1. 1 Organization

2. 2 University Motivations to Add CE 1. To open the doors of the university to nontraditional students, 2. To provide programming the traditional units will not, 3. To manage a specific project, 4. To respond to pressure from a politically powerful group, 5. To get grant money and 6. Other reasons.

3. 3 Organizational Issues Although the reasons for the establishment of a unit may vary, there is a common set of issues that seem to evolve between the CE unit and the rest of the University: 1. The unit doesn't "fit" the traditional University organizational structure. 2. The staff do not "fit" the traditional view of professionals 3. Funding doesn't "fit" funding formulas

4. 4 Organizational Issues Organizational Issues (continued) 4. Short program time lines vs. long 5. Flexibility vs. rigidity 6. Response to customers vs. dictate to customers 7. The concept of quality 8. Etc. Too often these issues become barriers to the growth of a viable CE program.

5. 5 Organizational Models One of the first issues that determines the type of organization is the degree of centralization of the CE responsibility. 1. On one extreme the CE unit is delegated responsibility for all outreach, both credit and non-credit. 2. On the other extreme, there is no CE unit and the responsibility for outreach is assigned to individual colleges or program areas. 3. Most U.S. models fall somewhere in between these extremes.

6. 6 Relationship Models There are four general classifications. All have one thing in common, how to obtain acceptance for a non- traditional mission in a traditional institution? 1. The “marginal” group exists as passive, non-adaptive units within the institution. 2. The “business” group assumes that the organization wants a strong CE operation, but is unable or unwilling to pay for it. They become marketplace oriented, focusing upon programs with mass appeal.

7. 7 Relationship Models Relationship Models (continued) 3. The “traditional” group closely imitates the focus and structure of their institution. They resemble traditional institutions in that they are focused internally, feel customers should seek them out, feel no need to customize instruction to customer needs. 4. The “compatible” group proactively adapts to the institution. They strive to be mainstream by participating in all the traditional internal decision making activities.

8. 8 Organizational Structure University Level CE organizational structures vary widely. In the “decentralized” model there is usually a small staff reporting to a CE department head in a college. Most of these departments are in colleges with professional programs such as law, engineering, business, medicine. In many cases their role is to manage college approved consulting and seminars.

9. 9 Organizational Structures University Level (continued) CE organizational structures vary widely. The “mixed” model is represented by a unit that operates as a centralized unit for some elements of the university, with no responsibility for other elements. Programming is more diverse.

10. 10 Organizational Structures University Level (continued) CE organizational structures vary widely. In the “centralized” model all outreach is the responsibility of the CE unit.

11. 11 Organizational Structures Unit Level The internal structure of individual CE units is usually program-oriented or function-oriented. The program-oriented unit develops self-contained components that plans, markets, registers and conducts programs in a specific program area. The advantage of this type of unit is that all customer contacts are with staff members that are very familiar with all the details of the program

12. 12 Organizational Structures Unit Level (continued) The internal structure of individual CE units is usually program-oriented or function-oriented. The function-oriented unit divides operating responsibilities along the lines of the various functions. These include instruction, registration, marketing, finance, etc. This allows large organizations to take full advantage of automation and provides excellent opportunities for comprehensive and timely reporting and control.

13. 13 Organizational Characteristics Independent of the specific structure, there are critical characteristics that any successful CE unit must possess. 1. Dedication to Service 2. Quality 3. Flexibility 4. Speed 5. Innovation

14. 14 Organizational Funding As is to be expected, there is not a uniform funding formula for all institutions. 1. Some programs are fully funded by the institution. 2. Most of the programs in the U.S. operate on a mix of institutional funding and generated income that includes fees, contracts and grants. For reasonably successful programs, the institutional contributions tend to represent from 10 to 30 percent of the budget. 3. There are very successful programs in strong CE markets that are fully self-supporting. Some of these even return money to the university for use in traditional programs. These are referred to as “cash cows.”

15. 15 Evolution of CE funding and Institutional Commitment 1. Usually the CE operation starts with a very small, fully funded staff. 2. As program demand increases (along with program revenues), the unit is permitted to add positions funded from revenues. As the program grows, institutional contributions stay basically the same. The result is that the percentage of institutional financial commitment decreases.

16. 16 The Critical Issue CE directors must ask themselves one crucial question. Are CE clients as valuable to the institution as traditional students? If the answer to that question is “yes,” then they should receive comparable institutional support. Therefore, the CE director is obligated to argue that not only should there be a significant institutional commitment, but that it should grow with the program. Also that all revenues should be reinvested in program growth.

17. 17 Maximizing Institutional Commitment If the CE staff continually communicates that their mission is central to the mission of the institution, institutional leadership is more likely to concur. The battle for CE’s share of institutional support is an effective way to communicate. To concur that CE really does not need support is to conclude that the mission has little institutional value. Think about it!