Learning Resources

Abstract: Security is personal. It's not a one size fits all solution. Understand the resources available and explore a roadmap to planning security guidelines and a security operations center for your campus. This session provides a framework you can use to develop, implement, and evaluate a security plan. We'll also discuss the role a security operations center plays in campus security and how you can ensure your campus's physical security infrastructure is adequate.

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: On-campus living has been linked to student success and is a key factor in admissions decisions. As campuses look to expand and improve their housing inventories in a challenging fiscal environment, there are more options than ever available. One institution will share its recent experiences with several of these options. The University of Massachusetts (UMass) Lowell has more than doubled its on-campus housing inventory in the past five years using a combination of P3, real estate acquisitions, and conventional construction. This session will compare the relative benefits and particular challenges in utilizing these types of housing delivery methods. Come learn from campus facilities planning and student affairs officials, who will address the pros and cons of different delivery methods (P3, purchase/renovation, and conventional construction) from the perspective of up-front costs, operating and maintenance factors, student experience, and functionality.

Abstract: Universities need to plan for rapid change physically, fiscally, and curricularly. In this session, we will explore the Campus 2050 survey results and share how 10 institutions are planning and adapting their campuses and built environment for economic, social, and operational changes over the next 30 years. You will learn strategies for mobilizing campus planning efforts at a faster pace and how to initiate, replicate, and improve upon current future-proofing strategies.

Abstract: There is no shortage of hype and technobabble around the promise of shiny new technology trends and their prospect for disrupting the universe as we know it. Twenty-five years ago, the World Wide Web and the underlying Internet did, indeed, change everything. Today the promise of AI, ML, IoT, XR, NGNs and the latest alphabet soup of tech trends promises to impact the campus in all its facets. This session will provide context, insights, and some prognostication on how the campus planning community should embrace its technology future through a ‘trust but verify’ lens.

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: 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: 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.