Some results from the Society for College and University Planning's (SCUP) ongoing environmental scan for resources relating to higher education planning.
Get the best result now and don’t worry about the day after tomorrow. Maximize stock value at the end of the quarter. That way you’ll get the biggest bonus package this year. Is there a way to take advantage of market movements and make a killing tomorrow, in the next hour, in the next 10 minutes?
It goes on. Get as many folks signed up for mortgages at the low introductory interest rate and don’t worry about what happens when the rate resets. Home buyers: Get that introductory rate. Don’t worry about resets or the possibility the economy may sour. Back to brokers and local banks: Take the commissions and sell the mortgages now. Bigger banks: Bundle those mortgages and take the profits by selling them. Get the risk off your books. Put it elsewhere. Don’t worry what happens once you resell the mortgage. Just jump that next hurdle.
The system we use to grade students doesn’t just mirror this scale of values. It blesses and promotes it.
'Public Purpose' Mag Looks at Important Research Issues
Public Purpose is the magazine of the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU). Its November–December 2008 issue presents several thoughtful reads on important issues regarding college and university research, from the perspective of top, decision-making leadership, including: The Ethical Imperative (PDF), subtitled "Nine Reminders for Presidents About Compliance and Ethics"; Innovation and Economic Development Spark New Collaborations on AASCU Campuses (PDF), "Because of the greater amounts of land required, as well as higher property costs and related expenses, many of the newer projects on AASCU campuses take the form of business incubators, accelerators or other spaces more modest than traditional research parks"; and Presidents and Chancellors Name Top Research Priorities (PDF), "One hundred and fifty of the chief executive officers at AASCU-member institutions completed the survey, a response that speaks to the importance of research development on the campuses."
Inside the Design of U. New Mexico's New School of Architecture
Architect Antoine Predock got to design his alma mater's new facility. This Architecture Week article describes the facility and his perspective on how the design came together:
the building is "an interpretation of what I think is wonderful about the area."
This interpretation is evident in the big concrete wall facing Central Avenue, which is part of historic Route 66. The wall signifies power and gravity to Predock; it is reminiscent of the towering sandstone cliffs of Canyon de Chelly. The monumental wall defines the building's relationship to the rest of the campus and establishes a strong presence on Central.
University design directives also required that the style and feel of the architecture building, named George Pearl Hall, integrate with other buildings on campus, which Predock says was achieved through the earthen color and stepped massing.
One goal was to facilitate intellectual sharing. "When you get inside the building, there are a lot of spatial dynamics where different levels visually connect with other levels," says Predock. "You have a real sense of students visually eavesdropping on each other's activities, and lots of cross-pollination. Ideas are constantly crossing over from one studio to the next."
By revealing infrastructure and environmental systems, the building constantly exposes students to its interior workings. Predock describes the building as being "turned inside out."
Integrity Based Budgeting for Management of Large Facility Portfolios
This excellent article from Facilities Manager (PDF) describes the experience of the U.S. Department of Defense with regard to the integration of data for support of capital budgeting of 800,000 facilities across various defense departments and agencies such as the Army, the Navy, and the Defense Logistics Agency.
Three important issues were critical to the evolution of a solution. First, what degree of accuracy was affordable? Second, with over 800,000 properties, how could this number be distilled to make a solution understandable to the user and still retain meaningfulness? And third, how would facilities requirements be defined? . . . Making all this work was somewhat like the famous Monty Python sketch teaching children how to play the flute on the children’s show, Blue Peter. The sketch taught the flute by saying you simply blow through here and move your fingers up and down, and “that’s how to play the flute.” While clearly an over-simplification, the next step for SRM was to build cost models for each of the FACs – these included sustainment (what should be spent), modernization (what should be designated for facilities renewal), and most recently operations models for each, covering utilities, fire and emergency services, pest control, pavement clearance, research reports, and state/local governments. The second source category is defined as costs obtained from DoD sources. The third source, representing only 3 percent of the total requirement, is developed by analogy to other FACs of similar complexity and durability. This category represents those very few unique facilities that typically only the military owns – for example, missile shelters or gunnery ranges.
What would happen, for example, if all of us came to the conclusion that it would make sense only to build residence halls that conform in design and purpose to the academic program of our respective college or university and to the pricing and construction standards of eco-friendly “low-income housing” that offer inhabitants perfectly livable, attractive space without extravagance? The initial cost may still be high (although not higher than luxury-hotel accommodations), but the long-term energy savings would be significant. What if we all agreed that students could, indeed, survive and even thrive in double rooms? What if we all scaled back our competition for student athletes? What if we pledged to reduce conference and meeting costs by relying more heavily on virtual technology? What stands in the way is not only antitrust laws but also our own attitudes and egos.
It is quite obvious that none of this radical change could be accomplished systemically by a single president or a small group of institutions; it would take a sea change across higher education. But even if we have the best of intentions and can overcome our reluctance to change, the antitrust laws stand squarely in our way. Right now, any discussion with the intent of disarmament cannot prudently be attempted.
Defeating Bedlam: How Do You Keep Track of 'Resources'?
Writing in her New York Times opinion series, "The Wild Side," Olivia Judson describes the chaos created in her research caused by the shift from paper/physical library to digital/Internet—and a couple of new ways she's found to keep track of things. Sound familiar?
The journal articles arrive with file names like 456330a.pdf or sd-article121.pdf. Keeping track of what these are, what I have, where I’ve put them, which other papers are related to them — hopeless. Attempting to replicate my old way of doing things, but on my computer — so, electronic versions of papers in electronic folders — didn’t work, I think because I couldn’t see what the papers actually were.
And so, absurdly, it became easier to re-research a subject each time I wanted to think about it, and to download the papers again. My hard drive has filled up with duplicates; my office, with stalagmites of paper. And it isn’t just that I have the organizational skills of a mosquito. Many of my colleagues have found the same thing. (Yes, we talk about it. Oh, they are lofty, the conversations in university common rooms.) In short, access to information is easier and faster than ever before (for a caveat, see the notes, below, but there’s been no obvious way to manage it once you’ve got it.
Universities traditionally have taken a two-fold approach to internationalism: foreign student recruitment and study-abroad programs. These efforts have yielded some success. . . . Another way to make our universities more international is to integrate global perspectives into the curriculum. This shouldn’t be confined to one “International Perspectives” course within a major. It is crucial that humanities, social sciences, arts, and business course content reflect variations across countries, cultures, and time periods. . . . Fluency in a foreign language is a key component of an international education. . . . while the model of a semester or year abroad is still effective, it is important to offer additional experiential options in the summer and over holiday breaks so more students can participate.
Higher Education Makes Its Case to Be Part of the Economic Stimulus Package
Led by the American Council on Education (ACE), a group of higher education organizations recently began introducing the concept that a portion of any Obama stimulus package should support higher education institutions. Read the full press release here.
Elements of the proposal include:
Increase in student aid funding to provide immediate financial relief to families struggling to pay tuition during the economic downturn. This request includes an immediate increase in the Pell Grant maximum award by $700 and retirement of the shortfall the program has amassed, as well as doubling the funding for the Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant (SEOG) Program.
Creation of Higher Education Infrastructure Block Grants (HEIBG) to support campus projects that provide jobs now and strengthen the academic capacity of colleges and universities. The grants would be available for “shovel ready” projects capable of starting within 180 days.
By changing our own attitudes and behaviors, administrators and faculty members can begin to alter the perception that two-year colleges are less rigorous and intellectually stimulating than four-year institutions. We can help students appreciate more fully the value of a community-college education, whether they plan to enter the work force or transfer. Most important, we can develop a sense of pride in ourselves and our institutions that will carry over to the communities we serve.
Because the fact is, we're not the 13th grade. Community colleges open the doors of higher education to students for whom those doors would otherwise be closed. And that's something no high school, and very few universities, can say.
Here are the key findings on the survey of experts by the Pew Internet & American Life Project that asked respondents to assess predictions about technology and its roles in the year 2020:
The mobile device will be the primary connection tool to the internet for most people in the world in 2020.
The transparency of people and organizations will increase, but that will not necessarily yield more personal integrity, social tolerance, or forgiveness.
Voice recognition and touch user-interfaces with the internet will be more prevalent and accepted by 2020.
Those working to enforce intellectual property law and copyright protection will remain in a continuing arms race, with the crackers who will find ways to copy and share content without payment.
The divisions between personal time and work time and between physical and virtual reality will be further erased for everyone who is connected, and the results will be mixed in their impact on basic social relations.
Next-generation engineering of the network to improve the current internet architecture is more likely than an effort to rebuild the architecture from scratch.
Constructing the Interdisciplinary Ivory Tower: The Planning of Interdisciplinary Spaces on University Campuses
This article from Planning for Higher Education is blurbed: "An analysis of strategic and campus plans at 21 research institutions reveals lessons learned regarding planning and nurturing interdisciplinary space." SCUP members can access the article online via the SCUP website. Others may purchase an immediately-downloadable PDF version here.
Full Citation: Michael S. Harris and Karri Holley. 2008. Constructing the Interdisciplinary Ivory Tower: The Planning of Interdisciplinary Spaces on University Campuses. Planning for Higher Education. 36(3): 34–43.
Full Abstract: The demand for interdisciplinary teaching and research suggests the need to understand how universities are undertaking and fostering interdisciplinarity. Through an examination of strategic and master plans at 21 research universities, this article explores how institutions plan and foster interdisciplinary engagement through the use of space on campus. The construction of such space acknowledges that the discrete functions of the university, frequently attributed to the disciplines and departments, are not generally conducive to interdisciplinary engagement. Physical space is a necessary component for successful interdisciplinary initiatives both functionally and symbolically.
Lifeboat: A Conversation About The Incredible Shrinking Budget
We think you may enjoy and learn from this post on the "Tenured Radical" blog, having to do with a small, private institution's budget crisis and faculty's perspective on attempts to cope with it. A bemusing, very short, YouTube clip is below the following quote:
I won't go into what was said at the meeting, as it is against my blogger ethic. But one of the things I would like to explore in future posts is the nature of community, and scholars' capacity for empathetic connection -- or lack thereof -- to other types of workers in and beyond our workplace. This becomes particularly apparent at a meeting like yesterday's, when it became clear how very tuition driven Zenith is (I have no idea how this compares to other institutions our size); how volatile we can expect our financial aid budget to be in the next few years (or maybe even starting tomorrow); how much the recession may drive other costs up (or down, in the case of fuel, for example); what the long term costs of certain kinds of temporary disinvestment are (Library, physical plant); and how few options a college has to generate immediate, extra cash to cover its expenses, assuming there is anyone to buy what we would offer.
That I can make this list in such a cogent way is some testimony to the presentation we saw yesterday, which was, I would say impressive and reassuring, to the extent that it addresses my basic problem: I don't want to run the university. I want to know that the people in charge are thoughtful, competent and doing the best they know how to do.
What do you think is Barack Obama's perception on quality and accountability issues in higher education? Who will influence his decision making? Judith S. Eaton, president of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA), took part in an online discussion of these and other issues. You can read it on The Chronicle of Higher Education website:
Accreditation is a process of external review developed by colleges to ensure and improve quality on an institution-wide and program-wide basis. But the self-regulation of higher education through accreditation has been challenged in recent years, in part because of criticisms led by Education Secretary Margaret Spellings. The Council for Higher Education Accreditation, a leading advocate for accreditation and self-regulation, has begun a multiyear "CHEA Initiative" that aims to respond to public and governmental concerns about the process. As part of that process, and in preparation for the council's annual meeting next month, CHEA and the nation's accrediting agencies are examining matters that include the role of the federal government in accreditation and accountability, the use of student assessments in the accreditation process, and the expectations of the new Obama administration. Questions now facing colleges and the accreditation community include: Are accreditors likely to receive a warmer reception after January 20, or will they face renewed pressure for change from the new administration and Congress? Will the economic crisis put even greater pressure on accreditors to prove that colleges provide value to their students? What are the most important accreditation-related questions facing the new education secretary?
This excellent article, found by SCUP staffer Phyllis Grummon, is blurbed, "During hard times a structural break in the economy is an opportunity in disguise. To survive—and eventually, to flourish—companies must learn to exploit it." To read the full article requires site registration:
There is nothing like a crisis to clarify the mind. In suddenly volatile and different times, you must have a strategy. I don't mean most of the things people call strategy—mission statements, audacious goals, three- to five-year budget plans. I mean a real strategy. . . . For many managers, the word has become a verbal tic. Business lingo has transformed marketing into marketing strategy, data processing into IT strategy, acquisitions into growth strategy. Cut prices and you have a low-price strategy. Equating strategy with success, audacity, or ambition creates still more confusion. A lot of people label anything that bears the CEO's signature as strategic—a definition based on the decider's pay grade, not the decision. . . . By strategy, I mean a cohesive response to a challenge. A real strategy is neither a document nor a forecast but rather an overall approach based on a diagnosis of a challenge. The most important element of a strategy is a coherent viewpoint about the forces at work, not a plan.
Buying Low: Are the Proprietary Colleges Swooping' In?
Some of the best stuff being written in the higher ed world right is coming from bloggers. Here's a recent installment from the "Confessions of a Community College Dean" blog in Inside Higher Ed:
Apparently, the proprietary colleges are in the midst of another of their periodic booms, swooping in and grabbing students just when the public sector is reeling from yet another round of budget cuts.
I’ve seen this movie.
As regular readers know, I used to work for a proprietary. You’ve heard of it.
I’d be both more and less worried than the IHE story suggests.
The worrisome part of the return of the proprietaries is that, unlike the public sector, their income rises and falls with enrollments. This means they’re immune to the double-bind the public colleges routinely experience during recessions, when enrollments go up but funding goes down. This Fall my cc is experiencing the highest enrollments in its history, and applications for the Spring are even higher than that; at the exact same time, our operating funding is crashing. Say what you want about ‘administrators’ – I defy anybody to make that math work without pain. It’s one thing to do more with less, and another to perform alchemy.
For the DeVry’s and Phoenixes of the world, though, higher enrollments automatically equate to higher revenues. This means they can add capacity when it makes sense. In times like these, I envy them that.
The University in the Networked Economy and Society: Challenges and Opportunities
This book chapter is from The Tower and the Cloud by Richard N. Katz. The chapter itself is by Yochai Benkler, the Jack N. and Lillian R. Berkman Professor of Entrepreneurial Studies at Harvard Law School and is Faculty Co-director of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society:
Throughout the period of the industrial information economy, the university maintained a stance apart from much of the rest of that economy. As we move to a networked information economy, the distinct values of the university—its relative freedom from the pressures of the market, polity, and popular fashion—are a major source of strength. Universities can become an even more significant force in the knowledge production system, one that distinctly pulls in the direction of professional values. Universities can provide an anchor “against” commercial incentives and build a strong complementary system with the amateur commons–based peer production system, as we have indeed seen in areas such as free and open source software.
University networks and technical platforms will have to focus on managing the increasingly permeable boundaries among universities, and between universities and the world outside them. University platform design should be focused on ensuring that faculty and students have the greatest degree possible of authority and capacity to act freely, innovate internally, and participate externally. And university systems should be attuned to the need to build platforms for cooperation, as the new practices of cooperation and sharing become more prevalent and more based in a broader shift from an image of hierarchical or market-oriented systems to systems based on individuals collaborating with each other in loose networks.
Many higher education institutions rely on external consultants not only for advice but also for help in diagnosing and developing strategies related to common and uncommon challenges in a whole host of areas—such as compensation, leadership development, enrollment, labor relations, strategic planning, technology, capital planning, and succession planning. . . . Ideally, a consultant brings a fresh perspective, best practices from other IHEs, problem-solving skills, and cost-effective ways of managing the college or university’s resources. That description paints a rosy picture. But unless institutional leaders assess their needs clearly and choose consultants wisely, the experience can be an exercise in futility. . . . These caveats and best practices form a strategic approach to the hiring of consultants. The approach begins with recognizing a clear need, problem, or opportunity; carefully selecting a consultant whose experience and style fit the institution and the issue; working proactively with the consultant to create change; and measuring success over time. Being methodical and strategic is far superior to the common hit-or-miss method of rushing into a consulting relationship. It will avoid painful experiences and optimize results.
Why become a real estate developer in the midst of a housing recession? Real estate markets are historically cyclical. It’s in the doldrums now, but the market will return to health. Planning and entitlements for real estate projects take time, often years, to complete. By preparing and positioning projects for development now, landowners will be in a position to capitalize on the value when the market returns.
Is the risk inherent in real estate appropriate for an academic institution? Value in real estate can be harvested at many points along the evolution of the property, from raw land to built product. An institution could sell surplus raw land. This, however, is typically the lowest value that might be achieved. It also leaves the use and quality of the development to the new owner, who may decide to use the land in a way that reflects poorly on the university. Value is added by creating an initial vision for the property through a master planning process, providing the university’s development partner and its stakeholders with a clear understanding of the institution’s desires and standards, which must be met in the development.
Some IHEs choose to sell the land once they have articulated their vision and the guidelines needed to ensure its implementation. Obtaining entitlements and approvals from a variety of state and local entities adds further value without committing funds to building roads, utilities, or buildings, and other institutions harvest value at this point in the process.
Still others choose to construct roads and utilities as the “master developer” of the property, leaving the construction and sale of homes and other buildings to private sector developers. As value is added, risk increases. By gaining a clearer understanding of the development process and weighing the potential risk against the gain, IHE leaders are maximizing the value of their real estate assets.
Effective strategies for reducing or eliminating resistance are essential to the process of implementing lasting and effective organizational change. While there are several strategies generally accepted as effective, they all have certain traits in common and are most effective when used in combination. Developing a positive climate for change is at the top of the list. The beliefs employees hold about the organization will affect their responses during times of change. Effective, honest, and transparent communication with employees will help to build a positive belief about the change leaders and in turn will facilitate dissipation of the related anxiety within the organization. . . . With few drawbacks, education is clearly one of the most desirable strategies. However, regardless of the format in which it is delivered, education can be time consuming and costly. . . . Participation is another strategy change leaders frequently rely on. Acting as a substantial contributor will instill a genuine sense of ownership within the participants and stakeholders alike. . . . Facilitation is yet another highly effective change strategy and is essential in situations where individual stress, anxiety and adjustment difficulties underlie the resistance. Several other strategies are defined and characterized within the process of overcoming resistance. Other strategies identified include manipulation, co-optation, and explicit/implicate. While these strategies are defined and accepted, they are not considered desired or even ethical. Most often these tactic lead to rapid inappropriate changes that are short lived. Additionally, these strategies certainly leave participants feeling as though they have been deceived and taken advantage of. Such emotions will only serve to diminish individual and group trust which is extremely destructive to an organization.
This article by James Smith, Krista Tillman, and Hilary Coman is from NACUBO's Business Officer magazine. The Presidents Advisory Committee on Efficiency and Effectiveness identified $32M in cash savings in the first year of the new presidency of Erskine Bowles:
The PACE project took a fundamentally different approach from cost-cutting exercises typically used on college campuses. Rather than simply reducing budgets by a certain percentage to meet a specific goal, PACE called first for cost identification. Core faculty functions—instruction, research, and public service—were not within the scope of this project.
The remaining costs, dubbed “enabling activities,” were then divided into 12 functional categories:
Academic administration and support.
Accountability activities.
Advancement activities.
Auxiliary services.
Enrollment-related activities.
External activities.
Facilities management.
Fiscal activities.
Human resources.
Information technology.
Sponsored-project activities.
Student-service activities.
Notably, the committee did not dismiss these enabling activities—many of which directly support students—as mere administrative overhead. As Barbara Carroll, vice chancellor for human resources at North Carolina State University, Raleigh, observed, “Employees perform such functions so that faculty members don’t have to—thereby freeing faculty to teach, conduct research, and extend public service.”
Next, the committee asked managers at each campus and within the general administration office to match employees’ time and effort against the range of enabling functions. PACE’s six-month schedule didn’t permit detailed time-and-effort analyses, so managers provided their best estimates of how employees allocated time among the functions. For example, if a dean spent 20 percent of his or her time on development, that portion of the full-time-equivalent position and the proportional cost was reported under the category of advancement activities, rather than academic administration.
Not surprisingly, this exercise of matching time and effort to core and enabling functions produced mountains of data. On behalf of all the campuses, North Carolina State University hosted the information-gathering process and built a database that allowed the committee to see where UNC was spending its money based on what employees were actually doing—not on chart of accounts definitions or on employees’ roles in their particular organizations.
Universitites and other higher education institutions (HEIs) make a significant contribution to regional economic, social and cultural development. In a globalised economy this role is growing in importance. IMHE, in collaboration with the OECD Territorial Development and Public Governance Directoriate, has conducted a comparative review of how these issues are addressed in OECD countries, with the objective of reinforcing the partnerships between institutions and regions.
From one of the linked reports, a "policy brief":
The contribution of HEIs to developing their home regions has not previously been a major concern for public policy or the HEIs themselves. But this is changing with the expansion of higher education, particularly in the non-university sector, which in some cases has aimed to addresws regional disparities. Another crucial factor is a poilicy switch in most OECD counties towards indigenous development in regions emphasizing skills, entrepreneurialism and innovation.
This study suggests that beginning community college students do become integrated into the college environment, as indicated by the sense of belonging reported by students in the sample. As predicted by Tinto’s integration framework and in congruence with research findings on students attending four-year institutions, the study further suggests that integration is related to community college students’ persistence. Moreover, as argued by many authors, the study supports the notion that community college students rarely experience social integration as a result of participating in activities such as clubs. But that does not mean that social integration itself is not significant.
The results indicate that integration, including social integration, is developed through participation in information networks. These networks are initiated in classroom-based activities. Classroom discussions, for example, help students feel academically connected to the college while also promoting relationships that extend to social activities outside the classroom. The networks allow students to navigate the campus environment, access knowledge about the college, create a sense of social belonging, and, ultimately, feel that there are people who care about their academic welfare.
Because much of this integration begins in the classroom, the results of this small, exploratory study suggest that practitioners should find ways to structure students’ academic activities so that they promote the development of information networks. In particular, it is worth considering whether a Student Success course should be required of all beginning students. In addition, student-centered pedagogies might also be encouraged. Finally, professors should be supported in their efforts to work individually with students in order to further develop their potential as information sources in students’ networks.
Listening to Community College Students About Learning (PDF)
The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching has been working on a number of reports on how to strengthen pre-collegiate education in community colleges, and this compelling work represents part of their most recent findings on the subject. Authored by Andrea Conklin Bueschel, this 24-page report (PDF) draws on interviews with students, community college leaders, teachers, and others to look into what is most effective in terms of working with these students to achieve their educational goals. The report draws on research performed at a variety of community colleges in California, and anyone with an interest in the continued success of students in these institutions will find this report very helpful. The report is rounded out by a detailed bibliography. [KMG] Copyright 2008, The Internet Scout Report
Plan Your Holiday Trip the Greenest Way PossiblePlan Your Holiday Trip the Greenest Way Possible
The principles involved in this brief article from Scientific American relate to transportation issues around campus, too:
The simple answer is that driving in a relatively fuel efficient car (25-30 miles per gallon) usually generates fewer greenhouse gas emissions than flying. In assessing the global warming impact of a trip from Philadelphia to Boston (about 300 miles), the environmental news website Grist.org calculates that driving would generate about 104 kilograms of carbon dioxide (CO2)—the leading greenhouse gas—per typical medium-sized car, regardless of the number of passengers, while flying on a commercial jet would produce some 184 kilograms of CO2 per passenger.
What this also means, of course, is that while even driving alone would be slightly better from the standpoint of greenhouse gas emissions, carpooling really makes environmental sense. Four people sharing a car would collectively be responsible for emitting only 104 kilograms of CO2, while the same four people taking up four seats on a plane would generate some 736 kilograms.
Note that this essay is one of twenty (20) New Directions in Planning essays, which are an online part of and a companion to the SCUP book, A Guide to Planning for Change (Norris and Poulton, 2008). The essays will eventually be available in their own Web home, but we are sharing them here, now, because we want you to have access to them sooner and because this blog environment will let you post comments, if you wish. Please do!
Strategic Management Enrollment is written by Jim Black of SEM WORKS, LLC.
A Guide to Planning for Change can be ordered in SCUP's online bookstore or via the order form you can download here (PDF). Why don't you purchase a copy (for yourself or a colleague) and spend the down time over the holidays refreshing your perspective on higher education planning?
Copyright SCUP, 2008, all rights reserved.
Chapter 5: Strategic Management Enrollment
by Jim Black of SEM WORKS, LLC
Across higher education, leaders and policy makers are focusing on access, affordability, and student success. Strategic enrollment management (SEM) has emerged as a highly effective institutional strategy and toolkit for attracting and retaining students and improving an institution’s competitive advantage. SEM relies heavily on a well-established set of planning and analytical practices, the development of which has been accelerated by the emergence of action analytics. Aligning SEM with other processes of planning and continuous improvement is a challenge for campus planners.
The field of enrollment management has evolved over the last three decades to become more science than art and more strategic than tactical. College and university leaders have increasingly developed an appetite for integrating enrollment management into institutional strategic planning, analyzing enrollment data, and investing in a resource hungry enrollment enterprise. However, many still struggle with the quality of implementation, the conversion of raw data into actionable intelligence, and the creation and tracking of effectiveness measures designed to determine which strategies produce the highest return on investment (ROI). The reliance on enrollment revenue and in some cases, the accountability measures imposed by boards, higher education agencies, legislators, and other external constituents have compelled institutions to search for a business-oriented approach to managing enrollments. Enrollment management without sophisticated “action analytics” is a “hit or miss” proposition that few colleges and universities can afford.
I. What Forces Are Driving Strategic Enrollment Management?
The forces driving the use of analytics and performance measurement in strategic enrollment management include: (1) increased competition, (2) changing student expectations and enrollment behavior, (3) issues of access and affordability, (4) capacity management, and (5) the realization that enrollment success is highly dependent upon the academic enterprise. In Sun Tzu’s The Art of War (Giles, 1910), there are many parallels to the business of enrollment management. Perhaps most pertinent to enrollment managers is the essence of war described in four dimensions: (1) know yourself (your institution’s mission, vision, strategic directions, and clientele), (2) know your enemy (your top competitors and aspirants), (3) know the ground (your campus culture, limitations, barriers and opportunities for change, priorities, traditions, symbols and artifacts, structures, as well as politics), (4) know the weather (the external environmental factors that may impact your institution’s enrollment outcomes). By understanding these dimensions and acting upon related intelligence, colleges and universities can position themselves effectively among existing and emerging competitors.
With the proliferation of new technologies, real-time solutions and access to all human knowledge via the Internet and other electronic media have created a “culture of immediacy.” For your campuses, this revolution means student expectations of instantaneous communications, constant access to instructors and service providers, infinite access to information that must be evaluated for validity and synthesized, and a redefining of the meaning of “face time” have radically changed how we serve students (Windham, 2005). New technologies, the emergence of non-traditional educational providers, an increasingly diverse student population, and the competing life priorities of many students also have altered enrollment behaviors. The student who is continuously enrolled at a single institution to the completion of a degree in two or four years represents a small minority of today’s student population. The norm is students who enroll part-time, “stop out” at least once during their pursuit of a degree, possess credits from multiple institutions, and may be enrolled concurrently with more than one educational provider. Learning preferences of adults and to a much lesser degree, traditional-aged students, have shifted from classroom instruction to online or hybrid course delivery. Primarily driven by convenience, the desire for non-traditional modes of instructional delivery—including the demand for compressed or accelerated courses—has changed the higher education landscape that has existed for centuries.
While the United States’ egalitarian model of higher education is essential to the vitality of our economy and the general well-being of the country, it is not a perfect system. Too many individuals lack the financial means or academic preparation to pursue postsecondary education. According to the U.S. Department of Education (2007, March 20):
• The U.S. college attainment rate has fallen to 12th among major industrialized countries;
• Forty percent of college students have to take at least one remedial education course and most are unprepared for college level math and science;
• In the previous decade, average tuition and fees at public four-year colleges and universities rose 51 percent after adjusting for inflation; and
• While about 34 percent of white adults have obtained bachelor’s degrees by age 25-29, the same is true for just 18 percent of African American adults and only 10 percent of Hispanic adults in the same age bracket.
These painful truths present significant challenges to institutions and educators. Unless we improve performance related to access and affordability, the U.S. system of higher education—once the envy of the world—will continue to erode and fewer people will benefit from the college experience.
At a time when our nation desperately needs an educated workforce, many institutions are struggling with insufficient capacity to serve those seeking a better life through education. Though some capacity constraints are real (e.g., a limited number of clinicals for nursing students), most are artifacts of unsound practices such as course scheduling driven by faculty preferences rather than student demand or underutilization of space during non-traditional class times. Regardless of the practice, the common denominators are a lack of data for decision-making and the institutional will to act.
Managing capacity effectively requires a change in culture as well as the expertise and information enrollment managers can contribute to capacity decisions. This is just one example of the need for academic leaders and enrollment managers to collaborate in order to maximize enrollment opportunities. Too often, enrollment outcomes are believed to be the sole purview of enrollment personnel. The truth, however, is that no marketing effort will overcome a stale academic product or a program mix that fails to meet the needs of students, industry, and the community (Black, 2008). Likewise, students choose to enroll and persist at institutions primarily because of the quality of academic programs and interactions with faculty, not because of slick recruitment publications, a compelling Web site, or retention programs. An insular approach to enrollment management will yield minimal results. Substantive involvement of the academic enterprise and the strategic use of academic-related data are central to achieving desired enrollment objectives.
II. What Are the Emerging New Directions in Analytics and Performance Measurement?
For many in the academy, the only performance measure that matters is the aggregate enrollment numbers. This “bottom line” method of analyzing the effectiveness of strategic enrollment management is based on a faulty mental map—if enrollment targets are met, recruitment and retention efforts are working and conversely, if goals are not achieved, something must be broken. Obviously, this approach is far too limiting and may, in fact, yield false conclusions—unknowingly placing the institution on the brink of an enrollment crisis. A more prudent method of evaluating enrollment vitality is to regularly examine the current reality, environmental factors that may impact enrollment outcomes, strategic opportunities, key performance indicators, and effectiveness measures.
The current reality. A self-assessment or a review by an objective, external consultant of institutional strengths, weakness, opportunities, and threats (SWOT analysis) combined with a review of enrollment practices will expose performance gaps. Fundamental to a review of the current reality is an analysis of existing marketing and communications, outreach strategies, recruitment events and activities, the campus visit experience, financial aid practices, retention strategies, student services, enrollment processes, workflow, response time, organizational structure, staffing levels and patterns, technology optimization, space utilization, capacity management, planning and evaluation practices, vision, goals, and the development of human capacity. When identified gaps are addressed systematically, the result is improved performance and optimal enrollment outcomes.
Environmental factors. Before the advent of the Internet and the Information Age, it was painstaking to find reliable intelligence regarding environmental factors. Today, however, the challenge is to sift through volumes of information to identify and extract nuggets of strategic insight into market conditions that may impact enrollment outcomes positively or negatively. Narrowing the scope of an environmental scan by determining the right research questions on the front end will make the process manageable. According to Kotler and Murphy (1981), there are three critical questions to explore:
• What are the major trends in the environment that may impact institutional enrollments? • What are the implications of these trends for the institution? • What are the most significant opportunities and threats?
Gathered information should include key findings and institutional implications related to demographic trends, labor market trends, economic trends, social and lifestyle trends, technology trends, education trends, and competition trends. Each of these trend categories should be arranged under subheadings such as global, national, regional, state, and local (Black, 2008).
Strategic opportunities. Environmental factors along with current reality findings and recommendations provide a framework and direction for enrollment planning as well as a foundation for identifying strategic opportunities. Strategic opportunities are not an exhaustive list of enrollment possibilities but rather five to ten opportunities that will move significant “institutional needles.” Identified strategic opportunities will drive strategy development, so the number of opportunities selected must be manageable.
Key performance indicators. Institutions typically have identified an aggregate enrollment goal (e.g., total student headcount, credit hours, or FTEs). Many have not defined KPIs such as student quality, student diversity, course completions, retention rates, graduation rates, and student satisfaction. A holistic perspective of the major enrollment indicators provides a more accurate gauge of institutional progress.
Effectiveness measures. Every enrollment strategy should have a corresponding objective and an effectiveness measure that assesses the degree to which the stated objective has been met. Without strategy-specific effectiveness measures, enrollment organizations are likely to expend scarce human and financial resources implementing anemic strategies. To be positioned for using actionable intelligence to continuously improve strategies, enrollment organizations must have the capacity to systematically collect, analyze, and use data. Optimizing data in student information systems along with other internal and external data repositories is the first step. The use of enterprise portals, dashboards, or balanced score cards is recommended over standard reports.
III. How Will These New Directions Affect Integrated, Strategic, Aligned Planning?
A holistic view of enrollment management analytics and performance measures yields (1) a focus on the objectives that matter most to the institution; (2) the capacity to seize emerging opportunities and mitigate potential threats; (3) a strategic approach to enrollment management; and (4) a high performing enrollment organization—continuously purging ineffective strategies, modifying less effective strategies, and reallocating resources to implement potentially more effective strategies. Enrollment management analytics and performance measures can easily be incorporated into strategic planning and enrollment planning and strategies for enrollment management. These strategies can be aligned horizontally and vertically across the institution.
A future view of the evolution of strategic enrollment management and its impact on integrated, strategic, aligned planning can be found in the white paper, “Metrics and Analytics in SEM” by Donald M. Norris (enter SEM WORKS url where this will be posted). This article highlights the following:
• SEM is based on analytics; for SEM to be successful, institutions must optimize their data, information, and analytics environments;
• This requires careful evaluation and enhancement of the current analytics environment and a migration path toward “action analytics” which will affect everyday decision making, alerts, and interventions to improve SEM;
• Institutions must create a “culture of performance,” that changes metrics-based decision behaviors, providing “analytics for the masses.”
SEM will be “ground zero” for the deployment and leveraging of these techniques in higher education.
IV. Resources
The following are resources highlighted in this article.
Black, J. (2008). Identifying market opportunities. Austin, TX: National Institute for Staff and Organizational Development. Available electronically at http://www.nisod.org/.
Black, J. (2008). The art and science of enrollment planning. Greensboro, NC: SEM WORKS. Available electronically at www.semworks.net.
Giles, L. (1910). The art of war. English translation published by the U.S. Military. Washington, DC: Gutenberg Project.
Kotler, P. & Murphy, P. E. (1981). Strategic planning for higher education. The Journal for Higher Education, 52 (5), 470–489.
Windham, C. (2005). The student’s perspective. In D. G. Oblinger and J. L. Oblinger (Eds.), Educating the net generation. Washington, DC: EDUCAUSE. Available electronically at www.educause.edu/educatingthenetgen/.
The following resources are keys to analytics, performance measurement, and improvement in strategic enrollment management.
Aguilar, F. (1967). Scanning the business environment. New York: Macmillan.
Cope, R. G. (1981). Environmental assessments for strategic planning. In N. L. Poulton (Ed.), Evaluation of management and planning systems. New Directions for Institutional Research, 31, 5–15. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hossler, D., Schmidt, J. & Vesper, N. (1998). Going to college: How social, economic, and educational factors influence the decisions students make. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Kaplan, R. & Norton, D. (2005). The balanced score card. Northamptonshire, NN: Chartered Management Institute.
Massa, R. J. (2001). Developing a SEM plan. In J. Black (Ed.), The strategic enrollment management revolution. Washington, DC: American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers.
Morrison, J. L. (1992). Environmental scanning. In M. A. Whitely, J. D. Porter, and R. H. Fenske (Eds.), A primer for new institutional researchers. Tallahassee, FL: The Association of Institutional Research.
Norris, D.M. (2008) Metrics and Analytics in SEM. White paper, SEM WORKS Website.
Paulsen, M. B. (1990). College choice: Understanding student enrollment behavior. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education and George Washington University.
Sandmeyer, L. E., Dooris, M. J., & Barlock, R. W. (2004). Integrated planning for enrollment, facilities, budget, and staffing: Penn State University. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2004 (123), 89-96.
The following case studies represent best practices in strategic enrollment management application in higher education.
Contact
Jim Black, Ph.D. President and CEO SEM WORKS, LLC jimblack@semworks.net (336) 324-8787
New Directions: New and Enhanced Learning Environments
Note that this essay is one of twenty (20) New Directions in Planning essays, which are an online part of and a companion to the SCUP book, A Guide to Planning for Change (Norris and Poulton, 2008). The essays will eventually be available in their own Web home, but we are sharing them here, now, because we want you to have access to them sooner and because this blog environment will let you post comments, if you wish. Please do!
