm

A) Aoadeale Vice President/Provost
B) Board of Plrectors/Regents

0

3r Basis

- Informative

C) Coaaittee (any)

- Predictive

D) Dean

• Problem*Orlented

B) Expert (outside)

- Frograa-Bvaluat1on

F) Faculty
Source - Eleven eategorlee listed above
H) Head of Department
0) Operations flee President

o

By Time

- Segment

"A” Plan Tears 1 through 3

P) President

- Segment

"B" Plan Tears 4 through 9

S) Staff

- Segment

"C" Plan Tears 10 and beyond

360

- normative

Question 6A

Question 6A

IH3TR0CII0I3

Table t
I
I

Refer to Table 1 and natch the aasuaptlon category aost often

Planning Aaauaptlona:
used during the planning process, for each functional area.
t. Societal Aeeuaotlona deacrlbe a aeaaarable aapect of a
eoclal condition affected to aoae degree by posteecondary
education.

II

following values to each segaent of the planning horlson!
1 • Greatest; 2 • Significant; 3 • Moderate; 4 • Minor;

3. Contort Aaeuaptlons describe a condition or variable
over vhich the institution hae little or no controls
yet, affocte the Institution's ability to achieve one
or sore of Its goals.

0 > lot Applicable.
Ill

4 . Perforsance assusptlons describe a Measurable or
observable behavior orvariable used to deteralne
prograa effectiveness or efficiency.

Indicate the relative planning eaphaala of the asauaptlon
category seleeted for future periods by assigning one of the

2. Horaatlve aBBuaptlona daeorlbe a condition or variable
over vhich the Institution haa eoae control and vhleh
arfecte the Institution's anility to achieve one or aore
of its goals.

Select the source noat often suggesting aaauaptlons for each
functional area:
Exaaple:

II

Segaent "A* 1 through 3 years

FDRCTIOMAIi AREA OF
FLAM IMPACTED
________________

Segaent *B* 4 through 9 years

PIBAMCE

Planning Horlson:

I
A33UHPTI0I CATEGORY
HOST OFTEI USED
__________________
3

II

III

PLAMIIMO
HORIZOM
A B C

HOST PREQDEHT
SOURCE FOR
A33UHPTI0H3

4

2

0

Z

Segaent *C* 10+ yeara
III

Aasuaotlon Sources:
A) Acadealc Vice Prealdent/Provost

B) Head of Departaent

B) Board of Directors/Regents

0) Operations Vice
President

C) Coaaittee (any)
P) President

PUMCTIOMAL AREA OF
P U B IMPACTED

D) Dean
S) Staff
PIMAHCE

E) Expert (outside)
X) Outside Organisation

ADHIMISTRATIOI

P) Faculty
Z) Adainistrative/
Financial
Vico President

ACADEMIC
.RBSEARCU
FACILITIES
COMMUHITY SERVICE

ASSUMPTIOI CATEGORY
MOST OFTEI USED

II

III

PLAMIIMO
HORIZOM

MOST PREQOEIT
SOURCE FOR
ASSUMPTION

A B C

Question 6B

Question 6B
Table 2

I

INSTRUCTIONS

Planning Assusptlons:

I

1. Science and technology assusptlons describe the state of
knowledge pertaining to utilisation through "tools" and
"processes" of the resources found In the Institution*s
environsent which say affect Its ability to achieve one
or sore of its goals.

Refer to Table 2 and natch the assusptlon category sost often
used during the planning process, for each functional area.

II

Indicate the relative planning esphasis of the assusptlon
category selected for future periods by assigning one of

2. Econonlc assusptlons describe the stats of values pertaining
to utility through exchange or conversion of resources found
In the Institution's environsent which say affect Its ability
to achieve one or sore of Its goals.
3* Desographlc assusptlons describe the state of population
variables or behavior round In a group's environsent
which say affect the institution's ability to achieve
one or sore of its goals.
4* Political assusptlons describe the stats of governsental
variables or behavior pertaining to incentives and sanctions
which influence exchanges between individuals^ groups and
the Institution which say affect the Institution's ability
to achieve one or sore of its goals.
II

the following values to each eegsent of the planning horlson:
t ■ Greatest; 2 ■ Significant; 3 ■ Moderate; 4 ■ Minor;
0 - lot Applicable.
Ill

Select the eouroe noet often suggesting assusptlons for each
functional area:
Exasple:
FUNCTIONAL AREA OP
PLAN IMPACTED

II

III

PLANNING
HORIZON

ROST FREQUENT
SOURCE FOR
ASSUMPTIONS

I
ASSUMPTION CATEGORY
HOST OFTEN USED

Planning Horlson
PINAXCE

ABC
4

Segaent "A" I through 3 years

2

PO

0

Secant "B" through 9 pears
Segaent "C” 10+ years
III

Assusptlon Sources:
A) Acadeslc Vice President/Provost
B) Board of Directors/Regents

II

III

PLANNING
HORIZON

MOST FREQUENT
SOURCE FOR
ASSUMPTIONS

B) Head of Bspartsent
0) Operations Ties
Preeldent

FUNCTIONAL AREA OF
PLAN IMPACTED

C) Cossittee (any)
P) President

FINANCE

9) Staff

ADMINISTRATION

D) Dean
B) Expert (outside)
X) Outside Organisation

ACADEMIC

2) Adslnlstratlve/
Financial
Tice President

RESEARCH

P) Paculty

FACILITIES
COMMUNITY SBRTICB

ASSUMPTION CATEGORY
HOST OFTEN USED

ABC

Question 6C

Question 6C
Table 3
I

INSTRUCTIONS

Planning Assumptions:

I

1« Structural aeauaptlons describe the relatively stable
patterns of social interaction vhich integrate the
various clenents of the Institution exaaples Include
size of organizational units, reeote locations or
settings away froa the central caapus and tho presence
of one or aore bargaining unite.

II

Indicate the relative planning emphasis of the assumption
category selected for future periods by assigning one of

2» Cultural assumptions describe the ehared eentiaent,
acanlngs and coaaltaente vhich various actoro (e.g.,
staff, faculty, students, adainietrators) within the
Institution attach to ite goals, activities and
probleas.
3* Input assumptions describe the aaterlals (textbooks),
lnrorsation (knowledge and valuee), and equipment
(language laboratories) laported by the institution
froa its environsent and used to transform throughput
into output.

Refer to Table 3 and natch the assumption category most often
used during the planning process, for each functional area.

the following valuee to eaeh segment of the planning horlson:
1 ■ Greatest; 2 • Significant; 3 * Moderate; 4 ■ Minor;
0 b lot Applicable.
Ill

Select the source most often suggesting assumptions for each
functional area:
Example:

4* throughput aaeuaptions describe the raw material (primarily
the stuaenfs^in attendance) vhich the inetltutlon affects
in producing output for its environment.
5* Output assumptions describe the knowledge, skills and
orientations required by students at the time they leave
the inetltutlon.
II

FUNCTIONAL AREA OF
PLAN IMPACTED
.
FINANCE

I
A33UHFTI0H CATEGORT
HOST OFTEI USED
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
3

II

III

PLANNING
HORIZON
A B C
4

2

0

ROST PREQUBIT
SOURCE FOR
ASSUMPTIONS
Z

Planning llorlson:
Segaent "A” 1 through 3 years
Segment "B" 4 through 9 years
Segaent ”C" 10+ years
II

III

III

Assumptlone Sources;
A) Academic Vice President/Provost

H) Head of Department

FUNCTIONAL AREA OF
PLAN IMPACTED

B) Board of Directors/Regents

0) Operations Vice
President

FINANCE

C) Coaalttee (any)
P) President

ADMINISTRATION

8) Staff

ACADEMIC

X) Outside Organisation

RESEARCH

Z) Adnlnlstrative/
Financial
Vice President

COHM0HITT 8ERVICB

D) Dean
B) Expert (outside)
P) Faculty
FACILITIES

ASSUMPTION CATEGORT
MOST OFTEN USED

PLANNING
HORIZON

ABC

MOST FREQUENT
SOURCE FOR
ASSUMPTIONS

Question 6D

Question 6D
Table 4

I

INSTRUCTIONS

Planning Assusptlonst

I

1• Trend assumptions describe anticipated societal behavior
in ways the Institution believes vlll significantly
influence Its ability to achieve goals or determine goal
selection.
2. Paradigm assumptions describe anticipated effects stemming
from value shirts. They may be baaed on new perspectives
gleaned from existing theories or new theories. Value
shifts may impact the institution In a direct way, the
public's perception of the worth of education} or Indirectly
through public policies such as those formulated Immediately
after the first Russian satellite was launched Into earth's
orbit. Leisure, knowledge, quality, equity, and freedom are
examples of concepts institutions may monitor closely as
they menage change.
II

Refer to Table 4 and natch the assumption category most often
used during the planning process, for each functional area.

II

Indicate the relative planning emphasis of the assumption
category selected for future periods by assigning one of
the following values to each segment of the planning horlson:
1 * Greatest; 2 ■ Significant; 3 * Moderate; 4 * Minor;
0 > Hot Applicable.

