Learning Resources

Abstract: Today we find our institutions barraged by the forces of change, and dutifully we respond. Over time, however, we end up molding our institutions to these forces to our own peril, and now U.S. higher education is on the ropes, so to speak. We believe education leaders should take hold of our destinies and shape our industry not by the forces of lackluster government policy, self-serving press and media, and for-profit mega corporations, but to serve true learning and personal growth. There are many tools we can use to lead change. This article introduces the concept of Positive Turbulence, an intentional, disruptive approach for positive change, to the education industry.

Abstract: This report was produced by the research team awarded the M. Perry Chapman Prize for 2015–2016.

What will be the impact of rapidly developing online learning modalities on the campus face-to-face experience over the next decade? What might campus planners need to look out for over the next 10 years as they strive to align their institution’s virtual and physical infrastructure with its mission?

This study reviews the scholarly literature and the expert views of practitioners in campus planning (both virtual and physical) to forecast how campuses might evolve between now and 2030. It views the university as a “complex adaptive assemblage” made up of many component parts working not within a systematic framework but as separate assemblages coexisting on campus affected by uncontrollable outside forces. These separate assemblages and their interrelationships can be better understood in a campus context by using experts in the fields of learning sciences, teacher professional development, educational technologies, learning environment/campus design, and others to form a cohesive idea of how the separate parts might come together to inform the future of higher education.

Abstract: The past two decades have seen great social change and both massive consolidation and expansion of institutions of higher education, clearly presenting circumstances warranting the use of formal approaches to planning. Varying planning theories, past failures and successes, and differing circumstances have generated several partially contrasting planning models to guide organizational change. Therefore, institutions of higher education have a variety of such approaches from which to choose. This article presents a case study illustrating the use of several approaches to planning that is distinctive because it relies heavily upon experience-based planning, examples of which are unfortunately lacking in the literature base.

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: 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: The advantages of thoughtful, well-structured strategic planning and decentralized budgeting are numerous. But they bring different and sometimes conflicting perspectives to high-stakes discussions within the institution. By recognizing and preparing for these tensions, the odds increase that their potential benefits will not be eroded or eclipsed by distractions or destructive forces and they can work in harmony to help an institution accomplish its goals in an increasingly challenging environment. The author considers specific tensions and conflicts and draws on the experience of a flagship public university to suggest ways to manage these tensions and reap the benefits of both approaches.

Abstract: This article presents a range of approaches for linking budgeting to planning. After briefly discussing the natures of planning and budgeting, it presents four conceptual categories of ways to link the two. The article defines these as structural, adaptive-incremental, devolved, and holistic/advanced. No one approach will be correct for all institutions. Even where there is a system in place to link planning and budgeting, this is unlikely to be enough unless there is firm, skilled, aligned, and distributed leadership to keep the system on track toward institutional goals.

Abstract: In times of rapid economic and technological change, how can schools continue to provide relevant educations? At leading universities in Mexico and Singapore, bold shifts in pedagogy and planning are reimagining the very core of the college experience. Their approach is simple but revolutionary—emphasize learning techniques more than industry-specific knowledge; celebrate spaces and curricula that bring people together to accomplish shared goals; and cultivate opportunities for students to positively impact their community. Through inventing the 21st-century campus, these universities are creating students who are curious, well-rounded, and ready for tomorrow—where the only certainty is change.

Abstract: Much like routine dental exams, accreditation reviews can create anxiety and generate short-term institutional activity that simulates long-term healthy habits. Authentic, ongoing planning and assessment aligned with accreditation standards reduces anxiety and produces successful results through holistic, efficient, and sustainable efforts. This session shares how one institution efficiently integrated and aligned planning and assessment activities with accreditation standards and cycles. We'll discuss how you can adapt a similar process at your institution so your institution can avoid redundant activities while achieving optimal institutional wellbeing.

Abstract: The Glendale Community College integrated strategic planning model represents a significant paradigm shift at the institution. Rather than focus exclusively on the production of a strategic plan, the college now seeks to vertically integrate planning at the departmental, divisional, and college levels and horizontally integrate planning with resource allocation and assessment across the organization. This disruptive innovation allows the college to remain true to its mission and ensures the allocation of resources to strategic priorities linked to student success.