Rescuing the

1
Rescuing the e-University concept

• Earlier work on Critical Success Factors
  revisited

Professor Paul Bacsich Campus Futurus, 22 March
2004, Oulu, Finland
2
Contents

• Posing the problem
• Review of the theory of the e-University
• Revised criteria a new synthesis
• Conclusions

3
The problem
4
The problem

• Most commercial e-universities have failed,
  downsized or overspent their development funds
• Many public sector e-universities have also had
  problems
• These have affected both single-institution and
  consortia models
• The problem is neither purely a dot-com issue or
  confined to the English world
• So what is going wrong? And how can it be put
  right?

5
My background

• Worked on telewriting and videotex for learning
  in UKOU in 1977-83
• Analytic work for EU and EADTU in 1980s
• Early CMC work from 1984 Australia and UK
• Introduced FirstClass to UKOU in 1991 (JANUS
  project under EU FP3 DELTA)
• Set up Virtual Campus Sheffield Hallam U 1997
• Consultancy work for e-U then UKeU 2000 on
• Analytic work on Virtual Us - UNESCO 2001

6
The theory
7
Global eLearning trends

• A successful knowledge-based economy depends
  upon availability of skill sets
• Governments are determined to deliver step
  change in higher education outcomes
• Growing competition for in-demand skills
• In-country provision important for recruitment
  and retention
• Growing use of technology-based learning

8
e-universities in UK

• Open University (UK)
• University for Industry (UK)
• UK eUniversities Worldwide Limited (UKeU)
• NHS University
• Russell Group consortia WUN and U21
• Post-92 universities Virtual Campuses
• Scotland Interactive University

9
UK Oxbridge and Russell Group

• World University Network (WUN)
• Sheffield, Leeds, York, Bristol, Manchester,
  Southampton plus US partners
• Universitas21
• Birmingham, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Nottingham
• Cambridge-OU alliance (UKeU pilot)
• Oxford with Stanford, Princeton, etc

10
UK New Universities

• Sheffield Hallam
• early Virtual Campus
• Robert Gordons (Scotland)
• early Virtual Campus
• Ulster (N Ireland)
• later Virtual Campus
• Glamorgan (Wales)
• Middlesex (London)
• Global University Alliance DerbyGlamorgan plus
  others non-UK hosted by NextEd

11
And around the world

• Australia Deakin, Edith Cowan, USQ
• Canada Athabasca, OLA.
• Germany FernUniversitat
• Dutch Ou, Dutch Digital U
• Finnish VU
• Swiss VU
• India IGNU
• Mexico Tec de Monterrey
• China CCRTVU

12
Types of e-university

• Green fields/new build e.g. TechBC
• Consortium
• Orange skin Virtual Campus
• Those run or serviced by non-HE organisations

13
Purposes behind e-universities

• Government initiative
• national or regional or local
• International initiatives
• AVU ITU UN VU (environment)
• several imminent examples in Mid East now
• Business opportunity
• Publisher
• Broadcaster
• IT company

14
Critical Success Factors for Consortia
Bacsich, for UNESCO

• Binding energy
• Organisational homogeneity or managed
  diversity
• Stratification
• Linguistic homogeneity

15
Alternative view
Harasim, TL-NCE

• Bottom up is good
• Realism
• Common vision
• yet clear differentiation of roles
• Management and marketing (funded)
• Contracts in place and accepted by all
• Role models of other consortia

16
European view (Bavarian VU)

• Clear goals
• Sufficient funds
• Definition of USP
• Clear target group and proposition/programmes
• High quality
• Student-centred pedagogy
• Solid marketing strategy, growth-oriented
• Common execution of project across partners
• Common organisational structure
• Centralised organisational structure, specified
  responsibilities

17
Other issues

• National responses still confused
• many agencies without clear mission
• Increasing consensus on mainstream e-pedagogy
  and evaluationbut big national differences on
  how seriously cost-effectiveness issues are
  addressed
• Truly international consortia do not yet exist
• E-learning still growing through DLBut many
  institutions slow to change

