I understand why certain top ranked professors miss out strategic planning of their institutions.
For instance, in the recent conference I attended I saw huge flaws and deficiencies in the the strat plan presented.
Background: presentations: A non university unit brought in large revenues. The various units revenues were not analyzed historically or by segment. The success areas of the school were not analyzed.
The history of the school, that of differentiating or creating uniqueness, what is so umphhh about the school,(the old) and the new direction, of expanding boundaries were not included in the strat plan.
The strat plan mainly consisted of complying with certain standards (more of an opplan.?) The comments made on the q and a were not considered. For an institution priding itself in teaching stratman....
In the vision statement there were mention of professional school populated by professional (work based instructors). This was the bone of contention (the elephant in the room) marriages and divorces and concern of many of the staff who were in the room. The plight of these senior citizens who are bulk of the teaching staff, and who wont do research or follow the academic standards were missed out in the action program
As for addition of entrepreneurs (in the vision statement) while this was added, it was not part of the action program. Is the entrep subject going to be made more widespread.
While this writer is not a stratma professor, he is fully aware and a student of strategic thinking. It is present in the entrep subject as entrepreneurs need to be strategic
As this writer does not have control of what is going to happen to the group, he could not care less.
