Learning Resources

Abstract: This article explores a methodology for assessing and managing the financial viability of private, tuition-dependent institutions as well as institutional tactics and strategies used to improve their financial strength. The resulting model will help institutions understand the trends and predictive value of key financial metrics directly impacting their liquidity and operations and how senior leadership can drive change. Institutional examples illustrate how to engage senior leadership in strategic decision-making that includes assessment of revenue growth and/or expense management.

Abstract: Institutional success depends on long-term sustainability, connecting investments with outcomes, and creating a culture that is data-informed. As the role of institutional effectiveness expands across higher education, designing a comprehensive integrated planning process is critical. Integrated planning requires a unified approach to utilizing academic and administrative data for continuous improvement. However, this can be an overwhelming process for institutions, with many unsure of where to start. Learn from leaders in two different accreditation regions as they share best practices and lessons learned associated with their integrated planning evolution and its impact on operational efficiency and student learning.

Abstract: Implementing Sustainable Change in Higher Education: Principles and Practices of Collaborative Leadership
by Brent D. Ruben
Stylus Publishing: Sterling, Virginia: 2022
229 pages
ISBN: 978-1642674415

How should higher education leaders take on the challenges of change? In Brent Ruben’s Implementing Sustainable Change in Higher Education: Principles and Practices of Collaborative Leadership, the author says there’s no simple approach. Instead, he encourages leaders to “understand and leverage the dynamics of change; lead collaboratively and meaningfully; engage one’s colleagues; and adopt and pursue a shared vision of organizational purpose and aspirations.”

Abstract: by Dean O. Smith
Johns Hopkins University Press
Baltimore, MD
2019
200 Pages
ISBN 9781421432762

Abstract: Is a strategic plan necessary for institutional success? In preparation for a new strategic plan at UTEP, we reviewed literature and found many publications that described the procedures of plan making and also case studies of how plans are produced. We also found substantial literature that questioned the value of strategic plans. These findings prompted us to think about the historical and theoretical basis for strategic plans: How did they emerge, what is their theoretical value, and is there a right way to do them? In our article we offer surprising answers to these questions based on a review of a century of theory and planning literature.

Abstract: Few studies have investigated how academic deans enact their authority in Responsibility Center Budgeting (RCB), despite its widespread adoption. In this article I explore findings from a study that investigated how deans crafted a confidential annual budget report at an American university. Ultimately, deans adopted one of three approaches to crafting the report: delegating, distributing, or dominating authorship. Deans who distributed authorship collaborated with their senior teams to establish a shared sense of priorities for their colleges. In contrast deans who delegated and dominated authorship ignored and alienated members of their senior team during the budget review, engendering confusion and frustration.

Abstract: The article presents a framework for integrating assessment, strategic planning, and resource allocation at all levels of an institution. For that purpose, data are collected from academic departments and non-academic units. They are then integrated with strategic planning metrics into an assessment report that identifies the resources that need to be allocated, and to evaluate progress toward developing a strategic plan. The framework can be applied at the departmental or unit level, as well as at the institutional level. It provides valuable input for the budget process and can be used for updates in strategic planning.

Abstract: Today we find our institutions barraged by the forces of change, and dutifully we respond. Over time, however, we end up molding our institutions to these forces to our own peril, and now U.S. higher education is on the ropes, so to speak. We believe education leaders should take hold of our destinies and shape our industry not by the forces of lackluster government policy, self-serving press and media, and for-profit mega corporations, but to serve true learning and personal growth. There are many tools we can use to lead change. This article introduces the concept of Positive Turbulence, an intentional, disruptive approach for positive change, to the education industry.

Abstract: The past two decades have seen great social change and both massive consolidation and expansion of institutions of higher education, clearly presenting circumstances warranting the use of formal approaches to planning. Varying planning theories, past failures and successes, and differing circumstances have generated several partially contrasting planning models to guide organizational change. Therefore, institutions of higher education have a variety of such approaches from which to choose. This article presents a case study illustrating the use of several approaches to planning that is distinctive because it relies heavily upon experience-based planning, examples of which are unfortunately lacking in the literature base.

Abstract: After its first application nearly 40 years ago, responsibility center budgeting/responsibility center management (RCB/RCM) is now in place at nearly 70 major North American universities. An unstudied fact is that despite its popularity RCB/RCM is rarely deployed to its fullest extent. Instead, it usually exists in parallel with conventional planning and budget models. This study asks why, instead of fully implementing RCB/RCM, universities have chosen to apply it partially. The study finds multiple explanations. On the revenue side, some universities hold back a portion of income to create funds that are used to underwrite institution-wide strategies or subsidize mission-central academic programs that cannot be fiscally sustained under RCB/RCM. In other cases, revenue is held back to fund shared “public utility” services, while in still others the practice of holding back revenue for allocation by some other means is due to difficulty in drawing a functional line between the “academic” and the “non-academic.” On the cost side, some universities have limited the application of RCB/RCM in order to limit market behavior and forestall “fragmentation” (Burke 2007). The study points to several problems in both the practice and theory of RCB/RCM. For example, models meant in theory to complement RCB/RCM may in practice compete with it or promote monopolistic behavior.