A planning framework for universities for emerging from Covid 19

Survive-Envisage-Transition: A planning model for structuring universities post Covid19

Synopsis: As universities respond to the unforeseen challenges of Covid19, responses to date have been predictable and focussed around reducing costs. But these solutions are not necessarily sufficient on their own. They assume that the current organizational modus operandi will resume at some time in the future. This article advocates capitalising on the challenges of COVID19 and emerging with a new model of future universities. It proposes a practical, four-element framework (‘Envisage’) to guide university leaders and planners through this stage and help them define a university offering for an evolving and uncertain future.

As universities respond to the unforeseen challenges of Covid19, responses to date have been predictable and generally necessary. For any ‘business’ where revenue streams are threatened it is imperative to first ensure short term survival, and the easiest way to achieve this is through cost reduction. Where the anticipated revenue reduction is modest, curbs to discretionary expenditure may suffice, but when long term and/or significant revenue shortfalls are expected, reducing staff numbers becomes the next obvious solution.

But these solutions are not necessarily sufficient on their own. They assume that the current organizational modus operandi will continue in the future – either at a smaller scale, or ultimately as part of a growth rebound to previously experienced ‘business’ levels. They fail to address the real opportunity that may exist to shape a more relevant future ‘business’ model for the entity.

I would argue that such a reshaping is long overdue in the university world. As a parent whose two children have graduated from Russell Group universities within the last 5-10 years, there seems little obvious change to the university model that I experienced in the 1970s. Certainly today’s university offers a range of student services around the taught experiences, that were not in place in my time, and there is more focus on the ‘science of teaching and learning,’ but the fundamental campus based experience of onsite lecture and tutorial seems very familiar to those of us of an ‘older vintage.’ This seems incredulous, given the pace of technological and societal change that has occurred during this intervening period.

In a previous article for CMM, I suggested one different model (‘Cluster-based differentiation strategies’) that might be a pathway for envisaging a different type of future university. There will be many other models that could be adopted to create an environment where many different look-and-feel universities would replace the current ‘me-too’ strategies of the traditional, large, campus-based institutions.

So, what should university leaders and planners be doing at this time? I recommend a framework based around three key stages: Survive; Envisage; Transition.

Figure 1: SET approach

Enough has already been said about the ‘Survive’ stage. As each institution implements its ‘Survive’ actions, leaders and planners should now turn their attention to ‘Envisage.’

The ‘Envisage’ stage needs to address four key elements as illustrated in the graphic below:

Figure 2: Four elements of ‘Envisage’

Element 1 – Business strategy recalibration (‘BSR’)

In ‘BSR’, institutions can use the opportunity to re-imagine the university of the future. Whether it is ‘cluster based dfferentiation’ referred to previously, or more targetted client offerings, or other approaches to internationalisation or delivery differentation, universities have a once in a generation oppportunity to radically reshape their offerings.

An excellent model to apply to this reimagining is the Hambrick and Frederickson ‘5-questions approach’ detailed in their seminal article from 2001 ‘Are you sure you have a strategy?’ (Academy of Management Executives Vol. 15 no.4). Their approach can help guide executives and planners through the key questions that they will need to address if they are to overcome traditional thinking and envisage a different university strategy 

Figure 3: Hambrick and Frederickson model

Element 2 – Business continuity planning (‘BCP’)

In ‘BCP’, we address one of the weakest components of most strategy planning exerices, namely strategic risk assesssment and business continuity planning. Many organizations have had their lack of attention to this area cruelly exposed during recent events. New attention must be given to emerging strategy and business models to identify and mitigate risk and to apply best global business practices in this area.

Element 3 -Workplace operating design (‘WOD’)

In ‘WOD’ we can address many aspects of improving our approach to workplace management – many of which have come as new realisations emanating from the current crisis.

Most of us have experienced, and often been surprised by, how much has been achieved by our people in difficult circumstances. We have seen new models of remote working allow people to deliver spectacular outcomes without the normal supervision and governance inherent within traditional office working environments. We have flattened decision making heiriarchies and enabled self-managing teams to perform quickly and effectively. These same people have also realised how remote working has enabled many of them to redress some of the adverse impacts of the traditional commute and fixed working day.

On the flipside, we have also been alerted to some of the potential negative aspects of such working in terms of remoteness from colleagues, possible impact on wellbeing and mental health, and the need for us to re-envisage how we will monitor performance. We have also needed to rethink technical issues such as comunications and network security.

‘WOD’ requires that we develop appropriate frameworks for redesigning the physical and virtual workplace, establishing new governance policies and authorities, building effective mental health and wellbeing strategies and ensuring more effective employee communication techniques.

Element 4- Financial sufficiency planning (‘FSP’)

In ‘FSP’ we must take our earlier financial planning from the ‘Survive’ stage and build a longer term financial sufficiency model that encompasses aspects of our current cash reserves; likely new revenue patterns and streams from our new strategic model; access to financial facilities from banks etc; and not forgetting the costs of implementing our ‘Envisage’ model.

Subsequently, in the ‘Transition’ stage, we will need a ‘war room ‘ approach with dedicated and diverse skills sets from project management to financial analysis and human resource specialists. With ‘Survive’ actions developed, this dedicated team should be allocated to managing this longer term transition plan.

The challenge now is to not to be overwhelmed with ‘Survive’ to the detriment of ‘Envisage’. ‘Envisage’ thinking, planning and actions need to be actively pursued at this time to ensure that the university is positioned to move to transition at the appropriate juncture, including even now establishing some of the building blocks and ensuring that we do not miss the chance to turn a crisis into an opportunity.

Thoughts and opinions are welcome as usual. Please contact me at [email protected]

Nigel Penny is a strategy, performance and leadership consultant with over 35 years international experience. An ex-partner of KPMG in Melbourne, he was a VP of Balanced Scorecard Collaborative where he worked with Professor Robert Kaplan and Dr David Norton. His clients include major private and public sector organizations and he has consulted to CEOs and Government Ministers. Over the years he has worked with several leading Australian universities as well as universities in New Zealand, Singapore, Malaysia and the UK. He is strongly committed to strategy success in his clients through the effective intersection of strategy and leadership.

?