Ill

Select the source most often suggesting assumptions for each
functional area:

Planning Horlson

Example:

Segment "A” 1 through 3 years

FUNCTIONAL AREA OF
PLAN IMPACTED
_________________

Segaent "B” 4 through 9 years
Se^ent "C" 10+ years

FIHAHCB
III

I
A3SUMPTI0H CATEGORT
HOST OFTEN USED
2

II

III

PLANNING
HORIZON
* B C

MOST FREQUENT
SOURCE FOR
ASSUMPTIONS

4

2

0

Z

Assumption Sources:
A) Acadealo Vice President/Provost

H) Head of Department

B) Board of Directors/Regents

0} Operations Vice
President

C) Committee (any)
P) President
D) Dean
S} Staff
B)

Expert (outside)

II

III

PLANNING
HORIZON

MOST FREQUENT
SOURCE POR
ASSUMPTIONS

Z) Outside Organisation
P) Faculty
2) Administration/
Financial
Vice President

FUNCTIONAL AREA OF
PLAN IMPACTED
FINANCE
ADMINISTRATION
ACADEMIC
RESEARCH
FACILITIES
COMMWITT SERVICE

ASSUMPTION CATEGORT
HOST OFTEN USED

ABC

Question 6B

Question 6E
INSTRUCTIONS

Assumptions are the "building blocks" for planning, and they represent
the operationalising of both quantitative and qualitative inforsatlon
available to planners* Selection of specific data or observations
froa the plethora of data and observations available is the first step
in this process. One basie for the selection of indicants to develop
an assumption statement is the use of a social Indicator.

Using the definitions on the previous page, natch the indicator
category most often used when developing planning assumptions*
Indicator Category:

Pour categories of Indioators:*

A

Informative Indicators

A* Informative indicators are intended to describe the state of
society and changes taking place within It* They are not Intended
to explain change or to suggest reaediea when society or speclflo
coaponents are considered to be moving in the wrong direction*
To be categorised as Informative Indicators, social statistics
must be subject to regular production as time aeries and the
possibility of disaggregation by what are considered through
research to be the sost relevant variables*
Examples: Projections of Education Statistics
published by the National center ror
Education Statistics*

B

Predictive Indicators

C

Problem-Oriented Indioators

I) Frogram-Bvaluatlon Indicators

ASSUMPTION TIPS
B. Predictive indicators are those operationalised system components
and goals that fit into explicit models (In this sense, theoretical
reconstructions) of the eocial systea or Its coaponents. In other
words, they are Informative indicators, with the additional
criterion of belonging to a formal model* In general, they are
Intended to aid the prediction of future social trends and
probless and more specifically to warn of secondary consequences
of specific social policies or behavior*
Example: The Cosposlt Index of leading Indicators
f ublished by the National Bureau of
conomlc Research*

INDICATOR CATEGORT

SOCIETAL
HORMATIVS
COHTEXT
PERFORMARCS
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
ECONOMIC

C. Problem-Oriented indicators are operationalised social problem
areas* They are Intended to be directly helpful In providing
the basis for policy solutions and should ideally point towards
required action or the need for further investigation. Once a
problem area is Isolated e.g., declining fertility rates. It is
then defined In terms of problem-oriented indicators. A valid
definition should include all relevant institutional goals
affected by declining fertility; supporting statistics are likely
to be "one-4>ff", as opposed to regularly produced. Problemoriented indicators are intended to go some way towards
understanding the process of change and towards suggesting
possible remedial programs through "comprehensive" problem
analysis*

DEMOQRAPHIC
POLITICAL
STRUCTURAL
CULTURAL
INPUT

OUTPUT
D. Program-Bvaluation Indicators provide base-line Information
concerning national or statewide programs. Once a program has
been developed and implemented by an agency or bureau it is
important to have some measure of how effectively It Is meeting
Its alms (policy goals) and how efficiently it la using the
aggregate resources committed to It. The Institution should
coapare its performance with the aggregate as reported to/by the
supervising agency. Prograa-evaluatlon Indicators nay be ueeful
for coaparlng the institution's goals and mission with State and
Rational policy.

___

THROUGHPUT

___

TREND
PARADIGM

— —

'Carlisle, Eiame, *fne Conceptual structure or Social indicators'1 in
Social Indicators & 3oclal Policy. Andrew Shonfield and Stella Shaw
(ede.j, London, England: Helnemann Educational Books, 1972, P. 23-32*

Question 7

Goal Evolution
INSTRUCTIONS
Place a value *0 to 4" under each coluan beading for
the activity Hated or added* Rate each itea listed
by relative order of eaphaele, for each aegnent of
the planning horizon, using values: 1 ■ Greatest;
2 * Significant; 3 * Moderate; 4 ■ Minor; 0 ■ Not
Applicable.

GOAL EVOLUTION: (RATE EACH ITEM LISTED BT RELATIVE ORDER OP EMPHASIS,
FOR EACH SEGMENT OF PLANNING HORIZON, U31N0 VALUES:
1 * GREATEST; 2 - SIGNIFICANT; 3 * MODERATE; 4 - MINOR;
0 - HOT APPLICABLE)

ACTIVITY
-------

PLANNING HORIZON
(A)
(B)
(C)
1-3TRS 4-9TH3 10+ IRS

Example:

a. RESEARCH - CONTRACT___________________________________________

It is possible that soae coaaunity colleges aay
believe thev should be oreoared to oerfora Contract
Research within 5 years (PLACE THE VALUE "3wniHBER 1
C O l UHN "B" OPPOSITE line "a"), but have no plans to
engage in research at an earlier date (PLACE THE
VALUE "0” UNDER COLUMN "A”) and believe this effort
vill produce aubetantlal incoae by the 10th year
(PLACE THE VALUE "1" OR "2” UNDER COLUMN "C").

b. RESEARCH - INDEPENDENT_____________________ ____________ ______

c. PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION - MASTERS LEVEL

___________________

d. PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION - DOCTORATE LEVEL

___________________

e . VOCATIONAL PREPARATION - EXPLORATORY

|_______________

f. VOCATIONAL PREPARATION - SKILL LEVEL____________________________
g. VOCATION PREPARATION - LICENSE/CERTIFICATION ___________________
h. VOCATIONAL PREPARATION - ASSOCIATE DEGREE

_____ ___ __________

i. VOCATIONAL PREPARATION - BACHELOR'S DEGREE

_

_

___ __________

J. GENERAL EDUCATION - EXPLORATORY____________ ___________________
k. GENERAL EDUCATION - ASSOCIATE DEGREE___________________________
1. GENERAL EDUCATION - BACHELOR'S DEGREE__________________________
a. COMPENSATORY EDUCATION

___________________

n. LEISURE SKILLS____________________________ ____________ ______
o. COMMUNITY SERVICE - LOCAL__________________ _____ _____ ______
p. COMMUNITY SERVICE - STATE__________________ ___________________
q. ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT - ADMINISTRATIVE ___________________
r. ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT - PROGRAMMATIC

___________________

e. ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT - FACULTY___________________________
t. OTHER ____________________________ ____________________________

Question 8A

Personnel Trend Data:

8A

PERSONNEL TREND DATA

INSTRUCTIONS

FALL TERM

--------------------------------- f'csi: p'csi. p'egp.
o

o

o
o

o

New Students: this category Is Halted to those
students enrolling at this Institution for the
first tine, regardless of level.

1980

1961

1982

1983

1987

1992

MEV STUDENTS:
GRADUATING STUDENTS ,

Graduating Students: this category Is Halted to
those students wno nave set this Institution’s
progras requlreaents: certificate; degree; or
•other fornal awards* Indicating acadeaic
achieveaent during the calender year noted*
regardless of level.

TOTAL STUDENTS:
PTE STUDENTS:

8TUDENTS CREDIT
HOURS

Total Students: include both full-tlae and parttlae enrolledstudents.
Pull-Tlae Equivalent (PTE) Students: include all
students considered full-tlae, (even If they aeet
only tne ainiaua requireaent. e.g. 15% of a noraal
full-tlae credit-hour load) then add the full-tiaeequivalent enrollnent (PTE) or part-tlae students.
This aay be calculated by dividing xne total credit
hours for part-tlae students by the noraal fulltlae credit-hour load.

1977

TOTAL PACULTY:
PTE PACULTY:
TENURED PACULTY:

SB

FUHDINO TREND DATA

Student Credit Hours: total credit hours generated
by all enrolled students.

SOURCE

1972

1977

1980

1981

1982

P'CST. F*CST. F'CST•
1983 " 1987 " 1992 "

°

Total Faculty: Include both full-tlae and part-tlae
eapioyed faculty.

STUDENTS (TUITION
ft FEES):

____

____

____

____

____

____

o

Full-Tlae Equivalent (PTE) Faculty: use the aethod
currently^eaployed by your Institution for
calculating PTE faculty.

FUND INCOME
(INTERB3T.
DIVIDEHT3):

____

____

____

____

____

o

Tenured Paculty: this category Is llaited to
enployed faculty who have been granted tenure,
regardless of status: full-tlae; part-tlae; on
sabbatical; on eick/dlsabllity leave; etc.

RESEARCH:

____

____

____

____

____

CONTRIBUTIONS:

____

____

____

____

____

ENDOWMENTS:

____

____

____

o

o

Question SB

1972

Coluans: 1972 through 1992: please round fractional
values up to next unoie value for lines requiring
PTE dataT
F 1casti please use the aost recent projections
even £f these values are different froa those used
In the Master Plan.

Funding Trend Data:
IN3RUCTI0NS
o

Please Indicate the percentage distribution of funds,
by source, received or projected, for each fiscal year.

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

DIRECT TAX
(MILLAQE):________ ____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

LOCAL GOVERNMENT:______

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

STATE FUHDINO:_____ ____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

FEDERAL FUNDING:___ ____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

OTHER SOURCES:

____

____

HXg

100J

100*

100*

100*

100*

100*

100*

—3

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ackoff, Russell L.
A Concept of Corporate Planning.
York: Wiley-Interscience, 1970.
"System,
Organizations and
■_____ .
Research," General Systems Yearbook.

