Printer Friendly

On the application of analytic hierarchy process in institution-wide strategic planning.

INTRODUCTION

Institution-wide strategic planning (IWSP) is an institution-wide planning process by which a college or university develops its mission/vision, goals, and strategies; determine the necessary priorities, procedures and action plans and make decisions on how its resources can best be allocated in order to achieve the mission/vision.

According to Lerner (1999), strategic planning in organizations originated in the 1950s. It migrated to higher education from the corporate world about 40 years ago (Fain, 2007). Its use in higher education has exploded or become mainstreamed over the last 20 years (Dooris, 2003; Fain, 2007). There is a lot of benefits that colleges and universities can derive from IWSP. Many of these benefits have been highlighted by Fain (2007), Green et al. (1979), Lerner (1999), and Schendel & Hatten (1972).

Strategic planning in a higher institution is a complex process that involves many steps, active participation of the institution's key stakeholders, collection and analyses of quantitative and qualitative data, forecasting, prioritization of issues and plans, planning and allocation of resources and/or budgeting and budget allocations. To produce a good and high-quality strategic plan that will effectively carry an institution to its dreamed future, the performance of all these steps and activities/tasks must be based on the applications of group/management techniques, analytical methods, and quantitative techniques.

The AHP is one of the techniques that have enjoyed very little application in strategic planning, despite the fact that it has garnered enormous popularity and world-wide acclaim as a very powerful and useful planning, decision-making, and problem-solving tool. The AHP can be used effectively for selecting/prioritizing issues, goals, objectives, strategies, and action plans and for allocating resources during any strategic planning process. In literature, apart from research works by Arbel & Orger (2003), Kahraman et al. (2008), Kangas et al. (2001), Liberatore & Nydick(1997), Osuna & Aranda (2007), Saaty (1976), and Yuksel & Dagdeviren (2007), we have not come across any research on the application of AHP in strategic planning. Four of these authors--Kahraman et al. (2008), Kangas et al. (2001), Osuna & Aranda (2007), and Yuksel & Dagdeviren (2007)--focus on the application of AHP for prioritizing the SWOT factors and for evaluating and prioritizing strategic alternatives with respect to the factors during the development of basic strategic plans.

After critically reviewing the AHP and some other methods and techniques like goal programming (GP), multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT), and scoring models that are used for systematic evaluation of alternatives, Liberatore & Nydick (1997) discuss the applicability of AHP for a variety of academic planning and evaluation problems in higher education and demonstrate the applicability via two case studies/examples. One of the cases is on the ranking of research papers for research awards. The other one relates to IWSP.

The other two authors, Abel & Orger (2003) and Saaty & Roggers (1976), apply AHP for addressing special strategic problems. Abel & Orger (2003) present an application of AHP methodology to the evaluation of bank mergers and acquisitions strategy while Saaty & Roggers (1976) apply the AHP to construct a composite and likely future for higher education in the United States during the period 1985 to 2000.

While it is very important to prioritize SWOT factors as have been done by Kahraman et al. (2008), Kangas et al. (2001), Osuna & Aranda (2007, and Yuksel & Dagdeviren (2007), we are of the view that the evaluation and prioritization of the key elements of strategic plans should not be limited to the prioritization of only these factors. For any strategic plan to succeed, the relevance of its strategic objectives/goals, strategies, and action plans to the achievement of the mission or vision must be seriously evaluated. In conventional strategic planning, objectives/goals, strategies and/or action plans are developed for the main purpose of achieving an organization's mission or vision. It is the vision or mission that sets long-time and laudable objectives/goals for an organization and focuses it on the achievement of the goals or objectives. Goals/objectives, strategies, and action plans should be evaluated with respect to their importance in achieving the mission.

Among the research works that we have come across so far on the application of AHP in basic strategic planning, the work by Liberatore & Nydick (1997) is the only research in which the "AHP" is applied to prioritize actions plans via their implicit importance or relevance to objectives and strategies (AHP is put under inverted comma here because, as will be seen in the next section, what the author applied is not the real AHP). Thus, the principal objective of their paper or of their applying the "AHP" is to select and prioritize the action plans an institution must focus on in order to achieve or operationalize its mission. For this, we find their approach very interesting and see it as a novel and useful approach.

Nonetheless, as will be seen in the next section, after a closer look at their approach, we discover a lot of opportunities for making some major and innovative improvements on it in order to make it more applicable and adoptable. The improvement process has the potential of producing a new and very useful framework for the proper applications of AHP in prioritizing the goals, objectives, strategies/action plans of a strategic plan.

Hence, in this research, we will critically review Liberatore and Nydick's approach for applying AHP in IWSP. The review will highlight the inadequacies of their approach. Some of these inadequacies relate to some mistakes and errors that can be committed by ordinary strategic planners and users of AHP. Thus, highlighting the inadequacies will be very useful to strategic planners and AHP users and encourage the application of the powerful technique in strategic planning.

