Learning Resources

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.

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: As efforts to stimulate innovation spring up across campuses, institutions need a comprehensive planning framework for the integrated planning of initiatives that support innovation. The campus can be viewed as an Innovation Landscape, and settings for collaborative creative activity—both physical and virtual—can infuse the campus fabric and become part of the daily experience of users. The Innovation Landscape Framework is a tool to help coordinate physical planning with organizational initiatives, engage a wide range of stakeholders, and enable a more widespread culture of innovation.

Abstract: Establishing the need for both academic program and facilities expansion is key to the success of any long-range planning process. Analyzing return on investment (ROI) is a beneficial yet underutilized metric to use in validating those needs. In a time when public funding is decreasing, it is advantageous to develop capital improvement plans that demonstrate how to achieve maximum financial benefits from the investment in major construction and renovation projects. This article demonstrates how a comprehensive master facilities planning process at Central Piedmont Community College in Charlotte, NC, will help persuade county officials to support a $687 million capital campaign resulting in a positive ROI to students, the institution, and the community.

Abstract: Much like routine dental exams, accreditation reviews can create anxiety and generate short-term institutional activity that simulates long-term healthy habits. Authentic, ongoing planning and assessment aligned with accreditation standards reduces anxiety and produces successful results through holistic, efficient, and sustainable efforts. This session shares how one institution efficiently integrated and aligned planning and assessment activities with accreditation standards and cycles. We'll discuss how you can adapt a similar process at your institution so your institution can avoid redundant activities while achieving optimal institutional wellbeing.

Abstract: This report was produced by the researcher awarded the M. Perry Chapman Prize for 2014–2015.

While face-to-face collaboration has been theorized to be a key element in intellectual development and cognition, no formal method of quantitative measurement has been applied to understand collective face-to-face learning in academic institutions or how patterns of interaction and individual reflection may reveal information exchange among students within educational institutions. To address this gap, this study introduces a novel tool and framework to promote the systematic study of peer collaboration for general use in education.

Results of this applied research will be useful to architects, interior designers, librarians, educators, and researchers interested in obtaining empirical evidence and applying it to the design of learning environments and the assessment of how well spaces intentionally relate to learning. This research project introduces a common means for researchers in space design, education, and information science to develop principles and best practices to improve return on investment in the design of informal learning environments.

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: Campuses are increasingly interested in “greening” as a response to climate change, in recognition of a resource-challenged future, and based on a desire to prepare current and future generations for a world faced with new environmental, social, and economic threats. But where to start? We often look to our facilities personnel to lead the charge with energy efficiency measures and LEED-certified buildings, but how do we institutionalize sustainability and make it part of the fabric of the university? A useful tool for beginning this process or coordinating existing efforts is the creation of a campus sustainability plan that can serve as both a strategic planning document and an implementation guide with specific action items, benchmarks, and accountability strategies. This article provides a script for anyone looking to take on this task and includes a case study from a large public institution with the aim of assisting others in this endeavor and easing their transitions to more sustainable campuses.