Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned By Bill Ammentorp and Bill Warner

Academic Design:
Sharing Lessons Learned
DIGITAL VERSION | 2009
By Bill Ammentorp and Bill Warner
with Leo Christenson and Todd Harmening
INTEGRATED PLANNING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION
339 E Liberty Street, Suite 300, Ann Arbor, MI 48104
www.scup.org
Preface
One of the most frequently asked questions of the Society for College and University Planning is
“Where can I find examples of integrated planning models?” Most of the time we refer the query to
members who we know are willing to share their institution’s material. Fortunately, the Office of the
Chancellor of the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities along with the authors Bill Ammentorp,
Bill Warner, Leo Christenson, and Todd Harmening, have worked with the Society to publish a copy
of the planning process developed for the two- and four-year colleges within the Minnesota system.
SCUP is pleased to be able to offer it to the academic planning community as a fulsome example of
how the nuts and bolts of planning happen.
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned offers a roadmap to the reader for involving a campus in its
most vital enterprise—teaching and learning. The authors provide the reader with a four-phase
process with step-by-step guidance on how they constructed their academic design process. This
comprehensive tool considers the multiple facets of planning, including,
• Understanding the base of planning in external and internal scanning;
• Identifying the most relevant measures for assessing existing and proposed programs;
• Developing learning models and delivery systems to achieve desired outcomes; and
• Designing strategies for creating a learning organization.
At a time when the environment for higher education has become increasingly unpredictable, a
process that helps guide a campus through the white water is well worth exploring. We hope you’ll
find these lessons learned as useful as we have in sharing the wealth of our members’ experience in
academic planning.
Phyllis T.H. Grummon, Ph.D.
Director of Planning and Education
Society for College and University Planning
January 2004
© 2004
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
I
About the Society for College and University Planning
The Society for College and University
Planning (SCUP) is the recognized leader in
advancing the knowledge and practice of
planning in higher education.
SCUP has nearly 5,000 members worldwide
who are higher education professionals
interested in planning at all levels and in all
contexts. Visit www.scup.org for information
on how to join this growing community.
Society for College and University Planning
339 East Liberty Street, Suite 300
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104
Phone: 734.998.7832 Fax: 734.998.6532
Web: www.scup.org Email: [email protected]
© 2004 by Society for College and University Planning
All Rights Reserved. Published 2004
Printed in the United States of America
ISBN 0-9700413-5-7
II
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
© 2004
Foreword
In the 21st century, higher education faces
ways to look at a college’s internal and external
unpredictable demands and opportunities. Prac-
environment and then develop programs and
tices that have worked in the past are no longer
services that best meet the current and future
adequate to address these challenges. This doc-
needs of its students.
ument provides the planning tools educators
need now to develop new and flexible processes
Colleges and universities engage in a variety of
and structures to meet the learning needs of
planning activities. These include strategic,
current and future students.
financial, facility, marketing, technology, accreditation and numerous other planning activities.
Many writers have called for new paradigms in
Often these plans are not coordinated. The
higher education. A wide variety of approaches
process outlined in this manual draws on the
to academic and strategic planning have been
information from throughout the institution to
presented, but many of these fail to suggest ways
develop the Academic Design. The Academic
to connect the academic life of the institution
Design provides the foundation and framework
with the challenges and opportunities found in
for developing all other institutional plans, since
its environment and amongst its current and
teaching and learning is the primary mission of
potential student body. Publications by the
all colleges and universities.
Society for College and University Planning
illustrate this point. Transforming Higher Education (Dolence and Norris, 1995) provides a comprehensive overview of the new educational
landscape. Doing Academic Planning (Nedwek,
1996) describes the foundations of teaching and
learning along with the features of the educational infrastructure. Applying these insights,
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned provides
© 2004
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
III
Table of Contents
Preface . . . . . . .
Foreword . . . . . .
Acknowledgments
Introduction . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .III
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .VII
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IX
Introduction to Academic Design
Design Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Academic Design Process . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Academic Design Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Organizing for Academic Design . . . . . . .
Design Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Design Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Stakeholder Review of the Academic Design
Steps for the Academic Design Process . . .
Section 1 Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
1
9
2
25
3
.2
.3
.4
.4
.6
.6
.7
.7
.8
Landscape Analysis
Environmental Scan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Institutional Scan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Vitality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Comparative Advantage and Productivity
Design Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Key Institutional Indicators . . . . . . . . . .
Educational Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Section 2 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Section 2 Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
....
....
....
...
....
....
....
....
....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Program Analysis
Program Analysis .
Program Measures
Program Profiles .
Data Mining . . . .
Strategic Decisions
Section 3 Summary
Section 3 Glossary
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Program Design and Improvement
Learning Models . . . . . . . . . . .
Delivery Systems . . . . . . . . . . . .
Quality Improvement . . . . . . . .
Best Practices/Benchmarking the
Section 4 Summary . . . . . . . . . .
Section 4 Glossary . . . . . . . . . .
© 2004
......
......
......
Design
......
......
.10
.11
.13
.14
.15
.17
.18
.22
.22
.26
.27
.29
.30
.32
.35
.36
37
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.38
.40
.42
.43
.45
.45
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
4
V
5
Learning Organization Design: Learning Paradigms
Paradigms and Organization . . . . . . .
Paradigms and Teaching and Learning
Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Human Capital – Personnel . . . . . . . .
Student Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Campus Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Section 5 Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
47
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Preparing the Academic Design Plan
6
Introduction – Section Summaries . . . . . .
Student Support Services . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Resource Allocation and Academic Design
Web of Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Conversation Continues . . . . . . . . . .
Section 6 Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
VI
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
.49
.50
.51
.52
.53
.54
.55
.56
57
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.58
.63
.64
.67
.70
.71
.75
.76
.76
© 2004
Acknowledgments
This book is an outgrowth of the New Designs
The principles resulting from these planning ini-
Project—a national forum that explored the
tiatives are also reflected in contemporary litera-
future of the two-year college (Copa and
ture in higher education. Further, many of these
Ammentorp, 1998). The concepts generated by
principles have been tested and reported in doc-
New Designs set an agenda for the future of
toral dissertations completed in the Leadership
higher education. The authors used these start-
Academy at the University of Minnesota. The
ing points to develop the principles and
database containing thesis research is available at:
methods of Academic Design on some 20 campus
www.education.umn.edu/wcfe/
sites.
LeadershipAcademy/default.html.
Many people contributed to Academic Design,
With so many people providing so much help, it
including members of the New Designs Forum;
is impossible to prioritize the contributions that
Jacquelyn Belcher, President of DeKalb Commu-
have made this book possible. It is based on more
nity College; Paul Cole, Vice President of the
than 15 years of Academic Design at the high
American Federation of Teachers and Vice Chair
school and college level, beginning with the
of the National Skills Standards Board; James
national project, New Designs for the Compre-
Frasier of Motorola University; Augustine
hensive High School (Copa and Pease, 1994).
Gallego, Chancellor of the San Diego Commu-
Currently, George Copa is engaged in an explo-
nity College District; Dorothy Horrell, President
ration of New Designs for Technical Education at
of Red Rocks Community College (Colorado);
Oregon State University. His leadership has made
Bruce Jilk, Lead Architect, The Cunningham
Academic Design possible.
Group; Robert McCabe, Senior Fellow with the
League for Innovation; Sally Novetzke, Commu-
This book has been prepared in collaboration
nity Liaison, Kirkwood Community College; and
with numerous staff in the Office of the Chan-
Ruth Silverthorne, Director of Minority Affairs,
cellor of the Minnesota State Colleges and
Skagit Valley Community College (Washington).
Universities with particular mention of Ron
Dreyer, System Director; Leslie Mercer, Associate
The writers also acknowledge the contributions
Vice Chancellor; and Craig Schoenecker, System
of leaders of the colleges where the framework of
Director.
Academic Design has been refined: Sharon
Grossbach and Carol Tulikangas of Hennepin
Technical College; Kathleen Nelson and Susan
Stenerson of Lake Superior College; Donald
Supalla and David Weber of Rochester Community
and Technical College; Donovan Schwichtenberg
and Peggy Kennedy of St. Paul College; Barbara
Lee-Schueppert of Northwest Technical College;
and the members of the Minnesota Quality
Improvement Project.
© 2004
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
VII
Introduction
Academic Design is both a process and a
is a collaborative process that engages
product. It is a process whereby colleges
stakeholders in meaningful conversations
and universities organize teaching and
that are used to chart the future of the
learning to respond to the opportunities and
institution.
challenges posed by their environment. It is
also a product—a dynamic document that
A key feature of this book is that it integrates
details how human and material resources
accreditation requirements and quality
are to be deployed in support of teaching
principles with the planning process. In this
and learning. Academic Design is one of the
way, the Academic Design promotes
many interrelated documents that make up
continuous quality improvement. The design
a web of plans in every college and
process used in this book also addresses all
university, including strategic plans,
aspects of teaching and learning by helping
technology plans, and facilities plans.
schools to develop learning outcomes that
Academic Design is the process that brings
flow from the goals of the institution. Design
the institutional vision and mission to life
begins with environmental and institutional
through the continuous improvement of
scanning, followed by analyzing the
programs and services. It requires an
institution’s current plans, programs, and
institution to set priorities. The Academic
services to see how well they meet the current
Design is the centerpiece of the institution’s
and future needs of students and other
operations—setting the direction for
communities. Academic Design requires the
accreditation reviews, facility and technology
commitment of the institution’s leadership
planning, financial planning, and annual
and the involvement of all organizational
budgeting. It emerges as the key means of
stakeholders.
communication among administrators,
faculty, staff and students, as well as
Academic Design is shaped by the metaphors
members of the surrounding community.
found in the daily conversations of
institutional stakeholders. The illustrations
Academic Design is dynamic in that the
chosen to help focus the discussions in each
documents expressing the design are
Phase of Academic Design suggest useful
continually updated in response to changes
metahpors that can assist educators and
within and outside the organization. Unlike
other stakeholders in convening new
many higher education planning documents,
conversations.
it is not an event to be shelved upon
completion. It is an ongoing process.This
book provides concepts and practical
applications to guide colleges and
universities in developing an Academic
Key
Concept
This logo will be used
throughout this book
to highlight key academic
design principles and practices.
Design suited to their own institutional
mission. The main theme is that planning
© 2004
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
IX
Section
1
Introduction to
Academic Design
•
Design Perspective
•
Academic Design Process
•
Academic Design Team
•
Organizing for Academic Design
•
Design Documents
•
Design Schedule
•
Stakeholder Review of the Academic Design
•
Steps for the Academic Design Process
Higher education faces many challenges and opportunities. An
increasingly diverse student population is seeking a wider variety of
educational experiences ranging from the traditional liberal arts to
learning that provides practical skills. Employers demand graduates
who have the knowledge and skills to be productive from their first day
at work. Funding sources demand clear evidence of an academic
program’s effectiveness. In this dynamic education landscape,
institutions must identify their comparative advantage over their peers
and be able to adapt and readily respond to a changing environment.
Academic Design is intended to assist institutions in finding ways to
increase institutional vitality.
© 2004
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
1
Organizing for Academic Design
Design Perspective
( Inputs )
( Outcomes )
Accreditation
Reviews
Baldrige
Academic
Design
( Processes )
Figure 1-1
Academic Design:
Integrating Planning
Perspectives in
Higher Education
Conventional
This drawing displays the typical input-process-
approaches to strategic
outcomes approach to educational planning.
planning are not always
Accreditation reviews focus on the inputs by
suited to higher educa-
evaluating the capacity of colleges and universi-
tion. Strategic planning
ties to deliver academic programs. In contrast,
provides direction for
the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Program
the overall institution
focuses on results and the processes organiza-
but often fails to address innovation and student’s
tions use to achieve these results.
needs at the program and service level. The Academic Design process provides a forum for a con-
Academic Design focuses on the programs, deliv-
tinuous, focused assessment of teaching and
ery systems, and support services that define
learning. Design needs to be the central process to
teaching and learning and are central to the edu-
creating a successful college or university.
cational enterprise. Like the Baldrige program,
Academic Design is a continuous search for effi-
Herbert Simon, holder of the 1978 Nobel Prize,
cient use of resources in the production of high-
said this best several decades ago:
quality results. Although Academic Design is at
Everyone designs who devises courses of
the center of figure 1-1, elements of the design
action aimed at changing existing situations
process articulate with accreditation require-
into preferred ones. The intellectual activity
ments and Baldrige criteria. Academic Design
that produces material artifacts is no different
looks at the programs and services (i.e.
fundamentally from the one that prescribes
processes) that institutions use to help students
remedies for a sick patient or the one that
achieve their learning goals (i.e. outcomes).
devises a new sales plan for a company or a
social welfare policy for a state. Design, so con-
Accreditation agencies have begun to test alter-
strued, is the core of all professional training;
native approaches to accreditation review. For
it is the principal mark that distinguishes the
example, the Higher Learning Commission of
professions from the sciences. Schools of engi-
the North Central Association of Colleges and
neering, as well as schools of architecture,
Universities (NCA) has initiated the "Academic
business, education, law and medicine, are all
Quality Improvement Project" (AQIP) (NCA
centrally concerned with the process of design.
2000). This new accreditation model certifies
(The Sciences of the Artificial. MIT Press: 1981,
that an institution is striving continually to
pp. 55–56)
improve the systems it uses to provide education
to students. Several institutions are using the
A useful starting point for understanding Acad-
Baldrige Self-Assessment tool as a preliminary
emic Design is to compare it to familiar plan-
step in accreditation reviews.
ning approaches. Figure 1-1 shows how
Academic Design relates to typical accreditation
Academic Design results in processes, systems,
reviews and to the Malcolm Baldrige (MB)
and outcomes that satisfy both accreditation and
National Quality Award Program
quality performance standards. This ensures that
(www.quality.nist.gov).
the many plans created by the institution help
it meet its academic mission.
2
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
© 2004
Organizing for Academic Design
Academic Design Process
Key
Concept
Academic Design is a process that institutions use to identify key design criteria used to
make strategic program decisions and identify the resources, processes, and outcomes to
support the continuous improvement of these programs and enhance institutional vitality.
Figure 1-2 shows that Landscape Analysis engages
Academic Design is a continuous process allow-
internal and external stakeholders in a conver-
ing phases to be repeated so that new designs can
sation about how the institution’s programs and
emerge to address new student needs, new
services meet the needs of current and future
knowledge within disciplines, and changes in the
students. This data about a college’s internal
environment. Further, Academic Design is multi-
and external environment is used to develop
layered. Each program and all services in the
Design Criteria that will be used for Program
institutions use the design process. Thus, people
Analysis. Program Analysis is a process that insti-
at multiple levels within and outside of the
tutions use to identify Program Measures based
college or university community come to under-
on Design Criteria that are then used to make
stand the language, attitudes, and goals of the
Strategic Program Decisions. Once these deci-
design process.
sions are made, college leaders focus on Program
Design and Improvement for the programs that
provide it with the greatest comparative advantage and vitality. This is done by implementing
effective Learning Models and Delivery Systems
as evaluated in Quality Improvement and
Benchmarking processes. Finally, institutional
leaders create a Learning Organization Design
Figure 1-2
that supports these programs. This is done by
Academic Design
developing Learning Paradigms that support
Steps and Phases
these programs, Design Integration that infuses
academic design principles into the programs,
and Resource Alignment that makes sure that
the human, financial, and capital resources
support the programs and services.
Figure 1-2 shows the major elements incorporated in a comprehensive Academic Design. The
Program Design
and Improvement
Learning
Organization Design
•
•
•
•
• Resource Alignment
• Design Integration
• Learning Paradigms
Benchmarking
Quality Improvement
Delivery Systems
Learning Models
Academic Design process is essentially a continuous conversation among members of an institution, looking at how well its organization,
programs, and services meet the needs of its
current and future students and environment.
© 2004
Program Analysis
Landscape Analysis
• Strategic Program
Decisions
• Program Profiles
• Program Measures
• Key Indicators
• Design Criteria
• Scanning
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
3
Organizing for Academic Design
Academic Design Team
Key
Concept
A Design Team whose
The Academic Design Team should be made up of:
members represent all
• administration
institutional stakeholders
• faculty
guides the Academic Design Process.
• support staff
• students
It was George Copa, of Oregon State University,
• community leaders
who suggested that design begins with “con-
• business and industry representatives
vening a conversation.” This helps make the
design process part of the everyday language of
The size of the team is not as important as the
the institution. This conversation must include
commitment of its members. Academic Design is
participants who represent the many stakehold-
a time-consuming activity that requires knowl-
ers of the organization.
edgeable members who are willing to stay with the
process until it is completed. It is imperative that
Effective Academic Design for complex modern
the president actively support the Academic Design
higher education organizations requires a wide
team so that the Academic Design can be devel-
range of perspectives and skills and is, therefore,
oped and implemented. The team leaders’ regular
a collaborative effort (Lucas 2000). The Design
work assignments should be reduced to allow them
Team members should represent all parts of the
to focus on the Academic Design process. Members
organization as well as the wider community. The
of the institution’s current standing committees
Design Team must remain connected to the areas
should be consulted for their input and support.
they represent so that their constituencies can
In short, Academic Design must be given high pri-
contribute to the design development process.
ority, and woven into the regular structure and
daily processes of the institution.
Organizing for Academic Design
Key
Concept
The organizational structure
design process and progress. Their interactions with
of the institution should be
organizational stakeholders help the entire institu-
reviewed and modified to
tion to participate in Academic Design discussions.
support the Academic Design process.
The Academic Design team needs a workspace
4
The following example shows how one college used
and technical support for the design process.
the Academic Design process to develop a new
Technical support includes electronic document
committee and governance structure. By giving
development, Web site configuration, research,
high visibility to the Academic Design team and its
and administrative services. This support enables
focus on improving teaching and learning, this
the Design Team to communicate with internal
college was able to provide a new process for dis-
and external stakeholders. In addition, the team
cussing program innovation. Another important
needs access to a variety of information
function of the Academic Design team is to keep all
resources as well as the tools to analyze and
members of the community informed about the
present the information it gathers.
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
© 2004
Organizing for Academic Design
EXAMPLE: ROCHESTER COMMUNITY
AND
TECHNICAL COLLEGE (MINNESOTA)
cademic Design Team members are frequently
A
The outer orbit contains two distinct committee
chosen to represent the committee and gover-
structures. The committees shown in dark gray deal
nance structure of the institution. In this example,
with systems and services that support instruction,
the College elected to transform its committees to
so that the academic plan is used to guide all
better focus on teaching and learning. In figure 1-3,
organizational functions.
the new committee structure is pictured as a kind
of solar system where each orbit is focused on a
In the gray circles, we see the committees most concerned with governance (AFSCME—American
particular aspect of the educational process.
Federation of State, County, Municipal Employees).
In the inner orbit, committees are directly involved
They include formal union-mandated committees,
in the design of curriculum and instruction as indi-
as well as those that connect the College to the
cated by the Student Learning System at the center.
surrounding community. It is important to note
Representatives of the Teaching and Learning
that the College is a part of University Center
Committee and the Student and Stakeholder
Rochester (UCR), which also includes Winona State
Relations Committee are major contributors to the
University and the University of Minnesota.
academic design initiative, which is guided by the
Consequently, there are multiple layers of gover-
Innovative Design Team.
nance as reflected in the committee structures
shown in figure 1-3.
