Bridging Strategy and Impact: A Case Study on Strategic Excellence in Higher Education

Bridging Strategy and Impact: A Case Study on Strategic Excellence in Higher Education

Mohd Fairuz Adnan¹*, Nazreen Sahol Hamid², Halil Paino³, Erlane K Ghani⁴, Zubaidah Ismail⁵

^1,2,3,4 Faculty of Accountancy, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Cawangan Selangor, Kampus Puncak Alam, Selangor, Malaysia.

⁵School of Business and Law, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia, WA6030

^*Corresponding author

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.909000715

Received: 20 September 2025; Accepted: 26 September 2025; Published: 28 October 2025

ABSTRACT

Strategic planning has become an essential mechanism for higher education institutions to achieve competitiveness, institutional resilience, and societal relevance. This case study examines the Faculty of Accountancy at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM), focusing on the implementation of its Strategic Plan 2022 (PSFPN2022), which was designed in alignment with national policies, including the Malaysian Education Blueprint (2013–2025), and UiTM’s Strategic Plan 2025. The faculty adopted an integrated approach that emphasised industry linkages, entrepreneurship, alumni engagement, and community involvement through 27 projects, including seven flagship initiatives under the Industry and Entrepreneurship Network. These projects, ranging from the Dynamic Linkages collaboration framework to the FACT IND-Zone Trading Hub, were systematically monitored using the FACT Scorecard, quarterly reviews, and risk management protocols to ensure alignment with institutional performance indicators (i-Score).

The outcomes reveal that structured strategic planning, coupled with robust monitoring and continuous improvement mechanisms, enabled the faculty to achieve 99% of UiTM’s i-Score targets and secure a 6-STAR rating in 2022. The findings underscore the importance of bridging strategy and impact through stakeholder engagement, risk integration, and innovative project deployment. This case contributes to the literature by offering practical insights into how higher education institutions can operationalise strategic excellence to enhance global competitiveness and institutional sustainability.

Keywords: Strategic planning, Higher education, Institutional impact, Industry linkages, Entrepreneurship,

INTRODUCTION

The contemporary landscape of higher education is characterised by intense pressure to demonstrate value, relevance, and tangible impact (Marginson, 2023). Universities worldwide are navigating the dual challenges of maintaining academic excellence while ensuring their graduates are equipped with the skills demanded by a dynamic global economy (Altbach et al., 2019). In response, strategic planning has evolved from a perfunctory administrative exercise into a critical management tool for aligning institutional resources with overarching goals, fostering innovation, and ultimately, securing a competitive advantage (Dooris et al., 2020).

The efficacy of strategic planning, however, is not guaranteed by its mere existence. A significant challenge lies in the “implementation gap” where the disconnect between ambitious strategic goals formulated at the leadership level and their practical execution across academic and administrative units (Bryson, 2018). This gap frequently arises from ineffective deployment, working in isolation, limited monitoring, and the absence of an integrated risk management approach (Poister & Streib, 2020). Therefore, the accurate measure of strategic excellence is not the plan itself, but rather the organisation’s ability to operationalise it, create coherent alignment across all levels, and generate measurable outcomes that reflect its core mission (Kettunen, 2019).

Within this context, quality awards and accreditation frameworks serve as vital external validation mechanisms. They provide structured criteria for assessing an institution’s holistic management practices, including its strategic direction, deployment processes, and resulting performance (Calvo-Mora et al., 2014). The Anugerah Kualiti Naib Canselor (AKNC) at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) is one such internal award that rigorously evaluates the performance of its faculties based on a comprehensive set of criteria mirroring international quality models.

This manuscript presents a focused case study on the Faculty of Accountancy (FPN) at UiTM, a recipient of the AKNC award in 2023. The study focuses on Criterion 2: Strategic Planning to explore how the faculty successfully bridged the strategy-impact divide. We examine the architecture of FPN’s 2022 Strategic Plan (PSFPN2022), which was explicitly aligned with national policies (Rancangan Malaysia Ke-11), the Malaysian Education Blueprint (2015-2025), and institutional goals (UiTM Strategic Plan 2025). The analysis delves into its deployment mechanism, particularly through projects dedicated to enhancing Industry Networks and Entrepreneurship (Jaringan Industri dan Keusahawanan, known as JIK), and its rigorous performance management system centred on i-Score metrics.

