Learning Resources

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: State institutions of higher education in Connecticut are experiencing a dramatic and unprecedented period of change: the consolidation of four universities and 13 community colleges into Connecticut State Colleges & Universities (CSCU) and the creation of a new administrative structure. This article charts the early stages of this process, presenting events as they unfolded during Governor Dannel Malloy’s first term beginning in January 2011, through his November 2014 reelection, until his state budget was passed in June 2015.

Advocates of systemness in higher education are challenged to balance the promise of centralized leadership and localized prerogative in designing and implementing policy. Systemness offers the promise of synergy and innovation within and across the system guided by common purpose and vision.

This article discusses five specific implementation processes and challenges: a systemwide credit transfer articulation program; Southern Connecticut State University’s early Transform CSCU 2020 initiatives; an ongoing effort throughout CSCU to develop a systemwide identity; the potential impact of budget constraints on systemness; and difficulties selecting and developing administrators and leaders.

Abstract: A reprint of the 1976 article with a new 2015 introduction by the author.

Original abstract: Drawing on his experience as Provost for Planning at West Virginia University, Raymond M. Haas deals in the following article with the importance of a proper charge to the Planning Office as a means of achieving integrated planning. He further proposes that the role of the Planning Office should be clearly coordinative in the nature--to the point where its only responsibility for actual planning should be in planning the planning process. Finally, he argues that "... integrated planning can be achieved only when planning is a regularly scheduled activity which occurs frequently, and which produces results that manifest themselves in the allocation, reallocation, and effective use of resources within the institution." The author's remarks have been adapted from his presentation at the Society's 11th Annual Conference in Washington, D.C.

Abstract: Academic programs should be the centrifugal force informing and driving the accomplishment of all other institutional plans. While financial, capital, and enrollment management plans are critical to institutional success, each is secondary to academic programs as a driving force. Institutions should simultaneously move toward “integrated planning” while developing a hierarchy of plans, with the academic program portfolio as primary. Undertaking more effective planning will require attention to several elements: operationalizing the mission, confronting the real issues, integrating resources into the plan, staying within institutional scope, quitting some programs and services, focusing on implementation and assessment, and maintaining a planning database for management purposes. The primacy of academic programs in the development of higher education plans will presage their success.

Abstract: Higher education is undergoing many sector-level changes while under growing pressure as a whole to demonstrate or improve institutional performance. Increasingly, private-sector industry organizations are applying portfolio management to their organizational resources as a strategy to improve performance. Although not formally recognized in practice or in the literature as portfolio management, the activity of prioritizing academic and administrative programs in higher education applies the principles of economic portfolio theory and private-industry portfolio management to the higher education sector. A small number of higher education institutions have undertaken academic program prioritization. Little empirical research exists to understand the use of portfolio management in higher education or its effectiveness in improving institutional performance. This study examines the characteristics of 62 institutions that have identified a need to intentionally manage and prioritize their portfolio of academic and administrative programs to improve institutional performance. The purpose of this study is to identify any relationship between the identified need to manage the organizational portfolio and certain institutional characteristics that have been found through empirical research to be predictors of institutional performance challenges. A wealth of research opportunities exists in the organizational portfolio management domain; recognizing the characteristics of institutions that identify a need to manage their portfolio of academic and administrative programs is a step toward filling the gap in the research and informing resource decision making.

Abstract: Optimizing Academic Balance (OAB) analysis provides your institution with effective tools to use in making the strategic academic decisions needed to stay competitive in the context of your institutional mission, quality, market potential, cost, and revenue. Optimizing Academic Balance utilizes market potential data (inquiries, applicants, admitted students, enrolled students, juniors, and graduates) to measure demand for each of your majors using student credit hours (SCH) generated by program as a proxy for revenues and direct (faculty and departmental) costs for teaching each program. It may be applied to all academic program offerings—undergraduate, graduate, and non-traditional.