Although their work was published in 1997, it is still the only published work we have ever come across on the application of the AHP, or of something close to the AHP, in prioritizing objectives/goals, strategies, or action plans with respect to their importance in achieving an institution's mission or vision. This makes their research to still be very important and relevant today as it was in 1997. Therefore, a critical review of the approach will be found very useful and relevant by today's strategic planners and users of the AHP.

After critically reviewing their approach and discussing its inadequacies, we will develop a framework for applying the AHP in prioritizing strategic goals/objectives, strategies, and action plans. The development of the framework will be based on extensive modifications, expansions, and extensions of Liberatore and Nydick's approach. Instead of using a single criterion for prioritizing action plans as done in their approach, we will develop and use more than one criterion. An extended version of the institution-wide strategic plan used by Liberatore & Nydick (1997) will be used to illustrate the framework. The formulated objectives in the strategic plan used by the authors for illustrating their approach have the same set of strategies. The objectives in the strategic plan that will be used in our illustrations will have different sets of strategies. In practice, a strategic plan in which all objectives have the same set of strategies is rare to come by.

The fact that our framework will be based on extensive improvements, extensions, and expansions of Liberatore & Nydydick (1997) will make it a very useful and valuable tool for IWSP.

REVIEW OF LIBERATORE AND NYDICK'S APPROACH FOR APPLYING THE AHP IN IWSP

Liberatore and Nydick's approach is developed for any university that may wish to apply AHP to formalize its strategic planning process and reach a consensus on the action plans that will be pursued over a five-year planning horizon. Their approach is based on the MOS (mission-objective-strategy) model. Unfortunately, the process followed by the authors (see Figure 1) in doing this is actually based on the application of the tree diagram not on the AHP. In other words, they believed they were applying the AHP while, in fact, they were actually applying the tree diagram.

In strategic planning, a tree diagram is used to identify the goals to be achieved in order to achieve the mission/vision; the objectives to be achieved in order to achieve the goal; the strategies needed for achieving objectives; and the action plans for achieving strategies. On the other hand, the analytic hierarchy chart (AHC) (i.e. the AHP hierarchy chart) is made up of different levels consisting of goal/objective, criteria, sub-criteria, and alternatives (Saaty, 1980). Their "AHC" does not have a single criterion on it (see Figure 1). The only criterion used in their approach is "importance to the achievement of the mission of the institution" and this criterion does not appear on their "AHC". That is, the criterion is used implicitly. The AHP is a multicriteria decision method. All its criteria, sub-criteria, and attributes are expected to appear on its AHC.

The objectives and strategies presented in levels 2 and 3 respectively are nothing more than what should be achieved at these two levels of any tree diagram in order to achieve or operationalize the mission. Thus, their "AHC" performs exactly the functions of a tree diagram. That is, the functions of identifying the objectives for achieving mission, the strategies for achieving objectives, and the action plans for achieving strategies. This and the fact that there is no single criterion on their "AHC" perfectly make it a tree diagram.

They develop intensities and connect them with strategies. In AHP, intensities are defined for scaling sub-criteria or attributes (See Saaty, 1980, 1986). Looking at their "AHC" (or tree diagram), it is difficult to know that the intensities are defined to scale the implicit criterion, "importance in achieving the mission" used in their approach and not for scaling the strategies. This confusion arises from the fact that the criterion does not appear on their "AHC".

Objectives, strategies, and action plans should not be evaluated and/or prioritized based on only one criterion as done by the authors. In addition to the "importance in achieving the mission" there are many other important criteria that should be used for prioritizing these key strategic elements if a high-quality, realistic, and actionable strategic plan is to be developed.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

After obtaining the total score for each action plan in their example, the authors stated that ranking the action plans in descending order of their total scores is one method for deciding which action plans to pursue. We believe that this is only okay for the case of the strategic plan the authors use in their illustration. As can be seen in Figure 1, their case is a special case in which all objectives have the same strategies. As mentioned earlier, a strategic plan in which all objectives have the same strategy is very rare to come by. Their approach can lead to misleading results when we have a general case in which each objective has its own different set of strategies and the number of strategies in each set varies across objectives. In such a general case, the relative weights of importance of an objective's strategies will not have the same value. Since the action plans support their own separate strategies and each of them is rated under the strategy it supports and since the relative weights of importance of the strategies do not have the same value, the action plans' scores will not be comparable. Therefore, using the scores to rank all of them together, as the authors have done, can lead to very misleading results.

Hence, the prioritization of action plans, as the authors suggest, cannot lead to good selections and prioritizations of objectives and strategies to pursue. If the right objectives or strategies are not selected, the implementation of any set of actions plans, however high their rankings, cannot lead to good accomplishment of the mission. An approach that addresses all the inadequacies and problems highlighted above will be presented in the next section.

