SCUP
 

Learning Resources

Your Higher Education Planning Library

Combine search terms, filters, institution names, and tags to find the vital resources to help you and your team tackle today’s challenges and plan for the future. Get started below, or learn how the library works.

FOUND 21 RESOURCES

REFINED BY:

  • Tags: Selecting MetricsxAnalyzing Stakeholdersx

Clear All
ABSTRACT:  | 
SORT BY:  | 
Webinar Recordings

Published
December 9, 2021

How Assessment Can Improve Your Campus’s Active Learning Spaces

By: David M. Zaiser, HDR | Shannon Dowling, Ayers Saint Gross | Alice Donlan, University of Maryland | Hilary Gossett, University of Maryland | Jeffrey Ashley, Jefferson (Philadelphia University + Thomas Jefferson University)

Come join us for an engaging and interactive session that will provide you with critical, campus-tested planning tools that you can use in your own classroom assessment to improve your campus learning environment.
Abstract: Higher education planners recognize the crucial role that active learning spaces play in improving student outcomes, but identifying the specific characteristics that make these environments most beneficial for student success is still an evolving process. Representatives from two institutions—one private, the other public—will share their experiences and highlight the planning tools they use to assess active learning spaces aimed at powering student gains. Come join us for an engaging and interactive session that will provide you with critical, campus-tested planning tools that you can use in your own classroom assessment to improve your campus learning environment. This webinar was brought to you by the SCUP Mid-Atlantic region.

Member Price:
$119  | Login

Non-Member Price:
$65

Conference Recordings

Published
July 16, 2021

2021 Annual Conference | July 2021

Developing Shared Metrics to Guide Multi-level Institutional Planning

By: Megan Blackwelder, Northwestern University | Shoshannah Cohen, Northwestern University | Amit Prachand, Northwestern University

This session will focus on the development and use of consistent metrics through the program review process and other key university processes to support integrated planning at the department, school, and university levels.
Abstract: This session will focus on the development and use of consistent metrics through the program review process and other key university processes to support integrated planning at the department, school, and university levels. Using coordinated data at multiple levels of an institution can better inform both strategic planning and budget decisions. We'll share successful examples from Northwestern University that you can apply at your institution, including school-level dashboards that inform the annual strategic planning process as well as department-level planning.

Member Price:
$35  | Login

Non-Member Price:
$50

Conference Recordings

Published
July 13, 2021

2021 Annual Conference | July 2021

A New Plan for Building Green

By: Casey Collins, Duke University | Leanora Paniccia, Atelier Ten

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.
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.

Member Price:
$35  | Login

Non-Member Price:
$50

Webinar Recordings

Published
April 20, 2021

A Different Kind of SMART

Using Performance-Oriented Metrics to Redefine Success in a Forward-Focused Research Lab

By: Carlos Perez Rubio, AIA, LEED AP, HERA laboratory planners | Sarah T. Smith, NCARB, LEED GA, Auburn University | Clay Stafford, HERA laboratory planners

In this presentation, we discuss how to identify and select appropriate metrics—equally focused on education and research—for evaluating “SMART” research laboratories.
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?

Member Price:
$39  | Login

Non-Member Price:
$69

Webinar Recordings

Published
January 14, 2021

The Faculty Factor

Creating Buy-In for Difficult Planning

By: Lynn Priddy, Claremont Lincoln University | Sandra Patterson-Randles, Indiana University Southeast

In this session we explore the successes and failures involved in two planning initiatives that required broad-based faculty support in order to reverse issues with programmatic quality, student success, and institutional accreditation.
Abstract: In difficult times, planning and the successful implementation of that planning require the buy-in and support of a whole range of stakeholders–but particularly the faculty, since they carry out the institution’s teaching and research missions.

Faculty can make or break successful planning.

An institution must be very circumspect in their choice of representative faculty for planning groups, how they are engaged in the planning process, and how they interact with other campus constituencies for maximum buy-in. This endeavor is particularly difficult when the new planning process follows previous attempts that have failed because of faculty resistance or lack of meaningful involvement. This session details successful planning initiatives at two regional universities, one in the Midwest and one in the southern Northeast, where earlier planning efforts failed because of “the faculty factor.”

Join us to explore the successes and failures involved in these two planning initiatives that required broad-based faculty support in order to reverse issues with programmatic quality, student success, and institutional accreditation.

Member Price:
Free  | Login

Non-Member Price:
$69

Conference Presentations

Published
July 14, 2019

2019 Annual Conference | July 2019

Student Success

What's Space Got To Do With It?

By: Lynn Akey, Linda L. Baer, Krisan Osterby

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: 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.

Member Price:
Free

Non-Member Price:
Free

Conference Presentations

Published
July 14, 2019

2019 Annual Conference | July 2019

Higher Ed’s Missing Link

Turning Your Big Data Into Institutional Change

By: Roy Mathew, David Ruiter

We'll share our metrics-based planning framework—that's producing remarkable outcomes—and explain how you can apply this concept at your institution.
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.

Member Price:
Free

Non-Member Price:
Free

Planning for Higher Education Journal

Published
July 1, 2019

KPIs Drive Strategic Planning and Execution

And Feedback Steers the Institution in the Right Direction

By: Can Saygin

Quantitative tools are essential for developing a framework, but properly identifying stakeholders and keeping them involved is what connects planning to execution.

From Volume 47 Number 4 | July–September 2019

Member Price:
Free  | Login

Member-only Resource

Join now to have access

Planning for Higher Education Journal

Published
July 1, 2017

Featured Image

Balanced Scorecard Implementation in a School of Nursing

A Case Study Analysis

By: Cindy Brown

Implementing the balanced scorecard measurably improved the overall effectiveness of planning activities and increased individual involvement in and understanding of the strategic planning process.

From Volume 45 Number 4 | July–September 2017

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.

Member Price:
Free  | Login

Member-only Resource

Join now to have access

Planning for Higher Education Journal

Published
April 1, 2017

Featured Image

Integrating Board, System, and University Planning and Performance During a Period of Rapidly Declining State Funding Commitment

By: Thomas K. Anderes

Even in the most difficult financial times, integrating planning and budgeting throughout the organization creates opportunities for success.

From Volume 45 Number 3 | April–June 2017

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.

Member Price:
Free  | Login

Member-only Resource

Join now to have access