Factors That Affect the Chemical Reaction Rate

Factors That Affect the Chemical Reaction Rate Its useful to be able to predict whether an action will affect the rate at which a chemical reaction proceeds. Several factors can influence the chemical reaction rate. In general, a factor that increases the number of collisions between particles will increase the reaction rate and a factor that decreases the number of collisions between particles will decrease the chemical reaction rate. Concentration of Reactants A higher concentration of reactants leads to more effective collisions per unit time, which leads to an increased reaction rate (except for zero-order reactions.) Similarly, a higher concentration of products tends to be associated with a lower reaction rate. Use the partial pressure of reactants in a gaseous state as a measure of their concentration. Temperature Usually, an increase in temperature is accompanied by an increase in the reaction rate. Temperature is a measure of the kinetic energy of a system, so higher temperature implies higher average kinetic energy of molecules and more collisions per unit time. A general rule for most (not all) chemical reactions is that the rate at which the reaction proceeds will approximately double for each 10Â °C increase in temperature. Once the temperature reaches a certain point, some of the chemical species may be altered (e.g., denaturing of proteins) and the chemical reaction will slow or stop. Medium or State of Matter The rate of a chemical reaction depends on the medium in which the reaction occurs. It may make a difference whether a medium is aqueous or organic; polar or nonpolar; or liquid, solid, or gaseous. Reactions involving liquids and especially solids depend on the available surface area. For solids, the shape and size of the reactants make a big difference in the reaction rate. Presence of Catalysts and Competitors Catalysts (e.g., enzymes) lower the activation energy of a chemical reaction and increase the rate of a chemical reaction without being consumed in the process. Catalysts work by increasing the frequency of collisions between reactants, altering the orientation of reactants so that more collisions are effective, reducing intramolecular bonding within reactant molecules, or donating electron density to the reactants. The presence of a catalyst helps a reaction to proceed more quickly to equilibrium. Aside from catalysts, other chemical species can affect a reaction. The quantity of hydrogen ions (the pH of aqueous solutions) can alter a reaction rate. Other chemical species may compete for a reactant or alter orientation, bonding, electron density, etc., thereby decreasing the rate of a reaction. Pressure Increasing the pressure of a reaction improves the likelihood reactants will interact with each other, thus increasing the rate of the reaction. As you would expect, this factor is important for reactions involving gases, and not a significant factor with liquids and solids. Mixing Mixing reactants increases their ability to interact, thus increasing the rate of a chemical reaction. Summary of Factors The chart below is a summary of the main factors that influence the reaction rate. There is typically a maximum effect, after which changing a factor will have no effect or will slow a reaction. For example, increasing temperature past a certain point may denature reactants or cause them to undergo a completely different chemical reaction. Factor Affect on Reaction Rate temperature increasing temperature increases reaction rate pressure increasing pressure increases reaction rate concentration in a solution, increasing the amount of reactants increases the reaction rate state of matter gases react more readily than liquids, which react more readily than solids catalysts a catalyst lowers activation energy, increasing reaction rate mixing mixing reactants improves reaction rate

10 Ways To Form a Compound Noun

10 Ways To Form a Compound Noun 10 Ways To Form a Compound Noun 10 Ways To Form a Compound Noun By Maeve Maddox Compound nouns are of three kinds: open, hyphenated, and closed. As the names imply, â€Å"open compounds† are written as separate words, â€Å"hyphenated compounds† are written with one or more hyphens, and â€Å"closed compounds† are written as a single word. Many compounds begin as open, progress to hyphenated, and finish as closed. Because of the modern preference to avoid hyphenating words as much as possible, newly created compounds tend to develop closed forms earlier than they might have in the past. Some compounds written as one word in US usage are hyphenated in British usage. Compound nouns are formed by combining different parts of speech. This list of ten is not exhaustive. 1. noun + noun wheeler-dealer bedroom shoelace 2. noun + preposition/adverb hanger-on voice-over passerby (Br. passer-by) 3. noun + adjective attorney general battle royal poet laureate 4. noun + verb airlift haircut snowfall 5. adjective + noun high school poor loser redhead 6. adjective + verb well-being whitewashing 7. preposition/adverb + noun off-ramp onlooker 8. verb + noun singing lesson washing machine 9. verb + preposition/adverb warm-up know-how get-together follow-through 10. word + preposition + word free-for-all mother-in-law word-of-mouth Most compound nouns form their plurals like any other noun: by adding an s to the end of the word: wheeler-dealers, washing machines, onlookers. A few, like mother-in-law and hole in one do not place the s at the end, but on the most significant word: mothers-in-law, holes in one. Some compounds of French origin in which the adjective stands last have more than one acceptable plural (depending upon the dictionary): attorney generals or attorneys general court martials or courts martial film noirs, films noir, or films noirs runner-ups or runners-up Because there are no hard and fast rules regarding the writing of compound nouns, stylebooks advise writers to consult a dictionary when in doubt. Want to improve your English in five minutes a day? Get a subscription and start receiving our writing tips and exercises daily! Keep learning! Browse the Grammar category, check our popular posts, or choose a related post below:45 Synonyms for â€Å"Food†Time Words: Era, Epoch, and EonHow Do You Pronounce "Often"?

Teaching Prejudice Reduction in High School Students, School and the Research Paper

Teaching Prejudice Reduction in High School Students, School and the Community - Research Paper Example Gordon Allport identified prejudice as a feeling, positive or harsh, towards an individual or thing, prior to, or not derived from, real experience (Allport 2). This paper will research on ways one would go about teaching prejudice reduction in high school students, school and community. Prejudicial beliefs and attitudes challenge values of social justice in a moderate democracy. Prejudice in learning institutions is troubling because they are public areas in which learners study to construct and negotiate knowledge of disparities. When prejudicial attitudes go uninspected in learning institutions, students are not granted the chance to disassemble prejudicial knowledge (Bandura 34). The effect of prejudicial actions on students is broad, extending from lower school performance to deprived mental and physical health. For instance, recent research illustrated that the Asian Pacific American learners encounter prejudicial attitudes regarding expectations of high academic achievement. A single Asian Pacific American student is anticipated to shine in academics based upon combined group data in spite of his or her individual abilities or needs (Cohen 56). These prejudices coalesce with family prospects bring out high levels of stress among learners. As a result, some Asian Pacific American scholars report serious misery and suicidal feelings than their European and American counterparts. The lessening of prejudice is essential for vigorous and equitable learning surroundings that promote a student’s physical, academic and mental health (Cohen 56). Creating awareness of the effects of prejudice to high schools students, schools and the community at large is a vital key of reducing prejudice. This is because as students observe alternate stories of different groups, they start the deconstruction of hegemonic typical stories that effect social disparity. For instance, rather than having monolingual voice in subjects like history, learners are capable of listeni ng to several voices that explain the history from a variety of views. Learners develop the skill to evaluate discrepancies that exist to effect inequalities by studying several views of history. Transformative information becomes a possible source for exceptional change by enlightening and communicating the variations between the democratic principles in a society plus its practices. The transformation of information entails raising diverse queries and reexamining what is the official information. The official information explains the attitude of typical stories to the status of being natural, normal or truth. Because official information is often effected by a school’s program, a critical assessment of the curriculum is a vital aspect of multicultural education. This assessment is essential for students to deconstruct prejudicial information and establish an appreciation of diverse cultures. The mass media play a pivotal responsibility in enlightening the reduction of preju dice in the society. The mass media assists in enlightening the society about the effects of prejudice. Educators can also assist students to study the way in which diverse social groups are exposed in mass media. Recent research has found that, though, the media often promotes the growth of prejudicial attitudes because it occasionally gives a wider understanding of different perspectives. Finally, prejudiced actions like tracking should be expelled as a means of reducing prejudice (Cortes 125). Researchers have called for awareness

Compare and contrast Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Compare and contrast - Assignment Example A recent study demonstrates that Latin American countries are lagging behind many of the world’s education system, as most students are unable to receive a higher education. In fact, only one in three students manage to receive a secondary school education, with many countries in developing nations such as Ecuador struggling to maintain funding for secondary teachers and schools. Another major problem is the high level of students who repeat a grade or who drop out of school before completing sixth grade. Rural areas face the challenge of many students having to work during harvesting season, further taking them away from school. However, it was stressed that the real problem for the region is not access to education, rather its poor quality. While the United States faces many deficiencies in education, including high drop-out rates in low income areas and relatively poor teacher quality, the base test scores indicate that the United States outscores most Hispanic countries. Yet, the similarities aren’t as striking as one might imagine, particularly when considering the structure of the systems. For instance, both share a similar University and Community College structure. The majority of Latin American countries also provide free and mandated primary and secondary education for all

