Category: higher education

  • A new mission for higher education policy reviews

    A new mission for higher education policy reviews

    by Ellen Hazelkorn, Hamish Coates, Hans de Wit & Tessa Delaquil

    Making research relevant to policy

    In recent years there has been heightened attention being given to the importance of scholarly endeavour making a real impact on and for society. Yet, despite a five-fold increase in journal articles published on higher education in the last twenty years, the OECD warns of a serious “disconnect between education policy, research and practice”.

    As higher education systems have grown and diversified, it appears with ever increasing frequency that policy is made on the slow, on the run, or not at all. Even in the most regulated systems, gone is the decades-long approach of lifetime civil servants advancing copperplate notes on papyrus through governmental machines designed to sustain flow and augment harmony. In the era of 24-hour deliberation, reporting and muddling through, it may seem that conceptually rooted analysis of policy and policymaking is on the nose or has been replaced by political expediency.

    Nothing could be further from the truth. There has never been a more important time to analyse, design, evaluate, critique, integrate, compare and innovate higher education policy. Fast policy invokes a swift need for imaginative reflection. Light policy demands counterbalancing shovel loads of intellectual backfilling. Comparative analysis is solvent for parochial policy. Policy stasis, when it stalks, must be cured by ingenious, ironic, and incisive admonition.

    Governments worldwide expect research to provide leaders and policymakers with evidence that will improve the quality of teaching and education, learning outcomes and skills development, regional innovation and knowledge diffusion, and help solve society’s problems. Yet, efforts to enhance the research-policy-practice nexus fall far short of this ambition.

    Policy influencers are more likely to be ministerial advisory boards and commissioned reports than journal articles and monographs, exactly opposite to what incentivizes academics. Rankings haven’t helped, measuring ‘impact’ in terms of discredited citation scores despite lots of research and efforts to the contrary.

    Academics continue to argue the purpose of academic research is to produce ‘pure’ fundamental research, rather than undertake public-funded research. And despite universities promoting impactful research of public value, scholars complain of many barriers to entry.

    The policy reviews solution

    Policy Reviews in Higher Education (PRiHE) aims to push out the boundaries and encourage scholars to explore a wide range of policy themes. Despite higher education sitting within a complex knowledge-research-innovation ecosystem, touching on all elements from macro-economic to foreign policy to environmental policy, our research lens and interests are far too narrow. We seem to be asking the same questions. But the policy and public lens is changing.

    Concerns are less about elites and building ‘world-class universities’ for a tiny minority, and much more about pressing social issues such as: regional disparities and ‘left-behind communities’, technical and vocational education and training, non-university pathways, skills and skills mismatch, flexible learning opportunities given new demographies, sustainable regional development, funding and efficiency, and technological capability and artificial intelligence. Of course, all of this carries implications for governance and system design, an area in which much more evidence-based research is required.

    As joint editors we are especially keen to encourage submissions which can help address such issues, and to draw on research to produce solutions rather than simply critique. We encourage potential authors to ask questions outside the box, and explore how these different issues play out in different countries, and accordingly discuss the experiences, the lessons, and the implications from which others can learn.

    Solutions for policy reviews

    Coming into its ninth year, PRiHE is platform for people in and around government to learn about the sector they govern, for professionals in the sector to keep abreast of genuinely relevant developments, and for interested people around the world to learn about what is often (including for insiders!) a genuinely opaque and complex and certainly sui generis environment.

    As our above remarks contend, the nature of contemporary higher education politics, policy and practice cannot be simplified or taken for granted. Journal topics, contributions, and interlocutors must also change and keep pace. Indeed, the very idea of an ‘academic journal’ must itself be reconsidered within a truly global and fully online education and research environment. Rightly, therefore, PRiHE keeps moving.

    With renewed vim and vigour, the Society for Research into Higher Education (SRHE) has refreshed the Editorial Office and Editorial Board, and charged PRiHE to grow even more into a world-leading journal of mark and impact. Many further improvements have been made. For instance, the Editorial Office has worked with SRHE and the publisher Taylor and Francis to make several enhancements to editorial and journal processes and content.

    We encourage people to submit research articles or proposals for an article – which will be reviewed by the Editors and feedback provided in return. We also encourage people to submit commentary and book reviews – where the authors have sought to interrogate and discuss a key issue through a policy-oriented lens. See the ‘instructions for authors’ for details.

    Read, engage, and contribute

    This second bumper 2024 issue provides six intellectual slices into ideas, data and practices relevant to higher education policy. We smartly and optimistically advise that you download and perhaps even print out all papers, power off computers and phones, and spend a few hours reading these wonderful contributions. We particularly recommend this to aspiring policy researchers, researchers and consultants in the midst of their careers, and perhaps most especially to civil servants and related experts embedded in the world of policy itself.

    SRHE and the Editorial Office are looking ahead to a vibrant and strong future period of growth for PRiHE. A raft of direct and public promotion activities are planned. PRiHE is a journal designed to make a difference to policy and practice. The most important forms of academic engagement, of course, include reading, writing and reviewing. We welcome your contribution in these and other ways to the global PRiHE community.

    This blog is based on the editorial published in Policy Reviews in Higher Education (online 16 November 2024) A new mission for higher education policy reviews

    Professor Ellen Hazelkorn is Joint Managing Partner, BH Associates. She is Professor Emeritus, Technological University Dublin.

    Hamish Coates is professor of public policy, director of the Higher Education Futures Lab, and global tertiary education expert.

    Hans de Wit is Professor Emeritus and Distinguished Fellow of the Boston College Center for International Higher Education, Senior Fellow of the international Association of Universities.

    Tessa DeLaquil is postdoctoral research fellow at the School of Education at University College Dublin.

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link

  • Escape Velocity: The Power of Your Multi-Year Growth Roadmap

    Escape Velocity: The Power of Your Multi-Year Growth Roadmap

    Applying a Strategic Framework to Your Organizational Plan

    “It’s Groundhog Day … again,” said Phil Connors, a disgruntled weatherman.  

    In the movie “Groundhog Day,” Phil Connors knew what it was like to experience life as an endless series of tedious events that recur in the same way day after day. And many of us working in online education management — especially in a highly competitive environment — can begin to feel like Phil did. 

    Receive enrollment targets. Develop and launch annual marketing campaigns. Pursue prospective students. Track students’ applications to completion. Onboard students. Repeat. 

    But when do you have time to reflect and analyze? When do you pause long enough to identify areas in need of improvement? How do you plan for innovation, growth, or testing when all of your time is spent on the status quo? 

    In my recent article on building online student services, we discussed the importance of assessing your organizational design and effectiveness to identify improvement opportunities and facilitate high-quality growth. My latest article on the organizational development journey took the discussion a step further to describe the steps involved in developing a multiyear approach to stakeholder engagement around strategic initiatives.

    With this article, we address the concept of escape velocity. We’ll show you how a multiyear strategic growth road map can help your organization break free from its Groundhog Day cycle and launch it into tomorrow. 

    Why a Multiyear Strategic Road Map Matters

    In higher education, we’re accustomed to having a university-level strategic plan with broad themes and objectives. These plans are useful in that they allow academic and service units to identify areas of contribution or special projects.

    Less common, however, is a performance road map for the unit-level organization itself. Specific programs and functions may have goals, targets, or expected outcomes, but do they collectively add up to something more than the sum of parts? Are teams competing against one another for resources or prospects? Have the true bottlenecks in processes and infrastructure been identified so that teams can tackle them together, or are they each working on problems in a silo?

    A multiyear strategic road map aligns the work you and your colleagues are doing today with the work to be done next year — and the year after that — to reach new levels of achievement, performance, and value. This means moving beyond “keeping the lights on” to building a true organizational vision where day-to-day tasks and operations contribute to a larger mission. 

    The multiyear road map also works to keep everyone accountable, so that the organization can escape the gravitational pull of mere survival, instead moving up through the atmosphere into new spaces and opportunities. 

    Importantly, the road map is not developed by a small group of people and then handed down from organizational leadership. It requires a strategic conversation across the organization that identifies what winning looks like and how all parties will win together.   

    Introducing the Hoshin Kanri Strategic Framework

    A simple search for “strategic framework” in your browser or artificial intelligence tool will bring up 25 to 50 options, which can feel overwhelming. As you dig into the variety of frameworks, you realize that each has a specific purpose and most are not interchangeable. For example, a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis can be used to understand your organization’s general position in the current environment, while the Ansoff matrix can help you dive into your individual products and their specific markets. 

    In our opinion, if you want to develop an organization-wide multiyear strategic road map, the Hoshin Kanri framework is a powerful tool.  

    The Hoshin Kanri framework originated in Japan after World War II and was historically used in the manufacturing and technology industries (think Toyota). However, the framework can apply to any industry including higher education. The words “hoshin” and “kanri” mean direction and administration, which in this context refers to identifying the most important strategic focus areas for the next three to five years, and then managing activities and delivering against annual objectives in those focus areas. 

    To fully engage with the framework, there are seven steps that move from vision development to planning and execution to bidirectional feedback management, which makes this framework different from those that only focus on one of those aspects. 

    At its core, the framework is an iterative blueprint for escape velocity — where everyone’s contributions align and where individuals are responsible for providing direct, productive, and sometimes even uncomfortable feedback about progress, barriers, and how the plans are working. This feedback loop is one of the most powerful parts of the model for organization-wide deep listening and trust-building. 

    In the next section, we will discuss each part of the framework.

    Breaking Down the Hoshin Kanri Model Components

    As we walk through the components of the Hoshin Kanri model, remember that models and frameworks are suggestions or guidelines on how to organize a strategy, not directives. Every organization is different, and you should feel free to make the model your own.

    Step 1: Establish (or Revisit and Refine) Your Organizational Vision

    A multiyear road map, by definition, requires a vision for where your organization could or should be three to five years from now. While it’s easy to understand what you want your organization to “escape” from in terms of the status quo, it’s more work to determine the opportunity space, the direction of progress, and the velocity at which the organization should move there. 

