Learning Resources

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.

Abstract: In times of rapid economic and technological change, how can schools continue to provide relevant educations? At leading universities in Mexico and Singapore, bold shifts in pedagogy and planning are reimagining the very core of the college experience. Their approach is simple but revolutionary—emphasize learning techniques more than industry-specific knowledge; celebrate spaces and curricula that bring people together to accomplish shared goals; and cultivate opportunities for students to positively impact their community. Through inventing the 21st-century campus, these universities are creating students who are curious, well-rounded, and ready for tomorrow—where the only certainty is change.

Abstract: Succeeding at integrated planning at colleges and universities is a challenge. Many planning models do not work in higher education because they are not designed for higher education. Planning processes designed for corporations or non-profits do not account for the complex environment of higher education nor its unique challenges. Many institutions struggle to leverage planning into lasting change because they create plans in a vacuum. They do not grasp the institution’s strategic issues or create a sound value proposition. They are not prepared for good planning. To provide guidance on where to prioritize efforts, SCUP partnered with the Baker Strategy Group in 2015 to conduct a study with more than 2,200 leaders who plan at colleges and universities, and ran quantitative analysis on their responses. Several themes emerged around planning challenges and how to respond, which are explored in this report.

Abstract: These are times of unprecedented change in higher education. Routine or even strategic change will not be enough to sustain institutions in the near future. Challenging times require leaders with strong skills for problem solving, crisis management and resiliency in rapidly changing environments—in other words, transformative leadership. Transformative leadership skills are distinctive among leadership skills. Based on an ABC framework, the article describes connections between the As (analytics, accreditation, accountability), Bs (decisions whether to build, buy, or buddy with partners), and Cs (culture, collaboration, and courage) that it takes to be transformative.