THE FRAMEWORK FOR THE APPLICATION OF AHP IN IWSP

In this section, we present our own framework for the application of AHP in IWSP. The framework consists of seven major steps. These are:

i. Development of criteria for evaluating objectives, strategies, and action plans.

ii. Decomposition of the criteria into sub-criteria/lower-level criteria and attributes.

iii. Development of intensities or rating levels for the attributes/lowest-level criteria.

iv. Presentation of a typical institution-wide strategic plan (TIWSP) to be used for illustrating the framework.

v. Presentation of an analytic hierarchy chart (AHC).

vi. Determinations of weights for criteria, sub-criteria, and attributes via pair-wise comparisons.

vii. Development of rating scales and rating of objectives, strategies, and action plans.

The full descriptions of each of these steps are given in the sub-sections that follow below. The typical institution-wide strategic plan will be used in illustrating some of the steps.

Development of Criteria

Unlike Liberatore and Nydick's approach, our framework involves the use of many criteria. Hence, in this section, we develop a list of seven major criteria for evaluating objectives, strategies, and action plans. The criteria are collected from different literature sources, including Doran (1981) and Guskey & Bailey (2010). The criteria are presented and briefly defined as follows:

a. Acceptability:

The objective/strategy/action plan must be acceptable to the institution's stakeholders. It must earn good buy-in from them. They must see it as potentially rewarding to them and to the institution.

b. Achievability/Attainability:

Must have a fair chance of being achieved. The institution must have the capability and the resources for achieving it.

c. Aggressive/Challenging:

Must be aggressive and challenging to catch the aspirations of the people and get the most out of them. It should drive high level of performance. This criterion is necessary to ensure that the achievability/attainability criterion does not bring the objective/strategy/action plan to a level in which it becomes too simple, inadequate, trivial, and therefore not effective in helping the organization to achieve its mission/vision, objective, or strategy.

d. Importance/Relevance:

Must be important or relevant to the achievements of the institution's mission, vision, objectives, or strategies.

e. Measurability:

An institution's strategic objective, strategy, or action plan must be measurable so that its progress and success can be tracked.

f. Specificity:

Strategic goals must be unambiguous and specific so that everyone can understand it and its purpose. It must be clearly stated.

g. Time-based:

A strategic plan must have a clear timeframe of when it should start and when it should end. Without a timeframe, it is impossible to say if the goal, strategy, or action plan is met and when it is met.

The good thing about the set of criteria above and their attributes is that they are not only very suitable for evaluating objectives and strategies, they are also suitable for evaluating action plans.

Decomposition of the Criteria and Development of Rating Levels

Each of the criteria have been listed in the different literature sources from where it is collected without breaking it down into lower-levels of details by decomposing it into subcriteria/attributes that define it more clearly. This is due to the fact that, to the best of our knowledge, the AHP has never been applied in evaluating or prioritizing objectives, strategies, and action plans using these criteria. In fact, we have never come across where they are used to evaluate these key strategic elements using any of the other analytical decision tools or scoring methods.

We have carefully broken down each of the criteria. The criteria and their respective lists of sub-criteria and attributes are respectively presented in columns 1, 2, and 3 of Table 2. The decompositions of most of the criteria do not extend beyond the second or sub-criteria level. For these criteria, their sub-criteria are also their attributes. It is only the decomposition of one criteria, achievability/attainability, that extends beyond the sub-criteria level to the attribute level.

We are using the AHP's absolute measurement method for ranking/prioritizing objectives, strategies, and action plans. We are of the view that the absolute measurement method is a better prioritization tool in IWSP than its alternative--the distributive method. An institution may propose many objectives (up to 10 or more) for the achievements of its mission. After prioritizations, some of these objectives may need to be dropped due to their low priorities. It is only the absolute measurement method that can preserve the ranks of the remaining objectives after one or more objectives are dropped. With the distributive method, the ranks will change after an objective is dropped and this may lead to complete reprioritizations of the remaining objectives. This makes the absolute measurement method the right method to apply here.

In applying the method, we develop intensities for each of the major criterion's attributes/lowest-level criterions. The intensities for each attribute/lowest level criterion are presented in column 5 of Table 2.

A Typical Institution-Wide Strategic Plan (TIWSP)

An illustrative institution-wide strategic plan is presented in Table 3. The plan has four objectives and each objective has its own separate set of strategies, unlike the case of Liberatore & Nydick (1997) where all the objectives have the same set of strategies. Two of the four objectives are the same with two of the three objectives in Liberatore & Nydick (1997). In putting the plan together, we have integrated some of the components of the institution-wide strategic plan in Liberatore & Nydick (1997) with some components from actual strategic plans from some institutions of higher learning. This makes the strategic plan presented in Table 3 a true institution-wide strategic plan.

Development of the Analytic Hierarchy Chart

After developing the criteria and decomposing them into sub-criteria and/or attributes and after developing all the objectives, strategies, and action plans, we develop the AHC using the Web HIPRE AHP software. The chart is presented in Figure 2 below.

