Branch Campus Life

Credit for Prior Learning as Part of a Branch Strategy

2012-01-23T06:46:00.000-08:00

Are you familiar with the Council for Adult and Experiential Learning (CAEL)? The web address is www.cael.org. CAEL provides a variety of services, but I especially want to draw attention to their work with prior or experiential learning.

Even as more faculty members and administrators become comfortable with online and hybrid delivery of programs, I find that there is a lot of misinformation about credit for prior learning. To be sure, there are institutions with low standards for awarding credit, but there also are best practices that, if examined, represent a legitimate assessment in support of awarding credit. In that regard, check out CAEL’s Learning Counts site, to see more on their assessment services, www.LearningCounts.org.

When one looks at research on adult learners, such as Stamats’ “Adult Students Talk,” among the features of academic programs adults are seeking is credit for prior learning. Institutions can refuse to award or recognize such credit, but to the extent that online programs put prospective students in the driver’s seat, those institutions will be creating a competitive disadvantage for themselves.

I certainly wouldn’t approve of a laissez-faire approach to the assessment of prior learning, but organizations like CAEL contribute to developing practices that are of high quality and that will be widely respected. Personally, I’ve advocated for at least a state-level approach to evaluating life experience, so that institutions have an agreed-upon standard that will facilitate transfer of credits.

I’d love to see campuses developing the sort of certificates or badges I wrote about two posts ago, as well as creating a legitimate approach to award credit for experiential learning. This combination could draw prospective students who want or need recognition for having certain skills and knowledge. Thoughtfully crafted, students could then see an efficient route to complete a degree. If an institution attracts adult learners by clearly meeting their needs, through certificates and credit for documented prior learning, then it will be exceedingly difficult for competitors to lure them away.

Personally, I’d price certificates and the awarding of credit for prior learning aggressively. That would help seal the deal with prospective students. Then, if that institution’s own courses and programs are of high quality, and the support services are strongly focused on student success, the package will be complete.

It isn’t rocket science, as they say. Rather, it is a matter of paying attention to student audiences and then seeking ways to distinguish your institution by respecting their needs and delivering innovative programs that draw them to your campus.

Northeastern University and the Advantages of Branch Campuses

2012-01-02T07:40:00.000-08:00

These days, colleges and universities seek new ways to expand their reach and enrollment. Much of the attention goes to creating online courses and programs, and that is understandable. Delivering high quality programs and services, from a single, central location has appeal. As always, executing from a solid business plan is critical.

Nevertheless, there still are times when it makes sense to create branch campuses. Strong branch strategies emphasize partnership, community engagement, and other advantages that come with a physical presence.

Check out a recent New York Times article about a new branch established in Charlotte, NC, by Northeastern University: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/28/education/northeastern-university-expands-its-geographic-reach.html?_r=1&hpw. (You may have to copy and paste the address into your browser.)

I should disclose that I have a modest consulting relationship with Northeastern, and I was quoted in the article, although I had no part in their strategy development and launch decisions. What intrigues me about their strategy, however, is how thoroughly they explored options, before choosing to open a campus in Charlotte.

According to the Times article, Northeastern recognized that, despite remarkable economic growth, Charlotte is underserved at the graduate level. They also noted that many of the people relocating to Charlotte are from the northeast, and that there is a strong presence of Northeastern alumni. Future branches may be added in other metropolitan areas, with Seattle being next on their radar screen.

One of the first marketing lessons I learned is that there is significant value in hanging out a shingle, so people see the evidence of your commitment. Moreover, given a regional strategy, I like Northeastern’s effort to engage with the Charlotte community. Northeastern makes extensive use of co-operative education and internships. It is a research university, and they see opportunities for partnership and research, in Charlotte. Given the absence of other doctoral granting private nonprofits, there is no reason that Charlotte and Northeastern shouldn’t build a strong bond.

Of course, branch campuses bring other advantages, as well. Northeastern is committed to hybrid delivery, and a branch is great for that purpose. Many students still prefer at least some face-to-face contact with instructors and fellow students, and there is some evidence that learning outcomes are strongest with hybrid delivery. Moreover, branches can provide top-notch services, in person or otherwise, as they appreciate local student concerns.

The Northeastern project is unusual, in terms of distance from the main campus, but it clearly draws on the advantage of having a physical presence. Effective strategies require understanding the audience. In this case, there is thoughtful appreciation for market need, brand recognition, and market differentiation.

There are challenges and risks in stretching boundaries, of course. Watch the news and you will see evidence of failed initiatives, as well as successful ones. (Note the special challenges of creating international branches!) Over the next few years, we will see many different strategies, and that may be all to the good for educational access and opportunity.

Alternative Certifications in the Disruptive Environment

2011-12-05T05:54:00.000-08:00

Check out a piece in Inside Higher Education, titled “How will Mozilla’s open badges project affect higher education.” (http://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/hack-higher-education/how-will-mozillas-open-badges-project-affect-higher-ed) The term “badges” refers to earned credentials that document specific competencies, similar to the way continuing education units sometimes offer completion certificates. The Cisco Certification, which was developed by Cisco, but delivered in partnership with educational institutions, is a closer example.

Even as people consider the possibility of a Christensen-style disruption in higher education, most assume that established, accredited institutions will maintain their near-monopoly on credentialing what is learned. However, what if employers began to favor specific skills or knowledge sets over degrees? If other, reliable entities offer badges or certificates that meet the needs of important audiences, we might see a much less expensive option for people than attending a brick and mortar institution, with all of its expenses that are of no value to students at a distance.

In my consulting work, as well as in my blogs, I’ve encouraged institutions to consider offering more online or hybrid certificate programs that would appeal to this type of audience. Boomers seeking an encore career are a great example of an audience waiting to be served. When I “retired,” I had no need for another degree, but I did want something to document that I was a certified professional coach. In my case, I obtained that credential through the College of Executive Coaching (a business, accredited by the International Coaching Federation), and it fully met my needs.

To be sure, there are colleges and universities that offer coach training programs, but that just makes my point: In the disruptive environment there may be a variety of competitors, offering programs that appeal to diverse audiences, affecting programing strategies and financial models. Speaking to branch campus leaders, if certificates and badges are carved out of existing programs, development costs could be minimal, while attracting an audience your campus otherwise will miss. Given the increasingly difficult challenge of balancing the budget from traditional enrollment, many campuses could benefit from this opportunity.

Bluntly, if you are in a leadership position at a branch campus, you should be keeping a close eye on emerging options, such as badges and certificate programs that document knowledge and skills. My guess is that branches may find that the political challenge of creating certificates will be less than trying to convince the main campus to support entire degree programs, as well.

It is time to get creative and to think about your student audiences in a nuanced way. Putting the pieces together effectively will determine whether or not your campus competes effectively, and that will be more important than hoping that your brand will save the day.

A Personal Message about Coaching, Encore Careers, and Branch Campuses

2011-11-07T07:41:00.000-08:00

Although I remain committed to the development of branch campuses, for the past two years I also worked steadily to design an “encore career” for myself. In that time, I’ve worked as a consultant, become a certified professional coach, accepted several opportunities to facilitate planning meetings, and established a second blog, “Creating the Future,” at www.drcharlesbird.com/creatingthefuture. I’ve expanded my consulting role to include distance learning strategies, under the broader umbrella of programs for adult learners.

Now, I am pleased to share that I created a company, Encore Dreams, LLC. You can see more information on the company and its services at www.encoredreams.com. That site is a single page, but it also links to my personal web site, www.drcharlesbird.com, and to “Creating the Future.”

Through Encore Dreams, I offer transition coaching to individuals, as well as a Life Transitions Workshop. Both provide support to people as they study and reflect on the talents and experiences that contribute to their sense of well being, and then use that information to discover their personal dreams for the “second stage of life.”

My work as a coach is compatible with my interest in supporting branch campus leaders. Transition coaching, specifically, is of value for individuals as they begin a new position. It has value for experienced administrators who would like to move up, either at their present institution or elsewhere, and it certainly can be of value for administrators who are approaching retirement and considering options for the future.

Creating Encore Dreams, LLC, doesn’t end my work as a consultant and executive coach, but I do hope it helps me make a point about everyone’s potential to design life solutions that are strengths-focused and action-oriented. I will continue to work with branch campuses, but also to provide support to a broader audience, as well.

I want to emphasize that the relationship between a coach and client is important, so this is not meant to be a commercial just for my work. I benefited from coaching, as I approached my own transition, and there are many qualified coaches out there. A lot of coaching is done over the telephone, so distance from someone with whom you’d like to work should not be a barrier.

Finally, I want to mention that the concept behind Encore Dreams is relevant to the fact that many colleges and universities recognize the importance of attracting much higher enrollment from adult learners. I’m perplexed by the difficulty institutions have in understanding this audience and developing effective strategies for recruitment and retention. When I look at web sites, only a handful of institutions have created targeted programs that actually are distinctive and focused on what adults want and need.

I already consult on the development of branch campuses and programs for adult learners, but consistent with the Encore Dreams idea, I hope to connect with leaders who understand that a program targeting people in transition—whether to an encore career or not—can set their institution apart and provide a competitive advantage.

(If you are interested in seeing examples of college programs that directly serve people seeking encore careers, check out www.encore.org/colleges. It is a site maintained by Civic Ventures, providing a wealth of good information.)

If Encore Dreams, LLC can be of service to you or to your organization, please get in touch, either through info@encoredreams.com, or directly, by writing to me at Charlie@drcharlesbird.com or at bird@ohio.edu.

Developing a Typology of Branch Campuses, Phase 2

2011-10-25T07:52:00.000-07:00

All of us interested in branch campuses recognize that we need more research, if we are to develop a good description of typical variations in academic and administrative practice. For that reason, the NABCA executive committee created a research committee, to encourage and support studies that help inform its membership.

For several years, Phyllis Bebko, at Florida Atlantic University, chaired that committee. It’s new chair is Jack Krueger, at Adelphi University. Among other activities, the research committee conducted a survey of branch campuses that was reported in the recent special issue of Metropolitan Universities Journal. Abstracts from the issue can be checked out at www.cumuonline.org/muj.aspx.

The specific article is titled “Developing a Typology of Branch Campuses, and it is by Phyllis Bebko and Dennis Huffman. If you are interested, you can purchase the special issue of the journal, or you can purchase this or any other individual article that interests you.

I am writing about this, because Phase 2 of this research is now available online, and I’d like to encourage anyone who sees this blog to go to the web page and submit a response. It is not necessary to have participated in the previous survey nor to consider yourself a NABCA member, in order to respond. The survey is only 15 questions long and will take very little time, especially in comparison to the benefit we will receive from a strong number of responses.

To complete the survey, simply go to www.nabca.net. You will see a link on the right side of the page that asks you to “assist our research team.” While you are on the site, you also can find information about the next conference, in Orlando, from April 11-14, 2012, and you will see a link to submit a program proposal, if you are so inclined. If you haven’t already done so, you also can click on the Facebook symbol and “like” NABCA, as another way to stay connected.

NABCA—Your full-service connection to branch campus colleagues!

Special Journal Issue on Branch Campus Topics

2011-10-19T11:22:00.000-07:00

If you are involved with branch campuses, then you may want to know about the most recent issue of Metropolitan Universities Journal. It is Volume 22, Number 1, and it is dedicated to branch campuses. It includes ten articles on a variety of topics.

Many of the authors are friends and colleagues of mine, and I know they carry both a strong commitment to the branch mission, as well as valuable experience they chose to share. I have an article on the future of branch campuses, but others provide relevant case studies and survey results that will be helpful to readers.

Ken Shaw’s case study of issues at Florida State University-Panama City captures the challenges of branch leadership as nicely as anything I’ve seen. An article by Norton and Pickus brings attention to what I consider to be a major issue for branch campuses: having the ability to create their own course schedule, in order to meet the needs of their students, and (related) having enough budget control to assure they get those courses.

Articles by gossom and Pelton and by Bebko and Huffman, present new data on leadership and on branch characteristics. Other articles make strong contributions, and I especially like the case elements that enhance the story of branch campuses.

I don’t have space here to describe each article, but you can read the abstracts at www.cumuonline.org/muj.aspx. You also will find information for subscribing to the Journal, ordering a copy of this issue, or even purchasing a copy of individual articles. Incidentally, Metropolitan Universities Journal also dedicated an issue to branch campuses about ten years ago, in Volume 12, Number 2. That issue may also be found on the web site.

One of the consistent themes for those who care about branch campuses is that we need a more developed literature on best practices, as well as more and better research that focuses on branch issues. We all owe a debt to Jack Krueger and Phyllis Bebko for their work to organize and produce this special issue.

On a much sadder note: NABCA lost one of its founding fathers and an all around great colleague, when Hal Dengerink passed away, September 14. Hal was Chancellor-Emeritus at Washington State University-Vancouver, and he was one of the best thinkers I know about branch campus challenges. In fact, Hal wrote the lead article for the previous Metropolitan Universities Journal issue dedicated to branch campuses. Hal had a great sense of humor, a sense of fun, and a great deal of savvy. He will be missed.

Multiple Roads for Branch Campuses to Travel

2011-09-07T07:40:00.000-07:00

I am a true believer in the value of branch campuses. I cherish the fact that branches are about expanding access and opportunity—that at their best, branch faculty tend to be focused on teaching and that branches provide strong student support and meaningful community engagement. Some branches (in fairness, some colleges and universities) deliver better than others, but for me, higher education always is about the possibilities, as well as the current reality.

This summer, among other activities, I had opportunities to visit with branches at two institutions. The first was the relatively large Downtown Campus of St. Petersburg College. St. Petersburg College was a community college that added applied baccalaureate programs in recent years, and partly as a result, the Downtown Campus has grown rapidly. The enthusiasm of the faculty and staff members I met was apparent, as we were engaged in planning for their next stage up the mountain. With their long-time director, Yvonne Ulmer, preparing to retire, the positive attitudes will serve them well.

The other visit was to Central Washington University (CWU), which is a regional comprehensive university. CWU has eight relatively small centers that are co-located with community college across a large geographic area. These centers have grown more slowly, but steadily for a number of years, led by Margaret Badgley, who also happens to be president-elect of NABCA. Although Margaret has been at CWU for quite awhile, there are a number of relatively new people in leadership roles, most of whom recognize the strategic value that comes with branch campuses, in an era of emphasis on adult learners and online education.

As I’ve written before, this can be a golden era for branches, if they embrace their mission of outreach, offer the right programs, and assure strong student support services. Blending online and face-to-face learning in thoughtful ways is essential, especially if I am correct that disruptive innovation is a powerful force in higher education. As St. Petersburg College and CWU illustrate, there are multiple roads for branches to travel, but that is part of the creative opportunity.

Along these lines, I encourage you to read the new book by Clayton M. Christensen and Henry J. Eyring, The Innovative University: Changing the DNA of Higher Education from the Inside Out. Christensen has been an important writer on disruptive innovation, and I am pleased that he has now focused specifically on higher education. His books are a treasure trove of principles that institutions would be wise to consider seriously, but, again, each institution will need to develop its own strategy.

A Partnership Story for Branch Campuses

2011-07-06T06:53:00.000-07:00

A few years ago, the dean of one of our professional colleges approached me about arranging a conversation with several community colleges, to explore creating articulation agreements. I was pleased, but also surprised, because the college had always before been a reluctant partner.

Enrollments had declined in the college, however, and reduced state support had forced the university leadership to tie budgets more closely to student credit hour production. The dean knew that my staff had built strong relationships with community colleges, so it made sense to ask us to initiate a conversation.

We arranged the meetings, and the assistant dean of the college accompanied my staff to the community college. As soon as everyone was introduced and took their seats, the assistant dean spoke up, saying, “We would like to create an articulation agreement between our programs and your institution. I reviewed your curriculum and prepared curriculum sheets to show how your program articulates with ours. You’ll see that students cannot reach the baccalaureate in just two years, but if you make the changes I’ve indicated to your existing curriculum, the fit will be better.”

The community college dean asked a few questions about course scheduling at the university, given that most of her graduates were working full time and would need to commute to the university branch for some courses, and to the main campus for certain courses and labs. She wondered about online options or the possibility of offering some courses on the community college campus. She also asked for more detail about course transfer, hoping to find a few more matches than the curriculum sheet showed.

The assistant dean patiently explained that there was no way around lab requirements, and there were no facilities available other than at the main campus for certain critical lab experiences. Faculty members, he explained, are pressed by their research expectations, so travel to the community college, or even to the university branch, just wouldn’t happen, in most cases. He did express willingness to consider offering labs on Saturdays, but he couldn’t commit.

So, the articulation agreement was created and signed, but there was virtually no increase in transfer enrollment. Those of us involved in outreach (branch campus and distance learning staff) were frustrated at the failure to use this opportunity to build another bridge. The difference between what the assistant dean viewed as “partnering” and what we considered to be an engaged partnership was critical.

When universities come to listen, community colleges feel respected and valued, as colleagues. University representatives need to demonstrate some willingness to examine assumptions about curriculum and about serving new student audiences. When community college representatives come to listen, they get a better understanding of legitimate concerns that the university folks feel, so that the university does not appear simply to be rigid or arrogant.

In an engaged partnership, institutions have the potential to design curriculum and develop services that support student success. Because their relationship grows over time, the institutions might create entirely new programs or degree options, never before considered. They might engage in co-marketing, dual admissions, and shared advising. They surely will identify hurdles and overcome them, increasing the likelihood that community college students will naturally select the partnering university to continue their education.

These partnerships are happening, and for universities, it does make a difference in attracting enrollment. But engaged partnerships require deep listening and willingness to seek common ground, in creative ways that yield high quality programs, while adjusting to the legitimate expectations of our students.

In Praise of Outreach Centers

2011-06-13T08:54:00.000-07:00

Let us sing the praises of outreach centers! When I started this blog, I wrote about the difference between branch campuses and centers. Briefly, a campus (according to me, among others) offers complete or nearly complete programs and has a permanent facility. There is a local administration, providing a reasonably wide range of student services and support programs, although not the range one would see at the main campus. It has a resident faculty, but curriculum control and the establishment of minimum faculty credentials come primarily from the main campus.

Not all branch campuses meet all of these criteria, but the description is typical. Outreach centers have a more restricted range of programs and services, probably do not have a resident faculty, and have a relatively small support staff to handle local operations. A center does have some sort of facility, so it is more than what we might call a “site,” but it probably is quite limited in the total space available.

Centers, as described, may be established from the main campus, but there also is the interesting phenomenon of “twigs”: outreach centers created by branch campuses, as a strategy to extend their reach. Regardless, center directors tend to have their fair share of frustrations, similar to those of branch campus leaders, and fewer human, financial, and program resources with which to pursue their mission.

I’ve had great opportunities to be part of new things, but the creation of the Ohio University Pickerington Center was one of my most satisfying. The University also has a center in Proctorville, and although I was not involved in its creation, I did have a hand in supporting the construction of its present, exceptional facility. Both of these centers are “twigs,” and both have grown nicely.

