Running Scalable Online Learning Operations

25
Running Scalable Online Learning Operations Dr. Meg Benke, Vice-Provost, SUNY Empire State Dr. Gloria Pickar, CEO & President, Compass Knowledge Karen Vignare, MSU Global, Michigan State University

description

 

Transcript of Running Scalable Online Learning Operations

Page 1: Running Scalable Online Learning Operations

Running Scalable Online Learning Operations

Dr. Meg Benke, Vice-Provost, SUNY Empire StateDr. Gloria Pickar, CEO & President, Compass KnowledgeKaren Vignare, MSU Global, Michigan State University

Page 2: Running Scalable Online Learning Operations

Agenda

• Business Models (Karen Vignare)• Case Study from Empire State (Dr. Meg Benke)• Case Study from Compass Knowledge (Dr.

Gloria Pickar)• Q & A

Page 3: Running Scalable Online Learning Operations

Understanding the Landscape

• Models and compatibility with mission, vision, values, strategy

• Rubrics for baselines• Measures of success• Managing change in dynamic environment

Page 4: Running Scalable Online Learning Operations

Business Models

• Incremental• Alliance• Cost or profit center• Overhead or service center• Independent, for-profit

Page 5: Running Scalable Online Learning Operations
Page 6: Running Scalable Online Learning Operations

Respondents

College Classification Sample Percentage

Doctoral 31

Master’s 24

Baccalaureate 22

Associates 17

Specialty 2

Page 7: Running Scalable Online Learning Operations

Goals of Online Learning

• Rank Order (Most Important)– Extension, surplus, brand value, diversity, on-

campus retention & speed to graduation

• Rank Order (Not Important)– Speed to graduation, retention, diversity, surplus,

brand value & extension

• Rank Order (Combined top two ranking)– Brand, extension, surplus, retention, diversity &

speed to graduation

Page 8: Running Scalable Online Learning Operations

Online Course Development

• How is it done?• Individual faculty develop and deliver• Individual faculty develop but others deliver• Faculty team develops and delivers• Faculty team develops and others deliver

Page 9: Running Scalable Online Learning Operations

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

Business Planning Integrated Marketing Functions

Price Setting Ability to enter partnerships

Ability to remove products from the

market

Business Decision Making

Ind Self Funded College Unit Self Funded College overhead

Page 10: Running Scalable Online Learning Operations

Student Services

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

Student services

Technical support

Quality contro

l for th

e learning experience

Retention for non-credit s

tudents/custo

mers/...

Retention for students enrolled in cre

dit bea...

Ind Self Funded College Unit Self Funded College Overhead

Page 11: Running Scalable Online Learning Operations

Curriculum Issues

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%

Ability to hirefaculty instructors

Ability to createnew customized

curriculum

Ability to createnew non-credit

curriculum

Ability to createnew creditcurriculum

Ind Self funded College Unit Self Funded College Overhead

Page 12: Running Scalable Online Learning Operations

Starting points and goals

• Most institutions began online learning programs with 1 of 2 goals (Miller, Schiffman unpublished paper)– To extend access to programs– To improve quality of existing programs

» e.g., retention, throughput

– What was your starting point? – What were (are) your initial goals?

Page 13: Running Scalable Online Learning Operations

Matching business models to strategy

• What business model was chosen to launch your program?– e.g. within continuing education, provost’s office,

academic department, etc.

• How well matched was (is) the model to attaining your goals?– A business model is a way of capturing value of a

product/service and turning it into a revenue stream that can sustain/grow the business

Page 14: Running Scalable Online Learning Operations

Changing Business Models

• Constant change is a given• Disagreement on whether response is for your

institution or to the opportunity• Technology-driven• Customer opportunity—driven• Combination • International models especially those

unfettered by global higher education leaders

Page 15: Running Scalable Online Learning Operations

Institutional “Fit”

• Why do some institutions succeed and others fail?

• Using technology to develop new delivery system is complex

• The link among mission, vision, values, and strategy is critical

Page 16: Running Scalable Online Learning Operations

MSU Case Study

• Functions needed for Scaling– MSU current methods– Vendor approaches– Costs/Recommendations

• Comparative Survey amongst Big Ten

Page 17: Running Scalable Online Learning Operations

Functions that Support Capacity and Projected Integration Points (w/

outside vendor)The tables in the following slides illustrate •the key functions as identified by industry vendors necessary to support scalable online learning•the industry approach and key metrics•MSU’s current approach based on the existing online programs•gaps or challenges as well as anticipated integration points (with an outside vendor) at MSU.

Page 18: Running Scalable Online Learning Operations

Function Industry (Vendor) Approach & Metrics

MSU Current Approach Gaps/Challenges/ Integrations

Market Viability/ Research

Approach:-Comprehensive market analysis highlighting universal market potential as well as specific niche opportunities-Often conducted in a “live” pilot format so leads generated can be immediately connected to program recruitment efforts (assuming the program is launched)-Cost = $20-40K per studyKey Metric:-Comprehensive market research study completed in 4-6 weeks with enrollment targets

-Advice sought from industry Advisory Councils-Faculty compile info based on their perspective of market place-MSUglobal Advisory Services - budget development, limited market research

- Requires dedicated expertise, or funds to commission externally, to produce research in a timely and consistent manner with accurate enrollment forecasts.Anticipated Integration Points:-Access to institutional collected data

Page 19: Running Scalable Online Learning Operations

Function Industry (Vendor) Approach & Metrics

MSU Current Approach Gaps/Challenges/ Integrations

Marketing Approach:-Utilize Search Engine Optimization & Marketing (SEO/M) and pay-per click approaches meticulously -Comprehensive & Integrated Customer Relationship Management (CRM) Systems which record all phone, e-mail, web and service desk activities-Dynamic web development to support marketing & sales-Email, print and phone campaigns-Budgets $500K - $1M per program annuallyKey Metric:-Spend 15-25% of program revenue generated on marketing and sales

