I was asked in a session with a private university about how seriously should they treat the vision and mission in planning programmes. Most programme standards stipulate tha
t the programme must be consistent with the vision (and mission) of the institution. Some professional bodies insist that the programmes too have a derivative vision and mission. Sounds very rational and logical although a little ill-informed about the science underpinning it.
Vision and mission statements are not legal requirements. These are considered as good leadership and management requirements. But wait, they are management gurus who speak about espoused and actual (Schein), stated and emergent (Mintsberg), get the talent onboard and vision will emerge (Collins) and hearty vision (Covey Sr). So take your pick.
Assuming they are useful, the vision can be crafted to be narrow or broad; with or without timelines; and realistic or totally outlandish claims. A narrowly stated vision is much clearer and easier to communicate but it traps the college in a zone. But it heeds Peters and Waterman's famous book In Search of Excellence - stay to your knitting. But is defies the calls to diversity the portfolio. Enough said about visions.
So the question for me is not whether it looks consistent with the fluid and organic vision. Does the general or specific vision of greatness so poetically written and proudly adorning the walls guide the design, the content, the delivery, the assessment and the management and collaborations to reflect or articulate the envisioned state. Most times the proposed programme is very ordinary, similar and conventional. How will your graduate leave with good character or as a cyberprenuer or shape the future of the industry? These are vision, mission and graduate attributes questions which helps me understand the alignment and evaluate the link. A pass mark is what most deserve.