or elaborations of mission statements are realistic in light of the institution’s organization, resources, and opportunities.
The Mission Framework embraces the following Strategic Plan institutional goals:
n Prepare graduates to lead and serve in their professions and communities through excellent academic programs that exemplify experiential learning, social engagement, professional preparation, and global citizenship.
n Improve access, affordability, and success for students who manage multiple responsibilities of school, work, and family.
n Promote inclusion, justice, and sustainability in order to live our values.
n Function as a fully integrated University system to maximize sustainability and prosperity.
n Expand financial, human, physical, and information resources for long-term sustainability and overall effectiveness.
These strategic plan goals have also been framed by the additional work of the Road Map, which identifies the following five institutional goals for which all senior University leadership is being held accountable:
n Successful Reaffirmation of Antioch University.
n Manage and increase enrollment.
n Increase and diversify revenue streams.
n Analyze operations function and structure, and implement new models that are cost-effective and efficient.
n Successfully implement the Road Map (over next three years).
For this latter point, three specific and tactical goals have been identified:
n Enrollment Goal:
To develop and implement a plan to stabilize and then grow enrollment.
n Revenue Goal:
To increase and diversify revenue streams.
n Structures and Processes Goal:
To analyze current operations function and structure and implement a new model that is cost effective and efficient. This section will examine the degree to which these goals are realistic in light of the institution’s organization, resources, and opportunities.
Organizational Redesign to Thrive into the Future
For Antioch University to function as an integrated University with the capacity to grow and best serve our students, our organizational structures have had to change and will continue to do so. The prior federal model, with highly autonomous, self-
sustaining campuses and very limited Central operations or oversight, is simply no longer realistic in terms of financial resources or regulatory expectations.
While strong dynamic campuses are an institutional imperative, the need to integrate a number of operations in order to provide high-quality services, reduce replication, be cost-efficient, and ensure compliance and alignment across the University is equally imperative. Over the past five years, we have made much progress toward building a fully integrated University. Examples of major organizational shifts abound and a few are highlighted below:
n The shift from campus-located control over IT in 2002 to the centralization of IT, with the creation of the first-ever University CIO position in January 2007,is an example of redesigning organizational operations to maximize sustainability, improve access, and expand resources for effectiveness and growth. From that point forward, all campus- located IT personnel began to report to Central IT rather than to campus leadership. Prior to this, each campus hired its own IT staff and secured many of its own data systems. For example, Antioch University
went from having five distinct learning management systems in use across the University as late as 2006 to agreement and implementation of one system, Sakai, across the entire University. This enables more consistent IT support, and the opportunity for shared courses, that especially furthers the goals of increasing teaching and learning opportunities for faculty and students.
n The shift from having no Central academic leadership in 2002 to hiring the first-ever University Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs (2006-07) and adding an Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Student Services (2011)are examples of an integrated University providing for excellence in academic programs. The University Office of Academic Affairs (AU OAA) has responsibilities for institution-wide academic quality and academic support services. The Central office is the locus of reporting to the accreditation body and providing oversight for approval processes. Campus academic leadership continues to report to campus Presidents, with a dotted-line reporting relationship to the University Vice Chancellor. Faculty located on a campus continue to retain oversight of campus-delivered academic programs and assessment of student learning. The AU OAA convenes a range of cross-campus academic bodies, as discussed throughout this Self-Study Report, that have been established to further policy development, improve program reviews and other academic practices such as assessment,
and incorporate academic voice into University governance in order to ensure the University’s programs are able to prepare graduates consistent with our mission. This new set of academic organizational structures is far more realistic in its ability to support dynamic and innovative campuses in the context of mission-driven growth within a singularly accredited institution. The shifting roles are still a work-in-progress as the institution tries to figure out what academic authority rests firmly at the campus level, what rests at the University level, and what is a mix.
n The shift from external legal counsel and campus-secured legal representation for local legal matters to the creation of the first-ever position of in-house General Counsel and the establishment of the University Office of General Counsel (2010) brings overall efficiencies and effectiveness to the institution. This shift has centralized compliance efforts, ensured review of all University contracts whether campus-based or institution-wide, and brought much needed legal advice to governance, human resources, and other domains of operation. By bringing counsel in-house, the University has saved money and has improved regulatory compliance.
