Learning Resources

Abstract: While nontraditional students now make up the majority of most student bodies, we continue to use physical planning outreach and engagement tools designed for traditional students. This session shares how we developed new practices and tools to deliver better campus experiences for students from nontraditional backgrounds, yielding social equity in campus planning and building design. You will learn about new physical planning engagement and assessment tools that reveal and remedy the disparities nontraditional students encounter in their lives on campus.

Abstract: The StudentLink Center, New York University's consolidated services model, has transformed student services delivery. Our highly efficient student-centered model focuses on simplifying services by removing barriers to students. We will show how to maintain a friendly warm-touch environment that leverages technology to streamline business processes, collect data, and utilize obtained data to cross train your team and improve productivity. You will walk away from this session with an understanding of how our service model works and how data collection can serve to enhance cross-training efforts and increase productivity.

Abstract: Harvard University’s Smith Campus Center has repurposed an entire city block, providing innovative new spaces for collaboration and a welcoming “front door” to the university. The campus center has been transformative for Harvard, revitalizing a prominent site at the campus's crossroads and providing the wider community of 44,000 people with new central gathering and events spaces. Come learn how we successfully navigated stakeholder outreach and generated a design solution within the existing building.

Abstract: This article applies the three stages of change (mobilization, implementation, and institutionalization) to the academic curricular process change that occurred during the 2014–2015 academic year at the Indiana University of Pennsylvania. Reflecting on the manner in which this major initiative was conceptualized and executed has revealed an inadvertent yet seamless application of Curry’s (1992) organizational change model. Throughout each stage of this organizational change, some inherent principles were maintained while balancing the required condensed timeline for completion. These principles included consistent and transparent consultation with many branches of the university community and revision of proposed processes based on feedback from community members. The goal of the authors in sharing the change process at IUP is to provide potential insights for others on recognizing a need for organizational process revision. The authors highlight the actions taken at IUP, offer recommendations, and identify potential hazards to institutions contemplating organizational change.

Abstract: Have we heard from enough people? Sometimes leaders ask this question to seek consensus or in the hope of making a tough call easy with more data. But this is the wrong question to ask. A better question is, “Have we talked to the right people?” In this article, we discuss how institutions can research their “lead users” whose extreme behaviors today will be the norm tomorrow. Using a case study rethinking Georgia Tech’s library services, spaces, and staffing, we explain who lead users are, how to identify them, how to research them to uncover insights, and how they can champion innovation on your campus.

Abstract: This article describes execution of the balanced scorecard (BSC) strategic framework in a School of Nursing (SoN). The SoN strategy map was the outcome of the development phase. The two-year implementation phase incorporated balanced scorecards that linked outcome measures to the priority strategies. Thirty-two percent of the defined outcome measures were met. Factors in adopting the BSC framework included development of a strategic plan that supports the college mission and vision, improved communication within the SoN, a united effort to institute strategies to sustain the SoN’s future, and establishment of performance indicators to measure success in achieving those strategies.

Abstract: With North Dakota experiencing a significant shortage in all health care-related fields, the University of North Dakota School of Medicine and Health Sciences replaced its aging facility with a new school in order to (1) increase enrollment by 25 percent, (2) attract and retain top-tier faculty and staff, (3) encourage inter-professional collaboration, (4) colocate all eight medical, health sciences, and basic sciences in one building, and (5) retain more in-state graduates. The facility is now a shared collaborative learning environment, the result of the university “rethinking everything” about how it delivered health sciences education.

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.