New and Enhanced Learning Environments is written by Mark S. Valenti and John A Cook of the Sextant Group, Inc.
A Guide to Planning for Change can be ordered in SCUP's online bookstore or via the order form you can download here (PDF). Why don't you purchase a copy (for yourself or a colleague) and spend the down time over the holidays refreshing your perspective on higher education planning?
Copyright SCUP, 2008, all rights reserved.
Chapter 3: New and Enhanced Learning Environments
Three forces are combining to change the nature of learning environments today and in the future. First, many of the new generation of learners are coming to higher education with habits of mind and spirit nurtured through Web 2.0 environments. Second, the development of ubiquitous, mobile technologies has made every space a learning space. This has forced a rethinking of facilities design and campus master planning. Third, educators are proactively reconsidering learning and collaborative environments and discovering new approaches. Active communities of practice are prototyping new models for learning and research that will foster new relationships between learners, faculty, and mentors. In turn, these new directions are reshaping the design of programs and facilities and the resource allocations necessary to support them.
I. A new generation of learners is coming to higher education with habits of mind and spirit nurtured through Web 2.0 environments.
In the early '90s the onset of both cell phones and the Internet began to change peoples’ expectations of the physical environment. Both technologies were plagued by intermittent performance, clumsy human interfaces, and difficult form factors. A combination of both cost and performance confined these new technologies to the dual realms of business and research, where ROI (or no need for ROI) made early adoption possible. Nevertheless, activities that were once confined to specific places (the office, the lab) began to shift.
In higher education, information was still largely physical in nature and conveyed through traditional means such as books in libraries, lectures in classrooms, and hands-on experiences in labs. Students often studied alone, and instructors were typically viewed as the authority. Other forms of media such as audio and video were just beginning to digitize, but the distribution method was still via physical means – disks and tapes. Distance learning, where available, typically used a broadcast television model (and, indeed, many similar technologies and infrastructures) to deliver education to remote students, and began the dissolution of the sense of “place” for education. Both systems and operations were complex and required trained operators and technical support.
In the second half of the '90s the emergence of the web browser, low-cost digital projectors, the affordable laptop computer, and email as a mass communications medium together began to point the way to a new communications paradigm. Further, people were beginning to develop a “computer fluency” that was leading to more sophisticated applications and business opportunities. Web 1.0, as it’s known, was an explosive exploration of new business models, new technologies and services, and new ways to go bankrupt.
In higher education these technologies were adopted rapidly and in wholesale fashion. “Smart classrooms” went from prototype to mainstream in about five years and by 2001 web access in the classroom, while not ubiquitous, was a clearly defined goal for most institutions of higher learning. In many instances, though, the new technology did not alter the traditional teacher-student relationship. Most classrooms were defined by the instructor’s physical location, and most technology simply improved (sometimes) upon existing media, substituting PowerPoint™ for 35mm slides and overhead transparencies. But, the lightning was out of the bottle.
Classrooms occasionally began to connect with each other as Internet-based communication supplanted traditional video links. Students began to connect with each other (and the teacher) as email became a common means of communication. In fact, many instructors, still in a position of “authority,” became overwhelmed by the time management challenge posed by hundreds and hundreds of student emails. Students’ expectations, fed by the essential human hunger for “more, faster,” were increasingly difficult to meet. In many ways, the “Amenities Race” had begun on campuses across the United States.
The “dot.com” crash of 2001-2002 tempered the spending frenzy and brought sense and order back to an information technology market fraught with over-production, vaporware, and dysfunctional technology. As the dust cleared it became evident that a real revolution in technology was underway and Learning 2.0 was about to emerge.
II. Ubiquitous, smart, mobile devices make every space a learning space.
The development of affordable, rich media-enabled portable communications devices in the early part of this decade has genuinely begun to change the landscape of learning space. Affordable, powerful laptop computers anchor one end of the spectrum and rich-media enabled wireless devices anchor the other. The Apple iPod is the iconic technology that changed perceptions about the uses to which this class of devices could be turned. Duke University was perhaps first to integrate such technology into its campus technology fabric by issuing free iPods to incoming freshmen in 2004. Since then, the notion of podcasting has become mainstream, and thousands of courses have become digital. Development of resources such as Apple’s ITunes University have enabled learning institutions to offload the management and distribution of course materials.
The commensurate development of wireless Ethernet, 3G communications networks and digital television have resulted in rapid advances in rich media applications and user-friendly tools for content creation and consumption that can be carried anywhere. Activities that were once relegated to the classroom have diffused across campus, with result that many campus buildings have become “fused use” facilities. Libraries, student centers, residence halls, classroom buildings and research facilities exhibit elements of technology-enabled collaboration in both formal and informal space. Essentially, if a student can find a comfortable seat with a network connection and access to food and drink, let the fun - and work, and study – begin! In the early days of Wi-Fi, at least one campus even experimented with wireless network access on the campus loop buses.
These developments together have caused the nature of what occurs during regularly scheduled classes to change and, therefore, users’ (both teacher and student) expectations of the learning space. Students are rapidly changing from consumer to “prosumer,” and faculty are transforming from lecturer to facilitator and even “experience designer.” Now, finally, instructional technologies are combining with a technologically literate user base to support active, engaged learning.
III. Educators re-consider learning, learning environments and collaborative environments and discover new approaches.
Paradoxically, these new learning technologies support pedagogical practices that had been known by educators for decades. This is evidenced by renewed interest in Edgar Dale’s “Cone of Experiences” and the increasing use of technology to simulate real-world environments. “Rich media” audio/video systems have been introduced to capture class proceedings, combining video of the instructor with supporting graphics, audio and chat-room information for on-demand viewing either prior to attending class or for later consumption. The web is used to deliver content that was previously the lecture, freeing valuable class time for more active and collaborative learning. The “Smart Rooms” that blanket our campuses, at an annual cost of $5B in North America, began the transformation from classrooms that automate the lecture to learning and collaborative spaces supporting more active and effective learning activities. The proliferation of robust networks combined with more powerful content creation tools and audio/video capture systems for on-line information delivery enables mass customization for higher education. Further, once the course materials are digital, the incremental cost of course delivery drops significantly, potentially leading to a future where every student has a personal and unique educational experience. This is leading to wholesale course redesign efforts where the course is disassembled and recreated with technology integral to, and not as a layer upon, the course delivery. Course redesign is perhaps best exemplified by the National Center for Academic Transformation and its partner institutions.
Of course, NetGen students, armed with laptops, smart phones and the expectations of on-demand availability, are willing participants. Ubiquitous mobile technologies, typically purchased and supported by the students, are making every space a learning space, creating incredible opportunities and risks for higher ed institutions.
The result is the piloting of innovative spaces on campuses that support lecture, often with two or more simultaneous projected images, but also allow students to gather in small groups and work collaboratively, sharing images and files from laptops, using flat-panel displays as the communal work surface. Collaborative spaces are moving from “found” space (in corridors and stairwells) to planned space, not just small group workrooms, but also into the classroom. These spaces are often referred to as “Studio” or “Black Box” classrooms. Flexibility has become the new buzzword in learning space design. Further, demand for flexibility directly results in demand for more net space per student.
And, as explorations into new kinds of real space are increasing in frequency, interest in virtual space is growing rapidly. On-line virtual environments such as Second Life® offer institutions an entirely new way to deliver courses that scales in ways unrelated to available classroom seats. The New Media Consortium is an excellent example of how institutions are pooling their resources to explore this new world. While currently fraught with difficulties typical of emerging technologies, it seems certain that the economics of such learning environments will prevail as we move into the 21st century’s second decade.
Both of these developments – demand for flexibility and the rise of virtual environments - have serious implications for traditional space planning models and course delivery cost structures. It also argues for a tighter correlation between strategic technology planning and other institutional planning activities.
IV. This has forced a rethinking of facilities design and campus master planning.
These new learning environments have a significant impact on campus master planning. The traditional classroom designs and associated formulas simply no longer apply to today’s learning spaces.
The digital display defines the learning space. What was once a scarce resource due to high cost – either projector or flat panel display - has become the essential resource. Further, additional large screen displays are often desired by faculty and students but challenge traditional architectural models.
The concepts of “Studio” spaces and “Black Box” classrooms, and collaborative groups within classrooms, require more additional square footage per student.
Emergent developments in course redesign are demonstrating lower course delivery costs and improved learning outcomes. This argues for a reallocation of capital investment away from large lecture facilities and toward a technology-driven delivery model.
Virtual environments, in conjunction with serious gaming technologies, are emerging to challenge real space as viable environments for learning.
When technology is used to replace the traditional lecture class time, opportunities emerge to re-think the activities that occur when students and faculty meet face-to-face. Future planning activities must take these developments into account to develop effective strategies for the campus of the future.
Conclusion
The Higher Education community has been fortunate over the years – and uniquely positioned - to dictate to its customers the Space of its choosing according to a Schedule of its choosing in a learning Style of its choosing.
This luxury has started to erode as the tech-savvy NetGen learners, with the expectations of on-demand and personalized learning, will clearly prefer to learn in a Space of their choosing, according to a Schedule of their choosing and in a learning Style of their choosing. They will vote with their tuition dollars for the institutions that fulfill these expectations. The institution that plans for this future will prosper.
