“Commissioning” an Academic Reformation Shift Happens!!! William H. Graves Senior Vice President, Academic Strategy Professor Emeritus, UNC-Chapel Hill
Navigating Your Interests • Each “hot” menu item at the left links to a slide of that title. • Some slides have embedded hot links to slides not on the menu, but the menu is always present to link back to any titled “menu” slide. So create your agenda. • For example, a sample agenda might be: • Pressure to Reform • Perceived Challenge • Revenue / Cost Pressures • Performance Obligations • Requires IT – and More • Culture of Performance • Performance Improvement • Performance Barriers • $64,000 Question
Pressure to Reform Pressure to Reform • Jan. 2005: Performance taxonomy and pressures articulated in Graves’ SunGard Higher Education white paper and its abridged publication in the Nov./Dec. EDUCAUSE Review • Mar. 2005: Final Report of the National Commission on Accountability in Higher Education (SHEEO)* • “Improved accountability for better results is imperative, but how to improve accountability in higher education is not so obvious.” • Say what? • Sep. 2005: Secretary of Education creates (national) Commission on the Future of Higher Education** • What access to what programs with what outcomes at what price to students, their families, and the public coffers? • Sep. 2006: Final report cites the role of IT without elaboration. • “To meet the challenges of the 21st century, higher education must change from a system primarily based on reputation to one based on performance.” • How many make it into any top-10 prestige ranking? • The Commission is looking for 3-4 star quality ratings earned by measurably improving and accounting for performance.
Sourcing as Reform Sourcing as Reform 2000s In The World Is Flat,** Thomas Friedman described eight IT-enabled forces that are driving individual entrepreneurship and more intimate (inter-dependent) business relationships to “flatten” the world to the advantage of customers and employees (students and faculty members). 1990s In Unleashing the Killer App,* Larry Downes and Chunka Mui argued compellingly that the Internet reduces the friction in externally sourcing products and services to create more nimble and competitive customer-first (student-centric) business models. 1930s Economics Nobel Laureate Ronald Coase noted that organizations were getting large and bureaucratic due not just to economies of scale, but also to the friction in externally sourcing products and services. Bureaucracy was becoming a barrier to customer intimacy (student centricity) and nimbleness.
Sourcing Today* Sourcing Today • Eight “Globalization 3.0” (post-web) IT-powered forces are driving innovative sourcing collaborations among organizations to improve performance and competitiveness – productivity. 1. Outsourcing 2. Insourcing 3. Open sourcing 4. Offshoring 5. Supply chaining 6. In-forming 7. Work flowing 8. Steroiding – IT “doping” • New external sourcing models can contribute to the redesign of academic and service processes for the purpose of measurably improving and accounting for learning and service outcomes, service flexibility, per-student cost structures, net tuition, and institutional nimbleness. • Nonprofit higher ed must proactively “flatten” its academic and administrative service models or risk being flattened by policy makers and competitors. * Thomas L. Friedman, The World Is Flat (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2005, 2006)
Perceived Challenge Perceived Challenge • Catch-22 Leadership Vise of Opposing Pressures • High • Performance • Headaches • Most institutions know that a high-performing IT organization is necessary to competitiveness – necessary in order to meet the expectations and needs of all constituencies and to support improvements in financial and student service processes. • Most institutions fail to recognize that a high-performing IT organization is notsufficient for achieving long-term systemic, measurable performance improvement (including improved learning at stabilized or reduced per-enrollment expense). Revenue / Cost Pressures Performance Obligations
Revenue / Cost Pressures Revenue / Cost Pressures • Revenue sources are changing. • Shrinking percentage of public funding spent on higher ed • Shrinking percentage of higher ed revenues from public funds • Tuition inelasticity • Increasing reliance on endowments, grants, contracts, & market-driven program revenues • Costs & competition are increasing. • More & larger need-based grants – greater costs • Merit-based tuition discounting – greater costs • Catch 22!! Responding to these pressures can degrade institutional performance. • By capping enrollments!! • By increasing tuition!!