Years ago, when I became involved with NABCA, I realized that a lot of the conference attendees were associated with what I would call outreach centers. That’s great, and NABCA is a strong resource for administrators who work at both campuses and centers. However, I feel a special affinity for those who carry the load at centers.

Frankly, centers probably make more sense in the emerging world of online and hybrid programs, because they offer the advantages of a dedicated facility and staff, without some of the costs of a full-blown campus. That isn’t to say that campuses lack value, but I do think most institutions contemplating opening new branches would be wise to think about the center-campus distinction, as they develop a plan and financial model. If we think of campuses vs. centers as a continuum, there is a lot of room for creativity.

The other thing I’d say is that I often find the sort of dedication, passion, and can-do spirit in center directors that is so vital to success. So, here’s to the outreach center! Center directors should seek out one another and invest time in building bridges of mutual support. You deserve some special attention.

Engaged Partnership

2011-05-24T07:12:00.000-07:00

Partnerships are critical to the success of any modern organization. Partners may provide certain services better and less expensively than you can manage within your own organization. Partners may also provide critical collaboration on important projects, blending their expertise with your own, to support more nimble and higher quality development.

Branch campuses absolutely need reliable partners. Internally, campuses can partner in all sorts of interesting ways, but the most critical partners probably are main campus academic units. These often-difficult relationships can work much better if the campus and the academic unit think of each other as partners.

I was fortunate to carry the title of vice president for over eight years, and I realize that position provided access and encouraged cooperation in a way that titles like campus dean or executive director may not. Regardless, I maintained that our branches would partner with any academic program, assuming we had an audience for the program, and we worked hard to meet the expectations of our partners. On the other hand, we would walk away from the table, if we were treated as if we were only a location or a service provider. (I don’t mean that we jumped up and stomped out of rooms, but that we would let the conversation rest until the other side showed more willingness to acknowledge our contributions and interests.)

My point was that branch campuses bring something important to the table and deserve to be respected as partners of the academic unit. Branch campus leaders have knowledge of the local market and how that market can most effectively be reached, as just one important example. Given escalating competition, branch campuses also should bring a level of targeted services and technical support that contributes to long-term enrollment success.

Branches also need external partners, in my opinion. I object to labeling certain contracts “vendor relationships,” when I believe they should run deeper than that. For example, in Ohio University’s distance learning programs, we established strong ties with certain companies that could bring marketing knowledge or excellent course design skills to the table. At the time, we could not create these services at the level of excellence we believed necessary, and by creating a financial partnership, instead of a typical vendor relationship, we set an expectation for collaboration that led to considerable success. I recognize that some administrators do not agree with this point of view, but I stand my ground.

Finally, I think branch campuses need external academic partners, as well. I am proud of the Community College Partnership program we built in my last few years, although that work did not directly involve our regional campuses. (I think it will, eventually, but that isn’t up to me.) We set a goal to become a “preferred partner” of certain community colleges, by engaging more deeply than simply creating articulation agreements, and it has paid off in significant, rapid enrollment growth. To my mind, the key was coming to the table as colleagues, something a lot of universities fail to do, according to community college leaders with whom we worked.

I encourage you to be thoughtful about partnerships. Choose them carefully, but also consider what it means to be a real partner and why it matters. Engaged partnerships bring substantial opportunity, but develop them selectively and strategically.

Branch Campus Opportunities

2011-03-14T07:15:00.000-07:00

I haven’t posted on Branch Campus Life in awhile. Instead, I’ve been developing a new blog, Creating the Future, which addresses topics that could be of interest to branch campuses, but reflect my personal focus on innovation in higher education, including programs for adult learners and distance learning. You can find the new blog at www.drcharlesbird.com/creatingthefuture. You also can link to my personal web site from the blog or by clicking on this link: www.drcharlesbird.com.

I will continue to post on Branch Campus Life, from time to time, to address specific branch campus topics. I know how important it is for people on branch campuses to find others with similar experiences, as a way to identify best practices, test their own ideas, or assure themselves that they are not alone.

To that end, I want to mention the two annual conferences that support branch administrators. The first, NABCA, is coming up April 20-23, in Seattle. You can learn more at www.nabca.net. The second, the RBCA Leadership Conference will be June 19-22, on Longboat Key, FL. Information can be accessed at http://www.outreach.ohio.edu/rbca/. Most participants especially value the networking opportunities these conferences provide.

Changing directions, I’ve had a remarkable journey, the past nine months or so. Moving to my encore career provided time to read and reflect, talk with colleagues, consult, and coach. The experience reinforced my belief that there are golden opportunities for branch campuses and centers. Given the challenge of budget reductions and increased competition, more institutional leaders recognize the importance of attracting new audiences. Branch campuses are in an excellent position to combine traditional face-to-face courses with online or hybrid courses to maximize student access and flexibility.

The difficulties remain the same, of course. Leadership may want to see campuses and programs grow, but their understanding of higher education entrepreneurship is often limited and naïve. As I’ve written before, the rate of change inside most established institutions is slower than the rate of change from emerging competitors, and that also is not good. My own recent experience reinforces my belief that revenue sharing plans tend to be out of balance, if they exist at all, missing the potential energizing effect that a well-conceived plan can provide.

For branch campus leaders, I urge greater attention to the power of revenue sharing plans. If branch campus folks fail to appreciate the expectation that they will contribute to solving institutional budget challenges, or if main campus leaders get too greedy, everything else will be for naught.

Some institutions and campuses will respond creatively, and some will not. Look deeply at how you add value for prospective students, focusing on their point of view, not yours. Step up your market research, because the cost of mistakes will be higher than ever. Network and learn from colleagues’ successes and failures. This could be your time!

Branch Campus Libraries

2010-10-18T08:27:00.000-07:00

Over the years, libraries have been an important part of my life. I worked in the library, as an undergraduate, spent nearly countless hours doing research in libraries, and had library directors reporting directly to me for at least a dozen years. I’ve even published in the Journal of Academic Librarianship.

I’m also genuinely impressed by the way libraries and librarians have transformed over the years. I’m confident that libraries will continue to evolve and to serve a critical function at colleges and universities.

Against all that sits my belief that a disruptive environment has emerged in higher education. One prediction I’ve made is that newly emerging options will offer high quality online and hybrid programs at prices that are sharply lower than we see currently. However, even if that doesn’t happen, institutional leaders will be forced to take a hard look at programs and services, to make sure that spending is tied closely to recruitment and retention. All services and programs need to serve a strategic purpose, or they need to go.

I’m not suggesting that libraries are unnecessary, but that branch campus libraries need to be thought of strategically. The library budget and the library’s programs and services need to be evaluated based on how they contribute to the success of the institution. Simply asserting that you have a great library is relevant only to the extent that your targeted audience cares.

For example, some branch campuses have converted part of their library space into a “student commons,” providing commuter students with an excellent place to meet and study, while also providing access to materials, online data bases, and staff support for research projects. That makes intuitive sense to me, and if the campuses are obtaining data that demonstrates the commons receives heavy use, then it may be a strategic success.

In contrast, I have heard some faculty members argue that there are certain materials that must be in the library, regardless of whether or not anyone uses them. Those faculty members, Platonists all, believe that there is some library ideal that begins with a core collection of books and periodicals. If you are reading this blog, you probably don’t agree with that point of view, but for those who do, the future promises to be even more frustrating than the present.

Of course, it isn’t just about libraries. I also enjoy athletics and nice fitness centers, but I suspect it is going to take unambiguous data to support continued growth in spending at many institutions. Whereas an outstanding library—or an outstanding football team—may contribute to the value of an institution’s brand, they will not typically contribute to how branch campus students, never mind distance learning students, make their decision to enroll, unless those students see the value added.

Libraries and athletics stand out only because their costs are a bit easier to identify than some others. Indeed, I hear repeatedly, from different institutions with quite different missions, that no one seems to be able to get a handle on the marketing budget, the communications budget, or the IT budget. It’s tough to calculate the return on investment, when you don’t even know what you are spending! Moreover, there are opportunity costs that come with the investment of time and money without a clear strategic purpose.

So what will the branch campus library of the future look like? Clearly, it will depend on the type of branch, its size, and its mission. However, staffing, collections, and services should be those that have a demonstrable effect on student recruitment and retention. In addition, campuses of the future may want to consider carefully how they can gain access to collections, without the full expense of creating and maintaining them.

Electronic data bases have an obvious value, in that respect, but I can imagine the creation of collaboratives or of customizable electronic collections, and I know examples of online providers contracting with universities to provide collection access. Of course, current projects that are scanning entire university collections may have an impact, and the general trend toward open access may be significant.

Students still will need to learn how to use the technology, conduct effective searches, and evaluate the information they find, although the physical location of librarians may not have much to do with the location of a branch campus. I’d expect even more of the 24/7-type of service orientation, given the growth of online programs and the increasing emphasis on student service excellence.

Identifying essential elements of how libraries impact recruitment and retention, then providing appropriate services with an eye on cost, is simply an example of how successful branches approach every decision. Assessment is not just for academic programs!

Coaching for New Branch Campus Administrators

2010-09-01T11:08:00.000-07:00

I’ve taken a couple of months off from posting on this blog, as part of the transition to my “encore” career. One of the things I did over the summer was to attend a week long coach training program. I’m interested in executive coaching, in several respects, including working with individuals in transition to new jobs or to their own new career.

All this led me to think about the challenges that many people face, when they accept a position as the chief administrator (CAO) of a branch campus. Some people, like me, have a regional or branch campus background, so they come into the CAO role with an understanding of the issues, politics, and so on. However, I’ve met many people whose first branch campus role is as a CAO. For example, he or she may have been a department chair or dean in a more traditional environment, although I’ve also known individuals who became CAO of a university branch, after years of service at a community college.

All of these transitions bring challenges, and nearly everyone I’ve met has spent some time bewildered by the implications of serving on a branch campus. If there are multiple branch campuses at the institution, then the new CAO may have one or more peer mentors available. Most will have a “first officer,” or key administrator who can be something of a confidant. However, many new CAOs are likely to feel that they have arrived in a foreign land and that they have no one with whom they can be both completely candid and also receive support, as they think through a wide range of issues and concerns.

I’m suggesting that being a branch campus CAO can be a lonely and isolating experience, in some ways. The rewards may far exceed any challenges, of course, but one of my favorite things is to meet first-time attendees at a NABCA or RBCA conference, and to see how relieved and happy they are. It is not at all uncommon for these people to become truly excited that they have found people who face the same challenges or frustrations that they face. The networking and “therapeutic” value of these conferences are important!

In this context, I think that many CAOs, including some who have plenty of experience, could benefit from having a coach. If you simply Google “executive coaching,” you can find lots of information on what coaching is. Fundamentally, however, a coach is someone who works as a “thought partner.” More than anything, coaches provide support and ask questions in ways that help an individual (or, in some cases, a group) think through their goals, options, and obstacles, then settle on actions that will lead toward the goals. (A nice introduction to coaching is provided by Jeff Auerbach, in Personal and Executive Coaching (2001), and I have adapted my description from him.)

Ideally, a branch CAO would begin working with a coach prior to assuming the new job, as part of developing a strategy for the first weeks and months. A lot of coaching is done over the telephone, and so one might schedule conversations every two weeks or so, until the CAO is feeling comfortable in the new role. After that, calls might come as needed, whenever the CAO wants to think through an issue or an idea, believing that a conversation with the coach could be helpful.

Finally, as I’ve been pursuing coach certification, several people have expressed an interest in coaching, as part of their own work. This makes sense, given that I talk to a lot of Baby Boomers in transition, and coaching could be an excellent avenue for staying engaged and contributing to the development of other people. If you find coach training of interest, you can find information on a variety of programs online. Some are affiliated with a university, many have a specific conceptual perspective, and some are face-to-face, whereas others are online or use a mix of delivery methods. I enjoyed the 50-hour program I attended, for a number of personal/professional reasons. It was offered by the College of Executive Coaching (Jeff Auerbach is the president), but I strongly recommend that anyone interested in coach training explore the options for him or herself.

I’m not sure where my interest in coaching will take me. I see it as an aspect of positive psychology, so it fits with my interest in Appreciative Inquiry and other related areas. I think it would be very satisfying to bring a coaching approach to work with Boomers in transition to the next part of their lives, and I see potential to use coaching as a tool in consulting, perhaps helping with the implementation phase that follows initial recommendations. Regardless, I recommend that new CAOs on branch campuses consider attending NABCA and RBCA conferences, as well as connecting to a “trusted advisor,” who can help with the transition, whether you do so informally, or through a professional coach. This work is challenging enough without thinking that you are all alone out there!

Transitions

2010-06-29T06:56:00.000-07:00

Well, the time has come: I am in my third week of “retirement.” I view it as a transition to my encore career, as a consultant, writer and (I hope) speaker. Like so many Boomers, I feel neither burned out nor worn out, and I’m excited about future possibilities.

From reading and conversation, I suspect that I am relatively typical of someone in my position. I’m accustomed to working hard, then fitting in some exercise, and spending time with family and friends, as time permits. Now, I want something a little different. I intend to stay professionally active, but I also plan to take more time for the people I care about, to travel, and to explore various interests that I’ve tended to put on the back burner.

On the professional side, this blog chronicles some of my emerging interests. I would like to take a positive, coaching approach toward helping organizations and individual leaders develop strategies for serving adult learners, for encouraging growth of branch campuses, and for expanding access through distance learning programs. I am hoping to write some about design approaches to innovation in higher education, as an alternative to more traditional, slow, and unsatisfying strategic planning approaches. I think there are so many interesting and promising new ideas out there, and I definitely want to be engaged, not on the sideline reading about them.

For sure, life is an adventure, full of twists and turns. From my own point of view, my career has consisted of doors opening and me walking through, mostly out of curiosity. I see no reason to change that pattern, and I look forward to my new adventures.

In future posts, or perhaps in other writings, I want to explore the administrative implications of a design approach in higher education. In those areas of our work that are meant to be entrepreneurial and responsive to changing expectations, the old ways aren’t going to work. On the other hand, the emerging opportunities can allow for a level of creativity that we rarely see at traditional colleges and universities. It’s energizing, sometimes confusing, and full of risk and potential reward.

To wrap up this more or less transitional post, I’d like to mention an exceptional book I read, recently. The title is The Design of Business, by Roger Martin. Martin is dean of the Rotman School of Management, at the University of Toronto. He does a very nice job of capturing important elements of what I’d call a “design approach to innovation.” My interest, of course, is in applying these ideas to higher education, but I recommend the book to those who share my belief that change processes have a very different character, today, than they used to have.

Finally, I do have considerable interest in generational topics. Coaching Boomers as they make the transition to encore careers, developing programs to support that transition or helping organizations build effective cross-generational work teams intrigue me, and I see definite connections between branch campus programming and generation-related opportunities. It’s all part of the emerging new points of view on work, work-life balance, and positive strengths-based organizations.

Rate of Change and Predicting Which Institutions Will Thrive in the Future

2010-05-11T08:44:00.000-07:00

I find myself using quotes from former General Electric chairman, Jack Welch, more often than one might expect, but he definitely has a way of cutting to the point. I see he now is involved with the Jack Welch Management Institute, which is part of Chancellor University and is offering an MBA. I find that especially curious. The increasing enrollment at for-profit institutions forces us to pay attention, but I find the idea of delivering an MBA that is tied to a person’s “star power,” uncomfortable.

Nevertheless, I came across a quote the other day that resonated for me: “I’ve always believed that when the rate of change inside an institution becomes slower than the rate of change outside, the end is in sight.” I thought about this in the context of disruptive change and my concern that many higher education leaders do not fully understand the implications of being in such an environment. The Jack Welch quote may capture an important aspect of why it is that established institutions tend to lose out, in the face of disruptive change.

One hears nearly trite statements, such as “the only constant is change,” which seem to miss just how profound disruptive change may be. We expect what one might call evolutionary or incremental change, brought about as we improve teaching technology, say, or serve more adult learners. But if the emerging business models create true disruption, in the way they combine the use of technology, focus services and marketing, and approach pricing, then the rate of change will be far beyond the ability of most traditional institutions to adapt.

I doubt that anyone will argue with an assertion that the rate of change inside most traditional universities is slower than that occurring in the for-profit sector, in community colleges, or in a small number of entrepreneurial universities. I hear university folks talking about how much faster they are moving than they used to move, but they still are far slower than truly entrepreneurial institutions.

If that is so, then I’d take it as further evidence that the “end” is in sight for many institutions. In some cases, it will literally be the end: They will cease to exist, at least in their current form. For others, it may be a matter of dramatic restructuring, almost unrecognizable changes in governance and decision making, or mergers with other institutions.

Surely, Welch is right. If you can’t run as fast as or faster than your competition, how can you not lose? I suppose you can argue that there still will be those who want what more traditional institutions offer, but as accepted quality and lower cost grab more and more of the enrollment, the number of traditional institutions will decline. I do wonder exactly how public funding of state institutions and the hurdle-erecting behavior of government and accrediting agencies might slow or distort the future I see coming, but the ultimate outcome would seem to be determined, regardless.

One of the observations from Clayton Christensen, regarding disruptive technology, is that some large institutions will try to cope by creating independent entities and empowering them to do what it takes to succeed in the new environment. The principle is that the “big dog” can continue doing what it has always done successfully, while being a player in the new environment and more or less hedging its bets.

Unfortunately, as the new entity pushes the boundaries, it makes the larger organization nervous, and there is a tendency to begin putting controls in place to “rein them in.” Someone wants to reduce costs in the new entity and requires them to follow the same procedures as everyone else. HR begins to insist on hiring processes that are inconsistent with a fast-moving entrepreneurial effort. Central administration approvals are required that slow things down with typical political compromise, and the important knowledge of the new unit’s leadership loses impact, in favor of more traditional thinking.

I’ve seen a lot of exactly that sort of thing happen in universities that set out to pursue online education. Even if they manage to get things launched, institutional leaders will find that the success of new programs is threatening, and instead of protecting their independence, committees are created and compromises are made. The practices of the larger institution tend to triumph over real entrepreneurship, and the leadership fails to reinvest adequately in the upstart organization. Not smart, maybe, but understandable in organizations led by human beings.

Will some institutions of higher education get all this and not only survive, but thrive? I’d bet yes, but right now it is hard to identify which ones. I still think flagships and the best privates will be okay, because I don’t think they are in the same market as the rest of us. I’d predict that so-called “research universities” that, in fact, have modest research capacity will be hurt most severely, because they are “pretenders,” not able to compete with major institutions, but pursuing objectives that are expensive, yet inconsistent with generating the level of enrollment and revenue required to be healthy.

I think some of the most successful institutions will be strong regional universities that have visionary leadership and a solid understanding of themselves as teaching institutions. For sure, institutions that support growth at their branch campuses, especially in combination with a commitment to online education, will have an advantage.

