The three main Global Strategic Plans we have read in this class (Baruch last week and Ohio University and Middlesex Community College this week) all have similar themes.  The broad goals for each include increasing study abroad, creating international partnerships, and internationalizing the home campus through increased global themes in the curriculum, emphasizing international student recruitment, and fostering a welcoming environment for international students.  It was nice to see that diverse institution types put such an emphasis on internationalization.  However, the way each institution goes about creating a Global Strategic Plan varies widely regarding approach, specificity, and presentation.

Ohio University’s Global Strategic Plan almost seemed more like a persuasive paper about the importance of having an international component in education than a tangible plan of an established university.  They provide an extensive background, even going into historical trends such as the transition from a service economy to a knowledge economy focused on communication technologies.  They spent about a third of the document focusing on AIEA’s first principle of successful strategic planning: “Educate about internationalization.”  It seems they are convincing the campus community of the need for large scale internationalization.  This is in contrast to the strategic plans we’ve read on the East Coast, specifically Baruch with a student body that is already extremely diverse in a setting where the importance of internationalization needs little explanation.

Middlesex Community College’s (MCC) Global Strategic Plan is very specific, including a number of specific documents in their appendix such as applications for MCC study abroad programs and a promotional flier regarding the Mission and Values of the college.  These support documents indicate a level of organization and preparedness not seen in the other strategic plans.  For example, Appendix A is a worksheet in the form of a table that includes columns about each Strategic Direction of the college and the corresponding specific initiatives, measurements, resources, and areas for further research.  Along with Appendix A, MCC used tools to succinctly present the information in a way that anyone could understand.  For example, the SWOT Analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) and the Goals and Strategies (pg. 21 – 24) were both great ways to not only establish what the institution is already doing but also to clearly outline specific activities and evaluation methods.  They were able to efficiently fulfill many of AIEA’s strategic planning principles including “establishing a timeline”, “ensure that internationalization touches all students,” and “disseminate the information.”

Both Global Strategic Plans share common characteristics.  For example, they both emphasize the importance of preparing students to succeed in an increasingly interconnected world and produce graduates capable of solving complicated global problems.  They also both connect the new Global Strategic Plan with the institutional mission and general strategic plan.  However, Middlesex seem to be further along in the strategic planning process than Ohio University.  MCC also seems to be more coordinated.  This could be due to a number of factors including the institution’s current student enrollment (MCC is more racially diverse), or size (MCC has about 12,000 students while Ohio University has 17,000 undergrads, but almost 6,000 graduate and doctorate students).  In both of these areas Middlesex has an advantage when it comes to global strategic planning.  Additionally, perhaps because Middlesex is a Community College there are fewer distinct schools and fewer degree levels, making it easier to craft a strategic plan to applies to everyone.  Regardless, both institutions clearly but a lot of effort into crafting these strategic plans and each has their own strengths and weaknesses.