The central research question guiding this study is: How did the Faculty of Accountancy design and execute its strategic plan to effectively translate high-level goals into measurable impact, particularly in the domain of industry and entrepreneurship? By dissecting FPN’s approach, which encompasses its alignment, deployment, monitoring, and integration practices, this case study aims to contribute a practical model for strategic excellence that can inform other higher education institutions seeking to enhance their strategic agility and demonstrate a tangible impact.

Problem Statement

Strategic planning is vital for higher education institutions to remain competitive in a dynamic global environment (Dooris et al., 2020). However, having a plan does not guarantee success. The main challenge is the “implementation gap,” where ambitious goals set by leaders fail to translate into action (Bryson, 2018). This often results from weak deployment, fragmented operations, and poor coordination across units, leading to strategic drift and unachieved outcomes (Poister & Streib, 2020).

Compounding this issue is the ineffectiveness of performance monitoring systems. Many higher education institutions struggle to translate strategic objectives into actionable, data-driven management processes (Molina-Azorin et al., 2020). Without robust, real-time monitoring tools such as dynamic scorecards and structured review cycles, institutions cannot proactively identify underperformance, manage risks, or foster a culture of evidence-based decision-making and continuous improvement (Cruz & Sarmento, 2022). Consequently, strategic plans often remain as static documents rather than evolving into dynamic frameworks that drive measurable impact, undermining institutional accountability and long-term sustainability. This study investigates how one faculty addressed these challenges to bridge the critical divide between strategy and impact.

Gap Of Study

Much of the literature addresses strategic components in isolation, such as alignment with national policies (Tight, 2022) or the use of balanced scorecards (Cruz & Sarmento, 2022) without sufficiently illustrating how these elements interact synergistically in practice. Furthermore, while the concepts of organisational learning and integrated implementation are recognised as critical (Dooris et al., 2020), there is a lack of granular, evidence-based case studies that trace the causal processes from strategic deployment through to performance review and corrective action within a single institutional context. This gap is particularly pronounced concerning the role of robust, data-driven monitoring protocols and integrated risk management in bridging the strategy-impact divide in real-time (Chapman & Adams, 2022).

Therefore, this study seeks to fill this void by providing an in-depth, empirical investigation into the Faculty of Accountancy at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM). It moves beyond describing what was planned to explicate how the faculty’s strategic management system encompassing hierarchical alignment, the FACT Scorecard for performance monitoring, and a culture of integrated execution functioned cohesively to translate strategy into demonstrable impact. By offering a detailed account of this integrated process, this case study addresses a critical gap in the literature, providing a practical model of strategic excellence that can inform both scholarly understanding and institutional practice.)

LITERATURE REVIEW

The pursuit of strategic excellence in higher education is a multi-faceted endeavour, requiring a synthesis of robust planning, effective execution, and continuous adaptation. To frame the analysis of the Faculty of Accountancy’s (FPN) success, this review focuses on three critical variables derived from the case: (1) the principle of Strategic Alignment and Coherent Planning, (2) the mechanics of Performance Measurement and Data-Driven Monitoring, and (3) the culture of Integrated Implementation and Organisational Learning.

Strategic Alignment and Coherent Planning

Strategic alignment research encompasses multiple domains, with significant focus on business-IT alignment and project-based organisations. Business-IT strategic alignment remains a critical concern for achieving organisational performance and competitive advantage, though conceptual clarity and systematic knowledge development face challenges due to overlapping constructs and definitions (Maulana et al., 2023). In project-based businesses, strategic alignment demonstrates mutual influence with project management, helping organisations focus on the correct projects while achieving strategic objectives (Brito & Júnior, 2021). Sales and operations planning contexts reveal that achieving strategic alignment requires an organisational mindset shift from control to growth orientation (Shanahan et al., 2025). Research methodologies emphasise systematic literature review approaches, with studies focusing primarily on alignment development and planning processes (Amrollahi et al., 2013). Synergistic alignment frameworks highlight the importance of harmonising strategic objectives, strategies, and initiatives across organisational levels, with communication, leadership, and culture serving as key influencing factors (Boateng & Yamoah, 2023).

A foundational element of effective strategy is its alignment with external expectations and internal capabilities. In higher education, strategic plans are no longer insular documents; instead, they must be coherently nested within national educational frameworks, economic policies, and institutional missions (Fadeeva et al., 2021). This vertical and horizontal integration ensures that organisational efforts are synergistic and address broader societal goals, such as graduate employability and national economic development (Tight, 2022).

