maed module 1

8/12/2019 Maed Module 1

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/maed-module-1 1/21

MODULE I

EDUCATIONAL PLANNING CONCEPTS,

THEORIES, MODELS AND PERSPECTIVES

INTRODUCTION

Module I is an introduction to educational planning and management. It surveys planningand development in the Third World; presents the theories, concepts and rationale of

planning; dissects various planning process models; and presents strategic planning

perspectives. An understanding of strategic planning concepts, theories, process modelsand perspectives, and rationale is a good preparation for strategic plan crafting.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

At the end of this module, you should be able to:

1. Describe the beginnings of educational planning;

2. Discuss planning theories, concepts and rationale;3. Explain the various planning process models; and

4. Describe the different planning perspectives.

LESSON 1

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

IN THE THIRD WORLD

THE FIRST DEVELOPMENT DECADE

After the Second World War, the United States together with other developed

countries started a foreign aid program. The initiative, which began as a program forreconstruction, became economic and technical assistance in such areas as health,

education and agriculture. Then it expanded to include public administration and

management.

For more than a decade, university professors and private business consultants provided socio-economic programs and technical assistance in public administration

and management to governments and universities in Asia, Latin America, and Africa.

Western academicians and consultants exported to the recipient countries variousadministrative and financial processes and technologies, which were very important

in fostering development in the Third World. This was based on the perception that

recipient countries generally lacked the administrative capability for planning andimplementing plans. To remedy the situation, administrative technologies were

transferred to improve the machinery of the national governments of developing

countries.



This intervention resulted to the adoption of development planning as a cornerstone in the

pursuit of economic development in recipient countries.

Educational Planning in the Third World

Developed countries formally introduced educational planning in Third World countries

in the late 1950s and early 1960s. The objectives of educational plans, which were

integrated in national development plans, of Third World countries focused on overseeing

the expansion of educational systems. Great hopes were placed in educational planningfor it served as a foundation in setting objectives, goals and priorities, implementing

educational policies, and maximizing the use of limited resources.

Singh (1990) enumerates the significant impact of educational planning in Third World

countries during the late 1960s as follows: (a) the growth and development of educational

systems; (b) development of educational administration and the setting up of planning

organizations within the educational system; and (c) enhanced perception on the problemof efficiency in the educational system.

The Paris Conference on Policies for Educational Growth in the early parts of the 70s

reviewed the nature and consequences of educational growth, dissected current problems,

and came up with planning guidelines and policies. However, the proposed policieswere not implemented because of the research results that highlighted the inadequacy

of inputs in producing the desired educational outputs. Educational planning, therefore,

veered toward the adoption of policies aimed at attaining effective educational outcomes

concerning the learner given his socio-economic status and other resources.

The economic crises in the 1970s and 1980s brought about by the uncontrolled rise in

the price of oil drastically changed the setting in which educational institutions in ThirdWorld countries operated. Many developing countries implemented major cuts in public

expenditures which limited resources for education. Educational planning faced a new

challenge in the 1990s that of developing a paradigm or approach of harmonizing theloose linkage between greatly reduced budget and the goal for quality education (Ross

and Mahlch, 1990).

While Third World countries benefited immensely from educational planning from

the 1960s to the 1990s, their educational systems also faced problems. Among these

problems were: (a) excessive quantitative orientation, that is, planning approach had been predominantly quantitative both in analysis and normative aspects; (b) educational

planning had been overly centralized in the decision-making process; (c) weakness

in implementation; and (d) insufficiency of the evaluation dimension of educational

planning (Singh, 1990).

As a field of study, educational planning managed to grow and progress even while it

was initially an integral part of national development planning. Attracting a sizeablenumber of followers and adherents, educational planning developed as a separate field of



specialization in educational management.

Planning in Higher Education in the Philippines

Educational planning in the Philippines is as old as its educational system. Educationalsurveys and studies were made to provide a basis for the restructuring of Philippineeducation. The more important ones were the Monroe Survey in 1925, the United Nations

Economic and Social Commission (UNESCO) Mission in 1949, the joint Congressional

Committee of Education Survey of 1949, the Swanson Survey in 1960, the PresidentialCommission to Survey Philippine Education (PCSPE) in 1970, and the Congressional

Committee on Education (EDCOM).

