From Lynch, Douglas. (2005). Success versus value: What do we mean by the business of online education? Text is property of the Sloan Consortium, The Sloan Center at Olin and Babson Colleges, Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering, Olin Way, Needham, Massachusetts 02492-1200. Used by permission.

Text before Edit:

Abstract

There is a push among online educators to employ business principles to market, develop, and deliver online learning. There are many compelling reasons to use this approach but also some concerns because of what it implies about higher education in this country. This paper first explores the rationale behind using business principles, maps out some general concepts and then holistically pulls them together in the form of several examples. The paper also introduces some failure and lesson’s learned from them.

Text after Edit:

Abstract

Many educators and administrators have begun to apply business principles to the marketing, development, and delivery of online learning. Although compelling reasons support this use of the for-profit model, some observers have raised legitimate concerns about the approach because of its implications for higher education. This paper explores the rationale behind the application of business principles to online learning, maps out possible implications both positive and negative, and highlights several examples of recent partnerships between business and academia. The paper also discusses project failures and lessons learned.

From Branding in Continuing and Professional Education. Proceedings of the Member Roundtable on Brand, Learning Collaborative for Higher Education. Boston, MA: Eduventures, January 2006. Used by permission of Eduventures. Copyright 2006 by Eduventures.

Text before Edit:

You know, for some clients, they actually go through the exercise and it’s a measure of its own – an executive score card to be able to say I want to measure the value of the brand on an annual basis and see how it’s changing and understand that there’s a different measure that’s going to – that I’m going to be evaluated on – I want to grow the value of the brand. That’s something that’s a little bit easier to do in the product world – but it’s something that I think a good approach to thinking about how is it that we’re impacting customer demand, either in terms of the price we are able to charge for services or our ability to capture greater market share and increasingly we’re seeing examples of where people are making attempts and we have some of our own analytic tools that we use with clients to be able to measure that and quantify that, which is particularly helpful when you’re engaging somebody to try and convince them as to the value of the brand.

Text after Edit:

Some of our clients approach evaluations as an executive scorecard: they want to measure the value of the brand on an annual basis and see how it’s changing, and their goal is to grow the brand’s value. That’s something that’s a little bit easier to do in the product world, but it’s still a good approach to thinking about how a school is impacting customer demand, either in terms of the price it is able to charge for services or its ability to capture greater market share. Increasingly we’re seeing examples of people making attempts to carry out this kind of evaluation, and we have our own analytic tools that we use with clients to be able to measure that, which is particularly helpful when you’re trying to convince somebody about the value of the brand.

Text is property of Education Development Center, Waltham, Massachusetts.

Text before Edit:

For several years, the Ford PAS program has pursued the opportunity to develop additional curriculum materials focused on chemistry. Ford PAS was first approached in 2005 by the Adhesive and Sealant Council, Inc., and invited to submit a proposal. The board of that association, however, concluded that such a curriculum should be more broadly focused on the chemical industry, rather than the smaller subsector of adhesives. With support from the president of that association, Lawrence Sloan, Ford PAS has continued to reach out to the chemical industry to find partners that might be interested in funding such a venture. Lawrence has introduced Ford PAS to a group of Washington, DC-based chemical association executives (CCAE), including representatives of the American Chemistry Council (the largest chemical trade association in the country), Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association, American Chemical Society, and several others. While there has been strong grassroots support for the idea, there is consensus that a partner with significant financial resources will be necessary to assist in launching a new Ford PAS course focused on chemistry.

Text after Edit:

For several years, the Ford PAS program has been considering the development of curriculum materials in the field of chemistry. In 2005 the Adhesive and Sealant Council (ASC) invited Ford PAS to submit a proposal for a curriculum unit focused on adhesive and sealant materials; ASC’s board, however, concluded that such a curriculum should center on the broader chemical industry. With support from ASC president Lawrence Sloan, Ford PAS has reached out to chemical industry leaders to find partners that might be interested in funding such a venture. Dr. Sloan has introduced Ford PAS to the Washington, D.C.-based Council of Chemical Association Executives (CCAE), which includes representatives of the American Chemical Society, the American Chemistry Council, the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates, and several others. While there has been strong support for the idea, a partner with significant financial resources will be necessary to assist in launching the new course.

Excerpt is from Seventy-Five Years of Commitment to Clinical Gastroenterology, Gastroenterologists and Patient Health. Text is property of the American College of Gastroenterology, P.O. Box 342260, Bethesda, Maryland 20827-2260. Copyright 2007. Used by permission. Client and Project Administrator: Vern Associates, Newburyport, Massachusetts.

