|
IT is opening the space of opportunities (derivative of space of possibilities (Mitleton-Kelly, 2005)) and serves as feedback channel thereby balancing/reinforcing feedback loops (Ibid). All researched universities have setup dedicated entities for the exploitation of these opportunities. For technology innovation the LSE has the Centre for Learning Technology (CLT), the FU has the CeDiS, the UPC has ICE and the innovation unit at UPCnet, and the UOC has the Learning Technologies Department. From all these entities only the outsourced independent ICT service provider UPCnet has a properly defined process of how to detect, test and decide whether to implement an innovation opportunity.
Because ICT is only an add-on to traditional practices [ii] most universities have introduced e-learning and e-research on a voluntary basis and even at the UOC, where ICT provides the sole environment for the educational process, no innovation is rolled out as obligation. Furthermore many ICT functionalities are perceived as superfluous. One professor summed up the widespread understanding, that by using 10% of the functionality of the e-learning suite one reaps 85% of the potential benefits (LSE4).
In the following paragraphs the different strategies and practices of the investigated universities as narrated.
4.1.4.1. LSE – Small but Beautiful
The LSE is a comparatively small elite university that deploys a proven business model allowing for relative independence from state subsidies which make up only around one forth of its budget. Given this good financial standing the LSE can afford a special team dedicated to learning technology. The team was initially responsible for the introduction of the e-learning platform and has now become a permanent institution (Centre for Learning Technologies - CLT) with the mandate to provide learning technology support services and promote innovation. The school has established an inclusive strategy formulation process and the CLT has defined and measured objectives to pursue. These expectations are however not too demanding, given that the school is specialised on non technical disciplines and has thus rationally chosen not to attempt to be an innovator but rather incorporate ICT based knowledge tools as a late early adopter or even early majority. The CIO equivalent at the LSE summarizes the technological innovation approach as “moving forward without pushing” (LSE management 9). These results in innovative technologies are identified, assessed and selected by the specialist team and then offered to the stakeholders as opportunities. Given the monetary well being of the LSE splendid opportunities can be offered.
Two areas with room for improvement have been identified in this otherwise benchmark scenario:
The potentials of e-research tools have not been given the attention one would expect as the LSE is an institution heavily stressing its research profile. While some newsletters and mailing lists exist, and an open access e-publishing platform has been setup, the multitude of opportunities for collaborative research and discourse are not fostered by a dedicated institution but left to emerge from their disperse use-contexts.
Secondly the strategy repeatedly mentions the centrality of user needs and demand as driver for the innovation process, but some informants uttered relatively modest demands, regarding e.g. email attachment size and other basic services, which apparently had not been identified. This raises questions about hyper-complexity (the delivery of data according to measurement criteria) and the truthfulness of the meta-scenario presented in the reported results.
4.1.4.2. UPC/FU – Patchwork
The two big universities investigated are both pursuing an approach employing a variety of internal, semi-internal institutions and consultancies with the provision of IT related services. Naturally each institution has a specialized function and is responsible for innovation in this area. Neither the UPC nor the FU are assessed to have a clearly defined governance structure and subsequently no dedicated holistic leadership for IT services.
Obviously these highly dispersed and semi-structured arrangements result in a multitude of interfaces and ensuing complexity. Coupled with the absence of a defined distribution of responsibilities the quality of the services provided to the clients varies greatly and depends on the individual owner and local agreements respectively.
At the FU it is predominantly the weak governance structure resulting in a lack of a holistic strategy process, which is assessed to negatively influence IT opportunity exploitation. On the positive side the entrepreneurial  mindset and practice at the CeDiS proves its benefits in comparison to the traditional bureaucratic model.
This entity has developed a business model, which until today proved financially and institutionally viable [iii] while providing a continuous stream of substantive opportunities to improve knowledge practices. While no defined process architecture was identified, practices at the CeDiS seem to follow rather defined customs, and this might be an adequate solution as long as stakeholders feel the motivation to develop new opportunities. This is exemplified in the voluntary formation and participation in communities of interest (called working groups). Especially the strategic move to position the e-learning consultants permanently in the academic departments is assessed to be very beneficial for the centre because thereby the information about the opportunities is diffused effectively, and the exploitation is facilitated through someone who has the chance to develop a trust relationship, and last but not least the needs of the clients can be continuously observed and reported back to the centre.