Interestingly, a significant point in the findings of the above surveys is the observation

of the PCSPE that Philippine education was weak in educational planning. This

observation is supported by several factors, namely: (a) the lack of a clear definition of

the role of education in national development; (b) the absence of long-range goal setting performance targets for each operational component of the educational system; (c) the

absence of policy guidelines that define the proper function of each educational levelor sector; (d) the nature of decision making process of both individuals and educational

institutions that is based on forced choice rather than guided selection; and (e) the

disproportionate magnitude of educational responsibility relative to the capacity of the

economy to support the corresponding requirements for educational service (Miclat,2005).

Advent of Educational Planning

The promulgation of Presidential Decree No. 6-A, popularly known as the Educational

Development Decree of 1992, gave emphasis to educational planning in education. The

Decree provided for “… a broad general education that will assist each individual … torespond effectively to changing needs and conditions of the nation through a system of

educational planning and evaluation.” The Integrated Reorganization Plan of 1972 put

this into action by providing an office for Planning Service in the reorganized structure ofthe then Department of Education and Culture.

The three decades that followed had been problematic for tertiary education in the

country. State-run universities and colleges had mushroomed from 23 in 1972 and 78 in

1984. Today, there are now more than 100 tax-funded colleges and universities in the

Philippines. As a consequence of this proliferation of SUCs, the budget for educationsignificantly increased from 1978 to 1990 resulting to the ballooning of the budget.

Eventually, the budget of many SUCs had to be cut due to reduced public budget andincreased debt burden.

The issuance of Letter of Instruction No. 1461 on May 23, 1985 provided the necessary

impetus for planning among SUCs. The LOI required SUCs to formulate long-term

development plans including a physical development plan that support the manpower



goals of the region where the SUCs are located and of the entire country. Moreover, each

university or college is mandated to identify a field of specialization that is defined in

its charter, its capability to implement well taking into account its available resources,

and the educational opportunities in other SUCs and private education institutions inthe area. Answering the call, the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS),

forerunner of the Department of Education (DepEd), organized two training programs oninstitutional development planning in collaboration with the Development Academy ofthe Philippines and the Philippine Association of State Colleges and Universities.

The Congressional Commission on Education (EDCOM) study of 1992 found that the

quality of Philippine education was declining continuously. As a result, the EDCOM

recommended the restructuring of the Department of Education, Culture and Sportsinto three agencies, namely: the Commission on Higher Education, which oversees

tertiary education, the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority, which is

responsible for short-term manpower skills training, and the Department of Education,Culture and Sports, which was renamed as the Department of Education (DepEd), which

will take charge of kindergarten, elementary, and secondary education.

The Commission on Higher Education came up with its first Long-Term Higher

Education Development Plan (1996-2005). The plan served as the blueprint of change,reform and innovation in higher education. Subsequently, the Commission required all

SUCs and CHED-supervised higher education institutions in the country to formulate and

submit their respective ten-year development plan. In the private sector, the preparationof a long-term plan is a requirement for the grant of permit to operate a college or

university.

LESSON 2

PLANNING THEORIES, CONCEPTS, AND RATIONALE

PLANNING THEORIES

The last five decades following the 1960s saw the unprecedented growth of planning

in both the developed and Third World countries. Planning has become an ubiquitous

activity engaged in by organizations and individuals everywhere.

There are four major planning theories. These are: (a) philosophical synthesis; (b)

rationalism; (c) organizational development; and (d) empiricism (Miclat, 2005 citing

Adams, 1991).

Philosophical Synthesis

This theory emphasizes a holistic approach to planning which includes information on

social, economic, political, cultural and ethical conditions as well as the environmental

background of the institution or organization for which planning will be undertaken.

Rationalism



Rationalism looks at people as a utility. Rational planning models follow a sequential,

observable cycle that includes setting of goals, determining objectives, preparing plans,implementing the plans, and reviewing or evaluating results.

Organizational development

A planning approach that focuses primarily on ways to achieve organizational change.