The more I see and read, the more convinced I am that the tipping point is upon us. I hope I have opportunities to work with entrepreneurial leaders, who are willing to empower creative approaches that energize faculty and staff, while expanding access and opportunity. I am excited by the possibilities. It may become more difficult for most to experience four years of residential education, beginning at the age of 18, or whatever, but the real democratization of higher education will be all the greater for it!

NABCA Conference for 2010

2010-04-22T12:28:00.000-07:00

The 13th annual conference of the National Association of Branch Campus Administrators (NABCA) was held in Tulsa, last week. We were hosted by Northeastern State University-Broken Arrow, and the folks there did a great job. As far as I could see, everything went smoothly, pretty much on time, and met the needs of participants.

I thought the program was especially good, this year. We had some folks moving to new positions during the year, and that could have had a negative effect on the event, but if it did, I sure didn't recognize any signs. Cece Rivers, our president, from the University of Central Florida, presided over the conference with the efficiency that I've recognized in her for years.

We were welcomed by Northeastern president, Don Betz, and from his remarks, I feel sure that the Broken Arrow campus will continue to thrive and to serve the region creatively and effectively. The Broken Arrow Campus story is a great one of university-community partnership and rapid growth in an underserved area.

We had two excellent keynote addresses, from Trevor Wilson and Gary Conti, that engaged the audience effectively. I enjoyed the fact that Trevor Wilson grounded his presentation in positive psychology. The impact of Phyllis Bebko, Florida Atlantic University, and her NABCA research committee also is becoming evident. Phyllis's work is a great example of the impact a "champion" can have, especially on a relatively small organization.

I believe we had about 66 attendees, which is smaller than a few years ago, before budgets had such a negative effect on travel, but enough to assure financial success and to allow for great networking. As always, the opportunity to meet people from around the country, who wrestle with similar challenges, is the highlight of the experience. I love watching first-time attendees, seeing their excitement and relief at having discovered so many kindred spirits. It could be that the therapeutic value of the NABCA and RBCA conferences is worth the price of admission, alone.

Next year, we are meeting in Seattle. That promises to be another great venue, and we hope to see more of our western states colleagues re-engage with the organization. After all, NABCA was founded as the WESTERN Association, and I've missed seeing more participation in recent years, as the conferences have been in eastern and midwestern locations. David Williams, University of Connecticut, is our new president. He has a number of years' experience with NABCA and as an executive committee member, so I'm sure he'll do a fine job.

Please make every effort to support this important organization, by attending the conference next year. I am confident that you'll enjoy the experience and learn much that is valuable from the presentations. These regional and branch campuses are a growing, critical part of higher education, and sharing ideas, finding colleagial support, and engaging in discussions about the future are helpful all around.

You can check out the NABCA web site, at www.nabca.net. You may also want to check out the RBCA site, www.outreach.ohio.edu/rbca. That conference is coming up at its usual home on Longboat Key, June 20-23.

New Directions

2010-03-28T18:48:00.000-07:00

I have no idea how many people read this blog. From time to time someone will tell me that they read the posts and enjoy them, and when I go to the NABCA conference, there usually are some comments. So, at the risk of emulating a tree falling in the forest with no one around, I will share an announcement that is at least important to me: I will be leaving my current position in mid-June, and after completing some other “duties as assigned,” I will retire from Ohio University on December 31.

I’m excited about reaching this point. What may not be apparent from the blog is the fact that I have not been working with our regional or branch campuses for the last three years, anyway. I had planned to take an early retirement in 2007, but agreed to stay on to lead development of a more aggressive distance learning program at the university. That work has gone extremely well and been a source of enormous satisfaction to me. I more or less had an opportunity to build my own team, and they are the most energetic, creative people with whom I’ve ever worked. “Amazing,” as the kids might say.

Still, I’ve remained interested in branch campuses, as the unique delivery form I believe they represent. I am deeply grateful for the fact that I landed, as a faculty member, at Ohio State-Mansfield, way back in 1976. I barely knew that branch campuses existed, and like so many others, I thought I’d teach there a few years and move on. But for over 30 years, I served as a faculty member and administrator in roles connected to branch campuses at two universities.

Along the way, especially over the past 15 years or so, I’ve had many opportunities to visit branch campuses all over the United States and in two other countries (Russia and Canada). I’ve met a great many individuals who have committed a large portion of their careers to the mission of expanding opportunity for students who otherwise could never hope to achieve their educational dreams. That has made for a terrific career path.

When I add the experiences of the last few years to the mix, I feel as if I’ve significantly broadened my understanding of how higher education can effectively and successfully serve nontraditional audiences. I don’t know that anyone else has had the range of experiences with branch campuses that I’ve had, but to lead campuses effectively in the future, I believe it will be necessary to have a strong grasp of distance learning opportunities and of the adult learner audience.

What I’ve said many times seems to be coming true even more quickly than I expected: Demographics, technology and the preferences of adult learners have combined to create a disruptive environment in higher education. Branch campuses are in a terrific position to compete effectively in this emerging context, but to do so their home institutions will have to develop a deeper understanding of the access mission and how to take advantage of their circumstances to create even more opportunities.

I’m convinced that the most successful organizations (including the for-profits and any others) will emphasize exceptional student services. If we finally take the step of putting students first, we will be better able to understand how to create programs and business models that can soar. If we stay on defense and hope that something will save us, then…

Like so many Baby Boomers, I have no intention of retiring to a life of leisure. Certainly, I hope to have a bit more balance in my life for family, friends and travel, but I also intend to find some mix of consulting, writing, and speaking that will keep me engaged. Frankly, these times are too interesting to walk away. I don’t want just to read about what is coming; I want to participate in some way.

I’d love to help institutions, branch campuses or otherwise, develop strategies for success in this disruptive environment. I don’t mean this to be a commercial, but I’d enjoy working as a sort of organizational coach on strategy development, or otherwise engaging in conversations that could lead to greater success in what has become a very competitive environment. I’m especially interested in how university branches and small privates can carve out a special niche that will help them thrive in the future, and I’ve enjoyed the consulting opportunities I’ve had in the last several years.

I also plan to continue this blog, and I am working to create a web site that can host a new blog on broader topics of interest to me, as well as other pieces I may want to share. We’ll see what comes along. A lot of things interest me.

I want to thank the many, many individuals who have enriched my life in the past and who, no doubt, will continue to be important to me. I have made so many friends, in so many places, and I’ve learned to distinguish people who are honestly committed to the access mission from those who may have other motives. These branch campuses can and do change the world, and it is an honor to have worked in this part of higher education. I see a fork in the road, ahead. Can't wait to see what comes next!

Revenue Sharing and Support for Branch Campus Growth

2010-02-22T14:14:00.000-08:00

I have yet to visit an institution with branch campuses where the leadership did not refer to being “one university.” Because there is so little broad public discussion about branches, it always sounds to me as if they believe there is something distinctive about being “one.”

Moreover, institutional leaders nearly always maintain what I believe is a sincere desire to see their branch campuses grow in enrollment. (I’ve seen exceptions, where the president seems embarrassed by the existence of branches, but that is rare. I believe most presidents, at least, value their branches. Provosts typically do, as well, with a larger number of exceptions, and I know there are many college deans who wish their branches would vanish.)

Despite leadership support for branches, institutional practices often block legitimate opportunities for growth. The blocks may tie to our internal political behavior, as well as to the practical reality that presidents and others find their time consumed by whatever is right in front of them. Branches, by their nature, are not the central activity of the institution, and they most certainly are not “right in front” of the main campus administration.

A major obstacle to branch campus growth, however, may lie in the way we handle revenue and expenses. It is something we’ve done decently well, in Ohio, over the years, and it took me awhile to realize that our approach is not necessarily typical.

In Ohio, each university branch has a separate line in the state budget. Until the recent economic problems, state support was reliably tied to credit hour production, whether the credit hours were earned at a community college, a university main campus, or a branch. (I realize that private institutions have a different model, but the essential principles described below can be applied at any institution.)

Although each university with branch campuses has its own practices with regard to revenue, the common model is to credit the state support and tuition generated to the branch campus. Then, the branch pays overhead for services received, back to the main campus. The implication is that money flows from the branch to the main campus. Increased revenue at the branch typically implies that the overhead paid also will increase, so there is at least this incentive at the main campus to encourage branch growth. The exact percentage of income paid as overhead varies, but 6-12% is a reasonable range, depending on exactly what services are delivered by the main campus.

At Ohio University, we send money to the main campus in three ways: through overhead, as described, through other transfers to support some specific services we agreed to over the years, and through what we call “splits.” We have several ways of paying splits, but the essential idea is to share “profits” with the academic units that house courses delivered at the branch campuses. Through splits, we are able to provide relatively modest revenue directly to academic units, giving them a bit of a slush fund that lies outside of their regular budget.

Our approach is a very direct way of demonstrating that the branch campuses are a revenue boon to the University and not a drain. Enrollment and revenue growth do not in any way take away main campus resources. Unfortunately, I realize that many of our colleagues around the country work under a much less effective model.

What I have come to understand is that many institutions have financial models that actually discourage, rather than encourage, growth in courses and programs at branch campuses. The problem often begins with how the state funds its institutions.

In some states, institutions are funded through what I’ll call “direct allocation.” That is, there is no specific relationship between enrollment and funding. Oh, the president can and will argue for more support, as enrollment grows, but that puts the cart before the horse: grow and maybe you’ll get more funding. Recently, as we’ve seen, legislatures have tended to cut funding, with the result that some institutions, in turn, have moved to reduce admissions. Not a great model for economic development in the state!

In at least some states, there may actually be a tie between enrollment and state allocations, but the allocation still is to the institution as a whole, and the total allocation available is capped. So, in an example with which I’m familiar, because the main campus is at or near its cap, further enrollment growth may not generate any additional state funds. There is no incentive to support branch enrollment, unless a change can be made to create a state allocation directly to the branch. That may be dangerous ground for the branch, however, if the main campus leadership believes such an allocation would be at its expense.

States seem to handle tuition revenue in a couple of different ways. Some states do not allow institutions to keep the revenue from tuition. Instead, it returns to state coffers. Most, it appears, do at least allow institutions to retain tuition revenue, and that, of course, is one reason tuition increases faster than inflation, given reductions in state support. If the institution retains tuition revenue, there is at least the possibility of developing business models that can support enrollment growth. In fact, because of their lower infrastructure costs, growth at branches or through online programs may be a viable alternative to growth at the main campus.

Where does all this leave branch campuses? If I were advising presidents and provosts, I’d emphasize a couple of key ideas. First, assuming the institution is not practicing responsibility centered budgeting, and main campus units receive what I call “expenditure budgets” (annual allocations that create spending targets), please do not apply this approach to branch campuses. Instead, fund them as you would an auxiliary, crediting income generated by their enrollment directly to them. Create an overhead charge that is realistic, so that money begins to flow from the branch to the main campus, instead of the other way around. As enrollment and revenue grow, the overhead paid should be yoked to that growth.

Second, if you are making what I consider to be the most elementary of mistakes, and placing some or all of the funding for branch instruction in the budgets of your academic units, stop it! The surest formula for discouraging branch growth is to deny branches the ability to develop a course schedule that meets the needs of their students, while expecting main campus chairs and deans to decide which courses are needed on both the main and branch campuses. If you reverse the flow of dollars, so that revenue flows to the main campus, then adding classes at the branches to support growth will occur more naturally. (I’m not saying the academic units shouldn’t have some level of oversight regarding branch coursework and hiring of instructors, but that the direction in which money flows will tend to drive decision making.) Developing some type of revenue sharing model, such as our splits approach, will further incentivize academic units to support increased branch enrollment.

If there is anything I’m sure of about branch campus success, it is that course schedules must be set at the branch, where there is an understanding of the local market and a deep appreciation of the outreach mission. Assuring that revenue flows from the branch campus to the main campus, rather than the other way around, is an important tool to help everyone understand the financial benefit of having branches, as well as to encourage meaningful growth in enrollment.

On Being an Entrepreneur in Higher Education

2010-02-05T12:09:00.000-08:00

Not long ago, I was speaking with an administrator at my own university. During the conversation, this person referred to another administrator as being “very entrepreneurial,” and I was stunned. In my opinion, that administrator is far from being entrepreneurial and is missing out on outstanding opportunities to grow enrollment through new programs and strategies for delivery. To be sure, the area for which this person is responsible is growing, and there are some good things happening in the unit, but I don’t see what I’d call entrepreneurship.

Although I let the comment pass, later I started thinking about our different assessments of the same individual. I’m relatively certain that we have comparable knowledge about this person’s attitudes and behavior, and we can both see the same performance measures. So why would one of us see an entrepreneur and the other not?

I can't speak for the other person's point of view, but from my perspective, entrepreneurship is about innovation; it is not about linear improvements to an existing product. I would argue that an entrepreneur creates or takes advantage of a disruptive environment, taking calculated risks that change the competitive landscape. (See earlier posts on this blog.) One might say it is about having a future orientation, rather than a focus on the present, but that may not be entirely fair. Maybe it is more of an awareness of possibilities that are qualitatively different than what presently exists, at least within the institution.

An entrepreneurial effort in higher education implies new programs, new delivery systems, or new ways of engaging with students. Creative, strategic marketing is an important part of entrepreneurship, as well, such that prospective students begin to choose the new opportunity over previously existing options. There may also be meaningful innovations to the typical business model, perhaps affecting how the institution earns revenue or spends its money.

To illustrate, at our institution we’ve been delivering graduate cohort programs off the main campus, for decades. Our cohort programs typically are master’s degrees, offered in lockstep fashion, part time, over two years, at a branch campus or other location. Instruction is either face-to-face or through interactive television, primarily, with the same courses being offered by the same instructors as our main campus program. The programs are financially lucrative, if enrollment exceeds 20 students.

I’m pleased with these programs, and I imagine the approach was quite entrepreneurial in its time, but after 30 years, it seems like a stretch to call these cohorts entrepreneurial. Offering additional cohorts of the same or different programs may yield growth in enrollment, but they still are linear extensions of what we’ve always done. The fact that deans and chairs are eager to get on board with cohort programs these days reflects the economy and our budgets, not an entrepreneurial spirit.

On the other hand, these programs most definitely are part of a broader perspective on our commitment to entrepreneurship. Our marketing team has done some very creative and successful marketing of these programs over the past two or three years, so that the average enrollment in a cohort has gone up. They have built new relationships to help us spread the word, through what we call our Central Ohio strategy, giving Ohio University access to the Columbus metro population. (We sometimes talk about “breaking out” of our rural Southeastern Ohio region, although we remain committed to making sure that residents of our own region have access to graduate opportunities.)

The marketing efforts, in my opinion, do reflect an entrepreneurial spirit. I won’t go into details, but we’ve followed all the steps one would expect, in terms of testing and evaluating ideas, studying best practices around the country, making modest investments in new techniques to see how they go, and so on. Enrollment has grown by about 40% over the past two years.

That said, at the risk of being overly blunt, from my personal point of view, we are growing cohort programs because we can do so quickly, because many current faculty are familiar with and comfortable with that model, and because they can throw off cash to support the development of more innovative programming. I know this may sound cold, but the entrepreneurship lies in the overall strategy, not in simply growing cohort enrollment.

I believe much is at stake for higher education over the next five to ten years. It will not be an effective response to a disruptive environment to do more of what we’ve always done. It is not entrepreneurial to use interactive television to deliver the same program you’ve always delivered, with butts in seats and class minutes calculated to satisfy some bureaucratic reporting requirement. It may be a good idea to expand these programs, but there is no real innovation—no real creativity and no meaningful market positioning to respond to emerging competition.

In my opinion, there are certain keys to effective innovation in higher education. One key for the future, almost certainly, lies in developing a variety of engaged partnerships with other institutions. Successful leaders will be committed to listening to current and prospective students (nonconsumers), to employers, and to potential partners. They will take steps to co-design programs that speak to emerging needs.

We need to see delivery approaches and services that are targeted specifically to the needs of our students, not to the preferences of faculty members. We need to respect the challenges faced by students who are pursuing their educational dream, while juggling the demands of family and jobs. It is about value: An excellent program that meets students’ legitimate expectations for flexibility, support, and a price tag that they can afford.

Please do pursue creative recruiting practices and expand the programs available at branch campuses, as you can. Branch leaders know that we have to be opportunists and experts in interest-based bargaining. We have to stay patient and use language that builds support over time. But let’s not confuse that work with being innovative.

I am working on some thoughts tied to the topic of “how to think like an educational entrepreneur.” We have to do better than what I’m seeing at most institutions. One of the first steps is to recognize the difference between what we’ve always done and those creative approaches that change the game. Institutions may choose not to go this route, of course. I just believe that many of them will regret the decision.

Pursuing Both Traditional and New Audiences at Branch Campuses

2009-12-28T08:07:00.000-08:00

The theme of many of my posts over the past year has been that demographics, technology, and the preferences of adult learners are creating a disruptive environment in higher education. I've asserted that, for branches to thrive in the future, they need to orient strongly toward the changes I see coming: More of a focus on adult learners and delivering courses online or in a hybrid/blended form.

What if I'm wrong? The average age of students has decreased at many campuses, and reports are that more students attend full time. What if that trend continues? The cost of residential education means more students will choose community colleges or branch campuses, at least for part of their education, and these students may want to attend in the "traditional" way, coming to campus and taking classes face-t0-face. No doubt, some adults prefer traditional environments and find online courses intimidating.

Students who prefer a traditional approach may want access to services and student life programming, even though they are commuters, not residents. Or, for that matter, more community colleges and branches may add residence halls or apartments, providing students an opportunity that is somewhere between a fully residential, away-from-home experience and a commuter life.

Even if "traditional" branch programming continues to work well, there is no doubt that more people are seeking flexible programs, in the form of online and hybrid courses. These individuals will not come to their local branch, if such courses are not readily available. They will choose from one of the many options available to them. Over time, as students have better and better experiences with these courses, their inherent advantages will draw enrollment away from face-to-face, synchronous courses. Remember, every year, the proportion of adult learners comfortable with technology will expand, as generations age.

However, I'd point to something else as important to consider, right now. The potential students I have been writing about are not attending, today. They are nonconsumers. Specifically, they are mostly adults with some college, but no degree. By definition, they are not responding to your current marketing efforts. Doing more of the same kinds of marketing and recruiting you've always done will continue to attract the people you've always attracted. That means, you are doing a better job of marketing to a declining population. (The demographics are what they are. There are fewer 18-year-olds, but hundreds of thousands of nonconsuming adults, in nearly every state.)

Here's the punch line: If I am completely wrong about your current audience, and the advantages of branch campuses work well into the indefinite future, why not insure your success by targeting nonconsuming adults, as well? These are real people, who will be served by someone.