    This is often the point where organizations need external support: fresh eyes to assess the market opportunities and the organizational development opportunities (e.g., a good, better, best model). Once the organizational vision is defined, communication and socialization of that vision to every individual in the organization is critical for feedback, engagement, and buy-in.

    Step 2: Establish Strategic Focus Areas (aka Stretch Goals)

    Here’s where your organization places its bets. What are the three to five focus areas that define how your organization will escape the status quo and strategically move into a new level of opportunity, performance, or achievement? 

    Think big swings that are a stretch but still possible. Think about what would get individuals in your organization excited about the work. 

    Remember, these strategic focus areas flow from the organizational vision. Some of the areas will be quantitative in nature (e.g., grow enrollments by 20% year over year; improve satisfaction scores by 40%), and some may be more qualitative (e.g., develop an organizational decision-making framework and process). All areas should be measurable.

    Step 3: Break Strategic Areas of Focus Into Annual Objectives

    In this stage of the process, your organization works backward from those strategic focus areas to plot the annual steps of achievement and progress. These objectives are established at the organizational level.

    Step 4: Cascade Annual Objectives Into Programmatic and Functional Objectives

    In this stage, program and function leaders develop their annual objectives based on the annual organizational-level objectives and begin to determine the key performance indicators for their teams. 

    This is also the step where the organization agrees upon an objective-level primary plan owner. Which individual is accountable for progress against the objective, for escalations when progress is impeded, and for communication of wins? Does that individual agree that the resource base to support the objective is sufficient?    

    Step 5: Execute

    In this implementation stage, plans are deployed and progress is measured. 

    Steps 6 and 7: Conduct Monthly and Annual Reviews

    The Hoshin Kanri model builds in regular strategic road map and annual plan feedback loops to ensure bidirectional feedback and iteration are employed where needed.

    The frequency of your periodic reviews within an annual cycle may depend on the size and structure of your organization. The model suggests monthly plan reviews. But for some organizations, monthly reviews are too frequent and quarterly reviews are preferred. For other organizations, such as start-ups, monthly reviews are not frequent enough and biweekly sprint-level reviews may be needed. 

    The core idea is to ensure that those who are implementing against annual plans have the opportunity to discuss progress, blockers, resource concerns, and more so that leadership can determine if adjustments to the plans are necessary. 

    The annual review is the time to consider progress against the multiyear vision. Is the organization on target? Does the team need to be even more ambitious given evolving market conditions, the competitive landscape, or technological advances? Does the organization need to adjust its resource planning or design to support progress?

    Organizational Strategic Road Map: An At-a-Glance View

    As you can see from the seven steps detailed above, the Hoshin Kanri model is basically a series of embedded to-do lists with metrics and owners attached to them. The plan can be created in a document that displays the action items in a sequential order with as many words as it takes to describe the holistic plan. There is nothing wrong with this approach, as long as the organization can access, understand, and execute against the plan. 

    However, there is a way to develop a visual tool — without fancy applications or systems — that summarizes the entirety of the plan so that everyone can see themselves aligned with both the long-term and immediate objectives. This method is called the X-matrix. It works well with a spreadsheet tool, for example. In our graphic example below, we’ve replaced the “X” with a compass visual, but an X works just as well.

    Within a box in your spreadsheet, create your “X” by inserting crossed lines. This creates four quadrants. In Hoshin Kanri, these quadrants are classified with compass directions: north, south, east, and west (hence our graphical treatment). 

    An organization starts with the south quadrant (or bottom of the X). This is where you list the three to five strategic areas of focus. Each area of focus has its own row. In our graphic, these are the bottom three rows in the light blue, orange, and dark blue colors.

    In the west quadrant, you can list the high-level annual objectives for the year. Use the spreadsheet rows to enter an “x” where the strategic area of focus (on the bottom) matches the individual high-level annual objective (shown here as columns to the left that correspond in color). 

    Then, move to the north quadrant. This is where you list the business-level objectives that flow from the annual objectives. What are the specific tasks for each program and function? You can use the spreadsheet rows to enter an “x” where the business-level objective aligns with the high-level annual objective. In our example here, all three business-level objectives in the top rows correspond to the strategic focus area and the high-level annual objective color-coded in light blue. 

    Keep the east quadrant blank for a moment. This is where key targets or key performance indicators (KPIs) will go, and again, once you complete these, you can use the spreadsheet model to put an “x” where the target aligns with the individual business-level objective. In our version, we’ve used slightly different shades of light blue to show which KPIs go with which business-level objectives. 

    Go to the Resources section of the spreadsheet. Here you can document the accountable owner of the business-level objective, and use the spreadsheet rows to note with an “x” which owner is aligned with the particular initiative. You can use primary and secondary owners or just stick with primary owners, depending on your organization’s size and structure. These owners can then finalize the east quadrant with the specific KPIs in coordination with organizational leadership.  

    Depending on your organization’s size and structure, you can develop one master-level version of this multiyear plan, or you can develop one per program or function for ease of use. If spreadsheets are not of interest, there are online applications and services (some are free; some are fee-based) that serve as an interactive platform on which you and your teams can manage the development and tracking of objectives and progress.

    Build Your Multiyear Growth Road Map

    Engineering your escape velocity from Groundhog Day to the future takes introspection, time, iteration, and communication in all directions. Strategic tools and frameworks, like Hoshin Kanri, are not always necessary, but they can help your teams organize against a vision with plans, processes, and performance conversations. 

    No matter the tool, framework, or steps you take, the payoff of using introspection and planning to achieve your multiyear targets is escape velocity from the tethers of winter doldrums into a spring of new growth.

    The strategy and development team at Archer Education can help you develop and achieve your multiyear strategic road map goals. Contact us today.

    Subscribe to the Higher Ed Marketing Journal:

    Source link

  • Gaps in sustainability literacy in non-STEM higher education programmes

    Gaps in sustainability literacy in non-STEM higher education programmes

    by Erika Kalocsányiová and Rania Hassan

    Promoting sustainability literacy in higher education is crucial for deepening students’ pro-environmental behaviour and mindset (Buckler & Creech, 2014; UNESCO, 1997), while also fostering social transformation by embedding sustainability at the core of the student experience. In 2022, our group received an SRHE Scoping Award to synthesise the literature on the development, teaching, and assessment of sustainability literacy in non-STEM higher education programmes. We conducted a multilingual systematic review of post-2010 publications from the European Higher Education Area (EHEA), with the results summarised in Kalocsányiová et al (2024).

    Out of 6,161 articles that we identified as potentially relevant, 92 studies met the inclusion criteria and are reviewed in the report. These studies involved a total of 11,790 participants and assessed 9,992 university programmes and courses. Our results suggest a significant growth in research interest in sustainability in non-STEM fields since 2017, with 75 studies published compared to just 17 in the preceding seven years. Our analysis also showed that Spain, the United Kingdom, Germany, Turkey, and Austria had the highest concentration of publications, with 25 EHEA countries represented in total. The 92 reviewed studies were characterised by high methodological diversity: nearly half employed quantitative methods (47%), followed by qualitative studies (40%) and mixed methods research (13%). Curriculum assessments using quantitative content analysis of degree and course descriptors were among the most common study types, followed by surveys and intervention or pilot studies. Curriculum assessments provided a systematic way to evaluate the presence or absence of sustainability concepts within curricula at both single HE institutions and in comparative frameworks. However, they often captured only surface-level indications of sustainability integration into undergraduate and postgraduate programmes, without providing evidence on actual implementation and/or the effectiveness of different initiatives. Qualitative methods, including descriptive case studies and interviews that focused on barriers, challenges, implementation strategies, and the acceptability of new sustainability literacy initiatives, made up 40% of the current research. Mixed methods studies accounted for 13% of the reviewed articles, often applying multiple assessment tools simultaneously, including quantitative sustainability competency assessment instruments combined with open-ended interviews or learning journals.

    In terms of disciplines, Economics, Business, and Administrative Studies held the largest share of reviewed studies (26%), followed by Education (23%). Multiple disciplines accounted for 22% of the reviewed publications, reflecting the interconnected nature of sustainability. Finance and Accounting contributed only 6%, indicating a need for further research. Similarly, Language and Linguistics, Mass Communication and Documentation, and Social Sciences collectively represented only 12% of the reviewed studies. Creative Arts and Design with just 2% was also a niche area. Although caution should be exercised when drawing conclusions from these results, they highlight the need for more research within the underrepresented disciplines. This in turn can help promote awareness among non-STEM students, stimulate ethical discussions on the cultural dimensions of sustainability, and encourage creative solutions through interdisciplinary dialogue.

    Regarding factors and themes explored, the studies focused primarily on the acquisition of sustainability knowledge and competencies (27%), curriculum assessment (23%), challenges and barriers to sustainability integration (10%), implementation and evaluation research (10%), changes in students’ mindset (9%), key competences in sustainability literacy (5%), and active student participation in Education for Sustainable Development (5%). In terms of studies discussing acquisition processes, key focus areas included the teaching of Sustainable Development Goals, awareness of macro-sustainability trends, and knowledge of local sustainability issues. Studies on sustainability competencies focussed on systems thinking, critical thinking, problem-solving skills, ethical awareness, interdisciplinary knowledge, global awareness and citizenship, communication skills, and action-oriented mindset. These competencies and knowledge, which are generally considered crucial for addressing the multifaceted challenges of sustainability (Wiek et al., 2011), were often introduced to non-STEM students through stand-alone lectures, workshops, or pilot studies involving new cross-disciplinary curricula.

