For members to share information about continuing higher education.
About ICCHE
Illinois Council on Continuing Higher Education is an institutional based membership organization representing continuing education at post-secondary education institutions in Illinois.
Join our discussion!
The ICCHE Upstate Regional Conference committee is sponsoring this site of Networking Forums.
Select a topic in the left column by clicking on it, read through the information/discussion, and add your thoughts or questions under Comments. You are welcome to participate in any and all topics.
In initiating new credit or non-credit programs or offering an existing program at a new site, rarely do we find such strong demand that the “go” decision is clear cut. The reality is that when we recruit for such programs we are sometimes not successful in reaching our needed numbers, so then we defer. When we delay learners who are ready, they sometimes select a competitor and thus we lose the market that we nurtured with significant investment. We lose our momentum and lose the interest of our programmatic stakeholders.
The purpose of this forum is to seek the practical, collective process and best practices knowledge of colleagues on the questions of: •Who influences you in your decision to invest resources in one program versus another? •What makes a program worthy of your investment of resources? •Where do you look for data to support specific program development and location placement? •When do you invest in developing and promoting a specific program? •Why do you personally support one program over another? •How do you decide the timing and location of credit/non-credit programs?
Our purpose is to discuss these fundamental process issues in program selection, development and promotion given the ever changing nature of our marketplace. Through this discussion, including you asking additional questions of our colleagues, we hope to generate new ideas and to develop a support network among practicing professionals.
What I have found problematic is the pressure we get from a small number (sometimes only one) of local parties that want us to offer a program. And, whether we offer it and it fails to attract interest or we do our research and realize there is little interest, the word that hits the streets thanks to the parties that asked for the program is universally negative. "They don't respond to our needs." "They didn't do enough marketing." "All they care about is the money." As you well know, no matter how much we try, sometimes the only person interested in the program is that one person that originally approached us.
Yes, that's a problem. We've tried the "Show me the numbers" tactic, to enlist the program requester in rounding up enough people to make a program go. However, there's often a gap between the number of people who express interest in a program through a survey and the number who will actually commit to enroll. Incorporating into the survey some questions about delivery options (evening/weekend or online/blended, etc) is important, although not completely conclusive.
I agree with Hilary that you can't rely on the number of people who say they're interested. I think the job market for the particular area is a more significant indicator.
Developing successful programs is certainly a challenge. Even though I teach it and have done a fair amount, every time holds its own surprises. I can be competent in the processes-- market analysis, establishing outcomes, governance approvals, marketing, etc. It's always the politics and personalities that are my downfall.
I've had a program sabotaged by a member of the development committee, approval thwarted by power struggles from traditional faculty, and a program eliminated (in spite of positive multiple sources of data) due to lack of marketing and personal agendas. After saying that, I need to add that I've developed some successful programs with not too many glitches.
I tend to focus on the logical and the data and sometimes don't deal sufficiently with the emotional. I frequently remember Bob Mason's (retired professor from NIU) advice that the best support and protection of continuing education is to build relationships.
In initiating new credit or non-credit programs or offering an existing program at a new site, rarely do we find such strong demand that the “go” decision is clear cut. The reality is that when we recruit for such programs we are sometimes not successful in reaching our needed numbers, so then we defer. When we delay learners who are ready, they sometimes select a competitor and thus we lose the market that we nurtured with significant investment. We lose our momentum and lose the interest of our programmatic stakeholders.
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of this forum is to seek the practical, collective process and best practices knowledge of colleagues on the questions of:
•Who influences you in your decision to invest resources in one program versus another?
•What makes a program worthy of your investment of resources?
•Where do you look for data to support specific program development and location placement?
•When do you invest in developing and promoting a specific program?
•Why do you personally support one program over another?
•How do you decide the timing and location of credit/non-credit programs?
Our purpose is to discuss these fundamental process issues in program selection, development and promotion given the ever changing nature of our marketplace. Through this discussion, including you asking additional questions of our colleagues, we hope to generate new ideas and to develop a support network among practicing professionals.
What I have found problematic is the pressure we get from a small number (sometimes only one) of local parties that want us to offer a program. And, whether we offer it and it fails to attract interest or we do our research and realize there is little interest, the word that hits the streets thanks to the parties that asked for the program is universally negative. "They don't respond to our needs." "They didn't do enough marketing." "All they care about is the money." As you well know, no matter how much we try, sometimes the only person interested in the program is that one person that originally approached us.
ReplyDeleteYes, that's a problem. We've tried the "Show me the numbers" tactic, to enlist the program requester in rounding up enough people to make a program go. However, there's often a gap between the number of people who express interest in a program through a survey and the number who will actually commit to enroll. Incorporating into the survey some questions about delivery options (evening/weekend or online/blended, etc) is important, although not completely conclusive.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Hilary that you can't rely on the number of people who say they're interested. I think the job market for the particular area is a more significant indicator.
ReplyDeleteDeveloping successful programs is certainly a challenge. Even though I teach it and have done a fair amount, every time holds its own surprises. I can be competent in the processes-- market analysis, establishing outcomes, governance approvals, marketing, etc. It's always the politics and personalities that are my downfall.
I've had a program sabotaged by a member of the development committee, approval thwarted by power struggles from traditional faculty, and a program eliminated (in spite of positive multiple sources of data) due to lack of marketing and personal agendas. After saying that, I need to add that I've developed some successful programs with not too many glitches.
I tend to focus on the logical and the data and sometimes don't deal sufficiently with the emotional. I frequently remember Bob Mason's (retired professor from NIU) advice that the best support and protection of continuing education is to build relationships.