ba495 capstone paper final

Credit for Prior Learning Program

BA 495 Capstone ProjectAnalysis of Provost Challenge #92

Table of Contents Table of Contents 1 ......................................................................................................................................................

Team Members 2 ..........................................................................................................................................................

Definition of Terms 2 ...................................................................................................................................................

Executive Summary 3 .................................................................................................................................................

Introduction 5 ................................................................................................................................................................

The Question: 5 .........................................................................................................................................................

The Answer: 5 ............................................................................................................................................................

Stakeholder Analysis: 5 ..........................................................................................................................................

Market Strategy/Feasibility Analysis 6 ..................................................................................................................

PESTEL: 6 .....................................................................................................................................................................

5 Forces Model: 8 .....................................................................................................................................................

VRIO: 10 .......................................................................................................................................................................

Scenario Proposals 15 .................................................................................................................................................

Key Assumptions 15 ................................................................................................................................................

Explanation of Weights Applied 17 ...................................................................................................................

Financial Analysis 18 ...................................................................................................................................................

Projected Expenses 18 ...........................................................................................................................................

Assumptions for Expenses 18 ..............................................................................................................................

Price Point Analysis 21 ............................................................................................................................................

Strategic Recommendations 23 ..............................................................................................................................

Proposed Recommendation: 23 .........................................................................................................................

Sensitivity Analysis: 24 ...........................................................................................................................................

Conclusion 26 ................................................................................................................................................................

Appendix 27 ...................................................................................................................................................................

Appendix A - Stakeholder Table 27 ...................................................................................................................

Appendix B - 5 Forces Analysis 28 ......................................................................................................................

Appendix D – Questions for Cornelia Excerpts 38 .......................................................................................

Appendix E – Questions for Jason Excerpts 38 .............................................................................................

Appendix F – Statement of Work 39 .................................................................................................................

Bibliography 46.............................................................................................................................................................

| P a g e 1

Team Members

Definition of Terms

| P a g e 2

PSU Portland State University

CPL Credit for Prior Learning

BA 495 Business Administration Capstone Class

PC Provost Challenge #92

CLO Course Learning Outcome

PLA Prior Learning Assessment

CAEL Council for Adult and Experiential Learning

HECC Higher Education Coordinating Commission

ACE American Council of Education

GHG Greenhouse Gas

Anna Berg Nha Nguyen

Feodor Cam Taylor Runckel

Lisa Hollingshead Travis Spencer

Juan Lopez Rachel Wiederspiel

Claire McLeod Justin Wiley

Michael Moyer Corey Zimmerman

Executive Summary

Portland State University is one of Oregon’s most diverse universities, uniquely situated on 50 acres in the urban environment of downtown Portland. It has a total undergraduate enrollment of 23,170 students. Portland State offers a rich source of knowledge through a variety of academic departments such as the School of Business Administration, the Maseeh College of Engineering and Computer Science, and the Graduate School of Education.

The mission of Portland State University is to enhance the intellectual, social, cultural and economic qualities of urban life by providing access throughout the lifespan to a quality liberal education for undergraduates and an appropriate array of professional and graduate programs especially relevant to metropolitan areas. The university conducts research and community service that support a high-quality educational environment and reflect issues important to the region. It actively promotes the development of a network of educational institutions to serve the community.

In response to a law passed by the state of Oregon in 2012, Portland State University implemented a program that would allow new and existing students to earn credit for prior education or experience. During the spring term of 2013, the Portland State Provost Challenge Initiative allocated funding to create Provost Challenge #92 - a team of PSU staff and faculty who collaborate to develop and execute a comprehensive CPL program at the university.

After a year of work on the project, PSU has been selected as a pilot school for CPL programs in Oregon. A practical field test of the CPL program is forecasted to begin in the fall term of 2014. The administration has set the winter term of 2015 as a deadline for completing the objective of establishing an effective structure for the CPL program at PSU.

The PC #92 team has enlisted the assistance of the summer term BA 495 class to investigate and develop possible models for a sustainable CPL program at the university. The involvement of the BA 495 team will last for eight weeks from the start of the summer term, culminating with a presentation of findings and a recommendation for how to proceed with the CPL program.

Recommendation Through our extensive research and applications of various analyses, the BA 495 team proposes the following recommendation to Portland State University to achieve ultimate implementation of the CPL program at PSU.

| P a g e 3

Adopt a ‘Step-Up’ Program Design Based on the needs indicated by the Provost Challenge, as well as the needs identified in our Weighted Scenario Analysis, the ‘Step-Up’ (i.e. Scenario 2) program design is necessary for initial program success.

We are confident that with the use of the scenario-based analysis, specifically the scenario that we propose for implementation, the CPL program will be a financially sustainable venture by Portland State University.

| P a g e 4

Introduction

The Question: One of the goals is to persuade the faculty that a CPL program will provide the same academic quality as attending a traditional class. We must also show that the time put into this effort by the faculty will be worthwhile (compensation, satisfaction of helping students, etc.). Workload for faculty also seems to be a dilemma - faculty would like to know what additional hours will need to be put into the program by the participating members (training, meetings, interviews, portfolio reviews, etc.)

We must show that implementing a CPL program will create a competitive advantage for PSU. This program must be ready to function by Fall 2015. Therefore, the development and implementation of a high-quality model is key.

Additionally, the BA 495 group must determine an amount that should be charged for each credit hour that will be fair in the eyes of students, and will also help fund the CPL program and reduce outside funding by PSU or other types of aid.

Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs) of various classes will need to be distinct and comprehensive in order for CPL to be successful - tests/portfolios are based on these CLOs and so rely on them for the accurate representation of the various skills required for future courses.

The Answer: Project Approach to Meet Client Goals:

• Estimate the time and cost requirements of employees and faculty. • Determine the cost of CPL courses. • Determine the most efficient, streamlined way to implement CPL program.

Stakeholder Analysis: There are many stakeholders of the Credit for Prior Learning Program, both internal and external to Portland State University. The purpose of the PSU Board of Trustees is to create opportunities for students, staff, business and the community. Internally, there is current teaching staff that could be concerned about the additional workload of creating guidelines and tests, then evaluating completed tests and student portfolios. The staff of the IT systems department will have the challenge of creating a testing system alongside the teachers for students of the CPL program, as well as creating a website for students to learn about the CPL program.

| P a g e 5

Families of the current staff could be affected if the staff is spending more time at work and not with their families. This could be short-term or long-term, depending on the additional work that it may create for the staff. Current students could benefit from a CPL program, if the program is in place before current students graduate. This could potentially help some current students graduate earlier and allow them to enter the workforce - providing new knowledge to businesses and to the community.

Once the CPL program is prepared and ready to open up for students to utilize, new jobs and opportunities will open up to new administrative staff and will allow them the benefit of employment to them and their families. The CPL program will attract new students to PSU. Students with prior military and work experience will benefit from the CPL program and limit their time and money while earning an education from PSU. This will allow them to re-enter the workforce and to provide for their families with new job or promotion opportunities.

As the popularity and legal demand increase for CPL programs, the Oregon University System will have a greater responsibility for funding these programs, and increased administrative work tied to transferring credit throughout the system. Marylhurst University is the national leader of credit for prior learning. Increased competition in the CPL programs will increase as the popularity and legal demand increase. University of Oregon, Oregon State University and Portland Community College are just a few of the regional schools that will be in direct competition to the PSU CPL program.

See Appendix A for the Stakeholder Table.

