SKM book and user manual

The book about Sentient called “Metrics, Mapping, and Modelling for Masterful Management in Higher Education” has been completed and is currently going through the publishing process. The table of contents is attached above.

Abstract

Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) are under pressure from many sources to become more efficient, control tuition and fees, and lower the burden of dept that many students graduate with. The expectation is that they become more “business-like” in their operations. However, HEIs are unique entities because of the level of expertise of their primary employees, the faculty. In addition, with high turnover rates of senior administrators, the faculty is often the stabilizing influence, medium- and long-term memory of the institution. Shared governance is therefore a cultural keystone of HEIs and often conflicts with and resists the adoption of more business-like practices. However, the two approaches are not incompatible if a business approach that integrates transparency and stakeholder engagement is adopted.

This book is about creating such an environment using concept map-based institutional modelling to empower holistic, transparent, knowledge-informed, and strategic management; integrative-and backward design based-thinking; and inter-institutional resource sharing for improved effectiveness, efficiency, stakeholder engagement and shared governance. It is also an invitation to higher education managers and leaders to participate in the development of this knowledge and in a community for sharing it. The book is therefore accompanied by a free Creative Commons licensed system called the Sentient Knowledge Map (SKM) which provides a template model of an HEI and extensive inter-institutionally shared resource libraries. For administrators, the SKM provides the “view from the balcony” that enables them to conceptualize and appraise all the complex, intertwined operations of the institution in one place and easily determine the performance of its individual elements. For faculty and staff, it enables comprehensive understanding of the institution, its resources and metrics, and thus empowers their active participation in decision-making processes.

Preface.

As an administrator moves up the ladder the complexity of the organization that must be managed increases and they become more distanced from a nuanced understanding of day-to-day operations. It becomes increasingly challenging to keep all the moving parts coordinated - the view from the balcony where the movements of the various units can be choreographed becomes more difficult to achieve. Integrative thinking is needed to knit all the functions supported by a wide variety of divisions, departments, and offices together into a coordinated purposeful approach. This ability is supported by holistic knowledge of the institution, ideally organized in a hierarchical manner that enables drill down from the complex to the simple, strategy to tasks, divisions to individuals, degrees to course sections, and so on. In addition, non-hierarchical interconnections add essential information such as cross organizational expectations of cooperation and support, and dotted line reports. Similarly, metrics, tactics, processes, services, etc. commonly span the borders between organizational units. To enable integrated thinking and management the navigation mechanism must therefore display not only how things are connected but why they are connected. Creating such a system that supports integrative thinking at all levels of leadership is a major goal of this book and the Sentient system on which the methodology is built.

Administrators are constantly asked to make decisions, and most would like to do so based on readily available data that is pertinent to the decision at hand. Unfortunately, it is common to find that helpful data does not exist or that it is overlooked because it is not easy to find or access. Consequentially, decisions are more likely to be based on intuition and political influence.

Data are most critical to what are the two most challenging processes that are commonly undertaken in higher education today - strategic planning and accreditation self-studies. For many people the most challenging aspect of these processes is the provision of metrics that are used to support claims that standards were met or to assess whether strategic initiatives are working and worthy of continuation. Critical decisions are made based on these metrics so choosing the right set is especially important. There are many factors which must be considered when choosing a metric. Does the metric truly reflect the status of the challenge being addressed? Is it the most directly affected measure that will respond quickly and accurately to the proposed intervention? Can it be measured reliably? Can it be normed against peer institutions? Who will be responsible for its collection, analysis, monitoring, and effecting change? Is the intelligence it provides worth the investment (cost to benefit ratio)? Each adopted metric costs money – someone must collect the data, analyze it, present it, and recipients must spend time digesting it. An institution must therefore be very strategic about the metric set that it chooses to invest in. A goal of the Sentient Initiative is to provide a library of metrics to help with the selection process. Having such a library also enables a backward approach to planning. It is considered backward because instead of first producing a strategy and then metrics to determine if it is successful, a backward approach starts by first selecting a metric of interest and then creating objectives around it. This complements the traditional forward design process used in planning by providing a different perspective on the institution.