The organizational development approach includes a human relations approach to

innovation and change in management style, employee satisfaction, decision-making processes, and the general health of the organization.

Empiricism

Empiricism is a planning theory that acknowledges the importance of studies on

system behavior by social scientists concerned with planning theory. Empiricism is less

normative, less concerned with planned social change, and uses a positivistic analyticalframework.

PLANNING CONCEPTS

Planning

The concept of planning emerged out of the development efforts and experiences of

Third World countries when they adopted planning as the major instrument in the pursuitof their economic and social development. Development planning is principally an act

of deciding ahead of time the what, the how, the when, and the who of identifying and

determining development goals, policies and plans; and serious setting of alternativecourses of action, procedures and strategies needed to achieve the purposes of

government institutions (NEDA, 1985). In the crafting of development plans, socio-

economic and political development programs are treated separately but are integratedwithin the purview of national aspirations, policies and goals.

Strategic Planning

Strategic planning is also viewed as focusing in on decision-making, information,

and the future. Its very essence or substance is concentrated on the consideration ofcurrent decision options based on available data and taken in the light of their possible

effects and consequences over a period of time. In other words, strategic planning is

concerned with identifying foreseeable thrusts and weaknesses to avoid and strengths

and opportunities to pursue. Strategic planning is the effective application of the bestalternative information to decisions that have to be made to ensure a secure future (Day,

1997).



From the point of view of education, strategic planning is considered as a set of

purposeful actions that influence an organization in order to effect change. It is also

regarded as a methodology aimed at future change of a present situation. It is viewed aslong-term planning in order to achieve a desired vision for an organization or school. It

defines the what’s to be achieved (Herman and Herman, 1994).

It is generally agreed by experts that an acceptable definition of planning should embody

the following features, namely: (a) an external orientation; (b) a holistic systematic

approach; (c) a process for formulating plans, objectives, strategies and programs; (d)

use of systematic methods in the analysis of strategic situation and alternatives; (e) acommitment to action; and (f) a knowledge of results (Miclat, 2005).

STRATEGIC PLANNING RATIONALE

Organizations need to plan far various reasons, namely:

§ To reorient the organization or institution to the needs of the community.

Community includes the mega community (e.g. the Philippine, Ugandan orBahraini society), the macro community (the educational system), and the

micro community, which is the private or the public sector education system.

The necessity of reorienting the institution to the needs of the communityhas been underscored by Onuskin (1993) when he commented that “In the

majority of the institutions there is a … serious gap between their activities

and the actual societal and economic needs of their countries.”

§ Another serious consideration is that when people plan for expansion, a

certain level of minimum standard must be observed. This will guarantee

a certain level of minimum quality performance. In a higher educationinstitution, such standard must cover the physical plant, facilities, and faculty

and staff. More significantly, it should include student qualification and

performance, curriculum, methodology, evaluation procedures and financingarrangements. This standard can be achieved through surveys, studies,

operations research, and cost-benefit analysis.

§ Effective strategic planning initiatives or efforts can make the organization

a more responsive and viable instrument for socio-economic development

of the nation. In the Philippines, the strategic development plans formulatedand developed by the National Economic and Development Authority for the

government becomes the major guideposts in identifying and determining

priorities in every sector. For example, for the period 1993-1998 the program

of the national government is concentrated on the improvement of the qualityof life of the people. In the education sector, the primary objective is the

delivery of quality education in all levels. Total human development and

world competitiveness are the main strategies adopted to attain this objective.



§ There is a need to establish priorities because of dwindling resources for

sectoral services. As could be inferred from the National and Regional

Development Plans and Annual Investment Programs, there are manycompeting concerns which need government attention and support. There

is therefore a need to prioritize programs and projects. Priority listing can

be achieved by formulating a set of quantified criteria reached throughconsensus. Programs and projects can then be prioritized thereby assuring the

rational allocation of scarce resources.

§ While the knowledge explosion and the emergence of new technologies

brought about by advances in science and information and communication

technology blur our vision and make us less able to visualize the future, the

nullifying effect of the inundation of new knowledge and technology forefforts in strategic planning underscores the need for planning.

