Town Hall April 25 2014 Teresa Quinlin

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/Entry. Id/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/Transform. NC/Guiding. Principles. 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/Transform. NC/Guiding. Principles. 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% Amortization of Deferred Other Contributions 3% 4% Ancillary Operations 7% Ministry Grants 40% International Tuition 14% Domestic Tuition 24%

2014 -2015 Budget - Expenditures Flow through expenditures 3% Utilities & Maintenance Marketing & Debt Charges & Promotions Fees Capital. Banking 3% 2% 1% 0% 6% Depreciation 6% Contracted Services 7% Salary & Benefits 62% General and Instructional Supplies 11%

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 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 Pricewaterhouse. Coopers Dec 2013 • CMT: Update • Corporate Services: Update Dec 16, 2013 Dec 20, 2013

Process to Date (cont’d) • Steering Committee (weekly, ongoing) • COG: Update Jan 27, 2014 ++ 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 • Town Hall Meetings (NOTL / WC) Apr 16, 2014 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 Jan-Mar 2014 The Steering Committee develops criteria, metrics, and scoring matrix (including consultations with Deans, Directors) Tier I: Populate Data & Allocate into Categories Apr-Aug 2014 Programs and Services are allocated into one of three categories: - Enhance / invest - Maintain - Revise/ reallocate Tier II: Review & Recommend ations Sep-Dec 2014

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 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

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. • Pw. C 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 • • • Balanced Scorecard

Allocations: A few examples Category Current State (first 3 criteria) Strategic opportunities Strategic challenges Enhance High Low Maintain High Low Revise Low High Or: 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/Transform. NC/Questionsand. Comments. aspx If you would like us to contact you, please provide your name and contact information: Name: _________________ Tel or E-mail: _________

Thank you!