“Although most state budgets for 2006 have improved, the long-term prognosis for state finances is poor, according to an analysis by the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS). The analysis projects state spending and revenues for eight years, from 2005 to 2013, and concludes that all states face potential budget deficits that will serve to limit the funding of higher education.” … National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education
“In 2005, state and local support per student was at its 25-year low, down from the 25-year high that occurred just four years earlier. Support per student decreased dramatically from 2001 to 2004, when enrollment and inflation grew by 11.9 percent and 10.5 percent, but state and local support was essentially flat. In 2005 state and local support resumed growth, but the national increase of 3.6 percent was exceeded by the combination of enrollment and inflation increases.”
Performance Obligations Stabilize /Reduce Per-Student Costs Increase Academic Productivity Stabilize / Reduce Net Tuition Rates Performance Obligations Learning Accountability Program Accountability Expense Accountability Affordability of Access Capacity for Access Convenience of Access
Performance Obligation Measure and openly report learning outcomes in ways that permit comparisons among peer institutions. Performance Pressures Many campuses need to improve retention and graduation rates. Most do not measure student learning and benchmark the results with peer campuses, even in the high-enrollment courses taught in common at most campuses. Policy makers want learning assessed via independent instruments, such as the Collegiate Learning Assessment. Performance Indicators Peer average rate vs. actual rate for key indicators such as retention, persistence, and graduation Peer comparisons in the National Survey of Student Engagement, or the Community College Survey of Student Engagement Peer benchmarking via the Collegiate Learning Assessment, MAPP, or other independent assessments of college-prep courses, college-level basic fluency and critical thinking skills, and some of the highest-enrollment introductory-level disciplinary & professional courses Learning Accountability
Performance Obligation Respond rapidly to economic development and workforce needs with appropriate degree and certificate programs. Performance Pressures Nonprofit higher education is not offering degree programs at the capacity required to meet local, state, and national needs for school teachers, health-care professionals, engineers, scientists, mathematicians, IT professionals, and other immediate and future workforce personnel. Even public nonprofit higher education is failing the free-market test in which supply and demand tend toward equilibrium. Performance Indicators Percentage of annual student FTE increase directly attributable to programs created or redesigned to meet identified economic development or workforce needs – for teachers, nurses, biotech workers, etc. Percentage of annual increase in non-credit enrollments directly attributable to programs created or redesigned to meet identified economic development or workforce needs Percentage of all degrees awarded that are directly attributable to programs created or redesigned to meet identified economic development or workforce needs Program Accountability
Performance Obligation Reduce or stabilize per-student operating costs (to increase institutional productivity). Performance Pressures Per-student operating expenses have been increasing for years at an unsustainable average annual rate in the 4%-5% range. While productivity has risen for years in almost all sectors of the economy, higher education’s productivity has decreased. Performance Indicators Per-enrollment direct instructional expenses Average ratio of enrollments to instructional personnel FTEs for college-prep and college-level basic fluency courses and some of the highest-enrollment introductory courses Percentage of change in the annual ratio of student FTEs to instructional personnel FTEs Percentage of change in the annual ratio of student FTEs to administrative FTEs Per-student-FTE central IT expense and IT personnel (full-time & part-time) expense Similar unit expenses metrics in other lines of service Expense Accountability
Performance Obligation Reduce or stabilize inflationary increases in net tuition to keep college affordable to all qualified students. Performance Issues The average annual increase in net tuition has exceeded the Consumer Price Index for years, making it difficult for students in lower and middle income brackets to afford college. Higher education tends to focus on revenues, not costs and, so, focuses on replacing public revenue shortfalls rather than increasing productivity in order to hold down per-student costs and, thus, net tuition increases. Performance Indicators Ratio of the annual rate of change in undergraduate tuition/fees to the annual Consumer Price Index Ratio of per-student-FTE revenues from net tuition/fees to per-student-FTE direct operational expenses Affordability of Access
Performance Obligation Offer students more convenient, flexible options for completing a degree or certificate. Performance Pressures A growing number of “flex” students can’t or won’t participate in program and service offerings unless they maximize asynchronous online self-service instruction and services, while also providing real-time access to faculty and staff as needed.. Convenience is the primary reason that students, even residential students, expect “flex” programs and services. Program accountability obligations often dictate flex programs and services. Performance Indicators Percentage of all degree programs which can be delivered asynchronously except for required clinical or lab work Percentage of all non-credit programs which can be delivered asynchronously except for required clinical or lab work Annual inventory of services accessible asynchronously via a web portal Convenience of Access
