Change Management and Collaboration

• Ability to identify and empower key faculty from local institutions Ability to rally key people from all campuses Campus cooperation from all 19 institutions Faculty mentoring at an unprecedented level New definition of "we" now meaning system perspective Outstanding TBR staff performance in communication, coordination, dream building, equal treatment, leadership, and training Reward system for faculty Sharing ideas for course development, faculty and student support, etc. Students gain Synergism between local institution and TBR TBR board support and recognition both internally and externally including national recognition TBR mandated program
• Technology capability enhanced to support program

• "Old guard faculty"
• Absence of 100% buy-in from key stakeholders
• Absence of presidential involvement in the early stages of the programs’ development
• Calendar inconsistencies
• Economic woes
• Elitism
• Financial deficit at local institutions and at the system level
• Need for common rubric and calendar
• Faculty and staff technology phobia
• Tradition ruling how things are done

Communication and Coordination

• All types of information transfer to those with immediate need to know Infrastructure (equipment, web site, etc) allows for easy communication student-to-student although availability doesn’t mean they are doing it
• TBR staff have effectively communicated with board and elected officials

• ROPD course submission process may mirror what a campus does but the outcome may be different
• Deans and department heads may need to be in greater harmony
• General information shared with the general public: detailed information least shared with local institutions
• Lack of understanding regarding Oversight and Curriculum Committees output and process
• Student equipment and bandwidth
• Student services and support area
• Students unable to reach some faculty as often as they expected
• Unclear faculty communication and mentoring with academic management at the system level and/or at the institution level
• Uniform procedures but different campus implementation

Faculty Availability and Support

• Diversity of faculty breadth and depth across the state Faculty renewal during course development process Strength of centralized technical training for course development Use of adjunct faculty
• Use of existing faculty volunteers

• Difficulty of training in time to add sections when enrollment demand exceeds supply Lack of local technical support Lack of release time for course development Limited number of faculty available in some disciplines
• Use of adjunct faculty (lack of consistency and less recognition of expertise)

Future Degrees and Marketing

• Articulation and common rubric exist for exists for general education course Infinite possibilities to combine degrees across state and schools supporting low enrollments from single institutions Local marketing departments participation in deploying marketing plan Opportunity to develop articulation and common rubric for major and minor courses Reach more targeted audience such as the military and corporate programs
• Set of competency may be standardized but delivery can change

• Articulation between schools is uneven
• Centralization may impact academic freedom (faculty members may perceive that we have "cookie cutter" courses at system level)
• Coordinate the number of student graduates to verify that we don’t exceed the demand for job placement: avoid market saturation
• Demand for additional faculty members in selected disciplines
• Faculty misunderstanding or misinterpreting academic freedom when they are asked to use a set of technical standards and requirements
• Individual faculty may be discouraged from developing individual courses
• Information received by presidents is communicated to all levels within the institution
• Lack of clarity between responsibilities of the lead developer and the secondary instructor
• Marketing to a mass audience and then not being able to meet their needs
• Verify that correct information is being shared at all levels

Program Evaluation, Revenue and RODP Staffing

• 24x7 help desk Board provided initial start-up money (taxed from institutions) that covered infrastructure, course development costs, software license, personnel, & training Centralized staff perform expected services well but the consistent technical evaluation of courses and standards is especially critical to the local institutions Course evaluation could be used for both professional evaluation and outcome assessment Program evaluation managed by outside consultants utilize "effective practice" experience RODP coordinators at local institutions RODP Web site designed and maintained by TRB IT staff Students appear to be willing to pay "extra" for online degree programs
• Tremendous expertise within TBR system

• 24 x 7 help desk should be improved for non-routine calls and instructors with complex problems 24 x 7 help desk uses answering service for some times of the days and on some days Assessment instrument is not the same as approved by the local institutions’ faculty senate Evaluate the whole class based on the instructor’s home college Faculty may leave after receiving marketable skills training Features of the program evaluation were beyond the control of the faculty Financial charge-back does not correlate directly with cost of RODP operations Lack of funding statewide is creating a deficit of FT faculty Local institutions’ academic administrators were not involved in defining online program and course development and outcome evaluation New, additional programs will have a major impact on current staff delivery and output Program evaluation managed by outside consultants may result in miscommunication and unmet expectations in defining course evaluation and program evaluation RODP cost includes instructional cost but does not includes cost of student support services RODP faculty interest takes away from local faculty teaching load, which may lead to an increase number of adjuncts RODP may need to be supported by self-sustaining revenue RODP staffing does not match market demands Some deans and department heads may be unaware of the technical (online) benchmarks used as part of the evaluation process Staffing demands particularly extreme during such peak periods as registration and first week of class Stakeholders’ needs are being met through extraordinary performance from RODP staff TBR and institutional staff are providing RODP support but their assigned responsibilities may be effective negatively TBR and local support time are not being factored into the overall cost of program
• Universities help to support community colleges: may need adjustment to reach equity

Student Enrollment and Support

• Advising is strong in some areas and weaker in others Campus contact with students Database and Internet security Enrollment exceeded expectations RODP SIS (password protected) RODP Web-site Use of a common SIS system
• Virtual Bookstore

• Admission and some other processes are not totally automated Career Services not available online Counseling not available online Delay in central registration (need for real time especially for drops/adds) Disability services not available online Lack of common calendar Lack of communication prior to enrollment with students because email and other demographic information is not available to the online instructor No enrollment priority to match target market(s) No online placement testing No prerequisite checking Some service standards include a 24 hour response time for answers to questions but we can’t guarantee other offices’ response times
• Virtual library services are too limited