Monitoring Direction

When?

Having various means of monitoring progress against the objectives you have set for yourself, as explored in the previous section, is clearly essential. But the value of such activities is only realised if you remain confident that the objectives you have set out to achieve remain continue to be the right ones. In short: are you still heading in the right direction, or is it time to revisit the strategic direction you have set for yourself?

In previous stages of this resource it has been suggested that your vision statement should routinely be reviewed every 3-5 years 'or in the light of any major changes affecting your institution or the sector at large, such as a change in government or a radical change in government's strategic priorities'. The same advice holds true for the other component elements of your strategic documentation: your mission and values statement and the strategic plan itself.

However, given the more directional and applied nature of the strategic plan the advice given earlier in this infoKit is to adopt a 'multi-layered approach' with the plan receiving a major review and re-issue every three, four or five years but between these major reviews also incorporating a regular, often annual, process of review and more detailed planning to set the priorities for the year ahead and to keep the institution on track to achieving its goals.

Such regular, scheduled review processes should not, however, preclude immediate review and amendment where risks or issues are identified of such potential severity as to warrant an immediate change of strategic direction.

Who?

It is likely that the process of reviewing your main strategic documents is likely to be a task instigated and coordinated at a senior management level. Giving each such member not only responsibility for assessing the aspects of these plans which specifically relate to their own area of organisational responsibility, but also for particular themes which cut across the entire institution can help to ensure a more joined-up approach to the review process.

It is also suggested that, as with their original drafting and approval, that the review and any amendments required to these plans and statements should be an open and collaborative process, adopting many of the characteristics of the 'strategic conversation' outlined throughout this resource. Members of the Board of Governors also have an active role to play here as 'critical friends' so too, in a similar vein, representatives from funding or inspection bodies, contacts from local industry and research partners.