higher education consortia: raising aspirations through collaboration

13
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR PHILANTHROPIC FUNDRAISING, NO. 40, SUMMER 2003 © WILEY PERIODICALS, INC. 65 Higher education consortia offer colleges and uni- versities opportunities to improve services, quality, and resources for the benefit of their students, fac- ulties, and staffs. This chapter explores several com- ponents necessary for collaborative ventures to succeed. 5 Higher education consortia: Raising aspirations through collaboration Thomas R. Horgan wITH OVER THIRTY -SIX HUNDRED higher education institutions in the United States, it is no surprise that many colleges and univer- sities actively participate in various collaborative arrangements. Perhaps what is surprising is how often these partnerships are among institutions considered “the competition” or with colleges so diverse that identifying potential collaborative initiatives stretches the imagination of the casual observer. Whatever the linkages among participating postsecondary insti- tutions, consortial organizations usually bring together colleges and universities with similar missions, program emphases, character, sponsorship, or geographical proximity. At its very foundation, the nature of higher education consortial organizations is structured to enhance the capacity of collaborating institutions to serve students better, improve the quality of educational opportunities, and con- trol costs. Although a significant amount of cooperation evident between colleges and universities is informal and sporadic, the most

Upload: thomas-r-horgan

Post on 06-Jul-2016

216 views

Category:

Documents


3 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Higher education consortia: Raising aspirations through collaboration

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR PHILANTHROPIC FUNDRAISING, NO. 40, SUMMER 2003 © WILEY PERIODICALS, INC.

65

Higher education consortia offer colleges and uni-versities opportunities to improve services, quality,and resources for the benefit of their students, fac-ulties, and staffs. This chapter explores several com-ponents necessary for collaborative ventures tosucceed.

5Higher education consortia: Raisingaspirations through collaboration

Thomas R. Horgan

wITH OVER THIRTY-SIX HUNDRED higher education institutions inthe United States, it is no surprise that many colleges and univer-sities actively participate in various collaborative arrangements.Perhaps what is surprising is how often these partnerships areamong institutions considered “the competition” or with collegesso diverse that identifying potential collaborative initiativesstretches the imagination of the casual observer.

Whatever the linkages among participating postsecondary insti-tutions, consortial organizations usually bring together colleges anduniversities with similar missions, program emphases, character,sponsorship, or geographical proximity. At its very foundation, thenature of higher education consortial organizations is structured toenhance the capacity of collaborating institutions to serve studentsbetter, improve the quality of educational opportunities, and con-trol costs. Although a significant amount of cooperation evidentbetween colleges and universities is informal and sporadic, the most

Page 2: Higher education consortia: Raising aspirations through collaboration

66 CAPACITY BUILDING FOR NONPROFITS

effective and sustainable collaborations build capacity for accom-plishing goals by cooperating through formal and institutionalizedconsortial arrangements.

There are hundreds of colleges and universities that enjoy dis-tinguished and lengthy histories in structured and formal collabo-rative partnerships. The Atlanta Regional Consortium for HigherEducation is one of the oldest continuing consortia in the UnitedStates, having been founded in 1938. Like many other higher edu-cation consortia, it brings together diverse public and private insti-tutions that have built successful partnerships based on locale.

In California, the Claremont Colleges, founded in 1925, wereconsidered at the time to be the new model for higher educationcooperation, placing highly specialized colleges within a singleshared campus location. This concept, as originally developed andcontinuing today, was to provide students, faculty, and adminis-trators with the benefit of a university setting while simultane-ously enjoying the connectivity and intimacy of a small collegeenvironment.

Clearly, these early efforts to facilitate collaboration among par-ticipating member colleges raised the aspirations of the higher edu-cation community, and there were aggressive predictions for therapid development and implementation of a consortial movement.However, the movement was surprisingly slow to develop; in fact,it would take until the mid-1960s for the higher education consor-tial movement to begin in earnest.

Consortial aspirationsBy the 1960s, the rising cost of a college education, coupled withthe arrival of the baby boom generation on campus, gave rise to agrowing concern for both access to and affordability of a collegeeducation. In 1965, one recognized higher education leader com-mented, “. . . We’re going to have to learn lessons about planneddiversity among institutions and also some hard lessons aboutcooperation among institutions . . . [with . . .] an attentiveness to

Page 3: Higher education consortia: Raising aspirations through collaboration

67HIGHER EDUCATION CONSORTIA

the economics of education greater than any we have exhibitedin the past . . .” (Patterson, 1974, p. 1). Another leading com-mentator of this era predicted, “. . . A growing number of col-leges and universities, both public and private, both the strongand the less strong, will enter into cooperative programs withneighboring institutions. In this way it will be economically pos-sible for them to offer their students a wider range of specialstudies and facilities than any one institution could provide alone.In an era in which there will be far more than enough studentsto go around, the traditional competition between institutionsof higher learning will give way to cooperation” (Cass, 1964,p. 618). Despite these overly optimistic predictions concerninga new period of higher education cost saving and resource shar-ing, and an erroneous vision of an end to competition, the 1960sdid see what some have called a golden era in the developmentof higher education consortia.

