Learning Resources

Abstract: Although many institutions have clear processes for collecting data at the institutional level, we often overlook unit-level data collection aligned with institutional metrics, resulting in hindered outcomes. In order to achieve institutional outcomes, we must collect actionable data on key performance indicators at different unit levels. This session will share how Binghamton University has established an integrated data collection and tracking process and the ways in which the pandemic has affected this process and shifted institutional priorities. Come learn from examples of departmental-, divisional-, and institutional-level dashboards and find out how to use them to inform planning and improve performance.

Abstract: LEED is not always suited to campus-wide, long-term perspectives on building development and carbon emissions reductions. It can often result in a more expensive process that misses the mark on achieving realized savings, leading universities to shift away from LEED. This session will focus on the next step in the evolution of green building and provide a comprehensive sustainability framework for responsible development with a holistic view of the campus and community wellbeing. Come learn how you can use this improved planning process for green building by outlining rigorous sustainable design standards and integrating operational tracking to examine facility performance.

Abstract: “SMART” built environments usually refer to buildings with embedded technologies that allow them to run as efficiently as possible. Yet for research institutions, that definition should be expanded beyond efficiency to include metrics that are used to quantify research productivity and accomplishments. The expected useful life of the building and individual labs, research dollars generated per square foot, intellectual property generated, and successful recruitment and retainment of researchers are but a few bottom line-oriented measures that colleges and universities use. By embracing the business side of higher education, architects can create even smarter built environments.

In this presentation, we discuss how to identify and select appropriate metrics for institutions that are equally focused on education and research. What objective and subjective measures can be considered? Are these metrics applicable in our new (hopefully) post-COVID reality? How are institutions reallocating space in this new reality? How do we redefine the future of “smart” higher education research facilities?

Abstract: Is a strategic plan necessary for institutional success? In preparation for a new strategic plan at UTEP, we reviewed literature and found many publications that described the procedures of plan making and also case studies of how plans are produced. We also found substantial literature that questioned the value of strategic plans. These findings prompted us to think about the historical and theoretical basis for strategic plans: How did they emerge, what is their theoretical value, and is there a right way to do them? In our article we offer surprising answers to these questions based on a review of a century of theory and planning literature.

Abstract: There is increased demand to provide facilities that encourage student success. But how do you know if a space "works"? We will focus on how you can link your facilities planning to measurable student success. After reviewing broader national trends, we'll discuss metrics for student success and how space contributes to student success. Finally, we'll focus on tools and solutions that your institution can incorporate into its facilities planning process to ensure your learning spaces contribute to student success.

Abstract: Literature points out that big data and analytics (BDA) still fails to positively influence institutional planning—even though it's promoted as a novel approach to improving efficiency and effectiveness. What limits the usefulness of BDA? Researchers point to a lack of conceptual models that translate information into meaningful signals. Nonsense! We're using a metrics-based planning framework that's producing remarkable outcomes. We'll share our framework and how you can apply this concept at your institution.

Abstract: Today we find our institutions barraged by the forces of change, and dutifully we respond. Over time, however, we end up molding our institutions to these forces to our own peril, and now U.S. higher education is on the ropes, so to speak. We believe education leaders should take hold of our destinies and shape our industry not by the forces of lackluster government policy, self-serving press and media, and for-profit mega corporations, but to serve true learning and personal growth. There are many tools we can use to lead change. This article introduces the concept of Positive Turbulence, an intentional, disruptive approach for positive change, to the education industry.

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: 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.