Institutional Performance

1. Catch-22 Leadership Vise of Opposing Pressures? High Performance Strategies “… improved accountability for better results is imperative, but how to improve accountability in higher education is not so obvious.” from Accountability for Better Results, a report from the National Commission on Accountability in Higher Education Huh? Institutional Performance Revenue / Cost Pressures Performance Pressures

2. Revenue / Cost Pressures • Revenue sources are changing. • Shrinking percentage of public funding spent on higher ed • Shrinking percentage of higher ed revenues from public funds • Tuition inelasticity • Increasing reliance on endowments, grants, contracts, & market-driven program revenues • Costs & competition are increasing. • More & larger need-based grants – greater costs • Merit-based tuition discounting – greater costs • Catch 22!! Responding to these pressures can degrade institutional performance. • By capping enrollments!! • By increasing tuition!! Revenue / Cost Pressure

3. Performance Pressures Learning Accountability Program Accountability Expense Accountability Affordability of Access Capacity for Access Convenience of Access Performance Pressures

4. Performance Obligations • Learning Accountability Benchmark & report learning outcomes: • CLA and/or independent assessments in “common courses” • Expected vs. actual retention & graduation rates • Program Accountability Respond rapidly to mission-centric economic development, professional, & workforce needs with appropriately delivered academic programs. • Expense AccountabilityAccount for the direct costs of learning and other services on a per-credit, per-FTE, per-graduate, or other unit basis. • Affordability of AccessHold the CPI line on the rate of tuition & fee increases. • Convenience of AccessDeliver services & selected academic programs more flexibly & conveniently via new “flex” models emphasizing self-service combined with call centers & individualized, as-needed help. • Capacity for AccessAdjust capacity to meet projected mission-related demand for courses & programs. (Demand is increasing nationally!) Performance Obligations

5. Performance Obligation Account quantitatively for the quality of learning outcomes, where possible through comparative benchmarking across time of retention, persistence, and graduation rates (expected versus actual rates) among comparable institutions, and broadly accepted independent learning assessments in the large-enrollment courses commonly taught at almost all comparable institutions. Performance Indicators Participation in the Collegiate Learning Assessment, the National Survey of Student Engagement, or the Community College Survey of Student Engagement Independent outcomes assessment of developmental courses, college-level basic skills courses – in math, Spanish, writing, etc. – and the five highest-enrollment introductory-level disciplinary & professional courses Expected rate vs. actual rate for key indicators such as retention, persistence, and graduation Learning Accountability

6. Performance Obligation Account for any mission obligations to respond rapidly to economic development priorities and workforce/professional education priorities by redesigning or developing academic programs to address these priorities. Performance Indicators Percentage of annual student FTE increase directly attributable to programs created or redesigned to meet identified economic development or workforce needs – for teachers, nurses, biotech workers, etc Percentage of annual increase in non-credit enrollments directly attributable to programs created or redesigned to meet identified economic development or workforce needs – for teachers, nurses, biotech workers, etc. Percentage of all degrees awarded that are directly attributable to programs created or redesigned to meet identified economic development or workforce needs – for teachers, nurses, biotech workers, etc. Program Accountability

7. Performance Obligation Account for the direct expense of instruction and other key lines of service – IT services, registrarial services, financial services, and so on – using per-student FTE, per-enrollment, or other appropriate unit measures of direct expenses. Performance Indicators Participation in the Collegiate Learning Assessment, the National Survey of Student Engagement, or the Community College Survey of Student Engagement Independent outcomes assessment of developmental courses, college-level basic skills courses – in math, Spanish, writing, etc. – and the five highest-enrollment introductory-level disciplinary & professional courses Expected rate vs. actual rate for key indicators such as retention, persistence, and graduation Expense Accountability

8. Performance Obligation Maintain affordable access to academic programs (within mission responsibilities) by limiting the rate of any annual tuition and fee increases to the Consumer Price Index. Performance Indicators Ratio of the annual rate of change in undergraduate tuition/fees to the annual Consumer Price Index Ratio of per-FTE revenues from tuition/fees and subsidies/grants to per FTE direct operational expenses Affordability of Access

9. Performance Obligation Provide flexible, integrated access to academic programs and comprehensive support services – flex programs and services – by combining online (asynchronous) self-service course and service options with as-wanted expert help via walk-in service centers and a 24x7x365 call center. Performance Indicators Percentage of all degree programs which can be delivered asynchronously except for required clinical or lab work Percentage of all non-credit programs which can be delivered asynchronously except for required clinical or lab work Annual inventory of services accessible asynchronously via a web portal Convenience of Access

10. Performance Obligation Adjust institutional capacity after projecting demand for access to pre-requisite and priority courses, academic programs, and other services that are critical to mission fulfillment. Performance Indicators Percentage of qualified applicants refused admission or admitted with delay Annual percentage change in total credit hours and in total non-credit enrollments Total first-term enrollments (credit & non-credit) Ratio of total first-term credit hours to total first-term instructional personnel FTEs and of total first-term non-credit enrollments to total first-term instructional personnel FTEs Ratio of total annual enrollments to total seating capacity of the classroom plant Capacity for Access

11. Defensive Response Resist accountability Increase tuition Cap enrollments Risk political capital & good will Worst-Case Bind Politically Incorrect Compromise theaffordability of access Compromise the capacity for access Defensive Response

