The Pulse of Higher Ed

COLO Compass: Evidence and practical direction for chief online learning officers.

Online learning now sits at the center of institutional strategy. The leaders who run it are stretched thin — bigger portfolios, less time, authority that rarely matches responsibility.

UPCEA and Quality Matters are coordinating the research schedules of two national studies: UPCEA’s Benchmarking Online Enterprises (BOnES) survey and the Changing Landscape of Online Education (CHLOE) project, a collaboration among Quality Matters, Encoura Eduventures Research, and EDUCAUSE. BOnES will run in even-numbered years. CHLOE will run in odd-numbered years.

This alternating cadence cuts survey burden on chief online learning officers (COLOs) while keeping two distinct views of the field intact. BOnES provides detailed benchmarking of online learning enterprises, including organizational structures, governance, staffing, financial models, and operational capacity. CHLOE examines the changing landscape of online higher education, including student demand, institutional strategy and leadership, online programs, quality, teaching and learning, and the student experience. The studies share some areas of inquiry but approach them through unique yet complementary research questions.

By alternating their major national surveys, the two initiatives will reduce overlapping survey requests while maintaining opportunities for qualitative research, targeted studies, and other research activities between survey cycles.

A Shared Advisory Group for COLO Research

The partners are also establishing a shared COLO Research Advisory Group (CRAG) to provide practitioner perspectives that inform both CHLOE and BOnES. The group will help identify emerging research priorities, offer feedback on survey questions and findings, and ensure that the research remains connected to the challenges online learning leaders face.

Together, the alternating cycle and the advisory group add up to a research agenda built around COLOs’ time and their priorities.

What the Latest Findings Tell Us

The two studies’ value shows up clearly in their most recent results.

The 2026 BOnES study finds online enterprises moving closer to institutional decision-making. Fifty-seven percent now report to the provost, up from 41% two years earlier. Participating institutions also reported growth in online-enterprise revenue, budgets, staffing, and operational capacity.

A closer seat doesn’t guarantee more control, though. Many online enterprises still run on general institutional funds and centrally set online fees. COLOs end up accountable for growth, quality, learner support, and financial performance without controlling the resources or policies that drive them.

The 2026 CHLOE Conversation Report Series arrives at a related conclusion from a different angle. Drawing on six focus groups with 30 online learning leaders, it examines how institutional strategy plays out in program development, quality practices, accessibility, student support, data, and generative AI.

CHLOE Conversations participants described online learning as increasingly central to enrollment, access, workforce development, and institutional innovation. Yet they also identified gaps between institutional ambitions and the systems needed to deliver on them, including coordinated strategy, faculty and student support, and meaningful evidence of quality and impact.

The two studies read together tell a connected story. Read together, the findings reveal a recurring challenge: online learning has become central to institutional strategy, but organizational authority, resources, support systems, and evidence practices have not always kept pace. BOnES adds detailed enterprise benchmarks to a picture that CHLOE has been developing through its longitudinal research on online strategy, leadership, quality, and the student experience.

Better Evidence With Less Burden

COLOs see across academic units, technology systems, enrollment operations, instructional design, student support, compliance, and institutional finance. That vantage point is exactly why their perspective matters — and exactly why their time is so scarce.

The alternating cycle respects both facts. Less survey burden means COLOs can engage more thoughtfully; a coordinated cadence means the field builds better longitudinal evidence over time. The advisory group adds a further check: the research stays tied to what COLOs actually deal with.

BOnES and CHLOE retain their distinct identities and research priorities while informing a more complete understanding of online higher education. Together, they help illuminate how institutional strategy, organizational capacity, academic practice, and learner experience intersect.

By coordinating the calendar and building a shared advisory structure, UPCEA and Quality Matters make those questions easier for COLOs to answer — and the answers more useful for everyone else.

Resources

Garrett, R. (2026, August). CHLOE Conversations: Online program strategy. Quality Matters, Encoura Eduventures Research, & EDUCAUSE.

Gay, K. (2026, August). CHLOE Conversations: AI. Quality Matters, Encoura Eduventures Research, & EDUCAUSE.

Fredericksen, E. E. (2026, August). CHLOE Conversations: Institutional sector summary. Quality Matters, Encoura Eduventures Research, & EDUCAUSE.

Quality Matters. (n.d.). The Changing Landscape of Online Education (CHLOE) project. Retrieved September 10, 2026, from https://qualitymatters.org/qa-resources/resource-center/articles-resources/CHLOE-project

Simunich, B. (2026, August). CHLOE Conversations: Online quality, support, and data. Quality Matters, Encoura Eduventures Research, & EDUCAUSE.

Uranis, J., Etter, B., & Sullberg, D. (2026). Benchmarking online enterprises: Insights into structures, strategies, and financial models in higher education. UPCEA. https://upcea.edu/2026-benchmarking-online-enterprises-survey/

AI Disclosure

This post was developed with the support of an AI research and writing assistant. AI assistance was used to identify and review relevant sources, verify facts and citations, explore related evidence and examples, develop and revise draft language, and identify claims that warranted additional scrutiny or qualification. When possible, research was verified against primary or authoritative sources.

The topic, editorial direction, argument, source priorities, and decisions about what evidence to include and how to interpret it were guided by the human author. AI-generated research and draft language were reviewed and revised iteratively, including efforts to distinguish documented findings from inference, identify limitations in the available evidence, and avoid claims that extended beyond what the sources could support.

AI-assisted content is treated as draft material rather than final work. Before publication, the author reviewed the analysis, verified material facts and source characterizations, and determined that the conclusions reflect appropriate professional and institutional judgment. The author is responsible for the accuracy and final content of the piece.