Pride and Prejudice Essay Example for Free

Pride and Prejudice Essay Jane Austen’s novel Pride and Prejudice (1813) is believed to originate from the manuscript called First Impressions that have been written between 1796 and 1797. The initial title indicates that characters’ behavior and evaluations are influenced by their first impressions. The second title stresses the importance of such psychological traits and mechanisms as pride and prejudice. In a course of the novel personages change a lot so far as they understand that perfunctory attitudes and assessments are false when being devoid of knowledge of the context and understanding of an individual’s character. The present paper tackles upon analysis of Austen’s book as being researched through a lens of psychology. Contemporary science introduced the â€Å"social stereotypes† concept which significantly influences people’s interaction within a given social group. Among many other important contributions, the novel of interest teaches us to approach carefully decisions as related to our interpersonal acting and judgment of group members according to first impressions. The effects, dangers and consequences of premature evaluations as based on social stereotypes will be analysed with specific examples from the book. The novel under review is believed to be an example of psychological writing or novel of human relationships. As Sherry has acknowledged, the writer is always aware of â€Å"the presence of other individuals with whom it is either a duty or a pleasure to mix† (611). The very title of the book consists of two psychological concepts. The one of â€Å"pride† denotes a trait of character associated with high self-esteem. Another one of â€Å"prejudice† refers to a situation when a person makes decisions regardless of the context and relevant features of a case or individual. In regard to the issue of Austen’s psychologism, critic Bloom has cited Ian Watt, an important theorist of literature from Stanford University. The latter has claimed Austen to be the commenting narrator† in the sense that her â€Å"analyses of †¦ characters and their states of mind, and her ironical juxtaposition of motive and situation †¦ do not seem to come from an intrusive author but rather from some august and impersonal spirit of social and psychological understanding† (39). In his turn, another literary critic, Ryan, has defined Austen’s psychologism as an â€Å"experiment in schematic psychology† (33). The latter definition with its emphasis on the writer’s schematism in delineating people’s behavioral patterns and analyzing their internal and external drives seems to be really accurate, given the recent developments in psychological science. Just think of the plain statistics: in Austen’s text, there are 48 references to the phenomenon of â€Å"pride,† which is accessible through direct observation, but there are only 8 cases of mentioning the phenomenon of â€Å"prejudice,† which requires a deeper understanding of psychological mechanisms and social contexts. It seems that the writer lacks instruments and concepts to analyze human behavior at a deeper level but this is not Austen’s fault. Being unaware of any of the recent theories of social sciences, she nevertheless hits the very essence of the process that would later be called â€Å"social stereotyping. † Let us prove this hypothesis on the example of the â€Å"pride† concept. First time it is explained in Chapter 5 by Mary Bennet, the most earnest of the Bennets, who is interested in social theory. Upon the ball at which the local society has got acquainted with Fitzwilliam Darcy, the rich and handsome gentleman from London, women start discussing the newcomer and label him as being â€Å"eat up with pride† (Austen 25). On occasion, Mary has demonstrated her education, saying: Pride is a very common failing†¦ human nature is particularly prone to it, and †¦ there are very few of us who do not cherish a feeling of self-complacency on the score of some quality or other, real or imaginary. Vanity and pride are different things, though the words are often used synonymously. A person may be proud without being vain. Pride relates more to our opinion of ourselves, vanity to what we would have others think of us. (ibid. ) The validity of Mary’s (i. e. , Austen’s) remark has been acknowledged many decades afterwards by contemporary psychologists including Hunyady and Ryan. Whereas Mary Bennet operates the phrase â€Å"opinion of ourselves,† when referring to characteristics ascribed to the self by an individual, Ryan uses the term â€Å"self-ratings† (191), and Hunyady employs the term â€Å"self-image† (189). Both Mary (i. e. Austen) and modern scientists are aware of the complexity of perceptions as featured by the subject and members of the group. To proceed with comparison, whereas in the novel there is made a distinction between â€Å"pride† as a self-rating and â€Å"vanity† as the rating imposed by the community, Ryan speaks about the concept of â€Å"social stereotype. † The psychologist has ac knowledged that it consists of the two basic elements: â€Å"the perceived stereotypicality of a group (i. e. , the perceived extremity of the central tendency) and the perceived dispersion, or diversity, of group members† (191). This point is not Ryan’s unique invention. On the same issue, another social scientist, Hunyady, has stressed the duality of social processes as occurring both within the specific group and outside it. Observing the complexity of relationships in dynamic social contexts, Hunyady has emphasized the following: †¦ [T]he categories of persons and the related stereotypes do not stand on their own but rather are components of some kind of a system. †¦ [S]tereotypes are the mosaic pieces of a picture formed of the whole society. One not only gets to know his individual companions or groups of his companions but also tries to get a comprehensive view of the entire human world and of society, in which he and his fellows have a place and a more or less stable environment. (189) In other words, psychologists argue that in a process of exhibiting the new object to the social group, the behavior of group members in regard to this object is predicted by realistic group conflict theory and social cognition theories of social categorization. Every subject unit of the group obeys to a certain set of normative regulations. An individual does not function on his/her own but clearly fits into this or that community. Subsequently and inevitably, a person evaluates oneself according to the degree of membership, or the extent to which his/her ratings of the self, the group and social processes conform to the summated ratings of other people belonging to that group. As Ryan has indicated, there is a â€Å"central tendency,† or the core perception of the phenomenon that is agreed upon by all group members as being guided by a set of shared norms, and there are also deviations from the mainstream. The latter are allowed by those group subjects who are less inclined to stereotype the phenomena of life due to their intellect and character. Taking this conceptual framework into consideration, we should admit that the stages of the social stereotyping process are brilliantly revealed by Austen in Pride and Prejudice, albeit the narrator employs a simple, non-scientific language. There is a specific group in the countryside 19th century England whose members share the common regulations concerning people and events. The highest value is attributed to the upper class membership, wealth, and appearance. There is â€Å"the aura of a small, enclosed community of talking, visiting, and company† (Sherry 611) that confines every person to the specific role and place. In this social atmosphere, first impressions, which are based on the abovementioned features of appearance and sweet manners (i. e. , those which do not deviate from the central tendency), become the long-lasting tags for an individual. It is extremely difficult to overcome the sustainability of these immediately formed stereotypes. Since the very moment of his entry to the ball room, Fitzwilliam Darcy drew the group’s attention. He is a new person to the community, and at first sight he seems to be in accord with the shared set of norms so far as the man is high, good-looking and enjoys a substantial income of ten thousand a year. However, conforming to the stereotype of a â€Å"good man† in the sense of outlook and social position, Darcy becomes a breacher of discipline in terms of his relationships with other group members. Darcy is claimed â€Å"to be proud; to be above his company, and above being pleased; and not all his large estate in Derbyshire could then save him from having a most forbidding, disagreeable countenance† (Austen 14). The reason for such a shift in attitudes is the man’s denial of the spirit of companionship that is somewhat more important to the community than the characteristics of its individual subjects, however handsome and wealthy they are. The clue to understanding the first impression of Darcy is provided in the scene where young women are discussing him after the ball. Charlotte Lucas, the best friend of the second Bennets daughters Elizabeth, who is the main female personage of the story, justifies Darcy by the fact that his high self-rating is understandable so far as he possesses every feature admired within the group: His pride does not offend me so much as pride often does, because there is an excuse for it. One cannot wonder that so very fine a young man, with family, fortune, everything in his favour, should think highly of himself. If I may so express it, he has a right to be proud. (Austen 25) In other words, this is not the man’s high self-esteem that hurts the senses of the locals. His drawback tackles upon not the pardonable attitude of pride but the regrettable vanity, or the overt negligence of the shared persuasion that the given social group is the best environment for any dignified individual. Regarding the eagerness to enter the local community and borrow its toolkit of stereotypes, Darcy represents a sharp contrast to an amiable young officer, Mr. Wickham. The latter is as handsome as the former but is more eagerly accepted by the group so far as he gladly steps into social intercourses with every member of the circle. As the personage himself has confessed, â€Å"I