Recent public criticism of the revenue-share OPM model has led to great attention to alternative models. In this panel discussion, we will explore fee-for-service and unbundled models offered by an emerging category of vendors who provide services to universities that complement internal teams and don’t require revenue share or long term commitments.
This interactive panel session will explore the recent criticism of the traditional OPM (online program management) approach to online program development and contrast it with more cost-effective solutions in the market – the OPM alternatives.
The first direction that many institutions turn for online learning is inward, looking for in-house resources to create an online learning solution. Doing so provides the greatest control over and insight into the process and internalizes the expertise. However, this approach raises difficult-to-answer questions:
-
Does our staff have the needed expertise in project management, online pedagogy, applicable instructional design experience, user experience design expertise, and technical integration and development for both desktop and mobile? Does this staff have availability when priority demands are placed on them?
-
Do our internal processes encourage and support innovation in conjunction with on-time and under-budget delivery?
-
If we don’t have the staff, do we have the ability to attract, manage, train, up-skill, and retain talented employees combined with the ability to release those who under-perform?
Many institutions that have used in-house resources end up realizing too late that their institution’s expertise only seemed to be related to what they were already doing in support of their face-to-face courses. The end result may be a non-differentiated program that underperforms related to the institution’s financial goals, bores the students, and doesn’t allow the faculty to create courses that build on their strengths.
A recent Eduventures’ survey of online learning leaders indicated that institutions currently engaged with OPMs are expressing a more nuanced set of goals and priorities for these engagements than they have in years past. Compared to results from a similar survey conducted in 2015, institutions continue to exhibit strong interest in marketing and recruitment services, but appear to have a greater expectation that their OPM provider will improve student performance metrics through better online course experience and enhanced support.
OPMs emerged about 15 years ago. These providers help higher education institutions address a specific and important opportunity — move curriculum online by minimizing up-front expenditures while also managing enrollment and marketing. By providing the capital and resources to build online programs, OPMs benefit from multi-year, high revenue-share models for developing and managing these programs. The institutional benefits of reduced up-front costs while establishing and/or increasing an online presence has made this an attractive choice for higher education institutions.
More recently, institutions are seeking new models that allow colleges and universities to launch and manage online and blended programs with a greater degree of choice, control and differentiation. In contrast to the traditional approaches of either outsourcing to traditional OPMs and sharing the revenue or doing everything in-house, an unbundled, fee-for-service model has emerged that is allowing institutions to maintain greater control over pedagogy, student experience, marketing strategy and revenue model.
As the market for online learning matures and institutions seek new ways to increase revenue and create engaging student experiences, authentic, visionary curriculum is driving the future of higher education. Now more than ever, institutions are seeking more flexible models that enable them to emphasize choice, flexibility, and differentiated educational experiences that complement their internal resources while building on their own distinctiveness and putting pedagogy back in the driver’s seat.
Traditional OPMs may continue to be a good choice for institutions that need to create an online presence where none exists, for those that don’t have access to funding sources—either directly or through partnerships, gifts, or budget planning—and in situations where unique, differentiated curriculum is not a requirement.
The unbundled approach complements institutions that are looking for a more unique and customized learning experience, and want to utilize a fee-for-service approach. This enables them to pick and choose program elements that best align with their program goals and the overall academic brand. In this model, colleges and universities take more control over the curriculum, student experience, marketing strategy and revenue model. Doing so ensures that pedagogy drives technology decisions rather than the other way around. Unlike the traditional, revenue-sharing approach, institutions make the initial investment for services and then retain all of the tuition revenue.
This session will explore the pros & cons of each approach, and provide examples of scenarios in which each makes the most sense.
Questions:
-
Compare and contrast how the models provide differentiation and pedagogy-driven learning.
-
In what instances does a traditional OPM approach make more sense, and in what instances do OPM alternatives provide the best solution? Are there instances where in-house development is the best approach?
-
How are schools funding upfront costs of program development if taking a fee-for-service approach?