Program Prioritization Process (PPP)

An Overview 1

Facing Change and Challenges

    Stakeholder expectations becoming demands o Improved “quality” o Improved “efficiencies” o Improved “accountability” Fiscal Landscape – new funding reality o Sustained economic low growth (if any) o Revenues continuing flat – costs continue to increase o Capital demands and post-employment liabilities Demographics: o Declining numbers of traditional learners (101’s) o Increasing competition Technology- impact and application o News ways to teach/learn 2

Act or React

 

We be told what to do or…..

We can develop “made in Guelph” change Our Integrated Plan defined:

o Directions: • Student success, • Engagement • Knowledge Creation • Program Innovation o Need for continuous Assessment in all things we do • What we need to do well 3

The Case for Prioritization

    Academic programs are the main drivers of cost o And the most important in delivering on our stated goals Across the Board actions mean o reduced quality across the board (all programs) Growth in programs o Trying to be all things to all people o Without evaluation of importance to our mission o Not all programs are equal Need to focus on our strengths being….

o Objective (base decisions sound information) o Transparent (input from and about all programs and services 4

Timing- Why Now

   Government policy: o Assessment of what we do o Meeting a “Mandate” o More to come… Over the past five years: o We found $46 million o Still delivering most programs/services We have to: o Maintain our fiscal stability o Projections show a $32 million gap in four years. o The most likely source of funds is from inside • Government deficits • • Tuition fee increases must slow Past rate of enrolment growth is not sustainable 5

What is Program Prioritization?

     Structured assessment of all “programs and services” o Not departments Uses pre-selected criteria o The same for all programs Focus on centrality to mission o Contribution to meeting goals Effectiveness of use of resources o Using metrics as much as possible Identification of opportunities to o Save expenses o Increase revenues o Improve quality o Strengthen reputation 6

To Be Successful



All activities are included:

o Ancillary, and operating funds • excluding OMAFRA 

Objective and consistent criteria

o Same process/methodology to be used for all o Task Force effectiveness 

Transparent

o Communications o Reporting 7

The Criteria

1. History and Development of the Program

Original intent of the program/service and evolution of program/service

2. External Demand for the Program 3. Internal Demand for the Program: 4. Quality of Program Inputs: 5. Quality of Program Outputs

Level of interest and participation in the current program/service The magnitude to which this program/service is needed by other University programs/services.

The quality of resources necessary to mount the program/service.

The extent of program/service performance.

6. Size, Scope and productivity of the Program

Breadth and depth and the efficiency measures of outputs and inputs.

7. Revenues Generated 8. Costs of the Program 9. Impact, Justification, and Overall Essentiality 10. Opportunity Analysis

All revenue and other resources generated.

All costs and other expenses The degree to which this program/service is mission critical to the University.

Opportunities to enhance the program/service 8

PP Specific

Major Groups and Roles

UofG Management UofG Governance

Project Team Membership: 5 Role: Provide overall project direction Prioritization Task Force (TF) Membership: 21 Roles: 1. Align to Charter 2. Review information submissions 3. Prepare recommended rankings Project Resources Group Membership: as required Role: Provide resource support for TF Communications Team Membership: TBD Role: Develop communication plan and generate messages as required President and VP’s Roles: 1. Be informed of the process 2. Receive final Report 3. Use rankings to inform decisions Senior Management Structures Membership: VPAC,VPAT,PEC etc Roles: 1. Provide counsel to Team 2. Align with and be informed of process Deans’/Division Heads Roles: 1. Participate process training 2. Review and rank programs Units Managers/Chairs Roles: 1. Participate process training 2. Prepare report (templates) Senate Roles: 1. Become informed of the process 2. Receive updates on the process 3. Receive final Report 4. Use prioritization criteria subsequent inform decisions Board of Governors Roles: 1. Become informed of the process 2. Receive updates on the process (Finance Com. to receive regular updates) 3. Receive final Report 4. Use rankings when considering budget recommendations

9

Task Force of 21

  Operate Within a “Charter” o Main charge to act as representatives of the University o Review all program/services information o Rank all programs into Quintiles (20/20/20/20/20) Composition o Chairs (past or present) • Standing committees of senate (9) o Nominated, reviewed by By-Laws • Faculty (5) • Administrative staff (5) o Students Undergrad and grad • Through Application process to By Laws (2) o All to be approved by the President 10

“Program” Definition and Costing



Broadly speaking a program is…

o “ any activity or collection of activities that consume resources….” 

We do not have university-wide program budgeting/costing

o Our budget allocations by organization unit 

Programs cut across units

o Adds another dimension o What we are doing not just who is doing it 11

Defining Programs

 Two broad categories 1. Instructional and Research programs e.g., o MTCU University degree programs (several hundred) o GH University degree programs o MTCU diploma o Other non-degree o Research 2.

Non Academic programs e.g., o Student academic counseling o Athletics- Men’s intercollegiate o Research administration o Physical plant- grounds maintenance o Info technology support 12

Reviewing Programs

1.

2.

3.

o For each defined program/service Provide information provided on a standard “template” o Prepared by unit heads o Review by Deans/Division Heads o Submitted to the Task Force Application of criteria • with appropriate weighting o May ask for supplementary information o Ranking by the Task Force All programs/services ranked o Equal quintiles (20% each) o May make recommendations for further consideration 13

PPP Timelines and milestones

2012

Aug Project Team in place Sept Initial Plans developed Task force chartered and trained Oct.

Nov.

Report format instructions completed & posted (IP Web.

Dec

2013

Jan Feb VPAC Retreat Letter from President prepared/issued Communication Plan in place Introduce PP to Senate Town Hall on PP Process Resource Group in place Introduce PP Board of Governors (BoG) Templates and process procedures developed Presentation to BoG Units report completion Mar April May June Jul/Aug Sep Oct BoG update (Apr 17) BoG update (June 6) Bog receives final report Senate receives final report Report due to Deans/Division heads (Jan 30) Deans/Division heads review & rank reports Task Force deliberations and prioritization Ranking to President & VP’s President’s Review 14

Impact

 

Recommendations in the Report:

o To inform setting budget targets and resource allocation decisions o Enrichment, reduction, consolidation, elimination o Decisions to be made by President and VP’s

Structure and policy changes e.g.,

o Program costing now permanent in financial reporting o New initiatives must be evaluated using set criteria o Build polices and processes to enable ongoing evaluation of programs/services 15