Strategic Planning in Ireland’s Institutes of Technology

This article focuses upon Ireland’s institute of technology sector, which has been transformed from a 1970s technical orientation to its broader current role of research and higher education provision. The transformational shifts experienced by institutes over the previous three decades have been profound: increased autonomy, new managerial and organisational paradigms, and demands for greater transparency, accountability and responsiveness. The legislative requirement on these institutes to publish 5-year strategic plans is seen by Ireland’s higher education policy makers as a critical planning and coordinating mechanism; yet little empirical work exists on the degree of alignment engendered by strategic planning among academics and manager-academics. Through an exploration of the experiences of these stakeholders in four institutes, this research reveals a dilemma for Ireland’s higher education policy makers; how can the practice of strategic planning become mainstreamed in the unique workplace that is higher education.


Introduction
This article investigates whether strategic planning processes adopted across a sample of four institutes of technology create alignment among academics and manager-academics. The historical context against which the narrative of strategic planning has been introduced in Ireland's institutes of technology is also considered, tracing their evolution from providers of essentially technical education within a well-established binary system to one of mass higher education, and their adoption of neo-liberal and new managerial philosophical approaches. Recent higher education developments, notably the Hunt Report (see Department of Education and Skills (DES), 2011) and policy pronouncements from Ireland's newly elected rainbow administration, although subsequent to the research window of this empirical work, are also considered.
To date, direct engagement with participants in academic strategic planning practices has been limited, with a dearth of Republic of Ireland-based empirical work. This article addresses this research deficit and the research instrument used; semi-structured focus group interviews access the lived experiences of respondents through a hermeneutic phenomenological lens. Selected narratives are provided from this empirical work, outlining participants' recounted experiences of their respective institute's strategic planning processes. What emerges, in the rich language of the respondents, is a myriad of experiences evoking an image not just of higher education in transition, but initial evidence that the philosophy of strategic planning has not yet transitioned seamlessly into Ireland's institute of technology sector.
Significantly, since conducting this research Ireland's economy has experienced a much publicised economic fallout, requiring a European Union and International Monetary Fund bailout to prevent the collapse of the banking system and to address significant budgetary deficits. Ireland's higher education institutions, almost exclusively publically financed, inevitably face future austerity measures: operating budget cuts will again amount to 6% for 2011, and an employment moratorium, although recently relaxed, ensures recruitment is robustly monitored. Institutional budgets, already reduced, can also be subject to further reductions during any particular year, with h24 million of additional cuts being imposed during 2009. Paradoxically, however, Ireland's higher education institutions, still face increasing enrolments, swollen by unemployment, with increasing governmental pressure to continue to act as catalysts for research, innovation and commercialisation. As Hazelkorn (quoted by Labi, 2010) caustically described these competing demands thus: 'an interesting example of what not to do if you are planning for a smart economy'.

Ireland's Institute of Technology Sector
Ireland's institute of technology sector was established in 1969 (when colleges were referred to as Regional Technical Colleges) following the publication of the Mulcahy Report (DES, 1967), and their primary mission was education for trade and industry. Since then the economic and legislative environment governing these institutes has changed radically (e.g., Vocational Education Act (DES, 1930), Regional Technical Colleges Act (DES, 1992a), Qualifications (Education and Training) Act (DES, 1999), Institutes of Technology Act (DES, 2006)). Before the Regional Technical Colleges Act 1992, the colleges had limited autonomy, but the 1992 Act expanded their mission, permitting them for the first time to engage in research and participate in collaborative technology had delegated authority to grant doctoral awards, primarily in the disciplines of science and engineering. Bartlett (2007) notes that HETAC's criteria, in awarding delegated authority, prioritises the strategic planning capacities of applicants in assessing the ability of an institute to manage their affairs to an appropriate standard. This emphasis on strategic planning is also reaffirmed in the Programme for Research in Third Level Institutes (1998), a competitive research funding mechanism, established to project Ireland as a premier location for conducting world class research and development. To date, this programme has awarded over h1 billion to universities and institutes of technology, with successful applicants demonstrating a strategic approach to the long-term development of their research capabilities. Applications, evaluated by a panel of international peers, are assessed under the following criteria: strategic planning and focus, inter-institutional collaboration, research quality and the impact of research on teaching and learning. Subsequent legislation, principally the Institutes of Technology Act 2006, Section 21 (c) (1), also accentuates the importance of strategic planning: A Governing Body y shall require the Director to prepare a plan (in this Act referred to as Strategic Development Plan) that shall set the aims of the Governing Body for the operation and development of the college and its strategy for achieving those aims.
