Enrolment Management Transformation Project

December 3rd 2008Presentation at Laval University

About Concordia

• 38,000 students• 4 faculties• Continuing Education• Graduate Studies• Urban Institute• Two campuses

Why Make Changes?Initially:

• Address concerns raised about internal process efficiency

• Insufficient meaningful enrolment data to support management of processes and informed decision making

Why Make Changes?Initially:

• Improve responsiveness of services to students

• Initially examined recruitment, admissions, communication awards and data

• Limited internally focused perspective of EM

Why Make Changes (Continued…)

• Mid-way to ongoing :

• Articulate and act upon desirable enrolment profile in terms of quantity, quality, graduation rates and funding

• Needed to broaden the focus on student success as a result of better and shared understanding of EM issues based on internal data. Also wanted to address issues of persistence/retention.

Four Orientations to EM(D.H. Kalsbeek – DePaul University 2003)

Administrative• Focus on process• Goal is efficiency• Looks internal

Student-Focused• Focus on person• Goal is engagement• Looks immediate

Academic• Focus on programs• Goals is enhancement• Looks long term

Market-Centered• Focus on position• Goal is elevation• Looks external

Student Enrolment CycleEnhance Image of the

University

CultivateApplicants

Develop/Sustain Potential

Student Markets

Qualify PotentialStudents

Qualify PotentialStudents

Admit Students

Admit Students

Enrol StudentsEnrol Students

Graduate Students

Graduate Students

Support Student

Success and Persistence

Support Student

Success and Persistence

StudentSuccess

The Geometric Model of Student Persistence and AchievementDr. Watson Scott Swail

Cognitive

Factors

Social

Factors

Institutional Factors

The Student Experienc

e

+ - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - +

+ - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - +

- + - + - + - + - + - +

+ - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + -

+ - + - + - + - + - + - +

Cognitive Factors

Social

Factors

Institutional Factors

The Student Experienc

e

Financial Issues

Educational

Legacy

Attitude Towards

Learning

Religious

Background

Maturity

Social Coping

Skills

Communication

Skills

Attitude Toward

Others

Cultural Values

Expectations

Goal Commitment

Family Influence

Peer Influence

Social Lifestyle

Academic Rigor

Quality of Learning

Aptitude

Content Knowledge

Critical Thinking Ability

Technology ability

Study skills

Learning skills

Time Mangement

Academic-related

extracurricular

activities

Financial Aid Student Recruitment & Services Admissions

Academic Curriculum & Services Instruction

The Geometric Model of Student Persistence and AchievementDr. Watson Scott Swail

Making the Case for the Institutional Commitment

• Because of the initial focus on “internal process efficiency” the Vice- President Services championed the need to address EM issues at the President’s Executive Group

• Conducted an enrolment management audit which identified strength-weaknesses and gaps with best practices. Audit conducted by Noel-Levitz.

• Needed to better manage significant enrolment growth (30%) realized from 1996 to 2002

Enrolment Management Transformation Project Charter and

ScopeProject Scope

1. To develop and implement a comprehensive, explicit and integrated institutional strategy to deal with enrolment management including detailed goals and objectives consistent with University wide and Faculty academic plans.

2. Proceed with SIS development such that appropriate and timely data and information can support enrolment planning and decision-making in a system driven by academic plans and priorities.

Enrolment Management Transformation Project

Project Scope (Continued…)

3. Reorient and train staff in relevant units to understand, execute enrolment management strategies and related processes with a view to meet goals.

4. On approval from the President’s Cabinet, effect changes necessary to support the implementation of an integrated institutional enrolment management framework.

Project Organizational Framework

President’s Cabinet

Project ChampionVice-President, Services

Project LeaderAssociate VP,

Instructional and Information Technology (IITS)

Project LeaderAssociate VP, Enrolmentand Student Services

Project TeamStakeholders Clients

Enrolment Management Transformation Team

• Chair: Associate Vice President, Enrolment and Student Services

• 4 Faculty Enrolment Managers

• 1 Registrar

• 1 Director, Communication and Services to Students

• 1 Manager, Administrative Systems, IITS

• HR Department

• Unions

• Financial Services

• Institutional Research

• Recruiters

• Feeder Schools

• Financial Aid & Awards

• Students

• Faculties

• Deans

• Provost

• Recruitment Office

Major Service Stakeholders in EM

Student &

Institutional Success

Enrolment Services

Student Services

FinancialAid & Awards

Counselling & Development

Health Services

SupportServices

Institutional Marketing

Academic Policies

Provost,Faculties and AcademicDepartments

IITS

StudentAccounts

Enrolment Analysis& Process Control

Admission Services & Recruitment

Registrar GovernmentReporting&Statistics

Communication and Services toStudents

Vice-President, Services

Vice-President, Services

Role of Noel-Levitz in the Enrolment Management Transformation Project

• Conducted EM audit and help the University acknowledged the gaps between current and best practices and de-personalized findings

• Helped introduce and promote EM conceptual framework. Yield rates and strategic interventions to improve institutional performance.

