Upload
camila-de-wit-giesemann
View
68
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Implementing a New Strategic Management Framework for Institutional Success
Using rankings intelligence as a knowledge and strategic management tool vs playing the rankings game
Charles Tad Brinkerhoff, Director, Professional Masters Programs, Purdue University, Krannert School of Management
Santanu Chatterjee, Director, Full-Time MBA Program & Associate Professor of Economics, The University of Georgia, Terry College of Business
Toby McChesney, Assistant Dean of Graduate Recruiting and Student Services, Georgia State University
MODERATOR: Camila de Wit, Principal, Setzer Group Boston (SGB) and Former Director of Admissions and Career Services, ESADE Business School (Barcelona,
Spain)
Utilizing Benchmark Intelligence for Strategic Management
Agenda for Today’s Session
Session Objectives and Overview of Benchmarking as a Strategic Management Tool
Panel Discussion Using External Benchmarking for Decision-Making Purposes
Examples of Comparative Format Using External Benchmark Data
Q&A, Wrap-up and Conclusions
2
• To explore how external and third party “reference” and comparative data such as rankings can be utilized to enhance both operational and strategic resource allocation decisions within MBA and graduate management programs.
• To explore how a strategic management approach combined with benchmark data can focus organizational, functional and individual efforts in a strategically appropriate and consistent direction.
Utilizing Benchmark Intelligence for Strategic Management
Introduction: Session Objectives
3
• Include internal surveys and feedback. Helpful to identify potential improvement areas/gaps to be benchmarked and compared.- Candidate/student surveys- Exit surveys
• Rankings: Produced by media organizations, rankings data provide easily accessible benchmark and comparative information.- US News & World Report (US)- Financial Times (Global)- Bloomberg BusinessWeek (US and Global)- Forbes (Global)- The Economist (Global) - America Economia (Global, from a Latin American perspective)- Other (Poets and Quants, TopMBA, regional rankings, etc.)
External
Internal
Inputs and data for strategic management can be found in a variety of sources that allow for identification of potential areas of improvement and comparison.
Utilizing Benchmark Intelligence for Strategic Management
Potential Sources of Information
• Other: External organizations related to the GME industry frequently provide useful industry-wide data and information.- GMAC- MBA Roundtable- AACSB- EFMD
- AMBA- EMBA Council- MBA CSEA
- Faculty Surveys- Internally generated data and research
4
• Activities that provide the means for institutions to sustain its competitive positioning and capacities- Marketing- Development
• Critical activities necessary for the functioning of an institution regardless of its mission, strategy or focus- Financial Viability/Resources- Organizational Capacity (Administrators/Faculty/Staff)- Facilities (Physical or Online/Electronic)
• Activities central to an institution’s ability to serve its constituents/market and deliver on its value proposition- Enrollment Management/Admissions- Academic Programs (Curriculum and Faculty)- Student Services- Career Services- Alumni Relations
Drivers
Core Functions
Enablers
Effective alignment of Enablers, Drivers and Core Functions with outside benchmark metrics and data support an institution’s strategy implementation, value proposition and delivery.
Utilizing Benchmark Intelligence for Strategic ManagementSGB Strategic Management Framework for Universities and GME Institutions
5
Drivers
Core Functions
EnablersOrganizational
Capacity
“Facilities*”and
Student Services
Marketingand
VisibilityDevelopment
EnrollmentManagement
Faculty/Curriculum
Career Services
Alumni Servicesand
Support
Student Affairs
FinancialViability/Resources
Utilizing Benchmark Intelligence for Strategic ManagementSGB Strategic Management Framework for Universities and GME Institutions
Effective alignment of Enablers, Drivers and Core Functions with outside benchmark metrics and data support an institution’s strategy implementation, value proposition and delivery.
*Physical or online/electronic. 6
Enablers
Drivers
Core Functions
Organizational Capacity
“Facilities*”and
Student Services
Marketingand
VisibilityDevelopment
EnrollmentManagement
Alumni Servicesand
Support
FinancialViability/Resources
• Total Apps• Admissions Ratio• Yield• Peer Assessment
Score• Recruiter
Assessment Score• GMAT• GPA• Employment
• Total Applications• Admissions Ratio• Yield• GMAT, GPA• Salary• Employment
• Recruiter Assessment Score
• Salary• Total Applications• Yield
• Total Applications• Admissions Ratio• Yield• Recruiter Ass’t Score• Salary• Employment
• Peer Assessment Score
• Recruiter Assessment Score
CV/Faculty/Student Affairs
Career Services
For Graduate Business Schools, rankings data can be mapped/aligned with Drivers and Core Functions helping decision-makers focus resources to enhance delivery on an institution’s value proposition.
