EMERGING DIALOGUES IN ASSESSMENT

October 30, 2025

• R. Joel Farrell II, PhD, CPI, CPO, BBCC, RTC, IHS
  Vice Provost for Institutional Effectiveness
  Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center

• Jendia S. Grissett, Ed. D, LICSW, CPI
  Dean of Institutional Research, Assessment, and Evaluation
  United States Navy Community College

In the ever-evolving higher education landscape, the demand for innovation in Integrated Institutional Effectiveness (IIE) and Integrated Institutional Planning (IIP) across academic and non-academic units is vital to supporting student success (Bebee et al, 2024). Non-academic units such as student services, career centers, wellness programs, and student affairs play a critical role in enhancing the overall student experience. Units must adapt quickly to changing student needs, emerging trends, and institutional priorities. The Nichols Model for Assessment (NMA) provides a robust framework for continuous improvement, emphasizing feedback loops, alignment with learning outcomes, and holistic development. By integrating timely Objectives and Key Results (OKRs) into this framework, non-academic units can adopt a more agile approach, ensuring that their services remain relevant and responsive to both internal and external shifts. This essay explores how the NMA can be combined with OKRs to create a dynamic and flexible system for non-academic units within higher education, allowing them to respond effectively to changing environments and emerging trends.

The Nichols Model for Assessment in Higher Education

The NMA focuses on the use of assessment data to enhance teaching and learning rather than simply measuring outcomes for the purpose of grading or ranking. It emphasizes continuous feedback, alignment with learning outcomes, and holistic development. While originally developed for academic contexts, its principles can be adapted to non-academic units to assess the effectiveness of student support services and programs (Nichols, 2018). The model encourages a shift from summative assessments to formative assessments, allowing institutions to continuously monitor and improve their services in real time. By adopting this model, non-academic units can not only assess the quality of their services but also use feedback to adjust their practices and better align with student needs (Boud, 2018).

In non-academic units, the NMA provides the foundation for creating an ongoing feedback loop. This loop includes collecting formative feedback throughout the year (e.g., satisfaction surveys, focus groups) and using it to make timely adjustments to services. Summative assessments, such as end-of-year surveys or program evaluations, provide insight into the effectiveness of the services offered. These feedback mechanisms allow for continuous improvement and ensure that the services provided are aligned with the broader institutional mission.

The Role of OKRs in Higher Education

Objectives and Key Results (OKRs) provide a strategic framework for setting measurable goals and tracking progress. Originally popularized in the technology industry, OKRs have increasingly been adopted in higher education to strengthen performance and organizational alignment. OKRs consist of two components: Objectives, which are typically qualitatively phrased to represent overarching goals, and Key Results, which are quantitative measures that indicate whether the objectives have been achieved (Doerr, 2018). This structure enables institutions to articulate ambitious aims or initiatives while maintaining accountability through clearly defined outcomes.

Furthermore, OKRs are designed to be agile, flexible, and responsive to indications from data sources and measures. In this context, agile refers to adaptability and responsiveness, rather than the Agile Framework used in software development (e.g., Scrum or Kanban). This adaptability enables OKRs to cascade across institutional levels, allowing units to adjust objectives and key results as student needs or organizational priorities evolve (Smith & O’Neil, 2020).

Integrating Timely OKRs into the Nichols Framework

Integrating OKRs into the NMA creates a dynamic and agile system for non-academic units. This integration allows departments to set clear, measurable goals while also providing flexibility to respond to feedback and emerging trends. The combination of continuous feedback loops from the NMA with the time-bound, measurable nature of OKRs ensures that non-academic units are not only tracking performance but also making real-time adjustments to improve service delivery.

1. Setting Clear, Agile Objectives

At the outset of an academic term or year, non-academic units can set timely OKRs that reflect both institutional goals and student needs. These objectives should be aligned with the broader strategic priorities of the institution, such as improving student engagement, enhancing career readiness, or addressing mental health concerns. This alignment ensures that OKRs complement, rather than duplicate, existing planning processes and reinforce strategic coherence. OKRs allow non-academic units to articulate their goals in a way that is measurable and focused on student outcomes. It is worth noting that OKRs share similarities with other goal-setting frameworks, such as SMART goals. While SMART emphasizes specificity, achievability, and relevance, OKRs prioritize ambition and alignment. Institutions may find value in integrating elements of both approaches to balance aspiration with feasibility.

For example, a student counseling center might set an objective to increase student engagement with mental health services. Key results could include:

1. Increasing the number of counseling appointments by 20% by the end of the semester.
2. Hosting 5 mental health workshops with a minimum attendance of 50 students per session.
3. Launching a new mental health mobile app and achieving 300 downloads within the first three months.

These OKRs provide a clear and actionable framework for the department to follow. They also allow for flexibility, as the objectives can be adjusted throughout the term based on feedback and evolving trends.