New

Interdisciplinary
5 (1960):1-8.

Aguilar, Francis Joseph. Scanning the Business Environment.
New York: The Macmillan Company, 1967Allport, F. H.
"A Structuronomic Conception of Behavior:
Individual and Collective," Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology. 64 (1962):5-50*
Aim, Kent G.
A Futures Creating Paradigm:_A Guide to LongRange
Planning
From
the
Future
for
the
Future.
Washington,
D.C .:
American
Association
oT
State
Colleges and Universities, Resource Center for Planned
Change, 1978.
Altbach, Philip G. and Berdahl, Robert 0.
Higher Education
in American Society. New York: Prometheus Books, 1981.
Andrew, LLoyd D. "Involving Faculty in Planning," Planning
for Higher Education 7 (February, 1978):27-81.
Angel,
Dan.
Critical
Issues
Facing
Michigan
Higher
Education,
1978.
Lansing,
M i .:
House
of
Representatives, Legislative Service Bureau, 1978.
Angel, Dan.
"Michigan Higher Education Survey."
Lansing,
Mi.:
House
Colleges
and
Universities
Committee,
Legislative Service Bureau, 1978.
Anshen,
Melvin.
Performance.
Inc., 1980.

Corporate
Strategies
for
Social
New York: MacMillan Publishing Company,

Ansoff, H. Igor, ed. Business
Penguin Books, Inc."J 196$.

Strategy. Baltimore,

________ .
Corporate Strategy.
C ompany, 1965*

New York:

368

Md.:

McGraw-Hill Book

369
Ansoff,
H.
Igor.
"Managing Surprise and Discontinuity:
Strategic Response to Weak Signal," in Strategy +
Structure
= Performance.
Hans B.
Thorelli,
ed.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1977*
; Declerck, Roger P.; and Hayes, Robert 1. Prom
Strategic Planning to Strategic Management. Hew York:
John Wiley & Sons^ 1976 .
Anthony, Robert N.
"Framework for Analysis in Management
Planning," Management Services. (March-April, 1964):1824.
________ . Planning and Control Systems:
A Framework for
Analysis. Boston: Division of Research, Graduate School
of Business Administration, Harvard University, 1965*
________ and Dearden, John.
Management Control
Homewood, II.: Richard D. Irwin, Iric., 196(5.

Systems.

Appleton, James R . ; Briggs, Channing M . ; and Rhatigan. James
J. Pieces of Eight. Portland, Or.: HASPA Institute of
Research and Development, 1978.
Ashby, W. R.
"Adaptation in the
Systems
Thinking.
F.
E.
Md.:Penguin Books Inc., 1974*

Multistable System," in
Emery,
ed.
Baltimore,

Babbidge, Homer D . , Jr. "Design and Change in American
Higher Education," in Long-Range Planning in Higher
Education.
Owen A. Knorr, ed. Boulder, C o .: Western
Interstate Commission for Higher Education, 1965.
Bald,

Clever, F.
Michigan in Four Centuries.
Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1954*

Hew York:

Baldridge, J. Victor and Deal, Terrence E.
Managing Change
in Educational Organizations. Berkeley,- Ca.: McCutchan
Publishing Company, 1975•
Barnes, Ron.
Learning Systems for the Future. Bloomington,
In.: The Phi Delta Kappa Education Foundation, 1972.
Bassett,
Roger.
"Summary
of
Forum
Discussions,"
in
Integrating
Academic
Planning
and
Budgeting
in a
Rapidly Changing Environment: Process and Technical
Issues.
Sidney S. Micek, edT Boulder, Co.: National
Center for Higher Education Management Systems, 1980.
Bauer, Raymond A., ed. Social Indicators.
The M.I.T. Press, 1966.
Bell,

Cambridge,

Ma. :

Edwin.
"Administrative Planning: Science or Art?"
Planning for Higher Education. 7 (December, 1978):12-

370
Berdahl,
Robert
0.
Statewide
Coordination
of Higher
Education.
Washington,
B.C.:
American Council on
Education, 1971 Bertalanffy, Ludwig von.
General System Theory.
George Braziller, Inc.” 1968.

New York:

Blau, Peter M. and Scott, W. Richard.
Formal Organizations.
San Francisco, Ca.: Chandler Publishing Company, 1962.
Bleau, Barbara Lee.
"Faculty Planning Models: A Review of
the Literature,"
The Journal of Higher Education, 53
(March/April, 1 982 )':f95-206
Bobbitt,
H.
Randolph,
Jr.
and
Behling,
Orlando
C.
Organizational Behavior: A Review of the Literature.
The Journal of Higher Education, 52 (January/February)
1981 .
Boran,
David
L.
"Value
Imperatives
of
Postsecondary
Education of the 1980s: Triumph, Tragedy, or Tradeoff?" Planning, Managing, and Financing in the 1980s.
Boulder^
Co.: National Center for Higher Education
Management Systems, 1977*
Boulding, Kenneth E.
The Image.
of Michigan Press, 1956.

Ann Arbor: The University

Bowen, Frank M. and Glenny, Lyman A.
State Budgeting for
Higher Education: State Fiscal Stringency and Public
Higher Education.
Berkeley, Ca.: Center for Research
and Development in Higher Education, University of
California, 1976.
Bowen, Howard, R.
"Outcomes Planning: Solution or Dream?"
in Planning, Managing, and Financing in the 1980s.
Boulder, C o .: National Center for Higher Education
Management Systems, 1977*
Bowman, Jim; Kierstead, Fred; Dede, Chris; and Pulliam,
John.
The Far Side of the Future: Social Problems and
Educational Reconstruction.
Washington, D. C. : The
World Future Society, 1978.
Boxx,

Randy and Johnson, Jerry W.
"An Examination of
Formalized Planning as Currently Used in Institutions
of Higher learning,"
Planning For Higher Education. 8
(Summer, 1980):25-40.

Boyer,
Ernest L.
Formulating Policy in Postsecondary
Education.
John FI Hughes and Olive Mills, eds.
Washington, D. C.: American Council on Education, 1975-

371

Brown, James K.
This Business
Company's Environments.
Board, Inc., 1979*

of Issues:
New York:

Coping With the
The Conference

Browne, Arthur D.
"The Institution and the System: Autonomy
and Coordination," in Long-Range Planning in Higher
Education.
Owen A. Knorr, ed. Boulder, C o .: Western
Interstate Commission for Higher Education, 1965*
Bruhacher, John S.
Bases for Policy in Higher Education.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book" Company, 1965.371
Bucholz, Rogene A.
Business Environment and Public Policy.
Englewood Cliffs”, N. 777 Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1 982.
Burnett, D. Jack.
"Socio-Political Forecasting;
It?" Planning For Higher Education.
7
1978):26-31.

Who Needs
(October,

Cameron, Kim.
"Domains of Organizational Effectiveness in
Colleges
and Universities,"
Academy
of Management
Journal. 24 (March, 1981):25-47.
_____ .
"The Relationship Between Faculty Unionism
and
Organizational Effectiveness,"
Academcy of Management
Journal. 25 (March, 1982):6-24*
________ .
"Measuring
Organizational
Effectiveness in
Institutions of Higher Education,"
Administrative
Science Quarterly. 23 (December, 1978):604-632.
________ .
"The Enigma of Organizational Effectiveness," New
Directions
for
Program
Evaluation:
Measuring
Effectiveness.
TT (September,1981):1-15•
"Critical
Effectiveness,"
1980):66-80.

Questions in Assessing Organizational
Organization Dynamics.
9
(Autumn,

________ .
"Construct
Space and Subjectivity Problems in
Organization
Effectiveness,"
Public
Productivity
R eview. V (June, 1981):105-121.
_____ and David A. Whetten.
Administrative
Quarterly. 26 (December, 1981):525-544*

Science

Campbell, J. P., et al.
The Measurement of Organizational
Effectiveness:
A Review
of Relevant Research
and
Opinion.
San Diego: Naval Personnel Research Center,
w

w

.

________ .
Managerial
Behavior,
Performance,
Effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970.

and

372
Carley, Michael.
Social Measurement and Social Indicators:
Issues of Policy and Theory.
London: George Allen &
Unwin, 1981.
Carlisle, Elaine.
Social Indicators and Social
Andrew
Shonfield
and
Stella
Shaw”, eds.
England: Heinemann Educational Books, 1972.

Policy.
London,

Carnegie Commission on Higher Education.
The Capitol and
the Campus:
State Responsibility for Postsecondary
Education. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971 .
Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education: A
Summary of Reports and Recommendations. San Francisco,
Ca.: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1980.
Caruthers,
Kent
J.
"Strategic
Master
Plans,"
New
Directions for Institutional Research. 8 (September,
1951 )T17-2'S:-------------------------_________, and Lott, Gary B.
Mission Review: Foundation for
Strategic Planning. Boulder, C o .: National Center for
Higher Education Management Systems, 1981.
________ and Orwig, .Melvin.
Budgeting in Higher Education.
Washington, D. C.: The American Association for Higher
Education, 197 9 Casasco,
Juan
A.
Planning
Techniques
for
Management.
Washington, D. C.: American
Education, 1970.

University
Council on

Center for Demographic Studies.
Social Indicators III:
Selected Data on Social Conditions and Trends in the
United 8tates~
Washington,
D7 C71 Bureau of the
Census, 1980.
Chandler, Alfred D. Jr.' Strategy and Structure.
Ma.: The M.I.T. Press’^ 1962.

