Strategic Resource Allocation...Process Assess all ppgrograms on finance / mission and market trends...

Preview:

Citation preview

Strategic ResourceStrategic Resource Allocation / Assessment

CSU FullertonCSU Fullerton

Larry Goldstein

September 23, 2008 © Campus Strategies 1

yPresident, Campus Strategies

AgendaAgenda

Resource allocation through budgetingResource allocation through budgetingVarious budgeting modelsO h i ll iOne approach to strategic resource allocationAssessment through performance measurementOutcome measuresQuestions, comments, and reactions

September 23, 2008 © Campus Strategies 2

Resource Allocation

September 23, 2008 © Campus Strategies 3

Ideal ApproachIdeal Approach

Relies on a broadly participative processRelies on a broadly participative processIntegrates resource allocation with planning and assessmentand assessment– Planning driven by established vision

All allocation decisions driven by planning– All allocation decisions driven by planning prioritiesResults of allocations assessed regularly and– Results of allocations assessed regularly and consistently

Emphasizes accountability versus controlSeptember 23, 2008 © Campus Strategies 4

Emphasizes accountability versus control

VisionVision

September 23, 2008 © Campus Strategies 5

What Really Matters?What Really Matters?

ResourcesResources– Dollars

P iti– Positions– Space– Technology

Planning, resource allocation, and g, ,assessment must address all four

September 23, 2008 6© Campus Strategies

BudgetingBudgeting

Most familiar aspect of resource allocationMost familiar aspect of resource allocationOther aspects of resource allocation

S i– Space assignment– Establishment of technology priorities– Process for assigning new positions– Any reallocation processAny reallocation process

Dollars, faculty or staff positions, space, equipment etc

September 23, 2008 © Campus Strategies 7

equipment, etc….

Budgeting (contd )Budgeting (contd.)

Budget as predictorBudget as predictor– Integration with GAAP reporting

i k i i iLink to activities statementLink to balance sheet

Driver of planningApplication of ratio analysisApplication of ratio analysis– Use budget to project Composite Financial

Index (CFI) and its componentsSeptember 23, 2008 © Campus Strategies 8

Index (CFI) and its components…

Budgeting (contd )Budgeting (contd.)

All-funds budgetingAll-funds budgeting– Unrestricted

i d ( if d i– Restricted (e.g., gifts, endowment income, sponsored research)

Approved budget is only a snapshotProcess is continuousAlways responding to new information

Plans assessment results etcSeptember 23, 2008 © Campus Strategies 9

– Plans, assessment results, etc.

Questions?

September 23, 2008 © Campus Strategies 10

Budget Models

September 23, 2008 © Campus Strategies 11

Types of BudgetsTypes of Budgets

OperatingOperatingCapitalS i l i i i iSpecial initiativesRestrictedProjectDepartmentalDepartmentalAnd many more

September 23, 2008 © Campus Strategies 12

Budget ModelsBudget ModelsIncrementalF lFormulaZero-basedResponsibility centerPlanning, programming, and budgetingg, p og g, d budge gSpecial purpose

Initiative basedInitiative-basedPerformance-based

September 23, 2008 © Campus Strategies 13

Hybrid

IncrementalIncremental

All budgets are adjusted by a specifiedAll budgets are adjusted by a specified percentage—either up or downEasy to administer most efficient modelEasy to administer, most efficient modelFlawed because it assumes existing allocations

iare appropriateNot linked to plans and no priorities are setMaintains status quo / mediocrityFails to leverage opportunities

September 23, 2008 © Campus Strategies 14

Fails to leverage opportunities

FormulaFormula

Resource allocations driven by purelyResource allocations driven by purely quantitative factors

Enrollment employment space etc– Enrollment, employment, space, etc.More common among public institutionsRelatively efficientFlawed unless formulas adjusted for prioritiesj pFormulas frequently become outdated

September 23, 2008 © Campus Strategies 15

Zero-basedZero based

Assumes no history and builds from thereAssumes no history and builds from thereIdentifies activities and related costs

C b d diff i i i d– Costs vary based on differing anticipated outcomes

Decisions are made based on the packages of activities and what they’ll accomplish…

September 23, 2008 © Campus Strategies 16

Zero-based (contd )Zero based (contd.)

Fairly labor and paper intensiveFairly labor and paper intensiveDifficult to apply consistently

iff b d i i i d– Difference between administrative and academic activities

Rarely applied completelyOccasionally used on a cyclical basisy y

September 23, 2008 © Campus Strategies 17

Responsibility CenterResponsibility Center

Numerous terms to describe system of “everyNumerous terms to describe system of every tub on its bottom”Revenue centers “own” revenues they generateRevenue centers “own” revenues they generate – Responsible for expenses—both direct and

i di dindirect—and pay taxesCost centers funded from central revenues and taxes…

September 23, 2008 © Campus Strategies 18

Responsibility Center (contd )Responsibility Center (contd.)