Market Strategy/Feasibility Analysis

PESTEL: The PESTEL Model is a tool used to analyze external forces in the firm’s general environment within six segments including: political, economic, sociocultural, technological, ecological, and legal. In this case, we will be analyzing the external forces and factors that impinge upon PSU and their interest in implementing a Credit for Prior Learning program.

Political

The political environment in which PSU operates serves as a strong external factor in deciding to create a CPL program - primarily because it is a public university and has to abide by the state government’s legislature. In February 2012, the Oregon State Legislature passed HB4059 mandating that all Oregon post-secondary institutions

| P a g e 6

provide a means for students to earn credit for prior and concurrent learning (CPL). As part of the bill, the legislature tasked the Higher Education Coordinating Commission (HECC) with providing recommendations for a state-wide CPL program. In spring of 2013, the Provost Challenge Initiative at PSU awarded a grant that has enabled the PC #92: Credit for Prior Learning team to begin the work of creating a centralized and comprehensive CPL program at PSU. Since that time, PSU has been chosen by the HECC as the pilot school for CPL. Field testing for the program will begin in Fall 2014, and the goal is to have the infrastructure in place by the end of Winter 2015. Considering that this will be regulatory statewide, PSU has a great advantage being granted the funds and the opportunity to be the pilot school for CPL in Oregon.

Economic

The immediate economic environment consists of the Portland State University 2014-15 budget, which has been projected to fall short by $15 million. This is equal to 5% of the total budget of $276 million. This external force is considered to be the greatest risk of impeding PSU’s implementation of the CPL program considering the amount of funding that will be necessary to meet all of the costs incurred in implementation. According to PSU’s 2014-15 budget, personnel costs make up 81% of the total operating budget and any increase in compensation will negatively affect the budget (2014-2015 Budget). This causes a great deal of concern due to the increased number of hours worked and increased total compensation that will have to be budgeted for implementation of the CPL program. The greatest concern in ensuring that the CPL program will be successful is that it will be financially sustainable.

Sociocultural

Credit for Prior Learning has been deemed by some to be the next big breakthrough in higher education; others refer to the Prior Learning Assessments as “shallow-measures” (Fain) compared to actual in-class learning. Two major players in bringing this initiative to the forefront have been the American Council of Education (ACE) and The Council for Adult and Experiential Learning (CAEL).

ACE has been creating and implementing Prior Learning Assessments for higher education institutions for 60 years and have an experienced perspective on the success of this type of credit for experience program. CPL skeptics are concerned that the credits aren’t transferrable or always recognized by all institutions however; ACE currently employs over 2,000 members with prior learning assessments. Research by ACE says that the market for adult education is growing at an increased rate. ACE found that one in five Americans of working age has some college credits but no degree. Research by CAEL found that graduation rates are 2.5 times higher for students with PLA credit (CAEL). Considering the urban city environment of PSU, this research suggests that PSU would have access to a large market of people such as working adults with college credit but

| P a g e 7

http://www.pdx.edu/fadm/2014-15-budget-frequently-asked-questions

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/05/07/prior-learning-assessment-catches-quietly#sthash.jOiJ5Gu4.dpbs

http://www.cael.org/What-We-Do/Prior-Learning-Assessment

not degrees. Also, with the given political climate and soon-to-come government regulations of all post-secondary institutions in Oregon offering CPL by 2015, we think that PSU will have a considerable competitive advantage upon implementing this program.

Technological

Any firm in the current global environment must continually be advancing technologically to be relatively competitive. The use of technology increases efficiency, effectiveness, and can reduce physical costs for PSU’s CPL program implementation. Focusing on reducing physical costs such as space to house the program office, furniture, and equipment can increase the budget to meet costs for website creation and maintenance. We believe that given the continual growth of the global technological climate, an emphasis on IT-related efficiencies would be in PSU’s best interest to gain competitive advantage.

Ecological

The State of Oregon and PSU have been leaders in green initiatives and sustainable environmental solutions for many years. Continuing this commitment is necessary for PSU to stay true to its mission, vision, and values, as well as to its stakeholders. PSU can continue this commitment by monitoring Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions that would potentially be reduced via the implementation of the CPL program due to less people using means of transportation to get to campus in addition to the energy resources that wouldn’t be used for operating physical facilities.

Legal

The legal aspect is a part of the PESTEL analysis; however, in the case of PSU’s CPL program, it is not highly relevant as there are no adverse laws and/or regulations threatening the implementation of the CPL program.

5 Forces Model: The 5 Forces Model is a tool used to analyze external forces within an industry to evaluate the competition within that industry. It is used as an aid for designing the business strategy. It first generally analyzes the industry being investigated, then determines five factors for consideration including: Threat of New Entrants, Bargaining Power of Buyers, Threat of Substitutes, Bargaining Power of Suppliers, and Intensity of Rivalry Among Competitors.

| P a g e 8

General Analysis

The strategic goals for the PSU CPL program are as follows: • To develop a credit for prior learning program • To increase community awareness and outreach • To increase tuition revenue • To grow the CPL program • To be the strongest CPL program in the region

Broadly, the program competes within the higher education industry. More specifically, it competes with other regional programs of competing institutions.

Based upon the strategic goals, • The markets served by the CPL program include:

• This program serves those who have prior educational experience and are usually reentering their educational career.

• Veterans, those who worked out of high school, and people with five years + work experience.

• Geographically speaking, the program would serve the local Portland area and surrounding region with small groups from out of state.

• The program is classified as:

• An educational institution that receives both state and federal support. As such, it will have special guidelines.

• The services provided in this industry are:

• Higher education above and beyond a high school education.

• Different participants have varying levels of accreditation.

The industry is broadly categorized as higher education. The program itself is targeted towards those who are entering their educational careers with some time-lapsed since they were last in a classroom. Individuals like veterans, working professionals, and those who may have raised families are all potentials participants in this program. Since this program takes place at PSU, it will compete with other regional institutions of varying accreditation for that potential tuition revenue.

See Appendix B for the complete 5 Forces Analysis. Below is a summary.

Threat of New Entrants

The true value in education relates with how seriously the industry/community takes the education that is offered. Obtaining that level of accreditation is expensive and involves a

| P a g e 9

vast amount of paperwork. However, the rise of ‘online universities’ reveals a threat to existing universities that tend to charge higher tuition rates because their expenses are higher for real property.

Bargaining Power of Buyers

Students have numerous options in choosing where to obtain their higher education and thus, have higher bargaining power. However, it is worth noting that the CPL program is relatively unique to the Portland Metro area, and thus this limits the power of students who intend to make use of this particular program.

Threat of Substitutes

Substitutes for higher education generally only exist to the extent that some ‘degrees’ have higher perceived values than others. For example, a degree from Harvard is generally perceived to be of higher value than a community college degree. However, higher education substitutes are limited by the necessity to be perceived as valuable to a potential employer at the least. In this way, there is a low threat of substitutes.

Bargaining Power of Suppliers

For materials such as basic office supplies, there are a variety of vendors available to the university. This, coupled with the purchasing power of bulk orders, prevents higher bargaining power of suppliers.

Intensity of Rivalry Among Competitors

There is some level of competition amongst higher education revolving around tuition costs, type of education received, and type of environment experienced. However, this is usually separated on different levels of institutions. Community colleges tend to compete with other community colleges, state universities with other state universities, and world-class universities with other world-class universities.

VRIO: A VRIO analysis is performed as an external analysis to determine the strategy of the program. This analysis asks four questions: Is the capability Valuable (V)? Is the capability Rare (R)? Is the capability costly to Imitate (I)? Is the capability exploited by the Organization (O)?

| P a g e 10

V - Is the Resource or Capability Valuable?