Student Senate/
Cabinet
Student & Stakeholder
Relations Committee
Figure 1-3
Rochester Community
and Technical College
Continuous
Improvement
Faculty Senate/
Meet and Confer
Baldrige
RCTC Cabinet/
Advisory Council
Innovative
Design Team
New Designs
Curriculum Council/
Meet and Confer
STUDENT
LEARNING
SYSTEM
Facilities & Safety
Committee
NCA
AQIP
Continuous
Improvement
Employee Relations
Committee
Technology
Committee
UCR Steering
Committee
AFSCME Labor/
Management
Teaching & Learning
Committee
Committee Structure
Dark Grey: University Center Committees
Orange: College Core Committees
Grey: College Governance Committees
© 2004
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
5
Organizing for Academic Design
Design Documents
Key
Concept
Academic Design is tailored
The following is a list of documents that may be
to the mission of the
helpful in the planning process:
• Accreditation Self-Study
institution. This individual
mission drives its goals and strategies.
• Mission Statement
The design process begins by analyzing
• Facilities Plan
all of the existing documents that are
• Strategic Plan
used to run the organization.
• Affirmative Action Plan
• Technology Plan
Academic Design takes advantage of as many
• Assessment Plan
existing information sources as possible. There-
• Enrollment Management Plan
fore, the Design Team begins by collecting and
• Program Accreditation
analyzing the institution’s existing plans and
• Policies & Procedures
how they bring its mission to life. Creating a
• Federal Compliance Plans
diagram that outlines all of the institution’s
planning documents and the elements that are
The Design Team decides how the documents will
related to the design process can help the Design
be used in the planning process. Some documents
Team identify useful information resources.
will be shared among all members, while others
may be summarized or made available for reference.
Design Schedule
Key
Concept
EXAMPLE: THE DESIGN SCHEDULE
process of scanning, analysis,
MONTH
DESIGN
ELEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Academic Design results
from a deliberative
8
9
10
11
12
and goal setting with frequent stakeholder
consultation.
Scanning
Paradigm Definition
The Academic Design is a product that is comKey Indicators
pleted by a target date set by the Design Team.
Program Measures
The steps listed in the example illustrate Design
Program Profiles
Team activities scheduled on the institutional
Strategic Program Decisions
calendar. It is essential that this schedule be
Learning Models
arranged so that all participants can be mean-
Delivery Systems
ingfully involved in the design process.
Quality Improvement/Benchmarking
Learning Paradigm
Design Integration
Resource Alignment
Continuous Review
6
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
© 2004
Organizing for Academic Design
Stakeholder Review of the Academic Design
As their work unfolds, members of the Academic
Academic Design—a signing ceremony during
Design team should hold review sessions where
which the Design Team formally rolls out the
constituent groups can respond to their progress.
Academic Design for the entire institution to
It is recommended that a Web site be created
adopt and celebrate.
where the Academic Design can be displayed
and reactions collected. Finally, there must be
an opportunity for stakeholders to endorse the
Steps for the Academic Design Process
The specific steps and processes for Academic
Phase III: Program Design and Improvement.
Design are described in detail in each section of
Section 4 describes how the Design Team can
this book.
develop learning models and delivery systems
that support the learning experience. Quality
Phase I: Landscape Analysis. Section 2 describes
improvement and benchmarking initiatives will
how environmental and institutional scanning
identify opportunities and best practices that will
provides the data to define paradigms, design cri-
be used to guide program delivery strategies.
teria, and key institutional indicators.
Phase IV: Learning Organization Design: LearnPhase II: Program Analysis. Section 3 explains
ing Paradigms. Section 5 addresses ways to
how to develop program measures. These meas-
develop the learning paradigms that integrate
ures can be used by design teams to develop
Academic Design into all of the institution’s pro-
program profiles that can be used to make strate-
grams and services. Finally, this phase describes
gic decisions about which programs provide the
how to align the human, financial, and capital
institutions with the highest levels of compara-
resources of the college to support its chosen
tive advantage and productivity.
Academic Design.
© 2004
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
7
Organizing for Academic Design
Section 1 Glossary
Academic Design:
Design Criteria:
A process that institutions use to identify
Guideposts to set the direction of the design
key design criteria used to make strategic
process and define the decision-making
program decisions and identify the resources,
parameters, using information gathered from
processes, and outcomes to support the
the environmental scanning process and
continuous improvement of these programs
internal resources culminating in a set of
and enhance institutional vitality.
statements specifying features that the
Academic Design should possess to be
Academic Quality Improvement Project
(AQIP):
responsive to issues facing the institution.
A Higher Learning Commission accreditation
Academic Design Schedule:
model that attempts to assure quality by
The development of the Academic Design is
certifying that an institution is striving,
accomplished within a prescribed time frame
continually and consciously, to examine
varying from six months to two years. A
and improve the systems it uses to provide
specific time line is developed for each phase
its educational services to students.
of the planning process and is displayed in a
Baldrige National Quality
Award Program:
A national quality program that provides a
framework for performance excellence that
assesses and measures performance on a wide
range of key institutional performance
indicators. The Award is named for Malcolm
Baldrige, who served as Secretary of
Commerce from 1981 until his death in 1987.
His managerial excellence contributed to longterm improvement in efficiency and
effectiveness of government.
calendar format.
Academic Design Team:
The committee of key internal and external
stakeholders given the responsibility to work
through the design process to develop the
Academic Design. The team is drawn from all
levels and areas of the organization including
administration, faculty, staff, and students
and also includes key external stakeholders
such as business and community leaders
familiar with the institution’s mission and
purposes.
Design Documents:
Planning documents that have been developed
by the institution or other organizations that
have relevance to the Academic Design.
Examples of these documents are: Strategic
Plan, Facilities Plan, Accreditation Self-Study,
Assessment Plan, Technology Plan, Policy
and Procedures, and other state and local
planning documents.
8
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
© 2004
Landscape Analysis Phase
Section
2
Landscape Analysis
•
Environmental Scan
•
Institutional Scan
•
Vitality
•
Comparative Advantage and Productivity
•
Design Criteria
•
Key Institutional Indicators
•
Educational Landscape
Phase one of Academic Design is landscape analysis, which includes
scanning, mapping selection of design criteria, and development of key
institutional indicators. This phase of the academic design process
gathers information that forms the foundation for decisions that will be
used later in developing the Academic Design. This phase also includes
the development of a perspective on the college’s educational landscape
so that programs and services can be aligned to take advantage of
future opportunities and enhance institutional vitality. This section
provides examples and mapping of comparative advantage and
productivity indicators that contribute to vitality and help define the
design criteria.
Academic Design helps faculty, departments, and divisions find
pathways through the complex landscape.
The Design Team addresses the components in this phase as illustrated
in figure 2-1.
© 2004
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
9
Landscape Analysis
Environmental Scan
The first task of the Academic Design Team is to
ures are selected to extend the analysis of
position the institution on its educational land-
resource use from internal to environmental
scape. The team scans the planning environment
comparisons.
to identify the forces that pose challenges and
opportunities. At the same time, it consults the
various planning documents (mission statement,
accreditation self-study, strategic plan, etc.) to
review the directions the institution has set for
Key
Concept
The Environmental Scan
identifies the indicators
that help define the position
of the institution in the market it serves.
itself.
Environmental scanning involves identifying,
Environmental scanning is shaped by two major
analyzing, and evaluating the key trends, factors,
concerns: First, the Design Team identifies meas-
forces, and issues that have a potential impact
ures of comparative advantage. Where does the
on the comparative advantage and productivity
institution stand with regard to its peers? Com-
of the programs and services of the institution.
parative advantage has to do with market share,
It is a widely used technique for monitoring
the success of graduates in gaining employment,
change in the external environment, whether it
Figure 2-1
and similar indicators. Second, the team devel-
is in political, economic, technological, or social
Phase I: Educational
ops measures of productivity to determine how
arenas, or of national or international impor-
Landscape Steps
the institution deploys its resources. These meas-
tance. Optimum assistance for Academic Design
occurs when environmental scanning lessens
the randomness of information used in decision
making, and alerts planners to trends and issues
that may affect the institution. The goal is not
Program
Design and
Improvement
Learning
Organization
Design
to be surprised and to be proactive, wherever
possible, in managing the issues that will shape
the institution's future.
Program
Analysis
10
Landscape Analysis
• Key Indicators
• Design Criteria
• Scanning
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
© 2004
Landscape Analysis
All formal environmental scanning systems have
2. Scan the information resources, identify key
process components similar to the following:
data points, and prepare written abstracts.
1. Identify national, state, and local resources.
3. Identify the comparative advantage and
Useful scanning resources may include:
productivity indicators that characterize
• State Higher Education Systems
the environment.
• Higher Education Services Office
• Internet Web Sites
In developing an approach to environmental
• State Planning Office
scanning, the Design Team must address issues
• Key Experts
like:
• US Census Bureau
• How open is the system to the participation
• Metropolitan/Regional Councils
of a broad range of participants
• Accrediting Agencies
• What functions do the participants perform
• White Papers
• How widely are the scanning information
• Chamber of Commerce
• Newsletters
• Professional Organizations
and results disseminated
• How are scanning assignments monitored
and brought to conclusion
• Journals
• Workforce Development Offices
• State Department of Economic
Development
• State Department of Administration
The team’s resolution of these issues will determine the amount of resources needed to support
scanning activities. Like all aspects of Academic
Design, effective scanning takes time and investment to produce a high quality result.
Institutional Scan
In addition to scanning the environment, the
teaching and learning process, now and in the
Design Team must also scan the institution. The
future. This reflects a broad perspective that
institutional scan involves examination of the
views all programs, services, and faculty/staff
history of the institution with special attention
effort as supporting the institutional mission.
to the link between its mission and the programs
Concerns for institutional vitality are paramount
and services it offers. The team will review plan-
in today’s academy for two reasons. Colleges and
ning documents, accreditation reports, and per-
universities that focus almost exclusively on pro-
formance analyses to identify issues and
grams run the risk that program autonomy and
opportunities unique to the institution.
visibility may detract from larger concerns of the
institution. On the other hand, those institu-
Here the focus is on those aspects of the educa-
tions that emphasize faculty research and indi-
tional enterprise that promote the vitality of the
vidual autonomy run the risk of personal
institution. Vitality is defined as the ability to
agendas taking precedent.
provide value, purpose, and meaning to the
© 2004
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
11
Landscape Analysis
Key
Concept
The Institutional Scan is
Accordingly, the Design Team collects the docu-
based on the mission, goals,
ments that summarize institutional purpose and
and strategies of the
practices, as in the example below, and reviews
institution. The process begins with an
them to abstract the concepts, resources, and
inventory of the documents that have
purposes characteristic of the institution.
shaped the institution.
EXAMPLE: BACKGROUND
P
TO
PLANNING
lanning begins with an understanding of existing plans and how they contribute to the mission of the
institution. These documents are collected and organized for use by the Design Team and other stake-
holders involved in the design process.
Creating a wall chart of planning documents can assist the team in identifying resources and deciding how
they will be used in the design process. The chart below shows an example of how one college inventoried
documents.
DOCUMENT INVENTORY
Document
Accreditation Self-Study
Mission Statement
Facilities Plan
Strategic Plan
Affirmative Action Plan
Human Resources Plan
Technology Plan
Assessment Plan
Enrollment Management Plan
Program Accreditation
Policies and Procedures
Importance
(5=high)
5
5
2
5
5
3
2
3
1
3
2
How Used
Program performance history
Basic terms and objectives
Resource inventory
Baseline academic plans
Special services offered
Institutional culture and personnel needs
Resource inventory
Measures of key indicators
Market analysis
Program features
Institutional context
This inventory provides a quick checklist for the Design Team. It also helps the members decide how each
document will be used in the planning process. Some documents will be shared among all team members,
while others may be summarized or merely made available for reference. The documents should be collected
and stored in a convenient location—such as a resource room where participants in the design process can
consult them.
In addition to creating an inventory of existing documents, the team might want to review the ruling
paradigms found in Section 5. The ruling paradigms provide a conceptual framework for assessing the basic
structure and principle functions of an organization. Understanding where a college is positioned on the
continuum will provide a useful institutional context for beginning the planning process. Section 5 provides
a more in-depth exercise for using the paradigms. At the institutional scan point, they provide a context and
framework for understanding the college or university.
12
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
© 2004
Landscape Analysis
Vitality
Analysis of existing planning documents reveals
These statements might be translated into more
the attributes that give the institution a special
specific measures such as:
character and distinguish it from its peers,
• Develop positive, professional work
whether they are competitors or partners. If well
environments
chosen, these factors lead to a set of statements
Measured by:
summarizing the measures of vitality that ensure
• high rates of faculty/staff retention
a productive future for the institution.
• involvement of faculty/staff in professional associations
Key
Concept
Institutional Vitality flows
• Provide active professional development
from the mission of the
program
college or university and
Measured by:
measured by indicators that define the
• funded options for faculty/staff training
special character of the institution.
• teaching/learning centers on campus
• Prepare people for leadership roles
Vitality statements begin as broad-gauged indi-
Measured by:
cators of collegiate mission. The example below
• follow-up studies of graduates
is typical of what might be called first draft vital-
• involvement of faculty/staff in
ity measures of a human resources unit.
community organizations
Human Resources
If vitality indicators are to be considered in the
• Develop positive, professional work
design process, the Design Team must create oper-
environments
• Provide active professional development
program
• Prepare people for leadership roles
ational definitions of goals such as those shown
above. The operational definitions will assist the
institution in developing quantitative and qualitative data that can be used for such activities as
conducting peer analysis, undertaking quality
improvement, and identifying future efforts to
enhance vitality. These activities help to identify
comparative advantage and enhance productivity.
© 2004
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
13
Landscape Analysis
Comparative Advantage and Productivity
Environmental and institutional scanning pro-
Production of knowledge outside the institu-
duces comparative advantage and productivity
tion: Knowledge is the primary resource of the
indicators as the Design Team considers the chal-
institution. Accordingly, Academic Designs must
lenges and opportunities facing the institution and
provide for management of this resource and for
identifies the attributes of institutional programs
arrangements whereby new knowledge can be
and services that are most likely to be successful.
readily acquired. Indicators the Design Team
may consider are:
Key
Concept
Comparative Advantage
Comparative advantage:
and Productivity Indicators
• Unique institutional knowledge bases
summarize the external
• Institutional capacity to generate and
and institutional environments to be
addressed by the Academic Design.
apply new knowledge
Productivity:
• Partnerships for research and development
A useful way to approach identifying these indicators is to consider the major challenges and
• Leveraging technology currently used for
research in the institution
opportunities identified in the environmental
scan. This will assist in appraising the educa-
Information technology: The use of informa-
tional landscape and indicate new directions for
tion technology for knowledge production,
the institution. Academic Design begins with
teaching, and learning is central to the vitality of
identifying how the institution can attain a com-
colleges and universities. Clearly, Academic
parative advantage over other educational
Designs must incorporate information infra-
providers. As this foundation is laid, emerging
structures to support these activities and to
conditions in the environment dictate how insti-
address such indicators as:
tutional resources can be used to enhance pro-
Comparative advantage:
ductivity. Some examples of issues facing higher
education and their associated indicators are:
• IT access for all students as well as faculty
and support staff
• Web-based offerings
Increased competition: Every Academic Design
must address competition. This means that the
institution must know who its competitors are
Productivity:
• Academic program information
technology infrastructures
and how its offerings fare in a market-driven
environment. The resulting indicators may
Increased diversity: Diversity of all populations
include:
is growing significantly. Racial and ethnic
Comparative advantage:
minorities constitute an increasing percentage
• Market share for major programs
of the population in the United States, particu-
• Business and industry partners
larly among the traditional college-age popula-
Productivity:
• Credits /revenues generated by program
tion. This new landscape is dimensioned by
indicators like:
• Joint production of training
14
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
© 2004
Landscape Analysis
Comparative advantage:
• Retention and graduation of minority
students
Comparative advantage:
• Niche marketing of programs and services
• Development of new products and markets
• Recruitment and retention of minority
Productivity:
• Repackaging of curricula
faculty
Productivity:
• Partnerships with other providers
• Ratio of minority faculty to students
Once indicators have been identified, Design
Education as a commodity: The proliferation
Team members must set priorities for the design
of standard products is a fact of modern aca-
process. By careful consideration of the forces at
demic life. Each institution must decide how it
work in the institution and its external envi-
will shape its offerings to accommodate such
ronment, the team can determine which indi-
indicators as:
cators are most likely to define institutional
vitality in the future.
Design Criteria
Members of the Design Team use the results of
The team selects design criteria using its own
the environmental scan and institutional scan
best judgment and the input of key stakehold-
to identify comparative advantage and produc-
ers. It also must consider features of the plan-
tivity indicators the institution can use now and
ning landscape and the practices of other higher
that will enhance vitality in the future. The
education institutions.
information just gathered is next captured in a
set of design criteria.
In effect, the design criteria is made up of vitality indicators selected from areas identified
Design criteria set the direction of the design
during environmental and institutional scan-
process. These guideposts constitute a kind of
ning as key areas of comparative advantage and
report card on the design process (Copa and
productivity. The selection is driven by consid-
Ammentorp 1998). They indicate features that
ering scenarios the institution might face in the
the Academic Design must possess in order to be
future and how the institution can best respond
responsive to the issues facing the institution.
to the associated challenges and opportunities.
Key
Concept
Design Criteria are set by
It is important to state design criteria clearly in a
the Design Team to ensure
form that can be readily translated into key insti-
that the Academic Design
tutional indicators. In this way, the Academic
articulates the mission of the institution
Design begins to connect to state and national
with the challenges and opportunities
standards and various quality improvement ini-
found in the educational environment.
tiatives. The following offers an example of the
way design criteria and related activities can be
measured.
© 2004
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
15
Landscape Analysis
EXAMPLE: VITALITY: A COMMUNITY COLLEGE PERSPECTIVE
s a result of environmental and institutional
A
CURRICULUM
scans, the American Association of
Develop a dynamic curriculum
Community Colleges developed the following
Provide experiential learning opportunities
set of design criteria and related indicators
Package courses to meet needs of life-long learners
expressing those areas that were seen as likely
Align with high schools and colleges/universities
to promote college vitality. (Knowledge Net:
Report of the New Expeditions Initiative, 2000).
