Alignment of the Decision Support Tool with the Budget Planning Cycle

In previous sections, I have unabashedly promoted data-informed decision making as a component of all activities. Budgeting is no different. It should follow an intentional and data-informed resource allocation/reallocation system that reflects the realities of the current time and is guided by the institution’s mission and strategic plan. Existing budgets should not be the main drivers of decisions; rather, I believe that strategic priorities and missions should be. Again, I reference Andrew C. Comrie, as he reminds us that:

“Universities are social enterprises operating under business constraints while, in contrast, companies

are business enterprises operating under social constraints. Companies exist to make a profit.

Universities exist to make graduates, knowledge, and societal impact.”

The main point here is this: It will be difficult, if not impossible, to meet the changing needs of an institution without adopting a data-informed process that effectively assesses and addresses the competing priorities of the various units. In the realm of budgeting, the seamless integration of a decision support tool into the existing budget process is paramount. This integration demands a strategic approach, beginning with a clear understanding of the tool’s capabilities and how they align with the institution’s financial objectives. The initial step involves meticulously mapping the tool’s features to the specific stages of the budget process, ensuring a cohesive and efficient workflow. Figure 12.1 provide an illustrative example of a high-level college or university budget cycle emphasizing the foundational value of a robust decision support tool, as well as the need to continuously improve the tool as the academic cost stewardship culture evolves.

Figure 12.1 Annual Academic Budget Process

Equally crucial is the provision of comprehensive training and support for users, encompassing faculty, staff, and administrators. This training should not only focus on the technical aspects of the tool but also emphasize its strategic importance in informed decision making. The role of different stakeholders in utilizing the tool is multifaceted. Faculty and staff should be encouraged to actively engage with the tool, providing valuable input and feedback. Administrators, on the other hand, bear the responsibility of steering their use toward achieving broader institutional goals. Open communication channels are essential in this context, fostering a culture of transparency and collaboration. Regular feedback loops help in fine-tuning the tool’s application and enhancing its effectiveness. Monitoring and evaluation are critical components of this process. Setting clear benchmarks and performance indicators allows for the objective assessment of the tool’s impact on budget decisions. Regular reviews should be conducted to gauge its effectiveness, with adjustments made as necessary to align with evolving financial goals and challenges. Lastly, ensuring transparency and accountability in the budget process is non-negotiable. Transparent decision-making processes, underpinned by data-informed insights from the tool, bolster trust and credibility among stakeholders. Documenting and communicating the decisions and their underlying rationales is essential. This practice not only reinforces the integrity of the budget process but also ensures that all stakeholders are informed and aligned with the institution’s financial direction.

Completing the Establishment of the Cost Stewardship Framework

As I alluded to in Section 5, the primary challenge in creating an academic cost stewardship culture is the development of people, the most important asset of any institution, who can make use of data to inform both the operational and strategic decisions necessary for aligning academic program delivery with financial realities. It is critically important to develop and implement a comprehensive training plan so that stakeholders tasked with decision-making responsibilities are provided with useful information to help them succeed. As a starting point, I suggest the following components for this training plan:

• Developing a Formal Training Plan: Given the significant amount of work undertaken by the institution to this point, a number of faculty and staff are likely to have a firm understanding of both the decision support tool and the budget process. These individuals should be viewed as important assets when beginning the process of developing a training plan. Working closely with this group can reveal their current level of understanding, and this can identify gaps in knowledge and areas for which training is needed. With this information, a small, blended group of staff and faculty will be able to develop modules related to academic program cost analysis, budgeting principles, and the new decision support tool. I suggest that if time permits, pilot training sessions be conducted to refine the plan and ensure alignment with intended outcomes.

• Finalizing and Implementing the Plan: Once the plan is finalized, the next step is to identify trainers and create a schedule for module delivery. Given the multidisciplinary nature of higher education, I suggest these training sessions be for small groups and use applied learning activities whenever possible. If time and resources permit, group or one-on-one meetings can be convened. They often result in customized solutions that allow trainees to focus on the processes and information with which they are most familiar. Once the training has been completed, its effectiveness can be evaluated. This provides important feedback not only on the training provided but on the budget process and decision support tool, as well.

This plan ensures the development of a comprehensive training program complete with a way of measuring the effectiveness of the training for quality assurance and formative development purposes. By focusing on stakeholder engagement, practical training, and continuous feedback, the college will be equipped to understand and manage its academic costs in alignment with its strategic priorities.

Key Points

• It is important to use a decision support tool to align resources with academic program needs.

• Key elements for successful implementation are acknowledging challenges, collaborating, aligning resources, and using a formative learning approach.

• Strategic integration of the decision support tool into the budget process is needed.

• Comprehensive training is necessary for stakeholders to effectively use the decision support tool.

• A transparent, data-informed budgeting process aligned with institutional goals is emphasized.

Top 10 Questions for Provosts, CFOs, Deans, and Chairs

1. What is the current budget model adopted by the institution? How long has it been used?

2. How would you describe deans’ perceptions of the current budgeting and planning processes?

3. Can you describe any challenges faced in the current budgeting and resource allocation processes?

4. In case of budget cuts, what approach do you use? Do you make cuts across the board, for example? Why?

5. How are budget decisions made? What data reports are used to help in budget decision making? Do these reports align well with the budget model cycle?

6. How is information related to budgeting and resource allocation communicated across each college?

7. Are there budget rewards (e.g., more resources) for colleges that meet or exceed their goals?

8. What are the roles that deans and chairs play during budgetary planning?

9. Do you utilize training programs, such as programs for deans and academic staff on cost analysis and budgeting principles?

10. Is there a single unit on campus that ensures the validity of all institutional data? Does this unit provide you with the necessary reports for informed budgetary decision making?