Last year, Suffolk University launched an applied cybersecurity certificate program with the SANS Technology Institute, a certificate that carries approximately $18,600 worth of training at no additional cost to our students. Shortly thereafter, we launched a new cyber security major developed jointly by our College of Arts and Sciences and the Sawyer School of Business and academic work at Suffolk Law School, combining the technical depth of computer science with the organizational, strategic and legal dimensions of the field. We went from concept to launch in two months.
Under our normal curriculum development process, those programs will still work their way through committee review. We did it based on data from the US 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 forward.
That kind of speed shouldn’t be different. The demographic cliff is no longer the same. Artificial intelligence is redefining the skills employers expect from our graduates. Students are increasingly questioning whether a traditional degree is worth the investment. We can’t wait years to try new programs; we need to launch quickly, measure what works and eliminate what doesn’t.
Universities really understand the spirit of exploration. We conduct experiments in our research labs and conduct extensive research every day, where we test ideas, analyze results and iterate. But when it comes to the educational system, we skip the testing phase altogether. We deliberate for a long time, build something important and hope it works. We have R&D for learning, and now we need R&D for the curriculum itself.
At Suffolk, we have formalized this fundamental understanding in something we call PILOT—Pioneering Innovations in Learning Outcomes and Teaching. It is an educational innovation incubator that operates across our schools, designed to launch new programs quickly, measure their impact and decide—informed, not just debate—whether they deserve a permanent place in our portfolio.
SIMULATION PROGRAMS come in three categories, each one showing a different type of center betting.
The first is an educational partnership, such as the collaboration of the cybersecurity certificate program with the SANS Technology Institute, an accredited, degree-granting college that provides training leading to the Global Information Assurance Certification, among the most important credentials in the field. Under the agreement, eligible Suffolk undergraduate students in higher education programs can enroll concurrently at both institutions, completing SANS courses that count for academic credit toward their Suffolk degree while earning industry certifications along the way.
The second is internal innovation. We are about to introduce an AI co-major designed to pair with existing majors in areas such as business, journalism or law. It will not teach students to build AI systems; it will teach them to use AI tools effectively for almost every major thing we have.
The third is industrial cooperation. An example here is the workday certificate program that will enable us to deliver Workday Pro information. Our program will provide self-paced, hands-on training in basic business software skills, leading to a proctored certification exam.
We introduced these programs, among others, in the first year of PILOT. A pace that would be unimaginable under normal university times. Each program will be rigorously evaluated on student interest, enrollment impact and employment outcomes. If the initiative proves successful, it will often go into the university’s permanent education portfolio. If it doesn’t work, we get rid of it. Immediately. An important understanding is that testing an idea is not the same as taking it for granted, and the validation structures appropriate for each are, and should be, different.
None of this works without intellectual trust, and that trust must be earned structurally, not just verbally. Faculty serve on the PILOT advisory committee, shaping which programs move forward and how they are evaluated. But the deeper defense is what happens after the pilot phase: Most of the programs that seem to be successful are expected to transition to the traditional administrative structures of the university, subject to the same intellectual review and approval as any permanent curriculum change. The demo track and the dialogue track are incompatible. They work in tandem, each doing what they do best: one optimized for speed and learning, the other for long-term commitments.
Suffolk is not alone in recognizing this need. Across the country, institutions are experimenting with ways to accelerate educational innovation without disrupting 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 campus culture around flexible programming; Its constitution rejects the idea that excellence requires choice, and its EdPlus division develops new digital programs in partnership with industry. Georgetown University’s Academic Innovation Network connects research, curriculum design and program development to strengthen the institution’s capacity for change. What these efforts share is the belief that conventional methods of developing educational programs are inadequate.
For institutions considering a similar approach, the structural ingredients are straightforward: First, create a lightweight approval process that sits alongside, not replaces, traditional governance so that assessment programs can begin within weeks rather than semesters. Second, define clear success metrics before any pilot begins: enrollment targets, student satisfaction ratings and employment outcome data that will determine whether the campaign gains traction or falters. Third, include the faculty from the start, not as a rubber stamp but as real partners in deciding which tests are worth doing. Fourth, build on the sunset clause. A driver without an expiration date is simply a program that bypasses the approval process.
The best time to try is before you are forced. All institutions have programs that they wish they had introduced sooner and others have been delayed for a long time. For universities facing a changing environment, the biggest risk is not launching something that doesn’t work. This is how the world continues. The good news is that you don’t need to renovate your entire facility to get started. You just need one plan, a clear metric and the willingness to shut it down if it doesn’t work. That is not negligence. That’s the scientific method that’s been used for a long time.
