Learning Resources

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: Previous work has shown the vital role of higher education in national development through knowledge production. We know that “the role of tertiary education in the construction of knowledge economies and democratic societies is more influential than ever. Indeed, tertiary education is central to the creation of the intellectual capacity on which knowledge production and utilization depend” (World Bank 2002, p. xvii). How could that be done amid conflict and war in a very fragile state? The author wanted to find out.

What are the major issues for higher education in a fragile state? Surely they include stability, safety for students and staff, continued access to learning, funding, retaining staff, and maintaining quality. But how can these be achieved? Further, does higher education play a role in facilitating stability in a war environment? We will see that it does in many ways.

Fred M. Hayward has drawn on his more than 12 years of experience working closely with the Ministry of Higher Education in Afghanistan to write this reflective narrative. Hayward is a specialist in higher education with more than 25 years of experience as an educator, scholar, senior administrator, and higher education consultant. He was senior associate for the American Council on Education for more than 10 years and executive vice president of the Council on Higher Education Accreditation in 2001 and 2002; he has been a higher education consultant for the World Bank, Carnegie Corporation, Ford Foundation, Academy for Educational Development (AED), USAID, several ministries of education, and numerous universities focusing on higher education change, governance, strategic planning, and accreditation.

Abstract: These are times of unprecedented change in higher education. Routine or even strategic change will not be enough to sustain institutions in the near future. Challenging times require leaders with strong skills for problem solving, crisis management and resiliency in rapidly changing environments—in other words, transformative leadership. Transformative leadership skills are distinctive among leadership skills. Based on an ABC framework, the article describes connections between the As (analytics, accreditation, accountability), Bs (decisions whether to build, buy, or buddy with partners), and Cs (culture, collaboration, and courage) that it takes to be transformative.

Abstract: University strategic planning is typically well structured with attention to both process and outcomes. However, plans are frequently not implemented in an equally process-driven manner. As a result, the product of planning efforts may not lead to the anticipated change or may even remain “on the shelf.” This article describes how Philadelphia University is using “action research” during strategic plan implementation in order to optimize campus commitment, facilitate organizational learning, and support the sustainability of change.

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: 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: So, what’s happening ‘down under’ in campus sustainability? Providing an international context, our authors use Australian examples to describe planning for campus greening, learning for sustainability (curriculum), institutional learning, and competency-based training initiatives.

Abstract: New subscribers to the Harvard Business Review receive as a bonus with their first issue a compilation of fifteen classics, which appeared in previous HBR issues. One article, “Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail”, by John P. Kotter, first appeared in the March-April 1995 issue and is often referenced as a guide to strategic change in organizations. It is the purpose of the article to evaluate a change process undertaken at a large comprehensive baccalaureate institution in the context of Kotter’s suggested eight steps in transforming an organization.