    Our review also highlighted a broad range of pedagogical approaches adopted for sustainability teaching and learning within non-STEM disciplines. These covered case and project-based learning, experiential learning methods, problem-based learning, collaborative learning, reflection groups, pedagogical dialogue, flipped classroom approaches, game-based learning, and service learning. While there is strong research interest in the documentation and implementation of these pedagogical approaches, few studies have so far attempted to assess learning outcomes, particularly regarding discipline-specific sustainability expertise and real-world problem-solving skills.

    Many of the reviewed studies relied on single-method approaches, meaning valuable insights into sustainability-focused teaching and learning may have been missed. For instance, studies often failed to capture the complexities surrounding sustainability integration into non-STEM programs, either by presenting positivist results that require further contextualisation or by offering rich context limited to a single course or study group, which cannot be generalised. The assessment tools currently used also seemed to lack consistency, making it difficult to compare outcomes across programmes and institutions to promote best practices. More robust evaluation designs, such as longitudinal studies, controlled intervention studies, and mixed methods approaches (Gopalan et al, 2020; Ponce & Pagán-Maldonado, 2015), are needed to explore and demonstrate the pedagogical effectiveness of various sustainability literacy initiatives in non-STEM disciplines and their impact on student outcomes and societal change.

    In summary, our review suggests good progress in integrating sustainability knowledge and competencies into some core non-STEM disciplines, while also highlighting gaps. Based on the results we have formulated some questions that may help steer future research:

    • Are there systemic barriers hindering the integration of sustainability themes, challenges and competencies into specific non-STEM fields?
    • Are certain disciplines receiving disproportionate research attention at the expense of others?
    • How do different pedagogical approaches compare in terms of effectiveness for fostering sustainability literacy in and across HE fields?
    • What new educational practices are emerging, and how can we fairly assess them and evidence their benefits for students and the environment?

    We also would like to encourage other researchers to engage with knowledge produced in a variety of languages and educational contexts. The multilingual search and screening strategy implemented in our review enabled us to identify and retrieve evidence from 25 EHEA countries and 24 non-English publications. If reviews of education research remain monolingual (English-only), important findings and insights will go unnoticed hindering knowledge exchange, creativity, and innovation in HE.

    Dr. Erika Kalocsányiová is a Senior Research Fellow with the Institute for Lifecourse Development at the University of Greenwich, with research centering on public health and sustainability communication, migration and multilingualism, refugee integration, and the implications of these areas for higher education policies.

    Rania Hassan is a PhD student and a research assistant at the University of Greenwich. Her research centres on exploring enterprise development activities within emerging economies. As a multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary researcher, Rania is passionate about advancing academia and promoting knowledge exchange in higher education.

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link

  • Possible futures for working environments

    Possible futures for working environments

    by Nic Kipar

    This blog follows an earlier short review of the literature and is based on the author’s experience in a range of universities. It suggests how working environments might change in practice, with illustrations from the author’s own institution, the University of Glasgow.

    Introduction

    In thinking about working environments, the most effective approach is to ask individuals how they work best. This enables them to thrive in the environment most suited to themselves and the particular activity they are undertaking. More importantly, staff should be given the freedom to experiment with different settings, without others imposing judgments based on their own limited perspectives. This openness fosters a supportive and adaptable workplace, enabling everyone to find the spaces that best suit their work and wellbeing.

    Embracing new thinking

    Traditionally, we have not considered whether staff on our campuses are enjoying their work environments and are able to be their most creative and effective selves. This oversight stands in contrast with the University Value of Curiosity and Discovery: “Embracing new thinking and innovation in a spirit of open minded collaboration that positively impacts on ourselves, our University, our city, society and the world.”

    In response, the University of Glasgow has recently begun incorporating a co-design element into its Workspace Futures Programme, starting with a ‘diagnose’ phase. Yet I still wonder: are we thinking boldly enough? Are we exploring possibilities that reach beyond our usual perspectives and assumptions?

    Let me pose a provocation from my colleague Dr Nathalie Tasler (personal communication, November 2024):

    Remember the Disney movie Aladdin? “Phenomenal cosmic powers… itty-bitty living space!” So how can our immensely talented and creative colleagues thrive when their environment is filled with “stop rules” (Runco, 2007)? In social psychology, stop rules are constraints—often invisible—that limit our thinking, stifle creativity, and shut down possibility thinking (Craft, 2005; Lin, 2020) before they even have a chance to take shape. When workplaces impose these restrictions, whether through rigid protocols, uninspiring spaces, or unspoken norms, how can we expect innovation and fresh ideas to flourish? What would it take to create a work environment where potential isn’t confined, but unleashed?Transforming everyone’s spaces

    While we have been focused on transforming student study spaces and creating vibrant, open campuses that attract students and the public alike, we may be neglecting the needs of our own staff. The University of Edinburgh (Bayne, presentation in November 2024) uses the term “buzz” to describe the energy of a thriving campus, drawing inspiration from the University of Warwick’s public events, like World Cup screenings in collaboration with local businesses, that created memorable, widely shared experiences. Edinburgh’s themes of Belonging and buzz; Sanctuary and beauty; Sustainable connections; Mobility, flexibility and flow, and Openness, public co-creation and surfacing resonate with our work on student spaces, but have we fully explored the potential of spaces that could truly empower our staff work best depending on their known, or yet unknown preferences?

    Understanding individual preferences in workspace design is challenging. Environmental needs are deeply personal, shaped by complex and unique factors. This makes it impossible to assume that one person’s ideal workspace will suit everyone. When we project our own preferences onto others, we risk introducing bias and overlooking or misjudging their needs. These hidden barriers are created by a world design with certain people in mind, leaving others feeling excluded. They make aspects of society accessible to some while shutting out others. These mismatches are the building blocks of exclusion, making people feel unwelcome or unable to fully participate (Holmes, 2018).

    It is one thing to offer flexible options for staff to work from home or from a campus office. But we should also look closely at the campus itself, at how we treat these spaces and how they treat us. Typically, we arrive on campus, head into buildings and into offices or meeting rooms, and operate within closed-off spaces that might be limiting our ability to think creatively or envision the future. It makes me wonder: Are we missing something essential?

    An office is an office is an office?

    We expect our staff to innovate and imagine exciting futures, yet how can we foster that kind of thinking when we confine people to uninspiring spaces? A room does not need to have white walls or dull furniture to feel stifling; even a vibrant, biophilic space can feel restrictive if it is still just four walls. What if we reimagined our workplaces so that, rather than feeling like “just another day at the office”, staff actually felt genuinely inspired to be there?

    At present, we do not offer staff the full range of spaces that might suit different types of work or support them in ways they find personally meaningful. Why is it, for example, that a staff member working in an on-campus café among students is often seen as “not really working”? Such assumptions are outdated, belonging to a pre-digital era. Why do we still insist that all staff need traditional offices, all the time?

    Offices have their purpose, of course, but not all office types are effective for all needs. Open-plan offices with cubicles, for instance, combine the worst aspects of every workspace model. Various issues are associated with open office spaces featuring cubicles, which are often regarded as suboptimal work environments. Common problems include lack of privacy, increased noise levels, and the inability to control one’s environment, which can lead to diminished productivity, lower job satisfaction, and elevated stress levels. The systematic literature review by Colenberg et al (2021) finds a link between cramped cubicle setups in open spaces and decreased physical and mental health due to poor environmental control. I recall working in university offices in the early 1990s, when alternative approaches were simply unimaginable. Back then, an office with your name on the door was a status symbol and a sign of belonging. But why are we still behaving as though we are living in the 20th century?

    Spaces designed to fit people, not making people fit

    James McCune Smith Learning Hub (JMS) © UofG

    If someone can concentrate deeply and produce creative, high-quality work in a bustling student study space like the James McCune Smith Learning Hub (JMS,) or in a moderately busy area like the Mazumdar-Shaw Advanced Research Centre (ARC) lobby, who are we to judge? For some, the energy of a café may be the perfect environment to spark ideas and focus, while others need absolute silence and solitude to work through complex problems. Some might prefer a quiet, shared workspace, finding comfort in the presence of others without the noise. Many benefit from working at home, or outside if weather permits, while others feel more motivated and inspired by coming onto campus.

    Ultimately, as long as staff are accessible when needed and are delivering excellent work, there is no “right” way to structure a work environment. What works for one person may not work for another, and that is precisely the point: a truly supportive workplace recognises and respects individual preferences and needs. By allowing each person the freedom to choose the space that best supports their productivity and wellbeing, we create a culture that values flexibility and respects diversity in how we all work best.

    Mazumdar-Shaw Advanced Research Centre (ARC) © UofG

    Welcoming variation and diversity as agents for evolution

    The psychologist Dr Lorna Champion (personal communication, November 2024) summarised this succinctly: “Evolution is based on variation. If a characteristic supports the survival then it is retained and handed on, because of difference, we evolve. If we don’t have variation then we stagnate.” It is time to embrace new thinking, to break from outdated models, and to create environments that truly support and inspire staff to thrive.

    Nic Kipar leads the Academic and Digital Development team at the University of Glasgow. She played an instrumental role in the creation of the James McCune Smith Learning Hub, focusing on inclusive active learning. Nic co-leads the Enhancing Learning & Teaching Practice workstream, contributing to the university’s Learning & Teaching strategy and planning for the upcoming Keystone building, which will feature large interdisciplinary labs. Nic also chairs a working group on Pedagogy in Superlabs, pioneering these innovative spaces for the university.

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link

  • Working environments: a short overview of the literature

    Working environments: a short overview of the literature

    by Nic Kipar

    We rarely consider whether staff on our campuses are enjoying their work environments and are able to be their most creative and effective selves. We should ask individuals how they work best, to enable them to thrive. Staff should be given the freedom to experiment with different settings, without others imposing judgments based on their own limited perspectives. Here in the first of two blogs Nic Kipar reviews what we know from research about working environments; the second blog will look at what this might mean in practice.

