THE ADEC IDEAL DISTANCE EDUCATION ADMINISTRATIVE LANGUAGE (IDEAL) COMMITTEE REPORT

ADEC IDEAL COMMITTEE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

SO WHAT IS IDEAL?

This preliminary report of the IDEAL committee is intended not as a set of prescriptions that must be immediately adopted by all. It is intended to stimulate the type of future oriented thinking and conversation that we must have to assure that we have a World Class higher education system ready to meet the 21st century. It is not the intent of this report to suggest "revolution" - our system can justifiably be proud of significant accomplishments. It does suggest that we cannot be content with the status quo, but must begin to test and experiment with different administrative arrangements for academic programs, professional development and non-formal education in our core mission areas. The following recommendations are offered in this spirit. We also believe that we should focus on "the most important" areas for change.

Management experts agree that it takes approximately 10 years for an industry to build competitive advantage and to do so requires 1) upgrading human skills; 2) investment in products and processes; 3) building clusters; and 4) penetrating markets with programs and products that cost less, improve quality and services and create demand for new products and services. Adequate flexibility to experiment is essential - inappropriate controls, outmoded structures and processes and poorly designed resource strategies must be addressed to achieve the goal.

RECOMMENDATIONS

GENERAL RECOMMENDATION:

We recommend that the Board endorse the IDEAL Committee philosophy: Our philosophy is based upon working toward 1) comparability, 2) flexibility, 3) creativity, 4) transparency, and 5) common agreements and understandings. We must formulate administrative and standard setting processes that encourage faculty to be creative and innovative while supporting high quality, relevant and rich learning experiences.

A. ACADEMIC CREDIT TRANSFER BETWEEN ADEC INSTITUTIONS

A.1 RECOMMENDATION: Ideally, the policy of land grant institutions accepting courses for general credit among our institutions should more clearly delineate standards for transfer of credit within major areas of study. We recommend that the following be used to determine COMPARABILITY: 1) course objectives - stated in knowledge, attitude and skills terms, 2) detailed curriculum - outline of course content; 3) written description of instructional process, including laboratory and field work; 4) textbook and reading list requirements. Instructor's credentials would also be considered. We recommend that courses meeting a standard of 80% comparability should count toward a comparable degree requirement and should be accepted for transfer among ADEC member institutions.

A.2 RECOMMENDATION: Ideally, we recommend that ADEC's on-line distributed database system be expanded in consultation with the ADEC Administrative Council and ACOP leadership. Faculty should be involved in the design of the database templates through face-to-face sessions and technology assisted collaboration. Faculty will then participate in completion of the distributed database. This database will be the essential foundation for common numbering systems, equal credit hours for equal work and an increased ability to share, compare, account and increase access over time to learning when and where it is needed.

B. ACADEMIC CREDIT TRANSFER BETWEEN ADEC INSTITUTIONS AND OTHERS

B.1 RECOMMENDATION: Ideally, we recommend that the database tools described in A be used to facilitate appropriate academic credit transfer to insure fair and equitable evaluation of existing courses taught at junior and community colleges. We recommend a consortium wide endorsement of the October 28, 1970 policy of the directors of Resident Instruction, North Central Region, provided to the IDEAL Committee by member Dave Mugler (See Appendix 2). We recommend continued linkage and partnership arrangements with these institutions, cooperation on curriculum design and use of specialized Advanced Placement Courses.

C. INSTATE/OUT-OF-STATE TUITION AND CHARGING PER CREDIT HOUR

C.1 RECOMMENDATION: Ideally, we recommend that ADEC have a commonly agreed upon basis for charging students enrolling for courses by distance. We recommend a modification of the system used by the National Technological University (NTU). All ADEC member institutions should be surveyed annually for their per credit hour distance tuition rate - as well as for a per credit hour audit rate.

C.2 RECOMMENDATION: Ideally, ADEC should establish a per credit hour fee in addition to the tuition charged by the originating institution that can be shared with the institution enrolling the student in the distance course. This should be established at a level that will encourage institutions to take courses from each other.

C.3 RECOMMENDATION: Ideally, "special" distance education fees should be eliminated. ADEC needs a rationalized, simplified pricing system that creates incentives for originating and home institutions, including return of tuition funding in part to departments doing the work, and that can easily be supported by "smart" software.