The literature emphasises that such alignment mitigates strategic drift and provides a clear, legitimised direction for all stakeholders (Buckland, 2020). For instance, aligning faculty-level initiatives with university-wide strategic themes and national blueprints creates a “golden thread” that connects daily activities to macro-level objectives (Williams, 2019). This coherence is crucial for securing internal buy-in and rationalising resource allocation, as it demonstrates how individual contributions fit into the larger picture (Kettunen & Kantola, 2020).

Performance Measurement and Data-Driven Monitoring

The performance measurement and data-driven monitoring literature reveals a significant evolution and ongoing challenges in organisational implementation. The field has matured considerably since the late 1970s performance measurement revolution, driven by dissatisfaction with traditional accounting systems (Nudurupati et al., 2016). Current research emphasises the adoption of continuous and data-driven approaches, highlighting the importance of real-time feedback, predictive analytics, and organisational culture in enhancing performance management practices (Andi Adawiyah, 2024). Literature reviews consistently identify implementation difficulties, with many performance measurement system implementations proving unsuccessful despite widespread interest (Bourne et al., 2003). Key challenges include data integration, quality assurance, and cultural resistance (Sinclair & Zairi, 2000). The field shows maturity in large company applications, but significant gaps remain for small and medium enterprises (Taticchi et al., 2010). Industry 4.0 and IoT technologies are transforming machine-based performance measurement, though SMEs face particular adaptation challenges (Martins et al., 2022). Despite theoretical advances, practical guidance for company-specific implementation remains limited (Striteska & Špičková, 2012).

The adage “what gets measured gets managed” is particularly pertinent in strategic management. The transition from plan to impact is facilitated by a robust performance measurement system (Molina-Azorin et al., 2020). In higher education, this often involves translating strategic objectives into Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) or scorecards that provide a quantifiable basis for evaluation (Shah & Nair, 2020).

Modern approaches advocate for moving beyond traditional, often lagging, indicators to more dynamic systems that allow for real-time or frequent monitoring. Tools like balanced scorecards and data dashboards enable ‘management by exception’, where leaders can quickly identify underperforming areas (signalled by “red” statuses) and initiate corrective actions (Cruz & Sarmento, 2022). This data-driven approach transforms strategy from a static document into a living process, fostering a culture of accountability and evidence-based decision-making (de la Rey & van Schalkwyk, 2021). Effective monitoring is not merely about tracking but is intrinsically linked to risk management, where potential failures are identified and mitigated proactively (Chapman & Adams, 2022).

Integrated Implementation and Organisational Learning

This literature review examines integrated implementation and organisational learning across multiple domains. Organisational learning operates at the system level rather than the individual level, encompassing information acquisition, distribution, interpretation, meaning making, and memory retrieval (Dixon, 1992). The field draws from diverse disciplines, including organisational theory, economics, psychology, and management studies, requiring a multidisciplinary approach for a complete understanding (Dodgson, 1993). The integration of individual and organisational learning proves critical for performance calibration, with continuous learning contributing to sustainable, long-term organisational success (Chauhan & Kalkis, 2021). In healthcare contexts, learning organisations facilitate integrated planning through systems thinking, shared vision, and cohesive teamwork (Jati et al., 2024). Knowledge management integration with organisational learning creates frameworks for practical implementation (Pun & Nathai-Balkissoon, 2011). Organisational learning also supports ambidexterity by balancing exploitation and exploration activities (Singer-Coudoux et al., 2024) and enables lean manufacturing transformation (Yadav et al., 2017). Public sector organisations present distinctive contexts that require sector-specific approaches, acknowledging different aims, values, and structures (Rashman et al., 2009).

The most meticulously crafted strategy will fail without effective implementation. Research consistently identifies implementation as the most challenging phase of strategic management, often failing due to poor communication, lack of ownership, and organisational silos (Bryson, 2018). Successful implementation requires deep integration across all levels of the organisation (Dooris et al., 2020). This involves clear governance structures, such as appointing project managers and dedicated committees, as well as continuous communication through both formal (e.g., meetings) and informal (e.g., digital media) channels to ensure every member understands their role in executing the strategy (Knight & Trowler, 2020).

