Strategic Management Framework for Institutional Success

Implementing a New Strategic Management Framework for Institutional Success

Using rankings intelligence as a knowledge and strategic management tool vs playing the rankings game

Charles Tad Brinkerhoff, Director, Professional Masters Programs, Purdue University, Krannert School of Management

Santanu Chatterjee, Director, Full-Time MBA Program & Associate Professor of Economics, The University of Georgia, Terry College of Business

Toby McChesney, Assistant Dean of Graduate Recruiting and Student Services, Georgia State University

MODERATOR: Camila de Wit, Principal, Setzer Group Boston (SGB) and Former Director of Admissions and Career Services, ESADE Business School (Barcelona,

Spain)

Utilizing Benchmark Intelligence for Strategic Management

Agenda for Today’s Session

Session Objectives and Overview of Benchmarking as a Strategic Management Tool

Panel Discussion Using External Benchmarking for Decision-Making Purposes

Examples of Comparative Format Using External Benchmark Data

Q&A, Wrap-up and Conclusions

2

• To explore how external and third party “reference” and comparative data such as rankings can be utilized to enhance both operational and strategic resource allocation decisions within MBA and graduate management programs.

• To explore how a strategic management approach combined with benchmark data can focus organizational, functional and individual efforts in a strategically appropriate and consistent direction.


Introduction: Session Objectives

3

• Include internal surveys and feedback. Helpful to identify potential improvement areas/gaps to be benchmarked and compared.- Candidate/student surveys- Exit surveys

• Rankings: Produced by media organizations, rankings data provide easily accessible benchmark and comparative information.- US News & World Report (US)- Financial Times (Global)- Bloomberg BusinessWeek (US and Global)- Forbes (Global)- The Economist (Global) - America Economia (Global, from a Latin American perspective)- Other (Poets and Quants, TopMBA, regional rankings, etc.)

External

Internal

Inputs and data for strategic management can be found in a variety of sources that allow for identification of potential areas of improvement and comparison.


Potential Sources of Information

• Other: External organizations related to the GME industry frequently provide useful industry-wide data and information.- GMAC- MBA Roundtable- AACSB- EFMD

- AMBA- EMBA Council- MBA CSEA

- Faculty Surveys- Internally generated data and research

4

• Activities that provide the means for institutions to sustain its competitive positioning and capacities- Marketing- Development

• Critical activities necessary for the functioning of an institution regardless of its mission, strategy or focus- Financial Viability/Resources- Organizational Capacity (Administrators/Faculty/Staff)- Facilities (Physical or Online/Electronic)

• Activities central to an institution’s ability to serve its constituents/market and deliver on its value proposition- Enrollment Management/Admissions- Academic Programs (Curriculum and Faculty)- Student Services- Career Services- Alumni Relations

Drivers

Core Functions

Enablers

Effective alignment of Enablers, Drivers and Core Functions with outside benchmark metrics and data support an institution’s strategy implementation, value proposition and delivery.

Utilizing Benchmark Intelligence for Strategic ManagementSGB Strategic Management Framework for Universities and GME Institutions

5

Drivers

Core Functions

EnablersOrganizational

Capacity

“Facilities*”and

Student Services

Marketingand

VisibilityDevelopment

EnrollmentManagement

Faculty/Curriculum

Career Services

Alumni Servicesand

Support

Student Affairs

FinancialViability/Resources

Utilizing Benchmark Intelligence for Strategic ManagementSGB Strategic Management Framework for Universities and GME Institutions

Effective alignment of Enablers, Drivers and Core Functions with outside benchmark metrics and data support an institution’s strategy implementation, value proposition and delivery.

*Physical or online/electronic. 6

Enablers

Drivers

Core Functions

Organizational Capacity


Student Services

Marketingand



Alumni Servicesand

Support


• Total Apps• Admissions Ratio• Yield• Peer Assessment

Score• Recruiter

Assessment Score• GMAT• GPA• Employment

• Total Applications• Admissions Ratio• Yield• GMAT, GPA• Salary• Employment

• Recruiter Assessment Score

• Salary• Total Applications• Yield

• Total Applications• Admissions Ratio• Yield• Recruiter Ass’t Score• Salary• Employment

• Peer Assessment Score


CV/Faculty/Student Affairs

Career Services

For Graduate Business Schools, rankings data can be mapped/aligned with Drivers and Core Functions helping decision-makers focus resources to enhance delivery on an institution’s value proposition.


• Yield

Example of Mapping of SGB Strategic Management Framework with External Benchmark Data

US News & World Report Grad Business School Ranking as a Source

• Endowment • Online capabilities






8



1. What challenges do you face in your respective organizations regarding resource generation and allocation across programs and/or core functions?

2. Does comparative benchmarking impact your resource allocation generation and allocations processes and what is the current perspective within your organization with regard to utilization of external benchmark data including rankings?

3. Do you have a structured/formal approach and/or frameworks to engage in benchmarking and use of the information across the organization?

Utilizing External Benchmark Data for Decision-Making Purposes

Discussion

9





10



+

Strategic Management Perspective Internal and External Benchmark Intelligence

11

= Enhanced Institutional Effectiveness and Resource Generation and Allocation

• Performance metrics year over year• Progress metrics compared to the

same time the year before• Comparison relative to the competition

Benchmark Intelligence with a Strategic Perspective

Enablers

Drivers

Core Functions

Organizational Capacity


Student Services

Marketingand



Alumni Servicesand

Support


• Total Apps• Admissions Ratio• Yield• Peer Assessment

Score• Recruiter

Assessment Score• GMAT• GPA• Employment

• Total Applications• Admissions Ratio• Yield• GMAT, GPA• Salary• Employment


• Salary• Total Applications• Yield

• Total Applications• Admissions Ratio• Yield• Recruiter Ass’t Score• Salary• Employment

• Peer Assessment Score


CV/Faculty/Student Affairs

Career Services

For Graduate Business Schools, rankings data can be mapped/aligned with Drivers and Core Functions helping decision-makers focus resources to enhance delivery on an institution’s value proposition.


