Bestyrelsen. Revideret budgetoversigt 2011-13

Agenda BiS Platforms, workshop in Academic Council, Tuesday April 5th 2011, 9:00-11:00, Kilen, K 1.53. Introduction 09:00-09:15 Introduction and Briefing from the Board Meeting 09:15-09:45 The budget for 2011 BiS Platforms. Preliminary Discussion. 09:45-10:10 What is a BiS Platform? 10:10-10:35 Current BiS activities Where are we with the first 2/3 platforms? 10:35-11:00 How do we select future BiS Platforms? The discussion of the BiS Platforms will be continued at a meeting in early May. Appendices: Budget for 2011 BiS Platform Draft Proposal (Elisabeth Crone & Mette Morsing) List of Grand Challenges etc from recommendations from strategy work group 1 and 6 Criteria of platforms (slide with criteria from the strategy process) Role of the Academic Council in relation to BiS Platforms

B1-2011 Pkt. 4 Bilag 4.3 N O T A T Bestyrelsen Revideret budgetoversigt 2011-13 Hermed et revideret 3-års budget for CBS på basis af de kendte indtægtsforudsætninger, aktivitetsprognoser, de indrapporterede budgetter for 2011 og de centrale fremskrivninger af løn- og driftsomkostninger for de øvrige år (2014 inkluderes ved B4-okt-2011). 10. marts 2011 Leadership Team Notatet indeholder: 1. budgettet for implementering af CBS' strategi og øvrige investeringer; 2. en oversigt over de budgetterede indtægter og udgifter for 2011-2013 sammenlignet med de foregående års regnskaber og det forventede regnskab for 2010. Grundlaget for indtægterne i 3-års budgettet er Finanslovsaftalerne for 2011, inkl. Budget-Overslagsår (BO-år), egne aktivitetsprognoser for daguddannelser og HD/Master samt budgettet for ekstern funding. Grundlaget for lønbudgettering er den aftalte vækst i VIP-niveau i 2011 samt en yderligere VIP-vækst finansieret af BiS-platformene. DVIP-lønudgiften forudsættes at vokse proportionalt med den forventede vækst i aktivitet på Uddannelses- og HD/Masterområderne. På TAP-løn er der indbudgetteret de aftalte besparelser på 6 og 21 mio. kr. i 2011 og 2012 ift. niveauet i 2010. Grundlaget for driftsomkostningerne er en vækst i husleje og ejendomsskatter samt bygningsdrift og -vedligehold svarende til Campus planens prognose. Konsulentudgifter, rejser/konferencer samt øvrige driftsomkostninger forventes at vokse med finansiering fra en række strategiske initiativer, herunder BiS-platforme samt udvikling af Information and Communication Technology (ICT). Der er endvidere indbudgetteret indkøbsbesparelserne på hhv.5 mio. kr. i 2011 og 10 mio. kr. i 2012. Bygningsafskrivninger følger prognosen for Campus planen, og de øvrige afskrivninger reduceres væsentligt ultimo 2012, i kraft af bestyrelsens beslutning i juni om at ændre værdisætningen af de immaterielle aktiver, således at IT-projekter så vidt muligt driftsføres. 1. Budget for implementering af CBS' strategi Budgettet for de strategiske initiativer i 2011-2013 er lettere revideret og kan ses i tabel 1 nedenfor. Herudover anvendes også alm. løn- og driftsmidler til strategien. Fx afsættes

fra 2012 et fast beløb pr. TAP-medarbejder til kompetenceudvikling. Der er ikke indregnet evt. indtægter i medfør af strategien, jf. særskilt papir. Tabel 1: Finansiering af CBS' strategi Mio. kr. - 2011 prisniveau B-2011 FFL-11 B-2012 FFL-11 BO1 B-2013 FFL-11 BO2 BiS-initiativer 20,0 30,0 10,0 Uallokeret til strategiformål 20,0 Udvikling af strategiske alliancer 1,0 1,0 1,0 Kommunikationsindsats 0,8 0,8 0,8 Copenhagen Innovation and Entrepreneurship Lab (CIEL) 3,3 3,3 3,3 Information and Communication Technology (ICT)-initiativer 4,0 4,0 4,0 Campus-udvikling, flytninger, ny adm. organisering 6,0 EngAGE 1) 0,0 0,0 0,0 LT Investment Fund 7,0 7,0 7,0 Fundraising (konsulenter og events) 0,8 0,8 0,8 Studieområdet-analyse 1,0 1,0 1,0 I alt - strategi formål 43,8 47,8 47,8 1) EngAGE skal på sigt hvile i sig selv, men vil de to første år have et underskud. Siden bestyrelsesmødet i december, har LT foreslået temaer for de to næste BiSplatforme. Der henvises til et særskilt notat herom i det øvrige materiale. Endvidere er forslaget om at etablere en Vice President trukket tilbage, og i stedet foreslås en række de ansvarsområder, der var tiltænkt den nye Vice President, placeret med reference til universitetsdirektøren og dekaner. Budgettet til Campus-udvikling (udgifter til arkitektkonkurrence mv., jvf. oplæg på næste bestyrelsesmødet) samt udgifter til etablering af den nye administrative organisation er slået sammen i en budgetpost med et budget på 6 mio. kr. i 2011 samt et mindre afløb på 1 mio. kr. i årene 2012 og 2013. Der foreslås etableret en "LT Investment Fund". Forslaget til kriterier for tildeling er: Større forsknings- og uddannelsesaktiviteter, fx konferencer, samt i mindre omfang almennyttige aktiviteter på CBS, som understøtter CBS strategi. Bevillingerne er 1-årige og kan ikke videreføres til næste år. Der tildeles ikke beløb på under 100.000 kr. De modtagne enheder er budgetansvarlige efter tildeling af bevilling. Midlerne kan ikke anvendes til at ansætte TAP. Endelig foreslår LT, at der af strategimidlerne i 2011 afsættes 1 mio. kr. til analyse af studieområdet, jf. den af bestyrelsen tiltrådte tidsplan for den administrative reorganisering. Ud over de strategiske initiativer foreslår LT at CBS sætter penge af i budgettet til den tidligere vedtagne fornyelse af det studieadministrative system, til løbende forbedring af 2

de administrative systemer og til nødvendige Campus-vedligeholdelsesopgaver. Endelig indgår fornyelsen af cbs.dk og udvikling af et alumni-system også i budgettet. Tabel 2: CBS' investeringer i øvrigt Mio. kr. - 2011 prisniveau B-2011 FFL-11 B-2012 FFL-11 BO1 B-2013 FFL-11 BO2 Nyt studieadministrativt system 10,0 10,0 8,0 Ramme til administrative systemer 4,0 4,0 4,0 Ramme til Campus-vedligeholdelse 3,0 3,0 3,0 Nyt cbs.dk 3,0 Alumni-system 1,0 I alt - investeringsbudget 21,0 17,0 15,0 2. Budget for CBS 2011-2013 Til sammenligning er anført regnskabstallene for 2008-2010 i løbende priser. Budgetterne for 2011-2013 er i 2011-prisniveau. I 2013 er der vist to scenarier for udmøntninger fra globaliseringsmidler og omstillingsreserven i 2013: ét hvor de taxameterløft, der blev besluttet som led i FL-2010, er rullet helt tilbage (inkl. årlige 2 pct. besparelser på taksterne) og et andet, hvor taxameterløftet fastholdes (men hvor de årlige 2 pct. besparelser er gennemført), samt hvor CBS' andel af de hidtidigt udmøntede basismidler på 40 mio. kr. fra globaliseringspuljen er videreført. Tabel 3: Budget/resultatprognose for CBS 2011-13 3

Resultatopgørelse/Prognose 2008 2009 Løbende priser 2010 B-2011 BO-2012 P/L-2011 BO-2013 BO-2013 Ex. Taxa + glob. Driftsindtægter Statstilskud direkte til CBS 714.499.847 810.093.660 854.912.024 882.440.827 849.484.785 847.059.986 759.457.066 Statstilskud søgt i konkurrence 58.382.653 61.016.379 59.087.056 59.677.927 59.677.927 59.677.927 59.677.927 Tilskud fra private og andre ikke statslige enheder 46.111.258 49.593.282 48.529.850 39.015.149 39.015.149 39.015.149 39.015.149 Studerendes deltagerbetalinger 107.931.973 123.064.291 137.967.449 144.333.803 133.472.202 139.358.963 139.358.963 Øvrige indtægter 68.395.510 81.104.197 91.277.051 83.425.212 83.425.212 83.425.212 83.425.212 Driftsindtægter ialt 995.321.240 1.124.871.809 1.191.773.431 1.208.892.917 1.165.075.275 1.168.537.237 1.080.934.316 Lønomkostninger VIP-løn 271.254.000 300.168.000 333.552.973 364.888.503 373.388.503 373.388.503 373.388.503 DVIP-løn 81.943.000 83.343.000 88.309.048 93.121.384 94.542.412 95.088.347 95.088.347 TAP-løn 242.007.000 293.730.000 298.649.675 292.649.675 277.649.675 277.649.675 277.649.675 Andre lønomkostninger 8.013.000 10.670.000 18.771.879 3.617.744-609.477 65.512 65.512 Lønomkostninger i alt 603.216.264 687.908.712 739.283.574 754.277.305 744.971.113 746.192.037 746.192.037 Driftsomkostninger Husleje og ejendomsskatter 78.612.905 94.120.957 96.581.181 95.970.939 96.820.012 97.742.178 97.742.178 Bygningsdrift og -vedligeholdelse ialt 42.321.413 47.265.531 40.312.523 40.715.648 39.715.648 39.715.648 39.715.648 Andre driftsomkostninger Konferencer og tjenesterejser 37.831.237 40.378.971 39.371.102 47.764.813 42.764.813 42.764.813 42.764.813 Konsulentanvendelse (inc advokat og revision) 38.177.359 41.877.160 50.520.742 71.525.949 65.525.949 64.525.949 64.525.949 Øvrige driftsomkostninger 124.575.207 123.214.714 137.689.300 142.977.251 131.418.482 128.418.482 128.418.482 Andre driftsomkostninger ialt 200.583.804 205.470.845 227.581.144 262.268.013 239.709.244 235.709.244 235.709.244 Driftsomkostninger ialt 924.734.386 1.034.766.045 1.103.758.422 1.153.231.906 1.121.216.017 1.119.359.108 1.119.359.108 Resultat før afskrivninger & finansielle poster 70.586.854 90.105.765 88.015.008 55.661.011 43.859.258 49.178.128-38.424.792 Af- og nedskrivninger på bygninger 14.529.110 15.288.117 17.221.732 17.761.011 17.761.011 17.761.011 17.761.011 Af- og nedskrivninger på anlæg ekskl. bygninger 1.834.748 5.221.815 7.282.701 5.200.000 5.200.000 1.200.000 1.200.000 Resultat før finansielle poster 54.222.996 69.595.833 63.510.576 32.700.000 20.898.247 30.217.117-57.385.803 Renteindtægter 8.869.413 2.657.970 1.202.329 2.000.000 3.000.000 3.000.000 3.000.000 Finansielle omkostninger 36.478.122 36.529.336 35.137.411 34.700.000 34.500.000 34.300.000 34.300.000 Resultat 26.614.287 35.724.467 29.575.494 0-10.601.753-1.082.883-88.685.803 Siden forelæggelsen for bestyrelsen af primobudgettet for 2011 på decembermødet har CBS fået resultatet af de endelige Finanslovsaftaler for 2011. Ift. vores hidtidige forventninger betyder dette mindre justeringer i 2011 (+3,4 mio. kr.) og 2013 (-0,4 mio. kr.), men en stor reduktion i 2012 (-14,3 mio. kr.). Dette skyldes primært den annoncerede finansiering af universiteternes samlede merproduktion af STÅ ved reduktioner af bevillingerne til øvrige formål.: +3 mio. kr. i 2011 og -14 mio. kr. i 2012. I 2011 er de ekstra 3,4 mio. kr. tilført institutterne. Prognosen for ekstern finansiering fra private og andre ikke-statslige er reduceret på baggrund af resultatet for 2010. Den særlige indtægtsføring af projektmidler (11,5 mio. kr.) som følge af oprydningen i de eksterne projekter i 2010 blev bogført under "Private og andre ikke-statslige tilskud", hvorfor årets reelle resultat er 11,5 mio. kr. dårligere end det viste, jf. særskilt notat om regnskab 2010/budget 2011. Deltagerbetalinger på HD/Master er forøget i 2011 ift. 2010 på baggrund af den forventede effekt af væksten i MPG-programmet. Fra og med 2012 bortfalder statsstøtten til dette program, hvorefter omsætningen på HD/Master forventes at falde. Til gengæld forventes vækst i E-MBA og HD-programmerne i 2012 og 2013, hvilket vil medføre en stigning i omsætningen fra 2012 til 2013. Budgetposten "Øvrige indtægter" omfatter en lang række indtægtsdækkede aktiviteter, herunder udlejning af boliger til internationale studerende og forskere (ca. 30 mio. kr.), institutter og centres indtægter fra egne konferencer og seminarer (ca. 20 mio. kr.), egentlig indtægtsdækket virksomhed (ca. 8 mio. kr.), opkrævninger for supplerende aktiviteter på Master-uddannelserne (ca. 8 mio. kr.), indtægter fra Corporate Partners (ca. 4