Yes, CPL allows PSU to take advantage of giving specific students opportunities to receive credit for their past experience for certain courses. By giving students this opportunity, PSU will benefit by having less students in classrooms for certain courses because they were able to test out of the class and receive credit. CPL would be beneficial to PSU as students would pay anywhere from 50%-150% of regular course fees, yet would not have to sit through 11 weeks of classes.

As a result of having less students in classes, it will not be necessary for PSU to have as many courses offered as a certain amount of students can test out of them through CPL. This will reduce the amount of professors needed to teach specific courses, PSU’s overhead costs, and PSU’s carbon footprint. This supports PSU’s goal of sustainability as it will be reducing its negative impact on the environment, and will be increasing its positive impact on its students by allowing them to obtain a quality degree in a shorter amount of time. This gives PSU students an opportunity to take advantage of a CPL program and use their time saved towards more opportunities to pursue whatever they choose.

Since the CPL program is being funded by Provost Challenge #92, PSU has an opportunity to delegate those funds toward creating a successful net zero CPL program. Initially, PSU will break-even on the CPL program, but as more students take advantage of the program, PSU will receive increasing amounts of money while decreasing the costs associated with not having these students attend 11 week courses. Over time, the CPL program will be positively beneficial for PSU as a university, for its faculty and for its students.

R - Is the Resource or Capability Rare?

Yes, at the current time. Many universities are in the process of exploring the idea of creating a CPL program. Laws have been put into place that will eventually require other institutions to create similar programs. This will change the status of the rarity of the program. PSU is currently looking at other pioneer institutions of CPL and gaining insights into their strategies and methods in order to implement their own.

I - Is the Resource or Capability Costly to Imitate?

Yes, in some realms. For a large institution such as Portland State, the initial cost of capital and sustained business is vast. This cost involves real property, personnel, supplies, and sustained awareness to draw students to the university. Having the kind of ‘brand’ that PSU has is also costly to obtain - involving a strong commitment to community outreach, time to perform outreach activities, and money to afford these programs.

| P a g e 11

However, higher education can now be obtained online for a fraction of the cost of ‘typical’ tuition. The cost in these cases may not be reflective of the value of the education received if other institutions/companies don’t recognize a degree from these types of institutions.

O - Is the Resource or Capability Exploited by the Firm’s Organization?

Not currently, but we are working on creating an initial net zero CPL program that would be beneficial to the university, faculty and students alike. PSU has the capability to take advantage of this CPL opportunity. The university must hire or delegate certain professors from specific departments to create CLO’s, challenge exams and a portfolio analysis rubric. They also must hire or delegate these professors to take on an additional workload, or give up teaching in-class courses to put time into CPL instead. Finally, they must hire advisors that will aid individuals in the process of discerning whether or not they will be able to successfully take advantage of the CPL program. The strategic implication of this capability is a Temporary Competitive Advantage. Though it may be costly to imitate, this should not stop many universities from joining in. Portland State is the pilot school meaning that the Oregon University System will use the knowledge they gain from the program implementation to guide other schools in their process. This would give Portland State University an above average firm performance rating.

SWOT: A SWOT Analysis is done to look internally at a program or company and identify their Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats.

Helpful Harmful

Internal Origin

• Finances • Workforce • Customer Base

• Physical Resources • Difficulty Arranging Finance • Undetermined Program

Structure

External Origin

• Enter Emerging Market • Diversify Services • Serve Additional

Customers • Increase Annual Profit

• Entry of Competitors • Poor/Slow Program Adoption

| P a g e 12

Strengths

• Finances: A key strength for the CPL effort comes in the form of a scholarship granted to help develop and implement the CPL program. This is especially important given the fifteen million dollar shortfall of Portland State’s annual budget.

• Workforce: Portland State University employs thousands of educators and support staff in order to provide a functional and effective higher education institution. Thanks to this large number of employees, the University has the ability to allocate a great deal of both staff and faculty to be a part of the CPL program. The number of employee participants can be changed accordingly as the program goes on.

• Customer Base: Currently, PSU has a student body of over 30,000 undergraduate and graduate students. With the average age of undergraduates being 25.82 years, the student body of PSU is within an older, more experienced age range, and a well-designed CPL program will benefit greatly as these types of students seek to gain credit for previous knowledge or work experience.

Weaknesses

• Physical Resources: The large nature of the PSU campus and workforce means that there can be a limit of available resources such as office space, equipment, and infrastructure (IT support, etc.). This may be a particularly strong weakness during the program’s initial start-up, as resource requirements will not be completely known until the program is up and running.

• Bureaucratic Processes: Due to the general structure of the university system, there will be many considerations that need to be made across numerous different departments. The time and work that will be required across these departments may significantly hinder the progress of planning and/or implementing the program.

• Undetermined program structure: Perhaps the biggest weakness comes in the form of the (as of yet) undetermined structure of the CPL program. Although this program is being built on top of an existing CPL concept, there is still much that needs to be added or changed in order to be an optimal program.

| P a g e 13

Opportunities

• Enter emerging market: The market for comprehensive CPL programs is relatively new – especially in Oregon. By developing a highly efficient and effective program, Portland State University has the opportunity to enter the market far ahead of any other universities and institutions that will be following suit.

• Diversify services: By offering opportunities to earn CPL credit, the university diversifies its services and allows it to gain the business of existing and potential student customers.

• Serve additional customers: This opportunity is a byproduct of the previous opportunity. By offering a comprehensive CPL program that empowers students to earn college credit for previous knowledge or work experience, PSU stands to attract the business of older and/or more experienced students who would be able to take advantage of the CPL program.

• Increase profit: Portland State could generate additional revenue for less – because class space, associated materials, and faculty time will not be as extensive for CPL credit, the University will experience more revenue and fewer expenses. This surplus of revenue over expense results in additional profit for PSU.

Threats

• Entry of competitors: Now that the state of Oregon mandated that colleges and universities offer a comprehensive CPL program, Portland State will experience competition from other Oregon-based colleges and universities. If PSU is unable to launch an adequate and appealing program, it may lose market share to competitors like University of Portland or Oregon State University.

• Poor/slow program adoption: Currently, the existing CPL programs at many universities are not well known. Portland State will need to be prepared to market the new program upon implementation or it will likely experience a lack of public awareness for the program.

| P a g e 14

Scenario Proposals Below are three different scenarios describing three types of program designs. These are titled, 'Basic,' 'Step-Up,' and 'Maximum Implementation.' After each description we've listed basic assumptions made to arrive at these designs.

Scenario 1 – ‘Basic’

In this basic scenario, there is only one coordinator who works with faculty assessors to evaluate a student’s portfolio. This portfolio is entirely self-generated by the student, with no required portfolio class. The coordinator would develop a CPL handbook and web support page that would be publicly accessible and include all pertinent information, guidelines, and policies. It is from this handbook that students would generate their portfolios. However, wherever a test could be created (or has already been created) for students to test out of classes, these would be implemented in place of portfolios.

There is no intake screening or counseling to determine ideal candidacy. Additionally, there is no questionnaire for the student to take to self-determine their eligibility. No writing prerequisites or minimum prior credits are required. Essentially, work is performed on an ad-hoc basis and only minimal capital is invested for expansion.

Key Assumptions

Low Student Enrollment: An analysis of comparable and robust existing CPL programs suggests no more than 24 students a term (See Appendix C). With minimal investment in the Basic Scenario, student enrollment is expected to be considerably less.

