Analysis reveals misalignment in thinking again practices in private universities, suggesting improvements in data use and innovation.
This study aims to analyze the Thinking Again capability within the Dynamic Governance framework at Private Higher Education Institutions (PTS) in Gorontalo Province. Observations indicate that PTS face various obstacles in realizing higher education governance that is adaptive and responsive to change. The main problems identified include strategic decision-making that is still based on routines without the support of accurate and real-time data, a hierarchical organizational structure that hinders innovation, and limited human resource capacity due to high workloads. Furthermore, the integration of academic technology is not optimal, resulting in data and learning innovation not being systematically connected. The Thinking Again capability, which should be a mechanism for critical reflection in governance, has not been strongly internalized. The indicators analyzed cover three main aspects: (a) the decision-making process, (b) data use, and (c) openness to innovation. In practice, these three aspects have not optimally supported the transformation of educational services based on Dynamic Governance. Decision-making tends to be conventional, data use is limited, while openness to innovation is hampered by a stagnant mindset and a lack of clear operational standards. The results of the study conclude that there is a misalignment between the need for the implementation of Thinking Again and the institutional practices of PTS in Gorontalo. Achieving dynamic higher education governance requires strengthening data literacy, integrating technology, enhancing human resource competencies, and providing more intensive support from LLDIKTI and APTISI. Thus, Thinking Again can become a crucial foundation for sustainable higher education transformation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mohi et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: