The Age of Customer Control

Among the most precious possessions in today's world, particularly for working adults, is time. There is never enough of it. Busy students do not want to waste valuable time navigating a physical campus to obtain a form or conduct routine business. How they learn, transact business, communicate, and initiate and sustain relationships changed forever with the popularization of the Internet and e-mail (Black, 2001). They have come to expect immediate, reliable service available 24/7 from anywhere.

Convenience is the way to win students' hearts and build brand loyalty. Students want the ability to choose between face-to-face and Web-enabled student services. With choice comes a feeling of control. When students control their time and to a degree the outcome, they are generally satisfied with the student service experience. That satisfaction translates into a positive image of the institution, improved student retention, and powerful, word-of-mouth promotion.

Mind Over Matter

An infusion of Web-based services alone will not yield these outcomes. The real gains come from changing mindsets. As staff begin to view their work through the eyes of the students, attitudes change and new possibilities emerge. The rigidity of people and organizations can paralyze student service change efforts. Organizational silos become impenetrable; processes that transcend a single functional area, department, or division remain fragmented and integration becomes a lofty but unobtainable goal; and institutional politics splinter the service focus. Calcified organizations only awake from their catatonic state when there is external intervention, competitive pressures, a change in leadership, or some other compelling sense of urgency.

Assuming a sense of urgency exists or can be invented, student services professionals are more likely to rally around a shared vision, particularly if it is a vision they believe in and helped to create. Enhancing student success or becoming student-centered are examples of visions in higher education service organizations that are changing more than the technology. They are changing the culture. How staff interact with students, how processes are designed, how job descriptions are molded, how decisions are made, as well as the very nature of how work gets done changes. Even the best innovations in technology do not represent a sustainable competitive advantage. The only sustainable advantage your college or university has in the service sector is its culture. Good or bad, the culture is uniquely your own.

The culture is less about strategies and technology than it is about the way people think and behave. Whenever possible hire staff who have a servant's heart. These are people who have a passion for helping others. They see themselves as educators rather than regulators, as counselors rather than information providers, as ambassadors of the institution rather than simply employees with work to do, and as trust agents rather than people who complete business transactions without concern for promptness, accuracy, or reliability. Servant-oriented staff understand that for a particular moment in time they are the window through which a student views the university. They treat each interaction with a student as an institutional "moment of truth" (Carlson).

By adopting such an approach to the delivery of student services, you do not turn over the institution to the students. Nor do you conform to the business mantra that "the customer is always right." Indeed, students must be held accountable for their actions. Seldom is this point debated; however, its execution varies depending on the service orientation of the institution. Accountability can be legalistic and punitive, or it can be educational and part of the self-actualization process. The latter is imbedded in a student-centered culture. It becomes the ethos of the organization. Staff are held accountable for their actions and rewarded for contributions that are consistent with the culture.

Redefining Jobs

As you rely more and more on technology to provide student services, jobs must be redefined. Every new position, every vacancy, and every training session represents an opportunity to enhance the technical proficiency of the organization. Manual operations and bureaucratic systems will never satisfy this generation of students. Staff who are technologically illiterate add minimal value to a high-tech operation and often become a liability. Conversely, staff who are technologically sophisticated but have no people skills must be strategically placed within the organization. Their contributions are narrowly focused and generally well defined. Depending on the organization's needs, an employee who has a blend of high tech and high touch skills is usually preferred but sometimes rare.

New jobs have emerged in student services areas over the last few years. Technology project managers, Web creative designers, content managers, online personal assistants, virtual advisors, and e-recruiters are among the many new jobs in the profession. These jobs, and others like them, evolved because of the institutions' need to better meet changing student expectations and characteristics. Distance learners, for example, may never visit a brick and mortar campus. They need many of the same services as on-campus students, but sheer distance and time-of-day may make it impractical to seek services through traditional means.

Not only are jobs being redefined but new models for when and where staff work are being explored. A growing number of staff will work evening and weekend hours as institutions strive to be more responsive to part-time, working students many of whom are distance learners.

Safety concerns, space limitations, employee retention, student needs, and cost constraints will serve as drivers for telecommuting jobs. Again, technology makes it possible for staff to work from home at hours that fit the needs of the institution as well as those of the employee. Staff who telecommute will serve as online personal assistants (Groopz), virtual advisors (Academic Engine), online tutors (Smarthinking), Web page developers, and the like.

De-jobbing

The most flexible organizations do not redefine jobs with any expectation of permanency. These organizations are acutely aware of the lightning fast pace of change. To be market responsive, organizations must be nimble – changing slightly ahead of the demand curve. Rigidly defined jobs, particularly on unionized campuses and state-supported institutions, can bring the gears of these complex organizations to a grinding halt. "Bridges (1996) suggests that it is the very rigidity of our staffing structures, the very nature of jobs themselves, that is at the root of the challenges we face in dealing with change" (Kalsbeek, 2001).

Preventing this kind of gridlock is essential but not simple. Savvy managers look for and exploit degrees of freedom. They create fluid jobs that move from project to project or opportunity to opportunity. By de-jobbing work, organizations become vastly more productive than those where staff are limited by narrowly defined jobs and a silo-based mentality reigns.

When turf issues dictate how services are delivered, then it is nearly impossible to streamline anything. Structural issues, including job boundaries, prevent integration. With fully integrated services, the institution's organizational structure is invisible. This is ideal because students do not care how we are organized. They simply want to complete a business transaction or find information painlessly. So, student service organizations that blur the boundaries between departments and the jobs that exist within them are most likely to have satisfied students.

Boundary-less jobs such as a generalist have begun to pepper the higher education landscape. There are as many variations of these jobs as there are colleges and universities. Even the job of generalist can and does have various permutations: information provider, enrollment service process guide, student advocate, or intervention specialist. Regardless of the role, generalists are ideally untethered to organizational structure. They are free to reach across boundaries on behalf of the student. Their mission is to provide exemplary service and reduce student runaround.

Knowledge Management

For generalists to accomplish this mission, they must understand the metabolism of the organization and indeed, know the DNA of every cell. Stewart (1997) points out that our organizational successes are primarily the result of what is known more so than what is done. A few institutions have begun to look at knowledge as an institutional asset. In those institutions, positions like knowledge manager, content trainer, manager of organizational learning, and coordinator of internal communications are gradually emerging.

To function seamlessly in a boundary-less environment, staff need initial, ongoing, and just-in-time training. Staff learning needs to occur in three domains: higher education, the institution, and relevant functional areas. Understanding the dynamics and trends in higher education gives staff a "big picture" perspective. This global context is necessary to know what is possible and how the pieces fit together. Knowing the inner workings of the institution (e.g., organizational structure, policies, procedures, protocols, deadlines, and resources) is essential to guiding students through the organizational maze. Beyond a broad understanding of how the institution works, knowledge of one or more functional areas allows staff to serve as specialists in the skin of a generalist.

Individual and team learning activities should permeate each domain. Examples of individual learning include conferences, workshops, classes, readings, and functional training. Team learning experiences require a bit more imagination. For instance, having those who present at a conference share their insights at team meetings. Book clubs, using content that is related to the profession or some skill that is transferable among professions (e.g., leadership, communication, diversity, and change management), foster an informal exchange of ideas. Other team learning strategies often utilize ropes courses, computer decision labs, focus group discussions, cross-functional teams, interactive team meetings, and other activities that promote the sharing of knowledge and perspectives.

Even the best of staff learning systems, however, will not ensure reliable information. Voluminous, ever-changing information makes it practically impossible to stay abreast of every facet of the organization. "Knowledge management is the process of transforming information and intellectual assets into enduring value. It connects people with the knowledge that they need to take action, when they need it" (Kidwell, Vander Linde, & Johnson, 2000). Hence, staff need access to information on their desktop, laptop, or PDA. Staff portals or Intranets are two mediums in which knowledge can be effectively managed for the casual user. The hardcore user may prefer the more extensive student information system screens and related reports. By organizing knowledge in a way that is convenient and intuitive to staff, the probability of providing students with accurate information is dramatically enhanced.

Future Trends

Higher education tends to lag behind business by three to four years. An advantage of changing at a slower pace is that we can see trends long before they become a reality in the academy. One interesting trend on the horizon is customer relationship management (CRM). The leaders in this movement have CRM software that allows them to learn more about each student with every interaction, and use the information collected to create a profile of students, so that communications as well as program and service offerings can be tailored to the individual. To illustrate the CRM model, think of how Amazon.com learns from every purchase you make and then follows-up with book or music offers in a similar genre. Do not be surprised to see "student relationship managers" on college campuses in the near future.

The convergence of data, voice and video on the Internet coupled with the expansion of residential broadband, wireless connectivity, along with the integration of cell phones, PDAs, and laptops will only further escalate the demand for online services (Weigel, 2000; Frand, 2000). The integration of technology will change the nature of student services. We will be able to reach out and touch students more easily – sending e-mails, voice messages, web forms, video clips, and much more to a single device. Usually, the device will be on the students' person. They can respond to requests or access information instantaneously and almost effortlessly. Accordingly, staff need to develop communication skills using a variety of mediums.

Finally, student expectations will continue to increase. To meet or exceed their expectations, institutions must leverage technology to provide mass customization and real-time responses. Speed itself must become a strategic direction (Schnaars, 1998). Not only must responses be immediate at any time of day or night, but they also must be tailored to a single individual. Magic. Perhaps, but this kind of response is possible. The technology already exists. But it requires more than technology. It requires a new way of thinking. Staff must move outside of the traditional student services box and imagine new possibilities.

Conclusion

Mark Twain once said, "For every complex problem, there is an obvious solution, and it is always wrong." Providing online services to students is more complex than creating Web pages or portals. It involves technology, infrastructure, resources, capable staff, and different ways of thinking. Most importantly, it requires a change in the culture.

We have moved from a service economy to an experience economy. Student service providers of the new millennium must push the envelope – leverage technology, manage knowledge, build intellectual capital, and become increasingly nimble. We must create service experiences that leave our students breathless, longing to tell others about their institution.

About the Author

Jim Black is associate provost for enrollment services at The University of North Carolina at Greensboro. He has written numerous book chapters, monographs, and journal articles in the areas of student services, marketing, retention, enrollment management, and change management, and he is the editor of a book titled, "The Strategic Enrollment Management Revolution."

Black is the director of AACRAO's Strategic Enrollment Management Conference and the co-founder of the Small College Enrollment Conference. He has been an IBM Best Practice Partner since 1999. With consulting experience at over 40 colleges and universities in the U.S., Canada, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands, Jim Black brings a unique perspective the student services profession. Contact Jim at jim_black@uncg.edu or 336-334-5496 for additional information.

Associations and Organizations

• American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO)
  http://www.aacrao.org/home.htm
  AACRAO provides guidelines and voluntary standards for best practices in admissions, enrollment management, administrative information technology, and student services.

• American College Personnel Association
  http://www.acpa.nche.edu/
  ACPA strives to serve all levels of higher education student affairs professionals through educational and developmental programs, publications and networking opportunities in order to enable these educators to excel in their positions, to achieve career growth, and to contribute to the profession.

• EDUCAUSE
  http://www.educause.edu/ep/ep.asp
  The mission of EDUCAUSE is to advance higher education by promoting the intelligent use of information technology.

• NASPA: Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education
  http://www.naspa.org/
  NASPA provides professional development, promotes exemplary practices, and is a leader in policy development. NASPA helps senior student affairs officers and administrators, student affairs professionals, faculty, and other educators enhance student learning and development.

• The Center for Creative Leadership
  http://www.ccl.org/index.shtml
  The mission of the Center for Creative Leadership is to advance the understanding, practice and development of leadership for the benefit of society worldwide.
  

References

• Black, J. (2001). Students in the dot com world: Implications for enrollment management. In J. Black (Ed.), The SEM revolution. Washington, DC: American Association of Registrars and Admissions Officers.

• Carlson, Carl (1987). Moments of truth. New York: Harper & Row.

• Frand, J.L. (2000, September/October). The Information Age mindset: Changes in students and Implications for higher education. EDUCAUSE Review, 35 (5), 15-24.

• Kalsbeek, D. H. (2001). Tomorrow's SEM organization: New perspectives and priorities for a changing workforce. In J. Black (Ed.), The SEM revolution. Washington, DC: American Association of Registrars and Admissions Officers.

• Kidwell, J., Vander Linde, K., & Johnson, S. (2000). Applying corporate knowledge management practices in higher education. EDUCAUSE Quarterly (4).

• Schnaar, S.P. (1998). Marketing strategy: Customers & competition. New York: The Free Press.

• Stewart, T. (1997). Intellectual capital: The new wealth of organizations. New York: Doubleday.

• Weigel, V. (2000, September/October). E-learning and the tradeoff between richness and reach in higher education. Change, 33 (5), 10-15.

Corporate Sites