SUPPORT SERVICES
Ensure support systems
CIVIC
Provide remedial education as an access point
ROLE
Assess needs
Focus on diverse relationships
Become an active participant
CREDENTIALING
Develop alternative approaches to communicate
learner skills
EMPLOYERS
AND THE ECONOMY
Communicate the role of the college
Increase services to support workforce
Expand global awareness
CONNECT
TO ALL LEVELS OF THE EDUCATIONAL
Develop partnerships with K–12 and colleges
Define needs of life-long learners
Identify services that support life-long learners
HUMAN RESOURCES
Provide active professional development program
Prepare people for leadership roles
and universities
Develop professional development programs
COLLEGES
Embrace learning rather than teaching
Focus on how different learning styles
affect outcomes
ACCESS
LEARNING
Develop positive, professional work environments
ENTERPRISE
LEARNER-CENTERED
LIFE-LONG
AND EQUITY
Devise proactive measures to ensure necessary
incentives, support, and opportunity to meet
educational and training needs
INCLUSIVENESS
Welcome and support all people
TECHNOLOGY
Integrate technology
Provide ongoing technical upgrades
Improve technical support
Make online environment accessible
ACCREDITATION
Meet quality assurance and public
accountability goals
GOVERNANCE
Clearly define roles—state vs. local
Provide visionary leadership
Maintain balanced enrollment and staffing
FINANCE
Create climate that promotes inclusiveness
Advocate for funding flexibility
Develop political allies for appropriate funding
16
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
© 2004
Landscape Analysis
Key Institutional Indicators
There is an emerging consensus in higher edu-
Key
Concept
cation as to the importance of key institutional
indicators. Governing boards, legislators, and
Design Criteria provide the
basis for Key Institutional
Indicators that measure
other stakeholders are interested in a few key
performance and respond to stakeholder
outcomes that provide direction for higher edu-
interest.
cation. They are demanding measures of performance of colleges and universities. We find,
The Design Team begins this process by identify-
for example, that effectiveness and associated
ing indicators for each of the design criteria. Indi-
indicators have become central topics for con-
cators related to comparative advantage and
ferences and publications developed by national
productivity are clustered within each functional
associations of institutions (Alfred et al. 1999).
area of the institution. The result is then examined
And concerns for the quality of institutional pro-
in an array similar to that shown in table 2-1.
gramming are setting a new agenda for accreditation and institutional development.
Table 2-1
Sources of Information for Developing Key Institutional Indicators Across The Institution
FACULTY
AND
STAFF
STUDENT
AND
SUPPORT SERVICES
PROGRAMS
AND
FACILITIES
Comparative Advantage
Comparative Advantage
Comparative Advantage
Professional development
efforts
Peer coaching
Evaluation of administrators
by supervisors
Professional growth goals
follow-up
Readiness for college-level
work
Appropriate course
placement
Examination of academic and
career goals of students
Student success in goal
achievement
Survey of advisory committee
members
Program trend analysis
Institutional Effectiveness
Summary Report
Program focus visits
Program accreditation
Total Productivity
Total Productivity
Total Productivity
Evaluation of employees
Relicensure
Faculty evaluation
by students
Faculty evaluation
by Associate Deans
Previous academic
performance
Retention trends
Readiness for job placement
Certification/licensure
Placement report
Graduate follow-up survey
Program focus visits
Program accreditation
Vitality
Vitality
Vitality
Morale
Retention
Access
Satisfaction
Program reputation
Mission integrity
Delivery options
Arrays of indicators like this can add a high
reflected in what is to be measured and used for
degree of complexity to the design process. There-
managing and improving programs and services.
fore, the Design Team must select those indica-
For example, let’s apply a hypothetical criterion
tors that best represent the intent of the design
to table 2-1 where the design criterion is respon-
criteria. In this way, institutional priorities are
siveness to students.
© 2004
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
17
Landscape Analysis
Indicators of responsiveness in Student and
This process is repeated for each criterion to
Support Services:
arrive at a limited set of key institutional indi-
• comparative advantage: student success in
cators that represent the link between the insti-
goal attainment
tution and the educational landscape.
• total productivity: readiness for job placement
• vitality: student or employer satisfaction
Educational Landscape
The metaphor of an educational landscape
makes it easy to see how design criteria, indica-
Comparative Advantage and
Key
Concept
Productivity dimensions map
tors, and measures are related. Criteria represent
an Educational Landscape
a broad perspective on the landscape—a view
where institutions seek to maximize their
from ‘30,000 feet’—in which the general features
position in respect to their competition.
of a possible map are outlined. As criteria are
translated into key institutional indicators, the
Figure 2-2 shows the basic dimensions, that
design process is focused on the most significant
define the educational landscape.
dimensions of the landscape—the framework
which defines the map. Finally, specific measures determine the coordinates of institutions—
To maximize institutional vitality on such landscapes, institutions must first seek to achieve a
comparative advantage and, second, ensure that
their location on the landscape.
the total productivity of institutional resources
is at the highest level possible. In a sense, instiFigure 2-2
tutions explore this landscape to find the peaks
Educational Landscape Map
of vitality.
An institution may find it helpful to map the
Institutional
Vitality
Educational
Landscape Map
competition
using
the
same
dimensions.
Mapping competitors is helpful for academic
departments, programs, and services, as well as
the overall institution. Placing key competitors
on the educational landscape helps the institution determine future directions for developing
Total
Productivity
Comparative
Advantage
program niches and opportunities for comparative advantage.
Colleges and universities are not the only actors
on the educational landscape. Students and
other customers are also attempting to maximize
the cost effectiveness of their educational investments. They are searching for value-added programs. Students are seeking the knowledge and
18
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
© 2004
Landscape Analysis
skills that will make them employable. Employers want competent workers who can hit the
Student
Satisfaction
ground running. Communities need informed
citizens who participate in all aspects of civic
life. At the same time, customers want their
Job
Placement
5
4
Comparative
Advantage
Factors
3
2
1
time and resources used productively. Colleges
and universities gain an advantage by communicating their special qualities to customers and
Quality
Faculty
FYE/FTE
Total
Productivity
Factors
Graduation
Rates
competitors.
How does the Design Team map the educational
Curriculum Endorsed
by Profession
Enrollment
Trends
Cost/FYE
landscape? The educational landscape is a view
of programs, majors, and services using multi-
Figure 2-3
ple dimensions to determine the vitality of the
stakeholders to see clearly how the institution
institution. Vitality of educational institutions
compares to its peers. Such a tool could also be
is defined as the ability to provide value,
used as part of program analysis and profiling
purpose, and meaning to the teaching and
that will be addressed in the next section.
Scaling the Map
learning process, and to allow the institution to
grow and develop to meet the needs of current
Scaling an educational landscape map begins
and future students. Using the definitions of
with assigning a number (1–5) to each selected
comparative advantage and total productivity,
indicator. For example, the Design Team has
the Design Team can create a set of landscape
chosen to measure total productivity of the
maps that position the institution among its
institution by the cost per full-year equivalent
competitors.
(FYE) student in a defined budget period. This
is a quantitative measure that must be trans-
Figure 2-3 shows another approach to visualiz-
formed to the (1–5) scale. To do so, the Design
ing the educational landscape where measures
Team must make a scale assignment like that
of two of the three dimensions are charted on
shown in table 2-2.
a scale of 1–5 (5 equals either high comparative
advantage or high total productivity, and 1 is
This matrix focuses the attention of the Design
the low point on each scale). Figure 2-3 shows
Team on the possible goals and outcomes and
four such measures or indicators for each land-
how the work of the institution fits into the
scape dimension; however, the Design Team is
comparative
free to select the number of indicators it feels
dimensions of the educational landscape. This
are necessary to gain an adequate representa-
approach also suggests the ability of the insti-
tion of the educational landscape. An educa-
tution to address the identified key institutional
tional landscape is developed for each program,
indicators. As the team attempts to connect
major, and service or selected programs, majors,
outcomes to landscape dimensions, it begins to
and services. The collective vitality of all pro-
identify design criteria that can be realized. It is
grams, majors, and services determines the
important to recognize that design criteria are
Institutional Vitality.
constantly changing; they cannot be set in
advantage
and
productivity
stone. They must be modified as the design
Maps like the one shown in figure 2-3 are used
process goes forward—reflecting the realities
throughout the design process in two ways.
discovered by the Design Team.
They enable faculty, administration, and key
© 2004
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
19
Landscape Analysis
Table 2-2
private business. These evaluations are generally
Example: Productivity & Advantage
based on reputation where Design Team members
TOTAL PRODUCTIVITY
Cost/FYE Range
$1500–2000
$2001–2500
$2501–3000
$3001–3500
$3501–4000+
SCALE VALUE
COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE
Similar Programs at
Other Institutions
No Others
1–5
6–10
11–15
More Than 15
SCALE VALUE
can turn to faculty, students, or community
persons for nominations. Once the comparison
5
4
3
2
1
group has been identified, the Design Team positions each institution (or program) on all indicators. Then, the highest indicator score is marked
on the map in figure 2-4. When all indicator
scores have been entered, they are connected.
1
2
3
4
5
Next, the indicator scores for the Design Team’s
institution are plotted and connected as shown
in figure 2-4. It is then possible to see where the
institution or program’s indicator score is lower
To establish qualitative measures, the Design
than the best of competition. Best of competi-
Team is faced with a more difficult scaling task. It
tion can be determined by developing peer
must establish criteria for determining the rela-
analysis and benchmarking studies (covered in
tive scale values of measures that are commonly
Section 4). The areas of strength can be empha-
described by words like "better," "much higher,"
sized in the design process. Similarly, high scores
and the like. These are fuzzy concepts—never-
can draw attention to areas of needed improve-
theless, they are common phrases in everyday
ment. In this way, the map provides a kind of
speech that shape our opinions and actions.
radar screen overview of the landscape facing
the institution or program and the relative vital-
Once each indicator has been scaled, the Design
ity of the institution.
Team must choose the institutions and/or programs for comparison. There may be a different
competitor institution or program identified for
each indicator. Competitors may be other public
and private institutions, government agencies, or
Figure 2-4
Key
Concept
Effective analysis of
comparative advantage and
productivity opportunities
requires the use of multiple data sets and
tools to understand the landscape.
Drawing the Map
Drawing the MAP
The institution can locate itself in its physical
Student
Satisfaction
Job
Placement
Comparative
Advantage
Factors
5
4
3
2
1
space using databases containing student,
employer, and stakeholder information. These
FYE/FTE
Total
Productivity
Factors
data can be plotted on an actual map of the
market area using Geographic Information
Systems software. The following example shows
Graduation
Rates
Quality
Faculty
how a college used GIS software to identify the
location of its students.
Curriculum Endorsed
by Profession
Enrollment
Trends
Cost/FYE
Our College
20
Best of Competition
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
© 2004
Landscape Analysis
EXAMPLE: GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS—ALEXANDRIA TECHNICAL COLLEGE
Example: Strategic Decisions at a Technical College
Alexandria Technical College
1998–99 Enrollees (1087 total)
250 miles
200 miles
150 miles
100 miles
50 miles
NORTH DAKOTA
50 miles – 606 Students
1
3
6
19
188
– 2
– 5
– 18
– 30
100 miles – 244 Students
MINNESOTA
1
3
6
– 2
– 5
– 10
150 miles – 147 Students
WISCONSIN
1
3
6
SOUTH DAKOTA
200 miles –
250 miles –
Alexandria
Technical College
2
5
7
58 Students
1
3
IOWA
–
–
–
–
2
25 Students
1
3
7
< 250 miles –
–
–
2
5
5 Students
1
–
2
Not intended for legal purposes
This representation showed college enrollment
managers where to target their recruitment
efforts. When coupled with employment data,
the college is also able to show how its programs
connect to the workplace.
© 2004
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
21
Landscape Analysis
Section 2 Summary
Mapping the educational landscape results in
can be used for best practice/benchmarking
three major outcomes.
exemplary programs and organizations. These
• Comparative Advantage and Productivity
indicators address competitive advantage,
Indicators: These indicators determine
total productivity, and vitality issues.
institutional vitality within competitive
educational landscapes.
This section has provided information and exam-
• Design Criteria: This set of specifications
ples of the landscape analysis phase of the design
is a summary of the forces and challenges
process. This phase included environmental
facing the institution. This summary takes
scanning, design criteria, and educational land-
the form of criteria that the Academic
scape mapping (institutional and market).
Design must meet in order to ensure future
Section 3 will define the program analysis phase
institutional vitality.
of the design process, which includes: program
• The Educational Landscape Map: The indi-
analysis, program profile indicators (competitive
cators making for a vital institution are iden-
advantage, total productivity, and vitality), out-
tified, along with scales of measurement that
comes and assessment, and strategic decisions.
Section 2 Glossary
Comparative Advantage:
internal resources. They indicate features
The extent to which the institution offers
that the design must possess in order to be
programs and services that guarantee a
responsive to the issues facing the institution
significant share of the educational market.
and are a means of tracking progress.
Design Documents:
Educational Landscape:
Planning documents that have been
A view of programs, majors, and services using
developed by the institution and other
multiple dimensions to determine the vitality
organizations that have relevance to
of the institution. The view of programs,
Academic Design. Examples of documents
majors, and services is portrayed using an
that may be helpful are: Strategic Plan,
institutional landscape map and a market map.
Facilities Plan, Accreditation Self-Study,
Assessment Plan, Baldrige Documentation,
Environmental Scanning:
Technology Plan, Policy and Procedures, and
A process designed to identify, analyze, and
other state and local planning documents.
evaluate the key trends, indicators, forces,
and issues that have a potential impact on
Design Criteria:
the formulation and implementation of goals
Guideposts to set the direction of the design
and strategies. The environmental scan looks
process and define the decision-making
at future trends and their implications for
parameters, using information gathered from
academic planning.
the environmental scanning process and
22
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
© 2004
Landscape Analysis
Geographic Information Systems:
Scaling the Map:
Software systems that analyze data and place
Translating each selected environmental
the information on geographic maps. An
indicator into a measure to which a number
example is to identify the hometown of all
(1–5) can be assigned.
students and place the information on a map
of the institution’s service area.
Total Productivity:
The capacity of the institution to produce
Institutional Landscape Map:
high-quality outcomes while using resources
A process to chart the vitality of an
efficiently.
institution, as well as the competition, using
predetermined indicators. The predetermined
Vitality:
indicators identify comparative advantage
Assesses institution potential to acquire
and total productivity.
resources and support for its work now and in
the future. It is the ability to provide value,
Key Institutional Indicators:
purpose, and meaning to the teaching and
Standards defining success indicators for
learning process, and to allow the institution
programs and services. The standards assist in
to grow and develop to meet the needs of
defining performance levels of institutional
current and future students.
and program assessment.
Market Map:
Actual maps that connect important
economic and social information to
geographic locations through use of
Geographic Information System (GIS).
© 2004
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
23
Program Analysis
Section
3
Program Analysis
•
Program Analysis
•
Program Measures
•
Program Profiles
•
Data Mining
•
Strategic Decisions
This section of the book describes the program analysis phase
of the design process. This phase focuses on translating the key
institutional indicators (from Section 2) into measures for program
analysis that will assist the Design Team in arriving at strategic
program decisions. The design criteria, key institutional indicators,
and program measures contribute to the development of program
profiles to enhance decision making.
Academic Design represents diverging options presented by existing
programs and the challenges in making wise strategic choices.
© 2004
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
25
Program Analysis
Program Analysis
Program analysis involves applying
Figure 3-2
the design criteria and key institutional indicators developed in
Section 2 to each of the offerings of
ENVIRONMENTAL
SCAN
Vitality
the institution to produce a set of
INSTITUTIONAL
SCAN
program profiles (see figure 3-1).
Each program area selects a program
D ES IG N
Design Team to address future chal-
KEY
INSTITUTIONAL
INDICATORS
lenges and opportunities, and to
C R IT ER IA
make a case for the program’s contributions to institutional vitality.
Comparative
Advantage
Productivity
These program design teams are
considered to be subcommittees of
the overall college Design Team.
PROGRAM
ANALYSIS
ACCREDITATION,
BALDRIGE, AND OTHER
QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
INITIATIVES
They expand the number of people
who are involved in the design process, widening
sion of the college. Each program Design Team is
the scope of commitment necessary to make Aca-
made up of 4–12 members representing faculty,
demic Design a reality for everyone in the institu-
staff, students, administration, and community
tion. The program Design Team can be responsible
stakeholders. All work of the program Design
Figure 3-1
for one program or service or multiple programs
Team is shared with the college Design Team to be
Phase 2: Program
and services, such as an entire department or divi-
used in developing the Academic Design.
Analysis Steps
Figure 3-2 focuses the design process on those
measures that define college performance. The
Program
Design and
Improvement
Learning
Organization
Design
landscape dimensions—comparative advantage,
productivity, and vitality—take specific form in the
institution through the selected design criteria and
their associated key institutional indicators. These
are the working measures of the design as it applies
to programs and services. They are also measures
of quality improvement suggested by the Baldrige
and Accreditation Reviews as shown above.
As this framework is applied to college and university operations, it structures an analysis of
both markets and programs. In this way, the
framework gives all members of the institution
a common reference point and a set of concepts
Program Analysis
• Strategic Program
Decisions
• Program Profiles
• Program Measures
26
Landscape
Analysis
that constitute the core of the design conversation—drawing the various design teams toward
a common focus.
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
© 2004
Program Analysis
Program Measures
Key
Concept
ditional approaches to productivity analysis.
Key Institutional Indicators
should be supported by
Measurement often involves assigning a score to
clearly defined quantitative
indicators or learning outcomes that are quali-
measures or qualitative judgments.
tative in nature. For example, "Readiness for job
Indicators without measures are of little use in
placement" in table 3-1 might have the follow-
Academic Design. Institution level indicators
ing assessment:
must be translated into program level measures
Readiness:
for use by senior leadership, governing boards,
• Excellent (4): Student meets all job
and external groups. If not measured, indicators
expectations, responds appropriately to
are merely statements concerning general direc-
emerging demands, and takes leadership
tion without adequate means of specifying the
where appropriate.
• Very Good (3): Student meets all job
contributions of individual programs and serv-
expectations and responds appropriately
ices. Each key institutional indicator has an oper-
to emerging demands.
ational definition that explains its procedures,
• Satisfactory (2): Student meets all job
instruments, and responsibilities. For most indi-
expectations.
cators, it is relatively easy to find measures
• Unsatisfactory (1): Student is unable
already in use such as: student surveys, graduate
to meet job expectations.
surveys, employer surveys, admission reports,
accreditation reports, program review standards,
course evaluations by students, enrollment
In this instance, the qualitative observations are
reports, and other administrative reports.
translated into a nominal scale where each
higher number includes the performances associated with all lower levels.
As an example, the program Design Team might
determine that the indicators shown in table 3-1
are appropriate measures of total productivity to
However, there are important indicators where
evaluate financial and administrative costs. Note,
no measures exist. This is likely to be the case for
however, that the measures shown represent tra-
indicators related to institutional vitality, as
Table 3-1
Total Productivity Indicators and Related Measures
INDICATOR
PROGRAM
INSTITUTION AVERAGE
25.3
35
4%
$3,855
17.4
$985
103 sq ft
5.1
STATE AVERAGE
SIMILAR PROGRAMS
28.2
42
3%
$4,344
14.2
$925
110 sq ft
1.8
NATIONAL AVERAGE
SIMILAR PROGRAMS
27.8
40
NA
$3,300
16.6
$950
98 sq ft
2.2
Current Yr FYE
Headcount
Percent of Institution FYE
Cost per FYE
FYE/FTE
Adm. Cost per FYE
Sq Ft per FYE
Computers per FYE
% Students Receiving
Financial Aid
30.5
45
3%
$3,555
15.3
$985
125 sq ft
1.4
40%
45%
50%
60%
FYE = Full-Year Equivalent Students FTE = Full-Time Equivalent Faculty
© 2004
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
27
Program Analysis
these are usually unique to the institution and
Table 3-2
are almost always qualitative in nature. Since
Assessment Components
vitality concerns are central to Academic Design,
the associated indicator measures must be carefully developed and their meaning shared
throughout the institution. Measurement often
involves interviews, focus groups, and other
FACULTY
& STAFF
Comparative
Advantage
Total
Productivity
Vitality
STUDENTS AND
SUPPORT SERVICES
Comparative
Advantage
Total
Productivity
Vitality
PROGRAM
& FACILITIES
Comparative
Advantage
Total
Productivity
Vitality
forms of qualitative research methodology.