12. Necessity of Technology • Technology has been necessary to increase productivity in the national economy – especially in the recent economic downturn!! • NII: productivity = innovation = competitiveness To redesign or not to redesign services; that is the question. Bolt on Technology Bolt on Expenses RedesignServiceProcesses ImproveInstitutionalPerformance NAS Productivity Study [1] Collins: Good to Great [2] Necessity of Technology

13. Path to High Performance Technology Infrastructure Basic systems: networks, security, ERP, CMS, etc. 24x7x365 support for all users Systems integration Information Infrastructure Unified data Single login authentication Path to Improved Performance Self-service web portal Analytics Infrastructure From data to analysis to action Prioritizing performance initiatives Nimble governance & decision making Innovation Infrastructure Path to High Performance

14. Counterintuitive Response QUALITY Assess & improvelearning & services COSTS Increasestudent tofaculty ratio FLEXIBILITY Integrateself-service &as-needed help Redesign Services for Higher Performance Improve accountability & performance Strategy ofSimultaneity Performance Sweet Spot Decrease credit-hour expense & increase capacity Increase flexibility, capacity, & responsiveness Counterintuitive Response

15. Flex Program Strategy Redesign selected programs & services to: Reduce requirement for real-time interactions between students & the faculty/staff. More asynchronous (time-shifted) instruction & online self-service Less synchronous (real-time) instruction & services Less contact-hour instruction & scheduled services More as-needed expert help & services Increase options for getting expert help, scheduling courses, & completing a degree. Increase classroom & office capacity of the existing plant. Reduce dependency on the semester model. Common Course Strategy Redesign common courses to: Focus on the course, not its course sections. Emphasize active learning & mastery feed-back testing. Use common tests, as appropriate. Document learning differences via assessment. Realign faculty tasks without increasing faculty labor to: Offload some functions to software & assistants. Optimize faculty expertise & interventions with students. Increase student/instructor ratio Reduce per-student direct instructional expense. Redesign Strategies Redesign Strategies

16. Faculty Role: Quality Learning as an Expedition Instructor-Led Active Leaning Organize Course Resources textbooks libraries web site lectures syllabus course pack Design & Guide Active & Collaborative Learning as-needed help team projects internships field trips learningware discussionware Guide Self Study homework readings tests labs papers theses Faculty teams are responsible for course & program redesign Faculty Role: Quality

17. Common Courses • Taught at all institutions & account for at least 36%-50% of all enrollments – the higher percentage at 2-year colleges, the lower at 4-year institutions. • Required or fulfill high-demand electives in strategic programs such as: • College prep program – developmental, remedial • General education program (AA) – 20-25 courses • Nursing, teacher education, business or other high-demand workforce or professional programs • Typically taught in multiple sections • Common exams are possible, even nationally normed common exams. • Account for at least 18%-25% of total institutional expenses, assuming direct instructional expenses to be at least 50% of total expenses. Common Courses

18. Course Redesign History • Course redesign principles & models are based on the Center for Academic Transformation’s Program in Course Redesign funded by the Pew Trusts. • 30 institutions, 10 per year over three years • Each institution redesigned one common course to improve learning outcomes while reducing per-enrollment instructional costs. • Direct instructional cost savings averaged 40%. • Systematic redesign of common courses averaging 40% savings in direct instructional expenses can result in total institutional expense reductions of 7%-10%. • The Center recently selected 30 “associate member” institutions in a Roadmap2Redesign competition in its “academic practices” in statistics, Spanish, psychology, & math below calculus. Course Redesign History

19. Course Redesign Models • Supplemental model • U New Mexico (psychology) • U Colorado (astronomy) • Replacement (flex) model • Penn State (statistics) • Tallahassee CC (composition) • Emporium model • Virginia Tech (linear algebra) • U Alabama (algebra) • Fully online model • Rio Salado CC (basic math) • U Southern Mississippi (world literature) • Buffet model • Ohio State (statistics) • Florida Gulf Coast U (fine arts) Course Redesign Models

20. Performance Barriers? • Faculty leadership & executive leadership not collaboratively aligned to meet performance challenges • Limited experience with the service redesign strategies that can improve academic & business performance • Strategic plan fails to include performance metrics • Inability to focus cost & use of IT on strategic initiatives • Escalating IT costs • Too small to afford IT – need to share services • No economies of scale from being part of a system, district, consortium, or outsourcing relationship • Inadequate or dysfunctional IT unit • Weak leadership or management • Weak service mentality • Staff recruiting & retention difficulties • Inadequate IT infrastructure and/or service coverage – 24x7 • Inadequate resources for IT projects • ERP or CMS selection, planning, & conversion • Services/systems integration – web & portal projects Performance Barriers?

21. Alliance Strategy? Technology Services Management Consulting Enter into Performance Alliances 1. Improve technology performance. Alliance-Supported Innovation Life Cycle 2. Improve institutional performance. Perform Analyze Redesign Prioritize Alliance Strategy?

22. $64,000 Question Is Yours a High Performance Institution? A Transformed Institution? Systematic Progress? Random Acts of Progress? Progress requires • order where there is change & • change where there is order. … Alfred North Whitehead $64,000 Question