IV. Resources
The following are resources highlighted in this article.
Annetta, Leonard A., Murray, Marshall R., Laird, Shelby Gull, Bohr, Stephanie C., and Park, John C.. (2007). “Serious Games: Incorporating Video Games in the Classroom,” EDUCAUSE Quarterly, Volume 29, Number 3, 2006.
McKeachie, W. J. (1999). Peer learning, collaborative learning, and cooperative learning. Teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for college and university teachers (10th Ed., pp. 158-166). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Norris, Donald M. & Valenti, Mark S., (2007). “Master Planning, Facilities, and Work and Learning Environments in the Wireless Age,” WeTEC Conference, Monterey Bay, May 30 – June 1, 2007.
The National Center for Academic Transformation, www.thencat.org
Twigg, Carol. (2008) “Colleagues Committed To Redesign (C2R),” THE REDESIGN ALLIANCE SECOND ANNUAL CONFERENCE, Orlando, March 16 - 18, 2008.
Valenti, Mark S., (2002). “Creating the Classroom of the Future: The Black Box Theater and AV/IT Convergence” EDUCAUSE Review, Volume 37, Number 5, September/October 2002.
Mark S. Valenti is an internationally-recognized authority and thought leader in the industry and an expert in audiovisual technologies and market trends. Specializing in planning and design, his experience encompasses feasibility studies, master plans, and high-technology learning and research environments. Mark is a faculty member of the Institute for Facilities Management for the Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers, 2008 President of InfoComm International, and a member of the Audio Engineering Society, the Acoustical Society of America, the Society for College and University Planning, and the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education. He holds a Bachelor of Arts in Economics from The Pennsylvania State University.
John A. Cook is an award-winning audiovisual designer of educational and presentation spaces spanning more than 600 projects across North America. An expert in strategic technology planning, program development, systems design and user training, he combines practical experience in teaching with a deep understanding of audiovisual technologies and applications. John speaks regularly on topics related to technology, education, and student life for organizations such as the Society for College and University Planning, the Association of College Unions International, and the Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers. John holds a Bachelor of Science degree from the School of Technology and a Master of Science Degree from the School of Education, both at Purdue University. Cook is Vice President of Client Services for The Sextant Group.
Contact
Mark S. Valenti CTS President and CEO The Sextant Group, Inc. mvalenti@TheSextantGroup.com (412) 323-8580 x222
John A. Cook CTS Vice-President, Client Services The Sextant Group, Inc. jcook@TheSextantGroup.com (412) 323-8580 x208
Note that this essay is one of twenty (20) New Directions in Planning essays, which are an online part of and a companion to the SCUP book, A Guide to Planning for Change (Norris and Poulton, 2008). The essays will eventually be available in their own Web home, but we are sharing them here, now, because we want you to have access to them sooner and because this blog environment will let you post comments, if you wish. Please do!
Leading Planning and Change is written by Samuel A. Kirkpatrick of the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University.
A Guide to Planning for Change can be ordered in SCUP's online bookstore or via the order form you can download here (PDF). Why don't you purchase a copy (for yourself or a colleague) and spend the down time over the holidays refreshing your perspective on higher education planning?
Copyright SCUP, 2008, all rights reserved.
Chapter 18: Leading Planning and Change
by Samuel A. Kirkpatrick of the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University
Successful campus planning depends on effectively leading and navigating change. Increasing recognition that the primary goal of strategic planning is organizational change and improvement is forgoing a marriage of new and conventional planning strategies with contemporary change management tools. The commonly-used term “change management,” however, can be misleading as it tends to overstate our limited capacity to “manage” change in traditional, routinized ways. In reality, active and insightful leadership is essential to anticipate and navigate the shoals of organizational change. Effective guidance for planning and change in harmony as continuing processes requires transformational leadership characterized by an ability to strike an institutional vision and to sustain, align, and refine strategies and actions across the full range of different campus planning, decision making, and resource allocation processes over time. Planning and change occur as leaders and key stakeholders execute strategy, take expeditionary actions and develop individual and organizational capacity through dynamic, evolutionary processes.
Supple application of change navigation principles is an indispensable element of the toolkit for presidents, provosts and other campus leaders. Successful leadership and change navigation also require development of leadership and change agents at all levels of faculty, staff and administration. New directions in leading and planning change flow from important driving forces in higher education and are likely to place even greater emphasis on a robust fusing of planning and change strategies characterized by new imperatives for pre-planning, implementation, assessment, strategic communication, continuous improvement, navigating change, and linking planning, resource allocation and evidence-based decision making.
I. What Forces Are Driving Leadership for Planning and Change in Higher Education?
A variety of key changes in the environment of higher education and within the postsecondary sector itself are leading to increased emphasis on planning for change and are shaping the new directions characterizing campus planning. These change drivers reflect fundamental shifts in society, in organizations generally, and within higher education.
At the societal level, a new, diverse workforce reflecting profound demographic shifts coupled with globalism, information technology innovations, lifestyle changes and new forms of consumer behavior are demanding new responses from our postsecondary educational institutions. A knowledge-age economy that accelerates the pace of change; that involves new values, organizational structures and technologies; that emphasizes new forms of communication and bases for collaboration; and that yields productivity enhancements and new forms of competition jolt the status quo in higher education and call for planful approaches to change.
A variety of organizational trends are also at work generally, to which higher education is not immune: entrepreneurship, flattened hierarchies, empowered employees, speedier decisions, new global competitors, increased productivity, transparency, customer focus, downsizing, deregulation and expanded liability are all forces that characterize the contemporary organization and our educational institutions.
These environmental change drivers have shaped new directions for higher education. Demands for accountability and performance results, especially in the context of limited resources, new markets and our conventionally dissociated and decentralized educational structures call for strong leadership, increased institutional focus and prioritization, and a need to be strategic. Accountability and strategic planning are directly linked as universities advocate self regulation and respond to the imperatives of demonstrable change and improvement. Rising costs, reduced financial support and an emphasis on consumer demands and the private benefits that result from advanced education have fundamentally altered the “public good” of higher education. The demands of distributed and perpetual learning, knowledge sharing, and new learning advocates for 24/7 responsiveness and seamless encounters with our organizations threaten educational institutions which must now operate in an international informational space with new forms of competition. Even the speed at which scholarship is changing is a pressure point for institutions that have philosophically embraced innovation but look much like they did hundreds of years ago.
Moreover, the problems that postsecondary institutions must address in response to these various change drivers are inherently more complex than before, requiring cross-functional, team-oriented solutions and an ability to react and effectuate solutions more quickly with plans that work. Equally important, these external and internal changes directly impact people, and as human organizations, our institutions must pay increasing attention to human behavior needs, organizational cultures, and the presence of hurdles, detractors and resistors to change. These forces are leading universities to emphasize capacity-building, leadership development, training and organizational development as they plan strategically and navigate change.
II. What Are the Emerging New Directions in Leading Planning and Change?
Recent developments and new emphases characterize the planning and change landscape influenced by the environmental and organizational driving forces discussed above. These trends and newer directions relevant to leading and planning change include the following salient features:
A. Pre-planning.
One of the most significant developments to characterize recent eras in campus planning is the recognized importance of pre-planning as a prelude to operational strategic planning (for broad trends by planning eras see Norris and Poulton, 2008, Figure 6.2). This understanding places an emphasis on steps in advance of more formal planning stages and it is increasingly recognized that campus leaders need to play a vital role at this stage (Kirkpatrick and Loppnow, 2003). Key pre-planning elements include the following:
1. Understanding the institutional culture. Campus leaders must grasp the relationships between organizational culture, defined as attitudes, norms and prevalent practices, leadership, and efforts to navigate or manage change. Increasingly common practices involve a cultural assessment process, such as that derived through elite interviews, focus groups, SWOT exercises, surveys and assessments of organizational strengths. These assessments yield vital information and perspectives on factors that influence how a leader shapes the strategic planning process; factors such as the history of planning, past planning failures, lack of shared vision, episodic and anecdotal decision-making, weak assessment practices, vertical silos, underdeveloped institutional research, disconnects between goals and resource allocation, weak patterns of communication, hostility to new ideas, over-emphasis on process, and conflicting goals which tend to be vertically and horizontally disjointed.
2. Environmental scanning. Although environmental scanning is not new to strategic planning, its more contemporary forms move considerably beyond traditional SWOT analyses that assess institutional strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, to consider a broad range of social, demographic, economic, political, and technological trends that impact the organization. This form of robust scanning, and the reports generated by it, make the driving forces of change apparent to campus stakeholders.
3. Peer analysis. Increasingly, institutions are utilizing sophisticated forms of peer and competitor analysis, often for the purpose of developing a list of both current peers as well as aspirational ones. A wide range of methodological techniques and data sources are now available to facilitate this form of benchmarking analysis.
4. Vision casting. Although visioning at various levels has always been an element of planning in its more strategic forms, recent trends are characterized by a recognition that it is a responsibility of a campus leader to develop a brief, powerful and motivational vision from the top as a method for stimulating subsequent visioning at other levels, and in increasing detail. This is a method for getting the campus and the organization ready for vision-driven planning and often now includes a statement of institutional values.
