For decades, the dominant model of university administration was one of stewardship. The goal was to maintain the institution and its traditions, while incrementally improving its standing. Stability was the goal.
Today, stability is a luxury no college or university can afford to rely on. This is especially true for regional public universities.
The higher education landscape is shifting under the weight of external pressures: the looming demographic cliff, the public questioning of the value of higher education, rapid technological disruption from AI and increasingly fragile financial models.
In this environment, stewardship is insufficient. The institutions that will thrive are those that challenge the status quo and proactively manage change effectively.
To do this, higher education must adapt and implement tools from the private sector. Central Michigan University is among a handful of universities moving beyond the traditional project management office, establishing a University Transformation Office, led by a chief transformation officer with the corporate experience, who reports directly to the president.
Launching a university transformation office
Many universities have established project management offices. These are valuable entities, often housed within Institutional Effectiveness, IT or Finance, tasked with ensuring that specific projects come in on time and within budget.
However, a project management office is tactical. It manages the how of successful projects, but it rarely influences the why of institutional strategy on an enterprise-wide basis.
The university transformation office is different. It aligns priorities, enables decision-making and turns intent into action.
Elevating this function to the senior management level with oversight from the president signals that the strategies that animate execution come first. The university transformation office also helps leaders prioritize and sequence work in a way the institution and its people can realistically sustain.
In the corporate sector, transformation offices have become the norm. Companies understand that without a dedicated team focused on the mechanics of change, even the most brilliant strategic plans gather dust on the shelf.
Higher education, with its decentralized and siloed colleges and divisions, is arguably even more in need of this central nervous system than the average corporation.
Corporate experience in transformation
There is often a reflexive resistance in academia to hiring leaders from the “corporate world.” However, there is immense value in hiring chief transformation officers who have managed large-scale change in the private sector.
Project management professionals with corporate DNA introduce rigor to the process. They bring a mindset and a skillset that are often underdeveloped in higher education: those focused on flexibility, agility and speed.
In the corporate environment, failing to pivot quickly in response to market trends means failure. In higher education, failure to pivot can lead to stagnation in an increasingly competitive environment.
Navigating shared governance
The most critical challenge, and the greatest opportunity, lies in adapting corporate tools to a shared governance environment. A university transformation office cannot function as a dictator, particularly in a consensus-driven culture like higher education. If a chief transformation officer attempts to bypass the faculty and staff, the initiative will fail.
However, contrary to popular belief, corporate best practices and shared governance are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I would argue that a well-run university transformation office is the best friend of shared governance.
A transformation office provides infrastructure that allows shared governance to work better. It creates the conditions for meaningful participation by clarifying decisions, aligning timelines and ensuring that input is gathered early enough, and used thoughtfully, to influence outcomes.
By establishing transparent processes and clear accountability, the transformation office reduces the friction that often turns governance into delay or confusion.
Of course, sharing a vision of change with faculty and staff and gaining their buy-in for the change that we seek is crucial if a transformational process is to take hold. This is why a key element of our roadmap for change at Central Michigan University involves the creation of a Change Champion Network, consisting of faculty and staff volunteers. They are helping to increase understanding and engagement with initiatives managed by the university transformation office.
The message from leadership must be clear: We are not bringing in project management tools to govern faculty and staff; we are using them to support their shared vision with professional-grade execution.
Securing the future
Ultimately, the success of a transformation office rests on the shoulders of leadership. A president’s role does not end with the appointment of a chief transformation officer; it requires ongoing engagement, sponsorship and accountability.
The president must clearly articulate that the status quo is a path to obsolescence. The risk of inaction is far greater than the risk of trying something new and failing.
The universities that thrive will be those with institutional agility. They will be the ones that can seamlessly integrate AI tools to lower costs and improve student services.
They will be the ones developing and implementing effective marketing strategies in an increasingly competitive environment. They will be the ones that embrace change.
This level of agility is built, intentionally, through the application of professional change management and the creation of a university transformation office. By joining the intellectual depth of the university with the flexibility and speed at the heart of successful corporations, universities can secure their future and those of their students.