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

The hierarchy chart descends from the topmost level (the goal) to the major criteria at the second level and to the sub-criteria at the third level. It continues its descent down to the attributes at the fourth level and to the intensities at the fifth level and, finally, to the objectives (the alternatives, which can also be the strategies or action plans)--which are to be rated--at the lowest (or the sixth) level. Each of the intensities has five levels. Each of the levels is abbreviated for lack of space. The full descriptions of the levels are presented in column 5 of Table 2 alongside their abbreviations. There is a big difference between this AHC chart and the one presented in Laberatore & Nydick (1997) which, as earlier indicated, is actually a tree diagram. Like the intensities, some of the other labels on the chart are abbreviated for lack of space. Each abbreviation is presented in Table 2 alongside the corresponding abbreviated element.

Determination of Criteria/Sub-Criteria/Attributes/Intensities Weights and Weighted Priorities

To determine weights of relative importance for the elements (i.e. the criteria, subcriteria, attributes, and rating levels/intensities), every element at every level of the AHC is compared with every other element in that level with respect to their relative importance to their respective parent element in the next adjacent upper level to obtain pair-wise comparison matrices. Eigenvector solutions are obtained to each of the pair-wise comparison matrices to obtain weights for the criteria, sub-criteria, attributes, and rating levels/intensities. The pair-wise comparison matrix for the main criteria with respect to their importance in the achievement of the mission (or with the mission as a control criterion) is shown in Table 1 below. The pair-wise comparison matrices for the different sets of sub-criteria, attributes, and intensities/rating levels cannot be presented here for lack of space. They are too many.

The relative weight of each of the seven criteria is presented in column 1 of Table 2. The table shows that Achievability and Importance have the highest weight of 0.301 each. These are followed in succession by Acceptability, Time-based, Challenging, Measurability, and Specificity with relative weights of 0.124, 0.1, 0.083, 0.062, and 0.028 respectively.

The relative weights of the sub-criteria, attributes, and intensities can also be seen in the table. Each criterion/attribute/intensity is presented in the table along with its weight.

Weighted priorities are computed for the attributes. Sub-criteria that have no defining attributes are used as attributes. The weighted priority of an attribute is the product of its weight and the weights of all its parent elements. The computed weighted priority for each attribute is presented in column 4 of Table 2.

Development of Rating Scales and Prioritization of Objectives, Strategies, and Action Plans

To develop the rating scales, the relative weight of each intensity in the set of intensities defined for each attribute is normalized. This is done by dividing the relative weight of each intensity in each set of intensity by the maximum of all the relative weights of all intensities in that set of intensities. These normalized weights are the rating scales for each attribute. The rating scales are presented in the last column of Table 2.

Prioritizing objectives

The objectives are prioritized before prioritizing the strategies or action plans. This is because if an objective is dropped because it is judged to be unimportant to an institution's mission, its supporting strategies (except those supporting any other objectives) must also be dropped. This also applies to strategies and their supporting action plans. Therefore, starting the process with the prioritization of objectives (instead of putting all focus on the prioritization of action plans as done by Liberatore & Nydick (1997)), reduces the numbers of the different sets of strategies and action plans that will be prioritized as we move down the process. It will also ensure that a strategy that supports an unimportant objective or an action plan that supports an unimportant strategy is not given a higher priority attention over some other strategies or action plans that support much more important objectives or strategies just because its global priority happens to be higher than those of these other strategies or action plans, unlike in the approach by Liberatore & Nydick (1997).

Each of the objectives is rated on each attribute by identifying the intensity that best describes it on each of the attributes and by assigning the rating corresponding to the intensity to it. Every rating given to each objective on each attribute is then weighted by multiplying it with the weighted priority presented for each attribute in column 4 of Table 2. Finally, all the weighted or global priorities for each objective are added to obtain the total ratio scale score or total global priority for the objective. The objectives are then prioritized according to their total global priorities.

The total global priority for each objective can be seen in column 2 of Table 3. The objectives are presented in the table in the descending order of their total global priorities. The table shows that the Enrolment-Growth objective has the highest total global priority of 0.6726. This is followed in succession by Endowment, Physical/Technological Resources, and Excellence in Research with total global priorities of 0.5990, 0.5495, and 0.48877 respectively. From the values of their total global priorities, none of the objectives can be dropped for lack of relevance or importance to the mission.

Prioritizing the strategies for achieving each objectives

After prioritizing the objectives, the strategies are next prioritized. Ideally, before prioritizing the strategies for each objective, a new AHC has to be constructed with respect to each objective, with each objective at the topmost level of its associated AHC and its strategies placed at the lowest level of the chart. New pair-wise comparisons should then be performed for the major criteria with each objective as a control criterion. This should be followed by the determination of relative weight of importance for the criteria, with respect to each objective, via Eigenvector solutions to the resulting pair-wise comparison matrices. New relative weights need not be determined for sub-criteria, attributes, and intensities as their control criteria or immediate parents remain the same. New rating scales need not also be determined for the attributes. Weighted priority should be computed for each attribute by multiplying its relative weight with the relative weights of its parent sub-criteria and criteria.