5. Educating for planning. Another pre-planning element clearly recognizes that planning is often alien to the institutional culture or has previously been characterized by failure. As a consequence, a campus leader and his/her team find it useful to develop individual and/or organizational understanding and appreciation for strategic planning. This can be achieved in many different ways, including the use of focus group sessions, small group meetings, individual sessions, workshops and external speakers and facilitators. As this stage of the process, it is important to focus on strategic planning as both a product and a process - - as a way of thinking and organizing for positioning the institution and as a means for creating a vision, developing goals and executing strategy.
6. Development of guiding principles. A helpful pre-planning stage involves developing a set of guiding principles for planning that can be broadly understood and appreciated, to include both content principles and process principles. Content principles, for example, characterize the content of plans, such as those which are strategic, institution-wide, forward-looking, environmentally rich, linked to prior plans, inclusive and cross-sector oriented, assessable, evidence or data-based, providing guidance for resource allocation and budgeting, providing criteria for prioritization, useful for accreditation and government reporting, and linked to prior plans - - all this so that participants can envision both a product and a process, as well as standards for it.
7. Process principles are important so that participants have appropriate and informed expectations about the steps to be followed in the planning cycle. This might include principles that emphasize a broad base of stakeholders; widespread participation; fostering an educational dialogue; use of planning committees; use of existing administrative structures to engage in planning, cycles and adjustable goals; evaluation of plans and the planning process; status reporting and monitoring; budget processes; assignment of responsibilities; the roles of key actors; and implementation strategies. Development of an early campus understanding of the principles applied to the planning process is more likely to ensure its institutional success.
B. Implementation, assessment and accountability.
A second key direction for leading planning and change is the recent emphasis being placed on implementation, assessment and accountability for achieving success. As Norris and Poulton note, one of the most important over-time trends is the shift in the balance of effort toward execution (Figure 1.3). This is important given the historical tendency for traditional plans to sit on shelves or for there to be a lack of focused implementation strategies to ensure follow-through. As a consequence, contemporary strategic plans now tend to include specific implementable initiatives and associated resource allocations to ensure funding to support them, measurable outcomes, assignment of responsibilities for implementation, and periodic monitoring and evaluation. The focus is on decision making driven by the strategic plan and on making strategic planning a part of “normal administration,” as opposed to something entirely novel or tangential to the organization (Kirkpatrick, 1992).
Related to this direction is one that emphasizes the heightened role of assessment in the planning process. While assessment and benchmarking can be very important during the pre-planning stage as an effort to identify opportunities and weaknesses, it is also becoming increasingly important to both assess the planning process itself and to know when an organization has successfully achieved change (Tromp and Ruben, pp. 21-25). Assessment has become a key pre and post-planning tool utilizing a variety of methodologies, from a comprehensive Baldridge model (Baldridge, 2003; Spangehl, 2004; Ruben 2003), to balanced scorecard and dashboard approaches (Kaplan and Norton, 2001; Tromp and Ruben, 2004) to benchmarking analyses (Schuh and Bender, 2002). In sum, assessment has become important to strategic planning by aiding in the identification of priorities, in assisting in all phases of planning and in assessing the outcomes of the planning process (Tromp and Ruben, 2004, p. 24).
C. Linking planning, budgeting and research
The drive for successful achievements, accountability and effective implementation of plans is increasingly dependent on the development of sound linkages between strategic planning, budgeting and institutional research functions. Planning initiatives and resource allocation cannot afford to be independent processes; indeed, to ensure success and address the tendency for plans to remain on shelves, resources must be allocated to both the planning process itself and to its outcomes. This can be achieved in a variety of ways, from modified program budgeting systems that link programs and institutional goals, to processes which identify (and often reallocate) resources for specific planning initiatives to complement conventional, incremental base budgeting.
Similarly, planning and change efforts are increasingly linked to the development of cost savings, cost reductions, and the reduction of waste and organizational inefficiencies. Campus leaders now tend to view strategic planning as a way to achieve these goals at the same time that new initiatives are developed and supported financially. It is not uncommon, for example, for campus participants and strategic planning team leaders to be asked to identify budget reductions and reallocations as part of the same strategic planning process that identifies new revenue sources and strategies for realizing them in support of new initiatives.
Good information and a culture of evidence-based decision making is now recognized as essential to these linkages between planning and budgeting. As implied in the above treatment of assessment, planning choices are best made in an environment where relevant data are collected for purposes beyond conventional transactions, i.e., collected to support effective decision making. As a consequence, universities are increasingly recognizing the need to migrate from an environment where “institutional research” simply means the collection of data for some purpose other than effective decision making or what is mandated externally (e.g., a state, the federal government, an accrediting body) to an environment where the function is more research intensive and purposive - - defined more by the decision making needs and planning initiatives of the organization. For this to be most effective, comprehensive approaches to “information management” are viewed as increasingly important - - enterprise-wide approaches to data warehouses that combine conventional, mandated data with those that are more specific to good decision making, planning initiatives and outcomes assessment. Indeed, the organizational marriage of information management and institutional research functions is a trend that derives from these imperatives. Furthermore, enterprise technology solutions and their leveraging are increasingly key to process improvements, efficiencies and the ability for organizations to effectuate change (Norris, Kirkpatrick and Baer, 2006).
D. Linking planning and continuous improvement.
Another development of growing salience relates to efforts to combine strategic planning and continuous improvement elements, including institutional research and information management activities, to achieve strategic goals for the institution (Kirkpatrick and Loppnow 2004). Institutional improvement, a primary goal of strategic planning, usually requires a cultural change, often fundamental rather than cosmetic, reflecting important attitudinal shifts. This is most likely realized through systematic, comprehensive and inclusive planning processes. The achievement of continuous improvement through strategic planning requires transformational leadership that involves vision articulation, development of an appropriate culture, and a commitment to change. Many opportunities for improvement occur in the context of institutional mission, values, guiding principles and the strategic plan that includes specific/identified strategic directions and supporting initiatives. Increasingly, one of the most effective ways to ensure continuous improvement is to develop the concept and its operationalization as a “key strategic direction” embedded in the plan. An effective culture of quality requires continuous improvement strategies and a commitment to adaptation through an ongoing cycle of goal setting, planning, implementation and evaluation.
Success in this improvement endeavor is facilitated by an integrative organizational philosophy for linking planning and continuous improvement - - one that emphasizes priority-setting, the empowerment of others, decentralization, evidence-based decision making, teamwork, continuous processes, benchmarking, shared participation, the management of conflict, regularity of process, professional development, a visible leadership commitment to quality and continuous improvement, and strong linkages among planning, information management, institutional research, budgeting, assessment and continuous improvement. This is a healthy order not easily achieved and is very dependent on leadership modeling from the top of the institution.
Increasingly, the most common model for continuous improvement is Baldrige-based (Baldrige, 2003), emphasizing ever-increasing value to students and stakeholders, improved organizational effectiveness, and both organizational and personal learning. Available alternative models are rooted in new approaches to regional accreditation which require a full cycle of problem identification, measurable objectives, successful implementation and demonstrable change and improvement (Spangehl, 2004).
E. Strategic communication.
There is growing recognition that strategic communication is an essential support for strategic planning. Good planning and good communication work in tandem as leaders increasingly realize that strategic planning leads to change and that leaders play a vital role in creating an organizational culture that recognizes and encourages change (generally see Tromp and Ruben, 2004, pp. 17–19). It is through effective communication that leaders create and sustain a guiding vision for their organization, casting a long-term view, motivating and empowering others to act on a vision, creating short-term wins to facilitate buy-in, addressing fears about change and educating others, creating a sense of urgency and guiding others toward realistic options (Kotter, 1996).
As a consequence of these communication imperatives, leaders and strategic planning team members must strategically select effective messages and associated delivery methods to reach relevant audiences, stakeholders and subcultures in impactful ways. The identification of stakeholders and affected groups, an understanding of attitudes and dispositions, the development of customized messages, and the use of multiple communication channels, such as focus group meetings, formal vision statements, briefings, training sessions, formal meetings, interviews, newsletters, Q&A sessions, reports and memos are strategies that can be used in all phases of planning.
F. Planning as change navigation.
Change is the key byproduct of effective strategic planning, especially efforts that incorporate continuous improvement models, and are much dependent on institutional leadership. These processes are more important to effectuating change than traditional change management per se. While “change management” might be misleading or overstate our capacity to “manage” it, there are many initiatives and approaches that universities are adopting to achieve change objectives. These can be integrated with, and run parallel to, the strategic planning process. Indeed, campus educational and communication strategies are essential for reducing the barriers to change and ensuring successful, enduring impacts. Successful campus leaders use change navigation principles to develop others as “change agents” at all levels of the organization. This leadership and campus educational and communication process involves a variety of efforts to:
1. Understand change in our environment and in organizations generally, as well as one’s own university setting. Campus-wide reflection on such change drivers as societal forces, organizational trends, higher education demands and information and communication technology innovations need to be effectively linked to local strategic planning initiatives.
2. Understand the dynamics of organizational change, including the typical products, stresses, dimensions and benefits of change, as well as the impact of changes in mission, identity, relationships with key stakeholders, in the ways of work, and in the organizational culture. It is also important for key participants to understand natural organizational responses to change and the perspectives of, and impact on, those at all levels, including campus leaders, faculty, middle level managers and staff. When key participants understand both the essential conditions for organizational change and the common causes of change failures and their consequences, adjustments in the campus culture and receptivity to change through systematic strategic planning are enabled.
