Learning Resources

Abstract: This article explores a methodology for assessing and managing the financial viability of private, tuition-dependent institutions as well as institutional tactics and strategies used to improve their financial strength. The resulting model will help institutions understand the trends and predictive value of key financial metrics directly impacting their liquidity and operations and how senior leadership can drive change. Institutional examples illustrate how to engage senior leadership in strategic decision-making that includes assessment of revenue growth and/or expense management.

Abstract: Institutional success depends on long-term sustainability, connecting investments with outcomes, and creating a culture that is data-informed. As the role of institutional effectiveness expands across higher education, designing a comprehensive integrated planning process is critical. Integrated planning requires a unified approach to utilizing academic and administrative data for continuous improvement. However, this can be an overwhelming process for institutions, with many unsure of where to start. Learn from leaders in two different accreditation regions as they share best practices and lessons learned associated with their integrated planning evolution and its impact on operational efficiency and student learning.

Abstract: Integrated planning during profound change requires extra flexibility and attention to user engagement while utilizing new modes of interaction. This article summarizes a successful virtual and comprehensive planning process, including consensus-building, and approval at Harper College. It reviews results and lessons learned by this large community college as it embraced virtual communication platforms and moved forward with a viable 10-year plan during a global health crisis, economic turbulence, and technological change. The authors share the remote process used to set goals, assess resources, define needs, explore options, and guide decision-making with numerous stakeholders.

Abstract: by Dean O. Smith
Johns Hopkins University Press
Baltimore, MD
2019
200 Pages
ISBN 9781421432762

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: The article presents a framework for integrating assessment, strategic planning, and resource allocation at all levels of an institution. For that purpose, data are collected from academic departments and non-academic units. They are then integrated with strategic planning metrics into an assessment report that identifies the resources that need to be allocated, and to evaluate progress toward developing a strategic plan. The framework can be applied at the departmental or unit level, as well as at the institutional level. It provides valuable input for the budget process and can be used for updates in strategic planning.

Abstract: In an era of heightened accreditation expectations, declining resources, and increasing competition, tools such as integrated planning and budgeting, evidence-based decision-making (EBDM) processes, an overarching continuous quality improvement (CQI) framework, and up-to-date technology solutions for managing planning processes are no longer optional. While Mesa Community College (MCC) has a long history of planning, the integration of planning and budgeting was limited and our planning system was outdated (as in beyond end-of-life outdated). Additionally, planning and budgeting processes lacked EBDM practices and an overarching CQI framework. MCC’s Strategic Planning Committee set about remedying all of these issues and did so within the span of a year.

Abstract: As colleges and universities plan efforts to improve financial reporting and analysis, which often entail making costly investments in new systems and tools, they should first evaluate whether to redesign the institution’s chart of accounts. The chart of accounts is the DNA of financial reports and is used to track financial activity across the institution. This article proposes a planning, evaluation, and design process for a new chart of accounts and identifies key considerations for leaders undertaking this effort.

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.