Learning Resources

Abstract: Book Review of Higher Education in Canada: Different Systems, Different Perspectives, edited by Glen A. Jones. Garland Publishing, 1997. 367 pages. ISBN 0-8153-2299-2.

Abstract: This model is effective in addressing the multi-faceted characterisitics of enrollment management that are unique to each institution.

Abstract: If a strategic plan at a college or university is to succeed, the process must be participative. For true participation to occur, a basic level of trust must exist among the key stakeholders of the institution. Trust presumes risk. For true participation to occur, the president (and other leaders of the institution) must risk trusting the stakeholders in the planning process. The president must provide the participants with the capacity and support to make changes so that the plan succeeds. Effects of Low Trust on Strategic Planning Practical experience, supported by an extensive literature review, indicates that lack of trust in an organization manifests itself in several forms: poor communication; increased suspicion of others' views and proposals; and inaccurate perceptions of others' motives and actions. More specifically, when an organization with low trust attempts to develop a strategic plan, the following problems arise: little or no involvment of certain stakeholders; not all ideas are offered because of fear of rejection; tough issues are avioded; and the document becomes an inflexible, legalistic contract rather than a flexible guide. Building Trust Organizational development literature, as well as, our experiences in planning indicates that trust can be development in several ways: demonstrating competency, opening communication, building relationships; and creating a fair process. Competency means demonstrating technical and professional ability and good sense. Without achieving results, the rest of the "softer" approaches for building trust will fail. (Shaw, 1997). Colleges need to rebuild relationships within the insitution. When trust ca be first developed at the personal level, it will be easier to develop trust at the organizational level (Alberthal, 1995). Creating a fair process is an intergral step in building trust. Trust is strengthened when individuals feel they are treated as legitimate participants in the process

Abstract: This paper revisits anaylsis done in the 1996, using data from the Delaware Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity. That analysis found that tenured and tenure track faculty generate a much larger proportion of undergraduate teaching activity then might be expected in light of public criticism of American higher education. The 1996 methodology is replicated using data from two most recent iterations of the Delaware Study. The result is a three year trend line that more clearly indicates how much faculty really teach, and associated coast and productivity measures.

Abstract: First, I will explain what I consider to a brand to be. This will give me a framework to look forward to the possible futures of the college or university brand. I will summarize some key trends facing your target consumers: future students and the employers of those students and come to some obervations about the realtionship between our brands and these "consumers". I will then illustrate some of this thinking with a real example where I have, in recent months, been able to work with a small collee in Portland to try to out some of this thinking and help create a University Brand.

Abstract: This paper is a case study describing the use of Quality tools-without identifying them ("stealth") to aviod a strong faculty prejudice against Quality as a "corporate" concept-to lead to a task force to address critical budget issues and initiate a strategice program review involving assessment. Using How to Make Meetings Work (Doyle &Straus, 1993) as a guide, the task force successfully concluded the review process operating by consensus, mission-based priciples, and 30 quanitative/qualitative measures.

Abstract: The university faced extraordinary changes in the characteristics of its students and its mission, and the policy environment of its administrative decision making. That context and the strategic planning process undertaken by its leadership to guide rather than react to the changes are outlined. The campus adminstration had three major tasks: (1) to stimulate a more open dialogue about the university's future; (2) to plan a major external grant to ensure an institutional focus rather than a disciplinary one; and (3) to link the institution's academic program review, regional accreditation self-study, and state-mandated strategic planning to campus perceptions of critical issues and the external grant agency's criteria. The planning and evaluation center coordinated and strengthened the university's institutional responses to various external agencies by convincing the campus of the intrinsic value of such a planning process for faculty, students, and staff and by implementing a participatory process for their involvment and contribution to its new direction. The university's model and inital outcomes are described. The approach and exeriences should be relevant for other commuter institutions that are attempting to address issues of accountability and academic excellence for "non-traditional" students.