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!
Monday, April 27, 2009
Friday, March 27, 2009
Branch Campus Life, Volume 2
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.
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.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Engagement of Branch Campuses and Communities
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.
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.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Thoughts after the RBCA Conference
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!
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!
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Bringing in the Nonconsumers
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!
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!
Monday, May 26, 2008
Disruption in Higher Education
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.
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.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
NABCA Conference a Success
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!
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)