Learning Resources

Abstract: Build Capacity for Integrated Planning

Whether you’re preparing a committee for an upcoming planning process or simply looking for directions for your own professional development, the Integrated Planning Competencies can help you determine the knowledge, skills, and dispositions your institution needs to advance integrated planning.

Integrated planning requires building capacity in the people who do planning so they have the necessary knowledge and skills for success. But higher education institutions that focus only on developing planning-related expertise often face hurdles when they attempt integrated planning. Why? Because colleges and universities are complex environments and using an integrated planning approach in those environments requires a wide range of knowledge, skills, and dispositions. Some of the required expertise might seem obvious (like writing goals or analyzing information). But some of it may be less so—particularly expertise related to “soft” skills or human skills, like communication or collaboration.

To provide more clear and specific guidance, SCUP identified competencies—knowledge, skills, and dispositions—that individuals need for successful integrated planning. We analyzed the experiences and viewpoints of around 300 planners and higher education administrators in order to surface the competencies—both obvious and inconspicuous—that underpin integrated planning success.

Abstract: Securing financial viability requires an engaged board that is monitoring the right trends and campus indicators, asking the right questions of campus leaders about the institution’s finances, and doing the scenario planning and stress testing necessary to transform a business model under stress.

The governing board’s fiduciary duty to steward the institution’s financial health requires that boards and leaders consider business model transformations, and plan for a range of scenarios like mergers, affiliations, strategic partnerships, and even—when all other options are exhausted—final transformations such as campus closures when continued mission fulfillment is impossible.

This is part two of a two-part webinar series delivered in partnership between SCUP and the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB), “Higher Education Business Models Under Stress: Planning for Successful Transitions”. This series will help build your fiduciary understanding of your institution’s business model as you prepare the campus for a range of possible business transformations, from mergers, strategic affiliations, corporate partnerships, or even the ultimate scenario of a campus closure. View the recording for part one, “Board Oversight of Finance and the Business Model: Key Indicators and Trends for Scenario Planning and Stress Testing”.

Abstract: Securing financial viability requires an engaged board that is monitoring the right trends and campus indicators, asking the right questions of campus leaders about the institution’s finances, and doing the scenario planning and stress testing necessary to transform a business model under stress.

The governing board’s fiduciary duty to steward the institution’s financial health requires that boards and leaders consider business model transformations, and plan for a range of scenarios like mergers, affiliations, strategic partnerships, and even—when all other options are exhausted—final transformations such as campus closures when continued mission fulfillment is impossible.

This is part one of a two-part webinar series delivered in partnership between SCUP and the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB), “Higher Education Business Models Under Stress: Planning for Successful Transitions”. This series will help build your fiduciary understanding of your institution’s business model as you prepare the campus for a range of possible business transformations, from mergers, strategic affiliations, corporate partnerships, or even the ultimate scenario of a campus closure. View the recording for part two, “Graceful Business Model Transitions: Planning and Executing a College or Campus Closure”.

Abstract: Higher education experienced extraordinary challenges in 2020 and tackled them head on with agility and creativity. Transformative leadership can help our institutions thrive even in the face of a world health disaster, its attendant fiscal challenges, and systemic racial and social injustice. This presentation will demonstrate how leaders can surmount these obstacles by aligning strategic priorities for the future. Come learn how to work across boundaries, differences, and beliefs while intentionally developing the essential skills and abilities you need to strengthen your institution and community.

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: by Ricardo Azziz, Guilbert C. Hentschke, Lloyd A. Jacobs, and Bonita C. Jacobs
Johns Hopkins University Press
Baltimore, MD 2019
288 Pages
ISBN 9781421432601

Abstract: For an integrated planning effort to succeed—particularly in higher education—collective commitment from all of the institutional stakeholders is critical.

To get that collective commitment, you need to do two things: 1) Design your planning process so it leverages your institution’s internal and external cultures, and 2) Involve your critical stakeholder groups in the planning process. Tapping into the stakeholder groups in meaningful ways will increase engagement, transparency, and commitment to the process and the products of integrated planning. Remember, institutional stakeholders are the carriers of your mission and institutional culture. Mission and culture are the key drivers of institutional success. If you do not respect your stakeholders, mission, and culture, your planning efforts will not yield a plan to enhance student success and institutional thriving.

This toolkit includes recommendations and worksheets to help you analyze your stakeholders and determine how to meaningfully engage them in the planning process.

Abstract: by Jason Owen-Smith
Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CA 2018
213 pages
ISBN 9781503607095

Abstract: This article evaluates administrative bloat, the ballooning growth of administrative functions and personnel, in American higher education. This evaluation was undertaken through a review of the available literature describing administrative bloat. Though unintentional, increased spending and government requirements for accountability may have contributed to overall growth and cost in higher education. Similarly, the changing composition of faculty—in terms of tenure-track faculty, annual contracts, and adjunct faculty—may have also played a role in the increased influence that administration has over campus policy and curricular decisions. Strategies to mitigate the cost of administrative bloat and to balance campus decisions between faculty and administration are suggested.

Abstract: In 2009 the Arizona University System (supporting over 130,000 enrollments) through its Board of Regents directed its board president and the presidents of Arizona State University, University of Arizona, and Northern Arizona University to create an operational plan that reflected the board’s vision, goals, and strategic directions. A primary objective was to transform the system (or enterprise) vision into concrete goals and outcomes that would directly connect to financial decision making at the system and university level. The backdrop for higher education planning and budgeting expectations included the continuation of severe reductions in state funding, rapidly increasing student tuition and fees, and a call for greater accountability. The planning processes were characterized by the integration of board and presidential discussions, inclusion of constituent debate, identification of strategic choices, and approval of outcomes focused on measuring performance. The integration ran across and within three organizations or levels that included the Arizona Board of Regents, its system administration, and the three universities.