In a sense, if you expand online and hybrid options, you will have a more diversified portfolio of courses and programs that can aid recruitment and retention, all around. You will do a better job of serving your community, and you will take advantage of your good "brand" to better hold off competition from institutions that have not made a powerful commitment to serve the local population. In short, you will see greater net enrollment and more revenue, supporting still more program expansion in the future.

It is a no-lose proposition, provided you empower a part of your institution to focus intensely on nonconsumers, following the principles of entrepreneurial growth in a disruptive environment. (What you cannot do, successfully, is pursue nonconsumers with the marketing/recruitment techniques that work for your current audience. Offering some online courses, but in a non-programatic way, will not work, either, in my opinion. It isn't about offering some online opportunities, but taking a thoughtful, systematic approach to recruiting and serving a new audience.)

One principle that I rarely see followed in higher education is to manage various programs and audiences as a business might, recognizing that we have multiple lines of business that can be independently pursued. If we pursue multiple, nearly independent program lines, we have a chance of succeeding in all of them. For sure, though, we will be more diversified and likely to see some of our activities thrive, during times when others are struggling. I'll say more about this idea of managing multiple line of business in a future post.

Taking Advantage of Growth at Branch Campuses

2009-11-13T08:50:00.000-08:00

So, you lead a branch campus, and enrollment is up. That's a good thing, right? Revenue should be increasing, you'd expect to be adding courses and sections, maybe considering adding to your full-time faculty, perhaps adding support services, and so on.

For a surprsing number of people I encounter, things are more frustrating than that. Some campuses, like ours at Ohio University, are independently funded. They pay an overhead to the main/home campus, which may increase as branch revenue increases, but they are in a good position to invest for more growth. Many others, however, operate on an "expenditure budget," in which they receive an allocation in the same way that main campus academic units probably do. A likely result is that increased branch campus revenue is disproportionately consumed to offset institutional budget challenges. The opportunity to add branch courses and programs, never mind services and faculty, is very limited.

In my opinion, even well-intentioned leaders remain bound by a sense of mission or priority that interferes with a deep understanding of entrepreneurial higher education. I heard a great comment the other day: If you don't understand your market and serve it effectively, you will lose the opportunity to pursue your mission. In the end, no matter how deeply institutions may be committed to their traditional mission, they need to empower units that can generate growth, in order to thrive. To me, that means unleashing the potential of branch campus and online/hybrid programs, among other things.

In these times, I cannot argue that branch campuses should keep all the revenue generated by growth. Branches, by definition, depend on main campus support for their own success. However, if an institution is prepared to invest in branch campus growth, there are some things I encourage and things I discourage.

On the "discourage" side, I would be loathe to invest in more space. Buildings at branches create more infrastructure cost that will hurt their ability to compete against the types of new approaches about which I've written before. To be sure, there are situations where construction makes sense, but the bar should be set very high.

In addition, I would be cautious and thoughtful about adding services. Student support services are critical, but institutions should keep close watch on which services make a difference to their students. If a service contributes to recruitment and retention--and you have the data to document that fact--then it is valuable. Too often, however, campuses invest in services that either go unused or make almost no difference to student success. Don't get caught up in someone's passion for providing a service, in the absence of evidence that the service makes a difference, or because it represents something he or she personally considers to be "part of what a college or university just should do." Keeping a thoughtful, critical eye on services is important to staying competitive, yet cost efficient.

On the positive side, growth creates a wonderful opportunity to expand student options. Students today are shoppers. If you can add sections of courses at different times of day or days of the week; if you can offer some online options, in addition to your traditional classes; if you can offer additional choices on general education courses; all of these may attract or retain still more students. As with services, an efficient, but attractive student-oriented schedule is likely to pay dividends.

What about adding more programs? Well, it depends. In my experience, most degree program additions do not significantly add to enrollment, unless they are specifically attractive to current nonconsumers. So, for example, if you offer an English major and choose to add History, I'm all for it, if you have the resources. However, you probably won't see much net new enrollment from expanding more or less related programs, whereas you will add some cost for courses you weren't previously offering.

On the other hand, if you do not have a Nursing program and you add one--you probably will attract students you currently miss. (Of course, the sheer cost of Nursing courses may not make this a great idea.) Similarly, we have sometimes found it necessary to offer what I call a "surrogate" for the major we really want: say a communication major with a business minor, instead of a specific business major. If growth allows adding the program students most prefer, there should be at least a modestly positive impact on enrollment, and the community service provided will be recognized and appreciated.

Investing in marketing may be the single most important use of new resources. In this area, I include stepping up your market research to support deeper understanding of both your current markets and whatever new opportunities may be out there. Strengthen your web sites, start exploring applications of social networking, and step up how you tell your story. You have an opportunity to expand awareness of your brand, as well as to target-market individual programs. Maybe you can use some money to invest in and take advantage of a quality CRM, so that you can better communicate with prospects. Whatever you do in this area, make sure your decisions are strategic and be serious about assessing the effectiveness of every single activity.

If your campus is growing, I hope you are able to invest to support the growth you've achieved and to encourage still more growth. It is a smart institutional investment, and it can support expanded access and opportunity for students. Make thoughtful, strategic, data-based decisions, however. You still are trying to get at current nonconsumers, and you surely have things to learn about your specific opportunities and the activities that will matter the most.

As always, this can be a golden age for branch campuses, if leaders recognize the trends and changes that students of the future are seeking. Those branches that continue with the same old, same old will see their enrollment start to decline, within the next five years. Growth has given you a chance to ride the wave, so go for it!

Fall Enrollment

2009-10-29T12:31:00.000-07:00

I'm intrigued by what I think I'm seeing around enrollment, this fall. I don't have any formal, objective data, yet, so I may be wrong, but it certainly appears that branch campus enrollment is very strong, everywhere I've checked.

For sure, university regional campuses, in Ohio, are up. The five Ohio University campuses increased by more than 1000 students, compared to last year, and the folks around the country with whom I've spoken or corresponded have experienced the same thing. Moreover, nearly everyone is telling me they are up more on FTE than on headcount, which means that students are enrolling in more classes.

I haven't seen any significant news coverage about branches, but clearly community colleges experienced nearly explosive growth. There surely must be exceptions, but reading about increases of 20% or more isn't unusual. I've talked with community college leaders who are struggling mightily to find classroom space and instructors, to deal with the growth.

What about other sectors? How are the smaller, not-necessarily-elite privates doing? My impression is that the story is not as positive. I don't know that there is any general decline, but the big jumps seem rare. On the other hand, the for-profit sector seems to be booming. Almost across the board they are reporting large enrollment growth. Distance learning programs also have continued their rapid enrollment increases.

For a branch person, an interesting question to ask is, "How are main campuses doing?" Again, I'm not sure, but I don't hear or read about truly dramatic increases. In Ohio, a few are down, a number are up, and there are a few institutions with high single-digit increases. I have the impression that urban institutions (read: those with a high percentage of commuter students) may be up more than rural institutions.

It doesn't take 30 years of experience with branch campuses to recognize that some of the growth going on is tied to the economy. Branches and community colleges, in particular, have always been countercyclical to the economy. But this feels like a bigger jump than could be explained just by reference to an economic cycle.

Nothing in what has happened this fall compells anyone to agree with my arguments that we are in a disruptive environment, but it is exactly what one would predict, if we are approaching the tipping point for change in higher education. I've argued that demographics, technology and the preferences of adult learners have created a Christensen-type disruption for higher education. Rapid growth in lower-cost alternatives may reflect the economy, but it may also include deeper realization that the cost of residential higher education is simply getting too high.

Interestingly, there are at least some main campuses experiencing record enrollment this fall, even as other sectors increase dramatically. Again, however, that is consistent with the dynamic of disruptive change, in which existing "products" are doing so well that providers don't see the change that is coming and miss the opportunity to adapt.

I'm not one who believes that residential higher education will disappear. There are too many reasons that young people leave home to go to school. I do believe, however, that most such institutions will become smaller (urban campuses and flagships may be an exception). I also believe that a much higher proportion of young people will spend only one or two years on campus, taking the first part of their undergraduate degrees at branches, community colleges, and online.

The concern about how we may be closing the doors to those with less money doesn't bother me as much as it might some, because I believe there is a deeper trend toward new business models, more flexible online and hybrid programs, and alternative ways of obtaining credentials. There will be more options for people to choose from, and the increasing availability of high quality online courses will be a driver.

Even now, we see many students who enroll in online and traditional courses, at the same time. In fact, I'd bet that one reason there is an increase in FTE over headcount is that more students are picking up an "extra" online course, while taking one or two classroom-based courses.

This is all speculation, I suppose, but I continue to predict that we will see a major shift toward lower cost providers, more flexible programs, and changes in how institutions think about everything from marketing strategies, student services and student life options, and the role of faculty members in instruction.

A scenario I can imagine is that an increasing proportion of young students choose to spend a year or two at a local community college. Some young people, but the great majority of adult learners choose online or blended programs. Young and older, if located near an urban university, choose to continue commuting, if they don't go with a distance learning program. Flagships and elite privates use their powerful pull to maintain or increase the enrollment of recent high school graduates, in the face of declining numbers in that demographic. Somewhere, there will be smaller privates and a number of public universities that fail to distinguish themselves in a way that will allow them to maintain the revenue stream that is required to support their personnel and infrastructure costs. In this last group, then, there will be winners and losers.

I'm not sure where the for-profits fit in this picture, but I think it will depend on their business model. Right now, the for-profits tend to be a high tuition alternative. I don't see that working well, down the line. If they can develop a model that allows them to compete on price, however, then I suspect their market responsiveness will allow them to continue to grow. That isn't great news for the institutions I see as being threatened.

Next month, I will return to a discussion of enrollment growth at branches, to offer some suggestions on how campuses can most effectively take advantage of growth to expand access and opportunity still further. I'd love to see branches prosper in the "new environment," but it won't be business, as usual, if they do.

Building on Strengths at Branch Campuses

2009-09-11T11:55:00.000-07:00

I think often about the implications of so-called "strengths-based leadership." A key element of focusing on strengths is that we talk and worry less about our deficits than about how we can release the capacity in individuals and organizations, so that the work environment is more positive, and the sense of excitement and accomplishment grows.

Recently, I listened to someone interviewing for a very senior administrative position talk about his commitment to being an effective leader. He told us that he had taken a workshop on leadership that included an assessment of various leadership qualities and provided a list of how those qualities applied to him, from strongest to weakest. He then went out and got training on the three qualities that were most weak, so he could get better in those areas.

Clearly, he thought he had done something significant and, perhaps, even a bit courageous. I thought it was a remarkable waste of time and energy. Why would anyone do that? Whatever success he has had is almost certainly about his strengths, not his weaknesses. From the perspective of building on strengths, he'd be much better off understanding what works well for him, how he can apply his talents most effectively, and how he can enlist others, with different strengths, to bring balance to the organization.

When I think about branch campuses, several thoughts related to releasing capacity come to mind. First, a successful branch campus, offering a good work environment, will encourage faculty and staff to build on their strengths. Leaders will hire carefully, seeking people who will thrive at a branch campus, embracing the mission, rather than feeling as if they should be somewhere "more significant."

Positive branch faculty will recognize the challenge of working with place bound students and seek ways to broaden students' horizons, support their achievement, and celebrate the drama of their success. Given a chance, students on branch campuses become our best ambassadors, sharing how their education changed their lives.

A campus with a positive sense of itself will engage meaningfully with the local community, seeking those intersections where institutional possibilities line up with community need. Engaged partnership will allow all of the partners to learn from each other, create synergies through their respective strengths, and have an impact that none of them could have, alone.

Because I believe that most branch campuses can thrive only if they find their special, particular niche, I also believe they need to be attentive to which courses, programs, and services make the greatest difference to student success. Again, it is a matter of building on strengths, rather than trying to do too much and spreading resources too thin.

If branches build on the strengths of their mission, context, and people, they can create exceptionally positive opportunities. On the other hand, almost everything about the branch environment can be turned into a negative, and people can become more cynical and fatalistic, than empowered and creative. I've seen both, and I am convinced that it is a matter of individual and collective choice.

Regardless of whether a campus cultivates a positive environment or not, the problems and frustrations of academic life will come around. The difference between a positive and a negative environment affects how people work together, share leadership in a way that releases, rather than suppresses talent, and maintains confidence that problems can be overcome.

Branch Campus Growth is International

2009-08-12T10:17:00.000-07:00

One of the challenges faced by people associated with branch campuses is the lack of literature or other obvious resources to help identify best practices, mistakes to avoid, or typical challenges. As a result, branch campuses come in a wide range of "flavors," around structure, programs, budgets, and mission. I hope this blog and the conferences organized by NABCA and RBCA help provide a sense of connection for people in the branch campus world.

In this context, I thought it would be worthwhile to draw attention to my impression that the number of branch campuses is growing, not only in the United States, but around the world. To be sure, there are the well publicized examples of American institutions launching international branches, usually in Asia or the Middle East. However, I am most interested in the simple reality that universities and colleges around the world often create branches, within their own country, in a manner that appears to be very similar to what happens in the U.S.

I have been fortunate to visit branch campuses in Mexico, Canada, Russia, and Hong Kong, and I have met individuals from Australia, Mexico, and other countries, who attended NABCA or RBCA. The issues faced in those countries seem similar to issues that arise here, but I don't know that to be a fact. There's a nice research opportunity for someone doing a thesis or dissertation: Comparing main campus and branch campus operations in different countries!

Recently, I visited campuses of the University of Northern British Columbia. It was an outstanding experience. There weren't any stunning surprises, during my visit, but the differences from my own experience were enough to be both interesting and engaging. Like most institutions, the UNBC story had unique elements, particular challenges, and highly recognizable points of view, both from branch and central campus folks.

Beyond supporting the general call for more research on branch campuses, I want to suggest that one might get especially interesting perspectives, by looking at branches in different countries, while "controlling" for as many dimensions, as possible: How would a branch in Mexico be similar to or different from one in the U.S., if the institutions are of similar size, in similarly populated areas, and so on. Are there differences in how they use technology? Do they attract similar or different student markets? Are main campus-branch issues similar? Can we learn things that will help us be more effective at our own campuses?

A quite different idea would be to partner with a branch in another country on courses or programs. A business course could use technology to have students in both countries working together on an international business problem. Guest lectures could be provided from both locations. Study abroad opportunities, often a challenge for branch students, could be relatively brief and intensive, with students and faculty members interacting by technology, both before and after the visit. I'd guess that branches from different countries could have a lot of fun, through partnership, as well as create outstanding learning opportunities and grow in cultural awareness. I know these things have happened, and sometimes they have been difficult to make work, but it seems well worth the effort.

In other aspects of my work, I've had some wonderful opportunities in the international arena, and they have enriched my life, enormously. In today's world, not only is it important to develop a global (heck, just a nonparochial) perspective, but technology can make it possible to do things that could not have been done effectively, just a few years ago.

Branch campus faculty, students and administrators have a natural platform to initiate a relationship. Go for it! Then, let me know how it works out. Or, better yet, come to NABCA or RBCA and tell everyone about it.

On Generations and Opportunities

2009-07-18T16:49:00.000-07:00

I've gotta say, I feel really good about being a Boomer, at this point in my life. I am enjoying a sense of opportunity and energy, as well as self-discovery, that is bringing me closer to values and goals that were important to me years ago. I can afford to make some work and lifestyle choices that would have been more difficult in the past, and I am better able to accept certain things and simply refuse to accept others.

As I wrote in my last post, I'm also enjoying the work and personal connections I have with younger people. Maybe it is drawing on the teacher in me, but I also feel as if I learn a lot from them, and as if we have considerable fun. I'm encouraged about the workplace of the future, because I see an interesting alignment of values that, if properly managed, should yield highly effective organizations.

I haven't yet figured out how to articulate the potential I see, but I can point to some elements of the opportunity. Younger generations seem to have a better sense of work-play balance than Boomers have had. Given that many Boomers now want to find a more flexible approach to work and life, perhaps we can see the wisdom of younger perspectives. Effective cross-generational work teams had better make time to laugh and play!

An interesting aspect of "flexibility" ties to work hours. Many Boomers want to work part time or seasonally. Project work may be attractive to some, but for me, I'm more interested in the social connection and the pleasure that comes with continuing work relationships. I want to be somewhere warm in the winter, and I want to take great vacations from time to time. I've never made a huge distinction between work and other interests, and that quality is serving me well. The opportunity to set my own hours, whether early in the morning (not likely) or late in the evening is very attractive, as is the idea of working like a demon for a few weeks, then heading off on some personal adventure for a few more.

Young people tend to share aspects of my attitude. The old "8-5" is tough on younger folks. It isn't that they are unwilling to work hard, but they want to have as much control as possible over exactly when, where and how they work. In fact, "control" is a big part of what both Boomers and Millenials are looking for, but it is control over their own choices about time and projects.

Millenials, especially, are motivated more by a sense of passion for whatever they are doing than by direction or instructions from higher up. I like that, and I've seen both Generation X-types and Millenials work with a level of commitment that I find impressive. Working with passion! That seems like an excellent way to live.

In the reading I've done, and the limited personal experience I've had, I'm struck by the notion that Millenials are looking for respect and for people to listen to their ideas. Sound like the 60's and 70's generation? Sharing ideas and building powerful group energy around important projects that people care about sounds terrific, as well.

Boomers can bring their stories and experience, but we also can lose our accumulated doubts and cynicism in the presence of young people who still believe they can change the world. Note that community is hugely important to young people, both their work "community" and the larger community within which they live. So that aspect for some Boomers, of wanting to change directions and become engaged in volunteer or part-time work connected to social service agencies and the like, is entirely consistent with how Millenials view community development. It is less about title, hierarchy, or even pay than about making a difference.

I wonder if this also connects to our expanded lifespans? A friend who just turned 60 talks about choosing direction for the "second half of her adult life." If we are going to be around for 100 years, then the sense of time urgency should change. Why retire at 60, or even 70, if you feel young and vital and expect to be around for awhile, yet? By the same token, if you are 25 or 30 and expect to have another 70 years or more to go, why be in a hurry about education, career, or relationships? Maybe we can all make better choices if we see our lives unfolding over longer periods of time.

So much of what is written about younger generations is negative. For example, just thinking about the previous paragraph, some are talking about "extended adolescence" in Millenials and the need to press them to "grow up." Really? Is it extended adolescence or simply an awareness of more time to live, allowing less urgency to "get on with it"? (I'm not sure on this one. There are times when I do feel as if young people are remarkably superficial, moments away from when they impress me with their knowledge and poise, when it matters.)

I haven't tried to tie this post specifically to branch campuses, but it is easy enough to see the implications, wherever you choose to look. Branches are historically very engaged in community, and there are opportunities here to help build community connections, effective cross-generational teams, and the like. There are possible implications for how we staff campuses and meet demand for instructors. Credit or noncredit certificate programs could be built around cross-generational opportunities, and so on.