Cambridge,

Chickering, Arthur W. and Associates.
The Modern American
College.
San Erancisco, Ca.: Jossey-Bass Publishers,

rgsi:
Clark, Burton.
"Interorganizational Patterns in Education,"
Administrative
Science Quarterly5,
10
(September,

Tg597:'22'4-37T------------

----------------- -------

Clark, Burton R.
The Open Door College: A Case Study.
York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1960.

New

Cohen, Arthur M.
"Academic Planning in Community Colleges,"
Planning for Higher Education. 7 (April, 1979):28-31*

373
Committee
on
Government
and
Higher
Efficiency of Freedom.
Baltimore,
Press, 1959*

Education.
The
Md.: Johns Hopkins

Conant,
James Bryant.
Education in a Divided
Camhridge, M a . : Harvard University Press, 1949*

World.

Connor, Patrick,
ed.
Organization:
Theory and Design.
Chicago: Science Research Associates, Inc., 1980.
Cope,

Robert G. "Environmental Assessments for Strategic
Planning," Hew Directions for Institutional Research. 8
(September, 1961):5- 16.

________.
Strategic Policy Planning: A Guide for College
and University Administrators, littleton, C o .: Ireland
Educational Corporation, 1 978.
Correa,
Hector,
ed.
Analytical
Planning and Administration"
Company, Inc., 1 975•
Croon, Peter.
Strategy and
University Press, 1974*

Models in
New York:

Strategy

Educational
t)avid McKay

Creation.

Rotterdam

Cyert, James M.
"Academic Progress and Stable Resources,"
in Planning, Managing, and Financing in the 1908s.
Boulder, C o .: National Center for Higher Education
Management Systems, 1977*
________ and March, James G.
Firm.
Englewood Cliffs,
T953.

A Behavioral Theory of the
N. J . : Prentice-Hall, Inc.,

Detroit News, Feb. 1983*
Davis, Keith and
Environment.

Blomstrom, Robert L.
Business and Its
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1966.

Davis, Russell G.
Planning Human Resource
Chicago: Rand McNally & Company, 1966-

Development.

Davous, Pierre and Deas, James. "Design of a Consulting
Intervention
for
Strategic
Management,"
in
From
Strategic Planning to Strategic Management.
H. Igor
Ansoff; Roger P. Declerck; and Robert 171 Hayes, eds.
New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1976.
De

Greene,
Kenyon
B.
The
Adaptive
Anticipation and Management of Crisis.
Wiley & Sons,' 1982.

Organization:
New York: John

374
De

Neufville, Judith Innes.
Policy:______ Interactive
Application. New York:
Company, Tnc., 1975*

Social Indicators and Public
Processes
of
Design
and
Elsevier Scientific Publishing

Department of Management and Budget.
1980-81 Michigan
Higher
Education
Executive
Budget
Funding
Model.
Education Division.
February, 1 980.
Department
of Management
and Budget.
Colleges & Universities
Trends and
Education Division.
June, 1980.

Michigan
Selected

State
Data.

Dessler, Gary.
Organization and Management.
Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1976.

Englewood

Deutsch, K.
Nerves
Press, 19637

The

of

Government.

New

York:

Free

Doermann,
Humphrey.
"The
Future
Market
for
College
Education,"
in A
R ole
£°r
Marketing
in
College
Admissions.
Introduction By John MI Duggan, papers
presented at the Colloquium on College Admissions May
16-18, 1976 at the Abbey on
Lake Geneva, Fontana,
Wisconsin. College Entrance Examination Board,
New
York, 1976.
Donnelly, Brian L. "Criteria for Community College Role and
Scope Specifications for Statewide Master Plans of
Higher Education." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1973*
Drucker, Peter F.
"The Divorce of Planning From Doing," in
Long-Range Planning for Management.
David W. Ewing,
ed. New York: Harper & Row, f968.
________ . "Long-Range Planning Means Risk Taking," in LongRange Planning for Mana-gement.
David W. Ewing, ed.
New York: Harper & Row, 1958.
"Long-Range
[April, 1959)=37-

Planning,"

Management

________ . Managing in Turbulent Times.
Row, Publishers, 1980.

Science.

New York: Harper &

Dunbar,
Willis
F.
Higher
Education
in
Michigan's
Constitution.
Constitutional Convention Preparatory
Commission, State of Michigan.
September, 1961.
Dunckel, Earl B . ; Reed, William K . ; and Wilson,
Business Environment of the Seventies.
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1 970.

Ian H.
The
New York:

575
Durkheim, Emile. Education and Sociology. New
Eree Press of Glencoe, 1956.

York:

The

Education Commission of the States.
Comprehensive Planning
Eor Postsecondary Education.
Denver, Co.: Task Force
on Statewide Comprehensive Planning for Postsecondary
Education of the Education Commission of the States.
1 971 .
Education Commission of the States.
Final Report and
Recommendations:
Task
Force
on
State
Policy
and
Independent Higher
Education.
Report No. 100, June,
J W 7 ^
---------------Education
Commission
of
the
State,
et
al.
State
Postsecondary Education Profiles Handbook. Report N o .
88.
Denver, CoIT! State Services Division, Education
Commission of the States, 1981.
Educational Policies Commission.
Policies for Education in
American
Democracy.
Washington,
D.
C . : National
Education Association of the United States, 1946.
Eldridge, J. E. T.
Organizations.

Twftr.

and Crombie, A. D.
A Sociology of
London: George Allen “SE Unwin Ltd.,

Emery, F. E . , ed.
Systems Thinking.
Penguin Books, Inc., 1974*

Baltimore,

Md.:

________
and
Trist,
E.
L.
"The
Causal
Texture
of
Organizational Environments," in Systems Thinking, F.
E. Emery, ed.
Baltimore, Md.: Penguin Books, Inc.,
1974.
________
and
_________.
"The
Causal
Texture
Organizational
Environment,"
Human
Relations.
(February, 1965):21-32.
Etzioni,
Amitai.
Organizations.

of
18

A
Comparative
Analysis
of
Complex
Glencoe, II.: The Free P r e s s , 1961.

Modern Organizations.
Prentice-Hall, IncTJ 1964.
The Active Society.

Englewood Cliffs,
New York:

N.

J.:

The Free Press,

T9F8.
Ewing, David W . , ed. Long-Range Planning For
New York:
Harper & Row, Publishers, 1964*
________ .
The Practice of Planning.
Row, Publishers, 1968.

New York:

Management.
Harper &

376

Fallon, Carlos.
Value Analysis Value Engineering. William
D.
Falcon,
ed.
New
York:
American
Management
Association, 1964*
Farrar,
Donald Eugene.
The Investment Decision Under
Uncertainty.
Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall,
Inc., 1962.
Faverman, Gerald Allen. "Higher Education
to
1970."
Ph.D.
dissertation,
University, 1975.

in Michigan 1958
Michigan
State

Fayol, Henri.
General and Industrial Management.
Pitman Publishing Corporation, 1949*

New York:

________ .
"General Features of a Good Plan of Action," in
Long-Range Planning for Management. David W. Ewing, ed.
New York: Harper & Row, 19^4*
Feibleman, James and Friend, Julius W.
"The Structure and
Function of Organization," The Philosophical Review LIV
(1945)s19-44.
Fenske,
Robert
H.
"Synthesis and
Implications,"
New
Directions For Institutional Research. V (1978):79-83.
Ferriss,
Abbott L.
Indicators
Education. New York: Russell

of
Trends
in American
Sage Foundation, 196$.

Fitzsimmons,
Stephen J. and Lavey, Warren G.
"Social
Economic
Accounts
System
(SEAS):
Toward
A
Comprehensive, Community - Level Assessment Procedure,"
Social Indicators Research. 2 (March, 1976):389-452.
Flaig, Herbert.
"The Budgetory and Planning Options for
Higher Education in a Period of Contraction," Planning
for Higher Education. 8 (Fall, 1979);20-27.
Foley, John W.
A Comparative Study of the Determinants of
Public
Policies:
A
Review
of
Two
Decades
of
Multidisciplinary, Quantitative Research^
Ithaca, New
York: Program in Urban and Regional Studies, 1978.
Folger, John K.
"Three Questions About Statewide Planning,"
in Formulating Policy in Postsecondary Education. John
F. Hughes ana Olive Mills, eds;
Washington, D. C.:
American Council on Education, 1975*
Forehand,
G. A. and Gilmer,
B. V. H.
"Environmental
Variation in Studies of Organizational Behavior," . 62
(1964):362.
Fox, Karl A.
Social Indicators and Social Theory: Elements
of an Operation System. New York: John Wiley and Sons,
T 974^----------------------

377
Frankel, Martin M. and Harrison, Forrest W.
Projections of
Education Statistics to 1985-86.
Washington, D. C.:
(U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare), U.
S. Government Printing Office, 1977*
Frey,

James H.
An Organizational Analysis of UniversityEnvironment Relations.
Washington, ITU C . : University
Press of America, 1977•

