Running Head: THE STRATEGY

The Strategy
Tyler Bauer
University at Buffalo

The Strategy

THE STRATEGY

The University at Buffalo is known as innovative as a large public research institution in

New York. One of the innovative measures was with the creation of a strategic plan for the
University at Buffalos Information Technology. In this strategic plan, the Vice President and
Chief Information Officer, J. Brice Bible, states the upcoming goals and plan until 2018.
Although explained in a very detailed report, certain goals do not reach the mark of the
increasing pressures from the external environment. Disruption of higher education due to the
increase of technology could have devastating impacts on higher education. In this paper, first I
will discuss disruptive innovation. Second, I will highlight two case studies that may have an
impact. Lastly, I will conclude with 4 recommendations to the goals of the strategic plan.
Disruptive Innovations
The United States is founded on principles of capitalism. The notion of the American
Dream is seen through the messaging of what an individual can achieve in the United States.
Looking at the history of the United States, many corporations have risen and fallen over the
course of time. Many people assume that this is due to poor leadership or decision making.
Instead, Clayton Christenson (1997) attributes the rise and fall of companies to a theory of
disruptive innovations.
General
Disruptive innovations create a new market within a certain field. This new market
disrupts that field and displaces the corporate leaders (Christenson, 1997). Christenson uses the
example of the mini steel mills. The mini steel mills allowed owners to use locally made
products to create steel at a lower price. This disrupted the larger steel mill companies who were
producing mass amounts of steel into the industry and failed to believe the mini mills were

THE STRATEGY

causing a major impact. Notice, disruptions occur from individuals who are outside of the
dominant companies of the market.
In order for a disruptive innovation to occur, a new product must be designed for a new
set of customers (Christenson, 1997). This new product is small and is not seen as detrimental to
the larger market. Over time, the creation of the new product can hurt successful companies
(Christenson, 1997). The new product typically focuses on the customer while larger companies
are too concerned about creating the next best thing while competing with other leaders in the
market (Christenson, 1997). This disconnect, between customer and market, leads to the process
of disruption starting. The only way that disruption can occur is when the opportunity exists for
the disruption to start (Christenson, 1997).
Although the theory of disruptive innovation is common in business around the world,
many individuals do not agree with the theory. Lepore (2014) critiqued disruptive innovation in
many ways in The New Yorker. One of the critiques to disruptive innovation lies in the lack of
evidence to prove disruption actually occurs. The examples that Christenson had used in his
original theory seemed hand-picked to fit his theory rather than occur naturally (Lepore, 2014).
Some of the companies that Christenson had used in his theory actually succumbed to the larger
market (Lepore, 2014) Thus, the theory seemed flawed. Another critique that Lepore (2014) cited
was in the predictive nature of the theory. The theory fails to predict the outcomes of certain
events.
Although disruptive innovation has been critiqued, many individuals around the world
still use disruptive innovation in business strategy (Charitou & Markides, 2002). By
understanding the notion of disruptive innovations, companies can learn how small ideas can
capture the large market. Companies can emphasize a different product that attributes to the

THE STRATEGY

specific needs of a customer (Charitou & Markides, 2002). Once this is understood, the company
can start out small with a low margin which can ultimately lead to the acquiring a large share of
the market (Charitou & Markides, 2002).
Disruption in Education
The theory of disruptive innovation was founded on the principles of capitalism and forprofit industries (Picciano, 2015). Only after ten years did the theory begin to encapsulate the
non-for-profit sectors of United States business (Christenson, Horn & Johnson, 2008).
Christenson stated that the education, healthcare and various other sectors suffer from disruptive
innovation. Ultimately, this calls for the increase of specified staff members to focus on
disruption within the market to ensure that disruption does not occur. Others criticized this claim
by Christenson saying that nonprofits do not disrupt and instead of used as a method for change
(Picciano, 2015).
School reform has been a trending topic in the United States. The failure of school reform
can be attributed to the inability of school and government officials to understand the root of the
problem which is a students lack of learning (Christenson, Horn & Johnson, 2008). This lack of
learning is due to the schools centralized method of teaching and lack of individualized teaching
towards each student (Christenson, Horn & Johnson, 2008). This individualized teaching can be
introduced through computer technology in schools. Technology can be used as a disruption
within education by catering to the individualized student learning that traditional education fails
to focus on (Christenson, Horn & Johnson, 2008). This is occurring in elementary, middle
schools and high schools but also in higher education (Christenson & Eyring, 2011).
Higher education is a traditional market that has a common DNA throughout various
higher education institutions (Christenson & Eyring, 2011). With the increase of online education