We actually have very little choice but to find ways to work together. Boomers aren't ready to leave the stage, but we need the Millenials and Xers to make things run. I've got a feeling that some organizations and communities will figure out how to make it soar and others won't. Just as occurs in disruptive environments, there will be winners and those who don't know what hit them. I've got to admit, I like that idea. I plan to be one of the people having a great time and contributing what I can.

Encore Careers May Provide Excellent Opportunities for Branch Campuses

2009-06-30T10:03:00.001-07:00

I think it is time to change directions. In the disruptive environment that I believe higher education faces, an important question goes to how we can best position our institutions for success. The good news is that there are relatively new ways of thinking about organizations and organizational change that may be entirely consistent with the impact of technology, a higher proportion of adult learners, and concerns about the cost of traditional education.

These new ways of thinking emerge from positive psychology, an approach that focuses on individual and organizational strengths, rather than deficits, with the goal of thriving or flourishing, not simply surviving or enduring. There are a number of topics I can explore here, but I want to start with something that is close to my own heart: The implication of the Baby Boomer Generation, as it moves past 60 and toward what we think of as "traditional" retirement age. Some of what I will share can be explored in greater detail in an excellent book, by Marc Freedman (2007), called Encore: Finding Work that Matters in the Second Half of Life.

A key point is that the idea of "retiring to leisure" is a relatively new notion, tied to the creation of Social Security and corporate pensions. Before, say, the 1930's, most people simply worked until they died, and they tended to die at a younger age than most of us, today. Bluntly, many Boomers can't afford to retire, and many of us who can, don't want to. It is important for us to feel productive, although how we want to approach work may change.

I won't go into more detail on the attitudes and needs of Boomers, when it comes to work, but I do want to share some potentially good news: Employers need us to stay engaged. The immediately following generation is too small to adequately fill employment needs, and the generation after that, although large, is not yet experienced enough for some roles.

Boomers looking at so-called encore careers may want to work in roles similar to the ones they've filled in the past, or they may want to change directions. Almost certainly, they will put a premium on flexibility, working part-time, seasonally, as consultants or project specialists, etc. Consider, for example, a professor, who may not want to teach full-time or serve on deadening committees, but would love to teach part-time and, perhaps, do some writing.

Boomers bring experience, wisdom (one hopes), and love to tell their stories. It turns out that the generation just entering the workplace, often called Generation Y or Millenials, enjoy hearing our stories, value flexibility, and share many of the social values of the Boomer generation. (Not really a huge surprise. Millenials are our kids!)

How might an appreication of generations impact an institution of higher education, and most especially, a branch campus that excels at serving adult learners or provides a wide range of certifications, online and blended courses, and highly competitive tuition?

First of all, there are "business" opportunities here. Many Boomers will seek education and training to develop skills or pursue long-delayed interests in learning. Because they value flexibility, they will be attracted to blended or hybrid programs that allow them to travel, be somewhere warm in the winter, or whatever suits their lifestyle. How we package courses and use technology for delivery will be important. (Note that the Millenials are digital natives and this is their natural environment, already.)

Although the personnel office might classify a retired professor, teaching part-time as an adjunct, it isn't quite what we usually think of as an adjunct. Their experience and approach to the classroom may be quite different, and we have found that many of these faculty members also embrace technology in their teaching, for the flexibility it provides. Retirees from other fields may enjoy teaching, as well. So staffing scalable types of courses that reach out to new audiences may be less difficult than a lot of people imagine.

Retired administrators and faculty members may be very interested in working on special projects or returning to work at especially busy times of the year, reducing cost to the institution, while retaining needed expertise. Mentoring programs with younger colleagues may pay huge dividends, as well.

My point here is that there is still a lot of juice in Baby Boomers. Most of us have far too many years yet to live to retire to leisure. Designing jobs or roles and providing appropriate educational preparation may be a wonderfully welcome opportunity.

There is one more point I'd like to make: I have found working with younger staff to be energizing and fun, for me. If we think of generational differences as another example of diversity, there is much for all of us to learn and to celebrate. There is a compatibility that suggests building cross-generational work teams may be a powerful way to engage faculty and staff, yielding a dynamic, enthusiastic, creative force that will powerfully affect an institution's competitiveness in a disruptive, rapidly changing environment.

2014

2009-05-15T10:17:00.000-07:00

If you are willing to accept what I've written about changes coming to branch campuses, then what should you do to make sure that your campus thrives? Timing is important here, as part of a strategy to respond to emerging competition.

So, let's start with a target year, in which I believe most adult learners, at least, will be choosing online and blended programs over traditional, campus-based programs. That year will be 2014, five years from now. How do I know that? Well, I don't, to be honest. Christensen mentions 2014 as a tipping point for online education, but in a different context. I've seen other references to that approximate time, and it simply feels about right to me.

The most important reason to choose 2014 is that it is far enough away to allow responsive institutions to make adjustments, but it is close enough to (I hope) raise anxiety, if you aren't engaging, yet. A good friend, with good judgment, said to me recently that he believes online education will be the dominant mode of delivery for adult learners in about 10 years. I think that is definitely much too far out. If you agree with my friend, please let me know. I want to come after your students!

I have also heard a number of people say things like, "We just aren't ready, yet. We can't afford to develop the classes, our faculty are resistant, and our audience prefers traditional classes." I understand that reaction, and most of it may even be valid, but it could indicate that your campus is going to be in trouble, by 2014.

To me, 2014 suggests that there is still time to start development of courses and programs in a strategic way. If you aren't active, yet, it will take you two or three years to get things rolling. A lot of institutions are ahead of you, but a lot aren't. The days of just putting something out there and generating lots of revenue are over, anyway. The "second wave" is coming, which will be much more niche oriented, focusing on high quality services, using technology in ways that are engaging and highly supportive, and making use of new business models that are keyed to this disruptive environment.

If you wait two or three years, then start development, you will be out of luck. Other providers will be in your market, and if they are providing the right programs and services, at an attractive price, there is no reason for students to switch. Most recruiting will occur by word of mouth and other low-cost marketing strategies, making it difficult for you to attract attention, especially from current nonconsumers.

Here is my advice: If you are just getting started in the development of online and blended programs, then create a team that will get up every day thinking about the audiences, programs and services that need to be developed. Study other institutions, to consider how they are approaching things. Spend a lot of time on the Internet, just looking at sites, mining them for ideas.

Continue being a cheerleader for your existing programs. Institutions don't necessarily need a lot of money to make this transition, but I strongly advise reinvesting any new revenue from outreach or branch programs in the further development of those programs. Further, you need a revenue sharing model that provides incentives for academic units to participate. If you can keep some staff focused on taking care of your current students, and on prospective students who resemble them, then you will be giving yourself time to develop the new programs and services that will attract nonconsumers.

Make sure you and all the other people involved in new program development are concentrating on nonconsumers. It isn't the students you currently serve and understand that are key. It is the students who are going to competitors or not enrolling at all that are the long-term target. As part of this focus, make sure you understand which programs cause the ears of nonconsumers to perk up, as well as which services they find valuable and how they want to engage with you (through email, IM, telephone hot line, etc.).

I'm expecting services to be even more important in the future, because you have to be very cost conscious and prepared to pass reduced costs on to students. No stadiums, no library, no health center, no student union, if your target audience isn't interested. If your existing students value these things, then that's great, but for the new audiences, you are seeking to be competitive on cost. These folks are much less likely to believe that your program is better than someone else's because it costs more. On the other hand, if your program is a better fit for their interests, and your services have a reputation for excellence, then they probably will pay at least a little more than competitors charge.

Finally, rethink geography. Branches often have a defined service area for their traditional programs. With online and blended programs, however, distance is less of a barrier. If most commuter students see 30 miles as approaching the limit of how far they will drive, 50 or 100 miles is no big deal for courses that meet on a limited number of occasions, during the term. One might think that fully online programs have no geographic limitations, but in my opinion that probably does depend on brand recognition and the uniqueness of your program. It may be difficult, for example, to differentiate your online AA degree from someone else's, when so many are available, at comparable prices.

Looking to the Future

2009-04-27T16:40:00.000-07:00

When I wrote the history of Ohio University's commitment to outreach, I was struck by the realization that we had changed our approach over time, as technology (especially) evolved. We used trains and street cars, paper-based correspondence, interactive television, etc. Eventually, we established our five branch campuses, each of which has its physical facilities, resident faculty, and strong student services. I think it is a proud history that demonstrates sincere commitment to expand opportunity.

What really made an impact on my thinking, however, was the recognition that my own career very nearly matched the history of branch campuses, in Ohio. Most of Ohio's campuses were created between 1966 and 1971; I arrived at Ohio State Mansfield in 1976. For me, the branches have always existed, but the fact is, as illustrated by the Ohio University story, they are a relatively recent part of a much longer history of outreach and access.

I don't know whether the history of other branch campuses can be placed in a series of progressive steps to create access, but the Ohio history does raise the question that, if there were vehicles for creating access before the development of branches, why couldn't new vehicles emerge in the future? It's about the mission, not the branch campus, per se.

Of course, faculty and staff working on a branch campus won't necessarily see it this way, because their careers and professional commitments are tied to the existance of the branch. Nevertheless, given the impact of new applications of technology and the preferences of adult learners, it is worthwhile to ask what might lie ahead. I believe branch campuses represent a "technology" that is changing, and some branches will seize the opportunity and do well, whereas others will deny that change is necessary and resist reasonable expectations of future students.

More and more research is showing that adult learners prefer online or blended/hybrid programs, which give them the flexibility they require for maintaining family and job responsibilities. They also are value shoppers, seeking the program they believe will advance their careers, at a price that is attractive. New business models, such as I've described in earlier posts, that deliver high quality, scalable programs and focused services, but reduce overhead and marketing costs, could do well with tuition and fees that are much lower than is required to maintain a traditional campus, with its buildings, libraries, extensive services, and high personnel costs.

There is a saying about times of change that the train is leaving the station. You can be on the train or on the platform, but either way, the train is leaving. Change is happening in higher education, and those institutions that fail to understand the new dynamic will struggle more and more. Those that understand how to combine the advantages of a campus with the market demands of adult learners, study how to control costs and focus course offerings, and target niche opportunities that can grow virally, will do very well.

I believe this outreach train already is rolling. I'm excited about the possibilities, because there is enormous creative energy in many new initiatives. The tired complaints that online learning can never match face-to-face instruction is blown away by new programs that create highly engaging, challenging learning opportunities, while providing new ways for students to interact with each other and with their instructors. The potential to bring tuition down to levels that open doors for current nonconsumers promises to expand access in ways that can transform more lives than ever. Rewards will go to institutions that are creative and forward looking, and that suits me just fine. What a ride lies ahead!

Branch Campus Life, Volume 2

2009-03-27T10:52:00.000-07:00

I neglected to publish any posts here, since August! I taught a course in the fall term, but more importantly, I've been exploring more deeply some ideas that are mentioned in the last few posts I wrote.

I've also been considering my own professional interests and what my next steps might be, looking forward to an "encore" career, when I move on from my current position. It is interesting to be a relatively early "boomer," still with plenty of energy and ideas, but eager to do things that could take me in a new direction. In this post, I want to comment on my own perspectives.

First, when I think about what can most quickly get my creative juices flowing, I recognize that I most enjoy what I will call strategic change management. I'm not so big on formal strategic planning, although I can do it. Rather, I enjoy gathering information, talking with people, seeking connections, and bringing a strategic perspective to the change process.

Over the past six months, I've given several presentations that allowed me to explore the future, from a variety of perspectives. I've come to believe that demographic shifts, applications of technology in higher education, and the preferences of adult learners are going to profoundly change much of higher education. As a result, I've become more focused on adult learners and distance education, as well as newly emerging business models, to get a picture of what is coming.

As I've written before, I believe we are in what Christensen would call a "disruptive environment," and because of that, the solutions to our current challenges need to be quite different than what we've done in the past. It is exciting to consider the possibilities, and it is that excitement that makes me most want to stay involved in higher education. I don't want just to observe what goes on, but to be part of it.

A second area of emerging interest for me is the development of cross-generational work teams. More is being written about how boomers are likely to stay in the workplace and employers need them, if only because the generations behind us can't fill the demand for employees. As I've spent more of my time, in a more attentive way, with younger c0lleagues, I've begun to realize how much can be gained, if we appreciate each other's contributions. Finding ways to link younger and less-young people, in the same work group, and in a manner that encourages respect and creativity, may yield a competitive advantage for an organization.

Finally, related to the cross-generational teams, I've become very interested in positive psychology, especially in the form of what is called Appreciative Inquiry (AI). AI provides a way of approaching change processes that can yield a sense of possibilities that is quite different than traditional problem solving approaches to change. It changes how change occurs, and linking it to cross-generational teams may be especially rewarding.

So, for me, seeking a more positive, creative approach to working with colleagues of all ages, in an environment that demands new solutions, is encouraging. In higher education, as we look at applications of technology, especially to serve nontraditional learners in new ways, there are implications galore for branch campuses. My guess is that there will be winners and losers, in the sense that some institutions will understand the new environment and embrace it, whereas others will not understand and will resist. Thinking critically about new ideas, of course, is not the same as resistance to new ideas, and the risk involved is higher than in the past. I'd like to help interested people and campuses find ways to overcome the risk, expand their impact, and thrive in the new environment.

My intention is to publish posts more frequently, at least for awhile. I will try to maintain a context that is relevant to branch campuses, but honestly, my interests have become broader than branches, so I see them as part of a creative approach to the future, yet reflecting deeper changes that have other implications, as well.

Engagement of Branch Campuses and Communities

2008-08-20T18:36:00.000-07:00

Communities almost always appreciate having a local branch campus of a university or community college. Just the existence of a branch campus has some economic development impact--companies considering locating in a community value having a local institution of higher education--and branches tend to offer more affordable access to courses and programs. However, some branches are perceived as being truly engaged in the life of their community, whereas others seem aloof and relatively unresponsive to needs that are specific to the local environment.

My own thinking about community engagement has evolved over the years. As a faculty member, my views weren't very different from those of my main campus colleagues: I enjoyed teaching and research; I preferred teaching brighter or more advanced students; I had my complaints and areas of satisfaction, but the theme was always about my own career.

As an associate dean, I became much more aware of the obstacles and occasional mistreatment that students experienced, and so I actually became much more student oriented. I also became increasingly involved in the community, and I discovered how enriching that involvement could be. I met exceptionally talented, committed individuals who valued team work and collaboration and who appreciated the need to leverage our time and talent, if we were going to improve the quality of life in our region. I also first began to realize that legitimate educational needs in our communities deserve to be addressed. If my university is unable or unwilling to address a need, then the community has a right to be disappointed and to seek a "better" partner.

These feelings of community responsibility only became stronger, when I served as a campus dean. In my particular town, which had experienced an economic turnaround in the years before I arrived, leaders credited the local branch as having taken a powerful leadership role in the turnaround. The campus was seen as not only responding to requests, but as having brought people together for dialog, listened to new ideas, and designed effective programs that made a difference, especially in the area of workforce development. That, I thought, was impressive and reflected meaningful engagement.

Engagement implies more than simply being responsive to requests for programs or services. It implies coming to the table to listen and understand, then work with partners to co-create programs or other initiatives. A responsive, but perhaps not fully engaged institution might listen and offer solutions to problems that are within its existing programs or competencies, but I believe that deeper engagement with our communities should be the goal.

That said, I have often been frustrated by the number of times there was a perceived need, on my campus or in the community, to which we were not even able to respond. Typically, it was an issue of an academic department--sometimes a single faculty member--declining to make courses or programs available. There also were times that university processes simply didn't allow for a timely response, and there certainly were times when a needed academic option didn't exist at our university.

I've been equally frustrated, when community or business leaders came to me with what amounted to a demand that we provide whatever course or program they happened to want, without regard to whether their objectives and the programs they requested were aligned, not to mention our legitimate concerns for quality or even for adequate sustainable enrollment.

I believe our campuses should be open to new kinds of partnerships, perhaps involving more than one higher education institution. Why shouldn't a local branch offer necessary general education courses, let's say, and another offer the major courses in a program that is helpful to a particular community? Or, why shouldn't a branch provide student support services and, perhaps, selected courses, while facilitating access to online courses from another institution?

More importantly, branch campuses should be encouraged to engage with their communities to increase knowledge about trends, opportunities and threats, and to share their expertise in ways that support community development, enlist community leaders in support of learning experiences, and bring back information on community needs that can guide future program development. With real engagement, maybe even my own frustrations would be misplaced. It wouldn't be about matching our programs with some perceived community need. It would be about creative, innovative partnering to make our communities better places to live and work.

With increasing use of technology and greater expectations of policy makers that institutions of higher education will recognize their responsibility to serve, creative partnerships will distinguish the most highly valued institutions from the tired, aloof places that assumed communities should be grateful just to know that all those smart people are doing whatever it is that they do at colleges and universities. Engagement, going well beyond responsiveness, will strengthen bonds between campuses and community, build strong support for the things that are important to our institutions, and energize faculty and staff who are part of the new initiatives.

Thoughts after the RBCA Conference

2008-07-12T19:00:00.000-07:00

The Regional and Branch Campus Administrators conference was held at Longboat Key, near Sarasota, FL, last month. The conference venue has to be one of the nicest anywhere, and the conference continues to provide an outstanding opportunity to meet people who help lead branch campuses of various types. Since the conference, I have been thinking about a couple of things that made a strong impression on me.

First, and even acknowledging what I have written in the past, I was struck by the incredible variety of branch campus models or "types" around the country. The campus deans from Ohio University provided a session that allowed the audience to respond to various questions about branch governance and other matters. Everyone seemed to enjoy the session, but what grabbed my attention was how difficult it is even to ask questions that make sense to everyone. With so many community college branches, upperdivision/graduate branches, two-year feeder university branches, and branches with a comprehensive mission, common ground isn't that easy to find. Governance and budget variations, among other things, add to the challenge.

I have a growing sense that an important dimension of "branchness" to consider is whether the campus is located in a rural or more urban setting. In the context of my last couple of posts, it seems to me that a branch in an urban area, with a reasonably large number of students (say, more than 2000), will be in a better position to adjust to challenges from online competitors. Urban campuses should be able to segment their market and deliver services and a range of programs--face-to-face, online, or blended-- that are valued by each segment. Rural, smaller campuses may find the competitive environment more difficult to address, as the audience for traditionally deilvered classes becomes smaller and the range of available online programs expands. (Rural campuses may be less hampered, and even enhanced, if their infrastructure costs are low, and if they are tied to institutions that support extensive online or blended delivery.)

Related to the difficulty of understanding the range of branch campuses and missions, the National Association of Branch Campus Administrators (NABCA) has established a task force on branch campus research, chaired by Phyllis Bebco, of Florida Atlantic University. The task force will be discussing and developing an agenda for research that seems most urgent or promising. You can check out all of NABCA's activities at http://www.nabca.net/.