Fueled in part by funding from the federal government’s GreatSociety programs, and specifically through Title II funds, a num-ber of new consortia were founded during the mid- to late 1960s.The New Hampshire College and University Council (NHCUC),incorporated in 1966, is representative of these organizations. Likeother consortia of the period, it was formed with the express pur-pose of strengthening educational services and improving operat-ing efficiencies. What made the NHCUC unique then, and keepsit unique today, is its public and private institutional membershipin addition to its wide geographical area, encompassing the entirestate. It is unusual to find a higher education consortium with sucha diverse institutional membership (an Ivy League institution, aland grant research university, and several small private and publicinstitutions) that is unrestricted by the direct proximity of its mem-ber campuses. Whatever their configurations, however, consortiagenerally emerged during this period to meet new demands beingplaced on postsecondary institutions to be more cost conscious andefficient in delivering the finest higher education experience avail-able in the world. Like all other good things, the golden era of con-sortia ultimately faded, and a number of consortia for a variety of

Page 4: Higher education consortia: Raising aspirations through collaboration

68 CAPACITY BUILDING FOR NONPROFITS

reasons, such as loss of resources, no longer met the aspirations oftheir member institutions. Subsequently, they quietly dissolved.

Often the aspirations of participating colleges striving to solveemerging institutional stresses through collaborative initiativesfailed to meet their aggressive expectations. Those consortia thatsurvived, however, and the new consortia that have recentlyemerged and prospered, generally share basic and identifiable char-acteristics, ensuring their own success and assisting their membersin meeting individual institutional objectives. These characteristicsinclude campus-based leaders who share common and agreed-onexpectations for the consortia; common strategies for serving theneeds of member institutions; institutional leadership from mem-bers ensuring that organizational skills are in place to meet the con-sortium’s objectives and obligations; professional consortial staffcommitted to the work of the consortia; systems and infrastructuresensuring that things get done and accomplished in a professionalmanner; and an organizational structure that allows the consortiumto leverage the resources of its member colleges to create fluid andflexible work groups to accomplish tasks that benefit the partici-pating member institutions.

Shared consortium expectationsDue to very diverse institutional membership, higher educationconsortia face a daunting task in identifying and coming to con-sensus around mutually beneficial expectations. Most colleges anduniversities join a consortium with the expectation that their owninstitution will be able to achieve more, do something better, orsimply save money by joining with other institutions. Every collegeor university has diverse needs, so each will approach participationin the consortium in varying ways. Regardless of individual statusor available resources, each member institution expects to receivesomething of value in return for belonging to a consortium and willcontribute time, money, and energy to the collaborative work of

Page 5: Higher education consortia: Raising aspirations through collaboration

69HIGHER EDUCATION CONSORTIA

the consortium in direct proportion to an expected return. Twocurrent consortium directors have commented that “the mission ofany consortium is to enable the members to achieve together,through cooperation, what cannot be achieved alone. A successfulconsortium supports its participants through shared risk andreward, at the same time strengthening the capacity of each part-ner college to pursue its unique institutional mission” (Bass andRamsbottom, 1999, p. 4).

Shared expectations require the development of a shared visionfor the work of the consortium. This is often where a consortiumwill fail: when member institutions cannot agree on what theproper role of the consortium should be relative to its members.Some member colleges may want the consortium to find new waysto save money through joint purchasing efforts, while others maywant professional development for faculty and staff, and still oth-ers may believe that the consortium should focus on building pub-lic support for the work of the member institutions. Although it isnot unusual to find a consortium working on one or all of theseactivities, success is highly dependent on member institutions andtheir representatives agreeing on realistic expectations and empow-ering the consortium staff to achieve these expectations.

