Since my last post, I have spent 3 grueling weeks on the road (I think the final tally was 10 cities in 20 days). During that time, we’ve continued to hear countless stories about global economic woes, seen some of the impact in terms of related institutional budget cuts, and witnessed an historic presidential election. In short, a lot has transpired in a short period of time.

And yet, I wanted to finish a post that I started while traveling a couple weeks ago and which I believe still has relevance. Essentially, this can be considered Part II of my tag-along to Bruce McCarthy’s blog post about competition and feature sets (you can read my first post here and Bruce’s original post here).

So, why come out with a “sequel?” Because I think there is a whole other angle to cover on this topic. Just as I believe the piece offered great guidance for Intelliworks, I also think colleges and universities would do well to consider some of McCarthy’s “be great” observations.

Before going any further, I need to admit once again that I have never been a university official, so these comments should be taken along with a healthy dose of salt. Nevertheless, I have worked with a lot of colleges and have observed quite a bit of competition among them. So, with that in mind, here it goes…

Similar to how technology companies pursue feature sets, colleges and universities have their own set of “features” that they use to attract students. Specifically, schools produce those “features” that they believe will get them more-qualified students, award-winning faculty / researchers, and higher positions in annual institutional rankings.

Some of the features they pursue include: upgrades to dorms, new computer lounges, additional seating in the big stadium, and many other projects. And, the timing / priorities of the projects certainly seem to be at least somewhat influenced by the plans and projects of competitive institutions.

To be clear: I am NOT in any way criticizing this. I believe it is necessary. Just (as I indicated in my last post) as Intelliworks needs to focus at least partially on adding features in order to be relevant in an RFP setting, so too do institutions need to have a base-level of offerings / degrees / facilities / etc. in order to remain competitive with their peer-set.

Many of these projects are, quite simply, “table stakes” that represent the ante necessary to take part in the game.

However, with recent economic news, others are questioning this approach. A recent article from Forbes notes that the “country club” may be closed for some institutions looking to lure students with luxury amenities.  According to article:

• The crunch will be particularly bitter for the institutions that drained coffers to build “country club colleges” complete with luxury dormitories, spas and top of the line sports complexes to lure choice students, hoping that a sharper crowd would lead to more accretive diplomas, entering a profitable cycle of more successful alumni and increased donations.

• Many had little choice. “If a college decides we’re not going to have fancy dorms or build a shiny new gym, students are not going to that college,” says Baum. “People are not choosing the lowest price college, and that’s a consumer issue, not a public policy problem.”

Adds William Powers, the president of the University of Texas at Austin: “The market is choosing quality regardless of incremental costs.” So there may also be a lesson in the “be great” principle coined by Bruce McCarthy for higher education institutions, as well as for software companies. While features are important, in an evolving landscape these features wars should NOT represent that totality of the game.

Rather, institutions can pursue their own path, stake their own ground, find their own voice, and send their own “signal fire.” In my observation, those institutions that do this well create a great brand for themselves, stand out from the crowd, and are disproportionately rewarded in the form of enrollment growth and the satisfaction of their community members – without being held hostage to the tyranny of feature wars.

Update on Monday, November 10, 2008 at 10:59AM by Dan Obregon

On a related note, The Chronicle published a story today that cites the results of one study that suggests chasing after amenitites won’t necessarily translate into higher prestige ratings.  Below is an excerpt:

Mr. Toma found that, despite differences in their missions, all four colleges shared “a common aspiration: reaching the next level in status hierarchy in American higher education.” They also shared a “rather generic set of strategies” for attaining that goal, including attracting more accomplished students, improving campus amenities like housing and fitness facilities to aid in recruiting, and using intercollegiate athletics to better position themselves.

“Better facilities are bringing better students who are demanding better facilities,” Mr. Toma said in presenting his findings. “The academic programs at these places are really changing only marginally.”