Title: Action Plan for Implementing Digital Technologies
Course: Strategic Planning for Digital Technology Implementation > Section: Action Plan for Implementing Digital Technologies

Introduction

A digital strategy is not just a document – it paves the way toward transformation; however, alone, it does not guarantee change. To turn ideas into reality, it is necessary to define precise steps, assign responsibilities, and secure resources. This is made possible by the action plan. It breaks down the strategic guidelines into concrete tasks, sets success metrics, and defines how progress will be monitored.

In this lesson, we will focus on developing an action plan for implementing digital technologies. We will cover the methods for specifying goals, planning activities, and establishing monitoring and reporting systems to ensure effective implementation and lasting value for the organization.

Learning outcomes:

- i. explain the role of the action plan and its continuous implementation, and evaluation of execution of the strategy for applying digital technologies (2/understanding);
- ii. create an action plan for the strategy of implementing digital technologies (7/creating);
- iii. describe methods for monitoring the implementation of the action plan (2/understanding).

Operationalization of strategic goals

Strategic goals are often broad, long-term, and expressed at a level that does not allow for immediate implementation. To make them actionable, they are translated into specific, measurable, and time-bound activities — a process known as operationalization.

Example: the strategic goal “Increase the digital competencies of teaching staff” can be broken down into multiple operational activities and measurable objectives, such as developing a curriculum, conducting workshops, or implementing self-assessment tools. Therefore, the key question for each goal is: what exactly needs to be done to achieve it? Each activity should have its purpose, expected outcome, and success criteria. Tabular format is recommended, which also lists for each activity the designated responsible person, deadline, resources, and success indicator.

In many organizations, the clear definition and implementation of strategic goals rely on proven methods and approaches that help translate vision into action:

1. Balanced Scorecard (BSC)[1]: This methodology links strategic goals with key performance indicators across four perspectives (financial, customer, internal processes, and learning and growth), ensuring a comprehensive approach to monitoring.
2. Objectives and Key Results (OKR)[2]: The OKR framework encourages setting ambitious goals (Objectives) and measurable results (Key Results), with regular progress reviews that enhance transparency and agility in implementation.
3. Hoshin Kanri (Policy Deployment)[3]: A method focused on aligning long-term goals with daily operations through planning at various organizational levels, emphasizing feedback and continuous improvement.
4. Logical Framework Approach (LogFrame)[4]: A structured approach that defines a hierarchy of goals, expected results, indicators, and assumptions, enabling systematic monitoring and evaluation of projects.
5. Theory of Change[5]: An approach that visualizes causal links between activities, outputs, and long-term impacts, helping teams clearly see how each action contributes to a strategic goal.
6. PDCA Cycle (Plan-Do-Check-Act)[6]: An iterative process of planning, executing, checking, and adjusting activities that ensures continuous improvement and rapid response to derogations.
7. Total Quality Management (TQM)[7]: A holistic approach to quality management involving all organizational levels, focused on the continuous improvement of processes, products, and services.
8. European Quality Assurance Framework (EQAR, ESG Standards)[8]: Guidelines and standards for implementing and monitoring quality in higher education, ensuring alignment with European and global standards.

These methods, individually or in combination, provide a framework for the structured operationalization of strategic goals, helping teams focus efforts, measure progress, and adapt plans to meet the organization’s needs.

Determining activities to achieve strategic goals

In this chapter, we will demonstrate the application of the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) methodology for task development.

In this methodology, activities and goals are assigned to perspectives, i.e., the thematic areas to which they relate.

The BSC uses four perspectives to ensure a balanced approach: financial, customer, internal processes, and learning and growth. For profit-oriented organizations, the financial perspective usually includes revenues, costs, and return on investment, while in non-profit institutions, the focus is on funding sustainability and spending efficiency [1]. The customer perspective in profit-oriented companies focuses on client satisfaction and retention, while in non-profit organizations it focuses on the satisfaction of service users or students [9,10]. The BSC for non-profit organizations also includes a fifth perspective: vision.