have been a disappointed man, and my spirits will not bear solitude. I must have employment and society† (Austen 98). This weakness and lack of the so to say inner rod is initially perceived as a virtue by group members. Austen’s mastery is made evident in the scenes documenting the usual intercourse between group members so that the reader can get impression of the relationships permeating the group atmosphere and learn the principles which back up the social stereotypes of that time. To make a clue to her heroes’ characters, the writer provides short explanations of the people’s psychological background. People and events are evaluated by many people who exchange remarks on the issue of interest, although Austen takes a particular interest in the phenomena as perceived through the eyes of Elizabeth Bennet. This is a beautiful and intelligent young lady of 20 years old who displays â€Å"a lively, playful disposition, which delighted in anything ridiculous† (Austen 16). She deserves the reader’s appreciation, demonstrating â€Å"more quickness of observation and less pliancy of temper than her sister, and †¦ a judgement too unassailed by any attention to herself† (Austen 20). Due to her intellect and sociable yet a bit absent-minded character, Elizabeth exhibits the perfect ability to deviate from the central tendency in her assessments and evaluations of life matters. The second of Bennet’s daughters is obviously the only group member who could have appreciated Darcy’s ability to let the world slide, if not for the case of personal injustice. She cannot forget the pain that has been caused to her own self-esteem. The thing is that Elizabeth has heard the handsome newcomer admitting that she is not enough beautiful to dance with. The remark is enough for the young lady to start detesting the offender to her pride. As Elizabeth herself has stated, â€Å"I could easily forgive his pride, if he had not mortified mine† (Austen 25). The first impression of Darcy’s rudeness at the ball is driven by the clash of self-esteems, and negative perceptions color the young lady’s further conceptualization of the hero up to the very moment when he reveals his love toward her in Chapter 34. The futility of first impressions is demonstrated through the description of Elizabeth’s relationships with Darcy and Wickham as well as her understanding of Bingley’s character. As it has been stated earlier, all three men fit the shared group’s concept of â€Å"an appropriate gentleman† in terms of their looks and wealth, albeit Wickham is not as rich as the other two men and pretends to be a man who is unjustly insulted. He pretends to be modest and good-hearted when he says, â€Å"I have no right to give my opinion† or â€Å"I am not qualified to form one† (Austen 96) in regard to Darcy’s background, and immediately afterwards he does his best to ruin Fitzwilliam’s reputation. All Wickham’s envy of Darcy is demonstrated in the following characterization: â€Å"The world is blinded by his fortune and consequence, or frightened by his high and imposing manners, and sees him only as he chooses to be seen† (Austen 97). The remark provides the reader with a hint concerning Darcy’s manner of functioning within the upper class social circle. Among this threesome with Bingley being superficial and Wickham being villainous, Darcy is the only person to be criticized for the lack of that â€Å"agreeable manner† that Wickham demonstrates speaking even about insignificant matters. The intelligent and kind-hearted Lizzy cannot but â€Å"feel that the commonest, dullest, most threadbare topic might be rendered interesting by the skill of the speaker† (Austen 94) when she socialized with Wickham, whereas Darcy’s brisk and unwilling manner of speaking makes the young lady feel uncomfortable. This is true that being compared to his friend Bingley or his rivalry Wickham, Darcy is not the object to readily fall in love and admiration with. He dances only with the two selected ladies and neglects the rest. This manner is regarded an offense to the aura of amiability, and he abstains from the social chit-chat. Besides this gentleman directly expresses his opinions of other people instead of camouflaging them under the veil of behind-the-back gossip. This personage makes it too clear that the local society is â€Å"a collection of people in whom there was little beauty and no fashion, for none of whom he had felt the smallest interest, and from none received either attention or pleasure† (Austen 22). He reveals indignation, boredom, or sarcasm in the situations when other men pretend to be pleased and amused. Judging from first impressions, Charles Bingley is more favored by the locals since he treats them as the nicest people he has ever met. In his turn, Wickham’s reputation is based on the assumption that Darcy has devoid him of wealth, which puts the two men in the positions of a victim and an offender. This is only throughout a course of the plot development that the narrator makes clear that Bingley’s sociality is explained by superficiality, and Wickham is a cheater who has attempted to seduce Darcy’s younger sister. Utilizing the theories of social categorization, one may say that Wickham has been admitted to the local group more easily than Darcy because the former has readily belittled his self-rating in public conversations and demonstrated the greater extent of willingness to share the pre-established social regulations of the given group. Being compared to the sweet Mr. Bingley’s behavior, Darcy’s behavioral pattern is rooted in the wider cognitive scope and finer spiritual development. The latter is strong enough to disregard the central tendency as it exists in the given group. Being cleverer than his friend Mr. Bingley, who has managed to become the crowd puller, Darcy falls into the sin that is not pride per se but rather vanity. The local society would gladly accept him as the most important person if he had been willing to put himself on one leg so to say with other group members. It is only in Chapter 10 when the narrator lets readers learn more about Darcy’s understanding of pride and related concepts. In public opinion, his high self-esteem is a manifestation of haughtiness, whereas Wickham’s seemingly low self-rating is a sign of appropriateness as shown through humility. In his turn, Darcy detests â€Å"the appearance of humility† that is genuinely the â€Å"carelessness of opinion, and sometimes an indirect boast† (Austen 60). Contemporary psychologists would call Darcy’s conceptualizations of â€Å"pride,† â€Å"humility,† and â€Å"boast† as being driven by functional utility of human behavior. According to this hero, this is inappropriate to put down one’s self-esteem just for the sake of being praised by other group members. Throughout the novel this personage remains the vivid example of a person who shares certain believes common to the central tendency of stereotypicality but reveals energy to display also diversity in his ratings of the self and other people. The complexity and dynamism of social stereotypes is shown through Darcy’s and Elizabeth’s attitudes to each other. Whereas Lizzy’s stereotypes in regard to the man remain sort of frozen for a while under the man’s â€Å"satirical eye† (Austen 30), Darcy is being engaged into the fast proceeding process, in a course of which he changes the initial perception of the young lady. The narrator specifies Darcy’s turn toward re-evaluating Lizzy Bennet as follows: But no sooner had he made it clear to himself and his friends that she hardly had a good feature in her face, than he began to find it was rendered uncommonly intelligent by the beautiful expression of her dark eyes. To this discovery succeeded some others equally mortifying. Though he had detected with a critical eye more than one failure of perfect symmetry in her form, he was forced to acknowledge her figure to be light and pleasing; and in spite of his asserting that her manners were not those of the fashionable world, he was caught by their easy playfulness. Austen 29) In other words, Darcy’s first rejection of the second daughter of Bennets has been caused by the incongruity between Elizabeth’s outlook and his own classical perception of beauty as a reckless symmetry of forms and elements. It is clear that the gentleman has initially been blinded by both his personal and group set of stereotypes that required women to conform to certain standards. Elizabeth does not seem to be classically beautiful, and her gaiety during the first meeting has poked the man away as a manifestation of social inappropriateness.

Expressions of Fear in The Red Badge of Courage :: Stephen Crane, The Red Badge of Courage

  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The important conflict in The Red Badge of Courage is Henry Fleming's fear about how he will perform in his first battle.   There are three people who expressed their ideas about their fears before the first skirmish.   They are Henry Fleming, Tom Wilson, and Jim Conklin.      Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Henry is worried about how he will do in this first battle.   He isn't sure if he will run or not, and he is scared that he might.   He doesn't want to look like a fool and run, but he is also scared of getting killed. Even though Henry never expressed his fears to Tom Wilson or Jim Conklin the audience could tell by the expressions on his face that he was scared. While he was writing a letter to his parents he writes about how he is going to fight for the first time and he wants to make the proud.   After Henry runs away from the first battle he feels embarrassed because he didn't have a wound.   No one knew he ran so he still had his pride and after that his attitude changed and he began fighting with no fear.      Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Tom Wilson is another young sodier in the 304th regiment who is called the loud soldier.   When he is in the tent talking to Henry and conklin he talks about how he will not run and take on the whole army on by himself. When he is in the first battle he tries to run but is caught by an officer and made to go back and fight.   His attitude changed from being confident to being scard of fighting.      Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Jim conklin is also a soldier in the 304th regiment who talks with Henry and tom.   When Conklin was talking to Henry and Wilson about how they felt about fighting their first battle, he says that he will run if he sees everyone else running.   He is the only one to admit to everyone that he is scared about fighting.   He is also the only one not to run away from the first battle even though other people were.   When Henry sees him walking in the road after the war he has been shot and is hurt bad.   Jim is afraid of lying in the road and being run ober by the artillery wagons.

