PPCAT/12/18
Armstrong Planning Implementation. Updated 11.9.2012
The proposals set out in the Armstrong Planning and Budgeting paper, agreed by Council on the 12th July 2012 are
summarized in section 1 of this note. Section 2 provides further detail regarding the suggested planning process, as
a result of consultation between Finance and Strategic Planning, led by Steve Chadwick and Andrew Connolly. This
note only considers the planning process and does not include details of the financial process. A complete and
detailed calendar with templates for inputs will be shared with colleagues in late September.
1. Agreed Council Overview.
The revised process will integrate strategic and operational planning, bringing together the academic, financial,
capital, infrastructure and support service facets of the University’s business into a holistic, integrated planning
process, and shifting the focus away from one year budgeting to five year holistic planning. The changes proposed
are not just process changes; they represent a very different mindset. They will require the University to move away
from a formulaic resource allocation mechanism and to deploy its resources strategically to achieve our academic
and corporate objectives.
Overview of the planning process
The production process for plans is intended to be iterative and will constitute four distinct but integrated stages as
follows:
Stage 1: Vision Setting -VCEG and SMG, through their September residential planning meetings, set/confirm as
appropriate the high level vision for the University during the five-year planning period (to include size, shape and
nature targets; key priorities; planning guidance for Colleges and Professional Services).
Stage 2: Target Setting & Financial Planning (Oct/Feb) - Colleges and Professional Services produce their own high
level vision using a similar format to that used by VCEG to set targets for student numbers and research activity, and
work closely with Finance Services to construct initial income and expenditure plans.
Stage 3: Appraisal - A newly established Planning Review Group (PRG) will scrutinise each College plan and a
consolidated Professional Service plan in light of VCEG guidance, and assisted by analysis/commentary by
Professional Services. VCEG will then review a high level summary of the plans, determine how to tension recurrent
expenditure against capital investment, and decide how best to allocate the University’s finite resources to achieve
academic and corporate objectives.
Stage 4: Approval & Feedback - Council will receive the University’s five-year financial plan together with a report on
the outcomes of the planning round, detailing high level investment decisions taken by VCEG. DVCs and senior
Professional Services staff who sit on VCEG provide feedback to colleagues on their plans and the outcome of any
decisions taken by VCEG and/or Council.
2. Suggested Process
Vision Setting (May /September)
a. Professional Services/ College Consultation Meeting: At least one meeting to take place in May, June or
July. Supported by secretary from Strategic Planning, setting agenda with College Managers.
Aim:
•
•
•
Review strategy progress in year
Request / review market data & performance data
Share information/ horizon scan for the next 5 years.
Inputs:
•
Market data (HESA data out April)
•
KPI’s
PPCAT/12/18
•
•
League table analysis
Issue or opportunity papers from either PS or Colleges.
Outputs:
•
Agreement on any further input needed
•
The College Manager and Services should be able to use these as working meetings, to research and model
future strategy together and to produce an informed vision paper VCEG residential.
The following membership will be invited to at least one meeting with the College.
Attendees: College Manager, ACM’s, representatives from RKT, Finance Business Partner, the International Office,
HR Business partners, Admissions, Marketing, Employability, DARO, Academic Services, Campus Services etc.
Secretary from Strategic Planning.
b. VCEG Residential (September)
Aim (for planning purposes):
•
To set a high level vision for the University during the five-year planning period (to include size, shape and
nature targets; key priorities; planning guidance for Colleges and Professional Services)
Inputs:
•
PS / College and Guild Vision Templates
•
The current planning matrix (high level targets, priorities, guidance)
•
Issue papers
Outputs:
•
An updated planning matrix, with an agreed text foreword from VCEG to form the basis of a planning
framework. To include size, shape, nature, key priorities, planning guidance, institutional EBITDA. This will be
communicated at SMG residential and form the basis for the planning round.
Stakeholders/ Attendees: VCEG, Exec Officer.
c. SMG Residential
Aim (for planning purposes):
•
To communicate the output from VCEG residential and discuss issues arising.
Inputs:
•
Planning framework updated with outputs from VCEG residential.
Outputs:
•
SMG begins discussions about what the University level vision means for each College and Service.
Stakeholders/ Attendees: SMG
d. 2013/14 Intake Consultation (September / October) (Specific meeting in 2013/14, for the 2012/13 cycle,
this will take place through existing meetings with Admissions, the International Officer and Marketing.)
Aim:
•
To ensure Professional Services have the opportunity to input to College’s proposed 2013/14 Home / EU,
International and PGT intake number.
Outputs:
•
Meeting notes will feed in to the October PRG (in the 2013/4 cycle, members of Professional Services will
feed back to their line managing DVC, to inform the October PRG discussions.)
PPCAT/12/18
Stakeholders/ Attendees: Colleges, Admissions, Marketing, the International Office.
e. College and Professional Service PRG (Late October)
Aim:
 Review financial out turn for previous academic year.
 Review strategy progress and related performance data.
 Give a steer on how PRG sees the University vision playing out within each College – i.e. not targets but key
areas of activity .e.g. investment in research in X, or growth in student numbers in Y , quality to improve in z etc.
Areas which must be addressed through the strategy identified.
 Agree intake for the following academic year (2013/14) for Home EU, International and PGT, in conjunction with
the new intake numbers.
 Review HR budget for the following academic year (2013/14) I.e. once five year plan approved, if the previous
year came in on budget and student intake numbers are roughly as planned, there would no ‘re-approval’ of the
HR budget required and Colleges could begin the recruitment process in full. However if student numbers or
outturn indicate budget tensions, PRG would have the opportunity to discuss this with the College and if
necessary, suggest releasing a % of vacancies for the following academic year, until the full plan was approved in
the spring.)
 If necessary, consider the release of in year contingency *
Input:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Planning Framework
Vision papers submitted in August (with the opportunity to update) / other issue papers
Update on strategy progress (not included 2012/13)
Performance data
October outturn
Proposed intake numbers from Colleges with University position from SPC.
Initial intake numbers of current academic year
Existing staffing business plan
The most recent version of the Risk Register (background paper)
Any input from management accountants on the College’s or Service’s opportunities for efficiencies
Assessment of in year contingency from Finance *
Output:
•
Agreement of next academic year intake (by the 8th of November, 2012)
•
Agreement of release of HR budget
•
Areas of strength or weakness identified. Clarity on areas of strength which could be further supported or
enhanced, or areas of weakness which need to be addressed as part of the strategy.
•
Clear steer from PRG on how the university vision is expected to be reflected within the College strategy.
This should relate to the framework (research, education, Cornwall etc.)
Stakeholders/ Attendees:
•
PRG membership, Deans, College Managers, ADEs, ADRs as requested by the College.
Communications:
•
Summary outputs from PRG communicated to Colleges and to PS, to assist in their planning.
•
Item on the PSMG agenda, to discuss results from the PRGs.
f.

Five year target setting and financial planning (October- December)
Colleges meet with Professional Services to discuss how they envisage the University vision playing out in the
College through existing meeting frameworks (e.g. by adding to the agenda of existing groups such as Research
Strategy Groups, Education Strategy Groups etc.) Consultation must take place on five year student number
PPCAT/12/18
targets (excluding 2013/14) and research new awards. College Managers and Deans could delegate out to ADE’s
/ ADR’s and ACM as appropriate. Contact should be instigated by Colleges
Stakeholders/ Attendees:
Discussions should include: RKT, International Exeter, SPC, Admissions and Marketing as a minimum.
g. Professional Services/ College Consultation Meeting (December)
Aim:
 College to share its suggested 5 year student numbers and new research awards targets (and related staff
numbers) with the Professional Services. (2013/14 student numbers cannot be changed at this stage.)
 Colleges to share high level strategy with Professional Services
 Opportunity for suggestions to be made or concerns raised. If the previous consultation stage is successful,
there would be no expected contentions. Colleges will reserve the right to submit target student numbers and
new research awards as they see fit to PRG. If an agreement cannot be reached with Professional Services prior
to this meeting, this will be forum where any concerns are noted.
 Colleges to share long term and short term priorities for Professional Services support.
Input:
 Suggested 5 year student numbers and research new awards targets with rationale. Targets submitted should be
deliverable within the existing base line trajectory. I.e. increases in income would be expected to incur some
corresponding increases in expenditure. They should not assume agreed capital build or investment for which
for no return is expected / delayed by a number of years. Unattributed University investment funds are likely to
be limited, however if a College or Service would like to submit a capital or strategic proposal, this should be
presented as a separate investment proposal to the April PRG.
 High level strategy
 Related staff numbers
 Supporting data or papers can be submitted by any member.
Output:
 Summary points will be agreed with the Chair. These points and any papers (as requested by the group) will be
submitted to January PRG.
 Targets will remain as the College sees fit. PRG will consider these in the context of all the information provided.
Stakeholders /Attendees:
 Steve Chadwick (Chair), International (Shaun Curtis or representative), RKT (Sean Fielding or representative),
Admissions (Ian Blenkharn) HR partner, Marketing partner, College Dean, College Manager, ADE, ADR.
h. College PRG (January)
Aims:
 Agree high level 5 year target student numbers (not including 2013/14) and new research award targets. Related
staff numbers to be provided but not formally approved at this point. Targets should clearly be considered
alongside the Planning Framework however, above all, targets should be realistic and deliverable.
 Review impact of SNC confirmation on agreed 2013/14 Home/EU intake targets.
 Review high level strategy and receive feedback
 Consider College requests for Professional Service support
Inputs:
 SNC figure
 Proposed 5 year student numbers
PPCAT/12/18






Proposed 5 year new research awards
Priorities for Professional Services Support paper
Notes from Professional Services and College Consultation meeting
SPC’s consolidation of the 5 year student numbers and new research awards data.
Existing student cohort figures
The Risk Register (background)
Outputs:
 Provisional agreement of 5 year student number, new research awards targets and high level strategy, or further
action agreed.
 PRG provides feedback to VCEG regarding the University vision, in light of the targets agreed.
 Consolidated student numbers and approximate staff numbers provided to the Infrastructure Strategy Group.
Stakeholders/ Attendees:
•
PRG membership, Deans, College Managers, ADE, ADR.
Communications:


Summary outputs from PRG communicated to Colleges and Professional Services, to assist in their planning.
PSMG discuss outputs as an agenda item, with the opportunity to discuss College priorities with College
Managers.
i.
Colleges and Professional Services input budgets in to Cognos, working with Finance. (Jan to mid March )
j.
Infrastructure Group ( through appropriate channels, led by Hugh McCann), use the planned student and
staff numbers to model existing space capacity, maintenance budget, future size and nature of additional
teaching and residential build required. ( Jan to March)
k. PSMG Planning away half day (Early Feb)
Aim:
 Professional Services discuss priorities for the next five years, informed by College priorities.
Input:
•
TBC
Output:
•
Professional Services agree budget priorities to feed in to each Service Plan.
l.
PSMG Professional Services presentation ( Late Feb)
Aim:
•
Having reflected on the input from Colleges in January and the away day in early Feb, Professional Services
provide a short paper / presentation to PSMG about their agreed priorities for support. Colleges have the
opportunity to feedback.
Input:
•
Paper from the Professional Services with their planned initiatives / priorities.
Output:

Agreed points will go to April PRG.
m. Professional Services and Colleges submit plans in Cognos. (8th March)
PPCAT/12/18
n. College and Professional Service PRG (10th, 11th,12th April summing up / proposals day)
Aim:
•
•
•
To discuss proposed academic strategies
Review detailed business plans
Discuss investment proposals
Input:
•
Detailed academic strategies (or support strategy in the case of PS)
•
Detailed ‘growth as agreed ‘business plans (set reports for parity.) Colleges and Services to present a base
line including the targets agreed in January. Any additional investment proposals should be submitted separately.
More guidance on the exact format of plans submission to follow from Finance.
•
In year forecast
•
Summary of key points raised by PS in consultation meetings.
•
Summary of University position from SPC and Finance (report on if the University targets are met and the
investment envelope.)
•
Paper from the Infrastructure group, highlighting current and future space and capital spend issues.
Output:
•
Approval of plans in principal or major changes requested
•
Investment proposals to be taken forward for discussion between May and September by VCEG and IAG.
Communications:
•
Immediate requests to be communicated within the meeting, or by the 16th April 2012. Immediate changes
can then be made within a week, before submission of the next in year forecast.
o. PRG Summary Meeting ( Late May)
Aim:
•
To allow PRG to conclude any negotiations with College Deans or Heads of Professional Services that may
take place following the April PRG.
p. Consolidated plans submitted to Council (July)
*To be confirmed