What Is a Program Viability Assessment, and Why Does It Matter?
“Knowing which pieces you want exchanged is a great help in finding the right moves.” – Graham Burgess, chess master and author
In a game of checkers, players often make tactical, reactive moves based on the immediate situation with game pieces that generally move in standard ways. In a game of chess, on the other hand, each type of game piece has a distinct movement potential. Players must leverage strategy and careful planning several steps in advance. Each move impacts future possibilities, so players try to analyze the current state and potential future scenarios to inform their decisions.
Make no mistake, in higher education today, you’re playing chess with your academic program portfolio and market strategy. To assist you in this process, we discuss Archer Education’s critical tool of Program Viability Assessment — the art and science of knowing how your programs best move across the market “game board” toward portfolio-level success.
Understanding the Program Viability Assessment: What Is It?
A Program Viability Assessment analyzes a higher ed program’s potential for demand and growth, net revenue, operational sustainability, and alignment with organizational goals. Through the assessment process, an institution can identify its risks and opportunities, allowing it to make informed decisions about its resource and investment allocations and strategic direction.
A Program Viability Assessment can be used for both current and potential new programs. For this discussion, we focus on current programs within an existing portfolio, asking: Are the current programs viable, and, if so, are they expected to continue to be? In an upcoming article, we will tackle new program opportunity assessment: Does the new program idea have a product-market fit?
Let’s discuss the process for conducting a Program Viability Assessment of your current programs.
Key Components of a Current Program Viability Assessment
Our Program Viability Assessment process uses a model that captures a program’s recent historical performance, determines its five-year growth potential, and then marries this view with its cost inputs and any institutional constraints (e.g., hurdle rates, margin mandates, and internal revenue share agreements).
Our typical process steps are as follows:
- We analyze the past few years of enrollments for the program. How did the program perform in terms of gaining new enrollments and retaining students term over term and through to completion?
- We analyze current market conditions for the program topic, including the institution’s brand strength and awareness in this topic area.
- How can we leverage recent and real-time demand indicators (e.g., Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System [IPEDS] and Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS] data, search demand trends and traffic, and competitor activity)?
- How can we understand the alignment of the program topic with the institution’s signature brand profile, reach, and current impact?
- Is the institution leaning into its known areas of strength, or is it educating the market on the institution’s capabilities in this topic vertical? (E.g., if you are an institution known primarily for its science, technology, engineering, and math [STEM] programming, how are your education programs faring?)
- How does the institution compare with its primary competitive set in this area?
- We develop a five-year enrollment projection for the program based on historical trends, current program performance, proprietary benchmarks such as term-over-term persistence rates, and external market data.
- Based on the current state of operations, will the program enrollment grow, remain steady/stagnate, or decline?
- Are there ways to alter its trajectory favorably, or would that require significant attention and resourcing?
- We discuss the cost inputs to understand net revenue for the program.
- Does the growth potential outpace the costs required to support growth?
- Are there accreditation constraints to consider (e.g., rules that may require enrollment caps)?
- The cost and “profitability drag” inputs do not need to be exhaustive. We try to focus on the big rocks in the container for the program analysis.
- Finally, we place the program in an investment category (e.g., grow, maintain, test, divest) with executive recommendations for the program.
Developing a Program Portfolio Road Map
Applying the Program Viability Assessment to each program results in an investment road map for the program portfolio — akin to a multistep chess strategy. Basically, how do you think of each program (game piece) and its ability to move in the right direction in current and future market conditions? For example:
- For which programs do you provide growth resources to realize scale (e.g., those with a strong product-market fit and favorable market conditions)? How do you position those “star” programs in the market to realize their full potential?
- For which programs do you invest in market tests to determine their next iterations (e.g., those that are new or in evolving market conditions)? What are the best sources of information for those market tests (e.g., employer interviews, prospective student or consumer demand surveys, marketing messaging A/B testing)?
- For which programs do you explore divesting, merging with other currently successful programs, or reimaging/transforming them into something else (e.g., a different credential type or a noncredit business-to-business offering)?
It is important to be transparent about the program viability process and the criteria for investment decisions at the institutional level to anticipate and avoid leadership bias concerns. It can also be useful to consider incentives (not necessarily monetary) for recognizing how and when to grow a successful program (i.e., the fun part) as well as incentives for recognizing how and when to sunset a program that has served its purpose (i.e., the challenging part).
