Tech Directions - August 2007 - (Page 21) Construction Management Program Builds Financial Development from the Ground Up By Michael D. Nobe, Scott Shuler, and Larry Grosse Michael.Nobe@ColoState.EDU, Scott.Shuler@ColoState.EDU, Larry.Grosse@ColoState.EDU R ECENT economic and legislative changes have hit higher education hard and threaten the financial viability of many educational programs nationwide. If you had attended a recent Associated Schools of Construction conference, you would have heard Arizona State University’s Bill Badger say, “We used to be state supported, then state assisted, and now we are state tolerated.” The dilemma he referred to is the erosion of funding for public universities. With state support dwindling to less than 10 percent in some cases (Atkinson, Rutgers, & Spink, 2003), institutions across the nation face a financial crisis. Many strategies have been explored and implemented, from campaigns to attract large donations to changing the status of the university to a free enterprise environment (Casacchia, 2005). The question we address in this article is: What can we do at the department level to remain solvent? Badger and Carbajal (2004) suggest that “there is no university unit more equal to the challenge, or better positioned, save for the college of business, than the construcMike Nobe and Scott Shuler are associate professors, and Larry Grosse is professor, Department of Construction Management, Colorado State University, Fort Collins. tion program. Simply stated, liberal arts, sociology, and the like are hard pressed to approach their industries for support. “On the other hand, the construction industry accounts for 8 percent of the gross domestic product and nearly a trillion dollars of revenue per year, a fertile and supporting environment in which to move from state-supported to a state-assisted program.” We explore here the tactics that our construction management department now uses to remain solvent and maintain quality. The model we outline may also work for other programs that have a large and supportive industry base. a layered approach to strategic planning. Each layer has stated funding objectives with strategic programs and policies identified. Visually, the plan resembles a pyramid. Level 1 represents the values and beliefs of the organization that influence funding strategies. As the levels increase, the funding mechanisms grow more intricate and strive for higher levels of funding. At the top, level 7 represents the pinnacle of funding and virtual financial independence. Note that funding ranges are expressed in gross dollars, which means that operating expenses are not shown. The rationale for this is that many programs are implemented on a net 0 basis with revenue covering cost. As in any nonprofit endeavor, the goal is to fund programs that provide value to our stakeholders: students, industry, and the faculty. Refer to Table 1 on page 23 for an outline of the funding model. Strategies are labeled S1, S2, and so forth. Following are brief descriptions of identified strategies. For more detailed information, we encourage you to contact one of us and/or consult our department’s Web page (www.cm.cahs.colostate.edu). Funding Business Model Colorado State University (CSU) currently employs a model that uses Level 1—Develop Culture Level 1 is designed to create a culture of giving. You can use any www.techdirections.com CONSTRUCTION 21 http://www.cm.cahs.colostate.edu http://www.techdirections.com
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.