Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study explores the application of agile practices in strategic planning and decision-making within higher education institutions (HEIs). The main objective of the research is to identify best practices and provide recommendations for encouraging greater agility within HEIs. The methodology includes case studies and interviews with 21 experts from eight universities across Europe. The findings reveal that while HEIs face challenges such as complex bureaucratic structures and long planning cycles, there are areas where agile practices can be effectively implemented. Key practices identified include strategic planning, collaboration, decision-making style, change management, lean approach, and continuous improvement. However, institutional regulations and the need for multiple stakeholder involvement make it difficult to embrace agility fully. The research suggests that shorter strategy cycles, such as annual reviews, would better align with the rapid changes in education today. This study offers valuable insights into how HEIs can integrate agile practices to improve responsiveness, flexibility, and collaboration, and it provides actionable recommendations for HEI managers to support the development of an agile culture within their institutions.

Plain Language Summary

How can Higher Education Institutions use Agile Methods to Improve Strategic Planning and Decision-Making?

Universities often struggle with slow decision-making and complex structures, making it hard to keep up with changes in education. This study explores whether agile methods—commonly used in businesses—can help universities become more flexible. By learning from these approaches, universities may be able to respond faster to new challenges and improve how they plan for the future. Many universities follow rigid, long-term strategies, which can make it difficult to adapt to new technologies, policies, and student needs. Researchers interviewed 21 experts from eight European universities to understand how higher education institutions can introduce agility into their processes. The study found that while strict regulations and multiple stakeholders can slow things down, universities can still benefit from agile practices. Key strategies include improving teamwork, making decisions faster, managing change better, and focusing on continuous improvement. One major recommendation is to replace long-term planning with shorter, more flexible strategy cycles, such as reviewing plans every year instead of sticking to rigid multi-year strategies. This would allow universities to stay relevant and adapt more easily to new developments in education. These findings are important because they provide university leaders with practical steps to create a more flexible and responsive educational system. By adopting agile methods, universities can improve collaboration, efficiency, and their ability to respond to change, ultimately benefiting students, staff, and society as a whole.

Keywords

agile practices strategic planning decision-making higher education institutions

Introduction

The agile approach to strategic planning and decision-making is becoming increasingly relevant across various fields. It originated in information technology (IT) as a flexible and adaptive approach to software development (Beck et al., 2021). Since then, agile practices have been used in many other areas, including higher education institutions (HEIs; Anifa et al., 2024; Macheridis, 2018; Philbin, 2015).

HEIs are complex systems in a constantly changing environment. They face growing challenges, including financial limitations due to reduced public funding and increased competition, which require them to find cost-effective solutions without compromising quality (Menon & Suresh, 2021). They also face regulatory pressures, as they must adhere to national and international standards, which can create administrative challenges and hinder decision-making (Ivetić & Ilić, 2020). Additionally, student preferences are changing rapidly, pushing universities to continuously update their curricula and learning experiences (Menon & Suresh, 2021). The emergence of various new technologies—including learning analytics (LA) and artificial intelligence (AI), among others—presents both opportunities and challenges. Therefore, HEIs must adjust to stay relevant in today’s digital world.

What motivated this research was precisely the realization that HEIs must embrace agility to navigate today’s rapidly changing world. Agile principles emphasize collaboration, adaptability, responsiveness, and iterative improvement. These principles can help HEIs address the challenges of modern education by, for example, creating an environment that supports teamwork, flexible decision-making, and continuous feedback mechanisms. Collaboration involves all stakeholders (e.g., faculty staff, students, external partners) to create shared responsibility for institutional goals. Adaptability allows institutions to respond to changes quickly. Responsiveness ensures that stakeholder needs are met, while iterative improvement means regularly refining processes and strategies. By applying these principles, HEIs can maintain their relevance and efficiency (Prejean et al., 2019). These principles are not a strict framework but should be seen as guiding elements that can be adapted to fit the needs of each HEI. Even with these benefits, many HEIs are slow to adopt agile practices. This is due to strong bureaucratic structures and traditional leadership models that prefer stability over change (Barrett-Maitland et al., 2025). Furthermore, the importance of applying agile practices was demonstrated by the recent COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, these practices play an important role in complex everyday situations faced by HEIs (Macheridis, 2018; Philbin, 2015).

A recent study on Greece, Portugal, Spain, and Estonia reveals that the adoption of agile and lean methodologies in engineering higher education is increasing, but the rate of growth varies significantly between countries (Rodríguez et al., 2018). According to this study, Greece is leading the way, with many universities actively using agile practices. Spain, on the other hand, relies more on private initiatives. In Estonia, strong government support helps universities link education with industry needs, while in Portugal, adoption is slower but growing through the “Portugal 2020” initiative. These differences demonstrate that national policies and institutional freedom influence the application of agile and lean methodologies.

As previously mentioned, during the COVID-19 pandemic, universities faced significant challenges and had to make swift decisions. However, COVID-19 is just one example. HEIs have been facing pressure from globalization, new technologies, the demands of the job market, and the changing needs of students and others to improve and adapt. While the integration of agile practices into educational institutions can help mitigate risks such as technological advancements, financial uncertainties, and management pressures, one important challenge remains. That challenge lies in ensuring that both faculty and students embrace the necessary adaptations (Anifa et al., 2024).

This research explores how agile practices in strategic planning and decision-making are applied in the context of HEIs. The main research objective is to identify best practices and provide recommendations on how to encourage greater agility within higher education, with the following research questions:

RQ1: What are the examples of agile practices in higher education?

RQ2: Which agile characteristics are the most important, from the perspective of HEIs managers and teaching staff?

The paper is structured into several chapters. First, the literature review provides insights into the most recent research on agility within HEIs. It also describes the characteristics of the higher education system that influence the ability of HEIs to adopt agile practices and identifies existing research gaps. Furthermore, Chapter 3 describes the research methodology, which involved gathering data through case studies at four Croatian universities and four renowned European universities outside of Croatia, including interviews with questions related to agile planning and decision-making. Interviews were held with a total of 21 experts, offering valuable insights into agile planning and decision-making. Based on the research findings presented in chapter 4, the paper provides an overview of specific features of the higher education system that inherently imply the implementation of certain agile practices, along with the recommendations for HEI managers to foster the agile culture within HEI in the discussion section (chapter 5). Finally, the findings contribute to the ongoing discussion on agile leadership and its transformative potential in higher education in general.

Literature Review

Agile Practices and Agile Culture

Agile practices originated in software development with the announcement of the “Agile Manifesto” in the early 2000s (Beck et al., 2021). This movement was a response to traditional IT project management methodologies that no longer met the demands of modern software development. Since then, various agile approaches have emerged, including the Scrum framework, Kanban, Extreme Programing, and Future-Driven Development, among others. However, there is no universal methodology that suits all software project characteristics (Itzik & Roy, 2023). Despite this, agile practices have found applications across various sectors and organizational types, leading to the development of concepts such as agile leadership, agile organizations, and agile culture. According to a systematic literature review conducted by Magistretti and Trabucchi (2025), agile practices were a hot topic at the beginning of the century and have received increasing attention from scholars in recent years. The main findings of their research indicate that agile approaches often consider development and flexibility as the two primary themes. These themes support two main directions of agile: agile-as-a-tool for changing the new product development process and agile-as-a-culture to embrace flexibility (Magistretti & Trabucchi, 2025). In the context of this paper, the focus is on agile-as-the-culture in the context of higher education decision making and strategic planning processes.

