Learning Resources

Abstract: To thrive in turbulent, financially challenged times, institutions will need to develop dynamic, long-term collaborations and integrated planning practices that push innovation. We will focus on two institutions that reimagined their value propositions and business models in pursuit of aggressive goals, thanks to their multifaceted partnership and transformative strategies. Presidents from these institutions will share how integrated planning, strategy crafting, and collaboration helped their institutions re-imagine mission and encourage entrepreneurship.

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: Determining where to invest in terms of academic programming and staffing can oftentimes be difficult due to competing interests by academic programs as well as a lack of resources. This session will describe how one university sought to improve academic planning and resource allocation within their academic units, and the software solution they used to do it. We'll discuss the university's example and broader best practices for reviewing metrics in research, finances, benchmarking, and predictive modeling as well as staffing and resource allocation related to academic planning.

Abstract: Institutions usually spend more on providing courses for some academic programs than others. Stakeholders need to decide where and how to allocate resources to support instruction. This session introduces recent best practices using the Delaware Cost Study data to facilitate 1) the identification of under-resourced academic programs and 2) decision making in faculty budgeting and staffing. You will leave this session ready to re-evaluate the metrics you use to support instructional budgeting decisions so you can identify under-resourced programs and accurately understand faculty hiring needs.

Abstract: Higher education’s resource situation is not good and is not expected to get better in the foreseeable future. Elite and wealthy institutions are relatively immune to these pressures, but the overwhelming majority of other institutions are continually struggling to match resources to mission. Several actions, though difficult and painful, would help reduce the gap between available resources and those needed to meet stakeholders’ needs. This session focuses on the need to employ a coordinated and aligned approach to planning, resource allocation, and assessment. It goes on to describe a proven practice for utilizing all three to match resources to mission—strategic resource allocation. Finally, it offers suggestions for initiating the conversation on your campus.

Abstract: The newly consolidated Augusta University implemented an annual planning and resource alignment process to streamline procedures and integrate strategic efforts across the institution. This process fosters transparency in each unit's accomplishments, challenges, and priorities by holding annual open hearings that culminate with executive-level feedback on units’ annual plans and prioritization for fiduciary support. You will gain ideas for implementing such a process at your institution by exploring timing considerations, content of hearings, planning templates, and follow-up reporting and monitoring.

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: 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.