Following the same process described in the previous sub-section for rating and determining total global priorities for objectives, the strategies for each of the objectives are rated and their total global priorities determined. The total global priority for each of the strategies in achieving each objective is presented in column 4 of Table 3. As can be seen in the table, the total global priority for each strategy is relatively high. Therefore, each of them is important for the achievement of the objective it supports.

We would like to remark that to rate the strategies, new relative weights of importance may need not be determined for the major criteria if the strategic planners feel that the importance of each major criterion to each of the objectives is not different from its importance to the mission. This may be the case in many situations.

Prioritizing the action plans for operationalizing each strategy

The prioritizations of action plans come after the prioritizations of strategies. The process described above for the prioritization of strategies is applied for prioritizing the action plans. In applying the process, objectives are replaced with strategies while strategies are replaced with action plans.

The results of the prioritizations are presented in columns 5 and 6 of Table 3. The action plans for each strategy are listed in descending order of their local priorities in column 5 while the total global priorities for the action plans are presented in column 6.

The total global priorities for most of the action plans are relatively high. Thus, most of them are very important for achieving the strategies for which they are developed. They can therefore be prioritized according to their total global priorities during their implementations. However, the total global priorities for the last two action plans for the Curriculum strategy and the last action plan for the Conducive and Stimulating Intellectual Atmosphere strategy are relatively small. These are the action plans that may enjoy less priorities or attention during the implementations of their respective strategies if resources are limited.

SUMMARIES AND CONCLUSIONS

We have critically reviewed the work by Liberatore & Nydick (1997) on the application of AHP in IWSP highlighting all its inadequacies. A new framework for applying the AHP in IWSP and that addresses all the shortcomings of Liberatore and Nydick's approach has been developed. The framework involves the use of seven major criteria and several subcriteria/attributes. It is illustrated with a typical institution-wide strategic plan.

One of our major contributions in this research is that some common mistakes or errors that can be committed by ordinary strategic planners and users of AHP has been well-highlighted through the critical review of Liberatore and Nydick's work. This can be very helpful and useful to strategic planners and users of AHP. Another major contribution is the development of a framework for applying AHP in IWSP. This is an innovative framework that will be found very useful by strategic planners and encourage the applications of AHP in IWSP. We have never come across any other framework or procedure for the application of the real or standard AHP in IWSP. The tool applied in Liberatore & Nydik (1997) is essentially a tree diagram, not the real AHP.

The framework will enhance strategic planners' abilities (particularly those in educational institutions) to develop very good and high-quality strategic plans and to properly and effectively prioritize their strategic objectives, strategies, and action plans. It will enjoy useful adoptions and applications by institutional strategic planners.

APPENDIX
Table 2: Criteria, Sub-Criteria, Attributes,
Intensities and Their Weights and Rating Scales

 Weighted
 Sub-criteria Attributes(A) priority for
Criteria and weights and weights attributes

Acceptability. a. Supported by -- 0.0992
(0.124) key stakeholders
 (STH SPPT).
 (0.8)

 b. Appealing to -- 0.0248
 employees (AP).
 (0.2)

Achievability/ a. Type of i. Manpower 0 0274
Attainability. resources needed to
(0.301) required achieve
 (RQ). (0.727) mission.
 (0.125).

 ii. Material 0 0274
 & Financial
 resources
 needed.
 (0.125).

 iii. The 0.16412
 amount of
 time needed.
 (0.750).

 b. Amount of work -- 0.0220
 required (RQ) to
 achieve mission.
 (0.073)

 c. The difficulty -- 0.0682

 (D) of the work/
 tasks involved.
 (0.200)

Aggressive/ a. Level of -- 0.0498
Challenging. skills knowledge,
(0.083) experience (SEN)
 needed. (0.600)

 b. The level of -- 0.0249
 excitement it
 brings. (0.30).

 c. How stretching -- 0.0083
 (0.10).

Importance. a. Importance -- 0.2008
(0.301) (Imp) to the
 mission. (0.667).

 b. Importance to -- 0.1002
 the stakeholders
 (STHFA Imp).
 (0.333).

Measurability a. Clarity of -- 0.0138
(0.062) desired outcome
 (ODO). (0.222).

 b. Clarity of the -- 0.0069
 means of measuring
 progress (MOMP).
 (0.111).

 c. Measurability -- 0.0414
 of successful
 completion (SC).
 (0.667).

Specificity. a. Clarity of what -- 0.0158
(0.028) to be accomplished
 (WTA). (0.565).

 b. Clarity of how -- 0.0122
 much to be
 accomplished(HMT
 A). (0.435).