The Assessment Plan identifies the key indicaSimilarly, there should be unique program meas-
tors associated with each cell in this table, with
ures where no institution level indicators exist.
a detailed description of the indicators, along
Program design teams should identify and incor-
with their operational definitions. In many insti-
porate measures unique to their program area
tutions, assessment focuses mainly on programs
and possible peer analysis resources. These meas-
and student learning. This is not to say that the
ures and related sources could include standards
other aspects of institutional functioning should
from specialized accrediting bodies, requests
be excluded from assessment. Rather, care must
from business and industry associations, or com-
be taken to connect all aspects of assessment to
parative data available from national and state
produce a comprehensive perspective on insti-
organizations.
tutional effectiveness. The plan goes on to
specify the systems and procedures to be used
Key
Concept
Assessment plans and
for collecting, analyzing, and acting upon indi-
systems are developed to
cator data.
facilitate collecting and
analyzing data for program measures.
Many internal and external groups are focusing on
assessment of student learning. Institutions are
Program analysis requires more than defining the
being increasingly called upon to scan their envi-
program measures. The institution must make
ronment to determine critical student assessment
arrangements for applying these measures, col-
criteria and develop the institutional capacity to
lecting data, preparing reports, and conducting
track student achievement. The institutional
analyses. The essential design objective for data
Design Team must create the expectation and
systems is to enable meaningful comparisons
provide the capability within departments and pro-
across programs and services. The Design Team
grams for developing student portfolios, setting
coordinates the data collection and analysis, and
knowledge and skills criteria, and developing the
makes comparisons across the institution.
technological capacity to track outcomes.
Many institutions have developed an Assessment
Plan for Institutional Effectiveness as part of
regional accreditation processes. The purpose of
these plans is to link assessment with achievement of the institutional mission. To accomplish
this, these plans address all aspects of institutional functioning as suggested in table 3-2,
which repeats the major headings used to identify key institutional indicators.
28
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
© 2004
Program Analysis
Program Profiles
Key
Concept
The centerpiece of Academic
To be useful at the program level, some indica-
Design is the Profile of
tors need to be given modified operational defi-
institutional programs and
nitions. Thus, an indicator such as "articulate
services. This Profile summarizes the
programs and careers" may be measured by quan-
status of each program/service using Key
titative placement data and/or by qualitative
Institutional Indicators and Program
assessment of the degree to which a program pro-
Measures.
vides career preparation that matches job
requirements. With these data, the program
The program profile begins with a description of
Design Team can complete a program profile like
the program/service and a report on recent per-
that shown in table 3-3, where each program in a
formance. It continues with an assessment of
cluster or family is rated on key indicators
student demand and an analysis of future chal-
selected to measure comparative advantage, total
lenges and opportunities. The actual profile uses
productivity, and the overall contribution of a
the key institutional indicators to enable the
program to institutional vitality.
program Design Team to construct a comparable
Most profiles will be more complex than those
summary analysis of each program/service.
shown in table 3-3. The program Design Team
The program Design Team uses the institutional
may wish to make use of software to cluster pro-
indicators to determine the extent to which the
grams and to identify those indicators that dis-
program addresses the major issues facing the
tinguish among programs. WebGrid is a popular
institution. This is a qualitative exercise and may
freeware ideally suited to profile analysis and is
involve advisory committees, students, and
available at tiger.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/WebGrid.
other stakeholders. This essential first step connects the program to emerging characteristics of
the educational landscape.
Table 3-3
Program Profile
PROGRAM CLUSTER:
HUMAN SERVICES
KEY INSTITUTIONAL INDICATORS
National
Certification
Nursing
Medical Technician
Social Work
Health Management
4
3
4
3
5
4
3
4
5
4
2
3
Reputation
VITALITY INDICATORS
Delivery
Integrity
5
3
3
3
3
4
2
4
5
4
3
3
PROGRAMS
Nursing
Medical Technician
Social Work
Health Management
© 2004
COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE
Placement
Tuition
Rate
TOTAL PRODUCTIVITY
Cost Per
Employ
Student
Computer
Credit Hour
Software
5
4
3
4
3
5
3
5
Use of
Group
Process
2
3
4
3
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
29
Program Analysis
The example uses WebGrid to do an analysis of
EXAMPLE: WEBGRID ANALYSIS
the programs listed in table 3-3. In the matrix
shown, each of the four programs has been rated
FOCUS SCUP, Domain: Academic Design
Context: College and university planning,
4 elements, 9 constructs
(on a scale of 1–5) on the nine key institutional
indicators. This display tells the design teams that:
100
90
80
• Health Management and Medical Technician
hi software use
3
1
1
3
low software use
programs are very much alike. They score at
flexible delivery
3
2
2
4
traditional delivery
90 on the orange scale of similarity in the dia-
hi cost/SCH
1
2
3
4
low cost/SCH
gram. Social Work is next in degree of similar-
high tuition
1
2
3
4
low tuition
ity, with a score of 75 on the orange scale.
hi integrity
1
2
3
3
low integrity
Nursing is lower in similarity but still similar
high placement
1
2
2
3
low placement
to the other three programs with a score of 70
hi reputation
1
3
3
3
low reputation
on the orange scale.
national
2
3
3
2
local
hi group process
4
3
3
2
low group process
• Tuition and Cost indicators are similar—
scoring at 100 on the black scale.
100
90
80
70
60
Social Work
Health Management
Medical Technician
Nursing
• Integrity and Placement indicators are
similar—scoring at 90.
• Local/National, Reputation, and Group
Process indicators are similar—scoring at 85.
These observations help the teams to better
understand the meanings of indicators and the
similarities and differences among programs.
Data Mining
Much of the Academic Design development and
Data mining can resolve this dilemma by allow-
associated strategic decisions are driven by
ing the data to speak and by letting relation-
quantitative and qualitative research. Colleges
ships and data models emerge.
and universities have literally mountains of
data that they have not yet analyzed or used.
The academy often does not effectively use data
in operational or strategic decision making.
Key
Concept
Strategic decisions are
supported by effective data
mining and analysis.
There are many reasons for the underutilization
of this resource, such as
The major use of data mining is to explore
• data base incompatibility,
aspects of clients and programs in order to
• unreliability of data,
develop and improve designs for teaching and
• difficulty of access,
learning. However, data mining can also illu-
and, most significantly, preconceived notions
minate specific strategic design issues, as shown
as to the findings that might result from the
in the following example.
research.
30
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
© 2004
Program Analysis
These three programs show varying degrees of
EXAMPLE: DIGGING
FOR
VITALITY
A
university raised the question, "How is our
institution perceived by our alumni?" To
program vitality. Using displays like this, the
university made strategic decisions to invest in
Education programs and outreach services to
improve their productivity.
answer this question, the university decided
to mine its alumni data base, assuming that
In this case, data mining results challenged the
vitality is measured by the level of individual dona-
conventional assumption that wealth deter-
tions to the institution. Data mining revealed the
mines philanthropic action. The results also
following:
revealed an important link between giving
The wealth of alumni did not predict their
behavior and the departmental home of the
level of giving.
donor. While this outcome was not the sole, nor
Past gifts were a significant predictor
necessarily the strongest, measure of vitality, it
of current gifts.
caused the university to look more closely at
Department and program affiliation was
how student experiences differed among indi-
Figure 3-4
the most powerful predictor of giving behavior.
vidual departments.
Program Vitality:
Satellite Image
Given these findings, the university then created
the following display, figure 3-4, to compare the
relative vitality of its programs and make strate-
ENGINEERIN G
Vitality = neu tral
C om pa ra tive
Vi talit y = neg ative
© 2004
EDUCATION
Vital ity = p osi ti ve
Adv ant ag e
Productivity
HEALTH
PROF ES SIONS
Total
gic funding decisions.
SOC I AL
SCIEN CES
Vitality = margi nal
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
31
Program Analysis
Strategic Decisions
In order to make strategic decisions about
add new major fields and/or programs. Or, data
program development and institutional empha-
mining may reveal that a college is experiencing
sis, program profiles must be articulated within
decline in student readiness, which points to a
the educational landscape discussed in Section 2
need for remedial resources.
of this book. This is a process where quantitative
projections are developed to represent changes in
It is the responsibility of the institutional Design
industries and organizations served by the
Team to collect program profiles from the
program and qualitative analyses are used to
program design teams, to position the programs
judge the impact of those changes. For example,
as to their relative comparative advantage and
changes in welfare laws have created the need for
productivity on the educational landscape, and
new ways of delivering service to welfare recipi-
to determine how programs contribute to insti-
ents. The changes in the structure of the health
tutional vitality.
industry have changed the way health services are
delivered. Small family farms have given way to
corporate farming. These social changes have
implications for the ways colleges and universities prepare students for careers in social work,
Key
Concept
The Academic Design
identifies the programs and
services that best position the
institution on its Educational Landscape.
health care, and agriculture.
The Academic Design process helps institutions
Figure 3-5
The creation of program profiles requires input
judge which programs are likely to contribute
from many people at all levels of the organiza-
most to its future vitality. As the Academic Design
tion. A wide range of experience and knowledge
unfolds, it is imperative to identify where to most
is needed to gain a comprehensive perspective
strategically invest institutional resources. Such
of the program’s position on the educational
decisions can only be made via direct comparisons
landscape. For instance, a university may find
among all programs. Figure 3-5 shows how meas-
that regional development of high technology
ures of comparative advantage, productivity, and
industries creates a need and an opportunity to
vitality can be used to create a program map, which
Program Mapping
can inform the decision process.
This display is a qualitative summary of the
High Productivity
program analysis processes. It positions each
cti vi ty
H ig h Pr od u
e
Lo w A dv an tag
program according to the design criteria as
H igh Pro du ct iv
i ty
Hi gh Ad v an t ag
e
measured by key institutional indicators.
Although this is a qualitative exercise, it allows
High
Advantage
Low
Advantage
L ow A dv a nta ge
H igh A dv a nt a ge
ity
Lo w Pr od u ctiv
Lo w Pr od uc tiv i ty
for comparisons among programs. Comparisons
can be made within the institution, a system, or
national indicators.
Figure 3-5 is not intended as a means to cut programs. Rather, it can serve as a tool to identify
Low Productivity
opportunities for investment of institutional
resources. Programs that are low advantage, low
32
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
© 2004
Program Analysis
productivity are candidates for quality and pro-
Second, the team collects measures of faculty
ductivity improvement efforts, especially if they
resources. These include all faculty ranks (full-
are substantial contributors to institutional vitality.
time, adjunct, etc.), as well as associated costs. It
collects measures of productivity per person, as
Productivity is arguably the major concern facing
well as productivity per dollar. These measures
colleges and universities. Critics who have meas-
may take the form of ratios such as student
ured higher education against economic indica-
credit hours/FTE (full-time equivalent), faculty,
tors conclude that it is clearly in a crisis of
and cost per FTE.
productivity decline. This is a difficult issue for
educators, since faculty and student time makes
Third, administrative inputs are calculated in
up the largest component of direct instructional
relation to program outcomes. Academic admin-
costs and it is difficult to equate investments of
istrative costs can be tracked to student credit
time across programs. For instance, does one
hour outcomes and general administrative serv-
credit in a physics program require the same
ices like registration and financial management
investment of faculty and student time as one
apportioned per student.
credit of sociology? Questions like this are at the
core of productivity improvement in higher edu-
Fourth, support costs must be carefully con-
cation and may ultimately require fundamental
nected to inputs and outcomes. For instance,
changes in the structures and measures associ-
general college recruitment efforts must be
ated with teaching and learning.
appropriately allocated to the program. Also,
facility and technology costs must be appor-
The challenge to the program Design Team is to
tioned to program outcomes and operations.
consider all resource inputs to the educational
The amount of physical space allocated to each
process. Inputs must then be considered for their
program and service can also be evaluated in
impact on program outcomes such as retention
terms of faculty and student usage.
and graduation rates, achievement and placement of graduates, and such less tangible outcomes as the social integration of students in
Key
Concept
college life. This process comprises four steps.
Strategic decisions are
developed as a result of indepth analysis of all
programs—with an emphasis on program
First, the program Design Team identifies quanti-
contributions to Institutional Vitality.
tative measures of program outcomes. Student
flows into and through the program are captured
All of these strategic decisions reflect an over-
in the form of retention rates on quarterly, semes-
riding concern as to the contributions of pro-
ter, or annual bases. Measures of student achieve-
grams to institutional vitality. As shown in the
ment are also selected and tabulated. Service areas
following example, it is the expression of vital-
track the number of students served i.e., involve-
ity in the design criteria that gives programs and
ment in student union activities, bookstore sales,
the institution itself the special character it
financial aid clients, and career counseling.
needs to prosper. Decision makers should also
Program examples include number of credits
recognize that the quality of programs and
issued by program, enrollment by program, and
student learning experiences are critical compo-
grade point average (GPA) by program.
nents of vitality. When programs are called into
question, it is essential to determine the probable causes.
© 2004
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
33
Program Analysis
EXAMPLE: STRATEGIC DECISIONS
T
AT A
UNIVERSITY: STATE UNIVERSITY – CITY CAMPUS
he City Campus of State University identi-
criterion was to have the potential to become
fied a need to boost its national profile and
nationally distinctive. The programs will be pro-
distinguish itself from the other regional cam-
vided additional budget and faculty to allow
puses. The vehicle to make this transition was to
them to expand on their current strengths. These
identify programs of distinction. The programs
programs will develop strategic plans to allow
of distinction were identified through a collabo-
them to attain national distinction.
rative, year-long review of all programs. Four
programs of distinction were selected using
criteria defined by the collaborative process.
Other program areas not identified as programs
of distinction are not expected to be diminished
or overshadowed. The expectation is that, by
The four programs selected were currently distinc-
developing a stronger national image, all pro-
tive in some way: faculty, curriculum, laborato-
grams at the City Campus will benefit as cam-
ries, or corporate support. However, the primary
pus enrollment expands.
Analysis of institutional vitality involves looking
By using models, the institutional Design Team
to the dynamics of the marketplace and program
is able to visualize the various combinations of
delivery and to the decisions and actions that
resources used by individual programs and thus
cause changes in key institutional indicators. All
consider ways to improve the total productivity
too often, institutions make strategic decisions
of the institution. Model databases can be
based on the observed values of indicators
readily expanded to incorporate other resources
without any knowledge of how change might
—such as capital investment, tuition remission,
occur. As a result, faculty and staff are charged
and contributions of partners—to give a com-
with bringing one or more indicators into con-
prehensive setting for strategic decisions.
formity with desired objectives, without guidance
as to how this should be accomplished.
The models developed during the course of
program analysis have an important role in oper-
The solution is to construct dynamic models of
ations management and quality improvement. As
a) the market conditions that affect comparative
we turn our attention to benchmarking and
advantage and b) productivity-related program
quality improvement efforts in Section 4, we will
delivery activities. The more detailed these
be extending these models to show how colleges
models are, the more likely they are to reflect
and universities can move programs to more
actual resource productivity. For instance, in
favorable positions on the educational landscape.
programs where there is a substantial component of on-the-job experience, adjunct faculty
Budget constraints and lower student demand for
may show higher levels of productivity than
certain programs also lead the institutional Design
regular faculty. Similarly, adjunct faculty may
Team to consider program closure(s). This includes
benefit more from access to technology if they
expectations and strategies for scaling back certain
are using it to link the learning experience to the
program activities, reassigning faculty and staff,
job in the real world.
and partnering with or deferring to other institutions. Many institutions have developed the foresight to effectively phase out programs with little
34
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
© 2004
Program Analysis
or no impact on external responsiveness or the
tage of the Nursing program by emphasizing
internal difficulties of layoffs. The importance of
student retention and changing program deliv-
resource reallocation in moving an institution in
ery
the direction of the Design’s strategic decisions
program will continuously be reviewed to ensure
will be addressed in Section 6 as part of institu-
that it performs at the current level. The General
tional efforts to integrate academic and financial
Education offerings will be monitored, with
planning decisions.
efforts to increase enrollment to increase pro-
methods.
The
Computer
Networking
ductivity. The Child Development program will
The analysis of program mapping may lead a
undergo annual reviews with efforts to increase
college to select two programs for investment
enrollment in order to increase productivity. In
and development. It will improve recruitment
each instance, the college examined all aspects
and technology support for the Carpentry
of program design, delivery, and market to arrive
program and enhance the comparative advan-
at decisions likely to improve program offerings.
Section 3 Summary
The program analysis process results in detailed
This section provided information and exam-
information concerning the vitality of each
ples of the analytic phase of the design process.
program on the educational landscape of the
This included: program analysis and program
future. Outcomes of the process are:
profile indicators of competitive advantage,
• Program Profiles: Programs are assessed as
total productivity, vitality, and outcomes and
to their comparative advantage, total pro-
assessment. Section 4 will define the design and
ductivity, and conformance to design crite-
planning phase of the design process. The design
ria. The profiles result from the work of pro-
and planning phase includes benchmarking the
gram design teams as they apply planning
design, program design (program content and
criteria, landscape maps, and market maps
program delivery), and instructional support
to program outcomes.
program designs.
• Program Map: All institutional programs are
positioned on a grid that shows their relative
advantage, productivity, and vitality.
• Strategic Decisions: Based on the previous
profiles and map, decisions are made as to
where investments should be made. This
takes the form of a priority listing of programs and is the input to benchmarking
and program development activities.
© 2004
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
35
Program Analysis
Section 3 Glossary
Assessment Plan:
Program Design Team:
A program for assessing institutional
The committee of program stakeholders given
effectiveness and student learning.
the responsibility to work through the design
Institutional effectiveness centers on
process to develop program information for
determining the extent to which the
the Academic Design. The program Design
institution is achieving the defined mission.
Team can be responsible for one program or
Student learning effectiveness centers on the
service or the multiple programs and services
degree to which students are achieving the
that make up an academic department.
defined learning outcomes for specific courses
Program design teams are made up of 4–12
or programs.
members representing faculty, staff, business
and industry, students, administration, and
Key Institutional Indicators:
community.
Standards defining success for programs and
services. The standards assist in defining
Outcomes:
performance levels for institutional and
The indicators that define the results of a
program assessment.
program or service. The results are defined in
terms of program effectiveness and program
Program Profile:
efficiency. Program effectiveness measures are
A view of a program or service using
stated in terms of teaching and learning
information gathered in analysis process. The
performance. Program efficiency measures are
information used is from the comparative
stated in terms of effective use of resources.
advantage, total productivity, vitality, and
outcome and assessment components. The
Strategic Decisions:
outcome is a view of a program that defines
Identification of institutional and program
the vitality and overall performance.
opportunities for promoting institutional
vitality. The identification of opportunities is
Program Analysis:
based on sound analysis of programs, majors,
A network of activities designed to develop
and services within the mission of the
program profiles. The activities include using
institution.
design criteria and educational outcomes to
develop key institutional indicators that are
used to develop the program profiles. Once
the program profiles are developed, strategic
decisions can be implemented.