4 mio. kr.) og en lang række mindre indtægtsposter. Niveauet for disse aktiviteter varierer meget, særligt som følge af fluktuationer i institutter og centres egne indtægtsdækkede aktiviteter over årene. Niveauet for denne post er fremadrettet skønnet på baggrund af resultatet for 2009 og 2010. I budgettet for lønomkostninger er VIP-løn er opjusteret svarende til prognosen fra Forskningsdekanen samt et forventet fuldt afløb af VIP-lønudgifter på BiS-platformene. Løn til DVIP er opjusteret på baggrund af den forventede aktivitetsforøgelse på daguddannelser, HD og Masterprogrammerne. Endelig er TAP-løn er nedjusteret hhv. 6 og 21 mio. kr. Husleje og ejendomsskatter følger de centrale prognoser, dog er der ikke indregnet effekt af overførsel af CBS' kollegie- og gæsteboligdrift til boligfonden, jf.særskilt materiale om denne sag. Konferencer og tjenesterejser er budgetteret på baggrund af niveauet i 2010 med tillæg af de forventede udgifter fra de strategiske initiativer og fratrukket de forventede indkøbsbesparelser. I 2011 ses et højere niveau end i 2012 og 2013, fordi der budgetteres med et 0-budget i 2011. På samme måde er konsulentydelser budgetteret med udgangspunktet i niveauet for 2010 + ca. 8 mio. kr., der som følge af den ændrede regnskabspraksis vedr. immaterielle aktiver flyttes fra investeringsbudgettet til driftsbudgettet. Endelig er der regnet med udgifter til ICT på 8,5 mio. kr., heraf 4 mio. kr. fra strategipuljen, og også her forventes besparelser på indkøb. Også på dette område er det højere niveau i 2011 en konsekvens af, at CBS budgetterer med et nul-budget. Øvrige driftsomkostninger er også for 2012-13 budgetteret med udgangspunkt i niveauet for 2010, dog fratrukket de ca. 12 mio. kr. i hensættelser til afskedigelsesrunden, tilbagebetalinger til EU-kommissionen mv., der påvirkede 2010-regnskabet, jf. særskilt notat om regnskab 2010/budget 2011. Dertil kommer merudgifter som følge af implementeringen af strategien samt indkøbsbesparelser. I 2011 ses ekstra omkostninger, idet der budgetteres med et nul-budget. Af- og nedskrivninger på bygninger følger prognosen. Øvrige afskrivninger er nedjusteret til 1,2 mio. kr. fra og med 2013 som følge af indførsel af størst mulig driftsføring af ITprojekter. Hovedparten af de eksisterende immaterielle aktiver vil være fuldt afskrevet ved udgangen af 2012. Renteindtægter er nedjusteret fra 3 mio. kr. til 2 mio. kr. i 2011, men fastholdes på 3 mio. kr. i 2012 og 2013 pga. den forventede gode likviditet og et forventet højere renteniveau. 3. Indstilling Det indstilles, at bestyrelsen tager den reviderede 3-års oversigt til efterretning. Leadership Team vil fremover forelægge en revideret 3-årsoversigt til hvert bestyrelsesmøde som en orienteringssag. Nedenfor er der indsat nogle baseline indikatorer for årsværk og lønomkostninger, som anvendes i forbindelse med evalueringen af den finansielle udvikling de kommende år. Tabel 4: Baseline for årsværk og lønomkostninger Baseline Resultat 2010 5

Årsværk VIP 557 DVIP 208 TAP 663 Lønomkostninger, kr. VIP 333.553.000 DVIP 88.309.000 TAP 298.650.000 Det bemærkes, at de kvantitative indikatorer vedr. evaluering af strategien ikke længere indgår i treårsbudgettet, men er flyttet til det særskilte oplæg vedr. en administration baseret på best in class. Venlig hilsen Leadership Team 6

B1-2011 Pkt. 4 Bilag 4.1 Eftersendt Bestyrelsen CBS' regnskab for 2010 og budgettet for 2011 Dette notat indeholder: 1. en oversigt over det foreløbige regnskab for CBS i 2010 med indtægter og omkostninger fordelt på hovedområder; 2. en oversigt over fordelingen af indtægtsrammer for 2011 fordelt på hoved- og en række underområder. 14.marts 2011 Direktionen Et bilag med en opgørelse af den foreløbige formålsfordeling af regnskabet for 2010 sammenlignet med den tilsvarende for 2009 samt en prognose for formålsfordelingen i 2011 pba. af 2010 eftersendes medio uge 11. Dette har ikke kunne udarbejdes før, da det fordrer en detaljeret gennemgang af 2010- regnskabet (4000 budgetlinier med fordelingsnøgler). Denne proces kan systemunderstøttes med det nye budgetsystem Prophix, jf. nedenfor. 1. CBS' regnskabsresultat for 2010 Regnskabet er i skrivende stund ved at blive gennemgået af CBS' institutionsrevisor, så denne redegørelse er med forbehold for resultatet af revisionen. Samlet opnåede CBS et resultat på 29,6 mio. kr. i 2010. Ved udgangen af oktober 2010, regnedes med et overskud på 5,0 mio. kr. Det øgede overskud skyldes primært manglende decentral registrering af kommende indtægter i budgetopfølgningerne, mens udgiftsstyringen ift. de budgetterede indtægter var mindre kritisabel, jf. nedenfor. Der er tale om en temmelig stor afvigelse fra den seneste prognose, hvilket direktionen ikke finder acceptabelt. Vi har derfor anmodet Deloitte om at hjælpe os i gennem 2011 med at gennemgå CBS' budgetopfølgning, controlling og prognosearbejde mhp. at opnå en større præcision i prognoserne for årets resultat fremadrettet, jf. særskilt oplæg. Den systemtekniske forudsætning herfor er nu til stede med indførelsen af Navision og det nye budgetteringssystem Prophix (foråret 2011). Endvidere oprettes i 2011 en tværgående økonomisupport, som skal servicere alle enheder. Det noget bedre regnskabsresultat end forventet har to hovedforklaringer: 1. Institutterne opnåede et væsentligt bedre resultat end forventet ved Q3. Således kom institutterne samlet ud af 2010 med et resultat, der var 18 mio.

kr. bedre end prognosen ved Q3. Hovedforklaringerne på dette er, at en gruppe af institutter ikke havde budgetteret alle indtægter korrekt i løbet af 2010. Institutterne holdt imidlertid deres udgiftsprognoser for både løn og drift. 2. Renteudgifterne på CBS' bygninger blev overestimeret (med ca. 5 mio. kr.). Således var både indkøb af byggeret på Metro-forpladsen og interne renter på likviditetstrækket til ombygningen af Råvarebygningen fejlagtigt medregnet som budgetterede udgifter i 2010. Derudover er der følgende særlige forhold, som direktionen vil henlede bestyrelsens opmærksomhed på: 1. Bestyrelsen bad på mødet i juni 2010 om, at CBS anlagde en mere konservativ vurdering i værdisætningen af nye IT-systemer, således at mest mulig bliver driftsført. Derfor har CBS i samarbejde med revisor justeret CBS' procedure fsva. værdisætningen af immaterielle aktiver. Dette vil få virkning for de fremadrettede investeringer i immaterielle aktiver, f.eks. ITsystemer, som i højere grad vil belaste resultatopgørelsen og i mindre grad CBS' balance som aktiver. Der er i februar 2011 meldt en prognose ud i organisationen for årsresultatet 2011 på ca. 15 mio. kr. med forbehold for revisionen. En hovedforskel mellem dette resultat og det nye forventede resultat på ca. 29 mio. kr. er, at økonomifunktionen misforstod revisionen, som efterfølgende har præciseret, at CBS ikke hensigtsmæssigt kan nedskrive allerede ibrugtagne aktiver efter det nye princip, men at det kun bør omfatte de IT-systemer, der tages i brug efter beslutningen om det nye værdisætningsprincip. 2. CBS har i forbindelse med den varslede afskedigelsesrunde hensat 8,7 mio. kr. i regnskabet for 2010 til primært løn i fritstillingsperioder samt i 2. række fratrædelsesbeløb, outplacement-forløb og kompetenceudvikling for det antal medarbejdere, der forventes afskediget. 3. Endelig har CBS hensat et beløb på 2,6 mio. kr. i 2010-regnskabet til det tidligere omtalte krav samt forventede yderligere krav fra EU-kommissionen vedr. et antal EU-projekter ved CBS, der blev afsluttet i 2008 - og som blev undersøgt af EU's bedragerienhed samme år. Det samlede resultat af det foreløbige regnskab for CBS, hvor indtægter og omkostninger er fordelt på hovedområder fremgår af tabel 1. Der tages forbehold for revisionen og den igangværende proces med hovedområdernes regnskabsforklaringer både mht. det samlede resultat og fordelingen på hovedområder. 2