Most of the existing literature on agile culture focuses on private sector companies, particularly those in the software development sector. However, research is also available on the application of agile culture in the public sector (Looks et al., 2024; Neumann et al., 2024), 4), even though some of these studies focus on IT projects in the public sector and not the entire organizations (Baxter et al., 2023). Mergel et al. (2020) argue that the agile approach could reshape government, public management, and governance in general, but the agile mindset that initiates a cultural change in bureaucratic command-and-control organizations needs to be adopted. Neumann et al. (2024) based on case studies examining the adoption of agile practices in public administrations, suggest that the three types of agile—culture, governance, and methodology—are interconnected. Embracing agile as a culture change creates a foundation for both agile governance and agile practices. Looks et al. (2024) research the following dimensions of agility in the context of public administration: communicative, change-affinite, iterative, self-organized, product-driven and improvement-oriented. Their results indicate the need for team members to facilitate continuous improvement, a prerequisite for which is a cultural shift in which team members and their interactions are prioritized to share and learn from one another continuously.

To gain deeper insight into recent research on agile culture and practices in higher education, a database query was conducted in the Web of Science (WoS) database using the search term “TS=(agile) AND TS=(“culture” OR “practice*”). This query resulted in 74 papers published in the last 5 years (2021–2025) within the category of “Education Educational Research.” However, most of these papers focus on agile education in the context of pedagogies, specifically the development of educational activities based on agile culture and principles. Only a few papers concentrate on agile practices. For instance, Ahmad et al. (2023) and Khan et al. (2022) reported that the successful transition to online education during the COVID-19 pandemic required proficiency in agile management and leadership, emphasizing a proactive approach that enables more agile decision-making. Additionally, Pohlenz (2022) highlighted the necessity for agility in higher education quality management. Beyond the example of the overnight transition to online education due to the COVID-19 pandemic, there is limited evidence regarding agile culture and practices in the literature. One key prerequisite for adopting an agile leadership approach within higher education institutions (HEIs) is the training of management staff (Barrett-Maitland et al., 2025). A review of the literature on agility in higher education has shown that most existing studies focus on the implementation of agile values and practices at the course level, rather than on agile governance and leadership in HEIs. In higher education, the application of agility is evident in certain aspects of its processes, specifically in the blended learning approach (Halder et al., 2024; Tang & Chan, 2024) and in the enhancement of non-formal education (Bortoli et al., 2024). Menon and Suresh (2021) examined factors that can influence organizational agility in higher education. They pointed out that a flexible structure, investment in personal and professional development, modern incentive plans, participative decision-making, and the freedom to take risks in exploring new ideas are key characteristics of successful HEIs. They also identified eight factors that would help HEIs deal with challenges from both inside and outside the institution, and these factors are: the ability to sense the environment, collaboration with stakeholders, organizational structure, ICT adoption, organizational learning, leadership, human resource strategies, and readiness to change (Menon & Suresh, 2021). Barrett-Maitland et al. (2025) recommend that HEIs should use an inclusive and collaborative structure to improve communication, as well as the giving and receiving of feedback. This structure would enable everyone involved in the system to participate actively in strategic planning and decision-making processes. Also, this would help institutions become more flexible and better prepared for challenges (Barrett-Maitland et al., 2025). As noted by Anifa et al. (2024), agile practices help educational institutions effectively navigate market uncertainties and promote adaptability, creativity, systemic thinking, and flexibility. According to Begičević Ređep (2024), the adoption of agile methodologies in education has increased, especially post-pandemic, showing that agile approach creates an effective environment for education and underscoring the need for innovative planning and decision-making. She further recognized that agile in HE is organized around the following characteristics: Critical Thinking, Problem Solving, Adaptability, Responsiveness, Risk Acceptance, Self-awareness, Prioritization, Resource Management, Usability, Flexibility, Acceptance of failure, Collaboration and Teamwork, Continuous Development and Improvement, Goal Orientation, Creativity, Situation Analysis, Stakeholder Activity (Begičević Ređep, 2024). The application of an agile approach in higher education largely depends on the specifics of the education system described below.

Context of Higher Education - Characteristics of Strategic Planning and Decision Making in Higher Education

The higher education sector is unique in that it has a dual nature of autonomy and compliance. On one hand, institutions enjoy a degree of autonomy, allowing them the flexibility to innovate and adapt their academic and administrative processes. On the other hand, they operate within a framework of strict rules and regulations established at the university, national, and even international levels. This balance ensures that while universities can develop unique educational offerings and internal governance, they must also align with broader educational standards and accountability measures, securing a standardized quality of education across different environments. This dual nature of autonomy and compliance offers space for agile practices at certain HEIs.

Strategic decision-making in HEIs diverges significantly from corporate models of decision making. HEIs are specialized institutions that “manufacture” knowledge and owners of the products are researchers/professors. Value systems are central to strategic decisions, and planning horizons typically extend to 5 years, contrasting with industry’s shorter timelines. Consensus-building among diverse stakeholders is crucial for strategic decision-making. Need to reach consensus for top-down decisions requesting the participation of all stakeholders. Furthermore, HEIs often demonstrate a tendency toward tradition preservation and slow process of change. Their status as public goods also influence decision-making processes (Divjak, 2016).

This study aimed to identify the characteristics and practices of decision-making in higher education institutions in Croatia, as well as universities in Europe, with examples of agile practices, in order to assess the current state and practices of agility in decision-making and to provide recommendations for the application of an agile approach based on the current situation. The characteristics of strategic decision-making in HEIs within the Croatian higher education system are listed and described in the following table (Table 1), based on the extensive practical experience of one of the authors in HEI management, as those are essential for understanding and further research on agile practices in higher education systems.

Table 1.

Characteristics of Strategic Planning and Decision-Making in Croatian Higher Education Institutions.

Aspect	Category	Characteristics
Organization and procedures	Dependence on the Ministry	- HEIs rely on the relevant ministry, particularly concerning student tuition fees, which are primarily defined through program contracts.
	Dependence on the Ministry	- HEIs, despite their legal status and financial management, exhibit significant dependence on the ministry for staffing and revenue, with student tuition as a primary source.
	Connection between university and faculties (HEIs)	- Universities generally operate with a network of faculties, each possessing legal personality, a structure that differs from that of integrated universities.
	Connection between university and faculties (HEIs)	- This can create challenges in coordinating strategic initiatives between faculties and the central university administration (rectorate).
	Organizational structure	- The university manager is the rector with vice-rectors.
		- The HEI’s (faculty) manager is the dean, with vice-deans responsible for specific areas.
		- The organizational structure of HEI typically includes departments that consist of professors and assistants in related research and teaching fields, led by a head of department.
		- Administrative staff are organized into units such as Centers and Offices, as well as the Library, thematically according to their area of operation and the services/support they provide.
	Decision making procedure	- The Senate is the decision-making body at the university level, primarily composed of faculty deans.
		- It makes strategic decisions for the university and approves faculty decisions regarding investments and projects of significant financial value.
		- Faculties, within their legal personality, manage finances and make decisions.
		- Decisions are made in such a way that the management (dean and vice-deans) proposes them, sometimes for discussion and voting by the department, and then for meetings of the Faculty Council, which decides.
		- The Faculty Council can be a delegate or can consist of all scientific and teaching titles of HEIs and representatives of administrative staff and students.
		- Decisions are made by a majority of the present members if a quorum is reached. Participation in decision-making is important, without which decisions, especially strategic and tactical ones, cannot be made.
	Cycles of leadership elections	- Leadership elections occur in cycles of 3 years, with a maximum of two consecutive terms.
	Cycles of leadership elections	- This can lead to frequent changes in strategic direction and a lack of long-term vision.
Leadership	Leadership knowledge and skills	- These positions are often filled by professors who may not have acquired managerial and financial expertise relevant to their management roles.
	Leadership knowledge and skills	- Leaders (deans and vice-deans) may lack sufficient knowledge, skills, and vision in strategic planning, leadership and finance.
	Strategic planning	- Strategic documents are frequently created for archival purposes or external evaluation rather than for practical implementation.
	Monitoring, adaptation and evaluation	- Monitoring of strategy implementation is often lacking, and necessary adjustments based on technological, environmental or institutional impacts are not made.
		- Agile planning and strategy revisions are rarely implemented in response to dynamic changes.
		- There is a general lack of impact evaluation for strategic decisions or strategy documents.
	Strategy-driven decision-making	- Strategic and tactical decisions are made at various levels within the HE system, often without adequate correlation.
	Strategy-driven decision-making	- Strategic decisions are often not made in accordance with the adopted strategy, and some strategies frequently lack action plans or defined indicators.
Organizational culture	Change management	- There is a systemic resistance to change in HEIs environment.
	Change management	- The current leadership system makes change difficult because leaders tend to support the status quo.
	Affirmation process and influence on decision making	- The system of reciprocal election and affirmation, where deans elect rectors and rectors affirm deans’ programs, alongside deans being elected by their own employees, compromises the decision-making process, resulting in a situation where those who decide are elected by those they manage.