The order of perspectives in the BSC:

- Profit-oriented organizations: learning and growth → business processes → customers → finance
- Non-profit organizations: finance → learning and growth → business processes → customers → vision

It is important to note the role of arrows in the listed sequences: if a goal is placed within the "business processes" perspective, it can theoretically influence only the goals that belong to the same or "higher" perspectives (e.g., customers), but not those from "lower" perspectives (e.g., learning and growth).

The following are the steps of the BSC process demonstrated through the example of a strategic goal of Faculty X (in the context of this analysis, X is considered a profit-oriented organization; a private higher education institution):

SG: "Increase the graduation rate from 60 % to 80 % within the next two years."

Step 1: SWOT analysis

To begin, we conducted a SWOT analysis specific to this goal at Faculty X:

Strengths | Weaknesses | Opportunities | Threats
(S1) Experienced teaching staff | (W1) Students perceive the program as highly stressful | (O1) Availability of EU education funds | (T1) High competition from other faculties
(S2) Modern digital tools in teaching | (W2) Lack of a system for monitoring student progress | (O2) Cooperation with the local industry | (T2) Administrative complexities in implementing changes
(S3) Strong alumni network | (W3) Limited resources for mentoring | (O3) Increasing demand for professionals in the job market | (T3) Changes in higher education regulations

Step 2: Creating strategies (TOWS)

Based on the SWOT elements, we formulate three types of strategies:

1. Corrective (SO-WT): using strengths and opportunities to mitigate weaknesses and threats.
  - (S1, S2 → W1) Develop a mentoring support program with the help of the alumni network to reduce student stress.
  - (S3 → W2) Improve the student performance tracking system by applying existing digital tools.
  - (O2 → W1) Organize stress management workshops featuring experts from the local industry.
2. Defensive (WT): plans to neutralize weaknesses and threats.
  - (T2) Establish simplified administrative procedures for faster implementation of educational innovations.
  - (W3) Secure additional resources through grants and partnerships to support professional mentoring programs.
  - (T2, T3) Update study policies in line with new regulatory requirements.
3. Aggressive (SO): using strengths and opportunities for growth.
  - (S1, O1, O2) Prepare a project proposal for EU funds aimed at improving digital infrastructure.
  - (S1, O3) Expand cooperation with industry by offering joint specialized modules.
  - (S1, O3) Utilize the alumni network to promote the faculty and attract new students.

Step 3: Creating operational goals

The table below outlines how one or more operational objectives are defined for each of the nine strategies created in the previous step:

dialog-cards-10396.h5p

Step 4: Measurement methods

For each of the nine operational objectives from the previous step, key performance indicators (KPI) are defined to track achievement:

Operational Objective | KPI
Implement a mentoring program for 100 students by 30 June 2025, tracking mentee satisfaction ≥4.0/5 | Number of mentors and mentees; average satisfaction score
Implement an online platform for monitoring student progress by 31 May 2025. | Percentage of active platform users (%)
Conduct four stress management workshops by the end of 2025, with an average participant rating ≥4.2/5 | Number of workshops held; average participant rating
Redesign and adopt new procedures for processing student requests by 31 March 2025. | Request processing time (average in days)
Raise at least EUR 50,000 through three partnership agreements or grants by 31 December 2025. | Amount of funds raised (EUR)
Develop and implement revised study regulations by 30 April 2025. | Number of revised and adopted regulations
Submit two complete EU project proposals by 31 March 2025. | Number of project proposals submitted
Establish three new partnership programs with industry by 31 August 2025. | Number of partnership programs established
Launch a campaign in collaboration with alumni and increase new student applications by 15 % | Percentage increase in new student applications (%)

Step 5: Defining the value range (D, d, g, G)

For each operational objective, four values are defined for the corresponding KPI:

- D – the lowest KPI value,
- d – the lower acceptable KPI bound,
- g – the upper acceptable KPI bound,
- G – the highest KPI value.

If the KPI value is between D and d, the operational objective is not being achieved satisfactorily. If the value is between d and g, the objective execution is satisfactory (though not yet as desired). If the value is above g, then the execution of the strategic objective yields a high level of satisfaction.