Tabel 1, CBS' regnskabsresultat for 2010 Resultatopgørelse CBS STEDHIERAKI Forskning Uddannelse HD/Master Rektor Shared Services Bibliotek CAMPUS CBS - I alt Driftsindtægter Statstilskud direkte til CBS 277.441.976 240.524.516 23.064.338 9.791.733 90.710.379 38.293.682 175.085.400 854.912.024 Statstilskud søgt i konkurrence 57.577.924 743.584 670.395 95.154 59.087.056 Tilskud fra private og udenlandske 41.417.629 636.648 730.627 5.657.491 87.454 48.529.850 Studerendes deltagerbetalinger 5.841.828 130.936.484 1.189.138 137.967.449 Øvrige indtægter 27.632.510 2.056.143 8.052.918 3.221.825 49.166.361 709.105 438.188 91.277.051 Driftsindtægter i alt 404.070.039 249.802.718 162.784.368 13.013.558 147.393.764 39.185.395 175.523.588 1.191.773.431 Driftsomkostninger VIP-løn 212.965.796 96.932.733 17.428.440 1.014.317 5.039.947 171.740 0 333.552.973 DVIP-løn 1.888.117 60.119.940 23.557.323 15.000 2.728.668 0 0 88.309.048 TAP-løn 78.376.155 49.983.659 19.907.327 770.815 107.571.489 27.464.352 14.575.878 298.649.675 Andre lønomkostninger 1.259.352 3.194.255 0 12.230.659 2.087.613 0 0 18.771.879 Lønomkostninger i alt 294.489.420 210.230.587 60.893.090 14.030.792 117.427.717 27.636.091 14.575.878 739.283.574 Husleje og ejendomsskatter 264.137 722.137 22.568 24.931.935 70.640.405 96.581.181 Bygningsdrift og -vedligeholdelse i alt 47.830 7.200 425.087 39.832.406 40.312.523 Andre driftsomkostninger Konferencer og tjenesterejser 23.682.585 2.593.100 4.491.986 174.723 7.391.418 530.152 507.138 39.371.102 Konsulentanvendelse 10.049.763 4.740.239 7.790.822 595.777 25.489.421 49.977 1.804.743 50.520.742 Øvrige driftsomkostninger 50.219.577 10.063.586 75.834.284 13.594.955-18.888.004 11.134.283-4.269.381 137.689.300 Andre driftsomkostninger i alt 83.951.926 17.396.925 88.117.091 14.365.454 13.992.835 11.714.412-1.957.500 227.581.144 Driftsomkostninger i alt 378.753.312 228.356.848 149.032.749 28.396.246 156.777.574 39.350.503 123.091.190 1.103.758.422 Resultat før afskrivninger & fin. poster 25.316.728 21.445.870 13.751.619-15.382.688-9.383.810-165.108 52.432.398 88.015.008 Af- og nedskrivninger på bygninger 17.221.732 17.221.732 Af- og nedskr. på anlæg ekskl. bygninger 7.282.701 7.282.701 Resultat før finansielle poster 25.316.728 21.445.870 13.751.619-15.382.688-16.666.511-165.108 35.210.666 63.510.576 Renteindtægter 1.202.329 1.202.329 Finansielle omkostninger 615 14.677 35.122.120 35.137.411 Resultat 25.316.113 21.445.870 13.751.619-15.382.688-15.478.858-165.108 88.546 29.575.494 Ud over de positive resultater på Forskning, Uddannelse og HD/Master tegner både Rektor og Shared Central Services sig for underskud på hver ca. 15 mio. kr. For rektors område drejer det sig om de førnævnte hensættelser til afskedigelser og tilbagebetaling af EU-midler samt ca. 10 mio. kr. i forøget feriepengeforpligtelse, som regnskabsteknisk er placeret under rektor. For Shared Central Services skyldes det store underskud en dårlig økonomi på kollegieområdet på Det Internationale Kontor i kraft af huslejenævnets afgørelser, jf. særskilt notat, en ekstraordinær udgift til McKinsey på 4 mio. kr. ifm. foranalysen for den administrative organisation og "nedskrivninger" af værdien af igangværende arbejder på IT-systemer som følge af det ændrede værdisætningsprincip. De "øvrige indtægter", der ligger på Rektors område, er indtægter fra Corporate Partners samt bidrag til implementering af strategien fra Nimbs Fond (1 mio. kr.). 3

De 670.395 kr., der er indtægtsført hos Shared Central Services under "Statslige tilskud, søgt i konkurrence" er bevillinger fra Statens Center for Kompetence- og Kvalitetsudvikling (SCKK) og Kompetencefonden. Af de ca. 5,7 mio. kr. i tilskud fra private og EU er hovedparten EU-finansierede programmer på det internationale kontor (ca. 4,5 mio. kr.), f.eks. ERASMUS. Dertil kommer enkelte tilskud til projekter i Learning Lab. Posten "Øvrige indtægter" under Shared Central Services omfatter huslejeindbetalinger fra internationale studerende og forskere (ca. 30 mio. kr.), indbetalinger fra IT-Universitetet for CBS' andel af E-Business uddannelsen (6,7 mio. kr.), indtægter fra Laguage Center (2,3 mio. kr.), indbetalinger fra Corporate Partners (1,5 mio. kr.), indtægter for samarbejde om IT på tværs af universiteter (E-valgsystemet, ca. 1,4 mio. kr.) og en lang række mindre indtægtsposter. Endelig er de negative udgiftsposter under "Øvrige driftsomkostninger" under Shared Central Services og Campus overførsler af overheadmidler fra andre områder og bidrag fra HD/Master programmerne, som bliver regnskabsført som intern handel på en udgiftskonto. Som bilag 1 er vedhæftet detaljerede regnskaber for Forskningsområdet, hvor institutters og centres regnskaber er lagt ind i den nye institutstruktur, hvor hovedparten af centrene hører under et institut. I bilag 2 er der en tilsvarende specifikation for Uddannelsesområdet og HD/Master lagt sammen. Regnskabet vil blive behandlet udførligt på næste bestyrelsesmøde. 2. Budgettet for 2011, fordelt på hovedområder CBS nuværende budgetteringsmodel er baseret på en overvejende historisk fordeling mellem hovedområderne justeret for konkrete forhold. Der arbejdes frem mod en mere aktivitetsbaseret model, jf. særskilt papir om CBS økonomistyring. CBS' nuværende budgetmodel består af følgende trin: - et historisk udgangspunkt korrigeret for organisationsændringer; - en besparelse til finansiering af centrale initiativer; - beslutninger om midlertidige eller varige allokeringer til konkrete formål. Således er visse udgifter såsom udgifter til Campus-faciliteter (husleje og prioritetsrenter) givet af tidligere års beslutninger. HD/Master-området betaler et fast bidrag til CBS af områdets samlede omsætning i stedet for at modtage en grundbevilling som øvrige områder. Siden forelæggelsen for bestyrelsen af primobudgettet for 2011 på decembermødet har CBS fået resultatet af de endelige Finanslovsaftaler for 2011. Ift. vores hidtidige forventninger betyder en mindre justering i 2011 (+3,4 mio. kr.), jf. treårsbudgettet. Ekstraindtægten i 2011 på 3,4 mio. kr. foreslår direktionen tilført institutterne til medfinansiering af forskningsprojekter mv. 4

Nedenfor opdateres den fordeling af indtægtsrammen på hovedområder for 2011, som bestyrelsen blev præsenteret for på decembermødet. Der sammenlignes med tidligere års primobudgetter. Primorammerne vises før den interne handel mellem hovedområderne. I løbet af året finder der en del transaktioner sted mellem hovedområderne, f.eks. Uddannelsesområdet og HD/Masters køb af VIP og eksterne lektorer af Forskningsområdet og Uddannelsesområdets køb af undervisningsadministration og studiesekretariatsbistand af institutter under Forskningsområdet. Tabel 2, Fordeling af indtægtsrammer på hovedområder 2008-2011 (mio. kr.) FL-2008 B 2008-akt. FL-2009 B 2009-akt. FL-2010 B 2010-akt. FL-2011 B 2011-akt. P/L 2011 P/L 2011 P/L 2011 P/L 2011 CBS-hovedområder: Forskning 345,823 344,852 382,578 372,296 - CBS-grundbevilling 230,049 220,130 241,266 243,026 - særlige forskningsbev. 6,367 7,323 3,556 9,022 - eksternt fin. Forskning 79,913 87,905 106,338 85,693 - andre tilskud 4,843 4,843 8,221 7,800 - øvrige indtægter 24,650 24,650 23,196 26,755 Uddannelse 211,942 236,026 274,590 291,701 - CBS-grundbevilling 207,769 231,743 265,704 279,202 - deltagerbetalinger 2,267 2,377 2,544 2,979 - fripladser og stipendier 4,550 5,969 - elitetaxameter 1,482 - øvrige indtægter 1,906 1,906 1,793 2,069 Master- og HD-programmer 86,872 96,819 101,534 105,759 - deltagerbetalinger 106,668 121,602 127,436 141,355 - taxametre 18,149 20,559 20,451 16,816 - bidrag intern handel -42,760-50,157-50,883-56,351 - aconto indkøbs- og TAP besparelse -1,286 - øvrige indtægter 4,815 4,815 4,531 5,226 CBS-Bibliotek 38,976 38,846 37,648 36,143 - CBS-grundbevilling 38,549 38,420 37,246 35,680 - øvrige indtægter 0,427 0,427 0,401 0,463 Rektor 20,465 18,979 18,342 47,306 - strategiske initiativer 0,000 0,000 16,176 36,689 - LT-Investment fund 7,000 - øvrige rektor 20,465 18,979 2,166 3,618 Shared Central Services 158,081 169,819 177,384 177,590 - CBS-grundbevilling 108,553 121,525 117,334 118,277 - øvrige afskrivninger 1,234 0,000 12,162 5,200 - andre tilskud 3,229 3,229 5,481 5,200 - øvrige indtægter 45,065 45,065 42,407 48,913 Campus 176,705 175,003 182,386 180,099 - husleje, prioritetsrenter og bygningsafskrivninger 116,568 114,704 115,774 116,097 - CBS-grundbevilling 60,137 60,300 66,612 64,002 Dækning for træk på opsparing / Budgetteret udestående 8,158 0,000-16,378 0,000 Total 1.047,021 1.080,344 1.158,084 1.210,893 Budgetposten "Strategiske initiativer" og LT Investment Fund (dvs. direktionens strategiske investeringspulje) er der redegjort for dels i særskilt notat om BiS-initiativerne, dels i notat om det reviderede 3-års budget for CBS 5

Som det fremgår af oversigten stiger Forskningsområdets grundbevilling med kun ca. 2 mio. kr. fra 2010 til 2011 på trods af ekstra budgetterede udgifter til VIP-løn på 7 mio. kr. (ex. BIS-platformenes bidrag til VIP-løn, som er budgetteret til 17 mio. kr) og en ekstraallokering på i alt 6,4 mio. kr. til institutterne i 2011 (de tidligere omtalte ekstra 3,4 mio. kr. + 3 mio. kr., som er taget fra LT Investment Fund, som er nedskrevet fra forslaget i december på 10 mio.kr. til nu 7 mio.kr.). Dette skyldes, at VIP-lønnen i stort omfang betales af Uddannelsesområdet og den eksternt finansierede forskning. Resten af forklaringen på den begrænsede stigning er bortfaldet af den midlertidige allokering til "Bridging money" på 6,6 mio. kr., som blev givet i 2010 og effekterne af de interne produktivitets- og indkøbsbesparelser. Uddannelse får en forøget grundbevilling på ca. 13 mio. kr. i grundbeviling, og det skal finansiere dels væksten i aktivitet, dels kvalitetsforøgelsen som følge af taxameterløftet. Selv om Shared Central Services grundbevilling stiger med knap 1 mio. kr. fra 2010 til 2011 dækker dette dels over 7 mio. kr. i 2011 til dækning af forøgede driftsudgifter, der er en konsekvens af beslutningen om at ændre værdisætningen af de immaterielle aktiver. Og dels er der allokeret ekstra midler til dækning af underskud på boligområdet i Det Internationale Kontor, jf. særskilt notat. Afskrivninger og hensættelser under Shared Central Services omfatter øvrige afskrivninger (ikke bygninger). Omkostningen til bygningsafskrivninger er indeholdt i Grundbevillingen til husleje og prioritetsrenter under Campus. Af treårsbudgettet fremgår CBS' samlede indtægts- og omkostningsbudgetter for de 3 år og den forventede fordeling mellem løn- og driftsudgifterne. Denne gentages nedenfor sammen med det foreløbige regnskab 2010. 6

