1. Program Prioritization Process (PPP)
An Overview

2. Facing Change and Challenges
Stakeholder expectations becoming demands
Improved “quality”
Improved “efficiencies”
Improved “accountability”
Fiscal Landscape – new funding reality
Sustained economic low growth (if any)
Revenues continuing flat – costs continue to increase
Capital demands and post-employment liabilities
Demographics:
Declining numbers of traditional learners (101’s)
Increasing competition
Technology- impact and application
News ways to teach/learn

3. Act or React We be told what to do or…..
We can develop “made in Guelph” change
Our Integrated Plan defined:
Directions:
Student success,
Engagement
Knowledge Creation
Program Innovation
Need for continuous Assessment in all things we do
What we need to do well

4. The Case for Prioritization
Academic programs are the main drivers of cost
And the most important in delivering on our stated goals
Across the Board actions mean
reduced quality across the board (all programs)
Growth in programs
Trying to be all things to all people
Without evaluation of importance to our mission
Not all programs are equal
Need to focus on our strengths being….
Objective (base decisions sound information)
Transparent (input from and about all programs and services

5. Timing- Why Now Government policy: Over the past five years:
Assessment of what we do
Meeting a “Mandate”
More to come…
Over the past five years:
We found $46 million
Still delivering most programs/services
We have to:
Maintain our fiscal stability
Projections show a $32 million gap in four years.
The most likely source of funds is from inside
Government deficits
Tuition fee increases must slow
Past rate of enrolment growth is not sustainable

6. What is Program Prioritization?
Structured assessment of all “programs and services”
Not departments
Uses pre-selected criteria
The same for all programs
Focus on centrality to mission
Contribution to meeting goals
Effectiveness of use of resources
Using metrics as much as possible
Identification of opportunities to
Save expenses
Increase revenues
Improve quality
Strengthen reputation

7. To Be Successful All activities are included:
Ancillary, and operating funds
excluding OMAFRA
Objective and consistent criteria
Same process/methodology to be used for all
Task Force effectiveness
Transparent
Communications
Reporting

8. The Criteria 1. History and Development of the Program
Original intent of the program/service and evolution of program/service
2. External Demand for the Program
Level of interest and participation in the current program/service
3. Internal Demand for the Program:
The magnitude to which this program/service is needed by other University programs/services.
4. Quality of Program Inputs:
The quality of resources necessary to mount the program/service. 
5. Quality of Program Outputs
The extent of program/service performance.
6. Size, Scope and productivity of the Program
Breadth and depth and the efficiency measures of outputs and inputs.
7. Revenues Generated
All revenue and other resources generated.
8. Costs of the Program
All costs and other expenses
9. Impact, Justification, and Overall Essentiality
The degree to which this program/service is mission critical to the University.
10. Opportunity Analysis
Opportunities to enhance the program/service

9. (Finance Com. to receive regular updates)
Major Groups and Roles
UofG Management
PP Specific
UofG
Governance
Roles:
Be informed of the process
Receive final Report
Use rankings to inform decisions
President and VP’s
Roles:
Become informed of the process
Receive updates on the process
Receive final Report
Use prioritization criteria subsequent inform decisions
Senate
Project Team
Membership: 5
Role: Provide overall project direction
Prioritization Task Force (TF)
Membership: 21
Roles:
Align to Charter
Review information submissions
Prepare recommended rankings
Senior Management Structures
Membership: VPAC,VPAT,PEC etc
Roles:
Provide counsel to Team
Align with and be informed of process
Roles:
Become informed of the process
Receive updates on the process
(Finance Com. to receive regular updates)
Receive final Report
Use rankings when considering budget recommendations
Board of Governors
Project Resources Group
Membership: as required
Role: Provide resource support for TF
Roles:
Participate process training
Review and rank programs
Deans’/Division Heads
Communications Team
Membership: TBD
Role: Develop communication plan and generate messages as required
Roles:
Participate process training
Prepare report (templates)
Units Managers/Chairs

10. Task Force of 21 Operate Within a “Charter” Composition
Main charge to act as representatives of the University
Review all program/services information
Rank all programs into Quintiles (20/20/20/20/20)
Composition
Chairs (past or present)
Standing committees of senate (9)
Nominated, reviewed by By-Laws
Faculty (5)
Administrative staff (5)
Students Undergrad and grad
Through Application process to By Laws (2)
All to be approved by the President

11. “Program” Definition and Costing
Broadly speaking a program is…
“ any activity or collection of activities that consume resources….”
We do not have university-wide program budgeting/costing
Our budget allocations by organization unit
Programs cut across units
Adds another dimension
What we are doing not just who is doing it

12. Defining Programs Two broad categories
Instructional and Research programs e.g.,
MTCU University degree programs (several hundred)
GH University degree programs
MTCU diploma
Other non-degree
Research
Non Academic programs e.g.,
Student academic counseling
Athletics- Men’s intercollegiate
Research administration
Physical plant- grounds maintenance
Info technology support

13. Reviewing Programs For each defined program/service
Provide information provided on a standard “template”
Prepared by unit heads
Review by Deans/Division Heads
Submitted to the Task Force
Application of criteria
with appropriate weighting
May ask for supplementary information
Ranking by the Task Force
All programs/services ranked
Equal quintiles (20% each)
May make recommendations for further consideration

14. PPP Timelines and milestones
2012
Aug
Project Team in place
Initial Plans developed
VPAC Retreat
Letter from President prepared/issued
Sept
Task force chartered and trained
Communication Plan in place
Process Resource Group in place
Templates and process procedures developed
Oct.
Introduce PP to Senate
Introduce PP Board of Governors (BoG)
Nov.
Report format instructions completed & posted (IP Web.
Town Hall on PP
Presentation to BoG
Units report completion
Dec
2013
Jan
Feb
Report due to Deans/Division heads (Jan 30)
Deans/Division heads review & rank reports
Mar
Task Force deliberations and prioritization
April
BoG update (Apr 17)
May
June
BoG update (June 6)
Ranking to President & VP’s
Jul/Aug
President’s Review
Sep
Oct
Bog receives final report
Senate receives final report

15. Impact Recommendations in the Report:
To inform setting budget targets and resource allocation decisions
Enrichment, reduction, consolidation, elimination
Decisions to be made by President and VP’s
Structure and policy changes e.g.,
Program costing now permanent in financial reporting
New initiatives must be evaluated using set criteria
Build polices and processes to enable ongoing evaluation of programs/services