University of Hawaii West Oahu Seal

Bulletin No. 21

Date/Time sent: 10/05/2020 8:20 am

E ala! E alu! E kuilima!
Awaken! Come together! Join hands!

Over the last week, we have refined our budgeting process and will be adding a special page to our UH West Oʻahu website to keep you updated on our progress. To ensure that this message reaches as many UH West Oʻahu community members, I am repeating the overview of the campus leadership decision-making process, which I also provide in the upcoming October Ka Peʻahi Lono. This overview, written by Dr. Walter Kahumoku, III, shares a process that targets cost efficiencies, maintenance, and investments.

Purpose: To employ an evidence-based and criteria approach to decision-making for targeted cost efficiencies, stabilization, and maintenance efforts, and future invested growth areas.

Rationale: Though a single decision-making tool alone cannot help campus leaders determine with pinpoint accuracy the next steps to a sustainable campus that leads Hawaiʻi (and the world) as career creators, integrated and transdisciplinary, student-centered, premier comprehensive indigenous serving, to remain “as is” will not address the financial issues that we are facing in the next three or more years.

This campus has begun a rigorous, multi-level approach to deciding its future based on evidence that is known and what may be. As data is being gathered, decision makers can use tools like Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) and others—e.g. cost per learner, future/possible ROI, current need analysis—to support decisions about cost efficiencies and future investments. Such analysis, as Harvard Business Review (Courtney, et al.) noted, is needed to determine the next steps for an educational institution.

We were moved to create the decision profile diagnostic in part because we saw so many managers relying solely on conventional capital-budgeting techniques. Most important decisions involve degrees of ambiguity and uncertainty that those approaches aren’t equipped to handle on their own.

Utilizing a tool like MCDA allows leaders to rely on data and more objective criterion to determine the future of an organization. Once the components of the MCDA are operationalized, it should take about two weeks to complete the analysis and begin the process of leadership decision-making. A year-to-year budget can quickly follow once leadership (and possibly stakeholders) have made their decisions about how best to move forward.

Using Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) as a tool for Decision-making

The following simplified MCDA matrix provides several questions that become the first step toward decision determination.

MCDA—key questions

UH West Oʻahu Responses

What is the decision problem being addressed?

Given the impending decline in State funding, UH West Oʻahu will need to address anticipated budget reduction of $1.5M in SY2021-22, $___ in SY2022-23, and $___ in SY2023-24. To ensure that UH West Oʻahu becomes sustainable—a mix of state funding and income generation, its leadership must make important decisions about cost efficiencies and future investments.

What does the institution/ organization define as success?

Success—poʻokela (educational success), Kaiāulu (viable, healthy communities), Hana Lawelawe (service to our communities), Mālama ʻĀina (environmental responsibility), and Waiwai (wealth through philanthropy and sustainability).

What are the institution/ organization’s critical success factors/criteria for success?

To achieve success, UH West Oʻahu will endeavor to “generate financial sustainability, innovation, and 21st Century leadership throughout the next 10 years”.  The four criterion to be used are:

  • Optimization Formula [OF]—use of resources on tactics that strategically align with UH System and UH West Oʻahu plans and diversify to increase revenue streams.

  • Customer Value Proposition [CVP]—support of educational experiences that enhance the 21st Century learner-leaders through an engaging, dynamic, state-of-the-art collegiate environment.

  • Value Chain [VC]—recognition of ways that reduce costs, optimize effort, eliminate waste, and increase prosperity.

  • Strategic Positioning [SP]—maximize UH West Oʻahu’s position through cost-leadership, improving differentiation/uniqueness, and advancing competitive advantage.

*These four criterion represent the ways in which each proposed strategic tactic—the way in which we will achieve financial sustainability, innovation, and 21st Century leadership—can be reviewed to create a portfolio of strategic tactics.

What is the weight of each criterion that collectively will help the institution/organization best achieve success?

Weighted Formula

Optimization Formula [OF]

=

____% of 100%

Customer Value Proposition [CVP]

=

____% of 100%

Value Chain [VC]

=

____% of 100%

Strategic Positioning [SP]

=

____% of 100%

Total 100%

How can (and what types of) data/evidence be gathered (quickly) to score all possible/appropriate strategic tactics—ways to solve the decision problem based on the criteria for success?

*NOTE: all data and analyses are accessible at this moment; none of the tools are being proposed if we cannot produce data/analysis within 3-5 days.

OF—Innovations Analysis (innovative practices that have translated into funding opportunities), Future Development Analysis (Industry Trends applied to new courses/program development; Current and Future Market Employment Data; others.

CVP—Facilities costs per unit, Energy Efficiency Analysis—electricity, sewage, water, Future Energy Efficiencies Analysis—solar and other renewable energies to offset current and future energy costs.

VC—Cost per Learner per unit (Cost [staffing—salary, fringe + Resources/ Materials + Facilities + Misc] – Tuition + Other Operations-related Revenue), Organizational Structure Analysis (current staffing, staffing needs analysis), others.

SP—System Uniqueness (possible growth potential areas), Risk Analysis (political, societal, industry, cultural, internal/external risks), others.

References:
Courtney, H., Lovallo, D., & Clarke, C. (2013). Decision Making: Deciding How to Decide.  Harvard Business Review.  https://hbr.org/2013/11/deciding-how-to-decide

Here is our Work In-Progress Calendar of Activities

  • September 2020: Campus Conversations (4 campus-wide, 10 individual and focus groups, 60+ individual contributions = an estimated 140 participants).

  • September 25 – 30: Continued collection of campus feedback and analysis (clustering strategic tactics)

  • September 29 – October 9: Campus leadership engages in MCDA process, discussion, and analysis of potential strategic tactics

  • Saturday, October 10: Campus leadership retreat to define DRAFT I of 3-year Tactical Plan (FY21, 22, and 23) with placeholders for FY 24-28.

  • Week of October 12: Campus Discussions and Feedback on DRAFT I of 3-year Tactical Plan (FY21, 22, 23).

  • October 19-30: Campus leadership revise and refine to generate DRAFT II of 3-year Tactical Plan (FY21, 22, 23) to present to UH-System/BOR.

Any questions, please contact Chancellor Benham (uhwochan@hawaii.edu) or Dr. Kahumoku (wk@hawaii.edu).