Learning Resources

Abstract: From the introduction: “Envision TRU culminated with the approval of a new institutional vision, values and change goals. The COVID-19 pandemic has put a pause on our work towards vision realization and goals prioritization. We now are picking up where we left off. This green paper is intended to present a general outline and stimulate discussion on how Thompson Rivers University (TRU) can work towards living our new vision and achievement of our 10-year goals.” Contents:

• What Is Integrated Planning
• Planning Process Model
• Why Adopt Integrated Planning At TRU
• Strategic Framework Approaches
• Integrated Planning Implementation
• How Will We Realize Envision TRU?
• Planning, Budgeting and Assessment
• Next Steps

Abstract: The University of Kentucky (UK) and the University of Kentucky Esports Club worked together to establish the University of Kentucky Esports Lounge. Students were surveyed on their gaming needs, and the resulting wish list (i.e., equipment selection, space configuration, furniture, etc.) fed into the decision-making process by all constituents. The project budget was derived by a larger construction project at the University that focused on student recruitment, community, and connection to the non-student demographic. The UK team ultimately planned and launched the custom facility to meet users’ particular needs—while finding a way for the University to produce an additional revenue stream.

Abstract: The pandemic hit during a crucial part of Saint Paul College's annual planning process, forcing processes, events, training, and decision-making to move to a totally virtual environment. In addition to pivoting operations, Saint Paul College also faced uncertain financial conditions. In this session, we'll share best practices and lessons learned in virtually adapting the cycle of planning and budgeting processes to an uncertain, volatile, and virtual environment.

Abstract: Few studies have investigated how academic deans enact their authority in Responsibility Center Budgeting (RCB), despite its widespread adoption. In this article I explore findings from a study that investigated how deans crafted a confidential annual budget report at an American university. Ultimately, deans adopted one of three approaches to crafting the report: delegating, distributing, or dominating authorship. Deans who distributed authorship collaborated with their senior teams to establish a shared sense of priorities for their colleges. In contrast deans who delegated and dominated authorship ignored and alienated members of their senior team during the budget review, engendering confusion and frustration.

Abstract: In order to meet students’ evolving needs and ensure an institution’s ongoing vitality, competitive proposals for campus programming require astute evaluation and vigorous assessment of ongoing institutional benefit. This session will detail strategies from three separate regional university initiatives to solicit, evaluate, adopt, and fund forward-thinking campus enhancements under significant budgetary constraints. Come and explore the successes and failures involved in these planning initiatives that focus on long-term student success, financial viability, programmatic quality, and institutional stability over two decades.

Abstract: The advantages of thoughtful, well-structured strategic planning and decentralized budgeting are numerous. But they bring different and sometimes conflicting perspectives to high-stakes discussions within the institution. By recognizing and preparing for these tensions, the odds increase that their potential benefits will not be eroded or eclipsed by distractions or destructive forces and they can work in harmony to help an institution accomplish its goals in an increasingly challenging environment. The author considers specific tensions and conflicts and draws on the experience of a flagship public university to suggest ways to manage these tensions and reap the benefits of both approaches.

Abstract: A budget model shapes the way a campus operates in a fundamental way. Redesigning a campus budget model could actually happen relatively quickly from a technical standpoint. However, extensive engagement, collaboration, and conversation are key to a successful implementation. In this article, the authors chart the budget model redesign process at UC Riverside, which followed a uniquely grassroots approach. Changing the budget model at UC Riverside was about changing mind-sets, incentives, and behaviors—not just about the numbers. UC Riverside’s phased approach to its redesign process may be instructive to other higher education institutions considering undertaking such a major change initiative.

Abstract: This article presents a range of approaches for linking budgeting to planning. After briefly discussing the natures of planning and budgeting, it presents four conceptual categories of ways to link the two. The article defines these as structural, adaptive-incremental, devolved, and holistic/advanced. No one approach will be correct for all institutions. Even where there is a system in place to link planning and budgeting, this is unlikely to be enough unless there is firm, skilled, aligned, and distributed leadership to keep the system on track toward institutional goals.

Abstract: After its first application nearly 40 years ago, responsibility center budgeting/responsibility center management (RCB/RCM) is now in place at nearly 70 major North American universities. An unstudied fact is that despite its popularity RCB/RCM is rarely deployed to its fullest extent. Instead, it usually exists in parallel with conventional planning and budget models. This study asks why, instead of fully implementing RCB/RCM, universities have chosen to apply it partially. The study finds multiple explanations. On the revenue side, some universities hold back a portion of income to create funds that are used to underwrite institution-wide strategies or subsidize mission-central academic programs that cannot be fiscally sustained under RCB/RCM. In other cases, revenue is held back to fund shared “public utility” services, while in still others the practice of holding back revenue for allocation by some other means is due to difficulty in drawing a functional line between the “academic” and the “non-academic.” On the cost side, some universities have limited the application of RCB/RCM in order to limit market behavior and forestall “fragmentation” (Burke 2007). The study points to several problems in both the practice and theory of RCB/RCM. For example, models meant in theory to complement RCB/RCM may in practice compete with it or promote monopolistic behavior.