36
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
© 2004
Program Design and Improvement
Section
4
Program Design
and Improvement
•
Learning Models
•
Delivery Systems
•
Quality Improvement
•
Best Practices/Benchmarking the Design
This section of the Academic Design book translates the strategic
decisions of Section 3 into designs for teaching and learning processes
that the college will use to serve its students as well as the quality
improvement systems that will be used to manage the institution.
Program Design and Improvement is founded on the profiles created in
Section 3 and the resulting strategic decisions. Arrangements for
teaching and learning are developed following the four topics listed in
figure 4-1
Learning models focus the design conversation on student experiences
and how the intellectual and social environment of the institution
supports teaching and learning. Delivery systems involve specific
designs for instructional practices and learning settings. Quality
improvement ensures that the design is continually monitored and
changed to respond to students and to other stakeholders on the
educational landscape. Finally, benchmarking provides new ideas and
practices drawn from partner organizations.
Academic Design becomes reality as it defines a central core of
institutional activity.
© 2004
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
37
Program Design and Improvement
Learning Models
Design Criteria have helped the college Design
and policies that support teaching and learning
Team make strategic decisions concerning pro-
as they know it. And students come to college
grams and services that contribute to institutional
ready to learn in a manner based on their past
vitality. The next step in the Design Process
experiences. However, few know why one
involves developing appropriate approaches to
student learns while another fails in the same
teaching and learning. Thus, the focus of the
setting, and it is common to look to the
design conversation shifts from broad institu-
student’s past or to his or her motivation to
tional issues to the processes and practices that
explain these results. There is rarely a shared
shape student learning experiences.
model of the learning process to guide the
search for designs that can accommodate new
Key
Concept
Teaching and learning designs
educational objectives—to say nothing of
grow out of shared models of
changes in the backgrounds and expectations of
the learning process.
students.
Everyone involved in the educational enterprise
The challenge facing program design teams is to
has a set of beliefs and experiences that dictate
create one or more models of the learning
how he or she views teaching and learning.
process that incorporate the insights and prac-
Figure 4-1
Teachers have experimented with classroom
tices of master teachers and the conditions and
Phase III: Program
strategies and have arrived at a sense of what
expectations of learners. To see how this might
Design and
works. Administrators have promoted systems
be done, consider figure 4-2.
Improvement
Program Design
and Improvement
•
•
•
•
Benchmarking
Quality Improvement
Delivery Systems
Learning Models
Program
Analysis
38
Learning
Organization
Design
Landscape
Analysis
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
© 2004
Program Design and Improvement
Figure 4-2
and to make decisions that improve program
A Constructivist Learning Model
productivity and vitality. Systems for assessing
student progress and collecting and reporting
ON
en
m
TI
SA
ER
NV
NC
Y
CO
n
TE
Objectives
io
PE
at
ge
ic
M
ga
pl
CO
En
Academic Design.
Ap
t
assessment data make it possible to improve the
Outcomes
Conversation: The power of this model is that it
focuses on the discussions that take place among
teachers and learners. Sharing ideas and experiences through conversation gives learners the
opportunity to test and refine outcomes. As we
have seen in earlier phases of the design process,
CONSTRUCTION
these conversations are a key element in allowing
all stakeholders an opportunity to engage in the
Involvement
process—here it is the learner who grows by virtue
of his or her discussions. The key word here is
“focuses” in that learners discuss questions, ideas,
The label ‘constructivist’ means that construction
and problems taken from their understanding of
of knowledge and skill by the student is the
program subject matter—in effect, testing their
foundation of learning in this model. The model
competency through social exchange.
is not proposed as a definitive statement of ‘constructivism’. Instead, we have here a set of prac-
Construction: Knowledge is not merely conver-
tices that are organized to attain the objectives
sation. Those who produce and use knowledge
and outcomes identified by program design teams.
take on over-arching perspectives, or paradigms,
Numerous applications of the model in various
that enable them to comprehend and talk about
organizational settings have shown that the
knowledge that interests them. Such paradigms
arrangement of the three learning activities—
are essentially ways of putting knowledge in order
conversation, construction, and competency—
so that it can facilitate problem solving. Thus, the
constitute a useful cycle of learning activities that
approach outlined in this model requires that
responds well to new objectives/outcomes and
program faculty agree on the content and struc-
provides productive experiences to a wide range
ture of their subject matters in order to allow stu-
of learner backgrounds and abilities. Each of the
dents the opportunity to be a part of constructing
elements of figure 4-2 contributes to the effec-
their knowledge and skills.
tiveness of this model.
Competency: Here is knowledge and skill put to
Objectives/Outcomes: The comparative advan-
use. Students show mastery of learning objectives
tage of programs is based on students attaining
by demonstrating a capacity to use knowledge to
the most relevant and useful educational out-
solve problems. And, the results of problem
comes. Outcomes define programs in consumer
solving lead to new conversations and a repeat of
terms—the increased knowledge and skills that
the learning cycle. In this model, problems play
students can expect to gain from their educa-
a central role; they serve to demonstrate the value
tional experiences. Outcomes also help the insti-
of the learning experience while, at the same
tution chart its progress toward its mission
time, providing an opportunity for students to
practice skills and apply knowledge.
© 2004
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
39
Program Design and Improvement
The Learning Model is supported by the social
like engagement in that it expresses a motiva-
system of the college. This is simply stated in
tional condition; however, the motivating force
figure 4-2 by the three oval elements.
here is social. Learners are involved in social
exchanges where they find reference points for
Engagement: Engagement refers to the learner’s
learning. But, more importantly, involvement
relationship to knowledge and the processes
provides opportunities for developing social
whereby it is acquired and developed. Students
skills and value clarification that transfers to
cannot solve problems nor construct products
work, family, and community life.
unless they are engaged in the use of information and the tools for manipulating and trans-
Application: The theme of this learning model
forming knowledge, energy, and materials.
is that knowledge is active and the learner is
Engagement refers to the motivational state
expected to demonstrate competency by apply-
where the learner’s attention is directed prima-
ing his or her constructions to the problems of
rily to the task at hand. It is more than a passive
practice. What this means is that faculty seek
reception of information offered by teachers; it
out opportunities for application that transcend
is active search and discovery which may range
conventional forms of evaluation.
far beyond the bounds of any curricular design.
Finally, this model allows for intervention at
Involvement: Learning takes place in the social
many points in the learning process. Students
settings of the institution. However, involvement
can initiate new conversations as they discuss
deals with more than formal instructional rela-
their learning experiences. Constructs can be
tionships. It includes the whole range of social
presented and evaluated and modified as they
interaction experienced by the learner. Even the
are being developed. Competencies are contin-
person learning ‘at a distance’ is drawn into
ually compared to desired outcomes and adjust-
social relationships with instructors and stu-
ments made in the experiences offered learners,
dents
as well as in the ways in which teaching and
through
electronic
communication.
Involvement is what makes learning social. It is
learning takes place.
Delivery Systems
Key
Concept
The instructional delivery
willing to question the prevailing paradigm of
system is the primary means
the traditional classroom lecture and laboratory
for implementing the
experience that often limits the productivity of
Academic Design. The instructional
faculty and students.
approach and the social structure of the
learning setting are designed to
Design studies of instructional delivery systems
facilitate attainment of Design goals.
can be framed by considering two fundamental
dimensions—the learning structure and the
40
If the Design is to be truly Academic, it must
instructional approach. Learning structure refers
center on teaching and learning. We have sug-
to the social organization of teachers and stu-
gested that a shared learning model can provide
dents. In figure 4-3, Structure is measured along
guidance as to the best teaching and learning
a continuum from Class to Network. Ever larger
experiences for students. Design teams must be
groupings of learners are employed to increase
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
© 2004
Program Design and Improvement
Figure 4-3
The task of the program Design Team is to locate
Delivery System Frame
the target program on the matrix of figure 4-3.
The program can then be studied in detail to
St ru ct ur
s
determine how a particular learning structure is
or
k
un
tw
mm
ory
organized, how students and teachers assume
Ne
Laborat
Co
Co
ho
rt
m
as
e
Te
a
Cl
Lectur
e
ity
Le ar ni ng
In st ru ct
io n
A pp ro ac
h
roles in the structure, and how it is managed. The
On-The-
Job
study also identifies features of the instructional
Mento
r
Self-Dir
approach such as use of time and resources, rep-
ected
resentation of knowledge, demonstration and
practice of skills, and assessment of outcomes.
Direc
tion
of De
Deve
lopm sign
ent
A framework of this nature is not likely to
the social context of the educational experience.
On the second dimension, the instructional
approach is portrayed according to the degree of
student control over learning. In lecture
approaches, the student is largely a passive recipient of a one-way flow of information. In selfdirected approaches, the learner is in control
and often is able to navigate his or her way
describe a definitive array of instructional delivery approaches. Instead, it embodies concepts
that the program Design Team has identified as
important to academic design for its institution.
Clearly, the arrows showing a "Direction of
Design Development" challenge faculty to consider alternative delivery systems and to make a
case for present and future approaches to teaching and learning. Let’s look at an example of
toward educational outcomes.
how this might be done.
EXAMPLE: A LEARNING COMMUNITY
M
OF
MIDTOWN
idtown is a medium-sized community with a
All members of the Midtown community actively
strong light-manufacturing industry. Leaders
engage in knowledge production and use—knowl-
in Midtown decided to develop a Learning
edge has escaped from the academy into Midtown.
Community with the cooperation of a local college.
Navigators: The Midtown design incorporates on-
The resulting delivery design was driven by a learn-
the-job training, mentorships, and individual learn-
ing model that emphasized a seamless connection
ing approaches. These are all facilitated by naviga-
between education and work. This model is based
tors who are involved in using knowledge in prac-
on the pathways learners of all ages might follow in
tice. Navigators have a compelling interest in assist-
their personal educational journeys.
ing learners, since the result is a highly trained
workforce and continued innovation in local busi-
As this model was used in delivery system design,
several key concepts emerged:
Community: Midtown is the community, a virtual space where any number of smaller learning communities can flourish. This is not to say that there is
no physical space—only that community is not constrained by facilities.
Knowledge: The history of knowledge utilization in
Midtown ensures that learning opportunities provided
ness organizations.
Governance: A unique use of the learning model
has to do with the way Midtown chose to govern the
educational enterprise. The community created a
board of trustees who were to be stewards of the
learning model. In Midtown, learning has become the
property of the community and trustees select institutions and partners who support the seamless structure
of the model (see figure 4-4).
for students are dynamic and focused on application.
© 2004
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
41
Program Design and Improvement
Figure 4-4
The point of this example is that a shared con-
The Midtown Learning Model
ception of teaching and learning can extend
beyond the boundaries of the college to include
many members of the larger community. The
HIGH SCHOOL
2-YEAR COLLEGE
4-YEAR COLLEGE
example also shows there is no preferred delivery design. Instead, program designers have a
wide range of optional instructional strategies
EMPLOYMENT
and may consider various patterns of social
organization. The challenge is to bring a
PARTNERS
Midtown into being—a setting where teaching
and learning can vitalize college, student, and
community.
Quality Improvement
Vitality grows out of the Academic Design. It
design conversations that are now directed at the
takes shape in strategic programs and in the
quality of student learning outcomes.
ways they are designed and delivered to learners. However, vitality is more than a good
Where there is a discrepancy between assessed
design—it is expressed in the quality of learner
learning outcomes and design criteria or
experiences and the contributions the institu-
program objectives, construction of new Acade-
tion makes to all of its stakeholders. Conse-
mic Designs is called for. The resulting designs
quently, the Academic Design must provide
not only change the content and form of the
practices and systems for monitoring and
learning experience, they also mold learning
improving program quality.
outcomes to the conditions and expectations of
learners as they are applied to teaching and
The many approaches to improving higher edu-
learning activities.
cation share a common starting point: quality
improvement involves studying teaching and
The power in models like this comes from the
learning systems to identify effective practices.
close relationship between the design process,
"Learning about learning" applies a model
learning models, and the approach taken to
similar to that used in program design. Figure
4-5 shows one such model.
quality improvement. As all members of the
Figure 4-5
A Quality Learning Model
In this model, Academic Design is linked to outLearning Outcomes
comes by a process that uses assessment data
about learning outcomes to measure and
improve the quality of the student experience.
Applicatio n
nt
A sses sme
The use of assessment data is essentially a feedback control process. Therefore, the Design Team
Conversation
Academic Design
Construction
focuses on the source, flow, and use of data for
decision making. This is done through extended
42
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
© 2004
Program Design and Improvement
college community come to understand and use
tutions, programs, and services have successfully
a learning approach to design and problem
addressed similar issues, and the college can turn
solving, they create a true learning community.
to these examples to benchmark selected best
practices.
Fortunately, solutions to problems in Academic
Design need not always be invented. Many insti-
Best Practices/Benchmarking the Design
Benchmarking is a process of collaboration
The Academic Design team has identified the
between the college or university and its com-
key effectiveness indicators that define produc-
petitors and partners. It is a way of identifying
tivity, comparative advantage, and vitality and
exemplary programs and processes that have the
have selected program design teams to manage
highest potential to contribute to institutional
the process of program development. The Aca-
vitality on the educational landscape. But it is
demic Design team is responsible for managing
more than merely pointing to collections of best
benchmarking projects and for the use of results
practices. Benchmarking is a mutual effort
in the academic design process, working closely
between the institution and its partner to better
with program/service design teams. The tables
understand the ingredients of academic excel-
and maps created in Sections 2 and 3 outline
lence. It is a process that questions the ruling
the criteria to be used in the benchmarking
paradigms of higher education and puts them to
process. The measures chosen for comparative
the test of social and economic relevance.
advantage and productivity give concrete form
to design criteria and, hence, to organizational
Benchmarking also plays a special role in Acad-
vitality. These indicators, in turn, provide the
emic Design. It is the first activity where new
structure for the benchmark data files in which
resources are committed to create change and
both qualitative and quantitative information
innovation. Benchmarking studies therefore
is organized and stored. At the program level,
require the full commitment of institutional
design teams may focus more closely on
leaders and the Academic Design team. Bench-
program-specific outcomes and other measures
marking takes a good deal of time and money,
of teaching and learning.
in order to identify processes and practices that
stakeholders expect to be adopted. The organi-
Systems and services that enroll and support
zation must carefully select benchmarking proj-
students are also a focus of the benchmarking
ects and be ready to commit the resources and
study since they are key elements in the Acad-
political support necessary for their success.
emic Design. These systems and services are
studied and transformed in concert with
Key
Concept
Strategic programs, systems,
program development. Accordingly, they are
and services are selected
analyzed for their degree of fit to design crite-
and benchmarking criteria
ria and educational landscape.
are developed from landscape and
program analysis and from quality
The benchmarking process, see figure 4-6,
improvement studies.
closely parallels the practices of academic scholarship.
© 2004
Problems
are
posed,
studies
are
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
43
Program Design and Improvement
Figure 4-6
is essential that benchmark information become
The Benchmarking Process
a central part of the common speech of faculty,
students, and other stakeholders. Members of
the program Design Team make this happen by
Strategic Programs
Strategic Systems
talking about program advantage, productivity,
and vitality, and listening to the ways these
Performance
Criteria
issues surface in everyday conversations. Institutions and programs selected as partners in the
benchmarking process provide invaluable com-
Benchmarking Partner(s)
munication support, in that ideas and best practices are already a part of their discussions. This
Data Collection
is especially important when benchmarking
studies focus on the knowledge/skill content of
Report Development
Programs and Systems
Transformation
programs.
Benchmarking program content is primarily an
exercise in qualitative analysis. Knowledge structures or field-organizing paradigms constitute
the framework for the study, identifying key
concepts and relationships. These are the con-
designed, data are collected, and conclusions are
drawn. This makes benchmarking an academic
exercise—not an administrative function.
This point cannot be overemphasized. Often,
planning is seen as a bureaucratic mandate,
unrelated to the academic core of the institution. Seeing benchmarking as a scholarly activity provides a way to directly engage faculty in
the planning and design process. Faculty can use
their research skills to systematically collect and
report benchmarking data in an unbiased
manner. Also, this provides faculty with the
information that they will be asked to use to
evaluate and redesign their programs.
Recall that Academic Design and program innovation depend on the conversations among key
actors in the institution. Conversations are
shaped by the terms and concepts used to
structs the institution hopes to communicate to
students. Often, these frameworks are found in
course outlines—in the way courses are organized into programs. Benchmarking studies then
look to new frameworks as a means of improving the Academic Design.
Student learning depends upon content. Therefore, assessment practices are also evaluated in the
benchmark study. Standard inventories of instructional goals can be used in the study to determine
how teaching practices and priorities in the target
program compare with those currently in use in
the home institution. Assessment processes can
help to uncover the quality improvement projects that may already be in place in the institution. Studying these practices shows the
benchmarking team ways to improve the timeliness and relevance of the program content.
describe the academic life of the institution. It
44
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
© 2004
Program Design and Improvement
Section 4 Summary
Program Design and Improvement results in the
Benchmarks: Partner organizations are selected,
following outcomes:
and studies of programs and processes summa-
Learning Models: Organized frameworks of the
rized in reports for use in program design.
concepts and practices that constitute student
Program Content: Summaries of program skills
learning experiences.
and knowledge are created and contrasted with
Delivery Systems: Alternative instructional
current program content.
approaches and social structures are analyzed to
identify possible delivery system designs.
Quality Improvement Models: Instruments and
analysis procedures are created that can be used
for improving the quality of learning experiences.
Section 4 Glossary
Benchmarking:
Instructional Delivery System:
A collaborative process through which
The instructional approach and social
institutions work together to improve
structure of the learning setting.
products, services, and practices. It is a
process of comparing products, services, and
Learning Models:
practices to those institutions that are
Teaching and learning constructs that focus
recognized as leaders in the field.
on student experiences and how the
intellectual and social environment
Benchmarking Partnerships:
of the institution supports teaching
Institutions identified to collaborate on Best
and learning.
Practices/Benchmarking. Collaborators share
information on programs and services to
Quality Improvement:
enhance the teaching and learning process.
Processes that continually monitor
and change the educational landscape
Best Practice:
in responding to students and other
A way of delivering a program or service
stakeholders.
that provides maximum effectiveness or
efficiency.
Data Collection:
Qualitative and quantitative methods
to collect and analyze information
to improve the quality of the teaching
and learning process.
© 2004
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
45
Learning Organization Design: Learning Paradigms
Section
5
Learning Organization
Design: Learning Paradigms
• Paradigms and Organization
• Paradigms and Teaching and Learning
• Technology
• Human Capital – Personnel
• Student Services
• Campus Environment
• Conclusion
Academic programs do not exist in a vacuum where each makes
autonomous decisions that do not affect nor are affected by the larger
institution. Programs are located in an institutional environment where
they share resources and draw upon and add to the vitality of the
organization. Designers can recognize the interdependence of programs
by viewing their institution as a learning organization. From this
perspective, colleges and universities are environments where
competition and cooperation among programs result in some programs
becoming stronger and providing greater comparative advantage than
others. These highly fit programs capture a larger share of institutional
resources and ensure their own—and the institution’s—ability to survive.
Academic Design connects program centers within the educational
landscape.
