An excellent strategy, poorly executed, will almost always fail. This is particularly true in financial aid offices, where timing, top-notch service delivery, and effective processing can be just as important as the financial aid offer itself.
As one Canadian higher ed administrator recently observed, "Americans view financial aid romantically. It's all about how much you love them." Therefore, in financial aid the delivery of the message can be as important as the message itself. Especially at this time, when institutional dollars are scarce and the mandate on campus is to optimize net tuition revenue, institutions can't afford to lose students because of operational mistakes made when implementing strategic initiatives.
Just how do strategy and operations sometimes become decoupled? Here are half a dozen possible scenarios--ones to avoid.
1.Forgetting to involve operational staff in strategic planning sessions.
You have a brilliant idea for a new scholarship program that will involve asking high school counselors for nominations of students in the fall of their junior year. The recruiters have been trained to talk about it when they do high school visits. Your marketing director has prepared a new webpage, brochure, and letter to counselors to ask for nominations. But no one thought to include staff from IT or operations to determine how this information will be captured in the student system to facilitate communication with counselors and students and, ultimately, financial aid packaging. As a result, the new program is poorly implemented, names are lost, and packages are inaccurate.
2.Failing to consider timing.
You have conducted sophisticated price sensitivity analysis to establish the ideal level of grant for different subpopulations that will optimize enrollments and net tuition revenue at your institution. The strategic thing to do is to consider all aid, regardless of source, when building the need-based package. However, no one thought to change the dates for music auditions, which are held annually in early April, or the institution's scholarship competition weekend, which is always scheduled in late March. Consequently, in order to strategically target need-based aid, the financial aid office delays packaging those students who are eligible to compete for merit and performance awards until after the competitions. As a result, the awards for the most desirable students are sent weeks or even months after the arrival of the FAFSA--long after other institutions have sent their awards.
3.Allowing administrative convenience to take precedence over customer service or strategic positioning.
Operationally, all financial aid offices would like to have complete and accurate documentation before awarding aid in order to avoid the necessity of making changes. So some institutions require that students complete the verification process by submitting tax returns, household size information, etc., before they will issue an aid offer. However, strategically, if primary competitors are sending preliminary letters with minimal documentation, they will have a competitive advantage over the school that waits.
Similarly, some aid offices would like to wait until classes begin before certifying loan eligibility--to avoid having to return funds for students who failed to enroll as planned. While this may streamline operations for office staff, it negatively affects cash flow to the institution, and it also provides poor service to students who may be counting on refund checks to pay for books or off-campus housing.
A final example: When the aid office requires an additional form to gather information from students already captured elsewhere in the information system (such as major or time status), but which is not readily available to financial aid. Obviously a far better solution is to develop data feeds to the financial aid system, rather than adding a step for students.
4.Poor planning for "one-stop shops."
More and more institutions are strategically bringing together interconnected offices, such as financial aid, bursar, and registrar, under a "one-stop shop" with the intention of improving customer service. However, if operations are not carefully considered, this strategic initiative has the potential to deteriorate rather than enhance service. Some examples:
