4. How to Plan
4.4. Monitoring
68 J. TAYLOR and A. MIROIV
to produce the deep changes necessary in such societies, especially in terms of building a local civil society and proper standards of education. These few people are forced to play many social roles: professors and university managers, politicians, active members in the NGOs, columnists, etc. The effect can be a lack of possibility to improve professional skills in one precise direction. The syndrome is spread especially at the level of the representatives of the mature generation who consider themselves responsible for the democratic future of their society. The professionalism is imported or exported.
Young people who special&e themselves abroad become a sort of “export merchandise” for external institutions or are used as main local resources for the international organizations in the region.
Figure 9. Proposed institutional structure
Level of Monitoring
Nature of monitoring Person or group Timing
Slrategic Plan To maintain an ongoing awareness of progress on issues of timing. general significance or financial impact.
To receive assurance that objectives and tasks are being implemented.
To ensure that tasks are being implemented in accordance with the plans.
To make adjustments to targets in order to ensure that overall objectives are met as closely as possible.
To review overall institutional finances in line with Strategic Plan
To ensure that projected expenditure is in line with resources available
Governing body. possibly through a Planning <and Resources Committee
Vice-Chancellor/Principal/
Rector Senior managers Head of Planning Vice-Chan~ellor/PrinciI.‘al/
Rector Semor managers Head of Planning
Ifeads of organizationnl units and seticcs
Line managers Responsible individuals Project leaders Finance Department Vice-Chancellor
Monthly
Senior ollicers Budget holder Project leadel
MLXlffdLJ
Line managers
As with the whole planning process, the arrangements for monitoring must in themselves be cost-effective. Thus, external audit, whilst useful in particular cases, might be both
70 J. TAYLOR and A. MlROIu
expensive and time-consuming in practice. It is also important to ensure that the monitoring is rigorous, but not threatening.
It should be a helpful, creative process used constructively to develop new plans or to respond to changing conditions.
Overall responsibility for monitoring must rest with the governing body. However, in practice, it is necessary to develop a structure for monitoring at all levels within the institution.
Again, a key role will be exercised by the main planning and resources committee and by senior managers; at lower levels, monitoring will be undertaken by responsible individuals or line managers.
There may be some overlap between different levels. For example, the Head of Planning needs to have oversight of the whole structure. and the central Finance Department needs oversight of all financial affairs.
Monitoring can become a very detailed process. Whilst such detail may be necessary and helpful for managers, it is also important to retain a strategic overview based on summary information. It is also important not to over-react to different levels of performance. As with other parts of the planning process, analysis of trends over a number of years may be more significant than a single set of data.
Information can be obtained in many different ways:
- written reports or operating statements from the people responsible for implementing a task:
- verbal or written reports from the senior manager responsible for a particular task or area of activity;
- verbal or written reports from the Head of Planning;
- a cycle of meetings with those responsible for particular plans (e.g., Deans or Heads of Departments).
In order to assist with monitoring, it is often helpful to develop a series of key performance indicators, normally including student data, measures of research activity and financial information, which are readily updated and give an immediate impression of progress in implementing the Strategic Plan. Wherever possible, the use of common proformas or templates should be encouraged.
In some cases, it may be necessary to undertake detailed reviews of particular areas of activity, including the assessment of major projects. A good discipline to be developed involves formal evaluations or post-implementation reviews of major projects to highlight lessons learned and to bring forward new ideas.
Again, it is important that the monitoring process is not excessively finance driven. Financial monitoring is an essential function, but the aim of monitoring is to ensure that agreed targets and actions have been achieved. A balanced budget, both at institutional level or at the level of an organizational unit, is not an effective end in itself if targets have not been achieved. Failure to achieve targets whilst achieving financial balance requires further consideration just as much as an activity which is not meeting financial targets.
The monitoring of one activity is intended to highlight progress or the lack of it towards the achievement of targets. In itself, however, this action is not sufficient. An effective monitoring report will propose corrective action or will feed into a future planning exercise.
Chapter 5 Operational Strategies
To underpin the Strategic or Corporate Plan of a University, it is necessary to develop a range of operational strategies. These may be institution-wide based on particular themes or may be based on individual organizational units. Sometimes, a further strategy will be needed to address a specific issue of concern to the institution. Key operational strategies are likely to include:
- teaching and learning - research
- human resources - estates
- intemationalization
- information and information systems