Application of Balanced Scorecard

A Case Study: Application of the Balanced Scorecard in Higher Education by Andrea Mae Rollins A dissertation submitted to the faculty of San Diego State University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Educational Leadership June 28, 2011 iii Copyright  © 2011 by Andrea Mae Rollins v DEDICATION This work is dedicated to my brother Jason, from as early as I can remember he has always been proud of his little sister and her accomplishments; his pride, his love, and his support will forever be cherished and means more than he will ever know, and To my grandmother Dollie, who sacrificed so much in order to provide for me the life I needed; she taught me to be kind and generous and to ask for help when needed, but most importantly she taught me anything is possible, and To my dear friends, who give me more credit than I deserve and love me unconditionally; I am extremely fortunate to have such a wonderful group of amazing women in my life, and To Fred, who never gave up on me; his confidence in my abilities gave me the strength to push through all obstacles and make it to the finish line. v ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to examine the application of the Balanced Scorecard as a management tool within the External and Business Affairs (EBA) unit at University of California, San Diego (UCSD). Specially, the study sought to examine how the Balanced Scorecard was communicated throughout the organization, how the data are used within the organization, and how the data are used for decision making, paying particular attention to the four perspectives of UCSD’s EBA’s personalized Balanced Scorecard.These four perspectives are financial/stakeholder, internal processes, innovation and learning, and the customer. This descriptive case study, a review of program records, a quantitative survey and qualitative interviews with EBA employees utilizing the constant comparative method and descriptive statistics, identified four l essons learned: the truly informed employees are at the top of the organization and they find value in the Balanced Scorecard, most employees are unaware of availability and usefulness of the Balanced Scorecard data, even an unbalanced Scorecard improves business operations and the annual performance evaluation process is an opportunity to reinforce the Balanced Scorecard. The study includes three recommendations for EBA.The recommendations are EBA leadership needs to communicate the Balanced Scorecard process, outcomes, and application with greater clarity to all employees in the organization; there needs to be an institutional plan for sustainability of the Balanced Scorecard to ensure it transcends the current people and environment; and the Balanced Scorecard process within EBA must be flexible for future organizational evolution. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ABSTRACT.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIS T OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF FIGURES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 1—INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Background: The Balanced Scorecard. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Site of the Case Study: University of California, San Diego. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . External and Business Affairs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Problem Statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Definition of Terms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Significance of Thi s Study.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Purpose Statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Theoretical Framework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research Questions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Limitations of the Study.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Delimitations of the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Role of the Researcher. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organization of the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 2—REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Roles and Expectations of Higher Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Higher Education in California. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v x xi xii 1 1 4 6 9 10 11 12 12 14 14 15 15 15 17 17 19 vii Reengineering Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Performance Funding.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Accreditation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organizational Structure and Management Tools. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total Quality Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Malcolm Baldrige Award Framework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Balanced Scorecard. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Balanced Scorecard and Higher Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organizational Change and the Case Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 3—METHODOLOGY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research Design.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research Questions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Setting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Participants.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Data Collection and Analysis.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interviews.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Program Records. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Data Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Timeline. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ethical Principles Based on Human Subjects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Role of the Researcher. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 22 24 28* 28 29 30 33 34 36 37 37 38 38 40 41 42 44 45 46 47 47 48 viii Limitations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 4—FINDINGS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Participant Profiles.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interviews.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Source of Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Program Records. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interviews.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Historical Perspective. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Implementation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lessons Learned.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recent Changes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interview Themes.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Tool With Many Names.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Communication Is an Individual Choice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . An Unbalanced Balanced Scorecard. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Impact Is Personal.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Visionaries Can Be Found at All Leve ls. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 5—DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lessons Learned.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 48 50 51 51 54 56 56 57 60 61 61 63 64 64 65 66 69 72 74 77 78 79 ix Informed Employee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Availability and Usefulness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unbalanced Scorecard. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Performance Evaluation Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Theoretical Framework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Communicate With Clarity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sustainability Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Flexibility.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Future Research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Process Mapping. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Balanced Scorecard Implementation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Balanced Scorecard Components.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Traditional Academic Unit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Quantitative Outcome Measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDICES A. Vice Chancellor—External and Business Affairs Organization Chart.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. Balanced Scorecard Example.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 86 88 92 95 97 98 99 100 102 102 103 103 104 104 105 106 112 113 LIST OF TABLES PAGE Table 1. External and Business Affairs’ Personalized Balanced Scorecard. . . . . . . . Table 2. Unit Affiliation of Survey Participants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 3. Years of Service of Survey Participants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 4. Position of Survey Participants.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 5. Interview Participants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 6. Survey Responses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 52 53 54 56 58 i LIST OF FIGURES PAGE Figure 1. The Balanced Scorecard visual created by Kaplan and Norton.. . . . . . . . . 3 xii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my dissertation committee for their support and patience in the completion of this study. Thank you to Dr. Fred McFarlane for always making time to hear me. There were many excuses used, but you never seemed frustrated or disappointed but rather your continued support kept me motivated and committed. Thank you to Dr. Shaila Mulholland for continuously pushing me a bit further and your continued support while doing so. Thank you to Dr. Mark Tucker for your careful review of this work and your sound advice and guidance.I would a lso like to thank Dr. Angela Song and the UCSD community. Dr. Song, throughout this entire process, if felt as though I had a partner in you. Your generosity in terms of sharing your time and knowledge meant a lot and was a significant contributor to my success. To the UCSD community, thank you for your honesty and openness. Lastly, I want to thank my friends and family. Thank you for always believing in me. Your encouragement and support helped make this possible. A final thanks goes to Bailey and Hershey for their unconditional love, especially in those moments when I had little time and attention for them; they rode this wave with me. CHAPTER 1—INTRODUCTION Steven Covey is quoted as saying, â€Å"People and their managers are working so hard to be sure things are done right, that they hardly have time to decide if they are doing the right things† (Rohm, 2002, p. 1). Managing an organization is a balancing act. This balancing act requires the organization and all its members to ensure the development of good business strategies that allow for efficient operations and practices. The Balanced Scorecard is a performance management tool that assists the organization in finding its balance (Rohm, 2002). According to Kaplan and Norton (2007), â€Å"The balanced Scorecard supplemented traditional financial measures with criteria that measured performance from three additional perspectives—those of customers, internal business, and learning and growth† (p. 2).This case study examines the application of The Balanced Scorecard in External and Business Affairs (EBA) at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD). Specifically, it looks at the personalized Balanced Scorecard that UCSD developed for their implementation. Background: The Balanced Scorecard The Balanced Scorecard, developed in 1992, provides organizations with an opportunity to measure more than financial performance indicators. Kaplan and Norton (1992) developed the Balanced Scorecard so that â€Å"managers should not have to choose between financial and operational measures† (p. 71). The development of the balanced scorecard was in response to a changing and more competitive environment where executives felt traditional measures of financial performance were not sufficient.The Balanced Scorecard was designed as a model for measuring several dimensions of 2 performance. The model provided managers with a format that allowed them the opportunity to incorporate additional perspectives beyond financial performance measures. By using this model, organizations are able to complement their financial measures with additional nonfinancial performance measures for the purpose of planning future growth and creating an organization with more collaborative leadership (Kaplan & Norton, 2007). Kaplan and Norton (1992) completed a yearlong research project that was comprised of 12 companies that they described as being at the leading edge of performance manage ment.The result of this yearlong research project is the Balanced Scorecard, which is an assessment tool comprised of a set of measures