n The shift from separate, semi-autonomous campuses functioning as virtual silos with independent self-standing location-based services to a system of cross-campus functional area teams (URGs), promotes the alignment of practice and University-
wide implementation of policies. This is most apparent, as has been discussed throughout the Self-Study Report, in areas such as registrars, librarians, finance, student services, human resources, financial aid, and academic affairs. While earlier versions of the URGs actually date back to the 1990s, they have been rebirthed and revitalized in recent years in order to fulfill the goals of furthering integration and maximizing sustainability. The positive outcomes of this web of URGs have been numerous and have benefited students with services that were never possible before, such as a University- wide Library System, policies such as intra- campus registration, a Teaching and Learning Commons, and so much more.
n Related to the above, the shift from self-standing campus-based services to shared services (either Centrally directed or collaboratively managed) has the potential to maximize expertise and reduce redundancies in staffing, thereby enabling better service to students and redirect resources to the academic enterprise.
At the time of writing this Self-Study Report, the University is reviewing how some back offices are structured and how personnel are deployed in order to determine which functional areas should be further integrated and how. More details will be available at the time of the Site Visit. This essential institutional shift will have the benefit of freeing campuses to be sites of excellence in innovative teaching and learning without the burden of also managing and supporting
a host of back-office services that can be far better run through an integrated and more streamlined operation.
n The shift from academic programs being considered as campus-based, stand-alone offerings to a model in which academic programs are viewed as University degrees offered with distinction at one or more campuses is seismic in proportion and is still a work-in-progress. The alignment of program parameters, such as shared learning goals, will better enable the University to respond to regulatory and accreditation expectations and also, ultimately, provide students with more seamless opportunities to take advantage of learning across the entire University.
n Finally, the shift from one governing Board devoted almost entirely to Antioch College in 2002 to a governance system that includes a truly national and strengthened University Board of Governors, complemented by regional campus-based advisory Boards of Trustees, is a model that can more realistically oversee a multi- campus, multi-state national University with single accreditation, which we believe is necessary to best serve our mission and purpose.
Many more examples of shifts in the organization’s structures and processes to realistically serve our mission have been detailed throughout this Self-Study Report.
Resources
As described in Figure 7.5, the Road Map is based upon a realistic appraisal of the resources available to accomplish the transformation that will be required over the next three to five years to sustain growth and development. In today’s education environment, merely having the comfort of a level of financial stability that is better than the University has enjoyed in the past is not enough. We recognize that we must put in place the systems, processes, and structures to support and continuously improve our ability to generate more diverse streams of revenue, reach new student populations, focus on the quality of our teaching and learning, and keep our tuition within reach of those populations our mission charges us to serve.
How will this occur? The Road Map provides the tactical steps we aim to take to restructure support services, reduce redundancies, and redeploy personnel. Cost reductions will provide some of the resources required to build capacity for future growth. Careful investment of reserves will provide the remainder. We know the University must invest more in academics than in administration. We know we must invest in the IT resources we will need to achieve our enrollment and revenue goals and to effectively reach our unique student population. With clear intention, the Road Map outlines a path forward. More resources will be devoted to enrollment management and marketing to increase enrollments. More
resources will go to talent-building through professional development to strengthen our organizational capacity. The intention is to build the University’s net assets to provide the resources required for investment and growth in a competitive and turbulent marketplace.
Opportunities
The strategic goals of our Mission Framework as elaborated in the Strategic Plan and implemented through the Road Map are realistic in light of Antioch University’s opportunities. Given its historic legacy, its long track record in serving adult learners with strong academic programming, and its forward-looking leadership, Antioch University has a range of opportunities ahead and we are positioned to seize them. As Chancellor Nudelman wrote in her 2012 “Implementing a Strategy for Sustained Growth,” subsequently called the Road Map, Antioch University is at an exciting moment in time. While it is emerging from a period of some disruption, its Board, leadership, and University community are committed to its distinctive mission and, thus, it is well positioned to fulfill that mission in an increasingly complex and competitive American higher education landscape.“ So, what opportunities are on the horizon? One of the biggest opportunities is positioning Antioch University as a premier progressive institution serving adult learners with a range of technologically enhanced programs and virtually delivered
Figure 7.5: Road Map: Key Goals and Indicators of Success