Learning Resources

Abstract: Implementing Sustainable Change in Higher Education: Principles and Practices of Collaborative Leadership
by Brent D. Ruben
Stylus Publishing: Sterling, Virginia: 2022
229 pages
ISBN: 978-1642674415

How should higher education leaders take on the challenges of change? In Brent Ruben’s Implementing Sustainable Change in Higher Education: Principles and Practices of Collaborative Leadership, the author says there’s no simple approach. Instead, he encourages leaders to “understand and leverage the dynamics of change; lead collaboratively and meaningfully; engage one’s colleagues; and adopt and pursue a shared vision of organizational purpose and aspirations.”

Abstract: A Practical Guide to Strategic Planning in Higher Education is a resource for anyone engaged in college or university strategic planning; it is also an excellent primer for planning committees. Using clear definitions, practical tips, and examples drawn from actual situations, this short book acts as a manual for both experienced planners and those who are new to the process. This second edition also contains new strategies for using an institution’s strategic plan during times of institutional upheaval, and additional techniques for jump-starting various parts of the planning process.

Abstract: The institutions that will thrive in the future will be those that use high-quality, relevant mission-driven data as part of their strategic, integrated planning process. Because of this it is imperative to create integrated institutional effectiveness (IIE) offices that serve as the connective tissue among all units within a college or university. The data and expertise of institutional effectiveness can be leveraged to benefit the institution as a whole. In this article, we discuss the value of creating an IIE office and challenges associated with a centralized infrastructure.

Abstract: Part 1 of this series described a major contraction in the pool of college-going 18-year-olds that will reverse decades of growth and stability for higher education. Part 2 explored how we can shape a planning context that supports success in the coming 10 or 20 years. Part 3 suggests how our approach to planning must shift to prepare for abrupt change.

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: 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: 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: The past two decades have seen great social change and both massive consolidation and expansion of institutions of higher education, clearly presenting circumstances warranting the use of formal approaches to planning. Varying planning theories, past failures and successes, and differing circumstances have generated several partially contrasting planning models to guide organizational change. Therefore, institutions of higher education have a variety of such approaches from which to choose. This article presents a case study illustrating the use of several approaches to planning that is distinctive because it relies heavily upon experience-based planning, examples of which are unfortunately lacking in the literature base.

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.