Learning Resources

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: In 2010, a public research institution in the southeastern United States, the focus institution for this investigation, launched an academic realignment initiative through the creation of a new academic unit. Administrators identified three primary goals for the academic realignment initiative but failed to articulate a time line or measureable outcomes for the process. In the absence of institutional measures, the primary author created proxy outcomes, but found minimal evidence to suggest that institutional outcomes had been achieved. In an era of high-stakes accountability and limited financial resources, it is imperative that academic leaders intentionally connect institutional goals to measureable outcomes.

Abstract: Learn the things you need to do to get ready and stay ready! Numerous recent campus disruptions, outages, and disasters have highlighted the importance of investing in the proactive risk management solution known as academic continuity planning. Go beyond theory and concepts to the actual integrated mechanics and step-by-step methodology for developing and maintaining operational-level continuity plans. Cultivate integration with a service designed specifically to support the need for higher education institutions to be prepared. Is your campus ready?

Abstract: “[This] is a complete guide on strategic planning, presenting step by step the 5 major components of an integrated planning process. It is also a most useful, exhaustive, and updated list of definitions; presentation of all components and subcomponents; suggestions of strategies; and well-chosen examples . . . As I continue my work with Francophone universities, some in Africa, it will be my honor and pleasure to be inspired and accompanied by the Fountains’ guide.”
—Roland Proulx, Consultant, Institutional Planning & Strategic Intelligence, University of Montreal

With a heavy use of SCUP resource materials, SCUPers Doug and JoEllyn Fountain have written the book they wish someone had handed them when they began working for eight years with a rapidly growing university in Uganda. “While North American universities are developing LEED certified buildings, we were trying to pave roads and get stable electricity. We looked long and hard for materials and advisors who could help us with basic issues.”

Abstract: The number of individuals receiving a U.S. doctorate degree continues to grow; however, we know little about the precise factors that affect wages for recent doctorate recipients over time. Using data from approximately 10,000 respondents who completed the Survey of Doctorate Recipients, the study presented in this article examines factors contributing to wage growth over the time period 1999–2008. Findings show wage benefits for degree recipients over the decade, but also show significant differences by gender, race, discipline, and other characteristics. Findings have strong implications for individuals who may consider doctorate or other advanced training, for academic planners, and for policies in graduate education.

Abstract: While universities recognize the need for change, establishing an environment conducive to change requires time and movement through stages. In this article, I examine different tools and processes that can pave the way for innovation or change. These processes became evident in my research on the emergence of an interdisciplinary policy school jointly established on two campuses where previous models did not exist. The change came about because there was a confluence of forces that promoted it; these factors were strong enough to negate the barriers. There were key actions undertaken by the universities that promoted the change, including systematic program review, university-wide integrated planning, the appointment of an executive sponsor who had social and political capital, and the establishment of a “grassroots” working committee comprising faculty who were passionate about the initiative. However, there were equally important practices and policies that hindered the movement forward; these included institutional procedures that required multiple levels of approval in a lock-step process and the many facets of resistance to change. For universities contemplating a change agenda, the implementation of some of these processes and tools could potentially be beneficial in moving forward.

Abstract: The role of central administration in program development varies from institution to institution. Applications of shared governance, differences in state regulations, and evolving institutional procedures result in dissimilar administrative structures. This article reports on the role of central administration in new program development, as discussed by 13 senior academic officers at 12 public universities in the Carnegie Research Universities/Very High classification. The themes of fostering institutional communication and partnerships emerged in the interviews. In addition, the perceptions of the assistant provosts, associate provosts, and vice provosts responsible for the process are included.

Abstract: The issue of better measurement of faculty productivity is securing increasing attention from national and state sources. Most discussion of this important topic focuses solely on the instructional component of how faculty spend their time. Productivity, to be assessed more completely, needs to be unbundled into its three component parts: instruction, research, and service. In addition, productivity alone is inadequate as a measure of faculty outcomes; what is required is a coupling of output with quality indicators. This article disaggregates productivity into its three parts and suggests quality measures to provide a fuller explanation of institutional behavior.