By openly acknowledging the “product life cycle” of academic programs across the institution — i.e., a natural beginning, middle, and end to a program’s contribution to the portfolio — you can remove unnecessary reputational wear and tear on academic units working to meet evolving market demands.
Why Does Program Viability Matter?
At its heart, a Program Viability Assessment is a conversation among faculty and subject matter experts, enrollment management leadership, and institutional executives to steer the university’s market strategy, program resourcing, and strategic objectives. This is a robust, data-driven process that provides input opportunities for a variety of critical stakeholders.
Here’s why program viability matters.
Resource Allocation
Understanding the viability of a program helps the institution allocate resources (time, money, personnel) as effectively as possible. E.g., it prevents continued investment in programs that are unlikely to succeed.
Risk Management
Evaluating program viability allows an institution to identify the potential for upcoming risks and uncertainty, enabling leaders to develop strategies to mitigate those risks.
Strategic Alignment and Leadership Buy-In
Programs that align with an institution’s overall strategy are more likely to succeed. Assessing a program’s viability ensures that the program contributes to the institution’s current and future-oriented mission and objectives. This includes programs that have leadership support and those that intentionally test new topics or market areas.
Sustainability
A program’s long-term success is contingent upon its ability to sustain itself financially and operationally. Program viability analysis looks at factors such as ongoing demand, market competition, and resource requirements.
Data-Driven Success Measurement and Decision-Making
Conducting a Program Viability Assessment is a rigorous process that develops a common standard for defining success, enabling an institution to measure progress and adapt as necessary to improve its portfolio-level outcomes. It provides a framework for decision-making that can enhance overall institutional effectiveness.
Finally, let’s take a look at a few brief examples of how powerful this kind of assessment can be.
Examples of Program Viability Assessment Findings
Here are a few recent examples of Archer analyses that illustrate why taking the time to complete program viability analysis is important.
Analysis of a Regional Center Undergraduate Program Portfolio
A state university had built a regional center decades prior and wanted to understand why, after years of success, the center was barely breaking even instead of growing as it had in the past. The regional center offered several bachelor’s degree programs that enabled students in the area to come to a campus for in-person instruction, versus having to commute a significant distance to the main campus or commit to a fully online program.
The growth potential for these programs’ topic areas was generally sound. However, upon review of recent census data, Archer discovered that, in this particular region, there was very little difference in wages between those with a high school diploma and those with a bachelor’s degree, calling into question the value proposition of the center offering primarily degree programs.
The shift in regional income levels occurred due to some impactful employers leaving the area in recent years. This finding was enough to start an executive-level conversation about how best to deploy the center’s resources to support the community beyond the current degree program approach and to start a study to determine the economic impact of closing the center as a last resort.
Criminal Justice Bachelor’s Degree Evaluated in a Local Context
A small, private regional institution was concerned about the small enrollment numbers for its Bachelor of Science (BS) in Criminal Justice program, which had been in the market for more than five years. Despite the original market research showing demand for criminal justice skills in the area, the program did not reach viability (e.g., sufficient class sizes to reach break-even revenue). Costs to support the program were modest.
Upon deeper review of the local context, Archer learned that the police academies in the region had updated their training programs such that there was now significant overlap between the skills taught in the academy and those taught by higher education institutions in the region. The finding was the catalyst for a revamp of the program curriculum and enhanced coordination with local law enforcement academies.
Accounting Education Malaise Remedied by Curricular Update
A private institution with strong business programming showed a steady decline in enrollments in its undergraduate accounting degree program for the past five years. A broad market analysis revealed that the industry was suffering from a malaise — in short, the certification requirements were too onerous; the salaries lagged those of related content areas, such as finance and business technology; and there was not enough innovation in the topic area to appeal to current student populations.
Rather than close the program in defeat, the institution decided to test a new value proposition for the program by embedding data analytics and artificial intelligence (AI) content in the curriculum to provide enhanced skills acquisition. They also offered additional certified public accountant (CPA) exam preparation support at a modest cost. Marketing messaging immediately showcased these enhancements.
Assessing Your Program’s Viability
Program Viability Assessments can support institution-level strategic conversations, foster inclusive decision-making, and spark creative problem-solving. This ultimately drives the ambitious impact institutions seek, within the institution and in the broader market.
Contact our strategy and development team today to learn more about how Archer Education can help you assess the sustainability of your programs and achieve growth.