Strategic planning is also emphasised through the provisions of the Qualifications (Education and Training) Act 1999, Section 28(4), which outlines the objectives of institutional reviews (undertaken in 5-year cycles) to contribute to coherent strategic planning and governance. The OECD Review of Higher Education in Ireland (OECD, 2004) lauded Ireland's success in increasing participation rates, and its growing recognition of the importance of research to sustainable economic growth. It also highlighted that Ireland's tertiary education system is at 'a significant point of departure' (OECD, 2004, 18), encouraging higher education institutions to continually evaluate the direction and relevance of their respective missions and strategy. Marginson (2008) highlighted the risks facing institutes of technology through poor international name recognition. While accepting the need to continue with differentiated missions between the university and institute of technology sectors, Marginson (op cit) proposed the establishment of a National Technological University of Ireland brand, effectively re-labelling institutes of technology as technological universities, centrally managed yet independent. The Hunt Report (DES, 2011), a strategic review of higher education in Ireland to 2030, proposes changes to its operational framework, particularly the institute of technology sector. Acknowledging the benefits of a binary higher education system, the Hunt Report emphasises the necessity of institutional Larry Elwood and Al Rainnie Strategic Planning in Ireland's Institutes of Technology   110 scale, strength and capacity in meeting individual, societal and enterprise needs, with a broader base of funding sources. Concurring with Marginson (2008), the report recommends developing Ireland's higher education system along a regional cluster model, incorporating universities and institutes of technology, where the latter are consolidated into bigger, and consequently fewer, institutes, free to apply for re-designation as technological universities. Already, four Dublin-based institutes of technology (Dublin Institute of Technology, Dun Laoghaire Institute of Art, Design and Technology, Tallaght Institute of Technology and Blanchardstown Institute of Technology) have announced initial discussions with a view to coming together to form Ireland's first technological university (Walshe, 2011).
Viewed through the lens of this research, the Hunt Report projects a broader strategic dialogue between higher education institutes and national agencies, an alignment of institutional priorities and national priorities, and a heightened emphasis on performance evaluation at system and institutional levels. Ireland's new administration, elected in February 2011, outlined their 5-year plan in the 'Programme for Government 2011-2016: Towards Recovery', reiterating the funding and consolidation priorities of the Hunt Report, particularly a radical reform of third level institutes to encourage greater specialisation and a nation-wide audit of honours degrees to avoid duplication. Ireland's radically altered economic situation, which is unlikely to improve over the medium term, will unquestionably further alter the higher education landscape, with accountability and transparency measures, such as strategic planning, assigned even greater importance in this new discourse. Mintzberg (1994) traces strategic planning's genesis to the 1950s United States, before ultimately achieving global adoption in the 1980s through the Harvard Business School (Bryson, 1988), a period of significant loss of market share by American corporations to Japanese competitors. Drucker (1999) defines strategic planning as a commitment of resources to future expectations, with the underlying strategic planning process deciding upon organisational goals and positioning. Wall and Wall (1995) suggest that the philosophical roots of strategic planning are militaristic, culminating in decisions on agreed courses of action and the production of formal documents. Campling et al. (2005) highlight the contribution of strategic planning to any organisation's selfconcept of sustainability, allowing them to reinvent themselves by envisioning a future beyond today's status quo. Central to strategic planning development has been the formulation of analytical and cognitive models, facilitating corporations to synthesise, assess and respond to competitive pressures.

Larry Elwood and Al Rainnie Strategic Planning in Ireland's Institutes of Technology
Significant contributions within this development include: Pascale and Athos (1981), who proposed culturally based strategic solutions for American corporations; Porter (1986Porter ( , 1990, who introduced concepts such as the value chain, five forces analysis and strategic groups; Mintzberg et al. (1998), who advocated five perspectives on strategic planning: strategy as plan, ploy, pattern, position and perspective; and Hamel andPrahalad (1989, 1994), emphasising the importance of strategic intent, core competences and strategic architecture. The end of the millennium witnessed a new turn in strategic thinking, moving from responding to competitive pressures to an explicit recognition of environmental complexity. Unrelenting social and technological change had begun to challenge the prevailing worldview; long periods of stability punctuated by short periods of change were no longer the norm. Contributions here include, among others, Hamel (2002), who introduced the concept of strategic decay; Gladwell (2000), who identified the importance of tipping points as a determinant of market take-off; and Christensen (1997), who warned of the impact of disruptive technologies for firm's strategic decisions. A new discourse on strategy, the strategy as practice perspective (Jarzabkowski, 2005;Chia and MacKay, 2007), coincided with the arrival of the new millennium. This approach de-emphasises the inherited logic and technical rationality of structure, process and activities, and instead scrutinises micro-processes, predominantly but not exclusively social, that facilitate strategy delivery. Jarzabkowski (2005, 7) distinguishes strategy as practice from earlier approaches by emphasising that it does not assume that the intentions of top management are the intentions of the organisation, and that strategy therefore becomes an organisational activity, with multiple actors who collide and elide through numerous phases of strategy formulation and implementation. Whittington (2006) describes strategy as practice, as delving into managerial actions, emphasising what people do rather than what an organisation has. This multiple actor focus has resulted in the strategy as practice approach being subsequently recognised as a broadly social phenomenon (Grandy and Mills, 2004;Whittington, 2006). Pearce and Robinson (1994) characterise strategic planning's philosophical focus across two schools of thought, postulating different competitive enhancing mechanisms: the design-and resource-based schools. The designbased school integrates external opportunities with organisational distinctive competences, allowing appropriate strategies to emerge. Its predominant focus was therefore external, reflecting Porter's (1986) industry analysis model. The resource-based school emphasises internal analysis, the examination of resources and their strategic deployment to yield competitive advantage, wherein differentiated resources provide the basis for a firm's competitive advantage (Porter, 1986;Hamel and Prahalad, 1990). Eisenhardt and Martin (2000) posit two perspectives of the resource-based school: a conservative Larry Elwood and Al Rainnie Strategic Planning in Ireland's Institutes of Technology approach suggesting that competences determine strategies, and a dynamic view suggesting that strategies determine competences.
