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.
Monday, June 13, 2011
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Engaged Partnership
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 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.
Monday, March 14, 2011
Branch Campus Opportunities
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!
Monday, October 18, 2010
Branch Campus Libraries
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!
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!
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Coaching for New Branch Campus Administrators
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!
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!
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Transitions
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Rate of Change and Predicting Which Institutions Will Thrive in the Future
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!
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)