While most institutions have data-based information systems in place, some fail to share and use data and information effectively, which often leads to missed opportunities in planning and forecasting and in day-to-day decision making. Reasons for the failure include: 1) the lack of integration among information systems, 2) unclear priorities in the collection of data, and 3) the creation of data silos that prevent the necessary links between functions and structures across the institution. This report looks at how business officers can encourage the collection and use of institutional data across campus functions

Lisa Petrides

English

IssueLab

NACUBO BUSINESS OFFICER • 25HIEF ADMINISTRATIVE AND FINANCIALofficers across the higher educationspectrum are seeking more effectiveways to turn institutional data into usefulinstitutional knowledge, particularly inresponse to today’s external pressures.In the new era of accountability foreducation, for exam-ple, college and uni-versity leaders play acrucial role in ensuring that their institu-tions use the data they generate to moreeffectively plan, operate, and manage.Performance-based-funding mandatesplace increased pressure on institutions tofind ways to leverage existing programresources. Faced with declining statebudgets across the country, moreover,business officers are looking for ways tomake cost-effective decisions.A 2002 study conducted by theInstitute for the Study of KnowledgeManagement in Education (ISKME)with leaders from more than 30 collegesand universities nationwide found thatmost institutions already have systemsfor using data for decision making.Many leaders say they do not make deci-sions until data have been mined, stud-ied, and evaluated. The demand to meetexternal requests for information, how-ever, places an enormous amount ofpressure on colleges and universities.According to Roger Lowe, vice presi-dent for administration and finance atWichita State University, “Requests foraccountability data are increasing at atime when we’ve had to eliminate posi-tions. We simply have fewer people torespond to those requests. So we areBetter data, betterdecision making. That’s why businessofficers must encourage the collection and use of institutional dataacross campus functions.TurningDATAINTO DecisionsBY LISA PETRIDESCgoing to be asked to do more with less.”Additionally, college and university leaders face powerful inter-nal challenges that can make it difficult to use data effectively forimproving academic programs, streamlining management proce-dures and policies, and measuring institutional effectiveness.While most institutions have data-based information systemsin place, some fail to share and use data and information effec-tively, which often leads to missed opportunities in planning andforecasting and in day-to-day decision making. Reasons for thefailure include: 1) the lack of integration among information sys-tems, 2) unclear priorities in the collection of data, and 3) the cre-ation of data silos that prevent the necessary links betweenfunctions and structures across the institution. Challenge #1: Lack of Data IntegrationFor starters, many institutions have multiple data sources or infor-mation systems that are not linked. This makes it difficult, forinstance, either to compare financial data with student data, result-ing in an inability to calculate budget projections for enrollmentmanagement, or to conduct retention analyses to see how manyfreshmen have stayed at the institution and continued on to com-plete their sophomore years.Alternatively, a well-integrated information system that canpredict information flow patterns enables an organization to man-age its operations more effectively. As one example, a well-inte-grated system for financial aid would allow institutions to trackwhat is awarded to students, what they accept, and when themonies are received from the federal government in order to payout the awards. Mary M. Lai, vice president for finance and treasurer at LongIsland University, says her institution monitors daily data toinform both short-term and longer term decisions. In addition tousing registration data to determine whether to eliminate a partic-ular class section, university leaders use the same data to projectoptimum class sizes for subsequent semesters. Budgetary adjust-ments are likewise made in response to data regarding increases ordecreases in student enrollments. Even faculty workload is trackedto plan better for programmatic adjustments. “Faculty used to fillout a hard-copy form—signed by their chair and dean—whichwas then sent to payroll,” says Lai. A new system now electroni-cally tracks faculty hours so that academic deans are better able toanalyze faculty and department productivity and to assess pro-gram needs. Campuses that focus on the customer-service aspect of dataintegration are making continuous improvement a priority, withpromising results. Says Glenn Dodd, vice president for businessaffairs and treasurer at Cornell College, “One of our overridingobjectives is customer service. The more convenient and friendlywe can make it for our students, the better we do as an institution.As we gravitate to more server-based systems that increase accessto information, we are also able to assist faculty in their needs.”For example, Cornell has uploaded student records online.Faculty use this information for various advising purposes. “Thiseliminates time spent going back and forth between offices. Themore efficient we can make that part of their responsibility, themore time that can be spent serving their students,” says Dodd.“Communicating the value and importance of data will bereadily apparent to student and faculty. In a sense, your actionsspeak louder than words,” says Dodd. “Our students are increas-ingly computer savvy, and anything you do that will enhance theirservice via the use of information systems will improve their view-point of the services they receive.”Challenge #2: Unclear Data- Collection PrioritiesSome college and university leaders say that deans and faculty aresometimes unclear about what data they should collect and thathigh-level officials can be inconsistent about requiring the use ofdata beyond their own administrative offices. Equally significant,data are not generally disseminated from top-level administrationto faculty and mid-level decision-makers, resulting in an inabilityto use benchmarks to measure and compare institutional per-formance with peer or competitor universities. In some cases, faculty may be reluctant to collect data abouttheir work or may be unwilling to support data-collection policiesthat would have their work or class outcomes