1. Running Scalable Online Learning
Operations
Dr. Meg Benke, Vice-Provost, SUNY Empire State
Dr. Gloria Pickar, CEO & President, Compass Knowledge
Karen Vignare, MSU Global, Michigan State University

2. Agenda
• Business Models (Karen Vignare)
• Case Study from Empire State (Dr. Meg Benke)
• Case Study from Compass Knowledge (Dr.
Gloria Pickar)
• Q & A

3. Understanding the Landscape
• Models and compatibility with mission, vision,
values, strategy
• Rubrics for baselines
• Measures of success
• Managing change in dynamic environment

4. Business Models
• Incremental
• Alliance
• Cost or profit center
• Overhead or service center
• Independent, for-profit

6. Respondents
College Classification Sample Percentage
Doctoral 31
Master’s 24
Baccalaureate 22
Associates 17
Specialty 2

7. Goals of Online Learning
• Rank Order (Most Important)
– Extension, surplus, brand value, diversity, on-
campus retention & speed to graduation
• Rank Order (Not Important)
– Speed to graduation, retention, diversity, surplus,
brand value & extension
• Rank Order (Combined top two ranking)
– Brand, extension, surplus, retention, diversity &
speed to graduation

8. Online Course Development
• How is it done?
• Individual faculty develop and deliver
• Individual faculty develop but others deliver
• Faculty team develops and delivers
• Faculty team develops and others deliver

9. 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
BusinessPlanning Integrated Marketing
Functions
Price Setting Ability to enter
partnerships
Ability to remove
productsfrom the
market
Business Decision Making
Ind Self Funded College Unit Self Funded College overhead

10. Student Services
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Student services
Technical support
Quality control for the learning experience
Retention for non-credit students/customers/...
Retention for students enrolled in credit bea...
Ind Self Funded College Unit Self Funded College Overhead

11. Curriculum Issues
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Ability to hire
faculty instructors
Ability to create
new customized
curriculum
Ability to create
new non-credit
curriculum
Ability to create
new credit
curriculum
Ind Self funded College Unit Self Funded College Overhead

12. Starting points and goals
• Most institutions began online learning
programs with 1 of 2 goals (Miller, Schiffman
unpublished paper)
– To extend access to programs
– To improve quality of existing programs
» e.g., retention, throughput
– What was your starting point?
– What were (are) your initial goals?

13. Matching business models to strategy
• What business model was chosen to launch
your program?
– e.g. within continuing education, provost’s office,
academic department, etc.
• How well matched was (is) the model to
attaining your goals?
– A business model is a way of capturing value of a
product/service and turning it into a revenue
stream that can sustain/grow the business

14. Changing Business Models
• Constant change is a given
• Disagreement on whether response is for your
institution or to the opportunity
• Technology-driven
• Customer opportunity—driven
• Combination
• International models especially those
unfettered by global higher education leaders

15. Institutional “Fit”
• Why do some institutions succeed and others
fail?
• Using technology to develop new delivery
system is complex
• The link among mission, vision, values, and
strategy is critical

16. MSU Case Study
• Functions needed for Scaling
– MSU current methods
– Vendor approaches
– Costs/Recommendations
• Comparative Survey amongst Big Ten

17. Functions that Support Capacity and
Projected Integration Points (w/
outside vendor)
The tables in the following slides illustrate
•the key functions as identified by industry vendors
necessary to support scalable online learning
•the industry approach and key metrics
•MSU’s current approach based on the existing online
programs
•gaps or challenges as well as anticipated integration
points (with an outside vendor) at MSU.

18. Function Industry (Vendor) Approach
& Metrics
MSU Current Approach Gaps/Challenges/
Integrations
Market
Viability/
Research
Approach:
-Comprehensive market
analysis highlighting universal
market potential as well as
specific niche opportunities
-Often conducted in a “live”
pilot format so leads
generated can be immediately
connected to program
recruitment efforts (assuming
the program is launched)
-Cost = $20-40K per study
Key Metric:
-Comprehensive market
research study completed in
4-6 weeks with enrollment
targets
-Advice sought from
industry Advisory
Councils
-Faculty compile info
based on their
perspective of market
place
-MSUglobal Advisory
Services - budget
development, limited
market research
- Requires dedicated
expertise, or funds to
commission externally, to
produce research in a
timely and consistent
manner with accurate
enrollment forecasts.
Anticipated Integration
Points:
-Access to institutional
collected data

19. Function Industry (Vendor) Approach
& Metrics
MSU Current Approach Gaps/Challenges/
Integrations
Marketing Approach:
-Utilize Search Engine
Optimization & Marketing
(SEO/M) and pay-per click
approaches meticulously
-Comprehensive & Integrated
Customer Relationship
Management (CRM) Systems
which record all phone, e-mail,
web and service desk activities
-Dynamic web development to
support marketing & sales
-Email, print and phone campaigns
-Budgets $500K - $1M per
program annually
Key Metric:
-Spend 15-25% of program
revenue generated on marketing
and sales
-AP or CT staff positions that
generally focus on
maintaining program
websites and limited time on
Internet marketing.
-MSUglobal Advisory
Services - asset and audience
ID mapping
-MSUglobal Marketing
planning & implementation
for select programs
(primarily non-credit
currently, credit in the past)
-MSUglobal models to build
reputation and increase
research opportunities
-None or extremely
inefficient CRM and database
approaches
-Trade Show Exhibition
-Limited print advertising
-Unit budgets approx $10K
per year
-Requires significant funding
for initial and ongoing
marketing investment
-Requires professional
personnel to serve program
needs effectively
-Need web sites at central
and unit levels technically
and message aligned with
marketing campaigns
-Requires professional
sales/call-center and CRM to
respond to move from
prospect to registration and
admitted student
Anticipated Integration
Points:
-Access to institutional lists
and audiences

