Learning Resources

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: FLEXSpace—The Flexible Learning Environments eXchange—and the Learning Space Rating System (LSRS) are tools that can help you plan, design, assess, and improve learning spaces on your campus. In this session, you will learn about the newly released FLEXspace 2.0 along with the LSRS. We'll cover the features and benefits of both tools and how they can be incorporated into the planning process. Come learn how to use these tools to inform designs and support end users from planning through post occupancy.

Abstract: Planning for a division within a university can be difficult; you must align to the larger institutional plan while also considering your division's unique mission and challenges. This session will describe the strategic planning process for a college within a university. We'll describe how we included more than 500 stakeholders, discussed enrollment declines and the upcoming demographic changes that will impact most colleges, and how we focused the plan on mission and innovation. You will leave with a blueprint for the planning process we used, from self study to training facilitators to final plan release.

Abstract: Higher education’s resource situation is not good and is not expected to get better in the foreseeable future. Elite and wealthy institutions are relatively immune to these pressures, but the overwhelming majority of other institutions are continually struggling to match resources to mission. Several actions, though difficult and painful, would help reduce the gap between available resources and those needed to meet stakeholders’ needs. This session focuses on the need to employ a coordinated and aligned approach to planning, resource allocation, and assessment. It goes on to describe a proven practice for utilizing all three to match resources to mission—strategic resource allocation. Finally, it offers suggestions for initiating the conversation on your campus.

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

Abstract: The “Greater College Park Initiative” is a signature multi-year effort in President Wallace Loh’s leadership and administration to continue positive town/gown relations with development that enhances both the university campus and surrounding communities.

This talk provided an overview of University of Maryland's (UMD) strategic plan and how it is supported by the five-year update to the university’s facilities master plan, approved in 2017. It discussed current local and regional planning initiatives as well as campus and community development projects, including the associated partnerships and collaborations with municipal, organizational, and private-sector partners.

Abstract: This report was produced by the research team awarded the M. Perry Chapman Prize for 2015–2016.

What will be the impact of rapidly developing online learning modalities on the campus face-to-face experience over the next decade? What might campus planners need to look out for over the next 10 years as they strive to align their institution’s virtual and physical infrastructure with its mission?

This study reviews the scholarly literature and the expert views of practitioners in campus planning (both virtual and physical) to forecast how campuses might evolve between now and 2030. It views the university as a “complex adaptive assemblage” made up of many component parts working not within a systematic framework but as separate assemblages coexisting on campus affected by uncontrollable outside forces. These separate assemblages and their interrelationships can be better understood in a campus context by using experts in the fields of learning sciences, teacher professional development, educational technologies, learning environment/campus design, and others to form a cohesive idea of how the separate parts might come together to inform the future of higher education.

Abstract: Do you have facility needs, like the need for more/improved space for instruction or infrastructure upgrades? Is it time to address deferred maintenance issues? Do you have reservations about venturing into unfamiliar territory? You’ll have to wrestle with some vexing matters—plan alternatives, big budgets, illusive funding sources, and an uninformed public.
Your concerns are valid. With a rich background as architectural firm principal and later as a community college project manager, the author has been through the drill. This article’s thoughtful advice details a project’s first phases—from initial concepts to developed projects with funding. It will head you toward success by helping to avoid the pitfalls.

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.