For each KPI, we set four performance levels:

KPI | D (lower) | d (lower middle) | g (upper middle) | G (upper)
Number of mentors and mentees | 80 | 90 | 100 | 110
Average satisfaction score | 3.5 | 4.0 | 4.5 | 5.0
Percentage of active platform users | 60 % | 70 % | 80 % | 90 %
Number of workshops held | 3 | 3 | 4 | 5
Average participant rating | 3.8 | 4.0 | 4.2 | 4.5
Request processing time (days) | 10 | 7 | 4 | 2
Amount of funds raised (EUR) | 30,000 | 40,000 | 50,000 | 60,000
Number of regulations revised | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
Number of proposals submitted | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3
Number of partnership programs | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4
Percentage increase in new student applications | 5 % | 10 % | 15 % | 20 %

Step 6: Connecting goals with prospectives

Each operational objective is assigned a label and a corresponding BSC perspective. The four core BSC perspectives are: (1) learning and growth (label L), which includes strategies and operational objectives related to organizational learning processes and organizational growth; (2) internal processes (P), which include strategies and operational objectives related to the organization’s business processes; (3) customer (C), which includes strategies and operational objectives related to clients and users of the organization’s products/services; and (4) financial (F), which includes strategies and activities related to achieving financial performance indicators of business viability. In addition, there is a fifth perspective for non-profit organizations, which relates to vision.

For profit-oriented organizations, the order of perspectives is 1–2–3–4, and for non-profit organizations, it is 4–1–2–3–5.
Labels are numbered within each perspective, starting from 1:

Label | Operational Objective | Perspective
L1 | Implement a mentoring program for 100 students | Learning & Growth
P1 | Implement an online platform for monitoring student progress | Internal Processes
P2 | Conduct four stress management workshops | Internal Processes
P3 | Redesign and adopt new procedures for processing student requests | Internal Processes
F1 | Raise at least EUR 50,000 through grants | Financial
F2 | Develop and implement revised study regulations and price lists | Financial
F3 | Submit two complete EU project proposals | Financial
C1 | Establish three new partnership programs with industry | Customer
C2 | Launch a campaign in collaboration with alumni and increase new student applications by 15 % | Customer

Step 7: Impacts between objectives

In this matrix, we highlight only the strongest, direct links between the operational objectives (labels outlined in previous table in Step 6) and the strategic objective (SC). The example below refers to a for-profit higher education institution.

 | U1 | P1 | P2 | P3 | K1 | K2 | F1 | F2 | F3 | SC
U1 | – | X | X | X |  |  |  |  |  |
P1 |  | – |  |  |  |  | X |  |  |
P2 |  |  | – |  |  |  |  | X |  |
P3 |  |  |  | – |  |  |  |  | X |
K1 |  |  |  |  | – |  | X |  | X |
K2 |  |  |  |  |  | – |  |  | X |
F1 |  |  |  |  |  |  | – |  |  | X
F2 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | – |  | X
F3 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | – | X
SC |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | –

Legend: X indicates a strong, direct influence of the objective in the row on the objective in the column.

Step 8. Strategic map of goals and measures

We can graphically present the matrix of influence among objectives—and then among measures—using strategic maps of objectives and measures. Given that the BSC methodology is broad and the duration of this course is short, from an operational standpoint, we will use an Excel file to create the measurement instrument, which enables straightforward operationalization of strategic objectives. In that Excel file, all objectives will have a direct impact on the strategic objective. This refers to Worksheet 5 of the Excel file used for the overall project assignment in the e-course.

Activity descriptions

For each planned activity in the action plan, it is necessary to complete three fundamental elements:

- deadlines for completion,
- activity owners, and
- required resources.

Deadlines for implementation of activities

Define: the exact start and end dates of the activity, as well as key milestones.

Why it matters: clearly defined deadlines enable team alignment, prevent delays, and help prioritize tasks.