Incentives generally less meaningful for costIncentives generally less meaningful for cost centers than revenue centersRisk that some units will act in ways notRisk that some units will act in ways not beneficial to larger institutionG kGovernance structures take on greater significanceRarely applied universally

September 23, 2008 © Campus Strategies 19

Planning, Programming, andBudgeting System (PPBS)

Focuses on centralized decision-making, a long-range orientation, and systematic analysis of alternative choices based on relative costs and benefitsSeeks to link costs to alternative approaches for achieving goals for each major activityg g j yPositives include ability to group activities by function to obtain output-oriented cost datafunction to obtain output oriented cost data…

September 23, 2008 © Campus Strategies 20

PPBS (contd )PPBS (contd.)

Provides ability to estimate future expensesProvides ability to estimate future expenses when making multiyear commitmentsEmploys quantitative evaluation supportingEmploys quantitative evaluation supporting selection among competing prioritiesSi ifi bl i l d d fSignificant problems include need for strong centralized management—doesn’t work with h dshared governance

Difficulty in HE to agree on program and outcomes or assign costs to programs

September 23, 2008 © Campus Strategies 21

Initiative-basedInitiative based

Special purpose budget modelSpecial purpose budget modelUsually focused on priorities established through planning processthrough planning processFunds taken “off the top” or generated through

ll ireallocation processUsually applied using one-time funds versus continuing commitments…

September 23, 2008 © Campus Strategies 22

Initiative-based (contd )Initiative based (contd.)

Competitive process used to distributeCompetitive process used to distribute resources

Sometimes separate pools for academic and– Sometimes separate pools for academic and administrativeP i i i id ifi d i i bli h d– Priorities identified, criteria established, proposals received

– Awards madeMust incorporate assessment process

September 23, 2008 © Campus Strategies 23

p p

Performance-basedPerformance based

Special purpose budget modelSpecial purpose budget modelMost common within public settings

f i i bli h d b– Performance criteria established by state department or system office

Frequently operates as “flavor of the day”– That is, whatever issue is drawing attention , g

politically…

September 23, 2008 © Campus Strategies 24

Performance-based (contd )Performance based (contd.)

Portion of available resources reserved forPortion of available resources reserved for distribution to entities achieving certain levels of performanceof performanceUsually only a small amount of total resources 1 or 2 percentresources—1 or 2 percentIntended to drive specific accomplishmentsRarely results in sustained improvement

September 23, 2008 © Campus Strategies 25

HybridHybridVery few “pure” budget models in useVery few pure budget models in use Most are variations or combinations of the models just describedmodels just described Some work in combination

I t l ith i ti b d– Incremental with incentive-based– Formula with zero-based on a rotating basis

Others simply a hodgepodge that varies from year to year

September 23, 2008 © Campus Strategies 26

Questions?

September 23, 2008 © Campus Strategies 27

Tool for Strategicll iResource Allocation

September 23, 2008 © Campus Strategies 28

Strategic Resource AllocationStrategic Resource Allocation

Multiple approaches possibleMultiple approaches possibleRobert Dickeson’s prioritization model

l bl b f h li i h– Valuable because of holistic approachStrategic Financial Analysis for Higher Education, Sixth Edition, KPMG, Prager Sealy & Co., LLC, and BearingPoint– Focuses solely on academic programs

Illustration using sixth edition

September 23, 2008 © Campus Strategies 29

Illustration using sixth edition

Relationship of Finances t Mi i (Q d t )to Mission (Quadrants)

Q3Important

Q1Critical

Q2Q4

FinancialPerformance

Q2Very

Important

Q4Less

Important

Mission

September 23, 2008 © Campus Strategies 30

Relationship of Markett C t i (S t )to Competencies (Sectors)

S3Important

S1Critical

S2S4

MarketTrends

S2Very

Important

S4Less

Important

Internal Competencies

September 23, 2008 © Campus Strategies 31

ProcessProcessAssess all programs on finance / mission and p gmarket trends / competenciesPlot finance / mission result on quadrantsPlot finance / mission result on quadrantsPlot market trends / competencies result on sectorssectorsOutcome is one of 16 possible combinationsUse the results to make investment / disinvestment decisions