• Helped maintain pace of development • Acted as consultant/advisor to Project Steering Committee and facilitated process and information sessions

• Involvement spanned two years 2- 4 days per month

Key Challenges

• Transform processes while in production• Balance strategic and operational perspectives

• Change culture of “Control” to one of “Service”

• Pursue institutional effectiveness and depart from unit/silo perspective

• Embrace technology but use it with clear purpose

• Introduce changes within a very short window of opportunity

Carrying-out the project

• Sharing an understanding of the conceptual framework

• Information sessions and workshops on EM concepts

• Internal media coverage• Presentation President’s Executive Group by Noel-Levitz

• Assess stakeholder needs and conduct gap analysis

• Focus on present and future needs

Carrying-out the project continued

Audit existing policies and practices

• What and why?

• What is the value added of doing it this way?

• Business process analysis with input from stakeholders

• Develop capacity to generate and disseminate EM data

Carrying-out the project continued

• Data rich and information starved • Finding meaning, capacity to analyze data• Developing institutional capacity to link data sets

• Focused on Raw FTE and not Weighted FTEs (Clarder)

• Established an IT team for the EMTP• Developed and piloted process and systems. Roll-out when opportunity presented itself.

• Project Team met every two weeks for 24 months

Carrying-out the project continued

• Project leader gave regular updates to President’s Executive Group

• Project leader validated academic policy direction and changes with Provost and decanal team (Academic cabinet)

• Provost addressed divergent perspectives among decanal team

 

Results/outputs

• Academic plan (Moving Ahead), which was lead by the Provost, provided strategic direction ( Quantity, mix of cycle, international enrolment University wide and faculty basis)

• Establishment of functional University wide coordinating groups (Recruitment Planning, Admissions Coordination, Communications, Student Success). Linking other existing and emerging work groups.

Results/outputs continued

• Institutional Planning contributed significantly to planning process with EM data and information

• Web and Portal EM data reports on admissions yield rates through the funnel, FTEs, retention, graduation. Data available institutional wide to program level.

Recruitment

• Re-aligned Recruitment Function enrolment goals with greater integration with the admissions process.

• Introduced mechanism to capture pre-application enquiry information and follow-up communication and applicant cultivation using EZ-Recruit Software

• Centralized international student recruitment planning and coordination in matrix delivery environment

• Develop international recruitment partnerships with agencies in targeted markets

• Introduced Call Centre to cultivate and qualify applicant interest. Shifting to faculty/department based selected calling.

Admissions

• Developed communication plan throughout admission process (Segmented mass e-mails)

• Transformed the admissions process with improved cycle time efficiency as well as improved capacity to monitor production activity. Separated data capturing and adjudication of files.

• Automated processing of CEGEP admission applications. Non- Cegep applicants processed in holistic review. 

Admissions continued

• Created SIMS as distributed access to information system and operating platform with integrated data and image management.

• Developed communication plan directed at admitted students to increase awareness level of on campus services as a means of improving acceptance to registration yield rates.

• Offer of Entrance Scholarship integrated in admission process.

• Pilot use of peer led blogs for admitted international student .

Student Success• Introduced CSI test (pilot phase) to triage need and target deploy services to students. Testing student success/attrition predictive modeling tool with CRI-Facts.

• Developed New Student Orientation Program with early outreach to admitted students

• Use peer support intervention in new student mentor program

• Introduced Supplemental Instruction Program in selected academic departments as a result of engaging department chairs in dialogue on means of enhancing student

• Success. Student Orientation Program

Outcomes

• Focus of service sector expanded from mostly operational to strategic.

• Greater collaboration and integration of Enrolment Services and Student Services with the Faculties and their respective Student Affairs Offices.

• Improved performance of admissions process (Graduate and Undergraduate)

• Increased collaboration and integration of service planning and delivery within service sector

• Greater appreciation of the value of non-admission levers as a means of influencing enrolments. Student success leads to institutional enrolment goals

Lessons Learned• Need to be committed for the long term• Need conceptual framework to frame interventions

• Enact short term successes and build conditions favourable for changes in the organizational culture (2 to 4 years)

• The more you know about current enrolments the more compelled you are to effect changes to address issues

• Reporting of enrolment data has to be both strategic as well as local and actionable. How does it matter at the departmental level?

• Need to find ways to engage new academic department chairs in EM paradigm

Roger Côté Associate Vice-President, Enrolment & Student Services

E-mail: rcote@alcor.concordia.ca

Presenter

http://www.concordia.ca