Performance Obligation Manage enrollment capacity in response to demand. Performance Issues Bottleneck courses Bottleneck programs Faculty capacity Classroom capacity There are more students in the national pipeline today than ever before. With more “flex” students than ever entering the pipeline, enrollment pressures will continue, especially at public institutions in the larger metropolitan statistical areas. Performance Indicators Percentage of qualified applicants refused admission or admitted with delay Annual percentage change in total credit hours and in total non-credit enrollments Total first-term enrollments (credit & non-credit) Ratio of total first-term credit hours to total first-term instructional personnel FTEs and of total first-term non-credit enrollments to total first-term instructional personnel FTEs Ratio of total annual enrollments to total seating capacity of the classroom plant Capacity for Access
Defensive Response Resist accountability Increase tuition Cap enrollments Defensive Response Risk political capital & good will Worst-Case Bind Politically Incorrect Compromise theaffordability of access Compromise the capacity for access
Proactive Response QUALITY Assess & improvelearning & services COSTS Increasestudent tofaculty ratio FLEXIBILITY Integrateself-service &as-needed help Proactive Response Strategy of Simultaneity Improve accountability & performance Strategy ofSimultaneity Performance Sweet Spot Decrease credit-hour expense & increase capacity Increase flexibility, capacity, & responsiveness
Requires IT – and More Requires IT – and More • IT has been necessary to increase productivity in the national economy – especially in the recent economic downturn. • “Introducing technology alone is never enough. The big spurts in productivity come when a new technology is combined with new ways of doing business.” … Friedman in The World Is Flat • So, IT is not sufficient to increase academic productivity. To redesign or not to redesign services; that is the question. Bolted on Technology Bolted on Expenses IT-RedesignedServiceProcesses ImprovedInstitutionalPerformance
Flex Program Strategy Redesign selected programs & services to: Reduce requirement for real-time interactions between students & the faculty/staff. More asynchronous (time-shifted) instruction & online self-service Less synchronous (real-time) instruction & services Less contact-hour instruction & scheduled services More as-needed expert help & services Increase options for getting expert help, scheduling courses, & completing a degree. Increase classroom & office capacity of the existing plant. Reduce dependency on the semester model. Common Course Strategy Redesign common courses to: Focus on the course, not its course sections. Emphasize active learning & mastery feed-back testing. Use common tests, as appropriate. Document learning differences via assessment. Realign faculty tasks without increasing faculty labor to: Offload some functions to software & assistants. Optimize faculty expertise & interventions with students. Increase student/instructor ratio Reduce per-student direct instructional expense. Redesign Strategies Redesign Strategies
Strategies Obligations Strategies Obligations
A Performance Initiative A Performance Initiative • A public institution lacks the classroom and faculty capacity to keep pace with enrollment demand in its high-growth region. It is turning away students and capping enrollments in the highest-demand courses and programs. Analysis reveals a strong correlation between a worsening retention rate and failure in a small subset of its highest-demand courses. • It applies the common course redesign strategy and the flex program and service redesign strategy to: • Redesign the problematic, highest-demand courses for flex delivery while simultaneously improving their learning outcomes and reducing their per enrollment costs (by increasing the student / instructor ratio) – thereby improving the retention rate, the affordability of access, and convenience of access. • Redesign the highest-demand degree programs for flex delivery, thereby increasing overall “classroom” capacity without capital investment. Redesign other services for flex delivery to meet the convenience needs of flex students – indeed, of all students. • The net result is improved performance in all six performance areas – learning accountability, program accountability, expense accountability, affordability of access, convenience of access, and capacity for access
Faculty Role: Quality Faculty Role: Quality Learning as an Expedition Instructor-Led Active Leaning Organize Course Resources textbooks libraries web site lectures syllabus course pack Design & Guide Active & Collaborative Learning as-needed help team projects internships field trips learningware discussionware Guide Self Study homework readings tests labs papers theses Faculty teams are responsible for course & program redesign
Common Courses Common Courses • Taught at almost all institutions & account for at least 40%-50% of all enrollments – the higher percentage at 2-year colleges, the lower at 4-year institutions. • 25-35 required or high-demand elective common courses in strategic programs such as: • College prep program – developmental, remedial • General education program (AA) – about 20-25 courses • Nursing, teacher education, business or other high-demand workforce or professional programs • Typically taught in multiple sections • Common exams are possible, even nationally normed common exams. • Account for at least 20%-25% of total institutional expenses, assuming direct instructional expenses to be about 50% of total expenses.
