OC&C Case Competition

2015TEAM WARWICK

TEAM WARWICK 1

Our Process• Introduce data about

funding by sector.• Amalgamate this to

produce bubble graphs.Use these to select sectors that that provide a good combination of funding size and rate of increase.

Bubble Graphs by Sector

•Analyze the external environment that the selected sectorsoperate in to assess feasibility of strategy.

PESTLEAnalysis •Now, make use of

ratios to gauge how financially efficient it is to pursue the selected sectors.

Input-OutputAnalysis

TEAM WARWICK

How do we approach potential donors?

Further Narrowing

2

How do we approach new

donors?

How do retain old donors?

Here’s what we found about funding by sector.

Funding (in Millions of £) by Sector Per Time Period

Time Period Corporates Trusts Donors University Statutory Other

April 2007 - March 2008 0.01 0.6 0.12 0 0 0.13

April 2008 - March 2009 0.2 0.6 0.12 0 0 0.13

April 2009 - March 2010 0.1 0.8 0.12 0 0 0.05

April 2010 - March 2011 0.6 0.5 0.4 0 0 0.13

April 2011 - March 2012 0.57 0.68 0.34 0.15 0 0.05

April 2012 - March 2013 1 1.18 0.77 0.58 0.14 0

September 2013 -August 2014 0.95 1.13 0.35 0.61 0.19 0

September 2014 -August 2015 0.75 1.25 0.83 0.95 0.55 0

TEAM WARWICK

Rates of Increase in Funding by Sector Per Time Period

Time Period Corporates Trusts Donors University Statutory Other

April 2007 -March 2008 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

April 2008 -March 2009 1900% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

April 2009 -March 2010 -50% 33% 0% 0% 0% -62%

April 2010 -March 2011 500% -38% 233% 0% 0% 160%

April 2011 -March 2012 -5% 36% -15% 0% 0% -62%

April 2012 -March 2013 75% 74% 126% 287% 0% -100%

September 2013 - August

2014-5% -4% -55% 5% 36% 0%

September 2014 - August

2015-21% 11% 137% 56% 189% 0%

3

TEAM WARWICK

-1000.0%

0.0%

1000.0%

2000.0%

3000.0%

2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Corporates

-100.0%

-50.0%

0.0%

50.0%

100.0%

2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Trusts

-200.0%

-100.0%

0.0%

100.0%

200.0%

300.0%

2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Donors

-100.0%

0.0%

100.0%

200.0%

300.0%

2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Statutory

-100.0%

0.0%

100.0%

200.0%

300.0%

2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Other

-1

0

1

2

3

4

2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Universities

4

TEAM WARWICK

-100.0%

-50.0%

0.0%

50.0%

100.0%

2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Trusts

-200.0%

-100.0%

0.0%

100.0%

200.0%

300.0%

2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Donors

-100.0%

0.0%

100.0%

200.0%

300.0%

2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Statutory

The x-axis represents the time period, the y-axis represents the rates of increase in funding and the size of the bubble represents the amount of funding.

The bubble graphs of the most desirable sectors must ideally contain bubbles in the upper right area of the graph and be of a larger size.

Based on the abovementioned and the bubble graphs presented, we narrow our targeted sectors to Donors, Trusts and Statutory.

Now, let’s have a look at the sectors we have narrowed down to.

5

A PESTEL Analysis of the targeted sectors was conducted. Significant aspects are depicted below.

TEAM WARWICK

TRUSTSECONOMIC

(+) Benefits from strategic grants of a million pounds or

more from trusts and private equity funds.

SOCIAL(+) Alignment of goals - Sharing the same vision

of contributing to society through helping youth. Some examples include Impetus - PEF,

The Queen's Trust and the DHL UK Foundation.

DONORS (Corporate Partners and

Foundations) – 9 of these are High or

High+

ECONOMIC(+) Significant growth - Donations more than doubled between 2013-

14 and 2014-2015, especially during worldwide economic

decline, showing their commitment to IntoUniversity.

(-) Worldwide economic downturn has resulted in a decline in revenue for these financial organizations.

SOCIAL(+) The demand for higher education continues

to grow as the aspiration to achieve higher paying job roles spreads through society.(+) Most donors are financial corporate

foundations that struggle to differentiate themselves from their competitors. Donating

to IntoUniversity allows them to engage in CSR. STATUTORY

ECONOMIC(+) Itisoneofthemostimportantsourcesofincomeforvoluntary

andcommunitygroups.

LEGAL(-) Policies are constantly changing in line with changes in government

policy, so it is relatively unpredictable. Administration is by a variety of agencies, not always local authorities, and this makes it quite hard to find out about all the

statutory money that might be appropriate.

6

Let’s now look at the Input-Output Analysis.

TEAM WARWICK

To compute the Ratio, we need the operational costs for each sector. The figures can then be divided by the amount of the funding raised for each sector.

The bigger the ratio, the better.

However, the data available in the financial statements that were offered to us is insufficient. We need more data to further proceed with this Analysis.

7

What sectors would we recommend IntoUniversityfocuses on?

TEAM WARWICK 8

Based on the aforementioned, Team Warwick recommends that IntoUniversity focuses on Donors and Trusts.

The Statutory sector is eliminated because of the uncertainties regarding supply of funding, as mentioned in the Legal aspect of the PESTEL Analysis.

How should IntoUniversityapproach potential donors?

TEAM WARWICK 9

IntoUniversity must set up meetings with leadership or front-line staff of potential donors and address the following issues. Extensive research about the donor must be conducted in advance and this should be interpreted accurately and at the right time.

What are the firms CSR policies? What other charities and causes

does it support or wish to support?

It is useful to work out their motivations and match these with IntoUniversity’s offerings.

Does the firm wish to offer money or

expertise or both?

Options should be presented to the donor with regard to how they

would like to be recognized for their

donation.

Similarly, a choice must be offered as to how they want

the progress of IntoUniversity’s operations

and the impact of their donations to be

communicated to them.

Fundraisers must clearly communicate that the ask is an invitation to work with IntoUniversity to a achieve a shared

goal and donors are partners who share pride in what IntoUniversity achieves.

Donors must feel ownership of the organization’s mission and will expect an inside track into future plans, goals,

achievements and challenges.

Let’s see how IntoUniversity can convert one-time donors into long-term donors.

TEAM WARWICK 10

Retaining Donors

Research to Increase Involvement Level

History of donations: frequency, size, potential

plans

Donor’s culture: Mission Statement, motivations for

donating, company communication culture

Building Contacts with the Decision Makers

Regular events, dinners and coffees with donors,

accompanied by feedback and future plans that are

mutually beneficial.

Fundraisers should bear in mind this model while influencing potential donors.

TEAM WARWICK 11

PASSION

Fundraisersmust be

passionate about the

cause.

PROPOSAL

Problems must be defined and

solutions suggested.

PREPARATION

A range of outcomes in

order of priority must be

considered.

PERSUASION

Rapport must be built – language, mannerisms and

perspective (donor’s point of

view).

PERSISTANCE

Fundraisersmust be

intelligently flexible.