§ Strategic planning means a more realistic forecasting of events. Strategic

planning always involves some view of the future.

LESSON 3

PLANING PROCESS MODELS

PLANNING MODELS

A model is defined as a set of variables classified as endogenous and exogenous cause-

effect relationships among these variables and the consistency of these relations. It

attempts to explain the phenomenon characterized by the endogenous and exogenousvariables. A phenomenon is explained when a model of its endogenous variables can be

determined, given those of the exogenous variables (Miclat, 2005).

Hudson (1979) is the first scholar to develop a typology of planning models. Some of his

models were, however, adopted and enriched from earlier works of other scholars. His planning typology consists of the a) synoptic model, b) incremental model, c) transactive

model, d) advocacy model, and e) radical model.

The synoptic model, which is pretty much identical to the rational model, includes fourcomponents, namely: goal setting, identification of alternatives, evaluation of means

against ends, and implementation of decisions. In the incremental model, planning is

constrained by available means than by the definition of goals. Any planned changeconsists of small or minimal adjustments from the past. The transactive model gives

emphasize on interaction and interpersonal discussion and the process of mutual

learning and understanding in planning. The fourth, advocacy model, underlines theconfrontational features of decision-making. The radical model consists of two editions,

one in which spontaneous activism is guided by self-reliance and mutual help, and the

other, concentrates on organizational characteristics that inhibit the equitable distribution



of goods and services.

Another scholar who came up with models of planning is Wilson (1989). Like Hudson,

he also developed five planning typologies. He introduced three alternative modelsin addition to the rational and incremental models, namely mixed scanning, learning

adaptive, and general systems models. The mixed scanning model is more realistic thanthe rational model and less passive than the incremental model. The learning adaptivemodel treats planning as a process of social learning built on individual psychosocial

development that is best attained in small, non-hierarchical groups. The general systems

model attempts to use the idea of a system as a unifying scientific paradigm. The planning typologies developed by Hudson and Wilson, as well as other theorists, were

grouped and classified into two by Adams (1991), rational and interactive.

PLANNING PROCESS MODELS

A process is defined as the series of steps followed in doing an activity. These steps can

be illustrated in graphical or symbolic terms atypical of a model. A planning processmodel supplies guidance in what ought to be done in practice. It also dictates explicitlywhat people ought to do in order for them to act accordingly and behave rationally so as

to ascertain the successful completion of the process of activities (Miclat, 2005).

In economics and public administration, strategic planning is perceived as development

planning. In this view, development planning is the process of determining in advance the

best possible way of achieving stated and defined development objectives within given period at the least cost. The model, as presented in Figure 1, has six major steps. These

are: a) goal-setting; b) situational information; c) policy/strategy formulation; d) plans/

programs/projects; e) implementation; and f) evaluation (NEDA, 1993).

Figure 1. NEDA (1993) Development Planning

ModelThe model was later refined where the major steps were expanded into eight represented

by circles arranged from left to right. The model, as shown in Figure 2, involves the



following steps: 1) Situational analysis, 2) Goal/objective/ target setting, 3) Policy/

strategy formulation, 4) Program/project identification, 5) Investment programming,

6) Budgeting, 7) Implementation and monitoring and 8) Evaluation and plan update

(NEDA, 1993).

Goals

Objectives

Targets

Policies

Strategies

Program/

ProjectIdentification

Investment

Programming

Implemen-tation and

MonitoringBudgeting

Project

Preparation

Studies

Researches

Planning Programming Budgeting Implementation

Evaluation

andPlan Update

Situation

Analysis

Evaluation

Figure 2. NEDA (2001) Development Planning Process Model

The line segments below the figure refer to the managerial functions and activities thatare undertaken for each step in the model. The first step in the model is the situational

analysis which requires the conduct of survey and research studies. The survey calls

for the gathering of socio-cultural, demographic, economic, physical and natural data,and information in the environment. A survey of the organization has to be undertaken

indicating past and present performances, programs and projects, manpower resources,

budget, and infrastructures and equipment. The data are then analyzed and projected inorder to identify concerns, issues and parameters, constraints and problems, and resources

and opportunities which are used as inputs in planning. The outputs of these activities are

the organizational profile and socio-economic profile of the community. The next step isthe setting of goals, objectives and targets. A goal is a broad statement of an image of the

future the organization seeks to achieve.

