Strategic Governance 95
The support of the total strategy process by adequate staffing, some of which
should be provided by individuals well schooled in the discipline of planning,
is also essential. The SPC or its subgroups may want to conduct interviews, do
surveys, or hold opens meetings and roundtables, and staff support will be essential
in organizing these. There is always a heavy amount of staff work involved in coor-
dinating the work of subcommittees and task forces with one another, and with
the SPC as the steering committee. Successful strategy programs rest on the pillar
of effective staff work. A strategy process is a good context in which to give greater
visibility and influence to the work of planning officers, not just as staff specialists
in planning, but as strategic leaders. There is good reason to make strategy and
planning one of the formal responsibilities of a vice president or director who has
the influence and skills to carry out its demanding duties effectively.
More important than any of these suggestions is the commitment of the leaders
of the SPC to focus systematically on the preliminary effort to create a productive
process that is consistent with the ways in which their institution does its best
work. The process itself should be more satisfying than frustrating, and member-
ship on the SPC should be viewed as a prestigious and welcome assignment.
USING STRATEGIC INDICATORS: THE METRICS OF IDENTITY,
PERFORMANCE, AND ASPIRATION
Another prerequisite for strategy to be productive is a set of data to serve as
the institution’s key strategic indicators. Although by no means developed simply
to aid the SPC, it becomes a basic and invaluable tool in the deliberations and
work of the group. At this date, most institutions have created data profiles that
they regularly publish in fact books or issue on Web sites. If they do not, they
should. Transparency concerning important information builds credibility for the
strategy process and fosters a shared understanding of the institution’s relative
position. Since the requirements of accreditation include institutional research
and assessment, accessible collections of quantifiable information have become a
norm of good practice. Their use in deliberations concerning strategy is essential
and can be potentially decisive in defining an institution’s identity and charting
its future.
More often than not, however, the data that institutions collect are not
presented in ways that are strategically useful. Information is frequently provided
in lists or sets of numbers that have no clear strategic significance. The goal of the
data should be to convey the meaning of the organization’s evolving position in
the world, not to overwhelm the reader with operational details (Morrill 2000).
Metrics of Identity
If carefully chosen and properly defined, a consistent set of strategic indicators
displays an institution’s distinctive capacities and characteristics in relation to
its context. As Collins (2001, 2005) reminds us, great institutions develop metrics