Strategies for serving consortia member needsAs calls for accountability and assessment in education dominate,many public conferences and private conversations assessing theeffectiveness of higher education consortia are to be expected. Howto determine the value and effectiveness of consortial programs iscertainly more an art than a science, and measurement tools for thispurpose have yet to be developed. Higher education consortia, likemany other organizations in today’s environment of cutbacks anddownsizing, often are consumed by everyday work and rarely findthe time or needed resources to conduct self-examinations and pro-gram assessments. Genuine fear of the answers to difficult questions

Page 6: Higher education consortia: Raising aspirations through collaboration

70 CAPACITY BUILDING FOR NONPROFITS

often prohibits intense self-examination, and a sense that it is bestnot to disturb the status quo is also a common obstacle to true self-evaluation and the subsequent development of strategies to eitheraffirm or identify new purposes and objectives.

In 1997, the highly regarded Five Colleges, a consortium in cen-tral Massachusetts, conducted a self-assessment project with fund-ing from the Kellogg Foundation. A number of professional outsideconsultants were engaged to conduct a self-study of the consor-tium’s effectiveness. “No single evaluation tool emerged that couldbe used to judge the worth of consortia, although there was unan-imous agreement among the participants and speakers that assess-ment, including supporting data, is essential” (Peterson, 2002, p. 113). The self-study did identify one important tool that everyorganization would be well served to implement as a strategy formeasuring effectiveness . . . : “In order to sustain the vitality of aconsortium, to ensure that the consortium does not become miredin sponsoring programs that have grown stale or obsolete, cooper-ative programs should undergo periodic reviews to test their con-tinuing effectiveness and importance to the institutions” (Peterson,2002, p. 133). These reviews are especially critical for consortia thathave existed for a number of years, particularly if the aspirations ofthe organization and those who support it are to be realized. With-out real and periodic self-assessment, a consortium will likely findit difficult to deliver programs that serve its stated goals or long-term objectives. Without this self-assessment, the consortium ulti-mately may lose its unique value to its members and fall into thehabit of “doing things because we always have.”

Importance of consortia organizational skillsThe success of consortial efforts is significantly affected by theorganization’s ability to implement a strategy from beginning toend. Some consortia in the past have failed not for lack of goodideas or programs but because they lack the infrastructure todeliver. Peter Drucker writes on managing nonprofits, “You now

Page 7: Higher education consortia: Raising aspirations through collaboration

71HIGHER EDUCATION CONSORTIA

need resources—people, above all—and money. And the allocationof both.” He continues, “Who has to do what, when, and with whatresults? What tools do they need?” And he concludes, “You haveto ask who must do what, and in what form they should do it sothat it becomes their work” (Drucker, 1992, p. 64).

Having the right people and enough of them to do the work isprobably the missing element in most higher education consortia.Only one or two professionals, often part-time, staff many consor-tia. Without the staffing needed to accomplish various tasks, a con-sortium is often unable to deliver on the expectations of itsmembers. Occasionally, leveraging resources of member institu-tions can overcome this human resource shortage, but more oftenthan not, the institutions themselves lack the necessary staff todevote to consortium work.

Recently, the NHCUC hosted a press conference on legislativepriorities for higher education. The consortium had the profes-sional staff resources to create the communication document butlacked the resources to notify the media effectively to secure theirattendance. Council member presidents identified coordinating thisevent as a top priority, and assistance from the public relations staffsof two member institutions was offered and used to assist the con-sortium in press relations. The event was successful, as measuredby major media attendance, and was made possible by leveragingresources through collaboration among member institutions. AsDrucker points out, the consortium needs to have the resources toaccomplish identified tasks and the organizational skills to ensuretheir execution. If a consortium lacks the organizational skills toaccomplish its identified priorities, it may find that its value tomember institutions quickly diminishes. Being agile and respon-sive are critical organizational skills for any consortium; being ableto deliver successfully on identified expectations is just as impor-tant. If the consortium cannot be successful in an undertaking, it isprobably best for the professional staff to recognize its limitationsand confront them. Saying no does not come naturally to serviceorganizations, but used judiciously and rarely, it can prove to be themark of a high-performing organization.

Page 8: Higher education consortia: Raising aspirations through collaboration

72 CAPACITY BUILDING FOR NONPROFITS

Supporting and building the board and consortial staffTwo key elements of any successful nonprofit organization are aninvolved board and a committed professional staff. Without thesetwo elements in place, the capacity to deliver on the organization’smission and vision will be difficult to accomplish. For higher edu-cation consortia, this often means that the presidents of the mem-ber institutions must be committed to working collaboratively andin partnership with other colleges. Often, inflated egos, actual orimagined status differentials, heated competition, and a less-than-healthy dose of jealousy can have a negative impact on building andsupporting the kind of collaborative board endorsement necessaryto sustain and enhance the work of the consortium. Overcomingthese board obstacles is most easily accomplished if board mem-bers possess a sense of ownership in the consortium. Since mostconsortium board seats are inherited when an incoming collegepresident assumes a new presidency, finding a way to engage a newboard member can be an extremely intimidating task. Boards areoften like club memberships, and despite the old joke, “I wouldnever be a member of a club that would allow me to be a member,”the consortium must strive to build a board environment thatencourages active participation and involvement. At the NHCUC,we have struggled with presidential involvement over the years andhave yet to find a magical solution to ensure a fully engaged board.However, there appear to be three key factors to involving a con-sortium board: board leadership, relevant board agendas, and high-quality programs. These factors, alone or in combination, cansustain, engage, and enhance the work of any consortium.

