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: The StudentLink Center, New York University's consolidated services model, has transformed student services delivery. Our highly efficient student-centered model focuses on simplifying services by removing barriers to students. We will show how to maintain a friendly warm-touch environment that leverages technology to streamline business processes, collect data, and utilize obtained data to cross train your team and improve productivity. You will walk away from this session with an understanding of how our service model works and how data collection can serve to enhance cross-training efforts and increase productivity.

Abstract: This article applies the three stages of change (mobilization, implementation, and institutionalization) to the academic curricular process change that occurred during the 2014–2015 academic year at the Indiana University of Pennsylvania. Reflecting on the manner in which this major initiative was conceptualized and executed has revealed an inadvertent yet seamless application of Curry’s (1992) organizational change model. Throughout each stage of this organizational change, some inherent principles were maintained while balancing the required condensed timeline for completion. These principles included consistent and transparent consultation with many branches of the university community and revision of proposed processes based on feedback from community members. The goal of the authors in sharing the change process at IUP is to provide potential insights for others on recognizing a need for organizational process revision. The authors highlight the actions taken at IUP, offer recommendations, and identify potential hazards to institutions contemplating organizational change.

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: The complexity of college pricing policies makes it difficult for students and families to understand how much they will have to pay and which colleges will fit their budgets. Colleges and universities should be able to explain their pricing and aid policies and why they have chosen them. Both financial aid and the high returns on a postsecondary education make college more affordable than most people believe. Colleges should take responsibility for clarifying this confusing issue.

Abstract: This article provides an overview of the process for the design of a new institutional chart of accounts. It includes some background as to the nature and purpose of a chart of accounts and also speaks to the details of the design process. Implications for data security and usability through design are highlighted, and practical tips on the process to ensure inclusion are featured.

Abstract: A budget model shapes the way a campus operates in a fundamental way. Redesigning a campus budget model could actually happen relatively quickly from a technical standpoint. However, extensive engagement, collaboration, and conversation are key to a successful implementation. In this article, the authors chart the budget model redesign process at UC Riverside, which followed a uniquely grassroots approach. Changing the budget model at UC Riverside was about changing mind-sets, incentives, and behaviors—not just about the numbers. UC Riverside’s phased approach to its redesign process may be instructive to other higher education institutions considering undertaking such a major change initiative.

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.