The objective, which grows from the goal, refers to medium-range expectation which is pursued to satisfy the goal. The target evolves from the objective. It is the most specific

statement of purpose which is simple, measurable, time bound and achievable. Once the

goals, objectives and targets are crafted, more specific policy statements and strategiesare framed for each of the areas of concern, e.g. social, economic, physical, political

and administration. The integration of these to a framework plan for a particular period,



serves as a guide to the organization. Programs and projects are identified in order to

effectively channel resources to development programs and projects considered strategic

in the overall attainment of goals. Prioritization of programs and projects is determined

done through the conduct of feasibility studies (Miclat, 2005).

Budgeting is the costing of priority programs and projects. Implementation is actualcarrying out of funded programs and projects by concerned offices and individuals of theorganization. Programs and projects are monitored to find out if they are implemented

according to plan. Otherwise, corrective measures should be readily instituted to put

back the project on track. Results, in terms of outputs, after a year of implementation,and outcomes after about four to five years of implementation, in terms of effects and

impacts, are evaluated. These outputs and outcomes discussed with managers and

planners for decision-making and updating the plan (Ibid, 32).

EDUCATIONAL PLANNING MODELS

Bell’s Strategic Planning Model

There are strategic planning models that apply to education. One of these models is thatone developed by the Northwest Regional Education Laboratory in cooperation with the

Oregon Education Coordinating Council. The purpose of the model is to increase both

intra-system and inter-system planning effectiveness. The circular model (Figure 3) haseight major steps grouped into three phases and steps.

The model separates the three phases of management activity as strategic planning,tactical planning, and control. The processes under strategic planning are identification

of problems, definition of policy objectives, and assignment of institutional roles and

resources.

Tactical planning transforms policy objectives and general allocation of resources into

selection of programs, identification of alternative strategies, and developing specific

program designs for action. Action ensures that performance proceeds according to plans, as well as monitors and evaluates results. In the center of this circular model is

the information system that takes care of all data and information gathered and used as

feedback in decision-making and planning process (Bell et al., 1989).



INFORMATIO

N SYSTEM

Figure 3. Strategic Planning Model (Bell et al., 1989).

Herman’s Strategic Planning Model

Herman and Herman (1994) developed a model that focuses on a school as the frameof planning reference (Figure 4). The steps are grouped into two major areas, namely,

strategic planning and tactical planning. The planning areas and steps are:

A. Strategic Planning

1. Vision # 1

2. a. Beliefs and values b. Environmental scanning; Internal and External

c. Critical success factors

3. Vision # 2

4. Mission statement5. Strategic goals

6. SWOT analysis

B. Tactical Planning7. Strategic objectives

8. Decision rules and priority selection

9. Action plans10. Allocate resources and operate plans



Figure 4. Strategic Planning Model (Herman and Herman, 1994)

Priority

Selection

Beliefs and

Values

External

Scanning

External

Scanning

Critical

Success

Factors

Vision # 1

Strategic Goals

Strategic Objectives

Vision # 2

Needs Assessment

What is? What should be?

Decision Rules

Achievable

Affordable

Meaningful80% Success

Develop Action Plans

- Brainstorming

- Force Field Analysis

- Cost Benefit

- Select Best Alternative

Allocate Resourcesand

Operate Plans

M

i

s

s

i

o

n

S

W

O

T

A

n

a

l

y

s

i

s



Under this model, the first step under strategic planning is the creation and consensus

of a vision by school leaders and stakeholders of what should be for the school. The

role of the school is considered in the mega, macro and micro environments. With theinformation, the planners are able to situate where they are and core values and beliefs of

school leaders and stakeholders are identified for eventual incorporation into the vision.

Scanning the environment, internally and externally, is the next step. Generated data andinformation would provide the present state of the school and obtaining conditions , the

environment would dictate which are facilitative and impediments in the attainment of

the preferred ideal vision.