Tabel 3, Samlet budget for CBS 2011 Resultatopgørelse/Prognose 2010 B-2011 Løbende priser P/L-2011 Driftsindtægter Statstilskud direkte til CBS 854.912.024 882.440.827 Statstilskud søgt i konkurrence 59.087.056 59.677.927 Tilskud fra private og andre ikke statslige enheder 48.529.850 39.015.149 Studerendes deltagerbetalinger 137.967.449 144.333.803 Øvrige indtægter 91.277.051 83.425.212 Driftsindtægter ialt 1.191.773.431 1.208.892.917 Lønomkostninger VIP-løn 333.552.973 364.888.503 DVIP-løn 88.309.048 93.121.384 TAP-løn 298.649.675 292.649.675 Andre lønomkostninger 18.771.879 3.617.744 Lønomkostninger i alt 739.283.574 754.277.305 Driftsomkostninger Husleje og ejendomsskatter 96.581.181 95.970.939 Bygningsdrift og -vedligeholdelse ialt 40.312.523 40.715.648 Andre driftsomkostninger Konferencer og tjenesterejser 39.371.102 47.764.813 Konsulentanvendelse (inc advokat og revision) 50.520.742 71.525.949 Øvrige driftsomkostninger 137.689.300 142.977.251 Andre driftsomkostninger ialt 227.581.144 262.268.013 Driftsomkostninger ialt 1.103.758.422 1.153.231.906 Resultat før afskrivninger & finansielle poster 88.015.008 55.661.011 Af- og nedskrivninger på bygninger 17.221.732 17.761.011 Af- og nedskrivninger på anlæg ekskl. bygninger 7.282.701 5.200.000 Resultat før finansielle poster 63.510.576 32.700.000 Renteindtægter 1.202.329 2.000.000 Finansielle omkostninger 35.137.411 34.700.000 Resultat 29.575.494 0 Som bilag 3 findes som udbedt på sidste bestyrelsesmøde budgetter for indtægter, løn- og driftsomkostninger for institutter og centre under Forskningsområdet med alle enheder lagt ind i den nye institutstruktur, hvor hovedparten af centrene hører under et institut. Disse kan afstemmes med indtægtsrammen i tabel 2. På tilsvarende måde er der i bilag 4 udarbejdet en specifikation af indtægts-, løn- og driftsbudgetter for Uddannelsesområdet, specificeret på bachelor- og kandidatuddannelser og HD/Master lagt sammen. For begge områder er midlerne fordelt efter de forventede aktivitetsniveauer før intern handel. Den totale indtægt for HD/Master kan stemmes af med indtægtsrammen i tabel 2, dvs. summen af poster under Master- og HDprogrammer ex. bidrag til intern handel (hvilket summer til 162,111 mio. kr.). Der bliver udarbejdet en foreløbig formålsfordeling af regnskabet for 2010, der er under revision, samt en prognose af formålsfordelingen for 2011, som vil blive eftersendt til bestyrelsen medio uge 11. 7

3. Indstilling Direktionen indstiller: - at bestyrelsen tager den foreløbige redegørelse om CBS' regnskab 2010 til efterretning; - at bestyrelsen godkender CBS' fordeling af indtægtsrammer 2011 som specificeret ovenfor og i de vedlagte bilag - med et samlet resultat i balance for året. Venlig hilsen Direktionen 8

Bilag 1: Regnskaber Forskningsområdet FORSKNING Art Hierarki Regnskab-2010 Forskningsområdet i alt Total 25.316.113 Indtægter i alt 404.070.039 Lønudgifter 294.489.420 Driftudgifter i alt 84.264.507 Forskningsdekanens konti Total 13.766.153 Indtægter i alt 182.837.083 Lønudgifter 171.276.801 Driftudgifter i alt -2.205.872 Forskeruddannelser/-skoler Total 3.358.816 Indtægter i alt 9.542.219 Lønudgifter 4.230.076 Driftudgifter i alt 1.953.326 Institutter (Ny organisation pr. 2011) Total 8.191.144 205 - AØ (Afsætningsøkonomi) Total 2.909.290 Indtægter i alt 20.598.908 Lønudgifter 10.447.014 Driftudgifter i alt 7.242.604 206 - JUR (Juridisk institut) Total 122.336 Indtægter i alt 5.351.446 Lønudgifter 3.453.549 Driftudgifter i alt 1.775.561 207 - LPF (Ledelse, Politik og Filosofi) Total -2.036.907 Indtægter i alt 23.056.049 Lønudgifter 16.020.045 Driftudgifter i alt 9.072.911 208 - PEØ (Produktion og Erhvervsøkonomi) Total 3.843.657 Indtægter i alt 13.605.551 Lønudgifter 8.097.856 Driftudgifter i alt 1.664.038 209 - FI (Finansiering) Total 1.116.552 Indtægter i alt 9.182.533 Lønudgifter 4.176.692 Driftudgifter i alt 3.889.289 210 - INF/CAICT (IT-huset) Total 746.917 Indtægter i alt 13.656.415 Lønudgifter 5.580.575 Driftudgifter i alt 7.328.924 211 - ECON (Økonomisk Institut) Total 613.465 Indtægter i alt 17.307.956 Lønudgifter 7.461.726 Driftudgifter i alt 9.232.764 212 - IOA (Organisation og arbejdssociologi) Total 1.167.126 Indtægter i alt 16.605.789 Lønudgifter 8.582.097 Driftudgifter i alt 6.856.566 566 214 - RØR (Regnskabsvæsen, Økonomistyring og Revision) Total 799.963 Indtægter i alt 4.508.948 Lønudgifter 2.148.073 Driftudgifter i alt 1.560.912 217 - INT (International økonomi og virksomhedsledelse) Total 649.709 Indtægter i alt 10.458.460 Lønudgifter 5.718.107 Driftudgifter i alt 4.090.644 220 - INO (Institut for Innovation og Organisationsøkonomi) Total 161.929 Indtægter i alt 13.403.097 Lønudgifter 7.687.042

Driftudgifter i alt 5.554.125 221 - IKL (Interkulturel kommunikation og ledelse) Total 276.692 Indtægter i alt 20.735.597 Lønudgifter 11.777.297 Driftudgifter i alt 8.681.608 223 - DBP (Dept. of Business and Politics) Total -712.146 Indtægter i alt 9.728.860 Lønudgifter 6.488.663 Driftudgifter i alt 3.952.344 224 - SMG (Center for Strategi og Globalisering) Total -297.547 Indtægter i alt 11.853.689 Lønudgifter 6.560.114 Driftudgifter i alt 5.591.121 256 - CKK (Center for Kreditret og Kapitalmarkedsret) Total 176.464 Indtægter i alt 1.923.916 Lønudgifter 260.302 Driftudgifter i alt 1.487.150 451/452 - ISV/IKK/IADH Total -1.346.359 Indtægter i alt 19.713.524 Lønudgifter 14.523.391 Driftudgifter i alt 6.536.492

Bilag 2: Regnskaber Uddannelsesormrådet og HD/Master UDDANNELSE Art Hierarki Regnskab-2010 Uddannelsesområdet i alt Total 21.445.870 Indtægter i alt 249.802.718 Lønudgifter 210.230.587 Driftudgifter i alt 18.126.262 Uddannelsesdekanens konti Total 8.800.630 Indtægter i alt 21.857.273 Lønudgifter 5.143.836 Driftudgifter i alt 7.912.806 Uddannelsesdekanens sekretariat Total 247.004 Indtægter i alt 3.079.000 Lønudgifter 2.718.397 Driftudgifter i alt 113.599 Bacheloruddannelser Total 8.039.389 Indtægter i alt 93.196.510 Lønudgifter 81.425.413 Driftudgifter i alt 3.731.707 Kandidatuddannelser Total 6.063.750 Indtægter i alt 80.547.255 Lønudgifter 73.141.106 Driftudgifter i alt 1.342.399 Studieadministrationen Total -1.556.194 Indtægter i alt 23.483.524 Lønudgifter 20.814.006 Driftudgifter i alt 4.225.712 Studiesekretariater Total -148.710 Indtægter i alt 27.639.157 Lønudgifter 26.987.829 Driftudgifter i alt 800.038 HD/Master i alt Total 13.751.619 Indtægter i alt 162.784.368 Lønudgifter 60.893.090 Dif Driftudgifter i alt 88.139.659 HD/Master fælles Total -1.020.168 Indtægter i alt -9.817.855 Lønudgifter 130.558 Driftudgifter i alt -8.928.245 Diplomuddannelser Total 9.507.749 Indtægter i alt 86.779.888 888 Lønudgifter 28.730.203 Driftudgifter i alt 48.541.936 Masteruddannelser Total 5.264.038 Indtægter i alt 85.822.335 Lønudgifter 32.032.328 Driftudgifter i alt 48.525.969

Bilag 3: Budgetter Forskningsområdet FORSKNING Art Hierarki Budget-2011 Forskningsområdet i alt Total -1.464.736 Indtægter i alt 372.295.512 Lønudgifter 296.548.404 Driftudgifter i alt 77.211.845 Forskningsdekanens konti Total 541.498498 Indtægter i alt 193.298.658 Lønudgifter 181.958.000 Driftudgifter i alt 10.799.160 Forskeruddannelser/-skoler Total 441.035 Indtægter i alt 8.027.236 Lønudgifter 4.867.307 Driftudgifter i alt 2.718.894 894 Institutter (Ny organisation pr. 2011) Total -2.447.269 205 - AØ (Afsætningsøkonomi) Total -710.449 Indtægter i alt 10.009.551 Lønudgifter 8.900.000 Driftudgifter i alt 1.820.000 206 - JUR (Juridisk institut) Total -511.589589 Indtægter i alt 3.931.375 Lønudgifter 2.926.793 Driftudgifter i alt 1.516.171 207 - LPF (Ledelse, Politik og Filosofi) Total 1.924.621 Indtægter i alt 21.273.589 Lønudgifter 12.381.400 Driftudgifter i alt 6.967.568 208 - PEØ (Produktion og Erhvervsøkonomi) Total -410.779 Indtægter i alt 6.866.835 Lønudgifter 5.220.435 Driftudgifter i alt 2.057.178 209 - FI (Finansiering) Total -9.962 Indtægter i alt 11.602.194 Lønudgifter 5.627.300 Driftudgifter i alt 5.984.856 210 - INF/CAICT (IT-huset) Total 0 Indtægter i alt 6.522.465 Lønudgifter 3.667.820 Driftudgifter i alt 2.854.646 211 - ECON (Økonomisk Institut) Total 354.311 Indtægter i alt 17.915.558 Lønudgifter 11.068.745 Driftudgifter i alt 6.492.502 212 - IOA (Organisation og arbejdssociologi) Total -255.109 Indtægter i alt 14.300.665 Lønudgifter 8.711.084 Driftudgifter i alt 5.844.690 214 - RØR (Regnskabsvæsen, Økonomistyring og Revision) Total 89.746 Indtægter i alt 3.189.746 Lønudgifter 2.400.000 Driftudgifter i alt 700.000 217 - INT (International økonomi og virksomhedsledelse) Total -727.000 Indtægter i alt 7.340.579 Lønudgifter 3.829.723 Driftudgifter i alt 4.237.856 220 - INO (Institut for Innovation og Organisationsøkono Total 227.643 Indtægter i alt 16.873.961

Lønudgifter 10.790.376 Driftudgifter i alt 5.855.942 221 - IKL (Interkulturel kommunikation og ledelse) Total -1.111.008 Indtægter i alt 14.529.834 Lønudgifter 11.214.595 Driftudgifter i alt 4.426.247 223 - DBP (Dept. of Business and Politics) Total 70.814 Indtægter i alt 11.323.944 Lønudgifter 6.464.248 Driftudgifter i alt 4.788.882 224 - SMG (Center for Strategi og Globalisering) Total -604.847 Indtægter i alt 7.316.984 Lønudgifter 3.610.578 Driftudgifter i alt 4.311.253 256 - CKK (Center for Kreditret og Kapitalmarkedsret) Total -46.000 Indtægter i alt 815.000 Lønudgifter 280.000 Driftudgifter i alt 581.000 451/452 - ISV/IKK/IADH Total -727.661 Indtægter i alt 17.157.339 Lønudgifter 12.630.000 Driftudgifter i alt 5.255.000

Bilag 4: Budgetter for Uddannelsesområdet og HD/Master UDDANNELSE Art Hierarki Budget-2011 Uddannelsesområdet i alt Total 58.621.843 Indtægter i alt 291.597.525 Lønudgifter 216.265.846 Driftudgifter i alt 16.709.837 Uddannelsesdekanens konti Total 54.006.355 Indtægter i alt 59.439.455 Lønudgifter 88.544 Driftudgifter i alt 5.344.556 Uddannelsesdekanens sekretariat Total 0 Indtægter i alt 3.078.886 Lønudgifter 2.900.000 000 Driftudgifter i alt 178.886 Bacheloruddannelser Total 3.395.423 Indtægter i alt 92.135.913 Lønudgifter 84.959.390 Driftudgifter i alt 3.781.100 Kandidatuddannelser Total 2.268.722 Indtægter i alt 83.924.272 Lønudgifter 79.231.876 Driftudgifter i alt 2.423.674 Studieadministrationen Total -203.329 Indtægter i alt 25.408.000 Lønudgifter 21.719.708 Driftudgifter i alt 3.891.621 Studiesekretariater Total -845.329 Indtægter i alt 27.611.000 Lønudgifter 27.366.329 Driftudgifter i alt 1.090.000 HD/Master i alt Total 6.914.567 Indtægter i alt 162.110.689 Lønudgifter 72.892.004 Dif Driftudgifter i alt 82.304.118 HD/Master - fælles Total 7.650.401 Indtægter i alt -10.428.082 Lønudgifter 0 Driftudgifter i alt -9.692.248 Diplomuddannelser Total 5.328.788 Indtægter i alt 87.161.245 Lønudgifter 31.975.252 Driftudgifter i alt 49.857.205 Masteruddannelser Total 2.321.613 Indtægter i alt 85.377.526 Lønudgifter 40.916.752 Driftudgifter i alt 42.139.161

Copenhagen, March 30, 2011 To CBS Academic Council, As agreed with LT, we submit the first preliminary proposal for a CBS BiS Platform Concept. The purpose of this document is to help clarify the criteria on which a BiS Platform is developed, run and assessed as well as to align expectations between current/future platform leaders, the Leadership Team and our colleagues at CBS. We invite the Academic Council to use this draft as a starting point in discussing the Platforms. We think that, so far, CBS communication about the BiS Platforms has created unnecessarily unrealistic expectations plus a considerable degree of confusion. The platform initiative depends for its legitimacy inside and outside CBS on a shared understanding at CBS about the goals, funding and realistic achievements for any CBS platform. As known to AC, we have made the initial draft to bid on the sustainability platform. Yet, much work still needs to be done here. We kindly direct the AC s attention to the fact that this draft proposal is based on the BiS platform 3-year budgets that have been communicated so far. We realize these may change and therefore find it appropriate to make them explicit as they stand now: 6 mio. DKK is the amount designated to each platform for development, network building, visiting scholars, phd and post doc recruitment, conferences and workshops, etc. 6 mio. DKK is designated to platform duo leaders. 8 mio. DKK is tied to CBS recruitment of scientific staff with the exception of LT s accept that a BiS Platform may decide to hire a scientific coordinator to ensure professional (local and international) fundraising, research application development, phd recruitment, corporate engagement, and other types of follow-up and research network coordination tasks. Elisabeth Crone & Mette Morsing

Proposal for key questions to a CBS BiS Platform Concept 1. Purpose of BiS Platforms The BiS Platforms represent an integral part of CBS newly adopted strategy of Business in Society. The purpose of the BiS Platforms is for CBS to promote an approach to scholarship that combines research and teaching excellence with societal impact. The Platforms will engage in open and collaborative research, education and outreach activities that involve faculty across disciplines at CBS as well as external stakeholders from national and international universities, businesses, public institutions, students, NGOs and the media. The research conducted will be distinct, context-driven and focused on dealing with current societal and business challenges in a global and local setting. The research will be developed and partially funded by external partners and will feed directly into new and existing teaching programmes at CBS on the bachelor, master and MBA/executive levels. 2. Selection of BiS Platforms Key question: on what criteria is a CBS BiS Platform decided? While CBS BiS Platforms have been created to address societal grand challenges, this does not imply that any societal grand challenge can be addressed in a qualified way by CBS faculty. Nor does it mean that a grand societal challenge will be addressed in all details from all possible perspectives and disciplines. It will be necessary for any BiS Platform to specify its scope in order to be able to deliver high quality research, education and outreach activities. CBS must decide whether to use an inside-out approach (what knowledge and capacity does CBS already have to build and extend on within a proposed BiS Platform theme) or an outside-in approach (to which extent is the societal grand challenge so important that CBS needs to recruit new scientific faculty to address the challenge in a qualified manner). We suggest to select an inside-out approach, at least for the first BiS Platforms to get started. That implies building the BiS Platforms around strong and well-known research activities and faculty at CBS that prove a willingness to further develop interdisciplinary research activities and address societal grand challenges. Leveraging on existing faculty and environments that represent important knowledge and that have already proven successful in projects, publications or teaching will make the most efficient use of the limited internal funds provided to the Platforms. It will also create greater credibility among external partners and potentially raise the likelihood of producing convincing proposals for external funding.

3. Process for New BiS Platform Proposals Key question: how to ensure the emergence of new BiS Platform proposals? Any team of two faculty members from two different disciplines may suggest a BiS Platform proposal. Every 12 months CBS LT and AC invite a selected number of BiS Platform proposers to present their idea and arguments. A decision is made to establish a new BiS Platform on this basis. This leads to an other key question: to what extent will the number of BiS Platforms at any time remain three 3- year platforms or does CBS envision more than 3 platforms at any given time? 4. BiS Platform integration at CBS Key question: How to ensure involvement across CBS units/departments? A CBS BiS Platform is by definition addressing issues of interdisciplinary concern. However, any CBS BiS Platform will not necessarily generate massive interest across CBS faculty. It will in many cases focus on building direct and deep collaboration across two disciplines as represented by the two Platform leaders rather than peripherally involving all departments. As internal funding of projects and faculty across departments is limited, a more precise definition of Platform integration is suggested to be the most likely to create excellent results in research and teaching. We propose that it be articulated in the individual design of a Platform which disciplines are in focus. This does not imply isolated and predefined exclusivity but rather serves as a point of distinction - in terms of focus on the internal integration and external branding. Moreover, it will leverage internal and external expectations to the reach and deliveries of the BiS Platform. That being said, the Platform ambition should ideally open itself to strive to involve faculty from other units and departments as partners in individual activities such as external research applications, educational courses and projects as well as in outreach activities whenever relevant. 5. BiS Platform Distinction Key question: How to ensure international BiS Platform recognition? Any grand challenge may expand into new areas, exploring the boundaries of the original focus within the wider societal grand challenge addressed. Therefore, we propose that one of the main tasks for each BiS Platform is to articulate its points of distinction vis á vis other local and international initiatives (including potential other initiatives, centers, research units at CBS) that address themes of relevance for each BiS Platform. The point of distinction could be expressed in terms of primary disciplines involved, key challenges to be addressed (and hereby which (sub-) challenges are NOT addressed), key types of external networks to be involved (corporate, policymakers, NGOs, academics, etc.) etc. 6. BiS Platforms synergy Key question: how to achieve potential synergies across BiS Platforms? Across BiS Platforms, an Advisory Board is invited to guide and assist the BiS Platforms. Chair of the BiS Platform Advisory Board is Rektor. Secretary is a CBS BiS Coordinator or possibly a research coordinator from one of

the BiS Platforms. Each BiS Platform proposes two persons for a three-year period. Advisory Board members are selected based on their professional knowledge in the BiS Platform content and their broad knowledge and involvement in society. Preferably the Advisory Board should be made up of a diverse group of individuals representing both smaller and larger businesses, policymakers and civil society in order to ensure different perspectives on what grand societal challenges constitute. 7. BiS Platform leadership and organization Key question: how to ensure a viable and professional leadership and administration of a platform? A CBS BiS Platform decides whether to be led by a duo or a trio. The duo consists of two scholars from two different disciplines or departments at CBS, who are responsible for developing a plan, structure and strategy for the Platform s goals to be reached within a three-year period. The trio consists of the two scholars and a research-oriented platform assistant/academic coordinator (VIP category) who contributes with relevant content knowledge in the Platform s research area as well as network input, assisting in funding efforts, networking, coordination of and follow-up on initiatives, external alliances, etc. We recommend that CBS BiS Platforms be supported by a trio. We propose that the success of a three-year platform will depend on the recruitment of a professionally networked academic coordinator with documented funding and networking experience within an international academic setting. A trio solution does not imply extra funding from CBS LT, as the Platform is expected to use the competences of the person in this position as a springboard to create external funding. The academic network coordinator will specifically ensure external funding targeted to the BiS Platform s professional focus but also serve the important task of coordinating and following up on activities across research, education and outreach engagement. 8. BiS Platform external engagement Key question: how to ensure BiS Platform exposure to relevant external networks? The Platforms are expected to have systematic and considerable collaboration and contact with external stakeholders relevant to the Platform s focus area. To ensure that this happens in a systematic way, each Platform must early on develop a stakeholder map which identifies which stakeholders and networks that it wishes to engage with and how. This can include relations to academic partners for projects, conferences and joint publications, to business partners and organizations for participation in projects and networks as well as collaboration on external funding, to media partners for formalized external exposure and to student environments at CBS and beyond. To a large extent it will be the responsibility of a skillful and experienced academic coordinator with a track record as a networker in the field who can make sure these relationships are implemented and continuously built upon once they have been initiated. Furthermore, the BiS Platform Advisory Board represents one way of formalizing relations with and ensuring input from external audiences.

9. BiS Platform accountability Key question: How to ensure that the Platforms fulfill their initial purpose and are continuously aligning themselves with the expectations of stakeholders? The platform leaders refer to the CBS Rector. They are responsible for informing him/her about the plans, developments, deviation and results. Before a platform is launched, the proposed platform leaders will need to hand in a plan to the Rector, which needs to be approved by the Academic Council. The plan must include calendar milestones and success criteria for research, education and outreach. To the degree that they can be quantified they should, for example in numbers of A-list publications, amount of external funding, number of seminars/conferences, number of media mention, etc. Every 12 months, the platform leaders will produce a written report on BiS achievements and a plan for how to achieve further goals. Every 6 months, the platform leaders will meet the Academic Council for a brief presentation of goals and results. Every 4 months, the platform leaders will meet across BiS Platforms to consult with the Advisory Board. Every month the platform leaders will inform Rector about current status of funding proposals, new dialogue with external partners, publication advancements, etc. 10. BiS Platform budget Platform leaders are expected to raise economic support for CBS research projects. We suggest that Platform leaders propose a plan for how to double the 6 million DKK (= the money provided for flexible research activities over three years). This plan must include specific suggestions for external funding sources and research partners that being public and private foundations, businesses or institutions that have an interest in the research area in question and that could be willing to support the Platform with external funding or other forms of support. The plan should also include suggestions and proposed expenses for research partners in academia, for example visiting professors and PhDs.

Doc ID Innovating the Business of Business Schools CBS Strategy Process 2010 Recommendations from work group 1 Addressing Grand Societal and Business Challenges that Influence the Region Maja Horst (IOA), Jan Damsgaard (CAICT), Mette Morsing (IKL), Alex Klinge (ISV), Steen Thomsen (INT), Torben Aaberg (RESEARCH) & Henrik Thorn (STUD). Note: Steen Thomsen has not been involved in the final phase of the group s work. June 7 th, 2010

Alternatives Findings and implications for hypotheses Work Group 1: Addresing Grand Societal and Business Challenges that Affect the Region GROUP 1 Region 1 Findings 2 Implications for hypotheses (if any) A B C D E The question of region is not about home-market, but of distinctiveness in order to be relevant and influence the world Our geography of interests is shaped as concentric circles. The Øresund region is central point of anchorage (which could be strengthened) but we should also reach out to Germany. Internationally, we should talk about the Copenhagen Metropolitan region rather than the Øresund Region Despite our own perception, CBS is not seen to be sufficiently open and relevant to organizations in the region We lack a coherent/coordinated leadership of our external activities and LT attention seems to be a bottleneck 1. CBS s distinctiveness is closely related to our place in the Scandinavian/Nordic region and is also the basis for our impact in the region, Europe and the world 2. CBS should improve strategically important relationships throughout the region in order to strengthen, and build on, distinctiveness 3 A B C Alternatives: Region Taking an Øresund Lead Best Around the Baltic Sea A Distinctive European Business School Implications (including activities to stop) Research and education Recruitment Organisation (incl.admin/support) Focus on external relations. Focus on student intake and market strategy Focus on global impact and distinctiveness D Scandinavian Gateway Focus on regional leadership and distinctiveness to achieve global impact 2

Alternatives Findings and implications for hypotheses Work Group 1: Addresing Grand Societal and Business Challenges that Affect the Region GROUP 1 Grand Challenges 1 Findings 2 Implications for hypotheses (if any) A B C D CBS can use GC to emphasize its leading role in the region through attractive study progrrams, relevant research and dedicated partnerships with strategically important organizations. Interdisciplinary GC efforts can mobilize renewal, energy and pride among staff and students and transform education and research knowledge into strategic relevance. We need strong disciplinary foundations (possibly in departments) to have viable interdisciplinary GC strategy Selection of GCs should balance external opportunities with internal capabilities. Resources for each GC platform should demonstrate their priority as strategic initiative. 1. 2. 3. A commitment to address GCs should be visible through a CBS matrix structure with departments (line management of all researchers) and GC platforms (5 year projects) 4. The importance of addressing Grand Challenges should be reflected in the recruitment, funding and faculty incentives at CBS 3 A B C Alternatives: Grand Challenges Branding CBS through GCs CBS as GC University Enabling relevance with a GC Matrix Implications (including activities to stop) Research and education Recruitment Organisation (incl.admin/support) Minimal change leveraging visibility of existing activities. Maximum change reorganising CBS into 5-7 GC-schools & corresponding study programs Disciplinary departments and cross-cutting GC platforms selected through internal competition 3

Does this live up to the guiding principles? Implications for decisions to make and uncertainties Recommendation Work group 1: Addressing Grand Societal and Business Challenges that affect the region Recommendations x Back-ups included Group 1 4 Recommended approach (actions for the next 5 years) 4 Viability in managerial, financial, organizational and legal terms A B C D Organizational changes: Mode 2 dean with resources and departmental line management Strategy for global impact through local distinctiveness: coordination of external relations and regional relevance. Matrix structure and transparent process of selection of GCs through internal competition based on clear criteria GC Platforms should have physical space, integrate students in research and be integrated in study programs Cost of new dean. Simpler departmental structure and less fragmentation should increase efficiency. More efficient administration of external relations (possible savings) costs connected to new initiatives and strategies Organizational complexity increased with matrix structure. Selection of GCs by internal competition should increase organizational ownership GC efforts should generate energy, renewal and strategic relevance. Prioritized decisions to be made by Leadership Team Key risk/uncertainties A A B C Employ Mode 2 dean and restructure communication/external relations admin staff Identify strategic alliances in CPH Metro region and Germany which build on local distinctiveness but are globally relevant Set up matrix structure and reorganize departments with funds for seed money (no central ledelsespulje ) Allocate resources to GCs and initiate internal competitive process for selection of first GCs A B C D Leadership potential for GC efforts and as Mode 2 Dean? Combined local/global strategy risks fragmentation Departmental restructuring might be costly in organizational time IGC proposals of low quality (particular if funding too small) Consistent with CBS Guiding Principles? 1 Dedicated to Relevance? 2 Creating Distinctiveness? 3 Committed to Excellence? 4 Rewarding Imagination? 5 Join Us? 4

Ad 1: Key findings - Region GROUP 1 Finding Description Supporting evidence A The question of region is not about Singapore as gateway to Asia/China home-market, but of Interviews with department heads distinctiveness in order to be relevant and influence the world B C D Our geography of interests is shaped as concentric circles. The Øresund region is the central point of anchorage (which could be strengthened) but we should also reach out to Northern Germany Internationally, we should talk about the Copenhagen Metropolitan Region rather than the Øresund Region Despite our own perception, CBS is not seen to be sufficiently open and relevant to public and private organizations in the region We lack a coherent/coordinated E leadership of our external activities and LT attention seems to be a bottleneck SOURCE: Source CBS s distinctiveness stems from being part of a Scandinavian social fabric with high emphasis on collective action, trust, informal networking, responsibility, equality, democracy, user-driven innovation We need to be well-anchored locally in order to be able to make the local distinctiveness globally relevant. Germany is our gate to Europe and an important business partner for DK businesses. Øresund Region is not a well-known international brand (whereas Copenhagen is) and Europe is moving towards regional focus on metropolitan areas Many organizations find it difficult to engage with CBS in a meaningful way. In particular we seem to offer a poor program for corporate partners Many admin/academic groups make their own uncoordinated external strategies. Individual academics often represent CBS without central coordination Descriptions by adjunct professors and external stakeholders ASU, ESADE, Columbia, LSE are in different ways distinct based on regional links Overview of activities in the Øresund region does not portray CBS as central strategic actor Interviews with CBS staff with expert knowledge on Germany Interviews with external stakeholders, faculty and adjunct professors reveal a strong preference against seeing CBS as an Øresund BS ( I always thought it was an international school ) Key stakeholder interviews and encounters (CBS is better brand in the world than our homeregion) CBS has many valuable relationships, but they are not sufficiently visible Interviews with Staff at CBS

Ad 1: Key findings Addressing Grand Challenges GROUP 1 Finding Description Supporting evidence A CBS can use GC to emphasize its Focus on locally relevant GCs is a way GC is important for Forsk2015 and EU funding leading role in the region through of connecting to regional ASU s challenges project attractive study programs, organizations through joint efforts. Encounters point to necessity of taking relevant research and dedicated Relevance of research is basis for globalization, demographic changes, new partnerships with strategically increasing external funding and technology into account in future education and important organizations engagement in CBS research B C D Interdisciplinary GC efforts can mobilize renewal, energy and pride among staff and students and transform education and research knowledge into strategic relevance. We need strong disciplinary foundations (possibly in departments) to have viable interdisciplinary GC strategy. Selection of GCs should balance external opportunities with internal capabilities Resources for each GC platform should demonstrate their priority as strategic initiative SOURCE: Source Relevance of research and education is enhanced through focus on interdisciplinarity and problemsolving capabilities. We need to reconcile the need for longterm stability and excellence with the need for increasing relevance and interdisciplinarity through GC efforts. GCs should be selected through a process of internal competition according to a set of predefined criteria. All external stakeholders, DEA report, Mode 2 etc suggests cross-disciplinarity to increase relevance of research The Earth Institute at Columbia, School of Sustainability at ASU GC focus and problem orientation is crucial for executive education. Top-journal publications need disciplinary knowledge and home-ground Internal interviews and discussions reveal a fear that GC efforts will impede research excellence and result in Fashion research External funding is too expensive, if not aligned with strategic goals and internal capabilities Top-down strategic selection of GC s will not lead to lasting effects in the organization (Dublin City University, KU)

Ad 2: Implications of key findings for the hypotheses GROUP 1 Finding Implication for Hypotheses Rationale for implication A B C The question of region is not about home-market, but of distinctiveness in order to be relevant and influence the world Our geography of interests is shaped as concentric circles. The Øresund region is the central point of anchorage (which could be strengthened) but we should also reach out to Northern Germany We need strong disciplinary foundations (possibly in departments) to have viable interdisciplinary GC strategy Reformulation: CBS s distinctiveness is closely related to our place in the Scandinavian/Nordic region and is also the basis for our impact in the region, Europe and the world Reformulation: CBS should improve strategically important relationships throughout the region in order to strengthen, and build on, distinctiveness Reformulation: A commitment to address GCs should be visible through a CBS matrix structure with departments (line-management of all researchers) and GC-Platforms (5 year projects). The local distinctiveness is basis for our global relevance We need high aspirations to reach excellence and we should aim at being globally relevant We do not need more quantity in relationships, but more quality Strategically important relationships have to be meaningful with regard to our distinctiveness External focus on need for research in GCs. CBS can use this to boost relevance of research and study programs. Departments are homes for disciplinary affiliation and excellence while GC Platforms are drivers of relevance and engagement D Selection of GCs should balance external opportunities with internal capabilities Resources for each GC platform should demonstrate their priority as strategic initiative The importance of addressing Grand Challenges should be reflected in the recruitment, funding and faculty incentives at CBS It is crucial to set criteria for selecting GCs, resource allocation, and output expectations at the right balance, in order to get enough good quality proposals. SOURCE: Source

Cons Pros Implications Description Ad 3: Alternative approaches: Using our sense of place to leverage our impact and relevance GROUP 1 Recommended approach Taking an Øresund Lead Best around the Baltic Sea A distinctive European BS Scandinavian Gateway CBS will make itself the preferred research and education partner in business economics and social science in the Øresund region. Strategic relationships are given top priority from all staff and this creates substantial mode 2 funding and education. CBS s goal is to be the outstanding business school in Scandinavia, N.Germany, Poland and Baltic Rim. We educate top students on all levels from this area and our research supports this goal. Building on its regional distinctiveness, CBS positions itself as a leading European BS with a particular Scandinavian profile focused on responsibility, equality, democracy, informal networks and user-driven innovation. CBS is a business school in Copenhagen, Scandinavia, which gives us a distinctiveness that permeates our activities. Regional leadership is the basis for our global relevance. Using our strategic focus on locally relevant GCs we should extend the reach of our Scandinavian distinctiveness Identify important regional collaborations and take lead on selected initiatives. Prioritizing more strategic partnerships in region. Focus research and education activities on issues relevant for region. Substantial market and competition analysis necessary. Increase ratio of degree-students from Baltic Sea area through marketing and satellite teaching at bachelor level. Development of distinctive study programs and high impact research in areas which match distinctive profile. CBS should define strategy for ranking game that match ambitions. Employ a Mode 2 dean to lead GC efforts and internal coordination of external activities. Develop strategy for important regional alliances and select focus on GCs where the local is globally distinct. Credibility in political system and business community. Increasing local relevance and external funding Less attention to global issues and impact in global research community. The business model will be more independent of Danish state and region Is this distinctive? Might be difficult to motivate researchers Using regional distinctiveness strategically. Global ambitions to motivate researchers. Increasing EU funding Possibly less attention and hence less visibility and credibility within Denmark Scandinavian is already a distinctive brand. External strategy improve credibility and learning, and opens new funding sources Ambitious combined regional and global strategy risks being fluffy. Difficult to identify most valuable regional alliances?

Cons Pros Implications Description Ad 3: Alternative approaches: Making the commitment to GC visible in the organization of research and education at CBS GROUP 1 Recommended approach Branding CBS through GCs CBS leverages the visibility of existing activities by grouping under GC-headings. A small amount of coordination work by researchers, but meeting activity is minimal and allows research to continue as usual. A GC and relations dean to increase visibility. External branding through CBS communications (larger budget). Time period and number of GCs are flexible and can be chosen to fit external expectations. GCs can be changed by trend-experts or by researcher-suggestions. Minimal organizational change. Flexibility. Political credibility and student recruitment. Strategic use to attract free external funding. No organizational impact or effect to improve relevance. Branding might not be distinctive. CBS as a GC University CBS reorganizes into a number of interdisciplinary schools (5-7) focused on GCs. All study programs follow school structure and focus. Vice-dean for each school responsible for problem orientation and external relations. Fundraising-unit to help exploit focus on GCs. Substantial work with selection of GCs, which should be externally oriented. Changing GCs will be paradigm shift and take time. Long time horizon (> 10 years). Researchers must care for disciplinary affiliation themselves. Branding CBS through distinctive organization. Matches funding ideals and foregrounds problem solution. Massive re-organization. Vague connection to disciplines might threaten excellence. De-motivation of large group of researchers Enabling relevance with a GC matrix Departments care for disciplinary affiliation. 3-5 cross-cutting interdisciplinary GC platforms addressing GCs selected through internal competition. Mode 2 dean is responsible for coordinating external relations, helps foster new ideas, grooms excellent GC leadership and increases external funding through brokering. Internal selection of GCs through transparent competitive process to increase organizational ownership. Time horizon is max 5 years (then integration in department) with explicit output criteria evaluated annually. Mode 1/Mode 2 combination. Increasing legitimacy & external funding. Staff motivation to take initiative. Poor suggestions for GC Platforms if benefits and obligations are not suitably measured.