Use of Existing Test Structures: Existing test structures (such as those used for second-languages) would be made use of in conjunction with the program. Therefore, the portfolios submitted would remain minimal in quantity.

Self-Motivated Users: This scenario assumes that the majority of CPL users are self-motivated, and will therefore make use of the handbook to create their portfolios (if that is the option they opt for).

Scenario 2 – ‘Step-Up’

In this scenario, there is one coordinator who oversees the program development, and at least one assistant who is trained to help students determine their candidacy and field questions about the program. Additionally, there is a basic online questionnaire available to students for them to initially determine if CPL is right for them.

A 4-credit portfolio class is required prior to portfolio submission. This class is online. Students may choose to take a test or submit a portfolio where the option exists. A writing prerequisite

| P a g e 15

is not required but is to be strongly encouraged by the assistant/coordinator. Prior to CPL enrollment the student is required to have one full term at Portland State University.

Key Assumptions

Comparable Student Enrollment: An analysis of comparable and robust existing CPL programs suggests no more than 24 students a term (See Appendix C). With average investment in the Step-Up Scenario, student enrollment is expected to be equivalent.

General-Use Online Portfolio Class: The portfolio class is primarily to help provide guidance for the creation of a solid portfolio. In this way, students are given direction and any users who are deficit in particular areas (i.e. basic computer skills or writing skills) can be directed to take classes necessary for their future success. The portfolio class is NOT tailored to individual programs, although the instructor’s advice may be sought in a variety of subjects.

Some Aid Required: Incoming students who may be CPL candidates may have some trouble identifying the program and making use of its offerings. Therefore, this scenario assumes that incoming students who may appear to initially qualify for this program would be directed to the assistant or coordinator who could aid them in the process. However, the student is not required to meet with the CPL-trained assistant and may proceed directly to the portfolio class.

Scenario 3 – ‘Max Implementation’

In this scenario, there is one coordinator, and additional CPL assistants for every 30 students. An online questionnaire is available for the student to self-assess their eligibility for CPL. If interested, they are required to meet with a counselor, who would aid them in the entire process of CPL. Every school would be need one counselor who is trained in CPL processes.

A 6-credit in-person portfolio class is required before portfolio submission is accepted. A writing prerequisite is required before the portfolio class, and a minimum of 48 credits must have been earned (within or without PSU) before CPL eligibility. Additionally, the student may be required to submit a portfolio and take a test, when available and determined by the program.

Additionally, CPL would invest in a robust data management system to track varying student’s applications, courses acquired, portfolio graded etc.

Key Assumptions

High Student Enrollment: An analysis of comparable and robust existing CPL programs suggests no more than 24 students a term (See Appendix C). With maximum investment in the Max Implementation Scenario, student enrollment is expected to be above average (between 25-50 per term).

In the Max Implementation Scenario, the graders are graduate students and final approval of grades is left to the coordinator.

| P a g e 16

Knowledge as Priority: In the Max Implementation Scenario, the key priority is assuring that students who are participating in CPL are getting an equivalent knowledge set as those going through traditional classroom settings. Therefore, the writing, 48 credit, and portfolio class prerequisites to the generation and acceptance of a portfolio are designed to assure the student’s understanding of the material.

Explanation of Weights Applied Within each scenario we determined four key criteria for measuring the success of that scenario. These were: Faculty Buy-In, Total Cost for Initial Year, Reputation, and Competitive Advantage.

Based on numerous conversations with our contact Cornelia Coleman, Faculty Buy-In was of large importance in the implementation of the CPL program. Program success is dependent on the faculty being able and willing to participate, and as such we applied a high weight to its importance.

Total Cost was of almost equal necessity. If costs for program implementation are high then not only will it take longer to break even, but we believe that faculty buy-in may decrease if faced with a program that will take many years to become financially capable.

Reputation was rated lower, but we felt that it was necessary to include. The Reputation of the program may increase positively or decrease negatively based on its design. For example, if the process is convoluted or expensive, then its reputation is likely to be less positive.

Last we believe that the Competitive Advantage of the program should be included in the analysis. If the design or implementation of the program is comparable to others, then the process is at least competitive. Conversely, if the program is incredibly easy to go through or is a cost leader in the industry, then its Competitive Advantage may be rated higher.

Weight Criteria Scenario 1 Value

Scenario 1 Score

Scenario 2 Value

Scenario 2 Score

Scenario 3 Value

Scenario 3 Score

45%Faculty Buy-In 6 2.7 8 3.6 5 2.25

40% Total Cost 7 2.8 6 2.4 7 2.8

10% Reputation 3 0.3 6 0.6 3 0.3

5%Competitive Advantage

5 0.25 7 0.35 5 0.25

Totals 21 6.05 27 6.95 20 5.6

| P a g e 17

As expressed above, Scenario 2 is considered the best option for implementation. Additionally, this design seems to match numerous points of the program already in motion including:

1. The inclusion of a Portfolio Class prior to Portfolio Submission

2. The option of taking a test or submitting a portfolio (if the option exists)

3. Staff levels are comparable to anticipated need (See Appendix C for estimated yearly use).

Financial Analysis

Projected Expenses A list of relevant expenses for the implementation of Scenario 2 includes Payroll, Training, Online Classroom Costs, Website Creation Costs, and Office Costs (all numbers are expressed in year amounts).

Expenses:

Assumptions for Expenses

Full Time Coordinator with Benefits:

A single full time coordinator is required to the implementation and oversight of the CPL program. Duties of this person include: to facilitate correct policies and procedures as laid out by Provost #92, to coordinate with staff from a variety of programs to assure correctly graded portfolios, and to look for growth opportunities as well as process inefficiencies

1 Full Time Coordinator with Benefits $ 72,488.00

1 Part-Time Faculty Assistant (.49) $ 22,408.20

Portfolio Instructor $ 11,250.00

Portfolio Review (i.e. Time of Staff to Grade) $ 45,696.00

1-2 Grad Assistants $ 5,000.00

1 Time Training for CPL Staff $ 2,640.00

Cost of Online Classroom $ 6,165.00

Cost of Website Development $ 0.00

Cost of Office Overhead $ 3,082.50

Total $ 168,729.70

| P a g e 18

and correct issues. Our cost of $72,488 is as a Program Administrator Level II for a 12-month salary using 2014 rates for Academic Professionals (“Collective Bargaining Agreement” ).

Part-Time Faculty Assistant:

A single part-time faculty assistant is required for support activities including: consistent and reliable contact between CPL and other departments, management of student schedules and interest, and organization of student applications. Our cost of 22,408.20 is as the minimum of a Program Administrator Level II for a 12-month salary using 2014 rates for Academic Professionals for .49 hours. (“Collective Bargaining Agreement”).

Portfolio Instructor:

An adjunct professor is paid $3,750 per 4-credit class they teach. We assume that one portfolio class is offered three terms every year for a total of 11,250. (See Appendix D - Questions for Cornelia Excerpts).

Portfolio Review:

Using our estimated yearly enrollment of students and credit (See Appendix C), we assume 96 students submitting portfolios for 4 classes each (total of 384 Portfolios a year). We assume that the grader for the majority of these Portfolios will be will be a research assistant, at an hourly rate of $17. With an estimated 7 hours of time required per portfolio, this leads up to a cost of $45,696. We realize that the grading of the portfolios may be done in part by the faculty assistant or by the program administrator, in which case the total cost can be adjusted accordingly. Please see the deliverable spreadsheet for a complete analysis.