Board leadership

Having a board chair who can command the respect and attentionof other board members is a true gift. Unfortunately, it is rare thata consortium can regularly elect a board chair based on this crite-rion. More often than not, the chair is elected by rotation andserves more out of obligation than commitment. When a consor-tium has a chair who is strong and effective, the work of the boardbecomes much easier, and major shifts in the work of the consor-

Page 9: Higher education consortia: Raising aspirations through collaboration

73HIGHER EDUCATION CONSORTIA

tium can be undertaken. When the board chair is weak, there arecertain strategies that a consortium can implement and still achievesuccess. Working through subcommittees and limiting the chair’sinvolvement beyond the ceremonial aspect of the position cansometimes be a useful strategy. Other board members will recog-nize if a chair is engaged and leading or is simply warming the seat.Finding ways to keep other board members committed during thisterm is critical to both sustainability and capacity building.

Relevant board agendas

No one wants to go to a board meeting where no important deci-sions are to be made, where nothing new or interesting is to be dis-cussed, or where the participants perceive that the meeting will bea waste of their valuable time. Building board agendas that areengaging, interactive, and significant is a genuine challenge for anynonprofit organization, and doing it for college presidents is evenmore overwhelming. Far too often, key decisions will occur out-side board meetings, and consortium board members will quicklydetermine that in their estimation, they are not needed at the table.Once a board member decides to skip the consortium board meet-ing, it will be nearly impossible to reconnect this person tothe organization. Many times, important decisions cannot wait forthe next board meeting, but this does not mean that the consor-tium should fall into the habit of bypassing board members in thedecision-making process. Building board agendas around impor-tant topics and getting a sense of expectations from board mem-bers is one stratagem to obtain direction from board members. Atopical discussion of emerging, innovative issues will engage thebest thinking of board members and lead to significant new direc-tions or endeavors by the consortium. More important, boardmembers will remember those discussions and recognize their rolein the evolution of future activities and accomplishments.

High-quality programs

Even if board members are not actively engaged in the work of theconsortium, providing high-quality programs will usually ensurecontinued institutional support for the work of the consortium.

Page 10: Higher education consortia: Raising aspirations through collaboration

74 CAPACITY BUILDING FOR NONPROFITS

Sharing resources like library systems or high-profile efforts suchas joint admission programs can often serve as the foundation forinstitutional support of the consortium. Although the presidentmay not want to participate actively in the work of the organiza-tion, she or he will often support the consortium because it pro-vides programs or services that are used and valuable at the campuslevel. The critical element here is in making sure that whateverprogram is offered is of the highest possible quality. Various cam-pus constituencies can make or break a consortium by virtue ofexperiences and perceptions of the work being done. If a facultymember attends a professional development conference and feelsthat the conference delivered as promised to augment his or herprofessional capabilities, then the positive impression from thisexperience will flow directly back to the consortium. An effectivemodel for many successful consortia is to underpromise andoverdeliver on programs.

Professional staffDelivering programs, supporting initiatives, and fostering collab-oration require more than an engaged board. Capacity building forconsortia is related directly to the availability of a competent pro-fessional staff. Without the personnel to facilitate, assist, and deliveron identified priorities of the board, little in the way of collabora-tion will occur. “Professional staff with the skills and training tolead the cooperative effort further complicate an already complexsituation. Cooperative efforts are seldom led in the traditionalsense. They are achieved by a complicated process of cultivationand cross-validation, and they result from a consummate sense oftiming. Underneath everything cooperation is voluntary” (Bass andRamsbottom, 1999, p. 13).

The professional staff members have primary responsibility forthe day-to-day operations of the consortium and for programdevelopment. Working in consort with institutional representatives,the staff facilitate and execute the organization’s mission. They pro-

Page 11: Higher education consortia: Raising aspirations through collaboration

75HIGHER EDUCATION CONSORTIA

vide concrete, tangible initiatives to embody what the board envi-sions. The staff also provides the business skills and people skills tomake collaboration happen. Board and staff working in unisonensure the sustainability of a consortium’s collaborative effort.