Course Redesign History Course Redesign History • Course redesign principles & models are based on the National Center for Academic Transformation’s Program in Course Redesign funded by the Pew Trusts. • 30 institutions, 10 per year over three years • Each institution redesigned one common course to improve learning outcomes while reducing per-enrollment instructional costs. • Direct instructional cost savings averaged 40%. • Systematic redesign of common courses averaging 40% savings in direct instructional expenses can result in total institutional expense reductions of 8%-10%. • The Center now has over 60 institutions, systems, and companies participating in its Redesign Alliance to share resources and effective practices for improving learning outcomes while simultaneously reducing per-student costs in common courses.
Customer Examples Client Examples Mount St. Mary’s
Culture of Performance Performance improvement redesign projects Assignsresponsibility & resources ↑ ↓ Accounts for performance results Performance planning & management processes Provides real-time analysis & insight ↑ ↓ Assigns scorecard metrics to goals Performance scorecards & analytics Enables trend analysis ↑ ↓ Adjusts the data models Performance warehousing & data modeling Performance-Focused Institutional Leadership Enables systemic productivity increases ↑ ↓ Aligns measurable goals w/ IT priorities High-Performing IT Organization & IT Services Individualized self-service portal Single login authentication Systems integration Unified public website IT governance, planning, management & accountability 24 x 365 toll-free help desk & other support services Networks, servers, security, recovery, ERP, CMS, other systems Institutional Digital Utility Foundation Culture of Performance Bridging the Gap Requires Institutional Leadership & IT Leadership
Culture of Performance Performance improvement redesign projects Assignsresponsibility & resources ↑ ↓ Accounts for performance results Performance planning & management processes Provides real-time analysis & insight ↑ ↓ Assigns scorecard metrics to goals Performance scorecards & analytics Enables trend analysis ↑ ↓ Adjusts the data models Performance warehousing & data modeling Performance-Focused Institutional Leadership • Develop data models around key institutional metrics. • Simplify operational reporting to eliminate a flood of data reports that are difficult to develop and ultimately not of much use at the cabinet level • Extract select longitudinal data into an institutional data warehouse to provide a foundation for institutional analytics and scorecard reporting.
Culture of Performance Performance improvement redesign projects Assignsresponsibility & resources ↑ ↓ Accounts for performance results Performance planning & management processes Provides real-time analysis & insight ↑ ↓ Assigns scorecard metrics to goals Performance scorecards & analytics Enables trend analysis ↑ ↓ Adjusts the data models Performance warehousing & data modeling Performance-Focused Institutional Leadership • Provide flexible, ad-hoc (anytime) performance reporting and analysis, both at the operational and longitudinal (trend) levels. • Provide configurable, flexible scorecards for monitoring key performance indicators at the institutional and departmental levels. • Provide ad hoc analytics capabilities within the scorecard model to query the institutional data warehouse to identify trends and gain insights into the future.
Culture of Performance Performance improvement redesign projects Assignsresponsibility & resources ↑ ↓ Accounts for performance results Performance planning & management processes Provides real-time analysis & insight ↑ ↓ Assigns scorecard metrics to goals Performance scorecards & analytics Enables trend analysis ↑ ↓ Adjusts the data models Performance warehousing & data modeling Performance-Focused Institutional Leadership • Senior consultants with a command of academic culture, shared governance, and institutional research to help the institution: • Align mission goals with measurable objectives. • Translate measurable objectives to the technical team responsible for implementing and evolving scorecards and analytics. • Guide a “performance council” in creating open and evidence-driven institutional performance planning and management processes. • Align academic, financial, and student service redesign strategies with key performance indicators requiring improvement. • Plan and source IT-enabled redesign projects for improving priority performance indicators.
