JISC ICT STRATEGIC WORKSHOP Physical Infrastructure for Teaching and Learning: Current status Future

1
JISC ICT STRATEGIC WORKSHOPPhysical
Infrastructure forTeaching and
Learning Current status Future
needs Management issues

• Jim Port
• J M Consulting Ltd

2
J M Consulting work

• 2001 Study of Science Research infrastructure.
• Published by OST www.ost.gov.uk/whats_new.htm
• 2002 Studies of infrastructure for Teaching and
  Learning and Arts and Humanities Research
• (HEFCE June 2002/31, 35)
• Based on case studies and visits to 23
  universities and colleges covering full range of
  types
• Financial Strategies
• Costs of non-traditional modes
• Teaching Quality Enhancement Committee

3
Background

• Teaching and learning in higher education makes a
  vital contribution to the UK economy and society
• Teaching is the largest activity in HE 60 of
  academic staff time and 70 of space
• Resources for teaching have been seriously
  squeezed over a decade of efficiency gains (see
  graph)
• Big changes in student population, TL methods
  and technologies
• New requirement for HEIs to take strategic
  responsibility for their infrastructure

4
(No Transcript)
5
Developments in TL

• Growth in student numbers
• Diversity of the student population
• Rise of new subjects (health professions, media
  creative arts etc)
• Changing QA and QE regimes
• Changes in schools and in expectations and
  abilities of pupils
• ICT
• Demands of stakeholders including employers,
  professional
• J M Consulting Infrastructure report
• Government agendas (White Paper)

6
Stages of e-Learning and requirements
7
Strategic challenges for institutions in teaching
and teaching quality

• Enthusing students
• Dealing with a diverse range of student needs
• Responding to new technologies and modes
• Responding to a changing staff mix and the need
  to adapt traditional practices
• Pressures to demonstrate efficiency
• New delivery e.g. work-based learning
• Staff development and rewards
• Partnerships and collaboration
• Maintaining an international perspective
• TQEC report

8
What space will be needed for TL in future?

• no business model of what constitutes efficient
  or effective teaching, or of how it will or
  should change
• no specification of how (e.g.) a degree in
  History should be taught, or what it should cost,
  or what infrastructure it needs.
• So cannot answer from a strategic academic
  perspective
• A pragmatic approach
• What infrastructure do we have now?
• Whats wrong with it?
• How does it need to change for current purpose?
• What will drive future changes?
• How can we manage it better in future?

9
Facts and figures

• Physical infrastructure is 26bn buildings plus
  8bn contents
• Well-known maintenance backlogs (3.5bn)
• 40 of HE estate is unsuitable (EMS)
• 50 is 1960,70s and nearly life-expired
• Legislative non-compliance
• Development constraints
• Equipment is important but difficult to quantify
  or value
• Buildings can be split by cost as
• 60 for teaching
• 34 for science research
• 6 for arts research
• Note importance of plant and services

10
Findings remedial needs of estate

• 3 categories
• Generic Institutional Infrastructure
• Well-found laboratory (or equiv)
• Advanced (capacity-building)
• Generic Institutional is largest element across
  12 institutions investment required is average
  30 of asset value of buildings range 5 to 45
• This is 8bn across sector - 4.6bn for teaching
• Plus backlog on classroom equipment (0.5bn)
• Plus ICT and WP investment for teaching

11
Findings future needs

• On-going maintenance current spend of 1.3 or
  1.8 of asset value is probably ok if no backlogs
• for renewal and replacement institutions need to
  plan to spend 4-5 of asset value on an annual
  basis. Evidence for this HEFCE study 60 year
  lifetime with two major refurbishments and some
  modest continuing spend
• Sector is actually spending about 2.5-3

12
What could change space needs radically?

• The end of the traditional campus (no sign)
• Dramatic growth in student numbers in HEIs (no
  funding)
• Major change in number or style of institutions
  (slow)
• Substantial changes in space utilisation (if
  only!)
• Significant changes in pedagogy and teaching
  styles (slow)
• Big shifts in the learning blend (I.e. mix of
  modes lecture, labs, electronic, simulations,
  work-based etc) - happening
• Developments in ICT and related technology -
  happening
• We had to conclude that NONE of these was likely
  to be a significant driver of change in the 5-10
  year horizon

13
What can we assume about change?

• Much of the growth will be in FECs or off-campus
• Needs for traditional learning space will rise
  more slowly and be off-set by improved
  utilisation
• Institutions will need to be more flexible in
  their use of infrastructure and to value and
  manage it more carefully than they have in the
  past
• The pace of change will be driven by what
  academic staff can manage, not by what technology
  can deliver
• But e-Learning is on the up
• Recent governement policy (research consortia,
  mergers)
• Cost pressures (hardening attitudes to use of
  estate)
• Widening participation and new mixed modes of
  teaching

14
Why do we have these serious investment backlogs?

• Capital schemes have rewarded growth (e.g. JIF,
  SRIF, Poor Estates, Follett etc)
• Multiplicity of bidding schemes and directed
  initiatives have not encouraged strategic
  planning
• Research funding below full cost
• Decline in T unit of resource
• The 1960s and 70s bulge of buildings
• Lack of long-term asset management strategy
• Generally low priority and status of commercial
  business management skills
• High priority given to immediate needs over
  infrastructure
• But culture varies greatly between institutions
  (many new universities have been forced to be
  more radical and managerial and some claim no
  estates problems)

15
A few myths (non-solutions)

• Its much better in the USA (not really)
• Private capital (limited applicability)
• Borrowing (risky)
• Fund-raising (needs time and big investment)
• More efficient utilisation (some scope)
• Collaboration (some scope)
• Past capital schemes should have sorted this
  (even JIF/SRIF - 2bn only affected 5 of
  infrastructure)
• Its all due to poor funding (some institutions
  have done much better than others note the 5
  examples)

16
Recommendations

• Policy initiative on institutional responsibility
  for whole-life asset management (backed by a
  funding councils initiative to produce
  institutional strategies)
• Government remedial investment programme (like
  SRIF for teaching and arts as well as science
  research, triggered by institutional strategies
  for long-term sustainability of assets related to
  academic strategies )

17
The futureHE needs to develop

• A business model for TL
• Integrated academic and financial/estates
  strategies
• The new Academy for TL in Higher Education
• The new Leadership Foundation
• A highly-professional approach to commercial
  property and asset management
• Full economic cost recovery on research and other
  projects