Time based a. Clarity of the -- 0.0455
(0.10) timeframe for
 start and
 completion of
 works (TSCW) on
 mission. (0.455).

 b. Suitability of -- 0.0545
 deadline for
 achieving mission
 (DAM). (0.545).

 Sub-criteria Rating
Criteria and weights Intensities and weights scales

Acceptability. a. Supported by Very highly supported 1.0
(0.124) key stakeholders (VA). (0.491)
 (STH SPPT). Highly supported (HA). 0.5723
 (0.8) (0.281)
 Supported (S). (0.121) 0.2464
 Slightly supported (SS). 0.1344
 (0.066)
 Not supported (N). 0.0815
 (0.040)

 b. Appealing to Very highly appealing 1.0
 employees (AP). (VA). (0.492)
 (0.2) Highly appealing (HA). 0.6037
 [(0.297)
 Appealing (A). (0.109) 0.2215
 Slightly appealing (SA). 0.1341
 (0.063)
 Not appealing (N). (0.039) 0.0813

Achievability/ a. Type of Non-skilled (N). (0.484) 1.0
Attainability. resources Less skilled (LS). (0.269) 0.5558
(0.301) required Skilled and experienced 0.3037
 (RQ). (0.727) (SE). (0.147)
 Highly skilled with little 0.1281
 availability (HS). (0.062)
 Very highly skilled and 0.0785
 scarce (V). (0.038)

 Needs very little or no 1.0
 money (L). (0.524)
 Needs fairly small amount 0.4351
 of money (FS). (0.228)
 Needs big amount of money 0.2481
 (B). (0.130)
 Needs very big amount of 0.14313
 money (VB). (0.075)
 Needs excessively big 0.08397
 amount of money (EB).
 (0.044)

 Negligibly or very small 1.0
 time (MS). (0.491)
 Small amount of time (S). 0.5397
 (0.265)
 Big amount of time (B). 0.2770
 (0.136)
 Very big time (VB). 0.1385
 (0.068)
 Excessively big amount of 0.0815
 time (EB). (0.040)

 b. Amount of work Very small amount of work 1.0
 required (RQ) to (VS). (0.459)
 achieve mission. Small amount of work (S). 0.6100
 (0.073) (0.280)
 Big amount of work (BA). 0.3050
 (0.140)
 Very big amount of work 0.1830
 (VB). (0.084)
 Extremely big amount of 0.0806
 work (E). (0.037)

 c. The difficulty Very simple (VS). (0.444) 1.0
 (D) of the work/ Simple (S). (0.297) 0.6689
 tasks involved. Difficult (D). (0.153) 0.3446
 (0.200) Very difficult (VD). 0.1577
 (0.070)
 Extremely difficult (ED). 0.0811
 (0.036)

Aggressive/ a. Level of Extremely great amount of 0.1190
Challenging. skills knowledge, skill knowledge, and
(0.083) experience (SEN) experience (EG). (0.057)
 needed. (0.600) Very great amount of 0.5532
 skills, knowledge, and
 experience (VG). (0.0265)
 Good amount of skills, 1.0
 knowledge, and experience
 (G). (0.479)
 Little skill, knowledge, 0.3111
 and experience (L).
 (0.149)
 No skill, knowledge, and 0.1044
 experience (VL). (0.050)

 b. The level of Extremely great excitement 1.0
 excitement it (EG). (0.499)
 brings. (0.30). Very great excitement 0.5571
 (VG). (0.278)
 Good level of excitement 0.2405
 (G). (0.120)
 Little excitement (L). 0.1283
 (0.064)
 Very little or no 0.0802
 excitement (VL). (0.040)

 c. How stretching Extremely very stretching 0.1060
 (0.10). (ES). (0.062)
 Very stretching (VS). 0.1641
 (0.096)
 Stretching (S). (0.585) 1.0
 slightly stretching (SS). 0.3077
 (0.180)
 Not stretching (N). 0.1316
 (0.077)

Importance. a. Importance Extremely important 1.0
(0.301) (Imp) to the (EI). (0.432)
 mission. (0.667). Very important (VI). 0.9213
 (0.398)
 Important (I). (0.086) 0.1991
 Slightly important (SI). 0.09954
 (0.043)
 Not important (N). (0.040) 0.0926

 b. Importance to Feel is extremely 1.0
 the stakeholders important (EI). (0.452)
 (STHFA Imp). Feel is very important 0.6327
 (0.333). (VI) . (0.286)
 Feel is important (I). 0.3628
 (0.164)
 Feel that the goal is not 0.1372
 so important. (0.062)
 Do not feel is important 0.0819
 (N). (0.037)