subject to institu-tional scrutiny and inspection. Understandably, some faculty mayfear that such data collection could lead to unfavorable repercus-sions, such as the closing of an academic program with low enroll-ment. Faculty members might also resist processes that wouldrequire them to take on additional tasks or functions outside oftheir existing classroom responsibilities. As business officers areable to put in place processes that outline mission centrality, budg-et constraints, and policy adherence, however, faculty are usuallymore willing to take on these important data-collection roles.Joseph Stevenson, provost at Jackson State University, has beenworking with faculty to address their concerns regarding the useof data for institutional decision making. Through primarily fac-ulty-centered workgroups called DMUs (decision-making units),faculty apply diagnostic and data-driven problem solving to theacademic enterprise. “This process is used to make decisionsabout policy and practices regarding accreditation, programreview, faculty personnel issues, and salary compensation,” saysStevenson.26 • NOVEMBER 20031 3 5 4 2 3 2 1 3 5 4 9 8 7 3 2 1 3 5 4 64 9 8 4 1 2 3 1 6 8 1 6 1 5 4 1 3 2 1 6 83 5 4 2 3 2 1 3 5 4 9 8 7 3 2 1 3 5 4 6 8A well-integrated information system that can predictinformation flow patterns enables an organization to manage its operations more effectively.NACUBO BUSINESS OFFICER • 27Challenge #3: Data SilosCollege officials don’t often make it their business to monitor howwell data are being shared among senior management, faculty, andstaff. Additionally, institutional incentives may not be in place toensure that data and information are timely, accurate, and up-to-date. Business offices may use various systems and software to col-lect and organize data, which can lead to incompatibility problems.Some institutions face a high turnover rate at the president orprovost level, making it difficult to remain consistent in the waythey systematically use and share data. While college officials saythere is much to do, even when appropriate infrastructure and poli-cies are in place, there is often not enough staff with the requiredtraining or knowledge to conduct the necessary analyses to supporttailored, institutionwide processes for recruitment efforts, facilitiesplanning, and long-term budget projections.Five years ago, Wichita State University put a process in placeto improve the accuracy of its data. “The division of administrationand finance was asked to take over institutional research responsi-bilities to improve the credibility of our data and reports,” saysLowe. “We found that deans and other decision-makers wouldsimply not use these reports due to concern about the accuracy ofthe data. Working together cross-functionally, a new data ware-house was developed, which allowed us to more easily producetimely and accurate data.”Community colleges—arguably the hardest hit by recent budgetcuts and state accountability measures—have also sought newapproaches to information management to help them deal withgreater demands for demonstrating their effectiveness.Administrators at Cuyahoga Community College conducted aknowledge audit that involved interviewing faculty and staff aboutthe key components of their jobs. Information from the audit wasused to identify and address some of the institution’s most pressingneeds, including revamping the college’s cumbersome curriculumand program-approval process so that it would be more responsiveto requests for new courses and programs. The college also expand-ed existing faculty committees to include deans and administrators,creating a more streamlined process to discuss and instituteimprovements to curriculum, fundraising, and overall workprocesses.According to Frank Reis, Cuyahoga executive vice presidentand chief operating officer, the grants office mapped its processes,procedures, and needs and then initiated and implementedredesign efforts to streamline its business processes. “The grantsoffice is currently implementing a new Web-based system as part ofthat redesign effort—moving the information sharing and seekingprocess from manual to electronic,” says Reis.In another example, Foothill De Anza Community CollegeDistrict—representing the Foothill and De Anza community col-leges—recognized the need for a more effective way to collect, use,and analyze data across the institution, as well as a comprehensiveprocess for responding to performance mandates. Institutionalleaders set out to identify what type of information administratorsneeded to support decision making in a new performance-basedclimate. A districtwide committee helped prioritize these needs bylinking internal master plan goals with externally mandated per-formance outcome goals.“As a community college located in Silicon Valley, flexibility andrapid change have become a way of life. Foothill values dynamicresearch agendas that are forward-looking, but we are stuck with anantiquated flat-file database,” says Bill Patterson, Foothill’s vicepresident of instruction and institutional research. The situationhas required a lot of creative “workaround” solutions and flexibili-ty in the system, he says. “As a result, we have developed a processdependent on frequent conversations about how we can best get atwhat we want through data-informed planning and decision mak-ing. So when external measures came along—first from the state ofCalifornia in performance-based outcome measures and later withthe accreditation move to outcome assessment—Foothill had awell-developed communication and decision-making process inplace and a culture accustomed to change.”Through this process, the district’s leaders recognized a wide-spread need and desire for information systems to inform decisionmaking across all levels of the Foothill and De Anza campuses.Faculty spoke of their desire to have data about students to improveteaching and learning in the classroom. Everyone spoke of the needto use data to ensure that programs and policies reflect provenapproaches that will help students succeed.Data as a Catalyst for ChangeBoth two- and four-year colleges have for years been collecting andanalyzing data as part of institutional research and data-based deci-sion making. While institutional research has typically served as aneutral, data-collecting body that creates reports to satisfy externalreporting mandates, the traditional role of institutional researchhas begun to shift to one of catalyst for institutionwide change. Inan environment of increased internal demands, there is a shift ininstitutional research from primarily a reporting function to that ofa service function. As a service