As evident from Table 1. important elements that affect decision-making and strategic planning within HEIs are recognized as organization and procedures, leadership and organizational culture. Clearly, the application of agile practices in HEIs is significantly shaped by national regulatory frameworks and governance structures. The main similarities and differences between higher education systems in analyzed countries within this study are crucial for understanding how agility manifests in diverse HEI contexts.

European higher education systems, although aligned by the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) and the Bologna Process, exhibit distinct national characteristics in their governance, structures, and strategic agility. This paragraph provides a short description of the main characteristics of the four European countries included in the present research. Spain’s system is decentralized, with the Organic Law of the University System (LOSU) providing a national framework while regions also exert significant control (2023). Higher education institutions (HEIs) have considerable institutional autonomy, with decision-making distributed across various university and faculty bodies. The system emphasizes quality assurance through agencies like the National Agency for Quality Assessment and Accreditation (ANECA), which guides the accreditation process. Spain also highlights agile strategic planning and change management, driven by continuous monitoring, adaptation, and evaluation to ensure strategy-driven decision-making (Eurydice Unit Spain, 2023; Rubio et al., 2023). Belgium’s system is highly decentralized, with governance split among its linguistic communities, which directly impacts policy and HEI decision-making. Institutions operate with institutional autonomy under communal guidelines. The organizational structures value consensus-building, involving diverse stakeholders in the decision-making process (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2025a). Germany’s higher education is decentralized mainly by federal states, granting HEIs substantial institutional autonomy rooted in academic freedom. This allows for independent decisions on research and teaching. The organizational structures are well-defined, with clear bodies for operations, academic policy, and strategic oversight. The system is characterized by strategy-driven decision-making, reflecting its commitment to academic freedom and self-governance (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2025b). England’s system is more centralized, with the Office for Students (OfS) playing a significant regulatory role, implying a higher dependence on the Ministry (or a central body). Despite this, HEIs retain substantial institutional autonomy. Their organizational structure strikes a balance between internal self-governance and external accountability, with decision-making distributed across governing boards and academic bodies. England’s system also places a strong emphasis on change management and strategic planning, with continuous monitoring, adaptation, and evaluation ensuring strategy-driven decision-making to meet evolving demands (Universities UK, 2025).

The literature review suggests that agile practices and an agile organizational culture in higher education are often recognized as essential for addressing contemporary challenges. However, empirical research on these aspects is limited. This gap underscores the need for a more comprehensive understanding of how agile practices are implemented within the context of higher education. Therefore, this paper aims to investigate agile practices in HEIs through an in-depth case study approach, providing insights into their practical application and effects.

Methodology

The goal of this paper is to analyze agile practices at HEIs, focusing on the six agile characteristics outlined in Figure 1, and recognized from the authors whose papers put focus on agility on higher education (Barrett-Maitland et al., 2025; Begičević Ređep, 2024; Menon & Suresh, 2021).

Figure 1.

Characteristics of agile approach in HEIs researched in this study.

The methodology included case studies (Yin, 2013) at four Croatian universities and at four renowned European universities outside Croatia. Most research on agile practices employs a case study method, including comparative case studies (Neumann et al., 2024) and single-case studies (Looks et al., 2024). Case study research was conducted through qualitative research interviews (Brinkmann & Kvale, 2014) with representatives of the management board (deans and vice-deans), heads of department, and teaching and research staff, with a particular focus on questions exploring agile planning and decision-making in HEIs.

Interviews with the representatives of Croatian HEIs were conducted from the beginning of September 2024 to the end of February 2025, in person, and were recorded for transcription. Before the interview, the participants received the informed consent form along with the interview questions. The interview questions are available in Appendix 1. During the interviews, participants were invited to reflect on agile planning and decision-making characteristics and describe the situation at their HEI, and provide examples.

Additionally, interviews were conducted at four renowned European universities outside of Croatia between July and December 2024. The interview questionnaire for universities outside Croatia was more comprehensive as it was focused on learning analytic aspects, but during the interviews, respondents were asked questions about agility in strategic planning and decision-making in HEIs. Their responses were analyzed and incorporated into this paper to support the findings from the case studies conducted at HEIs in Croatia.

Participants

Participants in this study were from four of the biggest public universities in Croatia - University of Zagreb; Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek; University of Rijeka and University of Split, including faculties from different disciplines. The study in Croatia involved a total of five experts (two female, three male), including three vice-deans, one dean and one head of department. The universities listed in the research were selected for their unique characteristics and the diversity of their structures and decision-making processes, particularly in terms of size and degree of integration. The University of Zagreb (University of Zagreb, n.d) is an integrated university. However, its faculties retain significant autonomy and separate legal personality, allowing them to manage academic and administrative affairs independently within the broader university framework. With over 70,000 students and 35 constituent units, it’s Croatia’s largest and oldest university. Given its size and structure, many important strategic and tactical decisions are made at the faculty level. The Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek (Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek, n.d) with approximately 16,000 students, the University of Rijeka (University of Rijeka, n.d) with around 15,000 students, and the University of Split (n.d) with about 20,000 students are all integrated universities, making them considerably smaller than the University of Zagreb. Due to their integrated structure, most strategic decisions for these universities are made at the university level, typically by the University Senate. Further in text, HEIs from Croatia are referred as Institution 1 – Institution 4, without indicating the institutions previously described.

Research results from Croatian case studies are amended with interviews conducted at four HEIs in Europe, including KU Leuven, Open University of Catalonia (UOC), Open University UK, and Goethe University. The study outside Croatia involved a total of 16 experts, primarily teachers, researchers and experts in the field of learning analytics. Sixteen experts (seven female, nine male) were chosen from four highly ranked European universities across four countries which differ in the characteristics of their national higher education systems (which were described in an earlier chapter), as well as in their structure, decision-making processes, mode of education, size, and other characteristics. These experts were selected to represent both traditional and online universities and were required to have more than 20 years of experience in leadership roles in higher education or leading positions in international professional associations or university networks focused on digital technology and education. Among them were individuals with significant leadership experience, such as directors of institutes, heads of departments, and vice-deans. Some of them provided valuable inputs related to agile planning and decision-making in higher education.