September 23, 2008 © Campus Strategies 32

ApplicationApplication

Q3 – S3Important

Q1 – S1Critical

FinancialPerformance

Q2 – S2Q4 – Q4

CriticalPerformanceand

Market Q2 S2Very

Important

Q4 Q4Less

ImportantTrends

Mission and Internal Competencies

September 23, 2008 © Campus Strategies 33

ApplicationApplication

Q1-S1: CriticalQ1-S1: Critical– High on all (mission / finances; market

trends / internal competency)trends / internal competency)Star programsDefine the institutionEstablish favorable reputationpUsually first priority for fundingAssess regularly but never cut

September 23, 2008 © Campus Strategies 34

Assess regularly, but never cut

ApplicationApplication

Q3 – S3Important

Q1 – S1CriticalFinancial

Q2 - S2Q4 – S4

Performanceand

MarketVery

Important

Q4 S4Less

Important

Market Trends

p

Mission and Internal Competencies

September 23, 2008 © Campus Strategies 35

ApplicationApplication

Q2-S2: Very ImportantQ2-S2: Very Important– High on mission / competency; low on

finances / market trends)finances / market trends)Past success; now a resource drainExcellent candidates for partneringIf not essential to identity, consider f y,eliminating unless future success can be assured

September 23, 2008 © Campus Strategies 36

ApplicationApplication

Q3 – S3Important

Q1 – S1CriticalFinancial

Performance

Q2 - S2Q4 – S4

pPerformanceand

Market Q2 S2Very

Important

Q4 S4Less

ImportantTrends

Mission and Internal Competencies

September 23, 2008 © Campus Strategies 37

ApplicationApplication

Q3-S3: ImportantQ3-S3: Important– High on finances / market trends; low on

mission / competency)mission / competency)“Cash cows”Pose a dilemma– They provide resourcesy p– Not consistent with priorities

Can you afford to abandon?September 23, 2008 © Campus Strategies 38

Can you afford to abandon?

ApplicationApplication

Q3 – S3Important

Q1 – S1CriticalFinancial

P f

Q2 - S2Q4 – S4

Performanceand

Market Q2 S2Very

ImportantLess

ImportantTrends

p

Mission and Internal Competencies

September 23, 2008 © Campus Strategies 39

ApplicationApplication

Q4-S4: Less ImportantQ4-S4: Less Important– Low on all (mission / finances; market

trends / internal competency)trends / internal competency)Requires critical assessmentWhy does it exist?Is there a reason to expect future psuccess?– If not consider eliminating

September 23, 2008 © Campus Strategies 40

If not, consider eliminating

Questions?

September 23, 2008 © Campus Strategies 41

Assessment

September 23, 2008 © Campus Strategies 42

AssessmentAssessment

Planning and resource allocation withoutPlanning and resource allocation withoutassessment are haphazard at bestNeed assessment to ensure correct decisionsNeed assessment to ensure correct decisions are being madeB h li i d i iBoth qualitative and quantitativeQuantitative provides greatest valueSome subjective assessments will always be needed

September 23, 2008 © Campus Strategies 43

Performance ManagementPerformance Management

Unique to an institutionUnique to an institutionFocuses on resultsA i i iAction orientationBased on measurable facts (i.e., data) whenever possibleIf subjective, strive for consensusj ,

September 23, 2008 © Campus Strategies 44

What Metrics Can DoWhat Metrics Can Do

Bring clarity to visionBring clarity to visionFocus attention on strategy as opposed to short term operational considerationsshort-term operational considerationsAvoid resource allocation decisions focused

l l h b d d / isolely on short-term budget needs / issuesHighlight strategies to ensure incentives are appropriate

September 23, 2008 © Campus Strategies 45

Why Metrics Are Not UsedWhy Metrics Are Not Used

Tendency to focus on projects rather than bigTendency to focus on projects rather than big pictureConcern about scrutiny of “pet” initiativesConcern about scrutiny of “pet” initiativesHistorical lack of accountability or penalty f ffor poor performanceVulnerability to attack and misinterpretation if not done effectively or misused…

September 23, 2008 © Campus Strategies 46

Why Metrics Are Not Used (contd )Why Metrics Are Not Used (contd.)

No executive championNo executive champion Measurement is difficult

f f fiMost common measures from for-profit sector don’t fit higher educationSome activities not susceptible to routine quantification

September 23, 2008 © Campus Strategies 47

Effective AssessmentEffective AssessmentEnhances communication about strategyEnhances communication about strategyLeads to better focus / alignment of activities with strategieswith strategiesEnables organizational improvement F th t d i iFurthers progress toward visionPuts focus on priorities; improves resource allocation decisions

September 23, 2008 © Campus Strategies 48

Mission MeasuresMission Measures

Assess effectiveness of mission-basedAssess effectiveness of mission-based outcomesUnique to each institution based on its specificUnique to each institution based on its specific mission / visionWh i i i blWhen mission is not measurable– Establish goals representative of mission

accomplishment and measure those

September 23, 2008 © Campus Strategies 49

How Metrics are UsedHow Metrics are Used

Link budgets to plansLink budgets to plansCompare to peers / aspirantsC d l i di l l iConduct longitudinal analysisEffect mid-course corrections–take actionReport / discuss with management, internal stakeholders, and interested external ,constituents

September 23, 2008 © Campus Strategies 50

Questions?