D. DEVELOPMENT OF "SMART" SOFTWARE

D.1 RECOMMENDATION: Ideally, the ADEC Consortium should work with its partner, the National Center for supercomputing Applications (NCSA), and other public, non-profit and private sector partners to develop the "smart software" to be used for interconnection/interoperability among ADEC member institutions, associates and affiliates.

E. ELIMINATING TURF BARRIERS - INCLUDING OUTREACH STRUCTURES, CONTINUING EDUCATION AND PUBLIC/EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION OPERATIONS ON CAMPUS

E.1 RECOMMENDATION: Ideally, ADEC should be a major force across the country for "turf" elimination. Turf problems should be mapped and specific remedies agreed upon in the consortium.

E.2 RECOMMENDATION: Ideally, ADEC should build a collaborative infrastructure to achieve competitive advantage in the international education market.

E.3 RECOMMENDATION: Ideally, ADEC should create access to educational opportunities - programs, products and services as a one-stop shop. Ideally, a large number of ADEC institutions will need to make known through multi-institutional collaboration and statements that past approaches to administration and standard operating procedures and management controls may not be cost-efficient or satisfactory for program development and customer satisfaction. Ideally, ADEC should be a catalyst for process changes that will be more to the benefit of the institution and its publics into the future.

F. DEVELOP MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL CURRICULUM

F.1 RECOMMENDATION: Ideally, ADEC should collaborate with ACOP and the Council on Human Sciences to design and test a faculty based, market driven, collaborative process.

F.2 RECOMMENDATION: Ideally, curriculum and courses should be developed with teams of the high quality faculty chosen to work together across institutions. A system for assuring instructional design and technology resources should be assured. It should be anticipated that the core design can be flexed and modified, shifting the lead institution as appropriate over time and in matching to the market. The International demand for these programs should also be considered, particularly in the Asian countries and Africa.

G. DEFINE ACADEMIC/ADMINISTRATIVE BARRIERS TO DESIGN AND DELIVERY OF DISTANCE EDUCATION

G.1 RECOMMENDATION: Ideally, ADEC should now take a positive, entrepreneurial approach to this issue, rather than analyzing every barrier.

G.2 RECOMMENDATION: Ideally, the ADEC vision and the work of the IDEAL Committee should be made highly visible - the program should be promoted - administrators, boards of governors, professional societies and important others should be fully briefed. The effort should be designed to tell the ADEC story - becoming a World Class Distance Education Consortium - with high quality programs and products, accessible locally and globally at a price people can afford. Relationships building including major national and international leaders should be an explicit part of this recommendation, including building relationships with new partners in the private sector and with international institutions, organizations and agencies.

H. REVIEW QUALITY DISTANCE EDUCATION CRITERIA AND ASSESSMENT TOOLS

H.1 RECOMMENDATION: Ideally, ADEC should take the responsibility to do the staff work required to build upon, improve and make more specific for land grant institutions the Quality Principles in Appendices 5 and 6.

"There is nothing so perilous as bringing about a new order of things." Niccolo Machiavelli

"Yesterday's recipe for success clearly will not be tomorrow's recipe for success." Lew Platt, CEO Hewlitt-Packard

"Turning a corporate culture around is no easy task." Dick Notebaert, CEO Ameritech

CHAIR: Dr. Rosemary Haggett, ADEC Vice-Chair, WVU

COMMITTEE:

Representing Board and Administrative Council			Representing ACOP
Dr. Rodney Foil, MSU			Dr. David Mugler, Kansas State
Dr. Daniel Godfrey, NC A&T			Dr. Lowell Satterlee, NDSU
Dr. Kirvin Knox, CSU			Dr. Dean Sutphin, Cornell
Dr. Victor Lechtenberg, Purdue
Dr. David Lineback, U. of Idaho

Representing Program Panel and PCOs Council			Representing Staff
Dr. Terry Gibson, U. of WI			Janet Poley, ADEC
Dr. Weldon Sleight, USU
Dr. Carla Craycraft, U. of Kentucky
Dr. Craig Wood, U. of Kentucky

I. INTRODUCTION

On June 13, 1996 the ADEC Board of Directors passed the following resolution:

"Be it resolved that ADEC leadership will promote multi-institutional collaboration and develop a climate to better define interconnected educational and business practices and procedures. The Board of Directors challenges ourselves and our colleagues within the consortium to draw upon our collective resources more efficiently through inter-institutional, multi-institutional initiatives and other collaborative efforts. We resolve to better respond to the needs and priorities of our clientele as we use advanced communication technologies together. We further resolve to use ADEC financial resources to support programs consistent with interconnection, interoperability and collaboration".

