As learner demand, workforce needs and institutional pressures continue to evolve, colleges and universities need curriculum processes that support timely, informed decision making. A more connected approach can help institutions balance academic quality, shared governance, operational efficiency and long-term program relevance. In this interview, James Fisher discusses how institutions can make curriculum governance more transparent and efficient while evaluating academic programs as part of a connected institutional ecosystem.
The EvoLLLution (Evo): Can you describe what effective curriculum governance looks like at a modern institution today?
James Fisher (JF): Effective curriculum governance has several important elements, both concrete and strategic. First, institutions need access to good data and a proposal and review process that takes that data seriously. That includes looking at student demand, workforce needs and regional priorities—not just whether a program is well designed but how it serves the institution’s mission.
Institutions also need curriculum processes and technology systems that facilitate thoughtful, efficient decision making rather than impede it. Given the financial situation facing most institutions, curriculum design should consider not only what serves students but also what can be delivered affordably and mapped to a predictable schedule. Streamlined programming can create more flexibility for students while supporting institutional efficiency.
Finally, programs should be considered within the context of the institution’s broader academic ecosystem. That means looking at how new or modified programs affect resources, branding, efficiency and the overall academic array. Modern curriculum governance should also consider programming beyond degree programs, including certificates and noncredit credentials, and determine which format best serves students and the institution.
Evo: What are the most common bottlenecks that academic teams face in curriculum approvals and catalog updates, and what impact are they having on learners?
JF: One perennial issue is a lack of alignment between faculty and administration. Without faculty buy-in and robust shared governance, the process can slow down or grind to a halt. Faculty should provide meaningful input and serve as a creative force behind new programming, but institutions also need processes that prevent delay or inaction from becoming an informal veto point.
I’m an advocate for curriculum review and approval processes that allow items to move forward once the appropriate input has been provided. Dissenting voices should be considered, but individual delays shouldn’t prevent programs from being developed or modified. Students are ultimately the ones who lose access to relevant opportunities.
There’s also a broader shift needed around catalog updates. Moving beyond the traditional annual paper catalog would allow institutions to implement programs and communicate new options to students more quickly.
Evo: How can technology help institutions move from reactive curriculum change to a more proactive and market-aligned governance model?
JF: A digital curriculum management system, connected to an electronic catalog, can help institutions move beyond a reactive model. Instead of passing paper forms—or even Word documents—from one inbox to another, a centralized system allows people to access one proposal, provide comments, make revisions and track different versions in one place. That improves transparency, speeds up the process and makes it easier to manage the flow of information.
When the system is connected to the catalog, approved changes can be reflected automatically, with institutions determining when they become effective. Whether a course is created, revised or placed on moratorium, the catalog can respond more efficiently. Technology doesn’t replace good governance, but it can support a more proactive, transparent and market-responsive process.
Evo: What strategies can an academic leader use to ensure that level of transparency, consistency and accountability when working across cross-functional curriculum teams?
JF: One important principle is that institutional leaders need to be mutually accountable for one another’s outcomes. Every vice president is accountable for decisions within their own division, but no one should make a significant decision without considering its downstream effects on other areas.
That’s particularly important with curricula. Developing a new program affects enrollment management, finance, facilities, equipment, classroom technology, marketing and communications. If academic affairs works in isolation, the institution can end up with disjointed efforts and poor outcomes for students.
Curriculum development also needs to flow from the institution’s strategic plan, not exist outside of it. Leaders should be able to connect academic programming to the institution’s mission and priorities. Traditionally, faculty develop curricula while administration reviews and approves them, but that model no longer works as well. Cross-functional teams need shared visibility, shared responsibility and a common understanding of how the academic array supports the institution’s broader direction.
Evo: How can academic affairs teams balance academic rigor with the operational need for speed, keeping in mind that strategic plan when looking to launch a new program?
JF: Speed and rigor don’t necessarily have to be in tension. The danger is moving quickly without considering how a program fits into the broader academic array, whether it is properly resourced and whether there is sufficient demand or return on the investment.
Speed can also create pressure to develop programs that respond too literally to the moment. A degree built around a specific trend may become obsolete as that moment passes. Institutions need to balance responding to current needs with creating programs that build enduring, transferable skills and prepare students to adapt throughout their careers.
For established programs, institutions can move quicker by studying models at other universities and building on proven practices. For something genuinely new, the timeline depends on whether the institution has created enough bandwidth across academic affairs, enrollment, marketing, facilities and other areas.
Ultimately, that comes back to strategic prioritization. If an institution wants to develop programs nimbly, it needs the right resources, governance processes and shared commitment in place. Those are what allow teams to move quickly without sacrificing quality.
Evo: Is there anything else you’d like to add?
JF: One final thought is that institutions should evaluate their academic array as an ecosystem, rather than simply identifying the programs with the lowest enrollment and considering them for closure.
At PennWest, we examined every program in the context of the broader academic portfolio. For example, our middle-level education major has relatively low enrollment, but many of its courses are shared with larger elementary and secondary education programs. That makes it efficient to offer and important to the institution’s mission. We took a similar approach with mathematics and math education, redesigning the programs, so they worked more effectively together.
We also looked at whether every program could be streamlined to create more flexibility for students and align more efficiently with predictable schedules. That allowed us to preserve a broad academic array while improving efficiency across programs. A 360-degree view can create a healthier academic portfolio than simply adding, eliminating or modifying programs in isolation.