3. Understand the “human face” of change and how change impacts individuals both within and external to the organization. A deeper appreciation of the psychology of approaching change, how different people have different needs during times of change, the myths and realities of change, the ways individuals respond to stressful environments and change, and effective strategies for coping with change are all components of the institutional leadership toolkit that are frequently ignored, yet vital for lasting change initiatives.
4. Understand the processes of “navigating change” - - the evolutionary and expeditionary characteristics inherent in the cycle of change and how change cannot often be directly “managed” but best understood as a process. If there has been any overarching shift across the eras of planning, it is the movement from viewing planning from a “cookbook” perspective to the Norris and Poulton emphasis on planning as a “roadmap.” Revitalized approaches to planning now focus more on strategies and decisions than on the plan itself, and on the expeditionary processes associated with execution strategy. Indeed, it can be quite comforting and liberating when key institutional participants understand the tempo and cycles of change (about which much has been written in the change management literature), such as the process of transition through the various common phases of change, including the dreaded “neutral zone” and the “trough of disillusionment” where anxiety is high and little appears to be on track, as well as the “new beginnings” which typically follow resistance and lead to innovation and collective commitments to work together for a new future (see Norris and Poulton, 2008, Figure 5.4 & 5.5). When campus employees have a “roadmap” for how to get from “here to there,” the journey can begin and leaders can meet individual needs by addressing specific changes, organizational priorities for work to be done, providing resources and supporting policy changes for new initiatives, and training in skills to support leadership, planning and change.
III. How Do New Directions Affect Integrated, Strategic, Aligned Planning?
The foregoing cluster of new directions in leading and planning change are all vital elements in strategic planning and they all place new demands on the role of leadership for change across the newer dimensions of pre-planning, implementation/assessment/accountability, strategic communication, linkages to continuous improvement, linkages among planning, budgeting and research, and change navigation. These newer directions exemplify the institutional context of the SCUP model of strategic planning and change management - - the institutional context characterized by operational planning, leading and navigating change, executing strategy, expeditionary actions and the development of individual and organizational capacity (Norris and Poulton, 2008, Figure 3.2).
These newer directions are also effectively captured by the Norris/Poulton trio of “integrated, strategic, aligned” planning discussed in Chapter 2. Pre-planning, for example, is an important part of the “strategic” element, especially as it relates to environmental forces. Linkages with budgeting and resource allocations are a symbol of the “integrated” imperative. And, the emphasis on linkages among assessment, continuous improvement, information management and institutional research capture activities that are “aligned.”
Leadership is the key to strategic planning and change, and to the relationships between planning and change. In Ruben’s model (Tromp and Ruben, 2004) of strategic planning in higher education, the goal of planning is defined as organizational improvement and change, with success depending on collaborative leadership, effective communication and assessment of the gap between the desired state of the organization and its current situation. Leadership is the key to guiding plan development and implementation strategies from beginning to end. “Simply stated, change management involves a conscious effort to change something about an organization - - in other words, change by design rather than by accident. The ultimate goal of strategic planning is purposeful change…(p. 12). To Ruben, the cross-cutting imperatives or key success factors for achieving organizational change are leadership, competencies to facilitate change, the development and management of communications, understanding and leveraging the organizational culture, assessment as a systematic approach to monitoring progress and outcomes, and planning strategically to ensure goal achievement (Ruben, 2008). Indeed, planning is a systematic effort for anticipating and coordinating change that addresses leadership, communication, culture and assessment in an integrated way.
Effective leadership for planning and change often requires transformational leadership characterized by vision articulation, the development of appropriate supportive cultures and commitment to change. Cultural change itself is best realized through systematic, comprehensive, inclusive, integrated strategic and aligned planning. For change to endure, however, organizations and their leaders must commit to continuous improvement strategies to build a culture of quality reflecting a commitment to adaptation through an on-going cycle of planning, goal setting, implementation and evaluation that is rich in process, stakeholder-oriented, teamwork-based, people-empowering, committed to quality, performance-benchmarked and supportive of continuous professional development. We cannot lose sight of the fact that healthy, mission-driven, environmentally-sensitive and open, thriving organizations are a requisite for cycling change and continuous improvement. Strong higher education institutions effectively link strategically planning, information management, institutional research, assessment and continuous improvement functions as they navigate change.
IV. Resources
Anderson, Linda Ackerman and Dean Anderson. The Change Leader’s Roadmap: How to Navigate Your Organization’s Transformation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2001.
Baldrige National Quality Program. The 2003 Criteria for Performance Excellence. Gaithersburg, MD: NIST, 2003.
Barger, Nancy J. The Challenge of Change in Organizations. Palo Alto: Davies-Black Publishing, 1997.
Bass, B.M. and B.J. Avolio. Improving Organizational Effectiveness Through Transformational Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1992.
Beckhard, Richard and Wendy Pritchard. Changing the Essence: The Art of Creating and Leading Fundamental Change in Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1992.
Bolman, Lee G. and Terrence E. Deal. Reframing Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003.
Bridges, William. Managing Transitions: Making the Most of Change. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley, 1991.
Bryson, John M. Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2004.
Cameron, Esther and Mike Green. Making Sense of Change Management: A Complete Guide to the Models, Tools and Techniques of Organizational Change. London: Kogan Page, 2004.
Conger, Jay A. and Gretchen M. Spreitzer. The Leader’s Change Handbook: An Essential Guide to Setting Direction and Taking Action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998.
Dolence, Michael D. and Donald M. Norris. Transforming Higher Education. Ann Arbor: SCUP, 1995.
Drucker, Peter F. Managing in a Time of Great Change. Dutton, 1995.
Floyd, Pete. Change Management. New York: Capstone, 2002.
Galpin, Timothy. The Human Side of Change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996.
Goman, Carol. Adapting to Change: Making it Work for You. Menlo Park: Crisp Publications, 1993.
Hayes, John. The Theory and Practice of Change Management. New York: Palgrave, 2002.
Hollowell, David, Michael Middaugh, and E. Sibolski. Integrating Higher Education Planning and Assessment. Ann Arbor: SCUP, 2006.
Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. The Challenge of Organizational Change. New York: Free Press, 1992.
Kaplan, R.S., and D.P. Norton. The Strategy-Focused Organization. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 2001.
Kirkpatrick, Samuel A. and Donald M. Loppnow. Accomplishing Strategic Goals Through Planning and Continuous Improvement Processes. SCUP Annual Conference, 2004.
Kirkpatrick, Samuel A. and Donald M. Loppnow. Institutionalizing a Planning Culture: A Model for Strategic Planning and Continuous Improvement. SCUP Annual Conference, 2003.
Kirkpatrick, Samuel A. Strategic Planning As Normal Administration. SCUP Annual Conference, 1992.
Kotter, John P. Leading Change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1996.
Larkin, T.J. and Sandra Larkin. Communicating Change. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994.
Nadler, David, R. Shaw and A. Walton. Discontinuous Change: Leading Organizational Transformation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1995.
Norris, Donald and Nick Poulton. A Guide to Planning for Change. Ann Arbor: SCUP, 2008.
Norris, Donald L., Samuel A. Kirkpatrick, and Linda Baer. Leveraging Technology Through Comprehensive Change Management. SCUP Annual Conference, 2006.
Nutt, Paul C. Managing Planned Change. New York: Macmillan, 1992.
Pendlebury, John, Benoit Grouard and Francis Meston. The Ten Keys to Successful Change Management. New York: Wiley, 1998.
Peterson, Marvin, David D. Dill, Lisa A. Mets and Associates. Planning and Management for a Changing Environment: A Handbook on Redesigning Postsecondary Institutions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1997.
Pritchett, Price and Ron Pound. A Survival Guide to the Stress of Organizational Change. Dallas: Pritchett and Associates, 1995.
Raelin, Joseph J. Creating Leaderful Organizations: How to Bring Out Leadership in Everyone. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 2003.
Rowley, Daniel J. and Herbert Sherman. From Strategy to Change: Implementing the Plan in Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2001.
Rowley, Daniel J., Herman Lujan and Michael Dolence. Strategic Change in Colleges and Universities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1997.
Ruben, Brent D. Understanding, Planning, and Leading Social and Organizational Change. Washington, DC: NACUBO, 2008
Ruben, Brent D. Excellence in Higher Education Guide: An Integrated Approach to Assessment, Planning, and Improvement in Colleges and Universities. Washington, DC: NACUBO, 2007.
Ruben, Brent D. Excellence in Higher Education: A Baldrige-Based Guide to Organizational Assessment, Improvement and Leadership. Washington, DC: NACUBO, 2003.
Schuh, J. and B. Bender. Benchmarking in Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002.
Scott, Cynthia D. and Dennis T. Jaffee. Managing Organizational Change: A Practical Guide for Managers. Menlo Park: Crisp Publications, 1989.
Smith, Douglas K. Taking Charge of Change: Ten Principles for Managing People and Performance. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley, 1996.
Spangehl, Steven D. “The North Central Association of Colleges and Schools Academic Quality Improvement Project (AQIP).” In Pursing Excellence in Higher Education, Brent D. Ruben, ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2004.
Tromp, Sherrie A. and Brent D. Ruben. Strategic Planning in Higher Education: A Guide for Leaders. Washington, DC: NACUBO, 2004.
