1 WORKSHOP Innovating Management&Accounting Practices Turning challenges into opportunities through performance measurement systems 1-2 December 2009 SDA Bocconi, Milan Strategic Planning and Performance Measurement in Universities: some empirical evidences from Italy and a methodological proposal by Bettina Campedelli, Silvia Cantele, Martina Martini (University of Verona) Abstract: This paper concerns the topic of strategic planning in universities, considering both the normative requirements recently issued by the Italian Minister of Education and the emerging practices in the strategic plans published by the universities. The first section of this paper introduces some general observations in terms of regulatory prescriptions and management implications. Section 2 describes the practices of the Italian universities as regards the drafting and communication of strategic plans, while Section 3 outlines a methodological framework for the strategic planning process. The control of strategic objectives stated in the plans implies a performance measurement system, which may be based on the use of strategic performance indicators, better organized in a dashboard or scorecard. Section 4 describes the performance indicators used in the strategic plans published by the universities, in compliance with normative requirements as well as the management control systems freely created by each individual university. Finally, in Section 4 we will draw a few conclusions on the use of performance indicators in the universities, and we will suggest a dashboard model embedding mandatory indicators - required by various Italian laws – and other useful indicators emerging from university practices. 1. Strategic planning in the universities: normative requirements and management implications All the organizations with a form of autonomy need to plan their activities. In the academic world, planning has always been a crucial need of the central system and individual universities. However both the process and the contents have been reviewed, respectively, by the center and the periphery, due to a continuous process of decentralization which consists of central government bodies slowly assuming a role of "remote controllers" rather than direct administrators of universities. This shift from the center to the periphery is the consequence of an increased level of autonomy enjoyed by the universities, such as statutory and regulatory autonomy (Law No. 168/89), financial autonomy (Law No. 537/93) and teaching autonomy (Ministerial Decrees No. 509/99 and No. 270/2004). The recognition of the autonomy of universities is just the legal and formal consequence of the recognition of a substantial autonomy of each university, which is seen as an “enterprise”, with peculiar aims and coordinated means to reach them (Zappa, 1956). However, a university enterprise (Strassoldo, 2001) is characterized by some peculiarities, which are worth mentioning, since they justify in part the slow progress made so far in the process of corporatization and transfer of a "corporate culture". These are: