Town Hall – April 25, 2014
Teresa Quinlin,
VP Finance & Strategic Planning
Katerina Gonzalez,
Manager, Planning & Institutional Research
President’s Message
The new planning process will focus on gathering quality data about our
programs and services within a framework that allows us to focus on
continuous improvement by:
– developing metrics for evaluating our programs and services
– identifying areas of strength for investment and enhancement
– highlighting areas and processes requiring improvement
Source: Message from Dan Patterson, Oct 9, 2013
https://communications.niagaracollege.ca/content/Home/Info/tabid/2416/EntryId/19
68/Message-from-Dan-Patterson-Major-planning-initiatives-and-interim-executiveteam-appointments.aspx
Website
http://insidenc.niagaracollege.ca/content/Default.aspx
Steering Committee
Testimonials
Guiding Principles
http://www.niagaracollege.ca/content/TransformNC/GuidingPrinciples.aspx
• Ongoing (not a project)
• Builds on the principles of continuous
improvement
• Linked to the College’s current strategic
plan
Guiding Principles (cont’d)
http://www.niagaracollege.ca/content/TransformNC/GuidingPrinciples.aspx
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Transparent
Flexible
Collegial
Comprehensive
Confidential
Demand-driven
Evidence-based
Iterative
Sensitive to workload issues
Appropriately resourced
Why and why now?
2014-2015 Budget
2014-2015 Budget - Revenue
International
Contract Training
8%
Other
3%
Amortization of
Deferred
Contributions
4%
Ancillary
Operations
7%
Ministry Grants
40%
International Tuition
14%
Domestic Tuition
24%
2014-2015 Budget - Expenditures
Flow through
expenditures
3%
Marketing & Promotions
Debt Charges & Banking
2%
Fees
Capital
1%
3%
Utilities & Maintenance
5%
Depreciation
6%
Contracted Services
7%
General and Instructional
Supplies
11%
Salary & Benefits
62%
Enrolment Growth & Funding
Pressures
Provincial Advocacy- Grant &
Tuition Fee per Student
Purpose of Prioritization
• After significant enrolment and physical growth– NC
has recognized the need to stop and take stock of
our programs and services
• Resources are limited and future increase in
government funding is not realistic (41% vs 53%)
• Our landscape is changing and that the status quo
isn’t an option if we are to continue
to grow and realize our strategic goals.
Purpose of Prioritization
• Post-secondary education in Ontario is
moving towards a model where colleges and
universities are more specialized.
• Timing is right since NC is in a strong financial
position
• NC is being proactive in looking at long-term
sustainability
What happens if we
don’t do this?
1.
2.
3.
4.
Space constraints
Financial constraints
Differentiation constraints
Demographic constraints
1. Space Constraints
• Except for the specialty labs listed below, there is no new space for
classrooms
− Culinary
− Recreation and fitness facilities
− Hairstyling
− EMS
− Advanced Policing
•
Options:
− Extended day hours/evening classes
− Weekend classes
− Spring/summer classes
− Hybrid/online
− Other?
2. Financial Constraints
• No new dollars from the government: medium-term funding
picture is expected to be flat or declining
• Costs are increasing
• Options:
− Increase revenue/examine costs (e.g., instructional
equipment renewal)
− Revenue diversification
− International students (integrated, contract cohorts, offshore campuses)
− Online/hybrid
− Other?
3. Demographic Constraints
• Approximately 80% if NC students are traditional college-age
• Traditional college-age demographic is declining in the
Region
• Options:
− Increase college participation by local college-age
students
− Recruit externally from the region (domestic and
international)
− Increase retention of current students
− Target different demographics (programs/delivery
modes)
− Other?
4. Differentiation Constraints
• Future program approvals limited to new
programs that are areas of strength for the
college:
− In the past, local accessibility mandate allowed
for duplication of programs across Ontario
colleges
− Going forward, such duplication will be restricted
for new programs proposed
2013-16 Strategic Goals
1. Prepare students who are world ready and
work ready
2. Increase access and learning pathways
3. Enhance services for students
4. Build student engagement and retention
5. Establish the CFWI as a national centre of
excellence
6. Innovation in applied education
through Learning Enterprises
2013-16 Strategic Goals
7. Infuse innovation and applied research to
support transitioning industries
8. Leadership in regional economic
development
9. Attract, retain and develop a strong team
10.Leading edge sustainable and accessible
learning environments
11.Fiscal strength and diversification
12.Strategic enrolment management
Process to Date
• Dan Patterson / COG: Launch
Oct 9, 2013
• Research and Planning
Oct-Dec 2013
• COG: Update
Nov 13, 2013
• BOG: Update
Nov 28, 2013
• Procure online Data Collection Tool
Dec 2013
• Procure PricewaterhouseCoopers
Dec 2013
• CMT: Update
Dec 16, 2013
• Corporate Services: Update
Dec 20, 2013
Process to Date (cont’d)
• Steering Committee (weekly, ongoing)
Jan 27, 2014 ++
• COG: Update
Feb 12, 2014
• AOC with Chairs: Metrics
Mar 5, 2014
• Coordinators Forum: Update
Mar 6, 2014
• Consult with Deans
Mar 25, 2014
• Advisory College Council (ACC): Update
Mar 25, 2014
• Consult with Service Directors
Apr 10 & 14, 2014
• Consult with Deans/VPA
Apr 15, 2014
• CMT: Update
Apr 16, 2014
• Town Hall Meetings (NOTL / WC)
Apr 25, 2014
Research Findings
Algonquin College:
• Build on existing data and metrics
• Ensure metrics are meaningful
• Look at business processes & activities which also include
cross-departmental – do not only look at silos.
• Challenges with services metrics
Dickeson’s “Prioritizing Academic Programs & Services”
Higher Education Council: “Data-Driven University”- service
metrics defined
Research Findings
Leveraging expertise of other institutions
U Saskatchewan- just released recommendations
Laurier U-in progress
Regina U- finished
Guelph U- finished
Red Deer College – service review all qualitative, customer service survey
Washington State – Institutional effectiveness tools and templates
Brock U – in progress- using Dickeson model
Humber- Corporate Services is piloting service metrics
Mohawk- program prioritization and lean review for services
George Brown- developing service metrics
Municipality metrics for services- good format
Council of Advancement: Professional Standards for Higher Education
Business process review- lean review used by institutions for aligning improvement
activities with the strategic direction. Linking critical Service Value Streams with key
performance indicators.
Customized Model
Strategic
Plan
Jun 2013
Develop
Framework
Tier I:
Populate
Data &
Allocate into
Categories
Tier II:
Review &
Recommend
ations
Jan-Mar
2014
Apr-Aug
2014
Sep-Dec
2014
The Steering
Committee
develops
criteria, metrics,
and scoring
matrix
(including
consultations
with Deans,
Directors)
Programs and
Services are
allocated into one of
three categories:
- Enhance / invest
- Maintain
- Revise/ reallocate
Program Prioritization
•
Detailed Program Reviews are mandatory (licensing
and/or accreditation requirements for some programs).
− Done every 6 years for every program
− In Year 3 a Program Report is issued
− In Year 6 a Program Review Self Study is completed & reviewed by
external assessors
− Assessors produce an External Report
− Continuous Improvement Action Plan is created addressing plans
to enhance program quality & student success over the next 3
years (from Self-Study & External Report)
− Annual Quality Assurance System Report to BOG
− Best Practices are noted in each Self Study
Program Prioritization
• Program Reviews do not compare programs
to other programs.
• Program Prioritization Process will compare
programs to each other.
– E.g. Program Review : contribution margin is at
20%-- is this good? Difficult to assess unless it is
compared to other programs.
Importance of Program
Prioritization
• For the first time:
– will prioritize programs at the same point in time;
– summarize all major recommendations for
strategic decision making from the prioritization
process
– Highlight the implications/risks of not doing the
recommendations (i.e. in absence of strategic
investment in the program, what will happen?).
– Provide strategic program planning
(capital, space, resources)
Program Prioritization
Process
• Tier 1 Review:
Purpose: prioritize programs into 3 categories:
(1) enhance/invest
(2) maintain
(3) review/revise
Objective: utilize the existing metrics to put the programs
into the categories and minimize staff time
required to do this
Program Prioritization
Process
• Tier 2 Review:
Purpose: look at the programs that have been put in the
two categories (should be 20% of programs)
(1) enhance/invest
(2) review/revise
Objective: utilize the information from the Program
Reviews which will be the basis for the
Tier 2 Deep Dive.
Program Prioritization
Process
• Tier 2 Review:
Process: Assess Tier 1 results against Program Reviews
and Academic Plans.
(1) If they are consistent in the results: use Program
Reviews with Continuous Improvement Action Plan
reports to update recommendations and how will the
recommendations be achieved (ie might need to
review delivery model to increase CM in order to increase
revenue to purchase capital).
Program Prioritization
Process
• Tier 2 Review:
Process: Assess Tier 1 results against Program Reviews
and Academic Plans.
(1) If they are not consistent in the results: a deep dive
into the areas that are not consistent is required.
Program Reviews would need to be updated if they are
out-dated. Then provide recommendations and
how will the recommendations be achieved .
Questions / comments on
program prioritization?
Importance of Service
Prioritization
• No Service Reviews exist at NC
• Very few metrics and benchmarks are used in
service areas to assess effectiveness and
efficiencies
• Practice of operating with base budgets with
incremental increases
• No assessment of activity streams
• We need to become a data-driven college
• How do we work smarter with our limited
resources?
Service Prioritization
• Build on our philosophy of Continuous
Improvement at NC
• Need to assess service satisfaction by users
• This has started with the Student Services
Integrated Model Review
• Best practice for this is Lean Methodology
• How do we provide the optimal value in all the
touch points of our services while maximizing
effectiveness and efficiencies?
Service Prioritization
Process
• Tier 1 Review:
Purpose: prioritize service activity streams into 3 categories:
(1) enhance/invest
(2) maintain
(3) review/revise
Objective: take stock on what information the
service areas currently have and develop metrics
for specific activity streams. More work involved
than Tier 1 for programs.
Service Prioritization
Area
Financial Services
Student Services
Human Resources
Information Technology
Facilities and Ancillary Services
Security & Parking Services
Planning & Institutional Research
Enrolment & Registration Services
Athletics and Recreation
International
Foundation & Alumni
Marketing & Recruitment
Workforce & Business Development
Academic Excellence
Library & Bookstore
Research & Innovation
SAS Counts by Level
Level 1
12
24
11
9
14
6
3
12
5
4
2
3
4
6
2
4
121
Level 2
41
33
29
29
27
10
3
18
8
18
3
11
8
8
4
6
256
Level 3
203
112
155
110
107
50
12
90
26
94
21
55
27
40
21
29
1152
Service Prioritization
1.0 Financial Management & Business Services
1.1 Perform planning and management
Linkage to
Strategic Goals
Direct
1.2 Perform revenue accounting
Indirect
1.3 Perform general accounting and reporting
Indirect
1.4 Manage fixed assets budgets
1.5 Manage payroll
1.6
Process accounts payable and expense
reimbursements
1.7
1.8
1.9
1.11
1.12
Manage treasury operations
Manage internal controls
Procure materials and services
Administer Insurance
Student accounts
Direct
Indirect
Indirect
Direct
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Service Prioritization
Process
• Tier 2 Review:
Purpose: look at the service activity streams that have been put in
the two categories (should be 20% of services activity streams)
(1) enhance/invest
(2) review/revise
Objective: Pilot 3 of out the 20 service activity streams for Lean
Methodology Review
Lean Review Pilot #1
•
As part of the Student Services Integrated Planning
Model: Lean review has been identified for the Super
Help Desk.
•
PwC will map the future state, optimize processes that
will transition to the “Super Help Desk” and estimate
quantifiable process improvement opportunities
•
(Learning Commons, Library Services, Registrar’s office,
Student Accounts, IT Solutions,
Student Services & Student Recruitment
and Info Centre)
Questions / comments on
services prioritization?
Framework
1. Prioritization exercise (by June 2015)
2. To build on the principles of continuous
improvement (iterative and ongoing)
Prioritization Criteria & Metrics
CRITERIA
PROGRAMS
SERVICES
1. Relevancy
•
•
Student Demand for Programs
Employer Demand or Further
Education
•
•
•
Essentiality
Alignment with Strat. Priorities
Demand for Service
2. Capacity
•
•
$ Contribution Margin
% Contribution Margin
•
3. Satisfaction
•
•
•
Student Satisfaction
Graduate Satisfaction
Student Retention/Persistence
•
-
Technology Enablement
(e.g., automation)
Complexity (touch points)
Process Efficiency
(e.g., bottlenecks)
Cost Effectiveness
(e.g., operating cost/SF)
User Satisfaction with Service
KPI Survey
Internal Surveys
4. Future
Opportunities /
Challenges
•
•
Future opportunities
Future challenges
•
•
Future opportunities
Future challenges
•
•
•
Balanced Scorecard
Allocations: A few examples
Category
Current State
(first 3 criteria)
Strategic
opportunities
Strategic
challenges
Enhance
High
High
Low
Maintain
High
Low
Low
Revise
Low
Low
High
Or:
Low
Low
Low
Etc.
Tentative Timelines
Tier 1 Review:
• Town Hall meetings
Apr 25
• Data collection, pre populate
May-Jun 6
• Training for end users
Jun 6
• Self-evaluations programs & services (8 weeks)
Jun 9 – Jul 31
• Training & checklists for Evaluation Teams
First two weeks in Jul
• Evaluation Teams validate & consult on Tier 1
Month of August
Tentative Timelines (cont’d)
Tier 2 Review:
•
Pilot of lean service review
Apr – Jun 30, 2014
•
Other two lean service reviews
Sep – Mar 31, 2015
•
Deeper dive into the data and recommendations
Sep – Dec, 2014
•
Board of Governors Retreat Discussion Item: Tier 1
Oct 25, 2014
•
Steering Committee reviews recommendations
Jan 15, 2015
•
COG prioritizes recommendations
Feb 16, 2015
•
Executive Team reviews COG recommendations
Feb 28, 2015
•
Board of Governors: Report on Tier 2
Jun 2015
Feedback Form
Transform NC Town Hall Meeting
April 25, 2014
I am (please check only one):
___ Niagara College Administrative Staff
___ Niagara College Faculty
___ Niagara College Support Staff
___ Niagara College Faculty
___ Niagara College Student
___ Interested member of the Niagara community
Please provide any comments or questions that you have about the Transform NC process or initiative:
You may also submit comments or questions on the Transform NC website at:
http://www.niagaracollege.ca/content/TransformNC/QuestionsandComments.aspx
If you would like us to contact you, please provide your name and contact information:
Name: __________________________________ Tel or E-mail: __________________
Thank you!