    Control over the workspace

    A growing body of research underscores the significant role that control over the physical workspace plays in employee wellbeing, productivity, and job satisfaction. Studies consistently show that providing employees with autonomy over their work environment – such as control over lighting, workspace flexibility, and layout adjustments – can reduce stress and improve mental health (Colenberg et al, 2021). This sense of control fosters a positive psychological environment, as evidenced in both Swedish and Dutch Masters and PhD research. For example, Ghaemi Flores (2023) found that agile and activity-based workspaces, which allow for greater personal control, are rated more favourably by employees. Similarly, van der Vleuten-Chraibi (2019) observed that control over light levels even in shared spaces enhances workspace satisfaction and productivity.

    Despite these benefits, the hierarchical tradition in workspace allocation—where higher-ranking employees receive designated offices—remains a barrier to the adoption of more flexible environments. Ghaemi Flores (2023, p44) notes that overcoming this cultural resistance is crucial for a successful transition to activity-based work settings.

    Research also challenges the assumption that open-plan offices facilitate collaboration. Instead, these layouts often lead to increased distractions and reduced personal control, negatively impacting both productivity and employee wellbeing (Bernstein and Turban, 2018). Open-plan designs, especially cubicles, have been shown to disrupt natural collaboration, as employees may withdraw to avoid noise and distractions.

    This body of research collectively suggests that providing employees with control over their workspace fosters a healthier, more satisfying work environment, positively affecting both personal and organisational outcomes.

    Wellbeing and working environments

    The psychological dimension of workspace design is essential to employee wellbeing and productivity. Ruohomäki et al (2015) identify key factors, such as privacy, personal space, and control over tasks and schedules, as critical for reducing distractions and supporting mental focus. Research by Danielsson and Bodin (2008) further supports the idea that private and agile office environments contribute to better emotional health, largely due to the sense of control they afford employees. Lee and Brand (2005) also proposed that offering more flexibility and control over workspaces could lead to significant benefits for occupants. This is consistent with findings by Laughton and Thatcher (2019, p837) that shared offices and agile spaces promote psychological wellbeing more effectively than reservable spaces or open-plan offices.

    Morrison and Macky (2017) applied the established Job Demands-Resources model to explore the demands of shared work environments and hot-desking arrangements and found that open offices increase cognitive demands on employees, leading to higher job dissatisfaction. Similarly, Cvijanovic (2019) found that customised workspaces are linked to higher job satisfaction and lower stress, although they do not necessarily enhance productivity. High social density within a workspace has also been shown to reduce perceived control (MacMillan, 2012). The study by Cobaleda Cordero et al (2019) of wellbeing related to working spaces also supports these findings.

    The role of greenspace in workplace wellbeing

    Access to greenspace within the workplace has been shown to positively affect employee wellbeing. Research by Bratman et al (2015) and Berman et al (2008) showed that walking in nature or even viewing pictures of nature can improve directed attention and cognition, the latter supporting the theory of Attention Restoration. (Attention Restoration Theory, developed by psychologists Stephen Kaplan and Rachel Kaplan in the late 1980s, proposes that exposure to natural environments can help restore mental focus and relieve “attention fatigue.” This fatigue arises when we rely on directed, or focused, attention for extended periods.) Gilchrist et al (2015) went further by finding that time spent in workplace greenspace, as well as views of natural elements like trees and flowering plants, significantly boosted wellbeing. Interestingly, the mere presence of these natural elements, rather than subjective satisfaction with the view, appears to be sufficient to yield benefits.

    A systematic review by Ricciardi et al (2022) suggests that greenspace exposure may benefit cognition, according to recent advances in environmental psychology. The review included six longitudinal and 19 cross-sectional studies focusing on schoolchildren, adults, and the elderly. Most studies used the Landsat Normalized Difference Vegetation Index, which is a widely used measure of live green vegetation on Earth, calculated from satellite images, to measure greenspace exposure and examined outcomes such as academic achievement, global cognition, attention/executive functions, and memory. Although findings are inconsistent, they indicate a potential cognitive benefit from exposure to greenspace.

    Activity-based workspaces

    Activity-Based Workspaces (ABWs) are designed to offer flexibility by providing different spaces tailored to specific tasks, encouraging employees to choose environments that support their current work needs. Originally introduced to stimulate creativity in IT start-ups, ABWs are intended to facilitate both collaborative and focused work. However, Haapakangas et al (2023) found that the use of ABWs varies widely among employees, influenced by factors such as age, job role, and ergonomic satisfaction. High cognitive demands and collaborative tasks were associated with more active workspace switching, while distractions in ABWs led to frustration and a decrease in perceived environment fit. Haapakangas et al (2018) noticed that difficulties in locating available workspaces led to frustration and perceptions of time loss and recommend implementing real-time information systems to help employees locate suitable workspaces and accessible quiet zones to address privacy needs.

    Clearly, there will always be a need for quiet working spaces, which also highlights the benefits of flexible working that includes home office work (should the individual wish to do so and has a quiet home office working space, which may not be possible for everyone).

    The value of silence, and the value of controlled noise

    Silence in the workplace offers numerous benefits, such as enhancing wellbeing, productivity, emotional regulation, and focus for all employees, but particularly for neurodiverse employees or those sensitive to noise. Quiet spaces reduce sensory overload and support productivity, especially for individuals on the autism spectrum or those with sensory processing disorders (Asselineau et al, 2024, Cox et al, 2024, Szulc, 2024). Open-plan offices, however, often contribute to decreased wellbeing due to limited privacy and excessive noise (Delle Macchie et al, 2018, Laughton, 2017).

    Interestingly, silence can have the opposite effect on some, with controlled noise being beneficial for some individuals and tasks. Research on ADHD (Sikström and Söderlund, 2007; Söderlund et al, 2007; Söderlund et al, 2010) suggests that moderate background noise may enhance focus by helping the brain filter distractions. ADHD is linked to unusual functioning of the brain’s dopamine system, a neurotransmitter crucial for motivation, attention, and learning. Under typical conditions, stable dopamine levels allow the brain to regulate its responses to new stimuli, “dampening” reactions to prevent overstimulation. However, in individuals with ADHD, dopamine levels are lower than average, which causes the brain to overreact to external stimuli, leading to heightened sensitivity and difficulty filtering out distractions. In environments with moderate stimulation (like gentle noise or activity), people with ADHD can often focus well. This phenomenon, known as “stochastic resonance”, suggests that a moderate level of noise can improve cognitive performance by making it easier to distinguish important signals. Though it may seem counterintuitive, the right amount of noise can push a weak signal over a “detection threshold,” allowing it to stand out more clearly.

    Stochastic resonance, observed across systems from biological networks to electronics, demonstrates how controlled noise can sometimes enhance performance. In the brain, this effect helps neurons respond more effectively to subtle stimuli. For individuals with ADHD, who typically have lower dopamine levels, computational models suggest that a slightly higher level of background noise may be needed to achieve this beneficial effect, enabling the brain to filter out distractions. However, both extremes – very quiet (low stimulation) or highly chaotic (high stimulation) environments – can impair focus. Empirical evidence supports this theory, indicating that tailored environmental adjustments, such as specific levels of background noise, can help individuals with ADHD better manage distractions and maintain concentration.

    Studies by Vostal et al (2013) also highlight the need for adjustable acoustic environments for those with ADHD, as a controlled level of noise or visual simplicity can improve task engagement. In classrooms, Batho et al (2020) found that quiet zones or low-level background noise are beneficial, depending on the cognitive task – findings that may be relevant to workplace design as well.

    It is not only the noise or activity in an environment that can be beneficial; the environment itself plays a crucial role. Kat Holmes notes that “the objects and people around us influence our ability to participate” (Holmes et al, 2018, p2). Certain settings can create a sense of belonging, such as the feeling of being part of a learning community in student study spaces, which can enhance concentration and productivity. Humans are inherently social beings, shaped by evolution to thrive in environments that support connection – provided there are also sufficient opportunities for solitude and silence when needed.

    Summary

    This short literature review underscores the importance of control, flexibility, and environmental sensitivity in workplace design. The research suggests that workplaces need to cater to individual preferences and diverse needs to create supportive and inclusive environments that foster both personal and organisational success. No preference is better or worse, it all depends on the individual and what works best for them.

    Nic Kipar leads the Academic and Digital Development team at the University of Glasgow. She played an instrumental role in the creation of the James McCune Smith Learning Hub, focusing on inclusive active learning. Nic co-leads the Enhancing Learning & Teaching Practice workstream, contributing to the university’s Learning & Teaching strategy and planning for the upcoming Keystone building, which will feature large interdisciplinary labs. Nic also chairs a working group on Pedagogy in Superlabs, pioneering these innovative spaces for the university.