Furthermore, integration is futile without organisational learning. Strategic excellence is characterised by a feedback loop where monitoring data feeds into cycles of review and improvement (Poister & Streib, 2020). This involves formally scheduled reviews (e.g., quarterly management meetings) to analyse performance variances, identify root causes of shortfalls, and enact targeted interventions (Marginson, 2023). This iterative process of action, evaluation, and adaptation embeds a capacity for learning and agility within the organisation, allowing it to respond to challenges and refine its approach continuously (Secundo et al., 2021).

In summary, the literature posits that strategic excellence is achieved not through any single factor but through the interplay of coherent planning, rigorous measurement, and a deeply integrated and learning-oriented implementation culture. This case study of FPN will examine how these three variables manifested in practice to bridge the gap between strategy and impact. The following figure outlines the research framework for examining the factors influencing the strategic excellent:

Figure 1: Factors affecting the strategic excellence in higher education

Figure 1 presents the main factors influencing strategic excellence in higher education, namely strategic alignment, performance monitoring and integrated implementation. These dimensions collectively determine the extent to which strategic excellence can be achieved in higher education institutions.

METHODOLOGY

Research Design

This study employs a qualitative, single-case study design to conduct an in-depth investigation into the strategic planning and execution processes of the Faculty of Accountancy (FPN) at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM). The case study approach is deemed most appropriate as it allows for a holistic and detailed examination of a contemporary phenomenon, such as strategic excellence, within its real-world context, particularly when the boundaries between the phenomenon and its context are not clearly evident (Baxter & Jack, 2015). The “case” is bounded by the faculty’s activities throughout the 2022 academic year, culminating in its recognition via the Anugerah Kualiti Naib Canselor (AKNC) in 2023, with a specific focus on Criterion 2: Strategic Planning.

Data Sources and Collection

Data for this study were drawn entirely from a comprehensive archival analysis of primary internal documents provided by the faculty for the AKNC assessment. This method provides rich, authentic, and objective evidence of the processes and outcomes without the potential biases associated with retrospective self-reporting (Bowen, 2009). The documents analysed include:

1. Strategic Planning Documents: The Faculty’s 2022 Strategic Plan (PSFPN2022), which outlines goals, objectives, and the 27 specific projects designed to achieve them.
2. Performance Monitoring Reports: The “FACT Scorecard” and related tracking templates provided quarterly progress updates on all projects, using a traffic light system (Red, Yellow, Green) to indicate status.
3. Governance and Committee Records: Minutes from Management Review Meetings (Mesyuarat Kaji Semula Pengurusan, MKSP), terms of reference for the Strategic Planning and Performance Advisory Committee (Jawatankuasa Penasihat Perancangan Strategik dan Prestasi, JPPSP), and risk management templates (e.g., e-RMS reports).
4. Deployment and Communication Evidence: Announcements, briefing slides from strategic planning workshops, and internal communications (e.g., emails, WhatsApp bulletins) demonstrating how the strategy was integrated and communicated across the faculty.
5. Output and Impact Evidence: Lists of executed Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs), records of community engagement programs (e.g., USR/KTP initiatives), and summaries of entrepreneurship activities that serve as evidence of the strategy’s tangible outcomes.

Data Analysis

The document analysis followed a two-stage process guided by the theoretical framework established in the literature review, which focuses on strategic alignment, performance monitoring, and integrated implementation as follows:

1. Thematic Analysis: The documents were subjected to a direct content analysis to identify evidence of the three pre-defined variables:

• Strategic Alignment: Coding for references to national policies (e.g., RMK-11, PPPMPT), institutional plans (UiTM Strategic Plan 2025), and how faculty-level projects were designed to fulfil these higher-level objectives.
• Performance Monitoring: Coding for the structure of the i-Score system, the frequency and methods of monitoring (e.g., FACT Scorecard, quarterly reviews), and the protocols for managing underperformance (e.g., Management by Exception).
• Integrated Implementation: Coding for governance structures (committees, project managers), communication channels (meetings, digital media), risk management processes, and cycles of corrective action and improvement.

2. Process Tracing: Subsequently, the coded data were synthesised to reconstruct the chronological and causal sequence of events from the initial planning workshops through to project execution, monitoring, intervention, and outcome achievement. This process-tracing technique was crucial for understanding how the faculty’s strategic management mechanisms worked in concert to produce the documented results, thereby addressing the core research question.

