Putting NDTYI to work in the TYI is a major undertaking. Old paradigms and their associated practices must be challenged and, in many cases, fundamentally changed. NDTYI outlines a new postsecondary education paradigm--one that addresses the challenges of work, family, and community in the 21st century. They also speak about a transformed institution; one that is closely linked to students and environment; one that can learn to adapt learning and organizational functioning to emerging realities.
The previous chapters in this report do not suggest how a TYI might carry out the indicated transformations. This chapter fills that gap by offering a perspective on and strategies for organizational change that show how current practices and structures can be modified to move toward NDTYI.
As we look to the next century, it is clear that higher education will experience a host of new challenges and opportunities. These will result in pressures on institutions that cannot be easily countered by conventional organizations and educational practices. Instead, new designs will be required; institutional forms will need to be invented to enable TYIs to adapt to their environments and to assist stakeholders in dealing with change. It is also clear that there is no viable option for higher education but to engage in a new design process. Private higher education has already shown the way; those institutions that fail to design are likely to fail to exist.
The TYI is at the center of change in higher education. It is the linking organization that helps people of all ages connect with the world of work, family, and community, and it is the pathway whereby access to opportunity is afforded to many otherwise excluded from higher education. However, these basic missions are under severe pressures that can act to disconnect these institutions from their communities (Rosow, 1994). We can collect these pressures under the four categories shown in Figure 33. Each of the four environmental pressures summarizes conditions that TYIs must take into account. They call for new designs that frame the responses of institutions to emerging realities.
Work is driven by technology, and the measure of higher education increasingly is taken by the extent to which the higher education institution can provide access to jobs. As the Pew Higher Education Roundtable (1994) states,
Vocationalism is affecting everything from the choice of an academic major to the demand for student services that focuses on job placement. Parents now ask institutions with growing bluntness, "What exactly are we paying for?" and they measure the quality of higher education in terms of their children's ability to garner secure and well-paying jobs. (p. 2A)
This is a global concern, which shakes the very foundations of higher education (Kintzer, 1994).
The magnitude of change in the workplace is summarized by the trends shown in Figure 34 (Halvorson, 1995, p. 56). These data show that in only forty years the labor force composition has changed from unskilled to skilled. If the TYI is to serve its students, it must provide the technical skills demanded by employers and by the students themselves.
The increasing ethnic diversity of the United States is changing the composition of the student body at many TYIs. The data in Figure 35 shows changes in ethnicity at California community colleges (Commission on Innovation, 1993, p. 3).
Diversity is not, however, merely a matter of ethnicity. The TYI continues to experience an increase in the average age of students and in the range of their educational objectives. So-called "reverse transfer" of four-year college students to the TYI is giving many a second chance at the baccalaureate (Winchell, 1993); and it is providing baccalaureate degree holders with the technical skills needed to find employment (Kajstura & Keim, 1992).
Corporate downsizing is also contributing to diversity. Large numbers of adults at advanced levels of practice are returning to the TYI to acquire new skills. These individuals bring with them a mature perspective on the workplace and a level of educational expectation that challenges traditional programs and delivery systems.
Knowledge in all its forms is a key element of higher education design. We are familiar with the exponential growth of knowledge as pictured in Figure 36. Any measure of knowledge--books, articles, communications--shows a pattern similar to the general graph shown in Figure 36. The growth of knowledge is accelerated by the wide availability of low-cost electronic media (Dordick & Wang, 1993). As the doubling time for knowledge growth decreases--from years to months, and eventually to days--educators will be hard pressed to maintain currency and authority in the subject matters.
There is a second side to knowledge growth. This has to do with the rapidly increasing numbers of knowledge workers outside the academy. Higher education has created large numbers of individuals trained in conceptual and research skills, people who do the work of the academy at an ever-increasing array of sites. Knowledge and its production (and benefits) is further dispersed by communications technology that weaves producers into a global web (Gibbons et al., 1994).
Knowledge dynamics are defining a new role for higher education where the expertise of faculty is no longer the principal contribution of colleges and universities. Instead, faculty become "navigators" on an information landscape where they guide students toward knowledge and hone the skills needed to conduct and apply knowledge to the problems of practice (Ammentorp & Roca, 1994).
The above dynamics define the design problem for postsecondary educational institutions. They create a challenge that will require new forms of organization and new educational practices. At the same time, higher education is experiencing major changes in the form and magnitude of its financial foundations. Public expenditures measured in constant dollars are declining, and higher education is becoming increasingly dependent upon tuition (see Figure 37).
