1 Presented at the: April 30, 2010 Monthly Research Forum By Fathi Elloumi Associate Professor, Management Accounting Faculty of Business, Athabasca University Stage-Gate Approach: A Conceptual Model for Structuring and Managing Partnerships in Higher Education Institutions

2 Overview  Context/Motivation (What?)  Drivers (Why?)  Facilitators (When?)  Components (How?)  What is Stage-Gate?  Why Stage-Gate?  A Modified Stage-Gate Model for Partnerships  How Does It Work?  No Pain, No Gain  Comments

3 Context/Motivation (What?)  Financial problems in Universities  Government failing to allocate adequate funds to universities  The return of 'voluntary' retirement  Staff cuts to bring larger classes on campus  Staff accepting unpaid days to preserve jobs  Universities seek students, private contracts amid funding crunch  Universities’ protectionism

4 Context/Motivation (What?) Strategies for university growth (Monga, 2009)  Looking for an alumni connection  Setting up partnerships with foreign universities to provide joint education and training programs (emerging education markets)  Focusing on own strengths (no spray-and-pray)  Looking beyond traditional partners (i.e. large corporations in emerging markets) If implemented correctly, these partnerships can generate much-needed revenues for funding Canadian programs.

5 Opportunities in the International Market Transfer credit articulations (course/program) Shared course delivery Access routes to degree courses: such as the ‘2+1’/‘2+2’ modes Exporting staff of the university for in-country delivery Double degrees granting Student exchange Faculty exchange Research Establishment of a campus or training centre in the target country Others

6 Compelling Reasons to Partner (Why?) Strategic fit & importance Partnership & Competitive Advantage Market attractiveness (size, language. i.e. India, China) Core competencies leverage Technology/technical feasibility Financial reward versus risk Financial reward versus risk

7 Facilitators (When?) Resources: Assets/Cost efficiencies Ability to accommodate different institutional cultures, assumptions and practices: A unified vision Shared values, trust and institutional champions Shared values, trust and institutional champions Procedures for decision-making Accreditation / cross credit transfer Accreditation / cross credit transfer Expectations Alignment (outcomes, leadership, management, marketing, benefits sharing, accountability) Technology Open communication

8 Components (How?) Building Blocks of Partnership Identify logic model elements Establishing objectives Identify critical initiative activities Clarify roles Work plan & schedule Budgeting Quality assurance Risk assessment Intellectual Property Rights

9 The Partnership Model (Adapted from Lambbert, Knemeyer, & Gardner, 2009) Drivers Compelling Reasons to Partner Decision to create, adjust, or terminate partnership Facilitators Supportive environmental factors that support partnership growth Components Join activities and processes That build and sustain The partnership Outcomes Extent to which performance meets expectation Drivers set Expectations of outcomes Feedback to: Components Drivers Facilitators Potential Building blocks

10 Why do so many partnerships fail to deliver value? Often because they shouldn’t have existed in the first place ill managed, ill structured Governance problem Non sustainable model …  Partnerships are costly to implement  Require extra resources, communication, coordination, and risk sharing.  A need for a conceptual & operational model for structuring & managing partnerships.

11 What is Stage-Gate? (Cooper, 2005) A conceptual & operational map for moving new initiatives from idea to launch and beyond. A blueprint for managing the new initiative process to improve effectiveness and efficiency. Similar to buying a series of options on an investment model:  Initially, one purchase an option for a small amount of money  Then, does due diligence  Finally, decides whether or not to invest A series of these rounds of “due-diligence-and-buy-options” stage constitutes a Stage-Gate framework.

12 Each Stage followed by a Gate StageGate Activities Integrated Analysis Deliverables Go/Terminate Information gathering activities by the project team An integrated analysis of the results of the activities by the project team The result of Integrated analysis – input to the gate A Go/Terminate decision point – results are assessed & a decision to invest more is made Source: Cooper Robert G, The Stage-Gate Idea-to-Launch Process – Update, What’s New and NextGen Systems, J. Product Innovation Management, Vol. 25, Number 3, 2008, p 214.

13 Stage-Gate Versions Idea Stage Gate 1 Stage 1 Gate 2 Stage 2 Gate 3 Stage 3 Gate 4 Stage 4 Gate 5 Stage 5 Stage 1 & 2 Gate 3 Stage 3 & 4 Gate 5 Stage 5 Stage 1 & 2 Gate 3 Stage 3, 4, 5 ScopingBusiness Case Development Testing Launch Outcomes Post-Launch-Review Scoping Business Case Post-Launch-Review Source: Cooper Robert G, The Stage-Gate Idea-to-Launch Process – Update, What’s New and NextGen Systems, J. Product Innovation Management, Vol. 25, Number 3, 2008, p 219.

14 Why Stage-Gate? Bases on due-diligence practices Establish clear and transparent criteria for partnerships evaluation Consistency of partnerships review/control flexible/adaptable process Audit partnerships at key stages Develop best practices Share lessons learnt/continuous improvement Promote more effective governance Quality Assurance

15 A modified Stage-Gate Model for Partnerships Idea Stage Gate 1 Stage 1 Gate 2 Stage 2 Gate 3 Stage 3 Gate 4 Stage 5 Drivers: Understanding the opportunity Facilitators: Supportive environmental factors that support partnership growth Components Join activities and processes That build and sustain The partnership Outcomes Extent to which performance meets expectation Gate 5 Feedback

16 How does it work?  Each stage  Designed to gather information to reduce key partnership uncertainties and risks  Costs more than the preceding one  The process is an incremental commitment one  Activities at each stage are cross functional and are undertaken in parallel.

17 How does it work?  The structure of each gate is:  Deliverables: visible, based on standard menu for each gate.  Criteria against which the stage deliverables are judged (a checklist)  Outputs – a decision (Go/Terminate/Hold/Recycle)

18 More effective governance  Ensuring that gates really have teeth  Go/Terminate decision  Resourcing meetings ($$$$)  Define who the gatekeepers are  Putting gatekeeper rules of engagement in place

19 No pain, No gain  No partnership for its own sake.  Universities can’t afford arbitrary marriages leading to divorces.  Implementation of any system requires extra effort.  Universities are used to casual or intuitive decision-making.  Gates are introduced to eliminate decision-making inefficiencies.  Accountability, Feedback, and continuous improvement.  The market for partnerships is now highly competitive.

20 Future Research  Test this model  Case studies  Improve it  Design it as a tool with its different components

21 Thank you ! Questions? Comments? You can comments to: