I am hooked on Bananagrams. I suspect I'm not alone, because this board-less version of Scrabble has been flying off the shelves. Now that I have a few games under my belt, I have learned that one of the secrets to winning the game is the willingness to revisit your work and at times dismantle it.

Each player starts with 15 letters and races to create intersecting words. You may bask in your mastery of the English language as you admire your ability to put together "loquacious," but then the game gets interesting, because it keeps going. As you find a place for all your letters you keep "peeling" additional letters from the pile and have to incorporate them into your words. Sometimes additions fit nicely. Other times they require a rebuilding process that involves painful dismantling of even the most loquacious, in order to build quandary and luscious. 

Planning models are like puzzles, and when pieces are all in place - linking assumptions, planning elements and outcomes - the last thing you want to do is pull it apart. But our institutions and operating circumstances evolve and there are times when new pieces come into play and models need to be reworked, jettisoned or even shuttered to make way for a new model.

A well-designed model should have a range of motion that can accommodate a spectrum and combination of what-ifs. Then as dramatic shifts in circumstances and inquiry emerge, planners must incorporate new concepts and flexibilities, even to the most dazzling tool. Otherwise, it becomes an outdated exhibit, which is the antithesis of a forward looking tool.

When to tweak assumptions

A good model enables and compares multiple scenarios. It should accommodate changes to variables such as endowment performance and spending, capital initiatives, staffing and enrollment without requiring any reconstruction.

What may have changed:  A fitting model may need a tweak along the lines of changing financial aid from a discount rate, to a function of budget and fundraising goals or projecting auxiliary revenues as a function of campus populations and service levels, as opposed to a flat growth rate. These are expected evolutions as a tool settles in alongside the enterprise.

When to add new dimensions

As your institution considers new business strategies you may want to add layers to your planning model.

What may have changed:  You may want to evaluate diversified revenue strategies such as patent rights, new residency programs for traditional or non-traditional students, and research pursuits. These considerations can be added in to your model. New revenue sources can be added to existing revenue sources and enable projections for all possible sources of funds.

When to spin off details

While a comprehensive model can pull together all sources of revenue and expenses, one size cannot ever meet all planning needs.

What may have changed: Your comprehensive planning model may provide a model of current enrollment strategy, but your board wants to consider multiple tuition pricing and financial aid strategies. You will want to develop a stand-alone enrollment model that can accommodate multiple strategy options and accompanying details. Outcomes of the pricing analysis can feed into the comprehensive model, without bogging down the bigger picture model with more finite analysis.

When to build a new one

If you built your model more than a couple of years ago I suspect it focused on the elements of growth and balance sheet outcomes such as borrowing, capital projects and endowment assets.

What may have changed: While these are still critical elements of your long-range plan, you find that you need more robust strategies for your operating budget, down to specific programs. A balance sheet oriented model does not answer these questions, which merit their own planning environment. Once again different planning pieces can fit together, but one size does not fit all inquiries.

These are not static times. Now more than ever institutions have challenges and opportunities to ask "what-if?". Informed strategy considers the implications of these what-ifs as thoroughly as possible before implementation. These dynamic times demand dynamic planning tools. A planning model that doesn't evolve is comparable to an old phone book. It sits on the shelf until a more updated resource is available, but some information is now obsolete.

Good tools provide what you need when you need it. Changing, jettisoning or even building a new model does not mean your original model wasn't an excellent tool. Change reflects responsiveness to new pieces of the puzzle. Making room for the new, even when disrupting what is in place, is often a winning strategy.