Learning Resources

Abstract: Over their 150-year history, land-grant universities have played a tremendous and vital role in the development of the United States and the education of its people. Most of these institutions were established as the result of the Morrill Land-Grant Act of 1862. How has this mission, drafted in a much different time, held up over the years? As we move toward the third decade of the twenty-first century, many universities are evolving to better embrace changing student demographics; build industry partnerships; and reframe campus legacies to ensure that the land-grant mission still supports the needs of our times.

Abstract: Public-Private Partnership (“P3”) procurement models for built infrastructure serving higher learning institutions started to gain attention in North America in the late 1990s—mostly as an alternative approach to adding student housing at select universities and colleges. More recently, P3 models have been applied to a diverse range of higher learning projects, with some serving core academic and research functions.

Although many institutions are considering P3 approaches among their options to address emerging pressures to expand or update their facilities, their implementation is not yet common. The researcher’s intention was to better understand P3 models and learn how they have performed, possibly generating some useful lessons for how P3 models can be applied with desired outcomes.

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: Industry and academia are partnering like never before as entrepreneurship and maker culture become more important to our economy and a regular fixture in higher education curricula. With the influx of allied industry partnerships, evolving pedagogies, entrepreneurship programs, and a maker culture comes a pressing need for new spaces, ranging from fabrication and prototyping studios to innovation districts devoted to new kinds of research partnerships. Schools like the University of Washington, Babson College, and Arizona State University are leading the way on new collaborations. In this article, Sasaki planners and urban designers examine how design disruption will guide the development of campuses that enable 21st-century teaching, learning, and research paradigms.

Abstract: Public-private partnerships—in which public and private sector entities partner to deliver a service or facility for the use of the general public—are spreading in the United States and elsewhere as cash-strapped public entities seek investment funds from private sources. However, it is important not to let immediate challenges and opportunities cause one to lose sight of long-term obligations. In this article, we underscore the importance of taking the long view and share lessons learned regarding finance, planning, and negotiation at institutions that have employed the P3 process. We also offer additional best practices regarding campus master planning to ensure a successful P3 process while maintaining the long-term integrity of the campus.

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.

Abstract: The advantages of thoughtful, well-structured strategic planning and decentralized budgeting are numerous. But they bring different and sometimes conflicting perspectives to high-stakes discussions within the institution. By recognizing and preparing for these tensions, the odds increase that their potential benefits will not be eroded or eclipsed by distractions or destructive forces and they can work in harmony to help an institution accomplish its goals in an increasingly challenging environment. The author considers specific tensions and conflicts and draws on the experience of a flagship public university to suggest ways to manage these tensions and reap the benefits of both approaches.

Abstract: This article presents a range of approaches for linking budgeting to planning. After briefly discussing the natures of planning and budgeting, it presents four conceptual categories of ways to link the two. The article defines these as structural, adaptive-incremental, devolved, and holistic/advanced. No one approach will be correct for all institutions. Even where there is a system in place to link planning and budgeting, this is unlikely to be enough unless there is firm, skilled, aligned, and distributed leadership to keep the system on track toward institutional goals.