The emergent landscape of European higher education is well documented: the creation of a European space for higher education (Bologna Declaration), increasing and often competing external demands (Werry, 2001), increasing diversity in student population, and a re-conceptualisation of what learning involves (Guruz, 2003) and constant signalling from governments of the need to diversify funding. Slaughter and Rhoades (2004), commenting on the transition from mass manufacturing to a knowledge-based economy, emphasise the strategic considerations arising for higher education institutions in areas such as the management of faculty, the unbundling of professorial work into diverse areas such as online instruction and a change in the nature of the undergraduate curricula. Machado and Taylor (2010), contending that this complexity has created a need for superior performance among colleges, position the deployment of strategic planning by European higher education institutes within the design school framework. A major anomaly exists, however, between the adoption of the design school approach by corporations and European higher education institutes: institutional autonomy. The degree of entanglement between exchequer funding and higher education institutions in Europe creates both quasi-external and external environments to which higher education strategists must respond. Ireland's higher education institutions, for instance, receive on average 84% of their funding centrally. This combination of compromised autonomy and complex operating environments acts as a limiting factor in European higher education's ability to truly 'design' market focused strategies, as they must remain conscious of the cultural, social and economic demands of government's funding whip hand. Taylor et al. (2008) suggest that while policy makers recognise that no true higher education market exists, their insistence on market-type mechanisms nonetheless impacts upon academic systems, including strategic planning capabilities. Enders (2002) describes strategic planning by higher education institutions as an underlying mode of both coordination and rationalisation. Numerous authors (see, e.g., Slaughter and Rhoades, 2004;Denman, 2005;Bartlett, 2007) attribute the immediacy of strategic planning within higher education to developments in the new public management approach to state services (Slaughter and Rhoades, 2004), greater autonomy and self-regulation being afforded to higher education institutes (Askling and Christensen, 2000), and the rapidly changing demands of the knowledge economy (Denman, 2005;Bartlett, 2007). Pondering higher education's future, Douglass (2004) identifies globalisation as a force more powerful than industrialisation, urbanisation and secularisation combined. Recognising that globalisation presents major problems for higher education, he contends that higher education institutions with conservative internal cultures will inevitably experience difficulties.

Larry Elwood and Al Rainnie Strategic Planning in Ireland's Institutes of Technology
Higher education, observes Scholte (2004), because of its key role in the production, immersion and distribution of knowledge must inevitably be transformed by globalisation. Bryman (2007) and Barrett and Barrett (2007) caution that academic inertia reflects unflatteringly on the academic profession and its underlying identity. Other commentators also highlight the need for educational institutions to respond through embracing greater management capacity; Amaral et al. (2003a) advocate the creation of more flexible and effective administration: Amaral et al. (2003b) suggest a repositioning of academic salaries in terms of the academic value produced, while Austin (2002) and Armacost et al. (2003) demand a more proactive approach from higher education institutions in designing organisational policies and procedures to achieve institutional aims. More specifically, van Vught (2003) pinpoints higher education's biggest challenges arising at institutional governance and managerial levels. Bleiklie and Kogan (2007, 478) correlate this emerging landscape of higher education with transformational shifts in how higher education institutions are becoming more centrally administered and locally managed, whereby institutional leaders, rectors, presidents and vice presidents now more closely parallel the role of chief executive officers.