Ad 4: The recommended approach implies actions: A: Organizational Changes: Mode 2 Dean with resources and Departmental line management Actions involved in needed approach (for next 5 years) A B C D E Creation of position as Mode 2 Dean, who is responsible for GC effort and external relations in general. Important for Regional as well as GC initiatives Withdrawal of departmental PhD stipends and reallocation to Mode 2 Dean and Research Dean Central research communication capability with two communication professionals, who do field stays in GC platforms/departments to develop comm. competencies and use of media such as Videnskab.dk Clear departmental structure with a HoD line managing all researchers at CBS. Departments serve as stable foundations for excellence and disciplinary affiliation Consider grouping into fewer departments with a substructure of research groups headed by excellent researcher with personnel management obligations. Timing Primo 2011 Primo 2011 2011-12 2011 2011-2013 Viability in managerial, financial, organisational and legal terms New member of LT (cost, but also expansion of LT capabilities). Coordinated efforts with external relations need to be lead by Dean (research background and standing).mode 2 dean needs resources (allocation of admin. and external collaboration funds e.g. PhD stipend co-finance resources, see below) Allocation of PhD stipends by Mode 2 Dean (1/6 of stipend funds to GC, 1/3 to co-finance other PhD projects) and Research Dean (1/2 to free stipends advertised annually or to departments). Two positions allocated out of existing comm.staff (new recruitments for right skills). They do longer stays at departments to secure decentral ties and exchange (help researchers develop skills). General strategy for use of media platforms, including Videnskab.dk (annually 300.000 kr) and CBS studio. Relatively simple to include smaller centers in departments. Large centers should become departments. Departments should have seed money and strategic resources for new initiatives and external relations (No central ledelsespulje ). More manageable structure, professionalising HoD role, benefits of scale and support for new initiatives within and across departments. However, large organizational cost in connection to restructuring. Restructuring should take time and be subject to a process of discussion.

Ad 4: The recommended approach implies actions: B: Strategy for global impact through local distinctiveness: Coordination of external relations and regional relevance Actions involved in needed approach (for next 5 years) A B C D E Integrate all central admin. work with external relations under Mode 2 dean leadership. Researchers should build own network, but coordinate with central leadership Systematic use of GC platforms in branding and stakeholder relations, e.g. develop valuable corporate partner program, setup fundraising unit to leverage interest in GCs. Develop differentiated models for collaboration on education and research (e.g. to fit SMEs). Consider Science Shop model. Develop regional strategy of relevance for Copenhagen Metropolitan Region and identify strategic alliances Develop regional strategy for reaching into Northern Germany Timing 2011 2011-12 2011-12 2011 2012-14 Viability in managerial, financial, organisational and legal terms No new resources needed but more efficient use of resources spent on stakeholder relations (possibly less, but more coordinated, communication staff). Individual researchers reporting to Mode 2 Dean about external activities (admin. cost is balanced by increased visibility and strategic effect of efforts by individuals). Selected GCs should have strong basis in regional distinctiveness and priorities. Corporate partner program should be central to partnerships and alliances on GC efforts. Fundraising function to generate income, but obliged to secure it fits strategy Having differentiated models for collaboration (e.g. science shop) would broaden invitation to engage. Experiment with internship, company networks in study programs, develop CBS as platform for companies to meet, sponsorships of student competitions, endowed chairs etc. Identify most important strategic alliances. Topics might include: Utilization of ESS for region (with Lund Uni, Vækstforum, CPH local author.), Developing technology to business (with LIFE, DTU, Lund), Educating public managers (with regions and local authorities). CBS challenge to choose, but guided by GC choice. A German Strategy should involve expert CBS faculty and focus on Berlin and Hamburg Scandinavia is brand in GE with focus on innovation. Strong research interest in German companies and large market. Possibility of recruiting more German faculty

Ad 4: The recommended approach implies actions: C: Transparent process of selection of GCs through internal competition based on clear criteria Actions involved in needed approach (for next 5 years) A Mode 2 dean scan external environment for GC concerns and help foster and cultivate relevant topics and possible opportunities internally B Resource allocation for GC platforms and decision on organizational setup. Decide input and output criteria. Communicating the joint GC Guiding Framework (see later slide) C D Soliciting GC Unit proposals. Minimally they need: strong leadership (professor), external relevance (funding optional), educational impact, cross-departmental setup Transparent GC selection process: short proposal, joint presentation day followed by recommendation from Academic council and HoD, decision by LT. Timing Continuously Ultimo 2010 Primo 2011 First time 2011 Viability in managerial, financial, organisational and legal terms A central task for Mode 2 Dean is to constantly focus on the grooming of future GC ideas and leadership. Consider talent-development for future GC/HoD leadership. Mode 2 Dean should regularly seek advice on important challenges from external organizations and stakeholders. Suggested number is 2-5 (depending on resources) running for 5 years. Each unit needs dedicated leader, admin support, support for student activities and scholarships, operating costs (1 mill a year). They should also be allocated physical space for co-location according to need, 3 (or more) PhD stipends & 3 non-tenure tracked post-docs/adjunkter. Proposals should be short and guided by a list of input criteria, which can be addressed to smaller or larger extent helped by Mode 2 Dean. GC platforms can not exclude parts of CBS, but has to be open to researchers who want to participate Excellent leadership should be in place before selection. Endowed chairs might be international star researcher, but not leaders. Start 1-2 GC efforts first year and repeat process. It is crucial that process is transparent and involves recommendations from CBS bodies, in order to give organizational ownership to the chosen GCs.

Ad 4: The recommended approach implies actions D: GC platforms should have physical space, integrate students in research and be integrated in educations Actions involved in needed approach (for next 5 years) A B C D E F G H Allocation of physical space for GCs (leader, admin, students and some researchers) GC platforms should integrate public and private organisations as well as students in GC research Students should have designated space in GC platform and an Initiatives Fund Scholarships for students writing their master thesis within GC theme Extra supervision in groups for scholarship students by GC researchers could include company networks and bachelor students Integration of a GC case on 1. year of all study programs prize awarded All GC platforms should produce and pay for electives Obligatory GC course on all master (and exec?) programs (select from GCs) Timing 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2012 2013 2014 Viability in managerial, financial, organisational and legal terms The GC platforms should have a physical presence (space for students is important). But also virtual platform: not all involved researchers should cohabit. GC platforms & Mode 2 Dean make strategy for external collaboration and communication. Students would benefit from participation and they can make valuable contributions with little costs, also as student assistants. Students are more innovative than researchers and bring life to research environments. Space and Student Fund (100.000 yearly) would encourage student s use and ideas Scholarships to 10 students a year (15.000 kr) to make core group of students working with researchers (Potential Ph.D candidates) Through extra supervision and experiments with student supervision of students, GC platforms would benefit extra from student projects. One researcher in GC platform is designated to work with study programs to help shape case (e.g. to first year project). Has to be negotiated with study programs (less educational programs would be a benefit As part of the general funding GC platforms are obliged to offer electives (Cand.merc). Has to be negotiated with study programs. All study programs should accept that one of the GCs makes an obligatory course. Has to be negotiated with study programs.

Guiding framework for the GC efforts at CBS (All GCs selected should be able to fit within this framework this is part of proposal. Framework can also be used for Branding purpose) Guiding Framework for GC platforms Innovation in the public, private and third sector To do new things Sustainability To do it in the right way Competitiveness To do it with distinctiveness Leadership To do it with direction and responsibility Rationale We consider it an important part of being Scandinavian that we innovate, explore open forms of innovation, value engagement and user-involvement in design and development. We also build on the strong combination of public, private and third sector activities in our region. We aim to contribute to the development of sustainable business in the region and sustainability in the widest possible sense is a key characteristic of the issues that we engage with. In order to have global impact we focus on our regional distinctiveness. We contribute to making the region better at the things it does best. Responsible leadership is key to local and global transformations towards a better future.

Examples of Grand Challenges, which could be selected and addressed through outlined approach Suggestions for GCs (some from EU and Forsk2015), all of which resonate with research in several CBS departments and fit within GC Guiding Framework (Non-prioritised) How do we create corporate and public responsibility for the future? How to regulate capitalism in a rapidly changing world? How to make Work-life Balance and HRM a competitive factor? How do we make a living in the future? How do we fostering creativity and innovation in economy and society? How do we deal with migration and talent mobility? What is the future competitiveness in Denmark, the region, Europe, and the world? How do we increase productivity in an aging society? How do we create and use future internet society? How do we develop future (global) welfare society? How to organize and manage the public sector in a situation of limited resources and growing expectations? How to deal with security issues in a future global world? How do we manage culture meetings and value conflicts? How do we make the best use of new technology and knowledge? How does sustainability become sustainable business? How do we manage the opportunities and challenges for business and society in the current stage of globalization? What will be the opportunity and challenges for small developed economies like Denmark when the emerging economies are catching up? How to manage international business in the new global market environments?

Doc ID Innovating the Business of Business Schools CBS Strategy Process 2010 Recommendations from work group 6 Cultivating Opportunities for People, Business and Society Peter Maskell (INO), Signe Vikkelsø (IOA), Mogens Bjerre (MARKTG), Morten Ougaard (IKL) & Dalia Ali Siwan (STUD) June 7 th, 2010

Alternatives Findings and implications for hypotheses Theme 6 - Overall recommendation: Build Collaborative Platform Leadership (CPL) for Redefining Problems, Solutions and Markets 1 Findings 2 Implications for hypotheses Society and business are increasingly recognizing how most useful knowledge is widely dispersed amongst many agents. No single entity holds the full answer to any problem. Inspired by the business models of Apple or Google, CBS can contribute in creating new projects, businesses or markets by building capabilities for collaborative platform leadership (CPL) that jointly create cross-cutting opportunities for internal and external public or private stakeholders with shared interests or concerns. Deciding for a collaborative platform strategy, CBS can leverage its strong multi-disciplinarity while providing advantages for : Business by facilitating the development of innovations, new technologies, and new markets Society by generating new markets and new partners, new knowledge and new services, products and spillovers, People by generating opportunities for future professionals, entrepreneurs and ventures A 3 B C Alternatives Habitat version, where collaborative. platforms are experiments within a specific area or topic. Hybrid version, in which a group of selected CPLs are placed in a common framework (e.g. "Øresund Tech Centre" ) while maximizing internal synergies and external interaction Full scale version touching all areas of activities of CBS The alternatives listed can also be viewed as stages, starting with building on ongoing initiatives ("Habitats") and gradually moving to the "full" model. This is the recommended approach. 34 Implications Research and education Recruitment Organization Teaching: Collaborative open formats in all courses (at stage 'C') building on the best teaching quality, new media and incentives to integrating partners worldwide. Discontinue all programs without external partners. Research: Further internationalize research teams by encouraging integration of international scholars. Further decentralize budgets control. Open for nonbureaucratic and decentralized shortterm engagement of externals providing proven high-quality course-formats or high-potential research projects. Establish sets of long-term rules and frameworks that need less daily decision making and enables decentralized decision making. 2

Does this live up to the guiding principles? Implications for decisions to make and uncertainties Recommendation Theme 6 Specific Recommendations on the proposed Collaborative Platform Leadership (CPL) for Redefining Problems, Solutions and Markets 4 Recommended approach (actions for the next 5 years) 5 A: Enhance Bio-Business Habitat B : Create Cleantech Habitat C : Build Pervasive Healthcare Habitat D: Develop Business and Global Governance Habitat E. Develop Creative Business Processes Habitat Viability in managerial, financial, organizational and legal terms Managerial: CBS harbours already several highly relevant successful or embryonic activities which can be supporting to realize their full potential while new are added -Financial: well within the scope of CBS. Stronger collaborate platforms are likely to generate additional streams of finance. -Organizational: unproblematic as network activity based in existing units -Legal: probably unproblematic 6 Prioritized decisions to be made by Leadership Team 7 Key risk/uncertainties Adopt Collaborative Platform Leadership Approach Decide on funding and recruitment Establish strong network of collaborative partners in and outside DK, and across disciplines and sectors. Establish collaborative venues on all teaching levels Establish collaboratively funded research projects Level of real engagement from external partners often opaque ex ante. Can be crucially dependent on timing of initiative CBS ability to develop required capacity necessitate mobilization both deeper and broader than traditionally seen, but deemed feasible Consistent with CBS Guiding Principles? 1 Dedicated to Relevance? 2 Creating Distinctiveness? 3 Committed to Excellence? 4 Rewarding Imagination? 5 Join Us? s s s s s 3