There will always be a comprehension gap between leaders and those being led. One of the advantages of promotion is that one does gain a broader understanding of how various aspects of the institution function and are interdependent. This education changes an administrator’s perspective and how they think. However, more junior employees remain unchanged and may have a less sophisticated outlook. Similarly, as the administrator’s education transforms them it may be difficult for them to appreciate the perspectives of those who have not had the benefit of this education. (As an exaggerated example of this try to put yourself in the shoes of someone who cannot read. Their perspective on the World would be so radically different to yours that it would be hard to appreciate.) In addition, an administrator’s perspective may be altered by confidential information which cannot be shared with others. Therefore, many stakeholders may not be aware of all the factors that the administration must consider when making decisions and may not therefore understand the rationale behind them. In addition, even if an administrator has risen through the ranks, has been there and done that, the further they are away from managing daily operations the less people trust their understanding of and decisions about their needs. Further, one must deal with the tyranny of the anecdote (a small number of cases extrapolated as evidence of a trend), rumors, false information, and the unfortunate fact that people tend to believe in malicious intent before considering whether they have all the information and whether incompetence or errors by fallible people could be involved. To counter all of this and create a culture of trust therefore requires an active and deliberate strategy of information sharing and transparency which is embodied in Sentient.

Releasing control of information can be difficult as there is power in selective knowledge. However, power is like love, the more you are willing to give it away the more you get back. People tend to trust others who do not want power more than those who do. This is particularly true of servant leaders, and it is they who will reap the most benefit from this book and the Sentient approach.

Ideally, with ubiquitous access to information, stakeholders can become active participants in the decision-making process which leads to better decisions. Conversations between the administration and stakeholders that are based on facts are much more productive and less contentious than those based on feelings and assumptions. The more open the institution is with information the more trust it will engender and the less often people will feel the need to check the facts - just knowing that they can do so often suffices and of course keeps the administrators honest. Data may still be challenged based on its source, study design, or integrity. Hopefully, most of the time it will withstand these challenges. If not, a new mutually agreed upon study can always be implemented.

For data to be useful it must also be easy to find and to understand. It is also important to show all the relevant data to a user and not just those they were looking for. They may not know that other data exists or may not have thought it was relevant until presented with a connection. In higher education for example, end of course survey data is routinely collected by most institutions. It may sit in an obscure database and be accessed once a year for inclusion in annual evaluations of faculty. However, if one maps that data to the classroom where the instruction occurred, to the faculty member who delivered it, and to the course sections from which it was collected it becomes infinitely more useful and powerful. Trends can more easily be studied. Facilities management can see classroom issues reported by students from multiple courses simply by selecting the room within the model. Similarly, issues from multiple sections can indicate the need for a course redesign or ratings from multiple courses with the same instructor may indicate a personnel issue. The more ways the data is connected the more useful it becomes. In this way data can be transformed from information into knowledge that provides powerful assistance with decision making. When metrics from all operational areas are mapped in this synergistic way the map transforms into an operational model of the entire institution.

Providing intuitive access to as much data as possible within confidentiality constraints and making it a customary practice to share the information during conversations and meetings is a powerful way to create a culture of trust and transparency, and to move decisions forward in an effective and justifiable way. Creating an intuitive and powerful information sharing system that supports this approach and that is accessible to all stakeholders is another major goal of this book and the Sentient system.

Another challenge institutions face is that they do not know what they do not know. What should they be monitoring that they are not? What data are other institutions using to make similar decisions? What processes and services are they not providing? These challenges can be solved by improving transparency and sharing resources between institutions.

Higher education institutions are very complex organizations that fall within the upper tier of management difficulty. The approach, methodology, and tools provided by Sentient and this book can therefore be applied to and customized for any industry. The author’s area of expertise and experience is in higher education and that is therefore the focus of this book. However, one can look on this as a specific case study of principles that are much broader in application.