© 2004
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
47
Learning Organization Design: Learning Paradigms
Traditional collegiate organizational structures
Figure 5-2
and governance models are unable to accom-
The Learning Organization
modate the scope and speed of the changes
required by an increasingly dynamic higher education landscape. Pursuing institutional vitality
under contemporary conditions requires new
LEA RNING ORGA NIZATION
forms of organization. These new organizations
foster a design environment which nurtures
experimentation and innovation, and learning
Resource
Alignment
takes place at all levels.
To break away from entrenched traditions, aca-
Learning Paradigms
demic organizations need to look at themselves
in a new way. Learning Organization Design
involves defining new learning paradigms that
integrate the academic design with the programs
Academic
Design
and services of the college and align resources to
support these paradigms (figure 5-1).
comparative advantage. This is done by identifyIdentifying existing paradigms within the college
ing the desired paradigms, and then aligning the
was a key step in the internal institutional scan-
human, technological, financial, and capital
ning of Phase 1, Landscape Analysis. Now the
resources to support those paradigms and create
Design Team is going to take the Academic Design
the desired learning organization (figure 5-2).
Figure 5-1
and identify and develop the desired paradigms to
Phase IV: Learning
create the learning organization that supports the
Although much has been written, there is no con-
Organization Design
programs and services that provide the greatest
sensus about the characteristics of good learning
organizations in higher education. This section
Learning
Organization Design
Program
Design and
Improvement
Program
Analysis
48
• Resource Alignment
• Design Integration
• Learning Paradigms
discusses a variety of learning paradigms so that
an institution can be deliberate about choosing
the ones that best match their vision and mission.
Landscape
Analysis
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
© 2004
Learning Organization Design: Learning Paradigms
Paradigms and Organization
Key
Concept
Institutions are shaped by
Academic Organization: Academic disciplines
their ruling paradigm.
are the key organizing units in this type of institution. Often, academic organizations are overlaid on a collegiate organization and attempts
An institution’s ruling paradigm is the expression
of the shared perspectives or values of internal
and external stakeholders. It takes concrete form
in the processes the organization uses to produce
its products and services. Ruling paradigms also
place parameters around the activities of
are made to create so-called interdisciplinary
programs so students can learn subject matter in
a more integrated manner. Academic organizations are more discipline-based than collegiate
organizations, giving faculty more control over
decision making.
members of the organization. The ruling paradigm determines which problems the organiza-
Team Organization: A third type of institution
tion addresses and it defines the basic rules and
is directed by teams that cut across programs to
rituals that shape interactions among the
work on issues and ideas that affect the entire
members of the organization. Consequently,
institution. Team leaders are the key actors in
identification and deliberate shaping of a ruling
these organizations because they determine who
paradigm to support the Academic Design is
will participate and how quickly the work will
essential to creating a vital organization that
proceed. Research projects that cut across aca-
promotes programs and services that provide the
demic disciplines are an example of this organi-
greatest comparative advantage.
zational form in colleges and universities.
Although there is no recognized typology of
Enterprise Organization: In this organization,
ruling paradigms in higher education, there are
each unit has full responsibility for gathering and
some common structures and processes. They are
managing its own resources and achieving its
presented on a continuum shown in figure 5-3.
results. Decision making and management occurs
independently, as each unit seeks to maximize its
The following definitions describe five different
ruling paradigms in colleges and universities
today.
Collegiate Organization: This is a traditional
higher education institution composed of divisions and departments. The collegiate organization is managed by central and divisional
administrators who generally make decisions in
collaboration with faculty via a shared gover-
vitality and success. Large independently funded
research institutes are examples of enterprise
organizations in higher education.
Learning Organization: This is an optimal
organizational structure in which programs
and units work together to implement the
identified Academic Design. Decision making
Figure 5-3
and management is shared in a dynamic orga-
Organizational
nizational environment that focuses on the
Paradigms
nance model. Resources generally flow in predictable ways to divisions and programs that
have received funding in the past; not in ways
that best support the Academic Design or the
current or emerging needs of students.
© 2004
Collegiate
Academic
Team
Enterprise
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
Learning
on
Organizati
49
Learning Organization Design: Learning Paradigms
programs and practices that promote a learnercentered environment.
Different parts of the same institutions could fall
on different points on the scale. For example, it
is not unusual to find enterprise units within colleges where academic organization is dominant.
Paradigms and Teaching and Learning
Key
Concept
The ruling paradigm shapes
Work-Based Learning: In this paradigm, stu-
Academic Designs for
dents acquire knowledge and skills in a real
teaching and learning.
work situation. This is a key approach in
various technical and occupational education
Uncovering learning paradigms is a more
programs, as well as in internships sponsored
complex task than identifying organizational
by various professional programs.
forms because approaches to learning are
usually unique to programs and individual
Team Learning: This approach organizes stu-
instructors. Figure 5-4 provides a framework for
dents in teams to develop and manage learning
faculty and administrators to identify the ruling
projects. Team learning has proven highly effec-
paradigm in teaching and learning. This figure
tive in improving student engagement in the
presents concepts suggested in recent literature
learning process. Team learning is becoming
along with ideas found in many higher educa-
more popular because it models real-world
tion delivery systems. Academic Designers
approaches to work and learning.
should expect to find examples of all Teaching/Learning paradigms in their institution. The
Goal-Directed Learning: Instructors and insti-
key is to recognize the predominant approach
tutions use this approach to define learning
to teaching and learning across programs and
goals for students and relate these goals to the
instructors throughout the institution.
learning outcomes of the organization. This
helps students know exactly what knowledge
Instruction: This is the most prevalent
and skills they can expect to gain in a specific
approach in the traditional college or univer-
course of study.
sity. Lectures and other classroom-centered
experiences are used to deliver subject matter
Construction: Constructive learning experi-
Figure 5-4
content. Students are frequently passive
ences emphasize the production of learning
Teaching/Learning
receivers of instructional content.
outcomes and products that can be applied by
students to work, community, and family life.
Paradigms
Instruction
50
WorkBased
Learning
Team
Learning
GoalDirected
Learning
Constructio
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
n
© 2004
Learning Organization Design: Learning Paradigms
Technology
Key
Concept
Infrastructure priorities should
Transaction Processing: This refers to the basic
be derived from the teaching
record-keeping function of the academy. Infor-
and learning structure and
mation Technology systems are used to manage
support the learning experience.
databases that store and organize student, financial, and other records.
There are many technologies being used in
higher education. Many programs employ spe-
Instruction Support: This is technology used to
cialized technologies that allow students to
support teaching and learning. E-mail, digital
apply their knowledge in ways that mirror real-
archives, technology-enhanced classrooms, com-
world applications. Technology has become
puter labs, and listserv communications are
interwoven in higher education as a means of
typical tools in this paradigm.
enriching the learning experience for students.
Some examples include:
Learning Systems: Here, instructional technol-
• Online programs and learning resources
ogy serves as the medium for organizing and
• E-mail and other communication processes
transmitting knowledge. Examples include on-
• Technology-enhanced classrooms
line learning, Web-enhanced learning, interac-
• Web-enhanced courses
tive Web sites, and CD-ROMs.
• Computer labs
• Instructional management systems
• Online student services
• Laptop computers
• Personal Digital Assistants
• Voice, video, and data networks
Key
Concept
The technology infrastructure
helps the organization to
function and shapes
knowledge production and learning.
The technology infrastructure can support any
or all of the functions listed above. The diffusion
of administrative and instructional technologies
There are multiple uses of technology in the
academy and it is easy to create a scale that is
much richer in detail than that shown in figure
5-5. The technology infrastructure is a major
part of the ruling paradigm, and requires significant investment of resources. As such, technology infrastructure issues must be constantly
addressed in the design process.
Technology may seem expensive, but it takes a
distant second place to personnel costs. In most
institutions, faculty and staff costs make up
Figure 5-5
more than half of the operating budget. People
Technology
are the key issue in the ruling paradigm.
Paradigms
into institutional and program operations can
be addressed according to one of the paradigms
shown in figure 5-5.
© 2004
Transaction
Processing
Instruction
Support
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
Learning
Systems
51
Learning Organization Design: Learning Paradigms
Human Capital – Personnel
Key
Concept
Human capital is the
hired to teach a specific course according to the
primary resource used in
course descriptions and outlines developed by
program delivery.
deans or full-time faculty and may come from
business and industry occupations.
There is a wide-ranging change in the composi-
Facilitator: In this case, faculty collaborate with
tion of the faculties of most colleges and uni-
the learner to identify learning materials, struc-
versities. A few decades ago, they were almost
tures, and tools that can be used to achieve the
entirely staffed by full-time faculty. There are
course or program outcomes that are more task-
now increasing numbers of adjunct employees
or problem-oriented. Faculty autonomy depends
in almost every college and university. In fact,
on the institution’s organizational structure.
in some two-year colleges, fewer than 20 percent
Some entrepreneurial institutions might provide
of the faculty are full time. Some for-profit insti-
faculty a wide degree of latitude in partnering
tutions are composed entirely of part-time
with other instructors to create multi-faceted
faculty. Thus, the human capital of colleges and
learning opportunities, while other institutions
universities can be organized in a variety of ways
might give faculty the opportunity to develop a
and institutions must align investment in
specific self-directed course according to a pre-
faculty to match the requirements of the Acad-
developed course outline.
emic Design.
The design discussion concerning the use of
Figure 5-6 illustrates that faculty come from a
human capital goes to the heart of the mission
variety of backgrounds and play multiple roles.
of higher education. How faculty are organized,
The term "adjunct faculty" includes both part-
managed, rewarded, and provided resources will
time instructors and nontenured, full-time
fundamentally shape the ruling paradigm that
employees. The figure also raises the issue of self-
will guide the learning organization design. This,
directed learning, where students may learn
in turn, will determine how the college’s pro-
independently and have little or no formal rela-
grams and services are provided to students.
tionship with faculty members. Faculty types are
Institutions must conscientiously manage their
described below:
people resources to create the learning organi-
Traditional: These are individuals on full-time
zation that best supports the Academic Design.
appointments who engage in traditional faculty
activities related to classroom instruction. They
are generally organized by disciplines and have
considerable autonomy in defining their work.
Figure 5-6
Adjunct: These faculty are generally part-time
Academic Personnel
and have little autonomy. They are generally
Paradigms
Traditional
52
Adjunct
Facilitator
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
© 2004
Learning Organization Design: Learning Paradigms
Student Services
Key
Concept
The form and scope
Marketing: Institutions using this approach
of the student services
view students as consumers and provide them
is based on the ruling
with programs that meet their specific needs like
paradigm of the institution.
renewing a professional license or learning a specific software skill.
The paradigms shown in figure 5-7 are crude
measures of the institution’s commitment to its
The nature of the student-institution contract
students. This level of commitment affects the
defines the level of effort that the organization
form and scope of student services.
will make to ensure attainment of learning outcomes. Student development requires a greater
This scale shows an organizational commitment
investment in student services staff than the
to students on a personal level on the left and a
marketing approach. In all of the cases above,
more practical orientation on the right. The dif-
the prevalence and demand for access to student
ferent approaches are described below.
services by local and remote learners will require
Student Development: Institutions employing
institutions to make more services available
Figure 5-7
through the Internet.
Student Services
this approach use student services to support the
Paradigms
student’s intellectual, social, and personal growth.
Enrollment Management: Institutions employing
this approach use student services to match programs offered with student and employer and
Student
Development
Enrollment
Management
Marketing
other market demands. They do this to ensure continued enrollment and regular progress toward certificates and degrees. Enrollment management may
coexist with student development.
© 2004
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
53
Learning Organization Design: Learning Paradigms
Campus Environment
Key
Concept
The Academic Design
use of physical space and offer learning experi-
determines how the current
ences closer to where students work and live.
infrastructure of the campus
will be used to support teaching and
Virtual: The virtual environment primarily makes
learning.
use of voice, video, and data networks and little
use of physical space. The Academic Design uses
Campus environments are complex. This makes
technologies to support communication and
it difficult to arrive at a set of terms that are
interaction between teachers and learners.
meaningful in a design discussion. Figure 5-8
condenses the campus environment into three
The environmental aspect of Academic Design
familiar paradigms.
is not just a matter of making productive and
efficient use of teaching and learning space. It
The traditional college or university, whether it
also involves creating environments where stu-
is a residential or a commuter campus, is defined
dents and faculty can interact in various social
by a set of buildings and facilities that create a
settings. If higher education is to thrive, atten-
living and learning environment. However,
tion must be given to the social behavior of
enrollment trends show that students are begin-
teachers and learners and to the environments
ning college later, and often have significant
and technology infrastructures that foster an
work, community, and family responsibilities.
academic society.
Older students are less interested in traditional
collegiate life and demand learning experiences
All Academic Design issues ultimately focus on
that are available anywhere and anytime. They
the nature of the physical environment where the
are likely to choose institutions that offer a
capital assets of higher education are invested. A
variety of learning options ranging from the tra-
resource often managed without regard to the
ditional classroom to virtual environments. The
ecological dimensions discussed in this section
challenge of Academic Design is to make cre-
will fall short of defining and accurately portray-
ative use of the built environment so that the
ing the desired campus environment.
investment of physical capital is used productively. The approaches are described below.
Residential: This is the traditional campus environment composed of classrooms, laboratories,
libraries, dormitories, and other buildings.
Figure 5-8
Campus Environment
Distributed: This approach uses off-campus
Paradigms
centers that support increased flexibility in the
Residential
54
Distributed
Virtual
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
© 2004
Learning Organization Design: Learning Paradigms
Conclusion
Taken together, the above paradigms create a
learning organization that gives the institution a
special character and a set of faculty, staff, and
Academic
Collegiate
Team
Enterprise
students to support its mission. This learning
organization is a combination of the institution’s
position on the arrows shown in figure 5-9.
WorkBased
Learning
Instruction
Team
Learning
GoalDirected
Learning
Learning
Organizati
o
n
Construction
Designing the Learning Organization involves
positioning each program on the scales shown
above and contrasting program dimensions with
Transaction
Processing
Instruction
Support
Learning
Systems
those characterizing the organization as a whole.
In this drawing, it is easy to see that the program
(represented by the orange dotted line) processes
Traditional
Adjunct
Student
Developme
Management
Facilitator
and structure are different than the institution’s
processes and structure (black dotted line). It is
the aggregate of program positions that either
reinforces or changes the learning organization.
Enrollment
nt
Marketing
It is this type of tension that results in new patterns of organization and, in extreme cases,
Residenti
al
Distributed
Virtual
whole new paradigms.
Conceptual frameworks like this are often criti-
INSTITUTION
cized for their loose connection to reality.
PROGRAM
Figure 5-9
However, there is persuasive evidence that higher
The Learning
education is undergoing paradigm shifts along
Organization
the dimensions discussed above. The most compelling case in point is the proliferation of graduate programs being offered by private colleges
and for-profit vendors. An example follows.
© 2004
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
55
Learning Organization Design: Learning Paradigms
EXAMPLE: THE PROFIT MOTIVE:
C
onglomerate College was, in the early 1980’s,
bottom line profit of $9 million on its operating
a small residential liberal arts college enrolling
budget of $50 million." Not a bad performance for
1100 undergraduate students. It had recently dis-
a not-for-profit organization.
continued its Master of Science programs due to
their high instructional cost. Also, the College was
carrying a large rolling deficit that local bankers
were reluctant to loan against.
When the College became a University, it confirmed
a paradigm shift from traditional to enterprise driven. Its position on the dimensions in figure 5-9 is
represented by the orange dotted line, identical to
In 1984, the College began an experimental Master
the Master’s program launched in 1984. In sum, the
of Arts program for human service professionals.
new academic design for graduate education has
This nontraditional program was offered on
altered the institution in fundamental ways. It is
evenings and weekends with significant flexibility in
also important to note that the graduate programs
its delivery. This program is the one indicated by
at CU are not campus centered and there is no con-
the orange dotted line in figure 5-9, while the
nection between graduate and undergraduate pro-
College, in the 1980s, is positioned as the black
gramming.
dotted line. Here is the result.
This is not to say that such paradigm changes are
The new graduate degree was well received, and
always desirable. Rather, the CU case confirms the
others were added. Enrollment grew, and by 2000,
power of Academic Design as a force for change in
Conglomerate College had become a University pro-
higher education. It is up to institutional leaders to
viding most of the graduate education in its region-
be stewards of the learning ecology and to support
al metropolitan area. That spring, CU awarded
those designs that enhance organizational vitality
more advanced degrees than the local research uni-
in the broadest sense of the word.
versity. The president of CU boasted that, "CU has a
Section 5 Glossary
Terms used in this section have been defined as
the concepts were presented.
56
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
© 2004
Preparing the Academic Design Plan
Section
6
Preparing the Academic
Design Plan
•
Introduction—Section Summaries
•
Student Support Services
•
The Plan
•
Resource Allocation and Academic Design
•
Web of Plans
•
The Principles
•
The Conversation Continues
This section of the book describes the planning phase of the design
process. This section brings together all elements of the design process
to produce an Academic Design along with plans for implementation. It
traces the work of the Design Team through the documented outcomes
of their design work. It contains six parts as outlined below. Each
section of this book identified outcomes to be used to develop the
Academic Design. The Academic Design process is based on the design
elements and design process phases shown in figure 6-1.
Academic Design encompasses the intire institution, including an
understanding of both space and time.
© 2004
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
57
Preparing the Academic Design Plan
Introduction – Section Summaries
Section 1: This section provides the introduction to the design process. In addition, members
of the Design Team, design documents, and
design schedule are identified.
of criteria that the Academic Design must
meet in order to ensure institutional vitality.
4 Key institutional indicators: The design criteria and educational outcomes are used to
select a set of key institutional indicators. Key
Section 2: Phase 1: Landscape Analysis results in
institutional indicators are standards defining
five major outcomes:
success factors for programs and services. The
1 Scans—environmental and institutional:
standards assist in defining performance lev-
Scanning provides information about the
external and internal environments that
els of institutional and program assessment.
5 The educational landscape map: The factors
form the foundation for strategic decisions.
making for a vital institution are identified,
The environmental scan identifies and evalu-
along with scales of measurement used for
ates key trends, factors, and issues that have
establishing best practices/benchmarking
a potential impact on the success of pro-
exemplary programs and organizations.
grams and services of the institution. The
These factors address comparative advantage,
institutional scan examines the vision, mis-
total productivity, and vitality issues. The
sion, and planning efforts of the institution
primary outcome is a picture or map of the
to ensure consistency of purpose.
vitality factors (key indicators drawn from
2 Institutional vitality indicators—
the scanning and design criteria).
comparative advantage and productivity:
The results of the scanning process are analyzed to define the specific factors that
Key
Concept
impact Academic Design.
Figure 6-1
The Academic Design is a
narrative description of the
design process in which the
3 Design criteria: This set of specifications is a
Academic Design
summary of the forces and challenges facing
Steps and Phases
the institution. This summary takes the form
Design Team presents an analysis of the
educational landscape.