FINDINGS & DISCUSSION

The findings from the Faculty of Accountancy (FPN) present a compelling case study in operationalising strategic plans to achieve demonstrable impact within a higher education context. The analysis reveals that FPN’s success was not serendipitous but the result of a deliberate and sophisticated management system that effectively bridged the often-problematic gap between strategy formulation and implementation. This discussion interprets these findings through the lens of the three core variables established in the literature review: strategic alignment, performance monitoring, and integrated implementation.

The Imperative of Hierarchical and Coherent Alignment

This case strongly affirms the principle that effective strategy requires multi-level alignment. FPN’s PSFPN2022 was explicitly designed as a conduit, channelling national aspirations (RMK-11, PPPMPT), institutional ambitions (UiTM Strategic Plan 2025), and faculty-level capabilities into a coherent set of actions. This practice resonates with the work of Buckland (2020), who argues that the modern university’s relevance is tied to its ability to demonstrate its contribution to broader societal and economic goals. By meticulously mapping its projects to these higher-level frameworks, FPN ensured the strategic relevance of its initiatives and provided a powerful rationale for resource allocation and staff engagement, effectively creating the “golden thread” described by Williams (2019). This alignment provided a clear understanding of the “why” behind each action, fostering a sense of purpose that is crucial for motivating academic staff beyond traditional disciplinary commitments (Knight & Trowler, 2020).

Transforming Strategy from Document to Dynamic Process through Data-Driven Monitoring

Second, FPN’s approach to performance monitoring exemplifies how to transform a static strategic plan into a dynamic management tool. The implementation of the FACT Scorecard, with its traffic-light coding system and quarterly review cycles, institutionalised a rhythm of accountability and data-driven decision-making. This system enabled a practice of “Management by Exception,” allowing faculty leadership to swiftly identify and intervene in underperforming projects (those coded “red”). This finding aligns with contemporary research advocating for dynamic performance management systems in the public sector, which move beyond annual reporting to foster real-time agility (Cruz & Sarmento, 2022; Poister & Streib, 2020). The i-Score metrics provided a common language for performance, moving discussions from subjective opinions to objective data, thereby embodying the principles of evidence-based management that are crucial yet often challenging to implement in academic environments (de la Rey & van Schalkwyk, 2021).

Cultivating a Culture of Integrated Execution and Iterative Learning

FPN’s success was rooted in its deep integration of the strategy into the organisation’s fabric and its commitment to iterative learning. The appointment of dedicated project managers, the establishment of specific committees and the use of diverse communication channels (from formal meetings to WhatsApp groups) ensured that the strategy was not a top-down decree but a shared responsibility. This dismantling of silos is a critical success factor often cited in the literature (Dooris et al., 2020; Bryson, 2018).

Furthermore, the formalised process of reviewing variances, identifying root causes, and implementing corrective actions, as seen in the turnaround of the FACT Entrepreneur Educator Expert project, demonstrates a robust organisational learning cycle. This aligns with Secundo et al.’s (2021) concept of strategic agility, where an organisation’s capacity to learn from operational feedback is a key determinant of its long-term effectiveness. The integration of risk management (e-RMS) into every project further underscores a maturity in strategic thinking, moving from mere compliance to proactive stewardship of the faculty’s objectives and reputation (Chapman & Adams, 2022).

CONCLUSION

This case study set out to investigate how the Faculty of Accountancy (FPN) at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) successfully bridged the gap between strategic planning and tangible impact, as evidenced by its achievement of the Anugerah Kualiti Naib Canselor (AKNC) in 2023. The analysis reveals that strategic excellence is not a singular event but a sophisticated, interconnected system. The findings demonstrate that FPN’s success was predicated on a powerful synergy of three core elements: the coherent alignment of its objectives with national and institutional agendas, the implementation of a rigorous, data-driven monitoring system (the FACT Scorecard), and the deep integration of the strategy into the organisational fabric through transparent governance, continuous communication, and a culture of iterative learning and risk management.

This tripartite model served as a robust engine for translating ambitious goals into measurable outcomes, such as the signing of 15 MoUs/MoAs and achieving 99% of its assigned i-Score targets. The faculty’s approach effectively closed the “implementation gap” that often plagues strategic initiatives in higher education, providing a practical blueprint for other institutions to follow. It underscores a critical lesson that highlights the meticulous management of the strategy process, which involves planning, deployment, review, and action, is just as important as the strategic content itself in achieving excellence.