KU Leuven utilizes a sophisticated, multi-layered structure emphasizing shared governance and consensus. Decisions are made at the university level, with Program Committees playing a central role in academic choices. Broad stakeholder involvement ensures extensive dialog and consensus-building. As one of Europe’s oldest and most prestigious universities, KU Leuven is globally recognized for its research-intensive programs and international outlook (KU Leuven, n.d). Open University of Catalonia (UOC) organizes its structure into four main blocks (Faculty, Research, Administration, Rector’s Office), aligning with executive objectives. Its agile approach, driven by annually reviewed strategic plans, enables swift adaptation to internal and external changes, crucial for this fully online institution. As a fully online institution, UOC is at the forefront of digital education, offering flexible learning opportunities to a diverse student body (Open University of Catalonia, n.d). Goethe University Frankfurt, like other German universities, operates autonomously, managing its academic and research affairs independently. Its governance involves various boards and committees, reflecting a commitment to academic freedom, societal engagement, and German emphasis on rigor and self-governance. Located in Frankfurt, a major European financial and cultural hub, the university boasts a strong research profile and interdisciplinary focus (Goethe University Frankfurt, n.d). The Open University (OU), the UK’s largest distance learning institution, leverages flexible online education. Its governance includes a Council for oversight and a Senate for academic policy, with strategic goals supported by an evolving annual framework ensuring continuous adaptation to market and policy conditions (The Open University, n.d).

Instrument

The interviews at HEIs in Croatia consisted of two parts. In the first section of the interview, open-ended questions along with follow-up sub questions were posed to cover six areas of agile practices. In contrast, the second section consisted of closed questions in which participants evaluated the importance of various characteristics for achieving an agile approach in planning and decision-making within an HEI on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 indicates “Not Important” and 5 indicates “Extremely Important.” Therefore, the interview can be characterized as a standard open-ended interview where all the interviewees are asked the same basic questions in the same order with the addition of a table with closed quantitative responses (Cohen et al., 2011).

During interviews conducted with experts at four HEIs outside Croatia, questions related to agile decision-making were included as part of the interview process, as a part of broader interview focused on learning analytics. Answers pertaining to agile topics were marked for easier analysis.

Data Analysis

This paper employs content analysis to explore open-ended responses related to interview questions, which align with the six identified themes of agile practices in HEIs, including strategic planning, collaboration, decision-making styles, change management, lean approach, and continuous improvement (see Figure 1). These themes represent the focus areas for in-depth analysis. Drawing on methodologies suggested by (Miles and Huberman (1994) and outlined in Cohen et al. (2011), this study emphasizes the tactic of seeking plausibility by using informed intuition to interpret data and reach meaningful conclusions effectively. Interviews conducted at four HEIs outside Croatia were analyzed, and examples of agile methodology are included in this paper to support the findings from case studies conducted at HEIs in Croatia.

Results

Results in this section are summarized according to six interview themes on agile practices in HEIs and provides an answer to RQ1: “What are the examples of agile practices in higher education?.”

Characteristics of Agile Approach

Strategic Planning

Respondents were first asked to describe how they define their institution’s mission, vision, core values, objectives, and activities. They discussed how they update these elements in short, focused cycles called “sprints.” during which stakeholders apply, evaluate, adjust, and revise what is outlined in their strategic planning.

The answers from respondents were quite unique, due to the connection of the process of strategy development at the university level with the processes of (re)accreditation and development of the university strategy. The strategy for the academic unit spans 4 to 5 years and aligns with the broader university strategy, with action plans typically focused on the (re)accreditation process. The Management Board and the Strategy Development Board, also known as the Quality Assurance Board, are key actors involved. The Faculty Council approves these strategic initiatives, which means that all Council members are involved in the approval of the strategy.

A 4-year strategic planning cycle is observed at the universities in Europe, where a rector and vice rector, both elected academics, serve 4-year terms and can be re-elected. Each new team introduces its own priorities every 4 year, while resource allocation follows the priorities of the rector and vice-rectors. To successfully secure resources for individual initiatives, it is crucial to integrate projects within the big policy agenda. This agenda outlines specific goals and priorities, and initiative must demonstrate precise alignment. By “scaling up,” researchers need to essentially expand the project’s scope to address these established objectives directly. This involves not only aligning activities with the agenda’s goals but also showcasing how the project contributes to their achievement. Once this alignment is established, researchers can access existing resources and potentially propose supplementary initiatives that further support the overarching policy direction.

Collaboration

The next question is focused on how institutions promote both formal and informal self-organizing multidisciplinary teams that include all stakeholders. These teams are designed to encourage group discussions, knowledge exchange, the sharing of attitudes, the creation of a shared vision, and the definition of objectives. Ultimately, this approach aims to enhance participation in planning and decision-making processes.

Institution 1, specializing in electrical engineering, exemplifies consultative collaboration through its partnership with a local software companies association, using feedback from these interactions to refine its study programs. This process is spearheaded by department heads who actively engage with the community to gather insights (each department is the head of a particular study program).

Similarly, Institution 2 leverages its departmental structure for initiating improvements. The respondent mentioned that changes in procedures related to projects have come from the departments that handle projects. Additionally, they mentioned The Economic Council, which comprises 21 companies and participates in the development of strategies, while also engaging at the operational level in various activities. The student council, as the representative body of the student body, is involved in various processes and can serve as a driver of change.

The structure of Institution 3, as a smaller institution in the field of IT, includes departments focused on teaching and laboratories (research groups). There are monthly meetings of department heads and laboratory heads with the Vice Dean for Academics/Research to ensure continuous interaction.

Institution 4 indicated that management regularly solicits input from departments on various topics to engage, propose solutions, discuss, and receive feedback. Typically, individuals with higher intrinsic motivation are more likely to participate regularly, while others only get involved when necessary.

Examples of collaborative practices are evident at HEIs in Europe as well. Although the bottom-up approach is beneficial because it involves various smaller groups in planning and proposing solutions—an important aspect of agile culture—one respondent noted a potential issue. He pointed out that there are instances where one group is unaware of what another group is doing. As he stated, “you have bottom-up projects, but you need a top-down approach also. You have to find synergies between several projects and when two projects come to a certain point where they can help each other.”

Decision-Making Style

The third question focused on adapting to the needs and styles of all participants in the planning and decision-making process, as well as the predominant decision-making style used by the HEI management.

When it comes to decision-making styles, three participants from Croatian HEIs first mentioned consultative style, while one participant recognized collaborative style as dominant. However, the participants noted the overlap among consultative, collaborative, and participative styles, with different stakeholders involved at various stages and for distinct purposes of the decision-making process. However, it was explicitly stated by three institutions that, ultimately, decisions might conclude with an autocratic approach as the management board makes the final decisions.

The participatory approach in decision-making at HEIs is well described by the participant from one of the HEIs in Europe:

I think that in our university, it’s already a sort of culture, call it tradition, that we have a very participatory approach in decision-making processes. There is the top-down management, leadership of the university that is overviewing the whole thing, but at the same time, there is a lot of bottoms up happening in the university too, and before the management really decides, there is already a lot of work done in a bottom-up way. In that respect, I think that we implicitly already applied agile principles in the way that we are dealing with decision-making processes in the university. People are consulted; people are participating in working groups. I cannot describe it better than just saying that it’s a bottom up and top-down hand-in-hand approach where there is already a lot of consultation, a lot of input from the final users and that is based on our culture and tradition in the university for a long time. Is that agile? Yeah, it’s aspects of agile methodology that we implement and that you see happening in a different way in the university, different structures, and entities in the university.

Additionally, the data-driven decision-making style is clearly described and articulated by another participant as follows: “At the central university level we operate a data management service that supports data governance and provides data insights to inform decision-making. Our university has a strong foundation in data-driven decision-making.”