Strategic Planning in Ireland's Higher Education System
Before the collapse of the 'Celtic Tiger', Ireland's higher education policy initiatives still sought to reposition Ireland's economy to one characterised by 'speed, flexibility, agility and innovativeness' (Costello, 2007, 6). Rosecrance (1999) describes such policy imperatives as an inevitable consequence of globalisation, representing the desire of nations to become head nations, designing products, rather than body nations manufacturing them. Higher education remains a key change agent in Ireland's transformation agenda and will develop against the framework for higher education outlined in the 'Programme for Government 2011-2016: Towards Recovery' (see Department of the Taoiseach, 2011). The policy objectives outlined for Ireland's higher education system is to be in the top rank of performance within the OECD (Higher Education Authority, 2008). Specifically, the following key metrics are identified: (1) increased participation and improved access; (2) greater flexibility of course offerings to meet diverse student population needs in a lifelong learning context; (3) enhancement of the quality of teaching and learning; (4) significantly increase the number of Ph.D. numbers and research activity; and (5) effective provision for technology transfer (op cit, 8). The HEA's envisioned role for the institute of technology sector, broadly in line with the OECD Review (2004, 10), recognises the need 'to establish greater clarity on the diverse role of institutes of technology and the universities in Larry Elwood and Al Rainnie Strategic Planning in Ireland's Institutes of Technology such areas as, teaching and learning, research, regional development, links with industry, social inclusion and meeting skills needs'. A common requirement pervading most of these policy objectives is the increasing use of the funding whip hand to encourage their delivery, and their subsequent strategic prioritisation.
Notwithstanding this, strategic planning exercises within Ireland's institutes of technology remain relatively unexplored. Lillis (2005) evaluated the effectiveness of a strategic planning programme at the Tralee Institute of Technology, as measured by improvements in institutional performance over a 6-year period. Adopting a mixed methods approach, Lillis identifies the stimuli for this strategic planning exercise as twofold: meeting an external quality assurance requirement, and addressing weaknesses in existing planning procedures and processes. Despite acknowledging the plan's success in delivering target outcomes, this research also highlighted the ineffectiveness of strategic planning in the academic heartland of the institute, and the unwillingness of academics to face up to identified weaknesses. Recent research commissioned by Ireland's institutes of technology (Institutes of Technology Ireland, 2008), reaffirms the earlier findings of Lillis (2005), highlighting the disconnectedness of academics from strategic planning processes, identifying four causal factors: (1) low levels of awareness of the existence of a strategic plan or its contents; (2) apathy towards the strategic plan; (3) low levels of connectedness between the daily activities of academic staff and the long-term strategic goals; and (4) a minimal sense of ownership or belief in the strategic plan.
Invariably the discourse on strategic planning in higher education has become contextualised against the background of neo-liberalism and New Public Management (Slaughter and Rhoades, 2004;Denman, 2005;Bartlett, 2007), and its appropriateness to higher education institutes as workplaces. Taylor and Miroiu (2002) suggest that New Public Management imports certain characteristics to universities, including priority setting and the use of performance indicators, strengthening of the administrative and leadership functions within universities, a client orientation and a value for money emphasis. Sporn (2002, 32) also identifies the New Public Management rationale as twofold: the attainment of efficiency and effectiveness across the public sector, and a reduction in state spending. She also credits New Public Management with a gradual erosion of the power of unions and professionals and gains in the importance of managers. Kogan et al. (2000) suggests, however, that despite the introduction of New Public Management approaches, subsequent behaviour at the departmental and faculty level remains relatively unchanged. Morphew and Hartley (2006, 85) contend that all of the paraphernalia accompanying strategic planning -the articulation of mission, the definition of vision and the resultant publication of the plan itself -is predicated upon Larry Elwood and Al Rainnie Strategic Planning in Ireland's Institutes of Technology 'threadbare anecdotal evidence'. Delucchi (1997, 417), similarly sceptical, describes strategic planning as a predominantly normative process that organisations engage in to illustrate that they understand the rules of the game, and which confers certain legitimacy upon the organisation. The principles practice and vocabulary of strategic planning in higher education is further contested in the literature as mere rule adherence and lacking real meaning (see, e.g., Prichard, 2000;Knight and Trowler, 2001). Deem and Brehony (2005, 223), identifying language as an instrument of cultural change, suggest new managerialism, through the introduction of performance management, league tables and targets 'generalises the language of business'. Conversely, Morphew and Hartley (2006) welcome the preparation of both mission statements and strategic plans, suggesting that their absence betrays the very legitimacy of a college or university. In an Irish context, O'Buachalla (1992) vehemently opposed the increasing intrusion of the Irish government in higher education in an evaluative and direction setting manner. The basis for his concern was the Green Paper on Education (1992), which, inter-alia, made provision for the increasing executive powers of college presidents, clearer specification of the responsibilities of governing bodies, greater consideration of the role of universities in modern Ireland and most tellingly, and the need for higher-quality control mechanisms. Bartlett (2007) also attributes the immediacy attached to strategic planning in Ireland to the New Public Management approach to state services, while Gillen (2007) and Gonzalez-Perez et al. (2007) question the differentiating ability of mission statements emanating from Ireland's universities and institutes of technology, highlighting the language convergence therein. Gonzalez-Perez et al. (op. cit), concurring with Delucchi (1997), further proffer this as evidence that Ireland's higher education institutes have become normatively adept at speaking the language of new managerialism -to attain good favour while satisfying a legislative requirement, without necessarily embracing such philosophies.