Limitations and Avenues for Future Research

Despite its contributions, this study is subject to several limitations that also present opportunities for future research. As a single-case study based on archival data, its findings are context-specific. The reliance on official documents, while providing objective evidence of processes and outcomes, may not capture the informal challenges, personal perceptions, and tacit knowledge that undoubtedly played a role in the strategy’s execution. The documents likely present a rationalised, success-oriented narrative, overlooking implementation hurdles and failures that were resolved along the way.

Therefore, future research should seek to triangulate these findings. A logical next step would be a mixed-methods study incorporating semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders, including the dean, project managers, committee members, and academic staff involved in the projects. This would provide deeper insights into the human and cultural factors that enabled success, such as leadership styles, changing management strategies, and staff morale and buy-in. Additionally, a comparative case study with another faculty, either within UiTM or at a different university, could help identify which elements of FPN’s model are universally applicable and which are context-dependent.

Furthermore, while this study focused on the internal mechanics of strategic execution, future research could explore the long-term sustainability of this model. Questions remain: Is this level of performance sustainable over multiple planning cycles? How does the faculty adapt its strategies and monitoring systems in response to external shocks or shifting national priorities? Investigating the evolution of this system over time would provide valuable insights into strategic resilience in higher education.

In conclusion, the FPN case offers a robust, evidence-based model for achieving strategic excellence. By moving beyond planning to master the disciplines of execution, monitoring, and integration, higher education institutions can indeed build a reliable bridge between strategic aspirations and their real-world impact, ultimately enhancing their value and relevance in a rapidly changing world.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The authors would like to express their appreciation to the Faculty of Accountancy, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia, for its support and enabling this research project.

