Provide three examples of how ERM adoption and implementation may differ in the two environments. Be descriptive and throughly justify your rational.

Provided in the lecture I briefly discussed how for-profit and not for-profit institutions are similar, adding to the content in the chapter. List how ERM adoption and implementation in the higher education environment differ from the for-profit environment? Provide three examples of how ERM adoption and implementation may differ in the two environments. Be descriptive and throughly justify your rational.

ITS 835

Chapter 9

Lessons from the Academy: ERM Implementation in the

University Setting

Enterprise Risk Management

Professor Miguel Buleje


Higher education environment

ERM in higher education

Adopting ERM in Colleges and Universities

The University of Washington case study


Higher Education Environment

Generally considered “different” from enterprises

Non Profit different as for Profit.

No Target by legislation

Historically separate from targets of legislation

Often, success may lead to lack of risk management

Tendency to be little more relax on the risk management side of the house.

Multiple high-visibility scandals have shed light on HE

Scandals financial / student / faculty issues.

Many HEIs have migrated to more corporate ERM

Different HE cultures demand different ERM solutions


ERM in Higher Education

Recognition of institutional areas

Each encounters unique risks

Risks can include

Litigation settlements





Reputation damage

Will directly impact enrollment and donor participation

Adopting ERM in Colleges and Universities

Think tank in Higher Ed to discuss ERM


PricewaterhousCoopers (PWC)

National Assoc of College and Univ Bus Officers (NAUCUBO)


Definition of risk

Risk drivers in HE

Implementation of risk management to assess, manage, monitor


Proactively engage the campus community

University of Washington

Sentinel event

$35 million fine for Medicare and Medicaid overbilling

Push to implement ERM to improve compliance

UW is built on a decentralized governance model

Started with

Strategic Risk Initiative Review Committee (SRIRC)

Each initiative asked

Does this proposal add value?

What obstacles are apparent and how can they be addressed?

How can this proposal be improved?

University of Washington, cont’d.

Committee recommendation

Create a Culture-Specific ERM

Examined other HEIs

UW Evolution of ERM

UW ERM Structure

UW’s ERM Integrated Framework

UW’s ERM Process

UW’s Risk Assessment: Likelihood and Impact


Outcomes are consistent with guidance offered by

National Association of College and University Attorneys (NACUA)

NACUA eight critical factors

Establish the right vision and realistic plan

Obtain senior leadership buy0in and direction

Align with mission and strategic direction

Attack silos at the outset

Set objectives and performance indicators

Stay focused on results

Communicate vision and key outcomes

Develop a sustainable process versus a one-time project

“Get 15% discount on your first 3 orders with us”
Use the following coupon

Order Now