Text before Edit:

ACG Intitute adds New Face and More Finances…

In 1994 a second major step was taken by the formation of the ACG Institute for Clinical Research & Education. In the mid-1990's, an attempt was again made to tap the members and their practices as a source in research through the GI Bleeding Registry Study. This was more successful than prior attempts probably reflecting the increased size of the College and the increasing interest in clinical research. This was a project initiated by the Institute and not directly from the Research Committee. The Institute provided additional funds and opportunities for clinical research. The Committee then headed by Linda Rabeneck, M.D. (Chair 1997-2000) approved projects and provided grants that totaled over $2 million during those three years. In 2002 the Board recommended that the Junior Faculty Development Grants be increased and they have continued to increase to the current level of a two-year grant at $75,000 each year. In 2001 the ACG program in research was sponsored by the members as well as grants from 5 different pharmaceutical companies (Astra Zeneca, TAP, Wyeth Ayerst, Novartis, and Schering).

Text after Edit:

ACG Institute Attracts Financial Resources and Fosters Clinical Research

In 1994 the ACG Institute for Clinical Research & Education was formed to provide additional funds and opportunities for clinical research. In the mid-1990s the institute set up the GI Bleeding Registry in another attempt to tap the members and their practices as sources in the collection of crucial data. Perhaps because of the increased size of the College and the growing interest in clinical research, this effort was more successful than previous ones had been. The Research Committee, headed by Linda Rabeneck, MD, approved institute projects and provided grants that totaled more than $2 million from 1997 to 2000.

In 2002 the Board recommended that the junior faculty development grants be increased, and they have continued to increase to the current level of a two-year grant at $75,000 each year. The College has actively sought research funding from corporate sources; in 2001, for example, grants from five different pharmaceutical companies (AstraZeneca, TAP Pharmaceutical Products Inc., Wyeth-Ayerst, Novartis, and Schering-Plough)—along with member contributions—supported the ACG program in research.

Excerpt from Presentation Senior Community: An Innovative Concept Becomes a Reality, Elizabeth Boardman and Kathy Arizon, authors. (San Francisco, California: North and South of Market Adult Day Health, 2002)

Text before Edit:

Learning to Work Together: NSM-ADH and Mercy Housing

A more subtle variable which affected the way things happened during the difficult start-up period had to do with cultural differences between the two main players. NSM-ADH is a very small nonprofit organization with a narrow financial margin. It serves the disabled and is staffed by people who, concerned with the vulnerability of their clients, put a high priority on getting needed support to participants immediately.

Mercy Housing is part of a very large nonprofit organization with much greater financial flexibility. Their staff is accustomed to working with independent elders and families. Their focus is on the long haul, the slow and steady work with HUD and other complex funding sources, and the long-term viability of low-income housing.

Text after Edit:

Learning to Work Together: NSM-ADH and Mercy Housing

Organizational differences between NSM-ADH and Mercy Housing also affected events during the difficult start-up period. NSM-ADH, a small nonprofit with a narrow financial margin, serves the disabled and is staffed by people who, concerned with the vulnerability of their clients, put a high priority on getting needed support to participants immediately. By contrast, Mercy Housing, part of a very large nonprofit with much greater financial flexibility, has a staff accustomed to working with independent elders and families. Their focus is on the long haul, the slow and steady work with HUD and other complex funding sources, and the long-term viability of low-income housing.

Text is property of Education Development Center, Waltham, Massachusetts.

Text before Edit:

Perhaps, it is useful to start the discussion of methodologies by defining the terms. Methodology refers to a general framework of a study. It is common to differentiate qualitative versus quantitative methodologies. A study design is a close cousin of a methodology in that it is based on a set of underlying assumptions, but it is more narrow and specific. It is common to distinguish between three kinds of research designs: experimental, quasi-experimental, and non-experimental. All three are widely used in evaluation, although under different conditions and for different purposes. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs fall under quantitative methodologies, and non-experimental design encompasses qualitative and mixed-method methodologies. See Methods section for the discussion of methods of data collection.

Text after Edit:

The term methodology refers to the general framework of a study—that is, the set of assumptions, practices, and procedures that will guide your research. Closely related to methodology is the narrower term study design, which refers to the specific structure of your research—that is, the questions you ask and the way in which you choose, group, and compare the subjects of your study.

Social researchers commonly distinguish between qualitative and quantitative methodologies and between experimental, quasi-experimental, and non-experimental research designs. All three design types are widely used in evaluation, although under different conditions and for different purposes. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs are considered quantitative methodologies, and non-experimental designs can be classified as either qualitative or mixed-method methodologies. See the Methods section for a discussion of data collection methods.