Learning Resources

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: Before the recession, planning offices were the workhorses supporting institutional growth strategies by translating the ambitions of senior administrators into action. However, the recession derailed many institutional ambitions; austerity suddenly supplanted growth. The future role of planners seems uncertain beyond operationalizing short-term damage control. Yet this article asserts that planners are uniquely positioned to assume an essential role in colleges and universities: sensemakers and sensegivers. Through sensemaking and sensegiving, planners can focus institutional dialogue on the meaning of austerity. Instead of accepting resource constraints as a ubiquitous rationale for retrenchment, planners can guide institutional dialogue toward acknowledging that new constraints merely discipline earlier ambitions within new parameters.

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: Strategic planning is an important tool, but the sole dependence on it across departments and campuses has resulted in the underutilization of equally important methods of analysis. The evolution of higher and postsecondary education necessitates a systemic industry analysis, as the combination of new providers and delivery mechanisms and changing social parameters gives rise to increased competition and innovation. This article tests the applicability of Porter’s five forces model to the higher education industry. While the model provides significant insight into the industry, it has been revised in this article to incorporate government as a prominent sixth force in the analysis.

Abstract: Modern design and planning are routinely confounded by endemic conditions of deep fragmentation, rampant bureaucratization, and ineffective regulation. Such barriers hamper our ability to succeed in the execution of responsive, responsible, and superb ventures. Added to the mix are cost escalation, outdated technologies, cumbersome techniques, conservative posturing, and the damages of “value” engineering. In such a milieu, it becomes extremely difficult to move from concept through construction with clarity, continuity, and even integrity. Abandoned are often the inspiring, enduring, and delightful qualities that elevate buildings to Architecture. Innovative mindsets and methods must be realized to improve the quality of our built environments, especially considering resources are limited, expectations are soaring, and the need for change is non-negotiable. The author presents a holistic integrative framework for more successful and sustainable environmental design. Included are considerations of agility, fitness, diversity, and delight—aspects that loom large in equations for ingenuity in contemporary times.

Abstract: Contends that most planners make assumptions about planning and about human and institutional ability to change, and that these assumptions necessarily impact the outcome of strategic planning efforts. Examines the functions served in planning comprehensive institutional change, and suggests that planning failures reflect too great a focus on technique and outcome. Applies the analogy of human development to illustrate the organizational life cycle, with an exploration of institutional "identity issues" – the physical, social, and psychological aspects, as well as the institution’s sense of self.

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.

Abstract: Book Review: Innocenece and Experience, by Stuart Hampshire. Harvard University Press, 1989. 189 pages.