The next concern is the identification of critical success factors. These factors are

jointly identified by the school leaders and stakeholders and eventually retain only

those that enhance the attainment of the desired future vision, while those that hinderare eliminated. With so much data and information, vision number two is arrived at

and agreed upon finally by the planners. The final vision is then used as basis in the

formulation of the mission statement and the strategic goal. Formulated mission and goal

consider the major role of the school in the mega, macro, and micro environments.

The final step under this phase is the conduct of the SWOT analysis. Data gatheredearlier are laid out in two-by-two table to analytically determine which of these

factors enhance or impede the attainment of the preferred ideal vision. Strengths and

opportunities are further built upon and capitalized on while weaknesses and threats andremedied and eliminated. Once the strategic plan is completed, this is turned over to the

tactical planners who will devise and design the specific operational plans (Miclat, 2005).

In the tactical planning phase, the first step is the formulation of specific objectives forevery goal that has-been framed. Prioritization of these-objectives is undertaken with the

use of a commonly-agreed upon set of decision rules. Once the objectives are prioritized,

the next step is the development of specific action plans. The plans are then subjected totesting or analysis to determine the best alternative strategies. The testing involves the

use of brainstorming, force field analysis, cost-benefit, and cost-effectiveness analyses.

The last step is the allocation of resources to the best alternative plans and strategies,implementing and monitoring them, and finally evaluating the results (Ibid).

Kaufman’s Strategic Planning Model

Another strategic planning model applicable to education is the systems framework

model (Kaufman et al., 2002). The model (Figure 5) has undergone extensive

improvements during the last two decades. The strategic planning processes were initially presented in a systems analysis of six steps (Kaufman, 1972); the Organization Elements

Model (OEM) (Kaufman, 1988); a systems framework of four major clusters of 13steps (Kaufman and Herman, 1991); and finally an improved systems framework model

consisting of three major clusters and 12 steps, as follows:



A. Scoping

1. Ideal vision

2. Identify and select needs

3. Define current mission4. Derive mission objective

B. Planning

5. Identify SWOT

6. Derive long and short-term mission

7. Derive strategic plan

C. Implementation and Continuous Improvement

8. Derive tactical and operational plans

9. Make/buy/obtain resources

10. Implement

11. Continuous improvement/formative evaluation

12. Determine effectiveness and efficiency

Revise/improve as required

The model begins with the scoping phase. The first step under this phase is the

identification of the preferred ideal vision in the mega, macro, and micro perspectives.

Parallel to this activity is the identification and selection of needs. This step involves theidentification of values and beliefs and data gathering on the internal organization and

external environment. These are inputted in the continuous improvement of formulating

the ideal vision. From the data, critical success factors are also determined to guideeducational partners in the planning and thinking processes of the strategic planning

phase. The framed ideal vision dictates the elements of the mission of the organization

which commits to deliver and contribute to that vision. A mission is a broad descriptionof purpose. Once the mission is framed, the objectives are formulated. Objectives should

be based on the mission and the mission on the vision. The objectives state both wherethe organization is headed and the precise criteria for determining accomplishments

(Miclat, p. 48).

The conduct of SWOT analysis is the first step under the planning phase. On the bases

of the ideal vision, mission, objectives and needs assessment, the analysis of identifiedstrengths, weaknesses, threats, and opportunities becomes the organizational barometer

indicating the organizational and environmental factors that enhance or impede the



attainment of specific objectives. Based on this information, long- and short-term

missions (targets) are derived and the strategic plan developed through the conduct of

function and system analyses. The results of these analyses are in the form of products

designed to attain the objectives. Scoping and planning phases fall under the domain ofstrategic planning. Once the strategic plans are completed, these are turned over to the

tactical planners (Ibid.). The first step under tactical planning is the formulation of tactical and operational plans

through the operation of a method-means analysis. The analysis identifies the possible

ways and means for doing and undertaking the products, tasks or outputs. Once the products and the different means for doing them are completed, funds and resources are

allocated. Tasks and products are then implemented. The ascertainment of successful

plan implementation requires developing of structures within the organization, installinga management information system (MIS), and a monitoring system. After a short

period of time, formative evaluation is undertaken to determine whether or not outputs

approximated the stated objectives and mission. The conduct of summative evaluation

determines the levels of efficiency and effectiveness of the outputs maturing intooutcomes. Outputs and outcomes serve as inputs to revise if not improve the strategic and

tactical planning process (Ibid., p.48).