Data Sampling and Collection
Ireland's institute of technology sector spans 14 individual institutes, making it impractical to conduct research on all campuses. The adopted research methodology was qualitative and phenomenological (van der Mescht, 2004), using semi-structured focus group interviews to access respondents' experiences. This data collection strategy was therefore consistent with the broad philosophical framework of our research method -accessing the strategic planning experiences of the respondents. Our choice of focus groups, rather than individual interviews, reflects our objective of getting high-quality data in a social context where people can consider their own views in the context of the Larry Elwood and Al Rainnie Strategic Planning in Ireland's Institutes of Technology 116 views of others. Powell et al. (1996, 499) define a focus group as 'a group of individuals selected and assembled by researchers to discuss and comment on, from personal experience, the topic that is the subject of the research'. Morgan (1997, 12) differentiates between group interviews and focus group interviews, identifying the role played by the researcher as the principal differentiator. He suggests that focus group interviews are based on topics that are supplied by the researcher as opposed to a mere question and answer format of the group interview. Morgan and Krueger (1993) highlight two instances in which focus groups prove advantageous: (1) where the social milieu, or interaction, is likely to enhance interaction; and (2) where power relationships may exist that the researcher wishes to eliminate or neutralise.
In constructing the sample of institutes, a purposive sampling approach was used, ensuring representation of sectoral diversity. The sampling criteria used were as follows: The sampled institutes of technology had to be geographically dispersed and representative of the sector, regional requirements and population distribution. The sampled institutes of technology had to show distinct differences in their product and disciplinary offerings (degree, post-graduate and doctoral), and their levels of delegated authority. The sampled institutes of technology had to have in common proximity of no more than 100 km to larger urban areas, hosting both an institute of technology and a university. This location factor serves to heighten the expediency of having in place strategic management and planning practices that are properly formulated, robust and participative. The respective performance of each of the institutes in the number of first preference applications recorded through the Central Applications Office, Ireland's centralised application apparatus for secondary school leavers over the previous 5 years.
To ensure confidentiality, selected institutes are anonymously labelled as follows: 1. Bologna Institute of Technology: This institute offers internationally recognised degree programmes in business, technology, humanities and science. The institute is research-active, with delegated authority for both taught and research masters' awards, has close links with industry, and is recognised nationally for the high completion rates of its graduates.
2. Lisbon Institute of Technology: This institute offers degree programmes in business, engineering and informatics, and has delegated authority for taught masters' awards. Its mission is to serve both its students and its region, emphasising a supportive environment for all learners.

Larry Elwood and Al Rainnie Strategic Planning in Ireland's Institutes of Technology
3. Montevideo Institute of Technology: This institute offers a full range of programmes in business, engineering, science and humanities. It has acquired a reputation for top-quality teaching and research innovation that is driven by local, regional and national industry needs, and holds delegated authority for both taught and research masters. 4. Paris Institute of Technology: This institute offers degree and post-graduate offerings in computing, engineering, science and humanities, and has delegated authority for taught masters' awards. It is characterised by a strong regional remit and seeks to broaden its research presence in targeted scientific areas.
Eight semi-structured focus group interviews were conducted with academics and manager-academics, across the four institutes, with a combined interview time of almost 11 hours. A purposive sampling method was used in the composition of the focus groups to ensure they were information rich, yet divergent in career profiles. Rabiee (2004) and Mason (2002) suggest that purposive sampling strategies allow the researcher to choose participants who have something to say on a topic, have similar socio-characteristics and are comfortable talking to the interviewer. Fundamental to purposive sampling, contends Rabie (op cit, 655), is the concept of 'applicability', where subjects are chosen because of their knowledge of the subject area. Focus group composition and underlying rationale are specified below: Academics: This group comprises full-time institute employees holding academic posts with Ireland's Department of Education and Skills with contracts specifying three duties: teaching, research and administration. A further sampling requirement was that selected academics should have held their full-time position for a minimum of 5 years, ensuring that they have experienced at least one iteration of strategic planning for their institute.
