Articles

What Services Are Provided (and Who Are the Clients)?

Analysis. If the groundwork mentioned above has been laid, then many of these questions will already be answered. What is the foundation: teaching, research, or outreach? If the center is to be academically based, then will it be teaching or research? Who are the champion and director? What are the necessary skills, credentials, and experiences? Who are the key stakeholders or clients, and what are the scope and demand they have for services?

If the center has students and curriculum as its foundation, then courses, internships, speakers, and even a minor (or eventually a major) in family business can be likely services. If the focus is research, then a journal, books, conferences, press releases, or even so-called action research are options to consider (Astrachan & McMillan, 2000; Poza, Johnson, & Alfred, 1998). If outreach is the foundation, then retreats, affinity groups, speakers, and even “learning communities” ought to be assessed (see Jaffe, 1991). If the planning is holistic, then all of these should be assessed. Note that planning holistically not only intervenes on the transactional approach, but also ties everything back to the original vision and plan. It also links the three functions or systems and their related stakeholders.

Thinking holistically, then, how do the services of the foundation best strategically and synergistically link with the other two functions? Can researchers test the effectiveness of undergraduate courses or retreats? Can families be included in a class project or be interviewed or provide an internship? One family business adviser who works with our center suggests having students role-play as the client in a continuing-education seminar with a professional. Talk about synergy: the students get powerful real-life exposure (to say nothing of a fabulous career networking opportunity), and the professionals get equal real-life training as to what the next generation of clients is like (to say nothing of a fabulous client development opportunity). This is thinking strategically, holistically, and win-win.

Therefore, if the clients are thought of as stakeholders (i.e., people who have a stake in the center), then the primary client is the student when the center's foundation is teaching. If the foundation is outreach, then the primary stakeholder group is the family businesses and/or the professionals. If the foundation is research, the primary stakeholder group is the faculty. Add in the university, and from a holistic approach, all four of these stakeholders constitute the key constituents the center must serve.

Experience. With teaching as our foundation, we have always put the students and curriculum in the foreground. So, any decision involves assessing the impact on the students and the curriculum. The five-course minor in family business, retreats for the families, research opportunities, and (eventually) continuing education to professionals are all services we provide. We have also found something vital after three years of teaching: We believe the two biggest issues for these undergraduates are marketability and credibility.

We have students create Development Plans: Based on an assessment of themselves, their families, and their families’ businesses, what are the skills, credentials, and experiences they want at graduation, and how will they obtain them? This gives the students’ credibility (i.e., it helps them feel legitimate and self-confident). Then the student must translate the Development Plan into a portfolio that conveys to an employer that they do, in fact, have these desired skills, credentials, and experiences. This creates marketability: Employers outside your family’s business are able and willing to hire you. That fact tends to validate that your own family’s business is hiring you for the right reasons, thus reinforcing a sense of credibility. The two are really just the internal and external aspects of the same thing—legitimacy. In fact, we have now refined this to say that the typical graduate of the minor ought to have at least two outside job offers. This goal is further supported by the student being required to do an internship in a family business (or a professional firm with a family business focus) besides his or her own. This goes a long way toward giving students objective feedback, validation of abilities, and a context in which to assess their own family businesses.

So, strategically, given the staff, resources, and size of other minors on campus, we set a goal of 80 students in the minor by the end of the fourth year: we have about 70 students that have started the minor as we begin the third year of teaching. We expect to be one of the top 10 minors at the university and one of the top five in the business school by 2003. And, as mentioned in the analysis above, we have built upon a firmly established foundation of the curriculum for the students.

We build momentum by increasing the number of students and faculty involved. Consider a few examples of the success of this approach. My colleague who conducted the surveying has (with the center’s financial and other means of support) presented the results on campus, at two national conferences, and published an article on it in a refereed academic journal. One-third of the business faculty has had some significant involvement in research or guest teaching one or more of the family business courses. Many of them are interested in eventually developing a course (we have already had the former chair of the accounting department develop and teach the business of family business course). Such actions help cultivate future teaching, research, and institutional support.

