Strategic Plan Evaluation Report
Stakeholder survey results on the 2025–2030 strategic plan, with comparative analysis, conclusions and recommendations.
Introduction
In its continuous pursuit of development and excellence, and to strengthen transparency and participation in decision-making, this report analyses the results of an expanded survey that measured the awareness, conviction and acceptance of the university main stakeholders regarding its vision, mission and strategic goals and its five-year plan (2025–2030).
The evaluation covered four central groups: students (the primary beneficiaries), faculty members (the cornerstone of implementation), administrative staff (supporters of the academic process) and employers (strategic partners and recipients of graduates). The five-year strategic plan was also evaluated as the main implementation framework.
The report aims to diagnose the strengths and confidence in the university strategic components, reveal the gaps and challenges in perception and acceptance among stakeholders, understand the root causes of apparent contradictions, and provide practical, data-based recommendations that strengthen internal cohesion, legitimacy and alignment between an ambitious identity and effective implementation.
Survey Participants
The questionnaire was completed by 58 respondents. Decision-makers and external partners formed the largest share, which gives the results a strong leadership perspective but also calls for wider faculty participation in future evaluations.
| Group | Participants | Share | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| University administration (senior/administrative leadership) | 23 | 39.7% | Directly responsible for drafting, implementing and following up the plan. |
| Administration and faculty member combined | 6 | 10.3% | Views the plan from both management and academic application. |
| Faculty members | 5 | 8.6% | The main implementers of academic and research programmes; their share is relatively low. |
| Students | 6 | 10.3% | The final beneficiaries; their voice is essential to aligning the plan with their needs. |
| Employers and civil society | 12 | 20.6% | Represent labour-market and community perspectives on graduate outcomes. |
| Other (non-leadership staff, graduates, partners) | 6 | 10.3% | Adds further institutional and external perspectives. |
Comparing Stakeholder Assessments
The averages below show where the four groups agree and where the gaps lie. The most important finding is the distance between faculty confidence in the mission (4.4) and student acceptance of the same text (2.9).
| Axis and indicator | Students | Faculty | Staff | Employers | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vision — overall average | 3.4 | 3.8 | 3.6 | 3.8 | Faculty and employers are the most positive; faculty see the vision as achievable and ambitious. |
| Clarity and brevity | 3.2 | 3.5 | 3.4 | 3.8 | Employers are the most satisfied with clarity, confirming the wording works externally. |
| Agreement with the labour market | 3.6 | 3.3 | 3.7 | 3.8 | Faculty rate this lowest, pointing to an academic–professional gap inside the institution. |
| Ambition and purpose | 3.3 | 4.0 | 3.5 | 3.9 | Faculty see the vision as highly ambitious; that ambition needs to be linked to the market. |
| Mission — overall average | 3.4 | 3.9 | 3.8 | 3.8 | Faculty are the most supportive overall, while students remain less convinced. |
| Agreement with the mission text | 2.9 | 4.4 | 3.8 | 3.9 | The critical gap: faculty strongly agree, students strongly disagree. |
| Clarity of whom the mission serves | 3.4 | 4.2 | 3.7 | 3.6 | Faculty see the beneficiaries clearly; students do not feel they are at the centre. |
| Goals — overall average | 3.6 | 3.9 | 3.6 | 3.7 | Faculty rate the goals highest, especially their positivity and acceptability. |
| Positivity of the goals | 3.5 | 4.2 | 3.4 | 3.7 | Faculty are highly optimistic; administrative staff are less so. |
| Clarity of programme goals | 3.4 | 3.7 | 3.7 | 3.6 | Close agreement that there is room to improve clarity. |
Survey Findings on the Plan
Overall satisfaction with the strategic plan is very high: most answers fall in the “fully agree” and “mostly agree” categories, and no negative category exceeded 5.2% on any item.
| Item | Result | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| Clarity and detail | 43 agree; 15 partly agree; no rejection | The plan and its dimensions reached most participants well. |
| Realism and achievability of the goals | 40 agree; 17 partly agree; 1 disagrees | High confidence, with a small group asking for a review of ambitious elements. |
| Contribution to improving university performance | 46 of 58 (79.3%) agree | The strongest item: broad belief that the plan will produce improvement. |
| Adequacy of KPIs | 48 agree; 10 partly agree | Most participants consider the measurement system suitable for tracking progress. |
| Adequacy of resources | 48 agree; 10 partly agree or disagree | A noticeable group worries that financial, human and technical resources may not cover every goal. |
| Comprehensiveness of the plan | 42 agree; 16 partly or fully disagree | About a quarter feel some important aspects are missing or insufficiently covered. |
Strategic Conclusions
- The gap is not only between “inside and outside”, but between “top and base”. The highest approval comes from strategic partners and senior implementers, while administrative staff sit in the middle. This points to the strength of the partner voice in planning and communication.
- The mission is written “from the top to the top”. Faculty approval of the mission (4.4) against student approval (2.9) suggests that the text speaks to colleagues, management and industry partners more than to students, even though students are its primary beneficiaries.
- The academic–labour-market integration challenge. Faculty rate the vision’s agreement with the labour market lowest (3.3). This warning signal may reflect a concern that marketing education could come at the expense of academic quality, or a gap in knowledge of market needs. Left unaddressed, it can affect learning outcomes.
- Faculty are an untapped strategic ally. They show the highest levels of pride, agreement and ambition, making them the institution strongest internal asset. Their enthusiasm should be used to bridge the gap with students and to communicate the value of the mission and goals.
Recommendations
- Do not rewrite the educational contract — translate it. Assign a committee of influential and well-regarded faculty members to lead a dialogue with students, then draft a student-facing mission that complements the official text in accessible language, focused on “what we promise you” and “how you will grow with us”, and display it in classrooms and student platforms. Faculty should act as ambassadors for this message in their direct interaction with students.
- Create an academic–professional bridge programme. Hold regular workshops bringing faculty together with employers to discuss curriculum development, arrange faculty field visits to companies, invite employers as guest lecturers, and use employer testimonials in the same courses. The aim is to raise faculty assessment of the vision’s labour-market agreement from 3.3 to about 3.7.
- Strengthen transparency in the goals. Build an interactive student guide that links each course to a programme goal and to the mission, so that students can see the path and the purpose behind what they study.
- Measure and follow up precisely. Track sub-indicators for each group rather than only the overall average — especially student agreement with the mission (2.9) and faculty agreement with the labour market (3.3) — and link improvement in these indicators to recognition or rewards for the departments that close the gaps most successfully.
Conclusion
The data reveal an institution whose leadership and faculty are enthusiastic and ambitious, with an excellent relationship with the labour market and a strong emotional connection with students. Success will come from communicating these outputs to students not as passive recipients, but as partners in the dialogue about the institution identity and their future within it — drawing on the high trust and enthusiasm that already exist among faculty.