On a different subject, I have the impression that more institutional leaders are beginning to recognize that their branch campuses should be included in a comprehensive strategic approach to growth. At the conference, I was especially impressed by our keynote speaker, Joel Hartman, who is Vice Provost for Information Technologies and Resources , at the University of Central Florida. UCF appears to have done an excellent job of developing a strong strategy to make "learning available on demand," through their various campuses and a strong emphasis on online and blended delivery. At UCF, it was reported, 55% of regional campus credit hours are online or blended. The financial advantage of online and blended delivery also has been strong, which is surely an important consideration in these difficult budget times.

For whatever reason, I am hearing more stories about presidents and other institutional leaders, who recognize the enrollment growth and revenue enhancement that branches, especially those that make powerful use of technology, can bring, while advancing an important educational mission. One implication may be a move away from treating branches as "colonies," at some institutions, and if those are the ones that thrive in the future, I am very much okay with that!

Bringing in the Nonconsumers

2008-06-08T16:23:00.000-07:00

Extending the discussion from my previous post, it seems to me that online education will change the nature of competition in higher education. We are approaching a tipping point, where the quality of online learning, new business/financial models, and the comfort level that prospective students feel will make traditional face-to-face classes less attractive, at least for many adult learners.

Recently, I saw a study of adult learners in Ohio, who had previously attended a higher education institution, but not graduated, and were not currently enrolled. These individuals, age 35 or younger, overwhelmingly preferred online or strongly blended/hybrid courses, as an attraction for returning to school. Less than 8% of the responders indicated that they would prefer a traditional campus-based program delivery.

Although I hope that branch campuses will be more responsive than many other types of institutions to this audience, I also foresee new providers coming along and profoundly changing the competitive landscape. Someone (not me, but I can't remember where I saw or heard this) referred to a "second wave" of online providers that is developing. This second wave will include large and small public institutions, private nonprofits, and emerging for-profits. The second wave will employ a different financial model than "first wave" institutions, and it is a model that will be disruptive.

To paint a picture of what I see coming, let me be clear that I am focusing on nonconsumers--those individuals with some college, but no degree, or those individuals who never attended. What will attract these nonconsumers, however, also will attract other adult learners and at least some traditional aged students.

If you consider my previous post about disruption in higher education, and some of the challenges created by the revenue requirements to operate a traditional campus, there is a huge door though which new providers can walk. To the extent that a traditional branch has an expensive infrastructure and is overshooting the real interests of students, a model that squeezes out costs and passes the savings to consumers, rather than to stockholders or a main campus, could deliver programs at much reduced tuition and still be profitable through increased enrollment (volume).

My ideas in this area were influenced by a fascinating book, called The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid, by C. K. Prahalad. I won't try to explain the concepts of that book, but I do recommend it for those who are interested in strategy. Thinking about how disruption might occur, and linking it to new business models led me to the following points.

First, to be successful in the "new online era," an institution will have to provide those programs that meet the perceived needs of adult learners. If it provides other programs at all, they will have to be in demand by other populations. Otherwise, the institution will be carrying expenses that will hurt its ability to compete. Because online options trump any protected geographic service area a branch may have, if the branch does not provide the right programs, someone else will.

Second, the institution needs to squeeze out unnecessary costs. Investment should be in the "product"--the courses and programs--and in support services for students and faculty. Marketing approaches need to be targeted in such a way that the costs are not nearly as high as most first wave institutions spend. (Effective, lower-cost marketing strategies are beginning to emerge.)

Third, cost savings should be passed on to students, pushing down the price to attend. Most instituions, if anything, do the opposite, and they are stuck, because they need the revenue to cover fixed plant and nearly fixed staffing costs. An aggressive competitor, as long as it covers its actual costs, while maintaining some "profit" margin per student, could (I believe) charge far less than most institutions and still provide high quality programs and services.

Fourth, a key to making this work is to be able to scale enrollment to much higher than common levels. You probably are familiar with the notion of "unpacking" the role of the faculty member. Institutions that build scalable programs create efficient processes for course design and development and use facilitators or coaches to work directly with students, under the supervision of a faculty member/content expert. The result is significantly reduced cost per credit hour, as enrollment increases. Thus, the business model can allow for strong financial performance at much lower tuition. (First wave institutions tend not to charge lower tuition, hence their own vulnerability to future competition. A big issue for them is their very high marketing costs!)

I know this is a sketchy presentation, but companies and institutions are out there developing this strategy. I see the change in pricing as opening up the market, with rapid effects that will start to overcome the brand advantage that existing institutions tend to rely on. If I'm right, things will change very quickly, once the tipping point is reached.

So, if I were advising a traditional branch camps administrator, what can he or she do today that will be helpful? First, I'd say, "Don't overshoot what your students value." In other words, take a hard look at costs and push them down, at least as they affect the population of students I am focused on here. Second, be very careful about plant costs, services provided, and the mix of continuing and adjunct faculty. Services should concentrate on those that are highly valued by most students. Third, start working now to incorporate online and blended courses in your curriculum, partly to provide greater flexibility to students. If you have a strong brand identity, use it, but in the end, if I am correct about the aggressive pricing of second wave institutions, brand won't likely overcome price for most campuses.

Repositioning a traditional, full-service branch, in anticipation of new forms of competition is surely a difficult challenge under the best of conditions. That, I fear, is yet another reason that campuses could be vulnerable to new competition!

Disruption in Higher Education

2008-05-26T16:16:00.000-07:00

Clayton Christensen, author of The Innovator's Dilemma, has written some of the most interesting things I've seen about innovation and how it affects organizations of all types. I'd like to draw on a couple of points from a book he co-authored, called Seeing What's Next. It includes a chapter called Disruptive Diplomas that addresses how innovation might create threats for higher education. Although the authors do not speak directly to branch campuses, the threats they identify could apply across the board.

A key concept in Christensen's work is the distinction between sustaining and disruptive technologies. I won't try to get into details about the distinction here, but suffice it to say that existing organizations tend to make good adjustments to developments in sustaining technology, but have trouble adjusting to disruptive technologies. One reason is that disruptive technologies may not be recognized for their potential to develop into a dominant technology, and during their early development, they generally have little to contribute to the bottom line of the existing organization.

To make an abrupt transition here, one could look at online education as a disruptive technology for existing institutions. A large residential campus has systems, services, and staffing intended to support historical delivery forms. Such a campus might well employ new technology to enhance learning in traditional classes and might even develop some online courses and programs for specific purposes, but it probably won't become a leader in serving the markets that are outside of their usual recruitment populations.

On the contrary, the reaction at a residential campus is likely to include arguments that online education will never replace the traditional classroom, that online programs do not measure up on quality or conflict with institutional mission, and that most students will prefer traditional delivery. On the support office side, the reaction is likely to be that staff don't have the time and resources to take on these new activities. All of these reactions actually have merit, but they also mean that the institution may not see how online programs are overcoming obstacles, until it is too late to participate meaningfully in the emerging market.

Two examples illustrate the dilemma. First, consider all the infrastructure and services provided by a residential campus. Lots of expense to buildings and grounds, a significant program in athletics, various services that many students rarely take advantage of, and relatively low teaching loads to allow time for research, all are part of what is built in to higher education, as we know it. The result may be an annual budget of hundreds of millions of dollars that must be supported by tuition, fees, endowments and state subsidies. The fact that all of this drives institutional decision making is consistent with the fact that it has worked for traditional audiences.

Branch campuses often cut out a lot of these expenses, and some (like ours at Ohio) pass most of those savings on to students in the form of lower tuition. But, if the branch is what has been called a "full service" branch, it still has significant plant expenses, faculty and staff salaries, and a range of services or student life opportunities that require funding.

In Christensen's terms, these institutions may well be overshooting their students. That is, they may be providing things that many or most students don't especially value or want. That's okay, if competition is limited. Residential education certainly provides an opportunity that many people value for reasons that extend beyond the classroom learning experience. I'd suggest that many--although certainly not all--branch students place a relatively low value on much of what a traditional campus provides. Like it or not, adult learners, especially, may be asked to pay for services they may never use.

The surveys I've seen of branch campus students suggest that students put heavy emphasis on price, convenience, location, the availability of certain academic programs, and maybe the perceived value of the particular diploma. They may not value most aspects of student life, in part because of commitments they already have to job, family and community. And, of course, they might have interest in delivery forms that add to convenience, especially if someone found a way to deliver programs at a lower price. Again, the population I am writing about primarily are adult learners, not necessarily recent high school graduates who are attending a branch campus.

The second point is that the significant market for growing enrollment lies in current nonconsumers. Demographics are working against institutions that depend on students of traditional age. Economic development interests seem to require that we find a way to engage more people in higher education, and so we have a need to understand why nonconsumers are choosing not to enroll. Although people have written on this subject, two major issues are surely perceived cost and other activities that put a claim on their time. Many branch campuses need to attract current nonconsumers, if they are going to maintain, never mind build, enrollment.

There are interesting examples of for-profit institutions, small privates, and large publics that in one way or another have developed successful online or hybrid programs to create flexibility. However, in many cases, these programs are at least as expensive to attend as traditional programs. Because many online providers are not well known in branch communities and tend to offer programs at premium prices, the branches I know of have competed effectively so far. What will happen, however, when an institution appears that can significantly underprice existing options, largely by eliminating costs from services that are not of value to some consumers and to most nonconsumers and from the elimination of heavy infrastructure costs?

The problem for branches and main campuses, alike, is to address competition for the nonconsumer, and that will be about providing the right program, at the right price, but without overshooting what students really want. Because branches come in such a variety of forms, some can thrive in this environment, whereas others will have too much of the costs of a main campus to respond effectively. That leads me to a prediction: I think that the "business model" for higher education, especially regarding adult learners, is about to change profoundly. Those branches that are thoughtful about how they add value, in comparison to a fully online, out of town provider will thrive, provided they are competitive on price, but those who believe they can compete by tweaking old practices or simply adding online to current delivery methods are going to struggle.

NABCA Conference a Success

2008-05-04T07:21:00.000-07:00

The 2008 NABCA conference was held in Columbus, Ohio, April 23-25. We at Ohio University were pleased to host the meeting. From all I heard, the program was very well received, with sessions well attended and topics that were timely. The program committee, chaired by Brenda Harms, did a great job. I was honored to serve as conference chair, and people enjoyed the venue, the opportunity to tour our Pickerington Center, and the amenities of the hotel. All of that is actually a tribute to the work of Pat Davidson, our conference manager and a member of our University Outreach staff. Pat's attention to detail and to great service, was very much appreciated.

Christine Quinn, from Winona State University, completed an exceptional year as NABCA president. Through Christine's leadership, we developed a reasonable and positive work plan, leading to real progress toward the further development of this important organization. Ken Shaw, from Florida State University, Panama City, is our new president, and there is no doubt he will keep us moving along on our agenda. Ken's campus will host next year's conference. Ken will work with Cecilia Rivers of the University of Central Florida to develop the program for the 2009 conference.

NABCA provides a wonderful opportunity for branch campus administrators to meet people who have very similar challenges and opportunities. The networking brings great contacts, exposure to new ideas, and, no doubt, more than a little therapy for people with difficult jobs.

I hope and expect that NABCA will grow and become an even stronger resource for branch campus folks. Keep an eye on the nabca.net web site for information and resources. You'll also find a link on the site for the upcoming Regional and Branch Campuses leadership conference, to be held on Longboat Key (near Sarasota), from June 22-25.

Best of luck to Ken, in his presidential year, and to Craig Johnson, from University of Arizona South, now vice president and president-elect. Onward and upward!

A More or Less Local Story

2008-02-20T06:23:00.000-08:00

In this post, I want to share my perspective on the development of branch campuses at Ohio University. It draws on a piece I wrote a few years ago for a book celebrating our bicentennial, and it illustrates how the context in which a university views its mission can impact creation and development of branches.

Our branches developed out of a long-standing commitment to serve a rural, under-educated region of Ohio. Founded in 1804, the University began outreach programs in a systematic way by creating an "extension division," in 1909. The division offered classes in scores of locations (more than 70) around rural Southeastern Ohio.

My favorite story of those days is that we actually hired three faculty members in 1914, who spent their week (Monday morning through Saturday morning) traveling by train and street car to deliver courses in a number of towns. In 1924, we added to the live courses by becoming the only public university in Ohio to offer correspondence courses. Correspondence (now called Independent Study), continues to thrive, in part because of incarcerated students, who do not have access to the Internet.

Building on this experience, we established an evening division in Portsmouth and Zanesville, Ohio, in 1939. The evening division program was intended to offer a broader range of courses, allowing students to complete two years of study. Given that there was a limited pool of funding for colleges and universities, presidents of other universities objected strongly to the perceived attempt by Ohio University to grab more of the money. After just a year, the Evening Division closed.

However, in 1946, we returned to the idea of an evening division, this time opening three centers, in Chillicothe, Portsmouth, and Zanesville. The rationale this time was to serve returning World War II veterans, by offering the first two years of education, through programs at high schools, reducing pressure on our main campus infrastructure. Our president persuaded the governor that this was a short-term solution and that the program would be phased out, when the backlog had been met. We at Ohio University date the founding of our branch campuses from this time.

By the early 1950's, enrollment fell to fewer than five hundred students. However, the communities being served made a strong pitch to keep their "branches," so with agreement from the governor, the program continued. In fact, additional branches were opened in Belmont County (near St. Clairsville), Lancaster, and Ironton. Eventually (an interesting story in itself), our Portsmouth branch became independent and developed into Shawnee State University. The other five continue to operate, as branch (regional) campuses, to this day.

By the middle-1960's, there was a clear demand for daytime programs in the branch campus communities. At about that time, Ohio Governor James Rhodes made a (famous in Ohio) speech, in which he asserted that there should be a state-supported institution of higher education within 30 miles of every Ohio citizen. In 1966, we opened our first dedicated buildings, and true campuses were launched.

(As an aside, there are now 23 university branch campuses in Ohio, affiliated with 8 universities. All were founded as two-year feeders to their main campuses, most in the mid-60's to early 70's. Most now offer at least some baccalaureate programs, and some offer limited graduate program opportunities. Combined enrollment at the Ohio University branches exceeds 7000 students.)

There is a bit more to our story. In 1985, our campuses helped fund the creation of a system of microwave towers, to allow delivery of live, fully interactive televised courses, usually from the main campus to the branches. Later we moved to other technologies, but I've always believed that our experience with correspondence and with interactive television gave us valuable knowledge about using technology to expand access in a cost effective way.

Through the years, branch campuses and our other extension/outreach/continuing education efforts sometimes were part of a single administrative unit and sometimes were not. Presently, we are not joined, except at the level of the Provost. My personal role, after supervising a combined unit for eight years or so, is with the development of distance learning programs, rather than with the branches, themselves. I mention this fact, because it may have implications for how I think about the whole outreach situation.

Writing a history of what we then called Regional Higher Education for the bicentennial book left me feeling proud of our long commitment to providing access to higher education. I felt that we had used the technology available to us to bring education to place bound individuals. Whether faculty members rode trains, served in residence on branch campuses, or used correspondence and the microwave system to reach students, it all was for the purpose of expanding access.

That leads to a question of whether branches of the type we have would be established today, with technology having evolved to new levels. Or, put more ominously, should we consider closing branches or at least reducing our investment in them? My answer is that we probably could not afford to create the type of branches we have, in the limited populations centers we serve, but the fact that we have them is an enormously valuable resource that needs to adapt to new conditions.

Not surprisingly (given that I am writing the posts) our branches fit nicely within the idealized branch category I described earier. We have 40 or so resident faculty at most campuses, offer a relatively full range of services, and have dedicated facilities. The whole operation earns and spends about $60 million per year. The branches pay an overhead to the main campus and also engage in some profit sharing with academic units.

Given the high cost of residential higher education, it is a great benefit to the communities we serve that many people can attend our commuter campuses and receive high quality instruction, benefit from a wide range of services, and enjoy a campus environment, without paying the higher tuition and living costs at a residential campus. We've seen considerable growth in full-time enrollment, and a decrease in the average age of students, suggesting that the campuses fill a need for both young and more mature students.

On the other hand, the campuses are relatively expensive to operate, with their facility costs, resident faculty, and relatively large staffs. That's why it would be difficult to establish such campuses today, as state funding declines and tuition caps are commonplace.

Somewhat coincidentally, we developed two facilities that I call outreach centers, in Pickerington and Proctorille, Ohio. Both are administered as "twigs" of branch campuses and give us access to larger population centers. Enrollment, especially at Pickerington, which is a Columbus suburb, has grown rapidly, with only modest investment in marketing. Faculty are very complimentary about the teaching environment and the staff support, and the cost of operation is quite modest. The facilities support a more limited mission than those of a full-service campus, there are no resident faculty, and staffing is limited to what is required to support faculty and students. From a financial point of view, it is a great concept.

As they move forward, I'm confident that the branch campuses will continue to develop and to meet an important mission for place bound students. However, the centers and our distance education programs will likely, in my opinion, be the source of the greatest growth and increased financial contribution to the University. To me, online or blended courses and programs reflect the next stage in our commitment to use the technology available to us to expand access, although in today's "flat world," the service region may be quite a lot larger than Southeastern Ohio.

All this leaves me wondering about the story at other universities or community colleges. What is the broad context for development of branches in various locations by different institutions? I'd be pleased to hear those stories through comments on the blog or email directly to me.

Leading Branch Campuses

2008-02-10T16:44:00.000-08:00

Within day-to-day operations, some say that a branch campus chief administrative officer (CAO) is in a role that is similar to that of a small college president. At the sort of branch that I described as an "idealized" branch, the CAO is probably overseeing faculty matters, student services, a physical plant operation, a meaningfully large budget, community relations, and some version of alumni affairs. In the communities I know best, the CAO is respected as a community leader, spending much of his or her time with business people who may well carry the title of president, as well as interacting routinely with political leaders in the community and, perhaps, at the state level.

On the other hand, a branch CAO is not considered to be the equivalent of a president by people at the main campus. Trustees, executive officers (especially including the institutions president), and faculty leadership, not to mention college deans and (probably) academic department heads would more likely view a branch CAO quite differently, if they give the CAO role much thought at all.

This leaves the CAO in a tough spot. On a day-to-day basis, working at the branch can be very satisfying. However, as soon as it becomes necessary to interact with the main campus, stress and frustration may start climbing. Many CAOs describe with pain and anger their attempts to influence deans and chairs, to gather resources or to expand programs. At some branches, the CAO may even lack meaningful authority over the schedule of classes, over the assignment of faculty, or over some budget matters that are essential for the campus to thrive. Although this is less likely to be true at the idealized branch, which has an independent budget and a local faculty, there still are plenty of sources for aggravation.

Nevertheless, if the CAO fails to appreciate the political nature of university leadership, it is unlikely that the frustrations will lead to anything very impressive. An effective CAO will recognize the political reality and work within it to accomplish important goals.