Measurability a. Clarity of Extremely clear (EC). 1.0
(0.062) desired outcome (0.497)
 (ODO). (0.222). Very comprehensible or 0.4748
 clear (VC). (0.236)
 Comprehensible or clear 0.2857
 (C). (0.142)
 Fairly comprehensible or 0.1610
 clear (FC). (0.080)
 Not comprehensible or 0.0905
 clear (N). (0.045)

 b. Clarity of the Extremely comprehensible 1.0
 means of measuring (EC). (0.467)
 progress (MOMP). Very comprehensible (VC). 0.6261
 (0.111). (0.288)
 Comprehensible (C). 0.2978
 (0.137)
 Fairly comprehensible 0.152
 (FC). (0.070)
 Not comprehensible (N). 0.0848
 (0.039)

 c. Measurability Extremely measurable (EM). 1.0
 of successful (0.446)
 completion (SC). Very measurable (V). 0.6548
 (0.667). (0.292)
 Measurable (M). (0.154) 0.3453
 Fairly measurable (FM). 0.1570
 (0.070)
 Not measurable (N). 0.0853
 (0.038)

Specificity. a. Clarity of what Extremely comprehensible 1.0
(0.028) to be accomplished (EC). (0.406)
 (WTA). (0.565). Very comprehensible (VC). 0.6281
 (0.255)
 Comprehensible (C). 0.6133
 (0.249)
 Fairly comprehensible 0.1429
 (FC). (0.058)
 Not comprehensible (N). 0.0813
 (0.033)

 b. Clarity of how Extremely comprehensible 1.0
 much to be (EC). (0.414)
 accomplished(HMT Very comprehensible (VC). 0.6208
 A). (0.435). (0.257)
 Comprehensible [c]. 0.5797
 (0.240)
 Fairly comprehensible 0.1304
 (FC). (0.054)
 Not comprehensible (N). 0.0821
 (0.034)

Time based a. Clarity of the Extremely clear (EC). 1.0
(0.10) timeframe for (0.469)
 start and Very clear (VC). (0.293) 0.6197
 completion of Clear [c]. (0.129) 0.2778
 works (TSCW) on Fairly clear (FC). (0.072) 0.1496
 mission. (0.455). Not clear (N). (0.037) 0.0876

 b. Suitability of Extremely appropriate 1.0
 deadline for (EC). (0.449)
 achieving mission Very appropriate (VA). 0.6247
 (DAM). (0.545). (0.291)
 Appropriate (A). (0.162) 0.2751
 Fairly appropriate (FA). 0.1535
 (0.061)
 Not appropriate (N). 0.0789
 (0.036)

Table 3. Objectives, strategies, and action plans
in the TIWSP and their total global priorities

 Total Total
 global global
Objective priority Strategies priority

1. Enrollment 0.6726 1. Recruitment 0.6933
growth:
Increase full- 2. Placement 0.5947
time student
enrolment by 3. Curriculum 0.5581
3% per year
for the next 4. Faculty 0.5334
five years

2. Endowment: 0.5990 Endowment plan 0.6143
Increase
endowment by
$500m over
five years.

3. Physical/ 0.5495 Technologies 0.6763
Technological
resources: 2. Facilities 0.5497
Development
technologies
and facilities
to become one
of the top 10
well-equiped
and
technologically
resourced
institutions
in the nation.

4. Excellence 0.48877 High-quality 0.6143
in Research: faculty
ecome one of
the top 10 Conducive and 0.5840
research stimulating
universities intellectual
in the nation atmosphere
 Total
 global
Objective Strategies Action plans priority priorities

1. Enrollment 1. Recruitment 1. Increase visits to U.S. 0.718
growth: high schools by 20%.
Increase full-
time student 2. Increase the number and 0.593
enrolment by scope of on campus
3% per year recruiting programs.
for the next
five years 3. Visit selected 0.539
 international high schools
 in Latin America.

 2. Placement 1. Increase number of 0.747
 on-campus recruiter by 15%

 2. Increase number of 0.658
 student placement to 90%
 within months of
 graduation

 3. Increase placement in 0.615
 the medical/law schools by
 10%

 3. Curriculum 1. Develop a five-year 0.576
 accounting programme

 2. Create a joint degree 0.442
 programme with foreign
 university placement

 3. Develop a core 0.427
 humanities curriculum

 4. Create a joint degree 0.343
 program with a foreign
 university placement.

 4. Faculty 1. Implement a formal 0.669
 faculty development
 program.

 2. Implement a mentoring 0.589
 program for new faculty.

 3. Establish a series of 0.485
 workshops to help improve
 teaching effectiveness.

2. Endowment: Endowment plan 1.Set up an endowment 0.758
Increase committee.
endowment by
$500m over 2. Develop an endowment 0.750
five years. plan.

 3. Take endowment campaign 0.653
 to alumni, businesses
 organizations,
 philanthropists

3. Physical/ Technologies 1. Equip computer labs 0.680
Technological with the state-of-the-art
resources: computer facilities
Development
technologies 2. Upgrade audio visual 0.6799
and facilities aids/facilities for class
to become one and long distance
of the top 10 instructions
well-equiped
and 3. Increase number of 0.645
technologically computer labs
resourced
institutions 4. Acquire modern 0.628
in the nation. telecommunication
 technologies/equipments.