Theme 6 - Backups and specifications Habitat A-D specified (Slide 4-7) Hybrid model specified (Slide 8-9) Development stages and organizational models specified (Slide 10-11) Members and informants specified (Slide 1-13) 4

Guiding principles Implications for decisions to make and uncertainties Recommendation Theme 6, A: Bio-Business Habitat Located primarily in the Copenhagen Region life-science business play a critical role for the Danish economy, with products from pharmaceuticals over food ingredients to industrial enzymes. The bio-businesses relies on the region s public research, institutions and infrastructure. Commercialization of life-science imply highly specialized business analytical and managerial skills. Several hundred students annually enroll in bio-business related university programs in the region, CBS Should aim to serve this population by enhancing entrepreneurship and providing managerial skills while deepening relationships with Bio-business. 4 Recommended approach 5 Viability in managerial, financial, organizational and legal terms Build Collaborative Platform Leadership in Bio-Business Management and Entrepreneurship through initiating/supporting new joint master programs with Life/KU and DTU in cooperation with selected local business partners and with supportive research.. Develop synergies with the existing success of CBS- SIMI s activities in the sector. CBS is already successfully providing bio-entrepreneurship courses in life science graduate programs at DTU and LIFE/KU. New joint master degrees are in preparation. Financed through combinations of STÅ and sponsors/donations CBS faculty so far has only a narrow basis in bio-related research and training. To build a relevant faculty basis a stepwise development of activities is required. 6 Decisions to be made by Leadership Team 7 Key Risk/Uncertainties Select the scope of CBS engagement from various alternatives: E.g. Medico sector? Life-science based? Biotech? Commit to binding collaboration with Life and DTU. Partner universities should be invited to long-term reliance on deliverables form CBS. Choose research enhancing approach for CBS faculty to build critical mass of particular relevance for bio-business. Penetration time might be longer than initially anticipated (students as well as companies). Modest eagerness on part of industry to sponsor new programs Limited revealed interest among CBS faculty to add sector-specific skills to more generic research and teaching profiles Consistent with CBS Guiding Principles? 1 Dedicated to Relevance? 2 Creating Distinctiveness? s 3 Committed to Excellence? 4 Rewarding Imagination? 5 Join Us? s s s 5

Does this live up to the guiding principles? Implications for decisions to make and uncertainties Recommendation Theme 6, B: Cleantech Habitat Cleantech is among the most expansive and promising sectors in Denmark with growing exports to overseas markets even during the recent financial crisis. CBS has much to offer the sector with regards to research collaboration, access and business (executive) education. Rather than a general green flavored MBA CBS should take the world lead and offer the first and best MBA in clean tech business in the heart of its natural environment: the Øresund Region. 5 Recommended approach Build Collaborative Platform Leadership in Cleantech through a new Cleantech MBA, dedicated graduate courses and supportive research. Initiate collaboration with DTU RISØ (Director Henrik Bindslev has already invited), Copenhagen Cleantech Cluster CCC (chairman Anders Eldrup has already invited), Nordic Cleantech Alliance and Cleantech Scandinavia (Alexander Lidgren) Initiate market analyses and promotion especially overseas. Engage in developing leading online teaching facilities 7 Decisions to be made by Leadership Team 6 Viability in managerial, financial, organizational and legal terms Managerial: Use existing capabilities : CBS executive, CBS corporate partners, CBS departments now engaged in Cleantecth (INO, PEØ, INT, ARC) as well as units with core competences in business management and strategy. -Financial: Requires smaller investment in CBS/SIMI Executive, eventually also program coordination -Organizational: use existing executive structure in collaborating with i.e. DTU/RISØ -Legal: collaboration between SIMI/CBS Executive and DTU Executive. 8 Key Risk/Uncertainties Decide if cleantech focus should be part of a broader green focus or if approach should be purely business Engage in binding collaboration with CCC and/or other industry/research networks. Risk: that others in the region have similar plans about a clean tech MBA. The solution should however then be collaboration! Uncertainties: key persons from sector experience demand for executive education, but a more thorough market analysis is needed for confirmation. Consistent with CBS Guiding Principles? 1 Dedicated to Relevance? 2 Creating Distinctiveness? 3 Committed to Excellence? 4 Rewarding Imagination? 5 Join Us? s s s s s 6

Does this live up to the guiding principles? Implications for decisions to make and uncertainties Recommendation Theme 6, C: Pervasive Healthcare Habitat Healthcare presents an enormous societal challenge. Aging populations with chronic diseases, rapid development of new treatment technologies, large scale use of health informatics, potentials of personalized medicine, demand for wellbeing /wellness services etc. enhance existing key problems such as integration of services, cost control and quality insurance. CBS holds competences to bring together agents in order to address and co-create solutions for a new generation of healthcare actors across disciplines and public/private divides. 4 Recommended approach (actions for the next 5 years) 5 Build Collaborative Platform Leadership in Healthcare through existing MBA-Health and new dedicated graduate courses with strong involvement of external partners. Augment existing collaboration with DSI to include Health/Copenhagen University, Aalborg University, DK Regions as well as international partners integrating knowledge on medicine, IT, economics, biotech and management. Viability in managerial, financial, organizational and legal terms Managerial: amplify existing capabilities such as CHM, MHM and Public Debate Series. Stronger network with Health informatics and medico companies, hospitals, patients organizations, NOVOnetvärket, Cent. for Technology, Medicine & Health, Karolinska etc. Financial: Total: app. 3 million DKK annually over five years. Organizational: unproblematic as network activity based in existing units Legal: Possible public/private interface tension 6 Prioritized decisions to be made by Leadership Team 7 Key risk/uncertainties Decide if platform should be focused on executive programs only or be introduced at graduate programs. CBS can t match need. Decide whether CBS should be focused on health service (public/private) or should expand to a broader medicotechnical platform. Consistent with CBS Guiding Principles? 1 Dedicated to Relevance? 2 Creating Distinctiveness? 3 Committed to Excellence? 4 Rewarding Imagination? 5 Join Us? X X X X 7

Does this live up to the guiding principles? Implications for decisions to make and uncertainties Recommendation Theme 6, D: Business and Global Governance Habitat Global governance institutions play a major role in creating and governing markets for sustainability technology and in linking developed and emerging economies through trade, investment and technology transfer. They also are career options for CBS graduates. The United Nations has a strong presence in Copenhagen, ranking 6 th city in the world in terms of UN employees. Linking up with this and other institutions and building on existing capacities, CBS can become a regional leader with broader international impact in teaching and research in business and global governance. 4 Recommended approach (actions for the next 5 years) 5 6 Build Collaborative Platform Leadership in Business and Global Governance through dedicated graduate courses, supportive research, post-experience teaching activities and dissemination Initiate collaboration with United Nations in Copenhagen, Department of Political Science at Lund, Danish Institute of International Studies, and business partners active /experienced on emerging markets. Prioritized decisions to be made by Leadership Team Viability in managerial, financial, organizational and legal terms Managerial: Use existing CBS capabilities: Business and Global Governance research cluster, Centre for Business and Politics, M.Sc. in International Business and Politics, CBS CSR Centre, Business and Development Studies Centre, research capabilities on emerging markets. -Financial: limited investment in research capacity and re-allocation of faculty time. -Organizational: unproblematic as network activity based in existing units 7 Key risk/uncertainties Decide if teaching should target existing programs only or if a Master of Business and Global Governance should be developed with UN(CPH) and relevant business partners.. Uncertain level of real engagement from external partners. Limited risk that the international agenda might downplay cooperation and sustainability or that relations with emerging economies turn confrontational. Consistent with CBS Guiding Principles? 1 Dedicated to Relevance? 2 Creating Distinctiveness? 3 Committed to Excellence? 4 Rewarding Imagination? 5 Join Us? s s s s s 8

Does this live up to the guiding principles? Implications for decisions to make and uncertainties Recommendation Theme 6, E: Øresund Tech Centre 4 Recommended approach (actions for the next 5 years) 5 Build Collaborative Platform Leadership across technological fields of great societal importance by joining two or more of the targeted recommended initiatives shown as A-D above while focusing on commercializing and managing high-end science businesses. Viability in managerial, financial, organizational and legal terms Managerial: requires strong cross-cutting capabilities in both business and science of leadership team. Organizational: Putting into system initiatives already ongoing + generating synergies and adding external partners Financial: Need to establish external funding all the more viable when done through collaboration platform 6 Prioritized decisions to be made by Leadership Team 7 Key risk/uncertainties Decide which initiatives A-D should be included and in what order. Develop detailed work plan towards opening of centre incl. funding plan. Launch prioritized initiatives, incl. -- Educational programs, incl. executive, PhD, and MSc -- Selected research priorities within priority technologies CPL partners in A-D might not easily be convinced of advantages if joint platform - in particularly if very successful as stand-alone initiatives. External funding might prove difficult to obtain in sufficient scale Life/Tech/Science faculty might launch competing initiatives so that CBS first mover advantages are lost and many relevant /attractive business partners are committed to non-cbs solutions. Consistent with CBS Guiding Principles? 1 Dedicated to Relevance? 2 Creating Distinctiveness? 3 Committed to Excellence? 4 Rewarding Imagination? 5 Join Us? s s s s s 9

Theme 6 - Examples of sequence of activities the Øresund Tech Center could initiate at various stages of development Initiatives along intersection continuum Technology sphere Research conferences along center focus topics Academic tenure track with built in industry track Intersection between technology and business Executive education in technology management Business sphere CTO roundtables Management conferences Academic tenure track with built in industry track Focused research policy effort with tech innovation center (funding) to push efforts Elective programs for partner institutions Joint degree programs either full-scope or part-scope but with degree n/a Industrial PhD programs designed/ coached and funded by tech innovation center Advanced degree programs, e.g. industrial management / economics (strong technical profile as well as management skills) Networking infrastructure, e.g., bringing academics ideas to tech center s corporate partners Product development concrete product development projects supported by commercial partners Translational research - true incubator / tech transfer office for both partner and nonpartner institutions Venture capital / angel network Note: All ideas shown could be within realm of tech innovation center SOURCE: McKinsey provided for Theme 6 10

Theme 6 - Collaborative Platform Leadership Initiative Suggested stages of development Increasing scope of collaborative platform Examples of scope Definition and development of CBS collaboration model for external parties Several smaller habitats Working independently Strong set of external parties Best practices / joint collaboration model derived and shared across (learning by doing) E.g., covering health care, biotech, etc. Full scale Øresund Tech Center Multiple collaboration among selected 'habitats' With partners from business and academia, e.g., Lund, ESS, Novozymes, Dedicated technology focus, e.g., clean tech, biotech, Several activities, e.g., executive education, and supportive research SOURCE: CBS Strategy theme 6 group 11

Theme 6 - Two models for organizing initiatives for CBS Collaborative Platform Leadership (CPL) The two models highlighted below are extremes and some kind of crossbreed model might also be considered feasible. 12

Theme 6 - List of members defined as individuals contributing to final recommendations Mogens Bjerre Christoph Hienerth Mia Jacobsen (Secretary) Peter Maskell (Chair) Morten Ougaard Bjørn Ruwald (McKinsey) Dalia Siwan (Student representative) Finn Valentin Signe Vikkelsø 13

BiS Platforms will be selected on several criteria Potential to Contribute to economic development in the Copenhagen Metropolitan Region Attract genuine and deep engagement from the private and public sectors Attract our own faculty from across disciplines Attract scholars from reputable institutions Develop research with global recognition Create next generation knowledge and skills for business Enhance existing and develop new study programmes with global attractiveness 1