THE STRATEGY

programs, this new product indicates that higher education is ripe for disruption (Christenson &
Eyring, 2011). With the threat of online education disrupting higher education, many institutions
are attempting to finds ways to enhance online education within their respective institutions
(Gayton & McEwen, 2007). This causes institutions to rethink their traditional ways and focus
more on the students, who are the customers in higher education (Christenson & Eyring, 2011).
With the increase of online education platforms, for-profit higher education companies
have started to adopt online education opportunities for students (Deming, Goldin, Katz &
Yuchtman, 2015). This allows students to attend who normally have not attended higher
education institutions before (Dillahunt, Wang & Teasley, 2014). With the increase of enrollment
in higher education classes and the increase of nontraditional student enrollment, mass media has
focused attention on online higher education programs, even going as far to say it is a game
changer (Bulfin, Pangrazio & Selwyn, 2014). Although many students are taking advantage of
such programs, the completion rates of students in online education programs are quite low
(Perna, Ruby, Boruch, Wang, Scull, Ahmad & Evans, 2014).
Online education programs have, in turn, continued to evolve to make better programs
and cater to the specific students enrolling in classes. The platforms create education programs
that cater to the individualized learning styles of the student participating in the class which leads
to enhanced learning (Christenson, Horn & Johnson, 2008). Students who have enrolled in online
education classes who have not enrolled in any online classes before might have lower
completion rates but are more likely to finish with a high distinction (Dillahunt, Wang & Teasley,
2014). This leads to believe that the evolution of better educational opportunities might be able
to exist in the future. If this continues in higher education, online education will capture a large
share of the market and disruption higher education.

THE STRATEGY

6
Case Studies

For this class, I researched two case studies on two different online learning platforms.
The first is a platform that allows the access for massive open online courses (MOOCs) known
as Coursera. Coursera has over 18,000,000 users with 1800 courses available for individuals to
enroll in. This massive platform allows individuals to learn at a higher education level while not
having to pay for the traditional services. Some of these classes are even taught my faculty
members at some of the best institutions in the world. Ironically (and possibly with knowledge of
disruption), Coursera was created by two Stanford faculty members. With the huge success of
Coursera, institutions have begun to create partnerships with the platform. The University at
Buffalo has recently created a partnership with Coursera to provide more opportunities to
students. Perhaps, this is the beginning of disruption and higher education has not recognized it
yet.
The second case study that I focused on was Arizona State Universitys online program.
Similar to the University at Buffalo, Arizona State University is large public institution. Recently,
Arizona State University was ranked in the U.S. World News Report as the most innovative
university. The online program that Arizona State University created is incredibly unique. It
allows students from all over the United States and the world to receive an Arizona State
University degree while taking only online classes. This method would be something that the
University at Buffalo could emulate with the creation of such programs to increase opportunities
for students who can not necessarily afford in person education while working full-time.
Recommendations

THE STRATEGY

Using knowledge from the case studies and information from the literature review, four
recommendations for the University at Buffalo Information Technology Strategic Plan and Goals
are highlighted below.
Add Online Learning to Goals
In the conclusion of the document, the document highlights top goals for the 2015-2016
Academic Year. Among them is an increase in digital classroom technology in the following
year. Although technological increases in classrooms is important for student learning, increasing
technology inside classrooms will not combat the increased presence of online education
platforms emerging across the United States. By ignoring the small innovation, the organization
is taking a risk in the assumption of the innovation. The innovation can quickly disrupt the
traditional platform (Charitou & Markides, 2002).
Online learning opportunities allow students to take advantage of the different
opportunities the school can offer. The creation of an online program would also fulfill the
mission and values of the public institution by catering to all types of students. By implementing
online learning into the goals of the strategic plan, the institution can begin to find ways to
market to outside applicants similar to Arizona State University. For instance, once I researched
Arizona State University Online, social media platforms continuously populate ads regarding the
program. This is a targeted marketing approach that the University at Buffalo can use as well.
Partner with Online Learning Platforms
The University at Buffalo recently announced a partnership with the online platform,
Coursera. This is a huge step in understanding the needs of incoming and potential students in
the New York state area as well as the United States. By creating these partnerships, students can
not only utilize the platform but individuals currently using the platform can learn more about

THE STRATEGY

the University at Buffalo by enrolling in a class taught by a professor in the field. Interestingly
enough, the course that will be taught on Coursera regards education. This shows that the
department responsible for such a partnership has researched the subject and has become wellversed in the potential disruption of online education.
Increase Academic IT Staff
In the strategic plan for the University at Buffalos Information Technology program, a
graphic is shown which indicates that 31% of University at Buffalo Information Technology staff
are for academic purposes. To reform education, according to Christenson, Horn & Johnson
(2008), the answers lie in information technology. Therefore, a goal will be to increase the
amount of academic staff to 40%. These staff members can be working part-time while working
in their respective field. In particular, an increase in the amount of College of Arts and Sciences
staff members would be ideal. The general education requirements issues by the University at
Buffalo and the State University of New York is focused primarily on College of Arts and
Sciences courses. By making these courses online, students can complete their general education
requirements while holding full-time positions to focus on more specialized subjects in the final
two years of undergraduate education.
Online Learning Focus Groups
The strategic plan for the University at Buffalos Information Technology program calls
staff members to listen to the needs of students in order to create better customer service. Some
of the opportunities listed lie in meetings, focus groups, surveys and the like. A recommendation
would be to create a focus group of online learning students. These students have specific
requests for a higher education institution. These requests can be silent to student affairs
professionals and administrators on campus.

THE STRATEGY

The typical student on a college campus, especially the University at Buffalo, can be
misleading of the entire population. Many offices on campus decide to interview and speak to
students who live on campus or are involved in many campus activities. In response, staff
members cater to the needs of the students already receiving many resources. In reality, students
not on campus receive the resources necessary for their own development. By creating a focus
group for online learners, staff can begin to make programs that can have a positive impact on
online students.
Conclusion and the Future of Higher Education
The University at Buffalo is taking some important steps to ensure the institution is
innovative in the programs that it makes available to the students. The recent partnership with
Coursera is an important first step towards creating more online education programs. The rise of
online education has lead many people around the United States to believe that the market of
higher education has become disrupted. Although Christenson and Eyring (2011) provide
compelling evidence regarding online education, some critics have disregarded higher education
as being able to be disrupted (Picciano, 2015). One thing is for sure, higher education institutions
must be able to accommodate for the students that are utilizing online education. With the
increase of for-profit institutions as well as legitimate higher education institutions creating
partnerships with online education platforms, MOOCs will not be disappearing anytime soon. In
time, these online platforms will only becoming better at catering to the audience for which they
are targeted.
It is very hard for me to comprehend what higher education will look like in the year
2026. (Not going to lie, it is hard for me to comprehend what work will look like tomorrow!)
With the topics that I have learned in this class, I believe that online education will become a

THE STRATEGY

10

dominate trend in higher education. The traditional university will always stay the same but
technology will constantly improve. With this improvement of technology, different methods of
engaging consumers will be created which will allow methods of learning to increase. As we
have seen through various ways of teaching online classes, there is a current need to address
these students. I believe students will have virtual classes. Instead of walking to class, students
will enter a school which will be a tiny room full of screens which simulates being in a
classroom. The feed will be live with teachers able to show data on screens and students able to
interact. It is a little out there, but with how quickly technology is advancing, it is incredibly
difficult to comprehend what education will look like.

References
Armstrong, L. (2012). Coursera and MITx: Sustaining or disruptive. Changing Higher
Education, 6.

THE STRATEGY

11

Bulfin, S., Pangrazio, L., & Selwyn, N. (2014). Making MOOCs: The construction of a new
digital higher education within news media discourse. The International Review of
Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(5).
Charitou, C. D., & Markides, C. C. (2002). Responses to disruptive strategic innovation. MIT
Sloan Management Review, 44(2), 55-64.
Christensen, C. M. (1997). The Innovator's Dilemma: The Revolutionary Book that Will
Change the Way You Do Business (Collins Business Essentials).
Christensen, C. M., & Eyring, H. J. (2011). The innovative university: Changing the DNA of
higher education from the inside out. John Wiley & Sons.
Christensen, C. M., Horn, M. B., & Johnson, C. W. (2008). Disrupting class: How disruptive
innovation will change the way the world learns (Vol. 98). New York, NY: McGrawHill.
Dillahunt, T. R., Wang, B. Z., & Teasley, S. (2014). Democratizing higher education: Exploring
MOOC use among those who cannot afford a formal education. The International Review
of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(5).
Gaytan, J., & McEwen, B. C. (2007). Effective online instructional and assessment strategies.
The American Journal of Distance Education, 21(3), 117-132.
Lepore, J. (2014). The disruption machine: What the gospel of innovation gets wrong. The New
Yorker.
Perna, L. W., Ruby, A., Boruch, R. F., Wang, N., Scull, J., Ahmad, S., & Evans, C. (2014).
Moving through MOOCs understanding the progression of users in Massive Open Online
Courses. Educational Researcher, 0013189X14562423.

THE STRATEGY
Picciano, A. G. (2015). Planning for Online Education: A Systems Model.Online Learning
Journal, 19(5).

12