ADEC Board Chair, Dr. E.G. Sander, then appointed the IDEAL Committee. He charged the committee with examining issues and barriers to collaborative program and business development. He asked for recommendations in the following 8 areas:

1. Academic credit transfer between ADEC institutions
2. Academic credit transfer between ADEC institutions and others
3. Instate and out-of-state tuition/credit hour cost policies
4. Development of "smart" software
5. Elimination of turf barriers
6. Development of multi-institutional degrees, courses, certificate programs in high priority need/demand areas
7. Academic/administrative barriers impeding the design and delivery of distance education programs - identify who must be involved in change/i.e. Governing Boards, University Presidents, Chancellors, Provosts, Deans
8. Quality Distance Education Criteria and assessment measures

II. IDEAL COMMITTEE APPROACH TO CHARGE

The IDEAL Committee held five audio conferences, gathered information pertinent to the task from committee members and Principal Contact Officers (PCOs). Janet Poley participated in the inaugural meeting of the Global Alliance for Transnational Education (GATE) in London. We now submit the following set of recommendations to the Board for consideration. The committee expects the Board to add, change and require additional work. The charge to the IDEAL Committee is complex. We believe that solutions must involve faculty and staff. IDEAL administrative procedures will evolve as creative new possibilities are tested. In addition to the recommendations, pertinent documents gathered by the committee are attached.

Two notes of significance:

The IDEAL Committee considers land grant institution based higher education in the food, agriculture and natural resources as a major success story. Having trained many national and international leaders, scientists, teachers and developers in our institutions and programs, it may be time to solidify our international networks and demonstrate that we can bring the power of our people, programs and technology resources through ADEC to bear on improving our already World Class position in this arena.

ADEC will need to approach education from an inclusive base, building international linkages. Universities, funding agencies and organizations from around the world are potential partners for creating educational programming, and in addition, these entities are potential donors to assist in creating instructional systems as well as sponsors for individual courses. ADEC should take a proactive stance to seek and develop global partnerships for educational programming in agriculture, food and the environment.

International Education is currently within the top ten export categories from the U.S. (GATE). There is growing concern that higher education does not have the will nor capacity to collaborate, reorganize and restructure its considerable resources so as to stay competitive in quality international education. Our Institutes, Schools and Colleges of Agriculture and Natural Resources may have the greatest potential of any segment within the land grant institutions to assure that we are major players in what some say will be "international trade wars" in education. Working together, the ADEC institutions are in an IDEAL position to leverage our history of collaboration in teaching, research, extension and international development. ADEC has the high quality programs, the knowledge and ability to apply technology, the capacity to be productive and cost-effective and the will to work in the best interest of people and communities.

ADEC should be at the table to contribute to the definition of "Universities in a Digital Age" (Change, July/August 1996):

".....the general point that the radical changes occurring in a university's environment - from the reconstitution of its student body to the reengineering of its technological infrastructure - will require QUITE DIFFERENT INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS from those found today. Distance learning, where much of the current interest lies, is, we believe, too deeply enmeshed within current arrangements to produce sufficiently radical change. Open learning, on the other hand, tends to ignore the strengths worth preserving in current arrangements. Without more thought to students and their practical needs, we fear that not only will these technologies be under exploited, but they may well reinforce the current limitations of our higher educational system."

"Any rethinking of resources for distance learning...needs to steer a path between the academy's centralizing tendencies and the optimistic faith that technologically mediated open learning offers a viable alternative......To meet learners' needs for access to communities and credentials, institutions of higher education are more likely to be RECONFIGURED than bypassed or abandoned......Learners need three things from an institution of higher education:

• access to authentic communities of learning, exploration, and knowledge creation;

• resources to help them work in both distal and local communities; and

• widely accepted representations for work done."

