1

Reviewing Your Current Academic Program Mix

A Short Stack PPT Developed by the Center for Strategic Change

at George Fox University

The Center for Strategic Change at George Fox University The Center for Strategic Change at George Fox University has a simple mission: To help college and university leaders succeed.

We will accomplish this mission by serving as both a platform and resource for strategic innovation. As a platform, we will provide current practitioners an opportunity to present their ideas and insights to the higher education community.

As a resource, we will provide curate content in the areas of leadership, visioning, strategic planning and organizational design.

Short stack: A short stack is a concise (short) PowerPoint presentation that focuses on a specific topic or issue.

3

Reviewing Your Current Academic Program Mix• The array of academic programs you offer to the marketplace is one of your most

significant strategic assets. We know, for example, that program offerings are on the short list of characteristics

that students consider when choosing a college. We also know that schools who are able to offer more in-demand programs are often

able to charge more for tuition, often have lower discount rates, are able to offer other missional programs that are in less demand, and typically enjoy a long-term source of competitive advantage.

• This PowerPoint will look at options for reviewing your current academic program mix.

• Future PPTs will look at strategies for adding new programs and creating hybrid programs.

4

Eyes Wide Open

• As you know, there are few reviews that are more politically sensitive than a review of current academic programs.

For this reason, it is absolutely necessary to have complete board support for this initiative.

It is also very useful to have the support of campus leaders.• Recognizing this reality, the review must be as transparent as possible with a clear

understanding of both your overarching goal (institutional success), the review process you will use, and how the results of the review will be implemented.

• However, even the most rigorous process will not quiet the naysayers and those who decry the importance of conducting the review.

You will also have people say “that’s not fair to me (my department).” • Remember, this review is driven by the desire to be a good steward of all the resources to

which you have been entrusted.

5

Eyes Wide Open – 2

• The “payoff” is in implementing the findings.

• One likely outcome will be the creation of saved dollars from eliminating or curtailing academic programs with low enrollments.

• These dollars are then invested in existing academic programs that show high demand and the creation of new academic programs.

• A final word: If you fail to implement the results of the analysis then all you have done is irritated the faculty and others, squandered political capital, and wasted precious time without achieving any real gain.

6

Be Wary of Additive Reviews

• Academic reviews, especially those done solely by faculty and academic leadership, seldom look at the demand side of the equation.

• Instead, their focus is additive. They often identify new resources they need (new facilities, faculty, accreditations, better marketing, etc.).

• This additive approach is misleading because it perpetuates the belief that strengthening programs will automatically lead to increased enrollment.

• Rather than increased enrollment, this approach typically increases program costs.

• Balanced reviews, instead, look at both internal realities (facilities, staffing, etc.) and external interest (demand).

In other words, solid reviews look both inside and outside.

7

There is no mission without margin.

Without a solid financial model, even the most noble and beloved colleges will fail.

Reviewing Current Academic Programs – Step by Step

• A review of your current academic programs typically involves four steps: Lay the foundation Create a review team Conduct the review Implement the results

8

9

I Lay the Foundation

• Ideally, an academic program review is but one of multiple strategies you are undertaking to strengthen your overall institution.

• By engaging in multiple strategies, including some pointed directly at administration and leadership, you will deflect criticism that you are unduly focused on academic programs, and by extension, faculty.

• Laying the foundation also involves communicating the importance of an academic mix that is aligned with marketplace interests to the larger campus community. This is especially important if you are a tuition-dependent institution.

10

II Create a Review Team

• The second step is the creation of the team that will manage the review process• This team:

Must be committed to the review processo Don’t allow people who are not supportive of the goal of the review to be on the review

team. They will delay and derail. Seek their involvement as part of the review process Should include both faculty and administrators/staff Must be highly regarded by the campus community Must be committed to the use of data in decision making

• This team will have three key responsibilities: Establish a calendar (three to four months is a reasonable goal) Settle on a model/methodology Set the stage of implementation

11

II Create a Review Team – 2

• In most cases, this team should include: The chief academic officer Two or three academic leaders and/or full-time faculty The CFO A board member The chief enrollment officer A board member (liaisons to the board) Institutional research officer

12

Three Critical Issues

• As you move ahead with your program review, it is important to address three critical issues at the outset:

First, identify which of your academic programs are truly missionalo If you do not do this ahead of time, faculty will be tempted to label “missional”

any programs which the review indicates should be curtailed or eliminated.o One good strategy to limit the number of missional programs to no more than 10

or 15 percent of your total academic offering.o Missional programs need to be directly and obviously tied to the institutional

mission. Second, clarify how you will handle the contribution of service programs

o Some programs may not have a great number of majors, but they do contribute in important ways to the academic core.

13

Three Critical Issues – 2

Third, don’t forget to consider that students may begin their academic careers in one major, or even begin as undecideds, and then transition to another major.o For example, some students may begin in premed but transfer to nursing or

biology.o Your internal program and retention data should capture this information.