    References

    Asselineau, A, Grolleau, G and Mzoughi, N (2024) ‘Quiet environments and the intentional practice of silence: Toward a new perspective in the analysis of silence in organizations’ Industrial and organizational psychology, 17(3), pp 326-340

    Batho, LP, Martinussen, R and Wiener, J (2020) ‘The Effects of Different Types of Environmental Noise on Academic Performance and Perceived Task Difficulty in Adolescents With ADHD’ Journal of attention disorders, 24(8), pp 1181-1191

    Bayne, S (2024) Future of learning spaces University of Edinburgh: Learning & Teaching Design workshop,  28.10.2024

    Bayne, S, Wood, H-R, Simmonds, R, Drysdale, T, Murray, E, Lamb, J, Christie, B. and Nicol, . (2024) Futures For Our Teaching Spaces: principles and visions for connecting space to curriculum Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh

    Berman, MG, Jonides, J and Kaplan, S (2008) ‘The Cognitive Benefits of Interacting With Nature’ Psychological Science, 19(12), pp 1207-1212

    Bernstein, ES and Turban, S (2018) ‘The impact of the ‘open’ workspace on human collaboration’ Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological sciences, 373(1753), pp 1-8

    Bratman, GN, Daily, GC, Levy, BJ and Gross, JJ (2015) ‘The benefits of nature experience: Improved affect and cognition’ Landscape and Urban Planning, 138, pp 41-50

    Champion, L. (2024) RE: Evolution is based on variation. Personal communication to Kipar, N., 05.11.2024

    Cobaleda Cordero, A, Babapour, M and Karlsson, M (2019) ‘Feel well and do well at work: A post-relocation study on the relationships between employee wellbeing and office landscape’ Journal of corporate real estate, 22(2), pp 113-137

    Colenberg, S, Jylhä, T and Arkesteijn, M (2021) ‘The relationship between interior office space and employee health and well-being – a literature review’ Building research and information: the international journal of research, development and demonstration, 49(3), pp 352-366

    Cox, CB, Krome, LR and Pool, GJ (2024) ‘Breaking the sound barrier: Quiet spaces may also foster inclusivity for the neurodiverse community’ Industrial and organizational psychology, 17(3), pp 350-352

    Craft, A (2005) Creativity in schools: tensions and dilemmas London/New York: RoutledgeFalmer

    Cvijanovic, M (2019) The relationship between workspace and office placement and workforce productivity and wellbeing Doctor of Philosophy, Walden University, Minneapolis, Minnesota

    Danielsson, CB and Bodin, L (2008) ‘Office Type in Relation to Health, Well-Being, and Job Satisfaction Among Employees’ Environment and behavior, 40(5), pp 636-668

    Delle Macchie, S, Secchi, S and Cellai, G (2018) ‘Acoustic Issues in Open Plan Offices: A Typological Analysis’ Buildings (Basel), 8(11)

    Ghaemi Flores, S (2023) From cubicles to collaboration: A study on the transformation of government office spaces driven by cost-efficiency, digitilization, and modernization Master of Science, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm

    Gilchrist, K, Brown, C and Montarzino, A (2015) ‘Workplace settings and wellbeing: Greenspace use and views contribute to employee wellbeing at peri-urban business sites’ Landscape and urban planning, 138, pp. 32-40

    Haapakangas, A, Hallman, DM, Mathiassen, SE and Jahncke, H (2018) ‘Self-rated productivity and employee well-being in activity-based offices: The role of environmental perceptions and workspace use’ Building and environment, 145, pp 115-124

    Haapakangas, A, Sirola, P and Ruohomäki, V (2023) ‘Understanding user behaviour in activity-based offices’ Ergonomics, 66(4), pp 419-431

    Holmes, K (2018) Mismatch: how inclusion shapes design Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press

    Laughton, K-A (2017) The Effects of Workspace Office Layout on Aspects of Employee Wellbeing MA, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg

    Laughton, K-A and Thatcher, A ‘Health and Wellbeing in Modern Office Layouts: The Case of Agile Workspaces in Green Buildings’ Proceedings of the 20th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA 2018), Florence, Italy: Springer International Publishing, pp 831-840

    Lee, SY and Brand, JL (2005) ‘Effects of control over office workspace on perceptions of the work environment and work outcomes’ Journal of environmental psychology, 25(3), pp 323-333

    Lin, Y-S (2020) ‘Possibility Thinking’ The Palgrave Encyclopedia of the Possible Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp 1-9

    Morrison, RL and Macky, KA (2017) ‘The demands and resources arising from shared office spaces’ Applied ergonomics, 60, pp 103-115

    Ricciardi, E, Spano, G, Lopez, A, Tinella, L, Clemente, C, Elia, G, Dadvand, P, Sanesi, G, Bosco, A and Caffò, AO (2022) ‘Long-Term Exposure to Greenspace and Cognitive Function during the Lifespan: A Systematic Review’ International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(18)

    Runco, MA (2007) Creativity: theories and themes: research, development, and practice Amsterdam; Boston: Elsevier Academic Press

    Ruohomäki, V, Lahtinen, M and Reijula, K (2015) ‘Salutogenic and user-centred approach for workplace design’ Intelligent Buildings International, 7(4), pp 184-197

    Sikström, S and Söderlund, G (2007) ‘Stimulus-Dependent Dopamine Release in Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder’ Psychological Review, 114(4), pp 1047-1075

    Söderlund, G, Sikström, S and Smart, A (2007) ‘Listen to the noise: noise is beneficial for cognitive performance in ADHD’ Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48(8), pp 840-847

    Söderlund, GBW, Sikström, S, Loftesnes, JM and Sonuga-Barke, EJ (2010) ‘The effects of background white noise on memory performance in inattentive school children’ Behavioral and Brain Functions, 6(1)

    Szulc, JM (2024) ‘Embracing silence: Creating inclusive spaces for autistic employees’ Industrial and organizational psychology, 17(3), pp 357-359

    Tasler, N (2024) RE: Aladdin Personal communication to Kipar, N 05.11.2024

    van der Vleuten-Chraibi, S (2019) Lighting in multi-user office environments: improving employee wellbeing through personal control PhD, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven

    Vostal, BR, Lee, DL and Miller, F (2013) ‘Effects of Environmental Stimulation on Students Demonstrating Behaviors Related to Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: A Review of the Literature’ International Journal of Special Education, 28(3), pp 32-43

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link

  • Voices of Innovation: Meet InsightsEDU 2025 Featured Speakers

    Voices of Innovation: Meet InsightsEDU 2025 Featured Speakers

    Higher Education Speakers of InsightsEDU

    Meet the thought leaders shaping the future of higher education at InsightsEDU 2025! Taking place from February 12-14, 2025 in New Orleans, LA, this conference brings together expert voices in higher education marketing, enrollment management, and leadership to discuss the evolution of today’s Modern Learner. This year, explore the future of higher education in 38+ sessions, where our speakers will share their vast expertise and unique perspectives. From higher education leaders to enrollment professionals, these speakers are vital to the InsightsEDU experience and are ready to equip you with insights to thrive in a new era of learning.

    The lineup of featured speakers for InsightsEDU 2025 is still growing—stay tuned for exciting new announcements! Below are the confirmed featured speakers as of November 7, 2024.

    Gregory Clayton

    President of Enrollment Management Services at EducationDynamics
    With over 30 years of experience in the higher education space, Greg brings valuable expertise in enrollment management and performance marketing. As President of Enrollment Management Services at EducationDynamics, he leads a comprehensive team offering agency marketing, enrollment services, strategic consulting, and research, all tailored to the higher ed sector. His leadership and career position him as a visionary strategist, equipped to offer insightful commentary on the higher education landscape and enrollment solutions. Join his session to learn more about how to better serve the Modern Learner and implement strategies that drive institutional success.

    Session: The Evolving Expectations of the Modern Learner: How Institutions Can Adapt and Thrive

    Wendy Colby

    Wendy Colby

    Vice President and Associate Provost for Boston University Virtual (BU Virtual)
    Throughout her career, Wendy has distinguished herself as a leader in online learning and enhancing the student experience. At BU Virtual, she focuses on delivering educational and technological excellence, positioning the program as a model of high-quality online education. Wendy’s commitment to advancing digital learning solutions ensures that students receive an exceptional learning experience. With extensive expertise in strategic leadership and global engagement, Wendy brings invaluable insights to InsightsEDU, where she will speak on best practices for collaborative strategies that optimize institutional success.

    Session: Bridging the Gap: Aligning Marketing & Enrollment Management for Success

    Roy Daiany

    Director, Education & Careers at Google
    With over 15 years of experience, Roy Daiany leads Google’s national team of education advertising strategists, partnering with top universities and EdTech companies to drive growth. A champion of technology-driven marketing, Roy will share valuable insights in his upcoming session, drawing on Google’s data to highlight key areas for optimizing student outreach and exploring innovative advertising practices.

    Session: Emerging Trends and Priorities for Higher Education

    Brent Fitch

    President of Rocky Mountain College of Art and Design
    Brent’s extensive career and leadership in higher education provide invaluable perspectives for InsightsEDU 2025. As President of Rocky Mountain College of Art and Design, he has played an instrumental role in shaping strategies that optimize student engagement. With a proven track record in developing innovative programs that enhance faculty, employee, and student outcomes, his strategic leadership offers InsightsEDU attendees exclusive access to tried and true best practices within higher education. Learn from Brent to gain a deeper understanding of how to navigate institutional challenges and embrace new strategies for ongoing success.

    Session: The Era of the Modern Learner: Redefining Higher Education

    Andrew Fleischer


    Head of Industry, Education at Google
    As Head of Industry for Education at Google, Andrew Fleischer leads a team dedicated to transforming how institutions and EdTech companies approach enrollment and brand positioning. With a background spanning strategic roles in Google’s App and Retail sectors, Andrew brings expertise in using data-driven advertising to address complex business goals. In his session at InsightsEDU 2024, Andrew will explore Google’s latest insights on the role of AI in higher education and share valuable strategies to navigate the evolving student journey.

    Session: Emerging Trends and Priorities for Higher Education

    Stephen Horn

    Chief Marketing Officer at The College of Health Care Professions (CHCP)
    Stephen Horn is an award-winning marketer known for his inventive strategies that drive growth and expand market share. With a strong background in brand-building and nurturing marketing talent, Steve has a proven track record of success. As Chief Marketing Officer for CHCP in Houston, his role has been critical to program success. InsightsEDU attendees can anticipate gaining valuable insights into effective strategies for enhancing student engagement and aligning marketing with cross-functional departments.

    Session: Bridging the Gap: Aligning Marketing & Enrollment Management for Success

    Dr. Melik Khoury

    Dr. Melik Khoury

    President of Unity Environment University
    Gain fresh insights and practical strategies for engaging Modern Learners with Dr. Melik Khoury, a pivotal leader in higher education. As President of Unity Environmental University, Dr. Khoury prioritizes student success and has spearheaded transformative initiatives to increase enrollment and retention. His commitment to affordability, accessibility, and flexibility are paramount to the university’s enduring success. Dr. Khoury’s tenure at Unity Environmental University has established him as an innovative and adaptable leader, making him an ideal expert to address today’s new era of learning and the unique needs of Modern Learners.