2. Feedback Loops for Continuous Improvement

The NMA emphasizes the importance of formative assessment, where feedback is gathered throughout the academic term. Non-academic units can incorporate formative feedback into their OKRs by regularly tracking key results and using this data to adjust their objectives as needed. For instance, if a key result shows that a mental health app is underperforming in terms of downloads, the department can immediately adjust its promotional strategy to increase awareness and engagement.

Regular feedback through surveys, focus groups, or interviews can provide the data necessary to assess whether the OKRs are on track. If feedback indicates that a particular service or program does not meet student expectations, the department can pivot or revise its approach. For example, if students report difficulty accessing counseling services, an OKR could be adjusted to include expanding service hours or increasing staff availability.

3. Aligning OKRs with Emerging Trends and Institutional Goals

In higher education, emerging trends such as an increased focus on mental health support, career services, or student engagement require non-academic units to be adaptive and proactive. OKRs provide a mechanism for aligning departmental goals with institutional trends, ensuring that non-academic units remain focused on the most pressing student needs. This is especially important in the shifting landscape of higher education, as institutions entering AY 25–26 may face the loss of grant funding or other non-tuition-based revenue sources.

For instance, an increase in national awareness of mental health challenges among students might prompt a shift in institutional priorities. Non-academic units can then adjust their OKRs to address this emerging trend. A wellness center, for example, might set an objective to enhance mental health services. Key results might include:

1. Expanding the number of therapy sessions offered by 25%.
2. Launching an awareness campaign targeting freshmen.
3. Partnering with local mental health organizations to provide additional support resources.

By revisiting and adjusting OKRs in response to emerging trends, non-academic units can ensure that they remain aligned with both institutional priorities and student needs.

4. Quarterly OKR Check-ins and Reviews

In the author’s experience, the institution was not initially prepared for all units to adopt quarterly OKRs. Instead, 6–9 month OKRs were implemented as a transitional step. Once institutional capacity and familiarity with the framework were established, quarterly OKRs were successfully instituted.

Quarterly OKR check-ins and reviews represent the ideal structure, as they allow teams to regularly evaluate progress, adjust strategies, and maintain alignment with institutional priorities. However, institutions without such systems can begin with annual, biannual, or semester reviews, and gradually move toward more frequent cycles as their capacity and culture evolve.

During these reviews, the team can assess whether key results are on track, determine if a pivot is needed, and set new objectives for the following quarter. Because OKRs cascade across institutional levels, adjustments made by one unit can influence or inform related objectives in other areas. This cascading effect reinforces adaptability by ensuring that changes in priorities or student needs are reflected consistently throughout the organization. In this way, the process enables non-academic units to remain responsive and agile in a constantly changing environment, particularly when implementing new initiatives, special projects, or programs.

5. Collaboration Across Departments

The integration of OKRs into the Nichols Model can also promote cross-departmental collaboration. Many non-academic units must work together to achieve shared goals, such as improving student engagement or promoting campus wellness. OKRs provide a way for multiple units to align their efforts and track collective progress.

For example, a career services department and a student affairs office may set a joint OKR to increase career readiness among first-year students. Key results could include:

1. Providing career workshops to 75% of first-year students.
2. Ensuring that 50% of first-year students have met with a career advisor by the end of the year.
3. Increasing first-year student internship placements by 15%.

These Key Results can also be distributed across units. For instance, an academic department might oversee internship placements, while student affairs manages workshop participation and career counseling metrics. This distribution of responsibility highlights the collaborative nature of OKRs and their ability to bridge academic and non-academic functions, enabling units to work together to maximize their collective impact and ensure that services remain aligned with student needs.

Conclusion

The integration of timely OKRs into the NMA offers a powerful strategy for non-academic units in higher education to remain agile and responsive to emerging trends and changing student needs. Integrated OKRs do not function in isolation; rather, they serve as tactical levers that support IIE, IIP and student learning outcomes. By setting clear, measurable objectives and tracking progress through key results, non-academic units can not only assess the effectiveness of their programs but also adapt quickly to ensure continuous improvement. The combination of real-time feedback loops, agile goal-setting, and strategic alignment provides non-academic departments with the tools they need to support student success and contribute meaningfully to the broader mission of the institution.

Through this integration, non-academic units do not simply react to change.they anticipate and align with it, embedding institutional strategy into every program, and ensuring that student development remains central. As higher education continues to evolve, this integrated framework offers a dynamic approach to ensuring that non-academic units remain relevant, impactful, and student-centered. While the framework reflects an aspirational model, the integrative and collaborative approach is applicable across range of goals or initiatives. This approach allows an institution to leverage the lessons learned from the past for the future. (Brooks et al, 2025). Thus, institutions are encouraged to adopt elements incrementally, tailoring implementation to their unique contexts and resources. This consideration is especially critical in the current climate, where funding and fiduciary oversight are under heightened scrutiny and traditional resource streams may be diminished.