• Recruiter Assessment Score
• Yield
Example of Mapping of SGB Strategic Management Framework with External Benchmark Data
US News & World Report Grad Business School Ranking as a Source
• Endowment • Online capabilities
*Physical or online/electronic. 7
Session Objectives and Overview of Benchmarking as a Strategic Management Tool
Panel Discussion Using External Benchmarking for Decision-Making Purposes
Examples of Comparative Format Using External Benchmark Data
Q&A, Wrap-up and Conclusions
8
Utilizing Benchmark Intelligence for Strategic Management
Agenda for Today’s Session
1. What challenges do you face in your respective organizations regarding resource generation and allocation across programs and/or core functions?
2. Does comparative benchmarking impact your resource allocation generation and allocations processes and what is the current perspective within your organization with regard to utilization of external benchmark data including rankings?
3. Do you have a structured/formal approach and/or frameworks to engage in benchmarking and use of the information across the organization?
Utilizing External Benchmark Data for Decision-Making Purposes
Discussion
9
Session Objectives and Overview of Benchmarking as a Strategic Management Tool
Panel Discussion Using External Benchmarking for Decision-Making Purposes
Examples of Comparative Format Using External Benchmark Data
Q&A, Wrap-up and Conclusions
10
Utilizing Benchmark Intelligence for Strategic Management
Agenda for Today’s Session
+
Strategic Management Perspective Internal and External Benchmark Intelligence
11
= Enhanced Institutional Effectiveness and Resource Generation and Allocation
• Performance metrics year over year• Progress metrics compared to the
same time the year before• Comparison relative to the competition
Benchmark Intelligence with a Strategic Perspective
Enablers
Drivers
Core Functions
Organizational Capacity
“Facilities*”and
Student Services
Marketingand
VisibilityDevelopment
EnrollmentManagement
Alumni Servicesand
Support
FinancialViability/Resources
• Total Apps• Admissions Ratio• Yield• Peer Assessment
Score• Recruiter
Assessment Score• GMAT• GPA• Employment
• Total Applications• Admissions Ratio• Yield• GMAT, GPA• Salary• Employment
• Recruiter Assessment Score
• Salary• Total Applications• Yield
• Total Applications• Admissions Ratio• Yield• Recruiter Ass’t Score• Salary• Employment
• Peer Assessment Score
• Recruiter Assessment Score
CV/Faculty/Student Affairs
Career Services
For Graduate Business Schools, rankings data can be mapped/aligned with Drivers and Core Functions helping decision-makers focus resources to enhance delivery on an institution’s value proposition.
• Recruiter Assessment Score
• Yield
Example of Mapping of SGB Strategic Management Framework with External Benchmark Data
US News & World Report Grad Business School Ranking as a Source
• Endowment • Online capabilities
*Physical or online/electronic. 12
Example of Comparative Format Using External Benchmark Data
US News & World Report 2015: Regional Public UniversitiesRanking and Other Selected Statistics (Weighs in brackets on left)
Peer Assessment
Recruiter Assessment
2.9 4.03.4
Salary & Bonus
Employ’mt at Graduat’n
58.8% 85.1%70.9%
Employ’mt 3 months
83% 90.9%88.2%
Total Ap-plications
135 2,721
Tuition Out of State/Yr
$23,950 $57,200$41,576
ROI Out of State
97% 142%123%
Avg Work Experience
1.50 5.424.49
% Women27.7% 44%32.6%
706668
3.25 3.39 3.55
1,028
$59,358 $136,102$97,957
632
2.6 3.54 4.4
GMAT
GPA
(25)
(15)
(14)
(7)
(14)
Institution and Ranking
(16.25)
(7.5)
25.1% 38.8% 56.7%
83.9%42.4% 55.2%
Acc’pt Ratio
Yield
(1.25)
Total Enrollment
91 941352
U. Michigan RossU. Virginia Darden
11
19
41
U. North Carolina Chapel Hill
74U. Alabama
U. FloridaU. Maryland
48U. Georgia
65Louisiana State University 93
$30,420
3.4
3.2
$86,096
63.4%
90.2%
645
3.31
44.8%
51.6%
4.58
33.3%
212
13
• Are our applications low due to location or marketing effectiveness? Low number of applications affects selectivity (GMAT, GPA and Acceptance Ratio) metrics. What actions can we implement to increase the total number of applications to the program?