Consortial systemsThe founding of higher education consortia generally follows afamiliar pattern of establishment for any nonprofit organization.Bylaws are adopted, mission and goals statements are developed,and a basic structure of operation is put in place. Embedded in thestructure are core values of the organization, governance structure,organizational design, and identification of constituencies. Howthese structures are devised is a reflection of the unique cir-cumstances, challenges, opportunities, and threats confronting, andperhaps motivating, the incorporators. Once established, these con-sortial strategies influence “the kinds of products or programs thatwill be offered, the particular markets that will be served, the typesof people who will be recruited, the structure of accountability, andthe functioning of the internal organization. They also determinethe future course of the organization by defining the range of fea-sible alternatives, shaping the internal culture, and defining theorganization’s identity” (Hanna, 2000, p. 26).

Maintaining and honoring these structures while keeping theorganization relevant and responsive is particularly difficult as theconsortium matures. With organizational maturity, certain pro-grams and projects have a way of becoming core activities and anintegral part of the organization. It is an enlightened board andprofessional staff who periodically are willing to examine the corestructures of the consortium and determine which structures of theorganization serve its current mission and which no longer meetthese criteria. When the NHCUC went through a major reorga-nization in the early 1990s (a restructuring driven by a financial cri-sis), the board identified, for the first time in decades, what it valuedin the consortial relationship. Generally, these self-examinations

Page 12: Higher education consortia: Raising aspirations through collaboration

76 CAPACITY BUILDING FOR NONPROFITS

are painful and often avoided until a major crisis demands atten-tion. Finding the motivation for regularly examining the structuresof the organization will keep the work of the consortium relevantand worthy of support, but can be done only if there is a commit-ment to intense introspection by the board and staff.

Leveraging resources and consortial organizational structuresEducational consortia create structures to enhance availableresources for participating members. “Leveraging resources is notjust about sharing or dividing resources; rather, it is the synergis-tic process of making more from what is available” (Peterson,2002, p. 3). If a consortium has an organizational structure thatencourages collaboration among member institutions, the returnmay not be measurable financially but will result in wider andricher programming or resources. When the NHCUC began acollaborative database licensing agreement for member libraries,the objective was to find tangible cost savings for the institutions.What quickly became apparent was that any actual cost savingswere being absorbed into individual library budgets by the pur-chase of additional databases that were unavailable before the col-laborative purchase agreement. Since structures put into place tosupport one purpose may ultimately serve a different yet equallyvaluable purpose, the consortium structure must be both adapt-able and flexible.

ConclusionHigher education consortial aspirations can be either supported orthwarted by various components, including organizational expec-tations, strategies, skills, professional staff, resources, and consor-tial structures. Identifying strategies to manage the work of theconsortium in a manner that provides real value and tangible

Page 13: Higher education consortia: Raising aspirations through collaboration

77HIGHER EDUCATION CONSORTIA

returns to member institutions is largely dependent on finding theright balance among these various components. A consortium cansucceed with a few of these key components lacking, but its successis based on unique strengths in other areas that compensate for anydeficiencies. It is extremely rare, if not impossible, for an educa-tional consortium to survive for a long period without significantstrengths in several of these identified areas.

As continued pressure for increased collaboration and cost con-trols is placed on higher education institutions, the need to iden-tify successful structures to meet these demands will undoubtedlyincrease. Consortia offer a viable resource in responding to thesepressures but will be valuable only to the extent that aspirations aresupported by strong components within the total organization.

ReferencesBaus, F., and Ramsbottom, C. “Starting and Sustaining a Consortium.” In

L. G. Dotolo and J. T. Strandness (eds.), Practices in Higher Education Con-sortia: How Institutions Can Work Together. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1999.

Cass, J. M. Changes in American Education in the Next Decade: Some Predictions.New York: Teachers College Press, 1964.

Drucker, P. F. Managing the Non-Profit Organization. New York: Harper-Business, 1992.

Hanna, D. E. “Higher Education in an Era of Digital Competition: GlobalConsequences.” In D. Hanna (ed.), Higher Education in an Era of DigitalCompetition: Choices and Challenges. Madison, Wis.: Atwood Publishing, 2000.

Patterson, F. Colleges in Consort. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1974.Peterson, L. N. “Assessing a Consortium’s Effectiveness.” In L. G. Dotolo

and J. B. Noftsinger Jr. (eds.), Leveraging Resources Through Partnerships.New Directions in Higher Education, no. 120. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,2002.

thomas r. horgan is executive director of the New Hampshire Collegeand University Council in Concord, New Hampshire.