Novel research: The University of Portsmouth Business School
Universities could be making effective decisions surprisingly easily as they steer through the most challenging times in their history if they adopted a new ‘what if’ method for making decisions.
According to new research from Portsmouth Business School, serious long-term questions regularly pored over by committees about staffing, the student experience, where to invest the most time, how much to spend on marketing and avoiding estranging stakeholders could all be made much easier.
The ‘what if’ model has been developed by five senior staff at Portsmouth Business School, who modelled various scenarios to test if the outcomes were workable.
The model is a novel approach to one of the most critical issues in higher education – strategic investment. It allows decision makers to explore ‘what if’ scenarios in a way that is rarely possible with strategic analysis based primarily on past financial performance.
They argue that the model is an ideal format for those working in universities, whether at faculty level or in support departments, because its flexibility allows for multiple business goals to be addressed at the same time.
Martin Read, Head of Post-graduate Taught Programmes; Charlotte Gladstone-Millar, Associate Dean, Quality; Richard Tonge, Associate Dean, Students; David Smith, Associate Dean, Innovation and Business; and Ashraf Labib, Professor of Operations and Systems Management, used their own business school as a case study to test the ‘what if’ model.
The research is published in the journal Studies in Higher Education.
Dr Gladstone-Millar said: “This model is a very powerful tool for those in higher education facing multiple goals and with a variety of stakeholders who have different and sometimes conflicting objectives.
“You could say it makes seemingly impossible decisions more straightforward and helps ensure the faculty or department using them is able to adapt to changing fortunes and attitudes.”
The model works by beginning with a goal (for example, to identify investment priorities to achieve strategic objectives); establishing the likely conditions (such as a period of economic growth, recession, or a competitive environment); naming the key decision-makers (in this instance, associate deans responsible for quality, innovation, research and students); listing the objectives (such as research rankings, student satisfaction, reputation, efficient use of resources, impact and accessibility); and the alternative strategic options to be prioritised (for example, corporate management information, marketing and promotion, IT facilities, and human resources development).
Dr Gladstone-Millar said: “The key decision makers could be many people, including students, but we chose to examine our own priorities as the faculty’s associate deans to test the methodology and framework. The results show it is a robust method for streamlining strategic decisions and that it is relatively easy to implement.”
The key decision makers are asked to judge the relative importance of one factor, such as research ranking, against another, such as student satisfaction. Each factor appears on the list many times against other options, so that by the end, each key player has ranked the competing factors many times against different competing factors, and an overall rating is achieved.
The priorities of each key player are then assessed by the group based on the relative strength and influence each player has in each area. For example, the associate dean for research is likely to be seen as having the most relative strength and influence over research, so his or her judgements on research are given greater weighting.
The results of comparing and contrasting the relative scores of each key player against each key goal demonstrate, for example, that the importance of the judgements of the dean responsible for quality are most significant during recession and when there are large numbers of competitors, whereas the importance of the judgements of the dean responsible for students are more significant in good economic times and if there are few competitors.
Dr Gladstone-Millar said: “Higher education institutions are performing a variety of roles including teaching, research, working for and with businesses, local communities, the public and voluntary groups. They are expected to engage locally, nationally and globally.
“They are facing growing demands and expectations from government and society, growing competition for students, funds and grants. Everything they do must conform with the highest ethical standards, and all this must be achieved with limited resources.
“This puts universities in a quandary. How should limited resources be allocated to strategic aims? Should each one be pursued with equal vigour, or will an emphasis on just one or two enable them to realise their vision sooner? These are questions the model can make a valuable contribution towards answering.”
The model attempts to systemise the decision making process, though one of its constraints is for it to work best, the decision making period being used in the model should ideally match other important business cycles, such as budget setting cycles.
The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) told universities as long ago as 2000 that it was imperative they analyse their goals in a methodical and strategic way.