Manager-Academics: This group includes: Heads of Department, Heads of School, Central Services Managers (Information Technology, Finance, Human Resources), and was sub-stratified as follows: Manager-Academics (Academic Background): This sub-group comprises Heads of Department and Heads of School, who previously held academic positions and therefore spent considerable parts of their working lives within academia. The principal reporting relationships characterising these managers tends to be with academics within their respective departments/schools. Central Service Managers (Technical/Professional Background): This sub-group comprises those managers, principally Information Technology, Finance, Human Resources Managers, who attained these positions through technical or professional accreditation and who may not Larry Elwood and Al Rainnie Strategic Planning in Ireland's Institutes of Technology necessarily have any prior academic (teaching, research, administration) experience. These employees therefore have previous private sector experience such that their prior professional socialisation is not predominantly academic.
Letters of invitation, sent to both groups, purposely did not identify strategic planning as the principal research focus, ensuring interviewees attended without any preconceptions of strategic planning. Thus, the recorded responses below, comprising 40 academics and 47 manager-academics, represent their first recorded reaction to the topic of strategic planning in the natural setting of their workplace. Focus group interviews examined whether strategic plans from participating institutes may be viewed as: (1) strategic expressions of institutional priorities, enjoying the support, participation and alignment of all surveyed staff; or (2) normative necessities, legislatively driven, and formulated in a manner not conducive to enjoying the participation and support of surveyed staff.

'Not Another Strategic Planning Process!'
At the Lisbon Institute of Technology, academics cited misgivings concerning the preparation of the strategic plan and the absence thereafter of the requisite leadership potential to implement that plan. These findings were repeated in other institutes and are supportive of other research on this topic most notably by Bryson and Barnes (2000), Henkel (2000) and Lindholm (2003). One academic expressed these misgivings thus: I mean I think strategic plans are important but I think great progress, you know, in onamed institute> could happen as a result of great culture, and I think great culture would happen as a result of great leadership. And if we had those things, the strategic plan, all those things would fall into place. (Male Academic, Lisbon Institute of Technology) Another academic in the same institute reiterated the inherent dislike among academics of excessive dirigisme in their professional lives and the inevitable resistance this engenders against strategic planning: I suppose implementing the strategic plan is sort of a top-down approach, at least in industry, and we don't like that top-down approach as we have indicated earlier, we don't like to be managed, we don't like to be dictated to as academics I suppose. (Male Academic, Lisbon Institute of Technology) Another academic, questioned on his experiences of strategic planning, was distinctly unflattering in his assessment: not another bloody mission statement, not another strategic plan, I've got no expectation of anything decent coming out of this y just another Similar higher education leadership, engagement and implementation difficulties have also been identified elsewhere in the literature. Van der Mescht (2004, 10), for example, when considering educational leadership in the United States, attributed the inability of educational leaders to give meaning to educational and organisational processes to what he describes as 'complexity of context', where the organisational actors each have very different senses of the world. Disengagement by academic staff has also been identified as a major impediment to strategic planning in a recent Institutes of Technology Ireland Report (2008). Academics in the Bologna Institute of Technology were also apathetic to their strategic planning exercises, revealing numerous causal factors. One female academic, distrustful of the bona fides of management in gathering the inputs of the academic community, articulated her misgivings thus: y in theory we know these things should be organic and bottom up but in the end I think that top management in our organisation will call it one way or another. (Female Academic, Bologna Institute of Technology) An interesting phenomenon emerged in the Paris Institute of Technology with manager-academics there displaying understanding, as opposed to sympathy, for disengagement by the academic community. Interestingly, the unique nature and culture of the public sector is commented on by two managers as a major contributory factor for disengagement by the academic community: I think there also is a perception though that for a lot of academics why would they participate, because they only draw more work on themselves and there is no extra reward for it, and how do you incentivise someone to be able to go that extra mile. People are happy to kind of fulfil their duties, but you don't ask them to step beyond that. (Male Manager, Paris Institute of Technology) If people realise that without a document that's going to help bring an organisation into a new space that ultimately their livelihoods could be in jeopardy. Because we are public sector that reality doesn't strike home a huge amount. And that was a major factor that strikes me as a difference with private industry. (Male Manager, Paris Institute of Technology) The manager-academic group in the Lisbon Institute of Technology strongly articulated the view that the strategic planning processes had become devalued by a proliferation of similar language and strategic objectives. This unease with Larry Elwood and Al Rainnie Strategic Planning in Ireland's Institutes of Technology 120 the sameness of language evident in published strategic plans is described by one manager: I don't see a huge difference between the strategic plan here and the strategic plan at any other institute of technology, reading through the strategic plans they all had the exact same thematic areas, right, economic development, economic growth, students numbers. We're all jumping on the same labels and I wonder whether in fact we are any different here at all. (Male Manager, Lisbon Institute of Technology) Paradoxically, an organisational practice that should theoretically articulate a clear vision of where each institute sees its respective future instead generated predominantly negative responses from the academic groups. The recurring criticisms identified by the academic groups were: (1) procedural criticisms: a perception among academics that their values were not accorded the same degree of importance as those of their institute's management group; (2) substantive criticisms: an inability among the academic staff interviewed to feel motivated by a plan that substantially was no different from plans emanating in other institutes of technology; (3) alignment criticisms: a professional reluctance among academics interviewed to engage fully in the plan's preparatory processes because of its irrelevance to their primary responsibility, that is, teaching; and (4) leadership criticisms: an articulated lack of confidence on the part of academics interviewed in their respective management teams to either effectively lead, or deliver upon, a strategic planning process.
