In the evolving landscape of higher education, institutions are grappling with how to adapt their governance models to address new trends and technologies. The traditional balance of power and responsibility is being tested by the dual forces of lifelong learning and the migration to online education. As higher education institutions venture further into this uncharted territory, they face the challenge of harmonizing centralized support with academic freedom. If they can effectively navigate this challenge, we see an opportunity for higher education to extend its reach and impact while also bending the cost curve.

Agility Over Fixed Infrastructure and Support

Most U.S. universities still separate their online and on-campus programs. Yet the lines are starting to blur, as they have in every other sector.

We refer to the new, evolving approach as agile: it’s less about running hybrid programs than about enabling academic strategy through academic support and student services designed to support all students responsively, efficiently and resiliently. Agility refers both to a responsiveness to learner demand in which students of the future (and, frankly, the present) are not online or on the ground but rather are engaging with our institutions across different modalities, as well as to the provision of flexible infrastructure and services to support a strategic mix of mixed modality programs.

Much has been learned in the last 15 to 20 years about how to effectively deliver exemplary programs and about the value of a centralized team in coordinating design, marketing, recruiting and support services across modalities and helping the institution select, engage, manage and evaluate a network of partnerships. Centralization is especially important given the rising expense of academic and student support services, which now account for 15 to 20 percent of the budget at the average U.S. four-year college.

The Blurring of Academic and Operational Support

Several technologies blur the line between academic and operational support at a university. Some examples include:

• Data models that can predict when students struggle or thrive, powered by larger data sets, which means giving real-time data to a central group about the work happening in each classroom.
• Online courses that require excellent learning design of the asynchronous elements. The organizations that do this work need to be of a certain scale to achieve quality and efficiency.
• Artificial intelligence, quickly becoming integral to the academic experience, from research to teaching methodologies to student services and support. Adapting AIs to be academically useful—in both instruction and assessment—will put technologists in the middle of the student-professor dynamic.
• Online learning, which has allowed universities to expand quickly. This increased capacity has led to increases in the cost of digital marketing and student recruitment, which requires deep expertise. But a centralized approach gives an administrative team a big role in student selection, even if the final decision is being made by each academic department.

Institutions do not have infinite funds for marketing and need to understand and navigate their market size and competitive positions. This is a complex calculus, which must account for degree-granting and lifelong learning programs, learners’ lifetime engagement with the institution, and faculty engagement, among other considerations. Note that the decision to invest in marketing some programs over others will give central administrations a lever that will fuel faculty concerns.

Shared Governance Models in Flux

The principle of shared governance has long been a cornerstone of higher education, ensuring a collaborative approach to decision-making across faculties and administrative units. Yet, emerging technologies and the growing importance of digital marketing are putting new pressures on this model. AI, data analytics and online learning platforms are blurring the lines between academic and operational domains, challenging traditional governance frameworks and illuminating new pathways to delivering affordable, quality programs at a desired scale.

Universities have experimented with various governance structures to manage these new dynamics, from decentralized to highly centralized models. Yet, finding a model that successfully balances the benefits of centralized support with the autonomy of individual academic departments remains elusive. The experiences with these models highlight the complexity of aligning academic and operational priorities in a rapidly changing landscape.

A New Blueprint for Shared Authority

The future of higher education governance requires a nuanced framework that supports centralized coordination while respecting academic independence. Questions about scalability, financial models and the integration of online programs are critical in shaping this framework. The ultimate goal is to foster a system that is responsive to the needs of all stakeholders while preserving the core values of academic freedom and innovation.

A successful model would empower central teams to provide strategic support across the university, from marketing to technology infrastructure, without encroaching on academic decision-making. These teams should act as facilitators, not dictators, of academic policy, ensuring that departments retain control over their core academic functions.

A new structure should allow an institution to compete effectively, despite having a shared governance system, and restore the balance between the participants while keeping campus politics to its traditional level. Crafting that solution starts with questions.

1. What is the university’s appetite for scale? Over the next five years, how much does each school want to grow its degree and nondegree enrollment? Are online offerings managed separately or integrated with the traditional residential program mix? Does the financial structure of the university encourage or discourage individual schools to grow?
2. What is the university’s financial model, and does the model line up with its growth and modality goals? Financial models play a crucial role in the viability of any governance structure, and for a shared authority model to be successful, in particular. Aligning the funding mechanism with the goals of agility and innovation is essential to support the growth of online and hybrid programs. We should note that, in our experience, institutions operating under a modified Responsibility Center Management model, in which much of the budgeting authority is delegated to deans of individual schools, have out-innovated and outgrown those using a more centralized model.
3. How integrated should the online effort be? Some universities see online learning as a chance to serve an international audience with degree programs that are asynchronous, inexpensive and nonselective. Some see it as an evolution of their on-campus programs, which requires a level of integration and flexibility. Does the institution have clear objectives for its online and hybrid programs? If so, are they leveraged consistently?
4. What is the nature of the centralized support center, and to whom should it report? Should there be multiple support structures, each with a single mission (e.g., marketing and recruiting, financial aid, student support, career counseling), or a single entity, which might report to the provost? Which capabilities and services should remain distributed at the academic unit level?
5. If the institution has a school of continuing studies, how should it align or connect to a centralized support structure that enables mission-aligned growth across the institution? Are there parts of the school of continuing studies that might be spun out to the new structure, whose first client is that school?
6. How should a central student support team interact with existing student services? One approach would be to have a centralized 24-7 “tier one” support team, charged with coordinating and tracking the individual support centers (e.g. financial aid, advising, counseling, course placement). But while this approach has logistical and cost advantages, it might prove practically or politically impossible.
7. What technology infrastructure would best support an agile approach? Given the pace of technological change, this is a moving target, but it’s certain that no one university or system, much less an individual school, needs to build this for itself.

Conclusion

The quest for an effective governance model in higher education is more urgent than ever, given the sector’s rapid evolution. By asking the right questions and designing a framework that respects the autonomy of academic units while providing centralized support, universities can navigate the complexities of the digital age. The goal is to create a harmonious system that upholds the traditions of academic excellence while embracing the opportunities of technological advancement. In doing so, higher education institutions can ensure their relevance and resilience in the face of future challenges.