    Session: The Era of the Modern Learner: Redefining Higher Education

    Dr. Andy Miller

    Senior VP of Strategic Enrollment & Partnerships at Indiana Wesleyan University
    Andy Miller, PhD, brings a wealth of experience to InsightsEDU 2025. In his role as Sr. VP of Strategic Enrollment & Partnerships at Indiana Wesleyan University, Andy oversees enrollment and partnership initiatives, serving over 12,000 students. With expertise in building cross-industry partnerships and creating training pathways for adult learners to meet workforce demands, Andy is a pivotal leader in the field.

    Session: Bridging the Gap: Aligning Marketing & Enrollment Management for Success

    Dr. Joe Sallustio

    Dr. Joe Sallustio

    Vice President of Industry Engagement at Ellucian & Cofounder The EdUp Experience Podcast
    Dr. Joe Sallustio is a leading authority within the higher ed sector, recognized for his expertise in operations, finance, and academics. With over 20 years of experience, he has led teams across various institutional functions, including marketing, enrollment, finance, and student services, equipping him with the skills to successfully navigate the modern landscape of higher education. Dr. Sallustio leverages his extensive knowledge as co-founder and host of The EdUp Experience, a podcast that explores timely topics in the higher ed industry. Join his session to learn more about innovative strategies for addressing challenges and uncovering opportunities for student success amid changing times.

    Sessions: The Era of the Modern Learner: Redefining Higher Education

    Katie Tomlinson

    Katie Tomlinson

    Senior Director of Analytics and Business Intelligence at EducationDynamics
    Prepare to unlock insights with Katie Tomlinson. As the Senior Director of Analytics and Business Intelligence, Katie expertly manages data and reporting, uncovering key trends to support EducationDynamics in delivering data-driven solutions for the higher ed community. Learn from her as she discusses findings from EducationDynamics’ latest report, where attendees will gain a deeper understanding of the evolving learning environment and the significant factors that influence Modern Learners’ educational choices.

    Session: The Evolving Expectations of the Modern Learner: How Institutions Can Adapt and Thrive

    Engage with the Leaders Shaping Higher Education

    InsightsEDU 2025 promises to be another impactful conference, offering a forum for thought leadership, best practices, and meaningful networking among higher education professionals. This conference unites industry leaders and institutions to explore the key challenges and exciting opportunities facing the higher ed sector today. Taking place in early 2025, InsightsEDU is the perfect change to gain insights that will strengthen your institution’s foundation for the year ahead and beyond. Don’t miss out–Register today to secure your spot.

    Source link

  • New Program Strategy: Go Deep, Not Wide

    New Program Strategy: Go Deep, Not Wide

    How to Strategically Expand Your Online Adult Degree Programs

    So you’ve built a successful online adult degree program. No small feat. Now you need to keep your foot on the gas to keep the momentum going. 

    Your first instinct might be to “go wide” with your program expansion strategy by launching a variety of new, unrelated programs to pair with your successful offering. While this diversification strategy might reap great rewards for consumer packaged goods giants like Unilever and Procter & Gamble, higher education is different. Your institution is different.  

    I find myself making the following recommendation over and over again when it comes to expanding online degree programs: Go deep, not wide. 

    This means building upon the success of your existing program by developing specialized offerings within the same field. The “go deep” method might not be the most popular, but in my experience, it’s often the most effective. Let’s break it down further — or should I say, dig deeper — to see if this approach is right for your school. 

    What Does Going Wide Mean for Your Online Adult Degree Programs?

    Let’s start with a hypothetical example: You have established a successful online Master of Business Administration (MBA) program with a positive reputation in the region. 

    Recently, you’ve heard cybersecurity and nursing degree programs are experiencing industry growth, so you decide to pursue programs in those areas next to build out a wider range of offerings. 

    Unfortunately, this strategic path can be a mistake. Here’s why: 

    • Lack of synergy among programs: When universities add new, unrelated programs, they often fail to create synergistic relationships among all their programs. Each program operates in isolation without benefiting from the shared resources, expertise, or cross-promotional opportunities that could exist if the programs were more aligned.
    • Missed opportunities to leverage existing brand equity: Diversifying into new areas causes institutions to overlook the strength of their existing brand. A well-established program, like a thriving online MBA program, comes with significant brand recognition and trust that new programs lack. 

    However, expanding within the existing framework of business administration can allow for the amplification of this established brand equity, rather than starting from scratch with each new offering.

    Why Going Deep Is More Effective

    In higher education, the smart, strategic allocation of resources is crucial. You could put your institution’s limited resources toward a whole new program, such as a Bachelor of Science in Nursing (BSN) program or a Master of Science in Cybersecurity program. Or, you could just attach a new or adjacent offering to your successful online MBA program to channel your resources into an established program realm. 

    Forget efficacy for a moment. Which strategy sounds more efficient? 

    The good news is that going deep in one area of program offerings is often more effective and efficient. Instead of developing an entirely new adult degree program from scratch, you can simply add value to your existing online business program. 

    This might come in the form of added concentration options, such as MBA concentrations in entrepreneurship, accounting, finance, marketing, management, or strategic communications. 

    It could also involve adding another relevant degree program within the same area of study. For example, since you’re seeing a lot of success with your MBA program, you could add a finance or accounting degree program to build on the success and reputation of the established program.

    Key Benefits of Going Deep With Your Online Adult Degree Programs

    I’ve had experiences both ways: some institutions go wide, others go deep. For those that go wide, I’ve often seen siloed marketing efforts, inefficient allocations of resources, and sporadic and unpredictable enrollment. For those that go deep, I see the following benefits: 

    More Students Attracted

    Broadened appeal for students already interested in the primary program: By offering more concentrations within a well-established program, or adjacent degrees within the same field, your institution can appeal to a broader range of interests and career goals within your current student audience base.

    More options for prospective students due to increased specialization: Specialized degrees and concentrations allow students to tailor their education to their specific interests and career paths, making the program more attractive to applicants seeking focused expertise.

    Increased Marketing Efficiency

    Ability to leverage existing web pages and SEO for the main program: Concentration pages can be added as subpages to the main program’s page, which likely already has a strong search engine optimization (SEO) presence. This setup benefits from the existing search engine rankings and requires less effort than starting marketing from scratch for a new program.

    Faster path to high search rankings for new concentrations, creating a marketing loop: The SEO efforts for the main program boost the visibility of the new concentrations, which in turn contribute to the overall authority and ranking of the main program’s page. This synergy creates a self-reinforcing cycle that enhances the visibility of all offerings.

    Enhanced paid marketing efficiencies: Adding concentrations in areas where significant traffic already exists for broad terms — like “MBA,” “business degree,” or “finance degree” for an MBA program — allows institutions to more effectively utilize their paid advertising budgets. Expanding the program options for your existing traffic allows you to improve your click-to-lead conversion rates, increase your number of leads, and enhance your downstream successes in areas such as enrollments and completions. This approach allows for a more efficient use of marketing investments, providing more options for prospective students within the same budget.

    Faster Accreditation Process

    Streamlined accreditation process by expanding within an already accredited program: Adding concentrations within an existing program simplifies the accreditation process. Because the core program is already accredited, expanding it with concentrations requires fewer approvals and less bureaucracy than launching an entirely new program.

    Ready to Go Deep With One of Your Online Adult Degree Programs?

    If you’ve seen success with an online adult degree program offering, you’ve already taken a momentous step toward growth — which is something to be proud of. It also creates massive opportunity, and Archer Education is poised to help you capitalize on it. 

    Archer is different from other agencies. We work as your online growth enablement partner, helping you to foster self-sufficiency over the long haul through collaboration, storytelling, and cutting-edge student engagement technology. 

    We’ve helped dozens of institutions increase enrollment and retention through a going deep approach, and your institution could be next. And once you’ve solidified the reputation and success of your core online offering by going deep, we’ll be ready to help you pivot to a wider approach to expand your position in online learning.

    Contact us today to learn more about what Archer can do for you. 

    Subscribe to the Higher Ed Marketing Journal:

    Source link

  • The Future of Online Learning Brands

    The Future of Online Learning Brands

    Embracing a “One School” Approach for a Better Student Experience

    Let’s draw a line in the sand. On one side, we have a university campus and its on-ground offerings. On the other side, we have the digital higher education space and the online programs that live within it. 

    Traditionally, this line has been stark and rigid, with universities treating the two modalities as separate entities with dedicated teams, technology, systems, budgets, and strategies. 

    The initial separation was, in part, driven by the perception of online education as a lesser counterpart to its on-ground equivalent. This view may have held some truth in the early stages of digital learning. But the division has come with a cost, as institutions have had to do double the work, which is inefficient. 

    We can all see that significant changes are underway. Traditional educational boundaries are fading, with online learning gaining respect and sophistication. There are online programs that outpace their on-ground counterparts in quality and rigor. We’re looking at a future where traditional, hybrid, and online modalities are integrated, balancing both quality and accessibility. 

    As we leave the comfort of land and head out to sea, embracing a holistic approach is the way forward for universities.

    Separation Comes at a Cost 

    The traditional division between on-ground and online learning modalities increases costs and complicates operations for institutions, weakening their ability to present a unified, powerful brand to prospective students. Here are a few of the pain points: 

    Fragmented Systems

    Multiple Platforms: Utilizing different customer relationship management (CRM) systems, student information systems (SIS), and learning management systems (LMS) introduces inefficiencies. Each platform requires its own set of training, maintenance, and integration protocols. Those protocols often don’t integrate well, either.

    Increased Costs: The need to support various tech stacks and administrative systems significantly drives up operational costs, as resources are duplicated across the board.