that go beyond the traditional measures of financial criteria to include measures that are inclusive of both financial and operational indicators. The Balanced Scorecard â€Å"provides answers to four basic questions: 1) How do customers see us? 2) What must we excel at? 3) Can we continue to improve and create value? and 4) How do we look to shareholders? † (Kaplan & Norton, 1992, p. 72). Kaplan and Norton argue that by giving managers the answers to these four basic questions, they will have multiple measures to judge the performance of their organization, but will not be overloaded by a large number of measures. Additionally, the variety of measures requires the financial and operational leaders to work together.The Balanced Scorecard serves as an easy tool for determining whether the success in one area occurs to the detriment of another, as well as identifying if success in one area is associated with strong performance in another area (Kaplan & Norton, 1992). By considering the four perspectives altogether, the Balanced Scorecard indicates when a process that serves a benefit to your customers may in fact hinder the 3 organization from the innovation and learning perspectives. Figure 1 is a visual of the tool Kaplan and Norton created to describe the Balanced Scorecard. Figure 1. The Balanced Scorecard visual created by Kaplan and Norton. Adapted from â€Å"The Balanced Scorecard: Measures That Drive Performance,† by R. S. Kaplan & D. P.Norton, January-February 1992, Harvard Business Review, p. 72. The tool provides the four questions of the Balanced Scorecard in relationship to one another and links the questions to the perspective to which they are responding. Additionally, the Balanced Scorecard provides the format for tracking the data, which they break up into goals and measures. The four perspectives are: Financial, Internal Business, Innovation and Learning, and Customer (Kaplan & Norton, 1992). These four questions are the foundation of the Balanced Scorecard. Goal setting and tracking 4 measures help to make the Balanced Scorecard a successful performance measurement tool for organizations.Site of the Case Study: University of California, San Diego In recognition of its â€Å"innovative approach to cutting costs, solving problems, and increasing efficiency† (UCSD, 2003, para. 1) the University of California, San Diego was inducted into the Balanced Scorecard Hall of Fame in 2003 (External and Business Affairs [EBA], 2011b). Robert S. Kaplan and David P. Norton founded the Palladium Group (2010), a global organization that provides, among other services, consulting in strategy and performance management. The Palladium Group developed the Balanced Scorecard Hall of Fame, which honors organizations that have achieved performance excellence through the use of the Balanced Scorecard.There is a formal application process, and the selection criteria requires an organization to have implemented the Balanced Scorecard methodology, have completed a breakthrough in performance results for at least 24 months, and have provided a testimonial that the organization’s success is, at least in part, due to the Kaplan-Norton approach. In 2010, there were more than 130 current Hall of Fame Members. Members included domestic and international organizations. They were presented in the following industry groups: consumer, education and nonprofits, energy and utilities, financials, government, healthcare, materials and industrials, and telecommunications and information technologies (The Palladium Group, 2010). In 2003, UCSD was the first university to be added to the Hall of Fame.The recognition came 10 years after adopting the performance management system in 1993. There are only two other universities that have been inducted into the 5 Hall of Fame. These two universities are the University of Leeds located in the United Kingdom and the International Islamic University of Malaysia. University of California, San Diego, one of the 10 campuses in California’s University of California system, was founded in 1960. University of California, San Diego is highly regarded nationwide as both an outstanding institution of higher learning and as a top tier research institution. In the 2011 â€Å"America’s Best Colleges Guidebook,† issued by U. S.News and World Report (as cited in UCSD, 2010a), UCSD was ranked as the 7th best public university in the nation. In 2010, there were five Nobel Prize winners among UCSD’s faculty body (UCSD, 2010a). University of California, San Diego has significant ties to the local community, specifically related to the amount of jobs it provides for members of the local community. University of California, San Diego is the third largest employer in San Diego County, employing nearly 26,000 em ployees. Its faculty and alumni have contributed to at least 193 start-up companies in the San Diego community. The impact of the research at UCSD extends throughout California, which notes that â€Å"UC San Diego contributes more than $7. billion in direct and indirect spending and personal income each year to the California economy and generates 39,400 jobs, based on an independent study conducted by CBRE Consulting released in† 2008† (UCSD, 2010a, para. 7). The work of the students, faculty, researchers and alumni has a local, state, and national influence and a global reach. The campus consists of six undergraduate colleges, five academic divisions and five graduate and professional schools. In the fall of 2010, the total campus enrollment was 29,899 students. The annual revenues for UCSD are approximately $2. 6 billion with 22% of the revenues 6 coming from federally funded research and 11. 5% coming from the State of California (UCSD, 2010a).The Washington Monthly is a different ranking guide that ranks higher education organizations on an annual basis on their contribution to the public good. The categories for the college guide and rankings for the award are Social Mobility—recruiting and graduating low income students; Research—producing cutting-edge scholarship and PhDs; and Service—encouraging students to give something back to their country. In 2010, UCSD ranked number one on the Washington Monthly list. Washington Monthly explains their rankings are unlike U. S. News and World Reports and other guides because they do not look at what colleges can do for the individual but rather what the colleges do for the country (â€Å"College Guide,† 2010).External and Business Affairs The mission of UCSD focuses primarily on education and research. The leadership structure of the university is divided into seven vice chancellor areas. Three of the vice chancellor areas hold academic appointments and directly serve the education and research mission of UCSD. The other four vice chancellor areas serve this mission, as well, but in more of a peripheral role. The External and Business Affairs (EBA) vice chancellor area serves the university by providing leadership and management for the business and administrative functions. Despite the fact that UCSD is recognized by the Balanced Scorecard Hall of Fame, only EBA has implemented the Balanced Scorecard.The overall mission of EBA is â€Å"raising financial support for UCSD’s research, teaching and patient care, while delivering superior service to our stakeholders in a responsive and cost-effective manner† (EBA, 2011a, para. 1). The organizational units in the EBA 7 include Administrative Computing and Telecommunications, Human Resources, Business and Fiscal Services, Housing, Dining and Hospitality Services, Alumni Affairs, University and Health Sciences Development, and the UCSD Foundation and Advancement Services. A full description of the organizational unit is found in Appendix A. Currently, Steven W. Relyea serves as the Vice Chancellor for EBA.Through his leadership, UCSD’s EBA adopted the Balanced Scorecard in 1993. When honored as a member of the Balanced Scorecard Hall of Fame in 2003, UCSD had saved more than $6 million since the Balanced Scorecard was adopted. Mr. Relyea is quoted as saying: The Balanced Scorecard process provides UCSD with a roadmap which indicates where it should focus its energies, priorities, and resources in providing administrative services for UCSD. During difficult budgetary times, this approach is indispensable. While some may have viewed an approach such as the Balanced Scorecard as optional in the past, many will find it a key to survival in this era of shrinking funds. (UCSD, 2003, para. ) Stemming from the basic four questions outlined by Kaplan and Norton (1992) in the Balanced Scorecard (i. e. , â€Å"1) How do customers see us? 2) What must we excel at? 3) Can we continue to improve and create value? and 4) How do we look to shareholders? † [p. 72]), UCSD created four perspectives for the focus of their Balanced Scorecard tool. The four perspectives of UCSD’s Balanced Scorecard focus on: the financial/stakeholder, the internal processes, innovation and learning, and the customer. These four perspectives link to Kaplan and Norton’s questions as follows: the financial/stakeholder perspective responds to Kaplan and Norton’s question number four; the internal process perspective responds to question number two; the innovation and learning perspective responds to question number three; and the customer perspective responds to question number one. University of California, San Diego prides itself on being a strategic, forward-thinking organization. University of California, San Diego’s EBA kept this framework as their foundation when personalizing the four perspectives and outlining their foci for the implementati on and application of the Balanced Scorecard. External and Business Affairs values these four perspectives (see Table 1) as tools and provides the organization with the following foci to further define the perspectives.Table 1 External and Business Affairs’ Personalized Balanced Scorecard Perspective Financial/Stakeholder Internal Process Innovation and Learning Customer Focus Looking Backwards Process Performance Employee Satisfaction and Wellness Customer Satisfaction University of California, San Diego has described their benefits from the Balanced Scorecard as the ability to align customer priorities with business priorities, the ability to track progress over time, the method for the evaluation of process changes, the method for identification of opportunities for initiatives and partnerships, the source for accountability to constituents, and the source for the development of action plans and setting strategic direction. University of California, San Diego as an institu tion benefits by the application of the Balanced Scorecard within EBA. Despite EBA being the only vice chancellor area that has implemented and applied the Balanced Scorecard, the benefits extend through all areas of the institution given that the services EBA provides to faculty and staff extends throughout the entire institution. Problem Statement In tight fiscal times, challenges and expectations increase for higher education organizations. The concept of a higher education organization running more like a corporation serves as a basis for criticism of the organization. In tight fiscal times, critics are extremely outspoken about the business of higher education. They challenge everything from the manner in which higher education organizations are organized and their funding decisions, to their staffing choices.Higher education organizations are viewed as a key component in overcoming tight fiscal times, therefore providing hope for the nation. However, their resources do not inc rease while their expectations by the students and other customers do increase over time. Higher education organizations face external pressures to adapt and manage change by utilizing market and business strategies. The financing of higher education organizations is cyclical. Therefore, tight fiscal times are either on the horizon or currently present for most publically supported higher education organizations. Alexander (2000) described this issue when discussing the concept of higher education accountability.He stated that â€Å"a new economic motivation is driving states to redefine relationships by pressuring organizations to become more accountable, more efficient, and more productive in the use of publicly generated resources† (p. 411). A related perspective is provided by Kotler and Murphy (1981), who wrote about tight fiscal times in higher education in the 1980s. Almost 30 years later their arguments are still very relevant given the cyclical nature of the 10 finan cing of higher education. They viewed the economic condition as a motivator, rather than seeing only setbacks and challenges. They looked at the economic condition as an opportunity to strategically move the organization forward. When fiscal times are tight, they see opportunities for higher education organizations.From their perspective, tight fiscal times are opportunities for planning and strategizing about the organization’s future. If the higher education organization can look introspectively and begin to analyze their current situation rather than focusing simply on daily operations, they can look to the future and find new opportunities (Kotler & Murphy, 1981). Presently higher education organizations face dilemmas of accountability. They are challenged to operate more strategically and are tasked with finding greater process efficiencies. Green (2003) argued that traditional approaches for managing higher education organizations are no longer relevant. Organizations n eed to reengineer themselves to be relevant in today’s society.Higher education organizations must identify, explore, and implement strategies that can assist them in responding to these new expectations. In 1993, when EBA implemented the Balanced Scorecard, it was partially in response to tight fiscal times and increased federal regulations. Consistent with Green’s argument, EBA was looking for a way to reengineer their organization in order to respond to the challenges of disappearing resources and increased regulation while finding a way to be strategic and accountable. Definition of Terms The following terms were used in this study. 