Grad Assistants:

Based on interviews with Cornelia Coleman, the CPL program has the ability to hire one or two graduate assistants for a maximum of $5,000 a year. These assistants would be responsible for: implementing correct grading of portfolio policies, providing administrative support to the program coordinator and assistant, and maintaining records for students using the program. (See Appendix D - Questions for Cornelia Excerpts).

| P a g e 19

http://www.pdx.edu/oaa/sites/www.pdx.edu.oaa/files/AAUP%20CBA%202013-2015_0.pdf#page=46).

http://www.pdx.edu/oaa/sites/www.pdx.edu.oaa/files/AAUP%20CBA%202013-2015_0.pdf#page=46

Single-Time Training:

Every staff member would be required to undergo a one-time, yearly training process. This training would offer insight into the appropriate approaches to grading portfolios and general prior learning evaluation. One program offering this type of training is The Council for Adult and Experiential Learning (CAEL) who hosts a Prior Learning Assessment (PLA) course for a cost of $660. This course would offer the program coordinator the opportunity to leave the course with a set of CLO's prepared for the Portfolio class. Given the possibility of two graduate assistants, this means that a total of four persons would undergo this training, for a total of $2,640 (CAEL).

Cost of Online Classroom:

The CPL Business Capstone Team was unable to find the exact cost to the University of implementing an online course. Therefore, we have used as an equivalent the cost the university allocates per square foot of space to the size of an average classroom. The University allocates a cost of $12.33 per square foot of space, inclusive of electric, internet, IT Support, and furniture (See Appendix E - Questions for Jason Excerpts). It is worth noting that this cost is undifferentiated between spaces that are more costly (i.e. lab space) versus less costly (i.e. simple classrooms). Based on a medium classroom size of 500 sq. ft, the estimated cost equivalent of an online classroom is $6,165.

Cost of Office Overhead:

Using the same University allocation cost of $12.33 per square foot of space, with an estimated office size of 250 square feet, the estimated cost of an office space is $3,082.50. It is important to note that if the program grows significantly past the estimated yearly use of 96 students, the size of a classroom needs to be adjusted to account for the growth.

Website Creation:

It is important to note that the cost of generating a CPL page or website has the potential to add cost. However, the Computer Science program, as part of their senior capstone projects, has the potential to produce this website for free. Therefore, we have included it for reference but have it listed for free.

| P a g e 20

http://www.cael.org/Professional-Development/Workshops

Price Point Analysis Under the parameters set by Scenario 2, we have projected the Revenues to be generated based on tuition costs. This analysis assumes an average of 96 students a year to take advantage of the CPL program, with each student submitting a portfolio for 4 classes (or 16 credits).

Price Point at 50%:

For the 4 credit Portfolio class, the cost of tuition remains the same as the university’s fees (i.e. $145 per credit). With our estimated 96 students, this totals to a projected revenue of $55,680. However, the fees for the CPL credits at this price point are $72.50. With our estimated 96 students, taking an average of 16 credits this totals to a projected revenue of $111,360.

Price Point at 75%:

For the 4 credit Portfolio class, the cost of tuition remains the same as the university’s fees (i.e. $145 per credit). With our estimated 96 students, this totals to a projected revenue of $55,680. However, the fees for the CPL credits at this price point are $108.75. With our

Revenue

Portfolio Class $55,680.00

Enrollment of CPL $111,360.00

Total Revenues $167,040.00

Expenses

Program Coordinator -$72,488.00

Part-Time Faculty (.49) -$22,402.80

Portfolio Instructor Costs -$11,250.00

Cost of Portfolio Reviews -$45,696.00

Grad Assistants Costs -$5,000.00

One Time Instructor Training -$2,640.00

Online Classroom Costs -$6,165.00

Office Overhead -$3,082.50

Total Expenses -$168,724.30

Net Profit -$1,684.30

| P a g e 21

estimated 96 students, taking an average of 16 credits this totals to a projected revenue of $167,040.

Price Point 100%

For the 4 credit Portfolio class, the cost of tuition remains the same as the university’s fees (i.e. $145 per credit). With our estimated 96 students, this totals to a projected revenue of $55,680. However, the fees for the CPL credits at this price point are also $145. With our estimated 96 students, taking an average of 16 credits this totals to a projected revenue of $222,720.

Revenue




Expenses










Net Profit $53,995.70

Revenue




| P a g e 22

Strategic Recommendations

Proposed Recommendation:

Adopt a ‘Step-Up’ Program Design

Based on the needs instructed by the Provost Challenge, and the needs identified in our Weighted Scenario Analysis, the ‘Step-Up’ (i.e. Scenario 2) style of program design is necessary for initial program success. This scenario includes:

• The use of a Portfolio class where students gain the basic skills required for the creation of a Portfolio.

• Some amount of student guidance by CPL staff, which allows for better implementation and efficiency of use.

• A writing prerequisite is not required, but is strongly encouraged. This allows for students to self-determine their writing abilities prior to CPL enrollment.

Expenses










Net Profit $109,675.70

| P a g e 23

• The assumption of equivalent enrollment based on comparable industry averages. If enrollment changes significantly in either direction, further analysis would be required.

Charge CPL Fees at 75% of Tuition

Based on:

• The projected expenses of a ‘Step-Up’ scenario of $168,724.30, and

• The estimated enrollment of 96 students a year, and

• 16 credits (4 classes) per student that would seek a CPL route.

Charging a lower price for fees may cause greater enrollment, or charging a higher price for fees may cause lower enrollment. However, some number of students seeking CPL would opt to take ‘real’ classes if asked to pay full tuition. Further, if the fees per CPL credit are too low this gives the appearance of a ‘bargain-basement’ price, which has the potential to degrade the value truly offered by this program. We also believe that students will be willing to pay the slightly higher price because of the time savings that it generates, allowing them faster access to more difficult classes and a more expedient graduation

Based on the analysis presented, the 75% of tuition also puts the program into a small profit, allowing for incremental growth and further aiding faculty buy-in.

With this recommendation we realize that there exists the possibility for some level of institutional coverage. In our Sensitivity Analysis we have exposed a few levels of coverage and determined the number of students required for the program to breakeven.

Sensitivity Analysis:

Institutional Coverage

With the opportunity that PSU may cover some of the initial program start-up costs, the amount of students needed to breakeven may be drastically reduced. We have run an analysis with PSU covering 0%, 25%, 50% and 75% of costs to get a range of the potential possibilities. With the preferred scenario 2 at the ideal price point of 75%, the amount of students to breakeven goes from 73 a year at 0% coverage with only 19 students a year at 75% coverage. The chart below shows a range with the other tuition price points to give an idea of what to expect at each price point.

| P a g e 24

| P a g e 25

Breakeven with institutional Funding - Students Needed (Yearly)

0

25

50

75

100

Tuition Cost

% Financing from Institution 0%% Financing from Institution 25%% Financing from Institution 50%% Financing from Institution 75%

% Financing from Institution

0% 25% 50% 75%

50% 97 73 49 25

Tuition Cost 75% 73 55 37 19

100% 59 44 30 15

Conclusion In summary, after considering the budgeting and implementation of the CPL program at PSU, the BA 495 Capstone team suggests the use of the proposed Step-Up program. Further, we suggest use of the scenario tool that we have created in order to create a financially sustainable program for the purpose of analyzing variables that have not yet been determined. By having the opportunity to be the pilot school for the CPL program in Oregon and utilizing the Step-Up program, we believe that this will also secure PSU a competitive position in the market.