The model as presented in Figure 6 consists of nine major steps:

1. Preparation

a. Organization and staffing

b. Training

2. Environmental scanning

a. External environment

b. Internal organization

c. SWOT analysis

d. Strategic planning framework

3. Vision, mission, goal, objective and target setting

4. Policy/strategy formulation

5. Program/project identification

6. Investment programming

7. Budgeting

8. Implementation and monitoring

9. Evaluation and plan update



Figure 5. Strategic Planning Model (Kaufman et al., 2002)

SCOPING

PLANNING

IMPLEMENTATION

AND CONTINUOUS

IMPROVEMENT

Ideal

Vision

MICRO

MACRO

MEGA

Identify and Select

Needs

Make/But/Obtain

Resources

Define Current

Mission

Derive Mission

Objective

Identify

SWOT

Derive Long and

Short-Term

Missions

Derive Strategic

Plans

Derive Tactical and

Operational Plans

Implement

Determine

Effectiveness/

Efficiency

Continuous Improve-

ment Formative

Evaluation

Revise/Improve

As Required



Organization

and

Staffing

Investment

Programming

Environment

Scanning

Policy

Strategy

Formulation

Program/ Project

Identification

Vision

Budgeting

Implementation

Evaluation

Plan

Update

Effect

Impact

Training

Project

Preparation

INTERNAL

EXTERNAL

S.W.O.T.

FRAMEWORK

MISSION

GOALS

OBJECTIVES

TARGETS

INPU

OUTCOM

OUTPU

PROCES

Figure 6. Strategic Planning Process Model (Miclat, 2005).



LESSON 4

PERSPECTIVES IN STRATEGIC PLANNING

If planners really aspire to formulate a realistic, achievable, responsive and effective

strategic plan and to implement the plan, they have to possess down-board thinking, paradigm shift, and holistic and global orientation.

DOWN-BOARD THINKING

Down-board thinking is an important component of effective strategic planning. Like a

chess grandmaster, a planner should think and decide not only on immediate things but

he must look “down-board” and consider the future. Effective strategic planning createsscenarios and considers the consequences of these scenarios in the light of competition

and the response of the environmental factors (Goodstein et al., 1993). This suits well

Peter Drucker’s recommendation that if we cannot predict the future, we might as wellcreate it.

PARADIGM SHIFT

In order to be able to craft a realistic, responsive, effective and achievable strategic plan,

planners need a shift in paradigm. Paradigm is simply a set of ideas that are usually

unwritten and that people have learned and embraced through education and experiencesthat defines the conventional methods about the rules of nature and life (Cali, 1993).

A paradigm acts as a mental filter or screen that delimits the way people think aboutthings by setting up boundary conditions that are often perceived rather than real.

Paradigm shift requires disassemblying our old and conventional ways of seeing, doing,

thinking and assessing a thing because they no longer apply with reality and the present.The new paradigm calls for a broad, flexible, eclectic, creative and futuristic mental

framework (Miclat, 2005).

We must now change and enlarge our educational paradigm from teaching to learning,

from rote mastery to process learning and dynamic citizenship, from input-oriented to

output-oriented curriculum development. We have to be radical, if needed, and future

shock-free to ascertain the success of our products and graduates both in school and inthe real world of life.

PLANNING ORIENTATION

There are three types of orientation in strategic planning, namely: systems, mega-level,

and outside-in.

Systems Approach

A system is an organized whole composed of two or more interdependent parts or

subsystems and delineated by identifiable boundaries from its environmental suprasystem



(Kast and Rosenzweig, 1990). The elements of a systems are inputs, conversion process,

outputs, and outcomes. Miclat (1998) presents a system framework and its major

elements in the context of a university in Figure 7.

The inputs are demands, mandate, and resources in the form of manpower, funds,

materials, equipment, and facilities. The conversion processes consists of teaching-learning process both formal and informal, co-curricular activities in and out of theinstitution, short-term training interventions, and implementation of research and

economic development projects.

