Program design – the business case

This is the 3rd post in a series on program design. The original post is here.

When determining whether a new program should be created, a proposal document should include a business case outlining three central components: is the program desirable and needed, is it feasible and practical, and is it viable and cost-effective. But critical to this is to not only view this business case through a financial lens. All three of the criteria should also be explored considering a university’s core mission of improving society in general.

Desirability

The desirability of a program is concerned with exploring any possible gaps in the market or whether there is sufficient space for another similar program. This is essentially market research where the Program Director researches information about competitors’ offerings including their strengths and weaknesses. This research would include market demand and industry needs, and whether learners will be well-positioned to gain employment once they have graduated.

Researched data would include analysis and understanding of the existing domestic and international market size in Australia (or any other country of course), by EFTSL (equivalent full-time student load) numbers, and application numbers for equivalent programs.

But what is equally important here is whether or not the program adds value to society, by addressing existing deficiencies or by enhancing existing offerings to benefit communities. A university’s context will determine what these opportunities might include, but it will be vital that the business case of a new program reflects how graduates can serve the communities they will return to once they have completed their studies.

Feasibility

The feasibility of a program will be determined by analysing various factors. These include

• Will the program fit into the broader University offerings? Is it on brand?
• Accreditation demands – what effect will this have on the cost and budget, and also what implications does it have for resources including infrastructure and facilities?
• What technologies may be needed – is there bespoke technology required, for example for peer learning, and what role will Gen-AI play?
• Modes of learning – will the programme be fully online, on campus, in mixed mode and what impacts will this have on curriculum and student experience?
• Partnerships – how valid are any work-integrated learning opportunities or industry partnerships and internships? How reliable are these partners?
• The long-term sustainability of the program – what resources will the maintenance of the program require? Are any partnerships likely to end abruptly that could critically affect the continuation of business as usual?

The other consideration in terms of feasibility is the student experience. Will the expectations of the program’s courses be appropriate for the respective year levels, including the demands of the topics themselves, and any aspects related to accessibility and inclusivity? Will the graduates be useful to the community and add value to its desire for growth?

Viability

The viability of a programme will be determined by the opportunity versus cost and the return on investment (ROI). The opportunity will be the number of prospective students and the relevant fee-paying structure for the mixture of international versus domestic intakes. These numbers will be compared with the associated costs of designing the program and running it, including employing the program director or coordinator, course coordinator/s, tutors and any other ancillary staff necessary. What this series of posts is also drawing the reader’s attention to is the often-overlooked cost required to develop and design a program. This needn’t be exorbitant, but it will take time, and require a Learning Designer to run and facilitate a series of workshops to map, align and design courses to satisfy the program’s learning outcomes. These courses will then need to be built.

But just as was the case in the feasibility section, the viability of a programme needn’t be solely focused on finance. Programs that seek to improve society have their own intrinsic value that manifests in a variety of ways, which may include a more knowledgeable and empathetic community, an increased propensity to problem solve and innovate, as well as producing reflective practitioners and leaders.

The same principles can be applied to auditing an existing program.

The next post will discuss how to design Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs).

I’m Paul Moss. I’m a learning designer at the University of Adelaide. Follow me on Twitter @edmerger