1. Balanced Scorecard refers to the performance management tool developed by Robert S. Kaplan and David P. Norton in 1992. 11 2.Balanced Scorecard foci refer to the foci established at UCSD in conjunction with their personalized Balanced Scorecard perspectives. 3. Balanced Scorecard perspectives refer to the personalized Balanced Scorec ard at UCSD. 4. External Business and Affairs (EBA) refers to the vice chancellor unit at UCSD that has implemented the Balanced Scorecard. 5. Higher Education organizations refer to public and private nonprofit 2-year colleges and public and private nonprofit 4-year universities. 6. University of California, San Diego (UCSD) refers to the study site for this case study. 7. Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) is the accrediting commission for Senior Colleges and Universities in the Western Region of the United States.Significance of This Study In light of the current and future expectations, higher education organizations require examples of successful implementation and adaptation of management strategies that address the need to become more productive, accountable and efficient. The Balanced Scorecard, which utilizes measures beyond financial performance, is a tool that can assist higher education organizations to become more efficient and accountable. This case stu dy took an in-depth look at the application of the Balanced Scorecard in units within the EBA vice chancellor area at UCSD. The results of the case study will provide other higher education organizations with a detailed view of how the Balanced Scorecard is communicated throughout the units, examples of what type of data elements are 12 tracked, and how these data elements are used for decision making.This detailed view of the Balanced Scorecard application will be useful for higher education administrators who are both internal and external to UCSD. For current UCSD administrators, this study provided them with a new view of the Balanced Scorecard. For external higher education administrators, this study will provide them with another model for doing business. This detailed view will provide them with examples of how one higher education organization has applied their Balanced Scorecard and impacted its performance. Purpose Statement This case study examined the application of the Balanced Scorecard as a management tool, and explored how the Balanced Scorecard and UCSD’s EBA personalized perspectives/foci were communicated throughout the organization.The results identified the data elements that the Balanced Scorecard tracks and described how the data were used for decision making. This case study paid particular attention to the four perspectives of UCSD’s EBA which were personalized for their application. These four perspectives are financial/stakeholder, internal processes, innovation and learning, and the customer. Theoretical Framework This study was informed by Bolman and Deal’s Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership. Bolman and Deal, in 2008, the fifth release of work that was first published in 1984, provide a four-frame model that views â€Å"organizations as factories, families, jungles, and temples† (p. vii).The four frames are the structural frame, the human resource frame, the political frame, and th e symbolic frame. A frame, 13 as defined by Bolman and Deal, is a mental model. It is â€Å"a set of ideas and assumptions that you carry in your head to help you understand and negotiate a particular territory† (p. 11). Frames are necessary so individuals within organizations can quickly create a mental model of their current situation so they know how to appropriately navigate the situation. Bolman and Deal explain that although it is key to have mental models (i. e. , frames in order to negotiate day to day situations), it is also important for individuals to have the ability to break frames; they call this â€Å"reframing. They argue that learning to apply all four frames creates a deeper appreciation and understanding of the organization. Bolman and Deal (2008) outline the frames with the following descriptions. The structural frame or the â€Å"factory† emphasizes organizational architecture and the formal roles and relationships in an organization. The â€Å"s tructure† of an organization is found in an organization’s organizational charts, the linear or vertical relationships that have been defined and provided to employees. The human resources frame or the â€Å"family† emphasizes relationships, particularly interpersonal relationships. The human resource frame is concerned with the individual in the organization, their feelings and their needs.The political frame or the â€Å"jungle† refers to the political nature of an organization including the struggles of power, competition, and coalition building, as well as including the much needed negotiation and consensus building. The symbolic frame or â€Å"temples† refers to the â€Å"informal culture† of the organization. The symbolic frame emphasizes symbols and rituals within an organization. In the context of the case study, it was important for the researcher to have an understanding of organizational theory. These four frames were selected by t he researcher to guide her research design and methodology and to provide her lens for gathering and analyzing data due to the fact that the four frame 14 model provided by Bolman and Deal are inclusive of the entire organization.The theory they have been working on since 1984 provided an appropriate context to study the Balanced Scorecard at UCSD; it describes the organization in four competing and complementary frames, similar to the concept of the Balanced Scorecard. Research Questions In order to understand the application and management of the Balanced Scorecard in UCSD’s EBA, the following questions were answered through this case study: 1. How are the four perspectives of the Balanced Scorecard communicated in the EBA? 2. How are the data from the Balanced Scorecard used within the organization of the EBA? 3. What impact does the Balanced Scorecard have on decision making in the EBA?Limitations of the Study A limitation of this study is that all higher education organi zations operate in a very distinct and unique manner. It may be difficult for some higher education organizations to find connections to this case study given the differences in mission, size, operations, and organizational structures of their institution when compared to UCSD. A second limitation is that since EBA is primarily a financial and administration unit within a high education organization, their processes and applications may not work for nonfinancial units. 15 Delimitations of the Study A delimitation of this study was the study site. The researcher selected UCSD based on proximity and familiarity.Within UCSD, the EBA is the only vice chancellor area that has adopted Balanced Scorecard. The other six vice chancellor areas have not adopted the Balanced Scorecard. Another delimitation of the study was that the researcher focused only on the Balanced Scorecard performance management tool rather than other performance management tools which are utilized at UCSD in the other vice chancellor areas. Role of the Researcher The researcher is currently a Director at UCSD in the Health Sciences Vice Chancellor area. The Health Sciences’ organizational unit has not adopted the Balanced Scorecard as a management tool; however, the researcher works with offices on a regular basis that have adopted the Balanced Scorecard.The researcher was invested in this case study because she wanted to gain a greater understanding of how the Balanced Scorecard has been implemented and how this can be modeled throughout UCSD and other higher education organizations nationwide. Even though she is an employee at UCSD, she attempted to be unbiased and fair. Organization of the Study This research study is organized in five chapters. Chapter 1 includes an introduction to the study, the purpose statement, the significance of this study, research questions, definition of terms, the limitations and delimitations of the study, and the role of the researcher. Chapter 2 includes a review of the literature and research on the Balanced Scorecard and its role in higher education. Chapter 3 includes a discussion of 16 the methodology that was used in the study.Chapter 4 includes the results and analysis that emerged from the study. Finally, Chapter 5 includes a summary of the study and lessons learned and recommendations based on the findings. 17 CHAPTER 2—REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The roles and expectations of higher education organizations have significantly changed in the last decade. Higher education organizations are expected to provide a multitude of services in addition to providing the highest quality education for their students. Higher education organizations are expected to serve as a significant contributor to the nation’s economic state. They are expected to contribute to their communities via the students they educate.The students should transition quickly into productive workers in society as both skilled and knowledge workers. They a re expected to contribute via technology advances and business start ups that emerge from academic research. Stemming from the academic research, they are expected to contribute via innovations that lead to new products, services, and new collaboration with industry (Berdahl, 2009; Douglass, 2010a; Gumport & Sporn, 1999; Serrano-Valarde, 2010). Role and Expectations of Higher Education The new roles of the higher education organizations and the expectations placed on them have stemmed from societal expectations, public polices, and technological innovations.Higher education organizations are seen as a spark that once ignited can create vast benefits for society. This new role and the expectations of higher education organizations have created a need for university leaders to become increasingly accountable and to develop organizational structures that can support and fulfill current and future expectations. Higher education organizations are now being assessed on their ability to pr oblem solve, their ability to provide a high quality product in a low cost environment, their ability to continue to maintain a level of access despite budget cuts, and to produce graduates as knowledgeable and skilled workers in a reasonable 18 timeframe.The demands upon higher education organizations require them to become more strategic in nature, and to explore discussions of restructuring, resource management, and quality assurance. Despite the new expectations, higher education organizations are not expected to receive additional funding or secure new funding streams. Rather, the reality is their operating budgets will continue to decrease (Gumport & Sporn, 1999). As an example, it was reported in January 2011 that higher education organizations in California should expect budget cuts of approximately $1. 