How to define correctly: choose realistic time frames adjusted to the task’s complexity and available resources. Divide the timeline into phases (e.g., preparation, implementation, evaluation) with internal deadlines for each phase.

Potential risks: deadlines that are too short can cause haste and reduce quality, while overly long ones may lead to a loss of motivation and team focus.

Activity leaders

Define: the person or team responsible for planning, coordinating, and executing the activity.

Why it matters: clear accountability prevents indecision and task duplication, ensuring that someone proactively monitors progress and resolves issues.

How to define correctly: choose individuals or departments with the required professional competencies, authority, and available work capacity. Include backup responsible persons in case of unforeseen circumstances.

Potential risks: unclear or overlapping responsibilities may cause delays; lack of authority or support for the responsible person can lead to implementation failure.

Resource allocation

Define: the types and quantities of human, financial, material, and technical resources needed to carry out the activity.

Why it matters: without an accurate resource estimate, activities may stall due to a lack of budget, equipment, or experts.

How to define correctly: for each task, specify:

- Human resources: number and roles (e.g., project manager, trainer, IT support)
- Financial resources: estimated amount (budget for fees, licenses, travel costs)
- Material/technical resources: space, equipment, software, and licenses

Also, describe the source of these resources (internal budget, grant, partner contribution).

Potential risks: underestimating costs leads to budget overruns, while overestimating can result in inefficient allocation of funds.

Table: Deadlines, owners, and resources for operational objectives

Label | Operational objective | Deadline | Owner | Human resources | Material resources | Financial resources
L1 | Introduce a mentoring program for 100 students | 30.06.2025 | Vice Dean for Teaching | 10 mentors, 2 coordinators | Meeting rooms, communication materials | 5,000 EUR for mentor fees
P1 | Implement an online platform for tracking student progress | 31.05.2025 | Vice Dean for Teaching | 2 IT specialists, 1 project manager | Server, software license | 8,000 EUR for license and infrastructure
P2 | Conduct four stress-management workshops | 30.11.2025 | Vice Dean for Teaching | 4 trainers, 1 coordinator | Hall, flipchart, workshop materials | 2,500 EUR for equipment and fees
P3 | Redesign and adopt new procedures for handling student requests | 31.03.2025 | Vice Dean for Teaching | 1 process analyst, 1 legal advisor | Computer, document software | 3,000 EUR for development and implementation
F1 | Raise at least 50,000 EUR through grants | 31.12.2025 | Vice Dean for Operations | 2 project managers, 1 grants advisor | Access to funds, network of contacts | Need to mobilize 50,000 EUR
F2 | Develop and implement revised study regulations | 30.04.2025 | Vice Dean for Teaching | 2 regulatory specialists, 1 designer | Office suite, design software | 1,500 EUR for graphic design and printing
F3 | Submit two complete EU project proposals | 31.03.2025 | Vice Dean for International Projects | 3 project team members, 1 financial analyst | IT support, office supplies | 4,000 EUR for proposal development
C1 | Establish three new partnership programs with industry | 31.08.2025 | Vice Dean for International Projects | 1 partnership manager, 1 legal advisor | Negotiation Office, introductory materials | 2,000 EUR for travel and promotion
C2 | Launch a campaign in cooperation with alumni and increase the number of new student applications by 15 % | Start of the 2026 enrollment period | Vice Dean for Teaching | 2 marketing specialists, 5 alumni ambassadors | Digital channels, promotional materials | 6,000 EUR for advertising and printing

Now that we have a structure of activities with timelines, responsibilities, and resources, we can carry out the following analyses and draw concrete conclusions:

