| This study provides the first nationwide view of higher education alliance strategies and practices. Chief executives of 196 colleges and universities from 46 states responded to a 40-item, web-supported survey. Each official named two current alliances with characteristics they considered to be “important to the future of higher education institutions likes yours.” The results provided insight into CEO's general impressions of alliances, partner types, strategic objectives, commitment, ownership and alliance management practices. Respondents included the institutional president/CEO (48%) or other president-assigned senior official (52%).; The results were analyzed and reported according to a clustered Carnegie classification and public/private status. The study showed that 73% of top executives view alliances as an “essential” strategy to the future success of their institution. Leaders in public institutions report a higher overall success in their alliances when compared with private institutions (44% vs. 25%). Public institution leaders also show a higher tolerance for risk, with 76% reporting a “trend-setting” or “experimental” approach when considering new alliances. The study showed a positive relationship between alliance success and risk tolerance. “Providing learning experiences for students” stood out as the dominant objective in higher education alliances across all types of institutions, although 19% of institutions identified student learning as neither a primary nor secondary objective. Across all institutions, primary partners were determined to be private higher education institutions (35%), public higher education institutions (31%), for-profit businesses (29%), non-profit organizations (19%), state government agencies (14%), federal government agencies (12%), and assorted other organizations. The estimated average length of alliance commitment was 12 years into the future. Sharing data was the most common type of exchange (66% of alliances), with 35% of alliances sharing some equity or ownership. Internal management practices for alliances included written goals (92%), ties to the mission (85%), written management responsibilities (85%), and communications strategies (77%). Twenty percent reported some type of dispute between partners. Doctoral institutions addressed intellectual property issues more often than masters, baccalaureate or associate/tribal institutions.; The results will interest officials in higher education who want to enhance current alliances or explore strategies for creating new alliances. Officials in businesses, governments or associations would benefit by having this insight into alliance principles and practices in higher education. The results will prompt changes in strategies for building alliances involving colleges and universities. |