With this momentum, we have held two Gatherings to integrate all three functions: teaching, research, and service. Based on all this work, we also reconceptualized our outreach.

We are crafting a two- to four-year relationship with the parent families with two primary components: a parallel curriculum for five retreats and an intentional cultivation of the so- called "shared experience" (Jaffe & Lane, 2000)—again, how the parts (courses for students) relate to the whole (the families, the professionals, and the university community).

Our experience was to have the primary stakeholders be our students, with faculty, parents (i.e., family business owners), and professionals as the secondary stakeholders. At other centers, the primary stakeholder group may differ, but not the analytical process.

Summary. In summary:

Define what services are to be provided for each stakeholder group, based on research, dialogue, and ongoing feedback.
Assess the primary services that build on the foundation (teaching, research, or outreach).
Realizing the constraints of resources, assess the related/integrated/ synergistic services related to the other two functions.

Part VI

How Is the Program to Be Funded?

Analysis. First, it is necessary to undertake an assessment to determine what resources are needed. Money alone is not enough: Consider personnel (the champion, the director, the staff), time, intellectual capital (who is available and able to conduct research?), financial capital (donors, grants, and the university’s budget), and the passion needed for this idea to succeed.

Second, assess which of these resources can be provided, by whom, and within what time frame. There is merit in phasing in support as the center meets strategic goals and gains its own credibility with stakeholders. A large endowment may help in many ways, but starting off lean and mean has its advantages as well.

Third, if internal (i.e., within the university community) credibility is established (analogous to the course charted for students above), then how can the center establish marketability? Marketability in this context means meeting the needs for which the center's stakeholders have a demand. Demand is being contrasted with needs because demand means that stakeholders are willing to provide resources. One may have a need for a family business succession plan but may not have a demand. An individual may have a need for many services—legal, medical, or otherwise—yet be unwilling to provide resources for them. Directors (including this one) who often seem to be passionate (and perhaps equally often idealistic) should be mindful of this distinction. This distinction, although very important, is not always clear; nor is it fixed. Especially given the newness of the field and of the services centers offer, dialogue with stakeholders can convert yesterday’s needs to today's demand.

Fourth, if this center is to be academically based, then it ought to, at least in part, be funded just as other academic programs. And the chair of the Finance Department should not have to raise money for next semester's courses, even if the center’s foundation is not teaching (and even if it is). Universities need to provide some of the funding for the academic base of these centers.

Fifth, the director ought to be able to convey (with reinforcement by the champion, board, and others) the strategic alliances to the president and other key stockholders. Can the center align with Development to cultivate a relationship with qualified family businesses? Can it partner with Continuing Education to create professional seminars? With Admissions to recruit students? With Alumni Relations to involve alumni? The list is long. But with these opportunities, are there funding opportunities beyond the short-term profit of an event? Remember, most donors to universities are family businesses (Narva, 1998). The opportunity to create a far deeper relationship with far greater value through the center seems apparent. Opportunities to help students, to help individual family businesses, and to inspire other faculty or professionals are all riches waiting to be mined. Being aware of and tending to the relationships is the best approach to making this happen.

Experience. As already mentioned, the initial funding for the center came from a small group of people mostly representing family businesses. Additionally, the dean of the school of business, in effect, approved the contribution of my salary. With the investment in year one of nothing but an annual stipend (i.e., no release time) in the first year, the cost of one adjunct per semester in the second year, and two adjuncts per semester in the third year, it is fair to say the school of business contributed salary. Beyond that, the dean helped provide resources and lobbied for a line in the university’s budget. The expenses for the center included minimum expenses for teaching and expenses to put on outreach programs and for conducting and presenting research. Beyond that, the biggest expenses were a full-time staff person to lead the marketing, fundraising, and communication efforts.

As mentioned, we have had no sponsors to date. Frustratingly, we have received no external grants, although we have applied for almost a dozen. We have redefined how we look at funding. It is really through relationship building. We have developed a template of the key steps that each of our stakeholder groups goes through as it becomes more involved with the center. This approach has helped us start to systematize our communications. It also helps us to manage the timing, content, and tone of the communication. Furthermore, it creates a method to track the person’s involvement.