- Identifying peak workload periods: The Gantt chart shows that most activity deadlines cluster in May (P1), March (P3, F3), and November (P2). The distribution of new tasks in those months should be shifted to reduce the risk of delays.
- Owner workload analysis: A workload histogram indicates that the Vice Dean for Teaching is assigned the most activities across different phases of the plan, suggesting the need to reassign part of the tasks to the Vice Dean for Operations or external collaborators.
- Resource aggregation: The overall estimate of human resources shows the engagement of 10 mentors, 2 IT specialists, 4 trainers, 1 process analyst, 2 project managers, 2 regulatory specialists, 3 project team members, 1 partnership manager, and 2 marketing specialists, plus 5 alumni ambassadors. Material resources include premises, IT and software infrastructure, promotional materials, while financially the project is structured with a budget of approximately 60,000 EUR for licenses, fees, printing, and travel costs.
- Conclusion: The analyses clearly show that it is crucial to balance the engagement of the Vice Dean for Teaching, given the high number of related activities, and to optimize the distribution of financial resources throughout the planned period. It is recommended to reassign part of the tasks to the Vice Dean for Operations and the Vice Dean for International Projects, and to monitor budget spending through regular reporting.

Monitoring the implementation of the action plan

Monitoring the implementation of the action plan is essential for timely identification of deviations from the plan, evaluation of effectiveness, and adjustment of activities. Successful monitoring includes:

accordion-10399.h5p

Conclusion

This material presented a systematic approach to translating a digital strategy into specific activities through a detailed outline of the Balanced Scorecard methodology, SWOT/TOWS analysis, and SMART goals. The introductory section highlighted the importance of clearly defining steps, responsibilities, and resources to transform the strategic plan into action. By analyzing SWOT factors and generating strategies, the practice of aligning strengths, opportunities, weaknesses, and threats was demonstrated. Operational objectives were shaped through tabular overviews with precisely defined KPIs and four-level performance ranges. Established maps of goals and perspectives enabled the visualization of interdependencies and the hierarchy of activities within the organization. Detailed descriptions of deadlines, owners, and resources provided a framework for realistic planning and allocation of human, material, and financial capacities. Analyses of stressful periods and owner workloads indicated the need to redistribute tasks for optimal execution. Monitoring of implementation is based on a combination of interactive dashboards, project tools, and regular meetings, ensuring the timely detection of derogations. Procedures for responding to delays and re-planning mechanisms enable flexibility and adaptation of the action plan to new circumstances. Transparent distribution of responsibilities among management, the project team, and owners increases the motivation and accountability of all stakeholders. Examples of visualizations, such as workload heat maps and KPI variance charts, support the understanding of progress and decision-making. The use of research-based references ensures the theoretical validity of the presented methods. This e-course thus offers a framework for the effective implementation of digital transformation in higher education and other organizations.

References

[1] S. Kaplan and D. P. Norton, “The Balanced Scorecard: Measures that Drive Performance,” Harv. Bus. Rev., vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 71–79, 1992. [Accessed: Aug. 1, 2025]
[2] J. Doerr, Measure What Matters: How Google, Bono, and the Gates Foundation Rock the World with OKRs, Portfolio, 2018.
[3] T. Akao and Y. Mizuno, Hoshin Kanri: Policy Deployment for Successful TQM, Productivity Press, 1994.
[4] G. Jensen, "The Logical Framework Approach," Bond, 2010. [Accessed: Aug. 1, 2025]
[5] C. H. Weiss, “Nothing as Practical as Good Theory: Exploring Theory-based Evaluation for Comprehensive Community Initiatives,” in New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives, Washington, DC, USA: Aspen Institute, 1995.
[6] W. E. Deming, Out of the Crisis, MIT Press, 1986.
[7] A. V. Feigenbaum, Total Quality Control, McGraw-Hill, 1991.
[8] European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA), “Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG),” 2015. [Accessed: Aug. 1, 2025]
[9] J. Brumec, M. Tomičić, and S. Brumec, “Konstrukcija mjernih instrumenata za Balanced Scorecard,” in Proceedings of the 18th Conference on Methods and Tools for Information and Business Systems Development, 2006, pp. 21–30. [Accessed: Aug. 1, 2025]
[10] A. Janeš, N. Kadoić, and N. Begičević Ređep, “Differences in prioritization of the BSC’s strategic goals using AHP and ANP methods”, Journal of Information and Organizational Sciences, vol. 42, no. 2, 2018. [Accessed: Aug. 1, 2025]