Universities Need an R&D Lab for Academic Programs (opinion)

Last year, Suffolk University launched an applied cybersecurity certificate program with the SANS Technology Institute, a credential carrying roughly $18,600 in training value with no additional cost to our students. Shortly after, we launched a new interdisciplinary cybersecurity major offered jointly through our College of Arts and Sciences and Sawyer Business School and with coursework at Suffolk Law School, integrating the technical depth of computer science with the organizational, strategic and legal dimensions of the field. We went from concept to launch in months for both.

Under our traditional curriculum development process, those programs would still be working their way through committee review. We acted based on data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, which projects a 29 percent increase in demand for information security analysts over the next decade. The opportunity was there, and we moved on it.

That kind of speed shouldn’t be exceptional. The demographic cliff is no longer a projection. Artificial intelligence is remaking the skills employers expect of our graduates. Students are increasingly questioning whether a traditional degree is worth the investment. We cannot wait years to try new programs; we need to launch them quickly, measure what works and wind down what doesn’t.

Universities certainly understand the spirit of experimentation. We run experiments in our research labs and conduct a wide range of studies every day, where we test hypotheses, analyze results and iterate. But when it comes to academic programming, we skip the experimental phase entirely. We deliberate at length, build something substantial and hope it works. We have R&D for scholarship, and now we need R&D for the curriculum itself.

At Suffolk, we’ve formalized this basic insight into something we call PILOT—Pioneering Innovations in Learning Outcomes and Teaching. It’s an academic innovation incubator that operates across all of our schools, designed to launch new initiatives quickly, measure their impact and then decide—with data, not just debate—whether they deserve a permanent place in our portfolio.

PILOT initiatives fall into three categories, each reflecting a different kind of institutional bet.

The first is academic partnerships, such as the partnership for the cybersecurity certificate program with the SANS Technology Institute, an accredited, degree-granting college that offers training leading to Global Information Assurance Certification, among the most valued credentials in the field. Under the agreement, eligible Suffolk undergraduates in select majors can enroll concurrently at both institutions, completing SANS coursework that counts for academic credit toward their Suffolk degree while earning industry certifications along the way.

The second is internal innovations. We’re about to launch an applied AI co-major designed to pair with existing majors in areas like business, journalism or law. It won’t teach students to build AI systems; it will teach them to use AI tools effectively within nearly every major we have available.

The third is industry partnerships. An example here is a Workday certification program that will enable us to deliver Workday Pro credentials. Our program will offer self-paced, hands-on training in core enterprise software skills, culminating in a proctored certification exam.

We have launched these initiatives, among others, in PILOT’s first year. It’s a pace that would be unimaginable under normal university timelines. Each program will be measured rigorously on student interest, enrollment impact and employment outcomes. If an initiative proves successful, it will often move into the university’s permanent academic portfolio. If it doesn’t work, we wind it down. Quickly. The key insight is that piloting an idea is not the same as permanently adopting it, and the approval structures appropriate for each are, and should be, different.

None of this works without faculty trust, and that trust has to be earned structurally, not just rhetorically. Faculty serve on PILOT’s advisory committee, shaping which initiatives move forward and how they are evaluated. But the deeper safeguard is what happens after the pilot phase: Most programs that prove successful are expected to transition into the university’s traditional governance frameworks, subject to the same faculty review and approval as any permanent curricular change. The experimental track and the deliberative track are not in tension. They run in parallel, each doing what it does best: one optimized for speed and learning, the other for longer-term commitments.

Suffolk is not alone in recognizing this need. Across the country, institutions are experimenting with ways to accelerate academic innovation without dismantling traditional governance processes. A growing number of universities now have a vice president for academic innovation (or a similar title). Arizona State University has built an entire institutional culture around adaptive programming; its charter rejects the idea that excellence requires exclusivity, and its EdPlus unit develops innovative digital programs in partnership with industry. Georgetown University’s Academic Innovation Network connects research, curriculum design and program development to strengthen institutional capacity for change. What these efforts share is a conviction that traditional approaches to academic program development are insufficient.

For institutions considering a similar approach, the structural ingredients are straightforward: First, create a lightweight approval pathway that sits alongside, not in place of, traditional governance so that experimental programs can launch within weeks rather than semesters. Second, define clear success metrics before any pilot begins: enrollment targets, student-satisfaction benchmarks and employment-outcome data that will determine whether the initiative earns a permanent place or gets wound down. Third, involve faculty from the start, not as a rubber stamp but as genuine partners in deciding which experiments are worth running. And fourth, build in a sunset clause. A pilot without an expiration date is just a program that skipped the approval process.

The best time to experiment is before you’re forced to. Every institution has programs it wishes it had launched sooner and others it held on to too long. For universities facing a changing landscape, the greatest risk isn’t launching something that fails. It’s standing still while the world moves on. The good news is that you don’t need to overhaul your entire institution to start. You just need one program, a clear metric and the willingness to call it off if it doesn’t work. That’s not recklessness. That’s the scientific method applied where it’s long overdue.