    Conflicting Marketing Strategies

    Brand Fragmentation: With separate marketing teams for its on-ground and online programs, an institution risks sending mixed messages to potential students. This can lead to brand dilution and confusion about what the university stands for.

    Measurement Challenges: Disparate strategies make it difficult to track and analyze the effectiveness of marketing efforts. This makes the decisions on where to invest marketing dollars effectively difficult.

    Diluted Resources

    Split Focus: Dividing an institution’s time, talent, and budget between its on-ground and online initiatives means neither receives the full investment needed to thrive. This can result in underperforming programs that fail to meet their potential.

    By managing resources under one unified strategy, universities can maximize the impact of their educational offerings, ensuring that both online and on-ground programs benefit from full institutional support and cohesion.              

    Advances in Online Learning Have Closed the Quality Gap 

    Technology is rapidly advancing, and higher ed is keeping pace with the changes. As institutions become more skilled at applying learning technologies, the following shifts have occurred: 

    • Tech Innovations: Cutting-edge technologies have enabled more interactive and engaging learning environments. Tools such as virtual reality, augmented reality, and artificial intelligence (AI) are being used to enhance classroom interactions and provide personalized learning experiences at scale.
    • Instructional Design: Modern instructional design tailors course content for digital consumption, optimizing learning outcomes. This involves structuring courses to leverage digital tools effectively, ensuring that the quality of online learning is equal to that of traditional classroom learning.
    • Faculty Training: Universities have increasingly invested in training faculty to excel in online settings. This includes equipping them with the skills to use digital tools effectively and to engage students who are not physically present. 

    Today, online courses match on-ground courses in their rigor and depth and offer the flexibility and accessibility that modern students demand. It’s a win-win. The shift isn’t just about maintaining academic standards; it’s about enhancing them to make education more inclusive and adaptable to students’ varied lifestyles.             

    The Case for a “One School” Strategy 

    As the distinction between online and on-ground academic quality becomes murkier, more universities are beginning to embrace a “one school” strategy. This holistic approach integrates online and on-ground modalities into a single, unified brand, ensuring a seamless and coherent student experience. 

    It’s kind of like how my son doesn’t see the athletics department, student advising, and his faculty members as being on different teams with different budget sources. They all make up one thing — his university and the way it feels to be a student. 

    By operating under a single brand, universities can streamline their processes, unify their messaging, and bolster their identity, enhancing their appeal in a competitive educational market. The unified brand experience provides students with a consistent set of resources and support mechanisms, which proves crucial in building trust and satisfaction.

    The shift toward a one school strategy also aligns with the evolving preferences and expectations of students, particularly their growing desire for flexible learning environments. Modern students increasingly favor hybrid experiences — asynchronous learning modules combined with synchronous meetings. This allows them to manage their schedules while benefiting from real-time interactions. 

    Adopting this approach not only improves the overall experience for students but also positions institutions to more effectively manage their resources, enhance their operational efficiency, and strengthen their academic offerings across the board, redefining the educational experience to be more inclusive and adaptable to today’s learners. 

    Adopting a one school approach helps universities accomplish goals such as the following:

    1. Establish a Unified Systems and Technology Stack

    Currently, the existence of different application systems for different modalities often leads to disparate experiences and management challenges, increasing the risk of students falling through the cracks. A unified technology stack can address these issues, fostering a more integrated and seamless educational environment.

    Using the same CRM and SIS systems across an organization can significantly streamline operations in all areas, from marketing through student retention. This unification not only reduces operational costs but also consolidates institutional data, enabling more effective tracking and support of student activities. 

    2. Create an Integrated Marketing Strategy

    Universities often work with multiple marketing agencies that compete against each other using similar keywords but with slightly different visuals and landing pages. Bad idea. This not only dilutes the marketing efforts but also creates confusion for students who are comparing programs. 

    An integrated approach helps streamline these efforts, ensuring a cohesive, clear marketing message that effectively attracts and retains students.

    3. Align Academic and Enrollment Calendars 

    A particularly troubling symptom of separate identities within a university is differing enrollment calendars for online and on-ground offerings. Online programs typically offer more start dates throughout the year. 

    With a single enrollment calendar, however, universities can eliminate this confusion and simplify the experience for students who might engage in both modalities. Additionally, as faculty members frequently teach in both online and on-ground formats, a unified calendar ensures that all students have equal access to faculty resources, regardless of the learning format. 

    A Note on Organizational … Resistance 

    While the theoretical benefits of integrating online and on-ground educational modalities are clear, the practical implementation can face organizational resistance. This stems from the “this is the way we’ve always done it” mindset, presenting real challenges in terms of system integration and cultural adaptation. 

    Addressing these challenges requires a strategic approach and readiness to tackle potential roadblocks. Here are a few things to keep in mind:

    • Data migration from separate systems can quickly become a miserable task. Institutions should consider a phased integration plan with substantial buy-in from technology teams. Prioritizing key areas and establishing a unified data strategy can streamline this process. 
    • Faculty and staff who are accustomed to operating within separate models may have concerns about changes to their job roles, security, workload, and work quality. That’s natural. Engaging stakeholders early, providing clear communication, and offering comprehensive training are important for easing this transition. 
    • Merging marketing strategies might initially increase confusion. A deliberate process beginning with a comprehensive brand audit can help align key messages and value propositions. Starting with a unified marketing plan that leverages institutional strengths can facilitate smoother consolidation, guiding teams toward a cohesive strategy.

    You Don’t Have to Implement the One School Model Alone

    Starting the journey toward overhauling the outdated model and creating a unified experience can be complex and challenging, but you don’t have to navigate it alone. 

    Archer Education is equipped to empower your institution at every step with our growth enablement approach, offering expert guidance in storytelling, technology, audience insights, and data analytics to support a seamless transition to the one school model. Then, once things are up and running, you’ll have the internal knowledge and capacities you need to cast us out to sea. 

    Contact us to learn more about how we can help you integrate your educational offerings and maximize the potential of your institution.

    Subscribe to the Higher Ed Marketing Journal:

    Source link

  • Key Findings from the 2025 Landscape of Higher Education Report  

    Key Findings from the 2025 Landscape of Higher Education Report  

    As higher education navigates demographic shifts, new technologies, and economic challenges, institutions face a complex landscape when optimizing enrollment and meeting the evolving needs of students. The 2025 Landscape of Higher Education Report provides actionable insights that empower educational leaders to improve learning pathways and better serve the Modern Learner.

    Challenges such as the rising education costs have led to increased scrutiny of a college degree’s value, with only 47% of Americans considering it worthwhile without loans. When loans are involved, this number drops to 22%, underscoring the imperative for institutions to adapt to more cost-effective pathways.

    The 2025 Report offers a future-oriented outlook, equipping institutions with data to address gaps and better understand the evolving profile of the Modern Learner. Themes include shifting student preferences, an increased emphasis on career-aligned programs, and the need for more flexible learning pathways. In this article, explore six key findings that are molding students’ educational journeys and how these trends can enable education leaders to adapt.

    Finding #1: Flexible Pathways Drive Enrollment Growth 

    Spring 2024 saw a 2.5% increase in undergraduate enrollment, particularly within community colleges, public institutions, and associate degree-granting baccalaureate institutions (PABs). Graduate programs also saw enrollment increases, with a 3% rise. The highest areas of growth occurred among private, for-profit four-year institutions. These trends indicate a growing demand for flexible learning pathways that accommodate different student preferences and career aspirations.

    The age profile of part-time students has shifted as well, with the median age of part-time undergraduate students decreasing by nearly 2% across all sectors since Spring 2020. The shift was most pronounced at public two-year institutions, which saw a 4.2% decrease, and private accredited bachelor’s programs, which experienced a 2.8% decrease. As the age of part-time students continues to trend younger, it reaffirms that age is no longer a reliable predictor of learning modality. Furthermore, these shifting demographics emphasize the importance of embracing a Unified Enrollment Strategy that engages with Modern Learners based on their preferences and behaviors to meet them where they are with the right message, in the right place at the right time.

    Finding #2: Modern Learners are Prioritizing Practical Skills and Career Outcomes

    The emphasis on practical skills and career-readiness is reshaping Modern Learners’ educational preferences. With nearly half of Americans questioning the value of a traditional college degree, the demand for flexible, affordable, and industry-aligned options is growing rapidly. Apprenticeships have emerged as an appealing pathway for Modern Learners, offering paid opportunities for hands-on learning and gaining practical skills without the burden of taking on additional debt. 

    Over the past decade, the number of apprenticeships in the U.S. has more than doubled, from approximately 317,000 to 640,000. Sectors such as Construction and Public Administration have led this growth with 34.5% and 22.4% increases, respectively. High-growth fields like Healthcare, Finance, and Technical Services present additional opportunities for expanding apprenticeship programs, aligning well with workforce demands and students’ increasing preference for practical, job-ready experience.  

    Despite apprenticeships’ increasing appeal, accessibility poses a challenge. While 75% find apprenticeships appealing, only 29% find them accessible. Geographic location, program availability, and a lack of awareness remain barriers that can prevent students from participating. Institutions can remove these barriers through strategic partnerships with industry leaders to expand opportunities, integrate practical skill-building in program curriculums, and market available programs to raise awareness. These efforts not only meet the demands of Modern Learners by providing them with relevant skills, but also enable employers to recruit qualified candidates, making apprenticeships valuable for both higher education and the economy.

    Finding #3: Student Demand for Alternative Credentials Continues to Rise 

    Much like apprenticeships, the rising demand for alternative credentials like certificates further underscores the shifting preference towards more flexible and affordable learning pathways. As students continue to seek programs that offer practical skills and immediate benefits for their careers, certificates have increasingly become an attractive alternative to traditional degree paths. With the cost of higher education on the rise, Modern Learners are turning to certificate programs as a focused and affordable way to gain relevant skills for their desired career industries.