REFERENCES

1. Andi Adawiyah, R. (2024). The role of organizational culture in the successful implementation of data-driven performance management: A literature review. Journal of Management Development, 43(1), 15-30. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-05-2023-0161
2. Altbach, P. G., Reisberg, L., & Rumbley, L. E. (2019). Trends in global higher education: Tracking an academic revolution. Brill Sense.
3. Amrollahi, A., Ghapanchi, A. H., & Talaei-Khoei, A. (2013). A systematic literature review on strategic information systems planning: Insights from the past. Pacific Asia Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 5(2), 39–66.
4. Boateng, A. B., & Yamoah, E. E. (2023). Synergistic alignment framework for strategic project success: The role of leadership and organisational culture. International Journal of Project Management, *41*(5), 102489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2023.102489
5. Bourne, M., Neely, A., Mills, J., & Platts, K. (2003). Implementing performance measurement systems: A literature review. International Journal of Business Performance Management, 5(1), 1–24.
6. Brito, L. A. L., & Júnior, O. C. (2021). Strategic alignment in project-based organisations: A systematic review and conceptual framework. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, *14*(4), 849–871. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-07-2020-0216
7. Brynjolfsson, E., & McElheran, K. (2019). The rapid adoption of data-driven decision-making. American Economic Review, 109(5), 184-190.
8. Bryson, J. M. (2018). Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organisations: A guide to strengthening and sustaining organisational achievement (5th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
9. Bryson, J. M. (2018). Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organisations: A guide to strengthening and sustaining organisational achievement (5th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
10. Buckland, R. (2020). University and public policy: The changing role of the university in the twenty-first century. Edward Elgar Publishing.
11. Calvo-Mora, A., Leal, A., & Roldán, J. L. (2014). Relationships between the EFQM model criteria: A study in Spanish universities. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 25(7-8), 779–798. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2013.856548
12. Chapman, D. W., & Adams, D. (Eds.). (2022). The quality of education: Dimensions and strategies. Hong Kong University Press.
13. Chauhan, R., & Kalkis, H. (2021). A review on the calibration of organisational learning and performance. Management Dynamics, 21(2), 1–13.
14. Cruz, N. F., & Sarmento, J. M. (2022). Dashboard use in public sector management: Evidence from higher education. Public Performance & Management Review, 45(3), 567–592.
15. de la Rey, C., & van Schalkwyk, F. (2021). Accountability and performance in South African higher education: A new landscape. Studies in Higher Education, 46(4), 669-682.
16. Dixon, N. M. (1992). Organizational learning: A review of the literature with implications for HRD professionals. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 3(1), 29–49. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.3920030105
17. Dodgson, M. (1993). Organizational learning: A review of some literatures. Organization Studies, 14(3), 375–394. https://doi.org/10.1177/017084069301400303
18. Dooris, M. J., Kelley, J. M., & Trainer, J. F. (2020). Strategic planning in higher education. Routledge.
19. Fadeeva, Z., Galkute, L., & Mader, C. (2021). Sustainable development goals and sustainability in higher education: A review of the past, present, and future. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 22(5), 1006–1025.
20. Jati, A. W., Suhariadi, F., & Hamidah, S. (2024). The role of learning organization dimensions on integrated planning in hospital: A literature review. Journal of Integrated Care, 32(1), 45-58.
21. Kettunen, J. (2019). The strategic planning of higher education institutions. In Strategic management in higher education (pp. 1-16). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
22. Kettunen, J., & Kantola, I. (2020). The relevance of strategic planning in higher education. Educational Planning, 27(2), 7-20.
23. Knight, P. T., & Trowler, P. R. (2020). Departmental leadership in higher education. Open University Press.
24. Maulana, F. R., Hidayat, R., & Suryanto, T. L. M. (2023). Business-IT strategic alignment: A meta-analysis of definitions, dimensions, and measurement models. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, *32*(1), 101752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2023.101752
25. Marginson, S. (2023). What is global higher education? Oxford Review of Education, 49(3), 285–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2022.2061438
26. Marginson, S. (2023). What is global higher education? Oxford Review of Education, 49(3), 285–299.
27. Martins, R. A., Silva, V. L., & Tavares, F. (2022). Industry 4.0 and performance measurement in SMEs: A framework for machine data integration. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 33(5), 893–911. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-09-2021-0365
28. Molina-Azorin, J. F., Lopez-Gamero, M. D., & Pereira-Moliner, J. (2020). The adoption of quality management practices and their impact on organisational performance in higher education. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 31(13-14), 1441-1463.
29. Nudurupati, S. S., Tebboune, S., & Hardman, J. (2016). Contemporary performance measurement and management (PMM) in digital economies. Production Planning & Control, 27(3), 226–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2015.1092611
30. Poister, T. H., & Streib, G. D. (2020). Strategic management in the public sector: Concepts, models, and processes. In Public Productivity and Performance Handbook (pp. 33–50). Routledge.
31. Pun, K. F., & Nathai-Balkissoon, M. (2011). Integrating knowledge management into organisational learning: A review and conceptual framework. The Learning Organization, 18(3), 203–223. https://doi.org/10.1108/09696471111123261
32. Rashman, L., Withers, E., & Hartley, J. (2009). Organizational learning and knowledge in public service organizations: A systematic review of the literature. International Journal of Management Reviews, 11(4), 463–494. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00257.x
33. Secundo, G., Perez, S. E., & Martinaitis, Ž. (2021). An agility evaluation framework for higher education institutions. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 12(2), 699-723.
34. Shah, M., & Nair, C. S. (2020). A new quality agenda: Institutional performance indicators in higher education. In A. Curaj, L. Deca, & R. Pricopie (Eds.), European higher education area: Challenges for a new decade (pp. 345–359). Springer.
35. Shanahan, P., O’Regan, N., & Healy, M. (2025). From control to growth: Achieving strategic alignment in sales and operations planning. Journal of Business Research, *180*, 114756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.114756
36. Sinclair, D., & Zairi, M. (2000). Performance measurement: A critical analysis of the literature with respect to total quality management. International Journal of Management Reviews, 2(2), 145–168. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2370.00035
37. Singer-Coudoux, I., Kalika, M., & Krikken, V. (2024). Organisational learning and ambidexterity: A structured literature review. Journal of Knowledge Management, 28(2), 345-367.
38. Striteska, M., & Špičková, L. (2012). A review and comparison of performance measurement frameworks. Journal of Competitiveness, 4(3), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.7441/joc.2012.03.06
39. Tight, M. (2022). Internationalisation of higher education: A review of the literature. Higher Education Quarterly, 76(2), 292-306.
40. Taticchi, P., Tonelli, F., & Cagnazzo, L. (2010). Performance measurement and management: A literature review and a research agenda. Measuring Business Excellence, 14(1), 4–18. https://doi.org/10.1108/13683041011027418
41. Williams, R. (2019). Aligning institutional strategy with national policy: A case study of a Malaysian university. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 43(9), 1173-1186
42. Yadav, V., Jain, R., Mittal, M. L., Panwar, A., & Lyons, A. C. (2017). The impact of lean practices on the operational performance of SMEs in India. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 119(2), 317–330. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-02-2018-0058