In addition to these benefits, our recommendation is also sensitive to the needs of the target audience. Given the moderate price point that we have chosen for the fees/credit for the program, this will appeal to a larger market share of students as well as aid faculty buy-in. As a result of choosing a desirable price point, this will also build incremental revenue and reputation for the CPL program.

| P a g e 26

Appendix

Appendix A - Stakeholder Table

StakeholderStakeholder

Type Stake Influence Status

Current Teaching Staff Primary

Increased work from creating guidelines, tests, and evaluating tests and portfolios

High Powerful

Board of Trustees PrimaryCreating opportunities for students, staff, businesses, and the community

High Powerful

Current Students PrimaryPotentially complete school in less time and money High Legitimate

New Administrative Staff

Primary New jobs, careers, opportunities Med Legitimate

IT Systems Staff PrimaryCreating testing and other IT-related components of the CPL program High Legitimate

New Students PrimaryPotentially complete school in less time and for less money High Urgent

Oregon University System Primary

Other institutions, funding, transfer of credits gained via CPL High Powerful

Community Secondary Benefit from new knowledge Low Legitimate

Businesses SecondaryGain new employees and knowledge in less time Low Powerful

Families of Students Secondary

Benefit from education in less time (jobs, promotions, etc.) Low Legitimate

Families of Current Staff

SecondaryPossibly less time with family due to more work required (or benefit from an increase in pay)

Low Legitimate

Families of New Staff Secondary

Benefit from employment (money, benefits, tuition discounts) Low Legitimate

Marylhurst SecondaryA local university and national leader in CPL Med Legitimate

| P a g e 27

Appendix B - 5 Forces Analysis

1. List the strategic goals for the company or business unit • To develop a credit for prior learning program

• To increase community awareness and outreach

• To increase tuition revenue

• To grow the CPL program

• To be the strongest CPL program in the region

2. Identify the industry in which the company or business unit competes

Broadly, the program competes within the higher education industry. More specifically, it competes with other regional programs of competing institutions.

Based upon the strategic goals, A. Identify the markets served, the market segments serviced, by customer and

geography.

• This program serves those who have prior educational experience and are usually reentering their educational career.

• Veterans, those who worked out of high school, and people with five years + work experience.

• Geographically speaking , the program would serve the local Portland area and surrounding region with small groups from out of state.

B. Government industry classifications that can be useful

• Since the program is within an educational institution that receives both state and federal support, it will have special guidelines.

C. Identify the products and services offered by the industry

• Higher education above and beyond a high school education.

• Different participants have varying levels of accreditation.

The industry is broadly categorized as higher education. The program itself is targeted towards those who are entering their educational careers with some time lapsed since their last time in the classroom. Individuals like Veterans, working professionals, and those who may have raised families are all potentials participants in this program. Since this program takes place at PSU, it will compete with other regional institutions of varying accreditation for that potential tuition revenue.

| P a g e 28

3. Complete the detailed Threat/Benefit analyses for the industry

• Complete the following tables with respect to the industry defined in Stage 2.

• For each of the Threat tables below, place an X in the appropriate column (Yes, Neutral, No).

• Compute the number of Yes’s, Neutral’s, and No’s for each Threat table. Write down the totals in the Overall Industry Evaluation Table near the end of this worksheet

• Draft a comment about the overall impact by each threat to the industry profitability

| P a g e 29

Threat of New Entrants:

Threat Yes (+) Neutral No (-) Comments

Do large firms have a cost or performance advantage in your segment of the industry?

◉It is easier for PSU to compete against ITT Tech based on scale and brand.

Are there any proprietary product differences in your industry?

◉PSU offers a unique product with their own select staff found only at PSU.

Are there any established brand identities in your industry? ◉

Do your customers incur any significant costs in switching suppliers?

◉Switching to a local school incurs minimal extra cost, especially as easy as credits transfer.

Is a lot of capital needed to enter your industry? ◉

Is serviceable used equipment expensive? ◉

Does the newcomer to your industry face difficulty in accessing distribution channels?

◉

Does experience help you to continuously lower costs? ◉

Experience in higher educational programs is vital to maximizing efficiency.

Does the newcomer have any problems in obtaining the necessary skilled people, materials, or supplies?

◉

Testing and transfer standards would require someone with a degree of speciality, but overall the people and materials are available. The true difficulty is the matriculation of the prior experience.

Does your product or service have any proprietary features that give you lower costs?

◉

Are there licenses, insurance, or qualifications that are difficult to obtain?

◉

Can the newcomer expect strong retaliation on entering the market?

◉

| P a g e 30

Bargaining Power of Buyers:

New entrants - Overall rating and comments:

The true value in education really goes with how seriously the industry/community takes the education that is offered. To obtain that level of accreditation is expensive and involves large amounts of paperwork. However, the rise of ‘online universities’ opens a threat to existing universities that tend to charge higher tuition rates because their expenses are higher for real property.


Are there a large number of buyers relative to the number of firms in the business?

◉ Buyer = potential student.

Do you have a large number of customers, each with relatively small purchases?

◉

Does the customer face any significant costs in switching suppliers?

◉

Does the buyer need a lot of important information? ◉

The potential student must meet with program officials, and truly develop how their former experience will transfer into the school.

Is the buyer aware of the need for additional information?

◉ The process will be clearly laid out to potential students.

Is there anything that prevents your customer from taking your function in-house?

◉ They are eventually seeking a degree from PSU.

Your customers are not highly sensitive to price. ◉

Price is a huge factor levied by the amount of potential government subsidy.

Your product is unique to some degree or has accepted branding.

◉ PSU’s brand is part of the value behind a degree.

Your customers’ businesses are profitable. ◉

You provide incentives to the decision makers. ◉

| P a g e 31

Threat of Substitutes:

Bargaining power of buyers - overall rating and comments:

Students have numerous choices when it comes to higher education and thus higher bargaining power. However, it is worth noting that the CPL program is relatively unique to the Portland Metro area, and thus this limits the power of students who intend to make use of this particular program.


Substitutes have performance limitations that do not completely offset their lowest price. Or, their performance is not justified by their higher price

◉

The value behind a degree can be subjective so the amount spent on tuition can vary depending on the level of perceived worth behind the diploma.

The customer will incur costs in switching to a substitute ◉Your customer has no real substitute ◉Your customer is not likely to substitute. ◉

Substitutes - overall rating and comments:

Substitutes for higher education generally only exist to the extent that some ‘degrees’ have higher perceived values than others. For example, a degree from Harvard is generally perceived to be of higher value than a Community College degree. However, higher education substitutes are limited by the necessity to be perceived as valuable to a potential employer at the least. In this way, there is low threat of substitutes.

| P a g e 32

Bargaining Power of Suppliers:


My inputs (materials, labor, supplies, services, etc.) are standard rather than unique or differentiated

◉Basic office supplies are not unique or difficult to find.

I can switch between suppliers quickly and cheaply. ◉My suppliers would find it difficult to enter my business or my customers would find it difficult to perform my function in-house.

◉

I can substitute inputs readily ◉I have many potential suppliers. ◉My business is important to my suppliers ◉

My cost of purchases has no significant influence on my overall costs.

◉Payroll is of more importance than purchasing of supplies.

Bargaining power of suppliers - overall rating and comments: For materials such as basic office supplies, there are a variety of vendors available to the university. This, coupled with the purchasing power of bulk orders, prevents higher bargaining power of suppliers.

| P a g e 33

Determinants of Rivalry Among Existing Competitors:


The industry is growing rapidly ◉

The industry is not cyclical with intermittent overcapacity ◉

The fixed costs of the business are a relatively low portion of total costs

◉Land and Buildings are quite expensive, but payroll often makes up a large part of costs as well.