Culture of Performance Performance improvement redesign projects Assignsresponsibility & resources ↑ ↓ Accounts for performance results Performance planning & management processes Provides real-time analysis & insight ↑ ↓ Assigns scorecard metrics to goals Performance scorecards & analytics Enables trend analysis ↑ ↓ Adjusts the data models Performance warehousing & data modeling Performance-Focused Institutional Leadership • Redesign academic, financial, & student service processes for efficient website- and portal-integrated self-service; for example: • Redesign degree programs for “flex” delivery to targeted audiences (the convenience factor). • Redesign the cluster of high-enrollment “common” courses to improve learning and the per-credit direct cost of instruction. • Redesign enrollment management processes. • Outsource business and student service processes selectively to avoid new capital and payroll costs, while improving services at reasonable per-student expense
Performance Improvement Performance Improvement Performance Improvement Redesign Projects Monitor Discover FinalizeLife Cycle InitializeLife Cycle Portalize Prioritize Planning & Management Processes Align Plan - goals & metrics - redesigns - departments - sourcing Adjust Assign - metrics - responsibilities - scorecards - resources Performance Council Scorecards Analytics Data WarehouseData Models Scale Redesign Adjust Pilot Assess
Performance Barriers? Performance Barriers? • No performance infrastructure and reporting to identify and account for strategic performance initiatives/metrics. • Faculty leadership & executive leadership not collaboratively aligned to meet performance challenges • Limited experience with the service redesign strategies that can improve academic & business performance • Strategic plan fails to include performance metrics • Inability to focus the expense & use of IT on strategic initiatives • Too small to afford robust IT – need to share services • No economies of scale from being part of a system, district, consortium, or commercial external sourcing relationship • Inadequate or dysfunctional IT unit • Weak leadership or management • Weak service mentality • Staff recruiting & retention difficulties • Inadequate IT infrastructure and/or service coverage – 24 x 365 • Escalating or unpredictable IT costs • Inadequate resources for IT projects • Selection, planning, & conversion for ERP, CMS, analytics, etc. • Services / systems integration – web & portal projects
$64,000 Question $64,000 Question Is Yours a Culture of Performance? A High Performance Institution? Systemic Progress? Random Acts of Progress? Progress requires • order where there is change & • change where there is order. … Alfred North Whitehead
Our partnership will allow us to scale support for e-learning while not losing focus on other aspects of our IT plan. … Dick Leurig, CIO • Goals • Put the “student at the center of the College’s universe.” • Focus on the quality and flexibility of instruction & other services. • Increase capacity to maintain double-digit growth for a decade. • Challenges • Prior academic technology efforts lacked scalable support • Increase support for academic technology and its applications without losing focus on other IT initiatives • Services fro SunGard Higher Education • Onsite (5 FTEs) & remote academic professionals for faculty support & academic redesign projects • 24x7 hosting, infrastructure, & tech support services for WebCT-based courses & programs • Outcomes • Comprehensive institution-wide faculty development services for instructional applications – on-ground & on-line • Redesign of the Fast Track Math program to increase remediation capacity & decrease the need for math remediation upon matriculation
The company helped us respond to market needs while generating new discretionary revenues. …. Russ Adkins, Associate VP • Goals • Seize immediate contract/grant opportunities to redesign selected for-credit & non-credit programs to meet workforce needs • Lay the service & financial foundation for institution-wide academic technology faculty development support. • Challenges • Academic technology efforts lacked reliable, scalable support. • Capitalizing institution-wide faculty development & rapid-response program redesign/development was impossible. • Services from SunGard Higher Education • Extensive academic technology planning services • Onsite academic support for market-driven program redesign projects • Onsite & remote academic support for institution-wide faculty development & academic IT applications • 24x7 hosting, infrastructure, & tech support services for WebCT • Outcomes • Online certification programs for local hospitals & IT corporation. • Modular online nursing program – three different degree tracks. • Market-driven enrollment “profits” to support institution-wide: • Faculty development services for using technology in instruction – on the ground & online • 24x7 hosting, infrastructure, and tech support services for WebCT
Our partnership significantly enhances our efforts to plan for & meet the high expectations of our faculty, staff, & students. …. Vincent Gorman, Special Asst. to the President • Goals • Stabilize IT costs & service reliability. • Improve stakeholder satisfaction with IT technology services. • Position the college to plan, implement, & support academic IT services & initiatives. • Challenges • Unstable IT expenses and support services • Minimal support for faculty use of technology in the curriculum. • No academic technology plan • Services from SunGard Higher Education • Bottom-line, institution-wide responsibility for onsite & on-call management/support of all technologies & their administrative & academic applications. • Onsite & remote academic support for institution-wide faculty development & academic IT applications • Turn-key IT certification program – curriculum, marketing, recruiting, delivery, & 24x7 support. • Outcomes • Cost-effective, stakeholder endorsed IT management & support.. • Institution-wide academic support for faculty & their IT applications. • Market-driven “profits” from IT certification training program.