Along with the decline in public expenditures for higher education, demands for accountability have increased:
Paradoxically, the diminution of public finance has gone hand in hand with an increased emphasis on accountability. Policy makers and students are both concerned with the outcomes of higher education. As Hood (1996) puts it, the bottom line is, actually, the bottom line. The increased fiscal scrutiny applied to colleges and universities during the recession of the early 1990s has not faded with economic prosperity and revenue growth. Now, more than ever, both public and private institutions are going to have to couple appeals for money with hard-nosed, easily understood measurements and arguments that justify their expenditures and make clear the individual contributions to the social, cultural, and economic well-being of the communities they serve. (Hood, 1996, p. 88)
These measures of accountability are referenced, not to the institutional agenda, but to the wants and needs of stakeholders. Put another way, there will be little or no support for the TYI that neglects the forces outlined above. TYI vitality will be in direct proportion to the extent that it incorporates a diverse student population and helps individuals gain access to the knowledge and skills needed in the workplace.
The above circumstances are a clear mandate for educational change. The TYI cannot continue to do business as usual; it must redefine its signature and reform its practices if it is to be viable in the next century. What is called for is a range of new institutions and radical changes in teaching and learning. These cannot, however, be haphazard modifications of the TYI and its work; they must build to new relationships between staff and learners--and between the institution and its community (Alfred & Carter, 1995).
NDTYI has established a set of new concepts that contrast the traditional TYI with its future potential. Figure 38 shows how each element in the design-down process is anchored in both tradition and prospects.
|
Traditional
Concept
|
Design
Element
|
Future
Concept
|
|
Logo
|
Signature
|
Cultural
Symbols
|
|
Subject
Matter
|
Outcomes
|
Functioning
|
|
Instruction
|
Process
|
Construction
|
|
Collegiate
|
Organization
|
Learning
Organization
|
|
Faculty,
Tenured
|
Staffing
|
Staff
Team, Adjunct
|
|
One
Way
|
Partnerships
|
Reciprocal
|
|
Campus
|
Environment
|
Virtual
|
|
Line
Item Budget
|
Finance
|
Value
Centered Management
|
|
Graduation
|
Celebration
|
Ongoing
|
These "anchor words" suggest a continuum of change from the traditional TYI to NDTYI. Figure 38 portrays a sort of "change report card," which can be used to assess the extent to which any TYI is changing in the concepts that define its character and operations.
In setting an agenda for change, it is helpful to focus on the design elements that are at the core of the educational enterprise. Thus, it is essential to know how the institution fares on the elements of learning outcomes, learning process, and learning organization. Taken together, these elements define what the TYI is about and how it organizes educational technology and experiences for the benefit of students. They can be treated as crude scales that define the essential features of the TYI at a point in time, the foundation for change.
The range of learning outcomes shown in Figure 39 defines the end points of a continuum that includes intermediate results like those shown below. Movement along this scale from left to right involves incorporating all previous learning outcomes. That is, knowledge production outcomes include subject matter, basic skills development, and team-building outcomes. And comprehensive functioning relates to the overall goal of "functioning in a diverse and complex environment." Each point on this scale has an associated research and development foundation:
| Subject Matter | Basic Skills Development | Team Building | Knowledge Production | Comprehensive Functioning |
 | ||||
The same sort of scale can be constructed for the learning process element where instruction and construction constitute the anchor points as shown in Figure 40. Again, each point on this scale includes all those to its left--team learning includes both work-based learning and instruction. This scale pictures a range of learning alternatives that can accommodate many different student needs and styles, as well as a variety of roles for teachers.
Instruction | Work-Based Learning | Team Learning | Goal-Directed Learning |
Construction |
| ||||
The element relating to the organization of learning is located on a scale bounded by the collegiate model on one hand and the learning organization on the other (see Figure 41):
Collegiate | Academic-Vocational Integration | Team |
Enterprise | Learning Organization |
| ||||
Although it is possible to approach organizational change through any one of the above design elements, it is also productive to develop an agenda for change by considering them together. This is due to the fact that it is the interaction of elements that defines the organization for those that work and study within it. In popular terminology, the elements give concrete form to student, faculty, and staff perspectives; they constitute the ruling paradigm of the organization (Simsek & Ammentorp, 1993). What this implies is that the elements come together to point to exemplars that serve to define the paradigm in action (Immershein, 1977). We visualize exemplars by locating programs and/or TYIs in a three-dimensional space like that shown in Figure 42.
Exemplars are in the "corners" of Figure 42; they are the archetypes of organization--defining ruling paradigms that are grounded in learner expectations, learning approaches, and organizational structures. For example, a TYI whose mission is to prepare students for transfer to four-year programs is likely to be in the "corner" where subject matter areas define outcomes, instruction shapes the learning process, and organizational structure is collegiate. By way of contrast, the TYI that is tightly linked to the workplace is likely to have outcomes that focus on basic skills, a learning process that is work-based, and an organization that fosters academic-vocational integration. Finally, the NDTYI exemplar is the institution defined by learning outcomes that support comprehensive functioning and learning processes that are constructivist in nature, and that are located in the context of a learning organization. The point of these exemplars is that a TYI can be located anywhere in Figure 42 and it can set an agenda for change that will move it to a position that is thought to be more in keeping with its view of the future.