Unsurprisingly, the manager-academic group's responses portray a different set of experiences. While some sympathies were evident towards the academic group, especially with regard to the non-prioritisation of academic values, a difference of opinion is evident across both groups on whether consultation had in fact taken place in the plan's preparation, and its adequacy. The manager-academic group also remained unconvinced on whether the plan had engendered a strong sense of collectivism in their respective institutes of technology, with some suggesting that the most likely manner in which this will arise is if strategic planning is initiated at the departmental/school level.
Significantly, there is no evidence in any of the selected institutes of strong alignment among academic staff interviewed with published strategic plans. The legislative requirement to conduct strategic planning as an organisational coordination and rationalisation measure has therefore not been widely endorsed. The research further highlights that strategic planning is not a natural academic adaptation, rather it creates confusion and resentment among academics, with academic respondents perceiving themselves as objects rather than subjects in the entire process, affected by, but unable to influence, the strategic planning process. The ensuing isolation and disaffection has Larry Elwood and Al Rainnie Strategic Planning in Ireland's Institutes of Technology 121 generated among academics a detachment from, and resentment of, the strategic planning process.
'Where Did This Come From? We Never Discussed This.' The corrosive effects of academics' detachment from the philosophy of strategic planning are exacerbated by what they identified as significant procedural deficiencies in the preparation of such plans. In addition, the mere idea that the philosophy of strategic planning has been borrowed from the 'forprofit' sector introduces a further threatening spectre for some academics, sitting uncomfortably alongside their inherited view of academic organisations. In the Montevideo Institute of Technology, divergent views emerged across both groups on whether the strategic planning process was 'bottom-up' or 'topdown' in its approach. One manager described the difficulty of making organisation-wide decisions in a bottom-up manner in a public sector environment, and instanced the typical institute of technology organisational structure, based on academic schools and departments, as impeding the creation of a strong sense of institute wide collectivism. He also highlighted the scope within such organisational structures for potential disengagement, by academics, from the strategic planning process: y there is scope within our organisations for people to position themselves from that collective 'we' by virtue of the units or the structure within our organisation. (Male Manager, Montevideo Institute of Technology) Other research (see, e.g., Marginson, 1993;Boud, 1999) on situational aspects of academic strategic planning developments has also emphasised the tendency to navigate more towards the delivery of institutional as opposed to departmental objectives. Overall, however, the dominant feeling among the manager-academics in the Montevideo Institute of Technology was that their strategic planning processes could be described as following a consultative 'bottom-up approach': I certainly think that the opportunity was there when our strategic plan was put together for me to make a contribution to that process as an organisation not particularly as a manager now but as a member of the organisation. I've sat in fora recently where people have denied having that opportunity, which I find surprising, because I had it. on what the academics deemed to be token consultation (own emphasis) such that the published plan was perceived to be disproportionately influenced by the desires and preferences of management. Evidence of this, claimed the academics, is the appearance of priorities within the published plan, which they suggest were neither endorsed nor informed by them: And there were a range of other issues which appeared in the plan and you sat round a table and said 'where did this come from? We never discussed this'. (Male Academic, Montevideo Institute of Technology) Further criticism, forewarning of the erosion of goodwill that may be caused by poor consultation, was cited by another academic: The first process wasn't an extremely hopeful process. A great deal of goodwill, very high level of participation was received from academics 'we're all in this together' it was our first chance to participate. I think our experience of the outcome was disappointing and that reflected itself then in the second plan in 2006, or when that process started which would have been before 2006. There was a lot of negativity, disappointment with the outcome of the first plan. I well remember that one-day review I had in 'named location' and what I noted very much that day was those who were not there. I consciously looked round the list of who was supposed to be there and I noted who was not there. (Male Academic, Montevideo Institute of Technology) Interjecting, another colleague outlined the implications of this for subsequent strategic planning iterations within that institute: And I think for the next plan, people will be even further removed from [it]. Consequently, what emerged in this institute is both a social and material disengagement by academics from the strategic planning process. The social dimension of this disengagement accords well with other literature in this area, particularly that of James (2007), Lucas (2004) and Barrett and Barrett (2007), and appears to be professionally rooted. Webster and Moseota (2001) describe the principle distinctive feature of any university as its occupational structure, where academics view themselves as professionals rather than employees, claiming autonomy over their own work. In addition, Henkel (2000) and Clegg (2008) suggest that while academics may be functionally homogeneously engaged in teaching and/or research, academic differentiation further fragments across disciplines and departments. Knight and Trowler (1999, 32), emphasising departmental over institutional allegiance, suggest that 'it is the nature of the department that appears to be an important but not determining influence on the socialisation of new academics'.