With regards to governance, it is assessed that the foundation of the CIO institution as a committee has not resulted in leadership nor was it able to resolve the turf fights happening amongst the different IT service providers. This is mostly due to the facts that none of the CIO committee members has the necessary expertise nor are they dedicating the necessary attention to the issues, because of time restrains. Notwithstanding these conditions the provision of services is, thanks to the quality of the leadership and staff in the specialized entities, rather good. Yet the university has a highly heterogeneous ICT landscape and innovation diffuses with very little cross-fertilisation and many times without exploiting economies of scale. It has to be said that this is a problem, which is of course also a result of the overall polycentric and heterogeneous nature of the FU. In conclusion it is assessed that, while there are certain positive effects resulting from the competition and the subsequent need to perform, the FU would benefit from a defined governance structure, stronger CIO leadership and a holistic strategy.
A much more organised but still polycentric environment has been found at the UPC. As at the FU, the sheer physical distance between the locations of the schools that make up the UPC impede the exploitation of economies of scale and promote the autonomy of local solution providers. An interesting strategic move was the decision to create the ICT management firm UPCnet as a spin off. UPCnet employs almost exclusively former UPC IT administration staff and UPC graduates and has therefore a very intimate knowledge of the institution. On the other hand it does not follow the bureaucratic and political logic of a university as a public institution, but can fully exploit the organisational flexibility and managerial leadership possible in private companies. As mentioned above, UPCnet was the only institution found during the research that is working with a defined organisation wide process-architecture and role based responsibility assignment, including a role and process for innovation.
At the UPC all IT related matters are simply fit into the overall strategy and, even though no turf fights or competition was reported, the absence of a coordinating CIO institution is judged negatively.
4.1.4.3. UOC - Outsource
When Gabriel Ferrate was entrepreneuring UOC’s ontogenetic plan was aiming at a highly efficient and flexible organisation. It seems that he would therefore always prefer to grow only where he saw an increased benefit or new field of income for the organisation. Or at least this is what the observable structures today look like. Lean management seemed to be the key paradigm and that translated in the case of technology into outsourcing as much as possible from what was not considered core business areas.
At its foundation UOC was pioneering the use of innovative technology for educational purposes, but once the monster called technology was tamed and framed to be maintained in a manageable condition. There seemed to be not much ambition nor was the necessary budget assigned to feed the system innovations that would probably cause it not mutate.
Already in the initial bootstrapping phase much work was sub-contracted and this approach became cultivated so that today the following scenario has been observed: A top-notch international technology consultancy firm is contracted in order to assess the situation. UOC’s IT project manager discuss and interpret the recommendations in order to slice them up, classify and prioritize them so they can be sub-contracted to local IT development and installation firms.
Until today the majority of the IT staff is dealing with maintenance, a team of project managers is sub-contracting development work and a group named the Educational Technologies Department is responsible for innovation. But the IT budget is reported to have been constantly so low that not much innovation was pushed out or offered to UOC stakeholders. In fact the development of UOC’s virtual campus has been virtually frozen since 2002.
The technological obsolescence had been immediately assessed a major thread by the new management team that entered in 2006. Hence it was the first mission of the new vice-rector for technology to lobby and consequently conceive a heavily local government funded project to develop a completely new open source based virtual campus. As a collateral, given the political dimension of this project, the virtual campus is not meant to be used by the UOC exclusively but rather a solution beneficial to all Catalan universities has to be developed. Naturally this implicates a multitude of coordination and creation of human and technological interface issues; so while development is moving forward the students and professors are not thought to be experiencing the new campus before the end of 2008. Until then they will have to make do with what is essentially the virtual campus of 2004.
The UOC management team traditionally gets together every three years to spend some days on working on the strategic directions and priorities. Technology is one aspect considered. Furthermore do the IT leaders keep up to date about key strategic themes by following the media and consultancy reports.. It is a pity that the expertise of the computer science and multi-media departments is not exploited in the design or management of UOC’s systems. As seen in the FU and partially at the UPC they have preferred to setup their own infrastructure. The practice of the UPC programming professor, who is actively developing and participating in the community of the e-learning platform is assessed to be a valuable practical and strategic asset.
------------------------------
[i] According to the authors: Size represents the number of web pages container in the domain. Visibility includes number of external in-links to the web domain. Rich files is the number of pdf, doc, ps and ppt hosted in a domain. Scholar refers to the records appearing under the institutional domain of the university using the google scholar search engine.
[ii] except of course in the case of computer sciences
[iii] The long-term sustainability has still to be proven as ‘business opportunities’ are based on political funding allocation.
Users' Comments (0) 
|
|
|
