By Dana La Fleur, Vice President of Product

I’ve spent a lot of time over my career talking with college and university leaders about online growth: What’s working, what’s not, and what keeps them up at night. Through these conversations, it has become increasingly clear to me that when the conversation turns to online program management (OPM), we’re often asking the wrong questions.

Too often, OPM partnerships are framed simply as vendor relationships — or worse, as arrangements from which institutions should depart as quickly as possible. That framing obscures both the purpose and the point of an OPM partnership. The real issue isn’t whether institutions should partner; it’s what kind of partnership they actually need.

When strategy is the starting point and true collaboration is the goal, partnership empowers both the academic institution and the OPM provider to go further together.

When leaders push back on OPM models, it’s rarely because they don’t value external expertise. Most institutions know they can’t (and shouldn’t) do everything alone, especially when it comes to scaling online programs, modernizing learning experiences, or reaching new learners and audiences.

What they are concerned about is control, clarity, and long‑term impact, especially as institutions look for approaches that build internal capability rather than creating long-term dependence.

Questions arise, like:

• Who owns the strategy?
• How are academic decisions made?
• What happens to our internal teams over time?
• Are we building capacity or just paying for it?

Those are fair questions. And they’re not anti‑partnership. They’re pro‑sustainability.

Traditional vendor models work well in transactional environments. Higher education is not one of those environments.

Universities are complex systems. Decisions about learning design, enrollment strategy, student support, and technology aren’t isolated; they ripple across the institution. When a relationship is structured purely as a set of services delivered to an institution, incentives can move out of alignment and institutions can struggle to build internal confidence alongside external support. These are concerns that show up frequently in today’s OPM discourse.

I’ve seen far more success when the relationship starts from a different place.

A strategic partnership isn’t about doing more. It’s about working differently.

At its core, it means both sides are invested in outcomes, not just outputs. It means being clear up front about roles, decision rights, and how success will be measured over time.

In the strongest partnerships I’ve been part of, a few things are always true:

• Accountability is shared, not outsourced
• Governance is explicit, not implied
• Risk and reward are aligned
• Conversation is honest and open

With the above factors in mind, both the institution and the OPM should have a stronger understanding of how the institution grows more capable — not more dependent — over time.

This approach aligns with what many modern OPM leaders describe as mission-aligned partnership across the learner lifecycle (from marketing and enrollment through retention and completion), and it stands in stark contrast to the narrow “service menu” sometimes associated with outdated partnership models.

One of the most encouraging shifts I’m seeing across higher education is a move away from the idea that an OPM partnership should simply “take things off an institution’s plate.”

Colleges and universities don’t want to hand off responsibility for education, faculty engagement, or student experience — and they shouldn’t. What they want is a partner who empowers them through expertise, scale, and perspective while working alongside internal teams. This model is increasingly described as “enablement,” where the goal is to help institutions stand up capabilities rather than outsource them indefinitely.

Here’s how this looks in practice:

• Learning design done with faculty, not around them
• Enrollment strategies that align with institutional values
• Knowledge transfer that strengthens internal teams
• Flexibility as needs evolve over time

At Boundless Learning, this idea of “building with” rather than “doing for” has shaped how we think about partnerships. We take this approach not because it’s trendy but because it’s the only one I’ve seen that actually holds up over the long term — especially when you’re supporting institutions across multiple stages of the learner journey and the learning experience itself.

Higher education is navigating a lot at once: Changing learner expectations, increased scrutiny, financial pressure, and rapid technological change.

In an environment like ours, institutions don’t need rigid models or one‑size‑fits‑all solutions.

They need partners who understand higher education as a mission‑driven enterprise and who are willing to meet institutions where they are, not where a contract says they should be.

Reframing the OPM conversation isn’t about defending a category. It’s about raising expectations and working to empower institutions and partners alike.

The future of online education won’t be built by institutions going it alone. And it won’t be built by vendors operating at arm’s length. It will be built through strategic partnerships grounded in trust, transparency, and a shared commitment to learners — and we’re seeing the sector move in that direction as institutions seek more flexible models designed around building capacity.

About the author: Dana La Fleur is Vice President of Product at Boundless Learning, where she works closely with academic and industry partners to shape product strategies that support long‑term growth and meaningful learner outcomes. With more than 20 years of experience in education, including leadership roles at Pearson, Bridgepoint Education, and Kaplan, Dana brings a partnership‑first mindset to building solutions that align institutional goals, market needs, and evolving learner expectations.