Town%20Hall%20 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

View by Category
About This Presentation



Town Hall April 25, 2014 Teresa Quinlin, VP Finance & Strategic Planning Katerina Gonzalez, Manager, Planning & Institutional Research – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:42
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 50
Provided by: mhu59
Learn more at:


Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Town%20Hall%20

Town Hall April 25, 2014 Teresa Quinlin, VP
Finance Strategic Planning Katerina Gonzalez,
Manager, Planning Institutional Research
Presidents 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
  • highlighting areas and processes requiring
  • Source Message from Dan Patterson, Oct 9, 2013
  • https//

Website http//
Steering CommitteeTestimonials
Guiding Principleshttp//
  • Ongoing (not a project)
  • Builds on the principles of continuous
  • Linked to the Colleges current strategic plan

Guiding Principles (contd)http//www.niagaracoll
  • 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
2014-2015 Budget - Expenditures
Enrolment Growth Funding Pressures
Provincial Advocacy- Grant Tuition Fee per
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
    isnt 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
  • NC is being proactive in looking at long-term

What happens if we dont do this?
  • 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
  • Costs are increasing
  • Options
  • Increase revenue/examine costs (e.g.,
    instructional equipment renewal)
  • Revenue diversification
  • International students (integrated, contract
    cohorts, off-shore campuses)
  • Online/hybrid
  • Other?

3. Demographic Constraints
  • Approximately 80 if NC students are traditional
  • 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
  • Increase retention of current students
  • Target different demographics (programs/delivery
  • 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
  • Going forward, such duplication will be
    restricted for new programs proposed

2013-16 Strategic Goals
  • Prepare students who are world ready and work
  • Increase access and learning pathways
  • Enhance services for students
  • Build student engagement and retention
  • Establish the CFWI as a national centre of
  • Innovation in applied education through Learning

2013-16 Strategic Goals
  • Infuse innovation and applied research to support
    transitioning industries
  • Leadership in regional economic development
  • Attract, retain and develop a strong team
  • Leading edge sustainable and accessible learning
  • Fiscal strength and diversification
  • 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 (contd)
  • 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,
  • Consult with Service Directors Apr 10 14,
  • 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
  • Dickesons Prioritizing Academic Programs
  • 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
  • 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

Customized Model
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
  • 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
  • summarize all major recommendations for
    strategic decision making from the prioritization
  • 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

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
  • 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

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 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
Financial Services 12 41 203
Student Services 24 33 112
Human Resources 11 29 155
Information Technology 9 29 110
Facilities and Ancillary Services 14 27 107
Security Parking Services 6 10 50
Planning Institutional Research 3 3 12
Enrolment Registration Services 12 18 90
Athletics and Recreation 5 8 26
International 4 18 94
Foundation Alumni 2 3 21
Marketing Recruitment 3 11 55
Workforce Business Development 4 8 27
Academic Excellence 6 8 40
Library Bookstore 2 4 21
Research Innovation 4 6 29
SAS Counts by Level 121 256 1152
Service Prioritization
1.0 Financial Management Business Services Linkage to Strategic Goals
1.1 Perform planning and management Direct
1.2 Perform revenue accounting Indirect
1.3 Perform general accounting and reporting Indirect
1.4 Manage fixed assets budgets Direct
1.5 Manage payroll Indirect
1.6 Process accounts payable and expense reimbursements Indirect
1.7 Manage treasury operations Direct
1.8 Manage internal controls Indirect
1.9 Procure materials and services Indirect
1.11 Administer Insurance Indirect
1.12 Student accounts 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
  • (Learning Commons, Library Services, Registrars
    office, Student Accounts, IT Solutions, Student
    Services Student Recruitment and Info Centre)

Questions / comments on services prioritization?
  • Prioritization exercise (by June 2015)
  • To build on the principles of continuous
    improvement (iterative and ongoing)

Prioritization Criteria Metrics
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 Technology Enablement (e.g., automation) Complexity (touch points) Process Efficiency (e.g., bottlenecks) Cost Effectiveness (e.g., operating cost/SF)
3. Satisfaction Student Satisfaction Graduate Satisfaction Student Retention/Persistence 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
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 (contd)
  • Tier 2 Review
  • Pilot of lean service review Apr Jun 30,
  • Other two lean service reviews Sep Mar 31,
  • 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

Feedback FormTransform NC Town Hall
MeetingApril 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
  • Please provide any comments or questions that you
    have about the Transform NC process or

Thank you!