Using research to manage change at Arizona State University

1
Using research to manage change at Arizona State
University - A case study Wilma Mathews, ABC,
IABC Fellow Wednesday, 29 June 2005 Washington, DC
2
Quick Facts Fall 2004 ASU unduplicated total
enrollment 58,156 Undergraduates 46,670 Graduate
Students 11,486 New Undergraduates First-time
freshmen 7,719 New transfers 5,374
3
Employees - total 7,910 Full-time
staff 5,642 Full-time faculty 2,268 Degrees
awarded (AY 2003-2004) Baccalaureate 9,116 Maste
rs 2,886 Doctoral 355 Law 169
4
Perspective

• ASU is one of three public universities in
  Arizona
• Phoenix metro area (16 cities) only one in
  country served by one research institution
• ASU awards more bachelors degrees annually than
  the other two public universities
• ASU is a Research I university
• ASU not ranked highly in U.S. News World Report
  rankings
• New president in July 2002 - new directions - new
  speed
• Uneven reputation across the country

5
Key audiences
Prospective students Prospective/current
faculty/staff Donors Alumni State
legislators Funding organizations Opinion leaders
6
Five types of research

• Opinion Leaders longitudinal survey
• National image/perception survey among
  prospective students (2 parts)
• Internal perceptions of Presidents vision for
  ASU
• Peer University rankings (reputation)
• Focus groups

7
Opinion Leaders/Community Perception Survey

• Conducted in 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2004
• Purpose To determine opinion leaders
  satisfaction with ASU, its direction, leadership
  and operations.
• Opinion leaders People in leadership positions
  in government, commerce, education, community,
  non-profit, etc. Maintain internal data base
• Number polled 300-550

8
Key questions

• Are you satisfied with the direction in which ASU
  is headed?
• Words that describe ASU
• ASUs greatest strengths
• How could ASU strengthen the university
• Quality of education at ASU definition
  of quality

9
Key questions (contd)

• ASUs most valuable contribution to the Valley
  economy, quality of life
• Importance of ASU several factors
• Faculty evaluations and performances emphasis
  should be... vs. emphasis actually placed
  on...
• Demographics

10
Key driving force
1992 48 ranked education at ASU as high/very
high 52 low/very low. Change it! 1996 74
ranked education at ASU as high/very high 15
ranked low/very low. 2000 81 ranked education
at ASU as good/excellent 23 ranked
average/poor/very poor
11
Significant resulting action
News You Need to Know monthly one-page (8 ½ x
11), one-sided. Original distribution 300
opinion leaders Todays distribution 9,000
opinion leaders
12

• Sneaker Tours
• Invitation-only tours for VIPs, potential donors,
  opinion leaders, educators, executives,
  legislators
• Small groups of 10-12
• 1/2-day immersion into the university
• Powerful micro-marketing programs

13
Key findings 2004 study

• 69 very/generally satisfied with direction of
  ASU no change since 2000
• 98 rate importance of ASU to the future of
  Arizona as very high/high
• 96 rate importance of ASU to Arizonas economy
  as very high/high
• 92 rate their pride in ASU as very high/high

14
Key findings 2004 study (contd)

• Main strengths of ASU

Leadership Quality of research being
conducted Quality and affordability of the
educational product being offered Size and
diversity of student body Quality of faculty and
teaching Relationship between ASU and the
private/public sectors
15
ASU National Image and Perception Study Conducted
by Stamats Communications, Inc. 2000 and 2003
16
Objectives
2000 Develop benchmark image positioning of
ASU Explore factors that are influencing
college-choice decisions Identify ASUs
perceived position within a national
model Contrast perceptions of ASU with a
national competitive group
17
Method
Telephone survey of 1,200 prospective ASU
students Seattle, California, Philadelphia,
Chicago Four (4) focus groups one in each
geographical area
18
Findings
Many pre-conceived notions were blown
away Previously considered competitors were
not! Students could differentiate between ASU and
University of Arizona Students liked web-based
searching for information hated CDs
19
Findings (contd)
Students not as familiar with on-line
registration/financial info sites Students
focused on academic strength/availability Juniors
have no concept of distance, size or value
20
Objectives
2003 Detect trends from 2000 survey Check
progress from 2000 survey
21
Findings
9/11 skewed everything! Students less likely to
go to school more than a 3-hour drive
away Students wanted more holistic approach to
education - academics, volunteer time,
etc. Parents more involved in selection Web sites
need to be extremely interactive/informative
(less travel to visit campuses)
22
Faculty and Staff Perceptions of President
Crows Vision for ASU
Research to answer 8 questions Instrument to
be completely unaided, un-prompted
Heard about vision? Familiar with it? What is
recalled? Agree/Disagree with Vision? Embrace
vision? Probability of success for
implementation. Suggestions to President? Where
do you get info?
23
Astonishing results
92 faculty/staff had heard of Vision 84
very/somewhat familiar with Vision 58 had
attended at least one presentation by President
Crow
On unaided recall
Six (of 8) main messages could be recalled
24
83 very/generally favorable toward Vision 89
very high/high priority on expanding research
capacity 88 very high/high priority on becoming
more embedded in community 70 very high/high
priority on growing/expanding 86 felt Pres. Crow
has high/very high probability of achieving
Vision
25
Good news - Faculty/staff received most info
about ASU from ASU Insight, weekly newspaper
26
Peer University Rankings Study
U. S. News World Report Rankings Percentages
vs. Numbers Peer institutions are
voters Reputation - 25 of total score
27
Issue How do people make decisions about
Reputation?
28
Academic excellence determined by

• Strength of academic programs
• Distinctiveness of faculty
• Facilities (libraries, research facilities, lab
  space)

29
Quality faculty determined by

• Research they are involved with
• What they publish
• Professional recognition/awards
• Unique ways of engaging students in learning
• Whether or not they have a Ph.D.

30
Quality programs determined by

• Faculty/student interaction
• Focus on teaching/learning
• Whether or not they have a professional
  accreditation

31
One thing only to determine peer institution in
these areas?
Faculty productivity/quality
32
Resulting actions
Influence peer votes using their identified
preferences for receiving information

• Personal contacts at peer institutions
• More media placements in national and
  professional publications
• Provide research information, annual reports

33
Keep timely information short, to the
point Informational postcards For in-depth
information Strategic planning
information Annual reports Research information
34
DONT
Send marketing materials, glossy publications,
promotional items, alumni news, magazines,
newspapers
35
Focus groups

• Easy to do
• Credibility factor
• Surprising
• Validation

36
Summary
Research easier/cheaper to use than ever so...
USE IT!
37
Thank you!