-AP or CT staff positions that generally focus on maintaining program websites and limited time on Internet marketing.-MSUglobal Advisory Services - asset and audience ID mapping-MSUglobal Marketing planning & implementation for select programs (primarily non-credit currently, credit in the past)-MSUglobal models to build reputation and increase research opportunities-None or extremely inefficient CRM and database approaches -Trade Show Exhibition-Limited print advertising-Unit budgets approx $10K per year

-Requires significant funding for initial and ongoing marketing investment-Requires professional personnel to serve program needs effectively-Need web sites at central and unit levels technically and message aligned with marketing campaigns-Requires professional sales/call-center and CRM to respond to move from prospect to registration and admitted studentAnticipated Integration Points:-Access to institutional lists and audiences

Page 20: Running Scalable Online Learning Operations

Function Industry (Vendor) Approach & Metrics

MSU Current Approach Gaps/Challenges/ Integrations

Sales Approach:-Business Development Teams targeting key corporations, military, government, global markets and community colleges-Attendance @ International & National Industry Specific Trade ShowsKey Metric:-Spend 25% of program revenue generated on sales and marketing

-None -Requires significant funding for business development -Requires professional personnel -Requires systemic approach with targets and evaluation-Opportunity to coordinate with Business Connect and Development OfficeAnticipated Integration Points:-Access to institutional relationships/audiences

Page 21: Running Scalable Online Learning Operations

Function Industry (Vendor) Approach & Metrics

MSU Current Approach Gaps/Challenges/ Integrations

Recruitment Approach:-Program specific recruitment teams -State of the art call center infrastructure integrated with CRM-Extensive and proactive prospect follow up strategies-Easy to use registration systems and processesKey Metrics:-Respond to all leads regardless of inquiry method within 15 minutes (even on weekends)-Generate 50 times the number of prospects and 10 times the number of qualified candidates that a program is currently generating

-AP or CT staff positions that is almost exclusively reactive. Answering phone and e-mail inquiries and generally functioning in a “transactional” role.-MSUglobal offers CRM capability to non-credit programs

-Requires call center infrastructure-Requires improved inquiry and registration flow -Requires CRM systems -Requires comprehensive systemic approach with targets and evaluationAnticipated Integration Points:-Undergrad & Grad applications are adapted and made available online through Vendor-UG & Grad app’s are “returned” electronically and interface with necessary systems for automated processing-Financial aid application, processing and award notification-Transcript collection and processing

Page 22: Running Scalable Online Learning Operations

Function Industry (Vendor) Approach & Metrics

MSU Current Approach Gaps/Challenges/ Integrations

Course Development

Approach:-Use rapid course development practices and methodologies -Use scalable instructional development approaches to enable consistent teaching of multiple sections with different instructors-Use professional publishing workflows and quality control processesKey Metric:-Course development completed within 3-4 weeks-Courses quality-tested prior to launch and kept on a continuous update schedule-Use scalable instructional practices to allow for scale and multiple start times (6-8 per year)

-Generally faculty led with assistance from TA’s or other student support. -Occasionally Academic Specialist or AP positions to develop courses.-MSUglobal non-credit course development models -vu.DAT (subsidized) offers: Instructional design, graphic design, course support and development. Video and lecture production. Simulation and animation production. Technical support

-Opportunity to expand on current MSUglobal and vu.DAT design models-Need a “boot-camp” development model where courses are developed in 3-4 weeks (Rapid Course Design Model) with a professional publishing team model-Requires faculty incentives and standard outcome expectations -Opportunity to leverage 9-month faculty appointments for course development in summerAnticipated Integration Points:-Access to existing course content and artifacts

Page 23: Running Scalable Online Learning Operations

Function Industry (Vendor) Approach & Metrics

MSU Current Approach Gaps/Challenges/ Integrations

Online Classroom

Approach:-Models utilizing vendor and host institution platforms are both successfulKey Metric:-Instructional practices that allow for 6-8 start times per year

-Faculty-led-Teaching Assistants-MSU/ANGEL-Distance Learning Services (DLS) HelpDesk

- Requires reliable platform-MSU ANGEL Platform can potentially support the effort-Need expanded help desk service. DLS HelpDesk could potentially expand

Faculty Approach:-Use master teacher model-Use of adjunct faculty-All instructors require training prior to teaching

-Combo of MSU & Adjunct-Limited training for online instructors

-Requires streamlined process for hiring and managing adjunct faculty and online instructors -Requires mechanisms for monitoring and ensuring quality teaching and learning-Need required training for instructors & support

Page 24: Running Scalable Online Learning Operations

Function Industry (Vendor) Approach & Metrics

MSU Current Approach Gaps/Challenges/ Integrations

Student Retention

Approach:-Use program specific teams and program planning tools Key Metric:-90% retention rates

-Use Academic Specialists or AP staff to provide advising role in some programs.-Primary role of the faculty teaching the courses

-Requires improved information and registration flow -Need enhanced/modified degree program planning tools that keep students on track to complete degree-Need call center infrastructure and professionally-trained staff -Need comprehensive systemic approach with targets and evaluationAnticipated Integration Points:-Access to student records related to academic progress etc…-Access to degree planning materials

Page 25: Running Scalable Online Learning Operations

Function Industry (Vendor) Approach & Metrics

MSU Current Approach Gaps/Challenges/ Integrations

Evaluation Many use a strategic planning approach to process data quickly and improve quality

-Normal University Procedures

-Need evaluation and quality assurance “systems” and processes