Learning Resources

Abstract: FLEXSpace—The Flexible Learning Environments eXchange—and the Learning Space Rating System (LSRS) are tools that can help you plan, design, assess, and improve learning spaces on your campus. In this session, you will learn about the newly released FLEXspace 2.0 along with the LSRS. We'll cover the features and benefits of both tools and how they can be incorporated into the planning process. Come learn how to use these tools to inform designs and support end users from planning through post occupancy.

Abstract: Course schedules are often "rolled over" without understanding their impact on instructional budgets. Real-time scheduling and budget data allows for strategic decisions that balance student needs with institutional capacity. This session will demonstrate a process to develop a strategic scheduling and budget plan and make real-time, data-informed schedule adjustments that support institutional, departmental, and program budget goals. You will learn how to develop planning strategies that align scheduling with budget goals and how to make day-to-day decisions that maximize your ability to meet student needs.

Abstract: In an era of heightened accreditation expectations, declining resources, and increasing competition, tools such as integrated planning and budgeting, evidence-based decision-making (EBDM) processes, an overarching continuous quality improvement (CQI) framework, and up-to-date technology solutions for managing planning processes are no longer optional. While Mesa Community College (MCC) has a long history of planning, the integration of planning and budgeting was limited and our planning system was outdated (as in beyond end-of-life outdated). Additionally, planning and budgeting processes lacked EBDM practices and an overarching CQI framework. MCC’s Strategic Planning Committee set about remedying all of these issues and did so within the span of a year.

Abstract: As colleges and universities plan efforts to improve financial reporting and analysis, which often entail making costly investments in new systems and tools, they should first evaluate whether to redesign the institution’s chart of accounts. The chart of accounts is the DNA of financial reports and is used to track financial activity across the institution. This article proposes a planning, evaluation, and design process for a new chart of accounts and identifies key considerations for leaders undertaking this effort.

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: 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.

Abstract: The community colleges in the State University of New York system leveraged “systemness”—the idea that working together can greatly enhance the possibility of positive results—in creating a statewide program to retrain dislocated TAA-eligible workers and returning veterans for high-quality, high-paying jobs in the skilled manufacturing sector. By aligning with the strengths of each college, curricula in areas such as photonics, optics, advanced manufacturing and machining, and semiconductors and mechatronics were created, leading to a diploma or certification and thus to increased probability of hiring. Regional employers and government workforce agencies were also part of the leadership teams, helping to create programming that was specifically focused on the needs of these vital industries.