Strategic planning involved a less formal process at the unit level, working as much as possible within existing mechanisms and allowing units considerable flexibility in their response. We wanted to avoid any sense of uncertainty among units that might paralyze ongoing activities, while taking advantage of the aggressive “strategic”
processes already underway in many of our units.
We also believed it important to portray this strategic process, and the resource allocation and management strategies associated with it, as a means to respond to opportunity rather than a crisis from resource limitations. We framed the “strategic leadership” process as an effort to better align resource allocation and management with key University priorities so as to decouple it from the earlier “Five-Year Plan.”
The tactical process developed by the Planning Team for implementation of the strategic plan consisted of several components.
1. We announced over the next several years a series of new University-wide initia-tives in key areas. Examples included:
• Improving the quality of the undergraduate experience
• Cross-, multi-, and inter-disciplinary (venturesome) activities
• Mechanisms to encourage units to focus resources to build spires of excellence
• Task Force on professional education at the University
• Research incentives
• Graduate student financial aid
• Diversity
Every effort was made to select initiatives that would not only be exciting and appropriate to our strategic mission, but that would also receive broad support by the entire University community. These initiatives would be funded at the central level
“off the top” of the General Fund budget. Resources would be made available to those units or faculty presenting the best plans or proposals.
2. We approached the interaction with units in a very low-key fashion by taking maximum advantage of ongoing planning activities already underway. Most units were encouraged to move ahead with their present plans with as little interference as possible (albeit within the normal budget review and allocation process).
Those units facing unusual challenges, opportunities, or needs received the most direct attention.
3. We continued our present process of differential allocation of resources “at the margin” to University priorities (e.g., incremental budgeting). However, as in the previous two years, all units (academic and administrative) were asked to plan on picking up one percent of their General Fund base budget increase for each of the next three years through internal reallocation. That is, the General Fund alloca-tion to each unit would be determined on a base adjusted to 99 percent of the previous year’s level.
4. We arranged a series of discussions in a “retreat” format with all units (academic, administrative, and auxiliary) over the next three years to better understand their needs, objectives, and priorities. These discussions were conducted from an “all-resource” perspective, which took into account all funds, facilities, and human resources. From preliminary discussions with deans and directors, we anticipated that the units participating in such reviews in the first year, 1986-87, would be
“volunteers” and would represent a broad cross section of needs and opportuni-ties.
Implications for Resource Allocation and Management
In this process, we were proposing a hierarchy of resource management tools that could be used to focus resources on key University priorities and to stimulate units to develop their own strategic plans and priorities. At the highest level, we utilized the major University-wide initiatives to move aggressively toward objectives that had broad impact across most programs. By funding these initiatives off the top of the General Fund, we demonstrated in a convincing fashion the University’s commit-ment to focus its resources on key priorities. These initiatives had the additional objective of creating a sense of excitement and involvement across the campus, pulling together the University community behind common goals.
At the next level of resource allocation, we asked units of the University to plan on picking up 1 percent of their General Fund budget growth for each of the next three years through internal reallocation. That is, we set minimum salary and non-salary budget growth targets for each unit, but then funded the unit at 1 percent less than these targets. This action not only provided the resources necessary to fund the University-wide initiatives, but it also stimulated the units to become more engaged in internal planning activities aimed at focusing resources at highest priorities.
THE MICHIGAN STRATEGY 148
At the third level, we continued the practice of differential funding at the margin by deploying incremental resources to the highest priorities. This allowed major reallocation among units on a more natural scale without the selective program reduction process employed during the Five-Year Plan. Note that through this process, all units had the ability to “appeal” for a waiver of the one percent realloca-tion requirement.
The most critical component of the resource allocation hierarchy was at the fourth level, where we developed a strategic process to establish the long-term budget priority for units. Through “strategic discussions,” we evaluated the objectives and needs of units within the context of University objectives and priorities. These discussions assisted in establishing the priority of the unit for University resources over the long term, and in a sense, drove the entire resource allocation process.
While this four-level hierarchy did not rely on selective program reduction as an important mechanism in resource allocation, it did not rule out the possibility that at some point such action would be necessary. One of the outcomes of the strategic discussions and subsequent analysis by the executive officers could have been a decision to consider dramatically downsizing or even eliminating a unit. However, such an action would not have followed directly from the mechanisms we proposed, but rather from a program discontinuance/reduction review triggered by the strategic discussion process.
Objectives
• Targets major University priorities
• Gets people excited and involved
• Pulls community together
• Provides “venture” capital
• Stimulates internal priority setting within units
• Primary mechanism for major reallocation among units
• Funds major needs and opportunities at unit level
• Facilitates understanding of units
• Determines degree to which unit objectives align with University objectives
• Determines priority of unit for University resources