There are significant product differences and brand identities between the competitors

◉A Harvard degree is perceived differently from a community college degree.

The competitors are diversified rather than specialized ◉

It would not be hard to get out of this business because there are no specialized skills and facilities or long-term contract commitments, etc.

◉

The business of higher education requires staff with specialized skills, special facilities, and many staff/lease agreements are long-term.

My customers would incur significant cost in switching to a competitor.

◉

My product is complex and requires a detailed understanding on the part of my customer.

◉

My competitors are all of approximately the same size as I am.

◉

Rivalry among competitors - Overall rating and comments:

There is some level of competition amongst higher education, revolving around tuition costs, type of education received, and type of environment experienced. However, this is usually separated on different levels of institutions. Community colleges tend to compete with other community colleges, state universities with other state universities, and world-class universities with other world-class universities.

| P a g e 34

Overall Industry Evaluation

• After all Threat analyses have been completed, total the Yes’s, Neutral’s, and No’s in the Overall Industry Evaluation Table

• Considering the Yes’s, Neutral’s, and No’s totals, the comments from each of the threat tables, and the Industry Structure Table, draft an overall industry evaluation comment.

Overall Industry Evaluation:


Threat of new entrants 5 1 6

Relatively low threat of new entrants. There are high barriers of entry into the higher education industry.

Bargaining power of buyers 6 2 2 Students have many choices and thus

high bargaining power.

Threat of substitutes 1 1 2 Low threat of substitutes.

Bargaining power of suppliers 4 0 3 Relatively little bargaining power on the

supplier end of things.

Intensity of rivalry among competitors 2 3 4

There is some rivalry among competitors, mainly stratified on the level of the institution, ex. Universities, Community Colleges, trade schools, and private non-accredited institutions.

| P a g e 35

Industry Structure Table:

Industry structure – Overall comments:

Higher education seems to classify as an oligopoly with a small number of firms, offering similar products, in an industry with high barriers of entry.

Type of Industry Industry Attributes Examples

Firm Conduct Options

Expected Firm

Performance

Perfect competition

Large number of firms; homogeneous products ; low entry

and exit costs

Stock market Crude oil

Price taking Competitive Parity

Monopolistic competition

Large number of firms;

heterogeneous products; low entry

and exit costs

Toothpaste Shampoo

Automobiles

Product differentiation

Competitive advantage

Oligopoly

Small number of firms; homogeneous

or heterogeneous products; costly

entry and exit

US breakfast cereals Collusion Competitive

advantage

Monopoly One firm; costly entry

Microsoft in operating systems

Use market power to set

prices

Competitive advantage

| P a g e 36

| P a g e 37

Num

bers

by

the

YEAR

Use

all,

Om

ittin

g TE

SC

Indi

cate

s not

incl

uded

in P

SU C

alcu

latio

n

Scho

olPa

rtic

ipan

tsAv

erag

e Cr

edits

Atte

ndan

ceN

otes

Exce

lsior

Col

lege

20N

/A35

,000

Mar

ylhu

rst

N/D

211,

800

Vald

osta

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

25N

/D13

,069

Mid

dle

Tenn

esse

e St

ate

6023

26,6

00

Uni

vers

ity o

f Illi

nois-

Sprin

gfiel

d50

105,

000

Thom

as E

diso

n St

. Col

lege

2,10

015

21,0

00O

mitt

ed a

s an

outli

er

Uni

vers

ity o

f Wisc

onsin

Whi

tew

ater

177

12,0

00

Thom

pson

Riv

ers U

nive

rsity

400

N/D

24,0

00

East

ern

Ore

gon

Uni

vers

ity10

010

4,50

0

Port

land

Sta

te P

oten

tial

9615

30,0

00

Appe

ndix

C –

Ave

ragi

ng to

Est

imat

e N

umbe

r of S

tude

nt P

artic

ipan

ts P

er Y

ear

Appendix D – Questions for Cornelia Excerpts

1. Are only tenured professors participating in CPL courses? 1. tenured track and tenured (tenure takes 4-7 years to receive) adjunct. not

included i. tenured make salary and have benefits, specific set of duties to perform

and supplemental duties to perform extra tasks ii. Adjuncts get paid just for courses they teach - $3750 PER CLASS

2. What are the additional hours/days participating faculty will need to put in, in order to create CLO’s, challenge exams, and portfolio grading/analysis?

1. one cannot answer, substantial amount of time, 1. Standard course prep about 40hrs of work for CLO’s 2. Part of 40 hrs 3. 6-8hrs to do good job - $30hr for most tenured professors

3. If PSU were to hire a work study student over a .49 FTE to aid the CPL program coordinator, you mentioned it would be about $5K.

1. Is that per term or per year? 5K/yr (student support staff - student workers) 1. Finding students with schedule to work with CPL program is difficult

may hire two that do separate shifts 2. Feds pays most - 5K will support couple students

Appendix E – Questions for Jason Excerpts

7) Are there overall estimated costs for a single classroom or single office? Or per square foot?

For the FY14 Adopted budget RCAT we used an estimated cost of $12.33 per square foot for the Education and General space cost attribution. This is an overall University cost and does not account for specific differences in type of space, for example a lab space versus and office space.

| P a g e 38

Appendix F – Statement of Work CREDIT FOR PRIOR LEARNING

STATEMENT OF WORK

CLIENT PROJECT CHALLENGE/PROBLEM UNDERSTANDING

In response to a law passed by the state of Oregon in 2012, Portland State University implemented a program that would allow new and existing students to earn credit for prior education or experience. During the spring term of 2013, the Portland State Provost Challenge Initiative allocated funding to create Provost Challenge #92 - a team of PSU staff and faculty who collaborate to develop and execute a comprehensive CPL program at the university.

After a year of work on the project, PSU has been selected as a pilot school for CPL programs in Oregon. A practical field test of the CPL program is forecasted to begin in the fall term of 2014. The administration has set a deadline of the winter term of 2015 for the objective of establishing an effective structure for the CPL program at PSU.

CLIENT GOALS

• Have a business plan (that includes business models) that will outline specific tasks needed to implement the CPL program and a timeline for the implementation of these tasks. In addition to this, specific physical and financial logistics for launching and sustaining the program need to be determined.

• Consider potential revenue-generating components that will help sustain the program including income from tuition and fees and others sources.

• Estimation of the following costs involved in roll out of sustainable CPL program:

o Facilities costs: physical space to house the program; office furniture and equipment

o IT and Telecom costs: website creation and maintenance; computer; telephone

o Personnel costs: administrative personnel salary + OPE; instructional designer for course/module-development; academic advising.

Client Name: Portland State University CPL Program

From: Anna Berg, Rachel Wiederspiel, Corey Zimmerman, Travis Spencer, Justin Wiley, Feodor Cam, Taylor Runckel, Lisa Hollingshead, Claire McLeod, Juan Lopez, Freddy Cam, Nha Nguyen

Date: July 7, 2014

Re: Provost Challenge #92: Credit for Prior Learning

39| P a g e

o This will include the development of assessment rubrics, procedures, and learning outcomes.

o Training and Assessment costs

▪ Advisors and other key intake personnel

▪ Faculty assessment training

▪ Department/faculty assessment compensation

▪ Conference registration

▪ Travel for program administrator

o Supplies and photocopying costs: office supplies; instructional supplies; photocopying.

o Books and Periodicals costs. • Successful communication of CPL availability to students. • Ensure adequate levels of support for CPL, mostly by faculty. • Uncover areas/academic departments of greatest demand for CPL. • Quality of CPL program is on par with in class learning.