14

III Conduct the Review

• Many academic assessments have a decidedly inward focus and stress academic quality above all other variables.

• While quality is always important, we believe that this approach is deficient because it does not recognize cost/revenue issues nor marketplace dynamics.

• A better approach, we believe, looks at four dimensions: Program quality Program demand Program cost Program revenue

15

Program Quality • Traditional quality concerns often consider such elements as number of faculty, size of

library, endowed dollars per student, and other institutional-centric datasets.

• While this data is useful, emerging models are focusing more directly on student outcomes. In other words, how does the number of faculty, size of the library, and endowed dollars per student affect the student experience?

• Student-centric models typically look at such program data as: Entering academic skills, college prep Student satisfaction (see inventory, next slide) Graduation rate Graduate school placement Job placement

Academic Satisfaction Inventory

Some models use an Academic Satisfaction Inventory directed at current students that focuses more directly on the student experience. These models examine:

• Quality of instruction • Availability of faculty • Concern for students by faculty • Advising• Class size• Lab experience

• Senior projects • Academic assistance• Internships • Facilities• Graduate placement • Job placement

17

Program Demand

• Demand data is obtained from a variety of sources, including: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) at the national, state

and regional level Client share of degrees conferred at the state, regional or competitor level Enrollment trends Number of applicants Yield of admits to enrolled

18

Program Cost and Revenue

• In addition to quality and demand, you must review cost and revenue data for all programs.

• This data allows you to determine the net contribution each program makes.

• A standard list of key datasets for the cost and revenue portions of the academic review is available from NACUBO and other sources.

19

Weighting the Data

• Because not all variables should have the same weighting in the final analysis and data depiction, the review team is responsible for developing a final weighting scheme.

• In general, academic quality and demand variables should be weighted more heavily than cost and revenue.

20

Presenting the Data

• The next slide shows review data arrayed in quadrants: Quadrant 1 - upper left – higher quality, lower demand

o These should be your missional programs – you want fewer of these programs Quadrant 2 - upper right – higher quality, higher demand

o These are your cash cows – you want more of these programs Quadrant 3 - lower left - lower quality, lower demand

o These are problematic. Non missional and high costs Quadrant 4 - lower right – lower quality, higher demand

o These are your investment opportunities • The size of the sphere reflect the relative enrollment of the program vis-à-vis other programs at

that institution.• The color of the sphere represents the relationship between program cost and revenue

generation (the more green the sphere, the more cash flow positive).

ENG

ENGL

BIOPSYMUS

NUR

BUSADM

Median Demand

Med

ian

Qua

lity

Quadrant 1: HIGHER QualityLOWER Demand

Quadrant 3: LOWER QualityLOWER Demand

Quadrant 2: HIGHER Quality

HIGHER Demand

Quadrant 4:LOWER Quality

HIGHER Demand

22

Why Academic Programs Have Low Enrollment

• In general, there are three reasons why programs have low enrollment: Program is poorly marketed; people are not aware of program Program is perceived as being of poor quality or at a cost that outpaces

perceived value Low marketplace interest

• IPEDs will tell you if a program is in demand. If it is, and your enrollment is low, then the problem is either awareness or the program is perceived as being of poor quality or at a cost point that is too high.

• It is important to note that marketing does not create demand. Instead, marketing creates awareness. If students are not interested in a program, better marketing will not help.

23

IV Implement Results

• The final step in the academic program review is to implement the results.

• A graphic that shows implementation options is presented on the next slide.

Broad Recommendations by QuadrantHigher Perceived Quality – Higher Demand• Continue to invest in these programs• Conduct capacity analysis to see if programs can be

expanded • Look for brand extensions to these programs • Consider differentiated tuition/fee structure to

allow for increased revenue

Lower Demand – Lower Perceived Quality• Make decision on efficacy of non-missional

programs • Reallocate resources away from non-missional

Quadrant 3 programs to Quadrant 1• If unwilling/unable to eliminate program, curtail

near- and long-term investment • Consider merging with another program to

revitalize • Reconfigure as a 2+2 program with upper division

offered at another institution

1

3

3

4

Higher Perceived Quality – Lower Demand• Consider reducing investment in non-

missional programs and reallocate revenue to Quadrant 4 programs

• Consider merging with another existing program to revitalize

• Reconfigure as a minor

Higher Demand – Lower Perceived Quality • Conduct detailed analysis on why quality is

perceived as lower • Conduct in-depth competitor review of similar programs

(secret shop)• Develop investment schedule to improved quality, focus on

“big impact” areas in near term• Develop marketing plan to push these programs

25

Final Thoughts on Implementation

• The odds are high that some faculty whose programs will be closed will voice their concern/frustration/anger to students, parents, the board, even the media.

• This is why it is very important to be transparent and humane. This is why, too, you began this process with clear board support and embedded this

process in other reviews, including a review of administrative functions and organizations.

Other Resources from the Center for Strategic Change

26