An interesting feature of Figure 42 is that in the center of the space is where each design element emphasizes some aspect of teams and teamwork. In the exemplar at the center, team organization prevails, outcomes have to do with team building, and team learning is the means whereby students acquire the capacity to work collaboratively. By moving toward this configuration, TYIs can set a powerful dynamic in motion where all aspects of organizational life focus on teams. The center is not only a good place to be, it is an excellent exemplar from which to design the future.
There are, of course, other ways of framing the change agenda (Alfred & Carter, 1995; Lorenzo & LeCroy, 1994). Whatever the approach taken, it is imperative that a starting point be selected and a course set for the future. The NDTYI framework of Figure 42 brings the fundamental elements of organizational life into the change equation and makes it possible for the TYI to see clearly how its objectives, work, and structure need to be transformed.
The thesis underlying NDTYI is that the TYI is the institution that will determine the future for its community and, in concert with other higher education institutions, for the nation. TYIs will be at the vortex of change in work, family, and community life, and if it is to be a viable participant in the future, it will be called upon not to change, but to transform. To transform is a popular--and popularized--idea, one that has captured the imagination of public and private sector organizations (Green, 1996; Rosen, 1996). If transform means "to change form," the TYI may not make the fundamental alternations in its work and structure called for by the circumstances it faces in the next century. Instead, it may simply be the same institution in a new shape--like the "transformer" toys of the 1980s.
To transform in the sense that NDTYI implies, a whole new and different approach to the educational enterprise is required--one that is trans-formal in the sense of being beyond the formal, collegiate institutions of today (deThomasis et al., 1991). Transformation requires a break with old paradigms and their associated academic and social institutions, a change of mind as well as a change of practice.
In this sense, transformation is a major challenge for educational organizations. The academic "college" is a paradigm deeply ingrained in the social fabric of nearly every culture. It generally has a legal foundation where operating concepts such as credit hours are written into law. Moreover, the "college" paradigm is rooted in the expectations of students and those who hire graduates. So, to transform this institution is a major undertaking requiring changes of mind for everyone involved.
However, the "college" paradigm is one that has been shown to have serious limitations (Alfred & Carter, 1995). The problems it cannot solve are sufficiently numerous as to call the entire paradigm into question; a condition many argue to be necessary for paradigm change (Kuhn, 1970; Sterman, 1985). When this occurs, the old paradigm of the "college" can collapse catastrophically; or it may be transformed to enable it to deal with new problems and expectations.
NDTYI is an attempt to begin conversations concerning the paradigms underlying the TYI--to question the capacity of the conventional "college" to survive in the turbulent environment of the future. These conversations are at the center of the change process; they are not the result of change. They are the initiators of change, making it possible for individuals to see the organization and their work in new ways (Ford & Ford, 1995). Conversations are the dynamic that transforms outdated paradigms into new patterns of thinking and acting.
In this chapter, we have defined a set of terms that can shape the topics of conversations about change. And in Figure 42, we have shown how these terms are related to one another in familiar, educational paradigms. Figure 42 also contains the stimuli needed to initiate conversation by showing all members of the TYI community where they stand at present and what their options might be for the future.
The conversations we hope to set in motion through NDTYI are not intended to focus on the details of TYI life. Instead, they are directed at the prevailing myths and metaphors that undergird the "college" paradigm. If the TYI is to be transformed, it must question the mythology that gives rise to the beliefs and practices we associate with the academy (Marshak, 1993). Through such conversations, the institution may be able to move to a more viable position in the "space" of Figure 42.
Leading transformation can be viewed as guiding an organizational learning process. As we have noted in our discussion of the learning organization, transformation is the "learning loop" that keeps the institution in a productive relationship with its environment. New designs are constructed via the conversations surrounding the elements of Figure 42. As Van de Ven and Poole (1995) have noted, organizational change is frequently constructive, especially in those cases where the environment is highly turbulent, as it surely is in postsecondary education.
From this starting point, we can approach organizational transformation using the same learning process we have designed for students (see Figure 43). To put this process to work, leaders initiate conversations concerning relevant organizational alternatives. These conversations begin by placing the college in the "space" of Figure 42; students, staff, and stakeholders talk about the current status of the institution using the language of NDTYI. As discussion unfolds, leaders can point to other "benchmark" TYIs located in desirable "regions" of Figure 42. These organizations help those participating in the change conversation visualize alternative futures for their work and their TYI.
Benchmarks serve other purposes. They offer rich detail that challenges participants and excites the interest needed for full engagement in the change process. Benchmarks also provide the subject matter of realistic scenarios, which in turn focus the conversation on possible future directions for the organization. Leadership takes form here through scenarios. By sketching realistic--and challenging--scenarios, leaders can shape conversations and, by shedding a different light on the educational enterprise, move the focus of discussion from the past to the future.