Change Management

The fourth question focused on change management, aiming to understand how institutions cope with frequent and dynamic changes. It explored how they facilitate continuous feedback and adapt as needed to meet the challenges and changes within the organization and its environment.

The COVID-19 pandemic required HEIs to demonstrate agility in decision-making. While there were guidelines from ministries and university administrations, individual institutions displayed agility at the operational level. For example, Institution 1 created a Facebook group initiated by the vice-dean to quickly and effectively inform students about updates. Participation was voluntary, yet engagement was high. This platform also facilitated surveys to gage student satisfaction with the sudden shift to online learning, allowing for rapid adjustments based on feedback, evidenced by a decrease in responses in a subsequent survey following the implementation of changes. Institutions 3 and 4 also mentioned a reaction to COVID-19 as an example of prompt reactions to dynamic changes in the environment, evident in different activities – that is, teaching staff members who are skilled in multimedia prepared a handbook for others, and licenses for video conferencing systems have been acquired. Recommendations were promptly provided to staff on tool usage and self-education before official decisions or policy updates were made.

Another example of continuous feedback at Institution 1 is related to the student pass rate – which involves monitoring pass rates per examination period. In the second month, consultations organized by the Student Council are held by top students who provide group tutoring. This approach helps to monitor students at risk of failing a course.

Institution 2 mentioned continuous innovation in learning and teaching practices including LEGO trucks, the CDIO Initiative (Conceive-Design-Implement-Operate), project-based learning, and theoretical courses tied to practical structures, such as using examples from mathematics in transportation contexts. These innovative approaches aim to enhance practical learning and apply theoretical knowledge in real-world scenarios. Another example is related to the institutional contribution to society. On their own initiative, in collaboration with the Ministry of the Interior, they launched an initiative to change and improve the school curriculum for child traffic safety following statistics indicating high incidences of child injuries in traffic.

A respondent from one HEIs in Europe shared that their university promptly adapted to ChatGPT’s introduction by being one of the first in the region to create a policy on technology and generative AI in education. Their focus was on embracing new technology rather than banning it, as prohibitions tend to encourage its misuse. Another expert illustrated a similar sample but point-out a bottom-up approach to environmental changes, where knowledgeable individuals, like those in the computer science department, developed AI guidelines. This sparked a network effect as others followed their lead, leading to recognition and redistribution by central services.

Lean Approach

The fifth question aims to determine how institutions utilize the lean approach, focusing on essentials and minimizing waste.

The characteristics of lean are recognized at the level of some operational procedures. Institution 1 provided an example of small changes in the curriculum - based on survey results, new courses were introduced, and poorly rated ones were removed, documented across two A4 pages along with course descriptions in collaboration with the departments offering these courses. On the contrary, a participant from an HEI in Europe provided an example of the whole curriculum reform process, which is a “very strict and very heavy process,” and as such it cannot be a lean process. However, the same participant noted that the COVID pandemic forced an overnight system change, revealing that smaller entities within the university could flexibly manage tasks while effectively applying lean principles.

Institution 2 simplified some procedures related to projects, while Institution 3 simplified the procedures related to student mobility and evidence about teacher work – for execution plans, gathering a substantial amount of information is necessary. Instead of having all instructors enter data into spreadsheets, department heads review this at the beginning, and data is automatically processed for reporting purposes. At Institution 4, the focus was on improving internal processes. They streamlined internal processes through systems by digitizing the processing of internal documents using a specialized program.

However, the participants indicated that, through the collaborative and consultative nature of decision-making processes, it is hard to achieve lean with processes that require a lot of discussion and involvement of different stakeholders, especially when some changes are introduced (from AS IS to TO BE).

Evidence at the level of HEIs in Europe confirms this challenge. One participant claimed that many decision-making processes involve various stakeholders, which can be agile; however, this “democratic” approach often requires significant time and can slow progress, which contrasts with the agile culture.

Continuous Improvement

The last question focused on monitoring and continuous improvement, which are not only characteristics of agility but also integral parts of strategic planning (Deming cycle) and the quality assurance cycle.

Different examples of monitoring and continuous improvement at the participating HEIs can be recognized. Except the mentioned revision of actions plans related to institutional (re)accreditation, institutions provided examples of SWOT analysis performed each few years; involvement of industry representatives in Quality Assurance Committee and in the committee for bachelor and master thesis; every 3 months, articles from the library are analyzed, and based on this data, measures and rewards are redefined for those who are more active and publish quality work; a strategic plan for digitization was developed, framed with the support of the e-university project. Projects are mentioned as triggers for changes and improvements, as well as individual initiatives.

Some institutions in Europe demonstrate a more proactive approach to continuous improvement. For example, KU Leuven is well-known for using COBRA, which is the university’s integral quality assurance method. This approach combines the collective efforts at all levels (program, faculty, and the university) to continuously enhance the quality of education.

Additionally, to answering the questions related to six agility characteristics (strategic planning, collaboration, decision-making style, change management, lean approach and continuous improvement), interviewees from HEIs in Croatia provided examples of agility at their institutions in various aspects, as recognized from their perspectives. Three institutions provided examples of curriculum innovativeness – each year, in line with the possibility for smaller curriculum changes (20–30%), the institutions enable teacher changes/improvements in literature, teaching methods etc. (as long as the learning outcomes are not changed). Faced with declining interest in one study program, one institution conducted a survey among students which led to the addition of two new elective courses reflecting current market trends. Additionally, some less popular courses were moved to elective options, resulting in minor modifications to the study program. These changes successfully revitalized interest in the program by the following academic year. Another example is the last semester that was freed up for internships and thesis work, facilitating student mobility as an example of agility in the educational program. Finally, one institution swiftly developed a model within a month that established a business model for the project office and devised a financing strategy for its independence. This approach demonstrates the university’s ability to adapt and innovate in its administrative structures to meet evolving needs efficiently.

Importance of Agile Characteristics

The second part of the questionnaire for participants from Croatia consisted of a table with the characteristics of agile approach in HEIs (Begičević Ređep, 2024). Participants were asked to rate the importance of each characteristic for achieving an agile approach in planning and decision-making at a HEI on a scale from 1 to 5 - 1 being the lowest level and 5 the highest; values with half a point were also possible (Table 2).

Table 2.

Importance of Characteristics for Achieving an Agile Approach in HEI Strategic Planning and Decision-Making.

Characteristic	Description	Average
Critical Thinking	Critical evaluation of problems, analyzing, and forming opinions.	4.63
Problem-solving	Addressing specific problems identified and started to be resolved in a timely manner.	4.63
Adaptability	The ability to quickly and effectively adapt to changing circumstances; changing plans and decisions in response to emergencies; switching to an agile approach, when necessary, instead of strictly adhering to a strategic plan.	4.5
Responsiveness	Quick reaction from decision-makers and educators to identified issues and student feedback, aiming to create a suitable environment.	4.5
Risk Acceptance	Willingness to take and manage risks, avoiding the status quo trap as well as confirmation bias.	4.5
Self-awareness	Ability to understand one’s own strengths and weaknesses.	4.38
Prioritization	Ability to identify priority goals.	4.38
Resource Management	Effective management and allocation of resources according to priorities.	4.25
Usability	Finding solutions with functional value that serves the end-user – the student, genuine and practical acquisition of knowledge; applying knowledge in practice and problem solving.	4.25
Flexibility	Willingness to consider different perspectives and approaches.	4.13
Acceptance of failure	Embracing challenges and viewing failure as an opportunity; learning from poor decisions and exploiting new opportunities.	4
Collaboration and Teamwork	Ability to work successfully in a team, collaborate, communicate effectively, respect diverse opinions, interact, and employ active methods.	4
Continuous Development and Improvement	Commitment to continuous learning and improvement aimed at enhancement and development.	4
Goal Orientation	Ability to set and achieve goals.	4
Creativity	Ability to generate new ideas and seek innovative solutions.	3.88
Situation Analysis	Analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats.	3.88
Stakeholder Activity	All stakeholders actively contribute to planning and decision-making, continuous participation, communication, and information exchange.	3.88