4 billion for fiscal year 2011-2012 (Keller, 2011). Higher education organizations are increasingly challenged to meet these new expectations, given the current budget situat ion and the forecast of a bleak financial future.It is the opinion of many that 2011 and future years may be equally as troubling financially as the recent reductions higher education organizations have faced (Atkinson, 2009; Douglass, 2010a, 2010b). According to Douglass (2010b), the demand for higher education and societal gains from higher education organizations go up during economic downturns. There is an important relationship between the need to educate students and provide support for academic research and the funding available during times of economic downturn. Douglas (2010b) argues, â€Å"Education funding and enrollment capacity may be as important as any other policy level to cope with the economic downturn† (p. 2).Additional or continual budget cuts simply provide further limitations on the higher education organization’s ability to meet these new expectations. The current budget cuts will have a significant impact on graduation rates and future worker sh ortages. Douglass (2010b) continues his argument, speaking specifically about the state of affairs of higher education in California by stating, â€Å"[It is] undergoing a possibly 19 significant redefinition, driven solely by severe budget cuts and without a long-term strategic plan† (p. 9). Higher Education in California Focusing on the state of affairs of higher education in California, Douglass (2010a) describes the near collapse of the system.The near collapse has been brought on by the state’s fiscal weakness and therefore a lack of funding to its three-tiered structure, the University of California System, the California State University System, and the California Community College System. Public support for student funding has plummeted in California and, despite the continued growth of applicants, the three-tiered system is unable to accommodate qualified students. In addition to their capacity issues, California is challenged by its inability to graduate stud ents, which continues to add to the worker shortage in the state. Many students in California are displaced and looking to nonprofit (i. e. , National University) and for-profit universities (i. e. , the University of Phoenix and Argosy University) to fill the void left by the state-supported three-tiered system.The number of displaced students is predicted to continue to grow given that the population in California will increase exponentially in the next 40 years. The U. S. Census Bureau (2010) cites the current population in California at 36,961,664. It is projected to reach 60 million by 2050 (California Department of Finance, 2007; Douglass, 2010a; U. S. Census Bureau, 2010). Douglass (2010c) describes the for-profit universities as providing a lesser quality product. It may be more accessible, but it often comes with a larger cost and a decreased level of quality. The movement to for-profit universities as a result of lack of access is not unique to California or the United Sta tes.Douglass (2010c) describes this phenomenon as the â€Å"Brazilian Effect. † The Brazilian 20 Effect is â€Å"when public education cannot keep pace with the growing public demand for access and programs. For-profits rush to fill that gap, and become a much larger provider† (Douglass, 2010c, p. 5). The Brazilian Effect is usually more prevalent in developing nations—nations that consist of large areas of high poverty rates, low high school graduation rates, and limited access to higher education. The research indicates this is more prevalent in countries such as Brazil, Korea, and Poland. California presently is experiencing these same qualities seen in developing nations.Douglass (2010c) argues the Brazilian Effect is presently being seen in California. In a response to California’s near collapse, Douglass (2010b) argues for a smart growth plan. This smart growth plan â€Å"seek[s] clear goals such as degree attainment rates, with an appropriate rest ructuring of higher education, containment of costs for taxpayers and students, and a seriously revised funding model† (Douglass, 2010b, p. 18). Of concern for California’s three-tiered system is its lack of management, vision, and planning for the future. It is this lack of a strategic plan that Douglass referred to that opens the door for extensive criticism surrounding the management of higher education organizations.The Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) serves as the accreditation body for higher education organizations in the state of California and other western states and territories. The chief goals of the senior commission of WASC, which serves as the accrediting body for 161 institutions in California, Hawaii, and the Pacific Basin, are the promotion of institutional engagement in issues of educational effectiveness and student learning, the development of a culture of evidence that informs decision making, and the fostering of an active inter change among public and independent institutions (WASC, n. d. a). Under these goals, WASC can support higher 21 education organizations in their development of â€Å"smart growth plans† if they choose such a plan during the assessment of the organization.The WASC describes their purpose as assessing academic quality, educational effectiveness and institutional structures, processes, and resources (WASC, n. d. b). However, it does not appear this has translated to successful management and leadership in higher education organizations in California. Reengineering Education As a result of the new expectations for higher education organizations, attempts have begun to occur to reengineer higher education organizations to achieve closer alignment with market principles and management strategies, which have proven successful in the private sector. Green (2003) suggested that supporters of this â€Å"reengineering† movement include leaders from educational administration, sta te governments, and the business world.He argued that â€Å"traditional approaches to higher education organizations and management are increasingly out of step with demographic trends, technological innovations, and the accelerating pace of change found in other sectors of society† (p. 196). Green labeled most higher education organizations as â€Å"bureaucratic† based on their organizational structure of being rigid, hierarchal, and inflexible. Kotler and Murphy (1981), who wrote on the topic 30 years ago, also depicted higher education organizations in a similar fashion. They described higher education organizations as being â€Å"characterized by a high concentration of professionals and usually a significant amount of organizational inflexibility† (p. 472). Kotler and Murphy also acknowledged that management strategies in higher education organizations do not parallel the processes in a business setting.Keeling, Underhile, and Wall (2007) discussed the silo nature of higher education organizations. They suggested the silos are 22 due to a primarily vertical organizational structure, where members of the organization are often competing amongst themselves for scarce resources. Green (2003) provided an alternate option to a â€Å"bureaucracy,† that being â€Å"adhocracy. † An â€Å"adhocracy,† a term popularized by Alvin Toffler in 1970 (as cited in Travica, 1999), is a flexible organization, which operates collaboratively with cross-functional teams and matrix management. An adhocracy represents an organizational structure of the future; not many examples of true adhocracies exist.Performance Funding Another option being explored by some is the concept of performance funding. Performance funding is the mechanism of being paid based on the higher education organization’s accomplishments. Alexander (2000) explained that â€Å"this transformation has resulted from the realization that to strengthen their compe titive positioning, states and nations must increase their involvement in the development of human capital and research through higher education† (p. 412). Consistent with the increased expectations of higher education organizations, there has also been a change in the interaction between higher education organizations and the government.Governments are seeking a greater level of production from higher education organizations, as well as an increased level of accountability and efficiency in the organization’s use of public funds. Similar to societal expectations, the government’s expectation of higher education organizations has increased in terms of the organization’s return on its investment. The government expects expanded access and enrollment growth and is continuing to seek out new ways to measure productivity and efficiency in higher education organizations. Performance based funding has seen its largest increase in the last decade. In 2000, three- quarters of 23 the states linked a portion of the state funding for higher education to performance measures.Higher education organizations continue to find themselves responsible to new state-mandated measures which require tracking and reporting of those measures (Petrides, McClelland, & Nodine, 2004). Liefner (2003) wrote about performance funding. He suggested that performance funding should be defined at the organization level. Governments should allow higher education organizations the ability to manage their organization on an individual basis and define goals based on the historical and culturally accepted framework of the organization versus being forced by an external body. Petrides and colleagues (2004) concurred with Liefner. Their research suggested responses to external mandates are not necessarily drivers of performance.External mandates are becoming more and more prominent in higher education funding provided by the federal government. Field (2010) explained, in an a rticle in The Chronicle of Higher Education, that President Obama, more than his predecessors, is demanding results in exchange for funding. She explains that some administrators have seen this as meddling in their academic affairs. She states, â€Å"Not surprisingly, the plans met with skepticism from colleges. Some community-college leaders worried that benchmarking could shift the balance of power from state and local governing boards to Washington, setting the stage for federal meddling in curricula† (para. 18).Advocates, however, are praising him for increased accountability and assessment. The article concludes by explaining that higher education organizations will need to make the case for the funding they receive. This could be viewed as another form of performance funding; but regardless how you label it, this requires higher education organizations to have an infrastructure that supports data gathering and metrics in order to be able to respond to the 24 requirement s from the federal government to obtain funding that is required to run their organization. Accreditation A historically accepted manner to evaluate the quality of higher education organizations is accreditation.Accreditation is defined by the federal government as: Recognition that an institution maintains standards requisite for its graduates to gain admission to other reputable institutions of higher learning or to achieve credentials for professional practice. The goal of accreditation is to ensure that education provided by institutions of higher education meets acceptable levels of quality. (U. S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, n. d. , para. 1) The Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA, 2003) described accreditation as â€Å"a process of external quality review used by higher education to scrutinize colleges, universities and educational programs for quality assurance and quality improvement† (p. 4).In the United States, there are multiple bodies of accreditation for higher education organizations. Accreditation is regional, national, and specialized to individual disciplines. The definitions provided by the federal government and the CHEA speak specifically of quality. Quality within higher education organizations, however, has as many definitions as the number of people you ask. From the accreditator’s perspective, quality focuses more on the educational product delivered to the student rather than providing a direct linkage to the new expectations higher education organizations are facing. Specifically, the WASC, Senior Commission identifies four standards for accreditation.These are Standard I: Defining Institutional Purposes and Ensuring 25 Educational Objectives; Standard II: Achieving Educational Objectives Through Core Functions; Standard III: Developing and Applying Resources and Organizational Structures to Ensure Sustainability; and Standard IV: Creating an Organization Committed to Learnin g and Improvement (WASC, n. d. c). Within each standard, there are references to leadership, vision, and strategic planning. However, none of the standards clearly articulates these new expectations, let alone the evaluation requirements to determine whether or not higher education organizations are meeting these expectations.The lack of focus provided by accreditation bodies on these new expectations, higher education organizations’ role in contributing to the nation’s economic state perpetuates the systematic issues higher education organizations face with little accountability, inefficient practices, and insufficient leadership. Higher education organizations, in order to maintain appropriate accreditation, are required to meet the WASC defined standards. If accountability, efficiency, and strategic leadership was clearly defined and articulated in terms of the new expectations of higher education organizations by WASC, then we would see an increased number of highe r education organizations with these strengths.As indicated by the literature, the current state of higher education in America, as we looked specifically at California, is volatile. The current budget state, the societal expectations, the lack