Discussion and Conclusion
The most significant dissonance to emerge among academics and manageracademics was a pronounced normative-utilitarian divide, wherein academics perceived strategic planning as a bureaucratic imposition, of little relevance to their trilogy of contractual duties. Academics were dubious, even suspicious, about the merits of strategic planning. This suspicion is rooted in academic's perceptions of a proliferation of sameness in both mission and vision statements across institutes of technology. Academics further suggested that planning processes were excessively mechanistic, driven predominantly by the need to meet a bureaucratic document producing requirement. Across institutes, academics felt that the strategic plans produced merely reflected managerial intentions as opposed to organisation-wide intentions, leaving the academic heartland intent on disengaging from future planning exercises. These concerns were not, however, shared by the manager-academics interviewed to the same degree.
Properly devised and participative strategic planning exercises should allow institutes of technology to be proactive to their dynamic operating environments. Prioritising strategic planning documents at the cost of misunderstood relationships between academics and manager-academics facilitates academic withdrawal from decision making. Building strategic planning capacity is a critical policy and institutional requirement, representing the essential implementation desiderata for successful policy delivery. Recent policy pronouncements (Programme for Government 2011-2016 (Department of the Taoiseach, 2011), Hunt Report (DES, 2011)) are symptomatic of Ireland's post-global financial crisis position wherein strategic planning, the delivery of mission-relevant performance demands and accountability for performance outcomes are increasingly emphasised at system, institutional and individual levels. This new paradigm may not, however, be subscribed to by academics, either in terms of their contractual commitments, or their appetite for such measures in the immediate aftermath of both an increased pension levy and salary reduction. This research has revealed that the real organisational challenge is not the generation of the plan itself, but rather the introduction of planning frameworks to ensure negative academic responses become replaced by well-intentioned efforts to make the plan an attainable future, for all stakeholders.
The lessons from this research are that Ireland's higher education policy makers must reconsider a more engaging role for academics, and the future role Academic Councils can play in strategic planning frameworks -creating a stronger federation of academics and manager-academics within a more facilitative legislative framework. In addition, at the institutional governance level, systematic, organisation-wide strategic planning must become visible. Divisive strategic planning models highlighted in this research merely re-enforce among academics the episodic misconception of what strategic planning is, overlooking its broader social and organisational roles. What was remarkable across all institutes was the absence of a dedicated strategic planning committee, organisationally visible and tasked with investigative, assessment and advisory roles. Instead ad-hoc groups, convened every 5 years (before the expiry of the previous plan), were tasked with the preparation of the next strategic plan, disdainfully drawing another 'here we go again' retort from the academic community. Academic alienation and disaffection caused by these reactionary approaches resonate throughout the interviews. Peach et al. (2005) similarly criticised poorly devised strategic planning frameworks as depriving higher education institutions of a real opportunity to interpret their own logic, while Mantere and Sillince (2007) suggest that poorly devised frameworks jeopardise differentiation opportunities. Rather than being socialised into the process of strategic planning, academics feel instead they are being coerced, further reducing their already low levels of institutional solidarity (Goffee and Jones, 1998). Watson and Maddison (2005, 94) suggest that good, or conversely, bad, planning processes proceed in the context of 'institutional history'; yet our findings indicate quite an inauspicious start to strategic planning, thus far, in those institutes researched. Strategic planning within Ireland's institute of technology sector must become a continuous reflective approach, wherein good practices are embedded throughout each institute. The establishment of strategic planning committees will facilitate strategic planning becoming a truly organisation-wide process, and could be viewed in terms of Janus in Roman mythology, the god of gates and doorways, gifted with an ability to see the past and the future. This committee, in its composition, role, function and visibility, must recognise the broad social and professional capital within institutes. Van der Heijden (1997) similarly extols the social process advantages of such committees, facilitating, with inevitable collisions, strategic discourse between academics and management. In conclusion, the challenges facing institutes is to find a strategic planning model that is not excessively directional, covertly engineered or overly representative of vested interests. Academic detachment, as evidenced by this research, will create the unedifying possibility of future strategic planning processes becoming further dispossessed of relevance. Thankfully the search for such a model will be centred within educational institutions: environments historically characterised by enlightenment and creative thinking.