1. High Level Overview of the Final Report Town Hall Meetings on Nov 24, 2015 Welland Campus, AH 141 noon to 1 pm NOTL Campus, Yerich Auditorium, 3 pm-4 pm Teresa Quinlin, VP Business Development Katerina Gonzalez, Director Planning and Institutional Research

2. Contents 1.BackgroundBackground 2.Tier 1 ResultsTier 1 Results 3.Tier 2 ResultsTier 2 Results 4.Going ForwardGoing Forward 5.Showcasing Lean at NC (Video)Showcasing Lean at NC (Video)

3. 1. Background 3 Back to Contents

4. Transform NC launched in Oct 2013 with this message from the President “This [new] planning process focuses on gathering quality data about programs and services within a framework that allows us to focus on continuous improvement by: developing metrics for evaluation of our programs and services; identifying areas of strength for investment and enhancement; and highlighting areas and processes requiring improvement.” 4 Message from President Dan Patterson, Oct 8, 2013 http://www.niagaracollege.ca/transform-nc/2013/10/08/message-dan-patterson-major-planning- initiatives-interim-executive-team-appointments/

5. Why and why now? Started from a position of financial strength It was time to take stock (examine all programs and services at one point in time) – Significant enrolment and physical growth in preceding years – New strategic plan 2013-2016 Changing higher education landscape – Demographic shifts – Government’s differentiation frameworkdifferentiation framework – Fiscal restraint 5

6. Project tasks and timelines were developed 1234 6 5 (See Appendix B in the Final Report) In order to be sensitive to ongoing workload pressures across the institution, a two-tiered approach was employed. Tier 1 was a relatively quick assessment and prioritization of all programs and services using a limited set of metrics; Tier 2 was a detailed analysis only of the high priority areas identified in Tier 1.

7. Research and develop Transform NC model Oct - Dec 2013 2 In our research, we looked at both theory and practice Robert Dickeson Programs and services prioritization model John Kotter Organizational change process Experiences of others Algonquin, Laurier, Regina, Guelph, Red Deer, Brock, Humber, Mohawk, George Brown, Saskatchewan, Sask Polytech (formerly SIAST) Service metrics Higher Education Council’s “The Data-Driven University” Lean methodology Gauge the effectiveness and efficiency of processes from the student’s or end user’s perspective 7

8. Develop technical framework (Steering Committee) Winter 2014 Term 3 A Steering Committee was formed to engage the College community in the consultation process Mandate to develop: a)Communications plan b)Technical framework, with criteria and metrics c)Allocation (prioritization) method CompositionComposition (also Appendix A in the Final Report) 23 members (faculty, admin, support staff, students) VP Finance and Strategic Planning Planning and Institutional Research Guiding Principles Transparent Consultative Iterative Build on existing 8

9. The Steering Committee developed: a) Communications Plan E-mail blasts Transform NC website (public website) Transform NC website Blackboard (internal portal) Presentations – College Operations Group (COG) – College Management Team (CMT) – Academic Operations Committee (AOC) – Advisory College Council (ACC) – Coordinators Forum – Corporate Services Forum – Student Services Group – Board of Governors – Town Hall meetings 9

10. CRITERIAPROGRAMSSERVICES Current State 1.Relevancy Student Demand for Programs Employer Demand or Further Education Essentiality Alignment with Strat. Priorities Demand for Service 2. Capacity $ Contribution % Contribution Technology Enablement (e.g., automation) Complexity (touch points) Process Efficiency (e.g., bottlenecks) Cost Effectiveness (e.g., operating cost/SF) 3. Satisfaction Student Satisfaction Graduate Satisfaction Student Retention User Satisfaction with Service -KPI Survey -Internal Surveys Future State 4. Opportunities Strategic opportunities 5. Challenges Strategic challenges (See Appendices D and E in the Final Report) The Steering Committee developed: b) The Technical Framework 10 Go to slide 16slide 16

11. Category Current State (criteria 1, 2, 3) Future strategic opportunities (criterion 4) Future strategic challenges (criterion 5) Candidate for Tier 2 Review Enhance (10%) High** Revise (10%) Low* High*** Continuous Improvement Maintain (80%) All other combinations of scores The Steering Committee developed: c) The Allocation Method 11 *Low = lowest 10% based on score **Self-identified “significant” opportunities ***Self-identified “significant” challenges (See Appendix F in the Final Report)

12. Additional filters were applied to further prioritize areas for the Tier 2 “deep dive” (detailed analysis) The filters examined opportunities and challenges identified in Tier 1 for biggest impact on the following strategic objectives: – Increasing student enrolment – Achieving operational excellence – Alignment with the government’s differentiation framework (new program proposals) – Unparalleled student experience and satisfaction 12 (for more details on filters, see pages 3 to 6 in the Final Report)

13. 2. Tier 1 Results 13 Back to Contents

14. Tier 1 Outcomes: Highest priority areas for the Tier 2 “deep dive” (detailed analysis) were identified # in Tier 1 Review # in Tier 2 Review# of Lean Reviews Academic Programs128 (all programs) 36 (or 23 programs and program clusters) Not applicable Service streams122 (all services) 3 (Marketing and Recruitment; Information Technology Services; Academic Advisement) 3 (Human Resources, Facilities Management Services, Academic Advisement) Apprenticeship Programs 9 (all) 9 (all) Not applicable Access Services & Programs 8 (all) 8 (all) Not applicable (see Appendix C in the Final Report) 14

15. 3. Tier 2 Results 15 Back to Contents

16. Tier 2 review resulted in 30 recommendations and 3 new continuous improvement tools 30 recommendations Related to the following objectives in the 2013-16 Strategic Plan: 1.Enrolments (attracting students, student success) 2.Operational excellence 3.Unparalleled student experience and satisfaction Continuous improvement tools 1.Program dashboards (balanced scorecard) 2.Adoption of lean methodology for services 3.Frameworks for access and apprenticeship programs and services (criteria same as on slide 10 )slide 10 (for more details on recommendations and tools, see page 2 and pages 6 to 12 in the Final Report) 16

17. 4. Going Forward Work continues to determine how to best integrate the metrics and tools from Transform NC into the College’s overall quality assurance framework and continuous improvement efforts Resources and professional development opportunities for employees to learn and apply lean methodology and process mapping are being developed The approach for consulting and engaging stakeholders will be expanded and employed for our strategic planning process, set to begin this fall 17 Back to Contents

18. 5. Showcasing Lean at NC Scheduling Team members, including Lynn Calder, Support Staff representative on the Board of Governors, discuss their experiences with process mapping in a 4-minute VIDEO located on Blackboard: – Login to Blackboard – Go to “My Blackboard” – Choose “My Organizations” – Choose “Transform NC” – Choose “Lean Resources” – Choose the video “Process Mapping: Experiences of one team at NC” Process mapping is an internationally recognized methodology by ISO and Six Sigma 18 Back to Contents