function, institutional research ispositioned to help leaders continuously study and assess the insti-tution’s programs and to serve as a bridge between academic,administrative, and governmental cultures. Jackson State University administrators have helped facultyand staff develop a set of practices to collect information and sharewhat they know, leading to action that has improved services and8 7 6 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 3 5 7 6 1 1 5 44 6 4 3 1 5 1 9 1 6 4 1 3 1 3 5 4 9 6 1 87 6 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 3 5 7 6 1 1 5 4 6outcomes as part of a universitywide program review and reor-ganization. In each academic unit, faculty members were broughttogether to consider information and make recommendationsabout where their programs fit within the overall mission of theuniversity. During this process, faculty members used data abouttheir own and other academic programs, including enrollmentrates, persistence rates, credit hours, grade point averages, gradu-ation rates, faculty ratios, and demographics.This process of sharing information has helped Jackson Statefaculty create arguments about the role and importance of theiracademic units within the university. “We are evaluating ways tointegrate information sharing with best practices and benchmark-ing in the development of new policies—from shared governanceto program review,” says Stevenson. “This process has allowed usto collect, analyze, and interpret data, and to reflect on the resultsfor establishing new practices to support positive change.”Higher education officials can better align decision makingaround institutional data and knowledge to raise performance,productivity, and outcomes for administrators, faculty, and stu-dents alike. These efforts can be a catalyst for institutions to reflecton the intersection of cultural, political, and technological forceswithin their communities as they use data and institutional knowl-edge to account for monies spent and decisions made. To do so,higher education officials need successful approaches to informa-tion systems and decision making that cut across all levels of thecampus. This requires distributive leadership and the availabilityof information for decisions at all levels of the organization.Breaking down the barriers that limit the collection and sharing ofdata marks a major step toward strengthening institutionalknowledge and improving decision making that encompasses aca-demic outcomes, operations, and the bottom line.Bridging an Important GapTo assess ongoing information needs, higher education leadersmust regularly scan the environment, including the impact of state-mandated performance-based funding, new accreditation measurestied to learning outcomes, changing student demographics, andscarce fiscal resources. At the same time, leaders need to support aninternal culture that provides incentive and motivation to shareinformation, broker knowledge, and sustain continuous learning.While decisions about how to prioritize information systemdesign and implementation are likely to be spearheaded by either abusiness officer within academic affairs or by an institution’sfinance staff, the result is that the information systems may be over-ly focused on either academics or finance. Creating a senior levelbusiness officer for information services could help bridge the gapbetween these demands by ensuring that the information needs ofacademic and business units are served equally. The goal is aninformation environment where the two types of functions supporteach other.“In a good system, faculty and business affairs get married in thebudgeting process,” says Roger Fecher, vice president of financeand administration at Ohio Dominican University. “Budgeting doc-uments are put together, which makes it easier to see on theaccounting or the financial side what their dollars are. That is theideal system. Everyone knows what is happening and can actuallyhelp each other reach institutional goals. This is particularly impor-tant in enrollment management with the advent of new assessmentand accreditation needs.”As a first step in improving the use of data-driven decision mak-ing, college and university leaders can work to identify their dataand information strategies. This includes identifying the problemsthat information can help resolve, determining what and how muchadditional data might be required to solve a problem, and then plan-ning the collection of additional data to support a cycle of continu-ous learning within the organization. For example, in the case ofenrollment planning, administrators access real-time daily headcounts by class section. They then work with faculty to offer addi-tional sections as needed. Later, academic officers could meet withfaculty and deans to discuss long-term enrollment trends and theavailability of courses to meet the changing needs of their students. Business officers play an important role in assessing how infor-mation is controlled on campus by exploring how information isprovided, understood, and made use of; how, and if, people arerewarded for sharing information; and what type of subtle infor-mation sabotage might be taking place. The latter could take theform of databases that aren’t regularly maintained, corrections thataren’t entered into systems when reported, or duplicate paper ver-sions of information that are maintained in addition to campuswideinformation systems. In addition, business officers can take steps toensure that the campus culture communicates the value of data anddata sharing and that leaders carefully examine the politics of infor-mation within the institution that may prevent it from making fulluse of the data at hand. Author Bio Lisa Petrides is president of the Institute for the Studyof Knowledge Management in Education. A former professor atColumbia University, Teachers College, she is the author and co-author of several books and articles on the use of data, informa-tion, and institutional knowledge in higher education, includingthe recently released Knowledge Management in Education:Defining the Landscape and the forthcoming Turning Knowledgeinto Action: What’s Data Got to Do With It? E-mail lisa@iskme.org28 • NOVEMBER 2003135423213549873213546871 3200003213576115461988498 41231681615413216846Higher education officials can better align decision making around institutional data and knowledge to raise performance, productivity, and outcomes for administrators, faculty, and students alike. 

Turning Data into Decisions

https://www.issuelab.org/resources/12105/12105.pdf

Turning Data into Decisions

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

IssueLab