Geltzer, Howard and Ries, Al.
"The Positioning Era: A
Marketing
Strategy
for
College
Admissions
in the
1980s," in A Role For Marketing in College Admissions.
New York: College Extrance Examination Board,
1976*
Gilbert, G. Ronald; Greenberg, Barry; and Lewis, Ralph.
"Academic Planning in Response to Community Needs,"
Planning for Higher Education.
7 (December, 1978):2428.
Gilmore, F. F. and Brandenburg, R. G.
"Anatomy of Corporate
Planning," Harvard Business Review.
40 (NovemberDecember, 1yb2):bl-697
Glassman, R. B.
"Persistence and Loose Coupling in Living
Systems," Behavioral Science. 18 (March, 1973) • 83-98.
Glenny, Lyman A.
Autonomy of Public Colleges: The Challenge
of Coordination.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company,
Inc., 1959".
________ and Weathersby, George B.
Statewide Planning for
Postsecondary Education:
Issues and Design. Boulder,
C o .:
Western
Interstate
Commission
for
Higher
Education, 1971*
;
Berdahl, Robert 0.; Palola,
Ernest G . ; and
Paltridge, James G.
Coordinating Higher Education for
the 7 0 s .
Berkeley:
The Center for Research and
Development
in
Higher
Education,
University
of
California, 1971.
________ ; Bowen,
Frank M . ; Meisinger, Richard T . , Jr.;
Morgan, Anthony W. ; Purves, Ralph A.; and Schmidtlein,
Frank A.
State Budgeting for Higher Education: Data
Digest. Berkeley: Center for Research and Development
in Higher Education, University of California, 1975*
________ ; Shea, John R . ; Ruyle, Janet H . ; and Freschi,
Kathryn
H.
Presidents
Confront
Reality.
San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1976.
Goldberg,
David and Anderson,
Albert.
Projections
of
Population and College Enrollment in Michigan, 19702000.
J.
Sponsored Research Project of Governor's
Commission on Higher Education, July, 1974*

378
Gove,

Samuel K. and Wirt, Frederick M.
"Resources for the
Study of Education Policy," The Journal of the Policy
Studies Organization. 1 (Winter, 1972):95-101.

Governor's Commission on Higher Education.
Building For the
Future
of
Postsecondary
Education
in
Michigan."
Lansing, Mi., October, 1974•
Gray,

Paul.
"College and University Planning Models".
Paper read at the Conference on Academic Planning for
the Eighties and Ninties, sponsored by University of
Southern California Office of Institutional Studies,
and held on 22-23 January,
at the University of
Southern California,
University Park,
Los Angeles,
1976.

Green, Thomas F.
Predicting the Behavior of the Educational
System. New York:
Syracuse University Press, 1980.
Grinold,
Richard C.
Planning Models.

and Marshall,
Kneale T.
Manpower
New York: American Elsevier, 1977*

; Hopkins, David S. P.; and Massy, William F.
"A
Model for Long-Range University Budget PLanning Under
Uncertainty,
"
Bell
Journal
of
Economics.
9
(1978) .-396-420.
Gross, Bertram.
"What are Your Organization's Objectives?
A
General-Systems
Approach
to
Planning,"
Human
Relations. 18 (August, 1965):195-216.
Gunter, Evelyn, ed.
Indicators and Statewide Assessment.
Denver, Co.: Cooperative Accountability Project, 1974*
Hackman, Judith Dozier and Libby, Patricia Ann.
"Toward
More Effective Strategic Planning: Annotated Readings
About Decision Support System," Planning for Higher
Education. 9 (Summer, 1981):40-46.
Haendel, Dan.
Corporate Strategic Planning.
C . : Sage Publications, Inc., 1981.

Washington, D.

Handlin, Oscar and Handlin, Mary F.
The American College
and American Culture.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company, 1970.
Harvey,
Edward
and
Mills,
Russell.
"Patterns
of
Organizational Adaptation: A Political Perspective," in
Power in Organization. Mayer N. Zald, ed.
Nashville,
Tn.: Vanderbilt University Press, 1970.
Hayes-Roth, Barbara.
Human Planning Processes.
Monica, Ca.: The Rand Corporation, 1980.

Santa

379
Henderson, Bruce D. On Corporate Strategy.
Abt Books, 1979*

Cambridge, Ma . :

Henriot, Peter J.
Political Aspects of Social Indicators:
Implications for ResearchJ
New York:
Russell Sage
Foundation, 197^•
Herriot, Robert E.
"Some Observations on the Condition of
Education (1976 Edition),"
Social Indicators Research.
6 (April, 1979)s181— 196.
Hill, Warren, G.
"To Keep From Being King," in Formulating
Policy in Postsecondary Education. John F. Hughes and
Olive Mills, eds.
Washington, D. C.: American Council
on Education, 1975*
Hills, Jean, R.
Toward a Science of Organization. Eugene,
Or.: Center For the Advanced Study of Educational
Administration, University of Oregon, 1968.
Hirschman, A. 0. and lindblom, C. E.
"Economic Development,
Research
and
Development,
Policy
Making:
Some
Converging Views," in Systems Thinking.
F. E. Emery,
ed. Baltimore, Md.: Penguin Books, Inc., 1974*
Hofer, Charles W. and Schendel, Dan.
Strategy Formulation.
St. Paul, Mn.: West Publishing Company, 1978.
Hollowood,
James R.
"College and University Strategic
Planning: A Methodological Approach,"
Planning for
Higher Education. 9 (Summer, 1981):8-18.
Homan, James C.
Program Inventory of Public Baccalaureate
Institutions ~in Michigan:
Higher Education
Management Services, Michigan Department of Education,
May, 1975________
and Weber, James F.
Enrollment Potential for
M ichigan Colleges and Universities to the Year 2000.
Michigan Department
of Education,
Higher Education
Management Services, 1979*
Hoover Research Committee.
Recent Social Trends in the
United States.
Washington, FI C. : U7 ST Printing
Office, 1943Hopkins, David S. P. and Massy, William.
Planning Models
for Colleges and U n iversities.
Stanford, Ca.: Stanford
University Press, 1981.
Hughes, John F. and Mills, Olive.
Formulating Policy in
Postsecondary Education: The Search of Alternatives.
Washington, DT C77
American Council on Education,
1975.

380
James, Lawrence R. and Jones, Allen P.
"Organizational
Climate:
A
Review
of
Theory
and
Research,"
Psychological Bulletin. 81 (December,1974):1096-1112.
Jedamus, Paul and Peterson,
Academic
Management.
Publishers, 1980.

Marvin W., eds.
San
Francisco:

Improving
Jossey-Bass

Jencks,
Christopher.
"Who
Should
Control
Dissent. 13 (March/April, 1966):145-163•

Eduction?"

Johnston, Denis F. Basic Disaggregations of Main Social
Indicators.
Paris: Organisation for Economic CoOperation and Development, 1977_______ and Weitzman, Murray S.
Social Indicators III«
Washington,
D.
C.:
U.
S.
Printing
Office
(U.S.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census), 1980.
Jones, Larry R.
"An Historical Survey of Academic Planning
Development," Planning for Higher Education.
7 (April,
1979):21-27Jones, Reginald L. and Trentin, H. George.
Budgeting: Key
to Planning and Control. Hew York: American Management
Association, 1 9661
Karn,

Dan E. A Consolidated and Summary Statement of
Findings
and
Becommendations.
Michigan
Citizens
Committee on Higher Education,
March, 1965*

Karol, Nathaniel H. and Ginsburg,
Higher Education Enterprise.
Sons, 1 980.

Sigmund G.
New York:

Managing the
John Wiley &

Kast, Fremont E. and Rosenzweig, James B.
"General Systems
Theory: Applications for Organization and Management,"
Academy of Management Journal. 15 (1 972):4-63*
Katz,

Daniel and Kahn, Robert L.
The Social Psychology of
Organizations.
New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
1966:

________ and ________
.
"Common Characteristics of Open
Systems,"
in Systems
Thinking. F.
E.
Emery,
ed.
Baltimore, Md.: Penguin Books, Inc., 1974*

381
Kelly, James D.
Summary Report on Michigan Technician Need
Study,.
Co-sponsored
HjyT
Office
of
Planning
Coordination - Michigan Department of Commerce and
Michigan Employment
Security Commission - Michigan
Department of Labor in Cooperation with Divisions of
General and Vocational Education - Michigan Department
of
Education.
Administered
Through:
Office
of
Administrative
Studies,
Perris
State College,
Big
Rapids, Michigan. September, 1967*
Kenworthy, Walter.
"A Program Budgeting Strategy for a
Small College," in Strategics for Budgeting.
George
Kaludis, ed. New Directions for higher Education,
San
Prancisco: Jossey-Bass, 1973*
Kieft, Raymond N. ; Armijo, Prank; and Bucklew, Neil S.
A
Handbook
for
Institutional
Academic and
Program
Planning: Prom Idea to Implementation. Boulder, Co.:
National
Center
for
Higher
Education
Management
Systems, 1978.
King,

William R.
and Policy.
m

and Cleland, David I.
Strategic Planning
New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company,

-------

Knight,
P. H.
Risk Uncertainty
Houghton Mifflin Company, 1921.

and

Profit.

Boston:

Knorr,
Owen
A.,
ed.
Long-Range
Planning
in
Higher
Education.
Boulder, Co.: Western Interstate Commission
for Higher Education, 1965*
Kohler,
W.
Die Physischen Gestalten in
Stationaren, Zustand, Erlangen. 1924•
"Zum
(T327):112.
Kono,

Problem

der

Regulation,"

Toyohiro.
"Long-Range
Comparative Study," Long-Range
1976): 61 -71 .

Ruhe
Roux's

und

im

Arch.

Planning— Japan— USA— A
Planning.
9 (October,

Koontz, Harold and O'Donnell,
Cyril.
"The Nature and
Purpose
of
Planning,"
in Long-Range Planning
for
Management.
David W. Ewing, ed.
New York: Harper &
Row, 1'958T
_________ and
Edition.

.Principals of Management. Pourth
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1968.