Table 2 clearly shows that critical thinking (M = 4.63) and problem-solving (M = 4.63) were rated as the most valued characteristics. Agility, by its very definition, implies quick and simple action, whereby a proactive approach to problem-solving is crucial. A skill closely related to problem-solving is critical thinking, which helps in analyzing problems and identifying effective ways and approaches to solve them. Therefore, it is not surprising that the two characteristics are rated highest. Characteristics that support one’s ability to be a critical thinker and problem solver are adaptability, responsiveness, and risk acceptance (M = 4.5). Beyond the top-ranked characteristics, other agile traits also scored highly, indicating their significant role in effective strategic planning and decision-making within HEIs. Self-awareness and prioritization, both with an average rating of 4.38, were identified as very important. Self-awareness, defined as the ability to understand one’s own strengths and weaknesses, is fundamental for personal and institutional growth in a dynamic and agile environment. Closely related is prioritization, the capacity to identify and focus on key goals, which is essential for successful strategic planning and decision making as well as efficient resource allocation and strategic focus. Following these, resource management and usability both achieved an average of 4.25. Resource management refers to the effective allocation and distribution of resources in accordance with established priorities. Usability emphasizes finding solutions that offer functional value directly to the students, promoting genuine and practical knowledge acquisition and its application in real-world problem-solving. This highlights a user-centric approach in agile HEIs. Flexibility, with an average rating of 4.13, demonstrates the importance of being open to diverse perspectives and approaches as a key characteristic of agile decision-making. It is essential for adapting to changes and new ideas in education. An average rating of 4.00 for several characteristics also highlighted their considerable importance. These include the acceptance of failure, collaboration and teamwork, continuous development and improvement, and a goal-oriented approach. Accepting failure means seeing challenges as chances to learn from mistakes and find new ways to grow and adapt. Collaboration and teamwork emphasize the ability to work effectively in groups, communicate within teams, respect different opinions, interact constructively, and utilize active methods for achieving shared success. Continuous development and improvement reflect a strong commitment to ongoing learning, enhancement, and progress. Lastly, goal orientation is about the ability to set clear objectives and effectively work toward achieving them. The characteristics with the lowest, yet still notably high, average ratings of 3.88 were creativity, situation analysis, and stakeholder activity. Creativity, the ability to generate new ideas and innovative solutions, while not the highest ranked, is still recognized as valuable for fostering new approaches. Situation analysis, which involves analyzing strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT), is a foundational strategic planning tool that helps understand the internal and external environment. Finally, stakeholder activity refers to the active involvement of all stakeholders in planning and decision-making through continuous participation, communication, and the exchange of information. The fact that these characteristics, even with the lowest scores, still rank close to 4.00 reinforces the overall perception that all listed agile characteristics are considered crucial for successful agile implementation in HEIs.

The results on the most important agile characteristics as perceived by HEI managers and teaching staff answer the RQ2: “Which agile characteristics are the most important, from the perspective of HEIs managers and teaching staff?” Overall, the conclusion is that all the characteristics are relatively important, but Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving were highlighted as the most important, while Creativity, Situation Analysis, and Stakeholder Activity were considered the least important, although still highly rated.

Discussion

The results of this research, which are based on case studies at four HEIs in the Republic of Croatia and four HEIs outside Croatia, show that certain structures and processes in higher education are in the spirit of an agile culture and enable agility in strategic planning and decision-making. On the other hand, certain aspects have limitations that prevent agility. Based on the research results, the main findings can be summarized into specific features of the higher education system that inherently imply the implementation of certain agile practices and recommendations for HEI managers to foster the agile culture in HE, as shown in Table 3.

Table 3.

Recommendations for HEI Managers to Foster the Agile Culture in HEIs.

Agile characteristic	Current state at HEIs	Recommendations
Strategic planning	Development of strategy and action plan at the HEI level follows the (re)accreditation and higher-level (university) strategic planning in 4 to 5-year cycles	- To revise strategy and action plan in a smaller period (i.e., yearly)
		- To prepare a strategy for the period requested by the competent authorities, but define action plans for shorter periods and revise them at least yearly.
		- To be agile, it is necessary to adjust priorities, activities, and indicators, and allocate resources according to new priorities caused by technological, environmental, or other changes, in case of extraordinary situations.
		- To establish a clear monitoring and revision system for strategic documents at HEIs (i.e., based on Deming’s PDCA cycle).
Collaboration	Good cooperation is established internally (on the level of departments and different HE organization units, involvement of student council etc.), internally with the involvement of external partners (i.e. The Economic Council with company representatives) and externally (i.e. collaboration with the companies)	- To promote and implement agile teamwork when possible.
		- Collaboration among stakeholders is well established; however, it needs to be optimized to ensure processes can be executed more agilely, and that collaboration does not complicate planning and decision-making given the large number of stakeholders involved.
		- To foster clear communication, establish open and consistent information exchange and ensure transparency in decision-making.
Decision-making style	The structure of the HEIs, including departments, supports collaborative and participative decision-making.	- Many decision-making processes involve various stakeholders, which is a characteristic of agility. However, this “democratic” approach often requires significant time and can slow progress, contrasting with the agile culture. Therefore, HEI management should promote greater sharing of decision-making responsibilities among stakeholders. This would help reduce the decision-making hierarchy typically associated with a democratic and participatory style, aligning it more closely with an agile culture. The recommendations for HEI leaders are: (1) to positively influence employee commitment, satisfaction, motivation, and effectiveness in order to enable shared responsibility among stakeholders; (2) to support the use of a situational decision-making style that allows decision-makers to adapt their style to the situation; (3) to support the use of data-driven decision-making in HEIs, supported by a data management service; and (4) to support the use of a transformational decision-making style where the leader encourages new ideas.
Change management	The response to change is often influenced by external factors or minor changes that do not relate to the core activities of HEIs but rather arise from individual initiatives.	- Change management primarily involves responding to external stimuli and adapting to the current situation.
		- Case studies indicate that institutions are often effective in these scenarios, applying agile practices to navigate challenges and complex circumstances. This adaptability frequently leads to innovation and positive transformations, as individuals utilize their strengths and innovative capacities.
		- Therefore, HEIs should consistently raise awareness among their members about the significance of change management for enhancing competitiveness.
		- Additionally, they should aim to establish a structured and systematic approach to change management and ensure that these changes are not based only on extraordinary crises.
Lean approach	The HEI structure that involves various organizational units and stakeholders, along with rules and regulations on university/national level, with a collaborative and consultative approach to decision-making, does not provide a solid foundation for lean principles.	- The lean approach may not be suitable for extensive processes. However, institutions should implement lean principles at the level of smaller units, such as departments, and in activities that are not governed by university or national regulations.
		- HEI leadership should encourage researchers and academic staff to identify and propose improvements in their work processes. This can start with analyzing and reducing non-value-added activities, such as unnecessary paperwork, redundant meetings, and waiting times.
		- By implementing small incremental changes, the focus can shift toward creating more value for students, researchers, and academic staff.
Continuous improvement	Continuous improvements primarily stem from the quality committee’s efforts through established procedures; however, elements of the Deming cycle can also be seen in some individual initiatives.	- There is room for progress in fostering a culture of continuous improvement in higher education. Currently, initiatives primarily focus on quality assurance and accreditation processes that require institutions to make specific improvements.
		- HEIs should support the development of agile teams composed of members from different departments and empower them to identify and address improvement opportunities within their areas of expertise.
		- To support individuals and teams to be more proactive in continuous improvements, HEI leadership must establish several key prerequisites: (1) promote collaboration and knowledge sharing throughout the institution; (2) regularly collect feedback from stakeholders to understand their needs and expectations, using this feedback to identify areas for improvement and prioritize initiatives; (3) encourage employees to experiment with new ideas and approaches by creating a safe environment for failure, celebrating successes, and sharing lessons learned.