The article goes on to reaffirm the crucial components of a college/university: 1) faculty, 2) facilities and 3) an institution able to provide formal, accepted representation of work done. The author suggests that tomorrow these three elements may be physically separated. In the future, Degree Granting Bodies (DGBs) may take on an independent status - enrolling as many students and faculty as they think practical, becoming smaller than a liberal arts college or larger than an entire state system. DGBs could set degree requirements and core courses, but a DGB would be essentially administrative. Focus might be local, regional, national or international - DGBs might be discipline and profession specific. DGBs might teach students from several DGBs on-line, or in person, through tutorials, lectures, or seminars or any combination. Fees would vary depending on type of teaching offered and faculty might be awarded on the basis of their ability to attract high quality students to the DGB. This type of distributed system would offer students more choice, be more complex, more flexible, offer greater potential for linking with sites of workplace professional excellence and offer mentoring programs that give students practical experience and course credit simultaneously.

Will something like DGBs evolve? Probably. Will it be more cost-effective? It is very unclear at this point. Could it create greater access and richer learning? Possibly. Programs to test these ideas are currently being conceived and funded.

III. SO WHAT IS IDEAL?

This preliminary report of the IDEAL committee is intended not as a set of prescriptions that must be immediately adopted by all. It is intended to stimulate the type of future oriented thinking and conversation that we must have to assure that we have a World Class higher education system ready to meet the 21st century. It is not the intent of this report to suggest "revolution" - our system can justifiably be proud of significant accomplishments. It does suggest that we cannot be content with the status quo, but must begin to test and experiment with different administrative arrangements for academic programs, professional development and non-formal education in our core mission areas. The following recommendations are offered in this spirit. We also believe that we should focus on "the most important" areas for change.

Management experts agree that it takes approximately 10 years for an industry to build competitive advantage and to do so requires 1) upgrading human skills; 2) investment in products and processes; 3) building clusters; and 4) penetrating markets with programs and products that cost less, improve quality and services and create demand for new products and services. Adequate flexibility to experiment is essential - inappropriate controls, outmoded structures and processes and poorly designed resource strategies must be addressed to achieve the goal.

IV. RECOMMENDATIONS

GENERAL RECOMMENDATION:

We recommend that the Board endorse the IDEAL Committee philosophy: Our philosophy is based upon working toward 1) comparability, 2) flexibility, 3) creativity, 4) transparency, and 5) common agreements and understandings. We must formulate administrative and standard setting processes that encourage faculty to be creative and innovative while supporting high quality, relevant and rich learning experiences.

A. ACADEMIC CREDIT TRANSFER BETWEEN ADEC INSTITUTIONS

ASSUMPTIONS: For purposes of the IDEAL, we consider "ADEC Institution" to mean the state universities and land grant institutions eligible to be ADEC members. We also assume a focus on ADEC's core mission areas: 1) food and agriculture; 2) natural resources and environment; 3) community and economic development; 4) nutrition and health; and 5) children, youth and families. We would be looking at questions of credit transfer as related to the food, agriculture and natural resource programs and the human ecology/human environmental sciences programs as a priority focus. While other professions might eventually use the same system, this keeps the focus manageable for purposes of current exploration.

A.1 RECOMMENDATION: Ideally, the policy of land grant institutions accepting courses for general credit among our institutions should evolve toward more clearly delineated standards for transfer of credit within major areas of study. This is essential if more than one institution is to be involved in providing courses toward a specific degree. We recommend that the following be used to determine COMPARABILITY: 1) course objectives - stated in knowledge, attitude and skills terms, 2) detailed curriculum - outline of course content; 3) written description of instructional process, including laboratory and field work; 4) textbook and reading list requirements. Instructor's credentials would also be considered. We recommend that courses meeting a standard of 80% comparability should count toward a comparable degree requirement and should be accepted for transfer among ADEC member institutions.

A.2 RECOMMENDATION: Ideally, we recommend that ADEC's on-line distributed database system should be expanded in consultation with the ADEC Administrative Council and ACOP leadership. Faculty should be involved in the design of the database templates through face-to-face sessions and technology assisted collaboration. Faculty will then participate in completion of the distributed database. This database will be the essential foundation for common numbering systems, equal credit hours for equal work and an increased ability to share, compare, account and increase access over time to learning when and where it is needed.