In the Section 2 analysis, the Design Team articulates the design criteria and institutional vitality indicators (comparative advantage and
productivity) with previous strategic plans, enviProgram Design
and Improvement
Learning
Organization Design
ronmental scanning, self-studies, defining insti-
•
•
•
•
• Resource Alignment
• Design Integration
• Learning Paradigms
tutional
Benchmarking
Quality Improvement
Delivery Systems
Learning Models
paradigms,
and
mission/vision
documents. The factors that contribute to institutional vitality can be portrayed in an educational landscape map developed in that same
section. The Design Team also identifies criteria
for measuring the comparative advantage and
productivity of individual programs. These
Program Analysis
Landscape Analysis
become the parameters for program analysis that
• Strategic Program
Decisions
• Program Profiles
• Program Measures
• Key Indicators
• Design Criteria
• Scanning
contributes to strategic decisions on the future
58
direction of the educational enterprise. Quality
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
© 2004
Preparing the Academic Design Plan
initiatives, accreditation processes, and account-
Section 3: Phase 2: Program Analysis results in
ability mechanisms are key elements in defining
detailed information concerning the position of
the educational landscape and the Academic
each program on the educational landscape. The
Design must reflect institutional response to
key institutional indicators are translated into
these external and internal pressures.
measures for program analysis that will assist the
Design Team in arriving at strategic decisions.
As shown in figure 6-2, there are three pathways
The key institutional indicators and program
to institutional vitality:
measures contribute to the development of
1 Quality initiatives promote the comparative
program profiles to enhance decision making.
advantage of college programs and services.
Outcomes of this phase are:
They also help to position the college as the
1 Program Analysis: A network of activities
provider of choice among its competitors.
designed to develop program profiles. The
activities include using design criteria and
Figure 6-2
educational outcomes to develop key institu-
Pathways to Vitality
Pathways to Vitality
tional indicators that are used to develop the
program profiles. Once the program profiles
Institutional
Vitality
are developed, strategic decisions can be
Design
implemented.
Total
Productivity
Comparative
Advantage
2 Program Measures: Operational definitions for
program outcomes that have been identified
in the assessment plan. The measures include
both qualitative and quantitative indicators
Accountability
Quality
for programs.
3 Program Profiles: Programs are assessed as to
their comparative advantage, total productivity, and vitality. The profile is the result of
2 Accountability ensures that the institution
the work of program design teams as they
makes best use of scarce resources and that it
apply planning criteria, landscape maps, and
can make a convincing case for its capacity
market maps to program outcomes.
to serve its stakeholders.
3 Design is the over-arching pathway to vitality.
It emphasizes the special character of the college and it makes mission-related concerns a
part of internal conversations.
4 Program Mapping: All institutional programs
are positioned on a grid that shows their relative advantage, productivity, and vitality.
5 Strategic Decisions: Based on the preceding
profiles and map, decisions are made as to
where investments should be made. This
To take advantage of the potential of these pathways, the Academic Design must include various
levels of specificity to communicate effectively
with various audiences. It may be highly general,
takes the form of identifying the programs
that contribute to institutional vitality and
the programs that will be the focus of benchmarking and quality improvement activities.
highlighting only overall directions and program
configurations. Or, it can be highly specific,
showing a given audience how the Academic
Design affects individuals and organizations.
© 2004
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
59
Preparing the Academic Design Plan
Key
Concept
Current program
Strategic program decisions center on the fol-
performance is summarized
lowing areas:
on the dimensions of
• Programs identified as central to institution-
Comparative Advantage and Productivity
leading to program vitality.
al vitality
• Programs requiring quality enhancements in
order to compete in the future
The Academic Design contains an analysis of
each program on the dimensions of comparative
advantage and productivity (see figure 6-2 on
page 59). The program maps and program profiles developed in Section 3 are the basis for this
• Programs that should be expanded to meet
current and future needs
• Services that will support programs and students
• Strategies and resources for expanding and
work. This is presented in the form of a matrix
improving programs and services—technolo-
in which the strengths and weaknesses of pro-
gy, facilities, assessment strategies, and other
grams are presented. This array is the centerpiece
service needs
of the Academic Design in that it points to those
aspects of the educational enterprise that
Section 4: Phase 3: Program Design and
promote institutional vitality on the landscape
Improvement results in the following outcomes:
of the future. This analysis is a key component
1 Learning models: The concepts that consti-
in the continuous improvement process.
tute student learning experiences. This
includes efforts to evaluate teaching and
These dimensions serve as the major concepts in
learning practices that align the insights and
the design conversations taking place in the
practices of faculty with the conditions and
departments and divisions of the institution.
expectations of learners.
The design conversations involve faculty, stu-
2 Delivery systems: Alternative instructional
dents, and other stakeholders in providing input
approaches and social structures are analyzed
critical to defining patterns of evidence for
to identify possible delivery system designs
accreditation and quality awards. As the Acade-
as part of the benchmarking process.
mic Design takes shape at the program level,
3 Quality improvement: The use of assessment
advantage and productivity become the refer-
data is a feedback control process to improve
ence points for specific courses of study, deliv-
teaching and learning. The institutional
ery system designs, and configuration of support
assessment plan is a tool used to monitor
services that lead to vitality. The programs are
continuous improvement of the teaching
then positioned on the educational landscape.
Program analysis also points to opportunities for
new ventures, setting the stage for the strategic
decisions that shape the future of the academic
enterprise.
and learning systems.
4 Benchmarking: A set of reports comparing
products, services, and practices to those institutions that are recognized as leaders in the
field. The reports are used to determine which
practices at other institutions might be incorporated within the Academic Design.
60
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
© 2004
Preparing the Academic Design Plan
Key
Concept
Strategic decisions are
These clusters are useful structures that promote
identified along with a
sharing of faculty and other resources.
rationale for the selection of
programs for benchmarking and quality
Here the Academic Design Web page becomes an
improvement. The results of these studies
important tool for enrollment management. Stu-
are reported for selected programs.
dents, recruiters, and advisors can readily identify program options and the relationships
At this point in the Academic Design narrative,
among programs. The result is a more produc-
new directions emerge for the institution and for
tive plan of study for students—a plan that
programs. Detailed plans for the teaching and
begins with the initial interaction between stu-
learning process, instructional support, partner-
dents and the college. The Web-based program
ships, and infrastructure support are defined.
configuration also provides advisors and other
The benchmarking projects completed in
faculty members with a view of the intellectual
Section 4 are the foundation for this work. Spe-
capital of the institution. As these perspectives
cific plans for program development are also
take shape in conversation, there is the poten-
described in detail. It is helpful at this point in
tial for new, creative approaches to courses and
the design to revisit the preceding program
program offerings.
analysis matrix to show the proposed configuration of future programs and their special features. Often advantage and productivity gains
Key
Concept
come about through innovation in program
Current delivery strategies
and opportunities to
integrate new teaching and
design and delivery. New products and markets
learning methods should be addressed
play an important role in positioning the insti-
across all program areas.
tution for the future.
The Academic Design goes on to outline the
Key
Concept
The Design Process should
instructional approach and social structure to be
not only review individual
used by each program. This is the point in the
program offerings but
document where instructional innovation is pre-
assess the relationships among programs.
sented across the institution. The delivery
modalities identified and projected in Section 4
As program offerings are reviewed during the
(see figure 4-3, Delivery System Frame) are used
design process, the Design Team develops a
as a starting point for a discussion of new direc-
program structure across the institution. The
tions in teaching and learning to be pursued by
structure draws on the best practices discovered
the college.
in benchmarking studies, and emphasizes the
strengths of current and proposed program offerings. It connects programs to products so that
students and other stakeholders can follow their
interests in the work of the institution. This
makes it possible to determine interdependencies among programs, as well as those core
courses that make up the academic foundations
of the institution. As the picture of shared
courses is drawn, it is useful to identify program
clusters sharing common content elements.
© 2004
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
61
Preparing the Academic Design Plan
Section 5: Phase 4: Learning Organization
Design results in the following outcomes:
1 Organization: Description of the organizational paradigm used by the institution and
departments/programs.
Programs/
Outcomes
2 Teaching/learning: Description of the teaching/learning paradigm used by the institu-
Learning
Community
Delivery
System
tion and departments/programs.
3 Information technology infrastructure:
Description of the IT infrastructure paradigm
Program
Content
used by the institution and departments/
programs.
Partners
Technology
Facilities
4 Academic personnel: Description of the personnel paradigm used by the institution and
departments/programs.
Personnel
Organization
Finance
5 Student services: Description of the student
services paradigm used by the institution
and departments/programs.
Figure 6-3
This discussion must be accompanied by a
Design Integration
description of the support systems and services
as is shown in figure 6-3.
6 Campus environment: Description of the
campus environment paradigm used by the
institution and departments/programs.
Here, all design elements have been translated
into specific programs, structures, and resources.
The triangle is chosen to indicate the hierarchy
of designs that support the mission of the institution. This interdependent configuration is
what makes the institution competitive on its
landscape. It is important to note that the centerpiece of the figure is the learning community,
where all design elements come together in
support of teaching and learning. And, the supporting services and resources are clearly identified. This design is also used for quality
improvement efforts. Each element provides
data that is integrated into the quality improvement system to improve institutional vitality.
Schema like this can be readily adapted to a Web
page where each design element leads to
detailed explanation of functions and features.
62
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
© 2004
Preparing the Academic Design Plan
Student Support Services
Key
Concept
The social organization of
One such student development model is shown
the institution is an integral
in figure 6-4. In this drawing, several support
part of the Academic Design.
system functions—enrollment, retention, and
Learning Communities and other forms of
social involvement—are represented as an
social involvement provide support for
ascending spiral of student development leading
teaching and learning.
to graduation. While such a general view is
lacking in detail, it can serve as a foundation for
Learning communities are multidimensional
discussion and planning among student per-
social groups existing within a particular culture
sonnel workers. Such models also help faculty
and organizational context. Thus, the learning
and students access student services in ways that
community is defined according to the following
support social and intellectual growth.
Figure 6-4
A Student
Development Model
paradigms:
• Organization: The social and cognitive life in
the community
• Teaching and learning: The instructional
content and methods of delivering instruction to students
Graduate
Key
Concept
Models for student support
systems and services are
articulated with the
Academic Design.
Involve
Programs and services identified in the Academic
Design must be fully supported by all functional
units of the institution in order to be effective.
Retain
Accordingly, the learning infrastructure must be
reconfigured as the design unfolds. This is a
complex task in that the Design Team must infer
the needs for supportive systems and services
from its analysis of programs and from the results
Enroll
of benchmarking studies (CHEBA 2003).
Student needs and expectations are central to
support system planning. Recruitment and
retention of students depends, in large part, on
the extent to which student services are
Enroll
Retain
Involve
Graduate
Marketing
Support Services
Student Life
Honors
sented by institutional programs. The Academic
Student Services
Counseling
Student Senate
Alumni
Design informs the articulation of support
Counseling
Financial Aid
Service Learning
Placement
Online Application
Tutoring
matched to the demands and opportunities pre-
systems through models that describe the relationships between the college and its students.
© 2004
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
63
Preparing the Academic Design Plan
Key
Concept
The Academic Design charts
the relationships among
programs, services, and
support systems.
It is essential that the interdependency of decisions be carefully monitored, as the Academic
Design is prepared. Institutional documents
often overlook these relationships. The Academic
Design should contain charts and diagrams to
illustrate how program plans are linked and how
they draw upon support services.
The Plan
The Academic Design process has been followed
The Academic Design is a dynamic representa-
and a variety of products have been developed.
tion of all aspects of institutional functioning.
Now is the time to put all the products together
As such, it cannot be captured in a traditional
into a coherent written plan that provides direc-
published document. Instead, the design must
tion to the teaching and learning process of the
be configured so that it can be continually
institution.
changed to respond to emerging challenges and
opportunities. The most effective way to facili-
Of course, it is essential that all key participants
tate continuous improvement is to create a Web
in the planning process be in agreement as the
page where stakeholders can readily access all
implementation guide is released. Some insti-
design elements and systems.
tutions hold a signing ceremony where stakeholders endorse the Academic Design in a
Table 6-1 provides a guide for the development
symbolic show of support.
of the Web site. The table presents a suggested
table of contents for the Academic Design plan.
Key
Concept
64
The Academic Design
The table also shows where each of the Acade-
should be widely shared in
mic Design elements fits into the plan, as well
a format that allows
as the Academic Design products that have
continuous update and enhancement
been developed as part of the Academic Design
during plan implementation.
process.
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
© 2004
Preparing the Academic Design Plan
Table 6-1
Table of Contents, Design Elements and Academic Design Products
ACADEMIC DESIGN PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
Introduction
ACADEMIC DESIGN
ELEMENTS USED
All Elements
Background and history
of the institution
Scanning and mapping
Environmental scan—external
Population
Demographics
Labor force and economics
Political
Other external factors
Environmental scan—internal
Leadership
Enrollment outlook
Programs and services
Technology
Fiscal
Personnel
Present status
Current program and services
Students served
Larger community served
Vitality
Our destination:
Academic Design for the future
Environment scan analysis
Plans for instruction, programs,
service, and institutional support
Implications for facility
and technology plans
Budget implications
Recommendations and justification
Scanning and mapping
ACADEMIC DESIGN PRODUCTS
Summary of All Products
Phase 1: Convening the design
conversation, Design Team,
organizing the design, framing
the design process
Phase 2: Institutional scan,
comparative advantage,
productivity, vitality, design
criteria, educational landscape
and landscape maps
Phase 2: Environmental scan
Scanning and mapping
Phase 2: Institutional scan
Phase 5: Paradigm definitions—
current position of institution
and programs
Criteria, program teams,
indicators, measures,
decisions, profiles,
and outcomes
Phase 2: Comparative advantage,
productivity, vitality, design
criteria, educational landscape,
and landscape maps
Phase 3: Program profiles
Phase 4: Learning models,
delivery systems, best practices/
benchmarking, quality
improvement
Phase 5: Paradigm and
organization, resources
and infrastructure
Paradigm and resources
Phase 4: Learning models,
delivery systems, best practices/
benchmarking, quality
improvement
Phase 5: Paradigm and
organization, resources
and infrastructure,
and designing the
learning ecology
Appendices
Executive Summary: This section of the plan
Introduction: This section does not use any of
provides an overview of the design process and
the design elements, but defines the back-
the products that have been produced. It incor-
ground, processes, and desired outcomes for the
porates all of the Academic Design elements, as
plan. Convening the design conversation,
well as all the design products. It provides the
assembling the Design Team, organizing the
reader a synopsis of the Academic Design and
design, and framing the design process are incor-
the road to improved institutional vitality.
porated into this section.
© 2004
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
65
Preparing the Academic Design Plan
Background and History of the Institution: This
design products include design criteria, compara-
section provides an overview of how the insti-
tive advantage, productivity, and vitality (as dis-
tution has developed to this point in time. The
played on educational landscape maps), and
design elements incorporated into this section
strategic program decisions. This section analyzes
are scanning and mapping. The design products
current programs and services, students served, the
are the result of the institutional scan. The scan
larger community served, and institutional and
provides a view of the institution past and
program vitality. The work in this section provides
present. This view provides the Design Team
the foundation for defining the Academic Design
with a better understanding of the current
plan. Both the internal scan and the present status
strengths and weaknesses of the institution.
can be analyzed using the paradigm definitions as
the current climate and strategies of the institu-
Environmental Scan—External: This section pro-
tion are placed on the six scales.
vides a view of the external factors that will
impact the institution and the programs and serv-
Our Destination: Academic Design for the
ices provided. The design elements used are from
Future: This section develops the Academic
scanning and mapping. The design product is the
Design for the overall institution, as well as the
environmental scan that has reviewed the impact
design for programs and services. The design ele-
of population trends, demographics, labor force,
ments used are paradigm and resources. The
economic, political, and other external factors.
design products used are outcomes, best prac-
This section identifies and analyzes the external
tices/benchmarking, program content, instruc-
issues that currently confront the institution or
tional delivery, quality improvement, paradigm
will in the near future. The Academic Design will
and organization, resources and infrastructure,
address issues that may pose threats or provide
and designing the learning ecology.
program and service opportunities in the future.
This section is where the design concepts come
Environmental Scan—Internal: This section
together. The work of the best practices/bench-
provides a view of the internal factors that will
marking activities assists in developing a view of
impact the institution and the programs and serv-
how programs and services will look in the
ices provided. The design elements used are from
future. Program content is reviewed and
scanning and mapping. The design product is the
redesigned based on benchmarking on selected
environmental scan that has reviewed the impact
programs. Instructional delivery methods are
of leadership, enrollment outlook, programs and
reviewed and altered as appropriate. This section
services, technology, fiscal, personnel, and other
also defines how the Academic Design will
internal factors. This section identifies and ana-
impact the facility needs. Quality improvement
lyzes the internal issues that currently confront
processes are developed or reengineered to
the institution or will in the near future. The Aca-
ensure programs and services are being delivered
demic Design will address issues that are institu-
with the highest possible quality. The budget
tional or program weaknesses and build on the
implications of quality improvement, program
current strengths of programs and services.
expansions, and movement on the institutional
paradigms will define the Academic Design.
Present Status: This section provides a more
66
detailed review and analysis of current programs
Recommendations and Justification: This
and services by program teams. The design ele-
section defines the recommendations needed to
ments used are indicators, measures, and outcomes
implement the Academic Design and reinforces
that can be displayed using program profiles. The
the justification for the design. The recommenda-
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
© 2004
Preparing the Academic Design Plan
tions are taken from the work accomplished in the
quality improvement. This section is a key com-
paradigm and organization, resources and infra-
ponent, as it provides the qualitative and quanti-
structure, and designing the learning ecology sec-
tative underpinnings for the Academic Design.
tions. The justification for the Academic Design is
taken from outcomes, best practices/benchmark-
Appendices: This section provides backup doc-
ing, program content, instructional delivery, and
uments and resources that are helpful in better
understanding the Academic Design plan.
Resource Allocation and Academic Design
One of the primary challenges for higher educa-
technology infrastructure, academic personnel,
tion in implementing the Academic Design is
student services, and campus environment.
making the difficult decisions revealed during
program analysis and paradigm definitions. The
The resources tied to movement on any of the six
cost of status quo is known. It is the current insti-
scales can directly contribute to financial plan-
tutional or program budget adjusted for contract
ning and budget development. Similarly, the
settlements and inflation or mandated budget
largely data-driven processes that support the
rescissions. A general idea of the magnitude of the
Academic Design provide the information for
cost of implementing the Academic Design plan
resource reallocation decisions. Aligning the phys-
can be determined using the paradigm and organ-
ical and financial resources with planning prior-
ization and resources and infrastructure model
ities continues to be a major hurdle for most
presented in Section 5: Learning Organization
institutions. Insufficient analysis and inability to
Design. Moving from one category on the scale
make the difficult decisions associated with
to another can be defined, and may or may not
realignment of resources diminishes the potential
require additional resources. Shifting from one
of the Academic Design. Higher education must
strategy to another within a scale may require the
be willing to phase out weaker programs in order
reallocation of resources within a program. Or, it
to enhance other programs or create new ones.
may require seeking outside sources of revenue or
the scaling back of other program areas.