Kotler,
Philip.
Marketing for Nonprofit Organization.
Englewood Cliffs, N . J . : Prentice-Hall, Inc., I9t5*

382
Kotler,
Philip.
Admissions,"
Admissions.
Board, 1976.

"Applying Marketing Theory
in
A Role
for Marketing
New York: College Entrance

Kudla,
Ronald J.
"Elements
of
Planning,"
Long-Range Planning.
93-

to College
in College
Examination

Effective
9 (August,

Corporate
1976):82-

Kuhn,

Thomas S.
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
Chicago, II.: The University of Chicago Press, 19 6 2 .

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, 1980.

Land,

Kenneth
Indicator
T_^_

C. and Spilerman,
Models. New York:

Seymour,
eds.
Social
Russell Sage Foundation,

Laszlo, Ervin.
Introduction to Systems Philosophy.
New
York:
Gordon and Breach, Science Publishers, 1972.
Lawrence, Paul R. and Lorsch, Jay W.
Organi z at io n
Environment. Boston: Harvard University, 1967*

and

LeBreton, Preston P. and Henning, Dale A.
Planning Theory.
Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prerltice-Hall, Inc.,” 196^•
Legislature Service Bureau.
The Constitution of the State
of
Michigan
of
1963*
Reprinted
with Amendments April,
T
_
_
Levine, Sol and White, Paul E. "Exchange as a Conceptual
Framework
for
the
Study
of
Interorganizational
Relationships,"
Administrative
Science
Quartely.
5
(March, 1 961 ): 583:^ T :
Likert, Rensis.
The Human Organization: Its Management and
Value. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 196 7^
Lindhlom, C. E.
"The Science of ’Muddling Through'," Public
Administration Review, American Society for Public
Administration,
Washington,
D.
C.:
19
(Spring,
1959):79-88.
Lovelock, Christopher H. and
Readings
in Public and
Scientific Press, 1978.
Mann,

Weinberg,
Nonprofit

Charles B . ,
Marketing.

eds.
The

Horace.
"Physical, Moral and Religious Education,"
in Issues in Education, an Anthology of Controversy.
Bernard Johnson, e d .
Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1 964.

383
March, James G. Handbook of Organizations.
McNally & Company, 1 965-

Chicago:

________ and Simon, Herbert A.
Organizations.
John Wiley & Son, Inc., 1958.
Marsh, Catherine.
The Survey Method.
& Unwin, 1 982.

Rand

New York:

London: George Allen

Masnick, George and Bane, Mary Jo.
The Nation's Families:
1960-1990.
Cambridge, Ma.: Joint Center for Urban
Studies of M.I.T. and Harvard University, 1980.
McCorkle,
Chester
0.
Jr.,
and
Archibald,
Sandra Orr.
Management and Leadership in
Higher Education. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1982.
McCoy, Marilyn and Halstead, D. Kent.
Higher Education
Financing in the Fifty States.
Washington, HI C .: UT
“ST Government Printing Office, The National Institute
of Education, 1979*
McGrath, Phyllis.
Managing Corporate External Relations:
Changing Perspectives and Responses.
New York: The
Conference Board, Inc., 1976.
McGregor, D.
The Human
McGraw-Hill, 1 9b0.

Side

of

Enterprise.

New York:

McHenry, Dean E.
"Planning in the College or University,"
in Long-Range Planning in Higher Education.
Owen A.
Knorr, ed. Boulder, Co. : Western Interstate Commission
for Higher Education, 1965.
McKitterick, John B.
"Focus on Profit Opportunities, Not
Efficiency,"
in Long-Range Planning for Management.
David W. Ewing, ed. New York: Harper & Row, 1958.
Medsker, Leland L. "Resources for Planning: A Resume," in
Long-Range Planning in Higher Education. Owen A. Knorr,
ed.
Boulder, C o .: Western Interstate Commission for
Higher Education, 1965*
Melcher, Arlyn J.
General Systems and Organization Theory:
Methodological Aspects. Kent State University, Center
for Business and Fconomics Research, 1975*
________ . Structure and Process of Organizations: A Systems
Approach.
Rnglewood Cliffs, NT J7! Prentice-Hall,
Iric'."," T ^ 7 5 .
Micek,
Sidney
S.
Integrating
Academic
Planning
and
Budgeting in a Rapidly Changing Environment: Process
and Technical Issues.
Boulder, Co. : National Center
for Higher Education Management Systems, 1980.

384
Michigan Coordinating Council for Public Higher
Report
of
the
Advisory
Committee
on
branches. December, 1964*

Education,
University

Michigan Department of Education.
A Report to the State
Legislature
on
Title
I
of
the
Higher Education
Facilities Act of 1% 3 and on Title VI, Part A of the
Higher
Education
Act
of
1965*
State Board
of
Education, Higher Education Facilities Commission, June
30, 1967.
.
A Report to the Michigan Legislature on the
financial''Requirements' for the Operations and Capitol
Uutlay of Public Four-Year Colleges and Univerisities
and Public Community Colleges in Fiscal Year 1968- 69 .
Bureau
of
higher
Education,
Planning
Division.
February 28, 1968.
.
An
Assessment
of
the
Roles
of
Public
Baccalaureate
Institutions
of
Higher
Learning
in
Michigan^
Bureau
of
Higher
Education,
Planning
Division.
1970.
________ . Academic
Program Inventory.
Education, Planning Division. 1970.
________ .

Bureau

Occupational Program Inventory.

of

Higher

1970.

. Advising on the Program Offerings and Services of
Michigan Colleges and Universities. Bureau of Higher
Education, Planning Division.
August, 1973*
________. The State Board of Education
Education, T965-1975.
May, 1976.

Reports

on

Higher

1977 State Board of Education Recommendations for
Legislative Action. January, 1977.
. Annual Program Plan, System Fiscal Year 1977-87:
Focused Objectives. Planning Office.
November, T977•
Policy and Planning Document For Financial
Requirements
of Higher Education;
Goal Vi of the
Revised
State
Plan
for
Postsecondary
Education.
Higher Education Management Services.
February, 1978.
________ . 1979 State Board of Education Recommendations for
Legislative Action. December, 1978.
.
1978-79
Fact
Michigan^
Higher
July, 1979.

Book
on
Education

Higher
Education
in
Management
Services.

385
Michigan Department of Education.
1979-80 Fact Book on
Higher
Education
in
Michigan.
Higher
Education
Planning Services.
August, 1980.
________ .
1980-81 Directory
Higher Education. 1980.

of

Michigan

Institutions

of

________ .
The Annual
and Long-Range
State
Plan
for
Vocational
Education
in Michigan.
Lansing,
Mi.:
Vocational Technical Education Services.
1982.
Miles, Raymond E. ; Snow, Charles C. ; and Pfeffer, Jeffrey.
"Organization-Environment
Concepts
and
Issues,"
Industrial Relations. 13 (October, 1974):250.
Millard, Richard M.
State Boards of Higher Education.
Washington, D. C.i American Association for Higher
Education, 1976.
Miller, James L., Jr.
State Budgeting for Higher Education:
The Use of Formulas and Cost Analysis.
Michigan
Governmental” Studies H o . 45^
Ann"Arbor: University of
Michigan Institute of Public Administration, 1964*
Miller, John Edgar.
"Planning in Small
Higher Education. 9 (Fall, 1980):25-29Mink,

Colleges,"

For

Oscar C.; Scultz, James M . ; and Mink, Barbara P.
Developing and Managing Open Organizations.
Austin,
Tx.: Learning Concepts, 1979*

Monti, Lorna A.
Social Indicators for Austin, Texas: A
Cluster Analysis of Census Tracts. Bureau of Business
Research Graduate School of Business, The University of
Texas,
1975*
Mood,

Alexander M.
The Future
York: McGraw-Hill",' T'9T3".

of Higher

Education.

New

Morgan, Anthony W. and Newell, L. Jackson.
"Strategic
Planning at a Small College: To Be Comprehensive or To
Be Distinctive?"
Planning For Higher Education.
9
(Summer, 1981):29-35^
Mortimer, Kenneth P. and Tierney, Michael L.
The Three
" R 1 s" of the Eighties: Reduction, Reallocation and
Retrenchment. Washington, D7 CV: American "Association
for Higher" Education, 1979*
Moser, C. A. and Kalton, G.
Survey Methods in
Investigation.
2nd edition.
New York: Basic
Inc., Publishers, 1972.

Social
Books,

386
Moskow, Michael H.
Strategic
Government.
New
York:
Development, 1978.
Mott,

Paul
E.
Organizations.

TTTT.-----Murphy,
David
Education
Volume ~ T ~.

Planning in Business and
Committee
for
Economic

The
Characteristics
of Effective
New York: Harper and Row, Publishers,

E.
and Bossard,
Rick.
Michigan Higher
Funding Model Task Force Recommendation,
Lansing, Mi.: Senate Fiscal Agency, 1 976.