(NOTE: The committee recognizes that this does not yet bring us to Outcome Based Assessment. We believe that the approach recommended is a required base from which we can eventually move to greater outcome measurements. Outcome assessment is in its infancy - the tools are improving, but are not yet adequately developed. We know how to measure some things and not others, particularly in the affective domain including ethics, values, leadership, citizenship. We recommend continued experimentation using existing tools and improving on them, but taking care not to design in a certain way, simply because we know how to measure a particular outcome.)

RATIONALE: We also think that taking the recommended actions now will provide the necessary foundation for the organization to decide how it wants to handle the issue of "Degree Granting Body", "Virtual University" - such as National Technological University (NTU), interconnected, interoperable "Virtual Organization" - ADEC's current policy; and other rapidly evolving possibilities in Credit Banking.

IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS A.1 AND A.2: We recommend that the ADEC IDEAL Committee, particularly its ACOP members, be asked to work with designated Program Panel members to design an approach to accomplishing these recommendations. Work should begin on a comprehensive listing of course titles to provide the foundation for the database work.

We recommend that discipline based Peer Review Panels should be involved in this implementation to assure a level of quality and completeness that allows courses to be used confidently as building blocks in a whole curriculum regardless of which institution originated it. The strategy/approach and timetable should be presented to the ADEC Board in January 1997.

B. ACADEMIC CREDIT TRANSFER BETWEEN ADEC INSTITUTIONS AND OTHERS

B.1 RECOMMENDATION: Ideally, we recommend that the database tools described in A above be used to facilitate appropriate academic credit transfer to insure fair and equitable evaluation of existing courses taught at junior and community colleges. We recommend a consortium wide endorsement of the October 28, 1970 policy of the directors of Resident Instruction, North Central Region, provided to the IDEAL Committee by member Dave Mugler (See Appendix 2). We recommend continued linkage and partnership arrangements with these institutions, cooperation on curriculum design and use of specialized Advanced Placement Courses.

FURTHER RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATIONS A.1, A.2, B.1: The IDEAL committee believes that many citizens do not understand why similar courses cannot be transferred easily from one state-supported institution to another. We believe that we can establish a much better relationship with governors, state legislatures, potential partners and our publics if we can develop a significant number of courses for which credit can easily be transferred counting toward a major and we make this information known to the general public.

IMPLEMENTATION: The Indiana Partnership for Statewide Education (IPSE) is using an approach similar to our recommendation. They are working toward development of a master matrix of transferable credit. Institutions ideally would be asked to approve the matrix. Our research indicates that even with gaps, such a matrix would make a great difference in working with our publics. The Implementation Committee suggested in A should also be tasked with B and development of the matrix.

C. INSTATE/OUT-OF-STATE TUITION AND CHARGING PER CREDIT HOUR

C.1 RECOMMENDATION: Ideally, we recommend that ADEC have a commonly agreed upon basis for charging students enrolling for courses by distance. We recommend a modification of the system used by the National Technological University (NTU). All ADEC member institutions should be surveyed annually for their per credit hour distance tuition rate - as well as for a per credit hour audit rate.

RATIONALE: By using the survey as the basis for establishing the fee, it allows maximum flexibility to the institution - the institution decides what they use as the base - instate or out-of-state. By asking institutions to not go below the midpoint, it may eliminate some "shopping" for the lowest rate and yet incorporate enough "competition" to keep prices reasonable for customers. NTU takes the same amount as the originating institution per credit hour (See Appendix 3).

C.2 RECOMMENDATION: Ideally, ADEC should establish a per credit hour fee in addition to the tuition charged by the originating institution that can be shared with the institution enrolling the student in the distance course. This should be established at a level that will encourage institutions to take courses from each other.

RATIONALE: If ADEC is able to develop the interconnected "smart" software discussed in item D, transaction costs remain low for ADEC staff allowing all of the resources coming in to be used for appropriate quality of service by both originating and home institutions.

Originating institutions must have the resources to develop the programs and home institutions must be able to provide quality support services including enrollment, counseling, library resources, and learning center access for some types of distance delivery.

C.3 RECOMMENDATION: Ideally, "special" distance education fees should be eliminated. ADEC needs a rationalized, simplified pricing system that creates incentives for originating and home institutions, including return of at least a portion of tuition dollars to entities doing the work, and that can easily be supported by "smart" software.