The outputs in quantitative terms are number of graduates and trainees, number of

researches completed, number of mature technologies developed, and amount of funds

generated and sourced. In qualitative terms, the outputs are manifest competence ofgraduates and trainees, number of researches published, number of mature technologies

commercialized and income generated.

Outcome is divided into effect and impact. Effect is the immediate consequences of program outputs (Mathur and Inayatullah, 1998), like licensure board examination

performance, number of employed graduates and trainees, international and nationalresearch awards garnered, and mature technologies adopted.

On the other hand, impact is change in the standard of living of the target/partner groups

or within the target area emanating from the program (Ibid.). A period of four years ormore is necessary for the effect to gestate into an impact. The impacts are self-reliance,

self-sufficiency, social responsibility, economic independence and political dynamism,

and better quality of life.

The use of systems approach to strategic planning will provide the managers and planners

a holistic and integrated view which can expand into a global perspective should theuniversity attain some degree of regional and international recognition.



Demands

Mandate

Resources

Manpower

Funds

Materials

Physical

Others

Teaching-learning

Co-curri activities

Research execution

Training programs

Tech application

Innovative management

systems

Physical plan

implementation

Quantitative

number of

graduates,

trainees and

research

Qualitative manifest

competence

researches

published

technologies

commercialized

Board exams

Employed graduates/

trainees

Research awards

Self-reliance

Self-sufficiency

Citizenship

Better quality of life

Internal Organization

External Environment

Feedback

INPUTS CONVERSION PROCESS OUTPUTS OUTCOMES

Effects/Impact

Figure 7. A Systems Planning Framework of a University (Miclat, Jr., 1998)

Mega-Level Environment

There are three planning levels: mega-level, macro-level and micro-level. Kaufman,

et al (2002) equated mega-level to the society, macro-level to the educational system,

and the micro-level to the individual learner, teacher or group. They contend that mega-

level planning views the society and the clients as the basis for everything the educationsystem uses, does, and delivers. In the macro-level, planning is primarily concerned with

the organization but without any substantial commitment to both client and society. In

micro-level, planning is concerned only with individual or group jobs and tasks.

Miclat (2005) adopted a different perspective in the use of mega, macro, and micro

concepts. His planning reference is the organization like a university and looks on itsrole in a different level of planning environment. The levels of planning environment

vary depending on the highest level of planning environment one adopts. But all three

are used in one planning activity. For example, if society is the highest level of planningenvironment, then mega is used for society, macro for the region and micro for the

province, city or town. In a higher level of planning environment, say the world, the

result would be: mega-global, macro-Philippine society, and micro-region say the Central

Luzon. Lowering from the level of environment, the pairings will be: mega-region,macro-province, and micro-district or town.

If the society as a whole is chosen as the mega level of planning environment, thequestion is: “What is it that society needs that the university will produce and deliver

that gives the greatest payoffs to society?” At the macro level, the question shall be:

“What is it that the university produces or delivers that the region needs?” For the micro



level, the question is: “What does the university needs to produce or deliver what the

province needs?” In this context, a university is viewed as an organization that has a

specific environment. It has to respond to that environment to maintain a dynamic state.

A university is an instrument of the State and of society human resource development interms of producing highly educated professionals and skilled manpower. This manpower

becomes a contributing citizen of society especially in the place where he resides (Ibid.).

Outside-In Planning

If one plans for society as the mega-level of planning environment, then an alternative perspective – an enlarged perspective – is gained. Kaufman and associates (2002) claim

that planning in this way is as if one were looking into the organization from the outside

– from the vantage point of society back into the organization and its results and efforts.

Outside-in planning is proactive. It is a frame of reference that continuously challenges

the status quo while identifying possible scenarios and new opportunities that bring about

positive change and growth to society.

Activity

What similarities and/or differences, if any, did you observe among the 3 educational planning models discussed in this module? Of these planning models, which one would

best answer the need for strategic planning in your school? Explain.

Suggested Time Frame: Two Weeks

maed module 1

Documents