One ineffective approach I've seen several times is to become argumentative with the main campus leadership. A faculty member once told me that she had especially admired a campus CAO, because he was willing to fight for whatever faculty felt they needed. I happened to know that the particular CAO had become quite ineffective in working with the main campus. He tended to fight over every issue that came along, with the result that his own supervisor, as well as others in the leadership of the institution, simply didn't listen to him any more. His faculty may have appreciated his demonstrated "support," but his ability to deliver declined severely.

Others I've known who work with a chip on their shoulder tend to use words like "ought" and "should," frequently. I'll hear them say that someone should "demand" that a department or college cooperate on whatever program expansion is being discussed. I do understand that all of us need to vent from time to time, but when there is a consistent pattern of behavior, I can promise you that the CAO will have very little success on the main campus.

Another approach I've witnessed strikes me as completely understandable. If the CAO is treated with great respect in the community and thought of as having a very high position in the educational world, yet feels less equally respected at the main campus, then there will be a tendency to invest more and more time in the local community. By the same token, a CAO may find more pleasure in dealing with local operations than traveling to the main campus and working on relationships there--possibly with little to show for it, at least initially.

However, in any political environment, there are various stakeholders, each with their own interests. It is important to tend to things at the branch and in the local community. It is no less important, however, to work on relationships at the main campus. By definition, the branch campus is in a dependent role vis a vis the main campus. Any CAO needs cooperation on academic programs, almost for sure, and probably around faculty affairs and various administrative processes that are not directly controlled at the branch. How does one get support in that type of environment? Degrees could be earned on that subject, but for sure it is important to be visible and known, to be recognized as a serious partner who shares core values of the institution and can be trusted with its very precious curricular resources or to stay in channels and "follow the academic and administrative rules."

In a political environment, one needs to know other stakeholders well enough to understand and appreciate their concerns (interests) and to be able to offer something that they will find valuable. That is, it is almost impossible to negotiate for something that will inevitably complicate the lives of the other stakeholders, unless you also can offer something that eases some part of their own burden. In my 20-plus years in administration, that something has almost always been money.

For example, many years ago, at a different institution than the one I now serve, we wanted to bring a part-time MSW program to our campus. It happened that budgets were very tight, but courses taught at branch campuses had unique "call" numbers, and the income from courses taught on the branch came to the branch. We paid an overhead for services delivered to the main campus, but kept the rest. The branch CAO offered the MSW program head $10,000 per year, from program profits. To the MSW program, this was $10,000 that was outside of the operating budget they received from the institution. It was my first lesson that a relatively small amount of money, at least to me, was extremely valuable to a department chair or dean, because it meant being able to say yes to some faculty request that otherwise would have to be turned down.

Some branch CAOs with whom I've talked, lack control over critical parts of their budgets. For example, sometimes the budget for faculty compensation is buried in college budgets at the main campus, and main campus deans decide what will be taught and when. To me, that's a serious problem, because without some budget clout the branch CAO probably has very little to bring to the table.

The branch CAO is unlikely to control curriculum--the institution's product--so if he or she cannot be creative with the budget, there is only persuasion and the good will of main campus colleagues to rely on. I'd be very careful about taking a job like that, if I had an alternative. I will return to the subject of leadership in the future.

The Joys of Branch Administration

2007-12-31T08:00:00.000-08:00

Just as I believe that serving as a branch campus faculty member was a better fit and opportunity for me, than serving as a main campus faculty member might have been, I also believe there were aspects of branch campus administration that were satisfying in ways that my main campus colleagues are less likely to experience.

I first came into administration as an acting associate dean on the Mansfield Campus of Ohio State University. I had been on the faculty for more than ten years, and when asked to serve, I thought it would be a good opportunity to get some hands on "management" experience, to support my teaching and consulting. Circumstances at the time suggested that the appointment might last about two years, and I figured that was enough time to learn some things, then get back to my "real" career.

It could be that I'm just attracted to new roles, but I had the same experience with administration that I had when I discovered research, as an undergraduate, and teaching, as a graduate student. I found that I thoroughly enjoyed the challenges and, especially, the feeling that I was part of a group or team. To be sure, I came in as the second-ranking administrator, but I liked the fact that I had co-workers with whom I interacted frequently and closely, and in some ways, I found more immediate feedback on what we did than I typically experienced as a faculty member. For me, the character of administration--lots of balls in the air, and a faster pace--was more satisfying. Conflicts didn't cause me a lot of discomfort, and people seemed appreciative, when I could help them with their problems. Needless to say, I never went back to full-time teaching.

Much of what I described could be true of anyone moving from the faculty to administration. However, I doubt that most main campus administrators have quite the range or diversity of activities that I got into in my first appointment. On a branch campus, we tend to wear multiple hats, and what would be thought of as different departments on the main campus may be just one department on a branch. In fact, if you look back at my definition of an idealized branch campus, by its size, it probably does not have the departmentalization--for faculty or for staff--that the main campus has. (One reason I have a hard time incuding very large "branches" in my definition is that, somewhere around 3500 students, I'd guess, it becomes necessary to departmentalize functions, and I believe at that point one of the key service aspects of being a branch fades away.)

The result of how we operate is that we have a very good view of the boundaries between main campus departments, and we can see where processes break down. As a result, most of us become skilled at maneuvering through the system. For years, I've suggested that new ideas could be tested usefully on one or more of the branch campuses, before being rolled out to the whole institution, precisely because we'd be in a better position to assess and troubleshoot. Of course, it has been rare for anyone to take me up on that idea, which probably speaks to the status issue.

In some ways, a branch campus does have all of the functions that the main campus has. Usually, there is a physical plant to be developed and maintained. There are community relations, similar to those the main campus needs to manage. Programs related to student life are often at a very small scale on branches, but essentially all types of services that are provided to main campus students also are provided to branch campus students. My own positions brought a whole range of challenges and opportunities that I never could have anticipated from a traditional academic's perspective.

I've known heads of branch campuses who like to point out that leading a branch is like being president of a small college. In addition to the range of services provided, the work with faculty, and the budget and physical plant issues, the head of the campus may well be involved in fund raising and may work with a local advisory board or council that has some qualities of a board of trustees. The analogy is okay, as far as it goes, but it seems to me that it tends to exaggerate the autonomy and minimizes the enormous impact of being linked to the main campus.

To personalize things, I think the pleasure of working closely with students, as individuals, makes working on a branch campus potentially more fulfilling than working at the main campus. Serving on a branch campus, we more frequently see dramatic transformations take place in students, right before our eyes. More often than at a residential campus, those students will stay in the local community after graduation and develop into outstanding school teachers, business or professional leaders, and leaders of community-based organizations. In short, we get consistent, real life feedback on how our work affects large numbers of people.

The sheer power of bureaucracy and workloads, the complicated need to bring other departments along on whatever improvements your own department may want to make, the structural distance from the institutional leadership (as compared to access to the local decision makers for branch staff), and the distraction of the enormous range of issues faced on the main campus, all can detract from the sense of making a difference. Branch staff get frustrated with the perceived lack of responsiveness by main campus staff, but if they walked a few miles in those main campus shoes, my guess is that most would feel fortunate to work where they do. Branch folks should remember that, at least at the campuses where I worked, we effectively were outsourcing a lot of problems and frustrations.

That said, and despite whatever counter-stories main campus staff may have about how someone on a branch campus broke rules, created problems, or whatever, there is no doubt that most branch campus administrators will say they are not given the same respect in decision making that a similarly ranked person on the main campus would receive. That may be, in part, because the branch staff do tend to cut across departments and, like faculty members, often are not seen as part of the core team, working at the main campus. I think it stems mostly from the different perspectives held by branch and main campus staff, but I also think there is an aspect of main campus staff viewing the branch as a colony.

I have very much enjoyed getting back to a large campus, in my work of the last nine years. My own stereotypes of main campus staff have been challenged. I've found that most staff work hard and are reasonable to deal with, especially if one takes the time to discuss issues early on. They do make assumptions sometimes about students and staff at the branches, which can be hurtful in various ways, and they don't easily delegate significant decision making authority to the branch folks. The real issue, however, is much more one of impressions and understanding, than it is of any bad intention.

If you have an interest in thinking about these types of comparisons, I recommend that you take a look at a book, The Innovator's Dilemma, by Clayton M. Christenson. It affected my own ideas about how to develop a successful, but relatively small entrepreneurial unit, within a large university, more than anything else I've come across.

The Irony of Branch Campus LIfe

2007-12-26T10:15:00.000-08:00

For the past nine years, my office has been on the main campus of our University. Before that, however, I spent more than 22 years as a faculty member and administrator on branch campuses of Ohio State University and Ohio University. I've been thinking about the fact that I had barely heard of anything called a branch campus, before I interviewed for what became my first position. I find some irony in the fact that much of my career has been tied to work in settings that are sometimes perceived to be suspect and of lower status than work at a "main" campus, yet my experience tells me that the impact of branch campuses on students and communities is often very special.

Keeping in mind that I've served at research universities, I'd be interested in hearing whether colleagues at other institutions share my perspective. I'll offer my personal take, on how my experience as a faculty member served me well, and then some observations about other people, who seemed to have a less positive experience.

For me, when I look back over my career, I recognize that, even as a student, I had relatively broad, eclectic interests. I became involved in laboratory research in cognitive psychology, as an undergraduate, and went to graduate school mostly so I could continue doing that sort of work. Then, a few years later, when I had my first real opportunity to teach, I fell in love with teaching, as well. Jobs were hard to find, when I came out of school, so I was grateful just to be employed, as an assistant professor at Ohio State Mansfield.

It was an excellent opportunity for me, given my interests at the time. At Ohio State, faculty members are appointed through the academic unit on the main campus, and the primary promotion and tenure vote is taken there. I perceived that as a fine thing, and I've taken pride in the fact that I was a member of such a distinguished department.

I knew that my teaching load would be higher than on the main campus and that I would teach more introductory courses, with more preparations. I expected--and I was right--that the research culture of the institution would help me maintain my work in that area. By the time I came into administration, nearly 11 years later, I had tenure and a very decent publication record.

Over time, however, my professional interests changed, dramatically. Mostly because of the type of courses I taught and the interests of students who took them, I shifted my attention from relatively esoteric laboratory research in short-term memory toward work in social and organizational behavior. Obviously, I have no way of knowing how I might have developed, had I been on the main campus, but given my inclinations and personality, I think it was great good fortune that I wound up in Mansfield.

Working on a branch campus allowed me to follow my own road. When I decided to change my research and teaching areas, it was a decision I could make, independently. (I did, however, stick with the original research area, until I felt confident about tenure.) Not only did I shift my teaching and research in new directions, but I also began to do some consulting and quite a few workshops and seminars for area businesses and professional organizations, which in turn led to involvement with various community groups. Somehow, I had stumbled on what I want to suggest is at least one route to enjoying service as a faculty member on a branch campus: relatively broad interests, genuine enjoyment of teaching, a sincere desire to stay alive as a scholar, and community involvement that was consistent with my academic interests. In short, my work and the perceived role of the campus came into alignment.

The idea of being a "big fish in a small pond" has always come to mind for me. I was, I believe, a successful branch campus faculty member. Yes, it was in a small pond, but it was satisfying in many ways. The colleagues I saw struggle in that environment generally fell into one of two categories. The first, and most obvious, were a few people for whom a branch campus was just a bad fit. In most cases they were individuals who felt that life had given them a bad shake, and instead of adjusting to the environment, they carried a negative attitude about the whole experience. Some were simply too focused on research to accept the reality of our teaching loads and service obligations. In some cases, they became poor teachers, appearing to take out their frustrations on students. Mostly, they just seemed to me to be missing out on the pleasures of branch campus teaching and the opportunity to enjoy conversations with colleagues from other disciplines.

The other group that struggled included good to excellent teachers, who simply couldn't, or didn't, produce the scholarship required to earn tenure. That was a much bigger issue at Ohio State than at Ohio University, in my opinion. In the Ohio State model, branch faculty generally are not held to the main campus standard for quantity of research, but there is still an expectation of significant work, published in major journals.

At Ohio University, tenure is on the branch campus. Teaching loads are moderately higher than at the Ohio State campuses, and the perspective on mission is driven by the branch campus perspective, more so than that of the main campus departments. The line I used was that we want our faculty to stay professionally alive and positively engaged in their disciplines. Thus, although we expect probationary faculty to produce and disseminate works of scholarship, we "count" presentations and publications in less highly ranked journals, research tied to pedagogy, or technical reports, as well as other activities that meet our expectations.

In my opinion, the Ohio University approach is better aligned with what I take to be the mission of branch campuses, but it brings its own problems, especially to the extent that branch campus faculty are not directly tied to their academic departments. In another bit of irony, it can be a bigger challenge at Ohio University to get main campus support to offer new programs, than it is at Ohio State, where the departments are typically more familiar with the abilities of their branch faculty.

For me, personally, I recognize that my life and career would have unfolded quite differently, if I had landed an appointment at a more traditional campus. I accept that my publication record was that of a journeyman scholar, not a major innovator, and that my status (not to mention my salary) was lower, as a result. But the closeness with students, the opportunity to follow my own, sometimes expanding interests, and even the physical distance from the main campus, were a blessing. An unexpected pleasure for me was the inherently interdisciplinary character of the branches where I worked, as well as the community involvement that would have been a much lower priority if I were at the main campus. I feel fortunate to have had the opportunity to work at both Ohio State and Ohio University, with their different mission perspectives and, therefore, different approaches to expectations of faculty.

We know that the key to good work performance, high job satisfaction, and low turnover, is having a strong match between the person and the job requirements. Whether through good luck, the hand of God, or my own tendencies to adjust to the pond I was in, I believe I was well placed on branch campuses. I also believe that branches serve an important function that offers a sense of reward and of making a meaningful difference that belies whatever may be lacking in our usual measures of status at universities. Therein lies the personal irony: I never directed a doctoral dissertation, and the "ponds" in which I swam were small in some ways. Yet, working at branch campuses was one of the best breaks I ever got.

Branch Campuses as Colonies of the Main Campus

2007-08-22T13:35:00.000-07:00

I am definitely not a professional historian. However, I enjoy reading in certain areas of history, and I suspect that some insights into main campus-branch campus relations could be gained by considering the relationship between an established nation and colonies it attempts to control at a distance. My own reading has included some coverage of the relationship between England, in the 18th century, and the American colonies, so my basic question is whether that situation has similarities to the relationship between a university and its branch campuses. Maybe someone more knowledgeable in this area can consider whether or not the analogy has value.

For example, branches don't just magically appear. Rather, they are created to meet some main campus need. The need might be to accommodate more students than the main campus can handle, to generate additional revenue from some more lucrative market, or to respond to some pressure from state-level policy makers. A branch campus might even be started simply to block another institution from expansion. The key point is that a branch will only be established, if there is some belief in its value on the main campus, at least at the leadership level.

(Indeed, I found a quote, which I can no longer locate, from Novice Fawcett, President of Ohio State University, when it first opened its branch campuses. President Fawcett said that he started the branches, in part, to block Ohio University from taking over the entire state!)

The result may be that main campus faculty and staff believe they hold a proprietary interest in the branch campuses, especially from an academic and financial point of view. Most likely, main campus people will feel that the branch exists only for whatever limited purpose was initially intended. Thus, the main campus faculty has a right to oversee who teaches what on the branches, to limit programing, to direct student services, and to charge branches for services, for use of "its" courses, and so on.

I'm quite sure that a lot of branch campus personnel feel like unappreciated colonists. Hal Dengerink, Chancellor of Washington State University Vancouver, says that branch campus faculty and staff need to understand that they aren't the "main thing," from the point of view of institutional leaders, and that fact has a significant impact on effective institutional political strategy. Too much boat rocking may well produce unpleasant results for the branches, given that the branches were originally created to help solve a main campus problem, not to create new ones.

I'd also expect the perspective of branch campus "colonists" to change over time. Early employees on a new branch campus often describe a sense of being pioneers, off in the academic wilderness, depending on one another for support, and engaged in holy work to create new access to higher education. Assuming enrollment grows and staffing increases, expansion of programs will seem logical to students, faculty and staff, and community leaders. It will not seem so logical to people at the main campus, who will tend to maintain perceptions (stereotypes) about the branches, as originally created.

Still another issue may relate to predictable conflicts over scarce resources. If money is tight, one can predict that the main campus faculty and staff will be concerned about any real or perceived drain of "their" resources. If main campus people perceive competition for students or dollars, they will almost certainly move to restrain branch campus growth. (I have lots of war stories on that score!)

A colleague at the University of South Florida Sarasota-Manatee Campus, Peter French, has correctly observed that, if there is turmoil on the main campus, it will affect the branches, even if there is no mean spirited intent. Political battles can lead combatants either to court branch campus support, to attempt to deny the branch campuses participation in important decisions, or to use the branches as examples of the institution's "problems."

What happens if a branch campus grows to the point that it wants independence? I have no personal experience with a campus going its own way, so I don't know what struggles occurred, if any. There are examples around the country of one-time branches that became free standing institutions (e.g., Coastal Carolina University was once a branch of the University of South Carolina), as well as examples of relatively typical branches that gained a measure of self-determination (perhaps housing a school or college of the university, or pursuing separate accreditation and reporting lines to the president or trustees).

It isn't surprising that expectations held on branch campuses change over time. Especially if a branch was established a generation or more ago, that campus is by now the center of the academic world for its faculty, staff and students. Local program needs or the opportunity for personal professional growth are important. Limitations that seem unnecessary or even disrespectful will produce resentment in branch campus faculty and staff. Over time, the local perception of mission is likely to grow somewhat distant from the original main campus intention, and the branch campus folks may bristle at the "uninformed" or biased perceptions at the main campus. I've actually heard, on more than one occasion, a main campus faculty member or administrator refer to the branch campuses as "running amuck," when I didn't see anything happening except an effort to expand opportunities for place bound students.

Then, again, it is true, in my experience, that branch campus faculty and staff underestimate their dependence on the support of the main campus, including the value of its "brand." In their frustration, they will sometimes push the boundaries, break the rules, or (much like an adolescent challenging parental authority) try to sneak a course, or even an entire academic program, past the main campus authorities. That may look like running amuck to someone on the main campus and reinforce their biases. It might look more like the Boston Tea Party on the branch! (By the way, I do understand that there are very serious issues that occur with colonization that are quite different than the relatively narrow aspects I am wondering about.)

What can be done to allow for the natural maturation of branch campuses, without somehow losing the essence of what the main campus feels the institution is about? I suppose that is what many of us try to determine every day. I wonder if there are lessons from colonialism that could inform our thinking or, to be more scholarly, could lead to predictions about main campus-branch campus dynamics and evolution? At least in Ohio, most branches would not survive without ties to the trunk of the main campus, and they could not come close to providing the level of services they need for the money they have available. Are there models of colonies that have worked relatively well over time, or that relieved tensions and supported positive relationships? I invite your thoughts on this or other analogies and metaphors about branch campus life.