    Spring 2024 saw significant growth in certificate enrollments, with graduate programs seeing a nearly 10% increase and undergraduate certificates growing by nearly 4%. This growth reinforces that Modern Learners are increasingly prioritizing education opportunities that yield a high return-on-investment. Institutions can capitalize on this interest by expanding certificate offerings and making them more accessible to students through diverse modalities, competitive pricing, and aligning programs with job demands.  

    Finding #4: Dual Enrollment Programs Gain Momentum Among High School Students

    Dual Enrollment programs are becoming increasingly popular pathways, as more young learners seek flexible avenues for higher education. The popularity of these programs aligns with the growing trend of younger students engaging in part-time studies, demonstrating a trend towards more adaptable educational modalities. Dual enrollment has increased over 10% over the last year alone, adding approximately 100,000 students and accounting for nearly 28.1% of undergraduate enrollment increases. This growth presents a crucial opportunity for institutions to leverage this interest as they develop enrollment strategies going into 2025.

    Finding #5: The Some College, No Credential (SCNC) Population Presents a Growing Opportunity for Re-Engagement

    The Some College, No Credential (SCNC) population, now at 36.8 million and growing by 2.9% from the previous year, represents a significant opportunity for enrollment growth. With re-enrollment rising by 9.1% in the 2022-2023 academic year, institutions have a chance to attract students who left before completing their degrees.

    Understanding the educational preferences of SCNC students is key to tailoring outreach and support services. Popular fields of study for this group include Business and Liberal Arts at the bachelor’s level, Liberal Arts and General Studies for associate degrees, and Health professions and Business for undergraduate certificates. These areas indicate a clear demand for programs that offer clear pathways to employment. To effectively engage this population, institutions should focus on building accessible options that allow students to build upon previously earned credits, prioritize transfer credits, and offer support that enables students to advance in their chosen career fields.

    Finding #6: International Student Enrollment Boosts Institutions’ Global Appeal

    The growing population of international students enrolled at U.S. schools presents a valuable opportunity to enhance universities’ presence and grow enrollments.  These students comprise of a significant share of enrollments, particularly in Massachusetts, Hawaii, New York, and California, where they account for 4.5% to 7.8% of the student population. Most undergraduate international students are enrolled within the public sector, underscoring its position to support higher education on a domestic and international scale.

    To maximize the benefits of international student enrollment, institutions should focus on strategies that attract and retain international students while providing support services tailored to their unique needs. By integrating a comprehensive enrollment and student support system with resources like language assistance, housing support, and financial aid, institutions can boost their global appeal, create more culturally diverse campuses, and enhance their enrollment by positioning themselves as a top choice for students worldwide.

    Looking Toward 2025

    The findings from the 2025 Landscape of Higher Education Report demonstrate both the challenges and opportunities shaping the future of higher education.

    As institutions look ahead, the ability to attract and retain students across a range of educational paths requires a holistic approach to enrollment and student support services. By focusing on creating accessible, cost-effective, and relevant learning opportunities, institutions can position themselves for success in 2025 and beyond, while meeting the diverse needs of Modern Learners and driving sustainable enrollment growth.

    For more insights and actionable strategies, download the full 2025 Landscape of Higher Education Report and see how your institution can stay ahead of the curve.

    Source link

  • What to Expect on Your Organizational Development Journey

    What to Expect on Your Organizational Development Journey

    Next Steps to Empower Your Multiyear Growth Road Map

    In higher education organizations, enrollment management plans can be like the weather: short term, ever changing, and subject to the whims of the seasons each year. 

    But for your organization and programs to thrive no matter the conditions, a multiyear growth road map is needed to keep all parts of the organization aligned and moving toward a strategic set of goals. 

    In my last article, I discussed the importance of taking a step back to assess the people, processes, and technology of your organization to identify opportunities for improvement and high-quality growth. This critical first step results in an organizational development plan that moves your institution from good, to better, to best in class. 

    With this article, we’ll dig deeper to outline how you can build a multiyear growth road map that allows you to weather everything from regulatory storm clouds to enrollment droughts, keeping your focus on a longer-term strategy. You’ll learn how to get started, measure your progress, and ensure that feedback loops are in place for continuous improvement. 

    A multiyear growth road map helps your teams move beyond term-to-term thinking to develop activities that ladder up and contribute to a true organizational vision. Everyone has a part to play that is specific, measured, and celebrated.  

    The First 90 Days

    As with any effective plan, laying a strong foundation can lead to long-term success. In the context of your multiyear strategic road map, building the foundation involves these steps:  

    • Hold discovery sessions: Engage with individuals and teams across your organization and open up space for productive — and sometimes uncomfortable — conversations. You are looking for concerns, challenges, and hopes for the future. This phase isn’t about problem-solving. It’s about understanding the existing culture and building trust.
    • Complete an internal readiness assessment: This critical component looks at your institution’s existing strengths, weaknesses, and roadblocks. The readiness assessment process ensures that any proposed changes are offered within the context of your institution’s culture and helps you paint a realistic picture of what you’re ready to take on. 
    • Conduct a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis: Once you have identified your internal current state, you can then compare that to the broader market and competitive landscape. Where is your organization or portfolio strongest, and where is it at greatest risk? Where are the potential market opportunities that you can begin to assess? Where are the most likely threats from competitors, regulation, resource shifts, or other market trends?
    • Prepare for action: As the first 90 days close, you’ll have developed a much clearer image of a business case and action plan. This could mean starting with centralizing marketing efforts, for example, or it may involve planning for a technology tool or system and data mapping for eventual migration. Each institution is different. 

    Year One: The Blueprint

    With a solid understanding of your institution’s current landscape — both internally and externally — it’s time to launch into the first year of your strategic road map. These 365 days are about implementing basic changes to boot up the structures, systems, and processes that will support growth in later years. 

    • Build your blueprint: Your blueprint is your North Star for change. It’s a clear vision that outlines your key goals, timelines, and measures of success. Think of it as a collection of SMART goals: specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound. 
    • Take simple steps: This is where you implement the first round of changes, which should be relatively achievable. This could be adopting a new customer relationship management (CRM) system, refining a marketing strategy, or establishing new faculty support systems. The goal here is to get the basics right, then let these efforts evolve over time. 
    • Gather feedback: This may be the most important part of your first-year efforts: garnering input on the efficacy of the changes made from stakeholders from all levels and departments at your institution. Feedback loops help you gauge your progress and identify areas that need adjustments. 

    Year Two: Optimize and Accelerate 

    With a firm foundation now in place from your first year’s efforts, the focus shifts toward refinement, optimization, and acceleration of your growth initiatives. This phase is crucial, as it’s where you begin to see the fruits of your labor blossom.

    • Double down on success: Now is the perfect time to capitalize on what’s working. Your teams are eager for a win, so identify any initiative that has shown promise — be it a marketing strategy that’s driving higher engagement or an educational program that’s exceeded enrollment expectations. By scaling these successful ventures, you can ride the momentum and amplify your results.
    • Refine with data: Use the data accumulated from the initial implementations to tweak and improve your systems and processes. Engage in conversations with your teams to pinpoint any bottlenecks or slowdowns in the student journey. Experiment with new approaches based on these insights, and critically evaluate the impact of these changes. This iterative process is key to continuous improvement.
    • Celebrate and share visible wins: Success is a powerful motivator. Make it a point to regularly share and celebrate each tangible achievement — whether it’s a surge in student enrollments, heightened faculty engagement, or the seamless adoption of a new process. Publicizing these wins not only builds internal momentum but also reinforces the collective commitment to your strategic goals.

    Years Three and Four: Knowledge Sharing and Independence 

    As your strategic initiatives mature, the focus will naturally transition toward sharing knowledge and strengthening your internal teams. This critical period in years three and four is about empowering your staff and shifting your role from hands-on implementer to guiding coach.

    • Empower through ownership: Encourage teams to take full ownership of the implemented processes and changes. This allows you to step back and adopt a coaching role, guiding your teams through challenges and ensuring they have the confidence and skills needed to manage and refine these new systems independently. This is also the time to ensure your organization has strong documentation on its processes and training both for knowledge sharing and to support future hiring and onboarding.
    • Build internal capacity: Looking ahead and preparing for a future where your organization can operate and evolve without the need for external partnerships is essential. This requires a dedicated effort and a commitment to providing ongoing training, resources, and support to build a robust internal capacity. Invest in these areas to develop a self-sustaining system that thrives on its own merits.
    • Celebrate the milestones: After your extensive efforts over the past few years, taking the time to celebrate is not just rewarding but necessary. Highlight the significant impacts made by your teams, and take a moment to reflect on the growth, changes, and obstacles that have been overcome. This celebration not only acknowledges the hard work but also reinforces your institution’s positive culture and its commitment to continuous improvement.

    The Journey to Sustainable Development Starts Today

    Successful organizational development requires a multiyear effort that encompasses careful planning, precise execution, and a dedicated team of leaders. From the initial 90 days to the subsequent years, each phase of the process moves your institution closer to becoming stronger and more agile.

    Our team at Archer Education has helped dozens of institutions build and execute comprehensive multiyear strategic plans. These plans are tailored to enhance enrollment and retention, setting each institution on a path to long-term success.

    If you’re ready to transform your organization and achieve remarkable results, reach out to us at Archer Education. Let’s make your educational vision a reality together.

    Subscribe to the Higher Ed Marketing Journal:


    Melanie Andrich

    Melanie Andrich is vice president of strategy and development at Archer Education. Melanie is a results-driven higher education leader with 20-plus years of experience in developing and supporting high-quality, accessible, and scalable academic programs and services. She spent the first half of her career at Rutgers University running study abroad programming and leading the first fully online professional master’s degree program for the university. She then moved into management consulting to help colleges and universities with academic innovation, enrollment management, and organizational transformation initiatives.

    Source link