By Audrey Iffert-Saleem, Special Advisor, Strategic Initiatives in the Office of the EVPAA / SCC Co-Chair
Stella Liechty, Sr. Organizational Change Manager & Process Analyst, Strategic Planning & Process Analysis, UIT
Emily Thoures, Communications Coordinator, University Connected Learning

In May, the Student Communications Council (SCC) convened two workshops with campus partners to help shape the roadmap for the next phase of student communications work at the University of Utah.

As outlined in our recent blog post, the U is beginning a multi-year effort to develop a more coordinated approach to student communications, including future decisions related to governance, platform strategy, workflows and organizational support. Rather than focusing on those decisions themselves, the workshops asked: What process should we use to get there?

Participants were invited to provide input on what work should happen before decisions are made, who should be involved, what information still needs to be gathered and what would make the process practical and responsive to the needs of the institution.

What follows is a summary of the major themes that emerged and how that feedback is shaping the work ahead.

How the Workshops Were Structured

Participants responded to a series of prompts focused on identifying what information still needs to be gathered, who should be involved in future discussions and what work should occur before decisions are made. To ensure ideas were not lost or prematurely filtered, we captured input in multiple ways.

Following the sessions, we reviewed three complementary artifacts: a full capture of raw responses organized by question, a thematic clustering of responses to surface patterns, and a separate “parking lot” of ideas and tensions participants wanted flagged but not lost. Read together, these materials tell a consistent story. There remains strong alignment on the core issues related to student communications, concern about how change is managed, and a few important tensions that will require careful attention. Participants also consistently emphasized the importance of transparency, stakeholder involvement and a phased approach that balances thoughtful planning with continued momentum.

What Participants Said Should Shape Future Decisions

Participants identified several considerations they believe should inform how the U approaches the next phase of the work.

Theme 1: Start by understanding the current landscape. Participants emphasized the importance of better understanding how student communications currently operate across the university before making decisions about governance, platforms, workflows or organizational structures. Many noted that the university first needs a clearer picture of who is communicating with students and why those communications are being sent. Participants also identified a wide range of tools currently used to communicate with students. Rather than focusing immediately on platform decisions, they emphasized the importance of first understanding communication needs, governance requirements and desired outcomes.

Several participants noted that existing tools and processes often emerged because they solved real operational needs. As a result, future platform discussions should be grounded in those needs rather than focused solely on consolidation. Many also stated that no single platform is likely to meet every communication need across the institution.

 

Theme 2: Move forward but do so intentionally. Participants across both workshops generally supported a phased approach to developing and implementing future governance, platform, workflow and organizational changes. Many said that these shifts will require time to plan and implement effectively across the institution. Several noted that some of the changes being discussed would require adjustments to long-standing practices and definitions of success, making clear communication about the changes and realistic timelines for implementation important for successful adoption.

At the same time, participants expressed a desire to see the work continue moving forward. Several noted that the university has spent months discussing student communications challenges and that they are eager to move beyond defining the problem and toward developing solutions.

Participants generally viewed these ideas as complementary: while there was strong interest in maintaining momentum, there was also agreement that major decisions should be grounded in a clear understanding of current practices, needs and the impacts of change.

Theme 3: Involve the right people at the right time. Participants identified a wide range of stakeholders who should be engaged as the work progresses, including academic and administrative units, student-facing teams, the Student Information Systems & Technology Council (SISTC), and students themselves. Many emphasized that future decisions will be stronger and more sustainable if they are informed by the perspectives of those who will ultimately be affected by them.

At the same time, participants acknowledged that broad engagement does not necessarily mean every decision should be made through a consensus process. Several noted that while stakeholder input is critical, future progress will require clear decision-making structures, a focused implementation team with the capacity to move the work forward, and an approach that balances engagement with action. Participants also noted that future decisions may involve tradeoffs related to prioritization, access, coordination and autonomy. Several encouraged the SCC to be transparent about those tradeoffs as the work progresses rather than attempting to avoid or minimize them.

Theme 4: Coordination must support the work. Several participants noted that communication coordination cannot rely solely on informal relationships or voluntary practices. Comments frequently highlighted the lack of consistent processes across units and the challenges this creates for prioritization and coordination.

Participants also discussed the realities of operating within a decentralized environment. Many noted that responsibility for student communications often falls to individuals whose primary roles are not communications-focused and who may have limited access to specialized expertise in areas such as message design, audience segmentation, student-centered communication practices and brand alignment.

As a result, participants emphasized that any future coordination model should be designed to support units in accomplishing their work rather than creating additional barriers. Several noted that successful approaches will need to provide clear processes and access to expertise while remaining responsive to operational needs. Many cautioned that if new processes are not practical and workable, units will continue to develop workarounds to meet their communication needs.

Theme 5: Student impact should remain the primary lens. Throughout the workshops, participants frequently returned to the student experience as a guiding consideration. Missed deadlines, unresolved holds, unclear next steps and difficulty identifying important information were cited as examples of outcomes that future decisions should seek to address.

Participants generally emphasized that future measures of success should extend beyond traditional communication metrics such as open and click rates. Instead, many pointed to outcomes tied to student action and progress, such as completing registration, resolving holds, engaging with advising or taking other actions that support student success.

More broadly, participants emphasized that the ultimate measure of success is not whether communications are sent, opened or coordinated more effectively, but whether students take actions that help them persist and succeed. Many connected this idea to broader institutional goals related to retention, graduation and post-graduation outcomes. At the same time, participants noted that any future approach must also work for the faculty and staff responsible for supporting students and carrying out the work on a day-to-day basis.

Looking Ahead

The workshop feedback is already being incorporated into the SCC’s planning for the next phase of this work. At our next quarterly meeting on June 4, members will receive an update on how workshop feedback is informing the roadmap and overall approach moving forward. The meeting will also launch the next phase of discovery work by focusing on how units currently communicate with students, including the types of communications being sent, the audiences being reached and the tools and platforms being used.

Because communication practices vary significantly across the institution, participation from a broad range of units will be important. The information gathered during this phase will help ensure that future decisions are grounded in the realities of how student communications operate across the U today and informed by the needs of the people responsible for carrying out that work.

Several participants also emphasized the importance of helping units communicate about this work internally. While SCC members have been closely involved in these discussions, many colleagues across campus have had limited exposure to the effort thus far. In response, the SCC will develop communication materials that provide a common overview of the purpose, scope and sequencing of the work and help support more consistent conversations across units as the process moves forward.