IMPLEMENTATION: The ADEC President, Treasurer and Assistant Treasurer be tasked with having a detailed plan approved by the IDEAL Committee ready for the January Board meeting.

D. DEVELOPMENT OF "SMART" SOFTWARE

D.1 RECOMMENDATION: The ADEC Consortium work with its partner, the National Center for supercomputing Applications (NCSA), and other public, non-profit and private sector partners who depend upon appropriations and funding to develop the "smart software" to be used for interconnection/interoperability among ADEC member institutions, associates and affiliates. The IDEAL Committee should be tasked with seeing this through.

RATIONALE: There are three essential points supporting this recommendation:

1. "Smart" software for administration, credit transfer, scheduling and financial arrangements will be cost-effective in creating interconnection and interoperability among ADEC members and partners.

2. "Smart" software should be consistent with the approaches suggested by ADEC and users of ADEC programs.

3. ADEC's IDEAL committee should be involved in defining the requirements for this smart software. This task requires focused attention this year and will become an ongoing task.

IMPLEMENTATION: The ADEC President, with approval from the IDEAL Committee, select a small task force to develop a detailed strategy in cooperation with NCSA and/or other partners for the software. Administrative procedures for international participants (Appendix 4) provide tested non-automated strategies for collaborating in a complex environment. That the Assistant Treasurer and two members of the IDEAL Committee lead an initiative to meet with registration and business officers.

E. ELIMINATING TURF BARRIERS - INCLUDING OUTREACH STRUCTURES, CONTINUING EDUCATION AND PUBLIC/EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION OPERATIONS ON CAMPUS

E.1 RECOMMENDATION: Ideally, ADEC should be a major force across the country for "turf" elimination. Turf problems should be mapped and specific remedies agreed upon in the consortium.

RATIONALE: The administrative structures and the cost arrangements created in the 1950s and 1960s are no longer appropriate. There are too many duplicative small units competing with each other at the same institution and in many cases adding cost, not value. Continuing Education, Extension, Outreach, Distance Education, Educational Television are just some of the designations used for competing administrative entities. There are excellent people within these units constrained by new customer/market demands, increased costs, border and boundary spanning technologies, need to survive on grants and soft money, outdated technologies and little hope of necessary investment capital to make change.

As Don Tapscott, The Digital Economy, says, "customers recognize the value of freedom of choice, but they do not want to exercise this freedom unnecessarily." Changing suppliers adds to costs and adds to anxiety. People are looking for one-stop, convenient shopping and stable relationships that deliver value. They don't care about the internal plumbing of universities and they care less about which university or unit and more about quality, timeliness and cost.

Michael Porter, "The Competitive Advantage of Nations" Harvard Business Review, explains that companies achieve competitive advantage through acts of innovation, including new technologies and new ways of doing things. They perceive a new basis for competing or finding better means for competing in old ways. Innovation can be manifested in a new product design, a new production process, a new marketing approach, or a new way of building human capacity. It always involves investments in skill and knowledge, as well as in physical assets and brand reputations. Moving rapidly to serve a market segment ignored by others helps competitive advantage. Information plays a large role in the process of innovation and improvement. It often comes from effort, openness and looking in the right place unencumbered by blinding assumptions or conventional wisdom.

E.2 RECOMMENDATION: Ideally, ADEC should build a collaborative infrastructure to achieve competitive advantage in the international education market.

RATIONALE: Ideally, ADEC members must be able to shake free from outmoded mid-level administrative structures and processes that impede the ability of faculty and staff in our core mission areas to create high quality programs, products and services at a reasonable cost. ADEC members must also gain access to a rich array of resources - people and technology - currently unavailable, hoarded or sold at a very high price at their home institution - or be allowed to seek these types of resources beyond their institution.

E.3 RECOMMENDATION: Ideally, ADEC should create access to educational opportunities - programs, products and services as a one-stop shop. Ideally, a large number of ADEC institutions will need to make known through multi-institutional collaboration and statements that past approaches to administration and standard operating procedures and management controls may not be cost-efficient or satisfactory for program development and customer satisfaction. Ideally, ADEC should be a catalyst for process changes that will be more to the benefit of the institution and its publics into the future.

