Could Apple Computer Have Survived Higher Ed?

W ould the innovations of some of the most idea-driven companies of our time survive to maturity in an academic culture? That may be a discussion for a campus cocktail party, but the question also provides a window into how higher education can create high-performing cultures that foster great ideas, and allow resources and talent to gravitate toward them. Higher education has contributed immeasurably to the advancement of human knowledge with, to name just two ways, numerous medical discoveries and deep exploration of social-justice issues. But when it comes to innovation within its own institutional culture — making governance structures and curricula more agile and responsive to the rapidly changing world, for example — it has a long way to go. If ideas like those that led to the founding of Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Tesla were to get their start at your institution, would they be nurtured and find their way to success in the market? If your answer is No, what hope do less-worthy ideas have of being successful at our institutions?

Academic innovation could be as simple as streamlined processes to fast-track new, high-impact degree programs through the traditional maze of review steps; a streamlined and fully coordinated admissions, registration, and financial-aid process for entering students; or year-round academic programs that make full use of facilities and help students graduate more quickly. We should all focus on maximizing the time that faculty members and administrators spend on creating quality programs, not just on a quality process.

All great innovations, whether in the private sector or elsewhere, require certain elements. I count these as:

1. A great idea
2. Inspired and tenacious champions of that idea
3. The willingness to commit critical resources such as time, working capital, technical expertise, and space
4. A low or minimally restrictive bureaucratic environment
5. A community or network of like-minded people

Innovators: 10 Classroom Trailblazers

Meet some devoted faculty members who might spark your interest in taking risks and trying new things in class.

• Dahpon Ho Brings History Alive
• Catherine Shoulders Shows How an Expert’s Opinion Unfolds
• John Zubizarreta Gets Students Excited About Literature

Higher education does a better job than the business world in some of these areas, but it struggles in others. The concept of innovation lies at the heart of the first two elements. Innovation is more than a good idea. Creativity may generate new ideas, but without execution, those ideas remain ethereal.

Academe is highly regarded for its culture of idea creation, as reflected in its embrace of research hypotheses and intellectual property, and innovations as diverse as competency-based education and the cancer drug Taxol. I have seen this firsthand in my university job, in which I work with businesses on intellectual-property and tech-transfer issues and interact with venture capitalists, entrepreneurs, and angel investors. Brown-bag symposia, endowed lectures, and research grants are all evidence of the culture of idea sharing, debate, and synthesis that occurs daily in academe.

Despite this fertile ground for ideas, execution is equally notorious for being the Achilles heel of higher education. The established processes for reviewing ideas (such as shared governance and peer review) do an admirable job of sharing the decision making, vetting ideas, giving everyone a voice, avoiding rifts between territories, and supporting communal buy-in. But as with any medicine, there are potential side effects, including watered-down decision making, group think, false harmony, silo reinforcement, analysis-paralysis, and the very real risk of risk aversion.

The notion that academe is the protector of the free exchange of ideas runs deep in the psyche and traditions of our institutions. The irony is that while we want to protect all knowledge, it becomes difficult to champion and select only a few ideas that may have greater promise. Letting others go is akin to telling someone they have an ugly baby. While ultimately, I give the advantage to academe for elements 1 and 2, the marketplace is much better at identifying winning ideas and then executing them.

The third element — the willingness to commit critical resources — is key to encouraging creativity. There is an inherent tension in the process of allocating resources — do you continue investing in existing ideas, or free enough slack to invest in new ideas? As John D. Rockefeller is often quoted as saying, “Don’t be afraid to give up the good to go for the great.” New ideas sometimes require organizations to give up on older ones that have not fulfilled their promise.

Because of these tensions, new ideas will magnetically attract cynics who fear competition for resources, obsolescence of old ideas, or the cost of change. Success is ringed by detractors and naysayers. One must wade through and prove the cynics wrong. Here is one area in which academic culture can help the innovator: A willingness to openly discuss and vet ideas lowers the barriers to success.

The biggest challenge colleges face lies in the allocation of resources: Higher education is saturated with ideas, policies, and programs that are good but not great. Organic and decentralized growth over time has allowed for administrative and academic redundancy. For instance, numerous university systems have saved money by creating systemwide services in areas like purchasing, human resources, and information technology. Others have eliminated low-enrollment academic programs or merged complementary programs. None of these changes has been easy, and all require careful and sustained leadership. Traditional mind-sets have proved difficult to overcome in higher education, squeezing out space and resources for the new. Often, we find ourselves adding without letting go. On element No. 3, then, the advantage goes to the marketplace.

The fourth element needed to promote innovation — minimal bureaucracy — is also a challenge for colleges. Academic committees are often built to promote shared governance and avoid territorial infringement, not for execution of ideas. New concepts require flexibility and an organizational willingness to give untried activities an opportunity. Administrations, however, are often structured to protect, which can be stifling to new ideas. The role of collective decision making creates numerous decision points, any of which can stifle new ideas. Private colleges tend to have comparatively greater latitude in reducing bureaucratic processes and oversight. But the regulatory and public scrutiny of higher education in general demands minimal errors, an approach that emphasizes risk aversion at the expense of supporting the potential of an unproven new idea. Without a counterforce to push back against the tendency to avoid risk, colleges view “no” as the safer answer — better the devil you know than the devil you don’t. Advantage: the marketplace for a low-bureaucracy environment.

When it comes to the fifth element — the need for a fellowship of enlightened individuals who support a new vision — higher education shines. Intrigued by the new, academics excitedly discuss and debate ideas, openly share information, and provide contacts to further the vetting process. Secrecy is an abhorrent value in our culture.

The diversity of viewpoints and disciplines prevalent in academe is another plus: Exposing new ideas to cross-disciplinary review by world-class experts vets and improves ideas. For a budding innovator, having knowledgeable and passionate colleagues can be wonderfully supportive and nurturing. Higher education not only produces great ideas but also supports and tests them. Advantage: academe for element 5.

S o, where are we on the scorecard? Could an innovator on the scale of Apple survive to maturity in higher education? Certainly great ideas would be empowered and encouraged to grow. Perhaps if the idea was compelling enough, it could even garner resources. But that is an important “if": Many ideas in academe die on the vine due to the slow process of allocating money and bureaucratic reviews. Many more are delayed in implementation and miss the wave of enthusiasm that would carry them to success.

Rather than answer a hypothetical question with a hypothetical answer, I’d rather learn from this thought experiment how to improve the yield of successful ideas in academe. If we truly want more innovation, we need to establish a climate where good ideas are valued and not bogged down by process. We need to be willing to sift the great ones from the good ones, and shepherd them along. Some day, one of those ideas might change the world.

Could Apple survive in academe? Possibly, but it might have hit the market in the 1990s instead of revolutionizing the personal computer in the 1980s.

Jeffrey Ratje is associate dean for finance at the University of Arizona’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, in Tucson.

---

More on Teaching and Learning

The Making of a Teaching Evangelist

Premium

How Eric Mazur came to realize that the traditional classroom lecture had to go.

The Case for a New Kind of Core

Premium

A methods-based curriculum could empower students in college and for life.