Planning for Impact: How IMAs Shape Alberta's Post-secondary Framework

Part (7) in the Planning for Impact series

In Alberta’s public post-secondary system, strategic planning happens within a unique policy and accountability framework. Institutions are expected to chart their own paths, but they must do so in a way that aligns with provincial priorities and demonstrates measurable progress. The Investment Management Agreement (IMA) anchors this balancing act.

What is an IMA?

Investment Management Agreements are formal, multi-year agreements between Alberta Advanced Education and each of the province’s 26 public post-secondary institutions. They are grounded in the Post-Secondary Learning Act (PSLA), which defines governance structures, the roles of boards of governors and faculty councils, and compliance with provincial standards and reporting requirements.

Each IMA sets out how the province’s investment in the institution will support agreed-upon priorities, defining the institution’s mandate, role, and alignment to Alberta’s six-sector model while linking a portion of government funding to specific performance-based metrics. These include measures such as:

• Accessibility: ensuring programs are available to a wide range of learners

• Labour market responsiveness: aligning programming with workforce needs and graduate employment outcomes

• Student success: improving retention, completion, and work-integrated learning opportunities

While the IMA approach is specific to Alberta, it has parallels in other provinces, such as Ontario’s Strategic Mandate Agreements.

The Structure of an IMA

A typical IMA contains several key elements:

• Mandate Statement: defining the institution’s mission, vision, and system role

• Terms and Conditions: specifying the agreement’s duration and funding arrangements, including the percentage of operating grants at risk based on performance

• Performance Metrics: funding-tied indicators such as graduate employment rates, enrolment targets, and program alignment to labour market needs

• Transparency Metrics: measures not tied to funding but still important for accountability, such as international student enrolment figures or participation in specific initiatives

• Funding Framework: outlining the base operating grant and the portion tied to performance measures

• Legislative and Policy Requirements: ensuring alignment with governing legislation like the PSLA

The performance-based component means that an institution’s ability to meet agreed-upon targets can directly affect the funding it receives.

Why IMAs Matter for Planning

For Alberta’s institutions, the IMA is not just an administrative document. It is a strategic touchstone that influences institutional priorities, shapes the content of strategic plans, and frames accountability expectations. Many strategic plans reviewed in my research explicitly reference their IMA commitments, integrating them into their strategic goals and performance tracking. Sub-plans such as academic, research, EDI, technology, and campus development plans referred to in my earlier articles often cascade from these commitments, translating them into more detailed, operational priorities.

An integrated planning system that fully aligns Investment Management Agreement objectives with institutional strategies can create a clear line of sight from provincial priorities to day-to-day operations, improving accountability, focus, and resource allocation. It can also streamline reporting and help institutions demonstrate value to government and stakeholders. However, complete alignment is not without risks.

In some cases, IMA objectives may emphasize provincial economic or workforce priorities that compete with other elements of an institution’s mission, such as advancing fundamental research, sustaining niche programs, or engaging deeply with certain communities. This tension could arise, for example, when an underserved community within the institution’s mandate area is not identified as a focus area in federal or provincial policy frameworks. While this was not observed in the research, it is important to acknowledge that such situations can occur. In these exceptional cases, pursuing meaningful engagement or programming for that community may receive less institutional attention or fewer resources if it is not tied to performance metrics, despite its alignment with the institution’s values or historical commitments. Similarly, performance and funding conditions in an IMA can, in rare circumstances, limit flexibility to respond to emerging opportunities or invest in long-term initiatives that fall outside current government metrics.

Integrated planning could also help create a 360-degree feedback loop between institutions and Alberta Advanced Education, capturing data and insights from all levels of the post-secondary network. By tracking progress on IMA commitments in real time, aggregating outcomes across institutions, and highlighting areas of shared strength or common challenge, such a system could inform adjustments to the agreements themselves. This would allow for more responsive, evidence-based alignment between institutional priorities and provincial objectives, strengthening collaboration across the sector and improving the effectiveness of IMAs as a strategic tool.

