Learning Resources

Abstract: Beginning with the 2016–2017 academic year, Rosemont College took the bold step of reducing its tuition by 43 percent in an initiative termed “Our Tuition Promise.” The initial announcement generated national news coverage and resulted in a significant increase in applications.
Rosemont made this shift because it believed it was the right thing to do and was in keeping with the college’s mission and values. The process from start to finish was the result of a year of research and careful planning. While the headlines were big and up-front with the basic details, here is a behind-the-scenes look at how Rosemont College reset its tuition.

Abstract: Using ordered response models often employed in public finance, we explore the possible determinants of public college and university credit ratings based on the fiscal structure of a number of institutions that are members of the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE). We argue that by understanding the role of fiscal structure in the determination of institutional credit ratings, leaders can respond appropriately to variable economic conditions. They can also begin to manage and plan the ways in which their operations and fiscal structure impact their debt costs through credit ratings.

Abstract: This article presents a range of approaches for linking budgeting to planning. After briefly discussing the natures of planning and budgeting, it presents four conceptual categories of ways to link the two. The article defines these as structural, adaptive-incremental, devolved, and holistic/advanced. No one approach will be correct for all institutions. Even where there is a system in place to link planning and budgeting, this is unlikely to be enough unless there is firm, skilled, aligned, and distributed leadership to keep the system on track toward institutional goals.

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.

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.

Abstract: As efforts to stimulate innovation spring up across campuses, institutions need a comprehensive planning framework for the integrated planning of initiatives that support innovation. The campus can be viewed as an Innovation Landscape, and settings for collaborative creative activity—both physical and virtual—can infuse the campus fabric and become part of the daily experience of users. The Innovation Landscape Framework is a tool to help coordinate physical planning with organizational initiatives, engage a wide range of stakeholders, and enable a more widespread culture of innovation.

Abstract: The services required to support the strategic work of universities often exist in silos, and this disconnection can impede the advancement of new initiatives. To prepare for a complex new program, a number of analytical processes need to occur—background research, environmental scans, and benchmarking. To develop the initiative, strong facilitation and project management skills are also required. To ensure the initiative’s success, careful space planning and financial planning must exist along with the development of evaluative measures to monitor progress. This article describes how one university combined these services into a single department to more effectively support the strategic work of schools, divisions, and campus-wide programs.

Abstract: As the challenges that students face become increasingly complex and interwoven, student service providers must innovate in order to continue to connect users to their offerings. Moreover, those services must be planned for holistically with an aligned understanding of why, what, where, when, and how they will be delivered. This article draws on brightspot strategy’s work with more than 50 leading universities as an experience design and strategy consultancy as well as best practices from the field to share some of the approaches, tools, and lessons learned in designing services to meet the needs of today’s students.

Abstract: This article presents the research, design options, and space planning guidelines prepared for Montgomery College specifically for spaces designed to address the needs of an increasingly diverse student body. The guidelines cover gender-inclusive restrooms and locker facilities for transgender people, lactation rooms for nursing mothers, and serenity space for an increasing Muslim population and others. Extensive research conducted by Stantec and Inquiry2Solutions informed the guidelines. The research included a review of the college’s institutional policies and governance structure; interviews with students, faculty, and staff as well as colleagues across the United States and personnel from relevant professional associations; and discussions with associations that support the needs of LGBTQ students and institutions that have begun to address these kinds of space planning. Foremost, the planning team learned that there are few space planning guidelines to meet these needs.
Montgomery College is charting new territory with the adoption of these space planning guidelines and has helped establish an important benchmark in this emerging area of campus planning.

Abstract: This article explores how the University of the West Indies can become economically sustainable and relevant by using its human capital to generate wealth and develop strong linkages between academia, the private sector, and governments. It makes a clear distinction between institutional and research-driven innovations, listing examples and best practices found throughout the university. Further, it presents a practical road map for enhancing both organizational- and research-based innovations within the university while aligning its vision of becoming an innovative institution with government policies and the private sector agenda. It also proposes key performance indicators to benchmark innovations at the university that can be emulated by other tertiary level institutions regionally and internationally.