Tuesday, February 24, 2026
In an era of demographic shifts, rising costs, accreditation pressures, AI disruption, and growing competition, traditional strategic plans often feel outdated. Presidents and boards expect clear missions, visions, and priorities, but often receive lengthy aspirations that go unused. Research shows that the purpose and execution of strategic planning, not just its content, determine whether an institution thrives or merely survives.
Chapman University, under the economist and president Dr. James Doti, exemplifies this. Over 25 years, Doti transformed Chapman from a small regional liberal arts college into a nationally recognized university. By emphasizing data analytics, higher education mission alignment, and measurable progress, Chapman rose from low national rankings to prominence. His experience offers a strategic blueprint for presidents to rethink planning in practice.
Doti’s recent work on why strategic plans fail emphasizes outcomes-based, data-driven planning tailored to each institution. The key lesson: strategy and strategic planning in higher education succeed when linked to short sprints, clear goals, and aligned resources.
This reflection of the recent Higher Education Today’s on Doti analyzes that pattern, incorporates relevant research, and presents the Stevens Strategy’s Strategic Uniqueness model: a practical planning approach for presidents in 2026 and beyond.
Across higher education, recurring patterns emerge:
1. The document becomes the destination, and then becomes dusty
Strategic planning often culminates in a polished report rather than a governing management system
2. Goals lack measurable accountability
Without clear benchmarks, strategic plans default to narrative aspirations instead of operational commitments
3. Resources remain misaligned
Institutions approve ambitious priorities but continue allocating funds, time, and other resources based on historical precedent or tradition, not strategy
4. Time horizons are too static
Five- or ten-year strategic plans are drafted as fixed commitments in environments that now change annually
The result is predictable: strategic plans exist, but true strategy does not.
Doti’s approach at Chapman was not revolutionary in theory but rigorous in practice.
Chapman set a clear goal: to become a selective, nationally ranked university. This focus guided decisions in admissions, faculty hiring, facilities, branding, and capital campaigns. Planning Operated in Cycles. Instead of a single long-term plan, Chapman used successive five-year plans with defined targets and measurable metrics, each building on the previous cycle.
At the time, five-year plans were effective because they kept pace with the evolution of higher education. In 2026 and beyond, many insitiutions should consider a two to four-year plan, focusing on short sprints that allow the insitition to stay nimble.
Admissions selectivity, faculty credentials, student outcomes, financial ratios, and reputation indicators were consistently tracked and used operationally, not symbolically. This results in effective strategic planning for colleges.
Investments in facilities, faculty, and scholarships were tied directly to strategic aims. Budgeting followed priorities rather than legacy allocations.
Strategic progress spanned decades, not election cycles or committee changes. A stable vision enabled compounding gains and spurred one of higher education’s transformations.
Chapman’s trajectory shows that strategic coherence matters more than lengthy plans. The key takeaway: a focused, disciplined approach drives true institutional transformation.
Presidents today operate in a materially different environment:
Under these conditions, planning must become a living system that continuously integrates data, finance, governance, and identity. This is where the concept of strategic uniqueness becomes central.
Traditional planning asks: What should we improve?
Strategic uniqueness asks: What can only we credibly own?
Stevens Strategy’s Strategic Uniqueness framework shifts focus from accumulating initiatives to differentiating by concentrating on the intersections of:
The outcome is not a longer document but sharper focus, emphasizing that clarity of priorities outweighs the number of initiatives.
While many plans try to satisfy every constituency, strategic uniqueness clarifies where an institution will lead, partner, and deliberately not compete. In a resource-constrained era, clarity is power.
Strategic discipline compounds over time. Institutions that treat strategy as a management system rather than a ceremonial exercise are positioned not only to withstand disruption but also to lead it.
Chapman’s story is not a template to copy, but evidence that sustained clarity, aligned finance, and measured execution can reposition an institution over decades. For presidents entering the next planning cycle, the lesson is clear: strategy must be dynamic, differentiated, and relentlessly aligned with resources.
Strategic discipline compounds over time. In higher education strategic planning, institutions that treat a university strategic plan as a living management system rather than a ceremonial document consistently outperform peers navigating disruption. Effective strategic planning in higher education is not about producing a five-year report. It is about embedding data-driven decision making, higher education performance metrics, and clear KPIs for universities into everyday leadership practice. Colleges that align budget with strategy, integrate strategic dashboards for universities, and tie resource allocation in higher education directly to institutional priorities build financial sustainability and long-term competitive positioning. In an era defined by the enrollment cliff of 2026, demographic decline in higher education, AI in higher education strategy, and intensified scrutiny of value, strategic execution in universities has become a governance imperative, not an optional leadership exercise.
Chapman’s trajectory demonstrates that higher education transformation requires more than ambition. It requires an institutional differentiation strategy, a mission-driven strategy, and disciplined alignment between academic vision and financial modeling. The lesson for college presidents and boards overseeing university governance and strategy is unmistakable: strategic planning in higher education must be dynamic, differentiated, and relentlessly aligned with resources. Institutions that define their strategic uniqueness, clarify their value proposition in higher education, and commit to measurable implementation of their strategic plans will strengthen reputation management, enhance competitive advantage in higher education, and lead change rather than react to it. In 2026 and beyond, the role of the university president in strategic planning is clear: build an adaptive institutional strategy that converts vision into sustained execution and turns disruption into a durable advantage.
Strategic plans most often fail because they prioritize documentation over execution, lack measurable goals, and do not align budgeting and accountability with stated priorities.
Under James Doti’s leadership, Chapman implemented successive strategic cycles with clear metrics, financial alignment, and a long-term vision focused on selectivity, academic strength, and reputation.
Effective planning today requires agility, data-driven decision-making, quarterly performance monitoring, and clear institutional differentiation in competitive markets.
Strategic uniqueness is Stevens Strategy’s framework that helps institutions identify and concentrate on the distinctive strengths and market positions they can sustainably own, rather than attempting broad, undifferentiated expansion.
Boards can improve oversight by linking financial review to strategic metrics, demanding measurable KPIs, and ensuring that capital investments directly advance institutional priorities.
Header Photo courtesy of Chapman University: https://www.chapman.edu/about/maps-directions/index.aspx