 5. Build multi-media 0.525
 instructional center

 2. Facilities 1. Build apartment-style 0.594
 housing for students.

 2. Build a 0.579
 state-of-the-art student
 centre.

 3. Construct a new 0.516
 convocation centre

4. Excellence High-quality 1. Recruit and retain 0.642
in Research: faculty high-quality faculty with
ecome one of demonstrated and
the top 10 exceptional research
research skills
universities
in the nation Conducive and 1. Develop merit pay 0.692
 stimulating awards for significant
 intellectual accomplishments in
 atmosphere research and publications

 2. Provide all necessary 0.639
 supports, facilities,
 0.5840 and equipment for
 scholarly research

 3. Establish chairs of 0.427
 excellence to be filled by
 faculties with exceptional
 research and publication
 accomplishments


REFERENCES

Arbel, A. & Y.E. Orgler (1990). An application of AHP to bank strategic planning: The mergers and acquisitions process. European Journal of Operations Research, 48(1), 27-37.

Doran, G. T. (1981). There is a S.M.A.R.T. way to write management's goals and objectives. Management Review, 70(11), 35-36.

Dooris, Michael J. (2003). Two decades of strategic planning. Planning for Higher Education, 31(2), 26-32.

Fain, Paul (2007). The vision for excellence. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 54(6), A26 -A27.

Green, J.L., D. Nayyar & R. Ruch (1979). Strategic planning and budgeting for higher education (First Edition). La Jolla, California: J.L. Green & Associates.

Guskey, T.R. & J.M. Bailey (2010). Developing standards-based report cards. Thousands Oaks, CA 91320, USA: Corwin Press.

Kahraman, G., N.C. Demirel, T. Demirel & Y.N. Ates (2008). A SWOT-AHP application using fuzzy concept: E-Government in Turkey. In Gengiz Kahraman (Eds), Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision Making : Theory and Applications with Recent Developments (pp. 85-117). US: Springer.

Kangas, J., M. Pesomen, M. Kurtila & M. Kajanus (2001). "A'WOT: Integrating AHP with SWOT analysis. Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 189-198.

Lerner, A.L. (1999). A strategic planning primer for higher education. Retrieved January 4, 2011 from http://www.des.calstate.edu/strategic.html

Liberatore, M.J. & R.L. Nydick (1997). Group decision making in higher education using the analytic hierarch process. Research in Higher Education, 38(5), 593-614.

Osuna, E. E. & A. Aranda. (2007). Combining SWOT and AHP techniques for strategic planning. Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy Process.

Saaty, T.L. (1986). Absolute and relative measurement with the AHP: The most livable cities in the United States. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 20(6), 327-331.

Saaty, T.L. (1980). Multicriteria decision making: The analytic hierarchy process (First Edition). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Saaty, Thomas L. & P.C. Rogers (1976). Higher education in the United States (1985-2000): Scenario construction using a hierarchical framework with Eigenvector weighting. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 10, 251-263.

Schendel, D.E. & K.J. Hatten (1972). Strategic planning and higher education: Some concepts, problems, and opportunities. Reprint No. 442, Institute for Research in the Behavioral, Economic, and Management Sciences, Purdue University, Indiana, U.S.A.

Yuksel, I. & M. Dagdeviren (2007). Using the analytic network process in a SWOT analysis--A case study of a textile firm. Information Sciences: An International Journal, 177(16), 3364-3382.

Joel K. Jolayemi, Tennessee State University
Table 1: Pair-wise Comparison Matrix for the Main Criteria

 Mission Acceptability Achievability Challenging

Acceptability 1.0 0.33 2.0
Achievability 3.0 1.0 3.0
Challenging 0.5 0.33 1.0
Importance 3.0 1.0 3.0
Measurability 0.5 0.17 1.0
Specificity 0.17 0.11 0.33
Time-based 1.0 0.33 1.0

 Mission Importance Measurability Specificity Time-based

Acceptability 0.33 2.0 6.0 1.0
Achievability 1.0 6.0 9.0 3.0
Challenging 0.33 1.0 3.0 1.0
Importance 1.0 6.0 9.0 3.0
Measurability 0.17 1.0 3.0 0.5
Specificity 0.11 0.33 1.0 0.33
Time-based 0.33 2.0 3.0 1.0
COPYRIGHT 2012 The DreamCatchers Group, LLC
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2012 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Jolayemi, Joel K.
Publication:Academy of Strategic Management Journal
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Apr 1, 2012
Words:6890
Previous Article:Regulated change effects on boards of directors: a look at agency theory and resource dependency theory.
Next Article:Mentorship interactions in the aviation or aerospace industries.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters