Learning Resources

Abstract: In this session, we will discuss a process that any campus can use for creating a place for students to generate ideas and solve problems such as researching needs, crafting vision, planning spaces and services, piloting programs, and designing spaces. You will learn how to identify student needs; make a case for purposeful programming, services, and space that support innovation and problem-solving; and possess greater comfort with risk-taking and ambiguity as well as deliver mission-critical activities.

Abstract: Within the last several years, higher education institutions have embraced the language of an “anchor mission” to define their place-based commitments. This case analysis details the role of data in promoting systematic local change in six institutions participating in the Anchor Dashboard Learning Cohort. These institutions committed to measuring community impact through the Anchor Dashboard, a tool to understand and enhance local commitments along several social and economic dimensions. This article details the promises and pitfalls of developing an institution-wide, place-based mission led from different institutional levels—from the president’s office to faculty-led centers—using this data tool.

Abstract: Makerspaces designed for collaborative learning are appearing on campuses throughout the United States, including at Drexel University. These spaces succeed because they permit students to collaborate, observe, and learn from professors and peers. Unique to the Drexel project is the intermingling of engineering undergraduates, graduate students, post-docs, faculty, and commercial interests in one facility with laboratories, machine-shop equipment, and informal study areas. Facilities that give students great visibility into nearby research, contain areas where they can take breaks without leaving the building, and lend themselves to informal encounters with peers, faculty, and others result in better academic experiences for undergraduates.

Abstract: Industry and academia are partnering like never before as entrepreneurship and maker culture become more important to our economy and a regular fixture in higher education curricula. With the influx of allied industry partnerships, evolving pedagogies, entrepreneurship programs, and a maker culture comes a pressing need for new spaces, ranging from fabrication and prototyping studios to innovation districts devoted to new kinds of research partnerships. Schools like the University of Washington, Babson College, and Arizona State University are leading the way on new collaborations. In this article, Sasaki planners and urban designers examine how design disruption will guide the development of campuses that enable 21st-century teaching, learning, and research paradigms.

Abstract: This article describes execution of the balanced scorecard (BSC) strategic framework in a School of Nursing (SoN). The SoN strategy map was the outcome of the development phase. The two-year implementation phase incorporated balanced scorecards that linked outcome measures to the priority strategies. Thirty-two percent of the defined outcome measures were met. Factors in adopting the BSC framework included development of a strategic plan that supports the college mission and vision, improved communication within the SoN, a united effort to institute strategies to sustain the SoN’s future, and establishment of performance indicators to measure success in achieving those strategies.

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: “Designing Innovative Campuses For Tomorrow’s Students” explores increasing investment by higher education institutions in new programs and facilities that boost on-campus innovation and entrepreneurship. This trend is a response, in part, to the changing expectations and demands of Millennial and Generation Z students and their future employers. The impact of this movement, though, goes far beyond those constituencies—changing everything from campus housing to the economic development role of higher education institutions. The examples of Clemson University’s Watt Family Innovation Center and the University of Florida’s Infinity Hall are provided to illustrate the scope of influence and success of these changes.

Abstract: If faculty senates are to maintain a place in the modern university, then they must be both effective and viewed as such by faculty, administrators, and other campus stakeholders. One way to shape faculty senate efforts is to create and exploit a clearly defined mission statement. In this article, we offer a four-step, committee-driven, technology-assisted process to develop a mission/vision statement that is anchored in the theory. The proposed process is efficient and easy to administer and can be used at other universities. We also discuss our experience with the process and offer recommendations for other university faculty senates.

Abstract: Suggests that planning efforts begin not with mission statements but with key performance indicators, or KPIs, which are substantive, measurable, and specific directions that a strategic plan must address. Some of these KPIs are outside mandates, while others are internal management objectives or goals articulated by divisions or departments. The three types of KPIs form the "givens," or the foundation of the strategic plan. They take account of the various pulls on the institution, and outline more specific ways to address multiple needs and goals. Finally, they provide benchmarks against which institutions can measure the success of their planning efforts.