UNICON Research
A Strategic Framework for University-wide Approaches to Non-Degree Academic Programming
Marco Serrato, PhD (Arizona State University) and Cate Reavis (Freelance Writer/Editor)
This UNICON research draws on an exploratory survey of ten anonymised UNICON member institutions (across five continents), one-to-one interviews with senior executive education directors, and secondary analysis to contextualise the findings. The institutions are at different stages of moving beyond historically siloed models toward more integrated, university-wide approaches. This report shares early experiences, trade-offs, insights and practical lessons for others considering this route.
Webinar
Want to go deeper? Join the webinar to unpack the findings and practical implications with the authors.
Thursday, March 5th: 11am ET | 5pm CET
Register for the webinarEight strategic choices for executive education leaders
UNICON’s research highlights eight practical choices that shape how executive education fits within wider university plans—and how well it can grow without losing focus.
1) Programme portfolio: focus vs. range
Do you concentrate on a smaller number of high-impact leadership programmes, or broaden the offer with more modular and cross-disciplinary options?
Many strong institutions are doing both: protecting flagship programmes while adding selected stackable options to reach new audiences.
2) Delivery format: high-touch vs. scale
In-person learning is still valuable—especially for senior leaders. But online and hybrid formats help reach more learners and improve access.
The question is not “should we go online?” It’s “what can we deliver exceptionally well—across any format?”
3) Brand structure: one brand or several?
Where should executive education sit?
- Under a single university lifelong learning brand, or
- Under a distinct business school executive education brand?
This affects more than marketing. It can influence faculty engagement, pricing, and how exclusive (or accessible) the offer feels.
4) Pricing: consistency vs. local flexibility
Central pricing can protect the brand, but may not fit every market. Fully local pricing can create confusion and internal competition.
Many institutions are moving toward a middle ground: shared pricing principles with room for local decisions.
5) Revenue sharing: align incentives early
Even the best strategy struggles if incentives are not aligned.
The research shows that schools and faculty disengage when revenue sharing feels unfair. Clear, contribution-based or hybrid models tend to support collaboration better than “one centre keeps the profit” approaches.
6) Learner and client data: connect the dots
When data sits in separate systems, it’s harder to understand demand, support alumni, or build employer partnerships.
Many institutions are building shared “visibility” across units—so teams can coordinate—while still allowing local control where needed.
7) Operations: enable teams, don’t slow them down
Central teams can add real value by providing shared services (systems, design support, marketing expertise, market access).
But if centralisation adds delays, it can weaken executive education’s speed and competitiveness.
8) Lifelong learning role: choose your position
One of the biggest choices is where you want to play:
- Stay focused on senior corporate leadership markets?
- Expand into broader lifelong learner audiences?
- Build pathways that connect degrees, executive education, and alumni learning?
There’s no single right answer—but being clear about your choice helps you invest, organise, and communicate more effectively.
A few signals from the field
Beyond the framework, here are a few snapshots from the research that show how institutions describe and organise non-degree learning.
How do you refer to your non-degree programs?
(select all that apply)
(10 responses)
“Executive Education” remains the dominant label, but many institutions also use “Continuing” and “Professional Education” — a signal of how positioning shifts across audiences and portfolios.
Does your university have a university-wide strategy for non-degree program offerings that integrates multiple schools/departments?
(10 responses, extent of university-wide strategies for non-degree program offerings across institutions)
Some institutions report fully integrated strategies, while others are operating independently or still exploring what a university-wide approach should look like.
What operating models look like in practice
How are strategies for non-degree program offerings decided at your university? (10 responses)
Decision-making structures for non-degree program strategies at universities.
Challenges faced by universities in integrating or centralizing non-degree program offerings (8 responses, select all that apply)
The biggest barriers are internal: faculty buy-in, organisational structure, and revenue-sharing models. Operational issues like budgets/cost sharing also show up — while client relationship management is less frequently cited.
What this means for executive education leaders
Whether the direction these institutions are taking is an early sign of what’s to come for all (or most) university-based executive education providers is not yet clear. What is clear is that some schools are expanding non-degree portfolios for lifelong learning, while navigating hybrid operating models across schools and central units. The practical challenge is aligning incentives, governance, and data so coordination strengthens — rather than slows — growth.
Up next: UNICON is organising a webinar in early March to discuss the findings and practical implications with the community. Details coming soon.