RATIONALE: Porter cautions that organizations have a bias for predictability and the organization at all levels filters out information that would suggest new approaches, modifications, or departures from the norm. The internal environment operates like an immune system to isolate or expel "hostile" individuals who challenge current directions or established thinking. Innovation ceases; the company becomes stagnant and it is only a matter of time before aggressive competitors overtake it.

ADEC is in an IDEAL (more external) position to push for internal changes that are in counterproduction or costly to administer on some member campuses.

IMPLEMENTATION: The ADEC President and Program Panel be asked to establish a process to map the most critical barriers - lay out the patterns and work jointly to create the changes necessary to become more productive, cost-effective and efficient. This should include input from and interaction with national leaders in outreach.

F. DEVELOP MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL CURRICULUM

F.1 RECOMMENDATION: Ideally, ADEC should collaborate with ACOP and the Council on Human Sciences to design and test a faculty based, market driven, collaborative process.

RATIONALE: The recommendations in A and B create the foundation for this effort. Identification of at least three degree programs, including identification and design of the curriculum and courses - potentially using a modular approach to encourage efficiency as well as use in certificate and non-formal educational programs should be a high priority.

IMPLEMENTATION: The ADEC Board, through its IDEAL Committee, should continue collaboration with ACOP, the Council on Human Sciences and other entities core to the ADEC program offerings. Major funding for investing in these efforts should be sought from foundations, government and/or the private sector. This should be done with the 10 year/long term competitive advantage in mind.

F.2 RECOMMENDATION: Ideally, curriculum and courses should be developed with teams of the high quality faculty chosen to work together across institutions. A system for assuring instructional design and technology resources should be assured. It should be anticipated that the core design can be flexed and modified, shifting the lead institution as appropriate over time and in matching to the market. The International demand for these programs should also be considered, particularly in the Asian countries and Africa.

IMPLEMENTATION: A task force should be convened chaired by an ADEC Board member and including the ACOP members of the IDEAL Committee, three members of the Program Panel, three representatives from the Council on Human Sciences and three PCOs with appropriate background. ADEC staff will provide support.

G. DEFINE ACADEMIC/ADMINISTRATIVE BARRIERS TO DESIGN AND DELIVERY OF DISTANCE EDUCATION

G.1 RECOMMENDATION: Ideally, ADEC should now take a positive, entrepreneurial approach to this issue, rather than analyzing every barrier.

RATIONALE: Not all faculty should or could become involved in these efforts. ADEC's experience shows that can-do people, with an interest in outreach and working with new technology and good teamwork skills, have a high probability of succeeding in this area.

IMPLEMENTATION: As a starting point, assure that the areas selected for development in item F above are staffed with these types of people and the support and reward systems established for them to succeed.

G.2 RECOMMENDATION: Ideally, the ADEC vision and the work of the IDEAL Committee should be made highly visible - the program should be promoted - administrators, boards of governors, professional societies and important others should be fully briefed. The effort should be designed to tell the ADEC story - becoming a World Class Distance Education Consortium - with high quality programs and products, accessible locally and globally at a price people can afford. Relationships building including major national and international leaders should be an explicit part of this recommendation, including building relationships with new partners in the private sector and with international institutions, organizations and agencies.

IMPLEMENTATION: Two members of the Program Panel and two members of the IDEAL Committee should be tasked with preparing a plan to be discussed with the IDEAL Committee and Program Panel and presented for Board action no later than June 1997.

H. REVIEW QUALITY DISTANCE EDUCATION CRITERIA AND ASSESSMENT TOOLS

H.1 RECOMMENDATION: Ideally, ADEC will take the responsibility to do the staff work required to build upon, improve and make more specific for land grant institutions the Quality Principles in Appendices 5 and 6.

IMPLEMENTATION: Ideally, each ADEC Board member will appoint an appropriate staff person to work with Janet Poley and Terry Gibson to review the current documents and suggest a quality assurance and improvement process related to the ADEC Mission and Program areas. ADEC ideally would expect to share this widely with institutional academic officers, presidents and chancellors, governing boards, accrediting agencies, and a series of regional, national and international organizations ie. - 1) EDUCOM/National Learning Infrastructure Initiative; 2) U.S.D.A.; 3) National Science Foundation; 4) Western Governors - and other similar efforts that might emerge with governors regionally and/or nationally; 5) NASULGC - Kellogg Commission; 6) Global Alliance for Transnational Education; 7) World Bank and appropriate others.