September 23, 2008 © Campus Strategies 51

Outcome Measures

September 23, 2008 © Campus Strategies 52

Outputs

Services or products provided by the i i iinstitution– Output measures tend to be easy to

quantifyGenerally focus on quantity of service y q yor product providedMay or may not address concept ofMay or may not address concept of quality

September 23, 2008 53© Campus Strategies

Outcome

An institution’s impacts on the external i h l i id h henvironment or the value it provides through

its products or services– Outcome measures consider impacts and

accomplishments resulting from providing a service or product

Key word is resultsy

September 23, 2008 54© Campus Strategies

Assessment

Requires the generation of data– Data can be objective or subjective / hard

or softHard objective data include facts and “actual” measures related to the activity– E g number of graduatesE.g., number of graduates

September 23, 2008 55© Campus Strategies

Assessment (contd.)

Soft objective data include estimates or j i f l d hprojections of measures related to the

activity– E.g., estimated number of graduates

in 2010

September 23, 2008 56© Campus Strategies

Assessment (contd.)

Hard subjective data include i i d i iperceptions, attitudes, opinions, etc. as

measured by validated instruments– E.g., results of written satisfaction

surveys conducted with alumni five years after graduation

September 23, 2008 57© Campus Strategies

Assessment (contd.)

Soft subjective data include qualitative i f i d i i finformation presented in narrative form– E.g., a report of the results of

interviews with graduates conducted immediately following graduation

September 23, 2008 58© Campus Strategies

Developing Outcome Measures

Outcome measures can be hard or soft / bj i bj iobjective or subjective

Process requires a forward / backward focus– Forward focus identifies the desired

impacts / value soughtp g– Backward focus starts with identified

impact / value then considers what effortimpact / value, then considers what effort will produce that impact

September 23, 2008 59© Campus Strategies

Questions

September 23, 2008 60© Campus Strategies

IllustrationIllustration

SituationSituation– Booming region

S b i l d f C A i– Substantial need for CPAs, investment bankers, and financial analysts

– Successful individuals with these skills tend to be well compensated

– If they have a good educational experience, likely to become generous donors to schooly g

September 23, 2008 61© Campus Strategies

Illustration (contd )Illustration (contd.)

OpportunityOpportunity– Created by the fact that there is no

established business program in the regionestablished business program in the regionStrategy– Develop a first-rate business program to

meet the region’s needs for financial professionals

September 23, 2008 62© Campus Strategies

Illustration (contd )Illustration (contd.)

Output measure: number of graduates withOutput measure: number of graduates with business degrees (objective / hard)Outcome measure: number of graduatesOutcome measure: number of graduates obtaining local jobs in financial industry (objective / hard)(objective / hard)Outcome measure: estimated number of

d i d h l i 2010graduates pursuing graduate school in 2010 (objective / soft)…

September 23, 2008 63© Campus Strategies

Illustration (contd )Illustration (contd.)

Output measure: number of graduates takingOutput measure: number of graduates taking CPA exam (objective / hard)Outcome measure: number of graduatesOutcome measure: number of graduates passing CPA exam (objective / hard)O b f dOutcome measure: number of graduates receiving top score on CPA exam (objective / h d)hard)…

September 23, 2008 64© Campus Strategies

Illustration (contd )Illustration (contd.)

Outcome measure: results of writtenOutcome measure: results of written satisfaction surveys taken by employers with graduates from business program three yearsgraduates from business program three years after graduation (subjective / hard)Outcome measure: report of annual employerOutcome measure: report of annual employer forum conducted to assess performance of graduates from business program (subjective /graduates from business program (subjective / soft)

September 23, 2008 65© Campus Strategies

Illustration (contd )Illustration (contd.)

Outcome measure: reduced incidence ofOutcome measure: reduced incidence of bankruptcy in the region (objective / hard)Outcome measure: reduced indictments forOutcome measure: reduced indictments for corporate fraud in the region (objective / hard)O d i i f iOutcome measure: designation of region as preferred locale for startup businesses by

’ Offi f E i D lstate’s Office of Economic Development (subjective / soft)

September 23, 2008 66© Campus Strategies

Strategic ResourceStrategic ResourceAllocation / Assessment

Questions, Comments,and Reactions

Larry.Goldstein@Campus-Strategies.com

September 23, 2008 © Campus Strategies 67

540.942.9146

Recommended