Another major challenge is standardizing the
processes for program analysis so there is an
Making the conversion from one category to
opportunity to compare, share effective prac-
another will require a detailed action plan defin-
tices, and determine program solvency. Institu-
ing the steps needed to achieve the desired results.
tions should make it a practice to base resource
The cost of the action plan can be calculated by
allocation decisions on the relative importance
estimating the resources needed for implementa-
of programs to institutional vitality. The chal-
tion. For example, moving a program from an aca-
lenge in times of fiscal constraint is not only
demic model to an enterprise model requires
scaling back or phasing out programs, but
developing an action plan in conjunction with
knowing when to provide additional resources
administration. The plan should be detailed
to expand or improve programs identified as
enough to assign specific costs for professional
being critical to institutional vitality.
development, staffing, marketing, remodeling,
and other appropriate expenditures. Similar implementation and resource allocation plans would be
developed for teaching/learning, institutional
© 2004
In most cases, the decisions related to funding
programs are made within the context of flat or
marginally increasing budgets. Consequently,
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
67
Preparing the Academic Design Plan
most new dollars are generated from reallocat-
In most colleges and universities, staff planning
ing resources from one program to another. This
is fragmented. Each department or service area
handbook provides a clear understanding of
defines and fills its personnel needs with little
how to identify the priority programs. There are
concern for an overall plan or design. This
several different approaches for reallocating
results in a disconnection between the institu-
resources. The most drastic approach is to close
tion’s goals and the means for achieving them.
low priority programs in order to free resources
for higher priority programs. A second method
To address this shortcoming, the Academic
is to tax all existing programs, generating funds
Design must drive personnel decisions. Chan-
to establish a strategic initiative pool to support
neling personnel to programs and services of the
the areas of highest priority. A third method is
highest priority must support the strategic deci-
to earmark marginal revenues from traditional
sions made in the design process. Although most
sources (e.g., tuition or state appropriation) and
institutions are limited by tenure and contract
apply them to strategic needs. This option
issues, they must incorporate personnel deci-
reduces across-the-board funding increases and
sions within the Academic Design. Staffing
allocates to the strategic needs only.
deployment is a key force in ensuring that the
institution’s mission is carried out and resources
There are no easy ways to reallocate resources
are effectively utilized. This element is central to
from one program to another. The very nature of
accreditation and quality improvement.
the process creates winners and losers. These difficult decisions require strong leadership and a
Staffing is largely determined by program con-
commitment to the Academic Design goals.
figuration and the special requirements it sets
for faculty competency. As table 6-2 suggests,
Table 6-2
Personnel Profile
FACULTY
Full Time A
Full Time B
Full Time C
Adjunct A
Adjunct B
Lab Assistant
STAFF COMPETENCIES/ EXPERTISE
Content A
X
X
Content B
X
Content C
X
X
X
X
X
X
PROGRAM STRUCTURE
Lecture
X
X
X
Lab
X
X
Clinical
X
Online
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
The budgetary challenges for institutions are
staffing is essentially a matter of comparing
based primarily on their key resource—person-
existing faculty knowledge and skills with what
nel. Human resources account for about 60 to
is required in the future. An important aspect of
70% of the budget of most institutions. Staffing
staffing has to do with the use of adjunct faculty
patterns and plans are a key element in devel-
who bring specialized contributions to the
oping an effective Academic Design.
teaching/learning process.
Key
Concept
Resources, infrastructure,
The resulting personnel profile is a strategic
services, and social
guide to staffing decisions—actions fully in
dimensions, taken together,
keeping with the Academic Design.
determine the staffing requirements for
the Academic Design.
68
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
© 2004
Preparing the Academic Design Plan
From 1999 through 2002, the Center for Acade-
This approach could also be used to help under-
mic Transformation provided grants to a number
stand the resources needed to move programs
of colleges and universities to develop and
from one position to another in the learning
implement course redesigns using information
paradigms found in Section 5. Using these cate-
technology. The initiative was primarily targeted
gories, a program would assess its current posi-
at efforts to improve quality while lowering costs
tion and then determine where it would like to
of large enrollment courses. However, the
be. Understanding the relative positions and
approach to budgeting for course preparation
costs for each of these categories can provide a
and delivery is a model that can be considered
clear picture of the resources the program would
under varying circumstances. The Course Plan-
need to reach its goals. For example, using the
ning Tool (table 6-3) with instructions on how
academic personnel paradigm, a program could
to use it and examples from participating insti-
estimate the cost to move from a full-time
tutions are available on the Center Web site at:
faculty position to more emphasis on adjunct
http://128.113.35.25/PewGrant/Tool.html.
faculty or facilitators.
Table 6-3
Course Planning Tool—Center for Academic Transformation.
FACULTY
# of Hours
Hourly
rate =
TAS/GAS
Total
Cost
# of Hours
Hourly
rate =
Total
Cost
PROFESSIONAL STAFF
Total
# of Hours
Cost
Hourly
rate =
I. COURSE PREPARATION
A. Curriculum Development
B. Materials Acquisition
C. Materials Development
1. Lectures/presentations
2. Learning materials/software
3. Diagnostic assessments
4. Assignments
5. Tests/evaluations
Sub-Total
D. Faculty/TA Development/Training
1. Orientation
2. Staff meetings
3. Lecture attendance
Sub-Total
Total Preparation
II. COURSE DELIVERY
A. Instruction
1. Diagnose skill/knowledge
2. Presentation
3. Interaction
4. Progress monitoring
Sub-Total
B. Evaluation
1. Test proctoring
2. Tests/evaluation
Sub-Total
Total Delivery
TOTAL
GRAND TOTAL
Total # of students
Cost per student
© 2004
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
69
Preparing the Academic Design Plan
Web of Plans
Key
Concept
The Academic Design should
requirements as part of identifying the design
conclude with indications of
criteria, plotting and moving on the institu-
connections of its decisions
tional paradigms, and identifying best practices
and strategies to other planning
and instructional delivery methods, all of which
initiatives. The design must show
must be addressed in integrated planning initia-
connections with the web of plans that
tives. In addition, there is a larger web of plans
have been developed by the institution.
that must be articulated with the Academic
Design. To weave this web, the Design Team can
Figure 6-5
Of particular concern is the relationship of the
analyze existing and proposed plans using a
Academic Design to technology and facility
framework like that shown in figure 6-5.
plans. The Academic Design specifies these
Web of Plans
Academic Design
Landscape
Analysis
Program
Analysis
CQI
Academic
Design
Academic Plan
Learning
Ecology Design
Accreditation
Support Systems
Human
Resources
Finance
Information
Technology
Student
Support
Organization
Design
Implementation Level Planning
• Continuous Quality Improvement • Program Review • New Program Implementation
Operational Level Planning
• Technology Plan • Facilities Plan • Human Resources Plan • Marketing Plan • Accreditation • Student Services Plan
• Fiscal Plan • Planned Giving Plan • Assessment Plan • Affirmative Action Plan • Customized Training Plan
Strategic Level Planning
• Vision
Strategic Plan
• Mission • Beliefs & Values
Continuous Improvement
70
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
© 2004
Preparing the Academic Design Plan
The ultimate objective of all planning and
tion for the various departments and service
design initiatives is to enhance the teaching and
areas of the institution. This process may impact
learning of the institution. The vision, mission,
limited segments of the institution or have an
and beliefs/values set the broad strategic goals
impact on the overall institution (Academic
for the institution. These goals or parameters
Design). Specific action plans provide the
chart the direction of the institution. Opera-
detailed steps, timelines, budget, and personnel
tional planning sets an even more specific direc-
needed to implement the plans.
The Principles
The material in this book was developed based
identified through benchmarking activities,
on principles derived from the work of the New
interviews, and observations. Research and
Designs Project, best campus practices and
development projects detailed in doctoral dis-
thesis research. The New Designs Project was a
sertations
national project funded by the National Center
Academy at the University of Minnesota pro-
for Research in Vocational Education and the
vided a database of campus design principles.
University of Minnesota. New Designs was a
These resources identified the following princi-
national project to address the future of the
ples that have been presented in this book.
completed
in
the
Leadership
two-year college. Campus best practices were
ACADEMIC DESIGN
The Principles
HANDBOOK SECTION
AND L OCATION
Section 1
page 3
page 4
page 4
page 6
page 6
© 2004
PRINCIPLE
1 Academic Design is a process that institutions use
to identify key design criteria used to make
strategic program decisions and identify the
resources, processes, and outcomes to support
the continuous improvement of these programs
and enhance institutional vitality.
2 A Design Team whose members represent all
institutional stakeholders guides the Academic
Design process.
3 The organizational structure of the institution
should be reviewed and modified to support the
Academic Design process.
4 Academic Design is tailored to the mission of the
institution and drives its goals and strategies.
The design process begins by analyzing all the
documents that are used to run the organization.
5 Academic Design results from a deliberative
process of scanning, analysis, and goal setting
with frequent stakeholder consultation.
NEW DESIGNS
CAMPUS
BEST PRACTICE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
THESIS
RESEARCH
X
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
71
Preparing the Academic Design Plan
HANDBOOK SECTION
AND L OCATION
Section 2
page 10
page 12
page 13
page 14
page 15
page 17
page 18
page 20
HANDBOOK SECTION
AND L OCATION
Section 3
page 27
page 28
page 29
page 30
page 32
page 33
72
PRINCIPLE
6 The Environmental Scan identifies the indicators
that help define the position of the institution
in the market it serves.
7 The Institutional Scan is based on the mission,
goals, and strategies of the institution. The
process begins with an inventory of the
documents that have shaped the institution.
8 Institutional Vitality flows from the mission
of the college or university and measured by
indicators that define the special character of the
institution.
9 Comparative Advantage and ppoductivity Indicators
summarize the external and institutional environments to be addressed by the Academic Design.
10 Design Criteria are set by the Design Team to ensure
that the Academic Design articulates the mission of
the institution with the challenges and opportunities
found in the educational environment.
11 Design Criteria provide the basis for Key Institutional
Indicators that measure performance and respond to
stakeholder interest.
12 Comparative Advantage and Productivity dimensions
map an Educational Landscape where institutions seek to maximize their position in respect
to their competition.
13 Effective analysis of comparative advantage
and productivity opportunities requires the use
of multiple data sets and tools to understand
the landscape.
PRINCIPLE
14 Key Institutional Indicators should be supported
by clearly defined quantitative measures or
qualitative judgments.
15 Assessment plans and systems are developed to
facilitate collecting and analyzing data for
program measures.
16 The centerpiece of Academic Design is the Profile
of institutional programs and services. This profile
summarizes the status of each program/service
using Key Institutional Indicators and Program
Measures.
17 Strategic decisions are supported by effective
data mining and analysis.
18 The Academic Design identifies the programs
and services that best position the institution on
its Educational Landscape.
19 Strategic decisions are developed as a result of
in-depth analysis of all programs, with an emphasis
on program contributions to Institutional Vitality.
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
NEW DESIGNS
CAMPUS
BEST PRACTICE
THESIS
RESEARCH
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
NEW DESIGNS
X
X
X
X
CAMPUS
BEST PRACTICE
THESIS
RESEARCH
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
© 2004
Preparing the Academic Design Plan
HANDBOOK SECTION
AND L OCATION
Section 4
page 38
page 40
page 43
HANDBOOK SECTION
AND L OCATION
Section 5
page 49
page 50
page 51
page 51
page 52
page 53
page 54
© 2004
PRINCIPLE
20 Teaching and learning designs grow out of shared
models of the learning process.
21 The instructional delivery system is the primary
means for implementing the Academic Design.
The instructional approach and the social structure
of the learning setting are designed to facilitate
attainment of Design goals.
22 Strategic programs, systems, and services are
selected and benchmarking criteria are developed
from landscape and program analysis and from
quality improvement studies.
PRINCIPLE
23 Institutions are shaped by their ruling paradigm.
This ruling paradigm is determined by theexternal demands of stakeholders and the organi
zational culture of the institution.
24 The ruling paradigm shapes Academic Designs
for teaching and learning.
25 Infrastructure priorities should be derived from the
teaching and learning structure and support the
learning experience.
26 The technology infrastructure helps the organization to function and shapes knowledge production
and learning.
27 Human capital is the primary resource used
in program delivery.
28 The form and scope of the student services is
based on the ruling paradigm of the institution.
29 The Academic Design determines how the current
infrastructure of the campus will be used to
support teaching and learning.
NEW DESIGNS
CAMPUS
BEST PRACTICE
THESIS
RESEARCH
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
NEW DESIGNS
CAMPUS
BEST PRACTICE
THESIS
RESEARCH
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
73
Preparing the Academic Design Plan
HANDBOOK SECTION
AND L OCATION
Section 6
page 58
page 60
page 61
page 61
page 61
page 63
page 63
page 64
page 64
page 68
page 70
74
PRINCIPLE
30 The Academic Design is a narrative description
of the design process in which the Design Team
presents an analysis of the educational landscape.
31 Current program performance is summarized
on the dimensions of Comparative Advantage and
Productivity leading to program vitality.
32 Strategic decisions are identified along with
a rationale for the selection of programs for
benchmarking. The results of benchmarking
studies are reported for selected programs.
33 The Design Process should not only review
individual program offerings but assess the
relationships among programs.
34 Current delivery strategies and opportunities
to integrate new teaching and learning methods
should be addressed across all program areas.
35 The social organization of the institution is an
integral part of the Academic Design. Learning
Communities and other forms of social involvement
provide support for teaching and learning.
36 Models for student support systems and services
are articulated with the Academic Design.
37 The Academic Design charts the relationships
among programs, services, and support systems.
38 The Academic Design should be widely shared
in a format that allows continuous update and
enhancement during plan implementation.
39 Resources, infrastructure, services, and social
dimensions, taken together, determine the staffing
requirements for the Academic Design.
40 The Academic Design should conclude with
indications of connections of its decisions and
strategies to other planning initiatives. The design
must show connections with the web of plans
that have been developed by the institution.
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
NEW DESIGNS
CAMPUS
BEST PRACTICE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
THESIS
RESEARCH
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
© 2004
Preparing the Academic Design Plan
The Conversation Continues
The academic design process is structured to be
progress of the plan. The Academic Design Team
a continuous conversation about the vitality of
should meet periodically to help assess the out-
individual programs, departments, and the
comes defined in the plan. An annual progress
overall institution. It is important to keep the
report or report card can be developed by the
conversation alive after the formal process is
Academic Design Team to show the progress
completed and a plan has been written and
made on the Academic Design Plan. The
approved for implementation. The conversation
progress report/report card should be shared
should be among institutional stakeholders, stu-
with all interested stakeholders for review and
dents, and the community at large. The Acade-
comment. In addition, the Academic Design
mic Design must be revisited during the
Plan may need revisions and modifications
development of budget and facilities requests,
based on a variety of factors (economic, politi-
continuously measuring the institution’s ability
cal, financial, social, and others). The revisions
to move towards its desired learning ecology.
and modifications are part of the quality
improvement process needed to make the Acad-
Academic Design is both a process and a
emic Design Plan effective and vital. Institu-
product. All those participating in Academic
tional vitality should be the key outcome and
Design have worked through the process
continuous improvement is the key to develop-
described in this book and arrived at a final
ing and supporting institutional vitality.
product—the Design as expressed in new
methods and structures for teaching and learn-
The process of Academic Design began with a
ing. Academic Designs in vital institutions are
conversation about the institution and its envi-
dynamic. They are continually reviewed and
ronment. The resulting discussions brought a
adapted to the challenges and opportunities sur-
wide range of stakeholders into the design
facing on the educational landscape.
process, helping to create concepts and principles that shaped the Academic Design. Now, the
The Academic Design Team that has been used
many conversations convened in the institution
to develop the Academic Design Plan can be
and the surrounding community are the foun-
helpful in measuring and monitoring the
dation for continued exploration of new designs.
© 2004
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
75
Preparing the Academic Design Plan
Section 6 Glossary
Personnel Profile:
Resources include personnel, facilities,
An analysis of personnel staffing of a program
equipment, budget, and time. Deployment of
or service defining the expertise of the
resources should be a conscious decision
individuals and the configuration of the
based on defined institutional, department,
program or service. The analysis provides
and program/service priorities.
information that will be used in program or
service staffing decisions to maintain current
Staff Competencies:
status or to move in new directions.
The expertise of faculty or support staff that is
utilized to accomplish the mission of the
Program Structure:
institution, department, or program/service.
An identification of how a program or service
The expertise may be skills or knowledge
is configured to deliver instruction or the
related to the mission of the institution,
service. The delivery system defines teaching
department, or program/service.
and learning methods and student access to
services.
Web of Plans:
The multitude of planning documents
Resource Allocation:
developed by or available to an institution.
The way in which an institution deploys its
resources to accomplish the mission.
References
References have been kept to a minimum to
Copa, G. and William Ammentorp. 1998. New
better focus on the Phases of Academic Design.
Designs for the Two-Year Institution of Higher
Readers interested in publications, research, and
Education. Berkeley, CA: University of
websites supporting the Design Cycle are
California: National Center for Research in
directed to: www.CollegiateDesign.com.
Vocational Education.
Alfred, Richard, Peter Ewell, James Hudgins,
Copa, G., and V. Pease. 1994. New Designs for
and Kay McClenney. 1999. Core Indicators of
the Comprehensive High School. Berkeley, CA:
Effectiveness for Community Colleges.
University of California: National Center for
Washington, D.C.: American Association of
Research in Vocational Education.
Community Colleges.
Consortium for Higher Education
American Association of Community Colleges.
Benchmarking Analysis (CHEBA).
2000. The Knowledge Net: Connecting
www.cheba.com.
Communities, Learners, and Colleges.
Washington, D.C.
Lucas, A. 2000. Leading Academic Change.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
American Productivity and Quality Center
(APQC). www.apqc.org
Simon, H. 1981. The Sciences of the Artificial.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
76
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
© 2004
Book Development Support
The Society for College and University
SCUP would also like to thank Pat Meterka
Planning (SCUP) would like to acknowledge
and Sandy Cyrus for their work in editing
the reviewers of this book.
portions of the book at various stages.
Likewise, the work of SCUP staff members
Karen Merritt
Sunny Beach, Terry Calhoun, and Chantelle
Director of Academic Planning
Neumann was instrumental in the publishing
University of California - Merced
of this book. The book design and the design
L. Carole Wharton
of many of the graphic elements were the
result of work by Phil Taylor of Global-ID.
Consultant
McManis-Monsalve Associates
Clara Wajngurt
Professor
Queensborough Community College
Melinda Spencer
Vice Dean, Administration and Planning
Temple University
Phyllis Grummon
Director of Education and Planning
Society for College and University Planning
© 2004
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
77
Academic Design Resources
Additional resources on Academic Design
Planning for Higher Education is SCUP’s
concepts from the authors of this book can be
quarterly, peer-reviewed journal which
found at www.academic-design.com.
regularly contains articles that are of interest
to readers of this book. SCUP members receive
SCUP Email News is a weekly email
a subscription as part of their membership
newsletter which brings subscribers news
benefits package. Stand-alone subscriptions
about Society for College and University
are also available. Find out more at
Planning (SCUP) activities and a myriad of
www.scup.org/phe/.
links to interesting and useful Internet
resources. Anyone may subscribe. Find out
SCUP also convenes 5–7 regional conferences
more at http://www.scup.org/pubs/sen/.
per year, stand-alone workshops on various
subjects, the SCUP Planning Institute, and an
78
SCUP’s Academic Planning Knowledge
annual, international conference and Expo.
Community is a state-of-the-art, Lyris-based
The themes of many of these conferences and
email discussion list which offers options
workshops are often consonant with the
such as daily digest and archived discussions.
interests of readers of this book and, even
It is open to anyone interested in higher
when the theme is not directly on point, the
education planning. Find out more at
contents of the numerous sessions often are.
www.scup.org/about/communities/.
Find out more at www.scup.org/calendar/.
Academic Design: Sharing Lessons Learned
© 2004