18
But not enough

• Few big successes
• Phoenix Online, UMUC
• Many failures or problems
• US WGU, Fathom, NYUOnline, US OU
• Even Cardean much shrunken
• Canada TechBC, OLA
• Dutch Ou
• Scottish Knowledge
• UK HEFCE statement on UKeU, frequent adverse
  comment on Ufi

19
Reasons

• They - or their funders? - did not understand the
  existing CSF literature - likely
• New CSFs are emerging - also likely
• Bad luck - not likely for all
• Bad management - likely for some

20
Commercial e-Unis need to learn that...

• Market-led courses are essential, even though
  market research is hard
• Time to market is crucial
• Quality is not a differentiator price is
  brand may be
• MLE functionality is not now a differentiator
• It is not really an English-speaking world in HE,
  or even a 56 kbps world
• They must be a university and a company - few can
  do that

21
Public-sector e-Unis need to learn that...

• There still must be a business model even if it
  is not commercial, funds do not just appear!
• Flow of funds to partner unis is always an issue
• Open source is part of an answer not the answer
  (cf Malaysia)
• Consortia are hard to manage, especially large
  ones (earlier CSFs are still valid)
• While a single MLE may not be acceptable in a
  consortium, interoperability is not yet there

22
Non-degree courses

• Almost all successful e-universities have a
  substantial non-degree programme
• OU, UOC, IU (SCHOLAR)
• This allows focus on individual training (e.g. in
  IT), a corporate focus, smaller modules, less
  regulatory burden, less dependence on partner
  universities, etc etc

23
On pedagogy

• There is no world consensus on pedagogy, not even
  across the Atlantic!
• Very often the pedagogic consensus is not even
  explicit
• Many pedagogic theories are not sustainable in
  business terms or in terms of what students (or
  employers or regulators) want
• Especially in international operations, one must
  be flexible in pedagogy

24
On sales/marketing/PR

• It is essential
• There is not the financial margin in the system
  to use conventional techniques (people, press,
  TV, etc) especially across the world
• A weightless product needs weightless techniques
• Corporate customers are cautious, they do not
  choose newcomer suppliers
• It is hard to avoid competing with your
  suppliers/partners

25
Remaining factors...

• Intellectual Property is much talked about as an
  issue
• But it is not a CSF show-stopper
• Ethical considerations are starting to inhibit
  research/evaluationand the situation could get
  worse
• Staff development is an endless and thankless
  task, but must be done again and again, as staff
  move on and retire

26
Remaining factors (ctd)

• Accessibility issues are starting to inhibit
  innovation in mass deployment
• Will get worse if a compliance culture spreads
  out
• Multi-standard services (PC/Mac/Unix) are getting
  harder to do and more restrictive in
  functionality
• Lack of clear view on mid-band (512 kbps) is
  inhibiting service development

27
Further recommendations

• Have plenty of funds, not all commercial
• Hire some names from the university sector
• Adapt existing systems do a gap analysis do
  not build from scratch!!!
• If commercial, accept the need for sales staff
  and value their input if public-sector, do good
  PR
• Keep a close eye on competitors - they always
  exist
• Get the outsourcing strategy right
• Have an innovation strategy - in Europe, FP6
• Be pragmatic survival is the prime imperative!

28
Standards

• Learning object concept has difficulties that
  must be overcome
• IMS good work but still early days
• EML (Dutch Open universiteit) interesting
• Assessment needs much more focus
• both MCQs and assignments
• Interoperability still hard - and how essential?
• Major challenge is still co-operative learning

29
Is research useful?

• European research FP3 set the scene FP4 added
  little, FP5 more FP6?
• Canadian work lacked evidence of scalable
  approaches and discontinuity with TL-NCE
• Too much gap between theorists and
  industrial-strength pedagogic practicetheorists
  are usually in universities and not seriously
  active in e-learning services
• US still too synchronous and transmissive
• Australia too fragmented but key institutions
• Big IT companies need convincing that research is
  directly relevant

30
Thanks to

• UNESCO, EU, HEFCE, British Council,
  DFID,Canada, Australia, Finland,
• UKOU, SHU and UKeU

Paul Bacsich paul_at_matic-media.co.uk