PROJECT APPROACH TO MEET CLIENT CHALLENGE/PROBLEM AND GOALS

PSU has provided the team with the extent of their research to date. The PSU capstone team will take the following approach to the meet the client’s goal under the timeline allotted for this project:

• Utilize existing data and research already completed by the PSU team, as made available through the program’s website and interviews.

• Conduct primary and secondary research to develop an understanding of Credit for Prior Learning program implementation at the university level.

• Gather and estimate cost data required to launch and sustain a CPL program at PSU.

o There will be a focus on determining the number of students and courses needed to drive revenue for the program.

• Develop an Excel-based tool to evaluate alternative scenarios based on different revenue stream models.

• Provide final recommendations based on projected expenses and revenues outlined in the alternative scenario evaluation.

PROJECT TEAM/CONSULTANT GOALS

Aside from adopting the goals of the client, we as a team of students will seek to create a business plan that not only meets the needs of the client completely, but also proposes a CPL program that satisfies student needs.

40 | P a g e

• To meet client goals through the approach listed above

• Provide PSU with financial data that will help the university more closely forecast expenses and revenues associated with deployment of CPL at the university

• Evaluate alternative scenarios for CPL program deployment based on qualitative and quantitative analysis and provide PSU with a final recommendation

TASK 1: BACKGROUND Task Purpose

To gain an understanding of the general conditions surrounding the business. This includes learning who the company is, what their mission and vision is, and a brief understanding of their industry as a whole.

Task Activities

Gather primary research through the use of a questionnaire among various classrooms. Additional primary research through interviews may be necessary at a variety of stages. Gather secondary research through competitor information, public knowledge, and demographic research.

Sub-Task 1.1: Primary Research

Sub-task Purpose:

To gain an understanding of student perception of the CPL program. To gain an understanding of professor perception of the CPL program. Use these to guide the choosing of program versions for our analysis.

Deliverables/Products/Dates:

Sub-Task 1.2: Secondary Research

Sub-task Purpose:

To gather general information about our client and their industry. Additionally, gather comparison data on similar programs already in place.

Deliverable/Products:

Task Deliverable

1.1 Primary Research - Questionnaire

1.2 Primary Research - Interviews

Task Deliverable

1.3 Secondary Research

41 | P a g e

TASK 2: PESTEL AND 5 FORCES (EXTERNAL ANALYSIS) Task Purpose

To gain a better understanding of what external elements may have an effect upon the CPL program and its success.

Task Activities

Sub-Task 2.1: Identify PESTEL Variables

Sub-task Purpose:

To determine this project’s external political, economic, social, technological, environmental and legal factors (macro-environment).


Sub-Task 2.2: Identify 5 Forces

Sub-task Purpose:

To determine the attractiveness or feasibility of the CPL program’s “target market” (micro-environment).


TASK 3: SWOT AND INTERNAL ANALYSIS

Task Purpose

To gain a better understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the CPL program.

Task Activities

A SWOT analysis will provide the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the CPL program, and the VRIO analysis will provide the value, rarity, imitability, and organization.

Task Deliverable

2.1 PESTEL Analysis

Task Deliverable

2.2 Porter’s 5 Forces Model

42 | P a g e


TASK 4: FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Task Purpose

To determine a comprehensive list of expenses. In addition to this, determine appropriate values for each of these expenses based on research, interviews, or existing information.

Task Activities


TASK 5: ALT. SCENARIO EVALUATION Task Purpose

To evaluate potential alternative scenarios based upon the data gathered and analysis performed.

Task Activities


Task Deliverable

3.1 SWOT Analysis

3.2 VRIO Analysis

Task Deliverable

4.1 Determine Comprehensive List of Expenses

4.2 Create an Estimate of Expenses

4.3 Design Cost Analysis Model

Task Deliverable

5.1 Alternative Scenario Evaluation

43 | P a g e

TASK 6: PRESENTATION Task Purpose

To present our findings and recommendations to the CPL team.

Task Activities


SCHEDULE & SUMMARY KEY DELIVERABLES

The following summarizes the key deliverables/dates and a general project schedule.

Task Deliverable

6.1 Final Presentation to CPL Team

6.2 Final Written Report

Task Deliverable

1.1 Primary Research – Questionnaire

1.2 Primary Research – Interviews

1.3 Secondary Research

2.1 PESTEL Analysis

2.2 Porter’s 5 Forces Model

3.1 SWOT Analysis

3.2 VRIO Analysis

4.1 Determine Comprehensive List of Expenses

4.2 Create an Estimate of Expenses (Based on Research/Interviews)

4.3 Design Cost Analysis Model

5.1 Alternative Scenario Evaluation

6.1 Final Presentation to CPL Team

6.2 Final Written Report

44 | P a g e

SCOPE APPROVAL

The following signatures accept the project work scope as outlined in this document. As the project moves forward, it may become necessary to alter the deliverables presented here in order to best cover the intent of the project. Should that occur a written work order will outline all work scope changes. No work scope changes are valid until all parties agree on changes and have signed the modified work scope.

Portland State University School of Business Administration Capstone Members:

Anna Berg, Date Feodor Cam, Date

Rachel Wiederspiel, Date Taylor Runckel, Date

Corey Zimmerman, Date Justin Wiley, Date

Travis Spencer, Date Lisa Hollingshead, Date

Claire McLeod, Date Juan Lopez, Date

Freddy Cam, Date Nha Nguyen, Date

Michael Moyer, Date

Portland State University – CPL Team: Capstone Project Faculty Advisor:

Cornelia Coleman, Date William M. Jones, Ph.D., Date

45 | P a g e

Bibliography ACE. “Prior Learning Assessments.” Prior Learning Assessments, American Council on Education 2014. Web. 28 July 2014.

Balzer, Jackie. "Student Affairs - Your Partners for Student Success!" Student Affairs. Portland State University, Portland. 10 July 2014. Speech.

CAEL. "CAEL - Prior Learning Assessment." CAEL - Prior Learning Assessment. Council for Adult and Experiential Learning, 2014. Web. 24 July 2014.

Fain, Paul. "Prior Learning Assessment Catches On, Quietly @insidehighered." Prior Learning Assessment Catches On, Quietly @insidehighered. Inside Higher Ed, 7 May 2012. Web. 24 July 2014.

"Office Properties for Lease." LoopNet. LoopNet, n.d. Web. 23 July 2014

Portland State University. "2013-2015 PSU-AAUP Collective Bargaining Update." Portland State Academic Affairs. Portland State University, 2014. Web. 01 Aug. 2014.

Portland State University. "2014-15 Budget Frequently Asked Questions." Portland State Finance & Administration. Portland State University, n.d. Web. 24 July 2014.

Portland State University. "List of Approved Fines and Fees." Portland State Finance & Administration. Portland State University, n.d. Web. 20 July 2014.

Portland State University. "Portland State University Mission." Portland State University. Portland State University, n.d. Web. 24 July 2014.

Portland State University. "Provost Challenge #92: Giving Credit Where Credit Is Due #3." Provost Challenge #92: Giving Credit Where Credit Is Due #3. Portland State University, 2014. Web. 10 Aug. 2014.

"Questions for Cornelia." Personal interview. 23 July 2014.

"Questions for Jason." E-mail interview. 25 July 2014.

| P a g e 46

Prepared by the BA 495 CPL Team Portland State University

Portland, OR 97201

ba495 capstone paper final

Documents

strategyfeasibility

prior learning programba

forces model