Why branches matter

2007-08-11T17:53:00.000-07:00

In previous posts, I described what I take to be the typical (idealized) branch campus and suggested how future research might explore the implications of variation from what is typical. The case for branch campuses, however, is made on both rational and emotional grounds. These campuses matter, and far too many people, both on main campuses and branch campuses, fail to understand adequately why many branches thrive and how they make a difference. As a result, insittutions may not fully exploit the strategic potential of branches.

Some of the reasons branches matter are obvious. They offer access to higher education, usually with flexible scheduling and relatively small classes. Most branch campus instructors are highly committed to teaching, ahead of whatever scholarly interests they may maintain. Staff tend to wear multiple hats and to work in close physical proximity to each other, with the result that administrative departments do not have the sense of separateness that one finds in more highly departmentalized situations--students are less likely to be passed from one office to another.

Learning support may not always be what we'd like it to be on the branches, but compared to many main campuses, at least at large research universities, students perceive a high level of caring. Faculty members tend to be available to students and willing to discuss academic concerns. In part because of the inherently interdisciplinary character of branch campuses, faculty members may be more likely to discuss concerns about students with each other and to recognize problems in time to support a student's success. (As always, my perspective is tied to my experience with branches of research universities. The distinctions may be less apparent at community colleges or at teaching-focused universities.)

The cost of attending a branch campus may be considerably less than attending a residential campus. In Ohio, tuition on university branch campuses is typically lower than on the main campus, but this isn't true in many states or at all types of branches. However, even for traditionally aged students, families tend not to consider the cost of providing room and board at home in the overall cost of attending college. Students may accumulate less in loans and can actually work their way through school, a near impossibility at a residential main campus.

All of this represents generalizations that are commonly true, but not universal. If you believe as strongly as I do in the potential of branch campuses to change lives, then you'll also be disappointed, when you encounter a cynical or unengaged faculty or staff member, or an administrator who doesn't seem to embrace the mission. Moreover, I've found the main campus commitment to undergraduate education at Ohio University to be sincere and strong. I can argue that branch campus students do not receive a lesser educational experience than main campus students, but not that they receive a superior experience.

The real branch campus drama, in my opinion, lies in the personal stories told by their students. Sure, some students attend a branch because they lack the motivation to do anything else. However, I've seen audiences reduced to tears by students telling stories about how his/her life was turned around because of access to the education provided by the local branch campus. These powerful stories can serve an institution's leadership well, if they are used to illustrate how the institution is engaged with employers and communities, not to mention achieving the goals of trustees and state-level policy makers.

Yet, there are other reasons that branch campuses are valuable to institutions. For example, branches may lie in different legislative or congressional districts than the main campus, bringing political advantages that would not otherwise be so apparent. At Ohio University, we found that our branch campuses have access to donors who are not necessarily alumni and would never donate to the main campus, so there are opportunities for gifts that are unlikely to be obtained by the main campus. Broadly speaking, the community engagement and local access provided by branches build support for the institution that can be helpful and demonstrate the value of the broader institution.

Finally, for those who are familiar with the book Good to Great by Jim Collins, an important distinction is made between foxes and hedgehogs. Foxes look great and run around doing lots of different things. Hedgehogs, which may be less attractive, do only one thing, but do it exceptionally well. Branches tend to be hedgehogs, at least as compared to main campuses. That is, they may lack the status of the main campus, but, at their best, they are very focused on a mission of access and service. The result is that many branches get after their local markets with clarity of purpose. Main campus leaders could benefit from considering how and why their branches succeed or fail.

Keeping human and financial resources focused often produces stronger financial results, as well, which may serve broader purposes of the institution. In fact, I'd argue that part of determining whether a branch campus is needed or not should be demonstrating that it can fully cover its costs and help support institutional priorities. In my opinion, it is fundamental that demonstrating need implies demonstrating enrollment and net revenue that make the good investment obvious.

Branch campuses, then, serve a variety of purposes for institutions, including the noble commitments we all celebrate. The purposes served may not be a high priority to everyone on the faculty or in the administration, but the leadership definitely ought to get it. Well placed and supported branch campuses can become one of the most valuable assets of a higher education institution.

An Agenda for Branch Campus Research

2007-07-16T09:02:00.000-07:00

Offering almost any generalization about branch campuses is difficult, because there is precious little research to support one's conclusions. Part of the problem is that we have no national-level data base on branches. In fact, the interested individual will find very little in the way of descriptive information that can be used to compare one institution's branches to another. The situation probably is less difficult within a given state, since policy makers will almost certainly have restricted the options pursued by various colleges or universities, but even within a state there are significant variations in, say, expectations of faculty or budget oversight.

The core problem is that branches developed "under the radar," and to meet some more or less local need. An urban institution may have opened a suburban branch, to make attendance more convenient; a rural institution may have opened an inner-city branch to offer graduate programs to adult learners; a university may have opened a branch on a community college campus to facilitate degree completion. The point is that, if you go looking for best practices to help you establish your first branch campus, you will be sorely disappointed.

Thus, this post is one of many calls for more research on branch campuses. However, I would like to propose something of a research agenda, at least from a macro perspective. To that end, in my previous post, I proposed a description of what I'd like to call an idealized branch campus. (Not ideal, from the perspective of people working on branches, but characteristic, in the sense of reflecting my own guess about what is most common.)

I suggested that the idealized campus is a permanent physical location, with at least some complete or nearly complete academic programs. There are resident faculty members, and services are available on site that are necessary to support faculty and students. There is a budget for this location, with day-to-day spending decisions made locally. On the other hand, academic control is located primarily at the main campus, which has to approve programs. Enrollment, typically, ranges from 700-3500 headcount.

Although I'd be happy to collaborate with other individuals who are willing to do most of the grunt work to collect and analyze data, I have no plans to conduct empirical research, myself. If I were to begin research, however, here is what I would do:

1. The first step would be to identify branches that fit my idealized model. I would distinguish between community college and university branches, but I'd collect data on both. My description is brief enough that finding campuses that fit shouldn't be too difficult, but it is important that they come from different states. I wouldn't worry about other aspects of mission or operations just yet, because I want the first cut to capture campuses that vary quite a lot on other dimensions.

2. Having identified my study group, I would construct a survey to obtain descriptive information about how these campuses operate. What types of programs are provided? What is the relationship of branch campus faculty to main campus departments? Where are decisions made about hiring and/or tenuring faculty? What is the title and authority of the branch campus's chief administrator? To whom does that administrator report? What services are provided? How is the budget obtained, and what is managed locally vs. at the main campus? All of these items could be teased out to create checklists or the like. The point is to expand the description of the idealized branch, including typical variations within the model.

3. It may reflect my own discipline, but I would probably try to do some more qualitative study on these campuses, seeking information about faculty and administrative perceptions toward the main campus, toward the formal mission, and toward worklife and career development issues.

The goal of this approach is to restrict the range of branch campuses being studied, in order to get a handle on typical variation within the study set. Having accomplished the goal, research can proceed in various directions. For example, one could study the idealized campuses more deeply, drilling into, say, the role and relationships of faculty members, or digging into mission or geographic differences to determine what effects they may have.

The obvious alternative is to use the idealized branches as a comparison group and to begin studying campuses that do not fit the description. Suppose everything is true of a set of branches, except that there are no full-time resident faculty. What follows? Can we get at least a sense of the value or the cost of maintaining a resident faculty? In the end, we might have a decent description, at least, of major types of branches, which future scholars could use to ask questions that can be meaningfully examined.

Through this post, I am trying more than anything to make suggestions about how research on branch campuses might be approached in a more programmatic way than seems possible today. If we create a more narrow, idealized picture of a typical or common branch, we might at least get something going. Comments or reactions to my post, including other ideas on how research might proceed, are welcome.

Characteristics of a branch campus

2007-07-11T07:56:00.000-07:00

So, what are the defining characteristics of a branch campus? That's not an easy question to answer, because there is no agreed upon definition. I suppose there is an implication that there must be some "main" campus, hub, or mother ship, in order for a branch to exist. Clearly, there is an implication that the branch is somehow in a dependent relationship to the central campus, at least around curriculum matters. Conversely, institutions in a true system, such as those in North Carolina or California are not "branches," because they do have separate curricula and some independent governance processes, although such institutions can and do develop branches of their own.

Jim Fonseca, who is dean of Ohio University's Zanesville Campus, uncovered two formal definitions of branch campuses. According to the Commission on Institutions of Higher Education (CIHE), a branch campus is geographically removed from the main campus, offers 50% or more of an academic program leading to a degree, certificate or other recognized credential, is permanent in nature, has its own faculty and administration, and has its own budgetary and hiring authority. The U. S. National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) defines a branch as a "campus or site of an educational institution that is not temporary, is located in a community beyond a reasonable commuting distance from its parent institution, and offers organized programs of study, not just courses."

I think these definitions are good starting points. Offering a handful of courses in a shopping mall, at a high school, or in a place of business, does not seem to create a branch. I'd call that a site. However, I'd also make a distinction between what I'd call a branch campus and an outreach center. The problem, as you'll discover quickly if you attend NABCA or RBCA meetings, is that there are significant exceptions to any defining principle you'd care to express. Moreover, institutions do not consistently report statistics, or even addresses, for branch campuses and centers to national data bases.

Given that I am doing the writing here, let me share my own preferred descriptions of a branch campus and an outreach center. Think of these as idealized or prototypical descriptions, consistent with the CIHE or IPEDS definitions, but understand that individual entities will fit the description more or less well.

A branch campus is established by an existing institution, in order to make higher education more readily accessible to people where they live and work. It has a permanent facility, usually free standing. There is a local administration, providing a reasonably wide range of student services and support programs, although not the range one would see at the main campus. This idealized branch campus has a resident faculty, but curriculum control and the establishment of minimum faculty credentials come primarily from the main campus. I agree with CIHE and IPEDS that there must be geographic separation between the branch and main campuses, but I know the distance can range from just a few miles to hundreds of miles. Distance from the main campus doesn't seem to tell us much. I'd focus more on the administrative distinctions and decision making authority. In the end, a branch is a branch because it lacks autonomy on curriculum and faculty matters.

What I call an outreach center looks a lot like a branch campus. The difference, to me, is that there probably are no resident faculty members and the programs and services are more limited. Personally, I'm not keen on referring to a location as a branch, if it is offering exactly one program (say, running a law school), and I'd bet that such places don't think of themselves as a branch, especially if they provide the only location for the program. I also struggle with calling a location that has no resident faculty a "campus." That probably reflects my own experience and my bias as a former branch campus faculty member. On the other hand, if there are resident faculty, I have no problem referring to a university location as a branch, if it happens to be located on, say, a community college campus, with or without a separate building.

If you accept my idealized concept of centers and campuses, you will find that many, perhaps most, institutions do not fit perfectly. The reality is that branches developed to meet particular needs of institutions or even state-level policy makers. No one regulated these developments, at least in a serious way, and no one was writing about the phenomenon, despite the remarkable expansion across the country and around the world. As Jim Fonseca says, branch campuses developed under the radar of people who write about higher education. Yet, I'd estimate that well over 1,000,000 students attend branch campuses and outreach centers each year.

There are still other "definitional" matters to be considered. One of my own favorite topics is the emergence of twigs. Twigs are branches of branches. In most cases, I think a twig would tend to fit my notion of a center, rather than a campus, but the point is that they were created and are administered via the branch campus, rather than the main campus. As always, I have no data, but my strong impression is that twigs are expanding rapidly in number. I like the idea a lot. A twig is relatively low in overhead costs, but allows that blend of high touch to go with the use of technology to support students and expand access.

We have two such twigs at Ohio University. One is in Pickerington, Ohio, and is an extension of our Lancaster Campus. One is in Proctorville, administered by our Southern Campus. In both cases we have a number of classrooms, including computer labs and interactive television classrooms. There are no resident faculty, but we own the buildings and have a modest support staff that is very dedicated to assuring that students and faculty members have a good experience. Pickerington, in its present form, is the older of the two, and brings our relatively rural institution into the Columbus metropolitan area, getting us close to a very large urban market. It has grown rapidly and been a great financial success.

I also want to mention some of the typical issues that emerge with branch campuses. As a psychology professor, I could suggest a defnition of "branchness" that is based on the psychological characteristics of the people who work there. For example, nearly every branchperson I've met has something of a chip on his or her shoulder. Branch folks feel unappreciated and undervalued by the main campus. They also feel as if the main campus unreasonably, unfairly, and probably foolishly limits their development. In effect, people on branch campuses tend to feel suspended in a perpetual state of adolescence, blocked from maturing into fully adult institutions. Imagine how frustrated staff working at a twig could feel!

I spent 23 years working on branch campuses, so I often share these frustrations. On the other hand, for the past eight-plus years, I've been on the main campus, watching over five branches. From a main campus point of view, branches were created by the main campus to accomplish some main campus purpose. The purpose may have been to generate revenue, to respond to some political pressure, to block some other institution's expansion, or even honestly to expand access and opportunity. But the core values of the institution developed, historically, at that main campus. Thus, academic departments have real concerns about standards or quality, as perceived by them. Budget and administrative support issues can further complicate the relationship. Not having direct oversight of the branches leads to worry about what is happening "out there." The natural, first response of main campus academic and adminstrative units is to keep the branches on a short leash, lest they "run amok." (I've actually heard people say those words: "We need to keep the campuses from running amok.")

For their part, the branch campus faculty and staff tend to feel that they should be entitled to serve their communities and students. They often feel that main campus people do not respect the professional judgment of branch campus faculty and staff and unfairly limt them. Hence, a significant issue to consider: To what extent does the branch campus have the obligation, right, and authority to meet the needs of its own community, if those needs conflict with the perceived mission and values of the main campus that created the branch?

Given these feelings, it is easy to understand why many branch campus folks object to the term "main" campus. It seems to affirm the priority and authority, against which the branch campus strains. Thus, we get terms like "mother ship," which is cute enough, I suppose. Personally, I actually prefer the term "main." To me, the dangerous ground for the branch campus is where its faculty and staff construct a version of reality that feels good, but fails to recognize the political reality of their existance. Branch campuses succeed to the extent that they play the political game well. Getting to "yes" requires never forgetting who is on the other side of the table and how they view the world.

As a sidebar here, I want to mention that, in Ohio and a few other states, a lot of people also object to the term "branch." In particular, the main-branch distinction seems hurtful. Presidents often make a point of saying that they lead one institution, geographically dispersed. I appreciate the feelings and sensibilities involved, although I've never been personally bothered by the terms. Increasingly, I use the term "branch," only because it is the most readily recognized term around the country.

A couple more thoughts on what makes a prototypical branch: I think size and programs matter. My own observation is that an entity with a headcount of 700 or less has a hard time maintaining the number of faculty and range of courses and services that define a prototypical branch. On the other end of the spectrum, as a campus grows beyond, maybe, 3500 heads, it becomes necessary to subdivide faculty and departmentalize staff that starts moving away from the close colleagiality and easy communication of that prototypical branch. I don't expect campuses with fewer than 700 students or more than 3500 to say, "I guess we aren't a branch, after all." I'm just trying to get to an idealized notion, from which we can think about variations.

Regarding programs, the question for me is the extent to which a campus has programs that are not available at the main campus. The prototypical branch, I think, offers a selected range of main campus programs, or partial programs, that meet its specific market need. Sometimes, however, there is a need that cannot be met by an existing main campus program. We offer technical associate degrrees at some of our campuses, for example, because there is no community or technical college to do so. With one exception, those degree programs are not available at the main campus. We also have one baccalaureate degree, the Bachelor's of Technical and Applied Studies, that is not offered at the main campus.

These programs take us a bit away from the prototype. At some institutions, however, entire schools or colleges are located at a branch, along with other, more typically branch-type programs. Thinking of all this as a continuum, at some point we wouldn't have branches, but a true multi-campus system. I'm not sure where that point lies, but not surprisingly, I'd tend to emphasize how folks at the no-longer-so main campus think about it, how the governance processes work, and whether the less-branch-like people view themselves as independent or an extension of a main campus.

Finally, I think I should acknowledge one more way of thinking about "branchness." Jim Fonseca is a geographer, and he tends to believe that everything comes back to geography. (I tolerate his point of view, but realize that in truth it all comes back to psychology.) It is interesting to think about geographic effects on the creation of branches. I mentioned how we worked to access the Columbus, Ohio, metropolitan area. Look around the country, and I think you will see that urban institutions tend to create branches in the suburbs, to facilitate access, whereas rural instiutions move toward urban areas, to access the larger population. Other geographic considerations could come into play, including employment, shopping, and transportation patterns.

This could go on and on. I hope my idea of the idealized branch makes some sense, and that people may want to comment or ask questions about the implications of variation. It is not my intention to exlcude anyone from the branch tent, who wishes to belong. I merely want to get to some core notion that can help organize thinking and discussion. My next post will offer a suggestion about how researchers might use the idealized branch to shape the design of studies that can help us understand what is developing out there, under the radar.

To summarize, then, my idealized branch is a permanent physical location, with at least some complete, or nearly complete academic programs. There are some resident faculty members, and services are available on site that are necessary to support faculty and students. There is a budget for this location, and day-t0-day spending decisions are made locally. Fundamental academic control, however, is at the main campus, which has to approve any expansion of programs. Enrollment typically is between 700 and 3500 students. Faculty know each other and their students, and staff typically wear more than one hat. Administrative offices are likely to be located in close proximity to each other, so that, at least from a student perspective, office boundaries are blurred.

I welcome comments.

2007-07-09T12:51:00.000-07:00

This new blog is intended to provide an opportunity for the thousands of administrators working at branch campuses of colleges and universities to share their thoughts, questions and new ideas. There are more than 2000 branch campuses in the United States and around the world, yet very little literature addressing our issues. It is time that we have a forum to support our work.

I came to this idea as a result of my participation over the years with two groups of administrators, dedicated to supporting the development of branch campuses. The first is the National Association of Branch Campus Administrators (NABCA). NABCA is about ten years old, and I invite you to visit our website at http://www.nabca.net/. NABCA hosts an annual conference, in April, with attendance on the order of 125 individuals. The other group, now more than 35 years old, hosts a conference called the Regional and Branch Campus Administrators Conference (RBCA). It occurs in June, with a focus on leadership issues at branch campuses. Attendance is smaller (65 this year), providing extensive opportunities to network. You can reach the RBCA website by a link on the NABCA site.

By way of personal introduction, I have been associated with branch campuses for more than 30 years, as a faculty member and administrator. I am a psychology professor, by education, with an interest in organizational behavior, so I have spent a lot of time thinking about our particular concerns and discussing them with colleagues. My intention is to post some thoughts on various topics and to invite any relevant (civil) comments others may wish to share. Over time, I hope to address a variety of issues, mostly expressing my own views. Others are welcome to participate.