of resources and bureaucratic organizational structures show higher education to be at a state of necessary change. Higher education organizations continue to cling to organizational systems and structure that have served them in the past, but these systems and structures are unstable and lack the forward-thinking, strategic 26 leadership that is necessary for higher education organizations to survive, let alone thrive and evolve into organizations that can be successful today and into the future.Organizational Structure and Management Tools Despite the trend for accreditation to focus on program outcomes, quality is not explored in terms of higher education’s role in the nation’s economic state either via the student’s p roductivity in the workforce or via academic research. Given this notion that accreditation is not providing higher education organizations with a checklist for evaluation, organizations are forced to find ways to manage this internally. In order to meet the new expectations, higher education organizations must examine their organizational structure and management strategies to restructure, change, and implement management tools that will allow them to evaluate how well they are responding to the new expectations.Keeling and colleagues (2007) discuss higher education organizations in the following manner: The organization of institutions of higher education has been seen as operating with ambiguous purposes in vertically oriented structures that are only loosely connected. The rationale for this ambiguity is twofold: (1) to allow for creative thinking, and (2) to respect and even encourage the autonomy of different disciplines. But ambiguity of purpose and vertical organization are at odds with thinking and expectations in an era of accountability and assessment, in which cross-institutional, or horizontal, reporting and measurement of institutional performance are highly regarded and increasingly demanded. (p. 22) 27 Keeling and colleagues’ argument was consistent with the new expectations of higher education organizations.The current structure of higher education organizations no longer fit in this era of accountability, efficiency, and productivity. Serrano-Valarde (2010) provided a similar argument, when she discussed the role of management consultants in higher education organizations. She described the new expectation of higher education as a shift that occurred in the mid-1990s. The shift, she explained, was a â€Å"shift in the perception of responsibility to society . . . to [provide] a locus for individual development, transmission of civic values and basic research . . . to became directly accountable for the nation’s economic well-be ing† (p. 126). Serrano-Valarde discussed the role of management consultants in the academic culture within higher education organizations.Prior to the shift of perception that Serrano-Valarde wrote of in 2010, Kotler and Murphy (1981) discussed the need for higher education leaders who had the strategic vision to serve as change agents. More than 30 years prior to Serrano-Valarde describing the need for management consultants, Kotler and Murphy argued â€Å"few leaders are able and willing to focus systematically on change; they are largely taken up in today’s operations and results† (pp. 470-471). This inability to lead change in higher education organizations still exists 30 years later, and Serrano-Valarde explained that this has created a need for management consultants who, once inserted in the organization, can serve as the change agents that most higher education organizations are lacking. Management consultants, regardless of the cause or their presence, open the door for higher education organizations to explore and implement strategies similar to business. The exploration of these strategies is necessary as a response to the new expectations of higher education organizations: the need for greater accountability, 28 efficiency, and productivity. Gumport and Sporn (1999) described opportunities within higher education organizations, which allow for the injection of management strategies, the opportunities for â€Å"quality expectations [which] focus on public accountability, student learning, faculty productivity and performance, program effectiveness, and institutional evaluation† (p. 11).They acknowledged, however, that management strategies primarily benefit the administrative structures and processes within higher education organizations. They argued that over time the strategies may reach and therefore benefit the academic side of the organization, as well. Common management strategies explored in higher education organi zations include Total Quality Management (TQM), the Baldrige Program Award, and the Balanced Scorecard. Total Quality Management Total Quality Management provides higher education organizations an opportunity to improve quality, increase performance, and decrease cost by utilizing the mechanisms of continuous improvement and cultural change throughout the organization (Chaffee & Sherr, 1992).According to Lozier and Teeter (1996), the early adopters of TQM, in the mid 1980s, were largely community and technical colleges; the training component of their missions fit nicely with the principles of TQM. Lozier and Teeter explain, in order for higher education organizations to appropriately implement TQM, they need to first define quality as it relates to their organization. Secondly, the need to define their mission and vision and lastly implement processes which allow for continuous improvement. Total Quality Management relies on a total transformation of the organization, which is ofte n difficult for higher education organizations which do not 9 operate in the pure top-down model like much of the corporate world where TQM has shown to be most successful. The Malcolm Baldrige Award Framework The award, which is a government program initially developed for industry, was converted into an award for education organizations in 1999. The Malcolm Baldrige Award evaluates organizations on seven categories including Leadership, Strategic Planning, Customer Focus, Measurement, Analysis and Knowledge Management, Workforce Focus, Operations Focus and Results (Karathanos & Karathanos, 2005). Since 2001, the recipients of the Baldrige award have been mixed between K-12 schools and higher education organizations.The award recipients have been recognized for their improvement of academi

Why We Write

Have you ever stopped in the middle of what you were doing and just asked yourself: â€Å"What am I doing?† This isn't a philosophical or existential question. While trying to write this essay, I find myself asking â€Å"What exactly am I doing?† The obvious answer would be writing, or struggling to. But as my mind, like an insatiably curious child, started asking an endless stream of â€Å"Whys† and â€Å"Hows† I became more aware of this act that seems to be taken for granted. Writing is so ingrained in our human society and our lives that we barely even notice it or care to think about its significance. Yet it would be almost impossible for us to live without it. That is because writing is a physical and visual representation of language; it is a form of communication. Writing is a practical necessity that allows us to connect with each other and share our thoughts, and it is also a means for cultural and artistic expression. Through writing we can pass down and communicate knowledge from one generation to the next, which is a fundamental factor in the progress of human society. How did it all start? Oral language developed tens of thousands of years ago when our early ancestors began living in communities and the need for coordination and communication arose. Written language, however, was created much later in the cradle of human civilization known as Mesopotamia. The existence of civilization entails the appearance of cities and long-distance trade, and finding a way to communicate over great distance became necessary for humans. As evidenced by discovered pieces of clay with pictographs on them, the traders and merchants of the city-states of Sumer discovered writing to coordinate their trade. As with oral language, written language may have developed out of a practical necessity, and has since proven to be useful and important in our human society. Even in our contemporary times we still use writing for pragmatic purposes when we want to communicate information to others. We have been doing it for the greater part of our lives, and even something as simple as texting a friend constitutes writing. Texting is an example which shows that through a visual manifestation of language we can communicate with others and overcome the limitations of time and space. But we don't communicate through writing for practical reasons alone. We also communicate to share the unique inner workings of our creativity. Literature is a prime example of that. It can reflect our innermost passions, ideas and values as well as those of a particular culture. Through literature, writing is intricately woven into our lives as a form of personal, artistic and cultural expression which has the capacity to change and influence society. We read and analyze written works created hundreds of years ago to observe the impact that they've had on societies of different times and places. Take for example the writings of the ancient Greek poet Homer, the author of the now classic epic poems The Iliad and The Odyssey. It does not take an in-depth literary analysis to understand that the cultural values of the ancient Greeks were high reverence to their gods and the divine laws. In both works it is repeatedly shown what befalls those who disrespect and disobey any of the gods. For instance, when King Agamemnon refuses to release the captured Chrysies, the daughter of a priest of Apollo, the sun god descends from Mount Olympus to rain pestilence on the Greek army. It is thanks to writing that these epic poems, formerly passed down through oral tradition, have reached us and allowed us to better understand the society and values of the ancient Greek civilization. However, there is no rule that an author's writing should necessarily reflect their culture. There are works of writing that are the personal expression of the author and can serve as critiques of the current societal values and as innovations in literature. Many writers are actually pioneers in this sense, inventing new genres or challenging the status quo. Mary Shelley, at just 19 years of age, had created one of the world's first science fiction novels, Frankenstein, and pioneered a genre. Emily Brontà «, on the other hand, challenged the social norms of her time with Wuthering Heights. These examples illustrate that writing is not only a means of cultural or self-expression but an act of constant innovation. The authors' works do not only show the beliefs of their society during those times, but also criticize those beliefs and serve as a push during the transition between time periods. And even today these are relevant and popular works of art which allow us to analyze the values and norms of the past and to see how the ideas of these writers have influenced and changed our world. These cultural and personal expressions have withstood the test of time and reached all the way to our present day world. It is thanks to the development of writing that we now have a practical way to communicate our thoughts and our creative ideas to each other. And as we saw with the literary examples, communication through writing transcends the boundaries of space and time. Innovations and discoveries that were made hundreds of years ago and far away from us are now within our reach because writing has been an essential factor in the preservation and communication of human knowledge over the centuries. Writing has been crucial for the accumulation and innovation of human knowledge. By preserving and communicating information over the generations we learn from the discoveries and inventions made in the past and strive to improve upon them to better our world and future. We enjoy the luxuries of today thanks to the pioneering and innovating work of the great minds that came before us. Our world is shaped by the ideas and discoveries of the past which are woven into our society thanks to the development of writing. As I draw to the end of this essay, I find writing even more fascinating than ever before. In essence, writing is like a river that carries human experience, knowledge and wisdom forward in time, but it also allows us to look back to our past. Thanks to it we have experienced and learned about ideas, sciences and arts which have existed hundreds of years ago and far away from us. Writing has allowed us to express ourselves and share our beliefs about the world. It has given us the opportunity to gaze upon the reflection of our world, and to strive to make it better than what it was. Right now we stand in the middle of a vast infinity. What the generations of the future will learn about us and our legacy will greatly depend on our writing now.