_________ and
Proposed Alternatives for Refining
the Owen-Huffman Higher Education Investment Needs"
Model, Volume I I . Final Report of the Michigan Higher
Education Task Force Project.
Lansing, Mi.: Senate
Fiscal Agency, 1977*
and
_____ .
Michigan Higher Education 1978-79
Appropriations Enrolled Senate Bill 1392.
Senate
Fiscal Agency,
SenateOffice Building, Lansing, Mi.
July 15, 1978.
Naidu, Gurramkonda M.
"Systems Approach to
Aspects of Higher Education."
Ph.D.
Michigan State University, 1969*

the Marketing
dissertation,

National Association of College and University Business
Officers.
College
and
University
Business
Administration. 3rd ed. Washington, D. C., 1974.
NCHEMS
1977 National
Assembly
Proceedings.
Planning,
Managing and Financing in the 1980s.
Boulder, Co.:
National
Center
for
Higher
Education
Management
Systems, 1978.
Nelson, J. Russell.
"Diversity, Productivity, Excellence,
and Access: Exploring the Horns of the Dilemma," in
Planning,
Managing,
g-nd
Financing
in
1089s '
Boulder,
Co.: National Center for Higher Education
Management Systems, 1977*
Neubauer, Friedrich F. and Solomon, Norman B.
"A Managerial
Approach
to
Environmental
Assessment,"
Long-Range
Planning. 10 (April, 1977):13-20.
Nottingham, Jayen.
"Commitment to Accountability - A Case
Study," Journal of Secondary Education. January, 1971*
Oliver,
Robert M.
"Operations Research in University
Planning," in Analysis of Public Systems.
A. Drake,
Ralph L. Keeney~ and f . M. Morse, eds. Cambridge, M a . :
The M.I.T. Press, 1972.

387
O'Neil, R. M.
The Courts, Government and Higher Education.
New York: Committee for Economic Development, 1972*
Palola, E. G. ; Lehmann, T. ; and Blischke, W. R.
Higher
Education
by
Design:
The
Sociology
of
Planning.
Berkeley: University of California, Center for Research
and Development in Higher Education, 1970.
and Padgett, William. Planning for Self-Renewal: A
New
Approach
to
Planned
Organizational
ChangeT
Berkeley: University of California Center for Research
and Development in Higher Education, 1971.
Parekh, Satish B. Long-Range Planning.
Change Magazine Press, 1977*

New Rochelle, N.Y.:

Parsons,
Talcott.
"General
Theory
in Sociology,"
in
Sociology Today. Robert K. Merton, Leonard Broom, and
Leonard S. Cottrell, Jr., eds.
New York: Basic Books,
1959Pearce, John A., II and Robinson, Richard B . , Jr.
Strategic
Management: Strategy Formulation and Implementation.
Homewood, II.: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1 9 8 2 .
Pennings,
Johannes
M.
"Structural
Correlates
of the
Environment," in Strategy + Structure = Performance.
Hans B. Thorelli, ed.
Bloomington: Indiana University
Press, 1977.
Perrow, Charles.
"Organizational Goals," in International
Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. Vol. i1. New York:
MacMillan,
19^8.
________ .Organizational Analysis:
A Sociological V i e w .
Monterey, Ca.: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, 1970.
________ .
Complex Organizations:
A
Critical
Essay.
Glenview, II.: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1979*
_______ .
"The Short and Glorious History of Organizational
Theory," in Organizations: Theory and Design. Patrick
Connor, ed.
Chicago: Science Research Associates,
Inc., 1980.
Peterson, Marvin W.
"Analyzing Alternative Approaches to
Planning," in Improving Academic Management.
Paul
Jedamus, Marvin ~Y~. Peierson, and Associates, eds.
San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers,
1980.
________ .
"Financial Planning for the 1980s: A Response to
Reality
and
Competition,"
Planning
for
Higher
Education.
9 (Summer, 1981):19-28.

388
Pfeffer, Jeffrey and Salancik, Gerald R.
The External
Control
of Organizations:
A
Resource" Dependence
Perspective. New York: Harper & Row Publishers,
1978.
Poland, William.
"Characteristics
Activities,"
Planning
for
(December, 1978):1-6.

of Successful Planning
Higher
Education.
7
.

Pondy, Louis R.
"Toward a Theory
of Internal ResourceAllocation," in Power in Organization. Mayer N. Zald,
ed. Nashville, Tn: Vanderbilt University Press, 1970.
Poulton,
Nick
L.
"Assessing Management
and
Planning
Systems," New Directions for Institutional Research. 8
(September^ 1981 ) : 85-90.
Pounds, Haskin R. and Strickland, Deborah C.
"Developing a
Planning Unit at the State Level to Meet the Needs of
the Public," Planning for Higher Education.
9 (Fall,
1980):12-1 7.
Presthus, Robert.
The Organizational
St. Martin's Press, 1978.

Society.

New York:

Preston, Lee E. and Post, James E.
Private Management and
Public Policy.
Englewood Cliffs, N. J . : Prentice-Hall,
Inc., 1975________ .
"Strategy-Structure-Performance: A Framework for
Organization/Environment
Analysis,"
in
Strategy
+
Structure
=
Performance.
Hans
B.
Thorelli, e d .
Bloomington, I n . : Indiana University Press, 1977Purdie, William K. and Taylor, Bernard, eds.
Business
Strategies for Survival.
London: Heinemann Educational
Books, 1976.
Pyhrr, Peter A.
Zero-Base Budgeting.
and Sons, 1973*

New York: John Wiley

Regents of the University of Michigan
Michigan, 235 N.W. 2D 1, (1975).

v.

The

Reading, Hugo F.
A Dictionary of the Social
Great Britain: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1977*

State

of

Sciences.

Report of National Commission on Technology, Automation and
Economic Progress.
Washington, D.C.: U. S. Printing
Office, 1966.
Report of the Harvard Committee.
General Education in a
Free
Society.
Cambridge,
MaTl
Harvard University
FressT T 9 4 5 1'

389
Reynolds, Paul Davidson.
A Primer in Theory Construction.
Indianapolis, In.: Bobbs-Merril Educational Publishing,
1971 .
Romney,
Leonard.
Measures
of
Institutional
Goal
Achievement. Boulder, C o .: National Center for Higher
Education Systems, 1978.
________ and Bogen, Gerald, K.
"Assessing Institutional
Goals:
Proceed With Caustion,"
In Using Goals
in
Research and Planning.
Robert Hi Fanske, ecTI
San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1978Rose,

Richard.
"The Market for Policy Indicators," in
Social Indicators and Social Policy. Andrew Shonfield
arid Stella Shaw,
eds.
London, England: He inemann
Educational Books, 1972.
Runkel,
Phillip E.
"A Letter to the State Board of
Education," in Information on the 11981 Fall Enrollment
in Michigan Institutions of Higher Education.
June 10,
1982
.

;

Russell, John Dale. Higher Education in Michigan: Final
Report of the Survey of Higher Education in Michigan.
Lansing, M i .’: Prepared for the Michigan Legislative
Study Committee on Higher Education, 1958.
Russell, Robert Eugene. "Computer-Based Decision Support
Systems in Higher Education: The Support, Development
and Impact of MIS." Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Michigan, 1981.
Ryan,

J. W.
"Caught in a Thicket of Political Pressures,"
The Christian Science Monitor. (August 4 , 1969)s9•

Ryans, David G.
"System Analysis in Planning," in LongRange Planning in Higher Education. Owen A. Knorr, ed.
Boulder, Co. : Western Interstate 'Commission for Higher
Education, 1965St.

John, Edward P.
"Planning for Improve Management,"
New
Directions
or
Institutional
Research.
(,September, 1981):7l-83•

in
8

Salloway, Shirley E. and Tack, Martha W.
"Comprehensive
Planning: An Organizational Approach,"
Planning for
Higher Education. 7 (October, 1978):1-9*
Schick,
Allen.
Budget
Innovation
in
the
States.
Washington, D. C.: Rrookings Institution, 1971•
_________.
"A Death in the Bureaucracy: The Demise of
Eederal
PPB,"
Public
Administration
Review.
(March/April, 1973):146 -

390
Schlafmann, Norman James.
"An Examination of the Influence
of the State Legislature on the Educational Policies of
the
Constitutionally
Incorporated
Colleges
and
Universities of Michigan Through Enactment of Public
Acts from 1851
through 1970." Ph.D.
dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1970.
Schneider, B. and Bartlett, J. C.
"Individual Differences
and
Organizational
Climate
II:
Measurement
of
Organizational Climate by the Multi-Trait, Multi-Rater
Matrix," Personnel Psychology. 23 (1970):510.
Schroeder, Roger G.
"A Survey of Management Science
University
Operations,"
Management
Science.
(1973):895-906.

in
19

Schroeder, Timothy D.
"Comprehensive Planning for Higher
Education,"
The College Board Review. (Winter, 1981 —
82):14-15> 30.
Schutzenberger, M. P.
"A Tentative
Classification of Goal
Seeking Behaviors," in Systems Thinking. E. E. Emery,
ed.
Baltimore, Md.: Penguin Books, Inc., 1974*
Scott, Brian W.
Long-Range Planning in American Industry.
New York: American Management Association, Inc., 1965•
Seeley, John A.
"Program Review and Evaluation," in New
Direction for Institutional Research.
8 (September,

1981):45-&0.
Seidman,
L.
William.
Building
For
the
Future
of
Postsecondary
Education
in
Michigan.
Report
of
Governorrs Commission on Higher Education.
October,
1974.
Sexton, Patricia Cayo.
The American School.
Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 19&7*
Selznick,
Philip.
Leadership
Sociological
Interpretation.
Peterson and Company, 1957*

in

Englewood

Administration:
A
Evanston,
II.:
Row,

Sheldon, Eleanor Bernert and Freeman, Howard E.
"Notes on
Social Indicators: Promises and Potentials," Policy
Sciences. 1 (Spring, 1970):97— 111.
Shonfield, Andrew and Shaw, Stella.
Social Indicators and
Social Policy.
London: Heinemahn Educational Books,
1972.
Simon, H, A. "On the Concept of Organizational Goal,"
Administrative Science Quarterly.
9 (June, 1964):1-22.

391

Simon, H. A. "The Architecture of Complexity," Proceedings
of the American Philosophical Society.
106 (1962):467482.
-Simon, Herbert.
Sons, 1956.

