Learning Resources

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 a method for attributing research expenditures directly to assigned space that avoids the difficulties with traditional approaches that have arisen from the growth of interdisciplinary research activities where the attribution of research to the faculty member or unit is not strongly correlated with the location where the research is performed. The emergence and growth of new transdisciplinary research activities that not only connect research from traditional disciplines but also form the unifying theme around which a whole new area may form depends in part on reducing traditional barriers to space allocation and encouraging the creative efforts of everyone contributing to meet research space needs. Projects may be distributed across several rooms, some of which are shared with other projects. We seek to attribute credit for such efforts using approximations from existing data to avoid exacerbating an already onerous data collection challenge. The pilot version and a second iteration of the project have been completed with worthwhile results. A new analysis is currently underway with further improved data collection, an enhanced database, and a more systematic process.

Abstract: An innovative approach to the capital planning process will determine the future physical character of an institution and the capability of facilities to support its programs.

Abstract: Examines traditional assumptions underlying space management and proposes an alternative approach to projecting space use. Specifically, the author recommends making projections based on space per faculty rather than space per student, and then comparing these projections with the space allocation at peer institutions. Problems with traditional methods of space allocation are discussed, as is the process of implementing this approach and identifying comparable institutions.

Abstract: Describes the quantitative analysis of program array at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in an attempt to evaluate new and low-enrollment programs in a period of shrinking financial resources. The analysis is designed to compare a college or university with its peer institutions. The resulting information can form the basis of policy development for low-enrollment majors, assist in evaluating the need for new programs, or aid in analyzing resources and developing new, consolidated, and/or collaborative programs.

Abstract: In this article, we discuss a method for developing and writing scenarios for a college or university. We begin by reviewing the general literature on scenarios; we then detail a scenario development project at Arizona State University. This project, conducted in 1988–89, was Arizona State University's first institution-wide, futures-based planning and scenario development effort. The focus of the project for Arizona State University was planning and programming for affirmative action. An outside consultant facilitated the group-process portion of the project and instructed university staff in scenario development. Staff in the university's Office of Institutional Analysis then developed and wrote a set of three scenarios to guide the university's affirmative action programming and planning during the decade of the nineties.

Abstract: Consortia, their impact on cooperating institutions, and critical factors in inter-institutional planning were the subject of a recent study for the United States Office of Education, directed by Harold L. Hodgkinson of the Center for Research and Development in Higher Education at the University of California at Berkeley. The critical issues, according to the study findings, are problems of reciprocity and autonomy, coordination of programs among diverse institutions, and strategies for campus involvement and leadership. The following article, by three staff members of the New Hampshire College and University Council—one of the consortia in the Hodgkinson study—is devoted to a discussion of the process of consortium decision-making, touching on the three key issues. The authors are: Lynn G. Johnson, the Council's associate director in charge of academic programs; Dr. William W. Barnard, consultant and coordinator of a two-year Cooperative Curriculum Project, and Douglas W. Lyon, coordinator of January Term Programs and communications coordinator.