This process of ongoing evaluation, communication, and feedback also resulted in reorganizing the support staff position to focus less on arranging travel and planning events and more on marketing, speaking, and Web site management. To build on the momentum to date, as we enter the fourth year of the center (third year of teaching), we decided that more of the director’s time needs to be spent publishing, working with families, and talking with professionals. Thus, the support staff needs to start to take on most of the in-house duties of the director.

Also we have, in second year (and again in the third) won a $25,000 internal grant to fund the Gathering. This grant was awarded in the first year by the three deans of the university. The next year, the president awarded it. It is a grant for out-of-the-box thinking, a funding source created by the family of the largest donor in the university’s history a university trustee who is the former president of one of the largest family businesses in the United States, whose adult son sits on our internal board of advisers and whose grandson has taken a course in the family business minor.

As we enter the fourth year, the president has agreed with the dean’s requests that the support person’s salary be funded by the university budget. After three long years, the university now covers two of our biggest expenses. This funding not only helps from a financial perspective; it also shows the university’s commitment. Furthermore, it demonstrates that the university sees the value of the win-win opportunity. It would not be contributing these resources if it did not believe there would be a return on the investment. Finally, it is easier to ask other stakeholders to put up resources when they can see that the university already has made a sizable investment.

Summary. Assess the needs for resources and coordinate the contribution by stakeholders with the strategic plan, including the timing:

Determine and build consensus on who should fund what (for example, should the university fund the teaching or the research component?).
Work hard at cultivating win-win strategic alliances with Development, Admissions, and any outside sources.

Before concluding, there are some areas that warrant further research, which can be organized into two categories: those relating to the field of university-based centers in general and the experience of centers implementing the Holistic Model.

Regarding the field and the topics raised in this article in general, several questions arise: How many centers have strategic plans? Are they integrated with the university, known by stakeholders, and do they explicitly address the mix of teaching, research, and service?

Since the late 90s, has the number of centers changed and, if so, why? Have the economy and 9/11 had an impact on the number of centers? Given the economic downturn since 9-11, are centers that are primarily evaluated on short-term cash flow back to the university under an even greater threat? How many of the centers, especially among those that have begun in the last few years, are built on the foundation of teaching or research? Again, is there an apparent trend? The growth of the number of centers listed on the University of Illinois at Chicago Web site (www.uillinois. edu/home/index/html) seems to indicate that curriculum is becoming more prevalent at centers than in the past (DeMoss, 2002).

How do we begin to measure sustainability of centers, not only financially, but intellectually and as it relates to value created for the various stakeholders? How do the challenges and successes of the directors who are faculty and those who are staff compare? Do they correlate with which approach works best? With sustainability? With linking teaching and research to the outreach?

This article presents a broad conceptual viewpoint. As such, there are areas that warrant further research for universities that adopt the Holistic Model. Do the various stakeholders perceive the value in this approach? Are they more or less willing to commit time and other resources to such an approach? Do the stakeholders see the strategic plan and all of the efforts of the family business center as much more interdependent? If so, does this systems approach cost more in terms of processing decisions because more has to be factored in? Is it counter to the culture of the university itself? In brief: Does the Holistic Model deliver?

Two issues that Vinton (2002) and others raise are (a) Is the Holistic Model as applicable at a large public university? and (b) How does environment factor into the model? With respect to the first question, Vinton mentions that her university is AACSB accredited; so is ours. But the larger and perhaps more structured environment of a large and public institution may present a greater challenge to innovate, especially with respect to issues such as curriculum changes. This topic should be researched. More generally, what type of institution is best suited to adopt this approach? Can land grant universities adopt it with success? Can centers based on outreach?

I concur with adding the environment to the model. Subsequent to the publication of the book on the Holistic Model (McCann & Upton, 2000), we added sustainability to both the model and our strategic plan. I think that both ideas, the environment and sustainability, inform the need for research related to what factors empower a center to survive and thrive.

Continue to Part VII