When the time comes to update, renew or re-conceptualize an institutions strategic plan one of the first tasks is mission review. For too many this is just wordsmithing and arguing about its length. Mission review is a very important opportunity to reflect on the institution, the global learning domain, the profound shift to digital learning environments and the strategy to be used to position the future of the institution among global learning providers.
(this article is in development)
The SRS Pyramid
A Method for Reviewing and Renewing Mission and Vision and to Develop Institutional Strategy
Developing strategy is a delicate and reflective process, six interactive framing concepts help to shape all strategy. The SRS Pyramid is designed to provide a reference point for the discussion of the six concepts. We typically begin in the lower right of the diagram with sphere and work clockwise around the outside of the pyramid. You can begin anywhere and work either clockwise or counter clockwise, after one round the importance of sphere as the begin point emerges.
The Sphere of an entity is defined by its geographic reach, competitive and collaborative organizations, subjects, disciplines, and communities of practice influenced by; and whose influence is exerted on the strategic entity. Each strategic entity is defined by its mission within a sphere that defines its role (purpose and function) within the sphere. Environmental scanning and analysis (often referred to as a SWOT Analysis for Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) inform and evaluate changes within the sphere and how they impact mission and role. Environmental scanning without an analysis is a waste of time.
Once the Sphere, Mission, Role conditions and interaction are understood strategists, planners and constituents invest in the creative process of determining a vision of the future in which strengths are sustained or enhanced, weaknesses are addressed, opportunities are capitalized on and threats are mitigated. Strategies are then developed to enable the entity to realize its vision. When implemented the strategies modify and sustain the entities strategic position in its sphere of influence.
At the center of the pyramid lies the concept of institutional capacity. Institutional capacity refers to the ability of the institution to engage in a strategy requiring such elements as intellectual assets, process proficiency, systems capability, knowledge pools, skill profiles, physical capacity or legacy position in the market. The capacity of an institution defines its potential. Optimizing existing, building new or developing emerging capacity is one of the most important focal points of strategy development and implementation.
An example is offered to help contextualize and clarify these terms and how they are used. The strategy of preeminence (creating an institutional culture and reputation characterized and acknowledged as being among the best of its type available in the market) is one often bandied about. Clarity requires that the sphere of influence in which an organization means the term, must be defined.
For example, an institution may declare a strategy of being: preeminent among research I institutions, preeminent in health science education, preeminent in art and design, or preeminent in any of a number of specific spheres or domains. Further detail must fill in the capacity dimensions of how this will be achieved for example, facilities will mirror the best available, faculty will be among the leading scholars; placement will be students choice among positions available globally. Tactics would then determine how facilities would become among the best available. This might begin with modify the campus master plan to define state-of-the-art specifications for particular target areas of preeminence. Goals would establish milestones over a 1-5 year (perhaps longer) horizon. Annual work would be broken into specific objectives and assigned to individual and team work plans.