Learning Resources

Abstract: Course schedules are often "rolled over" without understanding their impact on instructional budgets. Real-time scheduling and budget data allows for strategic decisions that balance student needs with institutional capacity. This session will demonstrate a process to develop a strategic scheduling and budget plan and make real-time, data-informed schedule adjustments that support institutional, departmental, and program budget goals. You will learn how to develop planning strategies that align scheduling with budget goals and how to make day-to-day decisions that maximize your ability to meet student needs.

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: 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 “Greater College Park Initiative” is a signature multi-year effort in President Wallace Loh’s leadership and administration to continue positive town/gown relations with development that enhances both the university campus and surrounding communities.

This talk provided an overview of University of Maryland's (UMD) strategic plan and how it is supported by the five-year update to the university’s facilities master plan, approved in 2017. It discussed current local and regional planning initiatives as well as campus and community development projects, including the associated partnerships and collaborations with municipal, organizational, and private-sector partners.

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: In an era of heightened accreditation expectations, declining resources, and increasing competition, tools such as integrated planning and budgeting, evidence-based decision-making (EBDM) processes, an overarching continuous quality improvement (CQI) framework, and up-to-date technology solutions for managing planning processes are no longer optional. While Mesa Community College (MCC) has a long history of planning, the integration of planning and budgeting was limited and our planning system was outdated (as in beyond end-of-life outdated). Additionally, planning and budgeting processes lacked EBDM practices and an overarching CQI framework. MCC’s Strategic Planning Committee set about remedying all of these issues and did so within the span of a year.

Abstract: As colleges and universities plan efforts to improve financial reporting and analysis, which often entail making costly investments in new systems and tools, they should first evaluate whether to redesign the institution’s chart of accounts. The chart of accounts is the DNA of financial reports and is used to track financial activity across the institution. This article proposes a planning, evaluation, and design process for a new chart of accounts and identifies key considerations for leaders undertaking this effort.

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.