In 1997 we selected the company to be our managed services partner and we’ve never looked back as its professionals help us innovate & compete at the leading edge. …. Dr. Jon Larson, President • Goals • Stabilize IT expenses & improve IT services • Support faculty efforts to use technology in instruction. • Support strategic academic technology projects. • Challenges • Unstable IT costs & crisis-level dissatisfaction with IT services • Difficult to meet strategic academic needs • Neither capital funds nor time to increase enrollment capacity • Services from SunGard Higher Education • Extensive IT & academic technology planning services • Comprehensive IT management & support services, including course management system & academic application support • Onsite & remote academic support for academic redesign projects • Outcomes • IT cost savings & improved IT & academic technology services • Stakeholder satisfaction with all aspects of IT support • Comprehensive faculty development services for using technology in instruction – on-ground & on-line • Redesign of the nursing program to increase capacity while meeting community needs & avoiding new classroom costs • Redesign of two high-enrollment general education courses to lay the foundation for systemic improvements in learning outcomes & reductions in instructional costs across the gen ed curriculum
Our relationship with SunGard Higher Education is much more a partnership than a client/vendor relationship. … Sandy Shugart, President • Goals • Improve access to and the quality of IT services. • Scale IT services to meet growth & stakeholder expectations. • Expand the reach of the IT certification program. • Challenges • Rapid growth in excess of 15% • Diversity of the student body • Limited financial resources & IT expertise • Services from SunGard Higher Education • Comprehensive IT management & support services, including WebCT support • Migrate from mainframe to Web-enabled infrastructure • Institution-wide faculty support • Turn-key adult learning center IT certification solution • Develop & support robust student learning support systems (Atlas) • Outcomes • Saved millions in IT expenses over a multi-year period • Fulfilling the promise of being a “learning college” • Recognized by National Alliance of Business – CC of 1999 • Earning new “profits” from adult learning center IT certification • Improved student/faculty satisfaction • At least 54,000 learners now supported via Atlas learning support
Value is the relationship between what we pay and what we get. National Louis gets a ton of value through this relationship. … Tony Chaitin, VP of Finance & Administration • Goals • Bring IT services to the web and contain their costs. • Use web services to serve NLU’s student base of adult learners more effectively and conveniently. • Challenges • Outdated IT infrastructure and weak IT staffing. • Lack of data for academic and business decisions. • Student and faculty expectations for better IT services. • Services from SunGard Higher Education (starting in 2001) • Network upgrade and conversion to Banner. • CIO & full-service IT staff • 24x7 support for WebCT – hosting, infrastructure, and support services – and an Online Learning Center for faculty training and instructional design support • Outcomes • IT cost savings in excess of $1.5M over the past 4 years • Increased stakeholder satisfaction
The relationship with SunGard Higher Education is a true partnership.… Robert Tyndall, Vice Chancellor for ITS • Goals • Reorganize & integrate disparate IT initiatives/resources. • Meet mandated enrollment increase via online learning. • Challenges • Little lead time to accommodate 4,000 more students • Less space per student than sister institutions • No significant capital funding increase on the horizon • Services from SunGard Higher Education • Comprehensive IT & academic assessment and planning • 24x7 WebCT hosting, infrastructure, & support services • Project management & training support for faculty-led training • Outcomes • New IT governance and change-management model • About 60 fully online core courses as options for residential students & many Web-enhanced courses • “Technology College” – online fluency certification • Blended model of online & on-ground courses and services has relieved space constraints