Models

of M a n .

New York:

John Wiley and

_________.
"Rational Choice and the Structure of
Environment," in Systems Thinking.
E. E. Emery,
Baltimore, Md.: Penguin Books”, Inc., 1974*
Smith,
Harold T.
State Plan
Michigan:
Provisional.
Education.
September, 1968.

for Higher Education
Michigan
Department

the
ed.
in
o f

. The State Plan for Higher Education in Michigan.
Lansing, M i .: Michigan Department of Education, 1976.
Snowden, Barry L.
"Strategic Planning in a Crisis: The Case
of
Athabasca
University,"
Planning
for
Higher
Education. 9 (Summer, 1981):34-39*
Special Task Force to the Secretary of Health, Education and
Welfare.
The Second Newman Report:
National Policy
and Higher Education.
Cambridge, Ma.: M .I .T . Press,
v m ~ . ----------------Spilerman, Seymour.
"Forecasting Social Events," in Social
Indicator
Models.
Kenneth
C.
Land
and
Seymour
Spilerman, e d s .
New York: Russell Sage Foundation,
1 975*
Spring, Joel.
Educating the Worker-Citizen: The Social,
Economic and Political Foundations of Education"
New
York: Longman, Inc., 1 980.
Starbuck,
William
H.
"Organizations
and
Their
Environments,"
Handbook
of
Organizational
and
Industrial
Psychology.
Marvin
D.
Dunnette,
ed.
Chicago: Rand McNally, 1976.
State

Board for Public Community and Junior Colleges.
Institutional Roles and Scopes, Part II. Lansing, Mi.:
State Board of Education, 1974*

Steiner, George A.
"Does Planning Pay Off?" in Long-Range
Planning for Management. David W. Ewing, ed. New York:
Harper & Row, Publishers, 1958.
_________ , ed.
Managerial Long-Range Planning.
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1963*

New York:

and Cannon, Warren M. eds.
Multinational Corporate
Planning.
New York: Crowell-Collier and MacMillan
Company7 1966.

392
Steiner, George
New York:
1969.

A.
Strategic Factors in
Business Success.
Financial Executives Research Foundation,

________ .
Top Management Planning.
Publishing Co. , Inc.', 1969*

New York:

MacMillan

Stinchcomhe, Arthur L. "Theoretical Domains and Measurement
in Social Indicator Analysis," in
Social Indicator
Models.
Kenneth C. Land and Seymour Spilerman, eds.
New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1975Stone, Richard.
"A Model of the Educational
Minerva. 3 (Winter, 1965):172-186.

System,"

Sullivan, Daniel F. and Litten, Larry H.
"Using Research
in Analyzing Student Markets: A Case Study," in A Role
For Marketing in College Admissions, New York: College
Extrance Examination Board, 1976.
Tack, Martha W. and Peseau, Bruce A.
"Linking Academic and
Financial Planning at the College Level,"
Planning for
Higher Education. 11 (Fall, 1982):1-4*
Task

Force on Coordination, Goverance and Structure of
Postsecondary
Education.
Coordination
or
Chaos?
Denver, Co.: Education Commission of the States, 1973•

Task Force of the National Council of Independent Colleges
and Universities.
A National Policy for Private Higher
Education.
Washington^ DT C71 Association of American
Colleges, 1974.
Taylor, Bernard and Sparkes,
John R . , eds.
Corporate
Strategy and Planning.
New York: John Wiley & Sons,
1977.
Terrebarry,
Shirley.
"The Evolution of Organizational
Environments,"
Administrative Science Quarterly.
12
(March, 1968):590-6T 3 Thomas, Philip
Planning,"

S.
"Environmental Analysis for Corporate
Business Horizons. October, 1974.

Thompson,
Arthur
A.,
Jr.
and
Strickland,
A.
J.
III.
Strategy and Policy Concepts and Cases. Plano, Texas:
Business Fublications, Inc., 1 981 .
Thompson, James D.
Organizations in Action.
New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1967*
_________.
"Strategies for Studying Organizations,^
in
Organizations: Theory and Design. Patrick Connor, ed.
Chicago: Science Research Associates, Inc., 1980.

393
Thorelli, Hans B . , ed.
Strategy + Structure = Performance.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1977•
Tickton, Sidney G.
"The Long-Term Budget Projection: A Case
Study Prom Education,"
in Long-Range Planning for
Management. David ¥. Ewing, ecTI New York: Harper & Row
Publishers, 1964.
Tierney,
Michael .L.
"Priority
Setting
Allocation,"
in
New
Directions
for
Research. 8 (September, 1981):29-43•
Tilles,
Seymour.
"Identifying Goals,"
Planning for Management.
David W.
York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1958.

and
Resource
Institutional

in Long -Range
Ewing, ed.
New

________ .
"Making
Strategy
Explicit
A
Special
Commentary," in Business Strategy.
H. Igor Ansoff, ed.
Baltimore, M d . : Penguin Books, inc., 1966.
Tinbergan, Jan and Bos, H. C. Economic Models of Education.
Paris, Prance: Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development, 1965*
________ ; Jensen, Stefan; and Hake, Barry.
Possible Putures
of European Education.
The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff,
1 972.
Trow,
U.

"Reflections on the Transition Prom Mass to Universal
Higher Education," Daedalus. 99 (Winter, 1970):2-7*b

S.
Department
of
Health,
Education
and
Welfare.
Indicators
Educational
O u t c o m e s , F a l l , 1972.
Washington," "D." C.: "Government 'Printing Office, 1973*

Updegrove,
Daniel
A.
"Using
Corputer-Based
Planning
Models," in New Direction For Institutional Research.
8 (September, 1981):61-69•
Van

Alstyne, Carol.
"Postsecondary-Education Indicators:
Can We
Measure
Our Value
Imperatives —
Access,
Diversity, and Excellence?" in Planning, Managing, and
Financing in the 1980s.
The 1977 NCHEMS National
Assembly.
Boulder, Co.: National Center for Higher
Education Management Systems, 1978.

Wachman, Marvin.
"Placing Value Priorities into Practical
Perspective," in Planning, Managing, and Financing in
the 1980s.
Boulder, C o .: National Center for Higher
Education Management Systems, 1977*
Warren,
E. Kirby.
Long-Range Planning:
Viewpoint.
Englewood Cliffs, Nl J . :
Inc., 1966.

The Executive
Prentice-Hall,

394
Weathersby, George B.
’’Values and Analytical Models in
Higher Education,” in Planning, Managing and Financing
in the 1980s» Boulder, Co.: National Center for Higher
Education Management Systems, 1977*
Weick, Karl.
The Social Psychology of Organizing.
M a . : Addison-Wesiey Publishing Company, 1979*

Reading,

Weinschrott, David J.
Demand for Higher Education in the
United States: A Critical Review of the Empirical
Literature.
Santa Monica, Ca.: The Rand Corporation,

T9TT
Weiss,
Carol
H.
and
Barton,
Allen
Bureaucracies
Work*
Beverly
Publications, i960'.'

H . , eds.
Making
Hills,
Ca.:
Sage

Wenninger,
Engene
P.
’’Entropy,
Equilibrium,
and
Organizations:
Problems
of
Conceptualization,"
in
General Systems and Organization Theory.
Arlyn J.
Melcher, ed.
Kent State University Press, 1975*
Whetten, David A.
"Organizational Decline:
Topic
in
Organizational
Science,"
Management Review. 5 (1980):577-588.

A Neglected
Academy
of

"Sources,
Responses,
and
Effects
of
Organizational Decline," in Organizational Life Cycle.
John R. Kimberly, Robert H. Miles and Associates, eds.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1980.
________ .
"Interorganizational Relations: A Review of the
Field,"
Journal
of
Higher
Education.
52
(January/February, 1981):1-28.
________ .
"Organizational Responses to Scarcity: Exploring
the Obstacles to Innovative Approaches to Retrenchment
in Education," Educational Administrative Quarterly. 17
(Summer, 1981):80-97•
Whittaker,
James B.
Strategic
Planning in a Rapidly
Changing Environment. Lexington, Ma. : D. C. Heath and
Company, 1 978.
Wildavsky, Aaron.
The Politics of the Budgetary
2nd ed. Boston: Little Brown, 1974.
________ .
A Comparative Theory
Boston: Little Brown, 1975-

of

Budgetary

Process.

Processes.

Wilson,
Ian
H.
"Socio-Political
Forecasting: A
New
Dimension to Strategic Planning,"
Michigan Business
Review. XXVI (1974):15-25.

595
Wilson,
Ian H.
Corporate Environments of the Future:
Planning for Major Change. New York:
The Presidents
Association of the American Management Association,
1976.
Young, Stanley.
"Some Dimensions of Stratgic Planning for
Higher Education,"
Planning for Higher Education. 9
(Summer, 1981):1-7*
Yuchtman, E. and Seashore, S.
"A Systems Resource Approach
to Organizational Effectiveness," American Sociological
Review. 32 (December, 1967):891-903•
Zald,

Mayer N . , ed.
Power in Organizations.
Tn.: Vanderbilt University Press, 1970.

Nashville,

"Political Economy: A Framework for Comparative
Analysis," in Power in Organizations. Meyer N. Zald,
ed. Nashville, TnTl Vanderbilt University Press, 1970.
Zammuto, Raymond F.
Assessing Organizational Effectiveness.
Albany: State University of £lew ¥ork Press, 19«2.
________ and Cameron, Kim S.
Organizational
Response,"
Proceedings. 1982.

"Environmental Decline and
Academy
of
Management