• How are our scholarships being used in the admissions process? What actions can we implement to impact yield?
• We are doing a good job in placing our students within 3 months of graduation, but why is our salary and bonus below benchmark average? Is it a function of the types of profiles we admit/their career objectives (i.e. non profit)? Or is it a function of the types of companies we attract?
• Can we increase capacity (total number of students)? Can this be affecting our attractiveness with recruiters?
Example of Comparative Format Using External Benchmark Data
Examples of Potential Questions Raised by Benchmark
Identification of important questions are invaluable tools for decision-makers in developing and implementing strategy utilizing organizational resources (people/financial).
14
Example of Comparative Format Using External Benchmark Data
US News & World Report 2015: “Technology-Oriented” SchoolsRanking and Other Selected Statistics (Weighs in brackets on left)
Peer Assessment
Recruiter Assessment
3.1 4.13.44
Salary & Bonus
Employ’mt at Graduat’n
63.8% 76.5%
Employ’mt 3 months
89.7% 95.7%92.2%
Total Ap-plications
350 1,951
Tuition Out of State/Yr
$20,319 $43,408
ROI Out of State
92% 240%137%
Avg Work Experience
4.92 5.755.18
% Women23.5% 32.727.2
691667
3.26 3.35 3.46
881
$92,262 $131,181$109,878
607
3.3 3.56 4.0
GMAT
GPA
(25)
(15)
(14)
(7)
(14)
Institution and Ranking
U. Texas Austin McCombs 15
18
27
Carnegie Mellon Tepper
(16.25)
(7.5)
21.4% 29.5% 32.6%
65.7%29.7% 48.6%
Acc’pt Ratio
Yield
(1.25)
Total Enrollment
123 511271
Georgia Institute of Technology
33Rice University
37Texas A&M
University of Rochester
$56,768
$100,609
29.9%
53.5%
40Purdue University
230
$42,174
119%
3.5
3.3
85%
91.3%
576
15
Example of Comparative Format Using External Benchmark Data
US News & World Report 2015: Part Time ProgramsRanking and Other Selected Statistics (Weighs in brackets on left)
Peer Assessment
% Entrants w/prior work Experience
79% 100%97%
% Women14% 43%29%
712300
57 206
64
2.9 3.74 4.6(50)
Institution and Ranking
38% 71%
59% 78%
Total Apps
Accep-ted
Acc’pt Ratio
Yield
345
571
92%
96%
UC Berkeley HaasChicago Booth
Northwestern KelloggNew York Stern/UCLA
1234
Texas McCombsMichigan RossIndiana Keller
Ohio State FisherCarnegie Mellon Tepper
Emory Goizueta/Georgetown/Marshall/Foster
67891011
1516
Minnesota CarlsonMassachusetts Amherst/Washington Olin
18Arizona State/Rice
20Georgia Institute of Tech/Wake Forest
22Maryland Smith/Texas-Dallas
2425
Wisconsin MadisonBC/Arizona/UC Davis/Florida Hough
29Georgia State/Texas A&M Mays
226
65.5%
67.3
3.2
96%
36% 100%80%% Entrants providing
GMAT score
567 692622Average GMAT
611(15)
45% 100%86%% Entrants providing GPA score
3.11 3.523.30Average GPA
3.18(5)
(15)
41.2%
Total Enrollment
295 2,9501,107891
% of Enroll’t that is PT
13% 96%54% 83%
4.58 12.176.29(15)Average
Work Experience
5.83
16
Session Objectives and Overview of Benchmarking as a Strategic Management Tool
Panel Discussion Using External Benchmarking for Decision-Making Purposes
Examples of Comparative Format Using External Benchmark Data
Q&A, Wrap-up and Conclusions
17
18
Camila de Wit, PrincipalSetzer Group Boston (246) 231-1510 [email protected]