In January, we shared the news that Dr. Ken Brown, chief academic strategy officer, had taken on a limited-term project with the office of institutional research. Brown’s goal was to guide institutional research through a period of transition — all while setting it up as a foundational resource in a new, more data-informed culture.

This spring, we introduced the new director of institutional research, Dr. Egon Heidendal. He spoke about his vision of institutional research as “a service unit that’s here to support all employees and ensure we’re making decisions that are based on the best data.”

The latest development is that Heidendal will head up a new unit: the office of institutional effectiveness. This new office of institutional effectiveness includes the following areas:

• Institutional Research (a new office that consists of the previous office of institutional research, plus two additional offices)
  • Institutional Research
  • Enrollment Management Systems and Reporting
  • Distance Programs and Policy
• Assessment and Accreditation
• Project Management and Organizational Excellence

Provost Dr. John Jasinski views this shift as a good fit for current needs and capabilities. “As the data field has evolved, opportunities for data-informed decision making have exploded,” he says. “This new organization will allow us to serve the university as we build a forward-looking, data-informed culture. Access to — and advanced analysis of — accurate, comprehensive data will support our ongoing transformation process.”

This approach also aligns with Missouri State’s Continuous Agility Process (CAP), a guiding framework that’s designed to keep academic affairs fresh, relevant and market-savvy. Within CAP, several goals either directly relate to data analytics or will be served by this shift to a data-informed culture.

We sat down with Brown and Heidendal to learn more about the future of data effectiveness at Missouri State.

Q&A

Academic Expressions: Tell us about the evolutions in Missouri State’s approach to data.

Egon Heidendal: The new office of institutional effectiveness will be broader than what people were used to with the previous office of institutional research. So much has happened in this field over the past 20 to 25 years. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, a lot of businesses created research and data units. As data became more available, these business intelligence units grew more robust in offering support to management personnel as they made decisions. In higher education, we saw a similar shift. Institutional research offices already had access to data because of the compliance needs in higher ed. Some of these offices saw how their peers in the private sector were using data, and they evolved to play a strategic role — applying the data they managed to functions other than compliance needs.

Ken Brown: Yes, in higher education, the traditional approach to institutional research has been to focus on compliance reporting. That’s important, and at Missouri State, we’ve done it really well. Looking forward, we’re building a data-informed culture. To do that, we need to provide data beyond what we’d provide for compliance. The new vision includes building data dashboards that can be accessed by stakeholders across campus. It includes predictive and prescriptive analytics and regular access to external data that will help us better understand Missouri State’s position within local, regional, state and national higher education markets.

A ‘Yes, We Can Help You’ Office

AE: How does the reorganization support this approach?

KB: We spent significant time researching the structure, size and organization at other universities — ones that are highly effective in this comprehensive, data-informed approach. As it turned out, these offices are bigger than ours was, and they have a broader understanding of what institutional research can do for the university as a whole. The areas that we’re now bringing together under the umbrella of institutional effectiveness are ones that often work closely together. It makes sense to break down barriers and let them fully collaborate.

EH: These individual departments have done a really good job handling the operational functions that they’re already known for. We’re going to continue those operations and build on top of them. We won’t neglect any of the operational data we’re already putting out there. Looking forward, there’s a lot of new legislation coming out, which means there will be new compliance needs that are cross-functional projects. That requires a high level of collaboration. Knowing this, we envision institutional effectiveness as a cohesive group that’s cross-trained, but we’ll also have experts who specialize in each of our areas.

AE: So this model is based on ones that are productive at other universities.

KB: Yes, and it’s informed by feedback from people across our campus. When we asked what they wanted out of an office of institutional effectiveness, they weren’t always aware of what a unit like this might be able to do — we’ve been almost entirely focused on compliance in the past. The other feedback we often heard was that when people needed information, they weren’t always sure where to go. There wasn’t a clear path, and things might get bounced around. We want to eliminate that confusion. We want everyone on campus to know that if you need data or analysis, institutional effectiveness is the place to start. Even if your request isn’t part of institutional effectiveness, they’ll help you get it done. This will be a “Yes, we can help you,” office.

“We want everyone on campus to know that if you need data or analysis, institutional effectiveness is the place to start. Even if your request isn’t part of institutional effectiveness, they’ll help you get it done. This will be a ‘Yes, we can help you,’ office.”

—Dr. Ken Brown

Demystifying Decision Making

AE: What else do you want faculty to know?

KB: We’re committed to evolving our approach to data and data analytics. This work will continue going forward, as we seek out new tools and stay on the cutting edge of this field. As we’ve talked to people about this, there’s been general excitement about the possibilities — where we can take data and analytics moving forward. That said, it’s a change from how our institution has approached data in the past, so there are opportunities for professional development and training. People will want to know how to use the data, now that it’s more readily available.

EH: In the near future, we’re looking at channels for faculty collaboration. This was something we did at my previous institution. It was extremely useful to leverage our faculty’s expertise, so we’re looking at how we can make that kind of collaboration happen here.

And we truly are here to serve. You can give a leader all the data they need, and the data may indicate a certain course of action. But in the end, the leader makes a decision based on a whole range of indicators. That decision may align with the data; sometimes, it does not. Even with great data, you need leadership that can see the whole picture. That’s why we describe ourselves as a service unit — we’re here to provide additional information that supports good decision making.

KB: It’s about being data informed, not data driven. A good decision is based on many factors — it’s about understanding as many angles as possible. We see data as a useful tool in that process.

AE: People sometimes talk about how lonely it can feel to make a decision. Ideally, data should provide confidence, right?

KB: Exactly. People shouldn’t feel like they have to guess when they make big decisions.

EH: It also helps after a decision is made, when people ask how it was made. When data and analytics inform decisions, it’s easier to make the decision-making process transparent, which builds confidence and trust.