IMAs as Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)

In a sense, IMA parameters function much like high-level KPIs. The performance metrics such as graduate employment rates, enrolment targets, program alignment with labour market needs, and work-integrated learning participation are measurable, time-bound, and directly tied to funding risk or transparency expectations. Institutions that treat these parameters as part of their internal performance framework, rather than just external reporting requirements, are better positioned to embed them in day-to-day decision-making.

Operationalizing these metrics means aligning them with institutional scorecards, integrating them into unit or departmental plans, and tracking them alongside other institutional priorities. This not only ensures compliance but also helps leadership teams use IMA measures as strategic levers that drive program development, resource allocation, and stakeholder engagement.

The distinction between performance metrics and transparency metrics is important. Performance metrics carry direct funding implications, which incentivizes institutions to focus on areas such as graduate employment, enrolment growth, and program relevance. Transparency metrics, while not tied to funding, still influence institutional reputation and government relations, encouraging openness in areas such as international enrolment and diversity reporting.

These metrics can have far-reaching strategic implications. IMA measures have motivated institutions to expand work-integrated learning opportunities to strengthen graduate employability and industry relationships. Metrics tied to enrolment and accessibility have influenced Indigenous and domestic student recruitment strategies, prompting targeted outreach, pathway programs, and enhanced student support initiatives. In well-aligned institutions, the IMA becomes part of the institution’s own performance management system, shaping decisions from the boardroom to the classroom.

Temporal Alignment: Plans, Reports, and Adaptability

Most institutional strategic plans span three to five years, with long-term objectives stretching over five to ten. They are refreshed annually to remain responsive to shifts in the policy environment, enrolment trends, or funding conditions.

In the past, Alberta’s public post-secondary institutions reported through a Comprehensive Institutional Plan (CIP) that combined strategic, financial, and capital planning in a single document aligned to provincial objectives. While the role and visibility of CIPs has shifted in recent years, many institutions continue to produce similar planning documents, often carrying forward elements from previous submissions.

Annual reports continue to serve as the accountability link between strategy and execution, tracking progress on both IMA commitments and broader institutional goals. These reports combine narrative updates with audited financials, performance data, and progress on capital projects, ensuring that both government and stakeholders can see how strategic goals are being pursued and achieved.

From IMA to Strategic Plan to Sub-Plans

When planning is well-coordinated, there is a clear cascade:

IMA → Institutional Strategic Plan → Sub-Plans → Unit or Departmental Plans

In this model, the IMA establishes the institution’s system role, key commitments, and performance expectations. The institutional strategic plan then interprets those commitments in the context of the institution’s unique mission, values, and priorities, translating them into goals and strategies that can be acted upon.

Sub-plans such as academic, research, EDI, technology, campus development, and enrolment management plans take these strategic goals and break them down into operational priorities for specific portfolios. For example:

• A performance metric on graduate employment rates might cascade into a strategic plan goal on improving career readiness, which then drives initiatives in the academic plan to embed work-integrated learning across programs

• A transparency metric on Indigenous student enrolment might be reflected in the strategic plan as a commitment to reconciliation and access, which then informs targeted recruitment strategies in the enrolment management plan and culturally relevant supports in student services

At the unit level, departmental and faculty plans turn these sub-plan commitments into actionable projects with defined timelines, resources, and accountabilities. This alignment ensures that every level of the institution is pulling in the same direction, from executive leadership to frontline program delivery.

When this cascade is absent or fragmented, priorities can drift, duplication of effort can occur, and performance against IMA commitments may suffer. When it is intentional and well-integrated, the IMA becomes a strategic driver that shapes decisions on resource allocation, partnerships, and program development in ways that directly support institutional sustainability and sector-wide objectives.

Looking Ahead

In the next article in the Planning for Impact series, we will take a closer look at the structures of the different plans found across Alberta’s post-secondary institutions, and what their structures reveal about institutional priorities and sector-wide coordination.

Missed the last article? Here it is.