Chapter 22 focuses on building a strategic planning process that’s inclusive, resilient, and genuinely capable of preparing an institution for change—without triggering the immune response that so often kills good ideas. Because strategic planning is inherently political (it allocates real resources and reshapes priorities), the chapter takes seriously the principle that “a change imposed is a change opposed.” Readers learn how to plan for the planning itself: putting the right systems in place for input gathering, designing a committee structure with clear charges that empowers participation and responsible risk-taking, and outlining how the final plan will be written, assessed, and approved. The chapter also emphasizes accountability—developing tools to evaluate both the quality of the planning process and how effectively its goals were achieved. Finally, it shows how to prepare fertile ground for change through targeted fund allocations and stakeholder education, so when the plan is ready to move, the institution is ready to move with it.

• Develop a plan that prepares the institution for the strategic planning process.
• Develop tools to assess the planning process and how effectively its goals were achieved.
• Establish a committee structure and sets of charges to empower the strategic planning process and support risk taking.
• Develop a plan for how the strategic plan will be written, assessed, and approved.
• Create fertile ground for change through fund allocations, and a stakeholder education program.

Chapter 23 focuses on building a strategic plan that isn’t just inspirational on paper, but operationally integrated and built to drive beneficial change. It walks readers through gathering stakeholder input using both traditional methods and newer approaches like crowdsourcing, then translating that input into goals and objectives informed by a smarter use of SWOT analysis. The chapter also blends forward design (starting with where you want to go) and backward design (working back from desired outcomes) to create a plan that is coherent, measurable, and actionable—supported by tools in the Sentient Knowledge Map (SKM) for authoring a highly structured plan that connects priorities to operations. Along the way, it clarifies the difference between mission and vision, explores where “big ideas” for vision can come from, highlights the critical role senior leaders play in planning, and explains how incorporating the Sentient Initiative can strengthen strategy by improving institutional clarity, alignment, and execution.

• Use traditional as well as innovative mechanisms, such as crowdsourcing, to gather stakeholder input.
• List a variety of sources of potential goals and objectives for a strategic plan.
• Design an approach that leverages SWOT analysis so that it aids with goal/objective formulation.
• Use a blend of forward and backward design approaches to help develop a strategic plan.
• Use the tools provided within the Sentient Knowledge Map (SKM) to author a highly structured and operationally integrated strategic plan.
• Differentiate between an institution’s mission and vision statements.
• List sources of potential big ideas for a vision statement.
• Discuss the role of senior leaders in the planning process.
• Explain how an institution might benefit from including the Sentient Initiative in their strategic plan.

Chapter 24 is about turning the strategic plan from a ceremonial document into the institution’s day-to-day operating system—efficiently driving evolution instead of gathering dust in a file cabinet. It shows how to implement a layered, dependency-based planning structure where the institutional strategic plan cascades into nested divisional, office, and departmental strategic and tactical plans that support one another and translate broad goals into operational reality. Readers learn how to push strategic change all the way to individual faculty and staff work, using a centralized project-management approach that coordinates efforts across functional areas, phases tasks for committees and individuals, and enables regular, evidence-based progress discussions with task owners. The chapter also introduces the idea of a single Accountability Management System that aligns strategic planning, learning assessment, and self-study—so priorities, measures, and reporting reinforce each other instead of competing. Finally, it emphasizes governance: a committee structure responsible for ongoing stakeholder engagement, tactical planning, monitoring execution, translating objectives into employee performance expectations, and continuously updating the plan as conditions change and goals succeed (or fail).

• Implement a layered dependency approach from the institutional strategic plan down to individual offices, with multiple strategic and tactical plans nested beneath and serving one another.
• Drive strategic change to the individual faculty and staff member level.
• Create a centralized project management approach that integrates multiple functional area strategic plans into a single cohesive hierarchical approach that enables:
  • Clear and regular assessment of progress on goals, and productive discussions with task managers.
  • Phased planning of tasks and assignments for committees and individuals.
  • Coordination of effort across divisions and functional areas.
• Implement a single Accountability Management System across strategic planning, learning assessment, and the self-study process.
• Create a committee structure with responsibility for monitoring the plan execution, leading tactical planning including ongoing stakeholder engagement and input gathering, driving tactical objectives down to employee performance expectations, and reporting on implementation progress.