Our research, in the form of recommendations summarized in Table 3, reveals how agile principles can significantly improve the agility of strategic planning and decision-making within HEIs. HEIs are large and complex systems dealing with increased level of competition on the one hand and slow bureaucratic procedures on the other (Ivetić & Ilić, 2020; Philbin, 2015), and often operated by inertia (Bogdanova & Parashkevova-Velikova, 2022). The current state reveals that HEIs plan many years in advance, primarily for accreditation purposes, within a 4 to 5 year timespan, which makes it challenging to respond quickly to changes. Recommendations based on case studies conducted within this research suggest revising action plans annually and implementing robust methods to monitor progress. This makes planning more flexible, helping HEIs adjust quickly to new situations. Another characteristic of HEIs is that decisions are often made by multiple people, which can take time. This research recommends a broader approach to decision-making by empowering more groups and utilizing data effectively. Such an approach enables quicker and more agile decision-making while fostering a supportive culture that empowers capable individuals and promotes collective leadership by combining bottom-up and top-down approaches. Achieving organizational agility in this manner is essential, as recognized by other authors (Bogdanova & Parashkevova-Velikova, 2022). HEIs often react to changes instead of planning changes, as shown in the case of the appearance of COVID-19 (Ahmad et al., 2023; Bogdanova & Parashkevova-Velikova, 2022; Khan et al., 2022). While HEIs must adapt when crises arise, the current dynamic environment demands that they prepare for changes even before they occur, using a straightforward and systematic approach to managing change. Readiness to change is recognized as one of eight factors that can help HEIs deal with internal and external challenges (Menon & Suresh, 2021). Therefore, the recommendation for HEIs is to continually discuss change management and establish transparent processes. This approach shifts them from merely reacting to a culture that welcomes and plans for change, aligning with agile principles. Applying lean ideas across HEIs is also one of the recommendations. However, the present study shows that it works well in smaller parts of HEIs, such as departments, but not at the institutional level. Staff should be encouraged to identify and eliminate unnecessary tasks, which leads to improvements. Improvements often come from quality teams, but this idea needs to be part of everyone’s daily work. Agile teams from different departments should be supported in identifying and implementing improvements, sharing knowledge, and feeling safe in trying new things. A culture of continuous improvement should become a fundamental and integral part of HEIs’ daily operations, reflecting the importance of investing in personal development and human resources, as consistently emphasized in the agile literature (Barrett-Maitland et al., 2025; Menon & Suresh, 2021). To summarize, the present research offers practical advice and recommendations for HEI managers to build a more agile culture (Table 3), as summarized within the emerging framework shown in Figure 2. By focusing on these areas, HEIs can improve their planning and decision-making, becoming more flexible, responsive, and innovative.

Figure 2.

Emerging framework diagram for supporting agile practices in higher education.

Conclusion

This study contributes to the understanding of agility in the context of strategic planning and decision-making within higher education. The concept of agility has been widely explored in business studies, especially in the IT sector, but remains largely underdeveloped in the academic context. By applying the concept of agility to HEIs, this research broadens existing theory by showing how agility is implemented and challenged in a specific higher education environment.

The empirical findings indicate that external and unpredictable situations, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, often prompt agility in higher education. Both the literature (Ahmad et al., 2023; Khan et al., 2022) and the empirical evidence provide positive examples of how HEIs responded to these challenges by shifting to online education. This demonstrates the capacity of HEIs to adopt agile practices. However, in higher education, much of the process is shaped by the structure of the higher education system itself, along with regulations at national and university levels, which significantly influence the operations of educational institutions. An expert’s example from the interview conducted within this study vividly illustrates why HEIs cannot fully implement an agile culture.

We sometimes compare ourselves with a big „cruise“ ship. If you want to move that in a certain direction, it’s not so flexible as a canoe.

However, certain aspects of this structure promote the implementation of agile decision-making and strategic planning. This primarily involves a collaborative and participatory decision-making approach where all employees can engage in the process through departments, other organizational units, and the Faculty Council. On the other hand, this structure poses challenges for lean management principles. The involvement of a larger number of stakeholders increases interactions and documentation requirements, making it more challenging to adhere to lean management principles that emphasize minimizing waste.

Additionally, the continuous cycles of university strategy development and the continuous (re)accreditation processes at the national level provide a foundation for strategic planning and continuous improvement. However, the fact is that 5 years is a long period in today’s dynamic environment. Therefore, institutions should initiate shorter cycles for monitoring the implementation of strategies and action plans, ideally on an annual basis. This approach better aligns with the shorter planning and action cycles that are characteristic of an agile culture.

This study offers insights into current agile practices at HEIs in the Republic of Croatia through case studies and interviews with relevant staff. While the research provides concrete examples of these practices, it is important to acknowledge its limitations: the information was gathered from individuals who may not have access to all the practices at their respective institutions, resulting in incomplete findings. Nevertheless, the research outcomes are further supported by examples of agile practices from four esteemed universities across Europe. Consequently, the study identifies some of the most common agile practices at HEIs, highlighting those that align with the specific characteristics of these institutions, as well as practices that could be implemented despite systemic limitations, which are also presented as recommendations. Moreover, although our study included 21 experts from eight universities across different European countries, the findings may not be fully generalizable to the entire spectrum of HEIs in Europe. Specific cultural differences and differences in educational system certainly affect results to some extent. However, this sample size was appropriate for an in-depth qualitative case study, aimed to explore patterns and experiences rather than statistical generalization. Considering the wide range of diversity among HEIs across Europe, future research can enhance the findings of this study by incorporating a larger and more varied sample from different countries. This approach will help validate and further develop the framework for fostering agile culture and practices in higher education.

Previous research advocates for the establishment of “clear mechanisms and rules for the application of alternative agile tools” (Bogdanova & Parashkevova-Velikova, 2022) within higher education, but in the context of teaching and learning. This paper represents a step forward in understanding agile culture. It provides a more structured approach to applying agile practices to strategic planning and decision-making in higher education. It provides insights into the current state of six agile characteristics—strategic planning, collaboration, decision-making style, change management, lean approach, and continuous improvement—and offers guidelines for their enhancement.

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Nina Begičević Ređep

Katarina Pažur Aničić

Barbara Šlibar

Ethical Considerations

The Ethics Review Committee of the Faculty of Organization and Informatics,University of Zagreb,approved the research on March 2,2020. Written informed consent for participation in this research was obtained from all participants prior to the interviews.

Consent to Participate

Participants provided written informed consent before the interview. Participation was voluntary,and respondents could decline to answer any question or withdraw from the interview at any time. All data were treated confidentially and used solely for research and analysis. Appropriate measures were taken to protect data confidentiality.

Consent for Publication

Not applicable.