Involvement is the social side of the organizational learning process, where the organization interfaces with its environment. Stakeholders both inside and outside the organization become involved in the change conversation and add their interests and insights to the process.
Again, it is the responsibility of leaders to make the connections with stakeholders and to make certain that key representatives are involved in the conversation. As discussions unfold, there is a growing base of support for the new design and a sense of ownership of the institution by the community.
All these activities represent construction of a new organization. These are not aimless conversations; they are organization-building. If the promise of organizational learning is to be realized, leaders must ensure that actual construction takes place (Myran, Zeiss, & Howdyshell, 1996). Conversations must lead to action within a reasonable length of time. And the actions must be aligned with issues and ideas raised by participants.
To assist in thinking through more operationally the priorities and processes to move toward NDTYI for a TYI, a series of guides has been designed and is shown in Exhibits 13-18 [Adobe Acrobat versions of these exhibits are available]. The guide shown in Exhibit 13b can be used to describe the present state of affairs at the TYI of concern and the new design that the institution has in mind. The new design should be the result of working through each of the elements in the design-down process for the institution, similar to what was done with the National Design Group for the NDTYI project. What should be evident after completing the guide in Exhibit 13b are the gaps between what is and what is desired. These gaps can then be prioritized to identify where to focus the initial efforts of the transition to the new design, perhaps taking advantage of areas for focus that, for one reason or another, are going to be dealt with anyway.
|
| Design Element Present State
and New Designs
Signature Outcomes Process Organization Partnerships Staffing Environment Finance Celebration |
The guide shown in Exhibit 14 is set up to identify benchmark institutions that can be of assistance in seeing and examining new design ideas in practice. One must search nationally and internationally for institutions that have in place the new designs that the TYI of concern wishes to implement. Benchmarking institutions may be more "maverick" (Alfred & Carter, 1995) than simply "top notch" institutions. In most cases, the benchmark institution will be another educational organization; however, in some cases, it may be necessary to look beyond educational institutions. Benchmarking studies can then be done to identify aims and processes that are of interest and how they were put in place. Benchmark institutions can also become institutional mentors for the TYI.
| Design Element Your Institution
Benchmark Institution
Signature Outcomes Process Organization Partnerships Staffing Environment Finance Celebration |
Exhibit 15 shows a guide set up to think through where in the organization the responsibility will be fixed for the various design elements and where the new design specifications will be implemented. In some cases, it is very evident who should be in charge (e.g., learning outcomes, process, and organization to the vice president for academic affairs), but in others, new organizational structures may need to be created or revised.
| Design Element
Organizational Responsibilty
Signature Outcomes Process Organization Partnerships Staffing Environment Finance Celebration |
Exhibit 16 provides a guide to decisionmaking about the time schedule and sequence for implementing new design ideas. All elements probably cannot be implemented at the same time; therefore, a short- and long-range plan may be helpful and necessary to see the big picture regarding implementation.
| Design Element Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Signature Outcomes Process Organization Partnerships Staffing Environment Finance Celebration |
As shown in Exhibit 17, the planning process is usually addressed in stages of increasing specificity. The design specifications resulting from applying the design-down process to a TYI will result in general, strategic directions for the institution. These need to be "stepped-down" to the operational and tactical planning levels in order to ensure implementation. The more detailed planning might best be delegated to the area of the organization given responsibility, as specified in Exhibit 15.
| Design Element Strategic
Operational
Tactical
Signature Outcomes Process Organization Partnerships Staffing Environment Finance Celebration |
Last, Exhibit 18 gives the format for essential components of an operational plan, moving from the strategic level to much greater detail concerning timelines. Operational plans usually include purpose, activities, timelines, responsibilities, and budget needs. Conscientious monitoring of operational plans is often necessary to bring new designs into practice.
| Design Element Purpose
Activities
Timelines
Responsibility
Budget
Signature Outcomes Process Organization Partnerships Staffing Environment Finance Celebration |
Based on the discussions of the National Design Group, the NDTYI staff, and experiences in assisting educational institutions with developing and implementing the design-down process, the following administrative leadership caveats may be useful to consider for those responsible for new designs for a TYI:
By way of summary, it is important to note that the processes of benchmarking, conversation, and organizational learning are continuous. There is, in effect, no end to the processes; the organization continues to re-design itself so that it is continually examining its environment, how it does its work, and the efficacy of its structures. To lead such processes requires a vision that allows goals to change--always seeking the promises of new designs for a future where major social issues interact with resource constraints and exploding knowledge (Gallego, 1996).
[*] This section was drafted by William Ammentorp. Additions, particularly regarding operational approaches to making the transitions to new designs, and general editing were provided by George Copa.