20. Function Industry (Vendor) Approach
& Metrics
MSU Current Approach Gaps/Challenges/
Integrations
Sales Approach:
-Business Development Teams
targeting key corporations,
military, government, global
markets and community
colleges
-Attendance @ International
& National Industry Specific
Trade Shows
Key Metric:
-Spend 25% of program
revenue generated on sales
and marketing
-None -Requires significant
funding for business
development
-Requires professional
personnel
-Requires systemic
approach with targets
and evaluation
-Opportunity to
coordinate with Business
Connect and
Development Office
Anticipated Integration
Points:
-Access to institutional
relationships/audiences

21. Function Industry (Vendor) Approach
& Metrics
MSU Current Approach Gaps/Challenges/
Integrations
Recruitment Approach:
-Program specific recruitment
teams
-State of the art call center
infrastructure integrated with
CRM
-Extensive and proactive prospect
follow up strategies
-Easy to use registration systems
and processes
Key Metrics:
-Respond to all leads regardless of
inquiry method within 15 minutes
(even on weekends)
-Generate 50 times the number of
prospects and 10 times the
number of qualified candidates
that a program is currently
generating
-AP or CT staff positions that
is almost exclusively reactive.
Answering phone and e-mail
inquiries and generally
functioning in a
“transactional” role.
-MSUglobal offers CRM
capability to non-credit
programs
-Requires call center
infrastructure
-Requires improved inquiry
and registration flow
-Requires CRM systems
-Requires comprehensive
systemic approach with
targets and evaluation
Anticipated Integration
Points:
-Undergrad & Grad
applications are adapted and
made available online
through Vendor
-UG & Grad app’s are
“returned” electronically and
interface with necessary
systems for automated
processing
-Financial aid application,
processing and award
notification
-Transcript collection and
processing

22. Function Industry (Vendor) Approach
& Metrics
MSU Current Approach Gaps/Challenges/
Integrations
Course
Development
Approach:
-Use rapid course development
practices and methodologies
-Use scalable instructional
development approaches to
enable consistent teaching of
multiple sections with different
instructors
-Use professional publishing
workflows and quality control
processes
Key Metric:
-Course development
completed within 3-4 weeks
-Courses quality-tested prior to
launch and kept on a continuous
update schedule
-Use scalable instructional
practices to allow for scale and
multiple start times (6-8 per
year)
-Generally faculty led with
assistance from TA’s or
other student support.
-Occasionally Academic
Specialist or AP positions
to develop courses.
-MSUglobal non-credit
course development
models
-vu.DAT (subsidized) offers:
Instructional design,
graphic design, course
support and development.
Video and lecture
production. Simulation
and animation production.
Technical support
-Opportunity to expand on
current MSUglobal and
vu.DAT design models
-Need a “boot-camp”
development model where
courses are developed in 3-
4 weeks (Rapid Course
Design Model) with a
professional publishing
team model
-Requires faculty
incentives and standard
outcome expectations
-Opportunity to leverage 9-
month faculty
appointments for course
development in summer
Anticipated Integration
Points:
-Access to existing course
content and artifacts

23. Function Industry (Vendor) Approach
& Metrics
MSU Current Approach Gaps/Challenges/
Integrations
Online
Classroom
Approach:
-Models utilizing vendor and
host institution platforms are
both successful
Key Metric:
-Instructional practices that
allow for 6-8 start times per
year
-Faculty-led
-Teaching Assistants
-MSU/ANGEL
-Distance Learning
Services (DLS) HelpDesk
- Requires reliable
platform
-MSU ANGEL Platform
can potentially support
the effort
-Need expanded help
desk service. DLS
HelpDesk could
potentially expand
Faculty Approach:
-Use master teacher model
-Use of adjunct faculty
-All instructors require
training prior to teaching
-Combo of MSU &
Adjunct
-Limited training for
online instructors
-Requires streamlined
process for hiring and
managing adjunct faculty
and online instructors
-Requires mechanisms
for monitoring and
ensuring quality teaching
and learning
-Need required training
for instructors & support

24. Function Industry (Vendor) Approach
& Metrics
MSU Current Approach Gaps/Challenges/
Integrations
Student
Retention
Approach:
-Use program specific teams and
program planning tools
Key Metric:
-90% retention rates
-Use Academic Specialists
or AP staff to provide
advising role in some
programs.
-Primary role of the faculty
teaching the courses
-Requires improved
information and
registration flow
-Need enhanced/modified
degree program planning
tools that keep students on
track to complete degree
-Need call center
infrastructure and
professionally-trained staff
-Need comprehensive
systemic approach with
targets and evaluation
Anticipated Integration
Points:
-Access to student records
related to academic
progress etc…
-Access to degree planning
materials

25. Function Industry (Vendor) Approach
& Metrics
MSU Current Approach Gaps/Challenges/
Integrations
Evaluation Many use a strategic planning
approach to process data
quickly and improve quality
-Normal University
Procedures
-Need evaluation and
quality assurance
“systems” and processes