• Yield

Example of Mapping of SGB Strategic Management Framework with External Benchmark Data

US News & World Report Grad Business School Ranking as a Source

• Endowment • Online capabilities


Example of Comparative Format Using External Benchmark Data

US News & World Report 2015: Regional Public UniversitiesRanking and Other Selected Statistics (Weighs in brackets on left)

Peer Assessment

Recruiter Assessment

2.9 4.03.4

Salary & Bonus

Employ’mt at Graduat’n

58.8% 85.1%70.9%

Employ’mt 3 months

83% 90.9%88.2%

Total Ap-plications

135 2,721

Tuition Out of State/Yr

$23,950 $57,200$41,576

ROI Out of State

97% 142%123%

Avg Work Experience

1.50 5.424.49

% Women27.7% 44%32.6%

706668

3.25 3.39 3.55

1,028

$59,358 $136,102$97,957

632

2.6 3.54 4.4

GMAT

GPA

(25)

(15)

(14)

(7)

(14)

Institution and Ranking

(16.25)

(7.5)

25.1% 38.8% 56.7%

83.9%42.4% 55.2%

Acc’pt Ratio

Yield

(1.25)

Total Enrollment

91 941352

U. Michigan RossU. Virginia Darden

11

19

41

U. North Carolina Chapel Hill

74U. Alabama

U. FloridaU. Maryland

48U. Georgia

65Louisiana State University 93

$30,420

3.4

3.2

$86,096

63.4%

90.2%

645

3.31

44.8%

51.6%

4.58

33.3%

212

13

• Are our applications low due to location or marketing effectiveness? Low number of applications affects selectivity (GMAT, GPA and Acceptance Ratio) metrics. What actions can we implement to increase the total number of applications to the program?

• How are our scholarships being used in the admissions process? What actions can we implement to impact yield?

• We are doing a good job in placing our students within 3 months of graduation, but why is our salary and bonus below benchmark average? Is it a function of the types of profiles we admit/their career objectives (i.e. non profit)? Or is it a function of the types of companies we attract?

• Can we increase capacity (total number of students)? Can this be affecting our attractiveness with recruiters?


Examples of Potential Questions Raised by Benchmark

Identification of important questions are invaluable tools for decision-makers in developing and implementing strategy utilizing organizational resources (people/financial).

14


US News & World Report 2015: “Technology-Oriented” SchoolsRanking and Other Selected Statistics (Weighs in brackets on left)

Peer Assessment

Recruiter Assessment

3.1 4.13.44

Salary & Bonus

Employ’mt at Graduat’n

63.8% 76.5%

Employ’mt 3 months

89.7% 95.7%92.2%

Total Ap-plications

350 1,951

Tuition Out of State/Yr

$20,319 $43,408

ROI Out of State

92% 240%137%

Avg Work Experience

4.92 5.755.18

% Women23.5% 32.727.2

691667

3.26 3.35 3.46

881

$92,262 $131,181$109,878

607

3.3 3.56 4.0

GMAT

GPA

(25)

(15)

(14)

(7)

(14)


U. Texas Austin McCombs 15

18

27

Carnegie Mellon Tepper

(16.25)

(7.5)

21.4% 29.5% 32.6%

65.7%29.7% 48.6%

Acc’pt Ratio

Yield

(1.25)

Total Enrollment

123 511271

Georgia Institute of Technology

33Rice University

37Texas A&M

University of Rochester

$56,768

$100,609

29.9%

53.5%

40Purdue University

230

$42,174

119%

3.5

3.3

85%

91.3%

576

15


US News & World Report 2015: Part Time ProgramsRanking and Other Selected Statistics (Weighs in brackets on left)

Peer Assessment

% Entrants w/prior work Experience

79% 100%97%

% Women14% 43%29%

712300

57 206

64

2.9 3.74 4.6(50)


38% 71%

59% 78%

Total Apps

Accep-ted

Acc’pt Ratio

Yield

345

571

92%

96%

UC Berkeley HaasChicago Booth

Northwestern KelloggNew York Stern/UCLA

1234

Texas McCombsMichigan RossIndiana Keller

Ohio State FisherCarnegie Mellon Tepper

Emory Goizueta/Georgetown/Marshall/Foster

67891011

1516

Minnesota CarlsonMassachusetts Amherst/Washington Olin

18Arizona State/Rice

20Georgia Institute of Tech/Wake Forest

22Maryland Smith/Texas-Dallas

2425

Wisconsin MadisonBC/Arizona/UC Davis/Florida Hough

29Georgia State/Texas A&M Mays

226

65.5%

67.3

3.2

96%

36% 100%80%% Entrants providing

GMAT score

567 692622Average GMAT

611(15)

45% 100%86%% Entrants providing GPA score

3.11 3.523.30Average GPA

3.18(5)

(15)

41.2%

Total Enrollment

295 2,9501,107891

% of Enroll’t that is PT

13% 96%54% 83%

4.58 12.176.29(15)Average

Work Experience

5.83

16





17

18

Camila de Wit, PrincipalSetzer Group Boston (246) 231-1510 [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Strategic Management Framework for Institutional Success

Leadership & Management

Transcript of Strategic Management Framework for Institutional Success