Author Contributions

Nina Begičević Ređep: Conceptualization,Methodology,Formal analysis,Investigation,Data Curation,Writing - Original Draft,Writing - Review & Editing,Visualization,Funding acquisition. Katarina Pažur Aničić: Conceptualization,Methodology,Formal analysis,Investigation,Data Curation,Writing - Original Draft,Writing - Review & Editing,Visualization. Barbara Šlibar: Formal analysis,Investigation,Data Curation,Writing - Original Draft,Writing - Review & Editing,Visualization.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Croatian Science Foundation under the grant IP-2020-02-5071.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

The transcripts generated and analyzed during the current study are not publicly available but are available from the authors on reasonable request.

References

Ahmad

Zia

Ahmad

Salam

(2023). Management and leadership in higher educational institutions: The new normal (post-COVID-19) and future scenario. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 107, 193–211.

Anifa

Ramakrishnan

Kabiraj

Joghee

(2024). Systematic Review of literature on Agile Approach. NMIMS Management Review, 32(2), 84–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/09711023241272294

Barrett-Maitland

Williams-Shakespeare

Allen

Edwards-Braham

(2025). From tradition to innovation: Proposing agile leadership as the new paradigm for a higher education institution in a developing country. Power and Education, 17, 255–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/17577438241307310

Baxter

Dacre

Dong

Ceylan

(2023). Institutional challenges in agile adoption: Evidence from a public sector IT project. Government Information Quarterly, 40(4), 101858. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2023.101858

Beck

Beedle

van Bennekum

Cockburn

Cunningham

Fowler

Grenning

Highsmith

Hunt

Jeffries

Kern

Marick

Martin

R. C.

Mellor

Schwaber

Sutherland

Thomas

(2021). Manifesto for Agile Software Development. https://agilemanifesto.org/

Begičević Ređep

(2024). Agility of planning and decision making in education [Conference session]. 47th ICT and Electronics Convention MIPRO 2024. https://www.croris.hr/crosbi/publikacija/prilog-skup/850680

Bogdanova

Parashkevova-Velikova

(2022). Agile perspectives in higher education. In Ciurea

Boja

Pocatilu

Doinea

(Eds.), Education, research and Business Technologies (Vol. 276, pp. 333–345). Springer.

Bortoli

L. Â. D.

Marchi

A. C. B. D.

Castaman

A. S.

Neves

B. B.

Scortegagna

H. D. M.

Hannecker

L. A.

(2024). Agile manifesto of non-formal education for older adults—A co-design experience. Taylor & Francis.

Brinkmann

Kvale

(2014). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (3rd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.

10.

Cohen

Manion

Morrison

(2011). Research Methods in Education (7th ed.). Routledge.

11.

Divjak

(2016). Challenges of strategic decision-making within higher education and evaluation of the strategic decisions [Conference session]. Proceedings of Central European Conference on Information and Intelligent Systems.

12.

European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice. (2025a). Belgium - Flemish Community: Organisation of the education system and of its structure. Retrieved July 29, 2025, from https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/eurypedia/belgium-flemish-community/organisation-education-system-and-its-structure

13.

European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice. (2025b). Germany: Organisation and governance. Retrieved July 29, 2025, from https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/eurypedia/germany/organisation-and-governance

14.

Eurydice Unit Spain. (2023, June 26). Spain: New legislation affecting the university system. https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/news/spain-new-legislation-affecting-university-system

15.

Goethe University Frankfurt. (n.d). Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://www.goethe-university-frankfurt.de/en?locale=en

16.

Halder

Al Bastaki

E. M.

Suleymanova

Muhammad

Purushothaman

(2024). Agile blended learning: A promising approach for higher education in the UAE. SN Computer Science, 5(5), 485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42979-024-02813-5

17.

Itzik

Roy

(2023). Does agile methodology fit all characteristics of software projects? Review and analysis. Empirical Software Engineering, 28(4), 105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-023-10334-7

18.

Ivetić

Ilić

(2020). Reinventing universities: Agile project management in higher education. European Project Management Journal, 10(1), 64–68.

19.

Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek. (n.d). Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek. Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://www.unios.hr/en/

20.

Khan

Z. R.

Priya

Tuffnell

(2022). Culture of integrity – Institutional response to integrity during COVID19. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 18, 27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-022-00118-9

21.

KU Leuven. (n.d). KU Leuven. Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://www.kuleuven.be/english/

22.

Looks

Fangmann

Thomaschewski

Escalona

M.-J.

Schön

E.-M.

(2024). Towards improving agility in public administration. Software Quality Journal, 32(1), 283–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-023-09657-x

23.

Macheridis

(2018). Balancing authority and autonomy in higher education by implementing an agile project management approach. Tertiary Education and Management, 24(2), 128–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2017.1400092

24.

Magistretti

Trabucchi

(2025). Agile-as-a-tool and agile-as-a-culture: A comprehensive review of agile approaches adopting contingency and configuration theories. Review of Managerial Science, 19(1), 223–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-024-00745-1

25.

Menon

Suresh

(2021). Factors influencing organizational agility in higher education. Benchmarking An International Journal, 28(1), 307–332. https://doi.org/10.1108/bij-04-2020-0151

26.

Mergel

Ganapati

Whitford

A. B.

(2020). Agile: A new way of governing. Public Administration Review, 81(1), 161–165. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13202

27.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. M.

(1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.

28.

Neumann

Kirklies

P.-C.

Schott

(2024). Adopting agile in government: A comparative case study. Public Management Review, 26(12), 3692–3714. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2024.2354776

29.

Open University of Catalonia. (n.d). UOC - Open University of Catalonia. Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://www.uoc.edu/en/

30.

Philbin

S. P.

(2015). Exploring the application of agile management practices to higher education institutions [Conference session]. Proceedings of the International Annual Conference of the American Society for Engineering Management. https://openresearch.lsbu.ac.uk/item/875xx

31.

Pohlenz

(2022). Innovation, professionalisation and evaluation: Implications for quality management in higher education. Quality of Higher Education, 28(1), 50–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2021.1951452

32.

Prejean

E. A.

Kilcoyne

M. S.

Liao

Parker

(2019). Is higher education talking and Walking Agile Management: A review of the literature. American International Journal of Business Management, 2(7), 8–18.

33.

Rodríguez

M. C.

Vázquez

M. M.

Tslapatas

de Carvalho

C. V.

Jesmin

Heidmann

(2018). Introducing lean and agile methodologies into engineering higher education: The cases of Greece, Portugal, Spain and Estonia [Conference session]. 2018 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON). https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON.2018.8363302

34.

Rubio

Llopis-Albert

Zeng

García-Hurtado

(2023). Higher education governance and policy in Spain. Multidisciplinary Journal for Education Social and Technological Sciences, 10(2), 59–76. https://doi.org/10.4995/muse.2023.20181

35.

Tang

W. K. W.

Chan

V. W. M.

(2024). Agile-blended learning approach for Metropolitan learners in higher education: A systematic literature review [Conference session]. 2024 International Symposium on Educational Technology (ISET). https://doi.org/10.1109/ISET61814.2024.00065

36.

The Open University. (n.d). The Open University. Retrieved July 30, 2025, from http://www.open.ac.uk/

37.

Universities UK. (2025). Governance. Retrieved July 22, 2025, from https://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/about-us/governance-annual-reports-and-accounts/governance

38.

University of Rijeka. (n.d). University of Rijeka. Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://uniri.hr/en/

39.

University of Split. (n.d). University of Split. Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://www.unist.hr/eng

40.

University of Zagreb. (n.d). University of Zagreb. Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://www.unizg.hr/homepage/

41.

Yin

R. K.

(2013). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.